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.

 

Coming soon- Restrictions on Ammo.

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 27 2008 @ 02:02 PM
link   
reply to post by LoneWeasel
 


But what proportion of the 34 homicides that will be committed today in the US were carried out by "determined killers"? How many would not have happened had the guns not been there? 10? 20? 5? Unless you can categorically state that all of those murders would have occured with or without the guns, doesn't your point border on the absurd?


More importantly, how many of those 34 homicides are carried out by lawfully carrying citizens? I admittedly don't have a source at the moment, but can say with certainty that the percentage is lower than ten. Also, an interesting exercise would be to find out how many of the 34 who were killed were armed at the time of being shot. Bet you find a very low number.


The end result is the same. X buys a gun to kill someone, not to hunt. I'm suggesting that is sufficient reason to consider preventing X from owning the gun at all.


So if I'm X, and the bad guy is Y, and I'm not allowed to lawfully purchase a firearm, what do I do when Y breaks into my house with his illegally obtained firearm and goes after K? ("K" for "Kid") Should I wave a steak knife at him?


I think the aim should be to prevent people from purchasing guns who are doing so solely with the intention of using them to harm another person. You could start by banning all weapons not recognised as sporting firearms by hunting organisations. While hunting rabbits with an AK47 on one level sounds to me like it would be quite funny, I suspect it's a passtime best left to cartoons..


On the contrary, it is the guns that are purchased to kill another person that are the most important! Again - when Y (the bad guy) knocks down my front door sporting a Hi-Point .45 that he bought out of the trunk of a local gangbanger for $50, should I try to sneak up behind him with a length of 2x4, or should I do the smart thing and use one hand to dial 911 while the other hand is cocking the S&W? What would make you feel more safe?



Nothing wrong with getting drunk. Something wrong with getting drunk enough to drive a car when you know you shouldn't. It's quite a simple concept.


Let's substitute a few words in the above statement...

"Nothing wrong with owning a gun. Something wrong with owning a gun and firing it when you know you shouldn't. It's quite a simple concept."

Your argument that car related deaths are inadmissable in an argument regarding gun crime is invalidated by the above statement, as you've used the previous poster's own point in order to argue against him. The object is that banning a gun from the hands of a lawful, responsible person is just as absurd as banning a car from a lawful, responsible person. Cars, by every possible measure kill more people than guns.

The moral here is that those of us who choose to ensure the safety of our family in the most efficient, reasonable ways should not be frowned upon, or looked upon as a suspect by the "Powers that Be" - nor should our ability to do so ever be hindered. Quoth the Great and Strange Mr. Nugent... (paraphrasing) "What gives me the right to own a gun? My family and I were given life. And I have the right to protect them from others who would take it away. That's all the 'right' I need."




posted on Jun, 27 2008 @ 02:14 PM
link   
reply to post by pernox
 



You made the point I was getting at pernox, thank you. I tip my hat to you and give you big thumbs up.



posted on Jun, 27 2008 @ 02:38 PM
link   
Heh, right, they're going to ban everything now, calling it a weapon. Bread could be used to choke someone..



posted on Jun, 29 2008 @ 05:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by pernox
Also, an interesting exercise would be to find out how many of the 34 who were killed were armed at the time of being shot. Bet you find a very low number.


You're right - that would be a very interesting exercise. I've had a quick look on the web and can't find any stats that break the figures down in that way - most sites seem to have a simple agenda of shocking people into thinking guns are a bad idea full stop with high numbers, of course, which I would agree does not constitute a good argument. However, my suspicion is that I would NOT find a low number. On the contrary, I suspect a gun is only fired when the threat of its being fired alone is not sufficient to put off the opponent. But I would like to see if there are any stats, if only to stand corrected. Do any ATSers have any advice on where to find such info?




The end result is the same. X buys a gun to kill someone, not to hunt. I'm suggesting that is sufficient reason to consider preventing X from owning the gun at all.


Again - when Y (the bad guy) knocks down my front door sporting a Hi-Point .45 that he bought out of the trunk of a local gangbanger for $50, should I try to sneak up behind him with a length of 2x4, or should I do the smart thing and use one hand to dial 911 while the other hand is cocking the S&W? What would make you feel more safe?


I accept the argument that says that you would feel safer with a gun when attacked than you would a sponge. But I want to go back further than that. Put simply, I live in an area I would dare to presume is just as likely to throw up the scenario you envisage. But I wonder, actually, how many gun owners are actually likely to have it happen to them. What are the odds on Y banging down your front door? I'm sorry, I accept the logic of your argument, but I just don't think it justifies what I'm suggesting is the flip side of it - the deaths caused, whether they be homicides, suicides, accidents, or whatever, by the prevalence of guns in a society.



Nothing wrong with getting drunk. Something wrong with getting drunk enough to drive a car when you know you shouldn't. It's quite a simple concept.


Let's substitute a few words in the above statement...

"Nothing wrong with owning a gun. Something wrong with owning a gun and firing it when you know you shouldn't. It's quite a simple concept."

Your argument that car related deaths are inadmissable in an argument regarding gun crime is invalidated by the above statement, as you've used the previous poster's own point in order to argue against him.



With respect, that's not wholly fair. For a start, I didn't say "inadmissable", I said "disingenuous". The difference may be subtle, but it's there - I was simply pointing out that the "intent" of ownership is different between cars and guns, responsible citizen or otherwise. Therefore the way you deal with the deaths caused by said objects is necessarily different. A car is not solely purchased to cause injury. A gun is. There is, therefore, a greater logic in banning guns than in banning cars, even if cars cause more deaths than guns.



The moral here is that those of us who choose to ensure the safety of our family in the most efficient, reasonable ways should not be frowned upon, or looked upon as a suspect by the "Powers that Be" - nor should our ability to do so ever be hindered. Quoth the Great and Strange Mr. Nugent... (paraphrasing) "What gives me the right to own a gun? My family and I were given life. And I have the right to protect them from others who would take it away. That's all the 'right' I need."


I think Mr Nugent puts the argument more convincingly than I have seen elsewhere in this thread. But I think you confuse the point of my post, which you seem to see as the taking of a moral highground, but was actually intented to be a defence of the arguments for banning handguns. If my child had been killed as a result of a hand gun that was legally owned, I would at least want the argument explored, not dismissed out of hand as some sort of attack on the fundamental rights of Americans. I don't frown on you for owning a gun. I'm just saying it's worth listening to any argument that seeks to protect life. I accept that's why you own a gun. I don't accept that's why every legal gun owner does.

LW

[edit on 29-6-2008 by LoneWeasel]



posted on Jun, 29 2008 @ 07:09 PM
link   
According to various FBI and law enforcement statistics, on average there are up to one million uses of a firearm in the US to PREVENT a crime. Most of these are simply due to a homeowner or business owner brandishing the firearm. In addition, in those states that allow concealed carry, crime and gun death rates are lower then those states with strict gun control. I don't have time currently to pull the statistcs or sources, but I will try to later.

I notice that most of the arguments against guns are by posters who, by the very nature of their posts, have little or no real firearms knowledge or training or experience. In addition, they seem to be guided primarily by irrational fear.

"Fear of weapons is a sign of sexual immaturity" Freud.



posted on Jun, 29 2008 @ 07:45 PM
link   
reply to post by irongunner
 


Pelosi certainly is a C U Next Tuesday!


[edit on 29-6-2008 by En4cer]



posted on Jun, 29 2008 @ 08:22 PM
link   
reply to post by LoneWeasel
 

Ok I'll enter the fray to add a different "pro gun ownership" perspective.
#1 I shoot guns in competition, handguns in particular, it is my hobby and I'm quite good at it, I expend thousands of rounds of ammo a year just to keep up with the competition, so there's the reason I need alot of ammo.
#2 I have twice in my life pulled a gun on a street thug attempting to rob me. both times I never had to shoot and they just turned and fled, all this with a gun you claimed was designed just to kill someone.
#3 In the United States we have firearms for another reason, to keep liberal socialist Gov't types in check, not pretty but I'll bet the citizens in Zimbabwe wished they still had theirs like they did back when it was Rhodesia.
#4 I have many other arms mostly for recreation, guns aren't just for killing anymore you can actually have fun shooting innanimate targets!
Very commendable of you wishing to represent the "antigun" crowd but infringing on my hobby because of irresponsible or criminal people just doesn't sit too well with me. It's still illegal to murder someone, no need to make the device illegal. Those who don't have the rights or don't exercise their rights should not be so quick to ask for someone elses to be taken.
Last I checked there was no"right to drive" or and we had a big blow up over the right to drink alcohol, hard to put the cat back in the bag isn't it!



posted on Jun, 30 2008 @ 04:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Anonymous ATS
I notice that most of the arguments against guns are by posters who, by the very nature of their posts, have little or no real firearms knowledge or training or experience. In addition, they seem to be guided primarily by irrational fear.

"Fear of weapons is a sign of sexual immaturity" Freud.



Hang on - as far as I can see, the only vaguely anti guns posts have come from me. And my point has been merely to defend the right of anti gun campaigners not have their argument dismissed. Who's the irrationally fearful one, Mr Anonymous?!

Thanks for the Freud point too, that's really made me think - maybe I'm only writing this because I'm not getting enough loving. Or maybe that's a stupid thing to say.

Racegunz - I think all of your points are entirely valid with the exception of point 3. I'd be interested to know how many of the posters on this thread who share your point of view applaud that particular aspect of your argument, though...are you saying the pro-gun/anti-gun argument is split largely down political lines? That would be very revealing, I think.

An excellent appraisal of the situation in Zimbabwe, flawed only by its facile simplicity, innaccuracy and frightening lack of realism.

LW

LW



posted on Jun, 30 2008 @ 05:04 AM
link   
reply to post by racegunz
 


Another reason you own a gun is for the anti gun liberals?

Jesus, if ever there was an example of right wing propaganda working.

Liberal voting democrat who owns a gun here. I , and neither do most liberals,in and out of office, don't want to take the ability to own a firearm away. But I take offense to the post that one of the reasons for owning a firearm is to keep us liberals in check. Last time I checked, its Bush's policies that cause the lives of thousands of american soldiers. Not liberal policies.

Despite the many misnomers about liberals being socialists, you couldnt be farther from the truth. I worked for Gore's election team in So. Cal and Kerry's in so cal. I also worked for Hillary Clinton here in Vegas. And I plan on voting for Obama. BUT NEVER would I be in favor of changing anything in our Bill of Rights. And neither would anyone the democrats put in office. ITs just a fear tactic argument used by the right to try and scare themselves some votes. No one remembers, but Gore had EXACTLY the same views on gun rights as Bush.

I understand liberals are trying to change gun laws these days, and most of those proposals I Agree with. Some I dont. Bu to think they are doing it for any other reason than to protect the young and innocent is naive or slander. They dont want to repeal the 2nd amendment as some will say, they just want to keep the streets safe. You can agree or not with their tactics, but don't go accusing them of O'reilly names, like being socialists.



posted on Jun, 30 2008 @ 05:06 AM
link   
reply to post by racegunz
 


And a read your quote just now. Quite revealing on your personality. How ironic that it was a gun that assassinated two of our greatest presidents.



posted on Jun, 30 2008 @ 10:08 PM
link   
Umm the signature is a joke you know?( ina few years i could fill in the name with Bu**) and I did say "socialist and liberals", they do go hand in hand in my experience but I also agree there are exceptions. I guess we have a different outlook or perhaps I could have worded #3 better so as not to offend, sorry if it did.
I stand by what I said about Zimbabwe if it seems simplistic to you well maybe because it is really a simple thing , unarmed people are easily intimidated and murdered, that's just a fact.
Again I was not meaning to insult anyone's political leanings as I agree with some of both sides of the prevelant party system but I trust neither.
I was attempting to add my perspective as a responsible gun owner with 3 kids, a wife, 1 dog, 1 cat, and no criminal record. Just a guy who happens to like firearms, and freedom, I wish to give up neither. Be happy


[edit on 30-6-2008 by racegunz]



posted on Jun, 30 2008 @ 11:13 PM
link   
reply to post by racegunz
 


Joking about the assassination of a president, dead or alive, democrat or republican, is probably the most un-patriotic, un-american thing one can do. I dont care if they are all illuminati and Bilderburg members. Its not a joke to kid about assassinating someone you don't agree with. I think W. Bush is the worst thing that ever happened to this great country, but I would be saddened if a day ever came where he was assassinated.

To your comment about how socialist and liberal go hand in hand.. Sir, open up a political science book and re-read the section on socialism and marxism. Then flip to the end of the book and re read the sections on liberalism. THEY DO NOT go hand in hand just because Bill O'Reilly, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity,Micheal Savage, and Mark Levine say so.

If you agree with some aspects of both parties and dont trust either, why the need to bash the left? Fair and balanced I presume...?



Gun ownership is a right in this country. But the idea that the democrats want to limit where this right can be used isnt a socialist left wing movement to communism. They are trying to protect the young and innocent. You can disagree, fine... Vote against the democrats, its your right as an American. It is not your right to slander. So because you might think a democrat wanting to restrict guns near a school is socialism, doesn't make it so. And yelling it, is just another fear tactic used to dissuade people from proper investigation into what the truth really is.

Democrats are not coming after people like you and me sir, law abiding gun owners. They are going after people who will endanger others by obtaining a gun.

Edit for Sean Hannity

[edit on 30-6-2008 by bknapple32]



posted on Jul, 1 2008 @ 03:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by bknapple32
Gun ownership is a right in this country. But the idea that the democrats want to limit where this right can be used isnt a socialist left wing movement to communism. They are trying to protect the young and innocent. You can disagree, fine... Vote against the democrats, its your right as an American. It is not your right to slander. So because you might think a democrat wanting to restrict guns near a school is socialism, doesn't make it so. And yelling it, is just another fear tactic used to dissuade people from proper investigation into what the truth really is.


Ah - I thought as much, bknapple. It IS possible to be a gun owner and not dismiss out of hand the arguments of those who would want to see tougher regulation of firearms. That's good news, because it means the topic can be debated freely and reasonably without recourse to insecure rantings about the loss of freedoms, and the need for all Americans to remain armed and ready for combat.... I particularly agree with your final point. Earlier I was accused of being "irrationally fearful" on account of the nature of my argument. But it seems to me the most obvious demonstration of irrational fear in this thread comes from those who won't even listen to the arguments that counter their own beliefs.

In response to the point from racegunz that the situation in Zimbabwe would be better and safer if its citizens had more guns... all I can say is this ignores the evidence of more or less all occasions of national unrest and violence in any country in the world in any part of human history - and particularly in Africa. Other than that it's spot on.

LW



posted on Jul, 1 2008 @ 04:35 AM
link   
reply to post by LoneWeasel
 


Thanks, I was going to stay away from this topic until I read the whole... I own a gun to keep left wing socialists in check.



posted on Jul, 1 2008 @ 04:42 AM
link   
Now I don't live in the US, but this thread is very interesting, because I read another post on another website yesterday by a man claiming to be a Los Angeles police officer who said that in LA there was a 1 year wait for .223 bullets for his AR15. Can anyone confirm this?

1 year might be too late...



posted on Jul, 1 2008 @ 08:18 AM
link   
reply to post by NuclearPaul
 


There does seem to be a shortage due to the war. Here's an article that may explain why.
www.mtairynews.com...



posted on Jul, 1 2008 @ 10:53 AM
link   
reply to post by racegunz
 


LoneWeasel and others,

The significant difference in this country and yours is that firearm ownership here in the USA is a right ..not a privelege. THe people here are the sovereigns...we are not subjects.

This changes the perspective of Law considerably. It also goes along with a presumption of innocence...not guilt...or guilt by possibly.....even the possibility of harming another.

In nations where he laws are based on the law of the sovereign...the presumption is one of guilt and you must prove your innocence.

Along with this presumption of innocense...in America...is also the right to own private property. Guns are property..private property. This is a very different status at law than in other countrys where the law of the sovereign is the norm.

Rights are very different from priveleges.

What our lawmakers in their wisdom are trying to do is called Phariseeism...by a slight of hand with the law ..substitute our Individual Sovereign Rights with the law of the Feudal Sovereign. This is Feudalism..not Americanism. And yes...one poster had it correct...communism/marxism is a variation of feudalism...where the government is the sovereign and all others are subjects. This is no different than feudalism.
Once one understands the law of the sovereign and feudalism...everything becomes quite clear.

Feudalism ..or the Law of the Sovereign is an anathema to knowlegable Americans. What our public education systems are attempting to do here is follow the European models and just like a Pharisee....substitute the Law of the Sovereign for American Rights. Substitute privileges granted by the Sovereign for our Individual Sovereign Rights.

We have the right to own firearms here in America...a right given by God not by Government. We also have the right if we choose not to own a firearm....given by God. It is up to us..not a psuedo feudal Pharisee.

What the Pharisees are historically known for among those knowlegable in the fingerprint is counterfitting. The Pharisees are known to substitute the traditions of men for the Word of God and even attempted to overlay this tradition/counterfit...on top of the Law of Moses...and attempt to pass it off as if it was in Fact the Law of Moses when it is no such thing.

We have lots of Pharisees in our Government.

What many of our leaders are attempting to do here is by some emotional appeal..pass of this psuedo higher morality in place of the Rights granted to us by God in the expression of our Governing Document...the Constitution of the United States.

What many of our leaders in this vein are doing is Counterfitting...Just like a Pharisee.

We Americans have Rights here. Many of us are vigilant and trained in spotting counterfits of all types. We have taught ourselves to spot a counterfit because we have determined that this is a dicipline our government will not teach to us.

Furthermore LoneWeasel...all governments historically ..are against their peoples and for the government. This is the predictable track record of all governments....no exceptions. It is obvious to many of us that a governments prime directive is to protect the government ..not the people...but the government first..and always.
Under our government and those who wrote the charter of our government this protection of of the government for the government is called mischief.

Outside of hunting and self protection, it is known and written here by our founders. that this is the prime reason for ownership of firearms..to protect us from our own government. This too is never taught to our young people in public schools..in lieu of the Law of the Sovereign.

For those of you not versed in certain thinkings ..ammunition is getting scarce and high priced because so much of the raw materials are being used and removed off the public markets in preparation for war. The war has not arrived here as of yet no matter what the media would have you think. There is and has been a quiet world wide push ..to manufacture ammunition of all types and it is reflected in the scarcity and price of these raw materials.
The local constabularys are feeling this crunch.

Those of you who can think further than the next sound bite on the boob tube or radio...should get your ammuntion supplies while they are still available. Many Americans have firearms..most do not have a good supply of ammunition.
However...one coming concept...so beware. If the ammunition trend continues in many local constbularys. The public may be better armed than the local constabulary...for they, the local constabulary, will be low on ammunition. In otherwords..dont count on them to protect you.
Try thinking what this implys..dont emote here.

Oh..and on this subject...LoneWeasel...how much ammunition is enough you ask? That is a private decision. Just like any private property...it is private and none of yours or my buisness what another person/persons do with their moneys.

The ability to regulate any right ..is the ability to regulate it out of existance...in name only. Historically governments have shown a remarkable ability to this trend/fingerprint. This is not a line of thinking taught in public schools which are also financed by government. Why would they ever want to teach us enough to put light on them??

We are a nation of Rights..not priveleges granted by a Sovereign. That is the big difference here in America. We are not intrested in the Law of the Soverieign nor Feudalism.

IN the future ..beware of our own government,in like manner of the Pharisees, attempting to substitue/counterfit the Feudal Law of the Sovereign for the Rights of Americans under the Constitution of the United States.

Thanks to all for thier posts,
Orangetom



posted on Jul, 1 2008 @ 11:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by orangetom1999
The significant difference in this country and yours is that firearm ownership here in the USA is a right ..not a privelege. THe people here are the sovereigns...we are not subjects.

This changes the perspective of Law considerably. It also goes along with a presumption of innocence...not guilt...or guilt by possibly.....even the possibility of harming another.

In nations where he laws are based on the law of the sovereign...the presumption is one of guilt and you must prove your innocence.
Rights are very different from priveleges.

We have the right to own firearms here in America...a right given by God not by Government. We also have the right if we choose not to own a firearm....given by God. It is up to us..not a psuedo feudal Pharisee.


I actually felt I'd made my understanding of this siginificant difference quite clear in an earlier post, but thanks in any case for the exposition. I'm afraid I don't accept that you have a God-given right to a firearm. I think that's actually an absurd concept. But I totally respect your right to that belief, if nothing else. My own argument would be that a more fundamental right to life exists, if any do at all, in the world and that anything that in any way threatens that right deserves at least to be questioned. Which is all I'm suggesting should be done here.



Furthermore LoneWeasel...all governments historically ..are against their peoples and for the government.


If we assume this is so - to clarify - are you saying you are armed against your own government? How do you estimate that your gun will protect you against your government if and when it chooses to bend you to its will by force?



Oh..and on this subject...LoneWeasel...how much ammunition is enough you ask? That is a private decision. Just like any private property...it is private and none of yours or my buisness what another person/persons do with their moneys.


Dear oh dear. I was asking a simple question out of curiosity, not to judge the poster in anyway - I didn't think it was like asking for an inside leg measurement.

I happen to believe that if you buy a commodity that has the professed purpose of injuring or killing other members of the society in which you live, that decision becomes a matter of public significance rather than private. So shoot me.

But I understand your point about the sovereignty of the individual. I just don't think it works, practically, anymore.

Thanks for your post.

LW



posted on Jul, 1 2008 @ 12:36 PM
link   
reply to post by LoneWeasel
 


LoneWeasel,


I'm afraid I don't accept that you have a God-given right to a firearm. I think that's actually an absurd concept. But I totally respect your right to that belief, if nothing else


No problem here with me. I understood this concept as a working principle of your's from the begining of your posts. I've had this conversation many times with peoples from the continent and down under...all under the Law of the Sovereign. They know nothing else. That is ok..in their countrys. It does not wash here.


My own argument would be that a more fundamental right to life exists, if any do at all, in the world and that anything that in any way threatens that right deserves at least to be questioned. Which is all I'm suggesting should be done here.


Now you are moving into Phariseeism.
Americans dont have a problem with the fundamental right to life. What we do have a problem with is the fundamental right to life at the expense of my right to life. My Rights!! Understand?? We choose as a Right not to modify our Rights to ease someone elses insecuritys. Understand this concept?? Very important.

Also concerning the body politic...they dont care one whit about Rights verses their ability to get elected and re elected. They will whore out anyone and anything for a chance at the office. If this means keeping the public dumb and on their emotional rollercoaster ...so be it.

The 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution has been just such a emotional jag for predatory politicians wont to put the insecure public on an emotional rollercoaster/ treadmill. ..promising them security when they can in fact and are able to do nothing of the kind. Hence they are no different than a Pharisee... a counterfitter....all of them.

The publics right to life and safety do not come over my rights to life and safety ..understand this concept??? My confidence in my government ..federal, state and local government in this arena ..is Zero whence concerns the security and safety of me and mine.


Dear oh dear. I was asking a simple question out of curiosity, not to judge the poster in anyway - I didn't think it was like asking for an inside leg measurement.

I happen to believe that if you buy a commodity that has the professed purpose of injuring or killing other members of the society in which you live, that decision becomes a matter of public significance rather than private. So shoot me.


LOL LOL LOL...LoneWeasel. Im sorry but your response is so emotional...and predictable. If I had only thought about it in that light prior to posting I would have more carefully worded my statements.

My emphasis in the posting I made was simply on Privacy...not emotions.
Sorry to see you misread it. You see LoneWeasel, to me and also other Americans, Privacy is at odds with natural curiosity. You understand this concept too ..Yes??

Americans also believe in a fundamental right to Privacy. Hence..private property..not public property. Ownership of Private property..is a basic fundamental Right of an American. Firearms are also private property. All other rights are predicated on the abiliity to own/acquire property in Private..not public or at the will of the Sovereign.
We do not run around asking..."Yes Governor" 'By your leave Governor?"

Concerning this statement of yours LoneWeasel...


I happen to believe that if you buy a commodity that has the professed purpose of injuring or killing other members of the society in which you live, that decision becomes a matter of public significance rather than private. So shoot me.


I suppose I should tell you LoneWeasel...that my occupation is that of a Nuclear Fueler. I put Fuel Cells in Nuclear Reactors on these Aircraft Carrriers and Submarines we build here.

And you would be concerned with me having a firearm and ammunition in my hands??

I Suggest very strongly that you rethink your prioritys here. There is something very twisted and sick about a government who would trust me to pick up a firearm to go and fight a foreign war for them...but would not trust me with a firearm of my own. Then would trust me to handle a nuclear fuel cell...and I mean by this here, up close and personal.

I hope you can understand these concepts outside of emotions and public school thinking...insecuritys.

Not all of us here on ATS/BTS/PTS live in the world of shopping stores and soccer stadiums...television/movie thinking. No matter how logical and reasonable one attempts to phrase the debate it is always Rights verses Privileges. Americanism verses Feudalism. We are not a Feudal people as Yanks.
Counterfits/Phariseeism can also be made to look very logical and resasonable unless one is trained in a different line of thinking. History is replete with this example.

Thanks for your post.
Orangetom



posted on Jul, 1 2008 @ 01:47 PM
link   
reply to post by orangetom1999
 


Orange, your posting is all to simplistic. You ignore every argument the left gives on gun restrictions. It is not feudalism. It is the interpretation of the constitution. I am a gun owner but Im not oblivious to the fact that the 2nd ammendment was made in a time of war against a tyrannous king across the sea. This also at a time where British soldiers tried walking our streets and telling us what to do with the end of a rifle. The 2nd ammendment was made almost out of fear the the British would resume that kind of bullying, and the next time we would at least be prepared to fight back immediately.

As you said it was also made to defend us against our own government. Hypothetically speaking, if we were to rise against our own gov, the military could do it for us. And dont spout off how they would take orders and stand up against us. If the time ever came for such a confrontation Id have to assume the cause is so righteous that even our own military would rise up against the government. And on the alternative, do you really think whatever we have available to us would ever beat our own military? No, and is the answer make more guns available? No, even with all the guns at our disposal, the training our military has far outweighs anything we could do.


If only the far leaning could see that this gun legislation is just to control it for safety and nothing more. Dear sir, gun rights are not GOD GIVEN. They are given to you by your government. God did not write the constitution, MEN DID. The United States OF America gives you your right to a gun, no one else. And anyone saying otherwise is delusional.




top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join