Eric Holder - We Must "Brainwash" People Against Guns

a reply to: JIMC5499

lol, ok, if that's how you see it. I guess it just goes to show how well the brainwashing works, doesn't it?

originally posted by: MisterSpock

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa

originally posted by: MisterSpock
They spout off tired old, proven false, arguments about some crazed psycho walking into a gun store and walking out with "assualt weapons" without any background check. It's what they've been told, what they've been programmed to believe is happening. So they can run around and scream it to any other idiot that will absorb it and puke it out at their next opportunity.

Just to be clear, I'm not arguing for or against anything... just pointing out the irony of how your mentality & attitude is identical to the people your describing in the quoted paragraph.

Not if ones position is coming from facts. That's the difference.

But your position isn't coming from facts, since there are 'in fact' loopholes that allow people to legally purchase (so called) assault rifles without a background check in some states.

You summed up perfectly what you yourself are doing,

It's what they've been told, what they've been programmed to believe is happening. So they can run around and scream it to any other idiot that will absorb it and puke it out at their next opportunity.

The right to own guns is in your constitution, so your position is already on extremely solid ground... so why do you feel the need to lie and spread misinformation to support your position, when there really is no need to?

a reply to: Subaeruginosa


Are these "loopholes" the norm, or are they in fact a small percentage of sales resulting from abnormal situations.

Do any of these loopholes allow people to purchase a gun from a sporting goods store or other gun retailer without being subjected to checks?

That sure seems to be the impression that the opponents give. The reality is that outside of private party or a small amount of private party to private party gun show sales. These loopholes are pretty much non existent.

a reply to: MisterSpock

Either way, the loopholes do exist and are regularly exploited by organized crime to obtain firearms, which gives the anti-gun lobbyists a valid opening to argue against law abiding gun ownership. Shut down those loopholes and you'd shut down the anti-gun lobbyist's in there tracks... I'll give ya the hot tip.

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa
a reply to: MisterSpock

Either way, the loopholes do exist and are regularly exploited by organized crime to obtain firearms, which gives the anti-gun lobbyists a valid opening to argue against law abiding gun ownership. Shut down those loopholes and you'd shut down the anti-gun lobbyist's in there tracks... I'll give ya the hot tip.

Well I'll give one more comment, and leave it at that, as I feel this isn't the topic of the thread at all. But the problem is, and I think you know it, that shutting down the "loopholes" won't stop anyone in their tracks, they will just move on to the next target.

It's not about the loopholes, it's an ideology war, and if given the chance they would fight it right down to the complete ban of firearms. I don't need them so why do you, that's the way many feel about it.

Meanwhile Call OF Duty is the highest grossing Shooter video game franchise in history.


en.wikipedia.org...

Guns arent going anywhere in america. They will have to be taken by force, and that will just validate the whole reason we have a 2nd amendment.

The crazies with guns are WAITING for this day to come.

a reply to: uncommitted

a reply to: Subaeruginosa

Which one is the "assault rifle"?


They are the exact same rifle. One just has a few accessories.

originally posted by: JIMC5499
a reply to: Subaeruginosa

Which one is the "assault rifle"?

They are the exact same rifle. One just has a few accessories.

Well, I'm not the one who cares, one way or the other.

But since you seem to be so emotionally invested in what defines an 'assault rifle', I'll ask an interesting question... why would you care less if one of them was banned (or heavily restricted), if they are essentially the same?

originally posted by: JIMC5499
a reply to: uncommitted

I'm glad you agree, weird how a powerful corporation can so easily brainwash people who seem to think they are actually acting with freedom while buying things from that corporation to keep themselves safe from other products that fall within that corporations franchise. Well done, please spend, spend, spend and have a nice day.

originally posted by: uncommitted
a reply to: SoulSurfer

Hasn't the NRA and their lobbyists done the same thing with an opposite aim in America already? Why don't you write about how much cash is paid to support the NRA's aims?

Defending an inalienable right from attacks by agenda driven assholes is brainwashing now? Does the ACLU's efforts to defend free speech constitute brainwashing, too?

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa
why would you care less if one of them was banned (or heavily restricted), if they are essentially the same?

Probably because NEITHER of them should be banned per this nation's Constitution. Obviously "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" is a concept some in this country fail to grasp. Furthermore, under the original attempted AW ban by Bill Clinton, the Ruger 10/22 base model, as shown in the top photo, would have been banned because of the accessorizing that turned it from the base model to a folding stock, higher capacity magazine, pistol grip weapon seen in the lower photo. No clue as to why anyone would have a hatred for any model of 10/22, considering only a dumbass would use that weapon against another human being... it actually packs roughly the same punch as a high end air rifle (AKA a BB gun). Can you kill a person with it? Sure, but then you can also kill a person with a handfull of rocks and an accurate throwing arm... doesn't mean either are much of a threat outside the overdramatic world of the anti-gun and fascism enthusiast.

he will never be able to match the NRA's brainwashing machine

do you work for the NRA ?

a reply to: syrinx high priest

Again...
Defending an inalienable right from attacks by agenda driven assholes is brainwashing now?

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: uncommitted
a reply to: SoulSurfer

Hasn't the NRA and their lobbyists done the same thing with an opposite aim in America already? Why don't you write about how much cash is paid to support the NRA's aims?

Defending an inalienable right from attacks by agenda driven assholes is brainwashing now? Does the ACLU's efforts to defend free speech constitute brainwashing, too?

Ahhh, so it worked for you too? So, NRA paid lobbyists aren't agenda driven assholes in your mind? Please tell me, do you only like to defend free speech when it's free speech you agree with?

SShhhhhh, I see you are classed as a moderator, aren't you supposed to put some kind of caveat when you post to make it clear what you are posting constitutes your opinion rather than one that is somehow granted further consideration because you are a mod?

a reply to: uncommitted

Again, defense of an existing, inalienable right as documented in the governing document of our nation is not brainwashing. The fact that NRA lobbyists are needed to keep our rights secure simply demonstrates that there is a faction within the federal government who are traitorous bastards rather than lawful representatives of the People.

My status as a moderator is immaterial on this. I don't moderate threads I'm participating in and I don't caveat my posts for anyone, including you, Kemosabe.

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: syrinx high priest

Again...
Defending an inalienable right from attacks by agenda driven assholes is brainwashing now?

you know who is behind the NRA, right ?

a reply to: syrinx high priest

Yup, firearm manufacturers. Same as the folks who hold the most stock in carbon trading firms are behind pushing anthropomorphic global warming as a real thing and saying carbon taxes and trading credits is the solution.

It's called business investments. Bottom line, however, they're defending an inalienable right against agenda driven assholes who are trying to force changes the majority don't want. Otherwise, there'd be no need for the NRA.

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: syrinx high priest

Yup, firearm manufacturers. Same as the folks who hold the most stock in carbon trading firms are behind pushing anthropomorphic global warming as a real thing and saying carbon taxes and trading credits is the solution.

It's called business investments. Bottom line, however, they're defending an inalienable right against agenda driven assholes who are trying to force changes the majority don't want. Otherwise, there'd be no need for the NRA.

do you get NRA points every time you type "inalienable right" on a message board ?

a reply to: syrinx high priest

No, I get a thrilling tingle up my leg.

I don't even belong to the NRA. The bastards compromised years ago with the Clinton-Wesson bill and I have yet to forgive them. I belong to the National Associated for Gun Rights, personally. No compromises for me, period. Inalienable rights are inalienable.