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.


And so it starts! They are coming after your guns

page: 3
<< 1  2   >>

log in


posted on Feb, 6 2009 @ 07:12 AM
reply to post by invisibleman11

Where did you get your sources that Washington D.C. was the murder capital?

Chicago is the Second City in nickname and the third in population, but when it comes to murder, the city has the dubious distinction of being second to no city in America
as of October 25 2008
and they are followed closely by 417 in New York and 302 in Los Angeles.
So where does it say Washington was the murder capital.

As for gun violence it is still happening, just because you ban one area does not mean that guns will not come from another.

posted on Feb, 6 2009 @ 07:22 AM

Originally posted by riggs2099 just because you ban one area does not mean that guns will not come from another.

Given this logic, how much of an area would you have to cover with a "ban" to keep guns from coming from another area?

The necessary conclusion is a global ban on all arms since even police and military weapons are regularly stolen, lost, or sold off into a black market.

I put it on you to come up with a plan to remove not only every firearm from the Earth but also to erase the mechanical ability and knowledge of high school physics from every currently living and future living human being.

If there's a more practical way to accomplish what you're suggesting I'm all ears.

posted on Feb, 6 2009 @ 07:24 AM
well first off the supreme court overturned the gun ban after it was declared unconstitutional. and secondly you just proved my point. if you outlaw guns its just gonna breed a black market and the only people with guns will be the criminals. they will always use guns to fight cops, intimidation, and to fight other criminals. so outlawing them and burning our 2nd amendment rights seems a little retarded.

oh and check this out:
CHICAGO (WLS) -- The highest court in the United States overturned a decades-long ban on handguns in the nation's capital. It is the Supreme Court's first ruling on the constitutionality of the Second Amendment.
Thursday's decision is going to have a far-reaching effect across the county and especially in Chicago where the city has had a handgun ban on the books since 1982. The National Rifle Association has already said it will file a lawsuit to try and overturn Chicago's handgun ban.
The Supreme Court ruled 5 to 4 to strike down the ban on handguns in Washington, D.C. Thursday morning. That ban has been in place in the District of Columbia for 32 years.

[edit on 6-2-2009 by invisibleman11]

posted on Feb, 6 2009 @ 09:03 AM
reply to post by thisguyrighthere

Yeah, the practicality of a gun ban is always the catch, isn't it? To begin with, you have to get millions, if not tens of millions of illegal weapons off the streets. Good luck. The vast majority of criminals aren't going to turn their weapons in. Next, you have to prevent them from being imported and while that's not an enormous problem right now, you can bet that if firearms were banned, it would become one, just as the illegal drug trade has. And finally, as you say, you'd need to erase the knowledge of how to construct a firearm from the public. Its really not that hard to construct a crude firearm as it is, but you can bet the ones showing up on the streets would become much more sophisticated if a ban were enacted. In the best case scenario, they'll just switch to another weapon (exhibit A: Great Britain knife crime).

So who does a ban actually affect? We all know the answer to that: the average guy minding his own business. So what's the point, besides making a few liberals feel morally superior for punishing the common man and giving the politicians a band-aid they can slap on the problem to make everyone think they're doing something? There really isn't one. It sure as hell isn't crime prevention.

Do you want to solve the violent crime problem in the United States? I'll tell you how. Start throwing violent criminals under the jail. Too often, they're right back on the streets less than five years after committing their crimes due to prison overcrowding. Why are the prisons overcrowded? Because we lock up every petty thief and dope smoker in the country. That needs to cease, too, because its just turning otherwise (mostly) harmless criminals into thugs once they're exposed to prison life. The next thing we need to do is to improve the quality of life in our inner cities, which is a topic for another discussion and much more difficult in practice.

Finally, as a side note, I'd also like to mention that the US murder rate is roughly half what it was 20 years ago. We've still got a major problem, but apparently we're doing something right...even with all those nasty, evil gun owners out there.

posted on Feb, 6 2009 @ 09:07 AM

Originally posted by star in a jar
Has anyone ever tried the "They stole my rifle from my house/ car while on a hunting stop/ backwoods cabin" line before?

I don't know what happens when you report your guns stolen, but once the day comes that they use registered addresses to go door to door confiscating guns or threatening penalties, etc for noncompliance, wouldn't you have documentation claiming that your guns were stolen and that they can just bugger off?

I have had two guns stolen and I even knew who did it.

I called the police they came out made a report and that was it. They said that it would be my word against another so there was nothing that they could do.

I must be fair and admit that I did get a visit from an officer a couple of months later saying that they did get an admission from a friend of the teen that I suspected of stealing my guns that he had indeed stolen them. He also added that the guns had been sold and there was no way to track them.

The teen still got away with it because again it was hearsay and there was no proof.

You have to report your guns stolen (if they are registered) otherwise if they are involved in a crime later they won't come looking for you.

posted on Feb, 6 2009 @ 10:42 AM
They already practically federally outlawed fully automatics and short barreled rifles/shotguns without government approval. What makes you think handguns/semi auto rifles aren't going to go the same route? Where was the uprising before? Why isn't the right to own the standard weapon of the US army being viciously fought?

Apathy looms over this one.

posted on Feb, 6 2009 @ 11:01 AM
The part that just doesn't sink in is the fact that only lawful citizens would do this and they are not the ones we need to control. So it would only create a greater disparity between those who lawfully own guns and those who own guns illegally.

So what you end up with is a large number of lawful citizens who decide not to own guns anymore, and a large group who overnight go from lawful to unlawful in keeping their guns and their privacy. I’m really sure the prison complex needs a new group of unlawfuls to imprison...ya right

[edit on 6-2-2009 by Xtrozero]

posted on Feb, 6 2009 @ 11:21 AM
reply to post by Xtrozero

That seems to be the part that the gun control supporters don't get, alright. When we already have tens of millions of illegal firearms circulating through the criminal underground, banning firearms isn't going to adequately address the problem of violent crime.

What it will do is disarm the common, everyday, law-abiding citizen, which seems to be the real goal of the gun control lobby. Those dogs can't be trusted with firearms, afterall. Of course, those same politicians and lobbyists supporting this garbage live in gated communties with armed bodyguards, so it doesn't affect them at all. But heaven forbid that the mere common man be afforded the same right of self-defense that they have.

[edit on 6-2-2009 by vor78]

posted on Feb, 6 2009 @ 11:34 AM
reply to post by vor78

I can not see the logic in this either.

What possible advantage do they have if they prevent the average American citizen the right to bear arms?

It will not decrease crime. Criminals do not need guns to commit a crime. Some of the most gruesome crimes known to be perpetrated have been done without a gun or one shot fired.

It will not affect anyone sitting on Capitol Hill in the slightest if I own a gun.

It is not to protect or military because our military are not supposed to be enemies to the American citizen; they are our sons and daughters and the protectors of our "country".

It is not to protect the honest police officer because the police are our servants; our sons and daughters and our protectors.

Unless they are planning something that is illegal, constitutionally corrupt, or fear us taking our duty to uphold the laws of our country and constitution then I don't know why they would be afraid of American citizens having guns.

posted on Feb, 6 2009 @ 11:44 AM
There are a few mindsets at work in the hoplophobe sect.

1. Guns are bad. I dont care who has one or why they all need to go.

Since lawful owners will by large comply with any legislation they accept this as a "win" despite the fact that it does absolutely nothing with respect to criminal use and criminal possession. If any other bans throughout history can be examples to go by a ban would most certainly increase criminal use and possession.

2. If we dont take up arms to defend ourselves the criminals will stop using arms to attack.

It's just like the chicken and the egg only more absurd and pointless but quite a few gun-grabbers honestly believe this. As though no unarmed person has ever been shot by a criminal?

I just got back from lunch and am full of sandwich. When I can focus a little better I'm sure I'll remember more.

The motivation to ban based on "accidental deaths" is just ridiculous. There are an infinite number of more things that result in accidental deaths far more often than guns. Start with cars, pools, household chemicals, plastic bags, yard tools, household chemicals, candles, etc... then we can talk about banning guns in the name of accident prevention.

posted on Feb, 6 2009 @ 11:52 AM
reply to post by Xtrozero

You see thats exactly the reason. To controll us. The criminals make too much money for lawyers and it gives the idiots in power something to use for face time on the media and get reelected by the sheep. It was and never will be safety, its control and protecting their butts from angry citizenry. Torches and pitchforks aren't very good against an armed bunch of jack booted thugs in government garb!

[edit on 2/6/2009 by ZindoDoone]

posted on Feb, 6 2009 @ 11:54 AM
reply to post by thisguyrighthere

Yeah, the accidental death argument is definitely a farce. According to the CDC, 789 people were accidentally killed with firearms in 2005, 616 of which were OVER the age of 20 (But think of the children!). The same year, 43,667 were killed in motor vehicle accidents (700 were bicyclists and another 4,917 were pedestrians), 19,656 died from accidental falls, 3,582 drowned, and 755 were killed by some type of machinery on the job.

Puts it in a little perspective, doesn't it?

posted on Feb, 6 2009 @ 12:05 PM

Originally posted by vor78
reply to post by thisguyrighthere

Yeah, the accidental death argument is definitely a farce. According to the CDC, 789 people were accidentally killed with firearms in 2005, 616 of which were OVER the age of 20 (But think of the children!). The same year, 43,667 were killed in motor vehicle accidents (700 were bicyclists and another 4,917 were pedestrians), 19,656 died from accidental falls, 3,582 drowned, and 755 were killed by some type of machinery on the job.

Puts it in a little perspective, doesn't it?

And also the statistics from the Brady Bill years shows no differences from the years before the bill. So this is an extremely good example that controlling and limiting law abiding citizens does nothing but prevents them from practicing their 2nd amendment rights.

posted on Feb, 6 2009 @ 12:21 PM

Originally posted by RFBurns
Its just another means for government to create a way to collect more tax. That license will have a fee and tax attached to it. A perfect way to create another flow of income to help pay for those billions of dollars of bailout crook giveaway money.

Plain and simple.

It doesnt take away any rights whatsoever. It simply means that you need a license to own a gun, be registered etc. Not any different from owning a car, you have to register it, license it, and have a DL yourself in order to legally use it.


In the US, driving on the roads is considered a "privledge".

Owning a firearm is a RIGHT.

I will not submit to this BS.

posted on Feb, 6 2009 @ 09:48 PM
reply to post by RFBurns

What RFBURNES does not understand, is that very few people will ever be able to obtain a license to own a gun. you will be required to take a test on gun laws and must be able to explain them. you will never be able to pass the test!!! They will make it impossible.

posted on Feb, 14 2009 @ 01:16 AM
They are coming after your ammo too... For decades it's been that way. Anytime gun control legislation gets shot down it seems the next best thing is the ammo so they try to go after controlling that..

Why would you try to control the sale of ammo without controlling the sale of guns? LOL!! bullets and shells are so easy to make anyway that it would render any ammo control legislation essentially useless. (Unless, of coarse, under some bizarre provision they were able to control the sale of ammunition components).

What I don't understand is how politicians can get away with blatant disrespect of our own constitutional right to bear arms.

Senator Orrin G. Hatch, chairman, U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, Subcommittee on the Constitution, states:

They argue that the Second Amendment's words "right of the people" mean "a right of the state" — apparently overlooking the impact of those same words when used in the First and Fourth Amendments. The "right of the people" to assemble or to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures is not contested as an individual guarantee. Still they ignore consistency and claim that the right to "bear arms" relates only to military uses. This not only violates a consistent constitutional reading of "right of the people" but also ignores that the second amendment protects a right to "keep" arms. "When our ancestors forged a land "conceived in liberty", they did so with musket and rifle. When they reacted to attempts to dissolve their free institutions, and established their identity as a free nation, they did so as a nation of armed freemen. When they sought to record forever a guarantee of their rights, they devoted one full amendment out of ten to nothing but the protection of their right to keep and bear arms against governmental interference. Under my chairmanship the Subcommittee on the Constitution will concern itself with a proper recognition of, and respect for, this right most valued by free men."[34]

You would have to actually change the constitution to make true gun control possible in the first place. Otherwise, such legislation as this presented by the op is unconstitutional as determined by our own government. LOL!


posted on Feb, 14 2009 @ 10:36 AM
reply to post by RFBurns

Ok, well I don't need a license to exercise my rights. That's why they're rights and not privileges. 2nd, any licensing issues falls to the states under the tenth amendment so this is unconstitutional on two fronts.

<< 1  2   >>

log in