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.

 

Alright anti-gunners, lets have it out

page: 5
2
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 26 2008 @ 05:29 PM
link   
reply to post by cannonfodder
 


Pepper spray?????? You're kidding right?

a) Pepper spray requires you to get closer to the attacker/beast than a gun does.

b) Pepper spray is nowhere near 100% effective.

c) Should hikers and fishermen in Alaska really need to rely on pepper spray if a grizzly is attacking them?

Seriously kid, arguments like yours make anti gunners look more foolish than they already are.




posted on Jun, 26 2008 @ 05:37 PM
link   
reply to post by cannonfodder
 


The whole "someone might steal them" argument against private gun ownership isn't very strong. How many gun owners actually have their weapons stolen? Criminals will always get their hands on weapons anyway. I used to carry a zip-gun to school when I was in the fourth grade. You're never going to track down and secure every bullet and every gun. Therefore, I will fight for my right to keep the playing field level.

I'd be more pissed that my gun was stolen than I would be worried about it.



posted on Jun, 26 2008 @ 05:43 PM
link   
reply to post by slackerwire
 


The police don't even really use pepper-spray anymore due to its ineffeciency as a practical weapon.

But if you someone want to argue in favor of non-lethal weapons, they should ask themselves why civilians are not allowed to carry tasers in most places. The reason is that the argument is about control, not public safety. If it was really about safety, then people who live in a high crime area would be allowed to wear body armor, which also happens to be illegal in most places. A felony in fact. So not only is the citizen stripped of their right to defend themself with a firearm, but they are not even allowed to protect themself from a firearm.



posted on Jun, 27 2008 @ 01:31 AM
link   
I'd say that the whole argument that would go in favor of "Pro-Gun" people goes like this:

"Just because you anti-gun people don't want to have one in your home does not give you any Right to deny me to own whatever the Supreme Law of the Land entitles...For seeking & tasking to deny me my Rights puts you in violation of my Rights...Which is a felony offense of Constitutional Law. Since the Constitution places no limitations on the Peoples' Right to Bear Arms & Congress can "make no law abridging" my Rights or to "infringe" upon the 2nd Amendment, then no one under God can deny my due. You still have your freedom of choice to not Bear Arms, but you have no authority to deny me the same."

The 2nd Amendment specifically states that it is not merely a Right of US Citizens, but it does state the it is a Right of the People...All People! There is no argument, no philosophy, no law, no religion & no authority that can deny these simple, basic facts of Constitutional Law & the Laws of Nature as set forth by the Creator. This is a Creator-endowed Right & no one under the Creator can deny my Right to self defense.



posted on Jun, 29 2008 @ 05:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by cannonfodder

Buy some pepper spray. It works, and is not fatal.

Pepper spray? You want someone to take down a bear , person with pepper spray?



This is probably the hardest one to argue against. All I can say is most predators are threatened. Some countries have laws to compensate for predator damage. Still, a single shot rifle would work for those who have a rural lifestyle, and could be licensed as such. We could still ban pistols, semi-automatic, automatic, and anything with a clip.

Any reason your against semi's , etc?



I don't think a bunch of yahoos riding around of their quads with assault rifles qualifies. If you really want the primal experience of the hunt - use a bow and arrow. Otherwise, try Safeway.

Very quick to tar everyone with the same brush are you not?



Either you live in a dangerous place like Kabul, or your not very nice to have all those people wanting to harm you. Hopefully in your fear of others, no one pulls your weapon from behind and uses it on you.

Uhhh mate I live in the outskirts of Newcastle and I feel unsafe walking around what do you suggest I do? Carry a wad of money to pay my attackers off with? Please , you have no idea what it means to have no means of self defence. Just be glad you live in a country where you CAN defend yourself without being arrested. We cant even put someone under arrest here for fear of kidnapping charges.



I've stated several times you've got no hope against a blackhawk helicopter. Again... look at the Orange revolution - it is far more effective.

A blackhawk helicopter, does the US have one for every soldier........?



The US military spends more than the next 10 countries on military expenditures. I really don't think you have to worry about someone coming over.

No offence but that thinking made Britain almost lose the Falkland islands.


So some nut job can kill more innocents then ever before. Amen.

Just as a note, we banned guns after the Dunblane shooting and our gun crime soared and is still soaring....
Just because someone abuses a right does not mean you should take away that right.



posted on Jul, 2 2008 @ 01:14 AM
link   
cannonfodder
I have some questions for you. Have you considered the fact that guns in the right hands have the capability to save lives, and not just take them?

Additionally, have you considered the fact that guns are great force multipliers, and more importantly, force equalizers? Example: An unarmed, untrained, 5-foot tall woman has very little chance of surviving an assault committed by a 300 pound, 6-foot tall martial artist.

The same woman, with a gun in her possession, is every bit his equal. How is that not a good thing?

Give any two untrained people a gun, and they are effectively on neutral ground, even keel, or whatever other metaphor you prefer to describe parity. It doesn't matter if they're large or small, healthy or sick - if they can raise the gun and pull the trigger they can muster a very real threat to everyone around them.

You see the word threat and get all bunched up in the nether regions, I know, but don't worry.

It's not all bad.

Do you know anything about the animal kingdom?

Do you know, for example, that just about every animal on the face of the earth that can fight can also muster a threat display? Did you know that threat displays are ALWAYS the first recourse, before violence?

Do you know why that is?

It's because any animal worth its skin would rather expend a small bit of energy making a threat display (puffing up, dancing, hissing, etc.), than spend a great deal of energy and risk injury fighting.

You can't argue with evolution.

Humans evolve mostly by proxy these days, through their technology. Our technology allows even the weakest of us to hold our own against the strongest of us.

The world you envision might seem utopian and marvelous, but I don't see it the same way. I see your gunless utopia as a system ripe for abuse, where the strongest and most vicious members of society run rough-shod over their fellow citizens.

A well-armed society is a polite society, by necessity. Muscle-boy had better watch his mouth, and not bully those smaller and weaker than himself, or he might find himself unhappily on the business end of a snub nose coming out of an old woman's purse. I like it that way.

The answer isn't fewer guns, it's more guns. Everyone should have a gun, for their own good.

If a few holdout pacifists don't want to play ball, that's fine. Their loss. We'll pick up their slack..I guess...



posted on Jul, 2 2008 @ 01:19 AM
link   
Honestly if they decide to ban guns they should ban them for every country in the world. This would mean police, military, hunters and gangsters. If the government takes our guns away what protection do we have left to defend ourselves? They would be able to rule quickly.

Guns own!



posted on Jul, 3 2008 @ 04:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by WyrdeOne
Additionally, have you considered the fact that guns are great force multipliers, and more importantly, force equalizers?

This reminds me of the movie, "Quigley Down Under." In the movie, Quigley says, "God made all men, but Colt made them all equal."



Originally posted by WyrdeOne
Do you know anything about the animal kingdom?

Do you know, for example, that just about every animal on the face of the earth that can fight can also muster a threat display? Did you know that threat displays are ALWAYS the first recourse, before violence?

Of course...This is why the Bill of Rights are considered to be well within the realm of the "Laws of Nature as set forth by the Creator." Human beings don't have the naturally evolved weaponry or defenses known in the animal kingdom...Our best weapons & defenses are derived by our minds & made with our hands. We are not naturally formidable compared to the animals, but we are the only tool-making species that makes up for that lack. Yeah, yeah...There are quite a few animal species that make use of found tools, but we're the only species that makes our survival & prosperity depend upon made tools.



posted on Jul, 4 2008 @ 10:46 AM
link   
Wow... a lot of responses since last time. I apologize if I don't respond to everyone's points.

What I'm hearing, is that gun owners have fallen into the politics of fear. I'm afraid a bear will attack me. I'm afraid someone will break into my house in the middle of the night. Guns are the great equalizer, because I'm afraid that without it, I can't protect myself. Pepper spray isn't strong enough...

If you like being manipulated by fear, then by all means, clench your gun and scare others until they get one too. Beware, your shadow will be armed too.

Of course this works well for those selling the guns, who are incidently making obscence profits off of the deaths of our soldiers. Way to support the military industrial complex. Why stop senseless killing as long as the profits are good...

I have decided not to be afraid any more. I'm lucky enough to have never been attacked, and have stopped others from being attacked without needing a gun.

I also think that giving every idiot the capability of instant portable death is not the smartest thing. Sure there are brilliant, capable people in this world, but there are also a bunch of people I wouldn't trust with a stapler, much less a gun. The costs outweigh the gain. Let's get rid of them.

PS. Stop shipping them over the border - we have enough.

ca.news.yahoo.com...



posted on Jul, 4 2008 @ 12:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by MidnightDStroyer

Originally posted by WyrdeOne
Additionally, have you considered the fact that guns are great force multipliers, and more importantly, force equalizers?

This reminds me of the movie, "Quigley Down Under." In the movie, Quigley says, "God made all men, but Colt made them all equal."



Do guns make all people equal? What about quadrapalgics who can't bear or lift a gun? What about people with arthritis? What about someone who is a skilled marksman vs. someone who has never fired a gun before? Are these people equal?

Also... guns themselves are unequal. Ask yourself who would "win" the following situations...

single participants:
.50 caliber sniper rifle vs. shotgun at a range of 300 yards.
platoon:
AK47s vs. Lee Enfield .303
massacre at a school:
blunderbuss vs. Desert Eagle

or more likely in reality... punk with semi-auto vs. unarmed civilian.

Guns don't really make people equals. There will always be someone with better technology than you. What it does do is support the current power structure for those who can afford it.



posted on Jul, 4 2008 @ 01:20 PM
link   
I do not live in fear because I have a firearm. I have a chance to survive an attack by someone who attacks me.

Where I live someone might be armed with a gun, knife, stick but I do not believe any bad guys will arrive with a fighter aircraft, laser weapon, tank ot missile launchers. If by some chance they do I still would rather have a firearm versus my bare hands.



posted on Jul, 4 2008 @ 02:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by cannonfodder
Also... guns themselves are unequal. Ask yourself who would "win" the following situations...

single participants:
.50 caliber sniper rifle vs. shotgun at a range of 300 yards.
platoon:
AK47s vs. Lee Enfield .303
massacre at a school:
blunderbuss vs. Desert Eagle

or more likely in reality... punk with semi-auto vs. unarmed civilian.

That last sentence in your quote is the whole point of the efforts of the "anti-gun" people...Any "legislation" against the 2nd Amendment is what's going to make all civilians unarmed against the punk with the semi-auto. Since the punk is already a criminal, what makes you think that he won't be willing to commit even more crimes just to get the semi-auto to use against his next victim?

Also, it's the overall Unconstitutional regulation of firearms is what keeps the best stuff in the hands of the oppressive government's military (& other criminals who don't care about any of those regulations) while leaving the citizens with (relatively useless) "slingshots" for defense. This is what makes the biggest difference. You argue that normal law-abiding citizens must be disarmed & you support the regulations that enforce it...At the same time you fail to recognize that the regulations you support are the very same root-cause behind the same scenarios that you complain about!

All of the various regulations that keep certain types of firearms out of citizen hands are the very same kinds of firearms that will be used against the citizens!

Are you really that unaware of the circular logic behind your arguments? Criminals shoot people...Regulate the best guns away from the law-abiding citizens...Criminals will still ignore the regulations & gain confidence in the fact that their law-abiding victims will not be (equally) armed...Criminals win, while you continue to argue that more regulation (which is only effective against law abiding people) is needed.

No, better yet to be law abiding as it concerns the Supreme Law of the Land, rather than let the criminals in government deny you the ability to live up to that Law.



posted on Jul, 5 2008 @ 03:34 PM
link   
reply to post by cannonfodder
 




Do guns make all people equal? What about quadrapalgics who can't bear or lift a gun? What about people with arthritis? What about someone who is a skilled marksman vs. someone who has never fired a gun before? Are these people equal?


If someone wants to pick a fight with a guy in a wheelchair who can't move his arms or his legs, do they need a gun? C'mon...

As far as the training issue, obviously someone who is a trained marksman has the advantage, the same as if someone with martial arts training fought a bare-knuckle 5 round bout against someone who had never been in a fistfight.

Most people who own guns are not expert marksmen.

I think those examples are extremely fatuous.



Also... guns themselves are unequal. Ask yourself who would "win" the following situations...

single participants:
.50 caliber sniper rifle vs. shotgun at a range of 300 yards.


FYI, the .50 is a beast, and very difficult to employ with any degree of accuracy. Most people couldn't handle the whallop of one shot, and the bullet drop at 300 yards would almost certainly necessitate several shots (unless they're well-trained).

It's really a nonsense example in the first place though, since the vast majority of altercations happen at a distance of less than ten feet.

What sort of situation are you envisioning? A fella with a bullhorn and a shotgun broadcasting insults at the guy with the big boy rifle?

It should be said that guns are not a substitute for good manners, just an extreme form of encouragement to use them...



AK47s vs. Lee Enfield .303


That's a bad example. The .303 is a very capable weapon, and potentially much more accurate than the AK (depending on the year/condition of the weapons).



massacre at a school:
blunderbuss vs. Desert Eagle


I'll take the blunderbuss any day.




or more likely in reality... punk with semi-auto vs. unarmed civilian.


I'm talking about a world where more people own guns, and you're talking about the disadvantages of being an unarmed civilian. Thanks for making my point.


The most common small arms are ubiquitous in this country - 9mm semi-auto handguns, .22 rifles, .38's, .45's - and it doesn't really matter if your neighbor has a bigger bore than you, a gun is a deadly weapon. period.

It's even money pitting a guy with a .22 revolver against a guy with a .45 semi-auto, in most situations.

Most people who own guns aren't olympic marksmen, they're hunters or collectrs. Good enough with the thing to put food in the smoke house (at best), but hardly world-class. That's parity.



Guns don't really make people equals. There will always be someone with better technology than you. What it does do is support the current power structure for those who can afford it.


The current power structure? What do you mean by that?

And what's cost got to do with it? A .50 cal handgun is, at the end of the day, no more effective than a .38 snub nose when it comes to home defense or stopping a robbery/assault. The former costs, what, 1500 bucks, while the latter costs 10% of that (or a bit more).

You can get a good 12 gauge shotty for a couple-hundred bucks, and be on a level playing field with what ANY street thug is packing.

I think your anti-gun philosophy is too rigid, and it's clouding your sight of the issue.



posted on Jul, 9 2008 @ 12:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by WyrdeOne
I'm talking about a world where more people own guns, and you're talking about the disadvantages of being an unarmed civilian. Thanks for making my point.



Your taking me out of context here. What I propose is a society where civilians do not have any guns. So that punk isn't able to borrow the gun from his dad, or acquire it in a B&E, or trade it for a stolen cd player. So that punk isn't able to go down to Walmart and buy some ammo. I don't disagree that it will be hard to get rid of all the guns, but if they are illegal, it will be more difficult. Also, the market states, if guns are harder to get, they will become more expensive, and thus out of the hands of petty crooks.

You will likely respond that it impossible to remove all guns - which is true. It is also impossible to stop coc aine, speeding and theft, yet we spend millions of dollars every year trying to do so. The gun problem is that they are so ubiquitous, and completely easy to get. Make it harder, and the problem will get better.

You state that you aren't afraid because you use your gun for your own protection. Have you really? Have you pulled it out to save yourself or another? Likely not. The only civilians who use or need guns are criminals. Let's take away their tools.



posted on Jul, 10 2008 @ 01:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by cannonfodder
The gun problem is that they are so ubiquitous, and completely easy to get. Make it harder, and the problem will get better.

Yeah, listen to yourself...You're just validating the Pro-2nd Amendment argument right there! But we should make it harder for criminals to get weapons, not regular law-abiding citizens. Criminals are those who have proven themselves to violate the Rights of others, but normal People who do not violate others' Rights must be able to exercise their Rights freely.

It's been proven time & time again throughout the history of human civilization that nations who disarm their civilians arbitrarily are those most likely to commit mass exterminations. In these cases it's the governments themselves who become the armed criminals! If/when your government goes criminal, would you like to be disarmed? Or would you meekly allow yourself to be shot down or "relocated" to some extermination camp?

The whole purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to keep the Citizens on equal terms with government weaponry, but still allows the People to utilize their vastly superior numbers to act as deterrent to tyrannical government that wishes to exterminate the populace at will or whim.

[edit on 10-7-2008 by MidnightDStroyer]



posted on Jul, 22 2008 @ 01:42 PM
link   
reply to post by MidnightDStroyer
 


You aren't on a level playing field with government forces. What is the kill ratio in Iraq, or Afghanistan, or Vietnam? A bunch of angry citizens with guns are just asking to get mowed down. It is much harder to surpress a group of unarmed citizens, whereas killing insurgents (aka terrorists) is considered ok. Join the 21st century, instead of living in 1787.



posted on Jul, 22 2008 @ 08:01 PM
link   

"The only civilians who use or need guns are criminals. Let's take away their tools."



Say, for those of us who wish to live self sufficiently and far away from the observable traits of modern society, how would owning a firearm for hunting and defense constitute a criminal mindset?



posted on Jul, 22 2008 @ 08:06 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jul, 22 2008 @ 08:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by cannonfodder
A bunch of angry citizens with guns are just asking to get mowed down. It is much harder to surpress a group of unarmed citizens, whereas killing insurgents (aka terrorists) is considered ok. Join the 21st century, instead of living in 1787.


Have you ever heard of Tiananmen Square?

If tyrannies prefer to face “insurgents”, a.k.a. armed rebels, then why do they invariably disarm the population? Your viewpoint of history is astounding. What Government of force has favored an armed society? What despotism has looked favorably upon it’s citizens possessing arms?



posted on Jul, 22 2008 @ 08:39 PM
link   
When i was young and niave (not much has changed) I used to think "If Amercia gave up its guns, no one would get shot"

Now im older and wiser (pfft) I say "Dont ever give up your right to bere arms"

To me that gun now represents freedom,.... sad but true?



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join