Pathetic power-grabbing hypocritical [snip]

page: 2
24
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 19 2012 @ 01:14 PM
link   
reply to post by intrepid
 


When tens of millions of dissenting Americans are rounded up, placed in those new FEMA camps, and shot with those 450 million bullets that FEMA just bought, will you have any feelings for them?




posted on Dec, 19 2012 @ 01:26 PM
link   
reply to post by VictorVonDoom
 


Nope because it ain't going to happen. Another bogus excuse. I answered yours, now answer mine please.



posted on Dec, 19 2012 @ 02:08 PM
link   
reply to post by VictorVonDoom
 


It is because of responses like these that I am swinging towards gun control.



posted on Dec, 19 2012 @ 02:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by intrepid
58 deaths in a year and a half? And that would be different from any other large American city? Reading the article the student killed are usually caught in a gang action. Innocents aren't being targeted like those kids in Conn were. I'm saddened and somewhat sickened that some Americans think more about gun ownership than they do innocent people getting murdered. This happens damn near monthly and we are always back to these old arguments. Nothing is solved. I have a question for all the proponents, when the next mass shooting happens, probably some time in Jan., are you going to have any feeling for those innocents that are about to die?


Since this is a rant, I feel I may have a little more latitude for a reply.

Where was the outcry for these deaths? It's only a sad tragedy when it's politically expedient! Stalin himself once said 100 deaths is a tragedy, a million deaths is a statistic.

We're ignoring the fact that thousands of deaths occur in gun-free zones or cities. Where ONLY criminals have weapons.

How is THAT BLOODY FAIR?



posted on Dec, 19 2012 @ 02:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer
Where was the outcry for these deaths?


You're talking about 58 deaths in 17 MONTHS. I'm talking over 20 deaths in 17 MINUTES. You can't see the difference? As to, "If guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns" BS I have 2 responses. What says that if Chicago was gun cool that those stats wouldn't have been higher? Secondly, what do YOUR guns do to stop this madness? Nothing. Right.



posted on Dec, 19 2012 @ 02:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by intrepid

Originally posted by beezzer
Where was the outcry for these deaths?


You're talking about 58 deaths in 17 MONTHS. I'm talking over 20 deaths in 17 MINUTES. You can't see the difference? As to, "If guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns" BS I have 2 responses. What says that if Chicago was gun cool that those stats wouldn't have been higher? Secondly, what do YOUR guns do to stop this madness? Nothing. Right.


The death of any child should never be taken out of context.

We can "speculate" on gun fatalities all day long, but the majority of these spree shootings have occurred in gun-free zones or cities.

Big guess why!

We have plenty of laws on the books about guns.

What we need is harsher penalties on criminals!!!!!

This is just BS social engineering on the part of the media and politicians taking advantage of 20 children that died.

They sure as hell could find no capital on the 58 deaths.

Guess it wasn't gruesome enough for the sick bastards!



posted on Dec, 19 2012 @ 02:29 PM
link   
reply to post by intrepid
 


I feel sorry for anyone that loses their lives because of the actions of a crazed lunatic, and the families of everyone involved.

I would also feel sorry for the hundreds of millions of people and their future generations that will lose their rights because of the actions of a few crazed lunatics. It's a good thing we didn't re-institute slavery based on the actions of a few mentally derranged former slaves.

But of course, the US Government would never kill its own people, right? They've never done it in the past, right? It's just a coincidence that they've built all these brand new FEMA detention centers. It's just another coincidence that they have recently passed all that legal framework to allow the government to kidnap and imprison anyone for any reason with no trial, no attorney, and no communicaiton with the outside world. And the fact that POTUS thinks he has the right to have anyone killed at any time for any reason is just pure coincidence. And I'm sure that FEMA just bought those 450 million rounds of ammo to boost the economy or something. None of this means that there is a plan to start killing off millions of Americans.

But, if someone did want to kill millions of Americans, it would make for a pretty good plan. The only thing left to do would be to disarm people so they can be rounded up easily.



posted on Dec, 19 2012 @ 02:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by nixie_nox
reply to post by VictorVonDoom
 


It is because of responses like these that I am swinging towards gun control.


I look at things like Waco and Ruby Ridge and I think that Americans need guns. Lots of them. The bigger the better.



posted on Dec, 19 2012 @ 02:45 PM
link   
reply to post by VictorVonDoom
 


OK. I'll use one of the gun advocates arguments then. If someone wants to defend themselves they will just do it with something other than a gun. Sounds lame, doesn't it? Same as saying that if someone is going to kill they will just find another way.



posted on Dec, 19 2012 @ 02:53 PM
link   
I have one question for gun nuts.

If the answer to gun violence is more guns, then why have the incidents of massacres and deaths gone up with gun sales?



posted on Dec, 19 2012 @ 02:58 PM
link   
People who think that gun control is the answer are living in La La Land.

The state with the highest murder rate is actually not a state at all, it is the District of Columbia, which has had exceptionally strict gun control for 25 years.
www.statemaster.com...



Is Virginia the Cause of DC's Problems?

Washington, D.C. has, perhaps, the most restrictive gun control laws in the country, and yet it has one of the highest murder rates in the nation.

Critics claim criminals merely get their guns in Virginia where the laws are more relaxed. This, they argue, is why the D.C. gun ban is not working.

Perhaps criminals do get their guns in Virginia, but this overlooks one point: If the availability of guns in Virginia is the root of D.C.'s problems, why does Virginia not have the same murder and crime rate as the District? Virginia is awash in guns and yet the murder rate is much, much lower. This holds true even for Virginia's urban areas, as seen by the following comparison on the 25-year anniversary of the DC gun ban (in 2001):

Murder rates: 25 years after DC's ban

Washington, DC

46.4 per 100,0001

Arlington, VA

2.1 per 100,0002

(Arlington is just across the river from D.C.)

Total VA metropolitan area

6.1 per 100,0003

Guns are not the problem. On the contrary, lax criminal penalties and laws that disarm the law-abiding are responsible for giving criminals a safer working environment

gunowners.org...

I would argue, like others, that poverty is a stronger indicator of gun violence than any other factor.

Then you have abberations like the Sandy Hook and Batman shooters, both from affluent households and neighborhoods. This is why there is such media hype: If it could happen in "safe" neighborhoods, they want us to believe it could happen anywhere. Let's all run in fear and demand that the government keep us safe from priviledged lunatics!

Yet these bloated blowhards in government, who are leading the charge for gun control and eventual disarming of the population, run around with armed guards 24/7. When they give up their armed goons, maybe I'll listen to them.

Until then, they can all go suck a tailpipe.



posted on Dec, 19 2012 @ 02:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer
The death of any child should never be taken out of context.
...

That is true... The fact that these were young children only serves to make the crime/s (whatever it actually is) even more abhorrent.
Guess what, though - more children, youth and adults are being killed...daily...because of cell phones, texting, and an overall decline in drivers' etiquette, than all the "gun deaths" (in the USA) combined.
I see it, virtually daily...in a moderately sized sage brush community...
People do not heed Yield signs (and, in fact, will race through them, to be sure anyone coming off the highway Exit ramps must yield to them)...and, when sitting at a traffic light, watching the cars go through in the cross-traffic directions...you see 1 in 3, or 1 in 4 people (at least) talking on their cell phones (to the ear).
Guns can kill instantly... Cars can kill instantly... Where's the outcry against cars? Where's the outcry against "bad drivers"?
This is a political argument.
I cry (or am deeply grieved) when I see family's bereft of young children...and youth...and mothers, fathers, sisters, brothers, cousins, uncles, grandparents...friends...all the time.
The balance of justice that seems to be seeking-out "gun owners" & "guns"...appears skewed (to me).



posted on Dec, 19 2012 @ 03:13 PM
link   
Here we go again.


Originally posted by WanDash
Guns can kill instantly... Cars can kill instantly... Where's the outcry against cars? Where's the outcry against "bad drivers"?


Another meaningless justification. Does the "bad driver" get in his car and say to himself, "I'm gonna kill me some people today." Does a gunman say to himself, "I'm shooting me some people today. I sure hope I don't kill anyone." Ridiculous.



posted on Dec, 19 2012 @ 03:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by intrepid
OK. I'll use one of the gun advocates arguments then. If someone wants to defend themselves they will just do it with something other than a gun. Sounds lame, doesn't it? Same as saying that if someone is going to kill they will just find another way.

That's actually a pretty good question.
Almost seems/sounds like the logical next-step in the argument.
I don't think we're comparing apples with apples, though.
The difference lies in context -- One is "aggression"...the other is "defense".
One has motive, intent, the element of surprise and...gun/s...
The other - is startled...probably fearful, and then...desparate.
Absent a "show" of force equal to what the bad guys are "showing" (their guns)...those that were minding their business, are a lot more likely to move from "dope-dee-doe, dope-dee-doe" to saying their last prayers very quickly...
While, with an equal force to "compete" at their disposal - they have a greater chance of moving from desparation to...participation (in a situation that morphed from "seige" to "contest").



posted on Dec, 19 2012 @ 03:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by intrepid
Another meaningless justification. Does the "bad driver" get in his car and say to himself, "I'm gonna kill me some people today." Does a gunman say to himself, "I'm shooting me some people today. I sure hope I don't kill anyone." Ridiculous.

Meaningless justification?
Is someone killed...JUST THE SAME?
I thought the point was - "killed children" and the tragic pain and loss...
Does the drunk driver get in their car and say "I'm going to kill some other unsuspecting person/people on my way home."?
No (or - probably not)...
But - they're killed just the same.
Do their families hurt less because it wasn't the intent of the driver?
If you think they might be able to handle it better because it wasn't the intent of the driver/s...then, we could probably apply that same argument to Aurora AND Sandy Hook... I doubt, seriously, that Adam Lanza (if, indeed, he was the culprit) knew the kids he killed.
Ridiculous?



posted on Dec, 19 2012 @ 03:39 PM
link   
reply to post by WanDash
 


You brought up the cars, not me. And yes, intent is highly important in this. One is a stupid lapse in judgement. One is the intent to kill people. Secondly there seems to be a lot more bodies in a shooting than in a car crash.



posted on Dec, 19 2012 @ 04:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by intrepid
You brought up the cars, not me. And yes, intent is highly important in this. One is a stupid lapse in judgement. One is the intent to kill people. Secondly there seems to be a lot more bodies in a shooting than in a car crash.

There can be a lot more bodies in a shooting than in a car crash.
You say "yes, intent is highly important in this."
Why?
Because it needs to be highly important to give your argument merit?
Do you think I like seeing children murdered?
I don't like seeing elderly people murdered (by guns)... I don't like seeing young families murdered (by an old lady driving on the wrong side of an interstate highway - the elderly lady died too)...
It hurts just as bad for those left behind...in either case.
Being a recent survivor of a heart attack...I don't count my likelihood of a successful counter-attack in the case of home invasion as I might have only a few months ago... And, my chief concern is not me...but my wife. A gun improves (I am not foolish enough to say that it guarantees anything) my odds of survival.
I have been very close to being the one on the bullet-end of a criminal's gun on multiple occassions. You'd think that if "guns" were the problem, I would surely jump on your side of this philosophical fence.



posted on Dec, 19 2012 @ 04:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by intrepid
reply to post by VictorVonDoom
 


OK. I'll use one of the gun advocates arguments then. If someone wants to defend themselves they will just do it with something other than a gun. Sounds lame, doesn't it? Same as saying that if someone is going to kill they will just find another way.



Exactly! If giving up guns will make us safer, then why don't cops give up theirs for their safety? I mean, cops don't need guns to do their jobs, they just need guns to protect themselves while they do their jobs. If Americans are expected to protect themselves whithout guns, can we ask no less of law enforcement officials?

You're right, that does sound kind of lame.

But then, as I recall Hitler found it expensive to shoot six million Jews. He thought gas chambers were far more economical. So maybe if someone is determined to kill they will find another way.
edit on 19-12-2012 by VictorVonDoom because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 19 2012 @ 04:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by VictorVonDoom
You're right, that does sound kind of lame.

But then, as I recall Hitler found it expensive to shoot six million Jews. He thought gas chambers were far more economical. So maybe if someone is determined to kill they will find another way.
edit on 19-12-2012 by VictorVonDoom because: (no reason given)


Uh huh. Equating gun laws to the Holocaust. I'm out. There's NO logic here.



posted on Dec, 19 2012 @ 04:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by VictorVonDoom
...If giving up guns will make us safer, then why don't cops give up theirs for their safety? I mean, cops don't need guns to do their jobs, they just need guns to protect themselves while they do their jobs. If Americans are expected to protect themselves whithout guns, can we ask no less of law enforcement officials?
...

Underlined portion is one of the funniest things I've read all day!
Thanks





new topics
top topics
 
24
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join