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

Have the antis thought about threat level Orange?

Discussion in 'Legal' started by obiwan1, Dec 29, 2003.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. obiwan1

    obiwan1 Member

    Joined:
    May 21, 2003
    Messages:
    495
    Location:
    Miami, Fl.
    If we are attacked, It could be a number of ways. It could be "NBC" (nuke, bio, chem...not Tom Brokaw). The target probably wouldn't know it's coming until it hits. It could be the old fashioned way with bombs or guns. Either way, the government speaks of first responders. First responders are just that..RESPONDERS.

    If the attack is the old fashioned kind (as currently in vogue in Israel and Iraq), there is a possibility that the target can fight back!

    The bottom line: do the antis really want the potential target of a terrorist attack to be unarmed and defenseless until the responders do exactly that - respond?:confused:
     
  2. geekWithA.45

    geekWithA.45 Moderator Emeritus

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2003
    Messages:
    9,040
    Location:
    SouthEast PA
    The bottom line:

    YES.

    They want us to be defenseless, and they want to discourage individual initiative. They do in fact want us to be utterly dependent upon the sanctified authorities.

    It's as simple as that.
     
  3. Quartus

    Quartus Member

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2003
    Messages:
    2,172
    Location:
    Virginia
    "Have the antis...... THOUGHT ...."


    Obiwan, do you want to re-phrase that?


    :D



    Seriously, they really don't. Think, that is. They don't think things through from start to finish in a logical fashion. That's what makes them antis!

    Except for a few who understand the ramifications of thier postion, yet hold it for religious or philisophical reasons, that is. Those kind are few and far between. The rest simply cannot or will not think things through.

    Ask a few of them - you'll get completely nonsensical responses.

    • "Oh, that would never happen."
    • "Well, having a gun would just make them angry!"
    • "Oh, you're just hateful!"

    You will NOT get a well reasoned, thoughtful, direct answer to your question from 99% of antis. They are not capable of doing so.
     
  4. tn 1911

    tn 1911 Member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2003
    Messages:
    13
    If attacked, they'd sit around singing, "give peace a chance" and talk about surrendering it all.... so they can feel safe in their little beds.:barf:

    Michael
     
  5. HankB

    HankB Member

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2003
    Messages:
    5,213
    Location:
    Central Texas
    A terrorist attack is an act of violence.

    Shooting the terrorist is ANOTHER act of violence.

    Hence, having a gun, and worse, USING it, will COMPOUND the violence.

    So you shouldn't have one.

    I actually had a discussion many years ago in high school with, of all people, a TEACHER who used this very line of reasoning to explain her support for gun prohibition.

    I assured her that if I ever saw her being assaulted, I'd be sure to NOT render assistance, as that would only "compound the violence."
     
  6. SodaPop

    SodaPop member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2002
    Messages:
    1,430
    Location:
    Pennsylvania

    I'm teaching several Pro-Choice, liberal female, Clinton-lovers how to shoot shotguns and handguns next month.

    All of them have said, "I want to learn how to shoot a gun, but I could never live in a house where somebody had one."


    Atleast its a start.:uhoh:


    The threat of terrorism is softening up several liberal girls i've been hanging around with for years.
     
  7. Mark Tyson

    Mark Tyson Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2002
    Messages:
    2,523
    Location:
    Where the one eyed man is king
    Yes, they have.

    They say that loose gun laws make it more likely for terrorists to get guns, so we should ban guns to fight terrorism.

    When they say that, ask them if they want to register Muslims and mosques or establish checkpoints and roadblocks around Arab neighborhoods in the name of fighting terrorism. After all, it's only some silly, antiquated constitutional rights we're infringing.
     
  8. dischord

    dischord Member

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2003
    Messages:
    937
    Location:
    Virginia
    Yes, they've thought about it -- at least in terms of scaring the public about .50 BMGs, "assault weapons" and other guns that terrorists (gasp) have easy access to because of our (swoon) lax gun laws.

    Anyone remember VPC's anti-Barrett screed about a month after 9/11?
     
  9. Quartus

    Quartus Member

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2003
    Messages:
    2,172
    Location:
    Virginia

    The leaders are not the same beast as the rank and file. We forget that to our own detriment.
     
  10. 7.62FullMetalJacket

    7.62FullMetalJacket Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2003
    Messages:
    2,991
    Location:
    Cedar City, Utah
    The most basic instinct is survivial, buttressed by defense. The "progressives" are so civilized that they BELIEVE that everyone will play nice if only all those evil guns were gone. They BELIEVE it. :barf: Thay have apparently evolved beyond my level :evil:
     
    Last edited: Dec 29, 2003
  11. Don Gwinn

    Don Gwinn Moderator Emeritus

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2002
    Messages:
    6,385
    Location:
    Virden, IL
    Antis know two things with absolute certainty:

    1. Violence will never, ever happen to anyone they know.

    2. Even if it did, a gun would only make it worse!
     
  12. Standing Wolf

    Standing Wolf Member in memoriam

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    24,041
    Location:
    Idahohoho, the jolliest state
    They're on the side of terrorism.
     
  13. Missouri Mule

    Missouri Mule Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2002
    Messages:
    428
    Location:
    Mid, MO
    The antis don't think.


    They still believe it is the responsibility of our LEOs and diminishing military to protect us.
    Well, it is the militarys job............to protect the interests of our govenment.

    Each and every one of us is responsible for our families and own personal safety.
     
  14. mountainclmbr

    mountainclmbr Member

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2003
    Messages:
    1,289
    Location:
    On top of a mountain in Colorado
    It is the job of the city LEO to enforce the laws, and protect the power of the city government. It is the job of the state LEO to preserve the power of the state. It is the job of federal LEO to preserve the power of the US government over internal challenges. It is the job of the military to preserve the power of the US government against external challenges.

    As far as I can tell, the only protection I get is from ME. The antis warship government solutions and don't want me or anyone else outside of government to have any level of self-determination. Educating an anti is a worthy challenge. I would opt for an easier challenge....like climbing Mt Everest!
     
  15. dischord

    dischord Member

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2003
    Messages:
    937
    Location:
    Virginia
    Is that like the Battlestar Galactica?

    ....sorry, I couldn't resist. I know that's not what you meant, but it was just too perfect.
     
  16. Quartus

    Quartus Member

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2003
    Messages:
    2,172
    Location:
    Virginia
    Nicely summed up, mountainclmbr. Methinks you hit the nail on the head.



    Oh, and two points for the slam, dischord. :D
     
  17. K-Romulus

    K-Romulus Member

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2003
    Messages:
    1,146
    Location:
    Somewhere in Monkey County, MD
    I would say *yes*

    The bottom line: do the antis really want the potential target of a terrorist attack to be unarmed and defenseless until the responders do exactly that - respond?

    My understanding of the anti viewpoint is that "pouring fuel on that fire" (i.e., adding any firearms in non-governmental hands to the situation you describe) will only serve to "make things worse." That viewpoint holds that is "better" for a few to get sacrificed during that time that it takes the "responders" to show up. The alternative to that would be for "the wrong people or innocent bystanders to get shot in the wild-west-style crossfire.":rolleyes:

    Hopefully, it won't be you or your family getting "sacrificed"- but if it is, well, that's just "terrible." Just remember that is was "better" that way.:uhoh:
     
  18. Quartus

    Quartus Member

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2003
    Messages:
    2,172
    Location:
    Virginia
    Yup.


    And welcome to THR!
     
  19. Jeff Thomas

    Jeff Thomas Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2002
    Messages:
    210
    Location:
    Nashville, TN
    Anti-self defense zealots honestly believe that only LEO's and the military can use firearms to defend the innocent. It isn't on their radar that you or I could have that ability, nor have that right. This belief on their part is as firm as their trust in gravity ...

    They are classic True Believers ... no amount of factual evidence to the contrary will dissuade them.

    Regards from TX
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page