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.


History of Un-armed Citizens

page: 1
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

+73 more 
posted on Feb, 18 2009 @ 09:16 AM
While many Americans don't know it, one of President Obama's main goals while in office is to ban firearms for the public and abolish the 2nd ammendment. I'm here to tell you all why that is a very bad idea.


January 22, 1905 - 120,000 to 200,000 men, women and children marched against the Winter Palace in St. Petersburg, the capitol of what was at the time Imperial Russia. They planned on presenting the Tsar with a list of demands that included things like fair wages, 8 hour work days, income tax, universal Russian education, ect.

The front gaurdsmen were tipped off well ahead of time that the civilians were marching to them. They shot and killed 500 Russians, and wounded more. Their own citizens. After tthis would come to be known as Bloody Sunday which led to the 1905 Russian Revolution.

It's amazing what happens when un-armed civilians try to plead for their rights to a very armed government. You people think our guys are any different?? Maybe some of the Marines on ATS could shed some light on running excercise out and 29 palms... A little pop quiz some instructors like to ask is "Would you shoot an American citizen?"

September, 1941, Babi Yar - German SS troops with the assistance of hired Ukrainian militia men kill 34,000 men women and children in 3 to 4 days. Some (pretty think IMO) historians have said that the Jews of Babi Yar went to their deaths like sheeps in a herd. My response to them is that its very hard to defend your family and countrymen when you have no guns and no access to guns. Especially when your invaders are carying automatic rifles and sub-machine guns. The difference between resistance and submission depends very largely on who has posession of the Arms.

1999, Michigan - a six year old boy walked into a classroom and shot and killed 5 year old Kayla Robbins. Immidiatley afterward there was an outcry from gun control advocates about "gun violence". President Clinton used this sad accident as a tool to put into legislation a law that would require all guns to have mandatory trigger locks installed.

Now for most gun control advocates in a fantasy world, Kayla Robbins may possibly still live today if the trigger locks legislation had been in place in 1999. For those who pay attention to reality,(which is usually not found in the news papers, and on TV) you may have heard that the 6 year old boy who shot the young girl was living in a(n) operating crackhouse with his uncle. His uncle was a multiple offender (that means felon) with warrants and his father was in prison. His mom was also MIA thanks to an addiction. Do you still think the trigger lock law would have helped??

Further more, our 6 year old offender didn't "go to a gun show" to avoid the loopholes, like many gun control advocates like to say. He merely walked into his uncles bedroom while he was passed out from drinking and using, picked up the loaded .45 and went to school.

In the fantasy world of gun control advocates, guns kill people, people obey the law. In the real world an individual squeezes the trigger. And if that person pulls the trigger on an innocent, the individual is breaking the law. Including gun laws.

Criminals kill people. But, being criminals they do not obey the law. Their crimes involve guns sometimes.

Automobiles also kill people. Between crime, and accidents they kill 50,000 people per year(average). Should we outlaw these as well to save those victims? That's the logic the gun control advocates would have.

In the real world most that support gun laws are upper middle class, living in decent neighborhoods. Most have some sort of home security/first response system as well. In the neighborhood I grew up in the only security system we had was what my mother could keep loaded on her nightstand. Becasue in reality without that weapon a house robber could have had it pretty easy with only my mom and two kids.

August 23, 2000, Merced CA (close to home for me). The Carpenter Family incident- The Carpenter parents left work and put their eldest, Jessica 14, in charge of her 4 younger siblings: Anna 13, Vanessa 11, Ashley 9, and John 7. Jesssica wakes up to sounds coming from downstairs. Upon investigating she discovers a naked man pulling his pants up. She also quickly notices that he's barricaded all the doors and downstairs windows from the inside. By the way he also has a pitchfork.

The man takes notice of the 14 year old girl and gives chase. Jessica locks herself in her bedroom upstairs, and proceded to escape out of her 2nd story window. Jessica tells the police later that she wanted to get to her dads handgun but was unable to do so.

The intruder was a 27 year old man with a history of meth use. In the police report and in the local papers it was reported that this guy also had problems with kids. He ended up killing 7 year old John and 9 year old Ashley with a pitchfork. After being chased through the house wounded Anna and her sister Vanessa escaped and met with Jessica outside. The 3 of them ran to their neighbor's for help.

It was written several times in local papers that the girls asked thier neighbor to get his gun and help save their siblings but he wouldn't do it. Instead he called the police. The cops opened the door to arrest the pitchfork weilder and he charged at them. They shot him 13 times to death.

Interestingly enough, as Jessica had said that she had thought to try and get to her dads gun to shoot the intruder, police asked her why. Her response was that she was trained to use fire arms and even had her hunting lisence since she was 12. Her father had shown her how to shoot the handgun as well. All surviving Carpenter children told police they would have shot the man if they could have.

To expand, Jessica also told police that she knew she couldn't get to the gun becasue it was un-loaded and trigger locked. It was also put high out of her reach in a spot in her parents closet... doing no good for self defense.


I hope that by reading that some of you woke up a little. Taking away our second ammendment rights would give criminals like this complet carte' blanche' to do what they will to an innocent, law abiding, unarmed public.
As it is Mr. Carpenter was more afraid of California state gun laws than he was of a burglar bringing harm to his family. Even if young Jessica could have found her way to the closet to fetch the unloaded, trigger locked .357 handgun, it would do no better than a gun shaped paper wheight against the pitchfork weilding psycho.

By this point some of you (patient) readers are probably wondering whats the point of all this? Why all these stories? Murdered families, government sponsored massacres... This isn't about gun bans.

YES IT IS!!! It's all about gun bans. It's about what happens when people lose their guns. "a simple history is repeating itself would suffice" you say... HA, I've been saying that. No one seemed to understand the history i was speaking of.

More to come, and a refference list i promise!!! thanks for sticking with a long post i know.
Been working on it for a while.

posted on Feb, 18 2009 @ 09:47 AM
Good post, S&F. Some people will never understand the value of a weapon until it's to late. They say the 2nd amendment is archaic and out of date. They say that to argue about cars killing people is a moot point because they serve other purposes, unlike guns whose sole purpose is to kill. Whatever, let them disarm America. The day they criminalize guns is the day I become a criminal.

With guns we are citizens, without guns we are subjects.

posted on Feb, 18 2009 @ 09:50 AM
I wish more people had access to guns.
I live in Canada where gun laws suck.The idea that someone is trying to control what I can and can't do really pisses me off.
With the current state of affairs here I have gathered all my survival gear and am ready for almost anything.
The only problem is no gun.How the ef do you hunt or protect yourself out in the woods without a gun.
Its insane.
I refuse to get the paperwork to get one as i don't want those powers that be knowing what I have.
A few years back I had a crackhead walk into my apt.I ended up taking a baseball bat to him and thought that was it.
He comes back a few months later with a gun and the cops got him for it.
I would have rathered put a cap in him and avoided all the bs later.
I think everyone should have the right to own one without the government having any knowledge of it.
It might keep them on their toes to do a good job.

posted on Feb, 18 2009 @ 09:50 AM
Prof. Emeritus of Political Science Rudollph J. Rummel, of the University of Hawaii (nice title there eh) describes deaths by the government's hands in large scale as Democide. Latin for killing the people.

Rummels democide statistics only show numbers of Un-armed, non militia, civilian deaths at the hands of government either by mass starvation, executions, camps, or other means. All numbers are in the 20th century only.

In total the number of innocents dead is about 170,000,000

The Soviet Union killed 61,000,000 of her own citizens.

Nazi Germany killed 11-12 million Germans/Jews/Gypsies/immigrants

Communist China is responsible for 35,000,000 of her own citizens.

The USA claims 583,000 innocents abroad and also 12,000 of our own citizens to what Rummel describes as "state sponsored murders and crimes" via the KKK and the Clandestine Services.


Gun control laws and government sponsored mass murder goes hand in hand. If you don't believe me take it from Hitler: " The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to permit the conquered Eastern peoples to have arms."

He also said "History teaches that all conquerers who have allowed their subject races to cary arms have prepared their own downfall by doing so" And take it from the 170,000,000 who have been lost at the hands of tyranical governments.

What bothers me most about the times right now is that there are many signs pointing to a Martial Law state imminantly approaching. At some point in time over the next 4 years it's very likely to happen!

If we lose our right to keep and bear arms you can expect that Americans will die in the years that follow. I see no big coencidence that there are 214 FEMA camps ready to accept detainees as I write this. Who's going to those camps America???? Who? The only threat that they are worried about is us and weather or not we're coming peacefully.

In conclusion it's important for me to say that all of us are born free. The men that wrote our Bill of Rights would be turning hand springs an back flips trying to get this bill stopped. If we lose our guns we lose our voices when the time comes. If they just walk in and take them it's going to be the begining of the end of our Freedom. Lets all take a step back and look at the big picture. The history books don't lie, and this has happened before, many times.

"They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty, nor safety." -- Benjamin Franklin


  • More Guns Less Crime. J.R. Lott Jr., University of Chicago Press copyright 1998
  • 7 Myths of Gun Control. Richard Poe, Three Rivers Press copyright 2001
  • Inside the NRA magazine
  • Death By Government. Rudolph J. Rummel, Somerset NJ Pub.
  • Rudolph J. Rummel, Statistics of Democide

posted on Feb, 18 2009 @ 09:56 AM
reply to post by ExistenceUnknown

I agree. If the government's military and police personell are the only one's who get to carry firearms, then they are also the ones who decide who to protect and who not to protect.

I don't know about some people but i plan on protecting my family and myself in my own way.

posted on Feb, 18 2009 @ 10:37 AM
Decent post and some valid points for your arguement. However, I have to correct you on one thing; Obama's plan is not to completely ban firearms and abolish the 2nd amendment, but rather limit the number of "assault rifles" one can own. I am an Obama supporter myself, but I do not agree with his plan to put a fixed number on gun ownership. Honestly I believe it will be nothing more than that of a "plan" or "idea". At the moment there are bigger fish to fry. Mainly the economic turmoil most of are in at the moment. Plus, if it did become more than just an idea, it would be included in the midnight policies ( I believe that's what they are called). So that at least 4-8 years down the road.

As I said, decent but let's keep the fear mongering word play to a minimum. At least provide some quotes from a credible source to show President Obama had plans to "abolish" the 2nd amendment as you stated.

posted on Feb, 18 2009 @ 11:00 AM
reply to post by AgentMoulder

Actually it says nothing about limits. Most of the wording is pretty open ended, leaving the Feds with the final say in the end. Heres the link, read for yourself. H.R. 45

Just becasue it's not stated exactly how I said doesn't mean squat. Any one who knows how legal speak works knows that the bill is open ended in favor of the government and not the citizen. When it comes right down to it they could easily strip every one of their arms and legally we wouldn't have a leg to stand on. Thats tyranical, and corrupt.

The men who wrote that bill did not mix words. The 2nd ammendment still has just as much meaning now as it did when it was written.

posted on Feb, 18 2009 @ 11:42 AM
While I agree that guns are sacred and once they are gone so are we, I would like to remind everyone about ammo! I see them letting us keep our guns(for awhile anyway)but bullets(and spare parts)are what I'd worry about. They are already getting expensive and hard to come by in quantity. Might be a clue to stock up now and seriously think about some reloading equipment.
Of course, when martial law is declared all bets are off! Party over, game on.

[edit on 18-2-2009 by dodadoom]

posted on Feb, 18 2009 @ 11:59 AM
Why Am I Armed?

My grandpa said to me, “Son, there comes a time in every mans life when he stops bustin’ knuckles and starts bustin’ caps and usually it’s when he becomes too old to take an *** whoopin’.”

I don’t carry a gun to kill I carry a gun to keep from being killed.

I don’t carry a gun to scare people. I carry a gun because sometimes this world can be a scary place.

I don’t carry a gun because I’m paranoid. I carry a gun because there are real threats in the world.

I don’t carry a gun because I’m evil. I carry a gun because I have lived long enough to see the evil in the world.

I don’t carry a gun because I hate the government. I carry a gun because I understand the limitations of government.

I don’t carry a gun because I’m angry. I carry a gun so that I don’t have to spend the rest of my life hating myself for failing to be prepared.

I don’t carry a gun because I want to shoot someone. I carry a gun because I want to die at a ripe old age in my bed, and not on a sidewalk somewhere tomorrow afternoon.

I don’t carry a gun because I’m a cowboy. I carry a gun because, when I die and go to heaven, I want to be a cowboy.

I don’t carry a gun to make me feel like a man. I carry a gun because men know how to take care of themselves and the ones they love.

I don’t carry a gun because I feel inadequate. I carry a gun because unarmed and facing three armed thugs, I am inadequate.

I don’t carry a gun because I love it. I carry a gun because I love life and the people who make it meaningful to me.

Police Protection is an oxymoron. Free citizens must protect themselves. Police do not protect you from crime, they usually just investigate the crime after it happens and then call someone in to clean up the mess.

Personally, I carry a gun because I’m too young to die and too old to take an *** whoopin’.

Author unknown (but right on target)

"from my cold dead hands" Charlton Heston

posted on Feb, 18 2009 @ 12:01 PM
I am with the OP on this. Following is portions quoted from a Gun Owners of America email of the now U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder.

"President's choice for U.S. Attorney General, Eric Holder, is an anti-gun extremist who has assailed gun owners since his days in the Bill Clinton administration.

Holder, who served as Deputy Attorney General from 1997-2001, supports a 3-day waiting period for handgun purchases, one-gun-a-month rationing, licensing and registration of all gun owners, mandatory so-called smart gun technology, a lifetime gun ban for certain juvenile offenses and regulating gun shows out of existence.

As Janet Reno's top deputy, Eric Holder was the go to guy on gun control issues. In a 1999 statement, Holder told members of Congress not to cave in to "the special interest that value the cold hard steel of guns more than the lives of children, neighbors and police officers," and urged them to pass legislation that would have destroyed the gun show industry.

In 2000, Holder was instrumental in the Clinton Administration's effort to strong arm firearms manufacturers into voluntarily accepting regulations that had stalled in the Congress.

In a brazen legislation-by-extortion plot, the federal government filed suit against gun makers but offered to drop the suit if the companies would bow to the administration's demands.

After the 9/11 terrorist attacks, in an op-ed in the Washington Post, Holder pushed for more gun control and greater restrictions on gun shows, even though the terrorists were armed with box cutters that could be purchased at any hardware store.

Just last year, Holder joined Janet Reno and 11 other former Justice Department officials in an amicus brief before the Supreme Court arguing in favor of the gun ban in Washington D.C.

The Holder/Reno brief also took the position that the Second Amendment protects a collective government right, not an individual right."

Why can people not get it through their heads that laws only restrict the law abiding citizen? You take away all of the guns from the public and who is left with the guns? The criminals. By criminals I mean the people who run drugs and the GOV. Our rights as Americans are being demolished. The patriot act has listed EVERYONE and I mean EVERYONE who posts on this board as a terrorist and they are subject to be treated as such. Don't believe me? Read the patriot act. There are so many laws and bills passed that we do not know the full details of, not that the people who vote on them know the full details either. In what sense does 9/11 have to push people into accepting gun bans? Did everyone forget they used box cutters? But oh no now there has to be a bullet proof door for the cockpit. Because somehow guns get onto aircraft all the time. And as the OP said H.R. 45 is bad news for gun owners. People need to educate themselves with the text of the legislation and quit relying on the boob tube for their info. Also in the above text it talks about Holder and Reno's view that the Second Amendment protects the GOV and not the people? It is reasons like this and many others that states are starting to put in place legislation to leave the Union. There are so many other points with the above quote I could go into. Please look into what they are doing with our rights and make it known that you do not support these changes.

[edit on 18-2-2009 by Vodo34861]

posted on Feb, 18 2009 @ 12:06 PM
I would also like to add a thought for those of you to entertain. If every home in America had a gun. And by every home I really do mean every home. How many home invasions do you think there would be? If everyone 18 years of age and older had a gun at all times, how much violent crime do you think there would be? How many people would be robbed at gun point? Guns are leverage and when you make the field level by giving everyone that leverage it no longer becomes leverage.

posted on Feb, 18 2009 @ 12:08 PM
I do not own a gun and I do not want a gun. Any firearms promote a violence.
The most people what "scare" me with guns are the Law Enforcement in any form. The can kill innocent person and "walk away" free of any charges.
If you want to feel safe - write petition to your Governor to enforce existing gun law.Draft all gang members to serve in military - that will solve the shortage and disarm all Law Enforcement officers. That way the law obedient citizens will have no reason to fear and firearms will not be needed.
There are many ways to stop the opponent without taking a life.

posted on Feb, 18 2009 @ 12:16 PM
reply to post by liesnomore

You cannot be serious. I agree that firearms promote violence, but only when a few have them. So you can see that LE can kill people and get away with it so you want them to have the guns and all of us not to? So you really want to make it easier for them to kill us. And then to top it off you want to draft gang members into the military? Have you lost your mind or do you want to die? You want to give those who have proven themselves to not be on the right side of the law special training on how to kill people, how to use bombs, access to better weapons, and the connections to expand their gang? I think not, there is a reason why the military looks into gang backgrounds, because they understand what the training can be used for after their service time is up. And then you state it will disarm all of the LE so only the military, which is run by the GOV, will have the guns. And then by your own plan will be staffed by gang members. So then the gangs will have all the guns and we as the public will not have anything to stand up with. I am sorry but this is a plan that will never work.

posted on Feb, 18 2009 @ 12:18 PM
Regarding liesnomore's post above...

Cold dead fingers.

[edit on 18-2-2009 by Grumble]

posted on Feb, 18 2009 @ 12:21 PM
So are you saying that our brothers, sisters, fathers, and mothers serving in the US military and reserves are mindless drones who will turn their weapons on the US private citizens - their peers, loved ones, relatives, etc... en masse just because they had orders to do so?

Nope, Not buying it. I also don't believe it everyone had a gun in their house there wouldn't be robberies. I believe that if everyone had a gun in their house, robbers would bring bigger guns, worse weapons. I also believe we'd have even more accidental shootings.

posted on Feb, 18 2009 @ 12:21 PM
reply to post by liesnomore

What if there were no more laws and law abiding citizens or law abiding government.
Would you change your tune then??

posted on Feb, 18 2009 @ 12:22 PM
I find it interesting that multiple states are passing bills to prevent the federal law enforcement from taking away guns from the state's citizens.

And look you are preaching to the choir - guns sales are up like a million percent since Obama won the election it's no secret that the left wants an unarmed sheeple of a populace.

posted on Feb, 18 2009 @ 12:23 PM
The truth is that there is no way they could take them away in one administration. Ban guns at this point and the government has 20 million Tim McVeighs on their hands. The aftermath would render the threat of Muslim extremism a quaint, peaceful memory.

No, what they will do is continue to turn up the heat on the frog. Tyranny happens a step at a time. We will lose a little more first amendment, then a little more second amendment, and so on, until there is nothing left and no more fight in the population.

posted on Feb, 18 2009 @ 12:24 PM
Two words for you homeboy:

Fear Mongering

This is actually one thousand percent false. Even if it wasn't, there are enough guns in this country for every man, woman, and child. There is zero risk of Americans being unarmed even if it were part of some shadow-government's diabolical plan.

I know a lot of this has been coming from the redneck, and frankly uneducated, white supremacists out there that still can’t believe we have a brother for a president. This type of rhetoric typically charges the key constituency of the last Republican bastion: Poor, uneducated whites, who are clinging desperately still to the idea of some sort of racially superiority.

Consider this your African American History lesson for today.

posted on Feb, 18 2009 @ 12:24 PM

Originally posted by liesnomore
I do not own a gun and I do not want a gun. Any firearms promote a violence.........................

There are many ways to stop the opponent without taking a life.

That's dead wrong. Firearms don't promote anything. A firearm is an in animate object.

If i load six bullets into my revolver and set it down, that weapon is not going to go off, that weapon will not move on its own, and that weapon would be just as safe as a pair of scisors, or a wrench. Many gun control advocates like to push the idea that guns promote violence, when in fact they deter it.

In 1995 a study of defensive gun use was conducted by criminologists Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz. They did a number of surveys. The most reliable of which showed that Americans have used guns in self defense as much as 700,000 times per yer. Its like Vodo said, how many people would be robbed at gun point if every one around you was packin heat?

Gary Kleck

new topics

top topics

<<   2  3  4 >>

log in