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.
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.
i just don't believe any system of restricting a qualified citizens right is the answer.
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.
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.
. . .
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.
Originally posted by chuckk
Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck
Originally posted by knylon90
reply to post by JohnnyCanuckIt'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.
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.
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.
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.
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,
at one point she wielded a 6ft rake,
...learned how to rationalize the Need to use it.
Now, what is wrong with that?
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.
Do the pro-gun Americans really not realise that guns sole and only purpose is to kill?
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]
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.
Housing Market Now in Depression Clams CNBC abovetopsecret.com...
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.
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.