I can go buy a tool that has the power to end multiple people’s lives, and it wouldn’t take me very long or that many resources. You can offer the, “oh, they’re ah-regulating us” argument (which has been moving at a snail’s pace relative to other first-world nation’s progress in terms of gun control), but at the end of the day you have access to most everything you can ask for in regards to handheld weaponry.
There may be people out there who want to come for your guns, but if they couldn’t succeed after Sandy Hook then your guns are fully protected and good to go and tonight we will sleep a glorious and restful sleep knowing that after multiple children were killed in their own school that NOTHING was pushed through on gun control. A few dead children or innocents every year is simply the price we pay is all. We salute them for their sacrifice, but it’s far more important we have our guns than to try to stem massacres like that.
– Grothesk (Anti-Gun Forum Member)
I’m of the belief that if we banned guns 100% outright – that we would still have guns on the streets being used as tools in violent crimes, (criminals won’t turn them in, some legal gun owners won’t, they can be built, imported illegally, or stolen / bought from those we would still entrust them to).
Additionally I’m also of the belief that if you remove the specific tool, this does not remove the motives or the means to do harm. What kind of equipment would I need to murder a bunch of kindergartners? I dunno, a lead pipe? An Axe or Ford F250? I don’t need an AR15 to attack children and unarmed civilians in a ‘gun free zone’.
The ‘Happy Land Fire’ was an arson attack that killed 87. The ‘Bath massacre’ killed 45 in a school with commercial explosives. Oklahoma bombing killed 168 using store bought fertilizer. Heck on the day of the Sandy Hook shooting, some whack job stabbed 24 at an elementary school in China. (Never mind 9/11). Bad people doing bad things, even without guns, because you can’t regulate away crazy.
Like the old adage says “if there is a will, there is a way”.
This is usually where you concede that banning guns outright, would not remove gun violence/crime outright (because it won’t), but isn’t it worth a shot if it helps save a life/lives/cuts the number etc.? (In your words “Try to stem massacres”). Well – that’s a very fair argument, that I am willing to discuss.
The argument I think essentially boils down to “You should surrender individual liberty, in exchange for community safety”. And that is not an unreasonable argument, you can’t drive 200MPH through a school zone, or perform surgery while drunk/high. We make sacrifices like that every day to ensure the safety of all. Where I take offense to this argument is that on the issue of guns (and only on the issue of guns) it often becomes black and white. “If we could save just ONE childs life, isn’t it worth it?” No – sorry, its not that easy. There is weight to the pros and cons – it is not absolute.
Currently the speed limit in CA highways is 65. If we reduced the speed limit to 60 I assure you, at least one life would be spared. As we lowered the speed limit to 50,45, 20 and so on, more and more people would be saved. But do we do it? No – because the convenience of getting from point A to point B 5 minutes faster outweighs the value of the lives that would be saved.
Religion and Expression/Speech have killed more people historically than all the mass murderers combined, but we don’t stop the Klan from having their annual parade down the street, or censor the Westboro Baptist Church from spreading their message of religious hate. Why? Because we value the ability and freedom to express our opinion (no matter how distasteful) more than the lives that could be saved by preventing this kind of toxcicity in our culture.
(Example: Aug 4th man arrested, could face up to 3 years for performing a Hitler Salute in public.
Germany has got their shit together – why don’t we do that?)
We could outright ban alcohol or at least limit the legal BAH in public to 0.0% to prevent “buzzed driving” or prevent people from making unsound choices while intoxicated (never mind lives actually lost to alcohol use). But we don’t, why? Because we still have hopes that people can enjoy their liberties, if they take responsibility for their actions.
In all cases of personal liberty BUT firearms, can we say that we value our freedom to X, more than we value to lives that would be saved if we further regulated or restricted X – without sounding like a total asshole. And I don’t think that is fair.
Why do I support gun ownership?
Essentially – firearms are the great equalizer. I’ve lived on and off in some pretty bad neighborhoods where safety is a real issue. Never once have I specifically worried “I hope I don’t get shot”. Why? Because as noted above – it’s not needed, it’s overkill. If 5 unarmed dudes walk up to me on the street and demand my wallet – they are going to get it. I have no delusions of going Steven Seagal on their asses and coming out on top. If I had a firearm, the odds are flipped 180* – they don’t have a chance. (As an aside, about 3 months ago a friend of a friend was mugged on the street, they asked for his wallet, he gave it up instantly, they then took his wallet and beat him anyway – ended up with a punctured lung, broken ribs, broken eye socket and I think a couple others. He was fucked up enough that his wedding this summer had to be postponed.) It is in the nature of criminals to be predatory – they will attack when they have the advantage of numbers, strength, weapons or surprise. A firearm is your only hope of being put on level footing.
This goes doubly so for those less able to protect themselves, I’m 6ft Combat Vet that is 200 lbs of mean motherfucker – and as I noted before, I know my limitations in a fight. My wonderful girlfriend (that means the absolute world to me) is 5’6 110lbs with wrists about the size of a half dollar. She doesn’t have a mean bone in her body and couldn’t protect herself in a fight if her life depended on it – however she is a crack shot and with only 1 day of instruction can sink 6/6 shots center mass every time. The gun gives her the power to be self reliant, where without it she would be wholly at the mercy of her attackers (regardless of it they were armed or not). Essentially I believe that rendering good people helpless, does not render bad people harmless.
I’m just being a realist. I’ve seen violence first hand, and I’d prefer to prevent my loved ones from being victims. There are bad people in this world (criminals), there are crazy people in this world (mass murderers), there are opportunists (Black Lives Matter riots), and there are good people who are doing what they have to do to survive (Katrina victims, a situation that could *easily* be replicated in California). Disarming me, may reduce my chances of being specifically shot, but it ultimately does not keep me safer from any of them. *PHEW* Ok groth. Just a heads up that I won’t bother to continue this conversation, you can reply if you like and I might read it, but I won’t reply in kind just because this is already too much damn typing. Sorry to dip out, but I have faith we could do this forever and get nowhere. Cheers.
-N M E (2nd Amendment Supporter)
On June 9th Fox News resident Christian alarmist Todd Starnes published an article detailing how the U.S. Army is snubbing a historic poor little Baptist Church in Georgia. According to Todd Starnes and the people he quotes, you’d think the Anti-Christ himself were running the U.S. Army and that patriotic displays at religious serves were all but outlawed. Like most of the tripe written by Starnes, nothing could be further from the truth. So let’s get down to rebutting this massive load of bovine excrement Mr. Starnes has dumped onto the internet.
For nearly two decades, the U.S. Army has provided an honor guard for an Independence Day celebration at a Baptist church that predates the founding of the nation. But this year – that tradition has come to an end.
Really, two decades, that’s like, OMG-FUR-EVER! This is the old appeal to tradition that Christian Nationalist love to trot out. The argument is meant to imply that nothing was wrong with the U.S. Army’s involvement for twenty years so why now. The fallacy here is the premise, assuming the circumstances were the same in times past (which they were not), the U.S. Army should never have been providing honor guards for a Church. Speaking of traditions, the Abilene Baptist Church traces its founding back 1774. This means that for 221 years there was a much longer tradition of keeping their Church separate from the State. Around 1995 that tradition came to an end when church officials began a tradition of co-opting the U.S. Army for their religious ceremonies.
After being informed of what should be obvious, that the Government (or any subdivision thereof) cannot endorse or promote a particular religion, Mr. Starnes avoids addressing that simple fact with this nonsense.
That policy would be an offense to most churches in America – but it is especially offensive when you consider the Army just refused to provide an honor guard for a church whose first pastor was a chaplain in the Revolutionary Army.
That Mr. Starnes finds the U.S. Army obeying the law offensive is ridiculous as well as irrelevant. His argument that the offense is magnified because the founding pastor was a Chaplain in the Revolutionary Army is laughable in addition to being a non-sequitur. The fact of the matter is that Mr. Starnes and anyone else throwing a sissy-fit over this decision is just angry because a church that promotes their religion is no longer receiving its special privilege.
“It was an absolute shock,” said Brad Whitt, the current pastor of Abilene Baptist Church. “What a sad commentary on the state of affairs in America – when we cannot even allow the flags to fly if they are in a church building.“
I thought Pastors were forbidden to bear false witness. I know that Pastors lie through their teeth all the time, it’s how they make their living, but to be so blatant when the truth of the matter is so obvious is surreal. Who or what is preventing flags from flying inside his church building? The U.S. Army never asserted that flags could not be flown inside Abilene Baptist Church. The U.S. Army only said that THEY could not provide personnel to carry said flags. There is NOTHING preventing Mr. Whitt, Mr. Starnes or any other member of Abilene Baptist Church from strapping on a harness and organizing a volunteer color guard of their own. Awe, but that doesn’t restore the privileged status they want.
“We’ve had a tremendous working relationship with the fort,” he told me. “We’ve hosted all sorts of events for military families. We really try to show our love and respect and we try to honor our military folks.“
And nothing about this policy says that the church cannot continue to have a “working relationship” with the military, but only so long as that relationship does not involve the military promoting or involving itself in a religious observance. Hosting family events for military families is irrelevant since the event is for the family and not for the military itself. Lastly, the fact that Whitt’s church may well do things to honor “military folks” does not obligate the military to violate church state separation by providing personnel for his worship service.
Pastor Whitt said they were genuinely confused by the Army’s slight – seeing how Fort Gordon has been providing an honor guard for the past 20 years.
And there we have it, Pastor Whitt falsely believes the U.S. Army’s refusal to further officially involve itself in his religious service is a “slight”. Why? Well obviously Pastor Whitt believes the U.S. Army should show his religion the proper respect he thinks it deserves. How? By bending over backwards, disregarding the separation of church and state, and showing the reverence he believes his religion ought to be shown by sending official representatives of the U.S. Army to present our Nation’s colors before his Almighty God, of course.
“They have participated for the past two decades and now they are saying – no,” he said. “This is just another example of the secularization of America.“
Yes Mr. Whitt, we know, you’ve made it abundantly clear, the U.S. Army mistakenly allowed your church to co-opt their official color guard for your religious service for 20 years. Well now that mistake is being corrected and it hurts your feelings, so cry me a river. This is not an example of the secularization of America, the United States was founded as a secular government. If anything, this is an example of improper religious entanglement with our secular military being rolled back after 20 years.
Mr. Starnes then attempts to explain what changed by citing Army Regulation 360-1 – dated May 2011. The inclusion of the date could be a dishonest attempt to imply that military involvement with worship services was allowed prior to 2011. However the actual regulation states that it is a “major revision” of a regulation dated 15 September 2000; which itself was a combination of three separate regulations dating from the early 1970’s.
Starnes actually does a decent job of explaining the ins and outs of when the military can participate before drawing his eventual idiotic conclusion. Starnes explains that according to Army public affairs, the 2007 service was designated a “non-sectarian (secular) musical and patriotic program”. Starnes’ source is quoted as saying, “Because this was not a religious service, our participation was permitted.” The source further explains, “…the key factor is, whether or not the event is an actual religious service.” Brilliant! An explanation so simple that a child could understand. And then Todd shows just how dishonest and/or dimwitted he actually is with his conclusion.
So it’s okay to invite the troops so long as you don’t pray, talk about Jesus or read the Bible?
No, that is not what the man said, Todd.
Mind numbing is the only way I can describe how it felt when I first read this idiotic conclusion. Obviously any church can invite troops. Obviously those troops can pray, talk about Jesus and even read the Bible. It’s very simple Todd, when the nice man on the phone used the word “our”, he was referring to the U.S. Army in its official capacity. In other words, the U.S. Army (NOT individual troops in their own time) is not allowed to send an official color guard to “selectively benefit (or appear to benefit) any […] religion, sect, religious or sectarian group…“.
“That’s what makes this so sad,” Pastor Whitt told me. “This is what we’ve come to in our nation – where even just representing the colors is some sort of political thing.“
Again, the conclusions being drawn here are mind numbing. Obviously Pastor Whitt is free to represent the colors however he wishes. The issue is not the representation of the colors in a church. The issue is the involvement of the U.S. Army with a religious worship service, and it is political because it is forbidden by the Constitution.
The article could have ended there, but no Christian alarmist article would be complete with taking a stab at all those evil queers. Starnes, in a very childlike “IT’S NOT FAIR!” sort of tone writes.
While the Pentagon won’t allow an honor guard to set foot in a church, they have no problem allowing them to march in a gay pride parade.
Now, to hear Todd Starnes explain this in his typical alarmist manner, everything is all a conspiracy by evil godless atheist to ultimately outlaw Christianity, while promoting a bunch of penis loving, scissor sex having, carpet munching faggots; which then obviously leads to the anti-Christ taking over, the battle of Armageddon; dogs and cats, living together! MASS HYSTERIA!
So if a military honor guard can celebrate gay pride in a public parade, why can’t they celebrate American pride inside a Baptist church?
Well that’s easy Todd. There is no special exemption being given to the Capital Pride parade. The Capital Pride parade simply doesn’t violate church state separation, nor AR 360-1, subsection 3-2(a). And it’s sad that it must be repeated so often, but the fact that the service is being held inside a Baptist church is not at issue. The defining issue is that Abilene wants a U.S. Army color guard to participate in a sectarian worship service.
I really shouldn’t do this but I’m going to tell Todd Starnes and the Pastor of this rather well-off Church about a not-so-secret loop-hole that will allow them to have a “military” color guard.
Step 1) Order the flags you wish to represent with enough poles and harnesses from Amazon.com
Step 2) Exploit your working relationship with “military folks” by asking for services member in your congregation to volunteer for a church created color guard.
Step 3) PROFIT!!!
It has been close to three years now since a town of angry theocrats learned the hard way that our system of government forbids the mixing of church and state. And as I discovered in my follow up, make no mistake, they’re still very pissed off about it.
To recap the story of what happened.
1. Beginning in 2010 the FFRF began sending letters to the Mayor of Whiteville, TN informing him that the large Latin cross the city had paid to mount on the town water tower was a an unconstitutional government endorsement of religion.
2. After the letters were ignored, the FFRF filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of a local resident to force James Bellar, the town’s mayor, to remove the religious symbol the town’s water tower; as well as smaller wooden crosses that had been erected in front of Whiteville City Hall on the city-owned sidewalk by that time.
3. Bellar announced on Oct. 3, 2011 that he would move the cross, and angrily referred to the FFRF and its members as “terrorists” in local media reports.
4. On Oct. 17, 2011 Bellar told reporter Daniel Wilkerson, WBBJ-TV in Jackson, Tenn., that “Somebody has to stand up to these atheist sons of bitches, and you can quote me on that.”
5. In late October, Bellar wasted another $4,000 in taxpayer money to inexplicably break one arm off the cross and using town funds to illuminate what remained of the cross.
6. On Aug. 8, 2012, Judge Daniel Breen approved a settlement and entered an agreed judgment. The Town and Mayor were enjoined from installing future crosses on city hall property. The defendants also agreed not to replace the arm on the remaining structure on the water tower. Lastly, Bellar agreed to pay $20,000 in attorney’s fees, a waste of money that could have been avoided were it not for his religious fanaticism.
While that was ongoing, an all out witch-hunt was undertaken to ferret out the heretic(s) who dared challenge the Mayor’s decision. Those involved in the witch-hunt apparently included members of the Whiteville Police Department. Internet message boards and blogs were scoured daily for discussions or articles unfavorable toward the Mayor’s actions and then spammed in an attempt to shut down dissenting commenters. Their preferred tactic was to spam the names of people on a short list of ‘suspects’ they had collected.
This tactic gloriously backfired on them after they came upon an article by a blogger at The League of Ordinary Gentlemen. The author of the piece was an Attorney from southern California and his article was critical of the Mayor’s defiance and his accusations of “terrorism” on the part of the FFRF and secularist. The group, variously labeling themselves “lawman1”, “lawman2” or “the gang of six” (which was approximately the number of cops employed by the city) began spamming names and threatening anonymous commenters who were complaining about wooden crosses were being built and handed out with the expectation that all residents stake them in their yard. Anyone who refused was labeled suspect and subject to police harassment and social ridicule.
Their goof was due to an ignorance of technology and deciding to harass people in a moderated forum, leading to the “gang of six” getting a taste of their own medicine. You see, unlike Topix, the author of the article was also the blog’s administrator. The ‘gang of six’ had unknowing let their IP address be logged when they commented. A simple reverse look-up revealed a woman’s name and approximate location. The blog’s author, justifiably perturbed by the blatant harassment, posted the name and corresponding address linked to the IP address. And then the puzzle pieces began coming together.
For months “the gang of six” had been blindly accusing random people, who they laughably labeled ‘suspects’, of being atheists and ‘terrorist’ based on nothing more than their unwillingness to get involved and pick a side. If you weren’t with the party of god, as evidenced by your willingness to stake a wooden cross in your yard and publicly support the Mayor in his righteous fight, you were labeled an evil atheist in league with Satan; so went their reasoning. But now the ‘gang’ was faced with having someone they respected named and they were not pleased. The woman’s name was re-posted to the forums on Topix where “the gang of six” had been freely harassing and attempting to dox people without fear of moderation.
An individual soon posted a demand on the blog article that the woman’s name be removed from the blogs comments as well as Topix, asserting she was not involved because he was “the one that pays the bills”. That statement was the key to unlocking the identity of “the gang of six” or at least its leader. As it turned out, the woman (likely not involved) was an employee of Bass Insurance in Whiteville, TN; her name just happened to be the name on file with the ISP. The question was, if the harassing comments and doxing were coming from Bass Insurance then who is the person that “pays the bills”? Well that would be the owner of Bass Insurance, the right honorable Mayor of Whiteville himself, James Bellar. Once this link was revealed in the blog comments and Topix forums the harassment, online at least, quickly died out. Although there were further comments, they were posted through European proxies.
I decided to check in on the old Topix forums recently to see how the gang was doing. It didn’t take much to stir them up and what I found was a cult like mentality of pretending their religious symbol is still there. They write as if the lawsuit and the settlement either never occurred or had no effect. They still cling to the false notion that the lawsuit was motivated by a hatred of crosses and Jesus, refusing to acknowledge any sort of church state issue. A user calling himself ‘lawman 2’ wrote“…that cross [has] burned into you memories you will take to your grave and it has taken over your life.” Further threatening “It is you that should be worried about our ticket book.” , supporting past complaints by locals that being on the wrong side of local politics can make you a target.
When I raised the point that their veneration of a broken religious icon is essentially idolatry they have no answer. Apparently they’re to busy basking in their own imagined victim-hood to take the time required to understand the actual teachings of their own religion.
In yet another recent online debate I had just pointed out that historically the powerful and wealthy have always given themselves exceptions from laws which prevent the bearing of arms. A user attempted to justify these hypocritical exemptions with the argument that they are “high value targets”. The following is my attempt to educate him about the logical justification for the right to keep and bear arms.
So because high value targets require protection of armed men (or is it that anyone is allowed to be armed that bugs you?), therefore everyone should be able to own a gun?
No, no, no….. it has nothing to do with any of that bullshit, these concepts are not difficult to grasp. Let’s walk through this one step at a time.
You are alive, would you assert that have the right to continue living?
Fine, I’ll play your game…
Yes, I assert I have a right to life. Please, continue.
Do you also assert that you, by extension of the former, have a right to use force in the defense of that right?
Get to the meat of it already
I’m using the Socratic Method, be patient. Now…
Would assert that the level force you could employ in the defense of your own life includes that which might end your attacker’s life if necessary?
Since you agree that it is your right to employ deadly force in defense of your own life, would it not follow that you have the right to access implements designed to enhance and aid you in your employment of deadly force if needed?
Yes, I agree with that as well.
The point is (sorry I’m gonna have to put an end to these small irrelevant questions. I’ve grown tired of them), we disagree on WHERE the line should be drawn.
If you can (and I think I can) make an argument that a society in which gun ownership is heavily restricted is actually safer, and people need to defend themselves less…. Then that outweighs the act of restricting individual freedom in this regard.
Just like we all think everyone should be able to say what they like… To a point. You and I both don’t think it’s a good idea to scream “FIRE!” in a crowded movie theater, because people could get seriously hurt or die. That doesn’t mean that we don’t believe in freedom of speech or that we want massive amounts of legislation prohibiting speech.
Hell, I’m even for public ownership of guns. I think it can be done and regulated to a point where we don’t have the insane amounts of US gun crime and guns are still legal and able to be owned by the population. There’s a middle ground. Maybe a ban on all handguns is a good thing. Maybe a ban on fully automatic rifles is also a good thing.
Nope, you jumped off the ride because you began to see the logical conclusion and wanted to avoid admitting it. But you’ve ridden far enough to put the pieces together so let’s do that now.
You have agreed with all of the following.
1) You have a right to life.
2) Whereas rights are meaningless without the ability to enforce them; you therefore have a right to use force to secure your right to life.
3) Whereas you may employ force prevent your death; the level of force you may employ includes deadly force.
4) Whereas you have the right to use deadly force; it follows that you have the right to access tools designed for that purpose [ARMS].
And so we find that by beginning with your right to life, it logically follows that you also have a right to keep and bear arms.
Now you come to the table with this line drawing bullshit to avoid admitting that conclusion. You will find no argument from me that those who have demonstrated a willingness to feloniously violate the rights of their fellow man should be restricted by law from having arms and punished further if found in possession of them.
Your argument hinges on the false assertion that “a society in which gun ownership is heavily restricted is actually safer”. You and I are not felons and to demand you disarm and merely trust that because you are the violent felon will choose to remain disarmed as well is ludicrous and un-safe.
This notion of heavy regulation leading to safety is not based on reality but on the imagined non-sequitur belief that heavily restricting a particular tool of force makes people safer? It requires one to completely ignore other tools, the size disparity between different people, the strength disparity between the sexes, and the ability of criminals to outnumber their victim. The fallacy of this idea is well explained in Cesare Beccaria’s Essay on Crimes and Punishments.
“A principal source of errors and injustice are false ideas of utility. For example: that legislator has false ideas of utility who considers particular more than general conveniences, who had rather command the sentiments of mankind than excite them, who dares say to reason, ‘Be thou a slave;’ who would sacrifice a thousand real advantages to the fear of an imaginary or trifling inconvenience; who would deprive men of the use of fire for fear of their being burnt, and of water for fear of their being drowned; and who knows of no means of preventing evil but by destroying it.
The laws of this nature are those which forbid to wear arms, disarming those only who are not disposed to commit the crime which the laws mean to prevent. Can it be supposed, that those who have the courage to violate the most sacred laws of humanity, and the most important of the code, will respect the less considerable and arbitrary injunctions, the violation of which is so easy, and of so little comparative importance? Does not the execution of this law deprive the subject of that personal liberty, so dear to mankind and to the wise legislator? and does it not subject the innocent to all the disagreeable circumstances that should only fall on the guilty? It certainly makes the situation of the assaulted worse, and of the assailants better, and rather encourages than prevents murder, as it requires less courage to attack unarmed than armed persons.”
(Regarding limits on free speech) Indeed, and someone who abuses their right to free speech to cause demonstrable harm to others should be held to account and punished accordingly. But if we are keeping with your line of argument, we should cut out people’s tongues to prevent anyone from yelling “FIRE!” in that movie theater. After all, according to you, if someone can’t yell “FIRE!” then we are all safer, right?
But what if there is a “FIRE!” and screaming “FIRE!” would actually save people? People would burn to death because you’ve preemptively taken away their ability to sound the alarm in your misguided want to feel safer.
There isn’t an “insane amount of US gun crime”. It has in fact been falling sharply for the past 20 years. But because you believe what you hear in the media you feel like it’s worse.
There’s a middle ground.
I’m not buying the old “let’s compromise” argument. We have the 2nd Amendment and you say, “Let’s compromise. Give me half.” I respond by asking what I get out of this compromise, and you reply that I get to keep half of my rights. Let us call this compromise The National Firearms Act of 1934.
This leaves me with half of my rights and there I am, enjoying my rights when you walk back up and say, “Surrender your rights.”
I say — again: “No, these are my rights.”
You say, “Let’s meet in the middle.” What do I get out of this compromise? Why, I get to keep half of what’s left of my rights I already have.
So, we compromise — let us call this one the Gun Control Act of 1968 — and this time I’m left holding what is now just a quarter of my rights.
And I’m sitting in the corner with the remaining quarter of my rights, and here you come again. You want my rights. Again.
This time you take several small chunks — we’ll call this compromise the Clinton Executive Orders — and I’m left with about a tenth of what has always been MY RIGHT and you’ve taken nine-tenths of it.
Let me restate that: I started out with the full unmolested RIGHT to keep and bear arms and you have already ‘compromised’ me out of ninety percent of MY RIGHT …
… and here you come again.
Compromise! … Lautenberg Act.
Compromise! … The HUD/Smith and Wesson agreement.
Compromise! … The Brady Law.
Compromise! … The School Safety and Law Enforcement Improvement Act.
After every one of these “middle ground compromises” — in which I lose rights and you lose NOTHING — I’m left holding crumbs of what was once a large and encompassing RIGHT, and you’re standing there making anime eyes and whining about being “reasonable” and wondering “why we won’t compromise” as you try for the rest of my RIGHTS.
Maybe a ban on all handguns is a good thing. Maybe a ban on fully automatic rifles is also a good thing.
This last little bit reveals your true position. A ban on all handguns is not “middle ground” and I guess you were just lying when you wrote “I’m even for public ownership of guns.” and forgot you wrote that.
FYI – Fully automatic rifles were already de-facto banned in 1938. New fully automatic rifles have been banned since 1987. Prior to that you could register it with the ATF and pay a $200 tax to own one, but even though no legally owned machine-gun was EVER used to commit a crime from 1938 to 1987, your gun control brethren decided that they wanted to take that part of the 2nd Amendment away too.
You can still own the pre-ban machine-guns that were part of the NFA registry but they are tens of thousands of dollars now. It is also interesting to note that even though certain wealthy private citizens still own machine-guns, none of them have been used criminally since 1987 either.
You clearly don’t know what you’re talking about. But going back to something you wrote at the beginning.
“a society in which gun ownership is heavily restricted is actually safer … Then that outweighs the act of restricting individual freedom in this regard.”
“They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
The following response was posted by a rabid gun control advocate with the screen name Scotdot35. It was made following a video I submitted of Charlton Heston from the 1960’s when he was an advocate of minority civil rights. This person obviously hated Heston for later civil rights work with the NRA and attempts to explain, using the most blatantly dishonest arguments, why his hatred is entirely justified.
[My screen name], once again you oversimplify something to support your own silly, small-minded attitude about guns. Heston was “lampooned”, as you put it, because he allgned himself with, and became the public face of, an organisation that uses its political clout to ensure that the unfettered sale of guns to the American public, in order to maximise the profits of the arms manufacturers that it represents.
Now I’m not going to debate gun laws in the US with you. I’ve read enough of your posts to know that this is just about the only thing you have an opinion on, and you shout very loudly with your keyboard at anyone who suggests that the USA should have more rational gun laws. I know it’s absolutely pointless to try and change the mind of someone so deeply indoctrinated into that kind of thinking. So I’ll give you an analogy that hopefully give you an understanding of why ‘the left’ vilified Heston for his association with the NRA…
What if Heston was the public face of the tabacco lobby? What if, in the face of the PROVEN fact that cigarettes kill so many people every year, he was holding a packet of cigarettes in his hand shouting “From my cold, dead hand!”? Would you admire him so much then? I really doubt it.
This is the same argument that us people against guns have for the NRA. You might feel that they’re protecting your right to own guns. But they’re actually protecting arms manufacturer’s rights to sell guns for profit, and people need to be legally allowed to buy guns in order to make a profit from them. You can talk about your constitutional rights to bear arms all you like, but there are plenty of things that have been changed in that constitution over the years to fall in line with the prevailing social attitudes of the day. After all, you’re not living two hundred years ago, are you? It wasn’t even a part of the Bill of Rights anyway, that’s why it’s an amendment.
The last thing I will say is this: It is my true belief that there is only one kind of gun owner; someone who truly desires to kill someone at some point in their lives. Most want to do it legally, as in with an intruder or attacker. But that desires exists nonetheless. You might freely admit that this is the case, I have no idea. But if not, have a really good think about whether this is true for you. If you defend guns as much as you do, then I believe you simply just want to murder someone and get away with it.
once again you oversimplify something to support your own silly, small-minded attitude about guns.
Am I really over-simplifying it or could it be that the only way you can make your ignorant and misinformed beliefs on the matter appear rational is by over-complicating it.
Heston was “lampooned”, as you put it, because he allgned himself with, and became the public face of, an organisation that uses its political clout to ensure that the unfettered sale of guns to the American public, in order to maximise the profits of the arms manufacturers that it represents.
And with your second sentence we have a perfect example of one of your ignorant and misinformed beliefs. The NRA does not represent or lobby for gun manufacturers, the organization that does that is the National Shooting Sports Foundation. They are the firearms industry’s trade association. The National Rifle Association is America’s longest-standing civil rights organization and its members contribute funds for the purpose of keeping ignorant and misinformed people like yourself from infringing on the rights and liberties of their citizens.
Now I’m not going to debate gun laws in the US with you.
Of course you won’t, fear of facts and basic logic have that effect on people.
I’ve read enough of your posts to know that this is just about the only thing you have an opinion on, and you shout very loudly with your keyboard at anyone who suggests that the USA should have more rational gun laws.
I actually have opinions on many things but the issue of firearms being a RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE sticks out like a sore thumb because — at least on SpikedNation — I am in the minority. I’m not sure how I shout with a keyboard, even figuratively speaking it’s not as if I write in all caps or end all my sentences with exclamation marks. But who are we kidding, this is a red herring, you can’t defend your assertion so you’re bitching about how you perceive I present mine. It’s irrelevant to the argument itself but you need some excuse why you’re afraid to defend your statist belief.
As far as “rational gun laws” are concerned, I don’t disagree with rational gun laws at all. Many states have been passing rational gun laws in the form of citizen carry laws for over ten years. My state just passed a rational law that decriminalizes people traveling with a firearm to and from work without a carry permit so long as it remains in the vehicle. The problem is that the laws you assert are “rational” are demonstrably not, they are infringements on basic liberties; regardless of whether or not you choose to recognize them.
I know it’s absolutely pointless to try and change the mind of someone so deeply indoctrinated into that kind of thinking.
Indoctrinated, I do not think you ever bothered to check the definition of that term, instead you merely use it to pejoratively dismiss views contrary to your own. Indoctrinated people are expected not to question or critically examine the doctrine they have learned. On the contrary, I have educated myself on the matter which I suspect is the reason you prefer to throw a never-ending list of pejorative accusations and false assumptions in lieu of addressing the argument on the merits.
So I’ll give you an analogy that hopefully give you an understanding of why ‘the left’ vilified Heston for his association with the NRA…
Something tells me that you’re about to give a false analogy that warps reality in a way that makes your belief appear to make sense.
What if Heston was the public face of the tobacco lobby?
Yep, nailed it! You’re making a fallacious argument from analogy.
What if, in the face of the PROVEN fact that cigarettes kill so many people every year, he was holding a packet of cigarettes in his hand shouting “From my cold, dead hand!”? Would you admire him so much then? I really doubt it.
The difference between these two things is very simple to see, yet something tells me you’ll bitch about how I “over-simplified it”. Cigarettes are PROVEN to be both addictive and cause cancers which lead to the deaths of innocent people every year. Cigarettes have no other purpose but to deliver a substance to the brain which leads to chemical dependence. There is NOTHING which promotes human well-being in cigarettes.
Firearms do not cause cancer nor lead to chemical dependency. In fact, beyond your over-simplified claim that firearms and cigarettes cause deaths, there is really no other comparison to be made. You’re merely trying to dishonestly tap into the rightful disgust for the former and direct it toward the latter.
In the right hands, firearms do promote human well-being, but it requires you acknowledge a few facts.
That is not indoctrination my friend, that is just simple fucking logic.
Would you admire him so much then? I really doubt it.
No I would not admire him but only because Tobacco DOES NOT EQUAL Firearms. Your argument was just destroyed.
This is the same argument that us people against guns have for the NRA.
That may be the case, but it also the reason I disagree. The argument is fallacious, you people are drawing a parallel between two entirely unrelated objects. More people die in car crashes every year than tobacco and firearms yet I don’t see you drawing a comparison between vehicle manufacturers and the tobacco lobby. Seems your attempted logic is a tad bit inconsistent.
But they’re actually protecting arms manufacturer’s rights to sell guns for profit, and people need to be legally allowed to buy guns in order to make a profit from them.
No, again, that’s the NSSF not the NRA. But it really sounds as if your hate is rooted in capitalism and the free market more than firearms. Maybe you should focus more on that and stop trying to fuck law abiding Americans who possess firearms merely because you’re pissed that the company who manufactured it make money.
You can talk about your constitutional rights to bear arms all you like, but there are plenty of things that have been changed in that constitution over the years to fall in line with the prevailing social attitudes of the day.
OK, what’s your point? If you want to repeal the 2nd Amendment then have it. I’d rather gun-haters attempt to do that and just be honest about their end goal.
After all, you’re not living two hundred years ago, are you? It wasn’t even a part of the Bill of Rights anyway, that’s why it’s an amendment.
No, we’re not living 200 years ago. 200 years ago black people were forbidden from owning firearms, now they can. That’s called progress in my book. Also, you might want to educate yourself on American history. The 2nd Amendment is in fact part of the Bill of Rights. It is indeed an amendment, but that’s because the Bill of Rights are the first ten amendments. You really are ignorant of American history, it is no wonder you completely fail to grasp the importance we place on firearms ownership.
It is my true belief that there is only one kind of gun owner; someone who truly desires to kill someone at some point in their lives.
Thank you for admitting that you are absolutely prejudiced and providing the root motivation for your presenting such bullshit arguments. Your honesty is appreciated.
Most want to do it legally, as in with an intruder or attacker.
This assertion is based on nothing more than you wish to demonize the people you disagree with. It’s no different than when a racist claims he truly believes that there is only one kind of black man, those who desire to rape white women at some point in their lives. It’s not based in reality. It’s fabricated from his own bigotry, like you are doing now.
If you defend guns as much as you do, then I believe you simply just want to murder someone and get away with it.
Why is that statement bullshit? Because if a gun owner shoots someone who is attempting to cause them serious bodily harm then they have not committed murder, because self-defense is not murder. If a woman is about to be raped and she manages to shoot and kill her would-be rapist, that’s not murder your ignorant fucking fool.
Jeeze man, you really have shown me the scary depths to which the mind of a gun hating bigot will sink to maintain his hatred.
NOTE: I included my use colorful language and expletives to honestly represent the exchange.
In a recent opinion piece published in my local paper on October 2nd titled “Gun control has become taboo issue” by Joseph Cotto, he details how the political winds have shifted with regard to the subject while dividing defenders of the 2nd Amendment in to two arbitrary groups based on nothing more than how much each group agrees with him. Cotto’s entire opinion piece can be read in PDF here.
Cotto opens his piece by claiming that “Not many people are talking about gun control these days.” That statement is correct so long as we’re discussing politicians and discount the hysterics of groups like Mom’s Demand Action, Mayors Against Illegal Guns and Everytown for Gun Safety. All of which are faux grass-roots groups created by billionaire statist Michael Bloomberg. Discounting those groups, I would agree, not many politicians are pushing unconstitutional gun control laws. Catto’s asserted cause of this reluctance to press the subject is also likely accurate. After the Colorado state legislature passed a pointless law making the mere possession of a magazine which holds more than 15 rounds a crime, as well as criminalizing the private sale or transfer of a firearm without state permission, the citizens of that state decided to forcefully retire two sitting state senators via a recall election in 2013; a vote which Bloomberg threw $350,000 at to support the civilian disarmament lobby.
I also agree with Catto’s assertion that “[w]hile these were just state races, and the electorate in each was surely skewed toward highly motivated voters — in this case, anti-gun control advocates — a message was sent loud and clear on the national stage.” In deed it was Mr. Catto, politicians, more than anything, fear losing power and will avoid touching anything that could cause we the people to strip them of that power.
Catto’s underlying true beliefs on the subject begin to peak through when he writes “[i]t seems likely that fewer legislatures will take up firearm safety bills in the future, especially in states where recalls are constitutional.” Did you notice the misuse of the phrase “firearm safety”? If you haven’t been paying attention to the debate in the past few years, “firearm safety” has become the dishonest code words used by the civilian disarmament lobby in place of “gun control”. A majority of the public now understands that gun control is in practice nothing more than people control. When the average Joe hears the phrase “firearm safety” they do not associate it with gun control, but that is exactly what they mean.
For example, what the anti-gun Colorado legislators passed into law was in no way related to firearm safety, it was just the same gun control nonsense that’s been around since the 80’s when Sarah Brady living high on the hog after her husband was almost killed. The Colorado law stated that after July 1, 2013, the citizens of the state would be stripped of their right to purchase or possess a magazine holding more than 15 rounds. Standard capacity magazines –which people like Cotto would incorrectly label Large Capacity – that were obtained prior to July 1, 2013 could be kept.
Catto considers that law to be a “Gun Safety” law, but what is it exactly about a 15 round magazine that makes it safe while the standard capacity mag that holds 30 rounds is somehow dangerous? If the 30 round magazine is so dangerous, why grandfather those in circulation? Why are police still allowed to use such a dangerous item and why allow people from out-of-state to bring them into the state for personal use? The answer is quite clear, limiting magazine capacity isn’t about safety at all; that’s a lie. It is about CONTROL and a means to slowly erode the rights of the people.
All of this begs a simple question: What is gun control’s purpose? Or, more specifically, who is the intended target of gun control policies? Perhaps this is the basest, yet most prescient, question of all: Who should be allowed to own a firearm?
No sir, Mr. Catto, the question has never been “Who should be allowed to own a firearm?” because the premise assumes that the right to keep and bear arms is not a right but a privilege handed down by the good graces of government. We don’t ask who should be allowed to speak in public or publish a books? The question is “Who should be stripped of their right to own a firearm?” And the answer to that question has been settled law for some time and why laws stripping violent felons of their right to own firearms have been on the books for decades.
It seems obvious that early American senators and congressmen secured the right to bear arms for the purpose of self-defense or hunting game.
I’m sorry Mr. Catto, that is not only wrong but shows either a willful ignorance of history or a dishonest revision of it. The 2nd Amendment was not secured for self-defense or hunting game. Its purpose was clearly explained by those early American legislators. Richard Henry Lee (Senator for the State of Virginia) wrote, “To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them.”
Joseph Story, a Congressman from the State of Massachusetts, wrote in his Commentaries on the Constitution (1833) that, “The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.” No sir, the 2nd Amendment was most assuredly not secured merely for self-defense and hunting, but rather is a last resort check on government tyranny.
Cotto goes on to argue that “[The Founders] did not intend to give Constitutional protections to violent criminals. Therefore, it’s not in the spirit of the Second Amendment to say anybody should be given a gun for any purpose.” Well obviously they did not intent that but his claim that Second Amendment advocates want everyone — regardless of their criminal history — to possess a firearm for any purpose, is a straw man argument.
Decent people should not have their rights infringed on account of a troublesome minority. Surely, most of those who want to purchase a gun through the legal process are concerned about protecting human life or catching a few pheasants, among other wildlife.
This is where Cotto begins to set up his false dichotomy by dividing Second Amendment advocates into two arbitrary categories; people like Cotto who mistakenly believe gun rights concern shooting a mugger or birds, and what he pejoratively labels Second Amendment fundamentalist, which he imagines to be NRA loving lunatic red necks who, he claims, think that murderers and rapist should be armed. I’m not even exaggerating, he actually writes, “The Second Amendment fundamentalists, on the other hand, make no distinction between concerned citizens and homicidal maniacs. They believe that there should be no regulations of any kind insofar as the sale of firearms is concerned.”
Mr. Cotto conveniently fails to cite even one example of anyone actually stating such nonsense. The fact is his so-called “fundamentalists” are merely conjured up fantasies to make his statist views appear rational by comparison. He continues building up his straw man with the following.
Their ideology is rooted not in the concept of self-defense, but self-identity. Radical anti-gun control activists evaluate their own personal worth on the basis of firearm ownership.
This is how Mr. Cotto mentally dismisses anyone who dares attack his faith that gun-control laws actually affect criminals — who by definition do not obey laws. I imagine anyone that provides evidence or rational arguments demonstrating the gun-control measures he advocates have and would fail are mentally placed in the “fundamentalist” column as a means to avoid defending his unfounded gun-control beliefs.
Their ideology is rooted not in the concept of self-defense, but self-identity. Radical anti-gun control activists evaluate their own personal worth on the basis of firearm ownership.
No Mr. Cotto, we so-called “fundamentalist” do not evaluate our own personal worth on the basis of firearms ownership. We begin with the premise that all innocent human life has worth and from that we derive the right to keep and bear arms as a natural right in order to defend that worth against those who might decide to exploit or take someone’s life.
For the radicals, owning a gun is not a precautionary measure, but a status symbol. This is why they tend to lose their marbles when any mention of firearm control is made. If practical restrictions are passed into law, then their race to own the biggest, most dangerous gun will be halted. Perish the thought.
I guess anyone who dares acquire a firearm of which Joseph Cotto disapprove is just a radical. Why can it not be both a a status symbol and precautionary measure. For example, I own multiple firearms for different reasons, precautionary measure being among them. But I also own them as a status symbol of my liberty and living in a nation of the people, by the people, and for the people. I also consider each firearm I own to be a symbolic middle finger to people like Mr. Cotto, who mendaciously demonize people for daring to own something they personally think others either should not possess or should beg permission from the State before acquiring.
The people losing their marbles are entirely on the side of gun-control. Only those who have had a complete break with reality would argue for the sort of nonsense being pushed by gun-control advocates like Mr. Cotto. Sarah Brady, Feinstein, Boxer, Schumer, Bloomberg, and the other elitist gun-control power brokers are now having their asses handed to them by the very people whose rights they seek to slowly strip away. They are the ones who lose their marbles when their agendas are thwarted.
That last sentence is a clear example of Mr. Catto’s ignorance regarding firearms, “biggest” does equal most dangerous. Any firearm, regardless of size, is dangerous when in the hands of someone who has no clue how to operate it; someone like Mr. Catto for example.
Hopefully, more Americans will come to recognize that the Second Amendment is not to be trampled upon, yet ought to be interpreted in a reasonable fashion.
It should be pointed out to Mr. Catto that words have meanings and because “reasonable” means based on good sense, that term is not applicable to the types of laws he advocates. The laws favored by people like Mr. Catto do in fact trample the 2nd Amendment, but he and his comrades are blind to that fact due to their mistaken beliefs concerning the purpose of the right to keep and bear arms.
While the political debate over gun control is unlikely to improve during the foreseeable future, if enough people search for common ground and ignore extremist voices, then a new generation of legislators might come about.
The debate over gun control has been improving for over 10 years. Every year another State repeals laws that once criminalized the right to bear arms and the myths and lies spread by gun-control advocates are debunked, the debate improves. Every time a federal court strikes down an anti-gun law, the debate improves. It is my sincere hope that the gun control debate improves to the point that the real extremist — those who assert stripping people of their rights is a reasonable — are seen for the irrational Statist they truly are.
A terrified Arizona widow survived a violent home invasion after she disregarded all the hipster anti-gun idiots and armed herself with a motherfuck’n .38 caliber revolver — what gun-phobic fuckwits pejoratively label a ‘Saturday Night Special’ — and hid in her bathroom. When Michael Lewis — a violent, 20 year old mouth breathing piece of garbage — found what he assumed to be a feeble defenseless woman cowering on 911 he proceeded to try and beat her to death.
Likely hoping she had believed the bullshit lies from delusional gun phobic fuckwits and would be defenseless, he was un-plesently shocked to feel the sudden sting of a bullet pass through his body. Being the coward he is, and realizing he had bitten off more than he could chew, Lewis suddenly became the scared little bitch all those who beat women actually are. Being in disbelief he began asking what she had done and apologizing to his intended victim.
“Don’t get up or I’ll shot you again!” exclaimed the now out of breath but victorious woman while standing over her fallen foe.
“OK! OK!” came the response from Lewis, having been rightfully made her new bitch.
And here we have the perfect answer to the demands of those anti-gun dreamers who think a locked door and a phone is all anyone really needs during a home invasion. A perfect example of the right to keep and bear arms in action, yet a story you will find nowhere on The Young Turks network; which is no surprise as this incident clearly runs contrary to their anti-gun leftist bullshit that in practice would have lead to her death.
Having been shoot by a single bullet — Lewis was not worth the cost of replacing the other four — thousands of dollars in tax payer money was thrown away to treat Lewis for a month in order for him to stand trial. Lewis — knowing that any decent jury would have him buried under the fucking jail — has since plead guilty to second-degree burglary and aggravated assault for forcing his way into the unidentified woman’s Phoenix home and attempting to kill her.
Watch and enjoy.