View Full Version : Let's compile a list of the BEST arguments against an AWB...
There are obviously a huge number of reasons, and I'm already aware of and on board with all of them. What I want to do here is have us collectively compile the BEST arguments. Let's shy away from rhetoric like "because I can" or "the 2nd Amendment says so." While these are perfectly valid reasons, they aren't persuasive with people who don't think like us. We need arguments that are reasoned, rational, and empirical, that can actually change people's minds who disagree.
So let's hear some of the most coherent arguments based on the most current information possible.
History has shown repeatedly what happens to an unarmed populace in the face of either unforeseen or unexpected circumstances which resulted in their systematic enslavement or death. That should do for most who are capable of rational thought, but of course even that would be insufficient to motivate 100% of the masses as clearly indicated by the election of Obama.
If we don't have a right to keep and bear arms we have no way of protecting ourselves from a out of control government (think american revolution).. Most might think these type of things are not viable in this day and age but our constitution was written to protect us from a repeat of what they went through. You take away what protects us (not just the 2nd but the whole constitution) you are basically saying we have no right to defend ourselves and our republic from infringements on our freedom from the very people who are sworn to defend them. Words won't defeat tyranny, the same tyranny that used words to take away the main threat to that tyranny.
That is just one arguement, you have others like shtf scenerios; invasion, mass chaos, global economic crashes, the list goes on. The first is the true and real reason it was written into our constitution.
Looking at the list of the FBI's crime stats, none of the top weapons used are "assault" rifles. It's like trying to ban ownership of ferraris and lamborginis because of a bunch of wannabe street "racers" in Honda civics, integras, mustangs, camaros etc.
Doc Safari
07-20-12, 15:42
The October 1994 issue of the now defunct magazine "Modern Gun" presented what I think is the best argument of all time. I still have a hard copy of that magazine even though most of my gun mags ended up "bathroom reading" long ago. I will never forget that in 1994 that one article became the inspiration for a lot of gun owners who thought we were on the brink of the end of the Second Amendment. It was even quoted extensively on G. Gordon Liddy's radio show.
My now-deceased father made photocopies of the article and handed them out like candy.
I searched until I found an online copy of the article:
http://totse2.com/totse/en/politics/right_to_keep_and_bear_arms/gunedit.html
Understand this article was written several months before the final form of the 1994 AWB passed, so it makes assumptions about provisions that were later stripped out of the bill.
Still, it's a chilling reminder that gun bans ain't about crime but about controlling the population, and that there are always unintended consequences.
I wanted to quote parts of the article here, but it's best read in its entirety.
Reagans Rascals
07-20-12, 15:48
Simply barring legally eligible and responsible citizens from ownership, does nothing to thwart the acquisition of such weapons by those wishing to engage in illegal activities...
Drinking and Driving is illegal... yet it still occurs rather frequently.. so does that mean we should ban alcohol all together?
Speeding is illegal.... yet every single person engages in it from day to day... so does that mean we should ban vehicles all together?
You cannot attempt to circumvent malicious intent by simply removing a tool that may or may not be utilized in such a manner some day...
Since the beginning of the NFA.... literally since the 1930's.... there has only been 1 recorded murder committed by a legally owned NFA weapon.... I think that says alot...
you cannot infringe on the rights of the citizens to protect themselves, while at the same time providing less than adequate protection in their place...
Preservation of self and loved ones comes to mind as the most elemental argument that can reach even the most liberal of hearts. Its universal to comprehend that given the right circumstances, any person would fight to save their own life by any means necessary.
Now if this is true, and the notion that criminals can possess firearms is true, then its ridiculous to the point of laughter to assume that giving the right circumstances, a person has a chance at survival should a criminal event of that level befall them.
The ones that are the most cold calculating, logical, factual, etc are often the best.
Bring up how "assault weapon" was defined and current proposals define it. Go on proving how these definitions don't equate to "greater killing power" or any BS like that. Talk about how a none "assault weapon" is pretty much the same. Give examples. etc.
Bring up statistics on how frequently they are used (less then 1% of all murder and a little more then 1% of murder with firearms). Go through sensationalized events like VT, Columbine, Luby's Cafe, etc and show how rarely they are used even in these high profile events.
Death with "assault weapons" is just as low today as it was before the AWB ended in 2004.
Largely it does depend on what the opponent wants to argue. But in general use logic and facts. Its my right, second amendment, I need to protect my family, government may come and get you (in general will make you seem the tin foil hat type), foreign invasion, etc usually doesn't work worth jack unless you can argue those points well and counter argue an opponents points.
Failure2Stop
07-20-12, 17:20
I believe that the biggest problem with trying to convince/argue the "ban 'em" crowd is that their argument rests in emotion and emotional appeal to those that sit on the fence.
They choose to demonize an item instead of identifying that the problem is "people". Most people are decent, or at least to the extent that they aren't going to commit murder in their lifetime. By associating the actions with the availability of the item they essentially make the link that anyone is capable of making the moral break and becoming a mass/multiple murderer for almost no reason.
Crazy people are crazy, and to think that we can stop them from doing crazy things by simply limiting magazine capacity or outlawing items that are easily found, is, well... crazy.
As much as I hate to say it, the most persuasive appeals will be the emotional ones, and it's really hard to top dead kids when arguing for standard capacity magazines. It's politics, not science, or there would be a hell of a lot fewer laws than there currently are.
militarymoron
07-20-12, 18:02
how about identifying what the best arguments for an AWB are that the anti-gunners are using, and then determine the best answers to deal with them?
i'm having trouble identifying the reasons FOR an AWB.
The banning of something by law only limits/removes its availability to the law abiding, it does not make it cease to exist.
Alcohol was banned by law during prohibition. Alcohol did not disappear, it became a criminal enterprise.
Today many drugs are banned by law. Criminals elements still find access to them.
By definition a criminal will not respect any law that is enacted. Therefore by enacting a law that bans something, you are only banning it from the law abiding who are the people that are of least concern.
Simply put, bad people will always do bad things, this is why they are bad. Restrictive laws only limit the ability of good people to defend themselves from bad people.
Belmont31R
07-20-12, 18:13
I believe that the biggest problem with trying to convince/argue the "ban 'em" crowd is that their argument rests in emotion and emotional appeal to those that sit on the fence.
They choose to demonize an item instead of identifying that the problem is "people". Most people are decent, or at least to the extent that they aren't going to commit murder in their lifetime. By associating the actions with the availability of the item they essentially make the link that anyone is capable of making the moral break and becoming a mass/multiple murderer for almost no reason.
Crazy people are crazy, and to think that we can stop them from doing crazy things by simply limiting magazine capacity or outlawing items that are easily found, is, well... crazy.
As much as I hate to say it, the most persuasive appeals will be the emotional ones, and it's really hard to top dead kids when arguing for standard capacity magazines. It's politics, not science, or there would be a hell of a lot fewer laws than there currently are.
Thats the issue....most liberal arguments are emotional arguments and not based on facts, math, ect.
Theres well over 300 million people in this country, and ONE nut decides to shoot up a movie theatre. Guess what? over 300 million people decided not to (or at least it never crossed their mind lol).
If someone is persuaded by these stupid emotional arguments then they are pretty dumb to begin with.
If you want to fight on the emotional level get creative, and show REAL LIFE cases where ordinary people used a weapon to defend themselves. With our liberal based media (even fox) very rarely are stories of people defending themselves deemed newsworthy. A dude can save a dozen lives and they debate if shooting at the perps while they are running away is legal (on Fox this week) but when a dozen lives are lost due to a lack of CHL holders who could engage this guy its gun ban talk all over the news (on fox today).
And take NON-gun owning people shooting. Ive taken a neighbor and a friend to the range as well as both of them to range days or 3 gun competitions. It can open people's eyes when they see a a bunch of people have fun at a SPORTING even with "evil guns". Debating a hard core lib is fun but almost pointless. Usually they just say "we'll have to disagree to disagree", resort to name calling, or otherwise end the debate.
The best defense is a good offense, and creating new gun owners or at least showing people that owning/shooting guns is 'fun!' is the best way to make sure people don't elect rabid anti gunners. After a couple trips you can throw in a comment about how you can't believe XYZ wants to ban 'US' from owning these.
Mauser KAR98K
07-20-12, 18:52
I have one against the AWB: helping our military.
Since the AWB sunset, the the general population have been buying assualt weapons and gear up at a dramatic pace. This has helped companies that during the AWB they would be rather hesitent to make products, or produce banned items that were strictly going to Law Enforcement and the military. Now, if the military contract is dropped for 30rnd magazines, the manufacture has a civilian base population to sell to. Back during the AWB, this was not the case.
What this means is that the general consumer can pick up the tab where the Government refused to pay, or fulfill, keeping these companies afloat, and later making magazines in the future that other government agencies might need in a pinch. Was it that towards the end of the AWB some of the "banned" parts were being manufactured overseas because companies either couldn't make those items, or there weren't any companies to even manufacture them?
What the sunset of the AWB has also done was create a better atmosphere for product research and development. Consumer based manufactures have sold products to the general firearms community who use their products probably at a more frequent level of use. 3-gun competition comes to mind, along with high end carbine classes that are now becoming more prevalent. Magpul has a large base of followers that have bought many of their products that were considered "banned" items. The PMAG and the UBR stocks have been great innovations that have come out since the AWB, and I am pretty sure would have never happened if the ban had stayed due to the the non-existent market created by the Government. VLTOR's A5 stock has probably been mated on more civilian weapons that military weapons at this point. And the Surefire mag is a staple feature recently at 3-gun matches.
All these companies have a hand in some shape, manner, or form to the military and law enforcement.
Another aspect is the current techniques of the "assault rifle." Banning these weapons would actually stifle technique development and innovation to a degree that it will hamper our fighting force in training. I did a large research project on the benefits of practical shooting competition, and my findings concluded that if it was not for these competitions, and the use of the many of weapons the military and law enforcement use, the techniques we use now would not have filtered "up" into the those professional communities that depended on those tactics more than competition shooters.
Schools today are popping up everywhere since the AWB sunset. These schools are getting people properly trained to use their "assault weapons" for home defense; for me, backwoods defense (rural communities have a longer response time for LE, and we have longer ranges to cover); competition shooting; and these schools are coming up with better techniques that are more efficient and getting shooters to put rounds one target better.
Mr. Larry Vickers, or other professional instructors on here, chime in. Would it be harder for you to stay in business, grow and employ people, if the AWB was still around? Could the techniques you are teaching and have developed outside of the your military careers would not have happened if the AWB was still in place?
Since the AR has been gaining in huge popularity, something else has come up since the AWB sunset: better defense ammo, and a revelation that has been a surprise.
For ammo, aside from the Zombie stuff Hornady sells, there are better defensive ammo choices now than there were back during the ban days. Yes powder and ballistics research has helped, but without the demand for good stopping ammo that will not penetrate through and through a dirt-bag in an apartment complex, it is a good possibility this ammunition would be limited by a select few companies, quantity, and would have hampered more development of self-defense ammunition. This may sound far fetched, but in a thread that was posted here on this forum, a "scientific" study of bullet penetration through dry wall proved that the most frequent choice for home defense, the 12 gauge shotgun with 00 buck, was the worst to use in a home citation due to the nine pellets going through all three walls. The .223 defense ammunition either fragmented at the first wall and either stopped there, or stopped at the second wall.
Other studies have also concluded this, citing that maybe the best home defense gun is actually an AR-15 loaded with the right ammunition. Plus, most ARs are legally shorter than most shotguns. Collapsible stocks help shooters with short arms, or even short stature, shoot long guns for defensive, or as of recently, hunting.
What is haunting with the prospects of another ban is the lessons learned by the left from the last one. This ban will center around banning not just on features, but on type of weapon. From the detail I have written above, our military and law enforcement will suffer greatly in the short run, but really in the long run. Manufactures will be forced to down size after the market comes to an abrupt halt, laying off workers, and not having the money or a base to do research and development. And the training and trainers will stagnate as the ripples pan out over a period of time. Their will still be classes and development of techniques and ideas, but will slow to a crawl once the older equipment and weapons systems dry up.
Smuckatelli
07-20-12, 19:24
"the 2nd Amendment says so."
This is the one and only arguement. Every other reason offers a give and take from both sides of the house while the people in the middle get the wrong impressions about gun owners.
The only change to gun rights has to be by amending the Constitution. The anti gun bubbas know that this will not work, Congress wouldn't be able to pass.
Stick to the 2nd and we have a clear playing field. Come up with hunting, protection, and anything else and we give the anti gun bubbas rounds to snipe with.
BrigandTwoFour
07-20-12, 22:09
One I tend to use is pretty easy. It's usually pretty effective against those who are more logical minded and try to use the wording of the second amendment to apply to the militia. These people often think of themselves as constitutional scholars and that the SCOTUS is a bunch of politically biased hacks (not entirely untrue).
I pose a question:
If the 2A said "An armed populace being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Would they support the idea of the common citizen having access to the kinds of weapons they claim are completely unnecessary?
If they agree, I show them the federalist papers intent of the militia and the US code definition of the "unorganized militia." That usually makes them go back and think for a bit. Usually they return with hyperemotional arguments.
For the emotional arguers, I either avoid them or pose a counter scenario. If they want to rail against dead children due to crazed gunman, I like to reverse the roles.
Let's say they win and firearms are banned from use by civilians. Their beloved widowed grandmother lives in a house on the outskirts of town all by herself. One night, around 2 AM, she wakes up to the sound of broken glass and finds four men in her house. She calls the police, but the response time is over 30 minutes. She tries to defend herself, but is quickly overpowered and beaten severely. The men leave before the police arrive, but the woman dies of brain trauma before she can get medical assistance. How do they feel about removing the best means of equalizing self defense now?
This same scenario can be worked for your 90 lb girlfriend, or your teenager who stayed home to do homework while you went out for "date night."
I often get in "discussions" with guys who thump their chests and claim that being strong and confident is enough to keep them out of trouble and take care of any threat. I counter with one of the above scenarios.
I eventually got out of participating in these arguments, though. It just ends up going in circles.
how about identifying what the best arguments for an AWB are that the anti-gunners are using, and then determine the best answers to deal with them?
i'm having trouble identifying the reasons FOR an AWB.
That'd be the shortest thread ever. There would never be a valid reply.
Prior to guns, people still murdered each other for thousands of years. They used sharp objects and blunt objects to kill each other. It worked and it worked well. It still works.
Many nations have much stricter gun control, but much higher murder rates (South Africa comes to mind). Murder is cultural.
America has a violent culture. The top rated sports are NFL football and UFC. Meth is hugely popular in the US. We are a nation founded in blood and we can't go more than 20 years without getting into a war. Banning guns will do nothing to change the national character.
The UK went down the road too. They thought banning guns would make the problem go away. In a few years they were banning 'commando' knives. In a few more years they looking ban kitchen knives with points and trying to mandate shatterproof pint glasses because people in pubs were getting cut by them in bar fights.
Again, violence in society is cultural. Notice that this current nut Denver did not shoot up the new Disney movie, no, he started shooting during the big action scene of a dark action movie.
GeorgiaBoy
07-21-12, 00:08
It's a lot harder to be pro-AWB than anti-AWB.
The problem is that those that have "assault" weapons are limited in their actual arguments for their need to possess them over other, more limited weapons.
I guarantee that the majority of Americans that are pro-AWB are most likely not completely anti-gun. They probably don't mind most hunting rifles, shotguns, and maybe certain, non-evil looking handguns. To them, they just don't see a need why anyone would need the large ammo capacity and firepower that "assault" weapons possess.
And to be blatantly honest, I only see ONE reason that I choose to be interested assault rifles and enjoy them: Because they exist, and there are not-so-good people out their that have them, and plan to use them. I don't ever want to be under gunned.
I will also be honest about another thing: I think that the world would be better off if gun technology did not advance past 1900 or so. That way, everyone would be on the same level of firepower, and those that do wish to do harm would not be able to do it at quite the same level as they can today, with firearms.
BrigandTwoFour
07-21-12, 09:38
Didn't Columbine happen in the midst of the national AWB?
Nope...nothing to point out there....
Are assault weapons legal in Switzerland? I know they're one of the most armed and safest places to live yet the gun ban in the UK seemed to do little to curb gun violence. Are there any nations that have a partial ban (AWB) and could be shown that it hasn't helped?
Ask them, "What is an assault weapon"? Then you can help them identify a whole bunch of assault weapons in their possession, that they cannot do without. If someone can be "Assaulted" with something, then doesn't it become an "Assault Weapon"? Then ask them if that is really what they want banned. Then point out that there are those who would just love to stomp on their rights too, just as they are trying to stomp on ours as a whole. If they want "assault weapons" banned, then they shouldn't call the police when assaulted, because it couldn't have happened, due there being a law that banned them. They just need to turn their head because it never happened due to their law.
The BIG thing to remember here in this conversation with these kind of people is, "You cant have a battle of the wits, with unarmed sheople".
Arguments against AWB
1. According to experts, 'not politically viable'
2. No Public support for further restrictions
Some related articles for consideration...
Will Colorado shootings inject gun control into 2012 race?
Gun control activists say the Colorado shootings should be a wake-up call, but Americans' views on guns aren't swayed by individual tragedies, polls show. The candidates know that.
By Peter Grier / July 20, 2012
"If history is any guide, however, Bloomberg is likely to be disappointed. In recent years high-profile tragedies similar to the Colorado killings have generally not produced sustained, high-level political debate about possible gun control legislation, said gun control expert Kristin Goss in an interview with Current TV."
["]“I don’t think either party has any interest in touching the subject of gun control in an election year,” said Goss, an associate professor at Duke’s Sanford School of Public Policy, on Current TV’s news blog.["]
"Polls tend to bear this assertion out. In the wake of the 2011 Tucson shootings, which left six dead and Arizona congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords gravely wounded, there was no significant change in public attitudes toward gun control and gun rights, according to the Pew Research Center."
["]“Gallup trends on gun control show that Americans have grown less supportive of strengthening gun laws in the United States over the last two decades, notwithstanding a number of tragic gun attacks during that period,” wrote Gallup’s Frank Newport and Lydia Saad in 2011.["]
"Politicians can read polls, of course, and this trend shows why it is unlikely that President Obama or other Democrats will use the Aurora tragedy as a reason to push an ambitious new gun law agenda."
Complete Article
Link: http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/DC-Decoder/Decoder-Wire/2012/0720/Will-Colorado-shootings-inject-gun-control-into-2012-race
Why Don’t Mass Shootings Lead to Gun Control?
by Adam Winkler Jul 20, 2012 1:33 PM EDT
After the horrific Dark Knight massacre in Colorado, there are already calls for greater gun control. But if history is any guide, Adam Winkler says it’s unlikely that anything but sympathy will result.
"Virginia Tech may be the exception that proves the rule: no matter how many people die, gun control does not move."
"When Democrats lost their majority in the House of Representatives for the first time in 1994—which no less an expert than President Bill Clinton blamed on the passage of the Brady Bill—the party traditionally open-minded about gun control dropped the issue."
"Today, most of the major gun control advocacy groups are struggling to stay afloat. The leader of one West Coast gun control group told me recently that her group was out of money and no new grants were expected."
"Another reason for the inability of gun control to move is the difficulty of finding effective laws to prevent the shootings."
"But there are already tens of millions of such guns already in circulation."
"Unfortunately, the Dark Knight shootings in Colorado, like the previous tragedies in Columbine, Tucson, and Fort Hood, aren’t likely to inspire such political action."
Complete Article
Link: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/07/20/why-don-t-mass-shootings-lead-to-gun-control.html
That'd be the shortest thread ever. There would never be a valid reply.
I think we're still limited by our own reference points - there are some intelligent people on the other side of this argument, and whether they simply haven't thought through enough of what they're doing, or more cynically have a deeper motive to undermine individual liberty, this really is more valuable than anybody here is giving credit.
It's a whole lot easier to "Prey" on peoples fears/paranoia's about something and tell them here is the solution to your paranoia and it makes them feel all warm and fuzzy. Thus they will fight tooth and nail for it without looking at any facts, because it is what they want. As long as it is what "They" want, they will buy into it without reasoning. The Govt. figured this out looooooong ago.
History has shown repeatedly what happens to an unarmed populace in the face of either unforeseen or unexpected circumstances which resulted in their systematic enslavement or death. That should do for most who are capable of rational thought, but of course even that would be insufficient to motivate 100% of the masses as clearly indicated by the election of Obama.
Ditto this
Chinese history is full of this before guns
The Huns before guns killed millions
The Romans killed and enslaved millions
The list goes in and on
Its not a gun thing its a leadership power grab human thing
Actually, I wish 0bama and his kind would start talking about more gun control. It is a losing issue for them. In the Dem Establishment they pretty much abandoned it after AlGore lost in his home state of TN.
We could only hope the Dems go full bore moonbat crazy for more gun control. That is just where most people are anymore. The GenX and GenY voter is much more sympathetic to EBR disease - see the popularity of the zombie genre. Most Americans are sort of afraid (if even in the back of their minds) that this whole enterprise might collapse. Lots people now openly talk about bug out bags, guns, gold, and natural disaster preps. These sorts of articles now appear all of the time in main stream magazines like Popular Mechanics.
Never the less, whenever someone starts talking about crazy people going on shooting sprees, pose the question "what is making them go crazy?" Bring up how there has been a steady increase of these sorts of crimes since Prozac and other MAOI drugs have been in common usage.
http://www.oralchelation.net/ProzacSideEffects.htm
Actually, I wish 0bama and his kind would start talking about more gun control. It is a losing issue for them. In the Dem Establishment they pretty much abandoned it after AlGore lost in his home state of TN.
We could only hope the Dems go full bore moonbat crazy for more gun control. That is just where most people are anymore. The GenX and GenY voter is much more sympathetic to EBR disease - see the popularity of the zombie genre. Most Americans are sort of afraid (if even in the back of their minds) that this whole enterprise might collapse. Lots people now openly talk about bug out bags, guns, gold, and natural disaster preps. These sorts of articles now appear all of the time in main stream magazines like Popular Mechanics.
Never the less, whenever someone starts talking about crazy people going on shooting sprees, pose the question "what is making them go crazy?" Bring up how there has been a steady increase of these sorts of crimes since Prozac and other MAOI drugs have been in common usage.
http://www.oralchelation.net/ProzacSideEffects.htm
would be a good counter to some of them
The right to protect and defend ones' life is the very first and most important natural right.
You cannot engage in free speech, worship, or commerce if you are dead. You wouldn't worry about your property, privacy, or the fairness of a trial if you've reach room temperature.
The defense of oneself is the cornerstone natural right, upon which all other rights are staked.
____________________________
Does a cornered animal have a natural right to fight for its' life? Or is it supposed to give up and become dinner? Self-preservation cannot be stamped out of a living being
I posted this on a private message board during a debate/argument about gun control and I think it is relevant to the narrower topic of the AWB:
In fact, thinking about it a bit more, I think the divide can be reduced to a single point: those who think guns (or certain types of guns) should be banned have faith in the state to keep them safe. When something goes bump in the night, the police will be there to protect them. In times of natural disaster or catastrophe, the government will be there to help them. Nor will said government ever have interests which violently conflict with their own. Given such a worldview, guns are unnecessary since the individual is not responsible for his own safety and with guns available to the general populace, it means the criminal has easy access to them.
Those who think guns must be kept legal believe that there may come a time when they alone are responsible for their safety. That no matter what legistlation is passed criminals will be able to procure guns as they are unencumbered with concern for breaking the law. They know the police are seldom present to actually prevent crime, but instead usually can only clean up after the fact. They know that in times of catastrophe the state will place the needs of greater society above the needs of any one individual and that people may be left to their own devices, and that there may come a time when that same government rather than simply inattention may in fact have interests which do not coincide with their own and seek to enforce their will at the barrel of a gun.
These are two diametrically opposed worldviews, one in which the individual has ceded responsibility for his safety to the state and sees the world as general stable place that will be as it has always been (for him), the other one in which society is held together by the thinnest of threads, and in which catastrophe may arise at any time and in such times of tumult it is the individual alone who must always have a means by which to provide for his own security, freedom, and life. And all the statistics or debate will not bridge that divide.
BrigandTwoFour
07-21-12, 21:07
I posted this on a private message board during a debate/argument about gun control and I think it is relevant to the narrower topic of the AWB:
In fact, thinking about it a bit more, I think the divide can be reduced to a single point: those who think guns (or certain types of guns) should be banned have faith in the state to keep them safe. When something goes bump in the night, the police will be there to protect them. In times of natural disaster or catastrophe, the government will be there to help them. Nor will said government ever have interests which violently conflict with their own. Given such a worldview, guns are unnecessary since the individual is not responsible for his own safety and with guns available to the general populace, it means the criminal has easy access to them.
Those who think guns must be kept legal believe that there may come a time when they alone are responsible for their safety. That no matter what legistlation is passed criminals will be able to procure guns as they are unencumbered with concern for breaking the law. They know the police are seldom present to actually prevent crime, but instead usually can only clean up after the fact. They know that in times of catastrophe the state will place the needs of greater society above the needs of any one individual and that people may be left to their own devices, and that there may come a time when that same government rather than simply inattention may in fact have interests which do not coincide with their own and seek to enforce their will at the barrel of a gun.
These are two diametrically opposed worldviews, one in which the individual has ceded responsibility for his safety to the state and sees the world as general stable place that will be as it has always been (for him), the other one in which society is held together by the thinnest of threads, and in which catastrophe may arise at any time and in such times of tumult it is the individual alone who must always have a means by which to provide for his own security, freedom, and life. And all the statistics or debate will not bridge that divide.
That has pretty much been my exact experience as well. The problem is that those with the former worldview have little interest in looking at it from the other side, as it feels "paranoid." The only people I know who have made the switch from the former perspective to the latter have had some serious life event happen to them or someone they know that highlighted the fallacy of their belief system.
Until that switch happens, they will always vote to disable others from doing what they see as unnecessary and dangerous.
At this time, due to previous events, the political pendulum is in our favor. But it will not always be so. That is why I am uncomfortable with the ideas behind "it's just not politically viable."
Those should read, "it's just not politically viable...for now." It will eventually swing back the other way. The only thing we can do in the mean time is introduce new people and convince them of our side and perspective. It is terribly difficult to take a person back to the idea that the state will always be there to help them when the time comes after it has been proven drastically wrong.
The Happy Land Night Club Fire
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happy_Land_fire
87 people burned to death with 97 cents worth of gasoline.
In terms of mass killing, gun play is amateur hour. People who really want to kill people will use a bomb or arson. Tim McVeigh and Bin Laden come to mind. These guys were serious. The shooting spree asshats are living out a first person shooter video game and/or movie fantasy.
You can ban guns all you want. History has shown that people bent on mass murder will usually succeed. Holmes was a medical student. He had the education and experience in laboratory technique to manufactured high quality explosives and poison gas (we are talking WWI technology). The formulas are easily found on the internet and in the ACS Journal. In truth, given his background, this could have been much worse.
I caught a few minutes of a CNN video my GF was watching before I asked her to shut it off.
The nancy boy anchor started talking about the Smith and Wesson AR-15 assault rifle that the killer used.
If the kill had waited until the movie was over and ran down a group of children as they were walking out of the exit, would this anchor have gone into detail about the "2006 Ford Explorer with a V6 engine"? Not likely.
If the killer had walked down the darkened aisle of the theater slashing throats with a sharp knife would the anchor talk about the "J.A. Henckels fillet knife" he used? Not likely.
I know I'm preaching to the choir, but there's a strong corporate media bias against freedom and an armed populace for some reason. Why do the powers that be want us disarmed and helpless? Figure that one out.
Never ever register or relinquish your weapons men. Never.
Live free or die
VooDoo6Actual
07-21-12, 22:45
Why do the powers that be want us disarmed and helpless? Figure that one out.
Never ever register or relinquish your weapons men. Never.
Live free or die
It has been figured out may times. It's the same anecdotal historical answers throughout history.
Here's a vomitus pukas "Cooked" poll below by all our favorite cast of characters. You know the people who have their hidden agendas etc.
For those here that actually read it you will see what the mentality is & what we are up against. This one isn't too long.
Notice whom produced it (Rockafeller), Where it's done at (CHICAAAAAGGGOOOOO) & what it pontificates (UN Global Goverence). Notice the World Army, Genocide, US Leadership roles, UN's Leadership roles, US as the World's Police force etc...
Enjoy !
Resonate ?
http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/pdf/jun07/CCGA+_FullReport_rpt.pdf
Actually, I wish 0bama and his kind would start talking about more gun control. It is a losing issue for them. In the Dem Establishment they pretty much abandoned it after AlGore lost in his home state of TN.
We could only hope the Dems go full bore moonbat crazy for more gun control. That is just where most people are anymore. The GenX and GenY voter is much more sympathetic to EBR disease - see the popularity of the zombie genre. Most Americans are sort of afraid (if even in the back of their minds) that this whole enterprise might collapse. Lots people now openly talk about bug out bags, guns, gold, and natural disaster preps. These sorts of articles now appear all of the time in main stream magazines like Popular Mechanics.
Never the less, whenever someone starts talking about crazy people going on shooting sprees, pose the question "what is making them go crazy?" Bring up how there has been a steady increase of these sorts of crimes since Prozac and other MAOI drugs have been in common usage.
http://www.oralchelation.net/ProzacSideEffects.htm
I believe it would be a losing issue as well IF we had a strong candidate to go on the offensive about the economy and President Omao is changing the narrative away from his failures, yada, yada, yada. Romney believes the 2nd is vital to liberty etc., even though he signed a state awb.
The historical example of prohibition and alcohol is a great one, but I've found it easier to get the attention of the bleeding hearts with more current examples. I simply remind them that cocaine, heroin, marijuana, and meth are all banned... Yet can be found easily by anyone wanting them, in every city in the country.
The historical example of prohibition and alcohol is a great one, but I've found it easier to get the attention of the bleeding hearts with more current examples. I simply remind them that cocaine, heroin, marijuana, and meth are all banned... Yet can be found easily by anyone wanting them, in every city in the country.
I use that and the fact booze and driving kill more people
I just go on the we really need to ban booze again !!!! look how bad it is for the minorities that seem to have a worse time with it than the white folks :) and while we tried it one time I know this time we can make it work !!!
Crow Hunter
07-22-12, 18:27
I like to bring up historical references.
I mention how prior to the invention of the firearm the "leaders" of the world were those who were physically strongest and who were the best at "combat arts" available at the time. The individuals who could also influence enough like minded individuals to work with them became kings.
Once these families/groups got into power, they did everything in their power to restrict access to weapons and training in the "noble" pursuit of war. This kept them in power for generations.
This all came crashing down with the invention of firearms. Now anyone, with just a few minutes of training could stop a knight or samurai with years of training and expensive equipment and the weapons were cheap and easy enough to produce that any measly "peasant" could afford them.
History has ever since been a continuous attempt by the "Powers That Be" to regain the Feudal power structure on both a micro and a macro scale.
The availability of weapons to "commoners" has always been a gauge of freedom.
I then ask the person.
On which side of History do you stand?
"Political power grows from the barrel of a gun." - Mao Zedong
The Happy Land Night Club Fire
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happy_Land_fire
87 people burned to death with 97 cents worth of gasoline.
In terms of mass killing, gun play is amateur hour. People who really want to kill people will use a bomb or arson. Tim McVeigh and Bin Laden come to mind. These guys were serious. The shooting spree asshats are living out a first person shooter video game and/or movie fantasy.
You can ban guns all you want. History has shown that people bent on mass murder will usually succeed.
Agree.
From Pat Rogers, originally posted on Lightfighter:
While most people have only a passing knowledge of history, this bears re-telling.
Up until the 11Sept attacks, the largest mass murder in NYC history occured when Julio Gonzales (a Cuban refugee) killed 87 people inside the Happy Land Social Club in The Bronx, NY on 25March1990.
Julio did not use a gun. Nor did he use a bomb.
Instead he used a plastic container he found on the ground, and bought less then $1.00 worth of gasoline.
He poured the gas on the staircase of the only enterence and ignited it.
My Brother responded to that fire.
It is not about guns.
Guns are not a particularly efficient way of disposing of large numbers of people.
It is about people.
People aren't falling for the old AWB/Lib hype....they now realize that the cops can't get there in time and the gov't doesn't really have their best interests at heart.
If you watch the responses following some of the articles you'll see their a lot folks arer pissed that the movie theatre didn't allow concealed carry and that people just don't fall for the liberal hype and no longer passively sitting on the sideline.
Upwards of 30,000 to 40,000 Americans die each year in MVAs. As tragic as this is, it is the price our society pays for ease of personal travel. No one would consider banning cars from private ownership and use, because the freedom to travel is more dear to us than complete mitigation of the risks therein.
And, like with guns, the risks wouldn't vanish, they'd only morph into something else. You ban all cars, you still have people dying in buses/subways/trains/planes/taxis accidents. So you haven't stopped the death, but you HAVE killed the fundamental right of locomotion.
You ban guns, the criminals keep theirs. If you somehow took the criminals guns too (impossible), they'd switch to knives. So you ban knives. They'd switch to whittled wooden spears. Then you ban . . . . Trees? It doesn't work. The best thing to do is try your damnedest to stop felons and clinical psychos from buying guns, and allow everyone else free access to them. Will some people with no criminal background every now and again shoot up a place? Probably. But there'll be an armed citizen somewhere close by to stop him. That's the only way to stay safe and free.
VooDoo6Actual
07-23-12, 09:31
http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e225/teehee321/3_21_013108_Kenya.jpg
Assault Cactus
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Failure2Stop
07-23-12, 10:01
How long until someone tries to ban death?
montanadave
07-23-12, 11:16
How long until someone tries to ban death?
According to many, that was successfully accomplished about 2000 years ago.
CarlosDJackal
07-23-12, 13:01
The BAttle of Athens (1946) (http://constitution.org/mil/tn/batathen.htm)
How long until someone tries to ban death?
F2S,
Thanks for the new sig line. ;)
Carlos, very interesting read on Athens.
-Jax
It's most likely been said before but I'll say it again. Why are mass shootings ONLY in a place that has a sign that says this is a gun free zone, schools, colleges, malls, and now the movie theater. Nobody tries to do a mass shooting at a police station, a gun store or a gun show? Hassan knew our troops weren't armed.
The October 1994 issue of the now defunct magazine "Modern Gun" presented what I think is the best argument of all time. I still have a hard copy of that magazine even though most of my gun mags ended up "bathroom reading" long ago. I will never forget that in 1994 that one article became the inspiration for a lot of gun owners who thought we were on the brink of the end of the Second Amendment. It was even quoted extensively on G. Gordon Liddy's radio show.
My now-deceased father made photocopies of the article and handed them out like candy.
I searched until I found an online copy of the article:
http://totse2.com/totse/en/politics/right_to_keep_and_bear_arms/gunedit.html
Understand this article was written several months before the final form of the 1994 AWB passed, so it makes assumptions about provisions that were later stripped out of the bill.
Still, it's a chilling reminder that gun bans ain't about crime but about controlling the population, and that there are always unintended consequences.
I wanted to quote parts of the article here, but it's best read in its entirety.
Interesting article. This really stood out though:
The new criminal class will be made up of men, women and their
children, who are educated, run businesses or make businesses work,
and have raised or are raising families. People who pay taxes and
currently make this country work.
These people have something to lose. They are the least likely to fight back. I would love to believe that I'd give some "ninja-clad" government thugs violent deaths before my rifle is pried from my "cold dead hands", but the fact is, I would likely be standing in line at the gun turn-in centers along most other people. I have too much to lose, a home, vehicles, family who I fear would be made victims, retirement funds, money, a job, etc, etc, etc.
And the few who did resist would be labelled terrorists by the 4th estate and never see the plane that dropped the JDAM or Predator drone that fired the Hellfire.
ETA: It's interesting that Congresscritters make nearly 100% more than they did 18 years ago..... Wished my salary doubled every 20 years for the exact same job responsibilities.
There are obviously a huge number of reasons, and I'm already aware of and on board with all of them. What I want to do here is have us collectively compile the BEST arguments. Let's shy away from rhetoric like "because I can" or "the 2nd Amendment says so." While these are perfectly valid reasons, they aren't persuasive with people who don't think like us. We need arguments that are reasoned, rational, and empirical, that can actually change people's minds who disagree.
So let's hear some of the most coherent arguments based on the most current information possible.
Arguing with progressive ideologues intent on stealing your freedom is pointless. Facts matter not to such people, as the facts are rarely on their side. Progs rely on raw, visceral emotion. Their "arguments" are never more than pamphlet deep and can be easily encapsulated in bumper stickers. They appeal to the reptilian brain, anything that requires cognition is irrelevant to them, as it is to their audience. How do you think a man who has performed as badly as President as Obama still has such high personal approval ratings? It's simple really, people have been drilled with the simplistic concept that if you don't *heart* Obama you are a racist. And nobody wants to feel as though they may be racist.
What we need are not reasoned, rational "arguments" based on facts, but mindless bumper sticker slogans that are just generic and catchy enough to grab attention.
"99% of gun owners never kill anyone"
"Why punish the 99% for the crimes of the 1%"
"What do Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, and Democrats have in common? They love unarmed peasants"
I'm not a sloganeer, but you get the idea. We need to appeal to the masses, and they are quite frankly stupid and have short attention spans. (As an aside, this is precisely why this nation was NOT founded as a democracy and the Founders had the tremendous forethought to severely restrict the vote, something Democrats have been attempting to change since their inception, between defending slavery and passing Jim Crow laws.)
VooDoo6Actual
07-23-12, 21:03
"What do Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, and Democrats have in common? They love unarmed peasants"
I'm not a sloganeer, but you get the idea. We need to appeal to the masses, and they are quite frankly stupid and have short attention spans. (As an aside, this is precisely why this nation was NOT founded as a democracy and the Founders had the tremendous forethought to severely restrict the vote, something Democrats have been attempting to change since their inception, between defending slavery and passing Jim Crow laws.)
That's exactly what they are counting on that kind of defeatist attitude & your exactly the kind of mentality they prey on. Then what roll over like a Puppy Dog & let them do whatever they want ? Including Genocide because they decide the Planet is too crowded or relocate you from your family. What assurances do have that you will even have a family w/o a Constitution ? Where does this craziness stop. They have already demonstrated what extremes they are prepared to go to to accomplish their agenda. Do you think they well all of the sudden develop compassion for people. Tell that to CBP Agent Brian Terry or Federal ICE Agent Jaime Zapata or our fallen soldiers for their proxy BS GWOT & many others.
No way not while I'm breathing or on my watch.
Here's an interesting Celeb chiming in. I have met "Ice T". We had a stare down at an event. I was working he was not. His wife Co Co's Ass is too big for my tastes, but I like what he says & thinks as it is the truth.
Ice-T Defends Gun Rights: "The Last Form Of Defense Against Tyranny"
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/07/23/ice-t_defends_gun_rights_the_last_form_of_defense_against_tyranny.html
That's exactly what they are counting on that kind of defeatist attitude & your exactly the kind of mentality they prey on. Then what roll over like a Puppy Dog & let them do whatever they want ?
Read my post again slowly so perhaps you can understand exactly what it was I was saying.
I'll give you a hint, it's the EXACT opposite of what you believe it to be.
It's most likely been said before but I'll say it again. Why are mass shootings ONLY in a place that has a sign that says this is a gun free zone, schools, colleges, malls, and now the movie theater. Nobody tries to do a mass shooting at a police station, a gun store or a gun show? Hassan knew our troops weren't armed.
I remember being at a range doing pre-eib training not to far from the reverse srp building was when all that went down. It was kind of surreal and felt like you were in the twilight zone or something..
VooDoo6Actual
07-23-12, 21:41
Read my post again slowly so perhaps you can understand exactly what it was I was saying.
I'll give you a hint, it's the EXACT opposite of what you believe it to be.
Sorry, right on my bad, perhaps it was the italicized "I'm not a sloganeer, but you get the idea. We need to appeal to the masses" that threw me. I did read it fast but I'm processing probably way too much for my age. LOL.
Carry on disregard.
Kewl beans man glad your in.
I would love to believe that I'd give some "ninja-clad" government thugs violent deaths before my rifle is pried from my "cold dead hands", but the fact is, I would likely be standing in line at the gun turn-in centers along most other people. I have too much to lose, a home, vehicles, family who I fear would be made victims
So much wrong with this; where to begin? First off, you are not your stuff. Your life/your soul is not equivalent to possessions you have like your home or vehicles. That stuff isn't worth a fraction of what liberty and justice is worth. And without a deterrent, ie. weapons, how long do you think the authoritarian collectivists would even let you keep your things? Your things should be evenly distributed among everyone after all!
Many wealthy businessmen gave everything they had to the continental army, becoming poor. The signers of the DoI pledged their lives, fortunes, and sacred honor to one another and to the cause of liberty. More than a few of them died as a result. If they had lost the revolution, they would have been slandered and labeled traitors. They put everything on the line.
There is nothing dishonorable about defending yourself. If they send goon squads around to citizens homes with the intent of breaking in and confiscating property, outside of law and in total violation of your natural inherent rights, you'd be well justified to let 'em have it. With great power comes great responsibility, and if officers do not think, but act like dogs and follow any command they're given no matter how heinous, they've set themselves up for a gruesome death sooner or later. They bring it upon themselves, because they should know better.
Slavery is no way to live. And make no mistake, a slave is a person who has no inherent rights, is not allowed to provide for himself, and is ordered around at gun point. A free man has natural inherent rights, works hard and provides for himself, and keeps arms so that he may not be bossed around by others with arms. Why live as a slave? Keep your arms, and live free, or die trying. And if you die trying, who cares? The alternative was slavery!! I'd rather not exist at all thank you very much.
If you and your families' freedom isn't worth losing everything over, you're living in the wrong country. Nothing else matters, because everything else is predicated upon your freedom. And your freedom is predicated upon your self defense.
Please reconsider what you might do if push comes to shove. We all need to have a clear picture in our minds of our line in the sand, and what we will refuse to tolerate. Please give it some more thought.
"Timid men prefer the calm of Despotism to the tempestuous seas of Liberty" - Thomas Jefferson
VooDoo6Actual
07-23-12, 23:50
That's what I thought. :lol:
That's what I thought. :lol:
Put your money where your mouth is. Who are you going to kill first, or are you just another internet blowhard who waxes philosophical about revolution from the security of your keyboard and lambastes those who present the reasons why revolucion is ****ing absurd and not likely to happen or succeed?
And yeah SMETNA, I'm not what I own, but the prospect of losing everything, including the very real possibility of my family being made to pay for my transgressions, gives me pause. But what the **** do I know, I've only actually thought about this with some serious consideration.
Oh I know, I'm just a coward, right?
My quote of the day: While sometimes devastating, it is better to endure the worst consequences of freedom, than to suffer the oppression of tyranny.
And yeah SMETNA, I'm not what I own, but the prospect of losing everything, including the very real possibility of my family being made to pay for my transgressions, gives me pause. But what the **** do I know, I've only actually thought about this with some serious consideration.
Oh I know, I'm just a coward, right?
Settle down dude
No you're not a coward. You're not looking forward to being put in that position, along with everyone else. Giving up a few pounds of aluminum and steel in order to keep your home and live in peace sounds like a no brainier.
But it would peace purchased at the price of chains. I don't believe in peace at any price. As far as your family being made to pay for your transgressions: if you allow them to be steamrolled by an out of control government, would they be any better off? They'd pay for your transgressions one way or the other, but at least if you stand up for them they'd have a fighting chance to live free.
I hope we are all talking out of our asses here, making a big deal about some silliness. But history has a different story to tell, and we'd be smart to decide how to handle ourselves now.
Remember this:
You don't win anything when you give in to evil. Ever.
Settle down dude
No you're not a coward. You're not looking forward to being put in that position, along with everyone else. Giving up a few pounds of aluminum and steel in order to keep your home and live in peace sounds like a no brainier.
But it would peace purchased at the price of chains. I don't believe in peace at any price. As far as your family being made to pay for your transgressions: if you allow them to be steamrolled by an out of control government, would they be any better off? They'd pay for your transgressions one way or the other, but at least if you stand up for them they'd have a fighting chance to live free.
I hope we are all talking out of our asses here, making a big deal about some silliness. But history has a different story to tell, and we'd be smart to decide how to handle ourselves now.
Remember this:
You don't win anything when you give in to evil. Ever.
All of this has played into my calculus. I agree in theory.
So, as I asked Hop, when does the shooting start and who are we going to kill first?
All of this has played into my calculus. I agree in theory.
So, as I asked Hop, when does the shooting start and who are we going to kill first?
I'll answer that because I'm awake right now. Hop can get to it whenever he can:
Hopefully never. I hope these authoritarian socialist ****ers get removed through the ballot box. But if that doesn't happen, then my answer is: when their thugs shoot first and there is no other choice. Self defense.
"who are we going to kill first" is a terrible way to look at it. Hopefully nobody, because the police that are ordered to raid for weapons will be oath keepers and will know its unconstitutional. But, again, if that doesn't happen, the answer is: whoever is foolish enough to attack. If they act like unthinking trained dogs, they'll be put down like unthinking trained dogs.
There is nothing incendiary or seditious about self defense. I'm only offering my own personal RoEs. I would never support an offensive, but I'd fight back if attacked.
The October 1994 issue of the now defunct magazine "Modern Gun" presented what I think is the best argument of all time. I still have a hard copy of that magazine even though most of my gun mags ended up "bathroom reading" long ago. I will never forget that in 1994 that one article became the inspiration for a lot of gun owners who thought we were on the brink of the end of the Second Amendment. It was even quoted extensively on G. Gordon Liddy's radio show.
My now-deceased father made photocopies of the article and handed them out like candy.
I searched until I found an online copy of the article:
http://totse2.com/totse/en/politics/right_to_keep_and_bear_arms/gunedit.html
Understand this article was written several months before the final form of the 1994 AWB passed, so it makes assumptions about provisions that were later stripped out of the bill.
Still, it's a chilling reminder that gun bans ain't about crime but about controlling the population, and that there are always unintended consequences.
I wanted to quote parts of the article here, but it's best read in its entirety.
WOW, good read....that last paragragh really hit home
VooDoo6Actual
07-24-12, 10:18
Put your money where your mouth is. Who are you going to kill first, or are you just another internet blowhard who waxes philosophical about revolution from the security of your keyboard and lambastes those who present the reasons why revolucion is ****ing absurd and not likely to happen or succeed?
And yeah SMETNA, I'm not what I own, but the prospect of losing everything, including the very real possibility of my family being made to pay for my transgressions, gives me pause. But what the **** do I know, I've only actually thought about this with some serious consideration.
Oh I know, I'm just a coward, right?
http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e225/teehee321/81194uw5g1c32fx.gif
Perhaps there was/is a miscommunication of sorts.
When, I read your post initially I processed it as you were resolved to comply w/ whatever. Then you requested politely & respectfully to re-read your post slowly. I did that & because sometimes things are lost in translation/processing etc. I then went to OK he's being sarcastic or joking etc.
Then I read SMETNA's post & he got the same interpretation I got from your post. Hence my comment "that's what I thought".
I was simply restating my interpretation of your initial post. So I guess you are capitulating to unconstitutional issues et alia etc. That's your right.
OK so now your comment I quoted above reads: I'm spooled up, ramped up & wrapped around the axle. I can understand that. Slow your roll.
I don't need to put my money where my mouth is YET. I think your premature in your assessment of things. I think many people have contingency plans. Many contingency plans. I don't think we're there yet. Where your at, judging by your comments & inferences there are many variables that can happen.
I'm not going to be drawn into Reptilian chest thumping, Sabre rattling like this w/ you. A few others have been on that azimuth in the past & I'm done with that crap. I will vote with how I chose when it's my time. Your free to think how you please as always. As I'm afforded the same right & respect.
I don't think your a coward at all. I think your upset & rightfully so. It's a frustrating period of our history & unprecedented. It should have never gotten this far. I completely get where your coming from & what your saying 100%. I think there are more people laying low that what your aware of. If you actually knew me & you don't, you would have a different perspective of me & whom I am.
I'll offer this up for you to consider or research, look at Argentina in 2001. What was done there is EXACTLY what is being attempted in the US by this administration. If he gets another term I would consider it a done deal by then. That is not the case yet. Hence my comment that I think your premature.
If what I have to say by exercising my 1st amendment offends you or bothers you so much or in a manner that you cannot be civil then I emplore & entreat you to add me to your ignore list. My frail ego will survive the drama & trauma I assure you ;-/.
Namaste
ETA: I'll repost this link I put up yesterday post # 49:
Ice-T Defends Gun Rights: "The Last Form Of Defense Against Tyranny"
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/07/23/ice-t_defends_gun_rights_the_last_form_of_defense_against_tyranny.html
QuietShootr
07-24-12, 10:28
So much wrong with this; where to begin? First off, you are not your stuff. Your life/your soul is not equivalent to possessions you have like your home or vehicles. That stuff isn't worth a fraction of what liberty and justice is worth. And without a deterrent, ie. weapons, how long do you think the authoritarian collectivists would even let you keep your things? Your things should be evenly distributed among everyone after all!
Many wealthy businessmen gave everything they had to the continental army, becoming poor. The signers of the DoI pledged their lives, fortunes, and sacred honor to one another and to the cause of liberty. More than a few of them died as a result. If they had lost the revolution, they would have been slandered and labeled traitors. They put everything on the line.
There is nothing dishonorable about defending yourself. If they send goon squads around to citizens homes with the intent of breaking in and confiscating property, outside of law and in total violation of your natural inherent rights, you'd be well justified to let 'em have it. With great power comes great responsibility, and if officers do not think, but act like dogs and follow any command they're given no matter how heinous, they've set themselves up for a gruesome death sooner or later. They bring it upon themselves, because they should know better.
Slavery is no way to live. And make no mistake, a slave is a person who has no inherent rights, is not allowed to provide for himself, and is ordered around at gun point. A free man has natural inherent rights, works hard and provides for himself, and keeps arms so that he may not be bossed around by others with arms. Why live as a slave? Keep your arms, and live free, or die trying. And if you die trying, who cares? The alternative was slavery!! I'd rather not exist at all thank you very much.
If you and your families' freedom isn't worth losing everything over, you're living in the wrong country. Nothing else matters, because everything else is predicated upon your freedom. And your freedom is predicated upon your self defense.
Please reconsider what you might do if push comes to shove. We all need to have a clear picture in our minds of our line in the sand, and what we will refuse to tolerate. Please give it some more thought.
"Timid men prefer the calm of Despotism to the tempestuous seas of Liberty" - Thomas Jefferson
Yup. Though the fellow you're answering is probably representative of most American gun owners.
Nota bene: I love my life, my stuff, and all that. But I will be damned if I will be held hostage to my stuff, my family, my retirement, whatever.
"If you don't stop doing X, we will take from you, kill, or destroy Y, which you care about a lot."
"**** you." is the only proper response to such a threat. A person who WILL NOT be coerced or blackmailed CANNOT be coerced or blackmailed.
I understand most people don't have the sand for that if you replace X with "having guns" and Y with "your career, wife, kids, house, pension, etc". That's fine. As Harry Callahan once said, "A man's got to know his limitations." It's not shameful, it just is what it is.
Philosophy classes are not totally useless, it turns out.
Redmanfms: I too read your post to say you would lay down your weapons/freedom, for comfort. I keep hoping I read it wrong, but so far I have not been convinced otherwise.
I'm DAMN GLAD that your/mine forefathers didn't turn in their weapons, but instead, stood up to, and fought hard, many losing their lives, so that you, and everyone else, could stand in line and turn themselves/their guns, into a slave, for a Govt. It's a damn good thing they stepped out of their comfort zone, so WE ALL could have the freedom's, we all have today, that a lot of people are wanting to throw away, our For Fathers Work, that a lot of them DIED for, for US, in the future.
Also, by NOT choosing, one has still made a choice.
Redmanfms: I too read your post to say you would lay down your weapons/freedom, for comfort. I keep hoping I read it wrong, but so far I have not been convinced otherwise.
I'm DAMN GLAD that your/mine forefathers didn't turn in their weapons, but instead, stood up to, and fought hard, many losing their lives, so that you, and everyone else, could stand in line and turn themselves/their guns, into a slave, for a Govt. It's a damn good thing they stepped out of their comfort zone, so WE ALL could have the freedom's, we all have today, that a lot of people are wanting to throw away, our For Fathers Work, that a lot of them DIED for, for US, in the future.
Also, by NOT choosing, one has still made a choice.
There's a difference between 'comfort' and not doing something that would endanger your family or protecting your family. Protecting one's family is choosing. Where did he say he wasn't making a choice? THAT is what the forefathers gave us was the choice to make up our own minds what we are willing to sacrifice, not be coerced into something that would endanger our loved ones. All of the chest bumping and tough talk but until the shit hits the fan that's all it is...talk.
Some were saying the people in the CO theater were cowards for not taking out the shooter but now stories are coming out of boyfriends dying shielding their girlfriends from bullets.
Would you call them cowards or heroes?
"If you don't stop doing X, we will take from you, kill, or destroy Y, which you care about a lot."
"**** you." is the only proper response to such a threat. A person who WILL NOT be coerced or blackmailed CANNOT be coerced or blackmailed.
I understand most people don't have the sand for that if you replace X with "having guns" and Y with "your career, wife, kids, house, pension, etc".
Trouble is, as I mentioned previously, if we give up our weapons/rights, they'll still come for our careers, house, pension, family, etc. In fact I'd say that all but guarantees it. So it's possibly a catch 22.
Govt would no longer have to tread lightly over us, for fear of upsetting the balance of power. Once we are disarmed and helpless, they can and likely will stomp the living shit out of us. Wealth redistribution, sky high taxes, VAT, gps trackers for tax-by-mile, no privacy, cashless society, smart meters. Use your imagination.
There's a difference between 'comfort' and not doing something that would endanger your family or protecting your family. Protecting one's family is choosing. Where did he say he wasn't making a choice? THAT is what the forefathers gave us was the choice to make up our own minds what we are willing to sacrifice, not be coerced into something that would endanger our loved ones. All of the chest bumping and tough talk but until the shit hits the fan that's all it is...talk.
This, sorta.
I'm not going to "give in" as it were, but if firearms start being made incrementally illegal (i.e. we lost at the ballot box) and we are required to "turn 'em in" I simply do not believe that I (or most other people for that matter) will start voting from the rooftops. I believe this for precisely the reasons I gave in the criticism of that magazine article. Too many people have too much to lose. It's real easy to talk big on the interwebs, but the reality is not quite that black and white.
The comparisons to the Revolution are ****ing ridiculous. While we considered ourselves "British" we in fact were not any longer. Scottish Enlightenment ideas that never received much traction in Britain became broadly accepted here in the colonies. We weren't fighting Joe down the street who works for the Tea Enforcement Agency, we were expelling foreign interlopers who had overstayed their welcome. Risking life, wealth, and family to get rid of increasingly oppressive occupiers is a lot easier than declaring war on your neighbor.
And Hop, you responded to my second post dealing with how to win arguments in the political realm by saying that I was being a defeatist. I'm not a defeatist. I haven't given up, but declaring war on the government should we lose just isn't realistic. Simply being the loner who fights the baddies when they come on a collection run isn't going to work. And frankly, I don't think you chest thumpers have truly given armed resistance much thought beyond, "I'm going to kill 'em when they come for mine!!" For a revolution to be successful armies need to be formed and equipped, political and military leadership needs to be established, a successful propaganda campaign needs to be waged. The Founders did this before the Revolution began.
The prospect of being the "lone gunman" who maybe knocks down a few JBTs before losing everything (including life) knowing that my sacrifice made no difference because I'll simply be labelled a domestic terrorist, and as an added bonus my family will likely be made to suffer at the hands of both the news media and government, just isn't very appealing to me. There simply will not be enough lone gunmen to have an impact. EBR owners are already a minority of firearms owners, and I suspect the number of those who have sufficient equipment, ammunition, and training to actually do anything are an even smaller minority of that number.
ETA: And this marks my last post in this thread.
VooDoo6Actual
07-24-12, 20:38
This, sorta.
And Hop, you responded to my second post dealing with how to win arguments in the political realm by saying that I was being a defeatist. I'm not a defeatist. I haven't given up, but declaring war on the government should we lose just isn't realistic. Simply being the loner who fights the baddies when they come on a collection run isn't going to work. And frankly, I don't think you chest thumpers have truly given armed resistance much thought beyond, "I'm going to kill 'em when they come for mine!!" For a revolution to be successful armies need to be formed and equipped, political and military leadership needs to be established, a successful propaganda campaign needs to be waged. The Founders did this before the Revolution began.
The prospect of being the "lone gunman" who maybe knocks down a few JBTs before losing everything (including life) knowing that my sacrifice made no difference because I'll simply be labelled a domestic terrorist, and as an added bonus my family will likely be made to suffer at the hands of both the news media and government, just isn't very appealing to me. There simply will not be enough lone gunmen to have an impact. EBR owners are already a minority of firearms owners, and I suspect the number of those who have sufficient equipment, ammunition, and training to actually do anything are an even smaller minority of that number.
ETA: And this marks my last post in this thread.
Funny, you ask me to read slowly what you wrote now your misquoting me, go figure. Suppose it won't matter because your done responding to this thread. What I wrote was that you had "defeatist attitude" not sure how that equates to you being a defeatist, but oh well.
I also was not aware of me or anyone "declaring war on the government" as you wrote. From many of my Government friends & associates they are not happy either with many decisions. I don't believe most people here are saying that either. I think they are not happy with the administration's choices/decisions etc. We the people have an opportunity to change that still. Not sure why your assuming or misquoting but I understand your upset, frustrated & irritated & I get that Bacarat crystal clear.
As I said previously I don't think we're there yet. Too many variables in play still. Concerned sure, DEFCON 1 not even close...
Stay frosty
I for one will continue to be a law abiding citizen but if and when the day comes when it is truly the time to bear arms against a corrupt institution marred with tyranny I will refuse to stand by. We will all know when that time comes and I believe the will of the few will out weigh the passive of the mass.
I don't believe anyone here is an anarchist. Government is necessary. We want to be in submission to government, so long as that government is of enumerated powers, follows the will of the citizenry through our elected representatives, and protects our natural inherent rights. The trend over the past 20 years has been to disregard those requisites, and it seems to be accelerating at light speed these past 4 years. So we will all try hard to fix it peacefully, working through the process. And the only way violence will erupt is if they initiate it.
Another tactic I've learned when discussing gun control is to just stay calm and wait. 9 times out of 10, they will end up yelling. game set and match from there. Why are you being irrational? I thought we were having an adult discussion? Etc.
This, sorta.
...The prospect of being the "lone gunman" who maybe knocks down a few JBTs before losing everything (including life) knowing that my sacrifice made no difference because I'll simply be labelled a domestic terrorist, and as an added bonus my family will likely be made to suffer at the hands of both the news media and government...
This is probably one of the most true statements made in this thread.
I'm not taking sides necessarily, but this is reality. All the "cold dead hands" chest thumpers need to understand the reality that the moment they make that decision to use their 2nd Amendment weapons for the 2nd Amendment purpose, they are dead. I think most gun owners will realize that before they start slinging lead, and I agree that means that 99% of them will turn their stuff in rather than trying to start a bunch of little one-man-wars against their own government.
Now if the blue helmets were marching into town, it might be a different story... which is why I don't forsee that happening, unless there was some other GIANT catastrophy that they were responding to - nuclear war, EMP burst or something like that. In a case like that, most Americans would probably welcome the blue helmets with open arms anyway.
If I was the current CIC, and I was reading this post, I would think to myself, "Damn, this is going to be easier than I or my puppet masters ever dreamed of. We've gottem right were we need them, and didn't realize we were this far ahead of our goal".
Enjoy your liberty while you have it, cause with these attitudes, your going to lose it for sure, and I personally feel it's not that far off. There is strength in numbers, which ever side you want your number to be on, is your choice.
VooDoo6Actual
07-29-12, 13:21
If I was the current CIC, and I was reading this post, I would think to myself, "Damn, this is going to be easier than I or my puppet masters ever dreamed of. We've gottem right were we need them, and didn't realize we were this far ahead of our goal".
Enjoy your liberty while you have it, cause with these attitudes, your going to lose it for sure, and I personally feel it's not that far off. There is strength in numbers, which ever side you want your number to be on, is your choice.
This.
If unlawful confiscation looks likely someday, (you keep hearing stories about it locally, from trusted sources), it might make sense to have a call list. So if thugs show up at one mans' home, within ten minutes, 5-10 others show up to help.
Minutemen.
We had 'em then, we might need 'em now
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.