FlSwampRat
Member
I gathered that, but I couldn't quote who you were quoting.Just to be clear, I didn't say that. I was quoting somebody who did.
I gathered that, but I couldn't quote who you were quoting.Just to be clear, I didn't say that. I was quoting somebody who did.
I've said that for a long time. However, the pro gun folks have failed about quite a bit:
1. Recall all the folks calling the gun a 'tool'. Don't call it a weapon - was spouted by many.
2. The modern sporting rifle - an attempt to make the AR platform into a toy, so please don't ban it.
How ridiculous. Imagine headlines: 20 Killed with Tool; 20 Killed with Modern Sporting Rifle.
Recall how the defense against tyranny is mocked by some supposed progun folks? The NRA has played down the defense against tyranny in its recent rhetoric. That's because a wave of defense against tyranny buyers don't fit their preferred marketing demographic.
Perhaps, when Clarence gets of the yacht, Alito out of his protected tank - a definitive statement on ownership will occur. I know, someone will say Scotus can't do anything because, blah, blah, procedure, precedent, blah, blah. Even though they had the cases in front of them. Just wait for decades and then maybe they will.
The defense against tyranny is consistently OVERPLAYED by pro-gun folks using it to justify too much nonsense.
30 Rd Mag ban proposed... TYRANNY! CIVIL WAR TIME!
Money is made and notoriety is gained this way but it's terrible for our country and the debate. We all have to live in this country and abide by her laws, the table shouldn't be set up for revolution or insurrection if we can't always get our way. We've lost all perspective when we are both simultaneously living under the least restrictive gun laws in decades AND talking about overthrowing the govt.
You've all heard it, you've all seen it. Perhaps not so much on here but Jesus, the social media sites these days...
when WE stop entertaining these one sided, self-destructive, Tyrannical playbook tactics. Then we will realized that the debate has been over a long tine ago! Don’t associate with anti-gunner! Boycott, vote, fight! Good Vs. Evil is the real DebateHmm, "Weapons of War"?
Stones, napped flints and obsidians; jawbones of ruminants; arrows, spears, javelins; swords and longarms . . .
Muskets, single-shots, lever-actions, bolt guns . . .
Over the course of history military forces have used every possible thing.
This imagined equivalency of AR = weapon of war has probably reached its apex in the IL AW ban lawsuits, where the State of Illinois has asserted, as a matter of fact under law, that there is no difference between an M-16 (by extension, an M4) and an AR-15. ¿Uhr wut? (They did fail to continue that analogy--despite a Court Order to provide 'complete information'--that a Maadi or WASR is the same as a AK-74 (or the equally 'dire' AK-47).
The propaganda machine is gearing up against “defense against tyranny” as a valid reason for gun ownership.
View attachment 1150278
they been (devil worshipers) trying to disarm America since 1776! Ai << real evilSince governments are the most prolific mass murderers in history, it only takes 1 tyrants deterred to save many more lives than criminals with firearms could ever cause. (most references I see say greater than 100 million in 20th century)
https://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/NOTE1.HTM
https://www.ncpathinktank.org/pdfs/st211.pdf
Also, how many lives are saved every year by the defensive use of firearms? (CDCP says 500K to 3M)
https://datavisualizations.heritage.org/firearms/defensive-gun-uses-in-the-us/
Tyrants overthrown: 0Since governments are the most prolific mass murderers in history, it only takes 1 tyrants deterred to save many more lives than criminals with firearms could ever cause. (most references I see say greater than 100 million in 20th century)
https://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/NOTE1.HTM
https://www.ncpathinktank.org/pdfs/st211.pdf
Also, how many lives are saved every year by the defensive use of firearms? (CDCP says 500K to 3M)
https://datavisualizations.heritage.org/firearms/defensive-gun-uses-in-the-us/
No, "least restrictive" is purely a matter of perspective, and it surely matters in which city or state one resides.The defense against tyranny is consistently OVERPLAYED by pro-gun folks using it to justify too much nonsense.
30 Rd Mag ban proposed... TYRANNY! CIVIL WAR TIME!
Money is made and notoriety is gained this way but it's terrible for our country and the debate. We all have to live in this country and abide by her laws, the table shouldn't be set up for revolution or insurrection if we can't always get our way. We've lost all perspective when we are both simultaneously living under the least restrictive gun laws in decades AND talking about overthrowing the govt.
You've all heard it, you've all seen it. Perhaps not so much on here but Jesus, the social media sites these days...
Then again, we have the government of Ukraine handing out "assault weapons" to its citizens. And one might argue that Putin fits the definition of a tyrant. Hmm.Tyrants overthrown: 0
Tyrants deterred: Priceless
They don't care whether actual criminals obey the law, it's in their interest to let the actual criminals roam free, hence all the new no-bail rules and downsizing felonies to misdemeanors... street crime makes the population scared, which they believe motivates the people to beg the government to "do something", i.e. enact "gun control". They don't seem to have noticed that this doesn't seem to be working for them, as more and more people who would never before have thought of arming themselves, are buying their first gun. And GUESS WHAT THE FASTEST RISING DEMOGRAPHIC OF GUN OWNERS IS: BLACK WOMEN. Yep, the people arguably most endangered by the street crime.There's a fundamental issue in that one side actually does not care what words are used, as long as whatever they want is imposed on those they want oppressed.
There's a fundamental disconnect in their arguments, as they want things to be done to those people. They argue from a presumption that they, themselves, would be exempt from all their regulations and diktats.
It's toddler logic at best. And as inconsistent as most toddlers.
Turns out an intoxicated person in a Range Rover is equally dangerous as a disgruntled ex-security guard. The want what they want, and they want it right now, no matter what. And hang the consequences.
What that leaves, though, is the very sad fact that these are people who cannot be debated, they are unwilling to consider any position other than their own. Their notion of "compromise" is "give us everything we want, and we'll call that 'fair'--otherwise we will [continue to do Bad Thing] until you comply with us."
Which is frustrating to "our" side, because we are, typically, rational actors. But "their" side wants us to be Charlie Brown and they get to be Lucy with the football.
That's why "they" will never examine practical matters in their demands. Like, just how would any entity, political or otherwise, actually confiscate 400+ million legal firearms from circa 150-200 million legal gun owners. (Part of that, of course, is that "they" have no concept of just how many firearms are in the US--they would probably imagine there are no more than a few thousand.) They also refuse to believe that criminals, who do not obey laws by definition, would suddenly obey some new imagined law.
It was a crazy person with a weapon, which weapon isn't really important.Yep, going crazy. I'm guessing most you you didn't see this moron on MSNBC after the Allen, TX shooting.
https://twitter.com/i/status/1655208941192609793
"It wasn't mental health that killed these people, it was an automatic rifle with bullets..."
Some commentators (notably Braden at Langley Outdoors) have been pointing out how fantastically well the boycott of Bud Light is working, and suggesting we need to do the same against companies who support gun bans. Be creative, find out for example if your bank refuses to bank firearms-related companies and if so, move your accont, and very important, publicize this widely so others will do likewise.Boycott, vote, fight!