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.

 

A question for our European and Aussie friends...Do you regret giving up your right to own firearms?

page: 11
15
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 29 2008 @ 03:45 AM
link   
reply to post by Lucid Lunacy
 


You've (they've) got to get here first. I realise the entirety of our air force could be carried on two Nimitz-class boats, but it does consist (entirely) of ground and maritime-attack capable craft (even the Hawks) and the majority of it is a2a capable.

That gives us a good chance of slowing you (them) down.

Assuming the Australian army isn't destroyed in barracks by a pre-emptive strike, I'd like you to find another military on earth that could operate in the Australian interior as efficiently as the Australian army.

Once you (they) do make it ashore, there's no point in us taking our coaching from Winston as we've got virtually the smallest population per landmass in the world. Unlike the UK, we don't all live less than 100 miles from the ocean, so fighting them on the landing grounds and beaches isn't such a realistic option. Further to that, 85%+ live on a single coast line, but spread across 3,000 kilometres. Difficult for the average citizen to defend Brisbane if he lives in Melbourne.

No, if you invade you'd better bring the Gestapo with you because what you will get is the Maquis, (but without the outrageous accents!), probably a lot, well, a little bit, like these fun instructional books for kids.




posted on Oct, 29 2008 @ 03:49 AM
link   
Whats your point? I am a very successful game hunter who has never shot another hunter because I "thought he looked tasty". i am not a murderer or let alone a cannibal. Really, what even perversed you to suggest anyone would do this? Not normal logic IMO.



posted on Oct, 29 2008 @ 03:52 AM
link   
reply to post by lifeform
 


But if one chooses to look for a 'target' he will more than likely bypass Mr. Joe and look for Mr. PO in ammo. It's a natural law that if one walks and talks like a duck he will be treated like a duck....and you have no wings.

I wish we could all join hands and sing Hallelluyahh..though there is a much darker horse operating behind the scenes than of most are unaware. If you want to know more...see prior posts here on ATS. I'm here for good 'reason' though no need to rehash on this thread. Off topic.

Now as far as the 'other' hunting methods you mention; you can throw rocks and spears at the critters....perhaps make pitfalls with spikes and be 'creative' otherwise though if you see me walking with a shotgun/rifle...I guarantee you I'll be seen as your new friend.



[edit on 29-10-2008 by Perseus Apex]



posted on Oct, 29 2008 @ 03:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by BlackOps719

I believe it to be fact, but it is just my opinion based on the fact that I live here in the US and I see what goes on first hand.


Yes, but you've no way of actually knowing whether that this is true or not. Again, how do you actually know this to be true? Do you have a machine that allows you to jump onto different 'time lines' so you can compare and contrast?


Our forefathers recognized the importance of maintaining the rights of gun ownership for the common citizen, because just like us they faced an armed and oppressive government and knew the only way to protect the rights of the people was to allow an even playing field where a common citizen was able to take up arms individually or in a militia in order to defend themselves.


Even playing field? You're kidding right? Haha! Enjoy your stand-off against tanks!


And if you want proof simply take a look at the last two hundred years of American history. Not one instance of a foreign invasion or domestic enslavement by any organized government. If we didnt have an armed population it would make an already power mad government much more powerful


Ha! Foreign invasion! Do you not think that's because you're so far away from most the world? In that 200 year period, look at the logistics needed to either attack or even reach America at any given point and compare that to the resources available to America's enemies at during those times. Why do you think Pearl Harbour was a one-off? Because people liked America too much to attack?


The North Vietnamese army managed to hold their own against the same military strength using rusty AK-47's and improvised explosives. The Afghans defeated the mighty Russian army with the same. The Taliban and the other forces in present day Iraq and Afghanistan have been holding their own using even less that that. A motivated and armed population that is fighting for their home land and their freedom to survive is more powerful than any technology or weaponry available. Read a history book some time, you will see this proven time and again.


No offence, but I'd suggest you read a history book yourself, because you're painting a ridiculously simplistic picture of the Vietnam War. The idea of the Vietnamese holding of the Americans with "rusty AK-47s and improvised explosives" is a bit misleading. Yes, there was an element of this, but I'd also look at the support the North Vietnamese were given from China and Russia &c.

Other factors included the Americans just not really understanding the Vietnamese and how the war was being fought. It's been said a lot that the Vietnamese had the upper hand regarding terror/guerilla and psychological warfare, however America has now shown itself to be a class act when it comes to utilising these 'tools' now. Much of this board is based on 'savvy' American ATS members bemoaning the fact that the American public is so easily manipulated and stirred-up. Then, even when the 'official line' isn't wholly convincing and swallowed - for example with September 11th - what actually gets done about it? Nothing? Actually, perhaps the question should actually be, what could Americans do about it? The answer is nothing. Good luck with getting to the truth and actually doing anything about it!

Another factor to take into consideration with the likes of Vietnam and Afghanistan is the terrain, climate and the infrastructure. You know those big open highways that are great for sports cars and hummers? They're going to fantastic for military vehicles too! Unlike, Afghanistan, Vietnam &c, America already has large, established and networked military bases already! Imagine!



posted on Oct, 29 2008 @ 04:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by meadowfairy
Blackops thanks for correcting this.

What Australians know of Americans is only what they see on tv and on movies and automatically assume everything there is bad.


We have been indoctrinated not to look at things from all angles. 20-30 years ago Australians were smart now the media are dumbing them down.


speak for yourself
i have been to america a few times and have seen with my own eyes that things there are bad.

and Op.... there goes american arrogance again thinking we are 'jealous' of you for the right to own arms....are you kidding!

no-one i know owns a firearm and no one i know would want to own a firearm.

Americans tend to be alittle paranoid and seem to have too much fear instilled in them sadly. To think if your guns laws are changed that you’ll loose total rights as citizens....please.

as someone has said....its people who kill people not the guns so maybe you should be pushing for a better health system to help the demented people who kill on your streets everyday rather than gun rights.

you will have a new president in a few weeks time and no you wont have to go hunt your own food and no people wont be randomly shooting in the streets... you watch waaaaay to much t.v

and by the way.... its not like there is not a gun in sight in australia. certain guns are available with a license.



posted on Oct, 29 2008 @ 04:05 AM
link   
reply to post by HowlrunnerIV
 

NO Americans have ever have "had a specific right to own automatic pistols or submachine guns. We have definitely never had a right to own assault rifles."

Or machine guns. I hope that clears this up. Look it up.
Cheers!



posted on Oct, 29 2008 @ 04:06 AM
link   
It is very obvious that Europeans and Americans have a totally different culture, which I personally find very intriguing.
The subject of weapons is one of the many examples of the differences which exist between us.

I personally am glad that in the Netherlands people generally don't have guns. The possession of guns does not solve the growing amount of violence but contributes to it.

The other huge difference is religion. In Europe large numbers of people are leaving churches and christianity and many churches have to close or even broken down. What I see and hear of the US is that christianity is still "hot" and many people still attend church.

And it is these 2 examples which seem to contradict each other in the US. Aren't christians supposed to "turn the other cheek" when confronted with violence? Then again I am not religious so maybe I am very wrong, I am just interested in your point of view.

Fighting fire with fire just don't seem to be the answer to the problem of violence in my opinion.



posted on Oct, 29 2008 @ 04:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by enlighten2012

i have been to america a few times and have seen with my own eyes that things there are bad.


Interesting...


Americans tend to be alittle paranoid


So you are allowed to visit a few times and deem things are really bad, but if we say they are bad we are paranoid?



posted on Oct, 29 2008 @ 04:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by BlackOps719

Americans have already been there and done that one.


If this is a reference to your War of Independence, no you haven't. Keep convincing yourself this was the case if it makes you feel better at night. However, you fought in a conflict where the difference between a trained soldier and an untrained militia was marginal, as was the technology gap between the two sides. The gap between your handguns/rifles and with what's available to a modern army like America's is laughable.

I'm still laughing over your earlier 'even playing field' comment.

Why don't you send an email to your military's R&D departments telling them they're wasting their time because all people actually need are handguns and rifles. Why doesn't America just save itself a # load of money and just kit-out its armed forces with handguns and rifles? You seem very convinced that's all it takes, even when facing tanks and planes &c. Think of the money you could save and then plough into manufacturing, education and, if you're that way inclined and it's not too socialist, perhaps education and healthcare.

[edit on 29-10-2008 by Merriman Weir]



posted on Oct, 29 2008 @ 04:11 AM
link   
reply to post by HowlrunnerIV
 


Hypothetical question for a reason
I did not intend any hostility at all.

I am not pro war, I am not pro violence (unless in necessary defense, which excludes the US in the Middle East)


Again, another member replied to my questions without answering my questions...


[edit on 29-10-2008 by Lucid Lunacy]



posted on Oct, 29 2008 @ 04:11 AM
link   



posted on Oct, 29 2008 @ 04:12 AM
link   
reply to post by BlackOps719
 


In the UK, yes, handgun ownership (along with many other categories of firearms) have been prohibited since legislation was passed after the Dunblane massacre.

Over the counter gun purchasing hasn't existed in the UK since 1920 and we have had a series of increasingly more strict/repressive, call it what you will, gun laws since then. The law was pretty stable from 1968 to about 1988 (Hungerford massacre). Prior to 1988, you could get a firearms certificate for most categories of weapon except fully automatic rifles and machine gun style weapons. Certainly, it was no problem to get a cert for handgun, providing you had 'good reason' (which usually meant you were a member of a pistol or rifle club).

So, as a result of knee jerk legislation, the only segments of the UK population that are now armed are the military, the police (who have an appalling record in shooting the wrong/innocent man) and criminals. The gun laws have only disarmed law abiding British gun owners who had done nothing wrong and fully complied with the already strict law.

Geographically, the UK is a small island with about half the landmass of France. We have a population of just over 60Mn crammed in here! No it is not all cities and in fact, most of the land is still undeveloped and essentially rural.

However, centuries of industrialisation have seen us cut down most of the forest (a thousand years ago the country was around 90% forest) and all the big natural predators here are dead - we don't have to worry about bears and wolves (altho it might keep some of the scum off the streets if we did!). So yes, we do have many rural areas but nothing that can be considered true, unspoilt wilderness, except for maybe the Highlands of Scotland.

I believe that if you ask many Brits, they will either be indifferent of opposed to gun ownership, having been convinced that they cannot be trusted to safely own a weapon.

Having visited the USA a few times (TX, AZ, NV, CA), I can safely say that I never felt fearful of being shot and in fact, can't recall seeing anyone except the police carrying a weapon.

I believe that the apparently high US murder rate involving a firearm is due to cultural differences. However the US does not have a murder rate as high as South Africa, where gun ownership is widespread and indeed a necessity in some parts.

Americans - don't allow politicians to take away your guns and defend your constitutional rights! I don't think some of my fellow Brits understand that if you live in a remote part of Texas or Arizona, the police are just simply not able to get to your house in 20 mins when you dial 911. People need to be able to defend themselves effectively.

Hope this clears up a few questions about UK gun ownership, law and our small but busy country!

PS: my dad used to shoot small bore .22 rifles and obtained his markmans badge. His team could outshoot the police in competitions (who were apparently always such hypocrites when it came to the question of public gun ownership).

[edit on 29-10-2008 by Richie1971]



posted on Oct, 29 2008 @ 04:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by centurion1211
This part of your post shows that you actually have no clue why in uncertain times such as these, the so-called "idiot down the street" feels the need to have weapons.

The first thing I'll say is that it is not to attack you or anyone else. His reasons are most likely defensive in nature. For example, if he is worried enough about what's happening that he has armed himself, he has also probably prepared for the worst in terms of food, fuel and other supplies.

He also realizes that the "idiots up the street" - probably you and your neighbors in this case - have probably not done anything to prepare for things being as rosy as they always have been. And he knows that when you are starving and/or freezing because you didn't, the first thing you'll all think of is to come to his house to try and take his food and supplies (leaving him with nothing for his family).


Oh, yes. That's because people only fire guns when they're attacked first isn't it? If that was the case, why the need for guns in the first place?

Again, I'm much happier knowing that whoever is going to try and take my food and supplies is going to have to do so with fists, sticks and knives than a gun.

Ah, but you need a gun to protect your supplies because the person that was a bad squirrel and didn't save for the winter you're more likely to meet will also have a gun? Enjoy your stand-off! Pow Pow! Brrraaaap!

And, if you're happy to call me an idiot, then I've no problem saying I hope you enjoy your delusion!

[edit on 29-10-2008 by Merriman Weir]



posted on Oct, 29 2008 @ 04:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by BlackOps719
reply to post by CreeWolf
 


If the native Americans would have had access to guns there would still be enough of them around to answer that question. Instead they were butchered, robbed, converted at gun point and horrifically exploited by the millions.

Why? Because they werent armed well enough to fight back against their well armed aggressors. Lesson learned.


Now if the new Americans hadn't have access to guns, there'd also still be enough native Americans around to answer that question too. The answer isn't always more guns.



posted on Oct, 29 2008 @ 04:26 AM
link   
Im in Ireland, living here my whole life! I feel neither secure nor insecure with the firearm situation here..

If people here want guns, they get guns (usually illegally) and usually for drug gang fueds..

I feel if we all could get guns easier, it would worsen things dramaticaly, so im relatively happy with the situation here, albeit i'd rather less crime.

Having said that , theres a shotgun in my house (suburban, not farm) , when my father was younger and hunted!

Licenced and Legal of course



posted on Oct, 29 2008 @ 04:28 AM
link   
From NZ:

Gee, I wish we rights to carry guns to begin with. Here we can own guns but to use them is a whole different barrel legal BS. I would like to be prepared for considerable (however unlikely) situations, to be allowed to protect myself.

The govt' likes to impose 'rules' on how one can defend themselves in extreme situations. I don't think that they have the right that if my life is being threatened, how I can and can not defend myself.



posted on Oct, 29 2008 @ 04:30 AM
link   
reply to post by Merriman Weir
 


But the historical fact is that the Americans did have guns, plenty of them, and used them to carry out a genocide against the native indian tribes. There may be more Indian tribes alive now if they had been armed. Maybe the British troops in WW2 should have carried feather dusters and hoped Hitler would have been civil and run away?



posted on Oct, 29 2008 @ 04:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Justice123
reply to post by BlackOps719
 


Is gun ownership a right or a privilege?
It seems to me that when you speak to an American it’s a Right and when you speak to the rest of the world it’s considered to be a privilege.

en.wikipedia.org...

A Privilege is conditional and can be revoked. A right to bear arms is an inherent, irrevocable entitlement granted to us (Americans) by our Constitution.


Is this the constitution that never gets altered, or am I thinking of another one?

Also, what happens when you still have the right to bear arms, but that starts coming with conditions, such as what arms you can actually bear and who can actually bear them?

Drip by drip by drip...



posted on Oct, 29 2008 @ 04:34 AM
link   
Here in Finland gun ownership has never (to my knowledge) been much of an issue, because the average person simply doesn't need them. It might be because Finns tend to keep to themselves in their personal lives and in the event of violent disagreement a fist or, sometimes, a knife usually suffice


Sure there are the odd occasions when some idiot gun-nut shoots his wife or neighbour but otherwise things are pretty cool in regard of not owning firearms. And yes, there have been a total of two high school shootings here this year alone - and ever - and that was enough to raise public outcry to restrict gun ownership even further.

I don't say this in offense towards the States, but in my experience those who actively want to own a firearm here seem to be HUGE fans of the US and despite everything think it's the best place that ever will be, was or could be. Fortunately I've only come across a couple of people like this. One of them liked taking pictures of himself pointing his gun at the camera, very much reminiscent to the "warning videos" on YouTube prior to high school shootings. It's kinda creepy.

The only weapons I've ever shot with are an air rifle and a compound bow. The latter was kind of pleasant and relaxing, actually, probably relating to my interest in prehistoric and ancient history. Firearms are just loud and obnoxious and are only used by cheaters or rednecks anyway


So I'll have to agree with some of the posters here in getting a bow of some sort. It's probably cheaper too, quieter and, unlike bullets, you may be able to reuse arrows.



posted on Oct, 29 2008 @ 04:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Merriman Weir

Originally posted by Justice123
reply to post by BlackOps719
 


Is gun ownership a right or a privilege?
It seems to me that when you speak to an American it’s a Right and when you speak to the rest of the world it’s considered to be a privilege.

en.wikipedia.org...

A Privilege is conditional and can be revoked. A right to bear arms is an inherent, irrevocable entitlement granted to us (Americans) by our Constitution.


Merriman,

The US constitution was designed to be difficult to alter to ensure that precious rights could not be stripped away by absolute monarchists or other dictatorial types.

The recent Supreme COurt case regarding handgun ownership in Washington DC has firmly restated the right to own firearms. There are pretty clear limits to the type of restrictions that can be imposed.

Is this the constitution that never gets altered, or am I thinking of another one?

Also, what happens when you still have the right to bear arms, but that starts coming with conditions, such as what arms you can actually bear and who can actually bear them?

Drip by drip by drip...



new topics

top topics



 
15
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join