It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Do you think guns should allowed to be sold to citizens?

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 14 2004 @ 02:02 AM
link   
I do believe people should have the right to own guns in a responsible manner. Meaning a few things:

Firstly, anyone who has been arrested for violent crimes should not be permitted to purchase one ever. Self explanitory.

Second, locks must be required by law for all guns. Again, self explanitory as the right to life for children in my mind outweighs the right to have gun.

Third, there has to be a time and place for everything. We obviously don't need a citybus in manhattan carrying 100 commuters all with pistols.

Fourth, rational thoughts must be used when considering what kind of weapon one may have. The same way we don't need people storing plutonium in their houses I don't believe we need people having guns in their houses that can fire off 100 rounds a second a blow a hole in a brick wall. It just is not called for and no good can ever come from it. The lame "Hunting" excuse doesn't work because those weapons would splatter any game across the trees for 20 miles.

The second ammendment is crucial to freedom, both in concept and reality. I think the problem is that in this day and age it's been reduced to mainly concept because we haven't needed an uprising in recent history like the founding fathers went through to gain their freedom. So we see it as a memory. We would be foolish to think that the day could never occur again where we might need such things. However, we have developed such dangerous technologies that responsible controls, both by citizens and government simply MUST exist.

[Edited on 5-14-2004 by Djarums]




posted on May, 14 2004 @ 02:10 AM
link   


Its lshould be like a driver's liscence, you have to pass the test before you get your priviledges.


except its a right, not a priviledge...

criminals shouldnt have guns...but then again thats a no brainer! so is not giving guns to mentally disturbed people.

banning guns does not work. there is a large black market that caters to criminals. now there WAS a time criminals could go into a gun store and walk out with whatever they want but now they buy their weapons in places that arent tracked. they buy them from people who dont use paper work or waiting period. making certain firearms illegal hasnt worked either.

anyone remember during the 80's and 90's when gangs were in the news an awful lot? remember what weapons they were using? uzi's, israeli, ak-47's, russian. how did they get here? the black market. they didnt go to ma and pa's gun store and purchase these! in fact they still use these and other more sophisticated equipment today. but whats changed? more retrictions on law abiding people! i understand we should keep these things away from criminals but not at the expense of those who obey the law! these laws are not and have not stopped the criminals!


now AD you're pretty young and idealistic...you still have a long while till you see the world for the way it really is. at the moment i think you're taking this issue far too seriously.

now for a moment lets say you get your wish. poof! no more guns, rifles, shotguns. all firearms are banned and destroyed. now whats left? baseball bats, knives, machetes, swords, clubs, axes...see where i'm going with this? they'll just find another weapon to use. THEY dont care what the govt. bans as the bans rarely effect their ability to go out and buy a firearm off of john Q lawbreaker.

trying to argue that someone who cant control their temper is a good reason to keep guns away from the average law abiding citizen isnt a very good reason. you punish the person, not what they used.

want to cut down on crime? make the penalties harder. also make sure they serve the time they are given, no consideration for "good behavior" as it doesnt change what they did.

you cant get rid of violence or hatred no matter what you ban outlaw and get rid of. guns arent the problem and banning them isnt the solution.



posted on May, 14 2004 @ 02:11 AM
link   









That is by far the most ignorant thing I have heard in a very long time. First of all, young grasshopper, let me break it down for you:

Guns don't kill people. People kill people. Guns are a medium. Do you honestly think that the elimination of weapons permits for"citizens" (of all people) would decrease the amount of deaths by firearm per year? Negative...

And why citizens? Non-resident aliens are the ones I'm looking at, not our own people.

Where are you from? Are you from another country? Because if you grew up in the U.S., you would appreciate that fact that we are allowed to carry weaponry.

By posting this thread, you just challenged the Constitution of the United States of America. That my friend, pisses me off.




Mr. M



posted on May, 14 2004 @ 03:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Djarums
Third, there has to be a time and place for everything. We obviously don't need a citybus in manhattan carrying 100 commuters all with pistols.

Why not? I think we are a lot safer the more our population is armed because when it comes down to it, the majority of Americans are good. Besides, what idiot is gunna start a problem on a bus if he knows that there are 50 other people that are just as, if not more armed then himself?

Fourth, rational thoughts must be used when considering what kind of weapon one may have. The same way we don't need people storing plutonium in their houses I don't believe we need people having guns in their houses that can fire off 100 rounds a second a blow a hole in a brick wall. It just is not called for and no good can ever come from it. The lame "Hunting" excuse doesn't work because those weapons would splatter any game across the trees for 20 miles.

Plutonium and guns are a bit different my friend. The reason for the 2nd amendment is to uphold out country. This means that our population is intended to be armed to deal with any force that threatens our way of life. Thus, to regulate the type of weapons one can own would be to regulate our own effectiveness. What would happen if there were some law that said "you can not own semi auto matic rifles" or "rifles that fire a larger round then .223"? It would simply be willfully giving the advantage to our enemy (be it a foriegn power or a opresive domestic government).
[Edited on 5-14-2004 by Djarums]


LOL!!! Starchild, while I WHOLE HEARTEDLY agree with you, give the kid a break - he hasn't hit puberty yet....

[Edited on 14-5-2004 by American Mad Man]



posted on May, 14 2004 @ 04:41 AM
link   
I like shooting guns, it feels good. Guns for target practice, hunting, protection should be allowed for the working and retired Americans. If you want to shoot an extremly powerful gun then join the military. I am bothered by the fact that anyone can get a powerful weapon on the black market and I believe the working wo/man should have access to the same guns if not a little stronger that the criminals have. Idealism is not real so I can only dream about a balanced society.



posted on May, 14 2004 @ 05:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by curme

EDIT: Yes Valhall, these states put it in their constitution to protect themselves from tyranny. That's why we put it in the US constitution, so these states would have protection.
EIDT: Think of it this way. If Europe became one big country, and this big country said, oh, by the way, once you join, you can't have a military anymore. The States wanted some degree of self-determination before experimenting with this new idea democracy and new country, United States.


Well, another couple of real important points you're mising:

1. We're a constitutionalized republic of states. So, the constitution is meant to always reflect the will of the states - not vice verca.

2. 40 out of 50 states having it in their constitution makes it a majority unless my calculator's acting up.



posted on May, 14 2004 @ 05:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by AD5673
I just wanted to know if you think that it is alright that in America you could go off and buy guns? I dont think this is right ecause most likley murder would be reduced if it was stopped.

[Edited on 13-5-2004 by AD5673]


Yep agree with you We could create so much other things, good thing instead of War Equipment. I dont see how guns/weapons are going to help us anyway..



posted on May, 14 2004 @ 05:25 AM
link   
In the words of Ted Neugent "An armed society is a polite society"



posted on May, 14 2004 @ 08:55 AM
link   
In fact people will kill other people with anything, including rocks, sticks, and their bare hands. Does it stop palestinians from killing jews because they have no guns? Your comment is pure stupidity.



posted on May, 14 2004 @ 08:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Vegemite
In the words of Ted Neugent "An armed society is a polite society"


Kind of what you say to a shark if he bumps into you, politely say, "Excuse me," and swim out of his way.


It's the same principle.



posted on May, 14 2004 @ 09:00 AM
link   
I think we should be allowed to buy firearms to protect our homes in the UK. Sadly, new laws don't allow that.



posted on May, 14 2004 @ 09:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by AD5673
I know U.S. history pretty well. Im not stupid! And why is everyone going like crazy on me!?!!?
I think maybe because you don't know US history...

The United States Constitiution is the greatest piece of history that the US has. It is fundamental. To not know what it says, means, and stands for is a blind indicator of one lacking knowledge of US history.

Look at the gun thing this way. If we made the sale of guns illegal to citizens in good standing, then the only people that would have them would be criminals. Would you agree with a law that made certain that the only people who had firearms would be the ones willing to commit crimes with them?

And in all my years as a gun owner, I have never shot someone because I was pissed off at them. For such a young person, you certainly have little faith in the intelligence and reasonability of adults. Maybe you ought to consider listenting to adults other than the ones you listen to currently.

[EDIT]

Another thing - How many crimes do you think would be committed with firearms if criminals knew with certainty that everyone around them also had a firearm, and was trained to use them?

If every non-felon man and woman of legal age carried and was trained with the use of firearms, and was not hindered in their lawful use, there would be considerably less violent crime committed with firearms.

[Edited on 14-5-2004 by DeltaChaos]



posted on May, 14 2004 @ 09:08 AM
link   
I feel there are too many gun laws in effect in even Wisconsin of all places. It ain't no Californai, or Illinois, but still all the damn federal paperwork, just for me, a regular joe schmo, with no criminal background. It's bullsh|t.

Then the FBI does the background check, and do you really think they only keep it temporally?
HA!


I'm near certain they have a list of every gun owner, who bought one for a licensed gun seller.

That is why in Wisconsin, I look for a nice used, from a private owner, because there's no background check, no government paperwork, or any other bullsh|t.

It's a private transaction between two people, and if they guy who buys it shouldn't have one. Well that's his fault, and HE BROKE THE LAW. Don't make me get punished.

Ahh Wisconsin, #1 in pistol sales, even when we dont have a Vermont carry, or even CCW permits.



posted on May, 14 2004 @ 09:10 AM
link   
Curme, I'm not drowning, not in the factual truth that I have read, not from some textbook but from the recording of the words of the ones who wrote the constitution and the Bill of Rights. What I am drowning in is the ignorance of those who haven't a clue, who actually think that before there even was a National Guard, that the Framers were referring to the government telling the government that yes, it may have weapons. And that somehow, its own Army would go against history and not stand with the government but with the people. Rather than bunp your gums in a manner that only reinforces the obvious, that you need to learn on your own rather than take the words of the social reengineers that have misled you, take a few years and study.

I'm not going to bother with you any longer as I'm quite sure we are already to the point where it may not be obvious to a witness which one is the fool.



posted on May, 14 2004 @ 09:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by infinite
I think we should be allowed to buy firearms to protect our homes in the UK. Sadly, new laws don't allow that.


Well they could make new weapons that shoot love and peace on your enemy, not a dangerous piece of a # right in your body ouch Found a better way to deal with things instead of going thru the same Loop every hundreds of years. But this is joust fantasy right? Dreams dont come true after all?



posted on May, 14 2004 @ 09:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by curme
The vision of the Framers was that the members of the militia (the armed populace) would be organized in small military units for the purpose of training, and occasionally for actual military use. Each member would be expected to supply his own arms, which would be made possible by "the right of the people to keep and bear arms. What do you think 'well regulated' means? More gun control laws?
Curme, the spirit of the 2nd Amendment was intended to ensure that, in the event of tyrrany and dictatorial leadership on the part of the government, the people would be able to ensure their own freedoms by conducting a coup. This may seem odd in these times, but that was the idea. Thomas Jefferson was considered a 'rational anarchist' and his views on the right to bear arms was a) to secure one's property and the safety of his family, and b) to overtake a tyrranical executive branch and restore civil liberties guaranteed by the Constitution.

Doesn't it seem to you that that might be a good idea? Or would you rather our Executive branch simply continue circumvent established law in order to whittle away our rights of privacy, protection from illegal search and seizure, due process.... the list is GROWING, my friend!

[Edited on 14-5-2004 by DeltaChaos]



posted on May, 14 2004 @ 10:12 AM
link   
I don't think that banning guns will help lower murder rates, if someone wants to kill a person and doesn't have a gun, he/she will use something else like a bow, a knife, a piece of pipe, a rusty spoon, etc..

I do not currently own a gun of my own but there are guns in my household and I could use them if necessary and own a bow. I intend to buy a gun some day when I have a place of my own to protect myself, to fight back against tyranny if it ever comes to that point or to fight an ennemy occupation (you never know!)


look at the sig

edit: dam typos

[Edited on 14-5-2004 by Ranger]



posted on May, 14 2004 @ 02:31 PM
link   


I was once brainwashed by similar ideas, too. I was in school during the Columbine thing and everyone was awash in how guns are bad and dangerous

Guns are dangeorus. Im not saying it's all bad and all worse owning guns but MAYBE it would reduce crime. Remember people the name of this topic: "Do you think guns should allowed to be sold to citizens?"



posted on May, 14 2004 @ 02:39 PM
link   


Guns are dangeorus.


are they? if i put a gun on a table and leave it sit there...and noone touches it...is it going to go out and rob a liqour store on its own? or break into someone's house? how about a knife? is it going to magically leap off the table into someone's chest?

the person using the gun makes it dangerous, the gun itself, like anything else, is the medium used to extend that danger to its environment. if a person wants to hurt someone they're going to regardless if they have a weapon or not. if a person wants to rob a liqour store they'll find something else to use if they cant get a gun.

here's an example. if you take a perfectly good NEW sharpened pencil, you can kill someone with it. i wont say how as i'm sure most of us can use our imagination. now are pencil's dangerous? no. why not? they can kill someone cant they? so why not ask if people should be allowed to own pencils. in fact its the perfect weapon. quiet, small, VERY inconspicuous...no mechanisms to go bad, nothing to reload. and noone would suspect you of anything...but i digress.

yes law abiding people should be able to buy and own firearms. without question.



posted on May, 14 2004 @ 02:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by AD5673
Guns are dangeorus. Im not saying it's all bad and all worse owning guns but MAYBE it would reduce crime. Remember people the name of this topic: "Do you think guns should allowed to be sold to citizens?"


What you have to think about when you start talking about not selling guns to citizens, is that it is a right that we have. If we allow the government to take away this right, what other rights would we allow them to take away? Should we begin to tell people that they can only watch movies that have no violence in them because someone has proven that violence in movies is causing an upsurge in violence across the Nation? (Just a for instance, I have no data on this one.)

Also, you have to remember, there are those that use their guns to provide food for their families, and others that have been given their guns by their ancestors. Is it right to take away the guns of those individuals because there are elements in our society that choose to use guns for evil purposes? And, as has been said here before, criminals will get the guns anyway even if their sale is banned.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join