Connecticut shooting and gun control debate

[ArMaP]

   There has not been a confirmed terrorist attack in
the U.S sinse 9/11/01.

Confirmed by who (or should it be "whom", I never know what's the most correct )?

[rdunk]

Not even the fort hood shooting
was terrorism, just 'work place violence'.

Well, I have only read the last 3 pages just because I knew this would be mostly an opinionated discussion, and mostly would be based upon blaming the guns and not the "shooter", so I have just stayed away from it. But...........the above quoted statement is one of the biggest pieces of glorified B-S that I have ever seen.

The evidence clearly shows the Fort Hood act involved initiatives related to Islamic terrorism, and to call it "work place violence" is leftist make-speech, as we heard some use after it happened.  And this type of reference is coming from the same people that called the Benghazi murders "a response to a video"!!! That to is/was pure undefiled lying B-S too.

Guns don't kill people, people do. Man over centuries has used every "tool" available to kill and to destroy, according to his own individual thoughts, sane or insane. Guns just happen to be one of the current tools!

You had better believe it - an armed populace does effect the heavy-handed actions of their government, as well as the actions of would be criminals!   

[08rubicon]

 rdunk, you are correct. Fort hood was islamic terrorism.
However, the U.S. government chose to call it 'work
place violence'.  It is my opinion that sandy hook was
also islamic terrorism, and almost everyone has called
it gun violence..We are in a war for our survival, but
most of us do not even know , or care.
  08rubicon

[petrus4]

Are you just ignoring my point on purpose or just don't understand it?

With respect, I honestly think it is you who does not understand ours.

I have been in a situation where my home was invaded, and where, on calling the police as I was supposed to, they never came.  I have also been in a scenario where I had to sleep for six weeks with a length of pipe next to me, because of an attempt to burn my house down; which eventually culminated in my steel mailbox being driven through my bedroom window, and my having to leave the property.

So if you wonder why I am libertarian and pro-gun, I can tell you that it is because I have known, on multiple occasions, what it is like to believe that my life is about to end, and have no ability to defend myself, because the laws of the country I live in, forbid me from owning firearms.  For me, it is not a theoretical or abstract argument.

You wish to prevent gun ownership because you wish to save lives.  But I will tell you that gun ownership saves lives as well.

I will also say to you, what I wrote on Above Top Secret, that anyone who wishes to maintain liberty must be entirely uncompromising in their willingness to do so; because the psychopaths are even more uncompromising in their longing to destroy it.  It does not, and can not, matter what the psychopaths' arguments are.

Let me explain. First and foremost we were socialists. As national socialists, or Nazis, we presumed that government and the people were hostile to one another. Thus, we understood that the old German tradition of citizens' owning guns had to end. On March 18, 1938, we enacted our Law on Weapons and ruled that only government agents may own firearms. You can imagine my approval as I watched Senator Thomas Dodd craft America's Gun Control Act of 1968 by having our own law of 1938 translated for him by an official of the Library of Congress. My dear Julius, we can be proud of how similarly the two laws read. Those gun control efforts are naive and well-meaning, but their results will resemble ours. We told the German people that gun control laws were needed to curb gang activity and preserve democracy, but what those laws did was help us prevail.

...

Finally, dear Julius, you will remember what I frequently said and wrote in Mein Kampf: "The state must declare the child to be the most precious treasure of the people." I explained that as long as the government is perceived as working for the benefit of children, the people will happily endure almost any curtailment of liberty and almost any deprivation. It is truly heartwarming to see how well this lesson has been learned by the American government. In the name of children, incursions into the private lives of American citizens have been made that we Nazis would have gazed at with open-mouthed admiration. Does it matter that our bodies failed as long as our spirit still triumphs?
-- Adolf Hitler, posthumous letter to Julius Streicher.

Although I am aware that it is not your conscious intention, Pimander, you are currently acting as the psychopaths' advocate.  I cannot urge you strongly enough, to read the above quoted letter in its' entirety, and to otherwise educate yourself in the tactics of the enemy.

[petrus4]

I want to clarify something else here, because I know my previous post sounds fairly dark, and like fearmongering in general.

However, truthfully, it's not fear.  It's purely a case of what the Greys ultimately taught me as an abductee; namely, that either I exercise my own sovereignty, or someone else is going to exercise it for me.  There are also always going to be people like that around; the entire reason why the Service to Self polarity exists, is to serve as developmental catalyst for people.  That's their job.

Hitler was one of them.  Most of the senior members of any contemporary administration in the United States are others.  It is vitally important to see the behaviours and motivations of these people for what they really are, so that you can make informed decisions about how to respond. 

As an example of what I mean, when they rave about needing to ban guns to "protect the children," it is important to understand that, as psychopaths, they don't actually care about the children at all.  What they care about is removing your freedom at any possible cost; but because they know you care about children more than almost anything else, children are simply the form of leverage they attempt to use, to get you to give them what they want.

[petrus4]

I'm just going to say it:-

I told you so.

[ArMaP]

You had better believe it - an armed populace does effect the heavy-handed actions of their government, as well as the actions of would be criminals!

I lived the first 11 years of my life under a real dictatorship (one of the longest in the world and the longest in Europe), and the powers were more afraid of what people could learn than what they could do, as the people that were ignorant of what was happening thought that it was a good government, even when they and their sons had to go to war in the African colonies for reasons that they didn't understand but that were "for the good of the motherland".

A cardinal that was close to the prime minister even said once that "people should only be able to write their names, they don't need to learn how to read a newspaper", but he never mentioned the thousands that had guns (as I said before, under some circumstances, people can have guns, and it was like that under the dictatorship).

My father was once arrested because someone told the police that he had a forbidden book (a really forbidden book, not one of those that we see referenced in Internet forums or in YouTube videos as supposedly forbidden but that anyone can get), but thanks to a friend that went to where my father had his coat and hid the book he was only arrested for the night, while the police searched his mother's house (this was before my father came to Lisbon and married my mother).

If the installed powers have allowed people in the US to keep guns this long it's because they were not really afraid of them, as what happened now could have been done before.

PS: during the revolution that ended the dictatorship, the revolutionaries didn't use their guns (it was a military revolution), only the political police used them on the people that were outside the building where they were hidden, killing one man.

[ArMaP]

Thus, we understood that the old German tradition of citizens' owning guns had to end. On March 18, 1938, we enacted our Law on Weapons and ruled that only government agents may own firearms.

Ignoring the ridiculousness of someone writing a letter using someone else's name, that 1938 law made it easier to have a gun in Nazi Germany, they weren't banned at all, only Jews we forbidden from having guns.

[petrus4]

Clearer video than the last one.  Watch the first 30 seconds or so very closely.

[Pimander]

You wish to prevent gun ownership because you wish to save lives.  But I will tell you that gun ownership saves lives as well.

I don't wish to prevent it.  It should be regulated.  If you need one to do your job then fine.  Gun ownership may save some lives.  However, there are more people murdered where there are more guns and ultimately more lives are lost than saved.

No matter how much people plead, what I am saying will remain the truth.  No matter how much it goes against what many have had drummed into them, the symbol of guns equating with freedom is utter nonsense in the modern world where governments have vastly superior weapons.  It is a vestige of a bygone era when it did make people more free.  These days gun ownership costs lives and I don't care how much you all plead on this, I am still correct so don't expect me to allow false logic and emotional pleading to win a debate.  It will NOT.


Did your guns stop 9/11?  Do they stop all the homicides by shooting?  Do they stop children being massacred?  No. The easy availability of guns only makes these events more likely no matter how much you plead.