Gun Control: I Told You So (Nanny-Nanny Boo-Boo)

[HoreTore]

It's sunday, blame the hangover, Lemur

[Vuk]

I'm sorry, Vuk, but you super-extra-bonus random this morning. First you barge into a thread about how the Dems are walking away from gun control claiming that they are not, and bizzarrely link to an excerpt from Nancy Pelosi's book on ABC (a passage relating to Sala Burton battling cancer, no less). Then you make wild and unhelpful comparisons between Obama, Hitler and the Holocaust. Then you declare that you are not comparing Obama to Hitler, even though you just did. Then it tuns out you don't even know Godwin's Law or its prime corollary, which is strange.

Then somehow you work Stalin into this, while also attempting to derail the thread by starting an argument over whether or not Hitler was really a lefty Commie hippie. Then you're off an barking about ammunition prices and how it's all part of the plan to disarm the populace and send Jews to the ovens.

Dude, you are massively, epically random.

Oh, sorry, I must have linked to the wrong segment. The segment I meant to link to was where she said that the administration was gonna pursue gun registration. And I do not think my comparisons are unhelpful, I think they are a good warning as to why we should not go down that road.
So what if I did not know what Godwin's law is? I am not a professional internet troll. (I only work part time :P)
I used the comparison between myself and Stalin (good buddies that we are :P) in a theoretical way to show just how what I said about Hitler applies. And no, I was not trying to derail the thread, I simply mentioned the fact that Hitler was a socialist (it is historical fact, not my opinion) and was leftwing on his social policies. It was Kukri who brought up the ammo think, not me, and the rest of what you said in that sentense is putting words in my mouth. I am not being random, this is a thread about the administration's policy with gun-control.

Kukri, if you're going to feed this paranoia, would it be too much to ask for a source? I could just as easily say that I read somewhere that Obama intends to kill all dogs. There, see, it's fact-free and designed to freak people out.

lol, I am hardly being paranoid. You are the one making wild accusations against me. Kukri does not need to provide a source because I read an article about it in the NRA a while back. :P (and we all know that the NRA is a definative source)

[tibilicus]

Here we go again *grabs some popcorn*

Not only do we get the above classic, we can also discuss whether Hitler was a socialist. Two classics, in one, yeah!

Everything comes back to Hitler!

Nevermind... I'll prepare my answer later. When I'm not hurried up.

Just leaving with...

Why do you so desperately need to have an assault rifle??? Self defense? pff against what?, red commies?.

Because when the government becomes to powerful one day the people will form a militia and take then down with there sub par citizen assault rifles!

That's the poor argument echoed by a lot of people. I'm only personally in favour of them because at times I feel law enforcement can't be trusted as the sole bearer of fire arms. Whilst this is irrelevant in my country I can see why it's relevant in countries where the law enforcement can carry guns.

Personally I wouldn't trust just a specific set of people to have guns, we either all have guns or non of us have guns, that's how I see it.

[Lemur]

Bringing up Nazism on the internet without knowing Godwin's Law is akin to selling drugs in New York without knowing the Rockefeller Laws. It's amateur hour.

And you don't want us "to go down the same road" as Hitler? Really? Do ya think? Well, I'm sure we're all terribly grateful that you dug up Hitler's grave and rolled his moldering corpse down here to make that point. 'Cause if you hadn't done so, who knows what might have happened?

Now, I'm guessing ('cause your link was clearly wrong) that Nancy Pelosi wrote something in a book about gun control. And this is the rather shaky foundation for your chaotic tower of rhetoric. Please provide your source, so we can at least see what spark lit this inferno of paranoia and ahistorical comparison.

-edit-

And what is it with rightwing Orgahs who declare that they don't need to provide sources or define their terms? If it happens one more time this week it will be a definite trend ....

[Hosakawa Tito]

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr
This isn't the 18th century, people can't just take up arms and march to battle if the government is oppressing them.

Shhh.....don't upset 'em.

Heh, tell that to Karzai.

I wonder if some patrons even know the difference between a fully-automatic firearm and a semi-automatic firearm? The difference is about 700 rds./min. and the full-auto version is not legal for most civilians to own or buy. Legal clip capacity for semi-auto rifles and shotguns in most states is also very limited, New York State is 5 rounds. The only exception I can think of is .22 caliber rifles.

So that semi-auto AR15 with the 5 round clip isn't what the average drug cartel goon wants, and he sure can afford the upgrade. Sure it looks like a machine gun/assault rifle, but it's function as an assault weapon is quite limited compared to the full auto version. Comparing the semi-auto rifle to the military version full auto is on a par with comparing a Maserati look fiberglass kit car to the real McCoy. The notion that every US gun owning citizen has an arsenal of machine guns under the bed is comical.

"The president supports the Second Amendment, respects the tradition of gun ownership in this country, and he believes we can take common-sense steps to keep our streets safe," pointing to $2 billion in new funding for state and local law enforcement in the stimulus package.

And he best keep supporting it. I own handguns *with the registered permits required by NYS*, hunting rifles & shotguns. I'm a law-abiding citizen, Marine Corps vet, who has the right to keep these arms. My Constitution and 233 years of US history and case law says so. Any attempt to infringe on this right that goes beyond common sense restrictions that are already in place will be vigorously resisted. I give up none of my rights, and any politician that tries to take them can my .

Because when the government becomes to powerful one day the people will form a militia and take then down with there sub par citizen assault rifles!

That's the poor argument echoed by a lot of people.

One doesn't have to take down the guvment by force of arms. If the resistence is wide spread and persistent enough than numbers alone will force change.

[InsaneApache]

I have to say, I've been entertained this afternoon.

[Jolt]

Well, Hitler did work up an amazing social and economic comeback of Germany, which the Weimar Republic couldn't. If Obama is Hitler in that way, then USA are quite well handled.

[Lemur]

One doesn't have to take down the guvment by force of arms. If the resistence is wide spread and persistent enough than numbers alone will force change.

I agree in principle, but I'm unable to think of a successful example. The Whiskey Rebellion? They had right on their side, certainly, but they lost, big-time. The Civil War (or the War of Northern Aggression, if you're in the South)? Again, they lost. Hard. Is there a practical example from our history where the citizens successfully changed guv policy through armed resistance? I'm guessing there must be ....

Well, Hitler did work up an amazing social and economic comeback of Germany, which the Weimar Republic couldn't. If Obama is Hitler in that way, then USA are quite well handled.

Oh for crying out loud. Why don't you Hitler fetishists go start your own thread where you can praise and damn the Führer on your own dime. ENOUGH!

[InsaneApache]

The revolution?

[Vuk]

Heh, tell that to Karzai.

I wonder if some patrons even know the difference between a fully-automatic firearm and a semi-automatic firearm? The difference is about 700 rds./min. and the full-auto version is not legal for most civilians to own or buy. Legal clip capacity for semi-auto rifles and shotguns in most states is also very limited, New York State is 5 rounds. The only exception I can think of is .22 caliber rifles.

So that semi-auto AR15 with the 5 round clip isn't what the average drug cartel goon wants, and he sure can afford the upgrade. Sure it looks like a machine gun/assault rifle, but it's function as an assault weapon is quite limited compared to the full auto version. Comparing the semi-auto rifle to the military version full auto is on a par with comparing a Maserati look fiberglass kit car to the real McCoy. The notion that every US gun owning citizen has an arsenal of machine guns under the bed is comical.



And he best keep supporting it. I own handguns *with the registered permits required by NYS*, hunting rifles & shotguns. I'm a law-abiding citizen, Marine Corps vet, who has the right to keep these arms. My Constitution and 233 years of US history and case law says so. Any attempt to infringe on this right that goes beyond common sense restrictions that are already in place will be vigorously resisted. I give up none of my rights, and any politician that tries to take them can my .



One doesn't have to take down the guvment by force of arms. If the resistence is wide spread and persistent enough than numbers alone will force change.

Exactly. No one is talking about assembling on a field and fighting the military if there is a law they do not like. It is just that the fact that people are armed is enough for the government NOT to be able to exercise full control over the citizenry.

Bringing up Nazism on the internet without knowing Godwin's Law is akin to selling drugs in New York without knowing the Rockefeller Laws. It's amateur hour.

And you don't want us "to go down the same road" as Hitler? Really? Do ya think? Well, I'm sure we're all terribly grateful that you dug up Hitler's grave and rolled his moldering corpse down here to make that point. 'Cause if you hadn't done so, who knows what might have happened?

Now, I'm guessing ('cause your link was clearly wrong) that Nancy Pelosi wrote something in a book about gun control. And this is the rather shaky foundation of your chaotic tower rhetoric. Please provide your source, so we can at least see what spark lit this inferno of paranoia and ahistorical comparison.

-edit-

And what is it with rightwing Orgahs who declare that they don't need to provide sources or define their terms? If it happens one more time this week it will be a definite trend ....

Amateur? Yeah, I gues you are right. I do have a life aside from the internet.


You should always put current events into the context of history. If people did, most suffering in the world would probably not exist.

I'll get you think in a sec, I obviously posted to the wrong segment. And thanks for lumping the members who do not agree with you into the pot of "rightwing Orgahs". I said that he did not need to provide a source for me, because I knew what he was talking about. If he wants to give you a source, that is his choice.

And BTW, I do not see how pointing out a trend (that we would be following if we were to institute firearm registration) of disarment throughout history, and pointing to the disasterous effects that it brings is being paranoid.

[Husar]

That is absurd and certainly infringes of someone's right to keep and bear arms.

So the price of an oil tanker infringes on your right to keep and bear oil tankers?

[seireikhaan]

Epic thread.

[Jolt]

Oh for crying out loud. Why don't you Hitler fetishists go start your own thread where you can praise and damn the Führer on your own dime. ENOUGH!

Eh? That was unexpected. Much more the name calling of being an Hitler fetishist. Which I feel insulted when I just pointed out a mere fact, without ever saying whether I supported or stood against anything he did. Truly unexpected from you Lemur

[Vuk]

Eh? That was unexpected. Much more the name calling of being an Hitler fetishist. Which I feel insulted when I just pointed out a mere fact, without ever saying whether I supported or stood against anything he did. Truly unexpected from you Lemur

eh?

So the price of an oil tanker infringes on your right to keep and bear oil tankers?

The law would restrict the ammunition you could buy directly, and indirectly through price. THAT infringes on your right.
It is like a law saying that you can voice your opinion, but only through special fliers you have to file with our office is not infringing on your right to free speech.

[Vuk]

Lemur, did you bother to see the video? Fast forward to -2:25, that is where she talks about it. It was right there, in the link I provided.

[Jolt]

eh?

Didn't think Lemur was a guy so say such a thing.

[Lemur]

Didn't think Lemur was a guy so say such a thing.

Oh, I can say that and worse when I get irritated. I'm sorry I was so harsh, and it's not as thought you deserved it, but I am genuinely honked off that the leader of the Third Reich has been repeatedly and pointlessly injected into a thread I started. Words fail me.

The revolution?

Suuuuuure, of course, but I was asking if there was an example after that. Since the American Revolution ended, we no longer have the advantage of an extremely expensive ocean to cross when the Oppressive Government wants to send more Hessian troops to quell the tea-baggers. We've been armed and prepared to resist domestic tyranny for 233 years. Has it been done successfully? I think it's a fair question.

[Vuk]

Suuuuuure, of course, but I was asking if there was an example after that. Since the American Revolution ended, we no longer have the advantage of an extremely expensive ocean to cross when the Oppressive Government wants to send more Hessian troops to quell the tea-baggers. We've been armed and prepared to resist domestic tyranny for 233 years. Has it been done successfully? I think it's a fair question.

The problem is though that there has never been a time since that the government has turned completely against the people, and nation-wide armed resistance has been necassary. Do you know why that is? Cause the people have been armed. Arms keep peace without being used. They just gotta be there. I really want to work out an example from Soviet control in Hungary, but I am not gonna waste the time. :P

[Fixiwee]

But what if Obama read "Mein Kampf" by Hitler?

Uhm, just kidding.

[Fixiwee]

The problem is though that there has never been a time since that the government has turned completely against the people, and nation-wide armed resistance has been necassary. Do you know why that is? Cause the people have been armed. Arms keep peace without being used.

There are so many european contries that prove your argument to be wrong. E.g.: Norway.
People do not need to be armed to keep a goverment running efficiently for the people.

[Rhyfelwyr]

There are so many european contries that prove your argument to be wrong. E.g.: Norway.
People do not need to be armed to keep a goverment running efficiently for the people.

And in many cases, these countries do not have all the intricate checks-and-balances the US system has through its Constitution. No country has less need for the capacity to armed resistance than the US.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Halfway through the first page, this thread had me in exaspiration. Everything that's wrong with internet debating and the Backroom.

By now, however, I'm firmly convinced this is the greatest thread in the history of mankind.

Epic. Epic. Epic.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Actually, what was I thinking above? Must join.

Oh, I can say that and worse when I get irritated. I'm sorry I was so harsh,

Man, that sounds dramaqueenish. Are you gay, or what?

Hitler hated gays. And he was right, because if gays get guns then they will recruit even more. See my link in the other thread how gays UNDERMINED the Weimar Republic. Give them a finger and they will keep forcing their Godless ways on society, just as they've done with evolution.

I am very disappointed in you as well, Lemur, starting this gay thread and disguising it as an anti-gun one. I bet you hoped that we'd fall for it and handed over our guns, eh? Well tough luck buddy.

[Vuk]

And in many cases, these countries do not have all the intricate checks-and-balances the US system has through its Constitution. No country has less need for the capacity to armed resistance than the US.

Armed citizenry IS one of those checks and balances.

Man, that sounds dramaqueenish. Are you gay, or what?

Hitler hated gays. And he was right, because if gays get guns then they will recruit even more. See my link in the other thread how gays UNDERMINED the Weimar Republic. Give them a finger and they will keep forcing their Godless ways on society, just as they've done with evolution.

I am very disappointed in you as well, Lemur, starting this gay thread and disguising it as an anti-gun one. I bet you hoped that we'd fall for it and handed over our guns, eh? Well tough luck buddy.

Thank you for your mature, constructive contribution sir.
I am glad that we have senior members like you to add your wisdom.

[Lemur]

Yeah, I wasn't asking a rhetorical question, but a genuine one. My knowledge of American history is far from comprehensive, and for all I know there has been an example of armed resistance to the U.S. gov that has worked. But all that springs to mind is the Whiskey Rebellion and the Civil War. There must be other instances, even if they're not on the same scale.

As for the argument that the reason there has been no oppressive gov is because we're all armed, well, it's a bit of circular reasoning, innit? As Fixiwee points out, there are several examples of Euro nations that do not maintain an armed citizenry that are not oppressive. And there are many examples of nations where everybody is armed to the teeth and life is utterly miserable (Somalia, Beirut, the former Yugoslavia, Congo, etc.).

Note that I am in favor of gun ownership, and I think it's a good thing. That seems to get lost in all of this Hitler-hugging and rhetorical excess.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sx_6WekXKcM

[Strike For The South]

Armed citizenry IS one of those checks and balances.

No it's not. The ballot box is. If you don't like what Obama is doing in 4 years you can vote him out. Simply because someone you don't agree with is in power does not mean that he is the anti-christ and he's going take our wonderful penile enlarging firearms.

I would have loved to see some of you in 1960. A catholic! President! He's going to take orders from Rome! The US is going to be under the papist jackboot!

[Vuk]

Yeah, I wasn't asking a rhetorical question, but a genuine one. My knowledge of American history is far from comprehensive, and for all I know there has been an example of armed resistance to the U.S. gov that has worked. But all that springs to mind is the Whiskey Rebellion and the Civil War. There must be other instances, even if they're not on the same scale.

As for the argument that the reason there has been no oppressive gov is because we're all armed, well, it's a bit of circular reasoning, innit? As Fixiwee points out, there are several examples of Euro nations that do not maintain an armed citizenry that are not oppressive. And there are many examples of nations where everybody is armed to the teeth and life is utterly miserable (Somalia, Beirut, the former Yugoslavia, Congo, etc.).

Note that I am in favor of gun ownership, and I think it's a good thing. That seems to get lost in all of this Hitler-hugging and rhetorical excess.

Gun-ownership is ONE of the checks and balances. The founders gave us an excellent government that has serveds us very well, and it is full of checks and balances. As for the Former Yugoslavia (I will not tackle the others (esp Beirut) as my knowledge of them is far from comprehensive), which is my specialty of study, they had a civil war, plain and simple.
It is an excellent example though. Before Tudjman put his radical Ustasha in control of regions in the Krajina, which is what sparked the war in Bosnia which pread throughout the rest of the former Yugoslavia, he first disarmed Serbs living in the Croatia and did not let them serve in public office or police functions. Once the Serbs were disarmed, he was able to put the radical Ustasha (responsible for the ethnice cleansing of Serb populace and murder of 100's of thousands of Serbs during WWII) in charge of provinces on the already hot Krajina. Of course this provoked outrage among the Serbs, which allowed for Serbian radical groups such as the White Eagles to claim power (as they were the only real military force on the Krajina) to fight the Ustasha. Both sides then committed attrocities against each other. Tudjman would never have been able to do that though, and the war would never have happened if he did not first disarm the Serbs. Once he did, the Ustasha started their persecutions, and there was nothing that unarmed Serbs could do.

No it's not. The ballot box is. If you don't like what Obama is doing in 4 years you can vote him out. Simply because someone you don't agree with is in power does not mean that he is the anti-christ and he's going take our wonderful penile enlarging firearms

ummm...wow Strike. Did you even read what I said? I never said that people should oppose politicians they do not like with firearms, I said that the fact that the citizenry is armed is a detterent to anyone who would use the power of the government to exploit the people. When I do not like a politician (as I do not like Obama), I make phone calls, I vote against them, and then I try to raise awareness afterwards. I don't shoot people cause I don't like them Strike, and I would love to see which part of my post could make you think that.


EDIT: Oh, and by the way, I don't think you should try to use one to enlarge your . It may end up doing the exact opposite.

[InsaneApache]

You know, he might be onto summat about Herr Schicklgruber. After all if it wasn't for those darn Hessians the Yanks'd be drinking tea and eating crumpets. Unarmed of course.

[KukriKhan]

Kukri, if you're going to feed this paranoia, would it be too much to ask for a source? I could just as easily say that I read somewhere that Obama intends to kill all dogs. There, see, it's fact-free and designed to freak people out.

Frankly, I originally thought this thread (with: "...I Told You So (Nanny-Nanny Boo-Boo)" as a title) was intended as a light-hearted, sort of satirical update of the gun-control discussion we have every week or so lately.

I further mis-apprehended intentions when I saw vuk invoking Godwin so early and passionately. Honestly, I thought he was deliberately playing along. And I thought BG was too. So I joined the frolic.

I see the error or my ways now - everyone is deadly serious, and I shouldn't kid around.

A simple Google Search for 'register' + 'ammunition' will yield 2,040,000 results, most dominated by NRA articles, but also including newspaper reports and politician blogs about (mostly unsuccessful) attempts to register ammunition as a way 'round having to fight the direct fight for-or-against banning citizens bearing arms.

My reference to ATF plans was a mistake. I haven't the liberty to speak on that. Sorry. I withdraw the remark.