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.


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

page: 5
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in


posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 04:10 PM
reply to post by KarlG

You are sadly misinformed is part of the issue.

When I buy a gun the dealer submits a form to the Fed's who do a background check and approve the sale. It has been that way for decades.

What you are really saying is you want to take guns away from law abiding citizens. Why pretend otherwise. I think you are aware of the controls already in place and are pretending to be naive.

It is a control issue for you is it not. You have an irrational fear of guns, therefore you want to control the rights of people who have done no wrong simply because it is what you want.

DC does not allow its citizens to have guns and yet they have one of the worst crime rates in existence. Other parts of the country with lax gun laws have less crime. So your real point is?

Please direct me to a single case where a gun self-animated and shot somebody? Can you?

I'm not a nut case. I have hunted my entire life and enjoy target shooting as a sport. It is actually safer than snowboarding or skiing by the way. I started hunting in the 1960's. I was raised on farms and ranches and it is my lifestyle.

The wild game meat I eat is far healthier than what you likely eat and it is natural. One Moose, which are overpopulated in many area's will save me thousands of dollars and to get one costs me a hundred bucks at most. Why do you want to take that away from me? Because you have an irrational fear of a tool?

These shootings you mention are incredibly rare. My Sister In-Law was slaughtered by an Illegal Alien from Mexico with a butcher knife. Why not take up that cause? Our jails are full of Illegals who have committed violent crimes. Why not do something about the criminals who are pouring across our border instead of falsely blaming it on other things. I blame the Liberals who protect these Illegals for her death. They may as well have held the knife for him.

If she had a gun, she would be alive. The sick person who did it was arrested three times, including earlier in the same day, for assaulting Women. They still will not deport him. Perhaps you should talk to her children who's Father died of cancer a few weeks before about why you don't want people to defend themselves?

Perhaps we should outlaw Kitchen Knives since that is what he used? Do you have any kitchen knives. If so I want them registered and controlled right now today. Sound silly or irrational? Same thing exactly.

I think you believe you have stumbled upon a hotbed of nut cases here on ATS. You have not. What you have found are people who care about the future of this country who don't believe anyone has the right to dictate to another how they should live their lives. Amazing how Liberals always want to control everyone. Look up liberal in a dictionary and you will find none of you are liberal and in fact you are control freaks.

posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 04:18 PM

Originally posted by KarlG
what I want to know is HOW many people exactly on ATS oppose unmonitored gun ownership and firearms freedom.

I strongly support unmonitored gun ownership and TOTAL 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.

I strongly DO NOT support the unrestricted usage of guns. This is absolutely NOT the same thing as unrestricted gun ownership!

posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 04:25 PM
so you think regulations,fees,taxes are good things then? in the past guns were not monitires there were no fees and no income taxes. this is as it should be. all property taxes,fees liscenses,income taxes are illegal by natural law.our idiocy and envy has enabled them to form more sides to our prison.we went thousands of years without such thins and now we have them and it is is worse because of such things .the more government manages things the worse things get.greed is basically the source of negative conditions here.why do you trust this intrisically evil government to regulate soemthing for the good of all? it will regualte it to the good of those in government.the whole gun thing is a dodge for people who do not want responsibility for their own protection.all those shootins could ghave been stopped by one person with a servicible handgun on their person.

posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 04:35 PM

Originally posted by pooty
reply to post by KarlG
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.

This is where you and a lot of others show your naivety.

Criminals BY DEFINITION do not pay attention to laws. They do not pay attention to permit requirements, etc. for LEGALLY buying a gun.

No, they either get a gun from another criminal, or they steal one.

How is it that you cannot see that passing all the laws and regulations you want will have no effect on the way criminals get guns????

posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 04:37 PM
I live in Calif and here all guns have to be transferred through a dealer.
even at gun shows. There is no legal unmonitored gun ownership.

This does not stop criminals as they never follow the laws.

It never has and never will. so why add more laws that will not work ether.

You can make all the laws you want to monitor gun ownership.

But the criminal will never follow these laws because most are convicted felons and are not allowed to own guns anyway.

If you want new laws raise the penalties for felons with firearms to life in prison.

And put in laws that if a person is adjudged by the courts to be a gang member they may not own guns.

posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 04:38 PM

Originally posted by KarlG
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!

Nope. My post does not contain anything about gangbangers. I don't know how he made such a leap.

posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 04:52 PM
Gun control is only designed to prevent criminals, minors, the declared mentaly ill, non citizens, etc from buying guns legally. If a person has a very clean recorded and they buy a gun and shoot up a place, how is gun control surpose to stop that. When someone calls for more gun control after a shooting, what the hell do they mean? It has become a slogan like "Yes we can, and Change" that means nothing.

posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 05:01 PM

Originally posted 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.

Which makes me think you have an agenda.

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.

I would like to know why you want an exact number of members on ATS who oppose the same issue you do.

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.

No one may post another alternative view?
Why would you phrase multiple boxes of ammo as "mass-murder components"?

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.

Why do you want to know exactly where these members are?
What is your agenda?
Who do you work for?

You seem very suspicious to me.

[edit on 9-4-2009 by becomingaware]

posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 05:46 PM

Originally posted by scoopkill
Gun control is only designed to prevent criminals, minors, the declared mentaly ill, non citizens, etc from buying guns legally. If a person has a very clean recorded and they buy a gun and shoot up a place, how is gun control surpose to stop that. When someone calls for more gun control after a shooting, what the hell do they mean? It has become a slogan like "Yes we can, and Change" that means nothing.

If we only allow the govt to keep guns away from the crazies, the law-abiders can still stand up for their rights!

posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 06:00 PM

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.

Tell that to the people in the twin towers. Oh, wait! You can't. Because they are DEAD. Killed by men who used "knives" while "driving".

posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 06:41 PM
I used to have an irrational fear of guns too (I now have a couple and they are some of my favorite possessions). I think it stems from not being around them, plus media fear-mongering. As illogical as it is, I can understand where some of your beliefs are coming from. You think less guns overall will amount to less falling into the hands of criminals. Just thought you'd like to know that if guns were illegal it would just be another black market like drugs and create even more violence. Gun-running would be even more profitable than it already is! I can get a bag of weed far easier than I can get a handgun, but which one is the illegal one? If there is a market for something, it's going to be sold.

And yes, the PTB are out to get you. So why not defend yourself when the time comes.

[edit on 9-4-2009 by CapsFan8]

posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 06:55 PM
AFAIK, most gun massacres are perpetrated by people who possess them illegally (besides to commit unjustifiable homicide of course).

To say that most people are too childish to use a gun correctly is condescending and cynical. Guns don't kill, and guns don't turn people psycho. That's ridiculous.

Gun control is socialism. Point blank.

[edit on 9-4-2009 by vcwxvwligen]

posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 07:04 PM
laws are written by people who don't know what to do about a problem,the problem is that the people will shoot back eventually,which is a good thing.

Guns are the last resort,unfortunately,too many people pull them out too soon,like the cops.

They chose their job,so too bad,it is becoming apparent there is an issue in the last week or so...

People need to be able to defend themselves.

People who get carried away are a product of our profoundly sick society.

All societies are un-natural,and sick.

Guns are not the problem,sick people who abuse the power which they transmit are,when they pull the trigger without really knowing it is the right thing to do.

It is no measure of health being well adjusted to a profoundly sick society.

Switzerland is a bigger gun country than the U.S.,go look how little gun crime they have there before you decide there is something wrong with gun ownership here.

The problem here is mentally unstable people who eat too much sugar,then get put on medication for ADD,then develop depression and are prescribed anti-depressants,or have been raised in a state of deprivation and develop psychoses because of it.

99% of it is deprivation and abuse,dented up souls make bad decisions,or they just don't care.

Gee whiz,then add TV to all that,and you have an average american idiot like green day sang about.

Study,get over your gun phobia,the peole with the guns and the gold always run things.

Get accustomed to being on one end of a gun or the other,it is better to be behind it most times,not in front of it..(the end with the hole in it)

This is a silly thread

[edit on 9-4-2009 by chiponbothshoulders]

posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 07:37 PM
It is a "PROBE" thread period.

Let's see who can be convinced that serialized ammo is a "good thing" and that "criminals" would actually be deterred by it "survey" with the "crazies".

Can I convince them? Can I get ideas from them for believable arguments that "sound believable and appealing"? (from one of the biggest sources of "actively" posting "pro-gunners" on the internet.)

Serialized ammo and ammo limits are sh it and would do nothing to deter crime as CRIMINALS & LUNATICS do not follow the law!

TONS of dope flow into this country every day.... Every criminal or loon who wants drugs (AND GUNS & Unserialized ammo) will get it.

ANYONE with half a brain knows this. If you can get coc aine freely, you can get guns and ammo freely.

Until then, I say IMPRESS Me and Prove that criminals and lunatics can no longer get smuggled guns and drugs!

Let's talk about "Gun Control and Ammo Control" once we have guaranteed that it is IMPOSSIBLE to smuggle drugs, people, and guns into the U.S.

Until then, Please stop trying to disarm, regulate, and "take away" the rights of Law Abiding American Citizens. Because THAT is the only thing these freeking control & limitation "SCHEMES" are for and we all know it.

(This should end the thread unless they try to skip over it like it didn't exist because logic and fact are hard to argue with... LOL)

[edit on 9-4-2009 by infolurker]

posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 10:23 PM
I used to be a liberal who was rabid for gun control. Then, I grew up, and as I matured, I realized that the 2nd Amendment exists for a reason.

Although I do not currently own a gun, I have no problem with people who do. In fact, I wouldn't have a problem if there was no gun control.

People in this thread are right. Criminals will get guns anyways, regulations only hurt the normal citizenry. And right now, I don't trust the government for anything, so I don't see why they should know who owns guns.

posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 11:26 PM
What I find unfair is that there are a lot of people that purchase guns as legitimate investments, like others that buy precious stones or metals.... Some of the weapons mentioned as to be outlawed are classified as military relics that can do double duty on the night stand as household protection, and peace of mind for a person living in a bad neighborhood or in an outlying rural area away from quick police response..... There are many that use the trade in firearms as their nest egg and if it is unused in that way, as heirlooms for their survivors when they have passed away.... Firearms are history and when passed down to family from generation to generation, something that is most cherished and guarded..... This is why there is so much emotion involved....

posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 11:30 PM
I really do not know where to stand on this issue.

I believe in keeping the governement from chiseling away at our constitution. I own many firearms, which I store at my fathers house. He owns many, too.

My observations:

I lived in the U.K. for 5 years while serving in the U.S. military. They have plenty of gun control and still have violent crime.

I live most of my life in Japan. In Japan, I cannot legally own any firearm, except a shotgun, and few people even have one of these. There is violent crime here, too. I kind of think it is on the rise. There are people who are yelling for more gun control. How much more control beyond "no one can own a gun" is there?

My point. I do not think gun control can stop gun crime. At least not in the short term or immediate future. Everyone would have to run out of ammo first. Criminals who cannot own firearms still get them. I like the idea someone posted before me that said a criminal who gets caught with a firearm should be put in jail for life.

posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 11:37 PM
reply to post by KarlG

Karl When someone goes out and kills 30 or so people you DON'T blame the gun, but rather blame the person that holds the gun. When a person rises a dog to be mean and attack people and that person orders that dog to kill a baby, do you put ALL dogs down? No. Right now in america alot of drugs are considered illegal but guess what, you go to just about any street corner and get drugs. Now when the government outlaws something like drugs or weapons, the black market expands because they have a new item they can now sell and guess what they will make a load of money from it. My point is if you ban something it doesn't mean the people won't be able to get it...they just be able to get it alot easier.

posted on Apr, 10 2009 @ 12:06 AM
Yeah, killing another person is inhuman. Not Human nature.

Insects that eat their own young? Detestable? Disgusting?

Guns aren't the issue at all.

It's the chemical imbalance in a killers brain that causes inhumanity.

I strongly believe that a test should be developed and immediately test all world leaders.

We can always start with drug testing. Start at the top.

Obama is soooo smooth ; makes me think he fell off more than the smoking wagon. He fell off the Cocaine abuse wagon now too.

6 months ago he was an average everyday senator now he's in front of the world as leader of the free world.

That would shake up anyone. Most famous people can't deal with a stellar rise very easily. why?

Because many times they are not much different then us. Pump him full of drugs to keep him upright and "oops" if says or does something "unusual".

If O'Biden could tell us ... "Mark My Words; This Obama Kid Is On Some Elite Cocaine"

It's all chemical imbalance in the brain. We need a test for it.

posted on Apr, 10 2009 @ 01:03 AM

Originally posted by justsomeboreddude

In my thinking if I was on the government side and I was using force to get control and a bunch of people did a sit in. I would just drive over them with a tank. End of discussion.

[edit on 9-4-2009 by justsomeboreddude]

Violence against violence solves nothing. It's good for temporary defense, but as shown in third/second-world countries like Iraq and Thailand...

If you use more force against a government who has already used force, what do you get? you get more violence. Which does not solve the problem.

The misconception is that you may be "protected", since you have your guns and you can shoot back should you be shot, by the govt.

But in the end... that doesn't solve anything. Not everyone has guns to protect themselves all the time. In cases like 30+ massacres, I would have wished that every student had a gun to protect himself/herself. I would have wished that ONE person had a gun to defend himself/herself.

But like you said, the problem came from the psychological base of these nuthead killers. Banning guns won't work, CLEARLY, but keeping them unmonitored and free won't work either.

I would rather address the issue directly, which is why guns should not be banned because its not the fault of firearms, so to speak. But at the same time, you have to understand that MAKING IT DIFFICULT for these people to GET THEIR HANDS ON GUNS will give us time. Will make it tougher for people to get easy access to TWO or THREE automatic rifles. Will make it tougher for nutcases to kill their victims.

Preventing teens from getting access to firearms means they will have to find another way to get one, should they want one. If they want to kill their classmates or bullies, they'll have to find another way, illegally or whatnot. Or maybe they have a chance to calm down, think things through, and realize this is life, and EVERYONE gets bullied, beeyotched at and hurt.

Life is not fair. Teens constantly WANT to make life fair. It doesn't work that way. Giving teens access to guns is to insinuate that they would HAVE THE ABILITY to "make things fair" (notice the inverted commas, pls) should they want it.

I'm not saying that the issue will be solved completely. it will NOT. but it will DEFINITELY be reduced. And issues like this cannot be solved 100%. It needs a happy society for the issues to be solved, and right now society is NOT happy.

You may argue with your evidence that gun laws don't do anything. But you'll never know for sure unless they have been implemented. This fear of losing rights is valid, but like you said, if you get repressed, you'll find a way to fight back. You'll shoot the government that shot you first, so to speak.

if these laws get too out of hand, I have no doubt that all of you here will do something collectively to correct this.

But right now, there are NO laws at all. Just registration. not even monitoring.

All I'm saying is, I want some form of ATTEMPT to TRY to correct this uprising trend of shootings, at least.

<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in