It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Massachusetts: proposed "arsenal" law"

page: 11
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in


posted on May, 10 2011 @ 09:07 PM
reply to post by VictorVonDoom
like the way you think victor. all gun control laws are all suspect of there motivation. The governement and there cronies want us all disarmend , so only they have guns , Then we will look like people in any third world/ developing conuntry

throwing rocks at the oppresors

I will keep mine, thank you

posted on May, 10 2011 @ 09:12 PM
I see this story as one more example of Agenda creep.

The UN wishes the worlds population to be completely dis-armed...leaving the UN's army as the only ones with weapons of any sort (any sort).
The various country's would sign away their respective military and weapons unto the UN's ownership and control.
The one world army......would be born

Its ALL Agenda creep....can't you see it?

edit on 10-5-2011 by 1000TonBlocks because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 10 2011 @ 09:17 PM
reply to post by 1000TonBlocks

The UN will have a problem in my "neck-of-the-woods". A rifle will be behind every bush being held by someone who knows how to use it.

posted on May, 10 2011 @ 10:02 PM
Gun laws in MA is twisted. Boston's law states that you cannot carry a "high capacity feeding device." Meaning a mag. So if you are in possession of a magazine you are technically breaking the law.

MA Gun Law
edit on 10-5-2011 by KEMIK because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 10 2011 @ 10:09 PM
reply to post by xFloggingMaryx

Here is the problem. If you have to lock away every gun, in one central locker, there is no way to keep one with you. So, if you need it for defense you have to hope the crook is slow.

Also the fact that you have to inform the government of exactly where your guns are is a work around for registry. You have to tell the government "I have ___ guns and they are located at this adress." It is a way of registering gun owners without registering guns. Registering has been the prelude to confiscation through out history. That is why it makes so many people nervous.

posted on May, 10 2011 @ 10:15 PM

Originally posted by OUNjahhryn

Originally posted by jimmyx

Originally posted by OUNjahhryn
reply to post by DaddyBare

lol where do you live so i can stay far far away. im a musician and you own more guns than I do instruments. you seems like a family that hunts so I understand owning some guns, but seriously now... how many rabbits do you need to kill....

c'mon...he has rabbits and squirrels all over the place...and they all need to be shot. 10 gun limit??? there should be no limit on how many you can own. it is our god-given right to kill as many animals as we wish, plus the occasional tresspasser. we are americans for christs sake.

lol finally someone gets what i'm saying! I have no quarrel with firearms being used for hunting, its just a necessity vs hobby thing. theres no way you need more than 10 firearms, for anything!

I have a friend that collects rare and odd ball guns. They are guns that have significant historical value. They are also guns that might also be forgotten by history if some one like him did not collect and research them. He currently owns 34 guns. Should he give them away?

posted on May, 10 2011 @ 10:19 PM

Originally posted by 1000TonBlocks
reply to post by OUNjahhryn

Hey buddy....I'm canadian too, and guess what, we got shafted.....we have No way to protect ourselves legally from enemy's foreign and Domestic.

The G20 gave us a glimpse of whats coming...better start running now

trust me i know were corrupt and have some major problems. but violence begets more violence. A violent uprising creates a violent leadership. guns are not the answer. If we CANT fix our world by peaceful means, then I was wrong about humanity and will abandon all hope for earth.

posted on May, 10 2011 @ 10:24 PM

Originally posted by OUNjahhryn
reply to post by macman

outside of hunting. guns just make weak men strong.

You might begin to understand it eventually. What weapon of self defense puts the 65 year old man in a wheel chair on pair with an 18 year old with a knife? How can a 35 year old 110 pound woman stop an 21 year old 250 pound man from raping her?

The answer is a gun. It actually levels the playing field between the criminal and the victim. The criminal is going to be a criminal regardless of how much you restrict law abiding citizens. I rather my wife have a 97% chance of stopping a rape. I rather my severely disabled father be able to defend himself than hope a younger attacker doesn't re injure his neck or back. Either of which could kill him due to pre-existing conditions.

posted on May, 10 2011 @ 10:25 PM
As always, this whole issue wont get passed federally due the 2nd amendment of the US constitution that doesnt specify the limit of weapons.

Secondly, this whole conversation can be summed up in my opinion by the following statement:

"I'll give you my gun when you pry it from my cold, dead hands!"
-Charlton Heston

posted on May, 10 2011 @ 10:52 PM

Originally posted by OUNjahhryn
....people seriously own more than 10 guns? I live in canada and haven't even seen a gun aside from police officers and military...

I think the law should be "if you own more than 10 guns, get rid of most of them"

Doesn't speak for all Canadians - some of us think we should have the same rights as Americans in owning firearms.

Let me guess, your a NDP / Liberal supporter and believe in the Long Gun Registry - a oh lets all just get along type of person.
edit on 10-5-2011 by MidnightTide because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 10 2011 @ 11:09 PM
reply to post by OUNjahhryn

There is nothing wrong with having more than 10 guns. Seriously. If there's one thing I get all uppity about, it's my 2nd Amendment rights. It's too late and I'm too tired to get into that at the moment, but a law-abiding citizen with a clean slate should be able to own how ever many guns they want.

posted on May, 10 2011 @ 11:51 PM
its not for shooting at ducks,
its for hunting politicians.

its a right made to protect ourselves from politicians, invading armies, criminals, ect.

Mahatma Gandhi: "Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest."

it was obvious to the signers of the constitution that a nation needed to be armed not only to at bare minimal defend ourselves against a invasion, but also to keep our own government it check in terms of attacking its own citizens.

the very fact that our government attacks this amendment with all they can should enrage this nation.
there can only be one reason for a mass disarmament of a nation and we know this because of what has happened in world history in those situations.

obviously the canadian musician does not play metal.
had he played metal
he would probably come off less of a pansy than he does.

posted on May, 11 2011 @ 01:16 AM
reply to post by DaddyBare

Massachusetts hasn't understood the meaning of the Constitution in a LONG time. People have the right to own as many guns as they want, and it's NO ONE'S business but their own. Way past time people of that state voted out a lot of politicians.

posted on May, 11 2011 @ 01:20 AM

Originally posted by OptimusSubprime

Originally posted by DaddyBare
reply to post by backinblack

but as I said... I bought most of them...
true I gave them to family members but do you really believe that would exempt me from this law if it went federal?

This would never go Federal, and if it did then we will witness many states using nullification to tell the federal government to go screw themselves, just like Montana did last year.

Might go international, though..... The Obama administration is pushing to have the UN Small Arms Treaty become law in this country. Just another of the many reasons I think both he and the UN have no place in my country!

posted on May, 11 2011 @ 01:26 AM

Originally posted by xFloggingMaryx
This doesn't seem like such a bad idea. After all, they aren't taking guns away from law abiding citizens, but rather, they are helping the citizens keep their guns away from those that will abuse them.

That's the biggest problem I have with the whole... right to bear arms debate.
Making guns illegal would probably be the stupidest and most dangerous thing the government could do. After all, making them illegal would only be keeping them from law abiding citizens. And it isn't the law abiding citizens with guns that are dangerous... It's the criminals with guns that are dangerous.
So by making guns illegal... we'll be arming the criminals and disarming the potential victims.

I don't really see how this arsenal law would be that big of a problem. It's not like they are taking the guns away - they're just making it so the guns will be locked up. And from what I know, most people lock their guns up when they don't need them, anyway.
I mean, I can see where having an alarm that notifies the police might be a little bit over-the-top... but I don't have much of an opinion on that.

No, they are creating a list of who owns what. The police should be responding to 911 calls and home alarm systems, regardless of who installs them. Plus, a gun isn't much protection if you have to go through locks to get to it. If someone enters MY house, they will be met with a .45 hollow point from my Glock, and I won't be scrambling for a key to unlock it, either. Deaths from home invasions can happen very quickly, and locked-away guns are useless in such cases. Yes, I have kids, and yes, they know about guns. They know the dangers, and they have NEVER messed with one. They are safe. Education on the topic protects kids, and guns accessible in an emergency do as well.

posted on May, 11 2011 @ 01:33 AM

Originally posted by OUNjahhryn

"neither do your instruments"

my instruments also don't fire metal at high velocity designed specifically to kill efficiently.

Also, if you read some more of my posts, you would see i'm not against owning guns for hunting.

Well, there is a lot of stuff out there being called music, that seriously makes me ill. Gee, maybe we should limit instrument ownership to only those that play what I like!

posted on May, 11 2011 @ 01:46 AM

Originally posted by Vitchilo

Originally posted by OUNjahhryn
....people seriously own more than 10 guns? I live in canada and haven't even seen a gun aside from police officers and military...

Get out much? I live in Canada and I have several guns... all legal... and I know lots of people who own guns, for hunting and competition.

Originally posted by OUNjahhrynI think the law should be "if you own more than 10 guns, get rid of most of them"

What about LIVE AND LET LIVE? Most Canadians need a reality check and learn what FREEDOM means.

YES! One Canadian that really gets it! Feel free to visit the U.S. anytime, and as far as I am concerned, bring your guns if you like!

posted on May, 11 2011 @ 02:02 AM

Originally posted by OUNjahhryn
I don't think me wanting money being spent on starving children rather then an 11th gun for your collection makes me an elitist. an idealist and compassionate individual yes. elitist. no.

Spend YOUR money where YOU want, and allow others the same right.

Originally posted by OUNjahhryn And for the person who said something about "don't tell us how to spend what little money the government leaves us" or something. If you have the money for 10+ guns, im sure your not hurting for cash...

That isn't the point. The point is, NO ONE has the right to tell someone else how and where and on what to spend their money. Do you truly not understand that? Freedom.

Originally posted by OUNjahhryn oh and all those things you quoted me on. I never said I disagreed with the law in question. ie the topic of this thread in case you forgot. but if you would like my opinion on all guns laws. I think guns are unnecessary cowardly tools of death and should be destroyed.

So you admit freely that you want to destroy things that other people want, thus infringing on their rights. People owning guns doesn't harm you or anyone. Criminals, and the power mad, harm people, and will do so with or without guns. This has been true throughout history. In fact, guns make the average person safer, because not everyone is capable of properly using a sword, etc., but most can easily handle a gun. Your "Utopian" desire would leave many as unsafe as they were in the past.

Originally posted by OUNjahhryn As far as your constitutional rights go. You should be more worried about your freedom of speech than owning obscene amounts of firearms.

That freedom to bear arms is there to protect freedom of speech and other rights.

Originally posted by OUNjahhryn Somehow this has been turned into a debate about owning guns at all. Which I stated (in one of the posts you didn't quote) that i don't care if you have guns for hunting. i don't know how many times I have to say it before you will stop ignoring it.

It isn't your decision how people use their guns. I have guns for protection, and in case they are needed for the purpose that the 2'nd Amendment was written for in the first place. I also rather like shooting. That's MY business. I can, and will, have guns for whatever reason I want, and as long as I don't commit a crime with one, that's my business, not yours or the government's.

Originally posted by OUNjahhryn I have expressed 2 views on guns in this thread which may have lead to confusion. my first view

1. guns for hunting is fine but 10+ is stupid and a waste of everything. this is my realistic scenario view.

my second view.

2. all guns should be destroyed. This is my utopian idealistic scenario view.

If you don't want to own multiple guns, by all means, don't buy them. You have no business, though, telling other people that they can't, or should not. Point two was already addressed above.

posted on May, 11 2011 @ 02:25 AM

Originally posted by OUNjahhryn

my instruments also don't fire metal at high velocity designed specifically to kill efficiently.

Also, if you read some more of my posts, you would see i'm not against owning guns for hunting.

yeah not metal.

what do you play that does not fire metal at a high velocity designed specifically to kill efficiently?

and how would you defend yourself if or when your own government or invading army wants to take your instruments that you play your soft rock on?

posted on May, 11 2011 @ 02:27 AM
It's Massachusetts! If you think about Massachusetts, think this, it's a seriously messed up state when it comes to government. How do you know. Ted Kennedy. I rest my case ! ! ! ! ! !

new topics

top topics

<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in