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.

 

The Second Amendment is a Relic - Its Purpose is Long Past.

page: 10
14
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 21 2012 @ 08:31 AM
link   
MajorKarma:

TOS prevents me from telling what I really think of...nevermind. This is what I think of your post and opinions..video link


You don't stipulate to whom you are referring, but as we are in ideological opposition, and my post is above yours, I will assume you are referring to me.

The heart-rendering video, and the tragic story narrated in it, does offer a reason for debate about essential gun control, or maybe even better policing? Like yourself I do believe in the right to self-defence, and would still defend myself even if the law said I didn't have the right, as I would be compelled by the situation to some sort of defence. Obviously, I'd have to try to defend myself without the aid of a gun, but with the use of some functional object that might be nearby.

Yes, I may not win the fight, and yes, I might even be killed, but even so, I would still prefer to live in a country that exercises a rational gun control than in one that operates a fear defence mechanism to paranoia. I fully believe that guns themselves are not the problem, but I also believe that more guns are not the solution, either. The problem (IMHO) is the societal system that has allowed gun violence to emerge and escalate and almost become an accepted part of the culture, that views violence as an optional means to settle scores, or to enact internal anger and rage at society in suicidal rampages.

My own personal opinion is that there should not be any guns at all, but I know quite rationally that it is not a feasible or plausible option, certainly not for America, not in the present time. What took eras to knot, will more than likely take eras to untie. America has a very violent culture where the gun is the preferred choice of weapon, and whilst other countries have their own share and degree of gun violence, other countries problems of gun violence are pretty much irrelevant to what America should be rationally debating. South Africa, and some South American countries have a far greater level of gun violence than that of North America, which is supposed to be one of the most (if not 'the' most) developed nation on the planet, but you would not think so with its level of gun violence and fatalities.

Having a gun on your person does not in the least ways protect you from violent threat or from its occurrence, it just means you have a tool of empowerment to engage the threat on something of a level playing field, it doesn't guarantee you'll win the fight! Nevertheless, the need for individual self-protection is a gun advocate's most succinct argument for the right to bear arms. In today's America, the non-gun advocate has to seriously appraise this argument in their rationalising for effective gun control, even if they perceive the need for a gun as arising out of an irrational fear.

The debate is very complex, the best solution to which has to come from a compromise from both stances. Each has to understand and appreciate where the fear of the other comes from, and work together to reduce the unease. Neither side should steadfastly refuse to move on its stance, or refuse to look at things rationally, logically, or honestly.

If there isn't already one, a national gun register should be created, and all gun owners should have to register their guns to a database of serial numbers, including name and address of owner, and if later sold privately, both the seller and the buyer must by law register the sale to the proper agencies within a short time period. It is estimated that there are 300 million guns in domestic America, there is a definite need for a gun census and register to be taken. You need to be able to track every gun out there to gain an idea of just how bad a picture it really is, but with the ultimate aim of reducing the gun total. Gun manufacturers must by law register the serial number of each gun they make, and each gun shop or store should have to register their sales showing the serial numbers of guns purchased, and the identity of the purchaser. You absolutely cannot be lax on this issue.

Once you know whom has a gun, you can then set about vetoing their ownership based on mental health and other possible prohibiting issues. This will help towards reducing the amount of guns out there, and will aid the responsible gun owner to retain theirs. Gun ownership must come with a government health and responsibility warning.

To try to maintain the current situation as it is would not only be madness, but a desecration of the memory of all the victims of gun crimes.
edit on 21/12/12 by elysiumfire because: Adjustment




posted on Dec, 21 2012 @ 08:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by milkyway12
reply to post by Wongbeedman
 


Why do you think we broke from um ... YOU people, oh, and defeated you? Not to mention, and then saved you. Stupid Americans and our guns right?
edit on 21-12-2012 by milkyway12 because: (no reason given)


It wasn't called independence for nothing, we granted you it after you saw the error of our ways. If you people today, actually reflected the views and morals of your own founding fathers, then I'd understand, in fact I'd actually rather be american.



posted on Dec, 21 2012 @ 08:43 AM
link   
reply to post by Wongbeedman
 


yeah that really was a "dafudge did I just read" moment.....
edit on 21-12-2012 by zedVSzardoz because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 21 2012 @ 08:52 AM
link   
reply to post by MentorsRiddle
 



How narrow minded this thinking is. How easily could a new federal army invade our lives if we were defenseless.


They could "invade your lives" right now, your little gun can't stop that.

Your gun is like a baby's pacifier, it comforts you, it soothes you, but it does nothing to really sustain your life.



posted on Dec, 21 2012 @ 09:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by xedocodex
reply to post by MentorsRiddle
 



How narrow minded this thinking is. How easily could a new federal army invade our lives if we were defenseless.


They could "invade your lives" right now, your little gun can't stop that.

Your gun is like a baby's pacifier, it comforts you, it soothes you, but it does nothing to really sustain your life.


You're kidding me, right? Well, those Afghanis, with their little "pacifiers" have managed to defeat one of the greatest armies on the planet, the Russians, and have managed to use those little "pacifiers" to hold the world's greatest military, the US, at bay for over a decade. Even Japan's top general new that invading America wasn't an option stating that "there would be a gun behind every blade of grass".

So please explain to all of us again how a standing army can just mow down a group of people armed with little "pacifiers"? I wonder if the British felt that way back in the 1700's?

Please reserve your ignorance for your personal use - no need to share it with the rest of us.



posted on Dec, 21 2012 @ 09:03 AM
link   
kozmo:

Ok, alright... you succeeded in seeding the forum with a non-sequitur! But in doing so, you have also made everyone dumber for having read it!


It is a non sequitur to think that one can make what is already dumb, dumber! Thanks for proving the point!


I'm not sure how having a weapon for personal protection is akin to the wild west, but apparently to very small minds it is.


MajorKarma posted a video in his last post, if you haven't viewed it, please do, as it gives a good argument for the individual's right to self-protection by bearing arms. Now, not to diminish anything of what the lady and her family suffered, which was appalling and horrific, she states that if she'd been able to carry her gun in her purse, she would have taken it out and would've shot the guy, and not without reasonable justification. The scenario it envinces if she'd had her gun on her person, would have been wild west like...bad guy comes into town and begins shooting the place up, townsfolk respond returning gunfire. Definately analoguous to the Wild West to me! Has your larger mind than mine perceived the similitude? The disadvantage to having an over-sized mind is that most of its real estate is taken up by the vacancy of unusable empty space. Thanks for proving the point!


Your association is dumbest thing I have ever read.


Nope, I think you take the prize with that sentence. Thanks for proving the point! Peace.



posted on Dec, 21 2012 @ 09:06 AM
link   
Julie you could be the poster girl for all thats wrong with our country. The Constitution is a document to protect the citizens from a rampaging government like the one we have now. People just like you have allowed the criminals to eviscerate the Constitution and remove the protections the founding fathers knew we would need. We now find ourselves on the brink of losing our freedom completely to an illegal alien socialist/communist puppet and you still prattle on about giving up more rights. If you don't like the country as built GTFO.



posted on Dec, 21 2012 @ 09:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by kozmo

Originally posted by xedocodex
reply to post by MentorsRiddle
 



How narrow minded this thinking is. How easily could a new federal army invade our lives if we were defenseless.


They could "invade your lives" right now, your little gun can't stop that.

Your gun is like a baby's pacifier, it comforts you, it soothes you, but it does nothing to really sustain your life.


You're kidding me, right? Well, those Afghanis, with their little "pacifiers" have managed to defeat one of the greatest armies on the planet, the Russians, and have managed to use those little "pacifiers" to hold the world's greatest military, the US, at bay for over a decade. Even Japan's top general new that invading America wasn't an option stating that "there would be a gun behind every blade of grass".

So please explain to all of us again how a standing army can just mow down a group of people armed with little "pacifiers"? I wonder if the British felt that way back in the 1700's?

Please reserve your ignorance for your personal use - no need to share it with the rest of us.


Oh please, enough with the dramatic romanticism of your guns. You aren't going to stop an invasion of another country, you aren't going to take down fighter jets with your hunting rifle, Red Dawn is a MOVIE, Rambo is a MOVIE. And the US only beat the British because they were also fighting the French and then the French came to help us. Afganistan is defeating armies, they are being annoying and draining resources, this is largely due to the mountains they hide in. Seriously, the fantasy of you being able to defend the country with your gun is just silly.

I hear people say all the time that they will only hand over their guns from their cold dead hands, that's fine with me, let's start that process. If you think you are going to fight of the United States government or any other army with your little guns, you are just flat out delusional.

Your gun is a pacifier, that is all it is. It's your little object that comforts you and makes you feel safe. Plain and simple.



posted on Dec, 21 2012 @ 09:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by kozmo

Originally posted by xedocodex
reply to post by MentorsRiddle
 



How narrow minded this thinking is. How easily could a new federal army invade our lives if we were defenseless.


They could "invade your lives" right now, your little gun can't stop that.

Your gun is like a baby's pacifier, it comforts you, it soothes you, but it does nothing to really sustain your life.


You're kidding me, right? Well, those Afghanis, with their little "pacifiers" have managed to defeat one of the greatest armies on the planet, the Russians, and have managed to use those little "pacifiers" to hold the world's greatest military, the US, at bay for over a decade. Even Japan's top general new that invading America wasn't an option stating that "there would be a gun behind every blade of grass".

So please explain to all of us again how a standing army can just mow down a group of people armed with little "pacifiers"? I wonder if the British felt that way back in the 1700's?

Please reserve your ignorance for your personal use - no need to share it with the rest of us.




Do you know what it would look like if the gloves came off? Do you know how ugly that can be? Can you imagine a ballistic loaded with small pox or a number of other lethal antigens being delivered into your neighborhood? How would your AR-15 fair against that?

Try a couple of nerve agents? What about those sonic cannons? Do you have bunkers deep enough to require bunker busting ballistics...they got those if they need. Have you seen a white phosphorus attack?

We wouldn't stand a chance. Besides the peoples in places like Afghan are war hardened people who have seen combat and violence for centuries. Most of the gun tooting people on this forum are fat, potato chip eating people who watch too much Red Dawn.



posted on Dec, 21 2012 @ 09:16 AM
link   
reply to post by Julie Washington
 
Thank goodness this is only your opinion.
I am astonished how people like you just bust out of the closet and start with this unfounded rhetoric. The constitution is what gives you the right to say things like this and the second amendment is what gives you the right to have something to protect yourself when someone disagrees with you unlike most countrys in this world today where when you express yourself and how you feel the milatary comes for you or even worse in some country's the bad guy is the only one with a gun.

You would do well to read and ponder your signature.



posted on Dec, 21 2012 @ 09:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by tmeister182
Julie you could be the poster girl for all thats wrong with our country. The Constitution is a document to protect the citizens from a rampaging government like the one we have now. People just like you have allowed the criminals to eviscerate the Constitution and remove the protections the founding fathers knew we would need. We now find ourselves on the brink of losing our freedom completely to an illegal alien socialist/communist puppet and you still prattle on about giving up more rights. If you don't like the country as built GTFO.




It's time to update the documents we live our lives by to the 21st Century.

The Founding Fathers didn't know WHAT THE HECK we would need. Stop atributing magical crystal ball abilities to them. They were regular men.

It's time for the country to progress and stop attempting to be stuck in a 1837 time bubble.



posted on Dec, 21 2012 @ 09:20 AM
link   
reply to post by Wongbeedman
 



we granted you it after you saw the error of our ways

Ha Ha! Good one.
There were no shots fired?
We just said, 'Oh, BTW, you limeys are all wrong, so give us our independence now.' Is that how it was???

Cornwallis might have wanted everyone back home in steak and kidney pie-land to think that was the case, but



The Siege of Yorktown, Battle of Yorktown, or Surrender of Yorktown, the latter taking place on October 19, 1781, was a decisive victory by a combined force of American Continental Army troops led by General George Washington and French Army troops led by the Comte de Rochambeau over a British Army commanded by Lieutenant General Lord Cornwallis. The culmination of the Yorktown campaign, it proved to be the last major land battle of the American Revolutionary War in North America, as the surrender by Cornwallis of his army prompted the British government to negotiate an end to the conflict.



Cornwallis acted like the petulant little girl that he was and didn't show up to surrender his own sword. He said he was ill, had someone else do it for him.


After two days of negotiation, the surrender ceremony took place on the 19th; Lord Cornwallis, claiming to be ill, was absent from the ceremony. With the capture of over 7,000 British soldiers, negotiations between the United States and Great Britain began, resulting in the Treaty of Paris in 1783.

Siege of Yorktown


Yeah, it was a war, you lost. Get over it and ply your revisionist history somewhere on that side of the pond.



posted on Dec, 21 2012 @ 09:21 AM
link   
reply to post by DZAG Wright
 


so what we're supposed to give them the inch they need to walk all over us?



posted on Dec, 21 2012 @ 09:28 AM
link   
zedVSzardoz:

Yeah, that really was a "dafudge did I just read" moment...


Love it!
If I'd been on the end of that, I would still think it's funny. You Americans have some rather good displays of humour about your aphorisms. Now where's that Kozmo? Ah, there you my good fellow...c'mere!

Kozmo:

Well, those Afghanis, with their little "pacifiers" have managed to defeat one of the greatest armies on the planet, the Russians, and have managed to use those little "pacifiers" to hold the world's greatest military, the US, at bay for over a decade.


The Afghanis' level of survival is something most Americans dread. Living in caves, constantly nomadic, eating stuff that would make most westerners puke, and willing to suicide themselves against a more agressive and well-armed enemy. Surely, you do not believe that the great American public are willing to suffer the same hardships that Afghans do, just so that they can keep their guns? Most of you can't go through a full day without showering 3 or 4 times!

How are you going to entertain the kids without electricity for their computer games in a house that has just been flattened by a tank, or a rocket, or having been riddled with more holes than a string vest?

Seriously, do you people think of the gravity of what resistance would actually entail? Are you really aware of the consequences that would befall you all if armed rebellion ever broke out?

Rationality, Kozmo, the spectacles of reality...take your inner eyes to the opticians.

edit on 21/12/12 by elysiumfire because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 21 2012 @ 09:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by elysiumfire
kozmo:

Ok, alright... you succeeded in seeding the forum with a non-sequitur! But in doing so, you have also made everyone dumber for having read it!


It is a non sequitur to think that one can make what is already dumb, dumber! Thanks for proving the point!


I'm not sure how having a weapon for personal protection is akin to the wild west, but apparently to very small minds it is.


MajorKarma posted a video in his last post, if you haven't viewed it, please do, as it gives a good argument for the individual's right to self-protection by bearing arms. Now, not to diminish anything of what the lady and her family suffered, which was appalling and horrific, she states that if she'd been able to carry her gun in her purse, she would have taken it out and would've shot the guy, and not without reasonable justification. The scenario it envinces if she'd had her gun on her person, would have been wild west like...bad guy comes into town and begins shooting the place up, townsfolk respond returning gunfire. Definately analoguous to the Wild West to me! Has your larger mind than mine perceived the similitude? The disadvantage to having an over-sized mind is that most of its real estate is taken up by the vacancy of unusable empty space. Thanks for proving the point!


Your association is dumbest thing I have ever read.


Nope, I think you take the prize with that sentence. Thanks for proving the point! Peace.


First, ask Santa for a dictionary - then look up "Non sequitur". Next, I've read hundreds of accounts of armed citizens using their legally owned firearms to stop and/or prevent crimes. In fact, the recent Oregon shooting comes to mind. None of those events evokes any similarity to showdowns at the OK corral. But you can keep pretending if you want.
So, no my "larger mind" does not perceive any similarities.

The only point that has been proven is that my initial post to you was accurate. Thanks for playing - it's been fun!



posted on Dec, 21 2012 @ 09:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by rockoperawriter
reply to post by DZAG Wright
 


so what we're supposed to give them the inch they need to walk all over us?

If the legislators actually gave a poop about people dying, they would pass a law that we all wear flotation devices 24 hours a day.
It would take 300 years at current rates of mass shootings to amount to the number of people killed by unintentional drownings in ONE YEAR.

Again:
An assault weapons ban would not have prevented the VT shootings.... or the Ft. Hood shootings.
edit on 21-12-2012 by butcherguy because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 21 2012 @ 09:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by elysiumfire
zedVSzardoz:

Yeah, that really was a "dafudge did I just read" moment...


Love it!
If I'd been on the end of that, I would still think it's funny. You Americans have some rather good displays of humour about your aphorisms. Now where's that Kozmo? Ah, there you my good fellow...c'mere!

Kozmo:

Well, those Afghanis, with their little "pacifiers" have managed to defeat one of the greatest armies on the planet, the Russians, and have managed to use those little "pacifiers" to hold the world's greatest military, the US, at bay for over a decade.


The Afghanis' level of survival is something most Americans dread. Living in caves, constantly nomadic, eating stuff that would make most westerners puke, and willing to suicide themselves against a more agressive and well-armed enemy. Surely, you do not believe that the great American public are willing to suffer the same hardships that Afghans do, just so that they can keep their guns? Most of you can't go through a full day without showering 3 or 4 times!

How are you going to entertain the kids without electricity for their computer games in a house that has just been flattened by a tank, or a rocket, or having been riddled with more holes than a string vest?

Seriously, do you people think of the gravity of what resistance would actually entail? Are you really aware of the consequences that would befall you all if armed rebellion ever broke out?

Rationality, Kozmo, the spectacles of reality...take your inner eyes to the opticians.

edit on 21/12/12 by elysiumfire because: (no reason given)


Awesome - ANOTHER non-sequitur. So, living in caves and eating crap are what make the Afghanis fend off these invading armies. Got it! I thought for a second that it might have something to do with being armed.

And thanks for adding in a few hasty generalizations as well. Very nice seasoning indeed!



posted on Dec, 21 2012 @ 09:59 AM
link   
kozmo:

First, ask Santa for a dictionary - then look up "Non sequitur".


Wow! A sense of humour. You funny!
I don't need a dictionary, young fella', I learned latin at school (that's how bloody old I am!
). Assuming to oneself a greater knowledge than one's unseen debater, really is the mark of a petulant, narcissistic youth...it does not follow that his claim is true! What else can I maul you with?


So, no my "larger mind" does not perceive any similarities.


Yep, that figures. On account of the largesse of 'empty' space within, no doubt? It has often been stated that we use only 10% of our brain, it is in fact quite the myth, but in your case, I'm prepared to go out on a limb and declare it true! Peace.



posted on Dec, 21 2012 @ 10:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by elysiumfire
zedVSzardoz:

Yeah, that really was a "dafudge did I just read" moment...


Love it!
If I'd been on the end of that, I would still think it's funny. You Americans have some rather good displays of humour about your aphorisms. Now where's that Kozmo? Ah, there you my good fellow...c'mere!

Kozmo:

Well, those Afghanis, with their little "pacifiers" have managed to defeat one of the greatest armies on the planet, the Russians, and have managed to use those little "pacifiers" to hold the world's greatest military, the US, at bay for over a decade.


The Afghanis' level of survival is something most Americans dread. Living in caves, constantly nomadic, eating stuff that would make most westerners puke, and willing to suicide themselves against a more agressive and well-armed enemy. Surely, you do not believe that the great American public are willing to suffer the same hardships that Afghans do, just so that they can keep their guns? Most of you can't go through a full day without showering 3 or 4 times!

How are you going to entertain the kids without electricity for their computer games in a house that has just been flattened by a tank, or a rocket, or having been riddled with more holes than a string vest?

Seriously, do you people think of the gravity of what resistance would actually entail? Are you really aware of the consequences that would befall you all if armed rebellion ever broke out?

Rationality, Kozmo, the spectacles of reality...take your inner eyes to the opticians.

edit on 21/12/12 by elysiumfire because: (no reason given)


What you don't realize is that, after a decade of war in two theaters, there are thousands of vets who could do exactly that.



posted on Dec, 21 2012 @ 10:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by rockoperawriter
reply to post by DZAG Wright
 


so what we're supposed to give them the inch they need to walk all over us?




Point is we don't have to give that inch...

If they wanted too, and it came to it...there isn't anything we can do about it.

ANY armed rebellion will be squashed with minimum casualties (if any) for our military. If they decide to take the gloves off, which I suppose they would if we had a real uprising here. To top it off, they wouldn't have to resort to plan C and bring in troops we're not supposed to know about.

Only thing they'd have to do is inform our troops, our family members that we are a threat to national security and are terrorists. As a veteran I can tell you that your neighbors and kin in the military will fire on you with out hesitance!



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join