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.

 

Second Amendment Advocates Have Blood on Their Hands

page: 48
88
<< 45  46  47    49  50 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 9 2017 @ 05:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
a reply to: lakenheath24

If you really live in the UK then you will know that very few of us care what anyone has to say about old liz.

And I don’t want to fight anyone.

Why even post that!


It is called an analogy. When you post an extremely inflammatory worded OP, what do you expect? Ergo the harshly worded retorts you have received. I take your OP personally, as a great insult. You obviously are unaware of how deep we yanks hold our rights, no matter how flawed they seen to outsiders. YOU may not appreciate Liz and Phill, but let an outsider slag them off and see what happens.




posted on Nov, 9 2017 @ 05:23 PM
link   
a reply to: jacquesdarippa

Who's numbers are pathetic to every other cause of death annually.

Our murder rate is 5.4 out of 100,000 people. That's insanely good.



posted on Nov, 9 2017 @ 05:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kurokage

originally posted by: lakenheath24
a reply to: Kurokage

Well what don't you Limey's understand about the OP? You call us gun owners murderers by saying we have "blood on our hands", and expect us to cower in the corner?


The OP said you had blood on your hands, I didn't and I'm not expecting anyone to cower in a corner and also some Americans posted about changing the 2nd amendment but a lot of you guys just post the same old stuff about who said something about banning guns when some members said no such thing and that because were British means we shouldn't be posting in the thread.
I'm of the opinion that criminal checks and mental illness checks need to a lot more stringent and would like to learn what you guys think would be good way to go about it, and why is it a "right" for someone with a criminal record or mental health issues to own a firearm, shouldn't that "right" be removed, without someone reminding where I come from or being insulting about firearms which for all they know, I could own in Great Britain.
A lot of the mix up with the royals is that they have no power, which Americans don't seam to understand but they are really just an expensive tourist attraction but thats for another thread!


I would apologize then for responding to your post harshly....my ire was directed at the OP....As one can see we are a bit touchy about certain things. I have been around guns since I can remember and was taught to respect such things as both essential, and dangerous... As a multiple gun owner, I would not be opposed to registering weapons like you do a car. And when you sell one, that registration would be recorded. I personally dont think peeps need mega magazine capable weapons, but for those who do, I would like to see each weapon registered under a state "militia". Either way, given our history....it's complicted....and fiery.



posted on Nov, 9 2017 @ 06:07 PM
link   
a reply to: lakenheath24

Can you tell me more about your militia idea? Interesting prospect



posted on Nov, 9 2017 @ 06:28 PM
link   
a reply to: Byrd

How many countys like America have existed?
NONE ,we are still an experiment in progress,while there ARE comparators NONE are the same by any stretch.
edit on 9-11-2017 by cavtrooper7 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 9 2017 @ 07:50 PM
link   
a reply to: blackspirit

The second amendment folks aren't whining and bitching. We're simply saying we will not give up our right. It's not hard to understand. Will not...period!



posted on Nov, 9 2017 @ 08:42 PM
link   
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

This is a silly thread.

I love the 2nd amendment, but, I do not have blood on my own hands yet.

I might, and I have a RIGHT to have blood on my hands, if ever needed, thanks to the 2nd amendment.

When and if I ever do have blood on my hands though, it will be the blood of tyrants and criminals, like the ones that just show up and start shooting into crowds of innocents.

I will have their blood. That is why there is a second amendment, IMHO



posted on Nov, 9 2017 @ 11:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: Byrd

originally posted by: mtnshredder
a reply to: jacquesdarippa

Here's another #%$&@ argument for gun ownership. Food for thought, what if we hadn't?


Fifteen years had passed since VJ Day, most of those at the meeting were WWII veterans, and men who had fought each other to the death at sea were now comrades in battle who could confide in each other.
Someone at the table asked a Japanese admiral why, with the Pacific Fleet devastated at Pearl Harbor and the mainland U.S. forces in what Japan had to know was a pathetic state of unreadiness, Japan had not simply invaded the West Coast.
Commander Menard would never forget the crafty look on the Japanese commander's face as he frankly answered the question.
'You are right,' he told the Americans. 'We did indeed know much about your preparedness. We knew that probably every second home in your country contained firearms. We knew that your country actually had state championships for private citizens shooting military rifles. We were not fools to set foot in such quicksand.'





This line was invented for the movie, "Tora, Tora, Tora." There's no proof that he said anything of the sort. In fact, it's really out of character for him and it's pretty bad from a tactical standpoint since an armed population didn't deter any of their invasions elsewhere.

Source


No, that would be "to awaken a sleeping giant" that was used in Tora, Tora,Tora. What I quoted was published in 2002 from a supposed meeting of ex-vets in 1960. Not to sure of authenticity of the meeting but it is not from the movie Tora, Tora, Tora



posted on Nov, 10 2017 @ 01:21 AM
link   
a reply to: Byrd

They invaded China. Occupied Korea, counts as an invasion. Indo-china. ...and various islands in both the south-west Pacific, and Central Pacific.

None of which has a population as heavily armed, for good or for ill, as the United States.

Japan never did conquer China--murdered a lot of folks, but never quite got it done. Even Korea, and Manchuria had active insurgencies, as of course did China--the govt and the Communist insurgency when they weren't killing each other, were doing that to the Japanese.

Of course, Japan could never have done anything of the sort, they lacked anything like the sealift necessary to do this. They couldn't do Midway, or Hawai'i, much less the west coast of the United States. This makes for interesting fiction, but that's about the size of it.



posted on Nov, 10 2017 @ 03:59 AM
link   
a reply to: JBurns

Well first of all I am a responsible gun owner/lover and am fierce about the 2nd amendment being supported. However, I have no problems with states setting up a militia, aka gun club, where any high capacity weapon would have to be registered and possibly kept. This militia could be privately owned and run, but have the power of police level background checks and would monitor it's members for mental health, etc. Each member could police themselves and each other, just like a militarty unit would. We had a program in the AF called PRP which was used for us nuke people....if you had to go to the hospital and put on meds for example, your PRP got suspended and you lost temporary access. The militia people would know one another far better, and be able to suspend ones access to their weapons. Its just a rough start, but I would also force secondary sales to be recorded and audited so they dont make it to the black market.



posted on Nov, 10 2017 @ 08:23 AM
link   
a reply to: lakenheath24

Doesn't take into account a big chunk of people who are older and/or may have a physical impairment. Plus its pretty invasive and potentially arbitrary for something we have a right to. I could see that type of thing for nuclear or heavy munitions.

And don't get me wrong, I'm not opposed to common sense regulation that doesn't put undue burdens on our righrs. After all, people shouldn't have access to nukes, chemical or biological weapons.

But you don't punish many for the acts of the few. Even though that does seem to be the case these days.



posted on Nov, 10 2017 @ 09:56 AM
link   
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

First and foremost, Second Amendment issues are Domestic US issues, they are not your backyard so honestly you have no right weighing in on the topic at all.

Secondly, you spew a lot of drivel about "sweeping" gun control measures and "evil triumphs when men do nothing"...why don't you enlighten US on what sweeping gun control measures would have prevented a remiss clerical duty? You can penalize it after the fact, but what measures would have prevented that??


Lastly, if you wanna REALLY talk about blood on your hands, then doctor heal thyself...it was you, the British who generated the necessity for Second Amendment rights in the first place...if only you had minded your own business eh?




Having just used guns and other arms to ward off the English, the amendment was originally created to give citizens the opportunity to fight back against a tyrannical federal government.



posted on Nov, 10 2017 @ 10:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: alphabetaone
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

First and foremost, Second Amendment issues are Domestic US issues, they are not your backyard so honestly you have no right weighing in on the topic at all.

Secondly, you spew a lot of drivel about "sweeping" gun control measures and "evil triumphs when men do nothing"...why don't you enlighten US on what sweeping gun control measures would have prevented a remiss clerical duty? You can penalize it after the fact, but what measures would have prevented that??

Lastly, if you wanna REALLY talk about blood on your hands, then doctor heal thyself...it was you, the British who generated the necessity for Second Amendment rights in the first place...if only you had minded your own business eh?



Having just used guns and other arms to ward off the English, the amendment was originally created to give citizens the opportunity to fight back against a tyrannical federal government.




See again!!! This is the World Wide Web, if you don't like what is written then tough, the internet is not your backyard!!
Its getting pretty bad lately that quite a few members here believe that ATS is just for American opinions only.

Also thank you to member Lakenheath24 for the apology and for putting across his opinion on this delicate talking point and for offering constructive comments

edit on 10-11-2017 by Kurokage because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 10 2017 @ 10:59 AM
link   
a reply to: alphabetaone

You can take any position you like, but if you think that there are ANY issues about which a person may not chime in, just because they do not live next door to the origin of the talking point, then you sir, need to go back to school, and re-educate yourself.

More to the point, when Americans have nothing to say about the way of life of anyone in the Middle East, North Africa, North Korea, China, Europe, the UK, and Russia, as well as a whole host of other places around the world that your people THINK they know anything about, I imagine the rest of us will stop chiming in on the dumpster fire on roller skates that is US home affairs policy, OK?

But for the moment, if you could wind in your hypocrisy for a bit, that would be just smashing.

Also, it is no measure of wit or intellect, to claim that a person may not know something worth hearing, simply because they live remote from a given topic or situation. It is, in fact, the height of stupidity to suggest that geographical proximity to a thing, is necessary for ones comments on it to be of merit or worth listening to.

Wind your neck in and mind your manners.



posted on Nov, 10 2017 @ 11:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: TrueBrit

But for the moment, if you could wind in your hypocrisy for a bit, that would be just smashing.

MY hypocrisy??? Where I have I made some determination about another countries policies or constitution? I challenge you to find a single post where I voiced a desire to change another countries policies? You won't find one. I make a point of not engaging in how I believe another country should be run by their own people. MY hypocrisy level is perfectly fine where it's at, zero.



Also, it is no measure of wit or intellect, to claim that a person may not know something worth hearing, simply because they live remote from a given topic or situation. It is, in fact, the height of stupidity to suggest that geographical proximity to a thing, is necessary for ones comments on it to be of merit or worth listening to.


"Hearing" about something, and beliving you have a right to denigrate and attempt to influence are two different things.



Wind your neck in and mind your manners.


I don't think so. I'll say whatever I damn well please.



posted on Nov, 10 2017 @ 11:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: Kurokage

This is the World Wide Web, if you don't like what is written then tough, the internet is not your backyard!!

OUR second amendment is NOT the World Wide Web....and yea, I don't like foreigners thinking they have the right to voice an opinion about OUR constitution.


Its getting pretty bad lately that quite a few members here believe that ATS is just for American opinions only.

I don't give a crap what ATS thinks it can do and I never will....but our second amendment, that is not governed by ATS so mind your own business.



posted on Nov, 10 2017 @ 11:39 AM
link   
a reply to: lakenheath24


Very interesting proposal! Far more specific (and also probably a lot more effective) than a lot of other suggestions I've read here.

I realize that is only a 30,000 ft. overview of such a plan, but what you have written makes sense and it a decent proposal.


Since the Constitution specifically says "well regulated" but is intended to prevent government overreach, private citizen controlled/regulated militias would be a (IMHO) Constitutionally supported option.

I too am a fervent defender of the second amendment, and I love solutions like yours that protect and embrace that right instead of trying to suppress it.



posted on Nov, 10 2017 @ 11:41 AM
link   
a reply to: alphabetaone




you have no right weighing in on the topic at all.




I don't think so. I'll say whatever I damn well please.

Here's your hypocrisy for you. Like I said, this is the internet and people can say what they want about ANY subject even your mighty constitution!!!!
Some Americans get so frightened when "foreigners" talk about Americas "rights", constitution, and amendments.
edit on 10-11-2017 by Kurokage because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 10 2017 @ 01:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: mtnshredder
Source


No, that would be "to awaken a sleeping giant" that was used in Tora, Tora,Tora. What I quoted was published in 2002 from a supposed meeting of ex-vets in 1960. Not to sure of authenticity of the meeting but it is not from the movie Tora, Tora, Tora

There's been a reasonable effort to track the quote down, and it does originate from the movie. The report of the meeting may be partly fabricated, you know.



posted on Nov, 10 2017 @ 01:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: Byrd

They invaded China. Occupied Korea, counts as an invasion. Indo-china. ...and various islands in both the south-west Pacific, and Central Pacific.

None of which has a population as heavily armed, for good or for ill, as the United States.

Japan never did conquer China--murdered a lot of folks, but never quite got it done. Even Korea, and Manchuria had active insurgencies, as of course did China--the govt and the Communist insurgency when they weren't killing each other, were doing that to the Japanese.

Of course, Japan could never have done anything of the sort, they lacked anything like the sealift necessary to do this. They couldn't do Midway, or Hawai'i, much less the west coast of the United States. This makes for interesting fiction, but that's about the size of it.


Agreed that they didn't have resources to do an assault, but the point still stands that civilian populations are really ineffective against the military. Serbia is the second most heavily armed nation in the world (according to Wikipedia data) and its civilians don't seem to have much ability to sway things using guns. Freedom fighters during WWII had only a small impact - they made greater inroads working as agents of larger armed forces and their tactics generally did not involve arming themselves and trying to kill as many invaders as possible (because that just provoked massive retaliation.)

The other problem with civilian groups is that they don't follow orders.

American generals had a lot of trouble with this in the Civil War, with volunteer troops. So did Washington (Lafayette pulled his irons out of the fire by creating a trained army of Americans.)



new topics

top topics



 
88
<< 45  46  47    49  50 >>

log in

join