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.

 

WAR: Proposed Bill will deny U.S. citizens the right to own a gun

page: 5
0
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 15 2005 @ 01:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by subz
IAF101, ever heard of 'conspiracy to commit murder'? It is a crime and as such any evidence that leads the authourities to believe you are planning such an attack will open the door for a PROPER court case and jail time.

Yes, but they don't know whose murder and where?? IF they had all the evidence why would they cause such a scene?? Makes no sense.

To convict somebody of a crime and to make sure he is found guilty by the court they need to do lots of work and by that time these people could have already committed the crime and died, so they accomplish what they set otu to so inthe end and thus all our work is wasted.




posted on Apr, 15 2005 @ 03:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by IAF101
Why do you blame the USAF?? Weren't the people in the plane and in the WTC not 'capable of protecting themselves'??Too Bad!! They should have exercised their right to purchase weapons along with the hijackers so they could have ahd a good bloody western shoot out in the airplane so that it becomes a flying grave yard, a couple of M16's and 45 mags would have done the trick!; that would've satisfied your ideals wouldn't they??



Haha, point well taken. However, army protection has been a standard way of doing business since the origins of trade, let alone the origins of nations. It is a markedly different and more acceptable scenario than civilians tying each others' hands behind their backs to stop them from committing crimes, in my opinion.



What crime would you convict somebody of who wanted to come and kill you and your family but hasn't actually killed you yet? It would be right for the terrorist to actually pop a couple of rounds into you before the police can "convict him of a real crime" ? Would you like that? The fairness or would it be better if he was stopped before the bullets start flying?
OH! right you can take care of yourself !! Good luck with that against some jihadi flying a 747 into your house!!



Well, I obviously wouldn't be able to convict someone of any crime at all if they haven't committed any. We cannot convict someone of wanting to do something, but we can convict someone of intending to do something, if the evidence is there.

No, I cannot protect myself against a stronger opponent than myself without the aid of technology. Give me small arms and a reasonable army, who I will pay with my tax dollars for their help, and I should be okay.

Zip



posted on Apr, 15 2005 @ 03:40 PM
link   
Do you really think a terrorist isn't going to be able to get a gun any other way? I mean, come on! They're terrorists! It's what they do, isn't it? A 12 year old kid can get a gun on the street, but this law will keep terrorists from having them? Pu-lease!
This is idiotic, do nothing, legislation.



posted on Apr, 15 2005 @ 08:54 PM
link   
What about the people who aren't meant to be on the list. My friends dad has the same name as an Alias used by terrorists and has to be checked extra each time at the airport and he travels frequently because of business. As if that isn't enough you want to take away his right to bear arms? BTW gun control doesn't equal less violent crime. If anything guns are easy to get but crime continues to fall...I wonder why? And how can less guns equal less deaths? won't those people turn to knives? Being near Norfolk, VA area I hear about just as many stabbings as shootings. The problem is the behavior not the weapon. Do not treat the symptom. Treat the disease. If you want to go extreme to prevent crime, ban people not guns...Jk but seriously, try to find a better solution than taking away a tool of violence. Guns have good uses besides crime. What about people defending themselves from Crime?



posted on Apr, 16 2005 @ 12:04 AM
link   
Thing is, no amount of legislation is going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals. Ever heard of the black market? Guns are widely available on the black market, and sales on the black market require no background checks, no questions, and often no serial numbers. Gun control legislation only serves to keep firearms out of the hands of law abiding citizens while the criminals keep accumulating more and more firearms.

Firearms regulation is the least effective avenue to pursue when trying to prevent violent crimes involving guns. I could name off at least 5 sources of illegal firearms. Not one of them is a gun store.

Alleged terrorists are no different than any other alleged criminal - they are only suspected, not accused or convicted. I'm not going to even get into the federal laws regarding suspected terrorists. Fact is, someone with shady friends involved with terrorist organizations are going to have far more chance of getting major firepower than the average criminal, and the average criminal has a much greater chance of getting a firearm quickly than your average law abiding citizen. Anyone else noticing a problem here?



posted on Apr, 16 2005 @ 01:43 AM
link   
Not to mention the Internet. I can order a gun right now on the Internet. Is there even a background check on some of these Inet gun shops? How convenient is that?

Ruger P89-10, for example.

Assault Rifles, for example.

[edit on 16-4-2005 by Moe Foe]



posted on Apr, 16 2005 @ 02:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by Moe Foe
Not to mention the Internet. I can order a gun right now on the Internet. Is there even a background check on some of these Inet gun shops? How convenient is that?


Some magazine I used to get back in Texas, you could buy gun kits with certain parts preassembled. Just an hour of your time and you have a fully functional rifle...etc. With absolutely no background check.



posted on Apr, 16 2005 @ 02:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Moe Foe
Not to mention the Internet. I can order a gun right now on the Internet. Is there even a background check on some of these Inet gun shops? How convenient is that?

Ruger P89-10, for example.

Assault Rifles, for example.

[edit on 16-4-2005 by Moe Foe]



That is wrong. Sure you can order the gun online but they have to ship it to a FFL (Federal Firearm License) holder, then the FFL is required to do a background check. The only guns I know of that can be shipped to your door are black powder/muzzleloader/primitive weapons and air rifles. As far as building your own from parts, there is one part to every MODERN firearm that is considered the actual "firearm". These are commonly called frames or receivers and the same rules about FFL shipment and checks apply to these specific parts. I just recently built an AR-15 and I had everything shipped to my door except the lower receiver which I had to get shipped to my local gun shop.



posted on Apr, 16 2005 @ 03:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by obsidian468
Thing is, no amount of legislation is going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals. Ever heard of the black market?


I can't begin to express to you how true this really is. By making something 'illegal' you create a society or culture that furthers the production of these illegal items. Anyway, my point is that banning guns is counterproductive because it will almost funnel weapon possession to criminals who would have obtained these guns illegally.



posted on Apr, 16 2005 @ 03:54 AM
link   
hrm...

this thread seems a little odd to me. why is any (proverbial) breath being wasted on the right of terrorism suspects to bear arms when surely the more immediate problem here is that these suspects can be whisked away and imprisoned indefinately, without any due process of law. are we so blinded by such red-flag issues as gun ownership that we miss the forest for the trees?

-koji K.



posted on Apr, 16 2005 @ 07:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by LNJAXFL
That is wrong. Sure you can order the gun online but they have to ship it to a FFL (Federal Firearm License) holder, then the FFL is required to do a background check.


I am so glad you said that -- thank you. There doesn't seem to be many gun owners here on this forum does there? Which is a shame as there are some great sports you can get into that require lots of skill, patience and practice (just like any other sport) And you can get the same satsfaction from having a great day at a shoot and winning as you get from having a great day at golf and winning.



posted on Apr, 16 2005 @ 07:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by IAF101
To convict somebody of a crime and to make sure he is found guilty by the court they need to do lots of work and by that time these people could have already committed the crime and died,

So the basis of your argument is that its just too much hard work to give some one a fair trail? What has our society come to where some citzens just cant be bothered giving some one a fair trial before denying them rights


I would take my chances with terrorists before signing my inalienable right to trial away. I could never find myself in that much danger where I'd gladly give up my freedom to the discretion of a damn politician!

How many people have died due to terrorism? Sure there was one spectacularly savage day of terrorism but that is it! There has been no evidence it was foreign terrorists apart from contrived and ludicrous sporadic tid-bits.

Now compare how many people are murdered. Why dont we have a Murderer-Watch List? Where we put people who we think might be a murderer on it and deny them their rights to travel or what ever we wish. Why dont we have a Rapist-Watch List where we do the same? Or a Theif-Watch List? Or a DUI-Watch List?

You dont have to actually do anything WRONG to get on these lists, we should just have them because its too much hard work to gather evidence and bring them to trial. Cut out the middle man and give me my security damnit!


[edit on 16/4/05 by subz]



posted on Apr, 16 2005 @ 10:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by subz
How many people have died due to terrorism? Sure there was one spectacularly savage day of terrorism but that is it! There has been no evidence it was foreign terrorists apart from contrived and ludicrous sporadic tid-bits.

Now compare how many people are murdered. Why dont we have a Murderer-Watch List? Where we put people who we think might be a murderer on it and deny them their rights to travel or what ever we wish. Why dont we have a Rapist-Watch List where we do the same? Or a Theif-Watch List? Or a DUI-Watch List?


Hear, hear! This, uh, "terrorism" isn't exactly running rampant through the streets over here in the U.S. Maybe there's a lot of it happening abroad, but here we just had the once incident, a few years back.

Zip



posted on Apr, 17 2005 @ 07:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by LNJAXFL
That is wrong. Sure you can order the gun online but they have to ship it to a FFL (Federal Firearm License) holder, then the FFL is required to do a background check. The only guns I know of that can be shipped to your door are black powder/muzzleloader/primitive weapons and air rifles. As far as building your own from parts, there is one part to every MODERN firearm that is considered the actual "firearm". These are commonly called frames or receivers and the same rules about FFL shipment and checks apply to these specific parts. I just recently built an AR-15 and I had everything shipped to my door except the lower receiver which I had to get shipped to my local gun shop.

You sure about that? I saw nothing on any of the sites I looked at that claimed I had to have it shipped to anywhere but my house. It may very well depend on the shop. As we all know, not all Inet shops adhere to federal or state policies. I know people who have bought guns at garage sales. It's not difficult to get a gun, without a background check.



posted on Apr, 17 2005 @ 09:15 PM
link   
It's legal for a gun owner to privately sell a gun to somebody, and it happens all the time. Only gun dealers have to do background checks. That's why there are no background checks at gun shows, because the sellers aren't really dealers, theoretically, although in reality, most of them are. It's a gray area at gun shows, really.

Mail-order gun kits don't ship the actual lower receiver to a dealer. They ship the upper assembly to the consumer and leave the rest up to you. It's actually illegal for them to even recommend the best lower receiver to fit their upper assembly, but they are allowed to specify the best color match, etc., which is basically the same thing as saying, "buy this certain, specific receiver from this company at your local dealer."

Either way, since it is illegal to mail consumers lower receivers, any company doing that would be very quickly busted by the ATF, so its certainly not worth the risk.

Zip

EDIT Hmm, some of the stuff I said conflicts with what LNJAXFL said. He may know better than I, but check out this FAQ list from an online kit seller:

www.mapartsinc.com...


[edit on 17-4-2005 by Zipdot]



posted on Apr, 18 2005 @ 12:27 AM
link   
I see. But the fact still remains that you can't expect someone who is planning to do illegal things to use legal means to get weapons. We're really not worried about one person with a gun anyway, are we? It's pointless legislation. There are more guns circulating already than we can possibly regulate.



posted on Apr, 24 2005 @ 05:39 PM
link   
Why bother regulating? It is not the gun that is illegal it is the action. People in Germany who are sociopaths drive down the wrong side of the Audobahn, i don't see Germans having background checks for driving a car...this whole thing is absurd. Government regulation in all aspects of life is polluting the individual freedoms that were instilled with the writing of the supreme law of our land: The Constitution. I don't remember background checks during the Early US, why now? Stop with the Stalinistic control of people's lives. If so then I am going to be hiding from the black KGB florist trucks.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join