Anti-gunners: "We NEED more massacres of school-children"

Status
Not open for further replies.
When fanatical positions are involved, I find it doesn't make much sense voicing a rebuttal. Let their own comments illustrate their insanity.
 
When fanatical positions are involved, I find it doesn't make much sense voicing a rebuttal. Let their own comments illustrate their insanity.
Click to expand...

Or in laymans terms "never wrestle with a pig, you will just get dirty and the pig will enjoy it". Arguing with antis is basically like wrasslin pigs.
 
"I hate to say it but it's going to take the kind of massacre that kills lots of children. That's the only way we are going to see progress," from Bryan Jones.


I always knew these people "danced in the blood", but this is the first actual admission I've seen.
 
EMOTIONS CAN BE COUNTERPRODUCTIVE

I think the problem on both sides is that the discussion almost always gets emotional. While understandable and to some extent probably unavoidable, it really is counterproductive when attempting to solve a problem. I think if someone proposes a new gun control law, an excellent way to address their proposal would be something like this. "Please tell us how this law you are proposing will save lives. Can you provide us with one single example in which any life has ever been saved by any gun control law?" At this point they are likely to pop off with some vague what if type of scenario to justify their idea for the new law and who knows what they will come up with for an example of how any gun control law has ever saved any life. The point is to stay on topic and ask them to produce "back up " the evidence proving their assertions. If their assertions are ludicrous (like virtually all of the anti gun assertions I can ever recall hearing) it shouldn't take long to expose their argument as a hollow one without basis in reality. The real problem in the debate is not the debate itself, it is the location of the debate. The mainstream leftist press is in no way going to allow a fair and two sided debate of this issue. The biggest threat to our rights isn't our government. The biggest threat is our press because it has the ability to manipulate public opinion and public opinion is what steers the actions of the government. Unfortunately, with few exceptions, mass media today is a gigantic propaganda machine inundated with extreme leftist ideology. As you can see from this piece, it is heavily slanted toward the gun control side. Statements like politicians don't have the " courage" to pursue new gun control laws clearly illustrates that in the mind of the writer there is no debate. Gun control is needed. As opposed to a statement such as politicians see no "benefit" of additional gun control laws. This is how the public is manipulated by the press. Read this stuff over and over and eventually you can end up believing it. I believe back in the sixties it was called brainwashing. :(
 
Poor choice of word selection (perhaps) and only part of the equation besides...

Prohibition violence + Bonus Army + nationwide Labor unrest + FDR's Congress and Executive + MEDIA FRENZY = NFA, Act of June 26, 1934.

Kennedy assassination(s) + MLK assassination + negroes rioting in streets + LBJ's Democratic Congress and Executive + MEDIA FRENZY = GCA68

Hungerford + Dunblane + Labor Party + MEDIA FRENZY = SLR/Handgun registration leading to confiscation

Port Arthur + Liberal Party John "I hate guns" Howard + MEDIA FRENZY = Aussie reform

Soooo... we have the incidents occuring, we have someone trying to whip the media up with inflammatory statements deliberately designed to shcok and awe (w/ marginal results so far) but no FRENZY yet and we're moving closer and closer to a Labor/Democratic political party pendulum swing.

But the truth is, no crazed wackjob is going to obey a newly pressed law and decide to not run amuck with some type of killing tool be it sword, machete, auto, homemade pyrotechnical i.e.d. or firearm and we know that the ONLY THING that can stop someone so bent on evil... (this is where I'm supposed to write... wait for it... so I did)

is a good man, a free man, with the RKBA(s), bearing those arms, standing fast in front of and protecting those things we all cherish. Be it our children, our right to free speech, to worship or not, to assemble... well, you all get the picture.

The folly of creating gun free, target rich environments by fiat in a world where evil violence has and will always exist... simply amazes me personally. Even the cave men knew this. But I guess some politicians think with a different part of their brain... when and if they think at all.

Don't act naive. Don't act shocked. The man knew exactly what he was saying, he even qualified it to soften his personal responsibility should it happen again. But he's now on the record in case it does happen again and he can and will lay blame and guilt on every Liberal politician thru the MEDIA, placing the onus on every legal, law-abiding gun owner unless someone (or a group of someones?) who is good, who wants to remain free, will stand fast in confrontation protecting that which we cherish; our freedom, which, like life, is never safe.

The glove has been thrown down.

Nevada has a state assemblyman who wants to allow teachers to CCW. Even tho' he's pretty much alone, does he have your support? Do you have a like minded individual in your state assembly? Could YOU be that person?
 
Prohibition violence + Bonus Army + nationwide Labor unrest + FDR's Congress and Executive + MEDIA FRENZY = NFA, Act of June 26, 1934.
Click to expand...

You need to add in "need to keep federal agents employed who would have otherwise been terminated following the end of Prohibition" to that.
 
buzz
I was pretty wordy already, but you're right. Wouldn't want Elliot Ness to be unemployed when there's newly legislated boogiemen to catch w/ their sawed off shotguns (not suitable for militia use... or are they?)
 
"I hate to say it but it's going to take the kind of massacre that kills lots of children. That's the only way we are going to see progress," from Bryan Jones.
Click to expand...
I don't care how it was used or in what context. That is a HORRIBLE thing to say!:banghead:
Perhaps he would change that way of thinking if the massacre involved him and a bunch of his like-minded friends and family?:evil:
 
There is an article accessible only to LEO's at policeone.com speculating on brutal terrorist attacks on our schools like the one that happened a couple of years ago in Russia that killed hundreds of people. When that happens, would our pathetic politicians then put up another sheep-bleating sign "PLEASE, we really mean NO GUNS in schools"?

What would be the probable outcome after our schools are attacked by terrorists? Anti-gunners could very well have their wish come true, but not in the way they expected.

-------------

"Sheep have two speeds, graze and stampede."
 
"There are a lot of things to consider," Brown said. "We still have open borders. Absent federal legislation ... people can still walk right across the border and buy guns in Idaho."
Click to expand...

And what would this person propose? Barbed wire fences around all borders and security checkpoints at every possible entrance and exit? Papers please, show me your papers!
 
On the flip side maybe it will take a few more Pearl Mississippi type incidents for the antis to see that these rules are counter effective.
Click to expand...

I doubt those so called "progressives" actually care about the truth of such matters. Their political agenda trumps all else; apparently including the lives of children. :fire: :banghead:

Tex
 
And what would this person propose? Barbed wire fences around all borders and security checkpoints at every possible entrance and exit? Papers please, show me your papers!
Click to expand...

Given that he's a complete idiot (or a liar) given that the danger he believes would be solved by federal legislation is already restricted by said legislation, he probably would go for that.
 
Thesw so called "massacres" were certainly effective for passing a national firearm ban in Austrailia... These Leftist control freaks will use "ANYTHING" to further the agenda of gun bans... :barf:
 
There is an article accessible only to LEO's at policeone.com speculating on brutal terrorist attacks on our schools like the one that happened a couple of years ago in Russia that killed hundreds of people. When that happens, would our pathetic politicians then put up another sheep-bleating sign "PLEASE, we really mean NO GUNS in schools"?
Click to expand...

No different than all sharp objects banned from possession in aircraft by citizens. I know for many years prior to 9/11 I had a decent size pocket knife in my carry on, and avoided checking baggage if I could. Of course now that is banned, even though armed air marshals and big locked doors barring access to pilots, and knowledge that 9/11 suicide style attacks could result from any compliance with terrorists already limited thier threat. Threat gone, ban persists, go figure. So instead of having law abiding people armed with things posing little threat to aircraft safety, only diabolical scheming terrorists that get the latest fandangled impossible to detect porcelain blades would be armed with sharp or pointy things. So it does not stop plotting planning criminals, but it does stop those that could challenge them from having anything. However it made sense to some officials. So even though I don't see bladed weapons being a potential threat in aircraft security anymore, the point is that we were all inconvenienced or disarmed in a way that creates no real security benefits as it does not stop a determined criminal from possessing them anyways.

To think the logic would be any different for firearms in school massacres is just kidding yourself. The focus would instead be on banning arms, and creating better ways to detect and stop people that complied with the resulting check points from entering schools armed. Criminals determined to enter armed anyways would still be able to just use force to enter, but the billions used nationaly for the increased security would make everyone feel a little safer sending thier kid to class after such an attack. An added bonus is it would make everyone just a little bit more accepting and used to growing up with big brother sniffing down thier necks, bringing us that much closer to a police state when those youngsters grew up and were the voting majority. Every generation they can push the boundries of authority a bit further, and then stop just a little past what the average person finds acceptable, before waiting for the next generation to do it again, always timed with that generations security concerns after big events of course.

No they are not going to suddenly say, gee lets arm people so they can deal with immediate emergency life threatening situations themselves. That does not work towards the authoritarian agenda of the elite that do not like anyone besides themselves, thier bodyguards, and those sworn to uphold thier decisions (law) from having the ability to pose any threat, or feeling secure and safe without thier direct oversight. Telling yourself otherwise is a fairytale.
 
An interesting article,on self-defence and an effective method,of combatting psyco-spree killers.

On August 19th, 1987, Michael Ryan wandered down the streets of Hungerford in Berkshire, England, killing sixteen people and seriously wounding fourteen others with a Kalashnikov AK-47 rifle and a Beretta 9-mm semi-automatic pistol. The fact that Michael Ryan, a pathetic, deranged, coward, was effectively God for hours that day, shooting and killing as he damn well pleased with the absolute power of life and death over everyone he came across, while the people of Hungerford were completely and utterly impotent, unable to do a thing to stop him, is both infuriating and absolutely outrageous.

Here are a couple of excerpts from the CrimeLibrary.com account of the massacre which illustrate my point perfectly:



"People watched from their houses as Ryan walked up to his mother and brought the muzzle of his weapon just four inches shy of her back; he shot her twice more, killing her."



"Ken Clements, walking with his family along the sidewalk toward South View, took the next bullet and died at once, as his son quickly leaped over a fence to escape; the rest of the family huddled behind something until the shooter had passed."


If Mr. Clements' son had been carrying a concealed gun, just as you can in most American states today, he could have emerged from his hiding place with Ryan in front of him, taken careful aim at the back of his head, and unloaded his weapon, more than likely either incapacitating him or killing him outright; just think how many people might be alive today if that had been the case. Would Michael Ryan have attempted to do what he did if he had lived in any one of the thirty-five American states that allow citizens to carry a concealed firearm? Would he have tried it if he had lived in Israel or Switzerland or Texas, where every man and his dog has a gun? Supposing he had tried it: how far do you think he would have got before being gunned down by a member of the public? Not very far would be my guess. But, in England, where the right and duty of Englishmen to keep and bear arms was flushed down the toilet decades ago (with mass public approval, shamefully), he was able to go all the way, like a fox among chickens. Who was the master of society that day? Was it the violent criminal, out to hurt; or was it the decent, law-abiding person, simply going about his day? We should all think long and hard about that question.

Dr. Suzanna Gratia Hupp, whose parents were shot dead in the 1991 Killeen Massacre in central Texas. After the massacre, Ms. Hupp's testimony, as well as that of other survivors, was instrumental in the passing of legislation in 1996 allowing law-abiding Texans to carry concealed firearms upon obtainment of a licence and completion of a saftey course.

On a quiet Saturday afternoon in October 1991, a crazed 35-year-old George Hennard drove his pickup truck through the window of the Luby's cafeteria in Killeen, central Texas, shattering the peace. A 15-minute shooting rampage followed, as Hennard executed his trapped victims one by one with two handguns, a Glock 12 and a Ruger P-89. When the smoke had settled, twenty four people were dead, including Hennard, and a further twenty were injured. At the time, it was illegal in Texas to carry a concealed firearm, and so the unfortunate diners in Luby's that day, being law-abiding people, had no easy access to a gun with which to stop their attacker; instead, guns were kept at home, or in the case of Dr. Hupp, in the car. The legislators' decree that law-abiding Texans' right to self-defence did not extend to everyday situations (like, oh, eating out, for instance) meant that the all-too-familiar scenario was allowed to come about, namely that of a madman with a gun being allowed to have his way with a large group of innocent, law-abiding people, not possessed of the means to stop him.

"I'm not really mad at the guy that did this, and I'm certainly not mad at the guns that did this. They didn't walk in their by themselves and pull their own triggers. The guy that did it was a lunatic; that's like being mad at a rabbid dog. I'm mad at my legislators for legislating me out of the right to protect myself and my family. I would much rather be sitting in jail with a felony offence on my head and have my parents alive." -- Dr. Suzanna Gratia Hupp, survivor of the Killeen Massacre, addressing congressman Charles Schumer (D-NY), 1994.

By having a concealed-carry,you stop the threat in its tracks,without a huge massacre of the innocents.
 
That's a very disingenuous interpretation of what the man said. "It's going to take a..." is just a figure of speech. A very poorly chosen one in this case, to be sure, but a figure of speech nonetheless. I believe it may take a proposed ban on scoped centerfire rifles to get many mainstream hunters to wake up about RKBA. Does that then mean I support or wish for such a ban?
 
Perspective and context.

Bryan Jones, director of the Center for American Politics and Public Policy at the University of Washington, agreed that the gun lobby is the main reason politicians are unlikely to pass new control laws.

Though the political risk is not nearly as big as it is perceived, fear still prevails, he said.

"Politicians are afraid of the NRA and they are not afraid of the ACLU. It's that simple," Jones said.

That fear may be unwarranted, he said.

"California regulated the hell out of guns -- and they don't get in trouble."

Jones said the National Rifle Association's power is declining, but he thinks Washington politicians are "playing it safe in the sense that: Why kick a sleeping dog that's leaving you alone right now?" he said.

"I hate to say it but it's going to take the kind of massacre that kills lots of children. That's the only way we are going to see progress," Jones said.

"I think it's got to be worse than (Columbine). I mean, you didn't see anything in Colorado" in substantive new gun control laws after 15 people were killed at Columbine High School in 1999.
Click to expand...


So the guy thinks that a massacre worse than Columbine will have to occur before new control laws are passed. Judging by his words alone, I'm just not seeing that he is hoping for, or promoting a massacre.


Well, I say it will take a massacre to wake people up to the fact that gun-control creates victims. And yes, I do hate to say it. Do I hope that one will happen so that I may use it to spin my position? Hell no.

Will I use a tragedy as outlined above to forward my agenda of arming the good people of the world? Hell yes. It does sicken me, but I would and do use it to point out the folly of over-reaching gun control.

"..if someone would have only been armed, willing and able.."
 
Just because they are wrong doesn't mean they are wicked minions of Satan that want to drink babies' blood.

The quote does not say that a massacre would be a good thing, and it happens to be entirely correct: without an incident to provoke a media frenzy, there will not be the political will necessary to push through a big gun ban.

Most of these people (even the bona fide socialists) are simply ignorant and misled, and the sooner you all recognize that, the sooner you can get down to convincing them they are wrong and making real progress.
 
Just because they are wrong doesn't mean they are wicked minions of Satan that want to drink babies' blood.

The quote does not say that a massacre would be a good thing, and it happens to be entirely correct: without an incident to provoke a media frenzy, there will not be the political will necessary to push through a big gun ban.

Most of these people (even the bona fide socialists) are simply ignorant and misled, and the sooner you all recognize that, the sooner you can get down to convincing them they are wrong and making real progress
Click to expand...

We have a winner! Best post of the thread.
 
Reasonableness

It is a "reasonable" thing to believe that "nobody would REALLY want something bad to happen."

At the risk of repeating myself (post #36) let me once again point out that there really, really, ARE evil people in this world.

The worst fault of "reasonableness" is that it assumes "good intentions" or at least "not bad" intentions, and waves away the fact that there really are folks out there who hope for the worst, and look to capitalize on it.

Really.

When enough of the population gets "reasonable" we get Hitlers and Stalins and the whole panoply of lesser-known bad guys who are -- only in retrospect -- acknowledged as the evil guys they really were.

It's not politically correct to call a spade a spade. "Spade" is hate speech.

OMG! You called him EVIL! Don't be a hater!

The man who wants your child dead -- or at the very least doesn't care if he dies -- so that he can fulfill his goals is evil.

And there is nothing reasonable about it.
 
There is one big benefit to having certain state with insane gun laws (provided you don't live there). Where do you think terrorist are most likely to strike???
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

E
  • Locked
Proposed Semi-Auto firearm ban in Washington State
2
Replies
30
Views
3K
XavierBreath
XavierBreath
B
  • Locked
Obama Gun Control Likely To Be Broken Into Pieces By Senate
Replies
6
Views
883
Trent
Trent
M
  • Locked
A ray of hope for 2nd Amendment Rights
Replies
2
Views
439
TimboKhan
TimboKhan
A
  • Locked
No new ban after all?
Replies
6
Views
774
LKB3rd
L
Q
  • Locked
Democrats show little appetite for gun control
Replies
0
Views
305
quicherbichen
Q
Back
Top