American Patriotism Terrifies me!!, page 41
Pages: <<  38    39    40    41    42    43  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 34 times


reply posted on 2-11-2008 @ 12:58 AM by Tiamanicus








reply posted on 2-11-2008 @ 02:02 AM by Merriman Weir
Originally posted by dooper
reply to [url=http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread399984/pg40#pid5238789]post


Hey dooper, honey!

What, precisely, interest of yours is it what we in the US do, here in the US? Does anything we do here, more specifically, does our patriotism, our guns, our gun ownership, our Constitution, or our personal preferences take any food off your plate?


I can appreciate your point, and might even agree with it to an extent if no American ever voiced an opinion on matters that lay beyond American soil - either off-line or on-line. Ignore what happens of the outside world for moment, but on this site alone, if there's a story based in Britain, you can be sure there will be American posters making their opinions known. How am I any different in that respect?

As for the specific topic of gun ownership, yes, I comment on it a lot but partly because other people comment on it a lot. Americans aren't exactly backward in going coming forward when it comes to pointing out that gun ownership will apparently solve a lot of Britain's ills. Check out any thread mentioning violence in Britain. Are you going to post frankly similarly childish comments about those Americans 'not having a dog in this continent'? Or does that only work one way, Americans can comment on world issues but no one else can? Or maybe you in particular are very selective about the arguments you're prepared to make over a particular point?

cut quotes only due to the size of them!

An all-out assault by our military on our civilians, and thus our civilian militia simply isn't going to happen.


I'm not wholly convinced that will be the case either, perhaps we're not that different in that respect (maybe we could be pen-pals or something?!!1). However, as I've pointed out it's not my argument. I'm merely extrapolating on someone else's argument and about an amendment that's waved around more times than a hankie at a wedding. I'm becoming convinced the amendment is a scam of sorts. I'm not actually convinced that a civilian militia could take on the military and the government, and like voting, I think it's a token gesture to make the general populace think they have at least some control.

Secondly, I think most of the people who spout stuff about the amendment actually don't think they'll ever take on a domestic or foreign government either - which is surely what the amendment is actually about? The percentage of people that actually use them for hunting is apparently very small apparently compared to overall ownership, so it's not really a hunting thing - although I'm sure it is for that very small minority. Everyone else either just likes guns for some reason or feels they need them because everyone else does, which doesn't say a lot to be honest.



cut quotes only due to the size of them!

In Vietnam, every time a patrol left a firebase, they immediately were in "Injun Country," subject to ambush and attack 24/7. Here's the kicker. The Vietnamese as a people were unarmed.


Firstly, lets look at the idea that the Vietnamese were unarmed. That's not quite true is it? Whilst I'm not saying they were evenly matched, it's generally accepted that the likes of China and Russia gave arms, advice and soldiers to the Vietnamese. I know it doesn't serve your argument and it's not quite as 'romantic' sounding but it's the truth. I think you're actually aware of this too.

As for alikening Vietnam to a domestic American conflict, it's a nonsense. Some of the biggest factors in the Vietnam war aren't really an issue with America. Yeah, America's a big place but ultimately it's America - the American government and military know America better than the civilians. A big place yes, but a big place with a big infrastructure with already established bases. Yes, there's some dodgy terrain in places, but the bulk of it - unlike Vietnam or Afghanistan - is temperate and accessible.

I'm not entirely sure whether you're actually a bit daft or are wilfully making a disingenuous argument, but I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and point out that you're not stupid so why are you trying to make this comparison?

The last time Americans came in number to your country, we brought millions of guns, and I don't recall a lot of complaining.


Actually, the last time there was American weaponry in this country, there was a lot of complaining, maybe your media didn't allow you to hear about it? Or are you doing that sad, macho 'hey, we saved your ass in WWII, you'd be speaking German now if it wasn't for our chocolate and silk stockings!' thing where Americans rewrite history?

[edit on 2-11-2008 by Merriman Weir]

[edit on 2-11-2008 by Merriman Weir]


reply posted on 2-11-2008 @ 12:01 PM by dooper
reply to post by Merriman Weir


Merriman, I do appreciate your comments. I really do. I like comments from all over, as that's the only way for us to appreciate others viewpoints.

I did chuckle with you at your comment that Americans weren't that popular in the war years. And yes, we are aware of them. My favorite was the "Yanks are overpaid, oversexed, and over here!" And I don't blame your countrymen for that. Those were hard times. On everyone.

While the Russians and Chinese gave North Vietnam tons of weapons, most of the general population in South Vietnam were unarmed. Most of the little villages and hamlets consisted of farmers who just wanted to be left alone, and farm their land. Because they were unarmed, small VC and NVA units strategy was to terrorize these peaceful farmers into cooperating with them.

Between 1957 and late 1972, the NLF assassinated 36,725 civilians and abducted 58,499 others, who mostly vanished. VC death squads systematically murdered village leaders, clergy, medical personnel, social workers, teachers, small merchants, and of course the "landowners" - pretty much defined as anyone who owned as little as five hectares. (12 acres) These are official numbers that were documented, but the actual numbers were much, much higher.

on 5 December, 1967, Communists troops wiped out the Montagnard village of Dak Sok, killing hundreds of men, women, and children. At Hue in 1968, though a city, between 3,000 and 5,000 civilians were slaughtered, although denied by the Hanoi regime. Freedom fighters. Right.

We would personally come upon these atrocities, and when you'd look around at these poor people who had very little to start with, wanted no trouble with anyone, so peaceful and sharing, yes, it made me sick. I was young and could not believe men could do such cold-hearted evil. But even as my stomach churned, it also made my blood boil. I wanted payback. Fury is a powerful well of strength.

I hate bullies. Always have. And if lethal force is what they prefer, then who am I to deny them the same merciless force that they prefer themselves?

I've seen armed and unarmed civilians. I've seen the results of both. I've seen backward Montagnards armed and end up with unbelievable kill ratios against the same forces that previously had slaughtered them.

Merriman, for anyone to have ever seen the slaughter first hand, your viewpoints of life, whatever they were up to that moment, are changed forever. Through none of your own doing.

I never, ever went looking for trouble. But if it ever found me, I knew that I never, ever, would be found wanting.


reply posted on 7-11-2008 @ 12:31 PM by Anonymous ATS
reply to post by Simplynoone


No, I'm willing to kill someone because he or she is willing to violate the sanctity of my home and my family's area of protection illegally and I don't know his intentions.

He has already proven, by breaking into my home and or stealing my stuff, that he has no respect for the law and that he is desparate enough to risk his life and limb. You see anyone who enters a home in AMERICA! is playing russian roulette, literally.

Plus, more and more criminals in America are realizing that they shouldn't leave potential witnesses behind.

And as far as risking my family's lives by shooting the robber and not giving him my stuff. That isn't what is happening at all. I am simply taking responsibility for the protection of my family and putting their lives in MY hands. You my friend would be putting their lives in the hands of someone who has already proven that they have little respect for law.


reply posted on 7-11-2008 @ 03:07 PM by dragonseeker
Originally posted by Thebudweiserstuntman
reply to post by JipStix


Gun owners kinda scare me aswell, like they need to over compensate for something, particularly the ones who cling onto the second ammendment like it was written yesterday - guns serve no purpose in a civilised society


Good lord, you are a sheep. And, in case you haven't noticed, society is anything but civilized..I'm an american, I've owned guns, and will do so again. The reasons the 2nd amendment was written are, if anything, more apparent today than it was at it's writing.


reply posted on 9-11-2008 @ 02:54 AM by Kiltedninja
Originally posted by skeptic1
Originally posted by Thebudweiserstuntman
reply to post by Contagion2012


Dude, if someone was raping my wife or threatining my kids i can GUARANTEE you it wouldn't take a gun for me to end his life.

Most British people can acquire a gun for around £300.

Most people don't.

What does that tell you?


And, if that person had a gun and you didn't, who do you think would win in that situation? Your bare hands or a bullet?

Bottom line is, we have the right to own guns in this country. And, most of the people who have them are responsible. Don't judge all of us by the actions of criminals.


Well actually I've seen someone who was shot at point blank in the stomach and shrugged it off like it was nothing, while he proceeded to beat the shooter senseless with the man's own gun. Of course, I'd much rather have a firearm.

Now to get on topic, I have to agree that the blind patriotism is very frightening, I've not seen much of it since Oregon is a pretty individual state, but I have seen the occasional bit of it, and it really makes me worry, that people can be lead so blindly into something, which is often totally outrageous will make you question "Are we really the land of the free?". But I've seen more straight minded people than the sheep being lead about.


reply posted on 9-11-2008 @ 03:12 AM by badgerprints
Originally posted by Thebudweiserstuntman
reply to post by JipStix


Gun owners kinda scare me aswell, like they need to over compensate for something, particularly the ones who cling onto the second ammendment like it was written yesterday - guns serve no purpose in a civilised society


Guns don't have a place in civilized society. They weren't intended for society. They were intended to kill. They are a tool not a fashion statement. The second amendment guarantees us the right to keep these tools because the people who wrote it knew that one day we would need it to protect ourselves from the very people who will eventually have absolute power due to political, social and economic cycles. That absolute power will eventually become corrupt and the cycle will come full circle. It is not paranoia or fanatacism. It is the natural cycle of the rise and fall of civilized societies. If you give up your abilities to defend yourself and your community, you give up your right to do so by default.
Too bad the 50 million or so people under Stalin, Hitler and Mao didn't have guns. Might have changed those sad chapters in history by a bit.



reply posted on 9-11-2008 @ 07:31 AM by TruthTellist
reply to post by Kiltedninja


"Well actually I've seen someone who was shot at point blank in the stomach and shrugged it off like it was nothing, while he proceeded to beat the shooter senseless with the man's own gun. Of course, I'd much rather have a firearm."

I think someone is telling a lie. Perhaps some proof - in the form of newspaper headlines or news stories - is needed give even a modicum of credibility to such a fantastical claim about an event which you allege to have witnessed.

If you don't do this, I will assume you have not been truthful with regards to the claims you made in the post respective to the above quote, which are far too unrealistic and quite literally 'unbelievable'...

Thank you in advance.
Pages: <<  38    39    40    41    42    43  >>    ^^TOP^^



Alaska: Samantha Koenig Kidnapped last week.
  Posted 3 days ago with 111 member flags
Blue Spheres Fall from the Sky in the UK
  Posted 16 days ago with 81 member flags
The Chinese have seen the dragon in the sky !!
  Posted 3 days ago with 69 member flags
Strange Sounds in Sky Explained by Scientists
  Posted 12 days ago with 59 member flags
She Dialed 911. The Cop Who Came to Help Raped Her.
  Posted 5 days ago with 49 member flags
Anonymous: Revealing The Arcane Legal Trick Behind ACTA
  Posted 12 days ago with 42 member flags
Anonymous reveals Haditha massacre emails | RT
  Posted 8 days ago with 33 member flags