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

Originally posted by KarlG
reply to post by KarlG

 

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.

I'll budge a little..
In my opinion it's hypocritical to say this...

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

...and then say this.

[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.

By the way, are you capable of providing balance and truth?

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.

I'd hate to repeat myself here, but please don't open a thread and expect to only hear ideals you share. That defeats the purpose of ATS.

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.

....seriously. I mean if you want to hear views as your own I would suggest a forum to that suiting.

I support the 2nd amendment and the right to arm bears but I don't see what the hysteria is all about.

I have absolutely no problem with registering guns or most of the arm control laws I have seen proposed... there is nothing wrong about a waiting period... I would worry more about someone who doesn't want to wait than about the law requiring it. The same is true about limiting the number of guns you can buy at one time...I mean come on people... who needs to buy a dozen guns at a time or over a month? Also nobody outside of the military in a civilized society needs an assault rifle...

... my father owned one and I asked him one time why and he replied in case of a home invasion... and I said pa... when was the last time a home was invaded in Eagle Rock? He said never... but I have it just in case... my response was dad.. with your heart just pulling the trigger would kill ya.

The notion that registering or controlling guns is somehow a threat to our society is absurd... like most other notions from the right... when you think about them you realize how wrong they are.

The fact is that the laws we have on the books have failed say more about how poorly written and enforced they are than anything else.

No other industrial society has the degree of armed violence that we do and that speaks more about the health of our society than it does anything else... who wants to live in a culture that's armed to the teeth and trigger happy?

Originally posted by grover

The notion that registering or controlling guns is somehow a threat to our society is absurd... like most other notions from the right... when you think about them you realize how wrong they are.

The fact is that the laws we have on the books have failed say more about how poorly written and enforced they are than anything else.

No other industrial society has the degree of armed violence

Maybe I just don't understand, lord knows I've asked for clarification 100 times, but can you explain to me how registration could have prevented any of the crimes? Just pick one of these crimes, any one, and then explain to me what law or policy would have prevented and how.

The society comment is funny. Crap like this is a problem in CA MA NY and the like. VT NH ME MT etc... The vast majority of states don't have this problem. The best solution I see is a system of fences to keep trash in their own states.

Anyway, please answer my question. I've asked it a hundred times and it's always ignored.

*Edited my tags so as not to look like the proverbial "noob"

[edit on 11-4-2009 by thisguyrighthere]

reply to post by thisguyrighthere


Registering a gun will not prevent a crime this is true... but it makes it a lot easier to track the criminal down since most crimes are not committed by professionals and so they use what they have as opposed to a stolen gun.

reply to post by grover


Well, it's estimated that 5 out of 6 guns used in crimes are owned illegally meaning stolen or otherwise black market acquired.

So unless after stealing a gun or buying one off of some truck in the ghetto the guy goes to register it we're left in the exact same position we are in now.

I question your knowledge of current gun law and it's enforcement. Not to sound insulting but with so many posters waving around so many opinions with little, nothing, or assumptions to back them up are you sure you are able/qualified to pose advice?

reply to post by thisguyrighthere


You are right that my knowledge about the current conditions of gun laws are lacking somewhat... I don't like guns and don't own any but I am not opposed to owning guns... I just don't think that a society saturated with them is a healthy one.

If you use the logic of why bother to have gun control laws because the laws we have are flawed... then you might as well argue that we should have no laws at all because all laws are flawed.

They may not be perfect but they are better than nothing.

The simple reality is this... all the hysteria about the government taking away our guns or repealing the 2nd amendment is just that... hysteria... even if it were logistically possible to take away everybody's guns legally it takes a 2/3 majority of both houses of congress and a 2/3 majority of all states to repeal (or make) an amendment to the constitution and that is simply not going to happen.

[edit on 11-4-2009 by grover]

Originally posted by grover
If you use the logic of why bother to have gun control laws because the laws we have are flawed... then you might as well argue that we should have no laws at all because all laws are flawed.

.
Actually I do feel this way. People will do what they do regardless of law. Unless of course legality if the only thing keeping you from raping, stealing, smoking crack, stabbing people in the face etc.... and if all that prevents you from doing any of these things is the law then I'd rather not have you living in the world as me.

The absence of law will force a better society. But that's a different thread.

I object to this notion that even though gun law wouldnt change anything it is still pushed for. Some who push are naive to this reality and frighteningly some who push openly admit this reality.

It's like some compulsion to just do something, anything, even what is known to fail, just because you feel like you have to do something. That's pretty reckless and when the final authority overseeing the something you just had to do is a syndicate as overwhelming with such unquestionable authority as a government with the power to confiscate and kill essentially at will it's dangerous.

In a greedy, self absorbed and selfish society such as ours no laws would lead to anarchy and a total break down.

I have no faith in my fellow Americans moral rectitude... we spend way too much time worrying about other people's morality and what we ourselves can get away with to be truly moral or just.

[edit on 11-4-2009 by grover]

"Rectitude" heh heh, heh heh

And yes, by defnintion, anarchy means no government.

Originally posted by grover
reply to post by thisguyrighthere

 

Registering a gun will not prevent a crime this is true... but it makes it a lot easier to track the criminal down since most crimes are not committed by professionals and so they use what they have as opposed to a stolen gun.

Most criminals do not use guns that are registered so all the tracking in the world is not going to lead you to the majority of the criminals.

There has always been an underground market for weapons of all kinds and guns rank at the top. The only thing stricter guns laws are going to do is to make that market more desirable and more lucrative.

It is common for our government to try to fix a problem that is broken by applying more tape. Instead of building a new wall they think a couple more layers of tape will do the job.

Of course they keeping ignoring the water streaming down the cracks until the whole thing breaks but that is okay; they always have an excuse and Hell, a few of us are always expendable.

I don't support gun control, and I'll tell you why.

Gun control has no effect on criminals. In places where guns are very, very tightly controlled, criminals still have guns - Hong Kong and Japan are good examples of this, as are the American cities of D.C. and Chicago.

I live in a state with the most lax gun laws in the country, and we have the fewest gun murders in the country. We also have, overall, the second best crime statistics in the nation - and we accomplish this with something like 2.5 guns per person.

In my state we also have universal concealed carry - meaning any citizen can buy and carry a concealable firearm without jumping through hoops and registeration or fingerprints or any other nonsense. As a result, would-be criminals have to think very, very hard about whether or not they actually want to mug that person, or rape that woman - chances are good that victim could have a snub nose .38 in their pocket.

An armed citizenry is a polite citizenry.

Problems with guns arise when only a few people have them. When everyone (within reason - namely the mentally ill and felons should be prohibited from owning firearms) has the ability to protect themselves on basically the same level playing field, it creates an atmosphere of caution and necessitates mutual respect.

I really believe that gun control has no effect on crminals, and the statistics back me up on that. So when you regulate or outright ban firearms, you're only handicapping the law-abiding citizens, and leaving them at the mercy of people who don't obey the law. What's the sense in that?

It's been said that when guns are outlawed, or in this case registered, only outlaws will have guns. A truism perhaps, yet there is alot to it...

My weapons will remain unregistered. Should guns be outlawed they will "suddenly disappear" who knows where...odd that...

Originally posted by seagull
It's been said that when guns are outlawed, or in this case registered, only outlaws will have guns. A truism perhaps, yet there is alot to it...

My weapons will remain unregistered. Should guns be outlawed they will "suddenly disappear" who knows where...odd that...

Yes, I guess the number of outlaws will increase with just a stroke of the pen.

reply to post by NightSkyeB4Dawn


Pretty much, yeah... I don't advocate this by any stretch of the imagination, but these will be my actions should this ever occur. Your actions, may of course, differ...and I respect that.

My constitutional rights are very important to me. I doubt anything of the sort is going to occur, but...

The reason people want guns is because they are afraid.
having a gun does not stop their fear.
It does make them feel powerful.
although that is an illusion.

I don't think guns can preserve our 'rights' because I don't think we ever had any. That was an illusion.

I don't think laws do anything at all, so I don't want them making laws about guns. The idea that laws protect anyone is an illusion just like the idea that guns protect people.

The people who want guns to 'have a revolution if necessary' live in the highest illusion, because your little stockpiles of guns and tiny piles of ammo are almost meaningless. This is not 1492.

Even if there was truly popular support for a violent revolution, the result would be a mired mess like Iraq, only whoever finally won would likely be more horrific than our fascist government is now. Revolutions succeed only if the revolutionaries get guns and ammo from some foreign source on a continuing basis, especially ammo. and when the smoke settles, that foreign power usually runs the show.

I was trained as an expert in that strategy, so I know it for a fact.

On the other hand, if the minds of the population changes and everyone stops doing what they are told, the leaders face their mortality and give up power, usually suddenly. Peaceful revolutions have been 100% successful since WWII.

I will not kill another even to save my own life, or the lives of my family, because the odds are it won't. I won't obey a man with a gun regardless of his threats, because I am not afraid to die. Notice that I am still alive.

Wake up, folks. Get rid of your fear and it's pre-programming of your mind, and you will be freer than almost anyone, regardless of the laws, and then having guns or not becomes irrelevant and you will do what works best for everyone in every situation. I've walked the talk so I know.

reply to post by Worldmind


A person who is fearful is more likely to misuse a gun, this is true, but I'd like to think that most gun owners have good training.

You've never heard about that guy who sniped 700 soldiers and forced an entire brigade to retreat

Originally posted by vcwxvwligen
reply to post by Worldmind

 

A person who is fearful is more likely to misuse a gun, this is true, but I'd like to think that most gun owners have good training.

You've never heard about that guy who sniped 700 soldiers and forced an entire brigade to retreat

It's unlikely that they retreated. More likely they were in a vulnerable location and moved to a better or more tactical location. Snipers are not that big a problem. And even if your statement is exactly as you say, one successful sniper does not win a revolution.

lol

reply to post by vcwxvwligen


I think you're referring to Simo Häyhä, a Finnish sniper. He set the bar pretty high for snipers.

Back on topic: I do believe that there are people who want to own a gun out of fear; just as I believe there are people who reject ownership of guns, for anyone, out of fear. That's a pretty small minority of gun owners/not owners. But people on both sides of the issue really do throw that around far too much. Can't the people on either side of the issue (or at least the ones doing so much talking) realize how weak that argument is?

If somebody tells me they don't own a gun, I'm not going to give them a lecture about the 2nd amendment. But, I'll probably ask them if they'd like to go shooting sometime. Seriously. First time's on me. However, expect a pretty thorough lecture on gun safety and range protocol.

Likewise, if someone tells me they own a gun because they're afraid of (anything including zombies.. well maybe not zombies) then I'll have the urge to talk to them about how prepared they are do deal with the issue.

Guns alone will rarely solve a problem. A proper mindset, training, and preparation in general will help someone deal with almost anything that comes along. A gun is a tool, but it should never be your only tool.

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere

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.

Funny, as soon as i saw this thread i thought of this Simpsons quote.

Homer goes in to buy a gun

"OK Mr. Simpson, it seems you've been arrested 5 times, have a brain disorder and have been admitted to a mental institution."

"Does that mean I can't have a gun?"

"Nope, just means their is a 10 gun maximum"


I agree with the original poster, regulate and make it as difficult as possible. If you want a gun so bad then jump through hoops and get one. You can still get one, you can still get ammo... so why are people openly stating that Obama is going to 'take everyones guns away.' if that's not false advertising then i don't know what is.

everyone should ban guns and go back to swords. then the real man wins.

No, I don't have an issue with 'unmonitored gun onership' other than there is not enough of it. Tell ya what - - - you buy the house next to me and put a big sign in the front window, "Gun free home'; mo' bettah the crooks rob,rape, loot burn and kill at your house than get killed trying to break into mine - - - okay? The trouble is, only about 3% of the populace lives in rural areas any more, and city people don't bother to learn firearms safety and marksmanship, consequently they all either pass out or wet their pants (or both) if they see a single shot .410. Personally, I don't give a rat's a** whether you own, maintain and carry a pistol/rifle/shotgun/machine gun, just if you don't there's no point in your screaming for help when you refuse to provide yourself and/or family with the means to defend themselves. I don't care what happens to you, but your chances are so much greater that you'll get T-boned at an intersection by somebody yakkin' on a cell phone or text messaging than that anybody has enough animus toward you to shoot you. Bottom line: If you refuse to defend yourself, don't demand that somebody else do it for you.