1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

What is really going on here?

Discussion in 'General Gun Discussions' started by Hurricane, Jan 9, 2013.

  1. Hurricane

    Hurricane Well-Known Member

    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?
  2. 3twelves

    3twelves member

  3. climbnjump

    climbnjump Well-Known Member

    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.
  4. MedWheeler

    MedWheeler Well-Known Member

    ^^ 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.
  5. Nico Testosteros

    Nico Testosteros Well-Known Member

    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.
  6. mikechandler

    mikechandler Well-Known Member

    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.
  7. kwguy

    kwguy Well-Known Member

    ^^^ Exactly.
  8. NavyLCDR

    NavyLCDR member

    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.
  9. climbnjump

    climbnjump Well-Known Member

    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:

  10. bigmouth

    bigmouth Well-Known Member

    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.
  11. xXxplosive

    xXxplosive Well-Known Member

    Hmmmm.......my neighbor some years ago murdered his wife with a stanley hammer....seriously.
  12. gunsandreligion

    gunsandreligion Well-Known Member

    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.
  13. snake_plisskin

    snake_plisskin Well-Known Member

    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.
  14. ZZZ

    ZZZ Well-Known Member

    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.
  15. Manco

    Manco Well-Known Member

    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.

    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:

    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).
  16. HorseSoldier

    HorseSoldier Well-Known Member

    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.
  17. anchorman

    anchorman Well-Known Member

    ^^^^ 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.
  18. ZZZ

    ZZZ Well-Known Member

    I don't think most anti-gun people are trying to destroy the country, but they sure make good pawns for those who are.
  19. HOWARD J

    HOWARD J Well-Known Member

    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
    Last edited: Jan 13, 2013
  20. Manco

    Manco Well-Known Member

    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.

    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.

    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.

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

    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.

    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.

    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.
    Last edited: Jan 13, 2013

Share This Page