Deadly Aesthetics and Anti-gun Addicts
My take on self-defense and those who want to disarm honorable citizens.
Anti-gun advocates offer an emotional appeal to an idealized pre-rational fantasy they call gun control. The ideology of disarmament has many aspects that make it an easily marketable idea. It offers a vision of moral superiority and is easily sold.
I think the gun grabbers are crazy. It is time to stop talking about logic and facts with crazy people. The anti-rights ideologues believe that weapons and violence are not the answer, but they have no answers to the real evils in this world. That leaves those of us who live in this world with a few unanswered questions.
Anti-gun advocates offer an emotional appeal to an idealized pre-rational fantasy they call gun control. The ideology of disarmament has many aspects that make it an easily marketable idea. It offers a vision of moral superiority and is easily sold.
I think the gun grabbers are crazy. It is time to stop talking about logic and facts with crazy people. The anti-rights ideologues believe that weapons and violence are not the answer, but they have no answers to the real evils in this world. That leaves those of us who live in this world with a few unanswered questions.
The founders put the Right to Keep and Bear Arms as a defense from a government gone nuts. The anti gunners are all about control and not logic or reason.
Then I can combine that to "A criminal attack comes within seconds when that cop is minutes away."
http://www.barenakedislam.com/2015/06/28...
Forks need to be banned after we get rid of all those pesky knives.
(I also found Obama's proclaimed "religion of peace" all the more disgusting, by the way).
Do we put gloves on, or handcuff everyone?
And they call themselves evolved. They are fools.
Jan
It is also the case that most of the time I would not Want human nature to be as they describe. I do not care if such a change would totally end murder and war and violence. It would also end...me. My choice; my freedom.
Jan
The idiocy of the left on this never ceases to amaze... that pesky Second Amendment keeps getting in their way.
Once you have changed Human nature on a global scale, and 100% of everyone subscribes to the "Do No Harm" then their arguments "might" hold some water, except that would also eliminate hunting and protection from wild animals, so even if human nature were completely resolved, you still have animals to content with.
One percent of the General Population engage in criminal activities as a percentage of the population across the entire range of criminal acts.
100 percent of the media which diverts attention from the root problem with propaganda is not charged much less convicted of a criminal act.
To repeat an earlier post. Since police are one of the two main functions of government that one percent in perspective may be likened to one driver out of a hundred who has a defective vehicle, is drunk, under the influence of drugs or or road rage or a combination.
The congress passed a law demanding these statistics be passed into a central collection ipoint in 1993. Clinton signed it and ignored it. Bush ignored it. Obama is ignoring it though thre are claims to a two year collection. Cato Institute goes back to the nineties.
One percent does not count outside the country, Not correcting a fault with one percent of the police and excusing the faults of one percent of the population for whatever reason is the fault of the country.
going back to the percentage provided by woodlema WHY of all societies are we at 99% and holding?
WTF Up! as in Wake the... and think about who you are voting for? Good choice or just an enabler.
In the Charleston shootings, Roof had the time to reload five times because there was no one else armed who could stop him, and yet the antigunners are horrified at the idea of any law-abiding church member having a gun, because it would have resulted in a shootout.
I often say "You can't be argued out of something you weren't argued into.", meaning that if you arrived at your position through your feelings and your wants and your hopes, there's very little chance of getting you back.
The problem then becomes, how do we stop the gun grabbers who will NOT live in the real world? Many of them are in favor of the police dragging us out of our houses and shooting us down in the streets if we refuse to give up our weaponry. One of them is my brother. He is so frightened that he grasps at anything that might make him feel better - even if it means my death.
There is no argument possible there. I fear that we must allow them to make the first step in the "by force" discussion, and then respond in kind. They will lose, of course - what will we lose by winning?
I am proud of my wealth, and my success. -- j
.
fellow citizens. . when Norman Rockwell ruled. -- j
.
It was clear that if the colonists had not been armed, they never could have overthrown King George. King Obama, King Bush, King Clinton, etc. all know this - and I think that is why they promote their anti-second amendment agenda.
As far as self defense against other citizens is concerned, being armed is a great byproduct of the second amendment and where citizens are allowed to be armed, crime against people is lower then in places where that is not allowed. Remember when seconds count, the police are only minutes away.
There is no logical argument against the second amendment and I want to see the discussion framed in that language rather then calling it gun control. In my mind gun control is hitting what you aim at.
One more time
Second Amendment until it was disconnected in it's two phrases referred to the States being protected through their State militias. The federal government has no rights granted to deny citizens zippo. They do have a right (See section on Congress I think it's article 1 section 8) to regulate the State Militias among other things. Thee is no byproduct as the Feds have no rights granted and do not grant powers to the citizens it's the other way around.
Haller vs Washington DC which separated the two phrases put the rest of the complaint back in the hands of the States only directing Washington DC to issue a firearms license to Haller valid in his own home and no further.
Nowhere in the second amendment does it stipulate beyond the States because they have no right granted to do so and the Supreme Court recognizing that side stepped and made no comment on 9th and 10th Amendment thus affirming they had no rights granted.
I fully support the position but not with urban legends. the more the second amendment argument is pressed versus the 9th and 10th amendment fact the more likely this goverenment will move to claim the right and then use it.
Given the current President Obeyme's love of ignoring the Constitution and his lack of knowledge in that area let's not provide him any reasons to attempt another Executive Order.
when worse portable death devices arrive, they will
have them. . what are the good folks to do? . I want
a defensive gizmo which stops a bad guy, and his
weapon, in his tracks. -- j
.
equals 633,600 gun-hours during which there were
NO accidents involving guns. . and BOTH of the
bad guys were captured with guns. . go figure. -- j
.