The Shameless Opportunism of Gun Control Advocates

reply to post by AfterInfinity


Disarming the populace does not make things safer for the populace, it only makes things safer for the criminals.

But who cares about the criminals, right?

Criminals don't freaking care where they get their firearms, and the police can not do the Minority Report thing and pre-arrest someone for a crime they haven't committed, they can only respond to a crime that has already been committed.

And screw the greater good. Communism killed 100 million people for the greater good. The Cherokee Trail Of Tears was done for the greater good. In fact, FRAK the greater good.

Individual rights trump the greater good.

reply to post by EvilSadamClone

And one could argue that there are "criminals" in government who would take advantage of an unarmed populace also. Dont forget to add Mao's "cultural revolution" and "pol pot's purge" to your other examples (Stalin's "communist purge" and our own "trail of tears" quasi-death march for the relocated indigenous american tribes).

reply to post by EvilSadamClone
Earlier in this thread I brought up Cook County in Chicago.

There, it is illegal to own/possess a firearm.

So. . . . . there are no gun crimes in Chicago, I guess.

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

agreed but it'll Never happen ... case in point ... last night a single truck with 23 souls on board crashed into a tree (not a movie theatre) and killed 14 so far (which is more than the theatre tragedy loss) ... don't suppose we should advocate a ban trucks now too ??
www.accidentin.com...

after all, there are Laws restricting such a load, there are Laws requiring seat belts for all on board and there certainly are Laws against transporting illegal immigrants ... so, which of the above laws were effective in this case ??
did the laws save any lives ??
are the laws helping the survivors ??
so, the driver who intentionally broke the laws, should he be punished or the rest of society because we like our trucks and it is our right to own/operate them ??

reply to post by EvilSadamClone


Just as disturbing, is that they argue that free speech is inherently "regulated" because "you can't yell fire in a crowded theater". I purposely omit the important clarification of "falsely" that Justice Oliver Wendall Holmes used in that misquoted opinion because those who argue that speech is "regulated" are constantly omitting the word, and I suspect just as purposely as I did. It is the word "falsely" that puts the entire quote into context. To falsely yell fire in a crowded theater speaks to the guilty mind of a criminal and harm is no doubt the intent when one falsely screams fire in a crowded theater.

The sycophants of tyranny also claim that speech is "regulated" because of slander laws. Again, slander is a demonstrable harm, and further is generally a tort law and not a criminal one.

What is disturbing about these sycophants of tyranny arguing that speech is "regulated" is that they ignore, either willfully or naively, the fact that rights are determined - outside of necessary defense - by the lack of harm they cause. What causes no harm is done by right. If it causes harm it does not require "regulation" but demands justice!

That leads to my final point in this post. "Regulation" has done nothing at all to prevent harm. The licensed drivers are primarily the ones who are involved in vehicular homicides. The licensed doctors are the ones generally involved in killing their patients. The corporation - an entity that begins with regulation - loves regulation and their bean counters are constantly arguing that it is cheaper to pay the fine for criminally polluting, or putting out bad food, medicine, what have you, than it is to correct the problem. So, the major corporation pays the fine, the government collects the revenue and everyone is happy...except for the people screwed in the process.

That, in a nut shell, is regulation.

reply to post by Honor93


Well, where are the advocates, on THAT case ?

Does it ONLY matter if its Gun Deaths ?

There's the hypocrisy.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by JohnnyCanuck

 

All you have shown, by quoting a wiki source, is how remarkably disingenuous the apathetic can be. What you cited does not in any way refute what I have stated, nor does it bear out your assertion that you wouldn't have posted because of apathy. I think you speak the same English I speak, but lack the necessary critical thinking skills to understand the English you read.

No one needs your off topic "context". It does not matter where you hail from and you were most certainly being disingenuous as you made your argument of not being American as if it were some bitter medicine defending your right to post in this thread as if that right had been challenged. It had not been challenged, and your "context" remains deflection.

Nonsense. Citing wiki does not denote apathy, nor is it disingenuous. Further, non-Americans are consistently challenged on this site as having no worthwhile input into discussions of U.S. issues. I would suggest, instead, that deflection is throwing a lot of windy verbiage at a simple assertion that this particular discussion is not doing any Americans proud, as both sides are trying to make points off of it. Only some trying to justify the core causes based upon their 'rights' and do not wish to engage with the consequences. Personally, I think they are being whiny. You, sir, are being deflective.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
If I may expand and perhaps find a parallel on "regulation".

With the advent of the Dept. of Education, national education standards were "regulated". Since this inception, the standards have declined. Abuses have grown. Waste, cost, has soared.

With the emerging picture of ACA (Obamacare) costs have increased (already!) with no assurances of better care.

With the "regulation" of free speech, censorship has become not only the norm, but it is anticipated now.

And people honestly expect that further "regulation" of firearms will be beneficial?

reply to post by JohnnyCanuck

Nonsense. Citing wiki does not denote apathy, nor is it disingenuous.

This is the lack of critical thinking skills and/or disingenuousness I am speaking to. I did not claim that citing wiki denoted apathy. How did you read that, or are you providing more "context"?

Further, non-Americans are consistently challenged on this site as having no worthwhile input into discussions of U.S. issues.

I have not read a single post in this thread where anyone has done what you claim. You are in this thread now, if you need that context pointed out, and in this thread, the only one yammering on about "non-Americans" is you. On a side note, I find it sad that a Canadian would refer to himself as "non-American" given that Canada is the Great White North...that is North America.

I would suggest, instead, that deflection is throwing a lot of windy verbiage at a simple assertion that this particular discussion is not doing any Americans proud, as both sides are trying to make points off of it.

Well, that sure is a lot of windy verbiage, but I assure you, you were deflecting long before you wrote that verbose sentence.

Only some trying to justify the core causes based upon their 'rights' and do not wish to engage with the consequences. Personally, I think they are being whiny. You, sir, are being deflective.

The rights you so disturbingly place in ineffectual quotes are yours to. I am speaking directly to that, do you understand? If you want to surrender your rights to government go right ahead and do so, but don't you dare make that surrender and declare that all have surrendered with you. Your surrender does not justify placing effete quotes around the word rights. If you want to praise tyranny be proud and strong just as those members in this thread who have proudly and strongly defended liberty. Why ask those defending liberty to pretend your praise of tyranny is really more defense of liberty, why not just be honest and admit you have no regard for other peoples rights?

reply to post by Jean Paul ZodeauxDo you really find it necessary to create a straw man argument now too? It only confirms my assertion that you are deflecting the core issues. I will not play your game any further.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by EvilSadamClone

 

Just as disturbing, is that they argue that free speech is inherently "regulated" because "you can't yell fire in a crowded theater". I purposely omit the important clarification of "falsely" that Justice Oliver Wendall Holmes used in that misquoted opinion because those who argue that speech is "regulated" are constantly omitting the word, and I suspect just as purposely as I did. It is the word "falsely" that puts the entire quote into context. To falsely yell fire in a crowded theater speaks to the guilty mind of a criminal and harm is no doubt the intent when one falsely screams fire in a crowded theater.

The sycophants of tyranny also claim that speech is "regulated" because of slander laws. Again, slander is a demonstrable harm, and further is generally a tort law and not a criminal one.

What is disturbing about these sycophants of tyranny arguing that speech is "regulated" is that they ignore, either willfully or naively, the fact that rights are determined - outside of necessary defense - by the lack of harm they cause. What causes no harm is done by right. If it causes harm it does not require "regulation" but demands justice!

That leads to my final point in this post. "Regulation" has done nothing at all to prevent harm. The licensed drivers are primarily the ones who are involved in vehicular homicides. The licensed doctors are the ones generally involved in killing their patients. The corporation - an entity that begins with regulation - loves regulation and their bean counters are constantly arguing that it is cheaper to pay the fine for criminally polluting, or putting out bad food, medicine, what have you, than it is to correct the problem. So, the major corporation pays the fine, the government collects the revenue and everyone is happy...except for the people screwed in the process.

That, in a nut shell, is regulation.

as always, your commentary is sooooo apropos that the only addition i could possibly make are in the words of a Founding Father, Thomas Jackson ... "Unless you become more watchful in your states and check the spirit of monopoly and thirst for exclusive privileges you will in the end find that...the control over your dearest interests has passed into the hands of these corporations."

"Mischief springs from the power which the moneyed interest derives from a paper currency which they are able to control, from the multitude of corporations with exclusive privileges...which are employed altogether for their benefit." ---> USA, inc.

ETA: ANDREW Jackson -- honest
jefferson, jackson, thomas, andrew ... i'm dypslexic, remember ??

reply to post by beezzer


The alphabet agencies that litter the federal government have no Constitutional mandate at all, and have done little to no good in prevention of harm, but worse, they've facilitated it. The EPA enriches the federal governments coffers by fining the polluter, but the polluter continues to pollute, while the EPA only shuts down the small to mid sized business who hardly pollutes. The FDA enriches the federal governments coffers by fining the marketers of salmonella in the form of poorly handled and packaged produce or meats, while simultaneously shutting down Amish farmers for sharing their non-pasturized milk. The FAA virtually ensures that only corporate airlines can exist and only the rich can fly privately. The FCC virtually ensures that only the rich can broadcast while, as you point out, adding the extra bonus of a familiarity and acceptance of "regulated" speech, and as neo points out, since the creation of the FBI, serial killers, and unthinkable crimes have risen not been diminished.

It is apropos to point out, given the Aurora incident was for the latest Batman film, that DC comics as well as film have long made the point that the Joker exists because the Batman exists.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


Nothing shameless about it. It's just another example of a lunatic nut job buying
assault weapons over the counter to carry out mass murder.

It is shameless that weapons are so easily available in the United States.

For all of you that try to peddle the tired old line that " People kill people not guns" IS a shameless
defense. You know it.

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

 

Do you really find it necessary to create a straw man argument now too? It only confirms my assertion that you are deflecting the core issues. I will not play your game any further.

I quoted you directly. Do you even know what a Strawman Argument is?

No one made you place effete quotes around the word rights. You made that choice and if you don't understand that by doing so the message was an intent to undermine the validity of rights, then my assertion of your lack of critical thinking skills is borne out.

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

 

Do you really find it necessary to create a straw man argument now too? It only confirms my assertion that you are deflecting the core issues. I will not play your game any further.

what straw-man argument ?? it was a straight forward question. are you afraid or embarrassed to answer it ??

rights do not belong to Americans solely, but to all humans.
your choice/decision to surrender your rights is yours and yours alone ... and, that is how it should be.
(Canadians do and can legally own firearms, for you to infer that a more civilized society has no need for them is as straw-man as any argument can get)

reply to post by rigel4

For all of you that try to peddle the tired old line that " People kill people not guns" IS a shameless defense. You know it.

Note to JohnnyCanuck, quoted up above is a strawman argument. I have not, of course, made the argument that "people kill people not guns" and have instead argued that the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. This doesn't matter to rigel4, as he is gleefully entrenched in his shameless gob of spitting on that right.

reply to post by SM2

Well, see, do I think every American citizen should own a nuclear missile? No, I do not. Do I think every American should be able to if they have the means to be able to purchase them? Yes.

Good luck finding many people to support that opinion. Notice how no one else will back you up???

So this statement from you is enough to determine that you are not of sound mind and are a bit of an extremist.

Just look at some of the quotes and the documents of the founding fathers for supporting evidence to my statements.

Sorry...but I don't share your worship of the 'founders'.

Let's not forget...they wrote a document declaring "all men are created equal" as they willingly participating in enslaving blacks. The Founders were in it for themselves, they were first and foremost business men looking to make money...they just had some skill for flair and propaganda to make themselves sound like moral men.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


As I said in my last reply...I don't worship the founders and hang on their every word as some of you do.

I actually have very little respect for the hypocritical founders who did what they did primarily for their own personal gain and used propaganda of "freedom" and "equality" as a rally call. I'm sorry...but the founders were a bunch of greedy pricks.

They got many things wrong...so using an appeal to authority with them has no credibility at all.


Answer me this JPZ...do you beleive that citizens should be allowed to own a Nuke???

Originally posted by rigel4

It is shameless that weapons are so easily available in the United States.

Motor Vehicles, knives, hammers, Baseball Bats, etc are also widely available. ALL Have been used in senseless acts of murder. DAILY.

Example:

Antwi said the 60-year-old Ghana native leaves behind a wife and seven children, ranging in age from four to 20. Those who knew him say Dennis was an unbelievably friendly and generous man.

Police and witnesses said on July 19 at 7 p.m., a man walked into Gold Star headquarters and asked for a glass of water. Dennis let him in, so he could take water from the cooler. On his way out, the suspect pulled a knife and demanded money. "He gave him money, and he tried to follow him," Ghuman explained. Witnesses say the two were just outside the building when the suspect turned and stabbed Dennis and ran away.

Hayes Dennis killed outside taxi company headquarters

Originally posted by rigel4
For all of you that try to peddle the tired old line that " People kill people not guns" IS a shameless
defense. You know it.

What is SHAMELESS, is that many have picked and chosen their "evil" weapon of choice, to advocate against, instead of realizing that society, and those who care not about human life, WILL kill with anything, if they desire to.

reply to post by macman

Nuclear missiles are not small arms.

And?

Where did the Constitution say anything about "small arms"???

It seems like you are pro-regulation as well.

The least amount by the Federal Govt is the goal. Least meaning what the Constitution Declares.
The Amendment was placed to allow the People to be ready for when the Govt becomes to over reaching. And spare me the whole "well the Govt has tanks blah blah blah" crap. WE are discussing Small Arms, not Fighter Jets, Tanks and so on.

Oh right...don't bring up tanks, jets, bombs...because that is damaging to your argument

Ok...I don't consider assault weapons as "small arms"...so thus...they should be banned using your own logic.


Way to be hypocritical...but at least you admit that you are pro-regulation...we just disagree on the level.

Spoken like a true Progressive. Hope your BS doesn't infect others.

I'm sorry...weren't you just advocating for the SCOTUS to re-visit the health care bill and overturn their ruling???

It seems I am just following your lead.