Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

"Gun Control is the Only Answer"

page: 3
13
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 16 2008 @ 01:42 AM
link   
"If guns kill people, then I can blame my pencil for spelling words wrong."
-Larry the Cable Guy

If some fat, flannel wearing redneck with a whiny voice gets it, why can't the people running this country?

The best way to reduce crime is to give every mentally stable adult American a small handgun and a license to carry. No one is going to rob a bank or shoot up a school if they know they're walking into a room full of people carrying guns. As soon as the criminal starts shooting, they'd be shot dead. It's a suicide mission.

So why are the officials in this country so adamantly against arming American citizens to protect themselves? Well, I theorize a few reasons:

1.) Nothing controls a society better than fear. Fear is the most primal of all emotions, and no society is as easily controlled as a scared society. If all Americans were armed, they would not fear these kinds of things anymore. It's easier to control the masses by ramming the thought of violent death down the throats of every American since it's completely impossible to get all the guns off the street.

2.) In case no one has noticed, we are slowly but surely losing our freedoms in America and the Constitution is slowly but surely becoming a document of minimal importance. Officials know that when the Democracy collapses and the Dictatorship is born - and it WILL happen, it has ALWAYS happened, Democracy has NEVER survived before - it'll be a lot easier to overtake the citizens with force if they are unarmed.

3.) The citizens in this country are so brainwashed by the insanely far left groups that control the media, people have lost all touch with common sense. Guns have been a scapegoat. Criminals should be sentenced lightly because it's the damn guns killing everyone, not the shooters


It's the beginning of the end
No society has fallen from the outside without falling apart inside, first. We're falling apart inside.

[edit on 16-2-2008 by ChocoTaco369]




posted on Feb, 16 2008 @ 01:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by kyred
Actually, I believe we should all be able to have state of the art automatic weapons at our disposal so we can form a militia in case of illegal goverment intervention in our contitiutional rights. I am more afraid of the government than an occasional nutjob.


While I have no problem with sane people owning guns, I fail to see the benefit of fully automatic weapons being available when there are plenty of "nutjobs" out there who would use those weapons to wreak more havoc than they already do. Why make weapons available that will allow more people to be killed in a shorter span of time. Might as well start selling grenades at Wal-mart...
I cannot think of a single logical reason why anyone would need a fully automatic weapon. Want, yes, need, no.


I don't think that guns should be banned, but I do think that a waiting period and a background check are good things to have. When my husband last bought a handgun a few years ago the background check came back in less than ten minutes and we were out the door with the gun. There was no waiting period at all, and I think there should have been. Just because my husband isn't a crazy and isn't going to go on a killing spree doesn't mean that the next guy won't either. I also think there should be some sort of check done to make sure the people buying guns are mentally stable. That would help prevent crazies from getting hold of guns, legally anyway.



posted on Feb, 16 2008 @ 02:23 AM
link   
jenna the waiting period you are talking about is exactly the same as the instacheck i said earlier. it goes thru the federal data base- just doesn't take days of paperwork. as for fully automatic weapons you can't own one unless you have a class 3 licence and from what i understand it takes many days of classes and costs over $1500 a year for the permit



posted on Feb, 16 2008 @ 03:25 AM
link   
Why are mentally unstable people being blamed? It isn't their fault that they are crazy. When I went to school I remember there was a boy who was teased every day. The bullies got away with it all the time. They're never blamed for anything and they don't even get punished hard enough. So the person who they teased starts to think that they have to be punished.
A girl was recently beaten up by some other girls in this country where I live. Noone deals with stuff like this. Or if they do then they deal with the consequenses not the reasons. The reasons of these things are what have to be dealed with.



posted on Feb, 16 2008 @ 05:32 AM
link   
Uhhhh... To the person who mentioned the UK gun ban, gun violence has QUADRUPLED since they implemented the ban. The 'home office' has been severely embarrassed by being caught covering this up just recently.

Gun control does NOTHING but embolden the already armed criminal, who knows they now have the upper hand.

These shooters in the school go to 'gun free zones' to commit these atrocities, knowing they are safe from retribution. Police act after the fact, they are not going to help you and in fact all the recent mass murders show that the police happily wait outside knowing people are being killed inside (Columbine, anyone?!)

The media is to blame for their part in glamorizing these crimes, and paying WAY too much attention to them. Why do you think these people do this?

The only answer is concealed carry everywhere, sadly that won't be how the liberals spin things as they play right into the NWO plans of the UN which quietly fund every anti group in the World to try to ban small arms from citizens across the globe.



posted on Feb, 16 2008 @ 05:33 AM
link   
Its peculiar that every time the world gets to watch corpses in body bags being hauled out of American schools and colleges, very shortly after internet forums start buzzing with Americans complaining that there are too many gun control laws.

The right to bear arms was introduced in case the British came back. The irony is that a British invasion was never a credible threat and exercising this right has slaughtered far more Americans than they would have done anyway.



posted on Feb, 16 2008 @ 05:45 AM
link   
Its like all countries, once they disarm americans, the government can do whatever they want to you. Thats what this is all about.

The police want to boot kick everyone up the back side, and not until guns are gone from american society can they fully do this to american citizans.



posted on Feb, 16 2008 @ 06:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by ruggedtoast
The right to bear arms was introduced in case the British came back. The irony is that a British invasion was never a credible threat and exercising this right has slaughtered far more Americans than they would have done anyway.


WRONG.

It's an American's job to defend his country from both foreign and 'domestic' threats. IE, the government.

I'm not American, but I lived there for fifteen years. I also owned guns, which I'm thankful for.

Here's a link you might find interesting. www.semperliber.org...

Many non-Americans believe the need to owns gun is some sort of 'cowboy' mentality. It's not.

It's in the constitution, so the American people can repel enemies of both foreign and domestic origins.

Let's say your invaded by China, what to do? Instead of being slaughtered, you have militias that help the military. Now what happens if you are being repressed by the government? (Think V for Vendetta or 1984.)

Taking away the right to bear arms won't curb any gun related deaths. Mostly, the guns used in a crime are either stolen or black market goods. (Smuggled in.) The criminals will still use them to kill innocent people who would have had a chance at defending themselves if they still had their weapons.

Shoot, even here in Norway, I can get a handgun or a full auto AK. How? Through people who smuggle them in. And we have a no rights to own guns here. (Unless you're in a hunting club, then it's ok to own a rifle. Forget owning a pistol.)

Peace,
FK



posted on Feb, 16 2008 @ 06:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by budski




A Little Gun History Lesson

In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

------------------------------ In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

--------------------------- Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated

------------------------------ China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. ---------------------------- Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. ------------------------------ Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. ------------------------------ Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million 'educated' people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. ----------------------------- Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: 56 million. ------------------------------ It has now been 12 months since gun owners in Australia were forced by new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by their own government, a program costing Australia taxpayers more than $500 million dollars. The first year results are now in: Australia-wide, homicides are up 3.2 percent Australia-wide, assaults are up 8.6 percent Australia-wide, armed robberies are up 44 percent (yes, 44 percent)! In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now up 300 percent. Note that while the law-abiding citizens turned them in, the criminals did not, and criminals still possess their guns! It will never happen here? I bet the Aussies said that too! While figures over the previous 25 years showed a steady decrease in armed robbery with firearms, this has changed drastically upward in the past 12 months, since criminals now are guaranteed that their prey is unarmed. There has also been a dramatic increase in break-ins and assaults of the ELDERLY. Australian politicians are at a loss to explain how public safety has decreased, after such monumental effort and expense was expended in successfully ridding Australian society of guns. The Australian experience and the other historical facts above prove it. You won't see this data on the US evening news, or hear politicians disseminating this information. Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws adversely affect only the law-abiding citizens. Take note my fellow Americans, before it's too late! The next time someone talks in favor of gun control, please remind him of this history lesson. With Guns...........We Are "Citizens". Without Them........We Are "Subjects". During W.W.II the Japanese decided not to invade America because they knew most Americans were ARMED ! Note: Admiral Yamamoto who crafted the attack on Pearl Harbor had attended Harvard U 1919-1921 & was Naval Attach� to the U. S. 1925-28. Most of our Navy was destroyed at Pearl Harbor & our Army had been deprived of funding & was ill prepared to defend the country.

It was reported that when asked why Japan did not follow up the Pearl Harbor attack with an invasion of the U. S. Mainland, his reply was that he had lived in the U. S. & knew that almost all households had guns. If you value your freedom, Please spread this anti-gun control message to all your friends!



posted on Feb, 16 2008 @ 06:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by budski

2nd amendment reads, according to wikipedia:
“ A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. ”

also,
"The tradition of securing a military force through a duty of universal military obligation for all able-bodied males follows from the Elizabethan era militia in England.[1][2]


Militia

Where is the need?

There isn't a need, there's a WANT......


You are missing the main point of that amendment there pal...

Let me bold it for you.. Bolded for you to look at closer

Now look, apparently Americans have lost their way.. I literally mean lost their way so bad that it isn't even funny lost their way... But the right to pear arms is very important part of this country.

I can bitch and moan about how guns killed my g/f's brother or whatever but i am not going to.. why you ask, because the right to bear arms is a greater good than a few people dying, it is preventing the government to become so out of control we would swear we were living Hitler Reign pt 2. oh wait we are nevermind..............

On a bright note if we give up our right to bear arms, all of us good people on ATS have a nice gas chamber waiting for us, complete with sexy looking shackles and gold plated shower heads.

But really, the only reason I accept the right to bear arms is because there is a greater evil than just some moron named bush. If it wasn't for that amendment the whole world would really suck.



posted on Feb, 16 2008 @ 06:51 AM
link   
It is my opinion that we already have enough Gun Control Laws. Before any more are implemented we should strive for better Border Control Laws. It doesn't make sense to implement laws that are unenforcable when the borders are so porous that anyone can smuggle a gun in. Additionally, Any law implemented in regards to gun control, should be throughly reviewed months if not years after these shootings have occurred. Emotions are just as dangerous as guns, and I don't want my "elected representatives" giving away my rights because they are ticked off.

If your an advocate for gun control, then you should be an advocate of border control. Deal with the second issue first, and eventually dealing with the first issue won't impact law abiding citizens.

Cheers,

Camain



posted on Feb, 16 2008 @ 08:00 AM
link   
Jesus all this mindless bickering and armchair drivel. I guess I'm comfy now in my chair so here goes.

My view.....accept this and move on. Obviously the brutality and callousness of these tragedies speaks volumes. This is the world we live in, deal with it. These types of crimes will continue, in some cases far worse. We can all sit back at nitpick the faults of society and what measures could have been done but short of a time machine its done. Nothing will stop this....period. No amount of gun control, supervision, social commentary whatever. All you can try to do is protect yourself and your family to the best of your ability, the rest is gonna unfold like it or not.

brill



posted on Feb, 16 2008 @ 08:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by bigfoot1212
jenna the waiting period you are talking about is exactly the same as the instacheck i said earlier. it goes thru the federal data base- just doesn't take days of paperwork. as for fully automatic weapons you can't own one unless you have a class 3 licence and from what i understand it takes many days of classes and costs over $1500 a year for the permit


Thank you, I didn't know about the classes for a fully automatic. As for the waiting period, I think it should take days not minutes to purchase a gun. Very few people actually need to have a gun in their hand the minute they walk out of a gun store. A waiting period of a few days, to me, is reasonable and might give people who would otherwise do something rash on the spur of the moment a few days to calm down and might prevent some shootings. Of course it won't prevent them all, but it would prevent some.



Originally posted by Blue10110
Why are mentally unstable people being blamed? It isn't their fault that they are crazy. When I went to school I remember there was a boy who was teased every day. The bullies got away with it all the time.


Because perfectly sane, balanced people typically don't go on random murder sprees. And yes, some people are crazy through their own fault. The drug addict who robs a store to pay for his next fix and kills the clerk, in my opinion, is mentally unstable due to their own actions. Should they not be blamed for the death of the clerk? Is being mentally unstable due to drug abuse something we should blame on the drug? Kids tease each other all the time, and yes some are merciless with it, but that doesn't excuse the kids who are teased if they show up at school and start shooting. Just because bullies get away with teasing doesn't mean the kids being teased can retaliate and it's ok. Of course that cycle could be avoided entirely if little Timmy's parents would whip his butt every once in awhile and take away privileges instead of just saying "Now, now, Timmy, that's not nice to tease other kids" and if little Bobby's parents would lock up their flipping gun so little Bobby can't get to it. But the lack of discipline in most children's lives is an entirely different issue, and I don't want to derail the thread.

Anyway, even though all crazy people are mentally unstable not all mentally unstable people are full blown crazies. There is a difference between the two and I have trouble seeing how a person who is just unhinged enough to shoot people because he's having a bad day should be able to say "Oh, it's not my fault. I'm mentally unstable" and that excuses the behavior because it wasn't his fault he was crazy.



posted on Feb, 16 2008 @ 08:47 AM
link   
I just don't see the need for the general public to own automatic weapons. I believe that the public should have access to firearms, but automatic weapons? there is just no need.

A restriction on automatic weapons and large ammo clips is not "taking away all the guns", just making the more dangerous types harder for the loonies to get a hold of.

Of course the public should never allow themselves to be completely disarmed, but the line has to be drawn somewhere. Automatic weapons are just overkill IMHO.



posted on Feb, 16 2008 @ 08:48 AM
link   
Some people seem to be whining about gun control preventing them from getting guns, whilst criminals can still get them.
Or that ''people with bad intent'' can still make them.

Well if THEY can, so can YOU.

Oh wait, some put their ''pride'' or ''non-criminal'' status on higher priority than having something to defend yourself with, right?

SO, tell me, how much is your life worth to you?
Being known as a top class member of society that never holds a gun?
Or being known as a top class member of society that can potentially be ''marked'' as a criminal IF, and only IF, someone finds out he has firearms stored in his house?

I find it funny how many people think they're so 'defenseless' if gun control gets enforced, but the fact remains that they can still make their own devices, or acquire them, just like criminals can.



posted on Feb, 16 2008 @ 08:54 AM
link   
reply to post by -0mega-
 


Guns should not be any peoples hands, no matter what circumstances there are. Yep people can find them if they want, but society could make it hard for them.

What you should be asking is what makes these people do these things. Also what happened to that black geezer last week that shot all those in that council office. WHo was haressing him and why were they doing it.

There the questions you should be asking. Is things like gang stalking, something society should do.



posted on Feb, 16 2008 @ 08:56 AM
link   
reply to post by Jenna
 


I think there are hundreds of thousands if not millions of recovering addicts and alcoholics who would disagree with you on the mentally unstable because of drug use thing, you can't just lump a group of people into a bushel barrel like you would fruits and vegetables..

In most cases the waiting period is a couple of days and at the very least 24 hours, if you can't calm down in 24 hours chances are you are not going to..

I know it sucks (there really is no elegant way to say it) but sometimes we have to just accept things and move on, using emotion or fear fear being the most common form of motivation to make decisions is just a bad idea plain and simple, some will say that they are not using fear as a motivator but I have to ask if you are not using fear as a motivator then why are we talking about this most people weren't talking about this before the latest shooting so my guess is that fear the fear of losing your life or the life of a loved one has motivated others to speak out against guns and in favor of gun control the ironic part here is that people that are so motivated to harm others will still do so they will just use another probably more destructive way to deliver the harm they intend to inflict..

Respectfully
GEO

Respectfully
GEO



posted on Feb, 16 2008 @ 09:10 AM
link   
reply to post by geocom
 




I think there are hundreds of thousands if not millions of recovering addicts and alcoholics who would disagree with you on the mentally unstable because of drug use thing, you can't just lump a group of people into a bushel barrel like you would fruits and vegetables..


There is a difference between a recovering addict and a current addict. There is also a difference between the addict who kills the clerk for money to get their next fix and the addict who doesn't. IMHO, the ones who go around killing people for money to get their next fix are indeed mentally unstable. And while it may be terribly un-politically correct of me, and possibly even considered mean of me, I do believe that people should be held accountable for their actions, that drug addiction is not an excuse for anything, and that if people really wanted to stop their addiction they could. Yes, there are exceptions and yes some people have a really hard time kicking the habit, but it can be done. I applaud those who have decided to quit doing what ever they were addicted to, but there are hundreds of thousands more who could quit, but don't. And honestly, anyone who could abuse a substance knowing full well that it can kill them but doing it anyway for a few hours of feeling good is not exactly the model of a stable person to begin with. (See, terribly un-politically correct and mean of me.) But that is my opinion, and as I said there are exceptions.



posted on Feb, 16 2008 @ 09:11 AM
link   
Two Words:

Project MKULTRA



posted on Feb, 16 2008 @ 09:13 AM
link   
reply to post by Blue10110
 


You bring up good points. Guns aren't the issue. crime is the issue. I don't think more guns or less guns eliminates crime. We need to change the mindset that our society operates under. Too selfish now, too petty. Bullies want to hurt others, and people are ok with it. they turn away from those problems because those problems don't effect them. Some don't even see it as a problem. They just think it's "kids having fun". Nobody should be having fun at the expense of another person. Walk a mile in their shoes and see if your opinion changes. Use your mind for once, try and see things from a different perspective.





new topics




 
13
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join