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: 5
11
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 09:08 PM
link   
At risk of being on the receiving end of 'a can of whoop-ass' , may I ask the proud firearm bearing Americans..

When you forefathers slaughtered masses of innocent indigenous Native Americans, how can you possibly consider this introduction of firearms as a 'defence' ?



Peace




posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 09:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Beyond Creation
 


My question is simple, did anyone claim that it was?

More importantly your question is the very definition of a red herring rhetorical fallacy.


A Red Herring is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue. The basic idea is to "win" an argument by leading attention away from the argument and to another topic.



posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 09:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Beyond Creation
At risk of being on the receiving end of 'a can of whoop-ass' , may I ask the proud firearm bearing Americans..

When you forefathers slaughtered masses of innocent indigenous Native Americans, how can you possibly consider this introduction of firearms as a 'defence' ?



Peace






That's the bad side of Human Nature. If the Majority wants what's yours they will take it and there is nothing you can do. If you fight back you will be destroyed. This kind of behavior is still going on in the middle east and Africa. History is written by the winners and i'm going to make sure my son grows up knowing real world history not the garbage they teach in school. And when he gets in trouble and i get called to meet his principal i will bring real references to History not the ones they force on us.



posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 09:25 PM
link   
Firearms are a Defensive and Offensive weapon. If used in Defense you are the good guy. If used in Offense you are the bad guy. It's a 2 way door that we can't close. Now that they exist there is no way to remove them. Criminals will always find ways to get them. If they are banned from the entire planet criminals will just make them. Its not hard.

The good thing is that there are more good people then bad people. And if Everyone is armed the good people will always win just with sheer numbers. The way i see it is there is enough people on this planet. We aren't going to run out any time soon.



posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 09:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Beyond Creation
 





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.


I am sorry, but if an attacker puts me in fear of the imminent threat of grave bodily injury or death, I don't care about the psychological impact of my gun on them. Actually I do. I hope it serves as a deterent to their predatory ways in the future.

I don't condone using lethal force over a simple assault. However, if a criminal is using potentially lethal force I will return the favor. That means you pick up a stick, a brick, a knife, or a gun and come at me you will get shot. If you pull any form of weapon and try to rob me, or force your way in to my car, you will get shot. If you try to invade my home while I am there, you will get shot. If that hurts the attackers feelings, tough. He wasn't worried about mine or my physical safety.

Why do people keep worrying about the attackers and criminals? Why do they have more rights to safety than the innocent? Why do they have the right to force theirself against law abiding and peaceful citizens?



posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 09:34 PM
link   
reply to post by MikeNice81
 


Well I will tell you exactly why. People have been brainwashed into thinking that criminal elements that get what they deserve, are innocent victims. While they may actually be victims in a way, say of the prison industrial complex, they cannot really be thought of as innocent victims by people who think logically. They are depriving someone else of their liberties afterall.



posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 09:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by MikeNice81
reply to post by Beyond Creation
 


My question is simple, did anyone claim that it was?

More importantly your question is the very definition of a red herring rhetorical fallacy.


A Red Herring is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue. The basic idea is to "win" an argument by leading attention away from the argument and to another topic.


''My question is simple, did anyone claim that it was?''

I'll answer your simple question - I don't know. That's why I asked.

How is defining ''A Red Herring'' more important than such an issue as mass murder? Also, the context in which you have used this ''irrelevant topic'' it is no less of an example. Add a touch of irony and a pinch of counter-question' and you sound just like a politician.

Meh


Peace



posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 09:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Beyond Creation
 


It is more important because your question has nothing to do with the topic of using guns to prevent crime. It attempts to divert the discussion by asking an unrelated question.

In other words make a contribution with relevant data or information. That I will happily answer. I have done it in a half dozen gun discussions on ATS in the last week. What you are trying to do though is tie the right to defense with a gun to something completely unrelated.



posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 09:58 PM
link   
reply to post by MikeNice81
 


I asked that ''irrelevant'' or even somewhat rhetorical question because I wanted to understand at what point in American history did firearms become considered a 'defence' or deterrent of crime, rather than a 'offencive' weapon as used by those first settlers.

The fact that you consider it irrelevant or unrelated suggest that I may be addressing it to the wrong person, despite your proficiency in ''gun discussions'' .

As you say 'my bad'.


Peace



posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 10:12 PM
link   
I used to be a slightly "anti-gun" person on this forum, which is funny as i've used them excessively in the ADF here.

Anyway, it seems to me that the following points are brought up by anti-gun persons:

* They cause xxx number of accidental deaths due to improper handling of the weapon.
* People with weapons will be more inclined to kill.
* ALL weapons should be eliminated to allow humanity to become more "civilised"

I will add more later

*They cause xxx number of accidental deaths due to improper handling of the weapon*

This point can be true. But weapons are not toys. You do not let someone into a car without proper training. In the ADF (and I expect in all uniformed military services) they are very strict on weapons handling. Before you can fire off a round you are practicing dry-firing (no ammunition in the magazine, just a click), before you can fire off a live round, you are practicing with blanks, and so on. This point is not applicable.

*People with weapons are more inclined to kill*

This is a point that even I used to use, and I have switched side on this matter to a more logical stance. People that want to use firearms to murder a person, will acquire said firearm by any means necessary. That means illegally too. So no matter how many anti-gun laws you have, they will still acquire them. Having said that, human nature, individual sentience, and all that means that people will have disagreements with each other perpetually, but that DOES not mean someone will kill another out of "angst" unless that person was screwed in the head to begin with (which in that case would kill someone eventually by acquiring a firearm illegally, or using a knife, whatever.)

* ALL weapons should be eliminated to allow humanity to become more "civilised" *

We are civilised. Until humanity becomes part or a hive mind, or whatever, half of us are doing the best we can to maintain a moral, social, and cultural code. Something which has only been corrupted by religion over time (BUT at the same time religion was the source of these morals; it's just that mankind screwed with the texts over the years *cough* the bible) Weapons will never be eliminated.
edit on 26-1-2011 by Somehumanbeing because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 10:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Beyond Creation
 


With the wording of your original query that is not the way it sounded. Basically the right to own a weapon for self defence has been around since before America was a country. The right to carry arms for self defence goes back to at least 1764. However, even in Europe it was not uncommon for aristocrats to carry arms for defense against highway men and robbers well before that.

When it comes to guns the idea was there at least as early as the constitutional convention. John Adams argued that it was the right of the citizen to own a gun for self defence.

So, to answer your question in a simple way, before America was officially a country. It was an idea held by the very men that fought to form the country.
edit on 26-1-2011 by MikeNice81 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 10:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Somehumanbeing
 


Here is a simple (or not) answer to your first bullet point. In 1997 a study was released that found guns were used defensively 2.5million times per year. If the ratio between defensive and criminal use has remained stable, guns are used defensively more than 1.25 million times per year. Which number is higher, the lives saved or the lives accidentally lost?
edit on 26-1-2011 by MikeNice81 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 10:30 PM
link   
reply to post by MikeNice81
 



Well I'm glad you've understood the context of the question.

I understand that what your saying is that it has always been the way - not your fault I guess.

I can appreciate the strong feelings some Americans have over their right to bear arms if not simply because it is an issue of security, but I in return, ask of you and your fellow countrymen to also appreciate that the issue is not part of a foreigner's life and therefore does not pose the same threat to their sense of security.

Perhaps why we appear to see things so simply.

Thanks, its been fun.


Peace



posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 10:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by TedHodgson
reply to post by Rocky Black
 


You called the police, They dealt with it, Did you need a gun? Nope...

You are the Judge the jury and the Convicter? Thats exactly why you shouldnt have a gun, Your purely on a power trip.

You actually sound like you look forward to occasion when you can bring out your firearm and blast someones head off for whatever reason...

Let me ask you this, What if you got it wrong?..What if some guy grabbed hold of your daughter to throw her out of the way of a speeding car, And you shot him?.. Then Suddenly your not defending anyone anymore, Your the man holding the gun, You are the Offender with that weapon You have killed an inocent man out of instinct to protect your familly and coincidently you become a murderer, The exact thing you claim your firearms protect you from.

www.the-eggman.com...

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

854 innocent People on average die every year because of ACCIDENTAL discharge of firearms, If it wasnt for Guns, These children and Adults would be alive. Was it an Accident? No, The "responsible" and "Right minded" adults Bought those guns for a reason, to kill when needed. And they are ultimately responsible for any "Accidental death" that occurs because of the firearm they bought


who needs Meds? The person who Opposes violence or the one who Emplores it?... I know the answer do you...
edit on 26/1/11 by TedHodgson because: (no reason given)


Your assumptions are a little off.

There is no eveidence that the police "dealt with" the weirdo.

You too, bro... are busy being judge and convicter.

If my daughter was grabbed out in the street while at the same time a car is roaring by, I would not be so dimwitted to assume he was stealing her or what ever. ALL the things are happening at once. Most perceivers see almost everything in view.

Stats are just stats, they get twisted many different ways. Besides if a person is dumb enough to shoot himself with an accidental discharge, then he deserves it. If an innocent bystander is shot and either wounded of killed, then he should suffer proper punishment.

You don't have to own a gun bud. No one is insisting that you do. But I think that your criticisms of those that do own guns comes merely from an irrational fear on your own part.

I spent 22 years in the Marine Corps. I've been in a few combat zones. I have seen what those "wonderful neighbors" do when chaos and anarchy ensues. I like your point that no one ought kill anyone. But it isn't realistic in a world full of apelike creatures that go completely ape whenever they believe they can get away with it.

No thanks, I 'd rather keep my killers and never need them.

Its a horror to think that if some big cataclysm happened, or my country revolts, or 2012 becomes real, that I might have to shoot people who I have seen around this town for years when they com apillaging... but I damn sure will.

I have enough to pass out to my older neighbors to the left,right and across the street from me.

I suggest you do the same, because when the apes come, pleading with them will do nothing... Idealism is meaningless during the chaos of combat and a fire fight.

I just wish people like you woulod quit trying to make it difficult for people like us here, as we are not insisting that you get a gun or try to change your gun laws.

Perhaps we should insist on laws that force anti gunners to put large yellow signs with red letters on their front lawns that say:

NO GUNS HERE!

Then we won't have to shoot the bad guys. They'll go to those homes.

And when you're screaming for help, we'll wave atcha!

But seriously, you should be commended for your good point of view, but there is no room for viciousness. Neither side of the issue need be a nazi about it.

For the very fact that civil society exists only among the parties in agreement, and it seems only when things are going good, that all things considered, many neighbors cannot trust neighbors when the SHTF, it is a VERY SAD but TRUE FACT. This is why one ought have weapons of self defense, whether they are "offensive" or not, to help keep the peace and protect one's self and family when that day comes. May it never come!

But we cannot afford to act like people in a Jason movie and when the monster comes, crawl into the corner, curl up and cry while getting hacked to death by a moron.

You're not a bad guy, you're just misguided and as hypnotized by your country's Euro propaganda as we are with ours. That's why its best to be a free thinker and not buy in to all this silly stuff. IMHO
edit on 26-1-2011 by akalepos because: little bit more to say



posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 10:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Beyond Creation
At risk of being on the receiving end of 'a can of whoop-ass' , may I ask the proud firearm bearing Americans..

When you forefathers slaughtered masses of innocent indigenous Native Americans, how can you possibly consider this introduction of firearms as a 'defence' ?



Peace





umm... cuz... we didn't have enough guns?



posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 10:52 PM
link   
To own a gun and store it in a secret/special place in your home for emergency of a life threatening situation SHOULD be LEGAL. Not a single soul should have offensive intentions.. those who do, probably have a criminal record and BY LAW should never be allowed to weild such a weapon.

But I feel that the average North American (yes im Canadian and we count too) should be allowed to own a fire arm in their home, tucked away somewhere so if an offender/aggresser tries to B&E my own or attack my family, he would be in for a long day. But he brought it on, and I was successfully able to save my families lives.

For you "gun banner" wanna b's out there.. when a robber or thug breaks into your home, jumps you at 2 am, attacks your family, well lets make sure your fellow Officer will make it time before anything life threatening might happen...

This whole "gun owning" debate is far BEYOND stupid! for those of you who are wanting a gun bann, if something EVER happend to you or your family you would think TWICE again before making such a dumb decision.

There ARE people, losing there lives to cops, to thugs, to robbers everyday and the best part.. they are innocent well being people who had no protection. The #ty ass police force ( yes police force is a damn joke) CAN NOT protect crap. They think they might be able too but when it comes down to a serious incident, someone innocent will be left to pay because he/she was "armless" by LAW.

Good day
Kelliott



posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 10:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Beyond Creation
reply to post by MikeNice81
 


I asked that ''irrelevant'' or even somewhat rhetorical question because I wanted to understand at what point in American history did firearms become considered a 'defence' or deterrent of crime, rather than a 'offencive' weapon as used by those first settlers.

The fact that you consider it irrelevant or unrelated suggest that I may be addressing it to the wrong person, despite your proficiency in ''gun discussions'' .

As you say 'my bad'.


Peace





I think it was from the beginning. I think it had something to do with King George when he declared all colonists, previously called Subjects of the Crown, out of his protection and the British Army and the "Civilized tribes" began slaughtering colonists in the wilderness.

I think that's what did it.Those complaints are listed in the detailed argument embedded in the Declaration. FYI



posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 11:12 PM
link   
reply to post by thisguyrighthere
 
WtW? We weren't all raised by Teddy Bears. Fortunately !!!!! Makes me want to take em hunting and pull a Cheney "mishap"! Does that person actually believe all criminals need is a warm and loving talkin to? Just had to back your response to gun oppressor.



posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 11:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Beyond Creation
 


I should be ashamed to hope that a criminal or killer would pick the
hope of an anti gun individual instead of mine?

You don't know who I am or where I am from?

Who I am or where I am from should not matter to you nor is it any of your business, the fact that you mentioned it tells me that you are a bit off, a stalker type perhaps?

I have nothing to be ashamed of, your kind seem to think that you can deprive us of our only means of defense while setting the conditions that will propel firearms ownership into something only the rich and politically connected can have.

The gun control lobby is insidious in the way that they claim to want "tighter controls" but really work towards a total ban on firearms for the "peasants".

If a killer where to visit the guys house and by chance bypass the home of an unarmed individual who wanted lawful self defense but was unable to attain it due to unreasonable gun laws (like in NYC) then so be it, I would see it as nothing more than a big old example of irony.

Just so you know, I have carried everyday for 14 years without incident, on duty, off duty and as a civilian, perhaps your antigun fervor comes from the understanding that you are not stable enough for gun ownership?



posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 11:49 PM
link   
reply to post by glassynole
 


I can't wait till Ole' Ted tries to talk his way out of a problem with Muslim extremists should they start the holy war while he's still alive and kicking. I guess he'll just have to convert to Islam. Or maybe he should take a vacation here to one of our great cities like maybe...Oh...I don't know..East St. Louis or Detroit and spend some quality time at night with the Bro's hangin' at the street corner. Maybe then he'll realize just what self defense is all about. That is if he lives!


Zindo




top topics



 
11
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join