I am so tired of hearing people protest about gun ownership in America., page 3

Don't forget the Declaration of Independence.
It's specific on what to do when tyranny rolls over us.

Originally posted by liejunkie01
I myself cannot own a firearm. This is one of my most shameful(regretful) actions of not giving a damn when I was younger. Yes I am a felon(non violent) and therefor forever screwed up my abilities of ever owning a gun.

So on the one hand they say you've paid you debt to society, on the other, you loose your rights for the rest of your life.

The trick is that they are trying to make almost everything a felony. It seems that is the best way to strip rights one person at a time.
Most Common Felony Crimes

Another list of felonies

I think the most popular of the cops is the Disorderly Conduct, they should just pre-print that and Resisting Arrest and Assault on an Officer right on the arrest report.
No need to write it every time gees, you know it's going on there.

reply to post by stupid girl

---

Dear Stupid Girl,
Thank you for the enlightening topic. I'd like to add my opinion, although you pretty much outright negate the fact anyone not in the US has an opinion of any worth with your opening statements:
If you don't live in the U.S., then your opinion is moot.

Anyway, seeing as though I firmly believe freedom of speech isn't limited to the American people I thought i'd add something.

I've read your constitution, and as quoted by yourself "early settlers" believed it was their right to bear arms. Forward a few years I don't think that point or arguement is valid in the original context. That doesn't mean the rest isn't valid (altough again moot, see below), ie being able to defend oneself, fight tyranny blah blah.

What I do find somewhat amusing is the belief that the armaments currently allowed and already purchased in the US by citizens will be of any use if/when the powers that be chose to enslave you all beyond your current enslavement. Enslavement isn't limited to America either by the way, I live in the UK and it's pretty much the same here in that regard.

My point is simple: A few machine guns, even heavier armaments won't do a thing in the long run against the kind of military power the governments have.

So, isn't the right to bear arms to defend oneself, fight tyranny, blah blah kind of moot also? I firmly believe that guns and the American people's belief in their "power" or "rights to have them" is a simple emotional and psychological crutch. I won't add my views on gun crime here, because I am biased and it isn't on topic.

I'd appreciate your thoughts on the points I have made please and that goes for anyone else who wishes to comment of course =)

Regards,
T

reply to post by torqpoc

---

Thank you for the enlightening topic. I'd like to add my opinion, although you pretty much outright negate the fact anyone not in the US has an opinion of any worth with your opening statements: If you don't live in the U.S., then your opinion is moot

I think you will find my friend that information has no regiional boundaries....neither does ats. All are welcome to post.. this is an international forum and this planet is my home...

kx

Originally posted by torqpoc
reply to post by stupid girl

---

My point is simple: A few machine guns, even heavier armaments won't do a thing in the long run against the kind of military power the governments have.

I think you've hit the nail on the head here.

To avoid potential misunderstanding, I shall state at the outset that I currently own no firearms, although I have, at times, owned them. I do not care if my neighbors own them. The best that I can do is to hope that my neighbors act with a modicum of moral responsibility. It is a question of personal liberty. Granted, in any society, there will be those who will abuse the notion of personal liberty and who will transgress the bounds of ethical behavior, no matter where the bar is set. This is one reason that the State contains a judicial element.

The argument is often made that the reason for allowing the citizenry to possess firearms is as a deterrent to a tyrannical State. I find this argument specious. It may have had merit in 1789, when the military hardware available to the citizen was roughly equivalent to that available to the State. At that time, it was essentially a question of numbers (and tactics, possibly). The point is that the enemy had to be within eyesight for there to be a battle. This is no longer the case. To illustrate, I offer the following scenario: The State has become tyrannical and you have been identified as an enemy of it. The State has just launched a missile, capable of hitting a mosquito in the hindquarters from over the horizon and capable of flattening several city blocks, at your location. Of what use is your pistol?

My own reason for supporting the ownership of firearms by the citizenry is primarily philosophical, and, admittedly, perhaps equally specious. The removal of this right represents yet another curtailment of personal liberty. It is symptomatic of a larger issue. The political debate, here and elsewhere, tends to focus on a purported dichotomy between Left and Right. To me, this dichotomy, whether real or imagined, is irrelevant. The only political battle worth fighting is that of individual liberty versus centralized, authoritarian political control. I stand firmly on the side of the former.

Peace be with you.

reply to post by stupid girl

---

Awesome Post. I cant remember ever hearing it or seeing it stated so well. Plain, simple truth! God Bless you, man! And God Bless America!

reply to post by doom27

---

Well, Doom. If you are not gainfully employed, you could always run for political office. Nobody is perfect, and there is a lot of conflicting information, but when one does a little research on the financial and criminal backgrounds of our elected officials, it is downright scary. Why the heck would anybody want to vote for anyone? Don't get me wrong. If Michael Vick can make a gazillion dollars playing a game as a convicted felon, he may not be able to own a firearm but it is still within his means to hire a small personal army, hypothetically speaking of course. Once the debt has been paid, then that should be that (ESPECIALLY for non-violent offenders).

I say we as a nation need to take the Constitution at face value. Just about every elected boob in DC is putting in a painstaking effort to destroy the Constitution, directly or indirectly. In the next election, we should vote for NOBODY. If NOBODY wins, and NOBODY is in the white house, the senate, or the house of representatives, then NOBODY will 1) want us to be needlessly fondled at the airport, 2) be able to continue the extremely costly "War on Drugs", or 3) destroy OUR Constitution, to include taking away our guns.

reply to post by stupid girl

---

Just because you have the 'right' to own a gun doesn't make it 'right' to actually own one. This gun ownership business comes from the old days of the wild west, is it still cowboys and indians over there? Guns are made specifically to kill people but it's okay because you have the second ammendment right? Not right.

Hide behind your amendments all you like, guns are wrong, simple as that. I acknowledge that if you've been brought up with guns then they'll be a normal part of everyday life and you're probably wondering why there's so much fuss over ownership but have a look at your murder statistics and accidental deaths with guns.

It's annoying when I see people say ''but cars kill more people, ciggies kill more people e.c.t e.c.t'', this is a very weak arguement and is not a valid point as guns are created specifically to kill whereas cars and ciggs are not.

It doesn't matter what any one of you says, guns are wrong and deep down you know it. None of this matters anyway, it's too late to de-gun the US so debate is pointless.

Now for the backlash, be as harsh as you like.

reply to post by torqpoc

---

Sorry, Dude...but you are wrong on this one. An armed military will not attack it's own citizenry when they know they are going to have to shoot family and friends or family and friends of their military brothers. The military chain of command would collapse in a matter of days.

If the citizenry is dead, who would the government boss around? No fun being King if you're only king of a handful wimps and suck-ups! In other words, the government would not succeed in accomplishing their pretty, little agenda if society falls into chaos. The right to bear arms IS a deterant just like the nukes were a deterant to the communist block.

I might also add that communities and states that enact gun bans ALWAYS see a marked INCREASE in home invasion and home invasion resulting in bodilly harm and death; sometimes as much as 300+%!

Communities and states that allow for "concealled carry" have VASTLY reduced numbers of violent crime and muggings as well as home invasion and rape! The numbers don't lie. Facts ARE facts. The liberal media just doesn't want anybody to know.

Criminals will always have guns; that's a fact! The question is whether law abiding citizens are going to have the right to defend themselves against those criminals! ...or maybe gun control advocates think showing up at a gun fight with a knife is intelligent...

The truth is, MOST gun control advocates in government and media OWN GUNS! As usual, liberals for the most part, are hypocrites...but that's another issue altogether...

reply to post by liejunkie01

---

You are not permanently screwed from owning a gun depending on the state you live in. Not sure of your situation, but after 10 years with no legal issues you can have a gun again.



Federal Firearms Regulations
18 922 g is usually for the average citizen

www.law.cornell.edu...

Louisiana Codes

law.justia.com...

Felonies that remove your gun rights in Louisiana
law.justia.com...

In louisiana once you have completed your sentence and probation period you may regain your rights after 10 years

From Louisiana code 14:95.1

"C. Except as otherwise specifically provided, this Section shall not apply to the following cases:

(1) The provisions of this Section prohibiting the possession of firearms and carrying concealed weapons by persons who have been convicted of certain felonies shall not apply to any person who has not been convicted of any felony for a period of ten years from the date of completion of sentence, probation, parole, or suspension of sentence.

(2) Upon completion of sentence, probation, parole, or suspension of sentence the convicted felon shall have the right to apply to the sheriff of the parish in which he resides, or in the case of Orleans Parish the superintendent of police, for a permit to possess firearms. The felon shall be entitled to possess the firearm upon the issuing of the permit.

(3) The sheriff or superintendent of police, as the case may be, shall immediately notify the Department of Public Safety, in writing, of the issuance of each permit granted under this Section.

Added by Acts 1975, No. 492, §2. Amended by Acts 1980, No. 279, §1; Acts 1985, No. 947, §1; Acts 1990, No. 328, §1; Acts 1992, No. 403, §1; Acts 1994, 3rd Ex. Sess., No. 28, §1; Acts 1995, No. 987, §1; Acts 2003, No. 674, §1."

Originally posted by RealAmericanPatriot
reply to post by torqpoc

---

Sorry, Dude...but you are wrong on this one. An armed military will not attack it's own citizenry when they know they are going to have to shoot family and friends or family and friends of their military brothers. The military chain of command would collapse in a matter of days.

I respectfully disagree. There is ample precedent for States using military and/or paramilitary units against their own citizens throughout all of recorded history. Some examples, although by no means an exhaustive list: Nazi Germany in the 1930's and 1940's; the Russian Civil War 1918-1924 as well as the Red Terror; the Great Purge 1936-1938 under Josef Stalin; Tiananmen Square 1989; the Waco Siege 1993; Iraq under Saddam Hussein 1979-2003.

Strictly speaking, even the American Revolution and the American Civil War can be considered as falling under this general rubric.

reply to post by Spectral Norm

---

Dear Spectral Norm,
Thank you for taking the time to read my post and your response. I also think the original thinking behind the wish to bear arms is no a little "behind the times". Again I state I am not commenting on the right to bear arms, just the philosphy behind it, and its current effectiveness.

Truly appreciate the response and peace be with you also =)

Regards,
T

reply to post by RealAmericanPatriot

---

Dear RealAmericanPatriot,

Thank you for the response. I don't mind if you disagree buddy (I presume you are a male, otherwise excuse the term). My point was rather simplistic, but I felt is was rather poignant.

In response, I truly hope they wouldn't attack their own citizens also. However allow me to be slightly cynical and disagree myself. From the rumours, facts and general FEMA type build up you have in the States I think the jump to a military type control isn't that far fetched. When things really start to go bad the governments will have no choice but to impose martial law. I also think that the fact a % of people having guns will with all due respect mean squat to the powers that be. They will shoot anyone they want, or anyone they feel is getting in the way of their agenda.

I am not an advocate at all for the above mind you, I was making a point for the sake of the discussion.

As for everything else you wrote, I can't really comment as I see things differently. I would tend to agree though, but that's just as face value, and again I don't want to get into the arguement of whether it's "right" or "wrong" to bear arms, I was simply emphasizing the point that actually having them, under the original pretexts are kind of unrealistic.

I appreciate the comments though =)

Regards,
T

reply to post by TerribleTeam2

---

I see ALOT of Americans on here saying that they own firearms because they have the right to, as afforded them by the Constitution, which is fair enough. My first question is:- How many of you actually NEED said Firearms???

I have used my rifle to defend my own home from a drunk with a baseball bat. I also used it to defend my 80 year old neighbor's house. She was a shut in and physically incapable of defending herself. I ran off two guys that were attempting to break in to her home. She was inside at the time.

In the second case I din't even have to fire a shot. Letting them know that I saw them and that they didn't belong there wasn't enough. When they saw the rifle they decided to leave. I could have called the police but the average response time is seven minutes. I called them after the fact and reported the tag number of their car. They were caught and convicted of a few other break ins.

When I was young my father stopped a man with a 6" knife from harming me and my mother, and taking his pay check, by simply pulling out his revolver. My father also defended himself from two young men that tried to rob him in his front yard. They jumped out of a mini van and yelled, "this is a robbery." He pulled his revolver and said "I dont think so." Both men then turned around and jumped in the van.

My father is in his late fifties and has survived cancer twice. He also has chronic back and neck injuries that prevent him from being able to work. His health is pretty bad. At one time he was six foot tall and 215 pounds. He has actually shrank to 5'10" and weighs about 135 pounds. I would hate to think what two young healthy men might have done to him.

I have also used my rifle to protect my father in laws chickens from racoons and possums. I've also used it to stop a coyote from attacking his goats. You could say I've needed it to protect part of my food supply.

I also travel regularly through several dangerous citys. I travel through Greenville SC, Charlotte NC, Nashville TN, Greensboro NC, and Durham NC. I actually spend time in each of those citys working. So, I am in one of the 125 most dangerous cities in the country on a regular basis.

To me, if you don't need them, but have one, it's simply because of fear. Fear of being hurt. Fear of being killed (hell, who doesn't have fear like that at some point?), just a basic fear.

Self defense is a good enough reason. If you wait for the actual moment you need to defend yourself to get a gun it is entirely too late.

Take the example of my father and the guys in the mini van. He was in the front yard of my grandmother's house (his now), walking her dog. The neighbor hood is considerred a good neighborhood. Ocassionally something disappears off of a carport. Otherwise it is pretty peacefull. The guys that attempted to rob him used their car to cross the city and hit a neighborhood they thought offered a better pay off. They had been driving all around town robbing people in various neighborhoods.

This was an attack from outside of his neighborhood. It wasn't something that he would normally "need" to worry about. On that night though an ounce of prevention was worth more than a pound of cure.

Look up the murder of Eve Carson in NC. She lived in one of the lowest crime neighborhoods in the state. Two guys from another city came to her house, kidnapped her, drove her to the ATM and forced her to withdraw money, took her back to a safe neighborhood and killed her. They left her laying in the middle of the street dead. They then used her credit and debit cards for a couple of days.

One of her attackers was awaiting trial, but it had been continued because of a clerical error. The other should have been in jail, but the police had failed to charge him with the proper crimes after a break in several months earlier. Both men were free because the cops and courts had failed to properly do their job.

I woul say it proves a "need" for self defense because the justice system fails to properly handle criminals.

reply to post by skitzspiricy

---

The thing to remember about those guys, most of them are keyboard commandos. If they were half as jumpy as claimed they would be locked away for man slaughter, assault with a deadly weapon, or murder. A lot of the bravado is provided by th computer.

Originally posted by Hawkwind.
reply to post by stupid girl

---

Just because you have the 'right' to own a gun doesn't make it 'right' to actually own one. This gun ownership business comes from the old days of the wild west, is it still cowboys and indians over there? Guns are made specifically to kill people but it's okay because you have the second ammendment right? Not right.

Than you better call the US government because they spend more on guns per capita than any other country. Police aren't evil but they are supposed to uphold the law not serve and protect. So if corrupt congress began to make heinous laws and regulations the people would get stomped on. How do you expect them to protect themselves? Who will step in the military?

All you have to do is look at the past to know how humans are. If someone wants power and they have the wits anything is possible.

BTW, swords are made specifically for killing people and without guns you are left with a big selection of weapons. You have Louiseville sluggers, kitchen knives, prescription pills, hammers, screwdrivers, and etc.

Much of the gun crimes come from illegal owned guns not legal ones.

Hide behind your amendments all you like, guns are wrong, simple as that. I acknowledge that if you've been brought up with guns then they'll be a normal part of everyday life and you're probably wondering why there's so much fuss over ownership but have a look at your murder statistics and accidental deaths with guns.

It's annoying when I see people say ''but cars kill more people, ciggies kill more people e.c.t e.c.t'', this is a very weak arguement and is not a valid point as guns are created specifically to kill whereas cars and ciggs are not.

It still doesn't change the fact that cigarettes DO kill more than guns. Alcohol DOES kill more than guns. Toxic chemicals DO kill more than guns. How is that a weak argument? Because it wasn't intended to kill, but it does, it means we should shrug our shoulders?

It doesn't matter what any one of you says, guns are wrong and deep down you know it. None of this matters anyway, it's too late to de-gun the US so debate is pointless.

Now for the backlash, be as harsh as you like.

Let me explain something to you. The guns are needed for this reason, the police are armed to the teeth, military armed to the teeth, the drug cartel are armed to the teeth, and the gangsters are armed to the teeth. You want to take the only form of protection away from citizens? What if a dictator like Hitler rises? Germany used to have strict gun laws after the Treaty of Versailles and that stopped the revolution to form what happened next.

If you want to "de-gun" than start with the drug cartels and gangsters.

UN Proposes Tax On Americans for 3rd world countries
  Posted 18 days ago with 28 member flags

Armed bystander stops stabbing outside school
  Posted 12 days ago with 27 member flags

Update...Canada Couple Wins Right To Grow Vegetables On Front Lawn...Case Closed!
  Posted 16 days ago with 25 member flags

We argue about Healthcare, meanwhile, the Elephant laughs (pls read!)
  Posted 13 days ago with 25 member flags

A new country in North America? What do Canadians and Americans make of this?
  Posted 9 days ago with 22 member flags

" Climate Change Is Not A Hoax", says Obama!!??
  Posted 4 days ago with 21 member flags

Former Arizona Sheriff Mack, ‘Gun Control Against the Law’
  Posted 13 days ago with 12 member flags

Limiting Freedom & It\'s Effects On Society
  Posted 17 days ago with 11 member flags

Newest topics, updated in real-time:

Newest topics getting flags, in real-time:

Newest topics getting replies, in real-time: