It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

ABC Special to Dismiss Idea of Using Guns for Self Defense?

page: 4
46
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 01:00 AM
link   
The law is in place to protect the criminals. The criminals are the money makers for the system not us. The criminals are tracked and somewhat controlled by those in charge of this mess. They want for us to be under their wings in all aspects of our lives and not defend ourselves. While this is going on, the criminals are walking the streets with automatics and subs from the black market. Good one, I can see how this is going to end. If you did protect yourself from one of these wastes of human flesh and happen to kill one, you would be arrested. You would need to replace the asset of the system that you just took away.
That BS news team ABC is paid lots for this government report. They don't care about what's really happening in the real world. They're there to lull the masses and make everything seem OK, as the death tole rises from the release of felons. We're talking murderers, child molesters, and rapists. Their release is required to make room for the countless pot smokers out there. That's a good trade off. Nice one!
The bottom line is the bottom line people. We are not being represented here so why are we paying taxes? By all means file them, but don't pay. Why donate to those who don't support you or your family. For better roads? For better schools? For more jobs? For a better future? I say NO!!! to all of the above. The system in place takes care of only themselves. Not you. Not me. Not our children.
The system is going down anyways. Lets wipe the slate clean and put things back in order. Dump the system along with the banks. Remove the murderers, rapists, and child molesters from the planet. Print our own money and arm everyone at the age of 21 after they take a training course. Lets top this off with the removal of the Feds and all their laws that infringes on our rights. Those asshole will stop at nothing to force us into compliance with their BS. Remember what happened in Waco Texas.
The Federal Government stole our country from us. You might as well call it the United States Federation. It's no longer a free country. Open your eyes and look around. Cops look like the SS and act like them too. People are thrown in jail for years if their point of view or lifestyle differs from the norm.
What's the diff... I'm out of the country now. I see more of the truth out here in one day than I do in one year in the States.
People need to remove and charge the Feds with high treason. We're at war now so the punishment for this crime would be death wouldn't it? Oh well....




posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 01:15 AM
link   
reply to post by bigfoot1212
 
You missed my point. When you are in possession of a firearm, in order to protect yourself, you still have to be aware of your surroundings, you have to have some sort of plan about what you going to do.
If I walk into a conveinence store, I immediately scan the place, the customers, the workers, everything. I look for exits. And while I'm making looking for the item I want to purchase, I try to stay aware of any movement around me. If someone decides to hold up the place while I'm 30 feet away, I'm not going to try and close on him. I'm going to pull my 9 mil out and shoot him. I will be able to do that because I had a plan.
That was my point.
I believe Chuck Norris proved in court that a man could close from 30' and disarm someone before they could fire the weapon. I don't recall which side he was testifying for. The episode was recorded in his first book.



posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 01:21 AM
link   
I find it stupid to even put forth a doubting, pondering question such as: "If you had a gun, could you really defend yourself"? Obviously the answer is unequivocally YES! A close acquaintance of mine actually used a firearm to stop a B&E into their own home a few years back, and it neutralized the situation IMMEDIATELY.

The bottom line is that it matters not whether the defender in question is even a competent marksman, because everyone has the God Given right to defend themselves on an equal playing field. Stripping away and oppressing such rights, is tantamount to Slavery and Bondage.



posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 01:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by kettlebellysmith
reply to post by bigfoot1212
 
You missed my point. When you are in possession of a firearm, in order to protect yourself, you still have to be aware of your surroundings, you have to have some sort of plan about what you going to do.
If I walk into a conveinence store, I immediately scan the place, the customers, the workers, everything. I look for exits. And while I'm making looking for the item I want to purchase, I try to stay aware of any movement around me. If someone decides to hold up the place while I'm 30 feet away, I'm not going to try and close on him. I'm going to pull my 9 mil out and shoot him. I will be able to do that because I had a plan.
That was my point.
I believe Chuck Norris proved in court that a man could close from 30' and disarm someone before they could fire the weapon. I don't recall which side he was testifying for. The episode was recorded in his first book.


Carrying a firearm has its pitfalls. Your plan to shoot someone just for robbing a convenience store will get you jailed. Deadly force cannot be used to protect property. Personally, I would not act unless the someone's life was in immediate danger. Whenever confronted, your plan should be to retreat until you are cornered and threatened. Back up until you can't back up anymore. If the person still threatens you then obviously he believes that your life is worth less than your possessions. Then, your first warning shot can be to the forehead without compunction. It is customary to say, "stop or I'll shoot" as you pull the trigger. A quick second shot into the overhead will make a nice touch should you need evidence of a warning shot.



posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 02:10 AM
link   
Sadly I think America has come to a point where there is no point to even talk about banning weapons.

Back then it was mostly used for hunting and for protection in a almost lawless era. Now it doesn't matter that the police is here for protection and that meat can be found in the supermarket, americans use guns for fun (at shooting range) and most worryingly as a "status" symbol and confidence booster.
Sure many sleep better at night when they can feel the barrel under their pillow but in fact it only reveal how they have grown in fear of others.

When too many people have this fear/hate and too many available guns, then gun criminality rises sky high, violence only brings more violence. People buy more weapons and criminals get more of those guns, from the unrest brought after each shooting on the news.

And just the idea of a automatic firearm ban gets people rushing for guns and ammo. No matter how much rationale is put forward, americans will never give up their firearms and we should leave it as it is and let the problem fix itself.



posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 02:11 AM
link   
If there is evidence of crime rate going down in states due to Concealed Weapons Permits and evidence that the United States has lower murder rates than countries with gun bans, why should a "gun free nation" even be put into question? The human mind is the real weapon. Think about it: Murderers/criminals make the mental decision to kill, be it with explosive, firearm, knife, etc... They pick up their weapon of choice and decide "I'm going to kill this person or group of people." If it is a gun they have, then they decide to pull the trigger. Pure and simple. It's a mental decision with but a tool in the hand to make it easier.

Should we ban all common household items because they can be combined to make a deadly homemade explosive? Of course not, because there would still be a way to make an explosive or pyrotechnic. Greek fire anyone?

Gangs kill each other and other people everyday. Members of gangs come from all types of backgrounds, though mainly from poverty. Shouldn't we ban poverty then? There is an Indian guy I believe who won the Nobel Prize for his theory or some sort of idea about how ending poverty would end most of global violence. (No, I'm not saying let's go socialist and all have the same level of wealth.)


To the UK guy who stated that we couldn't progress past a piece of paper, my question is, why? Why throw away an important document with many valuable and practical laws/regulations? It's proved resourceful and great so far. "If it's not broke, don't fix it" The United States hasn't had a fascist or socialist dictator in power thus far (though some would argue Obama
) and those countries that allowed their weapons to be taken away, had those types put into power. I have two guns myself: A 12 Gauge Mossberg shotgun, for home defense. The other, a 7.62x54mm Mosin Nagant Russian rifle, for sport. What's the matter with that?

Bottom line: People will kill people no matter what, with whatever tool the decide. I understand the other side of this argument that guns have mainly one purpose: To kill. Be it for hunting or killing in war/murder/etc... It is better than a bow and arrow, isn't it? Those were used mainly for killing too, be it for hunting or war and such.

But, I think we can all agree that for civilians, it is almost always bought for self defense or sport. I'm pro gun but not a ridiculous fanatic, but this is just my response to this B.S. ABC program.

edit: for repeating a sentence


[edit on 9-4-2009 by AllinTheMind89]



posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 02:18 AM
link   
More pro-NWO brainwashing sheep out of one of their few defenses against the elitists trying to destroy the country and control the world. They already have the rest of the world believing that guns have no use, when in fact there is no other way to overthrow a corrupt government, and they know this. Although I don't like the federal military and would never join, Jefferson was right when he said that every citizen should be a soldier. You never know when duty will call.



posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 02:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheOracle
Sadly I think America has come to a point where there is no point to even talk about banning weapons.

Back then it was mostly used for hunting and for protection in a almost lawless era. Now it doesn't matter that the police is here for protection and that meat can be found in the supermarket, americans use guns for fun (at shooting range) and most worryingly as a "status" symbol and confidence booster.
Sure many sleep better at night when they can feel the barrel under their pillow but in fact it only reveal how they have grown in fear of others.

When too many people have this fear/hate and too many available guns, then gun criminality rises sky high, violence only brings more violence. People buy more weapons and criminals get more of those guns, from the unrest brought after each shooting on the news.

And just the idea of a automatic firearm ban gets people rushing for guns and ammo. No matter how much rationale is put forward, americans will never give up their firearms and we should leave it as it is and let the problem fix itself.


You dont even understand do you, automatic weapons have been banned from the general population for years now. You can get an automatic weapon with a special and very expensive permit, but you are limited to the year and make I believe. What you think of as an automatic weapon is not really an automatic weapon. It is a semi automatic weapon, You only get 1 bullet per trigger pull, where as a real assault weapon fires multi rounds per trigger pull. The Clinton Assault Weapons ban did not ban any assault weapons at all.
Those were banned decades earlier.



posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 02:35 AM
link   
mother jung...

South Africa has not banned gun ownership, thats why its number 2!!
your wrong....



posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 03:09 AM
link   
reply to post by News And History
 


I am quite convinced that during Obama's Presidency there will be a massive constriction on our right to bare arms. Because of this I am planning on buying what I can, and I will start with those dreaded "assault" Rifles.

This "special" is nothing but hyper-Liberal propaganda at it's worst.



posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 03:15 AM
link   
reply to post by TheOracle
 


Congratulations, you know nothing about American history or Fire Arms.


It is not only rural citizens who own guns, people in the cities own guns to. In fact, I would hazard a guess the majority of your neighbors own some form of gun.

And in the past weapons where stored for protection first. Generally someone who hunts has a specific gun they use, while having other guns more suited for defense in their homes or cars. Again, I take it you don't own a gun?

How about you exercise your right to not own a gun, and worry about your self. I would appreciate it if you did not press your opinions on me and those like me as if it where law and infringe on my right to own a weapon of my choice.



posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 03:21 AM
link   
I thought people would enjoy this story:


Todd Palin's half sister is arrested for burglary

Todd Palin's half-sister was arrested Thursday after police say she broke into a Wasilla home to steal money for the second time this week but ended up getting caught by the armed homeowner. The woman's 4-year-old daughter was nearby, police said.

Todd Palin is Gov. Sarah Palin's husband. He referred questions to a spokeswoman for the governor, who said the family would have no comment.

Police arrested 35-year-old Diana Palin at a house on West Mill Site Circle near Wasilla's Multi-Use Sports Complex.

Homeowner Theodore Turcott told police an unfamiliar gray 1993 Toyota Camry pulled into his driveway Thursday morning, according to a affidavit filed Friday at the Palmer courthouse. Turcott told police he'd been burglarized twice recently: Someone stole $2,200 on March 26, leaving $400 behind, and after another apparent break-in Tuesday, all but $9 was gone.

So, Turcott told police, when he didn't recognize the woman getting out of the Camry, he grabbed a gun and hid in the bathroom to see what would happen, said Wasilla police Deputy Chief Greg Wood.

Palin made straight for the bedroom cabinet where Turcott kept his cash, Wood said.

Turcott confronted her, detaining her until police arrived, he said.


www.claytoncramer.com...




posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 05:20 AM
link   
You know those of you supporting the idea of taking away other peoples rights would feel differently if it was a right you believed, and if you think for one minute that once the precedent has been set that the government will stop your wrong, Next is the 1st amendment then the 4th and so on and eventually the 13th amendment and we're all slaves.

what is it with these Liberals that think it is their god given right to take other peoples rights away you know what I will give up my 2nd amendment when they take away Minorities and womens right to vote! I will gladly turn in my gun when in America we are free to own slaves once more. I will give up my 2nd amendment when people who want to take away the rights of Others can no longer express their opinion in a public forum!

You are some kind of hypocrite to use your 1st amendment right to say my 2nd amendment right should be taken away but you have the right to do so for now and be glad you do!

I am in no way saying I support slavery either hopefuly people will see my point!

[edit on 4/9/2009 by Verd_Vhett]



posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 06:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by MrAnonUK
It is beyond me why so many Americans look to state a gun is for self defence, arguing the point 'if I had a gun at that moment.' It is true, a gun could prevent a shooting from happening, but that is merely a draconian approach and excuse to keep hold of a deadly weapon.

How is it that so many pose that scenario, yet fail to note that if a gun was not so easily accessible through your laws that 90% of these shootings would not occur (simply check many other 'fully developed' national statistics on gun crime.) It would be extremely hard to unilaterally withdraw guns from all persons, which of course makes it an incredibly difficult problem to resolve.

It amazes me however that I see so many state others are "sheeple," yet I can so often see the same people condoning the possession of items perfected with only only the soul purpose being to kill another human being. The majority of the world find it not so hard knowing you do not hold a tool for murder based on the claim it can defend themselves, why? beacuse the majority of the world does not ignore the higher probability of damages resulting from a populace readily possessing guns.

These are weapons designed to kill people for purposes of war, perfected for that very 'art,' the producers of these weapons are not considering perfecting them for domesticated use. So ultimately, guns should be banned anywhere and everywhere outside a war-zone, or developers should enter into a pursuit of perfection for domesticated use (which would provide the answer for both parties, yes... even those that act as if they must have weapons of murder otherwise they are being ruled by "the" NWO.)

And please, no our 'constitution' this, our 'constitution' that, doesn't change anything but show a nations inability to progress past popular interests for the greater good of man. It shows adherence to popular draconian writings, many of which need great revision, but many a man cannot, or will not, acknowledge that in the United States an almost ancient document is no longer suitable for a progressive mankind.



This whole post made me laugh. After living in the UK, a gun-control fascist state, and seeing the amount of murder and violent crimes that occur despite your idiot gun laws, it makes me laugh that you can be this blind. Do you know how many people I know in the UK that wish they had guns easily accessible to defend themselves from the hoodies and chavs that pretty much roam unchecked?

No guns in the UK? No crime? Nope, try again. People there get knife happy instead, stabbings and bludgeonings replacing guns and the tools of choice in committing armed robbers, assaults, and murders.

As far as your last paragraph, it shows the poisonous mind-rot that European fascist/liberalism is: that principals and popularly mandated ideals should be cast aside for some nonsense about "the greater good of man". How many tyrants have used that same arguement to strip people of their right to be self sufficent individuals and push them along with whatever agenda is being forced on them.

Yes, guns are designed to grieviously wound or kill, which is THE POINT. If some jackass is trying to rob, main, assault, murder, rape, or kidnap me, do you think his well being is one of my concerns? No. My main concern is totally and completely removing the threat to my person and environment.

As it should be. If said idiot is scum enough to come at me with the intent of harm, then as far as I am concerned, he or she have voluntarily given up any right to be protected from any harm.



posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 06:27 AM
link   
You're sound asleep when you hear a thump outside your bedroom door. Half-awake, and nearly paralyzed with fear, you hear muffled whispers. At least two people have broken into your house and are moving your way. With your heart pumping, you reach down beside your bed and pick up your shotgun. You rack a shell into the chamber, then inch toward the door and open it. In the darkness, you make out two shadows.

One holds something that looks like a crowbar. When the intruder brandishes it as if to strike, you raise the shotgun and fire. The blast knocks both thugs to the floor. One writhes and screams while the second man crawls to the front door and lurches outside.

As you pick up the telephone to call police, you know you're in trouble.

In your country, most guns were outlawed years before, and the few that are privately owned are so stringently regulated as to make them useless. Yours was never registered.

Police arrive and inform you that the second burglar has died.

They arrest you for First Degree Murder and illegal Possession of a Firearm. When you talk to your attorney, he tells you not to worry: authorities will probably plea the case down to manslaughter.

"What kind of sentence will I get?" you ask.

"Only ten-to-twelve years," he replies, as if that's nothing. "Behave yourself, and you'll be out in seven."

The next day, the shooting is the lead story in the local newspaper. Somehow, you're portrayed as an eccentric vigilante while the two men you shot are represented as choirboys. Their friends and relatives can't find an unkind word to say about them. Buried deep down in the article, authorities acknowledge that both "victims" have been arrested numerous times.
But the next day's headline says it all: "Lovable Rogue Son Didn't Deserve to Die." The thieves have been transformed from career criminals into Robin Hood-type pranksters.

As the days wear on, the story takes wings.

The national media picks it up, then the international media.

The surviving burglar has become a folk hero.

Your attorney says the thief is preparing to sue you, and he'll probably win. The media publishes reports that your home has been burglarized several times in the past and that you've been critical of local police for their lack of effort in apprehending the suspects. After the last break-in, you told your neighbor that you would be prepared next time. The District Attorney uses this to allege that you were lying in wait for the burglars.

A few months later, you go to trial. The charges haven't been reduced, as your lawyer had so confidently predicted. When you take the stand, your anger at the injustice of it all works against you. Prosecutors paint a picture of you as a mean, vengeful man. It doesn't take long for the jury to convict you of all charges. The judge sentences you to life in prison.



posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 06:29 AM
link   
This case happened.

On August 22, 1999, Tony Martin of Emneth, Norfolk, England, killed one burglar and wounded a second. In April, 2000, he was convicted and is now serving a life term.

How did it become a crime to defend one's own life in the once great British Empire ?

It started with the Pistols Act of 1903. This seemingly reasonable law forbade selling pistols to minors or felons and established that handgun sales were to be made only to those who had a license.

The Firearms Act of 1920 expanded licensing to include not only handguns but all firearms except shotguns.

Later laws passed in 1953 and 1967 outlawed the carrying of any weapon by private citizens and mandated the registration of all shotguns.


Momentum for total handgun confiscation began in earnest after the Hungerford mass shooting in 1987. Michael Ryan, a mentally disturbed man with a Kalashnikov rifle, walked down the streets shooting everyone he saw. When the smoke cleared, 17 people were dead.

The British public, already de-sensitized by eighty years of "gun control", demanded even tougher restrictions. (The seizure of all privately owned handguns was the objective even though Ryan used a rifle.)

Nine years later, at Dunblane, Scotland, Thomas Hamilton used a semi-automatic weapon to murder 16 children and a teacher at a public school.

For many years, the media had portrayed all gun owners as mentally unstable, or worse, criminals.

Now the press had a real kook with which to beat up law-abiding gun owners. Day after day, week after week, the media gave up all pretense of objectivity and demanded a total ban on all handguns. The Dunblane Inquiry, a few months later, sealed the fate of the few sidearm still owned by private citizens.

During the years in which the British government incrementally took away most gun rights, the notion that a citizen had the right to armed self-defense came to be seen as vigilantism. Authorities refused to grant gun licenses to people who were threatened, claiming that self-defense was no longer considered a reason to own a gun. Citizens who shot burglars or robbers or rapists were charged while the real criminals were released.

Indeed, after the Martin shooting, a police spokesman was quoted as saying, "We cannot have people take the law into their own hands." All of Martin's neighbors had been robbed numerous times, and several elderly people were severely injured in beatings by young thugs who had no fear of the consequences. Martin himself, a collector of antiques, had seen most of his collection trashed or stolen by burglars.

When the Dunblane Inquiry ended, citizens who owned handguns were given three months to turn them over to local authorities.

Being good British subjects, most people obeyed the law. The few who didn't were visited by police and threatened with ten-year prison sentences if they didn't comply. Police later bragged that they'd taken nearly 200,000 handguns from private citizens.


How did the authorities know who had handguns? The guns had been registered and licensed. Kinda like cars.

Sound familiar?

WAKE UP AMERICA , THIS IS WHY OUR FOUNDING FATHERS PUT THE SECOND AMENDMENT IN OUR CONSTITUTION

"... it does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds."
--Samuel Adams



posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 07:12 AM
link   
Protect yourself. Shoot your TV,
2nd



posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 07:26 AM
link   
perhaps someone should ask Ms. Sawyer if she had been in Binghamton a few weeks ago if she would have prefered to have had a gun or not.I myself have no guns at all however I know I could have one tomorrow by connecting with the criminal element.New York requires handgun permits which I do not posess however I can buy a handgun from the criminal element and the same goes for fully automatic weapons.I think we can all figure out what would have taken place in Binghamton had everyone of the fourteen people now dead had firearms when that nut job started shooting.



posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 07:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by secretagent woooman
reply to post by centurion1211
 

The only problem is, as any cop, medic or gun safety expert will tell you, is that the opposite usually happens. You are far more likely to injure yourself or enrage an offender to the point of murdering you by firing a weapon than you are to defend yourself. Point blank, people panic in those situations and it is not as easy to play Steven Seagal as it looks on tv, I say this as someone who has been in this situation. I'm all for self defense but please be realistic about it, you would have to see them coming to catch them off guard before they pull a weapon and then it can't even be called self defense in court. As desperate as a lot of people are now they are losing inhibitions about seriously injuring or killing someone else while robbing them so fighting back probably is not the best option in all cases.


I appreciate your view BUT that does not give you, Diane Sawyer or Pelosi the right to decide how I defend myself and my family. I have recieved ALOT of firearm training, I hit what I aim at. If you have enough faith and confidence in your Police Department to put your life in their hands, well I won't jusge you. Keep this in mind. Police are trained to be REACTIONARY in nature and not premptive. That being said, know that the police will not be there to help until after a crime has been commmited and you are already a VICTIM.



posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 07:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by pooty
perhaps someone should ask Ms. Sawyer if she had been in Binghamton a few weeks ago if she would have prefered to have had a gun or not.I myself have no guns at all however I know I could have one tomorrow by connecting with the criminal element.New York requires handgun permits which I do not posess however I can buy a handgun from the criminal element and the same goes for fully automatic weapons.I think we can all figure out what would have taken place in Binghamton had everyone of the fourteen people now dead had firearms when that nut job started shooting.



Chances are it was committed with a stolen weapon. The less guns arond the less gun crimes


"About one-third of the gun-homicide decline since 1993 is explained by the fall in gun ownership." ...

But in More Guns, More Crime (NBER Working Paper No.7967), Duggan uses a new proxy for gun ownership -- state and county-level sales rates for the nation's largest handgun magazine -- to show that guns foster rather than deter criminal activity.


source: www.nber.org...

national bureau of economic research




I rest my case.



new topics

top topics



 
46
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join