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.

 

U.S. most armed country with 90 guns per 100 people

page: 4
6
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 29 2007 @ 09:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by budski
[Pure freedom?
In the US?
With one of the most controlling, insidious and manipulative governments
So where is the need for a well regulated militia?
Especially given the power of modern weapons of war - you think you're going to stop a tank with a hunting rifle?


Can you tell me of a country that offers more attainable life choices for the common citizen than the US?

To your question, a well regulated Militia is actually the National Guard.




posted on Aug, 29 2007 @ 11:16 PM
link   
2 locations to go if it hits the fan, both with water for access of the coast if needed. I would get on a boat and head as far away as possbile from a ground zero attack and find refuge.

In my mind, each home needs a shotgun for home invasion/protection. A 38 won;t do anything if you cannot shoot well, meaning you go to a range once a week at least. You need a loud boom, disorientation and fire the kill shot. It is about home defense and then get the hell out. I don;t care how many rounds you have, go to a less dense populated area.



posted on Aug, 29 2007 @ 11:40 PM
link   
esdad, why would you have a weapon meant for battle and then run away to a secluded area?

I am sorry, but my home is is equipped with massive blades (axes, machetes, swords), and anyone who gets into my house with a gun aint gettin out without me having to fire a shot. And if it is one of them invasion scenarios, all the better. Cuz now I have a free gun, and I still got my blades, of which the ammo is only limited by my determination and stamina.

But I can tell you number one, my first insticnt is not going to be to run to the hillside for safety. Oh no, I am goign to be on the streets looking for my allies (my fellow citizens in distress and on the defense), and we are going to form a strategy. Running scared is not a strategy, why do some people keep assuming it is?

I know my community well, and a hell of alot of people that lvie in the city, I am not going to just abandon the people I have lived with most of my life. So what if I die in the streets helping others and slowing down the enemy? Is that any worse than dieing far from combat alone where you were unable to help anyone?

I am not attempting to slander anyone here, especially not you esdad, but I just would like us all to understand the irrationality of the fear driven run and hide technique, it accomplishes very little.

did everyone assume when they bought a firearm that they would not have to face the possibility point and shoot will not be the end of the conflict which has presented itself?



posted on Aug, 29 2007 @ 11:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by AnAbsoluteCreation
I love the founding fathers adding this to the constitution. The governement has to be afriad of a country full of weapons.

[edit on 28-8-2007 by AnAbsoluteCreation]



A Lot of good its doing, I mean with all these guns you'd think someone would have enough guts to confront the corporate entity that has hijacked your country...

but nooooo... instead youd rather sit idly by and watch your nation be devestated..

you have the means, you musnt have the balls!



posted on Aug, 29 2007 @ 11:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sparky63

2000 rounds seems impressive but keep in mind that an M16 can fire anywhere from 650 to 800 rounds per minute.


You might consider getting some practice. One bullet, one kill. Hang out with some hunters. If you don't take an animal with one bullet you have no business on the operating end of a weapon. This is not the movies. You go blowing holes in everything it makes you dangerous to those around you and it is a terrible waste of ammo.

Killing in self defense is not murder. Nobody has the right to tell you, you can not defend yourself or your family. Any Government who won't let you defend your home from attack is an evil Government.



posted on Aug, 30 2007 @ 12:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by Xtrozero



To your question, a well regulated Militia is actually the National Guard.


So the founding fathers were referring to something that didn't exist at that time?

Not quite.



posted on Aug, 30 2007 @ 12:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by AnAbsoluteCreation
But 90 to every 100. Crazy.


I agree completely.

What's the heck is wrong with those other ten people.



posted on Aug, 30 2007 @ 12:46 AM
link   
Its my right to buy an AK47. Which I did... now only if the ammo was as popular as the .223



posted on Aug, 30 2007 @ 12:58 AM
link   
Not secluded, just plenty of land. I wouild not want to be in a metro area or suburb if something happened. I would go to my in laws on a few acres with plenty of rifles and handguns for protection. They have a deep well, and septic. Gas appliances Also, a lake for food and as an escape point if needed.

The problem is not those who would use for defense, but those who would use for ill gain. For that, I would rather not do urban warfare door to door. That is the pov I meant.

No matter what you have, a plan is the most important thing. It becomes instinct like you said. More people, more danger. I would go to where the neighbors all do know each other and would band together.



[edit on 30-8-2007 by esdad71]



posted on Aug, 30 2007 @ 01:08 AM
link   
reply to post by Agit8dChop
 


Oh no he didn't!


I got a bucket of balls & enough hair on them to weave an indian blanket, but what I don't have is the desire to sit in a fema camp for attempting to swat a terradactal with a fly swatter. In time my friend. In time...

AAC



posted on Aug, 30 2007 @ 01:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by iori_komei
if people wanted to fight in a war zone they would
join the military,


Not exactly. Many people would never consider joining the military, however, when it's time to defend their homeland they would do so without hesitation.



posted on Aug, 30 2007 @ 01:37 AM
link   

The OP's source - news.yahoo.com

many poorer countries often associated with violence ranked much lower. Nigeria, for instance, had just one gun per 100 people.


And look at where they're at? So few guns and all that violence. I guess it's the armed militiants that make up that 1/100.

Anyways, it seems as if the countries with fewer guns are the one's with the most disorder and corruption. Africa, South America.......

[edit on 30/8/2007 by SportyMB]



posted on Aug, 30 2007 @ 02:36 AM
link   
Sorry, but I beat you to the post. Please contribute to the orginal thread.

www.belowtopsecret.com...



posted on Aug, 30 2007 @ 05:45 AM
link   
That wasnt much of a suprise, in Australia firearms are illegal.



posted on Aug, 30 2007 @ 06:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Xtrozero

Originally posted by budski
[Pure freedom?
In the US?
With one of the most controlling, insidious and manipulative governments
So where is the need for a well regulated militia?
Especially given the power of modern weapons of war - you think you're going to stop a tank with a hunting rifle?


Can you tell me of a country that offers more attainable life choices for the common citizen than the US?

To your question, a well regulated Militia is actually the National Guard.


Attainable life choices are not "pure freedom".
Attainable life choices are the culmination of a series of economic events - then of course once you have the income you're heavily taxed on it to fuel GWB's imperialistic ambitions.
Then when you go to spend the disposable income, you're restricted in what you can and can't buy, and then taxed again.

And the well regulated militia being the national guard means you don't need privately owned guns in such huge numbers - of course wanting them is different from needing them.



posted on Aug, 30 2007 @ 08:00 AM
link   
I have several guns and I bought them to take care of my love ones. I live in the mountains. We have very little crime because most everybody has a shotgun and a pistol.

I would say that most people have a gun because of the FEAR tactics that our goverment uses on us daily. Have you looked at the news recently and just counted what was fear based and what is not? Check it out and you will see that most Americans are waiting for the next FEAR based calamity to happen and when it does they want to be ready. Although having a gun probably will not help. When Katrina went through New Orleans, Our Government took the guns away from the American public and then the thugs got to use their guns for looting.

I myself will keep my guns for protection against thugs and to keep my government in control. If a person does not have a gun, Who will keep his government from turning into a Dictatorship? Seems by allowing Executive Oders and Vetoes in the Whitehouse, We are getting close to a Dictatorship anyhow. I don't think our Constitution gave our Goverment as much Power as they are taking. They are not listening to the people but just run it as a professional politician would run it. Whoever puts more cash in their pocket, gets the favors done.

I do love America, and I would fight for it, but everyday I see our Government taking more rights away from us. It also is very corrupt.



posted on Aug, 30 2007 @ 01:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by slackerwire

Originally posted by Xtrozero



To your question, a well regulated Militia is actually the National Guard.


So the founding fathers were referring to something that didn't exist at that time?

Not quite.


No grasshopper,

The founding fathers were referring to American citizens as the militia, but as you asked, can I put up a fight with my hunting rifle against tank, and the answer is no. This is why the National Guard is our civilian Militia, and why the average civilian owning guns to support a militia call up has been obsolete for a long time.



posted on Aug, 30 2007 @ 01:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by budski

Attainable life choices are not "pure freedom".


Ok, maybe I missed spoke when saying pure freedom which would in the basic meaning be total anarchy, but in any case freedoms generate life choices.



posted on Aug, 30 2007 @ 02:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xtrozero

No grasshopper,

The founding fathers were referring to American citizens as the militia, but as you asked, can I put up a fight with my hunting rifle against tank, and the answer is no. This is why the National Guard is our civilian Militia, and why the average civilian owning guns to support a militia call up has been obsolete for a long time.


Well cockroach, evidently your definition of militia needs a little work.
There are in fact 2 types of militia: the organized (NG) and the unorganized (We the people) . The United States Code provides definitions for each of them if you care to look.

Unfortunately for you, the 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with people only bearing arms while acting in the role of a militiaman.



posted on Aug, 30 2007 @ 03:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by AnAbsoluteCreation
But 90 to every 100. Crazy.


I agree. This means that 10 to every 100 people need to get with the program and acquire a gun. Just kidding!

I don't have an issue with anybody owning a gun as long as they are obeying the laws and practicing safety. I personally will never own a gun. Where I grew up (rural US) we had to have guns and other tools to help feed the family. Hunting is not a sport but a way to feed hungry people. Now that I live in the big city of Kansas City, MO I don't need to hunt.



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join