A question for the Left/liberals on government and gun control...

[ChartsandGrafs]

I have a quick question for the Leftists and liberals regarding the issue of gun control which I hope they can address...

In the past few years, I've heard and read a lot arguments by both Leftists and liberals regarding the loose state of the United States' campaign finance laws and how they allow moneyed interests and corporations to corrupt our political system, and therefore our lawmakers and government institutions. On this count, I happen to agree with them and find that the argument has merit. More and more in America, It seems like political control is up for sale to the highest bidder, and these interests don't always have the best interests of the country and the American people in mind.

If this is true, and it is what many Leftists and liberals truly believe, then why do many of them also argue for the same corrupt government, which, again, they claim is too easily controlled by private, moneyed interests, to either disregard and dismantle the Second Amendment or, at the very least least, heavily restrict the right of the American people to keep and bear arms under the Second Amendment as a last form of protection against a corrupt, tyrannical government? To hold these two positions simultaneously seems contradictory.

If the government is being or has already been corrupted, why would anyone in their right mind argue that the same government should be trusted with the issue of gun control?

[bluelang]

Gun control red herring anarchy now!

[rivergator]

Completely BS post. I don't see many liberals calling for the Second Amendment to be dismantled.

[Dreamliner]

Besides, the debate was over almost before it began. The media narrative crumbled before Christmas. Americans oppose stringent gun control measures. Obama will get nothing of any consequence. And certainly bad people will not be affected by all the hands-in-air running around.

[wargunfan]

In reality liberals think of government corruption in the same way that I would regard corruption in the church. Since the state is god in the hearts of liberals, they see government corruption as fouling the thing that they worship. At the same time they regard all special interest money which furthers the success of the mother state as being cleansed because of its aims. In other words "the end justifies the means". Individual liberty and autonomy is seen as an impediment to the mother state and so must be quashed; especially the right and ability to defend oneself. The neolib utopia is one in which the mother state is all powerful and citizens exist to further the goals of the great Nanny. In that world armed free people are deranged and must be disarmed and rehabilitated in their distrust of the beneficent mother state. So it is that there is "good" government corruption (although it would never be called such) and bad government corruption. There are good citizens (those who implicitly trust the mother state) and bad citizens (those who are armed and mistrust the mother state). So you see there is no contradiction at all.

[Dreamliner]

Speaking of corruption in the church, survey after survey shows that Evangelical and Fundamentalist Christians are the demographic group most enthusiastic about Caesar's wars.

[ChartsandGrafs]

Completely BS post. I don't see many liberals calling for the Second Amendment to be dismantled.

Expert dodge. Don't address the general subject of the post, just pick some random part of it, cry foul, and run away.

Seriously, nobody will notice.

[dvillegator]

Wargunfan nailed it. Well said.

[rivergator]

Expert dodge. Don't address the general subject of the post, just pick some random part of it, cry foul, and run away.

Seriously, nobody will notice.

If you think that "liberals want to dismantle the Second Amendment" is some minor, random part of your argument, you might want to consider rewriting your post to reflect that.

[ChartsandGrafs]

If you think that "liberals want to dismantle the Second Amendment" is some minor, random part of your argument, you might want to consider rewriting your post to reflect that.

Wait a minute. Are you implying that there are absolutely no Leftists or liberals anywhere in America who desire for the government to dismantle or disregard the Second Amendment?

Regardless, even if you disagree that such people exist, why do you find it so hard to address the rest of the post? Here, I'll reword it just for you.

A. Many Leftists and liberals rightly complain about loose U.S. campaign finance laws on the grounds that moneyed, private interests are allowed to have too much influence on our political system. The basic implication is that this will corrupt our government.

B. Many Leftists and liberals argue in favor of this same government, that has been corrupted by moneyed, private interests, restricting the American people's access to firearms and that the American people should trust this same government to impose sensible gun control.

So which is it? Or are you next going to complain that I misspelled something?

[wgbgator]

I don't know about liberals, but there were plenty of leftists who were in favor of arming themselves to fight the government they thought was corrupt. See: domestic terrorism in the 1960s and 70s.

The essential problem with your argument is that the NRA is one of the private, monied interests you speak of. So, proposing gun control, which is naturally opposed by the lobbying power of the NRA, is perfectly consistent with A and B. Its both confronting the influence of monied interests over public policy while advocating a public safety measure.

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

Completely BS post. I don't see many liberals calling for the Second Amendment to be dismantled.

You would be incorrect. In Illinois, that is what they are effectively, if not literally, trying to do by recently introducing some new laws restricting gun ownership. As was tried Washington DC, but struck down by the Supreme Court.

[wgbgator]

You would be incorrect. In Illinois, that is what they are effectively, if not literally, trying to do by recently introducing some new laws restricting gun ownership. As was tried Washington DC, but struck down by the Supreme Court.

The DC gun ban had been in force since 1976. Heller was more reflective of changing attitudes to gun rights by the court and populace than a swift reaction to overzealous gun legislation. While perhaps stricter than other laws, it was pretty reflective of the attitude of the times. Ronald Reagan even argued for gun control in the late 60s (passing the Mulford Act) and against the idea that citizens needed guns for self-defense. Of course, that was back when scary radicals and Black Panthers were arming themselves.

[ChartsandGrafs]

The essential problem with your argument is that the NRA is one of the private, monied interests you speak of. So, proposing gun control, which is naturally opposed by the lobbying power of the NRA, is perfectly consistent with A and B. Its both confronting the influence of monied interests over public policy while advocating a public safety measure.

That still doesn't address the obvious conflict between the two claims:

A. "The government already is or is being corrupted by moneyed, private interests!"

And...

B. "We need the same government that already is or is being corrupted by moneyed, private interests to restrict our access to guns, while they can have all the guns they want! We can trust them to do this! What could possibly go wrong?!"

Injecting the NRA into claim A doesn't change the fact that the two sentiments are incompatible. If the government has been corrupted, and is working on the behalf of wealthy private interests, whether it's the NRA or not, then the absolute last thing any rational person should advocate for is that same corrupt government to impose gun control. It doesn't make any sense to want a corrupt government to control guns, since guns are our only viable protection against a corrupt government.

[bluelang]

you could make the same case for anyone. conservatives hate the government but expect it to enforce immigration laws. hell, conservatives hate the government but trust it NOT to repeal the second amendment.

your straw-man argument is made entirely of stupid.

[wgbgator]

That still doesn't address the obvious conflict between the two claims:

A. "The government already is or is being corrupted by moneyed, private interests!"

And...

B. "We need the same government that already is or is being corrupted by moneyed, private interests to restrict our access to guns, while they can have all the guns they want! We can trust them to do this! What could possibly go wrong?!"

Injecting the NRA into claim A doesn't change the fact that the two sentiments are incompatible. If the government has been corrupted, and is working on the behalf of wealthy private interests, whether it's the NRA or not, then the absolute last thing any rational person should advocate for is that same corrupt government to impose gun control. It doesn't make any sense to want a corrupt government to control guns, since guns are our only viable protection against a corrupt government.

I really don't see the conflict, sorry. The NRA is the monied interest in preventing gun control laws from passing, and advocating and lobbying for public policy that liberalizes gun ownership and usage. Advocating gun control is achieving both ends, in curbing the influence of money over public policy and having the government pass regulations that are opposed by the monied influence. Is it your contention that because some other private interest lobbys for something beneficial to its industry but unrelated to guns (lets say agribusiness) and has achieved it, that it is some sort of congnitive dissonance on the part of liberals? That because the government has been corrupted over public policy in farming, that it cant be uncorrupted or trusted over guns? Is that a serious argument?

[ChartsandGrafs]

you could make the same case for anyone. conservatives hate the government but expect it to enforce immigration laws. hell, conservatives hate the government but trust it NOT to repeal the second amendment.

your straw-man argument is made entirely of stupid.

LOL, says the authority on stupid.

If you can't come up with any kind of rational rebuttal just declare it a straw man and run away. How convincing!

[ChartsandGrafs]

I really don't see the conflict, sorry. The NRA is the monied interest in preventing gun control laws from passing, and advocating and lobbying for public policy that liberalizes gun ownership and usage. Advocating gun control is achieving both ends, in curbing the influence of money over public policy and having the government pass regulations that are opposed by the monied influence. Is it your contention that because some other private interest lobbys for something beneficial to its industry but unrelated to guns (lets say agribusiness) and has achieved it, that it is some sort of congnitive dissonance on the part of liberals? That because the government has been corrupted over public policy in farming, that it cant be uncorrupted or trusted over guns? Is that a serious argument?

It sure is a serious argument, and you don't seem to have an answer for it, other than predictably changing the subject to the NRA.

[rivergator]

you could make the same case for anyone. conservatives hate the government but expect it to enforce immigration laws. hell, conservatives hate the government but trust it NOT to repeal the second amendment.

your straw-man argument is made entirely of stupid.

exactly. "hey, you think the government is corrupt (or inefficient or incompetent or ...) yet you want it to do something! that makes you a hypocrite!"
But he tried to point it at those gun-stealing liberals. And since he knew he wasn't going to get anyone saying "Why, yes, I want to dismantle the Second Amendment of the U.S Constitution, let me explain ...." the thread is really just a phony set-up for blasting his strawman.

[ChartsandGrafs]

In reality liberals think of government corruption in the same way that I would regard corruption in the church. Since the state is god in the hearts of liberals, they see government corruption as fouling the thing that they worship. At the same time they regard all special interest money which furthers the success of the mother state as being cleansed because of its aims. In other words "the end justifies the means". Individual liberty and autonomy is seen as an impediment to the mother state and so must be quashed; especially the right and ability to defend oneself. The neolib utopia is one in which the mother state is all powerful and citizens exist to further the goals of the great Nanny. In that world armed free people are deranged and must be disarmed and rehabilitated in their distrust of the beneficent mother state. So it is that there is "good" government corruption (although it would never be called such) and bad government corruption. There are good citizens (those who implicitly trust the mother state) and bad citizens (those who are armed and mistrust the mother state). So you see there is no contradiction at all.

After reading this response a second time and mulling it over a bit, I think this might be the closest we get to an answer.

[wgbgator]

It sure is a serious argument, and you don't seem to have an answer for it, other than predictably changing the subject to the NRA.

Sorry, but the NRA is completely relevant to the point you think you're trying to make.

[rivergator]

After reading this response a second time and mulling it over a bit, I think this might be the closest we get to an answer.

exactly. that's all you were looking for. you pretended you had a real question. as I noted above, you didn't. you were just looking for a phony reason to blast liberals.

[ChartsandGrafs]

exactly. "hey, you think the government is corrupt (or inefficient or incompetent or ...) yet you want it to do something! that makes you a hypocrite!"


LOL, talk about a straw man.

It appears I touched some kind of nerve...

[rivergator]

LOL, talk about a straw man.

It appears I touched some kind of nerve...

no, you just don't appear to understand what you've written.

[ChartsandGrafs]

Sorry, but the NRA is completely relevant to the point you think you're trying to make.

No, not really. The NRA is just a way for you to deflect. The 'who' or 'what' that is corrupting our government is completely irrelevant to the discussion. You'll note that I didn't reference any particular moneyed person or group in my initial question, since it's not important. What is relevant is the notion that we should trust an admittedly corrupt government with something as critical as gun control (i.e., victim disarmament). Such a pointed question seems to make you uncomfortable, which is why you are trying to redirect the focus of the discussion onto the NRA.

I've seen all these tactics before. This stuff doesn't work on me anymore. Sorry.

[ChartsandGrafs]

no, you just don't appear to understand what you've written.

If I don't understand what I've written, why are you so clearly on the defensive?

I asked a pretty simple question in the original post, which you are now scrambling around trying to avoid. Either answer the question or stop trolling the thread and remove yourself from the discussion.

Again, if the government is so open to corruption, and is being corrupted by private, moneyed interests, which I happen to agree is very much true, why would anyone in their right mind advocate for that same government to have more control over our rightful access to the very firearms we could use to protect ourselves from a corrupt, tyrannical government?

Running around like a banshee crying about imaginary straw men and the NRA isn't an adequate response to the question.

[rivergator]

If I don't understand what I've written, why are you so clearly on the defensive?

I asked a pretty simple question in the original post, which you are now scrambling around trying to avoid. Either answer the question or stop trolling the thread and remove yourself from the discussion.

Again, if the government is so open to corruption, and is being corrupted by private, moneyed interests, which I happen to agree is very much true, why would anyone in their right mind advocate for that same government to have more control over our rightful access to the very firearms we could use to protect ourselves from a corrupt, tyrannical government?

Running around like a banshee crying about imaginary straw men and the NRA isn't an adequate response to the question.

How could I answer? I'm not trying to dismantle the second amendment. Otherwise "banshee crying?"

[ChartsandGrafs]

How could I answer? I'm not trying to dismantle the second amendment. Otherwise "banshee crying?"

Perhaps reading comprehension isn't your strong suit, so I'll re-post the original question:

If this is true, and it is what many Leftists and liberals truly believe, then why do many of them also argue for the same corrupt government, which, again, they claim is too easily controlled by private, moneyed interests, to either disregard and dismantle the Second Amendment or, at the very least least, heavily restrict the right of the American people to keep and bear arms under the Second Amendment as a last form of protection against a corrupt, tyrannical government?

You'll note that my question covered a range of viewpoints on gun control, which you keep ignoring as a way to disingenuously avoid having to answer the question.

You're embarrassing yourself in this thread.

[rivergator]

Perhaps reading comprehension isn't your strong suit, so I'll re-post the original question:



You'll note that my question covered a range of viewpoints on gun control, which you keep ignoring as a way to disingenuously avoid having to answer the question.

You're embarrassing yourself in this thread.

like the insults, don't you?

[ChartsandGrafs]

like the insults, don't you?

Not as much as you like trolling threads.

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

you could make the same case for anyone. conservatives hate the government but expect it to enforce immigration laws. hell, conservatives hate the government but trust it NOT to repeal the second amendment.

your straw-man argument is made entirely of stupid.

Speaking of strawmen, conservatives do not "hate" government. They just think government should be limited.

There is a difference.

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

The DC gun ban had been in force since 1976. Heller was more reflective of changing attitudes to gun rights by the court and populace than a swift reaction to overzealous gun legislation.

You are arguing at windmills. I did not contend that Heller was a "swift reaction."

But you are right that it did repudiate overzealous gun legislation.

[bluelang]

Speaking of strawmen, conservatives do not "hate" government. They just think government should be limited.

There is a difference.

That was the point. It's all a big farce.

[Santoka]

So, to take a crack at this...I would suggest that there is not a conscious conflict for said group. As gatorgun imparts, those individuals only see the corrupt influence I'm govt as coming from "the other side" - therefore if govt does what "my side" pays for it is simply advancing all things good...not corruption. So the concepts can live side by side.

At risk of really blowing this thread up, I have always struggled to reconcile Repulican's stated less govt with their party position on abortion...to me it is the same as the op's question.

One man's musings...

[Santoka]

Which also is not likely considered as a conscious conflict for the folks on the right...

Before anyone tars me on one side or the other..I don't have a party...fiscal conservative and social liberal here...with plenty of opinions that cross the center line either way. :-)

[PIMking]

Feinstein wants your guns, but she wont turn hers in....

[ChartsandGrafs]

Feinstein wants your guns, but she wont turn hers in....

Of course not. Because gun control has absolutely nothing to do with what these people claim (crime prevention, mass murders, violence, etc...).

Arguing for gun control is just a nice way of arguing for victim disarmament, because the criminals both in and out of government have no intention of ever turning their guns in. Gun control is only for us, not them. After all, gun control advocates NEVER, EVER, argue that the government's guns should be controlled, despite the fact that history shows that governments kill hundreds of times more people than regular, private citizens do. That doesn't matter to gun control advocates, because the truth is they really don't give a damn about crime, murder and violence. It's all about victim disarmament, so people like you and me can more easily be exploited, which is, and always has been, the primary purpose of government.

[rivergator]

Feinstein wants your guns, but she wont turn hers in....

Feinstein has an assault rifle?

[wargunfan]

No, not really. The NRA is just a way for you to deflect. The 'who' or 'what' that is corrupting our government is completely irrelevant to the discussion. You'll note that I didn't reference any particular moneyed person or group in my initial question, since it's not important. What is relevant is the notion that we should trust an admittedly corrupt government with something as critical as gun control (i.e., victim disarmament). Such a pointed question seems to make you uncomfortable, which is why you are trying to redirect the focus of the discussion onto the NRA.

I've seen all these tactics before. This stuff doesn't work on me anymore. Sorry.

This is my point exactly. Here we have a liberal accusing the NRA of corrupting the government. To a liberal that's bad corruption (they can't point to any specific corruption but by definition the NRA must be corrupt) because it impedes the rise of the mother state. Diane Feinstein is a good citizen because she wants to disarm the gun owners who (by definition) are bad citizens. Wayne LaPierre is branded a bad citizen and is called a nutcase by liberals because he advocates for gun owners.

Scores of millions of Americans don't trust this government and keep arms for that reason alone. In the liberal world that makes them enemies of the mother state.

[rivergator]

This is my point exactly. Here we have a liberal accusing the NRA of corrupting the government. To a liberal that's bad corruption (they can't point to any specific corruption but by definition the NRA must be corrupt) because it impedes the rise of the mother state. Diane Feinstein is a good citizen because she wants to disarm the gun owners who (by definition) are bad citizens. Wayne LaPierre is branded a bad citizen and is called a nutcase by liberals because he advocates for gun owners.

Scores of millions of Americans don't trust this government and keep arms for that reason alone. In the liberal world that makes them enemies of the mother state.

Let me guess: Liberals are bad because they Feinstein and don't like LaPierre. So if you like LaPierre and don't like Feinstein .....?

By the way,I do have to say the stupidity (or, perhaps, simply ignorance) of the "Feinstein won't give up her gun ..." is far too indicative of the right on this board.

[ChartsandGrafs]

Let me guess: Liberals are bad because they Feinstein and don't like LaPierre. So if you like LaPierre and don't like Feinstein .....?

By the way,I do have to say the stupidity (or, perhaps, simply ignorance) of the "Feinstein won't give up her gun ..." is far too indicative of the right on this board.

I'm curious, if the government is allowed to control the guns of the citizens, who will be able or left to control the guns of government? There's an entire history, both ancient and contemporary, of governments becoming tyrannical over time and oppressing the people, if not outright killing them in mass quantities. There's absolutely nothing to prevent the same thing from happening in America, and there have been plenty of indications in the last hundred years that our government is more than capable of rising to the level of tyranny.

So why would you want to give the government, especially one as corrupt and dripping with a lust for war as our own, control over the people's ability to defend themselves from a potentially tyrannical government? Can you answer that without stomping your feet and declaring everything that you don't like "stupid"?

[rivergator]

I'm curious, if the government is allowed to control the guns of the citizens, who will be able or left to control the guns of government? There's an entire history, both ancient and contemporary, of governments becoming tyrannical over time and oppressing the people, if not outright killing them in mass quantities. There's absolutely nothing to prevent the same thing from happening in America, and there have been plenty of indications in the last hundred years that our government is more than capable of rising to the level of tyranny.

So why would you want to give the government, especially one as corrupt and dripping with a lust for war as our own, control over the people's ability to defend themselves from a potentially tyrannical government? Can you answer that without stomping your feet and declaring everything that you don't like "stupid"?

You really figure that if the full US govt and military decides that it wants to be a tyranny and has no problem killing US citizens (a scenario that I personally reject) that your guns will stand up to mortars, grenade launchers, fighter jets, bombers, missiles or whatever else the evil govt wants to throw at its citizens?
and I know that's probably an ignorant list, I don't know military arms. But if fighting the govt is your goal, you're going to have to arm yourself a whole lot more than you're probably armed now.

But back to the Feinstein question: What weapon is she trying to take from you that she refuses to give up herself? That was the claim that you apparently agreed with.

[ChartsandGrafs]

You really figure that if the full US govt and military decides that it wants to be a tyranny and has no problem killing US citizens (a scenario that I personally reject) that your guns will stand up to mortars, grenade launchers, fighter jets, bombers, missiles or whatever else the evil govt wants to throw at its citizens?

I'm not sure why you would reject such a scenario. Again, numerous governments throughout history have resorted to the oppression and liquidation of their civilian populations. Do you honestly believe there's something in the American character or some special trait in the whorish, lying politicians who pretend to serve us that would prevent that from happening here? You mean the same government that kidnapped and imprisoned over 100,000 American citizens in concentration camps during WW2? You mean the same government that spent decades performing countless medical, chemical, and biological tests on its citizens and soldiers without fully informing them? You mean the same government that lies its way into wars and sends thousands of young boys to die in the pursuit of killing brown people in some godforsaken desert 10,000 miles away? LOL, come on, get real.

But, just to answer your question, yes, millions of people taking up arms and fighting an asymmetrical war/rebellion poses an enormous problem for any organized military power, even one as advanced as our own. Just look at America's experience in Afghanistan and Vietnam or Germany's experience with Soviet partisans following Barbarossa for all the examples you need. It's not simply a matter of lowly "assault" rifle versus Apache helicopter, it's a matter of protecting vulnerable supply lines, having to constantly fight unpredictable rearguard battles, low troop morale, desertion, the perpetual threat of infiltration, and fighting an enemy that's everywhere all the time.

The Second Amendment isn't some magical cure-all to the problem of government tyranny, but it poses one hell of a considerable check against it.

and I know that's probably an ignorant list, I don't know military arms. But if fighting the govt is your goal, you're going to have to arm yourself a whole lot more than you're probably armed now.

I disagree, but this government preponderance in hardware and military might isn't a proper justification for allowing a potentially tyrannical government to control the guns of its citizens.

But back to the Feinstein question: What weapon is she trying to take from you that she refuses to give up herself? That was the claim that you apparently agreed with.

Well, she thinks the government should have unfettered access to "assault" rifles (personal defense weapons) that the people shouldn't have, like many politicians do. They want indirect access to such weaponry, through the policies they make, but they don't want the people to have equal access.

Can you explain why anyone shouldn't just laugh and thumb their nose at her?

[neisgator]

Completely BS post. I don't see many liberals calling for the Second Amendment to be dismantled.

Speaking of BS...

What? Because no one says the words, that means that isn't their goal? Please.

[rivergator]

Speaking of BS...

What? Because no one says the words, that means that isn't their goal? Please.

And that's why it's was a bogus question to begin with.

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

Feinstein has an assault rifle?

In a sense. She hires people that own them, for the purposes of protection.

(all this is contingent on waat YOU call an "assault" rifle.)

[rivergator]

In a sense. She hires people that own them, for the purposes of protection.

(all this is contingent on waat YOU call an "assault" rifle.)

I guess in that sense, she hires people who have anti-aircraft and nukes, too.

[wargunfan]

Let me guess: Liberals are bad because they Feinstein and don't like LaPierre. So if you like LaPierre and don't like Feinstein .....?

By the way,I do have to say the stupidity (or, perhaps, simply ignorance) of the "Feinstein won't give up her gun ..." is far too indicative of the right on this board.

River, why don't you go beyond your usual one or two sentences and explain to us why it is ok for Diane Feinstein to carry a concealed weapon of her choice and at the same time propose laws which will limit citizens ability to defend themselves with the weapon of their choice? Isn't that rank hypocrisy? And please, if you will, limit the discussion to semiautomatic weapons.

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

I guess in that sense, she hires people who have anti-aircraft and nukes, too.

????

Not even close. I was, of course, referring to a person hiring a security firm for protection.

[wargunfan]

You really figure that if the full US govt and military decides that it wants to be a tyranny and has no problem killing US citizens (a scenario that I personally reject) that your guns will stand up to mortars, grenade launchers, fighter jets, bombers, missiles or whatever else the evil govt wants to throw at its citizens?
and I know that's probably an ignorant list, I don't know military arms. But if fighting the govt is your goal, you're going to have to arm yourself a whole lot more than you're probably armed now.

But back to the Feinstein question: What weapon is she trying to take from you that she refuses to give up herself? That was the claim that you apparently agreed with.

Does the level of weaponry possessed by the government negate a citizens right to oppose and resist a tyrannical regime? We are talking about a principle of self defense not the relative fire power of the parties. Powerful governments have been overcome by lesser armed resistance throughout history. The Syrian resistance is throwing off a brutal dictator with much inferior arms even as we speak. It is entirely legitimate to resist the limiting of the means of resistance to tyranny by the government. The banning of military style rifles is a giant step down a slippery slope.

[g8trjax]

At this point in America, gun control would have to be nothing short of confiscation. Banning this or that weapon is ridiculous and a total waste of the government's time.

[rivergator]

????

Not even close. I was, of course, referring to a person hiring a security firm for protection.

sorry, thought you were making reference to her being a senator, like C&G did.

[Lawdog88]

River, why don't you go beyond your usual one or two sentences and explain to us why it is ok for Diane Feinstein to carry a concealed weapon of her choice and at the same time propose laws which will limit citizens ability to defend themselves with the weapon of their choice? Isn't that rank hypocrisy? And please, if you will, limit the discussion to semiautomatic weapons.


And moreover, she wants folks to have to register - and locate for the government's files - the firearms folks lawfully possess . . . for later.

[wargunfan]

And moreover, she wants folks to have to register - and locate for the government's files - the firearms folks lawfully possess . . . for later.

This is what I was referring to when I commented that Feinstein's proposed law would drive millions of law abiding Americans into criminality. These are the people who will never register their lawful weapons or tell the government where they are. Millions of weapons will be hidden or buried and a new category of criminals will have been created by a ridiculous and useless law. This must not be allowed to happen.

[rivergator]

River, why don't you go beyond your usual one or two sentences and explain to us why it is ok for Diane Feinstein to carry a concealed weapon of her choice and at the same time propose laws which will limit citizens ability to defend themselves with the weapon of their choice? Isn't that rank hypocrisy? And please, if you will, limit the discussion to semiautomatic weapons.

No, it's not hypocrisy. She thinks handguns are OK, but assault weapons are not. Simple as that.

[ChartsandGrafs]

No, it's not hypocrisy. She thinks handguns are OK, but assault weapons are not. Simple as that.

Naturally. She realizes, just as all government officials do, that the American people, using only handguns, would be completely incapable of defending themselves and of preventing a tyrannical government crackdown on the rights and freedoms of the people. With military-grade "assault" rifles, though, it's a completely different story. Millions of those in the hands of the American people represents a formidable hurdle, and that can't be allowed to stand.

If she perceived that blocks of aged, cheddar cheese represented some kind of challenge against the authority of her governmental powers, she'd call them "assault cheeses" and want them outlawed.

[PIMking]

just bought another rifle, happens to be a 5.56 bolt action that takes AR mags, but I guess using anything higher than 10 round mags wouldn't be needed so say the anti gun people. But taking a mag of 20 rounds instead of carrying a few on me would be nice but that makes the gun super dangerous to the public

[108]

if you can prove the link between common sense gun control and big monied interests, you may have a point

but it's the opposite..the big money is flowing the other way

[PIMking]

My major issue is that gun control laws dont work now, the gun buy backs aren't getting the stolen guns and illegal guns off the street rather the legal citizens are turning theirs in.

Hell Illinois is passing a ban on mags and semi auto guns, they already have laws where you cant carry a weapon anyways so why add more redundant laws on top of that? more laws aren't the answer, we know that these people that did the mass shootings had mental issues, it needs to start with the proper mental evaluations and helping them first

[rivergator]

Naturally. She realizes, just as all government officials do, that the American people, using only handguns, would be completely incapable of defending themselves and of preventing a tyrannical government crackdown on the rights and freedoms of the people. With military-grade "assault" rifles, though, it's a completely different story. Millions of those in the hands of the American people represents a formidable hurdle, and that can't be allowed to stand.

If she perceived that blocks of aged, cheddar cheese represented some kind of challenge against the authority of her governmental powers, she'd call them "assault cheeses" and want them outlawed.

Yes, Dianne Feinstein and all government officials are setting it up so that the government can begin its tyrannical crackdown on every one of our rights and freedoms. And they plan to kill anyone who resists.
You figured it out.

[g8trjax]

No. Governments NEVER become tyrannical.

[PIMking]

Yes, Dianne Feinstein and all government officials are setting it up so that the government can begin its tyrannical crackdown on every one of our rights and freedoms. And they plan to kill anyone who resists.
You figured it out.

If they get rid of the 2nd amendment the first will be soon to follow. With the SPIKE in gun sales this last month the government should realize that it's going thave to kill millions of Americans that are obeying the constitution unlike them.

[rivergator]

If they get rid of the 2nd amendment the first will be soon to follow. With the SPIKE in gun sales this last month the government should realize that it's going thave to kill millions of Americans that are obeying the constitution unlike them.

You guys are good. Getting rid of the second amendment, killing millions. That's good.

[PIMking]

I will not give my guns up to a traitor that is trying to steal it from me. I know there will be millions more like me, I also know there will be the sheep that will follow every order just like in Germany in the 30's.....

Cant happen again? it has and will, we are repeating history (no holocaust involved here before you say something) once our rights to protect our self from those who are sworn to protect the constitution our rights to say what we want will be taken away too. Hell if you say anything negative about Obama you're racist now I wonder what it will be like in 4 years.

[busigator96]

The real battle is big versus little. Not governments versus the "free" markets.

[PIMking]

The government wants the little guys who pay their salaries to be defenseless so we have to live off their tit for the rest of our lives depending on them

[MichiGator2002]

You guys are good. Getting rid of the second amendment, killing millions. That's good.

In practical terms, the second amendment is the last guarantor of the others, in anticipation of either the total corruption or total breakdown of the civil institutions otherwise intended to prop them up.

[busigator96]

Are the need for assault rifles in a "free" society the problem or the symptom?

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

The real battle is big versus little. Not governments versus the "free" markets.

Government sometimes opposes free markets to have a monopoly of being the only "big."

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

No, it's not hypocrisy. She thinks handguns are OK, but assault weapons are not. Simple as that.

What is an "assault" weapon?

One with a magazine that holds more than 10 rounds? Many, many handguns have that capability.

One that has a pistol grip? By definition all handguns have a pistol grip.

One that is semi-automatic? There are literally tens upon tens of million semi-automatic handguns in circulation today. Hell, I own a .40 Sig Sauer semi-automatic pistol with a clip that holds 12 rounds. Do I have an "assault" weapon?

[PIMking]

What is an "assault" weapon?

One with a magazine that holds more than 10 rounds? Many, many handguns have that capability.

One that has a pistol grip? By definition all handguns have a pistol grip.

One that is semi-automatic? There are literally tens upon tens of million semi-automatic handguns in circulation today. Hell, I own a .40 Sig Sauer semi-automatic pistol with a clip that holds 12 rounds. Do I have an "assault" weapon?

Well its not a pistol clip it's a pistol magazine....

[ChartsandGrafs]

Yes, Dianne Feinstein and all government officials are setting it up so that the government can begin its tyrannical crackdown on every one of our rights and freedoms. And they plan to kill anyone who resists.
You figured it out.

If this is so far off the mark and completely unimaginable, as you'd have us believe, why has the U.S. government spent the last 30-40 years laying the legal groundwork to do just this very thing by creating a string of Executive Orders and laws that would not only turn the Executive Branch into a virtual dictatorship capable of bypassing Congress, but also strip the American people of all of their rights and put the country under a martial law police state? These Executive Orders exist. You can look them up. No single one is very alarming all by itself, but combined, and in full effect, they essentially create a Soviet-style dictatorship, and they are worded in such a way that they could be used even in times of peace. In other words, the country doesn't have to be at war with a foreign enemy for these Executive Orders to go into effect.

So, tell us, why should anyone believe the U.S. government is incapable of, or disinterested in, open tyranny? Why should anyone trust that it couldn't and wouldn't happen here, especially when it's happened in dozens of other countries in just the last century alone? You didn't answer my question earlier. What would prevent this from happening, exactly? What makes American politicians somehow different than the politicians of Soviet Russia, Nazi Germany, and Communist China?

[ChartsandGrafs]

There are essentially three groups of people in society who have guns:

1. Government
2. Criminals
3. Law-abiding citizens

Gun grabbers demand gun control, specifically a ban on the private ownership of "assault" rifles. But if such a ban goes into effect, the only people on this list who will be giving their guns up are the law-abiding citizens. This means that the only people who will have these guns are government and criminals, the two groups responsible for the most killings, crimes, and violence.

The gun grabbers would have us believe that they are doing this to reduce murder, crime, and violence, yet they are taking a position and advocating a policy that would make it so that only people who have guns are the ones responsible for the most murder, crime, and violence.

How does this make any sense?

[PIMking]

Government and criminals = oxymoron

[ChartsandGrafs]

Government and criminals = oxymoron

More like, redundant.

[gatorpa]

If this is so far off the mark and completely unimaginable, as you'd have us believe, why has the U.S. government spent the last 30-40 years laying the legal groundwork to do just this very thing by creating a string of Executive Orders and laws that would not only turn the Executive Branch into a virtual dictatorship capable of bypassing Congress, but also strip the American people of all of their rights and put the country under a martial law police state? These Executive Orders exist. You can look them up. No single one is very alarming all by itself, but combined, and in full effect, they essentially create a Soviet-style dictatorship, and they are worded in such a way that they could be used even in times of peace. In other words, the country doesn't have to be at war with a foreign enemy for these Executive Orders to go into effect.

So, tell us, why should anyone believe the U.S. government is incapable of, or disinterested in, open tyranny? Why should anyone trust that it couldn't and wouldn't happen here, especially when it's happened in dozens of other countries in just the last century alone? You didn't answer my question earlier. What would prevent this from happening, exactly? What makes American politicians somehow different than the politicians of Soviet Russia, Nazi Germany, and Communist China?

I am glad you are back from hiatus....

[ChartsandGrafs]

I am glad you are back from hiatus....

Thanks, dude, glad to be back.

[neisgator]

You guys are good. Getting rid of the second amendment, killing millions. That's good.

Yeah, it's so crazy..Never happ.....

[rivergator]

What is an "assault" weapon?

One with a magazine that holds more than 10 rounds? Many, many handguns have that capability.

One that has a pistol grip? By definition all handguns have a pistol grip.

One that is semi-automatic? There are literally tens upon tens of million semi-automatic handguns in circulation today. Hell, I own a .40 Sig Sauer semi-automatic pistol with a clip that holds 12 rounds. Do I have an "assault" weapon?

I'm sure there's a bunch of definitions. Since we're talking about Feinstein's bill, you could just read it and see how she defines it.

[wargunfan]

I'm sure there's a bunch of definitions. Since we're talking about Feinstein's bill, you could just read it and see how she defines it.

Why yes, this liberal gun grabber is just the person we want to be the arbiter of what is an assault weapon. NOT

I have a definition of an elitist, dunderheaded liberal hypocrite: Diane Feinstein. These are what we need to ban.

[ChartsandGrafs]

Isn't it strange that the last time we (recently) had a two-term Republican in the White House, along with Republican control of the entire Congress for well over half his term we saw the growth of the federal government expand at the highest rate in nearly forty years...........and yet we see the same righties that voted for that constantly make the specious complaint that it is somebody ELSE who is in favor of big government ?

Just another laughable and specious rotting plank upon which this silly straw-man argument was constructed. Probably even more laughable than the assertion that "liberals want to dismantle 2nd Amendment rights."

Arguing this point just reduces one to the level of mindlessness demonstrated in the original post.

Wait, you actually want us to be believe that liberals want to protect the Second Amendment? That they have no interest in gun control?

OK... You might want to consider going a little easier on the corn syrup and fluoride for a while.

[rivergator]

Wait, you actually want us to be believe that liberals want to protect the Second Amendment? That they have no interest in gun control?

OK... You might want to consider going a little easier on the corn syrup and fluoride for a while.

considering that you started off claiming that your "liberals want to dismantle the second amendment" was just a minor, random point in your OP, you certainly seem to be defending it ...

[PIMking]

Yeah, it's so crazy..Never happ.....

holy crap we agree on something!!! The world must be coming to an end, I woke up and the NHL lockout is over and we agree on something..

[PIMking]

I'm sure there's a bunch of definitions. Since we're talking about Feinstein's bill, you could just read it and see how she defines it.

she can define a chevy Corvette as a yugo but doesn't mean it's true. She and all the other retards that keep calling an ar15 an assault weapon are using words to define something that it is not. It's like me describing her as brilliant

[PIMking]

Original gun control was against black people, read a book "no guns for Negros" it's a great book to read. With that being said gun laws only protect the criminal, since it's people like me who wont break the law and obey it while the criminals do whatever they want.

With the article in the Des Moines paper the liberal that wants guns banned wrote something to the line of tying Boehner to his truck and dragging him around until he figures out the light of guns. That just shows that if you get rid of guns crazies will figure out other ways of killing people. Or what about the Brady Campaign poster that stated that "rape only lasts 30 seconds, a murder lasts a lifetime. A gun isn't the answer"... So it's okay to be a victim, well it's morally better to be a victim than to protect yourself from some dude trying to rape you? LOL

[neisgator]

holy crap we agree on something!!! The world must be coming to an end, I woke up and the NHL lockout is over and we agree on something..

I was being sarcastic. The world is safe.

[rivergator]

Original gun control was against black people, read a book "no guns for Negros" it's a great book to read. With that being said gun laws only protect the criminal, since it's people like me who wont break the law and obey it while the criminals do whatever they want.

With the article in the Des Moines paper the liberal that wants guns banned wrote something to the line of tying Boehner to his truck and dragging him around until he figures out the light of guns. That just shows that if you get rid of guns crazies will figure out other ways of killing people. Or what about the Brady Campaign poster that stated that "rape only lasts 30 seconds, a murder lasts a lifetime. A gun isn't the answer"... So it's okay to be a victim, well it's morally better to be a victim than to protect yourself from some dude trying to rape you? LOL


I'm guessing the Brady Campaign didn't really say that.

[PIMking]

I was being sarcastic. The world is safe.

damnit do go ruining a good thing... :laugh:

[PIMking]

http://i249.photobucket.com/albums/gg232/PIMking/DBFED3BD-3C69-44D8-8134-2EA6A278E654-68640-000008AF5A1F7937.jpg

Sent from my iPhone using GatorCountry

[rivergator]

That's fake.

link (http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/bradyad.asp)

[PIMking]

still wouldn't suprise me if they thought that way, they seem to think it's morally better to be a victim than to fight

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

I'm sure there's a bunch of definitions. Since we're talking about Feinstein's bill, you could just read it and see how she defines it.

Can you give me the cliff notes, since you seem to be defending her bill?

[rivergator]

Can you give me the cliff notes, since you seem to be defending her bill?

I don't believe I said her bill should pass. I was explaining what conservative claims here of her hypocrisy did not fit with the facts.

[rivergator]

still wouldn't suprise me if they thought that way, they seem to think it's morally better to be a victim than to fight

there you go. you know, when you have to falsely attribute opinions to others in order to justify your own, you might want to rethink your argument.

[PIMking]

there you go. you know, when you have to falsely attribute opinions to others in order to justify your own, you might want to rethink your argument.

well it does work well for the left, figured I would give it a try :)

[ChartsandGrafs]

Corn syrup and flouride. Good one, I get it.

What you might want to do is not equate having "interest in gun control" with wanting to "dismantle the 2nd Amendment." When you post as such, your posts will be nothing but material to disregard and laugh at.

Why not, exactly? If someone has "interest in controlling and/or restricting the free speech" of others, wouldn't that be a step on the road to "dismantling the First Amendment"? If so, why would it be any different for the Second Amendment?

Can you explain why government mercenaries and agents should be the only ones allowed to have "assault" rifles? Our government has killed far more people than law-abiding citizens have. So why would you want to disarm law-abiding citizens and not government?

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

I don't believe I said her bill should pass. I was explaining what conservative claims here of her hypocrisy did not fit with the facts.

So, are YOU in favor of banning assault weapons?

[rivergator]

So, are YOU in favor of banning assault weapons?

I don't feel real strongly because I don't know enough about it. I lean toward restricting the guns that serve no purpose other than killing large numbers of people in short periods of time. But I can't point to specific weapons because, as I said, my knowledge is limited. Don't know much about guns because they don't interest me.

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

I don't feel real strongly because I don't know enough about it. I lean toward restricting the guns that serve no purpose other than killing large numbers of people in short periods of time. But I can't point to specific weapons because, as I said, my knowledge is limited. Don't know much about guns because they don't interest me.

Semi-automatics rifles, shot guns and hand guns have been legal for a long time. Automatic guns are also legal, but extremely tightly regulated by the federal government. Purchasing one requires submitting fingerprints and photographs to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, going through an FBI criminal background check, and paying a $200 tax, among other requirements. Only automatic weapons manufactured and registered with the federal government before 1986 can be bought, owned and sold. Some states have even tougher regulations on automatic weapons.

[squigator]

Completely BS post. I don't see many liberals calling for the Second Amendment to be dismantled.

Not dismantled, just ignored or interpreted by the UN, right?

http://townhall.com/columnists/susanbrown/2012/11/21/unholy_trio_gun_control_the_un_and_obama/page/full/

[rivergator]

Not dismantled, just ignored or interpreted by the UN, right?

http://townhall.com/columnists/susanbrown/2012/11/21/unholy_trio_gun_control_the_un_and_obama/page/full/

Oh, good catch. That's an incredibly intelligent column that doesn't misrepresent the facts at all. I mean, just because the treaty says it does one thing, there's no reason not to pretend it does something completely different, right? I mean, even though it's quite impossible for the treaty to do what she claims it does, that shouldn't stop her from saying, right?
I mean, someone's bound to believe her.

[ChartsandGrafs]

I don't feel real strongly because I don't know enough about it. I lean toward restricting the guns that serve no purpose other than killing large numbers of people in short periods of time.

But you want the government to have as many of these weapons as possible, right? You want the government to be able to menace or kill large numbers of people in short periods of time.

So what happens if and when the government becomes tyrannical, as so many other governments have throughout the last hundred years? You haven't been able to construct one single argument as to why such a thing can't happen, so I have to assume even you believe such a thing is possible. If it happens, how do you propose the American people resist a tyrannical U.S. government if they have no access to military-style rifles? With what implements? Cell phones? Firecrackers?

What?

[rivergator]

But you want the government to have as many of these weapons as possible, right? You want the government to be able to menace or kill large numbers of people in short periods of time.

So what happens if and when the government becomes tyrannical, as so many other governments have throughout the last hundred years? You haven't been able to construct one single argument as to why such a thing can't happen, so I have to assume even you believe such a thing is possible. If it happens, how do you propose the American people resist a tyrannical U.S. government if they have no access to military-style rifles? With what implements? Cell phones? Firecrackers?

What?

you apparently and oddly consider "the government" to be some monolithic force. no matter which party is in majority, which president is in office, whether you're talking about a small town police force or the U.S. Army ... it's all "the government" that is about pounce as one single force.

[ChartsandGrafs]

you apparently and oddly consider "the government" to be some monolithic force. no matter which party is in majority, which president is in office, whether you're talking about a small town police force or the U.S. Army ... it's all "the government" that is about pounce as one single force.

This is pretty funny coming from a guy who apparently sees the American people as a monolithic force. After all, you don't want a gun ban imposed on just the people who commit mass murders, you want a gun ban on everyone, as if they are all potentially mass murderers, law-abiding citizens included. Can you address this contradiction?

As for the U.S. government, it is far more of a "monolithic force" than the citizenry is. The U.S. government is your classic pyramidal, hierarchical power structure, where the authority and power accumulates the higher up the chain you go. Furthermore, it's set up in such a way that it's entirely compartmentalized throughout its structure. This means that many agencies and departments within the government have no idea what the other agencies and departments are doing. The left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing. The only people who can see what all the various agencies and departments are doing are those at the very top, and they have the ability to coordinate actions involving all the agencies and departments without those individual agencies and departments knowing what the full picture is.

I know you've been told the U.S. government has "checks and balances" built into it, and it does to some extent, but the government also has features built into it that allow it to bypass those checks and balances, specifically the previously mentioned power to issue Executive Orders, "executive privilege", and state secrets privilege. Look these up and understand what they mean. They give the government the ability to act and override all the checks and balances that are in place to prevent lawlessness and tyranny, and their existence is no accident.

[rivergator]

This is pretty funny coming from a guy who apparently sees the American people as a monolithic force. After all, you don't want a gun ban imposed on just the people who commit mass murders, you want a gun ban on everyone, as if they are all potentially mass murderers, law-abiding citizens included. Can you address this contradiction?

As for the U.S. government, it is far more of a "monolithic force" than the citizenry is. The U.S. government is your classic pyramidal, hierarchical power structure, where the authority and power accumulates the higher up the chain you go. Furthermore, it's set up in such a way that it's entirely compartmentalized throughout its structure. This means that many agencies and departments within the government have no idea what the other agencies and departments are doing. The left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing. The only people who can see what all the various agencies and departments are doing are those at the very top, and they have the ability to coordinate actions involving all the agencies and departments without those individual agencies and departments knowing what the full picture is.

I know you've been told the U.S. government has "checks and balances" built into it, and it does to some extent, but the government also has features built into it that allow it to bypass those checks and balances, specifically the previously mentioned power to issue Executive Orders, "executive privilege", and state secrets privilege. Look these up and understand what they mean. They give the government the ability to act and override all the checks and balances that are in place to prevent lawlessness and tyranny, and their existence is no accident.


Where do you come up with this stuff?

[ChartsandGrafs]

Where do you come up with this stuff?

...

I lean toward restricting the guns that serve no purpose other than killing large numbers of people in short periods of time.

[rivergator]

First of all, you could probably be a bit more honest and include the entire quote:

I don't feel real strongly because I don't know enough about it. I lean toward restricting the guns that serve no purpose other than killing large numbers of people in short periods of time. But I can't point to specific weapons because, as I said, my knowledge is limited. Don't know much about guns because they don't interest me.

Read more: http://www.gatorcountry.com/swampgas/showthread.php?t=253115&page=5#ixzz2HLjgyk7L

Second, I'm not sure restricting a few weapons is exactly a gun ban. You know what a ban is, right?

[ChartsandGrafs]

First of all, you could probably be a bit more honest and include the entire quote.

What else in that quote was significant enough to include? That your knowledge is limited? That you're not interested in guns? How would mentioning that materially change the portion I highlighted? It wouldn't.

Your complaint doesn't make any sense.

Second, I'm not sure restricting a few weapons is exactly a gun ban. You know what a ban is, right?

Very well, you believe the people should be restricted from possessing military-grade rifles that the government may have unlimited access to. Is that correct? You want a potentially tyrannical government to be able to possess and utilize critical weaponry that the citizens won't have access to.

What possible reason could you have for this?

[rivergator]

As I've made clear, I'm not worried about a tyrannical govt. I'm just not. But I see you avoided the monolithic govt issue to pretend I want a ban on weapons. So, which govt are you so afraid of? City, county, state, federal?

[ChartsandGrafs]

As I've made clear, I'm not worried about a tyrannical govt. I'm just not.

I already know this. You are a proponent of tyrannical government. If the U.S. government became openly tyrannical, you'd be in paradise.

So of course you're not worried.

But I see you avoided the monolithic govt issue to pretend I want a ban on weapons.

LOL, right, I "ignored" the monolithic government issue by answering and completely debunking it, a response to which you notably couldn't mount a rebuttal.

So, which govt are you so afraid of? City, county, state, federal?

Federal.

[rivergator]

I already know this. You are a proponent of tyrannical government. If the U.S. government became openly tyrannical, you'd be in paradise.

So of course you're not worried.



You do love that kind of stuff when you can't think of anything else don't you. "You want to ban all guns from all Americans ... You're a proponent of tyrannical government ..."



LOL, right, I "ignored" the monolithic government issue by answering and completely debunking it, a response to which you notably couldn't mount a rebuttal.



See, you don't actually debunk something by opinion. That requires fact. But, OK, those at the very top of the government, the president, is going to be able to mobilize all the forces of govt against the people?

[ChartsandGrafs]

You do love that kind of stuff when you can't think of anything else don't you. "You want to ban all guns from all Americans ... You're a proponent of tyrannical government ..."

Yep. Nothing I said was untrue.

See, you don't actually debunk something by opinion. That requires fact. But, OK, those at the very top of the government, the president, is going to be able to mobilize all the forces of govt against the people?

Sure, why not? All the Executive Orders are in place for such a martial law scenario. Rex 84 is in place. Continuity of government plans are in place. FEMA is in place. The Department of Fatherland Security is in place. The police are militarized. Drones are already flying over American skies. Fusion centers are in place. The U.S. and Canada have deals in place to use each other's troops in the event of an emergency. The list goes on and on.

What specifically would make such a scenario impossible or prevent it from ever happening?