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.

 

Ban the 2nd amendment

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 7 2004 @ 09:18 AM
link   
While I don't doubt that the NRA plays a valuable role in cultural diversity, remains America's first line of defense in building a boy's self esteem and indeed exists first and foremost to pet kittens, I suppose I'm still a bit jaded in my perception of the inherent corporate manipulation of citizens fears for their own selfish interests.

But I suppose if I think about it, I am grateful for the NRA. For they alone in efforts like the "Stop Kerry" Election Day Gun Giveaway (must be 18, have a driver's license and Internet access to win) will surely stop the inevitable helper monkey uprising Heston has single handedly held back for years.


Vote Bush to keep the damn dirty apes paws off your guns!

[edit on 7-8-2004 by RANT]




posted on Aug, 7 2004 @ 09:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by RANT
While I don't doubt that the NRA plays a valuable role in cultural diversity, remains America's first line of defense in building a boy's self esteem and indeed exists first and foremost to pet kittens, I suppose I'm still a bit jaded in my perception of the inherent corporate manipulation of citizens fears for their own selfish interests.


LMAO, the only thing that has me worried is the speed and ease of coming up with those sites, no doubt John Ashcroft would like to see your "Favorite" list, maybe arrange an even up trade.


The U.K. perspective on gun control.



posted on Aug, 7 2004 @ 10:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by RANT
While I don't doubt that the NRA plays a valuable role in cultural diversity, remains America's first line of defense in building a boy's self esteem and indeed exists first and foremost to pet kittens, I suppose I'm still a bit jaded in my perception of the inherent corporate manipulation of citizens fears for their own selfish interests.


- I thought you were spot on the money there Rant.....except for implying guns and the NRA etc have any real use whatsoever.

I just don't see how US citizens can look (if they ever bother to) at - never mind the appalling level gun crime itself - their accident statistics, the damage the unbalanced can do and the casual wreakage (armed road-rage? No thanks.) easy access to guns 'gives' America in comparisom to Europe where we get along perfectly well without the damned things.

(.....and even in the single biggest group we do permit to have them relatively easily - farmers and shotguns - they're more renouned for the means of their suicide than much else)

[edit on 7-8-2004 by sminkeypinkey]



posted on Aug, 7 2004 @ 10:21 AM
link   
Yes the right to own weapons was put in place to give the people that chance to topple unjust government, however that was a long time ago. Now you have the US military which would never be stoppable by revolution, and the country is so diverse that you would never even get a simple majority to agree to topple the government. The argument for keeping weapons in case of totalitarianism is just silly; the citizenry would never muster the force or fire power to take on the government now.

Primarily the problem as I see it is handguns. Theres no legitimate reason to have handguns. If you are going to bring up the old adage that if we take them away then only criminals will have them, then I would suggest taking them away and making it punishable by death to have them. At least rifles and shotguns can be excused for having a purpose (hunting). Nice thing about both is that they arent easily concealed and are harder to use for criminal purposes.

- Was



posted on Aug, 7 2004 @ 10:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by esther

I am a liberal. I am a female. I am a mother. But most of all, I am an American who is a damned good shot with an M16 and gets just a little hungry at the thought of the perfect head shot if its called for. There are lots of us out here. The desire and will to protect the freedom that our ancestors fought hundreds of years for and their blood that christened the soil of this country for that effort will not be wasted on me.

Fear shall not prevail in my house.

esther


If you ever decide to leave your husband please call me first!!!! I've been looking for a good woman with your kind of spirit.



posted on Aug, 7 2004 @ 11:25 AM
link   
Wassabi, there wasn't a majority for the revolutionary war. People back then said you will never win against the British who have the best army of the world. The rest is history. Our current military is made up of who? You guesed it Americans.



posted on Aug, 7 2004 @ 11:28 AM
link   
I don't think 'libruls' want to steal our guns. But I do think they often minimize the role guns can play in self-defense.

Isn't it shameful that the feds have put so many restrictions around the ability for pilots to carry firearms in cockpits? Even after 9/11, the TSA has made it exceedingly difficult for pilots to qualify to carry firearms in the cockpit.

I don't understand this. If a pilot has access to the controls of a 747, you think he/she could do more damage with a handgun in the cockpit? LMAO. If terrorists try to hijack a plane, passengers and crew will no longer take an appeasement approach, they'll resist to their fullest ability. Give them tools to do so. Send the terrorists to the great celestial dirt nap.

Yes, I'm aware it's the Bush Administration that is making it difficult to get guns into cockpits. Wouldn't it be nice to see Kerry (self-proclaimed gun owner) stand up and say that in his administration pilots would be encouraged to carry firearms? It would destroy this 'libruls want to take your guns' nonsense. Don't hold your breath.



posted on Aug, 7 2004 @ 11:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by taibunsuu
I'm all for people having access to guns. You have to train a civil culture to have peace. You can't force people to live civily by putting laws on them.

At the same time, so, ok, I can have an automatic weapon. What the hell good is that against the government when it has tanks, choppers, freaking ninja delta force guys, jets, etc. Unless they make anti-tank and shoulder-fired missiles legal, I don't see citizens having weapons as making much of a difference against tyranny.


Look at the resistance in Iraq. The resisters are a small portion of the people in Iraq and they our mostly using small arms against the US government military considered to be the best in the world.

Remember what happened in Vietnam!!!!

I would rather die fighting as a free man than in prison 50 years later.

[edit on 7-8-2004 by cryptorsa1001]



posted on Aug, 7 2004 @ 11:38 AM
link   
great point, crypsta, except one thing, the insurgents are getting their as_es kicked right now. You and your few guns arent going to able to do a damn thing. Oh, by the way, does anyone know when this great "takeover" of the american people is suppose to happen? just wondering, cuz it seems to me, that our government is allready tyrannical and noone is doing a damn thing. so all you gun nuts go get busy!! go stop the tyranny. go on, grow a pair and stop the oppressors !!!!!



posted on Aug, 7 2004 @ 11:41 AM
link   
Its not actually the people of Iraq for the most part doing the shooting. Most of the rebels are in fact coming from other countries to fight. Despite what it looks like on the US news, I am pretty for sure alot more of the Islamic fighters (Not to mention innocent civillians) are being killed than the Brits and Americans. Eventually if the US doesnt weeny out and cut and bail there wont be anyone left to fight. The one thing we cant afford to do is have the US run away from this responsibility now. Welcome to Vietnam part 2.

- Was



posted on Aug, 7 2004 @ 11:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by sublime4372
Oh, by the way, does anyone know when this great "takeover" of the american people is suppose to happen?


Two words for you: Ruby Ridge

I love it when our great protector government shoots a woman holding her infant baby through the head on her front porch.

Why? Because her husband sold a sawed-off shutgun to an undercover federal agent. Yeah, he was endangering people.


Guns are in the hands of the citizenry to stop tyranny. It's a shame there wasn't more of an outcry over this incident.



posted on Aug, 7 2004 @ 11:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mirthful Me
The U.K. perspective on gun control.


Sorry if I got sidetracked Mirth (and that's a pretty funny satirical site), but the original point I was making was that the emotially charged arguments as I see them stand in permanent stall at:

"Stop trying to take my guns away!!!"
versus "Stop saying I want to take you guns away!!!"


And there's some truth to the notion that the NRA perpetuates this false dichotomy in an effort to make the mere discussion of common sense safety measures a slippery slope infringement on Jefferson's grave.

When I see obfuscation like that, I smell ulterior motives. That's all I meant in my examples.



posted on Aug, 7 2004 @ 11:51 AM
link   
And I again suggest that there is no way that a armed segment of the United States could stand up to the Federal Government today.

- Was



posted on Aug, 7 2004 @ 11:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by RANT
And I don't understand the view of many conservatives that think most liberals want to ban all arms. It's simply not the case.


The truth is that the party and the politicians supported by liberals do want to ban all firearms and they are doing their best to accomplish this incrementally.

Consider the assault weapons ban. The assault weapons ban is the most ludicrous legislation in the history of law. The prohibitions are based soley on cosmetic features such as pistol grips, flash suppressors and bayonet lugs. The mechanisms of the banned weapons and those still allowed are identical.

Of course, the NRA recognize that any second amendment stance is not the sole domain of any political party. That is why you will see Democrats with A ratings and Republicans with lesser ratings.

If liberals support the Second Amendement they should demand that their candidates do so, as well.





[edit on 04/8/7 by GradyPhilpott]



posted on Aug, 7 2004 @ 11:58 AM
link   
sublime4372, don't worry if the time ever comes we will stand up for your sorry ass.

There are maybey 10,000 or so in Iraq fighting us. there are somewhere around 10,000,000 gun owners in the usa. If only 1,000,000 resisted that is alot of firepower. Remember the us military is made up of americans so how many of them that have vowed to protect america would stay with their units.

So I believe what you are really saying is that you are a coward and think it would be better to do nothing than to fight for your freedom if the time ever were to come about?



posted on Aug, 7 2004 @ 12:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
Consider the assault weapons ban. The assault weapons ban is the most ludicrous legislation in the history of law. The prohibitions are based soley in cosmetic features such as pistol grips, flash suppressors and and bayonet lugs. The mechanisms of the banned weapons and those still allowed are identical.


You're dead on there. There's far to much cosmetic "feel good" legislation in all areas in my opinion with little to no regard for impact or intended effectiveness.


Of course, the NRA recognize that any second amendment stance is not the sole domain of any political party. That is why you will see Democrats with A ratings and Republicans with lesser ratings.


Technically, you're right. But the deck still seems stacked sometimes. I wasn't aware of any Dean For President NRA rallies (and he was A+).



posted on Aug, 7 2004 @ 12:15 PM
link   
First,, it isn't the US military you have to worry about. Think about it, the gov. orders them to attack the citizens? Wouldn't that be sending the troops against their family? "Alright, you brother is saying he doesn't want to be sent to jail for making fun of a republican, go and shoot him." Not going to happen. But NWO...... that's another matter.

But still, all the idiots afraid of guns, I own them, my dad owns them, my sister owns them, we never killed anyone. I own them to have them. No real purpose. I don't hunt, target shoot anymore. Most I do is take a .22 pistol and shoot at rats in the basement.(carpeted to keep richochet from happeneing) The anti-gun people think guns use psychic powers to make other use them. I never had my 12 guage use psychic powers to make me take my shotgun and shoot someone. Instead of blaming guns, blame people. In a book series i read, guns are banned. But guess what? People still die. Car, poison, bat, chair, drill, knife, pillow, rope, metal pipe, so forth. All those kill people, even today, not just the future. In fact cars kill more people than guns, so we better ban them. Going by accidental gun deaths? How many people die in swimming accidents? Car accidents? Cooking accidents? Ever read the paper and see a family dead due to a house fire? That was an accident, better ban them. Wait, you can't ban accidents. "Newest amendment is No more accidents are to be allowed. If you have an accident and die you will be fined 50,000 and up to 5 years in jail." No, that is stupid.



posted on Aug, 7 2004 @ 01:16 PM
link   
James the Lesser makes a good point regarding the banning of guns because of the number of accidental deaths, etc. and that people will continue to die from myriad other accidental causes in numbers which are far more staggering. Consider these statistics from the National Safety Council.

Another statistic to consider is the number of deaths each year from medical error. This one is a new one to me and I can't help but find it ironic that the AMA has become a very outspoken proponent of gun control, when these numbers completely swamp most, if not all, other forms of accidental death. But, to be more accurate thse medical deaths would be better termed negligent deaths.

The fact is that in a perfect world, firearms would be unnecessary, but we live in a far from perfect world. Firearms, because they represent the state-of-the-art in self-defense, are a necessary part of life for those who wish to live their lives free from fear and to go about unmolested. As someone wise once said, "An armed society is a polite society."

Also, Rant (post id 732515) mentioned the gun lobby, which he equated to gun manufacturers. This statement is largely false because, while the firearms industry does contribute to the protection of the Second Amendent, it is the common citizen who is the real gun lobby. Please, regard this quote from "A Brief History of the NRA:"


While widely recognized today as a major political force and as America's foremost defender of Second Amendment rights, the NRA has, since its inception, been the premier firearms education organization in the world. But our successes would not be possible without the tireless efforts and countless hours of service our nearly three million members have given to champion Second Amendment rights and support NRA programs. As former Clinton spokesman George Stephanopoulos said, "Let me make one small vote for the NRA. They're good citizens. They call their Congressmen. They write. They vote. They contribute. And they get what they want over time."





[edit on 04/8/7 by GradyPhilpott]



posted on Aug, 7 2004 @ 04:24 PM
link   
[edit on 10/2/2004 by esther]



posted on Aug, 7 2004 @ 04:30 PM
link   
When I took high school American history, we were commonly taught that the main reason for guaranteeing the rights of citizen to bear arms was to prevent an oppressive government from taking away our liberties.

The theory of the framers, we were told, was that soldiers would be unlikely to shoot their fellow citizens who were armed and protecting their property and rights. Allowing citizens weapons would discourage a dictator-minded president or congress from taking our liberty from us.

Now, however, I understand this is never taught in schools anymore. Can those of you who are students tell me if this is true?



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join