CharlesCS CharlesCS

US citizens armed to the teeth

▼

US citizens armed to the teeth

We got more guns than we can shoot? Or maybe not enough.

from JoeUser Forums
Inspired by ModerateMan’s article “NOW This one is guaranteed to blow your mind!”, I came across some interesting facts about Americans and guns while doing some research (I’m learning, aren’t I?). Did you know that the US is the most armed country with 90 guns for every 100 people? That’s about 270 million guns in the US at this moment. Wow, that’s a lot of guns; all thanks to the US Constitution and its Second Amendment.

India followed with 4 guns per every 100 people and China was third with 3 per every 100 people. Now, here’s an interesting question I came across on another website talking about this huge number of guns in the US. Is this something to be proud of? I don’t get it, why does it matter if we are proud of this accomplishment or not? Oh yea, did I mention this was a Democrat who asked this? Leave it to a Democrat to scream when they think Bush is taking away your rights and freedom, breaking Constitutional Laws and then turn around and complain about the Second Amendment.

So, why do you think we have so many guns compared to other nations? I think that’s simple, thanks to our Forefathers beliefs that every American should have the right to bare arms as the Second Amendment states; it gives the American people a check and balance power against the Gov’t. Something countries like China and India lack, after all you wouldn’t want to rule a country with an iron fist while allowing your citizens to bare arms to us against you? Add poverty rates to the equation and you get a lack of money and ability to arm yourself.

So, is being #1 Most Armed Country in the World such a bad thing? I think not, considering that it give the average American the edge against our Gov’t just in case they want to put themselves higher than they already think they are. I mean, after all, do we really wanna end up like China? Having even our Internet restricted just so we can not revolutionize against the Gov’t?

Funny, anyone ever notice how the Democrats want to keep you poor (because they are the ones who vote Democratic most of the time), dependent on the Gov’t and free of guns? Gotta wonder how one would fight back when you’re hungry, dependent of a system that can take it away anytime and unarmed?

So what do you all think about this?


Reuters: U.S. most armed country with 90 guns per 100 people

US Constitution Wiki
5,126 views 28 replies
Reply #26 from JoeUser Forums Top
If the US was the target of a mass nuclear assault followed by a real land invasion would you want to be trying to protect your family with a hatchet or an assault rifle.


imagine how different things woulda been had survivors of those bombs dropped over nagasaki and hiroshima only been better armed.

but i take your point.

ownership of 1 assualt weapon per family is permitted in that bastion of stability and security known as iraq--my choice for nra posternation six years running.
Reply #27 from JoeUser Forums Top
Isn't that what I said? Kinda?


not in this article.

Are the legally or illegally? because my point was having them legally as we do


if you'd done any research (other than reading the reuters article) as you claimed here:

I came across some interesting facts about Americans and guns while doing some research


you'd know the answer.

Even though you were actually trying to insult me as oppose to correct me.


you take insult at correction and suggestions for improvement. why waste my time doing both?
Offworld Trading Company
Reply #28 from JoeUser Forums Top
not in this article.


Funny, I could have sworn I wrote this on the article "Add poverty rates to the equation and you get a lack of money and ability to arm yourself". I guess you didn't get the point that Americans having a much better economy than most countries, we are able to afford weapons. Sorry if I didn't explain myself better, I know it pains you to have to lower yourself to my mentality.

if you'd done any research (other than reading the reuters article) as you claimed here:


Perhaps I was more correct about you trying to insult me than I thought. I said some, not a lot. And as you can see I posted more than 1 link. But hey, again, I don't expect you genius to understand my slow moving brain.

you take insult at correction and suggestions for improvement. why waste my time doing both?


Coming from you, it's an insult. You don't correct people, you try to put them down by trying to point out how stupid they sound as oppose to simply trying to point out their mistake. It use to bother me before, but I already notice that you are simply looking to make yourself feel better so you pick on people, like me, who are a bit below your caliber but avoid people like LW who will fry you like catfish. So point away King Almighty, just remember that your will will not be done.

You also like to return to articles just to see if that particular person responded back to you just so you can pick that reply apart as well. I personally don't care. You're replies only continue to prove my point, but that's OK. They say that there is always someone smarter than you, I figure you search for the less smarter ones so you can feed your ego. You know, the one that came up with the name of yours? Kingbee?