The Shameless Opportunism of Gun Control Advocates

I didn't even think to point out in the Opening Post that I do not own guns. I didn't think to make that clarification because I take it for granted that many all ready know that whether I own guns or not, it is a right to do so and as such it is a right I fight for, just the same as it any other right I choose not exercise, and certainly for any right I do chuse (That spelling is for you links, my friend) exercise.

It is a right to cook your own meals, but there is always the threat that in doing so you could inadvertently start a grease fire and cause all sorts of damage for the neighbors around you. Just because this possibility exists, and this possibility has on more than one occasion gone straight past probability right into reality, this does not give the sanctimonious sycophants of tyranny any validity when arguing that cooking your own meals should be regulated.

It has been pointed out by one who certainly does advocate regulation of arms, including guns, that the Founding of this nation included the tolerance of slavery. This is just one example of the problems that arise with government. Years later, that very same federal government that tolerated slavery, then used viral infected blankets to cause genocide. There are countless examples of the U.S. federal government engaged in unlawful mass killings, but those who want the People disarmed never cry for the disarmament of that same murderous government and they will not. They may pay lip service to the atrocities and claim they agree it is horrible, but they will just as easily then shrug their shoulders and act as if nothing can be done about that and go right back to making impassioned arguments as to why People need to be disarmed. Individuals disarmed, not People as in a government of the People, by the People, and for the People, but individuals who are not at all on the government paycheck in form.

The right to defend oneself, others, and property is a basic fundamental right that preexists government and there is no one who can lawfully take that right away. Only force will accomplish such an insidious end, and a force that was stultified by a Second Amendment. It has been a long and steady up hill battle for the petty tyrants in attempting to disarm the People, it will be a long and steady up hill battle all the way. For those who understand the meaning of unalienable, in all its spellings and misspellings, will never fall prey to the empty rhetoric of those who argue that what was once a right can be a right no longer.

It is certainly an emotionally charged topic, but it is imperative that when standing in defense of unalienable rights and freedom, that we who do so take the high road, and take a lesson from the Founders we so often look to for context. I have many times been guilty of allowing others to draw me into the emotional tar pit of slings and barbarous arrows, but this fight for freedom must continue, and I must temper my passion for freedom with the coolness of rational thought, so that this ongoing fight can be fought with words that actually matter and not words that bury the wisdom of truth underneath the mire of prevarications, mendacity and other such nonsense.

What happened in Aurora, Colorado was a senseless tragedy and no amount of legislative hand-wringing will ever make sense of this senseless tragedy. What the perpetrator of that massacre did was not a right, it was crime. A crime that has all ready been legislated against. Murder is not just unlawful, as a matter of legal fact it is illegal and legislation is on the books declaring it so, and yet, the crime was committed. Disarming the populace will not erase senseless murder, but it will most assuredly empower even more a government that is long on record for senseless murders of its own.

The "right to keep and bear arms" (USC;2A) has been (unconstitutionally) "infringed" over the years even tho the SCOTUS has ruled that it is an "individual not a collective right"; to wit: the restriction of firearms possession by certain municipalities; the former Assault Weapons Ban (AWB) ; the ban on high capacity magazines by some states; the classification of certain clip accepting shotguns as "Destructive Devices" (DD) and so on. The only debate should be where to draw the line going forward - not going backwards. There are those who would want to totally disarm the American people (some like Bill Moyers out of liberal bias and ignorance of the big picture and others like George Soros because they have a sinister agenda to unfold). The shameful part in all of this are the current and future (Mil & LEOs) who are or will be defacto traitors to the country for failing to uphold their sworn oath to defend the US Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic...something for some of you to think about.

Allow me to re-word my post. . . . .

If handgun crime still exists within the confines of a city that had banned handguns, then the real reason for gun control is NOT the safety of the populace, but reliance upon the government.

Kinda like the fox telling the henhouse not to worry.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

well, short of disagreeing, which i don't, how does one respond to that ??
well said

thanks for the reminder that you are not a gun owner, i used to share your sentiment.
then, over the course of a year and a half, i was assaulted 4 separate times.
that was enough to change my mind about owning guns.

hand to hand defense is great but it's not always reliable in every situation and if you are mortally threatened, merely wounding your assailant will land your touche in a court of law with penalty.

reply to post by beezzer


Reliance upon government indeed. The big ass problem with that is that this reliance is demanded from a government who has perfected the skill of competent incompetency and as such what is being sold is not so much a reliance on government but a shameful advocacy of lawlessness.

People are going to commit crimes and are going to abrogate and derogate the rights of others. If they didn't there would be no need to establish rights to begin with. This is the key. It is We the People who have established government and we have done so not to be ruled, but to have our rights cherished and held sacrosanct. When the ambitions of petty tyrants seek to rule others, you can be rest assured that those damned rights are clearly in the way of that ambition.

Stricter gun laws would not have prevented any tragedy where the criminally unbalanced seek to cause harm. What they certainly do is ensure the mentally balanced are faced with acquiescing to dubious legislation, or challenging it, and when it is challenged, all to often government then treats the challenger as mentally unbalanced, and this is who the ambitious politicians want you to rely on, as if they are mentally balanced even if they are so competent in their incompetence.

This guy was making explosives after exploiting his school ability to acquire chemicals that would have sent up flags if they were mailed to his home. We are lucky that he told the cops about his little booby trap. Trying to use this tragedy as a reason forward a agenda is a bit low but par for course. He had quite the plan and if it wasn't guns what else would he have done? Explosives? Poison gas? Seemed he was a clever guy, he chose guns, when he clearly showed he could have done it in another way.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

There are countless examples of the U.S. federal government engaged in unlawful mass killings, but those who want the People disarmed never cry for the disarmament of that same murderous government and they will not. They may pay lip service to the atrocities and claim they agree it is horrible, but they will just as easily then shrug their shoulders and act as if nothing can be done about that and go right back to making impassioned arguments as to why People need to be disarmed. Individuals disarmed, not People as in a government of the People, by the People, and for the People, but individuals who are not at all on the government paycheck in form.

I think you owe a good many people an apology Jean Paul

These sweeping generalizations make the rest of your last post seem a bit disingenuous - you might just as well say every one who disagrees with you is Un-American - and stupid too

I come from a home that had guns and I know all about responsible gun ownership

I've defended the 2nd amendment myself - right here at ATS

I'm a pacifist - but I understand the world I live in

But neither the symbolism or the reality hold up in the world we live in now

If our government does become our enemy - our guns won't protect us anymore - and you know it

The only thing they'll be good for is killing each other - same as now

I'm a human being and I have the inalienable right to defend myself

I choose disarmament. It's slower than a bullet to the head - but it's the better solution

And for the record - I love this country as much as anyone

go ahead - call me a petty tyrant

I dare you

reply to post by Honor93

hand to hand defense is great but it's not always reliable in every situation and if you are mortally threatened, merely wounding your assailant will land your touche in a court of law with penalty.

Self defense is all to often treated as a crime, but is so because We the People have agreed to be ignorant of the law, and ironically that ignorance of law that is expected of us will never work as a lawful or legal defense against criminal charges.

Knowing the law changes everything. Police who insist on arresting a person for defending themselves have no lawful authority to do so. They have an obligation to investigate and if such an investigation gives them probable cause to make an arrest then this is lawful, but simply arresting all involved and declaring "let the courts sort it out" is no different then declaring "kill them all and let God sort it out". Self defense is not something governments "allow" it is an unalienable right. Indeed, this is the logical extension as to why we establish government to begin with. All people have the right to life, from that it follow that all people have the right to defend that life as individuals, and as individuals it follows they have the right to organize an institution towards that same end.

Police have not been invested with any Constitutional authority that gives them the right to arbitrarily arrest people simply because they feel like it, or think it is a good idea at the time. There must be probable cause and exercising a right is hardly probable cause for arrest. It is instead a crime. A crime that must be punished by the law. Criminal police officers can and should be arrested through verified complaint. A verified complaint, generally handled through your local Sheriff is an oath that the victim signs under penalty of perjury declaring that a crime was indeed committed. That verified oath must be acted upon by the Sheriff, by the DA, by the Judge. Government cannot lawfully dismiss, or ignore a verified complaint and if one is filed because a police officer unlawfully arrested someone simply because they were defending themselves, that police officer - assuming the Sheriff, DA and the Judge are all acting lawfully - will wind up facing a jury or judge and then the court will certainly sort it all out.

This reliance on government that the honorable Beezer speaks of is our own damn faults and it is high time that we the People put justice back in. Not by loading and locking, or as it is so often euphemistically said "lock and load" - don't you load first and then lock? - but by peacefully using the law as it is supposed to be used. There are good people who work in government. I am privileged to have been befriended on this site by some damn good police officers. I have had arguments with others who may not have friended me, but one just messaged me offering his condolences for my loss, and our arguments have never been because he is a bad cop. The good cops, the good prosecutors, the good judges and the good legislators exist, but their goodness means nothing if we are constantly allowing the bad ones to flourish and prosper on our dime.

reply to post by Spiramirabilis


I would never even think to call you a petty tyrant and I have no idea why you are even trying on that shoe. If you ask me, the shoe doesn't fit, which probably explains your agitation right now. You shouldn't try on shoes that obviously will not fit.

This is what you quoted of me:

There are countless examples of the U.S. federal government engaged in unlawful mass killings, but those who want the People disarmed never cry for the disarmament of that same murderous government and they will not. They may pay lip service to the atrocities and claim they agree it is horrible, but they will just as easily then shrug their shoulders and act as if nothing can be done about that and go right back to making impassioned arguments as to why People need to be disarmed. Individuals disarmed, not People as in a government of the People, by the People, and for the People, but individuals who are not at all on the government paycheck in form.

Would you tell me that the tragedies perpetuated by our own federal government are easily counted? Can you count them all? Or, would you argue that the federal government is not guilty of the charges I level against them? Would you tell me that the shameless gun control advocates who pay lip service to the atrocities of government do in fact demand a disarmament of government? Would you?

My friend, at this point I do not understand why you think I owe anyone an apology, but if you care to clarify, I am more than willing to listen and give your words great consideration. If I am wrong I have no problem in owning that, but before I do I have to be convinced I am wrong. I trust you enough that if I am wrong you will find the necessary words to explain how this is so.

reply to post by OutKast Searcher

And crazy gun lovers are better armed than they were 40 years ago

got any proof of that ??
here are several links that prove there were less gun owners in 2008 than there was in 1960.
gun ownership had been on a steady decline until most recently
(geeeee - i wonder why )
www.ncjrs.gov...
www.justfacts.com...

from a liberal favorite even ...

www.huffingtonpost.com...
Paul HelmkePresident, Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence

Gun ownership in the nation is at the lowest level ever recorded by the General Social Survey, according to an analysis issued Tuesday by the Violence Policy Center. The National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago has been surveying the American public on gun ownership since the early 1970s.

In most households, people choose not to own guns. In 2010, less than a third of households reported having a gun in the home. This is better than a 20-point drop from 1977, when 54 percent of households reported having guns. The drop in gun ownership came despite the millions of dollars the firearms industry gave the NRA to push looser gun restrictions across the nation.

and then there's this ...

gunowners.org...
Florida: concealed carry helps slash the murder rate in the state. In the fifteen years following the passage of Florida's concealed carry law in 1987, over 800,000 permits to carry firearms were issued to people in the state.(32) FBI reports show that the homicide rate in Florida, which in 1987 was much higher than the national average, fell 52% during that 15-year period—thus putting the Florida rate below the national average.

-- snip --

Fact: The Brady law has NOT stopped thugs like Benjamin Smith from going on killing sprees. In 1999, Benjamin Smith was rejected by a background check when he tried to buy a firearm from an Illinois gun dealer. But after this initial rejection, "he hit the streets and in just three days had two handguns" from an illegal source, reported the Associated Press. Three days after getting the guns, Smith went on a rampage that killed two people and wounded nine others.

* Fact: The Brady Law is not physically keeping criminals from getting firearms. The simple truth is that any person who’s denied a firearm can simply walk out the door and buy a gun down the street. Ohio's Attorney General, Betty Montgomery, testified to this very irony in the law in 1997:

"In 1996, 60,037 people went to licensed gun dealers to purchase handguns. Of that figure, 327—less than one half of one percent—were denied because of a disqualifying factor. . . . [W]hile we were able to keep 327 people from getting a handgun at point A—each of them was able to purchase a rifle or handgun the very same day at point B. To our knowledge, under the Brady Act, not a single one of the 327 people . . . have been prosecuted by the U.S. Justice Department."

there is sooooo much more at this link that you really should read it for yourself

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


Am I safer if I (and most people I know) are armed?

Surely the statistics on accidental shootings and "heat of the moment" at home shootings would indicate that it is NOT safer to own a gun.

Some people can be relied upon to treat guns with the respect that they demand. Some people can't.

Should we enact a "right" to own bomb making materials"? A "right" to deploy thermonuclear munitions?

What sort of "right" is the right to bear arms?

From what necessity does it arise?

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

as much as i agree with what you wrote, the largest obstacle i've encountered along the way has been the lack of ability to properly address the court with a pro se petition and very few attorneys willing to fight the fight.

i remember the first advice i got was to break the law because it was the law ...
i've been confused ever since.

without details, but because i believe you'll understand ... it involved "ownership is 9/10 of the law" and state lines.
i didn't understand then (and didn't follow the advice either) but i sure do understand it now.

believe it or not, it's alot like the gun issue.
as much as i think every household should possess a gun, it is still an individual's choice and that should never be impinged.

This thread appears to be an example of the shameless opportunism of gun lobbyists.

Originally posted by sonnny1

A 14-year-old Phoenix boy shot an intruder who broke into his home while brandishing a gun as the teenager watched his three younger siblings, police said. The teen and his brothers and sisters were at home alone at their residence at 55th Avenue and Baseline when a woman rang the doorbell Friday.

The teen didn't open the door because he didn't recognize her, Police Officer James Holmes said Saturday. Soon after, the teen heard a bang on the door, rushed his siblings upstairs and got a handgun from his parent's bedroom. When he got to the top of the stairs, he saw a man breaking through the front door and point a gun at him.

Phoenix boy, 14, shoots armed intruder while watching three younger siblings

Sure Gun Control Advocates, would use the excuse, that neither of them, intruder or victim, needed a Gun, hey?

Well, I have to say I was somewhat confused after reading this post; something seemed weird but I couldn't put my finger on it.
I read through it again, more carefully, and found it in the quoted source text:

The teen didn't open the door because he didn't recognize her, Police Officer James Holmes said Saturday. Soon after, the teen heard a bang on the door, rushed his siblings upstairs and got a handgun from his parent's bedroom. When he got to the top of the stairs, he saw a man breaking through the front door and point a gun at him.

Ain't coincidence fun?

Originally posted by Astyanax
This thread appears to be an example of the shameless opportunism of gun lobbyists.

I have little doubt that is because you have not bothered to investigate and are simply responding to your own reaction to one, maybe two or three posts. You should know that it appears as if the sun rises and later in the day the sun sets, but that this is merely an appearance and upon further investigation it is understood that the sun does not rise nor does it set.

reply to post by chr0naut


U.S. most armed country with 90 guns per 100 people

U.S. citizens own 270 million of the world's 875 million known firearms, according to the Small Arms Survey 2007 by the Geneva-based Graduate Institute of International Studies. About 4.5 million of the 8 million new guns manufactured worldwide each year are purchased in the United States, it said.

Surely? 270 million are a lot of guns. How many accidental and "heat of the moment" shootings are there? You tell us. Then compare those accidents against ladder accidents, or grease fire accidents. Surely? Come back with some data to bear that out.

Give me a cast iron pipe, some iron balls, a tank of nitrous, and an ignition switch. I can take your house apart, huge chunks at a time, from several blocks away. You don't have to be a genius to make a weapon of death. But you may need to be one to survive doing it!

JPZ....absolutely brilliant. Thanks for the read. Every single page.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

...but those who want the People disarmed never cry for the disarmament of that same murderous government and they will not...

That's nonsense - and it's also insulting. Don't criticize people for being unable to accomplish what you yourself can't accomplish

My friend - I've read through this entire thread

If you're really confused you should read back through it yourself and understand - that when you accuse those on the other side of this subject of the many crimes and distasteful things you do accuse them of - you don't accuse nameless, faceless people

We're sick of the guns and the gun culture - the military, the police - AND the inadequately trained but fully armed people

We're sick of the lack of compromise

Sick of the violence and then being told the only way to deal with the violence is - violence

Sick of this idea that anyone who sees it differently is somehow less - a feeble, stupid citizen - enabler of tyranny. A - socialist

The tyranny of the gun lobby comes wrapped in the flag and anyone that dares to ask for restraint or change is branded an enemy of freedom

Read through your own thread Jean Paul - and see if you don't see what I see

Then tell me - what do you propose? You - yourself? Should we ineffectual whiners just go get ourselves an assault rifle and shut the * up? Or should we all just keep upping the ante - year after year? No holds barred?

Explain to me how a 24 year old med student is entitled to own weapons designed for military use

Please explain how we're supposed to defend ourselves against him? Please explain how our fear of him and others like him is irrational - but this fear of our government is not

Explain how his right to bear arms is in the end a good thing for all of us

Absolutely - our government has been and continues to be guilty of some heinous crimes. You bet I want disarmament - but, guess what?

I understand your defense of the 2nd - even if I don't entirely agree with how you see it - I do understand it

Just as you understand the other argument - and I know you do

Here at ATS the 'Grand Rant' is just ever so popular - and giving no quarter is all the rage

But outside these walls the polarization is real and obvious - and some people are starting to play the patriot game for real

Yes - I'm angry

It doesn't take a genius to understand why

The pen is mightier than the sword Jean Paul - please - use it wisely

Originally posted by Astyanax
This thread appears to be an example of the shameless opportunism of gun lobbyists.

do tell, which of the posters are "gun lobbyists" ??
how are any of us being opportunistic ??
do you even know what that word means ??

are we speaking from a podium to Congress ?
are we arranging a secret donation to push an agenda ?
how exactly, does this discussion represent "shameless opportunism of gun lobbyists" ??