Monday, December 24, 2012

Mr. Colion Noir - Still a Fast-Talking Con Man

via TTAG where they love this guy.
1. "You wanna take away our Constitutional rights, but ..."  Owning a particular type of gun is not part of the 2A rights.  The way he says this it sounds like we want to take away the entire thing.

2. "my goodness, you're still calling an AR-15 an assault rifle."  Yeah, so?

3 "that you're so scared of."  This is an insult which pro-gun folks love to hurl at gun control people.

4. "you wanna bring a handgun to a rifle fight?"  What rifle fight? He's so delusional that he imagines gun fights and rifle fights where there are none.

5. "on Google you could learn that a semi-automatic rifle, or an assault rifle is the most effective tool for self-defense."  Now, it seems OK to call it an assault rifle.

6. "scary and intimidating."  This is part of the insult mentioned in point number 3.

7. "if I have my gun out I'm in a gun fight or about to be."  The delusion is frequently finding oneself in a gun fight.  He talks about it in the present tense.

8. "what are you gonna do when three dudes with AKs kick in your door?" I suppose he means the jack-booted government thugs.

9. "I need something equally scary and intimidating to equal the playing field."  Now, he's calling them scary and intimidation.  A minute ago he was mocking gun control folks for thinking that.

10. "There's no one in this country that can tell me that by banning assault rifles they can guarantee that no criminal can get their hands on one." This is the biggest lie of all. No one says that any law would be 100% successful. No one says "this way NO criminals will be able to get them."  He says this as an aside, assigning it to the gun control folks.  It's a lie.

11. "I'd still want one because it would be me and other law abiding citizens that have the advantage." This is an important point of deception too.  Most of the mass shootings as well as a healthy portion of general gun violence is done by law-abiding citizens.

50 comments:

  1. You gun banners are getting desperate now that this is fading from the headlines and Obama punted on it. U mad Mike? I would be.

    These kids' deaths represented the big chance you've been waiting for and now it's going to waste. Hopefully you'll get a new batch of dead kids to push through some new laws. Good luck.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think the scales have tipped in our favor. Sure the headlines will fade, but the wheels are already in motion. You better buy that Ar or AK while you can, man.

      Delete
    2. I already have an AR for every year you've been alive.

      Delete
    3. Mike odds are it wont they keep changing the story, first he had two guns on him rifle in the car police confirmed it. Then he had the rifle on him, then he had the rifle and it was used and a shotgun was in the car. You can NOT mistake a shotgun for a rifle. Plus there's more pro gunners then anti gunners any gun page can confirm that. If you like post link of your choosing and I'll do the same.

      Delete
    4. Anonymous, do you really have 60 ARs? Or are you just talkin' shit.

      Delete
    5. I have zero. I'm an old-fashioned sort of person. I did get a Carcano 91/41 for Saturnalia. What's an Italian female name that means spitfire? Something small, sassy, not particularly beautiful, but will get you through a hard night?

      Delete
    6. “A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity.”

      ― Sigmund Freud

      Delete
    7. In case you were wondering, that is a bogus quote.

      http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Sigmund_Freud#Misattributed

      Similar to the bogus quotes you pro gunners attribute to Hitler.

      Delete
    8. Thanks John, the pro-gun fanatics don't care much if something's true as long as it sounds good and supports their ridiculous position.

      Delete
  2. 1. Taking away part of a right only makes it easier to take the whole right away. Once one right is gone, none of the others are safe.

    2. Sloppiness in language is required to make your point.

    3. And gun control freaks never insult anyone.

    4. Considering the possibility doesn't mean that a person anticipates the event happening all the time.

    5. This is the subject of much discussion, but rifles have more power than handguns. If he uses your term, that's to help your side get the point.

    6. If your side were respectful, we would be.

    7. See #4.

    8. You and Obama make the same error. U.S. law enforcement and the military don't use AK-47s, perhaps with some special forces exceptions. For someone living on the border with Mexico, however, concern over a gang armed with AK-47s kicking in one's door isn't such an outside possibility.

    9. Whatever works.

    10. Your success in disarming would be with good citizens only. Criminals would only get better armed. This makes us wonder what you really want.

    11. So you continually claim, without offering much in the way of evidence.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ask him to show you ONE gun law that reduced crime, FBI, BJS and CDC have shown more guns lead to less crime. But Mike will say he can't show a crime that didn't happen with strong gun laws, yet I can can show crimes that didn't happen ( a drop in crime example going from 10 to 7 being a -3 drop in crime as shown in FBI.gov ) when gun sales go up. I can why can't you Mike?

      Delete
    2. A drop in crime when gun sales go up does not prove the drop was because of the increased guns.

      By the same token, gun control laws may have prevented many crimes which we have no way of proving.

      Asking for proof that does not exist is a trick.

      Delete
    3. Asking for proof is not a trick. It's logic.

      Delete
    4. Wow Mike a trick?

      Delete
    5. Yes, asking for proof of something that did not happen, and pretending it makes sense, is a trick.

      Delete
    6. Mike, I'd like you to explain why crime goes up when restrictive gun laws are implanted, and go down when gun rights are restored?
      And if you stole a bunch of guns, killed your mom and then stole her car to go to an elementary school and slaughter innocent children, you're not a law abiding citizen!

      Delete
    7. Can you show me what facts you are working with here? Because the top states for homicide are all red, pro gun states.

      Louisiana 9.6
      Maryland 7.3
      Missouri 7.0
      South Carolina 6.1
      Nevada 5.9
      New Mexico 5.7
      Michigan 5.6
      Mississippi 5.6
      Tennessee 5.6
      Arizona 5.5

      Delete
    8. 1. Read the 2a. It says you have the right to keep and bear arms. Do you still have that right without an AR-15? Yes. Do you still have it with universal background checks? Yes

      2. Firearms manufactuers like IntrTec and H&K have been using the term "assault rifle" and "assault type" to describe their semi automatic weapons since the 1980s.

      "In a survival situation, you want the most uncompromising weapon that money can buy. The HK 91 Semi-Automatic Assault Rifle from Heckler & Koch."
      http://web.archive.org/web/20010421132257/http://www.vpc.org/studies/thath&k.htm

      3. Doesn't change the fact that it's cheap and false rhetoric.

      4. Just because you believe in doomsday scenarios where multiple individuals with AK-47s bust down your door doesn't mean you can control firearm legislation base don it. Wouldn't you then say, well if he has a rifle, I need a bigger gun? That's the logic you're using.

      5. Really? Pro gunners always say it's just a .238 bullet. Same as my grandpa's bolt action rifle!

      6. We are trying to promote harm reduction to lower the astronomical gun deaths and gun injuries. You are fighting tooth and nail to stop and law to do that. Let's not pretend you guys are on the good side.

      7. zzzz

      8. You didn't get the sarcasm. Three dudes with AK-47s kicking in doors is as rare as lightning striking you. Probably even more rare. But this guy uses rare instances to make his points. Then at the same time will say "but the stats show that rifles are only used in such a small amount of cases, why restrict them?" See the hypocrisy?

      Got bored here. Let me know if you want to continue the conversation, I'll gladly talk gun control with you.

      Delete
    9. John, the quote from the second amendment is "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". A move to prohibit something that is legal is in my mind and "Infringement"

      Delete
    10. Check your facts...Maryland is NOT a pro gun state as you call them....easier to buy a gun in NJ or NY

      Delete
  3. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  4. http://www.sacbee.com/2012/12/23/5072877/sacramento-resident-kills-would.html

    Three men have never kicked in the door to someone's house before?

    Also, as for "owning a type of gun is not a part of 2A rights", the standard set by United States v. Miller was "common use". Though Congress' litmus test is "sporting purposes", if Miller were to be interpreted "straight", such a definition would be thrown out.

    The Miller opinion stated, "The significance attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. 'A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.' And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time." Note that although Miller uses militia service as the standard for whether or not a firearm is legal to own, it does not define whether or not the 2nd Amendment confers an individual right. Heller v. DC confirmed said right using the same principle as Miller, the militia is universal and comprises all people who can contribute to defense; though original purpose was males, as with many other rights in the Constitution (like voting) the scope has expanded with subsequent amendments.

    Anyways, the point I'm getting at is that technically, "sporting purposes" are actually not what's protected by the 2nd Amendment. If anything, the standard set by Miller v. United States would give us more cause to ban hunting weapons like shotguns or .22 caliber rifles rather than "assault weapons". Although both are of "common use", it would be fair to say one has greater utility to a militia than another (not to say that either is truly a "military" weapon). And as Scalia put it, if the intent of the 2nd Amendment had truly been to confirm solely one's right to serve in a "well-regulated militia" (rather than own a firearm for whatever purposes one felt necessary), Miller v. US would have overruled the National Firearms Act's restrictions on machine guns, as the expectation that an individual was to provide their own arms for militia service would have opened legal avenue for automatic weapons.

    So, while the 2nd Amendment might be said to restrict certain types of firearms, the categories set by precedent confirm that "assault weapons" don't really fall into a restricted category.

    As for "healthy portion of gun violence is committed by law abiding citizens", please define healthy portion. I'm pretty sure that was left ambiguous deliberately.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. By that definition you should be allowed to own rocket launchers and surface to air missile launchers, you know the ones that can be borne by a single infantryman.

      Delete
    2. That's not what's implied in the Second Amendment, as you very well know.

      Delete
    3. Well Mike, that was the point. United States v. Miller set a very interest and dangerous precedent when taken to its logical extreme. However, Miller did not overturn restrictions on machine guns; unambiguously military weapons. Obtaining access to military weapons wasn't the point, it is that "common use" defines whether or not a weapon deserves to be legal. Assault weapons have pretty much reached the standard of "common use"; the flip side (potential militia application) would ironically enough make the extreme of everyone getting real military weapons occur.

      The point I'm trying to make here is that if you're going to argue the 2nd Amendment places limitations on what you can own while simultaneously arguing both that A) 2nd Amendment is actually about right to a militia and B) That assault weapons are military weapons; legal precedent would ironically state that the limitations are on non-military purposed firearms, and that "assault weapons" would basically have to be the norm.

      Yet Colion Noir's point about the suitability of semi-automatic rifles being superb choices for home-defense, especially against increasingly aggressive criminals, still stands.

      Delete
    4. Jack, I don't argue A or B. I argue that the 2A is anachronistic and therefore completely meaningless.

      Delete
    5. Just because you say so? Then try to get it repealed. Until you do, it's the law.

      Delete
    6. Mike, self-defense is never anachronistic.

      Delete
    7. We're not talking about self defense. We're talking about owning guns. To say that owning a particular inanimate object is necessary for you to practice self-defense has problems. Where do you draw the line. It is conceivable that a handgun and an AR-15 are just not up to the job. What do you do then?

      Delete
    8. Mikeb, nukes and rockets and so forth can't be used without causing collateral damage. Individual firearms can. Your inability to apply a sense of proportion is no cause for infringing on our rights.

      Delete
    9. Greg, you mentioned nukes and rockets, but what about those stinger missiles and shoulder launched grenades? Those are individually wielded firearms that cause only as much collateral damage as the user allows?

      Delete
    10. Mikeb, if you visit my blog, look for an article titled, "Size Matters." I argue that we have to balance the dangers against the number of legitimate uses. Nukes are supremely dangerous and have no private use. I don't want anyone other than my country's government to have them. Regular explosives have some use for private citizens--clearing stumps or boulders, for example--so I support allowing the regulated possession of those. Guns have lots of legitimate uses for private citizens and deserve a much larger margin of freedom.

      I'd put missiles and grenades into the limited use/considerable danger category.

      Delete
  5. I realize that so much freedom in a few minutes is a lot to process for control freaks, but to borrow a line from Barney McKenna, if he talks too fast for you, you'll just have to listen quicker.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I made a list of my observations. Lats of BS and at least one blatant lie.

      Delete
    2. No, he's not on the gun control side.

      Delete
  6. Fact of the matter is, little mikey, you don't get the pleasure of picking what you feel is "anachronistic", unless you enjoy fantasy? The 2A is a right to be exercised individually, same as the freedom of speach for which you dare exploit ;)

    I could present the commonplace text or Bill of Rights ratification transcript just to prove what our 2A actually means, but, I prefer reading your silliness.

    In the meantime, I'm going to shoot my mid-length AR-15, my modified AK-74, an AR-15 pistol (yes sir, pistol), and maybe a glock or two.

    Cheers mate

    ReplyDelete
  7. How about this, Mike? Let's use leftist terms to politicize your comments. You don't agree with what Mr. Noir is saying because he is black. You are a racist bigot. How does that feel, Mikey?

    ReplyDelete
  8. ""I'd still want one because it would be me and other law abiding citizens that have the advantage." This is an important point of deception too. Most of the mass shootings as well as a healthy portion of general gun violence is done by law-abiding citizens."

    So how does one maintain the "law abiding" status, while going on a murderous rampage?!? Your logic is SERIOUSLY flawed! It seems to me that once an individual breaks a law, said individual is no longer "law abiding". No wonder you gun control nuts have been wildly unsuccessful over the last several decades, you couldnt articulate a valid point to save your life!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You're just pretending to not understand: I don't think you're that stupid.

      "Law abiding gun owners" include all who have not been convicted of a felony or in some states misdemeanor domestic abuse or been involuntarily locked up in the nut house. Many of them are responsible for the gun violence.

      Delete
  9. Mikey, you keep claiming that this supposed "Gun Control" is going to happen... Yet NOBODY here is supporting you. This is your website and you would be hard pressed to see anybody here that agrees with anything you've said. How exactly will any gun control pass if nobody is in support of it? Furthermore, how will it be enforced? Every day more states are passing laws to nullify any Federal Gun Control efforts and to imprison any federal agent that attempts to enforce Federal Gun Laws... You gun grabbers are by far the largest group of idiots in America.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "NOBODY," really? Not a single supporter of my ideas?

      Why is it that guys on your side of the argument have such difficulty with the truth? Why do you exaggerate and lie if you have such a good argument and if "right" is on your side?

      Delete
    2. Mike B - And you don't exaggerate? You have gone on and on posting miss-truths and lies, but you want to call out everyone else. Give me a break and open your eyes, your spouting bullshit and can't even see the cloud of stink around you.

      Delete
  10. If owning a particular type of gun in not a constitutional right,then no gun is part of a constitutional right. Actually though, there are no rights granted by the Constitution. The Bill of Rights only states the obvious to the idiots. ignoring them does not take away the right it only acknowledges.

    ReplyDelete
  11. What I seem to have difficulty understanding is why both sides of this debate resort to name calling. As a 2a supporter I disagree with your ideals yet I'm not going to call you a moron idiot or anything close. With such a hot topic tempers will flare no doubt but respect still needs to be shown. I choose to arm myself for protection against non law abiding citizens. Because I am a law abiding citizen I purchase firearms legally. Although with $200 I can walk into Baltimore city and purchase an illegal firearm. That is the issue. Making it harder for me and other law abiding citizens to protect ourselves against these "thugs" isn't going to solve the issues at hand.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree about the name calling and need for respect.

      What you seem to overlook is that almost all the guns used in crime start out the legal property of some lawful gun owner. Through various means they slip into the criminal world. For this reason, gun control laws need to be aimed at the law abiding.

      Another thing you perhaps haven't considered is that many gun crimes are committed by formerly law-abiding citizens. Good guys who turn bad are too numerous to ignore. For this reason we need to raise the bar as to who may own and carry guns.

      Finally, if you are a truly responsible and fit gun owner, strict gun control laws will not greatly affect you.

      Delete
  12. Not one person ever tried to back Mike. The People have spoken..

    ReplyDelete
  13. "Finally, if you are a truly responsible and fit gun owner, strict gun control laws will not greatly affect you."

    One would think maybe all you guys fighting for gun control would spend your time working on gun law enforcement.




    ReplyDelete
  14. 1. One word. Infringement.

    2. Don't for marketing. Americans go by the law. The law states by ATF ruling that a "AR-Assault Rifle" is fully automatic. So if you want to sound valid in a argument you may want to start at the basics.

    3. Glad you live in a nirvana. I live in Kent Washington and have to legitimately worry about being jumped by a group of thugs when I go down to the mini-mart for a soda.

    4. No delusion. You gun control activist made a hay day out of the fact during Sandy Hook and others of the past.

    5. "On Google you could learn that a semi-automatic rifle, or an assault rifle is the most effective tool for self-defense." Now, it seems OK to call it an assault rifle.

    I'm leaving your quote due to the fact it is clearly stated even by you that he breaks the two types apart. Not his fault you cannot comprehend.

    6. Nothing new in politics. He's also not referring to the weapons. He's clearly talking about the people behind them. Again compression skills go a long way. Not being rude we all have room to improve including myself.

    7. Again lacking compression skills. He's refereeing to armed confrontation.

    8. Again basic research on the topic would show no government agencies have ever made AK's it's standard issue weapon. Unless the government has Al-Qaeda on the payroll that is. Luls on that one.

    9. Again lacking compression skills. He's directly talking to you in your own language.

    10. "There's no one in this country that can tell me that by banning assault rifles they can guarantee that no criminal can get their hands on one." This is the biggest lie of all. No one says that any law would be 100% successful. No one says "this way NO criminals will be able to get them." He says this as an aside, assigning it to the gun control folks. It's a lie.

    Leaving your comment again for oddly being able to have the same type of argument.

    He's clearly stating in the manner of "if they have have them so do I". Which is a favorite argument for even gun control advocates like Bill Mayer.

    11. "I'd still want one because it would be me and other law abiding citizens that have the advantage." This is an important point of deception too. Most of the mass shootings as well as a healthy portion of general gun violence is done by law-abiding citizens.

    I see your point here. At some point most not all weapon attained in America come from a legal source. So to control the source could potentially decrees the flow and help regulate.

    This is wear it's ruff. As you even stated no law will be 100%. So as stated by Mr. Noir like I, if they have them so do I. To add to that I wouldn't want to be restricted so I couldn't match my said aggressor.

    So I stand with the Both side on that point.





    I consider myself non-bias and I'm not a registered voter so I truly don't care either way. But being a person living in a ruff neighborhood with no means of relocating the last thing I ever want is to be as the pro gunners say "A lam for the slaughter". So the day my guns become illegal I'll be turning into one of those law abiding gone criminal.

    ReplyDelete
  15. You realize this discussion is a year old, right? Why don't you give yourself a name and join in some of our more recent arguments?

    ReplyDelete