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: 46
<< 43  44  45    47  48  49 >>

log in


posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 11:04 AM
reply to post by xavi1000

You're a FOOL if you think that 10 million hand guns couldn't completely rewrite our or any government, except maybe the chinese.


posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 11:07 AM

off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 11:20 AM
reply to post by projectvxn

Using a tactical nuke on pyong yang is not likely to start WWIII


posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 11:25 AM
reply to post by xavi1000

Sure you could but that's off topic too.


posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 11:35 AM

Originally posted by Masterjaden
reply to post by xavi1000

You're a FOOL if you think that 10 million hand guns couldn't completely rewrite our or any government, except maybe the chinese.


Thanks for kind words ,10 milion will throw goverment if they just stopped paying taxes one week, without single fired bullet.

posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 11:39 AM
According to the NHTSAon average in 2009, 92 people were killed on the roadways of the U.S. each day for a total death toll of "33,808 for the year, the lowest number since 1950".

By contrast 96 people died per day due to firearms in 2007 (I could not find newer data.) CDC Reports about deaths Here is a rough break down from wiki answers who used the same data.

Homicide with a firearm: 12,129
Suicide with a firearm: 17,348
Death by accidental discharge of firearm: 721
And roughly 5,000 deaths from legal interventions(I.E. police shooting criminals)
Wikianswers info

So if you look at the raw numbers, you are three times as likely to die by car then by thug with a gun. As for owning a gun, I own a mossburg 12ga pumpaction. I have aprox. 100 rounds of bird shot for recreational and target shooting, and 15 rounds of 00 buck for home defence. I know that most likely no one will break into my home, but luck tends to favor the prepared.

I for one am a big fan of the Castle Law which allows me to defend my house agains intruders. Clearly if someone breaks into my house they have no good reason to be there. Friends and family have my phone number, and the police would make sure that I knew who they were prior to breaking down my door. That being the case anyone else in my house will be assumed to be a rapist seeking carnal knowledge with my children and wife and shall be dealt with accordingly.

As for the second amendment. As others have said at length, it is ment to allow the people to have means to defend themselves from the government. However lets look at the actual wording of the amendment.

US Constitution
Amendment II

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Well the militia in question is the National Guard, which is under the command of the state government, not the national government. Even in time of war the president of the united states needs to ask the state to allow him to take gaurd units into federal service. Now of course it is much more complicated then that, but you get the idea. Now the second part says that the people have the right to keep and bear arms. NOTE: This does not say 'Firearms' just 'Arms'. Arms in this context means weapon, and what exactly is a weapon? 1.any instrument or device for use in attack or defense in combat, fighting, or war, as a sword, rifle, or cannon. So really, the Federal government can actually restrict all kinds of weapons, so long as the people have access to something that could be used as a weapon...Just keep that in mind when you go off on one about how your rights are being taken from you becasue you cannot own a MK 19 Grenade Launcher in the middle of a populated area.

posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 12:00 PM
reply to post by xavi1000

I didn't call you a fool, I said if you think that 10 million hand guns couldn't affect the government, you'd be a fool.


And you're right, ten million not paying taxes would stop the government, but no one argued that not paying taxes would stop the government, and since most taxes are automatically taken through our employers it would be much harder to do.

posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 12:06 PM
reply to post by xavi1000

Unfortunately, due to withholding, that is much harder to do. Additionally, many more than 10,000,000 already do not pay taxes.

posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 12:10 PM
reply to post by Obinhi

Wow... It says Arms, plural which means ANY type of arms...Shall NOT be infringed...

 /ɪnˈfrɪndʒ/ Show Spelled
[in-frinj] Show IPA
verb, -fringed, -fring·ing.
–verb (used with object)
1. to commit a breach or infraction of; violate or transgress: to infringe a copyright; to infringe a rule.
–verb (used without object)
2. to encroach or trespass (usually fol. by on or upon ): Don't infringe on his privacy.
Use infringed in a Sentence
See images of infringed
Search infringed on the Web


1525–35; < L infringere to break, weaken, equiv. to in- in-2 + -fringere, comb. form of frangere to break

—Related forms
in·fring·er, noun
un·in·fringed, adjective

—Can be confused:   infringe, impinge.

1. break, disobey. 2. poach. See trespass.

The government shall not trespass on the right of the citizens to keep and bear arms.

Telling me I can't have a grenade launcher is an infringement on my right to keep arms. And actually the way they have gotten around that in the past is by implementing a tax that requires licensing to ensure all tax obligations are met.

That is really close to being overturned based on recent supreme court rulings. California's limitations are close to being overturned etc...

We are starting to head back toward the right direction, that's for sure.


posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 12:12 PM
Guns are in adamant objects? It would suggest that the hands of the user ultimately define its use? what part of this concept don't you people understand. Should the rights be abolished on the basis of a tarnished few?

posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 12:20 PM

Originally posted by xavi1000
reply to post by projectvxn

I don't think that 2nd am will be ripped of after 240 years today or in close future .We just made a comparison of ideas , debating about this issue.My thoughts about this issue are clear as i stated in my previous posts. Maybe like a contrary some american should open a thread : " Why do Englishmen need a King or Queen ? Just confiscate their property and send them to history" .

Xavi, in reading your posts, I came to the conclusion that you're talkin outta your ass and are sadly misinformed, but I have to agree with you on this one point. I've always wondered the same thing.

posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 12:41 PM
I would have to state here, the main point given in past 46 plus pages would be, americans simply put will not give up our rights to give up arms

posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 12:43 PM
Ok mentioning suicides and homicides etc.... Ok now how many people kill themselves with other things besides guns?
Ok now how many people commit crime with other weapons?
We don't register our kitchen knives but they are used in suicides homicides and other extremely violent crimes.
We don't make heights illegal because people jump from bridges.And as for accidental discharges causing death B.S. Pople die alot from many accidents.
My boss just got run over by his wife by accident and when she realized it she drove over him again to get the truck off of him but you know what we don't ban cars and we don't ban alcohol either or knives. The true answer is to educate and train to handle safely.

posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 12:43 PM
we will not give up our rights to bear arms

posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 12:59 PM
reply to post by Obinhi

Where was this National Guard when the Constitution was written?

During this time almost any band of forces outside those of the regular army was refered to as a militia,
to the British it was used as a dirty word.

If you took away guns to prevent suicide you would also have to either take down or fence in all your bridges and rivers. A criminal would still be able to get hold of a 2x4 or kitchen knife, so you would still not be much better off.

What I really saying is, you can't sit on top of everyone all the time to make sure they don't harm themselves or someone else.

I was raise with guns in the home and learned to use and respect them for what they are--- both tool and weapon.
I have raise my childern in the same manner. They know from an early age the usefulness and dangers involved with them.

posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 01:43 PM
reply to post by wayno

No idea where you live, I also live in canada, we have over 30 guns in our house. So I am pretty sure guns are not banned here....

posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 02:40 PM
Why do we Americans need guns?....Easy, because we can! 2nd Amendment...gotta love it!

posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 02:58 PM
This is what happens when you disarm the citizenry:

The Results Are In
The following is a synopsis of an interview conducted by Ginny Simone with Keith Tidswell of Australia's Sporting Shooters Association. The entire interview is available as "Surprise, Surprise" in the "Archive News" section of:
One year after gun-owners were forced to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed, including semi-automatic .22 rifles and shotguns, a program costing the government over 500 million dollars ( bare in mind, thats tax payer dollars), the results are in...

A dramatic increase in criminal activity has been experienced. Gun control advocates respond "Just wait... we'll be safer... you'll see...".


Australia-wide, homicides are up 3.2%
Australia-wide, assaults are up 8.6%
Australia-wide, armed-robberies are up 44% (yes, FORTY-FOUR PERCENT)
In the state of Victoria, homicides-with-firearms are up 300%
Figures over the previous 25 years show a steady decrease in homicides-with-firearms (changed dramatically in the past 12 months)
Figures over the previous 25 years show a steady decrease in armed-robbery-with-firearms (changed dramatically in the past 12 months)
There has been a dramatic increase in breakins-and-assaults-of- the-elderly
At the time of the ban, the Prime Minister said "self-defense is not a reason for owning a firearm"
From 1910 to present, homicides in Australia had averaged about 1.8-per-100,000 or lower, a safe society by any standard.
The ban has destroyed Australia's standings in some international sport shooting competitions
The membership of the Australian Sports Shooting Association has risen to 112,000, a 200% increase, in response to the ban and as an attempt to organize against further controls, which are expected.
Australian politicians are on the spot and at a loss to explain how no improvement in "safety" has been observed after such monumental effort and expense was successfully expended in "ridding society of guns". Their response has been to "wait longer".



posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 03:16 PM
reply to post by TKDRL

Didn't say guns were illegal in Canada only automatic weapons and hand guns are restricted only with a collectors license can you obtain them.Long guns perfectly fine though you need a P.A.L. (Personal Acquisition License)..

posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 03:25 PM
reply to post by enament

I know that lol. Doesn't sound like wayno does by his post though. Comparing canada to places that banned guns, then slaughtered a bunch of people. I am going to work on gettin me one of those collector licenses ASAP. It does annoy me that we need to get permission, but better than nothing I suppose.

new topics

top topics

<< 43  44  45    47  48  49 >>

log in