Doesn't ANYONE here have an issue with unmonitored gun ownership?, page 1
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 8 times
Topic started on 9-4-2009 @ 05:27 AM by KarlG
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]


reply posted on 9-4-2009 @ 05:44 AM 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.


reply posted on 9-4-2009 @ 05:59 AM by Mason mike
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.


reply posted on 9-4-2009 @ 06:28 AM by KarlG
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... >


reply posted on 9-4-2009 @ 06:28 AM by KarlG
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...


reply posted on 9-4-2009 @ 06:36 AM by KarlG
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]


reply posted on 9-4-2009 @ 06:58 AM by Revolution-2012
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.


reply posted on 9-4-2009 @ 07:00 AM by Gawdzilla
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.
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4  >>    ^^TOP^^



Do I have freedom FROM religion?
  Posted 1 days ago with 30 member flags
Is this the only politician in europe that is not blind?
  Posted 2 days ago with 8 member flags
Former NAVY SEAL Rebukes Obama
  Posted 17 days ago with 7 member flags
What The Founding Fathers Thought About Corporations
  Posted 10 days ago with 6 member flags
Newsweek Cover: \'The First Gay President\'
  Posted 14 days ago with 4 member flags
Westboro Baptist Church
  Posted 12 days ago with 4 member flags
Congress Revolts On Obama Plan That Would Ban ‘Buy American’
  Posted 18 days ago with 3 member flags
Police Pursue 4-Year-Old for Overdue Library Book
  Posted 12 days ago with 3 member flags