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.

 

Gun Control and Freedom

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 28 2004 @ 08:58 PM
link   
Wow! Some very good arguments indeed. I've been working on our new house so I just now got home to check ATS. The different opinions on our 2nd amendment has peaked my interest to the point that I want to research the verbage and court precedents (if any) behind it.




posted on Feb, 28 2004 @ 09:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by JustAnIllusion
Why take away guns?? Guns dont kill people, people kill people. Even if you take away guns, theyll find some other weapon.

Yeah, but have you ever seen anyone kill people with a drive by stabbing?

How about a multiple murder at a school with a basball bat?

You can overpower people with knives, bats etc but you cant if they have automatic weapons.



posted on Feb, 28 2004 @ 09:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rabbit
Thats just the thing, if your neighbor has one, you know not to mess with him right ? So if you know everyone has a machine gun, people would know not to mess with each other or they get blasted. The country would be much safer if EVERYONE had a gun. You think someone would want to rob you as much if they knew for a fact you have a gun ? I doubt it.

isnt that what everyone thought about nuclear weapons?

If someone was going to mess with me, Id rather do it fist to fist than gun to gun.



posted on Feb, 28 2004 @ 09:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by titian
Precisely why we can not lose our right to bear arms. The criminal side will always find a way to obtain what they need so long as there exists a unit of currency.

Not here, years go by in my city without any gun crime whatsover.



posted on Feb, 28 2004 @ 09:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Amuk



I would not feel comfortable knowing that my next door neighbor has a machine gun, I don't know why anyone would.


Would not bother me a bit as a mater of fact he does......LOL

The neighbors on both sides of me are armed and it just makes me more relaxed when I am not home knowing I have two armed people watching my house while I am gone. I guess it depends on how you feel toward your neighbors

I wonder how you would feel if they thought you slept with their wife?
How about if they thought you molested their children?



posted on Feb, 28 2004 @ 09:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
Thorfin, my mistake for not injecting a smiley face. I figured you'd see that I was being humorous. Just like a bedwetter to need a smiley face!
(Note, the laughing face, indicating more friendly jabbing.


No problem. Might just wanna make your humor more apparent in the future.



As far as the Dick act, it does not alter the constitution, nor does it alter the Bill of Rights. That would take an amendment. Your lack of understanding may deny you of your rights, and your lack of historical fact may allow you to believe that the National Guard is the militia, and you might think that it stands to reason that the ones paid by the government should keep check the government, but that is clearly not the intention of the Founding Fathers. Who misled me? Read the Federalist Papers. Learn.


I admit. Here is where I am uniformed. The Federalist Papers are on my "to do" list of reading...

But all things aside. How can humans evolve until we get past our desire for guns and war? It may sound idealistic, but because we can't look past our primal desire to kill is the only reason it sounds idealistic.

We may be advancing by leaps and bounds in technology. But we are at a stand still as far as evolution goes.

How often has a new technology been discovered that someone hasn't tried to pervert into a weapon?


It actually takes more than one person in the government to use a special weapon. And again, that would not happen. But hey, if you really think there is no chance of protecting yourself from the arbitrary and tyrannical government the Founding Fathers warned us about, and insured we would be able to be armed so as to keep them in check, abandon all hope and go grovel at the mighty god Government's feet. As far as many of us, we do not feel that way. Thankfully, for everyone, including you.


In all fairness. Yes, the public could over run the government with just sheer numbers.

But would the American people band together to do such a thing? It takes very little effort to seperate the American people into warring factions. And that's how they keep us inline. By splitting us up into financial groups or sexual preference groups and so on...

The American public have been #ed over so long in this country I think they don't know any better. How much corruption in the government is it going to take to wake people up to the fact that this is no longer our country.

Who's to say that as long as the government continues to keep people ignorant to thier wrong doings that things won't continue as they have for the next several centuries?



posted on Feb, 28 2004 @ 09:57 PM
link   
Thomas old buddy, the Federalist papers were propaganda to get people to agree to the constitution, they do not accurately project what the founding fathers intended for the constitution to be. If you want something accurate, make a time machine and go back and ask them.

Besides, what your talking about occured over 200 years ago, things change, the circumstances regarding our decisions and laws have to change to keep up.



posted on Feb, 29 2004 @ 06:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Flyer

Originally posted by Amuk



I would not feel comfortable knowing that my next door neighbor has a machine gun, I don't know why anyone would.


Would not bother me a bit as a mater of fact he does......LOL

The neighbors on both sides of me are armed and it just makes me more relaxed when I am not home knowing I have two armed people watching my house while I am gone. I guess it depends on how you feel toward your neighbors

I wonder how you would feel if they thought you slept with their wife?
How about if they thought you molested their children?



It seems to me that its only a problem if you want to sleep with their wife or molest their children.

Are you saying that owning a gun will help stop people from raping your wife and children?

And this is bad how?



posted on Mar, 1 2004 @ 03:19 AM
link   
I too believe the second amendment was put in as a last resort against a tyranical goverment.

I have no problems with people owning any kind of guns as long as they are competent to have one. I believe in Switzerland all men have to do a couple years in the military & after their done they take their guns home with them. I don't have a problem with automatic guns as long as their only available competent ex-military, police officers etc.

Even if there is a battle someday at first the government may lie and manipulate the military & police forces to fight for them, but eventually most of them will be fighting with us as they are us - (the government is supposed to be us too). Therefore we not be fighting againts our own guys with superior weapons. We may be fighting with our guys against an international force though.

It sure would be nice if getting rid of guns from the public would make everything peachy & nice, but that is an illusion that I don't & never will buy.



posted on Mar, 1 2004 @ 03:55 AM
link   
as has been stated the right to bear arms is just that...OUR RIGHT AS A US CITIZEN TO OWN WEAPONS!

It is the most important right we have in this country - yes, THE MOST IMPORTANT - because it allows us to physically uphold our rights, from both foriegn and local powers, both weak and powerful.

I am sick and tired of nancy ass liberals telling me i dont need my AR-15, or i don't need my browning HP with laser sight! It is my RIGHT and I will exercise that right!

The whole automatic gun point is the dumbest argument i have ever heard! It is these same people who know NOTHING about guns. They don't even realize that my scary AR-15 has LESS stoping power AKA LESS LETHALITY then any bolt action that a deer hunter would use!

I know one of these liberals....he is a good friend of mine. After his roomate was shot by a crack head in there house, he got straped too. As was said before - if everyone had many guns in this country we would all be safer, because criminals would know that they will get shot!

The best example of this is lookiing at major US cities w/ and without gun carry laws. It's no coincidence that DC has the highest murder rate in the country - you arent allowed to carry, and if im not mistaken, you can no longer even buy pistols there! Then you look at a state like florida - they recently started allowing people to carry (i believe in the mid 90's - not sure, but if needed i will find a link) and all of a sudden tourists started getting mugged, while residents experienced less crime. Why? Because criminals realized that tourists wouldnt have guns, but locals might!

Sorry for going on and on, but the fact that people even debate this makes me want to



posted on Mar, 1 2004 @ 05:00 AM
link   
Thorfin, I don't think the people will ever get beyond the desire for power, wealth and control. People in control will always want more control.

As far as the people banding together and actually doing something when the need arises, they must have that option to use. As long as there is that relief, whether we use it or not. My opinion? When they try and take away our 401(k) and our cable TV they'll be in a world of trouble.



posted on Mar, 1 2004 @ 07:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Amuk
It seems to me that its only a problem if you want to sleep with their wife or molest their children.

Are you saying that owning a gun will help stop people from raping your wife and children?

And this is bad how?


No, Im saying what if your machine gun owning neighbour wrongly thought you had molested his children or slept with his wife.



posted on Mar, 1 2004 @ 07:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Flyer

Originally posted by Amuk
It seems to me that its only a problem if you want to sleep with their wife or molest their children.

Are you saying that owning a gun will help stop people from raping your wife and children?

And this is bad how?


No, Im saying what if your machine gun owning neighbour wrongly thought you had molested his children or slept with his wife.


I dont matter if he has a gun or not. If he is a killer, hes a killer. period.



posted on Mar, 1 2004 @ 11:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by MrJingles
Thomas old buddy, the Federalist papers were propaganda to get people to agree to the constitution, they do not accurately project what the founding fathers intended for the constitution to be. If you want something accurate, make a time machine and go back and ask them.

Besides, what your talking about occured over 200 years ago, things change, the circumstances regarding our decisions and laws have to change to keep up.





Propaganda? Try explanation and reasons behind their actions.
As far as things changing, the one thing that stays consistent no matter how technology progresses is the evil in the hearts of men. That, sir, has not changed in the 229 years of this country's existence.

As far as going back in time to ask them what their intentions were, that is impossible as most rational people know. Therefore, I read. I comprehend. Now, if I wanted to try and subvert the nation, I'd cover everything they wrote with the blanket of "propanda". I see no need in that. None of their motives were bad for the nation, and the changes that have come down the pike are not necessarily good for the nation and should not be held as reason for the Founding Fathers' vision to be tossed. Quite the opposite.



posted on Mar, 1 2004 @ 01:32 PM
link   
I did some searching on the 2nd amendment and its verbage. Here's an interesting article from a person who used a language expert to interpret the grammar of the second amendment. According to the author:

"He's on the usage panel of the American Heritage Dictionary, and Merriam Webster's Usage Dictionary frequently cites him as an expert. Copperud's fifth book on usage, American Usage and Style: The Consensus, has been in continuous print from Van Nostrand Reinhold since 1981, and is the winner of the Association of American Publishers' Humanities Award. "

Source: www.2asisters.org...



posted on Mar, 1 2004 @ 04:19 PM
link   


I dont matter if he has a gun or not. If he is a killer, hes a killer. period.


I could not have said it better, but I would like to add that unless you are trying to entice his wife or children into your bed its VERY doubtful this will happen. Since I have no desires for either its a chance I am more than willing to take. Recently one of our neighbors stopped a man trying to break into a lone womans house a couple houses away. He held him there till the police arrived, the woman was home and the man was a three time convicted rapist, why dont you ask her what she thinks about guns in the neighborhood?



posted on Mar, 1 2004 @ 04:25 PM
link   

Recently one of our neighbors stopped a man trying to break into a lone womans house a couple houses away. He held him there till the police arrived, the woman was home and the man was a three time convicted rapist, why dont you ask her what she thinks about guns in the neighborhood?

The silence is deafening.



posted on Mar, 1 2004 @ 04:35 PM
link   
We in the U.S. have the right to bear arms..period..end of discusion...


try to take all of our weapons and I know the america as we all know will cease to exist.I dont want to live in america if we are not allowed to have our weapons.



posted on Mar, 1 2004 @ 05:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Fry2

Recently one of our neighbors stopped a man trying to break into a lone womans house a couple houses away. He held him there till the police arrived, the woman was home and the man was a three time convicted rapist, why dont you ask her what she thinks about guns in the neighborhood?

The silence is deafening.


so what your saying is that as long as everyone in society is holding a gun up to the head of everyone else there will be no crime. i dont find that entirely appealing. developed society cannot rely on vigilantes to fight crime.

the most potent part of the example told is the lenient sentences given to sex offenders when they are statistically the most likely to reoffend.



posted on Mar, 1 2004 @ 05:19 PM
link   


i dont find that entirely appealing. developed society cannot rely on vigilantes to fight crime.


Its pretty obvious you cant reley on the police to do it either. I would rather my neighbor be there than hope my wife can get to the phone during her rape to call the police.

I wonder if the woman would have found being raped and maybe killed more appealing than releying on a so called vigilante?



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join