SHOOTING at the OLYMPICS

[Oldschool61]

Originally Posted by rhinomonkey

USA gun laws are similar to Canada and other countries but the USA has a far higher gun murder rate. This would suggest that the problem lies with the people or the society in wich they live rather then the laws.

I find it amazing listening to the pro gun arguments. The attitude that gun restrictions are an afront to civil liberties to me sounds like utter madness. It's usually the same people that claim that universal healthcare is an attack on civil liberty! madness!

The only other countries that have high gun ownership and death rate are places in the developing world that suffer from high poverty and very corrupt or non existant government like somalia, afghanistan and south Africa. USA is interesting as it's a developed country and should have moved on by now but in some ways it hasn't. Personally i think that lack of robust health and welfare infastructure and the huge wealth gap may have something to do with it. For a rich country it's still very much dog eat dog.

Personally I would not want to live in a country where everyone felt the need to own firearms.

The top 5% are rich not the average american. Yes its out of balance. We are on our way to being the newest third world country. We need to be more like canada and europe..social democracies.

[tk471138]

Originally Posted by Zorin

Guess I will better give the FBI a call now.

see my post son its LEGAL to defend your self against law enforcement ( including the fbi) legal precedent states this.....a cop in the wrong is no different than a common criminal and can be treated as such....


or i guess its a good thing that cops can cuff women and rape them in the back seat of the cruiser...i mean why would anyone want to defend their loved ones from that..(real case happened not to long ago)



i guess you are they type of person who when the burglar comes into their home....you show them where your daughter is...


fact of the matter is their is a growing number of unelected bureaucrats who work for various agencies who are making and enforcing laws upon the people...you have organic food coops and those who produce raw milk (even the amish) who are victims of highly armed law enforcement raiding their establishments....you can see police with their guns drawn point them at fruit and vegetables as if they were the Taliban....


the police state is here and that is why we have the second amendment....



why killling cops and other govt employees in defense of freedom is a good thing AND legal....


"Citizens may resist unlawful arrest to the point of taking an arresting
officer's life if necessary." Plummer v. State, 136 Ind. 306. This
premise was upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States in the
case: John Bad Elk v. U.S., 177 U.S. 529. The Court stated: "Where the
officer is killed in the course of the disorder which naturally
accompanies an attempted arrest that is resisted, the law looks with
very different eyes upon the transaction, when the officer had the right
to make the arrest, from what it does if the officer had no right. What
may be murder in the first case might be nothing more than manslaughter
in the other, or the facts might show that no offense had been
committed."

"An arrest made with a defective warrant, or one issued without
affidavit, or one that fails to allege a crime is within jurisdiction,
and one who is being arrested, may resist arrest and break away. lf the
arresting officer is killed by one who is so resisting, the killing will
be no more than an involuntary manslaughter." Housh v. People, 75 111.
491; reaffirmed and quoted in State v. Leach, 7 Conn. 452; State v.
Gleason, 32 Kan. 245; Ballard v. State, 43 Ohio 349; State v Rousseau,
241 P. 2d 447; State v. Spaulding, 34 Minn. 3621.

"When a person, being without fault, is in a place where he has a right
to be, is violently assaulted, he may, without retreating, repel by
force, and if, in the reasonable exercise of his right of self defense,
his assailant is killed, he is justified." Runyan v. State, 57 Ind. 80;
Miller v. State, 74 Ind. 1.

"These principles apply as well to an officer attempting to make an
arrest, who abuses his authority and transcends the bounds thereof by
the use of unnecessary force and violence, as they do to a private
individual who unlawfully uses such force and violence." Jones v. State,
26 Tex. App. I; Beaverts v. State, 4 Tex. App. 1 75; Skidmore v. State,
43 Tex. 93, 903.

"An illegal arrest is an assault and battery. The person so attempted to
be restrained of his liberty has the same right to use force in
defending himself as he would in repelling any other assault and
battery." (State v. Robinson, 145 ME. 77, 72 ATL. 260).

"Each person has the right to resist an unlawful arrest. In such a case,
the person attempting the arrest stands in the position of a wrongdoer
and may be resisted by the use of force, as in self- defense." (State v.
Mobley, 240 N.C. 476, 83 S.E. 2d 100).

"One may come to the aid of another being unlawfully arrested, just as
he may where one is being assaulted, molested, raped or kidnapped. Thus
it is not an offense to liberate one from the unlawful custody of an
officer, even though he may have submitted to such custody, without
resistance." (Adams v. State, 121 Ga. 16, 48 S.E. 910).

"Story affirmed the right of self-defense by persons held illegally. In
his own writings, he had admitted that 'a situation could arise in which
the checks-and-balances principle ceased to work and the various
branches of government concurred in a gross usurpation.' There would be
no usual remedy by changing the law or passing an amendment to the
Constitution, should the oppressed party be a minority. Story concluded,
'If there be any remedy at all ... it is a remedy never provided for by
human institutions.' That was the 'ultimate right of all human beings in
extreme cases to resist oppression, and to apply force against ruinous
injustice.'" (From Mutiny on the Amistad by Howard Jones, Oxford
University Press, 1987, an account of the reading of the decision in the
case by Justice Joseph Story of the Supreme Court.

As for grounds for arrest: "The carrying of arms in a quiet, peaceable,
and orderly manner, concealed on or about the person, is not a breach of
the peace. Nor does such an act of itself, lead to a breach of the
peace." (Wharton's Criminal and Civil Procedure, 12th Ed., Vol.2: Judy
v. Lashley, 5 W. Va. 628, 41 S.E. 197)

[Outlaw]

Originally Posted by Zorin

Wow, you are one scared guy. Best example yet why your societiy is in shambles if it prodcues people who only feel save if they can cling to a firearm.

LOL.

I hate to be cliche, but...I'm not afraid at all.

Now back to reality...

My society is not "in shambles" by any stretch of the imagination. While I have used a firearm to protect myself before I do not carry one on my person. I am neither afraid at work, at home, or at any point in between. There are segments of my society that are more dangerous than others but you could say that about any society.

That being said, I do not delude myself into believing that I am completely safe from any eventuality. Nor do I take kindly to the totally stupid delusion that if the criminals don't have guns then I will be safe. It takes a staggering lack of cognitive thought processes to come to that conclusion. Thousands of people are killed and permanently injured each year with nary a gun in sight.

To that end, I would like to be as prepared as possible for the unthinkable.

As I said before, choose to be a victim if you like but don't force me to follow suit. Myself and 3 others would be dead today if the anti-gun lobby had their way.


--Outlaw.

[KG26_Alpha]

As a Londoner not all gun crime is reported, they are rife on the streets here with "kiddie" gangs proudly showing them off.

Inner London housing estates tenants are prisoners at night too frightened to go out in the late hours, some areas are no go zones for any of the authorities, the same applies to certain cities and their sub cultural areas in the North of England.

There's nothing to be celebrated with gun ownership, if you have to own one its for the purpose of killing someone no matter what the circumstances are.

Here's a brave gang that paralysed a 5 year old recently.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012...girl-paralysed

Yea guns are cool huh.....................





.

[Zorin]

Originally Posted by tk471138

see my post son its LEGAL to defend your self against law enforcement ( including the fbi) legal precedent states this.....a cop in the wrong is no different than a common criminal and can be treated as such....


or i guess its a good thing that cops can cuff women and rape them in the back seat of the cruiser...i mean why would anyone want to defend their loved ones from that..(real case happened not to long ago)



i guess you are they type of person who when the burglar comes into their home....you show them where your daughter is...


fact of the matter is their is a growing number of unelected bureaucrats who work for various agencies who are making and enforcing laws upon the people...you have organic food coops and those who produce raw milk (even the amish) who are victims of highly armed law enforcement raiding their establishments....you can see police with their guns drawn point them at fruit and vegetables as if they were the Taliban....


the police state is here and that is why we have the second amendment....



why killling cops and other govt employees in defense of freedom is a good thing AND legal....


"Citizens may resist unlawful arrest to the point of taking an arresting
officer's life if necessary." Plummer v. State, 136 Ind. 306. This
premise was upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States in the
case: John Bad Elk v. U.S., 177 U.S. 529. The Court stated: "Where the
officer is killed in the course of the disorder which naturally
accompanies an attempted arrest that is resisted, the law looks with
very different eyes upon the transaction, when the officer had the right
to make the arrest, from what it does if the officer had no right. What
may be murder in the first case might be nothing more than manslaughter
in the other, or the facts might show that no offense had been
committed."

"An arrest made with a defective warrant, or one issued without
affidavit, or one that fails to allege a crime is within jurisdiction,
and one who is being arrested, may resist arrest and break away. lf the
arresting officer is killed by one who is so resisting, the killing will
be no more than an involuntary manslaughter." Housh v. People, 75 111.
491; reaffirmed and quoted in State v. Leach, 7 Conn. 452; State v.
Gleason, 32 Kan. 245; Ballard v. State, 43 Ohio 349; State v Rousseau,
241 P. 2d 447; State v. Spaulding, 34 Minn. 3621.

"When a person, being without fault, is in a place where he has a right
to be, is violently assaulted, he may, without retreating, repel by
force, and if, in the reasonable exercise of his right of self defense,
his assailant is killed, he is justified." Runyan v. State, 57 Ind. 80;
Miller v. State, 74 Ind. 1.

"These principles apply as well to an officer attempting to make an
arrest, who abuses his authority and transcends the bounds thereof by
the use of unnecessary force and violence, as they do to a private
individual who unlawfully uses such force and violence." Jones v. State,
26 Tex. App. I; Beaverts v. State, 4 Tex. App. 1 75; Skidmore v. State,
43 Tex. 93, 903.

"An illegal arrest is an assault and battery. The person so attempted to
be restrained of his liberty has the same right to use force in
defending himself as he would in repelling any other assault and
battery." (State v. Robinson, 145 ME. 77, 72 ATL. 260).

"Each person has the right to resist an unlawful arrest. In such a case,
the person attempting the arrest stands in the position of a wrongdoer
and may be resisted by the use of force, as in self- defense." (State v.
Mobley, 240 N.C. 476, 83 S.E. 2d 100).

"One may come to the aid of another being unlawfully arrested, just as
he may where one is being assaulted, molested, raped or kidnapped. Thus
it is not an offense to liberate one from the unlawful custody of an
officer, even though he may have submitted to such custody, without
resistance." (Adams v. State, 121 Ga. 16, 48 S.E. 910).

"Story affirmed the right of self-defense by persons held illegally. In
his own writings, he had admitted that 'a situation could arise in which
the checks-and-balances principle ceased to work and the various
branches of government concurred in a gross usurpation.' There would be
no usual remedy by changing the law or passing an amendment to the
Constitution, should the oppressed party be a minority. Story concluded,
'If there be any remedy at all ... it is a remedy never provided for by
human institutions.' That was the 'ultimate right of all human beings in
extreme cases to resist oppression, and to apply force against ruinous
injustice.'" (From Mutiny on the Amistad by Howard Jones, Oxford
University Press, 1987, an account of the reading of the decision in the
case by Justice Joseph Story of the Supreme Court.

As for grounds for arrest: "The carrying of arms in a quiet, peaceable,
and orderly manner, concealed on or about the person, is not a breach of
the peace. Nor does such an act of itself, lead to a breach of the
peace." (Wharton's Criminal and Civil Procedure, 12th Ed., Vol.2: Judy
v. Lashley, 5 W. Va. 628, 41 S.E. 197)

So you rather kill a man than see him stand trial?

Maybe you'd better been born back in the day when men still lived in caves, as all social developments of the past thousands of years mean nothing to you.

[tk471138]

Originally Posted by KG26_Alpha

As a Londoner not all gun crime is reported, they are rife on the streets here with "kiddie" gangs proudly showing them off.

Inner London housing estates house tenants prisoners at night to frightened to go out in the late hours, some areas are no go zones for any of the authorities, the same applies to certain cities and their sub cultural areas in the North of England.

There's nothing to be celebrated with gun ownership, if you have to own one its for the purpose of killing someone no matter what the circumstances are.

Here's a brave gang that paralysed a 5 year old recently.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012...girl-paralysed

Yea guns are cool huh.....................





.

so its bad when a citizen (read: slave) actually defends themselves...but when a cop has to "defend" themselves (and when cops defend themselves is usually at a NON-threat) is a good thing....


enjoy your nanny state where you cant even legitimately defend yourself with your fists with out being arrested...

apparently people get arrested for showing a group of hoodlums intent on breaking in to your home a knife through a window.....cuz that actually happened over there...enjoy slavery...

us "freedom loving" americans will never tolerate the crap that has occurred in your country....freedom is a dangerous endeavor...im sorry you can not handle freedom



also if guns need to be made illegal...what should happen to cars...they kill MANY more people than guns....

[tk471138]

Originally Posted by Zorin

So you rather kill a man than see him stand trial?

Maybe you'd better been born back in the day when men still lived in caves, as all social developments of the past thousands of years mean nothing to you.

when certain men see trial, ussually cops and others who are affiliated with govt they are given preferential treatment and are not held to the same standard that the rest of the people (slaves) are held to....

see are all supposed to be created equal...this does not mean we will have equal ability...what this means is that we are equal under the law....but instead we (in the usa) live in a fedual system, where certain classes (law enforcement, other govt officials eric holder) are above certain laws that the people are beholden to....

[nearmiss]

Originally Posted by KG26_Alpha

As a Londoner not all gun crime is reported, they are rife on the streets here with "kiddie" gangs proudly showing them off.

Inner London housing estates house tenants prisoners at night to frightened to go out in the late hours, some areas are no go zones for any of the authorities, the same applies to certain cities and their sub cultural areas in the North of England.

There's nothing to be celebrated with gun ownership, if you have to own one its for the purpose of killing someone no matter what the circumstances are.

Here's a brave gang that paralysed a 5 year old recently.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012...girl-paralysed

Yea guns are cool huh.....................

Personally, I like to hunt. Secondly, I have guns because I want as big a stick as the crooks have. No automatic weapons.

The reason gun control hype keeps popping up in civilized society is because the radicalized thinkers believe they can fix large segments of society.

The media is nothing more or less than a business making money from advertisers. The media no longer gives a whit whether you have a gun or not. The media will talk about anything that keeps their advertisers spending money with them. Sadly, it is no longer about journalism or reporting ethics. The wrong people nowadays on the media, and they are the worst of the money grubbing lot imaginable.

The best media is youtube or other internet sites. At least you can get to the truth eventually. If you watch the youtube with all the replays from mainstream media you just get fed the verbal lying goolash they want you to have.

[CaptainDoggles]

Originally Posted by tk471138

yes cuz the cops never come to someones house trying to get in with out a warrant....

yea cuz people are NEVER falsely arrested (kidnapped)

yea cuz post katrina the govt was doing all good things besides the women who were raped by the New orleans PD and the looting that the PD engaged in and the GUN CONFISCATIONS that troops and Police departments engaged in....what else...o yea they went in to some old ladies house and basicly beat her up and took her away cuz she had the audacity to have an unloaded revolver....


what about the guy who was shot simply because he answered the door at 130 am and the police immediately shot him even though they were at the wrong house, for carrying out the warrant....

ussually their are about 15-20 documented acts of police misconduct and criminality a day, and most of these go unpunished....but yea we dont need to defend ourselves from criminals in govt....




"Citizens may resist unlawful arrest to the point of taking an arresting
officer's life if necessary." Plummer v. State, 136 Ind. 306. This
premise was upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States in the
case: John Bad Elk v. U.S., 177 U.S. 529. The Court stated: "Where the
officer is killed in the course of the disorder which naturally
accompanies an attempted arrest that is resisted, the law looks with
very different eyes upon the transaction, when the officer had the right
to make the arrest, from what it does if the officer had no right. What
may be murder in the first case might be nothing more than manslaughter
in the other, or the facts might show that no offense had been
committed."

"An arrest made with a defective warrant, or one issued without
affidavit, or one that fails to allege a crime is within jurisdiction,
and one who is being arrested, may resist arrest and break away. lf the
arresting officer is killed by one who is so resisting, the killing will
be no more than an involuntary manslaughter." Housh v. People, 75 111.
491; reaffirmed and quoted in State v. Leach, 7 Conn. 452; State v.
Gleason, 32 Kan. 245; Ballard v. State, 43 Ohio 349; State v Rousseau,
241 P. 2d 447; State v. Spaulding, 34 Minn. 3621.

"When a person, being without fault, is in a place where he has a right
to be, is violently assaulted, he may, without retreating, repel by
force, and if, in the reasonable exercise of his right of self defense,
his assailant is killed, he is justified." Runyan v. State, 57 Ind. 80;
Miller v. State, 74 Ind. 1.

"These principles apply as well to an officer attempting to make an
arrest, who abuses his authority and transcends the bounds thereof by
the use of unnecessary force and violence, as they do to a private
individual who unlawfully uses such force and violence." Jones v. State,
26 Tex. App. I; Beaverts v. State, 4 Tex. App. 1 75; Skidmore v. State,
43 Tex. 93, 903.

"An illegal arrest is an assault and battery. The person so attempted to
be restrained of his liberty has the same right to use force in
defending himself as he would in repelling any other assault and
battery." (State v. Robinson, 145 ME. 77, 72 ATL. 260).

"Each person has the right to resist an unlawful arrest. In such a case,
the person attempting the arrest stands in the position of a wrongdoer
and may be resisted by the use of force, as in self- defense." (State v.
Mobley, 240 N.C. 476, 83 S.E. 2d 100).

"One may come to the aid of another being unlawfully arrested, just as
he may where one is being assaulted, molested, raped or kidnapped. Thus
it is not an offense to liberate one from the unlawful custody of an
officer, even though he may have submitted to such custody, without
resistance." (Adams v. State, 121 Ga. 16, 48 S.E. 910).

"Story affirmed the right of self-defense by persons held illegally. In
his own writings, he had admitted that 'a situation could arise in which
the checks-and-balances principle ceased to work and the various
branches of government concurred in a gross usurpation.' There would be
no usual remedy by changing the law or passing an amendment to the
Constitution, should the oppressed party be a minority. Story concluded,
'If there be any remedy at all ... it is a remedy never provided for by
human institutions.' That was the 'ultimate right of all human beings in
extreme cases to resist oppression, and to apply force against ruinous
injustice.'" (From Mutiny on the Amistad by Howard Jones, Oxford
University Press, 1987, an account of the reading of the decision in the
case by Justice Joseph Story of the Supreme Court.

As for grounds for arrest: "The carrying of arms in a quiet, peaceable,
and orderly manner, concealed on or about the person, is not a breach of
the peace. Nor does such an act of itself, lead to a breach of the
peace." (Wharton's Criminal and Civil Procedure, 12th Ed., Vol.2: Judy
v. Lashley, 5 W. Va. 628, 41 S.E. 197)



“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 to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.” Thomas Jefferson " (Quoting Cesare Beccaria)

Wow. I'm glad I don't live where you live.

[Bewolf]

Originally Posted by tk471138

so its bad when a citizen (read: slave) actually defends themselves...but when a cop has to "defend" themselves (and when cops defend themselves is usually at a NON-threat) is a good thing....


enjoy your nanny state where you cant even legitimately defend yourself with your fists with out being arrested...

apparently people get arrested for showing a group of hoodlums intent on breaking in to your home a knife through a window.....cuz that actually happened over there...enjoy slavery...

us "freedom loving" americans will never tolerate the crap that has occurred in your country....freedom is a dangerous endeavor...im sorry you can not handle freedom



also if guns need to be made illegal...what should happen to cars...they kill MANY more people than guns....

Oh man. You guys talk about freedom so easily, throwing empty shells around like confetti while having zero expirience what lack of freedom and fighting for it actually means. And no, Obamacare does not make the US a dictatorship.