117 votes

With all the uproar over gun control, one may want to consider this

With all the uproar over gun control, one may want to consider this

Brilliant way to put it. But because of the common sense aspect of it, no one in Washington will pay attention.

A person steals guns, (WHICH IS AGAINST THE LAW), shoots and kills his own mother (WHICH IS AGAINST THE LAW), transports these guns loaded (WHICH IS AGAINST THE LAW), brings guns onto school property (WHICH IS AGAINST THE LAW), breaks into the school (WHICH IS AGAINST THE LAW), discharges the weapons within city limits (WHICH IS AGAINST THE LAW), murders 26 people (WHICH IS AGAINST THE LAW), and commits suicide (WHICH IS AGAINST THE LAW).

And there are people in this country that somehow think passing ANOTHER LAW banning guns would protect us from someone like this. If you haven't noticed, people like this are not concerned about breaking laws - they only care about fulfilling their own twisted agenda.

The only people that a gun ban law would impact are the LAW ABIDING CITIZENS, which will only serve to cripple the ability to protect ourselves.

If you agree with this, please re-post.

If not, read it again and see if it does not make a wee bit of sense.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

The opposition's

The opposition's argument is that if there are fewer guns around, there will be fewer to steal. If fewer are stolen, there will be fewer in the hands of criminals. If there are fewer guns in the hands of criminals, there will be less of a chance of said criminals using said guns to harm others.

To help understand the argument, evaluate the situation at extremes. If there were zero guns on earth, there would be zero gun violence. If there were piles of loaded guns sitting on every street corner, there would be more gun violence. Somewhere in between is where we are now and moving in one direction (toward one extreme) or another will have an impact on gun violence.

The gun grabbers want to move toward only professional violence mongers (government officials and other criminals) having all the guns, which is perhaps the worst of all possibilities.

anti-gun vs. pro-gun

The anti-gun people who want to ban guns are not anti-gun and do not want to ban guns.

They want government goons to purchase guns with stolen money (taxes) and point them at innocent people and threaten them to get rid of their guns.

Liberals are pro-gun all the way.

It Is Not...

...about safety, about the chillins, about 'reasonable laws', etc...it is and at its core always has been about disarmament of the people.

Sadly, the useful idiots, societal-collectivists and others, have been willing to be played and used as tools in the relentless drive to disarm the people.

Fact is, people had better have the epiphany, real soon, that armed resistance is all but certain to be the only choice left to those who would be free, aside from totalitarianism.

The staged clown-circus of the 'gun-rights' battle is but a prelude to this 'most likely' ultimate choice.

The question is, are you going to submit, or resist by force of arms.

If you are a 'peace and love' kinda guy who is horrified at the concept of using 'force', then you will most likely end up as fertilizer at the bottom of a government slit-trench, if things continue to progress as they clearly are heading.

Time to stand up and openly proclaim that we will NOT be disarmed and we WILL resist, UNLESS government backs off. This, we hope, will have the desired effect of stopping the otherwise inevitable.

Sadly, with the NRA and the 'lets compromise and work within the process' crowd working their ills, the likelihood of sufficient numbers actually making such a stance is between zero and none.

Exactly.

But emotionalism trumps logic every time...at least for a while. When the dust settles and people realize how much more they have given up in the name of safety, it will be too late.

They comfort themselves with the notion that it is for the children...notice how many times something similar to that statement is said in the various propaganda articles.

In reality the children are LESS safe - criminals will always have guns and soon the law abiding populace will be completely unarmed. Those who are normally law abiding will becoma a new class of criminal because for conscience' sake they will disobey the law and choose instead to protect their loved ones with the firearms they did not relinquish.

Insanity reigns.

The law cannot make a wicked person virtuous…God’s grace alone can accomplish such a thing.
Ron Paul - The Revolution

Setting a good example is a far better way to spread ideals than through force of arms. Ron Paul

Another Thing......

(WHICH IS AGAINST THE LAW) is an attempt to disarm the people.

It is called (TREASON)!

NeVer Trust Anyone Who Attempts To Disarm You!
http://www.dailypaul.com/267444/dealing-with-the-anti-gun-crowd

Because: Some animals are more equal than other animals. -Animal Farm-

What the? > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6MTIwY3_-ks

I've never reposted anything......

as much as I've reposted this.

Thank You!

Excellent Post

I made this picture from your great words.

I hope it gets seen by many...

Oh Yeah

Just facebooked the crap out of it. Well written sir. Very good argument as well. Thanks for posting.

Ron brought the Liberty movement together, Rand is expanding the crap out of it! :)

EUREKA!

Lets just outlaw "stupid!"
No, really, it will work!

Love or fear? Chose again with every breath.

Very common sense argument. I love it.

He is another just released on Secession.

http://www.dailypaul.com/272347/success-council-video-series...

www.SuccessCouncil.com
Protect your assets and profit from the greatest wealth transfer in history.

Give me a break.

I was reading it until I saw "and commits suicide (WHICH IS AGAINST THE LAW)." Why? Who the hell is society to say that a person doesn't have the right to die? Killing one's self harms NO ONE. How do you enforce a law like that onto a dead person? Oh, wait, you can't. You can only punish a person who fails at it, so the law becomes even more petty and draconian by punishing an ATTEMPT.

Also, I don't give a shit if stupid laws like transporting loaded guns or discharging a weapon within city limits are on the books. They are moronic and examples of petty law that just takes too much time and tax to enforce.

Please come join my forum if you're not a trendy and agree with my points of view.

You got that wrong

You surely have the right to die as a result of all these laws.
/bitter sarcasm off

This post isn't about agreeing to those stupid laws.

It's about illustrating that passing a law obviously didn't stop all those things from happening. And now that he added suicide to the list, he can't be prosecuted for the others, rendering all of those laws moot with no teeth.

Try not being so edgy and reactionary.

That pretty much

nails it.

True.

You make complete sense.

Amen

When all you have is a hammer everything looks like a nail.

No.7's picture

bump. +1

shared

The individual who refuses to defend his rights when called by his Government, deserves to be a slave, and must be punished as an enemy of his country and friend to her foe. - Andrew Jackson

shall not be infringed.

This is our latest video to try and help lend more perspective on why many Americans are speaking out for the 2nd Amendment.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hvcne_Hxypo

"In the beginning of a change, the Patriot is a scarce man, Brave, Hated, and Scorned. When his cause succeeds however,the timid join him, For then it costs nothing to be a Patriot.” ~Mark Twain

Great post.

:)

www.youtube.com/truefictions

I try to change people every day. Do You?

Hit the nail on the head.

Great post. Almost funny in it's realistic, no nonsense approach..
Always enjoy what you have written and look for your posts

Deekey

It's not about the law

Many gun grabbers believe that there are too many guns and that makes them too available even to thieves. Their mind-set is that if we eliminate guns from private citizens' hands that the opportunity for someone to steal one will be diminished and therefor crime will be reduced. They totally discount the self defense aspect for they see that not as something an individual should do, but see protection as a function of government. These people see humanity as a hive and we are all individual bees who's allegiance should be to the hive and not selfishly to ourselves. They see one bee killing other bees and want that to stop for the benefit of the hive.

So the argument about killers ignoring the law is not an effective tool against these folks.

Which just means we need ANOTHER tool, too.

Which just means we need ANOTHER tool, too, to convince people hypnotized by a different meme.

We'll also need to deal with people holding MULTIPLE, SEPARATE false ideas.

Then, once we've dealt with all the memes, we STILL need to galvanize them to actively support citizen armament. Otherwise most of them won't notice that all the REASONS for their opposition were gone, but they'll still continue their opposition out of habit, with social pressure egging them on.

= = = =
"Obama’s Economists: ‘Stimulus’ Has Cost $278,000 per Job."

That means: For each job "created or saved" about five were destroyed.

That argument doesn't wash

That argument doesn't wash either, because in reality fewer members of the hive will be killed if they are able to defend themselves rather than not. Not only that, it's the hive that has created an environment unfit for its supposed members to live in, and unrealistically expects that there should be no repercussions. It's good to help people deconstruct all of this. If they are able to use reason, use logic, and above all, if they are able to prevent their emotional reaction from overriding, then they can gain some clarity as a result.

Great observations.

It so simple that it is hard for some to understand.

.

wee

It makes a wee bit of sense, but so does the argument that if only the government has guns it will be more difficult for non-government people to get them, and that's (for the moment) the majority of people, so you might have less gun violence. I'm not saying that argument makes a lot of sense, but maybe a wee bit.

Both of these arguments miss the point. The point is that the last people you want to have arms are the people who consider themselves part of the government. Therefore, they should be the first ones to disarm.

I don't think for a minute

that there will be an enforced gun ban...they will be stolen by stealth.
Your constitution guarantees the citizens "of sound mind" the right to gun ownership.
And therein lies the clincher. One child in 89 shows varying degrees of Autism. They will never own guns. Anyone on Prozac or other "mental
issues" medication will be banned, by the enforced, big Phama interpretation of "sound mind"...

And we have a law that

reads, the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. So if there are two laws that conflict, which one do you obey?

The supreme..

The supreme law of the land is the US constitution. All "laws" passed that are in conflict with the US constitution are void ab initio and are unenforceable.