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

To rip up the Second Amendment is to rip up our Constitution.

I much rather load up and then rip up he who would try to rip up our Constitution.

If you live here and don't like it - tough.

If you don't live here and don't like it - none of your business.

Stick that big schnoz into other concerns.

To try tearing this out would just get a man killed.

reply to post by kevinunknown


Actually what the worry is about is the weapons that are not registered. Forbiding guns seems like a good idea until you understand the truly massive amount of weapons that are not registered. I would hazard that the true amount is several times what is "on the books" . I have been told that a new system is going into place soon that will require ammo buyers to run id before purchase. This will prevent buying ammo for a gun that is not registered to you. However then you get caught up in the home reloading( which is also massive by the way) business. Americans ( of which I am one) have a history of loving their guns( for right or wrong there is debate...but it is the way I was raised). I respect your opinions on this but understand this is the way many here were raised. In larger cities to be sure gun ownership is lower. Out in the countryside it is totally different. You can see that I dont have a def answer to you question( there really is none). Just that being unarmed in this country makes many feel ...uneasy is the best word. Read into that what you will.

Originally posted by BingeBob
reply to post by Vicky32

 

Perhaps you should check the definition of racism...

The post youre referring to is emotionally charged, sure but based on statistics and facts...

Look at the continent of africa and their rape stats...HUGE and thats just whats reported probably alot more raping goes on in the middle of the wars that are on going there.

And if someone says they hate muslims they are not RACIST they are an anti-semite.

OK, I take your point about anti-semite, but even so, no, he was being racist, and in a particularly vile and abusive manner.
Or would you prefer it if I call him bigoted? Either way, he ought to be ashamed.
Vicky

Originally posted by JR MacBeth

Originally posted by BingeBob
reply to post by JR MacBeth

 

I probably wouldnt have even posted that if Vicky had something to add to the conversation besides calling someone a dirty name that has lost its meaning...

The point is that the world has become SO politically correct that it is having a reverse effect...

Case in point:

Nigerian -What you call someone from Nigeria (proper)
nigerian -Also what you call someone from Nigeria except not capitalized (nigeria)

Where it says "n word" i actually typed "Nigerian" with lowercase "n"

Officially taking a non offensive word and making it offensive all in the name of political correctness.

Class dismissed

edit on 18-12-2010 by BingeBob because: (no reason given)

That's interesting BingeBob, I think you make a good point about political correctness having the reverse effect.

But I also think that those who are marching to the political correct lock-step, will also be the most likely to miss, or rather , dismiss your point. These are the folks who don't think you even have a right to say what you just said, in spite of it's respectfulness.

And I also wonder how many of these same folks even realize that they are doing most of the "insulting", seldom really adding anything to a conversation, other than, "gotcha!". They imagine that they are the offended party, and yet somehow manage to actually do the most offending.

Well, this is ATS after all. I think we should all strive to have more "tolerance" than we think is "appropriate", and only after that, if something still manages to get under our skin, then maybe mention it, but don't go bananas, ya know. Thick skin not necessarily "required" for a good debate, but highly recommended. Otherwise, it becomes more about people's "feelings", and the issues can get lost.

JR

To clarify, JR, it was your remark about apes and jungles, and Africans having raping wives and goats that got up my - er - goat!
(Australian cultural reference you probably won't get, but what the heck!)
I am not "politically correct", absolutely not. (( won't go into detail as to why and in what way, I don't like fighting.)
I am, pretty obviously, with the OP. It makes me ill to see what happens when everyone has a gun or a heap of them, and I am extremely glad that my country (New Zealand) has pretty strict gun control laws, and our police are not armed - though I fear that's going to change soon, as we have a far-right government which loves all things American, in power now.
I say that even though my father who had fought in WW2 (English, not American or NZ!) kept an arsenal in our house and taught his daughters to shoot, because he was afraid NZ would be invaded in his lifetime. He died young, and in the 36 years since then, NZ has not been invaded, and I can't see that it ever will be. The gun lessons he gave us were completely wasted!
I am thankful that our murder rate is very low, and our firearm murder rate is even lower (though it's been artificially inflated over the years by a couple of psychos who ran amok with guns in the 1990s.)
Two mass murderers in 20 years.
As far as I have been able to observe, the propensity to rape or commit crime has nothing to do with race. It has however, a lot to do with sex!
I don't fear Africans, Muslims, Maori or Islanders when I am out late at night. I fear men!
Vicky

I agree with others that you have essentially answered your own questions. Farmers and really anyone who lives in rural areas need them to protect livestock, pets, children etc from coyotes, wolves, bears and many other kinds of predators. Hunters need them for food, animal skins for warmth and to get rid of pests. Regarding these first two, believe it or not many of us Americans do still live outside of cities and do still live off the land to some degree. Self defense is another valid reason you mention. Part of the American ethos is self reliance. With regards to this topic that means an understanding that we are each responsible for our own protection. It's great to believe that police or other authorities will be around to help us but the reality is, police are rarely in a position to stop a crime in progress. Their job is to investigate a crime once it's happened and bring those responsible to justice. By extension it's up to the average citizen to protect himself if he finds himself the victim of crime. For me that means if someone threatens me or my loved ones, I'm armed and trained to deal with that threat. It's not that I don't trust authorities to be there, it's simply that they don't have the ability to be there when it happens and it does me little good to know once the damage is done they'll be there to catch (or not) the people who are responsible.

To put it another way, ownership of firearms is ingrained in American psychology. It's a matter of self reliance. Take away our firearms and we must rely on someone else to get our food, to protect our land to defend against predators. In terms of self defense we believe we have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Part of having the right to life, and part of believing that the right to life cannot be infringed because it's not given by men but by a creator is the idea that we have the right to defend that life. If you tell me I cannot own a gun, you are telling me I must rely on someone else to protect me and that's simply not going to fly. Take even an extreme example of a foreign invader. If there was an attack on my town, and I had no firearms I would have no choice but to comply and wait for the military, which would take time, to respond. You take away my ability to defend what's mine by forcing me to be reliant on the military for protection. Ownership of firearms and self reliance have, throughout American history, gone hand in hand and that's still the case today.

An extension of this addresses your "rip up the second ammendment" comment. In short it doesn't matter. Americans believe our rights are inherent to being human. Everyone the world over has these rights. Our constitution doesn't give us the right to speak freely or to carry firearms it only enumerates these rights to make sure they're protected, but it does not "grant" these rights. These rights are a fact of existence. If our constitution was what gave us these rights, they could be taken away. The reason it's stated that these rights are given by our creator is that no man can take them away. Take away the document that enumerates our rights, and those rights remain.

as soon as the 2nd amendment falls, america and the world is doomed to tyranny.

reply to post by psylence1


Really there are some areas where people have pushed the sub-urbs back into BLM land and there are problems with bears and cougars...do you have any idea how many .223 rounds it takes to lay out a black bear (not my mistake) but a ricky-ranger learned to hard way.... I used to be contracted to HomeDepot to install doors and windows...I went to a house to replace all their doors...kickins...they were robbed within a 30 minute window when he leaves for work and she returns home....The house was in the sticks about 20 minutes drive...LE response would be 25-30 minutes....you are on your own and if unarmed forget about it...really any time any where,it goes down in seconds....be prepaired or be over powered...bad guys dont care about laws requirements to register or the lives they take or mistreat.....it takes equal or more force to stop a bad guy.....I pray I never ever have to act against a tyrant government.In this country they have the best of the best toys...sounds like Mexico is one less toy I am talking about

And now some direct responses:
"It’s a hard one to argue against, 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."

It's logically naive to believe that gun laws would affect a criminals use of guns. You would have to, for some reason, believe that criminals would comply with gun laws. I would direct you to sources that show statistically that crime rates drop when gun control laws are relaxed but lets be honest, statistics lie. You made the statement so the burden of proof is on you. Prove to me that gun control is in any way related to lower crime. You might want to look at the decrease in violent crime following Florida's passage of concealed carry legislation or the increase in violent crime following Australia's gun ban and tell me how either of those happened if more guns = more crime.

"Also the ability to carry arms has been severely restricted by the Gun-Free School zones act of 1990 signed by Gorge H W Bush, which is ironic considering that 41% of republicans own a firearm compared to only 23% of democrats so kudos to Bush."

The Gun-Free School zones act only says I can't carry a gun in a school zone. I'm not sure I've ever been affected since I'm not ever in school zones. Not exactly what I'd call "severely" restrictive. Even so, not being able to carry in some limited situtations (I can't carry in a courthouse, at a sporting event, in a bar, etc) is a very poor excuse for not owning a gun at all. That would be like saying since I can't drive my car on the sidewalk why even own a car. And off topic - Bush was not a republican, he was a progressive on the republican ticket. This gets into the nuances of American politics but suffice it to say, this is not a party line issue, in fact the NRA often supports Democratic candidates because of their anti-gun-control positions.

"Very true, but you also have places called hospitals and mortuaries filled with the victims of the scum your keeping in prison"

Again, believing that gun control laws would decrease crime requires the belief that criminals would abide by gun control laws. More to the point though, this is more a comment on human nature than guns. There are f'ed up people who are going to do f'ed up things. The use of a gun is simply a choice of tool. Assume a perfect ban where magically all guns were gone. Criminals would use knives. Absent knives they'd use hammers, absent hammers, rocks, absent rocks, bare hands. The point is gun control laws, logically, would only disarm the law abiding (i.e. the victims). You'll have a hard time convincing me that disarming the victims of crime is somehow advantageous.

“ I need my guns to protect myself for when the government turn on its people."

You're right that this often takes a conspiratorial tone but one must understand the roots of the American people. This sentiment is simply a fact of our history and a healthy distrust of centralized power in government will always be a part of our culture. Our entire form of government (a Republic, NOT a democracy, btw) and our constitution is entirely based on a distrust of centralized government and that distrust remains after 200+ years. We believe, by design, that as government power expands, individual liberty declines and our entire society was built on the idea that we need a centralized federal government but must always be vigilant of its gaining too much control. As a culture, we will always believe it's up to each citizen to keep an eye on government. It's not that we all keep an eye out the window for the FEMA agents, it's that we understand what happens when governments get large enough that they stop governing by the consent of the people and we will not be in that position again. In terms of the founding of America, a central and pivotal responsibility of every citizen is to keep a vigilant eye on the government. As this relates to guns, historically the only thing that levels the playing field between the average citizen and an ever expanding government has been firearms. If all the checks and balances, voting rules, and constitutional restraints fail to keep the government from infringing on the liberties of its citizens, firearms are the last defense. It's not a matter of always thinking it's going to happen, it's a matter of knowing it HAS happened before (here in America and elsewhere throughout history) so it CAN happen again.

"rip up the second amendment and join the 21st century"
I addressed the rip up the second amendment part in my previous post. As far as "join the 21st century" I would say that a truly enlightened society is one that balances rights and responsibilities. Is it not wiser to limit those who are irresponsible rather then eliminate the right altogether? There will always be some number of people who abuse a right no matter what it is, so if a society continues down the path of "revoke what cannot be totally controlled" what kind of society do you end up with? Will any rights remain? To governments outside the United States, I would say get out of the 20th century and give your people liberty. Look to the histories of Russia, China, Italy, Cuba, Romania, Germany, etc if you'd like to see how positive increasingly restrictive governments are for their citizens.

reply to post by kevinunknown

Further to this there have been a number of high profile shootings in America were a gun man has committed multiple homicide or gang warfare has resulted in innocents being killed. Now with that in mind how can you possibly say that the right to bear arms is justified?

This stuff happens in the UK all the time!!! People get shot every week man, the worst thing is, the only people with guns are criminals. What about that Raol Moat (sp?), what about that another nutter who killed about 12 people not long ago?

Maybe if people had a right to bear arms someone might have stopped him sooner.

Seriously, think about it for a minute.

In fact, let me provide you with some links...
12 dead...

Raoul Moat

I live in Nottingham, here alone there are many shootings...

Murder in Notts

Another shooting in Notts

And another...

Aaaand another....

Need I go on? These are just the high profile ones from 2010, there are many gun crime incidents that you don't really here about. Gang related ones are often reported locally but don't make the national papers if no one was murdered.

Seriously, your whole OP is a complete contradiction to your point because gun crime is rife in the UK and as I said above, the only civilians with guns are criminals! Oh and the odd farmer...

reply to post by Vicky32

To clarify, JR, it was your remark about apes and jungles, and Africans having raping wives and goats that got up my - er - goat!
(Australian cultural reference you probably won't get, but what the heck!)
I am not "politically correct", absolutely not. (( won't go into detail as to why and in what way, I don't like fighting.)
I am, pretty obviously, with the OP. It makes me ill to see what happens when everyone has a gun or a heap of them, and I am extremely glad that my country (New Zealand) has pretty strict gun control laws, and our police are not armed - though I fear that's going to change soon, as we have a far-right government which loves all things American, in power now.
I say that even though my father who had fought in WW2 (English, not American or NZ!) kept an arsenal in our house and taught his daughters to shoot, because he was afraid NZ would be invaded in his lifetime. He died young, and in the 36 years since then, NZ has not been invaded, and I can't see that it ever will be. The gun lessons he gave us were completely wasted!
I am thankful that our murder rate is very low, and our firearm murder rate is even lower (though it's been artificially inflated over the years by a couple of psychos who ran amok with guns in the 1990s.)
Two mass murderers in 20 years.
As far as I have been able to observe, the propensity to rape or commit crime has nothing to do with race. It has however, a lot to do with sex!
I don't fear Africans, Muslims, Maori or Islanders when I am out late at night. I fear men!
Vicky

Thanks for the contribution Vicky, and not to worry, the mods took your complaint seriously, and they don't always do that, just ask the many Jews who are continually vilified, sometimes beyond belief. Ah, but that's another story.

I would "seriously" recommend looking for Skyfloating's thread about projection, and perception, it might help down the line. Also, it's not unheard of to attempt to pick up some "context" for a remark you may encounter. I shall not even ask what your personal context might be for fearing men.

As far as fearing men, that's an honest confession, nothing wrong with that. Perhaps when you get a chance you might read some pages back, some of my posts, and others, that might refer to the Great Equalizer. It's a nifty little device that, with proper training, might put your mind at ease.

Uh, well, not really. You live in a gun-control nation! Sorry, you, and your fellow NZ ladies are sadly out of luck.

As far as the demographics issue, you are completely ignorant it would seem, since you are apparently not even granting that it could be an important factor at all. But that doesn't mean you can't learn. No, it doesn't sound like you would even have the slightest interest in learning about African customs and some of their cultural norms (which obviously would not help your Aussie cultural references by the way), but again, you might just learn something.

Ah yes, and the infamous remark about "apes". Clearly terrible judgement on my part! Is it "racial"? Well, probably most racists would have to think so! But we're all a bit of that really, it's just the way it is. Of course, scientifically, the idea of "race" is losing it's meaning, but that doesn't change the fact that there are still "real" differences, but those differences are primarily CULTURAL. And that IS germane to this thread really, considering that so many from the Commonwealth have been citing their wonderful low-crime stats (as you do as well), when many can easily see that it can be a case of apples and oranges.

This may be an advanced concept, but I would encourage all Europeans who have so smugly posted in this thread about gun (control), whining about the terrible crime rates in the US, blaming it all on "too many guns", etc.

TAKE OUT A MAP. Which country shares a very long Southern border with the USA? Would that be Sweden perhaps? Or Switzerland? Which would it be? Obviously, it could help explain some of the massive differences in stats. I won't even go into the reality of populations concentrated in inner cities in the US. Or perhaps a knowledgeable European out there will compare Detroit with Dublin to make a point?

I'm not sure why context is often so despised, you would think that someone with a Scottish MacBeth avatar, posting in a thread with an APE avatar (gun hidden), who claims to be from Scotland, might be an indication that we are ALL "apes" on the inside, with an old joke about the Scots coming out of the trees later, current in the UK in days gone by. But you are proof that all that "subtlety" pales when someone already has connected ape and "race" so firmly. Sort of a shame. Obviously, subtle context notwithstanding, definitely not wonderful judgement on my part!

Some of us are not as "careful" as the current times would dictate, this is true. But for so many to literally be bragging about their ignorance on a site that has taken for it's motto, "Deny Ignorance", well, it's especially funny because ATS has embraced special forms of political correctness that undercut their own lofty aspirations. But that is our reality now, worldwide, and ATS still at least "tries" (I think) to keep it's head up, amidst these difficult times.

JR

reply to post by kevinunknown


First off - We don't have a 'Bill of Needs' we have a "Bill of Rights' - that means there is no justification required to exercise our rights, because they are rights.

Lesser countries, old world countries, had what was called a 'Coat of Arms' - that was a license given by the king that allowed someone to bear arms. Because peasants were not allowed to bear arms they were easily dominated by the pigs that called themselves the nobility. So essentially the right to bear arms is the right of the people to overthrow a tyrannical government. Peasants in countries other then the United States do not have or even understand this right because they have been peasants from the beginning of time.

Originally posted by azonche
reply to post by kevinunknown

 

Actually what the worry is about is the weapons that are not registered. Forbiding guns seems like a good idea until you understand the truly massive amount of weapons that are not registered. I would hazard that the true amount is several times what is "on the books" . I have been told that a new system is going into place soon that will require ammo buyers to run id before purchase. This will prevent buying ammo for a gun that is not registered to you. However then you get caught up in the home reloading( which is also massive by the way) business. Americans ( of which I am one) have a history of loving their guns( for right or wrong there is debate...but it is the way I was raised). I respect your opinions on this but understand this is the way many here were raised. In larger cities to be sure gun ownership is lower. Out in the countryside it is totally different. You can see that I dont have a def answer to you question( there really is none). Just that being unarmed in this country makes many feel ...uneasy is the best word. Read into that what you will.

Never bought a gun huh "bucko"?We don't have federal gun registration here (yet) the forms are filled out for purchase, the instant background check is done: I believe the federal 4473 forms stay with the dealers log(So far!)
( I could be wrong).

reply to post by Dantas


Excellent post! I laughed until I cried! PETA! Right On! Wish I had thought of it!

Scoutsniper

The op: "kevinunknown" is from Scotland. That should give us a clue as to the why regarding his post. I don't believe he quite understands enough of our American history to give an educated opinion. Things like the Castle Law, self-defense, feeding my family, etc., are only a few of the obvious reasons. How about dangerous "outlaws" (criminals), would be the only ones with guns, and I need to protect myself, and my family ? My humble opinion, and I think the ops post was uninformed and somewhat stupid.

Howdy there scoutsniper ! P. E. T. A. = People Enjoying Tasty Animals.
Just sayin'.

Originally posted by EssenSieMich
reply to post by kevinunknown

 

First off - We don't have a 'Bill of Needs' we have a "Bill of Rights' - that means there is no justification required to exercise our rights, because they are rights.

Lesser countries, old world countries, had what was called a 'Coat of Arms' - that was a license given by the king that allowed someone to bear arms. Because peasants were not allowed to bear arms they were easily dominated by the pigs that called themselves the nobility. So essentially the right to bear arms is the right of the people to overthrow a tyrannical government. Peasants in countries other then the United States do not have or even understand this right because they have been peasants from the beginning of time.

Clever twist of words :However; I assure you our Colonial American founders still smelling of black powder and nursing frost bitten appendages could give a rats-azz about European writs from some blue blood king to include in our newly birthed free country.:"The "right to bear arms" does no t mean the right to carry the authority of a "coat of arms"; nor severed limbs; nor the right to roll up your sleeves and "bare a persons left and right arms"

From the looks of this thread: its clear the biggest "need" for Americans to "bear arms" is to make European liberals feel superior.While they meekly subordinate their sovereignty and cultural heritage to the EU.
flame:

reply to post by kevinunknown


I just found this in my e-mail box I am sure you will find if apropriot for this occasion

AN ACTUAL CRAIG'S LIST PERSONALS AD
　
To the Guy Who Tried to Mug Me in Downtown Savannah night before last.
Date: 2009-05-27, 1:43 a.m. E.S.T.

I was the guy wearing the black Burberry jacket that you demanded that I hand over, shortly after you pulled the knife on me and my girlfriend, threatening our lives. You also asked for my girlfriend's purse and earrings. I can only hope that you somehow come across this rather important message.
First, I'd like to apologize for your embarrassment; I didn't expect you to actually crap in your pants when I drew my pistol after you took my jacket. The evening was not that cold, and I was wearing the jacket for a reason. My girlfriend had just bought me that Kimber Model 1911 .45 ACP pistol for my birthday, and we had picked up a shoulder holster for it that very evening. Obviously you agree that it is a very intimidating weapon when pointed at your head ... isn't it?!
I know it probably wasn't fun walking back to wherever you'd come from with that brown sludge in your pants. I'm sure it was even worse walking bare-footed since I made you leave your shoes, cell phone, and wallet with me. [That prevented you from calling or running to your buddies to come help mug us again].

After I called your mother or "Momma" as you had her listed in your cell, I explained the entire episode of what you'd done. Then I went and filled up my gas tank as well as those of four other people in the gas station, -- on your credit card.. The guy with the big motor home took 150 gallons and was extremely grateful!

I gave your shoes to a homeless guy outside Vinnie Van Go Go's, along with all the cash in your wallet. [That made his day!]
I then threw your wallet into the big pink "pimp mobile" that was parked at the curb ... after I broke the windshield and side window and keyed the entire driver's side of the car.
Later, I called a bunch of phone sex numb ers from your cell phone. Ma Bell just now shut down the line, although I only used the phone for a little over a day now, so what 's going on with that? Earlier, I managed to get in two threatening phone calls to the DA's office and one to the FBI, while mentioning President Obama as my possible target.
The FBI guy seemed really intense and we had a nice long chat (I guess while he traced your number etc.).
In a way, perhaps I should apologize for not killing you ... but I feel this type of retribution is a far more appropriate punishment for your threatened crime. I wish you well as you try to sort through some of these rather immediate pressing issues, and can only hope that you have the opportunity to reflect upon, and perhaps reconsider, the career path you've chosen to pursue in life. Remember, next time you might not be so lucky.Have a good day!
Thoughtfully yours,
Alex

P.S. Remember this motto ... An armed society makes for a more civil society!

you'all have a good night now ya'hear

Originally posted by JR MacBeth


Thanks for the contribution Vicky, and not to worry, the mods took your complaint seriously, and they don't always do that, just ask the many Jews who are continually vilified, sometimes beyond belief. Ah, but that's another story.

I would "seriously" recommend looking for Skyfloating's thread about projection, and perception, it might help down the line. Also, it's not unheard of to attempt to pick up some "context" for a remark you may encounter. I shall not even ask what your personal context might be for fearing men.

As far as fearing men, that's an honest confession, nothing wrong with that. Perhaps when you get a chance you might read some pages back, some of my posts, and others, that might refer to the Great Equalizer. It's a nifty little device that, with proper training, might put your mind at ease.

Uh, well, not really. You live in a gun-control nation! Sorry, you, and your fellow NZ ladies are sadly out of luck.

As far as the demographics issue, you are completely ignorant it would seem, since you are apparently not even granting that it could be an important factor at all. But that doesn't mean you can't learn. No, it doesn't sound like you would even have the slightest interest in learning about African customs and some of their cultural norms (which obviously would not help your Aussie cultural references by the way), but again, you might just learn something.

Ah yes, and the infamous remark about "apes". Clearly terrible judgement on my part! Is it "racial"? Well, probably most racists would have to think so! But we're all a bit of that really, it's just the way it is. Of course, scientifically, the idea of "race" is losing it's meaning, but that doesn't change the fact that there are still "real" differences, but those differences are primarily CULTURAL. And that IS germane to this thread really, considering that so many from the Commonwealth have been citing their wonderful low-crime stats (as you do as well), when many can easily see that it can be a case of apples and oranges.

This may be an advanced concept, but I would encourage all Europeans who have so smugly posted in this thread about gun (control), whining about the terrible crime rates in the US, blaming it all on "too many guns", etc.

TAKE OUT A MAP. Which country shares a very long Southern border with the USA? Would that be Sweden perhaps? Or Switzerland? Which would it be? Obviously, it could help explain some of the massive differences in stats. I won't even go into the reality of populations concentrated in inner cities in the US. Or perhaps a knowledgeable European out there will compare Detroit with Dublin to make a point?

I'm not sure why context is often so despised, you would think that someone with a Scottish MacBeth avatar, posting in a thread with an APE avatar (gun hidden), who claims to be from Scotland, might be an indication that we are ALL "apes" on the inside, with an old joke about the Scots coming out of the trees later, current in the UK in days gone by. But you are proof that all that "subtlety" pales when someone already has connected ape and "race" so firmly. Sort of a shame. Obviously, subtle context notwithstanding, definitely not wonderful judgement on my part!

Some of us are not as "careful" as the current times would dictate, this is true. But for so many to literally be bragging about their ignorance on a site that has taken for it's motto, "Deny Ignorance", well, it's especially funny because ATS has embraced special forms of political correctness that undercut their own lofty aspirations. But that is our reality now, worldwide, and ATS still at least "tries" (I think) to keep it's head up, amidst these difficult times.

JR

Hi JR,
Two points first - I did not invoke the moderators at all! If someone else did, I am sorry about that, but I didn't complain to the moderators. I would not do that...
Second, I have avatars blocked, because I am on dial up (yes, I know - NZ is behind the rest of the world technologically - we have broadband which is limited and expensive, so I don't have it). That being so, I was taking the 'ape' remark solely in the context of the post...
I have learned something about African cultures, but a lot more about the ones immediately relevant to me here in New Zealand - Maori and Pacific cultures.
The remark about men wasn't meant to refer to a general fear of men as such at all, but to a fear of men in a particular context - that of a woman at night in the city! All women would admit to being nervous in such a situation - and I meant to make a contrast to racial fears, simply that.
If the gun you mention was available and allowed, I still wouldn't use it - as a matter of principle.
I'll finish by saying that there were no Sassenachs in my mother's ancestry - she was pure Scot! (66% of New Zealanders are of Scots descent - I'm one of them.)
Vicky

reply to post by kevinunknown

To me guns are inherently evil objects that have been designed to kill our fellow man and therefore are evil as is to use a gun to kill.

So....by your rational, any weapon that was designed for use in warfare would be classified as evil. Let's see....That would include nuclear weapons, cruise missiles, aircraft carriers, submarines, cannons, longswords, rapiers, claymores, war hammers, horseman's war hammers, polearms, spears, short swords, daggers and any other weapon of war one can think of.

Your position is extremely naive and you seem to have no sense whatsoever of the history of civilization. Human beings have always felt the need to defend themselves from other hostile factions of human beings as a matter of self preservation. Generally, the humans that are prepared for outside threats to their way of life, have contingencies regarding hostile action, and anything else one can think of to defend themselves and their family/community from outside threats have prospered.

I truly do not understand why you have created this thread. I have seen replies by you, in this thread, stating that you will not even consider the reasons why a human would want to own a "personal self defense weapon". It seems to me that you want to argue merely for the sake of argument. That is no argument whatsoever.

I hope you can live in peace and not have to endure the darker aspect of humanity. If that unfortunate situation happens to you or your family I can say with confidence that you will wish you had some sort of defensive plan in place to protect your loved ones. Ideology will not stop a bullet.

well i know that not everyone has common sense when it comes to firearms, but with a little training and a little common sense they can be used like any other tool to benefit mankind. unfortunately I must blame Hollywood and the media for the problems we now face with firearms, because of all the violence that our children are exposed to and all the propaganda that is associated with it through all the media hype. although its sad that innocent people are subjected to violence, its just how life is, and if guns weren't even a part of our reality, other destructive devices would be used in their place. if guns really were all that much of a problem more people would be killed with them than actually are. I'd have to say us gun possessors must have more common sense than is given us, because otherwise we'd all be on the doorsteps of Washington shooting our dictators without hesitation.

its all propaganda and control. the powers that be want dictatorial rights without fear of getting the asses shot off