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.

 

This is why we should all have the right and the possesion of a firearms.

page: 4
11
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 05:07 PM
link   
Well here is my outlook on it. I train my body hard, in case the need ever arises that I need to physically defend myself. A lot of times, just seeing my body that looks like cut stone is enough to stop a would be assaulter in their tracks. Then there is the weapons angle. On my belt, I have a big old knife, in plain site, I am sure that acts as a detterent as well. As for my home, the neighbors saw us unload a truck full of guns when we moved here permanently, news spread, and only the insane would dare try to mess with my home, knowing we have an arsenal waiting. When I get my carry permit, if it is legal(not sure if the permit here is concealed only, which basically defeats the purpose of being a deterrent if that is the case....) I will have 2 guns in shoulder holsters in plain site, everywhere but the beach(it would be stupid to swim in the ocean with guns and ruin them, and almost as stupid to take them off and leave them on the beach to have a swim). Seeing a ripped guy, with 2 guns is enough to make anyone with a brain and sanity think twice about starting some crap anywhere I am. Those without a brain and sanity, I don't much care about these days.




posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 05:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Whereweheaded
 


Hummm. My father owns dozens of guns. Handguns, shotguns, and ruffles. I grew up shooting all of the above whenever I wanted in my backyard, with his loving patience and instruction. So you are ill informed I guess.



posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 05:20 PM
link   
reply to post by ZindoDoone
 


Ok so I am in a wheelchair and I have a choice...you rob me at gunpoint or shovel point...I'm still picking shovel...



posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 05:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Wetpaint72
 


Care to elaborate where i'm alleged ill informed? Considering I'm advocating the 2nd Amendment right, and none of my posts would question the 2nd, I'm confused on your alleged argument? If you even have one? So far, your comment has no merit~

I suggest you re-read my comments and come back and try again...
edit on 26-1-2011 by Whereweheaded because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 05:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Whereweheaded
 


You said those who oppose had learned fro family and friends. Ps and I am pryer service member. I have discided on my own thank yup very much.



posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 05:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Wetpaint72
 


I suggested that those who opposed firearms where taught that thought process by their peers. Sounds like you have no argument, and are just trolling. And being a prayer whatever....that really explains it~ Next~



posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 05:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Rocky Black
 


i second that. dont post very often but couldnt help it this time.
fact, most people who have spent some time fighting other people in whatever way dont like it.
fact, theres bloody nutters out there who do. I in my choice of lifestyle tend to come across these loonies every now and then and i have been in enough bad spots to know yours words arn't going to save you or your family that simple. you disagree good on ya mate. bats hit harder than words and ive got the xrays to prove it. no matter how passive you like to be when men turn to dogs and your backs against the wall with your family scared. would you rather have a dictionary then...?



posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 05:47 PM
link   
I personally believe that weapons training should be taught in High Schools around the country. It should be taught as part of our government courses that are taken. Just as registering to vote and applying to selective service should also be done in government class during the senior year of High School. Government should not just teach how the government is organized and works but how to be a responsible citizen as well. The right to own and carry a gun is protected by the U.S. Constitution. I don't however believe that those with criminal records or a history of mental instability should be allowed to own or carry a firearm. I have been target shooting with my father since I was 10 years old. I have always been taught gun safety and responsible use. I have found that most people who are afraid of guns have usually never been around them or are a victim of a tragedy. I have had several friends who objected to guns. I took them with me to the range and now most of them own one or two.



posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 05:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by TedHodgson
reply to post by Darkice19
 


I wont need to complain, England doesnt have guns therefore chances of such things are mininmul, I suggest you go back and read the previous conclusion that i just had with the Pro-Gun guy in this thread and refer to the conclusion we came to, Before trying to prove a point that we have allready concluded is Biased and frankly Not-the-case in england Therefore i can not agree that Guns are needed


That is not quite correct England does have guns. The Military and special
police units have guns and so do some criminals . That leaves the
everyday person defensless against armed and violent criminals. Guns do
not kill people, people kill people with guns, knives, poison, bombs, blunt
objects etc,. People will continue to do so until we can get rid of poverty,
greed, corruption, exploitation, jealousy, envy etc,. Have you noticed that
most countries that have given up their weapons are more enslaved than ever?
The U.S. is also on the brink however at least the people are still armed and
have a fighting chance should the need arise. What if Nazism or some other
form of government took power in England? The people would be unable to
do anything about it, at least in the USA we still have the option to try and
defend ourselves, can't say the same for England.



posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 06:23 PM
link   
reply to post by TedHodgson
 


I really wish that criminals go to your home when they are in the mood to kill instead of the home of some poor sap who was disarmed by politicians who were enabled by useful idiots just like you.

I have been to crime scenes were good people were cut to pieces because they were defenseless, IMHO, people with your thinking are mostly to blame.

You can daydream, cuddle and bargain with murderers all day long if you like, I will prefer to have the means to defend my family and myself, people suck and they always will, no amount of stupidity or wishful thinking will change that.

What makes you think that you are the best person to decide how the rest of us will defend ourselves from killers?

The real danger is from people like you who demand that we lay down our lives to monsters.



posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 06:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Whereweheaded
 


Most of the anti gun nutjobs often have weapons, they just don't want the rest of us armed.
I wonder why?

They sound like idiots, " just be passive and use words to deescalate the situation!".

I swear they have never been in a tight spot ever, force is the ONLY thing killers understand.



posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 06:29 PM
link   
reply to post by TedHodgson
 


You came back to edit and add a Ghandi quote and still do not address any of my questions or points.


Well since you like Ghandi quotes I'll give you one.

‘‘Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest.’’


One of my favorites doesn't come from Ghandi


‘‘Laws that forbid the carrying of arms... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.’’
Jefferson's "Commonplace Book," 1774-1776, quoting from On Crimes and Punishment, by criminologist Cesare Beccaria, 1764


For those out there that believe the founding fathers only wanted guns in the hands of the army:


"Arms in the hands of individual citizens may be used at individual discretion for the defence of the country,
the over-throw of tyranny, or in private self-defense."

Jon Adams A DEFENSE OF THE CONSTITUTIONS OF GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, at 475, (Philadelphia 1788)



‘‘And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; or to raise standing armies, unless necessary for the defense of the United States, or of some one or more of them; or to prevent the people from petitioning, in a peaceable and orderly manner, the federal legislature, for a redress of grievances; or to subject the people to unreasonable searches and seizures of their persons, papers or possessions.’’

— Samuel Adams, Debates of the Massachusetts Convention of 1788

‘‘[The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation (where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.’’

— James Madison, Federalist, No. 46.

‘‘I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials.’’
‘‘To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them.’’

— George Mason "Father of the Bill of Rights."



edit on 26-1-2011 by MikeNice81 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 06:30 PM
link   
Since Ted says he no longer wishes to respond, I guess he won't be able to read this but here goes:
Zindo
THIS IS THE BEST WORDED PRO-GUN ARGUMENT I HAVE EVER READ.
by Marko Kloos

As the Supreme Court hears arguments for and against the
Chicago, IL Gun Ban, I offer you another stellar example of a letter that places the proper perspective on what a
gun means to a civilized society.

Interesting take and one you don't hear much. . . . . .
Read this eloquent and profound article and pay close attention to the
last paragraph of the letter....





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 mugger's 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.



So the greatest civilization is one where all citizens are equally
armed and can only be persuaded, never forced.
DO I HEAR AN AMEN?
edit on 1/26/2011 by ZindoDoone because: Spelling

edit on 1/26/2011 by ZindoDoone because: (no reason given)

edit on 1/26/2011 by ZindoDoone because: (no reason given)

edit on 1/26/2011 by ZindoDoone because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 06:41 PM
link   
reply to post by ZindoDoone
 


The piece you posted is great I often pull it out to get people thinking. However, the atribution is off. It was actually written by Marko Kloos and can be found here.



posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 06:53 PM
link   
reply to post by MikeNice81
 


Thanks Mike, didn't know that. Fixed the attribution in my post!
Zindo



posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 07:09 PM
link   
reply to post by TedHodgson
 


figure mean nothing buddy

45800 people died and 2.4 million were injured in 2005

M.A.D people will die every day with or with out guns, baseball bat to the face..... ban them

kid gets punched and fell on curb then dies.... ban that evil curb

every thing can kill get used to it and you cant stop them all.


edit on 26-1-2011 by nonetruegod because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 07:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by TedHodgson

Dont want to listen? Take a look at the statistics.

854 innocent People on average die every year because of ACCIDENTAL discharge of firearms



What about this?


Car Crash Stats: There were nearly 6,420,000 auto accidents in the United States in 2005. The financial cost of these crashes is more than 230 Billion dollars. 2.9 million people were injured and 42,636 people killed. About 115 people die every day in vehicle crashes in the United States -- one death every 13 minutes.


And every year since 1975 there have been over 40,000+ deaths every year through 2006. This is a greater number of casualties, and for a longer period of time, than _any_ war.

wikipedia motor vehicle deaths in US


Are you sure you are arguing for the right cause?

But let me assume that you spend one hundred and seven times as much effort arguing about car tradgedies, and these four posts here don't reflect the fourhundred and twenty eight posts you've made decrying the availiablity of cars. Let's revisit the quote from your post.


854 innocent People on average die every year because of ACCIDENTAL discharge of firearms


Well the word innocent is just unfounded and irrelevant, as even the police will tell you. One doesn't consider it a success when a suspect is killed. We are all trained to apprehend them alive. Even when they go on a rampage in a shooting mall. So we'll drop that word.


854 People on average die every year because of ACCIDENTAL discharge of firearms


OK, well that's interesting. People have to spend 300 to 500 dollars for drivers education in the US. I imagine the 41,000 deaths in automobiles would be very much higher if that wasn't the case.

If you really cared about so-called innocent people
you would be arguing for the availiablity of more firearm training,
more saftey courses, more riffle clubs, and more firing ranges, but your not. Are you?


David Grouchy



posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 08:44 PM
link   
''The Military and special police units have guns and so do some criminals .''

The criminals use (illegal) guns against other gangs often in drug wars. They're not usually used directly against the public.

The police also have guns as were reminded in the 'Mendez' shooting.

Mr Ted Hodgsen - I agree with your sentiments and I have to say it really is that simple. Firearms may be a valuable defence but the psychological impact they also have on the attacker far out weighs its defencive justification.

You're starting to learn my friend that the Americans 'don't take too kindly' to foreigner's objections to their right to bear arms (despite your peaceful intent).

And 'samhouston1886'

I don't care who you (think) you are and where you're from but, and I quote..

''I really wish that criminals go to your home when they are in the mood to kill instead of the home of some poor sap who was disarmed by politicians who were enabled by useful idiots just like you. '' ,

...what a vile and thoughtless thing to say!

Its plain to see that somebody as understanding and self-controlled as you obviously deserves to have a lethal weapon (satire).

You should be deeply ashamed of yourself!

To everybody else.....

Peace



posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 08:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Rocky Black
 


I AGREE!!!



posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 08:56 PM
link   
reply to post by TedHodgson
 


I called you on this post. I told you that you lied about the number of accidental deaths. You went back and changed your wording from "day" to "year." Even then you still left the wrong number up there.

From your own link the total number by,

Accidental Discharge of Firearms 776


You lie, then you change it, but you forget to correct your numbers. You claimed to be out of the argument instead of discussing a number of questions I raised. Yet, you took the time to go back and edit at least two post to add or change things.

Then you have the nerve to act like you are of superior intellect. To me it seems you are intellectually dishonest at best.

edit on 26-1-2011 by MikeNice81 because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join