Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The gun lobby's flawed logic is riddled with bullet holes
New York Daily ^ | Monday, April 13th 2009, | Stanley Crouch

Posted on 04/13/2009 10:12:45 AM PDT by presidio9

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-111 next last
To: y6162
Restricting gun ownership for law abiding people is a reasonable response?

Ya gotta roll that proverbial ball. The topic of this article is as dead a cliche as the article itself.

21 posted on 04/13/2009 10:31:20 AM PDT by Skid Marx
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: presidio9
We can add in the documented fact that weapons bought at unmonitored gun fairs are arming Mexican drug dealers who will end up fighting American troops very soon.

I think this fellow needs to stop smoking crack.

22 posted on 04/13/2009 10:32:09 AM PDT by Trailerpark Badass (Happiness is a choice!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Renderofveils

Then, you really need to see the movie “Crazy People”, where Dudley Moore and asylum inmates come up with some very funny ad campaigns.

Particularly, and advertisement for Jaguar that really resounds with men.


23 posted on 04/13/2009 10:33:32 AM PDT by SJSAMPLE
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: buccaneer81; presidio9
The Constitution guarantees the right to keep and bear arms, not the delivery system for those arms.

You beat me to it - I was about to say something similar, such as:

The Second Amendment guarantees our individual right to keep and bear (carry) arms. It does not address at all the issue of arms which are designed to bear (carry) us... /g

24 posted on 04/13/2009 10:35:19 AM PDT by tarheelswamprat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: presidio9
I think that Russell Simmons, Arianna Huffington, George Soros and other limousine liberals should gather their forces and raise enough money from the wealthy who are actually interested in destroying our civilization.

(He forgot a word.)

25 posted on 04/13/2009 10:35:37 AM PDT by Campion ("President Barack Obama" is an anagram for "An Arab-backed Imposter")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: presidio9

This author’s lament is a direct result of the sneaky and underhanded anti-gun agenda. Maybe gun owners would acquiesce to a few “reasonable” restrictions....if they didn’t know for a fact that the endgame of those pushing this agenda is an outright ban. Would a cow take a few “reasonable” steps toward the slaughterhouse?


26 posted on 04/13/2009 10:36:20 AM PDT by domenad (In all things, in all ways, at all times, let honor guide me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: harpseal; TexasCowboy; nunya bidness; AAABEST; Travis McGee; Squantos; Shooter 2.5; wku man; SLB; ..
Today's bleat from the


27 posted on 04/13/2009 10:36:23 AM PDT by Joe Brower (Sheep have three speeds: "graze", "stampede" and "cower".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: presidio9

Where to begin? I would almost have to address every sentence. Most are fundamentally flawed in logic.

Here is a snippet, “logic of freelance survivalists in government or the gun lobby is made ridiculous by the blood sacrifice all around us.” When responding to the anti-human rights arguments, we often must respond to statements that are so obviously wrong, nearly opposite from reality and sense, that we are concerned that any response we make will not be understood in fear that the person making the statement does not understand even basic concepts or logic. The blood sacrifice is being made by victims of criminals and insane people. Such sacrifices are made more likely by the defenseless nature of the victims. It is so obvious that even low forms of life have defense mechanisms and must use them to the best of their abilities, that it is stunning to read someone claim that individuals who choose to defend themselves in an effective manner, are a threat. It makes no sense.

In the article, the writer makes an analogy between fighter jets and assault weapons and implies that no regular person should have either AND claims this is not about self-defense. That is a rather bizarre argument given the writer mentions the insanity killings in which handguns (the basic tool of self-defense) were used. Those killings didn’t have anything to do with “assault weapons”.

Crouch also claims the Constitution does not state what a lot of people think it states. Gun owners know what the Constitution states—gun owners know the Constitution—they know it doesn’t imply what S. Crouch is trying to imply.

The writer ends by hoping that some mega-rich bad guys step up to crush the self-defense freedom regular folks. S. Crouch is solidly in the pen with evil.

By the way, how are those tens of thousands of gun laws working? You really don’t care, do you S. Crouch? This is all about creating a myth so the population will clamor to have their rights removed, isn’t it S. Crouch? Are you honest enough to admit it?


28 posted on 04/13/2009 10:44:49 AM PDT by iacovatx (If you must lie to recruit to your cause, you are fighting for the wrong side.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SampleMan
"Indeed. The 2A isn’t about grandpa’s shotgun. Its about fighting to retake the government."

This is why I've always felt that you could have more of an argument banning a shotgun than banning M-16s. The M-16 is the true second amendment arm. These, AK-47's, SKS's are true arms for the purpose of the second amendment. To protect against government tyranny.
29 posted on 04/13/2009 10:49:07 AM PDT by Old Teufel Hunden
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: presidio9

You have to register to reply there, so I’ll have to reply here instead. I hope Mr. Crouch lurks here.

You are apparently assuming that taking my guns away will make you or someone else safer. Well, it will make the criminals who choose to target me safer, and Obama’s civilian security force safer. But how will it make you safer?

What will it do to disarm criminal individuals or gangs? Nothing. They never have obeyed the law.

Should I be forced out of the law-abiding-citizen category by declining to give up my second amendment rights, will you or other law abiding citizens be in any danger? Or do you intend to be one of the ones at risk, Obama’s new version of the SA?

The second amendment is specifically targeted at out of control government, that is why statists such as yourself are uncomfortable with it.

If a citizen wants and can afford a fully armed military aircraft, it is none of my business; I will not be the one trampling his rights to the point where he feels the necessity to use it.


30 posted on 04/13/2009 10:50:38 AM PDT by JimRed ("Hey, hey, Teddy K., how many girls did you drown today?" TERM LIMITS, NOW AND FOREVER!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ctdonath2

I think Travolta DOES have a fighter plane..actually.


31 posted on 04/13/2009 10:53:47 AM PDT by Armedanddangerous (I think you're so full of inconsolable rage, you don't care who you hurt.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: ctdonath2
Here ya go .... Third world ground attack plane ....

Photobucket

Then of course there was the Cessna T37 "Tweety Bird" Photobucket

32 posted on 04/13/2009 10:54:18 AM PDT by SkyDancer ('Those who hammer their guns into plows will plow for those who do not..' ~ Thomas Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: presidio9

With enough money, they just might be able to put a hole in the bucket of the gun lobby.


Don't bring a c note to a gun fight...

33 posted on 04/13/2009 11:03:05 AM PDT by EdReform (The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed *NRA*JPFO*SAF*GOA*SAS*CCRKBA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ctdonath2
seller could be difficult, but it's entirely legal.

Actually not. There are planes that are not allowed for domestic consumption. Even if you have the money ($240,000,000) you are not allowed to buy a sukhoi su 25, 27, 34, etc. and the Russians won't sell you one. Even some of the outdated US stuff such as the OV-10D is forbidden to us citizens. You can buy an unarmed YAK from russia, but I understand that they've stopped producing those due to lack of demand.

34 posted on 04/13/2009 11:04:20 AM PDT by from occupied ga (Your most dangerous enemy is your own government,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: presidio9

I am done with arguing the point. Come and try to take them.


35 posted on 04/13/2009 11:04:56 AM PDT by HattonFarmer (Fear the government that fears your gun.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Armedanddangerous

[click click]
John Travolta owns a MiG-29.

Buying a GE MiniGun and mounting it thereon would not be a problem, given a couple forms and a $200 tax.


36 posted on 04/13/2009 11:06:58 AM PDT by ctdonath2 (John Galt was exiled.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: presidio9

What high school newspaper did this editorial appear in?


37 posted on 04/13/2009 11:06:58 AM PDT by MrB (Go Galt now, Bowman later)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: presidio9

Well, if anyone is familiar with flawed logic, it’s this guy.


38 posted on 04/13/2009 11:08:36 AM PDT by Still Thinking (Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HattonFarmer

Notice the author’s reference to “reasonable” restrictions being met with slippery slope arguments and people getting their backs up out of a paranoia that all gun rights will be removed if we give them an inch.

I wonder where this person stands on partial birth abortion, born alive infant protection, parental notification, etc...

I’m betting they oppose all of those as if they each were a foot in the door to ban abortion.


39 posted on 04/13/2009 11:10:30 AM PDT by MrB (Go Galt now, Bowman later)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: from occupied ga

The point was whether US law would/could prohibit such a purchase, given a manufacturer (such items ARE made domestically) and enough money. As I just noted above, Travolta _does_ own a MiG, and buying & mounting suitable armament is mostly just a matter, again, of money & seller availability.

The challenge was purchase of items in a general category, not specific models thereof which suffer contractual, not legal, restrictions.


40 posted on 04/13/2009 11:13:54 AM PDT by ctdonath2 (John Galt was exiled.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-111 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson