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: 7
20
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 10 2011 @ 04:45 AM
link   
reply to post by OUNjahhryn
 


The samurai code and philosophy only became sophisticated during a time of peace after the feudal era. Traditional samurai used firearms as well as employing other unsavory tactics that you wouldn't think a samurai would use.

Think of the weapons, tactics, and strategies that some of the most gruesome battles in history pre-ww1 employed. Real samurai were like that.




posted on May, 10 2011 @ 04:50 AM
link   
reply to post by DaddyBare
 


They can't just create town or city laws like that any more thank god, besides it would be unconstitutional. Only an idiot would believe that the reason they are doing this is to help preventing them from getting them in the wrong hands. Boy they just don't give up. And to the guy in Canada. You see this is a free country that's why here you are allowed to own ten firearms if you chose, or ten cars. Who needs ten cars? It's not about just needs it's about freedom and people not being told what they need. like what they need to say, or what they need to do or what they need to believe or what they need to collect. What if you collected stamps? And the state of MA said you can't own ten or more stamps or if you do you have to spend all this money and let them know who owns a million dollars of stamps.

Freedom of firearm ownership is the first thing Hitler and Stalin outlawed their people to have? Why? Well think about it. It is also why it's our second amendment. It's been twist more way's than any other right Americans have. And they just suffered a huge defeat by the hands of the supreme court. But they refuse to give up. Criminals will always have guns. Here you don't have to be at the mercy of criminals nor does your family waiting for the police to arrive.

People that have ten guns already have the safes. Their fire arms are important to them, chances our the alarms too. And if they don't maybe they have to Rottweilers instead.

No what the purpose is that they want to know who they people are, If I was in Mass I would write the NRA and your politicians. Haven't we lost enough freedoms in America?

Fact of the matter is the people that own ten firearms. (and no I do not) Those people are the most careful law abiding citizens in our country. I challenge anybody to find a single example of a citizen that collects firearms legally commiting a crime. I really doubt you will.
edit on 5/10/2011 by JerryB08 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 05:48 AM
link   

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"


the problem is that most people don't understand that 10 guns isn't that much if you're a hunter. A few rifles a few shotguns, a few handguns. People hear "10 guns" and assume you're stockpiling for a Ruby Ridge type showdown. More government asshollery to make gun owners look like schizophrenics
edit on 10-5-2011 by oldgoat because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 05:53 AM
link   
reply to post by oldgoat
 


Re: Government asshattery,

Notice how any house with a fence becomes a 'Compound' once it gets raided and guns are found?

All the other houses with fences are just that, but the one that has guns those become compound and the gun collection becomes 'an arsenal Ted, He had an arsenal'.

*Lord help you if you have a busy garage, you just might end up with a 'Facility Ted, he had a Facility'...

edit on 10-5-2011 by Exuberant1 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 05:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mactire
I currently own two firearms: A Glock 17 and a Mossberg 12 gauge Tactical Persuader (with a Tac-Stock). I am looking for a good affordable high powered long range rifle. Something I could kill a moose through an engine block with. Any suggestions?


Ummmm...........Mossberg 100ATR 308 (7.76mm) "varmint" rifle with underslung bifold legs and a 3-9x40mm variable scope, for the VERY long shot, not to mention the free floating barrel and the adjustible lightening bolt action trigger that adjusts from 2-7 lbs of pull...an inexpensive "reach out and touch something" with plenty of stopping power.......Or Mossberg 100ATR 30\06 .............For the shorter range engine block splitter...the Marlin 45\70 government lever action........a cannon among friends......"ear protection required"

The proposition is unconstitutional....................nothing more really needs be said about that...

YouSir



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 06:19 AM
link   

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.


Why does someone need "help" from the government to keep their guns safe? What's next... someone needing "help" from the government on putting their car in the garage, just in case someone steals the car and goes on a drunk driving rampage?



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 06:25 AM
link   
reply to post by DaddyBare
 


Thanks for the info! Your also welcome to move to Texas. No problems here (ownership wise
).

Ignore the canucks and "musicians".

Between canada using us for their defense and the hempophile, we can figure their point of view.

As gun owners, we'll just have to drag their kind behind us as we defend all of our rights.



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 06:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by DaddyBare

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....


Must not be a good musician then
Most of the friends I have in the music business own dozens of instruments, I know one who's filled a house with every kind of music instrument he can lays his hands on...

Just because you don't understand a thing or concept doesn't make it bad...


With logic like that perhaps the law should be fast-tracked to save humanity from people that think like you.



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 06:42 AM
link   
I never understood why the number of guns a person owns ever mattered to even the most rabid hoplophobe.

So what if I own 5,000 guns? I only have two hands.


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 06:45 AM
link   
More nanny state garbage from the People's Republic of Massachusetts...anyone surprised? I love the left. I really do. Their solution to the problem...thieves stealing guns...is to propose a law that punishes the victim, the law abiding gun owner who might have his property stolen, by forcing him to install a security system, likely at a cost to himself, and threatening him with fines and imprisonment if he doesn't.

That's just brilliant. Good work, comrades!



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 06:49 AM
link   
I think that this link about says it all. www.knowthelies.com.../3949



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 07:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by OUNjahhryn

Originally posted by macman

Originally posted by OUNjahhryn

Originally posted by macman

Originally posted by OUNjahhryn

Originally posted by macman
reply to post by OUNjahhryn
 


Yes you are, being agreeing with a law that restricts the rights of others.

Gotta love it.


not once did i state in this entire thread that I agreed or disagreed with the law. What I have been saying is that (in my eyes) owning more than 10 guns is preposterous and unnecessary.

I'd rather see the money people are spending on their fear/little D@&K syndrome go towards people that are suffering NOW. instead of buying your 11th gun. donate that money to those that need it.



Such an elitist mentality as well.
Because you know best, right? What a joke.
With the purchase of a gun, a gun sales company makes a profit and pays its employees, a shipping company makes a profit and pays its employees, a shipping product company makes a profit and pays its employees and a gun manufacturing company makes a profit and pays its employees.
This just helped more people then just handing over my money to the nanny Govt, where they will funnel it through bank bailouts, TARP, kickbacks and maybe the poor guy will see $2 of the $1000 I just spent.



this is my final response for those of you who seem so "concerned" with my views..

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.

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...

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.

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

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.

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.

I hope that clears it up and you guys can stop trying to make me sound like a fool for disagreeing with you.

oh. and as far as the whole samurai thing goes. I said the samurai code. look up Bushido code. I meant morose fighting with honor and rules of engagement. example. introducing yourself because the other person has a right to know who will kill them or who they will kill.

if you have anything else to say. start a rant thread about it.

peace.

"All guns should be destroyed", your statement. Thus, taking away the rights of others to own them.

Sorry, but that is as anti-gun as it gets

You thinking that giving away money is better, as my choice to buy another gun is a bad idea.
Sorry, but that is about as elitist as it gets.

I know whats best for my money, not you. I know what's best for my house and the items inside.

Go buy another musical instrument. Oh wait, that is money that would be best if you gave it to a starving child.


What a crock.



yeah choosing a fragment out of a chunk of text to better reinstate your point is pretty convenient on the internet eh, completely ignoring the statements above that one.

but since you want me to say it. yeah no one should have a right to bear arms. its a stupid outdated law/concept. you mad? no one should have guns, not you, not me, not military or police. no one. you mad? then go shoot something.

I was trying to be politically correct and somewhat neutral but since you have decided to pick on me ive decided to share my real point of view with you. America is a flawed country with flawed moral ideals. go shoot something redneck.

rawr.



So you have been blowing smoke the whole time. Thanks for clarifying. Why not just come out and say what you mean, instead of trying to go around it.
Thank god you are not a person in charge!!



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 07:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by vor78
More nanny state garbage from the People's Republic of Massachusetts...anyone surprised? I love the left. I really do. Their solution to the problem...thieves stealing guns...is to propose a law that punishes the victim, the law abiding gun owner who might have his property stolen, by forcing him to install a security system, likely at a cost to himself, and threatening him with fines and imprisonment if he doesn't.

That's just brilliant. Good work, comrades!


Yeah I'm not sure if many people realize it, but CRIMINALS do not LEGALLY buy weapons, this is only effecting the people protecting themselves from the criminals



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 07:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by FlyingJadeDragon
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.



There is no justification needed. Unless, you are Obama and the ilk running with him that want to propose such a policy, via the BATF.
My justification is a piece of paper, that sits in DC on display. Thanks.



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 07:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Furbs

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.


Arms in general. Firearms falls under that categorization. Thanks.
In theory, yes, we the people should have arms equal to the Govt. The 2nd amendment is there to remind the Govt that the people are in charge, and that the last option is armed revolution.



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 07:47 AM
link   
The best thing about this law is that it stems from an incident where a Mass resident had his home broken into and 40 guns stolen.

But get this:


Police said Tuesday that officers responded to a Dublin Street home Monday afternoon after the owner reported that someone had broken into the cellar in which he stored a vault containing the guns.
www.boston.com...

So this guys VAULT wasnt enough protection evidently.

The proposed law wants to make sure all Mass residents have VAULTS just like this guy did?




posted on May, 10 2011 @ 07:54 AM
link   
reply to post by thisguyrighthere
 


Yes, and alarmed, and monitored by the only people that know best, the Govt.

Crock crock crock crock crock.
BS BS BS BS BS BS BS.



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 08:38 AM
link   


....guns make weak men strong...


Guns make men equal, whether weak or strong.

A strong man can be overpowered by a bunch of weak men. Ever hear of a home invasion? Ever see what these dirtbags do to the families? A man with a gun has at least a chance. A man with a guitar has little.

Firearms are used to prevent more crimes in the US than to commit them, you just never hear about it from the anti gun people and media because, well guns are just evil. Every gun is a semi-automatic whatever (said slowly for dramatic effect) and anything over 2 or 3 guns is an 'arsenal'.

The 2nd is not about hunting. It is not about target or sport shooting. It really isn't even about personal self defense. The 2nd gives us the chance to protect all the other rights against a foreign or domestic threat. If you are one of those people who believe the citizenry would be unable to defend against the US government, or any government, with our puny guns, just take a look at the middle east. Those guys with their rifles and improvised munitions seem to be giving us a hard time. Now multiply that by 1000. Then consider what percentage of the military would defect/ go awol/ refuse to fire on fellow countrymen.

If you think it could never happen here, just take a look throughout history at how many times a government killed their own people.

The entire US military, including reserves, numbers between 2 and 2.5 million. The FBI estimates there are between 200 & 300 million privately owned firearms in the US.

The government would want no part of that.

You don't like guns then don't own any. Nobody is going to fault you for that, it's your choice. But since you are so dead set against them (they should all be gotten rid of) then don't EVER call on someone who does have them to help (that includes law enforcement) should you ever find yourself in a 'situation'.
edit on 10-5-2011 by Primordial because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 09:00 AM
link   
reply to post by DaddyBare
 


the gun owner should pay imo, if this law goes thru. not all taxpayers own firearms. i live in a different state have 12 different firearms and they are all locked up good. i have no alarm system nor will i ever install one. even if they tell me to install one. i loose power every time we have a small storm. would that set off the alarm if i had one? would that send the police to search my house every time i lost power? no, the police will not be found in my home with out a warrant and a gun put to my head.



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 09:11 AM
link   
reply to post by unbanable123
 


So, because they own a gun, and the state creates an unconstitutional law, you think that gun owners should foot the bill? Even though I bet 99% of gun owners think this law is crap.

By that thinking, people with no children should not have to pay taxes for the schools.




top topics



 
20
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join