It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Every possible reason for gun ownership addressed and countered

page: 8
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in


posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 08:35 PM

Originally posted by tamusan
reply to post by IkNOwSTuff

Yeah thats exactly what I said, Its now have a gun or suffer because everyone else has 1

Convince me that someone would not be able to obtain a firearm illegally, and you win. It is far too easy to get your hands on any type of illegal countraband in this country.

What we need is a greater accountability for firearm owners. I would even submit to a yearly evaluation. If I am not responsible enough to manage my weapons, then I hope someone takes them away from me.

What does evaluations and greater accountability do for gun control? Really... It doesn't stop guns from being stolen. It doesn't stop them by being bought legally through a proxy (90% of all illegl guns owned are bought legally) It doesn't stop anything. Just gives law abiding citizens more headaches and higher taxes to implement such a board to oversee a futile worthless form of control. Gun control will not stop a law abiding citizen turned madman from getting a gun and using it. Not ever...

Your solution of more control does nothing to counter act the problem. Never has, never will. Our history of gun control is a testament to that..

posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 08:39 PM
reply to post by IkNOwSTuff

I can only guess that you do not have problems with wild dogs where you live. Even though most of America has been tamed there still are areas where carrying a firearm is the only way to insure your safety when I lived in Tennessee I worried about more than just dogs. When I was growing up we kept rifles on gun racks in our trucks and there was never a problem maybe that deterred shootings at schools I can only guess.

I have read where people from other countries have stated they have problems with gangs and knives yet they say they would rather face that. I have no fear of gangs because I am armed. I would much rather be able to defend myself with a pistol than a knife especially if I am defending myself against more than one person. I can’t remember the country but it wasn’t that long ago a psycho killed a bunch of kids on an island where guns were not readily available to citizens so there is an instance where anti-gun laws did more harm than good.

You can think what you want but America is still wild in many aspects depending on where you live if you have never lived here you probably wouldn’t understand yet these are not the only reasons for keeping our firearms but it is enough for me.

posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 08:39 PM
reply to post by CosmicCitizen

At any distance, a sane and rational person makes a conscious choice to pull the trigger.

Mentally ill people should not have access any type of weapon. They should also be watched closely, if they are a possible threat.

A firearm owner should be held responsible for not securing their firearms adequately. If their firearms are easily taken, especially by a mentally ill family member, then they should also be charged with the crime.

posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 08:39 PM
reply to post by IkNOwSTuff

Well, I just have a couple things in follow up to the reply. First, on the Constitution part.....Indeed, the original wording was old. However, that 2009 decision has the force of the Constitution itself. They quite literally, under our system, are directly interpreting and re-interpreting the document for all things forward of the day of a Supreme Court decision. So, when they said in 09 that is is an absolute individual right...that ended the debate on gun ownership. It doesn't end a thing on regulation of WHAT guns you can own...but it pulled the ban idea clear off the table by law.

Only the Supreme Court can reverse that. Until they do....that's the supreme law of the land. In this case? I can't complain personally.

Now this second thing...Well, I won't make any friends by saying it. Although, heck.. I'm used to that. A bunny without a party often finds lonely positions to hold, I'll tell ya.

IF....If this nation had been founded differently and IF Guns had never been core to our nation and culture the way they were and are now.......I wouldn't mind the concept of a largely gun free America. Now, keep in mind what I just said as prerequisites and we're in total theory here because it didn't happen that way and it's far too late to stuff that genie back in the bottle now.

However, I'll say that I envy a place like England at times because guns were never a cultural staple to the nation. While England doesn't BAN guns....the degree they are found in society has no comparison whatsoever to ours, of course. In a different America? I wouldn't mind a bit......and I can hear people making me a Foe as I type this.

Now back in the world we live in for how things really work? Well... almost 300 million guns means for my lifetime anyway, there will always be bad guys controlling a good number of them. Hence...*I* will always be in control of at least a couple. That, in my mind, is Gun Control American style and in the modern age. It's not what I'd CHOOSE ....but it's what life it's a matter of adapting, right? (The fact I've come to master a couple of my rifles for competition and thrive is a bonus above adapting.

posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 08:42 PM
reply to post by foodstamp

It's a matter of personal responsibilty. Like I said above, an owner of firearms should be accountable.

posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 08:45 PM
reply to post by tamusan

What do you mean by accountable?

And how does it reduce gun crime as a whole?

Please don't take it the wrong way. I am curious as to what you propose.

posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 08:53 PM
reply to post by IkNOwSTuff

1. When the Constitution was written the Term Militia meant "Every able bodied person" so you got nothing there.

2. You say you are entitled to your opinion and I agree but I wonder if you have any real understanding of what the Constitution is and why it was formed. It was set up to protect the people and the government from the government, so that the government can't abuse it's power against the people. When the government starts changing the Constitution it allows them power to destroy the protection that the Constitution granted up from the government.

3.WTF seriously, have you read the news currently there are more mass murders in Mexico, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, Congo, North Korea. I mean seriously I could go on and on but you get the idea.

4. Tradition is defined as the passing down of elements of culture from generation to generation, wtf is wrong with having traditions? Besides not only is hunting a fun sport but it helps to keep the animals in check and curbs them from being so many that they come into our yards (in that case the gun is a definite necessity)

5. Guns kill less people than bombs and Timothy Mcveigh found out how to make them easily enough. So even if the government could take EVERY single gun out of circulation murderers will still find a way to kill and I hate to say it but 20 is less than 340 and that's what a bomb could do or worse.

6. Alcohol kills on average 70,000-90,000 a year. Guns kill on average 13,000-17,000.

7. I never saw a trigger pull itself.

8. Have you ever been raped? Robbed? talk to me after and tell me you wouldnt want to feel safe.

9. Yes those crazy people do have access, they murder and rob others to get the guns. How dare someone allow themselves to murdered. What we need is more apathy, and yes they need help that they cant get, or are afraid to ask for because of the stigma that goes with it.

10. 16,000 knife wielding psychos last time I statistically checked.

11. But again look at the statistics

12. No I use it for protection too because i'm a women and not as strong as man and if an attacker comes into my home to hurt me or my loved ones I cant use physical force but I sure could put a bullet in between their eyes. Let me add though that I have never shot another human being I cherish life all human life but I will protect my family at all costs.

13. Yes those are gfz and that's why they are preyed upon. Trust me if someone going there with the thought to kill has a gun and they thought that someone else there had one to fire back on them they would probably think twice. I mean seriously how many Americans get shot in gun stores?

14. How many people are stabbed or have their heads cut off in those countries? 9,000 compared to 30,000 and only gun deaths. How many people in America have been in a mass machete genocide?
and please USA is not fourth you forgot to mention several other countries, take another look at geographical statistics.

15. look to my answer on question two.

All questions answered and countered.

posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 09:21 PM
reply to post by IkNOwSTuff

Good lord you put a lot of effort into that...good points rarely take that much effort.

what are you going to take my guns away with?.....hmm?? OHHHH thats right.....GUNS!!!

yay for hypocrisy...

posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 09:24 PM
reply to post by IkNOwSTuff

Man oh man that would just tear up a big whole in my cristmas thing. sht.
thst just sucks. I was gonna only buy a couple of guns but i guees now we gonna have to get a loan to get more.
Icnat believe they trying to take our guns man, thats just. i don't no bad iguees . sht
that;s all it just gonna be a xpensive cristmas aftar all i guees
shhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhht thats all

posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 09:38 PM
Saying banning guns would prevent criminals from getting them isnt true. Just as with Drugs, there already is a black market for firearms, and it will become much larger and powerful if it is given a monopoly on selling guns while also dealing with mostly criminals. Gangs and Criminal Organizations exist everywhere in America. People didnt believe the Mafia was real way back, they still dont realize how common it is. They will manufacture their own guns, they have plenty of money to do so from all the illegal drugs they sell netting them billions. And they will feel much more powerful knowing they can invade a house without being shot at.
edit on 17-12-2012 by tehdouglas because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 09:44 PM

Originally posted by IkNOwSTuff

5) If guns are banned then only criminals will have guns

Every country has criminals with guns, it has been suggested if you really want a gun you can get one.
This is true for criminals with resources to buy them and access to people who deal in them. I doubt very much that the majority of people who have committed these recent shootings fit into this category.

Most criminals have weapons to either protect their drug stash or turf, actually using them they know is not good for business. By far the majority of gun deaths are either crimes of passion or the work of mentally ill people, not drug dealers or bank robbers.

Also taking guns off the market takes away the ability of criminals to easily get guns.

This was posted in the other thread, somehow the person who posted felt this supported the argument for guns being legal

• 71% of gunshot victims had previous arrest records.
• 64% had been convicted of a crime.
• Each had an average of 11 prior arrests.117,118
• 63% of victims have criminal histories and 73% of the time they know their assailant (twice as often as victims without criminal histories).
119 Most gun violence is between criminals. This should be the public policy focus.

So most gun crimes not committed against good law abiding citizens therefore using gun crime statistics as a reason for wanting a gun for safety is bunk.
Im sure it makes you FEEL safer but its not the reality

In fact, there are a number of sources that allow guns to fall into the wrong hands, with gun thefts at the bottom of the list. Wachtel says one of the most common ways criminals get guns is through straw purchase sales. A straw purchase occurs when someone who may not legally acquire a firearm, or who wants to do so anonymously, has a companion buy it on their behalf.

I have one very simple retort. Crack Cocaine.

It seems the U.S. Government has been trying very hard to keep this out of the hands of the public. Heroin, Marijuana, Speed, all of these things are banned. But god darnit if the public still can't get their hands on it.

Organized crime is still a very real activity in this country. Most can attest to having had some brush with it. The bloods and crips, the mexican mafia, and various other "mafia's". So let me ask you this, do you really think any of these major gangs are gonna let a pesky old law stop them. There are entire neighborhoods that police won't even step into because of the power of these gangs. You think the police can stop their smuggling activities.

For conspiracy theorists, do you think major gun dealers are gonna lose one of their biggest markets. Don't you think they might work with mexican drug cartels to continue such a lucrative line of business.

Ban guns and Mexico will delve into further chaos, as smuggling rings gain even more power. Crime in the U.S. will rise as a result.

posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 09:46 PM
How about I AM AN AMERICAN....and Becuase I want to, hows about that?

posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 10:07 PM
Dear Mr. or Mrs. IkNOwSTuff:

That "STuff" is a lie...

REAL history has PROVED you wrong many times.

As long as you are oblivious to past history you will always be completely out of touch with REALITY.

Our governments are the REAL mass murderers.

Mass murder by gun control has happened over and OVER throughout history.

Yeah, I know, they didn't teach us that in school.

Guess who OWNS the schools?

94 million people were mass murdered in the 20th century by governments.

The enemy is now within... and always has been.

That reason ALONE is enough to make it obvious to anyone that surrendering our guns is total insanity.

The shootings in Norway, Finland and Germany make it clear that banning guns is completely ineffective.

A friend of mine once told me he could get a gun in any country in the world in under two hours and to prove it he bought one in london...

"...the tragic fact is that disarming victims leads to great bloodshed. I'm referring to the millions of people who died at the hands of their government over the past century. Most of these mass murders were preceded by a cynical and calculating "gun control" program, leading to eventual disarmament. Genocide followed soon thereafter."

Leave Mass Murder to the Professionals

posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 10:12 PM

Originally posted by Sly1one
what are you going to take my guns away with?.....hmm?? OHHHH thats right.....GUNS!!!

yay for hypocrisy...

How true Sly1one...

Very appropo moniker BTW.

Originally posted by kozmo
The right to bear arms is protection from tyrannical government. In your OP, you found the notion of tyrannical government laughable. Ends the debate right there - you DON'T KNOW HISTORY or you selectively choose to ignore it in support of your ideals.

Either way, history has demonstrated repeatedly that an unarmed population is one that is forced to succumb to the will of the government - who, ironically, IS armed.

You can pull all of the mental and verbal gymnastics that you like. But any premise contrary to the facts outlined in history is both disingenuous and illogical.

Sadly, most people actually BELIEVE what we were taught in school history is the truth.

Perhaps this is WHY so many appear to be completely unaware of the truth on topics such as this.

edit on 17-12-2012 by Murgatroid because: I felt like it..

posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 10:15 PM

Originally posted by tamusan
reply to post by yuppa

I also didn't receive an acknowledgement and a counter.
edit on 17-12-2012 by tamusan because: (no reason given)

He'll never give an adequate answer to anything that contradicts australian gun politics. We're all influenced by our environments but its a bit more pronounced in his case at least in regards to gun control.

Many people have used the war in afghanistan as an example that it isn't as easy to disarm and dominate an unwilling populace as he thinks it is. I looked up the figures and australia has a grand total of 1550 troops in afghanistan and a total of 3,000 overseas. His country isn't going bankrupt by equiping hundreds of thousands of troops and spending trillions to maintain a foolish overseas empire. From his point of view, you send a couple of guys in uniforms and some high tech equipment and a populace is immediately cowed.

Let me state this for our forum members in other countries. America is financially collapsing due in part to foolish empire building and trying to force ourselves upon unwilling participants. Blowing up a country and killing people is relatively easy with advanced technology. Occupying and controling a populace is not. The NATO coalition in Afghanistan is just over 100,000 and the afghan national security forces is just under 400,000. We've been in over a decade and we'll be lucky if the new government doesn't immediately collapse when nato leaves. Despite our advanced weapons, spy satelites, and missles, the taliban is still getting weapons and carrying out attacks. Much of the western world doesn't have the recent history of having thousands of soldiers die in battle and trillions spent on the military.

From an American perspective of COURSE its easier to occupy a disarmed and domesticated populace. An armed population willing to fight isn't easy to deal with. Apparently this isn't an easy assumption for some people to make. The default world view seems to assume that if you have a technological advantage, you send some people in uniforms with high tech weapons and persuade a group that outnumbers you a million to 1 to turn in arms and co-operate.

posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 10:51 PM
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.

posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 11:49 PM
Where I live we have grizzly bears, mountain lions, black bears, wolves, and so on, and by that I mean, sometimes right outside our front doors (so far only moose in my yard but this is just me.... if you want pictures of bears in our houses, mountain lions in our yards, and wolves wandering the neighborhood, you need only look in our newspaper archives). I have no intention of giving up my guns. Guns are not only for protection against other people or for hunting or target shooting. Here it can be a matter of survival in nature. Protection against animals and signaling if lost or hurt were not mentioned in your all inclusive rebuttal.
I have no intention of killing any person. If I did, and I didn't have guns, I might use.... a sword, a spear, a knife, a chainsaw, an axe....... I might not kill as many people so quickly as someone with a lot of bullets and guns, but I could still kill, still cause terror, still act crazy.

I still believe that government should be of the people, by the people, and for the people, and lately I see the government acting paranoid. To me.... this means they just might be hiding things. The government should not fear the populace unless the government is no longer for the populace.

Should Orwellian matters continue, as the increasingly videoed British should be well aware of....... I personally would like the chance to fight back against an unjust government that gets out of control. Perhaps you can stage a sit in with tea in lieu of fighting back. America threw off its shackles thanks to its determination AND armed citizenry. THIS is why we have kept the right to bear arms. Sometimes words are not enough on their own, even over a civilized cup of tea. I may not be able to defeat an army but I won't go quietly or kneel beside a grave I dug myself waiting for a bullet to the head. A gun for self protection in house, especially when I am familiar with the layout of the house, and especially in the dark, gives me advantages.

If criminals or crazies are better armed than we are, we have little chance. I prefer to increase my chances against them or a mountain lion ready to pounce on my child or dog. Guns are tools. I can kill you with a gun. Or a nail gun. Or a chainsaw. Tools. Keep the guns well secured. That may have stopped this incident to begin with. Why would a mother of a child that messed up actually take him to gun ranges to shoot guns? Obviously he was a danger to society and himself. Maybe lock HIM up?

posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 12:07 AM
In response to your valid points I'd like to digress.

1. It's in the constitution
* I do understand your point of view that it would appear to relate to a militia specifically, however. Militia's ARE the citizenry. Therefore the citizenry must be armed. Weither or not the militia is organized by the State or the citizenry itself is irrelevant. Not too mention, the PROPER understand of this ammendment has been repeated over and over again in just about ALL our state constitutions. A topic that you do not bring up. In many of these State constitutions, you will find that the wording is even MORE straight forward so you don't "misunderstand it". And the general consensus for these various constitiutions are that the citizenry be armed WITHOUT question. So no, I disagree, the ammendment has not been misunderstood by the masses.

In fact, our state constitutions are what's saving us from gun grabbers. Because the federal government has misinterpreted the ammendment over and over again to the point of eviscerating it completely! It's the states "No frills, straightforward" wording of the right if citizens to keep and bear arms that protects from gun bans.

Your interpretation of the constitution regardless of what it is. Is invalid. The states constitution is the primary protector of each states rights.

2. Defense against the government

This comment by you is nieve at best. Many many MANY nations that have installed total gun bans have eventually lead to the stAtes turning around and using guns against it's citizenry. Usually during protest or the like. Not too mention, you will find that the countries that exist today that have total gun bans are also amongst the countries with the worst human rights violations in history.

You make it seem that because the governments gunsare bigger that somehow that makes this a valid argument. You either have not thought this out well or are ignorant to the fact that the government cannot function without it's people. So yes, an armed response by civilians is a REAL threat to the government. The world's histories of disarming the public over and over again is testament to this. Guns are necessary in order to defend a free state. It's a fact.

Imaging 250,000 armed citizens surrounding the White House and hopefully you'll get the picture.

3. US Is the where the problem lies.

Your argument here has NO bearing on the gun issue. In fact you reinforce what gun "lobbyists" have been saying for decades. There are many crazies here that do "crazy" stuff. and the citizenry must defend themselves and there communities. The guns didn't cause the problem. The crazy man did. And many of the same countries you speak also have gun laws that aren't as strict yet the prblem with mass shottings is non-existant. That should tell you something. Guns in a free society are not the issue. The people IN the society are the issue. Which is why you see tragedy's happen in the US but not in,say, Sweden for example, where every citizen is ISSUED an AK-47 by it's own government when they come of age.

4. It's our tradition

You bring up a valid point that tradition does not make something "correct" I agree. However. Guns are tradition not just because they happen to be "tradition". They are tradition because they've been around as long as we've had a constitution and before! And the framers of the constitution were correct in their views about absolute power and defense of the citizenry. That's why we have the nation we do today! You may not see guns as being "right". But judging by history and mans lust for power and money, I'd say you have your head WAY up your own butt.

posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 12:10 AM

Gun control in Australia lead to inconclusive results at best. Yet despite of the absence of proof that gun control in Australia works, they dont repeal the laws, and some politicians even call for further restrictions. Why?

"There is no reason for so many hundreds of thousands of handguns, including effectively hand machine guns, to be available in Australia."

So, there seems to be no reason to ban guns, but there is also not reason to allow them, so they will stay banned. I cannot support such kind of totalitarian thinking.
edit on 18/12/12 by Maslo because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 01:13 AM

off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


new topics

top topics

<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in