Stop accepting blame, stop apologizing, and stop feeling guilty

Status
Not open for further replies.
In response to Rocket Man’s (not the Korean) image of a utopian world,

here’s one just as ludicrous:

Every individual that is captured committing a violent crime is subject to treatment called Ludovico’s Technique, a form of brainwashing that incorporates associative learning. After being injected with a substance that makes you dreadfully sick, you are forced to watch exceedingly violent movies. In this way, you come to associate violence with the nausea and headaches you experiences from the shot. Thereafter, the mere thought of violence has the power to make you ill. Ego, no more repeated evil acts. The program would be expanded for those other's believe may be thinking of committing evil.
I'll have to reread this with Rossini's "La Gazza Ladra" playing in the background... :D

a-clockwork-orange-a-clockwork-orange-14752407-965-577-what-did-you-think.jpg
 
In response to Rocket Man’s (not the Korean) image of a utopian world,

here’s one just as ludicrous:

Every individual that is captured committing a violent crime is subject to treatment called Ludovico’s Technique, a form of brainwashing that incorporates associative learning. After being injected with a substance that makes you dreadfully sick, you are forced to watch exceedingly violent movies. In this way, you come to associate violence with the nausea and headaches you experiences from the shot. Thereafter, the mere thought of violence has the power to make you ill. Ego, no more repeated evil acts. The program would be expanded for those other's believe may be thinking of committing evil.

I'm pretty sure that only works in A Clockwork Orange. Good book, but I don't think it would work in reality.
 
^And that's what I mean. Gun owners are letting themselves be defined by a stubborn adherence to hard-line commitment to enabling easy mass murder with tools that are relatively disposable to society, not by hunting, sports or even the traditionally-associated tools of patriots and freedom fighters. Sure, a lot of veterans use modern weapons in combat and support gun rights- but a lot of us also don't really like Omaha Beach re-enacted on the Strip either, and we're a lot more liberal than our grandparents were.

The number of murders or the crime rate is ultimately not a part of this issue.

This issue is about human rights and the ability to live freely.

The ability to protect one's life is critical to that.

I'd much rather live in a free society with higher crime than a "safe" society where some central organization runs your life for you.
 
As that other notable person who thinks as Rocketmedic does, said recently, "So what? ... I certainly hope so."

(That was Nancy Pelosi when asked point blank whether this bill would be a slippery slope toward banning other guns.)
Good point Sam. He also doesn’t understand that the 2nd was designed to protect the citizens (from the poorest to the wealthiest) from their government, not empower the only wealthy to have more because they can afford it. I mean, Stephen Paddock was a millionaire.
 
Good point Sam. He also doesn’t understand that the 2nd was designed to protect the citizens (from the poorest to the wealthiest) from their government, not empower the only wealthy to have more because they can afford it. I mean, Stephen Paddock was a millionaire.

Absolutely. He was a millionaire, and he had a clean record. He could have not only been a cop or soldier with a high security clearance at any point in his life, but he could have easily gotten the licenses to possess and manufacture anything he wanted, including high explosives.

There's absolutely no law that could have prevented Paddock from doing what he did.
 
I'm pretty sure that only works in A Clockwork Orange. Good book, but I don't think it would work in reality.
Oh, it would work. Hopefully our society will never get to that.

Evil rulers did kill handicapped and mentally ill people "for the good of society" at onetime not so long ago in history. And those same people also banned guns (To make society "safer" of course.) It's hard to rule people and do evil things if they are armed, which is the whole point of the 2nd Amendment.

Just say no.
 
In my perfect view, semi-automatic shoulder-fired weapons that are magazine-fed would be treated as NFA items, the registry would not reopen except to receive those weapons that already exist, and the NFA process would make them way harder to get (think a $2k tax stamp instead of $200). In exchange, semi-automatic pistols (capped at 15 rounds, because I'm a liberal) are left alone (pistols over 15 rounds would be NFA), nationwide constitutional carry and mandatory NRA Eddie-the-Eagle gun-safety training in schools for everyone, and a constitutional amendment forbidding federal, state or local gun, ammunition, accessory or property confiscation, bans or other forms of limiting access unless a clear and present imminent danger exists from a specific source and due process has been executed fairly and faithfully (say, a penalty of all of MSRP payable by the detaining authority, compounded weekly, pending a judicial decision). People could carry firearms anywhere, openly or concealed. Additionally, citizens and resident aliens could access military firing ranges as available to shoot, and states would be encouraged to form and expand state militias including gun owners to support state disaster, unrest, etc. That's my gun-control dream. Will it get guns out of the hands of criminals? No, but it will limit access to semi-automatic massacre enablers. Will it stop mass shootings? Maybe not, but it's a lot harder to kill 58 people with a lever or a bolt than an assault rifle.
How many people have been killed by mass murderers shooting semi automatic "assault " weapons in the past 10 years?
In my perfect view, semi-automatic shoulder-fired weapons that are magazine-fed would be treated as NFA items, the registry would not reopen except to receive those weapons that already exist, and the NFA process would make them way harder to get (think a $2k tax stamp instead of $200). In exchange, semi-automatic pistols (capped at 15 rounds, because I'm a liberal) are left alone (pistols over 15 rounds would be NFA), nationwide constitutional carry and mandatory NRA Eddie-the-Eagle gun-safety training in schools for everyone, and a constitutional amendment forbidding federal, state or local gun, ammunition, accessory or property confiscation, bans or other forms of limiting access unless a clear and present imminent danger exists from a specific source and due process has been executed fairly and faithfully (say, a penalty of all of MSRP payable by the detaining authority, compounded weekly, pending a judicial decision). People could carry firearms anywhere, openly or concealed. Additionally, citizens and resident aliens could access military firing ranges as available to shoot, and states would be encouraged to form and expand state militias including gun owners to support state disaster, unrest, etc. That's my gun-control dream. Will it get guns out of the hands of criminals? No, but it will limit access to semi-automatic massacre enablers. Will it stop mass shootings? Maybe not, but it's a lot harder to kill 58 people with a lever or a bolt than an assault rifle.

You are not concerned about mass murder, you want guns you feel the public should not own banned.
 
This thread is one of the most interesting threads I have read on THR. It brings lots of very good points supporting the second amendment,the problems with bans, regulations, amongst other things proposed by anti gun people. And would be a real eye opener to moderate gun supporters who may have never considered certain arguments because those such views would never be shown on the nightly news. even the local news here tends to be slanted .

But hey all is good in the "tyrant" state, where a law can be passed in the middle of the night. all to push some idiots political ideas on what is "SAFE",better for the public safety. All it did was turn law abiding citizens into criminals because they have magazines with greater capacities than 7 (they changed it to 10 now) a muzzle brake, or a pistol grip. But that was seen as ok by many ...and they called it progress..... but maybe if we re lucky theyll take rocketmedic up on his idea and us NYS folks can pay $2000 to have back what the SAFE act took away, and no longer be considered a "criminal" because we paid the government!
 
I once believed that logic and facts would change the viewpoint of those emotionally charged. I have now come to the conclusion that the liberal's ideology is impenetrable. It takes years to formulate their core values. Events like these disrupt those core beliefs and result in a universal rush for action void of reasoning.

There are many Rockets out there. He has been a good case study. His/their demands and solutions are untenable. The danger now is that that will shout you down and many have resorted to violence, techniques once abhorred by the liberal cause.

As someone suggested in an earlier post in this thread, our hope for persuading lies with the independents. Failing that I quote, “Only by force that freedom can be maintained against those seeking to destroy it”.
 
If it's tyrannical to ask that we regulate access to certain particularly-lethal weapons, then I reckon I'm pro-tyranny?

When the next mass shooting occurs, with an AR-15 or other assault weapon, we'll revisit this same place, and there will be even more dead Americans sacrificed on the altar of the RKBA.
 
If it's tyrannical to ask that we regulate access to certain particularly-lethal weapons, then I reckon I'm pro-tyranny?

When the next mass shooting occurs, with an AR-15 or other assault weapon, we'll revisit this same place, and there will be even more dead Americans sacrificed on the altar of the RKBA.

It is not a question of how many people die if this law or that law is passed. To be blunt, it is not a matter of saving lives.

The issue is about saving our Freedoms, which are more important than life itself. After all, if you are not Free, why live?
 
If it's tyrannical to ask that we regulate access to certain particularly-lethal weapons, then I reckon I'm pro-tyranny?

When the next mass shooting occurs, with an AR-15 or other assault weapon, we'll revisit this same place, and there will be even more dead Americans sacrificed on the altar of the RKBA.
You're displaying a remarkable amount of ignorance about firearms and firearm deaths.

Handguns are used in far, far more deaths than "assault weapons", and at the same time "assault weapons" like the AR-15 are far more practical and versatile firearms.

So what you're saying is that we should focus our legislative efforts on the types of firearms involved in the lowest number of deaths per year? While those types of firearms are also some of the most practical and versatile sporting and defensive firearms you can buy? That doesn't make much sense.

See why people are calling you a troll? It's not because you're advocating for more gun control, it's because your ideas don't make any sense to someone who actually understands the issue.
 
It's pure idiocy to try to ban a technology that is so simple - and this is without even considering the rapid advances in 3D printing. Semi-automatic firearms were invented over a CENTURY ago.

And if someone is going to a range with a semi-auto - WHO CARES - why throw people in jail who aren't on their way to commit a massacre?

Heck, the internet is used for all sorts of horribleness, like sex trafficking - guess we should strictly control smart phones and internet access...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top