Ban the Gun, Repeal the Second Amendment.

reply to post by ausername


People like me make our own extended clips. I would rather load up a few long clips to send bullets down my shooting range, than load and carry a bunch of short ones, or reload a short one a few hundred times.

No you don't need a 100 round magazine for hunting. I don't have any that big, however I don't feel they should be banned. If you ban any guns it's a gateway to ban all guns. Plus the original intent of the 2nd amendment isn't based on hunting. It's based on being able to overtake the government if it becomes unjust. Now until they ban 100 round clips from the military, an citizen with the required checks and education should be able to purchase one. Plain and simple. We are talking guns now, so don't bring up nukes, bomb, fighter jets, tank, etc. All the other stuff isn't 2nd amendment. If the 2nd amendment the way it was intended were to be modified today, you have to think that guns wouldn''t be taken out but that all the other stuff would be added. Because the intent, was to overtake the government with equal power. So in otherwords I want my tank just incase. Once again only gun talk please, that is what the 2nd amendment is about, no gun should be banned. And for those that feel the amendment needs changed, I pose one question what if other amendments were also changed, like your freedom of speech? I'm almost positive everyone would be offended. So don't get mad that gun owners take offense to people saying that guns should be banned. It's all the same, and it's all our rights. If you choose to exercise your right or not, that is your choice. But don't get mad because my choice is to own firearms.

Originally posted by DAZ21
reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin

 

I tried telling them the same thing and they won't listen, they believe that if they can own guns they will shoot the shooters, which blatantly hasn't happened over the recent shootings.

So get ready to face a whole bunch of cowboys.

edit on 14-12-2012 by DAZ21 because: (no reason given)

Could it be because, perhaps, that it is illegal to carry weapons into school buildings?? So, you know, teachers and staff don't carry them onto the premises...but, like criminals and stuff do.

Originally posted by NorEaster

Originally posted by hawkiye

The facts are armed citizens stop more crime then all Law enforcement in the country combined. gee why don't they report that on the news? No agenda there...This is usually because they are the intended victim. They have a 97% success rate in stopping their would be assailant . On the other hand unarmed people have a 97% rate of being a victim and ending up harmed or dead. Which odds would you prefer?

Oh...and you probably should provide some sourcing for this. Otherwise, we'll all have to assume that you're pulling this stuff out of your *ss.

Thanks.

I have posted it on ATS many times it is US justice department statistics go find it. That fact that you claim you don't understand the difference in vainly trying to limit what criminals can use for weapons and simply arming and defending yourself tells me you are either susceptible to media propaganda and ignorant or just a sock puppet. I supposed you believe that banning spoons and forks can prevent people from getting fat too... So I don't really care what your ignorant/propaganda opinion is... Have a nice day...

reply to post by milkyway12


No, but it desentizes the situation 'before' the killing, Thats all that is required to 'make' a killing, the balls to go through with that mental state.

A lot of people inexperienced with guns will freeze in place before doing anything with it. Why because it is common mentality of an inexperienced user, they have 'no' source' to relate to before actually using one. Every person I have ever met that owns a gun tell's the same tale of hestiation and some form of 'fear' before using it for the first time.

You have to realize the desensitizing does not have to be the actual killing in order to commit the crime, but things leading 'up to', images they can recall when someone walks into a bank for example with a bad intent. I can almost 100% promise you everyone can 'see' a simular image of how it would be done and what to do. Because of what movies have conditioned us to do. Roll over and admit helplessness for our lives are in the hands of the crazy man with a gun. - Criminals see this and they expect it.

A counteraction to it would be to permit everyone who has a background check and training to own it. Permit them to carry 'loaded' in public should they wish.

You take a man with a sword and a man with a gun who will win? Unless you can cut bullets in half or deflect them chances are the guy with the gun will win. Simply because it is quicker then human reflex. You can not have 'hero's by flipping the power like that.

I will admit, I do not own a gun. I am even scared of them, but not because of the gun itself but because I don't know how to use one properly, althou I have very minimal 'experience' with one.. But even I have the 'brains' to realize that is my own ignorance and growing up without the conditioning of them being around me.

But even with that last statement in mind, I might 'feel' slightly uncomfortable at first, but as it becomes the 'norm' for people to carry them out in the open in public that 'uncomfortableness' will pass as it becomes the norm.

I also believe strong heartedly that is the way it should be, people should be able to walk around with a gun even loaded in public places. To be honest, even not owning a gun I think I would feel 'safer' knowing ok that guy has one he's not being 'sneaky' about it and well he'd probably take out a crazy dude if he came around here shooting up people.

You say you need guns to protect you from a tyrannical government. Well that's already happening and you still sit there while you government kills innocent people in your country and around the globe.

You say you need guns to protect you from other nations from attacking your shores. Any super power that would attack you would not be running up the beaches, that's why they have nukes now.

If you ban the gun then yes criminals will have guns if they need them. People who just snap will have to go to criminals to get them. TBH you don't see many hardened criminals going round on a shooting spree in schools or cinema's its the people who snap that do that. Criminals will still be killing criminals for there dope and territory. Making it harder for people who snap will reduce shooting sprees imho.

The amount of rednecks in this topic who have an un-usual affection for guns is amazing. How can anyone defend guns being legal after the events of yesterday. How many school massacres will it take?

reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin


Let's give up our our driving privilege too. Because drunks drive cars and kill people.

Originally posted by ausername

Originally posted by milkyway12
reply to post by ausername

 

What do you mean by High Capacity? There is nothing wrong with Assualt Rifles. If that is what you are referring .

Assault rifles are a problem, and need some consideration for stricter regulations, but not a ban.

high-capacity: magazines, clips etc need to be banned.

You don't need a 100 round clip for hunting do you?

It should be extremely difficult to get these items, and for most people it should be illegal to own them.

Will that stop it? ... NO and neither will repealing the second amendment, but something has to be done, as a matter of principle.

Killers are going to kill, and anything that can make it more difficult for them should be done, especially anything that can possibly prevent mass killings like those that have recently happened. Common sense approaches to gun regulations that people can LIVE with.

So called assault weapons are not a problem and are rarely used in crimes. they are not practical for most crime and difficult to conceal they are an open battlefield weapon.. They are no different then any semi auto rifle except in cosmetics. WWI and WWII were fought mostly with 10 round clips and magazines.

Banning magazine capacity is a joke and and 100 round magazines are more a novelty and not practical to carry as they are too damn heavy. Most hand guns have a 10-15 round capacity and so called assault rifles usually max out at 30 rounds.

This is all just feel good propaganda put out by politicians and pundits who are proponents of the NWO in which they are the princes of the earth and those they let live are their slaves... That is their vision and American gun owners are the biggest wrench in the gears of their plans! That is why they are not getting the guns ever!

reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin


Gun violence in England went up after the Gun Ban . Crimminals don't give up guns .You should know that .

reply to post by Cynicaleye

The amount of rednecks in this topic who have an un-usual affection for guns is amazing. How can anyone defend guns being legal after the events of yesterday. How many school massacres will it take?

Because of psy-ops designed to do just that. Your style of ignorance is truly amazing. The equivalent of a gov. shill.

reply to post by Ezappa


Pretty sure criminals kill innocent too. All the time, you can look in the newspaper for a source.
And if people would stop complaining about the need for gun control, and get off there buts we may be able to actually take over. The gun owners will provide the fire power, but we need all the anti gun people, don't you get it. We have to be united not divided. Until we do this, nothing will ever change. And with a thought process that guns have to go, I wouldn't want to be a part of that dictatorship either. So I guess the gist of it is, people who are against guns need to stop pushing to ban guns and join the fight.

reply to post by Cynicaleye


Because if a teacher would of had a gun in that desk or the school security had a gun the losses would of been less, since he could of just went in there with a knife like the china dude proved.

This thread is replica of this ?

Why do Americans need guns? Rip UP the Second Amendment, problem solved.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by Cynicaleye


I would rather be a redneck than a city rat anyday of the week. Keep your overcrowded buses and subways, unfriendly and paranoid people, overzealous and paranoid cops etc etc.

It seems to me from reading most of the comments that nothing is likely to change in the US. Many seem to be arguing that having the highest private gun ownership in the world is a good thing because it allows people to shoot back.

However, the statistics are in fact horrifying . In 2010 gun murders in the USA were 8775 and in Britain 58 in 2011 :-

www.juancole.com...

Of course there is a difference in population size but even so the relative numbers between a heavily armed civilian population and a virtually unarmed one is staggering.

Some have commented that criminals can always get hold of guns and no doubt this is true. However, this seems to me to be largely irrelevant when considering the nutcase mass shooter. If I was to go mad in the UK and determine to wipe out a bunch of people I just cannot imagine how I could obtain a suitable weapon. I am not a violent criminal so I have no contacts. I suppose I could ask around the sleaziest pubs I could find in the east end of London and probably get myself beaten up or arrested for my pains.

For those who think their guns are a protection against a rogue government I would suggest :

a) You are not going to do much against trained military.

b) Get yourselves a Queen who's head of state and head of the armed forces but not head of goverment and yoiu can chuck your guns away then.

reply to post by Alfie1


If you got the money, you can get a gun anywhere.

reply to post by Cynicaleye


Well this redneck, says your missing the point. Gun control wouldn't have stopped events like yesterday from happening. You can call me a redneck all you want, it's your right. Don't wish my rights be violated. You are a misinformed person, maybe you need to visit the local shooting range, and tell all those rednecks your ideas. Im sure they would see it your way...lol. But you wont, because you realize that us rednecks don''t give a damn what you say. We know our rights, and us rednecks are generally the ones who serve to protect, your rights.

Originally posted by BlackArrow
reply to post by Cynicaleye

 

Because if a teacher would of had a gun in that desk or the school security had a gun the losses would of been less, since he could of just went in there with a knife like the china dude proved.

No ! This is definitely not a good answer.

Guns in schools ? Are you for real ?

reply to post by Cynicaleye People like you expect the criminals to give up their guns . The people who were killed didn't have guns the criminal did .He could have used a gas bomb or a frying pan to kill those people . Guns are the United Nations main objective to ban . Not the death of people , but to make it easier to dominate you . There is a great attempt to take over America by the UN a just like Australia , Canada , and the rest . You can only take the guns from law abiding people , not the nuts and criminals . If one of those adults at the school had a concealed weapon the killer could have been stopped in his tracks . The Police could only get there in time to write reports about the crime scene.