Listen Americans

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 15 2004 @ 04:38 PM
link   
Yeah, but I'll bet you anything, if guns were not available, other weapons' killing statistics would increase very quickly. I'm sure it would compensate for the lack of guns.




posted on Jul, 15 2004 @ 04:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Damned
Yeah, but I'll bet you anything, if guns were not available, other weapons' killing statistics would increase very quickly. I'm sure it would compensate for the lack of guns.


Yeah, those drive by stabbings are getting to be a real problem. I also hate it when someone accidently hangs themself cleaning their rope. Or when kids find dad's guillotine and are able to take it to school and behead someone playing since the National Guillotine Society says safety devices on guillotines are a violation of their civil liberties.



posted on Jul, 15 2004 @ 04:50 PM
link   
Don't be ridiculous. If someone really wants to kill someone, and a gun isn't an option, they'll do it another way.



posted on Jul, 15 2004 @ 04:50 PM
link   
Now RANT, lets play out a scenario.

Lets assume guns are banned, only way to get them now is on the black market. Now people have no way to defend themselves against a break in. Stick ups are going to become more common, more good people will end up dieing. Like he pointed our earlier, other forms of killing will rise, knife stabbings, it would be a more brutal killing era.

So if knife stabbings replaced gun killings would yoiu want those banned as well?



posted on Jul, 15 2004 @ 04:54 PM
link   
How bout you listen Mr.British know nothing....

I really don't think you know what your talking about, but I feel pathos towards you since you've drank from the same stupid cup...

BASIC LOGIC should tell you that guns don't kill, you need an opposable thumb and finger to pull the trigger... doi doi doi doi doi....

Teenager's hormones are all over the place, obviously some other teenager's drove them to the brink of insantiy, whether it be temporary which I think, they were stupid and acted out of emotion... Spite, hate, anger, all things negative.

So to paint all American's with that same brush is really really umm STUPID!

Please save us your speech that had nothing to do with an original thought of yours...
This is an old subject... Americans that do LEGALLY own guns are SMART... And for many reasons, but namely because they know bs when they smell it..
These are the people who don't use them like those retard columbine kids did. I don't even want to keep going it's such an easy or should be an easy concept to grasp....

Why don't you turn around and look whats going on in your own country with biometrics, micro chips, and regulation after regulation on you guys...
You think your free.. fine, your allowed to think that, but i'd beg to differ...

Your title should of been something along the lines on

" Listen Americans us Brits are #ed "



posted on Jul, 15 2004 @ 04:55 PM
link   
RANT says



Originally posted by jetsetter
Today murder by guns and murder by knife is not far apart.


Unless you do "special" math you're wrong, considering I just showed you two-thirds of murders are by gun.


Jesus, RANT, this is the second time in this thread you have debunked a silly statement after I have already debunked the same statement. This time, you posted 17 minutes after my post. The last time you posted 24 minutes after my post.

You really don't need to sprinkle holy water on a vampire after I have already driven a wooden stake through its heart.



posted on Jul, 15 2004 @ 05:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by JediMaster
Now RANT, lets play out a scenario.

Lets assume guns are banned,


Why would you like to play out a scenario where guns are banned? In case you missed it, RANT already said


AND I DO THINK PEOPLE SHOULD GET TO OWN GUNS


Why is it that you right-wingers constantly misrepresent what other people say? Is it because you have no arguments against the real positions of your political opponents, so you have to create strawman arguments to argue against? Many of the right-wing posters on ATS are guilty of constantly creating strawman arguments, especially by misrepresenting what Michael Moore says. In one thread, I caught Affirmative Action in seven lies about what Michael Moore had said, or what I had said.

The same pervasive dishonesty can be seen in the Bush-Cheney TV ads. These ads are filled with lies and misrepresentations about Kerry's positions and voting record.



posted on Jul, 15 2004 @ 05:13 PM
link   
Wrong Dongil.

www.issues2000.org...

An enite list of his voting record, many of which appear in the ads.

So Dong, I guess Bush is making up Kerry voting at all?



posted on Jul, 15 2004 @ 05:18 PM
link   
If you read what I was saying on the prior page JM, I really don't want guns banned at all. Most people don't. But most people do, however, favor certain "inconveniences" like background checks and waiting periods and safety devices...and yes, even bans on certain assault weapons and ammo.

Making the NRA on the fringe of society in that regard being against all that. Though they play mainstream very well on TV.


The drive by knifing thing was just a joke. Though it is much harder to kill up close IMO. But adding saftey devices will not result in an increase of accidental suicide by knife.


Sorry if I'm not responding to the banned gun scenario the way you meant, but that's just not how I feel. That's a made up NRA alternative designed to scare people.



posted on Jul, 15 2004 @ 05:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by JediMaster

Guns don't kill people, people kill people.



People make the choice of pulling the trigger.

If there would be NO trigger then people wouldnt pull it!

Yes some would kill with a knife.

But you need more guts to kill with a knife and less people have the guts to kills someone with a knife comparing to a gun.

So death toll would drp if guns get banned.

Out,
Russian



posted on Jul, 15 2004 @ 05:26 PM
link   
You should know that happens. Not because I don't read the thread, but there is no response when I start with reply...

Then I go off and google info, and copy/paste and about 15 other things while answering U2U's and stuff, forget I even had the reply window open, go have a smoke, see StarGate is coming on, make a sammich


And when I find the window again either delete what I was about to say (about 50% of the time) or hit send (the other half) only to see someone beat me to it.

Don't be mad at me cause ya keep scooping me.



posted on Jul, 15 2004 @ 05:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Djarums

I don't think self defense is made more effective by having a gun that shoots up 1,000 rounds in the blink of an eye unless your home is being attacked by a battalion or something. Hunting? Unless you like your meat in little pieces I fail to see how an automatic machine gun is useful. And as for the right to bear arms, well I don't think the constitution was written having in mind weapons that could drop 50 people in 10 seconds.




Lets look over things, k?

first, the constitution WAS written with those weapons in mind. To understand this, you must stop the knee jerking actually research what was said and why the bill of rights was added. The words are there for you to read in the Constitutional ratification debates. Look them up if you want.

On June 5th, 1788, Patrick Henry stood in the Virginia Ratifying convention, to protest, "The great objection to this Government is, that it does not leave us the means of defending our rights; or, of waging war against tyrants. ...Have we the means of resisting disciplined armies, when our only defence, the militia, is put into the hands of the Congress? ... Of what service would militia be to you, when most probably you will not have a single musket in the state; for as arms are to be provided by Congress, they may or may not furnish them."
Objections such as these were answered by the promise to add a Bill of Rights, to include the second amendment, and the constitution would not have been ratified without the second amendment. The second amendment was drafted to answer such objections as those of Patrick Henry, to guarantee that no act of congress would ever be able to infringe the right of individual Americans to keep and bear arms they owned, NOT to hunt deer, but so that they would be a militia that always outnumberd any army that could be fielded by the Congress, and would always have the ability and the types of arms needed to "wage war against tyrants."
Not relevent to today's America, you whine? No government troops would ever set fire to, level, and fire indiscriminately into with machine guns a church/residential building FULL OF WOMEN AND CHILDREN (see: Waco). Wounded knee? All in the past. No law enforcement would EVER snipe a woman in the head while she was holding her infant child in the kitchen of her own home, after brutaly murdering her son in an illegal entry onto her property, WITHOUT identifying badges or lettering on them, and shooting the family pet (see: the murder of Vicki and Sammy Weaver at Ruby Ridge). This is why the Bill of Rights guarantees us that in America the govenment will never be allowed to outgun the common people. It dosn't even make reference to hunting or "legitimate sporting use."

Lets look at on of the "evil ausault weapons" that has been the topic of alot of debate, and was restricted somewhat by the '94 asault weapons ban, the AR-15, civilian version of the M-16. Do you know, on average, how many of these things are used to murder in America every year? Three. Lightning strikes kill more people than that. bolt action hunting rifles kill more. BOWLING BALLS KILL MORE THAN THAT. These laws are not rational.

In all of the major genocides of the 20th century, each was preceded with the ban of private ownership of firearms BEFORE the tyrant governments took power. Never happen here in our country? The jews in the 1930's said the same thing. the Armenians in turkey said the same things. Pol Pot's Cambodians said the same things. Stalin's Soviet Union said the same things. Mao's china said the same things.

And, since we all seem to want to throw out numbers, police accidentally killed 330 innocent individuals in 1993, compared to a mere 30 innocent people accidentally killed by private citizens who mistakenly believed the victim was an intruder.

Also, when you are spewing out the numbers of those murders, lets not forgett that they are not all "bad guys shooting good guys." Many of them are drug lords killing each other over turf, ect., ect., so on and so on.



posted on Jul, 15 2004 @ 05:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by cavscout
Lets look at on of the "evil ausault weapons" that has been the topic of alot of debate, and was restricted somewhat by the '94 asault weapons ban, the AR-15, civilian version of the M-16. Do you know, on average, how many of these things are used to murder in America every year? Three. Lightning strikes kill more people than that. bolt action hunting rifles kill more. BOWLING BALLS KILL MORE THAN THAT. These laws are not rational.


Put that way, I pretty much agree with the logic. But are you willing to accept the consequences? Using those statistics versus handgun deaths, it would be rational to allow assault rifles for home defense but BAN handguns. Pretty much like Iraq is now. They can have one AK-47 per home. But if carrying it in the street they get mowed down.

The way I see it, your entire defense of tyranny argument has nothing to do with concealed weapons, or weapons easy to conceal (like handguns). Meaning they pretty much aren't any good at defending against a rogue Government, just the commission of crimes.

I'd vote for your proposal in a heart beat if you took it out to it's logical conclusion. Home defense, not wild wild west. The problem is handguns.

What's the solution?

EDIT: Oh, never mind. Rereading I see you don't think the wild wild west in our streets is a problem.

Also, when you are spewing out the numbers of those murders, lets not forgett that they are not all "bad guys shooting good guys." Many of them are drug lords killing each other over turf, ect., ect., so on and so on.


[Edited on 15-7-2004 by RANT]



posted on Jul, 15 2004 @ 05:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by JediMaster
Wrong Dongil.

www.issues2000.org...

An enite list of his voting record, many of which appear in the ads.

So Dong, I guess Bush is making up Kerry voting at all?


WTF are you talking about??? I say that the Bush-Cheney ads are filled with lies and distortions and you point me to a list of Kerry's positions on issues? How does that in any way show that the Bush-Cheney ads are not distorted?

Have you actually seen any Bush-Cheney ads? I live in Nevada, a battleground state, and I see these ads all the time. I have been watching political ads since the Kennedy-Nixon contest in 1960, and these are easily the most dishonest ads I have ever seen.

Here are some articles for you to read from Annenberg Political Fact Check, definitely not a left-wing group.

Bush Ad Claims Kerry Voted Against "Protections for Pregnant Women"

Anti-Kerry Ad Misses Context, Distorts Facts

Bush Ad Falsely Implies Kerry Would Repeal Wiretaps of Terrorists

More Bush Distortions on Kerry Defense Record

Bush Ad is "Troubling" Indeed

Bush accuses Kerry of 350 votes for "higher taxes" Higher than what?



posted on Jul, 15 2004 @ 05:59 PM
link   
You said "The same pervasive dishonesty can be seen in the Bush-Cheney TV ads. These ads are filled with lies and misrepresentations about Kerry's positions and voting record. "

And I went and got for you hist list of voting records which pretty much match whats said in the ads.



posted on Jul, 15 2004 @ 06:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by JediMaster
You said "The same pervasive dishonesty can be seen in the Bush-Cheney TV ads. These ads are filled with lies and misrepresentations about Kerry's positions and voting record. "

And I went and got for you hist list of voting records which pretty much match whats said in the ads.


No, Kerry's voting records DO NOT "pretty much match" what is in the Bush-Cheney ads. That's the whole point. Did you read the Annenberg articles? If you want to continue this discussion, you really need to read these articles. Then you need to explain why the many distortions pointed out by Annenberg are not really distortions.

If you just keep saying that the Bush-Cheney ads are accurate, when I have given you links to a long list of inaccuracies, then you are refusing to engage in honest debate.



posted on Jul, 15 2004 @ 06:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by RANT
The way I see it, your entire defense of tyranny argument has nothing to do with concealed weapons, or weapons easy to conceal (like handguns). Meaning they pretty much aren't any good at defending against a rogue Government, just the commission of crimes

EDIT: Oh, never mind. Rereading I see you don't think the wild wild west in our streets is a problem



"Hitler's thugs and goons were not very brave when confronted with a gun. Gun haters always want to forget the Warsaw Ghetto uprising, wich is a perfect example of how a rag-tag half-starved group of Jews took up ten handguns and made asses out of the Nazis"
- Dachau concentration camp survivor Theodore Haas




A: most of our modern conceptions about the "wild wild west" are wrong. If people in 150 years reads some of our fiction or watches our movies, do you think it would be fair (or very smart) of them to believe it as the truth?
So you would repeat a myth just to make me seem nuts, just to try and make an ass out of me in a one-liner with no factual basis? Ive read many of your posts, and thought you better than that.

B: over 400,000 people per year on average report a crime and say the believe their life would have been in danger, had they not thwarted the criminal by displaying a firearm WITHOUT HAVING TO FIRE A SHOT, says John Lott of the University of Chicago. How many people were killed per year again? 400,000 saved vs. 10,159 killed.

C: look at Florida. Dont you live around there? in 1987 the Florida Legislature made it MUCH easier for residents to get concealed weapons permits, witch resulted in a sharp increase in the number of said permits being issued. over the next few years, the number of handguns in florida increased by several hundred thousand. did florida see a rise in murder rates? no. in the years following 1989, Florida murder rates droped steadily. Criminals who commit violent crimes are aware that many more people are now licenced to carry weapons and will use those weapons to defend themselves

in 1993, criminals in florida murdered 9 forign tourists. The liberal media blamed it on florida's lax concealed weapons laws, AND THEY WERE RIGHT.

"It turns out that criminals, afraid to point a gun at native Florida driver (since so many of them now go peacefully armed), simply started jacking the drivers of cars with those big day-glo rental-car logos on their mirrors or bumpers. The vast majority of rental cars in florida are rented at airports. So, thanks to federal air-passenger disarmament laws, it's a virtual sure thing that any tourist who just got off an airplane and rented a set of wheels will be unarmed. As soon as the rental car firms removed the tell-tale stickers from their vehicles, the "Florida tourist murder rampage" dried up overnight and has almost never been heard of again."
-Vin Suprynowicz, author and editor of the Las Vegas Reveiw Journal

[edit on 15-7-2004 by cavscout]



posted on Jul, 15 2004 @ 07:09 PM
link   
This quote sums up my opinion




I think that technologies are morally neutral until we apply them. It's only when we use them for good or for evil that they become good or evil.

William Gibson




posted on Jul, 15 2004 @ 07:26 PM
link   
I wasn't trying to make you seem like a nut cavscout. I sincerely just answered my own question while rereading your post.

But I will say this talk scares me...

Originally posted by cavscout
So, thanks to federal air-passenger disarmament laws...


That's the kind of thing freaking me out about Libertarians lately. What's with the whole "government de-arming hijack victims" rant?

Do you really want people to be able to take guns on airplanes? I don't even like them in cars though I see you do. If you're saying the more guns we have in public the better, but it's not "wild wild west" can you tell me the historical model it is? Or an acceptable name for discussion? [Edit: "Total Armament"?]

If everything's legal and total armament the norm, then I really won't have a choice anymore will I? I'll have to pack too to protect myself in public. I don't want to. But I'll pretty much have to then. I'm getting this NRA/gun manufacturing lobby thing more and more now. Cha-ching.

Man, I'm just sad for the world now. This is what America is going to bring them all one day. Can't wait for personal phazers and light sabers. :shk:

But since I still don't want to ban guns
why do we keep having this conversation?

Someone, anyone tell me why background checks, waiting periods and safety devices are bad?

Bah, I don't even care anymore. I'm just going to get a gun to protect myself from the NRA.

[Edited on 15-7-2004 by RANT]



posted on Jul, 15 2004 @ 08:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by RANT

But I will say this talk scares me...

Originally posted by cavscout
So, thanks to federal air-passenger disarmament laws...


That's the kind of thing freaking me out about Libertarians lately. What's with the whole "government de-arming hijack victims" rant?

Do you really want people to be able to take guns on airplanes? I don't even like them in cars though I see you do. If you're saying the more guns we have in public the better, but it's not "wild wild west" can you tell me the historical model it is? Or an acceptable name for discussion? [Edit: "Total Armament"?]


Someone, anyone tell me why background checks, waiting periods and safety devices are bad?


o.k. lets start with the airline question. it is a myth that a bullet hole (or 100 bullet holes) can bring down a plane due to de-pressurization. If a large enough percentage of passengers were armed, a terrorist organization would have to field a whole company size element on a single plane to take it over. Thats not likely to happen the way we have been screening passengers and if it did, the terrorists would loose quite a few freinds that day, too many to make it worthwhile for them. the reason they used box-cutters is that they were GUARANTEED BY THE GOVERNMENT LAWS THAT THE CIVILIANS WOULD BE UNABLE TO DEFEND THE PLANE.
So, all knee jerks and emotion aside, why dont you want them armed?


here is the "historical model" you asked for.

"Since the origins of the Swiss Confederation in 1291, it has been the duty of every male Swiss citizen to be armed and to serve in the militia. Today, that arm is an 'assault rifle,' which is issued to every swiss male and which must be kept at home. Durring Germany's Third Reich, that arm was a bolt-action repeating riffle, shich was highly effective in the hands of Switzerland's many sharpshooters
.....
"On September 1, 1030, Hitler launched WW2 by attacking Poland. Within a day or two, Switzerland had about half a million militiamen mobilized out of a population of just over four million."
-author Stephen P. Halbrook, Target Switzerland: Swiss Armed Neutrality in World War II

General Henri Cuisan, commander in cheif of the Swiss militia, responded by ordering that, among other things, this Swiss were to resist "to the last cartidge" and to "fight in their position untill no more ammunition exists. Then cold steel is next. ..." Posters proclaiming this "opperations order number two" were displayed on walls all over the country.

Hitler never invaded Switzerland.

Never has any dictator-military or otherwise-attempted to rule the Swiss by "executive order."

There was no holocaust on Swiss soil. Swiss Jews kept their riffles in their homes just like everyone else. Can you imagine that would have been a holocaust had the Jews of Germany, Poland, and France had the same privilage as the Swiss Jews?

Swiss citizens to this day have almost no gun laws (America has over 20,000). In Switzerland, any male can own a shoulder fired, heat seeking anti-aircraft rocket.

THERE IS ALMOST NO CRIME IN SWITZERLAND DESPITE EVERY MALE HAVING ASSUALT WEAPONS OF MILITARY SIGNIFICANCE.


O.K., so far as waiting periods are concerned..........


Philip Russell Coleman was a 42 year old night shift employee as a liquor store in Shreveport, LA. Not feeling safe being there untill 1 a.m., he went to see Jim Roberts at the USA Pawn Shop, where he was a regular customer, and picked out chrome-plated .380 Lorcin semi-automatic. He put a down payment on the weapon and filled out the application form required by the Brady Law.

Under the Brady Law, the local police had 3 days to approve or deny permission for the sale. Coleman came back to the pawn shop on Friday, expecting to pick up his gun.

Although he fully answered the questions right and truthfull, USA Pawn had to tell him that th Caddo Parish Sheriff's Office had rejected his application.

Colman was neither a felon or a mental patient, he told employees.

"He said he needed the gun for his own protection because he worked late hours at the liquor store and he felt it was dangerous," shop owner Roberts later told the daily Shreveport times. "I told him to go down and straighten it out with the sheriff's office, and I guess he did"

Coleman didnt return to the shop that day. There wasn't time. Instead, he went directly to work without his gun-and was shot to death just as his shift ended at 1a.m. saturday.

The Sheriff's office notified the pawn shop by fax on the following Tuesday that his application had been RECONCIDERED AND APPROVED.

Sometimes it is hard to argue against backround checks and waiting periods. The loved ones of Philip Russell Coleman disagree.





new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join