Friday, September 24, 2010

An unintended gun control meme......

This seems to be running around some of the smarter and kewler kids blogs, so I thought I might play the game as well. The questions are here, on a site I have never heard of and likely will not return to. I have never met a gun control advocate who (a) was not oblivious to reality, (b) did not finally admit to desiring an unarmed and helpless citizenry, and (c) did not resort to wholesale lies and/or distortions to further their goal of human rights destruction. I have no reason to think this person/organization any different.

Anywho, lets look at the 'questions'.....

  1. Do you believe that criminals and domestic abusers should be able to buy guns without background checks? They already do, even in the areas where human rights have been abrogated and law abiding citizens cannot legally have a means of self defense, background check or not.
  2. What is your proposal for keeping guns away from criminals, domestic abusers, terrorists and dangerously mentally ill people? How about...... once we know they are a criminal, we lock them up till we are pretty sure they have changed their mind, or are dead? That should keep guns out of the hands of known criminals. If they are not a known criminal... who exactly is it that has a right to deny them their human rights?
  3. Do you believe that a background check infringes on your constitutional right to "keep and bear arms"? Yes.
  4. Do you believe that I and people with whom I work intend to ban your guns? Yes. No question.
  5. If yes to #4, how do you think that could happen ( I mean the physical action)? A 'ban' is no harder to enact than any other unconstitutional law we are faced with daily. Enforcing said ban is another matter. For that, 'You and the People who you Work With' would have to rely on the police. There lies the real question..... would officers of good conscience actually enforce the destruction of human rights you would enact?
  6. What do you think are the "second amendment remedies" that the tea party GOP candidate for Senate in Nevada( Sharron Angle) has proposed? Who? Oh, the lady who is plastering your buddy Reid in a Senate race. I have no idea what she says. Ask her.
  7. Do you believe in the notion that if you don't like what someone is doing or saying, second amendment remedies should be applied? Depends on what they are saying or doing. If they are stealing what belongs to me and mine, or ordering others to do so, or working to do us violence, then YES, my right to self defense certainly does apply.
  8. Do you believe it is O.K. to call people with whom you disagree liars and demeaning names? I have no problem calling a liar a liar. 'Demeaning'? Depends on what term we are speaking of. I generally keep discussions at the highest level I can, but I have no problem telling someone exactly what I think of them. I'm pretty straight forward that way.
  9. If yes to #8, would you do it in a public place to the person's face? Oh, hell yes. I'd consider it my duty as a citizen.
  10. Do you believe that any gun law will take away your constitutional rights? Yes.
  11. Do you believe in current gun laws? Do you think they are being enforced? If not, explain. Which one of the 40,000 'gun laws' on the books are we speaking of? As a whole, I think they are enforced when convenient to the authorities, or profitable to the same.
  12. Do you believe that all law-abiding citizens are careful with their guns and would never shoot anybody? I believe 'All' and 'Never' are stupid words to bring into any discussion involving human beings. It invites correctly given ridicule to the persons argument. Besides, I am 'law abiding' and would not hesitate to shoot someone who threatened my life in a believable enough manner. The question itself is stupid. Try again.
  13. Do you believe that people who commit suicide with a gun should be included in the gun statistics? Only by those who use statistics to hide reality (liars).
  14. Do you believe that accidental gun deaths should "count" in the total numbers? What numbers? What is an 'accidental gun death'? Define the words, as I simply do not trust you not to twist the meanings. This comes from experience. HONEST people do not mind defining their words.
  15. Do you believe that sometimes guns, in careless use or an accident, can shoot a bullet without the owner or holder of the gun pulling the trigger? No. There is always a reason a weapon fires, and it is always related to something a person did.
  16. Do you believe that 30,000 gun deaths a year is too many? Again, define your terms and 'statistics'. Till then, this is a null question. Exactly how was that number compiled, by who, when, and for what reason? Compared to what?
  17. How will you help to prevent more shootings in this country? Again, null question. If it's violent criminals being shot while they try to harm innocents, I am all in favor of shooting them. If that is the circumstance, we need more shootings, not less. Once again, define your terms.
  18. Do you believe the articles that I have posted about actual shootings or do you think I am making them up or that human interest stories about events that have happened should not count when I blog about gun injuries and deaths? Blog what you wish, post what you wish, count what you wish. I do not read your blog or writings. As long as your efforts end where my human rights begin, I could not care less what you write or say.
  19. There has been some discussion of the role of the ATF here. Do you believe the ATF wants your guns and wants to harass you personally? If so, provide examples ( some have written a few that need to be further examined). I believe the ATF as an agency has earned it's reputation. I avoid them as I avoid any authority with too much power, too little oversight, and no moral guidelines.
  20. Will you continue a reasonable discussion towards an end that might lead somewhere or is this an exercise in futility? This depends on a great deal. First and foremost, where it is exactly you intend ' lead to'. If your goal is the destruction of the human right of self defense, then our discussion is over. This is not a debatable item with me, any more than I would be willing to discuss how much or little I will allow you to strike a child with a steel bar. The answer is 'NO' and 'NONE', and always will be.

1 comment:

Old NFO said...

Well Said Sir, WELL SAID!