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.

 

Removal of the Right to Bear Arms

page: 4
3
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 13 2007 @ 07:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by geocom
That would not happen in my neck of the woods to many rednecks and we all know each other so I don't see it happening here... not enough lawmen here to enforce that kind of thing and not enough National Guard either

Same here. It would be like old Lincoln County days.




posted on Dec, 13 2007 @ 07:12 AM
link   
There are some that believe that the government wants to disarm us to control us and to prevent their overthrow if/when we get fed up with abuses. I just want to point out that overthrowing any government is illegal. The silly thing is, if you are in the mindset that you want to lead a coup or armed uprising against the government, you are already breaking the law. And breaking that law is a lot more serious than possessing an illegal firearm. If you are ready to fight your government, then something on paper that says "you can't have guns" isn't going to stop you. America is nowhere near that point, and it probably never will be.

The people who want to disarm society honestly believe it will make things less violent. It isn't part of a larger conspiracy (such as to prevent a coup). They refuse to acknowledge the simple fact that criminals are criminals because they don't care about the law. So making guns illegal just leaves the honest people wide open. The criminals will get their guns. Maybe they have to pay more. Example: drugs are illegal, but how easy is it to find them?



posted on Dec, 13 2007 @ 07:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by Grozny07
The people who want to disarm society honestly believe it will make things less violent. It isn't part of a larger conspiracy (such as to prevent a coup). They refuse to acknowledge the simple fact that criminals are criminals because they don't care about the law. So making guns illegal just leaves the honest people wide open. The criminals will get their guns. Maybe they have to pay more. Example: drugs are illegal, but how easy is it to find them?


I've seen this argument repeated over and over in this thread and I find it to be a little illogical. Sure it would be hard to remove all guns - it would take years and years to achieve - but the bottom line is that the current system you have is not working. Saying there's no point removing the guns because they're too widespread is like saying we shouldn't tidy up an oil slick because we won't catch all the oil.

The basic fact of the matter is that gun crime leads to more deaths and injuries in countries with legal gun ownership than in countries that don't. Gun crime in England and Wales is actually on the rise, and even here there were "only" 0.38 homicides/suicides per 100,000 people as a result of guns in 2002. In 2001 in the US that figure was 10.26. It's simple maths.

I take the point about "honest" people being more at risk without a means to defend themselves - but if you genuinely feel that the most efficient means to defend yourself against a gun-wielding criminal is to have a better gun, I think you're missing the point. You cannot give up on criminals with guns - you must put more effort into removing them from the streets. Sure, you'll never do away with it entirely, but if you manage to reduce the statistic even by one death in a hundred thousand every year, it's worth it.

Guns don't kill, people do - but I think the guns help.



posted on Dec, 13 2007 @ 07:37 AM
link   
And if it's not guns, we'll go to knife crime. Or people will hit their victims with cars. The genie is out of the bottle. Even if all gun manufacture ceases in the US, guns will still get into the country. Our borders are so porous we couldn't even find a nuclear warhead, let alone a shipment of guns. It's absolutely impossible to put even a dent in the black market, let alone stop it entirely.

I'll agree that guns make crime and killing easier, but this is a problem that will never go away. Countries that ban firearms (like the UK) certainly see a decrease in gun violence, but there are still guns there. The police can't be everywhere, and they can't always get to the scene in time to save you. Look at all the massacres (Virginia Tech, the churches, malls, etc.). Armed citizens could have intervened and stopped the violence with violence. Killing is a horrible thing, but there are times when it is a necessary evil. When you are attacked, you have literally seconds to make a move, not the three to five minutes it takes for law enforcement to come to the rescue.

They need to enforce the gun laws already in place. I'm even all for ballistic fingerprinting and full gun registration. Up the age to purchase a rifle from 18 to 21. Make it hard to get a gun. Then the people who legally own them will be less likely to commit a crime with them, since they've demonstrated responsibility and a clean background. Taking them away is just not a good idea.

It goes beyond the self defense aspect. Think of the impact on the economy and environment. Think how many people are employed by the industry. Think of all the money spent on shooting hobbies. Additionally, many state environmental agencies generate a respectable amount of money from hunting licenses, which is, in turn, invested in various programs.



posted on Dec, 13 2007 @ 08:09 AM
link   
“Smokinbbl” you calling me ignorant…………………….lol


“lets say that America is going to be invaded by the Japs, or the Chinease, or who the mexican drug cortel..” this is exactly what I’m talking about……this stupid, primitive thinking, what would happen if this country attacks us or this…

If people keep up this mentality, there will be no world peace EVER…EVEERRRR……

This is how Nazi Germany started, they thought everyone was against them, surrounded by enemies…..

NOBODY is going to attack America, no one wants to, name one country that’s evaded America, how many times has America evaded another country….

Australia is basically gunless………. and there are NO police talking advantage of that fact….so if we can we a gunless society with no police taking advantage, why can’t the same be off America..? Why the hostility, we are both multicultural, racism can’t be it…….

“I feel sorry for anyone naive enough to think anything other than that would happen if guns were banned.”

As I’ve said look at Australia………

“We're talking about citizens having the right to protect themselves from the emergence of a tyrannical government.”

Why is everyone paranoid of the government…..WTF…….NWO, nothing’s going to happen that’s bad……if anything no wars, everyone would be united…….unites states, united kingdom, united world…………

One last thing….this really confuses me……the constitution was written hundreds of years ago…….why do people defend something written that many years ago…..yes you can change it, but the bases of the bill of rights and all people defend as if it is god’s word……..as I said the Amero is already signed so it’s just a matter of time…..

“what should people do when someone invades their home?”

I’m going to answer that when I’ve got more time………in a long ass response…


[edit on 13-12-2007 by andre18]



posted on Dec, 13 2007 @ 08:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Grozny07
It goes beyond the self defense aspect. Think of the impact on the economy and environment. Think how many people are employed by the industry. Think of all the money spent on shooting hobbies. Additionally, many state environmental agencies generate a respectable amount of money from hunting licenses, which is, in turn, invested in various programs.


With respect, the opium industry is crucial to the Afghan economy as well - at a certain point, you have to say, tough luck - get a proper job.



posted on Dec, 13 2007 @ 08:39 AM
link   
I was thinking the same thing the other day... Is the NWO getting into certain peoples heads and putting them in a state to kill others? It may sound crazy and it may not be the case but I would have to agree 100% on this one. GREAT POST.



posted on Dec, 13 2007 @ 08:50 AM
link   
And what constitutes a proper job? Because for me, it's any job that you go to, work hard at, and get an honest day's pay for. And that sure sounds like what a factory worker does. The number of jobs open to people without a college degree is sinking. Sometimes a job manufacturing, say, firearms, is the only thing open to some.

Besides, there are a lot of other industries that do harm that honest people work in. Tobacco and alcohol come to mind. You want to tell them to "get a proper job" as well? It sucks, but you have to do what you can to survive.

As an aside, I'd be interested to see the correlation between how many people have had their life threatened in some sort of confrontation (that they did not cause themselves) and those that have never been in a situation, and how that has influenced their feelings about weapons for self-defense.

Besides that, we are all going to have to agree to disagree. The people that haven't experienced the violence of this world will continue to view weapons as abhorrent, and those of us that have seen that nastier side of things will continue to want to protect ourselves, our loved ones, and innocent bystanders.



posted on Dec, 13 2007 @ 08:57 AM
link   
Let's outlaw McDonalds also as in the next five years they will be responsible for far more deaths than anything else in America

yeah sounds like a good idea to me kinda like FEMA getting water to people in New Orleans ( took 5 days) yep I want to count on them to protect me from home invasion...

I guess I have to say that if not having firearms works for you then great but our government has let us down far more than it has helped us and it is not necessarily that we are paranoid but they have proven time and again that they can't take care of us in an acceptable amount of time..so we do in fact have to look after ourselves.


Respectfully
GEO

[edit on 12/13/2007 by geocom]

[edit on 12/13/2007 by geocom]



posted on Dec, 13 2007 @ 09:02 AM
link   
Although I don't need a gun myself, I suppose taking the right away from people and allowing the government to have them is probably not a good thing



posted on Dec, 13 2007 @ 09:04 AM
link   
Not to be mean, xenophobic, or ethnocentric, this topic is really one for discussion by Americans. After all, it's our country and our constitution that will have to change. It's our shores, our lives, our places of work, and our homes that are threatened by American gun violence.

I'm not targeting anyone in particular. I'm just pointing out the fact that people (myself included) keep pointing out the success/failures of other countries' gun control programs. That is that nation's business. In some cultures (like Japan), it works pretty well. In other cultures, it does not. What is good or bad for the UK or Australia does not necessarily translate to the United States.

Just something to think about.



posted on Dec, 13 2007 @ 09:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Grozny07

I'm not targeting anyone in particular. I'm just pointing out the fact that people (myself included) keep pointing out the success/failures of other countries' gun control programs. That is that nation's business. In some cultures (like Japan), it works pretty well. In other cultures, it does not. What is good or bad for the UK or Australia does not necessarily translate to the United States.


That's an entirely reasonable point, and I accept it. If you'll forgive me for continuing my input, I would like just to raise one or two issues with the arguments you've put forward.

First of all, there's always a tendency for a slightly macho "I know what violence is" attitude to infuse the pro-gun side of the debate - at least where the issue of self-defence comes up. For what it's worth, I live in the middle of one of the toughest estates in South London, where gun crime is a real and daily problem. I think I know what voilence is. My experience of it suggests that the only way to overcome it is to get an entire community working together to rid themselves of the problem. That might sound like wishy washy clap trap to you, but as a fact it stands thus. The government does not have the means or power to rid the country of guns - a community sick of being terrorised does - but it only works if everyone in the community is onside. Far from being impossible, this is proven to have worked in the past. I accept that the US is a different place with a different attitude to these things, but I see no reason why the model could not be a success if given a chance.

As for the comparison to the tobacco industry, I'm afraid that, yes, I do think that people must accept that if they work for an industry that kills people, their jobs may be threatened if it's decided that the killing must stop. Of course that process needs to be carefully managed, but as I said before, if we allowed the opium industry to continue simply to keep Afgahan poppy field workers in jobs, we'd be causing far more problems than we solve.

On a separate note, I'd be interested to know if people on these boards own more than one gun - and why.



posted on Dec, 13 2007 @ 09:34 AM
link   
I believe that people who have been traumatized by a personal attack are likely to be proponents of self-defense. There are states here in the US that don't even allow a person to possess a stun gun or more than 1/4 oz. of pepper spray. Tell me that denying those people even non-lethal means of self-defense isn't setting up victims. Criminals will know that their target won't even have a stun-gun, and they then become more brazen.

I was in the military and now work in a related field, but I've also been unlucky enough to have someone enter my apartment while I was home. I used to own five guns, but now I own three (two handguns and one rifle). For me, it was more of a collection interest. I collected examples of historical military weapons (for example, I had a Mosin-Nagant made in 1915 in the US for the Russian tsar). I only keep one gun for self-defense. I keep it loaded with Jacketed Hollow Points not for greater lethality, but so that if I miss due to stress, the round won't go through the walls of the apartments and injure neighbors.

I wholeheartedly agree that when a neighborhood bands together they can affect change. There are many success stories of this happening. The type of violence I'm referring to, however, relates to random violence in places that everyone thought were safe. Malls, suburbia, etc.

America is a weird place.

Edit: The opinions of citizens from other countries are always welcome. I was just pointing out that Americans are the only people that can resolve the issue of the 2nd Amendment in America. I will, however, concede that the 2nd Amendment was written at a time when having a gun was almost mandatory to survival.

[edit on 13-12-2007 by Grozny07]



posted on Dec, 13 2007 @ 09:39 AM
link   
reply to post by Grozny07
 


Well said Thumbs up to you..

Respectfully
GEO



posted on Dec, 13 2007 @ 09:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by andre18
This is how Nazi Germany started, they thought everyone was against them, surrounded by enemies…..


Oh really??? Listen, you're entitled to your OPINION but you are not entitled to present that opinion as fact. None of us are. I summize that you are very young (18?) and very inexperienced. When I was 18, some 37 years ago, I thought I knew how things worked. It takes awhile to realize how little you know. It works the same for all of us.

The first thing you owe us (since you cited the 'fact') is to research the origin of Nazi Germany and what it was. That is very important. Especially these days. Your assertion cited above is just plain wrong. Sorry.

The second thing you need to do, since you (like our current President) are writing off the Constitution and BOR as anachronistic, is to find out WHY of all rights to bestow on a citizenry the founders were so adamant about including the right to bear arms. Don't assume you know becuase it is eveident you do not. Actually do some research. You will see that most of the arguments you've put forward will be immediately mooted.



posted on Dec, 13 2007 @ 09:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Grozny07
America is a weird place.


And a big place, of course - I think one of the problems Europeans have when attempting to lecture the US on its own domestic policy is that they have no respect for the difference in culture between New York and Texas, say, or Alaska and Florida. It's not the same as comparing Manchester to London.

That said, I think we are going to have to conclude that we agree to differ. I accept what you say about victims being set up. I've never (touch wood) been the victim of gun crime, though I am surrounded by it, unfortunately. I'm sure if I'd been shot at I'd wish I could shoot back.

But to my mind the answer has to be to work on the criminals. I couldn't myself accept a society that felt so unprotected as to take the law into its own hands, though I understand that such societies exist.

LW



posted on Dec, 13 2007 @ 09:46 AM
link   
Well Dar Commisar jackboot brownshirt thug... I sold all of my guns recently and I have none


And when they try to enter my home I will fill them with so much lead they will need a crane and a forklift to carry their carcasses from my property!


And to the fools espousing the ignorance of the ages that eliminating all guns negates the need for guns doesn't have even a precursory knowledge of history or such comments would never be made. Unarmed citizens become political prisoners to despotic tyrants! Learn a little, drop the bleeding heart liberal idealism, yank yer head from yer keisters and get grounded in reality. An armed populace keeps government in check. Don't just keep your guns, keep 'em near you!



posted on Dec, 13 2007 @ 09:49 AM
link   
Thanks Geo.

It's entirely bizarre how weapons laws work here in the US. Sometimes the states make additional laws. For example, in my state, it is illegal to own a stun gun, baton, or any of (and this is verbatim from the law), "the so-called 'kung fu' weapons".

Okay, so I can't have a taser, but I can own a semi-auto AK-47? In what world does that line of reasoning make sense?

Those who want to abolish the 2nd amendment don't understand firearms. For example, they based the assault weapons ban on how the rifle looked! If it looked aggressive, they banned it. How on earth does a rifle sporting a pistol grip (like an AR-15) in any way make it more of a threat? What was the deal with the high-capacity magazine ban? A person could only have 10 rounds instead of 15 or 30 in a magazine. What is that helping to solve? That person just has to reload a little more frequently...

The laws just don't make sense.



posted on Dec, 13 2007 @ 09:51 AM
link   
Keep in mind he or she (don't know don't care) is a kid (if 18 is what we think it is) and we all knew so much more when we were 18 and couldn't be told any different either...


Respectfully,
GEO

[edit on 12/13/2007 by geocom]



posted on Dec, 13 2007 @ 09:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Grozny07
I just want to point out that overthrowing any government is illegal.


From the Declaration of Independence:


...it is in the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and to institute a 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.


It also appears in various states Constitutions such as New Hampshire, Kentucky, Tennessee and North Carolina to name a few.


Whenever the ends of government are perverted, and public liberty manifestly endangered, and all other means of redress are ineffectual, the people may, and of right ought to reform the old, or establish a new government. The doctrine of nonresistance against arbitrary power, and oppression, is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind.



All power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority and instituted for their peace, safety, happiness and the protection of property. For the advancement of these ends, they have at all times an inalienable and indefeasible right to alter, reform or abolish their government in such manner as they may deem proper.



Then there is the simple fact that if you are rebelling against your government what that government deems legal or illegal is moot. You're attempting to overthrow a government. You'll either be successful thereby any claim that government had to your actions being illegal would have no validity or worth or you'll end up being killed. If your dead what does it matter if a law was "broken?"

It's like saying that a states secession from the union is "illegal." The state has already stated it will have nothing to do with the union so how the hell can the unions "law" possibly be applied? If the union doesn't want a state seceding it's only option is to invade the state and reclaim it as part of the union.

The question of legality when discussing rebellion is of no value and has no meaning. That's sort of the point of rebellion.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join