Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

The Witch Hunt Against Gun Owners

page: 3
11
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 25 2007 @ 08:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by grover

The fact is if everyone were armed and allowed to shoot criminals at will, by necessity that would unravel any attempt at civil justice and undermine the legal system.


Once again you ignore history, statistics, and reality in favor of emotionally driven diatribe and claims based upon absolutely no facts!


Originally posted by grover
There is a good reason why America is the most violent of the advanced nations and it is this absurd idea you people have of taking the law into your own hands and having the weapons to do it with.


We will see how you feel about that when and if you or your wife (if you are married) are ever victimized by a mugger, break in, or some other violent criminal. Cops can't be everywhere all the time. Some cops don't even give a damn. So basically you are saying that you would rather see the potential victim of a violent crime become a statistic simply because you have the illusion that we live in a perfect world devoid greed and aggression.




posted on Mar, 25 2007 @ 08:41 PM
link   
I think my work here is done. I'll go hug my wife and then trott on down the the basement to clean some guns.



posted on Mar, 25 2007 @ 09:03 PM
link   
Excellent. Keep your powder dry. I do.

[edit on 3/25/2007 by TheAvenger]



posted on Mar, 25 2007 @ 09:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by grover

thats absurd. such a situition would make a travesty of any form of law enforcement or justice. it is the law of the jungle and we are supposed to be civilized remember.


why?

are they going to break the law? Why would you suspect they would buy a gun legally, which can be traced back to them, and commit a crime with it?

Why would it be a travesty for law enforcement or justice? If anything, in the long run, it would make law enforcement more efficient. The justice system may have to deal with more "self-defense" cases to prove it was self defense when they used the gun, but it is better than a homocide case, with an innocent UNARMED citizen as the victim.



posted on Mar, 25 2007 @ 09:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by grover
I believe is strict gun controls but I am not opposed to guns... the two are not mutually exclusive attitudes.


I stand by that. For the most part there is nothing wrong with either a background check or a waiting period, or for that matter a limit on how many guns a person can buy at one time... to say otherwise is nothing short of hystronics.



posted on Mar, 25 2007 @ 09:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by MooneyBravo

Originally posted by grover

The fact is if everyone were armed and allowed to shoot criminals at will, by necessity that would unravel any attempt at civil justice and undermine the legal system.


Once again you ignore history, statistics, and reality in favor of emotionally driven diatribe and claims based upon absolutely no facts!


Originally posted by grover
There is a good reason why America is the most violent of the advanced nations and it is this absurd idea you people have of taking the law into your own hands and having the weapons to do it with.


We will see how you feel about that when and if you or your wife (if you are married) are ever victimized by a mugger, break in, or some other violent criminal. Cops can't be everywhere all the time. Some cops don't even give a damn. So basically you are saying that you would rather see the potential victim of a violent crime become a statistic simply because you have the illusion that we live in a perfect world devoid greed and aggression.


This is what I mean by hystronics. There is nothing emotionally driven by my statement. if you check the records the U.S. is by far more violent than Canada, or Japan or all of Europe (war zones excepted) You get a bunch of people armed to the teeth shooting people they deem as criminal is the antithesis of law and order. Such thinking is just absurd. There are good reasons why societies take law enforcement out of the hands of civilians and vigalanties. The old west looks great on film but that is about it.



posted on Mar, 25 2007 @ 10:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by grover
There is a good reason why America is the most violent of the advanced nations and it is this absurd idea you people have of taking the law into your own hands and having the weapons to do it with.

You have it backwards, grover. We are the superpower because we know how to defend ourselves and have the weapons to do it with.





Originally posted by Justin Oldham
I'm not trying to yank your chain, but here's what I think.

The way I read the..pudding...is that the gun control lobby is larger and much better organized than the pro gun lobby ever thought about being. Bigger doesn't always mean better, but in this case is does mean more powerful, which translates to a much greater likelihood of success.

I'm sorry Justin, but you're dead wrong here. The pro-gun lobby is very large and very well organized. If we were not, our Second Amendment rights would have been a thing of the past. We are constantly lurking the halls of Congress, on the lookout for legislation that would take our rights away.

Remember Katrina? And how the people had their guns confiscated by Ray Nagin? Guess who got the decision overturned immediately and the guns returned to the owners?

The NRA.



posted on Mar, 25 2007 @ 11:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by grover

Originally posted by grover
I believe is strict gun controls but I am not opposed to guns... the two are not mutually exclusive attitudes.


I stand by that. For the most part there is nothing wrong with either a background check or a waiting period, or for that matter a limit on how many guns a person can buy at one time... to say otherwise is nothing short of hystronics.


emphasis mine.

i agree with you on the first part of the quote. i really do. im a private gun owner, and before i moved i did have a CWP. and i did carry quite frequently.

i have no problem with a backround check, a waiting period and im all in favor of the laws that say that if you are convicted of domestic abuse or a felony you cant own a firearm.

but i have to ask, why bother with a limit on how many i can own, or even purchace in a day/month/year?

also, you seem concerned by the people turning vigilante. many states already have concealed permits available, and many other states will allow you to carry openly, yet....exactly how often does it happen where people are shooting people to stop a crime?

MOST gun owners that carry do so for their own protection and understand the role of the police and are in no hurry to take matters into their own hands...so why do you think that will change?

in regards to the OP, id be pissed as hell if my name got published and would sue. just on basic principle. its not your business if i have a concealed permit or not. it really isnt. unless im waving a gun around or even implying that i have one in an effort to intimidate you, its really none of your business. if i do these thigns im no longer a legal gun owner.

as far as police go, ive never had a problem. when i did get stopped for speeding i simply turned on my dome light, put my hands on the wheel and when the officer came to the window i handed him my CWP with my drivers license and told him i had a gun on my person. no problem.

so thats just my take on it as a legal gun owner who does choose to carry.



posted on Mar, 26 2007 @ 01:09 AM
link   
I love all the amendments. Together, they are what makes this country great.

Like someone else said, this is hardly a liberal/ vs conservative issue. Forget criminals, I don't trust our government.

An armed populace is our best defense against tyranny.



posted on Mar, 26 2007 @ 04:02 AM
link   
Well said HH!!!

And as far as the waiting period, or buying limit, it does look innocuous on the surface, however, one must understand that ANY erosion of the rights we have is quite simply that "Slippery Slope" we do not need to start down.

So if you are willing to limit the Second Amendment, what other Amendment are you willing to limit? Huh?

How about the 1st? We let Congress regulate religion, but just a little,, Is that OK?

How about the 3rd? We just make a few homeowners keep some troops... That would really cut down on the expense of the barracks...

Ridiculous isn't it?

Same with the Second...

Semper



posted on Mar, 26 2007 @ 06:42 AM
link   
all this talk about citizens of this or that country being more or less violent is stupid, you want to know who the real killers of innocent people are. it's governments, governmental agencies world wide past and present kill more innocents than all the armed criminals, psycho's, armed citizens or gang members. just get your self a copy of gun control and genocide or google it and see who you should really fear. the founding fathers of the u.s. knew who needed to be watched and controlled and it's was not the armed citizens, it's your government!



posted on Mar, 26 2007 @ 07:26 AM
link   
I wasn't talking about the government josbecky I was talking about the level of violence in the United States in general and specifically gun violence. Compared to most of the other advanced nations we are horribly violent.

I am not opposed to guns. I have marksman and sharpshooter ribbons from the military. I just don't like them and I feel no need to have one but then I am not a violent person by nature and I do not hunt. At the same time I feel no need to deprive anyone else from owning a gun if they so choose, and who knows if I found myself feeling the need i have no problem in owning one, I just don't see the need. I do believe however is strict gun control laws that are enforced.

I am not opposed to guns but I am opposed to a bunch of damn fool yahoos who think it is their God given right to go around and shot at everything that moves taking the law into their own hands.

Like I said earlier in this post, personally, unless you are in law enforcement of some sort there is something sneaky about having a concealed weapon. I have never once felt the need to arm myself for protection's sake but then again I don't put myself in places or situitions where I would feel the need. And yes there are dangerous criminals out there but I am not going to worry about what might happen... I don't see the point in that type of thinking. My mother is like that...always worrying about what might happen. I would rather live now and deal with matters as they occur.

As for the gun control lobby... Justin is totally wrong, the NRA and its cohorts are far far stronger and better organized than their opposition ever dreamed of being.



posted on Mar, 26 2007 @ 07:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Damocles

also, you seem concerned by the people turning vigilante. many states already have concealed permits available, and many other states will allow you to carry openly, yet....exactly how often does it happen where people are shooting people to stop a crime?

MOST gun owners that carry do so for their own protection and understand the role of the police and are in no hurry to take matters into their own hands...so why do you think that will change?



Here in Virginia by law you have to fail an IQ test in order to run for office. i don't care what party they belong to Virginia has some of the dimmest lawmakers I have ever seen. I guess Goodwill didn't have any openings so they ran for office.

Members of our chronically Republican controlled legislature has within the past few years promoted bills making it legal to carry a concealed weapon into churches, bars and even government offices. They have also proposed a law that would make it alright for a teenager to carry a gun onto school property (in their car) if they were going hunting afterwards.

While I may think it would be a good idea to take pot shots at jerry foul-well and pat robertson generally speaking guns concealed or not have no place in church. And to carry a concealed weapon into a bar? Give me a break. That is just plain dumb. Guns and alcohol just do not mix. Ask Dick Cheney's hunting partners. And with all the shootings in schools allowing kids to take their guns with them is...absurd in my book.

The only one that makes sense is government offices.



posted on Mar, 26 2007 @ 09:23 AM
link   
Please excuse my slow thought process this morning, but I've got a question for anyone in this thread that believe the OP's point of making public the information regarding Concealed Carry Permit holders' private details is no big deal...


What is your name?
What is your address?
What is your SSN?
What is your phone number?


If you believe it's ok to give out this information, as was done in the article in question... then please feel free to put your information down for everyone to see.



posted on Mar, 26 2007 @ 09:38 AM
link   
It completely defeats the purpose of CC to announce whos carrying. If this is what they want then lets all go open carry.

This attack the legitimate owners" crap is just ridiculous. They want to attack guns, I get it, theyre scared of them or whatever and those who own guns within the law are the easiest to attack.

The ridiculous part is that illegal guns will never be controlled. Its easy enough to import them, its easy enough to make them. Hell, look at the tribal lands of Pakistan. These idiots are living in caves and eating dirt but they can still make functioning, modern firearms en masse. How the hell are you going to stop that?

Id like for these anti-gun, kill all the rednecks people to take a step or two back and look at what theyre doing.

It absolutely isnt any more simple or complicated than outlaw guns and only outlaws will have guns. What dont they understand about this?

Remember what happened with prohibition? See how well the "war on drugs" is going? You want to put guns into the same place?

Ill be the first on my block to break out the lathe and milling machine to keep myself armed.



posted on Mar, 26 2007 @ 09:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by grover
You can believe whatever you want to believe... I really don't give a damn.

The fact is if everyone were armed and allowed to shoot criminals at will, by necessity that would unravel any attempt at civil justice and undermine the legal system.


What makes you think everyone is going to be going around shooting criminals? You need to step back and rethink your position in my humbled opinion. Why is there more gun crime in gun banned areas (like schools, post offices, etc.) then places like the previously mentioned town in Texas?

Another problem is that every goddamn statistic in this country proves people that think like me right! Yet, somehow we are always friggin' wrong... Mr. Heston is right. Without the 2nd Amendment the rest of our "rights" are worthless.

One last thing. It is very simple but often overlooked.

Rights- Self ownership, God given, not granted, it is YOURS, OURS, MINE.
Privilege - Granted by a higher power, can be taken away, not enjoyed by ALL.

A bit crewed I know... But do see the point I'm trying to make?



posted on Mar, 26 2007 @ 11:12 AM
link   
you know the reason it's called an amendment is because someone decided the original constitution needed amending. It always amuses me when people hold up amendments as proof of the unchangeable unquestionable nature of the constitution when they're basically holding up the very thing that proves it can ( and should ) be changed and questioned.



posted on Mar, 26 2007 @ 11:19 AM
link   
"Why would you suspect they would buy a gun legally, which can be traced back to them, and commit a crime with it"

Possibly because people do, all the time. The perfectly sober intelligent guy who applies for a licence and carries a gun easily turns into the drunken homicidal idiot when he comes home and finds his wife shagging the postman.

Less guns = less gun crime. Full stop. It's not a hard equation regardless of where you stand on the issue.



posted on Mar, 26 2007 @ 11:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by grover
[ generally speaking guns concealed or not have no place in church. And to carry a concealed weapon into a bar? Give me a break. That is just plain dumb. Guns and alcohol just do not mix. Ask Dick Cheney's hunting partners. And with all the shootings in schools allowing kids to take their guns with them is...absurd in my book.

The only one that makes sense is government offices.


couldnt agree with you more on that.

church, who needs a gun in church on any level? when is the last time there was any type of violent crime in church?

bars? self explanetory there.

schools? again, no need to go there

dont get me started on various govt offices.


spuggy, i respect your opinions but disagree with you on just about every level possible. nothing personal against you, but i disagree.



posted on Mar, 26 2007 @ 11:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by Spuggy
you know the reason it's called an amendment is because someone decided the original constitution needed amending.


Are you serious??? Do you know what the Bill of Rights are?

You need some education.


Originally posted by Spuggy
Less guns = less gun crime. Full stop. It's not a hard equation regardless of where you stand on the issue.


You are so wrong and misinformed it is truly appalling!!! Do you live in the U.S.?


originally posted by thisguyrightthere
Remember what happened with prohibition? See how well the "war on drugs" is going? You want to put guns into the same place?


Yes... Let's fight another war that can't be won. Raise taxes for this war too. How many do we have going on right now? Three maybe? It's ridiculous...


[edit on 26-3-2007 by LostSailor]





new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join