Here's where the semanitcs and spin come in !

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted By: hatt
Neat how they did the "rifles or assault rifles" thing. Let's you know they want all of them. They just slipped a bit.
Do they really want all of them? I don't think so. I think they want to make people afraid of all of them. Elevate some scary "assault rifles" to a position as a monster, then divide all the other guns into groups that are each scary for one particular reason or some such but don't take those away. The guns have to be out there to be scary. The people pushing for gun control the hardest aren't really that worried about whether or not you have a gun or what guns you may have. They want people to have something to be afraid of. The more fear people have in their lives the easier they are to control.
 
They want them all. You can't have total dependance on Government and be armed. Just doesn't work like that. The ones in the know, on both sides, are also aware of how effective hunting rifles are. An insurgent weapon supreme. As bad as mass shooting are they over before anyone hears about them. The beltway sniper had the whole region flipping out for weeks.
 
Originally Posted By: hatt
They want them all. You can't have total dependance on Government and be armed. Just doesn't work like that. The ones in the know, on both sides, are also aware of how effective hunting rifles are. An insurgent weapon supreme. As bad as mass shooting are they over before anyone hears about them. The beltway sniper had the whole region flipping out for weeks.
And that's what made him a decent bogeyman. He wasn't a very good bogeyman though because he didn't last long. Is there anyone out there who really thinks they can take all the guns away from everyone in the country who might turn out to be dangerous? Um, I mean is there any sane person out there who really thinks they can take all the guns away from anyone in the country who might turn out to be dangerous? You can certainly use them to make bogeymen.
 
Originally Posted By: yonyon
Do they really want all of them? I don't think so. ....
Yes, they do.
 
Feinstein said for a fact that if she could have gotten the votes to make " Mr and Mrs America....Turn em all in" she would have done it. It's on tape and you can see it for yourself. Also look at the list of the "1000 guns" on her approved gun list in the bill she is proposing. You will notice that it will basically kill any weapon capable of holding 10 rounds. Even if its tubular or fixed mags. There is also not one semi auto pistol on the list from what I have seen. They are not just pushing to "reinstate" the 94 ban, they are greatly expanding it and hoping that they can lull people into thinking its the 94 bill again.
 
Originally Posted By: yonyon
So you're trying to get this thread locked, then, are you?
If I were trying to get it locked it would be believe me. Gotta has some self censoring while dicussing such topics. I mearly responded to mr incredible's post and then added to it. Frankly, since the latest school shooting there have been a huge surge in gun related posts on here and other forums. I am real suprised that they weren't locked down from the start. I've been banned for a few weeks for MUCH less (I mentioned a former vice president's name). I'm also glad the mods grew thicker skin and actually allow one to speak their mind to a certain extent. Again, thank U mods!
 
Anti-GUN people want ALL the guns. "Assault" rifles are only the current evil weapon of the of the moment. When/if all this dies down, the anti-gun people will ride whatever else presents itself. Their intentions are clear and have been spoken many times...they want to get rid of ALL guns. Fat chance...
 
Originally Posted By: Mr_Incredible
And, lastly: Assault Medical Procedures? Planned Parenthood admits to 333,964 ab0rti0ns in 2011. Where ever you stand on that, it's still a lot of little lives. If the liberal argument was simply about the number of lives taken by guns, this would kind of blunt their argument. Don't you think?
+1
 
Originally Posted By: Oldwolf
Problem with the gun related deaths/"murders" is that they always include people who commit suicide. That inflates that number greatly.
 
Originally Posted By: Mr_Incredible
Anti-GUN people want ALL the guns. "Assault" rifles are only the current evil weapon of the of the moment. When/if all this dies down, the anti-gun people will ride whatever else presents itself. Their intentions are clear and have been spoken many times...they want to get rid of ALL guns. Fat chance...
Replace "anti" with "pro". I still think this debate verges on religious. Each side believes they are right.
 
No, you are wrong there. Pro gun people see a gun as a gun. anti gun people have the little categorisations that they use to sway uneducated public on which guns are more evil than others, and which guns are more "like" the evil ones. see the article that I posted...it went from assault rifles to rifles "like killed JFK", and some of the positive responses to it in this thread, obviously from people who don't understand how they are being lead. In Australia, the antis got "evil" assault weapons, pump shotguns, auto shotguns, then wrapped it up with Ruger 10-22 plinking rifles... Now they are going after semi-auto handguns, picketting schools who have target shooting, trying to ban duck hunting... they admit that they want them all gone...they have also admitted that other "blood sports" such as fishing are on their agenda. They just need to implement it one "sensible measure" after a catastrophe at a time.
 
Originally Posted By: ridgerunner
Originally Posted By: Oldwolf
Problem with the gun related deaths/"murders" is that they always include people who commit suicide. That inflates that number greatly.
The chart does not include suicides. That would bring the firearm deaths over 40,000 year I think.
 
Originally Posted By: surfstar
Originally Posted By: Mr_Incredible
Anti-GUN people want ALL the guns. "Assault" rifles are only the current evil weapon of the of the moment. When/if all this dies down, the anti-gun people will ride whatever else presents itself. Their intentions are clear and have been spoken many times...they want to get rid of ALL guns. Fat chance...
Replace "anti" with "pro". I still think this debate verges on religious. Each side believes they are right.
That's not true. I don't believe I'm right. I KNOW I'm right and history bears that out. Whenever weapons confiscations have happened throughout history it has NEVER been to the benifit of the populace. My family came from a communist country. The first thing they (the communists) did was to make all personal firearms illegal and confiscate them. They then proceeded to nationalize(STEAL) all forms of personal property(everything), Houses, businesses, cars, money, etc... Unfortunately the current administration has taken an anti-freedom stance against it's own people. Just curious if they will wage a "gun war" similar to the "drug war" they are currently engaged in.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: OB4x4
Unfortunately the current administration has taken an anti-freedom stance against it's own people.
When you say 'current administration' are you talking about local gun shops?? I have heard they have stopped taking orders on some guns.
 
Originally Posted By: Win
Originally Posted By: HerrStig
Yamamoto, the famous Japanese Admiral in WWII, who spent some time in the US, is quoted as saying he feared invading the West Coast because "There would be a rifleman behind every blade of grass", a class of citizen far removed from the FIVE MILLION Stalin killed just prior to WWII because they were "politically inconvenient".
There doesn't appear to be any evidence that Yamamoto actually said this, although he did study in the United States and was familiar with the culture.
It's a nonsensical myth oft repeated. The last thing the Japanese Imperial Army would have worried about in a hypothetical invasion of the U.S. would have been a mostly untrained, uncoordinated rabble of people with firearms. And judging by their barbaric behavior in China, anyone taking a shot at them would have had his daughters raped in front of them before they wiped out their entire town... Yamamoto spent time here, he was far more worried that the United States' "sleeping giant" industrial might as we could produce more submachine-guns in one month than the Japanese could the entire war. Not too mention the Japanese barely had enough shipping, air power, and men to defend what they had already invaded and taken. Or that the Japanese Army, while capable of suicidal fanaticism on heavily fortified pacific islands with poor terrain, performed very poorly at mobile, combined arms warfare in open terrain against modern adversaries with tanks...
 
Originally Posted By: Gabe
Originally Posted By: Win
Originally Posted By: DBMaster
Facts rule, yes. ..... Adam Lanza did not have to "steal" his mother's guns. .....
We don't know if this is fact, or not. Both parties to the event are dead.
Sometimes in life, you have to use common sense. I doubt Adam's mother said "Take my guns; shoot me; shoot my friends; kill yourself."
Apparently his mother had absolutely no common sense and way too much time on her hands...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

T
  • Locked
A letter from my congressman. An interesting read.
2
Replies
26
Views
7K
JHZR2
Top