Sometimes I Wonder Just WHO The Idiots Are

[Flyerman]

the way i see it:

Pelosi, Kennedy, Schumer, ClintonS, Obama, et al all see gun ownership as being the big roadblock to reforming this country in their own image. the way they want to do away with all private gun ownership, their ultimate goal, is keep having the media, in their back pocket, spewing out the 'evil' of gun owners and how much damage guns can do. then, once in a while, put out a movie, live or animated, about how bad guns are. being mostly of the Democratic party, the coolaid drinkers will blindly believe anything and everything they say, and even worse, go along with any gun control laws they want to pass. the old saying holds tru in their minds - a lie left unchallenged becomes the truth. then, keep portraying the gun owner as a knuckle-dragging, backwoods,half-brain dead redneck who only wants to shoot Bambi and raise the Confederate flag while stockpiling his MRE's, while drooling over the remote possibility of teaming together with his other redneck gun buddies to go head first into the next revolution to stop the inevitable end of the world, brought on by communism/socialism. little by little, piece by piece is how the elected repsresentatives wil erode away our freedoms. "that gun is too big/too powerful/too ugly/too military."

no, i don't think the big wigs don't have some ulterior motive to passing 'common sense' guns laws. they are very smart. they know how to play to the masses to get their agenda done. they cannot and must not ever be underestimated.


the price of liberty is eternal vigilance.
















and i don't think i am alone in my ideas.

 

[FMF]

Thinking politicians have an ulterior motive that goes as deep as redefining society as we know it makes me feel incredibly paranoid, makes me feel as though I've seen too many "big-brother/1984/V for Vendetta" type movies and that I should just ignore that feeling.

But when I see what could and may happen I can't help but see how my "paranoia" is justified.

 

[Ignition Override]

Excellent points up there.

But doesn't a fair bit of animosity seem to stem from the AK-47's image? Maybe some organization could specifically try to reverse this.
Is it partly from the large banana mag and all-business, naked gas tube? I'm all new to this and am probably wrong.

Former Republicans who now vote Dem. (I am 'related' to some and know others) don't mention a Mini 14 or 30 which has a reliable (?) 30-round mag. in the same way, at least when they know that you have one. But the generic versions will never have the killer looks, or provoke anywhere near the same hatred and contempt.

AKs are always seen as a gun whose only purpose is to kill lots of innocent people/govt. forces in one place.
Even some former military pilots feel the same way about them (those I mentioned above). On the other hand, an Army Iraq vet who works in my favorite gun store told me that he would rather not sell them because some friends were killed by the full-auto types. I'm no combat vet and would not begin to judge or presume to understand combat vets, nor LEOs etc. My hat is off to them.

It seems that the 'circle of inherent evil' radiates from the AK, like a reverse 'black hole', which always seems to hold center court.
Thousands of media photos/videos + Hollywood have brainwashed the masses = AKs are only needed by bad guys, i.e. terrorists, Marxist-inspired guerrillas, our enemies.
Chuck Norris' and Steven Seagal's enemies had at least some AKs.
But some of Bruce Willis' enemies might have had short German automatics.

Minis, MN 44s, SKS.

 

[conw]

mljdeckard, very concisely- and- well-said.

JImbo, you may find this article on uranium smuggling interesting: http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200804/uranium-smuggling
(Of course, "nuke" as it refers to a fully functioning warhead/missile set-up is different from what's in that article...still scary I thought)

Ignition Override, I think you're falling into a thought trap:

An Army Iraq vet who works in my favorite gun store told me that he would rather not sell them because some friends were killed by the full-auto types. I'm no combat vet and can not begin to judge combat vets. My hat is off to them.

By that logic we should, perhaps, also listen to police chiefs whose men are killed by rifles that happen to pierce body armor, Sarah Brady whose husband was shot and paralyzed, etc.

I get that you probably aren't agreeing with the vet's views, but you apparently aren't disagreeing with them either. Giving someone's identity more weight than the substance of their views is a slippery slope. Yes, he may have PTSD and awful nightmares and stuff, which you and I can't understand, and we can't fathom how he feels and why exactly he wants to not sell "evil AKs"...but we should still disagree with his illogical view.

 

[Ignition Override]

conwict:
True, well-spoken. I did not agree but did not want to contradict him.

 

[Steve Raacke]

AKs are always seen as a gun whose only purpose is to kill lots of innocent people/govt. forces in one place.
Even some former military pilots feel the same way about them (those I mentioned above). On the other hand, an Army Iraq vet who works in my favorite gun store told me that he would rather not sell them because some friends were killed by the full-auto types.

I had a friend who was run over by a Chevy Suburban. I sure wich the car dealers wouldn't sell that SUV anymore.

 

[Calibre44]

I have posted the following before but feel it's worth reading again.

I can’t take credit for the following post I’m afraid as I found it on one our gun forums and saved it as a good argument for carrying a gun for self defence. (lost on my Government of course!). I can only assume it was posted by an American and thought I’d share it with you all as there are some excellent quotes in it that you can use in discussion with an anti.

‘Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that's it,

In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.

When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force. The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gang banger, and a single gay guy on equal footing with a carload of drunken guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.

There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we'd be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger's potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat--it has no validity when most of a mugger's potential marks are armed. People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that's the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.

Then there's the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser. People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don't constitute lethal force watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favour of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level. The gun is the only weapon that's as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weightlifter. It simply wouldn't work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn't both lethal and easily employable.

When I carry a gun, I don't do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I'm looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced only persuaded. I don't carry it because I'm afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn't limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation...and that's why carrying a gun is a civilized act.’

 

[JR47]

No background check has ever stopped a felon from obtaining a firearm. Slowed him down maybe , but stopped him? Not in this life time.

Not true. I witnessed an attempt by a felon to purchase a gun in a shop. His NICS (I think that was what you meant instead of NCIS) reported him as a felon, and offered to call the local police. They did so, the man was told that the "system just defaulted" but should be up "any minute", and the local police arrived in under five minutes. He was charged with fraud, then turned over later to the feds.

I also witnessed a convicted felon borrowing a revolver, and shooting a car up for target practice. The local police responded, confiscated the gun, and charged him with felony possession. He was also turned over to the feds.

Even the NRA can quote instances where the NICS check prevented a felon from purchasing a weapon.

A felon in jail is, in my definition, "stopped from buying/obtaining a gun".

 

[Treo]

A felon in jail is, in my definition, "stopped from buying/obtaining a gun".

A felon ( or anyone else for that matter) W/ a Llama Is in my definition stopped from buying or obtaining a gun

 

[yokel]

The anti-gun factions have historically made progress by frightening the American public.

The only "fascists" we have to worry about are those who hold high government office and attempt to justify destroying individual rights in the name of some collective "good".

Legislation outlawing all sorts of things will be pushed through outlawing things that promote what the anti-gunners call "the culture of violence." That includes historical reenactments, the collecting of military memorabilia, the right of self-defense, and the thought that individuals can make up their own minds as to what is in their own best interest.

It will all be illegal because what the elitists want to control is our beliefs, not our actions.

Restrictive legislation not only against guns, but against the civilian ownership or knowledge of anything the government defines as "military."

After all, the elitists will say, what legitimate sporting need is there for civilians to have military equipment?

 

[michiganfan]

Mao said power groes out of the barrell of a gun. I do believe the 2A guarentees the other Amendments.

 

[LightningJoe]

The anti-gun people are all over the map.

Some are just non-thinking people who have no experience with guns and who fear and dislike people who are different from themselves.

Some look at other cultures (like Japan) and assume that if America had Japan's gun laws, it would have Japan's crime rate.

Some are at a loss about what to do regarding crime and just want to do everything that doesn't involve punishing criminals.

Some are politicians who have no clue but who understand what they have to say to fool the ignorant voter.

And there are probably a few who realize that an armed population would be harder to bring to heel when the world government takes over.

 

[conw]

Ignition Override:

I'm glad you didn't think I was attacking your respect for the vet. In fact, I can see myself responding just like you. Those guys have enough on their plate without me saying "That view isn't logical bro." On the other hand, if his illogical views begin to affect, say, your actual ability to buy the legal firearm of your choice, perhaps you should take action. Good we see eye-to-eye.

 

[RP88]

'Globalization' is the best word used so far to describe it and the many other political motifs resembling the anti-gun agenda.

 

[JR47]

A felon ( or anyone else for that matter) W/ a Llama Is in my definition stopped from buying or obtaining a gun

It's good to see that you're one-horse trick is still alive.

Still trying to figure out how to spin that "dis-assembly" trick for the next Llama thread?

 

[Carl N. Brown]

an Army Iraq vet who works in my favorite gun store told me that he would rather not sell them because some friends were killed by the full-auto types.

I was at my favorite gun shop when a viet nam war vet bought an SKS: he had been shot by a NVA with an SKS (not shot by an SKS), and thought it would be theraputic to fire an SKS at the range on the controlling end of the gun.

as far as the antis being stupid or thinking we're stupid

The antis are not that stupid that they believe that .30-30s are cop killers, or Glocks are invisible to x-ray or metal detectors, or that .50 rifles will shoot down airliners, or that "shoulder things that go up" help gangbangers. And they know we are not that stupid either. They are counting on the majority of the uninformed to be fooled by their rhetoric and panicked into supporting their agenda.

no llamas were harmed in the posting of this rant

 

[Hutch]

from 'Joe

The anti-gun people are all over the map.

Some are just non-thinking people who have no experience with guns and who fear and dislike people who are different from themselves.

Some look at other cultures (like Japan) and assume that if America had Japan's gun laws, it would have Japan's crime rate.

Some are at a loss about what to do regarding crime and just want to do everything that doesn't involve punishing criminals.

Some are politicians who have no clue but who understand what they have to say to fool the ignorant voter.

And there are probably a few who realize that an armed population would be harder to bring to heel when the world government takes over.

Man, I wish I had written that. It goes in my file...

Plus, like, a ZILLION