The Shameless Opportunism of Gun Control Advocates

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher

Originally posted by SM2
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?

Actually it is more like calling both a car and a truck a vehicle. An assault rifle can be fully automatic (keep firing with one sustained pull of the trigger as long as you have ammo) or select fire (2 or 3 round bursts) and is a carryable rifle platform (usually 5.56mm or 7.62mm) while a machine gun can be fitted with a tripod (as can assault weapons for shooting prone) or vehicle mounted (larger and heavier platform and usually .30 or .50 cal).

Sorry...I'm not big into gun porn so I don't know the subtle differences.

Actually...I'm not sorry at all...I am glad I don't know the difference.

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
reply to post by macman

 

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".

By who's definition???

webster-dictionary.net...

Definition of Arms

1. Instruments or weapons of offense or defense.

And I swear nukes were part of the "arms" race...were they not???

You keep saying "firearms"...and yet that isn't in the Constitution anywhere.

What is the thread topic called?

"The Shameless Opportunism of Gun Control Advocates"?
OR
"The Shameless Opportunism of Arms Control Advocates"?

reply to post by OutKast Searcher

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.

then please explain why we "own" them already ??
true, the first nuke was before my personal $$ contributions began but that was then and this is now and i'm pretty sure we Americans have bought 'em all.

so, by your logic, our government MUST be one extreme entity to have hoarded so many of them, right ??

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

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.

I agree with you, nukes shouldn't exist and no one should own them. However, the harsh reality is that they do exist and as you stated, our government owns them.

The logic I usually hear people using is that we must be able to defend ourselves from all enemies...including our government...so it would seem that you and others would advocate that private citizens should own nukes to be on equal footing.

But the reality is that you and others know that is down right crazy. No one is going to advocate that someone owns a weapon that can kill so many people so easily. So you have a threshold that you have put on "arms" that Americans can bear. That threshold is based on how many and how easy it would be to kill a large amount of people. I employ the same logic in regulating "arms" as you do...I just hold a much lower limti on the number of people and the ease of killing them than you do.

But it is hard for you and others to admit that you are in fact in support of some regulation to "arms"...which is why most don't want to discuss nukes, or fighter jets, or tanks, or anything else that even the most hardcore 2nd ammendment supporters thinks is just too much for private citizens to own.

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.

But that didn't happen...so we must live in our current reality.

And now you have seemed to backtracked on your previous statement...do you know advocate that every American citizen has 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.

If it were up to me...I would abolish nuclear weaponary and energy...but it's not.

However, that doesn't mean that since we live in a harsh reality that you and others have to be so rigid in your thinking and start to advocate that every America citizen should have the right to own these horrible weapons.

It's ok to admit you are for regulation when it makes sense...it is insanity to stick to your "principles" if it means the certain destruction of our entire population.

reply to post by Honor93


Neither of the first two are very comprehensive. The second one from newsmax references The Telegraph that only mentions 'notable' mass shootings.

India Today excludes the February 2010 incident of a college professor opening fire during a faculty meeting killing three and wounding three more but includes the 2007 incident of three people killed and one stabbed included in the telegraph article.

So...maybe we can compromise on some sort of set number of injured or killed to define a 'mass shooting'. You gave me the number five, I thought that was reasonable so included every shooting listed in the longer list offered by my source with five or more people killed or wounded and kept out anything less than that.

I don't specifically remember the question about how many have been stopped because you only asked me about the number I offered in the previous post. That inclusion is perfectly reasonable and I welcome the data. I mentioned very early on that everything option should be discussed. If carrying a weapon decreases the number of mass shootings then I welcome that, but I haven't seen anything to prove that drop off.

Aurora, CO is a concealed carry city. It didn't prevent and stymie what happened to those 71 people.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
But can you spell disingenuous?

Yes, you provided me the spelling right there. Thank you.

Yawn more gun control bs Man I wish Bloomberg would shut his pie hole. Considering the fairy tale world some people like to believe they live in doesn't exist, guns will be around for a while. People like Bloomberg like to rant on gun control, yet they are dependent on having armed guards around them for their "safety"? Their lives and livelyhood's are more important than ours. As fast & furious hsould have taught somepeople on here, we can not rely on any representative of our gov't to protect us. Remember the BATF had the gun shops sell to felons despite laws to the contrary. Given the choice legit gun dealers will do what the gov't asks of them. But when said gov't is doing something to further their agenda....

reply to post by neo96

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.

What gun control in teh past 40 years?

Do you think there are more or less guns in the hands of the public than there were 40 years ago???

It's insane that you think that people think guns are controlled in this country...James Holmes got an AR-15, a shotgun, 2 hand guns, and 6000 rounds of ammo in under a month...we do not have effective gun control in this country.

And look at that...having a more armed populace has not reduced gun crimes either...hmmmm.

reply to post by beezzer


What you don't understand is that your dodging is as much of an answer anyone needs.

It's actually quite funny that you won't answer any of the questions I presented...from knife to nuke...you won't even try.

We all know why...there is some point where you are going to say "NO"...and then you look like a bit of a hypocrite.

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
reply to post by beezzer

 

What you don't understand is that your dodging is as much of an answer anyone needs.

It's actually quite funny that you won't answer any of the questions I presented...from knife to nuke...you won't even try.

We all know why...there is some point where you are going to say "NO"...and then you look like a bit of a hypocrite.

*whaaa*

You didn't answer my question either.

*ahem*

I repeat. . . .

Waiwaitwait!

Banning handguns didn't stop handgun crimes?

reply to post by links234
hmmmm, off-site excerpts and no source ??
shame, shame ... fix it please.

reply to post by OutKast Searcher


Though I did answer your question with a hyperbolic answer all my own.

Sharks with laser beams

reply to post by muzzleflash

So owning a gun is equal to owning a nuke?

And "arm" is an "arm" according to the 2nd Ammendment.

Or are you just using this fallacious off topic nuke argument as a means to try to make gun lovers, as you call them, out to be nuclear holocaust types?

I'm using this example to show that even most of the pro-2nd Amendment people have a limit as to what they want to allow.

this thread is about Gun Control, not Nuke Control.

Gun control is a 2nd Amendment issue....the 2nd Amendment is about the right to bear "arms"...nukes are "arms".

Thus, it is relevant...even if you want to bury your head in the sand and pretend it doesn't exist.

You are trying to sneakily turn this into something it's not, and twist everything into a totally new subject.
It's not gonna work, the distraction and deflection tactics are too shallow this time.

If you want to discuss Nuke Control please make a new thread about it.

Gun Control is "arms" control...nukes are "arms"...so I think I will discuss it in this thread.

So...is there a reason you are going to continue to dodge this question??? Your silence speaks more than an answer...you know that right???

reply to post by EvilSadamClone

I love proving people wrong when they say a civilian can't own tanks.

Who said private citizens can't own tanks???

Originally posted by macman
reply to post by OutKast Searcher

 

Well regulated is by Company, Division, and/or platoon.
Regulated is by drill and practice, in the Military sense.

Good grief you have no clue.

And "the people" meet neither of those requirements.

So your point is????

reply to post by OutKast Searcher

What gun control in teh past 40 years?

Talk about delusion.

Do you think there are more or less guns in the hands of the public than there were 40 years ago???

What the hell?

The military and the police, and criminals are better armed than the average "gun owner" how the hell anyone does not see that well there is a saying by an older member of ATS who use to say:

Don't let your political ideology get in the way of their common sense and it appears someone is letting theirs cloud their common sense.

t's insane that you think that people think guns are controlled in this country...James Holmes got an AR-15, a shotgun, 2 hand guns, and 6000 rounds of ammo in under a month...we do not have effective gun control in this country.

So what? Millions of other Americans have more never killed anyone did they?

No.

4 guns a 6000 rounds is nothing it would fit in a hall closet and still have 95 % of the space left, it could fit in trunk and still have space left over. It could be put in the kitchen cabinet next to the kitchen sink and have space left over

So big deal.

And look at that...having a more armed populace has not reduced gun crimes either...hmmmm.

Yeah dialing 9-11 sure has reduced gun crimes, and other crimes the only thing done is cleaning up after the fact..

Originally posted by macman
reply to post by OutKast Searcher

 

Wow, so now you have resorted to "I'm more of a man" BS?
You must be running low on Liberal BS, you seem to be running on fumes.

Sorry...that's the way I see it.

A "man" wouldn't have to cling to their little gun to walk to the grocery store. A "man" wouldn't live their life being a paranoid scared little person thinking the bad guys are out to get them.

I'm not asking you to agree...that is simply my opinion of extreme gun lovers...IMO...they have a deep character flaw and major insecurity issues.

reply to post by OutKast Searcher


You did when asking the question about nukes.

reply to post by OutKast Searcher


And so do people who want to take the right to bear arms away.

It's insane that you think that people think guns are controlled in this country...James Holmes got an AR-15, a shotgun, 2 hand guns, and 6000 rounds of ammo in under a month...we do not have effective gun control in this country.

And Mr. Holmes ordered controlled chemicals, using his college as a cover to get them, so by that same logic we need to go and start pursuing stronger controls on that. Nobody supervised what chemicals he ordered? Or noticed him taking stuff out? Considering what a college can order in the lines of dangerous chemicals that should bother more then the gun issue. Especially considering how smart this guy was supposed to be! Looking at the mess the cops had to deal with at his apartment you think guns are the bigger problem?