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.


Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

“We need automatic guns so to defend against the military. ” - What???

page: 5
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in


posted on Jun, 20 2014 @ 10:06 AM

originally posted by: bbracken677
a reply to: Mianeye

Hmm.. then why does England have over 7 million illegally possessed guns?

I don't know, i don't live in England, talk with your government.

posted on Jun, 20 2014 @ 10:07 AM

originally posted by: Mianeye

You can be a legal owner of a gun but you become a criminal when you use it the wrong way, so the legal owner is also a potential criminal, letting people having guns is just a useless solution.

This smacks of the Thought Police.

You can have my gun. Yes, you can take it from my cold, dead fingers.

posted on Jun, 20 2014 @ 10:10 AM
a reply to: projectvxn

Being a soldier you must then realise that there are far more weapons in America than there ever will be people to use them.

Civilian forces are not organised structures.

Civilian populations are controlled by terror not bullets.

Even if everyone has a gun,without organised structure little can be accomplished.

After the first impact of a confict,the only options are geurilla tactics and this means hit and run and being fluid and using whatever you can find as you go.

The fighters will have to hide amongst the population.

Every dead opponent had a gun and ammo.

Every Military force needs re-supply.

If you do have guns and they arent hidden then they are useless to you,you will need to recover them when you need them and you WILL NOT NEED THEM TO DEFEND A FRONTAL ASSAULT,not ever.

If the American Government was worried about land attack they would ensure the population was armed,but they are doing the opposite,this is because a long time ago they committed to MADD and they HAVE NOT CHANGED THAT STANCE AT ALL.

America is not worried about attack from another nation because they will pull the plug and nuke everyone,they are more worried about a Civil War outing the JFK Coup de tat Cabal and crumbeling what those criminals have built overnight.

They are more worried with controlling Americans within America than defending the country from any type of Military attack.

The entire world know already by inference that there are major players within the American Government who are holding to the story that they actioned the Coup de tat on behalf of American National Security.

They committed the CARDINAL SIN,and they will never take back their actions.

This group has an ad-hoc agreement to hold back the truth until they are all dead of natural causes and then they will allow us to learn the truth,this CANNOT BE ALLOWED TO HAPPEN.

This group will try to claim they were stopping a World War by executing their own President in front of their entire Country.


They only win if they hold back the truth for a bit longer,the fight to out them MUST be engaged IMMEDIATLY.

If America does not find this group there will ALWAYS be a question mark hanging over Americas head and she will NEVER LEAD THE WORLD IN ANYTHING IN THE FUTURE.

If you could get 10.000,000 Americans to march to Dallas unarmed and demand the truth and GET THE TRUTH then no one would need guns would they??

There is one very large and valid reason Americans do not trust their own government and the entire world also knows this reason,it is because since the JFK Coup de tat Americans have NEVER chosen their leader or their countrys direction,even the leaders they chose had no idea who was runing the show when they were allowed to become leaders.

The Planets #1 Military is being run by a group of renegades,and for as long as this goes on NO ONE ON EARTH IS SAFE.

The World trusts the American People,but it sure does not trust the American Government and this is because Globally it is accepted that the American people lost control of their Government when the JFK Coup de tat was actioned upon them all.

To be frank,there was an American influence behind the scenes of this Coup de tat,and this means that it will take a more Patriotic and Stronger American to bring Justice to his or her Country and to save its future on the World Stage.

One single human mind concieved of this Coup de tat,and all it will take to solve it and put it behind America is ONE PATRIOTIC LOYAL SELF-LESS AMERICAN MAN OF WOMAN.

Jeepers why do I think it is going to have to be a woman who does the back breaking work for America, has it come to that?

edit on 20-6-2014 by one4all because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 20 2014 @ 10:11 AM
More guns?

# that. No way.

posted on Jun, 20 2014 @ 10:12 AM

originally posted by: Mianeye
a reply to: projectvxn

Again fair enough, but we all know the purpose of extremist muslims, could you imagine the same thing going on in the US....I don't think so as the soldiers are children of the citizens, they are not extreemist, though i will give you a slight benefit of the doubt.

Today it's extremists. Tomorrow?

It's been communists, fascists, imperialists, monarchs, socialists, extreme right wing, extreme left wing, Christians and Muslims have all sought to control populations by way of the sword..First by outlawing it, and then by using it to kill those who oppose them.

It has happened before. And if Americans allow themselves to be disarmed I fear the crimes the government would be able to commit totally unopposed in future generations would pale in comparison to all the crimes committed by governments of the past combined.

It is the duty of Americans to NEVER let that happen.

posted on Jun, 20 2014 @ 10:13 AM
a reply to: tow69

It seems like a lot of you anti-gun folks (Sheeeeeeeeple) want to be controlled. Well that is your choice by all means let the government control you

Let me be clear.... I am not anti gun, actually i like shooting guns and has done so many times....On a shooting range, and as a sailor and soldier.

I am just asking the critical questions that no one else are asking, and it has created a nice little debate.

You know, two sides have to discuss, if not, one part is intimidated to be silenced

edit on 20-6-2014 by Mianeye because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 20 2014 @ 10:19 AM
a reply to: Mianeye

So then, when pickups had rifles hanging in the back windows when I went to school, and it was no big deal to see several rifles in the school's parking lot (large high school: grades 10-12, 2000+ students) why did we not experience the problems we see today? Guns were even more accessible then and yet I never worried about getting shot up in school.

How many mass shootings occurred during the 60s and 70s?

Something has changed. Something basic and it is not the firearms, but the people. Hate to beat a dead horse, but guns do not kill people, people do.

Address the overall root causes of violence and the gun violence will follow.

Does it not seem logical to address the root cause of a problem rather than the symptoms if you really want a solution? Should you address the infection or the pain to solve your health problem? Obviously addressing the infection is the critical part of the solution.

posted on Jun, 20 2014 @ 10:31 AM
a reply to: projectvxn

The weapons the US citizens have today is nowhere near to scare the government if they wanted to control you completely, if they wanted you to be oppressed and have full control they could start today without removing the guns, the guns are peashooters even automatic rifles .

The US is part of a much bigger world and that world is actually not ignorant to US politics, it would take a whole lot more than just to control the people to change the US in to any of what you just suggested, if any other country was in on it, they to would show it, and that is not the case.

I am just saying it would be much more visible if they had an evil master plan.

posted on Jun, 20 2014 @ 10:31 AM
a reply to: bbracken677

Does it not seem logical to address the root cause of a problem rather than the symptoms if you really want a solution?

The problem is that the majority of gun violence (heck violent crime in general) occurs in large cities. Politicians are not willing to solve these complex problems because it's usually is not "Politically Correct" or "Politically Profitable" to do so.

posted on Jun, 20 2014 @ 10:33 AM

originally posted by: bbracken677

Something has changed. Something basic and it is not the firearms, but the people.

Easy to answer what's changed... the medication of the nation by pharmaceuticals. We used to work through the wold of hard knocks by the time we became adults. Today, adults remain medicated children from age 5 on.

posted on Jun, 20 2014 @ 10:40 AM
a reply to: swanne

Though I know you are trying to have a very specific argument here, I'd like to break something down for you. You can disagree if you like, but this is just the way I see it regarding guns and the types:

Pistol = To protect your car, to protect yourself while hiking, to protect yourself when walking in other potentially dangerous areas.

Shotgun = To protect your home.

Rifle (semi / fully) = To protect your land.

I disagree with people walking around with rifles in urban areas, I see no reasonable use for it and I think a good compramise is that rifle owners should be living in rural to semi rural areas. As these types of guns are used explicitly to defend your land.

Defend your land, means immediate property. If there is a crisis (Be it an earthquake, tsunami), it is very possible you may need that gun to hunt large game. In the worst case scenario, there will be armed men looking for water or food who are willing to kill you for it. During this time, your shotgun and pistol may not be enough- the man with a rifle however will be capable of protecting his land.

It's fairly basic stuff, and yet it is quite obvious that the agenda is simply to remove them entirely from the law-abiding populace (by making them illegal) - meaning one thing: Only criminals will have them.

Now regarding these people who want to use them to defend against a tyrannical government, there are quite a lot of gray areas in that situation. Currently we do not have a government that could be defined on such a reasonable level, so of course it does not apply, currently. But the reasoning is that IF or WHEN it does happen, the people should be able to protect themselves. What if 15-20 years from now we experience a coup on our country? It would be prudent to defend our liberty if a 1984 scenario were to take place.

So I'd say the concept is more in preparation for the future, though there of course are some people who are just as extreme as the people they claim to despise.

posted on Jun, 20 2014 @ 10:43 AM
a reply to: bbracken677

Yes...Thats also why i started out saying...."fix the broken society".

I have not said at any moment that i agree with what the US government is seeing as a solution, also i have not said that i think guns should be banned.

The reason for that is... It's too late with the amount of guns on the street.

I can't really come up with any solution to the "gun problem" in the US, but limiting the guns is a long term solution, though it's not THE SOLUTION.

As you say...there is a core problem and that problem is the broken society, and having guns together with a broken society is just silly.

You might save some lifes occasionally by arming the population, but it will definitely also take some lifes, and those who lose their life is also losing their rights.

And all in all we are talking about rights...

posted on Jun, 20 2014 @ 10:47 AM
Some annual numbers:

Total number of gun deaths in the US: ~31,000 (including suicide)

Total number of homicides with a firearm in the US: ~11000

Total number of homicides where the victim was gang affiliated or part of organized crime: ~8900

Total number of homicides where the victim was gang affiliated and the scenario was "black on black" crime: ~7000+

Total number of justified homicides where police and civilians were within their rights to use lethal force: ~1000

If you aren't gang affiliated or part of organized crime, your chances of being killed by a firearm in the US is extremely slim. ~2000 firearm deaths out of a population of 330,000,000... that's .6 per 100,000.... making the US one of the safest countries on the planet.

The mass shootings in a given year, tragic and sad as they are, are a statistical drop in the bucket. If you really care about getting a handle on firearm crime, I suggest you look at fixing the systematically dismantled black family. Every people in the US that has been welfare-ized by liberal policy has been obliterated. Just look at black and native american populations. Their societies have been absolutely annihilated by being turned into welfare societies. It makes one wonder if liberals are the true racists.
edit on 20-6-2014 by Galvatron because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 20 2014 @ 10:57 AM
a reply to: swanne if you don't like our second amendment rights you could always move to somewhere safer like North Korea, or China. Anywhere safer than the U.S.A. without guns in civilian hands, the world is so much safer.

posted on Jun, 20 2014 @ 11:12 AM
a reply to: Mianeye

2 things -- Once again not to get off track, I understand the topic

1) Based on your posts (here alone) I did not just jump to the conclusion that your an anti-gun person. You gave me that idea

I would however say (I am a 4 tour combat Vet) you do not seem to be very informed. Shooting at the range is one thing, being 11B in the sand box is much different.

2) Also I have to come to the conclusion that your not in America is this true? and if so

WHY the HELL does anyone care what we do or why we do it??????????????????

Someone on here talked about the oath.... here it is

"I, _____, do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."

Break down --

I, _____, do solemnly swear that I will support and defend ----- Defend

The Constitution of the United States -- Let that soak in

against all enemies, foreign and domestic ----- (domestic is of concern currently)

that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same --- faith and allegiance... see I (WE) most of us are willing to die to protect our country can that be said for other countries???

and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me --- We do not have any Officers appointed over us; our current President is useless, UCMJ no longer applies.

So help me God ----- Very powerful words need I say more

One last thing --- The weapons we choose are not of concern. The reality is NO other country has come to fight on our land, Have the anti-Gun folks asked them selves why that is?? Because they (enemies, foreign and domestic) know behind every (MOST) door there is a gun

edit on 20-6-2014 by tow69 because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 20 2014 @ 11:12 AM
a reply to: projectvxn

It simply goes back to the age old adage.

It is better to have it and not need it, then to need it and not have it.

posted on Jun, 20 2014 @ 11:18 AM
a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

Absolutely! I think that statement is a great way to describe my overall sentiment, too. Kind of like seat belts, condoms, insurance, the military, etc. The statement can be applied to all with equal effect.

When I drive a car, I don't do it looking to crash it, but despite my best efforts, it might just happen. So I wear a seat belt. When I go anywhere in society, I don't do it looking to have to defend my life, but despite my best efforts, it might just happen, so I carry a firearm. It's out of a mature and measured sense of risk management.

When it comes to providing a credible threat of force that government can't ignore, then from that perspective, I view it as a duty of a citizen in order to maintain the peoples ability to be self determined and governed.

Since when has civic/social duty and a mature sense of risk management been viewed as backwards? It seems the far left would like to make us believe it is. This, I think blends well with my previous post. It's an attempt to subvert our society, to make it helpless, dependent, immature.
edit on 20-6-2014 by Galvatron because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 20 2014 @ 11:29 AM
The government hasn't put forth martial law or killed civilians because guns create the balance and they always will. The forefathers knew the future government would get infiltrated and perverted so they gave us the 2nd amendment to counter it.

A person can murder another person with a .22 pistol. You don't have to use an assault rifle to do it. It also doesn't matter how many bullets the clip holds as clips can be changed rather quickly. If Americans allowed them to take assault rifles then which guns will be targeted next? Hunting rifles because they are pretty much the same as an assault rifle in a sense. Then what will mommy and daddy.....I mean...the US government do about knives??? There's a lot of muderes with knives, ya know. Baseball bats too. Hammers as well.

The 2nd amendment is not up for change. It will never happen and there's many Americans who are willing to keep it that way. It's none of anyone's business what guns I own. It's none of their business what vehicle I own either. Many peeps have been murdered with vehicles too.

Why are some of you so eager to hand your rights over to a corrupt government? Seriously, why? You are aware as to what the gov has done and is doing, right?? You trust those loons? I don't, and neither do anyone I know. Guns = balance = protection = liberty

posted on Jun, 20 2014 @ 11:30 AM
the answer is simple. people need the weapons to defend themselves. Only the incapable, fools, and cowards would allow someone else to defend them.

posted on Jun, 20 2014 @ 11:38 AM

originally posted by: swanne
When the Second Amendment was drafted almost three centuries ago, guns were at the stage of revolvers and muskets.

Just a really quick correction. When the Second Amendment was drafted there was also cannons, bombs, explosive devices and yes fully automatic weapons.

One such automatic weapon was the Puckel Gun. Built in 1718, it was nearly 60 years prior to your entire argument ultimately invalidating it.

top topics

<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in