It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: infolurker
a reply to: GamleGamle
If we didn't have 30,000 armed gangs let alone normal criminals we may not need to be fully armed.... But we do.
If you want to see what the US would look like without civilian firearms that is simple... Look at Mexico.
BTW, nobody is allowing us to be armed for our own self defense. We DEMAND it.
Should the time come that someone wants to "not allow" us to defend ourselves, I fear that will be one very bloody year when a % of the population will refuse to have their means of self defense removed.
Trying to remove 80-100 million people of their means of self defense and property will not play out well.
originally posted by: GamleGamle
a reply to: John_Rodger_Cornman
Yeah these points have been discussed such as they are. Thanks for summarizing though.
I do not believe that a large population in and of itself is cause for a large segment of the population to carry guns, but throughout this thread I have taken into consideration many factors that make people feel the need to carry arms, which I have found to be understandable, despite not being anything near an ideal solution. Yeah to bad there is so much social cohesion lacking in the US.
Carrying guns are to protect you from armed violent criminals. The government can't stop illegal drugs from making its way into the United States, it would be no different with guns.
Now there is a pretty solid case to make that the US military will not be easily defeated...... furthermore the whole US is isolated by the Oceans on either side. So unless the British Empire Roars back to live ( not going to happen ). Canada sides with ISIS.... uhhhhhh, or the whole of South America decides to march on the US.... uhhhhh.... yeah your pretty safe from invasion. Despite all the gruesomeness of WWII. Neither the Nazi's nor the Japanese Empire ever came close to conceiving a full blown invasion of the US. Where military / economic and geopolitical considerations were far more important than, oh the population is carrying guns. That I think would be a far third. Like the icing on the cake, but not the main reason. So its not a very modern idea, unless the geopolitical landscape decides to shift globally very drastically.
it can happen. CME or EMP weapon knocks out the electricity. How do you keep starving mobs from killing you for your water and food? A knife? What if China attacked the USA? Very unlikely as we both need each other and we are not enemies but competitors. But say they do want to attack us for some reason China has over 1 million well trained soldiers. What do you do? Sing a beyonce song to them?
How do you defend against them holding your population hostage?
Isn't it a real B that people often have found ways to undermine the sovereignty of the US without having to resort to physical violence.
Yeah. Trade treaties,wall-street buying K street with lobbyists and "executive orders"
So the Second: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
It says clearly.The right to keep and bare arms shall not be infringed.
I thought that these lines of text were the reason for the US citizenry to bear arms, but fair enough, your 4 points are probably what most would consider the ""security of a free State"".
Once again I emphasize how sad it is that without guns, the country would fall in such anarchy, as most US citizens here belief to be the case.
It would not fall into chaos without guns. The criminals would take over if you outright banned guns in the US because of the drug cartels and their ability to arm and fund themselves.