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.
Originally posted by Muggman
Originally posted by Wongbeedman
reply to post by RN311
I could try and argue reason and logic but no, no matter how much you guys hate it and probably have countless conspiracies about him because he's a douche. But bowling for columbine is incredible and michael moore was right. People on here know, if they've seen my posts that I think the second amendment is outdated, and people need to change.
That was BEFORE I even watched bowling for columbine, I can't believe how bad it is over there for you guys, there's something wrong with the average gun supporters view, fair enough everyone has their own but you guys don't realise that its your government doing this to you, but not because they want your guns, hell your guns ain't s**t on theirs.
They have you in TOTAL CONTROL everyone needs to fear their own government a little bit but yours seems to thrive off this. in no other developed country are citizens in constant of invasion from foreign threats, from sudden initiation of a police state, or killer bees.
The best part for me from bowling for columbine was the news guy saying "experts say one in five Americans have some sort of mental illness, so I urge you seek help now!" Or something like that, I mean seriously?!?! I don't mean to offend any Americans here, shame on your governmentedit on 5-1-2013 by Wongbeedman because: (no reason given)
Just a question for you....would you say that Moore's bodyguards are armed, or unarmed?
As far as the other part of the post, that is one of the reasons the 2nd amendment is here. To defend against a tyrannical government. And you are correct when you say that our guns are not # compared to theirs. That's why it says in there "shall not be infringed". When that happens, we the people's ability to use that rigt is slowly dwindled, using this news story, that movie, etc.
Point is, if a tyrannical government was going up against an extremely armed populace, vs a populace with no guns whatsoever, which situation would you rather be in?
Originally posted by RedmoonMWC
1st the man broke in, that in its self is reason enough to shoot him, lawfully.
2nd Where there’s a will, there’s a way.
If someone wants to kill, that person does not need a gun to do it, but a gun can be used to stop them.
The worst school killing was not committed with a gun, but with dynamite.
freepages.history.rootsweb.ancestry.com...
frontpagemag.com...edit on 5-1-2013 by RedmoonMWC because: To add links
Originally posted by GunzCoty
reply to post by Wongbeedman
I'm sorry, but you opinion means nothing.
There are some Americans that shear your opinion, we call them anti-rights advocates.
They are the people who want to take away the American rights(all of them), too bring forth a "socialist America" (as they put it).
Because you're from the UK (from what i can see) you should worry more about the guns on your streets being used by criminals, without a way for you to defend yourself.
I'm sorry, but any non-American with an opinion about our Constitution and rights is pointless to me.
I don't try to give my opinions on things of other countries I know little about in such an arrogant manner.
Is it too much to ask for that same respect?
Originally posted by cody599
reply to post by EyesWideShut
You're ignorant in this subject. you've never fired a gun, never studied terminal ballistics of any caliber and you know nothing of the tactical application of secondary weapons systems (handguns) in dynamic enviroments...Buuuuut, you still feel the need to make a post filled with assumptions and feelings. You embody the anti gun movement. Let me share something with you.
It was an ideal world scenario badly presented my apologies.
As for having never fired a weapon (a gun by definition is light artillery upwards) I served in the IDF for years as a front line soldier I think I've got a rough idea about weapons, and am hardly ignorant.
Originally posted by xxdaniel21
reply to post by RN311
You're using his criminal history to justify her actions. That doesn't make any sense. She carried out her actions without knowledge of his criminal history. She shot him not knowing whether it was his first offence, or 10th.
Therefore, there is no justification for her actions. She did it blindly. See what i'm saying?
He may not have died, but that doesn't make it okay. Her intentions could have been to kill him, it was just by chance he survived. Again, no justification for her force.
Originally posted by lonewolf19792000
reply to post by RN311
She will likely be tried for murder, even though he was breaking into her home, she shot him 5 times. LEO's say you only need to shoot someone once (and make sure you die it right). Sad as it is, it could happen, it depends on Georgia's laws. I know here in Arkansas if you shoot an intruder more than once the prosecutors here will come after you for murder or if the intruder survives attempted murder even though they invaded your home.
reply to post by EyesWideShut
Oh you're a "Front Line Soldier"? What war were you on the front line of? I'm assuming you mean you've served in the Infantry (Now that we have the snarky semantics game out of the way) You of all people should know better...I respect your service, but it wasn't exactly voluntary. There is a mindset difference between the two, your post clearly shows this. In an ideal world, guns and swords would never have been invented...but you can't put the toothpaste back in the tube.
Originally posted by yourmaker
Originally posted by AnnKoontz
It'll just get worse once they outlaw guns. You won't be able to stop these people.
Of course you could you'd just have to be a little more creative is all?
Bow and arrow booby traps are like a thousand years old i'm sure you could figure it out if necessity demanded.
Originally posted by Wongbeedman
reply to post by GunzCoty
Honestly, from the bottom of my heart, I respect america and most of all your personal views, as an american. I don't expect you to take in and accept anything I've said. I just hope you think about it, at least a little bit.
Originally posted by ecoparity
Originally posted by Wongbeedman
reply to post by GunzCoty
Honestly, from the bottom of my heart, I respect america and most of all your personal views, as an american. I don't expect you to take in and accept anything I've said. I just hope you think about it, at least a little bit.
Yeah, that's not going to happen when every post you make alleging some "fact" is completely wrong or just outright false. It really does help to know what you're talking about when you try and debate a position.
Your latest example - "guns must have been harder to get back then" is completely incorrect. 50 cal machine guns (fully automatic) were sold in hardware stores back then to any adult without any type of background check or waiting period. Guns were also dirt cheap at that time in addition to being sold in pretty much every type of retail establishment and even mail order!
No one wants to see another school shooting, obviously. Gun bans or further legislation will not prevent this, unfortunately. That's been proven in multiple, real life examples. The US isn't even at the top of the list in these types of crimes and the countries that are have very strict gun laws, far stricter than the US.
The best way to prevent school shootings is to have armed defenders in the schools. Trained and vetted teachers allowed to keep a concealed weapon in a secure place in their classrooms would prevent most of these idiots from even trying, of not all of them. It's a proven fact these mass murder psychos choose "gun free zones" every time (only 2-3 cases out of all of them were otherwise and that includes mass shootings in places other than schools). They are cowards who want to be famous, want to go out by their own hand rather than pay for the crime and absolutely do not want to risk there being someone there with a gun to stop them.
Perhaps you should take a closer look at the crime statistics in good ole Australia, Canada or the UK and do the math to make the per capita figures line up. I think you'll find the US is NOT the most crime ridden / violent. Gun bans DO NOT work, at least we have the examples of these pseudo socialist societies who tried it and failed to serve as examples. Why should Americans follow the lead of countries who tried it and proved it to be a failure?
Originally posted by HomerinNC
So I see none of the gun grabbers can answer my question about justifying entering someone else's house
All they will do is parrot guns are bad! Guns are bad!
I rest my case, all gun grabbers are mindless parrots
Originally posted by HomerinNC
reply to post by FirstCasualty
So you can justify this dirtbags breaking into this moms house?