SHOOTING at the OLYMPICS

[CaptainDoggles]

Originally Posted by ATAG_Doc

It's not there today to protect us from it it isn't necessary but it still our right in the BILL OF RIGHTS to own them. Means there isn't anything on this earth that will change it. Nothing. And I mean it sincerely. Without any malice there is nothing humanly that can be done to change it. You have a better chance of this game being fixed in your unborn kids life than changing that. If anything its getting more liberal and catching on. Record numbers of people have permits to carry legally. And those who hate it their kids will carry. It's bigger than the iPad man.

[CaptainDoggles]

Also I think your video broke the page.

[Bewolf]

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

This will never end. I think both sides have good reasons (and not so good ones), what it doesn't change though is that if given the choice, I'd rather be the one on the right side of the barrel, and a gun ban should be unilateral to be truly effective. Once again, good luck trying to police that, and not just in the US.

What scares me is the deluded individuals who really think that they live in a perfect society where things couldn't get out of hands and very fast too.. wake up fellas, history is but a wheel that turns and turns, and same things keep on happening on and on and on...

Sure, things can always move the DoDo way. The world may end tomorrow. We may have civil unrest, civil war, terrorist attacks en masse, all possible. And we all know that ppl are evil and just want to have a go at you anyways, so better be prepared to beat them back, it can happen any minute now.

Some more utopian postcards just for you, Stern. A society is what you make out of it, a melange of opinions and stances of all people within this society, influencing itself through all levels simply by interaction.
And the more people within that given society distrust each other, the more people will take over that view in return. That is the starting point where societies start moving to the bottom. Also a little reminder of history, when you look for actual root causes for the developments you warn about. It simply does not work out if you see bad people all around.

As I said, it is a self fullfilling prophecy.

That said, I just wished some people were as keen to prepare for other eventualities with just as much energy as they do for owning guns for the coming collaps.

[Outlaw]

Originally Posted by Bewolf

I am not worried about the guy getting his background checked and then a license. I am afraid of the children discovering the keys to the weapons locker, the guy having to sell his weapon for liquidity reasons on the black market, the guy robbing the house of the one having a machine gun lying around, the guy losing his job and wife having a blackout moment. The list goes on.

You miss the forest for the trees. The point is that fully automatic weapons are a statistical non-entity in crime. Harping on the subject, as some do, merely highlights one's ignorance of the true situation

Originally Posted by Bewolf

Well, now we know, if a criminal uses a fully automatic weapon, he will be the one to end up dead. I am sure other criminals learned that lesson and won't ever repeat that.

See above.

Originally Posted by Bewolf

Yeah, but with gun related killings in general.

Once again, forest for the trees. If absolute numbers are the only criteria for determining increased regulation then firearms should be relegated pretty low on the list.

Originally Posted by Bewolf

And that is positive, why....? Most people here come out of an attack with a broken nose at best. Hardly with bullet holes. But then again, even the criminals here know they do not have to expect a gun when they enter a house, and in return do not feel the need to bring their own. Result...lots of people actually getting old, both victims and criminals, both having chances to actually tell stories to their grandchildren.

"Most people..."???? What about the ones that aren't in your, "most" category? What about the ones that were killed, raped, permanently injured, scarred (emotionally or physically), etc?

I don't feel the need to die so that, "most", people won't.

If you want to be a victim, fine, that's your choice, but don't force me to be one.

Originally Posted by Bewolf

Well, that is the problem with firearms. They are made to kill. That is their only and original purpose. Now when someone gets killed...well, wouldn't have seen that coming.

Continuing the trend...forest for the trees.

My only point is that the statistics are purposely skewed for shock value and the studies are purposely designed to mislead.

On a related note, including adult suicides is so beyond asinine it can't even be described. If an adult wants to off themselves, that's their decision and they should be allowed to do so.

Originally Posted by Bewolf

If you are ague gun crime only, yes. If you argue common sense of so many households in a country that hardly has a concept of integrated society and the responsebilities coming with having free access to firearms, things look a bit different. This might work in Switzerland, a country that is on one page society wise and actually is amall enough that people get to know each other. But even there you have your eventual madman.

I think it's pretty obvious that I was arguing gun crime only. Regardless, common sense should not have to rely on lies and misrepresentation.

IMHO, lies and misrepresentation should be left to the ignorant morons (on both sides of gun control).

--Outlaw.

[tk471138]

Originally Posted by Zorin

What does a civilian need a machine gun for???

we need machine guns to kill cops and other govt "authorities" who intend on infringing on our rights, or the rights of others....


i mean how are the people of the usa supposed to maintain a militia when we arent allowed to use half the arms available....

[Jaws2002]

Originally Posted by senseispcc

.
Could you verify how many people are killed by guns in Tokio or London where guns are prohibited and compare this with New York please?

You could compare those with Switzerland? They have guns too, more per capitl than the Americans. How come the swiss don't kill eachother by the thousands? We have bebetween 20 and 25 million legal firearms in Canada for a population of 30 millions. How come we don't slaughter eachother?

[Zorin]

Originally Posted by Outlaw

You miss the forest for the trees. The point is that fully automatic weapons are a statistical non-entity in crime. Harping on the subject, as some do, merely highlights one's ignorance of the true situation



See above.



Once again, forest for the trees. If absolute numbers are the only criteria for determining increased regulation then firearms should be relegated pretty low on the list.



"Most people..."???? What about the ones that aren't in your, "most" category? What about the ones that were killed, raped, permanently injured, scarred (emotionally or physically), etc?

I don't feel the need to die so that, "most", people won't.

If you want to be a victim, fine, that's your choice, but don't force me to be one.



Continuing the trend...forest for the trees.

My only point is that the statistics are purposely skewed for shock value and the studies are purposely designed to mislead.

On a related note, including adult suicides is so beyond asinine it can't even be described. If an adult wants to off themselves, that's their decision and they should be allowed to do so.



I think it's pretty obvious that I was arguing gun crime only. Regardless, common sense should not have to rely on lies and misrepresentation.

IMHO, lies and misrepresentation should be left to the ignorant morons (on both sides of gun control).

--Outlaw.

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.

[Zorin]

Originally Posted by tk471138

we need machine guns to kill cops and other govt "authorities" who intend on infringing on our rights, or the rights of others....


i mean how are the people of the usa supposed to maintain a militia when we arent allowed to use half the arms available....

Guess I will better give the FBI a call now.

[Bewolf]

Originally Posted by Outlaw

You miss the forest for the trees. The point is that fully automatic weapons are a statistical non-entity in crime. Harping on the subject, as some do, merely highlights one's ignorance of the true situation

Fair enough, but has not been the focus anyways. The problem comes with firearms in general, by their very nature.

Once again, forest for the trees. If absolute numbers are the only criteria for determining increased regulation then firearms should be relegated pretty low on the list.

Which in return begs the question, why the heck are there so many people bound to kill each other in the US? That is, if you do not want to be compared to third worls countries.

"Most people..."???? What about the ones that aren't in your, "most" category? What about the ones that were killed, raped, permanently injured, scarred (emotionally or physically), etc?

Those ones are still not killed, raped, permanently injured or scarred by use or threat of firearms, which still gives them hellova lot more chances to fight back or avoid it all together.

I don't feel the need to die so that, "most", people won't.

Who does? But even if there are lots of ways to threaten, injure or kill people, not a single one is so easy and effortless as is a gun. And worse, a criminal with a firearm can be the weakest of guys, a guy you personally would have no problem getting down. Yet this weapon in his hands equalizes everything. You can be as trained or ready as you want to be, no chance here.

Why does this matter? Because in most cases, you will be unprepared when faced with a gun. So going to your locker room at home and take it out or even trying to get it out of your holster won't help you much anyways in such a situtation.

If you want to be a victim, fine, that's your choice, but don't force me to be one.

See above. I can at least define what kind of victim I am. One with a chance or one without. Reality is not Hollywood, with clear sides and enemies whom you are prepared to welcome propperly.

Or to use a propper example. Most fighters in WW2 were not shot down in dogfights. Most never saw their attackers. So let's leave the rightnousness at the doorsteps, okay?

My only point is that the statistics are purposely skewed for shock value and the studies are purposely designed to mislead.

Possible. That is why I rely on gut feeling when it comes to issues like that. And that gut feelings tells me that there are underlying reasons for the conditions in the US compared to other western nations. Guns may not be the root of that, but they sure fuel the results. Usually using gasoline to put out a fire has ...mixed results.

On a related note, including adult suicides is so beyond asinine it can't even be described. If an adult wants to off themselves, that's their decision and they should be allowed to do so.

Agreed.

I think it's pretty obvious that I was arguing gun crime only. Regardless, common sense should not have to rely on lies and misrepresentation.

Agreed as well.

IMHO, lies and misrepresentation should be left to the ignorant morons (on both sides of gun control).

--Outlaw.

And yep. Though it also requires an open mind "towards" both sides.

Because, you see, I actually do believe that the US, in it's current form, won't be able to move away from guns. They created a sitation that is not changeable over night. Criminals would run amok without civil gun owenership.
However, to actually argue for guns as a matter of principle instead out of temporary nessecity is what makes me wonder so much.

[tk471138]

Originally Posted by CaptainDoggles

So where's the need to defend your freedom with a gun in this scenario? If they're not going to "come and get you" then I don't understand why you need a gun to protect yourself from the government.

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)