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.

 

Survey: Should we be allowed to have guns?

page: 1
4
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 19 2008 @ 11:25 PM
link   
What do you think, should we? Do you think we should have hand guns? What are your general views on the subject?
or




posted on Mar, 19 2008 @ 11:30 PM
link   
I'm not particularly fond of handguns, or any guns for that matter, but I believe that the sane, stable, law-abiding citizens should be able to have one if they want it. Key words there are sane, stable, and law-abiding. There are some people who should never be allowed within fifty feet of a fire-arm, but the majority of gun owners aren't going to go on crazy shooting sprees. My husband owns two handguns and a shotgun and made sure I know how to work all of them just in case the need should ever arise. I'd rather have one and not need it then need it and not have it.



posted on Mar, 19 2008 @ 11:31 PM
link   
Absolutely, yes.
Gun owners are citizens, non gun owners are subjects. I pack a concealed and licensed .45 every day.



posted on Mar, 19 2008 @ 11:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by sumperson
What do you think, should we? Do you think we should have hand guns? What are your general views on the subject?
or


This isn't directed towards you its just a general point,


But the better question would be who and what gives you the power and or ability to tell me what I can and cannot own?



posted on Mar, 19 2008 @ 11:43 PM
link   
I believe it is a right of the people to own guns, although I will admit that I really dont know much on the subject. I really need to do some research before I say yes or no.


What exactly is the supreme court ruling on? a ban on guns? A nation wide ban or what? What is the situation? can some one please fill me in?



posted on Mar, 20 2008 @ 02:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by gimme_some_truth
I believe it is a right of the people to own guns, although I will admit that I really dont know much on the subject. I really need to do some research before I say yes or no.


What exactly is the supreme court ruling on? a ban on guns? A nation wide ban or what? What is the situation? can some one please fill me in?


District of Columbia v. Heller came about because the District of Columbia has the most restrictive gun control laws in the U.S. Private citizens cannot own handguns, and any long guns (rifles or shotguns) must be either trigger locked or disassembled, with ammunition stored separately. Mr. Heller (a security guard by trade) wanted to keep a handgun in his home for personal defense. He challenged the gun ban as unconstitutional, and an appellate court agreed with him.

The arguments on both sides are fairly straightforward (as such things go). Mr. Heller contends that the second amendment gives him the right to keep and bear arms, not just on the job, but for personal defense.

The District of Columbia contends that the second amendment does not confer a right to keep and bear arms on any specific person, but instead, grants a 'collective right' to 'the people'...and that to exercise that right, one must be part of 'a well-regulated militia' (read: Police, National Guard, or military).

Personally, I'm a firm believer in the right to keep and bear, as long as one is willing to bear the responsibility along with the firearm. I do wish that Heller's legal team had based their challenge on the ninth and fourteenth amendments, rather than the second, simply to avoid any linkage between service in a 'well-regulated militia' and the right to keep and bear arms.

Regardless of one's opinion on gun ownership, the District's position should scare the frog juice out of anyone with an ounce of common sense, in my opinion. The idea that *any* right exists only in some 'collective' form is anathema to the very concepts upon which this country was founded. Once the legal precedent of 'collective rights' exists, what's going to stop the Courts from deciding that other rights are only 'collective' in nature? Imagine the implications of interpreting the first amendment in the same way that the District wishes to interpret the second. There would be a 'collective right' to free speech, and free assembly, but no individual (or only a restricted group of individuals) could lay claim to that right. That, essentially, means that the right does not exist.

[edit on 20-3-2008 by Brother Stormhammer]

[edit on 20-3-2008 by Brother Stormhammer]



posted on Mar, 20 2008 @ 08:45 AM
link   
Yes people should be allowed to own guns. Guns are not the problem, as evident by the low amount of gun crime in Finland despite the high number of guns per person. It's the people behind the guns that are the problem.

In the last few years, this are the list of excuses I have heard blamed for violence:

Poverty
Being labeled a criminal
Oppression
Inanimate objects (guns)
Schools
Peer groups
Parents
Lack of morals in society
The media
Video games

And that is just off the top of my head. Personally, I think any reason, aside from self defense, is not good enough to absolve someone of taking another persons life. If you even say the individual is to blame in my Criminology class however, you get treated like a heretic.


[edit on 20-3-2008 by AlliterationAshley]



posted on Mar, 20 2008 @ 09:31 AM
link   
Yes, I believe that law-abiding private citizens should be allowed to own handguns and rifles. However, I also believe that the states should be allowed to regulate the ownership of these weapons.



posted on Mar, 20 2008 @ 09:34 AM
link   
As a British Citizen, i do infact believe that handguns at least should be made available to the general public, so long as the general public agrees to sign up for licensing.

Nothing would please me more for a person to pull a knife on me if i had a pistol.



posted on Mar, 20 2008 @ 10:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Throbber

Nothing would please me more for a person to pull a knife on me if i had a pistol.


Strange you should mention that, Throbber. I had exactly that happen as I was leaving the office late one night. As soon as I pulled my gun, my would-be mugger set a new world record for the 100 meter dash. No shot was fired, and this old fella was unharmed.



posted on Mar, 20 2008 @ 10:10 AM
link   
reply to post by TheAvenger
 


Sounds like the kind of things that would result in either a knife-fight or a short-lived confrontation over here in England mate.



posted on Mar, 20 2008 @ 10:15 AM
link   
I hate guns. They are only good for killing. But I believe the general public should be allowed to own a firearm. I will probably buy one when I am old enough, even though I hate them
. The worlds getting worse and worse every day. I want to be able to defend myself.



posted on Mar, 20 2008 @ 10:18 AM
link   
This Nation was created by a group of men who revolted against their government for many reasons. One reason is that their government attempted to disarm them. When they had the chance to forbid their new government from ever disarming their citizens, they made sure they did. it"s possible that some in our government are now beginning to fall into the tyrannaical trap that all governments do over time. They would be much further along have if they knew the citizens were not capable of armed resistance.



posted on Mar, 20 2008 @ 11:09 AM
link   
I can see DC's perspective in only by the fact they feel obligated to protect about 699 individuals that could be labeled as "enemies of the People" and dealt with in a rapid and unjust manner called vigilante justice by a single individual or small group.

In such a situation where a large group of oh say 10,000 minimum come in to deal with direct and unyielding problem. For example, China calls in all the IOU’s due and the Federal government gives away a section of the country like California or all profits of say the steel industry or outlaws a particular competing industry like textiles to stave of a war, then such a gross abuse of misrepresentation would require an immediate and firm correction by the people.

In cases such as that, I would feel sorry for the officer that tried to enforce DC’s local law. And here lays the problem, DC is not a state and therefore it becomes a grey area as Heller could just say Article 4, Section 2 and walk out with his pistol because the debate would be over. However since it is a local law and DC is not a state, constitutionally Congress would had to have made the gun ban law and since Congress drafted the bill and the President would have to sign it for it to be a law in the first place because of Article 4, Section 3. Unless there is already such a law that allows the local government of DC to make such laws with autonomy, in which there had to be some provision that did not allow DC to circumvent constitutional rights to its citizens that citizens in other states and cities enjoy.

This case before the Supreme Court will be an interesting ruling because if rules that individuals do not have the right to keep and bear arms then it goes against the foundation of the Bill of Rights and could instigate reaction in the People. If it rules that DC is not a state and has the power to create a law that is in opposition of the Constitution then it just granted a title of nobility and could instigate reaction in the People. Of course given the current level of apathy in the People. No one will care nor notice the ruling unless enforcement is attempted and people start shooting cops and the media tells us why the psychos are not following the new law and radical talk show hosts urge their listeners to jam the phone line of Congress calling your Senator and local mis-Representative to correct the Supreme Court ruling or you will not vote them back into office when they are up for re-election.

Suddenly I feel like I am in the cartoon “Rabbit Seasoning”
Bugs: It's true, Doc; I'm a rabbit alright. Would you like to shoot me now or wait 'til you get home?
Daffy: Shoot him now! Shoot him now!
Bugs: You keep outta this! He doesn't have to shoot you now!
Daffy: He does so have to shoot me now! [to Elmer] I demand that you shoot me now!



posted on Mar, 20 2008 @ 12:05 PM
link   
Should we be allowed to have guns? My response is, no-one should have the power or authority to deny any individual the right or the means to defend him/herself anywhere in the World.
However, most of us are denied this basic right, which does not make it right.
Regards,
Horsegiver.



posted on Mar, 20 2008 @ 06:41 PM
link   
I don't own a gun, never fired a gun and would be IRATE if the RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS was taken away. Criminals have 'em to commit crimes, law abiding citizens should be allowed to have them to kill criminals that intend to do them harm. There, no debate needed. Close the thread.



posted on Mar, 20 2008 @ 06:44 PM
link   
Yup, I believe we should be allowed to own firearms.

If the government tried to take them, they would only get them from my cold dead hands.

-Will



posted on Mar, 20 2008 @ 07:11 PM
link   
thanks to law, even though can own arms, they can be siezed during martial law. That's what will ultimately happen, just like in New Orleans after Katrina.

I personally don't see a problem with having arms, but The mass programming of violence needs to stop. No matter how violent our nautre supposedly is, the mass imput of violence is not a help...



posted on Mar, 20 2008 @ 07:26 PM
link   
we should be able to have fully automatic assault rifles or any arms if we want to.
It was supposed to be a right. There are already regulations and laws against the type of arms you can or cannot have,(never seemed to make any difference to the people I know) this to me already contradicts the constitution.
Guns dont kill people. People kill people.
I say issue a gun to everyone and require them to carry it at all times; before too long, all the unstable people will have killed each other off, and then guns would be looked at as the tool they are.
Or people would smarten up knowing everyone has one.

But right now, the people most likely wouldn't even stand a chance against the government if the government was needing to be revolted against, just because of such laws restricting arms. Its not supposed to be that way. That was the point of the constitution wasn't it? To make sure the people could defend themselves against the government if it was ever needed?







posted on Mar, 20 2008 @ 07:29 PM
link   
reply to post by sumperson
 


It's a matter of personal prefference. Me personally I don't like guns and I think ranged weapons for the most part are for cowards who aren't man enough to fight in close combat and really put their lives on the line. I myself preffer swords as they require a lot od self discipline, respect, technique and a lot of practice practice practice.

Now, if you phrased the question "should citizens be allowed to defend themselves using weapons" then I say absolutely. Our fore fathers knew that this country could easily fall prey to corruption and dictators, and as such, wrote in the second ammendment in the constitution as a way of reminding the people "HEY! YOU'RE IN CHARGE! NOT THE PRESIDENT! HE WORKS FOR YOU! NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND!"




top topics



 
4
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join