The Shameless Opportunism of Gun Control Advocates

reply to post by muzzleflash

That's a big problem.

You are proud that you are ignorant, and want to stay that way?
Yet you are so loud and ready to speak out of your ignorance that you pride yourself in?

Yes..I'm proud I'm not obsessed with instruments of death...you can be proud in knowing all the little details if makes you feel tough...but I don't need that.

It's useless information...except for those that think they are Rambo and will one day single handedly save American from the bad guys.

Well since you admit you don't know and don't want to know anything about the topic, why do you speak so authoritatively about it?

Does prideful ignorance lend one very much credibility?

One doesn't need to know the technical difference between fully auto and "machine gun" to have an opinion on gun laws.

Did you not see the two gun lovers arguing over this same topic in this thread...sorry...it's just silly.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

and wasn't it that (Andrew) Jackson guy who said ... "It's a damn poor mind that can only think of one way to spell a word" ??

reply to post by OutKast Searcher

The logic I usually hear people using is that we must be able to defend ourselves from all enemies...including our government...so it would seem that you and others would advocate that private citizens should own nukes to be on equal footing.

It is no accident that the acrimonious Mutually Assured Destruction becomes an acronym for MAD! Owning nuclear weapons is absolute madness. This is why the argument that all people have the right to keep and bear arms - including nukes - is necessary. It is not as if your half-assed (no disrespect to you my friend, but to your arguments in this thread) arguments advocating gun control will not get this nation any closer to nuclear disarmament. Hell, you come so terrifyingly close to sounding like those sycophants of tyranny at times that on some level you must understand that your arguing for the dis-empowerment of the People while blindly accepting a ridiculously armed state is the worst way to get closer to nuclear disarmament.

The logic, which is sound and correct, that the meaning behind the Second Amendment certainly means all People have the right to keep and bear nuclear weapons, particularly when vociferously argued by many, will get us much, much, closer to nuclear disarmament, only, of course, after we've reigned in a federal government that has come to believe it is prudent to declare lovers of liberty "terrorists". Some are alarmed that the federal government and DHS are targeting Americans who speak as I and others in this thread do as "domestic terrorists", but this stupidity only reveals the true intent of the "war on terror" and only awakens more people every day to who the real domestic enemies of the People truly are.

But the reality is that you and others know that is down right crazy.

I quote this sentence to reiterate my clear point in this post. It is Madness, it is Insane, it is Bat Guano Crazy to allow our government to own any nuclear weapons! Do you understand? Don't lecture me on a principle of an argument while you so alarmingly and lackadaisically make this argument:

However, the harsh reality is that they do exist and as you stated, our government owns them.

How pathetically easy it is for you to blithely accept the fact that our government owns the largest cache of nuclear weapons in the world, while you then deign to lecture I and others on the logic behind nuclear weapons as arms in the context of the Second Amendment. Don't for a single second expect I or others to accept that you "agree" our government should not have nuclear weapons. You may agree in "theory" but in practice you simply shrug your shoulders and lecture, lecture, lecture about the insanity of Mutually Assured Destruction, but not the MADness of nations using MAD, you are only concerned with the MADness of We the People Mutually Assuring our government of their Destruction if they even dare think of using nuclear weapons on We the People.

But it is hard for you and others to admit that you are in fact in support of some regulation to "arms"

It is not at all hard for me to admit what I did, when you asked me the direct question, without equivocation or wavering I answered briefly and directly. Here is the profound difference between you and I on this issue. Where I insist that no one should have these weapons, you shrug your shoulders and only agree in theory, but in practice? What can you do? is the best you can offer. Here's the deal, whatever the people cannot do lawfully, you can bet your ass the government cannot do it lawfully either. There is a strong argument as to why nuclear arms are unlawful. The collateral damage alone is beyond the pale.

I am not "admitting" to a regulation on a right, I am insisting that owning or using nuclear weapons is not a right! It is way past dubious to argue that nuclear weapons are a means of defense. Hell, nuclear weapons have become the justification to invade other nations! How's that for defense? Please.

But that didn't happen...so we must live in our current reality.

It is high time that you come to understand that in our current reality I Am! Beezer is! neo is! sonny is! Evil Saddam Clone is! honor is! muzzleflash is! TaupinDisciple is! And for all the others in this thread who've steadfastly fought for liberty, please forgive my omissions, but be rest assured O.S., they are too! We are in this current reality and here we are making this argument, and too late now for you to point to the past while you're making arguments of here and now.

If it were up to me...I would abolish nuclear weaponary and energy...but it's not.

Oh yes it is, my friend, and I don't know what made you think I would let you off the hook on that, but it is up to you.

This is the same opportunism as Syrian rebels kidnapping people and killing them, then filming them selves hypocritically wailing saying "oh the army is full of animals" "Look what THEY did"

Or 9/11 being used to pass PATRIOT ACT, which was no doubt written long before 9/11. They used a national tragedy to pass legislation with bush and his executive privilege in mind. They have single handedly ruined the country for many generations. The true repercussions of turning an empire with the reach and might of the US into a quasi fascist state are inconceivable.

They are not smart enough to see into the future. There is little difference between having vision or being delusional from your constant illusion power. That is not power. That is retarded. All things either end or are reborn with the spirit of their actions. The new country that was formed post 9/11 was formed by taking advantage of the tragic loss we suffered and hijacking the sentiment to promote an unjust and fake war.

The little issue of gun control will be hijacked and used in the same regard. They could kill a child molester with a gun and say it was a tragic event and reflects a NEW reality where the people can not defend themselves and people are so desperate that they will say "OK".

Any act of self determination that you show, even if instinctual, will be punished. How they achieve it is not important. If no event happens that they can get around like a parasitic octopus, they have considered just making one before. Not even long ago, not Washington. Kennedy. During his administration many generals wanted to create a situation where the US was attacked and use that to justify an all out military effort.

Bless Kennedy. The last true sane president. I don't even care about his allegiances. He was sane and a good president. That is why they never got the ball rolling then.

Now, here comes this or any other shooting after creating hightened tension in the world population by financial stress and confusion. They only need have die a few more and more frequently and they can do like Germany before the general take over and confiscate all weapons the existing government might use to defend itself.

There is no doubt about it. Always when thousands of armed soldiers line up near your border you will be attacked. Never will a government disarm its people unless they expect to do something that would warrant an all out defense of the country from them. Criminal entities have taken over governments before. Weapons during the transition are a no no.

Use any old dead kid to get your message through. Give me that or else.

That is who wants gun control really. That and China who donate MILLIONS to gun control in the US. I wonder why they care so much. Considerate of them,no?

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

t is no accident that the acrimonious Mutually Assured Destruction becomes an acronym for MAD! Owning nuclear weapons is absolute madness.

The gun the first implimentation of the MAD policy not owning a gun is Assured destruction.

reply to post by links234
excuse you but BOTH of them are more comprehensive than your source, so what's your point ??

both of them also include (1) india - (2) newsmax incidents of less than 5 persons killed.
i excluded them in my posting as we were discussing 5 or more.

if not "notable", then how or where are they recorded and tracked ??
(oh yea, in Russia, i forgot )

ummmm, i excluded the "three" too, we are discussing 5 or more.
and imho, the two are not comprehensive at all but it's still enough to refute your ridiculous claim of 20 annually. not in this millenium or in that decade, ever.

Aurora, CO is a concealed carry city. It didn't prevent and stymie what happened to those 71 people

no, the location (theatre) was a NO CARRY location ... are you faulting the gun owners for obeying the policy of the establishment ??
and btw, it's 70 persons, not 71.
58+12=70 (always has)

reply to post by Honor93


It was in my first post that you replied to

Here they are again though:
Deadly count: US averages 20 mass shootings every year via rt.com
PDF of Mass Shootings in the United States Since 2005 from the Brady Campaign

I'm gonna try and stop posting so much to this thread because it's lost the significant discussion that was occurring after the seventh page.

Originally posted by beezzer

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
reply to post by beezzer

 

So there were no handgun crimes in Chicago before 2010?

No, there were plenty of handgun crimes.

Care to show where I claimed there weren't? I simply claimed you don't have your facts straight...which you didn't.

Waiwaitwait!

Banning handguns didn't stop handgun crimes?

Dont worry, Rahm Emanuel has a Personal Bodyguard, with a Gun. That's to protect him, in a city that has Anti-Gun Laws,and is filled with Gun Related Deaths. Hypocrisy much?

The Chicago Sun-Times reported departing Mayor Richard M. Daley's guard was seen accompanying Emanuel at the Union League Club Thursday and police spokeswoman Maureen Biggane confirmed Emanuel now has an escort.

"During the campaign the city did not provide a security detail for any candidates," she said. "The mayor-elect has been given a security detail. However, we do not discuss the specifics of that detail for security reasons."

LINK

reply to post by neo96


You, of course, know I don't own any guns. I would hate to think that not owning one will ultimately lead to my demise, but I maintain that the pen is mightier than the sword, and that my aim is best used in defense of the right to bear arms with the weapons of words.

Disarming the populace, however, is most assuredly the path to destruction of freedom...what little is left of it.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by neo96

 

You, of course, know I don't own any guns. I would hate to think that not owning one will ultimately lead to my demise, but I maintain that the pen is mightier than the sword, and that my aim is best used in defense of the right to bear arms with the weapons of words.

Disarming the populace, however, is most assuredly the path to destruction of freedom...what little is left of it.

Most people purchase a gun as an insurance policy because crap happens some people are lucky enough to escape that hard fact it is hope for the best but prepare for the worst.

The pen is mightier than the sword because they sign all those laws that have led to the demise of freedoms in this country.


Edited to add:

Guns have hit close to home for me I had and aunt and uncle both take their own lives using them nobody saw it coming.

And i do not blame the gun for those events.

reply to post by neo96

The pen is mightier than the sword because they sign all those laws that have led to the demise of freedoms in this country.

Forgive my pedantry, Brother, but it appears as if it is needed. I suspect you've read me make this argument before: Legislation is not law. At best, it stands as evidence of law, at worst, it is flat out unlawful. The signatures on unlawful legislation have no more force or weight that that of a feather. The demise of freedom is not due to Congressional and Presidential signatures. The demise of freedom comes from the signatures of We the People.

In this thread, automobiles and their threat have been discussed. It is this threat that led to states imposing licensing schemes on drivers of automobiles, and eventually led to those states flat out lying and declaring that "driving is a privilege and not a right". The only thing that makes that lie lawful and enforceable is the law of contracts and the signatures people place on the contract of application for the "privilege to drive". Imagine that! People are surrendering their right to drive in exchange for a revokable privilege. That fairly describes the demise of freedom.

It is my pen (digital and electronic as it may be) that continues to declare this, and with each declaration a few more hear the truth of what I am saying. That truth is far more powerful than ineffectual signatures on bogus legislation. You don't think that if a President signed legislation declaring Pi to be an even 3.0 to make the math easier this would change the law of Pi, do you?

The side your arguing on is so easy,, every one could agree with you,,, and there could be no gun control advocates,,,, and things would be the same,,,, whoever wants a gun can get one,,, thats the way its been,, thats the way it should be now,, thats the way it should forever be,,,, it wont change,,, it shouldnt change,,,
and as long as that stays that way,, everything will be fine,,.

but i see that in reality bad things could come of that,,, if bad things did come of that could you ever see your self changing sides? could you ever imagining anything happening in the world,, where it may be a good thing or idea to control guns a little?

is it the same as people who hate environmentalists,,,,, everyone can easily not care about the environment,,,, so lets say thats the case,,, no more environmentalists,,,, in reality,,, bad can come of that,,,, so then would environmentalists begin to manifest?

I agree with you that individual rights and freedom is important,,,, i will accept that anyone who wants a gun can and should buy one,,,

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by neo96

 

The pen is mightier than the sword because they sign all those laws that have led to the demise of freedoms in this country.

Forgive my pedantry, Brother, but it appears as if it is needed. I suspect you've read me make this argument before: Legislation is not law. At best, it stands as evidence of law, at worst, it is flat out unlawful. The signatures on unlawful legislation have no more force or weight that that of a feather. The demise of freedom is not due to Congressional and Presidential signatures. The demise of freedom comes from the signatures of We the People.

In this thread, automobiles and their threat have been discussed. It is this threat that led to states imposing licensing schemes on drivers of automobiles, and eventually led to those states flat out lying and declaring that "driving is a privilege and not a right". The only thing that makes that lie lawful and enforceable is the law of contracts and the signatures people place on the contract of application for the "privilege to drive". Imagine that! People are surrendering their right to drive in exchange for a revokable privilege. That fairly describes the demise of freedom.

It is my pen (digital and electronic as it may be) that continues to declare this, and with each declaration a few more hear the truth of what I am saying. That truth is far more powerful than ineffectual signatures on bogus legislation. You don't think that if a President signed legislation declaring Pi to be an even 3.0 to make the math easier this would change the law of Pi, do you?

Now that.....was epic!

People should read that post.

reply to post by ImaFungi

but i see that in reality bad things could come of that,,, if bad things did come of that could you ever see your self changing sides? could you ever imagining anything happening in the world,, where it may be a good thing or idea to control guns a little?

Guns are all ready "controlled' more than just a little. It was OutKast who made the point, but from the advocacy of rights, it is a salient point and that is the ownership of nuclear weapons. As I have stated, no one has the right to make, use and own nuclear weapons. They exist with the sole purpose of mass destruction, and mass destruction, even in defense, is not a right. However, nuclear weapons are legislated against in terms of Second Amendment rights, but don't you see how allowing our government to stockpile nuclear weapons has gotten way out of hand?

Over and over in this thread, people have made the most salient point that if no guns existed at all, murder and mass killings would still exist. It takes nothing at all to start a fire. It takes nothing at all to build a catapult to sling a boulder in order to kill masses.

The primary point I wanted to make with this thread is that the gun control advocates have no desire at all to limit the governments use of arms. Their cause would be more admirable if they began by demanding disarmament of government, but even with that I would have to disagree. One of the primary purposes of government is defense. We establish governments to achieve collectively what we have the right to do individually. However, because we establish governments with the authority to make war, and stockpile weapons, the need for the People to do the same is paramount.

I agree with you that individual rights and freedom is important,,,, i will accept that anyone who wants a gun can and should buy one,,,

This is all that matters, and is what makes your public hand wringing over the effects of madness and the proliferation of weapons all that more endearing. I have no doubt that it cannot be easy entering into a thread where several seasoned members stand in alliance and agreement on a central idea while you attempt to disagree. Your willingness to stay with it in this thread and to keep an open mind is respectable.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux



"I agree with you that individual rights and freedom is important,,,, i will accept that anyone who wants a gun can and should buy one,,, "


""This is all that matters, and is what makes your public hand wringing over the effects of madness and the proliferation of weapons all that more endearing. I have no doubt that it cannot be easy entering into a thread where several seasoned members stand in alliance and agreement on a central idea while you attempt to disagree. Your willingness to stay with it in this thread and to keep an open mind is respectable.""

the thing is i only agree and accept those things because the reality of humans on this planet is not perfect,,, in my opinion it could be closer to perfect,, and better,, and there ideally and potentially can be no need for violence and guns,, to me thats a fact,,, that it is possible for this world and the humans on it to exist without individual conflicts of violence,,,,, so for eternity i will always hold these opinions that some of the ways of this world are "stupid".... not intelligent,,, not civil,,, not righteous,,, to me its easy to not solve the problems with a long term solution,, yet a million short term solutions ( guns),,,, this is easy and what humans have naturally without thinking too much about anything have come up with,, great,,,,, i can only hope someday people are ready to live in peace,,, if a trend of intelligence, understanding, and wisdom continues to increase, i do not need to hope,, but am rather sure there will come a time when people will live in peace,,, with time, energy, passion, and personal drive being spent voluntarily on more productive and fulfilling endeavors then defense and destruction,.,.,,.,.,
the nature we consider wild, vicious, and chaotic has already gone through this game,,, and it is a brutal place of fear and trickery and every creature for itself, this has breeded poison and thorns, speed and brute strength,,, these forces are good and this competition molded the animal side of man into what he is and can accomplish today,,,, as humans we have begun to escape that nature,, and rise above it, using what sets us apart from the rest of nature,, our mind, intellect, intelligence,, understanding that as a family of species it is us as humans together, vs, all else,,,, humans have always needed other humans not only obviously for reproduction, but im sure it was soon seen the value in splitting up duties so all may reap the benefits of all,,,,,, we have came along way since this wild beginnings,,, and i guess we have far to go,,,,,, I am not looking for an end,,, there is no end,,,, but just as the invention of fire was the end to going cold and eating raw meat,,,, and the invention of the spear was the end to twice the struggle to catch the meat,,,,, these were also new beginnings,,, which set the scene for much progression,, structure,, stability,, and prosperity for what we know as the human race,,,

reply to post by muzzleflash

I never stated a position.

Why are you trying to BAIT people into off topic debates ?

This is about gun control and you are trying to derail it.

It's about the 2nd Amendment...guns are not the only "arms" that exist.

I'm sorry...but you can't just narrow the discussion down to what is convenient to you and your agenda.