Firearms/self Defense Discussion

[♦ nivek ♦]

Quoth amanda:

 

Nivek, I do agree with the right of the general population having access to a gun... however, I thought that your position of those who have been institutionalized for psychiatric issues should not be allowed to have one, unless released by a psychiatrist, right?

 

Again, if a person is a danger to self or society at large, they should not be allowed back into the general populations.

 

I know some "sane" goofy_fuckers I don't want having a clickable ball point pen much less a firearm, however the Law gives them a pass. Are the goofy_fuckers dangerous? Not sure, don't trust them, and prefer not to be any where near them. In my area and world, they are watched by me and mine for the "just in case" moments.

 

I saw your site that gave what is considered legal, and I guess I've been confusing registered with licensed.

 

Legal=approved by the State or majority

Registered=enuerated and that numer set on a list

Licence=someone with the power and/or ability, socially contracted, to grant permission to persons "to do something"

 

Firearms in the still mostly Free State of Oregon are able to be held sans any notification to central authority. We can buy and sell, trade our arms between ourselves with no problems. when a new arm is bought from a dealer that arm goes on the State's database. When it is sold "private sale" is quickly sinks out of offical sight. There are a few States that require ALL sales, private of dealer to go through a central database, be approved by State managers of such statistics.

 

Registration holds people accountable and responsible for their actions with that gun.

 

Like registration holds people accountable for hit and run automobile actions? Alls registration does is allow the State to have a database of owners, making it easier for the State to plunder and unlawfully take said arms.

 

I don't know how you un-shoot an angry bullet just because the arm it came from was registered. The crimial act that may be done is already done contra rules long established against such things.

If you haven't the link to the Canadian Gun laws gives lots of information on the Canadaian experience with compelling registration.

 

Good idea, no?

 

Ummm, where do you propose that the Goober stop with granting of permissions? I personally ask the Goobers for as little as required, needing no further nannying or babysitting_by_gobbermint. I am a very large, somewhat adult boy, and being told for my own good to do something is abhorent to a Free man.

 

Maybe others have misconstrued these aspects too. It is a bit difficult to grasp all the info you offer, and remember... the rest of us, I assume, are not as well versed in these issues as you.

 

That is a decent assumption Amanda. I've been on the edge of the RKBA/2A Civil Rights works for right at 30 years. I have and absolutist view of what consists of the BoR. "Shall not be infringed" is very much a part of my daily life.

Prefer that persons wake up and find that the Rights that they inherited as uS residents are indeed more powerful, trumping modern jurisprudence and legal opinion, and in turn learn that they, The People, can use these to live unhampered by the incroaching nannystaters.

 

So, what about people that have been arrested for felonies? Currently it is illegal for them to own guns. Are you agreeing with that?

 

If they can be out in the general population after serving their time, they need to be able to petition for resotation of their Rights.

The assholes in KONgress however gave BATFE the ability to be the agency to re-assign and approve such restorations.

Guess how many cases they approve annually? If you are such a person and apply to the current system, expect to never have your lawful Rights restored. It is not right this fubar, and needs to be fixed.

I am working with my Senators (R. Wyden-d, G. Smith-r) to see how this may be addressed and repaired in future legislation work.

 

If a person is clear of his obligation to the prison system, time served, probation done, and has done "X" time "clean" (X a number I cannot yet define), then his/her rights restored after incarceration.

 

Some convictions cause people to lose some of their rights. ie.: a convicted pedophile has to live so far away from a school, etc.

 

Some crimes and criminals too dangerous to ever be let back out in the "world". For that, again I espouse a total lifetime removal from society at large.

Find the idea of a large fenced off area where such persons can "work to build and garden to shelter and eat, or die" would be a "very good thing". Think like Angola prison in Louisiana. Go in, life sentence means being buried there.

I'd prefer something a bit more harsh and a lot further out in the boonies.

 

I definitely side with the right to own a gun, even if I'm not too crazy about using one myself. (I am more motivated to take lessons now.) Further, I think most here agree with the right to bear arms.

 

I'd like to see you and family get a yappy little shit eating mutt that alarms at things you can't see. You train it, and it makes a great tripwire alarm for the house. Bigger breeds are good-er, Protective breeds are a handful but are even better for the first defence against possible intruders.

 

haciendaFatman is "wired". Being a tehnogeek I have a few all weather cameras and more than a few sensors outside I've futzed around with to let me see beyond the darkness at what is bumping my night.

 

Guns are a good thing, training is a necessity. Not enough to know just how to put cartridges in, but one needs to understand the use and reasoning behind the amount of force and will you are projecing when the muzzle of the tool is aimed at something that will die or be injured when shot.

 

At some point, things sink in: "Self Defence is the Ultimate Civil Right" We have the right to be safe in our homes and familiar surroundings. The Big However is that in that right-ness is a risk that someone or -thing will invade and attempt to disrupt or remove our peace, property, or attempt the removal of our lives.

This criminal action cannot be protected against even with the best in personal protection, bodyguards, and electronic systems.

We need to be aware and awake while passing through life. The penalty for not being alert is quite often an "accident" or worse.

 

Prefer that the folks I know not be victims of 'nuts' and various fates blown ill across their lives.

 

 

What is more difficult to define is where exactly do we draw the line? Do we let psychiatric patients have one?

 

Again, if a person is a danger to themselves, and is demonstrably not to be trusted with a dull dinner knife, then I'd suspect that handing them a firearm is not that good of an idea. The mentally deficient and unsanitary need help, and being able to separate them and assign them to the things they need in the immediate, taking care of them in the chronic is something that is beyond my paygrade most days.

if I were to put my net_doctor_shingle out, again, if these persons are a clearly dangerous problem to selves and society, then a form of medically necessary incarceration until they are able to not be dangerous is warranted.

 

 

How about felons? BTW, I think many people that have criminal records are treated unjustly after they have already served their time, yet I'm not sure how we should address those issues.

 

Did you know until the Gun Control Act of 1968 that a perosn when finished with sentence, with a few exceptions, went back to his life without the permanant "FELON" stamped on his life? '68 is when KONgress decided that folks needed the 'Once a felon, ALWAYS a felon" added to their lives. Now one can be busted for something non-violent, do, or be charged with something that will add more than a year's sentence, and be branded a felon for life..

Thats the kind o'shitte that adds millions of men and women to the criminal ranks when after they are done serving their time, they can't break the mold that GCA68 has cast them in. Can't work decent job, can't provide for family, tend to go back to criminal activities.

(Not just my opinion, this may be another thread's discussion, but this is a national 'cryin' shame' we've fucklerkated on ourselves)

 

I am not saying that folks who get sentenced to the big time dont deserve it, nor am I saying there at tons of innocent victims of judicial bullshit (there are of both..), however the system ensures you can't lawfully participate in the life again as once known.

 

The issues surrounding "guns" goes far beyond the cold iron and steel of the actual firearm itself. Only the politically unknowing and ignorant bail into a fight about firearms with partial "truths" in hand and attempt to argue from within a wet papersack senario.

 

Incumbent on an intelligent electorate to look at the issues around the things the media and the various loudmouths on any side the problems presented.

My opinion is that the current press and most politicians literally dance in the blood of the nut_slain to advance their agendas of control and removal.

The best I'll do is present a 'hard face' and again cause them to blink hard when they feel they have the political capital to try and legislate away the Rights I prefer to live by.

 

Shittttt.. too much typing for now,

 

kL

[NotBlinded]

You gave me a Hamas story...

 

I have to say that is not the best example. Your other ones where good examples but those Hamas people just have big mouths.

Yeah right. Do you think what fueled 9/11 was from a big mouth?

One good thing is that they can pray all they want and God isn't going to kill anyone. Let's hope they pray 24/7. Not a damn thing is going to happen while they sit on their asses (or knees, I guess).

 

On the gun thing...being a felon doesn't really stop anyone from getting a gun. I know someone that was arrested when they were young for stealing something. It was over a certain amount, therefore considered a felony. This person is a responsible gun owner whether he has them legally or not. He can't even vote. He could probably have an attorney file for a pardon and succeed, but that costs money. He's no more a threat to anyone than I am.

 

I just don't think that there is an easy answer. If they make it harder to get guns, only the ones that want to get them legally anyway will suffer. This guy I know shouldn't be disallowed from having guns because of a theft of something that was over 20.00 (I think that is the point that it is considered a felony...sillyness).

 

Amanda, this is just my opinion...nothing more.

[Amanda]

One good thing is that they can pray all they want and God isn't going to kill anyone. Let's hope they pray 24/7. Not a damn thing is going to happen while they sit on their asses (or knees, I guess).

NBBTB... I can see your point, as long as they pray for God to do it for them. It's still a red flag that one might care to notice, IMO. Isn't Hamas aligning closely with Hezbollah now also?

 

Further, as what was brought up on another thread, really more appropriate for this one... I attribute the ability of Saddam Hussein's claim to total dictatorship was through his strict gun laws. No one was allowed to have guns, but his 'bull dogs'. An article said they found it quite comical that an Iraqi, concerning the VT incident, said that the Americans were bringing terrorism to their country. He said this is because they never have had VT incidences there, because of the strict gun laws secured by Saddam Hussein... no one but the government had guns. IMO, that just shows the brainwashing mindset of those people still! How will they ever be able to defend themselves against those willing to use lethal force to recapture their country for what they want? No VT incidence is better than no freedom, living in constant fear like it is normal (which it is there), and mass genocide by the government?

 

On the gun thing...being a felon doesn't really stop anyone from getting a gun. I know someone that was arrested when they were young for stealing something. It was over a certain amount, therefore considered a felony. This person is a responsible gun owner whether he has them legally or not. He can't even vote. He could probably have an attorney file for a pardon and succeed, but that costs money. He's no more a threat to anyone than I am.

 

I just don't think that there is an easy answer. If they make it harder to get guns, only the ones that want to get them legally anyway will suffer. This guy I know shouldn't be disallowed from having guns because of a theft of something that was over 20.00 (I think that is the point that it is considered a felony...sillyness).

 

Amanda, this is just my opinion...nothing more.

NBBTB, when you speak, I listen.

 

I've been thinking about Nivek's suggestion, and at first I thought it might lack compassion to lock up all these people out of society because of their mental disorder. However, now that I've thought about it, it may make sense. They may even be happier, if it was done right. Also, they could be managed better into a treatment that is designed for them, and hopefully increase in stability to eventually have weekend releases, then maybe week releases, and so on, till they could function happily into society on their own. Once fully back in the system, be allowed full rights. A similar idea for those who were incarcerated too. It seems to me that your friend paid his price, is a sane person, let him live his life like the rest of us. Most people who have been incarcerated are branded for life unnecessarily... terrible.

 

NBBTB, that's just my opinion too... nothing more. When the big guys in Washington start calling me for my opinion, I'll make sure all of you here will be the first to know. Don't hold your breath.

[NotBlinded]

NBBTB... I can see your point, as long as they pray for God to do it for them. It's still a red flag that one might care to notice, IMO. Isn't Hamas aligning closely with Hezbollah now also?

Oh heck Amanda, you know that I don't know much of anything about politics and stuff. I watch Spongebob instead of the news! I do flip it to the weather once in a while.

 

Further, as what was brought up on another thread, really more appropriate for this one... I attribute the ability of Saddam Hussein's claim to total dictatorship was through his strict gun laws. No one was allowed to have guns, but his 'bull dogs'. An article said they found it quite comical that an Iraqi, concerning the VT incident, said that the Americans were bringing terrorism to their country. He said this is because they never have had VT incidences there, because of the strict gun laws secured by Saddam Hussein... no one but the government had guns. IMO, that just shows the brainwashing mindset of those people still! How will they ever be able to defend themselves against those willing to use lethal force to recapture their country for what they want? No VT incidence is better than no freedom, living in constant fear like it is normal (which it is there), and mass genocide by the government?

I read that over there and is scares me that it will be accepted by the people here. Give up all freedoms in order to feel safe. Safe from what? The people? They seem to have no problem accepting that the government could never do anything to hurt them as much as their neighbor could. I really can't understand that because if someone wants to kill, they will. They need to fear the entity that could really harm the way they live their life. Hell, I work for the government! (That doesn't give me any inside info or anything).

 

I've been thinking about Nivek's suggestion, and at first I thought it might lack compassion to lock up all these people out of society because of their mental disorder. However, now that I've thought about it, it may make sense. They may even be happier, if it was done right. Also, they could be managed better into a treatment that is designed for them, and hopefully increase in stability to eventually have weekend releases, then maybe week releases, and so on, till they could function happily into society on their own. Once fully back in the system, be allowed full rights. A similar idea for those who were incarcerated too. It seems to me that your friend paid his price, is a sane person, let him live his life like the rest of us. Most people who have been incarcerated are branded for life unnecessarily... terrible.

I really want to agree, but who decides who is only a little crazy or who is a lot crazy? Nivek posted a link (one of the few! ) that said something about a guy killing people by lighting the building on fire. He was found completely sane.

 

NBBTB, that's just my opinion too... nothing more. When the big guys in Washington start calling me for my opinion, I'll make sure all of you here will be the first to know. Don't hold your breath.

[Jubilant]

I really want to agree, but who decides who is only a little crazy or who is a lot crazy? Nivek posted a link (one of the few! ) that said something about a guy killing people by lighting the building on fire. He was found completely sane.

 

It makes me think about Cuba and how Castro keeps people with AIDS locked away from the rest of society.

 

I really do wish that there were a separate state or something to where we could ship off KNOWN/CONVICTED violent criminals (gang members included) and child molesters. Separate the sane from the insane once at their little place but at least they'd be out of mainstream society.

[NotBlinded]

I really want to agree, but who decides who is only a little crazy or who is a lot crazy? Nivek posted a link (one of the few! ) that said something about a guy killing people by lighting the building on fire. He was found completely sane.

 

It makes me think about Cuba and how Castro keeps people with AIDS locked away from the rest of society.

 

I really do wish that there were a separate state or something to where we could ship off KNOWN/CONVICTED violent criminals (gang members included) and child molesters. Separate the sane from the insane once at their little place but at least they'd be out of mainstream society.

Yeah, but I am so torn on this. I think it is mainly because of who would be making the decisions to send them away (I think).

[Piprus]

Friends, when you get down to the nuts and bolts, here is the kind of situation that all this discussion comes down to: A few years ago, an incident occurred at our house. Now both of us grew up as country kids, and our dads had taught us how to keep and properly use various types of firearms from childhood. In the middle of the night, my wife grabbed me, woke me up, and said, "Someone's trying to get in!"

My wife was the first to jump up and out of bed, taking control of our Glock-17, and I quickly followed with the shotgun. She took the lead, and I assumed her back with the shotgun, while she proceeded to secure the house with her loaded Glock. In retrospect, I have to say I was proud of her, as she looked like "Police Woman", going exactly like one would have expected as I kept her back, with my shotgun. After ascertaining that there was no immediate danger, we called police, who then filed the proper report.

This incident, looking back, was a best possible scenario of what the Second Amendment was intended to cover: The simple right of a law-abiding household to defend itself. Both my wife and I were comfortable with the keeping and use of firearms. We assumed our proper positions. If I had been the first to notice an intrusion, I could have equally assumed "first position" with the pistol, and my wife could have backed me with shotgun. This I say to underscore Kevin's posts about the need for proper training and handling of firearms from an early age. Both of us got it, so both of us were comfortable with the safe and legal use of weaponry to defend our home. As a result, there was no discharge of a weapon in this incident, and no one was hurt. But we were prepared and confident when "the chips came down".

It would give me no pleasure whatsoever to fire upon another human being, even if I were certain my life, or that of my family were in danger. Neither of us would ever want to shoot anyone. I have therefore wondered at times, in this thread, if those from the UK or Oz have ever needed to face such a situation. I can tell them, that here in the US such a situation occurs more often than any of us would like. But that is life, and we have to deal with it. You can deal with it defenseless, or you can at least have a fighting chance at survival. Which would you prefer?

[Casey]

(Allegedly from a Times article, quite possibly apocryphal.)

 

Well, in the UK or in Oz you can always try what one fellow did one night. Having seen some suspicious characters around his shed, he phoned the police. He was told they had no men available. He waited five minutes and rang 'em again, getting much the same answer, to which he replied, "Don't bother, I've just shot 'em all!"

 

Within minutes his house and property were deluged with cops. There was even an Armed Response team and a helicopter. The suspects were soon arrested. Quoth a senior police officer, "I thought you said you'd shot 'em"?

 

Answered he, "I thought you said you had no men available!"

Casey

[♦ nivek ♦]

"Assault weapons... are a new topic. The weapons' menacing looks, coupled with the public's confusion over fully-automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons -- anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun -- can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons." -- "Assault Weapons: Analysis, New Research and Legislation" Josh Sugarmann, March 1989

 

 

It's all about scary looks and cosmetic features folks.. Learned today that my State, Oregon-uSA is pondering a State level "assault weapons ban". Totally un Oregon Constitutional, the hoplophobes are working hard at trying for a Statewide Initiative of voters signatures to put this on the ballot.

 

Uphill all the way, and will be stuck down by the State Supreme Kort if it were to pass. But the hammers and fires of of weapons hating is starting again..

 

Like I haven't enough to do this political season..

 

kFL

[Vigile]

It sounds from the posts here by Amanda, Nivek, and Burnedout that they are implying the American government is bordering on becoming a dictatorship.

 

I think that's a pretty fair assessment of how I feel about the US government as well. Where I differ is that I don't believe that gun ownership will keep the government at bay. I support the right of those who wish to have guns have them, I just don't see them as a deterant against a bad government.

 

The US is a different type of dictatorship than a typical military-run bananna republic. Rather I believe that there has been a de facto usurption of power directly on the government via influence by the small group of influentual elite who can afford to buy the votes, and indirectly by keeping the voting public uninformed or distracted. I don't expect the situation to worsen or devolve into something more ugly that makes ordinary life less comfortable. I just don't believe that there is a strong democratic influence in the US, nor do I believe that the basic protections offered by the Bill of Rights are currently being upheld.

[NotBlinded]

(Allegedly from a Times article, quite possibly apocryphal.)

 

Well, in the UK or in Oz you can always try what one fellow did one night. Having seen some suspicious characters around his shed, he phoned the police. He was told they had no men available. He waited five minutes and rang 'em again, getting much the same answer, to which he replied, "Don't bother, I've just shot 'em all!"

 

Within minutes his house and property were deluged with cops. There was even an Armed Response team and a helicopter. The suspects were soon arrested. Quoth a senior police officer, "I thought you said you'd shot 'em"?

 

Answered he, "I thought you said you had no men available!"

Casey

That's similar to what I posted earlier about telling the police I had a gun in the house. They arrived in no time!

[♦ nivek ♦]

Folks,

 

Don't want thread to delve into a "lets bash cops" mess, they, the Po-Po have a hard enough time most days..

 

Here in Umatilla, County, Oregon uSA, we have what is called BENT. Blue Mountain Narcotics Enforcement Team. These are the black clad pop-ponijas who now have a Cadillac-Gage V-100 armored car, black fully automatic arms, and all black dressup clothing so they can go on "high value target raids".

 

Been some spectacular fuckups already (no one hurt YET) where they barged in on folks at wrong addresses, and raided places where no dope, or even residuals were found.. (that in part is why using snitches is not a great idea for your warrants)

 

Thing is for the local Poliiiiiices, the high point of their careers seems to be elected to be brought onboard to the badboys klub, and go kick in doors.

 

Mind you we have tons of Peace Officer-ing problems that require taken care of at local levels, but this particular orgainzation gets tons of dinero tossed at it "for drug enforcement". You can have the kids in their rice and crotch rockets racing on your kid filled streets, have the local neighborhood freelance pharmacy open day and night, and weirdos exposing themselves to the little boys and girls on playgrounds.. But thats not DOPE!!!

 

Not happy with the trends of the Goobers to disarms the Citizenry, overarm the Po-Po, and decry the lawful use and carry by *commoners* of firearms..

Article is worth a read, topical to discussion:

 

***********************

A Dangerous Game of Dress-Up

 

by Rob Blackstock

 

This past weekend found me in Natchitoches, Louisiana, the oldest permanent settlement in the Louisiana Purchase and the home of Lasyone’s, the restaurant which makes the world’s greatest meat pies. The residents of Natchitoches were having yet another music festival (there are more festivals than work days in Natchitoches) and revelers had arrived from all over.

 

Lined up along one side of the ancient, brick street was an immense gathering of motorcycles and their owners. Nearer to Cane River Lake were several horses accompanied by riders. Looking from the motorcyclists covered in leather, fringe, appropriately logo-ed tee shirts and bandanas, to the horsemen wearing hats, boots, buckles and spurs, it suddenly dawned on me why both motorcycling and horseback riding are so popular: both activities allow grown men to play dress-up.

 

When I was young, Harley riders were a hard lot. Tattooed, dirty, often possessing a criminal record a mile long, they were people to be avoided at all costs. Today, most Harley riders you see are professionals with a career, a mortgage and 2.6 kids. Riding a Harley and wearing the officially licensed merchandise allows them to pretend to be something they are not; a gang member, feared by decent folk. A desperado of the open road; an easy rider.

 

Weekend cowboys are no different. If a person honestly loved to be on the back of a horse and that was all there was to it, there would be no reason to spend $100 on a Stetson and a giant belt buckle. Those accoutrements allow the rider to escape reality and assume a new identity; a lone cowboy riding the trail, looking for doggies lost from the herd. Weathered, grizzled. A dangerous hombre.

 

See? Playing dress-up.

 

I imagine that many a modern day Heck’s Angel would throw his palm pilot down in complete disgust were he to hear me say such a thing. "Just wait until I finish the Davidson account," he would roar, "and then we’ll see who’s playing dress-up!" Vroom! Vroom!

 

There is nothing wrong with playing dress-up. If you want to dress like a Confederate soldier and march around a field all weekend, go ahead. There is absolutely no harm in doing so.

 

My great fear is that there is another group playing dress-up today, and their actions do cause harm.

 

The militarization of the police

 

How many of you remember the TV show SWAT from the mid 70’s? Robert Urich and his team would roll into a dangerous situation in their big, blue van with the best theme music this side of Peter Gunn blaring in the background. As a child, I loved it. It appears that many other people my age also loved it. Since the early 80’s, the number of SWAT team deployments have increased from approximately 3,000 per year to more than 40,000 every year.

 

40,000. Really. A 13-fold increase in 25 years. Why?

 

SWAT teams are now used by police departments to perform jobs that normal, uniformed officers once handled.

 

Illegal gambling? People voluntarily coming together and playing Texas Hold-em? Send in SWAT! (see the video here)

 

Suspect that a high school student might have marijuana in his locker? Send in SWAT and terrorize all of the students! [The school’s] surveillance cameras and a police camera… show students as young as 14 forced to the ground in handcuffs as officers in SWAT team uniforms and bulletproof vests aim guns at their heads and lead a drug dog to tear through their book bags… No drugs or weapons were found during the raid and no charges were filed. (Source: ACLU)

 

Elderly women in their homes minding their own business? Send in SWAT!

Ms. [Kathryn] Johnston, who was at least 88 years old, was killed in a barrage of gunfire after narcotics officers burst through the front door of her home without warning last Nov. 21. Apparently fearing for her life, Ms. Johnston, who lived in a high-crime neighborhood, met the officers with a gun. (Source: NYT)

 

Heck, let’s just send in SWAT now and ask questions later! The CATO Institute maintains an interactive map tracking and documenting dozens of botched paramilitary raids throughout the U.S.

But it doesn’t stop there. Once a police department forms a SWAT team, the military attitude is adopted by the other members of the force. Today, we see not just SWAT members, but patrolmen moving about our towns wearing jump boots and flak jackets… just like the military. Unfortunately, once a person adopts the military mindset, the focus is no longer to assist, to help and to be the peacemaker, but rather to intimidate, to force and to destroy.

 

Look at what happened in MacArthur Park this past Monday. Police in riot gear (read: military garb) decided to disperse an overwhelmingly peaceful demonstration and assaulted with batons and rubber bullets everyone who did not cower and flee at their coming, including the female reporters attempting to film the despicable scene. Watch this video until the end and you will be reminded of China’s Tiananmen Square as paramilitary-police batter a man attempting to support an American flag while another policeman uses his baton on a woman splayed in the dirt.

 

I fear things will become even worse in the future. The paramilitary-police are now being glamorized on TV once again. But this time the shows are not fiction as they were in the 70’s but real life episodes. Dallas SWAT on A&E TV follows the (surprise) Dallas SWAT team as they carry out no-knock warrants on unsuspecting bad guys. The videos provided in the preceding link allow the viewer to watch the SWAT team pump themselves up, destroy private property and drag dangerous perps from their homes. I’m still trying to understand why the police have a tank… probably to protect us from drug-dealing Soviets.

 

Nothing good can come of having the military patrolling our streets, and make no mistake, the police are becoming militarized, and doing so with the help of the Federal Government. How long before our towns are nothing more than caricatures of old Nazi movies where citizens rush home lest they be approached by soldiers asking for identification? ("Papers please!" But it must be spoken with a German accent. Also, any movie with "papers please," must also have the line, "You are veak, Fader, Veeeak!")

 

Maybe I’m overreacting. But I don’t think so. Since the Supreme Court threw out the "knock and announce" rule concerning police who serve warrants, there is nothing to stop SWAT teams from tearing off the side of your home, dragging you and your family out of your beds, seizing your belongings and shooting your pets while giving you little or no notice as to these invaders’ identity. Amusingly (or not), several newspaper investigations have shown that less than half of all no-knock warrants have resulted in contraband or arrests. I’m sure that fact is comforting to people who have watched helplessly as their small children were seized and handcuffed by armed men wearing black hoods.

 

Until we, the honest citizens, say "no more!" to an armed military in our streets, things will only get worse. How long before we are the occupied territory? How long before we are the ones trapped behind the "blue" curtain? How long before our neighbors are "disappeared" in the night?

 

Maybe I’m overreacting. But I don’t think so.

 

May 4, 2007

 

Rob Blackstock [send him mail] teaches economics at Louisiana Tech University and is the Senior Economist for American Economic Services.

 

Copyright © 2007 LewRockwell.com

Links referenced within this article

 

Rob Blackstock

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/mailto:blackrb1@hotmail.com

DIGG THIS

http://digg.com/submit?phase=2&url=htt...tml&title=A Dangerous Game of Dress-Up&topic=political_opinion

St. Petersburg Times.

http://www.sptimes.com/2003/03/02/State/Fort_Florida.shtml

the best theme music

http://www.kfcplainfield.com/sound/swat.wav

here

http://cbs11tv.com/video/?id=14401@ktvt.dayport.com

ACLU

http://www.aclu.org/drugpolicy/youth/26123prs20060711.html

NYT

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/26/us/26cnd...nyt&emc=rss

botched paramilitary raids

http://www.cato.org/raidmap/

including the female reporters attempting to film the despicable scene

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UFdNkXJMH9A

Dallas SWAT

http://www.aetv.com/dallas_swat/dswat_video.jsp

Federal Government

http://www.sptimes.com/2003/03/02/State/Fort_Florida.shtml

Supreme Court threw out the "knock and announce" rule

http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1150362317902

tearing off the side of your home

http://www.aetv.com/dallas_swat/dswat_video.jsp

dragging you and your family out of your beds, seizing your belongings and shooting your pets

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=6476

their small children were seized and handcuffed by armed men wearing black hoods.

http://ny.mpp.org/site/apps/nl/content2.as...&ct=2947891

send him mail

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/mailto:blackrb1@hotmail.com

 

Find this article at:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/blackstock7.html

[Guest Florida]

Gun lovers out there I have a question for you all, this is not sarcism but can be if taken that way. Going off what Gramps said what is the primary use of a gun?

I would say that the primary use of weapons is war. After that, it would have to depend upon the person using the gun. The primary reason I have guns is because I learned to use them as a child and I enjoy going to the shooting range. It's very theraputic. I tried hunting, but I found it too sad to shoot the lovely creatures.

 

Would I use them in self defense or in defense of those who's lives are threatened? Yes.

 

Do I think everyone should be allowed to have guns? No. No more than some people should be allowed to drive a car.

[Amanda]

Maybe I’m overreacting. But I don’t think so. Since the Supreme Court threw out the "knock and announce" rule concerning police who serve warrants, there is nothing to stop SWAT teams from tearing off the side of your home, dragging you and your family out of your beds, seizing your belongings and shooting your pets while giving you little or no notice as to these invaders’ identity. Amusingly (or not), several newspaper investigations have shown that less than half of all no-knock warrants have resulted in contraband or arrests. I’m sure that fact is comforting to people who have watched helplessly as their small children were seized and handcuffed by armed men wearing black hoods.

 

Until we, the honest citizens, say "no more!" to an armed military in our streets, things will only get worse. How long before we are the occupied territory? How long before we are the ones trapped behind the "blue" curtain? How long before our neighbors are "disappeared" in the night?

 

Maybe I’m overreacting. But I don’t think so.

Nivek, I have some similar concerns in these areas, yet I don't keep up with it like you. It seems to me that having the highest prison population in the world is highly suspect that something is wrong somewhere in our system... not to say I know exactly what it is.

 

My concern with the government is this new clause voted onto the eminent domain law, where before, it could only be used such as, if someone's house was in the way of a public road, they could seize the house and pay them for it what they deem is the market value price. Now they say they can seize someone's house because a private investor can utilize the property to increase income for the city by way of increased tax base. I've heard it has actually been done in Florida, but think that has been reversed now. I was surprised that my neighbors were not more incensed than they were. We'd probably be a prime spot for them to begin taking over. Do you know anything about that? What are your ideas?

[♦ nivek ♦]

We liberal-goofyfucking-tarians compelled this to become Law in Oregon

 

Nutballshitters, cranks, and otherwise "decent normal folks" put Measure 3 up on the Ballot, won. Forbids the State from forfeituring your home, property, or gear until after you are convicted.

 

Prior, you were "suspected of any crime" you got served, arrested, your *stuff* was taken, bank accounts seized, you left penniless to try and defend yourself. If your house was taken, you could not loan against it to put up for your defence.

 

Measure 3 has been challenged by the Po-Po and their legal minions and their cases blown right out of Kort.

*

 

ED problems with the local jurisdictions and States? There is little past the few mentions of "taking" in the uS Constitution about the gov dot org's ability to stea, err, ummm, aquire legally via the Korts land necessary for the "Public Good".

 

A groundswell of grassroots pissed-of-ism goes a long way to tame politicos and their ambitions. Unless one lives in Chicago, California or Massachusets..

 

kL

[♦ nivek ♦]

John Stossel ABC news on "The Gun Control Myth"

 

Worth a watch. Quite topical.

 

kFL

[♦ nivek ♦]

OH: NC prof says tragic event changed outlook on guns

Athens News

 

"A criminology professor from North Carolina last Thursday told an Ohio University audience how a personal tragedy jolted his political assumptions and persuaded him to abandon his long-held anti-gun position. 'The thing that began to drive me away from that position was actually a very tragic event,' Mike Adams said of his former liberal [sic], gun-control beliefs. ... Adams said he came to the realization that 'police cannot police society.' He bought his first gun and acquired a concealed-carry permit. Owning a firearm gave him a peace of mind 'not that the government will take care of me, but that I will take care of myself,' he said. Since then, Adams added, owning a gun has influenced his 'entire worldview.'" (05/07/07)

 

http://www.athensnews.com/issue/article.php3?story_id=28162

 

 

Just dial 911? The myth of police protection

Foundation for Economic Education

by Richard W. Stevens

 

"Underlying all 'gun control' ideology is this one belief. 'Private citizens don't need firearms because the police will protect them from crime.' That belief is both false and dangerous for two reasons. First, the police cannot and do not protect everyone from crime. Second, the government and the police in most localities owe no legal duty to protect individuals from criminal attack." (written 04/00; posted 05/08/07)

 

http://tinyurl.com/3bzd52

[♦ nivek ♦]

SAF applauds new Kates-Mauser report on firearms and crime

Liberty For All

by SAF staff

 

"The Second Amendment Foundation today said a new report by criminologists Prof. Don Kates of the United States and Prof. Gary Mauser of Canada that shows the rate of firearms ownership is irrelevant to the homicide and violent crime rate should be required reading, especially for reporters, editorial writers and elected representatives." (05/09/07)

 

http://www.libertyforall.net/?p=650

 

The seen and unseen in gun control

Foundation for Economic Education

by Sheldon Richman

 

"The heinous shootings by young people at public schools around the country have predictably renewed calls for more gun control. Advocates of gun bans commit a classic fallacy that is usually associated with economic policy. But it fully applies to all government policy, including gun control." (written 10/99; posted 05/09/07)

 

http://tinyurl.com/2bu935

[♦ nivek ♦]

Stossel/ABC report, different than above.

[♦ nivek ♦]

Two GOOD articles printed in the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons

 

Public Health and Gun Control Part I: The Benefits of Firearms

http://www.aapsonline.org/press/medsentgun1.htm

 

Public Health and Gun Control Part II: Gun Violence and Constitutional Issues

http://www.aapsonline.org/press/medsentgun2.htm

 

First Reports Evaluating the Effectiveness of Strategies for Preventing Violence: Firearms Laws

 

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5214a2.htm

 

Cato Institute - Gun Control: Myths and Realities

 

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=4706

 

Also go to the Home Page (www.cato.org) and type "gun control" in the site search box. Many articles make good reading. Some have very good data that can be referenced.

[Panther]

I really do wish that there were a separate state or something to where we could ship off KNOWN/CONVICTED violent criminals (gang members included) and child molesters. Separate the sane from the insane once at their little place but at least they'd be out of mainstream society.

 

 

George Carlin does a comedy act on this very issue in one of his shows. (can't remember which one)

 

He talks about bordering states (each having different degrees of criminals, etc) and seperating them with a fence. And then, once every so often, letting the fence open for so many seconds, enabling them to pass through each other's areas....

 

It's hysterical!

[♦ nivek ♦]

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YzEzY...GRmM2EyMTQ0NjY=

 

April 18, 2007, 0:44 p.m.

 

A Culture of Passivity

"Protecting" our "children" at Virginia Tech.

 

By Mark Steyn

 

I haven’t weighed in yet on Virginia Tech — mainly because, in a saner world, it would not be the kind of incident one needed to have a partisan opinion on. But I was giving a couple of speeches in Minnesota yesterday and I was asked about it and found myself more and more disturbed by the tone of the coverage. I’m not sure I’m ready to go the full Derb but I think he’s closer to the reality of the situation than most. On Monday night, Geraldo was all over Fox News saying we have to accept that, in this horrible world we live in, our “children” need to be “protected.”

 

Point one: They’re not “children.” The students at Virginia Tech were grown women and — if you’ll forgive the expression — men. They would be regarded as adults by any other society in the history of our planet. Granted, we live in a selectively infantilized culture where twentysomethings are “children” if they’re serving in the Third Infantry Division in Ramadi but grown-ups making rational choices if they drop to the broadloom in President Clinton’s Oval Office. Nonetheless, it’s deeply damaging to portray fit fully formed adults as children who need to be protected. We should be raising them to understand that there will be moments in life when you need to protect yourself — and, in a “horrible” world, there may come moments when you have to choose between protecting yourself or others. It is a poor reflection on us that, in those first critical seconds where one has to make a decision, only an elderly Holocaust survivor, Professor Librescu, understood instinctively the obligation to act.

 

Point two: The cost of a “protected” society of eternal “children” is too high. Every December 6th, my own unmanned Dominion lowers its flags to half-mast and tries to saddle Canadian manhood in general with the blame for the “Montreal massacre,” the 14 female students of the Ecole Polytechnique murdered by Marc Lepine (born Gamil Gharbi, the son of an Algerian Muslim wife-beater, though you’d never know that from the press coverage). As I wrote up north a few years ago:

 

Yet the defining image of contemporary Canadian maleness is not M Lepine/Gharbi but the professors and the men in that classroom, who, ordered to leave by the lone gunman, meekly did so, and abandoned their female classmates to their fate — an act of abdication that would have been unthinkable in almost any other culture throughout human history. The “men” stood outside in the corridor and, even as they heard the first shots, they did nothing. And, when it was over and Gharbi walked out of the room and past them, they still did nothing. Whatever its other defects, Canadian manhood does not suffer from an excess of testosterone.

 

I have always believed America is different. Certainly on September 11th we understood. The only good news of the day came from the passengers who didn’t meekly follow the obsolescent 1970s hijack procedures but who used their wits and acted as free-born individuals. And a few months later as Richard Reid bent down and tried to light his shoe in that critical split-second even the French guys leapt up and pounded the bejasus out of him.

 

We do our children a disservice to raise them to entrust all to officialdom’s security blanket. Geraldo-like “protection” is a delusion: when something goes awry — whether on a September morning flight out of Logan or on a peaceful college campus — the state won’t be there to protect you. You’ll be the fellow on the scene who has to make the decision. As my distinguished compatriot Kathy Shaidle says:

 

When we say “we don’t know what we’d do under the same circumstances”, we make cowardice the default position.

 

I’d prefer to say that the default position is a terrible enervating passivity. Murderous misfit loners are mercifully rare. But this awful corrosive passivity is far more pervasive, and, unlike the psycho killer, is an existential threat to a functioning society.

 

— Mark Steyn, a National Review columnist, is author of America Alone.

 

 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

National Review Online - http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YzEzY...GRmM2EyMTQ0NjY=

 

http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_5875002

 

We've forgotten how to fight back

By Billie Louden

Colorado Voices

The Denver Post

Article Last Updated:05/12/2007 12:15:09 AM MDT

 

I realize hindsight is 20/20, and I hate Monday morning quarterbacks, but sometimes an event is so horrific in nature that analysis of why it unfolded and ended the way it did should be explored from every possible angle. If you can suffer another article about Virginia Tech, please allow me to offer my take on the latest bloody massacre that has sent America reeling.

 

Every group with an agenda is still using the aftermath of this tragedy to tout their causes. While the pro-gun folks and the no-guns bunch hurl blame at each other, forums are held and committees are formed as everyone wrings their hands and tries to come up with a solution to assure it never happens again.

 

I am not a psychic nor a doomsayer; I am a realist. From Charles Whitman blasting away in a Texas tower, to Seung-Hui Cho at Virginia Tech and every senseless slaughter in between, America has fervently prayed it was the last time. But I am here to tell you it never has been and sadly never will be the last time.

 

No matter how many red flags we notice, there is simply no way to determine who will one day slip over the edge into madness and open fire on innocents. If police investigated every person who acted strangely, ranted and raved against society, or even made veiled threats, there would be no time for anything else.

 

When a twisted soul decides to carry out a heinous act, there is precious little we can do to stop it. Where there is a will, there is always a way. All we can do, if caught in their crosshairs, is try to survive.

 

Upon hearing the number of victims in Virginia, I assumed the shooter had used an automatic rifle capable of firing many rounds per second. When I later learned he was armed with only two handguns, disbelief washed over me. It was later revealed he fired 190 rounds in about seven minutes. Being in law enforcement as well as having been in the military, I know for a fact the shooter had to have spent a great deal of time reloading and exchanging magazines. I can only wonder what was going on during these necessary pauses.

 

I don't blame the victims for their own demise. I blame the non-confrontational attitude in America that may have stopped someone from fighting back. The basic human instinct of survival has been tamped down by the reemergence of the "Make love, not war" peacenik movement of the '60s, especially on our college campuses.

 

Our kids are being taught to avoid conflict and try to reason with the unreasonable. A non-aggression mentality has been ingrained in them since gradeschool, where childhood games like dodge ball are deemed to harsh. In Littleton, some protested a statue of a heroic American soldier because he carried a gun. The thinking must be that if we deny to our children that guns exist, then guns will never hurt them.

 

I found it ironic that the one person who did try to block the Virginia Tech gunman's way was a professor who had survived the Holocaust, a man who, I am quite sure, had looked insanity in the eye before and survived. He understood that inaction meant death. This is also what must have finally occurred to the passengers on United Flight 93 on Sept. 11, 2001, when they chose to fight back. Even though they died, they died fighting and on their terms.

 

We have got to stop sticking our heads and our children's heads in the sand, pretending evil does not exist. Unless we recover the fight-back spirit buried inside ourselves and pass it own to our kids, we are doomed. No one can predict or stop the next horrendous act that will surely come to be. What we can do is assure that our survival instincts will lower the number of victims.

 

What other choice do we have?

 

Billie Louden (loudenview@aol.com) is a deputy sheriff in Denver and an Army veteran.

[Celsus]

Look at the photos of Doc Holiday, Wyatt Earp, John Wesley Hardin and other such "badmen". Doing this will reveal a profound truth....

 

 

Guns don't kill people; men with mustaches and spurs kill people.

[♦ nivek ♦]

Violence, senseless murder and mayhem not something generic to the Americas..

 

 

Gruesome crimes unnerve Japan

'We are witnessing the deterioration of Japanese society,' lawmaker says

The Associated Press

Updated: 2:48 p.m. PT May 18, 2007

 

TOKYO - A mother beheaded by her son. A baby who suffocated after being stuffed by his parents in the baggage compartment of a motorbike while they went gambling. A murderous shooting spree during a hostage standoff.

 

An outbreak of violent crime this week has triggered soul-searching and outrage in Japan, a country that has long prided itself on its safe streets and tight communal bonds.

 

The "appalling destruction" of traditional values — as one lawmaker put it — climaxed Friday, when a former gangster killed a policeman and wounded his son and daughter during a shooting rampage at his home, where he had held his ex-wife hostage for 24 hours. It was the first time an on-duty policeman was shot to death since 2001.

 

The standoff capped a week of mayhem and mistreatment.

 

On Tuesday, a teenager walked into a police station with his mother's severed head in a bag. On Thursday, a couple was arrested after their 1-year-old son's body was found wrapped in a plastic bag and dumped in a gutter. The baby died after his parents allegedly left him in the baggage hold of a motorbike while they gambled at a pachinko pinball parlor.

 

The same day, a 3-year-old child was abandoned by his father at an anonymous drop box meant for unwanted infants.

 

"We are witnessing the deterioration of Japanese society," ruling party politician Tsuneo Suzuki told parliament Thursday. "We must stem this appalling destruction of family and community morals."

 

While Japan is still a relatively safe country by international standards, crime is on the rise as the country grapples with a widening gap between rich and poor and other social ills.

 

A tide of corporate layoffs amid widespread restructuring, the fragmentation of extended families and a creeping sense of urban alienation all contribute to the erosion of mores, experts say.

 

Crime stats are up

Japan, a country of 127 million people, had just 1,391 homicides in 2005, compared with 16,692 in the United States.( WTF this has to do with story? kfl)

But overall crime jumped to 2.27 million cases that year, from 1.81 million in 1996, and violent offenses nearly doubled to 73,772 cases, according to the National Police Agency.

 

"Anxiety is mounting in Japan about the increase of high-profile crimes. Due to rapid globalization, the traditional rules and social order are changing dramatically," said Jun Ayukawa, an expert on criminal psychology at Japan's Kwansei Gakuin University.

 

"While families used to act as brakes, there is an increase in crimes where people feel lost in despair and no longer care what happens to their families," he said.

 

Indeed, fractured families have figured prominently in this week's grisly headlines.

 

Motoki Tamiya and his wife, Mika, both 21, were arrested Thursday after DNA tests of the dead 1-year-old linked the boy to his mother. The baby's body was found last month on a remote road in the mountains of western Japan.

 

On Tuesday, Japan's only anonymous drop box for unwanted infants triggered a wave of anger after it was discovered that a 3-year-old preschooler — and not a newborn — was left by his father on the service's first day.

 

The drop-off, known as "Stork's Cradle," was begun by a Roman Catholic-run hospital in southern Japan to stem a wave of abandonments of newborns in unsafe public places.

 

The same day, there were more shocking headlines. A teenage boy carrying a severed head walked into a Japanese police station saying he killed his mother — the latest in a series of dismemberments.

 

News reports said the 17-year-old suspect hacked off his mother's head as she slept, then went to an Internet cafe to watch music videos — with the head — before turning himself into police in the morning.

 

In January, Toyko was shocked when a woman confessed to cutting up her husband with a saw and dumping the body parts around the capital.

 

Tougher gun laws?

The recent surge in high-profile violent crime has spurred debate over tougher gun control rules, calls for strengthening the moral fiber of younger generations and recriminations about the state of modern parenting.

 

Calls for more stringent gun control intensified last month when the Nagasaki mayor was shot and killed by an organized crime boss. Days later, police stormed an apartment and seized another gangster who allegedly gunned down a rival outside a Tokyo convenience store and had barricaded himself inside.

 

The use of guns is still relatively alien to the Japanese public. Handguns are strictly banned, and only police officers and other professionals, such as shooting instructors, are permitted to own them.

 

Friday's standoff ended when the gunman, Hisato Obayashi, 50, surrendered to police 24 hours after taking his ex-wife captive. The woman, identified as Michiko Mori, escaped from a bathroom window during the siege.

 

The violence erupted Thursday outside the central city of Nagoya when the suspect shot his adult son and daughter and killed a policeman trying to rescue a wounded comrade. News reports said Obayashi was a former mobster affiliated with Japan's largest crime syndicate, the Yamaguchi-gumi.

 

© 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.

URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18742305/

[Jun]

Indeed disturbing.

 

On Tuesday, Japan's only anonymous drop box for unwanted infants triggered a wave of anger after it was discovered that a 3-year-old preschooler — and not a newborn — was left by his father on the service's first day.

 

The drop-off, known as "Stork's Cradle," was begun by a Roman Catholic-run hospital in southern Japan to stem a wave of abandonments of newborns in unsafe public places.

 

I might add that 99% of mothers that dump their babies are Chinese or Filipina prostitutes. They are unable to get abortions usually because they are illegal immigrants.