Community | February 17, 2013 | 52 comments

MSNBC Anti-Gun Propaganda in Full Swing

source: http://www.infowars.com/msnbc-anti-gun-propaganda-in-full-swing/

Image
Scrapner

http://www.infowars.com/msnbc-anti-gun-propaganda-in-full-swing/

Obama is orchestrating and staging an anti-gun push in Chicago’s South Side. It is his way to build an emotional basis for gun legislation. Several MSNBC commentators are making highly emotional pitches against guns as they cover this event.

Naturally this elicits counter-reactions from those many, many millions who oppose the government on the gun issue and hear the coverage. Among his gun opposition, Obama’s push reduces respect for him, his office and all government authority. Clearly, against these millions upon millions of gun owners, he would use raw power to get his way if he could, and not authority gained from their cooperative consent. They recognize, if only implicitly, this substitution of power for authority. Obama would use executive orders if he could. He’d issue bans if he could. He’d twist the gun issue into a public health, safety and welfare, or even terrorist issue, if he could. He would have the agencies of government issue constraining rules. He would use many means to disarm Americans, and they’d all be means of POWER.

A state that relies upon power to govern, not authority bestowed on it from those it governs, is illegitimate. It loses its justification to govern. This is the case today in America on the gun issue and many other issues. The government has again and again legislated against the wills and support of millions and millions and millions of Americans. It has relied on power to enforce its laws.

http://www.infowars.com/msnbc-anti-gun-propaganda-in-full-swing/
  1. groups:
    Community,   News and Politics,   Politics,   US Politics
  2. tags:
    Obama,  Obama Administration,  Chicago,  MSNBC,  2 more
  3.     
    |

52 comments // MSNBC Anti-Gun Propaganda in Full Swing

  • Arizona_Huey
    • +1
      Arizona_Huey  

    • I am growing tired of the ridiculous and illogical babblings from the gun fanatics like Ted Nugent and his ilk and followers as well as the gun manufacturing store front whores in the NRA! You don't need assault rifles and 100 round magizine clips to protect your family or shoot bambi. It is a red herring argument that has run its course. Nobody is out to take away the 100 pistols/shotguns/revolvers you have stashed in each room so STFU! This isn't about the 2nd Amendment, it is about common sense gun control.

    • 3 months ago
  • wolfess
    • +1
      wolfess  
    • Arizona_Huey:

      Disembedded has a post on here titled "The Kindness of Others" -- everyone that frequents this site should watch that vid and take to heart what it's saying! Then maybe comments like yours wouldn't be necessary (not slamming your comment at all, just tired of the fighting :-)!

      Pwr 2 the CARING peons!
      GUILLOTINE INDIFFERENCE!

    • 3 months ago
  • Scrapner
    • -1
      Scrapner [removed]  
    • Arizona_Huey:

      Any government action that infringes upon your right to bear arms has to do with the 2nd Amendment.

      If you hate your guaranteed Right to Bear Arms, then move to a country where you don't have that right, but stop trying to take away others rights in the U.S.

    • 3 months ago
  • Arizona_Huey
    • 0
      Arizona_Huey  
    • Scrapner:

      BULLSHIT! There is nobody on the planet that is saying anything about taking one weapon out of anybody's hand. That is a ridiculous red herring argument crafted by the NRA/gun manufacturing community and vomited out by its members. Please enlighten me how banning assault rifles, 100 round magazine clips, and requiring background checks before handing over a deadly weapon in any way infringes on your right to own a weapon?

      Your pathetic argument that it is somehow anti American to want simple and sensible gun control is nothing more than trailer park patriort ramblings that pinpoint your as nothing more than person who doesn't have the capacity to form a thought on their own!

    • 3 months ago
  • Paratus
    • +1
      Paratus  
    • Arizona_Huey:

      Well huey, it's just that we disagree on the meaning of "simple and sensible gun control". Your words, "banning assault weapons" (regardless of the fact that rifles have been used something like 360 times last year in shootings and assault weapons have not been used in any of the mass shootings from Columbine forward) qualifies as a definition of "infringe". Pretty much all target shooting with rifles is done using semi auto rifles. A LOT of them are used for hunting and self defense. This is a red herring designed to gin up emotional support for something that is not a problem with the intent to further curtail our freedom. Let's not even mention the fact that I have not, and I doubt that anyone else has either, seen a 100 round clip. I have never seen a clip over ten rounds, stripper clips, and the only ammunition feeding device that exists is the 8 round en bloc clip for the Garand. Let's address this problem with a dose of reality not emotional language proposing solutions to a problem that does not exist.

    • 3 months ago
  • Arizona_Huey
  • OlBlue
  • Scrapner
  • Scrapner
  • Arizona_Huey
  • sedwin
  • Scrapner
  • Keyser_Soze
    • +2
      Keyser_Soze [removed]  

    • Oh for Christs sake, enough bickering over the gun control issue. Is this waht Obama plans on spending his second term on, while ignoring the true threat to the public.... WALL ST and the PENTAGON.

      While you're all arguing over guns you're going to find yourself without ANY rights left , or an income you can live on.

    • 3 months ago
  • SamuraiDave
    • -2
      SamuraiDave  
    • Keyser_Soze:

      No the problem is the diehard selfish gun nuts and the toadies of the gun manufacturers who want to make a big deal of banning a weapon which had been banned before with little furor before. It should be a no-brainer but there is too much money tied up in it.

    • 3 months ago
  • Joeydee44
  • Paratus
    • 0
      Paratus  

    • An antigun push in Chicago! Can't buy the things, can't possess the things, can't carry the things. How much more antigun can they get?? Works out well for Chicago doesn't it.

    • 3 months ago
  • truth_accessor
  • Paratus
  • dugdog47
    • +1
      dugdog47  

    • I like the assclowns who used to say "Obama's not going to try and take your guns."

      Now they say "Obama's only taking away your scary guns."

      Next they'll say "Obama's only taking away your guns so we can all be safe."

      I've got news for you so called progressives. We ain't giving up shit without a fight, so if ya wanna take guns to save lives, you're gonna have to kill a whole lotta taxpayers to save those lives.

    • 3 months ago
  • Paratus
    • +1
      Paratus  
    • dugdog47:

      'I like the assclowns who used to say "Obama's not going to try and take your guns."'

      They use this all the time. Reminds me of the Wizard of Oz. People who trot this out or say that he hasn't done it yet are idiots. This is like saying that since your aren't retired, why save for retirement.

    • 3 months ago
  • dugdog47
  • sedwin
  • sedwin
  • dugdog47
  • dugdog47
  • WisconsinNorm
    • -1
      WisconsinNorm  

    • This "gun thing" must be a "neighborhood thing." Democrats in Wisconsin carry only two counties consistently to maintain their strength-Milwaukee and Dane. I wouldn't want to live in either one. I could give a rip if guns were outlawed in those two counties. If anything, it would be fun to watch the crime drop in each. At least that is what is theorized to occur. Those figures couldn't be fudged because everybody would be studying them.

      Unfortunately in "the sticks" where I live, gun violence seems to be only the suicidal variety. Even there some need lessons or a permit. Two people in my county have shot themselves "unsucessfully" within the last year. So where do they go to get fixed up when the local hospitals can't quite deal with a messy reconstruction ? Dane or Milwaukee county. Just can't win when gun violence congregates. It gives them a jaded perspective.

    • 3 months ago
  • dugdog47
    • -1
      dugdog47  

    • Why should the whole country suffer because of failed liberal policies in Chicago? Allow law abiding citizens the right to bear arms EVERYWHERE, and I can guarantee less gun violence in Chicago, once word gets out that the gangs ain't the only ones with gats.

    • 3 months ago
  • Scrapner
    • +1
      Scrapner [removed]  
    • dugdog47:

      That's what it's about. The limousine liberals' fiefdoms, of Chicago and even New York City are out of control. This specific type of liberal is used to sitting in an idling limousine smoking a cigar and barking out orders having everyone listen. Problem is nobody is anymore.

      The Mayor Bloomberg and Rahmn emanaual limousine liberal Princelings have lost control of their fiefdoms and want to blame the U.S. Constitution.
      By their reasoning since places like Chicago are out of their control, the rest of the country must lose their guns.

    • 3 months ago
  • oldbanjo
  • dugdog47
    • +1
      dugdog47  
    • Scrapner:

      Funny how the limosiners are always traveling around with armed security guards, even in gun free zones. I guess they don't trust their own failed liberal policies.

    • 3 months ago
  • OlBlue
    • 0
      OlBlue  

    • Many times I've read or heard gun nuts try to make a point about the high gun violence in Chicago, that no one including the president cares about handguns there. He only wants to go after assault weapons and high capacity whatevers and everyone is all emotional about the mass shootings but they are but a drop in the bucket, Chicago is where the real problem is. Now he tries to do something about handguns in Chicago and they're attacking him for doing what they said he should do. They've backed themselves into a corner once again.

      Note to gun nuts: I have a big fucking gun but I don't take it out in public, wave it around, and talk about it constantly.

    • 3 months ago
  • Scrapner
  • Paratus
    • 0
      Paratus  
    • OlBlue:

      "Now he tries to do something about handguns in Chicago..."

      As dugdog put it so well, why should the entire country suffer because of failed liberal policies? Chicago has plenty of gun laws. You cannot have or do anything with them. Pretty much sums it up. If prohibition was the answer Chicago would be a model with zero shootings.

      "I have a big fucking gun but I don't take it out in public, wave it around, and talk about it constantly."

      I'm happy to hear about your bfg but if you will pay attention you will see that we are talking about freedom and the failure of gun laws not about a gun. Please keep yours in your closet. There are some on this board who would confuse it with a penis.

    • 3 months ago
  • OlBlue
    • 0
      OlBlue  
    • Paratus:

      I think it was one of the mayors against guns who said the large number of guns in some of the metro areas with tough gun controls come in from other areas with less strict laws.
      Okay, I'll keep mine in the closet to spare those who may react jealously.

    • 3 months ago
  • Paratus
    • 0
      Paratus  
    • OlBlue:

      "I think it was one of the mayors against guns who said the large number of guns in some of the metro areas with tough gun controls come in from other areas with less strict laws."

      Yes I have heard this one also. It's always something with the left. What this fails to realize is that the statists are proposing a law to deal with a problem then turning around and saying that the law does not work due to some excuse. This is the Obama approach. Blame everything on Bush, the tsunami, sunspots or whatever, anything except the weakness of their own position.
      This is tiring as is the constant assaults by the left to remove more of our freedom.

    • 3 months ago
  • OlBlue
    • 0
      OlBlue  
    • Paratus:

      Still waving it around I see. Are you saying that there are more guns in these areas because of gun laws? Please enlighten me as to where the guns are coming from since you surely know more about the issue than the mayors.

    • 3 months ago
  • unimatrix0
    • 0
      unimatrix0  

    • It is laughable to submit a story from InfoWars claiming some other news outlet is spreading propaganda. InfoWars is full of batshit crazy propaganda (like this post), and appeals only to right wing nuts and conspiracy theory idiots.

    • 3 months ago
  • MSII
  • Paratus
    • 0
      Paratus  
    • unimatrix0:

      "It is laughable to submit a story from InfoWars claiming some other news outlet is spreading propaganda. InfoWars is full of batshit crazy propaganda (like this post), and appeals only to right wing nuts and conspiracy theory idiots."

      What is REALLY laughable is to post this on a thread with MSNBC in the title. That bunch is "batshit crazy propaganda". Just because InfoWars posts something does not mean it is false. You are guilty of the liberal tactic of attacking and attempting to discredit the messenger because you don't like the message.

    • 3 months ago
  • WagonMaster
  • Scrapner
    • 0
      Scrapner [removed]  
    • WagonMaster:

      The NRA is an interest group that is supposed to advocate for the interests of its members. MSNBC holds itself out as a News organization, and is supposed to present news. Not be a mouthpiece and advocate for the interests of the government and Obama's anti-Constitutional and anti-gun propaganda.

    • 3 months ago
  • SamuraiDave
    • +4
      SamuraiDave  

    • Yawn! Fear-mongering misinformation at its finest! For the last time, no one is talking about banning all guns nor confiscating all guns so make real arguments against the actual proposed legislation not the bullshit strawman arguments that have been conjured up from paranoid flights of fantasy.

    • 3 months ago
  • WagonMaster
  • oldbanjo
    • +3
      oldbanjo  
    • SamuraiDave:

      Other Countries have required registering guns then they took the list and made a new list of guns to be confiscated they outlawed the majority of guns that were registered. They also now had a list of who owned the guns that they made illegal. No one in there wright mind would trust any Government to be telling the truth all other Countries have lied.

    • 3 months ago
  • Scrapner
  • MSII
    • +1
      MSII  
    • SamuraiDave:

      Well said! The right-wing propaganda-factories are running at full capacity spewing out the insani-tea. Their newest buzz-word on this subject is "gun-grabbers", makes me laugh every time I see these manufactured propaganda-words.

    • 3 months ago
  • SamuraiDave
  • SamuraiDave
    • -2
      SamuraiDave  
    • oldbanjo:

      "in there wright mind?"

      anyway, who are these "other" countries you speak of in such general sweeping fashion because all other countries have lied? And seriously work on your appalling writing skills.

    • 3 months ago
  • Scrapner
  • dugdog47
  • SamuraiDave
    • 0
      SamuraiDave  
    • Image
    • dugdog47:

      what about Mexico?

      "A common misconception is that firearms are illegal in Mexico and that no person may possess them. This belief originates due the general perception that only members of law enforcement, the armed forces, or those in armed security protection are authorized to have them. While it is true that Mexico possesses strict gun laws, where most types and calibers are reserved to military and law enforcement, the acquisition and ownership of certain firearms and ammunition remains a constitutional right to all Mexican citizens and foreign legal residents; given the requirements and conditions to exercise such right are fulfilled in accordance to the law."
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Mexico

      The problem is many of your gun advocate have very little knowledge or understanding of other countries and a severe problem with basic principles of logic in particular the fallacy of correlation implies causation.

    • 3 months ago
more from Community:
from the community

top videos