It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


I told you it wouldn't be long.

page: 4
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in


posted on Mar, 1 2007 @ 06:36 AM
I also think that it should be relatively simple for honest citizens to get a permit to carry a concealed weapon. I also think that if you're legally carrying a concealed weapon and you stop a crime in progress that you should get an immediate reward.

That would turn the tide on the criminals.

This I like Wildbob! Law enforcement always tell us to run or give up,don't resist.

Police do a good job of stopping crime where they are at but they just can't be everywhere but the citizen is.


posted on Mar, 1 2007 @ 12:38 PM
We know who will have the guns then, if this passes.

Military, cops, and CRIMINALS.

Who the hell buys a registered gun to commit a crime?
This is pretty ridiculous. Besides, we see how much crime went down after Britain first banned guns for people.

Course, this isn't to protect people; it's to make it easier to enforce martial law. I heard the Global Gun Ban Conference was last year on the 4 of July in the US.

They can't have too many people with heat when they fully reveal the police state of America...

posted on Mar, 1 2007 @ 05:09 PM
I am just going to put my .02 cents in.

Whenever I had to respond to a call that involved a gun 95% it was a gun that had been stolen or purchased illegally, you never see someone that has gone throught the trouble to get a Federal Firearms permit holding up a store. I say they should have the right to own an assault rifle if they want. When I lived stateside I had 12 assault rifles, and a few handguns with suppressors. I see nothing wrong with it as long as they secure it well enought that it is not stolen.

posted on Mar, 5 2007 @ 01:04 PM
Here is a quote from Presidential candidate Ron Paul. I have been doing some research on this guy and found this. I thought it fit pretty well on this discussion. I quote this because it pretty much sums up my thoughts as well. Geez... I think this site is making me paranoid!!!

external source
Eric Foreman - You have also written (and I have quoted you) that the U.N. is actively working to criminalize the 2nd Amendment. Who do you think the men at the top are, and what is their ultimate plan?

Ron Paul - Anybody in Washington that likes big government, authoritarian government, which is most of them; deep down, the 2nd Amendment is their greatest obstacle, in the physical sense. Their other greatest obstacle is the right of free speech.

I think that they haven't been able to be as aggressive with guns because it's a healthy sign of this country. I think our people defend the 2nd Amendment better than they defend the 1st Amendment. Which is sort of a twist, I think. Twenty years ago that probably wasn't the case.

Once again, what they say and what they really want are two different things. They criticize the U.N, yet they want to build it up. They can say they support the 2nd Amendment. At the same time, they wouldn't mind curtailing that freedom. Because that is the ultimate freedom.

I kid a lot at my speeches and say, you know, I believe in gun control. I want to take the guns away from those 100,000 federal bureaucrats who own them. The Al Gores of the world, Schumer, these people…they want a monopoly of the guns. They never talk about getting rid of the guns from the bureaucrats. But, they want to get rid of the guns from the people who can't defend themselves.


I know it is a long quote but it was difficult to chop it...

posted on Mar, 6 2007 @ 02:06 PM

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
easy, the term arms has evolved beyond the probable reasoning of the architects of the bill of rights

The founding fathers never in my opinion intended that everyone should or could have arms but simply included that clause to ensure that relatively adept militias could be raised by the government to protect the same old interest. That being said it's relatively clear that there are other relatively heavily armed citizenry around the worldwithout that managed to arm themselves ( mostly by resisting the disarmament campaigns really) without these vague but general protections so i would not say that the American gun culture comes from that but basically from the independent minded parts ( at least in their own minds) of the country.

again, i'd like to emphasize that people have the right to bear arms
but only necessary arms

In my ideal world every person would own a automatic weapon of their choice with as many bullets as they requested. I don't want to live in world where we have 'peace' ( while at least fifty thousand die of hunger and diseases every day) only because those who are being oppressed never had the opportunity to properly arm themselves for self defense.

a hunting rifle and/or shotgun could bec considered necessary

Why on Earth are those necessary? Those who can afford rifle's and bullets can also afford the meat they are likely to be able to hunt on the land they bought.

a pistol can be considered necessary because they can be reasoned as items for protection

In the end the ultimate terrorist are our so called 'brothers' in government and their SWAT teams and mercenaries ( in the armed forces) wont come armed with handguns.

but an assault rifle?

So no person in their right mind attempts to take from me what is not mine without having to seriously consider if it's really worth the trouble considering my obvious ability to spray bullets in their general criminal direction?

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

For sure but only for a minute to ensure that you in fact in possession so that you can be caught and locked up for enough time to reconsider your original intent.


posted on Mar, 6 2007 @ 03:58 PM
The people are the militia in reference. If someone were to invade the US, who do you think would do most of the fighting in the cities and towns? The armed populace of this country would be in greater number than our military. But just look at Switzerland, they have over 400,000 assault rifles kept in the homes of their militia as well as in the homes of private citizens. They have a very low crime rate, I mean who wants to go and rob a house where they know there is an assualt rifle or pistol on the other side of? If I want to own a handgun, I will. If I want to own an assault rifle, I will. If I want a semi-automatic .50 calibre rifle, I'll get it. Its not up to you to tell me what I can and can not have. Its not the governments right either. It is up to me to decide whether or not I want a weapon in my home or not.

posted on Mar, 11 2007 @ 08:31 AM
I'm using this site to track this and it looks like it is in limbo. A damn good place for it.


posted on Mar, 22 2007 @ 12:22 PM
"So, I'm an idiot , huh spuggy?"

Obviously I am using the term broadly, I don't have enough information about you to make an accurate assessment, but I can make assumptions about your character based on what there is. In my experience people who post about gun ownership laws tend to be rabidly anti any legislation that limits what they can and cannot carry to a point of blindness. I percieve these people as idiots. There are plenty of other groups I think are stupid, White supremacists, christians, PETA, Rabid NRA supporters are just one of them.

If new laws piss them off then I'm in favour of new laws. Frankly I'd be happy if they passed a law prohibiting them from breeding and forcing them to wear stupid hats. It wouldn't help but it would make me laugh.

posted on Mar, 24 2007 @ 01:34 PM
Chris Rock had a good idea. Make Ammunition so high that it will only be a good reason to shoot someone or something.

posted on Mar, 24 2007 @ 04:03 PM

Originally posted by MRGERBIK
Chris Rock had a good idea. Make Ammunition so high that it will only be a good reason to shoot someone or something.

This is a racist statement and not a good idea. Only the well off like Chris Rock would be able to afford ammo. Now the majority of the poor people are people of color.

Then there would be a black market on ammo and just like drugs the criminals would have the ammunition.

Bad idea!


posted on Apr, 13 2007 @ 09:02 PM

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul

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

I don't know about anybody else, but the madness in your soul seems to be driving you to be in charge, at any cost.

I think you are making up your experiences about past use/ownership/etc... of firearms. Your logic regarding Assault vs standard semi-auto loaders are mistakes that someone with even limited exposure to firearms wouldn't make. Maybe a little fib???? No? Well, no offense intended or implied ... It just doesn't balance in the greater scheme of things. But then ... Your life is like my life, I live it the way I want to, just as you do, and I own an assault rifle, and don't have to answer to you for it, anymore than you have to answer to me because you don't.

posted on Apr, 16 2007 @ 06:57 PM
Well boys, with today's event I think HB1022 will see the light of day.

You may well need to have you minds, hearts and guts in warrior mode.


posted on Apr, 17 2007 @ 09:36 AM
There will be movement towards it certainly. This is like so many of the firearms control laws that some in Congress think that the majority of Americans want. It's amazing how that majority never seems to materialize.

In a partial aside, there is no vagueness in the the Second Amendment,
"...shall not be infringed." Fairly unvague, that.

When legislation like this is introduced over, and over, and over, and over...and fails time after time after time, it seems obvious, to me anyway that legislation such as this drivel will never pass. Not that we should become complaicent about it however, our freedoms must be constantly defended or we lose them. I think you are right to be concerned, but this level of concern, I hope, is not justified by the results so far. But the next few weeks will tell the tale. Be concerned, but don't panic just yet.

posted on Apr, 24 2007 @ 04:36 AM

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul

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?

but what if they had tried to hurt you? what if they had decided that your girlfriend/wife/daughter was really hot and well...what if?

woudl that be worth taking a life over?

to me it would. someone manages to get into my house and gets the drop on me and says "hey, we're gonna take yer stuff but you'll be fine" ok no problem, i can replace stuff. they try to hurt me or my family and even if i cant get to my guns ill die on my feet to try to protect them.

and you say that "cuz i want one" isnt a good reason to own an assault rifle.

fair enough, but even though they werent designed to kill, cars going over the speed limit DO kill people, and oddly enough, they kill more people a year than legal firearms do. even assault rifles. so what, the govt needs to put in some kind of national wireless network that activates a computer governer on every car that limits speed based on speed limit?

i mean, just curious and all...

posted on Jun, 15 2007 @ 10:19 PM
First of all, by banning assault weapons, they will make it like this-the good guys won't have assault weapons, but the bad guys will. After all, the bad guys are aready got nothing to lose, what more will they lose for getting an assault rifle? Assault rifles are very very easy to get ILLEGALLY, I have been offered an AK-47 at least 10 times, and I could get one easily if I wanted to, or many other assault rifles. So basically for criminals, this law won't really mean anything.

Now for law abiding people like me, it will mean many bad things. First, some people (like me) like to collect weapons. Well we won't be able to collect ARs. Second, assault rifles are fun and great to shoot, and great for preparing for the military with. And finally, not all law abiding people are great shots, hell some don't even have it in them to shoot, how the hell are they gonna defend themselves against an enemy who might have an assault rifle. Pistols are semi automatic, but some people cannot pull the trigger that fast, and also, pistols are less accurate and have a shorter range then assault rifles, and if the enemy has a bulletproof vest, then the pistol won't do anything at all.

Now, this may seem extreme, but just by me saying that I was OFFERED an AK-47 10 times within 8 months should say something about how armed the criminals must be around here.

Now, a person like me doesn't need an assault rifle for SELF DEFENSE, as I can do well with a pistol or rifle, but lets remember not all people are like me,so what are they supposed to do?

Criminals will have them anyway, why not the law abiding people? Most current gun owners are responsible and will use an assault rifle responsibly.

posted on Jun, 15 2007 @ 10:27 PM
I'm sorry, but isn't gun control against the Bill of Rights, therefore nconstitutional?

posted on Jun, 16 2007 @ 07:32 AM

Originally posted by Ironside
I'm sorry, but isn't gun control against the Bill of Rights, therefore unconstitutional?

Yup, it's unconstitutional but that never stopped the "citizens of Washington D.C."


posted on Jun, 16 2007 @ 07:37 AM

Originally posted by Russian soldier
So basically for criminals, this law won't really mean anything.

Criminals will have them anyway, why not the law abiding people? Most current gun owners are responsible and will use an assault rifle responsibly.

You all see this???

Here is a guy in Russia and has a better grasp on the the 2A, and the fact that criminals will still control the weapons market.

Shame on some US Citizens!


posted on Jun, 16 2007 @ 07:57 AM
You're obviously correct, my friends. There will still be people with illegal posession of these weapons, but now we cannot have any chance with the weapons we are limited to. Will we one day be forced to be criminals in order to protect our own families?

posted on Jun, 16 2007 @ 09:02 PM
Madness, you said in a different thread that you just graduated high school this year which would make you 17-19 years old. Doesn't one have to be at least 18 to purchase (legally) a firearm? I'm curious as to how much experience you could have with "assault" weapons. I know some guys who were given bb guns as children and, as they demonstrated safety and responsibility, were given more serious weapons at a relatively young age. What is your experience with firearms that has caused you to form the opinion you now have?
My personal experience with firearms is that I'm alive today because of them. When a madman chopped through my bedroom door with an ax and finally broke through, all I had to do was point my gun at him. I was so scared that I honestly can't say whether it was even loaded or if I had the safety off. Apparently it didn't matter much to him either because just the sight of an armed potential victim was enough to make him drop the ax and run.
Our government is much better armed than any of its citizenry. Still, their tyranny can't be easily enacted while we are still armed. I once heard it said that the best response to an armed terrorist is an armed citizenry. And another: the 2nd amendment aint about duck hunting. it's about shooting politicians that get too big for their britches, neglect those paying their salaries, and forget that they're public servants-not masters.

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in