What I don't understand about gun Nazis

[Votto]

1. Why is it that we should not hold all Muslims to blame for a few lunatic few terrorists by forcibly screeing them in any way, but we should hold all gun owners suspect of being guilty until proven innocent with various screening processes because of a few lunatic domestic terrorists?

2, Why is it that we should trust the police and the military with guns more than the average citizen?

3. When you finally get a lib stooge on the Supreme Court to rip up the 2nd Amendment, only needing one more after Scalia died, how will you round up all the guns?

As Patrick Henry once wrote, "Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?"

The entire Canadian active-duty army has fewer people carrying arms than the US federal government civilian agencies!

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"What I don't understand about gun Nazis"

You also don't understand what a straw man fallacy is either; your thread premise is an example of one, and it fails as a consequence.

A straw man fallacy is when one contrives a lie about his opponent in an effort to misrepresent his opponent's position on the issue, such as the lie that there are 'gun Nazis,' and then attacks that contrived 'position' (straw man) in an effort to win the 'argument.'

No one presumes gun owners to be 'guilty,' the notion is ridiculous idiocy.

No one trusts the police and military more than the average citizen with guns, that's delusional nonsense.

And no one seeks to 'rip up' the Second Amendment, or 'round up all the guns,' that's as ignorant as it is moronic.

 

[JoeB131]

1. Why is it that we should not hold all Muslims to blame for a few lunatic few terrorists by forcibly screeing them in any way, but we should hold all gun owners suspect of being guilty until proven innocent with various screening processes because of a few lunatic domestic terrorists?

Here's the thing. We ARE screening Muslims coming in from other countries. Most of the terrorist attacks being carried out on American Soil are by American-born Muslims who were - wait for it - able to get a gun they shouldn't have had.

The thing is, every time we have a mass shooting, within days, we find out that the shooter - Lanza, Loughner, Holmes, Mercer - was some kind of dangerous lunatic that everyone in their lives knew was nuts. the thing is, we don't have effective screenings if such obviously damaged people are able to get guns.

2, Why is it that we should trust the police and the military with guns more than the average citizen?

Because the police and military have been trained, are under a command structure that demands accountability, and are answerable for their actions. You know, "Well Regulated'.

As opposed to guys like Lanza, Loughner, Holmes, Mercer, who are just dangerous lunatics.

3. When you finally get a lib stooge on the Supreme Court to rip up the 2nd Amendment, only needing one more after Scalia died, how will you round up all the guns?

Well, first, I don't think you will see a comprehensive gun ban from SCOTUS. They will just reset the clock back to pre-Heller where states and cities can regulate guns.

second, long term, your gun culture IS dying. Only 22% of Americans own guns. That's down from 35% in 1970.

 

[OKTexas]

"What I don't understand about gun Nazis"

You also don't understand what a straw man fallacy is either; your thread premise is an example of one, and it fails as a consequence.

A straw man fallacy is when one contrives a lie about his opponent in an effort to misrepresent his opponent's position on the issue, such as the lie that there are 'gun Nazis,' and then attacks that contrived 'position' (straw man) in an effort to win the 'argument.'

No one presumes gun owners to be 'guilty,' the notion is ridiculous idiocy.

No one trusts the police and military more than the average citizen with guns, that's delusional nonsense.

And no one seeks to 'rip up' the Second Amendment, or 'round up all the guns,' that's as ignorant as it is moronic.

How about you go have a chat with Sen. Dianne Reinstein
and get back to us on that, no one wants rip up the 2nd and roundup all the guns thing.

 

[Davros]

Is the OP saying there should be no screening, and anyone should be able to walk into any arms supply dealer and purchase any kind of arms there?

 

[gipper]

"What I don't understand about gun Nazis"

You also don't understand what a straw man fallacy is either; your thread premise is an example of one, and it fails as a consequence.

A straw man fallacy is when one contrives a lie about his opponent in an effort to misrepresent his opponent's position on the issue, such as the lie that there are 'gun Nazis,' and then attacks that contrived 'position' (straw man) in an effort to win the 'argument.'

No one presumes gun owners to be 'guilty,' the notion is ridiculous idiocy.

No one trusts the police and military more than the average citizen with guns, that's delusional nonsense.

And no one seeks to 'rip up' the Second Amendment, or 'round up all the guns,' that's as ignorant as it is moronic.

Using the strawman argument is something the left has perfected. Obama uses it in every speech. Some of us see the obvious illogical premise, but sadly many Americans are easily duped and fall for the strawman argument... Like the OP has.

 

[Old Rocks]

But I am so sure that more guns on the streets is the answer. Yessirreeeeeeeeee................ get more guns out there. Then we can see more than two mass shooting a week. Getting real boring when there are only one or two a week.

 

[Obiwan]

But I am so sure that more guns on the streets is the answer. Yessirreeeeeeeeee................ get more guns out there. Then we can see more than two mass shooting a week. Getting real boring when there are only one or two a week.

Gee, if you're that bored, you can move to Chicago or Baltimore (or a number of other Democrat-controlled cities), and see all the shootings you want....

 

[Timmy]

Is the OP saying there should be no screening, and anyone should be able to walk into any arms supply dealer and purchase any kind of arms there?

Not at all. They want guns available out of vending machines !

Why is it that you can't discuss gun control without the nuts jumping straight too "you are banning all guns!!"

 

[Timmy]

But I am so sure that more guns on the streets is the answer. Yessirreeeeeeeeee................ get more guns out there. Then we can see more than two mass shooting a week. Getting real boring when there are only one or two a week.

Gee, if you're that bored, you can move to Chicago or Baltimore (or a number of other Democrat-controlled cities), and see all the shootings you want....

Where are the conservative controlled cities ?

 

[Manchester]

"What I don't understand about gun Nazis"

You also don't understand what a straw man fallacy is either; your thread premise is an example of one, and it fails as a consequence.

A straw man fallacy is when one contrives a lie about his opponent in an effort to misrepresent his opponent's position on the issue, such as the lie that there are 'gun Nazis,' and then attacks that contrived 'position' (straw man) in an effort to win the 'argument.'

No one presumes gun owners to be 'guilty,' the notion is ridiculous idiocy.

No one trusts the police and military more than the average citizen with guns, that's delusional nonsense.

And no one seeks to 'rip up' the Second Amendment, or 'round up all the guns,' that's as ignorant as it is moronic.

Using the strawman argument is something the left has perfected. Obama uses it in every speech. Some of us see the obvious illogical premise, but sadly many Americans are easily duped and fall for the strawman argument... Like the OP has.

So two wrongs make a right? Good to know.

 

[Votto]

"What I don't understand about gun Nazis"

You also don't understand what a straw man fallacy is either; your thread premise is an example of one, and it fails as a consequence.

A straw man fallacy is when one contrives a lie about his opponent in an effort to misrepresent his opponent's position on the issue, such as the lie that there are 'gun Nazis,' and then attacks that contrived 'position' (straw man) in an effort to win the 'argument.'

No one presumes gun owners to be 'guilty,' the notion is ridiculous idiocy.

No one trusts the police and military more than the average citizen with guns, that's delusional nonsense.

And no one seeks to 'rip up' the Second Amendment, or 'round up all the guns,' that's as ignorant as it is moronic.

If you want guns restricted or banned then the question applies to YOU!

Gun Nazi, soup Nazi, it's all a figurative dingleberry

 

[Votto]

1. Why is it that we should not hold all Muslims to blame for a few lunatic few terrorists by forcibly screeing them in any way, but we should hold all gun owners suspect of being guilty until proven innocent with various screening processes because of a few lunatic domestic terrorists?

Here's the thing. We ARE screening Muslims coming in from other countries. Most of the terrorist attacks being carried out on American Soil are by American-born Muslims who were - wait for it - able to get a gun they shouldn't have had.

The thing is, every time we have a mass shooting, within days, we find out that the shooter - Lanza, Loughner, Holmes, Mercer - was some kind of dangerous lunatic that everyone in their lives knew was nuts. the thing is, we don't have effective screenings if such obviously damaged people are able to get guns.

2, Why is it that we should trust the police and the military with guns more than the average citizen?

Because the police and military have been trained, are under a command structure that demands accountability, and are answerable for their actions. You know, "Well Regulated'.

As opposed to guys like Lanza, Loughner, Holmes, Mercer, who are just dangerous lunatics.

3. When you finally get a lib stooge on the Supreme Court to rip up the 2nd Amendment, only needing one more after Scalia died, how will you round up all the guns?

Well, first, I don't think you will see a comprehensive gun ban from SCOTUS. They will just reset the clock back to pre-Heller where states and cities can regulate guns.

second, long term, your gun culture IS dying. Only 22% of Americans own guns. That's down from 35% in 1970.

I see, so only if guns are "well regulated" can they be made legal.

Are we then to have Muslims "well regulated" as well?

 

[Jarlaxle]

Is the OP saying there should be no screening, and anyone should be able to walk into any arms supply dealer and purchase any kind of arms there?

Care for a baseball bat to use on that straw man?

 

[Votto]

Is the OP saying there should be no screening, and anyone should be able to walk into any arms supply dealer and purchase any kind of arms there?

Let's think about this for a second.

Should there be segments of society that are discriminated against?

Should we discriminate against the mentally ill? What about former convicts?

If so, why stop at guns? Why not discriminate against them in other ways, like we do the no fly list? Really the potential discrimination is endless. Where do we draw the line?

I assume you favor those on the no fly list being banned from guns as well.

For example, how about a no entrance to major sporting event list for all Muslims, convicts, and the mentally ill?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

What's the worst that could happen from following the same Progressive gun controls as Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and North Korea?

 

[Votto]

Is the OP saying there should be no screening, and anyone should be able to walk into any arms supply dealer and purchase any kind of arms there?

Care for a baseball bat to use on that straw man?

Defend wanting to impose gun restrictions like Hitler once did in Nazi Germany.

George Mason once wrote, "When the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parlament was advised by an arful man, who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people, that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually."

Keep in mind, George wrote this hundreds of years before Hitler came on the scene. In all actuality, there is nothing special about Hitler. Tyrants like him are really a dime a dozen, so it behooves us to compare all potential tyrants, like Trump, for example, to him.

 

[Votto]

What's the worst that could happen from following the same Progressive gun controls as Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and North Korea?

Every politician needs to undergo the Hitler test.

Compare and contrast or repeat history.

 

[Votto]

So how many people has the US military murdered compared to the average US citizen I wonder?

How many people has Obama personally snuffed out in places like Afghanistan, Libya, and his free use of drones, even against US citizens?

Should he be regulated or just us?

 

[JoeB131]

How about you go have a chat with Sen. Dianne Reinstein
and get back to us on that, no one wants rip up the 2nd and roundup all the guns thing.

Feinstein had two of her friends shot right in front of her, I can see why she has a strong opinion on the subject.

Here's the thing. You guys never tell us what your alternative plan is to keeping guns out of the hands of dangerous lunatics. You simply state this is the cost of freedom to have to worry at any moment, a disgruntled coworker or angry student might go on an "active shooter' incident.