The Hypocrisy of Gun Control Advocates

Originally posted by buckrogerstime

Originally posted by uprising2freedom
I am in the UK, But i would say DO NOT ACCEPT REPEAL of the 2nd Amendment.
Even if they do repeal it from the constitution keep hold of your firearms and stock up now.

The UK is going to sh*t right now and i assume the USA is in as bad a condition socioeconomically.
Communities have been divided and fragmented, everyone lives week to week or month to month by their pay cheques and most people have been duped in to getting debit/credit cards.

Yes, if only the UK had horrendous mass shootings of innocent men, women, and children every other month. Maybe things would be better there. Lord knows it solved all our problems over here in America.

Just to be clear of course the tragedies occurring in the US right now are abhorrent and despicable, But i would want to hold on to any firearm because we all know the Economy is going to implode, It was designed that way and is unsustainable,
Food shortages will of course be the biggest concern and i would want that firearm for some way of protecting my family.
Ultimately it will come down to self preservation until small communities start to come together for the greater good.
When the Economy crashes that is it, Martial Law and at first everyman for himself

Not sure if people saw this very similar incidence of a Chinese man who stabbed 8 young children to death only a few days ago. Not having a gun probably saved some lives - but there was still 8 killings of innocent children.

Originally posted by templar knight
Not sure if people saw this very similar incidence of a Chinese man who stabbed 8 young children to death only a few days ago. Not having a gun probably saved some lives - but there was still 8 killings of innocent children.

100% Agreed. Despite the fact I am a gun control advocate, I also think that significant resources need to be spent on improving the US mental health care system. Improving access and perhaps court ordered appearances in some of the more egregious cases.

A system of gun control and a system of mental health screening is complimentary. The two work together to prevent these tragedies.

Originally posted by spangledbanner
Arent the people that own guns for protection the ones living in fear?

Boom Headshot! Nice retort, really.

Originally posted by marg6043
reply to post by MagicWand67

 

Anti gun fearmongers are not blind by tears they are driven by opportunity, they don't cry because they are sorry the salivate about the chance to crap on the constitution and scrape away the right to bear arms.

I'm sorry but can't find better words to describe it: your post is quite insane. You stance is that if someone has an opinion that differs from yours by an iota, they have a scat fetish with the Constitution. There is no thought and no logic in your post.

Originally posted by Kram09
I'm not suggesting that right be taken away, but stricter gun laws are needed.

Exactly!

There needs to be a serious inquiry by the government into why these gun masssacres are now becoming a tragic staple of American society and there needs to be a deep look at gun culture in the United States.

Proponents of gun ownership like to say it's all about safety and responsibility. That does make sense. However, this logic is voided in the typical case where a mentally unstable person has easy access to firearms.

I'll throw my opinion in for what it's worth.
I believe any gun control would be 60 years too late as it should have been imposed just after the 2nd world war.
People aren't blaming guns but the availability of them.
It stands to reason, the more guns that are legally available means that more guns will be available illegally. Or used illegally.

The fact is by sticking with this archaic "right to bear arms" you've created a rod for your own back. And using the worn out cliché of "defending our nation against a tyrannical government" is ridiculous.
If you really meant that, you'd have used them against your government 4 years ago when they sold everyone down the river to bail the bankers out.
And have you? No.


However stupid drunk drivers are I would suggest that they don't go out with the intention of killing someone so for me that's not a comparison. You could argue that these people understand the consequences etc etc but it's very different indeed to going out armed with the intent to injure.

People who are mentioning Christianity and bearing arms.....I've got something to tell you....you're not Christians. You're something but definitely not christians.



And my last piece is to the world's media;
Stop glorifying these sick b@stards who commit these barbaric crimes. Don't publish their names. Don't publish their life histories. Don't interview their friends and families.
Keep them anonymous.

Originally posted by exponent

Originally posted by Long Lance

Could you list some comparable killing sprees carried out with a knife or a bat? You seem to be pretty convinced this is possible.

you wish is my command:

edition.cnn.com...

Why is it pro-gun advocates always link this without reading. 22 injured as opposed to 26 dead. You've just defeated your point entirely.

do you really believe that a knife cannot be used to kill? there were shootings without fatalities, too, what does it mean? the guy had the opportunity to kill all of the children he managed to hit, he just didn't for some reason. a knife at melee distance is a horrible weapon and it never runs out of ammo, especially against children who are certainly slower weaker than your typical killer.

please scroll down to the map and view 'shootings with no deaths' - plenty to go around, just injuries.

www.squidoo.com...

don't you find it awesome when people are trying hard to find lawyer-esque reasons to dismiss a valid point just because it isn't theirs? that's not a discussion, it's PR.

================================================================================

Originally posted by buckrogerstime
Maybe there are ways to defend one's self without guns as well (especially if insane people and criminals aren't able to purchase them either).

yes, i'll have that phaser then, but someone will try to ban that too once available. Weapons can't be un-invented and anything that comes close in capability (or even surpasses) will inevitably raise similar objections.

The real question is are you willing to fight for your life? in a society where some fools tell women to give the aggressor 'anything he wants' one cannot expect anyone to respect the sanctity of life. the unconditional killer who just wants to take lives is the natural failure mode of this mindset, but so many respond with 'more of the same', namely defenselessness.

Originally posted by Ahabstar
In other words, I am a target shooter. Does that make me evil or criminal? Does my hobby infringe or your ability to lead an otherwise healthy and productive life? Must my guns be taken to satisfy your fears and outrage over a situation that you could not control?

Now replace the word guns with bombs.

Do you still not see the problem here? You can call yourself a responsible gun owner all you like, but those guns exist in your home, I don't know you, I don't know that you are mentally stable, I don't know if you suffer from delusions and paranoia... I would keep my kids away from you, hate to say it but that's reality.

If you love shooting practice, why not keep those guns at a firing range? Why not just go to a reputable and safe place, and have your fun there? Why do you need them in your home to begin with?

Then, why would someone need an automatic weapon capable of murdering hundreds of people in a minute? How is that in any way practical or sensible? Those kinds of weapons have only one purpose, to take Human life. Target practice is one thing, being able to mow down hundreds of people in such a short space of time is a completely different thing entirely.

No American can come on here and say that those kinds of weapons are justified. There is NO reason to have those other than with the intention to murder a lot of people in a short space of time.
They are not useful for hunting, not useful for self defence, not useful for sport... there is NO justification for them whatsoever.

Originally posted by MagicWand67
reply to post by Undeadlady

 

what other use do you need your gun for? Exept for killing that is. Please enlighten me.

There are 15 Olympic events that involve shooting guns.

People use guns to hunt and provide food for their families.

A gun can be used as a deterrent to stop a crime without being fired.

Guns are used for target shooting. Fun and recreation.

Protection for people and livestock from wild animals.

And you need an automatic weapon capable of murdering a hundred people a minute for those things? No, thought not.

Originally posted by Long Lance
do you really believe that a knife cannot be used to kill? there were shootings without fatalities, too, what does it mean?

It means a knife can be used to kill, but a gun can be used only to kill. Guns are designed and built for the sole purpose of killing as efficiently and effectively as possible with as little trauma to the shooter.

don't you find it awesome when people are trying hard to find lawyer-esque reasons to dismiss a valid point just because it isn't theirs? that's not a discussion, it's PR.

Except that's not what I am doing, my position has been clear and posted in every thread I've discussed this in. Guns are efficient, effective, long distance killing machines. A child was able to slaughter 26 people here where a grown man could kill only 8 in China, and in other cases way less than 8, sometimes none whatsoever.

This is the importance of regulating guns, they are better at killing than anything short of bombs, and those are regulated too.

Do I think you should ban guns altogether? No, we haven't here and there's no good reason to. Do I think you need much stronger regulation and to take away the power from NRA nuts? Hell yes.

reply to post by buckrogerstime
No mistake you are correct.

Originally posted by LPOPranger
reply to post by buckrogerstime

 

No mistake you are correct.

He was being sarcastic. How can you both believe the military won't attack you, but that you need guns to defend yourself against the military?

It's irrational to believe something like that, and it's equally irrational to believe that a few semiautomatic rifles will save you from artillery, for example.

Originally posted by MajorKarma
Even now, our enemies, the Luciferians, the Humanists, the Godless, the Marxist Globalist

Really? It beats Scientology, LOL. You are standing up to fight LUCIFERIANS ? Get a grip.

I must also add that after having read the bio on Adam Lanza; it is disturbing that many here remind me of him.

I first wanted to disagree, but when I read your passage on the Godless and Luciferians, Lanza all of a sudden seems almost normal to me.

Originally posted by exponent

Originally posted by Long Lance
do you really believe that a knife cannot be used to kill? there were shootings without fatalities, too, what does it mean?

It means a knife can be used to kill, but a gun can be used only to kill. Guns are designed and built for the sole purpose of killing as efficiently and effectively as possible with as little trauma to the shooter.

Nope, it means that you don't care about the killings, just about the weapons. Emotional pretext for a weapons ban that's been tried in Australia and Britain, so there is data to go by, and IF it was favorable it would be used by the 'antis' at every corner, but it isn't and we all know what that is, don't we?

as for the rest, i outlined this in my first post, lethal force is OK to use against a lethal threat, what else could you do? i never heard of a reasonable answer to that question, in fact i never got any at all...


PS: you should really try to think why i would use the example of the wounded children, when i had another with 8 deaths on the search roster...

Originally posted by templar knight
Not sure if people saw this very similar incidence of a Chinese man who stabbed 8 young children to death only a few days ago. Not having a gun probably saved some lives - but there was still 8 killings of innocent children.

...i'm giving you an opportunity to confirm my suspicions, works like a charm, doesn't it?

Well, all rhetoric aside, this country's Revolution was achieved by citizen militias...in fact, a fox-hunting club formed the First City Troop, bodyguards to GW.

The images in Western movies was clear, good guys or bad guys were denoted by their hat colour.

Now, "modern" society has made heros out of evildoers.

I can see a progression.

reply to post by exponent
Have you ever been in combat? My guess is no except for X-Box!!!! I know what direction he was coming from; I am trying to be nice. Artillery; what I call cannon chockers is only good within visiable range without a spotter. A 155 or a 4 duce would not be very effective at ground level except for a direct hit which happens abour every thousand rounds. Don't try and talk about weapons with a person who has been there done that and is still here to talk about it; this isn't X-Box!
The military in the US would not enforce fire on their fellow citizens; maybe a fer just as sick as this guy but not many and they would be taken out by friendly fire very quickly. I love you arm chair warriors who would crap their pants the first time the SHTF!! You crack me up and just verify how weak and self centered most humans are. I was a Ranger and our creed was "I will never fail a commrade" and we NEVER did!! I have seen some of the best men I have ever known die so a "Libtard" like you can dribble your crap on sites like this!
I am sorry Mod's but unless you have been in the military and fought for you country then this crap does not go very far with me! It's funny how the people with these libtard opinions have never served! The don't sand for nothing except what some professor has taught them in school; which is total BS because everyone with a brain knows those who can do; those who can't teach!!!

Could an anti-gun advocate tell me exactly how banning guns will prevent killers from killing?

And by telling me how, I don't mean "it will make it more difficult." or your usual run of the mill anti gun advocate response. You say something, I will retort. Point by point, post by post.

Originally posted by Long Lance
Nope, it means that you don't care about the killings, just about the weapons. Emotional pretext for a weapons ban that's been tried in Australia and Britain, so there is data to go by, and IF it was favorable it would be used by the 'antis' at every corner, but it isn't and we all know what that is, don't we?

Uh you mean the part where you have a 500x higher chance of being shot to death than I do? or a 10x higher chance of being stabbed to death?

The UK is remarkably peaceful and safe despite being more violent than most of Europe. Perhaps look up the actual facts rather than just assuming you're right.

PS: you should really try to think why i would use the example of the wounded children, when i had another with 8 deaths on the search roster...
...
...i'm giving you an opportunity to confirm my suspicions, works like a charm, doesn't it?

Once again you point out that a grown man could kill only 8 children in a murderous rage, but a child managed to kill 26 children and adults in the US. Why? Because the Chinese man couldn't get a gun.

The will full ignorance shown by gun advocates sometimes shocks me.

Originally posted by LPOPranger
reply to post by exponent

 

Have you ever been in combat? My guess is no except for X-Box!!!! I know what direction he was coming from; I am trying to be nice. Artillery; what I call cannon chockers is only good within visiable range without a spotter. A 155 or a 4 duce would not be very effective at ground level except for a direct hit which happens abour every thousand rounds. Don't try and talk about weapons with a person who has been there done that and is still here to talk about it; this isn't X-Box!

You didn't even bother to read my post, and yet you want to talk about how badass you are and how you could totally take down artillery.

Like I said, lots of gun nuts live in a paranoid fantasy world.

The military in the US would not enforce fire on their fellow citizens; maybe a fer just as sick as this guy but not many and they would be taken out by friendly fire very quickly. I love you arm chair warriors who would crap their pants the first time the SHTF!!

If the military would never attack you, then why do you need the guns.

Logic is apparently not a strong point with you. I'm not the one demanding I be given access to extremely lethal weapons to defend myself. I'm the one who lives in a peaceful country where schools don't need armed guards and I can go out on the street without worrying about being shot to death.

You should try it some time, it's way better than believing yourself to be some superhuman badass.