Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Millions of Americans have children and own guns.....and are not buying in.

page: 2
42
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 06:17 PM
link   
I'll let this picture...from a facebook page...speak for you.





posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 07:04 PM
link   
The loyalty many Americans have towards the constitution must be respected. The desire of many Americans to protect their freedoms must also be respected. But there still are a few major flaws in your logic. I comment on this as an impartial outsider (who has also promoted the freedom to bare arms on this forum) with no stake in this argument, as I don't live in America (something I thank the universe for everyday).

Firstly, simply because many Americans aren't "buying" into gun regulations, doesn't make them right. Many Americans are also coincidentally very stupid, which surely affects this debate.

Secondly, the constitution was written during a different context (one of British imperialism and more primitive weaponry), time and environment. I don't think the founding fathers of the state envisioned the existence of high powered assault rifles, .50 Cal Beretta sniper rifles, and SCUD missiles.

Thirdly, constitutions are very problematic documents. The reason being is they are not flexible enough for the massive changes that occur in society over time. This is clearly seen in the US constitution (although the 13th amendment pertaining to the ownership of slaves was removed). Other countries prefer a system based in common law where particular cases decide the freedoms of people. This system is also problematic but far more flexible. Perhaps a hybrid system would work well.

Lastly, advocates for stricter gun controls are not necessarily suggesting to ban all guns. They are arguing for what I clearly just stated. STRICTER GUN CONTROL. In the US, often background checks, police checks, mental health checks and many other substantive measures are not taken to restrict the use of guns for those unstable members of society, in particular those with mental health problems. In other countries, such as Australia, the arms we can use are restricted. In 1997 we had a mass shooting using a semi-automatic assault rifle, and following that they were banned to most of the citizenry. Since then, there have been no mass shootings.

There is an extensive background check (I know as I am currently in the process of applying for my licence), including the need for references, police checks, health checks, references to hunting and shooting clubs etc. I don't see this as a negative. One can still purchase a weapon, albeit there is less choice and destructive capability, that would suit their recreational needs.



posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 07:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Logarock
 


edit on 17-12-2012 by freakshowfatty because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 07:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by zedVSzardoz
reply to post by monkofmimir
 


agreed, perhaps we need to consider allowing MORE people to carry their legal firearms in social environments rather than selected "special" areas so we can counter lone gunmen.

It should become socially acceptable for a legal firearm to be taken everywhere you go. If more of us had guns these nuts wouldn't last 5 minutes in one of these sprees.

It is not enough to just have them at home anymore....


That is the worst possible idea ever. It is just as bad as banning guns. People are far more likely to shoot themselves or an innocent than they ever are a rogue gunman. Considering how many people die at home already because so many idiots have guns the last thing we want are those idiots trying to play hero. It is to bad we do not have a test to figure who responsible gun owners are and who the idiot/nut bag ones are. Until you can do that you are just adding more idiots and nut bags with guns and that never ends well.



posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 07:20 PM
link   
reply to post by chrismarco
 


Guns under lock and key are pretty much useless. They have done studied that under drill situations 9 times out of 10 you can't reach the gun because you are away, or fumbling to get the cabinet unlocked, by then it's all over. Same with gun training. They have trained and trained people on quick drawing and shooting targets, but in a real situation they fumbled and couldn't draw the weapon much less hit anything with it. You have to have constant drills through the steps to be effective. Arming someone really isn't going to protect anyone when the bullets are flying. I do still believe laws should be lifted to allow teachers to carry, not only that schools shouldn't have open campus and need to be built in such a way where there is security check points with armed security, metal detectors, camera, logs etc. Maybe even putting in safe rooms. I know that sounds crazy, but seriously there are communities with condo apartments that have better security than some of these schools. They have a walled concrete perimeter, armed security and gates at the front. It won't stop something happening inside but it would control who comes in and out freely. There really is a LOT that can be done that isn't being done. An ounce of prevention can go a long ways.
edit on 17-12-2012 by sean because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 08:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by chrismarco
reply to post by kozmo
 


Sometimes emotion has to be injected...we have better drunk driving laws because emotion has helped drive the situation...we have a good amber alert system because the emotion but parents....one could argue that point for both sides as emotions are high...so what is the solution? How do you prevent your looney kids from getting their hands on a gun? How do you stop a looney parent from buying guns...that's the problem with no easy answer...when the next child or children is killed do we say "oh well, second amendment"?
edit on 17-12-2012 by chrismarco because: (no reason given)


Yet we still have hundreds of thousands that still drive drunk, and we still have people that abduct children. Good thing we have laws against those things to make sure they never happen.

Only rationality will get us to a point where defense is preferable to victimization.

/TOA



posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 08:31 PM
link   
reply to post by monkofmimir
 


I also think that it would be good for the teachers to carry. They would need proper training. They are starting to do this in Utah. Check out the link for more info on what they are doing there.
www.ksl.com...



posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 09:02 PM
link   
Gun Control and Regulation is inevitable at this point, you guys are just going to have to deal with it.

You have pro-NRA republicans now agreeing that it is time to talk about gun control.

It's about time Americans stand up to the pro-gun lobby.



posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 09:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Logarock
I have five children. If my children were to be victims like those in the school shooting I would certainly feel the same way as the parents of those children.

Having said that it wouldnt move me one bit to change my 2nd amendment convictions. I and others, many others, are not going to allow the emotions of this event to shape a revision in our views. Knowing that millions have died over the ages fighting for freedom we cant let slip away from us these freedoms and these rights.

Further more I plan to pass down this understanding to my children as many others will do. I salute all who love freedom and the light of truth on this issue.



In feudal Japan the samurai were considered the only ones worthy to train and carry swords

Once the population realised that the samurai didn't have the best interest of the people in mind but instead were only blindly following the will's of their retainers, they began training in secret with farming tools
Like oars and nunchucks and scythe.

Without a level playing field, people will defend themselves regardless.

I how my kids have learned this lesson as well.

Cheers



posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 10:01 PM
link   
Unfortunately, Americans have this "you can take my guns out of my cold dead hands" attitude, which won't be changing any time soon.

For all the posturing that now is the time to do something in the USA to prevent this kind of tragedy in the future, I highly doubt that politicians are really motivated to do anything at all.



posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 10:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by babybunnies
Unfortunately, Americans have this "you can take my rights out of my cold dead hands" attitude, which won't be changing any time soon.


Fixed that for you.

Have a nice day.

/TOA



posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 10:20 PM
link   
The ones that will give up their weapons are the ones that wouldn't do anything anyway, that is the problem. There are a lot of weapons on the black market, criminals won't have a shortage and neither will the people who are insane. So is taking away weapons from responsible and honest people the right thing to do?

I have personally seen some of the black market guns out there years ago, this is no paranoid delusion, I could have bought one anytime I wanted to back in the eighties. It cost more to buy an old pistol than you could buy a brand new legal pistol. A coworker of mine in a factory was selling them. This guy was as pushy as a Kirby salesman
I wouldn't buy one of those guns, you never know what it was used for or where it was stolen from. Many people did though, and no records exist..



posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 10:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by chrismarco
reply to post by kozmo
 


Sometimes emotion has to be injected...we have better drunk driving laws because emotion has helped drive the situation...we have a good amber alert system because the emotion but parents....one could argue that point for both sides as emotions are high...so what is the solution? How do you prevent your looney kids from getting their hands on a gun? How do you stop a looney parent from buying guns...that's the problem with no easy answer...when the next child or children is killed do we say "oh well, second amendment"?
edit on 17-12-2012 by chrismarco because: (no reason given)


Driving while under the influence isn't a good thing, but the laws have not eliminated fatalities. They've not even been cut in half and one can argue that other laws from reduced speed limits to seat belt requirements and better safety features in cars have had an impact on these numbers. Similarly, how has the war on drugs gone?

Why doesn't the government concentrate on taking illegal guns off of the streets? Why did they pass out guns in Fast and Furious - guns that certainly made it back to the streets in the US?

I don't own a gun, but this isn't about them looking out for our welfare. I'm sorry, but it just isn't.




posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 11:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by SpeachM1litant
Lastly, advocates for stricter gun controls are not necessarily suggesting to ban all guns. They are arguing for what I clearly just stated. STRICTER GUN CONTROL. In the US, often background checks, police checks, mental health checks and many other substantive measures are not taken to restrict the use of guns for those unstable members of society, in particular those with mental health problems.


Please explain to me how this applies to the recent shooting. How would stricter gun control have changed the outcome? He took the weapons from his mother. If his mother didn't have weapons he would have stolen them from someone else or bought them illegally.

Strict gun control will only affect law abiding citizens.



posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 11:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by SpeachM1litant
The loyalty many Americans have towards the constitution must be respected. The desire of many Americans to protect their freedoms must also be respected. But there still are a few major flaws in your logic. I comment on this as an impartial outsider (who has also promoted the freedom to bare arms on this forum) with no stake in this argument, as I don't live in America (something I thank the universe for everyday).

Firstly, simply because many Americans aren't "buying" into gun regulations, doesn't make them right. Many Americans are also coincidentally very stupid, which surely affects this debate.

Secondly, the constitution was written during a different context (one of British imperialism and more primitive weaponry), time and environment. I don't think the founding fathers of the state envisioned the existence of high powered assault rifles, .50 Cal Beretta sniper rifles, and SCUD missiles.



Now I will dig it up for you I sure will......from the Federalist Papers. Madison I think it was said something about developing any weapon that would secure our liberty. I will get that on here.

And context will not matter here. That just some fancy flib flab some brain wave dreamed up somewhere. Dont get me wrong context is important. Yea the British are not comming any more. In fact no one would really try it. What we have now and then as put down in the FedPapers by two of our soon to be POTUS, the very real rise of central power or powers within our own nation that put liberty at risk and other melt downs.



posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 11:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by xedocodex
Gun Control and Regulation is inevitable at this point, you guys are just going to have to deal with it.

You have pro-NRA republicans now agreeing that it is time to talk about gun control.

It's about time Americans stand up to the pro-gun lobby.



Yea thats sad because they think all they have to do is turn their back on the nra and we will have to get in line. Our fearless elected officals. They dont go to DC to work for us anyway.

The "pro-gun lobby"....this isnt a football game. We have rights here. Its not a lobby.



posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 11:25 PM
link   
I have thought about this and have come to the conclusion that I do not want teachers carrying firearms in school this is not because I am worried about the teachers I am worried that a deranged student would find a way to take one from a teacher. It makes much more sense to have an armed police officer at a school than an armed staff.



posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 11:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by BlowinSmoke
I'll let this picture...from a facebook page...speak for you.




Good ol Texas. Down there if you kill someone they will kill you back.....Ron White.



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 05:30 AM
link   
reply to post by chrismarco
 


It's not about forcing anyone to carry a gun.

All these debates evolve into black and white, when its not.

It's about freedom to choose.

We have a constitutional right to have guns, it should be a persons choice to carry a legal weapon. To have the choice to defend themselves and others if necessary, wherever they may be. Home, shopping, at work.



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 06:01 AM
link   
reply to post by chrismarco
 

This is a huge piece of interesting:
From your link



Of the many reasons suggested by researchers for the high Japanese suicide rate, one of the most startling is weapons control. Japanese scholars Mamon Iga and Kichinosuke Tatai argue that one reason Japan has a suicide problem is that people have little sympathy for (p.39)suicide victims. Iga and Tatai suggest that the lack of sympathy (and hence the lack of social will to deal with a high suicide rate) is based the Japanese' feelings of insecurity and consequent lack of empathy. They trace the lack of empathy to a 'dread of power'. That dread is caused in part by the awareness that a person cannot count on others for help against violence or against authority. In addition, say Iga and Tatai, the dread of power stems from the people being forbidden to possess swords or firearms for self-defense


According to this the high rate of suicide in Japan is due to the insecurity they feel, due directly to weapon control!





new topics

top topics



 
42
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join