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: 8
11
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 12:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by CosmicCitizen
reply to post by Honor93
 

The first gun (blunderbuss type) was probably made in china which is where gunpowder was invented. The long distance record for a sniper shot is from Canada and it was in Afghanistan and he uses US made ammo. The Indians (misnamed by Columbus because he was basically lost when he landed in San Salvadore - thinking he was in India) or "indigenous native americans" where here first and we basically invaded them (worse exploitation tho was in Mexico by the conquistadors).....we came for spices and trade and stayed for silver and gold.

CosmicCitizen - star for you for the effort and mostly right answers.
you may want to look a bit deeper into the accepted perception that China invented gun powder.
actually, the current record holder is named: Craig Harrison and he is British
nation.towergaming.com...
Canadian Rob Furlong did hold the record since 2002, using American ammo

The reason i asked about black powder is because it is frequently associated with 'guns'.
Black powder has been around and used regularly, looooong before the first gun was crafted.
It was used in both constructive and destructive applications.

guns were not the first black powder driven tools of death (as so many like to infer)
midevil cannons ring a bell for anyone? heck, merchant ships used cannon defenses long before they wielded a gun.

The term "Black Powder" is relatively modern. It stems from the fact that the first Smokeless Powder was a lighter color, a gray, in comparison to the commonly dark black of the propellant it would largely supplant. Prior to that time, Black Powder was commonly called Gun Powder, or in larger granulations, Blasting Powder, or Cannon Powder. The dates of the application of these terms, and even its earliest name remains uncertain.

The Chronology
c.1200, Middle East
DEVELOPMENT OF FLASHING POWDER

Saltpetre, the principal ingredient of Black Powder first appears in the writings of Arabian, Abd Allah, in 1200.
Descriptions of fireworks, "Roman Candles", and flash powder are brought from China to the West by traders. The first to do so was not Marco Polo, since he did not return to Venice until 1299. As well, it would not have been his father nor uncle, whose voyage to the orient preceded his. They did not return from Cathay, after failing to gain an audience with the ruler, until 1269.
At the time of the Polos' journeys, China's ruler, was the Mongol, Kublai's Khan. His brother, Hugul, was the ruler of Persia, the eastern extent of the Mongol empire. The trade route between these points, both by land and sea, was already soundly in place by the time of the Polos. Across this route, and between the courts of its rulers continual government and diplomatic exchange took place.
Thus an EXCHANGE of technical information was entirely possible, and to the purpose of maintaining that empire, far exceeding just probable. Whether such technology originated in China, or in the Middle East, is still open to some question.
The fact that no "arms", nor high power explosives were mentioned by the Polos as late as 1299, yet Arabic works exist describing Black Powder prior to their journeys, strongly suggests that Black Powder was of Arabic and not Chinese invention.

source: footguards.tripod.com...

actually, you may find this link more informative for Important Dates in Gun History: armscollectors.com...

As for the 'indigenous' discussion, i'll pass because y'all clearly have no clue about the tribal conflicts occurring long before the English invaders arrived or the variety of weapons used.

MikeNice81 - thanks and apparently we agree
... the legislation is a pointless waste of time and energy




posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 12:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by jzenman
$18? Are you kidding me? Wouldn't it have been easier to just give him the money? It's only $18 give me a break. Save all the hassle of putting your life in danger or killing someone over $18.

There's a story on CNN right now about a guy working for Subway who starts punching out the robber. Does anyone see the absurdity of working minimum wage and putting your life in danger for a corporation making millions? When there's probably at the most $150 in the cash register? And it's not even your money? It's really laughable. But the media makes these guys out to be heroes. Heroes for whom? Subway?

I think the answer is 2000 years old and no one seems to remember. "If someone takes your cloak, give him your tunic also." That's just so much easier than fighting back or using guns.



Your missing the point, as most anti-activists do. In order to stop crime, you need to detour crime. That means actually standing up for yourself. You must have a hard time doing that. If you give them what they want, Next time they will take more. So on and forth. Also, you have no idea of their intentions, even though you or the situation only grants a small gain on the criminal's part, that doesn't mean they won't induce harm against you just because you gave them what they want. If my life is in danger, be for a dollar or a million, I will fight to live. no matter the intent ....



posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 12:55 PM
link   
we dont allow guns without strict regulations in the uk. and you need to have a reason to own one, self defense is not a reason here.

you can have a shot gun or a rifle. both need a license or you can get a hand gun wich is almost impossible to get a licence for.

I feel quite safe in the uk without guns, i prefer it this way to be honest. i know you can get guns illegaly, even smgs. but thats quite uncommon where i live. i dont want them to be made freely available, we have enough voilence as it is.



posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 12:59 PM
link   
reply to post by homzigh9
 


True that brother. Thats why I pack 24/7 365.

Its like master card. For when things come up that are unexpected. There is smith and wesson..



posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 01:02 PM
link   
reply to post by MikeNice81
 


That is the way people are they have to make up lies to prove a point which makes no sense to anyone but them selves.

Like I said before LOVEE where is my tee and crumpets.


I just cannot see your violence from over here in my castle where I have much not tot do but sit on ATS trying to make retarded points.

Thumbs up to you for calling him out.

RB



posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 01:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by MR BOB
we dont allow guns without strict regulations in the uk. and you need to have a reason to own one, self defense is not a reason here.

you can have a shot gun or a rifle. both need a license or you can get a hand gun wich is almost impossible to get a licence for.

I feel quite safe in the uk without guns, i prefer it this way to be honest. i know you can get guns illegaly, even smgs. but thats quite uncommon where i live. i dont want them to be made freely available, we have enough voilence as it is.


Your preaching a lie, I work with many people from the UK as well as my good friend was born and raised their. Although your guns laws are more regulated, many still have guns and crime is just as bad and more violent when it does occurre ( beatings etc ) . My friend just got back from visiting family. I hear about life their all the time. Just because you think your from somewhere that others aren't don't preach to people like they don't know what your UK is all about. Spare us the rhetorical non-sense ...



posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 01:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Cocasinpry
 


Ya and if they has one they would have beet the ppor old defensless people over the head with it.

Now I would like about 2 minutes with each one and a good old fashion belt with the metal rings on it.


I would beat there asses until they cried for at least an hour until I at least drew some blood.

Then I would look them straigh in the eye and say.

You dont mess with the elderly. Some day I hope you get old and someone clubs you over the head and punches you in the face now go home and mind your buisness. An dont forget next time you try something like this I cut off your hands and stick them up youir ass.





posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 01:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by TedHodgson
I have no time for this thread anymore
[...]
-Unsubscribed-


It's funny how that happened as soon as you were challenged on your discrepant arguments.



posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 01:12 PM
link   
reply to post by trailertrash
 


Do have any idea the kind of crap this guy was spewing out his mouth at the begining of the war him and the late Murtha calling our finest.

Not to mention screwing the crap out of the poeple of mass as he sits in his little kingdom living the life of the rich and famous.


No I am not jealous of his achievements like marring into wealth but.

He has done some pretty horendous thing not to mention some of these thing he has said.


I am forty years old and let me tell you I remeber everything. For 30 of the years I lived in massachuettes.

His bush lied people died mentatility has got to go.


Just like has polosi was blaming her getting tossed out on bush.

Go figure.



posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 01:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Truth_Hz
Just out of interest and honest bravado free answers only please, who out of all the people that are defending the rights to carry a firearm has actually been in a situation where they felt threatened and that they actually needed a firearm?

regardless of your stance it should be interesting to see some figures!

i'm not sure how individual responses will give you any 'numbers' ... but you can count me in.

Last September was the first instance i actually fired upon a soft target (human), with good reason. i have been in at least 6 separate instances where the 'option' sure would have been nice, however, they occurred at a time in my life when i was strongly against guns of any kind ... didn't have the option and didn't have the physical ability to deter the attacks, either.

the person who was shot is not dead and wasn't intended to be.
(had i Intent to kill, i would have)
one shot was all that was necessary and the attack was immediately diffused.
and yes, i would absolutely do it again, given the need.

just in case your perception of an attack and mine are different ... here are a few of the instances i suffered without the option of a gun ... raped 3 times. physically attacked 2 times. (hospitalized once) attacks upon my animals and delivering death to my door --> more times than i can count.

for 35 or so years i was absolutely, positively Against guns of all kinds.
Well, both times and ppl change. some of us accept the responsibility of those changes and others deny they exist. I denied for awhile but then reality and my subconscious kicked in and later 2009, i bought my first handgun, by later 2010, it served its purpose and no death has been recorded from its presence, its discharge or its contact/use with another human.

thanks for the question and please know that i do understand your position, but i stand firm in my belief that if you haven't been a victim, you have no clue.



posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 01:21 PM
link   
reply to post by TedHodgson
 


lol, just becuase you've been disarmed doesn't mean we should be too.

Man uses hammer to attack



posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 01:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Honor93

Originally posted by Truth_Hz
Just out of interest and honest bravado free answers only please, who out of all the people that are defending the rights to carry a firearm has actually been in a situation where they felt threatened and that they actually needed a firearm?

regardless of your stance it should be interesting to see some figures!

i'm not sure how individual responses will give you any 'numbers' ... but you can count me in.

Last September was the first instance i actually fired upon a soft target (human), with good reason. i have been in at least 6 separate instances where the 'option' sure would have been nice, however, they occurred at a time in my life when i was strongly against guns of any kind ... didn't have the option and didn't have the physical ability to deter the attacks, either.

the person who was shot is not dead and wasn't intended to be.
(had i Intent to kill, i would have)
one shot was all that was necessary and the attack was immediately diffused.
and yes, i would absolutely do it again, given the need.

just in case your perception of an attack and mine are different ... here are a few of the instances i suffered without the option of a gun ... raped 3 times. physically attacked 2 times. (hospitalized once) attacks upon my animals and delivering death to my door --> more times than i can count.

for 35 or so years i was absolutely, positively Against guns of all kinds.
Well, both times and ppl change. some of us accept the responsibility of those changes and others deny they exist. I denied for awhile but then reality and my subconscious kicked in and later 2009, i bought my first handgun, by later 2010, it served its purpose and no death has been recorded from its presence, its discharge or its contact/use with another human.

thanks for the question and please know that i do understand your position, but i stand firm in my belief that if you haven't been a victim, you have no clue.


Curious did he attack you with a weapon? (the person you shot?)



posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 01:37 PM
link   
Ok First off I got no problem with gun owners. I own 4 myself. 45, 40, hand grip 12 gauge and snub nose 38.

I do however have a problem with people who own them and think it makes them a legitimate bad - ass.
And a lot of you gun owners in the threads here at ATS come come off that way.

Same way i have a problem with the baggy pants thug walking down the street with a pit bull cause its a status symbol screaming im a tough guy look at me (I own a fighting breed) type deal!!

Look I work out, run, lift, hit the heavy bag, strong extremely fit and id rather do it the old way with my fists.

I wouldn't shoot anyone who didn't have a weapon in their hands id rather square off like a real man with my fists cause im tough. I bust my ass so i can beat yours.

I get the feeling some of the gun owners in here would shoot at someone who challenged them to a fist fight cause they cant beat their way out of a wet paper bag.. I got no respect for those gun owners.

A gun is to be used in a life/death situation. IE someone pulling one out on you, someone coming at you with a knife, multiple attackers, etcs Its not to be used as a bragging piece "Oh look at me i got guns im billy bad ass."

A kid can pull a trigger chumps. Point is only pull out a gun when a weapon is being used against you or others.

And dont brag about owning all these guns like your Rambo or something cause more than likely without a gun your fat out of shape softie and couldn't defend yourself against a UN-armed altercation.

Unlike some of you id only pull my gun out against a armed attacker, coming at me with his fists id tear his head off..

BWHAHAHAHAHAH

edit on 27-1-2011 by MrTuffGuy because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 01:43 PM
link   
So basically you wish the two homeowners had weapons that the thugs could take and use on them? You do know most home invasions involving gun violence usually involve the guns of the home owners themselves, right?

Common sense. Use it.



posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 01:45 PM
link   
reply to post by MR BOB
 

respecting your opinion entirely ... i am glad you have such serenity in your life.
But i have to ask ... why include this statement if life is soooo serene?

i dont want them to be made freely available, we have enough voilence as it is.

your statement is exactly why Americans believe/feel/desire/protect their right to defend themselves by whatever means necessary and available.



posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 01:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by VI0811

Originally posted by MR BOB
we dont allow guns without strict regulations in the uk. and you need to have a reason to own one, self defense is not a reason here.

you can have a shot gun or a rifle. both need a license or you can get a hand gun wich is almost impossible to get a licence for.

I feel quite safe in the uk without guns, i prefer it this way to be honest. i know you can get guns illegaly, even smgs. but thats quite uncommon where i live. i dont want them to be made freely available, we have enough voilence as it is.


Your preaching a lie, I work with many people from the UK as well as my good friend was born and raised their. Although your guns laws are more regulated, many still have guns and crime is just as bad and more violent when it does occurre ( beatings etc ) . My friend just got back from visiting family. I hear about life their all the time. Just because you think your from somewhere that others aren't don't preach to people like they don't know what your UK is all about. Spare us the rhetorical non-sense ...


i have lived all over the uk. i know much more about living here than someone who doesn't, i have been randomly attacked enough times, i have been in plenty of fights, instigated by nothing more than glancing at someone., i have also had knives pulled on me.been chased by a shotgun weilding lunatic,shooting us . where i currently live there is violent crime, i never said it wansn't an issue. but this is about GUN crime, i have never felt unsafe about that('cept that one time). I can defend myself from an unarmed attack one on one. but have never feared being shot or felt really unsafe here.
edit on 27-1-2011 by MR BOB because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 01:49 PM
link   
reply to post by MrTuffGuy
 


LMAO, I know the ones you are talking about. Most of the guys who own all these guns and brag about it cant fight,
they are physically weak.

Like you i own several guns but id only use them in a life/death situation, If someone was attacking me and they were armed.

I also get the feeling some gun owners are itching to pull out their weapons even in unarmed type situations.

And i also dont go around bragging about my arsenal and how good a marksman i am. pfffft
edit on 27-1-2011 by ker2010 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 01:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by MR BOB

Originally posted by VI0811

Originally posted by MR BOB
I can defend myself from an unarmed attack one on one.
edit on 27-1-2011 by MR BOB because: (no reason given)



Thats good to know, me too. And id brag about that more than i would bragging about owning a small arsenal.



posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 01:53 PM
link   
reply to post by jzenman
 


Yep, criminals love victims like that, "Yes sir, here is my money that I earned, you obviously need it more than me.." Lol I hope you were being sarcastic or something...



posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 01:56 PM
link   
reply to post by ker2010
 


What is the difference between "bragging" about different weapons? Someone that can fight just know how to use the body as a weapon. Most gun nuts out there sharpen their tools, just as we sharpen ours. I personally like being ripped and in shape, it feels great. It is also to my advantage to have lots of weapons available, my body, and a few useful external weapons.



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join