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.

 

NEWS: Ted Nugent to Fellow NRAers: Get Hardcore

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 18 2005 @ 02:48 PM
link   
are you people really willing to SHOOT IT OUT with the police, federal agents, and the same U.S. military people you all kiss the feet of ????

when they come to take the guns, the only way you'll ever keep them is if you and ted nugent and a WHOLE LOT of other people open fire and let it be known that you fully intend to make that "cold dead hands" slogan your epitaph.



sorry....i don't think that's going to happen.

yes, a few NRA people through the years have told me they actually would go out with guns blazing, but i picture 90-95 percent of american gun owners meekly, submissively handing over all their firearms and ammo to the authorities when the time comes. i don't think their trembling fingers will be able to find the trigger while the feds are outside bellowing for them to come out with their hands up.....do you? hope i'm wrong about all this.


remember austrailia, a place with a much smaller and less tightly organized police and military system.




posted on Apr, 18 2005 @ 02:54 PM
link   


Yesterday, a belligerent neighbor threatened me with bodily harm if I didn't go back into my apartment, so I grabbed my pistol, racked the slide and admonished him to reconsider


Grady, Did your neighbor have a weapon too? How did he threaten you?

I am 110% for the right to bear arms. Bad guys have guns, they have them illegally. If guns are are banned bad guys will still have them, they will again have them illegally.

Leaving only one conclusion: Bad guys will continue to do the same as they are now and the law abiding citizens who normally would have guns through legal channels will be defenseless at the hands of those who have them illegally.

Hope my point was clear.

But I am a firm believer in equal force and the "plus one theory". If someone comes at you with a gun or knife or something that could seriously cause loss of life, limb or sight then by all means use a gun, use whatever it takes to protect you or someone else.

Is a gun neccassary if someone just threatened to kick your butt...NO!!!
Now if someone is charging at you with intent to kill, then run, hide...lock the door, but don't pull a gun on the man unless you truly need to.

There is a few considerations here. If you are 110 lbs soaking wet and some 220 lbs UFC fighter comes at you...then pull that gun....heck pull two of em!!

You don't bring a knife to a knife fight...you bring a gun!
You don't bring a gun to a fist fight....you bring your fist!
If you think your gonna loss then don't fight in the first place.

Guns should be used as last resorts to incapacitate (stop by any means a.k.a. kill) the target. Not to wound or slow down.

Grady, Not everyone has a good head on thier shoulders as you do...the cops don't know you ...as far as they know you could be some psycho with a gun....they were in the right.

Also, If everyone grabbed a gun with intent everytime someone threatened to beat thier butt...there would be alot of wrongful deaths
induced by rage and "acting on the moment".

Sporty's rules:
Last resort
save your life or some elses
Don't pull unless you truly intend to use it and a gun is the only way to stop the threat



posted on Apr, 18 2005 @ 02:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phugedaboudet

You're all just upset that the "grade school" life where you could go around and take kids' lunch money doesn't work when even a 90 pound woman can pull the 4 pounds slack on a trigger and demasculate you for trying to be the king of the block and forcing all to bow down to your "toughness".

For those of us who don't dedicate our lives to physically beating people into submission, then we should allow our homes to be broken into? Allowed to be forced off the streets? Rights to safety and freedom only guaranteed to whomever is the strongest, biggest, most violent?


You seem to have forgotten that times have changed my friend. The classic "grade school" life to which you refer to no longer bears a second chance to live. Now 'a days, kids no longer solve their conflicts with good 'ol fist fights, where both sides will stand up and live to see another day.

No way, now it's bang bang bang! you're dead, you're dead.. and a couple of innocent bystandards too!


Carry pepper spray and tasers, but leave the gun control up to the police controlled state!



posted on Apr, 18 2005 @ 03:21 PM
link   
Phugedaboudet:

Nice to see how many of you "anti gun" folks show your true colors-"Might makes right" in your mantra. Big bulky thugs deserve rights to freedom and travel and safety, sadists who spend time learning how to inflict physical pain and damage on others for fun and profit are the only ones who cna walk the streets.


Um, if someone threatens me with bodily harm, what do I do, just stand there and wait for it? ? Is that what you would do?

I don't know the specific circumstance of Grady's incident, but if my neighbor comes up to me and threatens to beat the crap out of me, those are the last words he will say for some time, because if I think he's serious, he's in for it.

Pacifism is one thing, but when you are faced with a rabid dog, you have to fight it.

I've tried to talk my way out of enough fights to realize that sometimes it just is not going to work.


Guns only escalate fights, fists end them usually. Of course, I would never try to actually kill someone, no matter how pissed I was at the time.


jako



posted on Apr, 18 2005 @ 03:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by victor was right
a few NRA people through the years have told me they actually would go out with guns blazing, but i picture 90-95 percent of american gun owners meekly, submissively handing over all their firearms and ammo to the authorities when the time comes. i don't think their trembling fingers will be able to find the trigger while the feds are outside bellowing for them to come out with their hands up.....do you? hope i'm wrong about all this.


remember austrailia, a place with a much smaller and less tightly organized police and military system.

Agreed- hunting a deer and using a gun against the police or Army are totally different things.

The government knows this too. However, 5% is a pretty large group.

Let's look at some stats:
    Swiss Embasy
    Until January 1, 1999, regulating firearms was the responsibility of the Swiss Cantons, which had enacted their own laws and had agreed upon some basic uniform rules in a Concordat (Agreement of March 27, 1969 on Trade in Firearms and Ammunition). In 1993, Swiss voters approved a constitutional amendment which authorized the Federal Parliament to pass a Firearms Control Law aimed at making access to firearms more difficult.
    -and-
    two hunting or two sporting rifles (or one hunting and one sporting rifle) may be imported without a permit if the bearer satisfactorily shows that they will be used in a sports contest or a hunting event.

    Under those circumstances, the following ammunition can be brought along:

    * 50 cartridges (for hunting)
    * 250 cartridges (per handgun)
    * 250 cartridges (per rifled sporting gun)
    * 500 cartridges (per smooth bore sporting gun)

    Wow, who would have thought? Let's hear from the anti-gun folks how barbaric the Swiss are- GO


      (250 rounds- now who needs that?)


    Who else?

    Jews for Preservation of gun ownership
    The night time rounding up in Nazi Germany would not have gone nearly as smooth as it did if every Jewish family had at least one gun. Maybe in the beginning no one would have resisted, but within a few days it could have gotten real tough for the Gestapo.


    Singh's site
    I live in India and I am a proud firearm owner - but I am the exception not the norm, an odd situation in a country with a proud martial heritage and a long history of firearm innovation. This is not because the people of India are averse to gun ownership, but instead due to Draconian anti-gun legislation going back to colonial times.

    Imagine the caution instead of rampant mobs that had surged through parts of India in its past. Mobs don't do well against an armed (gun, not fists guys) homeowner.

I could go on and on. The Congo, Rhodesia, Mexico, the U.S., Canadian wilderness areas, etc.

Maybe the UK is different- I kind of doubt it. Ulster without guns would cease to exist.

Look at Rwanda- had the Tutsis had guns? 800,000 (800 thousands) dead.


CIA factbook
The war, along with several political and economic upheavals, exacerbated ethnic tensions, culminating in April 1994 in the genocide of roughly 800,000 Tutsis and moderate Hutus.

5%= 40,000 willing to fight. Could it have made a difference? I just have a feeling that 800k number would be a whole lot less.

Chuck Norris can't equal a .38 shot by some little woman afraid or someone in their house in the middle of the night.



Even Chuck knows when to 'lock and load'

.

.



posted on Apr, 18 2005 @ 03:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by subz
This thread almost makes me ashamed to be a 'man' if it lumps me into the same category as you cowards who need guns. Almost makes me ashamed to be a human.


What exactly is the point of this response?... Calling anyone who owns a gun a coward...

Although I do not think this situation warranted brandishing a weapon, i believe we all have a right to own a weapon, as it is afforded by the Constitution of the United States.

i guess you would also call a kid or a girl who have used a weapon to defend themselves against rapers, and murderers cowards....typical...

Well, tell you what, if a robber breaks into my home threatening my family, i will use my gun, you can call me coward all you want, i prefer to make sure my family is safe, than being hailed a hero from the likes of you and getting my family or myself harmed or killed by robbers....



posted on Apr, 18 2005 @ 03:32 PM
link   
OK, we finally got this thread back on track, let's not digress.



posted on Apr, 18 2005 @ 03:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by subz
This thread almost makes me ashamed to be a 'man' if it lumps me into the same category as you cowards who need guns. Almost makes me ashamed to be a human.


Wow, well spoken. You nailed it right on the dot!
If a gang of thugs, hoodlums and good ole bad guys ever
surround me it try to kill me with whatever....I will not pull my
gun for fear that I will be branded a coward.

Apparantly them 8 thugs versus me is an equal brawl...despite
the fact they have knives and maybe even a few guns of thier own.



posted on Apr, 18 2005 @ 03:40 PM
link   
Good ole Chuck always brings wild thread back!


from chuck's blog

Visit often, and leave your attitude at the door



posted on Apr, 18 2005 @ 03:40 PM
link   
I support gun rights....hell, if I had the money, I'd have a gun. Criminals have guns, so you need the same to defend yourself, your family, and your stuff.

That said, Grady was clearly in the wrong. I believe that he had the option to retreat instead of escalating the conflict, which he did not take. So, instead of jsut blowing off his neighbor, he made the situation worse.

Oh, adn by the way...any call to the police of someone waving a gun at their neighbors isn't going to be taken lightly. Of course they're going to go in and be all surly!They don't want to be shot.

DE



posted on Apr, 18 2005 @ 04:01 PM
link   
How is everyone so paranoid?

Do you get surrounded by thugs a lot? Move.

Do you have to fear home invasions? Move.

Do you have to fear murderers every day? Move.


I don't know about y'all, but so far in 33 years, I have yet to enter a situation where I needed a firearm to survive. I'm sure 99.9% of the people here are in the same boat.

So what's the deal? Why so afraid of your "fellow American"?



posted on Apr, 18 2005 @ 04:53 PM
link   
A CHALLENGE TO PRO-GUN ADVOCATES (Muaddib in particular)

Explain this statistic then justify your pro-gun stance.


The rate of firearm-related deaths for U.S. children younger than 15 years of age is nearly 12 times greater than the rate in the other 25 leading industrialized nations of the world combined.


Simple enough, ok go

p.s. I said this thread made me ashamed to call myself a man due to the reactions of those pro-gun people posting on here. Men seem to be nothing more than cowering paranoids who feel they must have a gun to protect themselves from any threat. Whilst trying to protect themselves the amount of guns in society skyrocketed and became a self-fulfilling prophecy in which the chances of them facing a hostile with a gun also skyrocketed thanks directly to the easy access to fire arms.

Listen up, gun control removes guns from law-abiding citizens. Criminals get access to guns still but through the blackmarket. Its risky and much more expensive to get their weapons in this way so less criminals have firearms with gun-controls in place. Then you let the police deal with this smaller amount of armed criminals and gradually you get a 1200% decrease in fire arm death rates that we enjoy here in the UK/Australia/France/Germany etc.

Like I said before though, its too late for America. It would take generations of gun-control before your death rates would fall. Enjoy your guns and enjoy your grossly increased chances of being shot


[edit on 18/4/05 by subz]



posted on Apr, 18 2005 @ 05:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
The police could not arrest me, because they did not witness the "offense" and none who did would press charges. Think about that for a moment.

Gee...I sure hope it isn't one of those guys who do drive by shootings, otherwise, you're in a world of hurtin'. Think about that for a moment. I sure hope nobody wants to retaliate, for your sake.


Originally posted by JoeDoaks
One of the purposes of the 2nd Amendment is to protect the citizenry FROM govenrment.

Actually, I believe that was the only real reason. Since nobody seems to be using them for their intended purpose, I don't see much point in it. The government is far beyond our control, and nobody did anything about it. The 2nd amendment basically failed to protect us. Maybe we should've made another rule that the government wouldn't be allowed to have bigger guns, eh?



Originally posted by Jakomo
I don't know about y'all, but so far in 33 years, I have yet to enter a situation where I needed a firearm to survive. I'm sure 99.9% of the people here are in the same boat.

I've been alive for 37 years and never found one situation in which I needed a gun. I've even had a redneck point one at me before and tell me and my friends we should leave. I'm pretty sure that, if anyone else had a gun, that little incident might've ended badly. One gun may establish who's in control in a few situations, but two guns establishes a deadly gun fight in most.


Originally posted by SportyMB
Wow, well spoken. You nailed it right on the dot!
If a gang of thugs, hoodlums and good ole bad guys ever
surround me it try to kill me with whatever....I will not pull my
gun for fear that I will be branded a coward.

Alot of thugs have guns. If you're surrounded by them, you'd better not pull your gun. They'll most certainly take that as a threat, and just shoot you. At best, you might kill two or three before one grabs you and shoots you with your own gun. It ain't like the movies, where every shot lands and kills perfectly.
In fact, you're most likely not going to be able to take out a band of thugs unless they all stand still. Maybe they will, if you ask them nicely.

[edit on 18-4-2005 by Moe Foe]



posted on Apr, 18 2005 @ 07:33 PM
link   
subz, where did you get that statistic? Disneyland

Argue all you want (all of you) about guns=bad. This changes nothing.

Take away guns and criminals will use knives and swords.

Instead of hate against something you clearly don't understand go talk to a rancher or farmer bothered by coyotes and foxes.

Talk to people that use guns as part of their living.



posted on Apr, 20 2005 @ 06:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jakomo

How is everyone so paranoid?

Do you get surrounded by thugs a lot? Move.

Do you have to fear home invasions? Move.

Do you have to fear murderers every day? Move.


These responses are exactly what the thugs want. It is an act of cowardice to pack your gear when scumbags invade your neighborhood. The honorable thing to do is to stand your ground and meet force with force. Such reasoning is the reason so many inner city neighborhoods are crime centers, because when the criminals moved in, the good people packed up.



posted on Apr, 20 2005 @ 07:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
I am a Benefactor Member of the National Rifle Association.
[edit on 05/4/17 by GradyPhilpott]


I strongly believe in the second amendment, but alas, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts doesn't. I figure it'll take me 3-4 mos of negotiations with my local PD to get my LTC. As soon as I get it, my next 35 bucks is being sent to the NRA. When it comes to a certain freedom reflected in the Constitution, we gotta stick together. Go TED!

[edit on 20-4-2005 by nightbreid]



posted on Apr, 20 2005 @ 07:48 PM
link   
I'm for the right to bear arms, the second amendment was meant to gives us means of keeping the government in check but whoever thinks that they can keep our government in check with your 10 shot handguns and hunting shotguns or whatever else civilian legal arms they have could make billions selling what their own on the streets. For the gun control advocates, like it was stated above the genie is out of the bottle here, it would take generations if ever to clean up and account ever LAW-ABIDDING weapon and the black market will always be there, trust me I've seen AKs, M16s, an MP5 and other High end weapons in nyc which is far from a second amendment bastion. I don’t think Banning gun ownership here is even feasible in the foreseeable future. It would only affect legal owners who would be willing or coerced to turn in their guns. Those few militia types and other fringe elements that would be willing to fight would cost a major political backlash because the government will HAVE to go all Waco to get those weapons from them. Imagine hearing stories like the white supremacist who lost his family when the ATF raided his farm every other day?

Most of the guns that I’ve seen in criminal hands (which are alot more than I would care to mention or really remember) are somehow legally obtain, a good 40-60% are straw purchase and/or stolen from legal owners. most gun owners if ever would most likely be facing off an unarmed crook, and look at the police stats, how many officers are shot with their own guns are there any stats for civilians shot with their own guns.

I think the guy who had the situation in New Mexico with the neighbor overreacted. If the other guy was as big a menace as he was leading on he would have gone after him later for pulling a gun on him, most of the people I used to run with would have made a person severely regret even threatening someone use a weapon on them, heck last time somebody mention using a broomstick I made him regret it. The guy was probably a loud mouth trying to sound all big, if he ran off to call the cops on him he probably didn't even have the "equipment" to deliver the threat to someone who would stand up to him.
I mean think about it he threatening to beat somebody up and the person turns the table on them and they call the cops??? I don’t think it makes a person a coward to defend themselves from a criminals, even most criminals and gang bangers think it's low to pull a weapon for a one on one (assume correct me if I'm wrong) fist fight.
So at least to me, I believe in gun rights and especially living in a state where gun control is so strong. But anybody who thinks that they have their .38 specials and double barrel guns to keep our TRILLIONS of dollar strong government in check is as nut as anybody who thinks that banning all gun laws is going to solve everything overnight if anything. Enforce ALL the laws we have now and we would see allot bigger effect than banning guns outright. The only upside to banning guns would be the accidents that happened with kids and guns and criminals might be SLIGHTLY less armed.

edit grammar

[edit on 4/20/2005 by Oblivions void]



posted on Apr, 21 2005 @ 08:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by JoeDoaks
Argue all you want (all of you) about guns=bad. This changes nothing.

Take away guns and criminals will use knives and swords.

Instead of hate against something you clearly don't understand go talk to a rancher or farmer bothered by coyotes and foxes.

Talk to people that use guns as part of their living.

It's not the guns I have a problem with. It's people who have guns and an attitude about using them.



posted on Apr, 21 2005 @ 09:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nerdling
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




The point here to me is - we should have the right to bear arms so that we can defend the homeland. That is exactly what it says. Being necessary to the security of a free state.

With armed, mature citizens, we could keep a much smaller military - one that might only be used for the Defense of the Homeland, rather than a military which is used to aggress other nations by irresponsible leaders.



posted on Apr, 21 2005 @ 11:07 PM
link   
I got you in a straglehold baby i'm gonna crush yo face......




top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join