Obama's Gun Control is NOT ABOUT GUN CONTROL. Read this.

page: 4
66
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 18 2013 @ 12:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by ProfEmeritus



You mean just like the Civil war and the addition to Slavery?? right now americans are ADDICTED to GUNS, the same way we were ADDICTED to SLAVERY. Does this sound familiar? You will NOT take our SLAVES!!! Same as "You will NOT take our GUNS."
reply to post by uSNUUZuLUUz
 

You absolutely win the booby prize prize for the most inane post I have seen in months. Comparing this to slavery is beyond reason. Take a logic course, then come back and have a logical debate.



It's the same. It's an addiction. And it's not right. The constitution did not outlaw slavery, so it had to be changed. The same with guns, no one should have the right to easily kill another human being.

Americans were addicted to slavery, and it took a civil war to stop that abuse. Right now Americans are addicted to guns, and hopefully it doesn't take another armed battle to prove that point and the abuse of guns in our society.

Don't fight fire with fire.

ponder that.




posted on Jan, 18 2013 @ 12:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sabreblade
5 years ago in NC I couldn't get a handgun permit because I was being treated for Anxiety Disorder.
In hindsight that seems like a good call to me.


Oh really? There are so many millions of people who could be considered to be "mentally unstable" (depending on how you define that) but is that really all it takes to make a mass murderer? Obviously not. I'd like to see someone try to define the line between simply being a little weird and being dangerous. I bet if you tried you'd put millions of people in the dangerous category who don't even come close to belonging there.

"Anxiety disorder" is not even close to something I would consider to be a problem that automatically makes someone dangerous. I myself am a pretty anxious person (social anxiety) but I'm not a dangerous person.
edit on 18-1-2013 by BrianFlanders because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 18 2013 @ 12:51 PM
link   
I just want to add.. The OP posted this thread about 2 days ago.

If you check the news: Google news: ATF director

It shows this part of the document the OP sourced to be true. Within 48 hours of this document, the MSM is now running that "Todd Jones" is nominated as the head of the ATF.

This is what is in the document:


Finally give the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) aconfirmed director:
The ATF has not had a confirmed director for six years.There is no excuse for leaving the key agency enforcing gun laws in Americawithout a leader. It is time for Congress to confirm an ATF director.


Very very interesting. I imagine this document will be rewritten and parroted by the MSM in various different ways coming very soon.



posted on Jan, 18 2013 @ 12:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by JuniorBeauchamp
reply to post by Superhans
 


Eventually, it will lead to the State thinning the population and gene pool by euthanizing those with traits that the State does not deem to be suitable for the hive.




Not sure if troll.....Are you actually serious? I mean really? You are the type of mentally unstable and irrational people that America needs to rid guns of. Making that kind of statement only heightens your stupidity.



posted on Jan, 18 2013 @ 12:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by BrianFlanders

Originally posted by Sabreblade
5 years ago in NC I couldn't get a handgun permit because I was being treated for Anxiety Disorder.
In hindsight that seems like a good call to me.


Oh really? There are so many millions of people who could be considered to be "mentally unstable" (depending on how you define that)


Statists consider anyone who does not agree with them, and blindly submit and obey the State to be "mentally unstable".



posted on Jan, 18 2013 @ 12:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Plofty

Originally posted by JuniorBeauchamp
reply to post by Superhans
 


Eventually, it will lead to the State thinning the population and gene pool by euthanizing those with traits that the State does not deem to be suitable for the hive.




Not sure if troll.....Are you actually serious? I mean really?


Obviously you are ignorant of the eugenics movement.

Part of the Nazi plan of cleansing the gene pool came from the eugenics movement in Great Britain and the US.

Stalin did the same thing, as did Mao.

Do some research fool.


You are the type of mentally unstable and irrational people that America needs to rid guns of. Making that kind of statement only heightens your stupidity.


You are exactly the kind of totalitarian statist that the 2nd Amendment was instituted for, so "We the People" could defend outselves against tyrants like you and your ilk.
edit on 18-1-2013 by JuniorBeauchamp because: (no reason given)
edit on 18-1-2013 by JuniorBeauchamp because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 18 2013 @ 01:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by nenothtu


2) The Second Amendment is specifically written to provide PARITY between the people and any potential governmental aggressor, specifically TO make those potential aggressors think twice before tackling. Why then are police and military exempt from a ban on "cop killer" bullets? WHY, specifically, would COPS need "cop killer" bullets more than non-police?




edit on 2013/1/17 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)



The term "cop-killer" bullet was initiated at a time there were calls for more safety of our police officers.

"Hollow-point" buillets inflict much more damage to human tissue than unaltered ones.



posted on Jan, 18 2013 @ 01:36 PM
link   
reply to post by aryaputhra
 


I've read the document.



ow coming back to the document: The document states the following: Background Checks on Gun Sales: Anyone who is classified with a criminal record (this could be even you with a speeding ticket /DUI) will not be allowed by the system to own a gun.



This is absolutely incorrect. A speeding ticket is not a criminal infraction, it is a civil infraction and does not apply. Under federal law, there are specific reasons that a firearm transfer can be denied. If you have had a firearm transfer denied, it is because you or someone else with a similar name or descriptive features has ever been:
Convicted of a felony.
Convicted in any court of a crime which in punishable by a term of more than one year or a misdemeanor punishable by more than two years.
Indicted for a crime punishable by more than one year.
A fugitive from justice.
A user of illegal drugs or an addict.
Involuntarily committed to a mental institution.
An illegal alien.
Dishonorably discharged from the armed forces.
Renounced your U.S. citizenship.
Subject to a restraining order for threatening a family member.
Convicted of domestic violence.

Civil infractions don't count, and there is nothing in Obama's document that appears to change that, please don't fearmonger or fabricate. Thank you.



posted on Jan, 18 2013 @ 01:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by NoJoker13
reply to post by aryaputhra
 


...I live in MA where you can't own an automatic weapon aka an assault rifle...I have no need for automatics, and magazines over 10 rounds don't matter because I can cycle a mag in a second.
So what are we blowing up about here? I mean I agree everything in America should be free but lets get this straight, the NRA and gun advocates need a better argument then "these guns are mine, my right, and you CAN'T HAVE THEM!!!". Since the new liberal base is much more highly educated I suggest playing ball and upping your game.


I think you know good and well the difference between a fully automatic assault rifle and a semi-automatic military style rifle. But in case somehow you've been hiding under a rock throughout this debate:

An assault rifle is a military grade, fully automatic weapon that when triggered, fires multiple bullets repeatedly until the trigger is released or the clip runs out. For a private citizen to own one, you have to jump through crazy hoops and go through extensive checks, as well as paying very high taxes for the privilege.

A so called "assault weapon" is a pretend name, created to demonize a style of rifle which functions exactly the same as an "acceptable" (to liberals) form of the weapon. One trigger pull results in one bullet being released. For example, there is NO increase in lethality between a Ruger mini-14 and an AR-15, no matter how many gadgets you bolt onto it.

And you want a more articulate argument than the most obvious, that it is a right guaranteed in the very foundation of our country's law? Here's one:

As for your speed in operating a bolt: Great, awesome, BUT...say your home was in the epicenter of some out of control mob violence, with looters bent on murder, mayhem and general naughtyness. You may need more than ten shots to drive back the mobs who want to rape your wife or daughter, or rape you for that matter. Or murder you and yours, or burn down your house because your skin is a different color, or you're rich and they aren't. The list could go on and on with scenarios.

And don't poo-poo this reasoning. 20 years ago in America in a world-class major city (Los Angeles), folks found themselves in the very situation I just described, over the conviction of one person. No police came to protect them. In a hub of commerce, with 10's of thousands of Law Enforcement personnel in the radius of response, they had to defend themselves.

Don't say that couldn't happen today either. Wasn't it just about 3 months ago there was a significant number of folks who openly declared that if Obama lost there would rioting across the country? If so many were brazen enough to publicly declare their intentions, how many thousands more felt the same way and would have mobilized? Personal defense is still and always will be a relevant issue in this debate.

I would argue your final point, that the liberal base is "more highly educated" (sic) is just plain wrong. Simply because a demographic may have gone to college and learned facts about whatever doesn't qualify them as educated on this issue.

In fact, if they were more highly educated, us inbred gun lovers wouldn't have to constantly re-educate them about the difference between an automatic and semi-automatic rifle. We wouldn't have to explain that civilian military style weapons are the same as any legal rifle, just dressed up in black. We wouldn't have to remind them history proves that civilization has never been, and never will be a guaranteed constant in our lives, even in the good old US of A. We wouldn't have to point out the location of commas in the constitution, and why they separate out different parts of the second amendment.

I submit that the liberal base are useful idiots, because they accept the party line on this issue without hesitation, without analysis, and without common sense. Murders are tragedy, no doubt. But losing the forest for the trees is a short-sighted and foolish way to steer legislation.

And in case you forgot:



posted on Jan, 18 2013 @ 02:03 PM
link   
reply to post by JuniorBeauchamp
 


Will it or is that your paranoia talking? We are the most armed population on Earth disarming the population is a impossibility and they aren't going for things you already own. Get a better argument.



posted on Jan, 18 2013 @ 02:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by JuniorBeauchamp and Plofty


J: Eventually, it will lead to the State thinning the population and gene pool by euthanizing those with traits that the State does not deem to be suitable for the hive.

P: Not sure if troll.....Are you actually serious? I mean really?

J: Obviously you are ignorant of the eugenics movement.

Part of the Nazi plan of cleansing the gene pool came from the eugenics movement in Great Britain and the US.

Stalin did the same thing, as did Mao.

Do some research fool.

P: You are the type of mentally unstable and irrational people that America needs to rid guns of. Making that kind of statement only heightens your stupidity.

J: You are exactly the kind of totalitarian statist that the 2nd Amendment was instituted for, so "We the People" could defend outselves against tyrants like you and your ilk.


I gotta back up Junior here. Are you F-in kidding me Plofty? The writing is on the wall in Europe, and the paint is still wet, and you STILL call Junior mentally unstable and irrational?!?! Holy Hell, pull your head out and review your History 101 notes! Only a fool in this day and age, where we have history laid out before us, would think that government is an eternal bastion of good and stability, impervious to corruption and tyranny. Should the day come when you are led docile into the showers with your friends, remember my words.


Compare and contrast please:
www.huffingtonpost.com...
en.wikipedia.org...
(note 'implementation' section)

In case you can't make the connection: It starts with state-sanctioned/performed mercy killings. And I am not trying to play the Nazi card, I am using a universally accepted and well documented historical precedent to illustrate how the slippery slope begins. Throw in some world currency crash, a dash of civil war and revolution around the globe and you have the perfect socioeconomic climate to change TPTB's point of view. Why keep it a service when it can be a tool?



posted on Jan, 18 2013 @ 02:09 PM
link   
reply to post by blamethegreys
 


Paranoid much? I still haven't heard anything about taking semi-auto rifles off the shelves. Just a bunch of morons blowing this whole thing out of proportion, I'm sure buying every gun and every bullet off the shelves looks great for the NRA and the supporters of negative gun control. I'm also sure that the NRA's lack of response on these situations was a GREAT idea, that is if they wanted the liberals to have the upper hand. Like I said before I have no problem with people owning whatever the hell they want, but the people who REALLY want this need to quit being idiots and formulate a better argument. Because guess what? The liberals seemed to be much more educated and have the degrees to back it, the NRA crowd has Ted Nugent and a bunch of lunatics who can't find anything better to say then "DON'T TOUCH MY GUN'S!!!!'.... AND "I'M NOT INSANE! YOU ARE!". I'm sure you can agree that those aren't great arguments for getting something not to happen.



posted on Jan, 18 2013 @ 02:16 PM
link   
reply to post by aryaputhra
 


Thats how I understood it. I have trouble getting my head wrapped around what has happened to the America I thought I lived in. When did we blindly turn our lives over to the politicians? Haven't we seen their dirty laundry aired in public? Yet we trust them to choose for us? Theives, liars, and anti-american men and women are taking this country and we just sit here! Keep posting. Maybe someone else will wake up. Some inheritance we leave for our children...



posted on Jan, 18 2013 @ 02:19 PM
link   
reply to post by NoJoker13
 


I agree that irrationally shouting MINE! isn't effective, but I think there is a large segment of pro 2nd folks out there who are making rational arguments. And for the record, I stand by my argument above as completely rational and valid, not paranoid one bit. If a gun sits in my cabinet til the day I die, never needed, I am more than elated that my kids and grandkids have had such luck. But should the need arise, my right to defend myself is the core of the debate.

But seriously though, you can't register the idea that a cop might not be exactly where you need him when you need him at some random, specific moment in space/time? The idea that you might get trapped in a riot at some point in your life is so delusional that you have to accuse me of paranoia? The concept that governments go corrupt is some dusty footnote in history which would never replay in your lifetime?

These are real issues, and proponents aren't arguing about what might happen next week, as much as what might happen in the next 20, 30, 50 years. Guns are lifetime investments for the vast majority, something to take out and shoot occasionally for fun and practice, with the sincere hope that they will never be needed.

I guess it comes down to preparation and will to live, maybe. I feel a sense of duty to my family to obtain and keep the means necessary to protect and provide for them, in the best AND worst case scenario.
edit on 18-1-2013 by blamethegreys because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 18 2013 @ 02:21 PM
link   
reply to post by NoJoker13
 


I'm thinking drink the koolaid is appropriate here. The law wasn't for hunting. The law was intended to allow Americans to protect themselves against a government gone rouge. Just because we are so well educated doesn't mean bad guys don't exist and that those same bad guys won't try to take a country. It happens all over the world. It is happening here and noone in the press or otherwise seems to want to think that possibility exists. Dictotors did not die with the dinosaurs... Greedy men and women with too much power can accomplish their goals if they the gate is left open.



posted on Jan, 18 2013 @ 02:22 PM
link   
Interesting analysis OP. You really nailed it about the current gen vs next gen. I honestly do not see the logic in how an inalienable right to defend oneself from aggressors is voided by being "mentally ill". This rhetoric reminds me of the eugenicist before the rise of Nazism. Hitler began with the mentally ill before moving on to other targets. You demonize a minority to create change that will affect the entire population. This is a way of breaking down resistance incrementally by placing restrictions on said right. Once you agree to disarm anyone you have agreed to the eventual disarmament of all.

Some may disagree with me here but I even feel that felons should be allowed to possess guns. Its not guns that caused this person to be a killer, prisoners kill each other without aid of such devices daily but should a being not be allowed to defend themselves based on a past mistake? More scare tactics.

True history does repeat itself only this time the stazi and gestapo will be replaced by orderlies and pill pushers. Never ceases to amaze me how even in their oppressive actions they always find a way to profit.

Someone remind me is it four legs good two legs bad, or two legs good four legs bad?



posted on Jan, 18 2013 @ 02:26 PM
link   



posted on Jan, 18 2013 @ 02:39 PM
link   
reply to post by uSNUUZuLUUz
 


Your logic does not hold. You say "no one should have the right to kill a human easily" or some such but you advocate allotting that privilege to an elite few to use at their discretion (police/military/politicians).
edit on 18-1-2013 by NihilistSanta because: typo



posted on Jan, 18 2013 @ 02:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by blamethegreys
reply to post by NoJoker13
 


I agree that irrationally shouting MINE! isn't effective, but I think there is a large segment of pro 2nd folks out there who are making rational arguments. And for the record, I stand by my argument above as completely rational and valid, not paranoid one bit. If a gun sits in my cabinet til the day I die, never needed, I am more than elated that my kids and grandkids have had such luck. But should the need arise, my right to defend myself is the core of the debate.

But seriously though, you can't register the idea that a cop might not be exactly where you need him when you need him at some random, specific moment in space/time? The idea that you might get trapped in a riot at some point in your life is so delusional that you have to accuse me of paranoia? The concept that governments go corrupt is some dusty footnote in history which would never replay in your lifetime?

These are real issues, and proponents aren't arguing about what might happen next week, as much as what might happen in the next 20, 30, 50 years. Guns are lifetime investments for the vast majority, something to take out and shoot occasionally for fun and practice, with the sincere hope that they will never be needed.

I guess it comes down to preparation and will to live, maybe. I feel a sense of duty to my family to obtain and keep the means necessary to protect and provide for them, in the best AND worst case scenario.
edit on 18-1-2013 by blamethegreys because: (no reason given)



Remember You don't fight FIRE with FIRE. You fight it with the opposite, WATER.
The solution to guns and crime is NOT more guns and more crime. But with Peace and LOVE.

In addition to be addicted to GUNS, is the problem of property. In reality you do not own anything. Everything that is of the Earth, is for the Earth. Once someone defines OWNERSHIP, then one must PROTECT one's ownership, and that leads to violence, separtism, and guns.

Once you realize that you don't own anything, many conflicts go away. Imagine there were NO county boundries, NO land ownership. There would be nothing to fight for, as everything would be shared.

Live together or Die Alone.

Choose either to have your GUNS, and barracade yourself inside your own home, and be 1 vs everyone else.

OR choose to live as a community, with support of everyone around you.

If you choose Guns, you choose violence, and be SEPARATE, and that you must protect your property.

If you don't choose guns, you choose abundance, and equality.

Don't bring FEAR upon yourself. And we as a country need to get over our ADDICTION.
We slightly got over our addiction to Owning Slaves.. Now we need to get over our addiction to OWNING swift and easy killing machines such as guns. ...

Eventually we can get over our addiction to "property" and "owning".. and finally be a PEACE and at ONE with the world.

Just --> "IMAGINE"






Imagine there's no heaven
It's easy if you try
No hell below us
Above us only sky
Imagine all the people
Living for today...

Imagine there's no countries
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people
Living life in peace...

You may say I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will be as one

Imagine no possessions
I wonder if you can
No need for greed or hunger
A brotherhood of man
Imagine all the people
Sharing all the world...

You may say I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will live as one



posted on Jan, 18 2013 @ 02:47 PM
link   
I also want to add to OPs point by mentioning that the Government has recently added 200 diseases to the compassionate allowances list. This list lets them fast track putting people on disability with certain illnesses. They are attempting and have been for some time to add schizophrenia to that list. This is both a blessing for those with those illnesses but also a curse because now more people can be added to the govt list of mental defectives without all of the bureaucracy and oversight. Couple this with the announcement last year of a new eye test to diagnose schizophrenia (blade runner anyone?) and we can see where this is going.

If you ever do any research on antidepressants or anti-psychotic meds you will find in their own literature that they state they have no idea of the causes of the illnesses or how it is that their meds work exactly. How can they prescribe something for ingestion and advocate it as a cure but claim they have no idea what it does or how it works?






top topics



 
66
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join