No respite has been offered, and none given.

Remove all ads!

Lately I've found myself growing weary of the long-standing conflict between the forces of freedom and those of tyranny. As you may know, the forces of freedom have recently defeated the forces of evil and their gun control agenda, but to what end? This victory feels bittersweet, because the tyrants behind it still exist and will likely continue to exist well into the near future. Michael Bloomberg, Dianne Feinstein, Barack Obama and other such tyrants haven't given up on their agenda.

Over the past 20 years we have seen an expansion of gun rights at all levels of government and public opinion has massively swayed in favor of gun rights and the Second Amendment. While these victories have been great, our celebrations have been cut short. Despite all of the facts and data supporting gun rights, the gun control lobby has not relented. Michael Bloomberg continues to run his anti-gun lobby group, the so-called "Mayors Against Illegal Guns," corrupt politicians like Dianne Feinstein continue to propose gun bans and other gun control legislation, Barack Obama has officially called for gun ownership to be treated like a "disease" and the liberal media openly demonizes gun owners and the Constitution.

I know full-well that the price of freedom is eternal vigilance and that we must always root out evil, wherever it may stand. Will there ever come a time when tyrants like Michael Bloomberg will give up on gun control? Will there come a time when we the people, are completely victorious over these freedom hating fanatics? How can we permanently put an end to the gun control lobby?

 

I need you to define your victory conditions before I can answer the question.

 

You are scary. And worrying.

 

AD, what I find odd is that you keep making posts like this that are worded in such a way as to imply that your audience agrees with your perspective, even though you know full well that we think you are completely wackadoodle (at least in regards to this subject).

 

AD ... you do realize these "tyrants" were elected by the majority ... don't you?

 

Considering that we saw bi-partisan talk about gun control in the wake of Sandy Hook, even under the long shadow of the NRA (who surprisingly got quite scared and overplayed their hand), I doubt it'll take too many more massacres for historic change to make it through, just a shame that's what it'll take.

 

No Olanzapine has been offered, and none given.

Lately I've found myself wondering if you have no one in your life who loves you enough to tell you what an absolute raisin cake you sound like when you say things like this.

Or at the very least, if you have any interest at all in a substantive, rational discussion on these topics, or, if you've simply come here to troll. I mean my God – if Dianne Feinstein, or for that matter any politician who proposes something you don't like, qualifies as a "tyrant" and "the forces of evil" then those words cease to have any meaning. Since such hyperbolic stances are damn-near impossible to take seriously, I really do lean toward the latter. But perhaps that's wishful thinking.

There is such a thing as a "conversation ender," in which a debate opponent offers up certain key words or phrases in all seriousness that make any kind of discussion beyond that point moot, since you know you're not dealing in good faith with an intellectually honest broker. "Death panels" and "islamofascist" and "where is the birth certificate?" did the trick in recent years, for example.

Point being: you clearly have an interesting point of view and many of your ideas have considerable merit – but there is actually an adult, substantive way to discuss these issues, and if you'd drop the whiny* hyperbole for a minute, you'd have more than enough people around here to engage constructively on the issues you're so passionate about. If not, then I hope you realize that if another online community rejects you, it's not because you're a conservative. It's because you're behaving like something else. Rhymes with stick.

A disclaimer to all of SP's non-American denizens – it really should go without saying that AD speaks for himself, and does not speak for my country at large, yes?


* Try telling an exiled North Korean, a Saudi Arabian, a Serbian, a Syrian, or a Cambodian that Barack Obama is a tyrant. After they've stopped pissing themselves from laughing so hard, you might want to listen to what they have to say. Then maybe you won't use the term so casually in the future.

 

It should go without saying, but sadly, it doesn't, and thus needs to be emphasized time and time again. One only needs to listen to the vehemence of the pro-gun lobby in the current gun legislation debate to understand why that is.

 

I work with a a TON of ex-military. their are over 6,000 people in the buildings. The vast majority of them are for gun control. Most people I know in my daily life are also for gun control. I am for gun controls, but still advocate ownership of the right to bear arms. I think their is a spot somewhere in the middle that will be found. I don't believe the media, whether it's Fox, MSNBC or CNN, truly portrays the outlook of your average joe American. You are being spoon-fed whatever the particular media outlet you are listeding to/reading wants you to see. They all have agendas and those agendas are all related to dollars.

 

Not to take this thread too far off topic, but does anyone out there really disagree with this? I'm specifically thinking about TV. I have a really hard time watching news programming these days. MSNBC is way too liberal. Fox News is way too conservative. CNN, despite being the grandfather of all 24-hour news networks, does a remarkably poor job of actually, you know, providing news. And their "shows" are just dreadful. I can handle Anderson Cooper for a bit, but most of their other stuff is utterly unwatchable. (I know some people consider CNN very liberal. I don't see that. I don't think they're biased, I just don't think they're very good.)

If I'm going to spend an hour watching news programming, I'd much prefer to watch the Daily Show and/or the Colbert Report. At least they are witty and amusing, and all things considered do a fairly decent job of touching on actual news-worthy events. But it's a sad state of affairs when parodies of news shows provide a better source of information that actual news programming.

 

Totally agree, Aldeth (and by extension, Blades).

 

Don’t get me wrong – I know that AD’s views aren’t the norm, but I can see why others might have a different impression. Being from Canada, I probably have a somewhat less skewed perspective than, say, Europeans, due simply to proximity. I must agree that I find it really difficult to find US news sources that aren’t biased. CNN is probably closest (although I do think they lean somewhat to the left), but as Aldeth says, they’re just not very good. Anderson Cooper – not terrible. Piers Morgan – ugh.

Believe it or not, I find Canadian news sources to be more informational on US matters than US sources. Maybe it’s because the Canadian sources aren’t as vested emotionally or politically, but they tend to report more and editorialize less.

 

I disagree with many of the arguments of the gun control lobby. But I tend to see them as misguided or dupes of other interests. I do not see many of them as being "the forces of evil". For all that I disagree with Obama and some of his policies, he is not evil either. Such polarized rhetoric is unhelpful.

That said, given what I've heard from the control side, it's just as bad over there. The insinuations or flat out assertions that gun rights activists don't care about the dead of Sandy Hook or Columbine just because we disagree with a particular policy are problematic to say the least. Of course we care. We just think that there is a better way to address the problem than the policies being proposed by the gun control lobby. Some suggestions from the pro gun lobby have been ridiculous, to be sure, but many haven't.

Both sides need to come to some sort of middle ground* and be realistic and not reactionary. As it stands, though, there is little trust from either side.

 

The problem with the gun control issue is the people who are in favor of gun control are dupes who don't even understand the issue. The pro gun control lobby uses "scary" words that the media love and people don't understand. Allow me to explain.

Assault Weapons- One of the most misunderstood two word combinations in the English language. When people hear this phrase they believe they are talking about machine guns and weapons of war.

Here is a quote from Wikipedia.

Basically all an "assault weapon" is a semi-automatic rifle that has been cosmetically changed to make it look scary to some and cool to others.

As an example. These two weapons have the same internal components and shoot the same way. However, one is at risk of being made illegal and the other isn't. This is as stupid as banning cars with spoilers because they look like they can drive faster and therefore speed.

 

I know gun control is inevitable, everytime I read the comments on a video like this.

 

Yea, and the pro-gun lobby are like alcoholics who refuse to admit they have a problem. Like Arkite says, one day the US will wake up and gun control will happen. It's just a shame that it'll take a few more mass shootings of innocent people before it happens.

 

People like Dianne Feinstein and Michael Bloomberg cease to exist. Obviously we aren't going to kill them or ban their hate speech. What we need to do though, is educate people so that such people will never again exist. Education is the best defense against tyranny.

 

It's also the best defense against stupidity.

 

Tyranny and stupidity are often two sides of the same coin. Stupidity and political apathy often lead to tyranny.