The Shameless Opportunism of Gun Control Advocates

reply to post by neo96

Gun control/laws happen because far too many people are afraid of their own shadows, and oh damn that might be dangerous so they need a law to protect the people from them the pyschos.

I actually think it is the pro-gun lovers that are afraid of their own shadows.

I am fine not having a gun...I don't live in fear and paranoia with the thinking that I MUST own a gun...or that I am a helpless victim.

Gun lovers are by far the most scared and paranoid people in this country...I do believe it is an insecurity issue and a deep problem with their own mental state.

reply to post by OutKast Searcher


I think the entire "do you think people should own nukes" would be better placed under the definition of hyperbole.

hy·per·bo·le
   [hahy-pur-buh-lee]

noun Rhetoric .
1.
obvious and intentional exaggeration.

2.
an extravagant statement or figure of speech not intended to be taken literally, as “to wait an eternity.”

dictionary.reference.com...

reply to post by OutKast Searcher
first, this thread isn't about your opinion of the Founding Fathers.
nor is it about slavery except that which you desire to enforce.

the poster was specifically addressing you, why would anyone need to address the point he/she made?
fyi ... many Americans agree with such an opinion.
and even you wouldn't have to look far to find one who agrees.

in case you missed it on page 5 ... even i said ... the defense of oneself is the birthright of every animal -- and in whatever method necessary and available ... including all the weapons yet to come.

reply to post by beezzer

Can we regulate free speech the same way the anti-gun crowd wants to regulate the 2nd amendment?

Lets.

Outkast, I don't like the way you post, I deem it harmful, not only to me but to others as well. You could, at any time just *snap* and say something that might hurt my feelings so badly that fatal harm could occur to my self-esteem.

Therefore, in the interest of public safety, I must ask you not to post anything anymore. Not because you HAVE said something fatal, but because you have the potental to.

I have no problem regulating speech in the cases where speech can cause physical harm.

Emotional harm...not so much.

Nice try though...but your analogy sucks.

This thread got away from me so I'm going to try and post this to one person for the benefit of all.

Originally posted by Honor93

Originally posted by links234
reply to post by neo96

 

You're right, gun control doesn't appear to stop these types of events. America averages 20 mass shootings per year, regardless of any restrictions we have. We can't stop them. We can ease the effect they have though, a point I was trying to make earlier.

regarding the bold statement, can you provide a link for this nonsense ... i believe the number is closer to 3 and that's since 2000.
and that also depends on what constitutes a "mass shooting" ... 5 or more ??

You won't like the source because it's the Brady Campaign Against Gun Violence, but I got the number from rt.com

But just going off of your criteria of five or more:

Aurora, CO
July 20, 2012
Twelve people killed, 58 injured.

Tuscaloosa, AL
July 17, 2012
Seventeen people injured.

Chicago, IL
July 6, 2012
Three dead, seven injured.

Seattle, WA
July 02, 2012
One killed, five injured.

Houston, TX
July 20, 2012
Three killed, two injured.

Auburn, AL
July 09, 2012
Three killed, three injured.

OKLAHOMA CITY, OK
June 21, 2012
Eight injured.

Seattle, WA
June 30, 2012
Five people killed followed by a suicide. This one was done by a CC permit holder.

GILBERT, AZ
June 01, 2012
Four people killed followed by a suicide.

That's nine times in the past two months of five or more people killed or wounded by single incident gun crime. I specifically excluded the 10 murdered in Chicago in a two day period because it was all seperate incidents.

You can find many more dating back to 2005 here. The criteria is three or more wounded or killed for the source.

Originally posted by beezzer
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.

Wow...you are really showing your ignorance.

I suggest you go educate yourself before you continue to spread ignorance.

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
do you beleive that citizens should be allowed to own a Nuke???

Oh my.........

Do you believe humans should hold their breaths ?

Top 10 Infectious Diseases That Have Killed Millions of People

While we are at it, lets "regulate" human touch, coughing, and breathing.

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
reply to post by beezzer

 

Can we regulate free speech the same way the anti-gun crowd wants to regulate the 2nd amendment?

Lets.

Outkast, I don't like the way you post, I deem it harmful, not only to me but to others as well. You could, at any time just *snap* and say something that might hurt my feelings so badly that fatal harm could occur to my self-esteem.

Therefore, in the interest of public safety, I must ask you not to post anything anymore. Not because you HAVE said something fatal, but because you have the potental to.

I have no problem regulating speech in the cases where speech can cause physical harm.

Emotional harm...not so much.

Nice try though...but your analogy sucks.

*gasp*
M-M-My self-esteem!
(call Eric Holde-. . . . . . . . . . . )

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher

Originally posted by beezzer
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.

Wow...you are really showing your ignorance.

I suggest you go educate yourself before you continue to spread ignorance.

*gasp*
My self-estee-. . . . naw already done that.

Instead of just calling me ignorant, why not refute what I stated?

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
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.

Backing me or not, that is what the founders envisioned, sorry, but it is true. The militia are the people, and they intended the militia to be as well armed as the government. So you are suggesting that, because I have actually educated myself and have actually read the constitution and the supporting documents that I am an extremist?

Oh and btw, It was not just the blacks that were enslaved, and not just the whites who owned slaves. For the record, the first legal slave owner in the United States was a black man in Virginia by the name of Anthony Johnson, who himself was an indentured servant, meaning released after a contractual period. All african slaves at the time, prior to 1654, were held in this manner. Many of which were granted land and equipment after the contract expired.After he was set free, he obtained some land, long story short his first slave, John Casor was the first person legally identified as an African slave. Now, There were also Irish slaves, which were far cheaper than an African slave and thus treated more harshly. In about a decade there was over 300,000 Irish slaves in America and during the 1650's over 100,000 children were taken from theirr parents and sold as slaves by the British crown.

reply to post by OutKast Searcher

Gun lovers are by far the most scared and paranoid people in this country...I do believe it is an insecurity issue and a deep problem with their own mental state.

That really is laughable seems to me that the only thing gun control is a false sense of security making a persons only means of defense to either:

Run like 300 people in colorado did,like they did at VA Tech, and what they did at columbine
Dial 9-11 like they did after 60 people lay bleeding on the ground.

Still did not "prevent" those events did they?

Gun control is a insecurity issue and deep problem with their own mental states.

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by OutKast Searcher

 

I think the entire "do you think people should own nukes" would be better placed under the definition of hyperbole.

hy·per·bo·le
   [hahy-pur-buh-lee]

noun Rhetoric .
1.
obvious and intentional exaggeration.

2.
an extravagant statement or figure of speech not intended to be taken literally, as “to wait an eternity.”

dictionary.reference.com...

Only because you don't want to answer it.

Would you like me to walk up to the nuke option like a child??? Fine...if you insist on acting like a child and plugging your ears when there is something you don't like...I will treat you like a child.

Do you think people should be allowed to own a knife?

Do you think people should be allowed to own a sword?

Do you think people should be allowed to own a bow and arrow?

Do you think people should be allowed to own a single shot musket?

Do you think people should be allowed to own a handgun?

Do you think people should be allowed to own a hunting rifle?

Do you think people should be allowed to own a semi-auto assault rifle?

Do you think people should be allowed to own a high powered/long range rifle?

Do you think people should be allowed to own a full auto assault rifle?

Do you think people should be allowed to own a machine gun?

Do you think people should be allowed to own a 50-cal machine gun?

Do you think people should be allowed to own a car mounted gatling gun?

Do you think people should be allowed to own a cannon?

Do you think people should be allowed to own a anti aircraft gun?

Do you think people should be allowed to own gernades?

Do you think people should be allowed to own RPGs?

Do you think people should be allowed to own tanks?

Do you think people should be allowed to own stealth bombers?

Do you think people should be allowed to own surface to air missles?

Do you think people should be allowed to own ICBMs?

Do you think people should be allowed to own chemical weapons?

and finally...

Do you think people should be allowed to own nukes?


So...where in the above do YOU draw the line???

Do you see how that works??? I just made the mistake in thinking that you were intelligent enought to be able to see the stair step up to the nuke option...but I guess you need to have your hand held to be shown it.



Nice attempt to dodge the question....quite transparent though....all 2nd amendment fanatics try to dodge this question....I wonder why????

reply to post by SM2


The modern militia are the National Guard under the purview of the governors of the states. America was never intended to have the standing army that we have now. The only reason the founders wanted a well regulated militia was to protect the nation, not from it's own government, but from other governments that might do us harm.

reply to post by OutKast Searcher

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.

John Adams, Alexander Hamilton, Samuel Adams, John Quincy Adams, and Thomas Paine are some of the more notable Founders who did not own slaves. In 1789 there were five "free states" as opposed to the eight "slave states' in the newly formed union of the federal government. Earlier, in 1787 The Northwest Territory, incorporated by Founders of the United States federal government, was the first U.S. region entirely free of slavery.

Benjamin Franklin, who owned two slaves, but he became one of the U.S.'s first abolitionists!

Your lazy generalization is profound in its disregard for the many Founders who were vehemently opposed to slavery and fully understood the problems inherent in establishing a nation rooted in freedom while simultaneously turning a blind eye to slavery. The Civil War was not a historical moment of spontaneity, it was a long and acrimonious battle to put an end to slavery that culminated in a Civil War.

It is interesting to note that it is always those people who show little regard for unalienable rights who then turn around and use slavery to justify their arguments for oppression.

Originally posted by sonnny1

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
do you beleive that citizens should be allowed to own a Nuke???

Oh my.........

Do you believe humans should hold their breaths ?

Top 10 Infectious Diseases That Have Killed Millions of People

While we are at it, lets "regulate" human touch, coughing, and breathing.

Look at that...another one dodging the question.

It's a very easy "yes" or "no" question...do you believe American citizens should be allowed to own nukes???

Try not to plug your ears and dodge the question this time.

Originally posted by sonnny1
reply to post by muzzleflash

 

Here you go......

Great start, actually.

Advanced Gunsmithing.pdf

Wow thank you for sharing that book.
This is really in depth too, I appreciate it.

Hopefully people will pass this info around and give it a look.

It may seem a bit dry but it is seriously some legit and practical information, and is necessary for any 'survivalist' to at least be familiar with, in my opinion.

reply to post by OutKast Searcher


Yo

That is one big arse strawman argument since when is owning a thing a crime?

Murdering is illegal right?

The act of doing something that results in the death of another human being?

Alll those things can sit on a shelf for over 1000 years and never kill anyone.

reply to post by OutKast Searcher

Where do I draw the line?

Sharks with "laser" beams.

Really, your post deserves nothing less.

Originally posted by links234
reply to post by SM2

 

The modern militia are the National Guard under the purview of the governors of the states. America was never intended to have the standing army that we have now. The only reason the founders wanted a well regulated militia was to protect the nation, not from it's own government, but from other governments that might do us harm.

The National guard is the State Militia. The Militia referred to in the second amendment is referring to the people. Read the surrounding documents. Besides, the militia really has no bearing gun ownership, as there is a comma after it. Meaning, they recognized that a well organized militia was needed for a safe and secure state also, hence the comma, the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Seems pretty straight forward, even if you went to public school and failed english, you should still be able to comprehend basic grammar.

reply to post by rigel4


Yep, because mass murder only happens when firearms are involved.

Sure sure.