This dude needs to run for office.
This dude needs to run for office.
Funny that these comments/videos/stories never get reported by mass media, that we have to go through secondary media just to find it.
Powerful speech.
I like his idea...... I'd love to see Obama go door to door.
If Obamacare is "settled law" after 3 years then why isn't the Second Amendment after 222?
Why does he hate when people invoke dead children to make their point, and then immediately invoke dead soldiers to make his point?
Trying to counter an emotional argument with an emotional argument.
The worst 2nd Amendment speech ever.
Soldiers dying in combat is not an emotional ploy... it's reality. Every soldier is promised the rights theyre fighting for. Every politician swears to uphold the constitution. With every 18 year old's signature the government accepts and every person who spends their youth fighting in conflicts 1000s of miles away from their home, theyre told by their government that theyre fighting for freedom and rights. Every soldier has a right to demand this contract be honored. It's a contract that has been signed a million times over in blood.
The actions of criminals have no place in any discussion involving the bill of rights. Standing on the graves of dead children is what gutless cowards like Obama do to push their political agenda. The only person's safety a politician is concerned with is their own.
And to you................. Anyone willing to trade their freedom for safety, deserves neither.
I know its absolute unadulterated stupidity. Not sure why others fail to realize it either. Are you saying he did not invoke dying soldiers to make his point immediately after he chastised others for invoking dead children to make their point?
You know that whole tirade is captioned right?
Why can't any pro-gun movement-conservatives take the time to make a well thought out arguments without emotional embellishments and logical fallacies? It shouldn't be that hard if they're as smart as they claim to be.
And yes. It doesn't have much to do with the 2nd Amendment. If it did, it would have been challenged. And it seems no one to date has highlighted the part in the constitution that says you have unlimited access to assault rifles.
I have come to the conclusion that Blank just comments to stir a reaction. One can not be that blatantly blind or ignorant. Did you not watch the video? Or are you just cherry picking here and there to make your " point "? He stated that the gun grabbers standing and preaching on the graves of children is hypocritical...when they blatantly ignore the hundreds of children in Chicago that die from crime/gun related/gang violence. His point is that they ignore the cry of those in Chicago while they highlight the heinous crimes of a "few mad men ". Therefore his and his brothers/sisters sacrifice in blood trumps their argument.
Of course his argument is going to be emotional. Have you ever been over seas 1000 miles away from home and family, watching your brothers in arms sacrifice and die for our " rights "? No you have not. This honorable man chose to go and fight for these rights and sacrifice all so that they may remain when he returns home. He also stated that better men than he have given the ultimate sacrifice, their lives for this same cause. His point is that the law makers are cowards, scheming in the night and passing bills that take away the very things this man fought for. If you have never served or sacrificed as this man has, than any point, opinion, or argument you might have are invalid. You sir have not even put this mans boots on and laced them up, much less than walking a mile in his shoes. Shame on you!
riding for God crew member #1
IA Domestic Alliance
I know exactly what he said. You just confirmed it. Thank you.
So why is he countering an emotional argument with an emotional argument? If he's as smart as he claims to be, he could make a clear, concise, and rational argument without having to appeal to emotion. It's a logical fallacy.Of course his argument is going to be emotional.Youre not sure what I've done, are you?Have you ever been over seas 1000 miles away from home and family, watching your brothers in arms sacrifice and die for our " rights "? No you have not.::facepalm::If you have never served or sacrificed as this man has, than any point, opinion, or argument you might have are invalid. You sir have not even put this mans boots on and laced them up, much less than walking a mile in his shoes. Shame on you!
Why do I even bother
Seriously...you are just ridiculous. I am most positive that you have never made much sacrifice in your life...those that have tend to appreciate what little they remain with...even basic rights guaranteed by the Constitution.
There is no argument with your kind, not emotional, logical or rational...I could out right slap you in the face and tell you I did it, only for you to waste your breath and argue that maybe i wasn't the one that did it...I have read many of your responses to the questions posed by others...you never answer it. You dodge and twist and then just answer with another question. Do you even believe your own BS?
Here is a simple question for you, please provide evidence supporting your answer. Question: How will anit-gun/more gun control legislation prevent criminals from committing crimes?
riding for God crew member #1
IA Domestic Alliance
Kids dying has nothing to do with the bill of rights. The actions of criminals has nothing to do with the bill of rights. There's no small print under the 2nd amendment that says "unless someone shoots a kid".
Every soldier that has ever entered combat was guaranteed his rights by a politician who swore to uphold the constitution. What part of this do you not understand? What democrats are doing today is treason and in a different era, they would pay for it dearly. If the current path we're on continues, they still may.
unfortunately..... Blank really is this ignorant and uneducated. The only sacrifice a democrat knows is voting for someone else's money to be given to charity. They're parasites..... and as blank so proudly demonstrates on a daily basis, not only are they parasites, but they're very proud of themselves for doing it. I've never met a more ignorant person in my entire life.
This will never get answered directly. If he answers at all, he will simply allude to any number of possibilities or abstract ideologies. There will be no proof, only conjecture. He will do everything he can to make the points of a stance, without ever committing to it so when that stance is proven wrong he can claim he never took a particular stance.
We have been through this with him dozens of times, it never changes.
As far as the speech goes, it was good until he got to the part about stacking up at the door. He is not forced to do that job, he chose to do it so he has no right to complain about the duties and dangers that come with the job. Whether he agrees with the laws he is enforcing or not is irrelevant.
I will also argue that any right minded, responsible gun owner would give up their guns and fight this in the appropriate venue if it comes to that. Shooting it out with the police does absolutely nothing to help your cause and in all reality does further damage to it.
I highly doubt any body would just give up their guns and fight it in the appropriate venue...after all, these laws are being passed with out any kind of consideration or opinion of the people. This gov't does what it wants when it wants.
riding for God crew member #1
IA Domestic Alliance
I think it's a fair question to ask. Are you willing to sign a law that is going to inevitably be met with resistance on both fronts. A lot of police are not going to want to enforce it and a lot of citizens are not going to submit to it. For democrats to be using the chant "if we can save one life, we have to try", how can they ignore that lives will be lost to enforce gun control? While some people will fight back "in the appropriate venue", that course of action is not going to be unanimous. If the government thought everyone in America would chose "the appropriate venue"..... they would be knocking on your door right now. Given that there's no logical benefit to gun control, i think it's safe to say that resistance is both the reason they want gun control and the reason they cant have it.
I know better than to answer questions like that anymore. No matter how many time I explain the rationale behind gun control laws, it goes in one ear and out the other with pseudo-conservative types. Logic and reason isn't something they want to hear and they are unable to cope with it. They like sticking to emotional reasoning to bolster their stance, and most times, emotional reasoning doesn't provide the best solution. Especially in this case.
That makes one person who's proven my point. Anyone else like to step forward?
Call it what you will, you will argue a point, your point will be be taken apart piece by piece and then you will claim to have never taken a stance one way or another, or you will just deflect and derail the thread and go off on some insignificant little tangent like you always do. We've all seen it a hundred times over.
It's not if you stop watching the news. The funny thing about it is the overwhelming majority of the public doesn't mind gun control, up until it's cloaked in "anti-patriotism" and "relinquishment of freedom" and "blood of dying soldiers who fought for our rights"
Never has any of my arguments been taken apart piece by piece. You're confusing it with the pseudo conservative faction of this forum (basically everyone) listing the reasons why they disagree with the way things work because they are willfully unaware.
Not a single letter in the constitution guarantees you unfettered access to weapons and ammunition. That's just how it is. You getting your panties in a twist about "gun grabs" and "registries" and "tyranny" only makes you sound dumb and uneducated. No one takes that mental stuff seriously.
Enterprise Data Resources- Ecommerce Project Manager
-www.usedbarcode.net
Invoking dead soldiers to make your point is just as much an emotional response as invoking dead children to make your point. The speaker condemned emotional responses and went on to make one himself. Not sure why this is being debated, the speech is captioned. We know exactly what he said. Lol
Your example of penalization is your belief. Anecdotal at best. As a gun owner, I have not been penalized. If me and you and the rest of this forum are equally subject to the same laws, could you explain how you've been penalized or what laws you may be subject to that I'm not?
I didnt watch the video, I can see where this thread is going, i was just voicing the opinion i have on the difference between a dead soldier and a dead child.
Its like saying Rape is the same as Prostitution. not is not, 1 is forceful and a crime, the other is done by free will and accepts the consequences of their actions.
I was merely saying that using dead kids gunned down to further an anti gun law agenda, leads to penalizing people who arent criminals. If you dont understand that, then I dont know what to tell you.
Enterprise Data Resources- Ecommerce Project Manager
-www.usedbarcode.net
thats the correlation between the logic of banning guns because someone commits a crime with a gun.Drunk Driver causes accident, kills child
Ban Cars
the problem with gun laws is that the right wants full auto for everyone, and the democrats want no guns for anyone. Both sides are irrational in their thinking
Enterprise Data Resources- Ecommerce Project Manager
-www.usedbarcode.net
ok. But invoking dead children to make your point and invoking dead soldiers to make a point is the same thing. If you're gonna condemn someone that uses one type of emotional response, don't use an emotional response in your very next sentance. It couldn't be more clear than that.
I've never heard anyone say they want full auto for everyone or a unilateral ban for everyone.
Every tyrant dictator in history told us that gun control made us safer. The only people protected by gun control are criminals and tyrannical government. The reason everyone picks your "rationale" apart Blank is because no facts or data support it. In every instance in world history, gun control causes crime to go up. When the last assault rifle ban was lifted, crime went down. Gun crime has been steadily dropping over the last 20 years. Crime is the highest in America in every city that has gun control. After Florida allowed concealed carry, their crime rate dropped by 30% the next year. Your "rationale" is that you think what you think regardless of what statistical data beats you over the head with. Your "rationale" and the "rationale" of every other democrat is that you think you know what's best for everyone else and you think you know how other people should live their lives regardless of what facts, reality, statistics, data or a lifetime of their own personal experience tells them. This is why we have the 2nd amendment, so ultimately, when someone with your "rationale" wont take no for an answer and wont let other people live their lives, we can put a little more "emphasis" on the "NO" to maintain our freedom.
You're willing to trade your freedom for the mirage of safety. You deserve neither freedom or safety....... You're a slave. You're just so weak minded that they dont need chains to keep you captive.
Last edited by Sinfix_15; 12-18-2013 at 05:30 PM.
This is the same as the people that say a majority of people love Obamacare if you only point out the benefits.
100% of people are in full support of gun control, regulation, deregulation, whatever other issue you want to bring up, just so long as you only mention 1 side of the argument. You also have to remember that a majority of people have no clue what they are talking about when they give their opinion. IE, the "gun show loophole".
Let's use background checks as one example of gun control. Could you list one consequence and one benefit of background checks?
Just so we have a list of consequences and benefits to have an informed opinion?
You don't have to tell me. I experience that every time someone posts in here.You also have to remember that a majority of people have no clue what they are talking about when they give their opinion.
So far the current administration has proved that the only thing they do with information is abuse it. Why submit a gun registry to an administration that is pretty open and adamant about their desire to ban guns?
Do you go to the local jail and pass out the floor plans to your house?
Ok. Did you list one benefit and one consequence to background checks?
Benefit - You create an inch high speed bump for a criminal seeking to purchase a gun.
Consequence - You continue to aid the chipping away of freedom and privacy by a government who's ultimate goal is to remove guns, even if they have to do it one at a time. You create another crime trap for law abiding citizens to fall into. You disrupt the private lawful exchange of firearms between law abiding citizens. You create confiscation webs for law abiding citizens. Under some of the democrat proposed laws, it would be illegal to pass your shotgun down to your child.
Benefit: You give legal gun owners an avenue to prevent the sale of their firearms to those people that cannot legally purchase firearms.
Drawback: Entirely unenforceable without 100% gun registration which isnt going to happen.
Drawback: Does nothing to address illegally owned and stolen firearms.
Drawback: Does nothing to prevent gun crimes.
Now that that one is easily dispensed, care to offer up another cookie?
Unenforcable? If I go buy a gun right now I have to get a background check. How is that Unenforcable?
Lets stick to background checks for now, we can address other methods of gun control later.Drawback: Does nothing to address illegally owned and stolen firearms.
So you believe that if there were no background checks at all, crime would remain the same?Drawback: Does nothing to prevent gun crimes.
Keep trying. There's gotta be a legitimate drawback somewhere.
Background checks are perfectly fine and they help to keep fire arms out of the hands of those with a criminal record....THAT FOLLOW THE LAW!
The problem is that it does nothing to stop the ones with criminal records that still break the law from obtaining weapons. Do you think the neighborhood thug that sells guns out of his trunk to other thugs is going to give two $hits about Federal laws and background checks?
"Benefit: You give legal gun owners an avenue to prevent the sale of their firearms to those people that cannot legally purchase firearms.
Drawback: Entirely unenforceable without 100% gun registration which isnt going to happen.
Drawback: Does nothing to address illegally owned and stolen firearms.
Drawback: Does nothing to prevent gun crimes."
Any form of gun control is directly tied to all forms of gun control. You assume that criminals and mad men will follow these laws. Your logic is flawed. The only way to get rid of all gun violence would be to confiscate and destroy every fire arm in existence and then ban any future manufacturing of said fire arms. But then you will have a rise in other kinds of violence. The thugs and lunatics will find a way to kill...even with their bare hands if they have to. Gun control does not work...simple...
riding for God crew member #1
IA Domestic Alliance