Guys... I Just Don't Get It....

[Super Bee]

But I have heard from a few here in INGO nobody is out to get our guns. Oh, they may say it, but they dont mean it. So take off the tinfoil and relax.

Add splashes of purple as needed.

Example below.

Would you rather have a do-nothing president or someone who's going to further obama's policies and will most certainly bring about more anti-gun legislation?

Tell me more about this "more anti-gun legislation" lol

See, no one is coming for the guns, you read it here first.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

For some, it's easier to blame an object than to come to grips with the true, underlying cause of a problem. "Gun violence", as liberals like to spin it, does not occur because of the existance of guns (as most on INGO would no doubt agree). But many liberals believe if only we could rid our world of guns, violence would disappear. They're wrong of course. But it's easier to blame the gun and those nuts that own them than it is to get to the root problem of socio-economic issues, morality, parenting, etc. and their effects on why the violence occurs in the first place.

 

[trucker777]

The only thing I would add is that the first group specifically tends to gravitate toward contrived 'rights' which are superficial or frivolous, or both in nature as opposed to the second group generally being proponents of bedrock constitutional rights.

Bedrock Constitutional rights which were framed from the laws of nature, (as governed by the Creator, God himself), and documents such as the Magna Carta.

 

[trucker777]

1 Samuel 13:19+20 Now there was no smith found throughout all the land of Israel: for the Philistines said, Lest the Hebrews make them swords or spears: But all the Israelites went down to the Philistines, to sharpen every man his share, and his coulter, and his axe, and his mattock.

This chapter describes the state of Israel and its people after having been under the rule of King Saul, and through his perpetual disobedience to God- Saul was brought to judgement and had the kingdom rent from him. I find it interesting that in verse 22 it describes King Saul and his son Jonathan having the only spears and swords among the people. In fact it describes the rest of the group that were with them only had farm implements, which were (from the description) maintained by the Philistines, enemies of Israel. Interesting, thnx.

 

[Tombs]

Like all people with a general view those views come in different shades. There are many gun owners who want guns just to have them. Then there are those who think we need them to hunt wild game but don't really "need" AR-15's so they don't see a problem regulating and/or removing them. Then there are some who think that it is obvious that felons shouldn't be allowed to have guns, even though they have served their time. And there are still more who really are making up for some sort of self ego. Of course, there are many shades in between that I cannot possibly know or list here.

Some of the anti 2A really DO want to remove all firearms. They see things as safety outweighing an alleged "need" as justification. Those conscious of their desire to remove all firearms are very rare in my opinion.

Most, in my opinion, don't admit to themselves that they want to remove all firearms. Rather, they have witnessed something firsthand or in the news that pulled their heartstrings, such as a school shooting, and think, "If only so-and-so didn't have a gun those poor kids wouldn't have died. We need to stop that from ever happening again." Where they fail their logic class is by presuming that making an action a crime will automatically stop that action from happening. So that when they DO get some bans or regulations in place, such as Chicago or DC, they see little return on their "success." This will then compel them to not reconsider their original thought as flawed but rather to want to go even farther because obviously they didn't restrict things enough the first time.

It is in this mindset that I think most are fooling themselves - because deep down they know what they are saying won't work, but they don't want to admit that they are seeking an all out ban. Because IF they did, THEN they would be forced to look at the logical argument of firearms being used for self defense and defense against tyranny. As they don't want to paint themselves into that corner they lie to themselves in order to push for "less" even though deep down they know they will eventually need to push for "more."

Regards,

Doug

If only I hadn't seen the things I've seen and met the people I've met, it'd be nice to be able to see the other side with such blissful ignorance.

The flaw in your reasoning is that you're attempting to reason out someone's political cover story for their end game goals. There's a reason why their arguments don't hold up, don't make an ounce of sense, and are soundly defeated by any and all physical data. The big mistake almost everyone makes is thinking they're just stupid or uninformed.

It's because it's just a cover, and they'll parrot it endlessly to cover up the fact that they want to punish you for not agreeing with them, they want to take your guns to bully you into submission. They know full and well if you're armed nearly as well as the average soldier, it's going to be difficult for them to control you. I know there's a handful out there who believe the cover story and recite it, but honestly, once they're factually shut down if they still continue the story, it's pretty obvious what group they really belong to.

When "assault rifles" kill 45 times less people than handguns and all they can talk about is how assault rifles need banned but handguns are acceptable, you know precisely what they're up to.

It has nothing to do with "scary looks," it has to do with the fact they realize it gives you a fighting chance against who ever they chose to force their opinions on you.

If this was simply about protecting children, we would have had armed security in schools a day after columbine, and it would be a fact of life. But that's not what this is about, nor has gun control ever been about. Gun control has always been a means of monopolized force to allow the state to force ANY agenda it wants on the people without any potential recourse for them.

 

[pudly]

Prime example: DDT. It was banned to save birds. Fast forward to today, where millions die from Mosquito borne diseases that likely would not have had to die if they were allowed to be protected by such an effective insecticide.

But they were only trying to save the planet, so that makes it all better.

Million's killed to make a "better world"? Where have I heard that before??? Oh yeah...

To the OP. Note that if a large number of people on the right side of the picture have guns, it changes the scenario significantly. Governments are by far the largest murderers in the last century. And that's not even including wars.

 

[Tombs]

To the OP. Note that if a large number of people on the right side of the picture had guns, it would change the scenario significantly.

The way it changes the scenario is that the scenario is never even attempted in the first place. This is why liberal progressives have been left pounding sand for the past couple decades and haven't actually gotten their way regardless of what football concessions have been made.

They're forced to reason out their plans and put them to a vote. They can't just threaten to shoot you in the street for not going along with it.

 

[oldpink]

It all comes down to the true nature of authoritarians.
These are people who seek to impose their beliefs by force, and an armed citizenry would be able to resist such force.
Remove the most effective means of resistance to totalitarian force, and the agenda is imposed.
The cycle has been repeated throughout history, and lack of resolution and wariness on the part of the citizenry are all that the authoritarians need to accomplish their goals.
And no, these people do not deserve the benefit of the doubt regarding their reasons or methods.
To grant them such benefit is naive in the extreme.

 

[Jludo]

I see 2 schools of thought in the whole right verses left paradigm:
One group sees freedom as the ability to do whatever they want, whenever they want, and to whoever they want with little or no consequences or repercussions. Also freedom to them is being free from any or all resposibility, and places that responsibility on government. They submit themselves fully to enslavement, and they like it so long as they get to have drugs, meals, entertainment, and whatever else is important to them.

Group 2 sees freedom as the ability and obligation to do what is right, moral, and responsible for their families, themselves, and towards society- independent of any oversight as it is theoretically not needed except in matters of maintaining order.


Just my observation in a nutshell...

Where's group two? I'd vote for them in a heartbeat

 

[Jludo]

For some, it's easier to blame an object than to come to grips with the true, underlying cause of a problem. "Gun violence", as liberals like to spin it, does not occur because of the existance of guns (as most on INGO would no doubt agree). But many liberals believe if only we could rid our world of guns, violence would disappear. They're wrong of course. But it's easier to blame the gun and those nuts that own them than it is to get to the root problem of socio-economic issues, morality, parenting, etc. and their effects on why the violence occurs in the first place.

Playing devil's advocate here but I believe a liberal would say making guns more difficult to get would make deadly violence less commonplace. Not that guns cause violence but that they make violence easier.

 

[Tombs]

Playing devil's advocate here but I believe a liberal would say making guns more difficult to get would make deadly violence less commonplace. Not that guns cause violence but that they make violence easier.

If that's the case, then why aren't they protesting arming rebels in Syria? Why aren't they calling for police to be disarmed, and for the secret service to be disarmed?

It's because they want a monopoly on that force, so that only the state has it, and that they get to control the state.

 

[Jludo]

If that's the case, then why aren't they protesting arming rebels in Syria? Why aren't they calling for police to be disarmed, and for the secret service to be disarmed?

It's because they want a monopoly on that force, so that only the state has it, and that they get to control the state.

Alright Tombs

 

[Tombs]

Alright Tombs

At least Bill Ayres is consistent on the topic, as crazy as he is. The only leftist I've seen who says either everyone, from the bottom to the top should have guns, or no one, what so ever, should have them.

 

[Jludo]

At least Bill Ayres is consistent on the topic, as crazy as he is. The only leftist I've seen who says either everyone, from the bottom to the top should have guns, or no one, what so ever, should have them.

Bill Ayres says the criminally insane should have guns? That must've been why all the protesting when he came to Purdue...

 

[Tombs]

Bill Ayres says the criminally insane should have guns? That must've been why all the protesting when he came to Purdue...

Didn't say it's right, but it's at least consistent and not on the side of authoritarianism.

 

[Libertarian01]

...

"If only I hadn't seen the things I've seen and met the people I've met, it'd be nice to be able to see the other side with such blissful ignorance." - So share with me your secret knowledge regarding this topic alone that makes me "blissfully ignorant?" Were you spying on an antigun rally? Did you perform some sort of psychological study? What great knowledge from heaven came down and bestowed upon you the inner workings of another persons mind? Inquiring minds would love to know!!!

"The flaw in your reasoning is that you're attempting to reason out someone's political cover story for their end game goals. There's a reason why their arguments don't hold up, don't make an ounce of sense, and are soundly defeated by any and all physical data. The big mistake almost everyone makes is thinking they're just stupid or uninformed." - What flaw is that? Did I not cover the fact in my second line that some are INDEED out to get rid of all guns? I never said their arguments are sound, but was simply offering an observation to answer the OP's question. This is not a political cover story for many. For some it is, for others there is an honest, albeit misguided belief, that criminalizing or taking firearms would reduce lethal crime. Now, we can all possibly argue exactly what percentage the "some" true zealots is, but it sure as heck isn't 100%, but it is above 1%.

"It's because it's just a cover, and they'll parrot it endlessly to cover up the fact that they want to punish you for not agreeing with them, they want to take your guns to bully you into submission. They know full and well if you're armed nearly as well as the average soldier, it's going to be difficult for them to control you. I know there's a handful out there who believe the cover story and recite it, but honestly, once they're factually shut down if they still continue the story, it's pretty obvious what group they really belong to." - Yes, it is true! All the antigunners have secret meetings with secret handshakes and coded passwords to protect their Star Chamber meetings in Liberalland plotting ruthlessly to strip us of our rights. Right...

"When "assault rifles" kill 45 times less people than handguns and all they can talk about is how assault rifles need banned but handguns are acceptable, you know precisely what they're up to." - No. We do not "know precisely what they're up to" as they themselves aren't that educated about the facts! The bulk of them, which I refer to, are simply repeating the propaganda they have been told by the true antigunners, the ones I referred to in my second paragraph. The problem you are not seeing is that they are emotional about the topic, not logical. If they were logical then they would easily grasp what you are saying, which is correct. The fact that they don't is self-evident that they have thrown logic out the window. Not out of malice, but out a misguided desire to do good.

"It has nothing to do with "scary looks," it has to do with the fact they realize it gives you a fighting chance against who ever they chose to force their opinions on you." - Here we go again with the secret Star Chamber meetups in Liberalland that they all attend. They all know they can never win an argument cleanly, so they have consciously thought out that by removing gun owners guns they will be able to sick their JBT policestate on us and curb stomp us to death without our being able to fight back. Right...

"If this was simply about protecting children, we would have had armed security in schools a day after columbine, and it would be a fact of life." - Hardly. People don't all think the same. Take risk management. Almost every American who buys a home and pays it off would get a panic attack if their homeowners insurance expired. Yet, most will never consider buying disability insurance even though most Americans are statistically far more likely to suffer a disability loss than they are a total home loss. The difference is that I don't consider people who have a knee-jerk reaction to be evil, or plotting with malice to be vile scumbags worthy of derision. SOME ARE! SOME ARE TURDS THAT EXPLOIT SITUATIONS. Most, just scared and confused folks who want a quick, easy answer and they want it NOW! Just like the idiots on the right that think Jack Bauers torture methods actually work in the real world. Both groups are woefully misguided in their desire to see a good end to a bad situation.

"But that's not what this is about, nor has gun control ever been about. Gun control has always been a means of monopolized force to allow the state to force ANY agenda it wants on the people without any potential recourse for them." - When the state pushes this I agree with you! However, we are not, to my knowledge, addressing a push by the state or elected officials in the OP's question. At least I am not. I am addressing the ground movement by normal citizens who have seen something terrible and want a quick fix. It is the same as all the misguided people who think building a wall along the Mexican border will stop illegal immigration. Duh! Thousand of miles of unpatrolled beachfront along Texas, Louisiana, and California. So if they can't walk, they'll take a boat just like the Africans to Italy. Also, this ignores ENTIRELY our almost completely unpatrolled boarder with Canada. Seeing as how a coyote charges about $3,500 to smuggle you in and a flight from Mexico City to Vancouver costs less than $400 one way I'd say the hypocrisy runs deep on both sides, just different issues. Don't misunderstand me on this issue, securing our boarder is important, but the concept of a Great Wall of Mexico actually being effective at stopping illegals is ridiculous when you consider the size of our country and the massively porous nature of thousands of miles of boarder, both land and sea. The cause is reasonable. The desired outcome is reasonable. What is NOT reasonable is expecting it to be effective. Same with gun control.

My thing is that I don't demonize most people who disagree with me. They aren't vile scum to be crushed under my boot. SOME are, after an individual has earned it. But for me a person has to earn an "idiot stamp" put there by me, personally, before I am willing to demonize that person.

Regards,

Doug

 

[Tombs]

"If only I hadn't seen the things I've seen and met the people I've met, it'd be nice to be able to see the other side with such blissful ignorance." -So share with me your secret knowledge regarding this topic alone that makes me "blissfully ignorant?" Were you spying on an antigun rally? Did you perform some sort of psychological study? What great knowledge from heaven came down and bestowed upon you the inner workings of another persons mind? Inquiring minds would love to know!!!

Go browse some democrat forums, listen to some clips of liberal politicians being caught by a hot mic, there's such a ridiculous mountain of evidence it's like you're asking me if the sky is blue.

"The flaw in your reasoning is that you're attempting to reason out someone's political cover story for their end game goals. There's a reason why their arguments don't hold up, don't make an ounce of sense, and are soundly defeated by any and all physical data. The big mistake almost everyone makes is thinking they're just stupid or uninformed." -

What flaw is that? Did I not cover the fact in my second line that some are INDEED out to get rid of all guns? I never said their arguments are sound, but was simply offering an observation to answer the OP's question. This is not a political cover story for many. For some it is, for others there is an honest, albeit misguided belief, that criminalizing or taking firearms would reduce lethal crime. Now, we can all possibly argue exactly what percentage the "some" true zealots is, but it sure as heck isn't 100%, but it is above 1%.

And some people are terrorists, but not all terrorists are seeking to kill US citizens. It doesn't mean that terrorists aren't inherently bad people BECAUSE of the views they hold.

If someone hates the rights of US citizens and actively works against them, they're just as bad as any enemy we've ever gone to war with or are currently at war with. There's no difference, except an enemy foreign nation might kill a few of us, while these people might strip us of our rights with no hope of ever recovering them. Terrorists believe they're doing the world good by killing us, anti-gun people think they're doing the world good by killing off American civil liberties, I see zero difference, well actually I see a big difference. Once again, a terrorist may kill a few of us but we'll recover and rebuild, anti-gun people will doom the nation far beyond their lifespan, a VASTLY more dangerous threat.

Our government exists to protect us from such threats, not give them a seat in the senate.

"It's because it's just a cover, and they'll parrot it endlessly to cover up the fact that they want to punish you for not agreeing with them, they want to take your guns to bully you into submission. They know full and well if you're armed nearly as well as the average soldier, it's going to be difficult for them to control you. I know there's a handful out there who believe the cover story and recite it, but honestly, once they're factually shut down if they still continue the story, it's pretty obvious what group they really belong to." -

Yes, it is true! All the antigunners have secret meetings with secret handshakes and coded passwords to protect their Star Chamber meetings in Liberalland plotting ruthlessly to strip us of our rights. Right...

Radical ideology doesn't require a conspiracy, it's a radical ideology.

"When "assault rifles" kill 45 times less people than handguns and all they can talk about is how assault rifles need banned but handguns are acceptable, you know precisely what they're up to." -

No. We do not "know precisely what they're up to" as they themselves aren't that educated about the facts! The bulk of them, which I refer to, are simply repeating the propaganda they have been told by the true antigunners, the ones I referred to in my second paragraph. The problem you are not seeing is that they are emotional about the topic, not logical. If they were logical then they would easily grasp what you are saying, which is correct. The fact that they don't is self-evident that they have thrown logic out the window. Not out of malice, but out a misguided desire to do good.

Radical idealists, like terrorists, don't need to know facts to be a threat to society.

They don't grasp logic because it's a radical belief system.

"It has nothing to do with "scary looks," it has to do with the fact they realize it gives you a fighting chance against who ever they chose to force their opinions on you." -

Here we go again with the secret Star Chamber meetups in Liberalland that they all attend. They all know they can never win an argument cleanly, so they have consciously thought out that by removing gun owners guns they will be able to sick their JBT policestate on us and curb stomp us to death without our being able to fight back. Right...

Once again, radical ideology does not require a conspiracy.

"If this was simply about protecting children, we would have had armed security in schools a day after columbine, and it would be a fact of life." -

Hardly. People don't all think the same. Take risk management. Almost every American who buys a home and pays it off would get a panic attack if their homeowners insurance expired. Yet, most will never consider buying disability insurance even though most Americans are statistically far more likely to suffer a disability loss than they are a total home loss. The difference is that I don't consider people who have a knee-jerk reaction to be evil, or plotting with malice to be vile scumbags worthy of derision.

SOME ARE! SOME ARE TURDS THAT EXPLOIT SITUATIONS. Most, just scared and confused folks who want a quick, easy answer and they want it NOW! Just like the idiots on the right that think Jack Bauers torture methods actually work in the real world. Both groups are woefully misguided in their desire to see a good end to a bad situation.

Scared and confused people are looking for answers. If they get their answers and still refute the answer supported by facts and evidence, it's because they have an agenda.

"But that's not what this is about, nor has gun control ever been about. Gun control has always been a means of monopolized force to allow the state to force ANY agenda it wants on the people without any potential recourse for them." -

When the state pushes this I agree with you! However, we are not, to my knowledge, addressing a push by the state or elected officials in the OP's question. At least I am not. I am addressing the ground movement by normal citizens who have seen something terrible and want a quick fix. It is the same as all the misguided people who think building a wall along the Mexican border will stop illegal immigration. Duh! Thousand of miles of unpatrolled beachfront along Texas, Louisiana, and California. So if they can't walk, they'll take a boat just like the Africans to Italy. Also, this ignores ENTIRELY our almost completely unpatrolled boarder with Canada. Seeing as how a coyote charges about $3,500 to smuggle you in and a flight from Mexico City to Vancouver costs less than $400 one way I'd say the hypocrisy runs deep on both sides, just different issues. Don't misunderstand me on this issue, securing our boarder is important, but the concept of a Great Wall of Mexico actually being effective at stopping illegals is ridiculous when you consider the size of our country and the massively porous nature of thousands of miles of boarder, both land and sea. The cause is reasonable. The desired outcome is reasonable. What is NOT reasonable is expecting it to be effective. Same with gun control.

My thing is that I don't demonize most people who disagree with me. They aren't vile scum to be crushed under my boot. SOME are, after an individual has earned it. But for me a person has to earn an "idiot stamp" put there by me, personally, before I am willing to demonize that person.

Regards,

Doug

I demonize people who seek to harm American citizens to further their own agenda. That is what the anti-gun movement has been about from day one, restricting and hampering the civil rights of American citizens. If you're telling me I need to respect people like that, then you might as well be telling me to respect al qaeda or isis.

 

[Jludo]

Really well thought out, balanced, reasoned response tombs, making civil debate all that it can be.

 

[Tombs]

Really well thought out, balanced, reasoned response tombs, making civil debate all that it can be.

There's nothing civil about people pushing to take away my God given rights.

 

[Jludo]

There's nothing civil about people pushing to take away my God given rights.

No reason not to be the bigger man, comparing your average gun control democrat to ISIS, what is that.