100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Why Good People Should Be Armed | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
Stefan Molyneux If you are for gun control, then you are not against guns, because the guns will be needed to disarm people. So it's not that you are anti-gun. You'll need the police's guns to take away other people's guns. So you're very Pro-Gun, you just believe that only the Government (which is, of course, so reliable, honest, moral and virtuous) should be allowed to have guns. There is no such thing as gun control. There is only centralizing gun ownership in the hands of a small, political elite and their minions. You mean no good to anyone! Yep,anti-gunners are queer Folk indeed,punishing lawabiding Citizens for Crimes they haven't committed! And strangely,with every antigun-Measure things get more out of hand,as if the Criminals just didn't give a damn about the Law!  what 'punishment' ? are we PUNISHING the blind by not giving them drivers licenses,,lol or are we using common sense and responsibility? So,if someone who is Legally Blind sits into a Car,drives off and kills someone you propose to take all the Cars from all the other Drivers! Some Logic indeed!   no, I would propose that is why it makes THT MUCH MORE SENSE TO REGULATE Who is being permitted to drive,,, just like I propose regulate who is being given these weapons,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
BTW,the title of the Thread is;"Why Good People Should Be Armed",not "Why Criminals Ought to be Armed",but it seems some People can't see the difference,to them an Gunowner is a potential Criminal!
A damn sad Attitude! 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Conrad_73
on
Thu 12/05/13 01:46 PM
|
|
Stefan Molyneux If you are for gun control, then you are not against guns, because the guns will be needed to disarm people. So it's not that you are anti-gun. You'll need the police's guns to take away other people's guns. So you're very Pro-Gun, you just believe that only the Government (which is, of course, so reliable, honest, moral and virtuous) should be allowed to have guns. There is no such thing as gun control. There is only centralizing gun ownership in the hands of a small, political elite and their minions. You mean no good to anyone! Yep,anti-gunners are queer Folk indeed,punishing lawabiding Citizens for Crimes they haven't committed! And strangely,with every antigun-Measure things get more out of hand,as if the Criminals just didn't give a damn about the Law! what 'punishment' ? are we PUNISHING the blind by not giving them drivers licenses,,lol or are we using common sense and responsibility? So,if someone who is Legally Blind sits into a Car,drives off and kills someone you propose to take all the Cars from all the other Drivers! Some Logic indeed! no, I would propose that is why it makes THT MUCH MORE SENSE TO REGULATE Who is being permitted to drive,,, just like I propose regulate who is being given these weapons,,, That's not what your Logic indicates! "Waiting periods are only a step. Registration is only a step. The prohibition of private firearms is the goal." -- Janet Reno and this is still the Official Attitude,whether you want to admit it or not! If you don't believe it,ask Feinstein or Reid or Obama! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"This year will go down in history. For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration. Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future." Adolph Hitler, 1933.
Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945 13 million were thrown into concentration camps. Do you understand the trend. Hitler was a SOCIALIST. LEFT of center. BIG GOVERNMENT. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Joe Biden said "We don't have time to enforce existing gun laws,let's add new ones".
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Here's a list of the 46 Senators who voted against stopping the US from joining the UN Arms Trade Treaty.
Baldwin (D-WI), Nay ... Baucus (D-MT), Nay Bennet (D-CO), Nay Blumenthal (D-CT), Nay Boxer (D-CA), Nay Brown (D-OH), Nay Cantwell (D-WA), Nay Cardin (D-MD), Nay Carper (D-DE), Nay Casey (D-PA), Nay Coons (D-DE), Nay Cowan (D-MA), Nay Durbin (D-IL), Nay Feinstein (D-CA), Nay Franken (D-MN), Nay Gillibrand (D-NY), Nay Harkin (D-IA), Nay Hirono (D-HI), Nay Johnson (D-SD), Nay Kaine (D-VA), Nay King (I-ME), Nay Klobuchar (D-MN), Nay Landrieu (D-LA), Nay Lautenberg (D-NJ), Not Voting Leahy (D-VT), Nay Levin (D-MI), Nay McCaskill (D-MO), Nay Menendez (D-NJ), Nay Merkley (D-OR), Nay Mikulski (D-MD), Nay Murphy (D-CT), Nay Murray (D-WA), Nay Nelson (D-FL), Nay Reed (D-RI), Nay Reid (D-NV), Nay Rockefeller (D-WV), Nay Sanders (I-VT), Nay Schatz (D-HI), Nay Schumer (D-NY), Nay Shaheen (D-NH), Nay Stabenow (D-MI), Nay Udall (D-CO), Nay Udall (D-NM), Nay Warner (D-VA), Nay Warren (D-MA), Nay Whitehouse (D-RI), Nay Wyden (D-OR), Nay TRAITORS to America! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Stefan Molyneux If you are for gun control, then you are not against guns, because the guns will be needed to disarm people. So it's not that you are anti-gun. You'll need the police's guns to take away other people's guns. So you're very Pro-Gun, you just believe that only the Government (which is, of course, so reliable, honest, moral and virtuous) should be allowed to have guns. There is no such thing as gun control. There is only centralizing gun ownership in the hands of a small, political elite and their minions. You mean no good to anyone! Yep,anti-gunners are queer Folk indeed,punishing lawabiding Citizens for Crimes they haven't committed! And strangely,with every antigun-Measure things get more out of hand,as if the Criminals just didn't give a damn about the Law! what 'punishment' ? are we PUNISHING the blind by not giving them drivers licenses,,lol or are we using common sense and responsibility? So,if someone who is Legally Blind sits into a Car,drives off and kills someone you propose to take all the Cars from all the other Drivers! Some Logic indeed! no, I would propose that is why it makes THT MUCH MORE SENSE TO REGULATE Who is being permitted to drive,,, just like I propose regulate who is being given these weapons,,, That's not what your Logic indicates! "Waiting periods are only a step. Registration is only a step. The prohibition of private firearms is the goal." -- Janet Reno and this is still the Official Attitude,whether you want to admit it or not! If you don't believe it,ask Feinstein or Reid or Obama! my name is not Janet Reno I have posted about six times now what I believe,, end of story |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"This year will go down in history. For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration. Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future." Adolph Hitler, 1933. Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945 13 million were thrown into concentration camps. Do you understand the trend. Hitler was a SOCIALIST. LEFT of center. BIG GOVERNMENT. yep, after taking guns from JEWS,,, Ive proposed no such thing as religious or racial profiling where regulation is concerned,,, regulations need to have some COMMON SENSE as in, we want sighted people to have licenses, and people who can read and understand laws,,,,nto as in we don't want blacks to have licenses I don't see these as anywhere clos to the same type of controls |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Adju, cheers to you my friend. Love that post.  Dodo, great point. Furthermore, what some don't seem to understand, is that a successful push to regulate firearms in an extreme way (like requiring permits) will be met with resistance. If masses are being disarmed at any point, you may have a fight on your hands. So much for gun control "saving lives" in that instance. Just sayin... disrarming is no more a reality than sending back the millions of children who grew up here as illegals but are now adults,,, and right now there is an OVERWHELMING number of firearms in the hands of citizens, because the right to arms is VERY Alive AND WELL And always will be that's a far cry though, from enforcing common sense regulation and paying more attention from here FORWARD,,, Your common sense and my common sense seem to differ. Your reaction is attempt to gain control. Mine is to help. Meaning; an increase of funding to mental healthcare would go far in this issue. Would also help weed out those who are unstable. Those identified as unstable are not allowed to purchase or possess firearms already. We have all the laws we need. As Adju pointed out, we just need help enforcing them. Again, any legislation that would disarm a mass number of people may be met with a lot of angry, armed people. In the interest of human life, perhaps we should not push the issue to that point. there is no difference, my reaction is a BALANCE< where we address both underlying issues like healthcare, AND the end result like keeping weapons out of the hands of the unstable and paranoid amonst us you cant disarm without having arms in the first place, cant take away what someone doesn't have I am not advocating an attempt to 'disarm' or TAKE AWAY The guns people have, IM advocating more care in assessing who WILL BE ARMED that isn't already there is a substantial difference kind of like advocating for revoking the license of anyone who drove without insurance before insurance laws were passed,,, or advocating for enforcing the requirement for insurance on those SEEKING licenses AFTER The law passed,, Im not a fan of retroactive actions,,,Im more into progressve I never stated we should adopt "retroactive" actions, and "progressive" does not necessarily constitute progress. Guess we may be more aligned than once thought. But I don't see where we need any more laws. Nothing needs to be added as they seem to be adequate, just lack enforcement. As stated, anyone with a violent past cannot ever buy or possess firearms. Anyone who is considered unbalanced mentally (at risk of committing violent acts against himself or others) cannot buy or possess firearms. Don't see where we need to include anything else in this. Now, lets expand mental healthcare to aid in identifying these people. Heck, the NRA even offered to help fund such a project if we stop trying to ban firearms... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
so, they take a few minutes to do what is their JOB TO DO,,, and? they are being paid for it, because its their JOB in the real world, job requirements are constantly being changed and updated, I haven't had one job in probably twenty years where it wasn't stated 'job duties as needed',,, its part of grown up life in the real world This is a moot point. Job of police is to protect and serve, not just do what they are told. Time gets taken from the pursuit of real criminals and given to this new demographic whose only crime is offending another demographic. Don't see how this can be productive, nor helpful for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
are we PUNISHING the blind by not giving them drivers licenses,,lol Possessing a driver's license is a privilege, not a right. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Stefan Molyneux If you are for gun control, then you are not against guns, because the guns will be needed to disarm people. So it's not that you are anti-gun. You'll need the police's guns to take away other people's guns. So you're very Pro-Gun, you just believe that only the Government (which is, of course, so reliable, honest, moral and virtuous) should be allowed to have guns. There is no such thing as gun control. There is only centralizing gun ownership in the hands of a small, political elite and their minions. You mean no good to anyone! Yep,anti-gunners are queer Folk indeed,punishing lawabiding Citizens for Crimes they haven't committed! And strangely,with every antigun-Measure things get more out of hand,as if the Criminals just didn't give a damn about the Law! what 'punishment' ? are we PUNISHING the blind by not giving them drivers licenses,,lol or are we using common sense and responsibility? So,if someone who is Legally Blind sits into a Car,drives off and kills someone you propose to take all the Cars from all the other Drivers! Some Logic indeed! no, I would propose that is why it makes THT MUCH MORE SENSE TO REGULATE Who is being permitted to drive,,, just like I propose regulate who is being given these weapons,,, ok, blind people shouldn't have guns...i agree |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"This year will go down in history. For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration. Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future." Adolph Hitler, 1933. Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945 13 million were thrown into concentration camps. Do you understand the trend. Hitler was a SOCIALIST. LEFT of center. BIG GOVERNMENT. yep, after taking guns from JEWS,,, Ive proposed no such thing as religious or racial profiling where regulation is concerned,,, regulations need to have some COMMON SENSE as in, we want sighted people to have licenses, and people who can read and understand laws,,,,nto as in we don't want blacks to have licenses I don't see these as anywhere clos to the same type of controls read you history... it wasn't just the Jews, it was all of Germany... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
BTW,the title of the Thread is;"Why Good People Should Be Armed",not "Why Criminals Ought to be Armed",but it seems some People can't see the difference,to them an Gunowner is a potential Criminal! A damn sad Attitude! to bad they didn't read this... best post in here |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
are we PUNISHING the blind by not giving them drivers licenses,,lol Possessing a driver's license is a privilege, not a right. yep, for a well REGULATED Militia,,,m |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I agree on extremism being an issue. Sometimes people get trigger happy. Can't justify spreading broad legislation that will hurt normal folk though. Not sure where you came up with G.W. planning the economic disaster, but you, yourself said the economy was an issue. What if that were the focus instead of laws that attack average people? I feel it necessary to point out a hipocracy in your statement... Fair enough... Let me explain The economy is cyclical... The safety of your children shouldn't be? I don't see how tough as nails prevention can hurt anyone. As Ms Harmony pointed out... no one here advocates disarming anyone... The trigger happy folk need to understand that carrying a loaded weapon around doesn't make sense... the false sense of security, the potential for theft, loss or accidents is too high of price to pay. The spike in Lab produced narcotics, virtually untreatable mental illness has taken it's toll on our society, last thing we need is more weapons being carted around. It has become a showdown on who fires first... Unacceptable! Your bill of rights to bear arms... If you read it as is, doesn't exclude the mentally challenged, the violent even children are not excluded from that right. Does this make sense to you? The most violent psychopath has the same rights you have to carry loaded weapons around town? George W... waged a war against a ideology... one that's been growing for 20 yrs prior to 911... It is the unwavering support for Israel and hypocrisy in that region that fuels the Jihadis. The stateless clan of thugs can openly recruit based on this. For 20 years the Americans discounted their gripe till 911. Do you feel safer today? How can you bury your collective heads in the sand about this? Time for real change! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I agree on extremism being an issue. Sometimes people get trigger happy. Can't justify spreading broad legislation that will hurt normal folk though. Not sure where you came up with G.W. planning the economic disaster, but you, yourself said the economy was an issue. What if that were the focus instead of laws that attack average people? I feel it necessary to point out a hipocracy in your statement... Fair enough... Let me explain The economy is cyclical... The safety of your children shouldn't be? I don't see how tough as nails prevention can hurt anyone. As Ms Harmony pointed out... no one here advocates disarming anyone... The trigger happy folk need to understand that carrying a loaded weapon around doesn't make sense... the false sense of security, the potential for theft, loss or accidents is too high of price to pay. The spike in Lab produced narcotics, virtually untreatable mental illness has taken it's toll on our society, last thing we need is more weapons being carted around. It has become a showdown on who fires first... Unacceptable! Your bill of rights to bear arms... If you read it as is, doesn't exclude the mentally challenged, the violent even children are not excluded from that right. Does this make sense to you? The most violent psychopath has the same rights you have to carry loaded weapons around town? George W... waged a war against a ideology... one that's been growing for 20 yrs prior to 911... It is the unwavering support for Israel and hypocrisy in that region that fuels the Jihadis. The stateless clan of thugs can openly recruit based on this. For 20 years the Americans discounted their gripe till 911. Do you feel safer today? How can you bury your collective heads in the sand about this? Time for real change! You're slipping Old Son! But you get the Reward nevertheless!  
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
First they come for your guns.....then they come for you 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I agree on extremism being an issue. Sometimes people get trigger happy. Can't justify spreading broad legislation that will hurt normal folk though. Not sure where you came up with G.W. planning the economic disaster, but you, yourself said the economy was an issue. What if that were the focus instead of laws that attack average people? I feel it necessary to point out a hipocracy in your statement... Fair enough... Let me explain The economy is cyclical... The safety of your children shouldn't be? I don't see how tough as nails prevention can hurt anyone. As Ms Harmony pointed out... no one here advocates disarming anyone... The trigger happy folk need to understand that carrying a loaded weapon around doesn't make sense... the false sense of security, the potential for theft, loss or accidents is too high of price to pay. The spike in Lab produced narcotics, virtually untreatable mental illness has taken it's toll on our society, last thing we need is more weapons being carted around. It has become a showdown on who fires first... Unacceptable! Your bill of rights to bear arms... If you read it as is, doesn't exclude the mentally challenged, the violent even children are not excluded from that right. Does this make sense to you? The most violent psychopath has the same rights you have to carry loaded weapons around town? George W... waged a war against a ideology... one that's been growing for 20 yrs prior to 911... It is the unwavering support for Israel and hypocrisy in that region that fuels the Jihadis. The stateless clan of thugs can openly recruit based on this. For 20 years the Americans discounted their gripe till 911. Do you feel safer today? How can you bury your collective heads in the sand about this? Time for real change! You're slipping Old Son! But you get the Reward nevertheless! the post before his mentioned George w,,,, not sure how his response qualifies as red herring |
|
|
|
|
