And so it starts! They are coming after your guns, page 3
Pages: <<  1    2    3  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 9 times


reply posted on 6-2-2009 @ 07:12 AM by riggs2099
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

www.huffingtonpost.com...
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.


reply posted on 6-2-2009 @ 09:03 AM by vor78
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.


reply posted on 6-2-2009 @ 11:21 AM by vor78
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]



reply posted on 6-2-2009 @ 11:34 AM by NightSkyeB4Dawn
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.


reply posted on 6-2-2009 @ 11:52 AM by ZindoDoone
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!
Zindo


[edit on 2/6/2009 by ZindoDoone]


reply posted on 6-2-2009 @ 11:54 AM 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?


reply posted on 6-2-2009 @ 12:05 PM by Xtrozero
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.


reply posted on 6-2-2009 @ 09:48 PM by carollou3
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.



reply posted on 14-2-2009 @ 01:16 AM by BlasteR
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.

en.wikipedia.org...
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!

-ChriS


reply posted on 14-2-2009 @ 10:36 AM by projectvxn
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.
Pages: <<  1    2    3  >>    ^^TOP^^




Newest topics getting flags, in real-time:

This Hoax Effects Everyone!!!
  Political Conspiracies, Posted 11 hours ago, 53 flags
My opinion about this site's purpose
  Rant, Posted 15 hours ago, 45 flags
Rothschilds Want Iran’s Banks
  World War Three, Posted 13 hours ago, 26 flags
I'm sick of all the KOOKS!
  Rant, Posted 13 hours ago, 22 flags
New Topic Fire-hose censoring
  Rant, Posted 7 hours ago, 12 flags