To Arm or to Disarm.

[TheDude 10]

For those that believe tighter gun controls will not lead to a decline in gun crime, do they also believe that:

 

Banning smoking will not lead to improved health?

Burning fossil fuels will not lead to a change in climate?

Iraq did have weapons of mass destruction?

Israel is a poor victim?

Everything Fox news says is true?

There is no such thing as propaganda?

Hitler was just misunderstood?

etc....

[SIUYA 11]

For those that believe tighter gun controls will not lead to a decline in gun crime, do they also believe that:

 

Banning smoking will not lead to improved health?

Burning fossil fuels will not lead to a change in climate?

Iraq did have weapons of mass destruction?

Israel is a poor victim?

Everything Fox news says is true?

There is no such thing as propaganda?

Hitler was just misunderstood?

etc....

 

i had to....

Choose the response that best suits....no middle ground is allowed.

 

Banning smoking will not lead to improved health? -

what about those people who smoke all their life....huh, huh.....proved you wrong...remeber its not the gun that kills you, its the person. (I always thought it was the bullet unless the gun was used as a club)

or

lets ban animals, meat products and any chemicals - that way we live at one with the universe on a collective farm.

 

Burning fossil fuels will not lead to a change in climate?

Climate change is a liberal scam (even if climate change is happening did we cause it?).....huh, huh....double proved you wrong......plus you cant beleive everything you dont see on Fox

or

We must stop production of everything now, end the environmental destruction and force people to live at one with the universe

 

Iraq did have weapons of mass destruction?

What they did with them who the hell knows, but they had them, we know - We sold them to them so they could defend themselves from the bad guys. But now they must be stopped, cause we are the good guys.

or

We sold it to them, they used them, so whats the problem....leave them alone, dont make us the bad guys

 

Israel is a poor victim?

I direct you to post #24. As for the other guys, well they need to get a bigger gun.

or

what about the other victims?

 

Everything Fox news says is true?

Except the stuff that is part of liberal socialist agenda or does not fit my world view.

or

Except the stuff that is not on Fox or does not fit my world view.

 

There is no such thing as propaganda?

But i saw this on Fox.

or

But i saw this on Fox

 

Hitler was just misunderstood?

But I completely understand Obama and his liberal socialist agenda....

or

I read a book once that and I quote as i kept it to solve all the worlds problems....."There are no bad people, only badly loved people. If Stalin, Hitler, or Osama Bin Laden experienced themselves as loved and loveable, what motivation would they have to kill? Feeling love circulating through you makes you want to celebrate and nuture life, not destroy it".....i stopped reading the book after that sentence, even though it seemed like a nice idea.

 

......

you forgot the topical one....

I have plenty of debt already, i am in a debt crisis already.....maybe i should borrow some more money to get myself out of trouble - that will work.

 

.......................

and for the trading analogy -

I have this system, that works 80% of the time, but its just not working.

Lets use more leverage, double up trades and trade even more! Better yet, lets use this weapon of mass account destruction and give it to everyone to use - it will make the world a safer place.

or

Lets not trade its evil.

..........

 

Problem is - while banning/restricting weapons will not fix the worlds problems owning a gun does not make you a responsible gun owner.

 

There are plenty of responsible gun owners and while many who want to ban guns might live in denial, i find it scary that those with weapons believe that they dont suffer the same affliction.

 

(but what would i know i am just an arrogant Brit :doh:)

[Mysticforex 13]

Oh I do

 

I already do my part to promote safe driving. I rarely drive as I'm a full-time trader at home. I may get in my car 2-3x per month.

 

As with my rifle, the car is there just in case... :crap:

 

Off Thread

 

Nothing to do with gunzz.

 

You seem like a bright lad. You might be taken more seriously if you changed your location.

I'm sure no one is actually offended, but it does seem, well, rather childish.

You do have the right to keep it of course.

[johnnydaymon 11]

The Bill of Rights

(with brief explanations)

 

THE PREAMBLE TO THE BILL OF RIGHTS

Congress of the United States begun and held at the City of New

York, on Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven

hundred and eighty nine.

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of

their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to

prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further

declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as

extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will

best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

 

RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the

United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of

both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to

the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the

Constitution of the United States, all, or any of which Articles, when

ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all

intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.

 

ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the

United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by

the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of

the original Constitution.

 

Amendment I - Congress shall make no law respecting an

establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or

abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the

people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Go vernment for

a redress of grievances.

 

Government can neither impose a state religion upon

you nor punish you for exercising the religion of your

choice. You may express your opinions, write and

publish what you wish, gather peacefully with others,

and formally ask government to correct injustices.

 

Amendment II - A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the

security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear

Arms, shall not be infringed.

 

Individuals ("the people") have the right to own and

use weapons without interference from the

government.

 

Amendment III - No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in

any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but

in a manner to be prescribed by law.

 

The government cannot force you to house its agents.

 

Amendment IV - The right of the people to be secure in their

persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable

searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall

issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation,

and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the

persons or things to be seized.

 

You may not be arrested or "detained" arbitrarily. No

agency of government may inspect or seize your

property or possessions without first obtaining a

warrant. To obtain a warrant, they must show specific

cause for the search or seizure and swear under oath

that they are telling the truth about these reasons.

Furthermore, the warrant itself must state specifically

and in detail the place, things, or people it covers.

Warrants that are too general or vague are not valid;

searches or seizures that exceed the terms of the

warrant are not valid.

 

Amendment V - No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or

otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of

a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or

in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger;

nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put

in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal

case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty,

or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property

be taken for public use, without just compensation.

 

No one outside the military may be tried for a serious

crime without first being indicted by a grand jury (of

citizens). Once found not guilty, a person may not be

tried again for the same deed. You can't be forced to

be a witness or provide evidence against yourself in a

criminal case. You can't be sent to prison or have

your assets seized without due process. The

government can't take your property without paying

market value for it.

 

Amendment VI - In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall

enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of

the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed,

which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to

be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be

confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory

process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the

Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

 

Trials cannot be unreasonably postponed or held in

secret. In any criminal case against you, you have a

right to public trial by a jury of unbiased citizens (thus

ensuring that the state can't use a "party-line" judge to

railroad you). The trial must be held in the state or

region where the crime was committed. You cannot

be held without charges. You cannot be held on

charges that are kept secret from you. You have a

right to know who is making accusations against you

and to confront those witnesses in court. You have

the right to subpoena witnesses to testify in your favor

and a right to the services of an attorney.

 

Amendment VII - In suits at common law, where the value in

controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury

shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise

reexamined in any Court of the United States, than according to the

rules of the common law.

 

The right to trial by jury extends to civil, as well as

criminal, cases. Once a jury has made its decision, no

court can overturn or otherwise change that decision

except via accepted legal processes (for instance,

granting of a new trial when an appeals court

determines that your rights were violated in the

original proceeding).

 

Amendment VIII - Excessive bail shall not be required, nor

excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments

inflicted.

 

Bail, fines, and punishments must all fit the crime and

punishments must not be designed for cruelty.

 

Amendment IX - The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain

rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained

by the people.

 

You have more rights than are specifically listed in the

Bill of Rights.

 

Amendment X - The powers not delegated to the United States by

the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to

the States respectively, or to the people.

 

The U.S. federal government has only those specific

powers granted to it by the Constitution. All other

powers belong either to the states or to individuals.

 

The Ninth and Tenth Amendments, taken together, mean that the

federal government has only the authority granted to it, while the

people are presumed to have any right or power not specifically

forbidden to them. The Bill of Rights as a whole is dedicated to

describing certain key rights of the people that the government is

categorically forbidden to remove, abridge, or infringe. The Bill of

Rights clearly places the people in charge of their own lives, and

the government within strict limits - the very opposite of the

situation we have allowed to develop today.

[MightyMouse 12]

. i don't have to research it out. i have been there many times and seen it first hand. you are the one that is ignorant. not to mention afraid to have a pistol in your own home. you have no idea what you are talking about.

 

N.M. shooting victims are chaplain, wife, 3 kids

 

Yes, I have no idea of what I am talking about. Guns are perfectly safe in the home.

 

Far more guns get used for suicide and domestic violence than they do to battle armed intruders.

 

I am sure that suicide and domestic violence would occur with or without guns, but heck you may as well use the gun if you got it right?

[smmatrix 11]

[smmatrix 11]

[smmatrix 11]

Just Awesome!

 

[smmatrix 11]

I bought this yesterday. $433 out the door

 

[zdo 20]

Well they do say that when one resorts to name calling it's a sign they have lost the argument as they have no logical comeback.

 

… it just displays their inferiority, insecurity, and base stupidity.

 

 

I wasnt referring to an individual, but an observation of a whole culture.

 

Wow, clarifying that it was a plural labeling, instead of targeted at just one person, not only elevates your arguments into the realm of unassailable (like - ‘dumb’ people are always wrong), but it also removes any question that you are on the highest point of moral ground. (like – you know how everyone should live their lives based on the way you live yours.) Thank you so much.

 

Previous :razz: was missed or misinterpreted... maybe a will work

[zdo 20]

For those that believe tighter gun controls will not lead to a decline in gun crime, do they also believe that:

 

Banning smoking will not lead to improved health?

Burning fossil fuels will not lead to a change in climate?

Iraq did have weapons of mass destruction?

Israel is a poor victim?

Everything Fox news says is true?

There is no such thing as propaganda?

Hitler was just misunderstood?

etc....

 

Ah, the power of associating.

Let’s see how this goes...

 

For those that believe tighter gun controls will lead to a decline in gun crime, do they also believe that:

 

Legislating fountain drink cup sizes, etc. will lead to improved health.

Heavily taxing, but continuing to burn, fossil fuels at virtually the same rates will lead to a favorable change in ‘climate’.

They knew all along that Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction. They are in full awareness that the war on terror is also a complete sham and are grateful that the current administration is no longer is involved in ‘destabilization’ activities around the world. A Message To The 'Left' From A 'Right Wing Extremist'

Israel is a blood thirsty aggressor. They ALWAYS fire first.

Everything MSNBC news says is true.

There is no such thing as propaganda.

They would never have supported a 'hitler' or a 'stalin'

etc....

[SunTrader 10]

Gun nutz can breath easier today because it is:

 

Happy Squirrel Appreciation Day | MNN - Mother Nature Network

 

so no nutz need duck for cover, only nut-eaters.

 

[zdo 20]

To the To Disarms

Based on emotions, I think you have latched onto an idea that banning guns would fix ‘it’ or at least sufficiently reduce ‘it’. I understand how close the close physical proximity for some of you reinforces your position. But I don’t think any of you ‘gun haters’ are really on board though. Nor were you really on board before. If you guys were really on board we would have seen passionate posting about the evils of guns for years and years now. The number of gun deaths of ‘children’ before Sandy would have been sufficient fuel – unless you are really racists who don’t care about ‘minority’ children ie black teens.

Drug lords, who are typically dangerous sociopaths adept at organizing dupes, can and do arm their minions perpetually… yet really until a single (still alledgedly) psychiatric patient snaps, we didn’t hear a word from you or the media. Your “rights be damned, just save one kid” arguments, twisted to “fewer guns = fewer gun deaths” arguments, are hypocritical… now just done for the sake of arguing rather than really trying to make changes to the culture and to laws.

[SIUYA 11]

To the To Disarms

Based on emotions, I think you have latched onto an idea that banning guns would fix ‘it’ or at least sufficiently reduce ‘it’. I understand how close the close physical proximity for some of you reinforces your position. But I don’t think any of you ‘gun haters’ are really on board though. Nor were you really on board before.

 

then you have nothing to really worry about right?

 

If someone thinks that there should be more peaceful solutions, disarming the world is a good idea (even if fanciful) and while thinking that in a practical sense they might have better regulations over things like weapons as they have over many other things (cars, drugs, airlines, the environment) then that does make them a lefty, USA hating sheep.

(what about state and local as opposed to federal controls, gun clubs whereby they regularly check on people, train them and leave some of the controversial weapons safely locked away).

 

Sometimes, there are watershed moments that societies reach - who knows what they may be - Rosa Parks springs to mind. Sometimes you need that emotional stirring to make people act either way.

 

Just because you might not get involved until a certain event does not make you a racist any more than it makes you a criminal if prior to Sandy Hook you did not really care that criminals were killing each other. Plenty of people have always opted for more peaceful solutions

People have also been calling for more controls on the pill popping mentality of the US for a while now and maybe this might bring that cause to the fore as well.....are you going to argue against that?

 

Additionally folks like myself who really did not have a great deal of insight into the US mentality have learnt a lot and realise that if you are an American Indian or black you might feel like you have being living under a tyrannical state ever since Europeans stepped onto the USA. I did not see many gun lovers stepping up for their rights - so are they just as hypocritical? The comedy skit i posted earlier was partly scarily true as everyone was so busy protecting their guns they forgot about the rest of the constitution.

Much like the post you gave of the lefty turned libertarian - maybe it will open up more debates and more people will remember if the house around you is being brought down but you are so focused on protecting the fridge you will forget it needs electricity to run.

( I am glad i threw some fuel on the fire - good for learning)

 

So a lot of good can come from these debates, I for one had only ever seen the Alex Jones types and smmatrix sprouting off his diatribe and the NRA representing the responsible gun owners of America....no wonder people took a side. Responsible gun owners might be better denouncing these guys --- just an idea.

 

I would always side on a peaceful solution if i could, and find that in such arguments its the radicals from any side that scare me most - those with one idea, those who would enforce their ideas by force, and fit everything to protecting an idea without compromise. Those who think the rest of the world is stupid and they have the answers.

Which is why I have thought it more about many other things than just gun rights....seems you might too.

 

It seems a surprise to many Americans when the rest of the world cant understand some of their actions.....they often put it down to jealousy...maybe its more pity that the experiment is getting derailed. Maybe its a realisation that the experiment requires constant renewal - so when/if the SHTF it is to be expected.

 

So ..... if more people get on board the liberty train, even if they still call for more peaceful solutions wouldn't that be a good thing, even if it was caused by an emotional trigger?

[SunTrader 10]

 

...... that banning guns

 

..... “fewer guns = fewer gun deaths” ......

 

Which is it?

 

Radicals are for banning just the same as nutz are for anything goes.

 

I'm for fewer not none.

 

As far as racism, woooooo Pres Obama is the best thing to happen to the NRA since the first Smith & Wesson or Colt was manufactured.

 

Talk about how THAT president wants to take yer gun a way. He whatin eben born ere. Trump has the proof.

Edited January 21, 2013 by SunTrader

[zdo 20]

SIUYA, I do appreciate your curiosity and button pushing re American culture and guns … even though most of it is just ‘word twisting’… like

Just because you might not get involved until a certain event does not make you a racist any more than it makes you a criminal if prior to Sandy Hook you did not really care that criminals were killing each other.

Raise the slightest question that racism might be behind the hypocritical complacency and -good lord! - look at the deflections that go flying about. … and the real ‘dishers’ haven't begun to redish yet…

 

if more people get on board the liberty train, even if they still call for more peaceful solutions wouldn't that be a good thing, even if it was caused by an emotional trigger?

No. Again - “calling for peaceful solutions” is mental masturbation – an exercise in propositions.

In real life, “peaceful solution” is not necessarily the way to go in individual situations. It may not even be available as an option.

 

Nor will “peaceful solutions” / prevention will come from Washington … if you think they ‘solved’ slavery, think again, there are now more ‘slaves’ per capita on this planet than ever …

 

Guest Post: The Greatest Way to Dishonor Martin Luther King Jr. - BlackListedNews.com

[sdoma 10]

removing guns from circulation won't reduce the number of gun deaths? Very simple and elementary. Less guns = less gun deaths. Very tough for an NRA cult member to understand. if it is tough for you to understand, then you are in good company.

 

I posted this up for you to read before, but I doubt you did. The Harvard Law Center (hardly a conservative bunch) did an exhaustive study of murder rates worldwide and found zero correlation between legal gun ownership and murder, suicide, or overall crime rates. Here:

 

http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf

 

Banning certain guns would not infringe upon your right to own guns. No one goes hunting with an assault weapon. Stop acting like a a know nothing red neck.

 

The 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with hunting. Zilch, nada, zero. Know it all East Coast liberals are just as bad as know-nothing rednecks, you know. The 2nd Amendment was specifically written to give the population the ability to form into armed groups to help fight off foreign aggressors, and to prevent the population from being easily controlled by a tyrant. In other words, to serve as a deterrent.

 

When our govt is ready to do something against us, you will last about 3 seconds with you arsenal of weapons. You will be annihilated.

 

Just like we've annihilated those insurgents in Afghanistan, right? As we did in Vietnam? You are making several enormously bad assumptions here. The first is that the end goal is to kill all adversaries. The goal is not utter destruction, but control. We could have killed half of Afghanistan's population by now if we so wished, but that wasn't the goal.

 

The second is that you are assuming that all law enforcement and military personnel would act in lockstep to exterminate a large portion of the American public, which would not happen. There are already sheriffs who have stated that they won't enforce gun laws they believe to be unconstitutional. If they won't even do that, how do you expect them to annihilate people in 3 seconds?

 

You're also not considering the many retired special forces and military personnel who would not only fight, but train the other insurgents. Controlling this insurgency would be infinitely more difficult than Afghanistan or Iraq.

 

Once again, I will point out the irony of the shootings at Gun Appreciation Day. 5 people were shot for nothing. They were shot because there were a lot of guns there.

 

My dad is a product liability attorney, and let me tell you, there are millions of ways to die or be disfigured. People are killed by space heaters, kids drown in 5 gallon buckets, choke on balloons, are killed by exploding propane tanks, think that their life vests will allow them to swim around a whirlpool at the base of a dam, and these are just some of my dad's cases I know about. And don't think these are one and done occurrences, these happen multiple times a year.

 

Yes, firearms can be dangerous, but as with most things, the danger generally stems from sloppiness on the part of the user. Three of those people were shot when someone was taking a loaded(!) shotgun out the case, and it discharged. The fact that it was loaded was negligence. People are negligent all the time, but you punish the negligent person and improve the product where possible. You don't ban things willy-nilly.

[MightyMouse 12]

To the To Disarms

Based on emotions, I think you have latched onto an idea that banning guns would fix ‘it’ or at least sufficiently reduce ‘it’. I understand how close the close physical proximity for some of you reinforces your position. But I don’t think any of you ‘gun haters’ are really on board though. Nor were you really on board before. If you guys were really on board we would have seen passionate posting about the evils of guns for years and years now. The number of gun deaths of ‘children’ before Sandy would have been sufficient fuel – unless you are really racists who don’t care about ‘minority’ children ie black teens.

Drug lords, who are typically dangerous sociopaths adept at organizing dupes, can and do arm their minions perpetually… yet really until a single (still alledgedly) psychiatric patient snaps, we didn’t hear a word from you or the media. Your “rights be damned, just save one kid” arguments, twisted to “fewer guns = fewer gun deaths” arguments, are hypocritical… now just done for the sake of arguing rather than really trying to make changes to the culture and to laws.

 

It takes getting hit close to home. Racism has nothing to do with it unless you want to stir controversy. Columbine may as well have been on the other side of the world for all I cared at the time. They too were white kids. I figured the gun issue was a western or southern issue and not necessarily a north eastern issue. I was wrong and unfortunately it took the lives of 26 people 20 of whom were 6 years old to open my eyes to the issue. I am sure there are more like me that are not impacted yet by the gravity of the issue yet. But it is coming to a neighborhood near you soon. Too many whacked out people have guns in their possession.

[Patuca 13]

 

Plainly, I do not live in fear and do not need to carry a gun.

plainly you DO live in fear. that is precisely "why" you want guns banned. you thought it (whatever it means) was a problem in the south and west and have now "awakened" to the fact that it is in your "neck" of the woods so you are fearful and your way of dealing with it is to ban the very thing you fear by legislation. you want the gov to deal with your fear by reassuring you that things are under "control" because they have passed a law. no need to hide behind the rhetoric.

 

i will have to ban myself it looks like... i keep getting drawn back into this thread.

Edited January 21, 2013 by Patuca

[zdo 20]

... Racism has nothing to do with it unless you want to stir controversy. .

 

Raise the question that racism of the apathetic kind might be behind the hypocritical complacency and good lord look at the deflections that go flying about. But my intention was not to stir controversy. It was to question the validity of "It takes getting hit close to home" as a basis for the To Disarm position. George Bernard Shaw once stated, “The moment we want to believe something, we suddenly see all the arguments for it, and become blind to the arguments against it.” Join in with others justifying emotional basis - but it's still emotionally based crowd behavior.

 

There are a few other explanations we could explore about the apparent hypocracy of To Disarm crowd but first let’s push some buttons.

The racism card can NEVER be allowed to go both ways!

‘Metro man’ will adamantly assert that racism has nothing to do with his getting swept up in ‘controlling guns’ only when it ‘hits close to home’ / little white kids. But just a few posts away he will be associating the To Arm’s with nuts and racists… self righteously noting how much more refined he, the ‘metro man’ is…

Meanwhile, in reality, the ‘deep south’ dumbass has come MUCH MUCH further in dealing with the inner core issues beneath racism than has the urban ‘metro dude'. He will be insinuating about how much further those ‘racists’ in the south had to come, etc etc. But, did they really have THAT much further to come than their counter parts in the north? Study Abe Lincoln, one of their champions. His writing and speech in the 1840’s and 50’ indicated he was quite ‘racist’ ie probably the only reasons he didn’t own a few slaves himself was that he lived in a non slave state - plus he simply couldn’t afford them.

 

It will be interesting the ways, beyond the sheer indignation of course that

The racism card can NEVER be allowed to go both ways!

[MightyMouse 12]

 

 

plainly you DO live in fear. that is precisely "why" you want guns banned. you thought it (whatever it means) was a problem in the south and west and have know "awakened" to the fact that it is in your "neck" of the woods so you are fearful and your way of dealing with it is to ban the very thing you fear by legislation. you want the gov to deal with your fear by reassuring you that things are under "control" because they have passed a law. no need to hide behind the rhetoric.

 

i will have to self ban myself it looks like... i keep getting drawn back into this thread.

 

I don't live in fear feeling that I need to carry a gun. I don't fear the boogie man like you guys do. Word twisting has little value other than entertainment value.

 

Too many irresponsible people have guns. Anything that can minimize that number is a good thing.

 

If guns made the world safer, then 5 people would not have been shot on Gun Appreciation Day at the gun shows. No one was injured at the art festival that occurred 5 miles away from each event.

 

I find it funny that you can't bring a loaded weapon into a gun show. If guns are such a good thing, then why can't they be loaded? Doesn't loading them make them better? Why do they want loaded guns in every school but not in gun shows?

[MightyMouse 12]

Raise the question that racism of the apathetic kind might be behind the hypocritical complacency and good lord look at the deflections that go flying about. But my intention was not to stir controversy. It was to question the validity of "It takes getting hit close to home" as a basis for the To Disarm position. George Bernard Shaw once stated, “The moment we want to believe something, we suddenly see all the arguments for it, and become blind to the arguments against it.” Join in with others justifying emotional basis - but it's still emotionally based crowd behavior.

 

There are a few other explanations we could explore about the apparent hypocracy of To Disarm crowd but first let’s push some buttons.

The racism card can NEVER be allowed to go both ways!

‘Metro man’ will adamantly assert that racism has nothing to do with his getting swept up in ‘controlling guns’ only when it ‘hits close to home’ / little white kids. But just a few posts away he will be associating the To Arm’s with nuts and racists… self righteously noting how much more refined he, the ‘metro man’ is…

Meanwhile, in reality, the ‘deep south’ dumbass has come MUCH MUCH further in dealing with the inner core issues beneath racism than has the urban ‘metro dude'. He will be insinuating about how much further those ‘racists’ in the south had to come, etc etc. But, did they really have THAT much further to come than their counter parts in the north? Study Abe Lincoln, one of their champions. His writing and speech in the 1840’s and 50’ indicated he was quite ‘racist’ ie probably the only reasons he didn’t own a few slaves himself was that he lived in a non slave state - plus he simply couldn’t afford them.

 

It will be interesting the ways, beyond the sheer indignation of course that

The racism card can NEVER be allowed to go both ways!

 

Not a lot to do with the kids being white. Has to do with them being kids and being close to home. No matter where my home was, I would feel the same had it happened near that home. I make no apologies for living where I live.

[johnnydaymon 11]

The President is not the only officeholder to take a constitutional oath. Under Article VI of the Constitution, every federal and state officer takes an oath or affirmation to ―support this Constitution.‖7 The language of the federal statute implementing this command requires officeholders to swear or affirm to ―support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.‖8

 

But only the presidential oath is set out in specific terms in the consti-tutional text itself. ―Before he enters on the Execution of his Office,‖ the President shall swear or affirm the following: ―I do solemnly swear (or af-firm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.‖9

 

Two aspects of this oath are worth noting. The first is its unique status: the Framers considered it necessary to offer specific language in the Consti-tution itself for no other constitutional officer. The second is its distinct language. Other officeholders promise to ―support and defend the Constitu-tion of the United States‖; only the President is sworn to ―preserve, protect and defend‖ it.10

 

The President is NOT sworn to ―preserve, protect and defend THE FOLLOWING;International Bankers,Lobbyist,United Nations,The Trilateral Commission,Council on Foreign Relations,The Bilderburg Group,Abakuá,

Afrikaner Broederbond

Al Akbariyya

Al-Fatat

Albanian Committee of Janina

Angelic Society

Arioi

Assassins

Association of the Polish Youth "Zet"

 

B

Berliner Mittwochsgesellschaft

Black Dragon Society

Black Hand (Serbia)

Black Society for Salvation

Blue Shirts Society

Brethren of Purity

 

C

Cabal

Calves' Head Club

Childhood secret club

Committee of 300

Company of the Blessed Sacrament

Conspiracy of the Equals

Council for National Policy

Crocodile Society

 

D

Daughters of America

Defenders (Ireland)

Duk-Duk

 

E

Ekpe

El Yunque (organization)

Ellinoglosso Xenodocheio

Establishment (Pakistan)

Ethniki Etaireia

 

F

Filaret Association

Filiki Eteria

Fire in the Minds of Men: Origins of the Revolutionary Faith

First Satanic Church,Free Masons

 

G

Gelaohui

Genyōsha

Germanenorden

Gormogons

Guild of St. Bernulphus

 

H

Hamatsa

The Harvard Lampoon

Hermetic Brotherhood of Light

Hibernian Rifles

High school secret societies

Hui (secret society)

 

 

H cont.

Hunters' Lodges

 

I

Illuminati

Illuminati in popular culture

Indiana White Caps

 

J

Jindandao Incident

 

K

Kagal (Finnish secret society)

Karakol society

Katipunan

Knights of Equity

Knights of Pythias

Knights of Seth

Knights of the Apocalypse

Knights of the Golden Circle

 

L

La Mano Negra

La Trinitaria

Le Cercle

Leaderless resistance

Leopard Society

Sons of Liberty

List of Quill and Dagger members

Lyubomudry

 

M

Manuscript Society

Master Mahan

Military Order of the Carabao

Molly Maguires

 

N

New England Order of Protection

New World Order (conspiracy theory)

Ngee Heng Kongsi of Johor

Nordic League

Numerati

 

O

Odd Fellows

Oddfellows

ODESSA

Order of Chaeronea

Order of Free Gardeners

Order of the Bull's Blood

Order of the Golden Bear

Order of the Occult Hand

Order of the Peacock Angel

Order of the Solar Temple

Order of the Star Spangled Banner

Order of United American Mechanics

Ordo Aequitas Albion

Osirica

 

P

P.E.O. Sisterhood

Palladists

Paramahansa Mandali

Penrhos Knights

 

 

P cont.

Petrashevsky Circle

Philomaths

Porcellian Club

Poro

Priory of Sion

Psi Iota Xi

Pythagoreanism

 

R

Ribbonism

Rosicrucianism

Russell Trust Association

 

S

St. Anthony Hall

Sande society

The School of Night

Scotch Cattle

Secret combination (Latter Day Saints)

Secret societies at the College of William & Mary

Secte Rouge

The Senior Skull Honor Society

Sigma Phi

Skull and Bones

Societies at Johns Hopkins

Society of the Horseman's Word

Society of Thoth

Solar Lodge

Sombra Negra

The Sons of Lee Marvin

Sphinx (senior society)

Sphinx Head

Striker's Independent Society

Synarchism

 

T

Theta Nu Epsilon

Thule Society

Tiandihui

Tongmenghui

Tri Kappa

Triad (underground society)

 

U

Union of Prosperity

Union of Salvation

United Officers' Group

 

V

Vehmic court

Vihan Veljet

Vril

 

W

James Wasserman

White Lotus

Whitecapping

Wide Awakes

Wolf's Head (secret society)

 

Y

Young Bukharians

 

And many more!

[SIUYA 11]

SIUYA, I do appreciate your curiosity and button pushing re American culture and guns … even though most of it is just ‘word twisting’… like

Raise the slightest question that racism might be behind the hypocritical complacency and -good lord! - look at the deflections that go flying about. … and the real ‘dishers’ haven't begun to redish yet…

 

No. Again - “calling for peaceful solutions” is mental masturbation – an exercise in propositions.

In real life, “peaceful solution” is not necessarily the way to go in individual situations. It may not even be available as an option.

 

Nor will “peaceful solutions” / prevention will come from Washington … if you think they ‘solved’ slavery, think again, there are now more ‘slaves’ per capita on this planet than ever …

 

Guest Post: The Greatest Way to Dishonor Martin Luther King Jr. - BlackListedNews.com

 

While trying not to miss read this.....

if calling for peaceful solutions is mental masturbation.....

We cant deal in propositions lets deal with reality - i am arguing because i think i am right....to prove i am right i should use violence. I was defending myself.

 

Talk about twisting words.... :doh:

 

If you are taking the attitude that the solution is violence That not trying peaceful solutions/propositions is worthwhile, and that violence is an option of last resort.....

then there is no argument - its pointless.

 

As for racism and deflections it works both ways Zdo.....you brought it up. I could not care either way, and I think the stats do show most serial killers and mass murders are white, we should just let them continue right?

Racism is a massive issue everywhere in the world, but lets not talk about twisting words when you would claim it takes the disarm crowd to take being hit at home to really get going.......as i said, does the 'arm even more' crowd think its beyond such things?

If you think that every gun owner is completely rational and not emotional then i guess all the gun murders are accidents. That would fix the statistics.

 

Whats the joke - you know a liberal looses the argument when the racist card is brought up......works both ways. Both black and white and red brown yellow and green. Most people dont think they are racist - they might just be reacting when things do get close to home, and why wouldnt they? Isnt that what you guys are arguing - self defense.

 

Here is a good one for word twisting - disarm - amazing how anyone who might call for more controls on weapons is immediately seen as attacking the 2nd amendment, or calling for complete gun confiscation is branded a liberal sheep and usually a faggot, muslim/atheist, un-American (I loathe the use of the word un-Australian so i figure its the same)

 

Zdo - problem with any of these discussions is that the emotion is on both sides and if you deny that then you are living in a fantasy.

As for peaceful situations - yes - sometimes there are no options left but if you actually believe that "In real life, “peaceful solution” is not necessarily the way to go in individual situations"......in which case it will become a self fulling prophecy of continual violence if that is thought of as the first resort.

(We all know the government is more likely to use violence and force in protecting your rights even if you need protecting from yourself.)

 

or am i just not asking the right questions?

[MightyMouse 12]

I posted this up for you to read before, but I doubt you did. The Harvard Law Center (hardly a conservative bunch) did an exhaustive study of murder rates worldwide and found zero correlation between legal gun ownership and murder, suicide, or overall crime rates. Here:

 

http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf

 

I did not see your last reference and will read it.

 

The 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with hunting. Zilch, nada, zero. Know it all East Coast liberals are just as bad as know-nothing rednecks, you know. The 2nd Amendment was specifically written to give the population the ability to form into armed groups to help fight off foreign aggressors, and to prevent the population from being easily controlled by a tyrant. In other words, to serve as a deterrent.

 

You are coming in mid conversation. comparisons have been made of assault weapons and squirrel guns.

 

 

 

Just like we've annihilated those insurgents in Afghanistan, right? As we did in Vietnam? You are making several enormously bad assumptions here. The first is that the end goal is to kill all adversaries. The goal is not utter destruction, but control. We could have killed half of Afghanistan's population by now if we so wished, but that wasn't the goal.

\We didn't for political reasons, but you agree that we could have and will if we have too. You are making a somewhat silly assertion that we couldn't/

 

Yes, firearms can be dangerous, but as with most things, the danger generally stems from sloppiness on the part of the user. Three of those people were shot when someone was taking a loaded(!) shotgun out the case, and it discharged. The fact that it was loaded was negligence. People are negligent all the time, but you punish the negligent person and improve the product where possible. You don't ban things willy-nilly.

 

Firearms are dangerous. They do not belong in schools. People who are experienced with firearms are capable of making mistakes with them. The more firearms the more mistakes with firearms. Is this not true? The more firearms, the more likely they are to end up in the hands of someone who will misuse them. Can you agree with this? if we reduce the number of guns in circulation, we will reduce the likely of a gun ending up in the hands of someone who will misuse them? Is that a radical statement?

 

Are these liberal ideas?