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.

 

Ban the Gun, Repeal the Second Amendment.

page: 19
45
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 15 2012 @ 12:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Thisbseth
reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin
 


yea but how many more robbery's and home invasions have taken place of massacres...people in your country know guns are banned so they know they can rob a house and not have to worry about getting busted with a gun. in America potential robbers think because of our guns...no one want to rob someone whos armed to the teeth...


This is absolutely untrue. People break into homes all the time -- and steal guns, which are then used to kill people. If there were no guns to steal, then they couldn't be used to hurt people.




posted on Dec, 15 2012 @ 12:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Grimpachi
Three years ago it was about 2 am and I had stopped at a convenience store for cigs. I could see from outside the cashier being beaten by two thugs before I could call the police they had seen me and were coming outside everything happened in what seemed like seconds but I wound up shooting one of them in the leg before they took off. The gun I had was just a little 380 and the police found 9mm casings from where they fired at me but the cashier lived and so did I. The police caught one of the thugs 5 days later robing another place and he turned in the guy I shot.

Two things I did after that day. One I bought a laser sight for the 380 and two I make sure I have it loaded with hollow points.

Taking guns away from lawful citizens isn’t going to go over well as long as criminals have guns that is how I see it.


And what if you'd missed and hit an innocent bystander? Would you still be a big bad hero?



posted on Dec, 15 2012 @ 12:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by SweetChild


If well regulated militia were not the intent of the amendment, why is it FIRST in the clause. It is not emphasized enough! If you want to follow a law written in the 1700s, then join the military -- and stay there. Otherwise, you have ZERO right or need to own a gun.


It was intended to be written that way. The problem is that you're applying a modern day meaning to the word militia. At the time the Bill of Rights was written, militia referred to the body of free citizenry that could take up arms in defense of the nation. As I said before, there's also the whole 'right of the people' to consider. If the right of the people to keep and bear arms does not apply to the common citizenry in 2A, it does not apply in the other amendments, either. Be careful what you wish for.

Its an irrelevant argument, anyway. There is no law on the books that bans civilian ownership of firearms in the United States.

BTW...why would 2A be necessary from a military standpoint when the authority to raise armies was already granted to Congress in Article 1 section 8???



posted on Dec, 15 2012 @ 12:22 AM
link   
You know... we could just ban having children, that way there won't be any chance of them growing up and potentially getting guns and killing people.

BRILLIANT, I know.



posted on Dec, 15 2012 @ 12:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by detachedindividual

Originally posted by nixie_nox
The UK anti-gun people have conveniently ignored my point.

How safe would their little island be, if it bordered on Brazil?

I think I would know the answer.

They keep trying to use their island, which is the size of one of our states, and compare it to the US.

that would be like trying to compare Tibet to China.


How many people have you had to defend yourself against with a gun?

How many times has anyone on ATS ever had to use a gun to defend themselves?

I'll bet that none of you have, apart from maybe some vets here.

I'll bet that many of those who defend their right to own a gun don't even have one, because they've never actually had cause to genuinely need to defend themselves. It's just the typical right wing response that anything that threatens anything in the constitution be attacked (unless it's something their fellow right wing president does though, right?)


Let's see... to be fair, I happen to own a shop that sells firearms...and I do sell a lot of semi-automatic rifles. We do not sell, nor are licensed to sell "assault weapons" or automatic weapons nor machine guns. I have owned a gun since I was eight, I have had to defend myself twice in 32 years, I have extensive training with weapons in both urban and non-urban areas. I have shot rifles, pistols, shotguns and machine guns in those years. I am non-military nor law enforcement. So with all my training, experience and the fact I have defended myself. I think I have a Right to own a weapon. No Police officer in the US is going to tell you that they are there to protect you, they are there for what happens afterward. I have many friends in the military and in law enforcement that happen to believe strongly in the 2nd and will defend it to their dying breathe.

It is a tragedy what occurred in Sandy Point today, however, restricted firearms will not solve this issue. Stricter guns laws will do nothing to solve this issue. This is a societal failure. From a FFL point of view, the background system needs to be overhauled to include medical records as part of the instant check. If someone is dead set on killing someone, they will find a means to accomplish this regardless of what tool they use.

And someone will say it eventually...yes I have had people I loved and cared for murdered and killed by firearms and my point of view is unwavering. I grew up to believe in America and you grew up in your country to believe what you want to believe, but you do not have the Right to tell me nor does anyone else have the Right to tell me what I may own, have or believe.



posted on Dec, 15 2012 @ 12:30 AM
link   
i own 4 guns... you jelly?? our country is the best in the world... i sleep so good at night knowing if someone tried to kill me, they are in for a rude awakening..GOD BLESS AMERICA AND OUR TROOPS!



posted on Dec, 15 2012 @ 01:01 AM
link   
Bans only affect the law abiding community, and empower those that pose the greatest threat to society.

Murder is banned, but, unfortunately, it didn't stop this (or the last several mass murdering shooters) from hurting innocent people. Additionally, bans and restrictions disarm law abiding community members who may have otherwise helped to end the tragedy before things spiraled out of control.

There have been many recent gun tragedies, but disarming the innocent only makes communities more vulnerable to the criminals.



posted on Dec, 15 2012 @ 01:06 AM
link   
reply to post by AG3NT47
 


Cowboy trolls.



posted on Dec, 15 2012 @ 01:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by vor78

Originally posted by SweetChild


If well regulated militia were not the intent of the amendment, why is it FIRST in the clause. It is not emphasized enough! If you want to follow a law written in the 1700s, then join the military -- and stay there. Otherwise, you have ZERO right or need to own a gun.


It was intended to be written that way. The problem is that you're applying a modern day meaning to the word militia. At the time the Bill of Rights was written, militia referred to the body of free citizenry that could take up arms in defense of the nation. As I said before, there's also the whole 'right of the people' to consider. If the right of the people to keep and bear arms does not apply to the common citizenry in 2A, it does not apply in the other amendments, either. Be careful what you wish for.

Its an irrelevant argument, anyway. There is no law on the books that bans civilian ownership of firearms in the United States.

BTW...why would 2A be necessary from a military standpoint when the authority to raise armies was already granted to Congress in Article 1 section 8???



then by your own argument, the 2nd amendment needs to be repealed.



posted on Dec, 15 2012 @ 01:12 AM
link   
The Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 banned all handguns in Washington DC that were not registered before 1976. This law was in effect from 1976-2008 when it was finally ruled unconstitutional be the US Supreme Court. During that period all privately owned firearms in DC had to kept unloaded and incapable of being accidentally fired by means of gunlock or partial disassembly. Please review this chart for how effective the law was before, during and after the law was in place.



You may recall that the assassination attempt on Reagan was in DC while that law was in effect. The law is not a deterrent to those that are determined. And as was pointed out earlier in the thread, even if there was a 100% participation in a firearm and ammunition turn in program, fabricating new firearms is not a complex process and the equipment to do so is in nearly every town in the US anyway. Blueprints exist online and in libraries. And nothing would stop homemade, which are far more dangerous and untraceable, firearms from being made. Ammunition is even easier to fabricate.

The problem is not the gun itself but the person operating it. Identifying and correcting/stopping those people is the correct solution. Mass killing episodes are generally done by those that someone knew they were capable of doing it, yet they did not communicate that information to the proper authorities that could prevent it. However, we must be careful not to convict those people of pre-crimes, but should by all means subject them to careful scrutiny and psychological evaluation and treatment.



posted on Dec, 15 2012 @ 01:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by AG3NT47
i own 4 guns... you jelly?? our country is the best in the world... i sleep so good at night knowing if someone tried to kill me, they are in for a rude awakening..GOD BLESS AMERICA AND OUR TROOPS!


And what if they are a better shot? Or they get the drop on you? Or you kill an innocent bystander? Who would be in for the rude awakening then?



posted on Dec, 15 2012 @ 01:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by SweetChild

Originally posted by Thisbseth
reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin
 


yea but how many more robbery's and home invasions have taken place of massacres...people in your country know guns are banned so they know they can rob a house and not have to worry about getting busted with a gun. in America potential robbers think because of our guns...no one want to rob someone whos armed to the teeth...


This is absolutely untrue. People break into homes all the time -- and steal guns, which are then used to kill people. If there were no guns to steal, then they couldn't be used to hurt people.


Guns can be made in your basement. Criminals will always have guns. Always.



posted on Dec, 15 2012 @ 01:37 AM
link   
All guns, everywhere in the world should be considered weapons of mass destruction.
And from there- we need to start treating the causes of us wanting to murder each other as a public health crisis.
We breed these people. They didn't just happen to be where they're at because of their choices. WE create them.
You want to know who the monsters are? Go look in the mirror.



posted on Dec, 15 2012 @ 01:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by DAZ21

Originally posted by neo96
No.

Why do people constantly try to punish those who did not do anything?

The second stays and if people don't like it tough because it always takes a person behind the trigger and you can't legislate behavior.
edit on 14-12-2012 by neo96 because: (no reason given)


Let's see how you feel if it was your kid lying on the pavement in a pool of blood.
statistically speaking, my children are 105 times more likely to be shot and killed by a police officer. Odds of being shot in school shooting: 1 in 100,000,000

By police officer 1 in 7,000


Who should we really be afraid of?



posted on Dec, 15 2012 @ 01:44 AM
link   
I don't disagree this planet would be better with no guns or anything else but swords. But there's no way to uninvent them.

In the meantime ill take my 2nd amendment rights.

Don't blame the British people for not understanding or ways guys, it's not their fault they were born into a life of serfdom as "subjects" rather than "we the people"

They just will not understand. In their land the crown gives power to the people, in our land the people are supposed to give power to the government



posted on Dec, 15 2012 @ 01:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04

Originally posted by SweetChild

Originally posted by Thisbseth
reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin
 


yea but how many more robbery's and home invasions have taken place of massacres...people in your country know guns are banned so they know they can rob a house and not have to worry about getting busted with a gun. in America potential robbers think because of our guns...no one want to rob someone whos armed to the teeth...


This is absolutely untrue. People break into homes all the time -- and steal guns, which are then used to kill people. If there were no guns to steal, then they couldn't be used to hurt people.


Guns can be made in your basement. Criminals will always have guns. Always.


I can make a bomb from the cleaning chemicals under my kitchen sink. Much cheaper and easier than building a gun. How often do you hear of a molitov cocktail being used in a holdup or school massacre? Criminals generally aren't smart enough nor ambitious enough to build a gun.



posted on Dec, 15 2012 @ 01:56 AM
link   
reply to post by Ahabstar
 

In Australia we had three massacres in the 1990's the worst two Huddle Street and Port Arthur where 35 got killed the government outlawed semi-automatic and full automatics bought back those in circulation and we haven't had a massacre since.

I am allowed bolt action,lever action and some pump action rifles,I am allowed up to a 9mm pistol with a 10 round magazine if I am a sporting shooter and go to the range 6 times a year.Any gun I own must be in a combination safe with the ammo stored separately not the bedroom drawer.

The problem IS THE GUN ,this guy had a 16 round glock and 30 round bushmaster that fire as fast as you can pull the trigger,Im sorry but officer Barbareddy with his service revolver or Miss Marple the Elementary teacher with her 38 special is NOT going to stop this person.

You either get military weapons out of civilian hands or this will happen again.again and again.



posted on Dec, 15 2012 @ 02:01 AM
link   
reply to post by anglodemonicmatrix
 


Ok but, Miss Marple the Elementary teacher with her 38 special and one well placed round to the dome would have stopped the killer in his footsteps the moment 2 children were killed...saving 18....it can go both ways...no matter what banning guns is not the answer....



posted on Dec, 15 2012 @ 02:05 AM
link   
reply to post by Thisbseth
 

My friend has a 357 magnum which we fire regularly Im not a mug with a gun I will hit one of the black circles but a headshot under duress is the realm of special forces my friend.



posted on Dec, 15 2012 @ 02:07 AM
link   
Repeal the Second Amendment... not if I can help it, the only thing I see wrong with the 2nd Amendment is that "and" should be added to the sentance just after the free state,

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, "and" the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

We already have laws that restrict our rights to bear arms; most states require permits to purchase a firearm which in my opinion infringes on the 2nd amendment already… some states do not allow the open carry of a firearm, again infringing on the 2nd amendment. Then you have laws that are so misconstrued and vague within gun control it almost makes it impossible to determine if you have any rights at all.

I have no issue with a government official disarming any individual or class of individuals that is considered dangerous to the peace of the public, but a law abiding citizen who carries a gun for self defense should have and does have the right to do so.

Criminals will be just that, criminals... and will always have illegal guns, As a US Citizen I am allowed to at least have a fighting chance at defending my life, my family, or my property.

Get a life people, Gun Control is not the issue, the police are not going to protect you when a criminal breaks into your home, steals your stuff, abducts your child, or rapes your wife or teenage daughter or worse tries to kill everyone in your home. The police are not going to be there when you are approached in a parking lot and they intend on abducting you, robbing you, killing you or god knows what else.

edit on 12/15/2012 by Shdak because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
45
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join