It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by AtcGod
reply to post by TKDRL
People do not NEED guns.
Humanity does not need guns anymore.
I say we get rid of them all. And any other killing machine. Just scrap them and use all the metal to build a spaceboat to get us the hell off this rock. Then you could hunt snargles.
Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by jude11
Gun control and carry permits won't stop murder, but it'll sure as hell make it more difficult. Plus, more consequences should you be caught with one. With a nation-wide ban on firearms using projectiles, how easy do you think it will be to use a gun without having every cop in the state looking for you?
Guns will be like leaving a fingerprint at a crime scene. I'm all for this gun control thing. I hate guns. Guns used to be a good thing, but now, there's too much temptation. We're too out of control. And when a cat gets too wild...
You take its claws away.
"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. - Mahatma Gandhi"
As I proceeded further and further with my inquiry into the atrocities that had been committed on the people, I came across tales of Government’s tyranny and the arbitrary despotism of it’s officers such as I was hardly prepared for, and they filled me with deep pain. What surprised me then, and what still continues to fill me with surprise, was the fact that a province that had furnished the largest number of soldiers to the British Government during the war, should have taken all these brutal excesses lying down.
Originally posted by nighthawk1954
Originally posted by TKDRL
reply to post by nighthawk1954
Soooooo....... How does making it harder for law abiding citizens to get guns supposed to help then?
Dude I not getting into Pissing contest with you I am just stating the facts!
I personaly have many guns bought legally.edit on 21-7-2012 by nighthawk1954 because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by AtcGod
reply to post by theroguelion
You have to do most of those things with a gun when hunting as well.
If you were forced to not have a gun, I am sure your bow and arrow skills would increase to compensate.
Slavery was also a culture in the south at one time. I am so glad that someone decided to change that.
Or should we bring that back as well because it is culture?
1994: In his unsuccessful challenge to liberal Democratic Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, Romney sounds moderate on guns, supporting an assault weapons ban and insisting, "I don't line up with the NRA."
2002: Running for governor of Massachusetts, Romney says he supports and will protect the state's "tough gun laws." The NRA gives his Democratic opponent a higher rating on gun-rights issues and makes no endorsement in the race.
2003: As governor, Romney upsets gun owners by signing a law that quadruples the state's gun-licensing fee — from $25 to $100 — as part of a widespread effort to eliminate the budget deficit.
2004: Romney signs a Massachusetts ban on assault weapons. He mollifies many gun rights advocates by coupling it with looser rules on gun licenses and an extension of the duration of licenses, reducing the effect of the earlier fee increase.
2005: Declares May 7 as "Right to Bear Arms Day" in Massachusetts.
2006: As he prepares for his first presidential run, Romney becomes a lifetime NRA member.
2007: While campaigning, Romney declares he sometimes hunts "small varmints" — a comment ridiculed by some as an awkward attempt to pander to pro-gun voters.
2008: In a Republican primary debate, Romney says he would have signed the federal assault weapons ban if it came to his desk as president, but he opposes any new gun legislation.
I stand my ground on this. If the people in power are the only ones that have guns, the citizens will have lost their last tool to fight for liberty. Those in power are slowly taking away every right and freedom from the citizens. Without the ability to protect yourself, family, property...you might as well just put your hands up now. And then we have this. Is this another push towards even more intrusive surveillance from Big Bro? Will people agree to it in order to be 'Safe'? Is this the REAL agenda?
For this Second Amendment justification to hold water, local militias would have to have the most up to date advances in military weaponry over the years, such as tanks, APCs, surface-to-air missiles, fighter jets, chemical warheads, etc. But I highly doubt that citizens have a legal ''right'' to possess most of these.