The Shameless Opportunism of Gun Control Advocates

reply to post by ImaFungi


I'm not clear why you believe that by constantly (ad naseum) clarifying that your opinion is only your opinion, somehow lessens the severity of that opinion. You cannot wish problems away and problems are a big ass part of reality.

reply to post by links234


STill will not do a damn thing explosives are illegal and yet The colorado shooter made his own which means any sociopath can make their own guns.

reply to post by neo96


Exactly my point, thank you.

I do wonder if Gun Control Advocates, would be as hard on those driving Automobiles, if this man decided to murder these people, by driving his car into a packed movie house Lobby. This man was insane, and used a Gun, to kill innocent victims. He could have used his car, just as well. MHO

Originally posted by ImaFungi
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

 

the only way i would be able to agree with your side of the argument is if guns saved more lives then they took,

It could be argued they do. How many knife crimes were prevented because potential victims were armed? How many potential burglars were deterred without a shot being fired?
More to the point, how many lost their lives throughout the 20th century because they couldn't defend themselves against a dictatorship? Tens, perhaps hundreds of millions.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


i think i kind of understand your arguement better now,, it is one for complete freedom regardless of consequence?

youd rather have laissez fairely slightly controled chaos,,, then complete order,,,, only because it seems complete order is not only impossible,,, but by definition restricting freedom,,,., complete order or harmony would seem like all would be forced in one direction,,, and thats why you call my idealisic thinking marxist and oppressive,,,, whats it called when you want the best for all,, and believe whole heartedly that all can be positive and good,, on their own for the good of themselves and the good of all,, because of reason and logic,,, I think thats the highest form of civilization,, if that took place would you be afraid there could be no john waynes? no ruffians on the outskirts making it on their own,,,, isnt that the way it is now? arent those people either homeless or in jail?

reply to post by links234


Actually the point there was when someone wants to kill people they will do anything to procure the means to meet their goals.

He did not have access to explosives still got them even if guns were banned entirely in this country people would still get them.

Just like the prohibition days of old they banned alcohol people still got it, and in the process made millionaires.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by ImaFungi

 

I'm not clear why you believe that by constantly (ad naseum) clarifying that your opinion is only your opinion, somehow lessens the severity of that opinion. You cannot wish problems away and problems are a big ass part of reality.

ok,,, so what in reality in regards to guns do you view as a problem? and what is the rational solution? there is no problem there is no solution is your answer? or there is a problem it will solve it self is your answer?

reply to post by sonnny1


Yes. Licenses are absurdly easy to procure in this country, however it's both a necessity and a problem.

We don't have sufficient public transportation to alleviate the need for a vehicle. We don't need everyone in the country to own a firearm.

Originally posted by sonnny1
I do wonder if Gun Control Advocates, would be as hard on those driving Automobiles, if this man decided to murder these people, by driving his car into a packed movie house Lobby. This man was insane, and used a Gun, to kill innocent victims. He could have used his car, just as well. MHO

the car point made by jean earlier is a very good one,,,,,, so i guess the lesson is pshychopaths will exist and find a way to destroy people and things,,, and we either have to deal with that fact,,, or repress all people a little more

Originally posted by sonnny1
I do wonder if Gun Control Advocates, would be as hard on those driving Automobiles, if this man decided to murder these people, by driving his car into a packed movie house Lobby. This man was insane, and used a Gun, to kill innocent victims. He could have used his car, just as well. MHO

The pen and ink of politicans have killed more people,robbed more people than the entire history of the invention of the Gun,or auto.

And it seems too many people are all to willing to let them decide the fate of people they do not have such a great track record.

Originally posted by XeroOne

Originally posted by ImaFungi
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

 

the only way i would be able to agree with your side of the argument is if guns saved more lives then they took,

It could be argued they do. How many knife crimes were prevented because potential victims were armed? How many potential burglars were deterred without a shot being fired?
More to the point, how many lost their lives throughout the 20th century because they couldn't defend themselves against a dictatorship? Tens, perhaps hundreds of millions.

edit on 22-7-2012 by XeroOne because: (no reason given)

A 14-year-old Phoenix boy shot an intruder who broke into his home while brandishing a gun as the teenager watched his three younger siblings, police said. The teen and his brothers and sisters were at home alone at their residence at 55th Avenue and Baseline when a woman rang the doorbell Friday.

The teen didn't open the door because he didn't recognize her, Police Officer James Holmes said Saturday. Soon after, the teen heard a bang on the door, rushed his siblings upstairs and got a handgun from his parent's bedroom. When he got to the top of the stairs, he saw a man breaking through the front door and point a gun at him.

Phoenix boy, 14, shoots armed intruder while watching three younger siblings

Sure Gun Control Advocates, would use the excuse, that neither of them, intruder or victim, needed a Gun, hey?

Originally posted by links234
We don't need everyone in the country to own a firearm.

Sorry, but I disagree. So does the majority of Americans.

Past and Present.

reply to post by neo96


That was the point I was trying to make. Holmes was a neuroscience grad student, top of his class as an undergrad. I think his knowledge of chemistry was more than sufficient to make bombs.

Any type of prohibitive law is intended, mainly, for the general population that isn't capable of acquiring or making the product that's prohibited.

Methamphetamine as an example; I'm not the target of the restrictive laws on certain drugs but I'm affected by it. I understand its purpose so I don't throw a fit about it.

Originally posted by Taupin Desciple
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

 

Way to peace that together Jean.......you're hired.

There actually is a connection there.

Yes it's definitely good to see Jean back in form. Belated collective condolences to the families of those who have lost their lives DEFENDING THE CONSTITUTION.

Want Gun Control? Move to China, maybe someone will miss you. In the meantime, be grateful to those gun owners watching your back. Belated thank-yous to those watching mine...

reply to post by links234


Means he had easy access to the chemicals needed to make explosives since they are heavily regulated much like firearms it is most likely he stole them from his school.

Considering the sheer volume of explosives in his apartment there is no way he could have legally obtained those without getting flagged from the Feds.

reply to post by sonnny1


No need to apologize I don't expect everyone in the world to agree with me, that's why I'm here.

However, a majority of Americans favor gun control. It wasn't until after Barack Obama was elected that the opinion shifted. I don't know why.

Source.

reply to post by neo96


If you know what you are doing, all you need is a hardware store to obtain the materials.

reply to post by JIMC5499


Some materials can be obtained from a hardware store but not everything needed really depends on what his explosive choice was.

reply to post by ImaFungi

i think i kind of understand your arguement better now,, it is one for complete freedom regardless of consequence?

This is always what the opponents of unalienable rights do when they come to realize they're in over their heads. They get disingenuous and start arguing strawmen arguments. They cannot do anything else, unless they want to simply admit their errors.

Here is my argument: All people, everywhere, have unalienable rights. Among those rights are the right to life. It follows that the right to life comes with the right to defend that life, property and the protection of all other rights. That is freedom, and if you cared so much about consequences, and truly wanted guns eliminated you'd first be calling for governments to lay down their arms. This, of course, is not what you're calling for and instead show a repugnant disregard for the rights of the individual.