Doesn't ANYONE here have an issue with unmonitored gun ownership?

Originally posted by WyrdeOne
I wish the anti-gunners would come and live in my state for a while.

Careful what you wish for. All it takes is one self-righteous richy-rich Californian oe Mass-hole on vacation to see a rifle in a truck and next thing you know you have a city run by totalitarian transplants trying to save you from your ignorant hillbilly ways.

NH has a couple of Californians in the state capitol right now. Lord knows how the hell that happened. So far they havent caused much damage but they're trying like it's a divine mission.

We might be better off hoping they forget these parts of the country even exist while we build a series of fences and moats to keep them out.

yep. It's pretty simply. Keeping the public armed is good. Every single nation that had a famous dictator almost always had control. And seeing as we are a very free society where anyone can BS their way up the latter and act like a dictator (Bush, Obama, CLinton, etc), it's safer to keep the public armed and dangerous against bad leaders who want power.

I believe it was a Japanese leader in WW2 who claimed something along the lines that he would never invade America, knowing that every field would hold a gun.

Arms control legislation is crap. It only serves to restrict our rights.

Regardless of laws/controls I believe most acts of pre-meditated murder, terrorism, robbery, etc... are commited with weapons that have been acuired illegally, via theft, deception, free (black) market or whatever.

No amount of legislation will ever succeed in stopping these activities.

As for the spontaneous murders and mass killings committed by people in a fit of rage or mental breakdown with weapons which have been aquired legally and are authorized to possess.... no amount of legislation will prevent those acts either.

You can't predict or prevent psychotic murder sprees with legislation/law, period.

Any such attempts are merely thinly disguised encroachments upon our liberties.

Originally posted by KarlG
aspects of firearms should be monitored, for example the sale of bullets

Should be? How about this experiment.

Start buying a few hundred rounds a week, and see how long it takes for you to get a tail. My guess is probably not very long. The idea that firearms are not monitored at all is ridiculous. But since you already seem to be so sure of yourself, try the experiment. Find out for yourself how "little" monitoring goes on.

The only kind of gun control I believe in is to hit your target. Freedom was not won with a registered gun. If you do not agree with this then here are a few quote's from our Founding Fathers.

“The Constitution preserves the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation where the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.” | James Madison (1751-1836)

“A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have.” | Thomas Jefferson

“The age of Nations must end... The Government of nations has decided to order their separate sovereignties into one government to which they surrender their arms.” | United Nation's World Constitution

“This year will go down in history. For the first time a civilized nation had full gun registration. Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient and the world will follow our lead into the future.” | Adolf Hitler, 1935

“The high office of President has been used to foment a plot to destroy the Americans' freedom, and before I leave office I must inform the citizen of his plight.” | John F Kennedy, [1917~1963] President of U.S.: 1961~1963. Columbia University, 10 days before his assassination

We are on the verge of a global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis and the nations will accept the New World Order.” | David Rockefeller

I believe that for the NWO to take over the USA first we must have every means of resistance taken away from the people. ME 2009

Liberty,
adodson

[edit on 14-4-2009 by adodson]

Originally posted by KarlG
I have responded to three threads about gun laws and violence and general acceptance of firearms in the US, with varying reasons for my belief and stand that guns should be restricted and aspects of firearms should be monitored, for example the sale of bullets.

What surprises me (or doesn't? Hmm...) is how many people on ATS support firearms freedom. I mean, it's okay if you support gun rights and the 2nd Amendment and all, but it's astounding to see that when I post a reply regarding my stand on various issues, people JUMP on me immediately and claim things which are generally similar like "Guns don't kill humans. HUMANS kill humans" and "Why not ban knives and rope too since they can be used to murder?"

My reason is that knives and rope cannot be used to kill 30+ people in the span of a couple of hours, or while they are driving, for that matter.

While I will not go into that in detail for this thread, what I want to know is HOW many people exactly on ATS oppose unmonitored gun ownership and firearms freedom.

It's really, really something else to see the HUGE amount of people who have such ideas (no judgment here) on the unrestricted usage of guns and on the possibilities of violence in people who have free and easy access to firearms.

So, if you wish for there to be legislation to further control the general sale of firearms or mass-murder components like multiple boxes of ammo or subsequent firearms, please post here.

I just want to know, exactly WHERE you people are, because right now it seems that only two people (myself and another forum user) have an issue with unlegislated firearms sales and lack of control/checks. I really just want to get a gauge of the make-up of political views here on ATS.

[edit on 9-4-2009 by KarlG]

The 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution in the Bill of Rights is a PROTECTION for anyone who wants to have a weapon. It guarantees that they have a RIGHT to defend THEMSELVES, their PROPERTY, their FAMILY and to use the weapon to RETAKE the GOVERNMENT away from TYRANNICAL people who USURP the RIGHTS of the PEOPLE.

So what the hell is your problem with guns and gun ownership ?

The US Government does not need to know what you own and where you keep it. ITS NONE OF THEIR BUSINESS !!!! Unless of course you want them to come TAKE THEM AWAY from you !

People MURDER People. Guns do not Murder. They are inanimate objects that require an HUMAN to use them.

Originally posted by KarlG
reply to post by Mason mike

 

What would a rational person need so many bullets for? Recreation?

Yes, and for practice. A person can not know how to properly handle their firearm if they don't practice. Having a box of 100 rounds will go quickly (Assuming the modified legal Glock magazine holds 10 rounds - That's 10 reloads - Sure, that might be good for a weekly trip to the range. Per Person. Depends how much you like to shoot.

Without getting into specifics, Last year, my family pounded 10,000 rounds of lead down range. And, at 100 yards it is not uncommon to have a grouping less then 5 centimeters. (PS. We're talking handguns).

Now, ask me again why I need to have so much ammunition?

To be the best damn shot, that's why. Because when it counts, that's all that matters.


- Carrot

30 rounds of 7.62x39 down range very guickly eats up a case of ammo real fast. 33 rounds of 9mm thru my glock does the same. Takes some time to load all the mags for a few minutes fun.

Originally posted by HeavilyArmed
I only have one reply, guns are tools, used properly they produce the desired effect, defense or compliance. 99.99999% of legal active carry citizens are way beyond responsible and are only attempting to defend themselves.

You know what... so are Nuclear Weapons...

Let's let everyone in the World have them then.


If you don't support everyone having Nuclear Weapons without regulations, than you have no rational reason to support your neighbors right to own an AK-47.

[edit on 15-4-2009 by HunkaHunka]

reply to post by HunkaHunka


You are trying to compare apples to bananas. A nuclear bomb is ordnance, a weapon designed to inflict massive damage to a city, base, or large group of people/soldiers. It is not a personal weapon, like a rifle or handgun.

A gun, even a machine gun, is classified as "small arms" meaning non-explosive, man porable, and used for personal defense.

You wouldn't haul out a nuke because someone breaks into your house or starts shooting people in your office building. That's what a gun is for, personal defense.

As for AKs and other self loading rifles (I'm talking US civilian legal semi-automatics) account for only 2% of all gun related deaths, including suicide and accidents. Yet those on the left and in the media demonize them as "the prefered weapons of criminals and terrorists". Criminals prefer small, inexpensive weapons like handguns because they are easy to conceal, small enough to use in a car, and can be hidden or thrown away and cheaply replaced later on. Terrorists prefer bombs or bio-chem weapons because they attack a lot of people with little effort and "terrorize people".

As far as machine guns go, since the US government made civilian ownership of machine guns difficult in the 1930s, and even more limited in 1986, there have been less than five murders with lawfully owned machine guns, and only two since the 60's and both of those were committed by police officers.

All the others are done by criminals with black market, or illegally converted weapons.

[edit on 16-4-2009 by killswitch1982]

I wonder why there are no laws yet concerning laser death ray ownership. Your puny lead throwing devices are archaic. Why are there no discussions of death rays on here? It all seems very odd. The military is buying many 15 megawatt lazer units. Can you not see the future?

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere

Originally posted by dragonking76
The fact is the urge is still there, how long until a person like me "cracks" amd says 'to hell with the consequences?'

Hopefully you crack up in New Hampshire where you'll be put down rather quickly.

My advice would be to "crack" in a gun-free zone or heavilly anti-gun state like MA, CT or NY. That way you'll get to rampage freely for an hour or so before the cops bother to do anything about it.

This is easily the best statement ever!

Yeah, I find myself listening to the talk radio station from the commonwealth south of us and thinking "I wonder why NH doesnt have their own talk radio..." Then I realize...What would we have to complain about in NH? "Man it was tough today...I walked up and down Elm st in Manch all day with my gun showing and nobody gave me any trouble"...OR..."I just cant believe I recieved an actual human response from my elected legislators today!"



Love from Sandown!!!
-Bob

[edit on 16-4-2009 by BingeBob]

reply to post by KarlG


I am sorry to dissapoint you but wake up please. If I wanted to kill a large number of people without the benefit of a gun I could drive my car through a crowd of children, drive through a parade or a group of college students. There are many ways to kill large numbers of people without a gun. If it were not for guns you would be living under foreign rule or worse. Were it not nor the individuals right to own arms there would not be freedom for anti gun nuts like you to make dumb statements. Throw a gallon jug of gasoline with a rag in it into a church, a bingo hall, a school. It does not take a gun. Bicycles kill more children each year than guns have in the last hundred years here in the u.s. Do you want to outlaw them too? Playgroung swings kill and maim thousands of children each year. Ban bicycles. Cars are responsible for over 40,000 deaths each year, many driven by people like you. Do you use your cell phone while driving? If so you are worse than a person with a gun. Enough said, you cannot explain things to a box of rocks. Americanman1

reply to post by KarlG


so let me summarize this. You want to severely restrict ammo for guns, as a means of gun control?

That means I don't get to practice with my firearm. If I don't practice, I get rusty. A gun is not like riding a bike. You don't just pick it up one day and hit your intended target 100% of the time. It takes practice to be a good shot.

What you are saying is to take away/restrict bullets, but if you do that, citizens can't train and practice their abilities to use their firearms. Essentially, you are making every gun owner more dangerous, by hindering their ability to obtain and maintain mastery of their firearm.

When somebody shoots a gun at a threat, you better damn well hit your target, for your own sake, and your neighbors sake, and the only way you will consistently do that, is with practice. In order to practice, you need to shoot often. Shooting often, means buying ammo often, and sometimes in "bulk".

I have read many post on here and havent said anything. Well this time I will. I have my own personal reasons as to why I think guns should be monitored.
I had a bf who was a FELON (didnt know until after we broke up) and found out later that he had a gun hidden in our ceiling. I was freaked when I found this out considering he was abusive verbally and physically. He was a bad person and I had to get a restraining order against him. How he got a gun IDK but when he was allowed to get his stuff that's when I saw the gun. He could have snapped and used it on me or who knows else. I also know a few people who have guns that are not registered and they dont have a license for them and they are VERY unstable people who should not be carrying guns. They brag about how crazy they are and that they could snap one day. A friend of mines husband etched her name on a bullet and threatened her with it! He was also allowed to join the military even with his HUGE mental health background stating he was unstable. You know how he got in? He recruiter to him to lie about it. I know because I was there when he told him to.
I am all for right too bear arms but I think it should be monitored. Is is so hard to register your fire arms and be licensed? I dont think it is. There are too many people being killed today by guns, many of which shouldnt even be in the hands of the person carrying it. I know it's probably hard to control all guns since you can easily buy them at various gun shows without any ID or anything but I think something should be done.

reply to post by mblahnikluver


Sad, but quite frankly what does your story have to do with legal gun ownership? What new regulations would have kept your felon from having that gun in the ceiling? You know the correct answer - none.

Gun-o-phobes, please admit to yourself that your feelings are based on little more than a fear of the unknown - because you'll also have to admit that you really know nothing about this subject. You have no experience other than your fear.

I'll offer you two possible solutions. First find a friend that legally owns firearms and ask them to take you to a range. There you can see for yourself what it is like to actually hold and safely shoot a weapon. You might even find you enjoy it. Many former gun-o-phobes have changed their minds completely after such an experience. You can also sign up for a gun safety class if no friend is available.

Failing that, I will suggest that you seek out professional help to learn how to not project your fears onto other people.

I guarantee that the first choice will be a lot more enjoyable.

How do I know all this? I was a gun-o-phobe once myself ...



[edit on 4/23/2009 by centurion1211]

reply to post by mblahnikluver

He could have snapped and used it on me or who knows else. I also know a few people who have guns that are not registered and they dont have a license for them and they are VERY unstable people who should not be carrying guns. They brag about how crazy they are and that they could snap one day. A friend of mines husband etched her name on a bullet and threatened her with it! He was also allowed to join the military even with his HUGE mental health background stating he was unstable. You know how he got in? He recruiter to him to lie about it. I know because I was there when he told him to.

So you want to make laws were these are the only people that will have guns.

How in the world will that make you feel safer?

reply to post by Gorman91


It was Adm. Isoroku Yamamoto. Don't remember when he said it. But that's who said it...

You're welcome

reply to post by seagull


He said it after realising that Pearl Harbor was a huge mistake. He knew that they had stirred the lair of a nation of citiznes that had proven itself able to thwart any offence. The entire minutes of that meeting in which he made that comment are in a book titled "The True Samurai" !

Zindo

Originally posted by HunkaHunka

Originally posted by HeavilyArmed
I only have one reply, guns are tools, used properly they produce the desired effect, defense or compliance. 99.99999% of legal active carry citizens are way beyond responsible and are only attempting to defend themselves.

You know what... so are Nuclear Weapons...

Let's let everyone in the World have them then.


If you don't support everyone having Nuclear Weapons without regulations, than you have no rational reason to support your neighbors right to own an AK-47.

[edit on 15-4-2009 by HunkaHunka]

You're actually not embarrassed to have people read your post trying to somehow equate possession of a nuclear weapon with possession of a rifle or pistol????

If that's the best you can do, you might want to consider just moving on to another thread where your thoughts might actually have some validity.