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.
Most beautiful document in the WORLD.
But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government.
Originally posted by ShatteredSkies
All GunControl laws do is make it easier for criminals to cause mayhem. If everybody in a bank had a gun and 3 armed robbers walked in and threatened to kill people for money, I garauntee you those 3 men are not walking out of there without atleast having been shot up.
Shattered OUT...
Originally posted by Lonestar24
And how many of the armed customers, and of the innocent bystanders would be hurt or dead? There´s a serious flaw in your argumentation:
The money the bank loses will always be repaid by insurance. You can´t have the same for lost lives....
Originally posted by Byrd
There's another serious flaw, and that comes from history: a well-armed public has never been able to withstand a takeover.
Everybody in Iraq has firearms and knows how to use them. Ditto Afghanistan and a host of other countries in that area (historically we can also name a thousand examples like the Phillippines.) Their armies are weak and technologically backward and they all fell to invaders.
Pre-invasion there was violence between the citizens. Post-invasion, well, civil wars like the one in Iraq are not uncommon. There's no gun control there now.
You see the scenario played out over and over again in history.
It's the military that need better technology and it's the scientists that need money and support for technological development. If you threw your energy and money into military and scientific research rather than in worrying about the 2nd Amendment, we'd all be a LOT safer.
Originally posted by Byrd
It's the military that need better technology and it's the scientists that need money and support for technological development. If you threw your energy and money into military and scientific research rather than in worrying about the 2nd Amendment, we'd all be a LOT safer.
Originally posted by Byrd
There's another serious flaw, and that comes from history: a well-armed public has never been able to withstand a takeover.
Everybody in Iraq has firearms and knows how to use them. Ditto Afghanistan and a host of other countries in that area (historically we can also name a thousand examples like the Phillippines.) Their armies are weak and technologically backward and they all fell to invaders.
Pre-invasion there was violence between the citizens. Post-invasion, well, civil wars like the one in Iraq are not uncommon. There's no gun control there now.
You see the scenario played out over and over again in history.
It's the military that need better technology and it's the scientists that need money and support for technological development. If you threw your energy and money into military and scientific research rather than in worrying about the 2nd Amendment, we'd all be a LOT safer.