Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Gun Control Advocates Practice Hypocrisy ?


Simbi Laveau

Recommended Posts

thanks for your time bro, but the only thing you coninced me is that you still don't get, that guns do not commit crimes, criminals do. and we have a lot more of them.

Never once did I say guns commit crimes, they are tools to kill animals and people nothing more. Guns are used by crimanls to get what they need to get. To do what they need to do. Guns are also used by Police as a deturant against criminals.

I do have one question for you, what do you think I'm trying to say here? Do you believe that I support a firearms ban?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i tell you what buddy, i don't care what others do with their guns, i need mine not to commit crimes but protect myself, and if you after my guns, i see it as attack on me, plain and simple.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know, that's a telling statement. So do you kind of think a restriction here and a restriction there will probably lead to something bigger in the future? Like a ban? Not sure if that's what you're thinking but all the b****ing and moaning we are doing today on behalf of the second amendment isn't necessarily because we think a quick ban is going to happen tomorrow or in our lifetime. Yes, I don't trust them not to ban them tomorrow if we didn't complain because we all know they would in a heartbeat if we kept our mouths shut but the fight isn't as much about right now as it is for the whole future to come. The revolutionary war wasn't just about the needs of the moment. It would have been a bit pointless. That and the founding documents came about for the future of America. Sure I could be dead by then but a ban in the future is as much of a concern to me as a ban is now. Until all of humanity is rid of evil and rift raft, every decent man and woman ought to be defend themselves however they choose and are able to should the police or gubment not get there on time given of course that they themselves aren't the evil decent men and woman are up against.

Thing is that's a slippy slope fallacy. That A might maybe one day lead to B so the first action should never be taken. However this assault weapon ban was already used in the 90's. It was then repealed. If the current assault weapon gets passed, which is rather iffy, then it will likely be repealed the next time the Republicans get into office. Plus there are already plenty of restriction on the arms that Americans can own and you still have plenty of access to firearms. So if the ban put in place by Clinton wasn't a horrible blow to gun rights then why is that claim being made for the ban that Obama is trying to put into place?

It's fine behind mindful of future consequences but it needs to be approached in a rational manner. Screaming "they're gonna take our guns!" as some are doing does nothing for their argument.

Actually i don't tink canadians should tell americans how to control our guns, since you are doing exact opposite.

talking about hypocrisy, lol

actually i do like the way canada is going with that.

On the gun control front, Canada is going backwards.

Besides killing the long gun registry, a useful investigative tool for police that experts say has saved as many as 600 lives a year, the feds are no longer requiring shop owners to keep records of guns and ammo purchases. It’s too costly and messing with our freedom. Where have we heard that one before?

The HarperCons are also considering extending gun licenses to 10 years from the current five, despite concerns raised by the RCMP and mental health officials. The feds are not only weakening gun control laws, they’re doing it in secret.

Last month, the government quietly postponed for another year implementation of the firearms marking regulation that are part of Canada’s obligations to the UN Firearms Protocol and the Organization of American States’ Inter-American Convention Against the Illicit Manufacturing and Trafficking of Firearms. Gun control advocates only heard about it from pro-gun types who were heralding the change as yet another victory for freedom.

Guns may be as American as apple pie, but Canada is cutting out it’s own reputation when it comes to firearms. It’s alone internationally among developed countries in rolling back gun laws.

http://www.nowtoront...?content=190379

Getting rid of the gun registry didn't have much to do with freedom and more about cost. In Canadian culture guns are not linked to freedom. Having guns just isn't has important to us as it appears to be for Americans. And given that the Liberals put in some major gun laws that weren't very effective many gun owners turned into Conservative supports so it's not surprising that the Tories are doing things to make them happy. Likewise it's not surprising that they're doing things in secret since they've become as corrupt as the Liberals were.

However the key to the situation is cultural. When the Conservatives went after the gun registry they played up the issue of cost, because saying to was destroying Canadians freedom wouldn't fly. If they lose the next election and the new government, likely the NDP, try to bring back the registry the objections will be about the cost and how it's unfair to gun owners. There won't be people screaming about tyranical governments or that criminals will be able to rape and murder at will or that all guns are going to disappear. They'll likely get a lot of support provided they can do something about the cost.

That's why many of the objections raised by American gun owners seem odd to foreigners. Because we don't have guns so engrained in our culture many of the objections seem a bit silly to be honest, the reason being that we have similar restrictions in our countries and yet we're not seeing the horrible pictures that the more rabid pro-gun group tries to paint.

Edited by Corp
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Getting rid of the gun registry didn't have much to do with freedom and more about cost.

according to experts the regestry saved 600 lives a year, so how much does canadian life cost??????

Link to comment
Share on other sites

according to experts the regestry saved 600 lives a year, so how much does canadian life cost??????

600 Lives a year. Not even that many people are killed by guns a year in Canada from Homicides and accedents put together before and during the Long Gun Regestry. The vast majority of people took there own lives.

I'm not after you guns, infact I support your use of firearms, provided you use them correctly store them correctly. However you have to ask yourself if you need a gun to protect yourself then you have to ask whats wrong with where you live that you are scared enough to own a gun for that purpose? However there are certain guns which I believe should not be legal for sale to people. Particularly pistols with short barrels, mainly because its hard to hit anything with thsoe at range. You also don't need 30+ rounds in a Magazine.

I support gun ownership, I support safe gun use. When my son is older he is going to work his way from a pellet gun to a .22 to higher calibers. But only if he can prove that he knows how to use it properly. I lived with a rifle and a pistol for 7 months. I know how to shoot. I know that anyone who says they use a 5.56mm to hunt anything bigger then a racoon is kidding themselves.

I beleive in responsible gun ownership, and I know that not everyone is cut out to have the responsibility to own a firearm.

~Thanato

Link to comment
Share on other sites

600 Lives a year. Not even that many people are killed by guns a year in Canada from Homicides and accedents put together before and during the Long Gun Regestry.

idk, man, it is not me, but your experts said it. if you find these numbers boloney, may be our numbers are boloney as well, don't you think????

Link to comment
Share on other sites

WTF where were you guys earlier?? I was fighting the mob myself!! :D

Funny you say that. I was cruising through the thread earlier yesterday and saw what you were going through and actually considered butting in on your behalf. Mainly to tell you it's kind of regressive to tell the foreigners their opinions don't matter here on UM. It's a losing proposition that I had to learn myself so I figured you could do the same. Being honest, I'm sure I will not always take my own advice and am bound to say similar things again but I try not to. The guys your arguing with aren't so bad. I've had the same argument with Flombie some time ago. Turns out he's not such a tree hugging hippy. He just ain't from around here and can be down to earth on a lot of matters. CORP, he's not so bad either. I disagree with plenty of his views and visa versa but he simply has no fear of overreaching government. Not because he's a tough guy but because he doesn't think they're that bad. Yep, that's how I see you Corp.

Just try and stay on task. Speak your mind and speak as intelligently as possible with common sense if you want your points to be heard and taken seriously. You won't change many minds but with logical arguments it's not impossible. I learned just the the day that information I had posted along with like minded sensible arguments actually has changed one members mind from no guns to pro guns by his own admission and i was overjoyed and vindicated. And that's just one guy who let me know about it. I imagine there are others. So that's my advice but don't be shocked if I don't always follow my own. I'm only human.

So if the ban put in place by Clinton wasn't a horrible blow to gun rights then why is that claim being made for the ban that Obama is trying to put into place?

It's fine behind mindful of future consequences but it needs to be approached in a rational manner. Screaming "they're gonna take our guns!" as some are doing does nothing for their argument.

I was a young teenager during most of the Clinton years and although I remember his Lewinsky scandal quite well I don't remember him as having disdain about this country. Obama said he wants to fundamentally transform the country and that didn't mean the way things work in Washington. Those are pretty heavy words which easily could, and I believe do, mean he wants America in name only because without our founding fundamentals that's exactly what we will become.

Clinton was a liar but I don't think his patriotism was ever questioned. Deny it all you want but Obama, his rhetoric and all the people he has and does surround himself are less than credible as all-Americans.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

according to experts the regestry saved 600 lives a year, so how much does canadian life cost??????

And other experts put forward that the registry did nothing. And as Thanato those number sound very off. In 2011 Canada had 598 murders in total. Guns accounted for around 160 of those deaths. So unless we had a whole lot of accidental deaths, which I doubt, I don't see how 600 lives could be saved a year. Besides the point I was making was that the concept of freedom really wasn't part of the debate. The focus was more about if the registry was having a noticeable impact or if the money put to it could be better spent elsewhere.

Mr_Fess I've heard it said many times on these boards about how Obama is anti- American, how he wants to destroy the country, etc etc. Frankly I don't see it and most of it comes off as sour grapes. America has survived four years under Obama and it will survive four more years under Obama. He's talked plenty about changing how things work but he hasn't done very much. Even his health care reform was half hearted. The gun reforms are being put forward because he wants to do something about gun crime, not because of some secret plot to destroy America for no reason. Now how effective those reasons will be are another question.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mr_Fess I've heard it said many times on these boards about how Obama is anti- American, how he wants to destroy the country, etc etc. Frankly I don't see it and most of it comes off as sour grapes. America has survived four years under Obama and it will survive four more years under Obama. He's talked plenty about changing how things work but he hasn't done very much. Even his health care reform was half hearted. The gun reforms are being put forward because he wants to do something about gun crime, not because of some secret plot to destroy America for no reason. Now how effective those reasons will be are another question.

Hey I'm not trying to convince you of anything. Just saying what others think and your opinion holds as much water as anyone else's.

I know we'll survive. Thanks in part to our voices, his internal opposition and the steel curtain that is the constitution. However, I pose one simple question to you. Can you say with utmost positivity that if it we kept quiet and didn't recite the second amendment every hour of the day that Obama would take it upon himself to acknowledge the validity of the constitution? Do you honestly believe that he cares for any gun rights whatsoever? Sorry, two questions... I believe he and other elected officials would ban them in a heartbeat if they could. Their concern is less for statistics and more about fearing US and our guns. To that I say Good. They should be. They're supposed to be and so long as they keep their hands off them they'll have nothing to fear.

Edited by -Mr_Fess-
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

. Besides the point I was making was that the concept of freedom really wasn't part of the debate.

i was not talking about freedom and canada in the same sentance. canadian freedom is something i care little about.you're telling us we have to control our guns more, yet you let your control loose. btw LGR was not the only item on the link i posted.

if you tell me you don't have many crimes, and you can afford to loosen control, thus make guns more available, and more guns will be bought, faster, than it proves my point even more. it is not guns that commit crimes.

Edited by aztek
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Funny you say that. I was cruising through the thread earlier yesterday and saw what you were going through and actually considered butting in on your behalf. Mainly to tell you it's kind of regressive to tell the foreigners their opinions don't matter here on UM. It's a losing proposition that I had to learn myself so I figured you could do the same. Being honest, I'm sure I will not always take my own advice and am bound to say similar things again but I try not to. The guys your arguing with aren't so bad. I've had the same argument with Flombie some time ago. Turns out he's not such a tree hugging hippy. He just ain't from around here and can be down to earth on a lot of matters. CORP, he's not so bad either. I disagree with plenty of his views and visa versa but he simply has no fear of overreaching government. Not because he's a tough guy but because he doesn't think they're that bad. Yep, that's how I see you Corp.

Just try and stay on task. Speak your mind and speak as intelligently as possible with common sense if you want your points to be heard and taken seriously. You won't change many minds but with logical arguments it's not impossible. I learned just the the day that information I had posted along with like minded sensible arguments actually has changed one members mind from no guns to pro guns by his own admission and i was overjoyed and vindicated. And that's just one guy who let me know about it. I imagine there are others. So that's my advice but don't be shocked if I don't always follow my own. I'm only human.

Now that's what I call a cracking post.. well said

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now that's what I call a cracking post.. well said

Thanks! Just don't be mad if I forget to follow my own rules. If I tell you to keep your opinion in Ireland just give me a friendly Internet smack. I'll come back down to earth. Eventually :)

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks! Just don't be mad if I forget to follow my own rules. If I tell you to keep your opinion in Ireland just give me a friendly Internet smack. I'll come back down to earth. Eventually :)

I'm going to hold you to that lol

Edited by Beckys_Mom
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I haven't read all the posts yet so I apologize in advance for that, but I got this in an email and I thought it was REALLY interesting...I am attempting to copy and paste here, so here goes:

hhhuuuuuuuummmmmmmmmm !

Why is it that none of the disturbed and evil men, who steal guns, then go and kill movie-goers and children in school, has ever been identified as a conservative NRA member?

Ft Hood~~~ Registered Democrat ~ Muslim

Columbine ~~~ Too young to vote; both families were registered Democrats and progressive liberals

Virginia Tech ~~~ Wrote hate mail to President Bush and to his staff ~ Registered Democrat

Colorado Theater ~~~ Registered Democrat; staff worker on the Obama campaign; Occupy Wall Street participant; progressive liberal

Connecticut School Shooter- ~~~ Registered Democrat; hated Christians

Common thread is that all of these shooters were progressive liberal Democrats.

INTERESTING, isn't it?

Proof these are mental illness crimes.

Maybe it's just the Democrats who shouldn't have guns!

edited so it would be big enough that you can read it.

Edited by Gummug
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Look, we don't even have anything like the 2nd amendment, and nobody cares! It is not defining your life as much as you think. I guess that is why "we" (we also have very different ideas of how gun control should be put into practice) are so stunned by your reactions in this debate.

Flombie, I'm sorry if this touches a sensitive nerve, but doesn't the idea, that one of the first things Hitler did was implement gun control, bother you in the least? That as a direct result 6 million Jews and I don't know how many Germans died? That Hitler's gun confiscation imo helped keep him in power and as a result the destruction of Germany ensued?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Im going on a limb here and gonna guess about 6 million Germans died during WW2 military and civilian combined. Just a number crunch not an opinion.

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

Edited by AsteroidX
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Flombie, I'm sorry if this touches a sensitive nerve, but doesn't the idea, that one of the first things Hitler did was implement gun control, bother you in the least? That as a direct result 6 million Jews and I don't know how many Germans died? That Hitler's gun confiscation imo helped keep him in power and as a result the destruction of Germany ensued?

I find it funny when people say Hitlers gun control allowed his goverment to almost take over Europe with the exact opposite. He created a military just as the US has one the people could never fight. Besides the exact same thing is being used in the US and the west. Government controlled media. Private media can say what it wants as long as they lobby enough. The truth is always far from the facts when it come to agenda media through political agenda. The US and most of us are blind unless we care to look.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find it funny when people say Hitlers gun control allowed his goverment to almost take over Europe with the exact opposite. He created a military just as the US has one the people could never fight. Besides the exact same thing is being used in the US and the west. Government controlled media. Private media can say what it wants as long as they lobby enough. The truth is always far from the facts when it come to agenda media through political agenda. The US and most of us are blind unless we care to look.

I do think you're right, I think the media has a lot to do with the state of things as well...to be honest, I didn't fully understand your post. I'm a little dense sometimes I guess, lol.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Flombie, I'm sorry if this touches a sensitive nerve, but doesn't the idea, that one of the first things Hitler did was implement gun control, bother you in the least? That as a direct result 6 million Jews and I don't know how many Germans died? That Hitler's gun confiscation imo helped keep him in power and as a result the destruction of Germany ensued?

No... he barred the Jews and undesirables from ever owning any guns. Not the whole country. Anyone but a Jew and undesirables was able to own a gun. That lead to the Holocast of Jews and undesirables. For better understanding, Undesirables were handicapped, mentally ill, and sick individuals. For better understanding, I too would be considered a undesirable in the eyes of Hitler due to my hearing loss. Notice how they are trying to state that it is the handicapped people who shouldn't be able to own a gun in the passed couple of months? Hasn't no one ever caught on to this? Hell the handicapped people can't even joined the military, even if it is to do cleaning duties even though a gun equals everyone. I astonished not one person has seen this parallel... Doesn't matter if they are undesirable, they are still human beings and is protected by the constitution, but Obama and the rest of the politicians are bypassing that fact and saying we shouldn't have the same exact rights. Of course a person who is mentally challenged is dangerous, but the drugs that treat them make them much more dangerous. A person with a mental depression can control it without drugs, but a person with drugs tends to get screwed up even more. If we stopped kicking the can down the road, we could get this fixed and maybe help the Hitler's Undesirables which includes me. This includes making real progress in fixing the defects in our lives, coming up with something that will help is. A pill isn't the answer for everything, but maybe a steady understanding how mental problems actually happen would. For the physical mental problems, physically fixing the problem would be better. Isn't this the time to actually take a leap in that area of science and medical profession?

What is sad, if some of our politicians would have their way, I would have existed because I would have been aborted by the state. I have a feeling tons of the people on these forums wouldn't have existed either. It is right to say we should fear our government, because everyone in the government only know how to destroy and control.

Edited by Uncle Sam
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Flombie, I'm sorry if this touches a sensitive nerve, but doesn't the idea, that one of the first things Hitler did was implement gun control, bother you in the least? That as a direct result 6 million Jews and I don't know how many Germans died? That Hitler's gun confiscation imo helped keep him in power and as a result the destruction of Germany ensued?

Hitler captivated his nation. He was like a rockstar. He turned a crmbled and defeated nation into the most powerful on Earth. The people wanted to go to war. Hitler could of let the german jewish population keep there rifles but it wouldnt of made much of a differance. The german military was to powerful. German civilians still had guns.

The German people let hitler do what he did and they turned a blind eye. Not a gun ban. Also Hitler didn't take the guns of those he conqoured.

Edited by Thanato
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hitler captivated his nation. He was like a rockstar. He turned a crmbled and defeated nation into the most powerful on Earth. The people wanted to go to war. Hitler could of let the german jewish population keep there rifles but it wouldnt of made much of a differance. The german military was to powerful. German civilians still had guns.

The German people let hitler do what he did and they turned a blind eye. Not a gun ban. Also Hitler didn't take the guns of those he conqoured.

Hitler let the conquered French and Polish and others keep their guns? I hadn't heard that, this comes as a surprise. History is not my forte.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

of course hitler did take guns away from anyone who was not his supporter, and jews especialy.

this lie that he did not has been debunked many times here, but ppl still insist on tis b.s.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

of course hitler did take guns away from anyone who was not his supporter, and jews especialy.

this lie that he did not has been debunked many times here, but ppl still insist on tis b.s.

There were 2 acts with relation to Firearms in Germany one in 1928 before hitler rose to power which required every firearm regestered permits to own and seprate permits to buy. In 1938 Nazi Germany passedc an act which removed many restrictions on long guns, including the regestry, limits, and permits. They did require gun stores to give there sales records to the police once a year. TheNazi party only made special rules for guns for the Jewish population and other 'undeserables'. They did not take guns away from 'regular' germans.

obviously in occupied ations many guns were removed but as far as i know they didnt go door to door.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While the gun laws had been tightened for Jews and others (I believe the law uses the term "gypsies"), as well as convicted criminals including homosexuals, they were loosened for certain groups, such as members of the NSDAP, SS, SA, and even for higher ranks in the Hitlerjugend. I think the point behind this law is clear to see.

And no, they did not exactly go from door to door, but "we heard rumors about firearms in this building" had been used for searching entire houses, and finding all kinds of illegal things, as well as people.

The difference between this law from '38 and and today's laws is the universal effect they are having; they do not target specific groups.

I have never heard of Hitler's troops disarming the French citizens as well, but is an interesting thing to find out. I do know, however, that the French had their very own gun policies since '39. I will try doing some research on that, as well as asking a friend who is specialised in European comparative law. He might know about this.

Edited by FLOMBIE
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because the Constitution is immutable?

Truth is, that until 2008, no-one with any legal standing believed for a moment that the second amendment guaranteed the right to bear arms outside of a militia.

Until the Supreme Court ruled otherwise. Just as one day, it's likely to rule otherwise again, when it's stacked with Liberal judges, instead of Conservative ones.

In other words, the US Constitution is subject to constant judicial reinterpretation, depending on the current opinion of the Supreme Court Judges.

Sometimes, their opinions evolve due to further input on the same issues; the exact same thing that Flombie suggested would be useful.

If you believe that the US Constitution is in any meaningful way set in stone - if you believe, for example, that it absolutely guarantees Americans the right to personally bear arms forever - then you're very much mistaken.

The only place that would hold true is in an individuals opinion, the various rights for which I believe that you've already covered.

In 1791 the Founding Fathers, you know the guys that wrote the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, thought the 2nd Amendment guaranteed the right to bear arms outside of a militia. All the citizens that insisted that the Constition contained the 2nd Amendment thought it guaranteed the right to bear arms outside of a militia. But perhaps none of them had any legal standing. They just founded our government and wrote/ratified the document that is the basis for our government.

I can honestly say that until the 70s I never heard anyone say that the 2nd Amendment wasn't an individual right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.