Michael Moore Provides A Typical Progressive Christmas Rant

Progressives like Moore really can’t help themselves (via Weasel Zippers)

Celebrating the Prince of Peace in the Land of Guns

These gun massacres aren’t going to end any time soon.

I’m sorry to say this. But deep down we both know it’s true. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t keep pushing forward — after all, the momentum is on our side. I know all of us — including me — would love to see the president and Congress enact stronger gun laws. We need a ban on automatic AND semiautomatic weapons and magazine clips that hold more than 7 bullets. We need better background checks and more mental health services. We need to regulate the ammo, too. [...]

We are a country whose leaders officially sanction and carry out acts of violence as a means to often an immoral end. We invade countries who didn’t attack us. We’re currently using drones in a half-dozen countries, often killing civilians.

This probably shouldn’t come as a surprise to us as we are a nation founded on genocide and built on the backs of slaves. We slaughtered 600,000 of each other in a civil war. We “tamed the Wild West with a six-shooter,” and we rape and beat and kill our women without mercy and at a staggering rate: every three hours a women is murdered in the USA (half the time by an ex or a current); every three minutes a woman is raped in the USA; and every 15 seconds a woman is beaten in the USA.

Wait, wait, wait. You mean people used guns in an attempt to stop an injustice known as slavery? Perhaps Michael would have preferred that the Civil War was never fought, and Blacks left as slaves. As for women, I sent out some tweets last week

 

 

Something to think about. That CDC study (which appears to come from an outside group, just published by CDC) is here.

Oh, and let’s not forget that Michael Moore has used armed bodyguards.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

RSS feed

You can login to comment with:

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

24 Comments

Comment by pat
2012-12-25 12:56:32

This pig has made money off his irrational logic and basic stupidity. Incredible. Hey Fat Boy, how did that Cuban medical care work for your man Chavez? And that gas pipeline through Afghanistan you, and only you, seemed to know all about? How about unemployment under a friendly Democratic administration (The Big One)? Delusional fool.

 
Comment by Tlaloc
2012-12-25 14:41:13

CDC: 25% of women report severe violence against them. Imagine if they had a gun for protection

Here’s where you logic falls apart- if the woman were willing to violently confront her abuser there’s no reason why she would need a gun to do so. A taser or mace sprays can easily incapacitate a target long enough to summon police to arrest the person. Killing them is unnecessary.

And if she isn’t willing to use force then a gun only endangers her when her attacker takes it away from her. Also you are blaming the victim by implying that its her fault for not wanting to buy and carry a tool of murder with her constantly.

The only reason she might need a gun to defend herself is if her attacker is armed with, wait for it… a gun. But this is circular logic of the worst sort. Simply removing the access to guns, so that we can reasonably assure her attacker will NOT have one obviates any need for her to have one, which conveniently means if she attacks someone they will not need a gun for defense.

Getting rid of all guns makes any gun unneeded.

 
Comment by gitarcarver
2012-12-25 16:29:53

A taser or mace sprays can easily incapacitate a target long enough to summon police to arrest the person.

Here’s where your logic falls apart. Mace does not incapacitate by any stretch of the imagination. If that were the case, then police would only need to carry mace. Also, mace is a close range deterrent. It is not effective at more than 3 feet, a distance that can be crossed by an attacker in less than a second. Furthermore, mace / pepper sprays available to the public are not the same grade as those available to the police.

As for tasers, they too are close quarters weapons. Allowing the attacker to not only close the distance, but to overpower the victim and take the weapon away – even if the taser is used.

As for “removing guns,” one only has to look at England and Australia who have tried to remove guns and seen marked increase in violent crimes because – wait for it – people can’t defend themselves as well.

The only reason to ban a gun is to make more victims. Period.

So please tell us why you are interested in making more victims and at the same time denying people their God given / natural rights to defend themselves with the most effective defensive system?

That is really what this is about – you want to control people and deprive them of their rights.

Why do you want to do that?

 
Comment by Tlaloc
2012-12-25 18:05:51

Sorry but no. Cops carry weapons more dangerous than mace because criminals carry weapons more dangerous weapons than mace. And why do criminals have military grade weapons? Because we let them. Hell we make it easy for them.

This is the thing gun nuts just never get. The people you fear can buy all the same weapons you can. You’ll *never* outgun them. All you’ll do is enable mass murder when some gun owner goes off the deep end and has the means at hand to kill dozens within minutes.

All the arguments for guns being necessary for self defense fall to pieces as soon as you come to grips with this fact.

As for “removing guns,” one only has to look at England and Australia who have tried to remove guns and seen marked increase in violent crimes because – wait for it – people can’t defend themselves as well.

The US has a murder rate of 4.2/100,000 people. In the UK the rate is 1.2. In Australia, despite being a prison colony originally, the rate is 1.0. So yes, by all means let’s look at those countries as examples to emulate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

So please tell us why you are interested in making more victims and at the same time denying people their God given / natural rights to defend themselves with the most effective defensive system?

There are no “god given” rights. Rights derive from government because it is the government which sets those rights and enforces them. Your superstitions have no place in rationale discussion. But I’ll make you a deal, any gun that god personally gives you you can keep, okay? The rest, built by people, get taken away.

Guns are completely inadequate for self defense as already covered. They do nothing but produce an un-winnable arms race that makes society ever more dangerous.

That is really what this is about – you want to control people and deprive them of their rights.

Absolutely not. People have every right to “bear arms” but we can easily interpret what arms means exactly. We’ve, as a society, already decided it does NOT include flamethrowers, artillery, or weapons of mass destruction. We can, just as lawfully, decide it does not include firearms.

And we should.

 
Comment by Gumball_Brains Subscribed to comments via email
2012-12-25 18:07:06

Tlaloc, is that French for john?

The only reason she might need a gun to defend herself is if her attacker is armed with, wait for it… a gun.

Let me guess, you are a liberal man who has never known anyone to have an argument with you.

[if] we can reasonably assure her attacker will NOT have one obviates any need for her to have one

So, now who is suggesting that women just take the beatings? WHo now is suggesting that women allow themselves to be killed with all manner of instruments, JUST BECAUSE the male just happened to not have or use a gun in the commission of his violence.

It’s pussyfied liberal women-men like you that have done nothing but increase victimhood and death.

 
Comment by gitarcarver
2012-12-25 19:33:32

Cops carry weapons more dangerous than mace because criminals carry weapons more dangerous weapons than mace.

These would be the same criminals that commit crimes against citizens, right? So you are saying that it is acceptable for cops to carry weapons for cases where they have to defend themselves, but ordinary people cannot have the same protection.

You do realize that in most cities, the response time of the police (who have no legal duty to protect you from harm or a criminal) is well over 8 minutes, right? When seconds matter, cops are minutes away.

And why do criminals have military grade weapons?

As a rule, we don’t allow criminals or people have military grade weapons. The AR-15 used in Newtown was not “military grade” by any means. So exactly what “military grade” weapon are you talking about?

So yes, by all means let’s look at those countries as examples to emulate.

I’m sorry you missed the point. Please read again what was said. You even quote it and then shift the goalposts to something else. This is another reason why it is so difficult to have a rational discussion with people who believe as you do. You simply refuse to look at facts.

There are no “god given” rights.

Then please, by all means leave the country as you clearly do not understand this statement from a foundational document:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

There are rights that belong to men and it is the government’s responsibility to protect those rights. It is not for the government to convey rights to the people. The government cannot convey that which they do not own or posses.

Guns are completely inadequate for self defense as already covered.

No, you stated a belief that was shown to be based on ignorance. However, let’s go further to display your ignorance. In the US, guns are used upwards of 2.5 million times a year for self defense. Even if one were to try and attack that number, I am willing to say that guns are used in only 10% of those incidents, meaning the the number of times guns are used in self defense still dwarfs the 10,000 times a gun is used to kill someone per year.

Are you still going to say that a weapon used in defense 2.5 million times a year is “completely inadequate?” If you are, your position deserves ridicule.

People have every right to “bear arms” but we can easily interpret what arms means exactly. We’ve, as a society, already decided it does NOT include flamethrowers, artillery, or weapons of mass destruction. We can, just as lawfully, decide it does not include firearms.

The 2nd Amendment is about bearing arms to protect yourself from threats, up to and including a tyrannical government.

Please tell me what right you have to say that I cannot protect myself? Please tell me what right you believe you have to say “poof! You are now a victim waiting to happen?”

And we should.

No one is forcing you to carry or purchase a weapon. If that is what you want to do, that is your choice in exercising your rights. What you do not have the right to do is to demand that I or anyone else give up the same choice.

That’s the difference between the “pro-rights” crowd such as myself and the “anti-rights” crowd of which you are a member.

I would not think of taking away your right, but you have no compunction in trying to take away my rights and the rights of others.

That is something that we shouldn’t do.

 
Comment by Tlaloc
2012-12-25 19:33:49

Let me guess, you are a liberal man who has never known anyone to have an argument with you.

You’re not very good at this.

So, now who is suggesting that women just take the beatings? WHo now is suggesting that women allow themselves to be killed with all manner of instruments, JUST BECAUSE the male just happened to not have or use a gun in the commission of his violence.

I’d like to know who you’re talking about too, since nobody in this thread has suggested women should let themselves get beaten. I said they could incapacitate an attacker using non-lethal weapons while waiting for police response. That you have to so ridiculous twist that statement in order to argue with it betrays just how weak your position is.

 
Comment by Gumball_Brains Subscribed to comments via email
2012-12-25 19:58:36

I’d like to know who you’re talking about too, since nobody in this thread has suggested women should let themselves get beaten.

Ummm.. that would be you..

The only reason she might need a gun to defend herself is if her attacker is armed with, wait for it… a gun.

and

Simply removing the access to guns, so that we can reasonably assure her attacker will NOT have one

Idiocy on parade.
And here is more proof of your sheer idiocy and callous disregard for the safety of others.

Getting rid of all guns makes any gun unneeded.

You seem incapable of accepting that violence and evil exists in this world. How many wars have there been before gun powder was created? And, are you really suggesting that a woman who has been the subject and victim of spousal abuse and battery should actually get in to a close up personal knife-fight with her abuser? Where do you expect her to get that special forces training?

Are you really suggesting that people are only allowed to arm themselves with weapons that their attackers carry?

What if your attacker is armed with throwing knives but you only have butter knives? Stupid question, i know. But so is your supposition.

You can never get rid of guns because there are gun makers all over the world. And there will always be a market for black market guns by criminals. That is why they are criminals. THEY DONT FOLLOW THE RULES.

And, how will you make sure there are no guns in the USA? Are you going to forcibly march in to everyone’s home and forcibly take them from people?

How will you do that when you don’t believe in guns?

 
Comment by Tlaloc
2012-12-25 19:58:56

These would be the same criminals that commit crimes against citizens, right? So you are saying that it is acceptable for cops to carry weapons for cases where they have to defend themselves, but ordinary people cannot have the same protection.

What I’m saying is that the same arms race between cops and criminals exists between everyday people and criminals. The only solution is to remove the guns from society, which not coincidentally *also* removes them from criminals.

The right maintains this fiction that the overall population and the population of criminals are somehow separate, but of course they aren’t. The proper formulation of the NRA line is “when everyday people have gun, so will all criminals.”

The AR-15 used in Newtown was not “military grade” by any means.

Really? A semiautomatic version of the m16 is not military grade? That you can even write that says just how skewed your views of guns are. It’s a weapon suitable for the mass murder of human beings.

I’m sorry you missed the point. Please read again what was said. You even quote it and then shift the goalposts to something else. This is another reason why it is so difficult to have a rational discussion with people who believe as you do. You simply refuse to look at facts.

You make two errors- the first assuming causality by means of correlation. Second by ignoring the overall rate (which I pointed out and you still ignore). So you see I ignored your point as a kindness in the hopes I could gently educate you, but if you need me to slap you in the face with your error, so be it.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

The declaration is not a foundational document. In fact the declaration has no power of law, seeing as it predated the US government. The constitution and bill of rights are the foundational documents of the US and they make no mention of the christian god, and the only mention of religion is a protection against state religion.

Are you still going to say that a weapon used in defense 2.5 million times a year is “completely inadequate?” If you are, your position deserves ridicule.

Of course because you’ve hardly proven your point. What you’d need to prove is that those guns are necessary for self defense, that is that the same or better outcome couldn’t occur with say a taser or other nonlethal weapon, and further you’d have to prove that not only was the gun necessary but it wasn’t made necessary by the presence of a gun in the other person’s hands. Only then would you undermine my argument. Feel free to try again.

The 2nd Amendment is about bearing arms to protect yourself from threats, up to and including a tyrannical government.

And as such it is an anachronism. The days when a citizen owning a rifle presenting a credible threat to the government are long gone. Look at ruby ridge or the branch davidians. They had tons of guns but they were wiped out easily by the FBI and ATF respectively. Those are only paramilitary organizations. I’m sorry but if you think you and your guns are anything but a speed bump to the actual US military you’re beyond delusional.

Modern militaries do not work as militias where farmers bring their shotguns and are organized into units. It’s an archaic form of combat that simply doesn’t work against a modern military.

Look at Iraq. They have tons of rifles but when it came to taking on the US forces they used IEDs. Every time they tried a stand up gun fight they got creamed, but a guerrilla war was quite effective.

If you really want to be armed against our own government you have two viable choices: learn guerrilla warfare tactics or learn to hack. Both are real threats, but your gun rack full of splatter guns are a joke, son.

I would not think of taking away your right, but you have no compunction in trying to take away my rights and the rights of others.

Your interpretation of your right puts everyone around you in grave risk. There’s no reason we have to tolerate it just because you like guns. If society chooses to change the legal interpretation of the 2nd, you can choose between remaining in civilized society or moving somewhere like rwanda where your view is in the majority.

 
Comment by Tlaloc
2012-12-25 20:02:26

Comment by Gumball_Brains

Sorry but you’re going to actually have to address something I said if you want me to respond. I have no inclination to swat your endless parade of strawmen. If you like you can just assume I wrote “That has no connection to anything I actually said” in response to each of your statements.

 
Comment by Gumball_Brains Subscribed to comments via email
2012-12-25 20:30:49

The only solution is to remove the guns from society, which not coincidentally *also* removes them from criminals.

BWWWQAHAHWHWHAHAHAHWHHAHAAAHAWHAHAAA

Please do tell me how you are going to take them from people and criminals?

Really? A semiautomatic version of the m16 is not military grade?

No, it is not. You truly do not understand gun manufacturing. In fact, the AR series of guns was created because of the passage of the last Gun Ban.

It’s a weapon suitable for the mass murder of human beings.

So, are you going to ban rat poison? natural gas? bad food? mosquitos? birds? pigs? electricity? bathrooms? fleas? rats? fire? TNT? earthquakes? Storms? Ice? Cold weather? Hot weather?

You make two errors- the first assuming causality by means of correlation.

Wasn’t that what we were complaining to you about? You argue that guns in themselves are too violent for their own good. That’s like claiming that your breathing is bad for the environment.

The declaration is not a foundational document.

Let me guess. You are a product of the public school system that no longer teaches history or civics. Hate to break it to you, even documents written by the Greek and Roman Empires can be considered foundational documents. And our Declaration of Independence is paramount to our foundation.

and they make no mention of the christian god

Ummm… you just read it and ignored it. WHo says liberals are closed minded? When you found a nation and continent upon a religious belief system, then perhaps your laws and foundational documents will be based upon those beliefs.

Of course because you’ve hardly proven your point. What you’d need to prove is that those guns are necessary for self defense,

Welp, we definitely know where your loyalties lie. You don’t care a whit about human lives. Typical liberal. You’d rather have 2.5 million people die than give them a means of protecting themselves.

and further you’d have to prove that not only was the gun necessary but it wasn’t made necessary by the presence of a gun in the other person’s hands.

So, the presence of a potentially illegal gun, means there is absolutely no reason for a victim to have a legally purchased gun? Nice. Screw the victims, right? Typical liberalism on parade. Let the little people suffer while you are sitting pretty.

And as such it (2nd amendment) is an anachronism. The days when a citizen owning a rifle presenting a credible threat to the government are long gone.

So, since you think it is a lost cause, we should just give up ALL and EVERY gun? Because the reason for the 2nd amendment seems to have been now made moot by the sheer size of the government, we should just roll over and give up? Typical liberal. Willing to force others to give up their rights.

Modern militaries do not work as militias where farmers bring their shotguns and are organized into units. It’s an archaic form of combat that simply doesn’t work against a modern military.

and again you show your ignorance. The term militia does not refer to or describe a formalized military. A militia is exactly what our country had before we organized a military. It was our militias that stopped the English tyranny at many points, protecting citizens from death and wrongful imprisonment. It was the militia that was called upon by locals that protected military grade ammunitions.

But then, I’m arguing with a liberal who does not believe in history.

Look at Iraq. They have tons of rifles but when it came to taking on the US forces they used IEDs. Every time they tried a stand up gun fight they got creamed, but a guerrilla war was quite effective.

And what you are glorifying is just a people standing up to what they deem are an invasion force. While you are glorifying the iraqi bombers of our own soldiers, you want your own citizens to be completely without protection from armed (however armed) criminals, gangs, and governments.

Instead of demanding that everyone change this country to fit the liberal agenda, why not just move to USSR or Cuba so you can be happy with a country that already fits your ideology. BTW, I hear Venezuela is really interested in your ilk. I bet they welcome you with open arms.

 
Comment by Gumball_Brains Subscribed to comments via email
2012-12-25 20:33:53

If you like you can just assume I wrote “That has no connection to anything I actually said” in response to each of your statements.

bwwwhahahahaahah
So, quoting your exact statements is not what you said??

Ok, I think we’ve shown how big of an idiocy and illogical liberalism is. And how dangerous.

Tell me how effective the laws of a gun-free zone around the Newtown school was?

 
Comment by gitarcarver
2012-12-25 20:50:40

The only solution is to remove the guns from society, which not coincidentally *also* removes them from criminals.

Except it doesn’t remove weapons from criminals. That is the fiction that you maintain that has no basis in reality.

Really? A semiautomatic version of the m16 is not military grade?

That is correct. What makes you think it is? Because it looks scary to you?

It’s a weapon suitable for the mass murder of human beings.

So is a knife, a bat, a car, a bus. etc. More people are killed each year by cars than guns. The deadliest “mass killing” means is fire, as in arson – not guns.

So you see I ignored your point as a kindness in the hopes I could gently educate you,

You ignored my point to “educate” me? On what? The fact that you don’t understand what “violent crimes” mean? The fact that you don’t understand what “increase” means? The fact that you ignore reality?

The declaration is not a foundational document.

Of course it is. While the Declaration has less weight of law because it never purports to be a document on which laws are based, it establishes the beliefs that there are certain rights that belong to people. That belief is carried through the Articles of Confederation, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The Supreme Court has used the Declaration as part of decisions since the beginning of the court itself.

You cannot find a single founding father who believes as you do that rights derive from the government.

Of course because you’ve hardly proven your point.

I am sorry, but your saying I haven’t doesn’t make it so. Your initial point was that “guns are completely inadequate for self defense as already covered.” Faced with the undeniable fact that guns are effective for self defense, you want to change the parameters. Unfortunately for you, we have already covered how your belief in mace or tasers is misplaced as well.

Face it, you lost this point.

And as such it is an anachronism.

Self defense is an anachronism? Really? Please tell me when people lost the right of self defense? Please tell me what year the idea that one could defend oneself and ones family went the way of the dodo bird.

You and I both know you can’t find it because it doesn’t exist.

Your interpretation of your right puts everyone around you in grave risk.

It is not “my interpretation.” It is a right. What part of “shall not be infringed” escapes your grasp?

Furthermore, please tell me how legal ownership of a weapon for my defense and the defense of my family puts anyone at risk?

If society chooses to change the legal interpretation of the 2nd, you can choose between remaining in civilized society….

When “society” (meaning people like yourself who are against the rights of people) makes more victims in the world, that is no longer a “civilized society.”

Once again, why do you think you have the ability to take away my rights? What or who gives you that authority? It certainly isn’t based on facts or historical precedence.

You cannot stand for people to live in a free society, can you? You cannot comprehend that 20,000 gun laws on the books don’t affect criminals at all. So your solution is instead of working to deprive criminals of the ability to commit crimes, you want to deny people their rights to defend themselves.

 
Comment by Gumball_Brains Subscribed to comments via email
2012-12-25 20:57:28

Please tell me what year the idea that one could defend oneself and ones family went the way of the dodo bird.

Gitarcarver, according to Tlaloc, the dodo bird never existed since it does not exist now. So, your point is non-existent and therefore unjustified and will be ignored.

We can’t argue history with a liberal because liberals, like communists, refuse to honor or believe in history. For doing so, they would have to acknowledge their belief’s failings and change their own belief systems. It’s their own version of circular (il)logic.

 
Comment by Tlaloc
2012-12-25 21:21:16

Except it doesn’t remove weapons from criminals. That is the fiction that you maintain that has no basis in reality.

Of course it does, again the magic thinking of the right where criminals are not part of society and are somehow not subject to the same environment…

That is correct. What makes you think it is? Because it looks scary to you?

Actually because of what I said- it’s explicitly modeled on a rifle built for the military. It’s harder to get more obvious than that.

So is a knife, a bat, a car, a bus. etc. More people are killed each year by cars than guns. The deadliest “mass killing” means is fire, as in arson – not guns.

Don’t be ridiculous. It’s damn hard to kill 20 people with a knife but trivial to do with guns. Cars are damn dangerous and I’m the first to admit that our current transportation system is a very bad design. But saying that in no way relieves society of the need to do something about guns. While arson is also dangerous fire is not exactly a technology that can be controlled. Unlike guns fire can be started by any number of means. That said if you have suggestions for improving fire safety I’m certainly open to listening.

You ignored my point to “educate” me? On what? The fact that you don’t understand what “violent crimes” mean? The fact that you don’t understand what “increase” means? The fact that you ignore reality?

I tried to point you in the direction of data that was relevant- i.e. australia and england have vastly lower firearm murder rates than the US, whether their rate went up or down after banning guns is really irrelevant since you can’t show that it was a causal factor and where they ended up was way better than where we are now anyway. Your facts are therefor irrelevant.

While the Declaration has less weight of law because it never purports to be a document on which laws are based, it establishes the beliefs that there are certain rights that belong to people.

It doesn’t carry less weight of law, it carries none. Zip. Zilch. It was a letter, nothing more. I can’t emphasize this enough- the only significance it has is historical. Our government is in no way based on it.

You cannot find a single founding father who believes as you do that rights derive from the government.

You say this as if I should care. The founding fathers, all being dead, don’t even have the degree of importance that you or I do as living voters. What they thought is moot.

I am sorry, but your saying I haven’t doesn’t make it so. Your initial point was that “guns are completely inadequate for self defense as already covered.” Faced with the undeniable fact that guns are effective for self defense, you want to change the parameters. Unfortunately for you, we have already covered how your belief in mace or tasers is misplaced as well.

There’s not a single statement here that comports with reality. My point was always that guns are only necessary to help protect you from guns. In the absence of guns non-lethal force suffices. You never argued against tasers and your attempt to argue for guns as self defense weapons in no way undermined my point (hint- I gave you the list you would have to go through to do so).

Self defense is an anachronism?

The idea that guns allow you to stand up to a corrupt government is the anachronism as the rest of my paragraph made clear. I can only guess you left that part out because you know it’s an argument you can’t win.

It is not “my interpretation.” It is a right. What part of “shall not be infringed” escapes your grasp?

That’s not the part being interpreted. It’s the part about “bear arms”. We could interpret that from an originalist standpoint in which case you are entitled to own muzzle loading black powder muskets (what the founding fathers used). Or we could interpret it to mean you can own high powered military grade weapons (as the NRA does). Or we could interpret it to mean you can own any weapon you can buy, including nukes if you got the cash (the libertarian position). Or we could interpret it to mean you can get non-lethal weapons (the, ahem, reasonable position).

Furthermore, please tell me how legal ownership of a weapon for my defense and the defense of my family puts anyone at risk?

because if you snap, or a family member of yours snaps, or someone breaks in and steals them then we have yet another mass murder rampage in the making. And why? Because you like guns and have this fantasy where they = self defense in spite of all the facts to the contrary? Are we really obliged to entertain your fantasies at the risk of our lives?

You cannot stand for people to live in a free society, can you? You cannot comprehend that 20,000 gun laws on the books don’t affect criminals at all. So your solution is instead of working to deprive criminals of the ability to commit crimes, you want to deny people their rights to defend themselves.

Again magic thinking. So long as society is awash in guns criminals will be too. Take the guns out of society and suddenly they are no longer available for criminals either. It’s really just that simple, as you’ll see as soon as you give up the illusion that criminals are somehow separate from society rather than elements of it.

 
Comment by Gumball_Brains Subscribed to comments via email
2012-12-25 21:28:40

Leave it to liberals to believe that it is guns that make the criminal, not the state of mind.

According to this liberal and all liberals, if you only remove guns, then there will be no crime.

And like I said, liberalism hates history. History proves the liberalism fallacy. It’s a psychotic disorder. Proof is shown above in the complete disregard of reality.

 
Comment by gitarcarver
2012-12-25 22:05:17

Of course it does, again the magic thinking of the right where criminals are not part of society and are somehow not subject to the same environment…

And somehow the idea that “criminals” don’t care about laws escapes your thought process. That is the “magic thinking” on the left. The difference is that the right has thousands of years of experience and empirical data to support their claim. You, on the other hand, have nothing.

Actually because of what I said- it’s explicitly modeled on a rifle built for the military. It’s harder to get more obvious than that.

So in your thinking, a Model 1877 Colt Revolver should be banned because it was made for the military as well?

You do realize there are numerous differences between the AR-15 and the M-16 don’t you? And those differences are why the AR-15 is not used by the military?

I bet you think the H2 is the same thing as HMMWVs (Humvees) don’t you?

There is no way to be nice about this, but your thinking appears to be based on ignorance rather than any objective standards or facts.

I tried to point you in the direction of data that was relevant- i.e. australia and england have vastly lower firearm murder rates than the US…

I know that you are having problems with this because it destroys your whole premise but the rates of VIOLENT CRIMES (not just homicides) went up the moment Australia and England implemented gun bans. That is what I said and you still have yet to address it.

Our government is in no way based on it.

The Founding Fathers, the Supreme Court, the President, the Congress, and most Americans disagree with you. You are trying to re-write history and the founding of the country.

But in the spirit of not denying you any rights, you are more than free to believe in your own fantasy.

You never argued against tasers…

Really?

Comment by gitarcarver
2012-12-25 16:29:53

As for tasers, they too are close quarters weapons. Allowing the attacker to not only close the distance, but to overpower the victim and take the weapon away – even if the taser is used.

What they thought is moot.

Please look up “stare decisis” and then get back to me on the foolish notion that what the Founding Fathers thought is moot.

There’s not a single statement here that comports with reality.

When you say that guns are not an effective form of self defense, and yet people use guns 2.5 million times a year as an effective means of self defense, the point is proven that you are incorrect. There is no rational thinking that can save you on this point.

I can only guess you left that part out because you know it’s an argument you can’t win….

Oh silly liberal, of course I can win it. First, let’s go back and look at what I said: “The 2nd Amendment is about bearing arms to protect yourself from threats, up to and including a tyrannical government. ” Only someone who is dishonest would think that to mean that the only threat to people is a tyrannical government, but that is the path you choose. Even DC v. Heller shows the fallacy of that way of thinking. You chose one part of the passage and foolishly tried to say your thought process defeated the whole basis of the Second Amendment.

Once again, please show me where I do not have the right to defend myself with what I (and millions of others) consider to be the most effective form of self defense?

Secondly, I realize that you may not understand the right to defend oneself and the the successful outcome of that defense, but there is a difference. As an example, you still have free speech despite your ability to not convince anyone that your thinking is logical, accurate or based in reality. Using the same thought process you wish to apply to the Second Amendment, you would just be told to shut up and not say another word. Yet while you want others to give up their rights, no one is advocating that you give up yours.

Game. Set. Match.

It’s the part about “bear arms”…

Once again, what part of “shall not be infringed” escapes you? Your position is that all guns should be banned as you say that is the “reasonable” position. How does banning all guns not infringe on the right to bear arms?

Clearly you have a problem with seeing the flaws in your own thinking.

because if you snap, or a family member of yours snaps, or someone breaks in and steals them then we have yet another mass murder rampage in the making.

So in your world, because something may happen, that is justification for banning it? Because you may drive your car through a crowd of kids standing waiting for the bus, we should ban cars?

Because someone may drive drunk, we should outlaw alcohol?

Because someone may speak what is considered treason and sedition, we should ban all speech or ban ideas that differ from that of our neighbors?

Once again, your thought process is shallow.

Take the guns out of society and suddenly they are no longer available for criminals either.

Except that even in England and Australia, there are still guns even though they have been banned. Criminals still get guns on island nations.

You seem to think that if you snap your fingers, all guns will disappear and no one will ever be faced with crime again. There is no data or historical evidence to support that thinking yet you keep believing it. Then you have the audacity to call others thinking as some sort of “magic.”

You are wrong on the facts. Wrong on the history. Wrong on the logic.

In total, you are just wrong.

 
Comment by Gumball_Brains Subscribed to comments via email
2012-12-25 22:20:20

OK. let’s agree on a few things.
Let’s agree that we should ban cars because they can be used to smash in to crowds and parade goers killing untold numbers of people.

Let’s ban knives because as we’ve seen in China and other countries, they can be used to kill large number of people.

Let’s ban vegetables, because salmonella can kill dozens to hundreds of people.

Let’s ban birds, pigs, and mosquitos because the viruses they carry kills hundreds to thousands each and every year.

Let’s ban buses because their smog and particulate emmissions causes asthma and lung cancer leading to hundreds of deaths per year.

Let’s ban large predatory cats because they kill many people every year.

Let’s ban eating because obesity supposedly kills (many) people a year.

Let’s ban breathing because the CO2 we emit will cause the burning of the earth in (some) years.

Let’s ban the sun because of the skin cancer it creates leading to untold numbers of death each year.

Let’s ban TV’s and other in-home furniture because of tip-over deaths, especially on children.

Let’s ban homes because when they collapse from storms or earthquakes, they crush people all over the world.

Let’s ban airplanes because when they crash they cause the deaths of thousands a year.

Let’s ban walking while distracted.

None of these things are protected by law and thus there are no rights. Let’s just agree to disband humanity for humanity’s sake.

 
Comment by gitarcarver
2012-12-25 22:54:54

Take the guns out of society and suddenly they are no longer available for criminals either. It’s really just that simple, as you’ll see as soon as you give up the illusion that criminals are somehow separate from society rather than elements of it.

It is time to end this fallacy as well.

Has outlawing illegal drugs ended their use in society? Has outlawing heroin, cocaine, methamphetamine, crack cocaine, LSD, ecstasy, or PCP removed them from use in society? Is it not criminals who make, use, sell and transport these illegal drugs despite the criminals being “part of society?”

When the Eighteenth Amendment was passed, did it end the use of alcohol in the US? Or did criminals continue to make, use, transport and sell alcohol? Were not the criminals committing these illegal actions “part of society?

The notion that criminals will abide by some law is the antithesis of a criminal’s actions.

That kills that point you try to raise.

 
Comment by Gumball_Brains Subscribed to comments via email
2012-12-25 23:02:09

Oh come on gitarcarver, I think he has a point there.

Look at how effective speeding enforcement laws have been. And since murder was outlawed 10,000 years ago, we’ve seen a massive reduction in that. And since we’ve outlawed corruption and bribery in our governmental representatives, we haven’t had to elect new people to the office in generations.

And, since theft and burglary were outlawed 3.5 years ago, I have had to close my door to my home even when I’m on vacation. However, I’m having some issues with this new way of life when I’m on vacation in Mexico. For some reason, those people there don’t seem to recognize our laws. I’ve had my hotel room ransacked every night I’ve been there. I’ve even left sign on my open hotel door telling them of the laws that were passed in America banning such preposterous activity. I think my wife couldn’t stand it any longer and went back home. At least I hope she went back home, I have not seen her in 2 days. What other explanation could there be. Kidnapping after all is banned.

 
Comment by gitarcarver
2012-12-26 11:15:22

It is time to put another coffin into the argument Tlaloc has tried to put forth.

Tlaloc has said that the homicide rates for the United States and England are different and postulates that a gun ban in the UK is the reason for that difference.

The US has always had a higher rate of homicide than the UK. Sociologists have put this down to “culture” differences, which is as good as any reason.

But that is not the real point and Tlaloc knows it.

The UK instituted a gun ban in 1997. Through the years, the homicide rates have varied, but have risen since the ban was put into effect. If the handgun ban were effective, one would expect to see a drop in homicide rates from pre-gun ban days, but that has not happened. The number of homicides has risen.

In addition, as we noted, after the handgun ban, England, which had moderate violent crime rates, shot up to having the most violent crime in the world. Not just in Europe – the world.

Clearly the gun ban did not only not have the desired effect, it made things worse. Yet Tlaloc wants the same type of ban here in the US.

One can only surmise that Tlaloc is willing to deprive people of their God given / natural rights and in doing so, make more victims out of people.

It is clear that through this entire discussion, Tlaloc has been wrong on the facts and wrong on his conclusions.

 
Comment by john
2012-12-26 12:06:45

But Teach they those women might very owned a gun Why do you assume they did not ?

 
Comment by john
2012-12-26 12:17:55

Teach would/do you allow or encourage the workers in your stores to carry guns openly ? Do you personally openly care at all times ?

 
Comment by gitarcarver
2012-12-26 13:52:56

But Teach they those women might very owned a gun Why do you assume they did not ?

The issue is not whether the women carried weapons or not john, it is the fact that those looking to ban weapons would mean that none of the women in the future would be carrying a gun.

Why are you against allowing women to defend themselves?

Teach would/do you allow or encourage the workers in your stores to carry guns openly ? Do you personally openly care at all times ?

I can’t speak for Teach, but I can tell you that in my experience, I would not want a person to openly carry in a store. Carrying a concealed weapon (for example in a jacket or in an ankle holster) is a different story. I would have no issues with that at all.

Once again, why are you against people exercising their rights to defend themselves?

 

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Bad Behavior has blocked 11404 access attempts in the last 7 days.

Optimization WordPress Plugins & Solutions by W3 EDGE