It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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: 19
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in


posted on Oct, 30 2008 @ 12:27 PM
Here in Norway it's pretty easy to get a legal weapon. You need to apply, but it's a formality if you're a member of a huntingclub or a pistolclub and you don't have a past of crime and violence. Another thing,-the military has never been used against the civilian population, and the police is unarmed except when confronting armed and dangerous criminals.
I've been thinking however,-in the US, if some triggerhappy cop busts your door down, what exactly would you achieve by defending yourself with a firearm? What would be the result of making use of your second amendment and gunning down a policeofficer?
Wouldn't the police call in a swap team and finish you off once and for all?
My question is,-what good does the right to defend yourselves against the authorities do other than sending YOU off to an early grave or a life sentence?

posted on Oct, 30 2008 @ 12:35 PM

Originally posted by BlackOps719

Please most states here in the US you have to pass a state police background check in order to purchase all handguns and most rifles as well.

Here in NC you have to get a permit directly from the police department in order to purchase a hand gun. Its not like anyone can just walyz in and buy a gun. You cant possess a firearm if you have a felony conviction on your record.

And as far as I know Wal Mart no longer sells firearms. To order any high powered or assult style weapons they must first be legal in your state (many are illegal) and you must order the weapon through a licensed FFL dealer.

Correct on the background check.
Some states have a waiting period - two weeks in California when I lived there four years back.
Here in Arizona, we have "instant" checks.
Fill out the paper, the dealer calls the ATF or whoever it is and it only takes a minute or two to be cleared and you're done.
No waiting period.

Walmart no longer sells handguns.
They do sell handgun and rifle caliber ammunition.

Some Walmarts have quit selling rifles and shotguns recently, but that's a marketing decision for each store.

The local Walmart here in Kingman, Aizona and down the hill toward the Colorado River in Bullhead City, Arizona does sell rifles and handguns.

There are quite a few gun ranges in the state as well as a lot of hunting.

Several gunshops in the area and they have a fairly good variety of firearms so generally speaking ordering is not necessary.

Arizona does have what's called a contiguous state agreement with Nevada - and perhaps other states as well - and an Arizona resident can buy a rifle or shotgun in Nevada legally.

posted on Oct, 30 2008 @ 12:40 PM
reply to post by Desert Dawg

The contiguous law is Federal. Any person legally able to purchase, can in contiguous states as long as one hasn't outlawed it within their borders!


[edit on 10/30/2008 by ZindoDoone]

posted on Oct, 30 2008 @ 12:46 PM

Originally posted by BlackOps719
reply to post by captiva

People are still comfortable, they are still able to shelter and feed themselves. As far as I know no governmental agencies have started going door to door and taking peoples weapons.

Martial law hasnt yet been declared, there are no Americans wasting away inside FEMA camps, things arent bad enough yet for average Americans to revolt.

I doubt things ever will be that bad the average American will revolt because I think it's more likely to creep up on them rather than suddenly appear. When things change and move slowly, over time, Mr 'Average' doesn't really notice it change at all. Typically, people don't. Again, this website is evidence of that, look how many times forum members ask how can Mr Average be so blind to what's going on around them. For many people, they don't realise anything until it's too late.

Also, look how good governments are at spinning things so change is in 'our' best interest or even manipulate things so 'we' actually want change that normally most people would baulk at under different circumstances. Again, this site is evidence a plenty of that. It's surprising or perhaps not so surprising how people will lap up # if it's sold the right way.

Let the government start trying to round up American citizens and you will see what happens.

If you're waiting of people to be physically rounded-up, then you're going to have been way too late to stop anything.

Isoroku Yamamoto was a Fleet Admiral and Commander-in-Chief of the Imperial Japanese Navy (IJN) during World War II.

He was made famous for the following quote: "You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass. "

His words still ring true to this day, and it applies not only to foreign enemies but domestic as well.

He was also saying it - if he did actually say those actual words - in the context of Japan actually getting to America too. The logistics of Japan getting to America in the 1940s was pretty daunting. Actually having to get there past warships, planes, coastal artillery was pretty grim. Then, once past that, you had American civilians with guns as a last line of defence.

The real big difference is that the American government won't have to make their way past ships, planes and artillery, then try and set up bases - which would have to be constantly have supplies brought in from far afield - and fight the civilians. The American government has bases already in place with a really good network infrastructure already in place. Lucky them!

On the surface that 'blades of grass' looks great. However, it would be pretty easy to trim that particular lawn now. A crippled economy with some food shortages for a while, fuel restrictions and some civilian-on-civilian rioting because of it - which is what usually happens before people even dream of standing up to governments - and the spirit is going to be broken in many Mr Average's all across America.

Sure, you survivalists who have been squirrelling supplies for a while will be fine. Until, your hungry neighbour realises what you're sitting on and then you're fighting your neighbour before you've even got a chance to aim at the government. I'm sure some of you will thrive on that kind of scenario, it's what you've been planning on for years. The average Joe though? Pfft. A few weeks without electricity, fuel, regular food, getting low on ammunition because that gang from down the street have taken to threatening to rape his wife and daughter and that he's not going to be as ready for taking on the government as you and your survivalist friends. That magic 300,000,000 will start dwindling pretty rapidly.

If I was a government working smarter rather than harder, I'd just let you all do some of the work for me and let you fight yourselves for a while first. Then for the people on the fence wondering what's going on, just assure them that the government is doing its best to 'contain' the riots &c, they're doing their best to help with the food and the fuel but it looks like domestic insurgents are fighting a government trying to help the people in what are trying and desperate times. A month of two of that and that number of people who could potentially fought back will have lost a lot of those noughts and many would think 'refuge' camps with friendly armed guards willing to protect the people from the conflict in the cities would be a great opportunity.

I know about the adage about hungry people fighting &c., however, the actual truth of it is that hungry people get angry and desperate at first, but eventually they get pretty weak and, even if they feel like fighting, they're physically not up to it.

[edit on 30-10-2008 by Merriman Weir]

posted on Oct, 30 2008 @ 12:58 PM
reply to post by Merriman Weir

You grossly underestimate the fighting spirit of the American people, just as they will.

Better to die on your feet than to live on your knees. Some of us would prefer death to complete and total enslavement. Maybe you will be happy living as a lap dog to your masters, licking their boots and begging for the crumbs from their table.

Meanwhile the rest of us will do what every generation has done before us when faced with tyranny and oppression at the hands of a rogue state. We will revolt and we will fight back with any means necessary. Win or lose, death is better than the alternative.

Sure there will be many who will gladly lay down and submit to their overlords, just as many Americans were loyalists to the King of England. There will be many Benedict Arnolds in the ranks, but there will also be many Patrick Henry's and Thomas Jeffersons. People who are willing to fight and die for a cause more noble and more important than themselves.

Im not here to try and change your mind or anyone elses, I know which side I am on. Perhaps you would fall into the group who would say "take away my rights but feed and clothe me". Well that to me is a defeatist attitude and is not within my protocol to believe that way.

Best of luck to you and your countrymen, hopefully everyone in the UK doesnt subscribe to the same hopeless belief system. If so then your nation is truly in shambles and simply a well fed chicken waiting to be plucked.

posted on Oct, 30 2008 @ 01:01 PM
This is one topic that has been thoroughly hashed out in these many pages. I've come to the conclusion that many of the pro-gun Americans we've heard from here actually like the dangerousness of the society they live in. They speak of and describe the possible scenario of shoot-outs with their government or invaders with zeal and gusto. Biting at the bit for a good fight it seems. Maybe they don't really want to go through with it, but just thinking and talking about it seems to give them a "hard on".

This isn't a matter of logic or reason at all. Its a lifestyle thing. Their passion for a bloody fight is unmistakable -- almost barbaric.

There is no point discussing this any further. I think that its a genetic pre-disposition that their culture has "triggered" but that has not been triggered so significantly in most of the rest of the world.

posted on Oct, 30 2008 @ 01:02 PM

Originally posted by norskie
I've been thinking however,-in the US, if some triggerhappy cop busts your door down, what exactly would you achieve by defending yourself with a firearm? What would be the result of making use of your second amendment and gunning down a policeofficer?

It's happened a bunch of times thanks to the wonders of the "no-knock" warrant. Usually the individual in the home ends up dead. I remember a 90 year old woman in Georgia got killed when the cops busted in on her. It was the wrong address and they were not in uniform. She shot a few of them but they killed her.

Our cops are storm-troopers and dont care about any one of us.

posted on Oct, 30 2008 @ 01:08 PM
reply to post by BlackOps719

"Better to die on your feet than to live on your knees. Some of us would prefer death to complete and total enslavement. Maybe you will be happy living as a lap dog to your masters, licking their boots and begging for the crumbs from their table"

Please open your eyes and see thats exactly what you are. You are too late, your guns didnt save you, you dont need shackles round your ankles to be a slave !

Guns could have saved your great country, they wont now, for the very reasons stated by Merriman Weir. All your guns will do is make sure you die on your feet protecting yourself, not protecting your once great constitution !.


posted on Oct, 30 2008 @ 01:25 PM
reply to post by wayno

Yeah...there is no violence in the rest of the world at all.

North Korea, China, Brazil, Nicaragua, Peru, Darfur, Chechnya, Iran, Palestine, Mexico, Sudan, Siera Leon, Russia, and so on and so on and so on.

How about at least a little bit of honesty here? I know how important it is for you to paint the American society as the only one in which any violence ever takes place...but who are you trying to fool?

posted on Oct, 30 2008 @ 01:50 PM
reply to post by Masterjaden

Yes my mind.

"If you think that Americans should give up their consitutional right to bear arms"

No ..... I don't think that.

posted on Oct, 30 2008 @ 01:55 PM
reply to post by BlackOps719

correct! you are not alone in this matter.
i would never make such an absolute statement
you are not that different from the rest of us
we probably all have that trait to some extent in our genes
your society however, seems to be especially tuned to trigger and reinforce that predisposition
you are not alone, but you are the biggest, the loudest and the most braggart thus getting the most attention and backlash from the rest of us not so inclined
i think it is a sense of guilt that leads you constantly question why the rest of don't follow in your footsteps
we are not so different in nature but just a little more civilized for what that is worth. We (I) don't enjoy bloodshed as much as you do. In fact it revolts me.
I don't fantasize about it.
It seems Americans do -- a lot.

posted on Oct, 30 2008 @ 02:06 PM
reply to post by wayno

I dont think it equates to civility on your part, I think it stems from living in a bubble and being hidden away from the realities of the world.

Life in Uganda is dangerous, life in El Salvador is dangerous, and yes life here in the US can very well be dangerous. Violence and danger are a reality for a great portion of the world, hence they prepare for it, they speak of it, they do not fear it.

People who live in peaceful and passive countries do not get exposed to this sort of thing, therefore it is shocking and primitive to them. It offends their prim and proper sensibilities. A hard life hardens the soul and spirit, it takes extreme pressure to make a diamond.

But I ask you, which group is more likely to survive in the event of extreme violence breaking out...those who know it and are used to it or those who whimper at the thought of defending themselves or harming another?

The deer is a fine and beautiful creature, graceful and majestic, noble and intelligent in its own right, but absolutely no match for the attacking wolf. The deer will lose this clash in nature every time. Why? Because the wolf shows teeth, it is capable of attacking and defending itself.

Perhaps Americans are barbaric in your mind, perhaps we are a bunch of ignorant and vicious wolves running around biting one another. But one thing is for certain, I would hate to be the deer amongst all of these wolves.

Im not saying we are right and you are wrong, Im just saying this is how it is.

posted on Oct, 30 2008 @ 02:18 PM
reply to post by captiva

In a round about way this is the point I was trying to make. The right to bare arms is merely an illusion. If you lose other rights that takes away basic freedoms and if the govenment knows exactly how many bullets you have takes the true meaning out of we the people.

posted on Oct, 30 2008 @ 02:28 PM
reply to post by BlackOps719

ya, you are not wrong really,
the fact is tho, that the deer and the wolf population are both surviving in the end in a sort of balance of nature
i wouldn't call where i live a bubble, necessarily. its a pretty real place and much like i described - and yes, I am grateful
it may not seem like it because i have taken one side of this particular issue, but i understand the need for checks and balances
i accept that there are all sorts of people in the world and that is a good thing because it helps in the end, when all these sorts pool their expertise, to overcome all the possible challenges life can throw at us
if everyone was the same, not only would it be boring, but it would leave us vulnerable should a challenge come up that is outside what we all have as strength
in the end, i accept and cherish that we have different ways of seeing things and doing things. I don't expect everyone to become a passifist, and you all shouldn't expect us all to become a gunslinger.
i guess that is the rub. don't try and turn the rest of us into your mirror image. accept that we don't want to have guns, but understand that we may have something to contribute along the line.
i didn't initiate this discussion by saying "hey, get rid of your guns" i was prepared to live, if somewhat uncomfortably, with a neighbour obsessed with his weaponry -- as long as he didn't try to use it somehow against me -- which, so far, you haven't.

posted on Oct, 30 2008 @ 02:35 PM
reply to post by PaddyInf

Paddy, you have a very good point about the effectiveness of a line company and their tactics against a small, unprepared villiage.

Here's the thing. I was trained in Special Forces, carried four MOS's (specialties), served in two Ranger companies, and fought in combat while attached to the First Cav.

While I do respect the abilities of a line company, that was never my area of operations. We in SF and the Rangers took on enemy line companies, vastly undermanned, and used every dirty trick in the book, and even came up with a few of our own.

While untrained civilians would not fare well against a well-trained line company, one has to realize that we have far too many people in this country for our military to overwhelm. And that assumes that our military would be willing to engage in total war on its own population, which is preposterous.

After our Ranger team got shot up and we were waiting for suitable replacements, the remaining team members were loaned out to line companies with "new" officers to help them get through the first week or so to keep them from doing something stupid. These officers in turn were told that they were indeed the commanders, but if we advised one thing, and they did another, and it cost lives, it would be their ass! And they were not all that good tactically. And you couldn't explain it, because they learned their tactics from a book.

Conventional forces while formidable, can be beaten by much smaller forces who maintain their mobility, never spend two meals in the same place, maximize speed, quickness, and anticipate conventional forces' tendencies to follow easily anticipated lines of approach.

Our special operations while I was there had a 100-150:1 kill ratio. And this was against skilled, trained, dedicated, conventional forces. The thing that would work against our military here in the US is that our Generals are the biggest dumbass frauds that ever put on a uniform. They can't lead a water balloon fight. They can't lead, period. Our generals are managers. No intuition.

In Special Forces, we trained others on weapons, tactics, and unit cohesion. Pissed-off civilians with a bit of rudimentary training are quite effective and when fighting for their homeland and more specifically their loved ones, are quite vicious.

I think Julius Caesar knew a bit about this when he said, "It is easier to find men who will volunteer to die, than to find those who are willing to endure pain with patience."

Our Morgan at the Battle of Cowpens knew his enemy, knew his men, many who were untrained irregulars, and with that certain knowledge, defeated a superior, well-trained force led by Tarleton.

Edmund Burke wrote, "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."

We have a lot of good, armed, patriotic men here. Our military if such a deed were attempted, would walk right into a chainsaw. And the more they would kill, the more dedicated and more furious the resistance.

Americans are a stiff-backed people. We bow to no man, no tyranny, no force. And our blood has been spilled all over the world validating that very fact. How many in countries who don't have personal firearm capabilities, have in the past or present, relied in part or in whole on the US to help protect not only your borders, but your way of life? Well, the US forces that helped, were a nation of shooters, with personal firearms.

We Americans don't only fight for ourselves. We fight for ideals. Even yours.

posted on Oct, 30 2008 @ 03:03 PM
The economy is also slowing down a little in my country. But I don't experience the increase of violence that you mention in your post.

Well I am pretty happy that there is a ban on guns here. Of course there are people here who have a gun illegally. But in general it makes me feel more comfortable.

The reason is this: I am afraid that when everybody has a gun he or she uses it to easily. Some people lose their minds when they get angry (let’s say after they lose their job, have family problems or whatever).

I am afraid that somebody (who usually is not violent) loses his mind then and comes back with a gun and shoot someone. When access to a gun is way more difficult, he probably has control over himself before he has access to a gun.

I also don’t think like “maybe somebody will rob me ?” “Maybe somebody will kill me ?” Therefore I don’t think that I need a gun.

Having said that, it is of course your own right to approach things differently in your own country.

Gtz from Holland

[edit on 30-10-2008 by lightyears]

[edit on 30-10-2008 by lightyears]

posted on Oct, 30 2008 @ 03:26 PM
reply to post by Sonya610

The significant variable for homicide rates is not racial/ethnic background, but economic status. To say or imply--let alone to "pontificate"!-- that people with European ancestry are less likely than those from "other" ancestries betrays ignorance or racism, or both. Look into demographic history: during the late 19th and early 20th century waves of immigration from Europe, cities in America, especially in immigrant ghettoes, were way over-populated & plagued by violence, gun homicides, gangsterism, etc. Murder rates skyrocketed among these populations & stayed high until WWII. They decreased with improvements in the economy and as job opportuniies & attendant opportunities to move out of the cities developed. Some comments here also betray "survivalist" fantasies. Does anyone really believe that in a violent gov't takeover using armed forces & widespread disruption of food supplies, etc., that individuals would be able to resist with rifles & handguns? Loss of freedom will come via far more effective Orwellian techniques, some of which have long been apparent in the language used by the gun lobby, wherein the promotion of unfettered gun sales masquerades as concern for safety & freedom. A better knowledge of history and the skill to spot false ethongraphic characterizations & Orwellian rhetorical strategies will help us retain our freedom much more effectively than guns.

posted on Oct, 30 2008 @ 03:28 PM
Okey, it's been a while since I've written a post on this forum, but this topic interests me as well. But kinda in the opposite way.

I'm from Norway and I find it strange that so many americans have this gun-fetish! What is it about guns that make you cling to excuses like that "right to defend yourselves"-thing? Do you really need them? Have YOU ever needed one? Or are they just fatal accidents waiting to happen??

I've never wanted or needed a gun myself. I've pratices different martial arts, but never really had the need for it, or a gun or a knife etc.etc.
Even after the army, I was happy to give back my AG-3 and Army Knife etc. I guess I would need it in War, but I donnot plan to go to war. EVER!
And I guess, americans are always at war, with someone. Right?

The gun rules are strict over here, yes. And there are almost NEVER any gun incidents in Norway. It's not that it's hard to get a gun, illegally. But only hard criminals and the cops find the need for them...sometimes. Not often.

Hunters canown rifles and shotguns for hunting, and it's not really hard to get those. You have to be 18 and you need to train and have an exam before you can get one, legally. But it has to be hidden in a locked gun-cabinet the rest of the year. And the control for this is VERY strict!!!!

I guess we don't have that Wild West mentality that the States have. Meaning, when someone are trespassing on your property the only way to get rid of them is to have a gun pointed in his/her direction and scare them away or shooting them. There are more accidents accouring than guns really saving people, aren't there? You know, life is not a movie. I know stuff happens, but it usually doesn't. Right?
I have a 2 year old son and I would NEVER have a gun in the house, EVER. The reason for that is because the percentage for my son finding it and blowing his head off is MUCH bigger than me using it for protection in my lifetime. And these kinds of accidents happens alot in the States I understand!?!?

Or maybe we (Europeans/Australians/NZ) are TOTALLY NAIVE????

P.S. I'm not being sarcastic. I'm asking?

posted on Oct, 30 2008 @ 03:30 PM
reply to post by dooper

Good post, a post that made me realise that maybe I wasnt putting my point accross correctly.

I dont think it is wrong that American civilians should have guns. As a matter of fact I am glad you have them. Why? because you brothers and sisters will be the first to be challenged by the PTB. How you deal with this challenge will be a lesson to everyone round the world. We can learn the agenda, the tactics and the depravity that you will almost certainly face first.

What realy gets to me is the fact that you believe that your fire arms are going to save you and that its some kind of blessing that you have them.

It would be if you used them, if you used the training you had in the military and if you could work out when and where justification in pulling the trigger lay.

Your guns wont make an army of armed civilians defend their rights or constitution because you have no organisation, leadership or faith in your fellow gun owning americans. If you did the world would already be free from the tyranny that comes all our ways because YOU HAVE THE WEAPONS, we dont. You are the ones moaning about losing your rights and freedom, the 2nd ammendment, patriot act etc, etc ,etc.

I dont expect you to fight my battles for me, but I have had more than enough of the western style shoot-em up bravado that is used to justify your guns.

I dont doubt for a second that many if not most of you would choose to die defending your homes and family, whether with or without fire-arms.

Just please dont expect us to listen to the " They will wonder whats hit them, they are scared of us because of our fire-arms or 300,000,000 gun owners are a force not to be trifled with". because you know as well as the rest of us unless you are organised, unless you are agreed on a point of execution and unless you have communication networks set up, your guns arnt worth the scrap metal they are made of. They might save you from the first 2 or 3 attempts to enter your home but they wont long term save your life, rights or your country.

No one goes to battle hoping others will join them, especially when the others dont even know when or where the fight is taking place.

There, I think and hope I made my point clear this time.


posted on Oct, 30 2008 @ 04:46 PM
reply to post by Stanley Mimix

Stan, you asked if we ever used a gun to protect ourselves, and I would assume that would include protecting others from a violent crime. I have. Three times. Each time I encouraged them as they looked down the barrel of a .45 inch weapon, to make the right decision, and to do so within the next two breaths. Each time I did not have to shoot, as they had a sudden change in purpose.

Fatal accidents with firearms? Sure. Hell, I read just the other day where a man fell off his ladder and impaled himself on the handlebar of his kid's bicycle. So dangerous, these bicycles and ladders.

We in the US don't have the Wild West mentality either.

You mention that you have a son and for that reason would never have a firearm nearby. That's fine. Nothing wrong with that logic.

My children were raised with firearms, trained to both respect and fear the capabilities of these weapons, and we never, ever had a problem. Each son had his own rifle on his eighth birthday, and to my pride, they were very safety conscious and very proficient. Once when an intruder trying to kick in the door, he looked in to discover my two young sons with rifles in hand, standing by their mother with a .38 in her hand. He too, changed his mind.

Wars are never anticipated, and usually it is the males that fight those wars. While the military will provide each soldier a rudimentary level of weapon training, this level of training and weapon familiarity is never sufficient to ensure battlefield success. It takes years of weapons handling to be able to operate a weapon instinctively with a high degree of proficiency.

In combat, quick is good, and slow is dead. There are so many simultaneous demands on you, that having to do any thinking about the weapon at all is to take away from your battlefield awareness and instinct.

Therefore, the one who is very skilled, comfortable, and proficient with firearms and the shooting process will ever be more successful on the battlefield, and more assuredly enable his survival.

I hope my sons never go to war. But by God, I will do my part as a parent to ensure that if they do go to war, they will have the very best chance for survival. I saw the difference in combat between men already skilled with arms, and those trained in the military. Shooters survive ten-fold over former non-shooters.

But, it is true that we in the US do a lot of the fighting around the world, so this may not apply in other countries. Until war comes to you.

Where I see a lot of argument is that one assumes that the civilians would field an army - and fight our standing army. That's insane. Won't happen. We would use guerrilla tactics, as this is a very large country with a large population, which is heavily armed, against a relatively small military.

You can kill an enraged grizzly, Cape buffalo, or African lion with a .22, although I wouldn't recommend it as my first choice. With enough hits, regardless of shot placement, it would eventually bleed out and fall.

Same with armies. We wouldn't go for a one-shot kill. We'd bleed them dry.

Without first-hand experience living in America, seeing its vast terrain, knowing its many people, or serving in actual combat, it is easy to bring your preconceived notions to this argument, and make small mistakes in your assumptions.

I've been there. Done that. And thus my hard-headed perspectives. For that I apologize if I come off as blindly stupid. But my determinations were acquired over decades of practical experience, in many different environments, and thus they didn't come naturally. Doesn't make them right. Doesn't make them wrong.

Just me.

top topics

<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in