The Shameless Opportunism of Gun Control Advocates

reply to post by beezzer

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

Again...I shouldn't have to hold your hand.

It used to be illegal to own a handgun in Chicago...you could own rifles, shotguns, assault rifles...just not a handgun.

In 2010, the handgun ban was lifted and now Chicagoans can own handguns.

Facts...easy to come by...unless you are trying to spread false propaganda.

reply to post by OutKast Searcher


Just so you know, as I know you would never trouble yourself with learning anything unless Chris Matthews told you too....A machine gun and a full auto assault weapon are the same thing. One and the same. So, your question was like asking...

Would you rather have a car or an automobile?

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
reply to post by beezzer

 

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

Again...I shouldn't have to hold your hand.

It used to be illegal to own a handgun in Chicago...you could own rifles, shotguns, assault rifles...just not a handgun.

In 2010, the handgun ban was lifted and now Chicagoans can own handguns.

Facts...easy to come by...unless you are trying to spread false propaganda.

Wonderful!

So there were no handgun crimes in Chicago before 2010?

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher

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

And the elitist OutKast shows his truest colors.
I did not know you get to make such calls on others.

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher

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

Well, the government owns nukes and "we supposedly own the gov't" right?
Would you agree that the US Govt is run by "We the People"?

The question isn't if American citizens can own nukes, the question is if American citizens can own nukes privately or if it must be owned collectively as the public?

That's beside the point though, to build a nuclear weapon you need extensive infrastructure and technical capability. The logistics are beyond any normal person and require a nation, or equally wealthy organization to create. It takes many people working together to make that weapon, and for it to have any use, even more to deploy it effectively.

A gun on the other hand is easy to create in comparison. People living in complete shanties in the Medieval times were capable of creating guns, albeit they were weak they still could kill people.
So people with modern tools, engineering know how, and off the shelf components could easily devise their own modern weapons systems.

reply to post by SM2

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?

You didn't educate yourself very well...because the people are only considered the unorganized militia...and since the 2nd amendment clearly identifies the "well regulated" militia...it's not talking about the unorganized militia.

You are an extremist if you are advocating that you think citizens should be allowed to own a nuke...because that is not in the mainstream of pro-2nd amendment advocacy...hence...making your opinion extreme.

reply to post by macman


The sociopaths take advantage of gun laws it is no coincidence they happen at schools and theatres with zero gun policies.

It is easier when people can't fight back.

reply to post by SM2


The difference between automatic weapons is that machine guns fire heavy rounds, are usually crew served (requiring, at minimum, a shooter and a loader---and, usually, ammo runners as well), and require some sort of support: a bi-ped or tripod, for instance, or they get mounted on a vehicle, or hung by straps in a helicopter.

Automatic rifles are small arms, and can be fired from the shoulder or the hip. The classic example is the BAR (Browning Automatic Rifle), and the much lamented M-14.

double post, sorry

reply to post by neo96

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.

I'm sorry if you don't feel like a man unless you are holding your gun...but I don't suffer from that insecurity.

I don't have the paranoid need to carry around a gun everywhere I go because "bad guys" could be hiding anywhere.

Deny it all you want...but individuals that have this need are scared individuals that are paranoid that the bad guys are constantly out to get them. In short...they are insecure.

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher


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

I don't believe ANYONE should Own Nukes.

I don't believe we should use Nuclear Energy.

I don't like the smell of Lavender.

I don't believe I would want you close to me, as to have you spread an infectious disease.

But I will be damned if ANY of this, has anything to do with guns, Nor am I advocating EVERYONE stop breathing the same close proximity of air, to you, because you might carry an infectious disease, and people could die from it.


Maybe you need the definition again. Seems you didn't understand it.

Hyperbole is the use of exaggeration as a rhetorical device or figure of speech. It may be used to evoke strong feelings or to create a strong impression, but is not meant to be taken literally.

reply to post by OutKast Searcher

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

No. I don't believe a single soul should be allowed to own nukes. A single soul. Get it? This is the profound meaning of the Second Amendment. The Peoples right to keep and bear arms is so they may defend themselves from tyranny, including any domestic enemies they face. That the U.S. government owns the largest cache of nuclear weapons in the world it should be understood the problem with your arguments and those who wish to empower a government while dis-empowering the very people who make that government.

Had People, all along, made the arguments I and others are making now, then when it came time to develop nuclear arms, the just and honest politicians and military men would have declined because they would understand that by doing so that this would mean that every person also had the right to keep and bear nuclear arms.

Clearly you've ignored the clear intent of my O.P.. It is not as if you are calling for nuclear disarmament, are you? You just think you have found a flaw in the arguments for freedom. Think again.

Originally posted by neo96
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.

So...you are also dodging the question.

Predictable...I doubt any of you gun lovers will honestly answer the question.

Because you either answer it honestly and look like a hypocrite...or you answer dishonestly saying you think everyone should be able to own a nuke and look crazy.

So take your pick folks...hypocrite or crazy.

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
reply to post by neo96

 

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.

I'm sorry if you don't feel like a man unless you are holding your gun...but I don't suffer from that insecurity.

I don't have the paranoid need to carry around a gun everywhere I go because "bad guys" could be hiding anywhere.

Deny it all you want...but individuals that have this need are scared individuals that are paranoid that the bad guys are constantly out to get them. In short...they are insecure.

So ridicule is what this boils down too?
That's not a very convincing argument, if you were hoping others would see your side of things.

Usually ridicule alienates people.

Also a question since you brought it up:
Did the handgun ban in Chicago prevent or stop handgun violent crime?

reply to post by muzzleflash


No Problem. That one was Public Domain. I have a few more, but those still hold Copyright, so I cant share. That book is Old School.

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher

And?

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

It seems like you are pro-regulation as well.

Don't need the Constitution to state as such. Anyone with any background in Firearms knows such things. A Nuclear Missile is not a firearm. Nor is it "arms".

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher

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

Those are not "arms".

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

Kind of like saying "I don't agree with gravity, so I just won't participate". Sure sure then, sure sure.

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

And what Regulation is that?

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher

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.

No, they should have thrown it out, without Roberts redefining the "tax" statement.
They law should have never passed in the first place. But, I am sure that you are thrilled that the Progressive way of thinking panned out, with the back room deals and such that were the only way it was able to pass.

Sure sure Oukast, sure sure.

reply to post by beezzer

Where do I draw the line?

Sharks with "laser" beams.

Really, your post deserves nothing less.

And another dodge.

It's really pathetic that pro-2nd amendment folks can't even answer a simple question.

Make your choice...hypocrite or crazy.

reply to post by links234

rt huh ?? well ok, if that's all you can find, let me help you along ... now, i've covered the years from 1999-2011 (that's a 12yr span)

from several sources you'll find the most listed is 26 (5 or more killed)
so, 26 incidents over 12 yrs = 2.2 per year on average.
[ i think i suggested 3 ]

so ok, i'll see your Russian/communist propaganda and raise you one Indiatoday, one Newsmax and one highroad blog which contains a running tally of mass shootings that were deterred or diffused by an armed citizen/student.

(10) indiatoday.intoday.in...
(26) www.newsmax.com...
(blog) www.thehighroad.org...

the question posed in the blog is ... "can anybody cite situations where somebody was starting or involved in a mass shooting and was stopped by an armed civilian?"
should anyone be interested in reading the numerous replies.

reply to post by OutKast Searcher

I'm sorry if you don't feel like a man unless you are holding your gun...but I don't suffer from that insecurity.

I'm sorry people "don't feel" like a man when they cry and pass laws that do nothing but create victims at the hands of psycopaths, and sociopaths and then pat themselves on the back thinking they have done their good deed for the day.

I don't have the paranoid need to carry around a gun everywhere I go because "bad guys" could be hiding anywhere.

Yeah that's fine I am sure "debate" or dialing 9-11 will work for over 300 million Americans and the thousands who die every day from acts of violence by a myriad of "weapon" choices.

Deny it all you want...but individuals that have this need are scared individuals that are paranoid that the bad guys are constantly out to get them. In short...they are insecure.

Yeah there is denial in this thread that in the last 40 years of gun control there is more crime and violence than ever in this country that where the average law abiding citizen is punished where the criminals,and the cops, and the military is better armed.

Go on Anti-gun zealots pat themselves on the back for "saving anyone" no wait they didn't.

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
reply to post by beezzer

 

Where do I draw the line?

Sharks with "laser" beams.

Really, your post deserves nothing less.

And another dodge.

It's really pathetic that pro-2nd amendment folks can't even answer a simple question.

Make your choice...hypocrite or crazy.

C. Panic response by an anti-gun person who failed at using hyperbole to prove his point.