Quote:

---

Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
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.

---

Quote:

---

According to the Oct. 4 report released Thursday afternoon, Jackson was shot with a Taser gun, then drive-stunned twice after police say he engaged in suspected illegal activity and resisted arrest. The report also says that when Jackson was at the hospital, he was given an injection of Lorazepam for agitation, roughly 36 minutes before he died.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
Story is the Lefts version of Kane (no offense Kane).

---

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."

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
We, obviously, need to regulate spoons. Commen sense regulations of course. Like smaller spoons!

Or spoons with holes in them!

Won't someone think of how many children will be prevented from being fatties by this?!!

Spoons are made for one thing, and one thing only! Making people fat!



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

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AnthonyT:
"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.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
"Sure, I could see how a simpleton like yourself might think that.

But I post with a higher IQ, broader vocabulary, and better literacy skills...."

So... you are a more elitist version of Kane. Good to know.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by canttakesky:

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:

---

Do we mean to do away with all finger foods now? What will we replace our sandwiches with? What will we tell our wives to make us? "Get in the kitchen and make me a... omolette?" Where does this madness end?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
CTS, to be clear I'm not advocating anything for Americans at all.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by canttakesky:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
CTS, to be clear I'm not advocating anything for Americans at all.

---

Right, I knew you were talking about Australia.

When I said, "You don't give to guns to insane people," I meant generic you, not Magonsdaughter you. I was talking about us not giving guns to insane people. Sorry that was confusing.

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

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AnthonyT:

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.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by kpo:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AnthonyT:

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.

---

Hmm, well argued, I've probably been a little dismissive and unimaginative about the prospects of armed citizens' resistance in America. I do still find it hard to picture the scenario... Any government with a firm enough grip to quash mass protests/civil disobedience etc. (which I hope would be the first steps) - and then withstand the fallout from that, would also have a pretty firm grip on the military, and CIA, it seems to me. So you would have a determined and enthusiastic U.S military (assumedly stripped of most of its weak-willed/'traitorous' elements) waging war against U.S citizens who have taken up arms. As I say, it's hard for me to conjure the scenario, without resort to theories of government mass propaganda and military brain-washing, which I'm not a fan of...

But I'll concede, determined citizens with small arms most likely could resist with some effectiveness, in a kind of attritional guerilla campaign. It might be little more than nuisance value, I'm not sure (U.S citizens would likely not have some advantages that Iraqi/Afghan insurgents have had, like home advantage, poor infrastructure, safe havens/foreign backers in neighbouring countries, willing suicide bombers and tolerance of civilian casualties etc.)

So I wouldn't say citizen gun ownership is a vital barrier/obstacle to tyrannical government (there are others), nor a formidable one - but it is an obstacle, and has some deterrent value, so there is an argument for it. :-/

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

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Niki2:
Whatever. Everyone understood what I was saying.

---

Quote:

---

Strikes me how funny it is, people about their guns. The title of this thread says it all; any tiny thing, and omigawd, the liberals are coming after our guns!!!! We're all gonna DIE! They're gonna GET US!

...have to pry 'em out of my cold, dead hands...

The recent run on those magazines in gun shops is a perfect example...ANYTHING happens with regard to guns, and the gun bunnies freak out. Funny.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Hardware:

1934. FDR. Progressive president. Founder of numerous entitlement programs. Supporter of the NFA. 2011-1934=77 years. Nearly 80 years.
1938 Federal Firearms Act
1968 Gun Control Act (interesting, modeled after Nazi Germany's 1938 Law on Weapons by Senator Thomas Dodd. http://jpfo.org/common-sense/cs34.htm )
1972 Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms created
1986 Law Enforcement Officer's Protection Act
1990 Crime Control Act
1994 Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act

All these laws, at a Federal Level, and can you honestly say the streets are safer than they were in 1937?

---

Quote:

---

The men and women in our military, cia, local law would not turn guns on us.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by kaneman:
The men and women in our military, cia, local law would not turn guns on us. In fact a large majority would fight with their neighbors and family against their employer. We Americans have an extremly high internal value on freedom and nationalism...especially when threatened. Most people I know in the military have already said that their first responsibility is to the constitution and families and view their military lives as a job. Would you kill your neighbors and friends if your boss asked? Shit we had guys in Nam kill their superiors all the time, because they didn't like the orders. This is true for congressmen, police, cia, etc.....

---

Quote:

---

Jackals: "Finally, we have a strong leader ready to put those malcontents in their places! Where do I sign up?!"
Jackals are like Lemmings and Snakes: they eagerly collaborate with the villain because they think his campaign of terror and genocide are just causes. Whether it's out of hate, fanaticism, or ignorance, they prefer the villain's despotism to a more benevolent regime. Usually they're harmless once the villain is dethroned: their prejudice comes out only when the bad guys are in power.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Fremdfirma:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by kaneman:
The men and women in our military, cia, local law would not turn guns on us. In fact a large majority would fight with their neighbors and family against their employer. We Americans have an extremly high internal value on freedom and nationalism...especially when threatened. Most people I know in the military have already said that their first responsibility is to the constitution and families and view their military lives as a job. Would you kill your neighbors and friends if your boss asked? Shit we had guys in Nam kill their superiors all the time, because they didn't like the orders. This is true for congressmen, police, cia, etc.....

---

I disagree, bitterly.

Firstoff, ever since those infamous surveys and a pathetic but still sufficient resistance to the idea of shooting civvies for not handing over their guns, military training and conditioning has been enhanced and altered to solve that little problem - they WILL do it, absolutely and without question, tell me, did even ONE SINGLE MEMBER of the 82nd Airborne ground arms and refuse to confiscate arms during that mess in New Orleans, even ONE ?

No, they did not - and most of the folks they're training for "Homeland Security" are conditioned to see us as commie-librul terror-symps and so on and so forth, all but waiting the day they get to put us in our place, shit man, they're currently training for domestic civil unrest suppression, house to house work and mass incarceration, or have you not been LISTENING to me alluding to our surveillence and harrassment of such activities here in MI - since one of them damn camps, Grayling, is located up here, they even have specially designed armor units just for this purpose.

And remember all those cops who said they'd never, ever, ever help suppress the populace, who then went RUNNING down there for the extra bonus and overtime, and not only did it, but gleefully ?

The same guys you see talking such a good game, and then see later clubbing protestors with an obvious hard on and a BIG smile on their face ?

Shit man, you'd think TSA would have a hard time finding pyschos willing to feel people up at the airport, right - but our society breeds jackboot lickers and authoritarian nutters like fucking rabbits, man, only recently have we seen ANY progress in stemming the tide.

A very LARGE percentage of these goons, especially the alphabet boys, would practically come in their pants at the notion of being ALLOWED to slaughter americans who didn't toe the line, got that "Oh yeah, NOW we'll show em, hoo-rah!" fuckin attitude, and every single one of you knows it, but just doesn't wanna believe it....

Because you KNOW, you would have to kill them, and that is something you really do not wanna talk about, think about, that you would have to slaughter your own countrymen too, who found the jackboot a better fit that freedom and got off on the power it gave em - and on top of that some percentage of em will get away, slither under a rock and pray for forgiveness and short memories...

Only to slither out once again when the opportunity presents itself, as it will, history is unforgiving about that.
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DyingLikeAnimals

Quote:

---

Jackals: "Finally, we have a strong leader ready to put those malcontents in their places! Where do I sign up?!"
Jackals are like Lemmings and Snakes: they eagerly collaborate with the villain because they think his campaign of terror and genocide are just causes. Whether it's out of hate, fanaticism, or ignorance, they prefer the villain's despotism to a more benevolent regime. Usually they're harmless once the villain is dethroned: their prejudice comes out only when the bad guys are in power.

---

Look anywhere in our society there is an official uniform, and odds are you'll find packs of jackals underneath em, many of em.

And how to you plan to DEAL with that, I ask you ?

Cause nobody seems to LIKE *my* answer.

-Frem

I do not serve the Blind God.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Hardware:

1934. FDR. Progressive president. Founder of numerous entitlement programs. Supporter of the NFA. 2011-1934=77 years. Nearly 80 years.
1938 Federal Firearms Act
1968 Gun Control Act (interesting, modeled after Nazi Germany's 1938 Law on Weapons by Senator Thomas Dodd. http://jpfo.org/common-sense/cs34.htm )
1972 Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms created
1986 Law Enforcement Officer's Protection Act
1990 Crime Control Act
1994 Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act

All these laws, at a Federal Level, and can you honestly say the streets are safer than they were in 1937?

---

Correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't the ones in '72, '86, and '90 signed by GOP Presidents? Not too often do I hear names like Nixon, Reagan, and Bush bandied about as "progressives" with the likes of FDR and Clinton, but thanks for confirming that there really are no conservatives anymore.

This Space For Rent!

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:




Case in point, our own Wulfie here, who CLAIMS to stand for the Constitution and all those warm and fuzzies like "liberty" and "honor" of which he knows absolutely nothing but what's been presented to him via vidscreen... yet when given half a chance and half a voice, he'll GLADLY round up all those "enemies", all those "libs/progs", all those "hippies" he hates so much, all those people who are merely following THEIR OWN VERSION OF WHAT HE CALLS "LIBERTY" - he'd round them up, deport them, grind them under his heel, smash his boot into their face, stomp their faces into the curb, all for having the temerity to not follow HIS particular beliefs.

And he has said this more than a few times here. Make no mistake, this is EXACTLY what his kind are after, and Kane as well.


This Space For Rent!

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
you could easily find yourself in a civil war situation...

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Fremdfirma:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
you could easily find yourself in a civil war situation...

---

That's what has me bashing people over the head with the fact of WHAT THAT WILL COST, not in money, mind you, but in every way that matters the cost of such a thing is so horrific as to be all but unmentionable - and so they don't mention it, never address it, don't acknowledge it, as if they can pretend it into non-existence.

I refuse to let that happen, cause if folks work themselves into believing otherwise, into forgetting just what an atrocity that would be, go on thinkin it'll be all quick and easy....

That's when people do some terribly stupid shit, yeah.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by kpo:
Why then do you need guns to bring down the government, why can't you do it peacefully?

---

Quote:

---

Think of tyrannical regimes that have quelled non-violent mass protests - Iran, Zimbabwe are two recent examples.

---

Quote:

---

You say this wouldn't happen in America, ...

---

Quote:

---

So what's the role for guns then?

---

Quote:

---

If anything they give an excuse to the security services to be heavy-handed, and a license for a tyrannical government to be tyrannical...

---

Quote:

---

It would have to be a tyrannical government that somehow still had loyal (or at least 'firm') control of the security services.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
...especially given the recent hyperbole of the right who currently see health care reforms, all taxation, all government funded services as being a direct threat to their tyranny.

---

Quote:

---

A lot of extremists marching on washington who don't like government policy and are in a state of mind to kill fellow countrymen. That's scary shit.

---

Quote:

---

ALL tyrannical governments that have ever existed had loyal security services, from Rome to Czar's Russia to modern Iran.

---

Quote:

---

If the Iranian people had arms, they would be having an armed revolution now.

---

Quote:

---

Although the exact number of casualties remains unknown, it is estimated that about 16,000 members of the Polish resistance were killed and about 6,000 badly wounded. In addition, between 150,000 and 200,000 civilians died, mostly from mass murders conducted by troops fighting on the German side. German casualties totaled over 2,000 soldiers killed, 7,000 missing, and 9,000 wounded. During the urban combat approximately 25% of Warsaw's buildings were destroyed. Following the surrender of Polish forces, German troops systematically leveled 35% of the city block by block.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AnthonyT:
"If anything they give an excuse to the security services to be heavy-handed, and a license for a tyrannical government to be tyrannical..."

Hello,

I am always aghast at this sort of suggestion.

It's like saying, 'She deserved it for dressing like that.'

Making yourself utterly defenseless before a potentially tyrannical power does not strike me as the best means for stopping tyranny.

"Oh, but if you hadn't been so potentially dangerous, they wouldn't have needed to violate you" sounds pretty repugnant to me.

--Anthony


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

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Niki2:

Too many people view uprising as romantic and that it would unquestionably bring about what they want, without really knowing WHAT they want in the first place.

Mostly I suppose I just think it's silly--when you contrast America with REAL tyranny, we're just a bunch of spoiled kids throwing a tantrum 'cuz mom tells us to eat our veggies. In contrast to the vast majority of the rest of the world, we ARE terribly spoiled, in my opinion.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Niki2:
Case in point, the mentality CTTS exhibits. Far too many people ALREADY think that way,....

---