Punish Law Abiding Citizens and Ignore Criminals. Great Plan. Fucking Idiots.

[2233boys]

When has it happened?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-taU9d26wT4

And this, for the "proposed" bit (aside from Feinstein in my post above):

http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking...rnias-state-senate-democrats-roll-out-big-gun



But that's crazy. Unpossible! Hell, I'm probably an enviro-wacko-reclusive domestic terrorist for even posting references other people made/wrote.

You are a sensitive little guy aren't you?

 

[ThaBigP]

That is a silly comparison. Almost as silly as the far right comparing a gun ban with a car ban because of the people getting killed on the road.

But... to your point, no guns have ever been confiscated from private homes. Yet. The registration and regulation of guns though will lead to that if we allow it.

And, just to be on the level, you sound fucking nuts to me just as much as I may sound to you.

YOu must have missed my earlier post ...

http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking...rnias-state-senate-democrats-roll-out-big-gun

The 10-bill package constitutes the single largest gun control push in decades in the Golden State, which already boasts some of the nation's strictest gun laws. It joins equally controversial proposals from Assembly Democrats that would regulate and tax ammunition sales and consider taking the state's 166,000 registered assault weapons from their owners.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-taU9d26wT4

 

[Iamtdg]

Well, kudos to you for protecting us against this Chinese horde. You go ahead and arm up while I watch our Air Force and Navy sink their armada of troop carriers crossing the ocean.


Did you read the article on the recent gun legislation I posted? Again, I've seen this for years. Gun owners getting spun about something that isn't really real and never comes to fruition.

You came into this debate very coy. You have now gone full on idiot. It was cute that you tried to approach it so delicately, but you have now shown your true intent. It's a little bit shocking, tbh. I always viewed you in a different light. Fucked that one up.

 

[ThaBigP]

You are a sensitive little guy aren't you?

... that's all? Sheesh, you guys are easy.

 

[2233boys]

... that's all? Sheesh, you guys are easy.

My comment was in reference to your last sentence.

I didn't comment on your video, and under the circumstances I can see why the police didn't want to have to deal with armed civilians. Aside from the first video of the old lady (who had a gun in her hand when police came in), we don't know if what any of the circumstances were in any of the other cases. If what they were saying was all true, it was wrong.

They all got their guns back (I guess maybe the guy who had his broken didn't). Beyond that, Louisiana legislator Steve Scalise introduced Louisiana House Bill 760, which would prohibit confiscation of firearms in a state of emergency, unless the seizure is pursuant to the investigation of a crime, or if the seizure is necessary to prevent immediate harm to the officer or another individual. On June 8, 2006, HB 760 was signed into law.[84] 21 other states joined Louisiana in enacting similar laws. A federal law prohibiting seizure of lawfully held firearms during an emergency, the Disaster Recovery Personal Protection Act of 2006, passed in the House with a vote of 322 to 99, and in the Senate by 84-16. The bill was signed into law by President Bush on October 9, 2006. So now there is a federal law against it happening again. Lighten up

 

[ThaBigP]

My comment was in reference to your last sentence.

I didn't comment on your video, and under the circumstances I can see why the police didn't want to have to deal with armed civilians. Aside from the first video of the old lady (who had a gun in her hand when police came in), we don't know if what any of the circumstances were in any of the other cases. If what they were saying was all true, it was wrong.

They all got their guns back (I guess maybe the guy who had his broken didn't) but they were returned. Beyond that, Louisiana legislator Steve Scalise introduced Louisiana House Bill 760, which would prohibit confiscation of firearms in a state of emergency, unless the seizure is pursuant to the investigation of a crime, or if the seizure is necessary to prevent immediate harm to the officer or another individual. On June 8, 2006, HB 760 was signed into law.[84] 21 other states joined Louisiana in enacting similar laws. A federal law prohibiting seizure of lawfully held firearms during an emergency, the Disaster Recovery Personal Protection Act of 2006, passed in the House with a vote of 322 to 99, and in the Senate by 84-16. The bill was signed into law by President Bush on October 9, 2006. So now there is a federal law against it happening again. Lighten up

You did ask when it had happend, so I gave an example. And keep in mind, there should be no law to prohibit what was already an illegal act. It's absurdly redundant. It would be like you being rounded up for peacefully speaking your mind, held under arrest for a duration, then released later. Then to "kis the boo boo" and make it "better" they pass a "speaking freely protection act" declaring that they cannot prohibit your free speech. By the way, in bad times such as that is *precisely* when firearms are needed by citizens most. To argue otherwise is like saying that you can have a fire extinguisher, but if a fire breaks out it will be immediately confiscated. After all, you aren't supposed to store them near heat sources, as heat can cause the case to rupture and the thing to explode. So we're going to quickly round them up in the name of public safety.

During Katrina, these confiscations were happening in the high-and-dry areas. The cops had abandoned law-enforcement duties in the really bad parts. Then the cops moved on - leaving the citizens to their fate, unarmed, as some mobs roamed out of the bad areas looking to loot those who were still dry. Fortunately NO didn't erupt in mass mob violence, it was mostly sickening despiration. However, in LA during the RK riots, police were completely overwhelmed and couldn't provide law enforcement for most, probably one of the reasons they didn't round up firearms there (they already had enough on their hands). As a result, those that had them were using them to great effect to defend their lives and property (most notably the Korean shop owners with shotguns and ARs). The recent London riots were even worse ... cops pretty much stayed in a steady retreat, leaving their citizens to their fate. So much so that citizen groups formed using whatever they could, which wasn't much, as the coppers ran for the hills in their riot gear, toting their plexi-shields, and waited for the rioting to burn out from relative safety. Which is the whole point ... when the S really, I mean REALLY hits the F, you cannot count on others for your protection. Remember that they too are human, and have self-preservation. When they lose force of numbers ... when the situation gets so out of hand that they can no longer affect relatively safe arrests ... when they worry in the back of their minds that their own families are home, without them, and could be facing their own storm ... well, human nature takes over. They often will abandon their posts completetely (as happened in NO in the flooded areas), be so overwhelmed that they can't help you because their hands are already full (LA), or retreat for safer ground and let it all work itself out (London).

 

[2233boys]

I didn't junk did but rant on. The fact that it happened and measures were taken to ensure it doesn't happen again seems to make no difference to you. It's like I'm talking to the girl from American Pie, "This one time at band camp,"

You want to rant about a particular incident and act as if it is common place to try and prove your point to me. I'm Not into that, if you want to comment on an actual comment I made in this thread regarding a point I made ok, but I have no interest in helping you further your agenda.

 

[ThaBigP]

I didn't junk did but rant on. The fact that it happened and measures were taken to ensure it doesn't happen again seems to make no difference to you. It's like I'm talking to the girl from American Pie, "This one time at band camp,"

You want to rant about a particular incident and act as if it is common place to try and prove your point to me. I'm Not into that, if you want to comment on an actual comment I made in this thread regarding a point I made ok, but I have no interest in helping you further your agenda.

So which is it ... are you in or out? The only mistaken reference was using "You" in regards to who asked me to provide an example, an easy mistake to make what with you and Junk tag-teaming, crossing streams and taking turns. And it's late and time to hit the hay. Beyond that, what I wrote was directed to you. I quoted your comment, and responded to the points you, not Junk, made. Unless Junk is sitting next to you and wrote the rest of your post under your screen name while you were taking a leak or something...

 

[Minimalist]

Saul Alinsky's tactics don't work anymore. Libs and Democrats played that card too many times. Now when you have nothing intelligent left to say and you start acting like a child and calling people names and making fun of them it's clear that you're losing. Just FYI.

 

[Minimalist]

Like this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ffI-tWh37UY

It's not even worth talking to them about it because its something they will just never get. Some people are born leaders and some are born followers.

 

[junk]

And, just to be on the level, you sound fucking nuts to me just as much as I may sound to you.

Fair enough. If I don't understand something, I usually ask questions and challenge it. If I saw convincing arguments, maybe my paranoia level rises too. Just haven't seen that yet

 

[junk]

You came into this debate very coy. You have now gone full on idiot. It was cute that you tried to approach it so delicately, but you have now shown your true intent. It's a little bit shocking, tbh. I always viewed you in a different light. Fucked that one up.

How so? What is my "true intent"? Honestly my only point is that this particular piece of the argument does more harm than good and makes people look crazy. I think the bulk of the evidence supports that

I guess part may be our views on the government. What you view as "evil", I view as largely incompetent

If, after two of the most serious violent gun attacks in our country, the only support they can muster in Congress is additional registrations and stricter gun trafficking laws, I struggle to see how they pass legislation to confiscate weapons?

For the record, if this were up for vote, I'd vote against it

As for the rest of your "I am so disappoint" post, it reminds me of the crap Hostile would PM me when I disagreed with him

 

[junk]

It's not even worth talking to them about it because its something they will just never get. Some people are born leaders and some are born followers.

Tell you what. We'll cooperate. You worry about protecting us in the Red Dawn Chinese invasion scenario and I'll spend my days working to make sure they can't cross the ocean. Seems more proactive than arming up and waiting for them to arrive but maybe that is just me

 

[2233boys]

Saul Alinsky's tactics don't work anymore. Libs and Democrats played that card too many times. Now when you have nothing intelligent left to say and you start acting like a child and calling people names and making fun of them it's clear that you're losing. Just FYI.

Exactly what am I losing? I doubt you even know my position.

 

[2233boys]

So which is it ... are you in or out? The only mistaken reference was using "You" in regards to who asked me to provide an example, an easy mistake to make what with you and Junk tag-teaming, crossing streams and taking turns. And it's late and time to hit the hay. Beyond that, what I wrote was directed to you. I quoted your comment, and responded to the points you, not Junk, made. Unless Junk is sitting next to you and wrote the rest of your post under your screen name while you were taking a leak or something...

I agreed with you that what happened in New Orleans was wrong. I went further to show that steps were taken to ensure nothing like that happened again. You brought it up again. If I agreed the first time it was wrong 10 seconds earlier, did you think I wouldn't that time.

Then you brought up two other examples of police not handling a situation properly and providing the citizens without help in a bad situation. You eluded that I have no way to protect myself or my family and I'm pretty sure made a huge assumption about my opinion on this whole topic.

That's why I said I'm not interested in helping you forward your agenda. Question what I said.

 

[Minimalist]

Tell you what. We'll cooperate. You worry about protecting us in the Red Dawn Chinese invasion scenario and I'll spend my days working to make sure they can't cross the ocean. Seems more proactive than arming up and waiting for them to arrive but maybe that is just me

I'd bet I work just as much as you and have about 20x the potential you ever had. As a matter of fact I'd bet my life on the fact that I will be at least 1,000x more successful than you ever will.

Keep portraying all gun supporters as dumb hicks. It further supports the idea that you're just as dumb as we think you are.

 

[Minimalist]

Exactly what am I losing? I doubt you even know my position.

You're losing your credibility when all you do is poke fun. It's childish and a clear indication your views in the argument are worthless...hence you're losing the argument. Or to be more specific...you're losing whatever ground you've gained in whatever position you've taken. You've effectively removed yourself from the equation.

 

[2233boys]

You're losing your credibility when all you do is poke fun. It's childish and a clear indication your views in the argument are worthless...hence you're losing the argument. Or to be more specific...you're losing whatever ground you've gained in whatever position you've taken. You've effectively removed yourself from the equation.

Considering you still don't know my position you really have no place to talk. Educate yourself on my position and then we can talk. I've made a number of posts in this thread. It Shouldn't be hard to ascertain my viewpoint..

 

[2233boys]

I'd bet I work just as much as you and have about 20x the potential you ever had. As a matter of fact I'd bet my life on the fact that I will be at least 1,000x more successful than you ever will.

Keep portraying all gun supporters as dumb hicks. It further supports the idea that you're just as dumb as we think you are.

Wow this is followed up by your post to me?

 

[JBond]

Saul Alinsky's tactics don't work anymore.

FYI...Yes they do work. They are incredibly effective. This entire thread is evidence of the effectiveness. Divide and conquer. Pervert the language. It works with simpletons that rely on Comedy Central as their main source of information from which they develop their world views.