Fear-mongering riles my feathers.
It all starts with my innocent question.
Ok. I know it wasn’t innocent. I totally knew what it would happen. What can I say? I’m a dick. Deal with it.
Hey gun control idiots,
Since the beginning of time, women have been victims of violence that steal away their innocence, shatter their dignity, and often, end their life. Now that we have the means to protect ourselves, you are on a quest to take it away. I, for one, refuse to be the collateral damage of your senseless mission. Essentially you have decided that my life isn't valuable enough to defend and I can tell you that you're dead wrong. My life, and the lives of those I love, is precious and I will stop at nothing to defend it. Self defense and self preservation is a RIGHT, not a privilege to be bestowed or taken away. So go crawl in a hole...your mission is futile. Douchefucks.
[Since no one is on a quest to take away anyone's means to protect themselves, I can only assume this fear-mongering misinformation came from FOX "News." Maybe the obese drug-addict Limbaugh. Or the NRA don himself, Wayne LaPierre.]
You would be a Pistol Packing Woman in TN. Other states are just plain stupid with their laws.
I can't seem to find any policies that want to take away guns. Could you post a link?
Whoa whoa wohaaaaa Bill, if you read what I wrote, at no instance did I say there are policies currently in place. With that being said, you cannot argue the fact that gun control idiots WANT policies created that *will* take away my guns and my rights. [Yes, I can.] And that, my friend is why I said the "mission will be futile". BUT! (There is always a BUT).....on a side note, I would like to be able to carry my weapon with me when I come to the station at 10pm at night by myself. It's dark. No one is around. If the gangs down the street decide to rape me or kill me with their illegally obtained gun (how is that fair??) [How do you know they have guns and that they were illegally obtained? What is your evidence?], I would like to have my 9mil to protect myself. That surely would be my only defense for me in that situation. [Unless you were a ninja. That would be cool.] I abide by the law, I'm a good citizen, I'm responsible, psychologically intact, and see no reason why I should not be able to carry my weapon.
Amen sister! Down here we ride around w them in the gun rack in the truck...always within arms reach. That's just for the ones I carry that can't easily be concealed.... :) [Yeeeeeeeehaaaaaaaaa!!!!]
ok, really? Psychologically intact? really?
So, you say there aren't any policies anywhere that want to take away your guns, but you are assuring me there are people who want policies to take away your guns. And your assertion should be considered "fact" because you are sure of it. Even though no policy or even a proposal exists that will take away your guns.
If something is not happening, how do you get these 'facts' that say something is happening?
I can't seem to find any statements or policy proposals anywhere from "gun control idiots who WANT policies created that *will* take away [your] guns and [your] rights." Other than rhetoric, could you post a link to these statements or policy proposals?
Ok, let me rephrase......if they consider me to be psychologically intact enough to legally BUY my weapons, I should be able to carry them.
Those on the left talk of wanting to protect the citizens by enacting tougher gun laws but by enacting these laws they disarm law-abiding citizens thereby aiding the criminal. [Reducing magazine capacity or restricting the sales of full-auto weapons used only by the military, not even the police, is not disarming you. Claiming that it does disarm you is misinformation borne of fear-mongering lies.] They totally overlook the entire history of mankind and the fact that governments have killed more of their own citizens than the criminals ever have and the very first thing a government does is to remove the ability of the citizen to resist is first registering and then confiscating weapons; whether that is a sword or a rifle. ["180 degree turn" alert! I thought you were protecting yourself from the gang of night rapists at the station? How did this shift to overthrowing a tyrannical government? Which isn't possible, no matter how many guns you will ever own, so that's a false argument intended only to bolster your 'unfettered gun regulations for freedom' argument.]
The gun control advocates would have us believe the following:
First: Gun control laws curb criminal behavior. [Gun control advocates would not want you to believe this. This is a false statement that anti-gun control advocates say gun control advocates are saying to falsely portray gun control advocates as idiots. Since anti-gun control advocates need to lie in order to make their case, they actually have no case and make themselves out to be the idiots.]
Second: If gun availability is lessened there would be a decrease in gun crimes. [No one is advocating removing gun availability. Another lie to make a false case.]
Third: More gun control means safer streets, schools, homes, etc. [See: facts. Charts included!]
All three statements would be true, in a vacuum or in a totally controlled environment. [Two of them are actually false, even in a vacuum. The third is true, vacuum or no.] If we add the human element into the equation, these statements become false. First, as we have already discussed, the criminal does not obey the law and therefore does not care about legally purchasing or owning firearms. [It was never about simply owning guns.] Do we really believe that someone who is capable of rape or murder cares one whit about registering a firearm or submitting for a license? Of course not! [That will always be a false argument.] He does not obey the law; therefore no law will curb his behavior. [Absolutely true.] Second, in every state where handguns are freely permitted to be carried there has been a lessening of overall violent crimes. [Not true. That's a lie of omission. Handgun crimes are down as a whole. However, states with more handguns have more gun crimes overall. Context is important.] In every country where massive gun confiscation and control has been enacted, they have seen an increase in gun related crime. [Again, no one wants to confiscate your guns and gun control laws indeed result in less gun crime.] It does seem to follow, “if you outlaw guns, the only people who will have guns will be the outlaws.” [Nobody wants to outlaw guns. Except left-wing extremists that nobody takes seriously. Unlike right-wing extremists, which the Republican Party now fears and obeys.] Third, the city with the most stringent gun control laws is the city with the highest gun crime, Washington D.C. [True. This one example out of hundreds is trotted out by anti-gun control idiots as the example that "proves" gun control doesn't work. As I've said previously, gun control doesn't, can't and won't prevent every gun-violence related situation. But preventing even one death is a good thing.]
So why doesn’t gun control work? [Other than it does?] It is really quite simple, laws are meant to control and regulate “behavior” not objects [Usually - not in the case of gun control. Gun control laws are meant to literally control guns. It's 'gun control,' not 'person with gun control.'], a set of standards, if you will, that says these things we do not do, and if you do them there will be consequences. Legal systems are designed to provide a framework of acceptable “behavior” by which persons within a society interact with each other. Murder is illegal in nearly every society on the face of the earth. How that murder is accomplished is simply tool identification. The lack of moral upbringing [What the fuck?] and interference by the government [What the fuck again?] has removed parental power. ["Deep End" alert!] Today a child in some cities cannot be spanked out of fear that child protective services will take their child away. Yet, the state makes the parents responsible for the child’s behavior, and stands between the child and parent when discipline is most needed. If a child grows up thinking there are no harsh consequences to whatever he does, then he will do whatever he wants. The problem with our society is not the availability of guns it is the absence of a moral standard for our society. [Guns don't kill people, neglectful parents raise immoral children to kill people. Crazy-talk aside, gun control is not about behavior modification or even moral up-bringing. At all. Nor is it about taking away your guns. Gun control is about limiting the amount of bullets that come out of a gun at one time. Or preventing the availability of weapons that even police are not permitted to carry. You may still buy hand guns and the bullets to go with them. No freedom or personal safety and protection has been prevented. At all.]
What our nation needs are laws that punish criminal behavior [Pretty sure we got those.] and to stop criminalizing honest citizens who wish only to protect themselves and their families. [Also pretty sure we're not doing that. Unless you mean casual pot-smokers. Tons of those harmless, honest citizens in prison for nothing.] Both the Department of Justice and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF) statistics have shown that the majority of violent crimes are committed without firearms, [That is an outright lie.] and the vast majority of gun crimes are committed with guns that were illegally obtained, bypassing gun laws. [That is true - however gun control is mostly about limiting magazine capacity and availability of full-auto weapons that police aren't even allowed to use. Sorry for the repetition, but when the lie is continually repeated, I have to debunk it repeatedly.] So the net effect of gun control laws is to affect the law abiding citizen [Nope.] and has virtually no effect on the criminal element of our society. [Nope, again.] So instead of listening to lying politicians, agenda driven special interest groups, [But you are listening to the lying special interest group, the NRA and the politicians they own.] I take responsibility for my own life. [And no one is trying to stop you.] Stop demanding from someone else what you are too much of a coward to do yourself. [That makes no sense. It's just an anger-fueled rhetorical misconception.] The Supreme Court has stated the police are not liable to protect any individual citizen. [The Supreme Court also thinks corporations are living, breathing, blood pulsing human beings.] Then if they are not – who is? ME! If more law abiding citizens would purchase, train, and start taking responsibility for themselves and their position in society, those who would do them ill would think twice about it. [There are no statistics that support that fantasy. How are criminals supposed to know who has a gun and not to rob or rape them? Magic incantations? And statistics of states with more guns and less gun control still refute that fantasy. And if highly trained police officers have a live target accuracy rate of 15%, why would I think citizens would be movie-accurate? (see: one-minute video, coming up)] And all you PC business owners, like Colorado movie theaters, who make it unlawful for a law abiding citizen to defend himself have created an environment that helps the lawless because no one is going to be able to do a damn thing to stop them. [Because 250 people blindly shooting in a smoke-filled pitch black theater would have all hit their mark. Yeeeeeeeeehaaaaaaaaaa!]
Factual discrepancies aside, this is just more rhetoric. And this is not the point you were making. You said I "cannot argue the fact that gun control idiots WANT policies created that *will* take away my guns and my rights." All I am asking for are examples of the "fact" that people want to take away your guns. So, please search for those "facts" and present them to me. If you do, I will gladly accept the fact that people want to take away your guns.
In the meantime, please take note of how you get to keep your guns because no one is trying to take them away from you.
Oy vey, Mancuso.
I don't do emoticon thingies, but this is where I would do a winking smiley one if I did.
Just to throw my 2 cents in, I tend to be a leftie, but I own a gun. I find most people are not on one extreme or another on all issues.
1976 law in DC banned handguns and a similar law in 1982 in Chicago. The Supreme Court overturned the DC law but the ruling was not unanimous.
One city, thirty years ago, banned guns and one city that now allows guns - out of about 30,000 major towns and cities in America. Of the two examples given, the trend seems to be going toward 'allowing' as opposed to 'banning.' Run for the hills. The government is taking away your guns. Once that is accomplished, no one will be able to stop them from re-establishing Prima Nocta - which, I'm pretty sure is their secret goal. And that's why the government is trying to force abortions on people, too. So the King of America doesn't have to raise the children from all his Prima Nocta rights performed. It's also why the government is forcing gay marriage on people. So there won't be any more children to grow up and possibly overthrow the King of America. Don't you see, people? This goes way beyond gun rights! This is a massive government conspiracy to bring America back to the Dark Ages!
I, too am for gun ownership. The fear-mongering nonsense is what aggravates me.
*** *** *** * * *** *** ***
About a week after this debate, I saw this article:
I contemplated going back to the thread and posting it, but decided not to. I’m not always a dick.
*** *** *** * * *** *** ***
I wonder if this guy is a gun-control idiot. All he did was survive the Aurora, CO theater shooting and doesn’t want anyone else to go through that.
*** *** *** * * *** *** ***
Please watch this one-minute video.
AWESOME! Right? Grandpa saved the day! Because he had a gun! He prevented a MASSACRE! AWESOME!
The robbers, Duwayne Henderson, 19, and Davis Dawkins, 19, an ex-employee of the café, were going to do just that – rob. Not kill. That's why they were yelling for everyone to give them their money. If they had the intent to kill, they would have shot back at 71-year-old grandpa Samuel Williams. They didn’t. They fled like rats from a burning building. And yes, maybe you don’t want your stuff stolen, but I think that’s a better alternative to killing someone for stealing a twelve-year-old wallet, $35, a cancelable credit card and a re-issuable driver’s license.
It does deprive you of your Bruce Willis moment, though.
The Ocala, Florida shooting was justified and happened to work out fine this time (Dawkins was grazed on the left arm, Henderson was hit in the left buttock & right hip), but seeing as how grandpa missed over half of his shots from a distance of about 10 feet (3 meters), it’s a really good fucking thing nobody else was standing nearby. Otherwise, grandpa would have needed a really good fucking lawyer since his every move was on video.
Also, it’s a good thing the robbers got away. If they didn’t get out, Grambo would have executed them – even though they were no longer a threat. The proof is that he kept firing when one was on the ground and then again out the door at them after they were gone.
In fact, in an interview, Henderson said he didn’t blame Williams for shooting at him. He was, however, a bit pissed that he shot at him after he dropped his gun and was unarmed on the ground. "I was down, and I'm not going to shoot you," he said.
It seems that people who have guns just look for an excuse to kill, when the situation doesn’t call for murdering someone. “It was necessary to murder him because he was going to take my MetroCard!” Why let the police get him later, without incident, on a whole bunch of charges (as was this case eventually) when you can murder him now and save the taxpayer’s money?
The video says a massacre was prevented. How? Two robbers, one with a rusty, broken, unloaded gun, one with a baseball bat, wanted money. At what point was this ever going to be a massacre? This “massacre” lie obfuscates the fact that Williams wasn’t qualified to shoot his fucking gun. He was as much of a danger to the people he wasn’t aiming at. The armed grandpa is the one who created a potential massacre situation where bullets were flying around a crowded room.
Gun advocates seem to think if everyone was armed, everyone would be safe. This incident, plus the ‘Stand Your Ground’ laws (plus statistics) prove otherwise. It shows that the very first thing an armed person will do in a tense (sometimes not tense) situation is to start shooting. It also shows that people carrying guns feel more ballsy than normal. Aggravated assaults among concealed carriers is up. "I'll gladly fight you because you don't know I'm armed and can kill you whenever I want."
Murder isn’t the answer for every situation.
*** *** *** * * *** *** ***
Viewpopint: Eliot Spitzer calls for meaningful gun control: Colorado shooting is tragic, but not ‘shocking’
*** *** *** * * *** *** ***