Do they really believe it?

W

wolf 1415

New member
I don't know if this is a hypothetical question or not, but do those who would disarm America really, truly believe it will stop criminals, racists, troubled youths, and young residents of crack houses from using firearms to cause harm?

Can they not apply common sense at all?

I often encounter "antis" among those who work for me. In all cases, I can get them to agree that Americans have a right to self defense with a firearm. Once we have established that, the rest is easy. None of these "antis" believe that gun control will stop violent crime. They go along with it because they are afraid of guns. They go along with it because I was the first person to EVER show them the common sense of the 2nd amendment. There must be something we can do...




------------------
The Innocent shall not be disarmed for the sins of the guilty.
 
Many do, believe it or not.

Many don't, but they think of only two choices when they think of guns--either guns must be neutral or evil. They reason that if the guns turn out to have been evil and causing crime, then we'll be glad we banned 'em. If guns turn out to have nothing to do with the crime rate, they'll apologize but no one will have been harmed, really, because it's not as if guns are really important to anyone except criminals.
 
I appreciate your thoughts. I just don't understand how gullible people can be.

Ask an "anti" if, after hearing breaking glass downstairs, would they rather have 911 or 9mm, most will admit that a firearm for self-defense is a good idea.

I also would like to propose that the secret service and all other political bodyguards be subject to Federal Gun Laws:

1. No concealed weapons. That way the assassins know who carries and who does not.

2. No high capacity magazines.

3. No automatic weapons.

4. A background check for new guns. If a Sig breaks, they do a Brady for a new one. If they get delayed, so be it.

5. Trigger locks on all secret service guns at all times.

The President's response to this idea would reveal his true hypocrisy. His life is worthy of defense with firearems. Yours is not.

------------------
The Innocent shall not be disarmed for the sins of the guilty.
 
Wolf, the sad fact is, many, MANY antis really WOULD rather have 911 than the ability to take care of themselves. It comes from a philosophy that one can't take care of one's self; one must be taken care of! I can't explain it very well-- but I know it exists and is likely prevalent. It's a kind of socialization that is akin to the "institutionalization" that lifetime criminals get into. I've spoken to some Chinese students who would NEVER consider owning nor even touching my Norinco SKS made in their homeland! The concept that Tienamin Square's massacre might well have been different if the students had been armed is quite beyond them. "Why would you wish to arm yourself? The government is there to protect you." I couldn't believe my ears.

We may not be so very far from that kind of socialization, here.

L.P.
 
Heaven
----------

Everyone is trying to get to the bar.
The name of the bar, the bar is called Heaven.
The band in Heaven plays my favorite song.
They play it once again, they play it all night long.

Heaven is a place where nothing ever happens.
Heaven is a place where nothing ever happens.

There is a party, everyone is there.
Everyone will leave at exactly the same time.
Its hard to imagine that nothing at all
could be so exciting, and so much fun.

Heaven is a place where nothing ever happens.
Heaven is a place where nothing ever happens.

When this kiss is over it will start again.
It will not be any different, it will be exactly
the same.
It's hard to imagine that nothing at all
could be so exciting, could be so much fun.

Heaven is a place where nothing every happens.
Heaven is a place where nothing every happens.
__________________

cool song but i like it when something happens...

dZ
 
They know what they are doing. It is the disarmament of america, the crap about crime control is just a ploy. To read a little more about this go to www.jpfo.org

------------------
"Guns don't kill people the government does", Rusty Shackleford.
http://www.fair.org
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>I've spoken to some Chinese students who would NEVER consider owning nor even touching my Norinco SKS made in their homeland! The concept that Tienamin Square's massacre might well have been different if the students had been armed is quite beyond them.[/quote]

That is exactly why I started my site. I talk to friends in Germany and Russia now and they cannot quite figure out what the use of my efforts....

Talked to a friend in Russia (ex-friend, now that he has endorsed genocide as a way of keeping bothersome wogs of all kinds out of his hair) and told him for women often learn shooting and/or martial arts as a response to rape or assault. This guy thought that they were crazy to bother preparing for such random evens (he is a cop there, btw).



------------------
Oleg "cornered rat" Volk (JPFO,NRA)

http://dd-b.net/RKBA
 
wolf1415

After you have talked to these antis
at work who are scared of guns and have
finally seen some sense in the second ammendment; this is a good time for you to
invite them to the range for some free
shooting lessons so that they can experience the positive effects of fire arms ownership
and realize that guns are not " used to kill" but are instead a genuine sport,
just like base ball.

Let them read the American Rifleman column, the armed citizen and see of the live saving uses of firearms.

Excerpt from the Armed Citizen, American Rifleman,Dec 1995

Knocked to the floor of his Corinth,
Miss. home by a knife welding attacker and told that he was about to be killed,the 80
year old man offered his money and car keys to the thug in hopes of appeasing him.

It was to no avail, however,as the assailant force the man to a bedroom and again informed him he was about to die.

When his tormentor momentarily left the room,the elderly man took his only chance for survival.Grabbing his .38 revolver, he charged into the hall and loosed two rounds towards his attacker, who immediately fled the house.

original story: The Northeast Mississippi
Daily Journal,Tupelo,MS 09/26/1995

------------------
GUN CONTROL puts THE CONTROL
in the hands of THE CRIMINALS.

--------------------------------
You all have my permision to
use any of these"signatures"
here, if you like!
---------------------------

-They call 'em POLUTE-TICIANS because they POLUTE the MINDS
of OUR CHILDERN with their ANTI civil/firearms RIGHTS SOCIALIST
political agendas. We of the older generations know B.S.
when we hear it.
-----------------------------------------------
In 2000, we must become politically active in
support of gun rights or we WILL LOSE the right
& the freedom.
-------------------------
NO FATE BUT WHAT WE MAKE!!!
----------------------
Every year,over 2 million Americans use firearms
not to take live but to preserve life,....limb & family
.Gun Control Democrats would prefer that they are all disarmed
and helpless and die victims of felony violence,instead.

Protect your gun rights, go to:
http://home.xnet.com/~gizmonic/TheMarch.html
and sign up as a helper or attendee or state organizer.
ernest2, Conn. CAN opp. "Do What You Can"!
http://thematrix.acmecity.com/digital/237/cansite/can.html
 
In the USA we've had about 35 to 40 years of borderline psychopaths and sadists determining educational policy so we shouldn't freak out when a kid reading "The Lottery" has "a sense of wonder at the inherent need of human society for human sacrifice," instead of a sense of outrage at people mindlessly murdering an outcast just because everyone else's doing it.

As more and more young minds are turned into pus, we can expect less and less sanity. People with an irrational fear of inanimate objects are not open to any rational discussion about firearms.
It is popular to have such an irrational fear.
Mental health is declasse these days.
It's a waste of time, a squander of emotional resources to talk to them about anything.

------------------
ALARM! ALARM! CIVILIZATION IS IN PERIL! THE BARBARIANS HAVE TAKEN THE GATES!
 
I think Long Path is on the money with his diagnosis of this problem.

I have heard the arguement from those who I work with who're (that word looks funny when you drop the apostrophe) anti-gun. And there aren't many beleive me.
One of the main arguements from tha Anti crowd is this;
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>
"The founders couldn't perceive automatic weapons, or handguns with the capacity we have today".
[/quote]

My immediate rebuttal to that is simple, Yes they're right, they (FF) couldn't have know what was to come as far as weaponry evolution was concerned. So I go for the simple, yet elegant, approach to the arguement of what was known, and what was not.

It goes thusly;
OK, let's fix upon the knowledge that they hadn't automatic firearms, but instead had flintlocks. That firearm was their only way to obtain meat for survival, and protection from animals such as bear, wolf, and occasionally panther, and bobcat.
Once that idea is placed in their mind, I ask them what the settlers had for lunch, or dinner.
Then I ask them how they thought the settlers obtained that food. Usually, I get the "I don't know answer".
I inform tham that they didn't goto the General Store, oh no, it wasn't that easy.
They had to manually go out, and take another animals life, in order to survive, day by day.
Then I ask them what they know of American History, pre-Revolutionary War days. I ask them if they knew of the intended firearms confiscations that led to the Revolutionary War.
Then I ask them if they have ever served their nation, in the military. I've found that most Anti's have never served a day in their life, and never intended to.
I also find that many, if not most, wouldn't be able to kill an animal if it meant their own survival! I also find that many Anti's are vegetarians.
Has anybody else come to similar conclusions, or am I just looking for something identifiable in an Anti???

Best Regards,
Don

------------------
The most foolish mistake we could make would be to allow the subjected people to carry arms; history shows that all conquerers who have allowed their subjected people to carry arms have prepared their own fall.
Adolf Hitler

[This message has been edited by Donny (edited March 12, 2000).]
 
There are still firearms owners that are anti. They think that other irresponible owners are the source of their problems. I have two where I work.
One guy owns an M1A and several fine bolt guns like Pre 64 Model 70 300 H&H Mag. and Model 52 Win. 22 L.R. He does nice stock refinishing. Last month he wanted to ban 50 caliber rifles because no one needs them. This month he wants to ban SKS and AK's because they give his "Expensive Real Quality" (Cost him over $1,000!!!) M1A a bad reputation and they are only good for killing people. The guy will not believe that Bill Clinton and Sarah Brady cannot be bought off by sacrificing his poorer shooting relations. He just gets real frustrated if I tell him that if they ban a little gun like the SKS, they will never leave him with a big bad M1A.
The other is into Cowboy Action Shooting and cannot imagine that anyone could see this as anything but harmless fun. He won't believe that bans on hand guns could ever be a threat to total use of a Peace Maker. That just wouldn't be sensible. He just doesn't care what happens to the rest of us.
Both these guys will loudly jump on almost any gun control band wagon that is currently in the news as long as they see it as deflecting threats away from themselves. Worst of all, they will use thier knowledge of firearms to lend credence to the idea that the current proposed gun control is a good idea.
Its hard to imagine such short sightedness in this day and age, but it does exist.

[This message has been edited by Herodotus (edited March 13, 2000).]
 
There have been a lot of posts on this thread that mention self-defense and hunting as the reasons to have firearms and, while these are definitely worthy reasons, they are NOT the reasons the Founding Fathers placed the second article in the Constitution. Quite simply, they placed it there as a safeguard against any future tyranny that might be imposed by the Government, be it at the local, state, or federal level. It was already assumed that the people would use firearms for self-defense and food.

Herodotus talked about a guy whose opinion of AK's and SKS's were that "they are only good for killing people." This is not true, but even if it was, what is wrong with that? As long they are used as an appropriate response to a deadly threat, either by bad guys or by an out-of-control government, then so what?
Whether some of you believe it or not, some people deserve to be killed, or at the very least shot, if they are attacking peaceful citizens going about their business. Of course, I don't condone or advocate vigilantism, but people must not only take, but be lawfully allowed to take, measures to insure their own safety. Any government that doesn't recognize this has no moral reason to exist.

Getting back to the original topic of this thread, I do believe that many people think (if you can call the muddled mental process that goes on in most people's heads thinking) that banning guns will magically make crime disappear. These are the same people who believe Government can give people enough of other people's money to make them self-reliant. As long as Government is looked at as the solution to all of our problems, from A to Z (abortion to zits), expect the assault on guns to continue.

BTW, was there no crime before guns were invented? Were people free to walk the streets without fear of attack? Of course not; criminals have always existed, and they probably always will in some form or another, regardless of whether they use a rock, a club, or a gun to ply their trade.
DAL

------------------
Reading "Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal," by Ayn Rand, should be required of every politician and in every high school.
GOA, JPFO, PPFC, CSSA, LP, NRA

[This message has been edited by DAL (edited March 13, 2000).]
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top