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.

 

Why do Americans need guns? Rip UP the Second Amendment, problem solved.

page: 14
33
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 14 2010 @ 04:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by nastyj

Sometimes you have to use the bullies own weapon against him to even win, your logic is not sound. I would rather kill someone trying to kill my family then have the attitude you have and think "Oh will i'd rather have my family and I killed by these people because guns are for pussy's" How sound is that when your dead?


Absolutely ridiculous. GO OUT AN LIVE BY YOUR STATEMENT YOU JUST MADE NOW. Go arm ALL of Palestine, and afghanistan and Iraq. Tell me what would happen? let me tell you:

ENDLESS KILLING. And then you would have to send YOUR FAMILIES to war to protect, your RIDICULOUS goervernment.

At the end of the day. It is all about being a pussy or not. And of course because of how much a pussy you are, you would sell your ideals and liberties, in order for control. And i dont know if you are religious or not mate, but its obvious which path you would be going to protect..

Unbelievably ridiculous, question my logic loool, you need to wake up mate. You government has dumbed you dwn.

Well then if you ahve to beat the bully with their own weapons, you must believe in an 'eye for an eye' approach right? Then how about a BIGGER country go invade YOUR country? and kill all your families and civilians, because that is what america the bully is doing to the weak. Balless cowards cannot fight fair...
edit on 14-12-2010 by nastyj because: (no reason given)


For one, im not your mate, two im worried about America and our corrupt government stripping us from ALL of our rights not the middle east. And most middle easterns own weapons anyways, they're allowed to. And I take it you dont live here in America huh. From now on worry about your countries indifferences rather then Americas, Any westernized society has corrupted government anymore these days. Go focus on your country and its problems rather then trying to pick fights with Americans. That def. shows what kinda prick you are and how immature you are and no, your logic sucks, America was great and free a long time ago when everyone owned guns. You wanna look at whats creating a lot of the crimes here, it's simple, a lot of people are hungry and very few are full.




posted on Dec, 14 2010 @ 04:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Brood

Originally posted by projectvxn
reply to post by Brood
 


Someone needs to read the Federalist Papers. The Federalist Papers are the explanation of the Constitution.

That's not at all the reason for the Second Amendment.



Why would I read a list of publications that someone made up latter to the original premise of the amendment itself? The publications also have zero dates on them and that renders them completely unrespectable.

Looks like someone needs to be a little less accepting of everything they read. Especially when the government poops it out in front of you to gobble up.
edit on 14-12-2010 by Brood because: (no reason given)


Um, the Federalist Papers were published over a period of about a year and a half, in 1787 and 1788. Didn't you pass Academic History, or are you not yet in High School?



posted on Dec, 14 2010 @ 04:59 PM
link   


Looks like someone needs to be a little less accepting of everything they read.


Alot of people should take that advice when it comes to 'reliable' sources of 'information'



posted on Dec, 14 2010 @ 05:00 PM
link   
reply to post by FrancoUn-American
 


A rare and most unfortunate incident which would be a far more frequent occurence if there wasn't strict gun control laws here in the UK.

The US is completly different as gun culture is engrained in the very fabric of society.

You keep yours and we'll do without our's and we'll both be happy!



posted on Dec, 14 2010 @ 05:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Brood
 


I'm impressed by your lack of education on this matter:

The Federalist Papers- What they are:


The Federalist Papers are a series of 85 articles or essays advocating the ratification of the United States Constitution. Seventy-seven of the essays were published serially in The Independent Journal and The New York Packet between October 1787 and August 1788. A compilation of these and eight others, called The Federalist; or, The New Constitution, was published in two volumes in 1788 by J. and A. McLean.[1] The series' correct title is The Federalist; the title The Federalist Papers did not emerge until the twentieth century.
The Federalist remains a primary source for interpretation of the U.S. Constitution, as the essays outline a lucid and compelling version of the philosophy and motivation of the proposed system of government.[2] The authors of The Federalist wanted both to influence the vote in favor of ratification and to shape future interpretations of the Constitution. According to historian Richard B. Morris, they are an "incomparable exposition of the Constitution, a classic in political science unsurpassed in both breadth and depth by the product of any later American writer."[3]


Perhaps you should do a little more reading, no?



posted on Dec, 14 2010 @ 05:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by DaWhiz

And there is nothing wrong with nationalism


You just lost all of your credibility in one line.



Oh and it wasn't just for the British either. Its for NWO government sympathisers like you!


Right... I think guns are lame... so I support NWO.... I'm sorry, this is the most immature, preconclusive bunch of rubbish I have ever read on ATS... and that is saying something.


And yes I deny your A, B, C fascism.


FASCISM?!?! HAHAHAHA. I'm probably the most socialist person on the planet, thank you very much. A=B, B=C, A=C is the STANDARD LOGICAL ARGUMENT MODEL RECOGNIZED BY EVERYONE WHOSE IQ EXCEEDS 70. I stopped reading your post here because I realize that you have absolutely no clue what the hell you are talking about.



posted on Dec, 14 2010 @ 05:03 PM
link   

1. How do you know what my ideals and beliefs are?


I dont, i passed a judgement based off your earlier post i that you decided a gun was > over martial arts teaching at defending yourself.


2. How do you know how I was taught? You don't know with whom or what, if any, traditions I studied.


I dont, but i passed a judgement regarding your views on resorting to using a gun for self defense. And how you got taught ha a gun is better than anything else for self defense. Im sorry if i offended your training, master or anythingelse, only you kno te answero that, and only you know why you choe to use a gun over any other form of defence/prevention or the like as im sure there are 99999 other routes you could have chose.


3. For you to make the assertion that a persons situation doesn't matter proves that you have never had your life threatened. I have.


It wontmake a difference if i say i have had a life threatening experience or not on here, because it is up to you what you believe, and you may not believe me if i did. But i will answer with this: question yourself why i would feel so passionate about something like this, dont you think their would be a reason for it?



I think you should spend less time writing emotionally reactionary replies to a subject you know little about and do some research.


Now i can raise the same exact questions that you faced me with, How do you know what my ideals and beliefs are? How do you know where and who i was taught by, and what research i have done about this? But i wont face your hostilites, im gonna get a gun and tell you that im allowed my RIGHT of FREEDOM OF SPEEECH, and you cant do anything to stop me. Does that sound better?


There are reasons to be against guns, and many people on ATS have made their case far better than you...I don't agree with any of them, most have been quite cordial, and while we debate in a heated fashion, there is no ill will intended. But you don't seem to be able to make your case without being rude. It's really hard to want to take your particular position into consideration when you're flinging insults into the wind letting them fall where they may.


Sorry for any inconvenience caused, i overeacted after replying to some of the earlier posts, which were way more insane. As for other ATS member making better cases than me, good on them, i wish i had the same approach if it worked any better. Ill take a change in course buddy lol, dont whip out ya gun on meh



posted on Dec, 14 2010 @ 05:04 PM
link   
I didn't read all the replys, my a.d.d said it wasn't necessary LOL so someone else may have said this same thing but I have a short answer for ya.
Because I want to own fireams ... nuff said
So i'm not a lil skeerdy cat whos afraid of the big bad loud gun, I like having thunder and lightning in my hands and the louder the thunder and the more lightning the better.I don't need any excuse for me to want to have them. They aren't for my self defense or because of big brother or anything else, I just like em.
I do agree that even a limp wristed lib could fly off the handle and use a gun for violence (cause it's that easy) but if someone is hell bent on doin ya in then weapons of opportunity scare me more than getting shot (pencils, baseball bats and dull knives for starters).
We had this discussion at work not long ago, I freely admit that I am licensed to carry and naturally the yellow people let into me about guns. I told them the same thing I have said here, it's to easy to shoot someone that's for cowards i'm coming in and looking for a weapon.
I'm not a violent person at all but I like my guns and i'm proud as hell to live in a country that my founding fathers had foresight enough to be sure I could enjoy them legally.
If you're afraid of guns stay away from them because you will only hurt someone else, dont really care if you get hurt, but don't preach to me that I should give up my enjoyment to make you feel less like a lil girl.
Didn't mean to make it such a personal attack but the more I type the more I feel that way,, sorry,,, i'll quit typing now



posted on Dec, 14 2010 @ 05:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Brood
 


Brood, you need to go.
You are trying to derail this thread.
And your BS is showing. The dates are in the documents which were written back in the 1700's. Now you are telling people to ignore the Constitution based on YOU? Who the hell are YOU?
You definitely are not John Jay or Alexander Hamilton! So please stop with your poo pooing on our Constitution! You are probably one of those Brits who thinks we still belong to you. We don't. Get over yourself bud!



posted on Dec, 14 2010 @ 05:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by kevinunknown
reply to post by projectvxn
 


Well yes that is my 5 year goal.

No its not,

The point is you really don’t have freedom of speech anymore, if the government passes a law saying that you can’t say something then you don’t have freedom of speech.

You don’t need guns, no one has answered my question yet.

And I don’t see the government coming to put you into a FEMA camp anytime soon


The highly disturbing part is you've got 5 stars up there.

1) The second Amendment has nothing to do with hunting or "sporting purposes" ( a"Schumerism")we "need guns in the hands of civilian because it keeps the govt in check.The founders had just tossed out a tyrannical oppressor. They knew the day would come again when free men ( &women) may need to do it again. The muzzle loading flintlocks were the military weapons of the day and every bit the equal of the British long arms( actually better than because the british muskets were "smoothbore". thecolonists supplied their own firearms someof which such as the pensylvania and kentucky "long-rifles" had a rifled barrel: (A rifled bore has superior accuracy and range to to a smoothbore.)
2) Without the implied threat of the second amendment there are absolutely no limits on the power of govt.They control the police and the military.

"tearing up the second" as you put it is only choosing the wrong side in a nasty civil battle that would ensue.
t
3) Courts have ruled the police are under no obligation to protect a citizen they will gladly get to the scene of a crime put up the tape take lots of photographs for the detectives; But " when seconds count ;the police are truly only minutes away.


Police Have No Duty To Protect Individuals
by Peter Kasler

Self-Reliance For Self-Defense -- Police Protection Isn't Enough!

All our lives, especially during our younger years, we hear that the police are there to protect us. From the very first kindergarten- class visit of "Officer Friendly" to the very last time we saw a police car - most of which have "To Protect and Serve" emblazoned on their doors - we're encouraged to give ourselves over to police protection. But it hasn't always been that way.

Before the mid-1800s, American and British citizens - even in large cities - were expected to protect themselves and each other. Indeed, they were legally required to pursue and attempt to apprehend criminals. The notion of a police force in those days was abhorrent in England and America, where liberals viewed it as a form of the dreaded "standing army."

England's first police force, in London, was not instituted until 1827. The first such forces in America followed in New York, Boston, and Philadelphia during the period between 1835 and 1845. They were established only to augment citizen self-protection. It was never intended that they act affirmatively, prior to or during criminal activity or violence against individual citizens. Their duty was to protect society as a whole by deterrence; i.e., by systematically patrolling, detecting and apprehending criminals after the occurrence of crimes. There was no thought of police displacing the citizens' right of self-protection. Nor could they, even if it were intended.

Professor Don B. Kates, Jr., eminent civil rights lawyer and criminologist, states:

Even if all 500,000 American police officers were assigned to patrol, they could not protect 240 million citizens from upwards of 10 million criminals who enjoy the luxury of deciding when and where to strike. But we have nothing like 500,000 patrol officers; to determine how many police are actually available for any one shift, we must divide the 500,000 by four (three shifts per day, plus officers who have days off, are on sick leave, etc.). The resulting number must be cut in half to account for officers assigned to investigations, juvenile, records, laboratory, traffic, etc., rather than patrol. [1]

Such facts are underscored by the practical reality of today's society. Police and Sheriff's departments are feeling the financial exigencies of our times, and that translates directly to a reduction of services, e.g., even less protection. For example, one moderate day recently (September 23, 1991) the San Francisco Police Department "dropped" [2] 157 calls to its 911 facility, and about 1,000 calls to its general telephone number (415-553-0123). An SFPD dispatcher said that 150 dropped 911 calls, and 1,000 dropped general number calls, are about average on any given day. [3]

It is, therefore, a fact of law and of practical necessity that individuals are responsible for their own personal safety, and that of their loved ones. Police protection must be recognized for what it is: only an auxiliary general deterrent.

Because the police have no general duty to protect individuals, judicial remedies are not available for their failure to protect. In other words, if someone is injured because they expected but did not receive police protection, they cannot recover damages by suing (except in very special cases, explained below). Despite a long history of such failed attempts, however, many, people persist in believing the police are obligated to protect them, attempt to recover when no protection was forthcoming, and are emotionally demoralized when the recovery fails. Legal annals abound with such cases.




www.firearmsandliberty.com...

Massad Ayoob is a highly respected police firearms instructor and "expert witness" for court matters involving firearms.

# What about the argument that people die in domestic arguments because a gun is within reach of an angry person?

Certainly, those with uncontrollably violent tendencies should not own guns. When asked this question, I always respond with a question: “Could you pick up a gun and kill someone you love because they angered you?”

If the answer is No, I reply, “Then how dare you imply that I, and everyone else, would be that unstable?” If the answer is Yes, I suggest they stop attempting to counsel well-adjusted people and immediately seek psychiatric counseling for their own self-admitted tendency toward acting out impulses of uncontrollable violence.


I could plagiarize him; but perhaps you can answer your own questions here:

www.backwoodshome.com...

Suffice it to say your attitude is nauseating to freedom lovers everywhere.

Better men than you have made the decision the civillian firearms ownership was necessary to the freedom of a nation .I believe it and will stand by that

III
edit on 14-12-2010 by 46ACE because: (no reason given)

edit on 14-12-2010 by 46ACE because: (no reason given)

edit on 14-12-2010 by 46ACE because: (no reason given)

edit on 14-12-2010 by 46ACE because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 14 2010 @ 05:09 PM
link   
I'm betting many of your protestors wish they had guns



posted on Dec, 14 2010 @ 05:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Freeborn
 


Agreed



posted on Dec, 14 2010 @ 05:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by nastyj

Well, there are no guarantees in life...Just odds. Odds are, if you're adequately armed, no one is going to want to risk taking you on..If you're not adequately armed, some one might want to take what you've got, and they'll succeed. It's the reason I took martial arts..but when I grew up, and realized I wasn't bullet proof, I bought a gun...


Once again it is sad to hear that you have SOLD YOUR IDEALS and beliefs for the easier way. Im not even a martial artist but you speak to any martial artist and they will tell you its not about the kicks and punches you learn, its the WILLPOWER and MENTAL strength you obtain from your masters, who teach you a better way of life. And if they dont do that, they are inadequate teachers.

Havent you ever heard the term PREVENTION IS BETTER THAN CURE? You want to stop gun crime, you teach ppl to not need guns. You want to stop STDs and PORN or PROSTITUTES, you teach them, nuture them to know this is the wrong path to fall into, to stop having mindless sex etc etc. Stop OBESITY, not liposuction or w/e its called, but teaching them at living the greasy life is the way forward. Stop illnesses and health related problems, LIVE A HEALTHY LIFE, stop smoking, teach ppl to look after themselves.

Man you all are on a procession of digging yourself a deeper hole, but thinking SHORTCUTS can be made to sort your problems out. On a constant state of degeneration. And then the government will feed you more and more shortcuts, taking your freedoms and liberties away while they are at it, and you will comply. The only way yor getin out of that 6foot grave is to et yourself a ladder... and on ladders youhave t make STEPS ONE AT A TIME.

Absolutely ridiculous. You always end up with stuff ike, oh you havent lived over here yo dont know how it is, well we can look at worse countries, they live in much more peace with themselves and others, and have not lost their IDEALS OR BELIEFS


the one thing that stood out to me was " Prevention is better than a Cure". I like to correlate my firearm preferences with my sexual preferences. See, I don't plan on having sex with a stranger at a bar but sometimes it happens so you know what, I always have a condom or two with me. Likewise with a firearm. I don't ever plan on firing it but I always keep it loaded with the safety on, just in case.Why? because you NEVER know who you'll run into or what you'll need. Likewise I carry tools, jumper cables etc in my vehicle. because you just dont know what type of emergency could arise or what tools you will potentially need.
edit on 14-12-2010 by peter vlar because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 14 2010 @ 05:15 PM
link   
Um did i ever say that I didn't know when they were published? I said there are no dates on the individual publications and that renders them unrespectable. How do I know that this is what the ammendments were based on? Because big Brother but it in a txt document and uploaded it to a server? "BaaAaAh".

I suppose you're now going to tell me that the FDA is out for my best health interest... because they said so. And that politicians use taxes for the greater good.... because they said so. And that Westboro Baptist Church represents God's Will.

I'm glad there are so many zealously nationalistic Americans to come in here and tell me that I shouldn't be questioning what I read. Then tell me I don't have a free mind, only they do.

Ell, oh, freaking, ell.

This country is full of gullible morons. Save me.
edit on 14-12-2010 by Brood because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 14 2010 @ 05:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Brood
 


Again...Look it up...

Good god. It's the Federalist Papers man...We learn about it in highschool..



posted on Dec, 14 2010 @ 05:17 PM
link   
reply to post by kevinunknown
 


To protect is also a reason.

But you do not wish to protect your self it is the duty of someone else through tax dollars.

And when those dollars do not come in they with the guns go out and secure more funds from those you subjects.

Since you do not wish to protect your self and require others to do so maybe they should speak for you.



posted on Dec, 14 2010 @ 05:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Brood

Originally posted by DaWhiz

And there is nothing wrong with nationalism


You just lost all of your credibility in one line.



Oh and it wasn't just for the British either. Its for NWO government sympathisers like you!


Right... I think guns are lame... so I support NWO.... I'm sorry, this is the most immature, preconclusive bunch of rubbish I have ever read on ATS... and that is saying something.


And yes I deny your A, B, C fascism.


FASCISM?!?! HAHAHAHA. I'm probably the most socialist person on the planet, thank you very much. A=B, B=C, A=C is the STANDARD LOGICAL ARGUMENT MODEL RECOGNIZED BY EVERYONE WHOSE IQ EXCEEDS 70. I stopped reading your post here because I realize that you have absolutely no clue what the hell you are talking about.


I never lost any crediblity buddy, you are the one commenting on stuff he knows little if anything about.
And you were the one saying the Brits won't come back get rid of the law. That is ignorance plain and simple! The law is for us citizens to protect ourselves against anyone that will take our laws away. That is our government and people like YOU! So Immature? You show the height of imaturity by trying to pretend knowledge on a subject you have no exposure to. How bout your comment about holding a gun saying you have the right to defend your speech. Funny but here we call that aggession. Shot yourself in the foot w/that one didn't you?
Oh and that logical argument? A=B, B=C, A=C is absolutism - something someone comes up with when they can't win and argument. RCC still does that by not denying the flat earth theory. Go back to relativity and get back to me ok?
And its not that I don't have a clue. Those who dismiss and try to shut people down know they lost the argument. Those who dismiss have no come back. Now go bake me some cookies while I clean my gun!



posted on Dec, 14 2010 @ 05:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by projectvxn
reply to post by Brood
 


Again...Look it up...

Good god. It's the Federalist Papers man...We learn about it in highschool..


And in primary school we learn that high school is two separate words.... I better get super defensive about it. Me and my Englishism.



posted on Dec, 14 2010 @ 05:20 PM
link   

For one, im not your mate, two im worried about America and our corrupt government stripping us from ALL of our rights not the middle east. And most middle easterns own weapons anyways, they're allowed to. And I take it you dont live here in America huh. From now on worry about your countries indifferences rather then Americas, Any westernized society has corrupted government anymore these days. Go focus on your country and its problems rather then trying to pick fights with Americans. That def. shows what kinda prick you are and how immature you are and no, your logic sucks, America was great and free a long time ago when everyone owned guns. You wanna look at whats creating a lot of the crimes here, it's simple, a lot of people are hungry and very few are full.


Go focus on my countries problems rather than trying to pick fights wiht the americans? Isnt that exactly what americans should be doing? Instead of invading other countries for their problems? And that def shows how much of a prick i am and immature and my logic sucks? Lol hypocritical statement mate.

Genuinely sorry dude, i am acting quite american on this subject ill go back to focusing on my country.. instead of finding problems in other ppls countries. Hey at least i dont invade them eh? Oh no wait is it because i dont have a gun?

America was free a long time ago when everyone owned guns? How long back? Surely before the wars with the native americans right? Yep i agree, i think it was free back then, not sure about the guns though.

I would comment on about alotta people being hungry and not a lot being full. Way too many jokes can be made about after all i wouldnt want to be immature like you pointed out, but lets keep it serious ok.

You guys really cannot win any argument about the history of America and rights and economy etc. Its why Barack Obama would not have a press conference debate against Ahmedinejad, because whatever problem you might talk about, your country has worse. Hypocritical Nation



posted on Dec, 14 2010 @ 05:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by ACTS 2:38
reply to post by kevinunknown
 




Since you do not wish to protect your self and require others to do so maybe they should speak for you.


See.. THIS is why I love these kinds of threads! Just when I felt it was getting silly and tedious.. and I was tired of hearing someone who seems to be obsessed with balls/testicles/cowards.... here comes a point of view I hadnt considered.


As I understand it here.. the police are not there to "protect" anyone. They are to uphold the law. Its up to us to protect ourselves and our family.... and those who can not protect themselves.



new topics

top topics



 
33
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join