Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: The Horror of Gun Control

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    4 hours south of HankT, ,
    Posts
    5,121

    Post imported post

    http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/larosa5.1.1.html
    How many Rwanda, Columbine, Virginia Tech, Warsaw Ghetto, post-office, and other shootings do people have to endure before they face reality? How long does it take to learn a simple lesson: unarmed people are more vulnerable to terrorists, criminals, and crazed people than armed ones? ...

    ...As for the terrorist attack in Mumbai, can you imagine what would have happened to the terrorists, once they started shooting, if the people around them had not been prevented by their government from exercising their God-given right to keep and bear arms, but had instead been armed? Well, imagine being surrounded by hundreds of angry, frightened, armed people shooting back and fighting for their lives – a well-deserved nightmare for terrorists and criminals.

  2. #2
    Regular Member SouthernBoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    5,849

    Post imported post

    Well let's see. On the one hand, we have people, fellow citizens, who for whatever reason just do not like firearms. And no matter how much we may try to convince them otherwise, they are set in their ways and we are not going to change this. But with these people, it is not enough that they don't like them and don't want to own them.. they don't want anyone else to own them either.

    Then there are the "authorities", government if you will. Their anti-gun stances have less to do with not liking guns and quite a bit more to do with controlling the "masses". And how do you do this? One way is to diminish gun ownership through various means until you have reached the point of banning them outright.

    The first paragraph speaks of the pawns, the useful idiots, which are tools for those mentioned in the second paragraph and it is those in the second paragraph whose goals, while ultimately the same as the ones in the first, are more sinister and dangerous. We need to watch both and remain vigilant, but it is those in the second paragraph who are in positions to affect the loss of our liberties.

    In the final seconds of your life, just before your killer is about to dispatch you to that great eternal darkness, what would you rather have in your hand? A cell phone or a gun?

    Si vis pacem, para bellum.

    America First!

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Hampton, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    155

    Post imported post

    Obviously it didn't take the Israeli's long. No matter what your feelings about them as a people or as a religion, you have to admire their spirit and their resolve. It's almost like it's a holdover from our isolationism feelings we had back before WW1 and WW2. Put your head in the sand and it will all go away...

  4. #4
    Regular Member Decoligny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Rosamond, California, USA
    Posts
    1,865

    Post imported post

    SouthernBoy wrote:
    Well let's see. On the one hand, we have people, fellow citizens, who for whatever reason just do not like firearms. And no matter how much we may try to convince them otherwise, they are set in their ways and we are not going to change this. But with these people, it is not enough that they don't like them and don't want to own them.. they don't want anyone else to own them either.

    Then there are the "authorities", government if you will. Their anti-gun stances have less to do with not liking guns and quite a bit more to do with controlling the "masses". And how do you do this? One way is to diminish gun ownership through various means until you have reached the point of banning them outright.

    The first paragraph speaks of the pawns, the useful idiots, which are tools for those mentioned in the second paragraph and it is those in the second paragraph whose goals, while ultimately the same as the ones in the first, are more sinister and dangerous. We need to watch both and remain vigilant, but it is those in the second paragraph who are in positions to affect the loss of our liberties.

    This is pretty much the definition of a radical left-winger.

    A Conservative decides he doesn't like guns, so he doesn't buy a gun. A radical left-winger decides he doesn't like guns, so he tries to outlaw guns.

    A Conservative decides to become a vegetarian, he gives up eating meat. A radical left-winger decides to become a vegetarian, so he tries to outlaw meat.

    A Conservative decides to lose some weight, he stops eating fried food. A radical left-winger decides to lose some weight, so he tries to outlaw fried food.

    A Conservative decides that smoking is bad, he doesn't smoke. A radical left-winger decides that smoking is bad, he tries to outlaw smoking.

    A Conservative wants to live his life free fromthe fetters of tyranny. Left-wing radicals want to force you to conform to their point of view (tyranny) and there is no room for opposition,they try tocrush itat any expense.






  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    4 hours south of HankT, ,
    Posts
    5,121

    Post imported post

    My version:


    A libertarian decides he doesn't like guns, so he doesn't buy a gun. A Conservative decides he doesn't like guns, so he tries to outlaw guns.

    A libertarian decides to become a vegetarian, he gives up eating meat. A Conservative decides to become a vegetarian, so he tries to outlaw meat.

    A libertarian decides to lose some weight, he stops eating fried food. A Conservative decides to lose some weight, so he tries to outlaw fried food.

    A libertarian decides that smoking is bad, he doesn't smoke. AConservative decides that smoking is bad, he tries to outlaw smoking.

    A libertarian wants to live his life free fromthe fetters of tyranny. Conservatives want to force you to conform to their point of view (tyranny) and there is no room for opposition,they try tocrush itat any expense.





    Add to that a few about flag-waving, making kids pledge allegiance, and building a police state to round it off...

    I decided after watching Bush destroy my country while being cheered on by "conservatives", some of whom questioned my loyalty to that country,that I have no further use for conservatism, at least not the type that prevails today.

    Goldwater-style conservativism? We'll talk.

    For me it's not about conservative vs. liberal. It's about free man vs. the statist. And statist includes both right and left.


  6. #6
    Regular Member MetalChris's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    SW Ohio
    Posts
    1,215

    Post imported post

    ^^ +1

  7. #7
    Regular Member riverrat10k's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    on a rock in the james river
    Posts
    1,453

    Post imported post

    For me it's not about conservative vs. liberal. It's about free man vs. the statist. And statist includes both right and left.




    Last edited on Mon Oct 19th, 2009 08:53 pm by Tomahawk



    Well said, T-hawk. How do we form a third party that we would want to belong to?
    Remember Peter Nap and Skidmark. Do them proud. Be active. Be well informed. ALL rights matter.

    "An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when you may have to back up your acts with your life."

    --Robert A. Heinlein

    Hey NSA! *&$# you. Record this--- MOLON LABE!

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Newport News, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    492

    Post imported post

    I decided after watching Bush destroy my country while being cheered on by "conservatives", some of whom questioned my loyalty to that country,that I have no further use for conservatism, at least not the type that prevails today.

    Goldwater-style conservativism? We'll talk.

    For me it's not about conservative vs. liberal. It's about free man vs. the statist. And statist includes both right and left.
    I pretty much agree with you here. I am a very loyal U. S. Citizen but that does not mean that I automatically support what everadministration that happens to be in the oval office at a given time.



    What used to annoy me so much is that a lot of big-government types who had convinced themselves that theywere "conservatives" and therefore confused support of Bush with loyality to the country accused all who didn't support Mr. Bush as being non-patriotic.



    When I was repulsed by the Bush administration's embrace of the constitution trashing "Patriot Act" I was denounced as a liberal or leftist or whatever political insult was the whipping boy of the day.



    Yep, I'd be glad to have B. Goldwater or even Regan. But alas, no body like that around today except maybe Ron Paul. maybe.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Newport News, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    492

    Post imported post

    edited to remove double post. sorry

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Granite State of Mind
    Posts
    4,509

    Post imported post

    6L6GC wrote:
    Yep, I'd be glad to have B. Goldwater or even Regan. But alas, no body like that around today except maybe Ron Paul. maybe.
    Rand Paul is doing a good job of following in his father's footsteps, in his current run for the GOP U.S. Senate slot from Kentucky.



Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •