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.

 

Massachusetts: proposed "arsenal" law"

page: 6
20
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 9 2011 @ 10:52 PM
link   
reply to post by OptimusSubprime
 


But I think the whole argument is getting lost under this whole 'right' business. Sure, you may have the 'right' but in this day and age, can you seriously justify the underlying need for having guns to begin with? The was a brief period in American history when guns were a necessary tool used by settlers to hunt for food, defend themselves against predators and fight off adversaries in cases where there was no lawman,soldier or court system to turn to.

We should have advanced as a civilization enough to longer have any real need for guns. However, war and weaponry are a huge business which is not likely to be given up so easily when the resulting profits are so high.

The presence of weapons in the hands of citizens is a sign of an unstable society. If you need guns, you've got a problem.The real issue should be how to remove the underlying causes which compel people to feel the need to arm themselves to begin with. Guns are for one thing only-killing. And that's not good.

Unfortunately, the Gun Genie is out of the bottle and there is no peaceful way to put it back in.




posted on May, 9 2011 @ 11:03 PM
link   
It may have been mentioned, but

With a centralized alarm system,

The police will also know when the owner of those guns has turned off the alarm to get out a gun!

Then, a patrol car can just happen to swing by as you are taking off down the road, for maybe a quick check/search/harassment



posted on May, 9 2011 @ 11:10 PM
link   



im with you on the weed laws being stupid, I just dont see how owning guns is safer than weed. some people say "just cause you have a gun dosent mean your going to use it" true. but if you do use it, it has 1 purpose. to destroy.


Just the fact that you believe that a guns ONLY purpose is "to destroy" show that you know little to nothing about firearms.
I personally would rather have my firearms in my house than something that alters my perception, reflexes and thought process.

VicDiaz: Love the Spawn avatar ! As a fellow Arizonian I agree with you.....



posted on May, 9 2011 @ 11:29 PM
link   
reply to post by OUNjahhryn
 


It will sound silly to you but I would compare a fine firearm to a piece of art.

A rifle with deeply blued steel married to a beautifully stained walnut stock is a thing of beauty. I imagine that some people run their hands over their guitars and consider them a thing of beauty. The workmanship, the materials used, the fine detail.

I could hunt just about everything I wanted to with 2 or 3 firearms but I like them so I collect them. period.

I have a few that were handed down when my father died and although I rarely shoot them they have sentimental value.

I know there are people who are not into guns and that is fine and understandable. What is not Fine is when people try to infringe upon other peoples joys and hobbies just because they don't like it.

I think it's ludicrous, dangerous & insane to jump out of airplanes but I would never try to take that away from other people who enjoy it. Even though there is an astronomically high chance that their chute may not open and they could land on me and kill me.

I have about the same odds of dying by getting hit by a parachutist as you do getting shot by a
RESPONSIBLE gun owner.



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 12:30 AM
link   
In england we have to keep guns in a safe.
and the ammo must be kept somware else.
it is a very good idea.
if every one has guns in a safe
then any one out to steal them
knows it will be hard.
in America it should be only ten guns in each safe!
som e of them have 100's



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 12:51 AM
link   
reply to post by buddha
 

What kind of law is that? Is that to give someone breaking into your house a head start or something?



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 12:59 AM
link   
reply to post by TKDRL
 


It is a health and safety issue.

The robber could be horribly wounded or maybe even killed by a gun! Oh Dear!



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 01:20 AM
link   
The next thing they'll want is 24/7 monitoring of your gun safe via computers and live video. And you'll have to "request" to have your gun safe opened remotely by the police, but only if it's on a preapproved appointment.

What sounds insane today, will become legislation tomorrow. What's legislation today, sounded insane yesterday.



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 01:32 AM
link   
reply to post by xFloggingMaryx
 


Which is why the family might as well have a baseball bat handy for those occasional break-ins, as there would simply be no time to go to the locked up vault, put in the combination fumble around for which gun you want, and then go to it. Geez. The whole thing is just silly and an attempt at stealth gun control. And in the state that did a trial run of OBamacare.
edit on 10-5-2011 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: sp



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 01:41 AM
link   
reply to post by OUNjahhryn
 


Your logic is kinda similar to the POTUS, ie why should anyone need to make over $250,000 dollars? ya know when is it enough? lolol
edit on 10-5-2011 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 01:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by OUNjahhryn

Originally posted by OptimusSubprime

Originally posted by OUNjahhryn

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



Which is why you live in Canada. In America we believe in inalienable, natural rights. The second amendment is a wonderful thing and I will own as many guns as I want to. I would expect nothing less from a big government, progressive utopia like Massachusetts.

My question is... who decides what "most of them" is? How many is most of them? Which ones can I keep? The only people effected by gun laws are law abiding citizens. Criminals break laws (hence the term criminal).


lol i live in Canada because I was born here. If i was born in the states I might have a different view, but bad education systems do that to people...

I don't know how a gun is a "natural right" i didn't know guns grew on trees.


The right to being able to defend one's self however they see fit is the natural right.



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 02:04 AM
link   
Any new gun law is redundant and further violates the second amendment as all "gun laws" do. Gun legislation pitched as something that will punish criminals in even harsher ways doesn't deter criminals. It never has. It only serves to give the government more control over guns and gun owners. The only thing that deters criminals is the knowledge that they might get shot in the ----ing face by the person they are committing a crime against because they are armed as well.

It's been said many times, it's worth repeating:

Gun control is not about guns - it's about control.

Nothing else to discuss, really.



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 02:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Cryptonomicon
The next thing they'll want is 24/7 monitoring of your gun safe via computers and live video. And you'll have to "request" to have your gun safe opened remotely by the police, but only if it's on a preapproved appointment.

What sounds insane today, will become legislation tomorrow. What's legislation today, sounded insane yesterday.


It will never get to that point. Everyone's guns will turn up missing - stolen, whatever. I don't think many gun owners would comply with a stupid regulation like that.

Also, the government's attempt at gun confiscation - if they ever do try - will not go well for them.



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 02:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by VicDiaz89
This is a violation of the constitution..Come to arizona and see what firearm laws should look like.


Very true. I moved from the United Socialist Republic of Massachusetts to Arizona, partly because of the gun laws. In MA I could get an illegal gun in about an hour, but just try to get one legally in Boston. They'll have you jumping through so many loops that your head will spin.

It must be nice to be a criminal in states where thay have strict gun laws. Everyone you want to rob, rape, and kill is very likely unarmed. I will never understand how people just don't get that.



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 03:02 AM
link   
reply to post by AwakeinNM
 


Yes that is absolutely correct. The goal is to disarm the public and make them more vulnerable to a One World Govt.



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 03:27 AM
link   
boy anybody looking in my back porch windw would crap it looks like the punishers hideout i have started storing all the airsoft equipment for my squad so it looks like i got 2 walls covered in m4 varients and 2 tables one has a s.a.w. and 2 ammo boxes the other has several draws of side arms. my real guns i keep in a gunsafe and in holster beside bed i have no small children at my house. a limit of 10 guns is stupid guns don't kill people people do



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 03:27 AM
link   
boy anybody looking in my back porch windw would crap it looks like the punishers hideout i have started storing all the airsoft equipment for my squad so it looks like i got 2 walls covered in m4 varients and 2 tables one has a s.a.w. and 2 ammo boxes the other has several draws of side arms. my real guns i keep in a gunsafe and in holster beside bed i have no small children at my house. a limit of 10 guns is stupid guns don't kill people people do



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 03:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by RickyD
Well thankfully here in the US it is our right to own as many firearms as we please. As per our constitution 2nd amendment you have the right to bear arms...in the plural and no where in there does it say you can bear arms if you have permits or register them or any limitations in fact it doesn't even say those with criminal records can't own them. So in my opinion this new law breeches the rights of all US citizens. Criminals will always have guns laws or no laws but for law abiding people it's not lookin so good. If you live in Mass. I guess you better stock up and get grandfathered in!


Right to bear ARMS.

Not FIREarms.

Under the 2nd Amendment, citizens have the right to have weapons to keep on par with the government.

So, let me ask you..

Do you own a tank?
Nuke?
Bio-weapon?
Bombs?

Then the firearms you cling to don't mean #. The only reason we are keeping them is to keep ourselves protected from each other.. which is NOT the intent of the 2nd amendment.

We should just repeal the thing since it isn't offering us the protection it was intended to create.



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 03:47 AM
link   
reply to post by OUNjahhryn
 




Whaaaaaaat...? Were number 8 or something in the WORLD for guns owned per citizen.. You really must be out of touch with how much your fellow canucks love guns.



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 03:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by DaddyBare
reply to post by OUNjahhryn
 


Really... you dont see how easy it is to go over this limit...

There are 6 people in my family my house...
My wife owns a small pistol she keeps in her nightstand (Just in-case) and a very nice 20 Ga shotgun she takes when we go duck hunting.

My oldest boy has his deer rifle a shotgun plus two .22's one a gift from his grandfather.
My daughter owns several .22's plus her PPK purse gun
My youngest son own one .22 plus a small .410 shotgun he likes to hunt squirrels and rabbits with.

that's ten right there and I haven't touched on my personal firearms....
more then ten under one roof, most of these guns I bought under my name...


is your last name hatfield or mccoy.




top topics



 
20
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join