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

page: 5
68
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 02:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by TerribleTeam2
I understand completely where you are coming from OP. And I agree that yes, you have the constitutional right to bear arms. I won't disagree one bit. I have 2 questions for Americans on here, from an Aussie trying to understand your viewpoint about firearms (and no, I'm not trying to be patronizing in any way):-


Ok.


Originally posted by TerribleTeam2

1. 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???


EVERYONE should be exercising their right to bear arms, but a lot of people decide not to, but even if those people that decide not to exercise their right to bear arms are a majority, it DOESN'T give them the right to try to restrict or ban firearms for the rest of us...

This is part of the reason why the REPUBLIC of the United States IS NOT A DEMOCRACY... In a democracy 51% of the people can take away the rights of the other 49%... A democracy is a dictatorship of the majority, and that IS NOT what the REPUBLIC of the United States of America is...


Originally posted by TerribleTeam2

2. Leading on from question 1, I also see that alot of Americans say that they need Firearms for protection. Fair enough again. Question 2 is this:- How many of you have actually NEEDED to use said Firearm for self defence???


EVERY SINGLE DAY OF THE WEEK... Obviously you don't know that the main reason the forefathers of the United States added the right to bear arms in the Bill of Rights is as a DETERRENT against the government becoming dictatorial.

IF we were disarmed, the Republic of the United States of America would be a lot worse now than it is, and other rights would be non-existant.



Originally posted by TerribleTeam2
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.

I sincerely hope I haven't offended anyone by asking these questions, and making the comments I have. As I said, I just wanna try and get a better perspective of things


As protection against OTHER criminals, when do you think people need to carry firearms? after the crime has been committed?

Criminals are not going to tell you when and where they are going to rob, rape you, and or murder you, it can happen ANY time. Hence people should carry firearms AT ALL TIMES.

But even thou it is also a choice for EVERY PERSON. IT doesn't give the right FOR ANYONE, either in the Republic of the United States, or from outside the Republic of the U.S.A. to restrict or ban firearms for the rest of us...

This country is a representative Republic where EVERY PERSON "SHOULD" have equal rights. This IS NOT a democracy, even though the mass media, and many politicians keep claiming it is to slowly indoctrinate Americans into believing the Republic of the U.S.A. is "a democracy."

edit on 21-1-2011 by ElectricUniverse because: errors, and to add comments.




posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 02:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Leo Strauss
 


Technically well branded private industries do. Because they are responsible. And I think as I hear elsewhere, those are professional weapons, requiring lots of training. A pistol, rifle, or simple assault rifle doesn't take any training other than getting used to the recoil and knowing how to take it apart and put it back together again. That's no different than a computer, a car, etc etc. They are not professional. The best way I can say this with words is that a nuclear projector gives you control over an entire city and their lives. No one can stop you. A pistol or assault rifle gives you as much power as a soldier. Something reasonable.

I will use a video game to illustrate.

Not professional:


This is not gun control. because that's not a gun. That's a weapon of mass destruction with no limits. A weapon of a god.



posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 03:20 PM
link   
reply to post by stupid girl
 


This is one of the best threads I've read here in quite a while. I too am sick of hearing people bashing our Constitution, our freedoms, and our heritage. Thank you for putting my exact thoughts in writing for those who simply don't get it.


edit on 21-1-2011 by wills120 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 05:02 PM
link   
reply to post by MikeNice81
 


Thanks for the thoughtful reply! You have given me some food for thought.

I will agree that generally gun owners behave responsibly. Like I said I have zero problem with sporting guns and guns at home to protect your family and property.

My problem is with the more powerful weapons/ammo and the idea that guns should be permitted everywhere at all times. A minigun is a gun that IMHO should not be permitted or an Uzi, AK47, or M16 etc. They are fun but thats not a good enough reason for me to have them around.

Guns are fun to shoot, no doubt, especially fully automatic guns! But my feeling is that fully automatic weapons should not be legally permitted except under controlled conditions e.g. shooting range. Your desire to carry high powered weapons for protection and entertainment is not a good enought reason for me.

I don't like the cloud of fear and anxiety created by weapons. I don't want to live my life in some kind of wild west nightmare. I don't feel safer knowing everyone around me is carrying a gun, I know some people do, I don't.

PS regarding the ammo identification. I read somewhere that soon they will be able to give a specific nano sized identifiers for each box of bullets. This identifier cannot be destroyed and will be a part of the entire bullet including casings. At the very least it would encourage gun owners to store the ammo carefully. It could be stolen as you say...no system is 100% effective. But what a great starting point. Only criminals would have a need for illegal ammo. Lawful citizens could keep their guns and criminals caught with illegal ammo could be given harsh sentences.



posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 05:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Hawkwind.
 


Guns are just a tool. Guns do not kill. People holding the gun can kill, but that doesn't mean they will. I know it's a tired old argument, but so is hearing the false notion that "guns kill." Replace the gun with a spoon and that tool can still be used as a deadly weapon in the right hands.

I know it sounds inane, but it is true. If the person using the tool wants that tool to be used as a weapon, then that person will use the tool as a weapon. However, it does not mean that we should ban spoons.

Same with automobiles. Idiots can literally get behind the wheel of a mammoth sized SUV mini-tank without artillery and plow (even accidentally) into people and do a lot more harm than a person could with a pistol. Should we also ban automobiles?

The ignorant and the paranoid fear firearms and want them to be banned. If a person wants to legally own a gun, like a person can legally own a car, they should first need to know how to use the gun and drive the car, before a permit is issued. And similarly to the drivers license, a gun owner needs to be required to get it renewed every once in a while throughout the course of the owner's life.



posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 05:11 PM
link   
Then why make a thead about you so tired of hearing
people protest about gun ownership in America.
Do you not think you will just hear more.
Or is this a troll method. Stupid girl, makes sense.
Someone with that name would not understand the constution.
Would not understand
NO ONE WILL TAKE OUR GUNS.
Does not understand what they are talking about.
I'm going to protest righ now,
MY GUNS STAY IN MY HANDS GET IT!!!
edit on 21-1-2011 by hillynilly because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 05:56 PM
link   
Great post OP. I am glad someone is as furious as me with how people give a negative image on gun and deadly weapon ownership.



Anyway, from my experience a majority of people I know are deathly afraid of being around a rifle or pistol. They are almost afraid to touch it or be around it thinking that it is going to come to life and start murdering people. For this reason, I make it my point to let my family members touch, feel, shoot, and be comfortable around weapons just so they gain the knowledge and understanding that they provide. Hopefully, by giving them experience they will be able to pass on their experience and get rid of this negative gun ownership vibe.

People are generally negative towards something they have never experienced or handled personally. Instead of more gun laws and regulations there should be more training and knowledge provided to adolescents on the functionality of weapons, safety, dangers, and other subjects. This will give everyone a basic knowledge of weapons and help destroy the negative vibe that some people give to weapons. However, this will probably never happen cause the left will worry that "by giving everyone knowledge of weapons they will be better trained to use them people". This is incorrect of course but my point is that more regulation of firearms is NOT the answer; mass regulation and laws in general is damaging.

ATS members, lets work together and try to think of ideas that will be socially acceptable and practical to teach young people the proper methods of firearm safety and destroy the negative reputation for firearms help by a large amount of people. Ideas anyone?



posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 06:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Leo Strauss
 


I try to keep my posts thoughtful. Saying, "its my god given right," doesn't help foster understanding. Of course I'm suprised you could understand the post. I just tend to type as the thoughts flow. I need to stop that.

Back on topic



My problem is with the more powerful weapons/ammo and the idea that guns should be permitted everywhere at all times.


I have no problem with the strength of the weapon or the ammo.However, I do see your point about guns every where. I personally believe that if you want to carry in public you should have to pass a shooting qualification. If you want to carry around the general populace, prove you can. I know that rankles some gun owners. I just feel that safety is important.

I think a person should have to shoot ten rounds at 3, 5, 7, and 10 yards and keep all of the shots inside the scoring rings of a B-34 target. I wouldn't be opposed to the same requirements on a B-3 or B-5 target.

I like NC's process for getting a CCH permit. I just think that most of the restrictions on where you can carry should be lifted. In my opinion you should be able to carry every where except jails, mental institutions, the state capitol, and amusement parks (or fairs and carnivals with rides.) The only reason I would exclude places with rides is because I can see some idiot losing his gun in a roller coaster loop or on the Pirate Ship.




Guns are fun to shoot, no doubt, especially fully automatic guns! But my feeling is that fully automatic weapons should not be legally permitted except under controlled conditions e.g. shooting range. Your desire to carry high powered weapons for protection and entertainment is not a good enought reason for me.


I'm not opposed to people owning fully automatic weapons. I think they are a waste of money and ammo. That is just my opinion though. Mostsecurity forces and militarys have switched to weapons with three round burst. They are easier to learn and easier to control. They are highly effective for stopping a threat quickly.

I feel the same about this as I do about gun/ammo power. There are stories of home invaders using body armor starting to appear across the country. I feel we should have the same tools that law enforcement has. The SCOTUS has said that the police force does not owe protection to an individual but to the community as a whole. That is fine, but I should have the exact same tools for defending myself and my family. I think that if a person wants a 5.56 AR-15, a .338 Lapua rifle, or a three shot burst capable MP-5 then they should be able to get it. Maybe we put in a training class for burst capable weapons. Pass the class and the standard back ground checks and you are good to go.




I don't like the cloud of fear and anxiety created by weapons. I don't want to live my life in some kind of wild west nightmare. I don't feel safer knowing everyone around me is carrying a gun, I know some people do, I don't.


The wild west as portrayed in Holly Wood is largely a myth. The west was actually a much more peaceful place than people realize. Larceny, assault and other predatory crimes were low. The violence was very often between willing participants and most homicides could be considered self defense. Most violent deaths were consentual fights over who was the better man. Not exactly a great reason for people to kill each other. However, it wasn't really a bunch of gunslingers riding around robbing and killing at random. As a whole the general population was safer from predators than they are today.


Aurora and Bodie clearly were not dens of criminal activity, and women residents of the towns were far safer than their counterparts are today in any American city. Nonetheless, when it came to men fighting men, Aurora and Bodie were unquestionably violent. [27] Men fought men with fists, knives, and guns, and they often fought to the death. They occasionally fought over women or mining property, or even politics. But mostly they (p.133) fought over who was the better man, real or imagined insults, and challenges to pecking order in the saloon. The men involved in the fights were willing—often very willing—participants.


wild west myth




regarding the ammo identification. I read somewhere that soon they will be able to give a specific nano sized identifiers for each box of bullets. This identifier cannot be destroyed and will be a part of the entire bullet including casings.


It sounds like the indentifiers they put in to certain explosives. It is an additive to the powder. It should be workable. I think it just identifies it as coming from a certain batch though. I would be interested in knowing more if you have a link.




At the very least it would encourage gun owners to store the ammo carefully.


Many states allready have safe storage laws. It hasn't been shown to significantly slow the rate of gun and ammo theft. Most criminals just end up taking the whole cabinet/safe or cut it open. It is much easier than most people realize to break in to a gun safe.



posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 07:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by TerribleTeam22. Leading on from question 1, I also see that alot of Americans say that they need Firearms for protection. Fair enough again. Question 2 is this:- How many of you have actually NEEDED to use said Firearm for self defence???


Yes, a group of wolves tried to take a co-worker who wandered too close to the edge of the clearing we were working in up north. While I wasn't the one on bear watch (and hence not the one to fire the gun) I was glad for it.

On another site where the owners forbade crews having a gun I was carrying a pistol loaded with bear bangers. The grizzly ignored the two bangers I set off and kept coming till I dropped a flare at his feet. It's a good thing it had rained for days otherwise I would have started a forest fire.

I consider firearms for protection to be mostly 4 legged predators in my work life, but a friend of mine used a shotgun loaded with bird shot to discourage someone breaking into her parents house when she was 16 and home alone with her baby brother on the farm.



posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 08:45 PM
link   
I dont see why people shouldnt have guns. Other people are going to get guns, so unless people forget how to make a gun, or what a gun is, it's an arms race.



posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 09:29 PM
link   

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. I tell everybody even if you do not want a gun you need to get your FOID card. Do this to express the right that if you wanted to get a gun you have the constitutional right to do so. The more people that have their FOID card, the more numbers of votable citizens that politicians have to take into consideration before they introduce new legislation for gun control. Who wants to propose a bill that will surely get them elected out of office. It is a constitutonal right that I regretfully cannot express.
edit on 20-1-2011 by liejunkie01 because: insert them


If the felony occurred more than seven years ago you can get it off of your record. My cousin just did this a few months ago.

Secure



posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 11:32 PM
link   
reply to post by exile1981
 


And this is where it comes in as a necessity to have a firearm. And I completely agree with having a firearm in situations like this, where safety is paramount.


As I said, I'm on the fence with this. I can understand people needing firearms for protection in area's like this, but at the same time, you won't find me carrying one around a major metropolitan area (even if I was legally entitled to!).

Sure, there are crazies about that can and will do me harm, but that is the risk I take. Just like the risk I take with driving each day. There are drunk drivers about, but to be honest, everything I do is a calculated risk!

Fence-stting I know, but it's just the way I am



posted on Jan, 22 2011 @ 09:13 AM
link   


ATS keeps chopping off the sides of my pictures. I think you get the point though.

Care to think for one second what today's society would do to these people?
edit on 22-1-2011 by MikeNice81 because: (no reason given)
edit on 22-1-2011 by MikeNice81 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 22 2011 @ 01:59 PM
link   
reply to post by purplemer
 


Nukes ARE banned. Search the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. (I looked and could not see if there was specifics regarding individual people possessing nuclear weapons... only city-states[nations])

I wonder if I farted and held you head under the covers and then you died of methane inhalation, should we make a ban against farting in enclosed spaces? Common, did you real bring nukes into this? That is laughable!



posted on Jan, 22 2011 @ 06:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seitler
reply to post by purplemer
 


Nukes ARE banned. Search the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. (I looked and could not see if there was specifics regarding individual people possessing nuclear weapons... only city-states[nations])

I wonder if I farted and held you head under the covers and then you died of methane inhalation, should we make a ban against farting in enclosed spaces? Common, did you real bring nukes into this? That is laughable!


so you agree that a line should be drawen between what is acceptable weponary and what is not...?



posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 12:31 PM
link   
reply to post by stupid girl
 


Perhaps a nap?
History always repeats itself...especially when people do not learn from it.

Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result - Einstein



posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 12:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by hillynilly
Then why make a thead about you so tired of hearing
people protest about gun ownership in America.
Do you not think you will just hear more.
Or is this a troll method. Stupid girl, makes sense.
Someone with that name would not understand the constution.
Would not understand
NO ONE WILL TAKE OUR GUNS.
Does not understand what they are talking about.
I'm going to protest righ now,
MY GUNS STAY IN MY HANDS GET IT!!!
edit on 21-1-2011 by hillynilly because: (no reason given)
[/quote

It is sort of funny that all the revolutionaries fiercely, mercilessly and senselessly defending even crazy peoples "right" to own a gun are new members?
Can you say..."pro-NRA group sent out en mass with a blogging agenda?"
Protecting innocent Americans caught in the crossfire should be issue number one.

The Constitution doesn't protect a murderers right to own a gun.
However, the NRA does.



posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 01:38 PM
link   
reply to post by rusethorcain
 





The Constitution doesn't protect a murderers right to own a gun.
However, the NRA does.




Under federal law supported by the National Rifle Association, the use of a firearm in a violent or drug-trafficking crime is punishable by a mandatory prison sentence of up to 20 years. A second conviction, if the firearm is a machine gun or is equipped with a silencer, brings life imprisonment without release. Violating firearms laws should lead to very real punishment for violent criminals, but the laws first must be enforced.


Source

The NRA Supported the National Firearms Act of 1934 that placed many new restrictions on gun ownership and the Federal Firearms Bill of 1938 that added more restrictions. They actually supported the Gun Control Act of 1968 and the NICS Modernization act just two years ago. Do a little research before you tell lies that weaken your credibility.



posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 01:47 PM
link   
Since the Supreme Court only recently determined gun ownership was a "right" granted by our Constitution to every American I don't know how you can be "tired" already.

It has always been vague what the framers intended and who exactly was meant as part of a "militia."

I think the Supreme Court took it's own liberties for it's own reasons and deliberately misinterpreted the Constitution. When the framers said "militia" they meant literally militia, as in "the military."

I certainly do know for a fact: the "firearms" permitted and noted in our Constitution were not semi-automatic weapons. Another stretch of the imagination and opportunistic perversion of a sacred writ to support an evil industry of gun manufacturers. Patriot's my buttocks.

That said, I wouldn't dream of denying any American their right to own a gun.

All they'd have to do is

#1. Pass a background check.
#2. Pass a drug test (we have to pass this for employment so why not to own a gun?)
#3. Pass a basic mental competency test

As part of the third requirement we might require either 2 written personal references from friends that can confirm good mental health, or a recent mental health exam and certificate from a doctor.
In some cases (obvious fraud) those personal references who claimed the applicant was mentally stable or the certifying doctor might be liable if the person uses the weapon illegally within the first year.



posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 02:20 PM
link   
reply to post by rusethorcain
 




Since the Supreme Court only recently determined gun ownership was a "right" granted by our Constitution to every American I don't know how you can be "tired" already.


It could be because people have been trying to strip guns from the populace nearly since the begining of the nation.




It has always been vague what the framers intended and who exactly was meant as part of a "militia."


Not if you read their opinions of the time. The militia was every able bodied man in the country. It was expected that the citizenry would take up arms in time of war or invasion to protect the nation. That was what they meant by "militia."

Of course the senate figured that out in 1982. They came to the conclusion the SCOTUS came to recently, they just did it decades earlier. Really there was no debate about the personal right to own firearms when the second ammendment was ratified, or in the fifty years following. Even the senate recognized that the individual had the right to own and carry firearms free from unneseccary restriction.



In the Report of the Subcommittee on the Constitution of the Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate, 97th Congress, Second Session (February 1982), a bipartisan subcommittee (consisting of 3 Republicans and 2 Democrats) of the United States Senate investigated the Second Amendment and reported its findings. The report stated:

The conclusion is thus inescapable that the history, concept, and wording of the second amendment to the Constitution of the United States, as well as its interpretation by every major commentator and court in the first half century after its ratification, indicates that what is protected is an individual right of a private citizen to own and carry firearms in a peaceful manner.[1]



Source

edit on 24-1-2011 by MikeNice81 because: (no reason given)





top topics
 
68
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join