Guest mz. Posted February 9, 2009 Report Share Posted February 9, 2009 Shooting in Butte, Montana, illegal alien Home Invaders while mz the pussy whines and complains! Say what you want, but there was no shooting of this nature in Butte. It was a made-up story, and your ass is chapped because you were proven a fool yet again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest mz. Posted February 9, 2009 Report Share Posted February 9, 2009 Turlington.........was that Bob Barker's 'friend'. On second thought, it might have been Pennington. This is she. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. T Posted February 9, 2009 Author Report Share Posted February 9, 2009 Why Gun Control Laws Are Killing People September 4, 2008 Doug McIntosh The verdict is in on America's 95 year fetish with gun control. The verdict is total failure. Gun control doesn't guarantee you will not need a personal weapon to defend yourself, gun control merely guarantees you will not have a personal weapon with you when you need it. The first serious effort at mass gun control, the banning of the personal possession of a handgun, took place in New York City in 1911. The Sullivan Law made the private possession of a handgun illegal in New York City. The Sullivan Law has been copied in Washington D. C. and is now under challenge at the Supreme Court. The decision will come by June 30th, 2008. The results of mass gun control have been predictable. Modern gun control laws have merely guaranteed that when bad things happen, as in Virginia Tech, or Northern Illinois University, or on a Long Island commuter train, the slaughter is inevitable. The reason the slaughter is inevitable is because the people being slaughtered have no personal weapons to defend themselves. And the reason this is so, the lack of personal weapons, is modern American Gun Control laws. So, the actual result of gun control laws designed to "protect" the American people has been to increase the carnage in various incidents. One of the fatal flaws in the philosophy underlining the intellectual foundations of modern gun control is a naive misunderstanding of life, along with an even more naive belief in the ability of the "system" to protect people. The idea that all people have to do is call 911 and then wait for a magical response is beyond naive: it is foolish and deadly. This philosophy eliminates individual responsibility with the kind of deadly results we routinely see at mass shootings. Gun control laws first assume life is not dangerous and then follow this with a dogmatic belief the law enforcement system will be there. These are simply not valid intellectually because they are neither logical or true; yet, these two false premises lead repeatedly to the deaths of innocents. Just because you belief a crazed shooter will not come into your life; just because you believe that if they do a quick phone call to 911 will save you doesn't make it so. The reason I have spent some time on this, is simple. There are only two valid intellectual positions on gun control: you either support it, or you don't. America has taken a somewhat strange position in between. They pretend gun control will work when it is needed; then brazenly decide it will not be needed, since it has already worked and thus is not needed. The flawed logic of gun control says it will not be needed since the man coming down the aisle on that Long Island commuter train shooting people, should not have the gun. And once he has the gun, and once he starts shooting, gun control fails. At that point, once the crazy starts shooting, the innocents merely die. There is nothing else they can do since gun control has worked by disarming them. Again, there are only two logical intellectual responses to a situation like the Long Island commuter train shooting. The first is the one taken by the wife of one of the innocent victims. She became enraged, correctly enraged, and ran against a "pro gun" Congressman, defeated him and now is a champion of the gun control lobby. She made one of the two intellectual choices. The reason her family members died at the hands of an armed lunatic is because gun control failed. And the reason gun control failed is because we don't have enough gun control laws. So, ergo she becomes the enraged woman taking on the crazed gun control lobby, and crazed people like me who own personal weapons and even had a concealed weapon permit at one time. This is a valid position in my view. It is an incorrect position, an illogical one, but it is a heartfelt one and should not be treated with contempt by people like myself. She paid for her views with the blood of her husband. No one who supports the private possession of handguns and other weapons, and the Second Amendment in general, has any standing to deride her or people like her. However, that does not mean I accept her logic, or her position on gun control. You see there are two intellectual positions on gun control related the Long Island commuter train, or Virginia Tech, or Northern Illinois University. And I take the other one. The other one being very simple. What gun control means to me is simply proper shooting technique. Based upon the Second Amendment with its armed Militia clauses, plus the historical record; the historical sayings of the Founding Fathers; finally, over 230 years of American history, there is no doubt in my mind of three things: first, absolute Constitutional protection of the private ownership of handguns, rifles and shotguns; second, the armed militia being all American citizens/people of good moral standing between the ages of 17 and 55 and third, the absolute right of concealed carry by any American Citizen of good moral standing. These are not in my view, privileges, or subject to governmental "infringement" as the Constitution says. These are rights, derived from our status as created beings as defined in the American Constitution. Like I said, this is the other intellectual position you can take on gun control. The first position, we need more gun control is not valid. My position, the armed citizen militia member is a more accurate, logical and realistic response to life and all its dangers than modern gun control law. There are only two positions, pro or anti gun control. There are only two choices: to think life will never send a lunatic shooter your way or it might. And there are only two results if it does: to live or to die. I choose life. In the event I was on that Long Island commuter train, I would have simply pulled out my personal weapon, my concealed personal handgun and eliminated the threat, eliminated the shooter and saved lives. My position is the reason those people died is there was no one there like me to deal with the problem. This being the whole point of concealed handgun carry; this being why the system despises the armed citizen so much. It tells people they are the children of patriots, self reliant, independent and free. You see, it is not a case of everything, can happen everywhere, all the time. To believe this is mere paranoia. It is more accurate to say, anything can happen anywhere; at anytime. And that is why the only logical and reasonable position on gun control is for the armed citizen/militia member with their concealed handgun to be available for the protection of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness if and when the situation arises. Gun control is a failure. It is long past due for a national concealed handgun carry permit. Let the crazies understand the sheep have fangs and the shooting will stop. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest mz. Posted February 9, 2009 Report Share Posted February 9, 2009 T, there was a reason nobody commented on that "article" the first time you posted it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. T Posted February 10, 2009 Author Report Share Posted February 10, 2009 T, there was a reason nobody commented on that "article" the first time you posted it. Thats because you took a crap all over the thread and changed the subject at hand. Dont you have some dolls to play with? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest mz. Posted February 10, 2009 Report Share Posted February 10, 2009 BURN!!!!!!!! Any other fiction you want me to critique today, T? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chicopee John Posted February 10, 2009 Report Share Posted February 10, 2009 This is she. Can't argue, mz the pussy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. T Posted February 10, 2009 Author Report Share Posted February 10, 2009 T, there was a reason nobody commented on that "article" the first time you posted it. Its a Different article added, but your so ignorant that you didn't even take time to read it. You just started spewing crap out of your mouth as usual and have one of your mod buddies change the wording on the post. why anyone reads your posts i dont know why they dont bring any value to anything, and hardly ever add anything of value. All you do is whine like a little girl. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest mz. Posted February 10, 2009 Report Share Posted February 10, 2009 Its a Different article added, but your so ignorant that you didn't even take time to read it. Quite opposite, my friend. That means I'm smart. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.