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: 15
33
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 14 2010 @ 05:22 PM
link   
reply to post by DaWhiz
 


I'm not going to read your post because you seem to think that you need a gun to oppose government control, which is easily the stupidest thing I have ever heard in my life. But I guess if you propagandize it, the American population will eat it like its a Big Mac. But I forgot, you think nationalism is a good thing
. I mean no disrespect... but it's absolutely impossible for me to respect your arguments. The end.
edit on 14-12-2010 by Brood because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 14 2010 @ 05:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by nastyj
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.


Who did that? Did I do that? Which American posting here got up one Friday afternoon and invaded some other country?

Next thing you're going to say is that every German should be stoned to death for what Hitler did.



posted on Dec, 14 2010 @ 05:28 PM
link   
First off I love you Brits I really do so dont take this the wrong way. It seems that alot of you arent accepting the fact that we will never give up our guns. It's our society, it's our culture, our right to own firearms. We're not telling you to re adopt guns so stop saying we should ditch ours. Let it be



posted on Dec, 14 2010 @ 05:29 PM
link   
reply to post by kevinunknown
 


but because i have a right i can use that right, as its a god given right, also we need to make sure that we can protect ourselves from the government, just in case they decide to enforce tyranny.



posted on Dec, 14 2010 @ 05:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere

Who did that? Did I do that? Which American posting here got up one Friday afternoon and invaded some other country?

Next thing you're going to say is that every German should be stoned to death for what Hitler did.


Just a reminder, this democracy you spread across the globe is supposed to represent the will of the people.

"Did I do that"

Sorry, Buck, according to democracy, YES YOU DID.

Promptly ignore this, now, and go back to your cheeseburger. Make sure you have your rifle handy in case some 12 year old tries to tell you that it will give you coronary heart disease. SHOOT THAT LITTLE PRICK! YOUR FREEDOMS!!?!?!?!111!! ( Live free or die, right?
)

Now I am not saying the American people are completely responsible for the American Military's actions, but in a democracy the population is at least partially responsible for pretty much any federal movement. Negligence is considered an act.
edit on 14-12-2010 by Brood because: (no reason given)

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



posted on Dec, 14 2010 @ 05:31 PM
link   
Here is an idea to settle our differences, since there are many thousands of posts on this website that would seem to indicate that it is rather pointless to argue such ideology-

If you're a resident of the British Isles (or anywhere else) and dislike the fact that Americans can own firearms, stay on your side of the pond.

I don't like the fact that you drive on the wrong side of the road, but you don't see me coming on here and making a fuss about it. We live in different countries, with different values, different situations. How does my carrying a firearm affect you in any way whatsoever? Unless you happen to come to middle-of-nowhere America and try to mug me, I suspect that the number of firearms I own and how I choose to employ them will have no impact on your life.



posted on Dec, 14 2010 @ 05:32 PM
link   
Tell you what bud, why don't you start with you own country?

O wait....they tried that and violent crime is through the ROOF!


Sorry, I'm keeping my guns.



posted on Dec, 14 2010 @ 05:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Brood
 


You would need to read the Federalist Papers to understand why they were proposing the provisions put forth into the Constitution at the time.

Most scholars attribute the papers as written by James Madison, Alexander Hamilton and John Jay. They were articles that were published to help show the people why and how the new Constitution would be applied and how it was better and stronger than the Articles of Confederation.

Just as today, imagine in 1788 the twisting, lying, and sophistry that was taking place.


Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of.
Federalist Papers - No. 46


Let us not insult the free and gallant citizens of America with the suspicion, that they would be less able to defend the rights of which they would be in actual possession, than the debased subjects of arbitrary power would be to rescue theirs from the hands of their oppressors.


No. 46 is attributed to James Madison. What he puts down above shows that they were for the most freedom and the most trust to the People, not Government. So that is why one should read the Federalist Papers. I also recommend the Anti-Federalist Papers for the prospective of the other side of the debate.



posted on Dec, 14 2010 @ 05:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Brood
 


No only the President and the Pres alone has the ability to deploy troops it has ZERO to do with us. Do you people honestly think we vote for these wars?



posted on Dec, 14 2010 @ 05:38 PM
link   
reply to post by ownbestenemy
 


To add:

The Second Amendment was born out of an understanding of Natural Law, and its composition the result of a long debate over the need to maintain a standing army vs. a strong citizen militia. The Second Amendment was a compromise. A forward thinking compromise aimed at avoiding Federal abuses using federal troops for anything other than prescribed in the Constitution.



posted on Dec, 14 2010 @ 05:39 PM
link   
Why do people continue to feed this troll?

And just so no one can say my post is off topic. First and foremost We should have guns just to piss the OP off.


Oh and one more thing since I am posting in this thread against my better judgement; ripping up the 2nd amendment does not get rid of the right to bear arms form militias etc., because it does not grant the right in the first place. It is merely a warning to government not to mess with the natural right to bear arms in self defense whether the threat is foreign or domestic.



posted on Dec, 14 2010 @ 05:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by FrancoUn-American
reply to post by Brood
 


No only the President and the Pres alone has the ability to deploy troops it has ZERO to do with us. Do you people honestly think we vote for these wars?


Um I am American

There are these things we have here in The States.

They are called communication devices.

Too bad you're too busy bitching on a conspiracy forum to contact one of your representatives and do something about it like Canadians do whenever nonsense comes from the desk of the feds.

Sorry, I don't feel sorry for you because I'm 99% sure you have never attempted to contact your government representative with issues you are concerned about. That is "too much work
".



posted on Dec, 14 2010 @ 05:42 PM
link   
From what I understand, the 2nd Amendment wasn't only intended just to prevent our own government from getting out of control and power hungry, but before the age of nuclear weapons and MAD it was probably also the biggest deterrent to any foreign nation that ever would consider invading this country.

Now if you don't understand why that is, then apparently you've never watched the news about how the biggest problems to our own troops in Iraq and Afghanistan isn't an from any one organized government or standing army. It's the constant threat from ragtag ad-hoc militias and insurgents.

If anybody could somehow defeat our main government military through force, unless they could provide the same freedoms and protections to the people's satisfaction, they would be forever mired in a land that for all practical purposes would be unconquerable.

Thus the 2nd amendment was put there and is there for a reason, and many people in this country would say that it's a damn good one.

And if you think I'm some gun-toting yahoo, you've thought wrong. Personally I don't have one, nor do I feel under threat such that I'd need a gun. But if my neighbor has one and is responsible about it, more power to 'im. Also if conditions change, having the option to legally own a firearm is a nice one.

Note that law abiding people aren't the problem when it comes to firearms. And if guns were made illegal, outside of the police and military, it would be the criminals - who don't happen abide by any laws - that would be well armed. And if you don't understand that, I suggest you look at the crime rate and history of crimes in cities in this country that have had long standing gun bans until they were proven unconstitutional. (Trust me, the criminals were well armed despite what local laws said.)

Now if you tried to rip up the 2nd amendment, you'd likely face a bigger problem on your hands than you'd ever want to deal with. First of all you'd be asking for political suicide, and if somehow you could get enough consensus in government to pull it off, it's treading on shaky ground that could lead to another civil war.
Yes, people here consider it that important.



posted on Dec, 14 2010 @ 05:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by FrancoUn-American
reply to post by Brood
 


No only the President and the Pres alone has the ability to deploy troops it has ZERO to do with us. Do you people honestly think we vote for these wars?


They probably believe the MSM propaganda of the minority of morons who allow themselves to be filmed for the news cheering war and calling for it. I personally know NO ONE who agrees with what our govt is doing concerning these wars in particular. We are not all passive or inactive in speaking out against it all either.

Sadly people will believe what they are fed. They will run off of their uninformed assumptions and make broad and incorrect statements about the sentiments of the citizenry of a country of our size when they have sampled only a handful of doofuses.



posted on Dec, 14 2010 @ 05:46 PM
link   
I'm more concerned with local gun violence rates than I am with "conspiracies to run into Americans' homes and take over the country house by house".

This regurgitated tripe reassures me how many insane people are my neighbors.

It's never going to happen. You don't need guns in your house any more than you need nukes in your garage.
edit on 14-12-2010 by Brood because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 14 2010 @ 05:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
Who did that? Did I do that? Which American posting here got up one Friday afternoon and invaded some other country?


You talk as if its not hapenning. Plenty of families in this present time have gave their children to fight in wars, hell there might be a An american in this ATS site that ahve family members who got up and went to war just like you said, why does that not seem plausible at all?

Why are you thinking just about yourself? Its not about you, its about other people too, and you have a responsibility, your words can change the opinions of others too, same way i know many of my schoolmates have now gone and joined the army and now gone to war. I can even link you the facebook pages if you think im making it up. People do get up one firday afternoon and invade some other country.

If the war on iraq/ afghanistan happened on a mid afternoon on friday only then would you take back your statment?

Its not about posting on here at all, ATS is a site where we can discuss things and become all the more knowledgable for it. If there was something someone knew about my neighbour and they thought i would question it and try to make the better of it.


Next thing you're going to say is that every German should be stoned to death for what Hitler did.


No ofcourse not, you would get hitler first right or the dudes pulling his strings? Better yet you would go for the source of the problem, and that problem in the americna gun case would be, the dudes who thought of making guns legal, to allow guns for civilians. Better yet for even the police etc, infact no guns at all. Or the other source, which is the teaching, the teaching that makes it right for ppl to think they should own a gun and that being the resolution to any problem of defending oneself.

Sorry if you felt under the impression i was aimin it solely at you, its the ideals man, and im pretty sure you know a lotta ppl share your ideals, a lot on this thread no doubt let alone ppl outsite the net.



posted on Dec, 14 2010 @ 05:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Advantage
 


Stop it.

I know hundreds of Americans that will to this day argue that we killed Saddam Hussein because he attacked the World Trade Centers.

You're defending ignorance.

What was that you were saying about stupid people buying propaganda? Because America is known for being full of those idiots.
edit on 14-12-2010 by Brood because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 14 2010 @ 05:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Brood
 


"Gun violence"? There's no such thing as "gun violence". Violence is violence. Where I live we have pretty low crime rates considering. Very few involve guns and we have a high rate of ownership.


You don't need guns in your house any more than you need nukes in your garage....


How about I concern myself with what i feel I need to protect myself(agreed on the nuke part), and you respect the rights of your fellow Americans.

Unless that's too much work..

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



posted on Dec, 14 2010 @ 05:49 PM
link   
My husband moved us around to various spots in the USA which were rural. I don't like guns either, I was a city raised person from the suberbs. I quickly discovered how vulnerable you feel on a 10 acre piece of land isolated from the neighbors and police system. My neighbors had a pit bull at one house, another spot had a cyote with the mange wander through, the possibility of mountain lions and bears were there. Mostly the guns were used on monster snakes. One house we built had twenty or so snakes we killed off. The rule is if their within ten feet of the house they are a problem. Snakes are bad for small children playing outside. One property had a shed where the ground hog dug six openings to his home under the dirt floor shed, we never did get him, it was like the caddy shack movie. He eventually got married and brought her home to the shed, nothing worked to get rid of them, so we gave up and enjoyed their company. My husband uses guns on snakes, I use a hoe, shovel, rocks, lawn mower, what ever is handy, including the car...
You have to understand the Scottish people came to America because the Brittish were collecting guns and telling everyone to worship the Catholic way. People wanted to choose for themselves and rural America was
loaded with wild animals, violent native people, the Brittish, etc... Most of America today is still wild and dangerous in the country. If apocolypse happens, people want to be able to eat deer and squirre andl this would require a gun.



posted on Dec, 14 2010 @ 05:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Brood
 


I'll feed it a bit more.

You are blanketing multiple groups with a large brush. Not all gun owners think a foreign force is going to invade the continent and go house by house. They maintain arms for protection of life and property. Two of the most basic tenants of a self regulated society.

In order to maximize liberty, security is retained by the People. As the People begin to delegate that responsibility to their respective Government, they run the risk of losing authority over their natural right to self preservation.



new topics

top topics



 
33
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join