Political Crossfire Forums

[lilwolf]

I thought it might be interesting to see just how many stupid gun control remarks and quotes we could come up with. So, list you quotes and who made them:


"There is no reason for anyone in this country- anyone except a police officer or military person- to buy, to own, to have, to use a handgun. The only way to control handgun use in this country is to prohibit the guns ..."

Wm. J "Bill" Clinton

If it was up to me, no one but law enforcement officers would own hand guns..."

Chicago Mayor Richard Daley, Federal Gun Legislation Press Conference in Washington, D.C., November 13, 1998

"I don't care if you think it's your right. I say: Sorry, it's 1999. We have had enough as a nation. You are not allowed to own a gun, and if you do own a gun I think you should go to prison."

Rosie O'Donnell

"I believe all handguns should be abolished"

Sen. John Chafee: The Associated Press, January 9, 1997

"We're going to hammer guns on the anvil of relentless legislative strategy! We're going to beat guns into submission!"

Rep. Charles Schumer: Press Conference, December 8, 1993

"Guns don't kill people; bullets do. It is time the federal government began taxing handgun ammunition used in crime out of existence."

Sen. D. P. Moynihan: Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, November 4, 1993

"If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an out-right ban, picking up every one of them... 'Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in,' I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren't here."

Senator Dianne Feinstein: CBS-TV's "60 Minutes", February 5, 1995 Sam Donaldson
"My personal opinion is that guns kill people."

Sam Donaldson: ABC News Primetime Live, February 22, 1990

"There is no reason for anyone in the country, for anyone except a police officer or a military person, to buy, to own, to have, to use, a handgun. The only way to control handguns use in this country is to prohibit the guns. And the only way to do that is to change the Constitution."

Michael Gartner: Former President of NBC News, USA Today, January 16, 1992

"And the final problem is to make the possession of all handguns and all handgun ammunition - except for the military, policemen, licensed security guards, licensed sporting clubs, and licensed gun collectors totally illegal."

-Pete Shields, Chairman, Handgun Control Inc.

?If it were up to me we?d ban them all [firearms].?

MEL REYNOLDS (U.S. Congressman) CNN Crossfire 9 Dec 93

?Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the Public Health and Safety Act of 1993 on behalf of myself and nine of my colleagues: Mel Reynolds, Bill Clay, Jerry Nadler, Eleanor Holmes Norton, John Lewis, Nydia Velazquez, Ron Dellums, Carrie Meek, and Alcee Hastings. This legislation, first introduced in the Senate by Senator John Chafee, would prohibit the transfer or possession of handguns and handgun ammunition, except in limited circumstances. It would go a long way toward protecting our citizens from violent crime. The need for a ban on handguns cannot be overstated. Unlike rifles and shotguns, handguns are easily concealable. Consequently, they are the weapons of choice in most murders, accounting for the deaths of 25,000 Americans in 1991......"

Rep. Stephen J. Solarz, New York (August 12, 1992, The Congressional Record, 102nd Congress, 1992-1993, Daily Edition E2492-2493.)

"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to permit the conquered Eastern peoples to have arms. History teaches that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by doing so."

Adolph Hitler: April 11, 1942,
quoted in Hitler's Tischegesprache
Im Fuhrerhauptquartier 1941-1942,
[Hitler's table-Talk at the Fuhrer's Headquarters 1941-1942],
Dr. Henry Picker, ed. (Athenaum-Verlag, Bonn, 1951);
The original source is notes taken by Hitler associate
Martin Bormann, a document called Bormann-Vermerke.

Before Sarah Brady became head of Handgun Control, Inc. (now renamed "The Brady Campaign"), her predecessor, the late Nelson T. "Pete" Shields, explained the plan to The New Yorker in 1976:

"The first problem is to slow down the number of handguns being produced and sold in this country. The second problem is to get handguns registered. The final problem is to make possession of all handguns and all handgun ammunition ? except for the military, police, licensed security guards, licensed sporting clubs, and licensed gun collectors ? totally illegal." Richard Harris, "A Reporter at Large: Handguns," New Yorker, July 26, 1976, p. 58

[chilirainbow]

I can't find the direct quote, but the "More thrusts per squeeze," thing gets me ROTFLMAO every time.

[micfranklin]

Wow. It amazes me how many stupid people there are out there and how many of them have not thought their comments through on guns.

[lilwolf]

micfranklin wrote: Wow. It amazes me how many stupid people there are out there and how many of them have not thought their comments through on guns.


scary isn't it...... some are dumber than rocks 8:)

[The Newb]

when ll gets back hes gonna have a fit :rotf:

[lilwolf]

The Newb wrote: when ll gets back hes gonna have a fit :rotf:


As long as he doesn't let his mouth overide his common sense he will....but if he does what he did before he is toast.

[The Newb]

but i had so much fun pounding on his every word :lol:

[esight]

I can see I am in the midst of gun advocates.

The way I see it, it's a numbers situation. The more guns there are out there, the more likely one of them will be used inadvertently or inappropriately.

In an ideal world, guns would be used only to defend the lives of people against aggressors, or one's country. In fact, that was the very essence of how the "right to bear arms" made its way into the Constitution, because the era when it was legislated was a time when there was a need for it; either have a gun, or be killed by one.

This is such an imperfect world. I have known very responsible people who have guns in their homes, and I certainly have no objection to their desire to have a recourse in the event of mortal danger. It's the idiots out there who use it for purposes other than what it was intended for that really fuels this issue.

But as I said, it's a numbers game. I would have no idea how to determine who is fit or unfit to have a gun. But I believe that the less guns there are out there, there will be less gun casualities. Forgive me for stating the obvious.

[Wolverine]

esight wrote: I can see I am in the midst of gun advocates.

The way I see it, it's a numbers situation. The more guns there are out there, the more likely one of them will be used inadvertently or inappropriately.

In an ideal world, guns would be used only to defend the lives of people against aggressors, or one's country. In fact, that was the very essence of how the "right to bear arms" made its way into the Constitution, because the era when it was legislated was a time when there was a need for it; either have a gun, or be killed by one.

This is such an imperfect world. I have known very responsible people who have guns in their homes, and I certainly have no objection to their desire to have a recourse in the event of mortal danger. It's the idiots out there who use it for purposes other than what it was intended for that really fuels this issue.

But as I said, it's a numbers game. I would have no idea how to determine who is fit or unfit to have a gun. But I believe that the less guns there are out there, there will be less gun casualities. Forgive me for stating the obvious.
I agree its a numbers game.

240,000,000 guns
100,000,000 guns owners
2,000,000+ self-defensive uses every year

11,000 homicides, most of which are criminals killing criminals or justified
760ish accidents

[britboy]

Wolverine wrote: esight wrote: I can see I am in the midst of gun advocates.

The way I see it, it's a numbers situation. The more guns there are out there, the more likely one of them will be used inadvertently or inappropriately.

In an ideal world, guns would be used only to defend the lives of people against aggressors, or one's country. In fact, that was the very essence of how the "right to bear arms" made its way into the Constitution, because the era when it was legislated was a time when there was a need for it; either have a gun, or be killed by one.

This is such an imperfect world. I have known very responsible people who have guns in their homes, and I certainly have no objection to their desire to have a recourse in the event of mortal danger. It's the idiots out there who use it for purposes other than what it was intended for that really fuels this issue.

But as I said, it's a numbers game. I would have no idea how to determine who is fit or unfit to have a gun. But I believe that the less guns there are out there, there will be less gun casualities. Forgive me for stating the obvious.
I agree its a numbers game.

240,000,000 guns
100,000,000 guns owners
2,000,000+ self-defensive uses every year

11,000 homicides, most of which are criminals killing criminals or justified
760ish accidents


Jees is it that bad? 11,000 homicides? Wow!

I love the 'self defensive uses' stat. Someone approaches you looking evil? Wave yer gun around -- there's a self-defense use.

Someone lumps you for chatting up his girlfriend -- wave your gun around -- another self-defense use. Brilliant.

Some 13 year old kid tried to steal a stone gnome from your garden? Wave your shotgun at him like some old hick. Another defensive use yea? Cos that kid could have suddenly turned psychotic and strangled you with his shoelaces!

Wow those guns are good at being defensive with!! 2m times a year in fact!

[lilwolf]

Self defense does not have to be using the firearm britboy. It can be even in the manners you suggested. Showing or brandishing the gun in a manner that shows or means self defense is acceptable. If you use it in self defense there's a number. If you use it in slef defense by brandshing it or using it as a deterent to prevent a criminal from doing his crime there are people that could call that self defense as well

[britboy]

lilwolf wrote: Self defense does not have to be using the firearm britboy. It can be even in the manners you suggested. Showing or brandishing the gun in a manner that shows or means self defense is acceptable. If you use it in self defense there's a number. If you use it in slef defense by brandshing it or using it as a deterent to prevent a criminal from doing his crime there are people that could call that self defense as well

Which is precisely why it's a stupid statistic.

'2m people a year waving handguns around when there was no real need to, as they are paranoid.' would be more accurate.

I've never known anyone ever whose had to wave around a gun .. your sats suggest almost 1% of your population PER YEAR choose to do this!! Crazy! Unnecessary. I bet they actually believe the gun saved them! As BA once said .. I pity the fool ...

[wyldejackyl]

Perhaps you've never been faced with a criminal act? I can't wait until the day when you are victimized. If you want to be a doormat..that's fine. Be a doormat. Don't insist everyone bend over and take it like a liberal.

[britboy]

wyldejackyl wrote: Perhaps you've never been faced with a criminal act? I can't wait until the day when you are victimized. If you want to be a doormat..that's fine. Be a doormat. Don't insist everyone bend over and take it like a liberal.
You're joking I hope.

For example, I've had the unfortunate experience of being lumped when in a nightclub.

Now kids, for 10 points did I

a) Take the 'mans' approach of trying (fairly lamely) to lump the guy back .. get annoyed, stomp away, then forget about in within an hour

or

b) Take the cowards route of just waving a gun around, scared out of my head, like a 6 year old girl in pigtails. Then afterwards tell my friends about how the gun 'had saved my life' :roll:

??

[wyldejackyl]

Again, antics with semantics. Did you:
a) take the man's approach and risk your life because you have no idea of the training, strength, physical condition, or mental status of your assailant.
or
b) step back and rationalize if this man truly presents a threat to your personal well being, retreat is not an option, deadly bodily harm is imminent, and firearm use is necessary.


You're assuming that people that own guns wave them around like maniacs, when you yourself have never experienced anything that required a firearm to save your life. All a gun is is a force multiplier. It's a tool, like a hammer or a screwdriver. I can kill you with either, but I won't, because you aren't threatening my life or invading my home.

If I was you, I would have hit the guy back and he would be down on the ground in pain, and I would have been out the door no worse for wear. I'm guessing a firearm or other weapon wasn't called for in this situation, as it wasn't needed. To brandish one then would be stupid, and probably a crime!

[micfranklin]

You know what I just noticed?

Every single anti-gun statement made by anyone can easily be countered with logic that guns are more useful than they want to realize.

[lilwolf]

britboy wrote: lilwolf wrote: Self defense does not have to be using the firearm britboy. It can be even in the manners you suggested. Showing or brandishing the gun in a manner that shows or means self defense is acceptable. If you use it in self defense there's a number. If you use it in slef defense by brandshing it or using it as a deterent to prevent a criminal from doing his crime there are people that could call that self defense as well

Which is precisely why it's a stupid statistic.

'2m people a year waving handguns around when there was no real need to, as they are paranoid.' would be more accurate.

I've never known anyone ever whose had to wave around a gun .. your sats suggest almost 1% of your population PER YEAR choose to do this!! Crazy! Unnecessary. I bet they actually believe the gun saved them! As BA once said .. I pity the fool ...

There is no paranoia thing there...it's called common sense and many bad guys on the streets.... When you go out on the town do you ever think about getting mugged or knifed? I bet that thought is in the back of your mind,and it would be wrong place at wrong time.
I would say upwards of 2 million is a good number. That's 2 million people that are alive and which might not be if they had no gun. I put the price of a life saved by either using a gun or showing it at ..... priceless.

Now I know what you are going to say...what about lives lost? Yes they are priceless as well, but your argument will fail badly when you look at lives saved vs lives lost. So don't even go there because it would not be an actual argument that you could begin to win.

[wyldejackyl]

micfranklin wrote: You know what I just noticed?

Every single anti-gun statement made by anyone can easily be countered with logic that guns are more useful than they want to realize. :shock:
GTFO, really?

[esight]

micfranklin wrote: You know what I just noticed?

Every single anti-gun statement made by anyone can easily be countered with logic that guns are more useful than they want to realize.

I don't like guns, but even I have to admit that guns do serve a purpose. When terrorists land in our soil with the intent of destroying us, I certainly would be a gun advocate in that scenario.

Having said that, I see guns being used for the wrong purposes all the time. One has to be dead not to see the ongoing misuses of guns in our society.

The real question is how to get guns out of the hands of people who misuse or abuse them. Allowing lax distribution of firearms among the populace is definitely a no-no. When a 13-year-old can somehow shoot an AK rifle in school, it becomes an epidemic.

Another problem, too, is that people tend to be extremists on the issue of guns, i.e., either have guns, or no guns. That will only result in an endless loop of debates, and it's fundamentally illogical. The fact is that guns do have a purpose (and how I hate saying that), but I just wish there was an effective way to prevent people who are "unqualified" to own guns from obtaining one.

[lilwolf]

Some more quotes about guns and such

Sigmund Freud: "A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity." ("General Introduction to Psychoanalysis," S. Freud)

Charles Shumer: (US Congress, has sworn an oath to defend the US Constitution) "All we ask for is registration, just like we do for cars." (Press conference, 1993, exact date being sought)

Josh Sugarmann, executive director of the Violence Policy Center: "A gun-control movement worthy of the name would insist that President Clinton move beyond his proposals for controls . . . and immediately call on Congress to pass far-reaching industry regulation like the Firearms Safety and Consumer Protection Act . . . [which] would give the Treasury Department health and safety authority over the gun industry, and any rational regulator with that authority would ban handguns." "Dispense With the Half Steps and Ban Killing Machines," Houston Chronicle, Nov. 5, 1999

Mao Tse Tung: "All political power comes from the barrel of a gun. The communist party must command all the guns, that way, no guns can ever be used to command the party." (Problems of War and Strategy, Nov 6 1938, published in "Selected Works of Mao Zedong," 1965)

"If it was up to me, no one but law enforcement officers would own hand guns..." Chicago Mayor Richard Daley, Federal Gun Legislation Press Conference in Washington, D.C., November 13, 1998.

"I believe all handguns should be abolished"
Sen. John Chafee: The Associated Press, January 9, 1997

"Guns don't kill people; bullets do. It is time the federal government began taxing handgun ammunition used in crime out of existence."
Sen. D. P. Moynihan: Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, November 4, 1993

"There is no reason for anyone in the country, for anyone except a police officer or a military person, to buy, to own, to have, to use, a handgun. The only way to control handguns use in this country is to prohibit the guns. And the only way to do that is to change the Constitution."
Michael Gartner: Former President of NBC News, USA Today, January 16, 1992