"Madness! Madness....madness."


PDA






Kleanbore
January 12, 2013, 08:43 AM
Well, the usual suspects are talking about "gun control" again. This time they're tying the "need" to a tragedy that occurred last month in Connecticut. But it turns out that Feinstein started working on her bill a year ago. What gives?

I've known since I was nine years old about the history of gun registration leading to confiscation in totalitarian countries. Matter of fact, all of the countries that severely restrict gun ownership are at least largely totalitarian, except two. More on that later.

We hear that the target of an "assault rifle" ban is guns that were designed for soldiers to use in battle. But that's bunk. The target is most of the rifles, and for that matter, most of the handguns and many of the shotguns, that are widely used by law abiding people today.

We hear, but we are not convinced, that the second amendment rights of hunters will be protected. But the right to own guns has absolutely nothing to do with hunting, any more than it did when the British confiscated the muskets of the colonists in Boston. And that's what led to the second amendment in the first place.

No, the main purpose of having an individual right to bear arms is self preservation--the natural right of self preservation. The concept goes back through English law and the Napoleonic Code and through Roman law and Judaic law and through the Code of Hammurabi, and we know that it stems at least from the Code of Ur-Nammu. Few dispute the right. It's just that some would deny citizens the means of self defense.

That has happened in England. We hear people quote the lower gun crime rate there, but they conveniently overlook the much higher overall rate of violent crime. There is now a move afoot to outlaw sharp instruments across the pond. But why discuss England, and not Mexico or Brazil, to name two examples? Are we otherwise just like England? I contend that the only thing that Chicago has in common with Stratford-on-Avon is that a river runs through it.

Should one somehow expect the police to protect one, as Mr. Biden suggests? Well, there is a reason why the courts have ruled that police departments cannot be held responsible for protecting individual citizens: they cannot do so. Consider the following scenario: you are getting into or out of your car outside your favorite organic foods store, and two armed, violent criminal actors decide that you are their game; two is the most likely number. It would take the same amount of time to pull out your cell phone and press speed dial or to draw and, should it still prove absolutely necessary, fire a concealed weapon. Which do you think would save your hide?

The subject of magazine capacity has been raised by people who know nothing about reality. Every competent training organization in the country recommends firearms that the Administration wants to forbid. I started out with a five shot revolver; but surviving an attack by two assailants with one of those is by no means assured. Bullets don't stop people like lightning, and if the assailants aren't moving very fast, you probably have no business shooting.

Yet the asinine arguments continue in support of a plan which cannot work and which will have unintended consequences with more harm than good. I am reminded of the closing line in David Lean's Bridge on the Rive Kwai, as the Army doctor watches Col Nicholson try to save the Japanese bridge: "Madness! Madness....madness."

If you enjoyed reading about ""Madness! Madness....madness."" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Double Vision
January 12, 2013, 08:51 AM
Very well written.

vito
January 12, 2013, 08:57 AM
Anything posted here is just preaching to the choir. Unfortunately guns are an emotional subject, so the anti-gunners are not swayed by facts or logic and certainly do not read postings on THR or other pro-gun, pro-2nd Amendment sites. And as many others have pointed out, gun control is more about control than it is about guns. The Mayor Bloombergs of this country do not worry about their personal security so they want to deny such to us.

jmace57
January 12, 2013, 08:59 AM
Very nicely said. Just wanted to point out one minor error - I think you said "companies" where you meant to say "countries" iin your second sentence. (I do this all the time)

Grassman
January 12, 2013, 09:04 AM
As repeated ad nauseum here, it's not about the children or saving lives, it's about control.

ZeSpectre
January 12, 2013, 09:48 AM
Well, the usual suspects are talking about "gun control" again. This time they're tying the "need" to a tragedy that occurred last month in Connecticut. But it turns out that Feinstein started working on her bill a year ago. What gives?

Feinstein NEVER stopped "working on her bill".

"Mr. and Mrs. America Turn 'em all in (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JoWE8v9QTOY)"

Manco
January 12, 2013, 12:29 PM
Well, they want us disarmed (eventually--baby steps), and data and reason are not on their side, so what do you expect? They're not actually stupid or crazy (at least in the clinical sense)--they know exactly what we're saying and would certainly agree from that point of view (which is why many of them are armed and/or have armed guards), but the key is that they want us disarmed, one way or another, by hook or by crook. Why? History provides an obvious answer, and it has happened many times before.

barnbwt
January 12, 2013, 12:51 PM
But it turns out that Feinstein started working on her bill a year ago

I may be mistaken, but hasn't she been pushing this stuff (along with Biden) for decades?

TCB

fdashes
January 12, 2013, 12:56 PM
Lets just face it and tell it the way it is....the entire "Biden" committee is a sham.

Trent
January 12, 2013, 01:16 PM
Good presentation Kleanbore.

I just got in an argument today with a lady and a man on Facebook who lives about 20 miles from here. Both are active members of the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence. It wasn't really much of a debate, since they weren't interested in debating, just spewing forth venom and hate...

It started when I responded to a post of a graphic that is being distributed by the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, stating:


HEY YOU.

WITH THE GUNS.

Your paranoid fantasies about fighting a rebellion against a theoretical future fascist government takeover do not trump my rights to demand appropriate and reasonable public health policies to stop gun violence.

Sincerely,

The rest of the American people.


To which I responded...


Until you change the Constitution of the United States, and overrule a series of Supreme Court decisions (US Vs. Heller, US vs. Miller, etc).. why yes, yes my beliefs DO trump your rights.

Or rather, more appropriately, your beliefs do not trump MY rights.


And so it began.

I really made them angry.

I posted videos of me shooting machineguns, I posted excerpts from Supreme Court cases, I defeated their argument that "guns kill 30,000 American people every year" (their data was sourced from a UK news rag and patently false, defeated with FBI stats.)

I quoted local news stories where multiple armed assailants have executed home invasions, entire families butchered with hatchets, and so on.

Asked her point blank "so you're saying my 110lb wife doesn't have a right to defend herself with the most effective modern tools against a physically superior aggressor? She would take serious offense to that."

Hell, I even invited them out to shoot some big nasty evil guns so they could let off a little of their pent up steam.

We went on and on and on...

And it's still going on. :)

I've found that when dealing with people who are hell-bent on taking our guns away, the best thing *I* can do is flaunt my freedoms in their faces. It makes them so angry to be faced with die-hard opposition.

An angry opponent is a weak opponent.

elkdomBC
January 12, 2013, 01:20 PM
after about 15 years of "Mandatory LONG GUN REGISTRATION" and $everal BILLION Dollar$ WASTED , the present Canadian Government SCRAPPED the "Long Gun Registration program in 2012,

several long term Government surveys showed that NON-COMPLIANCE by LAW abiding Gun owners led to tremendous wastes of Money, Time and Resources for Law Enforcement !

CRIMINAL USE of firearms did NOT show any reduction in numbers of incidents and actually created an increase in smuggling and gun thefts,

now a year later with more "lax gun Laws" there has been NO increase in gun related crime, but rather the opposite buy Statistics ! hmmmmmmm ?

Manco
January 12, 2013, 01:28 PM
I may be mistaken, but hasn't she been pushing this stuff (along with Biden) for decades?

Yes, and now it includes some bits that didn't even fly in California. :eek: I guess the rule is to always ask for more than you could ever get, so that you'll get the most out of it that you can. The other rule, of course, is to get as many minor concessions as possible, because over time that weakens your opponent. That is why I've said from the start that we should not budge a single inch, not one iota--especially since we're not at fault for the actions of demented murderers. Effectively placing blame where it doesn't belong is real power, and we can't let them have that without a fight.

Trent
January 12, 2013, 01:38 PM
"Throw 40% of America under the bus over the actions of one man"

These people are insane.

I mean, frothing-at-the-mouth-straightjacket insane.

xXxplosive
January 12, 2013, 01:40 PM
I'm now referring to her (Feinstein) from here on as.....Schicklgruber II.

Trent
January 12, 2013, 01:42 PM
Wasn't that Adolph Hitler's father's name? He was a bastard child and took his mother's name, right?

HEIL SHICKELGRUBER!

Doesn't have the same ring to it.

barnbwt
January 12, 2013, 03:21 PM
An angry opponent is a weak opponent.

"C'mon, stop contradicting me. I mean, I feel like what I believe is right--but then you go and throw it back in my face with facts and logic...Meanie!"
Honestly, I feel bad for the person on Facetube; they obviously were just "spouting" and had no intention to get into a real discussion; and here you are, forcing them to defend their nonsense. They certaintly didn't post that with the expectation of being proved wrong (the most horrible of fates to the hopelessly irrational). How insensitive. ;)

TCB

Trent
January 12, 2013, 06:30 PM
Oh barnbwt.. I annihilated them. I humiliated them. I infuriated them.

I laid the serious smack-down of righteous logic upon them.

I used to get all emotionally tense and a bit nervous when debating anti-gunners.

Now I'm going up against their organizers and just LOVE setting them up for the fall. I wait for each rebuttal they present with anticipation, almost salivating for the opportunity to destroy their arguments one piece of logic at a time.

Inevitably they all give up and go crawl back to whatever hole they came from while others (sensing the kill) are emboldened, and start jumping in at random to further pound them in to the ground.

I set up one guy brilliantly today.
Me:

"Believe me sir, you'd need to kill me before I'd change my views"

Them:

"Oh, spare me the 'from my cold dead hands' rhetoric. Your so called right to keep and bear arms is based in 200 year old fairy tales, and we're working to get DC vs. Miller overturned just to shut people like you up permanently. Go back to whatever tavern you crawled out of and let the rest of us have a reasonable conversation."

To which I respond;

"I'm a very knowledgeable and experienced expert on firearms and the history of firearms. I've spent a substantial portion of my available time over the last two decades learning and understanding the intricacies of firearms, and the role they play in society. Having passed all of the Federal background checks, I'm a Federally licensed collector of Curios and Relics of War, with a particular affection towards implements of war, with the primary point of my research notably on infantry small arms, specifically machineguns.

But it does goes a long way to demonstrate what a pompous ass you are, firing away blindly with emotional arguments which lack reason or logic, as when I say "you'd have to kill me to change my mind", you interpret it as "He's a chest-thumping misanthropic redneck blowhard sociopath, mindlessly chanting tired old slogans put forth by the NRA and other conservative organizations."

On the contrary, I've spent the last 20 years becoming educated about this very issue independently of external political party theology or influence, and have reached the conclusion through meticulous and diligent study that restrictions on small arms does not, nor will ever, solve the underlying problems with society. My position is an enlightened one, which I have gone through GREAT lengths to disprove, but failing to do so on any avenue of attack, it has now become a belief integrated with my central life viewpoint.

So yes, indeed, to change my mind, you would in fact need to kill me, because nothing short of that COULD ever change my mind in the face of such overwhelming evidence that guns in the hands of civilians invariably does more good, than harm.

If they didn't, you'd be speaking German right now.

Have a good day, sir."

barnbwt
January 13, 2013, 04:38 PM
I used to get all emotionally tense and a bit nervous when debating anti-gunners.


This. I think most gunowners (myself included :o) are hesitant to engage folks with strong (especially irrational) antipathy towards firearms. Emotional "arguments" are very stubborn things, and difficult to counter head on. But, I am coming to find they are like linebackers; very resistant, but easily side-stepped if you are nimble enough. These irrational positions have no real substance behind them, so forcing a person to use them to defend their position from multiple unfamiliar angles quickly reveals their flaws--hopefully to the person you are debating, or anyone else listening. But, like linebackers, it's a bit unnerving to line up against someone so firm in their convictions. But if you have a plan or the instincts to get around them, it's an open field :cool:

Trent,
What was that Fascist's* response? One or two words, probably? :D

TCB

* "...just to shut people like you up permanently" seems to define this guy as one quite nicely. Labeling people doesn't help win arguments, I know, but it has helped me form tactics specific to the person I'm speaking with. Me, I'd try to get this guy ranting like Il Duce for all to see--he clearly wants to :evil:

gbran
January 13, 2013, 04:57 PM
Gun control has a long history of not working and it is always directed against law abiding citizens. I say it's high time for criminal control.

anchorman
January 13, 2013, 04:57 PM
@trent - if I tell you how angry your gun ownership makes me can I come and shoot machine guns with you too? Because I really really hate them... :D

Trent
January 13, 2013, 05:33 PM
This. I think most gunowners (myself included :o) are hesitant to engage folks with strong (especially irrational) antipathy towards firearms. Emotional "arguments" are very stubborn things, and difficult to counter head on.


It works over a negotiating table as well. And in counseling. I use similar tactics to disarm my teenage son's temper.

Anyway the more stubborn someone is on their convictions, the more unsettled they get when you challenge those convictions. But in debating, you have to be REAL careful. This guy I was arguing with was an educated fellow (professor at a local University). He's evidently pretty high up in the anti-gun organization. His stance was, essentially, all guns are evil and needed to be removed from private possession. My stance was equally firm.

Essentially, going in, I'm not going to give an inch.


Trent,
What was that Fascist's* response? One or two words, probably? :D


Actually, I never heard another word out of him after that exchange; he retired without further comment.

Another fellow on the pro-gun side chimed in, named Derek. He seems to be a bit of a chest thumper at first glance.

Smelling a weaker position, in comes Anti-Gun Lady #2, who works at a local newspaper.

The full exchange follows:

Derek: How bout this FACT Australia did a government buy back and their home invasion rates are up by 30% i will go to prison if i have to..to keep my rite to hunt and protect my family with whatever type of firearm i choose


Erin (Anti-Gun Lady #2):
Presumably, Derek, less guns available will also mean less guns in people's hands. Even those invading homes. I'd prefer if my criminals were not armed with assault rifles and rocket launchers. You really need to hunt deer with an Uzi? Also, it's "right", not "rite".

Me:
Rocket launchers? You must be talking about the recent LA gun buyback. You should research that a little. Those weren't rocket launchers.

(I'm setting her up here. I could have went on a diatribe pounding her in on how wrong she was. Instead I encourage her to look it up on her own. She did and decided they were rocket propelled grenade launchers, not rocket launchers. Which worked in my favor, as now she's been wrong not once, but TWICE, and after researching it more at that!)

Erin:
My apologies. They collected two rocket-propelled grenade launchers and 2,000 other weapons. Regardless, who needs a grenade launcher!?!

Me:
No, one was an expended LAWS launcher which can NOT be fired a second time; those are disposable, can not be reloaded. The military chucks hundreds of those in the trash every month in basic training. (As useless as spent fireworks)

The other was in fact a trainer - it is used by the military to avoid shooting $100+ thousand dollar live rockets during training. It has a 9mm bore and shoots 9mm projectiles out of the front of a dummy rocket.

In essence, it was a REALLY big 9mm single shot handgun.

Erin:
Fine. Whatever. I am looking at the Time article right now. Took a direct line from it. Who cares what exactly the guns (or not guns) were!!!! They were in the public's hands!! Now they are off the street. And my point is why would anyone need a gun of military power. Disposable launcher or not, REALLY big handgun or not. Why. Do. You. Need. It.


Now we're getting somewhere! WHY DO YOU NEED IT.


My response:

The AT-4 trainer (with a yellow band) was not ever a rocket launcher; could not be restored to fire a rocket. It has a single purpose - firing 9mm tracer projectiles so troops can learn how to operate the device without shooting off live munitions. The REAL rocket launchers are locked up tighter than a drum in hardened munitions magazines..

But let me ask you a return question, Erin; Why does anyone need anything?

[I]To address your question regarding need, I shouldn't NEED to explain why I own or choose to own certain items. I don't ask why you NEED an iPhone, or why the man above needs a V8 gas guzzling engine that can drive 200 miles per hour.

But, I'll honor your request on why we NEED small arms.

First; preservation of life.
Second; preservation of way of life.

A family not far from here was butchered in their home not that long ago by hand weapons. Maybe you'll recall the Beason incident? One or more men bust in to the house and killed the man and woman (rumored to be a hatchet). Violently murdered two of the children. Injured a small infant so gravely the infant had to be life-flighted and was in critical condition for a considerable amount of time.

If that happened here, rest assured my five children would be perfectly safe, and an incapacitated felon would be waiting for the police when they finally showed up a half hour later to write their reports. Even if I wasn't home, my wife could handle the task.

Another incident just a couple of months ago - *FIVE* armed intruders (ganbganbers from Peoria) bust in to a neighbors house out here in the country. They watched the house and waited for the husband to leave for work (he works 3rd shift). Then went in while the wife and children were in bed.

If that happened here, suffice to say the police wouldn't still be hunting for the perpetrators, those violent felons wouldn't still be out on the loose, repeating their robberies in the quiet countryside. (They got away).

You, and your fellow anti-gun cohorts, want high capacity feeding devices removed from circulation.

However, a single handgun with 10 shots is insufficient to take on 5 armed intruders. Just last week the news covered a woman defending herself who shot an intruder in the face and neck *5 times* with a revolver. The man left. 5 times hit in the head and neck and the guy didn't just "drop" like a sack of potatoes (the movies would make you believe bullets are instantly fatal, which is far from true.). What if that had been 3, or 4 intruders?

This HAPPENS. It's not some delusional fantasy. Every day people are murdered, robbed, raped.

Those are just a couple of local incidents to put it in to context that it is NOT a problem "somewhere else", it's a problem, quite literally, in my neck of the woods. High unemployment, social turmoil, it results in high crime. Average response time for a 9-1-1 call out here is over 25 minutes.

25 MINUTES.

That's an awful long time to wait.

Peace (and security) through superior firepower.

My wife, with a high capacity handgun or assault rifle in her hands, can look after herself. That gun makes my tiny, thin wife quite equal to and capable of dealing with a 240 pound body builder.

My daughter? She's an excellent pistol shot.

Now, if you want to argue that my daughter, and my wife, don't have a right to defend themselves with the best tool available for the job, then we have bigger issues than gun control. My families LIVES trump your WANT.

I suggest you look up the FBI statistics on forcible rape. You'd be surprised - shocked, even - how often middle aged, nice looking women like you find themselves at the mercy of a physically stronger male, their innocence forever stolen. Combine those with the rates of felony assault and murder.

Foregoing MY needs, my WIFE's needs - Now you've got a clear picture of why YOU need firearms. Those rapes, assaults, and murders all happen DESPITE the massive police force the local, county, state, and federal governments maintain.

It would be wise for you take those statistics to heart, and learn to protect yourself with something more than your cell phone.

In the meantime, quit treading on other people's rights for your fantasy of a "safer, better world."

Fishslayer
January 13, 2013, 06:41 PM
Well, the usual suspects are talking about "gun control" again. This time they're tying the "need" to a tragedy that occurred last month in Connecticut. But it turns out that Feinstein started working on her bill a year ago. What gives?


Difi, Leland Yee et al have been working hard to make California a GFSZ for years. They ALWAYS have something on line & ready to go when opportunity knocks.

This is just a case of not letting any tragedy go to waste and they are absolutely shameless about it.

In California AB962 would have banned mail order sales of handgun ammo. It was overturned in the courts but only because of wording. Several areas already have such a ban in place. You can be certain that they have been working on this and an attempt well be made by difi to take it nationwide.

If you enjoyed reading about ""Madness! Madness....madness."" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!