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.

 

Survey: Should we be allowed to have guns?

page: 4
4
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 21 2008 @ 04:42 PM
link   
reply to post by hackbart
 



as i said, i don't care much about braindead gun-fanatics like you. you'll learn your leasson sooner or later. go out shoot somebody, get shot, play around with you guns, feel good about it...


No need to make it personal. But since your inability to debate the subject logically, based upon the merits of your position, has been exposed by your ignorant degeneration to personal sniping, allow me to retort.

"What does Marcellus Wallace look like?"

I do not own a firearm presently, so I am hardly a fanatic, despite the fact that I have been shot. I happened to be unarmed at the time as well.




...i'd just liked to point out that you have unbelieveable high rate of homicides, which is related mostly to your gun laws.


"English *snip*! Do you speak it?!"

I have already explained to you that the high murder rate in this country is led by the cities with the strictest gun laws.



so in order to protect yourself from your goverment you would need tanks, artillery, missiles, chemical weapons, or whatever.


Tell that to the Iraqi insurgents.



...also, maybe, just maybe try to keep your goverment in check by electing the right party/people.


There is no "right" party or person anymore. That's why I am a consciencous objector to voting. That is also exactly why it has never been more important for the citizens to be armed.

In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915-1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. In 1929 the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, approximately 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, 13 million Jews, gypsies, homosexuals, the mentally ill, and others, who were unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million "educated" people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.




Mod Edit: Profanity/Circumvention Of Censors – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 21-3-2008 by GAOTU789]

[edit on 21-3-2008 by GAOTU789]




posted on Mar, 21 2008 @ 05:12 PM
link   
reply to post by hackbart
 




Been here almost a year and just now breaking into double digits, this person knows it all.

Better put me on ignore. It's mentally safer for you than having me logically beat you like a rag doll.

This is why kids shouldn't play with adults ...




posted on Mar, 21 2008 @ 05:15 PM
link   
you're mixing up a few things here.

of course a goverment is going to disarm it's citizens legally, if possible, when they plan something like a mass murder, but that doesn't mean on the other hand that guns will prevent this. they just went the way of less resistance, which is logical. so your examples are pretty pointless, IMO.

i won't add much more to the topic as i made my point clear and got insulted from the start, which resulted in my reaction in calling the ones "braindead". like it or not, i wasn't refering to all posters!

but one more thing i would like to know:

what is in your opinion responsible for the high rate of murder in you country, if not guns? because that's the main difference between european countrys and the us.

(for the english *snip* part: i speak 4 different languages, english isn't may native language. i believe you can't speak or write anything except english, so please don't lean yourself too far out of the window.)

[edit on 21-3-2008 by hackbart]

Mod Edit: Profanity/Circumvention Of Censors – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 21-3-2008 by GAOTU789]



posted on Mar, 21 2008 @ 05:21 PM
link   
reply to post by hackbart
 


Ah, you're back ...

Guns are not responsible for killing. People are - and they don't need guns to do it.

Look at the UK, for example. Their government banned the guns, and now they're also having to ban swords and knives because the criminals just started using the next weapon they could get their hands on.

So, when you mispell a word (in any of your 4 languages), is it you that is guilty of the mispellings - or is it your keyboard?. Think about your answer carefully ...




[edit on 3/21/2008 by centurion1211]



posted on Mar, 21 2008 @ 05:47 PM
link   
reply to post by hackbart
 




what is in your opinion responsible for the high rate of murder in you country, if not guns? because that's the main difference between european countrys and the us.


Lack of government appeasement in the form of social services, as is quite prevelant in Europe, and a corresponding lack of meaningful employment because we are being robbed by the European banking elites.



(for the english *snip* part: i speak 4 different languages, english isn't may native language. i believe you can't speak or write anything except english, so please don't lean yourself too far out of the window.)


Perhaps I was a bit harsh. Those quotes were in reference to an American cinematic classic glorifying gun violence and crime.

(Advisory: Content may not be suitable for younger members.)

Pulp Fiction (referenced scene)










[edit on 3/21/0808 by jackinthebox]

[edit on 3/21/0808 by jackinthebox]



posted on Mar, 21 2008 @ 06:47 PM
link   
Yes. Beyond question. It is OUR Bill of Rights. If the government doesn't view the second amendment as a threat to their authority, why would they constantly vote to infringe on this right ? Frequent ref to 'law abiding' , I wonder about this view. I have a few friends that are convicted felons. One a former CEO busted for embezzlement. Two with felony drug charges. '___' a zillion years ago and the other for growing pot. Should they not have the ability to defend self and family with a weapon ( gun ) ? Moral question.



posted on Mar, 21 2008 @ 07:07 PM
link   
reply to post by hackbart
 


Are you suggesting simply because we stand no equal chance that we should just bend over?

I'm an American, Our country is *snip* up I know this we all know this, But let you never forget, America has done both good and bad, and in both categories we have handed the world there ass on a silver platter ten fold...

Fighting and unwinnable battle, Is one that all Americans will one day face, Unwinnable it may be, but unjust it is not, Freedom is worth fighting for, For whatever the odds that are stacked against it.

But then again I'm born of descendents who fought and left behind the tyranny of Europe.

And not a descendent of cowards who bent over for it.


""Americans love to fight. All real Americans love the sting of battle.""George S. Patton


[edit on 21-3-2008 by C0le]

Mod Edit: Profanity/Circumvention Of Censors – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 22-3-2008 by GAOTU789]



posted on Mar, 21 2008 @ 08:57 PM
link   


I'm an American, Our country is *snip* up I know this we all know this, But let you never forget, America has done both good and bad.

I'm an american, I'm proud yes. But our country is fighting over sad things, pointless things. We're killing young kids, women, and yes insurgents. Our country is *snip* up. It's bad, but we still have clean water and clothes, we still have food... we can drive. They can't even drive without getting rammed.

American Humvee driving in Iraq. We can't stop! Sad....



Fighting and unwinnable battle, Is one that all Americans will one day face, Unwinnable it may be, but unjust it is not, Freedom is worth fighting for, For whatever the odds that are stacked against it.
But then again I'm born of descendents who fought and left behind the tyranny of Europe.

And not a descendent of cowards who bent over for it.


thats classic

I'm proud to be of Irish and German descent.
My granpa was sniper in Nam. My ancestors came to america to escape slavery. My great great grandfather was an Irish slave.


We want guns, and they're ok for hunting by me. But if we want to andvance with technology we need to stop killing animals. We have to adapt eco-friendly cars, and we have them right now. How would you like one of these.
Hybrid car get 300 mpg. You can buy one for under 30k.


Haha, sorry


[edit on 21-3-2008 by sumperson]

[edit on 21-3-2008 by sumperson]

Mod Edit: Profanity/Circumvention Of Censors – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 22-3-2008 by GAOTU789]



posted on Mar, 21 2008 @ 09:35 PM
link   
Also, one more thing.

I think that we should be allowed to have guns because we should be allowed to use them in self defense during a robbery or in any other similar crime. We should not be forced to withdraw our right to have guns. I do believe, however, that if we took guns out of the hands of crazy people that there would be less of a crime rate in the US. Perhaps we should do personality tests on people to see who can or can't have guns.



posted on Mar, 21 2008 @ 10:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Frankidealist35
 


How can you judge a sane man from a crazy?


Guns are dangerous no matter who's hands they're in.



posted on Mar, 22 2008 @ 08:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by C0le
reply to post by hackbart
 


Are you suggesting simply because we stand no equal chance that we should just bend over?

I'm an American, Our country is #ed up I know this we all know this, But let you never forget, America has done both good and bad, and in both categories we have handed the world there ass on a silver platter ten fold...

Fighting and unwinnable battle, Is one that all Americans will one day face, Unwinnable it may be, but unjust it is not, Freedom is worth fighting for, For whatever the odds that are stacked against it.

But then again I'm born of descendents who fought and left behind the tyranny of Europe.

And not a descendent of cowards who bent over for it.


""Americans love to fight. All real Americans love the sting of battle.""George S. Patton


[edit on 21-3-2008 by C0le]


no, im suggesting to prevent this from happen before it's too late, with diplomacy and by using your brain, instead of going on a random killing spree. but preventation isn't as easy as pulling a trigger. especially when people are poor and out of hope they are easy to manipulate. history told us.

also, i'd like to add that self-justice seems to be they way to go for americans, but this stands in contradiction to the rest of the world. the police is there to protect the people, even if they can't be anywhere in a second, it's not an argument to lean towards self-justice.

a robber is a robber, not a murderer. if someone has stolen something from you (for whatever reason), you don't have the right to kill him, that's a even worst crime, and you should go in jail for it. stealing doesn't equal murdering...

there are very few people who go around and kill humans randomly. i think most robbers (not to excuse them) carry guns because they are affraid to get shot, same as the people who carry guns because they are affraid to get shot by a robber, that's a spiral of death. just give these lowlifes the money they need and hope the police catches them, and in probably 90% of the cases nobody would get hurt, that's all you can do.






[edit on 22-3-2008 by hackbart]



posted on Mar, 22 2008 @ 09:27 AM
link   
Hold on guys (and gals)!

Lets stop, think and articulate our positions to each other without the personal attacks.

If you believe in gun control laws because of your general outlook in life: that’s fine, just say so. Nobody here has to defend their positions as “valid”. Everyone’s opinion is valid here, even if we don’t agree. Conversely, engaging in nasty, vitriolic character-assassination attempts does nothing for articulating your position.

In fact, you minimize yourself in one fell-swoop.

Personally, I think there is a heck of a lot of evidence that “gun control” does not work. History has taught this lesson over and over again, IMO. I think any objective observer has to acknowledge so-called gun control has utterly failed every time it’s attempted. The logical (and schizophrenically so) corrective action is, of course, more gun control laws which are also doomed to failure.

Here’s why: firearms have zero to do with what you (the collective you) are trying to regulate. In reality, anti-gun legislation is a form of morality legislation. That is, trying to legislate people into a certain form of behavior. Specifically: attempting to legislate against murder, suicide, violence, etc. As history has shown since the dawn of man, you can’t force – through laws – moral actions upon an electorate. You’ll find that murder, adultery, cheating, driving under the influence, etc, etc is illegal in every state, county and parish. It still happens. Why? The same reason prohibition failed miserably and the so-called drug war is never going to be won. People, simply put, are people. We are imperfect and subject to imperfect thinking. In the end: morality laws never work and the proffered solution is typically just one more law. Which, of course, fails to address the perceived problem and leads to - yet again – further calls for more laws.

In the end, you have law abiders, and law breakers. The fallacy in thought is that gun owners are potential law breakers equipped with deadly tools. That same logic should apply to car owners: after all, you’re only one drink away from committing manslaughter with your car, right? If you further extrapolate that logic, people should not be allowed to vote because we can’t trust them to be informed or make the “right” decision. This form of invasive thinking can be carried to the ninth degree.

Europe has a centuries-long, “government-provides-to-the-people” style of government. They have a tradition of subjecting themselves – willingly – to a ruling class. That’s fine; no underhanded attempts at an insult here. In their self-chosen way of governing, the average citizen expects the government to protect them from cradle to grave. Gun control (although I do not agree with it) makes sense across the pond if you factor in this way of thinking. The idea that the citizenry would want to oppose the government is not in the deck of cards for the average European.

America was founded on a basic rejection (religious persecution and taxes were also a factor but stay with me here) of this belief. We can govern ourselves. The government gets it’s power from us, not the other way around.

The second amendment has absolutely nothing to do with hunting. The Second Amendment was specifically designed to provide a means for the people to oppose the government.. It’s not about hunting, it’s not about target shooting, it’s not about gun and rod clubs. It’s about the right of the people to resist an oppressive government. Period.

In closing, can we agree to disagree? Can we agree that what works for you may not work for me? Can we leave the nasty comments for another time?


P.S. This place is full of articulate, well-reasoned people. There are many strong-willed, opinionated, thinking posters. If you’re going to post statistical charts, make darn sure it’s correct and in complete context. If not, you’re going top get called to the carpet within a nano-second.



posted on Mar, 22 2008 @ 10:00 AM
link   
reply to post by hackbart
 



no, im suggesting to prevent this from happen before it's too late, with diplomacy and by using your brain, instead of going on a random killing spree.


I understand your point. Your making the assumption that whomever you might engage in a "dialogue" with is interested in talking in the first place. You are also assuming that diplomacy solves everything. How did diplomacy work out for Europe before WWI & WWII? Appeasers get overrun. That's a history lesson, IMO, not open to wishful thinking.

Also, why do you make the assumption that a gun owner wants to kill anyone? Again, with that logic, anyone who owns a car is just waiting to have a few drinks and have a nice, drunken killing spree.

Finally, your insinuation that those who own guns are less intelligent is noted, and rejected.


also, I’d like to add that self-justice seems to be they way to go for Americans, but this stands in contradiction to the rest of the world. the police is there to protect the people, even if they can't be anywhere in a second, it's not an argument to lean towards self-justice.


Your argument of "self-justice" leaves out the checks and balances our legal system holds. If someone kills someone else in so-called self defense and it's later proven they did not, they are charged with murder and prosecuted.

As far as contradiction to the rest of the world: that's a straw man and irrelevant. Europe may be self-content (as history has shown for the last couple hundred years) to subject itself to an elite ruling class and that the government should supply you with everything you could possibly need (including personal security and safety!) but we reject that thinking.

About the police being there to protect you; you're flat-out wrong. At least in this country. This is decided Supreme Court precedence. The police, in this country, are employed to enforce the laws, they are not operating as personal security details. The Supreme Court has ruled - more than once - that the responsibility for security and safety resides with the individual.



a robber is a robber, not a murderer. if someone has stolen something from you (for whatever reason), you don't have the right to kill him, that's a even worst crime, and you should go in jail for it. stealing doesn't equal murdering


Again, that's European thinking. Nothing wrong with it, per se. But, it's not our thinking and we are not barbarians for having our own beliefs. In this country - as established by law when someone forcefully enters your home, they forfeit certain rights and the homeowner is granted with certain liberties. Specifically, in most states, if someone is stupid enough to break and enter my home and I feel my life, or anyone else within the premises, is in jeopardy I can, in fact, use deadly force to protect my life and property.

The fault isn't my guns, it's with the idiot who thought it wise to break into my home. And that, my friend, is the difference between European thinking and typically American thinking.

There is a really simple solution to the violence. Don't break into my house.



there are very few people who go around and kill humans randomly. i think most robbers (not to excuse them) carry guns because they are afraid to get shot, same as the people who carry guns because they are afraid to get shot by a robber, that's a spiral of death.


Your position is criminals carry guns to protect themselves from law abiding citizens who might prevent them from killing a loved one or stealing property that isn't theirs?! Again, don't rob me, don't break into my home and you wont get shot.

Criminals use/carry guns as tools in which to force themselves upon us. They are not operating under the same sense of right and wrong you and I do. To think if we only gave up our guns so would they is preposterous, IMO.



these lowlifes the money they need and hope the police catches them, and in probably 90% of the cases nobody would get hurt, that's all you can do.


If that is your philosophy, that's great. I have no quibble with that. That's your opinion and fine by me.

But, it's not for me. I refuse to give in. I am not going to allow some thug to jeopardize my family’s safety, liberty and pursuit of happiness because he might be misunderstood.


[edit on 22-3-2008 by SlightlyAbovePar]



posted on Mar, 22 2008 @ 10:52 AM
link   
Hey folks, just read the title of the thread and I have to say, it kinda jumped right out at me. "She we be allowed"? I thought about that question for a few minutes. Then it really hit me, just how far the battle to remove the rights for which so many have given so much has come.

As I have stated in other threads on the subject, the reason we are "allowed" to be armed as citizens is two-fold.

1. The people of the United States must always have the power to remove a corrupt, unjust government. That means we must retain comparable armament to that under the control of the government. This is the biggest reason that government has tried so hard to disarm the public. The control of this country has always been at the hands of the people. Yes, we have had secret powers in control of logistics but the people have always held the trump card. The turn of the century marked a change in values and as the demographics begin to change, this power has become more unstable and unsavory to those secret power players. Thus the accelerated push for the removal of this right.

2. To remove weapons from the public depends on the publics willingness to comply with rule of law. People who invade homes with or without guns ignore rule of law already. How, can we therefore make the case that passing a law to remove weapons makes us safer from crime when its obvious to anyone with capacity for thought that those same criminals would also fail to obey that rule of law. The answer to this delima resides of the side of punishment which we have seemed to lesson under law in the last few years.

Why would a government which tells us they are removing weapons to protect us go so much easier on those committing crimes? Its almost like they want to promote such crime. Who's purpose would that serve? Hmmm. Might that make us run faster toward giving up arms if we are told that doing so would stop such crime?

Ladies and gentlemen, removing guns from the homes of those whom choose to positively contribute to society doesn't make us safer. It makes us sitting ducks.


So, I am thankful that the self-righteous powers that be have decided that I am "allowed" to retain a liberty written into the fabric on which my country was founded. But, I have to take issue with their authority to make such a decision and I think I shall remove that burden from them, since it seems to be the source of such stress. I am not alone in that endeavor.

The final sign a government has become too powerful is that it takes an official position to remove that ability of the people. Remember, the Declaration of Independence states that the removal of a governing body should not be taken lightly and only be done in last resort (albeit not in those words) so we put up with a great deal nonesense from our government and still carry on...because we still hold the trump card.



posted on Mar, 22 2008 @ 11:32 AM
link   
reply to post by hackbart
 




a robber is a robber, not a murderer. if someone has stolen something from you (for whatever reason), you don't have the right to kill him, that's a even worst crime, and you should go in jail for it. stealing doesn't equal murdering...

there are very few people who go around and kill humans randomly. i think most robbers (not to excuse them) carry guns because they are affraid to get shot, same as the people who carry guns because they are affraid to get shot by a robber, that's a spiral of death. just give these lowlifes the money they need and hope the police catches them, and in probably 90% of the cases nobody would get hurt, that's all you can do.


Let me share a little story with you. I was working at a gas station one night, when I was still in my teens. A guy walked in just before closing time with his pistol already drawn. This wasn't the first time I had been robbed at gun-point, so I was able to maintain my composure and not add any emotional outburst to the volatile situtation.

After I had handed over a few thousand dollars in cash, the robber said, "What, you think you're better than me 'cause you got a job?!" and fired at me. The first round missed, but I was hit in the arm as I turned to run. Just then, my coworker burst out of the back room with a pistol in his hand, and shot the robber dead with one shot to the head.

There were a few problems though. It seemed a clear case of justifiable homicide, but it was not. My coworker was only 17 at the time. The pistol he used was not registered. His father (the store owner) had left the tiny Kurz backup pistol in the store ever since being robbed less than a year earlier.

So there you have it. Because of idiotic gun laws, my friend went to prison for saving my life.



posted on Mar, 22 2008 @ 08:57 PM
link   
Peace through equal firepower - the balance

It is often a difficult concept for people, but it has proven true time and time again on the Nuclear battlefield.

This should make it easier to understand why all weapons (sidearms/rifles) in the commission of the home Government should be available to the people.


Mutual assured destruction (MAD) is a doctrine of military strategy in which a full-scale use of weapons by two opposing sides would effectively result in the destruction of both the attacker and the defender.[1] It is based on the theory of deterrence according to which the deployment of strong weapons is essential to threaten the enemy in order to prevent the use of the very same weapons. The strategy is effectively a form of Nash equilibrium, in which both sides are attempting to avoid their worst possible outcome

The doctrine assumes that each side has enough weaponry to destroy the other side and that either side, if attacked for any reason by the other, would retaliate with equal or greater force. The expected result is an immediate escalation resulting in both combatants' total and assured destruction.

The doctrine further assumes that neither side will dare to launch a first strike because the other side will launch on warning (also called fail-deadly) or with secondary forces (second strike) resulting in the destruction of both parties. The payoff of this doctrine is expected to be a tense but stable peace.


en.wikipedia.org...

The stuff about MAD was from Wikipedia by the way - sorry long day at work



[edit on 22-3-2008 by KMFNWO]



posted on Mar, 22 2008 @ 11:40 PM
link   
Absolutely we should have them. This case before the Supreme Court now about the Washington DC firearm ban could be the case that decides the issue once and for all. There will be no more vagueries for anti-gun lawyers and lobby groups to manipulate.



posted on Mar, 23 2008 @ 02:08 AM
link   
reply to post by sumperson
 


Should?
Are you joking? I don't kneed any to ask anyone, not even the government, for this. I have as much right as they, the Government, do, if not more, to own guns. Since I am a collector, I own more then 300 and you can bet nobody is taking them from me, at least not while I'm still breathing and have my trigger finger.

As for your question:
a) If it's a moral issue that you have, then you should think about it and come up with the answer that you are more comfortable with...

b) If you are implying that we should ask permission from some outside source I would just remind you that I don't need to ask IT'S MY CONSTITUTIONAL UNALIENABLE RIGHT.



posted on Mar, 23 2008 @ 04:02 AM
link   
reply to post by hackbart
 





We Americans are fortunate enough that we have a written constitution authored by men who knew what it was like to be caught without a means of defending ones self. They believed in checks and balances. An armed population capable of defending itself is not easily enslaved.

I don't know what European country that you hail from, but here in America it is not all lollipops and pinwheels. There are places here where you can instantly lose your life at any given time. Random and violent crime is a daily occurance and there are those elements of our population who feed on the weaker and the unsuspecting. People that will rob, rape and exploit anyone they come across. And they are most certainly armed.

This country ain't all Disney Land and Beverly Hills as some of our friends across the pond may think. These are very dangerous times that we are living in. And no matter how much the anti-gun "let's just all get along" crowd want's to not believe it, reality is at your door step wheather you choose to acknowledge it or not.

The world is a dangerous place, and I rest easier at night knowing that I have access to a gun. I don't flaunt it or abuse the privelege at all, but there is something to be said for knowing that if I have to I can stop anything short of a mob within minutes...even seconds. Better to be able to protect your loves ones friend, it is truly better to have a gun and not need it than it is to need one and not have it.

But mostly I see it as my god given right, and since it is in our Bill of Rights it is the law and protected under the constitution and will continue to be so.

Guns don't kill people, criminals kill people




posted on Mar, 23 2008 @ 05:21 AM
link   
I for one, have none. I do however think that without them, the government would be able to take control very easily. It is my view that we should be weary of anyone who wants to see the public unarmed. I think that there would be far less shootings if the one doing it knew that there would be others shooting back. There is no better place to commit a crime than a "weapons free zone". We need to protect and be protected. To me living in the country, I feel better knowing that those who farm the land, can also protect others. We have never had a murder in the township with a firearm. We are close and even those who keep to themselves know that if anything even happened, there would be people there for them who would be willing to defend them. A public that is unarmed is vulnerable.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join