Says Farago:
Obama Marks Newtown Anniversary with Call for Civilian Disarmament
I ask again, if the gun-rights advocates really have "right" on their side, why do the have to exaggerate, twist and lie so often? Why do they have to mischaracterize what gun control people say? Isn't what we actually do say bad enough for them?
Thank you for posting this. We have to see that the gun rights extremists just don't like victims or victim's events because it gets in the way of their mantra and mistaken idea that more guns make us safer.
ReplyDeleteYou have nothing to offer that would make us safer.
DeleteDisarming a significant percentage of the so-called lawful gun owners wouldn't make us safer, in your opinion? If by applying strict qualifications and screening mechanisms the ones we disarmed included many of the worst cases, you still think that wouldn't help?
DeleteDisarming good people never makes us safer. You're the one with nonsense claims about how many gun owners are unsafe, but as I've shown you many times, that's a false assertion.
DeleteIf there were no guns, I guess you think gun shot deaths would somehow still happen. The stupidity of your argument is proven wrong by Math. Another subject, it has been proven, you know nothing about.
DeleteNo, what Greg claims is that if there were no guns, the gun-killers would all, every one of them, use baseball bats or poison.
DeleteNotice how I said "if we disarmed the worst of the worst" and Greg responded, "Disarming good people never makes us safer."
What a trickster.
Mikeb, you keep claiming that you only want to disarm the worst of the worst, but you state elsewhere on many occasions that you want to disarm half of current gun owners. But you are correct to say that if all guns disappeared, violence would continue.
DeleteI call that, a lie.
DeleteI call that bullshit.
DeleteYou call your own stated goals bullshit? I'm glad that we agree.
Delete"I ask again, if the gun-rights advocates really have "right" on their side, why do the have to exaggerate, twist and lie so often?"
ReplyDeleteThe same could be said of those that side with gun control advocates. This is just a standard opinion piece commenting on a news article. Not much different than you commenting, or Jade with the Freudian comments.
His statement is proven by the gun loons on this site. They lie to try and make a false point like guns dropped rarely go off, or the data Mike uses is false, even though Mike uses data from the CDC, FBI, etc. Greg is the poster boy for a pro gun liar.
DeleteOf course you don't see a difference, but I do. And I often point it out to you. There are none so blind,....
DeleteMike uses selective data from the CDC, FBI, etc. He's happy to use Louisiana's stats on murder rate, while ignoring the whole body of data.
DeleteYeah, it's all an elaborate trick to convince myself that gun owners are responsible for most of the violence. After all, that idea is so unreasonable, it takes real creativity on my part to even suggest it. Is that about it, TS?
DeleteNo, Mikeb, it takes true belief on your part.
DeleteI wouldn't use the word "elaborate".
DeleteOh, "selective" data. HA HA HA HA HA HA
DeleteHypocrite.
"to target schools, hospitals, and other civilian targets"
DeletePlease prove that lie
Oh, did I leave some states out of my analysis? Are there more than 50?
DeleteIf 70% of the murders are committed with guns, how can you guys continue to argue with what I said? Stricter controls would disarm the worst people, not the best. By doing so, how could it not have a positive effect?
DeleteYou're assuming it would disarm the worst- what if it doesn't? Like I said before, your 70% justification may be why you want gun control, but that doesn't mean it works.
DeleteBy your same logic, if 70% of greenhouse gases were from automobiles, all we have to do is put "zero emissions" stickers all over the cars and the planet is saved.
You're being disingenuous. What do you mean, what if it doesn't? How could stricter requirements and qualifications not effect some of the worst cases or many of them, or most of them.
DeleteHow could your proposals not work, Mikeb? Because they don't aim at the real causes of violence. Because they would burden good people without affecting criminals. And so forth.
DeleteHave you ever heard the term, "easy to circumvent"? You use it all the time. Depending on the mood you're in, you admit that a mish-mash of local and state laws don't do any good. I've showed you the math to back this up.
DeleteAnonymousDecember 16, 2013 at 11:43 PM
Delete"to target schools, hospitals, and other civilian targets"
Please prove that lie
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No response from the site cowardly liar.
Anonymous, this is an example of what I'm talking about. You pull a handful of words out of context without a URL and expect us to know what you're talking about. Is it because you don't know how to copy and paste? Is it because you don't know how to cite sources?
DeleteTS, what I consider proper gun control would mean we no longer have the ineffective mish-mash. My way would strongly change the situation. Are you incapable or unwilling to admit that?
DeleteMikeb, you claim that your way would make a big difference. But since you have no supporting evidence to back up that claim, no one is obliged to agree with you.
DeleteYour words from this post. Thanks for proving again what a lying criminal coward you are.
DeleteAnd since we don't have your idea of "proper gun control" right now, could that explain why the numbers show that what we have done hasn't worked to reduce murder? I've always said you can accept what the numbers show and claim we need to do it harder and bigger before we see results. I don't agree with that, but that's a different discussion than whether there is a correlation with murder and the current state level gun control that we have.
DeleteSee what I mean? You just called it an " ineffective mish-mash", but when I show you the numbers that prove it's an ineffective mish-mash, you tell me I'm full of it. Make up your mind.
DeleteAnonymous, the words that you quoted were from Orlin Seller's comment, not mine and were about the president. If you'd use names instead of insults, you'd be clearer.
DeleteGreg says, "no one is obliged to agree with you"
DeleteYou're right. No one is OBLIGED to agree with me that my idea of gun control would make a big difference. But anyone with a shred of honesty and no ax to grind would.
You keep asking for personal information like a name, but you refuse to give personal information. Typical criminal lying coward.
DeleteI asked you to name me if it is so important to you, but you refuse. Fine, then stop lying about it, or give me a name.
DeleteSo why are you responding to something not aimed at you?
DeleteUse your own name, unless you're too much of a coward to do so. I comment under my own name.
DeleteBut these three comments in a row, all under Anonymous, illustrate the problem. Are they three different persons or all one individual? Which one of those of us here who support gun rights do they mean when they comment?
Mikeb, false. You provide no evidence to support your claims, or you deny the realities of human nature and American culture.
DeleteI am not all these anons, but that's the fault of the name game you and TS play; and I'm loving the confusion your game is causing, and the piggybacking these other anons are using my comments for. It's a hoot. Now, want to explain your criminal comments? No, of course not, a criminal lying coward never does, because he cannot.
DeleteSteve, show that I have lied. Give a URL to a specific comment in its context--your lot have the habit of misquoting things. If I have lied, I will go away and never comment here again. Remember that a lie is a statement that the person knows to be false.
DeleteAgain with your lying coward excuses. All that information has been given multiple times. I posted your full comment, unedited. Keep lying, I love it when you prove me correct.
DeleteThe fuckhead murder-in-chief sends drones to target schools, hospitals, and other civilian targets every day of the week killing hundreds and thousands of innocent people and he expects us to give up our guns with a madman in control.
ReplyDeleteIf you wanted to do something useful, you might wanna start by telling this pResident to stop the killing.
orlin sellers
Mikeb, you keep ignoring the fact that we know what your ultimate goal is. It's good for us to remind the public of that.
ReplyDeleteParanoid, self-serving mind readers, that's what you are.
DeleteMikeb, if I kept taking pieces off your car for day after day, at the end of the month, would you believe me that I really don't want to steal your car?
DeleteOpinions should be based on facts. Farago lied, made up statements supposedly made by the president. Dishonesty at its peak, something Greg and the other gun loons on this site do all the time. Instead of pointing these lies out gun loons say it's just another opinion. NO, it's just another lie. No surprise the gun loons don't even bother to point out Farago lied.
ReplyDeleteThere are plenty of gun control proponents who want to completely eliminate civilian ownership of all firearms. Senator Feinstein has made some choice public statements ... look up her interview where she states she would force Mr. and Mrs. America to turn them all in.
ReplyDelete-- TruthBeTold
Plenty? C'mon, man, you know that's exaggerated bullshit. You also know that's not the position of the average gun-control advocate, not mine and not the President's. But in order to play the put-upon victim, you need to hang onto this lie.
DeleteBut what protects us from the Feinsteins of the world? You say there is no right.
DeleteI think that famous quote of hers that you guys love to keep bringing up was an example of exaggerated bullshit. Yes, my side does do that from time to time. You guys hold the patent, but occasionally we're guilty too.
DeleteNo, Mikeb, you're selling a con job, and we're not buying.
DeleteYou don't really believe there's a serious movement to remove all guns from the civilian population. You just keep saying that, being a big-time liar, in order to support your paranoid and persecuted position.
DeleteRegardless of how serious that movement is, Mike, you think there should be no barriers to do so, right? You want Heller and McDonald reversed, and the 2A repealed so that if someone wanted complete civilian disarmament they could do so. Why not be satisfied with a ruling that only takes handgun bans and subsequently total gun bans off the table?
DeleteThat said, this line of argument is only for those who like the bans you are proposing but don't want to see the rest of their guns banned. That's not me. I'll fight all your ban ideas.
But in a rare episode of agreement, I think you're right about that Feinstein quote being exaggerated. I believe the "them" in that line referred to "assault weapons" and not all firearms. However, that doesn't mean she's off the hook. The fact that she banned all guns in San Francisco when she was mayor speaks much more to her position on civilian disarmament than that one 60 minutes quote.
Delete"I think that famous quote of hers that you guys love to keep bringing up was an example of exaggerated bullshit."
So she was exaggerating during the interview?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WQeq6ZzEQGA
As I said above, when every move on the part of gun control freaks is in one direction, what possible reason do I have to believe that you'll stop or turn around at some point?
Delete"so that if someone wanted complete civilian disarmament they could do so."
DeleteTS, that's exactly where you're wrong. Even if the 2A were repealed and Heller and McDonald reversed there still would be zero possibility of total civilian disarmament. The reason is the people wouldn't stand for it. Now, before you have a shit fit, I don't mean the gun-rights fanatics and the so-called 3%ers, I mean the gun control advocates and them many millions who aren't interested in the debate at all. Many of them are gun owners themselves. So very few want the extreme solution that you keep talking about that it would never happen.
Oh, you guys would step up and start fighting for us if it went too far? That's a good one. Where were you guys in San Francisco in 2005?
DeleteThat's not a fair example. San Francisco has an extremely high percentage of liberals and gays who are traditional anti-gun. Besides we're not talking about a single city, we're talking about the whole country.
DeleteIt's not a question of all of a sudden starting to fight for your side, that's kind of a bullshit remark on your part. It's a question of how many gun control advocates are of the extreme variety. I say 10% or less. If it all goes our way over the next ten or twenty years, let's say, it would be just like I propose, about half of you guys would still have your guns. But you'd be extremely qualified, on the average, not like it is today.
Mikeb, no, we're not giving in to your proposals on the vague promise that you might switch sides if your lot became too extreme. You're already too extreme, and we can't trust you.
DeleteI tell you what: Give us a reason to trust you. What possible motivation do we have for that?
Half of us would still have [some] guns, but if you live in a city or state with a lot of liberals you may be completely disarmed- regardless of how responsible you are. Wonderful explaination, Mike. I'm sure that assuages all the gun owner's worries.
Delete