Will, We the People Succumb To The Assault Of Our Second Amendment Right?

page: 3
11
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 23 2012 @ 06:01 PM
link   
Why am I not afforded the opportunity to flag this thread? There is no option to flag! What gives?
edit on 23-12-2012 by ajay59 because: to amend


It would appear as though someone would not like to see this thread go anywhere! I guess I had better scrutinize this subject a bit more closely.
edit on 23-12-2012 by ajay59 because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 23 2012 @ 07:31 PM
link   
Sorry Hounddog, looks like your thread’s had some new life breathed into it so I guess I’m back
 



reply to post by ajay59


It is my considered opinion that the moment our government disarms us your government will have nothing to fear in descending on you. This is why you see people of other nations (including your own), begging america not to give up our guns! Once we free ourselves from tyranny, we will then be able to free the rest of the world. The whole world watches this with great interest for a reason!


The Australian government hardly has the capabilities to turn on a light switch let alone its own citizens. There ain’t no FEMA camps or indefinite detention here. You see our government is only slightly less inept than yours, minus the teeth.


Originally posted by ajay59
I pose a question to all you anti-gun people. If and when confronted by an armed criminal, (and they will always have the ability to be armed as they do not follow the law) whom has the better chance at survival, me with my weapon, or you with your Lamborfeeties?


Me without my weapon….

Why may you ask. Because if someone is going to commit a robbery they will already have gun to hand and know well ahead of you what is about to go down. When they confront you the gun will be pulled out and aimed straight at your head. What do you think they’d do if you start fumbling around for your gun or pull out anything but a wallet? BOOM!!! You’re dead. This is why police always advise people to simply comply with the robbers demands and not to try to be a hero or do anything stupid. You are far more likely to die if you do try to be a hero than if you were simply to comply. And you are far more likely to be tempted to try and be a hero if you have a gun somewhere on your person.



edit on 23/12/2012 by 1littlewolf because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 23 2012 @ 07:38 PM
link   
Very nice attempt at side-stepping my question. I am afraid that you have still earned yourself an F. Not only for your lame attempt to steer away from the context but failure to follow instruction as well.



posted on Dec, 23 2012 @ 07:46 PM
link   
reply to post by ajay59
 


I don't see how I side stepped anything. If someone has a gun pointed at my head I will pissing my pants in fear gun or not. If I did have a gun I would not be pulling it out anyway cos more likely than not I will be shot. I will be handing over my wallet because i will gladly give the guy the few dollars that in there if the chance of coming out of the situation alive is increased.

Someone is far more likely to be shot if there are two guns involved than just one.



posted on Dec, 23 2012 @ 07:50 PM
link   
I'll say it again. Guns don't kill people, people kill people. Deranged people with assault style weapons kill dozens of people efficiently. Can't we make it harder for them to do so, without giving up our rights? I think we can.



posted on Dec, 23 2012 @ 08:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


Oh Wrabbit, the truth always appears ugly to those who don’t want to hear it. As for unprovoked, read your 2nd post man. It’s childish at best and downright selfish at worst when you consider the wider implications of your stance and your unwillingness to listen to anyone with a different point of view.

Where in my response to you did I post any stats or facts that need to be referenced? If you’re talking about the ‘wager’ sentence at the end of my post clearly that is an opinion and I have not tried to pass it off as anything else.

But in my never ending quest to end stupidity throughout the world, and knowing you’ll sit there smugly thinking ‘what a cop out’ if I do not respond with something; I’ve done a little research…

en.wikipedia.org...

I’ve gone back 30ish years (1980 to be precise) and added up the amount of deaths for all events termed ‘massacres’

In that time the USA has seen 268 people died in what has been termed a massacre. The combined total of your 4 countries (Norway, Germany, France, UK) come to 160. So I guess my opinion was right after all. Now if you take away massacres which were committed through IRA activities in England and Northern Ireland that figure drops down to 102. Quite telling really…

If you want to take it further I also added up the total number of massacre victims of all 1st World Countries excluding the United States and it still came out less than the States at 212.





edit on 23/12/2012 by 1littlewolf because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 23 2012 @ 08:54 PM
link   
reply to post by 1littlewolf
 





But in my never ending quest to end stupidity throughout the world,


So those who believe that force is better deterred by force are stupid? What about the person confronted by an armed man with no moral value and totally devoid of remorse, who pleads for their life and is brutally murdered for their car or for money to buy drugs? I say to you thinking you can plea to a monster and change him with a tear is stupidity at it;s utmost!



posted on Dec, 23 2012 @ 09:12 PM
link   
reply to post by RedmoonMWC
 


Cheers for your considered response, and I do understand where your coming from. It is still my point of view that living in a society saturated with guns makes it far worse than far better but i respect your point of view.

As far as I can see gun ownership in the States has been normalised to such an extent people have been blinded to the damage it is and continues to cause the social fabric of society. This in turn breeds a fear which causes more and more guns to be bought and only exacerbates the problem.



posted on Dec, 23 2012 @ 09:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by ajay59
reply to post by 1littlewolf
 




But in my never ending quest to end stupidity throughout the world,


So those who believe that force is better deterred by force are stupid?


Ever heard of the saying you can't fight fire with fire...?


What about the person confronted by an armed man with no moral value and totally devoid of remorse, who pleads for their life and is brutally murdered for their car or for money to buy drugs? I say to you thinking you can plea to a monster and change him with a tear is stupidity at it;s utmost!



Here you again assume that you would even have time to pull your gun out before being shot.

You can come up with a million 'one off' situations where surficially it may seem better to have a gun than not, but this has little bearing on the fact that if you live in a society where there are 88 guns per 100 people more people will get shot overall, more massacres will occur in schools and society as a whole become more fearful and violent.

Gun ownership per country


Making guns illegal = less guns overall = less chance that guns will be used to commit a crime.

What part of this equation do you not understand?



So urce



posted on Dec, 23 2012 @ 09:45 PM
link   
reply to post by 1littlewolf
 


For the purpose of clarity, the idea is for the good people to have the bad people hopelessly out-gunned. If a criminal knows his chances of coming out alive, let alone his chance of coming out on top are slim to none should be a pretty good deterrent. There will always be the "out of their head" bad guys but I think the numbers would dwindle quite rapidly. The best scenario of coarse would be to have no weapons or even animosity towards our fellow man. However, getting the controllers to lay down their weapons , IMHO, is a pipe dream.



posted on Dec, 23 2012 @ 09:49 PM
link   
Second Amendment: An Individual and a Collective Right;
It is an Individual Decision with Collective Consequences.



posted on Dec, 23 2012 @ 10:20 PM
link   
The folks on here from the UK who just cannot stop worrying about American affairs all the time, must really live some really LAME LIVES over there.
WHAT A WASTED LIFE you all must have!!!
You just cant seem to stop minding our business over here in America ALL THE TIME!!
Very sad.

Are you UK folks really that BORED?? No life perhaps?? Or is it that you all are deep down inside VERY BITTER that you all lost YOUR RIGHTS by being so spineless??

Stats show that your gun bans FAILED you over there and that crime increased SIGNIFICANTLY since then. Law abiding folks there are defenseless. If someone over there beats up a home intruder too "harshly" they could go to JAIL for a long time just for defending his home and family!! Thats PATHETIC to say the least!! You all need to use your BITTER ENERGY to stand up for yourselves and try to get some FREEDOM and RIGHTS back over there, yes?

But instead you just display your LAME PATHETIC life by butting into American affairs constantly. Here is a HINT: Americans honestly couldnt care less about your input. We dont want your LIVES over here. We dont care what your opinions are as they are silly at best. And we think that your way of life is beyond PITIFUL. God save the queen, you say?
God would save my pet hamster before he saves that old pathetic bag!!!


So why waste your time?? Go find something BETTER to do involving your OWN country, and your OWN life, and your OWN affairs. Because God KNOWS you have your OWN PROBLEMS over there that you should be thinking about!!

To put it in terms you may understand better, you UK folks can PISS OFF!!!!!!


.
AMERICA DOESNT CARE WHAT YOU THINK,[color=skyblue] GET A LIFE!!!!!!!!!

.

edit on 23-12-2012 by oper8zhin because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 23 2012 @ 10:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by ajay59
reply to post by 1littlewolf
 


For the purpose of clarity, the idea is for the good people to have the bad people hopelessly out-gunned. If a criminal knows his chances of coming out alive, let alone his chance of coming out on top are slim to none should be a pretty good deterrent. There will always be the "out of their head" bad guys but I think the numbers would dwindle quite rapidly. The best scenario of coarse would be to have no weapons or even animosity towards our fellow man. However, getting the controllers to lay down their weapons , IMHO, is a pipe dream.



I get the idea but it quite clearly isn't working. The statistics posted above paint a fairly vivid picture. Good people will always turn bad and if your only safeguards are a criminal background checks then this means they firstly have to commit a crime AND then get caught. What if their first crime ever is to walk into a school and murder 20 children?

You also cannot guarantee that the 'good peoples' guns won't fall into the hands of 'bad people'.

And this does not even take into account the amount of accidental deaths guns cause each year


It noted that for every time a gun in the home was used in a self-defense or legally justifiable shooting, there were four accidental shootings,


This in itself should be reason enough to ban guns. In fact you should really check out the entire article where this quote has been taken from. Its very very intersting


54% of firearm-related deaths occurred in the home where the gun was kept
70.5% of these (firearm-related deaths in the home where the gun was kept) involved handguns
0.5% of these (firearm-related deaths in the home where the gun was kept) involved an intruder shot while attempting entry
1.8% of these (firearm-related deaths in the home where the gun was kept) were judged by police as self-defense
there were 1.3 times as many accidental firearm-related deaths in the home where the gun was kept as self-protection shootings
there were 4.6 times as many criminal firearm-related homicides in the home where the gun was kept as self-protection shootings
there were 37 times as many suicides in the home where the gun was kept as self-protection shootings.



Kellermann published a study comparing robberies, burglaries, assaults, and homicides in Seattle, Washington and Vancouver, British Columbia, a city "similar to Seattle in many ways" that had "adopted a more restrictive approach to the regulation of handguns." The study found that

both cities had similar rates of burglary and robbery
in Seattle, the total rate of assaults with any weapon was modestly higher than that in Vancouver
rates of homicide by means other than guns were not substantially different in the two study communities
the rate of assaults involving firearms was seven times higher in Seattle than in Vancouver
the rate of being murdered by a handgun was 4.8 times higher in Seattle than in Vancouver.
The study concluded that restricting access to handguns may reduce the rate of homicide in a community by reducing the lethality of assaults.


Source



posted on Dec, 23 2012 @ 10:43 PM
link   
reply to post by oper8zhin
 



You know what’s really pathetic? The fact you wasted 10 minutes of your life typing out a post directed at a country which isn’t even participating in this thread.

Ain’t no one from the UK posting here



edit on 23/12/2012 by 1littlewolf because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 23 2012 @ 10:46 PM
link   
As I have stated before, as long as there are those with the ability to do harm with guns, I will retain the ability to stop them with guns! Truly, if you are able to convince those in power to relinquish their weapons, you may have a chance of convincing the rest of America to lay down their weapons. Come back and let us know when this has been accomplished, (with undeniable proof), of coarse!



posted on Dec, 23 2012 @ 10:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by ajay59
As I have stated before, as long as there are those with the ability to do harm with guns, I will retain the ability to stop them with guns! Truly, if you are able to convince those in power to relinquish their weapons, you may have a chance of convincing the rest of America to lay down their weapons. Come back and let us know when this has been accomplished, (with undeniable proof), of coarse!


Here you make another assumption – the fact that I care enough to bother.



posted on Dec, 23 2012 @ 11:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by 1littlewolf

Originally posted by ajay59
As I have stated before, as long as there are those with the ability to do harm with guns, I will retain the ability to stop them with guns! Truly, if you are able to convince those in power to relinquish their weapons, you may have a chance of convincing the rest of America to lay down their weapons. Come back and let us know when this has been accomplished, (with undeniable proof), of coarse!


Here you make another assumption – the fact that I care enough to bother.


I am sorry if I have jumped to an erroneous conclusion. You are quite right in the fact that I did assume that your fervorous tenacity in following these gun ban/gun right threads with your belief for the banning of guns was heart-felt. After this last response, I must question the driving force behind your convictions.



posted on Dec, 23 2012 @ 11:13 PM
link   
reply to post by ajay59
 

It is not that one dimensional where less guns equals less crime. There are deterrents to the use of guns that must be factored in also. If citizens (good guys) are known to be disarmed then criminals (bad guys) will use their guns (even if a lesser supply of them) with greater frequency in the commission of crimes against persons. Think of it like we do the monetary system where we have the money supply and the velocity of money. Here we could have a smaller ''supply'' (total) of guns but a much greater ''veloctity'' (frequency) of crimes being committed with a gun.



posted on Dec, 23 2012 @ 11:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by ajay59
I am sorry if I have jumped to an erroneous conclusion. You are quite right in the fact that I did assume that your fervorous tenacity in following these gun ban/gun right threads with your belief for the banning of guns was heart-felt. After this last response, I must question the driving force behind your convictions.


Dude, I'm just a guy posting on ATS, not some sort of super peace crusader. I'm doing a 12 hour shift and since its Xmas Eve there's nothing to do.

Obviously I want to make the world a better place. But short of pointing out the massive gaps in logic that you and most other posters on this thread seem to share I'm not putting in overtime to try and save a bunch peeps who are quite happy living in a country with almost 20 times the rate of gun related violence when compared to the average of all other 1st World countries.

I have no doubt that within my lifetime I will see severe gun restictions placed on the States to bring you guys on par with the rest of the world. And no i do not believe this will have anything to do with some sort of sinister NWO plot. But it will be quite a few years yet and in that time millions more men women and children will die unecessarily. But it will happen; and I look forward to seeing how it all unfolds.



posted on Dec, 23 2012 @ 11:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by CosmicCitizen
If citizens (good guys) are known to be disarmed then criminals (bad guys) will use their guns (even if a lesser supply of them) with greater frequency in the commission of crimes against persons.


Why on Earth would criminals use guns more if their intended victims are perceived to be less dangerous?



edit on 23/12/2012 by 1littlewolf because: (no reason given)





top topics
 
11
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join