The Shameless Opportunism of Gun Control Advocates

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


An armed man is better equiped to defend his life and the life of others, against a threat, then a man who is not......

Full stop, there is no debate there....

Anyone who is in favor of gun control needs to think about that and let it sink in.......

Because if they want to shoot you, they will find a gun to do it.........whether you ban them or not......

Dont believe me? Marijuana is illegal, and it can be found anywhere.......

Apply that to anything that has be banned or made illegal.........

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by ImaFungi

 

That is where your wrong mankind is not different in 10,000 years first it was stones, then knives, then arrows, then the gun.

People have killed the innocents during that time and they will continue to do so Governments of man can't stop that they will never be able to legislate behavior.

They never will they only thing they have done time and time again is create more victims.

edit on 22-7-2012 by neo96 because: (no reason given)

governments of man are the ones who have been initiating the things you mention,,,,, just like a gun alone,,, a person does not have to be bad or evil,,,,, just like all guns do not have to do anything bad or evil or destructive,,, just as all people do not have to do anything bad or evil or destructive,,.,.

reply to post by neo96


Personally, I can't manage a headshot or an underarm shot on an moving target covered in black in a dark room while my eyes are filling with tears and my throat is swelling.

If you can then you should probably try and be a professional marksman.

Originally posted by ImaFungi



typical realist,,, whos real world is a real piece of snip

But that's where we all live.

In the real world.

Pipe dreams are in a different place entirely.

Originally posted by ImaFungi

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by ImaFungi

 

Typical of the idealist Marxist who insists that the heavily regulated markets of today are "free markets", they also want a world that doesn't exist, and in lieu of that want to impose all sorts of oppression to mold that non-existent world into their own creation, and failing that, they wish for the death of countless souls so they can smugly cross their harms and feign sadness as they shake their heads and say "I told you so".

Long before Marx, there were oppressive governments using arms to strengthen their oppression of innocent people and if Marxists ever get their way, it will no doubt be by the point of gun.

typical realist,,, whos real world is a real piece of snip

The prose you quoted actually made sense. Yours made none whatsoever.

Originally posted by beezzer

Originally posted by ImaFungi



typical realist,,, whos real world is a real piece of snip

But that's where we all live.

In the real world.

Pipe dreams are in a different place entirely.

everything that has ever been created by mankind in this "real", "natural" world,,,,, is ideal,,.,..

everything that we have created that was not here before we were,,,, was a creation of idealism,,

Originally posted by XeroOne

Originally posted by ImaFungi

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by ImaFungi

 

Typical of the idealist Marxist who insists that the heavily regulated markets of today are "free markets", they also want a world that doesn't exist, and in lieu of that want to impose all sorts of oppression to mold that non-existent world into their own creation, and failing that, they wish for the death of countless souls so they can smugly cross their harms and feign sadness as they shake their heads and say "I told you so".

Long before Marx, there were oppressive governments using arms to strengthen their oppression of innocent people and if Marxists ever get their way, it will no doubt be by the point of gun.

typical realist,,, whos real world is a real piece of snip

The prose you quoted actually made sense. Yours made none whatsoever.

well what he said i do not think applied to me,,,, i do not want a say or stake in the way of the world,,, i was only offering an opinion to this conversation,,,,

what happens when the gun becomes obsolete,,, say some kind of taser gun is invented that kills a person within a second of contact,,,, then should everyone be able to have one of those for defense?

reply to post by ImaFungi

governments of man are the ones who have been initiating the things you mention,,,

And yet so many people are willing to have them call all the shots when it comes to owning a gun?

I pass.

Originally posted by ImaFungi

Originally posted by XeroOne

Originally posted by ImaFungi

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by ImaFungi

 

Typical of the idealist Marxist who insists that the heavily regulated markets of today are "free markets", they also want a world that doesn't exist, and in lieu of that want to impose all sorts of oppression to mold that non-existent world into their own creation, and failing that, they wish for the death of countless souls so they can smugly cross their harms and feign sadness as they shake their heads and say "I told you so".

Long before Marx, there were oppressive governments using arms to strengthen their oppression of innocent people and if Marxists ever get their way, it will no doubt be by the point of gun.

typical realist,,, whos real world is a real piece of snip

The prose you quoted actually made sense. Yours made none whatsoever.

well what he said i do not think applied to me,,,, i do not want a say or stake in the way of the world,,, i was only offering an opinion to this conversation,,,,

But this is your world, and you have every right to want a stake in it. The problem here is various political groups are using a recent tragedy for point scoring, and they want you to react to that tragedy instead of critically thinking about the issue.

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by ImaFungi

 

governments of man are the ones who have been initiating the things you mention,,,

And yet so many people are willing to have them call all the shots when it comes to owning a gun?

I pass.

in a democracy,, the government is the people,,,, so it would be you and your fellow citizens deciding the smartest way for things to be,

Originally posted by links234
reply to post by neo96

 

Personally, I can't manage a headshot or an underarm shot on an moving target covered in black in a dark room while my eyes are filling with tears and my throat is swelling.

If you can then you should probably try and be a professional marksman.

Most CQB happens less than 10 feet still tho they make laser sites for handguns that make anyone a "marksman" and not every room in that theatre was "tear gassed".

Originally posted by links234
The fact that the acquisition of the AR-15 would've been impossible for this young man eight years ago is important because he likely wouldn't have been capable of firing as many rounds as he did.

The assault weapons ban was a bunch of feel good BS. Weapons like the AR-15 and the SKS were outlawed because they looked military. There were several semi-automatic hunting rifles that were NOT outlawed that had the same performance capabilities. The other thing that was outlawed were "high capacity" magazines. This too was a joke. I can change a mag in my pistol in about 1.5 seconds, my rifle in about 2.5. So instead of me carrying 10, 40 round mags, I have to carry 40, 10 round mags. From what I'm hearing, the large capacity mags may have saved some lives, if his weapon did overheat. All of this is a moot point any way for one simple reason.
GUN CONTROL LAWS ONLY AFFECT THE PEOPLE THAT YOU DON'T HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT IN THE FIRST PLACE!

That's it plain and simple.

Originally posted by ImaFungi

what happens when the gun becomes obsolete,,, say some kind of taser gun is invented that kills a person within a second of contact,,,, then should everyone be able to have one of those for defense?

Yes.

Originally posted by ImaFungi

what happens when the gun becomes obsolete,,, say some kind of taser gun is invented that kills a person within a second of contact,,,, then should everyone be able to have one of those for defense?

I've asked you this question once, I'll ask it again. Why would you use the actions of a criminal to argue that innocent people have no right to defend themselves? Why are you so opposed to people defending their own lives? Why are you so opposed to people's right to defense?

reply to post by ImaFungi


A Democracy is mob rule where the majority take the rights from the minority, but then agian this country is not a Democracy even tho so many people are under the illusion that it is.

This country is a constitutional republic where minority rights are protected and where someone can not take away the right of any other, where no other persons right is any more important than the other,

Taking away the rights of others is pure fascist, totalitariansim,Authoritarism to give supreme power from the individual to the govenrment.,

As the Founding Fathers knew well, a government that does not trust its honest, law-abiding, taxpaying citizens with the means of self-defense is not itself worthy of trust. Laws disarming honest citizens proclaim that the government is the master, not the servant, of the people. -- Jeff Snyder

I agree with Jeff there Government is not my master, and no one else in this country is my master that is what a constitutional republic means.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux

Originally posted by ImaFungi

what happens when the gun becomes obsolete,,, say some kind of taser gun is invented that kills a person within a second of contact,,,, then should everyone be able to have one of those for defense?

I've asked you this question once, I'll ask it again. Why would you use the actions of a criminal to argue that innocent people have no right to defend themselves? Why are you so opposed to people defending their own lives? Why are you so opposed to people's right to defense?

i just dont think its smart for every single person to have a deadly weapon,, simply because deadly weapons are dangerous,,,,, notice im only offering my opinion,, i am not planning on doing anything about it,,, i am only saying it is not smart,,, i am personally afraid of guns,,,, i have shot rifles at targets and shotguns at skeet,,, but if im at a friends house and they are nonchalantly playing with a gun,,, i will be scared,,, because,,, i dont trust other people,,,,, this is why people want guns,,, because they dont trust other people,,,, i would not want to live in a city,, or raise a family in a city where every single person had a gun,,, only my opinion,,, may every one do what they want,, but no complaining when stuff like the movie shooting happens,,i dont get any satisfaction in saying i told you so,,,, thats not what its about ,,, but,,, i did,, tell you so,

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


Ah, but John Dillinger was coming OUT of a movie theater, and was killed by Police.......

Ironic twist, I would say JPZ.

Yes, their is Opportunism, when it comes to gun laws, and restricting us from Guns. Without the 2nd Amendment, we cease as a Country. MHO


S&F

Originally posted by JIMC5499
The assault weapons ban was a bunch of feel good BS. Weapons like the AR-15 and the SKS were outlawed because they looked military. There were several semi-automatic hunting rifles that were NOT outlawed that had the same performance capabilities. The other thing that was outlawed were "high capacity" magazines. This too was a joke. I can change a mag in my pistol in about 1.5 seconds, my rifle in about 2.5. So instead of me carrying 10, 40 round mags, I have to carry 40, 10 round mags. From what I'm hearing, the large capacity mags may have saved some lives, if his weapon did overheat. All of this is a moot point any way for one simple reason.

I'm going to seperate your post because I only want to reply to the last part.

GUN CONTROL LAWS ONLY AFFECT THE PEOPLE THAT YOU DON'T HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT IN THE FIRST PLACE!

That's it plain and simple.

They do affect people I'm worried about too. If it's harder for a dangerous gun-layman to procure a gun then I feel safer. It's people who are both dangerous and skilled with weapons that we should really look out for.

You sound like you know your way around weapons...that's fine. If you ever want to do cause some serious chaos you're fully capable. Generally, people who want to cause some trouble don't have a strong grasp on intricate details associated with whatever it is they're doing. It's those people that gun control has the greatest and most impactful effect on. That's the objective.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


the only way i would be able to agree with your side of the argument is if guns saved more lives then they took,