It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Oh, yes, burglars are unstoppable crime machines who break into your house without a sound and can't be killed except by silver bullets, and if they bite you, you become one. No, a gun in the bedroom is really a reasonable solution. Odds are the burglar is not going to risk going into your room because they don't want to wake you up.
The 2nd amendment is not out of context. Read the actual documents written by Jefferson and the gang. There are THREE main reasons for the 2nd amendment: defense from foreign invaders, self-defense from criminals, and defense from a tyrannical government. It is for all three of these reasons that it is wrong to deny people armament.
One might think it would be common sense to deny ordinary people "assault" weapons, but you never know. In the inner city ghetto you just might want to have some extra firepower. In those areas you don't always face robbers one at a time.
'Free' education and health care go a long way towards bribing people to let you trample their freedoms. Sometimes voting isn't enough to stop something wrong from happening, and for that reason armed rebellion must remain an option. It should be the last option on the list, but it must remain on the list.
Originally posted by xpert11
You dont suppose if that person didnt have a gun
you would be able defend your self?
Not likely since if they want to harm you and couldnt get a gun they will just get a knife.
Do you think banning legal ownership of guns is going to keep them out of the hands of criminals ?
Originally posted by xpert11
...
Let me rephrase the question. What freedoms do Americans have (other then the right to bear arms) that other democracys dont have?
Originally posted by xpert11
People in Urban areas for example dont have a need for guns legal or illegal to defend themselvs.
That's enough.
Originally posted by xpert11
The right to bear arms is more of a liability then a right. Looks like there are no facts to back up the dumb statement that Americans have more freedoms then other people do in other democracies.
Originally posted by xpert11
Let get this straight some could rob your house and not wake you.
Gee your gun proved to be real useful NOT!
If you want to use arms to change the government its called a civil war not a very bright idea.
You dont suppose it is the US militarys job to protect the USA from foreign invaders?
They would have if they were allowed on airplanes. Sure, the terrorists would have had guns too probably, but they would have to take out all the armed passengers before securing control of the plane.
Did guns prevent the 9-11 hijackings ?
Ever heard of the police force ? Its there job to fight crime not yours. Like I said get to know your neighbors.
You dont suppose that it would be better to look for solutions rather then add to the problem?
Wouldnt want joe bloggs to be able to afford health care after he/she has been shot by a bank robber who was preventing crime.
Dude your a right wing nut case what ever your on I want some.
Originally posted by xpert11
Amuk should murder be legal because the law doesn't prevent 100% of murders from happening?
illegal gun ownership might be wide spread in the USA but that doesn't mean that illegal gun ownership is widespread in New Zealand or other parts of the world.
Well, that would suck, wouldn't it? But the gun is the reason the burglar would try his best not to wake me up. He'd stay out of my room and go after the electronics before looking in my underpants drawer. It's possible that he wouldn't wake me up, but then again it's possible he will make enough noise to wake me. If that happens, he's dead.
It's a dangerous idea, not a 'not very bright' idea. If the government truly goes bad then dangerous courses of action are justified.
I do suppose that. I also suppose that it is a bad idea to abdicate all responsibility for my safety to the government. The government is an impersonal force that cannot possibly gove a proper level of attention to the safety of me, my friends, or my family. Under the hypothetical foreign invasion, there may be many things the US military would have to do, and there may be a number of higher priorities in the country than coming to my rescue.
They would have if they were allowed on airplanes. Sure, the terrorists would have had guns too probably, but they would have to take out all the armed passengers before securing control of the plane.
The problem with the police force is that they do not have instantaneous teleportation technology. They have to rely on quaint little machines called "cars" and thus cannot be expected to get to your home sooner than 10-20 minutes after you call. In those ten minutes the criminal will have done everything he wanted to do. The police cannot get to you in time to save you from an imminent threat. It's impossible. Therefore it is irresponsible to abdicate responsibility to the police for protecting you from crime.
If the problem is gangs, then shooting gangsters hardly adds to the problem.
If Joe has a decent job, he can afford health insurance.
Buddy you & me have differnt definitions of logic.
What am I on? That's a good question. Everything I've said is realistic and logical, and that makes me a nut case who is 'on' something.
Killing another person is legal in a lot of circumstances, like self protection and warfare. Should baseball bats be illegal because some people use them for killing people. Being armed saved me and my wife from being robbed and possibly murdered or her being raped one time. We were faced by 5 young men would have harmed us if I hadn't been armed. I would have killed EVERY ONE OF THEM before that happened but like MOST gun incidents like this seeing the gun was enough to send them searching out easier prey. You know some one unarmed.
Not to be insulting but I couldn't care less if any other country has gun laws or not. Its not my business or my problem. And if yall cant handle the fact that we ARE armed then don't come here. The right to bear arms is GUARANTEED to us in the Constitution. The reasons are simple and most of us understand and agree.
Why should we care if the rest of the world doesnt?
Originally posted by xpert11
Let me put it this way if those young men had had been smarter they would have attacked you and wife from behind (knocked you on the back of the head ) chances are they would have used your own gun against you.
Im am sorry that you and your wife almost came to harm.
Originally posted by xpert11.
You are in a bank when there is an armed hold up. You could pull your gun out but somehow I think the robbers would shoot you. Chances are the robbers will take your gun off you.
Originally posted by xpert11
I live in New Zealand and I hate to breake this to you but it is a lot harder to obtain a gun by legal and illegal means then it is in the USA.
You dont ever wonder how so many guns end up on the black market sure some find there way into the USA . More guns would end up on the black market in the USA because guns that are legaly owned would be stolen and sold on.
I know this is hard for some Americans to grasp but outside of the USA guns dont make up a part of the fabric of society so there is less demand for them.
You still didnt answer my question....
How would it have been better for me to have been UNARMED and at the mercy of the gang? Dont say they will take my gun away because they didnt.