The Shameless Opportunism of Gun Control Advocates

The aim is to disarm the enemy

Violence arms itself with the inventions of Art and Science in order to contend against violence. Self- imposed restrictions, almost imperceptible and hardly worth mentioning, termed usages of International Law, accompany it without essentially impairing its power. Violence, that is to say, physical force (for there is no moral force without the conception of States and Law), is therefore the MEANS; the compulsory submission of the enemy to our will is the ultimate object. In order to attain this object fully, the enemy must be disarmed, and disarmament becomes therefore the immediate OBJECT of hostilities in theory. It takes the place of the final object, and puts it aside as something we can eliminate from our calculations.

~CARL VON CLAUSEWITZ~

In the early morning hours of New Years Day, in 2009, Oscar Grant was detained - as in handcuffed (hands behind his back as he lay prostrated "resisting arrest") - was fatally shot in the back by Bay Area Rapid Transit police officer Johannes Mehserle. Cell phone camera's caught the incident that aroused outrage from the millions of people who saw the killing on news outlets, some calling it "involuntary manslaughter" others calling it "summary execution". For all the outrage, no one was calling for stricter gun control. It was, after all, a police officer - on of they who are employed to disarm the enemy - who killed young Oscar Grant.

Today, Sunday July 22, 2012, on the front page of The Huffington Post, of the shameful and giddy blood obsessed - "if it bleeds it leads" - articles on the recent Aurora Colorado shootings, 12 altogether, exactly half of them (6) are about gun control:

Michael Bloomberg Criticizes Obama, Romney On Gun Control After Colorado Shooting

TV Soundoff: Sunday Talking Heads Colorado Shooting Aftermath...Gun Laws Debated

John Hickenlooper Ducks Question On Colorado's Gun Laws

Melissa Harris-Perry On Gun Violence Statistics: 'People Are Not Numbers'

Dianne Feinstein On Guns: 2012 Election Year Not Ideal For Debate

Rupert Murdoch Tweets Support For Gun Control

On October 29th of 2008 an Anaheim police officer shot and killed an innocent man. No one cried for gun control.

On October 22, 2011 a Downey police officer shot and killed an innocent man. No one cried for gun control.

On July 17th only a few days ago, The Huffington Post reported of a Florida an innocent Florida man shot and killed by Deputy Sheriff's. The Huffington Post made no calls for gun control that day.

If it is the government heavily armed to the teeth and recklessly killing innocent people, for the gun control advocates, this is simply a tragedy that probably couldn't be helped, but if it is not the government and reckless killing takes place, this according to the gun control advocates was a preventable tragedy that could've been prevented by empowering that government armed to the teeth and prone to killing innocent people.

Guns dont kill people, they simply give them a better way of killing people. Hell, my pencil on my desk can murder people. Lets ban those, and all small peices of anything cause I can make people choke on those.

I say both sides will exploit this without looking at eachother stances. It makes sense to ban guns, however, thats a slippery slope to tyranny and banning of other objects. Putting guns into more peopels hands isnt smart either, as it will only help out those few nuts in the bowl in either killing themselves or killing other people.


I think........until we grow up as a society and realise most of this is rather idiotic, it will continue wether we have guns or not.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


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

There actually is a connection there.

reply to post by AaronWilson


You are wrong. It makes absolutely zero sense to ban guns. Gun bans don't work. People will always be able to get them or even make them. I can make a single shot shot gun from plumbing supplies in a very short time. Be serious. Guns are not the problem!!!! Criminals are.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


Has any of your research indicated how many people are killed by police in a given year as opposed to how many are killed by firearms not fired by police?

Why should gun control not be part of the discussion when 71 people were injured or killed by a weapon that was illegal to own eight years ago?

reply to post by DarthMuerte


EDIT: Im a moron.

Originally posted by links234
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

 

Has any of your research indicated how many people are killed by police in a given year as opposed to how many are killed by firearms not fired by police?

Why should gun control not be part of the discussion when 71 people were injured or killed by a weapon that was illegal to own eight years ago?

There is not a single government agency that tracks the number of innocent people killed by police officers...gee, I wonder why.

Originally posted by links234
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

 

Why should gun control not be part of the discussion when 71 people were injured or killed by a weapon that was illegal to own eight years ago?

Because, that town already has very restrictive gun laws. If one armed gun owner had been there, much of this senseless tragedy could have been muted. Maybe only a couple of people would have died before a responsible gun owner put this mad dog down. We will never know because foolish liberals and their sheepish followers always blame the inanimate object instead of the true culprit.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


so then noone should complain or be surprised when things like this happen...

especially with the accepted, appreciated, and applauded violence in video games,,movies, and tv, war......

Glad this thread was made after watching television this Sunday morning I have a thing or two to say about " Gun control".

Bill Crystol,Kirsten Powers on Chris Wallace agreed with Gun control, as well as the two most famous people in the political news Obama and Romney, and those who support the draconian laws of trying to legislated behavior.

The act of murder is illegal, but so many people want to try to make something illegal more illegal where is the common sense in that?

Where?

Gun control is akin to prohibition that has led to the military being better armed than the average law abiding citizen,.the cops are better armed than the law abiding citizen, and the criminal is better armed than the average citizen.

Considering the recent news and what has transpired in other events did the police stop any of those from happening?

No.

There is a reason that sociopaths do those things to be blunt they are a target rich environment and enboldened by the simple fact their targets can't fight back

The news from today has already been political that we need Government to save the people from the evil guns but when it comes to track records of the military,the criminals, or the police and the law abiding citizen

Who has killed the most?

Short answer is the law abiding citizen they have not murdered anyone gun control has never stopped anyone from becoming a victicm but sure the hell has made thousands,,millions and the mercy of those who are better armed.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
When Rep. Giffords was shot, some used that issue.

The numerous slayings in Chicago are another examp- oops, they've banned guns there. Haven't they?

The blood wasn't even dry in the theatre when the gun control parasites started in.

They (certain aspects of the government) will always use events like these as a springboard to deny 2nd Amendment rights.

reply to post by ImaFungi


Billy the Kid, John Wesely Hardin, Bonnie and Clyde, Al Capone, Lucky Luciano, Dutch Schultz, Baby Face Nelson, John Dillinger, none of these guys played video games, watched television and for most film was only just beginning.

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

 

When Rep. Giffords was shot, some used that issue.

The numerous slayings in Chicago are another examp- oops, they've banned guns there. Haven't they?

The blood wasn't even dry in the theatre when the gun control parasites started in.

They (certain aspects of the government) will always use events like these as a springboard to deny 2nd Amendment rights.

ok so say,,, we lay back on gun control,,, and allow more people to carry weapons,,,,, ten years later,,, either murder/crime by gun is relatively even,,, less,,, or more,,.,.,.

if the murder by gun rate goes up by a decent amount,,, do you suggest theres anything logical to do about it?

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


ok thats what im saying,,, if criminals can manifest and obtain a gun,,,, what can we do to stop them? you are suggesting there is nothing we can or should do? if that is so,,, then i say do not complain or unexpect it when these things happen,,,

i have a good idea,,, we can create a police state to stop them,,,, or give everyone a gun right?

reply to post by ImaFungi

...and allow more people to carry weapons,

It isn't up to you or anyone else to "allow" the exercise of a right. I understand such a notion grates you and the nanny state advocates, and still, you nor anyone else has any purview of unalienable rights.

Originally posted by ImaFungi

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

 

When Rep. Giffords was shot, some used that issue.

The numerous slayings in Chicago are another examp- oops, they've banned guns there. Haven't they?

The blood wasn't even dry in the theatre when the gun control parasites started in.

They (certain aspects of the government) will always use events like these as a springboard to deny 2nd Amendment rights.

ok so say,,, we lay back on gun control,,, and allow more people to carry weapons,,,,, ten years later,,, either murder/crime by gun is relatively even,,, less,,, or more,,.,.,.

if the murder by gun rate goes up by a decent amount,,, do you suggest theres anything logical to do about it?

Why wait 10 years?

II. EFFECTS OF CONCEALED CARRY ON PUBLIC SAFETY
While there is disagreement over the benefits of carrying concealed weapons, many believe that robust concealed carry laws ultimately deter crime by making criminal acts much more risky and costly for potential law breakers. Statistics show a connection between concealed carry laws and a decrease in violent crime rates. The National Rifle Association estimates, based on data from the FBI's Annual Uniform Crime Report, that `right-to-carry' states (i.e., those that widely allow concealed carry) have 22 percent lower total violent crime rates, 30 percent lower murder rates, 46 percent lower robbery rates, and 12 percent lower aggravated assault rates, as compared to the rest of the country.

thomas.loc.gov...

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by ImaFungi

 

...and allow more people to carry weapons,

It isn't up to you or anyone else to "allow" the exercise of a right. I understand such a notion grates you and the nanny state advocates, and still, you nor anyone else has any purview of unalienable rights.

edit on 22-7-2012 by Jean Paul Zodeaux because: (no reason given)

ok,,, perfect then,,,,, i must celebrate the fact that that guy shot up the movie theatre,,,, hes just exercising his right,, it should be expected right? because there is nothing we can do to stop it?

Originally posted by beezzer

Originally posted by ImaFungi

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

 

When Rep. Giffords was shot, some used that issue.

The numerous slayings in Chicago are another examp- oops, they've banned guns there. Haven't they?

The blood wasn't even dry in the theatre when the gun control parasites started in.

They (certain aspects of the government) will always use events like these as a springboard to deny 2nd Amendment rights.

ok so say,,, we lay back on gun control,,, and allow more people to carry weapons,,,,, ten years later,,, either murder/crime by gun is relatively even,,, less,,, or more,,.,.,.

if the murder by gun rate goes up by a decent amount,,, do you suggest theres anything logical to do about it?

Why wait 10 years?

II. EFFECTS OF CONCEALED CARRY ON PUBLIC SAFETY
While there is disagreement over the benefits of carrying concealed weapons, many believe that robust concealed carry laws ultimately deter crime by making criminal acts much more risky and costly for potential law breakers. Statistics show a connection between concealed carry laws and a decrease in violent crime rates. The National Rifle Association estimates, based on data from the FBI's Annual Uniform Crime Report, that `right-to-carry' states (i.e., those that widely allow concealed carry) have 22 percent lower total violent crime rates, 30 percent lower murder rates, 46 percent lower robbery rates, and 12 percent lower aggravated assault rates, as compared to the rest of the country.

thomas.loc.gov...

because im saying hypothetically,,.,..,.,. what if after everyone is carrying a gun,,..,,.,.,.,. say everyone is carrying a gun.,.,.,,. in ten years what if the murder rates sky rocket,,,,,, do you think anything should be done?

Originally posted by ImaFungi

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

 

When Rep. Giffords was shot, some used that issue.

The numerous slayings in Chicago are another examp- oops, they've banned guns there. Haven't they?

The blood wasn't even dry in the theatre when the gun control parasites started in.

They (certain aspects of the government) will always use events like these as a springboard to deny 2nd Amendment rights.

ok so say,,, we lay back on gun control,,, and allow more people to carry weapons,,,,, ten years later,,, either murder/crime by gun is relatively even,,, less,,, or more,,.,.,.

if the murder by gun rate goes up by a decent amount,,, do you suggest theres anything logical to do about it?

I can see your reasoning here, but the problem is murder rates will vary over time because of changes in population, economic climate, maybe the cost of guns, the presence of a drugs trade in the area, and a host of other factors. Murder rates could still increase even after tighter gun control.

reply to post by ImaFungi
Why not take a look at Cook County, Chicago.

There, they have a law against handgun ownership.

So there must not be any deaths due to gunfire, correct?