Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst ... 345
Results 41 to 48 of 48
  1. #41
    In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion.
    Just because you don't use force to persuade somebody, doesn't mean you are moral.

    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 guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.
    Really? If i approach you from the back and shoot you in the head what exactly does your personal firearm do for you? If somebody starts shooting a semi-automatic or fully-automatic weapon in a crowd while wearing body armor and by chance you survive long enough to draw your gun, what then? Do you really believe you stand a chance? Guns don't remove force from the menu, it only gives you that illusion.

    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 an armed 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.
    It's not about being more or less civilized, it's about lowering as much as possible the probability of you or your loved ones getting killed. Guns make it very ease to kill someone, that is what they are designed for. If guns are rare in a society, criminals will have a harder time finding one, and so the probabilities that your loved ones are are caught in a shooting are lower. Also if the criminal thinks you might have a gun and fight back he will shoot first and ask questions later, and will make an example off of you to the rest of the community. Solving violence with more violence will only generate more violence.

    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.
    Oh yes, the young, the strong, and the many rule not the 1% that owns 40% of the nations wealth, not the firearms industry who in 2011 had a 31 billion dollar impact on the economy, not the military-industrial complex, and so forth and so on...

    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.
    This is so wrong. Of course fists, bats, sticks or stones can be lethal, but guns are considerably more so. Try doing mass murder with sticks, bats or stones.

    The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor 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 weight lifter. It simply wouldn't work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn't both lethal and easily employable.
    Really? Guns are equalizers? A gun is as useful in the hands of an octogenarian as they are in the hands of someone younger who has better timing, reactions, balance, sight, etc? What if the mugger just shoots you in the back and takes your money? what if there are several muggers with bigger guns and Kevlar vests? Guns are not equalizers, they will just get more people killed.

    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.
    What a load of bullshit. You can't be forced? What if they shoot you in the back? What if you are being assaulted by several armed people with bulletproof vests? It doesn't remove force from the equation, it only adds more of it to the equation while filling the firearms industry pockets.

    I don't carry it because I'm afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid.
    This one takes the cake. What a ridiculous statement.

    Kurzy no disrespect intended to you, but this is just pure propaganda.

  2. #42
    Yes David, the people are the problem, so let's give them easy access to guns with high capacity clips and fast rates of fire.

  3. #43

    Array

    School
    10th planet Peterborough
    Posts
    556
    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 guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.


    Or a 110 pound crack addict with no conscious the same amount of power with a 220 world champion.... Some people cant handle power ... a lot of people cant handle power ... guns are a tool agreed ... a tool anyone can use. George Carlin said imagine how stupid the average person you know is ... and then realize half are below that median lol. Same goes for humility and the ability to use power responsibly .... Truth be told ... more than half the people on this planet should never be given such power .. the logic is if we all have it we are equal .. no ... no we arent. Im not as willing to shoot someone as a desperate crack addict or a power trippy loon ball who wants to kill a bunch of people ... therefore they are more of a danger than me with a gun and we are truly not equal. .. more guns in circulation means more access for anyone ... period.... Every gun lover likes to say that criminals dont use registered weapons .. etc ... stats show in those slaying 75% were. Im not anti gun. I have tons of friends that are enthusiasts ... but there is no logic in arming everyone ... and no logic in more equals more safe ... too many stupid people out there ... Ive heard stuff after the shooting at the school such as the teachers and the janitor should have been armed ....Really .. I dont want my kid to go to kindergarten where the teachers need to pack heat ... and tons of guns around kids is asking for trouble ...
    Stewart Landry
    Head Instructor 10th Planet Peterborough

  4. #44
    Kurzy's Avatar
    Array

    School
    Eris Martial Arts, Peterborough
    Location
    Peterborough Ontario
    Posts
    3,558
    Hey Spinola, I didn't write the article, and I'm not going to argue it with anyone either. I just posted it to offer a different perspective.

    Let's just say I am pro-2A and leave it at that. I know most people don't agree with me and I'm OK with that.


    @Kurzinator on Twitter & Instagram



  5. #45
    Quote Originally Posted by Kurzy View Post
    Hey Spinola, I didn't write the article, and I'm not going to argue it with anyone either. I just posted it to offer a different perspective.

    Let's just say I am pro-2A and leave it at that. I know most people don't agree with me and I'm OK with that.
    Fair enough. I hope i didn't come off as trying to attack you, that was not my intention. I just meant to attack the article and it's author.

  6. #46
    Quote Originally Posted by Stewart Landry View Post
    Or a 110 pound crack addict with no conscious the same amount of power with a 220 world champion.... Some people cant handle power ... a lot of people cant handle power ... guns are a tool agreed ... a tool anyone can use. George Carlin said imagine how stupid the average person you know is ... and then realize half are below that median lol. Same goes for humility and the ability to use power responsibly .... Truth be told ... more than half the people on this planet should never be given such power .. the logic is if we all have it we are equal .. no ... no we arent. Im not as willing to shoot someone as a desperate crack addict or a power trippy loon ball who wants to kill a bunch of people ... therefore they are more of a danger than me with a gun and we are truly not equal. .. more guns in circulation means more access for anyone ... period.... Every gun lover likes to say that criminals dont use registered weapons .. etc ... stats show in those slaying 75% were. Im not anti gun. I have tons of friends that are enthusiasts ... but there is no logic in arming everyone ... and no logic in more equals more safe ... too many stupid people out there ... Ive heard stuff after the shooting at the school such as the teachers and the janitor should have been armed ....Really .. I dont want my kid to go to kindergarten where the teachers need to pack heat ... and tons of guns around kids is asking for trouble ...
    Same here.

  7. #47

    Array

    School
    Formerly 10P Spokane
    Posts
    100
    "The first time you or I confront terrorism - foreign or domestic - we become the first line of defense, and it's too late to call in anyone else. An armed law-abiding citizen is first line of defense for your own family and your country !

    The politicians will tell us they want to protect us from firearms crime, by eliminating private ownership of firearms. This is the biggest lie of them all.

    In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

    In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

    Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.

    China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

    Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

    Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

    Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, 1 million 'educated' people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

    Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century with the help of gun control: 56 million.

    It has now been 12 months since gun owners in Australia were forced by new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by their own government, a program costing Australia taxpayers more than $500 million dollars.

    The first year results are now in: Australia-wide, homicides are up 3.2 percent Australia-wide, assaults are up 8.6 percent. Australia-wide, armed robberies are up 44 percent (yes, 44 percent)!

    In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now up 300 percent. Note that while the law-abiding citizens turned them in, the criminals did not, and criminals still possess their guns! While figures over the previous 25 years showed a steady decrease in armed robbery with firearms, this has changed drastically upward in the past 12 months, since criminals now are guaranteed that their prey is unarmed. There has also been a dramatic increase in break-ins and assaults of the elderly. Australian politicians are at a loss to explain how public safety has decreased, after such monumental effort and expense was expended in successfully ridding Australian society of guns. The Australian experience and the other historical facts above prove it.

    You won't see this data on the American evening news or hear our president, governors or other politicians disseminating this information. Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws affect only the law-abiding citizens.

    Take note my fellow Americans, before it's too late! The next time someone talks in favor of gun control, please remind them of this history lesson.

    With firearms, we are 'citizens'. Without them, we are 'subjects'. "


    http://www.summitdaily.com/article/2...TTER/105010062





    "When an armed man opened fire on a crowded shopping mall in Oregon last week, 22-year-old Nick Meli pulled out his concealed carry permitted gun, and took cover in a store before taking aim.

    “I know after he saw me, I think the last shot he fired was the one he used on himself,” Meli reported of the gunman’s suicide that followed to KGW News Channel 8. Two people died at the hands of the shooter before the man took his own life, but many more could have lost their lives in Oregon that day had Meli not been there.

    Yesterday in San Antonio, Texas, two people were wounded in another movie theater shooting before an off-duty officer took the gunman down, wounding him and effectively ending the murder spree before anyone else could get hurt.

    As with other shootings stopped by lawfully armed citizens, news about these two incidents has been widely limited to local media outlets and seemingly ignored otherwise. Why the mainstream blackout?

    Even though the media has struggled with reporting the actual facts of the Connecticut shooting, all the national news outlets seem to have time to publish are propaganda pieces pushing gun control.

    In Reuters this morning, one headline reads, “In Newtown, an Anguished Debate over Gun Rights, Controls,” and the subhead reads, “Two days after a gunman opened fire in a Connecticut elementary school, killing 26 people, several dozen parents and children gathered in a circle at Newtown’s public library to draw something positive from the town’s sudden, tragic notoriety” (emphasis added).

    CNN’s Don Lemon used his airtime this morning to go on an anti-gun tirade, claiming mental health issues are secondary to gun availability.

    News outlet Salon went to task posting gun control stories and targeting preppers on its site and official Twitter account all weekend, even writing a hit piece on Alex Jones. In “What’s a Prepper?,” Salon’s Katie McDonough notes, “Preppers believe having weapons is just as important as having enough water. They are also deeply suspicious of government overreach, sounding Tea Party-like…”

    The Atlantic‘s Senior Editor Robert Wright offered, “A Gun Control Law that Would Actually Work,” going beyond the assault weapons ban Senator Dianne Feinstein has promised she will introduce during Congress’ first 2013 session. Wright calls for a ban on any gun that can hold more than six bullets. Feinstein is not alone, either; USA Today is reporting “the most prominent pro-gun member of Congress” with an NRA “A” rating Senator Joe Manchin has announced the horrific mass shootings have “changed” him. Manchin is now calling for more control on public firearm purchasing power.

    MSNBC asked, “Is the American Public Ready for Gun Control?” Politico gave us, “The Price of the Second Amendment,” presenting the argument that the lives of the children in Connecticut are what we must pay to have the right to keep and bear arms. The Christian Science Monitor declared, “Madison Never Meant Second Amendment to Allow Guns of Sandy Hook Shooting.”

    Anti-gun op-eds abound. The Huffington Post published, “Gun Control and Mental Health Funding—If Not Now, When?” and “The Real 2nd Amendment Isn’t the NRA Version.” The Washington Post posted, “Now Is the Time for Meaningful Gun Control.” Following an outcry on social media sites this weekend, the Discovery Channel announced its show “American Guns” was also canceled.

    In the wake of the Connecticut tragedy, a White House.gov citizen petition for “legislation that limits access to guns” put up the day of the school shooting already garnered over 150,000 signatures in just three days, breaking the record for the most-signed petition on the government’s site. People across the nation have also flocked to gun buyback programs to willingly turn their guns in.

    Even the National Rifle Association has fallen silent on social media sites, reportedly taking down its Facebook page and not responding on Twitter since the shooting.

    As Alex Jones reported on his radio show today, “Here’s the real newsflash folks—they’re coming for our guns. Make no mistake.”

    Although our government is responsible for the Fast and Furious gunwalking scandal that put guns in Mexican drug cartel hands that have since resulted in thousands of deaths, and Obama’s drone strike kill list is reportedly responsible for the murders of nearly 200 children among thousands of dead innocents in the Middle East, the president somehow found the ability to wipe away fake tears at a press conference following the Connecticut school shooting.

    In the Newtown massacre fallout, an all-out war has been declared on We the People’s right to keep and bear arms.

    The mainstream media has politicized the Connecticut school shooting to the point that using the tragedy to demonize the 2nd Amendment has seemingly become an Olympic event. Where is the supposedly objective media now to report on the other examples of guns in the hands of properly permitted American citizens saving people’s lives?

    Declaring we need stricter gun laws and to repeal the 2nd Amendment is synonymous with saying, “We want criminals and the government to be the only ones armed in America.” Because if our legal arms are stripped from law-abiding citizens, the only people who will have guns will be the government and the criminals.

    The problem is, the line between the two is so blurry, it’s nearly impossible to tell who is who anymore."

    “The lessons of history are numerous, clear and bloody. A disarmed population inevitably becomes an enslaved population. A disarmed population is without power, reduced to childlike obedience to—and dependence upon—the organs of a parental state. A disarmed population will lose—either piecemeal or in one sweeping act—those basic rights for which the citizens of America risked their lives and fortunes over two hundred years ago.” — Brian Puckett


    http://www.infowars.com/the-mainstre...2nd-amendment/

  8. #48
    Martin Bryant also use to fuck chickens

Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst ... 345

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •