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

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

I AGREE. Something is wrong inherently in the brain.

SOMETHING needs to be done biologically. It's so... inhuman. Or maybe it's human.

Nature is nature, and to go against nature isn't good... but what other option can there be?

Originally posted by sir_chancealot

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".

So... has 9/11 happened again?

No... don't think so.

But terrorism HAS. threats have continued. Yes, indeed terrorism hasnt been curbed yet. Just like shootings cannot be curbed.

But there has not been a 9/11 so far.

Hijackings of planes in the USA? Name me any particularly casualty-filled ones that have happened in recent times.

Why? Because the customs laws have been tightened. More paperwork. More monitoring. More security.

By far, terrorists are far more radical than teenage killers who think the world is against them and are depressed.

but terrorists havent been able to get to our country or do large damage to communities in violent ways in recent years because of the tightened laws.

Same analogy goes here.

Basically, ATS is New Freepersville.

Second, deaths averted through legislating and regulating ownership and trade of firearms do not register statistically.

Third, regulations are incredibly lax in the US. You can get a firearm legally easier than you can probably get fertilizers, for ex.

Furthermore, most ATS-ers are of the looney fringe right wingnut persuasion (as most Americans) and thoughtlessly and verbatim regurgitate NRA and neocon talking points like Limbaugh's talking head following does. They're basically a herd that fancy themselves individual free-thinkers.

They also think they're Christians. And that the UN and/or Obama wants to take all their guns away.

Or that the UN voting on some toothless feelgood resolution on subsistence sustenance being a human right means someone will take their plasma tv away.

Basically, most people like that are assholes and follow republican ideology like sheep to the fleecing.

[edit on 10-4-2009 by SonyAD]

Originally posted by NightSkyeB4Dawn

Do we really fight the government when we attack with weapons?

Aren't we just fighting people who have been cajoled, duped or trapped into doing their bidding?

Since everyone has their price this kind of warfare would continue to play out until all are slaughtered and the government still wins.

If you are going to fight the government you would have to hit them were it hurts them the most but you would have to give up something that seems to be more valued then your lives.

You would have to give up your pride and your toys.

YES. Agreed. This situation can be seen in Thailand now. Do you think the militia wanted to kill the monks? They are Buddhists. Their families and neighbors would have condemned them and they would have felt so guilty.

but what choice did they have?

YET, people attacked them. People struck the militia when they went home, unaware that the government controlled their funds and could have reduced them to absolute poverty should they have disobeyed orders.

To fight a corrupt government you CAN shoot them "in self-defense", but that doesn't solve the problem AT ALL. if the problem is deeply-rooted you have to get to them in ways that HURT.

To fight shooters you can shoot them in "self-defense", but the trend still rises and the problem still runs rampant in the society. Which is why I don't think guns should be banned. At the same time, I also don't see why guns SHOULD NOT be monitored or regulated BEYOND just registration, paying money and filling out background checks.

You take away the "militia", or the power the govt has over the soldiers, and they're weakened. You take away the guns (not completely, though, note that pls) and the perps or psychologically-nutted people have been weakened.

The govt can get more militia, SOMEHOW, just as perps can still have access to guns, but it's definitely tougher. And like many of you have said, there is more than one way to kill a person, even without guns.

(Though massacres can ONLY be carried out by guns - the absolute and deadly nature of bullets trumps car ramming or whatnot.)

Likewise, there is more than one way to defend yourselves. It's hilarious how you keep insisting there is more than one way to kill others, but you don't mention there is more than one way to defend yourself. Selective understanding, no?

[edit on 10-4-2009 by KarlG]

If guns did not exist people would still
kill people. Since there are guns anyone who
does not have one is in danger, from criminals,
nutcases, and oppressive governments.

I am now living in a country where the citizens do not have guns. The "government" (greedy thugs currently in control) rigged the recent election with thousands of dead people on the voting rolls. The populace has nothing to do but scream and yell. They are helpless to change anything and the thugs know it. IF the populace was armed to the teeth like in the U.S. everything would be different here.

I do hope the U.S. is never stupid enough to attempt to disarm the American public.

[edit on 10-4-2009 by expat2368]

[edit on 10-4-2009 by expat2368]

reply to post by Blaine91555


I have an irrational fear?

Tell that to the 100 people who have died in massacres in these 2 months alone.

Tell that to the man who tried to shoot me while I was a tourist in another state.

He's not a felon... He was jittery, he looked nervous and I actually managed to CONVINCE him to LEAVE ME ALONE.

He probably WAS a law-abiding citizen, up until the pt something drove him over the edge, like all the others who have massacred in these 2 months.

Just because you enjoy your shooting, your toys and your meat, doesn't mean everyone does.

At the same time, would your sister have carried the gun outside with her? How many of you take your gun EVERYWHERE you go? Only one or two, apparently.

And I oppose illegal immigrants coming to US too. Who said I didn't?

And if these massacres are so rare, how come there's one appearing on my News report every 3 days? Sure, knife crimes and accidents happen more frequently, but ONE single nutcase going into a school and letting loose will result in MORE casualties than all of these crimes COMBINED.

Don't tell me I'm misinformed. You don't know HOW informed I am. You are letting your love for your toys and your paranoid fear that you'll get attacked every single day get in your way of seeing the greater good for all the people who have died through gun-inflicted wounds.

At the same time, I am not saying you are a nutcase. And I do not think you should say I am a control freak.

Control is the basis of society. There is NO such thing as a COMPLETELY free society. That society = chaos. At the same time, a fully-controlled society = suppression and fear.

Gun ownership, right now, is still as free as it gets. And that spells doom any way you see it.

Sure, DC has higher crime rates though they have stricter laws. But then, tell me, how many gun-toting maniacs massacring innocent people have there been in DC? Three of the massacres in a state with laxer laws can outnumber the death toll in DC easily.

It just so happens that the people in, say, FOR EXAMPLE, Georgia, are lucky enough to not have such a nut case. And the people in a certain district of DC are unlucky enough to have a large gang living within their city. While that may be so, this just means that the DC govt needs to have a law to PREVENT GANG VIOLENCE or gang violence against citizens. It DOES NOT mean that nothing should be done about guns.

This is a CRUCIAL point in what I've written here so far.

I'll bet the people in Binghamton would have to agree.

I'm not saying you're a nut case, but think a little on the BIGGER picture.

reply to post by becomingaware


LOL. My friend, I am not some Man in Black or some government official or something.

I'm just frustrated with how everyone here is so pro-gun and not many people (five so far, and counting, hopefully) wishes for more laws in general. Maybe it's because everyone here owns guns and LOVES their guns, but I want to know, really, is there any one who DOESN'T love their toys and would even consider the idea of a balance?

Really, I have better, and more worthwhile things to do than to become a lackey for government of ANY kind.

Please don't be mistaken. Lol. Funny perception, but if you knew me you'd see how much I detest government officials.

I just understand and know that laws need to be enforced and be in place. But the people who come up with these laws better be good... and so far, they're not. Hence, the detest.

reply to post by expat2368


Yeah, sure. Go storm down the equivalent of the White House in wherever you live, guns a-blazing, screaming, firing left right and center.

That's why being armed is good, right?

Well, that WILL solve the problem of corrupt government. There WON'T BE a government.

What follows will be either anarchy, every-man-for-himself-situation, or... ironically, the election of a new government, which you won't be sure if there won't be corruption.

Or the country might end up like Thailand.

Joy and progress and peace.

Violence has never solved anything in the past. It never will.

Let me say something quick before I go off to get some things done productively.

1) While I am ready to see a balance, i.e. guns should not be banned, nor should they be completely free-to-buy-with-registration, many people here do NOT see that balance. Reading through this thread, so many people have said "I want there to be completely unmonitored gun ownership!" without considering the notion that BOTH of our views CAN exist at the same time. It is precisely the reason why I do not understand why no one sees the same viewpoints I do.

If i proclaim loudly, "BAN ALL GUNS! No one should have guns since TWO PSYCHOPERPS MASSCRED A CLASSROOM!" (which is equivalent to the all-dogs-being-put-down-since-one-dog-attacked situation someone brought up) then you are free to blast me.

What I'm saying is NOT that.

And yet no one understands that. Everyone is so ADAMANT that they want their guns, freely and accessible in general, that I have not seen the notion of any other views being able to co-exist with yours. Such absolute views are quite shocking. Which is why this thread was started in the first place.

2) Speaking of thread, go to the first post I made, and read through. "Guns don't kill humans. HUMANS kill humans." and "You can still kill with knives" are precisely the arguments I have heard so many times and I just want to hear another, DIFFERENT argument supporting unmonitored gun ownership and usage, should you have one. A little variety would be good.

In fact, the argument that knives and car rampaging can be used to kill is not valid, because you can't kill people using knives WHILE DRIVING, nor can you ensure that 30+ are ABSOLUTELY dead just by ramming into a crowd on a weekend. Guns cause absolute death. That's crucial. And if you think I am not accepting your viewpoints on weapons, it's because till now, no one has provided an argument for guns that takes into consideration mass-shootings; only one-on-one attacks have been argued for.

3) So what is your solution? Here I am, on ATS because I believe governments are inherently useless (at the least the ones in our generation) and I believe that there are so many secrets out there and I want to change things and come up with solutions and find answers and truths and varying viewpoints... and everyone just keeps shooting me or someone else down.

(Yes, I'm ashamed to say I'm one of those people)

But I did propose a solution earlier. Many times in fact, throughout this thread and OTHERS on this site and on the Internet as a whole, to suggest ways to curb this trend. But no one has proposed anything else.

Far from it. Some people have just said "I support unmonitored ownership.", and that is equivalent to me saying "I want to ban ownership of guns", without offering further opinions, insights and most importantly, SOLUTIONS TO ADDRESS ISSUES and OTHER PEOPLE'S DISAGREEMENTS.

Like I've said before, unmonitored, uncontrolled society = chaos and destruction. Excessively monitored, Big Brother society = repression and fear. But SOME level of laws are important. You can't just say "I don't like the idea of keeping tabs on my guns" without offering alternative ideas that may work. You may like the idea of no laws whatsoever, but let's face it, that's the start of a path down destruction and doom, and if we wanted that we would have let the govt run free.

We're all on ATS, hopefully, because we perceive things differently from those brainwashed idiots who worship the government and take everything "official statements" tell them without pinches of salt.

We question occurrences because they seem suspicious. We question deaths and wonder at the presence of secret societies and elite power takeovers bcause there exists activity to suggest something FURTHER below the surface.

But now, all I'm seeing is brainwashing too, brainwashing of the OPPOSITE end, the ABSOLUTENESS of opinions that seem to suggest you don't consider things beyond what YOU agree with.

TO BE CONTINUED..

[edit on 10-4-2009 by KarlG]

reply to post by KarlG


I have agreed so many times to so many different people, because I can see where they are coming from. Though, yes, I have argued with and gone against people regarding the validity of their statements, I don't write them off as "control freaks" or "nutheads" because I can see their points.

But who else can?

Or am I really seeing this the opposite end of the spectrum?

You haven't been brainwashed by what the goverment has told you, which is GOOD FOR SURE, but at the same time you're so insistent on your OWN views and love for this and that that you can't even accept the notion that others' ideas can be applicable and be combined with yours to achieve something greater!

It's good to be confident of your own views and stand, because if not, we'd all be little spineless jellyfish floating in the Pacific ocean. But right now many of you are so rigid (I WOULDN'T go so far to say 'sticks-in-the-mud') that I would not consider you to be impressive and powerful because you cannot MOVE to stop me.

And all ATS-ers should want is to be ABLE to move, to take action, to STOP the repressors, the corrupted and the destructive.

Now, i've had all I want to say; I'm just very sick of arguing. Arguing amongst ourselves just gives people with power (NWO, Secret societies) the ability to take over our lives, because we're so busy fighting with each othr we don't fight them.

understand that there can be a compromise. Your views can exist IN THE SAME STAND as my views. Now if you don't think so perhaps you shouldn't be in this world, because this is how the world works.

Now I don't mean to insult any of you, but the whole purpose of this thread is to find someone with differing views than so many of you. It was to find people who understood the idea of balance and to understand the possibility of being in the MIDDLE of the spectrum, to not be brainwashed but to also KNOW THE TRUTH.

I've seen a few of that. At the start, two forum-users, Gawdzilla and Heavily-Armed, disagreed with me and also brought out their own views for me to understand and grasp.

As the thread went further on, I saw people saying "this thread is stupid", and "you're a control freak, and you must think I'm a nuthead for telling you that" and the like. Demoralizing, but also defeating the purpose of ATS.

ATS isn't here to insist we all have guns for defense. ATS is here to insist that the truth be told, and that can only happen when we get together as a group of HUMANS, not spineless like the jellyfish but not immobile like the plants. We are the group of humans who SUSPECTS, who KNOWS, who QUESTIONS, and most importantly, who MAKE ALL THE DIFFERENCE IN THE WORLD.

P.S. in conclusion, im sick of this arguing. post here only if you have valid arguments that aren't "Knives still kill anyway" and "Guns don't kill humans. Humans kill humans" and "criminals will still get access to guns." We all know that by now, but saying things like "felons will still get access to guns ANYWAY" and "knives will still kill ANYWAY" doesn't solve problems. It just means you are happy shooting for sport, collecting for show, and letting the world go on as it is, as long as YOU'RE not dead.

Which hopefully isn't the norm of ATS forum-users.

Propose solutions as well.

Likewise, those who wish for stricter laws should stop saying some cliched arguments... though that's really not a problem seeing there are only about 3 people here who wish for the possibility of regulations.

[edit on 10-4-2009 by KarlG]

KarlG, I have to tell you that you've remained on topic for the most part during this entertaining and polarizing thread. Congratulations for that. You've also remained pretty respectful of the opinions of others. Although I disagree with your solutions, I believe that you've at least made an effort to think things through to what you believe to be a reasonable solution for all. Thanks for promoting rational discourse.

I honestly don't agree with your proposed methods. I'm a Concealed Handgun License holder, and an avid shooter. Yes, it's a hobby, but it's also a responsibility on my part as someone who may have to defend themselves with a firearm.

Originally posted by KarlG

I have an irrational fear?

Tell that to the 100 people who have died in massacres in these 2 months alone.

Could you list the locations as well as the number killed? It may help your point.

Originally posted by KarlG

Tell that to the man who tried to shoot me while I was a tourist in another state.

He's not a felon... He was jittery, he looked nervous and I actually managed to CONVINCE him to LEAVE ME ALONE.

He probably WAS a law-abiding citizen, up until the pt something drove him over the edge, like all the others who have massacred in these 2 months.

Could you tell us a bit more about that? (OK, that might be a bit of thread derailment...) Seriously, if someone draws their sidearm on you, and you are not committing a crime, then they've most likely committed a crime. Did you call the police? I'm very pro gun, but if someone draws on me without reason I will call the police. Glad you made it out OK.

Originally posted by KarlG

At the same time, would your sister have carried the gun outside with her? How many of you take your gun EVERYWHERE you go? Only one or two, apparently.

I was going to count my self as three; but, I don't carry at work (maritime captain), in church, or in the various places that my state has proscribed.

Originally posted by KarlG
And if these massacres are so rare, how come there's one appearing on my News report every 3 days? Sure, knife crimes and accidents happen more frequently, but ONE single nutcase going into a school and letting loose will result in MORE casualties than all of these crimes COMBINED.

The media picks up and sensationalizes certain things. There are actually more incidents of that sort happening that the media doesn't sensationalize, at least not nationally. I mean tragedies smaller in scale, one to three people killed. Every innocent life lost has equal value, the individual value doesn't increase with the number killed, but the horror of the tragedy does.

However, the media tends to not sensationalize the incidents of people defending themselves with firearms. Many of these incidents come and go in the media with only a very minor mention in the newspaper or on the news.

Hi KarlG

I live in Texas, closer than I'd rather be to the drug wars at the border. While the problem has not come this far north, yet. The possibility exists. So I have a very real, and viable threat for which I should be prepared.

The background checks already in place are a good thing IMO to keep known felons from obtaining a gun. The problem with more legislation is the source of that legislation. If the laws were written by moderate people without a radical agenda(see Pelosi) I don't think there would be as big a problem. The problem is that Anti-gun advocates for the most part want all guns banned, not a reasonable control. They have to start with what looks like reasonable control however, and slowly turn up the heat to maintain support for their efforts. This is why gun rights advocates fight new laws so strenuously. It's like a dynamic tension, if we only pushed back a little we would be railroaded by a fanatical agenda against us. It would be like a volkswagon Vs. a freight train. We have to be an equal and opposite freight train to keep our rights. That's not just in the arena of gun either.
So if Pelosi, and Clinton et. al. get their way, the drug lords from Mexico will own Texas, New Mexico, and Arizona in a few short months. I think they might even head north after that. A big reason the violence has not spread too far on our side of the border is the fact that the majority of the land in between is owned by Texas farmers, and ranchers that "Remember the Alamo, and remember Goliad." Guns are not legal to own or carry in Mexico. It's worked out great for them! hasn't it? I know you do not support an all out ban, but your fence riding position makes you basically inert in the situation. Even if you do not personally care for guns, and their is nothing wrong with that, the right for others to responsibly own them should not be infringed upon, and when you start down the road of more regulation you let that freight train gain momentum. When that train gets to it's destination even people who thought they hated guns will be wishing a few crusty old ranchers still had them so the tyrants that are now able to act with impunity could be held in check. History doesn't lie. Registration ALWAYS lead to confiscation. It has never been otherwise, ever.

If we had a trustworthy government, I wouldn't have a problem with laws making it harder for criminals to get guns, but our government doesn't make good laws that accomplish that. They make piss poor laws that expose innocent law abiding people to unnecessary cost, and/or risk. In a perfect world no one would need guns. Our world will never be perfect, and the attempt to make the world perfect is actually the worst enemy of having a world that is good. So supporting anti-gun laws in any shape, or form is lending power to an agenda that wants you broken, dependent, and defenseless against their control. They have to sound reasonable, or the ruse would be routed immediately. You eat the elephant of the 2nd ammendment one tiny bite at a time.

reply to post by KarlG

Violence has never solved anything in the past. It never will.

I beg to differ. Violence has solved many a problem, and always will. That's not to say, of course, that it doesn't create as many, but different, problems.

Just thought I'd throw that out there.

Violence, at the right time, can aid in resolving problems. It's not the sole solution, obviously...It is a tool, if looked at from the proper perspective...

My Opinion

I support total unmonitored gun ownership and anybody who doesn't like guns is in my opinion wee lil babies.

Oh no your scared of guns!!! why don't you just go cry me a river?

I could really care less what you could or could not do with guns!!!
why should I care?

anyway thats my opinion!!

We can not defeat violence until we stop using it to fight violence.

reply to post by DarkStormCrow


I could not have said it any better. They the feds also do have a list of gun owners witch is illegal for them to have already so why keep pushing it? Janet Reno admitted having one and Congress told her to get rid of it or she would be locked up but you know that never happened.

I have never seen a real gun store sell to any thug types anyway. They all by them second hand so registering them is pointless.

Originally posted by Binder
If we had a trustworthy government, I wouldn't have a problem with laws making it harder for criminals to get guns, but our government doesn't make good laws that accomplish that. They make piss poor laws that expose innocent law abiding people to unnecessary cost, and/or risk. In a perfect world no one would need guns. Our world will never be perfect, and the attempt to make the world perfect is actually the worst enemy of having a world that is good. So supporting anti-gun laws in any shape, or form is lending power to an agenda that wants you broken, dependent, and defenseless against their control. They have to sound reasonable, or the ruse would be routed immediately. You eat the elephant of the 2nd ammendment one tiny bite at a time.

I agree with you.

WE DON'T have a good government.

But I'm just suggesting the LAWS, that can work SHOULD the government be focused, uncorrupted and strong. Suggesting good government would be a different thread altogether. It would also be MUCH MORE difficult of an issue to talk about than this.

Honestly, though, it's not. Not to be all downer on beautiful USA, but... really, officials spend more time covering up UFO sightings and having sexual romps than to really make decisions that are best for us.

reply to post by Miishgoos


"Cry me a river?"

Ooookay.

[edit on 10-4-2009 by KarlG]

I would like to say that I bought 2 plus three magazine extentions for my G26 today. While I was at it I bought 200 rounds for my HK usp 40, and 250 rounds in 9mm for my Glock.

Just sayin.....

Originally posted 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.

I have to disagree with you here. The underground markets for guns - are what make them easy to obtain in the first place. Now why is there such a market? Because we have been forced to register our guns. Supply and Demand, basic economics. A certain resource becomes scarce - so what is the solution? Find more of it, and offer it to those who want it. Thus, those dudes with gun parts in the back of their cars at the end of the alley - waiting for the next shopper.

As another poster stated - more often then not, if a gun is used in a crime, it is possible to trace the gun back to the owner = Justice served. When a gun is not registered and used in a crime = no Justice.

So based on that style of thinking - one would assume that forcing people to register guns is a good idea, yes? OKay. Perhaps. But look at this from another perspective - if firearms weren't so damn difficult to get a hold of in the first place (by those of us who are law abiding citizens) but rather made available for everyone - wouldn't it be possible that crime rates would go down? As everyone would know that everyone else, is also armed.

It doesn't matter how much people PUSH for Gun Registry - it is NOT 100% fool proof, nor is it 100% effective. Unregistered guns are flowing through the streets - and THOSE are the guns that will be used in committing crimes. And THAT is the justice that will be go unserved.

Up here in Canada, we have a gun registry program - which in my opinion - is pointless, and waste of my tax money, for multiple reasons.

1. What is the underlying reason for the Government wanting to know how many, and which guns or ammunition I have? Why? What is the hidden agenda here? Would they like a copy of my shooting record too? (Perhaps that wouldn't be a bad idea, it might increase the funding for the RCMP who have a limited number of "practice rounds").

2. As a gun owner, I have no problem with other citizens purchasing guns as well. Why should I? If everyone knows that everyone else is armed - I think the crime rates would drop.

3. At 18 I bought myself my first handgun, registered to me, in my name. I have been shooting with the RCMP in my town, and I have taught the Firearms Safety Course. I am a law abiding citizen who grew up around guns. I know that guns are not a joke. Perhaps, this "Gun Registry Budget" could be better allocated to providing programs to ALL citizens, and familiarizing them with firearms. That way, not one person has an advantage over the other, or an upper hand.

4. What if everyone was required to partake in a firearm safety program, and an allowance given to purchase one firearm - obviously contracted from a company (such as Smith & Wesson or Ruger) to ensure that every citizen has a weapon at a reasonable cost - as not all of us are keen on dropping a couple thousand dollars on one. I don't know about you - but I would sure think twice before breaking into someone's home.

5. Education. Educating the public about guns, I think, would decrease the "fear" that people have of them. Those people are "scared" of my guns, are the people pushing for the gun registry program. What they should be scared of, is the number of guns out there - that no one has traced...

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.

Then you, have come to the wrong place. Disagreement promotes intelligent discussion. Welcome to ATS - and have fun requesting the closure of your thread, on the basis of differing opinions.


- Carrot



[edit on 4/11/2009 by CA_Orot]