Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

I told you it wouldn't be long.

page: 2
9
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 26 2007 @ 04:50 PM
link   
Madness,

Let me try and explain my feelings...

I love them. I think they are one of the most beautiful creations of man. I shoot them, collect them, carry them and spend inordinate amounts of time cleaning them.

I own assault rifles, antiques and many handguns. I shoot them all.
I compete, both with the handguns and the assault rifles.

I am a trained sniper. I continue to practice my trade, in competition and on my own.

I own weapons that have been used to take a life. The weapon did not do it, could not do it. I also own an assortment of knives that are semi to historic. Some have been carried years ago. Perhaps they took a life as well. I can never know. Should they be banned as well?

My guns are beautiful and they are mine. They do not belong to the Government and the government needs to stay out of my business and abide by the standards already set. Allow me to keep and to bear arms.

Simple fact.

The states and cities with the harshest gun controls, have the greatest amounts of gun related violence. Why? because the criminal is almost positive the victim is unarmed. Why? Because the victim is an honest citizen and the criminal is not.

I love my guns and I will keep them.

Semper




posted on Feb, 26 2007 @ 04:50 PM
link   
This bill is sad, really. Of all the good things the dems could be doing - including not introducing bills that arouse the ire of mainstream America and hurt their chances in '08 - they have to go after guns. Seems like a bad move politically.

I suppose an argument can be made that "well-regulated" could also apply to the types of arms kept by said "militia." Whatever. Have an age limit and keep them out of the hands of felons (if they can) but leave the law-abiding citizens be.

[edit on 26-2-2007 by befoiled]



posted on Feb, 26 2007 @ 05:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
unfair comparisson
how many people own pools?
how often are pools used?
pools can be used for excersise
they aren't WEAPONS

Perfectly fair comparison. The pools you speak of are Constitutionally protected rights to be exercised, are they not? Or are you going to argue that, too? Doesn't the issue of owning a pool fall into your "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness"?

Those weapons you are illogically speaking against are what guarantees your ability to "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness".


Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
um, again, cars kill more people because cars are used far more frequently than guns
again, the primary fuction here isn't a WEAPON

Again, fair comparison. I asked my Congressman at a recent Listening tour in my area, the following question in regards to the war in Iraq:


"We sorrowfully lost 3,000 people during the 9/11 attacks. Every year 50,000 people die in car crashes and another 1.5 million are injured. Why didn't we declare war on General Motors?"

It must have been a fair comparison, because he had but one response, and that was: "Good point."




Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
um, that's a body issue
lifting 350 lbs can actually come in handy (wouldn't you want that guy to help you move?)
a gun can only kill things

As TGRH made perfectly clear, the issue of a 350lb person scares them. What's any different of the gun issue being used because it scares someone else? So, yet again, perfectly fair comparison.


Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
um, i grew up around guns
i'm a decent marksman
i've actually participated in competitive riflery

actually, i have handled plenty of guns
modern and antique rifles (my favorite to handle was the M1 garrand)
modern and antique machine guns
i've actually handled an assault rifle (an AK-47) which is why i don't want them around
there isn't a point to having them


If you grew up around them, used them, handled them, whatever them... then you must not have learned what was being taught to you, otherwise you'd have an unwaivering support for them.



posted on Feb, 26 2007 @ 05:47 PM
link   
Just out of curiosity, has anyone exercised their responsibility to write or call their representatives to find out where they stand on this issue?

Currently, Rep Carolyn McCarthy is the only name on the bill. There are no cosponsors.

I wrote to my House Representative, and both Senators, asking of their stance for this bill, and imploring them to vote "No" to this bill.

As well, if anyone would like to keep track of the actions on this bill, or to keep up with who's supporting it... go here: thomas.loc.gov...:h.r.01022:



posted on Feb, 26 2007 @ 05:56 PM
link   
I can say with confidence this bill will not receive the support of even one of my state's (Utah) congressional delegation. Even our token democrat, Matheson.

In fact, I'd be surprised if it made it to the house floor, much less became law. Here's hoping it dies a fast and painless death in committee.



posted on Feb, 26 2007 @ 06:12 PM
link   
alright, so i've seen absolutely no justification for the ownership of these weapons other than "i can"

now, i want to mae this 100% clear: i don't want ABSOLUTE gun control
i want controlling of weapons that are unnecessary

do you really need an assault weapon for protection?

and infoholic, i learned my lessons with guns
they are weapons
designed to do nothing but take life
that's what i learned
i was listening
and i realized that most of what i heard was an attempt at indoctrinating me into a mindset that makes every person holding a gun into a supercop able to stop any criminal
but, if you stop a criminal with a gun, have you really accomplished anything but killing a man?



posted on Feb, 26 2007 @ 06:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
do you really need an assault weapon for protection?


Speaking for myself personally, the answer would have to be "no."

I have one (an AK-47 named Katrina) that is just...well...fun to shoot. I don't hunt or anything, I just like to take her to the range once in a while and go through a box or two of shells. Where's the harm?



posted on Feb, 26 2007 @ 09:18 PM
link   
BUT MADNESS!!!!!

That is the problem......

You are asking us to give you a reason to OWN something that we have been able to OWN for our entire lives and now is being threatened....

Who are YOU or ANYONE else to tell me what I can or can not own as long as I am hurting no one?

What gives ANYONE the RIGHT to usurp my Second Amendment Rights?

Who made Whom God and allowed them to question what I can and what I can not own that has been protected as long as this has been a country?

I gave you a reason I own them....

I DID...

I shoot them, I collect them, I love them... Is that not enough?

Or are we now going to go down that long dark road where everything I own must meet some criteria for usefulness, or I must give it up?

Is not that it is useful to me enough?
Is not that I obtain enjoyment from it, enough?

Who gets to determine if it is useful to me?

Hitler?

Semper


ape

posted on Feb, 26 2007 @ 11:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
first, i want to ask
why do we need assault weapons?



Originally posted by Roper
The woman that introduced the bill is the one that her husband was killed on a train in NY. The gunman could have been stopped by a civilian if someone had a firearm. The gunman wasn't a good shot and even changed mags.


the guy would have been stopped if someone had the common sense to beat him over the head with their briefcase...

going into hypotheticals isn't the best way to prove your points, especially on this issue because it can go both ways


now, don't give me that whole "second amendment" speech
the clause that involves the right to bear arms is very very vague
it doesn't state for what reason we bear them
it doesn't give a level of arms

should we extend it to the right to bear military jets?
or the right to bear ICBMs?
or the right to bear suitcase nukes?



has your house ever been broken into? the real world is harsh, people need proper protection especially when people smash up into your house threatening your existance just to obtain a dvd and an xbox.

what about your vehicles? do you own a vehicle? are you a home owner? have you ever been robbed?

honestly you're a piece of work like no other, I will keep my weapon and if anyone tried to break into my house and threaten my family they will get what's coming to them.

[edit on 26-2-2007 by ape]



posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 08:27 AM
link   
No one seems to ever bring up the most rational reason why one should be against letting civillians own guns.

That being that it annoys gun owners.

I chuckle and rub my hands in glee every time I hear about new legislation to ban guns. It's the same reason I was for the ban on fox hunting. I'm not an animal lover, I didn't care about the fox, I just knew the ban would piss off a lot of people I regard as arseholes.

Why should there be a logical discussion about this ( I mean, there is, I can think of plenty of good reasons to ban guns, a simple look at UK Crime stats demonstrates beyond any reasonable doubt that easy access to fire arms inevitably increases their use, you'd have to be a moron not to understand that ) But seriously, why should I bother with one of the many logical arguments, My prime reason for wanting to ban guns is simply so I can laugh at NRA idiots.

Anything that annoys them is ok in my book.



posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 11:56 AM
link   
So, I'm an idiot , huh spuggy?

Roper



posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 12:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
semp, it's quite vague because back then "arms" were something that were also used as tools

the rifles they used were also the same rifles they'd hunt with


True enough, but its fairly clear that the Founders felt that IF the public was armed in a military style, then it would 'balance' the power of the central government, and ensure the protection of human liberties.

So, perhaps, if anything, the bill shoudl be 'buy an assault rifle IF you are a member of a paramilitary army'.

[edit on 27-2-2007 by Nygdan]


Spuggy
a simple look at UK Crime stats


Case in point. The English are ruled by a Sovereign, who is also the Head of their State Church, and they don't have the same protections or liberties as an American.
At the moment, its the Americans that loose out, because we get the gun violence and they get the peace. But when the governments start centralizing their authority and challenging human rights, its the British that are going to loose out.
Ultimately, all politics is backed by the use of force. The American Founders realized that along with balancing political power, you need to balance physical power.

Just look at Iraq, for example. THe country is run by militias. The people without guns are getting annihlated by government death squads and sectarian militias, the people with guns, they form their own militias and defend their personal liberty.

Yes, indeed, its a bad plan for having stable, civil, democratic rule, but that doesn't exist in iraq now anyway. It'd be folly to think that that will allways exist in North America. Even in England we've seen that there's been periods of tyrannical governmental rule and anarchy, with little bits of civil governance mixed in there.

[edit on 27-2-2007 by Nygdan]



posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 03:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by ape
has your house ever been broken into? the real world is harsh, people need proper protection especially when people smash up into your house threatening your existance just to obtain a dvd and an xbox.

what about your vehicles? do you own a vehicle? are you a home owner? have you ever been robbed?


yeah, i've had my personal space invaded so that people would take my stuff

but the thing is, did they try to hurt me?




honestly you're a piece of work like no other, I will keep my weapon and if anyone tried to break into my house and threaten my family they will get what's coming to them.


so if someone wants your xbox you'll take their life...

is protection of your property really worth the taking of someone's life?

then there is the deep philosophical issue of whether or not taking the life of another in self defense is sound

but here''s the thing
i don't care about your weapons, keep them
just about whether or not you need an assault rifle
ape, do you need an assault weapon to protect your family?



posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 04:00 PM
link   
Madness, are you purposefully avoiding the reasons I have given you? If so, why my friend...

I assure you I am a reasonable man. I even work in a profession where it would be much much safer if there were no such things as projectile weapons. Yet there are and my experience, over 20 years now, has always been the more weapons in the hands of honest people, the safer I am on the streets...

I want my assault weapons, because I love them. much as one loves a work of art...

Semper



posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 04:34 PM
link   
madnessinmysoul

There is no reason anybody could give for owning an "assault weapon" that you would accept.

But I will say that you are safer if your neighbor owns one, even if you do not.



posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 05:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by semperfortis
Madness, are you purposefully avoiding the reasons I have given you? If so, why my friend...


semp, i'm not avoiding it
and it isn't reasoning

you never were given the right to assault rifle ownership
you were given the highly vague right to bear arms



I want my assault weapons, because I love them. much as one loves a work of art...


no offense, but that is a fairly juvenille sounding reason
you WANT them, but you have no use for them



posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 06:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
you never were given the right to assault rifle ownership
you were given the highly vague right to bear arms

WHAT!?!?!?!



I can't believe you just said that! That's got to be the most ridiculous statement I've ever read!




Mod Note: Please Stay on Topic
Mod Note: One Line and Short Posts – Please Review This Link.



[edit on 27-2-2007 by DontTreadOnMe]



posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 06:17 PM
link   
"you were given the highly vague right to bear arms"

You reasoning please Maddness?

Roper



posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 07:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
alright, so i've seen absolutely no justification for the ownership of these weapons other than "i can"
now, i want to mae this 100% clear: i don't want ABSOLUTE gun control
i want controlling of weapons that are unnecessary
do you really need an assault weapon for protection?
and infoholic, i learned my lessons with guns
they are weapons
designed to do nothing but take life
that's what i learned
i was listening
and i realized that most of what i heard was an attempt at indoctrinating me into a mindset that makes every person holding a gun into a supercop able to stop any criminal
but, if you stop a criminal with a gun, have you really accomplished anything but killing a man?


I think it should be the individual citizens right to decide rather or not they want one of these weapons. You have decided that you would not like to have one. Why should your opinion stand for me and countless others who might like to have a choice rather we want one of these weapons or not? You dont like it then dont buy one. The criminals will still find a way to carry one of these weapons regardless of the laws because they are LAWLESS..

When the government starts dictating what you can and cant have then your no longer free. It is in our constitutional rights to bear arms regardless of the hardware.

[edit on 072828p://3702pm by semperfoo]



posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 07:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Roper
"you were given the highly vague right to bear arms"

You reasoning please Maddness?

Roper


easy, the term arms has evolved beyond the probable reasoning of the architects of the bill of rights

again, i'd like to emphasize that people have the right to bear arms
but only necessary arms
a hunting rifle and/or shotgun could bec considered necessary
a pistol can be considered necessary because they can be reasoned as items for protection

but an assault rifle?
why?

semperfoo, do you think i should be allowed to own weapons grade anthrax?

[edit on 2/27/07 by madnessinmysoul]





new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join