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.

 

So...who carries?

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 27 2005 @ 05:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by psteelOh I would exactly interfere with any one who thinks gun owner ship is a right, its a privilage ,they certainly has NO place in a family within a city. I would rather see all guns banned within a city limits than put up with the levels of violence I see. Just because your country does it don't make it a right. Personally I believe if a person feels they need to own and carry a gun in order to feel safe, that is the description of a society thats run amuck and lost control.


Note, he said 'irrational fears'. This is exactly what he was talking about: classic hippy-ass fear. My nation's population is 32.2 million people. The number of registered firearms exceeds seven million, with two million individual and bussiness owners.

www.cfc-cafc.gc.ca...

Damn, us canucks must be absolutely HORRIBLE people! One out of every sixfteen people owns at least one firearm, and 80% of the population lives within 200km of the US border. How high is our national murder rate? Violent crime?

Go check statistics on how many of the people who commited a firearms related crime actually legally OWNED those weapons. Your ban wouldn't affect criminals, and in fact strip citizens of the ability to defend themselves.

Your fear is indeed irrational and unwarranted. My advice? Learn before you open your mouth.

DE




posted on Aug, 27 2005 @ 06:17 PM
link   
After 6 monthes I finally got my permit for concealed carry. Finding a compact that's Mass. compliant is my next step.



posted on Aug, 27 2005 @ 06:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by psteel

Originally posted by imas

Originally posted by psteel
Don't carry any , no need and never seen one in the city either. Having guns is just an invitation to disasters.


"No guns in our house
we made that clear
we made little johnny promise us he'd be a good boy"
XTC

Much more likely that if a gun was in our house, someone would get hurt by childish accidents. Only time we were ever broken into ,it was a stupid 13 year old who got caught. He stole costume jewelry and by passed the really valuable stuff


You don't sound like someone I would want to have a gun anyway. Just don't try to interfere the rights of others because of your own ignorance, selfishness, or irrational fears.

Go out and shoot some time. Learn how to handle a gun. You are likely to lose some of those uncomfortable feelings. It is an inanimate object. It will not do anything by itself.


[edit on 27-8-2005 by imas]



Oh I would exactly interfere with any one who thinks gun owner ship is a right, its a privilage ,they certainly has NO place in a family within a city. I would rather see all guns banned within a city limits than put up with the levels of violence I see. Just because your country does it don't make it a right. Personally I believe if a person feels they need to own and carry a gun in order to feel safe, that is the description of a society thats run amuck and lost control.



And next living will be a privilage too? And if i don't pay omage to the all mighty god i cant live? I've never seen anyone say anything this sickening before.

In switzerland EVERYONE is required to own a gun. There are checks where soldiers go house to house to make sure there is a gun in the house. You get in trouble if you don't have a gun. Everyone is also trained by the army on how to use that gun.

Go look at switzerland's crime statistics.. It's damn near 0 for any crime.

The problems you're talking about have absolutely nothing to do with guns. For they don't kill people, people kill people. Break down of education, Break down of family values, and the overwhelming violence that we let our kids watch on TV are to blame for the amount of crime. Don't get me wrong, im not saying blood and guts shouldnt be allowed on tv. But instead of letting your TV raise your kids, maybe you should take on that job? Or is that the governments responsibility too?



[edit on 27-8-2005 by senseless04]



posted on Aug, 27 2005 @ 07:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by DeusEx

Originally posted by psteelOh I would exactly interfere with any one who thinks gun owner ship is a right, its a privilage ,they certainly has NO place in a family within a city. I would rather see all guns banned within a city limits than put up with the levels of violence I see. Just because your country does it don't make it a right. Personally I believe if a person feels they need to own and carry a gun in order to feel safe, that is the description of a society thats run amuck and lost control.


Note, he said 'irrational fears'. This is exactly what he was talking about: classic hippy-ass fear. My nation's population is 32.2 million people. The number of registered firearms exceeds seven million, with two million individual and bussiness owners.

www.cfc-cafc.gc.ca...

Damn, us canucks must be absolutely HORRIBLE people! One out of every sixfteen people owns at least one firearm, and 80% of the population lives within 200km of the US border. How high is our national murder rate? Violent crime?

Go check statistics on how many of the people who commited a firearms related crime actually legally OWNED those weapons. Your ban wouldn't affect criminals, and in fact strip citizens of the ability to defend themselves.

Your fear is indeed irrational and unwarranted. My advice? Learn before you open your mouth.

DE


Your vision of Canada is not shared by the majority and I personally know no one who owns a gun ...we have no need for them to protect our self with guns. Those who do own guns usually live far out in the country where certain protection is afforded against animals from the guns. I have known such people and they NEVER ever viewed their guns as protecting them from other people, only Bears and Cougars etc.

I don't trust the police with guns and I trust citizens even less with guns. They have next to no training in the exercise in use of 'lethal force' in situations. Guns have no place in a civilised society , especially within city limits.

If you really think a gun is going to make you more protected or safe then you are suffering from a delusion...the delusion that weapons = protection.



posted on Aug, 27 2005 @ 07:51 PM
link   
DeusEx says:


And OTS, fully a third of your nation can't even eat right and exercize. Pardon me if I want to train them a bit if I want to turn them loose in a car, or before I give them a gun.


It's not your place to "train" Americans, or "turn us loose in a car", or "give us a gun", any more than it's my place to teach you or try to run your life.

I suggest you read some of Syme's works at www.samizdata.net...

Eh.



[edit on 27-8-2005 by Off_The_Street]



posted on Aug, 27 2005 @ 08:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by senseless04

And next living will be a privilage too? And if i don't pay omage to the all mighty god i cant live? I've never seen anyone say anything this sickening before.




Now thats what I call irrational fears....




In switzerland EVERYONE is required to own a gun. There are checks where soldiers go house to house to make sure there is a gun in the house. You get in trouble if you don't have a gun. Everyone is also trained by the army on how to use that gun.

Go look at switzerland's crime statistics.. It's damn near 0 for any crime.

The problems you're talking about have absolutely nothing to do with guns. For they don't kill people, people kill people. Break down of education, Break down of family values, and the overwhelming violence that we let our kids watch on TV are to blame for the amount of crime. Don't get me wrong, im not saying blood and guts shouldnt be allowed on tv. But instead of letting your TV raise your kids, maybe you should take on that job? Or is that the governments responsibility too?



[edit on 27-8-2005 by senseless04]


I was born in the UK and no one , not even the cops had guns. There are many many more examples of societies that have little or no guns and little crime , than the Swiss case, so this proves nothing. We had little or no violent crime back then. Don't lecture me on raising my kids , I long ago taught them how evil violence and the use of force is , no matter if its an individual or a government using it or if its physical use of force or emotional ...etc.


I would trust Swiss with guns since they are a society that appears to respect the law and those guns are for 'national' protection against invading enemies, not personal protection from other citizens.

I don't trust people with guns in a neurotic country like the USA . Their entire logic is based on a lack of respect for the law. The whole 'right' to own guns is based on a 18th century notion of protecting the citizen from the tynanny of the state...ergo no respect for the rule of law. I don't know of many countries so bound to 18th century notions.

BTW your wrong, guns do kill people....so do cars and knifes and many other things. Guns happen to be one of the most convenient methods of carring and conducting killing.



posted on Aug, 27 2005 @ 08:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Off_The_Street
It's not your place to "train" Americans, or "turn us loose in a car", or "give us a gun", any more than it's my place to teach you or try to run your life.

I suggest you read some of Syme's works at www.samizdata.net...


Naw, it's not my place. But it's not a bad idea to get SOMEONE to do it, either. I have absolutely no problems with people driving or carrying or what have you, as long as they're responsible and reasonably proficient at what they're doing. That's not unreasonable, is it?

DE



posted on Aug, 27 2005 @ 08:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by psteel
Your vision of Canada is not shared by the majority and I personally know no one who owns a gun ...we have no need for them to protect our self with guns. Those who do own guns usually live far out in the country where certain protection is afforded against animals from the guns. I have known such people and they NEVER ever viewed their guns as protecting them from other people, only Bears and Cougars etc.

I don't trust the police with guns and I trust citizens even less with guns. They have next to no training in the exercise in use of 'lethal force' in situations. Guns have no place in a civilised society , especially within city limits.

If you really think a gun is going to make you more protected or safe then you are suffering from a delusion...the delusion that weapons = protection.


My vision of canada? I simply stated the fact that gun possesion does not equal gun crime, is that a 'vision' now? Yes, while many Canadians don't own guns, many also do. In fact, more than half the people I know do own guns. Hell, seven or eight of them carry for a living. Every one of them I would trust with my life. They are police officers, bodyguards, security guards, and above all private citizens. I shoot with these people, and as for your allegation that police and security guards are given insufficient training...well, that's BS. It barely qualifies as opinion.

YOU might not need to protect yourself with a gun in your fantasy land, but some of us don't quite live in paradise. Anytime I head to north york, I carry at least a snap baton. You know what? The polcie can't be everywhere, and criminals will have weapons whether or not you do. Weapons do equal protection, for the simple reason that they level the playing field.

Let me ask you this- when a criminal confronts you, pulls a knife, what are you going to do? What happens when he goes for a gun? The answer si that you get victimized, you get cut, possibly raped. That's your choice. Mine at least gives me a fighting chance.

DE



posted on Aug, 27 2005 @ 09:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by psteel
I was born in the UK and no one , not even the cops had guns. There are many many more examples of societies that have little or no guns and little crime , than the Swiss case, so this proves nothing. We had little or no violent crime back then. Don't lecture me on raising my kids


They don't need to ban guns. They just need to stop letting stupid people have kids.


So let me see if I understand this correctly....I have no right to defend myself? If someone punches me I should not do anything to stop them?

Every man has the right to free will. No government can ever take away you desire or right to live. You are immature and you have no idea what the world is like. If someone ever attacked you or you had to hide from some punkass gangbangers with guns you might think twice.

So you are saying that if someone was stabbing your child to death and you had a hunting rifle in you hands you would run to a pay phone to call the cops?

Damn sure better not mess with one of my kids, I will put you out of your misery.

How am I barely trained? I have spent quite a bit of time in firearms classes and I go to the range to train 1 - 2 times a week. And not just shooting at targets but I actually go to tactical pistol competitions to hone my skills so that I am able to shoot safely. I am safer, shoot more, and I'm a better shooter than 95% of law enforcement. Ask any law enforcement officer that knows about guns and they will tell you that most officers rarely practice and many only shoot when they are required to qualify. Don't take that the wrong way I'm not bashing LE here. There are many excellent officers who take these skills seriously.

This was only relevant in the 18th century?? It sure seemed relevant when Hitler took guns away and slaughtered the Jews. My grandfather can testify to that.


I did in my original post state that I don't feel like debating liberal crap. Take that BS to the political forum and start your own thread about how you hate guns. This is to talk about who carries guns and what kind of guns. I think it is very inconsiderate to jump in and derail the original topic.

[edit on 27-8-2005 by imas]



posted on Aug, 27 2005 @ 09:03 PM
link   
hahahaha!

Dead on, Imas! A little natural selection couldn't hurt.

DE



posted on Aug, 27 2005 @ 09:38 PM
link   
Deus says

Naw, it's not my place. But it's not a bad idea to get SOMEONE to do it, either. I have absolutely no problems with people driving or carrying or what have you, as long as they're responsible and reasonably proficient at what they're doing. That's not unreasonable, is it?


Yes, it is unreasonable, because determining who is "responsible and reasonably proficient" is a subjective matter, and down here, most of us prefer the freedom to own a gun over the "security" of giving someone the power to -- by arbitrarily determining what "responsible and reasonably proficient" is -- say who can and who can't have guns.

Deus, it all boils down to the fact that some people prefer order to freedom, and, based on what I see, there seems to be a positive correlation between those two categories and which side of the border you live.

What seems especially instructive is that the people south of the border aren't nearly as interested in telling the people north of the border how to live their lives as the people north of the border seem to want to tell their southern neighbors how to live.



posted on Aug, 27 2005 @ 09:40 PM
link   
Alright anyone who wants to state their position go ahead.

BUT if you want to continue to argue about "evil guns" then take it to THIS THREAD!!

So get out of my friggin thread!! (you know who you are)


[edit on 27-8-2005 by imas]



posted on Aug, 27 2005 @ 10:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Off_The_Street
Yes, it is unreasonable, because determining who is "responsible and reasonably proficient" is a subjective matter, and down here, most of us prefer the freedom to own a gun over the "security" of giving someone the power to -- by arbitrarily determining what "responsible and reasonably proficient" is -- say who can and who can't have guns.

I'm not saying arbitrarily grant people lisences. I'm saying at least provide some standards, so that criminals or the insane don't get them. Or that the people you give them to won't end up shooting themselves in the foot. Like I said, I have no problem with concealed carry for those who can pass a basic test (not unlike like a driver's test). Is this unreasonable? Not in my mind. Personal freedoms must be weighed against the good of the people from time to time.

Deus, it all boils down to the fact that some people prefer order to freedom, and, based on what I see, there seems to be a positive correlation between those two categories and which side of the border you live.

I gotta admit, I looooves me the order. I also loves me the freedom, but I realize that sacrifices must be made in order to safeguard society. I push for firearms reform in my country to get to a nice medium between the draconian way it is now and the chaos of no restrictions whatsoever. We're not all diseased hippies up here, Old Man.

What seems especially instructive is that the people south of the border aren't nearly as interested in telling the people north of the border how to live their lives as the people north of the border seem to want to tell their southern neighbors how to live.

So I don't suppose Americans pressuring Canada for a ABM shield comes from the good ol' boys, does it? Everyone tells everyone else how to live. You want lots of personal freedom because you are responsible with it. However, not everyone is a kind, law abiding citizen, or even competent in their daily tasks. Now, as much as I love personal freedom, I also love schizophrenics and recidivists not having the capacity to walk down to the local Walmart and be able to purchase a gun. At least make them walk to the nearest dealer's house, you know?




posted on Aug, 27 2005 @ 11:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by psteel

I was born in the UK and no one , not even the cops had guns. There are many many more examples of societies that have little or no guns and little crime , than the Swiss case, so this proves nothing. We had little or no violent crime back then. Don't lecture me on raising my kids , I long ago taught them how evil violence and the use of force is , no matter if its an individual or a government using it or if its physical use of force or emotional ...etc.


I would trust Swiss with guns since they are a society that appears to respect the law and those guns are for 'national' protection against invading enemies, not personal protection from other citizens.

I don't trust people with guns in a neurotic country like the USA . Their entire logic is based on a lack of respect for the law. The whole 'right' to own guns is based on a 18th century notion of protecting the citizen from the tynanny of the state...ergo no respect for the rule of law. I don't know of many countries so bound to 18th century notions.

BTW your wrong, guns do kill people....so do cars and knifes and many other things. Guns happen to be one of the most convenient methods of carring and conducting killing.



And now that you guys don't have any guns the government has started to militarize their police force. I'm scared for you guys. After 7/7 i started seeing police with automatic weapons everywhere. Then this guy from australia gets shot because a cop thought he was a terrorist?

You know your government already got caught long ago blowing up their own buildings to blame it on the IRA right?

Your fears about the "neurotic" people in the USA owning guns, is reasonable. I feel if any military force feels that it must carry a gun, then i must carry a gun. We have it worse over here than you guys do at the moment. Bush is slowly trying to get rid of posse comitatus act (seperates military and police) so effectivly, our army would also be our police and could enforce laws off base.

www.uscg.mil...

the "18th century" notions that you describe aren't "18th century" notions. It's either all or nothing, you cant apply something here or there... when it suits you. Either you're allowed freedom of speech, or your not. Either you're allowed freedom of assembly, or not. You cant say, well you're a member of the klu klux klan so you cant assemble. I think people have a hard time understanding what rights are so lets get a definition.


From US declaration of independence.
------------------------------------------------------------

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,---That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

-----------------------------------------------------------------


Now, if the militaries of the world feel that they need to arm themselves to "defend" or "attack evil" i feel that i should also have a weapon. If you read the above statements, it appears to me that the founding fathers were more concerned with rogue governments introducing tyranny than they were the local mobster. Hitler killed far more people than any gang wars ever have.

I'm glad that at least someone in the world is teaching their kids that governments arent these ominous omnipitent beings that cannot be disagreed with. If all the governments of the world did away with their weapons, i would feel safer than i probably ever have before. I would also follow suit and lay down arms. I don't do it for myself, i hate guns, i do it because i feel that im supposed to. That being said, ill respond to your last comment. If we banned everything that killed someone, we wouldnt have cars, trains, planes, sticks, stones, knives, metal pipe, ice cicles, pots, pans, glass shards, or anything else that could be a potential threat. I don't know about you, but i wouldnt enjoy living in a padded room my whole life.






[edit on 28-8-2005 by senseless04]



posted on Aug, 28 2005 @ 07:01 AM
link   
I used to carry a Colt 1911 but after I got my Glock I just found it to be so much more comfortable. After a while I found myself carrying the Glock all the time. So eventually I unloaded the Colt and took it out of the handgun safe. I cleaned it really good and it retired to the main safe.

I am going to by a Glock 19 soon. I don't have any trouble concealing the 17 but I think the smaller 19 is better balanced for concealed carry. It should be a little more comfortable and I kind of like the way it feels better.

I didn't buy the G17 for a carry gun I was happy with my Colt. I bought it because I wanted a good full size pistol. If I had planned on carrying it I would have bought the 19 in the first place.



posted on Aug, 28 2005 @ 07:58 AM
link   
So did anyone who derailed this thread actually get a 2000 point penalty or is that actually the reason it got moved to the Political Board?

Thats funny I get hit with an ATS ONLY rule for my post in PTS and when I point to this thread it instantly* gets moved over here. Real nice. Coincidence? I'm thinking not.

*by "instantly" I mean at a strange hour of the day and within 10 minutes of my pointing out the hypocrisy

[edit on 28-8-2005 by imas]



posted on Aug, 28 2005 @ 11:20 AM
link   
im sorry about the derailing.. the ignorance was surmounting...

I just don't understand why there are so many different sub catagories here.. it's almost as if it was intentionally trying to confuse (now theres a conspiracy theory for ya). Weaponry doesnt stop at weaponry, it spills over into poltical arena. 9/11-7/7 spill over into the pts, and new world order forum.

You're trying to make something black and white that is anything but. While the general flow should be about the main topic, just because points are made which arent directly related to the topic, it doesnt mean that they arent indirectly related.






[edit on 28-8-2005 by senseless04]



posted on Aug, 28 2005 @ 11:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by senseless04
im sorry about the derailing.. the ignorance was surmounting...

I just don't understand why there are so many different sub catagories here.. it's almost as if it was intentionally trying to confuse (now theres a conspiracy theory for ya). Weaponry doesnt stop at weaponry, it spills over into poltical arena. 9/11-7/7 spill over into the pts, and new world order forum.

You're trying to make something black and white that is anything but. While the general flow should be about the main topic, just because points are made which arent directly related to the topic, it doesnt mean that they arent indirectly related.






[edit on 28-8-2005 by senseless04]


No hard feelings



posted on Aug, 28 2005 @ 11:51 AM
link   
The topic is "what guns do you carry"? Lets stick to it.

There is a link for those that wish to argue over whither guns are icky poo or not.
And a complaint for those that want to bitch about a mods behavior

Use them.



[edit on 28-8-2005 by Amuk]



posted on Aug, 30 2005 @ 01:26 AM
link   
I carry but that's because of work, I do have a CCW from the state of Michigan but because i'm a federal officer i carry a sig .357, that's my issued weapon. when i'm off duty i either carry my sig, or my baby eagle .40, but also ALWAYS carry my backup, which is a colt .380

Now here's a silly law just for FYI, as a federal officer i can carry threw any state no matter their laws, AND i can carry on airplanes as well....but ONLY my issued weapon. if i carry in a state that does not support my CCW from michigan i can only have my issued weapon, Any other weapon on me would be illegal. kinda silly dont ya think?



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join