Gun Control - Page 30

Figment · 2013-01-05, 06:36 AM

Originally Posted by Crator

They do? For what reason? Harder to obtain/operate?

Question. How often are bombs used in muggings, domestic disputes, suicides (that includes leaving the gas on), etc.? Would one honestly want to suggest bombs would be used in spontaneous/emotional attacks like knives, guns and rifles are?

How often are hand grenades used? How easy is it to acquire professional handgrenades?

And yeah, how many people would know how to construct and operate a bomb aside from the extremely dedicated? And again, if you think bombs would kill to the same extend at guns if you remove guns, I present you with the cases of Europe, Chili, etc.

Bombs are not a replacement for guns in every day use. If bombs were so easy, why do you think they'd not be used more instead of guns and rifles, right now? If you remove rifles and guns, the amount of bombs being placed is not going to be affected at all.

Bombs are used in terror attacks and assasinations and the occasional suicide, not in regular or non-premeditated murders. Guns and rifles are used for any type of killing, because they're far more flexible and require less skill, knowledge and planning.

And yeah Baneblade, just because you in theory could, doesn't mean people would. Otherwise we'd see a lot more bombings outside maffia strikes and the occasional random terrorist attacks. And if they were really that easy to pull off and that many people willing to use them, we'd see a lot more of those bombings. A lot of terrorist attacks use suicide bombers because they have no functional delivery system that can get it in place. Hence also why car-bombings are used in a lot of bombings, because they somehow have to deliver it. On top of that, it's no guarantee that the target is taken out or isn't intercepted (bomb letters/packages often kill the messenger rather than the target), plus a lot of these mass killers want to see and control the results due to their personality traits.

About use of force against a government without outside support: consider that ETA has fought 40 years using bombings and shootings as their primary means of operation, often resorting to blackmail, kidnappings and bank robberies to obtain funding. They killed 829 people (343 civilians).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ETA_attacks

What did that actually achieve?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ETA#Political_support

Primarily that the support for their movement and independence DECLINED. Not just internationally, but also domestically.

The Euskobarometro, the survey carried out by the Universidad del País Vasco (University of the Basque Country), asking about the views of ETA within the Basque population, has obtained these results in May 2009:[43] 64% rejected ETA totally, 13% identified themselves as former ETA sympathisers (mainly during the Franco dictatorship) who no longer support the group. Another 10% agreed with ETA's ends, but not their means. 3% said that their attitude towards ETA was mainly one of fear, 3% expressed indifference and 3% were undecided or did not answer. About 3% gave ETA "justified, with criticism" support (supporting the group but criticising some of their actions) and only 1% gave ETA total support. Even within Batasuna voters, at least 48% rejected ETA's violence.

Compare that to how quickly Kosovo was able to obtain independence.

belch · 2013-01-05, 08:06 AM

yep, here's some more guys that have lost support with their "ineffective" bombs...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...uicide_attacks

(ineffective unless you are one of the people blown into pieces....)

Figment · 2013-01-05, 08:46 AM

Originally Posted by belch

yep, here's some more guys that have lost support with their "ineffective" bombs...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...uicide_attacks

(ineffective unless you are one of the people blown into pieces....)

So was it Hamas that continues to use violence or Fatah that denounced violence and started walking a diplomatic route that obtained their current status at the UN?

Ignorant troll is ignorant.

Those bombings killed people, but never were effective at what they were intended to do: create support for their own state and force Israel into submission. Neither goal has been achieved through missiles or bombs, in fact, all it resulted in was: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaza%E2...srael_conflict

Or in other words, more suffering for the population of Gaza.

But go on Belch, I got you off ignore for this one post, your one chance to make an actual argument I'll read again. Let's see what for ridiculous arguments you can come up with next that show force is better than diplomacy and foreign pressure as an underdog party in the modern world.

South African Apartheid? Oh. Violence didn't work out for either party. Diplomacy and peaceful protest did. Burma? Oh. Diplomacy and peaceful protest. What got your own black citizens rights? Black Power? Nope, "I have a dream". Ever hear of Ghandi?

And you can go on and on with examples like that. Support for Tibet? You think they'd have had a better chance if all the Tibetans armed themselves and fought the Chinese army of millions and the Chinese immigrants directly? Or would that simply result in genocide and the complete destruction of the Tibetan society?

belch · 2013-01-05, 10:42 PM

It is funny how you talk about peaceful negotiations, yet your postings are filled with venom and spite...just an observation.

Anyways, to address your theory about peaceful negotiations being the sole means for popular support and successful policy change.

You mentioned this gulf of difference between Hamas and Fatah. I would agree with you to a degree, at this point in time...but not everyone would...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Aqsa...rs%27_Brigades

Nothing is as simple as you like to portray it. I am going to clarify my point. They all hedge their bets with arms, violence, or at the very least, the threat of it.

Let's not be mistaken about anything Figment. I could care less whether you have me on ignore or not. As a tactic, it is ineffective. If you want to prove to me that, aside from very few notable exceptions with limited duration...meaningful change in this world happens in the face of violent opposition without matched or greater violence...well, you will have to modify history. You can choose to ignore the dead that have paved the way for "progress", but I won't. I understand and acknowledge that this is mankind. You think I am ignorant for it? Physician...heal thyself.

Figment · 2013-01-06, 08:05 PM

Originally Posted by belch

It is funny how you talk about peaceful negotiations, yet your postings are filled with venom and spite...just an observation.

It's also funny you speak of self-defense, while you're constantly flame baiting and trolling.

Just an observation.

Anyways, to address your theory about peaceful negotiations being the sole means for popular support and successful policy change.

You mentioned this gulf of difference between Hamas and Fatah. I would agree with you to a degree, at this point in time...but not everyone would...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Aqsa...rs%27_Brigades

You do realise that Al-Aqsa is not a condoned or official section of Fatah or even seen as a wing which Fatah directly controls?

Al-Aqsa is NOT the group achieving results and results are NOT a direct or even indirect consequence of Al-Aqsa actions. In fact, Al-Aqsa provides Israel with justifications to suppress Palestinians in the Westbank (whether those are good justifications or not).

Nice try, but no.

Nothing is as simple as you like to portray it. I am going to clarify my point. They all hedge their bets with arms, violence, or at the very least, the threat of it.

Fatah realised violence can not get them what they want.

Let's not be mistaken about anything Figment. I could care less whether you have me on ignore or not. As a tactic, it is ineffective.

You fail to realise what an ignore button is for: removing annoyances. Hmm. Interesting. Fits your general posting behaviour though.

If you want to prove to me that, aside from very few notable exceptions with limited duration...meaningful change in this world happens in the face of violent opposition without matched or greater violence...well, you will have to modify history.

Maybe you should read about it.

You can choose to ignore the dead that have paved the way for "progress", but I won't. I understand and acknowledge that this is mankind. You think I am ignorant for it? Physician...heal thyself.

You should learn to differentiate between wars between nations and succesful revolutions, as well as realising rebellions ALWAYS need a serious, dedicated foreign source of support if there's a serious standing army ready to defend the status quo. Only armies defeat armies, governments overthrown by the populace usualy have the army with A. a "wait and see" approach or B. joining the populace.

We're in modern times now. Gone are the days of Spartacus. And you do know what happened to Spartacus, don't you?

Maybe you should realise that. The power distance between armies and populace has increased severely to the point you can't simply win by creating militias since the enemy will have severely more expensive and sophisticated weaponry.

belch · 2013-01-06, 10:12 PM

Originally Posted by Figment

It's also funny you speak of self-defense, while you're constantly flame baiting and trolling.

Just an observation.

Who is flame baiting or trolling? All I have done is provide context to your statements. Now you are all angry and unable to communicate in any meaningful manner, resorting to random insults. It's odd that you cannot manage to do in an internet forum, what you suggest people should do in real life.

Just an observation.

You do realise that Al-Aqsa is not a condoned or official section of Fatah or even seen as a wing which Fatah directly controls?

Al-Aqsa is NOT the group achieving results and results are NOT a direct or even indirect consequence of Al-Aqsa actions. In fact, Al-Aqsa provides Israel with justifications to suppress Palestinians in the Westbank (whether those are good justifications or not).

Nice try, but no.

It's too bad that Fatah actually has said that they are. It is in the article, if you had bothered to read it. To include which key leader, and the date it was said. So, you also fail at reading comprehension. I'd say nice try but...well, it really wasn't.

http://www.cfr.org/israel/al-aqsa-martyrs-brigade/p9127

Once again...they all hedge their bets with arms, violence, or at the very least, the threat of it. Your disbelief does not make it any less true.

Fatah realised violence can not get them what they want.

And that explains why Fatah has continually provided the Martyr Brigade with money, endorsed their inclusion as legitimate members of Fatah, and stated they would never get rid of their militant wing...

Are you always so blind? Do you just refuse to accept facts as a matter of routine, or is it a show?

You fail to realise what an ignore button is for: removing annoyances. Hmm. Interesting. Fits your general posting behaviour though.

You've failed to make a decent case for your "theories", and when called on it, you threaten to ignore me. And then, hilariously....you don't. Oh, I am certain I annoy you at this point. It's too bad you can't legitimately counter what I have stated...persuading me to see your point of view is only going to happen when you can do so.

Maybe you should read about it.

I've shown you where you were wrong. With numbers. With credible sources. Maybe I have to take you to the killing fields themselves to prove to you exactly why you're wrong. But then...I doubt you'd ever risk your ass for anything like lofty principles. Nope, you're safe to mouth the words and pretend that all the bad guys in the world can be talked away with meaningful discussion.

You should learn to differentiate between wars between nations and succesful revolutions, as well as realising rebellions ALWAYS need a serious, dedicated foreign source of support if there's a serious standing army ready to defend the status quo. Only armies defeat armies, governments overthrown by the populace usualy have the army with A. a "wait and see" approach or B. joining the populace.

We're in modern times now. Gone are the days of Spartacus. And you do know what happened to Spartacus, don't you?

Maybe you should realise that. The power distance between armies and populace has increased severely to the point you can't simply win by creating militias since the enemy will have severely more expensive and sophisticated weaponry.

This demonstrates your failure to understand war, violence, and the point at which semantics no longer matter. It seems you cannot see the forest for the trees. You truly believe that a "serious standing army" (as opposed to the not-so-serious ones) is able to dictate when and how they are met on the battlefield? It's odd that so many times, to include very recently, this has proven to be anything but true. Like Afghanistan. Or do you really believe that the Taliban have anywhere near the technology, resources, or foreign support to face the ISAF toe-to-toe?

Here's a clue....they don't need to. And after 10 years, who is leaving the battlefield with little to show for it?

Yes, call me a troll. Insult me some more. The display of hypocrisy certainly lends credibility to your argument....

Go ahead...do anything but open your eyes to the truth, Figment. For your sake, I hope you never have to find out firsthand. As I've said before, you will be unprepared.

Figment · 2013-01-07, 09:24 AM

Originally Posted by belch

Who is flame baiting or trolling? All I have done is provide context to your statements. Now you are all angry and unable to communicate in any meaningful manner, resorting to random insults. It's odd that you cannot manage to do in an internet forum, what you suggest people should do in real life.

Just an observation.

No, what you did is constantly LIE, as in, OUTRIGHT LIE, about what I supposedly said, provide a non-existant context, ignore actual context and on top of it kept flame baiting with subtle insults.

When I say "there is less violent crime here", you state "you said there was no violent crime". That's an outright lie. When I state "violent crime, the combination of two words, is a category of crime which occurs less here", you state "you said your criminals are more sophisticated and don't use as much crime for the exact same type of crime". Again, you either lack an extremely rudimentary graps of the English language, but more likely you're just trying to distort words you don't comprehend and can't admit you made a mistake.

And even if I make it this clear, you still won't admit you misinterpreted my words either entirely wrong, or you deliberately distorted it. In either case, sufficient reason to ignore you as you're not a serious debating partner: you have no interest in fair assesment.

Furthermore, you make up statistics without crediting a source and ignore statistics with source presented entirely.

And I have a problem with THAT, yes. I don't get frustrated because you'd somehow have made a point in the mess you post, I get frustrated because you're so incredible foolish, insulting and pigheaded, that there's simply no point to debate something with you, because you'll never want to face reality.

As for flame bait and trolling, that's what you do now by posting "just an observaton".

[sarcasm] "Just an observation." [/sarcasm]

It's too bad that Fatah actually has said that they are. It is in the article, if you had bothered to read it. To include which key leader, and the date it was said. So, you also fail at reading comprehension. I'd say nice try but...well, it really wasn't.

Actually, the article says:

The leadership of the brigades, and average members have identified themselves as the military wing of Fatah.

But it ALSO says:

The leadership of Fatah has said they never made a decision either to create the brigades, or make them the militant wing of Fatah. Since 2002, some leaders in Fatah have reportedly tried to get the brigades to stop attacking civilians.

.

I'm the one who needs reading comprehension? You can't distinguish with a group affiliating themselves with another group they identify with, while the group they identify with does not actually want them affiliated, nor per definition shares or condones their methods, even if they have similar goals and ideals.

If I were to create a militia in the USA and would use the Republican Party's logo, would bomb Democrat targets and would have wide spread support among the Tea Party, would that mean that I'd actually be an official wing of the Republican Party?

No it would not. In fact, it would not even be an official wing of the Tea Party.

You utterly fail at comprehending the position. A cow is per definition an animal, an animal is not per definition a cow. Reading comprehension. Try it.

http://www.cfr.org/israel/al-aqsa-martyrs-brigade/p9127

Once again...they all hedge their bets with arms, violence, or at the very least, the threat of it. Your disbelief does not make it any less true.

Nice link! Look what it says:

What is the brigade’s relationship with the Palestinian government?

Whether Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade has a direct relationship with the leadership of Fatah is debated. Although the brigade formed as an armed offshoot of Fatah, experts say that it seems unlikely that the brigade operate at the behest of Fatah leader Mahmoud Abbas. Direct orders from the head of Fatah to the brigade would have been more probable under Yasir Arafat than under Abbas.

READING COMPREHENSION. Read the damn links you post first, before you start telling lies and distort half-truths!

As I said before, when Fatah stopped threatening with violence (under Arafat), Arafat became a diplomatically viable partner and suddenly doors opened. Peace with Israel was pretty close had both sides actually dared to and not push their luck, Clinton might have succeeded. Abbas, continueing the no violence against Israel policy, has managed to secure enough support in the UN for the creation of a state for the Palestinians. Again, something which would have been impossible under a policy of violence. Similar successes have been made by the IRA's political branch, AFTER IRA put down their weapons.

FFS. This is what gets me angry, you being an entirely incompetent, yet extremely smug "debater"! You have no idea what you are talking about, posting and are completely biased in your uninformed views.

So again, that's Al-Aqsa, not Fatah. And Fatah does not use them as leverage in diplomacy to garner foreign support for a peace treaty with Israel, nor in direct negotiations: because they don't control Al-Aqsa!

And once again, Al-Aqsa doesn't actually accomplish anything.

And that explains why Fatah has continually provided the Martyr Brigade with money, endorsed their inclusion as legitimate members of Fatah, and stated they would never get rid of their militant wing...

Are you always so blind? Do you just refuse to accept facts as a matter of routine, or is it a show?

Sources please, neither that link you provided nor wiki link Fatah to Al-Aqsa in any way you claim here. Surely you must have better sources then?

You've failed to make a decent case for your "theories", and when called on it, you threaten to ignore me. And then, hilariously....you don't.

Actually I did and after this post, I will once more. Don't bother responding, I won't read it anymore.

Oh, I am certain I annoy you at this point. It's too bad you can't legitimately counter what I have stated...persuading me to see your point of view is only going to happen when you can do so.

Ah some reading comprehension is rearing its head: You finally realise you're annoying. Just a shame you still don't know what is annoying about you.

I'm not interested in persuading you, all I'm interested in right now is illustrating how stupid you are to the other people. And you're helping me nicely doing so by providing links to sites that support my position... So uhm. Thanks?

I've shown you where you were wrong. With numbers. With credible sources. Maybe I have to take you to the killing fields themselves to prove to you exactly why you're wrong. But then...I doubt you'd ever risk your ass for anything like lofty principles. Nope, you're safe to mouth the words and pretend that all the bad guys in the world can be talked away with meaningful discussion.

Actually... you've not given numbers, at all. Your sources... support my position.

And once again, you're lieing and assuming things about me: I've consistently said "bad guys" (LOL BLACK/WHITE THINKING LOL) as in armed governments willing to use force on their own populace can only be persuaded with severe foreign pressure and to minimise the pressure on the own populace, by not providing them with justifications to commit murder or genocide.

Resistance is good. Rebellion is suicide. Taking a stance against Nazi-Germany as Luxembourg is foolish and suicide. Taking part in an alliance against nazi-Germany and supporting that through passive and subvertive action is splendid. But one does not achieve that by simply arming the populace.

I've said on many occasions that an army must either stand down by its own accord, OR be defeated by another army. It is unlikely to be defeated in direct civil war without systematic foreign support.

That includes the USA. In fact, according to the British assesment of the war situation, without Dutch, Spanish and French blockade running foreign support using neutrality and merchant rules as cover, you'd never have managed to become independent. In fact, George Washington was almost defeated on several occassions and the US armies destroyed, if luck had not been on his side.

But hey, you're so good at history, you should know that.

This demonstrates your failure to understand war, violence, and the point at which semantics no longer matter. It seems you cannot see the forest for the trees. You truly believe that a "serious standing army" (as opposed to the not-so-serious ones) is able to dictate when and how they are met on the battlefield? It's odd that so many times, to include very recently, this has proven to be anything but true. Like Afghanistan. Or do you really believe that the Taliban have anywhere near the technology, resources, or foreign support to face the ISAF toe-to-toe?

Do you believe that the Taliban fabricate their own weapons and do not have foreign support, legal or otherwise from foreign arms dealers and governments? Do you think the Mujahadeen would have survived or beaten Russia without CIA support and setting up foreign Salafist groups to recruit foreign volunteers for the Afghan jihad?

Hmmm?

Oh conveniently ignore that Afghanistan fits my description completely? How typical.

Oh and about Afghanistan... You do remember what happened after these militias defeated the Russians with foreign support? The guns weren't removed from the groups and they turned on each other, 20 years of civil war ensued where each group or coalition of groups tried to suppress the others until 9/11 and Bush stepping in to make the Northern Alliance pretty much steamroll Afghanistan... If it wasn't for the terrain being so vast and remote, it'd been the end of it too. Oh did I mention that would happen by illustrating with a number of examples? Why yes, yes I did.

And you do recall what happened in such funny countries like China, North Korea, Cambodia and Vietnam after the "people" won the battle with civilians owning guns? Communist dictatorships. Hooray! Freedom from opp...! Oh wait. Oppression by the strongest group, the last one left standing. Which is why it is good that European civilians freely removed guns from their society post-war so none of the groups could start a civil war for absolute power.

Do you honestly think North Korea or Vietnam would have been communist without Chinese and Russian assistance? Really? Perhaps you should check the sequence of events for those wars a bit more closer.

Here's a clue....they don't need to. And after 10 years, who is leaving the battlefield with little to show for it?

Depends on the region we're talking about. The Taliban been thrown out of several areas in Pakistan and many important ones in Afghanistan itself. It isn't difficult to hide individuals in a million population though, so if one guy being around is what you deem "Taliban control", then yay?

Yes, call me a troll. Insult me some more. The display of hypocrisy certainly lends credibility to your argument....

Go ahead...do anything but open your eyes to the truth, Figment. For your sake, I hope you never have to find out firsthand. As I've said before, you will be unprepared.

1. It is you who is insulting.

2. I hope your children never get slaughtered by a madman with a rifle you ensured the guy access to because it was his "right" to have human slaughter tools in his home for "personal defense".

3. I actually found out first hand that being up against a gang of teens eager to prove themselves amongst their comrades, thus looking for an "easy" fight is easier if they don't have guns or other weapons.

Lucky for me, they're not American teen gangs, who already killed a number of people in gang wars, because they too have the "right to defend themselves with guns" and choose to make someone else defend against them instead.

But hey, keep making your own country less save. Let's give kids in school guns to protect them from teachers wearing guns, who wear guns to protect them from nutcases, who wear guns because other nuts think they need to defend themselves against a government conspiracy, who wear guns because they need to defend themselves against other governments with guns.

What's next? Baby guns?

belch · 2013-01-07, 10:29 AM

lol

Spiralling out of control a bit then?

Not going to bother quoting, as you have obviously raged out and most of what you said is incoherently angry. I got the gist, and will answer in kind. But first...

I understand why you are incapable of reconciling ground reality with your vision of how the world works. But, I have been to your country, and many other European countries. I have been to several countries in the Middle East. Hell, I was born on Okinawa, and have lived in 2 Asian countries as well. I have probably seen a bit more of the world than you. I have heard folks like you make the arguments, over and over. I have heard of some of them disappearing off the face of the earth. It is actually more painful than you can understand, knowing that people that meant well...that truly believed in humanity...could be swallowed whole. But moving along...

It is obvious to anyone but you that I have not lied. You have argued that Europes gun laws are somehow more effective at stopping violent crime. It isn't a case of me twisting your words, or misinterpreting. You have argued that knives are somehow easier to deal with than guns, implied that they are less lethal. You have also dismissed the use of bombs as some petty tool that has no consequence. I have merely pointed out the folley, with some simple facts about violence in Europe, the lethality of knives and explosives, etc. It wasn't hard to do, nor difficult to understand. Unless you are so full of yourself that you cannot believe yourself to be wrong of course. And that, apparently, is firmly where you stand.

The initial observation was a response to your continued insults...which I must admit I do find mildly humorous at this point. And why shouldn't I? That it cut you, should have told you something. But you missed the cue...and you have instead launched into another round of insults with really big font. LOL...it's hilarious!

As for Fatah and al Aqsa...you have ironically missed the boat. Yes, it is likely Arafat would have been more likely to give direct orders, given his history...and that Abbas would not. Did you interpret that to mean that noone in Fatah has given direct orders to al Aqsa? In light of Fatah publicly demonstrating control of them in various 'disarmament intiatives', as well as their admitted acceptance of them as their own militant wing created by Arafat...who also created Fatah...

Just an aside...comprehension is more than just understanding the meaning of words. It is actually understanding what ideas they are conveying when grouped together.

I am certain you don't get it. Nor will you. You're too busy being angry at me. Looking for some loophole where magically, al Aqsa is not tied to Fatah via funding (proven), and control (acknowledged repeatedly). Of note though...it seems you handle disagreement about as well as the "barbarious lot" you like to look down your nose at. I am glad you do not own a firearm.

You are steadfast in your belief that change must come without violence. I am certain that the OSS and French resistance of WW2 would take issue with your gross over-simplification of their deeds...hell, outright dismissal,
of their efforts as futile. I am sure you do believe it is futile to take a stand against oppression. Which...btw...do you care to mention the stance of the Nazi's on private firearm ownership?

But it get's better! You evidently believe that the Taliban has some war machine churning out IED's and AK-47s for them...or that they bought them as civilians for personal defense? Or did you assume it was the CIA that built the IED's? Good grief...you just basically have no knowledge on it, and are making some rather bold assumptions. In case you didn't know, the "I" in IED stands for improvised. As it's description implies, they are not manufactured by an arms dealer, nor imported. They are manufactured locally. Fact check me about what the number 1 killer in Afghanistan is.

Oh, by the way...you have got me posting a really long reply. Which, honestly, I really disdain. I doubt you're even reading to comprehend at this point, and are more than likely just getting angry and trying to prove me wrong. You would do yourself a bigger service by calming down...acknowledging that there are things that you do not know...then posting without being so embarrasingly angry.

Oh...btw, thanks for the concern about my children. I also hope they don't get slaughtered by a madman. The difference is, I don't pretend that it can't happen because a law says it can't. I'll bet them parents in Norway, them folks at the mall in your country...I imagine they don't believe as you do anymore either.

Figment · 2013-01-07, 01:14 PM

Belch, noticed you replied due to the forum list: if it's directed at me, which I don't know right now but assume since nobody else posted after me, I'm not going to bother reading it anymore. Save yourself the effort and stop replying to me.

belch · 2013-01-07, 01:51 PM

Originally Posted by Figment

Belch, noticed you replied due to the forum list: if it's directed at me, which I don't know right now but assume since nobody else posted after me, I'm not going to bother reading it anymore. Save yourself the effort and stop replying to me.

Probably the only thing you've said that is remotely rational.

For the record, my font happy pal:

keep hope alive!

Deuces.

Figment · 2013-01-08, 03:55 PM

Alright. Let's see what the petition to deport Piers is about.

No paranoia here folks!

It's about prozac (around 3 mins), they want your guns. IT'S ABOUT GETTING DRUGS TO THE PEOPLE! OMG THEY ARE EVERYWHERE MAN! IT'S THE RUSSIANS, THE CHINESE AND THE GOB'MENT AND THEY ARE ALL IN IT TOGETHER JUST TO GO AFTER THE AMERICAN CITIZEN! D:

PEOPLE BURN CITIES DOWN EVERY DAY IN THE UK! OMG OMG OMG!!!!11oeoneoneoen!twelve!

How many murders in the US last year with guns only? 11.000...

YOU FLED HERE!

How many murders in the UK with guns? ehr ehr CHIMPANSEES. ehr ehr... 35... YOU WANT TO TAKE R GUNZ!

HATCHET MAN! HATCHET MAN OF THE NEW WORLD ORDER!

Oh my. Oh my indeed. Excellent advocate of gun rights.

(Sorry guys, had to post that... There are more rational people than that who are pro-guns, but... Really?

)

Crator · 2013-01-10, 04:22 PM

Another school shooting today: One student critically wounded in California school shooting

also

Biden butts heads with NRA in gun violence drive

Before delivering its recommendations, the task force is also due to hear from the video game industry, whose products also contain frequent gun violence.

Figment · 2013-01-11, 01:57 AM

NRA is not concerned with the 2nd amendment, just their sales.

"They will not allow it"? If the majority of the populace wants it, they will have to allow it, or start a tyranny of their own. And the NRA probably would to protect their sales.

Hah, do they think they have more power and are entitled to more power regarding law making than the democratically elected lawmakers? It is interesting to see how they feel above the law by simply pretending the militia act is there to give the arms industry unlimited sales and rights and completely ignore "well-regulated" even.

Baneblade · 2013-01-11, 05:25 AM

The NRA represents its members.

Figment · 2013-01-12, 07:42 AM

Originally Posted by Baneblade

The NRA represents its members.

Not at all, they represent the industry.

Members are not the driving force.

Would you say Alex Jones is representative of more than those 100K people who signed the deportation petition regarding piers?

Freedom of speech nor citizens determining their own laws is in the interest of anyone supporting the NRA or Alex Jones:

They would not accept anyone's laws but their own, completely ignoring there are other opinions and methods.

Democracy is not strong in gun owners, tyranny is. Freedom to oppress the majority and hold them hostage with threat of violence is not freedom. That is called threatening.