- Messages
- 20,304
- Reactions
- 76,956
JavaScript is disabled
Our website requires JavaScript to function properly. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser settings before proceeding.
- Messages
- 5,045
- Reactions
- 11,603
Well they can 
.
.
- Messages
- 758
- Reactions
- 650
I just finished the read, it's very slanted to the left and extremely dated. This was one of my favorite laughs from what was touted as Why plain folks want military style weaponry.
"Television shows such as "The A-Team," first broadcast on ABC in 1983, "Miami Vice," first broadcast on NBC in 1984, and other action/adventure/police dramas have acted as a showcase for new weaponry. In effect, the shows supply free advertising for assault weapons manufacturers."
To which I say "What you talking about fool!" Quote from Mr T. of the A Team.
"Television shows such as "The A-Team," first broadcast on ABC in 1983, "Miami Vice," first broadcast on NBC in 1984, and other action/adventure/police dramas have acted as a showcase for new weaponry. In effect, the shows supply free advertising for assault weapons manufacturers."
To which I say "What you talking about fool!" Quote from Mr T. of the A Team.
- Messages
- 6,824
- Reactions
- 17,613
- Messages
- 1,582
- Reactions
- 4,204
All those rounds fired on the A-Team and no one ever gets shot? 
Doesn't sound like good advertising for the "weaponry" to me, fool. 
Doesn't sound like good advertising for the "weaponry" to me, fool. 
- Messages
- 18,744
- Reactions
- 45,455
That's "foo" btw.
- Messages
- 1,047
- Reactions
- 2,939
I pitty the fool that required that explanation of where that quote came from.
And when a plan comes together I personally love it. As long as it isn't the plan above, that plan is not a good plan..
- Messages
- 37,187
- Reactions
- 128,255
I submit to you the 2015 antithesis to the anti-2A playbook, that will always work.... if you have the stones.
American gun owners are beginning to respond with a fresh, powerful argument when facing anti-gun liberals. Here it is, in its entirety. Ready?
"Screw you." That's it. Except the first word isn't "Screw."
It's not exactly a traditional argument, but it's certainly appropriate here. The fact is that there is no point in arguing with liberal gun-control advocates because their argument is never in good faith. They slander gun owners as murderers. They lie about their ultimate aim, which is to ban and confiscate all privately owned weapons. And they adopt a pose of reasonability, yet their position is not susceptible to change because of evidence, facts or law. None of those matter – they already have their conclusion. This has to do with power – their power.
You can't argue with someone who is lying about his position or whose position is not based upon reason. You can talk all day about how crime has diminished where concealed carry is allowed, while it flourishes in Democrat blue cities where gun control is tightest. You can point to statistics showing that law-abiding citizens who carry legally are exponentially less likely to commit gun crimes than other people. You can cite examples of armed citizens protecting themselves and their communities with guns. You can offer government statistics showing how the typical American is at many times greater risk of death from an automobile crash, a fall, or poisoning than from murder by gun.
But none of that matters, because this debate is not about facts. It's about power. The liberal anti-gun narrative is not aimed at creating the best public policy but at disarming citizens the liberal elite looks down upon – and for whom weapons represent their last-ditch ability to respond to liberal overreach.
Put simply, liberal elitists don't like the fact that, at the end of the day, an armed citizenry can tell them, "No."
So they argue in bad faith, shamelessly lying, libeling their opponents, and hiding their real endgame. Sure, sometimes the mask slips and a liberal politician like Mike Bloomberg or Diane Feinstein reveals their true agenda, but mostly they stay on-message.
For example, Barack Obama, who always tries to reassure us bitter clingers that he doesn't want to take our guns, speaks longingly about the Australian plan – which was confiscation of most viable defensive weapons from the civilian population.
Obama is lying – about gay marriage, about your doctor – and he is likewise lying about guns. The minute he could disarm every American civilian he would, something particularly alarming in light of his pal Bill Ayers' infamous observation that 'fundamentally transforming' America would require killing at least 25 million citizens.
No wonder free Americans are done pretending the gun argument is a rational debate and are responding with an extended middle finger – and the challenge to come and take their arms. The fact remains that any outright attempt to take the arms from tens of millions of American gun owners would almost certainly result in a second Civil War. And we all know how the first Civil War went for the Democrats.
So, through a campaign of shaming, dissembling, and outright slander, liberals are trying to talk Americans into giving up their weapons voluntarily. There's always another "common sense" restriction to enact, spurred on by a tragedy that the last "common sense" restriction didn't prevent and that the proposed new "common sense" restriction would not have prevented. They want to do it in baby steps, and with our cooperation, since they cannot do it by force.
There are a few people arguing in good faith, but it's too late. Liberal writer Kurt Eichenwald recently wrote a "compromise" proposal to settle the gun issue that was notable because he actually analyzed gun freedom arguments and agreed with some of them. He cited the silliness of the "assault weapons" and "cop killer" bullet lies. While he still rejects 30 round capacity magazines, he began with opposition to silencers and then, after hearing facts and evidence from knowledgeable gun owners, changed his position. That's good faith, the threshold requirement for a real debate, but Eichenwald mistakenly assumes this is a debate based upon reason between good faith opponents. It's not. It's based upon the desire of liberals for total supremacy.
So until the gun control argument becomes a real argument instead of a transparent power grab, there's only one appropriate response to liberal gun banners. And it's similar to "Screw you."
American gun owners are beginning to respond with a fresh, powerful argument when facing anti-gun liberals. Here it is, in its entirety. Ready?
"Screw you." That's it. Except the first word isn't "Screw."
It's not exactly a traditional argument, but it's certainly appropriate here. The fact is that there is no point in arguing with liberal gun-control advocates because their argument is never in good faith. They slander gun owners as murderers. They lie about their ultimate aim, which is to ban and confiscate all privately owned weapons. And they adopt a pose of reasonability, yet their position is not susceptible to change because of evidence, facts or law. None of those matter – they already have their conclusion. This has to do with power – their power.
You can't argue with someone who is lying about his position or whose position is not based upon reason. You can talk all day about how crime has diminished where concealed carry is allowed, while it flourishes in Democrat blue cities where gun control is tightest. You can point to statistics showing that law-abiding citizens who carry legally are exponentially less likely to commit gun crimes than other people. You can cite examples of armed citizens protecting themselves and their communities with guns. You can offer government statistics showing how the typical American is at many times greater risk of death from an automobile crash, a fall, or poisoning than from murder by gun.
But none of that matters, because this debate is not about facts. It's about power. The liberal anti-gun narrative is not aimed at creating the best public policy but at disarming citizens the liberal elite looks down upon – and for whom weapons represent their last-ditch ability to respond to liberal overreach.
Put simply, liberal elitists don't like the fact that, at the end of the day, an armed citizenry can tell them, "No."
So they argue in bad faith, shamelessly lying, libeling their opponents, and hiding their real endgame. Sure, sometimes the mask slips and a liberal politician like Mike Bloomberg or Diane Feinstein reveals their true agenda, but mostly they stay on-message.
For example, Barack Obama, who always tries to reassure us bitter clingers that he doesn't want to take our guns, speaks longingly about the Australian plan – which was confiscation of most viable defensive weapons from the civilian population.
Obama is lying – about gay marriage, about your doctor – and he is likewise lying about guns. The minute he could disarm every American civilian he would, something particularly alarming in light of his pal Bill Ayers' infamous observation that 'fundamentally transforming' America would require killing at least 25 million citizens.
No wonder free Americans are done pretending the gun argument is a rational debate and are responding with an extended middle finger – and the challenge to come and take their arms. The fact remains that any outright attempt to take the arms from tens of millions of American gun owners would almost certainly result in a second Civil War. And we all know how the first Civil War went for the Democrats.
So, through a campaign of shaming, dissembling, and outright slander, liberals are trying to talk Americans into giving up their weapons voluntarily. There's always another "common sense" restriction to enact, spurred on by a tragedy that the last "common sense" restriction didn't prevent and that the proposed new "common sense" restriction would not have prevented. They want to do it in baby steps, and with our cooperation, since they cannot do it by force.
There are a few people arguing in good faith, but it's too late. Liberal writer Kurt Eichenwald recently wrote a "compromise" proposal to settle the gun issue that was notable because he actually analyzed gun freedom arguments and agreed with some of them. He cited the silliness of the "assault weapons" and "cop killer" bullet lies. While he still rejects 30 round capacity magazines, he began with opposition to silencers and then, after hearing facts and evidence from knowledgeable gun owners, changed his position. That's good faith, the threshold requirement for a real debate, but Eichenwald mistakenly assumes this is a debate based upon reason between good faith opponents. It's not. It's based upon the desire of liberals for total supremacy.
So until the gun control argument becomes a real argument instead of a transparent power grab, there's only one appropriate response to liberal gun banners. And it's similar to "Screw you."
- Messages
- 1,241
- Reactions
- 1,577
Maybe it is embedded in another article on the VPC website, but I don't see the quote anymore from Suggerman about shifting focus from handguns to 'assault rifles" (since banning handguns wasn't politically viable), and relying on the public ignorance to do so.
From the VPCs 1988 full report (the link to which now seems to be dead).
[H]andgun restriction is simply not viewed as a priority. Assault weapons ... are a new topic. The weapons' menacing looks, coupled with the public's confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons—anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun—can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons.
FYI, a good educational site for people who don't know the difference.
The Truth About Assault Weapons
From the VPCs 1988 full report (the link to which now seems to be dead).
[H]andgun restriction is simply not viewed as a priority. Assault weapons ... are a new topic. The weapons' menacing looks, coupled with the public's confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons—anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun—can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons.
FYI, a good educational site for people who don't know the difference.
The Truth About Assault Weapons
- Messages
- 1,582
- Reactions
- 4,204
I like that word, "assaulty", good way to mock the usage of the "assault" label. Like to see that gain some traction.
- Messages
- 13,044
- Reactions
- 46,445
Aren't assaulty weapons those that are select fire...
Ya know, fire, semi and go-go. Or, rat, rat-a-tat, rat-a-tat-tat-tat-tat-tat-tat-tat-tat-tat....
I don't have any of those and being a working slob supporting institutions of higher learning, aren't any in my foreseeable future...
Ya know, fire, semi and go-go. Or, rat, rat-a-tat, rat-a-tat-tat-tat-tat-tat-tat-tat-tat-tat....
I don't have any of those and being a working slob supporting institutions of higher learning, aren't any in my foreseeable future...
- Messages
- 1,582
- Reactions
- 4,204
And a salty dog mocks the attempt to ban assaulty weapons with salty language leaving the antis feeling a little salty. 
- Messages
- 4,895
- Reactions
- 11,927
These writers are not idiots. They play to their base for $$$. It's like taking a 2019 Porsche to the mechanic and they charge you $2000 for a bad carburetor (surprised spell check still had that).
If the anti gun source writes it, they believe it. No one on their side is able to fact check or even wants too. They don't get the concept of self defense beyond a whistle or a mean stare.
If the anti gun source writes it, they believe it. No one on their side is able to fact check or even wants too. They don't get the concept of self defense beyond a whistle or a mean stare.
Upcoming Events
New Classified Ads
-
-
-
-
-
-
Blackout Defense 1/2x28 KEYMO HYBRID Burnt Bronze- Started by Luke C
- Replies: 0
-
-
Ken Farrell 30MM Scope Rings 30mm standard NEW Remington 700 Short Action Base
- Started by Firesweep
- Replies: 0
-
-
