Why do Americans need guns? Rip UP the Second Amendment, problem solved.

page: 7
33
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 14 2010 @ 01:17 PM
link   
reply to post by hangedman13
 


Nope as I understand it to get a gun in some states only requires a photographic ID.

If it’s the operators fault then take his gun away before he has the chance to cause harm the only way to do that is to regulate guns or , as i think should happen. Ban them.
edit on 14-12-2010 by kevinunknown because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 14 2010 @ 01:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by kevinunknown
reply to post by seagull
 


They started getting rid of the in 1928 if my memory serves me right and then got very strict in the 90’s after a gun man walked into a class room of children and shot them all. After that the government banned all hand guns, I know people personally affected by that and therefore even if I had a choice i would never own a gun.


IMO.. if the teacher had a gun he or she could have neutralized the threat completely or at the very least saved more rather than standing there like a wide eyed victim.

I cant recall totally.. Im sure someone here can.. we had a similar scenario last year I believe it was. The teacher ( or school official) shot the gunman before he could kill the children. Gunmen intent on these things do now always own legal or registered firearms. If the legal firearms were outlawed here, we'd all be victims like the kids at the school you spoke of.

A firearm should always be your last line. Here at my home I have security cameras, warning signs that youre being recorded and we are armed. If a criminal is foolish enough to disregard those warnings, he will be killed before he can harm me or my family. When out, I can not wear a sign on my forehead or my car. I will use a firearm to kill a threat. I will also use a firearm to kill a threat to an unarmed fellow American. As I said, we have 100 citizens per police officer here.. I will not become a statistic or allow my family to become a statistic waiting on that cop to get here from the other side of town. Our criminals are armed.



posted on Dec, 14 2010 @ 01:22 PM
link   
If the US wishes to have 'the right to bear arms' that is entirely up to them.

But comparing UK and US society on this subject is like comparing apples and oranges.

What's right for the US is not necessarily right for the UK.

Adequate provisions are provided for UK citizens who want to use guns for either work or leisure by UK law and the vast majority of UK citizens do not want any relaxation of gun control laws.

The US, and quite rightly so, will do as the US see's fit for the US.



posted on Dec, 14 2010 @ 01:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Advantage
 


I cannot accept that guns are a good idea in a school also under the free school zones act would that teacher have not been breaking the law.



posted on Dec, 14 2010 @ 01:22 PM
link   
reply to post by kevinunknown
 
Can you imagine what our country would be like if we weren't armed?Our guns keep the wolves(government) from taking everything we have.



posted on Dec, 14 2010 @ 01:23 PM
link   
reply to post by kevinunknown
 


Depends on the location, some states like New Jersey have far more restrictions on firearm ownership. That being said pretty much everywhere to my knowledge uses the NCIC background check to make sure they aren't about to sell a weapon to a convicted felon, but then most people who shouldn't have firearms because of prior convictions tend to get therm either by stealing them or going to someone who has no scruples about selling them a weapon illegally, and that of course wont ever be hampered by any amount of laws; criminals are criminals because of their desire to ignore laws - those laws only work for those who follow them.



posted on Dec, 14 2010 @ 01:24 PM
link   
when the government moves to take away our guns, the government will no longer be in power......i assure you



posted on Dec, 14 2010 @ 01:28 PM
link   
I grew up hunting for meat. I take offense to the notion of taking away our firearms.

Guns don't kill people, people kill people.



posted on Dec, 14 2010 @ 01:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by projectvxn
reply to post by kevinunknown
 


They outright banned guns in Chicago 28 years ago or so...Since then the place has become worse than Baghdad at the height of the war. This is no exaggeration either. Washington DC had a handgun ban in place for a long time, when that was overturned by the Supreme Court ownership skyrocketed, crime? Not so much, in fact they are experiencing a decline in crime as far as call statistics are concerned.

Gun bans don't work unless you get rid of every single gun in the known universe...Good luck getting government to give up their guns.


This is the reality of gun bans. It is also the point which most proponents of gun bans are most likely to ignore and refuse to even address.



posted on Dec, 14 2010 @ 01:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by kevinunknown
reply to post by Advantage
 


I cannot accept that guns are a good idea in a school also under the free school zones act would that teacher have not been breaking the law.


I do not remember that being a factor in this story. As I said I do not recall the whole story and I hope that someone here could remember it!
Guess I should have looked for it before mentioning it.

If you can, look up the flow of guns to the criminals and organized crime over our border in the south. We'd be at the mercy of these people if we did not remain armed. You are on an island with no constant flow of firearms and narcotics fueling the criminals. Our govt refuses to secure our border and these armed criminals have taken over entire cities in our states lining the border. Basically what applies to you on an island with a fraction of the population we have here does not apply to us.



posted on Dec, 14 2010 @ 01:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by kevinunknown


The argument is always that it’s for self defence, that way if someone pulls a gun on a knife on you, you can protect yourself. It’s a hard one to argue against, but surly if it were the case that gun’s were outlawed or heavily regulated it would lead to a overall reduction in the number of firearms owned and therefore the odds of someone pulling a gun on you would be greatly reduced therefore you wouldn’t have to own a fire arm and the odds would fall further.


In case you haven't noticed, criminals do not adhere to regulations or laws.. they will get guns no matter what you try to do to stop them. A well armed society is the best deterrent to violent crime. If a criminal knows you could very well be carrying a gun, they'll think long and hard before they attempt anything.

Also, as for the "gun free safe zones" most of the kids killed in schools would be alive today if students and faculty would have been allowed to carry a gun. They could have shot the person doing the killing before more people got killed. Since you obviously don't live here, I'll fill you in on a little detail.. in order to carry a handgun, you have to take a course and prove you can handle it safely and shoot it safely.

And as to your argument about government... looks to me like there's a bit of rioting in the old UK because the govt over promised and now can't deliver... you can trust your govt all you want.. I'll stay free instead.



posted on Dec, 14 2010 @ 01:38 PM
link   
One reason to own a firearm.....

When the police are only minutes away, seconds matter.



posted on Dec, 14 2010 @ 01:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Advantage
 


Amen to that. Can you imagine what it would be like in out southwest border states if they possesses gun laws like those found in California, Massachusetts, and New Jersey? One does not need to stretch the imagination to see that Mexican lawlessness could easily filter northwards if the border towns, cities, and states were comprised of unarmed, peace-loving sheeple.

Being a lifelong New Englander, I suddenly find myself grateful for Texas......LOL!



posted on Dec, 14 2010 @ 01:42 PM
link   
reply to post by kevinunknown
 


Lets put it this way, no matter how much you regulate a weapon, the criminals will always find a way to get their hands on one or two. Leaving them with power and you as their prey. What happens when an armed robber breaks into your house and wont think twice about putting one in your head and your families.

Now, would you rob a house knowing that the person inside has a weapon and is trained in handling said weapon?

It's not about not having weapons, its about allowing us to have weapons and also teaching us everything their is to know about usage and safety. Prepare us not limit us.

Peace!



posted on Dec, 14 2010 @ 01:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by kevinunknown
Now to me I can understand why a farmer might own a few shotguns or a hunter might own a few hunting rifles but why does anyone need a semi-automatic, unless their objective is to kill.


Because we live under the rule of law and the law is to be applied equally (an argument for another time and place). You cannot give farmers the right to own one but then deny everyone else.


To me guns are inherently evil objects that have been designed to kill our fellow man and therefore are evil as is to use a gun to kill.


What about a sword? A knife? A billy-club? Trying to logically personify a gun as evil by saying the being using it is evil and therefore the gun is evil is twisted logic. Hell, some people are trained to use their hands as a lethal weapon, does that make ones hands evil? That argument doesn't stand up.


Further to this there have been a number of high profile shootings in America were a gun man has committed multiple homicide or gang warfare has resulted in innocents being killed. Now with that in mind how can you possibly say that the right to bear arms is justified? Yes some people need guns to do their jobs such as game keepers, farmers and law enforcement but why does Joe the plumber really need one.


Maybe Joe the plumber's neighborhood has been going down hill for a while. As he is trying to sell his house in the mean time, he feels the need to have personal protection from the criminals that are obtaining guns to specifically kill people. Joe's use of the gun is for protection of his life and property.


The argument is always that it’s for self defence, that way if someone pulls a gun on a knife on you, you can protect yourself. It’s a hard one to argue against, but surly if it were the case that gun’s were outlawed or heavily regulated it would lead to a overall reduction in the number of firearms owned and therefore the odds of someone pulling a gun on you would be greatly reduced therefore you wouldn’t have to own a fire arm and the odds would fall further. In any case you can never be sure it’s going to help your odds, if two gun men mug you or break into your house you’re already on the losing side. Now baring in mind that there are almost enough firearms America for every citizen the robbers are going to know you have a gun in your house, they are going to be prepared and have the element of surprise on their side.


You would be surprised at the mental psychology of a criminal if they knew before hand that the place or person they are about to rob is able to meet apples with apples. Self preservation is an amazing force of nature. It is also noted that heavy regulation of firearms makes it harder for law abiding citizens to obtain and own; criminals have no respect for the law and will always obtain them.

On top of that, heavy regulation or banning a firearm will only create a gigantic black market.


Now am sorry to spit on your 2nd amendment right, but for me self defence is not a valid argument for defending the 2nd amendment. Also the ability to carry arms has been severely restricted by the Gun-Free School zones act of 1990 signed by Gorge H W Bush, which is ironic considering that 41% of republicans own a firearm compared to only 23% of democrats so kudos to Bush. This does mean though that as a law abiding citizen in a town or city you really can’t carry a gun knowing that you are not breaking a law. As such you would be better just not carrying one, so again if you get attacked by someone you shouldn’t have a gun to defend yourself in the first place because to be carrying said firearm you would be breaking the law.


Again, the law abiding citizen will follow the law. A criminal will not. You have effectively disarmed the victims and empowered the criminals.


So can someone please tell me why you need a gun? In the UK I know no one who owns a gun, and no one I know has ever been disadvantaged because of this why is it that the worlds “super power” is any different, Gun Laws are out of date, rip up the second amendment and join the 21st century .


We can't just rip it up. There has only been one amendment that has ever been repealed.
edit on 14-12-2010 by ownbestenemy because: fixed quoting
edit on 14-12-2010 by ownbestenemy because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 14 2010 @ 01:45 PM
link   
This is the way I see it.

We must keep up with our neighbors and rivals. Even if you are against guns as a whole; if other people have them then you better have one, too.



posted on Dec, 14 2010 @ 01:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by kevinunknown
reply to post by seagull
 


They started getting rid of the in 1928 if my memory serves me right and then got very strict in the 90’s after a gun man walked into a class room of children and shot them all. After that the government banned all hand guns, I know people personally affected by that and therefore even if I had a choice i would never own a gun.



If the teacher in that class room add been armed things might have been different. Same goes for Columbine, Virginia Tech, etc. etc.



posted on Dec, 14 2010 @ 01:47 PM
link   
reply to post by kevinunknown
 


I can protect myself and family without a gun. MY main purpose for having one is -- because I want one.
This is pretty much the same reason I buy ice cream -- because I want some.

NOW, if you really want to start a fight, just try to take away my right of free speech or my gun, and you really don't want to talk about my Constitution being "just a piece of paper". Your no G W Bush.



posted on Dec, 14 2010 @ 01:49 PM
link   
reply to post by ZombieWoof
 


Since they got rid of the hand guns, we’ve not really had any notable disaster on that scale it worked.



posted on Dec, 14 2010 @ 01:49 PM
link   
reply to post by kevinunknown
 

All I can say to you sir, is you obviously haven't been robbed at gunpoint. The Bill of rights, and The Constitution, and Articles of Confederation are America's most sacred documents, and are not to be torn up, or taken away. My guns are for protection of my family and myself, the little town we live in has had two home invasions in the past month, and the perps had guns. When guns are banned, only criminals will have guns. Want my gun? Come try to get it.





new topics
 
33
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join