It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by Liquesence
And that is the security of a republic.
Pretty simple. It's insurance.
The purpose for carrying said arms on one's person is not to secure the republic (directly), but for those who are weak to feel empowered due to having a deadly weapon at their side. Pretty simple
Criminologist Gary Kleck agrees with Lott, noting that firearms benefit women because "guns are the weapon type whose effectiveness is least dependent on the physical strength of its user."
Whereas a woman may be severely beaten, even killed, if she resists by using her fists – where the man likely has her outmatched – says Lott, "by far the safest course of action is to have a gun. A woman who behaves passively is 2.5 times as likely to end up being seriously injured as a woman who has a gun."
The reason for this fact is simple: Firearms reduce the power differential between the weak and the strong, making it harder for the strong to prey upon the weak.
Originally posted by getreadyalready
reply to post by purplemer
There is a wonderful quote from a military general that sums up this position well. I will go look for it, but in essence he proves that it is the gun that creates equality and freedom among people. Without it, we would all be victims to the bigger, meaner, more aggressive among us. The gun is an equalizer among men. It isn't for ego, it is for equality.
"No kingdom can be secured otherwise than by arming the people. The possession of arms is the distinction between a freeman and a slave. He, who has nothing, and who himself belongs to another, must be defended by him, whose property he is, and needs no arms. But he, who thinks he is his own master, and has what he can call his own, ought to have arms to defend himself, and what he possesses; else he lives precariously, and at discretion." --James Burgh (Political Disquisitions: Or, an Enquiry into Public Errors, Defects, and Abuses) [London, 1774-1775]
Originally posted by CX
Originally posted by purplemer
Well this is another death knell for the pro gun movement. This guy could have shot the guy that disarmed Jared Loughner
Could have done, but didn't. He showed great maturity, restraint and presence of mind to carry out a split second risk assesment before letting loose with a weapon.
If anything, it is one of example of how not all gunowners are the trigger happy irresponsible people that they are made out to be.
Once again as summer progresses, tourists are trying to recapture the romance of the West. Recalling the violent images fostered by Hollywood, they seek out ghost towns, ride horseback at dude ranches and take part in exciting re-enactments of conflicts among vigilantes, sheriffs, cowboys and Indians.
What they don't realize is that the violence of the West is largely a myth.
Yes, there were isolated examples of violence, but the true story of the American West is one of cooperation, not conflict.