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: 8
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in


posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 03:00 AM

I consider myself quite left wing (someone here had "liberal libertarian" or something as a tag-that's a good description of me) but I own 4 guns because I'm a history buff and it's a ton of fun to shoot things.
reply to post by CapsFan8

If you supported Obama and voted Democrat in this ellection, I do not understand you... completely!

Obama, Pelosi and Reid are all about taking away ALL of our gun rights.

How do you explain yourself?

posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 03:21 AM
Frankly, it's easy enough to rally the troops when unconstitutional gun-control legislation comes before Congress — we know who the enemy is, we know where he is, and his strategy is a matter of Congressional record. Accordingly, we contact our Representatives and Senators, we start our petitions, and we SHOUT our opposition (as I hope you all do in the case of HR45).

However, more of us should be aware of the truly insidious anti-gun strategies, over which we have no control and against which we have no legal recourse.

Case in point, consider the decades-long collaboration of the American Medical Association (AMA), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and the World Health Organization (WHO) in an effort to redefine gun violence as an epidemic that threatens human civilization.

Rarely does this weird anti-gun scheme enter the limelight for public scrutiny, but it did indeed rear its head once in 2001. On June 20th of that year, during his inaugural address, the new president of the AMA, Dr. Richard F. Corlin, MD, repeatedly described gun violence as a "virus," as a "disease," and as an "epidemic." Not once did he mention the words "crime" or "criminal."

Dr. Corlin then quoted the AMA's official position on this epidemic: "Uncontrolled ownership and use of firearms, especially handguns, is a serious threat to the public's health..."

For a peek at the AMA's current official position on gun violence, take a look at the AMA Policy Compendium - April 2008. The whole document is pretty amazing, but for the AMA's firearm-specific policies, scroll down and start reading at page 30.

Particularly interesting is this passage:

[The] AMA will: (1) strongly urge the Administration and Congress to encourage the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to conduct an epidemiological analysis of the data of firearm-related injuries and deaths; (2) urge Congress to provide sufficient resources to enable the CDC to collect and analyze firearm-related injury data and report to Congress and the nation via a broadly disseminated document, so that physicians and other health care providers, law enforcement and society at large may be able to prevent injury, death and the other costs to society resulting from firearms; (3) assist in convening a broad-based coalition to thoroughly examine the issue of gun-related violence from a public heath perspective...

Epidemiological analysis of firearm-related injuries and deaths? Epidemiology is the science of determining the incidence, distribution, and control of disease within a population. So it's clear that the AMA and CDC approach gun violence as though it was an actual disease, like a mutated Bird Flu or something equally lethal.

But why? Why would our esteemed medical community go so far as redefining gun violence as a disease? To what end?

Well, the CDC is a very powerful entity that exercises a lot more control over our lives than you might think. Let's say we had a rapidly-spreading, nationwide outbreak of Bird Flu, with tens of thousands of cases popping up all over the country. The CDC makes the call — perhaps something dramatic like "We've got a wildfire, sir!" — and everything comes to a halt. Everything. A state of national emergency is declared, FEMA shuts down all major highways and airports and quarantines whole cities, the U.S. Constitution is suspended as Martial Law is imposed, and millions of law-abiding American citizens find themselves living in lockdown until the epidemic is brought under control. For our own good, you understand.

The CDC has that kind of power. The WHO has that sort of power on an international level. They're prepared to stop an epidemic in its tracks at almost any cost.

So, what if the "epidemic" happens to be gun violence? Well, it doesn't matter what the epidemic is, the protocols are in place to handle it. That's why they have redefined gun violence as a disease.

In short, the AMA has been lobbying for the Federal Government to fund research into gun-control and establish protocols for eradicating gun violence without actually making gun-control noises that would thunder across the land. This is a slick move by the AMA, utilizing its unique relationship with the CDC to promote anti-gun legislation in the name of advancing medicine and preventing disease.

To add insult to injury, we American citizens are paying for this gun-control "research" with our tax dollars, regardless of our personal stances on the issue of gun control. We must stand up and SHOUT our opposition to this skullduggery, this disguised threat to our Second Amendment rights; and we must insist of our Congressional legislators that any federal monies directed to the CDC will be utilized only for bio-medical research, and not for gun-control research.

— Doc Velocity

posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 03:34 AM

Originally posted by msm1003
I live in the UK (Scotland to be more specific) and...guns have been outlawed here completely since 1997. It is near impossible to get a gun in this country and it's impossible to get one legally unless you happen to be a farmer and it's for a humane purpose. I am twenty-two years old and I have never seen a gun before... Here's an idea, get rid of all guns and nobody has to fear them anymore.

I don't think you're being entirely genuine here, laddie. I have relatives and friends and acquaintances in the UK, and they confide that the situation over there is a near-perfect reflection of the American slogan "When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns."

There are still illegal firearms in the UK, there is still gun violence in the UK, there are still armed gangs in the UK. The difference now is that the law-abiding citizens of the UK are unarmed, while the criminals still have guns.

Your situation has not improved.

By your own admission, you have never even seen a gun. May I ask you a question? Have you ever been the victim of a violent crime?

— Doc Velocity

posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 05:03 AM
Not really exactly on topic...(?)...But just think how much nicer people would be to each other,if they thought that they might get shot in the face for being their normal,rude ass selves?.
Unfortunately,it takes weapons for us to respect one another,we treat each other like crap in this world,we pick on the weak for fun,like sport.
If ya thought that homeless guy was packin,I would bet your punk "grand theft auto" playin ass would think twice about playing with him like a toy.
We need to stay armed,without being criminals for doing so.
The governments of the world are just criminals who write policy and laws to justify their criminal acts.
They are still criminals none the less..............

posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 05:18 AM

Originally posted by chiponbothshoulders
But just think how much nicer people would be to each other,if they thought that they might get shot in the face for being their normal,rude ass selves?

We have a saying in Texas: An armed society is a polite society.

— Doc Velocity

posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 06:16 AM

Originally posted by W3RLIED2
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.

Do you have a source for this idea? My impression is that right now President Obama's main goal for while he's in office is to try not to have the dollar collapse completely on his watch, to try to keep at least some citizens in homes that they can't make their mortgage payments for, etcetera.

Has he ever said he thinks the 2nd Amendment should be repealed? Now that would be news worth reporting.

It's not going to happen though. Why? because even people like me, who detest guns and think that gun ownership in the U.S. is way out of hand, would have a big problem with anyone trying to repeal part of the Bill of Rights.

So worry all you want about the slow eroding of gun rights – I'm more worried about the slow erosion of 1st, 4th, 5th, and 6th amendment rights myself.

Just promise me that if they start talking about repealing the 1st amendment so that they can go back to forcing our children to pray in school, you'll back me up. and when they start talking about repealing the 2nd amendment, I'll back you up.

posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 06:18 AM
I dont think obama will even attempt at removing guns from america.
If he does, he then faces the wrath of angry, black hating, hil-billys.
god designed hilbilly with a gun in hand to be a burden on society. and give america a bad image. It has. And i say that as a Briton
It wouldnt be in his intrest to anyway.

posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 07:12 AM
reply to post by metropolis99

Thanks for stating this. I think it really needs to be heard more by most Americans. I learned this different perspective from living in the U.K. The U.S. has a horrible reputation throughout the world. Granted some of it is based off jealousy. However, a lot of it stems from the Ugly American stereotype, a country that solves all disputes through aggression. What is more aggressive than a gun?
I can answer that--a nuclear bomb. We are still the only country who has used nukes against innocent people. We are the same country who started a campaign of "Shock and Awe,” our first completely unprovoked war, which proved to be a complete waste of time, money, and human lives.

We need to confront this ugly reflection in the mirror, if we are going to again lead. The right-wing, gun-toting, John Wayne, persona we have assumed has ran it's natural course, and has resulted in the low regard which the United States is held in worldwide.

Ignorant, narrow-minded, racist people cannot accept that a liberal has taken office. He has absolutely no intention of stripping Americans of their arms. He is only supporting common sense legislation, which will hopefully save lives. You paranoid people out there who believe all this rhetoric are the real problem. You are who will not allow our country to evolve. You live in fear, fear of the changing world, and the increasingly marginalized narrow parameters in which you live. One which in less you are a white, gun carrying, Christian, you do not belong.

Our President is actually working to lead people. I think we have been upside down for so long we have forgotten which way is up. His charismatic, personality, combined with tenacity and intelligence, is a rare mix. He is an undeniable leader, and has given the world hope. However, many of you, muddled in your own mediocrity, will not be happy until he is knocked down a peg. You are ignorant and society is passing you by, and this is why you grasp for straws. Claiming he is the antichrist, or that he is a Muslim, or that he wants to take away your right to Bear Arms. This is fear mongering at it’s worse.

posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 08:54 AM
Can you supply proof that Obama is trying to eradicate the 2nd ammendment? All that i've read is that he is trying to regulate machine guns which is perfectly fine in my opinion. Guns should be used for hunting and protection... neither of which requires you to own an AK-47 or Thompson which are utilized to slaughter people.

He wont take guns away... remember his big speech where he said "I am not going to take your guns away" ...if he goes back on his word Republicans will label him a flip flop and it's all over for him.

posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 09:04 AM

Originally posted by WinoBot
All that i've read is that he is trying to regulate machine guns which is perfectly fine in my opinion. Guns should be used for hunting and protection... neither of which requires you to own an AK-47 or Thompson which are utilized to slaughter people.

Machine guns have been relegated to only the wealthy and the criminal since 1986 thanks to a law stating a civilian may not own a machine gun manufactured after 1986 so the price of those legally allowed to be owned is somewhere around the price of a new Toyota and the government tossed in a tax of $200 for good measure on top of that.

Most AK's are semi autos. I have one about 2 feet away from me right now. It is in no way a machine gun.

A little edjamacation can do wonders.

So Obama only want to build a time machine and go back to create laws that already exist or stay here and create laws against things that dont exist?

posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 09:04 AM
This is a non-issue. If a comprehensive firearm ban is attempted, it will result in the instant uprising of several million otherwise law-abiding - and armed - citizens.

Any such law will be ignored and actively resisted. Every time some LE agency tries to confiscate firearms, there will be a fire fight.

And from my conversations with cops on the street (as opposed to beaurocrat-types), they prefer law-abiding citizens to have access to firearms anyway, since they see up front and personal the results of firearm ownership restrictions.

They may try this, but it is doomed to failure.

posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 09:12 AM
People should be able to protect themselves period! The liberals want control over anything they can get, and this is one thing they think they can control. They are the "poor me" group. A robber enters a house, treatens the family, and gets killed. Then the robbers family sues the home owners. Librals let things like this happen. It is the "poor me" excuse. "Well, he had a bad childhood!" Who gives a crap, that is no excuse.

If somebody comes into my house, I am shooting to kill if I am threatened. Do you know in CT they don't have a self-defense law? You kill somebody, even if they have attacked you in your home and you are getting a charge. LIBRAL LAW! No surprise because it is a libral state.

With obama on the loose, I will not be surprised if he gets rid of anything that people can use to protect themselves. I think he is thinking ahead. If things get bad and people want to revolt, he will have taken away any means for people to do so ahead of time.

posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 09:22 AM

Originally posted by Victoria 1Do you know in CT they don't have a self-defense law? You kill somebody, even if they have attacked you in your home and you are getting a charge. LIBRAL LAW! No surprise because it is a libral state.

Not entirely true. In CT you are justified in using force.

Additionally, a person is not justified in using deadly physical force if he knows he can avoid doing so with complete safety by:

1. retreating, except from his home or office in cases where he was not the initial aggressor or except in cases where he a peace officer, special policeman, or a private individual assisting a peace officer or special policeman at the officer's directions regarding an arrest or preventing an escape;

2. surrendering possession to property the aggressor claims to own; or

3. obeying a demand that he not take an action he is not otherwise required to take.

Some key cases that come to mind was a homeowner in Stratford shooting an intruder at the bottom of his basement stairs. The intruder claimed he wa intoxicated and thought it was his house but the homeowner was found in the right.

Another is a hold up in New Haven where armed neighbors ran in on the crime in progress. An exchange of fire took place. The perp was wounded but fled and was caught later by police. The crime was stopped and the victim saved. There was significant outrage in the liberal cesspool that is New Haven. Most people thought eh owner of the business should have just died a martyr as the perps were taking him "out back" and chastised the neighbors for coming to his aide "old West" style.

No charges were filed against the victims saviors.

CT is absolutely a backwards hole that needs to be carpet bombed but unless fate hates you you will be able to use deadly force and not face manufactured legal hassles.

posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 09:51 AM

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

This is incorrect. Firearms do not promote violence, but more accurately a person with hostile intentions towards another person promotes violence. Guns are a means to an end, whether that end be breaking the law or protecting your family.

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.

Law enforcement officers can not just kill anyone with a handgun. While it is definitely true that some officers abuse their tasers and stun-guns, an officer that pulls the trigger on his firearm is ALWAYS investigated, to determine if he was justified in pulling the trigger.

If you want to feel safe - write petition to your Governor to enforce existing gun law.

Criminals don't care what rules are in place. Just because the governor puts pen to paper doesn't mean that criminals are going to say "Oh, he made gun laws more strict, i guess i'd better stop robbing people now..." If that criminal wants something you have, he's going to do whatever he can to get it, even if that means killing you.

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.

Seriously? Did you think about what you were typing as you typed it out? Your solution to gun violence is to take criminals and draft them into the military? Law obedient citizens shouldn't have any reason to fear law enforcement officers, they should fear the citizens that aren't law abiding. And to suggest that all non law-abiding citizens are gang members is categorically and logically wrong. (Also, just as a side note, the military is not suffering a shortage of enlistments.)

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

you couldn't be more right on this. Shoot them in the leg, and they'll live. (unless you hit the artery, but if they are a criminal, you just did society a service anyways.)

posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 10:04 AM
I think it should be a law that all US citizen are required to own guns. Anything going in the opposite direction seems to be UNamerican

Also to go with theme of this entire site .. evil governments, aliens, NWO, secret weapons .. Do you really think a gun is going to save you? Maybe if you turn it on yourself it would be useful. If there was a GOV take over or aliens your gun would do about as much damage to them as a mosquito does when it hits your car...

lol Your screwed well unless your French

posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 10:56 AM
Yeah, unarmed people get absolutely cained when they have a trained military set on them. Coming from a country in which this is incredibly unlikely to happen, I'm happier without the general populace having weapons, it reduces the lethality of crime in general. Less assaults turning into murders, less thefts leading to the deaths of any of the involved parties, etc. etc.

To me, it seems disappointing that the citizens and government of the US are happy to play a possibly incredibly messy game of chicken with each other.

posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 11:05 AM
I really hope all the staunch supporters of Obama are right and he is the miracle worker they make him out to be. I'm not a racist, and for some to insinuate that people who disagree with Obama's policies are racist only proves their own blind faith in the man. Believe me, if he wasn't already on board with the agenda of the power starved elitist who pull the strings behind the world's curtains he wouldn't be sittin' in the whitehouse right now and the same goes for most of the president's in the last fifty years. You can call me a fear monger or a racist all you want, but you need to realize if what I believe is true we're all in trouble and we will have no chance in stopping a New World Order type of situation if we don't become aware of it and head it off at the pass before it's already set in stone. It's pretty clear where Obama stands on guns if you have followed his political career, so I'm not off base in my concern about the possibility of future policies restricitng a citizen's ability to own and use a firearm.

It's shocking to see some people wouldn't have a problem with banning gun's completely, as if that would eradicate crazy people without a conscious. Let's pretend for a minute we actually somehow could magically make all firearms vanish, do you really believe this would change the mind of criminals out to do harm. Prisoners don't have guns, but yet people are killed every day in prisons. If a criminal wants to kill, the lack of a firearm will not deter them, but a firearm in the hand of the would be victim might do just that.

As for the misguided children in world(Columbine), you can blame their actions on video games or their access to guns, but the problem is rooted not in what is in their hands, but rather what is in their minds. A child doesn't dismember the family pet because he has played too many violent video games and even if they hadn't had access to guns I'm pretty sure the pipe bombs they made would've worked. If they didn't have the simple materials needed to make the pipe bombs they could have just set the school on fire with a lot a gasoline. See my point!!

posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 11:11 AM
reply to post by Buddy420

Taking away firearms makes it harder for things to escalate into someone getting killed. Obviously, the US is so filled with guns that a ban there will never work, so I doubt people would realistically imagine they could disappear there.

As to violent video games affecting children - c'mon... that's not being rational about things, hundresd of thousands of kids play such games here in the UK every day, but are our streets covered in blood due to children getting mixed up about the real world and fantasy?

No. No they are not. Phelps et al's movement is intellectually bankrupt.

posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 11:35 AM
just thought I would add another history Ghandi by using unaremed non violence was able to win independence and freedom for the worlds largest democracy

posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 11:36 AM
reply to post by jBrereton

I'm not a proponent of the theory that video games make for violent people.

Apparently, neither are you.

Just curious though, what do you attribute the UK kids and their fascination with "knife culture" to? There must be some reason they're running around stabbing people left and right, right?

TO pretend because of the absence of civilian firearm ownership the UK is some bastion of safety is ridiculous and would require anyone you pretend to trick with such statements to be completely oblivious to the goings on over there.

Parents dont frantically buy-out shops of "stab-proof" clothing and bags for no reason.

Funny, over here with all our guns parents arent trying to buy their children bullet-proof vests for school?

An over-reactionary population over there?

top topics

<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in