The Shameless Opportunism of Gun Control Advocates

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher

Originally posted by macman
reply to post by OutKast Searcher

 

Well regulated is by Company, Division, and/or platoon.
Regulated is by drill and practice, in the Military sense.

Good grief you have no clue.

And "the people" meet neither of those requirements.

So your point is????

How so?
You obviously enjoy a very cushy life of reading higher learning books and such. You pass yourself off as some high and mighty super educated person, yet have no clue as to citizens (Non Military/LEO) training.
What requirements have you, oh Grand Potentate OutKast set forth as the standard you speak of?

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
Sorry...that's the way I see it.

I guess you are entitled to your incorrect and self absorbed opinion. Banter on then, lets take rights from others when OutKast says so.

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
A "man" wouldn't have to cling to their little gun to walk to the grocery store. A "man" wouldn't live their life being a paranoid scared little person thinking the bad guys are out to get them.

Back to the attacking of manhood again? That is all you got left, huh?
A Man is a person that defend themselves and his family, given almost any situation.
You, I bet are more likely to coward in the corner, or try to debate with the aggressor. You have fun with that.

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
I'm not asking you to agree...that is simply my opinion of extreme gun lovers...IMO...they have a deep character flaw and major insecurity issues.

Really? Sure sure.
My opinion of people that are scared of firearms and firearms owners is as such:
Anti's are merely uneducated fools that fear an inanimate object, that refuse to come to terms that legislating possibilities never work.

You want the world regulated and policed to make you feel better inside, because after all, OutKast knows best, and is here just to save us all.

reply to post by pluginkid


First off, there is no such thing as an "Assault Rifle". The term was coined by Anti's. All Guns can be used for an assault, or not.

Secondly, with a little training, a person can become more proficient with a pistol, then Holmes was with his AR. Your statements are about as clueless as it gets.

Thirdly, it is none of your business why people have rifles like the AR, but the AR is a great platform for competitive shooting, long range shooting and hunting as well.

Oh, I love hearing the blind rants of anti's that show that they truly have no clue.

Originally posted by muse7
reply to post by beezzer

 

So you don't want any type of control over who gets their hands on automatic rifles?

You don't care if people are massacred by mentally unstable persons that were able to fool the system in order to get their hands on high powered weapons?

Just as long as your "freedoms" go untouched huh?

Give me a break.

Trying to equate that automatic firearms equal mass killings is foolish.
There are thousands of automatic firearms in the hands of US citizens, yet, rarely are the legal owners involved with crime.

reply to post by macman


to all who support more guns in society.....

Really....??? Really..... do you really want everyone walking around packing a firearm... everybody on edge and paranoid.... gunfights exploding on every street corner.... the potential is horrifying...

This is not a society I want to live in I know that....

come on people, grow up... let's leave "Call of Duty" on the computer screen shall we... and leave the people that are trained to handle and use firearms to handle and use them.....

You can't have a society where everyone takes the law into their own hands I'm afraid.... that is the job of the public services.... they are properly trained and employed for this reason...

Yeah, you might know how to fire a gun... but do you have any of the situation resolution training that the police have? Do you know what to do in a tense situation.....

If a member of the public had been carrying in that movie theatre do you really think they would have been able to do much about the situation... all that would have happened would some half arsed red neck would fire his gun off with his eyes closed and another six year old girl would have been killed..... an dthey would then have that on their conscience...

What you speak of is mob justice...... which has no place in a civilised society.....

It is the police's job to protect the people... not the people...

PA

PA

Originally posted by PerfectAnomoly


to all who support more guns in society.....

Really....??? Really..... do you really want everyone walking around packing a firearm... everybody on edge and paranoid.... gunfights exploding on every street corner.... the potential is horrifying...

Too much TV and Movies, and not enough real world experience.
You need to lay off the films. Having lived in numerous states/places in the US, the safest I felt was in Kennesaw GA. Go research the town.
Where I live now is an open carry state, no issues.
Where I was an LEO, it was even more lax gun laws, and had no issues on either side.
You have an unhealthy fear of people and firearms.
People just don't walk around, like the old west, picking fights and such.

Originally posted by PerfectAnomoly
This is not a society I want to live in I know that....

Then don't. Stay in the UK, with high rates of stabbings and beatings.

Originally posted by PerfectAnomoly
come on people, grow up... let's leave "Call of Duty" on the computer screen shall we... and leave the people that are trained to handle and use firearms to handle and use them.....

What are you talking about? Having both Military and LE training and experience, I do have more knowledge to back my statements.

Originally posted by PerfectAnomoly
You can't have a society where everyone takes the law into their own hands I'm afraid.... that is the job of the public services.... they are properly trained and employed for this reason...

Where has anyone suggested this?
I did not realize that a regular person is not trained in the manner of protecting themselves.

Originally posted by PerfectAnomoly
Yeah, you might know how to fire a gun... but do you have any of the situation resolution training that the police have? Do you know what to do in a tense situation.....

Yes, been there, done that, got the shirt. There are also many of training courses and classes that are available to any citizen.

Originally posted by PerfectAnomoly
If a member of the public had been carrying in that movie theatre do you really think they would have been able to do much about the situation... all that would have happened would some half arsed red neck would fire his gun off with his eyes closed and another six year old girl would have been killed..... an dthey would then have that on their conscience...

And there we have it. Your true colors come out. Half assed rednecks.

Ok, I think we are done with your BS. Be gone. Back to the UK. Go get ready for the Olympics.

Originally posted by PerfectAnomoly
What you speak of is mob justice...... which has no place in a civilised society.....

It is the police's job to protect the people... not the people...

You wait for the police. I will protect myself and my family. See which one fairs better.

The US Supreme Court has ruled numerous times that the police do NOT have a duty to protect a citizen. The police show up after an incident and clean up the mess. So who is there to protect the average citizen?

So if an armed intruder is terrorizing your family you are to call 911 and wait 10-45 minutes or longer for a police officer to show up? You would be dead by then.

I would venture to suggest that, had the lunatic known that there was medium to high risk of himself being shot by a gun owning citizen, he would not have gone in there to do what he did. I find it telling that all of these mass shootings always happen where citizens can not carry a weapon. They are preying on the defenseless population and taking advantage of the laws restricting law abiding citizens from defending themselves. So some of the people here have the brilliant idea that in order to reduce the potential of more mass shootings, they want to further restrict the only hindrance that has been shown to have any effect on the criminals committing the actual crime. Outstanding logic there.

FYI for you anti-gun types your fantasy about the AR-15 being a assault rifle is off. A semi-automatic requires a pull of the trigger to fire a round. You need a fully automatic to hold the trigger and "spray" multiple rounds. Yes you can make a semi auto full auto with a little work, but it requires a bit of knowledge that is sorely lacking these days and adds more charges if the shooter is brought in alive. The elites have hated guns since their inception, know why? Because it took their monopoly of control away. In medieval times the knight was the pinnacle of the soldier. Trained from a young age and outfitted with the most expensive equipment a fuedal lord could buy. Sword, armor and horse it was more than the peasants could ever dream of. Then comes the gun. Suddenly the rich and powerful were just as vulnerable to dying as the peasant. All with little to no training, point and pull the trigger. Remember that people, the gun is just as important to equalizing the elites today as they are now. We are always gonna have loons killing people its just the nature of life. If we take away things because of the bad people then cars, planes, knives, shovels, axes and so on will need to go to. All because some people are not responsible. It's all good till something you feel you deserve is taken away from you.

reply to post by Spiramirabilis

That's nonsense - and it's also insulting. Don't criticize people for being unable to accomplish what you yourself can't accomplish

You're deflecting. I am, as I always have, fighting for unalienable rights. The absolute and unalienable right to keep and bear arms, in this thread. I'm not the one calling for disarmament. It is inappropriate to insist that I should not criticize those calling for disarmament but stopping short of government thugs.

Since you have read this thread in its entirety, then you know full well that my stance as is the stance of others is that the Second Amendment exists so that the People may protect themselves from enemies both foreign and domestic, and that they may stand against tyranny in any form. I suspect you've also read enough of my posts and threads in this site to know that I do not just fight for rights, I just as tirelessly work towards convincing people that any revolution that may be necessary is best fought through peaceful means. If you are unaware of this, this is not my fault as I have made this argument often.

It is outrageous that those advocating gun control also believe they have the proper and just authority to control speech. I created this thread because the Huffington Post ran six articles yesterday demanding gun control, and did this only days after the tragedy. I was disturbed by this, but I certainly did not make any demands of the Huffington Post, nor have I made any demands of those who want to defend this most imprudent strategy of using tragedy to further political aims that anyone apologize for it. I gave you the benefit of the doubt and kept an open mind that you had some valid reason for insisting I owe an apology, but all I've got from you is more political grandstanding on this sensitive issue.

You and I do not have to agree on this issue, and I welcome your adversarial point of view in this thread, just the same as I welcome OutKasts. Indeed, I felt bad for OutKast yesterday because that poor soul was facing too many adversaries and that cannot be easy. If you and OutKast and the Huffington Post believe that it is a sound strategy to use a senseless killing and without any regard for the families or any regard for the normal period of mourning and grieving, to use that tragedy to further political aims, this is your right to do so and I would fight for that right just as zealously as I fight for the right to keep and bear arms I don't myself exercise.

I would suggest the strategy of giddily using tragedy to argue a political goal of rights suppression is most imprudent, but this is just my opinion. Now, in regards to that shoe...if I was mistaken about you and that shoe does fit, you must not be paying attention to think I would apologize because you are proudly wearing those shoes.

Again, you are most welcome to disagree with me at any time, and I have always done my best to speak to your disagreements as gracefully and respectfully as I can, but for you to come in this thread and insist I owe people an apology because I am against tyranny and have no respect for the sycophants of tyranny is beyond the pale. I have never seen you as a sycophant of tyranny, if you want to wear those shoes you know where I stand.

Originally posted by muse7
reply to post by Honor93

 

Lol why don't you take off your tin-foil hat for a second and come back to reality? 12 people are dead after a nutjob was able to buy an assault rifle, a handgun and a shotgun along with bullet proof vests and tear gas without being investigated.

12 people are dead and 50+ injured as a result of it. And you're still are able to sit there and parrot what every other gun zealot has been parroting since the incident happened. This also happened in 2007 too, 30 dead after another nut job was able to buy weapons with no hassle.

Our current gun laws are not the problem? lol

Get your head out your ass dude.

first, that'd be a ma'am to you.
second, 12 ppl died by the hand of one man and his choice of weaponry.
third, (at last update) 14 ppl died by the hand of one bad driver and his choice of weaponry.

are you willing to regulate who is "allowed" to own trucks, too ??

gun zealot ?? is a personal attack really necessary?
i am an American and you have no authority to deprive me or him of any right, think again.

and 26 shootings with 5 or more dead have happened over 12yrs, so what's your point??
our current gun laws are over-reaching already, yet you want more ??
did it ever occur to you that the current gun laws and restrictions invited this to happen ??

nah, take mine so only the criminals have guns ... aren't you smart

Originally posted by PerfectAnomoly
reply to post by macman

 

to all who support more guns in society.....

Really....??? Really..... do you really want everyone walking around packing a firearm... everybody on edge and paranoid.... gunfights exploding on every street corner.... the potential is horrifying...

This is not a society I want to live in I know that....

come on people, grow up... let's leave "Call of Duty" on the computer screen shall we... and leave the people that are trained to handle and use firearms to handle and use them.....

You can't have a society where everyone takes the law into their own hands I'm afraid.... that is the job of the public services.... they are properly trained and employed for this reason...

Yeah, you might know how to fire a gun... but do you have any of the situation resolution training that the police have? Do you know what to do in a tense situation.....

If a member of the public had been carrying in that movie theatre do you really think they would have been able to do much about the situation... all that would have happened would some half arsed red neck would fire his gun off with his eyes closed and another six year old girl would have been killed..... an dthey would then have that on their conscience...

What you speak of is mob justice...... which has no place in a civilised society.....

It is the police's job to protect the people... not the people...

PA

PA

In 36 states one can get a permit to carry a firearm. I carry one myself every day. IN those states where such permits are allowed, the violent crime rate is lower than those where they are not allowed.

We are not talking about "mob justice." We are talking about the underlying principle that a free person should and must have the right of self defense, If you believe someone has the right to self defense, then you must also accept that they have the right to the tools that make that possible.

I disagree. A person (or the people) have every right to protect themselves. You are incorrect when you cay that it is the police's job to protect people, not the people. (At least in the US). The US supreme court has ruled that the police do not have an obligation to protect people. www.nytimes.com...

The police are not obligated to ensure your safety, you have the right of self defense, therefore you have the right to the tools of self defense.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

It is outrageous that those advocating gun control also believe they have the proper and just authority to control speech.

If you and OutKast and the Huffington Post believe that it is a sound strategy to use a senseless killing and without any regard for the families or any regard for the normal period of mourning and grieving, to use that tragedy to further political aims, this is your right to do so and I would fight for that right just as zealously as I fight for the right to keep and bear arms I don't myself exercise.

:-)

and I'm deflecting?

I would never attempt to control anyone's speech Jean Paul - least of all yours

how could you miss the point of my posts so completely?

Again, you are most welcome to disagree with me at any time, and I have always done my best to speak to your disagreements as gracefully and respectfully as I can, but for you to come in this thread and insist I owe people an apology because I am against tyranny and have no respect for the sycophants of tyranny is beyond the pale. I have never seen you as a sycophant of tyranny, if you want to wear those shoes you know where I stand.

you crack me up - seriously

I don't see myself as a sycophant of tyranny either - but then again - I'm not seeing the world through sycophant of tyranny tinted glasses

I don't chew my cabbage twice Jean Paul - if you really want to understand where I'm coming from - my posts are both still right where I left them...

As always - as much a pleasure to disagree with you as it is to agree

:-)

In 36 states one can get a permit to carry a firearm. I carry one myself every day. IN those states where such permits are allowed, the violent crime rate is lower than those where they are not allowed.

Sorry but the only permit needed is the second in the constitution what the anti crowd fails to see and what liberalism means.

Freedom in this case the freedom of choice which it seems the anti's are all to happy to make the choice for others and they have no right,no place to.

If a person wants to own a gun they can if they don't that is fine as well gun control is tyranny, and it is that simple.

reply to post by Spiramirabilis

did it ever occur to you that IF your goal is disarmament, the BEST place to start would be with the government thugs (as JPZ referenced) ... their minions, their "protectors" and even the SS?
Why would you insist the population should be regulated when in fact, creating the proper environment would lead to a voluntary public response ?
which, of course, should be led by the overlords who should voluntarily lay their weapons down.

are you even aware that when the public did not fear the government as much as they do now, gun ownership was at the lowest levels ever recorded in history?

which also leads to the fact that ppl will self-regulate given the proper environment.

Originally posted by neo96

In 36 states one can get a permit to carry a firearm. I carry one myself every day. IN those states where such permits are allowed, the violent crime rate is lower than those where they are not allowed.

Sorry but the only permit needed is the second in the constitution what the anti crowd fails to see and what liberalism means.

Freedom in this case the freedom of choice which it seems the anti's are all to happy to make the choice for others and they have no right,no place to.

If a person wants to own a gun they can if they don't that is fine as well gun control is tyranny, and it is that simple.

Fair enough and I agree. Just pointing out that blood does not flow in the streets where CCW is allowed. MOst people are shocked when they learn that in Vermont, you have always been able to carry a concealed handgun--no permit required Yet Vermont is a very peaceful place even with all of those unregulated guns around.

The “Unrestricted / No Issue” classification means that the state of Vermont does not require or even issue permits to it’s residents for concealed carry in the state.

reply to post by Honor93

are you even aware that when the public did not fear the government as much as they do now, gun ownership was at the lowest levels ever recorded in history?

Are you even aware of how much irony there is in what you just said?

And anyway - I'm not in this thread to argue for disarmament

:-)

Originally posted by muse7

Lol why don't you take off your tin-foil hat for a second and come back to reality? 12 people are dead after a nutjob was able to buy an assault rifle, a handgun and a shotgun along with bullet proof vests and tear gas without being investigated.

If you are going to banter, then banter without the Brady Camp talking points.
There is no such thing as an assault rifle. All firearms, knives, swords and anything else can be used to assault. The rifle does not hold the title on its own.
There is no such thing as a Bullet Proof vest, no matter how many CCN reports you see. There are Ballistic vest, that vary in degree as to what and how many rounds it can absorb.
He did not purchase tear gas. He made a smoke gas, using chemicals he obtained, using his College course as a cover. Sounds like he was hell bent, regardless how many limits or restrictions you want imposed.

Originally posted by muse7
12 people are dead and 50+ injured as a result of it.

No, that happened because Holmes decided on taking other peoples lives, regardless how it was carried out, he was going to achieve his goals.

Originally posted by muse7
And you're still are able to sit there and parrot what every other gun zealot has been parroting since the incident happened. This also happened in 2007 too, 30 dead after another nut job was able to buy weapons with no hassle.

WOW, gun zealot huh?
I guess that would make you a coward? Since you don't like the ability for others to defend themselves? Or, does it then make you just solely dependent on the Govt to protect you?

Originally posted by muse7
Our current gun laws are not the problem? lol

Get your head out your ass dude.

No, they are not. The problem is that there are sick people out there, that commit horrible acts, and the last little bit, these events have all been at the Liberal Loved "Gun Free Zone".


Funny, that given this idea that having guns around just breeds violence, that there then should be more mass shootings at Gun Stores Nation Wide and Shooting Ranges. I mean, they have loads of guns and ammo. Weird how that works, huh?

reply to post by PerfectAnomoly


More people are killed in car accidents every year than are killed by guns - in fact, according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration traffic related deaths have spiked 13.5% in the first quarter of this year compared to last year (www.detroitnews.com... ) ....guess that means we should ban cars, huh? Since we're going to blame inanimate objects for bad human behaviour, why stop with guns? I know, you're not fat because you ate 500 cookies for lunch everyday - you're fat because the 500 cookies had too much fat in them, right?

As for a connection between guns and gun violence - I vote that we adopt the Gun Laws of the European Country with the LOWEST per capita gun violence statistics....agreed? Sound good? That Country happens to be Switzerland - want to know what their Gun Laws are? Swiss Law - since before WWII - REQUIRES all able bodied males over the age of 18 to maintain a GOVERNMENT ISSUED military assault rifle in their homes. Not a shotgun or pistol, but a FULLY AUTOMATIC HK Machine Gun......in fact, in a country of only 7 1/2 million people, their are close to 3 million PUBLICLY OWNED firearms in private, civilian homes - and this doesn't include the PRIVATELY owned firearms.....that's right - FAR more firearms per capita than the US and they have the LOWEST per capita gun violence.

What? Lost for words? How about this - some of the cities in the US that have strict gun laws: Los Angeles, DC, Chicago, Detroit......want to know where THOSE cities rank against Switzerland ? I'll spare you the figures, but let's just say that those 4 cities are among the Top 10 in gun violence in the US - and ALL 4 surpass Switzerland's gun violence tally.

CHEERS !

All these robot minded gun control nutcases can't seem to comprehend the fact that if this guy didn't have access to firearms, he just would have ignited a bomb inside the theater instead. Probably killing many more people than he did. Talk about stuck on dumb dumb.

So there yuh have it. If protecting innocent life is your reasoning, then you have failed pathetically. Remove heads from poop tubes. ~$heopleNation

So we are not allowed to use current events to back up arguments now? So I suppose we shouldn't of used 9/11 to attack "terrorists" or use Romney not revealing his taxes to attack his bid for the presidency. ATS is becoming more and more worthless every day.