NRA Commentary Admits The Odds Of Needing A Gun To Defend Yourself Are Infinitesimal

AND...most of these mass shootings occur in places where firearms are strictly prohibited. It is literally like shooting fish in a barrel. As was pointed out earlier not one victim of any mass shooting in this country over the last two decades has had a firearm on their person. Had somebody had one the outcome would likely have been very different.

 

No...it hasn't. I have been around guns all my life. I own guns, I hunt, I go to firing ranges and I have a conceal carry permit and I have never been a member of the NRA or cared for what they have said or stood for. I don't even know a NRA member. They are irrelevant. They are used as a boogeyman by liberals who would at the same time BEG for someone like me to protect them with my firearm in the event their life was being threatened by a mad man with a gun. Ever heard the saying "it is much better to own a gun and not need it than to need a gun and not have one"?

If it were legal I would put a sign in my yard stating "the owner of this property has a gun but my neighbors are liberal hippies and don't believe in them". See which house gets its door kicked in first by criminals committing home invasion robberies.

 

/Thread

 

Which doesn't negate what I said which is that the availability of guns doesn't make someone homicidal.

 

How does an ausie acquire a semi-automatic firearm?

When the Brits and Aussies get their repeating firearms we will talk.

 

Consistent with all Chicken Little gun grabbers, you're full of inane, gratuitous remarks when you can't refute the fact that the Second Amendment upholds the right of American citizens to bear arms. Furthermore, the joke's on you if you can't grasp the logic behind the argument that the 2A upholds that right whether you like it or not.

LOL - Because you say so?

Americans prepare themselves against criminals by buying guns every day, and my wife and I have done it ourselves, so the motto "Be Prepared" does apply in the adult world of guns and crime in regards to civilians arming themselves.

WTF are you yammering about? If you're going to respond to my post, read it carefully and respond to the points that I actually made in that post. I told you I don't give a (*)(*)(*)(*) about what gun-grabbing Chicken Little and Noir say.

I've already read your intellectually defective response to wutitiz's post. What is this nonsense?:

Fires don't make a conscious effort to do ANYTHING. They are not sentient beings who possess consciousness, regardless of whether the fire was set in a kitchen by accident or by an arsonist on purpose.

Furthermore, if a fire breaks out in your home, only a complete moron would stand around and watch it spread while they wait for the Fire Department to arrive. That's why people PREPARE themselves in the unlikely event of a fire with fire extinguishers.

 

Nothing in your post even attempted to respond to what I said regarding the people/the militia.
Not all of the people are in the militia; the militia is a subset of the people.
This negates your proposition that "The people make up the militia, and vice versa".
The 2nd protects the right of the people. not the militia.

Translation
You know you cannot cite the text that meaningfully responds to, and presumably negates, what I said.
Disagree? Feel free to copy and paste the text to that effect.

 

Please note my responses to Wutitiz, as I take him to a point where he cannot provide a logical or factual response to support his contentions.

 

Sorry to inform you, but when you say, "....Anyway, you don't need an explicit law to confiscate guns to do the same thing." you are NOT excluding all laws, you are merely GENERALIZING that ANY law regarding gun control is tantamount to producing the SAME EFFECT as confiscation. Again, in your own words, ".... you can hamper gun owners and get a similar result."

But to date, YOU CANNOT PROVIDE ONE EXISTING LAWS THAT DOES WHAT YOU STATE/IMPLY/SUGGEST/ASSERT/INSINUATE.

You can do a dance six ways to Sunday, but the result is the same....and you fail to meet a simple burden of proof. So unless you've got something other that repetition and then a denial of the logical conclusion of your statements, I'd say we're done here.

 

You seem to be in denial of reality, and need to do some simple research as to the history of the NRA and it's lobbying power in Congress and local political party elections.

Also, what in the world convinces you that in times of trouble people would look to you rather than their local police department? Sorry, but that is a fantasy that is often repeated in the various screeds from oathers, threepers, and libertarians and rabid NRA members.

Noir's video contradicts itself....that has been proven logically and factually.

 

Again, you keep trying to imply that because someone cannot obtain a fire arm of choice, that is tantamount to TOTAL DENIAL of firearms, and leads to TOTAL CONFISCATION OF ALL FIREARMS.

Newsflash for you: EVERY MAJOR INDUSTRIALIZED COUNTRY ON THE PLANET HAS DEVELOPED THROUGH IT'S HISTORY RULES AND REGULATIONS AS TO LIMITS ON THE TYPE OF FIREARMS IT'S CIVILIAN POPULATION CAN HAVE.

Again, to date the American civilian population is not without weapons and can obtain them as law abiding citizens meeting State and Federal law, so Noir's contradictory screed that implies gov't denial/eventual confiscation in general is a lie.

So you can repeat your obsession with Australian firearm laws til doomsday....it won't change the validity of the OP. Oh, and you might want to check into the results of Aussie gun laws in relation to crime...but have a care, I will easily debunk myopic postings from pro-gun websites. Carry on.

 

Only a complete moron would compare an ACCIDENT to a WILLFUL ACT OF CRIME. To repeat for your edification: Guns are designed to kill and it takes a WILLFUL action of a human being to do so or threaten to do so. Fires happen by ACCIDENT, unless there is an arsonist afoot.

Look, it seems that you've run out of steam here as all you're doing is just blurting opinion, supposition and conjecture and then repeating what I write as if it didn't exist. If you're not willing to discuss actual points using FACTS and stop assigning statements to me that THE CHRONOLOGY OF THE POSTS SHOWS I DID NOT WRITE, then there's no point in further responding to you.

 

We were done when you started asking for me to show a law that doesn't exist, that I never claimed existed in the first place. Glad you finally see it.

 

<<< MODERATOR EDIT: OFF TOPIC/FLAMEBAIT/INSULT >>>

I don't want a gun to hunt (I can buy steak at Publix) or for self defense. I own a gun as a deterrent. I want my government to remember that ours is a government by the people, for the people, and of the people and our constitution was specifically designed to prevent mob rule and ensure that ours is a Republic not a democracy as so many mistakenly believe.

My gun is kind of like an insurance policy. It's there just in case I need it. I feel I need it because I know that over 200 years ago people risked their lives to escape oppression at the hands of their governments to find freedom here. The oppression was so bad that the founding fathers went to great lengths to insure that the power of government was greatly restricted. The constitution grants very narrow specific powers to the government and reserves all other powers for the states or the people.

I trust that the founding fathers and those who originally settled America knew much more about how oppressive a government can become than I do. I've heeded their warnings and I own a gun because I know that if a president or congressional representative or senator knows there is 1 gun for every man, woman, and child in private hands in the U.S. they are much less likely to try something nefarious.

In addition, if the chance I'll need my gun for self defense is so small yet there are 300 million guns in the U.S. that says to me that Americans are extremely responsible with their guns and we can get rid of the unnecessary gun laws we have now. So that's terrific news.

 

You can vote for anyone you like, as long as they are Republican.

Your rights are not violated as long as you have a choice, right?

 

Sorry son, but YOU make assertions as if they were fact, as I've shown above. Since YOU cannot provide anything other than your opinion, supposition or conjecture to support your statements, that makes what you say worthless in the world of FACTS and logic derived from those facts.

Yep, you're done and I'm done with you here. You may have the last, predictable reiterations, accusations, false claims and dodges.

 

A complete dodge on your part to avoid conceding a point where you were logically and factually proven wrong. Sad, but not surprising. You're done and I'm done with you. Like your compadre, you may have the last predictable reiterations, accusations, false claims and dodges

 

My, but that was a LOT of smoke! Bottom line: the OP clearly shows a video that contradicts itself...using fear and a false subliminal message that any gun regulation is going to prevent you from obtaining a weapon if you are the small percentage that is going to need one for self defense.

Noir shoots himself in the foot. And as I've demonstrated time and again using logic and valid, documented source material, there is no defense for his failure. All you've done is just ignore all that has transpired and repeat disproved contentions.

 

Translation - There's no point in engaging in any discussion with me. All my replies to all posts I disagree with are the same, I barely bother reading them before posting. I'm only interested in insulting your post and intelligence, even though I don't know that supposition and conjecture are synonyms.

 

Most European countries have strict gun legislation if not outright bans. So which of those (28 in the European Union alone), would you say is tyrannical, authoritarian or totalitarian? Here's a little reality check; if your government, for whatever reason, decided to turn against you, there is nothing you could do to prevent or even slightly hinder them despite all the little guns you appear to have such confidence in. I suppose you could always wave your gun at them and yell 'FREEDOM' as you die heroically in a hail of bullets.

 

Why are you posting in this thread?

 

This is, of course, the reason we have the 2nd Amendment.

 

Nothing in your post even attempted to respond to what I said regarding the people/the militia.
Not all of the people are in the militia; the militia is a subset of the people.
This negates your proposition that "The people make up the militia, and vice versa".
The 2nd protects the right of the people. not the militia.

Translation
You know you cannot cite the text that meaningfully responds to, and presumably negates, what I said.
Disagree? Feel free to copy and paste the text to that effect.

 

Taking peoples guns is tyrannical and without question authoritarian...

BTW, your murder rates haven't changed since taking guns in an authoritarian fashion have they?

 

Load of hogwash right there. Over 70 percent of our military is ardently conservative they would more likely turn their guns on the government