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

page: 3
8
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 08:28 AM
link   
reply to post by Revolution-2012
 


Shoot (no pun intended), I think there are too many replies going at too fast a pace. i think i missed what ohleriver said about gangbangers and martial law... could u like quote him or something. I don't get you... I'm totally lost.

Even though I try to come back here every 5 seconds (yes, as has been pointed out) I still miss a few replies because I'm multitasking, writing a script as well.

Apologies! I really want to hear whatever you have to say!




posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 08:32 AM
link   

Again, I'm NOT banning guns. You are free to own guns and bullets, but restrictive in the quantity of firearms, and amount of ammo.


The idea of jackbooted thugs bashing in your door and taking you to federal prison for owning ten more rounds of ammo than the government approved amount really doen't appeal to the free minded.

A free individual should be able to own what ever they want as long as they do not interfere with the rights of others. It's not about guns, it's about doing as you've always done without having some legislator making you a criminal the next day.



posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 08:44 AM
link   
reply to post by Spreadthetruth
 


I definitely agree with you. Whoever said jackbooters will bash down your garage door hunting for weapons? I don't support that, in fact I think that is crossing the line WAY TOO FAR.

But if you're not a criminal, then there should not be a reason why they would do the bashing. If they DO, THEN that is an infringement of rights. When territory is crossed, or when they automatically assume you are a villain based on a 30 year-ago history.

But if you had a history of mental illness that was recent, i.e. less than 15 years ago, I would have to do something about your purchase of guns. If I were to do a test and you exhibit tendencies of violence and a yearning to kill "those ****ed-up elitists who think they're so high and mighty", then without a doubt you won't get access to any weapons AT ALL. If you're below 20, I would have to keep an eye on you because teenage life is tough and sometimes we all wish we could just do something about the people who make our lives hell or annoy us too much.

Are these all far-fetched ideas that you absolutely would HAVE to oppose?

You may argue about rights and all, but can u imagine if Cho Seung-Hui or the Columbine boys didn't have access to guns? Or if they had LESS access? How would Cho have been able to reload and reload and reload? They weren't felons, none of them had a substantial criminal record, so any laws would apply to them. THEY are the people I want to target. Along with all the other mass-shooters who were law-abiding citizens who came out from the suburbs and quiet neighborhoods guns a-blazing.

Clearly, then, the ideas I mentioned above are NOT being implemented and purchasers of guns who are below 20, etc., or purchasers of lead slugs in general, are not monitored as closely.

I do not wish for guns to be banned in general. I have been on the other end of one before. NOT pleasant.

But at the same time, I want there to be balance.

You can't just say "let us have rights" and just refuse to consider alternative approaches that retains our rights but at the same time increasing safety.

I'm just so sick of seeing day-after-day-after-day of massacres. I love USA, and it sickens me to see people taint the beautiful image of our country by being so... disgusting. Guns DO not solve problems! But not only do they use guns without responsibility, they use them to SHOOT OTHERS. I mean, committing suicide is one thing, but KILLING OTHER PEOPLE IN MASS NUMBERS?

I know not everyone is like that. The people who are like that are few. But we all have tendencies. We all make decisions we regret. Especially teens. And once something "breaks", like dragonking said, it cannot be cleaned back up. I just want to find the balance: when we still have our defense, but at the same time we have MANY less massacres that cannot be "defended" against.

Was that a bit clearer?

[edit on 9-4-2009 by KarlG]



posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 08:55 AM
link   
I wouldn't mind gun registration and control if it was just at the state level. I do not want any information to go to the federal government because I do not trust them. I do not like the idea of gang bangers to have guns but I am not going to leave the family that follows the laws defenseless while the gang bangers rape and murder them. There is a solution but guess what as long as its managed by the federal government its not acceptable to me.



posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 09:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by jkm1864
I wouldn't mind gun registration and control if it was just at the state level. I do not want any information to go to the federal government because I do not trust them. I do not like the idea of gang bangers to have guns but I am not going to leave the family that follows the laws defenseless while the gang bangers rape and murder them. There is a solution but guess what as long as its managed by the federal government its not acceptable to me.


As long as the "gang-bangers" have legally acquired and registered their guns.

Why is the simple fact that these people don't ever follow the law always forgotten or ignored?

Crack is illegal. Selling crack is illegal. Using crack is illegal. Has this stopped anyone from selling, buying or using crack? C'mon people. This isnt a difficult concept. Legal or not the same people would still be crackheads. The difference is the government would save an awful lot of time and money (possibly make money even) if it stopped pretending laws made any difference at all.

How many of you only stop at red lights because "it's the law"? How many of you havent raped somebody just because "it's the law"? Laws change absolutely nothing.



posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 09:07 AM
link   
reply to post by thisguyrighthere
 


Where's this "gangbanger" thing coming from?? Was the term mentioned in one of the earlier responses?

I really missed it earlier... can someone quote it I can't seem to find it.

Anyway, yeah, there ARE people who continue to smoke crack, there ARE people who contnue to do illegal things though it is clearly illegal. Just as there WILL be people who will continue to use guns to massacre.

But I am confident that the number will go down.

But if you're not confident about this, or you have your own pessimistic views, offer your own solution to this troubling, INCREASING trend.

So far I have not seen any proposed solutions.

And really, if you say "leave it the way it is"... well, I'm sad that you should think everything's fine the way it is now.

At the same time, the purpose of this thread is for people who have issues with unmonitored gun ownership to post... and so far it's been a majority of those who DON'T!

[edit on 9-4-2009 by KarlG]



posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 09:07 AM
link   
reply to post by KarlG
 


Dude, just click "page 2" and read what you missed.



posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 09:09 AM
link   
I think that the problem is that the removal of guns from society is not going to stop violence or killing and is not going to make us a kinder and gentler country.

If someone has made up their mind to do harm to another; they are going to do it.

In some cases guns might make it easier for them to accomplish their goal but then I guess an argument could be made that it also increases the victims change of survival because the alternate choices could be far more accurate and deadly.

I have seen the results of killings by alternative selection. The most common are attacks by fire, poison, bludgeoning and acid.

We can be quite barbaric when running on emotional juices and some people can become quite creative. I won't go so far as to say that gun ownership equals the playing field but I can think of more than a few situations were I would not want to be placed in a corner without one.

I don't think anyone at ATS is condoning murder or the use of guns for any criminal act. It is just that removing guns will not stop these things from happening.

Allowing people the people to protect themselves just might give them a fighting chance.



posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 09:18 AM
link   
reply to post by NightSkyeB4Dawn
 


Well said, agreed.

Defense is important. But there are many cases where people aren't able to defend themselves when backed into a corner. They don't carry their guns around all the time. The only times they can defend themselves is in cases of Breaking & Entering.

And in cases like the recent large massacres in VTech, Columbine, Binghamton, Alabama, South California, the poor people didn't even HAVE the chance to defend themselves.

Sure, poison, acid, bludgeoning are all equally effective. But really, I doubt they can be used to kill so EFFECTIVELY and EFFICIENTLY as guns. Poison comes the closest, but few people can concoct a formula deadly enough in such a huge quantity that an entire classroom of people can die, given normal conditions like open windows and ventilation.

If guns WERE indeed used more to defend themselves, and solely to defend, I might be less inclined to be so absolute in my determination that gun usage and ownership should be monitored closely.

OK i'm going off! I HAVE TO GET WORK DONE! And also watch Idol on my TiVo... missed it last night! I've had a blast "chatting" with all ya peeps, but I REALLY NEED TO GET WORK DONE!!!

Ahhh distractions.

[edit on 9-4-2009 by KarlG]



posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 09:19 AM
link   

I definitely agree with you. Whoever said jackbooters will bash down your garage door hunting for weapons? I don't support that, in fact I think that is crossing the line WAY TOO FAR.


That's exactly what happens when you make things illegal, whether it's a shotgun cut down too short or a bag of 'The Devil's Weed'. Look at what happened at Ruby Ridge and Waco. If you resist being taken away, that's what can happen to you and your family.

By passing a law restricting the number of guns people can own, you're are effectively stealing property from the otherwise law abiding at the barrel of a gun, turning lots of people into criminals when they did nothing. Its in direct opposition to freedom and liberty.



posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 09:24 AM
link   
i do. i'm not rabidly pro-gun, i definitely think it needs to be regulated. nor do i think it's some kind of religious right to own guns.



posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 09:38 AM
link   
Here is a link and the final nail in the coffin to just how good firearms regulations work. Take a look at this map posted in another thread yesterday by Centurion and tell me why the states with the highest regulation have the highest crime rates? Map Here! Gun laws work great.... right?



posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 09:41 AM
link   
Once upon a time I was in approval of more gun control, after educating myself on many matters - not just on this subject - I have come to the conclusion that they are a necessary evil and really would like to own some myself. However, due to my country being staunchly against any kind of firearms whatsoever I have no choice and it's not a good place to be.

Saying that however, gun crime is very low overall (knives are biggest) and as it stands the country is probably better for it for the time being. If things change (and I have a feeling they might) we will be in a world of excrement, my advise to those campaigning for more control in America is don't - it won't make any difference to the mass shootings and gun crime - but it will have a big effect on innocent and responsible gun owners and give corrupt governments more control over it's slaves.

Every country is different, believe me when I reiterate that famous phrase you don't know what you've got 'till it's gone. Concentrate on removing corruption, improving education and eradicating poverty and I guarantee that will be more effective at tackling the issues you raise far more so than criminalising a large percentage of the population.



posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 09:43 AM
link   
I guess it all depends a lot on your interpretation of the 2nd amendment.

If you take the line that citizens are able to be armed in order to form a militia in the case of a corrupt government or outside invasion, then you probably don't want there to be any checks/details stored, because the government or the foreign forces could get access to any lists that have been kept, essentially damaging the possibility of using the arms in order to restore the republic/democratic process.

If you don't believe the government could ever go that corrupt, or no foreign nation will ever attempt to take over the USA, then I guess you won't see such a list of owners as a problem, and it may well be useful in criminal investigations.

The same goes for the restriction of certain types of arms/ammo. If the 2nd amendment is designed for protection against corrupt governments or foreign invasion, then restricting everyone down to just a little slow loading .22 popgun will limit this ability.

But if you think that could never happen, then you may well want to limit the types of arms to just those that are acceptable for personal self defense and sports.

I dont really think you have a chance of total ban though at this time, there was a recent supreme court decision that affirmed at least some ideas of the 2nd as valid, so it will be quite a few years before that can be revisited I think.



posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 09:45 AM
link   
reply to post by SpaDe_
 


People should feel free to compare that to the Brady map.

Notice how these restricted states bear the brunt of the crime.

Gotta love New Hampshire here. Not one little Brady dot and everybody's packin'. Our murder rate is lower than the UK's and Australia's.



posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 10:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by KarlG
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.


Those thirty people will unfortunately still be dead regardless of whether the Gun is registered or not.


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.


They tried "limiting" alchohol too. It didn't work out so well. What makes you think you won't create a whole new Al Capone; only this time he'll make his fortune on Black Market Weapons.


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.


Here is my take. Any legislation you pass will be followed by law abiding citizens for the most part. They will not be the ones who kill 30+ people, and if they are, you will not know they have snapped until they do. Taking the guns away won't stop him from driving his car into a crowd of people, or building a bomb. There are some things that even Liberals can't fix.



posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 11:09 AM
link   
"...shall not be infringed."

If the government isn't already infringing upon the 2nd amendment it's way too close. The OP seems to want more of this but WHY? For some false sense of safety? We already know restrictions don't work but to hassle. We need guns, big ones, for defense and revolution and this simply trumps any perceived need for more restrictions.

If the government can point it at you, you should be able to point the same thing back, period.



posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 11:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by SpaDe_
Here is a link and the final nail in the coffin to just how good firearms regulations work. Take a look at this map posted in another thread yesterday by Centurion and tell me why the states with the highest regulation have the highest crime rates? Map Here! Gun laws work great.... right?


Yeah ... because they get the guns from OTHER STATES!



posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 11:27 AM
link   
A little history here, our right to bear arms is clearly articulated in the Second Amendment in the Constitution.

Which reads,

"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."

This is the original version, not the later one that was changed without an amendment.

So, why is it there?

Our Founding Fathers wanted the right to bear arms to be clearly laid out in the Constitution because during the Revolutionary War the US had a shortage of weaponry that was suitable for military use. Sure, the colonists had their hunting weapons, but these were mostly small caliber, short range weapons, that were not usefull against a professional military with long range weapons.

Those who joined the local militia, had to furnish their own weapons. So, there was a shortage of men, and an even greater shortage of suitable weapons.

They also had a critical shortage of ammunition. A lot has been made about how the militia often broke ranks and ran when faced by the British forces. One of the reasons is that they often only had enough ammunition to fire one or two shots. Yet, they would be there to fire their one or two shots.

The Founding Fathers wanted to do their part to insure that this situation did not recure in the future, and so they spelled it out in the Second Amendment.

Beyond the small arms problem, the young country also had a shortage of cannon, warships, and other heavy arms. So, our ancestors had to find sources for these heavy arms.

To aquire cannon to defend Boston, they staged a surprise attack on Fort Ticonderoga in the spring of 1775 and then carried the cannon to Boston, by hand. In addition Benjamin Franklin bought several cannon with his own money.

To aquire ships they had to negotiate deals with privateers (professional pirates) to use the privateers ships. These ships were small and could not engage the largest British ships. Later they negotiated a treaty with France, who had lots of ships of all kinds.

Unfortunately, there are those in our country who want to limit the right to bear arms, to hunting rifles and small short range weapons. Or as an alternative, they want to limit the amount of ammunition that a person can buy. That's like giving Barney Fife a gun, but allowing him only one bullet. Remember how well that worked out?

Either these folks are ignorant of our history, or they want to insure that the populace cannot arm itself.

So here we are back in the same situation as our Founding Fathers. We have Representatives who do not represent the people. We have a populace who is "allowed" to own only small arms. We have taxation without representation. (unless you think passing a Trillion dollar spending bill without anyone having read it counts as representation) We have a ruling elite who seem to think that they own everything and everyone in the Country. These same people are making spending commitments that exceed the GDP of the country and our children and grandchildren will not be able to make the payments. Yet, these elitists will not reduce their spending, they want to spend even more.



posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 11:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by lunarminer
A little history here, our right to bear arms is clearly articulated in the Second Amendment in the Constitution.

Which reads,

"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."

This is the original version, not the later one that was changed without an amendment.

So, why is it there?

Our Founding Fathers wanted the right to bear arms to be clearly laid out in the Constitution because during the Revolutionary War the US had a shortage of weaponry that was suitable for military use. Sure, the colonists had their hunting weapons, but these were mostly small caliber, short range weapons, that were not usefull against a professional military with long range weapons.

Those who joined the local militia, had to furnish their own weapons. So, there was a shortage of men, and an even greater shortage of suitable weapons.

They also had a critical shortage of ammunition. A lot has been made about how the militia often broke ranks and ran when faced by the British forces. One of the reasons is that they often only had enough ammunition to fire one or two shots. Yet, they would be there to fire their one or two shots.

The Founding Fathers wanted to do their part to insure that this situation did not recure in the future, and so they spelled it out in the Second Amendment.

Beyond the small arms problem, the young country also had a shortage of cannon, warships, and other heavy arms. So, our ancestors had to find sources for these heavy arms.

To aquire cannon to defend Boston, they staged a surprise attack on Fort Ticonderoga in the spring of 1775 and then carried the cannon to Boston, by hand. In addition Benjamin Franklin bought several cannon with his own money.

To aquire ships they had to negotiate deals with privateers (professional pirates) to use the privateers ships. These ships were small and could not engage the largest British ships. Later they negotiated a treaty with France, who had lots of ships of all kinds.

Unfortunately, there are those in our country who want to limit the right to bear arms, to hunting rifles and small short range weapons. Or as an alternative, they want to limit the amount of ammunition that a person can buy. That's like giving Barney Fife a gun, but allowing him only one bullet. Remember how well that worked out?

Either these folks are ignorant of our history, or they want to insure that the populace cannot arm itself.

So here we are back in the same situation as our Founding Fathers. We have Representatives who do not represent the people. We have a populace who is "allowed" to own only small arms. We have taxation without representation. (unless you think passing a Trillion dollar spending bill without anyone having read it counts as representation) We have a ruling elite who seem to think that they own everything and everyone in the Country. These same people are making spending commitments that exceed the GDP of the country and our children and grandchildren will not be able to make the payments. Yet, these elitists will not reduce their spending, they want to spend even more.



I have a question though: do you CARE about those poor people who are shot by these crazies because YOU want your rights?





top topics
 
8
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join