To restrict guns, Hillary calls for government "viewpoint control" on her opponents

[Little-Acorn]

An unusually ominous proposal from a possible Presidential candidate (though currently unemployed). She says here that "we" (with liberals that always means "government") can't let people who oppose her views, hold a certain viewpoint.

She does not elaborate on how she intends the control others' viewpoints. Methods used by governments in the recent past, include Thought Police, re-education camps, and neighbors (and even children) turning in people who uttered a wrong thought. Or perhaps she will simply continue indictrinating children in government schools, and waiting for their parents with viewpoints she disapproves of, to die.

Though the details remain unclear, this is the first suggestion I've heard from a major contender for high office (at least in this country), that government should make efforts to control people's viewpoints.

It's been tried in other countries, of course. Do we really want to emulate those particular countries?

It seems that some of us do. Apparently they feel this particular end justifies the means.

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

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/17/hillary-clinton-gun-control_n_5505080.html?utm_hp_ref=politics

Hillary Clinton On Gun Control: We Can't Let 'A Minority Of People' Terrorize The Majority

by Paige Lavender
Posted: 06/17/2014 5:41 pm EDT
Updated: 06/18/2014 9:59 am EDT

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton spoke about her views on gun control Tuesday, saying she was "disappointed" Congress did not pass a universal background checks bill after "the horrors" of the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting.

"I believe that we need a more thoughtful conversation, we cannot let a minority of people -- and that's what it is, it is a minority of people -- hold a viewpoint that terrorizes the majority of people," Clinton said during a CNN town hall.

[aboutime]

L.A. This is another case of Hillary, joining with the Obama theory about how MANY OF US American citizens/veterans are part of the RACIST regime often identified as Obama's Home Grown Terrorists.

Double-talk, Double-standards, Lies, and Fabrications aimed at destroying our constitution is what we are going to endlessly see, and hear from Hillary, Democrats, and Obama.
(a quote from aboutime)

[SassyLady]

Wow, I missed this quote.

Well, by the time the next president is elected every government agency will own an arsenal fit for an army. I wonder if it will end up with the military defending the citizens against HS and local police forces.

[darin]

Wow, I missed this quote.

Well, by the time the next president is elected every government agency will own an arsenal fit for an army. I wonder if it will end up with the military defending the citizens against HS and local police forces.

With more and more 'progressive'-minded people within our ranks, it might be the other way around; local cops waking up.

[CSM]

We are already subject to "viewpoint control".... that is what political correctness is all about! Thought control, viewpoint control, political correctness brainwashing .... sh*t by any other name is still sh*t and still stinks.

[aboutime]

Wow, I missed this quote.

Well, by the time the next president is elected every government agency will own an arsenal fit for an army. I wonder if it will end up with the military defending the citizens against HS and local police forces.


SassyLady: As things appear to be going. If a Democrat is elected as the next president. All of those government agencies may be pitted against WE THE PEOPLE.
Hard as that may sound. Knowing how WE THE PEOPLE are being Betrayed every day by the government. (IRS for example) I hope more Americans are suspicious, and weary of what the future just may hold for all of us SHOULD someone like Obama follow him. (a quote from Aboutime)

[SassyLady]

What is truly alarming and sad is that some government employees forget that they too are "we the people". I just hope our military doesn't have to be called in to take sides. They took oath to defend and protect and to take orders from the President. This concerns me more than anything ... putting them in a position to either go against orders or to take up arms against their fellow citizens.

I might not be making sense ... but bottom line is I want the military to defend us against outsiders, not our own.

[aboutime]

What is truly alarming and sad is that some government employees forget that they too are "we the people". I just hope our military doesn't have to be called in to take sides. They took oath to defend and protect and to take orders from the President. This concerns me more than anything ... putting them in a position to either go against orders or to take up arms against their fellow citizens.

I might not be making sense ... but bottom line is I want the military to defend us against outsiders, not our own.


SassyLady. What Obama, and the Democrats always seem to forget is.

WE veterans, active, reserve, and retired Also take an Oath. And WE stand by it, Obey it, Honor it, and Never Ignore, or Abuse it like POLITICIANS DO.
Text of the Oath[edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_States_Uniformed_Services_O ath_of_Office&action=edit&section=1)]
I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Uniformed_Services_Oath_of_Office#ci te_note-USC10.3331-1)


Note that the last phrase is not required to be said if the speaker has a personal or moral objection, as is true of all oaths administered by the United States government; Article Six of the United States Constitution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Six_of_the_United_States_Constitution) requires that there beno religious test (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_religious_test) for public office.

Also...take note that THE PRESIDENT is not mentioned in that oath.
Whether they say "So help me God" or not.
WE DEFEND OUR FAMILIES, FRIENDS, and FELLOW CITIZENS FIRST.

[SassyLady]

Army Oath of Enlistment


I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God." (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962)_____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God." (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962)

http://www.army.mil/values/oath.html

[SassyLady]

Oath of Commissioned Officers

I, _____, having been appointed an officer in the Army of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of _____ do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God." (DA Form 71, 1 August 1959, for officers.)


http://www.army.mil/values/officers.html

[SassyLady]

I find it interesting that the Enlisted swears to obey the Order of the President but not the Officers. Why?

Is it because no one thinks enlisted can make a judgement call about the legality of orders from the president?

[red state]

Someone here said that they may have to depend on or look forward to local law enforcement to stand and protect us when the $#!T hits the fan but I'd like to point out that these guys are not to be counted on cuz local law enforcement are as much in the system when it comes to entitlements, benefits and gov. pensions as the others. We can't count on those who honorably serve the military or law enforcement because they are not willing to get-along / go-along with the libs and cowards (who frown upon those who strive to protect our border or actually SERVE the people) and these just men and women will encounter the same ill-treatment that we see every day within Obama's DOD, Holder's DOJ and even the local square for much of the USA. Many gov. workers/officials, are looking for 'their fair share' (AT ANY COST) as human nature so often displays.

Make no bones about it; they, for the most part, will do the same within their unions as the teachers and other big union labor folks do and that consists of voting for or going along with whatever lines their pocket book, bellies and ego. My daughter's best friend has a dad within top positions of the IRS and although he normally seems like a good-ole-boy, he shows true colors when it comes to his getting hit where it hurts (as with B.O. closing parks, the furlough and every day gov. functions). Even before he showed his true colors, I often asked the question of: "what kind of guy works WITH or for the IRS?!" I couldn't or wouldn't. The community must have garbage men but the IRS is even too low for most of us to consider as a line of work. Same goes with land tax assessors. We must have taxation but we've gone WAY out of the loop in what our founders could ever have imagined.

Most of my personal encounters with gov. official, cops and other lil' gov. workers have found them to be pricks.....power hungry pricks who are either on an adrenalin seeking 'fix' or have issues because they were bullied in school. Very few have I personally met who have a true American agenda to protect those in trouble and to obey the law (which is ultimately the Constitution). I can't think of the times that such power leaves individuals to feel 'ABOVE THE LAW'. This isn't just a rant about law enforcement (well, maybe a lil' bit) but it is a good case to stress how some can brainwash themselves into believing that they are the wolves and the rest of us are sheep to be used and devoured. At the very least, they should be sheep dogs if we are to be considered the sheep but once they are in....they feel that they are in a protected class within the hive and we are the drone bees. This goes for elected officials as well as the lil' gov. workers be it within the IRS, ATF, Teachers Union or that driver ed course guy with the pad and pen if on the gov. cheese/perks. Power, money and special treatment goes a long way.

To prove my point about our not being able to depend upon local police or even the local State Military (aka the National Guard), we have no need to look any further than KATRINA. Look, my nephew is a 5 yr Memphis cop and 4 yr Iraq veteran and he'll tell you right off the bat that most folks are after what they can get and this includes making their jobs easier as well. I'm talking about gun control more than gov cheese right now. According to the fellow cops that my nephew talks to, at least HALF of them are for greater gun control or all out TOTAL gun confiscation (and we're talking about folks in the Mid-South). I still have a huge issue with what happened during Katrina and there are some within this forum who simply shrugged at the way Bostonians were treated during the Marathon Bombing. It sickened and outraged me and I voiced that anger/disgust. YES, there are a few within the gov who still uphold the Constitution but many of those old war dogs have died out, been put to pasture or have been looked over when it came time for promotion. This may be just one more reason why my nephew is now moving to join a police force further South but sooner or later, it is coming to all of us and if we weren't sick of the CHANGE B.O. brought in his first four years to not have fired him in 2012 then I fear that we could probable elect him or someone like him for 40 more years (till this thing is BROKE). Ben Franklin said it best when he tried to warn of the dangers this Nation will face once the masses discover that they can vote themselves a raise or exemption from the law. We are there folks!!!!

[red state]

We can NOT depend on or expect any one person to fix what we've allowed. It is going to take WE THE PEOPLE of this age to do what WE THE PEOPLE did over 200 years ago! We can only blame ourselves and fix this at OUR cost and, if need be, sacrifice. I simply fear that we've allowed the dam to break and have already missed the chance to "patch the leak".

[Gaffer]

Your dead on with your posts here red. Unfortunately I think it's going to take an outright rebellion to fix what's wrong with this country, and I don't know if there's enough people willing to give that sacrifice these days. It would have to start with the states, just like in 1861.

[red state]

Your dead on with your posts here red. Unfortunately I think it's going to take an outright rebellion to fix what's wrong with this country, and I don't know if there's enough people willing to give that sacrifice these days. It would have to start with the states, just like in 1861.

True, which is why I mentioned that we're going to have to emulate what WE THE PEOPLE did over 200 years ago. Back then, they were truly the minority when it came to doing RIGHT and being MEN. If you recall, they had to move/STAND/fight before the others would budge. Once the train started moving and once the cars were filled as they went.....it was very hard for King George to stop.

On the other hand, my analogy could also be used in describing the LEFT.....they will truly be hard or next to impossible to stop. I know we part ways on this thought but I truly believe we need a turning to GOD as our founders did for the most part. Even if one doesn't believe in God, it is a great way of life to build a Nation (as we did under CHRISTIANITY).

At any rate, and despite our differences on religion, we are both SPOT ON in our love and FIGHT for this Nation and that is what counts and must be put into action before we can truly make a difference/CHANGE.

Keep those posts coming, my brother, it is so refreshing to read posts that make sense and can be applied to what we, as a Nation, need. You are among the old war dogs that I was speaking of and once they are all gone......well, GOD help us.

[aboutime]

I find it interesting that the Enlisted swears to obey the Order of the President but not the Officers. Why?

Is it because no one thinks enlisted can make a judgement call about the legality of orders from the president?


Sassy. Actually. All Military officers are APPOINTED by the President. Unlike enlisted members. And enlisted must obey the OFFICERS appointed over them...(with a caveat) to follow Lawful orders.

[Gaffer]

Looking at the govt, media and all the freedom killing laws we now see being enacted or decreed, I think the more appropriate name for the democrat party should be the national socialists. It defines them and their agenda much better than anything else. The democrat party no longer exists.

[aboutime]

Looking at the govt, media and all the freedom killing laws we now see being enacted or decreed, I think the more appropriate name for the democrat party should be the national socialists. It defines them and their agenda much better than anything else. The democrat party no longer exists.

Gaffer. I agree. And, we should tell as many Americans as we can about HOW TRUE your statement above really is.
This link is the documented PROOF of what you say about the democrat party today.
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2010/08/american-socialists-release-names-of-70-congressional-democrats-in-their-caucus/

I would also like everyone to pay attention to one member...listed in the link, who is the CO-CHAIR of the IRS investigation . "Elijah Cummings" REALLY?

[Little-Acorn]

What is truly alarming and sad is that some government employees forget that they too are "we the people". I just hope our military doesn't have to be called in to take sides. They took oath to defend and protect and to take orders from the President.

No, they did not.

They took an oath to support and defend The Constitution. And to defend it against all enemies, "foreign and domestic".

If the President starts violating the Constitution, whom should the military regard as "the enemy" at that point?

"I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."

Note that the part about obeying the orders of the President, comes SECOND.

[Gaffer]

Cummings is a full blown piece of shit that does this in every committee he's involved in. He's nothing but a shill. A very ignorant one at that. It's my guess he's probably on the list of email receivers they are investigating.

[aboutime]

No, they did not.

They took an oath to support and defend The Constitution. And to defend it against all enemies, "foreign and domestic".

If the President starts violating the Constitution, whom should the military regard as "the enemy" at that point?

"I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."

Note that the part about obeying the orders of the President, comes SECOND.

Little-Acorn. We all agree. I said this earlier "Sassy. Actually. All Military officers are APPOINTED by the President. Unlike enlisted members. And enlisted must obey the OFFICERS appointed over them...(with a caveat) to follow Lawful orders."

The officers are sworn to follow the Presidential orders..IF THEY ARE LEGAL, AND LAWFUL.

[SassyLady]

No, they did not.

They took an oath to support and defend The Constitution. And to defend it against all enemies, "foreign and domestic".

If the President starts violating the Constitution, whom should the military regard as "the enemy" at that point?

"I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."

Note that the part about obeying the orders of the President, comes SECOND.

My point is that our military should not have to make a decision as to what they need to do. It's sad that we have a president that does not respect the Constitution and I fear that he will force them to make a decision between "orders" and "defend against ...... and domestic". I know they will do what is right but they have enough on their plate defending against foreign ... why make it even more of a burden to think they have to fight their own.

[Joyful HoneyBee]

Interestingly enough, there is a bit of a difference between small town law enforcement and big city law enforcement. In a small town where people are closely knit and familiar with one another the risk of having the police go off on the citizens in the community is less likely than in big cities where there are more people and less familiarity. In small towns cops are little league coaches, attend churches with the people they serve and shop in the same little grocery stores, so it'll be tougher to convince them to turn arms on their friends and neighbors. Upon leaving the military, troops who have served, whether as officers or enlisted, are just as aware as everyone else of our government spinning out of control. While my son was in Afghanistan there was the threat he wouldn't be paid because they couldn't reconcile the debt ceiling crisis (farce). Those soldiers who were talking with wives and husbands over Skype about how their sergeants were saying they might have to miss a paycheck or two; and, discussing how they would survive such an event, these soldiers will not forget that while they were in harms way, the leaders were allowing the threat of financial harm to their families. But, because we also train foreign soldiers on American soil, that's what concerns me. Our own troops are "we the people", but U.N. troops are not.

[fj1200]

... but U.N. troops are not.

:rolleyes:

[jimnyc]

But, because we also train foreign soldiers on American soil, that's what concerns me. Our own troops are "we the people", but U.N. troops are not.


:rolleyes:

More than a smiley? I thought what she said was more or less spot on, at least pertaining to the quoted portion, that our soldiers made an oath to the constitution AND are American citizens, whereas UN troops fit neither.

[darin]

They can have my ammo/weapons. Bullets-first.

[fj1200]

More than a smiley? I thought what she said was more or less spot on, at least pertaining to the quoted portion, that our soldiers made an oath to the constitution AND are American citizens, whereas UN troops fit neither.

True, but the implication was that someone is wasting time worrying about the blue helmets invading.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Looking at the govt, media and all the freedom killing laws we now see being enacted or decreed, I think the more appropriate name for the democrat party should be the national socialists. It defines them and their agenda much better than anything else. The democrat party no longer exists.
That or the National globalists....... Globalists run their puppet Obama.. and they run the traitorous dem party too. -Tyr

[aboutime]

My point is that our military should not have to make a decision as to what they need to do. It's sad that we have a president that does not respect the Constitution and I fear that he will force them to make a decision between "orders" and "defend against ...... and domestic". I know they will do what is right but they have enough on their plate defending against foreign ... why make it even more of a burden to think they have to fight their own.


SassyLady. I suspect you may not remember something called "KENT STATE".

http://www.slate.com/blogs/behold/2013/05/04/may_4_1970_the_kent_state_university_shootings_tol d_through_pictures_photos.html

[bullypulpit]

Why Are You 'Defending Liberty' in a Coffee Shop and Not on the Battlefield?
(http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tomyoung/gun-extremists-where-have_b_5548906.html)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tomyoung/gun-extremists-where-have_b_5548906.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tomyoung/gun-extremists-where-have_b_5548906.html)

[Gaffer]

Why Are You 'Defending Liberty' in a Coffee Shop and Not on the Battlefield?


(http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tomyoung/gun-extremists-where-have_b_5548906.html)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tomyoung/gun-extremists-where-have_b_5548906.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tomyoung/gun-extremists-where-have_b_5548906.html)

I've been on multiple battle fields, how about you?

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Why Are You 'Defending Liberty' in a Coffee Shop and Not on the Battlefield?
(http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tomyoung/gun-extremists-where-have_b_5548906.html)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tomyoung/gun-extremists-where-have_b_5548906.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tomyoung/gun-extremists-where-have_b_5548906.html)

The Founders of this great nation fought battles before the first shot "heard around the world" was ever fired!
Gaffer, Red and others here are dead on the money.
No shots fired yet but the revolution here began in the 1960's when the leftists moved big time into the damn dem party and turned it into a socialist party. Now we have a muslim loving socialist dictator ruling this nation not under Constitutional guidelines but under his own agenda, a nation destroying agenda.
Any decent citizen that is a patriot sees what is truly going on. Our government operates in total opposition to the will of decent people as it buys out, deceives and caters to the ignorant masses. Same ignorant masses it's been creating by way of our education system for 50 years now.
Either you haven't a clue or you are deliberately attempting to use propaganda and trickery IMHO.-Tyr

[darin]

Why Are You 'Defending Liberty' in a Coffee Shop and Not on the Battlefield?


(http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tomyoung/gun-extremists-where-have_b_5548906.html)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tomyoung/gun-extremists-where-have_b_5548906.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tomyoung/gun-extremists-where-have_b_5548906.html)

Peope intimidated by guns need therapy; they are largely the victims of parents who raised them poorly - at least when it comes to weapons and their purpose.

[Drummond]

Peope intimidated by guns need therapy; they are largely the victims of parents who raised them poorly - at least when it comes to weapons and their purpose.

... well ... either that, or, brainwashed by a Nanny State .. such as the one I'm stuck with .... :bang3: ... and the kind of State dreamed of by control-freak Left-wingers ...

[Drummond]

Why Are You 'Defending Liberty' in a Coffee Shop and Not on the Battlefield?


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tomyoung/gun-extremists-where-have_b_5548906.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tomyoung/gun-extremists-where-have_b_5548906.html)

Oh dear !!! I see you didn't get the psychological effect you must've been hoping to achieve ?

Perhaps my own perspective will prove instructive for you ?

It's obvious that you're one Left-winger who'd much rather see firearms banned from domestic, i.e US territory-based, use ? Someone who wants the most stringent controls on gun ownership and usage imaginable ? Indeed .. that you're loyally following Hillary Clinton's aim of 'viewpoint control' ?

I have another way of describing 'viewpoint control'. With one word ...

BRAINWASHING.

Whether or not you'd argue that this is too harsh, the fact remains that the Left is all about crafting attitudes and thought processes to the point where they match Left-wing aspirations. The imperative amounts to .. 'We are all in favour of freedom of thought, just so long as it happens to coincide with what we'd approve of.

Well ... 'Sieg Heil' to that one, eh .. ??? Anyone in the mood for a quick impromptu burst of goosestepping ??

Anyway - where the issue of gun control is concerned, 'Bullypulpit', you should find my perspective of interest. You see, I'm British, having lived my life calling the UK my home. Here, we have some of the most stringent gun laws you'll find anywhere in the world.

So, you should regard us as the end-product of where you'd hope, in your dreams, to get to where gun controls are concerned. If YOU are right, ours must be an ultra-safe 'utopia' ... right ???

Sorry to disappoint you, but that's far from true.

Not many people in the UK own guns. If you walk the streets here, to find anyone armed would be highly unusual at absolute best. Most of our own police don't carry firearms (... though these days, there are exceptions, because there HAVE to be ...). So, are our streets safe ? Do no major violent crimes occur on our streets ?

Let's check, eh ?

http://www.debatepolicy.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=6163&stc=1


.... Any gun in evidence here ? NO ? Yet, this individual seems to be managing 'just fine' with his violence without one, wouldn't you say ? [That one is taken from Day #2 of an ongoing riot, its having spread from Tottenham to outside Enfield Town railway station, a couple of miles away from where the initial riot had started]

Check these out, too ....

http://www.debatepolicy.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=6165&stc=1
http://www.debatepolicy.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=6166&stc=1

http://www.debatepolicy.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=6167&stc=1

... see, a society largely devoid of guns solves NOTHING. In fact ... what you've just seen are pictures of a 'rolling' riot situation which persisted for a number of days. It started in Tottenham, north London, and in the days that followed spread to other cities, with 'copycat' rioters destroying and looting as they saw fit (all this occurred in the summer of 2011).

See ....

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14436499

http://www.debatepolicy.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=6168&stc=1

Now, I'd argue this ... in a culture where gun ownership was far easier, even normal, shopkeepers, schools, businesses, etc .. would've been able to protect themselves from rioters. My belief is that being tough on gun ownership PERPETUATED what you see, NEEDLESSLY, because the rioters had little to fear by persisting.

The result was buildings destroyed, livelihoods ruined, people living in fear because their only meaningful protection was from a badly overstretched police force. One that in many instances COULD NOT COPE.

So, 'Bullypulpit' ... what do you think ? Do you like what you see ? Do you think that what WE EXPERIENCED here in the UK is worth repeating in the US, and on anything like the uncontrolled scale of those riots ? Because these riots persisted for several days, and were seen in several major cities during that time.

Bottom line ... gun controls do no good - they encourage criminality and violence, and cripple the individual's right to defend himself/herself.

[aboutime]

I've been on multiple battle fields, how about you?


Ditto, Gaffer. Maybe not the muddy, dirty kind of battlefield, but just as deadly, and permanent.

Of course. To many civilians. WE veterans are merely tools of war, and guilty of racism, murder, and terrorism. Wonder how many of the Perpetually UNinformed even know how they managed to keep their FREEDOM?

And, we all know. The loudest whiner's always demand the most attention to their ignorance.
THEY are the Intimidators. Always first to complain UNTIL...someone actually threatens them. Wonder how many police officers use their "PLEASE WEAPON" against criminals who attack LIBERAL gun haters?

[fj1200]

Bottom line ...

I know you spent a lot of time on that post but a lack of gun control would not have stopped those rioters.

[Drummond]

I know you spent a lot of time on that post but a lack of gun control would not have stopped those rioters.

Imagine yourself to be a would-be rioter.

In pondering whether or not to start, or take part in, a riot ... perhaps hoping to do a spot of opportunistic looting ... what would deter you more ?

1. To be in a society where shopkeepers were very likely to see you off with a gun ? Where, if the police were called in, they might shoot you dead ?

... or ...

2. To be in a society where shopkeepers being armed was a rarity, with maybe a chance in a thousand that you might have to face any likelihood of being threatened by a gun ? Where, if the police were called in, you'd know of the near-certainty that you had no chance of being shot ?

The British rioters, so far as I know, didn't ONCE have to face anyone defending their property with a gun. NOT ONCE.

Guns were initially involved, though. Mark Duggan was shot by armed police, armed police having been called in because Duggan was himself believed to be armed.

You see, that's a feature of our society. A criminal determined enough to get a gun, will probably manage to, illegally. But law-abiding citizens will in all probability not be armed at all. Our society frowns on gun ownership ... many balk at the very thought ... and the criminal has the upper hand.

[fj1200]

Imagine yourself to be a would-be rioter.

...

You see, that's a feature of our society. A criminal determined enough to get a gun, will probably manage to, illegally. But law-abiding citizens will in all probability not be armed at all. Our society frowns on gun ownership ... many balk at the very thought ... and the criminal has the upper hand.

More correctly imagine that you are one of 100+ rioters who are engaging in a group mentality of mass destruction and are paying no attention to any individuals who may be opposing them but rather are concerned about generating mass chaos... They're not going to care if one shopkeeper is carrying let alone if any of them were to foolishly take on such a crowd.

There are better anti-gun control arguments to make.

[red state]

Imagine yourself to be a would-be rioter.

In pondering whether or not to start, or take part in, a riot ... perhaps hoping to do a spot of opportunistic looting ... what would deter you more ?

1. To be in a society where shopkeepers were very likely to see you off with a gun ? Where, if the police were called in, they might shoot you dead ?

... or ...

2. To be in a society where shopkeepers being armed was a rarity, with maybe a chance in a thousand that you might have to face any likelihood of being threatened by a gun ? Where, if the police were called in, you'd know of the near-certainty that you had no chance of being shot ?

The British rioters, so far as I know, didn't ONCE have to face anyone defending their property with a gun. NOT ONCE.

Guns were initially involved, though. Mark Duggan was shot by armed police, armed police having been called in because Duggan was himself believed to be armed.

You see, that's a feature of our society. A criminal determined enough to get a gun, will probably manage to, illegally. But law-abiding citizens will in all probability not be armed at all. Our society frowns on gun ownership ... many balk at the very thought ... and the criminal has the upper hand.





Whether one has a hunting rifle/shotgun or a handgun in case of home invasion, it is that person's LEGAL right to hunt, practice and protect the home. Everyone knows that when seconds count, cops or only many minutes away.

Drummond, we're simply wasting your time trying to reveal logic to a blind/deaf liberal. For instances where common sense is void, simply explain:
GUNS = FREEDOM/PROTECTOR/SURVIVOR NO GUNS = enslavement/victim/death

[SassyLady]

SassyLady. I suspect you may not remember something called "KENT STATE".

http://www.slate.com/blogs/behold/2013/05/04/may_4_1970_the_kent_state_university_shootings_tol d_through_pictures_photos.html

Why wouldn't I remember it? It was major event that shocked the nation. Our own troops killing us.

[SassyLady]

Why Are You 'Defending Liberty' in a Coffee Shop and Not on the Battlefield?


(http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tomyoung/gun-extremists-where-have_b_5548906.html)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tomyoung/gun-extremists-where-have_b_5548906.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tomyoung/gun-extremists-where-have_b_5548906.html)

Bully, my son-in-law who lives in Arizona, carries his everywhere. I knew him for two years before I even knew he carried a gun. I'm sure he stopped in Starbucks on occasion and I'll bet no one knew he was carrying.

Just because people are openly showing their rights to carry doesn't mean they will always be showing.

[SassyLady]

More correctly imagine that you are one of 100+ rioters who are engaging in a group mentality of mass destruction and are paying no attention to any individuals who may be opposing them but rather are concerned about generating mass chaos... They're not going to care if one shopkeeper is carrying let alone if any of them were to foolishly take on such a crowd.

There are better anti-gun control arguments to make.

There may be better anti-gun control arguments, however, there is nothing wrong with this one either. Perhaps the idiot rioters would not have had the balls to engage in a group mentality of mass destruction if they knew they would be met with deadly force.

I'm sure they would care if they knew ALL the shopkeepers had guns.

fj .... just because you might have a "better" argument does not mean another one is not valid. Keep an open mind about more than one solution.

[aboutime]

Why wouldn't I remember it? It was major event that shocked the nation. Our own troops killing us.


My apologies Sassy. I was trying to be gentlemanly, and suggest your age might be younger. :laugh:

[red state]

A bunch of liberal cowards in a mob will not likely be the "HERO" and take on the one shop owner who is packing. I'd get in on some of that action if I were a betting man. That is the most stupid heap of hog wash that I've just about heard in a long time.....and to call the store owner "foolish" for simply protecting/preserving/surviving just goes to show how ignorant the left truly is. Folks, you see this kind of stuff *(usually) in liberal towns, cities, States and nations *(USUALLY) cuz the liberals/thieves/mobs are even smart enough to NOT try this crap where heat is packed.

To Sassy, your son-n-law is to be commended! I (just a few years ago) packed everywhere I went.....even in church, I had 'heat' in my Sunday, Cowboy Best. I've gotten careless the past two years and hardly ever carry but that is only because I don't or haven't placed myself in situations or places where I felt the need to 'pack' so.....I've gotten into a bad habit. Yes, I too have probably been known to venture into a coffee shop or some other establishment that wasn't exactly well informed as to the benefits of practicing basic God given rights. I now see that I need more practice. That is not to say that I don't usually have a 38 or something in each of my vehicle's floor board. I can see MAYBE not having a gun on ones person but to not have one 'handy'......now that would just be down right stupid.

By the way.....and AGAIN, if ever any of ya'll are out by the Tennessee, Alabama, Mississippi State lines, there's the Ju Ju's Shrimp Boat Cafe in Corinth who just put up a sign that reads: "GUNS WELCOME" or something to that nature. And, if Jim doesn't mind, they have some of the BEST Mississippi seafood you'll EVER put in your mouth. And remember to come PACKING!!!!!

[red state]

My apologies Sassy. I was trying to be gentlemanly, and suggest your age might be younger. :laugh:

Aboutime.....you simply CAN'T be nice or "gentlemanly" to anyone these days......especially to liberals. HA! Sassy is no liberal (unlike some of the so called conservatives at this forum) but she's a far cry from someone that you can't be nice to. She's a lady alright and I'm sure she was pulling your chain as much as you were pulling her's. HA!!!

[aboutime]

Aboutime.....you simply CAN'T be nice or "gentlemanly" to anyone these days......especially to liberals. HA! Sassy is no liberal (unlike some of the so called conservatives at this forum) but she's a far cry from someone that you can't be nice to. She's a lady alright and I'm sure she was pulling your chain as much as you were pulling her's. HA!!!


I honestly meant no harm, or disrespect. I thought she was far too young to remember Kent State. On the other hand. Happy to see SHE is more informed than many YOUNGER Americans these days.

[Kathianne]

I honestly meant no harm, or disrespect. I thought she was far too young to remember Kent State. On the other hand. Happy to see SHE is more informed than many YOUNGER Americans these days.

Seriously? SL has been here forever, relatively speaking. Indeed, she was at USMB when Jim owned it, which if memory serves and it does, you weren't. Her political views are well established, you do ow her an apology.

This isn't to make you 'grovel,' indeed anything but. It's to say we who have a real complaint against what is going down, are not going to be divided. Period.

[SassyLady]

My apologies Sassy. I was trying to be gentlemanly, and suggest your age might be younger. :laugh:

good intentions .... but pandering to my age excludes my experience .... besides, who wants to be lumped in with all the millennials who don't even know what a tape deck is!?! :poke:

[SassyLady]

I am liberal with my affection and discipline and conservative with morals and ethics (which is why I'm still a divorce virgin).

:washmachine2:

[aboutime]

Seriously? SL has been here forever, relatively speaking. Indeed, she was at USMB when Jim owned it, which if memory serves and it does, you weren't. Her political views are well established, you do ow her an apology.

This isn't to make you 'grovel,' indeed anything but. It's to say we who have a real complaint against what is going down, are not going to be divided. Period.


Damn! Try to apologize, and still get slammed for trying. I have never questioned her political views, or anything else. Have we all become so hostile these days that trying to be sincere, or just plain honest is as bad as lying like Obama?

Excuuuuuuuuuse me.

[Drummond]

More correctly imagine that you are one of 100+ rioters who are engaging in a group mentality of mass destruction and are paying no attention to any individuals who may be opposing them but rather are concerned about generating mass chaos... They're not going to care if one shopkeeper is carrying let alone if any of them were to foolishly take on such a crowd.

There are better anti-gun control arguments to make.

The obvious flaw in your argument probably applies more on this side of the Pond than yours .. however, HERE, I can guarantee you that even a rampaging mob would be shocked into immobility if they found themselves confronting an armed shopkeeper, or businessman. You haven't taken into account just how unused to firearms people are over here. I don't care how large the mob would be - HERE, to encounter ARMED resistance to violence would have a far greater shock value.

Granted that, therefore, the flipside of that argument is that the shock value wouldn't be anything like as potent in your society. But then, equally, there'd be a far greater awareness of what COULD happen if mobs, looters, whatever .. decided to try their luck. My guess is that the incidence of violence is very likely to be far less than here. The stakes are just too high.

The fact is that Redstate is right. People do have every possible right to defend themselves effectively. Left-wingers have no moral right to chip away at that.

I know why they do. It's obvious. They want people to put themselves, their very safety and wellbeing, into the hands of the almighty State. To trust in that authority implicitly, in the furtherance of a 'Nanny State' dependence mentality. But the case against that has been made already. Police are at best minutes away in an emergency situation, where every second may count. Chances are that police units would arrive way too late to do the maximum good.

And, FJ ... surely, wanting to see the citizen more reliant on Big Government for its safety and security is itself a DEFENCE OF BIG GOVERNMENT ? Considering your past arguments ... and jibes, at me ... how on earth do you explain your posts here ?

[Drummond]

Whether one has a hunting rifle/shotgun or a handgun in case of home invasion, it is that person's LEGAL right to hunt, practice and protect the home.

.... and this, right here, is one feature of your society which marks it out as superior to my own. In mine, no such automatic right exists. The law tries to weigh other factors as a part of the mix.

I've posted this before, so maybe you're already familiar with what follows in this post ? Just before the end of the last century, we had a case which made the headlines for a considerable time .. the plight of a farmer whose farm had been invaded by burglars multiples of times. So .. the individual defending his property, one Tony Martin, shot and killed one of the intruders attempting their latest invasion of his property.

Here's a timeline of events. Note that Martin served more jail time than did the surviving burglar ! [.. note also that Charlton Heston kindly lent Martin his support !]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/norfolk/3087003.stm


Following Tony Martin's release from custody, BBC News Online looks back at events since 16-year-old Fred Barras was killed at Martin's isolated farmhouse.
20 August 1999: Fred Barras, 16, suffers fatal gunshot wounds near Tony Martin's isolated Victorian farmhouse, Bleak House, in Emneth Hungate, Norfolk.
His friend, 29-year-old Brendan Fearon, is taken to hospital in King's Lynn with gunshot wounds to his legs.

23 August 1999: Martin, 54, is charged with murdering Mr Barras and wounding Fearon with intent to cause grievous bodily harm.

24 August 1999: Martin is remanded in custody at King's Lynn Magistrates Court.

7 September 1999: Judge David Mellor rules Mr Martin should be freed on conditional bail at a 30-minute hearing behind closed doors at Norwich Crown Court.

9 September 1999: Hundreds of mourners congregate for Fred Barras's funeral at St Mary Magdalene Church in the centre of Newark, Nottinghamshire.
Mr Martin has his bail revoked and is returned to Norwich prison for his own protection.

10 January 2000: Fearon and Darren Bark, 33, both from Newark, Nottinghamshire, admit conspiring to burgle Bleak House, accompanied by Fred Barras. At Norwich Crown Court Fearon is jailed for three years for conspiracy to burgle, Bark is sentenced to 30 months.

10 April 2000: At Norwich Crown Court, Martin denies murdering the teenager and attempting to murder Fearon, wounding Fearon with intent to cause injury and possessing a Winchester pump-action shotgun with intent to endanger life. He admits not having a firearms licence.

14 April 2000: Norwich Crown Court hears that Martin is taken to a secret address under police protection after death threats are made against him and reports of a £60,000 price tag on his life emerge.

19 April 2000: Martin is jailed for life for the murder of Fred Barras, with 10 years to run concurrently for the wounding offence and a further 12 months for possession of an illegal firearm.

20 April 2000: Martin's solicitor, Nick Makin, pledges to appeal against his client's conviction.
Martin's legal team say a female juror has reportedly called an independent Norfolk radio station claiming they received threats during the trial.

21 April 2000: The independent Broadlands 102 FM radio station in Norwich insists the woman who contacted the station did not mention being threatened.
Tony Jones, the uncle of Mr Barras, denies anybody connected to the teenager's family made any attempt to intimidate jurors.

25 April 2000: Officials at Norwich Crown Court decide not to launch an inquiry into the allegations of jury intimidation during the trial.
After several hours of discussions, they conclude there is no hard evidence to back up the claims, in the absence of any formal complaints to police.

26 April 2000: The family of one of the jurors tells the BBC members of the jury believed they were being stared at by people in the public gallery and felt afraid leaving the court. Martin's legal team say they will pursue the claims to the Court of Appeal in an attempt to get their client's murder conviction quashed.

28 April 2000: Martin's lawyers fax a notice of appeal against his conviction for murder to the Court of Appeal in London.

19 June 2000: The appeal begins. Three Court of Appeal judges rule that police can take the unusual step of submitting written questions to the jurors in the trial over whether they were intimidated.

27 July 2000: Mr Justice Curtis grants permission for Martin to appeal against his conviction for unlawful wounding but against the murder charge.

6 August 2000: It emerges that Fred Barras's family is to seek compensation for his death.

14 August 2000: Martin announces he intends to replace his solicitor and barrister with a new legal team.

29 August 2000: Martin launches a new appeal against his murder conviction, claiming that he was not properly represented at his trial.

15 October 2000: Martin's supporters appeal for funds to help him fight his murder conviction.

10 August 2001: Fearon is freed from prison following a parole board hearing.

15 October 2001: Michael Wolkind, QC, who heads Mr Martin's new legal team, tells the Court of Appeal that his trial lawyers had not presented Mr Martin's own account of what happened. He said there was "compelling" evidence to show that the farmer acted in self-defence and under provocation or diminished responsibility.

17 October 2001: Lord Chief Justice Lord Woolf - sitting with Mr Justice Wright and Mr Justice Grigson - reserves judgement on Mr Martin's appeal to a later date and says their decision would be given "as soon as possible".

30 October 2001: Martin's murder conviction reduced to manslaughter, and his 10-year sentence for wounding Fearon is cut to three years, to run concurrently.

29 June 2002 Burglar Fearon announces he is to sue Martin for £50,000.

27 September 2002: Charlton Heston, former actor and president of the US National Rifle Association, gives his support to Martin.

16 January 2003: Martin's bid to be released early on parole is rejected.

15 April 2003: Fearon's bid to sue Martin is rejected by judges.

13 June 2003: On appeal Fearon wins the right to sue Martin.

24 July 2003: Martin moved from Highpoint Prison in Suffolk to a secret location.

25 July 2003: Fearon released from prison early after being jailed for drug dealing.

26 July 2003: Home Secretary David Blunkett asks for the Prison Service to explain Fearon's early release.

28 July 2003: Martin released from custody.

... so. To anyone wanting to see strict gun laws, and the right to defend yourself and your property whittled away to levels of SHEER INSANITY .. what do you think of this account ? Did Tony Martin have no self-protection rights ? Did he deserve to suffer MORE than those who'd threatened him ??

Here's a little 'politically correct gem' from the BBC on this:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1484962/BBC-faces-storm-over-payment-to-raider-shot-by-Tony-Martin.html (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1484962/BBC-faces-storm-over-payment-to-raider-shot-by-Tony-Martin.html)


The BBC was embroiled in a row over chequebook journalism yesterday after it confirmed that it had paid one of the burglars who broke into the home of the farmer Tony Martin £4,500 to appear in a documentary.

MPs from all parties condemned the BBC's decision to pay Brendon Fearon, while Mr Martin, whose case became a cause célèbre for defenders of the rights of householders to protect themselves, described it as "bizarre".

Fearon, 35, a serial burglar with a string of convictions, was wounded after being shot by Mr Martin as he broke into the isolated farmhouse in Emneth Hungate, Norfolk, six years ago. Fearon's accomplice, 16-year-old Fred Barras, was killed in the incident.

The farmer, whose conviction for murder was reduced to manslaughter on appeal, said yesterday he was bemused to discover the BBC was paying Fearon to appear in the dramatised documentary.

"You could say I am bemused and you could say it is bizarre," he said. "I suspect a lot of people will object to taxpayers' money being used in this way but then again, I suspect a lot of people won't be surprised at anything that happens in this country now and, to be honest, nothing surprises me."

I don't need to comment. Do I ?


Drummond, we're simply wasting your time trying to reveal logic to a blind/deaf liberal. For instances where common sense is void, simply explain:
GUNS = FREEDOM/PROTECTOR/SURVIVOR NO GUNS = enslavement/victim/death:clap::clap::clap::clap:

[fj1200]

There may be better anti-gun control arguments, however, there is nothing wrong with this one either. Perhaps the idiot rioters would not have had the balls to engage in a group mentality of mass destruction if they knew they would be met with deadly force.

I'm sure they would care if they knew ALL the shopkeepers had guns.

fj .... just because you might have a "better" argument does not mean another one is not valid. Keep an open mind about more than one solution.

Actually I don't think it's particularly valid to begin with. Mob mentality isn't particularly known for its bouts of rational thought over who may or may not have guns when they start throwing trash cans through shop windows. Having an argument against gun control is more than just tossing up some stories about riots and positing that some gun owning shopkeepers would really have some sort of impact on an incident that is far larger than one persons store. Not that the shopkeepers shouldn't have the right to keep and bear arms of course.

[fj1200]

The obvious flaw in your argument probably applies more on this side of the Pond than yours .. however, HERE, I can guarantee you that even a rampaging mob would be shocked into immobility if they found themselves confronting an armed shopkeeper, or businessman. You haven't taken into account just how unused to firearms people are over here. I don't care how large the mob would be - HERE, to encounter ARMED resistance to violence would have a far greater shock value.

Granted that, therefore, the flipside of that argument is that the shock value wouldn't be anything like as potent in your society. But then, equally, there'd be a far greater awareness of what COULD happen if mobs, looters, whatever .. decided to try their luck. My guess is that the incidence of violence is very likely to be far less than here. The stakes are just too high.

The incidences of riots in the US shows the flaw in your argument.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_incidents_of_civil_unrest_in_the_United_St ates

That's a whole mess of riots in this country where shopkeepers (in some states) have a right to defend themselves.


People do have every possible right to defend themselves effectively.

Where have I stated otherwise?


And, FJ ... surely, wanting to see the citizen more reliant on Big Government for its safety and security is itself a DEFENCE OF BIG GOVERNMENT ? Considering your past arguments ... and jibes, at me ... how on earth do you explain your posts here ?

Um, my past arguments have always centered on smaller government. Yours? Not so much.

[Drummond]

The incidences of riots in the US shows the flaw in your argument.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_incidents_of_civil_unrest_in_the_United_St ates



At first sight, it looks to be an 'impressive' (for want of a better word) list.

But let me ask you this.

When was the last time that America knew country-wide rioting, occurring at the same time ? The rioting I posted about from a couple of years ago involved just THAT.

Rioting on such a country-wide scale stands a good chance of overwhelming police resources to control or eradicate it - IF - that police force isn't widely armed, as ours IS NOT. Sure, there are armed units, but they're very much in a minority here.


That's a whole mess of riots in this country where shopkeepers (in some states) have a right to defend themselves.

So tell me. What percentage successfully did so ? In how many instances were rioters, or attackers, driven off .. the deciding factor being the armed force used to manage it ?

Of course, one element you cannot factor into your argument is the percentage who'd have invaded armed shopkeepers' premises if the shopkeeper had NOT been armed in the first place. That, in your society, couldn't reasonably be calculated, could it ? I'll just bet that such invasions, or attacks, would've been multiples of the numbers which ACTUALLY occurred.


Where have I stated otherwise?

Any argument designed to erode freedoms of gun ownership, to ANY degree WHATEVER, also proportionally erodes the freedom to self-defend ! Try defending yourself against an armed assailant, if you yourself do not have a firearm !


Um, my past arguments have always centered on smaller government. Yours? Not so much.

Whereas now, you seem to be all in favour something that tips the balance away from the individual, and towards greater State empowerment, don't you ?

How very Left wing of you.

And your claims that I'm a fan of big Government have always been a crock, as we both well know. My position is to recognise that Government exists, it's there to do a job, and if it weren't a necessary job, then the Government would have no reason or need to exist in the first place. In so far as that's ever true, YES, I support Government's right to act.

WHEN IT IS NECESSARY THAT THEY DO SO.

I am not one for NEEDLESS Government intervention in anyone's life. I never have been. If you claim otherwise, you claim FALSELY.

[aboutime]

At first sight, it looks to be an 'impressive' (for want of a better word) list.

But let me ask you this.

When was the last time that America knew country-wide rioting, occurring at the same time ? The rioting I posted about from a couple of years ago involved just THAT.

Rioting on such a country-wide scale stands a good chance of overwhelming police resources to control or eradicate it - IF - that police force isn't widely armed, as ours IS NOT. Sure, there are armed units, but they're very much in a minority here.



So tell me. What percentage successfully did so ? In how many instances were rioters, or attackers, driven off .. the deciding factor being the armed force used to manage it ?

Of course, one element you cannot factor into your argument is the percentage who'd have invaded armed shopkeepers' premises if the shopkeeper had NOT been armed in the first place. That, in your society, couldn't reasonably be calculated, could it ? I'll just bet that such invasions, or attacks, would've been multiples of the numbers which ACTUALLY occurred.



Any argument designed to erode freedoms of gun ownership, to ANY degree WHATEVER, also proportionally erodes the freedom to self-defend ! Try defending yourself against an armed assailant, if you yourself do not have a firearm !



Whereas now, you seem to be all in favour something that tips the balance away from the individual, and towards greater State empowerment, don't you ?

How very Left wing of you.

And your claims that I'm a fan of big Government have always been a crock, as we both well know. My position is to recognise that Government exists, it's there to do a job, and if it weren't a necessary job, then the Government would have no reason or need to exist in the first place. In so far as that's ever true, YES, I support Government's right to act.

WHEN IT IS NECESSARY THAT THEY DO SO.

I am not one for NEEDLESS Government intervention in anyone's life. I never have been. If you claim otherwise, you claim FALSELY.



Sir Drummond. Here's something else the opposition always fails to mention in reference to gun usage, and those RIOTS.
Simply compare the population of Great Britain with our 311 Million. Common sense, and logic. Which is intentionally NOT USED in this case is evident.
How can anyone compare the TWO populations ....HONESTLY?

[fj1200]

At first sight, it looks to be an 'impressive' (for want of a better word) list.

But let me ask you this.

When was the last time that America knew country-wide rioting, occurring at the same time ? The rioting I posted about from a couple of years ago involved just THAT.

Rioting on such a country-wide scale stands a good chance of overwhelming police resources to control or eradicate it - IF - that police force isn't widely armed, as ours IS NOT. Sure, there are armed units, but they're very much in a minority here.

So tell me. What percentage successfully did so ? In how many instances were rioters, or attackers, driven off .. the deciding factor being the armed force used to manage it ?

So for the want of an actual argument and your argument having been directly countered you go ahead and move the goal posts. That's cool. ;) Along with the follow up of a question that I'm sure neither of us know the answer to. My guess is precious few were driven off due to the nature of mob mentality.


Of course, one element you cannot factor into your argument is the percentage who'd have invaded armed shopkeepers' premises if the shopkeeper had NOT been armed in the first place. That, in your society, couldn't reasonably be calculated, could it ? I'll just bet that such invasions, or attacks, would've been multiples of the numbers which ACTUALLY occurred.

Of course I'm not attempting to factor in any percentage. If you have data that suggests that an armed populace has a deterrent effect on riots then I'm sure you're looking for it and will post it up when discovered. I'm surely happy to be wrong that riots are not tempered by gun ownership.


Any argument designed to erode freedoms of gun ownership, to ANY degree WHATEVER, also proportionally erodes the freedom to self-defend ! Try defending yourself against an armed assailant, if you yourself do not have a firearm !

That's not an answer. Where have I stated otherwise? Where have I argued against the freedoms of gun ownership?


Whereas now, you seem to be all in favour something that tips the balance away from the individual, and towards greater State empowerment, don't you ?

How very Left wing of you.

And your claims that I'm a fan of big Government have always been a crock, as we both well know. My position is to recognise that Government exists, it's there to do a job, and if it weren't a necessary job, then the Government would have no reason or need to exist in the first place. In so far as that's ever true, YES, I support Government's right to act.

WHEN IT IS NECESSARY THAT THEY DO SO.

I am not one for NEEDLESS Government intervention in anyone's life. I never have been. If you claim otherwise, you claim FALSELY.

You bolded the wrong stuff again. ;) You're letting your imagination get the better of your argument. And certainly we don't need to detail your turns to big government do we? There are plenty of threads that await your rebuttal. Lastly, if I do "claim FALSELY" ;) then you'll have no trouble pointing to an example... but then again we all know that you DO have trouble don't we?

[SassyLady]

Actually I don't think it's particularly valid to begin with. Mob mentality isn't particularly known for its bouts of rational thought over who may or may not have guns when they start throwing trash cans through shop windows. Having an argument against gun control is more than just tossing up some stories about riots and positing that some gun owning shopkeepers would really have some sort of impact on an incident that is far larger than one persons store. Not that the shopkeepers shouldn't have the right to keep and bear arms of course.


The point you seem to be missing fj is that if the mob knows beforehand that there is a lethal force waiting for them, they might think twice before acting out. And, if some in the front lines of the mob are suddenly stopped in their tracks the rest might also think twice.

So, yes, it is a valid argument. You are only thinking about what good the guns would do AFTER the riot. I am thinking about what mindset a person would have if they knew what they might be walking into.

The whole idea of gun control beyond what is already in place is just as pointless as you say shop keepers having guns can help in a riot.

Rodney King riot:


Although the day began relatively quiet, by mid-morning on the second day violence appeared widespread and unchecked as heavy looting (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Looting) and fires were witnessed across Los Angeles County (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_Angeles_County). Korean-Americans, seeing the police force's abandonment of Koreatown (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koreatown,_Los_Angeles,_California), organized armed security teams composed of store owners, who defended their livelihoods from assault by the mobs. Open gun battles were televised as in one well publicized incident, Korean shopkeepers armed with M1 carbines, pump action shotguns and handguns exchanged gunfire with, broke up and forced a retreat of a group of armed looters.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992_Los_Angeles_riots

[fj1200]

The point you seem to be missing fj is that if the mob knows beforehand that there is a lethal force waiting for them, they might think twice before acting out. And, if some in the front lines of the mob are suddenly stopped in their tracks the rest might also think twice.

So, yes, it is a valid argument. You are only thinking about what good the guns would do AFTER the riot. I am thinking about what mindset a person would have if they knew what they might be walking into.

The whole idea of gun control beyond what is already in place is just as pointless as you say shop keepers having guns can help in a riot.

Rodney King riot:

A. I'm not missing the point, I dispute it. B. No I'm not only thinking of guns AFTER. I'm specifically stating that guns BEFORE would have little impact because rioters are not generally thinking rationally and are looking for a confrontation, not shying away from even armed police in the US for example.

And I'm not making a gun control argument.

[fj1200]

Rodney King riot:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992_Los_Angeles_riots

BTW, nice link. When cops can't/won't help somebody needs to step in.

[Drummond]

So for the want of an actual argument and your argument having been directly countered you go ahead and move the goal posts.

I pointed out a disparity of scale. You call it 'moving goal posts'. I call it proof that a larger scale of riot follows from a lack of deterrence.

This is no less than a reasonable point .. bearing also in mind, though, that Aboutime has his own valid point as to the big difference in our population sizes.


That's cool. ;)

Glad you think so. Me, I call it salient.


Along with the follow up of a question that I'm sure neither of us know the answer to. My guess is precious few were driven off due to the nature of mob mentality.

You're assuming that the mentalities HAVE to be the same. I disagree. Our respective nations, I'd suggest, have different temperaments ... different social pressures and outlooks.

Interestingly ... IF it should be that I take your thinking about the way mobs think and behave on board .. you seem to be suggesting that Britain produces 'a better class of rioter' .. ?? Your take on them seems to be that of an unreasoning mob, as your reply to SassyLady shows us is true. Ours ... well. We are more organised and 'deliberate' about it, apparently. See ...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/blackberry/8688651/London-riots-how-BlackBerry-Messenger-has-been-used-to-plan-two-nights-of-looting.html (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/blackberry/8688651/London-riots-how-BlackBerry-Messenger-has-been-used-to-plan-two-nights-of-looting.html)


This weekend’s disturbances in parts of London have again raised questions about the role technology can play in helping crowds to gather and organise.

During the Arab revolutions earlier this year, attention focused on Facebook and Twitter, but for the looters and rioters of Tottenham, Enfield and Brixton, the communications tool of choice has apparently been BlackBerry Messenger (BBM). It appears to have acted as their private, encrypted social network over the past two nights’ violence.

I suggest to you that your idea of rioters being 'unreasoning thugs' is flawed at best. Indeed .. with the level of organisation implicit in this report, doesn't it logically follow that a shopkeeper having the deterrent of a gun to ward off attacks, is even MORE likely to be an effective deterrent, since the means would exist to warn rioters to steer clear of that degree of danger !


Of course I'm not attempting to factor in any percentage. If you have data that suggests that an armed populace has a deterrent effect on riots then I'm sure you're looking for it and will post it up when discovered. I'm surely happy to be wrong that riots are not tempered by gun ownership.

You say that, knowing how difficult it would be to prove. Proof is unlikely to come from experiences on MY side of the Pond, isn't it ? And on your side, differences in outlook and maybe temperament would play their part. As I've illustrated above, though, the degree of organisation in a riot HERE would act to magnify such deterrents if they ever appeared.

Nonetheless -- at the end of the day, only someone brain-damaged would see NO deterrent factor in staring down the wrong end of a gun barrel. Sheer commonsense dictates the truth of that.


That's not an answer. Where have I stated otherwise? Where have I argued against the freedoms of gun ownership?

Don't be disingenuous. Your entire argument is one skewed to favour the opposite case to the one I've been putting.

Very LEFT WING of you to do so, by the way .. a truth you seem determined to simultaneously prove true, yet also deny !! You see, the more you argue, the more your true bona fides emerge. Including that of finding that 'big Government' mentality within YOURSELF, which you claim that I have ....

[aboutime]

I pointed out a disparity of scale. You call it 'moving goal posts'. I call it proof that a larger scale of riot follows from a lack of deterrence.

This is no less than a reasonable point .. bearing also in mind, though, that Aboutime has his own valid point as to the big difference in our population sizes.



Glad you think so. Me, I call it salient.



You're assuming that the mentalities HAVE to be the same. I disagree. Our respective nations, I'd suggest, have different temperaments ... different social pressures and outlooks.

Interestingly ... IF it should be that I take your thinking about the way mobs think and behave on board .. you seem to be suggesting that Britain produces 'a better class of rioter' .. ?? Your take on them seems to be that of an unreasoning mob, as your reply to SassyLady shows us is true. Ours ... well. We are more organised and 'deliberate' about it, apparently. See ...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/blackberry/8688651/London-riots-how-BlackBerry-Messenger-has-been-used-to-plan-two-nights-of-looting.html (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/blackberry/8688651/London-riots-how-BlackBerry-Messenger-has-been-used-to-plan-two-nights-of-looting.html)



I suggest to you that your idea of rioters being 'unreasoning thugs' is flawed at best. Indeed .. with the level of organisation implicit in this report, doesn't it logically follow that a shopkeeper having the deterrent of a gun to ward off attacks, is even MORE likely to be an effective deterrent, since the means would exist to warn rioters to steer clear of that degree of danger !



You say that, knowing how difficult it would be to prove. Proof is unlikely to come from experiences on MY side of the Pond, isn't it ? And on your side, differences in outlook and maybe temperament would play their part. As I've illustrated above, though, the degree of organisation in a riot HERE would act to magnify such deterrents if they ever appeared.

Nonetheless -- at the end of the day, only someone brain-damaged would see NO deterrent factor in staring down the wrong end of a gun barrel. Sheer commonsense dictates the truth of that.



Don't be disingenuous. Your entire argument is one skewed to favour the opposite case to the one I've been putting.

Very LEFT WING of you to do so, by the way .. a truth you seem determined to simultaneously prove true, yet also deny !! You see, the more you argue, the more your true bona fides emerge. Including that of finding that 'big Government' mentality within YOURSELF, which you claim that I have ....



Sir Drummond. Just a friendly reminder for you about ANY attempts to be sincere with fj.
"It is impossible to hold an intelligent conversation with someone who insists...ONLY THEY have any".
(a quote from aboutime)

[Drummond]

Sir Drummond. Just a friendly reminder for you about ANY attempts to be sincere with fj.
"It is impossible to hold an intelligent conversation with someone who insists...ONLY THEY have any".
(a quote from aboutime)

Oh, quite, Aboutime.

I'm just waiting for the quote-choppings, post rewrites, jibes, all that, to become reasserted, as is usually the case. I'm about due for that from him.

[SassyLady]

A. I'm not missing the point, I dispute it. B. No I'm not only thinking of guns AFTER. I'm specifically stating that guns BEFORE would have little impact because rioters are not generally thinking rationally and are looking for a confrontation, not shying away from even armed police in the US for example.

And I'm not making a gun control argument.

Well, it looks like we will have to agree to disagree. I would rather believe that lethal force will have an impact and knowledge of the fact that it will be used might slow down a mob ... especially if they see some dead bodies dropping in front of them.

[Gaffer]

A real life example for fj. Back in 1980 I was working at the state prison in Columbus, the Old Ohio Pen. Baddest prison in the state. There was one cell block that was a reception block. All new prisoners were sent there for processing , then sent on to whatever prison they were to be kept in.

The prisoners had to walk, in two lines across the central yard to the chow hall. Three officers would line them up and then start them across. So this one day, I was working the central tower. These inmates started pushing around and declaring they weren't waiting or getting in line, they were just going to walk over as they pleased. They began shoving the officers trying to keep them behind the chain link fence they were to line up at. They used their mob numbers to force back the officers. There were over a hundred of them. As they came out of the gate, the guards, who are unarmed fell back under my tower, which is what they are suppose to do.

The inmates advanced toward the tower, where I stood in the window with a 12 gauge shotgun. I chambered a round, which was very loud and easily seen by all of them, and I pointed the gun at front of the mob. Needless to say they all stopped. Those at the back broke first and ran back inside the fence line and all the others followed. They had knowledge that guns were in the tower, but didn't think they would be used until the the gun came out. It was a spontaneous mob with no organization. Such mobs will fall apart when faced with armed resistance.

The prisoners were herded back into their cell block and fed last for that little episode, which meant a four hour wait to eat.

[fj1200]

Well, it looks like we will have to agree to disagree. I would rather believe that lethal force will have an impact and knowledge of the fact that it will be used might slow down a mob ... especially if they see some dead bodies dropping in front of them.

Riots are generally not focused on a particular target such as a store, at least in the beginning, they are creating mass chaos and destruction. I highly doubt a shop owner is just going to start dropping rioters who are passing their store. One picture that drummond posted was a carpet? store that was completely engulfed and burned; that only requires a well placed Molotov cocktail and doesn't present a good target for defense of property especially as no one seemed to be interested in pilfering a Persian rug.

Would you suggest deadly force is appropriate for defense of property?


A real life example for fj. ... Such mobs will fall apart when faced with armed resistance.

It's not exactly an apples to apples comparison IMO. The prisoners knew exactly where and what to expect it seems and were focused on a particular target as opposed to general targets. I think rioters will stop when confronted by a set force such as the cops in riot gear.

But like I said, I'm all for the right to keep and bear but that's just not the best argument to make. I'm happy to be wrong and it's not an argument for more restrictions just getting at the best argument to make.

[fj1200]

I pointed out a disparity of scale. You call it 'moving goal posts'. I call it proof that a larger scale of riot follows from a lack of deterrence.

This is no less than a reasonable point .. bearing also in mind, though, that Aboutime has his own valid point as to the big difference in our population sizes.

No, you suggested that the incidents are likely to be "far less than here (UK)." I gave you a benchmark that suggests that we have an extensive history of riots in this country even with the knowledge that shop owners have 2A protections. As of yet you have not provided a listing that suggests that your country has far more riots than the US. And apparently neither you nor 'at' is smart enough to know that statistics can be adjusted for differences in population.


Glad you think so. Me, I call it salient.

No, I just expect the disingenuous from you.


You're assuming that the mentalities HAVE to be the same. I disagree. Our respective nations, I'd suggest, have different temperaments ... different social pressures and outlooks.

Interestingly ... IF it should be that I take your thinking about the way mobs think and behave on board .. you seem to be suggesting that Britain produces 'a better class of rioter' .. ?? Your take on them seems to be that of an unreasoning mob, as your reply to SassyLady shows us is true. Ours ... well. We are more organised and 'deliberate' about it, apparently. See ...

Mobs are mobs. That some leaders organize activities doesn't change the fact that once the mobs start marauding there is little difference in how they act. It's up to you to show that armed, or potentially armed, shop owners have an impact on mob mentality.


I suggest to you that your idea of rioters being 'unreasoning thugs' is flawed at best. Indeed .. with the level of organisation implicit in this report, doesn't it logically follow that a shopkeeper having the deterrent of a gun to ward off attacks, is even MORE likely to be an effective deterrent, since the means would exist to warn rioters to steer clear of that degree of danger !

You can suggest all you like but you have only shown anecdotal evidence, one sided at that, which is not proof of point.


You say that, knowing how difficult it would be to prove. Proof is unlikely to come from experiences on MY side of the Pond, isn't it ? And on your side, differences in outlook and maybe temperament would play their part. As I've illustrated above, though, the degree of organisation in a riot HERE would act to magnify such deterrents if they ever appeared.

Nonetheless -- at the end of the day, only someone brain-damaged would see NO deterrent factor in staring down the wrong end of a gun barrel. Sheer commonsense dictates the truth of that.

But you get to post anecdotal evidence and somehow suggest that it's a universal rule and then when confronted with logic you start posting that it's different over there. Sorry, but you don't get to have it both ways. And your suggestion that organized rioters over there would somehow be different than organized rioters over here is just silly.

Oh, and nice strawman. Your presumption that rioters are stopping long enough to see the deterrent factor is ridiculous or that one shop owner is going to have a deterrent effect on a hundred rioters.


Don't be disingenuous. Your entire argument is one skewed to favour the opposite case to the one I've been putting.

Very LEFT WING of you to do so, by the way .. a truth you seem determined to simultaneously prove true, yet also deny !! You see, the more you argue, the more your true bona fides emerge. Including that of finding that 'big Government' mentality within YOURSELF, which you claim that I have ....

No, my entire argument is that your argument sucks when it comes to defending the second amendment. Oh, that and your imagination still gets you stuck in corners from which you can't escape.


Oh, quite, Aboutime.

I'm just waiting for the quote-choppings, post rewrites, jibes, all that, to become reasserted, as is usually the case. I'm about due for that from him.

Post like a doofus and the post will be given the appropriate treatment. ;)

[red state]

The point you seem to be missing fj is that if the mob knows beforehand that there is a lethal force waiting for them, they might think twice before acting out. And, if some in the front lines of the mob are suddenly stopped in their tracks the rest might also think twice.

So, yes, it is a valid argument. You are only thinking about what good the guns would do AFTER the riot. I am thinking about what mindset a person would have if they knew what they might be walking into.

The whole idea of gun control beyond what is already in place is just as pointless as you say shop keepers having guns can help in a riot.

Rodney King riot:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992_Los_Angeles_riots



Sassy, I thanked you your last post, Sassy, but I wanted to thank you in person and say that you are SPOT ON and have silenced the opposition with your logic and PROOF of what happened during those riots when Americans were forced to defend themselves. And we all know what happened in Katrina when Americans were denied the right to defend themselves......help came far too late for many as the rapes, robberies, looting and murders took place. When the $#!T hit the fan, the cops harassed the law abiding citizens and gave way to the thieves, murderers and rapists. Why, those scum even shot at helicopters delivering aid to those in need, thereby, preventing the aid to reach those much in need. lilly-livered liberal scum is the most cowardly and ignorant among the human race and if survival of the fittest held true within our society, they'd rid themselves from REAL America and make US a purer, strong AMERICAN breed.

Oh...one more thing......If anyone sees the need to feed the trolls; could you please answer them, correct them or chastise them WITHOUT QUOTING THEM. Quoting them allows their stupidity to surpass blockades and for those who have filtered such stupidity from our screens, it does provide blocked members access via your 'quoted' rebuttal.

:poke2: .................................................. .................................................. ........ :coffee:

[red state]

A real life example for fj. Back in 1980 I was working at the state prison in Columbus, the Old Ohio Pen. Baddest prison in the state. There was one cell block that was a reception block. All new prisoners were sent there for processing , then sent on to whatever prison they were to be kept in.

The prisoners had to walk, in two lines across the central yard to the chow hall. Three officers would line them up and then start them across. So this one day, I was working the central tower. These inmates started pushing around and declaring they weren't waiting or getting in line, they were just going to walk over as they pleased. They began shoving the officers trying to keep them behind the chain link fence they were to line up at. They used their mob numbers to force back the officers. There were over a hundred of them. As they came out of the gate, the guards, who are unarmed fell back under my tower, which is what they are suppose to do.

The inmates advanced toward the tower, where I stood in the window with a 12 gauge shotgun. I chambered a round, which was very loud and easily seen by all of them, and I pointed the gun at front of the mob. Needless to say they all stopped. Those at the back broke first and ran back inside the fence line and all the others followed. They had knowledge that guns were in the tower, but didn't think they would be used until the the gun came out. It was a spontaneous mob with no organization. Such mobs will fall apart when faced with armed resistance.

The prisoners were herded back into their cell block and fed last for that little episode, which meant a four hour wait to eat.


Thanks GAFFER for that story and the perfect example of what the site and sound of a 12 guage will do. HA!!! And a special thanks for not quoting. :thumb:

[Drummond]

Riots are generally not focused on a particular target such as a store, at least in the beginning, they are creating mass chaos and destruction. I highly doubt a shop owner is just going to start dropping rioters who are passing their store. One picture that drummond posted was a carpet? store that was completely engulfed and burned; that only requires a well placed Molotov cocktail and doesn't present a good target for defense of property especially as no one seemed to be interested in pilfering a Persian rug.

Would you suggest deadly force is appropriate for defense of property?

I have my own answer to offer to this.

You won't know this, of course .. but since I happen to know the area where that carpet store was situated quite well, I have local knowledge I can share.

I actually DO think that the carpet store was a target of particular choice. It was the oldest building of that immediate area .. almost having 'iconic' status .. and one where a successful and leading business had been well established, this in one of the poorest and socially diverse boroughs London has (Tottenham, N17 postcode, a part of Haringey, north London). So, YES, I do think it was a chosen target.

But it was a particularly unfortunate target for another reason. Its upper floor was a rented flat .. I believe a family lived there. So far as I know, the family survived the attack, though of course would have been made homeless by it. The building was demolished weeks later (following an extended period during which the entire area was cordoned off as a 'crime scene').

And, yes. I think that if the owner had been on the premises ... or, if the family had had the freedom of laxer gun laws, and either or both had been armed .. then the attack could've been fended off. Indeed, I've no reason whatever to doubt it.

Oh, and by the way, I do suggest that deadly force is an appropriate defensive response to rioters who threaten the lives of an entire family.

DON'T YOU ?

[Drummond]

Exactly as expected, FJ, the jibes and post edits are back. It's a general tactic you fall back on, isn't it, when you lose ground in an argument.

Isn't it nice that I, myself, never stoop to that sort of thing myself ?


No, you suggested that the incidents are likely to be "far less than here (UK)." I gave you a benchmark that suggests that we have an extensive history of riots in this country even with the knowledge that shop owners have 2A protections. As of yet you have not provided a listing that suggests that your country has far more riots than the US. And apparently neither you nor 'at' is smart enough to know that statistics can be adjusted for differences in population.

I don't claim that my country has more riots than yours. I do suggest, however, that when they DO occur in the UK, a lack of an armed population means that there is less to restrain rioters when riots occur here. The very fact that the rioting of a couple of years ago developed from being local to the Tottenham and Enfield areas of London in the first 24 hours, to a near-COUNTRYWIDE spate of rioting within days, says that rioters felt they had precious little to deter them.

So, how was it that the rioting ended .. after almost a WEEK of it ?

It was a combination of very tough talking by the Government, threats of water cannon and tear gas deployments, coupled with far stiffer sentencing of detained rioters than they would've expected to receive. There were stories of some youths emerging from courtrooms in shock. Also some of youths emerging, showing zero respect for law and order, the shocked ones in those instances being their parents.

It helped deliver a zero tolerance message to have some of those courts operating, for a while, both night and day, continuously ... that hammering home the message that society was getting tougher than anyone had expected.

You see, FJ, in a society where gun ownership is rather difficult to arrange, where it's discouraged ... the sense of deterrence was wholly missing. THAT IS THE POINT, and to redress that, measures had to be advertised which showed that deterrence was being exercised in - for us - 'strong' ways.

Lack of gun ownership, and social shunning of its acceptance, sells the message that proper deterrence is absent. THIS is why a local disturbance escalated to a COUNTRYWIDE spate of rioting within days.


No, I just expect the disingenuous from you.

I can't imagine why.


Mobs are mobs. That some leaders organize activities doesn't change the fact that once the mobs start marauding there is little difference in how they act. It's up to you to show that armed, or potentially armed, shop owners have an impact on mob mentality.

I can't show you examples of instances that do not exist.

And I disagree with your entire premise. The psychology of a mob KNOWING that near-zero deterrence exists to stop them, HAS to be different to a mob where its participants cannot know whether they'll be wounded or killed from one moment to the next.

I've also shown you that, in the UK, our riots were subject to a certain level of planned direction. How often is that true in America ? And if it's NOT ... doesn't that itself point to a different psychology at work ?


Your presumption that rioters are stopping long enough to see the deterrent factor is ridiculous or that one shop owner is going to have a deterrent effect on a hundred rioters.

Once a gun is fired .. why not ? Or do you suggest that rioters are too brain-dead to care about what they face when staring down the business-end of a shotgun barrel ?

You surely have to admit that such a presumption is total nonsense (unless, of course, you're so wedded to the propagation of a Left-wing agenda that you dare not make such a concession ??).


No, my entire argument is that your argument sucks when it comes to defending the second amendment. Oh, that and your imagination still gets you stuck in corners from which you can't escape.

I can't imagine a rioter being too brain-dead to care about whether he might or might not get shot !!! YOU are apparently in the corner where you are arguing that it makes no difference of deterrence.

But then, Leftie 'logic' is, after all, totally flawed, since it has no grounding in reality.


Post like a doofus and the post will be given the appropriate treatment. ;)

... A jibe borne of desperation, FJ. Where disparagement takes the place of a level of logic, and realism, which you cannot match.

[SassyLady]

Would you suggest deadly force is appropriate for defense of property?



:clap::clap::clap:

[red state]

I have my own answer to offer to this.

You won't know this, of course .. but since I happen to know the area where that carpet store was situated quite well, I have local knowledge I can share.

I actually DO think that the carpet store was a target of particular choice. It was the oldest building of that immediate area .. almost having 'iconic' status .. and one where a successful and leading business had been well established, this in one of the poorest and socially diverse boroughs London has (Tottenham, N17 postcode, a part of Haringey, north London). So, YES, I do think it was a chosen target.

But it was a particularly unfortunate target for another reason. Its upper floor was a rented flat .. I believe a family lived there. So far as I know, the family survived the attack, though of course would have been made homeless by it. The building was demolished weeks later (following an extended period during which the entire area was cordoned off as a 'crime scene').

And, yes. I think that if the owner had been on the premises ... or, if the family had had the freedom of laxer gun laws, and either or both had been armed .. then the attack could've been fended off. Indeed, I've no reason whatever to doubt it.

Oh, and by the way, I do suggest that deadly force is an appropriate defensive response to rioters who threaten the lives of an entire family.

DON'T YOU ?


I most certainly DO feel that DEADLY FORCE is appropriate (with extreme prejudice to boot)!!!! I even feel that DEADLY FORCE is appropriate whether a mob threatens a family or not because the possibility is there and to wait for THEIR next move is sometimes too late. Even in cases where devastating loss of property (be it natural resources, machinery or structure) can be life threatening to a family's ability to live or provide for themselves. It could change their world forever and I say the mob should be the one to face those terrible odds or hauntings.

Simply put; to reduce the surplus population of rats is to do humanity a GREAT service. To save a few for the zoo would possibly be fine for display of what type of scum we should never again allow to run rampant.......but to NOT drastically reduce mobs (who comprise mostly of those GREEN with ENVY or outright liberal scum) would be a disservice to the community and planet.

[red state]

If a mob or car load of "certain individuals" have come up my 350+ foot private drive, I am going to assume that they mean me, my family or property harm or irreversible damage or loss. I may possibly provide a warning but if I do.....it should be heeded cuz the next thing to happen is :buttkick::boom2::soldier99: :bluegun: :flameth:......and for good measure: :pave: :hanging:


and whatever the %$!@ they rode in on:deadhorse:

[Joyful HoneyBee]

For those who think the government should take guns from American citizens, they might want to review history for a deeper understanding of the potential end results.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/365103/how-nazis-used-gun-control-stephen-p-halbrook

There are plenty of sites issuing arguments that the Nazi's didn't seize everyone's guns, only those who were political dissidents, enemies of the state and Jews; but, the fact remains that disarming the populous makes everyone more vulnerable to a host of undesirable results. Should the guns that our DOJ put into the hands of drug cartels across the border be more acceptable than the revolver some granny uses to protect her life and property from thugs and thieves?

I've always liked this little clip. It highlights the fact that guns don't kill people in a very amusing way:
http://newstrib.com/main.asp?SectionID=6&SubsectionID=43&ArticleID=27516
(http://newstrib.com/main.asp?SectionID=6&SubsectionID=43&ArticleID=27516)
<tbody>
3/23/2013 2:31:00 PM
hmmmm, the link tries to make you sign up
here's the article
Letters to the editor: My lazy gun didn't even load itself






<tbody>




</tbody>

Guns … really …
Today I swung my front door wide open and placed my Marlin .30-.30 right in the doorway. I gave it five shells and noticing that it had no legs, even placed it in my wheelchair to help it get around. I then left it alone and went about my business.
*While I was gone, the mailman delivered my mail, the neighbor boy across the street mowed the yard, a girl walked her dog down the street and quite a few cars stopped at the stop sign right in front of our house.
After about an hour, I checked on the gun. It was still sitting there in the wheelchair, right where I had left it. It hadn’t rolled itself outside. It certainly hadn’t killed anyone, even with the numerous opportunities it had been presented to do so. In fact, it hadn’t even loaded itself. Well you can imagine my surprise with all the media hype about how dangerous guns are and how they kill people. Either the media is wrong and it’s the misuse of guns by people that kills people, or I’m in possession of the laziest gun in the world.
Alright, well I’m off to check on my spoons. I hear they’re making people fat.
This is so true. If people really think about it, anything is a weapon. They need to stop harping on the guns and worry about other things going on in this country.
Bob and Pat Taylor,
Ottawa


</tbody>

(http://newstrib.com/main.asp?SectionID=6&SubsectionID=43&ArticleID=27516)

[DragonStryk72]

"we cannot let a minority of people -- and that's what it is, it is a minority of people -- hold a viewpoint that terrorizes the majority of people,"

Okay, gotta have a conversation about this sentence, and I just realized a point in it: How can a viewpoint, any viewpoint, terrorize someone? This isn't even a thing against gun control, but individual thought. When you jump in, and declare expressed thoughts as terror-inducing, you're trying to delegitimizing, and strip away, the First Amendment, all in a bid to strip down the Second.