Cynicism of Gun Control

Obama pushing an assault weapons ban?!?!? Ha, what a joke freedom has become in this country post 9/11 with the patriot act, NDAA, etc. Have we forgot that one of the worst shootings in our nations history, that arguably started it all (Columbine), happened during the Clinton era assault weapons ban?? I agree with some that assault rifles are not particularly needed for self defense. But that is not why most people own them. A good friend summed it up pretty well, that the 2nd Amendment's purpose in not solely for self defense, but to arm the citizens of America and protect against an overpowering and tyrannical government. Have we forget the terms upon which our nation was created, and the principles bestowed by our founding fathers? We should all be students of history and learn from the past. A ban on assault weapons and high capacity magazines will NOT deter future acts of senseless violence. The problem lies within our society and the violent nature of the American culture. This is the root of our problem. Not assault weapons. Not high capacity magazines.

Just a rant of my 2 cents. Feel free to share your opinions, this is obviously a very controversial topic.

But haven't you heard?

We live in a wonderful utopia. The government would never go against the will of the citizens. That's just unthinkable!

The 2nd Amendment is an ancient relic now that we can put all faith & trust in the US Govt. We should get rid of that relic and round up all the guns because they're obviously the problem here. I swear, owning a gun turns you into a psychotic spree-killer, I mean just look at Sandy Hook, and Aurora, and Virginia Tech, and Columbine, all happened because of guns...


(S&F for you. Most people who are for banning guns obviously did not pay attention in History class and seem to have the mindset like the one I posted above...)

Your input is appreciated but is a new thread on this subject (without a meaningful or unique contribution) really necessary?

reply to post by ArrowsNV





This was a Drug lords stash.
I dont think he cares about laws.
The gun bans will only make people like this more $$$

Originally posted by madenusa
reply to post by ArrowsNV

 

This was a Drug lords stash.
I dont think he cares about laws.
The gun bans will only make people like this more $$$

Yes, I know... Did you read the bit in parenthesis in my post or no?

Banning firearms would be like banning alcohol or drugs, it just won't work and will only serve to give criminals more power.

Originally posted by CosmicCitizen
Your input is appreciated but is a new thread on this subject (without a meaningful or unique contribution) really necessary?

Haha I love these unnecessary posts complaining about unnecessary posts!!!

Re OP your post is necessary. Without people standing up for their self-evident right to protect themselves, people who don't have your interest at heart will subjugate you.

Just read a history book.

reply to post by ArrowsNV

I was just agreeing with you & adding my Two cents

reply to post by xX aFTeRm4Th Xx


IF (and that is a HUGE IF) we could show that "gun control" had effect on anything other than gun violence, then I would be willing to consider it. But it doesn't. The only thing it effects is gun violence.

Sure, the comment may be, "Yeah, but without guns they couldn't kill as many people". Yes, that may be true (although it is untested, even if logical). But it ignores the obvious issue that there are still dead and injured people left in the wake of the violence. Take China, for example. Sure, they have no gun violence. But they have more school stabbings than in the US, showing that the will to be violent is there already (as it is obvious that China is a vastly different culture with vastly different stressors than in the US).

So the question should NOT be "should we invoke more gun control", but rather, "how do we stop the violent tendencies". The US is among the lowest spenders on mental health. We rate fairly close to China (if that isn't horrifying). As someone who worked mental health, in an acute ward of an inpatient hospital, I can honestly attest to our lack of care for our mentally ill countrymen.

And if you look at the individuals who have been showing up in the headlines as the gunmen, it is obvious that they were products of this underfunded mental health system.

So, my position is, if you want any of my guns, first spend my tax dollars on treating the mentally ill among us. Perhaps this could be achieved by buying fewer guns for our soldiers to commit their own gun violence in foreign lands?

reply to post by madenusa


if we don't like Drug Lords having all the money needed to buy all those guns, the best way I have figured out is to remove their funding by legalizing their product. Doesn't seem to be rocket science.

One thing that the world needs to understand is that you cannot create laws to control human behavior. The best you can hope is to guide and steer human behavior. Control? No. Contain? Absolutely.

reply to post by xX aFTeRm4Th Xx


Some interesting links related to gun control, coalesced from Dr. Gary North's article at Lewrockwell.com (www.lewrockwell.com...), titled "Gun Control and Genocide."

The books, "The American Commonwealth" and "Treatment of the Armenians under the Ottoman Empire" can be viewed for free at

1) archive.org...
2) archive.org...

respectively.

The 1968 gun control act related to Nazism can be viewed here (jpfo.org...), along with quite a bit of other useful information at jpfo.org...

And this interesting chart: jpfo.org...

For what its worth, if i have a slingshot and a pocket full of marbles, I think I could do damage that would surpass what the average US Citizen would do with a Glock or Sig Sauer p226. All without a peep being made outside the snap of the rubber.

Same can be said with a lead pipe. Any idea how many people one could lay to waste with a lead pipe that has a leather strap handle on it? Swing it, and everything it touches will shatter.

We won't even get into my the crossbow I have. The damage a cross bow does, along with its silence, make it an outstanding clandestine weapon. I have been known to hunt vermin with a crossbow.

youtu.be...

Is the latest youtube vid from President Obama.....Well done video; what would you expect..... but the comments were.......just as entertaining.

This is interesting. At the time of Howard (Australian Prime Minister) bringing in the new laws regarding gun ownership two people decided to wait a decade to study the outcome of banning guns.

I can say that there is not a day goes by that an incident/s isn't reported on msm that is not gun related.
you decide if banning guns works, or not.....imo NO

the changes have done nothing to reduce gun-related deaths, according to Samara McPhedran, a University of Sydney academic

Sharing the shock of his people, the newly elected Prime Minister, John Howard — just two months into his eleven-and-a-half years in power — seized the chance to overhaul Australia's gun laws, trampling all opposition to make them among the strictest in the developed world. "I hate guns," he said at the time. "One of the things I don't admire about America is their slavish love of guns ... We do not want the American disease imported into Australia.

Read more: www.time.com...

In another article.

The director of the NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics, Dr Don Weatherburn, said he was not surprised by the study. He said it showed "politicians would be well advised to claim success of their policies after they were evaluated, not before".

www.smh.com.au...

After my last post I remembered reading this article some time back. It's in relation to the so called shooter at Port Arthur Tasmania. Martin Bryant.

Take no notice of the link title. This is an independent investigation which brings startling evidence to suggest Martin Bryant may have been a patsy.

In the article the Author also mentions other pysop operations around the globe, providing in his words scientific evidence to back up his claims.

What has the massacres at Port Arthur to do with what is happening lately in the US ??????

READ ON & draw your own conclusions.

www.biblebelievers.org.au...

Not sure if anyone watched this RT video - RT talks to Paul Craig Roberts, a former Assistant Secretary of the U.S. Treasury. - Going After Guns: 'You can't have police state & armed population'

According to him, we are in a police state and guns have no place in it. After watching the interview, even he have doubts about the latest shooting just like some of us.

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan


I can top that. I own a car. Wonder what sort of havoc the sandy hook but job could have done on the school yard with 4,500 labs if steel traveling at 60 mph and at the will of said nut job. We should ban those. Wonder how many people get killed a day by those.

Great point on Columbine, and those were kids...

I like your post. Like what the thread title stands for. I feel like that is a big problem in this country, making policies for all based on fear of how the lowest common denominator will use their freedom. It is the exact same way with the vice and drug war where they assume the worst of madness and addiction and ignore the mountains of anecdotal reports of people using in moderation, legislating out of pure paranoia. That is where I see our beloved media trying to push the gun debate.

If we used this type of logic with driving laws we would not let anyone drive because of the low % of people who kill themselves and others with cars through means of DWIs, recklessness, speeding, etc. It would be ridiculous, and mind you we lose hundreds of thousands due to cars every year...

But cars have a function and guns do not you say? BS! Since when is protecting your home, self and family anything but the most important thing in a world like this? Yes this place is usually good but when it goes bad, it goes real bad, and it happens often enough that it is better to be vigilant. Even if they never need a gun, it brings peace of mind to owners to know they have one. And God forbid someone does attempt to steal from or harm or kill them, well, "It's better to have one and not need one than to need one and not have one." No doubt about it guns rights will always serve a very important function for as long as guns exist.

Putting guns in a black market only situation is a lose-lose for literally everyone except criminals and totalitarians.

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan if we don't like Drug Lords having all the money needed to buy all those guns, the best way I have figured out is to remove their funding by legalizing their product. Doesn't seem to be rocket science.


dingdingding

And that is exactly how the Republican Party should have termed it when they revolutionized the world and put legalizing vice directly into the party platform, fully in line with their supposed stance on individual responsibility and limited government and economics as a prime motivator. Oh wait, that was just this crazy dream I had about them. In real life they set Ron Paul on fire because they're a slave to criminals. (same as the Democrats but you have to admit the republican platform really does seem to fit legalizing drugs to a T if only they were not hypocrites)

I think we are waking up on this issue judging by the two states that legalized pot. I think we will one day stop ceding billions to the criminals every year and let the 70% of our inmates in place for victimless crimes back out to try and be productive citizens like the rest of us are trying to be in life. We could make this vice monster work for instead of against us every year and our society would be richer, freer and more sane because of it. Good idea bfft.