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.

 

Gun Control and Freedom

page: 4
0
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 1 2004 @ 05:22 PM
link   


so what your saying is that as long as everyone in society is holding a gun up to the head of everyone else there will be no crime. i


NO what I am saying is if the animal thinks he will get his ass blown off he will be less likely to attack an innocent person to begain with. And if he does anyway and gets his ass blown off it is just one less animal for my wife and daughters to fear when they are alone.




posted on Mar, 1 2004 @ 05:45 PM
link   
The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.
--Thomas Jefferson

A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government.
--Edward Abbey


nuff said



posted on Mar, 2 2004 @ 05:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Amuk
NO what I am saying is if the animal thinks he will get his ass blown off he will be less likely to attack an innocent person to begain with. And if he does anyway and gets his ass blown off it is just one less animal for my wife and daughters to fear when they are alone.

Animals arent that clever so it makes your whole arguement pointless.



posted on Mar, 2 2004 @ 05:55 AM
link   
Your ignoring the facts is pointless, Flier. Where we have the worst crime is where we have the strictest gun laws. Where we have little restriction, we have much less crime. Simple. The rogues look for the weakest target. In a society like southeast Alabama, where both my 5 foot tall wife and I carry, it makes it much more difficult to determine who the weakest of the herd is.

But again, the right to keep and bear arms has nothing to do with self protection. That was covered under Life Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness.



posted on Mar, 2 2004 @ 07:07 AM
link   
"False is the idea of utility that sacrifices a thousand real advantages for one imaginary or trifling inconvenience; that would take fire from men because it burns, and water because one may drown in it; that has no remedy for evils, except destruction. The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm those only who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Can it be supposed that those who have the courage to violate the most sacred laws of humanity, the most important of the code, will respect the less important and arbitrary ones, which can be violated with ease and impunity, and which, if strictly obeyed, would put an end to personal liberty -- so dear to men, so dear to the enlightened legislator -- and subject innocent persons to all the vexations that the quality alone ought to suffer? Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man. They ought to be designated as laws not preventive but fearful of crimes, produced by the tumultuous impression of a few isolated facts, and not by thoughtful consideration of the inconveniences and advantages of a universal decree."

-Thomas Jefferson Quoting 18th Century criminologist Cesare Beccaria in On Crimes and Punishment (1764) [Kates,"Handgun Prohibition and the Original Meaning of the Second Amendment," 82 Michigan Law Revue 203,234 (1983)]



posted on Mar, 8 2004 @ 03:38 PM
link   
I think some of the resistance to gun ownership comes from those who have never held/owned a gun. I bet that would change if the mandatory service requirement rumored to be in the works happens.



posted on Mar, 8 2004 @ 03:47 PM
link   
I've never held/owned a gun...and I am completely against gun control...I am going to buy one sooner or later.



posted on Mar, 8 2004 @ 08:21 PM
link   
You cannot seriously think that by owning a gun that you can protect yourself from the US government. A militia could not protect themselves from a Ranger or SEAL unit anyday. Plus, the goverment has the money to buy better guns than you can, even if you do have access to them. To me, that argument is completely moot. If there is ever a state of tyrannical marshall law and it has the backing of the US military, then no gun that you have will be able to truly protect you.



posted on Mar, 8 2004 @ 08:33 PM
link   
You guys realize how easy it is to take a gun from somebody when their holding it to you?

Chances are that your only going to hurt yourself with a gun against a criminal. If they wanted to, they could've brought a gun with them and killed you before you even have a chance to pull yours.

My point is, your probably only making things worse on youself when you pull a gun on a criminal because chances are they already have one, and if they don't they will soon. Police have alot more experience at stopping crime than you do.

Why don't you go ask a parent of a child who killed himself with their gun about gun control.



posted on Mar, 8 2004 @ 08:44 PM
link   
You guys realize how easy it is to take a gun from somebody when their holding it to you?

Oh, really? When was the last time you tried this and were succesful? That's in the movies, buddy...no one is going to mess with someone who is holding a gun to their head in REAL life.

Chances are that your only going to hurt yourself with a gun against a criminal. If they wanted to, they could've brought a gun with them and killed you before you even have a chance to pull yours.

Uhhh...yes? And what? If they had a gun anyway, they were planning on using it. If someone broke into my house with a gun, I would definetly rather have a gun than not...I would have a much better survival chance than trying to tackle the guy.

My point is, your probably only making things worse on youself when you pull a gun on a criminal because chances are they already have one, and if they don't they will soon. Police have alot more experience at stopping crime than you do.

Yea, chances are they have one, you pull your gun first, they won't go for theirs...if you have no gun, then you have no defense. And the cops are always late or off doing something else. You would be dead by the time they got there.

Why don't you go ask a parent of a child who killed himself with their gun about gun control.
Or maybe ask the parent WHY they have loaded and accessible guns in the house with children who have no gun experience? This is due to stupidity on the parent's part, it was THEIR decision to bring a gun into the house, it didn't just magically appear and shoot their kid. Tragic, yes, but it could have been prevented with proper precautions.


[Edited on 8-3-2004 by Shoktek]



posted on Mar, 8 2004 @ 10:38 PM
link   
Shotek: excellent rebuttals! I think it's safe to say the founding fathers never imagined weapons of the caliber that exist or are planned today. The 2nd amendment protects our right to bear arms but it's the hope that soldiers would ultimately choose right versus wrong in the case of turning their weapons against the citizenry that would protect us nowadays. Let's hope we never find out.



posted on Mar, 9 2004 @ 04:58 PM
link   
let the police do all the protecting? that would only make for complacent citizenry. The responsiblity of ownership is the same kind of responsiblity that encourages voting.

and the end to that complacency would stop the us from being able to use its special forces against ordinary citizenry.



posted on Mar, 9 2004 @ 08:56 PM
link   
Gun ownership is the key to a democratic and free country, in my humble opinion. Someone who owns a gun is a citizen, someone who doesn't, a subject. Not to mention, what right does the government have telling me what I can and cannot due with my property on my property as long as I'm not harming anyone, commiting conspiracy, breaking laws, etc. A gun, in my opinion, is the ultimate way to tell the government to go shove it. The Founding Fathers realized this and specifically included it in the constitution in order to have a final check and balance against tyranical government (refer to signature).



posted on Mar, 9 2004 @ 09:08 PM
link   


Oh, really? When was the last time you tried this and were succesful? That's in the movies, buddy...no one is going to mess with someone who is holding a gun to their head in REAL life.


If you asked me personally, no, I haven't disarmed somebody. But somebody with training will know how to and wont be afraid, I've seen the techniques on doing it before.

Lets take a pragmatic approach to this. Middle of the night you wake up after hearing the door slam shut or open or break or whatever. You get up immediately, and first thing you do? Grab your gun? Run down stairs with the lights still off and then what? Shoot at the first thing that moves?

Get serious, if a criminal has the guts to break into your house while your home, your not going to know 1.) because you have been killed 2.)you simply don't hear them.

So where does the gun come in?

I'm not against gun ownership, but the way you talk about it, its like if you don't own a gun your not.. I can't even describe it. And the way you think your gun could stop a tyrranical government...



posted on Mar, 9 2004 @ 09:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrJingles
I'm not against gun ownership, but the way you talk about it, its like if you don't own a gun your not.. I can't even describe it. And the way you think your gun could stop a tyrranical government...


No, I don't think guns are any match against the government if they really want to get you...but MrJingles...lets say a gunman breaks into your house with your family with the intent to kill you. You're saying you would rather be unarmed in this situation?

[Edited on 9-3-2004 by Shoktek]



posted on Mar, 9 2004 @ 09:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by meddled
You cannot seriously think that by owning a gun that you can protect yourself from the US government. A militia could not protect themselves from a Ranger or SEAL unit anyday. Plus, the goverment has the money to buy better guns than you can, even if you do have access to them. To me, that argument is completely moot. If there is ever a state of tyrannical marshall law and it has the backing of the US military, then no gun that you have will be able to truly protect you.



I would think that the Rangers or SEALs would be a last resort or used if the militias were in an open area away from a population. The government would more likely use shock troops to bust up our resistance movement, and the key wouldnt be engaging them on equal footing but more likely guerilla style pot shot campaigns. Its cowardly and lowly yes but its the only way you could survive. Oh and I dont think were gonna need it cause I dont see the government trying to strip guns away just yet.



posted on Mar, 9 2004 @ 09:50 PM
link   
Not that the 2nd amendment has anything to do with home security against burglars, but we'll go down that path.
Criminals are not that bright, nor are they that well-trained. They do not get together in the Burglars' Guild Clubhouse and practice disarming the homeowner.

Statistics clearly and undeniably indicate that being a passive victim is many more times likely to get you hurt or killed, and that fighting back greatly increases your odds. The criminal looks for the weakest of society, not the strongest.

By the way, as a point of interest, a manager of a burger joint was making a night drop at a local bank, when a would-be robber approached him and demanded the money. The manager said "No", and the robber pulled a gun. The manager pulled one of his own and shot the stupid criminal. Chalk one up for the good guys. Happens all the time throughout the country. Had he been unarmed and passive, what would have happened? Many cases have shown that the criminal takes advantage of having his victim at his mercy and injures him. Sometimes they don't stop at injury.

As far as children being killed with handguns, many many more are killed by vehicle accidents and bycicles. Let's not be stupid, huh?



posted on Mar, 9 2004 @ 09:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Agent47

I would think that the Rangers or SEALs would be a last resort or used if the militias were in an open area away from a population. The government would more likely use shock troops to bust up our resistance movement, and the key wouldnt be engaging them on equal footing but more likely guerilla style pot shot campaigns. Its cowardly and lowly yes but its the only way you could survive. Oh and I dont think were gonna need it cause I dont see the government trying to strip guns away just yet.


I'm not implying that this will happen anytime soon. My point was that the argument for the right to have guns so that we can protect ourselves against the government is ridiculous in this day and age. Back when the Bill of Rights was produced, militia's probably would have equal footing with the military, but now, even with guerilla tactics, it would be fruitless.
One might think of Waco and provide an example there of at least putting up a marginally successful attempt to defy government intervention, but the main reason there wasn't a big strike was for the protection of the innocent and unarmed inside the compound. If you had a group that was fully aware of what it was doing, with all members armed and participating, the government would not hesitate to quickly and covertly end the problem using whatever force necessary.



posted on Mar, 9 2004 @ 10:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by meddled
One might think of Waco and provide an example there of at least putting up a marginally successful attempt to defy government intervention, but the main reason there wasn't a big strike was for the protection of the innocent and unarmed inside the compound. If you had a group that was fully aware of what it was doing, with all members armed and participating, the government would not hesitate to quickly and covertly end the problem using whatever force necessary.


Sad thing is that even the innocent werent protected, so much evidence conclusively points to gunshot wounds in many of the dead. My dad had a cousin who died at Waco, shot in the back 50 yards from the compound, who the hell explains that. Those rat bastards.



posted on Mar, 9 2004 @ 10:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Agent47

Sad thing is that even the innocent werent protected, so much evidence conclusively points to gunshot wounds in many of the dead. My dad had a cousin who died at Waco, shot in the back 50 yards from the compound, who the hell explains that. Those rat bastards.


Wow, that really sucks. I'm sorry to hear that. Even if there was sense of confusion about who was what side, that is no excuse to gun down civilians outside of the compound who are unarmed and pose no threat.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join