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.

 

America needs only one gun law

page: 2
8
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 18 2010 @ 10:39 AM
link   
Thinking more about the requirement to know how to field-strip and clean a weapon in order to be licensed to own one.

Cars are restricted more, as they should be (imo), because they are a privilege and not a right. Even so, there are no regulations that I know of that require a licensed driver to be able to tear down the top end of his cars engine and put it back together!




posted on Aug, 18 2010 @ 12:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
reply to post by aNdReSk
 

Besides, that Fort Hood lunatic was trained to clean and fire a rifle at least. How well did that work out?



In the case of the Ft. Hood shooter it could have been easily avoided
as he was a known member of a group that is tied to numerous
deaths of unarmed citizens.

Aka Islam...

www.thereligionofpeace.com...

Even the women raised under Sharia law are speaking out...



Also for all the ppl that will cry foul I will say most other religions
including Christianity have a lot of blood on their hands as well.

But at the moment Islam is leading in body count of innocents.



posted on Aug, 18 2010 @ 12:34 PM
link   
I follow what thisguyrighthere said: 2nd amendment precludes any kind of illegitimate legislation/statute/code/ordinance enacted by subordinate jurisdictions - IMO as an amendment to the supreme law of the land, any restriction on rights to own and carry (fire)arms must be considered infringements.

That having been said, voluntarily engaging in regulatory infringements may suit some folks more than others - there's far less stress carrying with a license in your possession than otherwise. As a side benefit, typical traffic stops are usually cordial & respectful as the LEO knows you're armed (and that you've been "blessed" by TPTB as a non-criminal).

gj



posted on Aug, 18 2010 @ 01:38 PM
link   
I agree with the original post. That is the way that the law should read. IMO.

I also agree that they should still teach Gun Safety Course in schools. I took the course in the 6th grade. My geography teacher brought 30 diffrent guns into the classroom, ranging from a blackpowder deringer to a 500 nitro express, and a Full-auto MAC-10 (He has a fed. license to have it). He taught us about the guns, how to handle them, clean them, and fire them. We took a class trip to a local pistol range and even got to fire some of them. (the parental permission slip had 2 things to give permission to. 1 the course, and 2 the firing of firearms) EVERY kids parent signed BOTH of the permissions and our teacher even bought the kids that passed a 1 year membership to the NRA! The kids that didnt pass (there were 3) got one on one attention from the teacher and passed the next test. None of those kids (or any others that ever passed that course, according to the teacher, whom I still talk to) have ever been convicted of any firearm or weapons crime. EVER. Some have gone on to do stupid things, but never with a weapon.

If they still offered that class in schools (or ever do in the future) I will have no problem with signing up my daughter and any other kids I have. She will already know how to use a gun (She already has a .22 rifle, and she is only 3), because she goes shooting with me, my wife, and my father (a retired police officer) regularly. I knew how to handdle a gun by the time that I took the course (as I used to hunt and shoot with my dad), but it was still good.



posted on Aug, 18 2010 @ 01:52 PM
link   
Just remember:

An armed person is a citizen,
an un-armed person is a victim!


The only thing the current gun laws do is to take the guns out of the law-abiding citizens hands and to assure that the gun-wielding criminals will have an easier time having their way with the rest of us.


Seriously, when was the last time that you heard of a crimminal deciding not to use a gun, because he was not legally allowed to use it? When was the first?

Criminals dont give a s&*t about the laws, (thats why their criminals
) so why do we continue to pass laws that are supposed to limmit them?

A person in the old west was 10 times LESS likely to get shot than anyone in even the strictest gun hating cities in the USA today.

Has anyone ever wondered why the cities with the strictest gun laws, often have the most gun crimes and the highest crime rates? Because the citizens can't defend themselves, and the crooks know this.

As if you couldnt tell, I am all for a federally granted open carry law and a federal CCW law as well.



[edit on 8/18/2010 by Ghost of Chewie]



posted on Aug, 18 2010 @ 06:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Exuberant1
 


we already need the feds permission not only to own one but what type
how many rounds
what it looks like

etc.


agreed tho some people dont like the second ammendment


if the founding fathers were alive today i can guarantee they all would know what the "machine gun smile" is"

[edit on 18-8-2010 by neo96]



posted on Aug, 18 2010 @ 09:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Ghost of Chewie
 


Very well said, your points were exactly at the core of what I was trying to draw attention and discussion; to the idea we need parents, schools, and communties involved in the promotion of fire arm education. I sometimes wonder how many young children who accidently fire off a weapon, while hurting or killing someone, ever had a parent who taught them simple fire arm safety? Your post reminded me of another tid bit of pre-paranoia America. I grew up in a rural Indiana town. Boys in high school were allowed to carry knives with them to school, as long as they were kept in a belt sheath, while being under a certain length. In addition, I remember walking trap lines with many of my teenage friends early in the mornings. In many instances we would come upon an animal which was still alive in the trap, this is why we always carried a weapon, to put it quickly out of its misery. Why am I mentioning this short story? After walking the trap lines we would have to high tail it to school, and at this time of pre-paranoia America school children were allowed to even bring fire arms onto school grounds as long as they were properly secured in a gun rack in their vehicles.

It seems ever time society in general becomes aware of some tragic event, such as school shootings, work place shootings, or even a terroist attack.Society in general acts in irrational, paranoia, and presumptious ways which results in our freedoms and liberities to be even further eroded by the actions of a few insane people. Which brings to mind one of my most favorite quotes from Ben Franklin, "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety,deserve neither liberty nor safety."


[edit on 18-8-2010 by AmosGraber]



posted on Aug, 18 2010 @ 09:14 PM
link   
good idea op,i really believe guns are nice,when everyone is armed and know theyr rights,there wont be so much fights and crime.
no one wants to risk getting shot over a simple argument.
if you get into a car crash,and some old punk comes to try to assault you over road rage,when they know you have the right to shoot them in place 30 times,they will think twice before thinking like animals....bastards.
and yes we should learn to assemble and clean them. i love cleaning my gun,and i wish there was a course that teached me,i had to teach my self...



posted on Aug, 21 2010 @ 08:04 PM
link   
It would be nice if someone (not me, I cant afford it) sued the American Government for infringing upon out 2nd ammendment rights, And the individual States as well.

I live in Illinois, and the BS laws that they have passed for guns in this state are absolutely ridiculous!

The FOID card: You have to pay what equates to a tax ($15.00 for 10 years) to posess a gun or to buy a gun or ammo. At most places you have to have a FOID to even handle a firearm at a gun store.

No Open Carry

No Concealed Carry

If you want to own a gun in Chicago, now that the bans been lifted, you have to pay $100.00 Per gun (every three years) to register that gun [GUN REGISTERY!!] and you can only register one gun per month. They are also trying to remove ALL gun stores from Chicago.

All 4 of these examples are BLATANT infringments upon our 2nd Ammendment rights, by the Government of the State of Illinois.

Where in the Constitution does it state the type of firearm that I can carry? Ammo capacity? Action type? Caliber? Ammo type? Method of transport? Anything except that I have the RIGHT to own and carry a firearm, anytime I wish?

[edit for spelling]

[edit on 8/21/2010 by Ghost of Chewie]



posted on Aug, 22 2010 @ 05:35 AM
link   
reply to post by Ghost of Chewie
 


I believe many people, groups, and organizations have tried to bring various infringements upon the 2nd amendment up through the court system. However, at some point the courts always end up refusing to hear the case, in some of the opinions of judges I have read in cases, the common legal opinion is they refer it back to the states, not that I agree, that’s just is what has repeatedly happened throughout American history with challenges in relationship to the 2nd amendment, this happens to legal arguments presented from both sides of this issue, actually. It is as if either the judiciary is afraid or doesn’t want to rule on any of those cases.



posted on Aug, 22 2010 @ 10:23 AM
link   
I'm pretty OK with one gun law: 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. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't have gun education. Quite the opposite, actually. I am currently training my 12-year-old son in gun use and safety and he's doing great!



posted on Aug, 22 2010 @ 10:26 AM
link   
reply to post by AmosGraber
 


I am completely against all liberal gun laws, including the 2nd amendment. In saying that however i understand you Americans like your guns, your idea seems perfectly logical to me. You need to learn to get a driving licence so why not to own a gun.

S&F



posted on Aug, 22 2010 @ 09:26 PM
link   
reply to post by kevinunknown
 


May I ask what the gun laws are in Scotland? Do they have anything simmaler to our 2nd ammendment?

I appreciate that not everyone belives in the fact that Americans should be able to carry guns or own them. That being said, I appreciate your open mind in seeing what we are saying reguarding training to carry/ own, not just the fact that we are saying we want to have guns.

Thank you for your understanding. I wish we had more people with your mindset here in America. Just because we say you CAN own a gun we are not saying you HAVE to own one, just don't stop me from owning one or carring one, if I am willing to go thru the classes and training, at my own expence, to do so.

Star for you and




[edit on 8/22/2010 by Ghost of Chewie]



posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 06:10 AM
link   
reply to post by AmosGraber
 


You have a decent point, but you're ignoring practical matters.

If you can't be a convicted felon, there needs to be yet another law in place to ensure that convicted felons do not receive guns. We have that law, it's called the Brady bill which allows a three day waiting period for background checks to prevent just such things.

Your ability to maintain and use a firearm would also need a bureaucracy behind it to actually be able to test it, creating an entire group of laws needed to support it.

Then there's another issue you're overlooking. In your 'one gun law' you're doing nothing to address the problem of people buying a gun when they're in a fit of rage or when they're clinically psychotic. I don't think it would be proper for someone that hallucinates a dog telling him to kill people to have a right to buy a gun. Or for a person to be able to immediately purchase a gun right after he finds out that his wife has been sleeping with his brother.

An entirely different issue arises that you're not addressing as to how far this right should go. Can I own an M4? What about a Javelin (the anti-tank weapon, not the old throwing spear)? What about a MAC-10? An M249?
And that's just the single person operated weapons. What about howitzers? Mortars? Anti-aircraft turrets?
And then the vehicles. Can I purchase my own Abrams? What about an Apache? How about an F-16?
And even further you have ICBMs. And let's not overlook the nuclear issue.

And the last issue that arises is quantity. Should I be allowed to own 4000 weapons to create my own mercenary army? I think we need yet another gun law to address that issue.

Unless you want to have an absolute freedom of the right to bare arms you're going to need a structure of laws to reinforce a basic declaration of the right to keep and bare weapons. An absolute right to keep arms creates all sorts of problems that most societies would love to avoid.



posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 06:19 AM
link   
Yeah .. anyone should beable to own a gun... for self defense ..or hunting
...
.Maybe we should place each new gun owner into a small cell.. with a couple of rounds..and a 3 bottles of water...and cooking supplies for a week .. and place a small animal within the cell...after 3 days
... Maybe they shoot them self .. or the animal.. ?... are they safe to own the gun or not >... time will tell... .. just a thought...



posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 07:01 AM
link   
reply to post by AmosGraber
 


I think all should citizens should have to pass a written and oral test, demonstrating their knowledge of the English language. They will need to demonstrate proper spelling, punctuation, grammar and word usage. If they fail this test or if they are a felon, they will lose the right to freedom of speech. If they are too dumb to pass the test, they shouldn't be allowed to speak.

What do you think? Sounds pretty absurd doesn't it?

[edit on 8/23/2010 by minute2midnight]

[edit on 8/23/2010 by minute2midnight]



posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 07:56 AM
link   
I got one, I think this is the one and only gun law that this country should have.

If you have been convicted of a violent crime, you cannot ever have a gun.

That's it.



posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 08:30 AM
link   
reply to post by minute2midnight
 


You can't really kill someone with freedom of speech. And the ways in which you can injure someone through freedom of speech tend to be illegal. You're comparing apples to telescopes, the two things are unrelated.



posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 11:04 PM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


I agree, but have you noticed how many people who champion the right to free speach often use it to complain about the right to bear arms?

Anyone who wants to can say damn near anything they want because they have the god given right to do so "because God gave me a voice!"

What about my right to bear arms? God gave me hands to hold a weapon, and hips to hold up a loaded gun belt, why can't I excercise that right without the government and police infringing upon that right?

I agree that criminals should not be able to posess a gun, but why do the politicians want the criminals to be the only ones who posess them? (by enacting laws to take the arms from law abiding citizens)



posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 06:32 PM
link   
reply to post by minute2midnight
 



Originally posted by minute2midnight

I think all should citizens should have to pass a written and oral test, demonstrating their knowledge of the English language. They will need to demonstrate proper spelling, punctuation, grammar and word usage. If they fail this test or if they are a felon, they will lose the right to freedom of speech. If they are too dumb to pass the test, they shouldn't be allowed to speak.

What do you think? Sounds pretty absurd doesn't it?



I’m not a English teacher, but I am a Social Studies teacher. However, if I was a English teacher, I would have to mark you down as not using the proper form of English grammar in your statement. You made two errors in English grammar. When you typed, “they will lose the right to freedom of speech.” Your usage of English grammar is incorrect; you should have said, “they will lose the right OF freedom of speech” And when you typed, “I think all should citizens should have to pass…”, the correct English grammar should have been, “I think all (delete the word ‘should’)citizens should have to pass…”. But just because you failed the test, I think you should still be allowed to speak.


And, yes I think that is pretty absurd, because no one can find anywhere in our Constitution where the founding fathers stated our country should have a national institutionalized language. Why? Because at the time so many parts of our nation spoke not only different languages, but even many different dialects of those languages, much like in the present. It would have been absurd then, it would be absurd today. Freedom, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness doesn’t mean anything if you mandate to people how they should communicate. Some things should just simply be left up to the people to naturally interact, such as communication. America is a country diverse, rich and full of many different heritages. Too many errors have already happened in our history when we tried to force cultures to become “God fearing English speaking people”, for example, the inhuman treatment of the Native Americans when we first forced their migration into “concentration styled” reservations, forcing them to stop speaking their native languages, while trying to force them to give up their personal customs, religious beliefs and rituals.



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join