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.

 

Time to take the gun from the American public!

page: 46
48
<< 43  44  45    47  48  49 >>

log in

join
share:
SM2

posted on Apr, 6 2012 @ 12:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
45 pages of back and forth arguing. "Ban guns altogether" says one side, and then "I want total liberty with guns" says the other side. What happened to the middle ground?

When faced with total opposites I will say "I want total liberty with guns" simply because you can't trust a backstabbing government run by corporations and influenced by the devil.

The day people give up their guns will be the day tyranny is completed.

Voting means nothing, free speach by msm is becoming more rare than diamonds, and the judicial system can't make a correct decision if it contemplated for years.



There should not be a middle ground, as it is a constitutionally guaranteed right. The second amendment does not say anything about a middle ground it specifically states shall not be infringed, it is all ready infringed, there is all ready a compromise, that many think it too slanted to the no guns people.

No one would agree to a middle ground compromise to free speech, or voting rights or any other right int he bill of rights so why this one? Because you do not like it? Well, that's why it is constitutionally guaranteed, so people that dont like it wont try to take away or weaken our rights.
edit on 6-4-2012 by SM2 because: (no reason given)




posted on Apr, 6 2012 @ 01:01 PM
link   
Up until 8 months ago I was a complete anti-gun-ist. I abhorred the sight of them. I thought carrying a gun was a sure way to get yourself into even worse trouble. I thought guns were only for the macho-minded, gang-oriented crowd. Now, 8 months ago, I had a gun pointed at my head by a 15-years-old who wanted my purse and a couple of shopping bags I was carrying on a street corner in front of a multitude of immutable passersby, and in that moment, when I thought I was about to become one of the rising murder statistics in my country, when I honestly believed that that was it, I was going to be killed on the street by a punk on crack with no sense of morality or guilt or decency whatsoever, that was also when the bizarre thought came to me: 'How dare he, how dare he point a gun at me, this little piece of crap who hasn't probably even finished high school!!!'. And just as the guy wrenched my stuff from my hands, the gun still pointed at my head, and told me, 'Sugar, thank god we're on the street because if we were on a back alley I'd rape you' ("Mamita, dale gracias a dios que estamos en la calle, porque en el callejon te cojo"), and then took off running with another asshole he was with, the answer became quite clear to me: because he knew perfectly well that I had no means to defend myself. Because he knew, with his gun, he had the upper hand, and that no-one would stop him.

Anyway, to make the story short, I've since then enrolled in shooting class at the local shooting range, and I'm going through all the hoops and loops to get a gun -- which is a bureaucratic nightmare now with the 'Disarming Law' they're passing through, but possible if you know the right people (my dad was in the military). All I can say is this: When you live in a country where the most basic civil securities are pretty much null and void, where the government does absolutely nothing to stop crime and for all intents and purposes protects it, where every law enforcement agency is corrupt to the highest degree, unfortunately it gets to a point where the common citizen, such as myself, has to take matters into their own hand. And like me there are thousands of people in my country (Venezuela) that are arming themselves against crime. And it's not just in Venezuela, either: it is happening all over Latin America, in fact.

Now, all you moralists can say whatever you want. You can say violence breeds violence, that guns are the root of all evil, etc. Sure, they kill people, they are not to be flashed around, and they bestow a huge responsibility that not everybody who carries them understand. But I've made my choice, and I'm acting accordingly. And be completely certain: The next time some punk-ass lowlife crackhead points a gun at my face, he will probably kill me, but not before I cap one right between his eyes. Something that I've come to terms with. I rather die defending myself, than live through the whims of a government-protected thug who thinks he has the power of God to decide over my life.

edit on 6-4-2012 by DarkVeela because: Spelling. English is not my first language, sorry!



posted on Apr, 6 2012 @ 01:07 PM
link   
why is always hte US why not Mexico or south Africa,or Syria, more people die each day there than in the US in a Year!



posted on Apr, 6 2012 @ 01:16 PM
link   
reply to post by nenothtu
 

I will need to research the suggestions contained in the below link, but I hope what it postulates is wrong:
www.ammoland.com...



posted on Apr, 6 2012 @ 01:17 PM
link   
Take the guns away from the Military/Police and Global Elites as well and I might consider it!

2nd line



posted on Apr, 6 2012 @ 01:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by SM2

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
45 pages of back and forth arguing. "Ban guns altogether" says one side, and then "I want total liberty with guns" says the other side. What happened to the middle ground?

When faced with total opposites I will say "I want total liberty with guns" simply because you can't trust a backstabbing government run by corporations and influenced by the devil.

The day people give up their guns will be the day tyranny is completed.

Voting means nothing, free speach by msm is becoming more rare than diamonds, and the judicial system can't make a correct decision if it contemplated for years.



There should not be a middle ground, as it is a constitutionally guaranteed right. The second amendment does not say anything about a middle ground it specifically states shall not be infringed, it is all ready infringed, there is all ready a compromise, that many think it too slanted to the no guns people.

No one would agree to a middle ground compromise to free speech, or voting rights or any other right int he bill of rights so why this one? Because you do not like it? Well, that's why it is constitutionally guaranteed, so people that dont like it wont try to take away or weaken our rights.
edit on 6-4-2012 by SM2 because: (no reason given)


I respect your biased opinion, like I respect many opinions, but guns are a special breed of tools. Freedom of speech means you can insult someone, although with political correctness it is becoming increasingly difficult. Voting for the wrong candidate means nothing other than a worse of multiple evils.

The only thing approaching *the be all and end all* of guns is the judicial system. One bad decision and someone ends up in a coffin while the other person ends up in jail. I think there should be some limitations to the type of guns owned and who should carry them assuming the government is capable of making such decisions.



posted on Apr, 6 2012 @ 01:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by disfugured
Take the guns away from the Military/Police and Global Elites as well and I might consider it!

2nd line


Whos going to take it away? Wow was it really this simple the whole time. All we have to do is just take everyone's guns away. Why are we even at war? Why don't we just take all their guns? Some people just can't think. Never underestimate the capacity for people to be stupid.



posted on Apr, 6 2012 @ 01:53 PM
link   
I followed this thread at first but to be honest I got a bit bored with the same old arguements being repeated time and time again by both sides.

As a Brit I really couldn't give a toss if you regain your Right To Bear Arms in the USA; it's your country - do as you please.
But please respect the fact that the vast majority of Brits, and most other Europeans etc, have no desire for the same 'right' and are quite happy with the gun laws in our countries.

I get sick to death of Americans rattling on at every opportunity, even when it is totally irrelevant, about how 'it wouldn't happen if you hadn't given up your right to carry guns' blah blah blah.

It's bollocks!

The simple fact is that it can and it does.

And you may need guns to protect yourselves from your governments but you got to remember that we are the one's that have actually removed tyrants and despotic governments.
And please don't kid yourselves that you aren't getting screwed over just as much as any of us are because as far as I can see, and despite what many would have you believe, you certainly don't have any more freedoms than the rest of us.

I accept that ownership of guns is very much a part of the American psyche.
Gun culture runs deep in the USA.
If I lived in the USA then I'd probably own one myself.
And as such I understand and respect your fight to regain it.
And all the non-US citizens really should stop trying to moralise.

Just stop preaching that the rest of us should follow suit.
Different societies and cultures with different mind sets.

And to be perfectly honest, I get pretty bored with it all, especially those who believe that having the right to bear arms somehow makes them more of a man than those of us who don't have it and don't want it.
Do they realise just how pathetic they seem to everyone else?



posted on Apr, 6 2012 @ 01:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Freeborn
 


To each their own, right? Well, then there is this comment made to me.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

So which is it? We each know our countries fundamentals more clearly, or outsiders know better and our able to tell "us" how to change because they have a less bias view?

Sick of people preaching to others.



posted on Apr, 6 2012 @ 02:16 PM
link   
reply to post by ElectricUniverse
 


I never said it did, but if you dig a bit deeper you'll discover just what a large percentage of murders are committed with guns.

All the stats are out there, there's no one who's honestly claiming the US murder rate is not 3-4 times that of places like Sweden Germany, Ireland, the UK, etc.

The only argument left is:

If guns are really making Americans safer, as many claim, just how bad would the murder rate be without them?

10x that of the UK?

OR

Are guns themselves part of the larger problem, considering how often they are used in murders in the US (And the very limited availability of the same weapons in places where the murder rate is 3-4x less)?

Either America is somehow innately much more murderous than it's counterparts, or there's another element at play. One very obvious and connected difference is the prevalence of hand guns.



posted on Apr, 6 2012 @ 02:19 PM
link   
Don't forget that "first-person shooters" are teaching/brainwashing the youth to kill. As long as violence is cool, it will happen. That's the main stream media for you!



posted on Apr, 6 2012 @ 02:19 PM
link   
Don't forget that "first-person shooters" are teaching/brainwashing the youth to kill. As long as violence is cool, it will happen. That's the main stream media for you!



posted on Apr, 6 2012 @ 02:25 PM
link   
reply to post by ReadAwhile
 




Sick of people preaching to others.


I agree entirely.

First of all, as a Brit it has absolutely nothing to do with me what laws are enabled in the USA.
Exactly the same that it has absolutely nothing to do with Americans what we allow or what we don't allow here in the UK.

Far too many people in this world seek to impose their own morals and standards on other people.

But that does not disqualify us from having an opinion and voicing that opinion, especially on a site such as this, as long as it is done in a reasoned and respectful manner.

Personally I have no wish to see any slackening of the UK's gun laws.
Those that need them for work and pleasure are allowed them as long as certain criteria are met.
If there were more guns in general circulation then more would be used - a pretty straight forward piece of reasoning as far as I can see.
The UK is violent enough without making it easier to obtain and carry guns.
The vast majority of Brits and continental Europeans view things the same way.

However, I understand that gun culture has became ingrained in the US psyche.
In some areas of the US they are even a necessity.
As such I can see why people would fight so hard to keep that 'right'.

On the downside I think there is a corelation between gun ownership and the relative high number of shootings in the US. (I'm afraid I have no statistical evidence to support that at present but I do understand it to be true....I could be wrong).

And I find the excuse that it protects the people from tyrannical governments as quite ridiculous.
Maybe that was true a hundred years plus ago but come on, does anyone really think that automatic rifles would be a true deterrent or defence against the weaponry of the modern US Armed Services, especially if they were in the control of a truly despotic government etc?

Only Americans really know what is good and right for America, just as only Brits know what is good and right for the UK etc....but that doesn't mean we should close our minds to outsiders opinions and observations before we formulate an opinion.
edit on 6/4/12 by Freeborn because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 6 2012 @ 02:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by 1pi314
Don't forget that "first-person shooters" are teaching/brainwashing the youth to kill. As long as violence is cool, it will happen. That's the main stream media for you!



Video games don't make people kill. Guns don't make people kill. People make people kill. We drive ourselves to the point of killing another person, nothing else. Why do we blame everything except the individual. You could have all the gun regs in the world, and you still won't stop the one crazy guy from getting a gun and shooting people if he still wanted to.BTW I play first person shooters all the time. So I must be brainwashed and ready to snap at any moment. Just waiting because all I could think about since I got those games, is how Im going to shoot everyone. Along with that we should oust violence from everything since it "brainwashes the youth to kill". Like violence in movies, and music. Heck why don't we just go back 3000 years and live like it was then. No guns, no video games, man everything was gravy wasn't it.


SM2

posted on Apr, 6 2012 @ 02:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07

Originally posted by SM2

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
45 pages of back and forth arguing. "Ban guns altogether" says one side, and then "I want total liberty with guns" says the other side. What happened to the middle ground?

When faced with total opposites I will say "I want total liberty with guns" simply because you can't trust a backstabbing government run by corporations and influenced by the devil.

The day people give up their guns will be the day tyranny is completed.

Voting means nothing, free speach by msm is becoming more rare than diamonds, and the judicial system can't make a correct decision if it contemplated for years.



There should not be a middle ground, as it is a constitutionally guaranteed right. The second amendment does not say anything about a middle ground it specifically states shall not be infringed, it is all ready infringed, there is all ready a compromise, that many think it too slanted to the no guns people.

No one would agree to a middle ground compromise to free speech, or voting rights or any other right int he bill of rights so why this one? Because you do not like it? Well, that's why it is constitutionally guaranteed, so people that dont like it wont try to take away or weaken our rights.
edit on 6-4-2012 by SM2 because: (no reason given)


I respect your biased opinion, like I respect many opinions, but guns are a special breed of tools. Freedom of speech means you can insult someone, although with political correctness it is becoming increasingly difficult. Voting for the wrong candidate means nothing other than a worse of multiple evils.

The only thing approaching *the be all and end all* of guns is the judicial system. One bad decision and someone ends up in a coffin while the other person ends up in jail. I think there should be some limitations to the type of guns owned and who should carry them assuming the government is capable of making such decisions.


Thats all well and good, but the constitution does not place any limits on the right to keep and bear arms. there is no designation as to type, and yes, there were many types of firearms available to them, shot guns, pistols, rifles, cannon, mortars. Now, that is not saying I want to own a cannon or mortar, lol, who am I kidding i would love to have a cannon in the front yard. I agree that one bad decision leads to dire consequences, but so does a lot of things. You have to take the good with the bad. As far as deciding who can carry them, well it is all ready being done. You have to apply for a carry permit in most states. They do a background check, in most states they require training including classroom and live fire. If you have any violent crimes or domestic violence arrests or warrants, ever been committed to a mental health facility, arrested for drug charges then you do not get a permit, hell for that matter you are not legally allowed to own a firearm. I on one side agree with this to a point,on a common sense level, but on another level I disagree because you can not cherry pick who gets to exercise their rights and who doesn't.



posted on Apr, 6 2012 @ 05:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
I think there should be some limitations to the type of guns owned and who should carry them assuming the government is capable of making such decisions.


I'm shocked you think the public should have limits on what weapons they can have when criminals do not.

The public is already outgunned far too much and any limits placed on gun ownership doesn't effect the criminals. The criminal, who's going to use a weapon in a crime, doesn't go buy it at a store and register it.. How ignorant to think laws are going to make any changes to crime? In fact the only thing a law like that would provide is a guarantee you will be outgunned every time by criminals.



posted on Apr, 6 2012 @ 05:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by andersensrm
Problem is people read statisitics and see causation. But anyone who's actually taken a stat course knows that no matter how strong the correlation is, you can never define causation.

3 statisticians are at the archery range. The 1st one shoots and it hits the right side of the target. The 2nd one shoots and his shot hits the left side of the target. The 3rd jumps up and down and exclaims "I hit a bullseye".

The UCR reporting for the US is goofy enough as it is. Trying to compare stats to other countries would be like trying to compare the earth and mars. Both are essentially the same thing however different rules apply simply because one is the earth and the other is Mars.


Originally posted by andersensrm
This is just more people using statistics in misleading and uninformed way. Not to say that the end result is wrong. It might certainly be that the US has more gun deaths than in any other country, but as of now, I have yet to see any convincing statistics on this.

Personally I don't believe the US has the highest rate. What I do think is the reporting predominately comes from the states which arent under pressure from any other governmental bodies, where as the US Government is. I would go so far to say that in the US gun deaths / homicides are almost always reported (granted there is the occasional corruption).

Not all countries are democratic which means there is a pretty good chance the stats we see from other countries are either padded or blatantly false in an effort to promote a leader / countries image.

As an example I doubt the number released for china are accurate. Same with syria, and we saw hat fuirst hand during the interviews witht he Syrian Goverment where Assad proclaimed government forces were not killing anyone.


Originally posted by andersensrm
I have been trying to look up, and failed, in figuring out out of all firearm deaths in America, lets say for 2011, how many firearm deaths were with registered firearms, and how many were without. If most firearm deaths, or assaults, are with unregistered firearms, then having stricter gun control laws would be essentially useless. However if most are done with registered firearms, then perhaps there needs to be stricter qualifications in order to own a gun.


The 2011 stats are only available for the first half of 2011. Im not sure when the FBI will release the remainder of the year stats.

FBI - UCR reports
F BI - UCR 2010 - Homicides in the US broken down by categories
UCR - Homcides by State and Weapon
edit on 6-4-2012 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 6 2012 @ 06:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by queenofswords
reply to post by nenothtu
 

I will need to research the suggestions contained in the below link, but I hope what it postulates is wrong:
www.ammoland.com...


I read the link, and it appears to deal with ratification strategies, not implementation. Congress may ratify it, ans it still be unenforceable, being in conflict with previously establish law - i.e. the Second Amendment of the US Constitution. Just as the "Health Care" law, also passed by Congress, will likely be found unconstitutional. In the case of arms, there is less gray area for the totalitarians to work with, since the Second amendment is EXPLICIT, rather than implied.

Of course, the final arbiters, should they try that particular end run, will be the people actually holding those weapons they mean to confiscate. Quite a sizeable number of them will only give up their weapons 220 grains at a time.

A right cannot be taken away - it can only be willingly unclaimed. In that event, it still exists, but people are too timid to contest it, and the totalitarians win by default.



posted on Apr, 6 2012 @ 06:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by libertytoall

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
I think there should be some limitations to the type of guns owned and who should carry them assuming the government is capable of making such decisions.


I'm shocked you think the public should have limits on what weapons they can have when criminals do not.

The public is already outgunned far too much and any limits placed on gun ownership doesn't effect the criminals. The criminal, who's going to use a weapon in a crime, doesn't go buy it at a store and register it.. How ignorant to think laws are going to make any changes to crime? In fact the only thing a law like that would provide is a guarantee you will be outgunned every time by criminals.


To be honest I would not feel comfortable knowing just about anyone can legally carry any gun they want, wherever they want. I was not brought up that way and would not feel secure. I have no problem with people buying guns, taking them to the range and practice/have fun, keep it home in a safe to protect their family and belongings.

And not everyone is a stable individual, nevermind the criminal elements of society who mostly kill other criminals. Someone like jared loughner or some mk-ultra stooge flips out and goes on a gun rampage in the mall or school killing 50-100 people. That is why they check peoples criminal background first and then their psychological history.

Sure no system is 100% perfect and we can argue the details forever. I am NOT for strict gun regulations. Just basic common sense stuff such as no machine guns, must be at least 21 to register a gun in your name, basic background checks and no public carry permits unless your job demands it.



posted on Apr, 6 2012 @ 06:24 PM
link   
reply to post by nenothtu
 


This is why the UN intiative will not work in the US, whether or not its ratified.

Link to post

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by queenofswords
 


The head money case is where to start in determining how foreign treaties are integrated into US law. SCOTUS in that case ruled foreign treaties are subordinate to the constitution. It also noted that no foreign treaties can remove or bestow any authority that is not specifically granted / prohibited by the Constitution.

As far as the second amendment goes -
District of Columbia v. Heller

and

McDonald v. Chicago

The second amendment is applied to the individual. The only way that guns are going away would be to remove / edit the 2nd amendment and I dont see that happening at all at any point in the foreseeable future.

Any foreign treaty the US signs makes that treaty a part of the Federal body of law. Because of that those treaties can be defined by the courts / congress in terms of legality and constitutionality.



Head Money Cases - 112 U.S. 580 (1884)


Article II, Section II, Clause II - Treaty Clause

American law is that international accords become part of the body of U.S. federal law.[1] As a result, Congress can modify or repeal treaties by subsequent legislative action, even if this amounts to a violation of the treaty under international law. This was held, for instance, in the Head Money Cases. The most recent changes will be enforced by U.S. courts entirely independent of whether the international community still considers the old treaty obligations binding upon the U.S.[1]

Additionally, an international accord that is inconsistent with the U.S. Constitution is void under domestic U.S. law, the same as any other federal law in conflict with the Constitution. This principle was most clearly established in the case of Reid v. Covert.[8] The Supreme Court could rule an Article II treaty provision to be unconstitutional and void under domestic law, although it has not yet done so.

In Goldwater v. Carter,[9] Congress challenged the constitutionality of then-president Jimmy Carter's unilateral termination of a defense treaty. The case went before the Supreme Court and was never heard; a majority of six Justices ruled that the case should be dismissed without hearing an oral argument, holding that "The issue at hand ... was essentially a political question and could not be reviewed by the court, as Congress had not issued a formal opposition." In his opinion, Justice Brennan dissented, "The issue of decision making authority must be resolved as a matter of constitutional law, not political discretion; accordingly, it falls within the competence of the courts". Presently, there is no official ruling on whether the President has the power to break a treaty without the approval of Congress, and the courts also declined to interfere when President George W. Bush unilaterally withdrew the United States from the ABM Treaty in 2002, six months after giving the required notice of intent.[10]


The UN can say what they want and the US can sign the treaties however it does not negate the fact that international treaties are subordinate to the US Constitution, become part of the US Federal body of law which allows for congress and the courts to make changes in areas that are in conlfict with Constitutional / Domestic Laws.

The head Money ruling has been the baseline for how treaties affect the US, our laws and citizens. The ruling occured in 1884 and since then there have been no changes to the Supreme Court ruling.

The UN cannot pass an International Law banning gun possession in the United states, whether we sign onto the treaty or not. Any President who does so and any member of congress who signs onto it would be violating the Constitution.
edit on 6-4-2012 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
48
<< 43  44  45    47  48  49 >>

log in

join