The Hypocrisy of Gun Control Advocates

Originally posted by waynos
reply to post by NavyDoc

 

It appears we misunderstood each other as the "penis replacement" comment was separate from my other thoughts and speculation about what owning a gun might mean to a small percentage of owners, I'm sorry too.

Cheers! And happy end of the world day!

reply to post by marg6043


Far from it.. Anti-Gun people are not opportunists they are constantly vocal about Anti-Gun laws.. the only opportunism involved is when a tragedy like this happens they get to say I told you so..

It's got nothing to do with the Second Amendment and whilst you clutch on to the only real piece of history you have people are regularly dying.

Guns don't kill people.. people kill people.. but hey let's give 'em guns.. that should make their job easier..

Originally posted by AussieDingus
reply to post by steve1709

 

I understand what you're saying, but a just as fair way of looking at it would be to ask, how many Port Arthur Shootings BEFORE Port Arthur ?

None !

Yeah, I see what you mean. so maybe it does also have to do with the mentality of the country. [Notice, I tried to make the statement MORE than just an individual as I firmly believe that different cultures (parts of the world if you will) have identifiable (sp) traits. eg there are cultures that have stating lies and back stabbing as part of their DNA, others that are completely arogant, others that act as though they are a cut above anybody else.]

How can Sydney have a shooting 'epidemic' if firearms were handed in. Remember it wasn't JUST fully automatic guns that had to be handed in after Port Arthur !

sure, but we can still own guns. All we have to do is join a pistol or rifle club. My beef was, it was being made out that nobody could get their hands on ANY type of firearm. It just seemed like the poster was pulling the wool over everyone's eyes regarding what we can and can't have or do regarding guns.

And no matter what else is said..............................what about the EYE-WITNESS reports ? Not just words from a reporter not on the scene at the time, but from EYE-WITNESSES AT THE SCENE ?

Why is THIS over looked ?

Yep, I also thanked the poster for the info about the inconsistencies about the port arthur incident.

But the more I think about the yank dilema (sp), the more I feel that the water is too deep for them to get out of. There is the powerful gun lobby that at every turn will try to protect their position on capitol hill then there are the everyday people who have this mentality of "nobody's taking my gun.
Alas, I think they are right royally screwed no matter which way you look at the problem.

Originally posted by AussieDingus

I understand what you're saying, but a just as fair way of looking at it would be to ask, how many Port Arthur Shootings BEFORE Port Arthur ?

None !

How can Sydney have a shooting 'epidemic' if firearms were handed in. Remember it wasn't JUST fully automatic guns that had to be handed in after Port Arthur !

And no matter what else is said..............................what about the EYE-WITNESS reports ? Not just words from a reporter not on the scene at the time, but from EYE-WITNESSES AT THE SCENE ?

Why is THIS over looked ?

it isn't overlooked as much as it is neglected and ignored, because it doesn't fit the viewpoint and agenda of the people in question. What they really try to accomplish is still quite vague, i think, maybe they themselves just don't know.

I have no doubt whatsoever, though, that *any* engineered controversy today will help delay the spread of the mindset to things like food, travel, tools, you name it. There are people who are thrilled by legislating everyone and everything to death, so i'm all for keeping things cooking and deadlocked.

reply to post by waynos


Dragging events that happened well over 100 years ago into this debate isn't really relevant.

Your comment was intended to be antagonistic and provoke an emotional response.

I admit I fell for your trollery.

reply to post by MagicWand67


So if you miss the point its trolling? Grow up and do TRY to grasp the point I was making. It doesn't even go against your OP but is more of an observational aside to the subject.

]

reply to post by steve1709


The thing is with all this 'gun control' talk and thinking that removing fully automatic guns will solve anything, is that approx. 1% of the population have a genetic make up that makes them want to kill people and have no remorse for doing so. How does any form of 'control' stop those people from doing what they are agruably born to do ?

Personally, i think a form of birth control would be more affective than any gun control and doing our best to wipe out that approx. 1% from society.

And the people that say banning fully automatic guns is THE answer, then i ask them THESE question.............'how does that stop the black market for fully automatic weapons ?', and 'how does that solve the approx. 1% of people born with a want to kill ?'

Look how many people we have in jail for murder, despite having existing laws for murder. We have rules and fines for speeding in a car, yet look at how many people get booked every day. And how does a gun buyback, or gun control scheme work when one of the guns used at Port Arthur was ALREADY HANDED IN AND LISTED AS SCRAPPED ?

And i just noticed that clown John Howard showing his mug on TV and talking about how great his gun control laws were. Yet John Howard failed to address certain issues..........
1. Why does Sydney have a shooting epidemic [mainly with stolen or untracable guns] if Australia is so much safer after HIS gun buy back scheme [does anyone else see the irony in using the word 'scheme' at the end of it?]
2.Why was one of the guns used already listed as scrapped but then somehow got 'unscrapped', and then across Bass Strait all the way down to a sleepy tourist town and into the hands of a man with an IQ slightly higher than a retarded person.
3. Why has he not asked former NSW Premier Barry Unsworth why he specifically mentioned a "massacre in Tasmania" in reference to bringing in the gun control that mnay Australian politicians wanted so badly [even before the Port Arthur shootings].
4. Well i only have the 3 questions for now, and until he can answer the first 3 then theres no point asking a 4th question, because until he can or does answer them, it will just be little Johnny Howards pet project that got him slightly up the pecking order on the world stage.

The same John Howard that then introduced the Terrorist Act here in Australia which if you read it says, a terrorist is someone that disagrees with, speaks out against, argues, or debates what their Government says or does. Therefore, according to Howard's way, i am a terrorist for questioning the official story of Port Arthur. John Howard did NOT bring in gun control for your or my safety or best interests, he did it because he knows that an unarmed society will offer little resistance to any new laws or rule changes. John Howard did NOT introduce the Terrorist Act to stop a future Terrorist attack, it was done to potentially label a domestic threat as a terrorist so they can then have a law that allows them to take them away, hold them for an indefinate period without any legal representation [which is also known as torturing a confession until the legal team arrives].

And whether or not you argee or disagree with the US Constitution that allows them to bear arms, the fact that should never be forgotten is that that Constitutional right was written in as a last resort to a corrupt Government. And we have never seen as much Government curruption as we are currently seeing worldwide. So for those of you who say the Constitution is "out of date" or "written over 200 years ago", that is NO argument when you look at the bigger picture of why that right was first written in. Government corruption has no use by date, or time frame, therefore the response to Government corruption should never be classed as "outdated" either.

So, while Government corruption continues, then so should gun ownership. If you don't agree with this, then do more to stop Government corruption and be prepared to speak out more about it without fear of being labelled a Terrorist by your own corrupt Government. But speaking out will only achieve so much, and actions speak louder than words and our corrupt Governments know this, THAT'S why they want the guns taken off the people, and if anyone think its for anything other than that, then it must be a deluded Utopia they live in !

Originally posted by Evanzsayz

Originally posted by Logman
Only Americans feel the need to own lots of guns. It's because your society is broken. Whether it's society or guns, YOU have a big problem. These mass shootings happen in other countries once decade (if that). In American it's every 3-4 months.

But sure, keep advocating for gun freedoms, keep living in a violent, broken society where you are free.....to die at the hands of a gunman.

I'd rather be shot to death rather than stabbed to death or some other twisted way they would kill me because they don't have a firearm. Stabbing's hurt alot worse than gunshots.

Me, I'd love to be ravaged to death by a stunningly beautiful nyphomaniac.....

reply to post by Logman
and you are free to stay out of our country if that's how you feel!

While I can understand the emotions arising from "mass" murders like the firemen in NY or the Newtown, CT trying to use these type cases as a justification for the banning of firearms is not very rational. 2012 is probably the worst year we've ever had for this type of thing but even so I count about 80 or so people killed in these type of crimes. I don't have the figures for this year but in 2010 there were 232 justifiable homicides by citizens using firearms. I don't know how many of them would have actually been killed vs merely maimed or such but someone in law enforcement thought they had a pretty good reason for the force they used. And it stands to reason that for every bad guy killed, there were many more that were justifiably shot ... and lived. And yet more cases where no shot was ever fired and so the good guy was saved.

While these crimes are horrific, they are the molehill on the mountain. They, standing alone, don't justify the extreme measures proposed by some. You need to look at the totals killed, but carefully, as I suspect most people aren't concerned about one gang-banger offing another. Which I think gets back to the starting post ... if you want to go down the road of banning all items, that when criminally misused, result in the death of innocent people, why isn't alcohol thought of with the same disdain as some have for firearms ? Why, when it comes to DUI deaths, society blames the perp and not the beer ? Why, with our myriad of laws and regulations re: alcohol sales and use (that obviously aren't working well enough), with a death toll just from DUI car "accidents" greater than the number of people murdered with guns, aren't people calling for a ban on alcohol ?

Originally posted by spangledbanner
Any country in Europe or UK has lower gun crime than America. Lower deaths from guns. Way lower. People in Europe and the UK are not so very afraid of criminals I guess.

Yes, gun violence in the UK is lower, but their violent crime rate is ten times that of the US. Criminals who can't get guns use other weapons instead. And yes the people in those countries are afraid of the criminals so much so that they have banned or are trying to ban anything that could be used as a weapon as well. The very first pocket knife that I had as a young man would have been illegal to own because it had a locking blade. It was only an inch and a half long, but the blade locked making it illegal in the UK. That is why it is so important that we stop all of this "ban" talk, because it will just be the first of many.

Originally posted by spangledbanner
Isnt the American Government already tyrannical?

Yes, that is why we are making such a big deal about this!

I think a gun ban will be the straw that breaks the camels back. There are already states declaring their sovereignty and using the word succession. A gun ban will tip the scales and tear this great country apart. Texas and other like minded southern states will join together and create a country of their own that encourages its citizens to bear arms. This country was never intended to be an overly legalized nanny state. The federal government has gotten to big for its britches and its time for a change. Would it be better for us to stay together and be one big happy family, yes. But lets be honest for a minute, we have not been a happy family in quite a while. This whole back and forth from democrat to republican, liberal to conservative, and back again has become too extreme. Both sides are too polorized and extreme for the other. It wouldn't be this way if the states had the level of power that they were designed to have. If Connecticut wants to ban guns, that's fine! If Texas wants to ban liberals, that's fine! Each state is capable of making their own decisions. The fed does not have to stick their nose in everything. Enough is enough!

Its funny, the liberals are the ones who at one time were talking about how we should let others live their own lives and that it is not our place to judge. Where is that now? You don't want to carry a gun, don't! I will, and I will hope that I never have to use it.

reply to post by SweetChild


Just so you know, I am a small business owner, General Manager of another business, and have been accused of and charged with 0 criminal activities. I have been driving for over 10 years and have had one accident, one moving violation, and one speeding ticket. One of those tickets were dismissed, and the other two should have been. I am a father and a husband of 7 years. AND GUESS WHAT I OWN A HANDGUN!!! I believe anyone that makes broad judgmental statements like "if you own a gun you're either a criminal or a potential one" is dangerous, it's thinking like that that got Hitler into power. Broad general statements that make one group of people completely wrong and immoral and another group morally superior are dangerous and stupid. So let's not repeat the past eh buddy.

So obviously so I completely resent the fact that because I have been robbed at gunpoint and now I own a gun it makes me a criminal or a potential one. I am a taxi driver by the way and I carry my gun under my steering wheel. The reason for the gun is not to combat someone else who has one, it's to defend myself if I am being robbed, physically assaulted, etc...not necessarily with a gun, but a knife, physical force, etc...and yes if somebody messes with me it's my right to maim or kill them. And guess what in my state that's perfectly legal we have something called "Castle law" which states that anyone who is committing a felony on your person or property while you are in or near your home, place of business, or your vehicle you may shoot or kill them without fear of criminal or even civil repercussions. I really like my state. My state and a few others I have heard of are working on or have dropped legislation now that will nullify any federal bans or executive orders that come down. Same debate going on in Colorado over Marijuana, the state doesn't enforce only feds do. No one will take my gun or guns if I do see fit to acquire more. I will bury, hide, or use them in order to keep them. That my friend is my right! Believe it.

I would urge caution in believing those stats that show a ten times higher violent crime rate in the UK. Apply some critical thought to what that is saying. This is Britain, not Afghanistan. To truly make use of stats it's important to understand how they were gathered and what is included.