I notice they don't allow guns in Court, but the Judge gets an armed Police Officer standing there right behind him. That doesn't seem FAIR!
Printable View
I notice they don't allow guns in Court, but the Judge gets an armed Police Officer standing there right behind him. That doesn't seem FAIR!
I'm not against reasonable regulation. I'm just saying that you don't have to be a 'nut' to think people that have imposed virtual bans, choosing to ignore the letter and spirit of the law, might not deserve your trust.Quote:
Originally Posted by trish
I'm for reasonable regulation. Banning concealed carry for everybody, IMO, isn't reasonable. You think it is. Banning it for certain people because of their past behavior or current mental status is reasonable. But everybody? No matter what reason? It's as close to a ban as you can get.
Why would you want to encourage 'open carry'? It's illegal in some of the States that allow 'concealed carry'. IMO opinion, 'open carry' is just plain foolish, no matter how you feel about people having guns. Those that we both agree shouldn't have guns now know exactly who they should steal them from. Would you encourage 'open carry' of other valuable items? Those that can't kill people, like iPhones and jewelry? Or laptops? 'Open carry' helps to provoke fights that can otherwise be avoided. Banning 'open carry' is a 'reasonable' restriction, and one I approve of.
Im curious to know how many people have actually prevented street robbery my felons armed with guns because they are also carrying weapons? Anyone got any intelligent info on that - rather than the line that just goes 'i carry a gun to stop being the victim of violent crime."
Similarly how many armed burglars have been shot by householders in the US defending their property?
Yes. That is exactly what I said I am. I exactly stated in my arguments that I am going to target civilians like some p.o.s. terrorist. That is exactly what I typed in my responses. 100% exactly what I wrote and implied. Fucking retard. It's nice to see that in today's world, the people who liberated America from the grips of the corrupt British crown (George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson) would today be sent to Guantanamo to be waterboarded and executed without trial. Patriotism is dead. Overtaken by fascism. The same fascism you Brits had dragged us into a war against in WWII. Next time you morons over there are faced with a battle against another rising fascist dictatorship, don't call us in to save your asses because we are the only country with guns.Quote:
Originally Posted by Prospero
Sure, that's also what I implied. I was going to take on America alone. As if millions of Americans are not also both distraught and prepared or preparing for what is expected to come. Why have gun sales skyrocketed in the past 4 years? Because many people are waking up to the realization that our true Western Democratic ideals are dying in the name of the Dollar and greed for that useless paper. While you can all sit back and enjoy the ride when the crisis that hit Greece comes to your doorstep, people like me are prepared to protect our homes, businesses, property, families and neighbors. While the police turn against us and use excessive violent force against peaceful protest and our rights to express grievances are trampled in the name of preventing so-called terrorism, you can sit on your ass while the rest of the intelligent people fight your battle for you. Keep on voting for the lesser of the evils when the elections come around, our system here in the U.S. has been flawed for a very long time and nowadays, corporate lobbying is what really buys the votes and our leaders.Quote:
Originally Posted by martin48
Yes, paranoia and preparation is wrong. It would be insane to be prepared for any possibilities, even ones like total economic failure. We've NEVER had one of those before right?Quote:
Originally Posted by Jericho
"Off the rails"? Because I have opposing views to our government's current political system, it is wrong, crazy and should be illegal? I am a terrorist because I do not agree with our government's ways? I guess then it was totally fucking wrong when the women rose up in protest against our "FREE" Democracy in the early 1900's for the right to vote. I guess it was also wrong to rise up during the Civil Rights movement against the government for the equal freedoms of African Americans who in turn were assaulted by riot police and firemen who used their rescue vehicles as weapons of hate and sprayed protesters with hoses in the 60's. I guess it was also wrong for US now, transsexuals and those who love us, when the Stonewall Riots occurred and we fought with physical violence against the police (who you all claim will save us when we need them), the same NYPD then, who still now, suffer from endless PR crises revolving around officers arresting transsexuals for "prostitution" because some transwoman was walking down the street and the police decided to arrest her for no other reason than being a tranny in a straight world and then humiliated and beaten in the holding cells by your beloved defenders. Rising up against corruption is completely fucking insane and wrong I suppose, or at least these days. This is what forms the foundation of a society that will accept fascist and totalitarian regimes to form, when we are so dumbed down to these events and issues and anyone who says anything not in-line with the government is a terrorist.Quote:
Originally Posted by seanchai
Interesting... I found this in another thread regarding sylvia boots.
Now if NONE of the individuals in this had been able to enjoy easy access to weapons would any of this happened/
"In August 2002, Amara dated Jorge Espinoza without knowing that he was Tanya's boyfriend. After sex he brutally beat her and stole her car. Again she filed a police complaint. Three weeks later Jorge returned and shot her in the head. Miraculously Amara survived and still has the bullet in her head. She filed a third police complaint and was unofficially advised to carry a gun for self-defense.
"On March 17, 2003 Amara and Tanya encountered each other in the ladies room at the Yukon Mining Co restaurant. Insults, hair pulling and punches started and were continued in the parking lot, and friends of both women joined in. It escalated to the point where Amara pulled out her gun. Tanya tried to take it away from her. It went off and Tanya's hand was seared with gunpowder burns. A few minutes later it was apparent that one of Tanya's friends, Laura Banuelos, was dying of a gun wound. Amara was arrested.
i hope and pray i dont stumble across the nutjob who uses the name KittiKaiti with her paranoid and illinformed grasp of both history and reality. "Patriotism is dead. Overtaken by fascism." She speaks the lingo of the radical survivalists - a mishmash of paranoia and political claptrap. Add to that noxious mix weaponry and you have yourself a real recipe for madness. You gonna go hide in the woods Kitty for the coming confrontation withe "the man." I withdraw the claim that she is the Timothy McVeigh.
I think Anders Breivik is nearer the mark. Kitty Kaiti Brevik.. sounds about right.
Want to know statistics? Look them up. FBI.gov.Quote:
Originally Posted by Prospero
Okla. Woman Shoots, Kills Intruder 911 Operators Say It's OK to Shoot - ABC News.mp4 - YouTube
Armed 11 year old Girl Defends Home - YouTube
Boy Uses Dad's AR-15 to Shoot Invader - YouTube
AND LAST BUT NOT LEAST, THE BEST FOOTAGE I'VE EVER VIEWED:
71 year old Man Stops Armed Robbery - YouTube
Sylvia would have knifed her. Sorry, you can blame that death on drugs, crazy jealousy, etcQuote:
Originally Posted by Prospero
Clearly you don't know the facts or have read it.Quote:
Originally Posted by SFTB
That's a great question. And it should be part of the debate.Quote:
Originally Posted by Prospero
However, it's tough information to get. We don't have a national police force. So all the police departments and sheriff's offices use their own forms and document things differently. They all report and keep track of car accidents pretty much the same way, so those stats are pretty trustworthy. They are all required to report a few crimes, the worst ones, to the FBI, who maintains those statistics. But, some don't even keep track of and they all aren't required to report those things. If a legal gun owner justifiably shoots a robber, then a crime hasn't occurred.
That information is only obtained sporadically, and usually only if a gun owner chooses to report it to the newspaper or an organization like the NRA. So it's 'self-reported' information, which isn't as trustworthy as auto accident information is, for instance. Or the number of people murdered, which is one of the crimes which all local law enforcement must report to the FBI.
I'm all for 'reasonableness' and I think it is information which should be accurately gathered. Of course, it will still be 'self-reported' to some extent because if the gun owner draws his weapon but doesn't fire, he may not choose to report that event. I would report it, because I would then have a good description of a robber, but not everybody would.
How many gun owners have had their own guns used on themselves?
How many gun owners have had their guns stolen and used in crimes?
So you're comparing a person who says she will use her guns to defend her home and family to a man who blew up a building and mass murdered children?Quote:
Originally Posted by Prospero
apparently one of the women who died in the shooting was also present at the Eaton Centre shooting that happened recently here in Toronto. What are the chances you'd be present for 2 major North American public shootings in the same month?
it's all very sad and I'll never understand how some people think doing things like this are ok :(
Well you've talked a bit more than just that haven't you? There was going to be dead bacon on the streets a few days ago and you've made points about taking on the government?Quote:
Originally Posted by kittyKaiti
I am Lady Breivik since you are spouting the sort of asinine political gibberish that McVeigh and Breivik spouted ... drivelling on about your government being fascist. God help us. Bush, Reagan, Obama, Clinton, Ford, Kennedy, Johnson, Eisenhower, Truman, FDR... how many of those names do you feel it right to label fascist. Get real.
No I just lived there and dated Sylvia's friend at the time.Quote:
Originally Posted by seanchai
But the woman who died as "collateral damage" in the second incident would probably not have died if it had been a knifefight ... no stray bullets ....
Don't worry Pearl, we wont, we'll ask the Germans...They'll show up on time! :hide-1:Quote:
Originally Posted by kittyKaiti
But, seriously, I loathe the "Nanny State", and probably, unlike most Brits here, I'm in favour of gun ownership.
But, you're going out of your way to prove the point, civilians should not have access to assault weaponry.
I don't know how people can make a comparison between Switzerland and the USA with regard to the high rate of gun possession and low rate of crime, when if anything that exposes the social dislocation in the US which can result in people using guns to rob and steal, or to kill. The Swiss confederation was formed precisely in order to end the violent conflicts that had made peace impossible; similar to the US the Swiss have a deep mistrust of central power, and devolve a lot of decision making to the people -but perhaps it because of the loyalty the Swiss have for their country, its laws and its values which makes the kind of gun crime unthinkable.
But here is the clincher, and ironic in view of some of the interpretations of the 2nd Amendment -there is no full-time standing army, but young men are trained and retained as part of a national guard available to be called up for service between the ages of 21 and 32; they are issued with weapons and ammunition which they keep at home. You could say that Switzerland has an armed militia where the people keep and bear arms...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/1566715.stm
PS Prospero, Timothy McVeigh did not use firearms in Oklahoma.
I get the national pride thing, Olympics this week and all. But seriously, we could go a couple more centuries and still not reach the body count the British Empire racked up during it's colonial period.Quote:
Originally Posted by seanchai
Stavros - I am well aware that McVeigh didn't use guns. That was not the point of comparison i was making.
SFTB... a crazy and spurious line of argument. What do the british empire's misdeeds - which are not defensible - have to do with this discussion?
Then you should know better.Quote:
Originally Posted by SFTB
Absolutely. The Spanish would be even worse. It's a good that most countries have moved on.Quote:
Originally Posted by SFTB
sorry but you guys win the instant kill rack up, by a country mile, and then some... A-bombs anyone ?!Quote:
Originally Posted by SFTB
Let's play the atrocity count... Anyone want to openwith King Leopold of the Belgians and the Congo. How about Calley in May Lai? I'll offer Genghis Khan? The Americans during the savage putting down of the Phillipines in the late 19th century? (An estimated one million killed by the US as it put down an independence rising) How about the Hutsis and the Tutsis? The Crusades.. with rivers of blood in Jerusalem? The virtual destruction of the native American people as the white man spread west? I could go on.......
How about the ICF having a proper nawty tear up with the chelsea boys ??
Sammi, we could tit for tat all day, I'd bring up the Bengal famines, you'd mention the American Indians. Not interested, the pious Brit attitude about guns is a little tired. You kept them out of civilians hands so you didnt have to crush any rebellions.Quote:
Originally Posted by SammiValentine
u are right Sammi...
I guess the virtual genocide of a continent doesn't count then SFTB?
Somone who needs a gun in the UK can apply for one, fill in the paperwork, prove your not a nutter or need a gun, you get a certificate, licence and can get a gun. Dont see how that is pious pesonally..Quote:
Originally Posted by SFTB
Actually we couldnt go tit for tat cos I dont play that game, I see your point, but I was merely throwing comment as it what most people would think when you read such a line... :)
Gun sales always shoot up when a Democrat get's into the WH due to the NRA scare tactics. In which the only gun related law Obama has implemented is allowing guns in federals parks.Quote:
Originally Posted by kittyKaiti
Banning concealed carrying leaves a hell of a lot dangerous things you can still do. It's nowhere near a virtual banning of all guns. If you want to carry a gun in public have the balls to carry it in the open so that everyone is aware of the risk they take by being in your proximity and so everyone can see the orientation of the barrel.Quote:
I'm for reasonable regulation. Banning concealed carry for everybody, IMO, isn't reasonable. You think it is. Banning it for certain people because of their past behavior or current mental status is reasonable. But everybody? No matter what reason? It's as close to a ban as you can get.
Why would you want to encourage 'open carry'?
Bringing a gun into a public area is an infringement on our general right to a safe public space. If you're going to bring a hazardous instrument into a playground, a tennis court, a store and thereby increase our risk of injury, then at the very least let us know: display your piece. Why is that so unreasonable? I know, I know...you have this fantasy that all the bad guys will then know who is carrying and take them out first. Comic book fantasies are generally not a good basis of rational thought.
What I wrote about "dead bacon" was in regards to the idea that if in my neighborhood, on a street I've lived on for 25 years, was to have a ton of idiot cops walk on my street and commence opening fire on crowds of children, infants in strollers and mothers holding babies in their arms with mace pepper balls, rubber bullets and bean bags and then watching from my bedroom window has my neighbors dive to shield their children from said barrage of lethal weaponry, my reaction would have in fact been to return fire from my house with my AR-15 to ward off the vicious and murderous attack launched by the police against said crowds of children, infants and mothers. In the video from the Anaheim incident, you can watch as fathers and mothers used their own bodies to guard their 5 year olds from being shot in the face with bean bags and mace pepper balls and one heroic man, who attempted to fight off a vicious K-9 Unit dog which was attacking a baby stroller. This sick display of behavior from police only fuels the hatred people already have of them and of the government who condones this behavior.Quote:
Originally Posted by seanchai
Do any of you know what would happen to a toddler struck by a rubber bullet or bean bag fired from a shotgun? Instantaneous death from the impact of those bags and bullets or a minimum of serious skull fractures, loss of teeth or permanent blindness. An infant would be killed immediately as its head is crushed from the force of the impacting beanbag rounds and the inhalation of those exploding mace pepper balls, essentially paintballs filled with OC powder, the same chemical used in pepper spray and mace, would induce respiratory arrest, asthma attacks and other severe breathing problems. Now, I don't know about any of you people but what does one do when the police begin opening fire a barrage of said weaponry against a crowd of children, infants and parents? Do you dial 911? Well shit, that won't work because all the responders are busy at the scene shooting the neighborhood children.
Yeah shoot back, that'll save the children.
It actually just might. I could alternatively use something they would consider "less lethal" and shoot at them with bb guns and pepper spray but that would involve me going into hand-to-hand combat with my local PD and I'd rather not get shot up in the face with beanbags with the rest of my neighbors' three and four year olds.Quote:
Originally Posted by trish
Remind me not to stand next to you at a public protest in the event things go awry...I'd rather live to write the book.Quote:
It actually just might.
There we go. The ad hominem attack. 'Comic book fantasies.' 'Irrational.'Quote:
Originally Posted by trish
I can't possibly raise a good point, which you choose to disagree with by presenting another good point. No, I'm irrational and have comic book fantasies. That must be it.
There can't possibly be good things and bad things about 'open carry' as compared to 'concealed carry'. Of course not. You must be right. About everything. You must be.
"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms..disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed one." - Thomas Jefferson quoting Cesare Beccaria, Criminologist in 1764. -Thomas JeffersonQuote:
Originally Posted by trish
"The beauty of the second amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it." -Thomas Jefferson
Re the two quotes in sequence:Quote:
Originally Posted by Faldur
1) was not quoted by Jefferson, they are words that were underlined in his copy of Beccaria's book On Crimes and Punishments (1674)
2) Jefferson never said or wrote The beauty of the second amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it." -the quote was unknown before 2007, ref: Matt Carson, On a Hill They Call Capitol: A Revolution is Coming (Carsons Publishing, 2007), p131.
Note, to labour this point again, that the 2nd Amendment refers to 'People' not 'Persons', ie a collective of persons, not individuals.