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: 48
33
<< 45  46  47    49  50  51 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 05:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Obinhi..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.



The ban on grenade launchers does not come under the second amendment.
The ban on grenade launchers is because they fire a illegal explosive device

Under federal law you can own a 37mm gas grenade launcher that will not fire a fragmentation grenade but you can not own a 40mm that will.
www.everydaynodaysoff.com...
www.tucsonguns.com...

By the way i own a 37mm Cobray grenade flare launcher and have the mounts for my AR15.
After TSHTF i fugure that it will scare the *ra* out of anyone in a firefight when a big red burning ball comes flying at then along with the bullets.

Plus if anyone sees the launcher they will believe its a 40mm and think twice about attacking me.




posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 05:32 PM
link   
*i wouldnt kill a thing* might rethink that statement in time when it is kill or be killed.
edit on 16-12-2010 by thecinic because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 05:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by xavi1000
reply to post by Aliensdoexist
 
I dont need to answer this ..you quoted my answer


pfft, you rarely answer anything or offer a defense for anything you've previously stated as it is.
edit on 16-12-2010 by bigrex because: clarification

edit on 16-12-2010 by bigrex because: more clarification

edit on 16-12-2010 by bigrex because: typo



posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 06:10 PM
link   
reply to post by kevinunknown
 


Lets Speculate. A gun, or Firearm is a device that projects a projectile through a controlled explosion. You can use this science for many reasons other than killing people. I personally own and carry multiple firearms everyday. I'm not a police officer and you probably could refer to me as "Joe the plumber". I don't leave my house without my carry piece. But what makes u think you can regulate the number of firearms to just law enforcement or farmers/hunters. that's so very flip-flopped and hypocritical to say that one person deserves the right because of their profession next to a law abiding citizen who is just trying to be one step ahead of the bad guy. Farmers don't NEED guns. there are many ways to hunt... how about trapping?. Gun's are merely a tool to get the job done easier. if you outlaw guns only outlaws will have them. and behind the farmers overalls or the police uniform we are all human. Guns either exist in our lives or they don't. There's no way to get rid of them and why would you try? i own a car, a pool, and a gun... and you know what.. i have a good life too. and when SHTF i don't plan on getting mugged, or my house broken into and my gf getting raped by some scumbag while i'm tied up in the closet. why know have this extra protection. The world has become a bad place and we as Americans have the right to defend ourselves. I'm not a great speaker but i registered to ATS just because this thread pissed me off so much. How about we get rid of the things that Fuel violence such as poverty, jealousy, money, love, narcotics and other drugs.. oh wait.. then that wouldn't be reality. "i don't leave the house without my 9 or 45"
later



posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 06:26 PM
link   
Why do Americans need guns? probily so we can use up all the amo that we stored up, I know of one that has 22,000 rounds of amo, just in case. He also has some macaronie left over from Y2K. We don't take it for granted that it's going to be there in the mornning. We just might have to take it back when someone thinks it's theirs for the taken.



posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 06:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by xavi1000
reply to post by 46ACE
 

Wow ,you are shocked ? deeply shocked? .Let me clarify you again : there is thousands things better to do with my child then taking to a range or learn to shot. Is this is shocking you i can presume that you are shocked at least 100 times a day .I dont like any kind of guns ,i can't imagine me killing someone i was raised that way , i believe in my believings.What is shocking here ?


Perhaps the classic Casablanca reference was lost on you.



No I'm shocked "we think differently"( is sarcasm you "idjit") . Because you are so obviously steeped in liberal b.s. I can smell it through the keyboard.(Don't believe the other anti -crap:nobody wants to kill anybody).

Your " I don't like any kind of guns" is most apparent.You certainly can "believe your believings"(??)
( er.. "beliefs"): because men with guns came first and made it safe for you. but your type tries to influence uninformed opinions by propagating made up candy land ideals.That get people killed: you can't have amassacre here its been declared a ( wait for it ):"gun "free"zooone...

Added: You hardcore Liberal minded "I don't want my kids to even play with a plastic gun". folks are so far out of the American mainstream; and you don't seem to realize it. That's why we are completely aghast at the: zero tolerance: "Little Johnny drew a rocket on his notebook in class today; Thats a "WMD" he needs to expelled and reeducated before turning to class..
Little Suzy had a nail clipper in her backpack ( EEK A"WEAPON!"she must be sickin the head...): She'll be joining him.
The mindset is completely immature and ignorant.
For every person you "convince" to stand with you against gun rights or any other right you folks push the clock one minute closer to a fight among civilians.



edit on 16-12-2010 by 46ACE because: (no reason given)

edit on 16-12-2010 by 46ACE because: (no reason given)

edit on 16-12-2010 by 46ACE because: (no reason given)

edit on 16-12-2010 by 46ACE because: (no reson given)

edit on 16-12-2010 by 46ACE because: rant added.

edit on 16-12-2010 by 46ACE because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 07:23 PM
link   
I usually don't post on ATS but when I saw your thread title and then read the responses, I just had to throw in my 2 cents. (made it to about page 8 or so)

A few things that you said stood out to me:


Originally posted by kevinunknown
reply to post by projectvxn
 


You wrote that like I have never seen a stabbing or a been faced with a drugged up nut job, I have, I have also been a “victim” I still see no need to carry about a gun.

I really liked the bit at the end about Scotland, thing is I don’t view myself as Scottish, I am British. And that was hundreds of years ago, it was necessary, now the police and government protect us so we don’t all need to get our claymores out.


If the police and government protects you, then how did you see a stabbing or a drugged up nut, or even be a 'victim'? Based on your logic, you should of been protected, right?

Its called 'Murphy's Law' - ANYTHING that can go wrong, WILL go wrong. And in today's world especially, lots of things go wrong.

Not to be a 'richard' though... I dont understand why would you start a thread like this, when this is your profile/avatar pic (not sure what it's called)




Monkey in a suit, with a pistol in the left hand. Not even with a safe pistol grip, since the finger is on the trigger, rather then extended on the frame to maintain a safe weapon (and of course the safety should be on).

You might want to work on your image/character before you start preaching your whatever.



posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 07:36 PM
link   
I didnt see any reference to the Warren vs District of Columbia Supreme Court case. Its one of the very reasons why I believe guns are necessary. If just one of those women had a pistol that scenario would have played out very differently.

en.wikipedia.org...

I carry simply for my protection and for the protection of my family. Im not out to kill anyone but when it come to you or me, it will be you...

It has already been said, look at your history books and you will see why guns are important to keep things in check. It has been going on for hundreds of years and will continue for hundreds more. People take advantage of weak people for financial gain or political power. If everyone lived in a eutopia, guns wouldnt be needed but the fact is there is always someone trying to take advantage of the weak and or unarmed.



posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 07:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by xavi1000
reply to post by zerbot565
 

False.
This scenarios are not everyday scenarios in Europe . Are they in US? I don't think so.


false is to believe that crime does not happen because you follow law,

i think there s 1 rape every 2 min in the u.s cant say for sertainty whats it here in the europe but atleast one every day for each country ,

as for murders commited in the u.s i guess its around 50 a day, 2 every hour, so for every murder there is atleast 15 ? rapes

and taken statistics in to play i bet you there is a very possible chance that them scenarios are very "everyday" life ,.

just because you dont see or confront it everyday does not mean its not out there,



posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 07:48 PM
link   
reply to post by 46ACE
 


First that was a double sarcasm from me ( and calling me idiot is inmature)
Second ,english is not my first language .
Third , calling me a liberal is completely wrong and other from your post is completely BS.

I hope you don't shoot with your gun arround when your are frustrated for not having the answers .

edit on 16-12-2010 by xavi1000 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 07:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Talvar

Originally posted by kevinunknown

The argument is always that it’s for self defence, that way if someone pulls a gun on a knife on you, you can protect yourself. It’s a hard one to argue against, but surly if it were the case that gun’s were outlawed or heavily regulated it would lead to a overall reduction in the number of firearms owned and therefore the odds of someone pulling a gun on you would be greatly reduced therefore you wouldn’t have to own a fire arm and the odds would fall further. In any case you can never be sure it’s going to help your odds, if two gun men mug you or break into your house you’re already on the losing side. Now baring in mind that there are almost enough firearms America for every citizen the robbers are going to know you have a gun in your house, they are going to be prepared and have the element of surprise on their side.



Ok let's tackle this statement first. The argument that regulation and the outlawing of guns reduces guns is only true for law abiding citizens, i.e. those individuals who are unlikely to use guns for any purpose other than self defense, hunting, or recreational shooting. I have yet to have someone explain to me what makes them believe that the criminal elements that are responsible for crime would give up their guns. As a matter of fact, I have seen several stories done where criminals were interviewed and asked about gun control. Guess what, they were in favor of it because it created a safer and more conducive environment for their less than legal activities. What gun control laws would accomplish would be to simply take guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens while leaving them in the hands of criminals, who are not going to suddenly become safety conscious citizens.

Now, as for the second amendment, you obviously have no understanding as to what the Constitution's role is. The second amendment, while providing for individual protection, is primarily a vehicle to ensure that the people are not put into a position where they cannot defend themselves from their own government should it become a danger the the liberties and freedoms cited in the Declaration of Independence. That in essence sums up the Constitution. It is not a document which grants rights. It is a document meant to limit the power and scope of government to within a very narrow framework. While, this has obviously been usurped in many ways, it does not change the fact that is its purpose.

I do not disagree with the basic premise that the world would be a much beautiful rainbow filled paradisaical utopia without guns. Oh wait before guns, we killed each other with swords. Ok, without guns and swords. But wait, then there were sharp pointy sticks... Ok, no guns, swords, or sharp pointy sticks. Crap, forgot about wooden clubs. Ok, not guns, swords, sharp pointy sticks, or blunt objects. Hmmm, wait a minute what about rocks, can definitely do serious damage with a rock. Ok, I have it now. We just outlaw all guns, knives, swords, sharp pointy sticks, blunts objects, and rocks. That will surely solve the problem...

Obviously, the problem is not the weapons used. Violence is not a new phenomenon which suddenly materialized with the advent of guns.


No its not. Heres a classic dawn of man clip" from Kubrics 2001 a space odyssey
this particular clan of premen has lost its spot at the wateringhole to a larger group. the strange monolith gives them anidea about "weapons".






Originally posted by Talvar
It has been around as long as people have walked the Earth. What do we do to stop it? Well now that is a question for the ages and I am not so arrogant as to assume I have the answer. I do know that leaving myself and my family vulnerable to those in our society who do not share my sense of civic duty and compassion for my fellow man is not the answer. It simply makes me a poor protector of their right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
edit on 14-12-2010 by Talvar because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 08:07 PM
link   
reply to post by zerbot565
 


So you have guns ,you are armed ,protected but still large number of rapes . 90000 rapes in 2009, 29 on 100 000 inhabitants, larger number than any other european country who are mostly have tight gun control. en.wikipedia.org...

So it seems that armed population doesn't stop well this crime .
edit on 16-12-2010 by xavi1000 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 08:28 PM
link   
reply to post by xavi1000
 



Well law abiding citizens cannot go running around shooting criminals that would in turn make them criminals as well (ie. Vigilante) if your angry about crime rates write your local Sheriff dept or your Congressman because Law Enforcment is responsible for responding to crimes not the law abiding citizen. Also gun laws vary drastically from state to state and large cities usually have there own set of gun laws so this makes concealed carry difficult if you are doing things the way the law states some states allow you to carry concealed with a permit others you cannot conceal at all and some states you can conceal without any permit the laws vary drastically in regards to firearms mainly to confuse armed law abiding citizens that have to follow 1000's of different rules and laws that change year by year made by ignorant Liberals that have never even handled a firearm because they think that its the gun that kills not the person that pulls the trigger with intent to do bodily harm to another person.



posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 08:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by xavi1000
reply to post by 46ACE
 


First that was a double sarcasm from me ( and calling me idiot is inmature)
Second ,english is not my first language .
Third , calling me a liberal is completely wrong and other from your post is completely BS.

I hope you don't shoot with your gun arround when your are frustrated for not having the answers .

edit on 16-12-2010 by xavi1000 because: (no reason given)


Ohh "double sarcasm"..
Sorry about the language issue; your command of English is perfectly adequate to pass (for a native speaker) and rile up the emotions.
( if you are not from America) I can assure you here your positions would be consistent with the socalled"liberal inteligensia" .
I appreciate your feigned concern; however:
I as have many here; have been around firearms my entire life. I have never even once used a weapon
in anger or frustration.I have absolutely nothing to prove to anybody. My fellow citizens will never be aware of my firearms unless one decides to relieve me or my family of the right to life..

I as have 80% of the replies here have provided plenty of answers to anti-gun anti freedom folks in this abusive troll heavy thread. ( "just asking why")...
perhaps I can manage to look away tomorrow and find some thing more productive to do with my time

Have a great weekend.

edit on 16-12-2010 by 46ACE because: (no reason given)

edit on 16-12-2010 by 46ACE because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 08:37 PM
link   
Wow, the ignorance here just amazes me. but for the sake of argument, lets debate this. Sure, lets go ahead and tear up the second amendment. Now that that's out of the way, and we've now established a precedent, lets just tear up the first amendment which would ban sites like this where your free to express yourself without fear of being imprisoned or killed like other countries have seen.
Tear up an amendment....really?!



posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 08:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by xavi1000
reply to post by zerbot565
 


So you have guns ,you are armed ,protected but still large number of rapes . 90000 rapes in 2009, 29 on 100 000 inhabitants, larger number than any other european country who are mostly have tight gun control. en.wikipedia.org...

So it seems that armed population doesn't stop well this crime .
edit on 16-12-2010 by xavi1000 because: (no reason given)


bingo ,

and i prepouse that crowbars and gloves be made licensed and training required before purchase since its a common "tool" in burglary



posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 09:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by babybunnies
No, the second amendment was meant for Militias, not for citizens, and was designed so that Militias would always have the weaponry available to wage war against a FOREIGN Government, such as the British.


This is true, the right to OWN property IS a fundamental, natural right. Not owing it's existance to any Constitution or other document. Sheriff Richard I. Mack makes that perfectly clear as he BEAT the Brady Bill, that's right folks, the Brady bill was declared Null and Void by the Supreme Court, several other county Sheriff's did the same thing. Just because you are "required" to wait seven days or whatever DOES NOT make it legal for the "States" to do this unlawful and unconstitutional act. Here is a good one for all you people looking into the real law, "required" as defined by Websters dictionary is "to ask or insist upon by VIRTUE of law, to be in need of, to demand".....by virtue of law, is that not interesting. WHY...why is it not MANDATORY????????

Because the State derives its just powers from the consent of the people. DO NOT CONSENT and the statutes, code, ordinance and such do not apply to you, you are sovereign. When will you people wake the hell up? You have so many natural rights it in't funny, but what would you do with them? Most people don't know how to fend for themselves, they are afraid of being free, they NEED the "governments" protection, so they pay for it, they register themselves, they apply for a license.......you do not NEED a license for something you already HAVE the right to do...OWN PROPERTY!!!!! The right to own property ALSO ENCOMPASSES the right to use that propoerty ANY WAY you see fit so long as you harm no one, vioate no others rights or damage no others property.

A gun and ammunition ARE property..............Simple as that.

FYI.............


FACTS ABOUT GUN CONTROL



In 1918, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1918 to 1953, about 30 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

——————————

In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

——————————

Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews, Catholics and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.

——————————

China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

——————————

Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

——————————

Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

——————————

Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million ‘educated’ people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

—————————–

Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control:
56 million. (that number is an estimate, the actual number is probably higher)




posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 09:30 PM
link   
post removed for serious violation of ATS Terms & Conditions



posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 10:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by xavi1000
So you have guns ,you are armed ,protected but still large number of rapes . 90000 rapes in 2009, 29 on 100 000 inhabitants, larger number than any other european country who are mostly have tight gun control. en.wikipedia.org...

So it seems that armed population doesn't stop well this crime .


You really should learn to make an intelligent argument... What is it that people like you don't understand that most crimes in the U.S., including rape occur in states that have either banned firearms, or they are heavily restricted...

The states in the U.S. where there are less crimes are the ones where gun laws are the most lax. Meaning that "regular citizens having their right to own and bear arms unrestricted DOES STOP CRIMES..."

In countries like the UK, where the government decided to ban firearms, crimes, and even crimes with firearms HAVE GONE UP... It shouldn't take a rocket scientist to understand what this means...
edit on 16-12-2010 by ElectricUniverse because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 10:42 PM
link   
reply to post by kevinunknown
 


Why do Britons like you need freedom of speech?... I want to take away your right to free speech because you don't really need it.


Anyway like prof emeritus showed, the London police chief wants to take away your right to peacefully protest.


You do like to go along with your draconian laws right?....
edit on 16-12-2010 by ElectricUniverse because: errors



new topics

top topics



 
33
<< 45  46  47    49  50  51 >>

log in

join