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.
Originally posted by thehoneycomb
...they don't work. The end result is usually death of millions of people, usually at the hands of their own tyrannical governments.
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
jpfo.org...
"No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
"The constitutions of most of our States assert, that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves, ... or they may act by representatives, freely and equally chosen; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; that they are entitled to freedom of person, freedom of religion, freedom of property, and freedom of the press."
Thomas Jefferson
"The beauty of the second amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it."edit on 24-7-2012 by thehoneycomb because: spelling
Originally posted by lostpanther
reply to post by thehoneycomb
i read a comment that stated, "would you defend your home from an intruder with a gun, with a spatula".
The real question is, why does the intruder have access to the gun in the first.
Then the argument is "americans have the right to bear arms as defence".
But surely if guns were restricted to military and hunting purposes, then the pshychos would have to go learn thai boxing or ninjitsu to do any real mass murder.
over 9000 people were muredered by guns in the US last year.
Compared to 42 gun related fatalities in the UK.
here are some interesting facts linked below
www.bradycampaign.org...
www.juancole.com...
as guns are so readily available and it has become such an accesible novelty, in many countries it will become impossible to decrease the maniacs with deadly weapons without out changing the constitution, as the gun weilders immediatly look down to those lines of law as the reason there should be lethal weaponary one room away from your newborn and in the pocket of the crak head fanatascist.
peace
matt
Originally posted by lostpanther
reply to post by thehoneycomb
i read a comment that stated, "would you defend your home from an intruder with a gun, with a spatula".
The real question is, why does the intruder have access to the gun in the first.
Then the argument is "americans have the right to bear arms as defence".
But surely if guns were restricted to military and hunting purposes, then the pshychos would have to go learn thai boxing or ninjitsu to do any real mass murder.
over 9000 people were muredered by guns in the US last year.
Compared to 42 gun related fatalities in the UK.
here are some interesting facts linked below
www.bradycampaign.org...
www.juancole.com...
as guns are so readily available and it has become such an accesible novelty, in many countries it will become impossible to decrease the maniacs with deadly weapons without out changing the constitution, as the gun weilders immediatly look down to those lines of law as the reason there should be lethal weaponary one room away from your newborn and in the pocket of the crak head fanatascist.
peace
matt
Originally posted by FraggleRock
Originally posted by lostpanther
reply to post by thehoneycomb
i read a comment that stated, "would you defend your home from an intruder with a gun, with a spatula".
The real question is, why does the intruder have access to the gun in the first.
Then the argument is "americans have the right to bear arms as defence".
But surely if guns were restricted to military and hunting purposes, then the pshychos would have to go learn thai boxing or ninjitsu to do any real mass murder.
over 9000 people were muredered by guns in the US last year.
Compared to 42 gun related fatalities in the UK.
here are some interesting facts linked below
www.bradycampaign.org...
www.juancole.com...
as guns are so readily available and it has become such an accesible novelty, in many countries it will become impossible to decrease the maniacs with deadly weapons without out changing the constitution, as the gun weilders immediatly look down to those lines of law as the reason there should be lethal weaponary one room away from your newborn and in the pocket of the crak head fanatascist.
peace
matt
That intruder had a weapon because there are and always will be illegal arms dealers who will never have an issue providing any criminal with their weapon of choice. Restricting arms to military and hunting will not eliminate these illegal arms dealers. And so prohibiting those who buy arms legally from purchasing and/or possessing arms only serves to give the advantage to those already engaged in criminal activity.
Originally posted by PolarBoss
Also for criminals of course they can get a gun but it's not like they use it on some civilians or innocent people.
Originally posted by BeReasonable
reply to post by thehoneycomb
Keep hearing Americans banging on about how they need their guns or they lose their freedom blah blah etc. Sounds like a bunch of bull# to me, here in Australia its very difficult to legally buy a weapon, and buying one illegally was unheard of almost untill about ten years ago, when we started getting alot of middle eastern crime in the outer suburbs of Sydney. We all do quite alright without a #load of guns lying around, and we always have. You cant legally purchase semi-automatic rifles here, only hunting rifles and pistol license is hard to get as well. i think you have to shoot at a range supervised for something like six months before you can even start shooting at a range by yourself.
Anyways, the point is, nobody has guns over here and we dont have anywhere near the associated problems, and nobody is making a racket about not being able to gt guns for themselves
edit on 26-7-2012 by BeReasonable because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by wilson417
Originally posted by PolarBoss
Also for criminals of course they can get a gun but it's not like they use it on some civilians or innocent people.
OF COURSE THATS WHO THEY WILL USE THE GUN ON!
why the hell would they even have the gun in the first place if they didn't inted on having the upper hand on civilians or innocent people.
this by far the most rediculous statement i've ever heard from someone who is pro anit-gun.
"oh of course criminals can get a gun illegally but dont worry citizens, its not like criminals have ever robbed you, or killed innocent people, or robbed a bank, or mugged anyone. its ok if criminals have guns they wont break the law or harm you in any way with it"
and yes that was a very sarcastic statement....
Originally posted by thehoneycomb
"The beauty of the second amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it."edit on 24-7-2012 by thehoneycomb because: spelling
Originally posted by Screwed
It all really comes down to one or two questions which people who are against guns will never point blank answer.
Who do YOU want in charge of YOUR safety?
A. YOU
B. Police...........
If you choose B then.....Well..... at least you are consistent. Consistently stupid, but.....consistent nonetheless.
Originally posted by lostpanther
[
www.bradycampaign.org...
www.juancole.com...
matt