What pro-gun quotes do you wish pro-gun sites would STOP using?

Status
Not open for further replies.
GEM said:
Not an exact quote but the statement that the Swiss avoided invasion in WWII because of their citizen type army. In reality, they cooperated extensively with Germany.
Click to expand...

Roger that! The word "extensively" is not strong enough but will have to suffice.
It was more about not bankrupting your banker and impoverishing your customer than fear of the mighty Swiss Army.
 
Theohazard said:
Nope, I was not incorrect. Notice I said the term "comes from the German Sturmgewher"; I never claimed it was a direct translation. I've always thought we translated it to our version of "storm", which can also mean "attack" or "assault". But then I found this:

http://dictionary.reverso.net/german-english/Sturm

So it looks to me like the word "Sturm" can also mean "attack" or "assault".


Do you have any reference for this? I'd be interested to see it, because below I provide a link to a US Army field manual using the term in 1970.


I also avoid using it because it's been co-opted by anti-gun folks. But it's definitely not a "non-descriptive made up word"; the US army has used the term in official publications. In fact, here's a US Army field manual using the term "assault rifle", and it's dated from 1970:

http://gunfax.com/aw.htm


Please don't correct someone when you don't have any idea what you're talking about. Everything I originally posted was correct, but I've shown that some of what you posted "correcting" me turned out to be incorrect. It appears that you're the one trying to rewrite history.

Edit: Field Tester, after re-reading your post, I can only assume that you have confused the term "assault rifle" (a valid technical term, even if it's misused) with the term "assault weapon" (a made-up political term). You might want to go back and re-read what I wrote in post #33.
Click to expand...
Damn, looks like it's time for me to eat some huge amounts of crow. I'm not going to edit my original post, I deserved this.

I will however provide my sources. I believe one of which was Merriam Webster's dictionary. There's a couple. It's going to take me a bit to dig up since I'm on my phone and I don't have it saved. But I do concede that if these documents are legit, I am most definitely wrong.
 
Field Tester said:
Damn, looks like it's time for me to eat some huge amounts of crow. I'm not going to edit my original post, I deserved this.
Click to expand...
You're a classy guy, my friend. And I apologize for being a little harsh in my previous post.
 
ike it or not, THAT is the public face of the pro-gun movement and the view of pro-gunners as "paranoid nuts" has some basis in fact.
Click to expand...

I didn't get through the whole thread because I just had to respond to this. As a lifelong student of history I have to point out that people always call those that warn of bad things coming "paranoid nuts". Yet we do have wars of all kinds. horrendously evil acts by governments and fighting among factions that can lead to near genocide in a short period of time. It's only paranoia if they aren't really out to get you. Those that think it can "never" happen fall into the Neville Chamberlain camp. "Peace in our time" is the cry of those that label the Winston Churchill types of the world as "paranoid nuts". It certainly turned out that Winston was right. And Chamberlain is seen as the weakest world leader in modern history.

Never say never. I'd rather see people be overly vigilant than complacent. Because complacent people are sheep and sheep are often led to the slaughter. I can't believe that given the history of the past 100 years that anyone would think bad things can't happen. It's borderline insanity to think that IMO. You see proof all over the place and then deny it's even possible.

Do I think we are doomed to a civil war right now? Of course not. Do I think it's a possibility? Absolutely. Anyone who doesn't believe that has ignored the entire history of the human race. I could cite examples here all night long. I'll mention the latest. Ask any Ukranian Jew what they think about having to register as a Jew as of today? Are the "paranoid nuts" for thinking that could lead to bad things? But there are countless examples in the US. The LA riots, the aftermath of Katrina, 9/11 for pity's sake. When Todd Beamer, flying on United Flight 93, said, "Let's roll," was he being a paranoid nut? My God how quickly we forget. The Boston Marathon, the Cliven Bundy ranch in Nevada, Waco, Ruby Ridge, Oklahoma City, etc. etc. etc.. A little paranoia is a good thing friend. And I don't think we are "nuts" for keeping an eye on the government. The Gibson guitar factory, gold miners in Alaska, the disarming of citizens in New Orleans after Katrina, etc. etc.. Democracy only works if the people pay attention and it doesn't make them paranoid nuts to do it. Sure people can go too far. So can the government. Again a "little" paranoia is a good thing IMO.

Back to the OP's question. The phrase I'd like to see eliminated is "sniper rifle". That implies wackos shooting at cars driving down the highway or putting a hole in their trunk and shooting people through that hole. Snipers kill people from a long distance and absent an actual war the idea of being a sniper is abhorrent.
 
CZ, I completely agree with you regarding paranoia vs. preparation. The whole point of the 2nd Amendment was to preserve our ability to do what we did in the revolutionary war. I have to wonder if the Civil War would have been called the Second Revolutionary War if the South had won. There's also the case of the Battle of Athens, where a corrupt government was overthrown by...you guessed it, men with guns.

As to "sniper rifle", I see two arguments...1) part of a "well-regulated militia" (i.e. armed people) is the ability to repel tyranny or invaders, so even civilians maintaining skills as a sniper isn't out of the realm of patriotism. 2) I think the idea is abhorrent even in war, it's just an acceptable evil at that point.
 
Field Tester said:
Damn, looks like it's time for me to eat some huge amounts of crow. I'm not going to edit my original post, I deserved this.

I will however provide my sources. I believe one of which was Merriam Webster's dictionary. There's a couple. It's going to take me a bit to dig up since I'm on my phone and I don't have it saved. But I do concede that if these documents are legit, I am most definitely wrong.
Click to expand...

I have eaten some crow during my life and it is not so unpalatable when served with courtesy. I applaud you and you server for your excellent manners.
 
"Guns don't kill people, people kill people" and "Don't Punish Guns".

Both are straw man arguments. Gun control advocates see gun control as a method to obstruct a means used by criminals to commit murder and other crimes. They don't believe guns are alive or kill of their own volition.

Its not really a quote but it irritates me when people say, "you can never stop murder". Such a zero sum argument is nonsensical as it is saying that no effort is valid unless 100% effective.
 
O.K. how about a little event in 1917 that was about a society that created an enormous wealth and political power gap between a small privileged class and the vast majority of people.
Click to expand...

No idea what event you are referring to.

Too recent for you to be fully accepted as not a propaganda myth? How about a little event in 1789 that was very similar to the one in 1917?
Click to expand...

What two events are you comparing each other too?

Unfair distribution of a Nation's wealth does lead to more crime. This does not mean we should be taking away wealth, just ensuring a few cannot have the political/economic control to prevent others from achieving wealth.
Click to expand...

What research do you have to support your position? If differences in wealth cause crime then what level of wealth will end it? What you are proposing is Socialism. I assume that since you believe in this you are giving all the money over what you need to meet your basic needs to someone poorer than you.

At any rate you comments are political and against forum rules so I will not risk further discussion on them.
 
Last edited:
Pizzapinochle said:
You know... there is kind of a basis for that belief.

A recent sampling from the NRA facebook page (this was from a post about bloomberg spending his 50 million):



Like it or not, THAT is the public face of the pro-gun movement and the view of pro-gunners as "paranoid nuts" has some basis in fact. In the above there is a much higher level of "crazy and paranoid" than there is "reasonable and rational"

And that was NOT a hard sample to find, that was one set of responses to one comment (of many) on one post (of many) on the NRA page. There are PAGES and PAGES filled with stuff like this.
Click to expand...
pizza your nra sample was interesting. do you have the stomach to read du?
 
Cee Zee said:
Those that think it can "never" happen fall into the Neville Chamberlain camp. "Peace in our time" is the cry of those that label the Winston Churchill types of the world as "paranoid nuts". It certainly turned out that Winston was right. And Chamberlain is seen as the weakest world leader in modern history.
Click to expand...

I think if you will take a look at history written more recently and untainted by the propaganda of the immediate postwar era you will have a more charitable and accurate view of Neville Chamberlain. It is not so much a case of him thinking "it can never happen" as knowing Britain was not ready for it to happen yet. Despite talk about how early action by Britain and France could have stopped Nazi Germany, neither was really in a position to do so politically or militarily. I think more recent historians consider Chamberlain as a leader who bought time for his country to prepare. Chamberlain's political reputation was not considered irreparable after his resignation. It is my understanding he was treated with respect by Churchill.

I think avoiding historical references when defending the RKBA is wise because it is too easy be found in error by the opposition or have your reference distorted and misunderstood. Most people don't know beans about history and even the most accurate and agreed upon historical arguments are wasted on them. They simply do not have the educational background to accurately comprehend them. It is best to stick to the constitution, the law, simple and easy to defend statistics, and setting a good example of responsible firearm use and ownership.
 
BSA1 said:
No idea what event you are referring to.

What two events are you comparing each other too?
Click to expand...

BSA1 you are a perfect example of why I wrote the second paragraph of my post #65. Google events of 1917 and 1789. Events from each of those years have greatly influenced your life and everyone else living today. What caused these events should be remembered to avoid similar events in our country.

What research do you have to support your position? If differences in wealth cause crime then what level of wealth will end it? What you are proposing is Socialism. I assume that since you believe in this you are giving all the money over what you need to meet your basic needs to someone poorer than you.
Click to expand...

Your words have convinced me that you are too volatile and presumptuous for me to want to use my time to engage in discussion with you.

Perhaps you should consider THR member JustinJ's signature line:

"Experience demands that man is the only animal which devours his own kind, for I can apply no milder term to the general prey of the rich on the poor". - Thomas Jefferson
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Shanghai McCoy said:
Do any of you remember when "Saturday Night Special" was the popular "buzz phrase" for bad guns..? :eek:
Click to expand...
There was actually a song called "Saturday Night Special" by Lynyrd Skynyrd

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturday_Night_Special_(Lynyrd_Skynyrd_song)

It was about gun control

"Its lyrics refer to the cheap handguns popularly associated with the term "Saturday Night Special", and associates them with impulsive violence; the following examples being given: a man being shot by a home intruder, a gambler shooting his gambling partners during a losing night, and accidentally shooting oneself while intoxicated. Notably, it argues that they "[a]in't good for nothin' / 'Cept for puttin' a man six feet in a hole."


The song was released in 1974 on an album and in 1975 as a single. It might be the first time an anti-gun song made the charts. Or at least an anti-gun song which specifically says that the certain type of firearm is no good (and kind of implying that it should be banned).

.
 
lxd55 said:
pizza your nra sample was interesting. do you have the stomach to read du?
Click to expand...
I have read DU. Lots of ignorance.

So, do you think we should settle on these two absolutes:

1. Everyone in favor of gun control is an ignorant fear mongering commie who wants a one world government taking care of our every need.

AND

2. Everyone opposed to gun control is a nut job conspiracy theorist who believes the UN is a Muslim/Jewish (take your pick, I've seen both) private army that will soon attempt to take over the world and destroy christianity and the only defense against it is US citizens private weapons.

Are those accurate descriptions of the two sides??

Of course not. The pro-gun movement should not be judged by the tinfoil conspiracy theorists on facebook. BUT, the pro-control movement shouldn't be either.

There are ignorant, paranoid, fearful, emotional, etc. etc. on BOTH sides.

There are intelligent, well educated, reasonable, etc. etc. people on BOTH sides.

Of course, because this is mostly an echo chamber, I am guessing I will get plenty of people disagreeing with my second statement.
 
Cee Zee said:
I didn't get through the whole thread because I just had to respond to this. As a lifelong student of history I have to point out that people always call those that warn of bad things coming "paranoid nuts". Yet we do have wars of all kinds. horrendously evil acts by governments and fighting among factions that can lead to near genocide in a short period of time. It's only paranoia if they aren't really out to get you. Those that think it can "never" happen fall into the Neville Chamberlain camp. "Peace in our time" is the cry of those that label the Winston Churchill types of the world as "paranoid nuts".
Click to expand...

There is a big difference between known, actual events that really happened and judging the response to those events (Neville and the Nazis) and conspiracy theories with absolutely no connection to reality (Obama has a hidden Muslim army that he is going to use to install himself as dictator for life over the US and make all the christians slaves).

Somewhere there is a grey area... something that is plausible enough to be possible, but implausible enough to be highly doubtful. I don't mind those kind of paranoids. But... it is very easy to find stuff from pro-gunners that goes way beyond the pale of reason.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

A
  • Locked
Pro-gun physician group releases paper supporting suppressor use
Replies
11
Views
876
Aim1
A
B
  • Locked
Wishing for a (Really Great) Gun Wiki Site
Replies
0
Views
303
BearGriz
B
Bang!
  • Locked
Blaring example of why you should carry....
2 3
Replies
68
Views
4K
CapnMac
CapnMac
W
  • Locked
People you or others didn't know were pro gun!
Replies
7
Views
1K
tank mechanic
T
C
  • Locked
What would you do?
2 3
Replies
56
Views
2K
pax
P
Back
Top