Anyone care to do battle with this gun grabber?

A

Allen_Raiford

New member
http://georgebb.hfnm.com/NonCGI/Forum1/HTML/000017.html

"Do We Need A Hitler?
The National Rifle Association thinks not or at least purports to think that this country doesn't need a
dictator but by their constant "Pushing The Envelope,"
denying the country sensible gun control, the NRA is
pushing the government into a state of dictatorship.
Does this nation have any alternative but to adapt
extreme measures that will reduce a once glorious nation
to a fascistic state all caused by a moronic minority of
citizens, enamored with guns? This moronic minority
needs to realize that they are in a position where they
are dammed if they do have guns or dammed if they do
not. A government is always going to prevail and your UZI
will never prevail against a tank...so give up your
UZI and all other firearms. Let the state handle the
criminals...they do anyway...sooner or later
The first duty of a government is to keep its citizens
safe in their homes, schools, businesses, and synagogues.
After we become a dictatorship you NRA morons can
take great pride in what you have wrought on this
nation."
 
I think I got him!!! -

Occsrazor, you seem to be rather uneducated in the topic.

First, under Hitler registered Nazi party members could have sporting firearms, the police a military were also well armed. Are you sure you want a dictatorship? If not you should fight the good fight against a dictator who would circumvent the reason for our use of three branches of government. If you support a dictator I need to tell you that the U.S. is a republic, so might I suggest that a move to Cuba or Albania might be in order for you.

Second, we have gone well beyond sensible gun control. We did that in 1968, IMO, but every person has a opinion of what is sensible. To Diane Feinstein and Rosie O'Donnell all guns should be completely banned from private ownership. Only the police and military should have guns. To quote O'Donnell, 'own a gun, go to jail'. And you think that the NRA is pushing us to a dictatorship? Look again. We have plenty of gun control laws, more than what is sensible, yet the anti-freedom, anti-self defense extremists, such as yourself, just keep pushing for more. Now you and your kind are being pushed back and you don't like it because you aren't getting your way. You are not being able to impose your will on us and deny us our freedom of choice. Another thing, the NRA has been around for 129 years and have over 4 million members, we are just now starting to fight.

Third, you state, 'A government is always going to prevail and your UZI
will never prevail against a tank.' Thankfully the Chinese students do not have your attitude or we can assume that they will always be oppressed. It is also incredibly fortunate that our founding fathers and the patriots of the 18th century did not have your attitude that King George would prevail dispite our muskets against their war ships. Just to let you know there are ways of fighting a tank, ask the Vietamese or Afghan rebels.

Fourth, 'Let the state handle the
criminals.' Unfortunately the state doesn't do a very good job of this and I have used a gun to defend myself once from a mugging and my girlfriend once from an abduction. You are totally wrong on this one, but I understand that Cuba and Albania both have quite good methods of successfully dealing with criminals.

Fifth, you state that the 'first duty of a government is to keep its citizens
safe in their homes, schools, businesses, and synagogues.' That is not true. Might I suggest that you read the U.S. Constitution? It limits the power of the central govt. It provides for a national defense and general welfare of the country. Nowhere in there does it say anything like what you suggest, nor do I believe that it is the primary duty of any other country. In fact, in the U.S. the Supreme Court has ruled that the police are under no obligation to protect the individual, their purpose to to provide general protection for society as a whole.

Just as a last thought. I would suggest that in the future you leave the the name calling ('NRA morons' and 'moronic minority'), enuendo ('the NRA is pushing the government into a state of dictatorship'), support of the overthrow of democracy ('Does this nation have any alternative but to adapt extreme measures that will reduce a once glorious nation to a fascistic state'), emotion, and general discriminatory behavior out of your argument. It does your position absolutely no good. If you wish to make a point, present a position, support it with the truth and facts, draw a conclusion, and do so in an argument that can be proven to be both sound and logical.

Also, you may also suffer from a mental condition which many anti-rights extremists seem to have. It is called 'projection' and the work, as it relates to people such as yourself, has only recently been published. It envolves illogical emotional outburst blaming real problems and reality on inanimate objects. Think about it.
 
It was just a hit-n-run twit anyway. There were several responses, most of them vitriolic condemnations (and deservedly so). One other victim-disarmer tossed in a more reasoned argument, referring to countries which are both anti-gun and low-crime, such as England and Japan. My response to him was as follows:

Bo,

At least your statement was somewhat coherent.

But it's still wrong.

Victim-disarmers who compare various nations' gun laws and crime rates are interestingly selective. They hold forth England and Canada, and often Japan, as countries with strict laws limiting or prohibiting civilian gun ownership and relatively low crime rates.

And they ignore other countries, such as Switzerland and Isreal, which permit (or require) most of its citizens to be armed, and have comparatively low crime rates (in the case of Isreal, that is, within the pre-1967 borders rather than the occupied territories). They also ignore countries or regions such as Mexico and Northern Ireland, which restrict civilian gun ownership to the same extent that England does, and have crime rates higher than even the United States.

One might object that England is a lot more similar to the United States than Mexico is, but I beg to differ. We do share a common language with England. But like Mexico, we are relatively young and aggressive cultures (compared with Europe or Japan anyway), occupying land forcibly taken only 1-3 centuries ago from indigenous peoples. We are both polyglot, and ethnically very diverse. England and Japan have very old, submissive and homogeneous cultures and they would be less violent than we even if their gun laws were similar to ours.

You also ignore the fact that the countries you uphold as "rational countries with strict gun laws" are currently experiencing increasing violent crime rates, including crimes committed with guns -- guns procured on a black market similar to the black market for drugs, which will only get bigger and stronger as more countries enact the sorts of gun laws you proscribe.

And as for Columbine, no, I doubt anyone could have killed as many students with a baseball bat. However, an SUV driven onto an athletic field while the high school marching band was out there practicing, could probably kill even more than those two pissants' guns did. And since that athletic field is likely a "gun free zone," there would be no one who could stop the SUV before it killed and maimed several dozen kids and then drove away.

(The same week of the Columbine massacre, a twisted little man did something very similar to this, driving his Cadillac into the plaground of a toddlers' daycare center, killing two and injuring three more. For some reason this did not get even one percent of the media attention, outside its locality, that Columbine received.)

--The Beez

[I've already received the correction that the day care death-by-Cadillac actually occurred the same week as the Los Angeles Jewish Day Care Center shooting. Just reporting what I posted honestly.]
 
Those who do not know Cooper's Four Rules have no basis to validly conceive of "sensible gun control". Such people are as eunichs writing sex manuals.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top