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.
Originally posted by browsey
Originally posted by superman2012
reply to post by browsey
I am not an extremist in any way, albeit anti nor pro gun legislation in the US, however i have come to the beliefs that with the US having such a high weapons murder rate opposed to any other country and the ease that follows to be able to own a firearm, as the amendment is so vague in its wording, it does not say may own a sword, a gun, an explosive or any form of weaponry available, it merely states bear arms.
The US is 5th on the list of firearm related deaths. After such countries as, South Africa (1), Columbia (2), Thailand (3), Guatemala (4). Yes those countries have much higher deaths from firearms, but the US only has 15.2% of it's deaths from guns. 7.07% are homicides. Compare this with the homicide statistics : 4.8 people killed per 100,000 population and really it is a small number that gets capped...compared to population.
*Facepalm*
Please do not use wikipedia as your source for collecting statistics, and also check the year, and if possible when giving facts, statistics etc (As i have not done) please give us the link as for all we know that is mere speculation.
Watch Bowling for Columbine if you have not seen it, if for nothing more than the homicide gun crime rates in the US, being dramatically more.
So we have also concluded that yes explosives (I.e cannons) are allowed, but again WHERE is the line drawn? surely it should be as clear cut as possible? Too much it so say that it is ridiculous that certain weapons can be readily available if you have the funds, shouldnt the whole point of being "equal" (For this instance just for arms' sake) everyone should just be given every weapon that is readily available from bombs to nukes o that nobody has the upper hand and nobody uses them right? No? Well the common answer would be "Oh there too many nutters out there.." well if you can understand that with bombs and nuclear/chemical warfare, relative to the damage they cause, look at the thousands that die to gun crime because they are just 'readily available', i hate the fact that in the US you NEED a gun to be 'safe' and on par with everyone else.
Personally i would not ever live in America, i have visited it, i like the place but due to the ridiculous gun laws, i can't feel the need to feel safe and call a place home that is extremely dangerous, im sorry id much rather live with your friends up north or down south (Canada and South Americas).
Originally posted by 46ACE
Originally posted by superman2012
reply to post by browsey
I am not an extremist in any way, albeit anti nor pro gun legislation in the US, however i have come to the beliefs that with the US having such a high weapons murder rate opposed to any other country and the ease that follows to be able to own a firearm, as the amendment is so vague in its wording, it does not say may own a sword, a gun, an explosive or any form of weaponry available, it merely states bear arms.
The US is 5th on the list of firearm related deaths. After such countries as, South Africa (1), Columbia (2), Thailand (3), Guatemala (4). Yes those countries have much higher deaths from firearms, but the US only has 15.2% of it's deaths from guns. 7.07% are homicides. Compare this with the homicide statistics : 4.8 people killed per 100,000 population and really it is a small number that gets capped...compared to population.
" Where are we in "# of automobile deaths per capita?"
Makes about as much sense in this context...
Originally posted by brokedown
reply to post by Darkblade71
Technically Cannons are not illegal, however, under the National Firearms Act of 1968 Federal statute requires that a device like this be rendered unserviceable, registered with the ATF by a the legal owner and a annual tax be paid in the amount of $200 dollars.
But,
Here is the catch.
If a private citizen is in possession of a NFA firearm that has never been registered, it is Unlawful for the citizen to register it, and the penalty for possession is 250.000 dollars and/or 10 years in Federal Prison.
Here is the exception.
Muzzleloading cannons not capable of firing fixed ammunition and manufactured in or before 1898 and replicas thereof are antiques and not subject to the provisions of either the GCA or the NFA.
So, it is best not to put on the World Wide Web information as “my uncle has a cannon…that fires.
The ATF doesn’t take kindly to such weapons being in the hands of the citizenry.
Originally posted by theovermensch
Textshould be said that as socialists we are opposed to a situation where only the capitalist state has guns. We are not in favor of disarming working people. However, the issues of what types of guns should be available, what type of safety measures and gun education should be implemented are issues that should be rationally and democratically decided by the people.
Socialists are always sensible.
The Constitution shall never be construed... to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.
-Samuel Adams
Originally posted by Swing80s
I don't know if anybody has brought this up yet it's kinda crazy but in WA it's illegal to carry a silenced weapon or fire one, but you can own a silencer and the specific pistol it goes with... Silenced weapons are like a grey area... where I went to buy my first pistol, right across from the pistols they had for sale were thier appropriate silencers and you can buy both at the same time you just can't "fire" them LoL. It's a wierd grey area!
Originally posted by AwakeinNM
Originally posted by theovermensch
Textshould be said that as socialists we are opposed to a situation where only the capitalist state has guns. We are not in favor of disarming working people. However, the issues of what types of guns should be available, what type of safety measures and gun education should be implemented are issues that should be rationally and democratically decided by the people.
Socialists are always sensible.
Yeah, like that Stalin guy and the totally "sensible" 60 million deaths that occurred under his rule. Sensible guy, that Stalin.
Originally posted by octotom
reply to post by browsey
It's not vague. "Arms" back when the Constitution was written meant guns. Thus every American has the right to own guns. It only seems vague when one doesn't think to look at what a word meant in a document when it was written.
Originally posted by nenothtu
reply to post by snowcrash911
Another academic socialist who thinks that will somehow translate into the real world.