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.


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

page: 32
<< 29  30  31    33  34  35 >>

log in


posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 10:52 AM
reply to post by thecinic

I was in NYC, in the Bronx at a Coat Factory, I had on a load of thread. I had backed into the dock, and shut down the truck, but kept the cab lights on and the stereo on pretty loud to let everyone know the truck was occupied. I got into the bunk and went into a fitful sleep. I had been asleep for just a little while when someone climbed onto the steps below the cab door. The window was open half way, it was hot summer, and as I got up with my 38 Colt in my hand, a hand with a little automatic came through the window, and a voice said to me, "this is a robbery." I sat up with the gun pointed right at him, and saw that the hammer was not pulled back on the auto. This goes to knowledge of guns. I have owned and shot .25. and other small autos, and that hammer must be pulled back to fire. So I pointed that shiny barrel right down into his face, and told him to scat. He ran off. I wish not I had taken his piece, but then again it was probably hot. If I had been unarmed, I may have been shot dead for my money and equipment.

I drove semi for seven years, and I seen a lot of crap out there on the road. Most drivers do carry, whether it's against the law or not, it is just common sense. I carried, in my truck, a .38 revolver, a 12 gauge pump sawed off shotgun loaded slug, double 00, slug, double 00, and a Louisville Slugger ball bat, and a dagger sharpened to razor sharpness.

I carry a .44 reproduction Remington Cap & ball Revolver now, a heavy weapon, I can hold my target for several shots, not like those little light pistols that recoil up when you fire, like a Glock. I can place 6 in a 12" circle from 12 yards. I can but ammo and powder, caps and supplies without signing my name or showing ID.

posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 10:56 AM
Bit uncalled for that lad. We fought the Nazi's single handed for 3 years successfully before you or the Russians lost a man in anger by the way. We beat the German army in WW1 without you as well. If Hitler had have taken this island you'd now be speaking German yourself. A unified Europe would have overwhelmed Russia and then America would have faced the rest of the world. Have a bit of respect and dignity.
edit on 15-12-2010 by BasilFawlty because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 11:23 AM
reply to post by BasilFawlty

Fawlty Towers was a great show.

On topic:

If you look back at the history the British government was begging for small arms to equip the citizenry. Ads ran in all of America's gun and sporting magazines. Yes, your army was fighting valiantly. However, your government was very scared that if the Germans landed the citizens wouldn't be able to fight back.

The members of the Civil Defence corps were running practice drills with umbrellas and golf clubs. Restrictions on weapons meant that civilians didn't have guns to protect their country. That is what the other guy was talking about.

Plus to clarify things, the United States of America was sending 10,000 men per day in to WWI by 1918. The "Harlem Hell Fighters" won a Croix de Guerre for the entire unit. So, we did help in both wars.
edit on 15-12-2010 by MikeNice81 because: (no reason given)

edit on 15-12-2010 by MikeNice81 because: (no reason given)

edit on 15-12-2010 by MikeNice81 because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 11:27 AM
reply to post by kevinunknown

Being that you are in the UK why do you concern yourself so much with how many guns Americans have and whether or not they should have them? Are you not doing what the youngsters call "hating" on Americans because the right to bear arms still exist on American soil and maybe not in the UK?

posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 11:29 AM

Originally posted by projectvxn
reply to post 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...


People seem to be forgetting the world didnt just recently become a volatile, violent, and unpredictable place. As long as people have been around there have been those that would prey on the weaker or smaller. How do you balance the playing field if you're a 130lb cave man and a 260lb linebacker is threatening you for your food or woman, etc...? Back in those days you would have found a rock, a club, or a long sharp stick.

Throughout most of man's history, weapons have been an integral part of life. Violence is as old as time. Whether its a sling shot, a blow gun, a long bow, a revolver, or a death ray you can bet that as long as mankind is here, weaponry will be used. Personally, if I were forced to fight to the death, I'd much prefer a gun shot than being beaten to death.

If the dinosaurs were able to make firearms we'd probably find traces of some epic shootouts at history museums

edit on 15-12-2010 by WhiteDevil013 because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 11:35 AM

Originally posted by kevinunknown

So can someone please tell me why you need a gun? In the UK I know no one who owns a gun, and no one I know has ever been disadvantaged because of this why is it that the worlds “super power” is any different, Gun Laws are out of date, rip up the second amendment and join the 21st century .

So says the elitist "red coat"...

Back in the infancy of our country all men were expected to not only own but be well trained with a rifle...Since more and more eurocoms have come over here spouting their big government trash people have been swayed little by little; however there will always be a rifle behind every blade of grass on the mainland United States.

I cant help but add in the old cliche adages..."When seconds count, the police are only minutes away..."

posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 11:45 AM
Seriously, do I have to remind you liberal Britishers about the history of your Kray Brothers? They used to carry around under their coats genuine cavalry style sabers. And weren't afraid to use them on you Cockneys. Hee. Hee.

Refers to the two Kray brothers, Ronnie and Reggie.

Two of the most notorious gangsters in the history of the UK, if not the world. The Krays were popular for their old-fashioned East End values of family and honour. Recruited white cockneys into their organisation and fought with cavalry sabres, sten guns from WWII, Luger pistols, and handmade blunt devices.

posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 11:46 AM
to the OP. It might be in your best interest to pick up a good historical type novel about the early historty of the USA. Rise to Rebellion by Jeff Shaara may be a good start. See, the argument used by most that guns are needed for self defense against criminals is not the entire story. While it is true that criminals will find ways to own guns even if they are outlawed (that is what criminals do afterall), and while it is true that some people like farmers, ranchers, hunters, and police officers need guns, I'm sure that criminals would have an easy time stealing some of those guns (it is afterall what they do). No, the big reason for Americans to be armed doesn't really have anything at all to do with "robbers". If we didn't have guns that were at least somewhat technologically equal to current military guns, we would be speaking with English accents, drinking tea all day, and saying a pledge of allegiance to the KIng right now. See, the reason we need to be armed is because the government is armed. Not just ours, but others. As soon as you take away the right to own guns, you take away the right to defend yourself from tyranny, whether that tyrany is from your neighbor, your state, or your federal government. Imagine if the people of Poland had guns when Hitlers thugs came to take them away. I sleep well at night knowing that our government would have a heck of a time trying anything like that simply because we are armed. If you aren't, you will be one of the first to go. History is wonderful. You should learn some. If we dont learn from it, we are destined to repeat the mistakes made by earlier generations. So far, every nation that has practiced gun control to any major extent, has either been taken over, had its countrymen persecuted, or simpy ceased to exist. I'm not willing to let that happen to mine.

posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 11:48 AM
Although i disagree with OP on many issues i must say that with this issue i completely agree. I would not go deeper in details but i think that overall future without a guns is better .

posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 12:03 PM
reply to post by xavi1000

I used to think that too when i was in 2nd grade...Then i grew up, saw the brutality of man and decided to take responsibility for the safety of myself and my family

posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 12:03 PM
I get a kick out of it when one or two of you Brits talk like your feces don't stink. It doesn't take much research to ferret out gun crimes in England and Wales. Here's a couple of examples:

The violent crime rate in Birmingham has risen dramatically in recent years to the growth of gangs in the city, in 2006 six out of the ten most gun crime affected area's in the UK were in Birmingham. The riot in the Lozells area of Birmingham October 2005 saw black and Asian gangs clash on a large scale. This was due to an unfounded rumor that several Asian men had gang raped a black girl which sparked the violence.

Of the 930 organised crime groups - or "core nominals" - in the UK, the majority of these are indigenous, British-born gangs. By far the biggest business for all these gangs is drug smuggling, which accounts for 56% of illegal activity. Much of the crime which makes the headlines is a direct result of organised crime’s activities – a third of burglaries are carried out by drug addicts, says NCIS.

In 1990 Great Train Robber Charlie Wilson, who had branched out into drug trafficking after his release from prison, was gunned down beside his swimming pool on the Costa Del Sol by a hitman. In 1997 Danny Roff, believed to have been that hitman, was himself shot dead in Bromley, Kent.

But you know what really, really cracks me up about you Brits who talk like your feces don't stink, one of the favorite weapons used to commit crimes by Brits in England Wales is the airgun. Yes, the airgun. In 2002 there were almost 14,000 crimes committed in England and Wales using the airgun. Don't you Brits have any pride left?

An air gun (e.g. air rifle or air pistol) is a rifle, pistol, or shotgun which fires projectiles by means of compressed air or other gas, in contrast to a firearm which burns a propellant. Most air guns use metallic projectiles as ammunition. Air guns that only use plastic projectiles are classified as airsoft guns.

England and Wales Firearm Offenses

posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 12:06 PM

Originally posted by kevinunknown
reply to post by glimmerman

I don’t have a gun, I am a citizen, not a subject.

Why is it that America is so different, why is that other countries can do without them yet America cant. You should have ripped up the second amendment in the 50’s.

Apparently you have read none of the entire thread, if you don't know by now, you may never know in this lifetime.

Just take the two threads written before your's look at all the people killed that had gun control established in their countries, as I posted earlier, many, many countries have lots of guns, France for instance, 34 guns per 100 people, even in FRANCE of all places, America is not different, we only lead the way with a solid defense of liberty, as usual.
edit on 15-12-2010 by bigrex because: more info.

edit on 15-12-2010 by bigrex because: rephrasing

posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 12:06 PM

Originally posted by trouthash
Imagine if the people of Poland had guns when Hitlers thugs came to take them away. I sleep well at night knowing that our government would have a heck of a time trying anything like that simply because we are armed. If you aren't, you will be one of the first to go.

I agree and disagree...if the time ever comes, the unarmed people will be rounded up easily sure but the people who advertise that they are well armed and trained will be rounded up first...Go ahead, stick a Gadsden flag on your back window of your car...theyll be looking for you first

posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 12:06 PM
I always drag this out for the enlightenment of the anti-gun crowd. Some times it actually works. Other times the person is to delusional to understand it.

Reason vs. Force
by Marko Kloos

Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that's it.

In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.

When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force. The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gang banger, and a single guy on equal footing with a carload of drunken guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.

There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we'd be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a [armed] mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the muggers potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat--it has no validity when most of a mugger's potential marks are armed.

People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that's the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.

Then there's the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser. People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don't constitute lethal force watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst.

The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level. The gun is the only weapon that's as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weight lifter. It simply wouldn't work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn't both lethal and easily employable.

When I carry a gun, I don't do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I'm looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don't carry it because I'm afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn't limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation...and that's why carrying a gun is a civilized act.

posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 12:08 PM
reply to post by BingeBob

Also i think that future in most societes will be without guns

posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 12:16 PM

Originally posted by Chai_An
reply to post by kevinunknown

Being that you are in the UK why do you concern yourself so much with how many guns Americans have and whether or not they should have them? Are you not doing what the youngsters call "hating" on Americans because the right to bear arms still exist on American soil and maybe not in the UK?
Because he's a troll and he only cares about receiving angry responses so that he can be amused.

posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 12:18 PM
So after reading lots of the predictable responses we can conclude that:

1.Its a U.S citizens right to carry a gun for when TSHTF

You justify owning a gun so that you can:
2.Keep the government in check when they mess things up.
3.Defend yourselves against the red coats.
4.Defend your land and your family
5.Defend yourselves from other people with guns.
6.Shoot at Cars or swimming pools since they too post an immediate danger.

1.I would much rather be in a country that didn't have a gun culture when said S hits said F

2.Ok, so you guys are doing a great job keeping the government in check with all those penis enlarging guns you've all aquired.

3.Yeah about that amendment - I'm sure it was to prevent the British from invading again or taxing you without representing your needs and wishes.

4. From who?

5. From yourselves and each other - very christian.

You probably need a gun to live in some parts of the U.S but thats just because of the right to bare arms in the first place - and so the cycle will continue...perhaps all the gun tooters will end up shooting eachother eventually.

Guns don't kill people- people kill people!

posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 12:22 PM
reply to post by zero1020

Could you please explain to me what a troll is?????

On another note i saw on the 5 o’clock news on channel five tonight CCTV footage of a gun nut in America holding up a school board after his wife got fired. He was using his hand gun to make threats so he could get his own way. Funny thing happened, a woman, very brave i must say, tried to disarm him with a hand bag, not a gun.

In any case he done the world a favour a shot killed himself. On less ranging gun nut for you all to worry about.

posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 12:23 PM
reply to post by BingeBob

Out of the U.S and U.K which country has the higher number of friendly fire incidents proportionally?
Go on, have a guess the one WITH the gun culture, or the one WITHOUT?

Red Coats FTW lol

posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 12:25 PM
reply to post by OptimusPrimate

Does anything else have to be said: Juarez Death Toll Now At 3,000 For 2010

new topics

top topics

<< 29  30  31    33  34  35 >>

log in