A Senate in the Gun Lobby?????s Grip

[_ldsfaqs]

So I guess the real question is: Are murdered people, including kids, an acceptable consequence for the rights of people to bear arms?

Topping my question for...anyone.

This is easy..... Do you even know that in the UK which is one of the poster children of the lefts gun control policy's that the over-all RATE of "violent death" (not even involving guns) has GONE UP since they took away everyone's guns? In other words, the rate of violent death is not only the SAME but HIGHER than before the gun ban when people had both guns and otherwise to kill. The gun ban did NOTHING to effect the rate of violent death and crime.

Do you even know that in multiple counties that have strict gun control, that "children still die" in very large rates?

Is children dying in car crashes an "acceptable consequence" for the Freedom to drive?
Is children playing sports an "acceptable consequence" for the freedom to improve yourself?
on and on....

Further, while these examples and many more show the clear fallacy of such an argument, the argument is even in a WORSE position. Because the argument ignores the some 2 Million people world wide a year who are actually SAVED or a violent or otherwise crime is stopped because a citizen had a gun. It further ignores the BILLIONS and BILLIONS who have died because people in history allowed both gun control and weapons control, thus people couldn't fight back against dictators, genocide, or fascism.

Are some children a year "worth" the lives of BILLIONS in certain events in history, or the many who are saved because someone had a weapon?

Your question is that of a child, a straw-man that ignores key factors which mitigate the question into nonsense.

[_ldsfaqs]

criminal and insane talk. I hope there really is a judgement day.

There is, and you will be held accountable for your support of fascism, and against the HUMAN and INALIENABLE right to self-defense.
It is MORAL RIGHT to be ABLE defend yourself however you feel is necessary. Anyone that goes against that is the actual "criminal" and utterly insane.

[_Analytics]

criminal and insane talk. I hope there really is a judgement day.

There is, and you will be held accountable for your support of fascism, and against the HUMAN and INALIENABLE right to self-defense.
It is MORAL RIGHT to be ABLE defend yourself however you feel is necessary. Anyone that goes against that is the actual "criminal" and utterly insane.

Do you think that people with serious mental illness have the right to own any type of weapon that they feel is necessary to defend themselves?

[_Bond James Bond]

This is easy..... Do you even know that in the UK which is one of the poster children of the lefts gun control policy's that the over-all RATE of "violent death" (not even involving guns) has GONE UP since they took away everyone's guns? In other words, the rate of violent death is not only the SAME but HIGHER than before the gun ban when people had both guns and otherwise to kill. The gun ban did NOTHING to effect the rate of violent death and crime. (Source?)

Do you even know that in multiple counties that have strict gun control, that "children still die" in very large rates? (Where?)

Is children dying in car crashes an "acceptable consequence" for the Freedom to drive? (Cars are licensed and regulated)
Is children playing sports an "acceptable consequence" for the freedom to improve yourself?
on and on....(What?)

Further, while these examples and many more show the clear fallacy of such an argument, the argument is even in a WORSE position. Because the argument ignores the some 2 Million people world wide a year who are actually SAVED or a violent or otherwise crime is stopped because a citizen had a gun. It further ignores the BILLIONS and BILLIONS who have died because people in history allowed both gun control and weapons control, thus people couldn't fight back against dictators, genocide, or fascism. (Source? Where?)

Are some children a year "worth" the lives of BILLIONS in certain events in history, or the many who are saved because someone had a weapon? (Which events? Billions really?)

Your question is that of a child, a straw-man that ignores key factors which mitigate the question into nonsense.

So you're a yes. by the way I would love some sources on your um...argument. Particularly the stuff I bold or question in HUGE text. by the way w/r/t car crashes, cars are regulated and licensed. So shouldn't guns be the same if you're going to make that argument?

[_ldsfaqs]

Do you think that people with serious mental illness have the right to own any type of weapon that they feel is necessary to defend themselves?

Of course not, but your comment is a strawman. We aren't talking about "just" the seriously mental ill. See the other thread for more related to this similar question in another vain you made to me.

[_ldsfaqs]

So you're a yes. by the way I would love some sources on your um...argument. Particularly the stuff I bold or question in HUGE text. by the way w/r/t car crashes, cars are regulated and licensed. So shouldn't guns be the same if you're going to make that argument?

1. I've read likely every article and watched every video on gun control world wide.
Goodness, I'm not going to do your own research and study. Start at Youtube and start learning.

2. I was making a general comment that children still die.

3. Cars are licensed and regulated, but there are several problems when you apply that argument to guns.

You can buy any "type" of car you want, including very dangerous and fast ones. You can't buy any type of gun you want. Only if you abuse your "privelage" do you have your right to use a car possibly taken away. A gun, you aren't even giving people a chance to be responsible.

A car isn't generally used to defend yourself and others against criminals and tryanny, a gun is. A gun is an equalizer to your right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. A car isn't necessary to protect life and liberty. Government likely will never come and take away your car, but they will come take away your guns if the wrong people govern.

We've never apposed reasonable and limited regulations on guns, it the crossing of the boundry into our personal liberty that DOES not have an undue effect on others any more than doing anything else might or more so.

4. Children DIE playing sports all the time, that's what.... even due to others. It and otherwise is simply the "risk of living". Liberty is risk, don't you know that? Moral people don't start taking away liberties in order to reduce risk.

There’s no way to rule innocent men. The only power government has is the power to crack down on criminals. When there aren’t enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws.

The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities.

Individual rights are not subject to a public vote; a majority has no right to vote away the rights of a minority; the political function of rights is precisely to protect minorities from oppression by majorities (and the smallest minority on earth is the individual).

Every movement that seeks to enslave a country, every dictatorship or potential dictatorship, needs some minority group as a scapegoat which it can blame for the nation’s troubles and use as a justification of its own demands for dictatorial powers. In Soviet Russia, the scapegoat was the bourgeoisie; in Nazi Germany, it was the Jewish people; in America, it is the businessmen.

There are only two means by which men can deal with one another: guns or logic. Force or persuasion. Those who know that they cannot win by means of logic, have always resorted to guns.

Other great quotes here: http://jpetrie.myweb.uga.edu/ayn_rand.html

by the way, in relation to the last quote above, a person/people who can't control others by logic, first resort to taking away peoples guns, and then they use guns to force their will.

5. This video will begin to inform you of "gun control" in history, it's consequences. Further, extrapolate the rest of history in which tyrants disarmed people so they could FORCE their WILL upon everyone else. Liberals don't really want gun control because of safety, it's because they can then force the people to do their will, and the people can't fight back. Sure not all think that, but that's the net result, because those who do think that, are on the same side. Utopia is not forced, and that is the biggest thing liberals simply don't understand. Every time it is, you have only Fascism.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nUmKT43j4Tc

This video is only a "snapshot" of what occurs all over and all through history.

When self defense is against the law, those who make such laws are evil incarnate.
Satan wanted to force everyone back to Heaven, that was the first sin. And it is the same sin liberals try to force on the rest of us, for guns and many other things.

6. As just one example, when the "gun" of America left Vietnam before the job was actually finished, Pol Pot in Cambodia as a part of the politics of his time preceded to disarm the people and kill an estimated 2-3 Million, half through execution and the other half starvation etc.

So add up all these "gun control" measures in just the last some 200 years, add up prior known history of "weapon" controls, and you have a LOT, in the Billions dead.

[_Analytics]

Do you think that people with serious mental illness have the right to own any type of weapon that they feel is necessary to defend themselves?

Of course not, but your comment is a strawman. We aren't talking about "just" the seriously mental ill. See the other thread for more related to this similar question in another vain you made to me.

I didn't make a comment--I asked a straight-forward question. By the way, I'm glad you think the seriously mental ill don't have the right to own a gun. And you are right--we aren't just talking about the serioulsy mental ill--we are also talking about people who have been convicted of violent felonies.

So if you agree that there are certain people who don't have the right to own guns, do you believe that people who sell guns have a moral responsibility to make sure they don't sell guns to people who don't have the right to own them? In other words, if I am selling guns at a gun show and a guy walks up and wants to buy a gun from me, should I be required to do a background check on him to verify that he isn't mentally ill and isn't a felon?

Because that is precicely the issue--should people who sell guns have the legal responsibility to verify that they don't sell guns to people who would fail a background check.

[_cinepro]

Is children dying in car crashes an "acceptable consequence" for the Freedom to drive?

What the heck is "the Freedom to drive"?

Personally, I would support making guns at least as hard to get as a driver's license (with mandatory classes and testing etc.)

[_Bond James Bond]

1. I've read likely every article and watched every video on gun control world wide.
Goodness, I'm not going to do your own research and study. Start at Youtube and start learning.

HA HA HA. That's hilarious. The best part is to start with youtube. I recommend college but you know youtube might work for you.

3. Cars are licensed and regulated, but there are several problems when you apply that argument to guns.

You can buy any "type" of car you want, including very dangerous and fast ones. You can't buy any type of gun you want. Only if you abuse your "privelage" do you have your right to use a car possibly taken away. A gun, you aren't even giving people a chance to be responsible.

A car isn't generally used to defend yourself and others against criminals and tryanny, a gun is. A gun is an equalizer to your right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. A car isn't necessary to protect life and liberty. Government likely will never come and take away your car, but they will come take away your guns if the wrong people govern.

If you think you're going to protect yourself from the government might I recommend you learn 2 things. The government has SWAT teams. You don't. The government has drones. You don't. By your logic you should have access to tanks and nuclear weapons because that's what you and your buddies will need to defeat the government.

We've never apposed reasonable and limited regulations on guns, it the crossing of the boundry into our personal liberty that DOES not have an undue effect on others any more than doing anything else might or more so.

What are reasonable gun regulations?

4. Children DIE playing sports all the time, that's what.... even due to others. It and otherwise is simply the "risk of living". Liberty is risk, don't you know that? Moral people don't start taking away liberties in order to reduce risk.

You show me where thousands of kids die playing sports and I'll agree with this argument. Show me.

There’s no way to rule innocent men. The only power government has is the power to crack down on criminals. When there aren’t enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws.

According to the Constitution (that thing that includes the 2nd Amendment) there are other government rights too. Right to mint coin, create taxes, etc.

The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities.

Individual rights are not subject to a public vote; a majority has no right to vote away the rights of a minority; the political function of rights is precisely to protect minorities from oppression by majorities (and the smallest minority on earth is the individual).

Every movement that seeks to enslave a country, every dictatorship or potential dictatorship, needs some minority group as a scapegoat which it can blame for the nation’s troubles and use as a justification of its own demands for dictatorial powers. In Soviet Russia, the scapegoat was the bourgeoisie; in Nazi Germany, it was the Jewish people; in America, it is the businessmen.

Dude when American businessmen are in concentration camps your argument will hold water. When Goldman Sachs people are being shot in the street and are not continuing to rake in huge bonuses your argument will hold water. As it is you're argument is a crock.

There are only two means by which men can deal with one another: guns or logic. Force or persuasion. Those who know that they cannot win by means of logic, have always resorted to guns.

The vote. Nonviolent resistance as evidenced by Gandhi. Fail on you.

by the way, in relation to the last quote above, a person/people who can't control others by logic, first resort to taking away peoples guns, and then they use guns to force their will.

Man you really don't need to own guns if you think you can't coexist with someone you disagree with in America.

5. This video will begin to inform you of "gun control" in history, it's consequences. Further, extrapolate the rest of history in which tyrants disarmed people so they could FORCE their WILL upon everyone else. Liberals don't really want gun control because of safety, it's because they can then force the people to do their will, and the people can't fight back. Sure not all think that, but that's the net result, because those who do think that, are on the same side. Utopia is not forced, and that is the biggest thing liberals simply don't understand. Every time it is, you have only Fascism.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nUmKT43j4Tc

This video is only a "snapshot" of what occurs all over and all through history.

When self defense is against the law, those who make such laws are evil incarnate.
Satan wanted to force everyone back to Heaven, that was the first sin. And it is the same sin liberals try to force on the rest of us, for guns and many other things.

6. As just one example, when the "gun" of America left Vietnam before the job was actually finished, Pol Pot in Cambodia as a part of the politics of his time preceded to disarm the people and kill an estimated 2-3 Million, half through execution and the other half starvation etc.

So add up all these "gun control" measures in just the last some 200 years, add up prior known history of "weapon" controls, and you have a LOT, in the Billions dead.

Your argument attempts to show that most deaths are the result of people not being armed enough, while ignoring that when America starts arming people sometimes they act in unseen ways (for example arming the Islamic militias in Afghanistan against the Soviet Union which begat Osama Bin Laden) as well as ignoring that the American government has armed numerous militias that committed mass murder (right wing South American dictators and murder squads, etc.).

Anyway until your next rant...

[_ajax18]