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.

 

America

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 3 2004 @ 08:38 AM
link   
Machine Guns and Semi Auto Guns don't kill lots of people!

Handguns do most damage!

Here in the Bronx there are far more stabbings!




posted on Jun, 3 2004 @ 08:47 AM
link   
You may finds attitudes differ across the puddle as here in britain from what i can understand. The british public fork out a lot of money for people who dont really deserve it while in america that doesent happen.



posted on Jun, 3 2004 @ 09:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by SimpleTruth

You just don't understand history, do you? Do you even know WHY we had a second amendment in the first place??

Don't you realize signs of authoritarian trends that are happening when you see them?? Guess what Hitler and Stalin did first before they started their maniacal plans? They DISARMED THE POPULATION SO THAT THEY WOULD HAVE FULL CONTROLLLLLLL!!!!! These are just two examples of leaders with ill intentions disarming. Check out some history.

A huge reason why this nation actually survived Britain and became established is because we had guns. In other words, we could fight back. As much as you would like to think, this world isn't candyland or anything. A protest with signs won't do crap if the government becomes hostile. But by that time, you would have already volunteered to hand over weapons. The government has nothing to fear. No organized counter militias can be formed. You don't think this could EVER happen in this country??? Well it can. It may be a slower process than others because of our system.....but notice the insane effort to ban guns!

Wake up.


Please dont question my understanding of history young man.

I understand your points and, reading between the lines, I especially enjoyed your likening of Bush to Hitler and Stalin. Hes definitely from the same mould.

My point still remains though, making it easy for someone to carry a gun increases the number of people that do so. This in turn massively increases the likelihood of someone being shot and killed.



posted on Jun, 3 2004 @ 01:03 PM
link   
With out guns the king of england could come into your house and push you around. I need my gun for protection because everyone is out to get me. Why all the paranoia?
Also sounds like supercool is just upset because the police busted him for driving drunk.



posted on Jun, 3 2004 @ 02:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Clandestine
[
Kill the gun culture by banning weapons and you'll save a lot of lives.


Somehow I doubt that. While I understand the mentality and the reasoning, I can't support it.

As I've said in a few posts before, guns have four main purposes:

1) To protect yourself against a tyranical government

2) To protect yourself against outside agression (i.e. war)

3) To protect your life, the life of your family, and your property

4) To hunt

Oddly, 3 of the 4 reasons are to kill people. Guns are meant to kill people and animals and that is the plain and simple reason to have them.

Now I know the responce to this will be "but when was the last time you had to defend yourself against an outside army" or something much like it. The answer is, is that is doesn't matter one bit when the last time was, or how likely it is in the immediate future.

The fact is, is that the world is a sadistic and sick place. No one knows what will happen, but guns are tool much like any other. As such they have the purposes listed above and are needed for such.

Handguns by far kill more people than any other type of gun, so the useless legislation that has been passed (for the most part) is just that, useless in curbing anything.

Banning drugs has done little to the flow of drugs and drug use in America, so why would banning guns be any different. What it WOULD succeed in doing, would be to disarm those who obey the law.

Also, I'm not sure I trust those in authority to be the only ones to have guns. The militia after all is every able bodied citizen NOT working in conjunction with the government, so that rules out the national guard.

Meaning that everyone has the right to keep and bear firearms of any kind according to the Constitution of the United States.

Banning guns would be a major departure from the basic tenants upon which we built this country, and no matter how flawed it is historically, currently, and in the future, it is the best country out there.

There needs to be a better solution that just to bury our heads in the sand and hope the feds save our asses all the time.



posted on Jun, 3 2004 @ 08:19 PM
link   
I have never driven drunk.

I drink a couple of Heinekens every 3 weeks when I am bored and when I was at a Candy Dulfer concert in Times Square last November 3rd at B B Kings BluesClub I drank 2 Screwdrivers!

I resent being stopped by police while traveling.

It is a Gestapo Police state tactic!

American GI's died for all over Earth for freedom to travel !

Lawmakers outlawed it.



posted on Jun, 3 2004 @ 08:29 PM
link   
I know I'd rather have this simple encounter
Officer: have you had anything to drink tonight?
Me: Nope
Officer: Ok

The a situation with my car wreaked, a passenger dead and a trip to the hospital in an ambulance. Driving is not a RIGHT it is a PRIVILAGE.



posted on Jun, 4 2004 @ 03:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by KrazyJethro

As I've said in a few posts before, guns have four main purposes:

1) To protect yourself against a tyranical government

Could happen, but highly unlikely.


Originally posted by KrazyJethro
2) To protect yourself against outside agression (i.e. war)

That's what the army and National Guard are for.


Originally posted by KrazyJethro
3) To protect your life, the life of your family, and your property

I can understand your reasoning, but how good would your life be after shooting and killing an intruder of your property? I fear not very.


Originally posted by KrazyJethro
4) To hunt

No problem with that at all.


Originally posted by KrazyJethro
The fact is, is that the world is a sadistic and sick place. No one knows what will happen, but guns are tool much like any other. As such they have the purposes listed above and are needed for such.


I have never carried a gun, none of my family have ever carried a gun, none of my friends or their families have either. I, and none of these people have ever felt in danger for not carrying a firearm. It's all about culture.


Originally posted by KrazyJethro
Banning drugs has done little to the flow of drugs and drug use in America


Blame the CIA.


Originally posted by KrazyJethro
There needs to be a better solution that just to bury our heads in the sand and hope the feds save our asses all the time.


I don't think banning guns is burying our heads in the sand, I wholeheartedly agree though that we need a sensible solution.


dom

posted on Jun, 4 2004 @ 04:12 AM
link   
Someone asked for a non-american viewpoint on this, so here goes an English view on it...

As regards a police state; seems that many of the members of "the coalition of the willing" are very keen on moving towards a point where every single citizen can be monitored closely. This will happen unless there's enough public annoyance about it to prevent it. Unfortunately the plan for converting our societies is gradual and there isn't going to be one big thing which everyone can fight. Actually, in the UK the ID cards might be a good point for debate. But overall you only have to scare people enough and they'll happily give away their rights.

An example... terrorist attacks hit an all time low last year, but does it feel like it? No. Why? Because it suits the agendas of our policy makers to keep us scared. All governments have a natural urge to catalogue and register, all people have a natural urge for independence, but fear can halt the latter. Governments don't change, doesn't matter if they're communist, democratic, monarchist, whatever... The Domesday Book in 1068, the census every 10 years, compulsory ID cards, all examples of the same basic impulse that governments have.

As to the gun thing... The US has about 100 times more guns in circulation than the UK, it also has 100 times as many gun deaths, and only 5 times the population. So I'd say that's pretty conclusive to me.

And this whole "Gun's are our way of life thing, they helped us defeat the British" is bollocks. The French helped you beat the British, along with two other major revolts, at the same time, which the British were also fighting. US independence was a lucky battle, although undoubtedly you'd have got independence sooner or later. The gun was not, however, the main route to victory. I find it hard to believe that people think they should have the right to own gatling guns. Would you like the right to have a mortar aswell? Fighter-bombers? Nukes? You'd need something like nukes to really be able to topple your own government...

[EDIT]replacing naughty word[/EDIT]

[Edited on 4-6-2004 by dom]



posted on Jun, 4 2004 @ 07:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by Clandestine

Please dont question my understanding of history young man.

I understand your points and, reading between the lines, I especially enjoyed your likening of Bush to Hitler and Stalin. Hes definitely from the same mould.

My point still remains though, making it easy for someone to carry a gun increases the number of people that do so. This in turn massively increases the likelihood of someone being shot and killed.


Okay, then I'm questioning your ability to utilize history and to match it up to our world today. Also, I can't believe that since you think Bush is similar to Hitler, you STILL want to disarm the people of America so the government under Bush has all the munitions and weapons???? YOU MAKE NO SENSE. Completely unbelievable. The only thing I can conlude, other than you may severely lack logic, is that you're in the government, so it's not a big deal to you.

After all I said, and the points I layed out for you, all you have to say is, "Well, I still think guns increases deaths."? Did you not understand that people will kill someone if they want to, even if all they have is a nail filer.

You said more people carrying guns increases the chance of someone being shot and killed. Well maybe, but not being killed period. Take guns away, and substitute other weapons in the blank. It now reads, being ____ and killed. Also, I'm curious, how many people do you know who have guns??? Many many many people, if not most who own guns, keep them at home for safety, unless they hunt, or are in a gang. If they are hunting, then there's nothing wrong with that. If they are in a gang, well then don't you think the GANG'S the problem???!!! Maybe you watch too many movies like the Matrix or Bad Boys or something.

Listen if someone busts into my home wanting to kill me with a gun, or knife, kung fu me to death, I DAMN WELL HAVE THE RIGHT TO OWN A GUN AND USE IT SO PROTECT MY LIFE AND FAMILY. If the government ever becomes hostile, then the people have a chance to rebel and overthrow it and restore it, unless you have a fetish for totalitarianism. Maybe you do.

You must not like the constitution don't you? Do you have no respect for it?? You obviously want to change it.



posted on Jun, 4 2004 @ 07:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Clandestine

People say guns don't kill people, people kill people. but lets face it, the gun bloody helps doesn't it.


Let's remember what the NRA says about guns..."Guns don't kill people, It's just that noise they make...BLAM!"

Seriously though, I wonder about this country. I somehow doubt the fact that the US will even be a sovriegn nation anymore within the next 20 years....that's just me though.



posted on Jun, 4 2004 @ 07:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by dom
Someone asked for a non-american viewpoint on this, so here goes an English view on it...

As regards a police state; seems that many of the members of "the coalition of the willing" are very keen on moving towards a point where every single citizen can be monitored closely. This will happen unless there's enough public annoyance about it to prevent it. Unfortunately the plan for converting our societies is gradual and there isn't going to be one big thing which everyone can fight. Actually, in the UK the ID cards might be a good point for debate. But overall you only have to scare people enough and they'll happily give away their rights.

An example... terrorist attacks hit an all time low last year, but does it feel like it? No. Why? Because it suits the agendas of our policy makers to keep us scared. All governments have a natural urge to catalogue and register, all people have a natural urge for independence, but fear can halt the latter. Governments don't change, doesn't matter if they're communist, democratic, monarchist, whatever... The Domesday Book in 1068, the census every 10 years, compulsory ID cards, all examples of the same basic impulse that governments have.

As to the gun thing... The US has about 100 times more guns in circulation than the UK, it also has 100 times as many gun deaths, and only 5 times the population. So I'd say that's pretty conclusive to me.

And this whole "Gun's are our way of life thing, they helped us defeat the British" is bollocks. The French helped you beat the British, along with two other major revolts, at the same time, which the British were also fighting. US independence was a lucky battle, although undoubtedly you'd have got independence sooner or later. The gun was not, however, the main route to victory. I find it hard to believe that people think they should have the right to own gatling guns. Would you like the right to have a mortar aswell? Fighter-bombers? Nukes? You'd need something like nukes to really be able to topple your own government...

[EDIT]replacing naughty word[/EDIT]

[Edited on 4-6-2004 by dom]


I never said guns were the main factor or if I did then I said it wrong. But they were A factor. The Continentals and even the back-country men all had guns to fight and it took their toll. The French no doubtedly helped seal the deal for us. And the vast distance between America and Britian was also a HUGE thing that helped the US out. So I don't have any illusions about it was just guns guns guns. Also, where did you get your statistics about guns and killings? Please make a link.

Also, again, if we have more guns, we will have more gun-related deaths obviously, but not DEATHS period. If all we had were knives, guess what??? WOW, do you think that there could possibly be more KNIFE related deaths???? OOOHHHH
Amazing how that works.



posted on Jun, 4 2004 @ 08:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by SimpleTruth

.....you STILL want to disarm the people of America so the government under Bush has all the munitions and weapons????


You're basing a lot of your argument on the need to repel the military should Bush become a tyrannical dictator. You really think you, with your handgun, would have any chance against the military? Rubbish.


Originally posted by SimpleTruth
After all I said, and the points I layed out for you, all you have to say is, "Well, I still think guns increases deaths."? Did you not understand that people will kill someone if they want to, even if all they have is a nail filer.


I still don't buy this. Most killings are spare of the moment, non-premeditated murders. If a gun wasn't to hand, the would-be killer would have to use another method to murder. I don't believe every one of these would-be's would kill by another method in the absence of a gun.


Originally posted by SimpleTruth
Also, I'm curious, how many people do you know who have guns??? Many many many people, if not most who own guns, keep them at home for safety, unless they hunt, or are in a gang. If they are hunting, then there's nothing wrong with that. If they are in a gang, well then don't you think the GANG'S the problem???!!! Maybe you watch too many movies like the Matrix or Bad Boys or something.

Have you even read my previous post?


Originally posted by SimpleTruth
..unless you have a fetish for totalitarianism. Maybe you do.


Please.


dom

posted on Jun, 4 2004 @ 09:09 AM
link   
Try this link simpletruth..

www.huppi.com...

Murders committed annually with handguns (1991, can't find more recent data):
US 8,195
UK 7

So that's a factor of 1000, but I think shotguns are more widely available as a percentage in the UK, also suicides will bring the UK numbers into the early 100's. Suicides bring the US total up to somewhere near 30,000.

www.geocities.com...

Murder Rate (per 100,000 people in 2000)

US 5.64
UK 1.61

So you're right that there are more murders in our country with knives than guns, whereas I think that's the other way around in the US. However, a gun is a far more effective way to kill a person than a knife. To shoot someone with a gun you pull a trigger, to kill with a knife you have to get in close and use as much force as possible to repeatedly stab someone. Guns make murder much easier.



posted on Jun, 4 2004 @ 10:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Clandestine

Could happen, but highly unlikely.

Regardless, it is still a possibility.



That's what the army and National Guard are for.


The national guard are not that big or that good at what they do. Never-the-less, the government and the entirety of the armed forces are not enough to handle all situations.



I can understand your reasoning, but how good would your life be after shooting and killing an intruder of your property? I fear not very.


How do you figure. I think it would be just fine. There is such thing as justifiable homicide. The only prerequisite is that you FEEL threatened.



I have never carried a gun, none of my family have ever carried a gun, none of my friends or their families have either. I, and none of these people have ever felt in danger for not carrying a firearm. It's all about culture.


I am not talking about carrying a gun, only housing them in your home. Carrying a gun is a different conversation.



I don't think banning guns is burying our heads in the sand, I wholeheartedly agree though that we need a sensible solution.


Perhaps not, but banning guns would be a major department from the Constitution, and one I think would cause as many problems as it solves. There is no way to save them all, there is no fool proof method to saving lives. But banning weapons is not the way to do it.



posted on Jun, 4 2004 @ 10:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Banshee

Originally posted by Supercool
I have seen a man in California who stole a Pizza his 3rd, which is a Felony and he has to sit in jail for it!


Oh whatever!!!
Petit larceny is a misdemeanor!!!

Try again.



Banshee, I dont know what the laws are where you are, state to state they differ. I grew up in Indianapolis. It didnt matter what you stole, It was all a D felony. If it was your first you could get it down graded. After that its on.



posted on Jun, 4 2004 @ 10:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Clandestine

Originally posted by SimpleTruth

.....you STILL want to disarm the people of America so the government under Bush has all the munitions and weapons????


You're basing a lot of your argument on the need to repel the military should Bush become a tyrannical dictator. You really think you, with your handgun, would have any chance against the military? Rubbish.


First off the only rubbish is what you wrote, and the idea that Bush is trying to become a dictator presented by whoever else...Bush is for gun-ownership.

Basically though, the militia "the people" with the right to bear arms can repell any attempt at a "government take over".

Remember the United States is a Union of States, there will never come a time when the militias can not defy the federal government. If the federal government which draws most its strength from the people attempted to fight the people then the people would most certainly win because the majority would obviously not fight for a tyranny. The South lost the Civil War because the North did not see itself as Southern, so it was much easier for the Union to find supporters. Even then the Union was hard pressed in finding supporters, having to supress numerous rebellions within its own territories.


Originally posted by Clandestine

Originally posted by SimpleTruth
After all I said, and the points I layed out for you, all you have to say is, "Well, I still think guns increases deaths."? Did you not understand that people will kill someone if they want to, even if all they have is a nail filer.


I still don't buy this. Most killings are spare of the moment, non-premeditated murders. If a gun wasn't to hand, the would-be killer would have to use another method to murder. I don't believe every one of these would-be's would kill by another method in the absence of a gun.


You're wrong. Mode-of-murder has been shown to not matter. If someone is going to kill someone on the spur-of-the-moment they will do it, regardless of what's at hand.


Originally posted by Clandestine

Originally posted by SimpleTruth
Also, I'm curious, how many people do you know who have guns??? Many many many people, if not most who own guns, keep them at home for safety, unless they hunt, or are in a gang. If they are hunting, then there's nothing wrong with that. If they are in a gang, well then don't you think the GANG'S the problem???!!! Maybe you watch too many movies like the Matrix or Bad Boys or something.

Have you even read my previous post?


Originally posted by SimpleTruth
..unless you have a fetish for totalitarianism. Maybe you do.


Please.


Whatever...fact is Guns are necessary for the security of a free state. Put that in your pipe and smoke it.



posted on Jun, 4 2004 @ 11:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Clandestine
I understand your points and, reading between the lines, I especially enjoyed your likening of Bush to Hitler and Stalin. Hes definitely from the same mould.

My point still remains though, making it easy for someone to carry a gun increases the number of people that do so. This in turn massively increases the likelihood of someone being shot and killed.


Actually, Clinton and Kerry would be from the same mould as Hitler and Stalin...

As for guns....good people that have guns do not use them to commit crimes, criminals do. If all guns are banned, like Clinton wanted done, then criminals would still get guns. Criminals do not go to a gun store to buy guns, they buy them in the black market.

Now, if a person is mentally ill enough to kill someone with a gun other than self defense, they would have been able to do the same with a kitchen knife. Are you going to ban kitchen knives too?

BTW, the second Amendment of the Constitution gives us the right to keep and bear arms.....Are you going to side with Clinton and say that the Bill of Rights and the Constitution are "radical"?



posted on Jun, 4 2004 @ 11:44 PM
link   
I think we should ban pencils because I'm afraid some kid is going to hate my kid and stab him in the eye with one, the last thing I ever want to see for my children is them to lay dead on the steps of the school with 80 pencil wounds as though they were Ceasar, saying, "et tu Brute!?"



posted on Jun, 4 2004 @ 11:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Clandestine
I can understand your reasoning, but how good would your life be after shooting and killing an intruder of your property? I fear not very.


Hummm, let me think....an intruder gets in my house making a noise that wakes me up, I go downstairs and see the intruder, I have no idea what kind of weapon he has and he probably has one. My daughter and my wife are sleeping upstairs.....humm.....should I get my gun and shoot the intruder or try to confront him without a gun??.....let me see....its dark so he could have a gun or a knife, and althou I know martial arts you never know what can happen.... He could be a black belt too or get a lucky shot and then there will be nothing between him and my wife and daughter.......Would I sleep better if I punked his butt and make sure my family is safe?? Yep, I would.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join