Showing posts with label Anti-gun. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Anti-gun. Show all posts
Friday, July 27, 2012
Understand Romney, see Ron Paul v. Romeny on firearms
Watch how the WHORES at the NRA allow the political WHORE Romney as a member.
NRA how about stopping your GOP political fellatio and actually holding this batch of whores feet to the fire? Why was Ron Paul banned from your big NRA-ILA events?
When Ron Paul ran for re-election in his Texas district last election, the NRA turned on him and supported the Democrat opponent. This DEMOCRAT opponent was a fervant supporter of gun control, while RP is a TRUE THINKING 2nd Ammendment advocate.
Friday, April 22, 2011
Open Carry for rights
Fear the government that fears your guns?
How about distrust anyone who distrusts or disrespects your rights!
Tuesday, April 5, 2011
How history kills propaganda, gun control
I have presented this before but I wanted to review the folly of using bumper sticker propaganda to promote or detract from one political agenda or the other.
All the dictators agree - gun control works... Sounds great, wonderful propaganda hot off the press to use in the promotion of an idea - sadly in one aspect we take the low ground with simplistic platitudes...
The NSDAP and gun control.
Read the real and unbiased history and be shocked if you have never seen this material.
The limited sense is that gun laws for both ethnic Germans and non-German ethnic people were greatly released as compared to the Weimar (leftist/socialist) under NSDAP. Later gun laws were to be greatly increased for non-German ethnic people (Jews, Gypsies, and some specific Church members considered "dangerous"). This makes it almost impossible to make a simple clear answer the the question - the typical American wants a simple answer, and in politics and political history a simple answer is difficult to "boil down to".
Weimar Germany's laws were the basis for the Gun Control Act of 1968 and strangely even they had to remove some restrictions from an earlier transition period.
Both the NSDAP and the Soviets depended on loyal local bureaucracies to extend power, and in many cases this translated to extreme inconsistencies in practice.
The difference is that generally the "right" is gun friendly for it's "approved groups" and the "left" is very gun restrictive, clearly Obamonation is leftist - as gun owners this will bode ILL for us.
For a critique of the JPFO argument and identification of their work as "cultural" and how you have strange bedfellows in the "pro-gun" movement... Worth the read, an accurate look at the strange bedfellows pro and con...
Critique of gun control propaganda, pro and con - PDF
Just not a simple or clear answer, unless you want to boil it down to - if you don't like or trust someone, make sure they don't have weapons... but that is almost too simple to be useful in anything but the bumper sticker level conversation.
All the dictators agree - gun control works... Sounds great, wonderful propaganda hot off the press to use in the promotion of an idea - sadly in one aspect we take the low ground with simplistic platitudes...
The NSDAP and gun control.
Read the real and unbiased history and be shocked if you have never seen this material.
The limited sense is that gun laws for both ethnic Germans and non-German ethnic people were greatly released as compared to the Weimar (leftist/socialist) under NSDAP. Later gun laws were to be greatly increased for non-German ethnic people (Jews, Gypsies, and some specific Church members considered "dangerous"). This makes it almost impossible to make a simple clear answer the the question - the typical American wants a simple answer, and in politics and political history a simple answer is difficult to "boil down to".
Weimar Germany's laws were the basis for the Gun Control Act of 1968 and strangely even they had to remove some restrictions from an earlier transition period.
Both the NSDAP and the Soviets depended on loyal local bureaucracies to extend power, and in many cases this translated to extreme inconsistencies in practice.
The difference is that generally the "right" is gun friendly for it's "approved groups" and the "left" is very gun restrictive, clearly Obamonation is leftist - as gun owners this will bode ILL for us.
For a critique of the JPFO argument and identification of their work as "cultural" and how you have strange bedfellows in the "pro-gun" movement... Worth the read, an accurate look at the strange bedfellows pro and con...
Critique of gun control propaganda, pro and con - PDF
"The 1928 law put into effect a strict licensing scheme that covered all
aspects of firearms—from the manufacture to the sale, including repair and
even reloading ammunition.68 It explicitly revoked the 1919 Regulations on
Weapons Ownership,69 which had banned all firearms possession, and thereby
liberalized firearms regulation. As Halbrook himself notes, based on review of
contemporaneous newspaper reports and official commentary, “the 1928 law
was seen as deregulatory to a point but enforceable, in contrast to a far more
restrictive albeit unenforceable [1919] order.”70 Halbrook continues: “Within
a decade, Germany had gone from a brutal firearms seizure policy which, in
times of unrest, entailed selective yet immediate execution for mere possession
of a firearm, to a modern, comprehensive gun control law.”71
Second, with regard to gun possession, the 1938 Nazi gun laws
represented a further liberalization of gun control regulations. In fact, most of
the changes in the law reflected a loosening of the regulations, not a tightening.
The Weapons Law of March 18, 1938, is patterned on the Law on Firearms
and Ammunition of April 12, 1928. The two laws have the same structure,
similar section headings, and broadly similar language."
"The Minister of the Interior, Frick, passed
Regulations Against Jew’s Possession of Weapons on November 11, 1938,
which effectively deprived all Jews of the right to possess firearms or other
weapons. It was a regulation prohibiting Jews from having any dangerous
weapon—not just guns. Under the regulations, Jews “are prohibited from
acquiring, possessing, and carrying firearms and ammunition, as well as
truncheons or stabbing weapons. Those now possessing weapons and
ammunition are at once to turn them over to the local police authority.”95
Moreover, prior to that, the German police and Nazis used the 1938 firearms
law as an excuse to disarm Jews. In Breslau, for instance, the city police chief
decreed the seizure of all firearms from Jews on the ground that “the Jewish
population ‘cannot be regarded as trustworthy’”—the language from the 1928
and 1938 firearms laws.96
It seems fair to conclude, then, that the 1938 Nazi gun law represented
a slight relaxation of gun control. Though the Nazis were intent on killing
Jews and used the gun laws to that effect, they aspired to relaxation of gun
laws for the “ordinary” or “law-abiding” German citizen, for those who were
not, in their twisted minds, “enemies of the National Socialist state."
Just not a simple or clear answer, unless you want to boil it down to - if you don't like or trust someone, make sure they don't have weapons... but that is almost too simple to be useful in anything but the bumper sticker level conversation.
Sunday, April 3, 2011
The oddest of Gun law debates
This is a post on the minutiae of historical nitpicking, how two historians can pick apart any subject and can even resort to acting like spoiled toddlers.
I want to start this with a few quotes that I think help explain my personal pro-gun position and my Jeffersonian-Agrarian libertarian politics:
“There is no sport that, like boxing, promotes the spirit of aggression in the same measure, demands determination quick as lightening, educates the body for steel-like versatility.” - Adolf Hitler
“To me, boxing and jiujitsu have always appeared more important than some inferior, half-hearted, training in shooting.” - Adolf Hitler
"The strength of the state depends on physical prowess, not on arms. The folkish State has to fight for its existence. . . . [T]he best protection will not be represented in its arms, but in its citizens; not fortress walls will protect it, but the living wall of men and women, filled with highest love of the country and with fanatical national enthusiasm.” - Adolf Hitler
Now in contrast:
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government" - Thomas Jefferson
"As to the species of exercise, I advise the gun. While this gives [only] moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise, and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun, therefore, be the constant companion to your walks." - Thomas Jefferson
"What country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time that his people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms." - Thomas Jefferson
Here are links to the two PDF files written by the - at least partly - opposing historians.
Note that current legal Supreme Court rulings were made after the two papers linked below were written.
Bernard E. Harcourt - Professor of Law and Professor of Political Science at the University of Chicago, political theory Princeton University, law degree Harvard Law School, Ph.D. political science Harvard University
ON GUN REGISTRATION, THE NRA, ADOLF HITLER, AND NAZI GUN LAWS: EXLPODING THE GUN CULTURE WARS
Stephen P. Halbrook - Attorney at Law, business Florida State University, law Georgetown University, Ph.D. philosophy Florida State University
NAZISM, THE SECOND AMENDMENT, AND THE NRA: A REPLY TO PROFESSOR HARCOURT
Both prior to and after the adoption of the English Bill of Rights, there were a number of gun regulations in place in England, including registration requirements. In 1660, for instance, all gunsmiths were ordered to produce a record of all firearms they had sold and of all their buyers from the past six months. Gunsmiths were then required to report this information weekly. These requirements—which constitute the first known gun registration scheme—remained in place after the adoption of the English Bill of Rights of 1689, which declared that “the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law.” Prior and subsequent English history reflects a long and steady tradition of substantial statutory limitations on gun ownership. -Page 13
Bernard E. Harcourt - Professor of Law and Professor of Political Science at the University of Chicago, political theory Princeton University, law degree Harvard Law School, Ph.D. political science Harvard University
ON GUN REGISTRATION, THE NRA, ADOLF HITLER, AND NAZI GUN LAWS: EXLPODING THE GUN CULTURE WARS
Stephen P. Halbrook - Attorney at Law, business Florida State University, law Georgetown University, Ph.D. philosophy Florida State University
NAZISM, THE SECOND AMENDMENT, AND THE NRA: A REPLY TO PROFESSOR HARCOURT
In his paper Mr. Harcourt spells out his reluctance to have to illuminate on this subject German gun control laws, but insists that historical review is necessary. His reluctance is partly due to the fact that he is Jewish and his foray into the "culture war" puts him at odds with some faulty use of historical evidence.
From his paper:
Both prior to and after the adoption of the English Bill of Rights, there were a number of gun regulations in place in England, including registration requirements. In 1660, for instance, all gunsmiths were ordered to produce a record of all firearms they had sold and of all their buyers from the past six months. Gunsmiths were then required to report this information weekly. These requirements—which constitute the first known gun registration scheme—remained in place after the adoption of the English Bill of Rights of 1689, which declared that “the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law.” Prior and subsequent English history reflects a long and steady tradition of substantial statutory limitations on gun ownership. -Page 13
Later in the paper.
Nevertheless, if one reads the Nazi gun laws closely and compares them to earlier German gun legislation, as a straightforward exercise in statutory interpretation, several conclusions become clear.
First, the Nazi regime reenacted in 1938 strict gun control laws and regulations that required licensing and reporting for the acquisition, transfer, or carrying of handguns, and for dealing and manufacturing in firearms and ammunition. In this respect, the Nazis had in place stringent gun regulation, including strict reporting requirements.
Second, the Nazi gun laws of 1938 specifically banned Jewish persons from obtaining a license to manufacture firearms or ammunition. In this respect, the Nazi gun laws were more restrictive than those under the Weimar Republic.
Third, with regard to possession and carrying of firearms, the Nazi regime relaxed the gun laws that were in place in Germany at the time the Nazis seized power. The Nazi gun laws of 1938 reflect a liberalization of the gun control measures that had been enacted by the Weimar Republic with respect to the acquisition, transfer, and carrying of firearms. In this regard, Hitler appears to have been more pro-gun than the predecessor Weimar Republic.
Four, approximately eight months after enacting the 1938 Nazi gun laws, Hitler imposed regulations prohibiting Jewish persons from possessing any dangerous weapons, including firearms. The Nazi regime implemented this prohibition by confiscating
weapons, including guns, from Jewish persons, and subsequently engaged in genocide of the Jewish population. -Page 23-24
weapons, including guns, from Jewish persons, and subsequently engaged in genocide of the Jewish population. -Page 23-24
Note the less than subtle connection - it is not the tool, the firearm, but rather something evolves, a SELECT population that is given preferential status. (This is an important distinction) and that a clear comparison of the laws and changes in the laws show that the earlier Weimar laws and even more restrictive and earlier post-war laws were clearly lessoned, but for a select group.
Now I have the sad task of reviewing the article from Mr. Halbrook and I have to admit that I found an immediate collection of MSM style of backhanded insults and distortions! I am going to break this up to make it more clear how I was startled by this clear bias from Mr. Halbrook and what I would term "deliberate disinformation."
'The Second Amendment “right of the people to keep and bear Arms,” controversial enough as a domestic constitutional issue, becomes an extraordinarily provocative enigma when viewed in light of historical experiences of foreign governments." (So far so good)
"This is particularly the case when the state analyzed is Nazi Germany, which invariably (and justifiably) gives rise to negative comparisons."
"A revisionist view now has been boldly asserted that Hitler was friendly to perhaps the most dangerous freedom in the Bill of Rights." (Boom, there it starts, we have the first attack, using the word "revisionist" to discredit the competitive historian. In no way would I consider the paper by Mr. Harcourt to be "revisionist" it is simply a partly dispassionate historical review)
"Professor Harcourt began by pointing to and disputing this author’s statements that totalitarian regimes disarm their subjects so as to prevent resistance," (No, that is not what the paper reported, it was more pointing out possible "culture war" distortions)
"that German firearms laws played a prominent role in disarming Jews, and that Germany
had no equivalent to the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution." (Here again, this is a distortion, Harcourt was pointing out the SELECT nature of the changes. Harcourt was pointing out that a general disarmament of the population was not necessary, nor was he in any way defending totalitarianism. I understood that the point was that once a part of the population was disenfranchised and stripped of rights, the general population need not be molested for the goals of the government to be achieved) "Recognition of a right such as this (the Second Amendment rights) anywhere in the world in any historical epoch must acknowledge that “the people” must mean the peaceable populace at large without regard to race, religion, or creed." (Not just wrong but very wrong, if anything the NSDAP government and the English before them prove this point with their history. If given sufficient reason to believe they have a superior status the select of any population will ignore the abuses of the non-select, that is simply the sad fact of the biologic encoded group-exclusive behavior of the human as a species)
"However, Professor Harcourt embraces American neo-Nazi William L. Pierce, who asserts, “German firearms legislation under Hitler, far from banning private ownership, actually facilitated the keeping and bearing of arms by German citizens . . . .”
Harcourt asks, “How is it, you may ask, that I . . . would end up agreeing with a white supremacist leader of the National Alliance and National Vanguard?” Harcourt further concluded that “the Nazis were relatively more pro-gun than the predecessor Weimar Republic . . . .” (Boom, did you see that? Halbrook reflexively uses the fallacious "Godwin's law" or Reductio ad Hitlerum by directly associating Harcourt of "embracing" a "neo-nazi")
So to be fair, lets compare the above mis-quote to the actual quote in context...
"How is it, you may ask, that I—the faithful and loving son of a Jewish refugee who escaped his native France in June 1940 thanks to the magnanimity of a Portuguese consul who illegally signed thousands of visas for Jews and other refugees—would end up agreeing with a white supremacist leader of the National Alliance and National Vanguard? This is the truly bizarre, surprising, and somewhat uncomfortable product of culture war. It is the often unexpected, but utterly fascinating result of the fragmentation and fracturing of apparently monolithic identity groups and world views—or what might be called “cultural orientations.” It reflects both the strange alliances and the unanticipated conflicts between and within identities. Here, in effect, is the ultimate irony: The pro-gunners are probably right, the Nazi-gun-registration argument is probably wrong." - Harcourt
While there is much to agree with in Mr. Halbrook's article, I found it painfully clear that there was some deliberate misdirection and more than a few not-so-thinly veiled attacks on the character of Mr. Harcourt. Resorting to fallacious arguments including appeal to emotion, ad hominem, and reductio ad Hitlerum or "playing the Nazi card." and in this case it becomes so clear and shows such a reduction to the absurd due to the fact that Harcourt is Jewish. Clearly Harcourt is uncomfortable with the subject because of his ethnic background, finding himself on the "wrong side of the tracks."
Halbrook continues:
No, here is what Harcourt wrote:
Halbrook continues:
No I don't see that as the driving force behind the paper. I don't see disproving the viability of an armed citizenry as a central point. My personal view from reading the paper is: First, general gun confiscation is unnecessary if you have an ignorant enough population that has become propagandized enough to allow the government to target groups. Second, that fact (read as truth) is infinitely more important than propaganda... and - that "pious fraud" pisses me off even when used in defense of a concept I believe in!
In then end it simply seems that Professor Harcourt ended up stepping in a big steaming pile, noted this and pointed it out, Halbrook took personal offense and ended by continually attempting to smear Harcourt in his rebuttal. I find this strange because in the lowest point in this argument - they agree! Reading further into Halbrook's paper you will note that it begins to sound like a small dog chasing his tail (and a bit self-aggrandizing) while he continually pounds on the same repetitive point (saying Harcourt was denying the issue of the SELECT nature - something he was NOT) the without addressing the main issue touched on by Harcourt - the use or mis-use of history in the "culture war" and how propagandizing abuses the simple facts.
How did I end up defending Harcourt? with some leanings I would find myself at odds with? I guess I find myself in the same uncomfortable situation in the "culture wars" - would not be the first time.
I think that I may have to start an award - the Glenn Beck ambush journalism award, for folks I want to like but cannot, whom I may have a majority agreement with on almost all subjects, but for some reason finds a way to just make things worse.
I wonder who should be first?
Anti-Gun Propaganda
I have to admit I love propaganda, so simple and so destructive.
There is something about how simple and formulaic propaganda is and from time to time I just find some treasure that will make me smile. The below are some examples and truthfully you may want to vomit, but hang on, they are priceless in their complete ninny-like ignorance. I found this by way of a parody sight and re-post and I thought it was an example of Poe's Law. Poe's Law is an internet (and larger social) observation originally formulated by Nathan Poe that explains the difficulty in discerning parody from many forms of "fundamentalism".
Poe's Law: The phenomenon where well structured parody becomes indistinguishable from the original targeted by the parody.
Meet jackie Kuhls, the Executive Director of New Yorkers Against Gun Violence. The ignorance of this woman is blinding.
Not only are her "facts" all wrong, but she has no real understanding of the firearms or terms she is using. The term is Assault Rifle and it has a specific meaning were designated (and was abject propaganda) in WWII -NOT- WWI. None of the firearms pictured on her card can be considered an Assault Rifle. The possible exception would be the automatic AK47, but I doubt that she would be bothering with reviewing a "civilian" legal (registered) AK47. Interesting but strange fact is that registering an automatic weapon is a process that is more controlled than joining a metro police department! Her 1 in 5 figure is also a proven fraud. The ever quick to offend "Fat White Man" did a good "tear a new one" in his - Jackie Kuhls: Moron Or Liar?
NO this is not an example of Poe's law but a serious and sadly completely ignorant and possibly delusional nanny-statist elitist.
Note that she is a complete coward and has disabled ratings and comments - typical.
Bla, Bla, same old tired fraudulent statistics - hey, she is a woman, do you think that she would be safer in the gun freedom westerns states or some back ally in New York? Note how she wants to "add it all up" and not specific to violence but use accidents - how many are killed in automobiles each year in accidents? No this needs to be focused on violence. The "family and friends" statistics have been proven fraudulent long ago.
Now she is just outright lying, and yes I know "hunters" who are anti-gun elitists (remember Zumbo the dumbo?) and they make me sick. How do we know she is lying, she never bothers to actually check her propaganda, only regurgitate it, and I have never seen a hoplophobe that when cornered personally denies the desire to ban guns for all "simple civilians".
All magazines over six rounds? Dangerous? Long Island railroad shooter, Ferguson was a hate filled racist black man who planned then committed a series of murders on a train. It was passengers Michael O'Connor, Kevin Blum and Mark McEntee that tackled Ferguson and pinned him to one of the train's seats. I suppose that Jackie would rather we all be unarmed and wait for the police?
Note that she is not aware that one of the photos is of a TOY gun.
Oooh now its the evil .50 and "spray-fire-from-the-hip-only-for-war" again, along with BS about automatic guns. Note how she ties in the "guns for terrorists" crap, like a drug dealer or "terrorist" would bother to get expensive US guns in light of the TONS of former Soviet supplies to be had for pennies on the dollar.
Now we are supplying "terrorists" what utter BULLSHIT! Again what "terrorist" would bother with expensive US guns.
You know what I am getting slightly ill by now, I cannot even look at this woman for more than a few seconds now...
Note the sensible and reasonable BS - and that "terrorist watch list" is a fraud, hey lady, ever seen all the news stories about the kids on the list, but its our government and they can never make a mistake. I have a better one, how about firing all the cops who have "domestic violence" records? Civilians you say cannot be trusted with guns and "domestic violence" will prevent you from buying a gun nationwide, how about police with "domestic violence" records, should they still be allowed to carry guns? Why the exception for the statist thugs?
Ugh, now she wants licenses and gun registration, and yes we have auto registration and driving licenses and we were tricked into that un-Constitutional crap also, where does it take us? Do you want to have to pay for a license and a fee for every gun you own every year? Think about how much it cost you to register your car every year, now tell me this will turn out well.
This is not an issue of politics and "sensible laws" it is an issue of RIGHTS and the Constitution, but I far too many of you eastern elitists to expect you to understand, your goal is to rule and have the rest of us shut-up and live under your enlightened guidance, F-you.
Oh boy.
You cannot make a statist think, enjoy the crash you ninnies.
There is something about how simple and formulaic propaganda is and from time to time I just find some treasure that will make me smile. The below are some examples and truthfully you may want to vomit, but hang on, they are priceless in their complete ninny-like ignorance. I found this by way of a parody sight and re-post and I thought it was an example of Poe's Law. Poe's Law is an internet (and larger social) observation originally formulated by Nathan Poe that explains the difficulty in discerning parody from many forms of "fundamentalism".
Poe's Law: The phenomenon where well structured parody becomes indistinguishable from the original targeted by the parody.
Meet jackie Kuhls, the Executive Director of New Yorkers Against Gun Violence. The ignorance of this woman is blinding.
Not only are her "facts" all wrong, but she has no real understanding of the firearms or terms she is using. The term is Assault Rifle and it has a specific meaning were designated (and was abject propaganda) in WWII -NOT- WWI. None of the firearms pictured on her card can be considered an Assault Rifle. The possible exception would be the automatic AK47, but I doubt that she would be bothering with reviewing a "civilian" legal (registered) AK47. Interesting but strange fact is that registering an automatic weapon is a process that is more controlled than joining a metro police department! Her 1 in 5 figure is also a proven fraud. The ever quick to offend "Fat White Man" did a good "tear a new one" in his - Jackie Kuhls: Moron Or Liar?
NO this is not an example of Poe's law but a serious and sadly completely ignorant and possibly delusional nanny-statist elitist.
Note that she is a complete coward and has disabled ratings and comments - typical.
Bla, Bla, same old tired fraudulent statistics - hey, she is a woman, do you think that she would be safer in the gun freedom westerns states or some back ally in New York? Note how she wants to "add it all up" and not specific to violence but use accidents - how many are killed in automobiles each year in accidents? No this needs to be focused on violence. The "family and friends" statistics have been proven fraudulent long ago.
Now she is just outright lying, and yes I know "hunters" who are anti-gun elitists (remember Zumbo the dumbo?) and they make me sick. How do we know she is lying, she never bothers to actually check her propaganda, only regurgitate it, and I have never seen a hoplophobe that when cornered personally denies the desire to ban guns for all "simple civilians".
All magazines over six rounds? Dangerous? Long Island railroad shooter, Ferguson was a hate filled racist black man who planned then committed a series of murders on a train. It was passengers Michael O'Connor, Kevin Blum and Mark McEntee that tackled Ferguson and pinned him to one of the train's seats. I suppose that Jackie would rather we all be unarmed and wait for the police?
Note that she is not aware that one of the photos is of a TOY gun.
Oooh now its the evil .50 and "spray-fire-from-the-hip-only-for-war" again, along with BS about automatic guns. Note how she ties in the "guns for terrorists" crap, like a drug dealer or "terrorist" would bother to get expensive US guns in light of the TONS of former Soviet supplies to be had for pennies on the dollar.
Now we are supplying "terrorists" what utter BULLSHIT! Again what "terrorist" would bother with expensive US guns.
You know what I am getting slightly ill by now, I cannot even look at this woman for more than a few seconds now...
Note the sensible and reasonable BS - and that "terrorist watch list" is a fraud, hey lady, ever seen all the news stories about the kids on the list, but its our government and they can never make a mistake. I have a better one, how about firing all the cops who have "domestic violence" records? Civilians you say cannot be trusted with guns and "domestic violence" will prevent you from buying a gun nationwide, how about police with "domestic violence" records, should they still be allowed to carry guns? Why the exception for the statist thugs?
Ugh, now she wants licenses and gun registration, and yes we have auto registration and driving licenses and we were tricked into that un-Constitutional crap also, where does it take us? Do you want to have to pay for a license and a fee for every gun you own every year? Think about how much it cost you to register your car every year, now tell me this will turn out well.
This is not an issue of politics and "sensible laws" it is an issue of RIGHTS and the Constitution, but I far too many of you eastern elitists to expect you to understand, your goal is to rule and have the rest of us shut-up and live under your enlightened guidance, F-you.
Oh boy.
You cannot make a statist think, enjoy the crash you ninnies.
The elitist left, Freud, the anti-gunners and WWII
I have a penchant for arguing on-line or cross-blog... Sometimes I go on a bender.
One thing that causes this is running up against an irrational pontificator typically an elitist who has the nerve to spew that an armed citizen is more dangerous than the state.
Fact is a fact, the "state" or states current and historical are the greatest murderers of all time, with staggering numbers that are hard for the common man to even comprehend.
The liberal I worry about is the snotty elitist that would tell another, "I don't have an icky gun and therefore you don't need one either, lets just change the laws and have the big, strong, nanny state just take away all your penis extensions" a childish bully-like attitude of "if I can't have it (or too incompetent, afraid and insecure) you can't", to me that seems to be a clear sign of some form of narcissistic disorder.
Sigmund Freud is often attached to a misattributed quote about weapons that is used mistakenly by the "pro-gun" lobby. What is more interesting is that in Oppenheim vs. Tanay disputing "Neurotic Attachment to Guns" (by Tany - the original source for the "penis extensions" bullshit), what is missed are other more relevant quotes and ideas by Freud where Freud associates retarded sexual and emotional development not with gun ownership, but with fear and loathing of all weapons - blowing (ha) the penis extension argument out of the water.
I am not an anarchist, I am however anti-statist in the same way Jefferson and other agrarians (who are minarchists) who understand the potential evil of the "state" and it's long history of murder and manipulation by predatory parasites. Even Jefferson later in life would come to lament the abuse of state power he had while president!
Many statist will assert that a state is the only way to achieve "great things" of course a nation of taxpaying serfs in lockstep can accomplish many great things, and MUCH evil. Some would use our trip to the moon and a defense for statism they are under the impression that the "space" program's real goal was to go to the moon. A quick search of history shows that the original goal of the "space program" was to provide an outlet for the needed science and a non-military outer shell (remember the cold war) to help progress with advanced missile systems! - gotta love the "state" - this was basically a message to the other side - see we can go to the moon in a tin-can, we can send a big nasty bomb into your living room in Moscow!.
Many statist will assert that a state is good by virtue of power, "look at how big, great, and powerful the US is", this is called the Rudyard Kipling defense, because his major critics stated that he only loved the Empire because it was powerful.
One thing that causes this is running up against an irrational pontificator typically an elitist who has the nerve to spew that an armed citizen is more dangerous than the state.
Fact is a fact, the "state" or states current and historical are the greatest murderers of all time, with staggering numbers that are hard for the common man to even comprehend.
The liberal I worry about is the snotty elitist that would tell another, "I don't have an icky gun and therefore you don't need one either, lets just change the laws and have the big, strong, nanny state just take away all your penis extensions" a childish bully-like attitude of "if I can't have it (or too incompetent, afraid and insecure) you can't", to me that seems to be a clear sign of some form of narcissistic disorder.
Sigmund Freud is often attached to a misattributed quote about weapons that is used mistakenly by the "pro-gun" lobby. What is more interesting is that in Oppenheim vs. Tanay disputing "Neurotic Attachment to Guns" (by Tany - the original source for the "penis extensions" bullshit), what is missed are other more relevant quotes and ideas by Freud where Freud associates retarded sexual and emotional development not with gun ownership, but with fear and loathing of all weapons - blowing (ha) the penis extension argument out of the water.
I am not an anarchist, I am however anti-statist in the same way Jefferson and other agrarians (who are minarchists) who understand the potential evil of the "state" and it's long history of murder and manipulation by predatory parasites. Even Jefferson later in life would come to lament the abuse of state power he had while president!
Many statist will assert that a state is the only way to achieve "great things" of course a nation of taxpaying serfs in lockstep can accomplish many great things, and MUCH evil. Some would use our trip to the moon and a defense for statism they are under the impression that the "space" program's real goal was to go to the moon. A quick search of history shows that the original goal of the "space program" was to provide an outlet for the needed science and a non-military outer shell (remember the cold war) to help progress with advanced missile systems! - gotta love the "state" - this was basically a message to the other side - see we can go to the moon in a tin-can, we can send a big nasty bomb into your living room in Moscow!.
Many statist will assert that a state is good by virtue of power, "look at how big, great, and powerful the US is", this is called the Rudyard Kipling defense, because his major critics stated that he only loved the Empire because it was powerful.
We need to be honest the only reason Europe and Germany in particular is where they are now (and not 50 years ahead of us) is not because we were bigger and therefore better but because we let the Soviets grind their people on the eastern front and pushed from the other front - eliminating the productive competition. Our supremacy in the world was from an act of "competition elimination" an artificial temporary monopoly on advanced production - the "last man standing".
The Soviet Union with the help of the US (and the incompetence of the German Chancellor) pitched lots of supplies and men into the grinder of WWII and then crushed Germany. The victors stripped the country down attempting to implement the Morgenthau plan. The US later would determine that the Soviet Union was a new "threat" and could crank up the military industrial complex again, now without competition from Gremany and Japan, and with loads of new skilled workers and production capacity we built an empire that would later start to fall apart. Adding a side note, the Soviet system fell on it's own weight (not because of Reagan's cold war shenanigans - they only accelerated it) just as the far to huge and far too divided US will eventually.
The Soviet Union with the help of the US (and the incompetence of the German Chancellor) pitched lots of supplies and men into the grinder of WWII and then crushed Germany. The victors stripped the country down attempting to implement the Morgenthau plan. The US later would determine that the Soviet Union was a new "threat" and could crank up the military industrial complex again, now without competition from Gremany and Japan, and with loads of new skilled workers and production capacity we built an empire that would later start to fall apart. Adding a side note, the Soviet system fell on it's own weight (not because of Reagan's cold war shenanigans - they only accelerated it) just as the far to huge and far too divided US will eventually.
This all was a long time coming, and connecting the dots is often painful, we all had the same propaganda of patriotism shoved into our heads - we wanted to believe it! But we are depressed and saddened because our favorite neighbor turned out to be a child molester!
Crime and the not-so Wild West
The Supreme Court found that LEOs have no legal duty to protect an individual,
EVEN IF THERE IS A RESTRAINING ORDER. See Castle Rock v. Gonzales.
Dispatch 911 - it's only been two minutes...
Armed victim, stop it... bang, bang, bang - end of problem, after SIX reports of personal attacks to the police, begging them for help, the citizen was forced to defend HERSELF.
There is no debate about the FACT that areas with more gun ownership in the United States have a lower crime instance than areas where there is restrictive gun control.
My solution, make open carry legal and "normal" everywhere. Statistically armed citizens are far less likely than "trained police/LEOs" to make a mistake in a shooting. (+1 armed citizens)
Then we hear from the typical ignorant feminized elitists "if we have open carry it will be like the wild west where everyone is shooting up the town! - oh my!" - Bullshit, in fact as you will see the "Wild West" was far from wild, and open carry contributed to the safety of the average citizen.
1. Countries with the strictest gun-control laws (with similar racial and cultural mixtures) also tended to have the highest homicide rates. - Violence, Guns and Drugs: A Cross-Country Analysis, Jeffery A. Miron, Department of Economics, Boston University, University of Chicago Press Journal of Law & Economics, October 2001.
2. Fact: only 15% of Americans have criminal records, roughly 90 % of adult murderers have adult records, with an average career of six or more adult years, including four major felonies. - victims as well as offenders, finally, tended to be people with prior police records, usually for violent crimes such as assault, and both had typically been drinking at the time of the fatal encounter... In sum, it cannot be true that possession of firearms causes ordinary people to murder, for murderers are virtually never ordinary, but rather are extreme aberrants with life histories of crime, psychopathology and/or substance abuse.- Roger Lane, Murder In America: A History - Ohio State U. Press (Translation - bad people cause crime, not guns and intoxicants aggravate the problem)
3. The American West (from 1830 to 1900) is perceived as a place of great chaos... Our research indicates that this was not the case: property rights were protected and civil order prevailed - The not so Wild, Wild West TL Anderson/PJ Hill, Dept. Economics, MSU.
4. "The Western frontier was a far more civilized, more peaceful and safer place than American society is today" - Frontier Violence: another look, W.Eugene Hollon
5. Of the five major cattle towns for the years 1870 to 1885 only 45 homicides reported - an average of 1.5 per cattle-trading season. Abilene reported to be the wildest cow town, had no homicides 1869-70. Reporting the break in the peace when officers of the law were employed - The Cattle Towns, Robert Dykstra, AAK NY
Facts
1. Countries with the strictest gun-control laws (with similar racial and cultural mixtures) also tended to have the highest homicide rates. - Violence, Guns and Drugs: A Cross-Country Analysis, Jeffery A. Miron, Department of Economics, Boston University, University of Chicago Press Journal of Law & Economics, October 2001.
2. Fact: only 15% of Americans have criminal records, roughly 90 % of adult murderers have adult records, with an average career of six or more adult years, including four major felonies. - victims as well as offenders, finally, tended to be people with prior police records, usually for violent crimes such as assault, and both had typically been drinking at the time of the fatal encounter... In sum, it cannot be true that possession of firearms causes ordinary people to murder, for murderers are virtually never ordinary, but rather are extreme aberrants with life histories of crime, psychopathology and/or substance abuse.- Roger Lane, Murder In America: A History - Ohio State U. Press (Translation - bad people cause crime, not guns and intoxicants aggravate the problem)
3. The American West (from 1830 to 1900) is perceived as a place of great chaos... Our research indicates that this was not the case: property rights were protected and civil order prevailed - The not so Wild, Wild West TL Anderson/PJ Hill, Dept. Economics, MSU.
4. "The Western frontier was a far more civilized, more peaceful and safer place than American society is today" - Frontier Violence: another look, W.Eugene Hollon
5. Of the five major cattle towns for the years 1870 to 1885 only 45 homicides reported - an average of 1.5 per cattle-trading season. Abilene reported to be the wildest cow town, had no homicides 1869-70. Reporting the break in the peace when officers of the law were employed - The Cattle Towns, Robert Dykstra, AAK NY
Review firearm facts rationally
Anti-gunners are emotionally and reactionary, not rational and logical!
Not everyone who does not march lockstep progressive's version of "liberal" is on the "other side" political thought is far more complicated than that... (Liberal/progressives have that GW Bush "yur on our side or the terrrsstst side" mental block most of the time, it has to be some type of sickness!)
I for one don't like getting lumped in with the brainless neocon republicans because I happen to be anti-statist, and don't want the "nanny state" giving us five year plans, in fact I hate the "conservatives" as much as I pity the "progressives".
We need to review this rationally, and with a bit more mature analytical skills than most American have the ability to tolerate (massive ADD).
I have pointed out multiple times how political neophytes continue to argue like the religiously fundamentalist argue, that is without thinking rationally or logically.
When we argue with the religious or political fundamentalist we often have to break down to this simple axiom - you are entitled to your own opinion, but you are NOT entitled to you own FACTS!
You continue to see the anti-gun and anti-self defense propaganda but you almost never see it presented in context, one of the favorite tricks of the manipulative parasites who run the ever so profitable anti-gun groups is to bleat incessantly about "the children".
Below are the FACTS.
Now don't get me wrong, every death listed below is a tragedy, because they are not caused by nature, illness, biology, or age. Every death listed from drug overdose to car crash is or could be preventable - and that is absolutely tragic.
The CDC Website is where you can break down the data from totals by age, race, hispanic/non, sex, and region/state, it becomes more interesting when you use the tools to break it down.
To keep this on the up and up and not have the stupid anti-gunners twisting the numbers I present all the age groups as listed by the CDC, the anti-gunners like to count all 19 years old or younger as "children" and of course this is absolutely stupid as we well know a teen thug is not the same as a 5 year old kid!
You will also often see the anti-gun bunch lump in numbers from murder/homicide and I want to review this later, but it is not in the scope of this particular post and it's subject review.
The below are all numbers for the TOTAL of the USA for a full year (2007 the most recent year available) ALL races/ethnic groups, BOTH sexes, and I added the Non Hispanic White numbers on firearms for comparison (NHW).
What shocked me is that the numbers for accidental/unintentional death by firearm were much LOWER than I had expected, I understood it would be low, but not even into the quad digits for each age group was shocking for a population of 330 million.
What was even more shocking to me is that although the numbers of personal firearms has risen considerably the actual numbers of accidental/unintentional death by firearms has DROPPED slowly from 1999, statistically I would expect a rise to match the rise in the number of guns, so BRAVO to parents and adults for improvement of their gun safety!
The category of focus is "unintentional injury" most recent figures from CDC.gov including all ages where "unintentional injury" is the most prevalent cause of death, all races, both sexes.
Unintentional injury is the #1 cause of death ages 1 year to 44 years, after 44 this drops to #3,4, and 9 (65+) I have included the first two listed #1 and #2 cause of death under "unintentional injury". There are typically 6 to 12 causes of unintentional injury from #2 to the firearm category in each age group.
The Firearm category is broken into the following sub categories.
Handgun discharge (the highest category for ages 5-14 this seems to be "playing with handgun" and is in both age ranges 50% or more of the deaths by firearm).
Rifle, shotgun, and larger firearm discharge (Hunting/Sporting related - the highest for the 14-34 age range "hunting accidents").
Unspecified firearms discharge from "other" and additions/combination of first two categories as unreported/not categorized to CDC.
(this also includes "death by LEO/police incompetence" in all three subcategories)
So here are the numbers.
Age 35-44
Poisoning - 44.7% (Total Deaths: 7575, OD recreational drugs/alcohol 7368)
Motor Vehicle - 36.2% (Total Deaths: 6135)
Firearm - .5% (Total Deaths: 91, NHW 65)
Age 25-34
Poisoning - 45.7% (Total Deaths: 6842, OD recreational drugs/alcohol 5553)
Motor Vehicle - 38.1% (Total Deaths: 5700)
Firearm - .6% (Total Deaths: 94, NHW 47)
Age 15-24
Motor Vehicle - 64.6% (Total Deaths: 10272)
Poisoning - 19.9% (Total Deaths: 3159, OD recreational drugs/alcohol 3047)
Firearm - 1% (Total Deaths: 155, NHW 72)
Age 10-14
Motor Vehicle - 56.6% (Total Deaths: 696)
Drowning - 19.9% (Total Deaths: 102)
Firearm - 2.1% (Total Deaths: 26, NHW 20)
Age 5-9
Motor Vehicle - 47.3% (Total Deaths: 456)
Fire/Burn - 14.1% (Total Deaths: 136)
Firearm - 2.1% (Total Deaths: 20, NHW 8)
Age 1-4
Drowning - 28.8% (Total Deaths: 458)
Motor Vehicle - 20.7% (Total Deaths: 428)
Firearm - 1.1% (Total Deaths: 18, NHW 8)
In summation, you are far safer at a range full of citizens firing full automatic weapons than you would be driving to the grocery store, drinking beer, or taking your choice of intoxicating substances!
Personal rights and freedom, the open carry movement
Of course you get the load of crap from the anti-gunners here is an example.
And an additional example.
Asshole you should be arrested, how dare you go out in public and disturb the peace of sane people. You are looking for trouble and you know it you jerk. I hope you cross paths with a cop that understands you are a dangerous retard and executes you on the street like the dog you are. How many times do crazy people like you walking around with guns hurt people or shoot cops?
Fist, I have to say the statist above is why I censor responses, they are all hit and run completely uninterested in having a logical debate.
If you do want a logical debate, and I have yet an anti-gunner that I have not had tuck tail and run in imbarrassment, I welcome that chance...
So let's answer the ninny’s question.
How many open-carry advocates have killed a police officer - exactly ZERO.
Gun owners in general and OC in particualr are statistically the most law-abiding and peaceful bunch you would ever run in to - unlike the wretched statists like the deluded poster of the above.
There are at least 400 deaths per year by police abuse, and negligent accident (about) 800,000 LEOs in the US or 1 in 4000, US population 307,006,550 (U.S. Census Bureau, Population Division, nice and official for you) so 306206550 non-LEO - Firearm homicides 12632 plus 700 = 13332 so 1 in 22,967 not bad.
But let's go deeper,
305886550
When we take out the disabled Americans.
223886550
Take out all under 20 years old.
186886550
Adults of retirement removed.
1 in 14017
That gives us a number 3.5 times the amount of police buggery over citizens heavily biased as we are counting all civilian accidents and all civilian firearm homicide.
Shouldn’t we demand a higher standard for a sworn and trained individual.
Firearms and the individual: Jeff Cooper on the world
It is interesting to hear certain kinds of people insist that the citizen cannot fight the government. This would have been news to the men of Lexington and Concord, as well as the Mujahedeen in Afghanistan. The citizen most certainly can fight the government, and usually wins when he tries. Organized national armies are useful primarily for fighting against other organized national armies. When they try to fight against the people, they find themselves at a very serious disadvantage. If you will just look around at the state of the world today, you will see that the guerillero has the upper hand. Irregulars usually defeat regulars, providing they have the will. Such fighting is horrible to contemplate, but will continue to dominate brute strength.
On the armed citizen and crime:
The police cannot protect the citizen at this stage of our development, and they cannot even protect themselves in many cases. It is up to the private citizen to protect himself and his family, and this is not only acceptable, but mandatory.
The purpose of the pistol is to stop a fight that somebody else has started, almost always at very short range.
The will to survive is not as important as the will to prevail... the answer to criminal aggression is retaliation.
One cannot legislate the maniacs off the street... these maniacs can only be shut down by an armed citizenry.
On the armed citizen and police:
Already a couple of the faithful have sent in checks for a foundation memorial to the innocents who perished at the hands of the ninja at Waco. ... I have been criticized by referring to our federal masked men as "ninja" … Let us reflect upon the fact that a man who covers his face shows reason to be ashamed of what he is doing. A man who takes it upon himself to shed blood while concealing his identity is a revolting perversion of the warrior ethic. It has long been my conviction that a masked man with a gun is a target. I see no reason to change that view.
On the armed citizen and government:
The conclusions seem inescapable that in certain circles a tendency has arisen to fear people who fear government. Government, as the Father of Our Country put it so well, is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. People who understand history, especially the history of government, do well to fear it. For a people to express openly their fear of those of us who are afraid of tyranny is alarming. Fear of the state is in no sense subversive. It is, to the contrary, the healthiest political philosophy for a free people.
That is why our masters in Washington are so anxious to disarm us. They are not afraid of criminals. They are afraid of a populace which cannot be subdued by tyrants.
I think it important to understand that it is the duty of the father to teach the son to shoot. Before the young man leaves home, there are certain things he should know and certain skills he should acquire, apart from any state-sponsored activity. Certainly the youngster should be taught to swim, strongly and safely, at distance. And young people of either sex should be taught to drive a motor vehicle, and if at all possible, how to fly a light airplane. I believe a youngster should be taught the rudiments of hand-to-hand combat, unarmed, together with basic survival skills. The list is long, but it is a parent's duty to make sure that the child does not go forth into the world helpless in the face of its perils. Shooting, of course, is our business, and shooting should not be left up to the state.
On the armed citizen and anti-freedom statists:
Hoplophobia is a mental disturbance characterized by irrational aversion to weapons, as opposed to justified apprehension about those who may wield them.
The media insist that crime is the major concern of the American public today. In this connection they generally push the point that a disarmed society would be a crime-free society. They will not accept the truth that if you take all the guns off the street you still will have a crime problem, whereas if you take the criminals off the street you cannot have a gun problem.
One bleeding-heart type asked me in a recent interview if I did not agree that ‘violence begets violence.’ I told him that it is my earnest endeavor to see that it does. I would like very much to ensure—and in some cases I have—that any man who offers violence to his fellow citizen begets a whole lot more in return than he can enjoy.
How the indoctrinated choose to not think clearly
Just how do you deal with the insane indoctrinated thinking of the Atlantic Seaboard yankee?
The ignorance of a control and confiscation advocates
It always helps to add more skepticism of the propaganda of the established media, and the consistent spew from ignorant firearm control and confiscation supporters. For me the worst part about having to see or listen to the typical firearm control and confiscation supporter’s illogical screeching is not the endless irrational whining but the utter delusion and complete ignorance of the subject.
Yes it is the ignorance, it has to be the most irritating part of listening to the political whores and the useless indoctrinated morons on the internet that continue to support firearm control/confiscation and then prove a vacuous blind ignorance. The overwhelming desire to ask "would you please stop the regurgitated Bullshit and at least try and read something factual or historical about some of the items you are blathering about?"
I can only guess the ignorance of the statist confiscation supporters would be embarrassing, except the major trait of an ignorant delusional vacuous narcissist is an inability to recognize that self delusion. Some of the best are when one of the ignorant zombies dredges up the old canard "You just want to be like Rambo" when in fact the gun industry and the "gun culture" within the US uses "Rambo" as a pejorative to replace Walter Mitty.
The above video is a laugh riot, below is a play-by-play.
1. Designed to allow "spray fire" from the hip? None of the firearms on her little poster are designed to "fire from the hip.” The only thing close to the ridiculous Hollywood “spray from the hip” is the low sling position first introduced by the US army for use with the .30 Browning Automatic Rifle for suppressive fire, this is not "spray from the hip" but an aimed by adjustment field tactic developed for fire and maneuver advancement. A typical hood-rat would not even understand the application. The .30 Browning Automatic Rifle would not even make the "assault weapon" list due to lack of features but does fire an extremely powerful cartridge.
This person is unable to even give an accurate account of her terminology, nor does she have a grasp of a shred of the history at the root of the nonsense word she uses. The Assault Rifle or Sturmgewehr "storm/assault rifle” is a real word and has a real definition and is the base for this propaganda twaddle. The established media propaganda producers were able to capitalize on the ignorance of the general public sadly weened on stupid movies containing evil-looking or "tacti-cool" props with massive special effects applied in compositing/Foley. Honestly the made-up nonsense word "assault weapon" is a politically-motivated pejorative that has recently morphed into "High powered assault weapon" among the super ignorant and whorish firearm control/confiscation batch like Schumer and Feinstein.
2. The larger companies of the established firearms industry until the last few years refused to even enter into the catalogs of products any weapon that resembled anything the control/confiscation types wanted to call an "assault weapon". The demand was from the buyers not the marketing. Many small, quick to react companies started production to fill the demand, the larger companies did not and paid the price for that decision, some continue to pay a price.
3. Bullets from an "assault weapon" are no different than any from any other type of gun in the same caliber, all rifle bullets will penetrate both sides (and the person in the center) of a typical "bullet proof vest" like a hot knife in butter. Most "assault weapons" fire cartridges that are low-power or underpowered by full sized rifle standards.
4. The "assault weapon" poses no additional threat to the typical LEO than any other firearm, in fact real data on the use of "assault weapons" against police show that less than 5% of all crimes against police (numbers are similarly low for the general public) with a firearm include an "assault weapon." The bogus figure of one in five police who are killed with a firearm are killed with an "assault weapon" is without a doubt a lie, a falsehood that will not withstand even the first few pages of research.
5. This babbling idiot wants to talk about the "spirit of the law” - a law that had no real basis in reality. The "assault weapons ban" was actually written by someone from within the gun industry (Bill Ruger) in an attempt to save his failing sales by eliminating his competition. Bill Ruger's dirty secret, the NRA paid cover-up.
The law was based on what a firearm "looked like" and its attachments not the true function. So again we see the ignorant following the whores. One of the provisions of the "Assault weapons ban" was "A semi-automatic version of an automatic firearm” in effect all of them are "copy-cats” and that was the basis of this ridiculous law.
6. The velocity of the bullets? You want to ask her "are you delusional?” To this day the .30-06 is the most popular rifle round in the US, I know of no rifle that would fit even her idea of an "assault weapon” that can fire this large full sized rifle cartridge. The .30-06 can be fired with a bullet double the weight and can have double the powder charge that can fit into the most popular assault rifle cartridge. .30-06 is a truly deadly round specifically designed to kill large game, it towers above the intermediate cartridges of the assault rifle - lady you are just delusional and embarrassingly ignorant.
7. Designed to allow "spray fire" - Jesus, Mary, and Joseph what a fuckwit (see #1).
8. The "evil black gun" is attractive to "mass murderers," ugh, can we be honest here? Most of the crimes now called mass murdering sprees were connected to mental problems. I have seen some indication that most or all of the well known murdering events were committed by individuals under the prescription of anti-depressant drugs. We have also been lucky the crimes used as propaganda by the established media were not committed with a simple shotgun, the deaths would be double or triple.
I want to return to the part about ignorance I think the following video about sums up the typical ignorance. It provides perfect example of just what you can expect from the typical political whore.
Criminals do use tools to frighten victims, the firearm is a particularly deadly tool that can be used in the trade of thievery, robbery, and in the hands of the insane or predatory it is frightening.
The actual list of most criminally used firearms:
1. Smith and Wesson .38 revolver
2. Ruger 9 mm semiautomatic
3. Lorcin Engineering .380 semiautomatic
4. Raven Arms .25 semiautomatic
5. Mossberg 12 gauge shotgun
6. Smith and Wesson 9mm semiautomatic
7. Smith and Wesson .357 revolver
8. Bryco Arms 9mm semiautomatic
9. Bryco Arms .380 semiautomatic
10. Davis Industries .380 semiautomatic
None of the pistols or the shotgun would make it to the “assault weapons” list and only the S&W and Ruger have magazines that would hold more than ten rounds.
None on the list have a barrel shroud, bayonet lug, magazine outside of the grip, grenade launcher, or flash hider...
For a humorous rundown of the list try this site.
Yes it is the ignorance, it has to be the most irritating part of listening to the political whores and the useless indoctrinated morons on the internet that continue to support firearm control/confiscation and then prove a vacuous blind ignorance. The overwhelming desire to ask "would you please stop the regurgitated Bullshit and at least try and read something factual or historical about some of the items you are blathering about?"
I can only guess the ignorance of the statist confiscation supporters would be embarrassing, except the major trait of an ignorant delusional vacuous narcissist is an inability to recognize that self delusion. Some of the best are when one of the ignorant zombies dredges up the old canard "You just want to be like Rambo" when in fact the gun industry and the "gun culture" within the US uses "Rambo" as a pejorative to replace Walter Mitty.
The above video is a laugh riot, below is a play-by-play.
1. Designed to allow "spray fire" from the hip? None of the firearms on her little poster are designed to "fire from the hip.” The only thing close to the ridiculous Hollywood “spray from the hip” is the low sling position first introduced by the US army for use with the .30 Browning Automatic Rifle for suppressive fire, this is not "spray from the hip" but an aimed by adjustment field tactic developed for fire and maneuver advancement. A typical hood-rat would not even understand the application. The .30 Browning Automatic Rifle would not even make the "assault weapon" list due to lack of features but does fire an extremely powerful cartridge.
This person is unable to even give an accurate account of her terminology, nor does she have a grasp of a shred of the history at the root of the nonsense word she uses. The Assault Rifle or Sturmgewehr "storm/assault rifle” is a real word and has a real definition and is the base for this propaganda twaddle. The established media propaganda producers were able to capitalize on the ignorance of the general public sadly weened on stupid movies containing evil-looking or "tacti-cool" props with massive special effects applied in compositing/Foley. Honestly the made-up nonsense word "assault weapon" is a politically-motivated pejorative that has recently morphed into "High powered assault weapon" among the super ignorant and whorish firearm control/confiscation batch like Schumer and Feinstein.
2. The larger companies of the established firearms industry until the last few years refused to even enter into the catalogs of products any weapon that resembled anything the control/confiscation types wanted to call an "assault weapon". The demand was from the buyers not the marketing. Many small, quick to react companies started production to fill the demand, the larger companies did not and paid the price for that decision, some continue to pay a price.
3. Bullets from an "assault weapon" are no different than any from any other type of gun in the same caliber, all rifle bullets will penetrate both sides (and the person in the center) of a typical "bullet proof vest" like a hot knife in butter. Most "assault weapons" fire cartridges that are low-power or underpowered by full sized rifle standards.
4. The "assault weapon" poses no additional threat to the typical LEO than any other firearm, in fact real data on the use of "assault weapons" against police show that less than 5% of all crimes against police (numbers are similarly low for the general public) with a firearm include an "assault weapon." The bogus figure of one in five police who are killed with a firearm are killed with an "assault weapon" is without a doubt a lie, a falsehood that will not withstand even the first few pages of research.
5. This babbling idiot wants to talk about the "spirit of the law” - a law that had no real basis in reality. The "assault weapons ban" was actually written by someone from within the gun industry (Bill Ruger) in an attempt to save his failing sales by eliminating his competition. Bill Ruger's dirty secret, the NRA paid cover-up.
The law was based on what a firearm "looked like" and its attachments not the true function. So again we see the ignorant following the whores. One of the provisions of the "Assault weapons ban" was "A semi-automatic version of an automatic firearm” in effect all of them are "copy-cats” and that was the basis of this ridiculous law.
6. The velocity of the bullets? You want to ask her "are you delusional?” To this day the .30-06 is the most popular rifle round in the US, I know of no rifle that would fit even her idea of an "assault weapon” that can fire this large full sized rifle cartridge. The .30-06 can be fired with a bullet double the weight and can have double the powder charge that can fit into the most popular assault rifle cartridge. .30-06 is a truly deadly round specifically designed to kill large game, it towers above the intermediate cartridges of the assault rifle - lady you are just delusional and embarrassingly ignorant.
7. Designed to allow "spray fire" - Jesus, Mary, and Joseph what a fuckwit (see #1).
8. The "evil black gun" is attractive to "mass murderers," ugh, can we be honest here? Most of the crimes now called mass murdering sprees were connected to mental problems. I have seen some indication that most or all of the well known murdering events were committed by individuals under the prescription of anti-depressant drugs. We have also been lucky the crimes used as propaganda by the established media were not committed with a simple shotgun, the deaths would be double or triple.
I want to return to the part about ignorance I think the following video about sums up the typical ignorance. It provides perfect example of just what you can expect from the typical political whore.
Criminals do use tools to frighten victims, the firearm is a particularly deadly tool that can be used in the trade of thievery, robbery, and in the hands of the insane or predatory it is frightening.
So what do we see in crime? The top 10 guns used in crimes are predominantly small, inexpensive, easy to operate and conceal handguns, the only "long gun" to make the list is the effective and extremely deadly pump shotgun.
The actual list of most criminally used firearms:
1. Smith and Wesson .38 revolver
2. Ruger 9 mm semiautomatic
3. Lorcin Engineering .380 semiautomatic
4. Raven Arms .25 semiautomatic
5. Mossberg 12 gauge shotgun
6. Smith and Wesson 9mm semiautomatic
7. Smith and Wesson .357 revolver
8. Bryco Arms 9mm semiautomatic
9. Bryco Arms .380 semiautomatic
10. Davis Industries .380 semiautomatic
None of the pistols or the shotgun would make it to the “assault weapons” list and only the S&W and Ruger have magazines that would hold more than ten rounds.
None on the list have a barrel shroud, bayonet lug, magazine outside of the grip, grenade launcher, or flash hider...
For a humorous rundown of the list try this site.
Responsible people and reasonable gun regulation
I cannot tell you how many times I see liberal/progressive indoctrinated nitwits say something like this:
Well jackass it is because we KNOW you are lying you slimy statist bootlicker!
No one is even suggesting that we want to make the ownership of guns illegal...
You penis compensating gun nuts seem to think responsible people are out to take your shotguns and rifles at the mere suggestion of reasonable gun regulation.
Well jackass it is because we KNOW you are lying you slimy statist bootlicker!
Notice how every anti-gun politically wet hippy feminized twit wants to frame the pie-hole spew as - you are the gun nut, you are unreasonable, you are taking this all out of proportion.
Could it possibly be because we know, have seen and can use google to search the websites of all of the anti-gun groups? Look scumbags we are not now and have not been that stupid, your pathetic self-centered ego driven narcissism is showing.
If you can stomach the nausiating drivel from Ed Schultz (washed up football fucktard turned media whore) you can see just how pathetic and cowardly Ed Schultz actually is (for more proof google video of Ed Schultz and how he interviewed Ron Paul and then what the cowardly fuckwit would say when Ron was not able to defend himself).
Sensible and Reasonable Gun Control?
You know what I am getting slightly ill by now, I cannot even look at this woman for more than a few seconds now...
Note the sensible and reasonable BS - and that "terrorist watch list" is a fraud, hey lady, ever seen all the news stories about the kids on the list, but its our government and they can never make a mistake. I have a better one, how about firing all the cops who have "domestic violence" records? Civilians you say cannot be trusted with guns and "domestic violence" will prevent you from buying a gun nationwide, how about police with "domestic violence" records, should they still be allowed to carry guns? Why the exception for the statist thugs?
Ugh, now she wants licenses and gun registration, and yes we have auto registration and driving licenses and we were tricked into that un-Constitutional crap also, where does it take us? Do you want to have to pay for a license and a fee for every gun you own every year? Think about how much it cost you to register your car every year, now tell me this will turn out well.
This is not an issue of politics and "sensible laws" it is an issue of RIGHTS and the Constitution, but I far too many of you eastern elitists to expect you to understand, your goal is to rule and have the rest of us shut-up and live under your enlightened guidance, F-you.
Oh boy.
You cannot make a statist think, enjoy the crash you ninnies.
Note the sensible and reasonable BS - and that "terrorist watch list" is a fraud, hey lady, ever seen all the news stories about the kids on the list, but its our government and they can never make a mistake. I have a better one, how about firing all the cops who have "domestic violence" records? Civilians you say cannot be trusted with guns and "domestic violence" will prevent you from buying a gun nationwide, how about police with "domestic violence" records, should they still be allowed to carry guns? Why the exception for the statist thugs?
Ugh, now she wants licenses and gun registration, and yes we have auto registration and driving licenses and we were tricked into that un-Constitutional crap also, where does it take us? Do you want to have to pay for a license and a fee for every gun you own every year? Think about how much it cost you to register your car every year, now tell me this will turn out well.
This is not an issue of politics and "sensible laws" it is an issue of RIGHTS and the Constitution, but I far too many of you eastern elitists to expect you to understand, your goal is to rule and have the rest of us shut-up and live under your enlightened guidance, F-you.
Oh boy.
You cannot make a statist think, enjoy the crash you ninnies.
Urbanite idiots talk about guns and hunting
From the category you can’t make this up three idiots talk about hunting and guns, one almost sounds reasonable but was obviously ruined when moving to the Atlantic Seaboard.
I have made the point before that I think most male anti-firearm and anti-hunting males are bully-by-proxy inadequates. Men who feel some guilt for a lack of competence, confidence and experience. Most of them are hopelessly ignorant and stupid.
I have made the point before that I think most male anti-firearm and anti-hunting males are bully-by-proxy inadequates. Men who feel some guilt for a lack of competence, confidence and experience. Most of them are hopelessly ignorant and stupid.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)