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: 9
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in


posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 11:41 AM
reply to post by thisguyrighthere

There isn't a fascination with it at all -_-

A couple of kids get stabbed in a fortnight and due to a lack of carbombings in the Middle East or STEALTH TAXES, a favourite tabloid rantathon, it gets reported as some kind of epidemic.

The reason shops would sell out would be due to a few mindless, Daily Mail-reading parents asking for what is an extremely rare commodity in the UK.

posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 11:44 AM
reply to post by jBrereton


Now apply that same statement to the U.S. and the relative news coverage.

So what's to bitch about?

posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 11:48 AM
reply to post by thisguyrighthere

The fact that you guys have more murders per capita and having an armed populace doesn't seem to change any of this for the better - obviously you can't run a control experiment of any kind, because such a landmass with a similar population and similar sociological characteristics simply doesn't exist in the world, but still, guns are neither a panacea to solve crime and nor do they honestly seem to do anything about goverment repression - cling to yours guns all you like as a way to 'guarantee freedom' or whatever, but FEMA camps got legalised and your government is getting all the wiretap information it wants, either from the NSA or from similar foreign agencies which can legally spy on the US.

The population of the UK not having easy access to firearms has been pretty alright. With the problems we have with drinking-related violence, add guns into the mix and you have more people leaving fights in the carpark in a bodybag than with a broken nose.

posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 11:50 AM
reply to post by jBrereton

It isnt perfect but here's the experiment you seem to want:

Kennesaw v. Morton Grove

posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 11:58 AM
reply to post by thisguyrighthere

Eh they're not really comparing like with like there, as you did fairly point out, and a situation in which everyone is armed is very different to in most of the US where, say, a third of people are armed.

You can't realistically enforce a weapons ban in Chicago, or indeed anywhere in the US, and a national ban is simply unfeasible. Guns are there to stay in the US. Bit of a shame in my opinion, but that's sort of how it goes.

Here in the UK, I'd rather keep it how it is, with very low levels of gun ownership, rather than having an increased level of firearms in the nation and the corresponding problems in tracking them all, especially if the law was re-tightened.

posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 12:34 PM

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 amendment.

Trust me, most gun owners are all too painfully aware of this fact. The near panic buying of firearms and ammunition bears stark testament to that fact.

Right now, we are only being saved by the economy, his focus is elsewhere.

posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 01:06 PM
they have already tried to ban guns and the american people acutally won and the ban did not happen. this happened in 2008. I don't think they will try to excercise that ban any time soon

posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 01:37 PM
i see why you are so scared.. the so called freedom/democracy is what allowed having fireweapons, and your reply is the easiest fight guns with more guns
but i still cannot quite understand the need for these weapons

i dont have a gun nor i ever wanted to have one. if i ever need to fight, fight my way with fists.. well i do have a wooden sword but that is for my own strife towards enlightenment
these days using guns is similar to playing computer games. feels as if you are not in a real fight
when you fight without using firearms you feel your opponent and he feels you. it might hurt more, but there is a feeling in it

posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 01:48 PM
We had this in the UK.

Here is the story

After this the UK govt made owning firearms and even air pistols very hard to obtain.
The UK govt's take on this was less guns and this sort of thing will never happen again.

Well as you all know the criminal element do not give a stuff for the law anyhow and have carried on shooting, with armed robbery, gang land turf wars etc.

We also have the same thing with Knife crime. They have taken knives of the law abiding people or use a knife with the purpose of a knife being a tool.
Gangs still carry knifes and always will.

The UK in law terms is so backwards and common sense is found nowhere.

posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 02:08 PM

Originally posted by jBrereton
...guns are neither a panacea to solve crime and nor do they honestly seem to do anything about goverment repression...

"Solving crime" is not the purpose of free gun ownership in America. Our high crime rates are not a reflection of gun ownership, but of decaying morality and diminishing respect for life, property and authority. This is the result of the moral relativism being preached and taught in our increasingly violent entertainment media and our increasingly liberal educational system.

The purpose of free and unhindered gun ownership in America is to give the citizenry power over their own lives and, most importantly, over our government. Ours is a heritage of revolution, of arming ourselves to bring down an oppressive and corrupt central government when the need arises. American Patriots armed themselves and sent the oppressive and inflexible British government running like a scalded dog during the Revolutionary War. When Britain came back for round two in 1812, we sent them packing again.

Our Founders knew very well the necessity of an armed populace in holding the government at bay — that's why they provided the Second Amendment to our Constitution. Make no mistake, the Second Amendment is NOT about an armed populace defending themselves against crime and foreign invaders; nor is it about the creation of a National Guard (which would still be under the control of the federal government).

The Second Amendment IS about ensuring the continued ability of the private citizen to revolt against the government, and to do so by force of arms. That's the unspoken horror of our Constitution — it places the Power of Life or Death, of Freedom or Tyranny, squarely in the hands of The People, and not in the hands of the government.

Over the centuries, our expanding government has tried on many occasions to sidestep and undermine and reinterpret the Second Amendment, because they know exactly what it means. They've tried to water it down, admonishing Americans to rely on ballots instead of bullets — but the American right to Vote is not the be-all and end-all of the citizen's power. There IS a higher level of action that we can take to affect "change" in government, and that is the right to arm ourselves and Revolt. The Second Amendment ensures this right, and Congress shall make no law to remove this right.

THAT is what frightens so many government-loving liberals both here and abroad. It is what angers so many crappy, half-baked "democracies" (Britain, Canada, Japan, Australia, etc) that have subjugated free gun ownership to ensure continued government power over the people.

THAT is what distinguishes America from the rest of the world — The right of the American People to legally bear the firearms for staging another Revolution if necessary, and to remain confident that the Constitution protects this right.

— Doc Velocity

[edit on 2/19/2009 by Doc Velocity]

posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 02:18 PM
reply to post by Doc Velocity

You're doing a pretty #ty job of safeguarding your freedom.

posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 02:20 PM
reply to post by CapsFan8

You happen to be wrong about my training and experience.

1. My PhD in Clinical Psychology came from a very intense, high quality PhD program. I've practiced counseling and teachingm each part time, for 30+ years here and overseas.

2. Generalized comments certainly have their limits.

3. I don't see anywhere I'd change my comments at present.

4. OThuga has demonstrated evil globalist goals through and through all his adult life. His methods have been evil. His goals have been and are evil. His seductive deceptiveness thickens the evil. His Neuro-Linguistic Programming, via his oratory, of the voters during the election was evil. He has joined the Oligarchy in his willingly being a useful idiot toward shredding the USA per the Oligarchy's plans and schedule toward making setting up the more overt global government easier.

5. It's difficult to think of a valid solidly unfettered good thing about the guy. I guess one could say--he's the perfect Oligarchy stooge, puppet, thug.

posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 02:23 PM

Originally posted by buttafuqua


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?

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.

You assume that most of the US citizenry cares of what the rest of the world thinks. Why? When you go to bed at night, does it make you feel good to have conformed to the rest of the world's desires, or what it be more satisfying to know that YOUR moral structure, and YOUR beliefs were carried out over the course of the day. The whole point of this grand experiment was to allow liberty and freedom to be the bywords for a society, rather than appeasement and servitude. Does it really matter what the residents of Kenya or Khazakstan think of us on a daily basis?

And again with the racism BS. Why is it racist to despise a man for his acts? Would it make you feel better to know that most of us have more bitter feelings toward Biden than the Obamessiah?

For the record, while I am white, American, and a "toter" of guns, I'm not Christian. Part of the freedom that this "John Wayne society" fought and died for two hundred and thirty years ago explicitly states that I don't have to be. You don't, either. And despite the uselessness and inciting nature of your racism arguments, no one is going to knock on your door and throw you in the Gulag for making them.

Thank a gun-toting redneck for that protection next time you see him. You see, the second amendment is the one which gives the others their teeth.

-edit- clarifying quote structure

[edit on 19-2-2009 by pernox]

posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 02:43 PM
In response to americandingbat and several other members:

When you ask for proof that Obama and company have an agenda to abolish the 2nd ammendment. My response is the proof is in the pudding.

The bill was introduced with Obama's support on the 6th of January. The title of the bill is HR 45. HR stands for "House of Representatives", which is where the bill originated.

After a bill is introduced in Congress it gets sent to a Committee, which is pretty much a small version of congress. As of February 7, the committee that HR 45 has been sent to are the House Judiciary , as well as a subcommittee on Terrorism, Crime, and Homeland Security. The House Judiciary has a reputation for being pretty vague about business, and I'm certain that many of the Republicans who have seats there will not be attending.

After they are done looking at it, the committee will have a report. Once the report is given a vote in the House, then Senate, then signed by President Obama.

More proof you ask?? Fine. The day after the President was sworn in this list was released by the Democrats who support gun laws:

The Democrats current gun-ban-list proposal:

Rifles (or copies or duplicates):

M1 Carbine, Sturm Ruger Mini-14, AR-15, Bushmaster XM15, Armalite M15, AR-10, Thompson 1927, Thompson M1;

AK, AKM, AKS, AK-47, AK-74, ARM, MAK90, NHM 90, NHM 91, SA 85, SA 93, VEPR;

Olympic Arms PCR; AR70, Calico Liberty, Dragunov SVD Sniper Rifle or Dragunov SVU, Fabrique National FN/FAL, FN/LAR, or FNC, Hi-Point Carbine, HK-91, HK-93, HK-94, HK-PSG-1, Thompson 1927 Commando, Kel-Tec Sub Rifle;

Saiga, SAR-8, SAR-4800, SKS with detachable magazine, SLG 95, SLR 95 or 96, Steyr AU, Tavor, Uzi, Galil and Uzi Sporter, Galil Sporter, or Galil Sniper Rifle (Galatz).

Pistols (or copies or duplicates):

Calico M-110, MAC-10, MAC-11, or MPA3, Olympic Arms OA, TEC-9, TEC-DC9, TEC-22 Scorpion, or AB-10, Uzi.

Shotguns (or copies or duplicates):

Armscor 30 BG, SPAS 12 or LAW 12, Striker 12, Streetsweeper.

Catch-all category (for anything missed or new designs):

A semiautomatic rifle that accepts a detachable magazine and has (i) a folding or telescoping stock,

(ii) a threaded barrel,

(iii) a pistol grip (which includes NYTHING that can serve as a grip, see below),

(iv) a forward grip; or a barrel shroud.Any semiautomatic rifle with a fixed magazine that can accept more than 10 rounds (except tubular magazine .22 rimfire rifles).

A semiautomatic pistol that has the ability to accept a detachable magazine, and has (i) a second pistol grip,

(ii) a threaded barrel,

(iii) a barrel shroud or

(iv) can accept a detachable magazine outside of the pistol grip, and

(v) a semiautomatic pistol with a fixed magazine that can accept more than 10 rounds.

A semiautomatic shotgun with (i) a folding or telescoping stock,
(ii) a pistol grip (see definition below),

(iii) the ability to accept a detachable magazine or a fixed magazine capacity of more than 5 rounds, and

(iv) a shotgun with a revolving cylinder.Frames or receivers for the above are included, along with conversion kits.

you'll find more here Link
*please excuse my large quote.

At least they waited until he was actually in office to make their biggest move. You guys still think this is not a gun ban? The "catch all catagory is pretty sweet. Any gun that they forgot can just be added later by the AG, who happens to be a gun law extremist.

posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 02:49 PM
reply to post by W3RLIED2

And how will they convince the Supreme Court that this does not violate the Second Amendment, if it does constitute a virtual ban?

posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 02:51 PM

Originally posted by jBrereton
You're doing a pretty #ty job of safeguarding your freedom.

Compared to whom? Compared to the UK, where the populace cowers behind closed doors as gang violence continues unabated in the streets? Compared to Japan, where knife violence has replaced and surpassed any previous gun violence?

Don't speak to me of safeguarding freedom. The problem is human brutality, not the weapons we choose to express it. The difference is that Americans still have the choice of hiding behind locked doors or standing up to fight. You don't.

— Doc Velocity

posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 02:53 PM
reply to post by americandingbat

I dont think anybody has to ask the SCOTUS if a bill is "okay." At least they didnt with the 94 AWB.

They can pass a ban without the SCOTUS. It's up to somebody to sue against the ban and then make the case all the way up to the SCOTUS. Even if the SCOTUS rules it unconstitutional there is no guarantee the ban would be lifted. Just ask the residents of D.C. how their unconstitutional ban lift is going.

But, I'm no legal scholar so I could be totally wrong.

posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 02:55 PM
reply to post by americandingbat

My belief is that they dodge that bullet by declaring Martial Law. If a Martial Law scenerio is enforced the the Supreme Court Doesn't matter.
If the bill passes through congess its garaunteed to make all the way through with ease. After it's signed into law it will only be a matter of time, which is why those who care about the 2nd ammendment need to keep writing and calling congressmen.

posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 02:59 PM
reply to post by W3RLIED2

I think it's moderately important to keep writing and calling congress critters . . . merely as an act of responsible consistency to honorable values, if little else.

However, I think, that


the congress critters have been bought lock stock and barrel by the Oligarchy for a long time--particularly the leadership . . .

and/or intimidated or wholesale threatened along with their families

and/or 'naturally' agree with the satanic hellish goals of said Oligarchy . . .

SUCH WRITING AND CALLING will end up being essentially futile . . . though it might slow things down slightly or diminish the severity temporarily.

PRAYER is a higher priority

As Scripture says:






Besides, the enemy knows that and prayer annoys and destroys him the most. so, let us let him have it 'on our knees.'

posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 03:01 PM
reply to post by W3RLIED2

How are they going to declare Martial Law after all weapons are confiscated but before the bill has been challenged? I'm pretty sure the NRA and other organizations have plans in place to challenge its constitutionality pretty much the second it goes into effect.

new topics

top topics

<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in