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.


Survey: Should we be allowed to have guns?

page: 2
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in


posted on Mar, 20 2008 @ 07:36 PM

I think we should be allowed the right to decide if we want to have guns (hand or long) as long as we are rational, law abiding citizens. I hate that there are people in my state that think that nobody should have guns, and that I should not have them to be able to defend my family or myself. This is not only bull, but unconstitutional (sp). I own many guns from when I lived in Kentucky, some are fully automatic, (I had my permits when I lived in Kentucky) I also have a CCW permit from every state that allows non-resident CCW's. I believe that as long as you are not a criminal, have no record, pass the background check, and quallify at the range 4 times a year, then there is no reason that I shouldn't be able to carry either CCW or open. Here in Illinois we have no provision for CCW unless you are active or retired law enforcement, but we don't have any law on the books that state that you can't carry open. But just try it, the cops will be all over you before you get your front door locked. They will arrest you for "brandishing a firearm in public" (I had a friend that got arrested for just that, the charges were dropped but he never got his gun back) even though you have it holstered. I always thought that the definition of the word brandish meant to wave around or to threaten. But what do I know, I'm just a law abiding citizen.

I have heard the best argument for citizens having guns.
"If you make it a crime to own a gun, then only the criminals will have them!"
Kinda makes me sick, how about you?

posted on Mar, 20 2008 @ 07:43 PM
right to bear arms.... Damn Straight! I want the right to give a good punch in the gut to an official who doesnt have americans in mind when makin decisions as well.

We are a country that became such by standing up for what we believed in an having the means to follow thru with those beliefs, you take that right away from us an you will be declearing america a dictator state. Simply becuz it was a right to begin with one that helped found this country, And anyone who wants to take that right away has negitive reasons to do such.

Im a American, Not a American't.....

[edit on 20-3-2008 by Trance Optic]

posted on Mar, 20 2008 @ 07:50 PM

Originally posted by TheAvenger

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.

Brilliant! Crime prevention in action.

If [insert adjectival expletive] New Labour wanted to be tough on crime, this is what they would do.

Sadly, i cant ever see guns returning to Britain. Hell, since the 50s the state hasnt allowed even the most law abiding men to carry guns. Even the goddamn police arent armed here, what hope do we regular tommys have?

Its even worse for me, because i shoot .22 long rifles competitively. I was/ am the 2nd best shot in my age group in the entire country... well in for a shot at the 2012 olympics. But since last year i havent been able to shoot because the procedure for getting even a .22 rifle is cumbersome and impossible for me since there is no rifle range nearby.

In short, if you have the right- never, never give it up. On pain of death dont surrender your weapons. If they want them, let them get it from your cold dead hands.

And if you live in Britain, i see no choice but to leave this country for one where the government isnt so pathetic that it makes me angry to even think about them. I may well be trying to head across the atlantic for this very reason.

posted on Mar, 20 2008 @ 08:06 PM
Not only do I believe in an individuals right to bear arms I also believe some of the laws on the books regulating arms are absolutley rediculous. Look at California and New York City as examples of this. The fact that this is even going to the supreme court is totally rediculous but since it is we should mobilize and amend the 2nd to state that no state may infringe upon these rights in any way. I also believe that for the most part we should be able to purchase and own any type of small arms currently in use by our military and with some amount of regulation a militia should be able to hold in their collective virtually any type of military hardware in use by our military with the exception of WMD's.


posted on Mar, 20 2008 @ 08:12 PM
Every person has the right to protect their person, property and right in the pursuit of happiness. Guns are a very real deterrent toward people seeking to take what is rightfully yours. So yes, people should be allowed to own and use guns.

A responsible person will learn to use, clean, maintain and store guns properly. Sadly, there are a lot of "cowboys" out there that ruin protection for the rest of us creating forums to argue in support or against.

I will always carry a weapon until the day I die or peace finally becomes the norm.

posted on Mar, 20 2008 @ 08:19 PM

If you take all the guns away from law abiding citizens, your left only with armed criminals.

Guns don't kill people. Bullets do.

posted on Mar, 20 2008 @ 09:18 PM
reply to post by sumperson

"but I believe that the sane, stable, law-abiding citizens should be able to have one if they want it."

Who is to decide who is Sane and stable, and just how sane and stable should one be - be very careful with generalizations on this subject. And who would be considered one who abides in the law, and what laws broken should be disqualifiers. Would a person who follows the Constituition be considered unlawful? thats a fair question. Is the seat belt law constitutional? How about those who don't agree with unlawful taxation. Generalizations are what ultimately will find this country disarmed.

"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? "

Hello my new friend

'I will admit that I really don't know much on the subject. I really need to do some research before I say yes or no."

Thank you for your honesty

"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?"

Hello my new friend

"I also believe that the states should be allowed to regulate the ownership of these weapons. "

For you I provide this:
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.

You have this right because it is your right and no one can take it away.
Again be careful of generalizations just what is law-abiding?

"As a British Citizen, i do in fact 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."

Licensing is asking for permission. It is the right (of Americans) to bear arms - it does not require permission.

The Avenger
"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."

Are you suggesting that your possession of a gun thwarted the commission of a crime? Get it people? This is how it works. Well done !

"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."

Utilize you rights lest they be taken from you. Well done.

"it"s possible that some in our government are now beginning to fall into the tyrannical 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."

Let us learn from the mistakes of our past lest we commit them again. Historically no Dictatorship has ever moved against their people without first disarming them. Well done!

"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. "

Bingo! Well done!

"Criminals have 'em to commit crimes, law abiding citizens should be allowed to have them to kill criminals that intend to do them harm."

This is what scares a lot of gun grabbers. We don't possess guns to kill (yes they do) what will historically happen is the more people openly armed, the less people will be killed. Having a gun in your possession does not necessitate its use. Possession alone is a deterrent.

"we should be able to have fully automatic assault rifles or any arms if we want to. It was supposed to be a right. "

Absolutely correct! The balance of power must be maintained. The M-16 assault rifle in particular should be the most protected weapon of all under the 2nd.

I'm going to leave it at that. That pretty much runs the gambit. In answer to the question.

"WE ARE" absolutely allowed to have guns. No if and or buts - end of discussion.

posted on Mar, 20 2008 @ 09:25 PM
reply to post by sumperson

Unfortunately I will have to say yes.

It is part of empowerment of the people, reducing the gap between the armed forces (foreign or domestic) and the common mass.

posted on Mar, 20 2008 @ 09:45 PM
I agree, any law that affects the ability of the people to have guns is unconstitutional. However, there are a few problems that would probably arise. For one thing, when the constitution was drafted, they didn't have automatic weapons. They had muskets. A guy with a musket who went on a killing spree would probably get 1 shot off before he got his ass kicked by a bunch of pissed off people. A guy with an assault rifle though, is much more dangerous. Imagine what would happen if assault rifles were made legal and easy to buy? Kinda scary. But we NEED those weapons to keep the government in check. Because let's face it, pistols and shotguns aren't much use against soldiers with M-16's and body armor. What about tanks? Why can't I own a tank? Or artillery? Then again, a fully revolting populace even if only armed with bolt action hunting rifles, semi-auto rifles, scavenged M16's, and bombs could do a lot of damage in an urban area. In out-and-out warfare, however, they would be annihilated. Also, the part about the militia. Why oh why did they have to put that in. If it wasn't for that, the gun control advocates wouldn't have a leg to stand on. As it is, I don't see how they do, since back then, the militia was essentially the entire male population of the state, and they were expected to bring their own weapon with them when they were called up.

posted on Mar, 20 2008 @ 09:58 PM
Well I would believe the question has been answered fully. I'll just add to it. I do believe we do have the right to own & carry guns.
As it's been said if citizens don't have guns how will you protect one's self when the goverement fully takes over?
You can have my guns when you PRY MY COLD DEAD FINGERS from them.

posted on Mar, 20 2008 @ 10:03 PM
reply to post by lonemaverick

Which brings me to this point, The Anti-Gun crowd always wants to know

"Why do you need a gun like that?"

Now we of course have all the reasons in the world, but very few if any actually tell it like it is, And we all should start replying to that question like this,

"I'm a Citizen, I'm Militia"

Then walk away.

[edit on 20-3-2008 by C0le]

posted on Mar, 20 2008 @ 10:05 PM
Only if you take your drugs regularly.

posted on Mar, 20 2008 @ 10:06 PM

Nice response, KMFNWO. I am actually visiting OKC right now.

The second amendment is very ambiguous. While gun holders (like myself) feel that this is an inherent right, some people feel as if it should only be those (i.e. the government) protecting the citizens.

I think that it is important to remember that regardless of whether or not we have the right to bear arms criminals will ALWAYS have guns. Keep that in mind.

Plus, we already have legislation that prevents a number of people from owning guns. And to carry (legally) we have to go through gun safety, background checks (the brady bill).

I would never give up my gun just b/c some robot in the USSC didn't find a theoretical reason I should have it. CARRY ON!!!


posted on Mar, 20 2008 @ 10:13 PM
In fact, I went today to renew my concealed permit. It had went out in December and I had forgot to renew it. The way I look at it, the crooks are always going to have guns. If you take the guns away from everybody else, you are handing the country over to the crooks. I will always have a gun whether it is legal or not. It is wrong of the government to try to keep guns away from the law abiding citizens of this country. And like others have said, if they want my gun, they will have to pry it out of my cold dead hand.

If a crook knows that the person they are about to attack may shoot them, they will think twice before they attack.

posted on Mar, 20 2008 @ 10:32 PM
reply to post by goopity

A couple of my favorites.

We established however some, although not all its [self-government] important principles . The constitutions of most of our States assert, that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves, in all cases to which they think themselves competent, (as in electing their functionaries executive and legislative, and deciding by a jury of themselves, in all judiciary cases in which any fact is involved,) or they may act by representatives, freely and equally chosen; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed;
---Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824. Memorial Edition 16:45, Lipscomb and Bergh, editors.

No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms.
---Thomas Jefferson: Draft Virginia Constitution, 1776.

posted on Mar, 20 2008 @ 10:51 PM
People should be allowed to have the freedom to decide if they want or if they don`t. I don`t like guns, but I like less government making prohibitions.

posted on Mar, 20 2008 @ 11:12 PM
Of course people should have the power and means to defend themselves, their families and their property.

And before anyone tries to bring up the "well regulated militia" only argument, I will remind everyone that a militia is an army of citizens, and after all the bureauacracy, training, fees, and paperwork I've had to go through I consider myself part of a "well regulated" militia.

posted on Mar, 20 2008 @ 11:26 PM
I found this entry...

In U.S. history, "the whole body of men declared by law amenable to military service, without enlistment, whether armed and drilled or not" (1777).

So I would say that anyonw who is "ready or willing to answer, act, agree, or yield" to military service should be allowed to have a gun. Any gun, so long as it does not fire an explosive round. Well, even there actually, only the ammo should be illegal.

EDIT to add: And I think the "well regulated" part should fall under paying the fee and registering your weapon. I would not be against a test to go along with that to show competance. Like when you get a hunting license.

[edit on 3/20/0808 by jackinthebox]

posted on Mar, 20 2008 @ 11:26 PM
This is me answering the OP's question: "Should we be allowed to have guns?"


I do not own a gun,...but considering the way things are going,... I am considering it...seriously...

A Quote from "Starship Troopers"...

"I know what the difference between a Citizen and a civilian is now...
A Citizen has the courage to make the safety of the Human Race thier PERSONAL responsibility..."

posted on Mar, 20 2008 @ 11:44 PM
reply to post by jackinthebox

Should have added this to my previous post. After my CCW class there was also a written and shooting test. And BTW, I scored 100% ...

There were background checks. The class was $200 and the government fees for the permit were another $100. I will have to do most of it over again in 5 years.

So, you can see that I have in fact been "well regulated".

[edit on 3/20/2008 by centurion1211]

new topics

top topics

<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in