It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Americans, Isn't It Time You Relinquished Your Weapons.

page: 23
<< 20  21  22    24  25  26 >>

log in


posted on Dec, 15 2012 @ 05:12 PM
reply to post by Patriotsrevenge

The population wasnt armed in 1940 and hitler couldn't invade us. What makes you think anyone else could? No one has been able to invade Britain for 900 years!

Today is no different!


posted on Dec, 15 2012 @ 05:24 PM
reply to post by roguetechie

I somewhat agree with your analysis but you can't buy a machine gun made or altered after 1984 I believe. You can only transfer it to yourself or someone else. In other words only USED machine guns have been for sale and they are very expensive.

I believe a big part of the reason the murder rate by legal machine guns is so low is because a)few have circulated in the open market and b)people who spend that kind of money for a gun usually have enough self-esteem to respect its awesome potential as well. Maybe I am reaching for straws here and could be wrong.

Would you like it if everyone had access to machine guns? I would feel somewhat unsafe, much like making narcotics legal. It just sends the wrong message, even if it is mostly psychological!

posted on Dec, 15 2012 @ 05:25 PM
reply to post by ALOSTSOUL

Only because gun toting Americans came and saved your ass.

posted on Dec, 15 2012 @ 05:27 PM
reply to post by FlySolo

Interestingly enough FlySolo in March of this year there was a knife rampage in China which claimed 20 lives....

This is very easy to google and even easier to parse the implications of said incident.

Guns are not the issue, and prohibition or even an outright ban and confiscation will NOT stop the massacres!
China has a very comparable number and severity of rampage incidents per year as the US does. The weapon of choice may be different but the tragic results are the same....

No one is disputing that these incidents are horrific and terrible in every way, but disarming the populace will actually make us more vulnerable not less vulnerable to incidents like these as well as potentiating an array of MUCH SCARIER scenarios.

As it is now these incidents ALMOST EXCLUSIVELY happen in areas where civilian carry of firearms or other weapons is highly curtailed if not outright prohibited.... This is an indisputable fact not speculation on my part.

posted on Dec, 15 2012 @ 05:34 PM
reply to post by jimmiec

Off topic but the Russians had a 20-1 kill rate of the other allies. Those Ruskies did it really, way i see it America sorted out Japan, Russia did Europe.

We only paid off the debt from ww2 fairly recently, wasn't like the US was doing it for free.
edit on 15-12-2012 by Hopeforeveryone because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 15 2012 @ 05:36 PM

Originally posted by jimmiec
reply to post by ALOSTSOUL

Only because gun toting Americans came and saved your ass.

Think again.

Britain was the last "democracy" standing between America and Germany. If it wasn't for Britain repelling the nazi invasion squads America and Americans would have been fighting at home.

You may say you saved us, but it was us that saved you from an invasion attempt.

Japan and Germany (or continental Europe) vs America? I would have back Germany.


ETA; Infact if Britain hadnt beating Germany in "the battle of Britain" then the Russians would have likely join the axis for an invasion of North America.
edit on 15-12-2012 by ALOSTSOUL because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 15 2012 @ 05:42 PM
reply to post by EarthCitizen07

It is actually 1986 that is the cutoff date... but only sort of.

If you wish to buy a machine gun on what is known as ATF form 4 the machine gun MUST be a pre 1986 machine gun. However if you spring for the extra cash and get a class 03 Federal Firearms License you can buy and transfer what are known as post 1986 dealer samples.

As of right now there are well over half a million legally registered machine guns in circulation in the US which account for an absolutely miniscule amount of the gun crimes committed inside the US. The ATF also regulates suppressors (aka silencers), Short barreled rifles, and other exotic weapons under this same National Firearms Act Umbrella. Believe it or not I am actually perfectly Ok with machine guns, short barreled rifles, and short barreled shotguns being regulated in this way. I am however not in favor of the 1986 ban on new machine gun manufacture for general transfer.

What I am not in favor of is the regulation or outright ban of high capacity magazines, armor piercing rounds, and or the ban or severe restriction of semi automatic firearms. Not only do I think it will be counterproductive and directly result in a serious uptick in violent crime, but I also KNOW from my readings of the supplemental writings of the founding fathers as well as my study of supreme court cases pertaining to the second amendment that any ban of this sort would violate not only the SPIRIT but also the INTENT of the second amendment. The second amendment is SPECIFICALLY designed to guarantee the american general public access to militarily useful armaments. The only people who try to tell you otherwise are the "living document" proponents of constitutional law that see no reason not to alter the constitution in ways that are known to be counter to the intents of the founding fathers.

Like i said though... I'm perfectly ok with machine guns being fairly tightly controlled. I do not believe it would be the end of the world if they weren't however, but I also don't think it substantially degrades the American public's ability to uphold their constitutional rights and responsibilities.

I am however VEHEMENTLY against de facto or outright registration of firearms and or closing the gun show loophole. There is too much factual and nearly universal abuse of firearms registries by the governments that enact them or their predecessors further down the line. In essence I am in favor of no registration for the same reason I am very much in favor of concealed carry. You lose 90% of the deterrent effect gun ownership exerts on the criminal and tyranny minded elements in society if they know exactly who has what and where it is.

posted on Dec, 15 2012 @ 05:54 PM
Yet another forum about us Americans and guns. And how you want to take them away. And the OP is not from the USA. We have already been having this same discussion in another forum. Check it out if you don't believe me. I am a gun owner by the way. What happened yesterday, does not reflect, law abiding American gun owners. Go ahead call me a redneck cause I have guns. I don't care, it is my right to have them, and is a right that I have defended. We are not the UK, or anyother country, so if your not an American, you wont understand.

posted on Dec, 15 2012 @ 05:55 PM
reply to post by roguetechie

I beg to differ. I would much rather take my chances with someone with a knife. I agree we can't stop all violence but we can at least increase our odds of living through an incident.

posted on Dec, 15 2012 @ 05:58 PM
reply to post by roguetechie

Thanks for clarifying the dates and amendments to gun laws. It does get confusing when laws change so frequently and for the lamest of reasons it seems. At the very least they should fully legalise short barrel rifles and extended magazines. I don't see the potential harm they create to justify their banning or strict regulation.

As for what should be banned I will say again imo it should be any automatic weapon and armor piercing rounds. When the market gets filled with automatic weapons it just increases the likelihood of some deranged individual not killing 20 people...but 100 people. Armor piercing rounds are also too dangerous because they are designed to over-penetrate past intended targets and into unintended targets. They are also known as cop killers because they penetrate through class 3 vests.

posted on Dec, 15 2012 @ 06:05 PM
Yeah right. Just because a few freaks choose to go gun-slinging, doesn't mean that everyone else is doing it. There are over 314,947,091 people in the US, many of which have guns, if you compare those with guns to the ones who use them like we have seen lately....we're actually at very good odds in keeping our guns.I guarantee you that if just one more person had a gun on him at that school....a principle, a teacher or just hired staff (personal...not government)...there would have been a lot fewer deaths. Because a good persona with a gun, would have taken out the freak before he could do what he did.

If Americans were to relinquish all weapons, what you would have is a country of 314,947,091 people who are defenseless against people like these crazy shooters as well as a country defenseless against their government who has proven themselves to be tyrannical as well as obsessed with getting all Americans to be defenseless for some reason. Wonder what they reason would be? Maybe so they can do to us what they are now doing to every other country?

Even if they were to take weapons from All American's it would not matter as the only ones who would follow this law would be "law abiding citizens". The criminals would still be trafficking their weapons, only then business would BOOM.

Every citizen would be a sitting duck in their homes and always scared...but then....this is what our government strives to make happen on a daily basis isn't it?

Guns are simply metal tools, it's the people behind them, committing these crimes that are bad. Responsible Americans won't do this. It's only the media propaganda machine that makes the world think that ALL AMERICANS are gun-slinging wacko's that need to give up their weapons because we can't control ourselves.....oh yeah, and people like the OP who is so blinded by the reality of statistics and believe everything that this propaganda machine spits out.

It's sheer ignorance and nothing more.

Just a short clip and a dose of reality...

This guy has the answer to all gun problems. Chris Rock.....(fowl language, if you are under the age of 18 or easily offended by strong language, DON'T WATCH THIS VIDEO!)

edit on 15-12-2012 by kcabmi because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 15 2012 @ 06:07 PM
You beg to differ do you?

So are you choosing to outright IGNORE the fact that in march of this year a single individual in China killed 20 other individuals with nothing more than a knife?

This is TEN TIMES worse than the clackamas shooting death toll and only slightly less than the school shooting that just occurred...

If you were truly interested in minimizing your risk of being injured or even killed in these incidents which will continue to happen no matter what we ban you would get a concealed carry permit and campaign tirelessly to have universal reciprocity agreements acknowledged as well as ridiculous and absolutely FAILING restrictions on where you can carry removed from the law books.

You obviously have not read or have chosen to ignore my earlier commentary where I outlined an easy to confirm fact that out of the 60 rampage shootings in the last decade NONE of them have happened in Utah. And the 2 that were attempted at Utah schools were stopped with NO LOSS OF LIFE by armed students in one case during the law school incident and an armed teacher during the incident at a public primary school.

You have also not looked into the absolute and true FACT that the overwhelming majority of rampage shootings occur in areas where there are either legal or land owner policies prohibiting firearms possession on the premises. BOTH of the last two rampage shootings this week happened in areas where law abiding citizens were prevented from carrying their firearms.

I will be continuing my series of posts to include the cyclical nature of the freedom to tyranny spectrum and a short word about the allegory of Pandora's Box and it's implications in the modern world. If you are actually about learning something and expanding your horizons it would behoove you to give my previous and future posts a gander.

posted on Dec, 15 2012 @ 06:28 PM
Now let us move onto the freedom to tyranny spectrum and how it is in fact very cyclical....

Human history has not and does not travel in a straight line.... people have not got more and more free as time has went by. When one area gains it's freedom another loses theirs, and in general at any given point a large portion of the world population is under the boot of one tyrannical regime or another.

Not only this but if you are a student of history you will also note that EVERY SINGLE GOVERNMENT that has not fallen from outside reasons such as disaster, famine, plague, invasion, or other calamity eventually turns repressive brutal and tyrannical.

Here in the US our founding fathers knew this and out and out stated in MANY statements seeded throughout the supplemental literature that liberty and justice are not universal constants and that if we wish to keep them we will have to FIGHT to keep them. The second amendment exists specifically for this contingency. Our founding fathers knew that eventually we would face a point where the people we allow to represent us and our interests would eventually stop representing the interests of the common man. When this happens we have a built in option ... it is one that should never be contemplated lightly, but WHEN the occasion arises where we are left with no other viable options we are meant to have the ability to repudiate our government by force if need be.
To be perfectly blunt we cannot hope to succeed in this if we do not retain our right to bear and fairly easy access to firearms that are at least close to the equivalent weapon used by the front line soldiers that defend our country under normal circumstances.

In addition to having the firearms though we also need access to the same or BETTER ammunition as our military has access to as well as access to things like Night Vision, body armor, and medical supplies. While this creates a potential for abuse and misuse it is also the ultimate firewall against much more frightening scenarios which could result in much greater loss of life, suffering, and destruction.

I would also like to bring your attention to one of the obviously less well understood allegories passed onto us by the Greeks. That allegory would be the allegory of Pandora and her box. As you may know in the story once the box is open the people are not able to put what came out of the box back in....

Now you can apply this to all sorts of situations in the modern world. Whether it's nuclear proliferation or designer drugs you can cook at home with easily available household stuff... we consistently fail at keeping technologies and knowledge from spreading once it reaches a tipping point. Now this applies to firearms in any number of ways I'll allow you to think about this for awhile.

We face a myriad of issues in this world today and while I don't think continued civilian ownership of firearms will solve many of them... I KNOW for a fact that losing this tool in our toolbox will have repercussions in the short and long term that far outweigh any temporary and fleeting safety it may appear to bestow upon us.

posted on Dec, 15 2012 @ 06:28 PM

Originally posted by FlySolo
reply to post by roguetechie

I beg to differ. I would much rather take my chances with someone with a knife. I agree we can't stop all violence but we can at least increase our odds of living through an incident.

Actually you would be at a severe disadvantage trying to fight someone with a knife because a)normally they are coc ained up b)they are sometimes better built and younger than you c)they don't value their life as much as you do...they are wreckless and have nothing to lose.

To have a fighting chance against any criminal you need a gun. Heck even a .22lr would get the job done if you know how to aim properly. You don't necessary need .45acp or .44 magnum....

posted on Dec, 15 2012 @ 06:32 PM
reply to post by ALOSTSOUL

The long answer....No. I have no intention of giving up my guns, and anyone who would be willing to doesnt deserve them in the first place. Sure guns make it easier to kill a lot of people at once, but the act of a handful of crazy sad people who want to be remembered for some horrific act who otherwise would have killed themselves in their basement should not warrent a gun ban for the rest of us. You wanna stop things like this from happening? make mental health care more available. You want things like this to stop happeneing? The media should be responsible and not sensationalize this kind of thing, inspiring more sick sad people to do the same or even worse one up the last guy. I feel like this event is a terrible tragedy and my heart goes out to those who are suffering, it makes me angry and ashamed of what human beings are capable of, the one thing this does not make me want to do however is ban guns. If anything this is the exact reason good people should BE ALLOWED TO HAVE GUNS. Our culture glorifies violence and our media (all types, music, video games, the news ect) is saturated with and obsessed by glorifying violence. Correlation does indicate causation. We are a war culture. We are a violent culture. social media has us so disconnected from one another its hard for us to think of each other as human beings anymore. We are screen names and avatars and gamer tags to one another, not people. Its really sad. But above anything else you know what? Instead of crying about our guns you should be worried about your loved ones. You should personally go and give every person you care about a big 20+ second hug and look them in their eyes and tell them how much you love them and remember that nothing is certain. especially life. Terrible things happen and will continue to happen. Thats why its so important to make sure that the people you care about know you care about them. Dont just tell them show them.

posted on Dec, 15 2012 @ 06:40 PM
reply to post by ALOSTSOUL

What good would disarming Americans do,the vast majority of whom are law abiding, responsible gun owners? How can you possibly legislate against the maniac who decides to go on a rampage?,it has happened here in the UK too,remember Hungerford and Dunblane?,if it can happen in a country where gun ownership is outlawed it can happen anywhere.But I would contend that the country which actively promotes responsible gun handling and ownership can only be for the good, as the more that guns are viewed as just another tool which require special handling, the less likely they will be used to perpetrate evil acts such as that which took place in Connecticut.

posted on Dec, 15 2012 @ 06:49 PM
reply to post by roguetechie

You've opened pandora's box and you're doomed. My response to you would be what I've already said in this thread verbatim.

posted on Dec, 15 2012 @ 07:35 PM
So in other words your response is to tell us what we will or will not do?

That's what you've got?

And where in my posts have I used straw mans or other logical fallacies?

I have in fact provided very easy to verify factual information (when I don't just plain give you the information on a silver platter)

I have then expounded upon this information using very sound logical deduction leavened with historical precedent to make my case.

You have provided..... What exactly have you provided other than your not very knowledgeable and highly biased opinion again?

What can you say to refute the facts that I have tried to bring attention to?

Oh that's right you can't actually refute or otherwise challenge my facts so you instead keep hammering at talking points that have very little basis in reality but sure do "sound authoritative, measured, and distinguished"

The entire point of my argument has always been and will always be that gun control has never been and will never be about anything other than control and monopolization of force. I believe I have amply supported my argument, which is of course why the OP completely ignores it, and why you choose to respond to isolated sentences or portions of sentences within my post and not the overall content of my entire post or it's actual intended message.

Unlike you I actually read every post, ESPECIALLY the ones I disagree with. It is only your side of this debate that has to ignore, misrepresent, or outright LIE about everything from the content of your opponents' posts, the character or intelligence of your opponents, and or the intent or motives of your opponents.

See I don't doubt that you most likely BELIEVE that a world without civilian firearms ownership would somehow be better, but that does NOT give you the right or moral imperative to justify lying, obfuscating, questioning of your opponents' character rather than their message, or any of the myriad of other fallacies and dirty tricks that I am seeing employed by the anti gun set. In addition to this the true forces behind the anti gun movement DO NOT share your belief that a world without civilian firearm ownership would be a better place... As a matter of fact most of the key personalities involved in the anti gun movement either own guns themselves or directly employ or otherwise benefit from armed protection in some way. So they want YOU to give up YOUR guns but they have no intention of giving away theirs.

This is most blatantly demonstrated by the california legislature's passing of a litany of some of the most restrictive gun laws in the nation and their subsequent vote to exempt themselves from those restrictions. California Senate exempts itself from gun laws it expects you to follow

Or there is Rosie O'Donnel's loud denunciation of guns and gun owners while she employs armed private security contractors on a permanent basis to protect her family.

Or there is Bill Cosby who again makes comments about guns and gun owners but is a concealed carry permit holder himself.

Or hey there's this classic... one of the main "organizers" and forces behind the million mom march was indicted on multiple counts including possession of blatantly illegal weapons and murder for hire as well as other things.

Or there is Shania Twain who is a signatory of the Brady Campaign's open letter to the NRA but hires armed guards to protect her wedding.

... See that's the thing ... I'd actually be all for a world without guns I just want the ATF and those that cry loudest to go first.... maybe then I'll give up mine.

posted on Dec, 15 2012 @ 07:36 PM
Yea a nutcase wuth a gun killled a lot of people. 66,986,678 guns did'nt do a damn thing yesterday. I would rather have my rights to own a firearm than live in a country like GB, with it's society living on Government programs and worshipping the Royals.

We fought for and won our independence from your country. We fought for and won the right to bear arms. So any of you GBr's want my guns, please come and get them. It would be nice to see you all tackle your problems in your own country and let us deal with ours.

On the barrell of my Glock, I had it ingraved with the words, "smile wait for flash". Yea I am one of those crazy gun nuts you all like to bitch about. It's my right as an American citizen. See here in America we are called citizens, you folks in GB are called subjects. We all called citizens because we have the 2nd Amend. Your called subjects because you do not. A nut with a gun. Not the gun itself killed these people.

posted on Dec, 15 2012 @ 07:40 PM

Originally posted by christina-66
reply to post by spock51

Insanity is NOT the root cause of these mass killings. Those with serious psychiatric diagnoses are much LESS likely to harm other people than the general population.

The gun lobby in the US is way too powerful and their marketing clichés becoming tediously over used (especially on this forum and especially today).

The most ridiculous solution I've read being that this wouldn't have happened if the teachers had been armed too.....that's great until an armed, stressed,l frustrated and depressed teacher decides to turn their weapon on their class.

Or US citizens are armed to protect themselves from renegade government.....please. What you going to do against that drone?

Or to protect your freedoms? Ha....the US has THE most penalised citizenry in the developed world.

My ex was from Baltimore....he told me that if more US citizens travelled (in particular to Europe) they would be absolutely furious. The lie that the US way of life is the envy of the world would be exposed to them. The lie that US citizens have a superior quality of life would be exposed to them.

The US is NOT representative of the rest of the developed world. What you see around you....what you not the world that the rest of us experience.

Perversely it is the fact that so many US citizens carry weapons that stops any meaningful demonstration/action against punitive government measures....the fear of a blood bath keeps you all in check.

The truly clinically insane are NOT responsible for most murders in America, nor any where else for that matter. Forgive me for being entirely too colloquial in my choice of terms. It was never my intention to infer that clinically insane persons committ murders with guns. Most murders are crimes of passion and that term covers a lot of territory. Premeditated murders are not always gun murders and no amount of legislation, or even the absence of firearms, will do much to mitigate those crimes.
Which brings me back to my original point. We first have to admit that no amount of laws will deter a criminal unless and until we can GUARANTEE he will be caught and made to pay. And even then, we can not be sure that he will fear that or even think about it in advance. That is a lot of assumption upon which to base a "rule of law" approach that is one size fits all. And besides, we will still have armed people in our midst. Have you done your homework on the suicide and mental melt down rates for these people. The risk of gun death is a part of everyone's existence, .......everyone, everywhere.
We have some very good laws on the books now. We do not enforce them nor do we even respect them, up to and including the highest levels of government. America is rife with corruption and beset with problems. Somehow our republic has morphed into a democracy and no democracy has failed to murder itself. My family has been here since my father's ancestor, CPT John Knox, waded ashore to fight the French and Indian War. He stayed and some of those "Indians" became in-laws. A member of my family has been involved in almost every conflict this nation has had. So my aversion to massive gun control legislation has nothing to do with a fanatical love of guns. I have not owned one since I left law enforcement 31 years ago. My whole point is, that is my CHOICE.
I absolutely have been lied to be my government. On many occassions, about many things. I spent a year in Vietnam becuase of a lie. I have travelled and I have seen how others live. Some are good, others not so much. It is all relevant. No where on planet earth will anyone get to frolick in the sun while unicorns poop Skittles everywhere and all the people and animals love each other all day and night. It is a bit more dangerous than that and NO society can guarentee you anything, let alone safety.
Life in America is superior if you have the money. Life sucks EVERYWHERE if you don't. It is a sad fact that our leaders have sold the farm and sent our jobs away. They try to mollify us with bread and circuses but it is an empty thing anymore, especially to those of us who are a little older and more discerning. Our prison and court systems have become big business. Hell, half, or more, of the government for the last decade or more are Goldman Sachs alumni.
I think a line is being drawn in the sand in America. To further abuse a cliche', perhaps we "should party like its 1861".
This issue may be a lynchpin for a LOT of people in America. It is a lot more complex than gun control issues, it just may be that the line is being drawn there as the last straw.
I am used to being stereotyped just because I am American. Its just that I don't give a.................... this is home and I think I have every right to choose how I live.

new topics

top topics

<< 20  21  22    24  25  26 >>

log in