Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

It's official, Obama to make AWB permanent

page: 3
14
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 25 2008 @ 04:53 PM
link   
reply to post by maybereal11
 


I applaud thisguyrighttheres decision to up and move because he didnt like the law of the land. Dont like paying high taxes? Dont move to Mass. Dont like people owning guns? Move to Ca.

Obviously the ability to protect himself outweighed the other facets of his community, so he moved. To do something that drastic would take alot of soul searching. To believe so strongly in your rights to do whatever he needs to keep them is a very hard decision since he obviously has suffered monitarily and professionally for his actions.

To the Hunted. Ive seen your posts against firearms before. Yes, if some nut opens up with an uzi, there isnt much you or I can do. If someone jumps into an H2 and starts plowing through street markets, not much I can do either. Should large trucks be banned just because someone can do harm with them?

Want to update the Constitution? This has bad idea written all over it, and not just in referance to the 2nd ammendment. You are a smart guy, I dont deny that, you must know that once a government takes one right, they will continue to take more. When was the last time ANY government passed a law to give people more rights and freedoms? If you tweak the 2nd, the rest will soon follow.




posted on Sep, 25 2008 @ 05:11 PM
link   
"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."

The second clause of this amendment is the most important. Written when America had a fresh and active memory of the need to bear arms to prevent tyrannical government. Distance from that reality breeds a complacency which disarms the populace and allows, heaven forbid but never impossible, future internal threats to jeapordize those freedoms.

Read the threads concerning the suspension of the elections, the first stationing of an active battalion on domestic soil, etc. The implications and fears are far fetched, for the moment, the future is uncertain always though.

The people need the right protected to bear arms and modern arms with which they can defend against the most powerful of enemies. It's no use taking on a well armed batallion with a one shot pop gun.



posted on Sep, 25 2008 @ 05:11 PM
link   
reply to post by surfinguru
 


I applause you! The stats your provided makes for outstanding information. You go on to say that only 3% of murders are commited by rifles. Is it safe for me to assume that you are satisfied with this number? I must admit that is an awfully low percentage. But just the fact that there is room to lower that number makes me believe that more work can be done.



posted on Sep, 25 2008 @ 05:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Supercertari
"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."

The second clause of this amendment is the most important. Written when America had a fresh and active memory of the need to bear arms to prevent tyrannical government. Distance from that reality breeds a complacency which disarms the populace and allows, heaven forbid but never impossible, future internal threats to jeapordize those freedoms.

Read the threads concerning the suspension of the elections, the first stationing of an active battalion on domestic soil, etc. The implications and fears are far fetched, for the moment, the future is uncertain always though.

The people need the right protected to bear arms and modern arms with which they can defend against the most powerful of enemies. It's no use taking on a well armed batallion with a one shot pop gun.


Beautiful speech! I was very touched by it. Unfortunetly we lost the battle when we allowed our government to posses the very weapons that they are banning Iran and N. Korea from developing.

With the arsenal out military has now you are saying all civilians should posses smart bombs? Since that is the only way we would be able to defend against them. So we already failed....



posted on Sep, 25 2008 @ 06:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
reply to post by 44soulslayer
 



I always thought it was pretty ironic that any talk of bans or restrictions inevitable got more guns off the shelves and into peoples hands. Sometimes I swear the gun dealers are pushing for bans just to sell more merchandise


I think your on the right track there

it makes perfect sense. They have Alot to gain by "suggesting" bans



posted on Sep, 25 2008 @ 06:11 PM
link   
reply to post by maybereal11
 


Clintons little experiment made owning what they have always owned illegal overnight. It was a conscious decision on their parts to refuse to submit to new registration and restriction just to keep a thing in their cabinet that had always been there. Bringing them out at ranges and being loudmouths led to their eventual arrest and conviction.

I did an awful lot of "soul searching" before making the move. I had to weigh the pros and cons of staying in a high paying job complete with prestige for the easily impressed in a city many strive to live in while submitting to a law that was not only offensive to me but completely arbitrary to boot in that one could own and use firearms identical in capacity and cartridge and action but for no other reason than prejudice and bigotry could not own one specific rifle of the type or drop everything and spend out my savings to relocate to a region where I would not be paid as well, be mocked for my previous association with said university but be able to read any article, witness in action any firearm and walk into any shop in the state and purchase whatever firearm I was interested in.

Knowing an ineffective and arbitrary law was hanging over my head for no stated purpose and with no statistics on effectiveness was maddening. I contacted every state official for an explanation and answer to the inconsistencies and begging to know the purpose and effectiveness of the law that was frustrating me and not one civil servant (I refuse to call them "officials") could give me any more information than "that's the law."

That's not a good enough excuse for banning anything.

It's not like I ripped kids out of school or anything. It was just two of us who both wanted out of the state because of unjust laws. My was firearms, hers another subject entirely.



posted on Sep, 25 2008 @ 06:11 PM
link   
I began reading the snippet, but when I got to this part of the text,

"Obama and Biden also favor commonsense measures"

I had to stop. My commonsense told me that to read further would ruin dinner.



posted on Sep, 25 2008 @ 06:13 PM
link   
Hi There,

Apart from certain observations made by 'Open-Minded Skeptic', I certainly disagree with a number of the other arguments. Skeptic provides a table upon which a discussion/debate can take place between opposing philosophies on the same subject concerning not only the Second Amendment statute on the 'right to bear arms', but on the equally and oft' cited reason/s why one would want to do so. It must needs be noted that the 2nd Amendment does not bear witness to a right to 'bear arms against', but only to bear arms.

Leaving aside (for now) the actual issue of 'right', I believe that in the setting of today's contemporary idioms the deftness of the debate needs to center on the issue of 'why' one would want to be a gun owner at all? Now, from those of you whom firmly uphold to the 'right' in gun-ownership, the question I present here may seem laughable, naive, even perhaps resonate a modicum (or a lot?) of irresponsibility. Your perception at this point is something I cannot help, except perhaps to reassure myself that the reader of my observations is level-headed and reasonable, and open to discuss the debate intelligently. My only purpose in making these comments is to examine the subject enough that I may understand what I can to consider my own appraisal of the issue. I'm British, and culturally and conscientously opposed to private gun-ownership, and the reason why I am is not due to a 'fear' of guns, per se, but from a wariness of the owner.

I should suppose that I ought to explain that I perceive the gun to be nothing more than a 'tool' to expedite a small lump of metal at high-speed towards some target that is either in motion or motionless, in order to cause a detrimental effect on said target. Of itself, under its own agency (of which it has none), it can cause no detriment upon anything; ergo, the good and bad press of this implement is entirely down to the person/s that weild it. Thus, the debate is not truly about the gun, but about the gun-owner/user? Nor is it a debate about the manufacturing of guns, but about the manufacturer, and the reasons why they have and are made?

The 'right to bear arms' is equally not about the 'right' itself, but about why the 'right' is there in the first place? The answers to these questions - and I do not for one minute suggest to know them - provide the fundamental understanding to all the various arguments put forward by all sides of the debate. I'd like to suggest as a preliminary for the thread to consider two motivations that might appear at the top of the reason list why a person would exercise the 2nd Amendment's 'right to bear arms' and become a gun-owner/user...fear and distrust? Should there even be an accord pursuant to a 'right' to own a gun privately based on these two motivations?

The question is problematic for those whom say 'no', but agree to the 2nd Amendment statute on gun-ownership, simply because the statute itself was written with fear and distrust as the motivations for writing it. It was written with honourable intentions to the noblesse of protecting one's property and oneself and family from all or any that would seek to violently possess them.

For those that would answer 'yes', the question is even more problematic, because the 'right' was written by those whom could not have had any comprehension whatsoever as to how society (particularly that of America) would change, and we have no way ourselves of comprehending the Amendment's author's minds to suggest that they would consider the 'right' in the same light in today's contemporary society. We cannot speak for them, but if we are to thank them for the Amendment, surely we must firstly understand their reasons for giving it to us, and then ask...are those reasons equally valid today...and if so, why, and what does it say about us?

Best wishes



posted on Sep, 25 2008 @ 07:36 PM
link   
reply to post by elysiumfire
 


Please be reminded that it was English law that our founders looked to when they wrote our 2nd amendment. It used to be that the English citizens also had the right to self defense as a mainstay of the society. You have since taken the right of self defense away from your populace and as recourse now have one of the highest incidents of home invasion and crime ever seen in your country. When you refuse to allow your own people to protect themselves, you end up with the bad guys running the show. Here in the US, since we have demanded of our politicians the right to concealed carry, by every set of compiled facts and figures, our violent crime and the incidence if home invasion and rape and muggings have gone down. When the criminals don't know who will fight back, they tend to not commit crime. In those states and major cities that have strict control over self defense the figures have skyrocketed. Thats the facts and to try to say that the uptopian idea of a completely unarmed society is the way to go flys in the face of human nature and the problem of criminal behavior

Zindo



posted on Sep, 25 2008 @ 08:11 PM
link   
Hi There,

Zindodoone:

Please be reminded that it was English law that our founders looked to when they wrote our 2nd amendment. It used to be that the English citizens also had the right to self defense as a mainstay of the society.


When I wrote my post I was quite mindful of the 'English Bill of Rights' from the 1600s and of course, the older and more ancient medieaval law of the 'Assize of Arms'. My perception is the Englishman's right to bear arms, and the 'prudent' amendments that have consolidated that right through the changing ages and the necessity for it, just about represents in its present form the degree of its usefulness.
English citizens, even today have a right to self defence, but it has to be proportionate, and used to expediate an escape from the scene of the attack. Now of course, such a definition is wholly inadequate to pertain to all types of assault that may befall upon one. Nevertheless, the drive of your argument points directly to the causes for the 'right' rather than a debate about having a 'right', and that (as I posited in my earlier post) is the crux of the debate.


When you refuse to allow your own people to protect themselves, you end up with the bad guys running the show.


Well, that supplies the excuse for my country, what's the one for America?


That's the facts, and to try to say that the uptopian idea of a completely unarmed society is the way to go flys in the face of human nature and the problem of criminal behavior.


But it does not fly in the face of the hope or the dream. Nor can you say (and I'm not suggesting that you are) that private gun-ownership offers a solution to the problem of human nature, or that of criminal behaviour. It seems you see private gun-ownership as being something of a deterrent against the criminal, that he may think twice about entering your premises because you might be someone who owns a gun? I feel that is a false sense and fallacy, and placing too much stock in the gun as a deterrent. The criminal will more the likely come to your house already armed...just in case. Private gun-ownership gives reason to a criminal to come armed.

As for the statistics, I have not looked them up, especially for Britain, but I am willing to bet that the amount of people whom were either wounded or died due to gunshot during those crimes, are far less than any that occur in any one of America's major cities, and I am talking about the whole of Britain in one year?

Best wishes



posted on Sep, 25 2008 @ 08:12 PM
link   
Absolutely.

"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!"

The framers did not just think for their time period. They considered the future of America and the need for the government to fear abusing the people not the people living in fear of the government.

In my opinion, guns are not a problem. Abortion is a problem, injustice is a problem, tyranny is a problem, but not guns.

Guns are instruments of death but they are also instruments of freedom. They, in the end, are all that is between you and a tyrannical government.

Your rights may be stripped from you, your money may be taken, and your land repossessed. But there is one thing that a tyrant has a hard time dealing with: a bullet. Trying to fight a war for money against people with dreams of things higher than his greed.

Not promoting a revolution here. Just thinking about how it was back in the 1770s.



posted on Sep, 25 2008 @ 08:17 PM
link   
WHY are people so up in arms OVER the right to have arms?! If I want a gun, and am willing to go through the training, licensing, as well as background check (and yes.. I strongly believe that every officer who responds to a call has the right to know if there could be a licensed gun in the home) I should be afforded that.

To have some say that this is not 1908 (or any other year) and there are NO reasons to have guns is beyond comprehension. The same dangers exist today: instead of rogue 'bandits'/ indians we have thieves and gang members. Seriously, everyone has the right to protect their families and property. Cops cannot be everywhere at the same time, and just imagine an outbreak of crime where your the one screaming for help, and 911 is backed up with calls and the last 2 hours of calls have had NO one been able to respond. Wish ya had a gun now, eh?

Guns DO not kill - it's cliche. But it is the people behind them that pull the trigger. And if I pull MY trigger it's because your standing in my house threatening my family or my life. I'd lay bets on me.



posted on Sep, 25 2008 @ 08:20 PM
link   
reply to post by boaby_phet
 


IT's simple.Citizens can own firearms subjects can't.We feel we have the right to protect our person and property from ANY encroachment!!



posted on Sep, 25 2008 @ 08:21 PM
link   
Most of the time, The right to bar arms indeed has no purpose.

Many people could live a life time and never invoke the right for any true purpose.

However,

The right is there for a reason

and now is not the time to dismiss that reason lightly



posted on Sep, 25 2008 @ 08:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by nyk537

Originally posted by boaby_phet
i never really understood why americans make such a big deal about gun ownership..


Because our Constitution give us the right to.



Constitutions can be amended. What was important then may not be relevant now.



posted on Sep, 25 2008 @ 08:39 PM
link   
reply to post by thisguyrighthere
 


I agree 100% about Columbine. If there had been armed teachers and/or gaurds in that school how many people do you think those two boys would have been able to kill before someone took them out



posted on Sep, 25 2008 @ 08:48 PM
link   
reply to post by TheHunted
 


To be honest I'm tired of free speech freaks crying about losing their right to speak because its unconstitutional. Fact of the matter is the "Freedom of speech" was written well before these types of type writers and printing presses were even invented. The speed and word processing power of these newer type type writers don't even compare to the pen and paper being used during the era that amendment was written. Now you have take in account how much more populated areas have become. You have to revise some of these Bills to fit current times. I believe this is one of those that need it. As technology advances so should some of the constitution.....


Now do you see what's wrong?



posted on Sep, 25 2008 @ 09:00 PM
link   
We were given the right to own weapons and have a militia because a Government that fears the people is free. If we never owned guns, we would not be America. Guns are for self defense, someone breaks into your home, there are 2 people that are going to stop it, you and the bad guy. And it is not the bad guy. Do you wait the 2 to 10 minutes for the police and in some cities they are not answering calls because of "budget" restrictions or do you defend you and your family? Have you not read your history and quotes from Communist leaders, Hitler, etc? Disarming the people is always important.
Criminals do not buy guns from a store people, they steal them. Guns do not kill anyone, people do.
We have 300,000,000 people in this country
“Arms in the hands of individual citizens may be used at individual discretion in private self-defense.”
John Adams

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness"
- Declaration of Independence

"Today, we need a nation of Minutemen, citizens who are not only prepared to take arms, but citizens who regard the preservation of freedom as the basic purpose of their daily life and who are willing to consciously work and sacrifice for that freedom."
-- John F. Kennedy

The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them."
-- Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story of the John Marshall Court

The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to permit the conquered Eastern peoples to have arms. History teaches that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by doing so. -- Hitler, April 11 1942



posted on Sep, 25 2008 @ 09:08 PM
link   
reply to post by elysiumfire
 


i really wish i had your vocabulary! (excellent replys).




Contrary to public perception, the overall level of gun crime in England and Wales is very low – less than 0.5% of all crime recorded by the police.

(quote taken from - www.homeoffice.gov.uk... )

says it all really, i couldnt find the same stat for over all gun crime in the usa to compare to though, although, i did find this lovely little tit bit to compare gun crime levels beetween all countries.

Crime statistics - murder with firearms (per capita) by country.

www.scribd.com...

for those that want a quick comparrison, its a top 32 list, south africa is top, mexico in at 5, USA in at 8 and UK all the way down at 32.

so gun regulation DOES work, i have never had a fear of anyone shooting me, because ive never known guns to be legal. (except for licienced club members, gamekeepers , farmers, army)

the argument that the army has guns, so the public should have them to is so wrong its beyond words, if they all had herpese would you all demand you had that as well so you were all on the same level, or what if they were forced to have 2 fingers chopped off when they joined the army, would that mean that every citzen should have 2 fingers chopped off to level the playing field?

Thehunted also had a good points, if you want an even playing field, does that mean that the general public can own nuke weapons? surface to air missiles? daisy cutter bombs? ect, i could go on for a long time (drones, spy sattalites.?).

if you feel the need to own a gun to protect yourself, join the army and get to use as much guns as you want. Of take action to get your police forces working how the people want them, their paid to protect and serve, its their job and not the job of the general public in any country!

guns are wrong, in pretty much any way. the protection and constitution arguments just dont wash, as like already stated, thats going on the word of a document thats little over 200 of years old!! and most of it deffinitelly does not have much bearing in a modern world.

no guns = a hell of a lot less shootings, and thats not just my belly rumbling, its fact and the statistics proove it.

edit, i had a thought to try and find some gune related suicide stars for usa / uk, for another viewpoint on how guns are bad, i am not sure when they are for, but gun laws in both continents have been the same for a long time, so this info should be relevent.
more gun stats - murder / suicide

i also had the though about the phrase "guns dont kill people, people kill people" and if thats the case what does it say about america and them owning guns? as their not far from the top of the world guncrime lists.
(im not in anyway saying americans are bad people, but it is a thought to ponder over in the gun argument)

[edit on 25-9-2008 by boaby_phet - he is tired and made about 20 typos]




[edit on 25-9-2008 by boaby_phet]



posted on Sep, 25 2008 @ 09:31 PM
link   
Why is this a big deal? Assault weapons have no place in the hands of private citizens. As a hunter and former infantryman in the US Army, I have no use for such weapons as they offer no advantage and are actually inferior to real hunting rifles with far greater range and accuracy. AK47's and M16's are nice weapons, but in truth, they are nothing special and definitley nothing worth crying over. If you feel the need for extra magazine capacity, then you probably need more target practice. One shot, one kill.





new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join