Tired of the Guns vs Government liberal argument....

[_ldsfaqs]

Liberals as one of their "excuses" for why people don't need guns to defend themselves is:

"Citizens can't fight against the government, they have more powerful weapons, so it's "meaningless" for citizens to have guns also."

Well, there are several fallacies with this argument.

1. Have you ever looked around you, your city, your state, your nation? The "government" is SMALL in comparison to a nation of armed "individuals". Sure, they could do a lot of damage to the masses, but the masses and pockets would fight back, and would be able to win.

2. Government is made up of "citizens".... In a country that is actually still free, the people would be free minded and not controlled. Thus, there would be PLENTY of "defectors" from the government who would not only give intelligence, numbers, etc., but would give access to higher sophisticated weaponry. Not everyone in government is a liberal and would willingly and especially long term go along with evil, especially the military. Many of them would also fight back and join the resistance of citizens against tyranny.

3. The liberal argument also entirely ignores the very real possibility of "foreign" attacks. What about even Alien invasion? Improbable, but you never know.

4. There's another ignored factor. Natural disaster, be is space based or local based. People need to be allowed to protect their life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.

5. Finally..... Evil exists. As long as it exists, YOU have no moral nor intellectual right to restrict ANYONES (within reason) ability to protect themselves, family, and community.

Liberals, you don't get rid of evil when you get rid of guns, you only make the innocent defensless against evil. Evil needs to be eliminated in the HEARTS of men. And the very fact that YOU want to take away peoples ability to defend themselves, proves that we still have a very long way to go. Only truly evil people willingly remove a choice from a person that can mean either LIFE or DEATH. You may not like that frank fact, but it's a fact. It's who you are.... Trying to "save the children" is no excuse for you contributing to mass murder.

You may not want to "ban" people from climbing trees, or any other activity, but even that would be okay compared to what you do. Because the tree won't one day possibly come kill you, you have to go to it. But a man might one day come to kill you, or one of your future children, and grandchildren.

How many family's and survivors of past mass deaths, or innocents deaths WISH they had had the CHANCE..... to fight back? No body said it would be PERFECT??? Who said freedom was perfect? Humans are involved.... But, a CHANCE to make a difference in saving lives. You claim that's what YOU are trying to do, but you in fact do the exact opposite. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Hitler after all had good intentions. He wanted a "pure master race".... Strange, sounds like the gun controllers.... You want to FORCE "purity"....

[_Bond James Bond]

Liberals as one of their "excuses" for why people don't need guns to defend themselves is:

"Citizens can't fight against the government, they have more powerful weapons, so it's "meaningless" for citizens to have guns also."

Well, there are several fallacies with this argument.

1. Have you ever looked around you, your city, your state, your nation? The "government" is SMALL in comparison to a nation of armed "individuals". Sure, they could do a lot of damage to the masses, but the masses and pockets would fight back, and would be able to win.

2. Government is made up of "citizens".... In a country that is actually still free, the people would be free minded and not controlled. Thus, there would be PLENTY of "defectors" from the government who would not only give intelligence, numbers, etc., but would give access to higher sophisticated weaponry. Not everyone in government is a liberal and would willingly and especially long term go along with evil, especially the military. Many of them would also fight back and join the resistance of citizens against tyranny.

3. The liberal argument also entirely ignores the very real possibility of "foreign" attacks. What about even Alien invasion? Improbable, but you never know.

4. There's another ignored factor. Natural disaster, be is space based or local based. People need to be allowed to protect their life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.

5. Finally..... Evil exists. As long as it exists, YOU have no moral nor intellectual right to restrict ANYONES (within reason) ability to protect themselves, family, and community.

Liberals, you don't get rid of evil when you get rid of guns, you only make the innocent defensless against evil. Evil needs to be eliminated in the HEARTS of men. And the very fact that YOU want to take away peoples ability to defend themselves, proves that we still have a very long way to go. Only truly evil people willingly remove a choice from a person that can mean either LIFE or DEATH. You may not like that frank fact, but it's a fact. It's who you are.... Trying to "save the children" is no excuse for you contributing to mass murder.

You may not want to "ban" people from climbing trees, or any other activity, but even that would be okay compared to what you do. Because the tree won't one day possibly come kill you, you have to go to it. But a man might one day come to kill you, or one of your future children, and grandchildren.

How many family's and survivors of past mass deaths, or innocents deaths WISH they had had the CHANCE..... to fight back? No body said it would be PERFECT??? Who said freedom was perfect? Humans are involved.... But, a CHANCE to make a difference in saving lives. You claim that's what YOU are trying to do, but you in fact do the exact opposite. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Hitler after all had good intentions. He wanted a "pure master race".... Strange, sounds like the gun controllers.... You want to FOR CE "purity"....

You're a damned idiot.

[_Quasimodo]

I think there is a really good chance, ldsfaqs, that the people that share some of your views on this subject would prefer it if you didn't post about them.

I'm so glad that you are not on my side.

[_aussieguy55]

You should watch the Jon Stewart series where John OLiver came to Australia, to see how we implemented the gun control laws. The Gov was a conservative Government. No massacres, no suicides with guns etc. Background checks were brought in. Jon Oliver certainly made the gun guy look silly

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9pOiOhxujsE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYbY45rHj8w

http://www.youtube.com/watch?annotation ... VuspKSjfgA

[_ldsfaqs]

The gun guy only looked "silly" if one doesn't think.

For example, do you believe "pools" should be banned? After all, more pools more drownings.
The same can be said for ANYTHING for which there is "risk" having or doing.
More of it, obviously more risk.

Doesn't mean we should ban pools, cars, climbing trees, Big Gulps.... hell FOOD period. After all, you can DIE if you eat too much of it.

Further, Austrialia is an ISLAND.... Obviously you can control big illegal objects better.

But, even with that, let's look at the actual facts instead of a liberal propaganda comedy show.

http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2974487/posts

Fact is, without guns violent death and crime actually went up and suicides went up by other methods.
All the gun ban in Australia did was make the innocent defenseless. Sure, death by gun for whatever reason decreased, but death in total did not, it actually went up or stayed THE SAME according to historical trends.

It was a feel good measure, nothing more. More proof that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. How many victims of violent crime there PRAY they had been able to have had a gun? And that's another thing liberal "studies" ignore. They count ALL gun involved actions, not legitimate usage for self-defense.

by the way, anyone that takes away the HUMAN RIGHT to self defense is not a "conservative". Simply understanding economics is not a "conservative" only trait.

Anyway, I get my facts from actual FACTS, not liberal comedy pretending to being factual.

[_aussieguy55]

If you actually listened to the conservative PM John Howard (a friend of Bush) he argues the benefits of the gun control laws. Did you really watch the videos?

[_ldsfaqs]

If you actually listened to the conservative PM John Howard (a friend of Bush) he argues the benefits of the gun control laws. Did you really watch the videos?

Yep.... And those "benefits" are less GUN murders and less GUN suicides.
There was near absolutely ZERO facts and intellectual analysis in those videos other than those two simple facts.

Problem is, it's a nice little lie, a diversion. Did you read my link?

[_MeDotOrg]

When people say 'the liberal argument' or 'the conservative argument' and try to make an all-encompassing, one-size fits all characterization of the argument, they don't address individual points that have been raised.

There are several issues being discussed concerning gun violence in the United States:

Mandatory background checks
Better communication between law enforcement and mental health professionals
Restricting access to firearms for people with mental illness
Banning assault-type weapons
Banning high capacity magazines

The only people I have heard talk about the confiscation of all firearms are those who are trying to stoke the gun owners' fears.

I understand and appreciate that many Americans have a long-going cultural tradition of having guns for protection and hunting.

But our devotion to guns in this country has moved beyond necessity and becomes a fetishistic cult. When a 2 year old girl is shot dead by her 5 year old brother with his own rifle, I can't help feeling that a little girl's life was sacrificed on the alter of unfettered and irresponsible gun ownership. It goes beyond the negligence of the mother and father who allowed the gun to sit unsupervised in their home. 5 year olds do not need to be shooting or owning guns.

The liberal argument also entirely ignores the very real possibility of "foreign" attacks. What about even Alien invasion? Improbable, but you never know.

Good point. I'll have to go back and re-watch Red Dawn and Starship Troopers.

[_Bond James Bond]

Good point. I'll have to go back and re-watch Red Dawn and Starship Troopers.

LDSfaqs sees himself as Patrick Swayze. In reality he'd be the guy captured and locked up at the drive in five minutes after the first Spetsnaz commandos landed.

by the way I think anyone who owns a gun should be able to run an 8 minute mile. That's not asking much.

[_huckelberry]

As a liberal listening to some right wing hysteria I can see the logic of us keeping our guns to defend home and country.