Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

"NRA - Deadliest Organization in world"

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 12 2003 @ 12:20 PM
link   
Moku:

The culture is the reason for the gun deaths, thats all. We have a culture of agression, its that simple. It shall always be as such. Banning guns wont make a diff.

John B: The US is not Europe. I fond it amusing the ridiculous image Europeans have of all Americans running around shooting thier neighbors. Thats hysterical. Yep, we just shoot each other for fun. Happens all the time. I actually met some idiot in the UK who thought that we shoot each other over parking spots. LMAO!!!!!!!!!1

As Estragen so wisely stated, it was written in the consitituion for citizens to bear arms in part for the overthrow and keep in balance tyranical govornment. because Europe has always kept the arms out of the hands of the people, thus securing whatever govornment was in place, and thus, preventing the overthrow of the state by the people. We simply dont believe that only the govornment has the right to bear arms.

I get sick of hearing about Columbine. One school that was hyped up beyond state borders. Guess what! Columbine isnt the only highschool in the US, there are thousands, and they seem to have no interest shooting each other!

And not ALL Americans own guns. Hell, Im the only one I know who owns them in my family. And that crap about killing with a gun makes it impersonal is crap. According to federal crime statistics, double the murders are committed with knives than guns. Most gun deaths are accidents anyway. Guns are poor murder weapons of choice. If you want to kill someone, you want to make sure no one else knows about it. Well, a gun is a # choice, being as noisy as they are. if youre gonna murder someone and want to get away with it, you use quiet weapons, like knives, rope, ect. More rapes are committed at knife point than at gun point, but, the media, loving drama and a good story, will report more with guns because guns are more interesting than knives.

I have been mugged twice, both at knife point. I lived in the #tiest parts of California, and by far, I have benn terrorized with knives, blackjacks, brass knuckles, a=or large gaggles of men than I have with a gun. i have since bought myself a few guns.

Why more than one gun? As has been stated, its more than self defense. Shooting is a sport and hobby. Why do people in UK all own cellphones? cellphones cause traffic accidents. More people die in car wrecks than guns every year.

More people in the US die from doctor malpractice than they do from gun deaths (60,000 est gun deaths, over 100,000 confirmed doctors killing patients). I say we ban doctors!

Multiple gun ownership is like anything: a collection. Guns are a hobby. Intricate pieces of machinery, they are. Many different stles, ranged, weights. Its like asking why men go to multiple porn sites. Why not just stay at one? Variety. Collecting. Each gun is different. I used to have three. A .38 for delf defense, when away from home, a shotgun for home defense, and a 30_6 for sport shooting.

As a gun owner and a feamle, i would encourage more women to take up arms and defend themselves. The cops aint gonna protect you, and theres too many sick guys out there that see you as defenseless meat. I know that once I started packing a sidearm, I got left alone alot more. Does something to a potential attacker when, after following you, or approaching you in a threatening manner, to pull your coat away and show em your piece. Most expect women to be defenseless and terrified, they see that nasty cold iron in your holster, and they get second thoughts real quick, because most street attackers of women are banking on thier superior size and strength to subdue us: that all goes out the window: size dont matter when the smaller one is carrying her .44.




posted on Aug, 12 2003 @ 12:26 PM
link   
Funny how the anti gun crowd scatters like cockroaches in the light when real facts are presented.



posted on Aug, 12 2003 @ 01:02 PM
link   

It is not even true that the right to bear guns is written in the Constitution: the Constitution talks about guns that were available at the end of the 18th century, and was written before the US developed a true army. It makes no reference to "every future evolution of guns". Therefore, the only guns that are constitutionally legal are the ones that were available two hundred years ago.



This is SO illogical that I'm ALMOST speechless...which is quite a feat. If this is the case, I now declare the official religion of the United States of America to be Southern Baptist...because there were no Southern Baptists when the constitution was written, and the separation of church and state could ONLY have been meant to apply to the contemporaneous religions...and could not POSSIBLY have been meant to apply to all future religious evolutions...for pete sake!

Let's all meet down at the river, ok? And then, after that, we'll have coffee and cake in the fellowship hall, and go out back and shoot our muskets awhile...be careful though...lest an angel piss your touch-hole.

[Edited on 12-8-2003 by Valhall]



posted on Aug, 12 2003 @ 01:07 PM
link   

Valhall, I sometimes wished I could move from Virginia and live in Oklahoma around you. You are so "to the point" that I find it quite attractive and very appealing.
*wink wink*

Nicely said.

regards
seekerof



posted on Aug, 12 2003 @ 03:11 PM
link   
That's a very good idea, Seekerof. I think all us CRAAAAZZYYY conservatives here on ATS should buy a big piece land here in Indian Territory and start us a sovereign nation...we can claim Indian heritage...Tribe of the Soggy Bottoms. No branch davidian stuff...everybody gets a musket, a long bow and a Rambo knife immediately after baptism.

We can grow hemp (and various varieties of same) to support our community and when those jack-booted feds drop by to check on us we'll be cordial and neighborly and wave 'em good-bye...as we sit on those sacks of seeds.

HA!



posted on Aug, 12 2003 @ 05:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
Moku:


John B: The US is not Europe. I fond it amusing the ridiculous image Europeans have of all Americans running around shooting thier neighbors. Thats hysterical. Yep, we just shoot each other for fun. Happens all the time. I actually met some idiot in the UK who thought that we shoot each other over parking spots. LMAO!!!!!!!!!1


Yes we hear quite a bit about americans. You know about "Bowling for columbine"? That movie had quite a bit of promotion.

But anyway we are culturally very different from you guys on the other side of the big piece of water.
Here in Denmark you get fined if you are caught carrying a knife.

Now the minister of justice has just promoted a suggestion in favor of a prison sentence for this offence.

Are we living in 1984 ?

Hold on to you guns while you can...



posted on Aug, 12 2003 @ 05:48 PM
link   
Bowling for Columbine? Oh, Christ, should i even ask? lol.

yeah I remeber the gun laws in Europe. Scary. the diea of the govornment having all the firepower, and me, having to leave my safety in the hands of cops and stuff......

The only person who cares about me, my life, health, and well being is me. Thus, i am the only person who can ensure both are preserved. the system doesnt care. My safety is my concern and my right. To the gov, Im just another number, statistic.



posted on Aug, 12 2003 @ 05:56 PM
link   

Yes we hear quite a bit about americans. You know about "Bowling for columbine"? That movie had quite a bit of promotion.


The fact that the above mentioned bit of liberal drivel is being put out as some inner vision of American culture is precicely why there is a growing divide in the Atlantic.
If you want to know more about American "gun culture" please visit : www.nra.org...
At least you will get the side that the UN and most of the mass media conveniently sweep under the carpet.

Actually, the heading of this thread is probably accurate. What other group in the world has an 80 MILLION man/woman standing army?



posted on Aug, 12 2003 @ 07:23 PM
link   
I just thought of something truly hilarious.

My dad's a member.

That means that he uses his limited income, from social security - a liberal entitlement program - to buy his membership in NRA!

HA!



posted on Aug, 12 2003 @ 08:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Fry2

.

Actually, the heading of this thread is probably accurate. What other group in the world has an 80 MILLION man/woman standing army?




thats very cool




I have a sad story about my conditions here:

In my country there is a force called "home-protection guard" or something like that.
It consists of normal people, who have the duty to defend the country in case of a national emergency. They have their normal jobs and so on,.. and a rifle in the closet.
This is what the internationalists does not like, so when a jerk who trained his sharp-shooting abilities in the forest killed a guy who was walking by, they had the chance of cutting in this guard.
Since that time this "home-protection guard" got less and less personel.
The military is now using a smaller professional army to carry out missions concerning "terrorist crises".

And this professional force is not allowed to speak to the press/public about their orders or missions, before, under or after an assignment. This guys had to sign this contract if they still wanted to be able to support their families. (keep the job)


So the picture is like this: people have less and less power (in the physical level). And this power is transfered to the govenment. Its becoming a kindergarden where I, for one, dont trust the "adults" in charge.
pretty #ty



posted on Aug, 12 2003 @ 08:35 PM
link   
Well, NRA is not a terrorist organization, criminals are.

When was the last time a criminal who held up a 7/11 was a member of NRA??? I have never heard this on the news.

"Today after an NRA meeting, the members went down to the Quick-E-Mart and robbed it at gun point. When asked why they did this, the response from their leader was "We have the right to do this because we have guns". More at eleven, back to you Tom."

Criminals kill with guns, idiots kill with guns, kids who have never been taught gun saftey kill with guns and psychos kill with guns. I have never heard of a guy who was normal, not a criminal or a psycho purposely kill with a gun. There are accidents, but there are accidents with cars too, so ban cars?

Also, guns aren't only way to kill. Knife, axe, hammer, srew driver, punching/kicking, car, bat, piece of glass, chair, bomb, fire, cross bow, regular bow, slingshot, 2x4, clock(hit in head), poodle(drop out of window and land on someone) and so forth. You can kill with anything. Give me an item and I can kill you. Hell, cotton ball? Swallow it, it sucks up stomach acid, goes into intestines, and you get the point.

Anyways, guns don't kill people, loss of blood/hole in head/heart/lung/other organs kill people.



posted on Aug, 12 2003 @ 09:12 PM
link   
ok here's my take on the whole thing. just an opinion so i dont want anyone coming behind me telling me how wrong i am for my opinions....

i think its ok to own guns, i think whatever you want to you should have. the reason why i say this is because if we get into a debate over who can own what then it goes back into a fight over we should have guns and no you shouldnt have guns. and i believe in order to avoid the fighting over who can own what just make a blanket freedom (which it already is but we have to act like its not for some ignorant reason). i think the most important thing you can do in regards to firearms is educate yourself. more importantly EVERYONE should be educated about firearms, children especially. just like sex and drugs and alcohol you need to teach your kids about firearms period. even if you dont they might have a friends whos dad has some firearms and if you dont teach them how dangerous they can be you're putting them at risk of hurting themselves or someone else. just like you would teach your kids not to play with matches or lighters, just like you would teach them not to play with the stove you should teach them it is never ok to even TOUCH a firearm without the supervision of a qualified adult (i know, how will they know if an adult is qualified? if they arent sure if an adult is qualified then there's your answer, they dont touch it period). ignorance is the one thing that will get people killed or injured and it doesnt matter if its about firearms or not, a lack of common sense when using a chainsaw can cause you to lose a foot in a hurry. so having as much knowledge about firearms goes a long way to ensure a longer life for yourself and those around you.


guns are not dangerous, the person using one can be though. a baseball bat can kill in the hands of the wrong person. do we outlaw bats? nope! do we outlaw knives? do we outlaw anytihng because someone used it to kill someone? no but we sure do it with guns dont we? outlawing guns keeps guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens. criminals dont go to the local gunstores or pawnshop to buy a gun, he goes to the guy who keeps a stash of illegal stuff in the trunk of his car and buys a gun or two without any legal paperwork, no waiting period, no license, nothing! he goes out and knocks off a liqour store and kills the 60 year old guy behind the counter and then understandably outraged people then call for tighter gun control???? lol the laws didnt stop the criminal from getting the gun, the legal loopholes law abiding citzens have to jump through didnt stop him so what makes anyone think making more laws will?????
even a person with no weapons can kill somebody, will we make being a human illegal then? will we call for tighter control on who can have children? will we blame his parents for creating him as much as others blame the gun makers for some criminals actions??? i'm not trying to be absurd but i am applying the logic some people use in other situations that are very similar. if it seems silly then you have seen the obvious and what i am pointing out to you.

criminals are bad people and taking rights away from law abiding people who have done nothing wrong thinking it will hurt the criminals when it clearly has not is getting us nowhere. a lack of proper education of safety and use of firearms is getting people killed. yes there will be accidents but you cant take away everyones right because of that. people get accidentally killed in car accidents but we dont take away peoples licenses.

i feel there is too much ignorance about firearms and people wanting to blame things and people who cant help it when others decide to be criminals.



posted on Aug, 12 2003 @ 09:37 PM
link   

That's a very good idea, Seekerof. I think all us CRAAAAZZYYY conservatives here on ATS should buy a big piece land here in Indian Territory and start us a sovereign nation...we can claim Indian heritage...Tribe of the Soggy Bottoms. No branch davidian stuff...everybody gets a musket, a long bow and a Rambo knife immediately after baptism.

We can grow hemp (and various varieties of same) to support our community and when those jack-booted feds drop by to check on us we'll be cordial and neighborly and wave 'em good-bye...as we sit on those sacks of seeds.


Sounds like a great idea, I'll start researching hydroponic cultivation....



With regard to the gun issue... it is actually the bullets that are fired from the guns that miss/hit people or targets. Just like certain guns, only the military/law enforcement is legally permitted to have particular rounds. This places them at a distinct advantage over the general population should a revolution ever need to occur.

2nd Amendment:


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.


www.usconstitution.net...

Infringed means:


In the context of the Constitution, phrases like "shall not be infringed," "shall make no law," and "shall not be violated" sound pretty unbendable, but the Supreme Court has ruled that some laws can, in fact, encroach on these phrases. For example, though there is freedom of speech, you cannot slander someone; though you can own a pistol, you cannot own a nuclear weapon.


www.usconstitution.net...



posted on Aug, 12 2003 @ 09:38 PM
link   
Actually, here in Indian Territory, they already have a very good system. It involves blue tarps...I need not say more.



posted on Aug, 12 2003 @ 09:41 PM
link   
We use the "Blue Tarp" concept around here to Val. hehe....


regards
seekerof



posted on Aug, 12 2003 @ 09:43 PM
link   
Yes, and if it is the way it is here...there, you know that if you are out on a country road and come up on a "blue tarp" you do not take the time to turn around...

you just throw her in reverse.



posted on Aug, 12 2003 @ 09:45 PM
link   
p.s. Which brings us back to topic I believe!!!




posted on Aug, 12 2003 @ 09:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall
Yes, and if it is the way it is here...there, you know that if you are out on a country road and come up on a "blue tarp" you do not take the time to turn around...

you just throw her in reverse.




no comment..........

regards
seekerof



posted on Aug, 13 2003 @ 11:30 AM
link   
Dare I ask what the blue tarp system is????


I have my own little system. But I can't give details (5th amendment)



posted on Aug, 13 2003 @ 11:46 AM
link   
JohnB, in this thread you suggested pistols be allowed for the citizen, and in the 7th casue of accidents in the U.S. thread, you wondered what an armed society would do against the government anyway. BTW, it seems you are preoccupied with our right to keep and bear arms; are you suffering from a little envy? But back to the points, in regard to the pistol suggestion, that is not IAW the 2nd amendment or its intention. The reason was not for sport or for self-defense from intruders. Sport is not a constitutional concern, and self-defense is already covered in Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. The reason was so that, if need be, the armed citizenry can take back the government from tyranny and arbitrary rule, should we so desire.

As far as what we dcould do, what did the Afghanis do with the Soviet Union? Did VC have the technology the U.S. had?
The Founding Fathers did not only see the 2nd amendment as a right, they saw it as an obligation of every able-bodied man of the country. Even today, with the technology the military has, 100 million armed citizens, determined to deliver Hell to a tyrannical government, is enough to keep the government from being obvious, as one can see in America. A government that holds the intention of ruling arbitrarily over the citizenry will first remove the citizenry's ability to fight back, as is apparent in not only America but in other nations around the world, and has always been the case throughout history. As the sticker said on transport case of my Anschutz competition rifle, "Poland Has Gun Control."





new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join