Is this what the anti-gun people want for America?

By now I am sure most people have heard the story of "Jihad Jane", a Muslim woman from Pennsylvania who was plotting to kill Lars Vilks because of a cartoon he made that offended Muslims.

Vilks is from Sweden, where citizens are not allowed to own guns. In Sweden, only the government and criminals are afforded the right to own handguns, law abiding citizens are not. I have to wonder if this is what the "gun control" advocates are trying to make the US into. A state where it's citizens are at the complete mercy of the government and the criminals.

In the story posted below it details how many European artists are building panic rooms in their homes because of fear they are going to be killed by Muslims. Mr. Vilks built just such a room, so that if someone came to kill him he could run away and cower in a room, rather then putting a bullet right in between the eyes of the intruder. But this is what the "gun control" people want, they want us to run and cower when someone is trying to do us harm. They think we should try to escape, rather than protect ourselves, our families, and our homes. For what reason, I can not imagine.

For some reason, they don't want people to be able to protect themselves against those who would do them harm. Why? Why should I run away like a namby pamby if someone breaks into my house, rather than blast them away?

These people are just sick, they really are. The only thing I can guess is that they are on the side of the criminals. We should expect a lot more of this under the Barack Obama Police State. Every wealthy neighbourhood in the United States is going to become overrun with hoodlums. It will be completely lawless. No one but the criminals and the government will have guns, just like in Europe.

26 Answers

  • 10 years ago
    Favorite Answer

    If you like guns, be sure to vote. Remember, the USA is free because the government is afraid of its people. There are 200 million private guns for 250 million people in the USA. This is more guns than ALL THE WORLD'S ARMIES COMBINED. In 2009, Americans bought 14 million guns. This is more guns than the TOTAL ARMS COLLECTION OF THE WORLD'S 20 BIGGEST ARMIES. The US army only has roughly 1.5 million soldiers. A dictatorial country like China is not free because the people are afraid of the government. There are roughly 40 million private guns for 1 BILLION people. Almost all of these are owned by retired PLA, rich fat cats who can pay government bribes, and Communist party officials. The Chinese army has 2.5 million soldiers. That's only 4% guns per capita in China. The USA has 80% guns per capita. Except for children, most people I know in Southern rural areas carry guns. We keep guns in our pickup trucks, in our pockets, in our homes, and in our businesses. Violent crime is very low in small towns for just that reason. Like anywhere else, we have criminals here, too, but they only write hot checks. They won't even dream of robbing you. In Texas, the law allows you to shoot someone who is armed (or even unarmed because it is difficult to tell at night) robbing you at night. Anyone breaking into your home, car, or business is also legal to shoot. And to those liberals who say that only paranoid people need guns, hey, there's no crime in small towns, why do you need a gun? These liberals fail to make the connection that it is precisely that everyone in small town Texas are armed that there is no crime. To the guy who claims that Sweden is safer than America, if you'll take out the crime statistics of GUN BANNED states (such as California and New York) and large cities with gun ban ordinances (like Chicago), crime in the USA is actually lower than crime in Sweden. And no, not everyone in Somalia have an M16. Guns are expensive LUXURIES that most Somalians cannot afford. The average Somalian makes $60-120 a month. An AR15 (civilian version of the M16) costs $800-1200 USD. The average Somalian can only dream of owning an M16. As a result, a minority of gun toting thugs control the majority of good Somalians. America is the most armed country on earth, not Somalia. People in rural Texas leave their doors open and children play in the front yard without fear. Try leaving your front door open in a big city in California, Great Britain (like London) or New York!

    Bleeding heart liberals will say, "oh, why are you shooting the poor crook? why, don't you value human life? why won't you just give up the money? it's not worth taking a life over. people who resist are more likely to get killed." First of all, good folks don't shoot crooks. Crooks shoot themselves because they know the risks of robbing before they took up their vocation. They valued their own lives less than the stuff they want to steal. To the contrary, I value life, the lives of me and my loved ones. As a single mother, I have 2 precious babies to protect and I don't need a man to protect me because I have my guns. If a crook says, "give me your money and I'll spare you life," he is PROMISING you that he won't rape and kill you and your kids after he's robbed you. Can you really trust the promise of a lying, murdering crook? I'd rather trust my ability to give him some lead poisoning. Even my kids can shoot. Under my direct supervision, I've taken my daughters hunting before. My 7 year old daughter has her own AR15 and can take out a running deer at 100 yards with iron sights. They're pretty good shots.

    Quite frankly, those who argue that guns cause or prevent crime miss the boat. The fact is that the constitution guarantees you the basic human right of self-defense because you need a government afraid of it's people in order to guarantee against tyranny and genocide. Even an educated, civilized western country could degenerate into genocide if it's citizens are disarmed. Witness Hitler's Germany. I'd rather live in a free country with my freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution and a bit of gun crime than live in fear of my government.

    You might be surprised to find that the truth shall set you free....

    Source(s): Statistics cited in this answer: Pics of an AR15 just like the one my daughter shoots:
    • Lee G6 years agoReport

      I am a 100% with you, being a Vet from the 2nd and 3rd Armor Division as Infantry I firmly believe that every able Civilian should own and train with their firearms! Aside from personal protection and hunting it is to guard aginst tyranny.Our Government needs to be afraid of us not us afraid of them

  • Anonymous
    10 years ago

    lmfao. As another commenter remarked, Sweden's gun-homicide rate is like 300% lower than ours. Is that REALLY what we want? lol.

    Also, the gun-lobby fallacy about how "criminals are scared if they know you have a gun" is such a load. Somebody who has a hit out for you can easily have you shot any time they want as you go about your day, and whether or not you have a gun on you isn't going to make an ounce of difference. A guy just stepped off the subway outside the Pentagon two weeks ago and shot two armed officers, fully knowing, as any idiot would, that there were armed people all over the place because it was *right outside the Pentagon*. There's some dearth of human psychology going on in gun-lobby arguments. Arming more people is not going to decrease mass shootings, drug-cartel hits, or terrorist attacks.

  • Maria
    Lv 4
    4 years ago

    The amendments are changes to the constitution. I must have missed the war on gun rights just as I missed the war on christmas. I own a rifle and a shotgun as do most people I know but I don't think you need an assault rifle.

  • 10 years ago

    When you say that people are "at the complete mercy of the government and the criminals", does that mean you are willing to take said gun and point it at a police officer or government agent?

    Because I'll cheer for your conviction on the television, but make no mistake about it--the only thing you'll get out of the deal is a death sentence. What do you expect to do with that gun?

    And does that outweigh the fact that little girls find said gun and mistake them for wii remotes? You're being just a tad bit irresponsible. I know you may have a solid secure life but if you expect everybody to be as you are, then you are about to have a moment of clarity pretty soon because the world doesn't work that way.

  • What do you think of the answers? You can sign in to give your opinion on the answer.
  • 10 years ago

    What was she planning to use as a weapon? Guns are illegal in Sweden. And how are criminals "Afforded the right" to own guns? That is a factually flawed statement.

    You, or your family, are more likely to be killed by your own gun than you are to stop an intruder with it. This study is very extensive. Good luck fitting it in your head.

    Example of police officer killed with his gun. TRAINED PROFESSIONAL, shot with HIS WEAPON. You have NO CHANCE buddy!

    Or simply carrying a gun period leads to higher chances of being shot dead.

    Now, not to say I'm against gun rights. As stated in the second amendment:

    "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

    Of course, the punctuation is the key here. Militias, or groups of "well regulated" people with weapons, shall not be infringed. What this means, and is totally lost on the right-wing ditto-heads, is that the government cannot take guns away from militias that were formed to protect individual states from the tyranny of the federal government. The National Guard, the original militias implemented by each individual state, was to keep guns in case the states would have to defend themselves from the federal government.

    Another interesting point lost on people who have never read the constitution is that America was NEVER TO HAVE STANDING ARMIES. The federal government was supposed to be forced to ask the states to use their National Guard to DEFEND America.

    The National Guard, and its members, were to be the ONLY bearer of arms. Individuals, nor the federal government, were to keep weaponry.

    Can you find me a place in the constitution where it states you can have guns for defense against intruders?

    You can't, because it doesn't exist!

    Hope that helps with your confusion.

  • 10 years ago

    Yup, we rural Texans are made of different stuff. The biggest alligator ever shot in Texas was harvested by a 5 (five) year old who shot it with a shotgun:,2933,559103,00.html...

  • Gunny
    Lv 7
    10 years ago

    DON'T-believe the government or police can protect i am elderly & was assaulted 3 times in a 5yr. span...just went to local Police station talked to Officer in charge...Went on recorded record to declare that i would be hence forth carrying a fire arm...& not be concerned with registration...all that has happened is that now i Police bad if this is not 'political correct'...

    Source(s): GOPedia
  • 10 years ago

    I don't like guns but you have the right to own a gun for your protection I have no problem with that I have a problem with assault weapons why would anyone need one plus I'm sick of hearing how Obama is going to take away your guns in the 234 years no one has tried to take the second amendment away

    • Lee G6 years agoReport

      Connecticut and California, door to door no knock searches.

  • 10 years ago

    In 2004 there were 5 gun deaths in New Zealand, 37 in Sweden, 56 in Australia, 73 in England, 184 in Canada (all countries with gun bans), and 11,344 gun murders in the United States.

    I'm not against people protecting themselves. I'm just sorry you have this paranoid notion of the government or some radical group running rampant through your town and killing everyone.

  • Anonymous
    10 years ago

    Criminals are not afforded the right to own guns, they simply ignore the law and posses them.

    President Obama has not passed any gun regulation and if anything, guns laws have been repressed since his taking office.

    Proof: The Supreme Court ruled recently that the DC hand gun ban is unconstitutional.

    This is not Europe. Your logic presents a slippery slope, which is an ethical fallacy.

    • Lee G6 years agoReport You are right it is unconstitutional, that has never stopped Obama.

Still have questions? Get answers by asking now.