Anti-gun propagandists

[+OverSword]

I'll state up front that I'm not a supporter of armed guards at schools or teachers packing heat, but this article, among other things, makes some genuinely good examples of how powerful people believe there should be two levels of gun control. One for them (the important people) and one for the rest of us (those who don't matter in the 'big picture')

I urge you to read the entire article before commenting, it's short and easy.

From the article:

Apparently she saw the need for firearms in the defense of her own life, but not the need for the average citizen to have the same opportunity.

And what about Senator Chuck Schumer, who called for the president to use the excuse of “national security” and terrorism to force through restrictive gun legislation? The man who also voted against a bill which would have prevented outside entities like the UN from asserting gun control treaties that affect the American public? Well, Chuck has his own concealed carry permit in the state of New York, of all places, and still continues his antigun rhetoric. Again, do they see themselves as part of a higher and more valuable class of people? How do they explain these contradictions in their position?

What about media gigolo Michael Moore and his theater of the absurd? Playing the role of gun fan while at the same time incessantly promoting gun control rhetoric using skewed information and disingenuous talking points? The same man who suggested that the sound of a racking shotgun on tape is as effective as having the real thing uses bodyguards armed with THE REAL THING, one of whom was recently arrested for carrying an unlicensed weapon into JFK Airport:

But anti-gun propagandists with armed bodyguards are nothing new. In fact, anti-gun mayor Michael Bloomberg travels with a cadre of five to six bodyguards, all packing heat. Why do these people who say they despise guns and gun ownership continue surrounding themselves with the same “devilish weaponry”? It’s simple; because the mere reality of gun ownership deters criminal attack. If it didn’t, they wouldn’t rely on firearms at all.

http://www.alt-marke...s-own-hypocrisy

Edited January 4, 2013 by OverSword

[Mr.United_Nations]

Security would be the only thing good for a while, you don't want them armed with sticks

[aztek]

Security would be the only thing good for a while, you don't want them armed with sticks

i do. or more like i don't care.

[Corp]

Security would be the only thing good for a while, you don't want them armed with sticks

What if they were pointed sticks?

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

Security would be the only thing good for a while, you don't want them armed with sticks

Indian police use sticks, metre and a half pieces of knitted bamboo - they hit hard enough to do permanent damage.

[Drayno]

I'll state up front that I'm not a supporter of armed guards at schools or teachers packing heat, but this article, among other things, makes some genuinely good examples of how powerful people believe there should be two levels of gun control. One for them (the important people) and one for the rest of us (those who don't matter in the 'big picture')

I urge you to read the entire article before commenting, it's short and easy.

From the article:

Apparently she saw the need for firearms in the defense of her own life, but not the need for the average citizen to have the same opportunity.

And what about Senator Chuck Schumer, who called for the president to use the excuse of “national security” and terrorism to force through restrictive gun legislation? The man who also voted against a bill which would have prevented outside entities like the UN from asserting gun control treaties that affect the American public? Well, Chuck has his own concealed carry permit in the state of New York, of all places, and still continues his antigun rhetoric. Again, do they see themselves as part of a higher and more valuable class of people? How do they explain these contradictions in their position?

What about media gigolo Michael Moore and his theater of the absurd? Playing the role of gun fan while at the same time incessantly promoting gun control rhetoric using skewed information and disingenuous talking points? The same man who suggested that the sound of a racking shotgun on tape is as effective as having the real thing uses bodyguards armed with THE REAL THING, one of whom was recently arrested for carrying an unlicensed weapon into JFK Airport:

But anti-gun propagandists with armed bodyguards are nothing new. In fact, anti-gun mayor Michael Bloomberg travels with a cadre of five to six bodyguards, all packing heat. Why do these people who say they despise guns and gun ownership continue surrounding themselves with the same “devilish weaponry”? It’s simple; because the mere reality of gun ownership deters criminal attack. If it didn’t, they wouldn’t rely on firearms at all.

http://www.alt-marke...s-own-hypocrisy

Michael Moore said people who own guns are racist.

Clearly he has no grasp on reality.

But it's okay for him to have armed body guards, of course.

Edited January 5, 2013 by Eonwe

[+and-then]

Sickening hypocrisy and worthy of them being shamed (if that's possible) in public. I think they are pompous asses and they are craven to boot......

[ninjadude]

Oversword, where is the issue? Anti-gun does not mean prohibition. It means more control. That's the strawman that the author is attempting. That Schumer carries or Michael Moore use armed guards is not shocking, hypocritical, or even of any issue. Even repealing the 2nd amendment is not prohibition. A law could be made to do that. But that is far from reality. Our creator did not endow us with the right to bear arms.

Edited January 5, 2013 by ninjadude

[AsteroidX]

Tar and feather the hypocrits. Thats what they used to do. Oh but wait youd have to get there past military equipped armed guards,

[acidhead]

Why are we willing to accept that some people are too dangerous to have a gun, but okay with them moving about freely in society?

[MstrMsn]

Oversword, where is the issue? Anti-gun does not mean prohibition. It means more control. That's the strawman that the author is attempting. That Schumer carries or Michael Moore use armed guards is not shocking, hypocritical, or even of any issue. Even repealing the 2nd amendment is not prohibition. A law could be made to do that. But that is far from reality. Our creator did not endow us with the right to bear arms.

Did you even bother reading what you wrote? ANTI does not equate to more control, it means they are against. You might want to crack open a dictionary and look up the word.

And yes, Schumer, Feinstein, Bloomberg do want bans. That's what their resctrictive "gun control" desires are.

Then again, you might just be p***y because your state failed to ban "assault weapons" and large capacity magazines....

[The Silver Thong]

Do armed gaurds stop bank robberies. Ya didn't think so.

[The Silver Thong]

does a clerk at 7-11 stop it from being robbed with a gun. does a guy buying milk in the back even know whats going on even if he has a concel to carry. No

These are called jerk off rights cause they don't work never did never will. well in a rae exception ;_

Edited January 5, 2013 by The Silver Thong

[MstrMsn]

does a clerk at 7-11 stop it from being robbed with a gun. does a guy buying milk in the back even know whats going on even if he has a concel to carry. No

These are called jerk off rights cause they don't work never did never will. well in a rae exception ;_

Did armed Secret Service stop the attempt on Reagan? Well, yeah, after he missed him and hit Brady. The point is, Hinkley got a shot off, before the armed men had a chance to do anything.

I'm a lawful gun owner. I understand both sides. I have issues with both sides - more so the anti gun people, only because most of them know absolutely nothing about guns. MOST just follow the crowd.

[The Silver Thong]

Did armed Secret Service stop the attempt on Reagan? Well, yeah, after he missed him and hit Brady. The point is, Hinkley got a shot off, before the armed men had a chance to do anything.

I'm a lawful gun owner. I understand both sides. I have issues with both sides - more so the anti gun people, only because most of them know absolutely nothing about guns. MOST just follow the crowd.

Are you really going to compare a President to a guy in a 7-11 making a grab for beer to deffend your point.

[MstrMsn]

Are you really going to compare a President to a guy in a 7-11 making a grab for beer to deffend your point.

The point I was making is this.... (and I'm using caps to clarify and strengthen, not yell....)

HAVING ARMED SECURITY OR BEING ARMED YOURSELF DOES NOT GUARANTEE YOUR SAFETY. NOT UNLESS YOU ALSO HAVE THE ABILITY TO SEE INTO THE FUTURE OR CAN OTHERWISE FORETELL WHEN SOME DING BAT IS GOING TO PULL A GUN ON YOU.

Besides, it doesn't matter if the person is the President or some poor shmuck working in a store. Either both have the right to have the ability to defend themselves (however futile it may be), or neither has the right. Being President does not make you any more important than a regular citizen, it just means that you have 300+ million more bosses.

Edited January 5, 2013 by MstrMsn

[The Silver Thong]

The point I was making is this.... (and I'm using caps to clarify and strengthen, not yell....)

HAVING ARMED SECURITY OR BEING ARMED YOURSELF DOES NOT GUARANTEE YOUR SAFETY. NOT UNLESS YOU ALSO HAVE THE ABILITY TO SEE INTO THE FUTURE OR CAN OTHERWISE FORETELL WHEN SOME DING BAT IS GOING TO PULL A GUN ON YOU.

Besides, it doesn't matter if the person is the President or some poor shmuck working in a store. Either both have the right to have the ability to defend themselves (however futile it may be), or neither has the right. Being President does not make you any more important than a regular citizen, it just means that you have 300+ million more bosses.

Thank you for making the point that more guns means more security as it does not. If a president can be almost killed in front of a nation and killed surrounded by guns means little. To say more guns is the answer no absalutly not. It means tighter restrictions not bans but better control of who is getting these guns. Sandy was a good aka bad example of a so called good gun owener that did nothing to secure her guns from her whacho son. If she was alive she would be charged big time. Thats what I'm talking about.

[The Silver Thong]

The right to bare arms to many is like giving a 3 yr old fire crackers.

[MstrMsn]

Thank you for making the point that more guns means more security as it does not. If a president can be almost killed in front of a nation and killed surrounded by guns means little. To say more guns is the answer no absalutly not. It means tighter restrictions not bans but better control of who is getting these guns. Sandy was a good aka bad example of a so called good gun owener that did nothing to secure her guns from her whacho son. If she was alive she would be charged big time. Thats what I'm talking about.

The state of Connecticut has gun laws very similar to your country's. Her guns were infact LOCKED up. That is why he killed her first, so he could access them. If he didn't need her to get to them, do you think he would have killed her? Maybe, maybe not... we don't know.

We don't need more laws, nor do we need better "control". We need better enforcement of the laws we already have. MOST gun related incidents are from criminals - people that don't care if a certain gun is banned, or they aren't allowed to have a 30 round mag. What needs to happen is quite simple, unfortunately, too many people (yourself included) are looking in the wrong area.

[The Silver Thong]

Yes we do not know how she stored the guns as she took him shooting. If her guns were in FACK locked why is that not the case as she took a bullet to the head. Should have been locked up at the range.

Reduce gun crime by increacing gun penalty, very simple. Don't ban them however there is never a need for an assault riffle. Guns are ok but f with them in a manor your right is revoked just as drinking and driving. Whats so hard about that. If you are convicted and in your country that puts you on a no fly list that should include a no gun list and each time caught the prison time goes up.

[MstrMsn]

She was shot well after he beat her near to death, or are you purposely avoiding that part?

The fact that he was living there, and was mentally and emotionally unstable, she should have either kept them elsewhere.

"Reduce gun crime by increacing gun penalty, very simple" Exactly, but it doesn't happen. Do you know why?

[The Silver Thong]

She was shot well after he beat her near to death, or are you purposely avoiding that part?

The fact that he was living there, and was mentally and emotionally unstable, she should have either kept them elsewhere.

"Reduce gun crime by increacing gun penalty, very simple" Exactly, but it doesn't happen. Do you know why?

She knew her son was umm not right so umm no matter her death he got her guns, As I said if she was alive she would be up on charges to or do you not think so.

How does harsh punishment for illigal guns not work when used in a crime.

could it be an American or should I say US thing

Edited January 5, 2013 by The Silver Thong

[The Silver Thong]

He shot her with her own gun ffs no matter he beat her

her training failed

she should have shot him right

Edited January 5, 2013 by The Silver Thong

[The Silver Thong]

Guns don't save lives they take them..... not unless one is under false pretence

Edited January 5, 2013 by The Silver Thong

[MstrMsn]

She knew her son was umm not right so umm no matter her death he got her guns, As I said if she was alive she would be up on charges to or do you not think so.

How does harsh punishment for illigal guns not work when used in a crime.

could it be an American or should I say US thing

See, first, you have low lever street pushers (just one example) arrested. They have a gun on them, along with drugs. The police book them on drug and weapon charges. But, the District Attorney's office (or the Attorney General's office if the FBI, ATF or DEA make the arrest and it's going before a federal court) will often either drop the weapons charges or lessen the time served if they give up their supplier. While this is within the DA's/AG's discretion, it shouldn't be done. However, no state's governor (nor the president) is going to tell them "NO!!! You can not do that!!"

So, yes, it is basically a US thing, and it is utterly retarded, but there is nothing we can do about it. Threatening them with voting them out won't do any good. Public awareness? No media group will touch this (maybe a small cable show would, but not many people watch those).

On a side note, what's your (and your country's) take on the No Hockey BS???