Summations Only

I'm not sure I get your remarks about "losing the plot" but the general gist of your message, as is usually the case with this kind of opinion, is your focus on the individuals who may have reason to fear the proliferation of weapons by enemies, including other ideologies, religions, or governments. The enemies you don't take into account: they can accumulate weapons without your notice it seems, while you criticize those who could be their targets.

What you describe here is an unending, escalating requirement to acquire arms against enemies many of whom are phantoms. The Army and the Department of Homeland Security are not your enemies and are only perceived to be such by wingnuts who read BS web sites and sources full of paranoia. On the other hand, those government agencies do face your enemies and are understandably well armed. What you describe as sane is the same cold war mentality that could well have wiped every one of us from the face of the earth.No surprise that people consider the entire scenario a losing enterprise best avoided. I don't see a way out for us.

Namecalling and pejorative terms apparently justify your putting the potential victims in harm's way while misidentifying potential perps. I hope it comes back to haunt you.

Please have a blessed day. You know the one above who loves you.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Why such vitriol and hate?

Hypocrite.

Why don't you try something new for a change? Your accusation is getting old.

You're showing a lot of misunderstanding of what I'm saying, and that is partially my fault, I tend not to be careful enough in choosing my words when communicating with those on the extreme left. I'll try to be more clear. You, (in the above quote) brought up unstable people with guns. Psychotics, religious fanatics, right wing militia, etc. I was referring to people who receive handouts from a money borrowing government. I would consider those who depend on government for basic necessities, food and shelter, etc. like welfare, social security etc to become unstable if their checks stopped coming. I don't consider the "already rich" to be as unstable as the type of people who always commit these types of mass shootings. But some of them are very frustrated that more, quicker growth of government and destruction of liberty isn't happening as fast as they would like. Their unstability could be comparable to any right winger that you mistrust. No, not in the way I was referring to it. A political leader is the commander of a military. If there's one thing that every military has in common, whether past or present, foreign or domestic, is that they FOLLOW ORDERS from their commander, without question. That's how the tyrants you named were able to carry out their mass murders. Some people believe that this couldn't possibly happen in the U.S. Others aren't so sure, considering current economic instability. Considering the U.S. government's recent purchase of large amounts of hollow point bullets. Considering many things that liberals don't understand. Again, my fault for not being more clear. Like any conservative, I have a lot of respect for the military. But no matter how respected they are, they don't stop to discuss, debate, or consider the wisdom behind the leader who orders them to kill. They just follow orders. That those of you who are so afraid of a general public with guns, yet are not afraid of a military that could cut loose on you from the orders of one man, or one small group, is something that I can't understand.Now go ahead and further sputter with rage if you want. I'm going to get something to eat, then I'm going to address the calm, reasoned questions that my ol buddy Larni asked me. You may want to cool down and wait for that.

You may consider people who depend on social security as some kind of parasites, but I worked and paid income taxes and social security taxes for 50 fucking years with the expectation that I would get something for my money.Where as your asshole-ultra-wealthy friends never worked a fucking day in their lives and yet they game the system so they pay little or no taxes and the companies they own get corporate welfare and keep all the money they make in off shore accounts so they can thumb their noses at the USA and all of us who have supported them all their lives.You hateful christians don't deserve to live in the USA.

That is true from both sides. I'm getting straw manned to death here. It's utterly obvious to me that any gun control won't do one thing about the widespread and readily available access to devices of mass killing that governments, criminals, and U.S. enemies have. How anyone could think that restriction of such weapons from law abiding citizens ONLY could be any kind of answer to the problem is unfathomable to me.

WHERE DO YOU GET THAT FROM? Whether they're "parasites" or not, they're going to be equally desperate if they don't get what they're used to getting to survive. Sheesh, one thing's for sure, gun control advocates seem to fly into uncontrollable rages much more than gun rights advocates. Yes, atheists and liberals don't like guns in the hands of anyone but government and criminals, I get that.

You obviously dont understand straw man.

Hi Larni, thanks for a few civil questions. Have you ever done a search on "world history of gun control"? If you do, here's a list you'll find word for word on many different websites, and I don't think it's because it's copied and repeated, it's because it's basically true;

quote:

---

In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

​

------------------------------

​

In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

​

------------------------------

​

Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.

​

------------------------------

​

China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

​

------------------------------

​

Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

​

------------------------------

​

Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

​

------------------------------

​

Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million 'educated' people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

​

-----------------------------

​

Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: 56 million.

---

Now do you believe the citizens of all those countries fully understood what can happen when their government imposes gun control, when it begun each time? Everything seems fine in your country so far. The U.S. government buys billions of rounds of hollow point ammo they say they're using for target practice. The U.S. borrows billions of dollars per day to pay its bills, including the bill of keeping food on the table of millions of welfare and social security recipients. WHAT COULD POSSIBLY GO WRONG? If those entitlement checks stopped coming, it would only be a few days before there was enough unrest in every U.S. city to make Ferguson and Baltimore look like elementary school playground skirmishes.I realize that there are countless liberal websites that do some pretty clever dances to downplay all of this. I don't trust them, and when reading U.S. founding documents, I don't think our founders would have trusted them either.If the public has guns, without fear of being locked up just for possession, the government is nervous. If the government bans guns, (as in the examples of past world history) the government can.....persuade rioters much more peaceably.

Obviously, with your concern about the behavior of the US government your personal greatest hero is Edward Snowden, right?Edited by NosyNed, : No reason given.

As I pointed out to Marc9000, with your concern for government tyranny you must rank Edward Snowden as one of your greatest heros, right?