Loser Libertarian Compares Obama to Aurora Shooter

[Billy the Great Khan]

Buy your ammo from gun dealers who must account for their stocks.

Problem solved.

And the millions of people who reload ammo? I mean, creating black markets is fine to me. Won't affect the end result.

 

[Billy the Great Khan]

Much love for you ... but your inconvenience or even higher costs are not more important than the safety of American citizens. Nothing personal .. but this is not about you. It's about how we rationally address the gun-related mass-murders in this country.

Your inconvenience and higher costs should be properly attributed to those who commit these mass-murders, not to the legislation required to help prevent them.

Still waiting for what you think should be done.

Curtailing the sales of ammo is just one of many steps in adequately addressing the problem.

You suggest putting defense out of the realistic realm of the poor, the ones most likely to be victimized? Chicago has plenty of laws like you suggest and it hasn't reduced crime in any way.

 

[blackascoal]

how does limiting my ammo purchases curb gun slaughters?

Because gun-slaughterers can be better tracked, thus possibly prevented .. and because we need to do whatever we can to prevent gun slaughters.

because making society more important than individual freedom and life is what we call the 'herd mentality', meaning that one only feels safer because everyone else around them is just as defenseless as they are.

:0) That's funny

Excuse me brother but the paranoid one is the one who thinks he needs a gun everywhere to be safe. I don't own a gun .. and never have, but you'd be mistaken to think I'm defenseless. What I am is not paranoid enough to believe that a gun makes me safe.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

The point is slaughtered people brother. Often many of them are children.

and again, changing the ammo amount will not change one thing. It won't stop people from stocking up on ammo. Not in the least. It only makes them buy smaller quantities in greater numbers. That is it.

Laws are not meant to stop everybody. The recognition that all won't comply is why we call them laws and why we need them.

True... which actually detracts from your point. If someone is planning to break the law, they will find a way. Telling that coward that he could only purchase 50-100 rounds at a time would not likely have stopped him.

Gun dealers would be responsible for their stocks of ammo .. no differently than they are responsible for knowing who buys their guns.

Um... we already know how he got the ammo and from whom... because there were already records kept.

Wait .. now you're changing the argument. Your argument was that weapons in the hands of the people was necessary to fight their government. Now that its known that the weapons did not come from the people, but from outside the country, that changes the argument and in fact validates mine.

Incorrect, I am not changing the argument. I am saying they would not have been able to stand up and fight without guns/weapons. The fact taht they were unable to buy them internally highlights my point, not yours. They had the society that you wish us to have, where the government and criminals are the only ones with the weapons. They were thus reliant upon outside help to defend themselves from tyranny.

The Syrian people had weapons ... but they would never be enough to fight the government.

Where are the "rebels" getting the sophisticated weapons they are using against the government and who is paying for them?

So you agree, the limitations put upon the Syrian people by their government prevented them from standing up and fighting on their own.

C'mon brother, this is easy.

Here's a question that you should be asking?

How is it that your government is in bed with AL QUEDA?

Weren't they involved in 9/11?

Take the red pill. Things will look different. :0)

1) I think you mean 'our' country
2) I understand exactly why Al Queda was supported by the US. We supported what we thought was the answer to Soviet aggression in Afghanistan. Our mistake was that we abandoned the people of Afghanistan as soon as the Soviets departed. That left a power vacuum that was seized by the extremists.
3) Why do you continue to try and divert away from the topic?

 

[blackascoal]

You suggest putting defense out of the realistic realm of the poor, the ones most likely to be victimized? Chicago has plenty of laws like you suggest and it hasn't reduced crime in any way.

I grew up poor in an urban neighborhood. We were far safer than children in those neighborhoods today.

I mentor middle school boys from an urban neighborhood today .. and every one of them has seen violence. Guns do not make them safer .. they just make crimes and assault easier. They make the lives of the children from those neighborhoods miserable.

 

[Billy the Great Khan]

I grew up poor in an urban neighborhood. We were far safer than children in those neighborhoods today.

I mentor middle school boys from an urban neighborhood today .. and every one of them has seen violence. Guns do not make them safer .. they just make crimes and assault easier. They make the lives of the children from those neighborhoods miserable.

The current crop of Detroit residents, my self among them, would contest your argument that they are safer without guns. That you feel safe without them is fine, but you should recognize that how someone feels about being safe has little bearing on how safe they actually are. You also completely ignored the argument about Chicago.

 

[blackascoal]

and again, changing the ammo amount will not change one thing. It won't stop people from stocking up on ammo. Not in the least. It only makes them buy smaller quantities in greater numbers. That is it.

True... which actually detracts from your point. If someone is planning to break the law, they will find a way. Telling that coward that he could only purchase 50-100 rounds at a time would not likely have stopped him.

Um... we already know how he got the ammo and from whom... because there were already records kept.

Incorrect, I am not changing the argument. I am saying they would not have been able to stand up and fight without guns/weapons. The fact taht they were unable to buy them internally highlights my point, not yours. They had the society that you wish us to have, where the government and criminals are the only ones with the weapons. They were thus reliant upon outside help to defend themselves from tyranny.

So you agree, the limitations put upon the Syrian people by their government prevented them from standing up and fighting on their own.

1) I think you mean 'our' country
2) I understand exactly why Al Queda was supported by the US. We supported what we thought was the answer to Soviet aggression in Afghanistan. Our mistake was that we abandoned the people of Afghanistan as soon as the Soviets departed. That left a power vacuum that was seized by the extremists.
3) Why do you continue to try and divert away from the topic?

I disagree with you brother, I don't know what else to say.

You keep ignoring that the Syrians had lots of guns .. but no people have enough guns to combat the government .. including the American people.

How many drones do you have?

How many heavy weapons?

The idea makes no sense at all. It's a sales pitch.

 

[Billy the Great Khan]

I disagree with you brother, I don't know what else to say.

You keep ignoring that the Syrians had lots of guns .. but no people have enough guns to combat the government .. including the American people.

How many drones do you have?

How many heavy weapons?

The idea makes no sense at all. It's a sales pitch.

And yet the Syrians are winning. Like the Libyans. And Afghanis.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

I disagree with you brother, I don't know what else to say.

You keep ignoring that the Syrians had lots of guns .. but no people have enough guns to combat the government .. including the American people.

How many drones do you have?

How many heavy weapons?

The idea makes no sense at all. It's a sales pitch.

yes, they have massive weapons... what they do not have is 300 million citizens. They more they use the drones etc... the more the citizens would turn against them. Millions would certainly die... but in the end, the citizens with the guns would win. I would love to see a poll among our active military members as to how many of them would go to war against our citizens. My guess is that the first thing they would target would be the cesspool that is DC. Take out the political leaders and start over.

 

[blackascoal]

The current crop of Detroit residents, my self among them, would contest your argument that they are safer without guns. That you feel safe without them is fine, but you should recognize that how someone feels about being safe has little bearing on how safe they actually are. You also completely ignored the argument about Chicago.

I grew up in Detroit my brother. I was there just a month ago to snatch my grandson and get him the hell out of Detroit.

Everybody has a gun in Detroit because the police have abandoned the responsibility of protecting its citizens .. but any suggestion that its safer now that everybody has a gun would be far from the truth.

I loved that city, I love the memories of what it once was. But all that was Detroit is now gone. Almost everybody I know now lives outside the city. It was absolutely painful to drive around the city .. a city where nobody feels safe.

There is nowhere else on the planet that I would have rather grown up in than Detroit.

But now its gone.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Because gun-slaughterers can be better tracked, thus possibly prevented .. and because we need to do whatever we can to prevent gun slaughters.

but what you propose puts many more people at risk of being unable to defend themselves than it does in preventing 'gun slaughters'. this is something I tried to impress upon bijou, that the intentions, while honorable, has bad unintended consequences.

:0) That's funny

Excuse me brother but the paranoid one is the one who thinks he needs a gun everywhere to be safe. I don't own a gun .. and never have, but you'd be mistaken to think I'm defenseless. What I am is not paranoid enough to believe that a gun makes me safe.

this is a complete misnomer and either indicates that the persons anti gun bias pushes them beyond the bounds of rationality, or they don't have an accurate grasp on the situation. I don't carry a gun to feel safer, I carry a gun because I want the best tool possible should i ever have to defend myself. At the end of my life (hopefully many years from now), if I can look back and see that I never had to draw my weapon, i'll die a happy man. But I'd hate to have my wife be told that I am dead because I was in the wrong place at the wrong time, and have my gun still locked away in my closet when it could have helped me survive.

 

[Billy the Great Khan]

I grew up in Detroit my brother. I was there just a month ago to snatch my grandson and get him the hell out of Detroit.

Everybody has a gun in Detroit because the police have abandoned the responsibility of protecting its citizens .. but any suggestion that its safer now that everybody has a gun would be far from the truth.

I loved that city, I love the memories of what it once was. But all that was Detroit is now gone. Almost everybody I know now lives outside the city. It was absolutely painful to drive around the city .. a city where nobody feels safe.

There is nowhere else on the planet that I would have rather grown up in than Detroit.

But now its gone.

I'm CaptBilly bro. Born and raised here as well. We've had many a conversation.

 

[blackascoal]

yes, they have massive weapons... what they do not have is 300 million citizens. They more they use the drones etc... the more the citizens would turn against them. Millions would certainly die... but in the end, the citizens with the guns would win. I would love to see a poll among our active military members as to how many of them would go to war against our citizens. My guess is that the first thing they would target would be the cesspool that is DC. Take out the political leaders and start over.

You assume that 300 million people will be on your side .. and you assume way too much good brother.

Once the bullets start flying and your leaders start dying .. you may be standing alone.

If you're not standing against the military/industrial complex .. you're already a victim.

If you aren't standing up forAmerican civil liberties and against shit like the Patriot Act .. then you are contributing to your own failure to stop the government with a pea-shooter.

Your greatest weapon is your mind.

 

[blackascoal]

I'm CaptBilly bro. Born and raised here as well. We've had many a conversation.

:0) That we have.

Looking forward to many more good conversations with you.

 

[Billy the Great Khan]

:0) That we have.

Looking forward to many more good conversations with you.

You were supposed to mention when you were in Detroit, I believe a beer was in owed by one party or another.

 

[Howey]

LMAO

You should have known better...

really howey? wtf????

You, however, who claims to be "Smarter than you"? Not so much...

You fell for it hook, line and sinker. Thank you for proving how irrevocably dumb you are, STY.

The revolution in Tunisia was unarmed and victorious, thus proving without a doubt you have no fucking idea what's going on in the world, least of all our country.

People power scored a major victory last week when Tunisians drove out US-backed dictator Zine El Abidine Ben Ali after a month-long nationwide pro-democracy uprising. Despite a heavy focus by Western media on scenes of rioting and looting, the uprising was largely nonviolent and unarmed. Not only does this challenge Western perceptions of the Arab world, but it also offers inspiration to Arabs suffering under similar oppression. As Issandr El Amrani wrote in the Guardian:

The elation felt across the Arab world over the Tunisian uprising is deep and palpable. It is not simply that, like most people, Arabs are pleased to see a long-repressed people finally have a shot at gaining their freedom. It is also that many recognise themselves in the Tunisian people and share their hopes, their fears, and also their guilt.

While the protests were initially spontaneous and likely without a grand strategic vision, there was a fair amount of tactical coordination involving the trade unions, influential bloggers and others in civil society, as well as extensive use of Facebook and other social media. The protests built gradually, starting with the suicide incident in the small city of Sidi Bouzid, then grew and moved to a few larger cities before, finally, throwing itself in front of governmental buildings in the capital. Using this “nonviolent blitzkrieg” and clever tactics such as “distract and dislocate”, protesters were able to match up against 100,000 armed forces, which was the approximate manpower of the government’s uniformed coercive pillars at the beginning of conflict.

The protesters also showed tremendous unity, a key element in most nonviolent struggles. The students and youth who were alone when they started protesting unemployment, were soon backed by the lawyers, and then labor unions. Teachers and more youngsters got involved as soon as the government made the mistake to close the schools. So, the policy of small victories was there, building toward the announced general strike last Friday. Although it never happened, it was a signal for president Ben Ali to make his last move: dissolve the government, call the army and lose the final game.

The line about Libya and guns? Libyan rebels, with the assistance of Tunisian citizens, brought the weapons through Tunisia to aid their own revolt. If you had any knowledge of world politics, you would have known that. I was surprised SF fell for it and didn't question it. Not you. I knew you'd take it and run. I've removed the comment now.

The BBC has learnt that Libyan rebels are smuggling weapons through Tunisia to fight Colonel Gaddafi's forces in Western Libya. Rebel commanders say they have a process to collect the weapons from their fighters if they win.

 

[blackascoal]

You were supposed to mention when you were in Detroit, I believe a beer was in owed by one party or another.

:0)

You're right .. and I want to pay up.

Planning going back in about three weeks to help get my grand-daughter off to college.

By now interest has accrued and I owe you two beers. :0)

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

You assume that 300 million people will be on your side .. and you assume way too much good brother.

You assume that they would be on the side of the government that is slaughtering them?

Once the bullets start flying and your leaders start dying .. you may be standing alone.

LOL... if the US government ever gave the order to the military to strike at the American people, it would be the politicians in jeopardy, not the American public.

If you're not standing against the military/industrial complex .. you're already a victim.

It is actually the military/industrial/political complex... and I have railed against it. It is also one of the reasons I believe the 2nd Amendment is so vital. You rail against them while suggesting that they take our weapons. Which makes no sense to me.

If you aren't standing up forAmerican civil liberties and against shit like the Patriot Act .. then you are contributing to your own failure to stop the government with a pea-shooter.

I have never liked the Patriot Act, I have to deal with it every friggin day for work. That said, it is yet another diversion from the topic. You would be shooting at the government with your rubber band gun, because you would be taking away the guns. I on the other hand will have ample supply with which to deter government oppression should that ever occur.

Your greatest weapon is your mind.

On that we agree.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

You, however, who claims to be "Smarter than you"? Not so much...

You fell for it hook, line and sinker. Thank you for proving how irrevocably dumb you are, STY.

please, you couldn't even tell the difference between the ATF and the brady campaign. go tell it to someone who might believe you.