Doesn't ANYONE here have an issue with unmonitored gun ownership?

page: 1
8
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 05:27 AM
link   
I have responded to three threads about gun laws and violence and general acceptance of firearms in the US, with varying reasons for my belief and stand that guns should be restricted and aspects of firearms should be monitored, for example the sale of bullets.

What surprises me (or doesn't? Hmm...) is how many people on ATS support firearms freedom. I mean, it's okay if you support gun rights and the 2nd Amendment and all, but it's astounding to see that when I post a reply regarding my stand on various issues, people JUMP on me immediately and claim things which are generally similar like "Guns don't kill humans. HUMANS kill humans" and "Why not ban knives and rope too since they can be used to murder?"

My reason is that knives and rope cannot be used to kill 30+ people in the span of a couple of hours, or while they are driving, for that matter.

While I will not go into that in detail for this thread, what I want to know is HOW many people exactly on ATS oppose unmonitored gun ownership and firearms freedom.

It's really, really something else to see the HUGE amount of people who have such ideas (no judgment here) on the unrestricted usage of guns and on the possibilities of violence in people who have free and easy access to firearms.

So, if you wish for there to be legislation to further control the general sale of firearms or mass-murder components like multiple boxes of ammo or subsequent firearms, please post here.

I just want to know, exactly WHERE you people are, because right now it seems that only two people (myself and another forum user) have an issue with unlegislated firearms sales and lack of control/checks. I really just want to get a gauge of the make-up of political views here on ATS.

[edit on 9-4-2009 by KarlG]




posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 05:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by KarlG
I just want to know, exactly WHERE you people are, because right now it seems that only two people (myself and another forum user) have an issue with unlegislated firearms sales and lack of control/checks. I really want to get a gauge of the make-up of political views here on ATS.
[edit on 9-4-2009 by KarlG]


First of all welcome to ATS, and please stay as we need to hear your side of the story too, or we are all lost. If everyone agrees with everyone else, then it's death by suicide, IMHO.

Now on to the gun thing:
I think that people use weapons to kill people because of: Economics, Desperation, Psychology, and many other reasons.

I think that the permit process is a pretty good "gun control" policy. Felons, as far as I know, cannot purchase these weapons. If you go any further, you get into the Bill of Rights, which I personally am very glad exists. Most mass killings are on those who do not have weapons/armour to defend themselves. It almost doesn't matter if it's an "assault" weapon or a shotgun with buckshot, in that case.

How can you defend against someone else who has guns if you have a knife and a rope(unless you're Rambo)?

My guess is that the desire to own a weapon is:
--someone enters your home and you wish to protect it.
--but deep down... some other country invades yours, and you wish to protect it, and your(family, property, pursuit of happiness). Nuclear/Other WMD does not kill everyone, afterall.

Just my perspective on it all.



posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 05:51 AM
link   
All guns purchased at licensed dealers require that a form 4473 be filled out and a background check is made on each form that is filled out. At minimum a proof of address via drivers license or state id is requred. some states have waiting periods and some states have limits on amount of firearms purchased per month.

If a firearm is used in a crime the serial number is traced from Manufacturer.. to distributer.. to licensed dealer.. to the purchaser via the 4473. The last 4473 is considered the owner as far as tracing is concerned so even if the gun is sold to another party without a 4473 the last 4473 can be held responsible if it is determined the seller was negligent.

In my state in order to carry a weapon concealed , I must take a class, qualify with the weapon on the permit , submit to a very thourough background check about and beyond the insta check at the point of sale and then I must pay a hefty and unconstitutional fee for said check. Then I must wait around for 4-5 months for the permit to finally show up. Also since I live in a certian county all of my handguns are required to be registered with the county which is pointless as the 4473 that I filled out when I purchased the weapon is always on file. even if the licensed dealer closes shop all the 4473s are sent to the BATFE for storage.

So what exactly else do you want to do to restrict my rights?

[edit on 4/9/2009 by DarkStormCrow]



posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 05:54 AM
link   
I'm a gun collector, a "sport shooter", but not a hunter. My friends tell me I have more guns than Hezzbolah. (They haven't seen all of them.)

My guns range from recently produced to over two hundred years old. (One is documented as being carried by an officer at Valley Forge.) My military service made me interested in weapons of all kinds and I appreciate their dangers and the need to be disciplined in their care and use.

People here are largely concerned with government interference in their private lives, if I read the board correctly. Mandatory registration of guns would be just one more aspect of that interference.



posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 05:59 AM
link   
reply to post by KarlG
 


in times like these when Americans are loosing rights daily, and the second ammendment is threatened, coming in here and talking like you aggree with the removal of the right to bear arms will get you flamed. You see, it starts with the limiting of bullets, then the removal of assult weapons, then handguns, then all guns. Then when your home gets invaded you can go fix some coffee for the intruder.

It does not matter what kind of gun or even what weapon someone uses if they are determined to kill. Some even use homade explosives. Are you going to lobby for the removal of fertalizer next? Responsible people are allowed to have guns. Criminal, Drug lords, Gang members will have guns, weather they are outlawed or not. So when you are at the gas station filling up and a couple thugs show up to rob everyone, you might be thankfull for the responsible person at the pump in front of you who puts thug number one down, and makes thug number two drop his weapon. Then again you might be worried aobut thug number one's rights. I don't know.

I am not saying I am right or you are wrong, but this is why people are mean to you when you suggest anthing that limits firearms to the American public. I hope you or I never have to know why it's a good idea to be able oto protect yourself. Just as I hope it's many years untill our life insurance becomes a wise investment. Have a nice day.



posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 06:00 AM
link   
I only have one reply, guns are tools, used properly they produce the desired effect, defense or compliance. 99.99999% of legal active carry citizens are way beyond responsible and are only attempting to defend themselves.



posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 06:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by dragonking76

Originally posted by KarlG
I just want to know, exactly WHERE you people are, because right now it seems that only two people (myself and another forum user) have an issue with unlegislated firearms sales and lack of control/checks. I really want to get a gauge of the make-up of political views here on ATS.
[edit on 9-4-2009 by KarlG]


First of all welcome to ATS, and please stay as we need to hear your side of the story too, or we are all lost. If everyone agrees with everyone else, then it's death by suicide, IMHO.

Now on to the gun thing:
I think that people use weapons to kill people because of: Economics, Desperation, Psychology, and many other reasons.

I think that the permit process is a pretty good "gun control" policy. Felons, as far as I know, cannot purchase these weapons. If you go any further, you get into the Bill of Rights, which I personally am very glad exists. Most mass killings are on those who do not have weapons/armour to defend themselves. It almost doesn't matter if it's an "assault" weapon or a shotgun with buckshot, in that case.

How can you defend against someone else who has guns if you have a knife and a rope(unless you're Rambo)?

My guess is that the desire to own a weapon is:
--someone enters your home and you wish to protect it.
--but deep down... some other country invades yours, and you wish to protect it, and your(family, property, pursuit of happiness). Nuclear/Other WMD does not kill everyone, afterall.

Just my perspective on it all.


Sir, you are fantastic.

Just in ONE post, you explained to me the rational for owning a gun, and you did it respectfully and clearly.

While I keep to my stand, it is WONDERFUL that i am able to learn the perception of the importance of gun ownerships in the house.

You are mature (well, sorry if you're above 50 or something... >



posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 06:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by dragonking76

Originally posted by KarlG
I just want to know, exactly WHERE you people are, because right now it seems that only two people (myself and another forum user) have an issue with unlegislated firearms sales and lack of control/checks. I really want to get a gauge of the make-up of political views here on ATS.
[edit on 9-4-2009 by KarlG]


First of all welcome to ATS, and please stay as we need to hear your side of the story too, or we are all lost. If everyone agrees with everyone else, then it's death by suicide, IMHO.

Now on to the gun thing:
I think that people use weapons to kill people because of: Economics, Desperation, Psychology, and many other reasons.

I think that the permit process is a pretty good "gun control" policy. Felons, as far as I know, cannot purchase these weapons. If you go any further, you get into the Bill of Rights, which I personally am very glad exists. Most mass killings are on those who do not have weapons/armour to defend themselves. It almost doesn't matter if it's an "assault" weapon or a shotgun with buckshot, in that case.

How can you defend against someone else who has guns if you have a knife and a rope(unless you're Rambo)?

My guess is that the desire to own a weapon is:
--someone enters your home and you wish to protect it.
--but deep down... some other country invades yours, and you wish to protect it, and your(family, property, pursuit of happiness). Nuclear/Other WMD does not kill everyone, afterall.

Just my perspective on it all.


Sir, you are fantastic.

Just in ONE post, you explained to me the rational for owning a gun, and you did it respectfully and clearly.

While I keep to my stand, it is WONDERFUL that i am able to learn the perception of the importance of gun ownerships in the house.

You are mature (well, sorry if you're above 50 or something...) and very very intelligent. Good factors for explanation.

But also, if there is anyone who opposes, do post. Still havent found anyone else...



posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 06:36 AM
link   
reply to post by Mason mike
 


Trust me, I have been on the opposite end of a barrel of a gun before.

And yes, I wished for some defense.

But more often than not, defense is NOT USED. How many people in community centers, or on the streets, were able to whip out their guns when perps entered and decided to massacre them.

And while I am deeply in love with our country, I do not believe that laws passed on guns indicates any restriction of rights. Yes, while the 2nd Amendment does state that every citizen has the right to keep and bear firearms, but restriction laws that will limit cases of bullets purchasable doesn't infringe upon the Amendment (correct me if I'm wrong), and it promotes safety.

You still have your rights. EVERY SINGLE RIGHT of yours is still intact.

Without a doubt, if you are rational and you want to purchase guns solely for self-defense, you can do so. The limiting of bullet sales so that "irrational" people cannot use their guns to finish off a classroom of 20 students is a fair enough precaution.

What would a rational person need so many bullets for? Recreation?

Well I would propose that you should go to a shooting range with your gun, and purchase the bullets that are sold there to be used there ONLY in the range.

But of course, bullets sold at ranges are WAY above market price. If I were the President, things would change. I'm clearly NOT (and you clearly wouldn't want me to be either), so... PROPOSE for that CHANGE.

After all, If you are defending yourself against two thugs, I don't see why you need cases and cases of ammo.

In that sense I am not opposing your rights. Feel free to purchase firearms. Feel free to purchase bullets. But when there is moderation, there is also increased safety. Don't think of it as infringment of rights (in fact I can't even see how that IS an infringement), think of it as an EXTENSION of your rights.

[edit on 9-4-2009 by KarlG]



posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 06:39 AM
link   
There is no issue, it's how it's been done for a 100 years.

There is monitored owner ship, you cannot purchase a firearm if you have a felony.

Bottom line, it is our right as American's to bare arms.



posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 06:46 AM
link   
It is not about defending yourself against thugs, hunting, sport shooting, or anything that would be consistent with limiting someone to a "reasonable" number of guns or amounts of ammunition.

The Second Amendment was designed to allow the people to retain the ability to defend their country against a tyrant of foreign or domestic origin. That means we the people have the right to overthrow the government and the tools to do so.

As our founding fathers did.



posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 06:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by DarkStormCrow

So what exactly else do you want to do to restrict my rights?

[edit on 4/9/2009 by DarkStormCrow]


Why am I restricting your rights?

You're still buying your guns, aren't you? You're still able to use them, aren't you?

It's just paperwork, registration, filling and keeping on your records on file. Which I think are all rational measures for safety purposes. You never know who's going to use the guns to kill.

Unless you tell me your county government is going to your friends and family, harrassing them for excessive background information about you, or they insist that you cannot own a gun because you don't have a certain amount of pay each month (which is a solution I've heard people propose bfore) then I think your rights are still perfectly intact.

Come on. We don't live in some utopian world out of some Ursula Guin novel. It's INEVITABLE that there's going to be registration, and classes to teach responsibility for those who might not have it, and tracebacks just like they do CAR LICENSE PLATES.

No one is taking your rights away at all!

[edit on 9-4-2009 by KarlG]



posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 06:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by KarlG
I just want to know, exactly WHERE you people are, because right now it seems that only two people (myself and another forum user) have an issue with unlegislated firearms sales and lack of control/checks. I really just want to get a gauge of the make-up of political views here on ATS.

[edit on 9-4-2009 by KarlG]


I'm in New Hampshire.

As far as regulations and all that crap goes show me one law or regulation or method of oversight short of chaining a man in a dungeon that has ever stopped or prevented one criminal act. Then I'll accept that regulations and laws work.

The only group of people who are ever affected by laws and regulations are the law abiding. Forcing me to jump through hoops and limiting what I can own royally ticks me off and costs me time and money. The criminal just goes on ignoring the laws and regulations just as he has always done. The day any bills become law for me is a terribly frustrating day. For a criminal it's just another Tuesday no different than Monday.



posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 06:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gawdzilla
I'm a gun collector, a "sport shooter", but not a hunter. My friends tell me I have more guns than Hezzbolah. (They haven't seen all of them.)

My guns range from recently produced to over two hundred years old. (One is documented as being carried by an officer at Valley Forge.) My military service made me interested in weapons of all kinds and I appreciate their dangers and the need to be disciplined in their care and use.

People here are largely concerned with government interference in their private lives, if I read the board correctly. Mandatory registration of guns would be just one more aspect of that interference.


Yes, I think that is the case.

This forum is against government intervention, which if you study economics, is a primary aspect of societal peace and order. It is a flawed argument, I'll give it that.

And I admire and respect you for your appreciation of their dangers and the need to be disciplined. At the same time, there are those people who taint your discipline and it is these people whom I am addressing to, who do not understand the responsibilities of owning a weapon capable of mass murder. Some of them, as I've constantly mentioned, DO murder large numbers of people.

Kudos to you. Hopefully you can understand where my concern is coming from.



posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 06:58 AM
link   
reply to post by thisguyrighthere
 


LOVE THE AVATAR.

Anyways.

It all boils down to one simple fact, as someone previouslly stated.

We have guns, to defend ourselves, from what WE see fit, period, regardless of law.

If we break the law, we suffer the consequences, and a majority of gun users are responsible and know the law.

However, it is unlawful to say we be anymore restricted from having guns as it is you having fertilizer for your plants. 2 bags with sufficient nitrogen and you've got a car bomb times two.

If you think every person feeding their plants is going to bomb you, then you have mental instability issues. Bottom line.



posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 06:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Revolution-2012
There is no issue, it's how it's been done for a 100 years.

There is monitored owner ship, you cannot purchase a firearm if you have a felony.

Bottom line, it is our right as American's to bare arms.


This has been mentioned on here twice now, and I am telling everyone right now that felons can purchase guns. Do you really believe that a felon can't get a gun? The only thing gun laws do are regulate law abiding citizens, not felons! They can buy off the street or just steal them. Think it will stop them if all guns are confiscated? Think again! We have many talented blacksmiths in this country who can even make guns and the bullets to go with them. Then what? Will our government then try to outlaw blacksmithing? This needs to stop now.Wake up people and start actually using your reasoning skills!



posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 06:59 AM
link   
Okay can I just say that it is safe to say no one here would really like a little more of gun laws and legislation?

If there really isn't anyone else, i might as well close tis thread down, cos it's lost its purpose.



posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 07:00 AM
link   
reply to post by thisguyrighthere
 


"As far as regulations and all that crap goes show me one law or regulation or method of oversight short of chaining a man in a dungeon that has ever stopped or prevented one criminal act. Then I'll accept that regulations and laws work."

Good point. "The only thing you can be punished for is getting caught." Until a person is apprehended and charged with a crime they can do anything that comes into their mind if they're willing to do so. Luckily most of us have better impulse control.

My hex-wife (pun intended) was a student of serial murderers. Those guys almost never used guns to kill their victims. Less than 1% from the data she had collected.



posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 07:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by ohioriverDo you really believe that a felon can't get a gun? The only thing gun laws do are regulate law abiding citizens, not felons! They can buy off the street or just steal them.


Reminds me of a Simpsons episode. Homer had his license suspended and the family was about to go somewhere when Lisa said "Dad you can't drive without a license" and Homer replied "I have to try."

Lo and behold he drove off.



posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 07:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by ohioriver

This has been mentioned on here twice now, and I am telling everyone right now that felons can purchase guns. Do you really believe that a felon can't get a gun? The only thing gun laws do are regulate law abiding citizens, not felons! They can buy off the street or just steal them. Think it will stop them if all guns are confiscated? Think again! We have many talented blacksmiths in this country who can even make guns and the bullets to go with them. Then what? Will our government then try to outlaw blacksmithing? This needs to stop now.Wake up people and start actually using your reasoning skills!


I don't wish to ban guns. That's not my idea.

And while felons may not abide by the law, it certainly will help things if they have obstructions in the way that prevent them from getting to firearms MORE EASILY.

And if there REEEEALLY isn't anyone else who even REMOTELY agree with me on this stand then I am soo gonna close this thread down, purpose lost.





new topics

top topics



 
8
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join