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.

 

Everyone DOES understand why there can't be an Armed Population?

page: 6
24
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 5 2012 @ 03:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by ReadAwhile

Originally posted by DestroyDestroyDestroy
It's because the American people are afraid of their neighbors and fellow country men. Perhaps for a good reason. Irrational fear leads to irrational decision making.


A perspective from someone on the outside who may never come to understand an american fundamental, nor choose to try.


Aren't perspective from the outside usually less biased emotionally?
I'm pretty sure they are, no?




posted on Apr, 5 2012 @ 03:13 PM
link   
reply to post by DaTroof
 

oh, man....so effeminent....we in the south grew up watching john wayne movies...we know how to do it....you....?




posted on Apr, 5 2012 @ 03:20 PM
link   
ive said this before and im sure many others have said this as well, ever since the dawn of time when we used rocks and bones for tools has man killed his fellow man, how is any kind of gun law going to change that truth?
edit on 5-4-2012 by DocHolidaze because: (no reason given)

edit on 5-4-2012 by DocHolidaze because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 5 2012 @ 03:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by DestroyDestroyDestroy
reply to post by b3l13v3
 


Not entirely true; guns grossly simplify killing. While it's true that a person is often behind the gun, it is much more difficult (both physically and emotionally) to beat someone to death with one's own fists.

The only valid argument against gun control is that taking guns away from civilians enables the black market for guns to flourish. Furthermore, the guns purchased from the black market will most likely belong to criminals, not civilians.

There are plenty of counter examples to this line of thinking, however; look at countries where guns are outlawed; the crime rate tends to drop substantially when the average person doesn't have access to weapons.

Then again, the economic divide in said countries isn't anywhere near what it is in America.

Those countries may be subject to tyrannical reign, but we're already suffering from tyrannical reign and we have guns.

The problem lies within the cultural and economic divides in America; too much diversity creates a fractured society with no common ground. We're "Americans," but what does this really mean? There is no central American culture, unless we count Bibles, Guns, McWhoppers, and an unhealthy sense of entitlement and self-righteousness.

If there is no unifying force American society will remain fractured, and thus powerless against a central force such as the Federal Government. People are just too divided and self-centered to see the greatness of this country crumble around them.

I seriously think that many countries in the EU (save Greece and Italy) would be better places to live than modern America. Not just in terms of personal safety, but because the people aren't so clueless, powerless, and manipulable.

I mean look at how revolution in this country is treated; it becomes something to poke fun at and make a profit out of. Once revolution becomes commercialized, you know that nothing is going to spare you of the coming onslaught and destruction. People who want change need to throw out their TVs and computers, head to the streets, and let their distress be known. Keyboard Jockey-ism accomplishes nothing; allowed one's opinions to be swayed by the BS they spew in the MSM accomplishes nothing. Be wary of displaced anger and pointing fingers; the government is simply the whore, the real problems are the people who pay her. We can protest very effectively through boycott. For example, if you have a problem with major banks, withdraw your money from them. If you have a problem with a certain franchise, don't shop there. Lead by example and the sheep will follow. Doing nothing will yield nothing.

Then again, we're a bit beyond the boiling point; there is very, very, little which can be done now to prevent tyranny and economic devastation in America. Lean back in and enjoy the ride.


ur counter point that says its harder to kill without a gun is ridiculous, there are plenty of easier ways to kill than a gun(and more effeciet), so please dont use that as a counter point please it holds no weight



posted on Apr, 5 2012 @ 03:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by DocHolidaze


ive said this before and im sure many others have said this as well, ever since the dawn of time when we used rocks and bones for tools has man killed his fellow man, how is any kind of gun law going to change that truth?
edit on 5-4-2012 by DocHolidaze because: (no reason given)

edit on 5-4-2012 by DocHolidaze because: (no reason given)


I think over time with mental evolution, I would hope that eventually we would grow beyond killing one another. However we are an emotional species which is normally the drive for why we kill one another.

I, for one, totally support being able to arm yourself. The way I see it, if someone wants to commit a crime, they're going to regardless. At least if everyone was armed someone could have a chance to defend themselves and fend off their attacker.



posted on Apr, 5 2012 @ 03:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by DocHolidaze
ive said this before and im sure many others have said this as well, ever since the dawn of time when we used rocks and bones for tools has man killed his fellow man, how is any kind of gun law going to change that truth?


So stupid design and evolution only in tools is how you view man...I dearly hope you are wrong.



posted on Apr, 5 2012 @ 03:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by TsukiLunar
reply to post by Homedawg
 


"I have to be armed or the government will destroy us."

Not a very persuasive argument in my opinion because plenty of countries citizens are "unarmed" and they seem fine.

But, hey, in America we love guns. They can kill.


obviously you do not keep up on US GOVERNMENT current events or history do you? A lot of other countries are not just fine either being unarmed. get your facts first then make an educated decision on weather this is a persuasive argument or not. and it also sounds like you are not american yourself (because if you were you would know exactly the reason we need to be armed) which is a big deal in your decision as well, but at least watch the news or read a paper, or a history book.



posted on Apr, 5 2012 @ 03:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by DocHolidaze
ur counter point that says its harder to kill without a gun is ridiculous, there are plenty of easier ways to kill than a gun(and more effeciet), so please dont use that as a counter point please it holds no weight


You seem like a nice guy, but I wouldn't debate much more if I was you.
What's more efficient? Atom bombs?

There is nothing more deadly in the hands of the average man than a gun, sure a katana blade might be more precise, silent and as deadly... in the hands of a PROFESSIONAL.

Someone on drugs or in madness isn't as dangerous with a katana than a gun and who kills the most people while wielding guns?
Drunks, drug addicts and emotionally deranged people.

Now, it's safe to say normal people need guns to protect themselves from crazy people...if that is actually mentally positive to have people living in fear.

Yes organized criminal will still have guns...do you regularly get problems with organized crime?
Do you think junkies and drug addicts could have easy access to guns when they cost so much in black markets?



posted on Apr, 5 2012 @ 03:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by User8911

Originally posted by DocHolidaze
ive said this before and im sure many others have said this as well, ever since the dawn of time when we used rocks and bones for tools has man killed his fellow man, how is any kind of gun law going to change that truth?


So stupid design and evolution only in tools is how you view man...I dearly hope you are wrong.


it is 100 percent impossible to stop murder in our society, no matter what laws are passed. That is a fact that will never be disproven.



posted on Apr, 5 2012 @ 03:46 PM
link   
I would be in favor of giving everyone a single six shooter pistol. arm everyone, but not with automatic weapons...enough to pop a hole in someone if they are going nuts, but not enough to take down a crowd in a instant.

Also, holster laws should be passed..if you yank your gun out in public, it should be seen as a threatening motion that can get you shot..so, should only be pulled out in public if your in danger...that way of someone randomly yanks their guns out, you and 20 others can yank yours out and aim at him to make sure he doesn't do anything stupid.

Pandora's box is already opened..people have guns, they are invented..there is no containing them. So, what we can do is diminish their worth by arming everyone with enough to defend against the jerks of society whom will have them anyhow...

As far as tyranny, well, thats nonsense..18th century thinking. If government takes over, its done by a pen, not by a bullet...and the counter to that is...dueling pens (courts and such). We have guns not to protect ourselves from government, but from our neighbors now...so no..no need for gatling guns..just a 6 shooter..and we should have that, because humanity is a sad species that will indeed murder each other...know what we are, and protect yourself from being a victim.

just my 2 cents.



posted on Apr, 5 2012 @ 03:50 PM
link   
reply to post by SaturnFX
 


Well met. Valid points. I support your six-shooter theory as I have now dubbed it. In the event of a social breakdown and rebuilding of society, I will be sure to implement your idea into everyday life.



posted on Apr, 5 2012 @ 03:56 PM
link   
reply to post by SaturnFX
 




I would be in favor of giving everyone a single six shooter pistol.



[sarcasm]
but what if there are 7 people to shoot and you are alone and protecting some guy you don't know! No no no no! We need auto weapons, bazookas, and 50 cals.... It's my "god" given right to do so!
[/sarcasm]



posted on Apr, 5 2012 @ 04:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Magnum007
 


actually in the US every man and woman of age and able to join the armed forces or called into serving in times of emergency(i.e. every citizen from age 18-45) is considered part of the militia. so clearly you dont understand what the bill of rights is talking about. you can't argue this fact, this is what a militia is, and why it pertains to the second amendment and why we are reaffirmed(via the constitution, which doesn't give us rights, merely reaffirms them in our founding document) our natural right to keep and bare arms.

this has been reaffirmed time and again via the supreme court. clearly you are talking from a position of ignorance on the subject.



posted on Apr, 5 2012 @ 04:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Magnum007
 


Disregarding your sarcasm, god doesn't give you rights, your government does. How much you disagree with that statement is irrelevant because when it is all said and done your government decides what "rightfully" lands you in a prison.



posted on Apr, 5 2012 @ 04:03 PM
link   
reply to post by optimus primal
 


you are exactly right! therefore until they are asked to join this function, they do not have the right to bear arms, they are to bear arms the second they join the militia, or the army, or serve in times of emergency...

until then, they are NOT a WELL REGULATED MILITIA, they are but citizens... just like you need to enlist and train to become a soldier, you need to do the same to be part of a militia... you are not in by default when you turn 18...



posted on Apr, 5 2012 @ 04:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Magnum007
 


not so. we are already part of the militia. there is no need to join.



posted on Apr, 5 2012 @ 04:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by User8911

Originally posted by DocHolidaze
ur counter point that says its harder to kill without a gun is ridiculous, there are plenty of easier ways to kill than a gun(and more effeciet), so please dont use that as a counter point please it holds no weight


You seem like a nice guy, but I wouldn't debate much more if I was you.
What's more efficient? Atom bombs?

There is nothing more deadly in the hands of the average man than a gun, sure a katana blade might be more precise, silent and as deadly... in the hands of a PROFESSIONAL.

Someone on drugs or in madness isn't as dangerous with a katana than a gun and who kills the most people while wielding guns?
Drunks, drug addicts and emotionally deranged people.

Now, it's safe to say normal people need guns to protect themselves from crazy people...if that is actually mentally positive to have people living in fear.

Yes organized criminal will still have guns...do you regularly get problems with organized crime?
Do you think junkies and drug addicts could have easy access to guns when they cost so much in black markets?


The deadliest thing that the average man can posses is the will and intent to commit murder. Anybody that has the will and intent to do so can go to any major retail store and walk out with the tool or tools to carry out there intent.
And your argument about junkies and drug addicts not being able to afford guns on the black market is also a missed counter point, because junkies and drug addicts are part of the black market and those guns will still be available to them if they want them and if a junkie wants a gun they will get one.

There are murders in my town of the organized crime persausion, not to mention child snatchers. if we had a gun law would those problems go away? I believe not.



posted on Apr, 5 2012 @ 04:09 PM
link   
Let's play a game. Let's look at the Bill of Rights, and search for the term "the people". Now, you want to get ride of the 2nd Amendment, which says "the people". Fair enough. But, first, you must give up one of the other Amendments that says "the people". So, which one are YOU willing to lose, since you seem to have no problem trampling on MY right?



posted on Apr, 5 2012 @ 04:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by TsukiLunar
reply to post by Homedawg
 


"I have to be armed or the government will destroy us."

Not a very persuasive argument in my opinion because plenty of countries citizens are "unarmed" and they seem fine.

But, hey, in America we love guns. They can kill.


I for one am not all that concerned about the government "destroying" us...

And if the government wanted to "destroy" me, no gun is going to stop that from happening. However, it can stop me from being robbed, my home from being invaded, my daughter getting raped, etc.

Look Homedawg, guns don't kill anyone. They don't take sides. Here's a little known, obscure, and almost hard to believe statistic: In 100% of fatal shootings, a person made a deliberate decision to pull the trigger. Hard to believe, I know. People die because other people pull triggers, not because guns exist.

How many Americans have avoided death or serious bodily injury to themselves, their family and others, because they owned a gun, knew how, and were willing to use it?



posted on Apr, 5 2012 @ 04:10 PM
link   
as well, as i said here is some info on the supreme court's decisions on constitutional interpretation of the second:


The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution is the part of the United States Bill of Rights that protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms. It was adopted on December 15, 1791, along with the rest of the Bill of Rights. In 2008 and 2010, the Supreme Court issued two Second Amendment decisions. In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm, unconnected to service in a militia[1][2] and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. In dicta, the Court listed many longstanding prohibitions and restrictions on firearms possession as being consistent with the Second Amendment.[3] In McDonald v. Chicago (2010), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment limits state and local governments to the same extent that it limits the federal government.[4]

Wiki, with supporting links

so to repeat, all citizens 18-45 are part of the militia as it is, but the supreme court has also said that one not need be in a militia for the second to apply.
keep trying to play word games.



new topics

top topics



 
24
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join