Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I don't own any guns, but don't consider myself anti-gun. It's just not something that's important to me.
I equate the gun reform debate to drug use: There are laws, jail time, fines, etc. in place to supposedly curb drug use in this country. How is that working out?
It would be no different with guns. If people want them, are willing to pay for them - they will find a way to obtain them. No reform is going to stop the nut jobs with ill intent from getting their hands on guns if they want them. Therefore, reform in my opinion will do very little to prevent mass shootings.
Real gun reform is abolishing the 2nd Amendment and the civilian possession of firearms. Which would leave firearms only in the hands of government agencies, government officials, celebrities, oligarch's and of course criminals.
When all of the above surrender their weapons then I'll be willing to listen. After all if banning and confiscating them from law abiding people would solve our crime problem which supposedly is the intended purpose for those laws. Then why would any of the above need guns?
Quote:
The debate over gun control can be summed up thusly: Those of us who don't like guns in the hands of our non-costumed brethren, will vote to ensure men with guns, under the guise of the "law," will come and take the property that is rightfully yours, killing you should you resist our will sufficiently.
This is what we call "violence by-proxy" and makes the voter for violence no less culpable in the extortion and death that will ensue.
As Stefan Molyneux correctly observed; if a person claims they are non-violent and are for “gun control” they are not truly anti-gun nor are they non-violent people - because the reality is that guns and violence will be needed to disarm innocent law abiding people.
This is because those people who claim they are anti-gun and anti-violence, who claim to support “gun control,” will need the credible threat of police violence and the police’s guns to take away other people’s guns should they resist the attempt to further centralize their monopoly on violence.
So those who claim to be anti-gun and anti-violence are really very pro-gun and very pro-violence. They ultimately believe that only government officials (which are of course portrayed as reliable, honest, moral, and virtuous) should be allowed to have guns. This obviously flies in the face of reality as the 20th century has proven once and for all.
It’s important to note that those who advocate this type of centralized monopoly of violence do so as cowards, because it’s not their lives on the line, rather they advocate others using violence on their behalf in order to force their misguided views on innocent people who wish to do nothing other than protect themselves and other innocents.
There is no such thing as "gun control," there is only centralizing gun ownership in the hands of a small, political class and the forces they control which, as recent history has proven is a murderous nightmare for the peace loving, disenfranchised, and disarmed citizenry.--Ron Danielowski
Quote:
“But to ban guns because criminals use them is to tell the innocent and law-abiding that their rights and liberties depend not on their own conduct, but on the conduct of the guilty and the lawless, and that the law will permit them to have only such rights and liberties as the lawless will allow. … For society does not control crime, ever, by forcing the law-abiding to accommodate themselves to the expected behavior of criminals. Society controls crime by forcing the criminals to accommodate themselves to the expected behavior of the law-abiding.” Jeff Snyder
Quote:
"There are only a few laws in history that are universally applicable. One of these is that the ruling classes do not want the peasantry armed. They will do what they can to convince you that to be armed is dangerous. They will attempt to do this while they themselves are surrounded by armed body guards. Idiots will not notice this hypocrisy and sycophants will ignore it. Fools will surrender their arms in the name of "safety". They will insensibly surrender their liberty at the same time. This is how slaves are made."
What kind of slaughter will there have to be for any real gun reform. A whole school?
Translation: I thought Sandy Hook would cause the government to take firearms away from law abiding citizens who had nothing to do with it. And I assume criminals and nutjobs actually care what the law says.
Do you have any third strike you'd like to swing at?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
