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.

 

To all the people who want to ban guns.

page: 9
225
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 08:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Obinhi
People who wish to own a gun for legal uses should not mind a waiting period and other checks on them, as they should not have an immediate need for a firearm, nor should they have anything that they would be afraid to be reviled by such a background check.

In conclusion it falls on us gun owners to protect ourselves from having our right to bear arms removed all together. I feel that the only option is for us to enact strict gun control on the people who want to buy weapons in the first place. It is a fact that the vast majority of people who own fire arms never commit a violent crime. The weapons are only used for personal defense, home protection, and sport. Most people who own weapons understand that it is a serious responsibility to own something that has the power to take a life and respect the weapon as such. It is up to us, the gun owners, to suggest systems to ease the fears of the non-gun owning public while at the same time protecting our second amendment rights.

thanks for your contribution and even though i agree with much of your statements, when you insist on regulating the 'law abiding citizens' and negate to address the real problem, this opinion tends to get filed, well you know, in one of those disposal thingys.

I am appalled that more and more (law associated ppl) think the citizenry should concede their Constitutional right in lieu of openly permitting every other heathen full access.(which hasn't changed and no one even seems to desire trying)

Until the criminals are Prevented from acquiring guns, restrictions on the remaining citizenry should be rescinded. The Brady bill was/is a farce. the cities with bans, have more gun crime and the criminals NEVER meet any legal requirement of possession/ownership/safety.

Thank you for your service and thank you for sharing.
I agree with these 3 sentences entirely ...

In conclusion it falls on us gun owners to protect ourselves from having our right to bear arms removed all together. ~~ Most people who own weapons understand that it is a serious responsibility to own something that has the power to take a life and respect the weapon as such. It is up to us, the gun owners, to suggest systems to ease the fears of the non-gun owning public while at the same time protecting our second amendment rights.
i just don't believe any system of restricting a qualified citizens right is the answer.




posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 08:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Obinhi
 

Some good points and all my guns are registered with the state. Here's one problem is see, criminals are not going to register their guns, most are hot anyway and they will continue to steal guns from law abiding citizens, my uncle just had 8 guns stolen. If they were to also to do the code marked bullets, how many people are going to end up falsely accused because someone stole their gun and or marked ammo, committed a crime and they trace it all back to you and you didn't know the gun was stolen? That's going to be a tough explanation. I just don't see how more gun control is the answer to our problem at least in the states. They love chiseling away at the constitution, where does it stop?



posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 08:10 PM
link   
reply to post by ColonelGurn
 


not defending either in this case, but how about you let a women hit you in the head with a rake? Let them forks dig into the side of your face. Even your ribs for that matter. Have a good one.

Also you do not want us to be able to make our own deer meat etc you want us taxed and unable to eat this? Deer already are over populating in some parts of where I live. Wait wait this is just how its suppose to go. Our big cities and towns invaded the deers open space. We as a species are not suppose to have our territory like lions and other animals mark there territory and kill whatever comes into it. Unlike the lion though we usually catch and release the animals in our territory.
edit on 11-1-2011 by ExCloud because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 08:27 PM
link   
reply to post by ExCloud
 


I am pretty sure I can handle myself against a drunk woman with a rake.

As for your other points about hunting for food etc. I actually agree with guns for this purpose. Saying this however, there needs to be a struct registration (age restriction, criminal history etc.) process involved to ensure that all guns to be used for this purpose are accounted for. Housing them in a secure, locked cabinet should also be required.

As I said before. It's a little too late to put any struct laws in place as I appreciate people need to protect their families. But as I said before, a long term solution should be put in place.

Thanks for your reply.

I look forward to contributing to this community which I have been browsing for many years.



posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 08:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by ColonelGurn

. . .Saying this however, there needs to be a struct registration (age restriction, criminal history etc.) process involved to ensure that all guns to be used for this purpose are accounted for. Housing them in a secure, locked cabinet should also be required.

. . .


What part of shall not be infringed are you not understanding?



As for hunting. Yeah, guns are great for that. But let's not forget the real reason we have the right to bear arms



posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 08:32 PM
link   
reply to post by ColonelGurn
 


I do not think a long term plan of removal should be put in place if this is what you are suggesting. A long term plan to tighten security on what type of people have the guns etc get them so criminals dont that might be plausible.



posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 08:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by ExCloud
reply to post by mtnshredder
 


My guess is he suggests do not go outside. Also if you die to a bear attack that its proper the animal and mother nature beat you. Even though you had the bigger brain and once had a gun and a means to defend yourself. You had to shrink your mental capacity a bit to not arm yourself and concede defeat to a animal less superior that will attack and maul you for no reason.




Well maybe then the Anti-Gun nuts out there can start a Anti-Bear Campaign. These people just will never understand the facts that you put in front of them. Ban guns from law abiding citizens and you get criminals that are the only ones packing heat making there line of work in the criminal field that much easier. After all they are criminals they will always have guns whether there is a gun ban or not. Ban Criminals for christ sake i've heard enough of there side of the story because you cannot reason with them they don't care and don't wanna hear about what those of us that are Pro-Gun think. They think banning guns is the only answer to solve all the worlds problems period and those of us that live in the "Real" world know that its much much deeper and more involved than that.

If we lived in a Utopia where everyone was happy all the time, you'd never face any danger or threat and every human being got along with one another than I would have no problem giving up my guns. Since this will never happen in my lifetime or ever for that matter I'll be holding onto my guns.



posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 08:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by chuckk

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck

Originally posted by knylon90
reply to post by JohnnyCanuck
 
It's part of the American way of thinking to happily and willingly trade personal safety for personal freedom.

However, the fact that Americans have an alarming propensity towards shooting each other is also a part of the debate. Keep your laws...in fact keep your guns out of Canada...but just because we are different doesn't make us wrong as the OP suggests.

If Canada had the same high percentage of illegals and lazy people, it would be the same there too.


Are you suggesting then that I should quit complaining about the climate? 9 months of winter and 3 months of bad skiing? That takes care of the palmetto bugs as well.

Frankly, all I'm getting from this thread is that if you live in the US, you need a gun. So you guys figure it out.



posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 08:42 PM
link   
Anyone who truely looks into the facts knows that populations who are armed are less likely to be suppressed and marched off to the slaughter houses or more appropiately fema camps as in Americas case.
I look forward to your comments...
www.youtube.com...
This one is more applicable to the US.
www.youtube.com...



posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 08:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Spankinstein
I will disarm when the rest of the world disarms or begins to behave in a manner in which I see fit.


No kidding.

If some magical mystical being could remove every gun from this planet - - - and guarantee none would be made again - - I'd give up the right to guns.

But that is not going to happen. Until then - - - EXPLAIN the 2nd amendment and what it means.

If you truly understand the 2nd amendment - - you would not ban guns.
edit on 11-1-2011 by Annee because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 08:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by aorAki

Originally posted by mtnshredder
.........what do you suggest?


Well, humans have always lived in inappropriate areas. I would say move, but I know you won't like that.

Whats inapprporiate about living in the mtns? Man's done it since the begining of time, they don't have many caves in Kansas.




They won't attack and maul you for no reason. The reason may not be obvious to your "bigger brain" but there would be a reason.

You obviously live in a city, do some research Blk bear mauling and deaths are very high we had a few unprovoked bear attacks last yr, one lady in Ouray not far from me was dead and being eaten when the sherriffs dept arrived. They are more afraid of us than we are of them and if you leave them alone they usually leave you alone, but this is not always the case and changing as they get more used to humans and we build more in the mtn's. I'm not talking little blk bears, we have 600lb+ bears where I live. Your actualy an idiot if you go hiking or camping without a gun where I live. You can also please stop with the insults at anytime.



edit on 11-1-2011 by mtnshredder because: (no reason given)

edit on 11-1-2011 by mtnshredder because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 08:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Honor93
...a crazy neighbor lady (later found to be extremely inebriated) jumped the fence.





Now, this person was not visibly armed at the time she was fired upon,




So what you're essentially saying is that you shot a drunk, unarmed woman because she stepped on your lawn, knocked over your BBQ and tried to go into your shed? You say "was not visibly armed", but I'm guessing that if it had later been found that she was concealing some sort of weapon you probably would have mentioned it.



at one point she wielded a 6ft rake,



Oh no! Scary drunk woman with a rake! I haven't looked at your profile, I just quickly read your post, so I have no idea what age or gender you are, but I'm assuming you're a female, probably aged between 14 and 16? Because there's no way a man would be so intimidated by a severely intoxicated lady who's wielding a pretty un-frightening garden tool. Not that it makes any difference though, as she wasn't even wielding it when you shot her was she?



...learned how to rationalize the Need to use it.


No you didn't. If you'd rationalised how to use it you probably would have realised that your gun need never have left the drawer. The fact that you threatened to shoot her and she ignored you shows that she was clearly out of it, she didn't pose a threat to you. You could've just grabbed her and she wouldn't have been able to do anything about it. If you were too scared to do that you could easily have kept enough distance between you until the police turned up. But no, by that time she might have drunkenly stepped on your flower bed or spilled beer on your lawnmower. SHOOT HER! and for christ's sake why was your 'mate' aiming at her head? Didn't you say this woman was your Neighbour? Seems to me that once the police had arrived they wouldn't have much trouble identifying and tracking down the perpetrator. This is why people like you shouldn't have guns, you're too quick to use them in situations that could easily be resolved without using lethal force. As far as I'm concerned your little story has acted against your cause, not for it.




Now, what is wrong with that?


You ( or someone you know) shot an unarmed drunk woman and you think it's OK.

To the OP, you mentioned that countries in which guns are illegal tend to have higher rates of murder with firearms than those in which gun possession is legal. You didn't state your sources.
I've had a quick look and the stats I found put the USA up at the top of the list with the likes of South America and Africa. These statistics are per capita, so the figures are relative to population. You'll notice that South Africa is at the top of the list - a country where gun ownership is legal provided you can pass a competency test etc. It also shows that America has 27 times as many gun related murders than the UK, where gun ownership is strictly controlled. If you have sources of statistics that contradict this please feel free to post them.
I got mine here:
www.nationmaster.com...



posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 08:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by ColonelGurn
So you shot a drunk woman who was "not visably armed"? How on earth can you think that is justified? Oh wait, I suppose she did previously wave a 6 foot rake at you. Being an inebriated female she could have also done some damage with that gardening appliance which would have almost certainly been much bigger than herself.

I think that is a terrible story and can't disagree more with how you reacted. If a tipsy bird came stumbling through my garden I would laugh, not shoot the poor thing.

I signed up to this forum to reply to this thread and post.

I live in the South of England. I am 24 and have never seen a gun, I've never heard of anyone owning a gun and I have never heard of anyone being shot within any of the local areas I have lived in. This is primarily down to the fact that we can't have guns.

Do the pro-gun Americans really not realise that guns sole and only purpose is to kill?

The only reason you have so many guns held by criminals (which I appreciate is why non-criminal gun owners need them) is because of your second ammendment (I believe it's the second ammendment - I may be wrong).

The pro-gun attitude of "I need my gun in case they try and take my gun away" makes me laugh.

I agree that it's a bit late to just ban or outlaw guns. However a long term plan should be put in place to erradicate the need for them.

Anyway, thanks for reading my first post.

You're welcome. glad i could contribute even if you don't agree.

this crazy lady was twice my size (easy-cause i'm not 100lbs soaking wet) and you could see the steam flowing from her ears ... is why i dialed 911 Before she encroached/invaded/climbed the fence.

when you fire from behind the subject (as i was), her hands were not visible and she refused to show them on request or to make them visible.
Hence, i had no way to determine her lethality at that very moment. the last time i saw her was with a weapon (rake) ... by the time i was in a position to fire, for all i knew she could have been wielding a sword or her own gun for that matter. My mate was drawn (with his 9m) less than 10ft from her face, yet she was still advancing.
She was warned, Multiple times, she was given ample opportunity to retreat and yes, i fired and i'd do it again in a heartbeat.

justification is via Castle Doctrine and Stand your ground ... prior threats of bodily harm, fire-bombing and the aggressive attack nicely correlate with the requirements to use lethal force.

this lunatic was more than a "tipsy bird" and she meant to do serious harm ... what was i to do, permit her?
try to keep in mind, had i used any physical force on her, i would have been arrested for assault at a minimum.

glad i could be a catalyst for your participation.

given you are about 1/2 my age, a whole lot less experienced with life and the fact that this loony bird was younger than i (by a few years) ... what does age have to do with any of it? after you've been around another 20yrs, we'll talk again, ok?

in the S of England ?? no wonder you don't comprehend the reality of daily life in the US. why try? you are there and you'll never understand unless you are here, living it.


Do the pro-gun Americans really not realise that guns sole and only purpose is to kill?

well, with this comment, i'm guessing you only 'skimmed' the story or did you miss the 1st sentence?
20yrs ago, ppl who favored guns weren't permitted inside my home -- and guess what? those 20yrs ago, We (you and I) shared similar opinion. times change and so do people.

the 2nd amendment has Nothing to do with criminals getting guns ... what, do you think they hit a street corner, recite the 2nd and demand a gun? Puhleeez ... please don't make the mistake of blaming what you clearly don't understand. The 2nd is not responsible for criminal gun ownership/possession or use.

We will never eradicate the need for guns ... too many freaks looking to rule the world, or the next person or the resources or just the minds of those they control. As long as there is man, there will be guns.
Managing the use of them, i'm all for it ... restricting the possession of them ... wrong answer.



posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 08:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh

Originally posted by ColonelGurn

. . .Saying this however, there needs to be a struct registration (age restriction, criminal history etc.) process involved to ensure that all guns to be used for this purpose are accounted for. Housing them in a secure, locked cabinet should also be required.

. . .


What part of shall not be infringed are you not understanding?

[/url]


The constitution was written near on 250 years ago (I don't mean to patronise you). Do you not think that it's a bit outdated? As I said before. the reason you possibly have gun problems in your counrty is precisely because of this amendment. It's self fulfilling.


edit on 11-1-2011 by ColonelGurn because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 09:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rocky Black
Canada has been in a downward spiral as of the last 10 years. Though i have been there many times and I have to agree some places are beautiful. Your country is pretty socialist.
May I ask what your taxation rate there in CANADA is.


Further to this point, I direct your attention to the following thread:

Housing Market Now in Depression Clams CNBC abovetopsecret.com...


My house hasn't lost any value, and we're doin' ok.

Just sayin'...



posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 09:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Honor93
You're welcome. glad i could contribute even if you don't agree.

this crazy lady was twice my size (easy-cause i'm not 100lbs soaking wet) and you could see the steam flowing from her ears ... is why i dialed 911 Before she encroached/invaded/climbed the fence.

when you fire from behind the subject (as i was), her hands were not visible and she refused to show them on request or to make them visible.
Hence, i had no way to determine her lethality at that very moment. the last time i saw her was with a weapon (rake) ... by the time i was in a position to fire, for all i knew she could have been wielding a sword or her own gun for that matter. My mate was drawn (with his 9m) less than 10ft from her face, yet she was still advancing.
She was warned, Multiple times, she was given ample opportunity to retreat and yes, i fired and i'd do it again in a heartbeat.

justification is via Castle Doctrine and Stand your ground ... prior threats of bodily harm, fire-bombing and the aggressive attack nicely correlate with the requirements to use lethal force.

this lunatic was more than a "tipsy bird" and she meant to do serious harm ... what was i to do, permit her?
try to keep in mind, had i used any physical force on her, i would have been arrested for assault at a minimum.

glad i could be a catalyst for your participation.

given you are about 1/2 my age, a whole lot less experienced with life and the fact that this loony bird was younger than i (by a few years) ... what does age have to do with any of it? after you've been around another 20yrs, we'll talk again, ok?

in the S of England ?? no wonder you don't comprehend the reality of daily life in the US. why try? you are there and you'll never understand unless you are here, living it.


Do the pro-gun Americans really not realise that guns sole and only purpose is to kill?

well, with this comment, i'm guessing you only 'skimmed' the story or did you miss the 1st sentence?
20yrs ago, ppl who favored guns weren't permitted inside my home -- and guess what? those 20yrs ago, We (you and I) shared similar opinion. times change and so do people.

the 2nd amendment has Nothing to do with criminals getting guns ... what, do you think they hit a street corner, recite the 2nd and demand a gun? Puhleeez ... please don't make the mistake of blaming what you clearly don't understand. The 2nd is not responsible for criminal gun ownership/possession or use.

We will never eradicate the need for guns ... too many freaks looking to rule the world, or the next person or the resources or just the minds of those they control. As long as there is man, there will be guns.
Managing the use of them, i'm all for it ... restricting the possession of them ... wrong answer.




Having read a few of the previous posts (and from what I know via relatives in the US), it's not uncommon for very young children to have been around fire arms. That's the only reason I gave my age. I didn't mean it to come across as if to say "I am not a kid I know what I'm talking about" sort of thing.

Anyway. To be honest, you are probably right about me not having a full understanding of your society. Being in the situation you were faced with is evidently very different depending on geographical location.

With regards to your story I am probably missing the fact that someone could potentially be "packing heat" (is that a clishe or a term you actually use (HAHA)?)

All I can do is speak from my own experiance which is living in an area where I know there is no threat from someone shoving a gun in my face. With no guns around, I have no fear, thus I do not need a gun myself.

Once again, I admit my assumptions of the 2nd may not be correct. Maybe I am looking at it from a very base level?

It's something to think about anyway.

Thanks again.



posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 09:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Honor93
 

If she was that drunk couldn't you have just knocked arse over? I wasn't there so I won't judge you, but lethal force seems a little extreme when she was outside, could you not have shut the door and waited for the police. Now if she charged at you with a weapon and you really felt you were in danger I can see it but two guys with a gun on her and she's trashed armed with a rake, I'm thinking between the two of you, you could have taken her down without shooting her..



posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 09:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by ColonelGurn
. . .

The constitution was written near on 250 years ago (I don't mean to patronise you). Do you not think that it's a bit outdated? As I said before. the reason you have gun problems in your counrty is precisely because of this amendment. It's self fulfilling.



Really?

Then what will we use to protect ourselves from our neighbors, and furthermore, an errant government (which is why the second amendment was specifically enumerated)? Sticks and stones?

Laughable.

And out dated? Since the first 10 were written at the same time, then sit should all be out dated.

Freedom of speech? Freedom of religion? Freedom of press?

Undue search an seizure? State rights? Jury trials?



posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 09:17 PM
link   
ya know, you boys might be willing to 'take on' a crazy lady with a rake, but some of us aren't boys, number one, some of us aren't willing to take the risk (why damage myself over a stupid drunk?), number two and number three, why should i risk going to jail?

she broke in. she was on the attack. she refused to leave and she paid her price.

your machoism didn't help me that day. it isn't helping now and i really don't see your point.
how we protect ourselves is up to us (so says the Constitution) ... i used reasonable force for a given situation. doesn't mean i go around shooting neighbors on a regular basis.



posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 09:18 PM
link   
Are people only doughty online? I seriously doubt many people will cause as much ruckus in a public arena as they do online. The need to voice opinion is a much loved freedom we all need. But, why is it people can only muster the courage whilst online. I have yet to here these very same people take to the streets for preemptive action against the banning on guns. If guns do get banned or restricted in some way, I doubt that the internet warriors will line the streets as they claim so often via the web. Let us hope it works out for all concerned. I can not see a fine compromise.




top topics



 
225
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join