Anti-Gun People Can Not Defeat This Video

DrkSdBls · Jan 31, 2013

GarfieldJL said:
That would make it more likely that the truth would get out. Letting a few thousand guns fall into the hands of drug cartels and just sit back and watching what happens, would be far less risky to the Obama Administration from a political standpoint.

I don't think your scenario is plausible because it would be extremely likely that the truth would get out fairly quickly and he doesn't have enough control of the military in order for him to pull off what you are suggesting.

Of course, your Scenario is even LESS plausible because Drug Cartels in Mexico are not widely known for committing Mass shootings in the U.S.

So, If that was Obama's Plan, it was a Grossly Incompetent Longshot that was doomed to fail.

dgiharris · Jan 31, 2013

GarfieldJL said:
You have any other explanation as to why they ordered ATF agents not to track the guns and allowed a few thousand firearms to go missing? Incompetitence only goes so far.

That would make it more likely that the truth would get out. Letting a few thousand guns fall into the hands of drug cartels and just sit back and watching what happens, would be far less risky to the Obama Administration from a political standpoint.

I don't think your scenario is plausible because it would be extremely likely that the truth would get out fairly quickly and he doesn't have enough control of the military in order for him to pull off what you are suggesting.

This is the problem with conspiracy theories. They exist in a precarious unstable state of illogic in which ONE AND ONLY ONE POSSIBILITY can exist.

Rather than try to disprove your theory, I attempt to supply logic in support of your theory.

Your theory is simple. The Obama administration is so evil, so without conscious that they purposefully let guns fall in the hands of the drug cartel so they could use it as a means of facilitating gun violence in the United States so that he could achieve his secret goal of getting your guns.

So fine. Lets apply logic to your argument, that is: Obama is a heartless liberal that will do ANYTHING to get your guns. Fine. I'm on board.

So if that is the case, then lets not pussyfoot around. The President has Black Ops, the CIA, and orgs that are so super secret that they don't even have names. These orgs could EASILY hire Foreign mercenaries to do mass shootings in the US to facilitate the goal that you say Obama has. They could hire the mercenaries in such a way that the mercenaries would believe they are working for Hezbollah or Al Qaeda...

but but but... you think in your head that the government couldn't keep that secret? Read Machiavelli's Prince. Governments do shady operations all the time, hence the term "Black Ops". Black Ops have kept secrets much bigger than that.

But lets not stop at mass shootings of children. If I were Obama I would also have Black Ops/Mercenaries kill all the big NRA supporters who have political clout and I would ensure their deaths were viewed as accidental or natural causes. Again, this is easy. Heart attacks, strokes, slips in the shower, drunk driving, drug overdoses, hunting accidents, etc are all easy to fake. Simultaneously with this, you use intimidation tactics against the few Congressmen and Senators that you can't kill. Just hint that their family members will die in tragic accidents. Obviously, these deaths are spread out over time, and it wouldn't take too many to have the desired effect.

But lets not stop there. We can target gun manufacturers as well. Might as well throw in the occasional accidental fire. Sure it won't stop the flow of guns but we just do it because it fills our heart with glee.

Unfortunately, your conspiracy theory can't handle logic and you will be compelled to come up with explanations for why the above just couldn't happen.

Which makes my point.

DrkSdBls said:
Of course, your Scenario is even LESS plausible because Drug Cartels in Mexico are not widely known for committing Mass shootings in the U.S.

So, If that was Obama's Plan, it was a Grossly Incompetent Longshot that was doomed to fail.

This is the problem with conspiracy theories in general. They start off with a series of assumptions but then they only permit one possible outcome. Not only that, but conspiracy theories require a chain of improbable events to line up perfectly... And lastly, they have to ignore reality.

Even as I type this there is an account of a little boy who was kidnapped this morning by a crazy gunman who stormed his schoolbus, shot the driver, and now has the little boy held up in some bunker. And they just showed the picture of the teenage girl who sung at Obama's inauguration. She was killed as gunman fired into a group of people (she was an innocent bystander)...

Of course, Garfield will ignore that because that detracts from his conspiracy theory. His theory is dependent on the idea that Obama has secretly been conspiring to get our guns this whole time and hence the gun control measures. And in his mind, the gun control measures that Obama is implementing has 100% NOTHING to do with what has been happening recently in this country with mass shootings nor does it have anything to do with the public's outcry for gun control measures.

Here is a Gallup Poll on gun control 91% of Americans are in favor of background checks and 755 are in favor of penalties for people who buy guns for someone else...

But of course, that has absolutely nothing to do with all the gun control measures coming forth...

yeah... never let facts get in the way of your opinions

PetLuv · Jan 31, 2013

Mr. Pedantic said:
Yes. They are connected. In one way. I already pointed this out.

Actually, if you look at the chronology of the thread, I actually posted before you.

And 606 is significant. If you would read my post before (and the links I included) you may see why.

I am aware you posted before me, my first post was to quote the previous statistics that you cited. I am not sure what your posting first in the thread really has to do with my opinion on the anything you have proclaimed so far.

DaisyDay · Jan 31, 2013

One of the problems for women is that they are much more likely to be shot by someone they know. One study showed that for every woman who defended herself from an acquaintance with a gun, approximately one hundred others were murdered by an acquaintance with a gun. Not good odds.

OldWiseGuy · Jan 31, 2013

Mr. Pedantic said:
That's very interesting. Of course, there are two sides for every story. You have chosen to present one side. But there is, of course, the other side that needs to be told. And that side is, that 30,470 deaths occurred in 2010 due to firearms; of these, 606 were accidental discharges leading to death.

Click to expand...

Of those 30,470 gun deaths 19,392 ,or 63 percent, were suicides. That number only represents half of all suicides that year, 38,364, as well.

That leaves only 10,072 gun deaths from which to build a case for more gun control laws.

Actually that number is declining rapidly while other weapons used in murder have remained fairly constant.

GarfieldJL · Jan 31, 2013

DrkSdBls said:
Of course, your Scenario is even LESS plausible because Drug Cartels in Mexico are not widely known for committing Mass shootings in the U.S.

So, If that was Obama's Plan, it was a Grossly Incompetent Longshot that was doomed to fail.

There sure were quite a few mass shootings in Mexico, and the violence has been spilling across the border, see Brian Terry as an example...

Lilly Owl · Jan 31, 2013

DaisyDay said:
One of the problems for women is that they are much more likely to be shot by someone they know. One study showed that for every woman who defended herself from an acquaintance with a gun, approximately one hundred others were murdered by an acquaintance with a gun. Not good odds.

And yet those examples don't warrant banning all firearms in order to stop the irresponsible from acting out and using guns as their weapon of choice.
Imagine the study details if those women under siege had no weapons.

This is not a comment that means to say that is what you were implying. It's a personal observation taking off on what you already observed regarding odds.

Vylo · Jan 31, 2013

Jeffwhosoever said:
"Police cannot stop crimes - they show up afterward" = from the video in the OP.

Real story.

My wife called me on the phone from inside our house one day, having just arrived home. She said the back door had been busted open. I told her to immediately get out of our house, lock herself in the car, and call 911. I was 25 miles away at work, and left when she dialed 911. My house is less than 3 miles to our police HQ, and yet I got there 5 minutes before they did. (30 minutes before they arrived from time of the 911 call, and my wife told them she feared burlgars were still in the house). Fortunately, no one was in the house.

Look at the mother in Atlanta who shot a burglar 5 times with a .38 revolver, and he got up, walked to his car, and drove away. She was very lucky he decided to stop his attack and didn't have a partner. She needed a 15 round clip and a 9mm or .40 caliber semi-auto to have been safe had a second attacker been involved.

Another real scenario I heard from some local police - gangs are starting to rob homes, and they have commonly 4 or more involved. Want to face 4 drug starved men or women who go through horrible rituals to join the gang, and they each have semi-auto pistols, shotguns, assault rifles, holding your 5 round .38 special because the USG banned "large" magazines? You think they are deterred by an assault weapons ban? Right, they left those at home to avoid adding 3 months for owning an "illegal" assault weapon to their 20 year imprisonment for robbery and assault with a deadly weapon.

That's terrible. We used to live the same distance from the police and they got to our house within 5 minutes when my mother accidentally dialed 9-11. Then again we have very little crime so response time is probably only about as long as it takes for a cop to get woken up by the radio chatter.

wing2000 · Jan 31, 2013

GarfieldJL said:
There sure were quite a few mass shootings in Mexico, and the violence has been spilling across the border, see Brian Terry as an example...

...and how many mass shootings have been carried out by the Mexican Cartels on U.S. Soil?

wing2000 · Jan 31, 2013

...and crime has been dropping.

....a 2011 USA TODAY analysis of crime data reported by 1,600 law enforcement agencies in four border states found that violent crime rates on the U.S. side of the southwestern border have been falling for years.

The analysis concluded that U.S. cities near the border are statistically safer, on average, than others in their states. The new FBI numbers follow that same pattern.

Violent crimes drop overall in U.S. border cities

seeking Christ · Feb 1, 2013

dgiharris said:
I can buy the argument that "one" of the reasons for the 2nd amendment was to allow the citizenry to resist tyranny.

No, it was THE reason. this is not some great mystery. You can read what they thought. about really any topic you want.

dgiharris said:
This makes sense because the most powerful weapon at the time was the gun.

No it wasn't. They had ordinance. Not howitzers, but still. You're train of thought here is shot.

seeking Christ · Feb 1, 2013

dgiharris said:
I mean, if Obama is evil, lets not be mamby pamby with the amount of evil he is capable of. I mean, whats a few hundred dead children if it means he gets to push his super secret agenda of gun confiscation

Neither people born in Hawaii nor Kenya are capable of that much evil. Hakuna matada mon

seeking Christ · Feb 1, 2013

DaisyDay said:
One of the problems for women is that they are much more likely to be shot by someone they know. One study showed that for every woman who defended herself from an acquaintance with a gun, approximately one hundred others were murdered by an acquaintance with a gun. Not good odds.

Of those 100 hundred shot, how many were packing?

Lilly Owl · Feb 5, 2013

seeking Christ said:
Of those 100 hundred shot, how many were packing?

What?

Billnew · Feb 6, 2013

dgiharris said:
The video gave me a woodie

I have absolutely nothing against gun ownership. THE MAJORITY OF AMERICANS ARE IN FAVOR OF GUN OWNERSHIP.

And with that being said, I still think gun registration, background checks, and tracking databases are a good idea.

The government is never, and I mean never coming for your guns because the majority of America, to include the government, likes the 2nd amendment...

And if the government decides to come for your guns, there is absolutely nothing you can do about it. If we ever get to that point of tyranny, then the battle is already lost.

Gun registration? [Supreme Court decision U.S. v. Haynes (1968),]
Why would you support registering firearms that are only owned by law abiding citizens? Criminals are not required to register, this is self incrimination. So registering firearms has no purpose but to provide a list of who owns guns, why would that be needed if they would never confiscate guns?
Instant check-with no records kept of the gun involved in the transaction. Otherwise its a registration by proxy. Goverment doesn't need to know which law abiding citizen has a gun. If they do, they will be able to confiscate it.

Never? Seems Diane Fienstein is coming after guns with her bill, magazines too.
You really think a simple ruling saying the 2nd amendment is an individual right has stopped the gun grabbers? The only thing it requires is that some weapon be allowed after any amount of "reasonable" requirements. (reasonable is undefined)

If they come for guns, they won't find very many. House to house searches while the next house moves their guns is alot less profitable then having a nice list of every stooge that registered their guns believing like you that goverment would never dream of disarming the people.

Goverment can't disarm the people without knowing who is armed. Thus you say there is nothing people can do if goverment wants your gun. Not after you register it. Never register your firearms, they don't know who has one.
"But firearms dealers have records of purchase". Yes, but no record is required after that. "I sold that gun weeks, months, years ago."

Didn't watch the video, so won't comment otherwise.

Billnew · Feb 6, 2013

dgiharris said:
I wanted to return to this. I love to debate because it makes me think and I'm constantly searching for "the truth".

So thinking about this, I think I may have come up with a new point or possible truth about the issue of protection from government tyranny.

I can buy the argument that "one" of the reasons for the 2nd amendment was to allow the citizenry to resist tyranny. This makes sense because the most powerful weapon at the time was the gun.

So the "gun" is actually a red herring. The real issue is, giving the citizenry the means to protect itself from a tyrannical government or discourage a tyrannical government.

Unfortunately, technology has progressed such that the gap in weaponry between the citizen and the military is now insurmountably wide...

However, there is another technology which for the next 50 years that isn't the case: Computing.

Computer programming in the form of cyber weapons are such that as of right now, the citizenry is on equal footing with the government/military. In the very near future, cyber attacks will be just as powerful and devastating as conventional attacks, especially since more and more weapon systems are unmanned and robotically controlled.

I think I could present a very compelling argument, that your typical average computer hacking teenager would have more of an ability to protect the US citizenry against a tyrannical government than 1,000 NRA types armed to the teeth.

For instance, lets say the US government decides to come for your guns. Well, hackers could easily ban together, hack into various governmental agency databases and wipe the data...

I'm going to think about this argumentative line and come back. But initially, I think its accurate.

The red herring here is focusing on "guns" when the reality is we want to be focusing on "Power". Guns are merely one form of power. But we are now in the information age and computers/programming is a form of power. But since we are in the infancy of the information age, the citizenry is on par with the government. And given the nature of programming and the programming culture, that should be the case for a very long time, probably the next 50 years...

It is alot easier to mount resistance with millions of gun owners already armed, then it is to try to obtain firearms for the fighters.
Look at resistance fighters in history, no matter how well armed a country, it can't be everywhere. The resistance simply lays dormant until it has an opportunity to deal a devistating blow.

Cyber tech will be important too, but you must be able to defend yourself or your equipment.
If they believe compu-geeks are dangerous, whos to say they won't restrict computers?

bdiddie4christ · Feb 6, 2013

Love this video. This isn't going to end to soon I am afraid though. But we must make a to save and protect our country.

Billnew · Feb 7, 2013

dgiharris said:
The government is never, and I mean never coming for your guns because the majority of America, to include the government, likes the 2nd amendment...
.

Let me prove you wrong.

NY legislation will restrict magazine sizes, and restrict sale of any weapon that can take a magazine larger then legal.
NY has decided that 10 rd mags are to big, they moved their restriction down to 7. Why 7? Most semi automatic pistols hold 8.
So with the magazine law, they have outlawed the sale of all...ok most semi-automatic pistols. The National anti-gun movement drools over what the state anti-gun people got passed.

Don't believe goverment when they tell you anything, trust but verify. When they say they only want to limit A, they usually are thinking of B and C too.
If they want to "register" today, its to facilitate confiscation tomorrow.

Anti-Gun People Can Not Defeat This Video

Well-Known Member

Old Crusty Vet

CrazyVille, population: You

I Did Nothing Wrong!! ~~Team Deep State

Wake me when it's soup.

Regular Member

Since when is God's adversary a curse word here?

Stick with the King!

E pluribus unum

E pluribus unum

seeking Christ

Guest

seeking Christ

Guest

seeking Christ

Guest

Since when is God's adversary a curse word here?

Legend

Legend

the happy go luckie guy

Legend

Similar threads