Anti-gunners: "We NEED more massacres of school-children"

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jeff White, Frandy;

You are one heck of a contrarian. But I really don't think that you speak for many others. In fact I find it disturbing you'd play down the admission of the evil so many have suspected existed all along.


Let's start off by affirming that gun-control and it's proponents are wrong. _______ Y/N

(If answer is anything other than Yes, pls explain how you'll lead by example and impose restrictions on yourself, get rid of certain firearms.)


the Luby's shooting was spun into helping get CCW in Texas
Click to expand...

Spun? I've seen her video, and she is one hell of a spin artist, sacrificing her parents to achieve a political objective. Waiting for a madman to come along and kill her family so that she could take her pre-conceived notions to the media and have her pre-written legislation passed before the bodies cooled.

Oh wait, that's not how it happened at all. She was a victim and responded by demanding her god-given rights be recognized.

Anti-gunners are the ones arcing their fingers waiting for a pre-school bloodbath to soften up the populace into accepting their confiscations. And they're the ones advising people to curl up into a ball when and not resist when they're attacked. And they're the ones who have legislation already written and literally hope for a tragedy to come along.


This guy just admitted the most sinister plot conceivable, you are not going to convince anyone to 'let it go'. This is groundbreaking, you won't bury it.
 
Typical of leftist thinking- the ends always justify the means no matter how many how many corpses of innocent people are required.
 
Lucky,
Do you really believe that the antigunners actually want to see innocent people die to achieve their legislative goals? Do you believe that the pro rights organizations want to see people die to achieve their legislative goals?

All incidents are spun to gain political advantage. It just so happens that in the case of the Lubys shooting our side did a better job of spinning. The antis were certainly doing their level best to use the same incident to call for more gun control.

The progun side is also waiting for the next bloodbath. Hopefully we'll be good enough not to fight a defensive battle ater it, but an offensive one. Both the pro and anti RKBA sides keep canned press releases handy for whenever a shooting incident hits the news wires. Both sides respond within hours.

If you think that the antis don't say the same things about us, that we're waiting for the next shooting so we have an issue to push for more legislation on our side, you're wrong they do. Both sides feel they have the moral high ground on this issue. If we can't take the emotion out of this and fight the battle rationally we are sure to lose.

Perhaps you'd have us take the moral high ground and not use the issue of a shooting in the news to try to further our agenda? I'm sure that will work. Is that how Canada got to be such a bastion of civil rights? :uhoh:

Jeff
 
But Democrats in the House and the Senate say their priorities lie elsewhere -- increasing funding for education and health care.
Click to expand...

For now..When they get Billary into the white house and they don't have to play 'look we're not so bad' with voters-all of that ^^ will change.

and
G36-the tone of your blog looked just about right! :evil:
 
Lucky,
Do you really believe that the antigunners actually want to see innocent people die to achieve their legislative goals?
Click to expand...

Dude, the question is how do you NOT believe it. The man just announced it to the world in irrefutable black and white. They want gun control. Dead babies is how they'll get it. What part of that is confusing? There is no ambiguity, it means exactly what it says.

He could have said, "I don't like the taste of vitamins, but I like to be healthy, and vitamins make me healthy. Ergo I like vitamins."

Capisci?



And I don't view countering gun-grabber's propaganda as being equivalent to 'pushing' anything. They announce that this is a reason to confiscate guns, it's really not 'spin' to say, "No, no this is not a reason".




All incidents are spun to gain political advantage.
Click to expand...

Not all, only needs spin if one wants to alter other people's perception of incidents. Sort of like if somone told us what Jones said was no big deal :), that'd be spin, compared to if someone showed us the whole quote Jones said and let us make our own minds up.



The progun side is also waiting for the next bloodbath. Hopefully we'll be good enough not to fight a defensive battle ater it, but an offensive one.
Click to expand...

I kind of thought that we had Reason and Logic and Human Rights on our side, that's why we are fighting offensively ALL the time - because our arguments always work.

Now contrast that to the anti's who make their greatest gains using stomach-queezing tactics when millions are emotionally vulnerable - because they need to hit people when they're FEELING, not THINKING.
 
Typical (unfortunately) elitist mentality. Human lives do not matter, only the agenda matters. If human lives must be lost to move the agenda forward, they were a worthy sacrifice.

I've said it many times before and I will keep saying it until the day I die: Those who capitalize on tradgedy and the deaths of other people are the absolute lowest of the low, and do not even deserve to be called human.
 
Instead they once again allowed the gun lobby to undermine any possibility of passing legislation supported by voters
Click to expand...

But that kind of legislation is not supported by voters. We defeated I-676 10 years ago (71% to 29%). I-676 was a collection of gun registration/licensing/safe storage laws put to the voters.
 
>After every highly publicized shooting both sides
> of the debate try to exploit the press coverage
> to get more people on their side of the debate.
>Jeff

I agree, and although I don't agree with the logic of the anti-gun side, there's nothing wrong with looking at news events, and using them to argue for more or less gun control.
What's SICK is wishing for FUTURE school shootings! I've never seen any hint of this from the pro-gun side.
Marty
 
G36-UK

I think you've nailed it: the "progressive" socialists want their "Reichstag fire" event.

Have a catastrophe, hook the easily inflamed emotions, fan the flames, vow to save the children, wave (but don't read) a law around, get it signed in triumph, consolidate control of the population by disarming them.

They hope.

<cheek>
I wonder who they'll hire to run the massacre.
</cheek>
 
Spin?

Jeff,

While on the one hand I agree that both sides do their best to realize whatever political capital they can from whatever happens, there's a siginificant difference.

There is a fundamental dishonesty in the Brady outrage over an assassination attempt with a small-calibre revolver that was not recently purchased, parlayed into long waiting periods and bans on completely unrelated weapons, complete with dishonest characterization of those weapons.

The Luby incident was "spun" to argue that folks ought to have the rights guaranteed in the Constitution. Basically, "people die when we are disarmed, we should be armed."

If the Luby thing had been parlayed into a demand for full-auto subguns and access to explosives, that would have been dishonest on a par with Brady.

Socialists are standing by, ready to pounce, waiting for any kind of school killing with any kind of gun with a laundry list of things to ban that's already been determined.

While it's true that MOST liberals don't wish for a massacre, the ones propogating the lies and driving the agenda aren't MOST.

Some of these folk really are evil enough to hope for a slaughter of the lambs, something really grisly, that they can use as a beacon for their cause. Don't doubt that.

The problem with NORMAL folk is that they can't conceive of that kind of evil, and will be quick to deny its possibility.

That's where we come in. We have to be able to admit that there are people who mean to enslave us and who are willing to see any measure of wickedness enacted to that end.

And we have to have the courage to name it when we see it.
 
"I hate to say it but it's going to take the kind of massacre that kills lots of children. That's the only way we are going to see progress. I think it's got to be worse than (Columbine). I mean, you didn't see anything in Colorado" in substantive new gun control laws after 15 people were killed at Columbine High School in 1999.”
Click to expand...

Ok... so now we need to have more dead children, in order to save the children? What a logical thought. :what: :eek: :barf:

How about we apply that line of thinking to other crimes as well? Let’s reduce the murder and rape punishments giving much less jail time and much more probation in order to increase the number of rape and murders, then we can create new laws to reduce rape and murders. Wait, I think I'm on a roll. Now let’s do robberies next. Pretty soon we can reduce all crime by not punishing it at all.
 
Zen21Tao

Pretty soon we can reduce all crime by not punishing it at all.
Click to expand...

To my knowledge the only place where they do that is Aruba.

For those who don't get the reference, Aruba is the island that brags (as PR for tourists) that they have no crime. Except for the occasional disappearing blond teenaged high school graduate.​
 
I agree with Jeff from a "politics as usual" standpoint, but "we" are only countering the Gun Control Lobby's tactics.

I strongly disagree with Frandy about "letting it go."

Deep breaths are fine for ascetics on the mountain seeking Inner Peace and for pre-meditation clearing excercises.

But "we" can't let it go.

I (a Life Member) disagree with a lot the NRA does, but I still feel that it is the most effective pro-gun organization in existence, and that many (not all) of the "splinter groups" are merely diluting our efforts.

That kind of statement always engenders a string of responses like, "Yeah, but they...

...compromise too much."

...have ineffective programs."

...spend too much money on big buildings."

... et cetera."

Possibly true, but that's your opinion.

My opinion is that despite its faults it is, as I expressed above, the most effective pro-firearms organization in existence.

Thus spake 230RN.
----------------------
A buck a day for an annual membership:

http://membership.nrahq.org/
 
Jeff, the difference here lies not in what he said/she said regarding a past event, where the damage is done - yes, we all engage in our own 'spin' to gain the edge in rhetorical debate, and yes, pro-gunners have said that they don't mind seeing criminals, sociopaths, evil-doers, etc getting shot/killed by an innocent person using a gun in self-defense, the real difference is that Jones is wishing for, or at least alluding to, sacrificing the lives of innocent children in a future event to advance his cause.

I can't find too many of 'us' wishing for innocents to be gunned down to 'prove' our need to legally carry. Can you imagine the firestorm if Chris Cox of the NRA would say "I hate to say it, but what we really need is to have another couple of Columbines to get teachers approved to carry concealed weapons"? And Jones specifically stated that the only way his side is going to see progress is through the massacre of children. That is sick and twisted thinking. Now one of us may have said that we need to have CCW in schools to prevent a massacre, but that's a far, far cry from asking for a massacre to prevent another one.

To compare the pro-gun-rights efforts at preventing tragedy and the slaughter of innocents with what Jones said is disingenuous on your part and purely argumentative. Frankly, you seem to sometimes be far too-willing in criticizing the pro-rights crowd rather than the antis.
 
Jeff,

The difference is that the antis NEED violence, bloodshed and misery to advance their goals.

Therefore violence is acceptable to them. They are willing to abide the sacrifice of innocents in their quest. And now at least one them has openly wished for it to happen.

You just do not find that sort of thing on the gun rights side. I think you are comparing (rotten) apples to oranges here.
 
Can anyone point out the political capital the pro-gun rights side ever made from ANY school shooting, or the Long Island Railroad shooting? or Dunblane?

Does even 5% of the population who has even heard of the shooting at Pearl, MS, or U VA, know that they were ended by armed civilians? I doubt it.

Where is this mighty SPIN, and what has it gained us?

After almost every massacre, A hostile media typically asks loaded questions of an unprepared NRA spokesman who can say little more than, "That's really terrible, we're against mass murder"

The Brady bunch have talking points prepared for every incident which comes along. And the promise that after JUST THIS LAW is passed, all Bad Events will be ended.

Cui Bono?

"it's going to take the kind of massacre that kills lots of children. That's the only way we are going to see progress"

That's not just capitalizing on an alarming event, that illustrates a fervent DESIRE of anti-gunners for children to be murdered so they can achieve their political ends.

If any prominent anti-gun advocates disagree with that statement, I have yet to hear any of them repudiate it.

If the NRA, JPFO, or GOA has made ANY similarly contemptible statement, I would like to see it cited.

--Travis--
 
Nobody in the gun rights movement WISHED for Luby's.

The reason Hupp made the lesson stick is that she showed the absurdity of having to leave her gun in the car versus bringing it into the restaurant.

Gun control creates corpses, which the antis then use to justify more gun control. They feed on death.

We do not. We wish to protect life. We can make our points without anyone dying.

That is the difference and that is why Jeff and others are off the mark.
 
define terms

Re-posted from another forum, originally from the Seattle Post-Intelligencer: note the "I hate to say it but it's going to take the kind of massacre that kills lots of children. That's the only way we are going to see progress," from Bryan Jones.
Click to expand...

Note how Mr. Jones calls the advance of socialism and the decline of freedom, PROGRESS.

You'll always hear leftists refer to themselves as "Progressives", meaning that the advance of socialism IS PROGRESS. To them that is the only definition. Anyone opposed to "Progress" is a "reactionary".

The communists and socialists always use their lexicon, with their own definition of terms, predicting, usually accurately, that the rest of us, being fair minded and just, will hear terms like, "progress" and "peace" and accept them at face value. When agreeing to their terms though, we unwittingly buy into their program of "Progress".

Keep that in mind.
 
"California regulated the hell out of guns -- and they don't get in trouble."
Click to expand...
My bullpoop meter just pegged. So, California has solved their violence problem with gun control? Man, I'd loooooooove to see the auther of that bit of mental flatulence try and defend the statement from close scrutiny. Dimwitted bootlicker.
 
The script in Australia worked in similar fashion...media lavishes attention on the crazed shooter, and copycats do the rest.

I had a vague recollection of media quotes preceding the Port Arthur massacre which stragely foretold the event, did some Googling this morning and found this (among others):

http://www.c-l-a-s-s.net/ideas_kill.htm

A brief extract of the article:
A few months before the Port Arthur Massacre, a glamorous current affairs presenter showed Australia how easy it was to get the guns used in massacres. She demonstrated every step, emphasising that she knew nothing about guns and had never held a licence. She filmed the guns lying on the street and cut in similar scenes from after massacres. An activist showed her (and us) how to load and shoot the guns. She showed us how these guns ‘designed for killing people’ are easy to use, then blew apart a target like the head of a victim.

Then a gun control activist offered a key to worldwide infamy: “We are going to have a massacre in Tasmania like those elsewhere!” He sold the massacre in Tasmania as certainty, almost destiny.

...

Forensic psychiatrist Professor Paul Mullen of Monash University has worked with mass killers, and says they are following a taught cultural script. Professor Mullen made it clear that [Port Arthur murderer] Bryant wanted to be the very worst mass killer: “He asked me:

“Have I got the record?”
Click to expand...
 
-------quote--------
It just so happens that in the case of the Lubys shooting our side did a better job of spinning.
--------------------

There's another difference between the two incidents and the subsequent political responses.

In the Luby's case, reformed CCW laws could very likely have made a positive difference and changed the outcome.

In the other cases exploited by the anti's, the laws they are promoting are extremely unlikely to change the outcome positively.

That's a major difference. It isn't spin to say that this particular law in actual fact caused something bad to happen, or prevented someone from responding helpfully. Using a bad incident to promote a law that wouldn't have really helped is an example of political spin.
 
Do you really believe that the antigunners actually want to see innocent people die to achieve their legislative goals?
Click to expand...

In an indirect sense? Yes. They do. They might not do it themselves, but I'm sure they don't mind in the least.

Consider the mindset of the fanatic. Logic and common sense have no place in that mind.

Otherwise, why would there be anti-abortion people BOMBING clinics or sniping doctors and killing people because they want to stop killing?

Or suicide bombers' families encouraging them to blow themselves up so "they can have peace"?

The hypocrisy in the mind of a fanatic is unfathomable.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

E
  • Locked
Proposed Semi-Auto firearm ban in Washington State
2
Replies
30
Views
3K
XavierBreath
XavierBreath
B
  • Locked
Obama Gun Control Likely To Be Broken Into Pieces By Senate
Replies
6
Views
883
Trent
Trent
M
  • Locked
A ray of hope for 2nd Amendment Rights
Replies
2
Views
439
TimboKhan
TimboKhan
A
  • Locked
No new ban after all?
Replies
6
Views
774
LKB3rd
L
Q
  • Locked
Democrats show little appetite for gun control
Replies
0
Views
306
quicherbichen
Q
Back
Top