1. We have moved to a new forum system. All your posts and data should have transferred over. Welcome, to the new Serebii Forums. Details here
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Be sure to join the discussion on our discord at: Discord.gg/serebii
    Dismiss Notice
  3. If you're still waiting for the e-mail, be sure to check your junk/spam e-mail folders
    Dismiss Notice

United States Gun Control: Gun Control = Fascism Everybody!

Discussion in 'Debate Forum' started by Cipher, Dec 15, 2012.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. LDSman

    LDSman Banned

    He loved her so much, he got another woman pregnant......

    Which religious covenant was being blasphemed?

    Still ignoring the video link? Ignoring the success of the Athens group?

    How would you have dealt with the Athens sheriff?

    Edit: It's easy to decry the steps people took to correct an issue. Can you offer an alternative? One that's related to real life?
     
    Last edited: Mar 10, 2014
  2. Maedar

    Maedar Banned

    You know, LDS, for a group of people who keep claiming that the President is "trampling on the Constitution", you seem to awfully admire a group of people who, it could be argued, committed the one crime defined in the document, treason.
     
  3. LDSman

    LDSman Banned

    I didn't know I was a "group of people." And what treason? The Athen's group acted to restore the Rule of Law, not overturn it. And you still aren't addressing specific points.

    Edit: You keep randomly changing topics. Let's finish a few before taking on something else.

    How would you have dealt with the sheriff in Athens, TN?
    What about the video link?
    Are you going to admit the MLK did not "hate guns?"
    Why is gun violence bad but the far larger use of guns to stop violence something to be ignored?
    Why are examples of people using guns to address gov't issues that couldn't be addressed though normal channels things to be ignored?
     
    Last edited: Mar 11, 2014
  4. Maedar

    Maedar Banned

    He was an ordained minister known for his nonviolent and peaceful approach to solving problems.

    I don't see why I should debate my claim. I've already posted a link proving that he got rid of his gun and swore not to use it in his campaign for equality, debunking your link that distorted the facts. You're badgering me.

    And should you continue to insist that I debate this, I will file a formal complaint to the site moderators, and see what they think of your insistence that I retract my statement. This has become annoying.

    Anyway, I would think that an armed group of citizens taking over a town by force and imposing their own government is treason. Like I said, it is the only crime defined by the Constitution, to quote:

    Stealing guns from a National Guard barrack, laying siege to a jail, destroying it with dynamite, injuring several deputies (one of which was shot in the back), and causing a riot with no concern for who gets hurt, is not only "levying war" against your own country, it is a terrorist act undertaken by a bunch of thugs.

    Oh, and here's one quote from one of the revolutionaries:

    In other words, the biggest motivation was, they were being ticketed for public drunkenness, which explains a lot.

    And you know, LDS, what Sheriff Paul Cantrell's policies were back then don't sound very different than Maricopa Sheriff Joe Arpaio's policies now. There's no talk of rebellion in Arizona. In fact, you people applaud him for his toughness, and some people are even saying he should run for governor.
     
  5. LDSman

    LDSman Banned

    That only proves he disapproved of gun use for himself. You claimed he "hated" guns and that he supported gun control. I only ask for verifiable facts. This is supposed to be a debate. You are supposed to support your claims. So far you aren't doing that.

    Out of five things, you only choose to address one of the them.

    Go ahead. A mod did say to either prove it or be an adult and admit that you were wrong.


    They didn't impose their own gov't. They insisted on an open and free election.

    The Athens group did none of those items.


    They had keys. And the items were cleaned and returned before the sun came up.

    The deputies were committing voter fraud.

    Damaged the porch. Don't exaggerate. They also fixed it after everything was over.

    The only person I can find that was shot in the back was a black man who was shot by a deputy. Said deputy called him a ****** first. That deputy was the only one to serve any time. If the soldiers and local boys were wrong, why didn't they serve any time?

    The only people to get hurt were the police.

    Except they weren't fighting their "country" but a corrupt local sheriff.

    Except it wasn't an act meant to terrorize people but an act to get free and fair elections.

    No they were being falsely arrested, fined and beaten. This all started after the GIs started their campaign. The sheriff's office was targeting the GIs.

    The sheriff's office made their money by ticketing people. And they'd beat the GIs that objected.

    So Sheriff Joe is rigging elections and having his opponents arrested and beaten? Really?
     
    Last edited: Mar 11, 2014
  6. Silvershark

    Silvershark HAWLUCHA!!!

    Well, this whole Martin Luther King jr. thing has me curious, so I did a little research of my own.

    The only definitive evidence I can find on Dr. King's view on firearms is his writings linked in Maedar's link, however this only covers King's view on his personal use of guns. Though there are reports from witnesses at the time that claim there was more than the "one gun" in the King household and Dr. King's quote: "if your opponent has a conscience, then follow Gandhi. But if your enemy has no conscience, like Hitler, then follow Bonhoeffer." make his view in those writing's a tad suspect. Then there's the fact that the whole nonviolence thing wasn't so much King's idea as it was something he had to be persuaded to by a Mr. Bayard Rustin, organizer of the march on Washington and stonecold bada** pacificist (when savagely beaten with a stick during a Korean War protest his response was to hand his attacker another stick while asking if he would like to beat him with that one too). Previously Dr. King and his followers were well armed and prepared to defend themselves if needed. Given that rampant homophobia in the 1950's swept most of Rustin's involvement in the civil rights movement under the rug and that apparently Dr. King was a bit of a plagiarist it's unsurprising King got most of the credit for the nonviolence aspect of the movement.

    On the whole there really isn't evidence on Martin Luther King's view on firearms. There's nothing saying he was against gun control, nor is there anything saying he opposed gun use by others or hated firearms in any way. He was kind of preoccupied with the whole pushing for equality thing. So can we please DROP IT!
     
    Last edited: Mar 12, 2014
  7. Maedar

    Maedar Banned

    Shark, my argument the whole time was that LDS's link - which implied that Rev. King opposed gun control - was an intentional attempt to distort the facts to make people think that the greatest hero of the Civil Rights era wanted citizens to be armed, and was purposely misleading.

    Should he admit it, then I will drop it.
     
  8. LDSman

    LDSman Banned

    Only problem is the fact that you made your "MLK hates guns" claim before I linked to any articles.
    Your claim. end of September.
    http://www.serebiiforums.com/showth...ol-Fascism-Everybody!&p=16436552#post16436552
    Beginning of Oct.
    http://www.serebiiforums.com/showth...ol-Fascism-Everybody!&p=16487848#post16487848

    What do you call it when when the left lies about MLK's gun ownership and attempt to lie about MLK supporting gun control?
    http://www.ijreview.com/2013/08/756...-push-gun-control-ignoring-his-gun-ownership/

    An earlier quote did show that MLK argued for people owning guns for self defense.

    Once again, a debate is not tit for tat. Your being wrong is not dependant on someone else admitting they were wrong. I never claimed MLK opposed gun control. I've only pointed out, repeatedly, that there is no proof that MLK hated guns or supported gun control.

    You can either provide proof MLK did hate guns and supported gun control or admit that you were wrong. Are you enough of an adult to do so?
     
  9. Maedar

    Maedar Banned

    That link you provided that you claim is "proof" of the left lying contains not one single quote from a Democrat. Thus, it contains no lies from Democrats, as it has no quotes from them..

    So YOU are the liar.
     
  10. LDSman

    LDSman Banned

    That's a big stretch. Are you now arguing that those on the left aren't using MLK to push gun control? That they aren't ignoring MLK's ownership of at least one gun?

    So what am I lying about? The link within the article cited this article.

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/aug/27/black-clergy-members-cite-mlk-call-congress-crack-/

    Leftists using MLK to push gun control.

    Edit: You are still unable to admit to being wrong or to being unable to provide proof for pretty much all of your gun control claims.
     
    Last edited: Mar 12, 2014
  11. Maedar

    Maedar Banned

    No, LDS, that link was doing nothing but quoting MLK very briefly to make their own push for gun control. It actually said nothing at all about King's stance on guns, only the fact that he supported peace.

    The link you provided, this one:

    http://www.ijreview.com/2013/08/756...-push-gun-control-ignoring-his-gun-ownership/

    Posted a quote that it claimed was made by "the liberal Huff Post" saying that King approved of gun ownership...

    ...without giving a link to the Huff Post article... or a date... or crediting the author of the Huff Post article, or giving ANY evidence whatsoever that this article (if it existed) was written by a liberal or by Huff Post. (Which has had a few conservative blog writers, btw, from time to time.)

    And btw, the Washington Times is not the Huff Post. The Times is a newspaper, the Huff Post is a blog. I think we've already gone over the difference.

    No quotes in your article from a Democrat or liberal at all.

    Furthermore, in that Washington Times article, here's what the clergy members said:

    Note the positioning of the quotation marks. Nothing they said that could be attributed to King was about guns. Your article blew it out of the water in order to make gun-control liberals look bad. Still doubt that the pen is mightier than the sword?

    I'll admit my mistakes, but this is NOT one. You, however, will never admit a mistake.
     
  12. LDSman

    LDSman Banned

    Here the go. The relevant article that LJR referred to. A brief search of the quoted phrase pulled it right up.

    Articles need not have quotes to be correct. The article being referred to had the necessary information.

    They still used MLK to push gun control.

    Still need the sword to enforce what the pen writes.



    Oh good. Then you can provide proof that MLK hated guns and supported gun control? Or that the wild west will happen if there are more guns?
    Or that it's better to be a victim than to fight back? Or any of the gun control claims you've made?
     
  13. Maedar

    Maedar Banned

    I'm still waiting for a link, date, and author of this Huff Post article that your Link claims exists. Your link provides no proof at all that it ever appeared on the Huff Post.

    I searched your link from top to bottom. No reference at all that proves this ever appeared on the Huff Post.

    Oh, and did you notice some other headlines on the post you linked to, like this one?

    http://www.ijreview.com/2014/03/120...voters-think-republicans-suck-less-democrats/

    Not exactly the best heading there.

    Then there's this one:

    http://www.ijreview.com/2014/03/120...le-obamacare-question-starts-singing-instead/

    Distorting the facts again. They didn't mention how Rep. Gutierrez said "Call the office" and "I don't have time" to the clearly annoying reporter and was singing to get rid of them, as this far more accurate version shows:

    http://libertyunyielding.com/2014/0...avoids-reporters-obamacare-questions-singing/

    Honestly.
     
  14. LDSman

    LDSman Banned

    Oops. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/adam-winkler/mlk-and-his-guns_b_810132.html


    Your opinion of other articles is noted.
     
  15. Maedar

    Maedar Banned

    Nice. LDS. Reading Mr. Winkler's article in it's entirety, it only reinforces the things I have already said. If I may quote from his article:

    He then goes on to describe the "others", including Malcolm X and the Black Panthers.

    Mr. Winkler then says this:

    What he means is, King's assassination caused the first major gun control laws, which sparked the whole pro gun debate in the first place, thanks in part to idiots like the Black Panthers who rejected King's pacifism.

    As for why King even had a gun, he explains it here:

    LDS, let me tell you something. I hate guns. I despise them. BUT... If my life was being threatened and my house had been firebombed, I would consider getting one. It would have been a matter of life death. The fact that Rev. King got rid of his, convinced that it wasn't the answer, shows courage and commitment on his part to his cause.

    Far more than people who need the damn things to hide behind.
     
  16. LDSman

    LDSman Banned

    Actually there were gun control laws aimed at blacks before then. The 1968 act was just the first major law since the 1930s. And the Black Panther were disarmed before King was assassinated.

    You hate and despise an inanimate object.

    So you aren't a pacifist then.

    It's easy to show commitment to being non violent when you have armed guards.

    Great way to judge all gun owners. The majority of gun owners aren't hiding behind a gun. They are exercising a Constitutional Right. Most acknowledge that the police aren't there to protect them and that if something happens, the only person you can depend on to help you is yourself. A few have a legitimate reason to be afraid. Abusive exes, living in a dangerous area, etc.

    So you can't prove MLK hated guns or supported gun control. I'm chalking that up to another "exaggeration."
     
    Last edited: Mar 12, 2014
  17. Maedar

    Maedar Banned

    Yes I do, your point being?

    Did I ever say I was?


    Well, that is how I judge them, and another Constitutional right - the First - says I can.

    Most? Try "vocal minority". (And IMOHO, "annoying" vocal minority.) Until you can provide a poll that says "most" say police are useless, I will not accept that as true.

    Can you prove he opposed gun control, like your original article claims? I still say that my claim that he hated guns was as obvious as saying he was a civil rights leader, seeing as he was an ordained minister who was known the world over for nonviolence.
     
    Last edited: Mar 12, 2014
  18. LDSman

    LDSman Banned

    It's not rational.



    Yes you did claim to be a pacifist.

    http://www.serebiiforums.com/showth...ol-Fascism-Everybody!&p=16947857#post16947857


    It's certainly a bigoted belief.


    I didn't say police were useless. Just that they aren't here to protect people. The basis of their job is to arrest law breakers. And I don't need a poll to prove that.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/28scotus.html?_r=0


    The original article doesn't say that he opposed it either. It only points out MLK's history of owning a gun and having armed bodyguards.

    Obvious doesn't mean crap if it's not provable as fact. It was obvious to some people that the sun revolved around the earth. It's obvious to some that chemtrails are poisoning people. Neither are true.

    Again you fail to prove another of your claims. Why do you bother?

    Edit: Gun Facts

    http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp
     
    Last edited: Mar 12, 2014
  19. Darth Revan

    Darth Revan Coming Out!

    Thing is, keeping guns away from citizens leave us vulnerable. Imagine if any enemy group was to take over a town or city, Red Dawn way, and there were maybe 20 armed police officers. Could those police officers defeat a more well armed foe? And if citizens are helpless, should we just lay down and let our town and people get captured? People need weapons for overall defense.

    Love you.
     
  20. Maedar

    Maedar Banned

    Red Dawn? Raven, do you know what the word "fiction" means? (North Korea taking over a town in Washington state. Right. They'd have trouble finding a vehicle that could get there. Not to mention that it was a pretty crappy movie too, fueled by the Red Scare.)

    When has something like that ever happened? There has not been an invasion of enemy forces on American soil since Pearl Harbor, and in that case, firearms weren't much use against a squadron of kamikaze fighters.

    If terrorists did try something like the scenario you described, it would be like asking the National Guard to take them to prison. They'd hold the town for about an hour before they, the army, and the marines surrounded them with about a hundred times more members. You think they'd kill the hostages? If they did, there's be nothing to protect them, and they'd be shot full of holes.

    Like I tell many people who oppose gun control, you watch too much television.
     
    Last edited: Mar 13, 2014
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page