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.

 

Banning assault weapons again.

page: 9
0
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 14 2005 @ 10:22 PM
link   
I missed that before somehow. Madman is right.

You have voted cryptorsa1001 for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have one more vote left for this month.



As for the worries about weapons confiscation. If I took a weapon outside of my home in response to a confiscation order, it would NOT be because I meant to turn it in. Just imagine how many guns you'd have if you stormed the police station at the end of that 30 day confiscation.
I try to limit my idle threats, because the fact of the matter is that with all the stuff I believe about our government, I should probably be resisting by force right now. Since I don't feel that its worth while, I try not to go around saying "well i'll fight the police" are stuff like that. But let's be real here- how far can they go with this police state crap before at least a thin minority of the population says enough? 2% of the population could cause one hell of a ruckus. It just remains to be seen if the boiled frog effect will work or if there will be resistance.




posted on Feb, 14 2005 @ 10:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Vagabond
It just remains to be seen if the boiled frog effect will work or if there will be resistance.


Exactly, it seems to me at this point there are waayyy more sheeple that would believe almost anything W. says on FOX news. If he says we need to take everyones guns away then by God because hes the person God wanted to be president and he knows best and is much more capable of making your choices for you than you are.... *gasp after long pessimistic rant* ... then it must be done. Anyone resisting will be beaten and shot as an example, you know like in Iraq. Ok maybe thats a little out of the way.

Or perhaps it will slowly snowball, like it is right now. We need even more national security.
Side note: How come there aren't any suicide bombings going on in the US?

[edit on 14-2-2005 by SilverStar]



posted on Feb, 15 2005 @ 05:15 PM
link   
Thanks American Mad Man!!!!

Some good news!!! Bill 3193 was passed by the house of representatives.
Part of the bill goes like this:

1. The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
2. The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects the rights of individuals, including those who are not members of a militia or engaged in military service or training, to keep and bear arms.


You can see how your Congressional leaders voted here.

This still has to pass the Senate but it is a step in the right direction. If it does pass then it wil set a precedent for future law cases concerning this issue.

[edit on 15-2-2005 by cryptorsa1001]



posted on Feb, 15 2005 @ 11:36 PM
link   
You people are paranoid about the US government taking your guns away fear not the 2nd amendment dosnt say what arms are that means you can have anything from a nuke to a pistol in your backyard.
If the government wanted to disarm the population they would legally define what arms are for example arms might be baseball bats and knives thus guns would be illegal.
As much as I think guns are a problem not the solution I know that politicans in America will never try to disarm the population to do so would be political suicide you coundnt lose more votes by running naked in down town New York.

By disarm I mean the guns stay at the shooting range ,still used by hunters but arent used to prevent crime.



posted on Feb, 15 2005 @ 11:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by xpert11
By disarm I mean the guns stay at the shooting range ,still used by hunters but arent used to prevent crime.


That's exactly the problem as far as I'm concerned though. Even the pro-gun side has compromised by leaning on the arguement that guns are a sportman's equipment, but this reduces the importance of the issue and paves the way for an eventual ban. We were left with this right in order that we might have it within our power to resist violence and tyrany. Leaving guns at shooting ranges or public armories isn't acceptable- we have the right to have weapons in our home for whatever legal purpose might arise. Use it for a crime, you do time. Not difficult. We don't outlaw big pockets to stop shoplifting- we just punish the hell out of the idiots who shoplift. I think that is part of the answer.

I am pro owner responsibility, and I believe that guns can be monitored for safety without any infringement on the right to keep and bear arms. I dont believe we should be selling ammunition to people who aren't registered gun owners for example. Registration does not infringe on the right to keep and bear arms, it only monitors the use of that right to prevent the illegal sale and use of arms. Therefore the use of registration as a requirment for ammo purchases is perfectly legitimate in my opinion. If a guy with 2 strikes on his record who is not legally permitted to own a weapon anymore is trying to buy ammunition, he's just asking for trouble, and we'll be getting in his way a lot more by controlling ammunition sales than we ever could by stripping law-abiding citizens of their guns.



posted on Feb, 16 2005 @ 12:26 AM
link   
Vagabond arent you going against your own arguments wont a crime who cant legally
buy the ammo just steal it ?



posted on Feb, 16 2005 @ 12:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by xpert11
Vagabond arent you going against your own arguments wont a crime who cant legally
buy the ammo just steal it ?


Yes the ammunition can be stolen, however this will raise the cost of ammunition for criminals without in any way affecting the rights of law abiding gun owners. The lack of infringement upon legal owners is the key difference.
Hasn't anybody ever heard Chris Rock's routine about Bullet Control? A bullet should cost 5,000 dollars. Because if somebody got shot with a bullet that cost 5,000 dollars there wouldn't be any doubt he deserved it, and there wouldn't be anymore innocent bystanders. It'd be like "Oh that's it, you're dead. I'm gonna get another job, I'm gonna stave up some money, and you're dead! You better hope I can't get bullets on lay away!"

If we can make criminals jump through hoops without hurting the rights of gun owners then by all means, let's make it hard for them. If a registered owner buys 50,000 rounds of ammo, send an undercover cop to his house to try and buy some of it and lock his gang-banger arse up.
Let's keep this responsible- if we stick to narrow principles to the point that we find ourselves defending the rights of criminals even when there is no down-side, we've gone too far.



posted on Feb, 16 2005 @ 01:17 AM
link   
Say a crime buys ammo on the black market whats the cost to his/her other then
to his/her wallet ?
Do background checks catch people using fake ID to buy guns?
I assume that background checks do a good job at catching the crimes.



posted on Feb, 16 2005 @ 03:15 AM
link   
Guns are for cowards and soldiers.

The irony of course is that guns dont buy safety.



posted on Feb, 16 2005 @ 03:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Black Flag
Guns are for cowards and soldiers.

The irony of course is that guns dont buy safety.


Blackflag I wouldnt say someone is a coward because they hunt game.
Your right about the fact that guns dont buy safety.



posted on Feb, 16 2005 @ 09:21 AM
link   
You are right of course. An oversight on my part.



posted on Feb, 16 2005 @ 09:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Black Flag
Guns are for cowards and soldiers.


So an old couple that uses a gun to stop their store from being robbed by a couple punks are cowards? Should they have told the young men to "put up their dukes"

A 120 woman that uses a gun to shoot a 250 man who broke into her house and attacked her is a coward? Should she have fist fought her attacker? Maybe she should have waited till after he raped her and IF he decided not to kill her report it to the police, just to make sure the man wasnt harmed?

here are a few more cowards

www.keepandbeararms.com...

why should someone that is minding their own business risk their own life in a stupid attempt to be "fair" to the criminals assualting them?

[edit on 16-2-2005 by Amuk]



posted on Feb, 16 2005 @ 10:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Black Flag
Guns are for cowards.


Recognize this scene. Guns aren't cowardly, just smarter.





posted on Feb, 16 2005 @ 11:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by xpert11
Say a crime buys ammo on the black market whats the cost to his/her other then to his/her wallet ?
Do background checks catch people using fake ID to buy guns?
I assume that background checks do a good job at catching the crimes.


I'm afraid that I'm missing the point of your question regarding background checks. I'm not against background checks.

The cost to the wallet of the person buying blackmarket ammo is secondary. The real benefit is the opportunity to aprehend criminals while they are obtaining, trafficking, and selling blackmarket ammo.
Under the current system, there zero chance to catch a criminal until he leaves his house with a loaded illegal weapon on his person, and thats just a few hours before somebody gets shot.
If we limit ammo sales to people who own legal weapons then we have the slim chance to catch criminals while they are obtaining illegal ammo. You could set up shop in a bad neighborhood with an undercover cop selling blackmarket ammo then turn around and take a few dozen people off the street who you know for a fact were out to use illegal weapons, probably for crime.

Also, where is somebody going to get large quantities of ammuniton if the stores are required to check permits and track ammunition sales electronically (accountability for every round that leaves the store to avoid under-the-counter sales).
To provide an appreciable quantity of ammunition you'd have to either:
1. Rob a store (this creates a chokepoint where increased security can be very efficient).
2. Work out a creative and corrupt deal with a store or manufacturer (creating a select few providers who can easily be stopped with heavy fines or jail terms).
3. Bring it over the border, which opens up at least a thin chance for law enforcement to stop illegal ammo while it is being trafficked.

None of this is fool-proof, but it makes things rough on criminals without infringing on the rights of innocent people. Its all good news.



posted on Feb, 16 2005 @ 04:07 PM
link   
I have lurked here for many months on ATS, but this is the first time I have ever posted... please be gentle


I have read this post with much interest over the last few weeks, but I finally feel it necessary to say a few things to address both sides of this issue.

First, let me say that I am an American and I have loved guns since my uncle first let me shoot his .22 rifle when I was 10 years old. To me, shooting is a sport, just like archery, basketball, football, or soccer. I am more than content though, to shoot paper targets or tin cans and have no inner desire to harm anyone with a gun. I do not hunt, as I do not believe in killing merely for the sport of it.

That being said, I am also ex-military (infantry), and I have been half-way around this world and can state with utter certainty that an old [US] adage holds true... those who wield the biggest sticks make the rules. Let's look at that supposition for a moment, shall we?

If you look back at the history of firearms when they first became prevalent, a startling thing occurred - no longer did an older, less physically capable person have to fear using a sword against a younger, stronger adversary. Things became a lot more equalized, in a real hurry!

Now let's step through time. History shows us, time and time again, that the first step in oppressing anyone is to take away any means they have of fighting back. Whether it is taking away their rocks, knives, spears, or guns - the goal of the oppressor has been (and will allways be) the same - to force the oppressed to subject themselves to the will of the oppressor.

Now, to my Non-American friends (and to me, that is what you are - my Friends), you argue from a point of civility, that if guns did not exist that the world would be a much better place. I can't disagree with you on this, but there is philosophy and then there is reality. I am an idealist at heart, but a realist by nature and experience. Guns DO exist, and there is no way of putting that genie back in it's bottle, whether you like it or not. For those of you who live in countries where the laws of 'No Guns' works, I am grateful for you that you are so fortunate. I only hope that it will always be that way...

Here in America, our founding fathers were very wise hundreds of years ago, in that they knew that the freedom of the people hung in a very precarious balance against the will (and control) of the government. That is why they felt the 2nd Amendment to our Constitution was so important. Self-defense for an individual was not its purpose (that was a given); it was the absolute need to prevent the possibility of the people as a whole being subjugated to the will of our (or another's) government.

Over the 200 or so years since that time, a number of things have happened that have overshadowed the intent of our forefathers. Gun control is one... now you can argue for or against the merits of this, but irregardless of the rationale you use (that was over 200 years ago, right?), the 2nd Amendment to our Constitution is just as relevent as it ever was with regards to the people as a whole being able to defend themselves.

A number of posts of this thread focus on guns with respect to personal protection. Some of you say that this is a job for the police, but to that I say that you are simply not being realistic. Our own US Supreme Court has ruled that Law Enforcement has no mandate of responsibility to guarantee the safety of an individual, only the general public. Well, I'm sorry, but whether it is because of a lack of money, time, technology, manpower, or whatever, it does not matter - since they cannot or will not do it, the primary responsibility for my family and I now rests with me. Like I said, I have no desire to hurt anyone, but if anyone threatens me or my kids (especially my kids), I hope they have given their souls to God, because their butt is MINE!

I sit here right now carrying a [licensed and legal] weapon (Glock 23) on me as I write this post. Is this bragging? The answer is NO! I do it because I realize the simple truth that the strong often prey upon the weak. It is also a tremendous responsibility for me - I know if I abuse that responsibility that I can go to prison, losing my home, my kids, and my freedom. No longer can I overtly curse at the driver who pulls out in front of me, and I can no longer flip my middle finger at him or anyone else who violates my own personal rules of conduct. But you know what? That's OK, because maybe I've become a little MORE civilized in the process. Never thought a gun might accomplish that for an American, did you?

Another one of our Constitutional Amendments guarantees us the right to be secure in our homes. I know some of you other countries don't look at this in the same way, and that is your right. But what you fail to understand is that in the US, if a criminal violates my rights and invades my home, he just abducated his rights in an equivalent fashion, and I am justified in using the force necessary to resist his aims, even if it may be lethal. Once again, I am held to the test of our laws, and will pay dearly if I make an error in judgement.

Now, to my American compatriots, I know those of you who like guns hold the 2nd Amendment as a fundamental right. Those of you who don't like guns, don't - just as our non-American friends might. Well, if you don;t like guns... DON'T OWN THEM. I don't see this as any different as alcohol - if you don't like it... DON'T DRINK!

I will admit that I do think some limits need to be placed on the ordinary citizen with respect to guns. There will always be a few individuals whose mental state should preclude them from possessing them. It is a sad truth, but whenever you give 1000 people a piece or rope, there always seems to be one in the bunch that wants to hang everyone with it. What's the solution to that problem? I don't know, you tell me.



posted on Feb, 16 2005 @ 04:51 PM
link   
Personally I hope it becomes lagal to buy assualt weapons, I know I would buy one.


An Armed community is a safe community.

If your a theif, would you break into a house that you know the owner has a gun? probably not.



posted on Feb, 16 2005 @ 05:06 PM
link   
KillRaven, nicely worded. I have voted you for the Way Above Top Secret award.



posted on Feb, 16 2005 @ 05:21 PM
link   
Welcome to ATS KillRaven. Very well thought out and well presented.


Now, since I happen to be The Vagabond, it is sort of my job to stir the pot. Where exactly is the cut-off for the right to bear arms?
Can I buy an M-249 SAW (belt-fed automatic weapon)?
Can I buy an AT-4 (anti-tank rocket)
How about an 81mm mortar?
Suppose I've got money to burn and I want an 155mm howitzer?

Those are the sort of things you'd really need to give a "well regulated militia" the ability to make a stand against the government or foreign threats, is it not? What do you all think about those things.
I know what I think, but I'm not telling you yet because I want to talk about it, not just spend the whole time defending my views.



posted on Feb, 16 2005 @ 05:37 PM
link   


Now, since I happen to be The Vagabond, it is sort of my job to stir the pot. Where exactly is the cut-off for the right to bear arms?
Can I buy an M-249 SAW (belt-fed automatic weapon)?
Can I buy an AT-4 (anti-tank rocket)
How about an 81mm mortar?
Suppose I've got money to burn and I want an 155mm howitzer?


Why are you even asking that question ?
You know full well that there is no cut off to bear arms.



posted on Feb, 16 2005 @ 06:33 PM
link   


First, let me say that I am an American and I have loved guns since my uncle first let me shoot his .22 rifle when I was 10 years old. To me, shooting is a sport, just like archery, basketball, football, or soccer. I am more than content though, to shoot paper targets or tin cans and have no inner desire to harm anyone with a gun. I do not hunt, as I do not believe in killing merely for the sport of it.


I have never said get rid of guns completely all I said was that guns dont prevent crime and they are a liablity.




That being said, I am also ex-military (infantry), and I have been half-way around this world and can state with utter certainty that an old [US] adage holds true... those who wield the biggest sticks make the rules. Let's look at that supposition for a moment, shall we?


What has that got to do with the topic?



If you look back at the history of firearms when they first became prevalent, a startling thing occurred - no longer did an older, less physically capable person have to fear using a sword against a younger, stronger adversary. Things became a lot more equalized, in a real hurry!


That statment is flawed you are assuming the younger dosnt have a gun.




Now let's step through time. History shows us, time and time again, that the first step in oppressing anyone is to take away any means they have of fighting back. Whether it is taking away their rocks, knives, spears, or guns - the goal of the oppressor has been (and will allways be) the same - to force the oppressed to subject themselves to the will of the oppressor.


In the 20th century this clearly wasnt the case regimes that came to power exploited people that lived in extreme poverty and econmic hardship. Guns are unrealted to these problems.




Self-defense for an individual was not its purpose (that was a given); it was the absolute need to prevent the possibility of the people as a whole being subjugated to the will of our (or another's) government.


arent you subject to the will of government when ever you pay taxs?


but irregardless of the rationale you use (that was over 200 years ago, right?), the 2nd Amendment to our Constitution is just as relevent as it ever was with regards to the people as a whole being able to defend themselves.


200 years ago the US military wasnt the force it is today hence they thought that non military personal would have to fight the poms and other invaders. That isnt the case today the US military is the most powerfull in the world.



Well, I'm sorry, but whether it is because of a lack of money, time, technology, manpower, or whatever, it does not matter - since they cannot or will not do it, the primary responsibility for my family and I now rests with me. Like I said, I have no desire to hurt anyone, but if anyone threatens me or my kids (especially my kids),


Instead of arming the population why not address the issues you mentioned and make the police more affective?




No longer can I overtly curse at the driver who pulls out in front of me, and I can no longer flip my middle finger at him or anyone else who violates my own personal rules of conduct. But you know what? That's OK, because maybe I've become a little MORE civilized in the process. Never thought a gun might accomplish that for an American, did you?


That is a very general (for the lack of a better term ) statment given the sort of crimes guns are used in I would question if American society is more civilized because of there gun laws however I dont want label American society as a whole bad so I will avoid that that avenue of the debate.







[edit on 16-2-2005 by xpert11]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join