What is really going on here?


PDA






Hurricane
January 9, 2013, 11:15 PM
I was reading an article on msnbc regarding the proposed bans in New York State.

I quote:
"An FBI review of all 2011 homicides for which data was available found that 67.8 percent of them involved firearms 72.5 percent of which were handguns."

I don't know what the percent of "assault rifle" murders were, but with a staggering percent being handguns, why the call to arms for banning semi-auto military style rifles? Not that I want the focus to turn on banning handguns, but lets be honest. More people have been shot and killed since Sandy Hook than where killed at Sandy Hook. But is it because its mostly one victim at a time it doesn't count? It takes several every day to add up to 11,000 plus a year.

I don't get the logic behind an assault weapons ban especially considering that Connecticut is one of seven states that currently restrict purchase and possession of "assault weapons". Why is that never mentioned?

If you enjoyed reading about "What is really going on here?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
3twelves
January 9, 2013, 11:21 PM
http://www.therightplanet.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/more_people_killed_with_hammers_than_rifles.jpg

climbnjump
January 10, 2013, 12:00 AM
I don't get the logic behind an assault weapons ban...

Ok, lemme help. "Logic" in this case does not apply to Webster's definition of logic. The ultimate goal of these folks is to remove ALL firearms from private ownership. Yes, this is a tall order (that pesky 2nd amendment thing and all) and they know they can't do it all at once. It is a "one brick at a time" approach.

They are fully aware that banning "assault rifles" will have no impact on crime and will do nothing to prevent future maniacs from repeating Aurora or Newtown. That is, in fact, a feature, not a flaw in their plan.

IF they succeed in reinstating a ban or other regs, they will just call for more "sensible measures" after the next maniac strikes.

MedWheeler
January 10, 2013, 11:56 AM
^^ Absolutely. I still cannot understand why there are so many of us who believe the gun-control movement, on a political level, is about public safety. It's not; it's about the safety of the government from the governed.

Nico Testosteros
January 10, 2013, 01:05 PM
The Government, if you are referring to the Federal, rather than state, county, or municipal, levels, has stealth bombers, nuclear weapons, submarines, cruise missiles, bunker busters, howitzers, etc.
Your AR with either 30 or -0 round magswon't do much against that type of firepower.

mikechandler
January 10, 2013, 01:22 PM
The Government, if you are referring to the Federal, rather than state, county, or municipal, levels, has stealth bombers, nuclear weapons, submarines, cruise missiles, bunker busters, howitzers, etc.
Your AR with either 30 or -0 round magswon't do much against that type of firepower.

They can't use that type of firepower on individuals, or even against a state that secedes - the entire nation would be, as the saying goes, "up in arms" over it. Furthermore, flight/firing crews would disobey the orders as they are unconstitutional.

However, if they disarm everybody, when they then eliminate your personal freedoms, including religion and freedom of speech (their actual goals, whereas gun control for them is a means to this end), there could be no armed-resistance whatsoever.

Gun ownership is about securing our liberty and properity as individuals and collectively; it's the teeth of "We the People", from whom the government recieves its right to govern.

Their agenda is in direct opposition to our agenda, and it's been that way since the dawn of mankind.

kwguy
January 10, 2013, 01:34 PM
^^^ Exactly.

NavyLCDR
January 10, 2013, 01:43 PM
And, in addition, I'll bet a paycheck that the percentage of murders committed by firing more than 10 rounds is tiny as well.

Twice as many people have been killed in recent years via criminal acts committed with vehicles. Why is there no talk of vehicle control like there is gun control?

The anti-gun crowd does not use logic and legitimate reasoning to ban guns - they use emotion.

climbnjump
January 10, 2013, 01:50 PM
The Government, if you are referring to the Federal, rather than state, county, or municipal, levels, has stealth bombers, nuclear weapons, submarines, cruise missiles, bunker busters, howitzers, etc.

Your AR with either 30 or -0 round mags won't do much against that type of firepower.

The above is known as a "false choice" or "red herring" argument, e.g. while it is technically correct, it is also arguing the wrong point.

The full article from which the below quote was taken can be found here:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/01/guns_are_designed_to_kill.html

Next, gun controllers argue that no civilian militia could hope to stand up to a modern military. With no apparent irony, they make this argument right after arguing there is no justification for civilians owning semiautomatic weapons such as an AR-15 or any weapon with a magazine capable of holding more than ten rounds.

Irony aside, we need not expect a civilian militia to stand up to a modern military in a pitched battle. As we know from Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as from Vietnam, not all resistance is in pitched battles. Take, for example, the Warsaw Ghetto. With few arms, the Jewish resistance greatly complicated the task of the Nazis. Of course, the episode ended badly for the Jews, but how likely is it that the American military or even police departments would be complicit in an extermination program? And shouldn't we be sorry that the Warsaw Jews had only as many weapons as they did? If only they had had many more.

bigmouth
January 12, 2013, 11:37 PM
Hurricane, good point. I was born in the States but haven't lived there for 41 yrs.. I can't understand why the people seem to be going crazy? maybe the countries that ban U.S. foods because of steroids etc. are right. Every country I have lived in(quite a few), the citizens have guns whether they are legal or not. Most are for protection and the police leave them alone. I don't kid myself into believing the police don't know I have a gun! They know I will only use it for self protection. Something seems to be wrong with the mental state of people up there. maybe you need to have the water & food checked. It's easier to ban guns than food & water! Something is deff. wrong up there, and it isn't the gun's fault but who is holding it. This is a case of treating the symptoms rather than the cause.

xXxplosive
January 12, 2013, 11:43 PM
Hmmmm.......my neighbor some years ago murdered his wife with a stanley hammer....seriously.

gunsandreligion
January 13, 2013, 01:01 AM
If the government were to use their nukes and such in case of a rebellion, there would be nothing left to govern. But as to the real motives, there are many more than disarming a populace, or "for the children. What matters to them is they have the same goal of disarment.

snake_plisskin
January 13, 2013, 01:13 AM
The Government, if you are referring to the Federal, rather than state, county, or municipal, levels, has stealth bombers, nuclear weapons, submarines, cruise missiles, bunker busters, howitzers, etc. Your AR with either 30 or -0 round magswon't do much against that type of firepower.

I dont understand this argument. The iraqi insurgents and the taliban don't have stealth bombers or nukes, and we sure didnt roll over them. I wouldn't discount people that are only armed with rifles.

ZZZ
January 13, 2013, 01:13 AM
Make gun owners criminals, and it's easy to make them disappear when you don't like what they are saying. It's all about control and power, nothing else.

Manco
January 13, 2013, 01:36 AM
I don't know what the percent of "assault rifle" murders were, but with a staggering percent being handguns, why the call to arms for banning semi-auto military style rifles?

Because they believe that they can. The Supreme Court recently ruled in favor of allowing people to have handguns (Heller), so it would be pointless to address that class of firearm, and they will completely ignore any attempt on our part to bring up the comparison.

Not that I want the focus to turn on banning handguns, but lets be honest. More people have been shot and killed since Sandy Hook than where killed at Sandy Hook. But is it because its mostly one victim at a time it doesn't count? It takes several every day to add up to 11,000 plus a year.

I don't know, ask the American people why they suddenly care so much, if in fact that is true and not just a media fabrication. Is it because most of the victims are children? It couldn't be just that because children get killed all the time, multiple thousands each year, by accident and on purpose, and the public and government hardly ever take notice or do anything about it (living is dangerous--that's a basic fact). It's not any single factor, but the magical combination of lunatic + children + guns that somehow made so many people get all irrational in their grief. :rolleyes: For some inexplicable reason, suddenly these lives are worth more than anybody else's, including those of other children, and sure enough the rats in our government are milking the tragedy for all it's worth. :fire:

I don't get the logic behind an assault weapons ban especially considering that Connecticut is one of seven states that currently restrict purchase and possession of "assault weapons". Why is that never mentioned?

There is no logic in any of this, and that's just how our enemies like it. They want to disarm us, and they'll take whatever they can get whenever they can get it. So-called "assault rifles" are easier to demonize and more vulnerable to banning, so that's what they're going for. Public safety has nothing to do with this, so any arguments involving actual public safety will fall on deaf ears. Really, anything we say to them will fall on deaf ears, unless we tell them that we give up. If we argue using logic, it's for the public and our supporters in the government to hear, not the commies (and useful idiots thereof) trying to take our guns (and eventually our freedom).

HorseSoldier
January 13, 2013, 01:49 AM
Honestly, I don't buy that the anti-2A movement is a part of a broader conspiracy to destroy the entire Bill of Rights or US Constitution.

My personal belief is that the anti-2A movement is well intentioned -- they really do want to reduce crime and prevent tragedies like Columbine, Newtown, etc etc etc.

They are, however, almost universally not gun people and hoplophobic -- guns are scary to them and/or unseemly for civilized men and women. These are the people who don't believe in having a gun in their residence because they think it makes them more likely to be killed by a home invasion robber or rapist or whatever because having a gun might escalate a violent felony into . . . er, a more violent felony? I also think that because these people mostly did not grow up around guns, they really can't wrap their head around the idea that there are already hundreds of millions of guns out there in the US right now and even if you banned all new production and spent trillions to hermetically seal the border of the US (even assuming that worked at all), there would still be firearms used in the commission of crimes a century or two from the date that law went into effect.

None of which makes them persons we should not oppose. But -- if you don't understand your enemy, their motives, and their weaknesses, your chance of winning the fight drops a lot. Rather than assuming the other side is a monolithic entity bent on destroying all rights and freedoms in this country, we should be accurately assessing them and engaging on issues where we can fracture off parts of the anti-2A movement.

Ironically, it looks to me like we are gaining ground in some ways even while Obama & Company are ranting about sweeping prohibitions and bans. There have been recent threads about how recent polls have shown that gun ownership is up among people who identify as Democratic voters. Also while Biden's committee dithers and makes threatening pronouncements, the idea of school employees carrying concealed firearms on the job seems to be going viral. We need to be pushing back, but need to do so pushing the right buttons.

anchorman
January 13, 2013, 02:35 AM
^^^^ this.

I don't get you guys who think that all or most anti-gun people are trying to destroy the country. Seriously, folks, get a grip! You need to turn of the talk radio and look around you, maybe talk with some of these people who disagree with us? I'm sure you will find hoplophobes come in all shapes and sizes, from all kinds of different backgrounds. some are religious, some are not. I haven't found a single one of them who doesn't love this country as much as we do. I haven't found a single one who wants to destroy the constitution and restrict our liberties as part of some conspiracy to enslave and destroy the american people.

ZZZ
January 13, 2013, 03:26 AM
I don't think most anti-gun people are trying to destroy the country, but they sure make good pawns for those who are.

HOWARD J
January 13, 2013, 03:37 AM
You do realize that Assault Rifles will be all semi-auto weapons including rifles like the Ruger 10/22---this ain't just the ar-15 type

Manco
January 13, 2013, 04:08 AM
Honestly, I don't buy that the anti-2A movement is a part of a broader conspiracy to destroy the entire Bill of Rights or US Constitution.

There are many things going on that collectively erode our ability to self-govern. Whether there is currently a well-orchestrated conspiracy or one will pop up later to take advantage makes no difference--the long-term efforts to disarm the population and increase the power and influence of government will, should they succeed, eventually set up the conditions for tyranny. All that will be needed then are the right kind of people with power in reach and the predictable effect that power has on them.

My personal belief is that the anti-2A movement is well intentioned -- they really do want to reduce crime and prevent tragedies like Columbine, Newtown, etc etc etc.

These are known as "useful idiots" to those who have destroyed freedom in the past. Some of the ones in power we're dealing with could not be as stupid as they're behaving with regard to arguments, however, so there must be a reason that they're so determined to disarm us besides well-intentioned idiocy.

They are, however, almost universally not gun people and hoplophobic -- guns are scary to them and/or unseemly for civilized men and women.

But the people in power some of us are talking about are not afraid of guns--they like guns just fine as long as they are in control of them and the people don't have them. Some of the others have been "civilized" into willing subjects of the government who have no sense of self-reliance. And there are still others who have their own reasons but unwittingly (in most cases) serve the purpose of driving this country toward socialism.

These are the people who don't believe in having a gun in their residence because they think it makes them more likely to be killed by a home invasion robber or rapist or whatever because having a gun might escalate a violent felony into . . . er, a more violent felony?

A population that cannot think for themselves is easily influenced by such propaganda, and is useful for growing the power of government.

None of which makes them persons we should not oppose. But -- if you don't understand your enemy, their motives, and their weaknesses, your chance of winning the fight drops a lot. Rather than assuming the other side is a monolithic entity bent on destroying all rights and freedoms in this country, we should be accurately assessing them and engaging on issues where we can fracture off parts of the anti-2A movement.

Many of the key politicians involved behave exactly as though their goal were full disarmament (eventually) by any means. They've heard all the arguments, some own guns themselves, and they won't listen. I for one wasn't talking about a "monolithic entity" that includes all antis, just the ones that have some direct power over making laws. Everybody else is part of the general public, and yes we should reach out to them in the hope that some of them are able to reason.

Ironically, it looks to me like we are gaining ground in some ways even while Obama & Company are ranting about sweeping prohibitions and bans. There have been recent threads about how recent polls have shown that gun ownership is up among people who identify as Democratic voters. Also while Biden's committee dithers and makes threatening pronouncements, the idea of school employees carrying concealed firearms on the job seems to be going viral. We need to be pushing back, but need to do so pushing the right buttons.

Agreed--the gun culture in this country is strong, and there are still millions upon millions of Americans who have not become useful idiots despite the impressive efforts of socialists, whether ill- or well-intentioned (mostly the latter in terms of sheer numbers, but the effect is the same). I just want people to realize, if they reach the same conclusion, that we're dealing with a very serious and determined enemy with broad goals that could definitely broaden if they succeed--one with which we cannot compromise our right to keep and bear arms.

I don't get you guys who think that all or most anti-gun people are trying to destroy the country. Seriously, folks, get a grip! You need to turn of the talk radio and look around you, maybe talk with some of these people who disagree with us? I'm sure you will find hoplophobes come in all shapes and sizes, from all kinds of different backgrounds. some are religious, some are not. I haven't found a single one of them who doesn't love this country as much as we do. I haven't found a single one who wants to destroy the constitution and restrict our liberties as part of some conspiracy to enslave and destroy the american people.

From studying history, those who would take away our freedom have always had the help of millions of willing and well-intentioned people, who eventually get stabbed in the back like everybody else. As the old saying goes: "The road to Hell is paved with good intentions."

And by the way, I don't listen to talk radio, but if there are folks in the media who are saying some of the same things, then I guess I'm not the only one who noticed, and I'm glad that the word is getting out. I base everything I've said here on history, which has a rather annoying propensity to repeat itself through human ignorance, whether plain or intentional.

BHP FAN
January 13, 2013, 05:08 AM
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/julia/gorin030802.asp

Hacker15E
January 13, 2013, 07:26 AM
The Government, if you are referring to the Federal, rather than state, county, or municipal, levels, has stealth bombers, nuclear weapons, submarines, cruise missiles, bunker busters, howitzers, etc.
Your AR with either 30 or -0 round magswon't do much against that type of firepower.

Because, after all, an uneducated, disorganized populous armed only with small arms couldn't possibly resist that kind of military.

Unless you are Iraq. Or Afghanistan. And fighting the United States military. For a decade.

Hacker15E
January 13, 2013, 07:28 AM
Honestly, I don't buy that the anti-2A movement is a part of a broader conspiracy to destroy the entire Bill of Rights or US Constitution.

My personal belief is that the anti-2A movement is well intentioned -- they really do want to reduce crime and prevent tragedies like Columbine, Newtown, etc etc etc.

They are, however, almost universally not gun people and hoplophobic -- guns are scary to them and/or unseemly for civilized men and women.

Great post!

dickz
January 13, 2013, 07:31 AM
BHP Fan - Great link and story. Everybody should read it.

MIL-DOT
January 13, 2013, 11:41 AM
(quote) "Honestly, I don't buy that the anti-2A movement is a part of a broader conspiracy to destroy the entire Bill of Rights or US Constitution..."

Well, then you're woefully unaware of what's really going on. While the average person on the street obviously isn't a part of any big conspiracy to weaken the Constitution and the country, many of the higher levels of influence and funding,most definitly are. And that's not my "loony conspiracy minded" opinion, this is based on many public statements and actions. People like Goerge Soros and groups like the council on foreign relations,just to name a couple, are actively working towards goals that very much involve diluting our constituion and the protections it (ideally) provides. Virtually all of the mainstream media is on board, and this comes from very,very high up the food chain, with much more at stake than a mere interest in "preventing violence".

xfyrfiter
January 13, 2013, 12:14 PM
DWI drivers kill more people than all guns combined yet we still have DRIVE UP LIQUOR SALES and BARS HAVE PARKING LOTS and we let dwi drivers back out on the street 10 and 15 dwi's later we might lock them up for a few years but they are still out in 3 to 5 years at the most and it is still called an accident rather tha murder or conspiracy to commit murder with a deadly weapon. Ok mods rant is over please feel free to delete , just trying to show the disparity between firearms and other methods of mass destruction .

RetiredUSNChief
January 13, 2013, 01:25 PM
I don't get the logic behind an assault weapons ban especially considering that Connecticut is one of seven states that currently restrict purchase and possession of "assault weapons". Why is that never mentioned?

Contrary to popular belief, there IS a lot of logic behind an "assault weapons ban". To understand the logic, you need to look at the ultimate goal of those pushing for it.

The ultimate goal is to effectively remove the right to own firearms by law abiding citizens. Since that cannot be done outright, it has to be done progressively. And the starting point always hinges around people's fears and ignorances, because fear and ignorance make it easier to maniuplate people. The bigger the fear and greater the ignorance, the easier it is.

"Assault weapons", as defined by the factions pushing for more gun control, are defined more by appearance than by actual function. Package a gun in a form which LOOKS deadly and menacing and you have something that can be easily feared. If it LOOKS deadly, then by definintion it MUST BE deadly.

Again, there is an inherent logic in this. This is because it is a major part of our primal instinct to interpret things around us by how they look. If something LOOKS threatening, then we naturally tend to react like it IS threatening.

With respect to the "assault weapons" being targeted by the gun control factions, a great deal of effort has been made in not only marketing weapons which are deliberately patterned on actual military assault weapons, but we have tons of very popular movies and entertainment out there which very much glorify the use of assault weapons violent actions, whether representatived of military combat or otherwise.

So what we have with these "assault weapons" being targeted by the gun control people are weapons which LOOK deadly and are constantly being PORTRAYED as deadly military assault weapons.


TRANSLATION: An easy target in which to affect increased gun control legislation.

From this starting point things move in steps, progressing from one thing to another by association.

High capacity magazines? Bad by association with military combat weapons.

Semi-automatic pistols? Bad by association with military combat weapons.

Ammunition above certain quantities? Bad by association.

Ammunition with certain features, like jacketing, hollow points, and teflon? Bad by association.

Private sales of firearms and ammunition? Bad by association with secrecy criminal activities.

Pistols? Easily hidden on one's person, therefore threatening and bad by association.

More than a certain number of firearms? That's an arsenal and therefore bad by association.

Don't want to tell people you have firearms or ammunition? (Anti-registration) You must have a hidden agenda, bad by association.


MAKE NO MISTAKE ABOUT IT: THERE VERY MUCH IS "LOGIC" BEHIND THE PRO-GUN CONTROL FACTIONS!

It's well grounded in inherent human behavior, behavior that harkens more to our animal instincts than our intellectual capabilities. Behavior of the masses, which is in many ways more predictable and easier to manipulate than behavior of individuals.

To ignore this, make light of it, or otherwise dismiss it is to underestimate the power and capabilities of these people.

MudPuppy
January 13, 2013, 09:27 PM
Bingo. It's just the next step.

bldsmith
January 14, 2013, 12:01 AM
IIRC the number used in the ar picture vs hammer was for ALL rifles not just AR's. So the number of homicides with AR's is much much lower.

HorseSoldier
January 14, 2013, 12:12 AM
Homicides with ARs, AKs, and any other scary black rifles tend to be pretty low, though given the body counts involved, a significant chunk of those killed with military-style rifles and carbines are associated with spree killers. Media sensationalism is such that those deaths are, in turn, massively over-represented in the news compared to other single victim homicides and other stories that don't sell as well.

mbt2001
January 14, 2013, 12:38 AM
I think it is worth mentioning that the Brady Bunch, what ever they call themselves now, are funded by the Joyce Foundation.... That is George Soros. They do not have membership really, they just have a few elites and a media mouthpiece that they use to indoctrinate the public.

If you enjoyed reading about "What is really going on here?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!