It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

[Serious] Can we have a discussion about anti-gun control laws? Educate me.

page: 4
17
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 16 2017 @ 03:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: fencesitter85

originally posted by: Masterjaden
a reply to: fencesitter85

It can do a great deal of harm by allowing them to have a registry of US citizens because when it does get to the point where they want to collect all firearms it gives them ease of doing so which prevents themail citizenry from having the ability to fight back because government can use overwhelming Force to collect those firearms from the individuals that have them


Excuse the question, but isn't this just paranoia? For 8 years these forums were full of "Obama is going to take our guns!" - which never happened. I've never seen anything to suggest they want to take your guns. You're basically forming your opinions on the assumption that 'at some point' 'they' will come to take your guns. But there's zero evidence of that even being a remote possibility at this point...

FS85

The only force that could remove guns from the hands of common Americans ... is a sweeping social movement. I think the sheople inherently understand this. They're not going to be 'herded' over the guns issue.

Tell you what. I'll give up my guns and agree not to buy more, when I get a secret service detail of my choosing. A detail, that if I choose to fire, will never be allowed into the profession again, but I do get to interview for and replace. Nobody's gonna go for that ... and that's why you're never going to get a 'movement' going.

ETA: It's the RINOs in the Republican Party that are the greatest threat to guns. Mark my words.


edit on 1642017 by Snarl because: ETA




posted on Apr, 16 2017 @ 03:45 PM
link   
a reply to: Deaf Alien

Okay, last post on this

I´m not sure how I turned 180°. You may have to explain that.

How is it restricting to say you have to train the propper usage of firearms, with no costs attatched except for training material like bullets, before you get one? Because that´s basically the deal.

You have to train and get a license to drive a car. Of course this does not stop people from using one. Same as with guns. It´s not about restricting access. It´s making sure the people that use the tool around me, are supposed to know what they are doing. I wrote supposed by intent, because there´s always that one who has no clue what he´s doing, regardless of the training.

Additionally, I have to say, if you show you are not a responsible person by driving around drunken or get into fights and you own a firearm, your responsibility around firearms is questioned. Rightly so, in my opinion. Respect towards the tool and what it can do is of utmost importance.

I´ve really no intention of cutting down any rights for americans.



posted on Apr, 16 2017 @ 03:46 PM
link   
a reply to: fencesitter85




So you don't think increased checks on people on terrorism watch lists are wise...?


Not considering how those lists work to begin with.

Congressman have been added, and how names are spelled.

Again.

If a person is guilty of anything PROVE their crimes in courts of law.

Not declare every single person living in this country is guilty of a capital or otherwise infamous crime.

Which is VERBOTEN by the Bill of Rights.

The entire JUSTICE system in the US of A is EVERYONE is innocent until proven guilty.

Not everyone is guilty until proven innocent vis a vis the background check.

Feel free to stop pushing totalitarianism at any time.,
edit on 16-4-2017 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 16 2017 @ 03:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: TruMcCarthy

originally posted by: fencesitter85

- Also it's an amendment - of which there are many. So why does it cause such indignation to suggest a further amendment could be issued to bring it more up to date? That's the point of an amendment.

- Surely background checks could only ever be a good thing?

- Having a central register of gun owners would surely fall into the same category?


- The 2nd Amendment is part of something called The Bill of Rights. To Americans, those are incredibly important, I guess I'm not surprised a foreigner doesn't understand the importance. And there's a reason why it's #2, right behind #1 Freedom of Speech, it's that important.

- We have background checks.

- The first step of confiscation is to create a registry. That's why we oppose it. Maybe your British government is good and trustworthy, our corrupt US politicians aren't. Everything they touch they abuse, and a gun registry would be no different.


i agree with this. i do not want to be on a registry for this reason but since i have a permit to carry a firearm, if they ever come to take the guns away i bet they will come knocking at my door.

people that go to the gun store to buy a gun are background checked and there probably not buying that gun to commit a crime. people who should not own guns can still get them illegally and here likes the problem. as many guns as there are floating around out there if you took the guns from the average joe, the criminals would still have them and they would no longer be worried about being shot at if they try to rob someone and i think crime would go up.. knowing that allot of people own guns and these days are allowed to carry guns with them. i am pretty sure that would make a whole lot of bad guys think twice about commuting a crime. but if they knew your average joe did not have guns but they did. well i think this would be a problem

i own guns, they have never fired at anything but paper targets and hopefully that is all they will ever fire at. ill probably never have to use them but if i ever need them i have them.

as far as the crazy people that shoot places up. there gonna do it some way if they really want to. there are so many things thing just setting around at most places you go that you could use to kill people with you do not need a gun. guns are not the problem. crazy people are the problem. guns are scary things but only when they are in the wrong hands.

but like i said there are so many guns out there floating around its crazy. there is no way they could get every last one off the street. the bag guys would still have their stash if illegal guns and the bad guys would go out of their way to stash those guns some place the government could not find them so they would still be out there. its only your average joe who would never use their guns for something bad that would not have them.
edit on 16-4-2017 by dannylightning because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 16 2017 @ 03:53 PM
link   
a reply to: verschickter



I´m not sure how I turned 180°. You may have to explain that.

I think we misunderstood each other. It seems that you were implying that there are no guns in Germany and that no one there has any right to own firearms. I do not know anything about Germany's policy on owning guns.
My point was that the more you restrict the right to own guns here, the more the criminals have control. Imagine criminals breaking in your house threatening your family with guns and you have no guns to defend your family.



How is it restricting to say you have to train the propper usage of firearms, with no costs attatched except for training material like bullets, before you get one? Because that´s basically the deal.

Of course you need proper training to handle firearms. That isn't what it's about. But why should anyone care about that? The Second Amendment still says that the right shall not be infringed.



posted on Apr, 16 2017 @ 03:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: fencesitter85

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: fencesitter85




Excuse the question, but isn't this just paranoia? For 8 years these forums were full of "Obama is going to take our guns!" - which never happened


That's because congress blocked the over 100 plus attempts.



Please can you provide evidence and sources for the suggestion that those 100 plus attempts were to remove the guns from American citizens. Thanks.

FS85


Why do you need evidence? If the proposals were not going to restrict citizens from owning guns then why were they proposed? Do you think they would have given more citizens the right to guns?



posted on Apr, 16 2017 @ 03:56 PM
link   
a reply to: verschickter

First of driving a car is not a right, the ability to own a firearm is. Training is always great to have but should not be a requirement for a right, just the same that I should not have to learn proper grammars before I could express myself freely. An old lady who may not be physically fit to visit a range for training or qualification, should still have the right to purchase a gun to protect herself if she feels the need to.
edit on 16-4-2017 by joemoe because: (no reason given)

edit on 16-4-2017 by joemoe because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 16 2017 @ 03:59 PM
link   
a reply to: fencesitter85

Worthy attempt, but be prepared to be slammed for "daring" to discuss the issue from the UK. There will be a selection of people that will dismiss your question on that basis alone.



posted on Apr, 16 2017 @ 04:01 PM
link   
a reply to: fencesitter85

More background checks than are already done? Such as?

Criminal record? Check. Yes, no legal gun. No? What can I show you?

I already have to jump through enough hoops as it is. There are a sufficiency of gun laws here in the States to cover just about every contingency, some twice.

State laws

Federal laws

As you can see, there are quite literally a ton of laws on the books concerning who may, or may not own, where they may be carried, how many rounds, etc...

...not to mention that laws differ from state to state. As I move later this summer, I'm going to be crossing several states some of whom have rather restrictive laws concerning how I can even transport my guns on my way through...I'm not even over nighting in most cases...despite the fact that I have a CCW permit from Washington state.

Some are so asinine that I would have to sell, or otherwise rid my self of them before I could move there. California as a prime example. Many of my magazines for my rifle are illegal in California...but not here in Washington.

No, laws concerning who may, or may not, buy or own are more than sufficient as they now stand. We do not need more.

As someone stated earlier in the thread, gun owners have been compromising since the 30's, nearly a century, and frankly I'm done compromising. The 2nd amendment as it stands, and as the Supreme Court has ruled in many circumstances is sufficient.



posted on Apr, 16 2017 @ 04:03 PM
link   
"You're basically forming your opinions on the assumption that 'at some point' 'they' will come to take your guns. But there's zero evidence of that even being a remote possibility at this point... "

a reply to: fencesitter85

Wrong! Just ask the law abiding citizens of New Orleans what happened when George Bush finally reacted to hurricane Katrina. Every citizen was summarily disarmed. Truth is the 2nd amendment is just more useless words on a piece of paper. Every congressman in Washington DC swears an oath to protect and defend the constitution but take a seriously close look at just how many actually do abide by the constitution. Very few. Truth is the constitution is just a piece of paper with words to be adhered to as long as it benefits those in power. They brag about defending it all the while undermining it at every turn.

You say the 2nd is obsolete. Just imagine the pickle this nation would be in if Yellowstone blew it's top again. An asteroid impact. How about if NK or some other rogue nation successfully pulled of an EMP attack on the US. Or even another Carrington solar event that destroys the electrical grid. How about a massive undersea earthquake that wipes out 2/3 of the west, or east coast. Potential man made or natural disasters may be unlikely for the most part but what if the unlikely actually happened tomorrow. You think the government could even remotely cope with such a scenario? Think again. Just ask the citizens of New Orleans.

But as I said, the 2nd is just a few more meaningless words on a piece of paper that can be set aside or discarded entirely at the whims of the powers in charge.

PS: What if Paul Craig Roberts is right and the idiots we have in charge get us into a nuclear confrontation with Russia, China or both?
edit on 2017-04-16T16:14:28-05:0004pmSun, 16 Apr 2017 16:14:28 -0500SundayAmerica/Chicago2830 by CharlesT because: (no reason given)

edit on 2017-04-16T16:33:09-05:0004pmSun, 16 Apr 2017 16:33:09 -0500SundayAmerica/Chicago0930 by CharlesT because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 16 2017 @ 04:04 PM
link   
a reply to: seagull



Criminal record? Check.

And if a ex-felon with no history of gun violence who have been an upstanding citizen for a while and has a family and wants to protect his family? Do you think thugs care about following laws? Where do you draw the line? And why go around the "shall not be infringed" part?



posted on Apr, 16 2017 @ 04:11 PM
link   
a reply to: Hazardous1408

Wrong. People have fought govt. for quite a long while now--successfully, I might add, in many places.

Taliban vs the Soviet Union? How'd that turn out? The Russians vs the Tsars.

Vietnamese vs the United States? Again, how'd that turn out?

Please quit with the you can't beat the govt. rif. It simply is not true.

The govt has drones? So? They've got a base for fueling them. Communications feeds that can be jammed. F16's? They got to see you in order to hit you.

Better technology just makes it easier to bollux them up.



posted on Apr, 16 2017 @ 04:12 PM
link   
a reply to: Deaf Alien

That explains your first reaction "it´s not about germany" (not original wording, tongue in cheek).




My point was that the more you restrict the right to own guns here, the more the criminals have control.

That´s true of course in your case/country. This comes down to the beginnings of your country, there were always "plenty" of guns available from the start. Gun culture is big and guns are made available through that. It´s a self feeding circle, since those guns are already out there.

But is a mandatory training really restricting gunrights? I forgot to say, if you are under 25, you probably need to see someone who evaluates you on terms of "responsible enough". That part might be questionable in terms of restricting to you. But then, there is no need for self protection with a gun in Germany so it´s a whole other world. Normally you get into contact with guns through the local shooting club, starting with air rifles and .22 in the youth, until it get´s boring and you want more kickback. By the time you feel the need to fire a bigger round, you´re already around 18 years and since the big caliber ranges are not that common, you need a car anyways to get there.

If you´ve been a member of a shooting club from the beginning, most of the times those evaluations are very short and only 2-3 questions are asked and it´s good. Oh we can´t own full auto, bullpup style rifles and 5,7 × 28 mm calibre. I once owned a FN P90 converted to .22 (because calibre restriction).



posted on Apr, 16 2017 @ 04:15 PM
link   
a reply to: Deaf Alien

Precisely my point. Background checks are no deterrent to someone with a criminal record. Personally, I'd just as soon discard them, they're useless for their intended purpose.

I can drive for about, oh, half an hour or so with a few hundred dollars and come home with an untraceable firearm a day later, and I'm what's known as a law abiding citizen. A criminal could probably do it quicker, or break into my car and steal mine if I happen to stop between home and the range/hunting grounds...

It's comical to think that background checks do anything but keep normal law abiding people from purchasing a firearm because of a traffic ticket, or something of that nature.



posted on Apr, 16 2017 @ 04:19 PM
link   
a reply to: seagull

People also do not realize that the US military are made up of people who pledge to protect the Constitution. Even if part of the military are willing to oppress the people, a large part of it will turn on itself. Also, do not forget that at any given time there are four times more trained veterans than there are those on active duty, and many of those men and women still remember their vows. All this and we did not even taken into account citizens who are armed, it would be an uphill fight for an oppressive government indeed.



posted on Apr, 16 2017 @ 04:24 PM
link   
a reply to: joemoe

since you only pick one sentence out of context and ignore the rest, I´ll do that too (including follow up posts)

Come on with the old defensless lady who can´t get propper training beforehand.. She had to go to a gunstore to get one, or not?

The most common knowledge in self defence is that any weapon in untrained hands is a threat to the one trying to operate it. Where as the intruder/attacker might have no weapon, you just delivered him one.





just the same that I should not have to learn proper grammars before I could express myself freely

But it´s a good idea, or not? English is one of three languages I speak/write BESIDE my own, if that was a try to ridicule my writing style.
edit on 16-4-2017 by verschickter because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 16 2017 @ 04:33 PM
link   
a reply to: verschickter

Sure the old lady can go to a gun store and get a gun, but she may not be able to pass a qualification.

Cases where people protect themselves with a gun is many in the US, the media just do not report on a majority of them. The National Crime and Victimization Survey estimated that there are over 200,000 defensive gun use every year. That is a very conservative estimate since NCVS are a very left leaning group.

But here is an example of an old lady using a gun to defend herself and family

80-year-old woman shoots and kills intruder who attacked her husband
edit on 16-4-2017 by joemoe because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 16 2017 @ 04:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: fencesitter85
Ok, cards on the table: I'm an Englishman of 31. I follow global politics as much as I can. I'm a centrist; anti-Trump, anti-Hillary, some liberal opinions and some conservative ones; it depends on the matter at hand. Please don't start calling me a liberal snowflake or any of that playground rubbish - let's have a conversation.

I'm pro-guns, but also pro gun-control. I'm not trying to start a partisan slanging match or a left vs right debate. I'm just wanting to have a discussion regarding proposed gun control laws. I'd like to get some opinions from anti-control supporters, regarding what you believe and why you believe it. This isn't me saying 'you're wrong'; it's me acknowledging that I may be missing something obvious or compelling which is skewing my views. Hang up your liberal or conservative hat; it's not a team sport - don't argue just on the basis of doing the opposite of what your opponents say. What do you really, really think?

Here is my understanding thus far - which again is not trolling or trying to rile anyone up. Hence this not being in the mud pit. So please respond accordingly and we can have a productive discussion; hopefully.

- The 2nd amendment was created in a time where current weapons didn't exist, so my thoughts are that the right to bear arms, as written then, is not automatically applicable today. Also from my understanding, the wording "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..." surely doesn't apply to people's right to have assault rifles at home just for fun?


Huh?

Why wouldnt it apply to assault rifles?

Assault rifles will be needed if we are ever invaded.
Which we havent been invaded.
Nor do I ever see us being invaded, as a result.


Surely the words "Well regulated" support the notion of gun control laws?


Huh?



Also it's an amendment - of which there are many. So why does it cause such indignation to suggest a further amendment could be issued to bring it more up to date? That's the point of an amendment.


Up to date to what?
What you think our culture should be?


Surely background checks could only ever be a good thing? If I had children, for example, I'd want to know that mentally ill people can't just go and buy a gun


Why?
Do you believe the mentally ill should be at the mercy of armed criminals?

What about the blind and diabetics?
They should be at the mercy of those that have none too?

Why do you want the handicapped to be robbed raped and murdered at will?

Are you a racist as well?



Surely this is just good logic?


Maybe to a pious fool that is willing to risk the health and safety of the handicapped.

Criminals? The average person commits 3 felonies a day. We are all criminals technically.



If you have a wife/kids, wouldn't you feel safer knowing that not just anyone can rock up and buy a gun?


Huh?

My husband is faster at point and shoot, I have better aim though.
We are fine with criminals having guns.

Thats where you get it all wrong.
Criminals always get guns.

You of all people should know that by now.

Something most your cops dont even get, we (armed citizens) dont have to be afraid like yall do when some idiot goes Jerry Springer.


Having a central register of gun owners would surely fall into the same category? I understand there's an argument here on the basis that such records being hacked could make households a target for people who want to steal guns. I'm not quite sure where to stand on this one, but I don't think I'd try to break into a house if I know the home-owner has a gun.


You may not, plenty of armed criminals here target firearm owners and firearm distributors.


I guess those are my main queries. Why don't people accept that the 2nd amendment was written in 1791, and therefore it's sensible and rational that it may be time to update it?


You are the one that has a problem quotethe 2nd.
I dont.
Why would I?

If it aint broke, dont fix it.


It's a completely different world.


Yeah, Europe is just a safe haven now.
When you trust your cops with firearms again, Id love to visit. Otherwise I feel safer in Mexico.


And I absolutely can't understand the objection to background checks - please educate me on that one. I can't see a single possible justifiable argument against it in a non-partisan discussion.


Lol
You kidding me right?
What about roach poison, baseball bats, kitchen knives, gasoline, otc medicines, oleander and other ornamental plants?
I could go on.........

You going to background check or would you rather just euthanize all the undesirable folk?


Obviously my views are inherently a little biased by my opinions and emotions on the subject, but I just don't see why this subject has to be so divisive. Background checking does not mean anyone taking away your guns - it's literally making you and your family more safe.

Thanks in advance for constructive discussion!
/fs85


I think you are just jealous.

Find thousands of more reasons on you tube at

Active Self Protection




posted on Apr, 16 2017 @ 04:39 PM
link   
a reply to: joemoe
You can come up with examples of a 100 year old if you want. If she can hold the gun, acts safely around it, is able to hit the target and sane, she´s qualified in Germany. If she can´t qualify for all that, the gun in her hands is useless against any serious offender in a closed environment in probably shady light conditions.

That´s reality, your example is far worser than my car example, for the record.



posted on Apr, 16 2017 @ 04:41 PM
link   
a reply to: seagull




It's comical to think that background checks do anything but keep normal law abiding people from purchasing a firearm because of a traffic ticket, or something of that nature.


They don't believe that, but it's true.



Misdemeanors are criminal offenses that carry up to a year in jail in most states. Punishment for misdemeanors can also include payment of a fine, probation, community service, and restitution. (For more on the potential punishment, see Sentencing.)


www.nolo.com...#




top topics



 
17
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join