Do Anti Gunners Really Think This?

[Certaindeaf]

This anti-gun boogyman crap gets old. I'm not a 2A victim and neither are you. I don't come on here much anymore because of this kind of junior high nonsense. You and I will never completely get our way on anything, ever. That's life. But we have a friendly supreme court, we are winning most of the cases about background checks, permits, carrying, mags, etc. Yet we still have to put up with this "2A victim" whining.

I happen to respect John Stewart because he speaks truth to power on all sides, and seems genuinely concerned for the average guy. He was the most visible supporter of the 911 first responders when their medical needs were being swept under the rug by Gulliani. He's a New Yorker, doesn't like or have guns (as far as I know), who cares? Who gives a ---- what he likes? He's one funny sob and walks his walk.

Before you start with the anti crap with me, I've been shooting and hunting for over 60 years, including cc for decades. There are 2 Bronze Stars in my family (one a sniper), most of the men and a few of the women served (how many of you whiners did?) My nephew owns a gun shop and builds custom AR's, another nephew teaches advanced firearm training to LE and first responders. He's two seconds from GO to first shot on target. How about you? I had an uncle who was forced to kill a man who earlier in the day had threatened my uncle and his family over a f-------- 8 track tape. This db came back onto his property at dusk, my uncle (Korea-era marine) was ready for him and he sent the guy home in a body bag after a short gun fight.

Rant over but geez this whining crap gets old.

So shut up and take the butt pounding? Uh, no.

 

[Aero Denezol]

@lucky guy I am an FFL and my brother is anti-gun. Does my brother get to claim me whenever he wants to make his anti-gun case? Um, no. I don't speak for him. He doesn't speak for me. If your brother/uncle/dad was a sniper, great. If you were not a sniper then you don't get to ride their coattails. FWIW I've met several veterans who are anti-gun. It is blue Oregon after all. The 2A is not exclusively for people who won the Bronze Star. That is how things work in other countries, where only "professionals" can own firearms. In America ALL citizens have Rights. And the only reason we can still enjoy our 2A Rights here is because ordinary citizens stand in the way of technocrats and have slowed them down. Otherwise we would be filling out 20 pages of forms and waiting for months to get a permit to buy a firearm, if we were even allowed to buy one at all.

And btw John Stewart is not funny.

 

[Andy54Hawken]

Speaking as one who earned ( not won ) a Bronze Star , with V device....along with some other awards and medals...
Jon Stewart ain't funny.

Many folks have opinions about firearms and the 2nd Amendment.
Which is all fine and good...However....

Own whatever firearms you wish to own....or don't own any...
Just don't make that choice for others.

And don't belittle those who do make the choice to own firearms.
'Cause we don't all fit into the nice tidy little boxes some folks want to place us in.
Andy

Edit to add :
Am I whining or ranting ...no.
But I am damn tired being made out into being the problem here...
Me and the millions of other firearm owners , who have harmed no one with our firearms ain't the problem.

 

[esbshaw]

Most don't realize the Japanese during WWII did not invade the main land due to most Americans being armed and willing to fight for their country.

In WWII Japanese Admiral Yamamoto feared invading the U.S. because there's "a gun behind every blade of grass."

Fact Check: Armed citizens are not what stopped Japan from invading after Pearl Harbor

A post on Facebook falsely claims the Japanese fear of armed citizens dissuaded them from invading the U.S. after the attack on Pearl Harbor.

www.usatoday.com

Japan didn't invade the US because it feared armed citizens?

History quiz: After Pearl Harbor, did the Japanese refrain from invading the mainland United States because they feared

www.politifact.com

Misquoting Yamamoto - FactCheck.org

Advocates of gun rights often argue that in World War II Japan was deterred from invading the U.S. mainland by a fear of American citizens with guns in their closets. They frequently quote Japan’s Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto as saying: "You cannot invade mainland United States. There would be a...

www.factcheck.org

"The feasibility of a full-scale invasion of Hawaii and the continental United States by Imperial Japan was considered negligible, with Japan possessing neither the manpower nor logistical ability to do so."

"It's preposterous (to say) that the main reason Japan didn't invade the U.S. was because of armed citizens," Garon said. "The main reason was because Japan was badly overextended in early 1942 as it was."
"Japan at that point occupied the central and south Pacific, as well as Southeast Asia and parts of China", he said.
"They lacked the firepower and manpower to invade the United States, or even Australia or nearby Siberia."

I like owning, shooting, and playing with guns as much (or more) than the next man, but come on - let's keep it real. Repeating cliched nonsense doesn't help advance the cause.

 

[CamoDeafie]

Most don't realize the Japanese during WWII did not invade the main land due to most Americans being armed and willing to fight for their country.

In WWII Japanese Admiral Yamamoto feared invading the U.S. because there's "a gun behind every blade of grass."

Fact Check: Armed citizens are not what stopped Japan from invading after Pearl Harbor

A post on Facebook falsely claims the Japanese fear of armed citizens dissuaded them from invading the U.S. after the attack on Pearl Harbor.

www.usatoday.com

Japan didn't invade the US because it feared armed citizens?

History quiz: After Pearl Harbor, did the Japanese refrain from invading the mainland United States because they feared

www.politifact.com

Misquoting Yamamoto - FactCheck.org

Advocates of gun rights often argue that in World War II Japan was deterred from invading the U.S. mainland by a fear of American citizens with guns in their closets. They frequently quote Japan’s Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto as saying: "You cannot invade mainland United States. There would be a...

www.factcheck.org

"The feasibility of a full-scale invasion of Hawaii and the continental United States by Imperial Japan was considered negligible, with Japan possessing neither the manpower nor logistical ability to do so."

"It's preposterous (to say) that the main reason Japan didn't invade the U.S. was because of armed citizens," Garon said. "The main reason was because Japan was badly overextended in early 1942 as it was."
"Japan at that point occupied the central and south Pacific, as well as Southeast Asia and parts of China", he said.
"They lacked the firepower and manpower to invade the United States, or even Australia or nearby Siberia."

I like owning, shooting, and playing with guns as much (or more) than the next man, but come on - let's keep it real. Repeating cliched nonsense doesn't help advance the cause.

Counterpoint. At that time in the 1930s-1940s; every able-bodied men who did not have any medical conditions, religious exemptions, or some such... were drafted into the military, along with volunteer enlistment. So it wasn't much of a stretch to say that Yamamoto feared that the US military had a far larger number of armed soldiers/Marines/Guardsmen/airmen and sailors than the Imperial Japanese military could challenge, especially after fighting China.

 

[RX-79G]

I was trained in tactics. As an observation of the Anti-gun zealots, many are located on the West coast. Not all (NYC, Chicago, ect...), but many.
The problem is the West Coast is vulnerable to invasion by sea.
Disarming, which seems to be the ultimate goal by chipping away at our 2A rights, is dangerous, as we American citizens are the last line of defense.
In WWII, a quote attributed to Japanese Admiral Yamamoto was that he feared the U.S. because there's "a gun behind every blade of grass."
For example: France was freed not only by allied forces in WWII, but by resistance forces within their country with personal firearms. This is just an observation and something to think about. No one knows what may happen in the future.

America is not going to be invaded by anywhere, because (like Canada) it has a bunch of guns of all types, and even 5 round mags and bolt actions are extremely dangerous to a military force trying to prevent an insurgency. There has never been a place in America where you couldn't own a gun, and no one has ever suggested such a thing.

 

[RX-79G]

Counterpoint. At that time in the 1930s-1940s; every able-bodied men who did not have any medical conditions, religious exemptions, or some such... were drafted into the military, along with volunteer enlistment. So it wasn't much of a stretch to say that Yamamoto feared that the US military had a far larger number of armed soldiers/Marines/Guardsmen/airmen and sailors than the Imperial Japanese military could challenge, especially after fighting China.

Only 16 million served the armed forces during WWII out of a US population of 133 million. "Every able-bodied man"?

 

[DunRanull]

Most Anti's and especially the John Stewart crowd are taught to have trigger words or trigger que's (ie. AR or AK weapons). They don't rationally think through their thoughts nor do they use logic to understand that neither an AR or AK are the best close in weapons choices. They only see them as evil black rifles and as such should be banned. Your truck would do far more damage at a parade and a 12 gauge Shotgun with a mag extension and 00 buck would do far more damage in a crowded room. However your truck and Grandpa's shotgun are not viewed as objects of hate and thus do not create a trigger. So for what it's worth, the Anti-crowd is illogical in their thinking and it is hard for us to change that mentality.

I was gonna ask who this "Jon Stewart" guy is... so I ran a google on his name- Turns out he's a "Liebowitz" by birth, masquerading as royal Scotch. That birth name explains a lot, sez I.

 

[RX-79G]

I was gonna ask who this "Jon Stewart" guy is... so I ran a google on his name- Turns out he's a "Liebowitz" by birth, masquerading as royal Scotch. That birth name explains a lot, sez I.

Because it exposes him as a jew, or a possible relative of the famous photographer?

 

[DunRanull]

Only 16 million served the armed forces during WWII out of a US population of 133 million. "Every able-bodied man"?

Most all "able-bodied men" of military service age, yes. Many got deferments due to health conditions and other concerns. Most of the male population was not of serving age, obviously.

 

[RX-79G]

Most all "able-bodied men" of military service age, yes. Many got deferments due to health conditions and other concerns. Most of the male population was not of serving age, obviously.

There were many non-health deferments, like all the men that remained in the labs, factories, hospitals, etc. 16 million was not the sum total of all able bodied men over a 5 year period out of 133 million.

Draft numbers were also based on a training rate of 200,000 per month.

 

[DunRanull]

There were many non-health deferments, like all the men that remained in the labs, factories, hospitals, etc. 16 million was not the sum total of all able bodied men over a 5 year period out of 133 million.

Draft numbers were also based on a training rate of 200,000 per month.

My Dad tried to enlist the day after Pearl. He was deferred due to his eyesight. A year later he was drafted(!), eyesight be damned. They gave him a shotgun and made him an MP in charge of POWs, guess he didnt need to see too good for that. Also he spoke Dutch in the home, so that's like German, right? LOL, Army logic.

 

[DunRanull]

One of the biggest problems with liberals is guns are not the only thing they want to ban or control. High profile no doubt but still just one of many things they want to change or eliminate.

With all the issues they concentrate their efforts on they most likely are not going to stop and listen to any rational or explanations on any issue. They just keep following the status quo of their 'leaders' and don't budge.

Most lib-types I've known think they want to "fundamentally change" the USA. Most seem to have little idea of what or how such changes should be made.

 

[Explorer1]

Its all about control and utopia, reality need not apply.

 

[Explorer1]

Most lib-types I've known think they want to "fundamentally change" the USA. Most seem to have little idea of what or how such changes should be made.

Remember Obummer told us....

Obama: "Fundamentally Transforming the United States of America"