Survivalist Forum banner

1 - 20 of 42 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,631 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 · (Edited)
Suppose every criminal receives their guns via legal purchases from legal gun stores. So let’s make it harder for people to buy guns from legal gun stores, good idea right, wrong! All throughout the U.S, mainly in lower income areas, gun violence has been a drastic issue. By December 23, approximately 13,000 people lost their lives in the form of homicide, unintentional shooting, murder, or suicide. This translates to a grand total of 36 Americans losing their lives each day by way of guns (Masica). Currently, only 60% of gun sales are being subjected to background checks, leaving the other 40% of sales at gun shows and online sales unregulated by U.S law (“Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence”). While implementing more gun control laws may seem like the answer to solving the issue of gun violence, gun laws restricting US citizens from obtaining and possessing firearms should be abolished in the US because background checks will not suppress gun violence in America, the number of firearms in public hands has no direct correlation to gun-related murders in the US, and gun violence is a reflection of cultural and economic factors.

While some may have the misconception that gun control laws will remove guns from the palms of criminals, for the most part, various sources suggest otherwise stating that criminals will carry firearms either way. In an article opposing gun control, Conservative United states that, “While most law abiding citizens would obey new gun control laws, criminals would not. And with an estimated 300 million firearms in the United States, obtaining a gun will never be difficult” (“7 Reasons Liberals Are Wrong on Gun Control”). This quote signifies that while the average working citizen of the US might obey gun control laws, criminals will completely ignore these laws, obtaining them from outside illegal sources such as the black market. The black market is a system through which things are distributed with currency illegally (Merriam-Webster). This is a vital concern when speaking about gun violence in the US because it highlights the possible outcome that criminals are roaming the streets with firearms while potential targets, the average civilian, are walking gunless because it became a much longer process for the citizens to obtain and possess weaponry due to excessive background checks. While citizens are being delayed to obtain weapons for self-defense purposes, criminals are obtaining guns through underground markets. Another article from ProCon.org suggests that, “The police cannot protect everyone all of the time. 61% of men and 56% of women surveyed by Pew Research said that stricter gun laws would ‘make it more difficult for people to protect their homes and families’” (“Should More Gun Control Laws Be Enacted?”). This conveys the idea that the police are not capable of watching over every US citizen’s shoulder so the people need other alternatives to protect themselves available at all times. This is vital because the source supplies the reader with a common sense claim that many gun control advocates overlook too often. Due to the absence of constant protection from the law, people have to look for an alternative source of assured safety that can protect from an abundance of threats. This where the people look into guns, specifically handguns. They are a light, easy to conceal, and effective weapon to ensure the safety of those you are with. It gives those who put themselves at risk when walking home from work at 3 AM in a dangerous community to fight back if a bigger, deadlier danger is presented to them. Guns allow for those adversities to perish and for those who deserve to live another day, to live another day. The quote also informs the reader that the majority of men and women questioned by Pew Research, a database located in Washington D.C., claim that guns are a vital necessity when securing the safety of one’s home. This piece of information is also important when discussing how the people feel towards guns in the average home all while providing something capable of defending against intruders and robberies. The fact that 61% of male and 56% of female surveyees agree that guns are necessary to assure one’s safety is essential because it reveals the fact that insecurity exists in people’s homes which can be attributed to them living in a dangerous neighborhood. This then opens up the argument that those who need firearms more, are being affected by gun control laws greatly because of the fact that the goal of gun control is to reduce gun violence. Where gun violence exists the most in public areas is in low-income neighborhoods, where locals fight to evade theft from neighborhood thugs or shootings due to intense criminal activity. Overall, making gun control stricter for law-abiding citizens is a misunderstanding of who gun violence is committed by and how those individuals obtain their guns.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
12,228 Posts
My Thoughts On: Civilian Disarmament

I have posted my thoughts on Civilian Disarmament several times. But I have revised it recently, so I will post it again.

With the newest changes in the US power structure, the likelihood of the subject of Civilian Disarmament is likely to come up time and time again in the near future. Here are some of the ways I address the issue when it comes up and I am in a position to respond and give my thoughts on the subject.
  • I never, ever, refer to any discussion, comment, or other situation where weapons are referenced by any term other than Civilian Disarmament. For I believe wholeheartedly that the goal of people that tend to bring it up is just that. Civilian Disarmament.

  • No matter what term they use, I use Civilian Disarmament in every reply, all through any discussion that might take place. I DO NOT use any of ‘their’ terms. Because that allows them to disseminate information and ideas that are misleading, do not actually pertain to the subject, are often outright lies, and tend to have very strong emotional links to the word, words, or phrases that distract from the actual discussion of what they want to do.

  • Not ‘gun control’. Not ‘reasonable efforts’. Not ‘for the children’. Not ‘crime control’. Not ‘reducing gun deaths’. Not ‘gun safety efforts’. Not ‘simply …’ anything. Not ‘only …’ anything. Not ‘reducing gun violence’. Not ‘militia …’ anything. Not ‘regulation’. Not ‘homicide reduction’. Not ‘suicide reduction’. Not ‘limited …’ anything. Not ‘The second amendment no longer applies’.

  • Well, I could go on and on and on and… But I will stop here. The point is that I will not use their terms. Terms for which they have applied definitions that often have literally no connection or similarity to classic dictionary definitions of the words.

  • So, basically, if I am in the discussion it is a discussion about Civilian Disarmament whether it started as such or not. And though it is very difficult at times, I always try to use the word weapons, as opposed to guns. Because Civilian Disarmament does include taking effective weapons of all types from civilians, not just modern firearms. Black powder weapons, swords, spears, all the way down to even kitchen knives in places.

  • Any discussion, to be a discussion, whether it be verbal, written, or visual, should be conducted with courtesy, with respect for the other person’s opinion, without interrupting the other person (no matter how large the temptation), and two-way. No preaching, no demands, no ‘I am right and you are wrong’, no angry gestures, with each person being allowed to speak, in turn, and then allowed to speak again, in turn, to address what was said each time.

  • I will not argue, especially a yelling match. It solves nothing and puts me in a bad light even for those that support my opinion. I intend to lead the way, provided the example, and be that person that others will actually listen to and take away something rather than just shutting it all out, which means I will have accomplished nothing.

  • I make it personal. No, NOT calling a person names, not denigrating their intelligence or ancestors. Not using derogatory versions of political party names, group names, organization names, other peoples’ names, or anything with which they identify.

  • All that does is get them angry, causes them to rant and rave in return, and totally destroys any chance of exchanging actual information and providing them with information that they might just look at, and think about. They definitely will not consider anything you might suggest if it is accompanied with vitriolic accusations and derogatory comments.

  • What I am talking about is make the subject, and especially individual points of the discussion personal to the person with whom you are talking. Use their first name if you know it, and that is not already an objectionable thing to do for them, and if not, simply use the word ‘you’, or ‘your’, with slight emphasis on it each time.
  • This will hopefully allow them to see that Civilian Disarmament IS NOT about ‘the other guy’, the bad person, the person with ‘too many’ weapons, ‘the wrong kind’ of weapons, or some other ‘person’ only. It is about them as well. Everything that they want others to do and rules to abide by, they will, as well. And they often do not think about that. Not even consider it. Since they are not a gun owner, nor want to be.
The list below is the core of what I do. I ask the questions, as I said, always using the slightly emphasized ‘you’ word or variation as needed. This will cause them to think about things in ways they probably have not considered. Often the person is scared, or worried, or even just concerned, and has listened to the rhetoric put out by those attempting to disarm all civilians. Civilians. As in everyone that is not one of their own elite group, and usually police, military, and certain other ‘special’ people that they believe should have the advantages that having effective weapons available give them.

They believe that they are one of ‘them’ and not one of ‘us’, until many of these things are pointed out.

So, on with the list and additional comments at the end:

With emotions running high because of recent events, and many snap decisions being made by people in positions of power, I thought I might pass along some information and some of my thoughts on the subject at hand, so people that might not have been exposed to some of the included information will now have a chance to make decisions based on a more complete base of knowledge.

I would ask that anyone reading this not take my word for any of it, but do their own due diligence research into the thoughts that I will be expressing. To learn, on your own, if what I am asking and suggesting is true, or is not true.

This first part is a set of ‘Gun Control’ poll questions, more appropriately called Civilian Disarmament poll questions, that I think should be included in any and all polls relating in any way to the restriction of US Citizens from exercising their God given moral and legal right to acquire, own, possess, keep, bear, and use arms, as expressed in the US Constitution’s Second Amendment.

I have found that many polls presented to the public are asking for results that are essentially about ‘the other person’, not really indicating that the disarmament would apply to the person taking the poll, as well as ‘the other person’. Take this poll with yourself and your family in mind. See if you are or are not in one of the groups that will be exempt from being forcibly disarmed.
  • In a gun-free zone, where there is no one around to return fire, and an active shooter with a semi-auto rifle fires all 210 rounds of his/her ammunition: Are 210 rounds in 7 30-round magazines more dangerous than 210 rounds in 14 15-round magazines or 210 rounds in 21 10-round magazines? Yes/No

  • In that scenario, do YOU think is it better for the shooter to A) fire off those 210 rounds rapidly and wildly, because they are in 30-round magazines and they feel they have plenty? Or B) much more slowly, taking careful aim, because they only have 10 rounds at a time before they have to reload? A/B

  • Considering the number of shootings that have taken place in areas labeled “Gun Free Zone” do YOU feel safer in Gun Free Zones than in areas where regular people licensed to carry concealed weapons, or people that open carry weapons where legal are or may be armed? Yes/No

  • Are YOU willing to be unarmed in a society where only ‘official’ people can have firearms? Yes/No

  • Will YOU feel safer if a new Assault Weapons Ban is enacted? Yes/No

  • Do YOU think YOUR family will be safer if YOU are denied gun ownership? Yes/No

  • Are YOU capable of defending YOURSELF and YOUR family without the use of a firearm when confronted by criminals using guns illegally? Yes/No

  • Should YOU be considered a danger to YOUR family or other people if YOU own a gun? Yes/No

  • Are YOU willing to have your home and property searched at will by armed officials searching for illegal firearms? Yes/No

  • Are YOU willing to give up your right to have effective weapons when only ‘official’ people can have them? Yes/No

  • Should public officials be exempt from gun control measures and be allowed to have them when YOU cannot? Yes/No

  • Are a public official’s children more entitled to be protected than YOUR children and have armed security in their schools when YOU cannot have the same? Yes/No

  • Should ‘celebrities and important people’ be exempt from gun control measures and be allowed to have them when YOU cannot? Yes/No

  • Should public officials, ‘celebrities’, and ‘important people’ have personal guards that are exempt from gun control measures YOU must follow? Yes/No

  • Is the safety of public officials, ‘celebrities’, and ‘important people’ and their families more important than YOUR safety and YOUR family’s safety? Yes/No

  • Do YOU know someone ‘special’ that should be exempt from the gun laws that YOU are required to follow? Yes/No

  • Are YOU one of the ‘special people’ that should be exempt from the gun laws that others must follow? Yes/No

  • Should those that advocate gun control for YOU be exempt from the law that YOU must follow? Yes/No

  • Should those that advocate gun control for YOU be allowed to have firearms until everyone else is disarmed? Yes/No

  • Do YOU think that most of those in public office are ‘special’ and therefore more qualified than YOU to make decisions about YOUR safety and the safety of YOUR family? Yes/No

  • Do YOU think that people wishing to use firearms in crimes will give up their guns during a gun ban? Yes/No

  • Do YOU think that criminals WILL NOT be able to get firearms by theft or illegal sale when some people are exempt from gun laws, but YOU are required to give up YOURS? Yes/No

  • Are those that support rigid gun control laws and advocate the gunning down or burning alive NRA members and other gun owners hypocritical in their thinking? Yes/No

  • Should YOU have a firearm, because YOU are not a danger with one and everyone else not have one because only YOU are not a danger with one? Yes/No

  • Are YOU mentally incompetent to own and legally use a firearm because you seek help for SOME mental issues such as depression and take the prescribed medication as directed? Yes/No

  • If YOU are being treated for depression and taking the medication, if any, as directed, and therefore more mentally sound with the correct chemical balance, are YOU a bigger risk than those not taking anything or seeking help that leaves them with an untreated chemical imbalance? Yes/No

  • Are YOU incompetent to own and use a firearm because you have minor mental issues that do not involve violence against other people? Yes/No

  • Are YOU competent to decide whether or not YOUR children are introduced to the safe handling of firearms? Yes/No

  • Do YOU think government enforcement agencies should have armed agents? Yes/No

  • Do YOU think administrative and bureaucratic agencies personnel should be armed? Yes/No

  • Do YOU think administrative and bureaucratic agencies should have armed agents as part of the agency? Yes/No

  • If YOU do not own a gun, it was an option YOU chose. Do YOU believe you are better off if that option is taken away from YOU, so YOU no longer have the option to or to not to own a weapon because others believe that YOU are not capable of making the 'correct' decision about that option? Yes/No

  • Do YOU think terrorists or people known to be dangerous should have firearms? Yes/No

  • Do YOU consider YOURSELF a terrorist or a danger to others because of your basic beliefs? Yes/No

Are YOU a member of one of the following groups, have one of the following beliefs, or engage in one of the following activities that DHS has stated that indicate that YOU are a potential terrorist and a danger to the safety of the nation and should be subject to the no recourse/unlimited incarceration/no contact/no trial/no habeas corpus arrest under the US Patriot Act? Yes/No

  • Do YOU believe, that even if government jurisdictions, from city governments all the way up to all three branches of the Federal government, are not currently tyrannical in nature, that there are individuals, and groups of individuals, within the governments that do act in ways that are tyrannical, that overstep their legal authority, that use heavy handed tactics, to achieve some agenda that they believe in, even if the government in general does not? Yes/No

  • Do YOU think that these people in government that are trying to implement their own agenda, with or without the general assistance or knowledge of others within the government, and use force of arms to achieve some part of that agenda, are a danger to YOU and YOUR family due to your beliefs and your expression of your beliefs? Yes/No

  • Are YOU able to protect YOURSELF and YOUR family from these people if they, by intent or accident, attack you with weapons if you do not have weapons of YOUR own? Yes/No

  • Since these people are some of those that will legally be allowed to possess weapons of many sorts, often including military ordnance, when Civilian Disarmament has begun, are YOU willing to stand up, unarmed, to protest their actions when they violate some law you disagree with? Yes/No

  • If Civilian Disarmament occurs, do YOU think that these, for lack of a better term, JBTs (Jack Booted Thugs), sanctioned or not, will be more likely to start taking action arbitrarily to achieve their agenda, and continue to do so no matter what the rest of the government suggests or orders them to do, since they will be some of those that legally have weapons, and those that would stop them do not? Yes/No

  • Given the reality of JBTs in the future (and even now in some instances), do YOU feel that YOU and YOUR family will be safe from anything they might do, if YOU are disarmed? Yes/No

  • Are YOU willing to permanently give up YOUR other rights, and YOUR families’ other rights, when ordered to do so in support of Civilian Disarmament, as part of the necessary actions to ensure that Civilian Disarmament can be achieved with the fewest losses to the LEOs and JBTs and government officials that will be enforcing it? Yes/No

  • Currently, if YOU do not own a gun, it was an option YOU chose. Do YOU believe you are better off if that option is taken away from YOU, so YOU no longer have the option to or to not to own a weapon because others believe that YOU are not capable of making the 'correct' decision about that option? Yes/No

  • Do YOU think YOU are capable of making up YOUR own mind about any subject, not just Civilian Disarmament? Yes/No

  • Do YOU think YOU should only read, watch, and listen to Main Stream Media sources to get information about what is happening around you? Yes/No

  • Do YOU think other sources of information and news should be controlled by the government? Yes/No

  • Do YOU think that online services should have the power to arbitrarily restrict, demonetize, or otherwise keep alternative news and information sources from providing their services and opinions while allowing other sources to continue, when the only difference being the different social, political, or other beliefs being expressed, with no criminal or other rule violations taking place? Yes/No

  • Do YOU think YOU are capable of making up YOUR own mind about any subject, not just Civilian Disarmament? Yes/No

  • Do YOU think YOU should only read, watch, and listen to Main Stream Media sources to get information about what is happening around you? Yes/No

  • Do YOU think other sources of information and news should be controlled by the government? Yes/No

  • Do YOU think that online services should have the power to arbitrarily restrict, demonetize, or otherwise keep alternative news and information sources from providing their services and opinions while allowing other sources to continue, when the only difference being the different social, political, or other beliefs being expressed, with no criminal or other rule violations taking place? Yes/No

  • Do YOU think that those that oppose people having weapons, and have chosen to not own them, but have always had that option, and exercised that option freely understand that if Civilian Disarmament comes about, they will have no choice in the matter. An option will be taken from them, in the form of losing one of the primary aspects of being free, the right to keep and bear arms. Do YOU think that those people are going to simply accept the fact that they can no longer make a choice to own or to not own a gun, but are being ordered to, and informed at the end of a gun that owning a gun is not a choice? Yes/No

  • Do YOU remember from YOUR school years, using the textbooks of the time, and not the new ones now being printed and distributed, about how every totalitarian regime that has ever existed, has disarmed it citizens, so they become subjects, and are unable to defend themselves effectively when that regime began to control them more and more tightly, leading, ultimately, to killing everyone that did not fit their ideal of a perfect subject under their elite leadership? Yes/No

  • Whether YOU believe it will happen or not, how would YOU defend YOURSELF, YOUR family, and YOUR beliefs if our government DID become totalitarian, and YOU had given up YOUR right to own an effective weapon to combat the abuses of such a government, whether YOU own one now or not? Or would YOU submit to whatever YOU are instructed to do, and force YOUR family to submit to whatever those in authority say they must do? Yes/No

  • Could YOU and would YOU take up farming tools to fight tanks and attack helicopters and heavily armed troops to protect what you believe in? Yes/No

  • Do YOU, or do YOU think anyone else, really expects the Federal Government to "control" millions of guns, AND protect 350,000,000 unarmed 'subjects' (and I say subjects because we will no longer be citizens), and themselves at the same time, without the support and assistance of 50,000,000 or more former gun owners that are trying to find ways to defend their families against both the real terrorist, as well as our own government agents doing no-knock warrants, because they know there will be people that will not turn in their guns? Yes/No

  • And do YOU know just how many times SWAT and/or Assault Teams have hit the wrong house and killed the wrong dog, not to mention its owner? Multiply that percentage to 10s of millions of no-knocks. Do you think Civilian Disarmament will lessen gun deaths AND other crime related deaths? Yes/No

  • Are YOU really aware that when they are talking about Civilian Disarmament, they are talking about YOU? Not just me and another guy, but YOU AND YOUR FAMILY. Believe me, if YOU are not part of the few thousand elite, YOU will be disarmed as well, at gun point, YOUR person, YOUR vehicle, and YOUR house, storage room, gym locker, and back yard thoroughly searched. Possibly at 3 in the morning with a no-knock warrant. Are YOU willing to put YOURSELF and all members of YOUR family through that degrading process? Yes/No

  • YOU do not even have a gun, YOU say? Well, when the rewards start going up for turning in YOUR neighbors, and YOU have even one person that dislikes YOU, YOU will get that no-knock visit, because YOU lied about having a weapon, and therefore are a 'domestic terrorist' and LEOs cannot risk not doing it that way because it just MIGHT be true, since no one would lie about their neighbor over something petty. Do YOU know anyone that might turn YOU in for having a weapon when YOU do not have one, but want to get YOU in serious trouble, simply because they do not like YOU, or YOUR family, or want something YOU have? Yes/No

  • So, are YOU and YOUR family ready to start looking over your shoulder all the time, because they will be coming after YOU AND YOUR FAMILY for something, at some point, that YOU do, that the elite does not want happening. Like going to a Christian or Jewish church in more than groups of 2 or 3. Or grow a garden. Or complain about the inappropriate handling of YOUR 13-year-old daughter when searched for concealed weapons. And of course, it had to be a full body cavity strip search, just to keep EVERYONE safe. Are YOU in favor of being in situations? Yes/No

  • And since it will be way too late before Main Stream Media realizes that not only are YOU being targeted, and they have been ordered not to report it, but that since THEY are no longer needed for disinformation, THEY are now being targeted, so cannot warn YOU, YOU will never see it coming, except for warnings like this. Is that the way YOU want to be notified about the real results of what a ‘reasonable’ Civilian Disarmament program will be? Yes/No

  • And if I am still around (not likely, of course, after this), I will gladly remind everyone that I TOLD YOU SO.

And if you have doubts about the intention of those that are adamant about Civilian Disarmament, take a look at the following screen shot of a UN document written in 2013 that lays out the plan to disarm all citizens in all member nations. That includes the US. Compare what was written in 2013 to what is happening now. And it this is not scary enough, research UN Agenda 21 and UN Agenda 2030. Note the restricted status of the document. They did not and do not want people to know what they are planning.



My thoughts on How the 2nd Amendment "Guarantees" The Right To Keep And Bear Arm

I believe the following is very important, and is the way I believe, live my life, and part of the reason I prep, not to mention how I prep.

The Constitution Of The United States IN MY OPINION is a document that acts as a guideline for how free people can live and stay free as individuals. Yes, it does carry the weight of law, but that has always been, is now, and always will be subject to the whims of those that enforce the laws. (Not the police, the elected officeholders.)

The Bill of Rights, as part of the constitution, DOES NOT guarantee anything. It is simply a list of what free people do. Only when the population does the things listed and sees to it that others are not prevented from doing them, is everyone free in the country.

A law, no matter how well written, no matter how many people supported it to get it passed into law, is absolutely meaningless if it is not abided by. And if those that have the power to see to it that it is abided by fail to do so by choice or incompetence, then that law is ignored. Where is there any guarantee in that?

Many of those in our government, especially from Lincoln's time onward, have, usually by choice, ignored laws themselves, and allowed others to ignore even more laws, and have in the last fifty years or so actively encouraged people to ignore laws and aided and abetted them in doing so.

Those that say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right of the individual to keep and bear arms, answer me this: Are all individuals in the United States (not exempt by reason of being incapable of telling right from wrong as judged by an overwhelming majority of US citizens) now able to keep and bear arms?

NO. They are not! The 2nd Amendment has not guaranteed it. And it never will. The guarantee comes from the individual citizens of the United States keeping and bearing arms, and if needed, using them to prevent those from preventing any citizen from keeping and bearing arms if they so choose.

It is the same with each and every one of the first ten amendments of the constitution, and most of the rest passed early on. (Not so much some of the later ones.)

If we, as individuals, even acting as part of various groups, do not actually do what those amendments list, we are not free, as individuals or collectively as citizens of one of the States.

If something is given, it can almost always be taken away. A guarantee is from someone else. Therefore, that someone else might just decide to take it away. That is what has happened. Since not enough individuals have actually lived as free individuals, others have been able to convince enough individuals that the power rests with a given group of people, elected Federal Government officers, and extending all the way down to bureaucrats that write policies and procedures that they feel have the rule of law (which the courts started allowing).

The concept of a Constitutional Republic is that it is a representative democracy. (Note the small 'd' in democracy. We ARE NOT a democracy. We are a Constitutional Republic.)

Those that we elect are, by the guidelines of the Constitution, obligated to do as the constituents that elected them want them to do. I think it is abundantly clear now (as many things were 'self-evident' way back when, but are no longer) that few, if any elected officials pay much head to what their constituents want, above doing just enough to get re-elected in what has become a convoluted system where sometimes less than 35% of a voting population is able to elect a person into a position.

It is IN MY OPINION the same situation when it comes to the Supreme Court of the United States of America, and even more so in many lower courts. The lower courts are supposed to, by their charter, adjudicate cases of those accused of having broken a law. The SCOTUS is supposed to, by their charter, adjudicate cases of whether laws, actions, and a few other things I simply cannot remember, are within the bounds of what the Constitution has set out as what can be done within the country.

It has never been their place to create laws by judgment, or do anything other than decide if something is within the bounds of the Constitution.

Again, I ask, where is the guarantee that the SCOTOUS will make sure our 'rights' are not violated or taken away? There is none.

To reiterate, the only guarantees within the Constitution are those that we, as individuals, having been given a list of what free people do to be free, make happen.

Until we practice our religions; speak freely; disseminate information (free press); assemble openly; petition as needed; keep and bear arms; and do all the other things openly, forcefully, without backing down, and support others that do so, we will not be free the way those that came to create the Constitution, not just those that wrote it, wanted to be, and wanted future generations to be.

Just my very long, somewhat convoluted opinion.


And a final request:
Ask, do not demand, that anyone with whom you are discussing Civilian Disarmament to “Please do your own due diligence research on this subject, using not only Main Stream Medias’ and Civilian Disarmament groups’ provided sources but other sources of information. Please seek out your own sources from all types of places that might have relevant information.”

Everything is my strongly held opinion.

Since pasting the article from my Word .doc article did not carry over the formatting, nor even the UN document, I am also attaching a .pdf file of the article for those that prefer that format.
 

Attachments

·
Banned
Joined
·
2,254 Posts
Agreed, the wall-o-text is impossible to read. Formatting is key.

And your opening premise is wrong. Criminals don't get their guns from dealers, the NRA gives them away for free but only to thugs and psychos. Everyone knows that. The only way to end gun violence is to ignore the actual causes of violence (even the subset of violence involving guns) and leave people defenseless.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,768 Posts
Agreed, the wall-o-text is impossible to read. Formatting is key.

And your opening premise is wrong. Criminals don't get their guns from dealers, the NRA gives them away for free but only to thugs and psychos. Everyone knows that. The only way to end gun violence is to ignore the actual causes of violence (even the subset of violence involving guns) and leave people defenseless.
Disarming civilians to "control" gun violence is analogous to removing the internet to eliminate "hate speech". There is nothing "common sense" about the Socialist-Left and their lap-dog RINOs and their unquenching thirst for power, money, and control.

ROCK6
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
21,967 Posts
Not going to lie, I didn't read that wall of text. But I did come here to give you an important piece of advice that most people have still not figured out. We are in a post-logic phase, with no discernible peaceful path back. Trying to be a Ben Shapiro is a waste of time. There's no reason left to argue. Don't make noise. Instead, make ready.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
397 Posts
Not going to lie, I didn't read that wall of text. But I did come here to give you an important piece of advice that most people have still not figured out. We are in a post-logic phase, with no discernible peaceful path back. Trying to be a Ben Shapiro is a waste of time. There's no reason left to argue. Don't make noise. Instead, make ready.
You should read! Yes, it is long. Yes, you know some one it already. Yes, you are smart already. However, even if you are already smart and strong in your belief it is still worth the time to read it. I read it and am glad I traded my time to read it. It wasn't ground shattering but it was very well thought out and worth the time to read it.

I think I will only use Civilian disarmament instead of gun control or any of the other key words the corrupt anti freedom politicians currently use. Thank you Jerry!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,359 Posts
I'd read it.
If it were an article in a different format that didn't require umpteen million scrolls to get through.

I swear, the formatting on the interwebs is intentionally DESIGNED to make people stop reading. I'm on a PC, and the thread takes up less than half the width of my screen. I have ad blockers, so the area on the right is blank, and the area on the left is about three times larger than it needs to be to hold the ridiculously oversized avatar/letter for each poster. Yeah...I know you can pay to get rid of that. But screw that noise.

Can't imagine what it looks like on a phone or tablet.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,121 Posts
Yawn. Who should bother to try reasoning and arguing with forces that do not use logic or compromise or know anything besides telling others do as I say? Self defense is a god given right and it is written in black and white in clear language in our political contract called the constitution. So screw off soddy!! Like Nancy Reagan instructed, just say NO.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
2,254 Posts
Disarming civilians to "control" gun violence is analogous to removing the internet to eliminate "hate speech". There is nothing "common sense" about the Socialist-Left and their lap-dog RINOs and their unquenching thirst for power, money, and control.

ROCK6
I was sarcastically mocking the lefties.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,777 Posts
This was sent to me by a friend. Thought it might fit in here. I will try to format it so it is easy to read. It is not long.
Why citizens carry guns!

"The Gun Is Civilization" by Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret)

Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force.

If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force.

Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that's it.

In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.

When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force.

The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gang banger, and a single guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.

There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we'd be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a armed mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger's potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat--it has no validity when most of a mugger's potential marks are armed.

People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that's the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.

Then there's the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser.

People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don't constitute lethal force watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level.

The gun is the only weapon that's as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weight lifter. It simply wouldn't work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn't both lethal and easily employable.

When I carry a gun, I don't do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I'm looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don't carry it because I'm afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn't limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force.

It removes force from the equation... and that's why carrying a gun is a civilized act.

By Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret.)

So the greatest civilization is one where all citizens are equally armed and can only be persuaded, never forced.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
555 Posts
These long posts are unreadable. If you can't make a point succinctly, you lose your audience. There are only two things to know about gun control. 1) It is not about crime control AND 2) It is not even about guns.

It is about control.

As long as we keep arguing about crime and guns, we are letting the left distract us and waste our energy on things that don't matter.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,513 Posts
20+ years ago there was an "experiment" in Virginia (as I recall) where the State/police/prosecutors with the assistance of the NRA smacked down the theft of firearms and the (mis)use of firearms in the commission of crime. Prosecution, under existing laws, of ALL illegal gun use with stiff sentences. And shazam "gun crimes" over a several year period substantially dropped. I don't recall if there was a correlating reduction in crime rates but there was is "gun crime". The ghetto skulls got the message and changed their habits.

To my understanding, typically many (lazy ass) DA quickly throw out or don't file the gun charges while, perhaps, charging something else that occurred during the commission of the crime. SO there is no penalty to the skull for using his (stolen) gun.

Of course, today we can't be throwing these po burn/loot/murder "minority" SOBs IN jail/prison so such a solution is likely not relevant. So the progs want to just pass some more laws.
 
Joined
·
21,494 Posts
This was sent to me by a friend. Thought it might fit in here. I will try to format it so it is easy to read. It is not long.
Why citizens carry guns!

"The Gun Is Civilization" by Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret)

Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force.

If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force.

Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that's it.

In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.

When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force.

The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gang banger, and a single guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.

There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we'd be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a armed mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger's potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat--it has no validity when most of a mugger's potential marks are armed.

People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that's the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.

Then there's the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser.

People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don't constitute lethal force watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level.

The gun is the only weapon that's as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weight lifter. It simply wouldn't work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn't both lethal and easily employable.

When I carry a gun, I don't do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I'm looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don't carry it because I'm afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn't limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force.

It removes force from the equation... and that's why carrying a gun is a civilized act.

By Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret.)

So the greatest civilization is one where all citizens are equally armed and can only be persuaded, never forced.
Doesn't account for numbers.

So say I have ten friends and you have none. And everyone has guns. I can use force more effectively than you can. And so therefore I make the rules of society.
 
1 - 20 of 42 Posts
Top