The Witch Hunt Against Gun Owners

Originally posted by Spuggy

God no. I spent a few years there. horrid little country. Give me Sri lanka any day.

Ahhh... OK. I'll still debate you on other things in PTS Grover. But, not on American politics. Especially, not on my greatest right as a free man. Living here a few years gives you n e credit either...

I understand your logic. Banning guns doesn't prevent violent crime, it can be commited by any number of objects. The difference I see however is that a bar stool, hedge trimmer or carving knife aren't designed to kill. Guns are. It's theuir purpose however you look at it. If I attacked you with a bar stool I might kill you but it's going to be a damned site easier with a gun.

It's the guns killing nature that makes it different from the other items you mention.

Heres an interesting article on sniper rifles:

www.vpc.org...

What possible reason other than to kill would one need a sniper rifle for ? Selling people a sniper rifle is an accident waiting to happen. You can argue that selling someone a bar stool is also an accident waiting to happen but it requires taking the bar stool away from its intended purpose. With a gun there is no other purpose.

"Grover."

er, I think you may have me confused with someone else. I'd also argue that your greatest right as a free man isn't your right to bare arms but your right to discuss the issue.

Originally posted by Spuggy
I understand your logic. Banning guns doesn't prevent violent crime, it can be commited by any number of objects. The difference I see however is that a bar stool, hedge trimmer or carving knife aren't designed to kill. Guns are. It's theuir purpose however you look at it. If I attacked you with a bar stool I might kill you but it's going to be a damned site easier with a gun.

It's the guns killing nature that makes it different from the other items you mention.

Heres an interesting article on sniper rifles:

www.vpc.org...

What possible reason other than to kill would one need a sniper rifle for ? Selling people a sniper rifle is an accident waiting to happen. You can argue that selling someone a bar stool is also an accident waiting to happen but it requires taking the bar stool away from its intended purpose. With a gun there is no other purpose.

Then I guess all knives described as "tactical" or "fighting" should be banned too. Bows and arrows. Slingshots. Spears and spearguns. Javelins. Any type of snare or trap. Brass knuckles, blackjacks. Ropes tied into nooses. Socks filled with oranges.

All of these are designed to kill, no?

Hydrolics are designed to kill livestock. Should we ban hydrolics or pistons?

Using a products design to limit rights we could ban off-road vehicles from being purchased by people living in the cities. We could ban high performance vehicles from being purchased by anyone living within defined speed limits.

Putting a gun in somebodys hands doesnt make him anymore a murderous madman than he already is just like handing over a sports car to some guy doesnt make him a reckless speeding psychopath any more than he already is.

You gotta stop blaming a milled piece of steel for the worlds evils and start blaming the worlds evil people for being evil. I know its alot easier to demonize an object. Blame the gun is a simple, short-sighted, quick fix way to approach a problem that has no solution. This is all like throwing money at bad schools or writing checks to the unemployed. It wont solve anything. Itll just make you and others like you feel a little better about yourselves for a short while. Imposing your beliefs on the rest of society usually does that for the self-righteous.

There is a clear difference in the minds of people who want their freedom and the people who want a select few with guns to impose a ruling order over them. One is independent and the other is not. One forces revolutions the other claps as the Nazi's roll through. One stands up and takes responsability for their successes and failures, the other asks the government to help them and complains when it isnt done right.

If you want to clap as the Nazi's roll through and sterilize society until youre comfortable with it thats your perogative and yo uhave every right to present your beliefs to the rest of us but when you attemp to legislate and call for bannings youre crossing a totalitarian line that we all have the right to stand on and defend ourselves. In the end the desire to control will always meet the desire for liberty and the only way one side will win over the other is to kill them all. So, you could kill us all or you could just live your life and leave us alone. We've been trying to leave you anti-gun guys alone but you just wont have it. Keep pushing and see what it gets you. Come to my door and ask for my rifle. Ill be nice and ask you politely to leave. I may even compromise to prevent the bloodshed but if you push it and push it you'll have to kill every member of my family.

So, either let it go and live in peace or get a shovel because youll have alot of graves to dig.

Originally posted by Spuggy
"Grover."

er, I think you may have me confused with someone else. I'd also argue that your greatest right as a free man isn't your right to bare arms but your right to discuss the issue.

Without a way to fight for that right to "discuss the issue", how do you suppose we maintain those rights?

The Second Amendment, which is not constantly amended, is the heart of our Constitutional Rights.

"If you want to clap as the Nazi's roll through and sterilize society until youre comfortable with it thats your perogative"

And you're accusing me of sweeping knee jerk reactionism ?
come off it.
As for banning anything thats designed to kill, sure. Not a bad idea. Why would someone own brass knuckles or a sock full of snooker balls ? they're clearly offensive weapons. Ban them.

As for limiting rights by product, Your car suggestions were pretty good, I'd be in favour. I think you need to get off the "all or nothing" vibe. Limiting what humans can and can't own doesn't meen they'll suddenly not be able to own anything. Look at it the other way, by your totalitarian reasoning people should be allowed to buy thermonuclear bombs. It's their right. Wouldn't you rather we maintain the current situation which limits their production and our ability to buy them ?

"Without a way to fight for that right to "discuss the issue", how do you suppose we maintain those rights? "

Sorry but I don't see the government steam rolling over your right to free speech and if It chose to, I really don't think your guns would do much to stop it. Arguing that you have top own them to stop the government oppressing you is ludicrous. Your dream of a bloody revolution against a totalitarian dictatorship on your own soil would be squashed before it began.

Originally posted by Spuggy
Sorry but I don't see the government steam rolling over your right to free speech and if It chose to, I really don't think your guns would do much to stop it.

Oh my God. Maybe they aren't steam rolling our free speech... Maybe they aren't because even though we would get steamrolled. Especially after this bill got passed... For our safety mind you. The John Warner Defense Appropriation Act for 2007 (H.R. 5122) which includes a provision (Section 1076) that permits the President to declare martial law almost at upon a whim. This law basically nullifies the Posse Comitatus Act of 1879 and the Insurrection Act of 1807, which limit the use of military forces upon civilians in acts of Rebellion.

Here is more on this heinous act...

We may not have much of a chance to stop it. But, it does make them think twice. Also, slaughtering American civilians makes for some really, really, really bad press... Emphasis on the really.

Originally posted by Spuggy


Sorry but I don't see the government steam rolling over your right to free speech

I would think again if I were you. The democrats (liberals) are working feverishly to kill the first amendment right to free speech through political corrective-ness and hate crimes. You can now be prosecuted in this country if you choose to criticize gays for their lifestyle or if you criticize blacks (or any other minority) using certain language. It doesn’t even have to be racist language either; just stating facts is all it takes. There was a case a while back where a Pastor delivering his sermon on a Sunday morning criticized homosexuality. Someone in the audience didn't like it and they filed hate crime charges against him and the Pastor was arrested. Apparently only certain groups in this country have a right to freedom of speech as far as libs are concerned. Also, if they are willing to dismantle one right, were exactly will they stop?

"slaughtering American civilians makes for some really, really, really bad press"

I agree, You'd be far better of taking the money people spend on guns and plowing it into awareness campaigns and / or leaving the country. Both are more effective than gun ownership at preventing some sort of dictatorship.

Originally posted by Spuggy
Sorry but I don't see the government steam rolling over your right to free speech....

I could easily prove you wrong, but I won't since this isn't the proper thread.

As for the Second Amendment rights, and tools that would be considered weapons, that too, is another thread.

As for this thread, do you have anything credible to add as to the original post? Mind you, the pertinent laws of Virginia are posted on the previous page.

Back on topic.

"The democrats (liberals) are working feverishly to kill the first amendment right to free speech through political corrective-ness and hate crimes"

No they're not, you're just massively paranoid.

"I could easily prove you wrong"

No you can't.

Originally posted by Spuggy
"If you want to clap as the Nazi's roll through and sterilize society until youre comfortable with it thats your perogative"

And you're accusing me of sweeping knee jerk reactionism ?
come off it.
As for banning anything thats designed to kill, sure. Not a bad idea. Why would someone own brass knuckles or a sock full of snooker balls ? they're clearly offensive weapons. Ban them.

As for limiting rights by product, Your car suggestions were pretty good, I'd be in favour. I think you need to get off the "all or nothing" vibe. Limiting what humans can and can't own doesn't meen they'll suddenly not be able to own anything. Look at it the other way, by your totalitarian reasoning people should be allowed to buy thermonuclear bombs. It's their right. Wouldn't you rather we maintain the current situation which limits their production and our ability to buy them ?

I just dont know how to feel about you. Im both surprised and saddened that youre so willing to take the short time we all have on this Earth and regulate it and limit what we can do with it. Im just lost for words. I must be some sort of Calvinist life of deprivation thing that gives you satisfaction in ruling over others. Maybe some social insecurity that drives it? I just dont understand. As long as we arent getting in the way of anyone elses rights then we should absolutely be free to do with our own lives what we wish.

And yes, I think if someone wants to have a thermo-nuclear weapon its their right to have it. If he wants to culture anthrax in his basement than its his right to do so. As long as he can prevent radiation from harming others and keep the spores properly contained who am I to say he doesnt have the right to live his life how he sees fit? I dont pretend or assume I know whats best for everyone. I dont think any one of us knows whats best for everyone else. You sound like you do. Do you? Live your life instead of trying to keep others from living theirs. What makes a man hate freedom so much?

I don't hate freedom, If I thought humans were rational sensible intelligent creatures I'd happily let them frolick through the streets in tanks. Unfortunately we're not, we're emotional, stupid and irrational. It's a shame, but it's true. I wouldn't give a kid a hand grenade and assume he'll play safe just because it's his right to have it, and I'm not going to sit back and let retards own guns.

Originally posted by Spuggy
I agree, You'd be far better of taking the money people spend on guns and plowing it into awareness campaigns and / or leaving the country. Both are more effective than gun ownership at preventing some sort of dictatorship.

That's all you took out of my post? I basically showed that people who think the way I do are NOT paranoid. That the government IS afraid of gun owners in the U.S. That they ARE passing bills designed to be used against the militia. Yet, you still believe that the 2nd amendment is out of date and guns should be taken from the populace...

*edit*

I'll take the insult out and hope you will accept my apology. It is a sensitive subject and hope you understand that.

[edit on 27-3-2007 by LostSailor]

"That the government IS afraid of gun owners in the U.S."

Of course they are, but not because they think that one day you'll all get together and stand up to them, The very idea is hilarious. They're scared that a bunch of you will get together and decide to behave like idiots, idiots with guns. WACO springs to mind. Frankly I'm scared of that to so anything they do to limit it is ok in my book.

BTW, the rest of your post wasn't worth discussing. Sorry.

Originally posted by Spuggy
I don't hate freedom, If I thought humans were rational sensible intelligent creatures I'd happily let them frolick through the streets in tanks. Unfortunately we're not, we're emotional, stupid and irrational. It's a shame, but it's true. I wouldn't give a kid a hand grenade and assume he'll play safe just because it's his right to have it, and I'm not going to sit back and let retards own guns.

Well, theres the fundamental difference between you and me. And the end result is that one day, should you choose to knock on my door and ask me for my gun, one of us will die. The back and forth cant go any further. I find it pretty ironic that those who cried out "safety" and came to take my guns were the ones who shot me dead. Ask Randy Weaver about gun control and the government. Heres a man who never hurt anyone. Served his country. And in the name of gun control the United States government shot his children and wife to death. His wife was shot while still holding their infant daughter. Randy wasnt charged with anything. Before this I was on the fence with gun control. I even supported compromises and the first assault weapons ban. Never again. Never, ever again for any reason will I ever entertain the notion to regulate firearms in any way. So when they come to murder myself and wife and kids at least my death will be in defiance of the theft of liberty. Id certainly rather die on my feet than live on my knees. The saddest thing of all is that it never has to come to this. But I have a feeling people like yourself will not stop until youre standing on my doorstep. Why do you want to kill my children? Its an invasion plain and simple. I am free until you come to enslave me. My position is one of defence and yours of assault.


Whoa! Act like idiots? Like Waco? Do even know what happened at Waco? OMG!! Its gun controls fault those people are dead. They hadnt done anythng until the government tried to break in to their building. Reno drew first blood.

[edit on 27-3-2007 by thisguyrighthere]

Originally posted by Spuggy
Of course they are, but not because they think that one day you'll all get together and stand up to them, The very idea is hilarious.

You are wrong again! There are plenty of none "crazy" groups out there willing to stand up if the government goes to far. What would go to far? Who is to say? That is all speculation. I can say that they are probably considered terrorist groups now though and that they are willing to at least make some noise! The idea is NOT hilarious...

Originally posted by Spuggy
BTW, the rest of your post wasn't worth discussing. Sorry.

Why is that? Also, what specifically is not worth discussing?

"I can say that they are probably considered terrorist groups now"

Good. Hunt them down and stop them. I democratically elected a government to make decisions for me. I don't want armed groups "standing up" to it for ideals I probably have no interest in. If they had support from a majority of the people that would be a different matter but seeing as I'm not aware of any pressure group that does and nor do the people believe they should wage an armed struggle against the government, as far as I'm concerned, they're dangerous "Crazies".