America's love affair with firearms is national insanity [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : America's love affair with firearms is national insanity


snerd
04-07-2012, 00:04
Just another traveling academic and putz prize award winner. Guns were okay 'way back, when we hunted for sport & dinner'. Totally ignorant of our history, the Bill of Rights and the Constitution.

....... And that madness is stoked and sheltered, nurtured and fed by another kind of crazy -- a widespread denial about the price of our love affair with firearms, a disbelief that borders on delusion. Future historians will look back on the nation's refusal to enact sensible gun regulations with a wry fascination, much as present-day researchers ponder witch-burnings.

We weren't always so irrational about gun ownership, though firearms were a more utilitarian household item 40 years ago, when more families hunted game for sport -- and for the dinner table. In 1968, after nearly a decade of high-profile political assassinations, Congress passed the most stringent firearms regulations since the 1930s, despite the vigorous protests of the gun lobby.

In the intervening years, though, the gun lobby has only grown more powerful -- and more radical and more unhinged -- pushing past the limits of sanity. Its activists have battled to allow firearms on college campuses, in bars and in churches. Its members have persuaded state legislatures to pass notorious "Stand Your Ground" laws, such as the Florida statute implicated in the shooting of Trayvon Martin........

http://news.yahoo.com/americas-love-affair-firearms-national-insanity-050206265.html

JBnTX
04-07-2012, 00:14
All throughout history a free man has carried a weapon.

Look at pictures from different time periods. All the men are armed.
Even the caveman was armed with a club or spear.

Weapons are symbols of freedom, self-determination and individuality.

America's love affair with firearms is just an expression of that freedom,
self-determination and individuality.

That's why the liberals hate guns.

Skyhook
04-07-2012, 05:04
O'Reilly had a NYT imp of a 'commentator/editor/something on the other night who said he (the NYT imp) would never fight back to defend himself.

Folks, how can a coward like that understand Americans who will fight to save their lives and the lives of their loved ones... as well as their country?

I maintain he can't.

JBnTX
04-07-2012, 11:46
O'Reilly had a NYT imp of a 'commentator/editor/something on the other night who said he (the NYT imp) would never fight back to defend himself.
.


He's lying because it's instinctive to fight back.
Self preservation is one of the strongest human defense mechanisms.

One more reason NOT to watch O'Reilly.

snerd
04-07-2012, 12:07
He's lying because it's instinctive to fight back.
Self preservation is one of the strongest human defense mechanisms.

One more reason NOT to watch O'Reilly.
You're kidding, right? The college massacres? Students hiding under their desks? Begging for their lives? The establishment teaches nothing but hide and beg when trouble arises. Cooperate, don't resist. Must be one tough town where you live, that "everyone" will fight back.

alabaster
04-07-2012, 12:13
Good thread. Self preservation IS one of the strongest animal instincts. Period. You may not like it, but it's true. People that Don't fight back against evil doers often suffer mental trauma over it FOR LIFE.

I do agree that Oreilly is a hurrting show. He has guests that preach to the choir or are so far left that the world looks at them like they're fruit cakes.

I don't think I'll ever be rich enuff to afford a security force that I would trust more than I trust myself. Freedom at all costs. Literally. You want my freedom? My means of protection, regardless of what they are, from sticks to 50BMGs?

Molon Labe. : middlefinger :

snerd
04-07-2012, 12:19
...... Self preservation IS one of the strongest animal instincts. Period. You may not like it, but it's true....
I wasn't implying that it is not a strong instinct, just that not "everyone" has it or will engage it.

Jeff82
04-07-2012, 13:06
Fighting for self preservation is instinctual? History is replete with examples of the many being cut down by the few while running away or doing anything but fighting back. I was gonna list a few but there are so many it would be pale to even bring up examples.

I'd bet many more have died fleeing than in any kind of combat.

Norske
04-07-2012, 15:01
The Martin/Zimmerman case notwithstanding, the tide is on the pro-gun, pro-CCW side both on the Judicial and Legislative fronts.

The Victors write the histories.

And we are going to be winners in the end.

Not the sheep that this particular sheep says are (never) going to write them.

PS. Tucker was the Editorial Page Editor for the leftist Atlanta Urinal and Constipation for years and years before she moved on to bigger things. She has always been somewhere to the left of Karl Marx and always will be.

Bruce H
04-07-2012, 17:08
It would be a real national tragedy if people like Cynthia Tucker had to get a real job they were qualified for.

happyguy
04-07-2012, 17:35
I wasn't implying that it is not a strong instinct, just that not "everyone" has it or will engage it.

Sometimes the human capacity for denial trumps the instinct for survival. Also, panic which is often induced by situations a person is not trained or prepared for can cause the mind to freeze.

Regards,
Happyguy :)

ithaca_deerslayer
04-07-2012, 20:58
I'm a gun nut and proud of it :)

RickD
04-08-2012, 14:56
"Love Affair?"

I object to the premise.

Bullwinkle J Moose
04-08-2012, 15:59
O'Reilly had a NYT imp of a 'commentator/editor/something on the other night who said he (the NYT imp) would never fight back to defend himself.


Maybe there's a larger underlying truth in such a statement, that a liberal's life is not worth protecting.

:whistling:

Vic777
04-08-2012, 18:23
Totally ignorant of our history, the Bill of Rights and the Constitution.Also totally ignorant of Stalin, Pol Pot, Hitler and History .... another lieberal with no education ....

Russia in 30 years: Revolution, Stalin, guncontrol, then genocide.

Cambodia in 10 years: Revolution, Pol Pot, guncontrol, then genocide.

Germany in 10 years: Hitler, Jewish guncontrol, six million dead.

USA in 225 years: Revolution, 2nd Amendment, doing OK.

Obama re-elected .... with lots of "Space", Good-Bye USA.

alabaster
04-08-2012, 18:39
I clearly misunderstood your post and ended up drifting off course entirely. I agree with you, some things are so shocking that some people can't even begin to think, let alone act. I guess that's when the mid yells, "RUUUN!!!!"

I shouldn't have even gotten off topic there. I should've said, "This is why I don't believe in gun control. It never seems to make any sense to me on any level other than pure fantasy." If I'd have just stayed on task, this woulda been all I posted!LOL

hogship
04-08-2012, 21:47
Fighting for self preservation is instinctual? History is replete with examples of the many being cut down by the few while running away or doing anything but fighting back. I was gonna list a few but there are so many it would be pale to even bring up examples.

I'd bet many more have died fleeing than in any kind of combat.

I believe those who don't fight back are responding to instinct......however, those who do fight back are also responding to instinct.

ooc

janice6
04-08-2012, 22:01
History is full of situations where people have followed orders blindly and obeyed right up to the instant the bullet entered their head. They hoped that something will happen, even up to the last minute, to save them from death, but made no effort to fight back.

Millions stand as a dead testament to the fact that this does not happen, and hope springs eternal.


Never go willingly. At least die on your terms.