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.

 

what the UN has in mind for your guns

page: 8
22
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 1 2011 @ 11:57 AM
link   
reply to post by mamabeth
 


Same thing dont just word it differently




posted on Jul, 1 2011 @ 11:58 AM
link   
reply to post by Sinny
 
it would be interesting to read each others history book because i thought it was the 5 that defeated Hitler, for he was the driving force was he not? or... well what is you view? Yes it is true without you Brits, there would be no us, so thank you. just out of curiosity can you name the 5?



posted on Jul, 1 2011 @ 12:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Sinny
 


The russians' civil war had nothing to do with WW2.
If you are referring to the Bolshevik uprising,that was
in 1917,not 1938-1945.
One of the first things that a dictatorial regime does
when they assume power is disarm the general population!



posted on Jul, 1 2011 @ 12:10 PM
link   
reply to post by bekod
 


As always, it can't happen. They tried it with drugs, now every city is filled to the gills with pot. They tried it with Beer, same result, overthrown. They tried it with terrorism, now every American under the age of 20 dreams of blowing up the government. Do they really expect any different with Guns? We'll just have more as a result.



posted on Jul, 1 2011 @ 12:13 PM
link   
reply to post by bekod
 


I could only remember 4...
England,France,USA and Russia.
Who was the 5th?



posted on Jul, 1 2011 @ 12:17 PM
link   
I think the Russians won it. Dont piss off Stalin lol. He sent wave after wave after wave. Something none of us in the west could do.

Yea America played its part, but only when they took a disliking to the Japs.

Hitler could never have taken England, he had no navy to match ours.

It was joint effort between everyone, but could not have been accomplished with out the sheer numbers of the Russians.



posted on Jul, 1 2011 @ 12:18 PM
link   
Anyway folks we're way off topic now...Im going to bow out.

Thanks for an interesting discussion



posted on Jul, 1 2011 @ 12:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by fenceSitter
Boggles my mind how many people defend their rights to guns. Either give one to everyone or take them all away. I prefer the latter. The only purpose of guns, bombs, missiles etc. is to hurt other human beings. I say ban them all! It just doesn't make sense to me I guess. Patiently waiting for the 'defensive' replies to my post.


What would you choose? To be shot in the head painlessly, or to be hacked to death by a machete? (which you can buy at your local home depot for under $10)

It doesnt matter if you ban one weapon, there are a million other weapons out there that are far more inhumane and brutally lethal.

You are an idealist, and are failing to realize that in order for there to be peace, you would have to change what makes us human beings: the ability to think for oneself and make conscious decisions. Not every decision is going to be a good one, and when someone makes a bad decision towards myself or my family, you can take all my guns and I will still beat you to death with a dull spoon.
edit on 1-7-2011 by WhiteDevil013 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 1 2011 @ 12:21 PM
link   
reply to post by mamabeth
 
candida, name the beach heads at Normandy there where 5 hint to where states names. pat you self on the back most only know 3 nations.



posted on Jul, 1 2011 @ 12:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Sinny
 


I guess you don't know your history then. The USA was assisting Britain by the request of Churchill. Who do you think was supplying your munitions? We had pilots flying bombing missions for you. Roosevelt wouldn't commit to all out war with Germany because he knew the American people would not go for it. At that time we were still running our military like it was supposed to run...in defense of our homeland. After Japan bombed us, we went to defend our homeland. If they had not bombed us, you would be speaking German right now!



posted on Jul, 1 2011 @ 12:28 PM
link   
reply to post by haarvik
 


Okay


By the way, the British response to me would have been:

"Yes we are off topic, lets agree to disagree and leave it there"

The difference between us and the rabble we sent to America was that we have manners and know when to leave things alone..

sigh
edit on 1-7-2011 by Sinny because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 1 2011 @ 12:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Sinny
 


Scoff all you want, we have the proof. Churchill begged Roosevelt to help telling him if we did not, then all of Europe would fall to Hitler. That is not make believe, that is fact.



posted on Jul, 1 2011 @ 12:38 PM
link   
reply to post by haarvik
 


Whats the title of this thread? sorry.

You side track me talking about WWbloody2..and wont let me bow out gracefully.

tuttut.



posted on Jul, 1 2011 @ 12:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Sinny
 


You're the one who started with the WWII crap, so for your reading pleasure:

May 15, 1940 - On May 15,1940, Churchill made his first plea to Roosevelt. He had been awoken at 7 am by a frantic telephone call from France. "The road to Paris is open," Paul Reynaud, the French prime minister, told him, unable to contain his panic, "the battle is lost."With the appalling realization that just five days after Hitler had struck, France was skidding to defeat, Churchill tried to shock Roosevelt into coming immediately to the rescue: "If necessary, we shall continue.



posted on Jul, 1 2011 @ 12:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Sinny
 


I first brought up the topic of WW2 onto this thread.
why?Because the U.S. had to supply arms to the Brits
because the brits don't allow their population to be armed!
THEN,when WW2 was over,the Brits' dumped all the arms
into the ocean.



posted on Jul, 1 2011 @ 12:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sinny
reply to post by Buford2
 



Im not against the American people, I just don't agree with the system...


Look, I'm not trying to stir up any bad blood here, but you're ridiculing our "system" (whatever you mean by that) as you reside in your home country, whose main system of government, up until recently, was headed by people who had you believe they were genetically related to god, therefor they had a divine right to rule you (and pretty much whatever other country they could set up base camp in)


Most of you brits seems to have a natural docility that I can only assume comes from centuries of being dictated by your leaders. Not to say we have it better today in America, but our roots are in dissent from that kind of oppression by leaders. Because of this our constitution and bill of rights are geared to protect us from any large governing body. You guys just seem to have shuffled your royal cards in with the rest of your deck
edit on 7/1/2011 by shenanigans because: font size change



posted on Jul, 1 2011 @ 12:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by WhiteDevil013

Originally posted by fenceSitter
Boggles my mind how many people defend their rights to guns. Either give one to everyone or take them all away. I prefer the latter. The only purpose of guns, bombs, missiles etc. is to hurt other human beings. I say ban them all! It just doesn't make sense to me I guess. Patiently waiting for the 'defensive' replies to my post.


What would you choose? To be shot in the head painlessly, or to be hacked to death by a machete? (which you can buy at your local home depot for under $10)

It doesnt matter if you ban one weapon, there are a million other weapons out there that are far more inhumane and brutally lethal.

You are an idealist, and are failing to realize that in order for there to be peace, you would have to change what makes us human beings: the ability to think for oneself and make conscious decisions. Not every decision is going to be a good one, and when someone makes a bad decision towards myself or my family, you can take all my guns and I will still beat you to death with a dull spoon.
edit on 1-7-2011 by WhiteDevil013 because: (no reason given)


Bravo,....that pretty much sums it up.....

Except, I do not have any guns........

I have plenty of spoons though



posted on Jul, 1 2011 @ 12:50 PM
link   
reply to post by haarvik
 
some will not believe that with us there would be no them, same is true now as it was then.
My view now let them be, let them defend them selves we need to start looking out for the USA for we have a true threat here, if you can not see it then you blind, and yes there is more than one. Are armed troops needed? No but it would not hurt to have them loaded with rubber bullets.for they have an oath "defend the Constitution of the USA"
and it needs defending, in more ways than one. This UN ban is one, defend the second.

edit on 1-7-2011 by bekod because: editting



posted on Jul, 1 2011 @ 12:54 PM
link   
reply to post by liejunkie01
 


You at least need a spork to play.

Just plain spoons are not enough.



posted on Jul, 1 2011 @ 12:59 PM
link   
Your being typical of your government...theres no resolving anything is there? you make me lol

Im going to investigate the aliens anyway, I suppose they're more important

just one more quick point to whoever said America is sick of policing the world, we all know you cant keep out of foreign affairs..

An American who knows what he's talking about
edit on 1-7-2011 by Sinny because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics


active topics

 
22
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join