Assault weapon bans

[bernard75]

No kidding?  I didn't know guns killed people!

And there we go, NRA indict.
And nothing you mentioned in the weired statements kills other people.
And what about the rights you have been stripped off in the last 12 years alone, why not make a list of that?

[FirstAscent]

Its very simple if people have guns they will use them and using here means KILLING people.

No kidding?  I didn't know guns killed people!  My god, how could we let guns be invented at all!    So your point is, "Resistance is futile so why make it any harder for the opposition?"  Noted.

“Whoever desires to found a state and give it laws, must start with assuming that all men are bad and ever ready to display their vicious nature, whenever they may find occasion for it.”
– Niccolo Machiavelli

We must therefore ban all the things, for we cannot be trusted with ourselves.

And the rest of this post is mostly to mock you--there's your warning.

Its very simple if people have knives they will use them and using here means KILLING people.

Its very simple if people have piano wire they will use them and using here means KILLING people.

Its very simple if people have metal chains they will use them and using here means KILLING people.

Its very simple if people have prescription drugs they will use them and using here means KILLING themselves.

Its very simple if people have heavy tools they will use them and using here means KILLING people.

Its very simple if people have really loud guitars they will play them and playing here means SLAYING people.

Its very simple if murderers have eyes they will use them and using here means FINDING PEOPLE...to kill.

Its very simple if the state has guns they will use them and using here means KILLING people.

Its very simple if police officers have guns criminals will take them and they will use them and using here means KILLING people.
Ah, fuck it: Its very simple if police officers have guns they will use them and using here means KILLING people.

Its very simple if people have 3D printers they will use them and using here means printing guns and then KILLING people.

Its very simple if people have hands they will use them on guns and using here means KILLING people.

Its very simple if guns have people they will use them and using here means KILLING guns with people.

Its very simple if people have keyboards they will use them and using here means writing about KILLING people.

Its very simple if people have large pets they will use them and using here means KILLING people.  And if pet owners tie their pets down with metal chains...

Its very simple if people have a blackbelt they will use their fists of fury and using here means KILLING people.

And the obligatory:

It's very simple: if people have guns, they will use them, and using here means killing people.

This is a desperate argument, and has never fooled anyone. The reason the analogies don't work is because you're failing to acknowledge the actual use of the other items. Keyboards have valuable usage beyond writing about killing people. The only people who nod their heads in agreement when they read stuff like this are those who keep banging their drums for more guns.

[mdude77]

Guns go from the manufacturer to gun sellers and ultimately end up in the hands of criminals. There are many routes. But they absolutely do not pass through the hands of people who don't buy guns. Instead, they pass through the hands of people who do buy guns en route to criminals.

Gun permits should only be issued by the federal government. There should be a limit on the number of guns any person can own. If you buy a gun, and then lose it or sell it, you don't get another permit, unless the sale is documented as going through a process to an individual who has been awarded a new permit.

In this way, people won't buy guns for others. They will make sure their gun is not stolen. They will not be able to sell their guns to others without a permit that the prospective buyer holds for a new gun.

You also reference the official stories about publicized mass murders.  I'm sure you've heard the expression, "How can you tell if a politician is lying?  When his lips are moving."  I doubt most things the government says, ESPECIALLY official stories that back the party line.

Anyhow, federal control is a bad idea no matter how you look at it.  First of all, as I stated, the problem isn't guns, it's the lack of morality.  Second of all, there are plenty of laws around unlawful gun use, and most people know the justice system is a joke.  Enforce the laws you have, and stop trying to restrict law abiding citizens from their God given right because of what criminals do.

Your argument is flawed, and you seem incapable of doing anything than repeating it over and over and over again.

Actually, federal control is the only thing that has a chance at working. Anything else is a joke. As I said:

1. Ineffective laws enforced ineffectively puts guns in criminals' hands.
2. Ineffective laws enforced effectively puts guns in criminals' hands.
3. Effective laws enforced ineffectively puts guns in criminals' hands.
4. Effective laws enforced effectively keep guns out of criminals' hands.

The most dangerous entities in the world are governments.  More people have died at the hand of governments than any other entity, probably every other entity combined. 

I feel sorry for you if you trust yours. 

BTW, thanks for proving my point about repeating the same thing over and over and over again.

M

[mdude77]

Sick country, no wait INDIVIDUALS.
I cant believe somebody from the bitcoin foundation is crying out so loud here.
Its very simple, if people have guns they will use them and using here means KILLING people.

Exactly!  If anyone shouldn't be allowed to have guns, it's governments.  They have tons of guns and Lord knows they love killing people.

And if you sick fucks really believe its protecting your rights, then look around, you have been gradually stripped of most of them and nobody marched on Washington. And even then your beloved drones would take care of you in no time.

The US still has the right to bear arms.  As long as it exists, we are still a free people.

Edit: And im European, so dont even try your NRA indoctrination.

Unlike yourself.

M

[FirstAscent]

Guns go from the manufacturer to gun sellers and ultimately end up in the hands of criminals. There are many routes. But they absolutely do not pass through the hands of people who don't buy guns. Instead, they pass through the hands of people who do buy guns en route to criminals.

Gun permits should only be issued by the federal government. There should be a limit on the number of guns any person can own. If you buy a gun, and then lose it or sell it, you don't get another permit, unless the sale is documented as going through a process to an individual who has been awarded a new permit.

In this way, people won't buy guns for others. They will make sure their gun is not stolen. They will not be able to sell their guns to others without a permit that the prospective buyer holds for a new gun.

You also reference the official stories about publicized mass murders.  I'm sure you've heard the expression, "How can you tell if a politician is lying?  When his lips are moving."  I doubt most things the government says, ESPECIALLY official stories that back the party line.

Anyhow, federal control is a bad idea no matter how you look at it.  First of all, as I stated, the problem isn't guns, it's the lack of morality.  Second of all, there are plenty of laws around unlawful gun use, and most people know the justice system is a joke.  Enforce the laws you have, and stop trying to restrict law abiding citizens from their God given right because of what criminals do.

Your argument is flawed, and you seem incapable of doing anything than repeating it over and over and over again.

Actually, federal control is the only thing that has a chance at working. Anything else is a joke. As I said:

1. Ineffective laws enforced ineffectively puts guns in criminals' hands.
2. Ineffective laws enforced effectively puts guns in criminals' hands.
3. Effective laws enforced ineffectively puts guns in criminals' hands.
4. Effective laws enforced effectively keep guns out of criminals' hands.

The most dangerous entities in the world are governments.  More people have died at the hand of governments than any other entity, probably every other entity combined. 

I feel sorry for you if you trust yours. 

BTW, thanks for proving my point about repeating the same thing over and over and over again.

Have you ever witnessed 100 million people (or more) in an ungoverned state? Here's another question for you? Have you ever witnessed 100 million people in a governed state where guns are largely non-existent?

[mdude77]

Have you ever witnessed 100 million people (or more) in an ungoverned state? Here's another question for you? Have you ever witnessed 100 million people in a governed state where guns are largely non-existent?

A citizen is a free person who resides in a country where the government rightfully fears its citizens.

A subject is a slave who thinks he is at least somewhat free who resides in a country where he rightfully fears his government.

M

[bernard75]

And again what have you accomplished?
Protecting the second but again and again being stripped of all.
The only choice is uprising and demonstrate and you dont need guns for that.
But... ahhh...sensless

[FirstAscent]

Have you ever witnessed 100 million people (or more) in an ungoverned state? Here's another question for you? Have you ever witnessed 100 million people in a governed state where guns are largely non-existent?

A citizen is a free person who resides in a country where the government rightfully fears its citizens.

A subject is a slave who thinks he is at least somewhat free who resides in a country where he rightfully fears his government.

It reminds me of the silly statement another made in the morality thread. It was about freedom.

Do you walk about fearing your government on a daily basis? Do you walk around fearing criminals on a daily basis? Do you walk around fearing cancer and heart attacks on a daily basis? How would you order those three fears, from worst to least?

[MikeH]

The only choice is uprising and demonstrate and you dont need guns for that.

a quote..

"The American people have been easily ruled through our propaganda that the pen is mightier than the sword. We virtually get away with murder, and all the goy do is to talk about it, which is ineffective since we, the masters of propaganda, always publish a contradicting account.

If the Aryan would review history and apply those lessons of the past, then the pen will be thrown down in disgust and the sword wielded in the heat of passion. (A recurrence to history would edify our minds and show us that the European countries solved their Jewish problem only by use of force.)

Thus far, we have escaped the sword, when the only reprisal is some periodical of no repute, or some pamphlet with limited circulation. Their pen is no match for ours, but our constant fear is that they may open their eyes and learn that no change was ever brought about with a pen.

History has been written in blood, not with ink. No letter, editorial or book has ever rallied the people or stopped tyranny. We understand this principle and are continually propagandizing the people to write letters to the President, to Congress and to their local media.

We are safe to continually exploit, intimidate and disenfranchise the white American as long as they are preoccupied with the illusion of educating the masses through printed material. Woe be unto us if they ever see the futility of it, lay down the pen and employ the sword."

[FirstAscent]

The only choice is uprising and demonstrate and you dont need guns for that.

a quote..

"The American people have been easily ruled through our propaganda that the pen is mightier than the sword. We virtually get away with murder, and all the goy do is to talk about it, which is ineffective since we, the masters of propaganda, always publish a contradicting account.

If the Aryan would review history and apply those lessons of the past, then the pen will be thrown down in disgust and the sword wielded in the heat of passion. (A recurrence to history would edify our minds and show us that the European countries solved their Jewish problem only by use of force.)

Thus far, we have escaped the sword, when the only reprisal is some periodical of no repute, or some pamphlet with limited circulation. Their pen is no match for ours, but our constant fear is that they may open their eyes and learn that no change was ever brought about with a pen.

History has been written in blood, not with ink. No letter, editorial or book has ever rallied the people or stopped tyranny. We understand this principle and are continually propagandizing the people to write letters to the President, to Congress and to their local media.

We are safe to continually exploit, intimidate and disenfranchise the white American as long as they are preoccupied with the illusion of educating the masses through printed material. Woe be unto us if they ever see the futility of it, lay down the pen and employ the sword."

Then I guess that renders your analogy about the keyboard being so dangerous rather impotent. Consistent, you are not.

EDIT: Oh, forgive me! You are a different Mike, but with the same agenda. And thus, consistent, you are not, within your own clique of gun lovers.

[bernard75]

The only choice is uprising and demonstrate and you dont need guns for that.

a quote..

"The American people have been easily ruled through our propaganda that the pen is mightier than the sword. We virtually get away with murder, and all the goy do is to talk about it, which is ineffective since we, the masters of propaganda, always publish a contradicting account.

If the Aryan would review history and apply those lessons of the past, then the pen will be thrown down in disgust and the sword wielded in the heat of passion. (A recurrence to history would edify our minds and show us that the European countries solved their Jewish problem only by use of force.)

Thus far, we have escaped the sword, when the only reprisal is some periodical of no repute, or some pamphlet with limited circulation. Their pen is no match for ours, but our constant fear is that they may open their eyes and learn that no change was ever brought about with a pen.

History has been written in blood, not with ink. No letter, editorial or book has ever rallied the people or stopped tyranny. We understand this principle and are continually propagandizing the people to write letters to the President, to Congress and to their local media.

We are safe to continually exploit, intimidate and disenfranchise the white American as long as they are preoccupied with the illusion of educating the masses through printed material. Woe be unto us if they ever see the futility of it, lay down the pen and employ the sword."

Chomsky? A jew btw.

[mdude77]

Have you ever witnessed 100 million people (or more) in an ungoverned state? Here's another question for you? Have you ever witnessed 100 million people in a governed state where guns are largely non-existent?

A citizen is a free person who resides in a country where the government rightfully fears its citizens.

A subject is a slave who thinks he is at least somewhat free who resides in a country where he rightfully fears his government.

It reminds me of the silly statement another made in the morality thread. It was about freedom.

Do you walk about fearing your government on a daily basis? Do you walk around fearing criminals on a daily basis? Do you walk around fearing cancer and heart attacks on a daily basis? How would you order those three fears, from worst to least?

I fear all Godless individuals.  The only solution to the world's problem is Godliness.  More government, more control, less government, less control, the end result is the same.  No God, it's a dangerous scary place. 

Governments are supposed to protect the rights of the people.  People are born free.  Any government that says they grant rights instead of protect God given ones is not to be trusted.

I'll keep my guns, and freedom, thank you.

M

[Spendulus]

It bothers me...

Girl has not adjusted the stock properly....

[mdude77]

It bothers me...

Girl has not adjusted the stock properly....

She also has her finger on the trigger!  Clearly made by someone who doesn't know how to use guns safely.

M

[Spendulus]

It bothers me...

Girl has not adjusted the stock properly....

She also has her finger on the trigger!  Clearly made by someone who doesn't know how to use guns safely.

M

oh.....I missed that.

So an anti gun poster promotes unsafe practice.

Fucking idiots.

[Lethn]

You know she could have the safety on right? LOL even I know that and I don't own a gun, that said, it does look bad.

[Spendulus]

You know she could have the safety on right? LOL even I know that and I don't own a gun, that said, it does look bad.

no.

These are absolute rules on gun safety, no finger inside the trigger guard. Never point in someone direction.  Always assume it loaded.  Etc.

Ignorance breeds accidents. 

[FirstAscent]

You know she could have the safety on right? LOL even I know that and I don't own a gun, that said, it does look bad.

no.

These are absolute rules on gun safety, no finger inside the trigger guard. Never point in someone direction.  Always assume it loaded.  Etc.

Ignorance breeds accidents.  

You mean like parents who somehow let their kids get access to their guns, and then end up killing their siblings? Or going on rampages? Again, what's the real culprit? Is it the people calling for less guns, and responsible gun ownership? Or is it the irresponsible gun owners?

[RoadToHell]

"We won't sell Kinder chocolate eggs in the interest of child safety."

1) Where is the selling of chocolate eggs banned?

2) Is this poster from Germany?

[mdude77]

You know she could have the safety on right? LOL even I know that and I don't own a gun, that said, it does look bad.

no.

These are absolute rules on gun safety, no finger inside the trigger guard. Never point in someone direction.  Always assume it loaded.  Etc.

Ignorance breeds accidents.  

You mean like parents who somehow let their kids get access to their guns, and then end up killing their siblings? Or going on rampages? Again, what's the real culprit? Is it the people calling for less guns, and responsible gun ownership? Or is it the irresponsible gun owners?

Your definition of "responsible" gun ownership is to not allow them to have it.

A gun is a tool, nothing more, nothing less.

M