Why do Americans need guns? Rip UP the Second Amendment, problem solved.

reply to post by xavi1000


Prex is right...you never said you werent from here and to top it off you listed your location as a place inside the continental united states (area 51...i know you cant actually be there but why would you put that)

And what ive learned from this thread is that for some reason europeans have nothing better to do than to try and make everyone like them...Why do you care? Obviously, you think your ways are better than ours and we should be like you.

The vast majority of americans dont want to be like europe. I think we have seen that in our most profound mistake in the 20th century with voting away our system of checks and balances in '08. We had a 1 party system for the most part for 2 years...we foolishly had a taste of euro communism and we spit it back out as soon as we were able.

What does europe have to offer with their systems? A money system that can crash based on 1 of the countries' decisions? Healthcare thats subpar even though its free? Increased violent crime rate with edged weapons and blunt objects (you must be more of a monster to kill a man that close and that slow)? Complete dependence on goverment agencies?

Well guys, just logged on to ATS to find i have 6 or 7 more respected foes, that’s a personal record!

Few comments going along the lines of “you’re not American why do you care”. True I am not American and I don’t really care that much this thread is just my opinion if you don’t like it that’s your problem not mine.

I noticed another poster asking about the Queen, the Queen is not a “Right” so that point didn’t really make any sense. I will say this however, I don’t really like the existence of the monarchy however they bring us in so much money in tourism i wouldn’t vote to get rid of them, value for money.

I noticed that one user complemented me for starting a decent debate. Thank you that is what I set out to do however some users confuse this with what they call “trolling”.

The biggest problem i have with everyone having the right to own almost any gun they want is really simple. Other countries have total gun bans or tight gun regulation, yet they don’t have any bigger problem with crime than America does. If it is the case that guns are now so widespread that to take the guns off people now would be so problematic that it couldn’t get done then why didn’t America rip up the second amendment long before now. That would have solved the problem and we wouldn’t even be having this debate just now and in 20 years time when kids are still being killed in their class rooms I will be making the same point.

reply to post by BingeBob


Lol ,this is not a battle with Europe and America
And i can name my location whatever i want , and i do stated previosly that i'm not american .
Get out of the ditch and debate

reply to post by kevinunknown



I heard that Saddam Husseins favorite movies were american gangster movies so i know they can be available to you...

After WW1 alot of military weapons were sold by our govt as surplus...Full auto rifles were cheap and plentiful. You wouldve had to "rip up" amendment 2 of the US Constitution about 100 years ago to have any effect at all.

Again, you have absolutely no idea what youre talking about.

reply to post by kevinunknown


The Tyranny of Europe back in the day is what brought which is why our forefathers wrote the 2nd amendment and armed every american citizen. And due to the potential threat of future aggression and tyrany this amendment shall stand. And now you know.

Originally posted by kevinunknown
Gun Laws are out of date, rip up the second amendment and join the 21st century .

Really? Sounds like a europe vs US kinda thread from the get-go...

And to add to the quote...The 21st century is a time where weapons are needed more than ever. Since there are fanatics around us that are either drugged up or religious or both that cannot and will not listen to reason, we need to have alternatives for protection to fall back on.

reply to post by kevinunknown


re quote:
the erupean tyranny back in the day is why our fore fathers created the second amendment thus armimg every american citizen and due to future threats of agression and tyranny against our people and homeland the amendment will forever stand

reply to post by projectvxn


Absolutely "Right on, baby"!!!!!!!!!!!! The "ape" makes a habit of exposing his ignorance as is expected of him/her, what ever. This is a ploy to generate conversation on the part of the ape. The words "Cat Scan", "MRI", or even "psychotherapy" should be conclusive proof that the ape, and those who agree with the ape, need procedures of this nature performed on them ASAP. IE; They are definitely "a couple of cans shy of a six pack", "a half bubble out of plumb" or worse.

Scoutsniper

reply to post by prexparte


Prexy...You gotta check out that "EDIT POST" button on your posts youd like to change or add to...

On topic...Youre right, the 2nd amendment to to ensure we would NEVER become europe

reply to post by BingeBob


this guy has started many a thread...me thinks he is a trol....stir up crap and watch the chaos.I think its called narcissistic personality dissorder

adding to my quote, there will always be a people wanting to take away our rights and make us like them we wont allow that as a free people. why you ask, because we LOVE our country our freedom and our brothers and sisters

Im kinda feelin good today. musta been that good nights sleep

reply to post by kevinunknown

but surly if it were the case that gun’s were outlawed or heavily regulated it would lead to a overall reduction in the number of firearms owned and therefore the odds of someone pulling a gun on you would be greatly reduced therefore you wouldn’t have to own a fire arm and the odds would fall further

Right! I'm sure that if we outlawed guns, criminals would obey the law, and not buy guns. Get real!
As many have said, if guns are outlawed, only outlaws would have guns.

Why stop there? Why not rip up the ENTIRE Bill of rights?

I'm sure you would also like us to cancel the Declaration of Independence, and become part of the British Empire again.

Furthermore, with the way our government is becoming more and more authoritarian, guns are the only way to hold off a complete dictatorship. I hope that never happens, but the only thing keeping these criminal politicians from destroying all of our rights, is the threat that Americans would fight back, with bullets, if necessary. I don't advocate making the first move, but I have no problem defending my family from complete totalitarianism.

reply to post by ProfEmeritus


Well said and a great post!

No one I know of wants this Nation to go into a civil war................except TPTB (NWO).

Scoutsniper

reply to post by kevinunknown


You are not all there chap....you have strayed "almost any gun you want to own" almost any ? You slipped ...almost any....I think your opinion was at the start just "GUNS" to mean all of them.....now its almost any gun. And also you on this page have given your concession/ victory speach,writely patting your self on the back.Heck you even pat 5 other FOES on the back as well.Meaningfull advisaries I guess in your game of cyberlife. Awe you're a Trol and a Narcissist. You get your kicks starting thousands of threads just like this one because you have nothing better to do with your time. Crap sickles, I will have a cup of tea in my own honor now.Have a rotten day

Originally posted by kevinunknown
The biggest problem i have with everyone having the right to own almost any gun they want is really simple. Other countries have total gun bans or tight gun regulation, yet they don’t have any bigger problem with crime than America does.

What was that you were saying? Something completely fabricated not based in fact? Harvard did a study on the subject and concluded exactly the opposite of what you're attempting to put forth as fact here.

militantlibertarian.blogspot.com...

The study, which just appeared in Volume 30, Number 2 of the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy (pp. 649-694), set out to answer the question in its title: "Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide? A Review of International and Some Domestic Evidence." Contrary to conventional wisdom, and the sniffs of our more sophisticated and generally anti-gun counterparts across the pond, the answer is "no." And not just no, as in there is no correlation between gun ownership and violent crime, but an emphatic no, showing a negative correlation: as gun ownership increases, murder and suicide decreases.

The findings of two criminologists - Prof. Don Kates and Prof. Gary Mauser - in their exhaustive study of American and European gun laws and violence rates, are telling:

Nations with stringent anti-gun laws generally have substantially higher murder rates than those that do not. The study found that the nine European nations with the lowest rates of gun ownership (5,000 or fewer guns per 100,000 population) have a combined murder rate three times higher than that of the nine nations with the highest rates of gun ownership (at least 15,000 guns per 100,000 population).

For example, Norway has the highest rate of gun ownership in Western Europe, yet possesses the lowest murder rate. In contrast, Holland's murder rate is nearly the worst, despite having the lowest gun ownership rate in Western Europe. Sweden and Denmark are two more examples of nations with high murder rates but few guns. As the study's authors write in the report:

If the mantra "more guns equal more death and fewer guns equal less death" were true, broad cross-national comparisons should show that nations with higher gun ownership per capita consistently have more death. Nations with higher gun ownership rates, however, do not have higher murder or suicide rates than those with lower gun ownership. Indeed many high gun ownership nations have much lower murder rates. (p. 661)
Finally, and as if to prove the bumper sticker correct - that "gun don't kill people, people do" - the study also shows that Russia's murder rate is four times higher than the U.S. and more than 20 times higher than Norway. This, in a country that practically eradicated private gun ownership over the course of decades of totalitarian rule and police state methods of suppression. Needless to say, very few Russian murders involve guns.

The important thing to keep in mind is not the rate of deaths by gun - a statistic that anti-gun advocates are quick to recite - but the overall murder rate, regardless of means. The criminologists explain:

Per capita murder overall is only half as frequent in the United States as in several other nations where gun murder is rarer, but murder by strangling, stabbing, or beating is much more frequent. (p. 663 - emphases in original)
It is important to note here that Profs. Kates and Mauser are not pro-gun zealots. In fact, they go out of their way to stress that their study neither proves that gun control causes higher murder rates nor that increased gun ownership necessarily leads to lower murder rates. (Though, in my view, Prof. John Lott's More Guns, Less Crime does indeed prove the latter.) But what is clear, and what they do say, is that gun control is ineffectual at preventing murder, and apparently counterproductive.

Not only is the D.C. gun ban ill-conceived on constitutional grounds, it fails to live up to its purpose. If the astronomical murder rate in the nation's capitol, in comparison to cities where gun ownership is permitted, didn't already make that fact clear, this study out of Harvard should.

I just figured you out, you are the little boy next door who is jealous of my grandsons toys because you cannot have them too well wahhh!!! You are the weak ones who allowed them to rake away you'r rights don't be mad because we have the strength to prevent our government from doing the same to us

reply to post by djzombie


what I find completely ironic here is we have a european attempting to disarm america, or shall I say, debate the fact we he americans tshould be disarmed. A man who willingly allows a tyrannous government to suck his rights away.

reply to post by prexparte


I am all for the second amnt. and practice it. I am not sure the last part of your sentence is possible without a soldier mutany of sorts

Assaults with handguns may decline if they are banned, however, I feel just as threatened by a person wielding a knife or a baseball bat. "Oh he only has a knife, I don't have to worry". ? Also, if my wife were threatened at knife point, I would assuredly prefer that she have a gun to defend herself with. Might I add that both of us can legally carry concealed weapons and regularly practice at the firing range. while this doesn't guarantee total safety with a firearm, it does decrease the chance of someone being hurt in a crossfire should it occur.
I agree with you that no one needs to be carrying an AK-47 around, only one reason for that. Maximum killing at long range. If any weapon should be regulated, it should be the long automatics. Thats just my opinion.