Obama - Guns by Wulfenstar

Guns are obsolete. Having them will not protect you.

Notice the person who said that Obama would try to take your guns away was not opponent John McCain or arch-rival Hillary Clinton, it was his own running mate Joe Biden.

I think the boys at CFR like gun ownership, they like to lend a hand to civil war. If you had a satelite system, they'd be worried.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, December 20, 2008 5:47 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Guns are obsolete. Having them will not protect you.

Notice the person who said that Obama would try to take your guns away was not opponent John McCain or arch-rival Hillary Clinton, it was his own running mate Joe Biden.

I think the boys at CFR like gun ownership, they like to lend a hand to civil war. If you had a satelite system, they'd be worried.

I disagree. Guns are most certainly not obselete, if people are motivated enough to use them. And I pray that things never get to that point again in this country.

I don't think and ban on ownership or private sale is going to happen, but I can see some feel-good bullshit like the old AWB coming back. God bless the panic buyers, they will ensure a healthy 2nd hand supply during the lean years.

BTW, who's CFR?

Mercy is the mark of a great man.
Guess I'm just a good man.
Well, I'm alright.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, December 20, 2008 6:56 PM

1. Guns are so 20th century, like nukes.

2. CFR, council on foreign relations. They're a think tank that writes a lot of policy, including domestic. Both Obama and Biden are members, and I think the group is generally pro-gun. You'll run into a lot of conspiracy theory if you go searching, but it's a real organization, whether or not they're the illuminati, it's based right here in NY. Expect no real change in gun policy. Yeah, you might see assault weapons ban return, but it's a simple mod. Hence a meaningless law. You're more likely to see a ban on weapons in schools, perhaps armed security, that's a potential for a whole lot of abuse of power. I picture that's a green light for a lot of rentacop rapes student stories.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, December 20, 2008 7:35 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
1. Guns are so 20th century, like nukes.

Nonsense. A 60 year old rifle design with 11 moving parts has killed more people than any nuke, or any high-tech bombing campaign, for that matter.

Thanks for the info in the CFR, BTW. I'll have to look into that.

P.S I'm new here, do we have a standard smiley usedto indicate sarcasm/tounge-in-cheek posting? 'Cause I wanted to put one in after the "Nonsense".

Mercy is the mark of a great man.
Guess I'm just a good man.
Well, I'm alright.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, December 20, 2008 8:29 PM

COLE23

I live in a small town in Mississppi,where everyone has guns.I have five,and i'm more liberal than most in this area.
I was watching a program on Richard Ramirez,the serial killer,a few weeks ago,and I was thinking about it.This sick !@$# broke into all these houses and raped and murdered alot of People in California.I don't think he would get away with that in the South.He would be swiss cheese pretty quickly.
We are known for alot of bad things in the South,some deserved,some not.But we really don't have any serial killers,and I think it's because we are so well armed.
As far as Obama,I don't think he will try to take away guns.He might go for assault rifles,which is fine to me.I don't know why anyone would need one.They're only good for one thing,killing alot of people really quickly.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, December 21, 2008 8:29 AM

Quote:
As far as Obama,I don't think he will try to take away guns.He might go for assault rifles,which is fine to me.I don't know why anyone would need one.They're only good for one thing,killing alot of people really quickly.

I had my reasons for buying mine, since I lived in hurricane country and wanted a versatile hog hunting/hurricane gun. I took it with me when I evaced for Ike. Never had to display or use it, thank God.

More than that, I'm against the AWB on principle. I hate the idea that you should decide for me what I do or do not need. The fact that we're talking about a useful defensive tool makes this all the worse. I obey the law, I'm sane, and I'm willing to jump throught the requisite hoops to buy all the other guns, so why can I not be trusted with these?

BTW: I'm not ripping on you personally. My use "you" is collective.

Mercy is the mark of a great man.
Guess I'm just a good man.
Well, I'm alright.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, December 21, 2008 11:39 AM

Interesting, given that it was on my mind last night, and both the Nukes and "no other use" concepts were involved in that rumination.

My home defense weapon has utterly no sporting use, none whatsoever.
In fact, it's express and intended purpose, which it has been rebuilt and custom designed to do, is to slaughter other human beings wholesale in a rapid and efficient fashion as quickly as possible, and that is indeed it's sole reason for existance.
Now, that might give you the willies, a bit, but think about something else - what ELSE is designed to those same specifications ?

Yep, that's right, a nuclear weapon.
And folks, what *happens* when a country that has nukes, takes issue with one that don't ?
You see just how *fast* the rest of the world backed offa North Korea when they pulled out thier CCW and showed us it was loaded ?
Why do you think the idea of other countries having them bothers the countries that already do ?
Cause then they cannot force thier will upon them militarily, something history has shown again and again is the root behind every single weapons ban that ever existed, the desire to inflict ones will upon another without effective resistance.
Look at Iraq, Afghanistan... think we woulda invaded them if they had the ability to wipe DC off the map ?
Or that Iran would be hiding behind the skirts of Mother Russia ?
Who will, more than likely eventually *give* them the technology and a couple starter bombs because they are more useful as an ally and customer than dependant - only fair, since we snuck the izzies some ourselves, and they've have stolen em anyway if we didn't.

And don't give me that tired, trite, laughable "But if they had one they'd..."
That's bullshit, all the trashtalk in the world isn't gonna cure the fact that if they DID that, about twenty minutes later, their whole county would look like THIS.

http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/trinitite.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass_parking_lot
And you better believe they fucking know it, too.

And of course, now that most folks have them, just like the cowardly jackbooted thugs we call police, appalled at the notion that folks might just be able to (insert gasps of horror, panicked wailing) effectively DEFEND themselves, the powers that be are scrambling for some defense to shift the balance of power so they can once again act in predatory fashion without having to fear the teeth and claws of the prey.
Just like the police do when they call upon your home with a fuckin armored APC.*

At all levels, those in power act like the sociopathic predators they are, pure barbarians who would at any chance reduce us to rule of the gun and for the most part have successfully done so - it's a form of insanity on both a national, and a personal, scale, you see.
And to make it just that much worse, all completely unnecessary - as Canada showed us all when she bit her thumb at us and dismantled her nuclear arsenal, choosing to opt out of the global dick-measuring contest, but that only works if the other side isn't greedily eyeballing your resources with obvious intent to take them from you the moment you put down the weapons.

And so, I keep a horrific weapon with the most evil purpose one could imagine racked and ready in my home - and as far as I desire it can *stay* racked and ready for all eternity, I didn't build it to use, I built it for the THREAT of that use deterring those who would act aggressively to me, to make it abundantly clear that should all my efforts to prevent it otherwise fail, and it comes to that, short of dropping a bomb on my ass, the price of that aggression will be so high that negotiation becomes the most "cost-effective" option.

It's truly, the only civilized thing to do.
Why the Gun Is Civilization
http://www.corneredcat.com/Ethics/civilization.aspx

And lemme expound here on a personal note, since it's been plead and awaits only sentencing...

I recently had the experience of a law-enforcement officer stating a clear intent to murder me in a fashion that would be very hard to prove, having been enraged beyond reason by winding up on the hammer end of the same forfeiture provisions that had so generously benefitted him in recent years - who had every intention of carrying out his threat of making me "ride the lightning" as he reached for his X-26 Taser unit with intent to fry my ass till I stopped kicking, again, something that would be very difficult to prove as murder and most police are well-aware they'll not be punished for and thus encourages the practice.

So what do you think I SHOULD have done folks ?
Tried to run away ? asked him to hold his water while I called his buddies, who were every bit as pissed at me as he was ? or maybe tried the State cops, or the County, hoping he stood there in freeze frame long enough for them to arrive ?
Yeah, right - so I pulled a gun on his ass, and was planning on dropping him where he stood the instant he cleared his holster, despite the fact that my work jacket is lined with taser-protective material, cause if he hit me somewhere else that wouldn't be much protection now would it ?

The moment that firearm entered the equation the dynamics of the situation changed, and luckily while he was re-evaulating his options an agent of another arm of law enforcement who had witnessed the entire incident as he exited his car then approached and took him into custody without further incident (and then braced me for my CCW permit cause he was an asshole that way) resolving the situation without violence, thankfully - although I did come apart in a rather extended bout of vomiting and the shakes when I got home, mind you.

Where that might have gone had I not been armed, I don't even wanna think about, but am forced to by the ugly realities of the world and society we live in, and thus must be prepared for them instead of relying on naive belief in words on paper alone - which are in fact only as strong as the will and ability to back them with force, because without that force, they are NOTHING.

Far as I'm concerned, the only reason imma still sittin here able to post is cause I was armed, and at the moment I am quite rabid about remaining so, cause every time the slightest... infringment ...on those natural civil, human rights is mentioned, the only thing that comes to mind is the hard, hating eyes of an agent of the State desperately wanting to kill my ass cause this peon didn't bend the knee, and so every cry of support for those infringements, I see as a cry of support for that murderous asshole and his ilk.

I'll not take that lightly, not ever again.
It says what it says - "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED."
Not a word about "reasonable restrictions" or "sporting use" or "actual need", it says just the one thing, and it's damned well clear enough.
Even clearer, if you research the well documented reasoning of the men who wrote it.

And if you're unwilling to defend all the Constitutional rights, then you've surrendered 90% of the fight already, and I've nothin useful to say on the matter other than you've drawn your own fate - I just wish ya weren't wrapping that boat anchor chain around my ankles too, cause as it stands my only consolation is gonna be watching you swirl down the drain first, when the powers that be have their way and no use for your ignorant stupidity any longer, and repay that loyalty the way they always have.

-Frem

*Btw, if you want your own APC, there's plenty to be had if you know where to look.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, December 21, 2008 3:10 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)

As I've noted numerous times before, the main problems with Assault Weapons Bans (AWBs) is that:

1) When it was done before, it was used as a back-door economic stimulus to American "assault weapons" manufacturers, in that it was a ban only on IMPORTED "assault weapons", and

2) Nobody has really come up with a workable definition of what an "assault weapon" really IS. Generally speaking, the military defines assault rifles as being fully automatic and capable of "select-fire" or "burst-fire" modes of operation, in which two or three rounds can be fired with a single pull of the trigger. For civilian use, such weapons are considered "machineguns", and are already illegal for the vast majority of American civilians to own, manufacture, or use, unless they subject themselves to a battery of bureaucratic red tape and pay several layers of "fees" (or bribes) to the BATF. As such, REAL "assault weapons" are already banned to the general public.

Such Assault Weapons Bans, then, are merely feel-good legislation aimed at making people FEEL safer, rather than at actually making them safer. There aren't hordes of gangsters roaming the streets with fully-automatic AK47s here - and if there were, they'd already be deemed felons, with or without another pointless law.

What I *would* like to see is more enforcement of the gun laws already on the books, and bigger penalties for crimes committed with illegal guns and committed by people who illegally use otherwise legal guns.

Mike

"It is complete now; the hands of time are neatly tied."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, December 21, 2008 5:08 PM

Quote:

P.S I'm new here, do we have a standard smiley usedto indicate sarcasm/tounge-in-cheek posting? 'Cause I wanted to put one in after the "Nonsense".

No, and it's sadly lacking, it can be your contribution. Maybe you should start a thread to make a lexicon of of emoticons. A Lexemoticon

Sort of like the necronomicon, only less dead, and more cheery

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, December 21, 2008 5:14 PM

Quote:
You see just how *fast* the rest of the world backed offa North Korea when they pulled out thier CCW and showed us it was loaded ?

Of course, that's all Mahmoud wants one for, and I'm not being sarcastic.

But Frem, and I mean this with no ill will but in all seriousness: you seem to have a case of rantotosis.

It's a serious condition, I used to have it. It causes posts to exceed 200 words, and sometimes way exceed. A little ginseng would calm that down. Making me wish I had one right now.

Myself, I've taken to reading the first 200 words of each post. I think this is the common hoffer, what most people do. So, if you want to determine what people read, edit.

Just a friendly reminder.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, December 21, 2008 5:19 PM

Quote:

quicko
There aren't hordes of gangsters roaming the streets with fully-automatic AK47s here

Yes there are, just not here. Try Obama's old neighborhood. The law don't break in when you an ak47. Actually, even here in remote nowhereland a friend last year was gunned down by a Crip from the city with an assault riffle. He bought some weed from the guy, and got shorted, and went back to demand the extra. Body buried in the woods, no charges filed against the Crip.

Ah, America, we are a nation of law and order.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, December 21, 2008 8:00 PM

COLE23

Quote:
Originally posted by AG05:
Quote:
As far as Obama,I don't think he will try to take away guns.He might go for assault rifles,which is fine to me.I don't know why anyone would need one.They're only good for one thing,killing alot of people really quickly.

I had my reasons for buying mine, since I lived in hurricane country and wanted a versatile hog hunting/hurricane gun. I took it with me when I evaced for Ike. Never had to display or use it, thank God.

More than that, I'm against the AWB on principle. I hate the idea that you should decide for me what I do or do not need. The fact that we're talking about a useful defensive tool makes this all the worse. I obey the law, I'm sane, and I'm willing to jump throught the requisite hoops to buy all the other guns, so why can I not be trusted with these?

BTW: I'm not ripping on you personally. My use "you" is collective.

Mercy is the mark of a great man.
Guess I'm just a good man.
Well, I'm alright.

No offence taken.In fact it's a damn good point.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, December 21, 2008 8:52 PM

MSA

NVG here:

And everyone says marijuana is not a dangerous drug. Not to be a dick, but doing business with dirty mother fuckers will get you into trouble. It isn't the gun that is evil, merely the person willing to hurt others with it. And it must be a dumb mother fucker to expose themselves to long term prison for weed. I'm sorry you friend died, but the person who hurt them is more crazy than stupid.

And I am so happy to see folk informing others of what actual assault weapons are and the feel good (read as redundant) legislation behind the false definition. There are many uninformed and ignorant people (including some gun owners) that benefit from people like you. It is even better to be hearing from non gun owners chiming in on the issue. This has been my favorite place to weigh my own views on the whole issue.

To love someone is to see a miracle invisible to others.
--Francois Mauriac
It's fuzzy-minded liberal thinking like that that gets you eaten.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 22, 2008 1:41 PM

"That's the kind of wooly-headed liberal thinking that leads to being eaten."

Sorry, if you're going to quote one of the best lines ever, and aren't sure, use the google.

My friend, yeah, sure, I saw it coming, but there's a whole bunch of ways of looking at this

1. Those who don't go into hell neighborhoods like Obama's and fight massive crime there are like those who don't fight AIDS in the gay community in the '80s: People with no imagination. These are products for export. The killer in this case was a Crip, there are a few of them about, of more than one color, but they are all bad news. When we talk about assault rifles in the hands of americans who are actually going to use them? This is the #1 target group.

2. Banning guns is dumb, just like banning drugs, it just gives you no control over the market. Consider the FDA's approach to street drugs, and that roaring success, vs. their approach to food additives. Sure, they f^&k up on the latter, but at least they are able to have labels that contain notes that say "contains aspartame," or "not recommended to pregnant women." Maybe it would be a lot nicer if Marijuana came with a label that says "may cause permanent memory loss."

3. My second amendment right guarantees me as a member of a well ordered militia to possess, through that militia, a nuclear bomb. It does not give me a right to carry a gun for personal self defense, defense of my home, or for hunting. It's real clear what the founding fathers intended, which was for people to organize against unjust rule and defend themselves. People like the people in Waco, TX. But you see what little good it did them? This is because your right to have an M16 is useless when the govt. has a right to RPGs and incendiaries and tanks. And God I hope there's no one on the forum who is going to defend the attack on Waco.

Obviously, this cannot all be reconciled in a safe and sane way, and so a societies right to set its own rules needs to be maintained. That's the right of free association, the most important first amendment right.

Taken to its logical extreme, as the founding fathers, or the indians that they fought, or the settlers that confronted them, all would have agreed to do... There's something seriously wrong with this picture.

The Amish school shooting is a good example of how misinterpretation of the 2nd amendment conflicts with the 1st amendment. If you choose to have guns in your society, then someone might come in and shoot people. If you choose not to, then that ought to be your right.

For the record, if the Crips fall under anyone's description as a well ordered militia, so do the mafia, russian mafia, armenian mafia and Al Qaeda. Noting that there are more Muslims in the united states than any other non-christian religious group, the current logical interpretation should not in anyway bar the setting up of an American Mujahideen. All in support of that idea, say aye for an aye. Those who salute this idea, I'll grant the privilege of handing out assault rifles to its members. Careful to record the serial numbers, that might come in handy when the kill us all. Still, this is a more sane idea, and closer to what the founding fathers intended than for a person to carry assault rifles for their own personal purposes.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 23, 2008 12:57 AM

Quote:
It isn't the gun that is evil, merely the person willing to hurt others with it.

And ain't that just the salient point of it all.

Weapons are not dangerous - people are.

-F

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 23, 2008 6:56 AM

Ah yes, I remember the school stabbings when a kid would go in and kill 22 of his classmates. The hostage standoffs, when the cornered desperate man would slay a half dozen cops before they skewered him, and ah yes, World War Zero, I recall it well. With our clubs in hand, we killed 2 million Japanese, and the germans, armed with spatulas, were able to round up 6 million jews who had no spatulas of their own.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 23, 2008 9:26 AM

KWICKO

Quote:
and the germans, armed with spatulas, were able to round up 6 million jews who had no spatulas of their own.

Sounds to me like you're saying an unarmed populace is much easier to inflict your will on than an armed one. Maybe I'm reading that wrong...

Point is, how do you think that would have gone for the Nazis had they NOT disarmed the citizenry first? Think Hitler would have survived long enough to think about invading France or launching a bombing campaign against London? My bet is Poland and the Sudetenland are about as far as he would have gotten.

As for those who think that a few rowdies with a few firearms are no match for a full modern army, I'd merely point to Iraq and Afghanistan, where we've sent the absolute best our country can muster against "savages" with little more than an AK-47, an RPG, and an IED - and they've fought us to a stalemate.

*IF* it ever comes time for another American Revolution, I don't doubt for a minute that private citizens with their firearms would outmatch the U.S. military quite handily - unless you're ready to launch nuclear strikes inside your own country, which probably isn't going to work out for you, either.

Am I saying that any of this is going to happen? Nope. I'm saying that it's the constitutional basis for private citizens keeping weapons in this country - so we DON'T have it come to that point. Take away the weapons, and I pretty much guarantee you there'll be a war, and it will be an ugly, protracted, door-to-door geurilla war the likes of which this nation hasn't seen, except in faraway places like Falujah or Remagen.

Mike

"It is complete now; the hands of time are neatly tied."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 23, 2008 12:16 PM

Point taken on the disarming of the jews. OTOH, two side notes, 1. there was complicity from israel which helped to disarm the jews, german gun control, sure, helped, but also, that the germans were able to round up lots of Poles, jewish and non, far more than German jews, with no gun control.

Additionally, It's a misreading of the constitution to say that we have a right to own guns. We have a right to arm a well ordered militia, a point made clear at the time. Had the jews and poles dones so, as the Iraqis have done, then the situation would have been very different, would it not?

Ultimately, it was not specific legislation, that was the determining factor. Just look at the rest of Europe as well. But ultimately the Mahdi army, a very well ordered militia, which ended up in control of Iraq.

Also, it was not the handgun that protected Iraq, and nothing protected it from serial bombardment of landmine scattering. Anti-aircraft and anti-missile system are currently protecting Iran. We know full well that our plans to bombard that nation would come to naught because we'd most likely get shot down as soon as we crossed the border. Initiating hostilities in that manner could give Iran the right to cross the border into either Iraq or Afghanistan, with their reserve army of 14 million men, and be welcomed with open arms by the people there on either side.

To finally nail this point more succinctly to the wall, the right to own guns for the branch davidians did them no good at all, in spite of their violation of gun control laws to secure a more sophisticated cache of weapons. And I would also note that the FBI claims of this as a cause for the attack are totally bogus, as they only discovered it when attempting to "cleanse" the compound. At this point, the story would support your case, but the next step was for the FBI to bring in through its ATF division, and under the direction of Arch-traitor Wesley Clarke, Tanks with incediaries, chemicals weapons and explosives. The tactics used to immolate the compound from the basement up left no possible defense for the well and conventionally armed residence of the Waco compound.

Hence, the interpretation of the second amendment as "personal gun ownership" is meaningless in terms of ultimate self defense against an oppressive govt. in the 21st century.

Sorry about the spatulas comment, I was aware of the situation, but I was being facetious. If we are not permitted a well armed militia capable of protecting us from unjust rule, then we have no second amendment rights. Try loading up with RPGs, IEDs and Anti-Aircraft artillery akin to what the Iraqis had, at your local Gun Depot and then registering those and seeing exactly how well Uncle Sam takes that idea. Also, bear in mind that the Iraqis vastly ournumbered us in their home turf. It put them at a tremendous advantage. If you have a colony that outnumbers the US domestic armed force of some 1.4 million, then I think you too stand a chance..

If there is to be no true second amendment right, then a more subtle tactic is needed. The pro-gun crowd are not only enabling and encouraging domestic chaos, they are hanging on a false hope, and ultimately, they are drawing attention to themselves.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 23, 2008 12:21 PM

Ps. You failed to catch me out on the sword issue. There was a severe amount of casualties inflicts during the rwandan genocide by machete. Still, it was severely outclassed by the American machine guns imported by Clinton. Less so, I would point out, in Croatia. Nothing like a good old walled city for defense. There had been gun control on Croatia, but not in Rwanda, so this also does not support the pro-gun cause. Personally I'm not advocating for gun control, but for the right of free association which pre-empts to the right to bear arms, and then for the right to bear arms be applied as it was both written and in more extensive writing, unmistakeably intended, as a collective right to equal firepower.

Lone man with a gun taking down enemy invasion in the 21st century is hollywood fantasy. Packaged and sold to you daily.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 23, 2008 5:28 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Personally I'm not advocating for gun control, but for the right of free association which pre-empts to the right to bear arms, and then for the right to bear arms be applied as it was both written and in more extensive writing, unmistakeably intended, as a collective right to equal firepower.

Could you run tthat by me in Capt Dummy terms? What "free association" are you talking about and why does it pre-empt te right to bear arms?

And exactly who is the collective made up of, if not indivduals?

Mercy is the mark of a great man.
Guess I'm just a good man.
Well, I'm alright.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 23, 2008 5:58 PM

I missed where I missed you.
A group like the branch davidians has a right to do their own collective consensual thing guaranteed by the first amendment. The second amendment is there to protect that right. Thus a well ordered militia.

It was never stated that the individuals right to do his own thing and do it with fire arms was never stated. There's no reason on this Earth that the founding fathers would have supported the idea, since they didn't have to imagine a future full of serial killers and spree shooters, it had already happened.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 24, 2008 6:03 AM

I'm still a bit confused: Of whom would this "well-regulated militia" be made up? The people who are doing the free associatin'?

As to your belief that the right to keep and bear arms was intended to be and is a collective right: All I can say is I'm glad you're not on the Supreme Court.

When you break it down enough, the militia, the Army, the police, the gangs, they all come down to a guy with a gun, and what the folks who gave him that gun want him to do/ not do. I do not want to be at the mercy of that guy. It's that simple. I want to be able to at least attempt to defend myself from that guy.

Mercy is the mark of a great man.
Guess I'm just a good man.
Well, I'm alright.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 24, 2008 10:47 AM

This just in :

" Media silence on guns and ammo is a new tactic being used by the anti-gunners.

Ammunition Accountability Act

Remember how Obama said that he wasn't going to take your guns? Well, it seems that his minions and allies in the anti-gun world have no problem with taking your ammo!

The bill that is being pushed in 18 states (including TN, Illinois and Indiana ) requires all ammunition to be encoded by the manufacture, a data base of all ammunition sales. So they will know how much you buy and what calibers. Nobody can sell any ammunition after June 30, 2009 unless the ammunition is coded.

Any privately held uncoded ammunition must be destroyed by July 1, 2011. (Including handloaded ammo.) They will also charge a .05 cent tax on every round so every box of ammo you buy will go up at least $2.50 or more! If they can deprive you of ammo they do not need to take your gun!

Please give this the widest distribution possible and contact your Reps!

It's the ammo, not the guns...
I've said for a long time that they wouldn't go for your guns, they'd go for your ammo... guns have a Constitutional protection.

A list of states where this legislation is pending is in the final paragraph.

Heads up to all of you who swore to defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign AND domestic. Let your state Legislatures know that we do not want this bill passed, and petition them to vote no on this bill. We should keep after them until the bill is closed by bombarding them with e-mails, phone calls, and letters.

Get to all your politicians to get to work and NOT LET THIS HAPPEN!!!

Below is a list of states where legislation has already been introduced:

Alabama, Arizona, California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Maryland, Mississippi, Missouri, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Washington."

More information can be found at:

http://www.usavsus.info/US-AmmoRegistr.htm

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 24, 2008 10:55 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:

It was never stated that the individuals right to do his own thing and do it with fire arms was never stated. There's no reason on this Earth that the founding fathers would have supported the idea, since they didn't have to imagine a future full of serial killers and spree shooters, it had already happened.

That's an absurdity on its face...

" The Right of 'The PEOPLE' to Keep and Bear Arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED ."

Who are THE PEOPLE , if not Individuals ?

Better get busy checking Your History...We've been over this before...

The Supreme Court just upheld this Right in the DC case , but by a thin margin...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 24, 2008 1:50 PM

Good afternoon everyone. Great conversation for Christmas Eve. Just some quick points and a gift of the like I never give. Please excuse the languge as it is not suited for younger or sensative audiences.

First off, "The People" are armed to keep the government from ruling with jack boots much the way the founding fathers fought the monarchy of England. Of course some people can't regulate themselves so why not allow that for all people. With a history of being repressed is it any wonder the Indians mentioned in your post still don't trust a government that historically has kept them down. Don't worry, your rights are just as important as theirs. We are all equal. As one of those "Indians" I will continue to believe in freedom and equality as it has been preached to me in the American school system despite how many examples I have seen against it. If need be I will defend the right of myself and others in whatever fashion needed to assert it's importance. Your midefined "Assault Rifle" remark is wrong. There are many more AK47 type rifles in the hands of the lawful citizen. They are the ones who get the true use of the weapon without ever firing a shot. They are capable of keeping the criminal element in check. Why? Because they fear being shot by the lawful owner.

Secondly Marijuana causes much more than just permenant memory loss. I've see tne effects on the kids I work with and there can be no mistake. Marijuana will damage people just the same as any other drug. Regardless if drugs are banned or not, there will always people selling under cost and without paying taxes. There will always be an illicit drug market.

Thirdly, I find it quite humorous that you would choose to correct my wifes misquote. Yes, I was logged in under her account as it clearly states:
"NVG here:"
So she misquoted, woopty-freakin-doo. The lack of a viable argument and the willingness to post any retort starting with some childish, "Ooh, you didn't say it right.", sort of remark shows just how much of an argument you don't have.

So here is the gift (remember, I rarely give out these sort of gifts as they are redundant except for passive aggressive 'net hardasses like yourself):
Shut the fuck up,
Sit the fuck down.
I deleted a large paragraph detailing you being defiled by the felonious sort that prey on the likes of you because of your own ignorance. Instead I pray you will never have to witness the horror of raped and murdered children, dead because a parent wasn't capable of stopping their attacker at the door with their "Assault Rifle".
I hope you will never have to witness your spouse raped and murdered because an "Assault Weapon" ban turned into a handgun ban and being handicapped your aren't capable of using a long gun.
And I could never wish a person beaten from the ancetoral home, starved and diseased, detached from who they are as a people simply because the government wanted your mineral/water/land rights for their own gain; or you disagreed with their execution of policy. These things have happened after peoples weapons rights were abolished. Not just to Jews or Indians, but in the American South as well. It has already happened and can very easily happen again. Even white folk aren't safe.

Again, if this was offensive to other members of the board, please excuse my post. I never, NEVER post anything remotely as offensive as this. I try to conduct myself respectfully and truthfully at all times. Call this a moment of weakness. It is unneccessary and childish. I did post a warning. Still, I am sorry.

Merry Christmas to all, and to all a good night!

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
The country is making a big mistake not teaching kids to cook and raise a garden and build fires.
-Loretta Lynn

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 24, 2008 2:46 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by nvghostrider:
Good afternoon everyone. Great conversation for Christmas Eve. Just some quick points and a gift of the like I never give.

...I never, NEVER post anything remotely as offensive as this. I try to conduct myself respectfully and truthfully at all times. Call this a moment of weakness. It is unneccessary and childish. I did post a warning. Still, I am sorry.

Saw that comin'...

No need to apologize for telling the TRUTH . Ever .

As a rule , I go along with what Will Rogers had to say :

" Never give advice...The Wise don't need it , and the Stupid won't heed it..."

Still , isn't it ironical that Folk like Us are willing to defend the Rights of those who choose to remain ignorant ?

Semper Vigilo...Semper Paratus...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 24, 2008 2:57 PM

Too right sir.

Too right.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
The country is making a big mistake not teaching kids to cook and raise a garden and build fires.
-Loretta Lynn

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 24, 2008 3:57 PM

I'm not the expert on constitution law, but I've worked with some and know some, and I can tell you that people here are way off course.

Directly, the reference to the militia occurs several times in the text and writings about it at the time.

The militia, in turn, was converted into the National Guard in 1903. At that point, the 2nd amendment, it could be argued, no longer applied.

The idea that an AK47 will protect you against unjust rule is absurd. I could say a number of other things about the posters of this thread who have said a good number of things about me. Instead I say to you, good day. Feel free to flame me all you want.

I was not against you, only pointing out the law, that which you are woefully ignorant of. When that fact meets you face to face, feel free to try these defenses to the court of law that bears charges against you, but don't blame me from your cell. I only attempted to state what the law said, and intended to say. There is no constitution right permitting you to carry a firearm for your personal use or to use any firearm against any trespasser. This is true even if you are a member of the national guard.

I'm sorry if the term indian offends you. Native American then, unless you prefer a tribal designation. I think I'll just stick with troll. That's not an ethnic slur, it's personal. Also, Fruitcake. I had no idea there were so many of them about.

All of you seem to like the idea of gangs with assault rifles roaming through your towns and schools. Well, I support the 2nd amendment as written and intended. Y'alls interpretation of it is f^&king looney tunes.

The gun right in DC is all about helping black people shoot each other, it was never about anything else. I would agree that govt. gun control would be about letting cops shoot people, and nothing else. It would be a disaster. That said, what a bunch of nutjobs. There wasn't even a shred of understanding of the concepts of either the constitution or law and order posted here lately. I oppose nutjobs with guns. Nobody here sounds like a well ordered militia.

A rod and gun club could make the case that they were a well ordered militia. You, on crack, holed up with your AK47 and your sawed off shotgun shooting trespassers, are not, and no court of law in the land will uphold that right.

You're making me think there should be an IQ test to getting a gun... oh dear, I'm feeding the troll. Screw it.

Merry Christmas to the people who are on this thread that I kinda like, though we might disagree about the interpretation of this law. I'm willing to discuss it in a less psychopath filled environment. Reavers, man.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 24, 2008 4:23 PM

out2theblack

2nd amendment:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

If this were not clear enough, lots was written about it at the time and since.

A gun is no protection against threats to "a free state."

The National Guard takes the definition of State literally, but more liberal applications have been applied.

By the logic stated on this thread, the right of Al Qaeda to own nukes within the united states and use them to defend islam would be upheld by the constitution. That's just moronic.

Also, I had some respect for you. I've lost a lot because you went and backed up a troll in a viceral personal attack against me.

As I said, I'm only pointing out what the law is to what looks to me like the next Ted Kaczynski about to bury himself in a hole and and defend himself against "the man."

This is personal for me, since this is the self image that my friend had of himself, Using his second amendment right to protect himself against the man. He also thought that in quitting "drug" meaning coke and heroin, entering rehab, that he was rejoining lawful society. He thought marijuana didn't count as a drug. He was totally off his rocker, but no more so than what I see posted here. He simply misinterpreted the law and the situation. His killer, as it turned out, would not be found guilty of a crime, in spite of the fact that my friend did not fire his weapon, and was shot many times.

GUN OWNERS TAKE NOTE:

The reality is that it was not that the Crip had a right to bear arms and defend his property. These defenses were thrown out by the court as absurd. My friend's possession of an illegal assault rifle on his person at the time of death was the deciding evidence.

The court ruled that as an armed man, my friend was a threat, and that self defense, shooting him 22 times, was therefore justified. As well as burying his body in the woods, and not notifying the police.

Okay, I'm not saying the guy wasn't stupid, crazy, and asking for it, but in the eyes of the court, the very fact that he was carrying an assault rifle made his life automatically forfeit and of no value.

No second amendment rights were accepted as arguments on either side, as the second amendment did not protect either persons right to carry a firearm.

When the law break in, how you gonna go, shot down on the pavement, or waiting in death row...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 24, 2008 4:27 PM

KWICKO

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:

The idea that an AK47 will protect you against unjust rule is absurd.

Again, I'd submit that there are a fair number of Iraqis, Afghans, and Palestinians who could rather violently disabuse you of that notion. More than a few Irish Catholics, too. And a few million Vietnamese.

Quote:

A rod and gun club could make the case that they were a well ordered militia. You, on crack, holed up with your AK47 and your sawed off shotgun shooting trespassers, are not, and no court of law in the land will uphold that right.

I disagree. SEVERAL courts here in Texas have upheld that right recently. We even have what's called a "Castle Doctrine" that specifically BY LAW allows you to do just that.

Quote:
You're making me think there should be an IQ test to getting a gun...

I'm all for it. Where do I sign up? Will that IQ test be in addition to, or in place of classes for a concealed-carry permit?

Quote:
Merry Christmas to the people who are on this thread that I kinda like, though we might disagree about the interpretation of this law. I'm willing to discuss it in a less psychopath filled environment. Reavers, man.

Merry Xmas to all, whether I like them or not, agree with them or not. We're all just folk now...

Mike

"It is complete now; the hands of time are neatly tied."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 24, 2008 5:19 PM

Wow. Troll. Strange. I've been here nearly as long as you and post regularly with little static towards much of anyone. Kinda honored.

I am not offended by the term "Indian" and have posted that in previous related threads. Of course, you cannot be responsible to read every single thread.

The idea of roaming assault weapon laden gangs terrorizing schools seems to be an issue in your heart. If America works so well, then where are your police. As I understand it, schools are state property and are protected under state and federal law as are the children.

It also seems there was no reiteration to your misquote waa waa. Oh well. I even offered apologies and again you fly with the personal attacks and name calling. I guess my assumption that you would strive for a more adult conversation were wrong. Trust me, my widdle feelers are hurt.

So as for feeding trolls here, I keep hearing some little voice in the back of my skull whispering something about pots and kettles and the color black...

So my view may be alittle harsh for some. Historically it is a viable future for America as it has happened in the past. But there are still many people who believe the Democratic process will save them. Guess what, the people perputrating these heinous gun crimes aren't exactly the people placing votes against your candidate or party. The people you are electing are not protecting all those people in need of saving. And the parties work with eachother when personal and party gain are in their best interest.

When we stop seeing ourselves as the people and choose to be protected rather than protect ourselves we stop becoming citizens and become subjects.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
The country is making a big mistake not teaching kids to cook and raise a garden and build fires.
-Loretta Lynn

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 24, 2008 5:23 PM

Kwicko

Quote:
Again, I'd submit that there are a fair number of Iraqis, Afghans, and Palestinians who could rather violently disabuse you of that notion. More than a few Irish Catholics, too. And a few million Vietnamese.

Thank you for making my point for me. All of which we refered to as armies and militias, and were equiped with far more than guns, they had artillery, anti aircraft, grenades, rpgs, etc. IOW, they had roughly equivalent weaponry, and they were a militia.

There is no Rambo story here taking place on American soil, that's what's being proposed by some folks on this thread. That we gotta let crazies and guns kill our children because, hey, I'm Rambo, and I can defeat the US Marines. That's beyond absurd, it does a disservice to the nation.

Quote:
SEVERAL courts here in Texas have upheld that right recently. We even have what's called a "Castle Doctrine" that specifically BY LAW allows you to do just that.

Texas is a special case. In NY, if you tried that, they'd lock you up and throw away the key. I'd do it myself. That's nuts. Doesn't mean I'm anti-gun or anti-second amendment or pro gun control. I don't like the govt. in control of anything. All they would do is give everything to themselves. It's just saying I'm anti homocidal maniacs with guns killing people.

Here's a little side story of gun control abuse of power: The local university has a no gun policy, and they have armed security. Security regularly rapes students, raids their rooms, and confiscates everything from computers to widescreen tvs, to mini fridges and microwaves on supposed "drug raids." That's the kind of abuse that gun control would create.

I'm saying equal weaponry is the only defense. If no one has any guns, that's fair. If everyone has RPGs, that's fair. If the other side has the stealth bomber and you have an AK47, you're fucked.

Quote:
Quote:
You're making me think there should be an IQ test to getting a gun...

I'm all for it. Where do I sign up? Will that IQ test be in addition to, or in place of classes for a concealed-carry permit?

Lol. That was me feeding the troll. I don't have a problem with smart people with guns. I think that dumb people with guns is an issue. Look at the homocide statistics, and then look at the serial killer statistics, watch some interviews with some serial killers, you'll definitely see my point on this.

Actually, I see no issue with most of the pro-gun people on this forum having guns. It's the failure to understand the principle of the 2nd amendment that bugs me. I'm not a constitutional scholar, but I'm also not a moron. It's totally obvious what was intended, which was not a free for all with gun toting lunatics shooting up schools and shopping malls, etc.

A lot of you may not live in a relatively peaceful rural community where a nearby large urban center is exporting gang warfare to your community. I do.
Now, the argument that people have a constitutional right to carry assault rifles, which have one purpose, killing people, and come up use them against locals, trade guns and drugs to locals, well, it disturbs my social order to the point where people are now dying and there have been a few.

I'm a fan of the sarah connor chronicles. I think that should tell you something about where I'm coming from, if the non-fans can hold the snide comments. When the family of "about to die" folk brings out their gun and says "we got it to be prepared for moments like this" and Cameron says "That doesn't prepare you for moments like this." That's what I mean. Terminator comes to your door, have fun with your Glock. And meanwhile, have some peace of mind in knowing that 20,000 psychopaths are roaming the streets of our cities high on whatever they can find, fried to the gills, and shooting at anything that moves.

Did I tell you I was recently shot at by some woman on crack? She had an assault rifle, and a crack house, I know this because the police came and told me, and she was shooting at everything that moves. That was a block from Obama's house that happened. It's one of my doubts about the man. He represented that district for eight years, and when he took over representing, that was a safe place to walk the streets, I've done it many times. I was visiting friends, neighbors of our president to be. A few weeks after I got home, they said coming home one night they heard gunfire, not to uncommon a noise in that corner of the world. When they got up to their apartment, they found their neighbors had been killed. The whole family. Just some psycho, with a machine gun, looking for stuff to steal. They didn't get my friends because they weren't home.

Okay, so sure, you think "well, if I was there and had my AK I would have defended my family against these guys. Yeah? and bet on what? A 50/50 split? 1/2 your family for 1/2 of them? Also, these guys are a dime a dozen, maybe you get these ones, that's only going to increase the chance that the rest of the gang is going to come back for you. And so this is how it goes down. Sure. I admit it's better than all of you getting killed. But anyone who cannot see a better possibility or anything at all wrong with this picture is in a cave somewhere staring at a wall.

Your fantasy scenario, like the local guy here, that you will be the loan defender against an invading army. Forget it. Never going to happen. Here's your real future. Your kids come back from school, and you ask why they didn't go play ball with Tommy, and your son looks at you and says matter of factly, Tommy's brains are splattered on the bathroom wall. Then he shrugs, and goes up stairs. Because this is life as usual for him. That's the future you can expect to actually see.

That for those of you who don't draw so much attention to yourselves that the NWO actually does send some guys to your door, where they throw in tear gas and incendiaries and essentially firebomb your apartment before you get a shot off at the armored storm troopers, who even if you could hit them, are considered expendable by the people who sent them. Never struck anyone as odd that the FBI was so intent on killing civilians in Waco that they were willing to sacrifice their guys? Of course they are, that's what a command stucture is for. I'm safe as long as you're the one getting shot at.

F^&king naive testosterone wannabe heroism. No offense.

BTW, given what Obama did for his district in Illinois, I'd say he won't take your guns. He'll be handing them out on street corners. No offense to the people who voted for him, my guess is someone paid him enough. Or offered him street protection. The joke in Hyde Park, BTW, when Obama put up a security wall around his house while running for president was "Oh, he's not doing that because he's a candidate, he's just doing that because he lives here."

Didn't used to be like that. Dream of a better world.

Quote:
Merry Xmas to all, whether I like them or not, agree with them or not. We're all just folk now...

Sorry, I was very annoyed, merry christmas to the reavers too. Don't kill anyone.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 24, 2008 6:14 PM

You tend to go on and On...

Which wouldn't be so bad if you were making any sense...

Oddly , you and I agree about a great many things...

Just not This thing...

There was a great prior thread on this subject , but you seem to have been absent for that one...

Study on it for a while :

http://www.fireflyfan.net/mthread.asp?b=18&t=34840

You want to claim some History on your side , Founder's intentions and all , see what some Folk brought to that conversation...

...We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. —

http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/index.htm

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 24, 2008 6:46 PM

Well, my points were aired. There is no exchanging true idaes with some folk without having to endure self righteous passive aggressive pussy rhetoric.

And I hate to tell ya bud but the small percentage of criminals classified as serial killers have high average to high IQ's. To lump them in with common criminals dumb enough to get caught is a moot argument and should be recognized as so.

As for whatever you are trying to say in your posts, do you have an agenda? I keep seeing loops and circles and it's making me dizzy. Not because I am dumb as you keep insinuating, but because you have no clear agenda. Obviously trolling is a misdirected term and maybe you should search your Thesaurus for an applicable synonym (words that mean the same thing).

We've definately gone way off track from the original discussion. Feeding into the inadequcies of others in the hopes of airing a better understanding is sometimes a pointless effort. I may have been willing to listen to some of the better points of your posts but those things were cheapened by infintile posturing better suited for the sandbox at the local park.

I'm out for the night. Gone to finish work and dream of better tommorrows filled with laughter and happines.

Hopefully that will boost the ego you are so comfortably stoking in public.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
The country is making a big mistake not teaching kids to cook and raise a garden and build fires.
-Loretta Lynn

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 24, 2008 7:32 PM

Out2theBlack

Sorry if I rant. I try to hold it down. There was an awful lot hurled at me. I needed to make my position clear. "These things, never helpful"

I don't have time to read this thread tonight. I skimmed it, and saw a lot of people making my basic point.

Obviously I'm familiar with the documents, and think quite clearly that they support my case. The do not support personal gun ownership for individual use. They support popular collective defense on an equal footing with any threat.

It is worth bearing in mind that the south had that and it still did not do them any good. And, I would add, that the civil war was openly about the proposed partitioning of the western states which was for the sole purpose of making a permanent republican majority in the senate, to silence the south, and marginalize it, and slavery was the wedge issue of the day. Slavery itself died for financial reasons: It was cheaper and more profitable to pay wages to workers who then had to buy their support on credit, borrow, and pay back to the same crowd of masters than it was to provide those services even at a paltry level.

But still, it did not protect the South which saw the original confederation of allied states degenerate into an empire where the president and his cabinet with king and court. Not siding with the South here, just saying that they had a valid case of unjust rule, and even equal arms could not protect them against it. Given that, the whole issue requires more gnawing over.

I'm sure history is on my side, because I've studied a great deal of it, but there has been a strong history of personal gun ownership in this country, much of which has ended badly, but a century or more ago might have enabled one to defend ones home. Now that is a futile fantasy.

Quote:

You tend to go on and On...

Which wouldn't be so bad if you were making any sense...

I'm trying to be reasonable here. There needs to be a policy by which the people can defend themselves rather than slaughter each other. At the moment, almost no one is defending themselves. I read very few "shot the intruder" stories, and many more "shot by the intruder" "shot by the cops" and many many more "shot in gang related violence."

Your 2nd amendment interpretation has run amok, and has become a hazard to the ordinary citizen. I would ask you to reconsider the initial words and intentions in this light and try to find a logical and organized solution that would enable you a real defense again your own govt, the Crips and Bloods and Al Qaeda. If you can do that, then you have the start of a plan.

If you dig a hole in the ground and fill it with
ammo, the ATF with smoke you out.

Quote:
Oddly , you and I agree about a great many things...

Just not This thing...

It's why I bothered to respond. I have no idea who this guy nvghostrider is, and now I have no desire to know. He managed to go full on assault and then do so on behalf of his wife. I was complementing a good line, I think it is a good line, the Snyder line from the creepy Puppetshow ep. if I recall, could be wrong. Buffy, anyway.

I think a 9mm would not protect me. I'd prefer to have Cameron protecting me. That's a machine I'd like to get my hands on :)

But seriously, since we haven't talked, I should say I'm a devout Taoist, and believe in live and let live. I'm not, however, a flower child. I have been in some scary situations, been hunted by heavily armed militias, and many times come upon people with guns, including those who intended me harm. On one occassion stared down a guy who held a loaded Uzi aimed at me for 9 hours. We didn't speak a word of each others language, but I convinced him to let me go. If I had had a gun, I think the confrontation would have been a lot shorter.

If anyone else has stared a man in the eye who had a loaded machine gun pointed at their head with his finger on the trigger, for hours on end, then did you flinch? I didn't. If your didn't either, and you want to discuss and defend that man's right to carry an automatic weapon, then we can discuss that.

Mind you, I'm a very good shot. I wasn't always a Taoist, I was the best shot of my group. Even afterwords, I was a killer paintball player, and a surefire win at Perfect Dark. But nothing is 100%, and killing the other guy, to me, is no victory. I'm not afraid to defend myself, or my people. But what I witness spouted here is foolishness.

I like Frem a lot. I say this in preparation to a slight, which I hope he won't take too hard. If he were half the rebel he claims, he wouldn't say a word about it to anyone. I suspect I've done a couple dozen cases of help aiding and abetting runaways escape some despicable situations, I offered to talk about it, but he declined. If he wants to one up me, he can post a number.

But I'm just an average guy. I have a friend who just came back from Iraq, five years on the front lines, starting in Afghanistan. What this guy has been through, including shot twice in the head, it makes all the danger I've seen seem like a shadow.

I have some idea what I mean when I say that when this comes down, the macho NRA prep pep talk here isn't going to buy you 7 seconds.

I'm all for self defense. Come up with a plan that works, or has some merit in the direction of working, and we'll talk.

NVGR

As far as your subsequent posts, after the first, I gave up. I skimmed. Your tone hasn't changed. You can still be a troll. PirateNews predates me. Auraptor gets called a troll a lot, and he way predates me. My gut impression is that you're not very bright, and are rather rude, my inclination is not to discuss this any further. If this bothers you, at some point, prove me wrong.

I have nothing against native americans, I know several. Seven that come to mind right away, but I live in Iroquois country. Haudenosaunee if you prefer, or by tribe, but I live in between them. I used to work for the Reform Party, and two of my closest contacts were a Cherokee and a Cheyenne. My roommate was a Lakota. My neighbors at the time were another Lakota and a Mohawk, and an Ojibwe who shot himself. One of the hazards of gun ownership. Statistically, the most likely person to die by your gun is yourself, though not all are suicides.

If you want to be read, keep your posts real short. I only rant when I'm talking to a particular person, right now, I'm talking to Out2theBlack. Since I mentioned Frem, I owe him a read of any response.

FREM, my apologies for skimming your posts, you and I generally agree, your posts are a little on the long side. I think we should probably all come to some sort of agreement. Open non-hostile responses to a specific person should be able to be long and well thought out. You, I and John have all posted things which are, while I would argue not without merit, still way too long for the venue.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 24, 2008 9:24 PM

You'll have to go on more than 'gut feelings' , when it comes to fellow Browncoats...

You're wrong about NVGhostrider...He's a way mellow dude , and much smarter than you can imagine...
Like most of us , he just wants to go his way...

It's not your business to stand in a man's way...It's not "the Government's" 'business' , either...

Can't say that I blame NVG for unloading the coach gun on you...You really deserved both barrels...

You might want to reconsider takin' potshots at Folk you don't know...

Here's a Fun read that Frem has mentioned before , which I also recommend...

It's very thought-provoking , supportive of individual Rights , self-determination , even self-government...

Plus , Individual self-defense...

I sure hope that it gets made into a film that would be worthy of the graphic novel :

http://www.bigheadpress.com/tpbtgn

Once you click the title page , you can just keep clickin' and readin' , 'til you get it done...

It's even possible to leave it and come back to where you left off before...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 24, 2008 9:46 PM

CHRISMOORHEAD

Just wanted to stop in real quick and say that this:

Quote:
Thank you for making my point for me. All of which we refered to as armies and militias, and were equiped with far more than guns, they had artillery, anti aircraft, grenades, rpgs, etc. IOW, they had roughly equivalent weaponry, and they were a militia.

Is totally untrue. The Easter Uprising of 1916 was comprised entirely of men with rifles and only rudimentary explosives.

The Iraqi Army under Saddam had tanks and the whole deal and did not cause use anywhere near as many casualties as our current, prolonged engagement with guerrillas.

To underestimate the effectiveness of guerrilla warfare is to repeat a mistake that's lead many a strong nation to defeat. I'm open to hearing you opinions on the matter, but I'd advise against arguing this particular point on the matter. Military historians, armed forces themselves and any decent "Armchair General" knows better.

To elaborate a bit, the use of militias would actually be more effective in the United States than anywhere else. The land is massive with an eclectic geography, obstruction of military logistics would be easy and the sheer number of buildings and their size in which to take refuge would be type of urban warfare as yet unseen by the world. However, none of it would mean a lick without men pulling triggers to utilize it.

I personally think the government has already gone too far with many things and should be severely reformed. But I also think we're too forgone for that to be a plausible reality. I also know, the one thing every government in the history of mankind has had in common is that it failed eventually. I don't know if it will happen in my lifetime, or even in the next 100 years, but I WILL be prepared for it, and on a personal level, I HOPE it happens as soon as tomorrow.

As far as some of the other stuff you've been saying, I actually very much sympathize with you. I hate the image that the "lowest tier" of gun owners give the rest of us. I think that the reason some people are so vehemently against gun ownership is because they conjure up images of that very lowest tier when they think about gun owners; beer swilling, toothless backwater inbreeds who don't know any other way to solve a dispute. What seems to be a huge issue is how we would decide who and who can't have a firearm. I don't know how serious you were about the IQ test thing, but I'd say in practice it wouldn't be as effective as people hope. You mentioned the statistic at some point of how many gun owners shoot themselves on accident, and I'm willing to bet a good number of them were white collar, upper middle class intellectuals who bought one out of fear because of where they work or something but don't know crap about how to us them. And therein, in my opinion, lies the fundamental problem.

NVG is a good dude, and intelligent to boot. That quote he has at the bottom of his messages about children learning to build fires, cook, etc. I think that could be applied to firearms. I saw the movie Bowling For Columbine a long time ago expecting it to be a liberal bitch-fest, and I expected that because of what all the conservatives I knew were saying about it. Then I saw a movie and realized none of those idiots ever watched it. Micheal Moore, whatever shortcomings he may have, has a point about American culture worshiping violence for entertainment. What makes that hazardous, I think, is not EDUCATING them about it. No problem has ever been solved by ignoring it, it is education and learning that overcomes ignorance.

I've been in Iraq for about 3 months now. In a country where every household is allowed to have one fully automatic rifle, murder between citizens is almost never performed with these weapons, instead being carried out by suicide bombing. These people worship violence as well, albeit in a different way, and choose not to use weapons that they have free access to. It's because that's what they've been taught, it's part of their culture. The problem in their case and in ours is not the weapons we use but the PEOPLE, and to that end, the CULTURE that breeds the PEOPLE that use those weapons.

I haven't read through everything that you and NVG have said to each other, but I think maybe you got off on the wrong foot, and both maybe misinterpreted a little of what the other person was saying. If I'm wrong, feel free to ignore me.

Ride down from Asgard to the battlefield,
Bringer of the valiant dead who died but never yielded,
Carry we who die in battle over land and sea,
Across the rainbow bridge to Valhalla,
Odin's waiting for me.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 25, 2008 8:30 AM

Quote:
You're wrong about NVGhostrider...He's a way mellow dude , and much smarter than you can imagine...

Dubious. Proof of the pudding...
There was nothing mellow in his approach to me.

Quote:
It's not your business to stand in a man's way...It's not "the Government's" 'business' , either...

Not standing in his way. If someone is being unrealistic, like "obama is a nazi infiltrator" or "i can cure cancer with electric shock therapy" I'm going to call them on it.

Quote:
Can't say that I blame NVG for unloading the coach gun on you...You really deserved both barrels...

I really didn't. It came out of nowhere. I thought the approach was moronic. I try not to say things like that, but he was out of line. His double barrel was going off on me for correcting the Buffy quote. It's a good line, and it should be quoted, but correctly. I actually knew the line, but anyone can use the google.

Quote:
You might want to reconsider takin' potshots at Folk you don't know...

No potshots taken. Or intended. I intend to ignore people I don't know, and those who attack me even.

Quote:
http://www.bigheadpress.com/tpbtgn

I'll take a look later. Do me a small favor and repost this in the thread for links. Create one, and call it "Text links" or something easily identifiable, to go with my "Video Clips" It's just hell ferreting out this stuff from the din. Especially after it gets buried.

I was misunderstood here. There a lot of Last Stand folks who think they're cap'n Mal or Sarah Connor, but they're not, they're Custer, even if they are indians. If one finds that one is Custer, the proper approach is to self examine and see what in their stance makes people think that they are Custer, and then adjust either their thinking or their presentation, so that they sound more like Mal.

Also, say I were a liberal fellow traveller rather than a conservative enemy of the NWO, which I am, and instead I were some gun-control pusher who believed in the protection of govt. etc. Even if this were true, and I was someone from the other side, stating a position, I would not deserve such treatment. It was totally uncalled for.

Rather I am someone from your side, simply pointing out the irrationality of the arguments and the unrealism of the fantasy being portrayed here. I think this kind of thinking is not the kind of wooly-headed liberal thinking that leads to being eaten, but it is the kind of thinking that leads to Ruby Ridge and Waco.

People need to use their brains, not just their bullets.

Also, as a footnote, I think I'm not about to be cowed by trolls on the internet. From what I have already faced, which goes way passed anything I mention here, I wouldn't be cowed by the NWO, haven't been in fact. Even with guns.

I can't carry a gun, for religious reasons, I'd like to develop a non lethal though. Also, like Book, I have not objection to someone else carrying one. However, I do object to reavers. What I saw in in Hyde park were reavers, but they're just wannabes compared to the real thing. Sierra Leone, Yugoslavia, some parts of Afghanistan, you can meet real reavers. Just for a glimpse, I was in Yugoslavia, during the war. My friend Alesh burried thousands of his comrades, often pieces of them. Ever know what it feels like to be skewered through the chest, through the head, have your face ripped off? And that was literal.

Don't expect me to be fazed by an internet post.

If someone is calm and intelligent, they show it through their words.

But I was not even the guy from the other side. I'm simply pointing to the elephant in the room. I see a collection of Custers with reavers or more likely terminators, at the gate, and they're getting out their .38, and they feel like a man.

Don't assume things about people you don't know. If I peg someone as a troll incorrectly, then my apologies. I'm just pegging people who are acting like trolls. Trolls waste my time. I don't have a lot of time to waste. Hence, I tend to ignore them.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 25, 2008 8:51 AM

ChrisMoorHead

Quote:
Is totally untrue. The Easter Uprising of 1916 was comprised entirely of men with rifles and only rudimentary explosives

Thank you also for making my point for me. The IRA was not a loner in a hole with a sawed off shotgun. They were a well ordered militia with adequate weaponry for the time. If you're ordered enough, then you can have vastly inferior weapons, see the first Zulu War.

Of course, time's change, see the second Zulu War.

While I agree overall with your analysis, i don't know this guy, I react to troll posts as trolls. You should see my first reactions to PN and AU, they were not kind, because they post in a very abrassive troll-like manner, or did. Times Change

Your picutre is missing a key element: Drugs. The indian neighbor who shot himself was a crackhead, as was the sniper who shot at me. The RUF and the Aghan Mujahideen both use a lot of drugs. Iraqis overall, from what Seth tells me, do not. My friend and his killed did. I've had others who have killed themselves on drugs, only two who killed themselves with no drugs. A couple stories of people around me, one guy I know, his wife was killed by his gun, used by an intruder while he slept. That's rare. Accidents, yes there have been a few of those here, cleaning the loaded gun. But most of them are suicides, and more are drug related.

The right to freely choose substance use is another libertarian freedom, if we have it, and we have knowledge, we have little use for doctors. Drugs and guns don't mix. The whole issue becomes complicated.

Your guerilla opponents in Iraq now are a well ordered militia. Remember, in 1776, the US army was a band of guerillas. The reference to the militia was to something less organized than the army. Still, it was a reference to something that probably met some basic requirements: It knew who its members were, and that they were not insane junkies and traitors, or serial killers. It knew where its guns were, who was skilled to use them, and it knew where its ammunition was, that stores were safe and supply was available, and most of all it knew that it was united in a cause.

I see all of this in the IRA, in the Palestinian groups, and in the insurgents you are currently up against. I don't see it in some of the posts on this board. I see lone gunmen, clinging to their weapons for a great last stand.

Oh, for anyone who knows, the Chinese say 2017. I don't know if this is just Chinese superstition, and whether it just applies to them. But it's a reasonable number

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 25, 2008 11:07 AM

The reason you don't see it, is cause no one in their right mind would be damn fool enough to admit it on a public forum in what is fast becoming a surveillance society.

And I honestly think that if you wish to continue discussion of the topic you need to do your homework, which means reading the Federalist, and Antifederalist papers concerning the ratification of the Constitution, because most of the folk involved in the formation of those amendments were quite explicitly clear as to what they meant, and this contradicts most of your perceptions about the Second - but again, it's another thing that cannot really be soundbited, and if you think I run on and on, that's nothing compared to our founders, even my beloved Patrick Henry tends to run a bit longer than most folks patience.

Still, if you're going to argue these things, you NEED that background to do so effectively, or you will come across as clueless to anyone who has, sorry, but thems the facts.

And finally, the reason you don't see "chased off by armed citizen" in the news is twofold, firstly that it's just not considered newsworthy by a mainstream media that's fast becoming tabloid trash since there's naught to it, unless they wanna rant on about how evil self-defense is, and secondly, because of that very perception most folk who DO defend themselves with a firearm, no shots fired, are often unwilling to report it due to fear of being arrested themselves or otherwise harrassed, a fear that is unfortunately well-justified in a society that's become a pit of despair in part due to the vilification of self-defense in general, armed or not.

And heaven help if you shots are fired, cause then you're looking down the barrel of $30,000.00+ in legal fees, MINIMUM - no matter how innocent you are.

Ergo, the watchword of folks who do believe in self-defense these days is mums the word, don't ask don't tell, and can you really blame them ?

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 25, 2008 11:53 AM

CHRISMOORHEAD

Dreamtrove - I can agree with the impotence of the single man in a hole to change the course of an entire war. Not to say his efforts would be totally useless; if you know what the "Death Funnel" is in relation to Room Clearing Procedures, then you know how deadly a lone gunman can be to a squad.

But you seem to think that the number of people who fit that description is large enough to stress over; I really don't think it is. There are plenty of military and ex military personnel out there who have or are willing to train others. As for those who do make up the former category; it's their life. My father is one of these people, because he's 64 years old an incapable of the physical demands of an effective defense. But he wont live in oppression. I can appreciate that.

Your second point seems to be that any group of even well organized citizens would be overcome by the technological advantage of the government; this is not necessarily the case. I don't know how much you read about the Easter uprising, but the British had artillery, multiple machine guns and modern battle rifles. The Irish had outdated, poorly maintained German battle rifles and a Lewis gun or two. They also tried utilizing trench warfare in areas where it was a death trap to do so. My point here is that they were not as well drilled or competent or even equipped as you seem to think that they were. In the end their battle was lost, but their cause gained notoriety.

The underlying and core point of all of this is that guns are not outdated as your first post said. That is not an opinion; it is military fact. All organized militaries, no matter how technologically advanced, recognize the need for trigger pullers on the ground, in offensive or defensive situations. Technology is combat support, and in many situations nowadays can become a hindrance under the right circumstances. My last duty in Iraq was operating a 360 degree rotating camera on a 75 foot pole that could see well over 10 kilometers in every direction (Called the RAID T or Mobile Eagle Eye). When this thing went down, our dependency on the system became clear, and manpower had to be borrowed from other details to get it back up and running. My M4 never gave me that much trouble, in spite of having an inferior method of gas operation.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 25, 2008 4:52 PM

Quote:
The reason you don't see it, is cause no one in their right mind would be damn fool enough to admit it on a public forum in what is fast becoming a surveillance society.

FREM, I grant that in rural america I do not see it. I see urban drug warfare as an export, but no one is putting up cameras.

I don't think that this touches on my angle on this discussion: The ideas that the lone gunmen are staving off the feds imho is insane. I think all they are doing is drawing attention to themselves. This is never good.

> And I honestly think that if you wish to continue discussion of the topic you need to do your homework,
> which means reading the Federalist, and Antifederalist papers concerning the ratification of the Constitution,

Done that.

> because most of the folk involved in the formation of those amendments were quite explicitly clear as to what they meant,
> and this contradicts most of your perceptions about the Second - but again, it's another thing that cannot really be soundbited,

Wasn't my impression. I don't think they intended loan gun men, I think they intended organized resistance. I think that I said this from the get go, and that every example posted to me so far in an effort to "contradict me" has been an example of organized resistance. None of what I see here is organized resistance. I see a lot of fruitcakes looking for the right to shoot their neighbors. There's a little too much of that. I haven't seen signs that people have an organized resistance

"Even if they did, it wouldn't do any good, they would only come with guns."

The Feds and NWO would come with mini-nukes, or at least enough firepower to make you no longer identifiable as carbon based life forms.

The resistance displayed is quixotic at best. Mostly, it seems to be individualist paranoia. I will grant all points about rights, the need to protect those rights and the threat posed by the NWO to the people, and to their rights. I am not debating any of that.

I am saying that there is a level of unrealism in people's view of this resistance.

Okay, let me take a leap of faith and say that you are indicating that what people post here appears to be a handful of individual gun nuts but is actually a well organized militia which is too smart to admit it. If this were the case, I think it would only put you in more danger, unless you number in the millions, and have a lot of firepower.

Consider this. Iran is afraid of the NWO, and planning a resistance. Here's what Iran has

80,000 navy seals
2 million man standing army
12 million reservists
200-300 fighter planes
A Navy that appears to control the Gulf
Anti aircraft batteries
Comprehensive anti missile system
Access to 120 undisclosed nuclear missiles
Alliances with Russia and China

Okay, and they are mounting a resistance. Anyone who had seriously read the US operations in Iraq and Afghanistan plans would know that we would have won these wars if we wanted to. But stable states would be automatically allied by pressure to Iran, China and Russia, our true opponents in this conflict (look at Maliki. Okay, so, openly, we support him, that's the smart thing to do, to fight the influence. But it's public knowledge that CIA officials have admitted to plans to destablize the region. That's the real objective.)

So, Iran is prepared, what are you guys, realistically. Getting the picture?

> and if you think I run on and on, that's nothing compared to our founders,

lol. true.

> Still, if you're going to argue these things, you NEED that background to do so effectively

I have read them, but differently. I will concede the point that I should re-read, but also, take everything in historical perspective. And compare to today. The founding fathers did not then go around to the native american tribes and start handing out muskets now did they? They were addressing, specifically, the defenders of the revolution. So, if I dig through and find language support individual rights for use of fire arms for their personal defense of property against their fellow citizens, including the right to kill trespassers, and those documents found within those which back the documents which bear the force of law, then I will cave on that point, but not on the point of the intended audience.

Even if I lose the precedence issue, I will still hold that the personal firearm was the ultimate weapon of war in a land battle during the revolutionary war, whereas it is a toothpick of war today.

Additionally, my brother is a professor of constitutional law, I'm sure I can bring plenty of evidence to bear on this argument. This means that I may change my position, because he's a very objective guy, and will not back me up simply because I'm his brother, he will back up the constitution. He's a christian, and not a Taoist like myself, so his take is likely to be different from my own.

I don't hold firm to positions. I do call it as I see it, and at the moment what I see is somewhere between quixotic and suicidal.

> And finally, the reason you don't see "chased off by armed citizen" in the news is twofold

I don't need the media, I have life experience. Gun ownership in rural areas is quite high. The cases I've stated have not been news references, but people I know. If I think of a family saved by having a gun in personal experience, I'll let you know. I missed one from before though: My best friend in school, those few years that I went, I freely admit to a 5th grade education, his father blew his head off. His wife had introduced him to cocaine, and then had been started cheating on him, he freaked out and blew his brains out. My friend later killed himself without a gun. He jumped off of an 80 foot cliff, also while stoned. I just neglected this anecdotal information from the earlier, so I'm including it, whatever the effect on the argument.

> And heaven help if you shots are fired, cause then you're looking down the barrel of $30,000.00+ in legal fees, MINIMUM - no matter how innocent you are.
> Ergo, the watchword of folks who do believe in self-defense these days is mums the word, don't ask don't tell, and can you really blame them ?

Not the planet I live in. Seems the local drug dealer can get off scot free, but maybe he bribed the cops or the judge.
I consider this way off topic. The topic is whether or not you're going to stop the oncoming storm with a handgun.

Quote:

CHRISMOORHEAD

Dreamtrove - I can agree with the impotence of the single man in a hole to change the course of an entire war. Not to say his efforts would be totally useless; if you know what the "Death Funnel" is in relation to Room Clearing Procedures, then you know how deadly a lone gunman can be to a squad.

Yeah, I do, and I get your point. Still, this isn't the situation I envision. I envision this going down as "fire in the hole" and that's the last words many of the above posters would hear.

Quote:
But you seem to think that the number of people who fit that description is large enough to stress over; I really don't think it is.

Oh, I see a lot of it around here. It ends here as it does in texas. In paperwork over what to do with their dead bodies.

Quote:
There are plenty of military and ex military personnel out there who have or are willing to train others. As for those who do make up the former category; it's their life. My father is one of these people, because he's 64 years old an incapable of the physical demands of an effective defense. But he wont live in oppression. I can appreciate that.

I'm all with you on opposing oppression. Against a predator drone, I think this is hopeless, unless your guys have anti aircraft batteries. An anti-missile system would help. My point is a random AK will not.

Quote:
Your second point seems to be that any group of even well organized citizens would be overcome by the technological advantage of the government; this is not necessarily the case. I don't know how much you read about the Easter uprising

I already cited the first Zulu war as a better example to make your point, but Castro is also a better one. The Irish were really minorly outgunned, and they had numbers and home turf advantage. Okay, so did the Zulu, but they had extreme technological disadvantage. Castro's secret was that his 800 were up against total incompetence. I'm just pointing these out as making your point better than the irish republicans.

If what you are saying is that you have a well ordered militia, then we have no argument. The first and second amendment and associated writings call for this. Lone gunmen spree shooting they do not.

But times change. Outgunned by a margin is different from what we have. They have mini-nukes, and you have lead slugs. I see Waco, even if people have a well ordered militia, chemical weapons vs. firearms. I think this is the realistic situation. Depending on the size of the militia. It's one thing to have the constitutional right, it's another thing to actually win.

You want real revolution: The Orange Revolution. 300,000 unarmed people took over the govt. I read an interview with one of the 15,000 armed guards defending the parliment. He said he and his buddy looked at the oncoming horde, led to charge by Yulia Tymoschenko, and he they had about 2-3 min to decide what to do. They figured if they opened fire, they could kill maybe 10, maybe 20, even 50 thousand of the unarmed attacking citizens, and decided that this would probably not stop them. Then he said he considered the result of losing in those circumstances, and realizeds that if even a small % of protestors got through, they could handily take over the govt, and anyone who had fired upon them would be executed on the capital steps. At this point, they concurred, and the commander gave the order to the guards to surrender. Against a completely unarmed attacker. So, yes, numbers do matter.

Our govt. has disposable humans and killer robots dropping carpet bombs.

The disadvantage of the Irish as comparable to the American Revolution, and in no way similar to what a modern american resistance would face. But I've also seen the stealth bomber, and I've used firearms. If you ask me who is going to win in this battle, I'm going to refer you to Jurasic park, chained goat and T-Rex.

Quote:
The underlying and core point of all of this is that guns are not outdated as your first post said.

Obsolete. Guns, alone, cannot win a war against the full arsenal of technology. A number of people can. Because of their brains, not their guns. But I don't see a number of people. I'm going to say, what? the six of you? Okay, maybe there are more, but have you counted the marching morons? Considered the possibility of a draft? And, sure, Humans battling machines in Terminator is possible, but not with random don quixote's with guns.

Quote:
That is not an opinion; it is military fact. All organized militaries, no matter how technologically advanced, recognize the need for trigger pullers on the ground, in offensive or defensive situations.

Not arguing. I was arguing against lone gunmen as sole defender against the tyranny of the state, which is the absurd position put forth.

BTW, Kudos for the Manowar reference.

Quote:
Technology is combat support, and in many situations nowadays can become a hindrance under the right circumstances.

Sure, as I said, I have a friend who just came back from 5 years on the front lines. His opinion of the technology was not great. He said he told his CO, "if I'm wounded, and don't return, fuck the robots, send the dogs."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 25, 2008 5:50 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:

...Guns, alone, cannot win a war against the full arsenal of technology. A number of people can. Because of their brains, not their guns.

...I will still hold that the personal firearm was the ultimate weapon of war in a land battle during the revolutionary war, whereas it is a toothpick of war today.

There you go !

Even an analog clock , when stopped , is right TWICE during a day !

The entire point of warfare is to live to fight another day , meanwhile making the enemy pay with his life ,
in the service of his ideals...

In other words , killing people , and breaking their stuff...

You're right...A good sniper with a decent weapon would pick your teeth out , while you stand around attempting to be philosophical...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 25, 2008 5:54 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by ChrisMoorhead:

Dreamtrove - I can agree with the impotence of the single man in a hole to change the course of an entire war. Not to say his efforts would be totally useless; if you know what the "Death Funnel" is in relation to Room Clearing Procedures, then you know how deadly a lone gunman can be to a squad.

Your second point seems to be that any group of even well organized citizens would be overcome by the technological advantage of the government; this is not necessarily the case.

The underlying and core point of all of this is that guns are not outdated as your first post said. That is not an opinion; it is military fact. All organized militaries, no matter how technologically advanced, recognize the need for trigger pullers on the ground, in offensive or defensive situations.dependency on the system became clear, and manpower had to be borrowed from other details to get it back up and running. My M4 never gave me that much trouble, in spite of having an inferior method of gas operation.

Thanks for your service and professional relevance , Chris .

It's an honor for you to take time to contribute to this discussion .

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 25, 2008 8:00 PM

CHRISMOORHEAD

Dreamtrove - You and I seem to have a very similar opinion on this matter in the long run. I'm actually almost sure that you, NVG and many other people you've butted heads with on this thread are on the same page. Many of them probably just felt threatened by some of your original posts, construing your pragmatic opinion on the capabilities of a lone gunman to be an attack on gun ownership in general. People get edgy about the subject, and for good reason on both sides honestly.

In any case I can deffinately agree that a lon indevidual holed up in his house would be ineffective, but thhere are other sides to it. The first, I'll reitterate, is the example of my father. Many people would rather die than be moved off of their land, or have any of the rights they enjoy taken away from them for any reason. You may shake your head at them, but for them it's a noble cause, and honestly I agree with them.

Also, if there is a great number of people who do this, no matter how uncoordinated, it would at least have the effect of slowing down an aggresor. Fire in the Hole might be an effective response for tight tunnels with no place to take cover, but for the standard American living quarters with multiple rooms, basements, and clutter inside of them? It'd be a nightmare trying to clear that, and even worse, actually, if you softened the area with artillery and air strikes. Real world experience on my part lands the fact that you never have enough frags or flashbangs when you need them, anyways, so it really would come down to fighting from house to house.

Finally, I appriciate your references and all, but I really see Ireland as a more appropriate reference than the Spears vs. Muzzle Loaders or Revolutionary Hispanics... ooh, how about the Bielski partisans? Hear they're coming out with a movie about them soon...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 25, 2008 9:07 PM

I just came in to post my update, with no intention of commenting, because I expected to see no comments.

I consulted my brother, and he supported your position, so I concede the point. He said the "Volokh school" of thought is technically correct, and that Thomas Jefferson would have supported an AK-47 in every household, but then again, he would have supported a slave in every household as well. He took the basic position of "for those who want to live in the 18th century, this is a good legal basis, if not a practical one, and if you stock up, remember, that's 7.62 x 39 mm.

He added "the storm troopers will come for them... If only."

Of course I'm not making this up. Interpret it as you will. He also noted that this is a constitutional inconsistency among many that is hotly debated in the legal community, to create enough content of legal documents to fill a library on both sides. He expects that this issue will be solved... never. He also did not think that Obama would move to take away guns or institute gun control, that would prompt incidents that the govt. would win, but that would be unpopular for a politician.

Anyway, I concede the constitutional point. Founding father support your idea of shooting your neighbors. While I may think that this is a recipe for chaos, I am constitutionally in the wrong. I think I made some valid arguments, but I concede the overall issue. As I said, my brother is an expert on the topic, and not pro-gun himself, but he agrees with the board that the founding fathers support your position.

I still hold that in the 20th century, this is an unrealistic means of defense, from a logistical standpoint.

Since people have posted since my last post, which I wasn't expecting, I will point something out about communication. Out2theBlack, while I agree we agree on many things, you managed to belittle, insult, and threaten me in your last post. While as I said before, I am virtually impossible to faze, it is sure to change my opinion of your future posts. Think of it as opening fire in a ricochet chamber. Contrast that with the civil post of ChrisMoodHead which followed. Obviously, communication is a skill, with friends, which we all are here, as well as with enemies and strangers. In this case I was wrong, some people chose to disagree with me, others decided to be just plain hostile. I was not completely wrong. My point about it being a dated idea seems valid, but I freely conceded the constitutional issue.

out2theblack, I don't hold it against you, but not well thought out hostility does dig a hole that will be difficult to bury out of. Consider, and reconsider. Your invictives and support for the hostile posts of others, as well as deserting well reasoned argument in favor of old fashion flaming was a poor choice. I recall our discussions from other threads, and so I'm willing to overlook it, but keep it in mind.

NVG. Some respect you, no idea why. Your posts are beneath anything here. It seems you hurl insults in the absence of experience. If there's more to you, let it show. I do give people a second chance, it's how I know a great many people. Do yourself a favor, and read the language of your own posts. Imagine someone posted them to you, and then see how you feel about that person. Bear in mind they have no effect on me, other than how I view the merit of your words, but still, it would be instructive.

Chris

I think we already dealt with the Bielski issue. Obviously disarming the public in order to exterminate them or for any reason, is wrong.

In all things, I'm pretty objective. The Ireland issue is a close one to me. Many of my ancestors care from Ireland, fleeing on boats as they were being rounded up for the slaughter for by William and Mary. But objectively, it's not an absurd balance of power issue, it's more like the American Revolution. In either case, I would expect them to win. I think that Iraq represents a more radical imbalance of power, and I think they won by default. Against Saddam, we won, but against Al Sadr, we didn't, and should never have tried. It was the correct decision to persuade him to take part in the political process rather than in the war.

To everyone I say, nothing is an emotional issue for me, which is scarcely surprising. People who have been through what I have understand, and would feel similarly. When you vent pure hostility and childish insults, you hurt only yourself, in lessening the opinions of others. Whether or not you care about my opinion of you is irrelevant. It is a public board, and everyone is likely to judge you by what you say, and by how you say it.

Just to be fair, I went back and read all of Frem's post, which gives me something that I have to respond to:

1. First off, nothing gives me the willies.
2. I agree about nuclear weapons
3. This was just unfortunate:

Quote:
And if you're unwilling to defend all the Constitutional rights, then you've surrendered 90% of the fight already, and I've nothin useful to say on the matter other than you've drawn your own fate - I just wish ya weren't wrapping that boat anchor chain around my ankles too, cause as it stands my only consolation is gonna be watching you swirl down the drain first, when the powers that be have their way and no use for your ignorant stupidity any longer, and repay that loyalty the way they always have.

Ah Frem, you only damage yourself with harsh rhetoric. I believe my first right was freedom of religion. I have no problem facing down people with guns, even assault rifles, even those that want to kill me, and have done so several times. The ability to communicate is far more powerful than a weapon, even without language. First rule of nature: Only food runs.

I'm not really a man of fear and I ignore the flack I get for being a man of faith. I am concerned that others are not so fortunate in a cross-fire world.

Normally I respect you, but I think your posts are too long. This one went fine until it launched into a series of threats at the end. Just unfortunate. See above on communication.

To everyone else who responded with dignity and respect to me who was basically wrong, thanks, and you deserve respect for not shouting me down, but for taking my concerns seriously.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 25, 2008 10:31 PM

Done told you I've no intention to be nice.

And be damned if imma respond kindly to folks who wanna keep their rights while handing mine over, as if that don't screw us both, just cause they're annoyed, offended, or afraid of how I use them - I know where that goes, and so do you, so let's not pretend we we're not very well aware what lies down THAT road, ok ?

To be blunt, fuck that - frankly, what raises most people's ire about someone like me being armed is the plain and simple fact that as long as I am, they cannot force their will on me so easily.

They might not ADMIT that, but like I said, I have a pretty good bullshit detector.

As for the rest of it, hell no, a single handgun ain't gonna make that damn much difference, but collectives of skilled people who understand and can effectively practice 4GW warfare are a very realistic response to such things, which is all imma say on that.

The second amendment is a tripwire, it's there to let folks know when the Gov has overstepped itself, and to let it fall invites a domino effect once the threat of armed citizenry is fully neutralised.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 26, 2008 12:54 AM