PDA

View Full Version : Anti 2nd amendment bulls**t



obtainedpilot
11-30-2011, 22:56
I found this on the web and had fun reading it...I hope you do too!

Forty Reasons to Ban Guns

Courtesy of fellow 2nd Amendment Absolutist Pat McHugh of MPI Outdoors.


Banning guns works, which is why New York, DC, Detroit & Chicago cops need guns.

Washington DC's low murder rate of 69 per 100,000 is due to strict gun control, and Indianapolis' high murder rate of 9 per 100,000 is due to the lack of gun control.

Statistics showing high murder rates justify gun control but statistics showing increasing murder rates after gun control are "just statistics."

The Brady Bill and the Assault Weapons Ban, both of which went into effect in 1994, are responsible for the decrease in violent crime rates, which have been declining since 1991.

We must get rid of guns because a deranged lunatic may go on a shooting spree at any time and anyone who would own a gun out of fear of such a lunatic is paranoid.

The more helpless you are the safer you are from criminals.

An intruder will be incapacitated by tear gas or oven spray, but if shot with a .357 Magnum will get angry and kill you.

A woman raped and strangled is morally superior to a woman with a smoking gun and a dead rapist at her feet.

When confronted by violent criminals, you should "put up no defense - give them what they want, or run" (Handgun Control Inc. Chairman Pete Shields, Guns Don't Die - People Do, 1981, p. 125).

The New England Journal of Medicine is filled with expert advice about guns; just like Guns & Ammo has some excellent treatises on heart surgery.

One should consult an automotive engineer for safer seat belts, a civil engineer for a better bridge, a surgeon for internal medicine, a computer programmer for hard drive problems, and Sarah Brady for firearms expertise.

The 2nd Amendment, ratified in 1787, refers to the National Guard, which was created 130 years later, in 1917.

The National Guard, federally funded, with bases on federal land, using federally-owned weapons, vehicles, buildings and uniforms, punishing trespassers under federal law, is a "state" militia.

These phrases: "right of the people peaceably to assemble," "right of the people to be secure in their homes," "enumerations herein of certain rights shall not be construed to disparage others retained by the people," and "The powers not delegated herein are reserved to the states respectively, and to the people" all refer to individuals, but "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" refers to the state.

"The Constitution is strong and will never change." But we should ban and seize all guns thereby violating the 2nd, 4th, and 5th Amendments to that Constitution.

Rifles and handguns aren't necessary to national defense! Of course, the army has hundreds of thousands of them.

Private citizens shouldn't have handguns, because they aren't "military weapons'', but private citizens shouldn't have "assault rifles'', because they are military weapons.

In spite of waiting periods, background checks, fingerprinting,government forms, etc., guns today are too readily available, which is responsible for recent school shootings. In the 1940's, 1950's and 1960's,anyone could buy guns at hardware stores, army surplus stores, gas stations, variety stores, Sears mail order; no waiting, no background check, no fingerprints, no government forms,...and there were no school shootings.

The NRA's attempt to run a "don't touch" campaign about kids handling guns is propaganda, but the anti-gun lobby's attempt to run a "don't touch" campaign is responsible social activity.

Guns are so complex that special training is necessary to use them properly, and so simple to use that they make murder easy.

A handgun, with up to 4 controls, is far too complex for the typical adult to learn to use, as opposed to an automobile that only has 20.

Women are just as intelligent and capable as men but a woman with a gun is "an accident waiting to happen" and gun makers' advertisements aimed at women are "preying on their fears."

Ordinary people in the presence of guns turn into slaughtering butchers, but revert to normal when the weapon is removed.

Guns cause violence, which is why there are so many mass killings at gun shows.

A majority of the population supports gun control, just like a majority of the population supported owning slaves.

Any self-loading small arm can legitimately be considered to be a "weapon of mass destruction" or an "assault weapon."

Most people can't be trusted, so we should have laws against guns, which most people will abide by because they can be trusted.

The right of Internet pornographers to exist cannot be questioned because it is constitutionally protected by the Bill of Rights, but the use of handguns for self defense is not really protected by the Bill of Rights.

Free speech entitles one to own newspapers, transmitters, computers, and typewriters, but self- defense only justifies bare hands.

The ACLU is good because it uncompromisingly defends certain parts of the Constitution, and the NRA is bad, because it defends other parts of the Constitution.

Charlton Heston, a movie actor and president of the NRA, is a cheap lunatic who should be ignored. Michael Douglas, a movie actor and a representative of Handgun Control, Inc. is an ambassador for peace who is entitled to an audience at the UN arms control summit.

Police operate with backup within groups, which is why they need larger capacity pistol magazines than do "civilians" who must face criminals alone and therefore need less ammunition.

We should ban "Saturday Night Specials" and other inexpensive guns because it's not fair that poor people have access to guns too.

Police officers have some special Jedi-like mastery over handguns that private citizens can never hope to obtain.

Private citizens don't need a gun for self- protection because the police are there to protect them--even though the Supreme Court says the police are not responsible for their protection.

Citizens don't need to carry a gun for personal protection, but police chiefs who are desk-bound administrators who work in a building filled with cops, need a gun.

"Assault weapons" have no purpose other than to kill large numbers of people. The police need assault weapons. You do not.

When Microsoft pressures its distributors to give Microsoft preferential promotion, that's bad; but when the Federal government pressures cities to buy guns only from Smith & Wesson, that's good.

Trigger locks do not interfere with the ability to use a gun for defensive purposes, which is why you see police officers with one on their duty weapon.

Handgun Control, Inc., says they want to "keep guns out of the wrong hands." Guess what? You have the wrong hands.



Sent from my HTC PH39100 using Tapatalk

HAVOK
12-01-2011, 00:19
This is seriously awesome. The "powers that be" need to get their head out of their asses

obtainedpilot
12-01-2011, 00:27
But hey Obama thinks the same thing and so does most senetors lol and I found my self scratching my head a lot when reading all of this

Sent from my HTC PH39100 using Tapatalk

Ironhide400
12-01-2011, 07:50
In spite of waiting periods, background checks, fingerprinting,government forms, etc., guns today are too readily available, which is responsible for recent school shootings. In the 1940's, 1950's and 1960's,anyone could buy guns at hardware stores, army surplus stores, gas stations, variety stores, Sears mail order; no waiting, no background check, no fingerprints, no government forms,...and there were no school shootings.

Yeah because the kids are the ones buying the guns you know.....

MjolnirActual
12-01-2011, 08:38
Rifles and handguns aren't necessary to national defense! Of course, the army has hundreds of thousands of them.

This is my favorite argument of them all *facepalm*

I talked to a guy years ago who was a retired intel type (had no reason to doubt him and feel he was legit) and he said that there is information out there that says effectively that one of the major, MAJOR reasons why countries like China or even Russia (in their prime) actually don't want to come into the US and try to kick our asses is because we have an armed citizenry.

What he had said (and it seems to make sense) is that you can pretty much account for any country's standing military when planning an attack but when you have literary no idea how many armed civilians you will encounter at any one time, nor any real idea of their capabilities. It's a complete bitch to try to plan any type of action.

So I say this based on that .... thought process how in the FRAKK are they not necessary for national defense.

Another point I would make here too is that it is my considered belief that one of the things that the founding fathers were trying to make abundantly clear with the intent of the 2nd Amendment was that the people should be able to push back against an oppressive government if the need ever arose. Thereby trying to safeguard future generations from having to fight like they did to get out from under colonial rule.

I don't think that wanting to make sure that the American people can stand together and capably defend themselves and this nation is an outdated concept at all.

Ragingclue
12-01-2011, 08:56
....one of the major, MAJOR reasons why countries like China or even Russia (in their prime) actually don't want to come into the US and try to kick our asses is because we have an armed citizenry...

This is exactly what Switzerland has been doing for a long time. I think you actually have to apply for a waiver if you don't want to have a firearm in your house or whatever (at least this is how I remember it; it's been 14 years since I lived there). They also lined their bridges and tunnels with dynamite as a deterrent. Smart people. I believe no one has attempted to invade that place since the Savoiards in the 1300s or 1600s or some shit like that.

It's great here in Chicago where criminals know any law abiding citizen will absolutely not be carrying. It makes for easy prey. This city is so backwards and caters to the criminals like no place I have seen before. Amazing how the have-nots and exploiters of the government assistance programs flourish around here. People can talk shit about Detroit all they want, Chicago is most definitely NOT the safe big city they try to promote it as... And lately the little fuckers have figured out if they invade the more affluent parts of the city, their robberies carry higher dollar prizes.... Mixed income housing plans don't help that either, but this city is so fucked by its libtarded population. Definitely taking my tax dollars elsewhere next year. I guess I shouldn't have expected too much out of the city that just now decided to treat raw sewage before dumping it into the Chicago River. Yeah, welcome to a hundred fucking years ago.

obtainedpilot
12-01-2011, 10:04
So is it just me then that when I found out most of this stuff while I was still in that it pissed me off that servering and protecting people that are trying to destroy the constitution?!?

Sent from my HTC PH39100 using Tapatalk

MjolnirActual
12-01-2011, 10:06
So is it just me then that when I found out most of this stuff while I was still in that it pissed me off that servering and protecting people that are trying to destroy the constitution?!?

Sent from my HTC PH39100 using Tapatalk


Nope not only you brother.

obtainedpilot
12-01-2011, 10:34
I talked about rights being slowly taken away from people to some guys while I was in basic and they blew it off till they started thinking about it since it all started at the turn of the last centry it all started with the ban on drugs

Sent from my HTC PH39100 using Tapatalk

TENGU
12-01-2011, 18:44
Its not the lack of guns that causes the violence, that would be a little odd :P Its the fact that only the bad guys will have guns. Gun laws really don't work, alot of people in my neighborhood has like 2 in their house *illegal or legal*, some even have bars in the windows and on the doors LOL. A 16 year old kid can go get a little .38 for anywhere between $25-50, when theres a demand, there will be a supply. I'd rather give people the chance to defend themselves if it ever came to that scenario.

as for Indianapolis, it doesn't have a low crime rate. The murder rate is about 5 times the national average (22 per every 100,000 people, in Indianapolis this is 88). Those statistics (9 per 100k) are probably only in city limits, probably not including your worst areas. I know here the worst areas are not in the city limits, more in the outlaying suburbs, got the statistics from wiki.

obtainedpilot
12-01-2011, 19:20
La and Fresno is the highest on this side of the country

Sent from my HTC PH39100 using Tapatalk

Crusty
12-01-2011, 22:01
These phrases: "right of the people peaceably to assemble," "right of the people to be secure in their homes," "enumerations herein of certain rights shall not be construed to disparage others retained by the people," and "The powers not delegated herein are reserved to the states respectively, and to the people" all refer to individuals, but "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" refers to the state.

The difference between the amendments these first phrases are in compared to the second amendment is that the 2nd specifically says:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state"

So the amendment is referring to the right of people within a militia to bare arms. Specifically during a time when the country was young and relied heavily and local militia.

I'm not going to argue about this issue, because it is too much of a hot button and this is a forum where my opinion isn't going to really matter. But I just thought up I'd bring up that one point.

obtainedpilot
12-02-2011, 01:58
Well there's about 5 or 6 unoffical organized militias here in kalifornia some have websites to what do they say bout that lmao

Sent from my HTC PH39100 using Tapatalk

Crusty
12-02-2011, 17:18
Well there's about 5 or 6 unoffical organized militias here in kalifornia some have websites to what do they say bout that lmao

Sent from my HTC PH39100 using Tapatalk

Are they "well-regulated"?

obtainedpilot
12-02-2011, 17:27
Almost as much as the state militia which is the same as the 2nd mass

Sent from my HTC PH39100 using Tapatalk

FiddlersGreen09
12-05-2011, 10:56
I get in arguements all the time here at work. My father was a big hunter and when he passed away, his gun collection passed on to me. I normally buy one gun a year and most of the guns that I do buy are actually used for hunting or target shooting. The workers tell me you can only hunt with one gun. How many guns do you actually need? I tell them I can own as many as I want. That's what make America great!!!

obtainedpilot
12-05-2011, 12:22
Exactly and gun owners should be free to buy just about anything their wallet can afford with out a lot of regulation but like the nfa rules that's kinda good cause its to keep people that shouldn't have destructive items from getting them

Sent from my HTC PH39100 using Tapatalk

comanche_warior
12-06-2011, 10:28
this guys claims make no sense what so ever, i live in cali and the gun laws here are so stupid as it is. this guy is saying that the police are supposed to be the only ones with a gun, well what happens when the cops or sheriffs in my case are nothing but a bunch of glorified security guards. so how are we supposed to feel safe when the sheriffs are sitting outside the hotels and stealing the wifi to look at porn or something while on duty. the next thing theyll make us do when we buy a gun is to give them our first born son.

obtainedpilot
12-06-2011, 11:29
Which guy

Sent from my HTC PH39100 using Tapatalk

comanche_warior
12-06-2011, 22:49
the one who wrote the original article

jxspyder
12-06-2011, 22:53
the one who wrote the original article

You should reread this with your sarcasm sensors engaged. It might make more sense.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk

obtainedpilot
12-07-2011, 00:09
It's sarcasm directed towards the anti second amendment folks and there's way more people than you think that hates the constitution and what it represents

Sent from my HTC PH39100 using Tapatalk

Crusty
12-07-2011, 08:45
It's sarcasm directed towards the anti second amendment folks and there's way more people than you think that hates the constitution and what it represents

Sent from my HTC PH39100 using Tapatalk

Dude, just because there are people who want to get rid of guns doesn't mean they hate the Constitution. The issue is far more complicated than that. Just because someone has a different view doesn't mean they hate America.

I find it offensive to say that because I think we would be better off without handguns and assault rifles in every citizen's hands that I hate the Constitution or hate America.

But whatever, I'm not expecting anyone here to agree with my views. But showing a little respect for the fact that opposing views are not the mark of Satan would be appreciated.

jxspyder
12-07-2011, 10:20
Dude, just because there are people who want to get rid of guns doesn't mean they hate the Constitution. The issue is far more complicated than that. Just because someone has a different view doesn't mean they hate America.

I find it offensive to say that because I think we would be better off without handguns and assault rifles in every citizen's hands that I hate the Constitution or hate America.

But whatever, I'm not expecting anyone here to agree with my views. But showing a little respect for the fact that opposing views are not the mark of Satan would be appreciated.

It's really not that complicated. You can't pick and choose which parts of the Constitution are right and which are wrong. You have the right to voice your opinion, just like I have the right to carry a gun.

Just because some people have an irrational, and factually unsubstantiated, fear of guns doesn't change the rights given to us.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk

obtainedpilot
12-07-2011, 10:21
True I know just cause they hate guns doesn't mean they hate America or the constitution but there are a lot of people here in this country that would love to see it abolished and we can't have that

Sent from my HTC PH39100 using Tapatalk

obtainedpilot
12-07-2011, 10:26
It's really not that complicated. You can't pick and choose which parts of the Constitution are right and which are wrong. You have the right to voice your opinion, just like I have the right to carry a gun.

Just because some people have an irrational, and factually unsubstantiated, fear of guns doesn't change the rights given to us.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk

Correct like my dad he says that private citizens shouldn't have assult rifles and large capacity magazines cause they might go on a shooting spree and I should tell him that's also why everyone should be able to have a ccw and there should be a very severe punishment for those that abuse firearms

Sent from my HTC PH39100 using Tapatalk

ValhallaCQC
12-07-2011, 10:38
It's easy to scapegoat guns, the reality is the danger lies in human nature. If you took all guns away we will still find another way to destroy each other. Very similar to how they banned Benadril to stop meth. Violence is a long road.

MjolnirActual
12-07-2011, 10:47
Correct like my dad he says that private citizens shouldn't have assult rifles and large capacity magazines cause they might go on a shooting spree and I should tell him that's also why everyone should be able to have a ccw and there should be a very severe punishment for those that abuse firearms

Sent from my HTC PH39100 using Tapatalk

That is another argument that baffles me ... So in that logic its not the fact that a person who is unstable to begin with that causes them to go on a shooting spree it's because they had a HiCap mag?

I am only remembering this and I'm not even sure how to look for the study (if anyone knows exactly please confirm for deny for me) BUT there was a study done by the NRA back in the 90's that took a look at gun crime for a given year across the US. As it turns out the number of crimes committed with legal registered weapons in that year was like 1% or less.

So the point I'm getting at is that it's not the weapons themselves that are doing anything and all the regulation in the world can't stop black market sales, and the statistic above shows that by and large those of us who are responsible gun owners are really exactly that, responsible gun owners.

A lot of us who have access to "Assault" type weapons and HiCap mags and we apparently aren't just deciding to go on a rampage at our local mall.

So please anti 2nd Amendment folks please take that bit of rhetoric out of your bag of tricks because it really doesn't work in my eyes.

Why do people always try to treat the weapons as the "issue" and not the misdeeds of the people behind them?

obtainedpilot
12-07-2011, 12:05
We just need to fix our prison system cause there hasn't been a actual death sentence for some of these people

Sent from my HTC PH39100 using Tapatalk

ASignorelli
12-08-2011, 07:42
I sense mild sarcasm in some of those things LOL... At least, I think I do?!

jxspyder
12-08-2011, 11:11
I sense mild sarcasm in some of those things LOL... At least, I think I do?!

You do.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk

obtainedpilot
12-08-2011, 11:23
I don't see a point of naming a certain capacity in magazines or even attempting to have long rifle registrations or firearms in general maybe handguns since they are used more frequently in crimes than any other firearms

Sent from my HTC PH39100 using Tapatalk