Guns used for lawful self defense Pt. 4

[Seth]

Yeah. We need a government that makes and enforces their own laws instead of listening to the citizens' opinions like a bunch of pussies.

I'll check later, but if I'm remembering correctly, the vast majority if Americns want stricter gun regulations. I'm thinking I remember something like 85%.

Doesn't matter. The Constitution protects the minority against the wishes of the majority when it comes to certain unalienable rights, the right to keep and bear arms being among them.

If 85 percent of Americans wanted to put Jews in gas chambers and ovens, would that be okay with you?

[Seth]

I'm starting to realize why GS can't keep a man. Even gun nuts see soon enough that she is gone to the gun cult and ready to fucking spray bullets any time. I know that this is not going to make any difference to Seth and GS, but if 99% of the world population thinks you are fucking nuts, then you are fucking nuts, not a genius who is misunderstood. Also, your constitutional right to bear any arms is a piece of shit paper to 99.9% of the world population, and nobody gives a fuck. By all means, form gun cults and communes; the legitimate government has not ruled out drone attacks on americans on american soil...

Actually, AG Holder finally admitted that the President does NOT have such authority, so once again you're wrong. Do try to keep up.

As far as what 99 percent of the world's population thinks, who cares? We have the guns and they don't, so their opinion doesn't matter in the least. If they wish to impose their opinion on us for being "fucking nuts," let them go right ahead and try to do so. The result will be a lot of dead socialists.

[Seth]

Blind groper was talking about a total gun ban.

Not quite.

I was talking of as close to a total ban on hand guns as is possible.
As I said before, I am not really too concerned about even assault rifles, since they kill very few people. Hand guns kill 8,000 people each year in the USA. Therefore, to eliminate, or reduce in number, the hand guns, will achieve far more in terms of saving human lives than attacking any other sector.

Hunting rifles and shotguns are fine, as far as I am concerned, as long as they are accompanied by rational precautions. To get the right to drive a car, you have to pass tests, and get a licence. I see this same precaution as quite OK for a hunting rifle or shotgun. However, hand guns are inferior weapons for hunting, kill large numbers of innocent people, and, if restricted to the police, would mean a hell of a lot of human lives saved.

If any American, like Seth and Gallstones, is so damn paranoid as to think they need guns to fend off a totalitarian government, then hand guns are close to useless anyway. A long gun is far more useful.

And, seeing as how the military is much better armed than regular citizens, I can't imagine any type of gun that is obtainable by a citizen is going to help at all. They would need tanks and missile launchers and Black Hawk helicopters and drones. Assault rifles and handguns would be useless.

Well, you can't see anything because you're completely ignorant on the subject of modern asymmetrical warfare. The Taliban don't have Black Hawk helicopters or drones or tanks or even many missile launchers (except some old ones supplied to them by us) and they've driven one modern army out in recent decades (the Soviets) and have kept ours tied up for 12 years and cost us trillions of dollars. And they aren't all that well armed and there's only a few thousand of them. There's 150 million of us, minimum. And fighter to fighter, a good many of us are as well armed as our military, and generally we have a lot more skills in marksmanship. The average grunt fires perhaps 150 rounds per year in training. I fired more than that last week. The whole point of the 2nd Amendment is to make sure that there are more armed citizens with arms that are the equal of a soldiers than there are members of the standing army. That has been the case from the beginning and remains the case today, which is precisely why we resist gun bans and registration. The government has no idea who has what right now, and we intend to keep it that way so they can't send the jackboots around to collect our military weapons.

Get some military education in strategy and tactics before you bloviate again is my suggestion.

[Ian]

Paranoia, anger and ignorance tend to go hand in hand.

[Seth]

Blind groper was talking about a total gun ban.

Not quite.

I was talking of as close to a total ban on hand guns as is possible.
As I said before, I am not really too concerned about even assault rifles, since they kill very few people. Hand guns kill 8,000 people each year in the USA. Therefore, to eliminate, or reduce in number, the hand guns, will achieve far more in terms of saving human lives than attacking any other sector.

Hunting rifles and shotguns are fine, as far as I am concerned, as long as they are accompanied by rational precautions. To get the right to drive a car, you have to pass tests, and get a licence. I see this same precaution as quite OK for a hunting rifle or shotgun. However, hand guns are inferior weapons for hunting, kill large numbers of innocent people, and, if restricted to the police, would mean a hell of a lot of human lives saved.

If any American, like Seth and Gallstones, is so damn paranoid as to think they need guns to fend off a totalitarian government, then hand guns are close to useless anyway. A long gun is far more useful.

Which ignorant reasoning fails to explain this:

th.jpg (4.27 KiB) Viewed 366 times

These are single-shot .45 caliber pistols containing 5 rounds of ammunition in the grip that were manufactured in the US and air-dropped over Europe by the tens of thousands during WWII so that Partisans (armed civilians fighting against Nazi invaders) could use them covertly to kill individual Nazi targets of opportunity so that the Partisans could then steal the soldier's arms and ammunition (and other equipment) to use against other Nazis. The program was instituted because the Nazis had seized all the arms of the conquered nations and the civilians were UNABLE (not unwilling) to resist them.

The United States takes a different tack entirely. It ASSUMES that the government may become despotic and tyrannical and it explicitly PROTECTS the right of civilians to have arms suitable for military action precisely to PREVENT the government from becoming despotic and tyrannical through the threat of widespread rebellion against tyranny and despotism by hundreds of millions of well-armed citizens.

So once again you demonstrate your utter ignorance.

[Woodbutcher]

Blind groper was talking about a total gun ban.

Not quite.

I was talking of as close to a total ban on hand guns as is possible.
As I said before, I am not really too concerned about even assault rifles, since they kill very few people. Hand guns kill 8,000 people each year in the USA. Therefore, to eliminate, or reduce in number, the hand guns, will achieve far more in terms of saving human lives than attacking any other sector.

Hunting rifles and shotguns are fine, as far as I am concerned, as long as they are accompanied by rational precautions. To get the right to drive a car, you have to pass tests, and get a licence. I see this same precaution as quite OK for a hunting rifle or shotgun. However, hand guns are inferior weapons for hunting, kill large numbers of innocent people, and, if restricted to the police, would mean a hell of a lot of human lives saved.

If any American, like Seth and Gallstones, is so damn paranoid as to think they need guns to fend off a totalitarian government, then hand guns are close to useless anyway. A long gun is far more useful.

Which ignorant reasoning fails to explain this:

th.jpg

These are single-shot .45 caliber pistols containing 5 rounds of ammunition in the grip that were manufactured in the US and air-dropped over Europe by the tens of thousands during WWII so that Partisans (armed civilians fighting against Nazi invaders) could use them covertly to kill individual Nazi targets of opportunity so that the Partisans could then steal the soldier's arms and ammunition (and other equipment) to use against other Nazis. The program was instituted because the Nazis had seized all the arms of the conquered nations and the civilians were UNABLE (not unwilling) to resist them.

The United States takes a different tack entirely. It ASSUMES that the government may become despotic and tyrannical and it explicitly PROTECTS the right of civilians to have arms suitable for military action precisely to PREVENT the government from becoming despotic and tyrannical through the threat of widespread rebellion against tyranny and despotism by hundreds of millions of well-armed citizens.

So once again you demonstrate your utter ignorance.

So, how many partisans could you muster up to defend your "rights"? You spew 18th century shit left and right, but that is only expected of someone who , as a sociopath, has found succor with other sociopaths and thinks they are a power. Remember, you were investigated by someone . They left traces of it to give you a warning. They did not have to. Next will be Guantanamo or a knife in the ribs, although I doubt that anyone in power thinks you amount to more than a smear of shit on the bottom of a hobnailed boot. You don't count, obviously. You are just a loser and a nutcase.

[Seth]

Blind groper was talking about a total gun ban.

Not quite.

I was talking of as close to a total ban on hand guns as is possible.
As I said before, I am not really too concerned about even assault rifles, since they kill very few people.    Hand guns kill 8,000 people each year in the USA.   Therefore, to eliminate, or reduce in number, the hand guns, will achieve far more in terms of saving human lives than attacking any other sector.

Hunting rifles and shotguns are fine, as far as I am concerned, as long as they are accompanied by rational precautions.   To get the right to drive a car, you have to pass tests, and get a licence.  I see this same precaution as quite OK for a hunting rifle or shotgun.  However, hand guns are inferior weapons for hunting, kill large numbers of innocent people,  and, if restricted to the police, would mean a hell of a lot of human lives saved.

If any American, like Seth and Gallstones, is so damn paranoid as to think they need guns to fend off a totalitarian government, then hand guns are close to useless anyway.   A long gun is far more useful.

And, seeing as how the military is much better armed than regular citizens, I can't imagine any type of gun that is obtainable by a citizen is going to help at all.  They would need tanks and missile launchers and Black Hawk helicopters and drones.  Assault rifles and handguns would be useless.

This point has been made repeatedly. When I said it over on RatSkep I was met with vague boasting that they wouldn't just be lone individuals facing down the government, but were organized. Wowee!

At one point one of the "cold-dead-hands-club", reaching for an example of citizens successfully fighting off the gov't, pointed to Waco. Maybe they forgot that that one didn't work out so well.

That's because they didn't fire on federal officers until the federal officers illegally attacked them by firing through the door at Koresh first. Also, they weren't trying to fight a war, they just wanted to be left alone, but Janet Reno decided to barbecue more than 80 people, many of them children, just to show people they shouldn't fuck with the Department of Justice.

Which of course lead DIRECTLY to the killing of more than 230 people in OK city by people outraged at the slaughter in Waco.

How'd that work out for the feds?

[Seth]

Blind groper was talking about a total gun ban.

Not quite.

I was talking of as close to a total ban on hand guns as is possible.
As I said before, I am not really too concerned about even assault rifles, since they kill very few people. Hand guns kill 8,000 people each year in the USA. Therefore, to eliminate, or reduce in number, the hand guns, will achieve far more in terms of saving human lives than attacking any other sector.

Hunting rifles and shotguns are fine, as far as I am concerned, as long as they are accompanied by rational precautions. To get the right to drive a car, you have to pass tests, and get a licence. I see this same precaution as quite OK for a hunting rifle or shotgun. However, hand guns are inferior weapons for hunting, kill large numbers of innocent people, and, if restricted to the police, would mean a hell of a lot of human lives saved.

If any American, like Seth and Gallstones, is so damn paranoid as to think they need guns to fend off a totalitarian government, then hand guns are close to useless anyway. A long gun is far more useful.

Which ignorant reasoning fails to explain this:

th.jpg

These are single-shot .45 caliber pistols containing 5 rounds of ammunition in the grip that were manufactured in the US and air-dropped over Europe by the tens of thousands during WWII so that Partisans (armed civilians fighting against Nazi invaders) could use them covertly to kill individual Nazi targets of opportunity so that the Partisans could then steal the soldier's arms and ammunition (and other equipment) to use against other Nazis. The program was instituted because the Nazis had seized all the arms of the conquered nations and the civilians were UNABLE (not unwilling) to resist them.

The United States takes a different tack entirely. It ASSUMES that the government may become despotic and tyrannical and it explicitly PROTECTS the right of civilians to have arms suitable for military action precisely to PREVENT the government from becoming despotic and tyrannical through the threat of widespread rebellion against tyranny and despotism by hundreds of millions of well-armed citizens.

So once again you demonstrate your utter ignorance.

So, how many partisans could you muster up to defend your "rights"?

Dunno. Depends on how despotic and tyrannical the government chooses to be. But then again the government doesn't know either how many outraged citizens bent on putting down a tyrant will muster. In some cases, it just takes one person who is willing to die for a cause to put down a tyrant.

You spew 18th century shit left and right, but that is only expected of someone who , as a sociopath, has found succor with other sociopaths and thinks they are a power.

Go fuck yourself, asshole.

Remember, you were investigated by someone . They left traces of it to give you a warning. They did not have to. Next will be Guantanamo or a knife in the ribs, although I doubt that anyone in power thinks you amount to more than a smear of shit on the bottom of a hobnailed boot. You don't count, obviously. You are just a loser and a nutcase.

And what they concluded is that my rhetoric is completely lawful and in accord with the principles and powers set forth in the founding document that controls their actions.

Besides, I'm just one person, there's 150 million more people who can take my place if need be. That's 150 to 1 or better odds against the hobnailed boot brigade.

Oh, and go fuck yourself asshole. I notice that YOU haven't got the balls to drop by and try to take my guns, you fucking coward.

[Gallstones]

Is this an assault rifle?


Hoplophiles please give non-hoplophiles first response.

Is this an assault rifle?

[Seth]

Is this an assault rifle?


Hoplophiles please give non-hoplophiles first response.

Is this an assault rifle?

*chirp*....*chirp*....*chirp*

[Jason]

Yes. It's a STG44 - the mommy of all assault rifles. It had full-auto mode.

[orpheus]

Blind groper was talking about a total gun ban.

Not quite.

I was talking of as close to a total ban on hand guns as is possible.
As I said before, I am not really too concerned about even assault rifles, since they kill very few people.    Hand guns kill 8,000 people each year in the USA.   Therefore, to eliminate, or reduce in number, the hand guns, will achieve far more in terms of saving human lives than attacking any other sector.

Hunting rifles and shotguns are fine, as far as I am concerned, as long as they are accompanied by rational precautions.   To get the right to drive a car, you have to pass tests, and get a licence.  I see this same precaution as quite OK for a hunting rifle or shotgun.  However, hand guns are inferior weapons for hunting, kill large numbers of innocent people,  and, if restricted to the police, would mean a hell of a lot of human lives saved.

If any American, like Seth and Gallstones, is so damn paranoid as to think they need guns to fend off a totalitarian government, then hand guns are close to useless anyway.   A long gun is far more useful.

And, seeing as how the military is much better armed than regular citizens, I can't imagine any type of gun that is obtainable by a citizen is going to help at all.  They would need tanks and missile launchers and Black Hawk helicopters and drones.  Assault rifles and handguns would be useless.

This point has been made repeatedly. When I said it over on RatSkep I was met with vague boasting that they wouldn't just be lone individuals facing down the government, but were organized. Wowee!

At one point one of the "cold-dead-hands-club", reaching for an example of citizens successfully fighting off the gov't, pointed to Waco. Maybe they forgot that that one didn't work out so well.

That's because they didn't fire on federal officers until the federal officers illegally attacked them by firing through the door at Koresh first. Also, they weren't trying to fight a war, they just wanted to be left alone, but Janet Reno decided to barbecue more than 80 people, many of them children, just to show people they shouldn't fuck with the Department of Justice. 

So you contend that if they had
fired on federal officers earlier, if they had wanted to start a war, then they'd have won against the Feds?  

Which of course lead DIRECTLY to the killing of more than 230 people in OK city by people outraged at the slaughter in Waco.

Debatable. Can you show a direct causal chain?

How'd that work out for the feds?

In terms of fighting power? Feds are still here. Koresh et al aren't. 

[Seth]

More data, this time from Wisconsin, which just enacted CCW laws...more guns, less crime.

Crime
Wisconsin’s New Concealed Carry Law (and a Former Marine) Just Saved This Woman’s Life
Mar. 15, 2013 1:43pm Billy Hallowell

A West Allis, Wisc., man stumbled upon a dangerous — and potentially deadly — situation while driving home at 4 a.m. on Tuesday. Charlie Blackmore, a Marine Corps veteran, saw a woman on the ground being repeatedly kicked in the head and stomach.

Blackmore quickly got out of his car and told the male assailant to stop attacking the woman. And that’s when the perpetrator, 44-year-old Kenneth Harris, started charging toward him. Little did Harris know, but Blackmore was carrying a gun.

“I said ‘stop’ and he starts coming towards me and that’s when I drew on him,” the brave vet told WITI-TV. “He started getting closer and I said ‘get down on the ground.”

Blackmore then called the police and held his gun on the perpetrator until they arrived. In the mean time, though, Harris apparently kept moving toward him.

Watch the WITI-TV report:

“I mean I’ve already made it up in mind that if he came at me I was going to have to take him down and I told him that,” he continued, recapping the scenario in detail. “I warned him multiple times not to come towards me because he was a big guy and I wasn’t playing around and he didn’t seem like he was playing around.”

After police arrived and apprehended the suspect, they asked to see Blackmore’s concealed carry permit. He complied, allowing cops to take it out of his wallet while he held up his hands. After they saw that it was legally permissible for him to be carrying a firearm, they took his name and information for the police report.

This news report airs a portion of the 9-11 call:

Blackmore told WITI-TV that the victim appeared to have a broken nose and that she had a big laceration near her eye. He cited the incident as evidence surrounding why he supports the concealed-carry weapon (CCW) law that Wisconsin put into effect in late 2011.

The state’s Department of Justice explains: “Wisconsin Act 35 was signed into law on July 8, 2011, and published on July 22, 2011. However, the provisions regarding CCW licenses do not take effect until November 1, 2011.”

“We do good things. Not all of us are bad or crazy gun nuts,” he said. “There are good people.

(H/T: WITI-TV)

[Seth]

So you contend that if they had
fired on federal officers earlier, if they had wanted to start a war, then they'd have won against the Feds?  

Not at all. In war, people die. The point I was making was that Waco is not a good example of what the citizenry, once aroused and mustered, can do to put down a tyrannical government.

But Koresh and his people beat the shit out of the BATF assault teams, forcing them to retreat in ignominious humiliation. And the only way Reno could get them out of their compound was to murderously incinerate them all, thus making them martyrs.

Which of course lead DIRECTLY to the killing of more than 230 people in OK city by people outraged at the slaughter in Waco.

Debatable. Can you show a direct causal chain?

Not debatable at all. Just look at the record, McVeigh admitted he did it as revenge for Waco and Ruby Ridge. Direct connection.

How'd that work out for the feds?

In terms of fighting power? Feds are still here. Koresh et al aren't. 

Eighty people at Waco died. More than 230 died in Oklahoma city. 3 to 1 kill ratio. Wouldn't take long for the feds to give up if every encounter went that way, as the Russians discovered in Afghanistan. Federal cops don't want to get killed for Marxist drivel, neither do our soldiers, who swear allegiance to the Constitution and therefore the citizenry, not the President or anyone else.

I didn't say any particular individual or individual's would survive a revolution, but the nation would, and the tyrant would be deposed. That's all that's important.

[Gallstones]

Yes. It's a STG44 - the mommy of all assault rifles. It had full-auto mode.

The first and only and given the name intentionally for propaganda reasons by.....whom?

The people who cry "ban assualt weapons"--a whole class of firearms so named merely because they have particular safety and convenience features and come in the color black--have the best role model.