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.


American Gun Rights - A cultural issue more than a defensive issue!?

page: 2
<< 1    3 >>

log in


posted on Apr, 23 2009 @ 08:43 AM

Originally posted by Thebudweiserstuntman
I'm not specifically implying that America has a violent culture,

Sorry, I may not have been clear. I didn't think you were necessarily saying the US culture worships violence. That is my opinion, as a citizen of the US, having grown up here.

I'm wondering if the historical romanticism associated with the Wild West era for example may have more of a subconcious impact on gun ownership's defence rather than actual belief in the right or need to own a gun in 2009?

I'm going to agree with LiquidLight here. Private ownership of firearms is pretty much embedded in US culture by this time.

It may be that the romantic views of the Wild West days has something to do with it. That mythology has certainly been pounded into the culture, no doubt about that...

As for belief in the right to own firearms... absolutely. Every human being on the planet has a right to own firearms. This right has in many cases been subverted and repressed by fearful or tyrannical governments, but it does none the less exist.

As for the belief in the need, that is a different question. But need is not really a relevant critieria, I think. Does anybody need to own golf clubs? Or need to own Steuben Crystal? These things bring joy to the people who choose to own them.

Same with firearms. Those that choose to own them most likely get some degree of joy from them... be it from target shooting or hunting or as a pure self-defense tool.

The problem is that some people own firearms who should not, and use them in inappropriate ways. This is not the fault of the tool, but rather the fault of the owner. Repressing ownership of the tool will have zero effect on the behavior of this type of owner. That is where the main philosophy of the culture needs to change.

All too often, at least in the US culture, violence is used as the last resort for somebody to get their way when they can't achieve that any other way. And this starts when we are children and threatened with physical violence when we do not do the bidding of our parents. And it just goes on from there.

It has been said that violence is the last resort of the incompetent. As with most terribly wise sayings, this is not always true, but I find it a useful philosophy.

posted on Apr, 23 2009 @ 08:46 AM
reply to post by Thebudweiserstuntman

The only way to get a hold of a genuine M16 is to find one that was produced before a certain date, petition your local sheriff explaining you wish to own one, pay a $200 tax to the BATF, pay out the ass to buy it.

Here's a sample of some Class 3 arms for sale:

The average work-a-day enthusiast cannot afford to buy them let alone fire them since blowing $30 a magazine in a couple of seconds doesnt sit well with people on budgets.

They are toys for the rich and anyone who acquires one illegally.

99% of the time when you see what looks like an M16 in the hands of the average American it's a semi-auto AR-15 variation of some sort. Any of these "military" style arms you see in our hands are semi-auto versions unless we happen to be filthy rich or drug lords.

[edit on 23-4-2009 by thisguyrighthere]

posted on Apr, 23 2009 @ 09:07 AM

I am genuinely interested in hearing if any gun owners agree that the 2nd ammendment argument is flawed and that they keep guns for the cultural symbolism, or that they just genuinely enjoy the sport of target shooting.

I use a weapon for work and self defense, although I,m not against some regulation. As for pure romanticism, I cannot say that is why I carry a gun, I have been in a situation, away from work and had to present my weapon, that's all it took, situation solved. Sport Shooting is my only hobby, there is nothing like running through a course hitting A/B rings with my custom 1911

It seems to me that the objection of gun control is more of a cultural issue than a defensive issue, as no armed american citizenship could hold off an armed government, especially the American government.

Just so y'all know, there are some 100 million American gun owners, in possession of some 300 million guns. Taking on a government, foreign or domestic I don't think would be problem. There are enough guns in America for every citizen to have at least one. Oh and by the way we armed citizens already took on a large government and won. It was called the American Revolution.

[edit on 4/23/2009 by HeavilyArmed]

posted on Apr, 23 2009 @ 09:15 AM

Originally posted by HeavilyArmed

There are enough guns in America for every citizen to have at least one.
[edit on 4/23/2009 by HeavilyArmed]

I'm pretty sure the Iraqi citizenship were all armed. Hasn't done them much good against two dictatorships - domestic and foreign incidentally.

"The first is the longstanding culture of firearm ownership in Iraq. It was very common, even in Saddam Hussein's time, for civilians to own weapons."

posted on Apr, 23 2009 @ 09:29 AM
reply to post by thisguyrighthere

Don't forget good old American innovation...

Oops... cheap, DIY automatic submachine guns?

This post won't last... get it while it's hot!

EDIT: on reflection... you'd have to be a pretty good machinist, but you could easily mass produce blowbacks if you were set up for it.

In other words, why buy one when the plans to MAKE them are out there on the web?

[edit on 23/4/09 by cbianchi513]

posted on Apr, 23 2009 @ 09:37 AM
reply to post by cbianchi513

As long as you already have the Sten receiver it doesnt make much of a difference what you make it look like.

This brings up a common media myth. The fantasy that crooks and thugs are manufacturing or converting semi's to full auto. Well they aren't. Some old open bolt style firearms can be converted with some minor tooling knowledge but unless you have a metal shop with lathes and presses and mills and know your way around it you arent converting anything anytime soon.

If you do bother to go through with all the effort to make your gun less accurate and waste ammunition you are committing a felony offense.

It is in fact much easier, without the proper equipment, to manufacture your own full auto grease gun with some sheet metal and pipe.

Last I knew there hasn't yet been a case of a semi converted full-auto used in a crime other than the illegal conversion being a crime itself.

posted on Apr, 23 2009 @ 09:51 AM
reply to post by thisguyrighthere

Sorry, I was trying to play devil's advocate... without giving all the juicy details.

I know that these are MOST uncommon... more of a curiousity.

Modding a semi isn't that crazy of a job, but like you said... A Federal charge.

There's a reason for a "three round burst" selection, no?

posted on Apr, 23 2009 @ 10:15 AM

Originally posted by cbianchi513
There's a reason for a "three round burst" selection, no?

The relative reasons for each fire mode are:

single shot = control, accuracy, effectiveness

3 round burst = instant Mozambique drill of sorts at relatively close range but requires an awful lot of practice to control. Some say it can be implemented when a target is on the move but I dont see how it would be more effective than proficiently fired single shots.

full auto = cover fire for maneuvering

The USMC rifle manual suggest no more than 12-15 shots be fired per minute for maximum effectiveness and accuracy. Thats about one shot every 4 to 6 seconds.

I've heard there is a problem with current generation soldiers being stupidly gung-ho and using full-auto almost exclusively no doubt due the increasing pervasiveness of real-world gun ignorance coupled with the widespread use of video games but that's just what I've heard.

[edit on 23-4-2009 by thisguyrighthere]

posted on Apr, 23 2009 @ 10:32 AM

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
This brings up a common media myth. The fantasy that crooks and thugs are manufacturing or converting semi's to full auto. Well they aren't.

This is drifting a bit from the original question, but yeah... I've talked to a few gunsmiths, and they LOVE people who try to convert semis to full auto... that effort generates a lot of business for gunsmiths, to repair the rifles that the owner has screwed up by trying it.

It aint easy at all, with modern semi-autos.

TGRH - Do you know if the attempt to make this mod is a crime? Or is it the result? I'm not sure...

edit for typo

[edit on 23-4-2009 by Open_Minded Skeptic]

posted on Apr, 23 2009 @ 10:39 AM
reply to post by Open_Minded Skeptic

AFAIK it's up to the BATF to prove that the intention behind messing up your rifle was conversion. Maybe you just had some really sticky buildup from firing nothing but Wolf surplus for years and thought a grinding wheel was the best way to remove it?

But, the BATF is government and they can do pretty much whatever they want whenever they want to whoever they want. Just look at David Olofson from Wisconsin.

posted on Apr, 23 2009 @ 10:52 AM

Originally posted by Thebudweiserstuntman

Originally posted by Binder
reply to post by Thebudweiserstuntman

Plus insenuating that the constitution, and therefore the 2nd amendment are "dated", I.E. no loner relevant. Oh no, you aren't trolling.

The 2nd ammendment written in 1791 isn't dated!? You sure?

By that logic the Magna Carta is waaaayyy outdated, right?

You, or someone, anyway, said that no single armed citizen could hold off the government. That's right, and that's the point: no SINGLE armed citizen could do it, but a whole GROUP of armed citizens could.

I have a button that reads: "We have to stop shooting at each other. You first." If the government were to disarm itself, i.e., disarm the police, FBI, and other enforcement agencies, then perhaps the citizens might be willing to disarm, too.

posted on Apr, 23 2009 @ 10:58 AM

Originally posted by Open_Minded Skeptic

I'll answer this, without any implication that I am a firearm owner. In my opinion, the only flaw in the second ammendment is the language that some have interpreted to mean only well-regulated militias may own firearms. It should be more clear in recognizing a basic human right.

Actually, the Founders were trying to be as clear as they could be, but failed to account for language drift. For them, "well-regulated" DID NOT mean controlled, it meant EQUIPPED.

If you look up all the cognate words to "regulated" in a thesuarus, you'll find that it is more closely associated with equipped than controlled , and the older the thesuarus the stronger the links. I actually made a T-shirt up to explain this to people. It repeats the Second Amendment with the cognate words replacing the word "regulated". Structured in that way, it becomes obvious what the Founders really meant.

A few examples to support my claim:

A well-regulated Millitia...

A well-similiarized Millitia...

A well-fitted Millitia...

A well-set Millitia...

A well-homologized Millitia...

A well-accorded Millitia...

A well-normalized Millitia...

A well-balanced Millitia...

A well-standardized Millitia...

A well-assimilated Millitia...

A well-set up Millitia...

I hope you get the idea. The word regulated meant something different to them, the primary meaning being equipped. Read that way the Second Amendment makes perfect sense. The attribute of "controlled" didn't really become primary until after the Industrial Revolution, when regulators were becoming common on machines.

The Second Amendment serves to remind people that their ultimate defense is and should be themselves, not the government, because governments can be corrupted, as witness the last eight years under Bush. It is a testament to the character of the American people that, despite being well-armed and angry, they endured patiently, awaiting the chance to win back their government through the ballot, even though they knew the vote was being screwed around with. If the last election had been stolen, THEN you would have seen armed conflicts beginning here.

You still might see them soon...things are deteriorating swiftly here, and if the Wall Street Gangs are allowed to continue to rip off the people and Treasury, people may start shooting to defend their homes from corporate thieves.

I fully support gun rights, even though I don't own one. Actually, I prefer knives, they're sooo much quieter.

[edit on 23-4-2009 by apacheman]

[edit on 23-4-2009 by apacheman]

posted on Apr, 23 2009 @ 11:17 AM
As a US citizen and the son of two British immigrants, I can say that I view the 2nd as a fundamental right. More in line with the right to privacy or the right to speak freely. I view the 2nd amendment as the right to defend ones self from certain death, with lethal force if need be.

Hell, even my Dad, who lives in Phoenix Arizona, and is still a die hard Brit citizen, has a concealed carry permit. He jumped through hoops like you wouldn't believe to get it, too. He has never used it, but he has had to un-holster it once, and by doing that, he didn't become the victim of theft, which could have been based on how the thief was armed, a violent knife assault.

I would like the OP to tell me straight in the face that if faced with a life or death situation where lethal force on their part would lead to their survival that they would not bear arms of any kind, be it gun, knife, pan, or heavy cell phone, and just take it and die at their assailants hands.

Burglaries and home invasions are on the rise in the US, especially in places like Arizona where the drug war is starting to spill over. The 2nd amendment is your right to defend your life with lethal force. To me it has nothing to do with rising against the government. It's my natural right as a person to defend my gift of life.

Cultural difference? Yeah right. I go over to the UK at least 4 times a year to see family and for business. You tell me why knife crime has skyrocketed? Because noone can defend themselves. All of my friends on that side of the pond wish they could bear arms, and they tell me frequently.

[edit on 23-4-2009 by Galvatron]

posted on Apr, 23 2009 @ 11:51 AM
reply to post by Thebudweiserstuntman

One of the difficulties islanders have in understanding the US of A is how BIIIGG the country is. England is a postage stamp country: tiny. I doubt if there's an acre of truly wild country on the whole island. You guys cut down all your forests ages ago, hunted out all your game, and surrendered to the idea that some folks have a right to order others about based on lineage. You were able to isolate yourselves from the violence your various governments perpetrated on the Irish, Indians, Africans, Australians aborigines and everyone else they ever came into contact with. It's easy to say guns are unnecessary when all the fighting is done offshore. Easy, but wrong. If you guys were facing another Hitler invading you, you'd collapse in just about zero time becuase you have no way to defend yourselves: you lack the tools, the skills, and the temperment to do so, and the space to buy time to gain them.

America has lots and lots and LOTS more truly wild country yet, where if you were to try to spend some extended time alone in them, you'd best have a gun or you'll end up critter food. We have the tools, skills, temprement, and space to defend ourselves against anyone, whether foreigners or Washington.

But despite what you think, we're not as violent a culture as the Brits. WE don't riot over sports games like your soccer hooligans, after all. From what I perceive, you people are far more physically violent than most Americans are, because you don't fear someone shooting your butt for acting up like that.

posted on Apr, 23 2009 @ 11:54 AM
I fail to understand why Brits, Australians, and other Europeans have such a fascination, and thus a problem with the American Constitution.

You allowed yourselves to be disarmed, but you want us to be unarmed too? If you are unhappy with your current condition, overthrow your governments, and institute your own Constitution with guaranteed rights.

Oops. That's right. You can't. You're disarmed.

Believe me, you have no moral superiority by allowing yourselves to be disarmed.,

You likewise have a lot of misconceptions about the United States.

This has come up more times than I can shake a stick at, and the same old, tired arguments, false assumptions, feigned ignorance and imputed moral progressiveness are frankly, growing thin.

I would suggest that you outside the US tend to your mittens, and here in the States, we'll tend to ours. Your rules work for you, and ours works for us.

posted on Apr, 23 2009 @ 12:08 PM
The second amendment builds into the fabric of the nation the respect for force that it should have, and the distribution of force to the people as the inheritor and stewards of that capability.

Only in the republic in which the means of force is not monopolized by the government but is distributed to the people can there be a true democratic rule and not a rule by force.

If the government maintains the monopoly on the means to use force and it is not distributed to the people then the government can become a tyranny and the people have no means of force at their disposal to remove this tyranny.

There is a reason this is enshrined in the second amendment. The first is free speech which is the primary and preferred means of handling disputes with government.

The second is there in case the first is challenged or removed as a option by the government. As with the DHS photographing the demonstrators at the Apr 15th demonstrations. If they mean to suppress free speech they will then have to then suppress the second amendment to get away with it for very long.

It appears that this is their long term goal and the people are aware of this and are vigilant. Thus before the Obama administration came to power in the US there were only about 93 million gun owners in the US and now there are closer to 100 million. We react as a people to threats to our rights. The ultimate reaction of course is removal of the government by force and the reestablishment of liberty. Only the US is prepared to do this so we could resist I assure the OP.

100,000,000 gun owners can indeed hold off the US military. That is the reason they want to go after the so called Assault weapons because they are the most efficient equalizers we can legally possess.

George Bush Sr. found out just what a bad idea that assault weapon ban was when he was handed his hat and told to leave the white house after his first term. It was the Gun toting Voters that held the door for him on his way out. As much as they despised Clinton they would not give GBsr a second term.

[edit on 4/23/2009 by UFOTECH]

posted on Apr, 24 2009 @ 01:12 AM
By dated you didn't mean "has an approximate begining date", a temporal stamp. You are "insenuating" irrelevant, and few here are dumb enough to buy that subversion of definition. Simply the attempt to use linguistic diggery do to try and, sound more rational than those hillbilly gun nuts belies your true intent. Why does a dog lick his nut sack? Because he can. Why do we own/love our guns, because we can. You can't. I have something you cannot have. Even if I hated guns, I would still feel better with the option to own one should I change my mind. You cannot legally posses one for personal defense purposes even if you really wanted to. By the way. Why are UK law enforcement officers usually much more heavily armed than ours? Is it because you are so inherently more peaceful because you don't have those evil, demon possesed guns defiling your populace? An armed society is a polite society. Thisguyrightthere is right you guys are just looking to pick the same old stupid fight. In the end it makes no difference. We won't give them up, and you've already given up. So when TPTB want to have their way with you, and your children, you will only have one option. Bend over. At least in a worst case scenario we would take a couple of jack boots with us, and have that option available. That's the difference between us, I'll go down fighting. You'll just go down. Who do you think they're going to pick on first? The american with a .357 or the brit with a cup O' tea? I'm sure I'm not going to change your mind, and you sure as hell ain't changing mine. So what's the point? If it makes you feel intellectually superior that you feel so enlightened, knock yourself out. You're only impressing yourself. All of human history stands as a testament against the validity of your claims that disarming people is best for a society. Only criminals, and totalitarians benefit from unarmed plebs. But hey, if you like being a pleb... Bash us all you want. We have better things to do. Like firing wildly in random directions in anger. BTW I have fired my weapon in self defense on several occasions, mostly at rattle snakes, and wild boar, but dead or injured is dead or injured regardless if it's source is human or not. If you want to see just how enlightened you are come take a walk in my neck of the woods for a few days, and nights during spring mating season without a firearm. If you survive we'll talk about it. With that I'll bid you farewell. I've got more productive things to discuss, than trying to save plebians from their master worship.

posted on Apr, 24 2009 @ 01:53 AM
reply to post by dooper

I think we are all fascinated because its always on our news that people are shooting up schools and such in USA.Maybe its media hype but it seems to happen alot more in the US than most other developed countries.(Thats my opinion i dont have facts to back that up.)
I think another thing alot of Americans dont realise is that gun ownership is huge in other countries just with stricter laws.
I could shoot well before i could drive and if i wanted i could easily own a gun.I just dont feel the need for one i dont hunt.I know countless people here (NZ) with firearms, hell most of my family do.Yet you would never know and no one really makes a big deal of it.
I guess what im rambling on about are plenty of Kiwis and Ozzies are armed yet deaths with guns per capita seem no where near as high.So i suppose we are perplexed because Americans make such a huge racket about their guns and end up shooting each other with them, yet over my ways no one owns a gun for defence its either just for hunting or sport.And bugger all people shoot each other.

posted on Apr, 24 2009 @ 01:57 AM
reply to post by Azador

That's just it, the gun deaths are hyped up by the liberal media. They gain nothing by reporting deaths by stabbing or other means, but whenever someone dies by shooting you can guarantee that there will be at least one major network reporting it.

posted on Apr, 24 2009 @ 03:55 AM
It's not a cultural issue, it's a Constitutional issue. The Constitution, being the Supreme Law of the Land, says we have the right to own guns. Period.


<< 1    3 >>

log in