Here it is the libs are coming after our guns by kaneman

Quote:
Originally posted by pizmobeach:
It's never been clear to me what these evil intentions are that are so feared...

Well, having spent years in at least one country that endured an armed revolution, I can tell you.

Not being able to criticize the government either publicly or privately, verbally or in writing, for fear of being disappeared (there were spies everywhere).

Not being able to have any say in government policies and laws (no votes, or no recognized votes).

No avenue for challenging or changing the government (no alternative parties, or no real chance for alternative parties).

Heavy taxation, high rates of unemployment, and other practical ills that have no redress.

Watching the country's resources go to a select elite group who live extravagantly, while the rest of the country struggles to feed their families.

Knowing that the government is owned and paid for by foreign interests.

-----

So on one hand, you have economic suffering to the point of people going hungry. On the other hand you have no non-violent way to change this. And to top it off, you see the govt as treasonous in betraying the people for foreign powers and elite cronies. This is the recipe for revolution.

Can this happen in America? I guess if you say "absolutely not, not in a million years," then it would make sense that you would support gun control.

The rest of us who aren't so sure? Well, we don't want our fire hydrant to be taken away.

Can't Take (my gorram) Sky
------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.

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

Thursday, January 13, 2011 12:54 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by pizmobeach:
They'll lie, cheat and steal, but will they march on my house?

I think you've just summarized the entire gun control debate in one question. Wow, that is actually quite impressive.

"Yes" people want guns.

"No" people don't.

"Maybe" people are probably split between the two.

Can't Take (my gorram) Sky
------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.

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

Thursday, January 13, 2011 1:00 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
The issue is whether you can be honest enough to say....we know what the fall out is, but this is an issue of freedom, so we are prepared to put up with and accept the negatives consequences in order that our rights are not infringed.
I thought my analogy with the doctor deaths made that point. Yes, guns cause deaths that otherwise would not have occurred. But so do doctors, cars, knives, and bathtubs. We put up with those deaths because we want to keep our guns, doctors, cars, knives, and bathtubs. We try to find a way to make them safer, not to get rid of them or severely restrict them.

And our need for guns is not just about freedom and rights. Regarding self-defense against animals and criminals, many guns serve critical uses and DO save lives. Regarding self-defense against govt, on the freedom and right issue, guns are more like fire hydrants than like doctors and cars. We hope never to use them, but we want them every 3 blocks just the same.

One can always try some sort of cost-benefit analysis. At some point though, it does come down to a matter of principle, and how much an individual values that principle. In this case though, for me, the principle is not simply the right to own guns, but the right to be equal in trust and power as the people I elect.

Can't Take (my gorram) Sky
------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.

Your analogies are kind of flawed in my view, doctors may killed through malpractice, but they exist to save lives and promote health. I really don't agree that guns save more lives than they take, they are weapons that have been designed to kill and maim. That is their sole purpose, unlike knives, cars, doctors et al.

My view on guns is that I hate them, I hate the gun culture of the US and its one of the main reasons why I hesitate to visit your shores again, because otherwise I'd really like to do so. I don't own a gun, and know of no-one who does. Guns are pretty much banned here, and personally I'm happy with that. But I recognise that Americans have a different philosophy and I understand why. I don't want it for myself, but I get your reasons.

I'd support militias as I said. I really like the idea of pretty much abandoning standing armies, and creating the capacity for civilians to defend themselves if need be, but I can't agree with large scale individual ownership without restriction or training - clearly I am talking about my own country now, not yours as I recognise that as a general population, you see things differently.

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

Thursday, January 13, 2011 1:49 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

It is perhaps an irony that one of the things I worry about when I think of visiting England is that I might get attacked. I understand that violent crime occurs there on a comperable level to many parts of the U.S. My understanding of the law system there is that, when confronted with violent crime, the only certain legal recourse is to comply with your attacker and then call the police afterwards. I have heard that violent resistance, and particularly armed resistance (even if only with a handy bludgeoning object) can carry serious legal consequences. Moreso than in the U.S.

I do not know if these things I have heard about England is true, but the thought of it frightens me.

On the other hand, the citizens of all nations have the right to make whatever society they enjoy. It's up to me to decide if visiting is worth the risk.

--Anthony

Assured by friends that the signal-to-noise ratio has improved on this forum, I have disabled web filtering.

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

Thursday, January 13, 2011 2:21 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hello,

It is perhaps an irony that one of the things I worry about when I think of visiting England is that I might get attacked. I understand that violent crime occurs there on a comperable level to many parts of the U.S. My understanding of the law system there is that, when confronted with violent crime, the only certain legal recourse is to comply with your attacker and then call the police afterwards. I have heard that violent resistance, and particularly armed resistance (even if only with a handy bludgeoning object) can carry serious legal consequences. Moreso than in the U.S.

I do not know if these things I have heard about England is true, but the thought of it frightens me.

On the other hand, the citizens of all nations have the right to make whatever society they enjoy. It's up to me to decide if visiting is worth the risk.

--Anthony

Assured by friends that the signal-to-noise ratio has improved on this forum, I have disabled web filtering.

I lived in the UK for about 6 years. Ironically, given that London is a large diverse city with a reasonable degree of crime, I always felt safe walking the streets and travelling the Tube, even on my own, partially because there was always so many people about. It was a city where lots of people walked around and caught public transport. I actually felt much safer there than here, even though the crime rate is lower here because less people use public transport and walk around (being more of a suburban culture).

My understanding of the laws there is that you may defend yourself with reasonable force, which doesn't include shooting someone between the eyes if they are trying to pinch your I-Phone.

I don't believe to any degree whatsoever that having a population in possession of guns makes people safer. I believe the number of guns in circulation increases the amount of gun crime. But I also see that if you believe that governments should butt out of individuals choice in many matters(excuse the terrible pun), then you bear the consequences that some individuals abuse those rights. That is a philosophical stance which I can understand. It's a bit like the Westboro thing, sometimes you have to put up with stuff for the sake of individual rights. It's not a view I personally hold, but I do understand it.

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

Thursday, January 13, 2011 2:51 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
I really don't agree that guns save more lives than they take,

I don't agree with that either. I said they save lives, never said they save more lives than they take. Without being omniscient, I cannot possibly know how many lives have been saved, if any at all, because of the deaths that occurred.

Quote:
That is their sole purpose, unlike knives, cars, doctors et al.

My analogy is simply to say guns, like lots of other causes of death, are tools that are useful and do save lives despite that fact. No more.

I understand seeing guns as a tool whose only purpose is to maim and kill. But the results are larger than that.

If you have a gunman who is there to maim and kill your whole family of 7 people, and you either maim or kill him first, wouldn't you have just used a gun to save the lives of 7 people?

It all depends on WHO you maim and kill, and WHEN. If used judiciously on the right people and at the right time, this instrument which is largely used for killing can paradoxically be an exceptional life-saving tool as well.

All that to say, the gun is simply a neutral tool that can fire a small projectile at high speeds. How people use this powerful tool, that is the crux of it all. The real weapons are in the hearts and minds of Homo sapiens.

Can't Take (my gorram) Sky
------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.

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

Thursday, January 13, 2011 3:09 PM

PIZMOBEACH

... fully loaded, safety off...

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Quote:
Originally posted by pizmobeach:
It's never been clear to me what these evil intentions are that are so feared...
Well, having spent years in at least one country that endured an armed revolution, I can tell you.

Not being able to criticize the government either publicly or privately, verbally or in writing, for fear of being disappeared (there were spies everywhere).

Not being able to have any say in government policies and laws (no votes, or no recognized votes).

No avenue for challenging or changing the government (no alternative parties, or no real chance for alternative parties).

Heavy taxation, high rates of unemployment, and other practical ills that have no redress.

Watching the country's resources go to a select elite group who live extravagantly, while the rest of the country struggles to feed their families.

Knowing that the government is owned and paid for by foreign interests.

Those sound like a lot of the things this country was supposedly founded to prevent - seems like it's worked "pretty well" so far, for the first 200 years at least.

I'm curious CTS, you are living in Peru now and were in these other countries, how long did you live in the US and how long in these other places?

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
So on one hand, you have economic suffering to the point of people going hungry. On the other hand you have no non-violent way to change this. And to top it off, you see the govt as treasonous in betraying the people for foreign powers and elite cronies. This is the recipe for revolution.

Can this happen in America? I guess if you say "absolutely not, not in a million years," then it would make sense that you would support gun control.

The rest of us who aren't so sure? Well, we don't want our fire hydrant to be taken away.

We're far from perfect and I'm not an hoo-rah patriot, but it seems like you have it kind of backwards - countries have armed revolts to be more like us and have the freedoms we have.

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com

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

Thursday, January 13, 2011 3:32 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

"countries have armed revolts to be more like us and have the freedoms we have."

Hello,

This is sensible, since we are the product of an armed revolt.

--Anthony

Assured by friends that the signal-to-noise ratio has improved on this forum, I have disabled web filtering.

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

Thursday, January 13, 2011 3:33 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

"All that to say, the gun is simply a neutral tool that can fire a small projectile at high speeds. How people use this powerful tool, that is the crux of it all. The real weapons are in the hearts and minds of Homo sapiens."

Hello,

On the topic of guns as neutral tools, which is only tangentially related to the topic at hand...

It is probably worth noting that the vast majority of people who own and operate firearms, even though they may discharge thousands of rounds of ammunition, never fire those weapons at a person. A simple analysis of gun ownership vs. gun violence in this country reveals that most gun owners aren't shooting at anyone. I imagine that most operators of firearms use their deadly weapon for the preposterous diversion of putting holes into inanimate objects.

There is another device that was once widely used for violence, but is now used primarily for sport: The wooden club. One might have easily assumed that this device had no peaceful purpose. However, while it can still be used for violence, (and is,) most owners of a wooden club use it for the preposterous diversion of striking thrown balls.

The bow is yet another example of a deadly weapon that has bizzarrely mutated into a sports device. Violence with bows is relatively rare, and usually limited to the killing of animals. Most bow owners use their deadly weapon for the same purpose as most gun owners. Only a minority of bowmen ever fire at a living thing, and only a vanishingly small percentage of those ever fire at a human.

None of this has much to do with the value of guns in free societies, but it is worth mentioning when people note that a gun has no purpose but violence.

In fact, the purpose of a thing is up to the individual.

--Anthony

Assured by friends that the signal-to-noise ratio has improved on this forum, I have disabled web filtering.

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

Thursday, January 13, 2011 3:41 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
I really don't agree that guns save more lives than they take,
I don't agree with that either. I said they save lives, never said they save more lives than they take. Without being omniscient, I cannot possibly know how many lives have been saved, if any at all, because of the deaths that occurred.
Quote:
That is their sole purpose, unlike knives, cars, doctors et al.
My analogy is simply to say guns, like lots of other causes of death, are tools that are useful and do save lives despite that fact. No more.

I understand seeing guns as a tool whose only purpose is to maim and kill. But the results are larger than that.

If you have a gunman who is there to maim and kill your whole family of 7 people, and you either maim or kill him first, wouldn't you have just used a gun to save the lives of 7 people?

It all depends on WHO you maim and kill, and WHEN. If used judiciously on the right people and at the right time, this instrument which is largely used for killing can paradoxically be an exceptional life-saving tool as well.

All that to say, the gun is simply a neutral tool that can fire a small projectile at high speeds. How people use this powerful tool, that is the crux of it all. The real weapons are in the hearts and minds of Homo sapiens.

Can't Take (my gorram) Sky
------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.

So I'll talk about crime in my country, because that is all I know. I have no idea whether this applies to the US.

Home invasion, a gunman wielding a gun and threatening families is incredibly rare. Incredibly. Most burglars wait until you are away from home. They don't want the confrontation, they are useful pathetic junkies trying to get enough stuff for a quick fix.

Most violence happens between people who know one another, families, friends, rivals, and so on. Not by the stranger. CHild homicide is predominately carried out by someone who knows the child, often the parent or stepparent. Rape is predominantly by someone known to the victim.

Maybe we have incredibly disfunctional relationships, I'm not sure. I think that gun ownership in these circumstances would make things worse, not better as people who are demonstrating an incredible lack of control in conflict situations would have access to deadlier weapons than they already do. And before anyone says knives and handmade weapons can do equal damage, bullshit. In that case, would your military consider going back to using rapiers and swords instead of guns and rifles? Guns are a superior weapon, it was why they were invented and why they continually are 'improved' - to kill more people more quickly.

I have no time for the guns for self defence argument, but I can see the point of guns against tyranny.

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

Thursday, January 13, 2011 3:51 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by pizmobeach:
I'm curious CTS, you are living in Peru now and were in these other countries, how long did you live in the US and how long in these other places?

I lived in 4 different countries for the first 16 years (avg 4 years each), and lived in the USA for well over 20 years.

Quote:
... but it seems like you have it kind of backwards - countries have armed revolts to be more like us and have the freedoms we have.

True. The question is, do we need to keep our guns in case we need to become more like us AGAIN, in the future?

Can't Take (my gorram) Sky
------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.

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

Thursday, January 13, 2011 4:01 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
Guns are a superior weapon, it was why they were invented and why they continually are 'improved' - to kill more people more quickly.

Well, different weapons have their unique strengths.

I'm not sure killing speed is the main strength of the gun. I tend to think the gun's advantage over swords is 1) it does not require strength, which gives the power to kill/defend to a larger portion of the population ("God made all men, Sam Colt made them equal"), and 2) it can kill/defend from a distance, which allows you to attack without as much risk of being attacked back.

Swords do have their own advantages such as not running out of bullets.

This conversation is so weird, because I really am a pacifist. LOL.

Can't Take (my gorram) Sky
------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.

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

Thursday, January 13, 2011 4:07 PM

DREAMTROVE

Frem

You mean it's incrementalism. I get that.

Happy, on where to draw the line. Spot on.

Quote:

How did Afghan win against the Russians? How are the Iraqis and Afghans still keeping us there?

CTS,

It's more complicated than that.

Because we helped the Afghans defeat the Russians

Ergo, what do you think is happening to us, mirror, mirror.

It's not that the Afghans aren't badass, it's that they also have the advantage and disadvantage of geography:

They are center board. It's the most powerful position. Everyone wants it. But no one wants anyone else to have it. So, when you have us, Iran, Pakistan, China, Russia, then you have a bunch of players, all of whom have a vested interest in any one of the others failing.

Hell. Even *Pakistan* has admitted to sabotaging us in Afgh. and they are the only ones here who are even nominally on our side. The Iranians have admitted to opposing us, the Russians are keeping mousy quiet about it but they're all over the place, and the occasional chinese person and lots of chinese weapons just keep showing up, so IMHO it's pretty obvious.

There are too many cross topics in this thread, my brain is full. Hrm.

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

Thursday, January 13, 2011 4:11 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

Approximately 30% of non-suicide gunshot victims die from their wounds. Modern warfare actually designs military arms that are inefficient killers, for reasons related to the Geneva convention. I wonder if this will change with the 'War on Terror.'

Still, guns are indeed a superior weapon for three reasons. You already mentioned the magic of engaging targets at a distance, possibly from a safe remove.

You also added that guns allow the engagement of targets that possess a physical advantage. Hence, guns allow the weakling to engage the behemoth with equal chance of success. This is why we can employ females in front-line warfare to great effect. Upper-body-strength and superior body weight is not a serious advantage in the theater of modern warfare.

Finally, as has been said, guns can be built with amazing firepower. They can engage multiple targets quickly, or one target redundantly. Or even both, if you include military machineguns and miniguns into the argument.

Having said that, I would be perfectly content if everyone was armed with swords or cudgels. It might be unfair to women and old people, who would have to close with threats and place themselves at a potential physical disadvantage. However, if there was an arms parity, I could content myself with any system
that recognized my right to defense.

Magons,

I appreciate that you consider the possibility of tyranny. It is nice of you to consider the other side of the argument.

--Anthony

Assured by friends that the signal-to-noise ratio has improved on this forum, I have disabled web filtering.

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

Thursday, January 13, 2011 4:14 PM

As I said Anthony, I don't want to live somewhere where there are lots of guns for personal protection, but I like the idea of militias. I'd probably prefer the Swiss model to that of the US, however.

When travelling alone, i did for a while carry around hairspray for protection. To be used the same as mace. My worry was that I would end up spraying myself in the face.

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

Thursday, January 13, 2011 4:16 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

"Maybe we have incredibly disfunctional relationships, I'm not sure."

Hello,

Proximity, availability, knowledge of the target, and emotional investment in the target. This is why you are more likely to be harmed by people you know. I think it is true everywhere.

--Anthony

Assured by friends that the signal-to-noise ratio has improved on this forum, I have disabled web filtering.

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

Thursday, January 13, 2011 4:19 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

"My worry was that I would end up spraying myself in the face."

Hello,

This is a valid concern. I prefer streaming chemical weapons to spraying chemical weapons.

It is worth noting that while I live in a state that allows me to carry firearms both concealed and in the open, I usually carry less-lethal arms.

95% of the time, if I have a gun on me, I'm going to do some target shooting.

--Anthony

Assured by friends that the signal-to-noise ratio has improved on this forum, I have disabled web filtering.

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

Thursday, January 13, 2011 4:30 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!

If I had any guns, I'd be concerned. Might make me go out and buy more ammo.

If I had any guns.

" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

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

Thursday, January 13, 2011 4:34 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
Guns are a superior weapon, it was why they were invented and why they continually are 'improved' - to kill more people more quickly.
Well, different weapons have their unique strengths.

I'm not sure killing speed is the main strength of the gun. I tend to think the gun's advantage over swords is 1) it does not require strength, which gives the power to kill/defend to a larger portion of the population ("God made all men, Sam Colt made them equal"), and 2) it can kill/defend from a distance, which allows you to attack without as much risk of being attacked back.

Swords do have their own advantages such as not running out of bullets.

This conversation is so weird, because I really am a pacifist. LOL.

Can't Take (my gorram) Sky
------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.

Yes it is a weird conversation as I know little about guns. I'd assume that could kill more people quickly with an automatic weapon than a knife.

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

Thursday, January 13, 2011 4:47 PM

BYTEMITE

A gun draws a lot of attention though. It depends on whether you're looking at a one time thing, or a long string of murders.

The right tool for the job, you know.

/intentionally trying to be disturbing

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

Thursday, January 13, 2011 4:57 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

For murder, I think the ideal would be a silenced revolver.

The Russians made a revolver with a gas seal that could do the job. You can buy it used.

You need to make your own silencer, though.

--Anthony

Assured by friends that the signal-to-noise ratio has improved on this forum, I have disabled web filtering.

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

Thursday, January 13, 2011 5:04 PM

BYTEMITE

Yeah, but it's easier to trace a bullet than it is specific knife wounds. You can do it, depth and the type of cut can be dependent on the length and type of blade, but that's different from being able to know right away that such bullet came from such and such model of gun.

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

Thursday, January 13, 2011 8:18 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

A murderer using frangible bullets might get around that problem. It's all a matter of technology.

No intact bullet. No shell casing. No noise. Plus you have the ability to engage your target at range.

--Anthony

Assured by friends that the signal-to-noise ratio has improved on this forum, I have disabled web filtering.

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

Thursday, January 13, 2011 9:06 PM

FREMDFIRMA

Hoo boy, lotsa posts - imma have to go down the line here from where I last posted...
This might be a bit long, bear with me, please.

Pizmo, I get where you're coming from, how could I not given my primary focus is on removing or reforming the social structures and instituions which leave folk so terribly broken that it makes em dangerous in the first place - but till we come a lot further along in that respect, I am not convinced reducing our ability to apply force in our defense is any kind of good idea.

Rather, I favor by reducing the introduction of broken dangerous people, by heaving our society further in a sane direction via not breaking folk in the first place, removing a lot of the NEED for that force, at which point folk will make their own choices, and even so you're gonna have holdouts who are unable to change their ways, till new generations replace em - this isn't a knee-jerk, quick-fix kinda thing, and any attempt to make it so just makes it that much worse, a band-aid on a bullet wound, see ?

To continue the medical analogy here, the fact that too much use of antibiotics is bad for you, does not necessarily mean that taking them for an infection is a bad idea - but once the infection is gone, THEN, and only then, does the former start having meaning.

We gotta reduce the nuttery before any notion of reducing personal weaponry carrying, cause to do the latter without the former is just... askin for it.

Magons, I am indeed all for the disbandment of our military, it's bloody useless in our defense, a vaccum that sucks up and wastes tremendous resources, and is as you say, a very font of tyranny and aggression, often needlessly so in order to justify it's own existence - and don't even get me started on the fact that we now have them stationed here in the states, on active duty, with the idea of pacifying *US* as their potential mission.

Our founders would be shitting bricks over that, were they still kickin.
Wasn't never the thought of our military that ever kept us from being invaded so much as that they'd get cut to ribbons before they reached the nearest walmart by the crazy-assed populace, not to mention our very culture would drive them completely batshit insane within a month, most of em.

And one of the things about weapon-injury that you mention also drives me to the wall, in that most people have piss-poor concepts of weapon safety and handling, something which COULD be rectified by a competence certification requirement similar to a drivers license for a car, but BY NO MEANS would I want that in the hands of Government when they have already proven beyond any doubt via extensive and ongoing abuse of CCW permit laws that they utterly cannot be trusted with it, more I would make it a condition of sale in exchange for dealer/manufacturer immunity from lawsuit.
I'd rather someone have the training without the weapon, than the weapon without the training, that for a fact.
Hell, I wouldn't mind making the training part of citizenship, with exemptions for those who have religious, moral or philosophical objections.

Funny thing about it, is that I own a weapon that really *does* have no purpose beyond the ability to engage and demolish a superior force, being wholly designed for that explicit purpose to begin with, and it is a thing properly regarded with horror at even the notion it would ever see use, even and especially by me.
But it's mere *presence* in my home, in my possession, has in several cases prevented aggression on me by local authories, corrupt or misguided (never more so than in the city council fiasco) - this has been flatly admitted by two local police depts, including the county where I now reside, although that conversation may well have been tongue in cheek to some extent - he did tell me that if they had to serve a warrant they'd call me and do so during normal business hours instead of kicking in the door and going gonzo with it cause I might otherwise be half-asleep and react aggressively, with that.. *thing*(1), in my hands.
So one can definately make the case that such is in fact a defense against tyranny - hell, one could make it on a grand scale as well, because our support of UN inspections of Iraq had more to do with making SURE they were virtually defenseless in a military sense before we invaded em, than anything to do with WMD.
You think we'd have been so quick to jump in if they had a military presence capable of dealing us some hurt ?
So there is that as well.

(1) - The "thing" in question is Forquet, a cut down, highly modified Saiga-12, a semi automatic 12Gauge shotgun with dual grips, an extraordinarily powerful gun-light, and a magazine containing 31 shells of heavy #4 cube shot, a weapon expressly designed to enable a lone individual to stand on equal terms with an armed gang, and limited to a defensive role only by it's relatively short range.
However, like a nuclear weapon, it doesn't exist to be *used*, but rather to present a threat so potent as to make negotiation preferable - consider how fast our initial sabre-rattling towards North Korea backed off once they had the bomb, for a perfect example.
Ergo, any thought of trying to arrest me on some trumped up, cockamamie bullshit faces the question of "Are we willing to potentially lose X amount of officers over this ?" - a factor which would not otherwise be present, especially as I am not fool enough to fall for the usual chicanery and games involved in that sort of thing.

One of which I'll relate, cause it's a damn common trick and you might find it someday played against you.
They set up a hearing, on a monday afternoon - this is a sure sign it's bullshit cause whatever the charge is it happens to be so pathetic they couldn't even get the typical rubber stamp judge to sign off a warrant for fear of lawsuit liability, so they send you a letter instead of coming to get you, in part cause they can't get a warrant, and in part due to fear you might successfully defend yourself...

The previous friday, they change the hearing from monday afternoon, to monday morning, but they make SURE not to put the legally-required notice to you in the mail till after friday mail pickup - now, at best you might get that letter monday evening, but depending on your local mail service maybe not till even tuesday or later.
Monday morning comes and goes, with you unaware and not present - and so they get a bench warrant, which despite however ludicrous the initial charge was, by it's nature is solid, you see ?
Monday afternoon you show up, and they wait for you to go through that metal detector to make SURE you are defenseless and then pounce - at which point you are in THEIR custody and your ass is theirs, they can sling you in the slammer, deny or set astronomical bail, and postpone, and postpone, and postpone, for months, sometimes YEARS, while your life goes to shit, your home, relationship, job, all gone, and that's if they don't get some other inmate to successfully kill you, or at least maim you... sure, EVENTUALLY they charges will prolly get dropped, and maybe you might be able to sue, many years later, but it won't be them payin, nor will they be disciplined, so what do they care ?

That's a game I don't play (I have a really evil lawyer), and it's only one of many - but the point is, disparity of force much of the time provokes tyranny, so you *HAVE* to take that into account, no matter how grating the notion is, cause underneath all that rule-of-law fiction it often really DOES come down to who outguns who, and Government is more or less who comes out on top.

See, lets turn that around, say I was a college student, living on campus, armed with at best a can of mace, if even that, and no support beyond a public dive-taker, err, defender - given how much of a pain in the ass I am to the local powers that be, it'd be all too easy to conjure up a few allegations and get a search warrant for drugs, then crash my place and taser me till my heart stopped, and insinuate that such was a result of extensive drug use and coerce a few students to corroborate that for the media, ALL TOO EASY, and it happens more often in our society than anyone but me seems willing to admit.

Versus a guy who lives in the very community he defends on a nightly basis, with enough community and media support to make the usual agitprop/demonising a dead letter, an encyclopedic knowledge of violence law and law enforcement dirty tricks backed up by a lawyer so evil folk think I summoned him from a pentacle drawn in virgins blood, AND enough firepower to make engagement without a *damn good reason* professional and political suicide, not to mention the officers ordered to do it would have a crisis of self-preservation and start asking if you were fekkin nuts.

ETA: Not to mention the damn-near-certainty that the entire incident will wind up on tape, up to and including their own radio transmissions, and even one offhand comment of imma kill that bastard will hang the lot of em for attempted murder under cover of law - it ALSO then fully justifies ANY level of force used against them whatever.

Self defense involves far, far more than just the hardware, you see - but without the hardware, it's like a car missing three pistons, people.

Also, think on this bit...

Say you were by necessity, crossing a rather bad section of town, a rough neighborhood, as it were.
And some large, seedy looking fellow comes up to you and asks "You flush man ? You got cash on ya, how much ?" - and suspecting his intentions you do not answer, and start moving away, at which point he shoves you and asks "You strapped, man, you packin ?".
Now, WHY do you think he wants to know these things?
Is it because he has your own best interests in mind, or is it, perhaps, that he has less than noble intentions towards you and wants to know if it's worth the potential risk before acting on them.

Now, give this fellow a badge, a uniform, and an air of perceived legitimacy.
Does it change anything in your mind, in your view ?
Cause in mine - IT DOES NOT.

Now imagine him asking you to hand over your firearm....

-Frem

I do not serve the Blind God.

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

Thursday, January 13, 2011 10:15 PM

FREMDFIRMA

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
And some large, seedy looking fellow comes up to you and asks "You flush man ? You got cash on ya, how much ?"

Ok, clarification, for those unfamiliar with american law enforcement...

They DO ask this question, usually phrased as "Are you carrying large sums of cash on your person or in your vehicle, sir?" - as a prelude to then seizing that money under the thin fiction that it's drug money via asset forfeiture laws, which are terribly abused by most departments as an official form of theft/extortion/tribute.
http://reason.com/archives/2010/01/26/the-forfeiture-racket

In fact, the wayne county PD did this over the holiday season, declaring the parking lots of walmarts a "known drug trafficking zone" then jumping folk en route to do holiday shopping and seizing their money - bastards were completely unashamed and unrepentant about it too, even going so far as to jokingly call it "Holiday Shopping" - heaven knows how many families had their Xmas ruined that way.

Mind you, I am still really, REALLY pissed about that, especially in light of mayor Bing firing op public safety and fire department officials for revealing that the police have sucked up so much of the public safety budget that the EMT and Fire Departments can no longer even respond effectively.
http://detnews.com/article/20100916/METRO08/9160409/Paramedics-fear-th
ey-re-losing-the-battle-to-save-lives
(Worth a note, even the two EMTs who spoke up were retaliated against.)
http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-news/7339075-two-medics-exposed-d
etroit-ems-suspended-city-council-wants-to-know-why

Anyhows, comes down to this...

End of the day, does it really MATTER that the person who threatened you with a gun and took your money was wearing a badge or not ?

Because either way the result is the same.

-Frem
I do not serve the Blind God.

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

Friday, January 14, 2011 4:11 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
It's more complicated than that.

Point well taken. Yes, when guerilla warfare wins, they don't often win alone. Even the Americans had the French.

Can't Take (my gorram) Sky
------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.

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

Friday, January 14, 2011 4:14 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
... but I like the idea of militias. I'd probably prefer the Swiss model to that of the US, however.

Me too. I want US citizen militias to replace the military, not just hang out in the woods and train for fun.

Think of all the lives that would be saved. Sigh.

Can't Take (my gorram) Sky
------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.

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

Friday, January 14, 2011 4:20 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Wasn't never the thought of our military that ever kept us from being invaded so much as that they'd get cut to ribbons before they reached the nearest walmart by the crazy-assed populace, not to mention our very culture would drive them completely batshit insane within a month, most of em.

LOL How true. How true.

Quote:
However, like a nuclear weapon, it doesn't exist to be *used*, but rather to present a threat so potent as to make negotiation preferable -

You said it so much better than I did.

That is why a pacifist would support weapons hoarding. Because when one side is NOT overwhelmingly better armed than another side, when we achieve a sort of power equilibrium, people talk instead of shoot.

Can't Take (my gorram) Sky
------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.

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

Friday, January 14, 2011 4:32 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
Maybe we have incredibly disfunctional relationships, I'm not sure. I think that gun ownership in these circumstances would make things worse, not better as people who are demonstrating an incredible lack of control in conflict situations would have access to deadlier weapons than they already do.

I think this is a very good point. You don't want to give guns to insane people.

But the solution is not to take away guns. It is to make those people sane.

One might advocate taking away guns first, temporarily, and returning them when the people are sane. However, while the first is relatively easy, the second is overwhelmingly difficult. Once the first is done, why do the second?

However, if you leave the guns in the hands of the insane, you have a huge incentive now to cure their insanity, which is ultimately the true root of violence. And you'd want to do it as quickly as possible.

When shooting tragedies happen, the first question we need to ask is, "How do we prevent young men and women from going crazy like that?"

Quote:
I have no time for the guns for self defence argument, but I can see the point of guns against tyranny.

Like Anthony, I find it commendable you have taken the time and effort to see this point of view. It is the most important one, one that even many gun-toting Americans can't wrap their heads around.

Can't Take (my gorram) Sky
------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.

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

Friday, January 14, 2011 4:42 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
http://reason.com/archives/2010/01/26/the-forfeiture-racket

Oh. My. God.

I'm seeing red. It's a good thing I am a pacifist. And that I don't live in that country anymore.

Can't Take (my gorram) Sky
------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.

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

Friday, January 14, 2011 5:22 AM

HARDWARE

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hello,

A murderer using frangible bullets might get around that problem. It's all a matter of technology.

No intact bullet. No shell casing. No noise. Plus you have the ability to engage your target at range.

The frangible bullet issue is correct. However, frangible bullets are not a sure thing. They can be stopped by heavy clothing. When they do impact flesh they create massive wound channels and cause a lot of bleeding in a really messy, relatively shallow wound. Head hits are... ghastly.

However, the shell casing remains intact. The bullet and the casing are two separate components of the round. Firing pin imprint, and in the case of a semi-automatic, the extractor claw, will indelibly mark a case.

The more I get to know people the more I like my dogs.

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

Friday, January 14, 2011 5:31 AM

HARDWARE

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
And some large, seedy looking fellow comes up to you and asks "You flush man ? You got cash on ya, how much ?"

Ok, clarification, for those unfamiliar with american law enforcement...

They DO ask this question, usually phrased as "Are you carrying large sums of cash on your person or in your vehicle, sir?" - as a prelude to then seizing that money under the thin fiction that it's drug money via asset forfeiture laws, which are terribly abused by most departments as an official form of theft/extortion/tribute.
http://reason.com/archives/2010/01/26/the-forfeiture-racket

In fact, the wayne county PD did this over the holiday season, declaring the parking lots of walmarts a "known drug trafficking zone" then jumping folk en route to do holiday shopping and seizing their money - bastards were completely unashamed and unrepentant about it too, even going so far as to jokingly call it "Holiday Shopping" - heaven knows how many families had their Xmas ruined that way.

Mind you, I am still really, REALLY pissed about that, especially in light of mayor Bing firing op public safety and fire department officials for revealing that the police have sucked up so much of the public safety budget that the EMT and Fire Departments can no longer even respond effectively.
http://detnews.com/article/20100916/METRO08/9160409/Paramedics-fear-th
ey-re-losing-the-battle-to-save-lives
(Worth a note, even the two EMTs who spoke up were retaliated against.)
http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-news/7339075-two-medics-exposed-d
etroit-ems-suspended-city-council-wants-to-know-why

Anyhows, comes down to this...

End of the day, does it really MATTER that the person who threatened you with a gun and took your money was wearing a badge or not ?

Detroit is close to being a failed city. The remaining residents are those who have NO hope and NO way out. The political class is only interested in lining their pockets. There are many photo essays of the abandoned and devastated Detroit public buildings. They can practically rename it New Mogadishu.

The whole area should be forcibly evacuated and used as a live-fire MOUT zone by the military. You know you are in a bad place when napalm airstrikes would improve the place.

The more I get to know people the more I like my dogs.

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

Friday, January 14, 2011 5:40 AM

HARDWARE

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
http://reason.com/archives/2010/01/26/the-forfeiture-racket
Oh. My. God.

I'm seeing red. It's a good thing I am a pacifist. And that I don't live in that country anymore.

I once drove from the east coastline to Ohio to pick up a classic Chevy pickup my brother had won in an E-bay auction. He and the owner decided that the easiest way to handle the transaction was in cash. A friend and I drove a car trailer from Philadelphia to Ohio, practically to Indiana. I carried over $10,000 in cash. Being aware of the forfeiture racket, I checked the laws of the states we would be driving through and decided that even though I would be in technical violation of the law, I would bring a handgun in a portable safe and the cash would also be in the safe. The safe in question locked with a combination. I know that was nowhere near a guarantee, but it was extra insurance. This was definitely a case of it being "better to beg forgiveness than ask for permission."

Nothing happened, but I didn't know that going in and it is no guarantee of it not happening in the future. Rural areas are easier to travel through, and less likely to encounter trouble and that was where our path took us, for the most part. However, crooked governments exist even in rural areas. It is better to look inconspicuous. Not so easy to do with out of state tags, but a pickup towing a U-haul trailer is pretty non-descript.

The mere fact that I had to think of these things is a sad commentary on how far American culture has fallen.

The more I get to know people the more I like my dogs.

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

Friday, January 14, 2011 5:52 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

"However, the shell casing remains intact. The bullet and the casing are two separate components of the round. Firing pin imprint, and in the case of a semi-automatic, the extractor claw, will indelibly mark a case."

Hello,

You've forgotten that there is no shell casing.

We are speaking of a silenced revolver, which does not eject shell-casings onto the scene.

Unless you imagine our murderer to empty his shells onto the dead body to make the job of the police easier? That would be like our imagined murderer leaving his knife at the scene of the crime, replete with fingerprints.

--Anthony

Assured by friends that the signal-to-noise ratio has improved on this forum, I have disabled web filtering.

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

Friday, January 14, 2011 6:50 AM

DREAMTROVE

CTS

Yes, here at the local college some students started following campus security because kncidents seemed to crop up. The confiscated everything from students rooms, money, drugs, flat screen TVs. They also said that an alarming number of campus rapes were coming from campus cops who drove around offering students rides to be their "security escort."

I was at a beach and kids were talking to the head lifeguard. There were six lifeguards. They asked how many rescues he'd done seen in his seven years on the job, he said none. We call it a rescue if we yell at someone for going over the line, but its bogus. Sometimes kids sneak in after dark and drink, some kid drowned that way, another kid broke his neck in the light of day diving in to the sand, not realizing that we had poured concrete under the sand...

I think when you put someone in charge of safety and security: no problems get solved, but new ones get created. A while ago I saw a profile on serial killers. Apparently, statistically, the police never catch these guys, not because they're brilliant, the avg, iq is like 85 for a serial killer. Its just that no one is trying.

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

Friday, January 14, 2011 7:01 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

The average IQ is 85 for a serial killer?

That's surprising.

--Anthony

Assured by friends that the signal-to-noise ratio has improved on this forum, I have disabled web filtering.

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

Friday, January 14, 2011 7:55 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Its just that no one is trying.

They are too busy giving tickets to kids in school and robbing people who carry cash.

Can't Take (my gorram) Sky
------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.

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

Friday, January 14, 2011 8:05 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
The average IQ is 85 for a serial killer?

That's surprising.

To me as well. I found this:

http://maamodt.asp.radford.edu/Serial%20Killer%20Information%20Center/
Serial%20Killer%20IQ.htm

Quote:

We were able to obtain IQ information on 107 serial killers

► When taken as a whole, serial killers appear to be of normal IQ
● Median = 100, Mean = 101
● Low was 57 (Simon Pirela)
● High was 165 (Theodore Kaczynski)
- A second IQ testing put him at 155

► As expected, IQ varied by the type of serial killer
● Raped victim
Yes: Mean IQ = 98.8
No: Mean IQ = 105.0

● Method of killing
Hands (strangle, stab): Mean IQ = 100.3
Shoot: Mean IQ = 101.5
Bomb: Mean IQ = 138

● Organized versus disorganized
Organized: Mean IQ = 123.2
Disorganized: Mean IQ = 93.5
Mixed: Mean IQ = 107.6

From this study, other than the Teds, who probably skewed the whole sample (esp Ted K), it looks like serial killers are just like everyone else: average.

In other words, there isn't really any reason why cops aren't out there catching them--other than they are too busy doing goon work.

Can't Take (my gorram) Sky
------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.

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

Friday, January 14, 2011 8:14 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

This is what I mean when I talk about relying too much on others.

Cops can't save you.

Laws won't prevent a determined person.

Politicians won't pay for your house, your car, or your gas.

Teachers won't raise your kids.

At some point, for me it was early, you grow up and learn about the word "responsibility".

"Hope is a good thing, maybe the best of things, and no good thing ever dies"

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

Friday, January 14, 2011 9:12 AM

KPO

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.

Quote:
It's not entirely clear whether the amendment is meant to protect personal ownership of arms and not just 'small arms' or ownership of arms as part of a well regulated militia.

It seems to me it means to protect both. But it also seems to me to be quite naive, backwards and outdated (if ever 'in'-dated). What is supposed to be the modern purpose of a well regulated militia in preserving the security of the state? I can think of three possible interpretations:

1) As a substitute for a professional army

This would be a pretty poor modern substitute. And what about navy, and air force? Can you have a militia navy? Does anyone think the US could've intervened decisively in WW2 for example, with a militia military? A militia could conceivably form a small component of a nation's military, but that that doesn't fit with the 2A's description: "...vital to the security of a free state...".

2) In case citizens need to revolt against an oppressive government.

Two important things have changed since the time of the FF's. Firstly, the firepower and technology of the state has increased dramatically. Small arms are not really an equaliser...

Also these days the world has discovered peaceful protest as an effective way of shutting down and unseating governments. With this as a viable option, it makes the idea of armed resistance criminally stupid - not just needlessly bloody, but counterproductive (like Hamas).

3) For citizens to secure borders against illegal immigration

Almost certainly not what the FF's had in mind...

It's not personal. It's just war.

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

Friday, January 14, 2011 9:20 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:
Small arms are not really an equaliser...

People with small arms disagree.

Quote:
... peaceful protest as an effective way of shutting down and unseating governments. With this as a viable option, ....

It is not as effective or viable as you think.

But even if it is NOW, can you guarantee that it will continue to be forever?

In case you're wrong, and one day peaceful protests don't work anymore, you may find that small arms are better than nothing at all.

Can't Take (my gorram) Sky
------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.

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

Friday, January 14, 2011 9:20 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

"Small arms are not really an equaliser..."

Wow....

"Hope is a good thing, maybe the best of things, and no good thing ever dies"

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

Friday, January 14, 2011 9:26 AM

STORYMARK

Good thing the events in Arizona proved that old gun-nut meme that if people were allowed to carry, they'd stop a gunman before they could do much damage.

Oh, wait....

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

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

Friday, January 14, 2011 9:32 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Quote:

"2) In case citizens need to revolt against an oppressive government.

Two important things have changed since the time of the FF's. Firstly, the firepower and technology of the state has increased dramatically. Small arms are not really an equaliser...

Also these days the world has discovered peaceful protest as an effective way of shutting down and unseating governments. With this as a viable option, it makes the idea of armed resistance criminally stupid - not just needlessly bloody, but counterproductive (like Hamas)."

Hello,

It continues to boggle my mind.

The U.S. is fighting a never-ending, resource-sapping war against largely disorganized people who are equipped with small-arms, small-explosives, and improvised weapons.

And yet the United States continues to be viewed as unopposeable by these same means.

I agree with the usefulness of peaceful protest, but I do not agree with the naivete' of discounting the alternative. An alternative which proves effective daily in bogging down the efforts and economy of our entire nation.

Afghanistan is slightly smaller than the state of Texas. There are ~438,000 allied troops there, plus the most advanced war machines in our arsenal. Surveillance is constant, and is of our most sophisticated variety. There are no real civil liberties there. We can and do shoot anyone if we even *think* they *might* be a terrorist. We have been fighting this war for over nine years, and have no clear expectation of victory. Allied forces there have suffered nearly 60,000 casualties.

--Anthony

Assured by friends that the signal-to-noise ratio has improved on this forum, I have disabled web filtering.

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

Friday, January 14, 2011 9:32 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

Story is the Lefts version of Kane (no offense Kane).

"Hope is a good thing, maybe the best of things, and no good thing ever dies"

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

Friday, January 14, 2011 9:39 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:
Good thing the events in Arizona proved that old gun-nut meme that if people were allowed to carry, they'd stop a gunman before they could do much damage.

Oh, wait....

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

Hello,

There are a number of cases where an armed defender does stop an armed assailant. However, this was not one of them. The assailant in this instance was physically tackled by unarmed people in close proximity.

--Anthony

Assured by friends that the signal-to-noise ratio has improved on this forum, I have disabled web filtering.

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

Friday, January 14, 2011 9:43 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

Dont forget the one guy who WAS armed, and helped hold the crazy fucknut down.

Now, he could have just put a bullet in the head of the offender, but didn't. Why? Because the situation was under control, the guy was caught.

If only the police had that kind of SELF-CONTROL...

"Hope is a good thing, maybe the best of things, and no good thing ever dies"

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

Friday, January 14, 2011 9:46 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

Wulf, Kane threatened to rape Nikki and her friend in their hotel room. There is no one on here who is the equal to Kane.

--Anthony

Assured by friends that the signal-to-noise ratio has improved on this forum, I have disabled web filtering.

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

Friday, January 14, 2011 9:47 AM