Gun control

[For the love of the game 56]

*sighs*

 

They don't exist.

 

Not sure why you are argueing against a law that does not exist. Look I just now got my internet back up and this forum is not the easiest to view on my phone and even harder to respond to, so maybe I missed something you said that lead to this point, so if I did, my bad.

[For the love of the game 56]

Ok, well at least I now know what you are talking about. Of course, this still isn't going to matter unless they start allowing individuals to carry semi-automatic weapons on their person. Common sense also tells me that a handgun would be just as effective. Most people aren't going to keep coming forward if they are being shot at.

 

I take it that since you haven't responded to any other point that I made that you either have nothing else to say on the matter or you can't dispute the points that I made.

 

You do know that people are allows to carry semi automatic weapon on there person right? I have two, a keltec pf9 and a PMR-30, both hand guns that just happen to be semi automatic.

[Emory889 353]

You do know that people are allows to carry semi automatic weapon on there person right? I have two, a keltec pf9 and a PMR-30, both hand guns that just happen to be semi automatic.

 

No, I honestly didn't know that. That sounds like overkill to me but I'm not knowledgeable enough on the subject to speak intelligently about it.

[Emory889 353]

Not sure why you are argueing against a law that does not exist. Look I just now got my internet back up and this forum is not the easiest to view on my phone and even harder to respond to, so maybe I missed something you said that lead to this point, so if I did, my bad.

 

You did miss it. Ed said he would be in favor of legalizing military grade weapons like mortars, missile defense systems, and tanks. I wasn't exaggerating.

[TheREALBrooksThompson 157]

I like how you highlighted the part that benefits your arguement and left the entire second half of the statement off. You now the one that pointed to why he feels this way. I also like how you have one again stated the NRA is encouraging people to go to war with the government as if it was somehow in that speech. Now you can see into the words he used in any way you like, that would be your opinion. Now I saw that speech as a call to stand up for the 2nd amendment, not as a call to war on our government.

 

You are right about Michael Moore however, since he is trying to convince people yo be anti guns. And I really do not know what Glover was thinking. Maybe he forgot to take his meds that day. See the gun control people are trying to convince people to be anti guns. The article you provided listed a supreme court justice that made an enteresting comment after she was appointed. I can only really speak for myself, but I do not need the NRA to trying to convince me the 2nd amendment is under attack, her comments scare me enough.

 

You keep trying trying to say things I am trying to make them equal. I have agreed the NRA has fault in this stirring up on the frenzy (and have even agreed they have a good amount of infuence), while you seem to be saying the NRA is completely to blame for it (which I do not believe).

 

I see we're going with being painfully dishonest. That's disappointing.

 

I laid out exactly why what the NRA says leads to people wanting to fight the government. You can re-read it if you need to. When you're ready to continue this discussion honestly, I'll be here. Until then, I have no interest in this back-and-forth if you aren't even going to read what I write.

[For the love of the game 56]

I see we're going with being painfully dishonest. That's disappointing.

 

I laid out exactly why what the NRA says leads to people wanting to fight the government. You can re-read it if you need to. When you're ready to continue this discussion honestly, I'll be here. Until then, I have no interest in this back-and-forth if you aren't even going to read what I write.

 

So I reread every link you provided. My response to each is as follows:

 

Link 1: The was pre 2012 election. I read this as a rally cry to prevent the re election of Obama because of the fear he will attempt to attack the 2nd ammendment. This proves your point that they are stirring up a frenzy. I point that I agree with. The only difference I have with your point here is that I feel both sides of the arguement have something to do with it. I don't have a hard figure as to the percentage of the frenzy the NRA is responsible for. But just for arguement side I will break it down like this: 40% NRA, 20% fox news, 20% liberal channels, 10% nightly news, 10% our politicians and our president). No obviously, the NRA is pretty much for no new gun control laws, fox news is overall in favor or something, maybe as minor as stricker background checks and or ending the gun show loop hole. Liberal channels want gun control or some kind, local news promotes fear based on nonstop coverage of murders stabbing rapes etc, and our politicians are duking it out from both sides).

 

Link 2: I saw the word Fight for your 2nd ammendment rights. You can take this to mean what you want, but I saw the gun owners need to stand up for you right to own the gun of your choice. People fight for difference causes every day. People fight for free speech. People fight to prevent people from eating cows. People fight for or against gay rights. People fight to prevent destruction of habibits to save endangered species. People fight for or against abortions. The vast majority of these fights at the individual or group of individual levels never result in blood shed. Yes there are examples of blood shed.

 

Link 3: Pretty crazy stuff. That guy very well could be off his rocker. Maybe he should not own a gun. Maybe he is just pissed and said all the wrong thing all the wrong ways. Maybe he believes it. What I did not see anywhere is his rant that he believes this way because he is member of the NRA or reads NRA blogs and most diffinately did not see anywhere where the NRA told him to start killing people. He owns a tactical force business or something, for all I know he got this from his buddies at his business or his clients. Could the NRA have influenced the rant? Yes

 

That is what I saw. What I did not see ANYWHERE is that the NRA telling people to rise up and fight a civil war against the government a point which you have tried to make be believe several times now. Are they trying to promote this without saying those exact words. I DO NOT THINK SO, you might. Could a nut job or a group of nut jobs hear this and rise up and start fighting the goverment? Yes.

 

You first link was from 2011. The NRA, I am sure has ran adds and had blogs running against Obama in the 2008 elections as well and since. I will be glad to search to search for similar topics later, but why havent there been any up risings yet?

 

If you want to no longer participate in this coversation because I not believe your opinion, that is fine. I wish you would continue to though. However, I will not admit the NRA is trying to promote a civil war or that there language is either, because I do not believe they are.

 

Again, I understand the NRA has power and infuence thus is a big part of this FRENZY. I like the slight change of wording from you previous posts where you said the NRA is telling people to go to war/start a civil ware with the government to what they say is leading people to want to fight the goverment

[For the love of the game 56]

Oh, and just because people are buying up ammo and guns are crazy rates does NOT mean they are preparing for a civil war. While I admit I have bought extra ammo and a new gun, it is because I fear the government will try to raise taxes on guns and ammo, notbecause I joined a frenze group ready to got war against our government.

[TheREALBrooksThompson 157]

Ok. I'm going to spell this out for you again one time, and one time only. If, after reading this post, you choose to continue your line of reasoning, I can do nothing for you. In that case, my replies will stop. Please try to read this and think critically about the points I raise.

 

Premise #1: Guns are necessary in order for the people in a democracy to defend that democracy from a tyrannical government. If you have any objections to this premise, please say so. I'm assuming that you will not have an objection to this, since it has been cited in this thread multiple times as an important reason to oppose gun control.

 

Premise #2: Barack Obama is a tyrannical dictator who wants to abolish the second amendment. This is not my opinion. This is the opinion of the NRA, and I've given several examples of the NRA explicitly saying so. If you're going to deny that the NRA has portrayed Obama as a tyrannical dictator who wants to abolish the second amendment, you're either lying or you aren't paying attention to what they're saying. Since I've given you direct quotes from the head of the NRA and from a fundraising email that they sent out three days ago, you can not honestly deny that they are portraying him as such.

 

Given those two premises, what kinds of conclusions can we draw? If we assume that the pro-gun crowd is sincere in their belief that guns are what keeps our government from trampling the constitution, we must conclude that if there is a threat to the constitution, gun owners will act by using those guns to defend the constitution from tyranny. That's what we're told the guns are for.

 

So we have a President who is a tyrannical dictator hell-bent on abolishing the second amendment. Why would second amendment advocates not use their guns in that situation to prevent the tyrant from taking away their rights?

 

There are two options here:

 

Option 1: Pro-gun people are not sincere in their assertion that guns provide a layer of protection from a government that would take away their constitutional rights.

 

Option 2: Pro-gun people are sincere in their assertion that guns provide a layer of protection from a government that would take away their constitutional rights, in which case they will be prepared to use their firearms against the government when they try to place restrictions on the second amendment.

 

You can't have it both ways. You can't argue that guns are necessary to defend the constitution, and at the same time argue that people aren't motivated to use those guns to defend the constitution. This is why I say you aren't being honest in your arguments. Pick one or the other. Then we can have a conversation about where to go next.

[Ibn Battuta 127]

I pick option 1. To me it sounds like people will be pissed they won't be able to buy their new toy and shoot it in the woods.

 

But, the country is leaning towards a surveillance/police state. If it keeps tilting that way I could see option 2 being de facto reason to own guns. The problem is the gun lobby exploiting that fear to the maximum.

[For the love of the game 56]

No, I honestly didn't know that. That sounds like overkill to me but I'm not knowledgeable enough on the subject to speak intelligently about it.

 

Do you understand what semi automatic means?

 

Since I am doubting you know what it means, I will explain. It simply means that one bullet is fired every time you squeeze trigger.

[TheREALBrooksThompson 157]

Do you understand what semi automatic means?

 

Since I am doubting you know what it means, I will explain. It simply means that one bullet is fired every time you squeeze trigger.

 

Incorrect. A revolver fires only one bullet every time you pull the trigger, but a revolver is not semi-automatic.

 

A semi-automatic weapon prepares the weapon to be fired again automatically after you pull the trigger.

[For the love of the game 56]

Incorrect. A revolver fires only one bullet every time you pull the trigger, but a revolver is not semi-automatic.

 

A semi-automatic weapon prepares the weapon to be fired again automatically after you pull the trigger.

 

You are correct, my fault. My point really was simply that you have to pull the trigger again to fire

another bullet, but I did mispeak.

 

Edit: a revolver does indeed prepare the next round as the the round automatically rotates into the chamber. A revolver is not a true semi auto though since the recoil of the gun does pull the next round into the chambet and that you are still cocking the hammer when you pull the trigger.