American Politics during the Obama Presidency

[QUOTE=WorldTravel69;430956]Jackson we are talking about Gun Control in the USA not in some foreign country.[/QUOTE]You just don't get it.

It's precisely because American citizens are armed that our government is in check and cannot subjugate us.

An armed citizenry is the best defense against a tyrannical government.

Thomas Jefferson, the author of the Declaration of Independence said,"[i]When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. [/i]"

I normally don't post on this tread, and probably won't again, don't have time, too much girls and booze!

But El Jeffe I am soooo on your side on this! But you are technical wrong; fully automatic weapons are not illegal in the US, they are taxed! After all the treats of revolutions in the early 30`s the US government become frightening of the WORKERS actually going into a hardware store and buying the same shit the enforced had they created a mass hysteria with 'gangsters' and taxed fully automatic weapons and 'silencers' (actually a hearing protector, makes as much sense as banning exhaust systems on cars because bank robbers can sneak away) so WORKERS could not afford them (200 USD in 1934).

In 1986 it was sneaked in a provision in the Volker-McClure. Act of 1986 that freeze the exiting numbers of fully automatic guns, diving up prizes. That mean that today a' rich fascist factory owner' can buy one of the few general electric minigun in existence and laugh all the way while Joe six-pack obviously can't.

As long as you do not have a felony arrest, passes background check get a NFA license in ALL states EXCEPT CA, DE, DC, Hi, NY, WA.

The 'rocket launchers' mentioned was empty tubes, any guy that served in the army know it get fired 100 000's of them every year and the tubes are like empty cans of coke, garbage that until very recently got sold in Surplus shops for nothing.

WT69; you are so far in the wilderness on this subject I have no reply other than to say that you having so much fucking time in Gay capital so please read some history and eat less propaganda bullshit!

Stranger that rely Loooove to have this convention in a month!

[QUOTE=Jackson; 430958]"Assault rifles" refers to a physical style of rifle, generally mimicking an AR-15. However, the term "assault rifle", while intimating to pusses and providing fodder to liberal pundits, does not denote if a so-called "assault rifle" is a single shot, bolt action, semi-automatic (one trigger per shot) , or fully automatic.

In any event, fully automatic weapons are already illegal, so I'll ask the same question I posed earlier in the thread:

Histrionics aside, EXACTLY what new gun laws do you wish to see enacted?

Thanks,

Jackson[/QUOTE]

Boy, you guys are just too funny!

(Jackson, if these moron posts are you written as a joke to wind up guys I will not be happy!)

Some gold nugget of idiocy:

'I would suggest that the thing that ACTUALLY prevents the USA from detaining / exterminating anyone whom it wishes to is the silly little requirement that they have probable cause to arrest you, and then you as a citizen have a Constitutional right of a fair trial. '

Hey did you know that they had more rights than that in the good old USSR? The point is that the a paper mean jackshirt, what are YOU going to do when the power that be do decide not to follow it? Cry until they feel sorry for you?

(You obviously have had a deep look into all the NDAA 2011?)

But this takes the buiscet:

'Wasn't General Patton that said something like? I don't want my soldiers to die for their country! I want the enemy to die for his? '

And that is an argument against guns? Yep, makes perfect sense!

Shit this is too fun to be true; people don't get that stupid and an Internet connection! Jackson, stop it!

Stranger

[QUOTE=Jackson; 430954]Hi,

Some of you guys are so tactically inexperienced that you're embarrassing yourselves, especially when you trout out that tired, worn out "[i]Hey man, your hunting rifles and pistols are no match against the army's superior firepower[/i]" argument.

Let me explain if to you as if you were a child.

First, any tyrannical government, either foreign or domestic, will seek to subjugate the citizenry in order to continue to feed off of their productivity. There would be no point in completely annihilating the citizenry because then they'd would have reduced themselves to having conquered a rock.

Second, the way an armed citizenry fights a tyrannical government, either foreign or domestic, is by using guerrilla strategies, not by a direct confrontation which they would surely lose. History is replete with examples of citizens successfully thwarting tyrannical government forces in this manner, but you need look no further than the accounts of our own military's difficulties in dealing with "lightly armed" citizens in Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq.

Finally, to answer Caricoso comments.

Given that in your world you wouldn't have any weapons, what exactly would you do if they weren't "ok"?

And.

The answer: Move on, go home, get your rifle, get on a roof top, and take the fucker out.

Get it?

Thanks,

Jackson[/QUOTE]Fabulous! So if I get on the roof of my house and I see a "couple of tanks" with army soldiers around I do what?

Did I say that (as it was usual every morning!) the official radio communicating something like anyone found with any type of weapons or attempting to do this or that, will be an enemy of the state?

That means. You were a roasted chicken!

Boy, am I having fun here!

[QUOTE=Peter Sideburn;430921]Esten's points are well taken however they have nothing to do with an individual and you can't say that an individual with a gun at his house is 5 times more likely etc. You can't apply a population statistic to an individual.[/QUOTE]And Peter's point is well taken, but he's provided nothing to invalidate the results of the study. Nobody said every individual's risk is the same as the broad population. The population risk is an average, some individuals will be lower risk and some higher. Nothing complicated here. The full study can be read at the American Journal of Epidemiology (the PDF is also free) : aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/160/10/929.full

[QUOTE]A researcher studied Brad Pitt and his crew at a bar and found they were 95% likely to pick up the chick of their choice. My fat butt went to the same bar expecting to have 95% likelihood as well but struck out again and again. The point is you have to know the population studied. You have to know that the population studied is statistically similar to the population you are talking about before you can even claim to know the population's risk but even then you can't predict an individuals risk with certainty at all.[/QUOTE]If Brad Pitt is around, the odds of picking up a chick increase.

If a gun is around, the odds of being killed by a gun increase.

Pretty simple actually. Again with the caveat we are talking about averages.

[QUOTE]By the way the Constitution guarantees personal / individual freedoms and no one should...[/QUOTE]Yawn...

[QUOTE=Member #2041;430948] I would suggest that the thing that ACTUALLY prevents the U.S. from detaining/exterminating anyone whom it wishes to is the silly little requirement that they have probable cause to arrest you, and then you as a citizen have a Constitutional right of a fair trial.[/QUOTE]This is off the subject of guns, but USA governments detain and exterminate a lot of innocent people without probable cause or fair trials. There are so many laws on the books, penalties are so severe, and lawyers are so expensive that most people plead guilty instead of going through a trial.

[QUOTE=Peter Sideburn;430941]If a country tried to invade the US East Coast do you think it is likely they would receive more resistance from an armed or an unarmed population? Look at history and the answer should be pretty clear. If we were being invaded groups otherwise known as militias would form and would coordinate attacks on any invading force. This can be quite effective actually especially when they then blend back into the citizenry. If this weren't important then why does our and every other country's state department track the number of armed citizens in countries around the World? Wake up, the fact that 100 million armed citizens would greet any invading force certainly helps restrain counties with many soldiers but relatively little supply and air capability.[/QUOTE]ROTFLMAO! An invasion of the East Coast would not be met by a civilian militia, it would be met by aerial carpet bombing after refusing orders to turn back.

This is the 21st century, not the 18th century. There is no civilian militia, and no need for one. WT69 is 100% correct, the second amendment is outdated.

[QUOTE=Caricoso;430964]Fabulous! So if I get on the roof of my house and I see a "couple of tanks" with army soldiers around I do what?[/QUOTE]Oh, I don't know, maybe grow some balls?

I guess armed resistance isn't for everyone.

[QUOTE=Esten; 430970]And Peter's point is well taken, but he's provided nothing to invalidate the results of the study. Nobody said every individual's risk is the same as the broad population. The population risk is an average, some individuals will be lower risk and some higher. Nothing complicated here. The full study can be read at the American Journal of Epidemiology (the PDF is also free) : aje. Oxfordjournals. Org / content / 160/10/929. Full.

If Brad Pitt is around, the odds of picking up a chick increase.

If a gun is around, the odds of being killed by a gun increase.

Pretty simple actually. Again with the caveat we are talking about averages.

Yawn.[/QUOTE]Okay, here's some more stats for you:

"[i]Probably fewer than 2% of handguns and well under 1% of all guns will ever be involved in a violent crime. Thus, the problem of criminal gun violence is concentrated within a very small subset of gun owners, indicating that gun control aimed at the general population faces a serious needle-in-the-haystack problem.[/i]"

- Gary Kleck,"Point Blank: Handgun Violence In America

[QUOTE=Jackson; 430974]Oh, I don't know, maybe grow some balls?

I guess armed resistance isn't for everyone.[/QUOTE]Grow some balls eh? How about getting more neurons in the brain and realize that you don't fight an army with a slingshot?

[QUOTE=Caricoso;430976]Grow some balls eh? How about getting more neurons in the brain and realize that you don't fight an army with a slingshot?[/QUOTE]That's my point: I'll have a rifle and my balls, but all you'll have is a slingshot because you're afraid of firearms.

[i]"If you can't run with the big dogs, you better hide under the porch."[/i]

And to respond to your tired old argument about "army vs armed citizen", I will repeat what I wrote just a couple of days ago:

[quote]...the way an armed citizenry fights a tyrannical government, either foreign or domestic, is by using guerrilla strategies, not by a direct confrontation which they would surely lose. History is replete with examples of citizens successfully thwarting tyrannical government forces in this manner, but you need look no further than the accounts of our own military's difficulties in dealing with "lightly armed" citizens in Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq.[/quote]And I will repost my question to you from the same post...

[QUOTE=Caricoso;430952]...all I had in my mind was to run home to make sure that my family was ok.[/quote]Given that in your world you wouldn't have any weapons, what exactly would you do if they weren't "ok"?

The truth is I think most people whether pro or con gun control would like to see automatic and semi-automatic weapons outlawed for private "use" (or for private ownership.). I can't see why or how anyone can say that they "NEED" one. If a collector wants one, fine. Just make it so it can't ever be used again! Personally I think if every house had a 12 gauge in it there would be a hell of a lot loss home robberies.

[QUOTE=Gandolf50;430978]The truth is I think most people whether pro or con gun control would like to see automatic and semi-automatic weapons outlawed for private "use" (or for private ownership.). I can't see why or how anyone can say that they "NEED" one. If a collector wants one, fine. Just make it so it can't ever be used again! Personally I think if every house had a 12 gauge in it there would be a hell of a lot loss home robberies.[/QUOTE]I think you're wrong, the left is trying to label all semi-automatic weapons as assault weapons. There are many hunting guns and personal protection guns that are semi-automatic, this includes Rifles, Handguns, and your beloved Shotguns. Not all semi-automatic weapons are assault weapons and it's not about "NEED" it's about being FREE.

And for all you estens out there that think the "second amendment is outdated";

[quote]It is time the critics of the Second Amendment put up and repeal it, or shut up about violating it. Their efforts to disarm and short-arm Americans violate the USA Constitution in Merriam Webster's first sense of the term—to 'disregard' it.

Hard cases make bad law, which is why they are reserved for the Constitution, not left to the caprice of legislatures, the sophistry and casuistry of judges or the despotic rule making of the chief executive and his bureaucracy. And make no mistake, guns pose one of the hardest cases a free people confronts in the 21st century, a test of whether that people cherishes liberty above tyranny, values individual sovereignty above dependency on the state, and whether they dare any longer to live free.[/QUOTE]I think it's sad that the left is trying to exploit this tragedy, to push their political agenda of gun control.

[b]They never let a serious crisis go to waste! [/b]


[i]Obama 2008 - "I Am Not Going To Take Your Guns Away, That Just Ain't True"[/i]

[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RkUpp22fHyw&feature=player_embedded[/url]

[QUOTE=Jackson; 430977]That's my point: I'll have a rifle and my balls, but all you'll have is a slingshot because you're afraid of firearms.

[i]"If you can't run with the big dogs, you better hide under the porch."[/i]

And to respond to your tired old argument about "army vs armed citizen", I will repeat what I wrote just a couple of days ago:

And I will repost my question to you from the same post.

Given that in your world you wouldn't have any weapons, what exactly would you do if they weren't "ok"?[/QUOTE]So you know me to certify that I am afraid of firearms right? I was in the army for two years, and among other things I learn not to be afraid 'never' 'never' of the F. A. L's MAG's 45 Cal. Ak47. Bazookas, ballonets, and grenades we were handling. But 'yes' I recorded in my mind to be afraid (very afraid!) of the idiot who does not how to use them, respect them, or is totally nuts!

Of course you will give to a 14 year old a Ferrari because 'HE' asks for it, and feels capable of handling that car at 200 miles / hr. On the freeway.

That's responsibility!

[QUOTE=Caricoso; 430983]So you know me to certify that I am afraid of firearms right? I was in the army for two years, and among other things I learn not to be afraid 'never' 'never' of the F. A. L's MAG's 45 Cal. Ak47. Bazookas, ballonets, and grenades we were handling. But 'yes' I recorded in my mind to be afraid (very afraid!) of the idiot who does not how to use them, respect them, or is totally nuts!

Of course you will give to a 14 year old a Ferrari because 'HE' asks for it, and feels capable of handling that car at 200 miles / hr. On the freeway.

That's responsibility![/QUOTE]Fear the government that fears your guns

Maybe I should move back into the Gay City. Less Gun Murders, Just sex, drugs and rock 'n roll.

But California has the most, and my City Richmond, is one of the top cities for Gun Murders and that is close to the one with more. Oakland.

We have Big Time Gang Problems.

I am thinking about buy a Hand gun, and a Shot Gun, realizing that my Martial Arts weapons, Samurai Swords, Chinese Swords, Knifes and throwing stars, etc. Might not be good enough to save my life.

Come on over and help clean them out!

[url]http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/jan/10/gun-crime-us-state[/url]

[QUOTE=Jackson; 430975]"[i]Probably fewer than 2% of handguns and well under 1% of all guns will ever be involved in a violent crime. Thus, the problem of criminal gun violence is concentrated within a very small subset of gun owners, indicating that gun control aimed at the general population faces a serious needle-in-the-haystack problem. [/i]"

- Gary Kleck,"Point Blank: Handgun Violence In America[/QUOTE]Given there are around 300 Million guns in the country, a 1-2% rate of violent crime is a [b][i]huge[/i][/b] number.

This illustrates the seriousness of the problem and the need to address it. What would I do specifically ? I'll leave that to the experts. But it looks like they will address it around the edges, with a few fixes, while preserving ownership for the qualified masses. I am skeptical this will put much of a dent in the violent crime rate but willing to give it a try. Ultimately, I think there will still be too many cracks in preventing the "bad guys" from getting guns (whether through legal or illegal purchase, or theft). How do you identify a "bad guy" with an inclination for violence but no record ? How do you stop such a person from stealing a gun when there are so many guns out there, sometimes owned by a family member ? So ultimately, a broad ban on guns may be needed, and I would strongly support it.

What should we do about these Gangs?

[url]http://www.hbo.com/#/documentaries/witness-south-sudan[/url]

KONY! KONY! How do you Feel about Him?

Guns unlimited!

Kill! Kill that Mother Fu__ker! That is how I Feel!

[QUOTE=WorldTravel69; 430993]What should we do about these Gangs?

[url]http://www.hbo.com/#/documentaries/witness-south-sudan[/url]

KONY! KONY! How do Feel?

Guns unlimited!

Kill! Kill that Mother Fu__ker! That is how I Feel![/QUOTE]Hire me!

I will do these "on the house!"

TL

[QUOTE=Caricoso;430983]So you know me to certify that I am afraid of firearms right? I was in the army for two years, and among other things I learn.[/QUOTE]Okay, I got it. You're comfortable handling weapons.

Nevertheless, you don't believe that average citizens should possess weapons, including yourself, and thus I will repost my previous question to you...

[QUOTE=Jackson;430977]Given that in your world you wouldn't have any weapons, what exactly would you do if they [your family] weren't "ok"?[/QUOTE]

[ATTACH=CONFIG]28633[/ATTACH]

[ATTACH=CONFIG]28634[/ATTACH]

[ATTACH=CONFIG]28635[/ATTACH]

[QUOTE=Caricoso; 430983]So you know me to certify that I am afraid of firearms right? I was in the army for two years, and among other things I learn not to be afraid 'never' 'never' of the F. A. L's MAG's 45 Cal. Ak47. Bazookas, ballonets, and grenades we were handling. But 'yes' I recorded in my mind to be afraid (very afraid!) of the idiot who does not how to use them, respect them, or is totally nuts!

Of course you will give to a 14 year old a Ferrari because 'HE' asks for it, and feels capable of handling that car at 200 miles / hr. On the freeway.

That's responsibility![/QUOTE]As a child I grew up going to "Gun Shows" in Texas every weekend and being able to buy, sell and trade for every type of weapon that you can imagine! My father was the curator of a Weapons and Wax museum so I hung-out with full sized wax figures of Adolph Hitler, Genghis Khan, Mussolini, Chris Columbus, etc, and 1000's of square feet of armoured soldiers! It was awesome. Even had a full sized and fully operational "Dungeon!" Iron Maiden, guillotine, stretcher, eye gouger, etc, etc. Very cool.

I had a G-3 (308) and a Styer (223) , a Mac and an Uzi, all fully automatic; along with an Israeli. 44 and. 50 caliber magnum pistols! The Shit! I had the right to bear and buy, sell and trade to ANYONE without a need for documentation. I had the opportunity to buy a L. A. W. S Rocket and a Flame Thrower but I passed because the rocket was a "one shot" toy and the flame thrower was a bit expensive at the time.

Anyway, I ended up giving some of my toys to a "pharmaceutical rep" and sending a bunch to Mexico on a "free trade" agreement through out the years.

No bazookas or grenades but lots of bayonets! So I would not trade that experience for anything!

"You can take my guns away when you can pry my cold dead fingers away from them!"

TL.

What a shame that I can't have any toys in BA!

P. S. I had a Ferrari too and I got a LOT of speeding tickets!

And guess what? The above experiences did not Warp me a bit did they?

[QUOTE=Member #2041;430948] I would suggest that the thing that ACTUALLY prevents the U.S. from detaining/exterminating anyone whom it wishes to is the silly little requirement that they have probable cause to arrest you, and then you as a citizen have a Constitutional right of a fair trial. [snip][/QUOTE]Really?

On January 4th Obama signed the National Defense Authorization Act which provides funds for Guantánamo Bay prison.

NDAA 2013 also has a provision which allows for the [b]indefinite imprisonment of USA citizens, [/b] Or as Obama calls it 'prolonged detention. ' [b]Prolonged detention allows for the detention of an individual without a charge or trial. [/b]

So much for your ' Constitutional right of a fair trial', Obama and the Chicago boys view the Constitution as just another piece of paper.

[QUOTE=Jackson; 430996]Okay, I got it. You're comfortable handling weapons.

Nevertheless, you don't believe that average citizens should possess weapons, including yourself, and thus I will repost my previous question to you.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]28633[/ATTACH]

[ATTACH=CONFIG]28634[/ATTACH]

[ATTACH=CONFIG]28635[/ATTACH][/QUOTE]Sir, you changed the subject!

You were explaining how to get on the top of the roof of your home with your rifle and defend your family against couple of tanks and soldiers carrying more hardware (and eager to use them!) than you can find underground in Beijing!

Have you read about the 'dirty war' in Argentina? Only the headlines? Please, ask 'TL'. He's a 6 month old Argentinian, and an expert and defender of Argentinian issues!

Sure! You will said that had the citizens being armed to their teeth with rifles and guns (Tanks, airplanes, bazookas, and. Drones- in the modern era) would never had to go what 'we' went through.

You will probably say that the Argentinians didn't have 'balls', and what happened to us was just a lack of preparation, and again, lack of 'balls' the reason we didn't applied the Dirty Harry system!

You state that if people in Germany (and other places in the world) had been armed, could defend themselves (in Germany for instance) against the SS. (Suggestions please!)

(Personal defense against the bad guy breaking into your home). Lots of people, 'millions' have guns at home. The woman whose son killed the kids in Connecticut did! Was she nuts for not having them secure in a safe place? I don't know!

How about her son? These are the type of people you want to have arms without let say a mental evaluation or something else?

Do you want to go to the shopping mall with your loaded gun (Far West!) just in case?

The problem is that everyone will have one!

How about having the 'Chicas' at Newport carrying one? Let say. Here is Mr. Tourist. During negotiations with chica, he wants her to include her 'Cola' on his payment of ($ 200 'pesos! ' T. L. N.) She gets offended, (remember is a nut woman who is allow by law to carry a gun). Chica shuts Mr. Tourist. Now, Mr. Tourist was with his wingman who thinks he knows how to handle thing abroad, pulls a gun, kills the chica, meanwhile two more chicas friends of the first one star shooting the wingman (he is dead now) while the police just came to the scene, starts shouting everyone else because now chaos was created and nobody knows what is going on!

Solution: Let's arm the tourist with AK47 during their stay in Baires! I am a genius!

My parents never talk to me about being a good kid, and I love movies about violence, and I also learn by Superman and the Spiderman that I can be invincible!

Did I say that I love' to watch every night all the bad news that are so good for my brain instead doing my homework when I was young?

Can't wait to be an adult to be able to buy a gun. I prefer to think that way instead thinking in going across the street and telling my neighbor that I want to be his friend, because if I do that I won't show any "balls" and the other kids will make funny of me!

[QUOTE=Caricoso; 431002]Sir, you changed the subject!

You were explaining how to get on the top of the roof of your home with your rifle and defend your family against couple of tanks and soldiers carrying more hardware (and eager to use them!) than you can find underground in Beijing!

Have you read about the 'dirty war' in Argentina? Only the headlines? Please, ask 'TL'. He's a 6 month old Argentinian, and an expert and defender of Argentinian issues!

Sure! You will said that had the citizens being armed to their teeth with rifles and guns (Tanks, airplanes, bazookas, and. Drones- in the modern era) would never had to go what 'we' went through.

You will probably say that the Argentinians didn't have 'balls', and what happened to us was just a lack of preparation, and again, lack of 'balls' the reason we didn't applied the Dirty Harry system!

You state that if people in Germany (and other places in the world) had been armed, could defend themselves (in Germany for instance) against the SS. (Suggestions please!)

(Personal defense against the bad guy breaking into your home). Lots of people, 'millions' have guns at home. The woman whose son killed the kids in Connecticut did! Was she nuts for not having them secure in a safe place? I don't know!

How about her son? These are the type of people you want to have arms without let say a mental evaluation or something else?

Do you want to go to the shopping mall with your loaded gun (Far West!) just in case?

The problem is that everyone will have one!

How about having the 'Chicas' at Newport carrying one? Let say. Here is Mr. Tourist. During negotiations with chica, he wants her to include her 'Cola' on his payment of ($ 200 'pesos! ' T. L. N.) She gets offended, (remember is a nut woman who is allow by law to carry a gun). Chica shuts Mr. Tourist. Now, Mr. Tourist was with his wingman who thinks he knows how to handle thing abroad, pulls a gun, kills the chica, meanwhile two more chicas friends of the first one star shooting the wingman (he is dead now) while the police just came to the scene, starts shouting everyone else because now chaos was created and nobody knows what is going on!

Solution: Let's arm the tourist with AK47 during their stay in Baires! I am a genius!

My parents never talk to me about being a good kid, and I love movies about violence, and I also learn by Superman and the Spiderman that I can be invincible!

Did I say that I love' to watch every night all the bad news that are so good for my brain instead doing my homework when I was young?

Can't wait to be an adult to be able to buy a gun. I prefer to think that way instead thinking in going across the street and telling my neighbor that I want to be his friend, because if I do that I won't show any "balls" and the other kids will make funny of me![/QUOTE]Very Funny and Very Interesting :

Although your post was not directed toward me, although I'm surprised considering what I posted; it's still very intersting and very funny!

I love all of your post! I'm truly convinced that you are really "BORAT" in disguise!

"Please, ask 'TL'. He's a 6 month old Argentinian, and an expert and defender of Argentinian issues!"

I think I know what you are trying to say but it could be a subtle insult albeit a funny one!

Now Teach us if I'm wrong but Hitler, Stalin, and Peron, etc, etc were able to exterminate "the people" because the governments had taken away their guns so the people could not defend themselves. Right? And there were a shitload of guns lying around after a little war and revolution, etc.

That is precisely why the American Constitution's Second Amendment was written! Shit, it's the second thing they came up with on a long list! They knew way back then that they would not be able to defend themselves in the near future. (1776 to 1810 plus)

Every fucking Liberal attorney is going to jump on the N. R. A's bandwagon to defend the "right to bear arms and to form armed militias."

The woman in Conn. Bought those guns legally and routinely took her son to the gun range to practice, I guess that's one of the reasons why he had such a high kill ratio; that and the fact that they were children and he used a. 223 while applying multiple shots per victim. I think he just played too many video games. Yes, she knew he was "ODD" and she could have kept the guns in a safe, they can prosecute her for allowing him to gain access to her guns. Oops, I guess not. That law only applies to juneniles gaining access to an adult's guns and he was an adult. A bit ironic because she taught him how to shoot !

"Being armed to go to the mall."

Hell Yes! Certain states have counties that have enacted "open carry permits" where a "citizen" has the right to carry a weapon but it must be exposed like a big old hogleg strapped on to your thigh like Clint Eastwood in a spaghetti western! It must be very cool! And guess what, very little or ZERO crime! Works does'nt it?

"Crazy Armed Chicas"

They are! With knives at times.

Case in point : ( no pun intended )

A brother monger of ours was trolling one night near Excedra and he pickep up a "Chica." When they arrived at his apartment the "Chica" said pay me now and he said I never pay up front so the "Chica" pulled out a knife and said you will pay me NOW and you can only fuck me in the ass!

So he got a BBBJ instead. Me thinks he actually picked up a "Chico!" YUK!

Anyway, always a pleasure to read your post and Thank You for reading mine!

TL.

Call me, let's grab a beer one day.

[QUOTE=Caricoso; 431002]Sir, you changed the subject!

You were explaining how to get on the top of the roof of your home with your rifle and defend your family against couple of tanks and soldiers carrying more hardware (and eager to use them!) than you can find underground in Beijing![/QUOTE]We need training on this. Sign me up ! Sounds like a skill I really need.

In fact now that I think about it, I'm amazed I got this far in life without knowing how to do this.

[QUOTE=Esten; 431004]We need training on this. Sign me up! Sounds like a skill I really need.

In fact now that I think about it, I'm amazed I got this far in life without knowing how to do this.[/QUOTE]I am so sorry I did not meet you guys when I was in town, I am just on my way getting paid to train people how to do just to do that!

When I can log on next time we can link up and I give you a few lessons, unless you have lost the freedoms 90% of the worlds population would die to have (come to think of it, actually DO die for because they do not have small arms you useful morons try to take away from your own people!).

Wankers!

Stranger out

[QUOTE=TejanoLibre; 431003]Very Funny and Very Interesting :

Although your post was not directed toward me, although I'm surprised considering what I posted; it's still very intersting and very funny!

I love all of your post! I'm truly convinced that you are really "BORAT" in disguise!

"Please, ask 'TL'. He's a 6 month old Argentinian, and an expert and defender of Argentinian issues!"

I think I know what you are trying to say but it could be a subtle insult albeit a funny one!

Now Teach us if I'm wrong but Hitler, Stalin, and Peron, etc, etc were able to exterminate "the people" because the governments had taken away their guns so the people could not defend themselves. Right? And there were a shitload of guns lying around after a little war and revolution, etc.

That is precisely why the American Constitution's Second Amendment was written! Shit, it's the second thing they came up with on a long list! They knew way back then that they would not be able to defend themselves in the near future. (1776 to 1810 plus)

Every fucking Liberal attorney is going to jump on the N. R. A's bandwagon to defend the "right to bear arms and to form armed militias."

The woman in Conn. Bought those guns legally and routinely took her son to the gun range to practice, I guess that's one of the reasons why he had such a high kill ratio; that and the fact that they were children and he used a. 223 while applying multiple shots per victim. I think he just played too many video games. Yes, she knew he was "ODD" and she could have kept the guns in a safe, they can prosecute her for allowing him to gain access to her guns. Oops, I guess not. That law only applies to juneniles gaining access to an adult's guns and he was an adult. A bit ironic because she taught him how to shoot!

"Being armed to go to the mall."

Hell Yes! Certain states have counties that have enacted "open carry permits" where a "citizen" has the right to carry a weapon but it must be exposed like a big old hogleg strapped on to your thigh like Clint Eastwood in a spaghetti western! It must be very cool! And guess what, very little or ZERO crime! Works does'nt it?

"Crazy Armed Chicas"

They are! With knives at times.

Case in point : (no pun intended)

A brother monger of ours was trolling one night near Excedra and he pickep up a "Chica." When they arrived at his apartment the "Chica" said pay me now and he said I never pay up front so the "Chica" pulled out a knife and said you will pay me NOW and you can only fuck me in the ass!

So he got a BBBJ instead. Me thinks he actually picked up a "Chico!" YUK!

Anyway, always a pleasure to read your post and Thank You for reading mine!

TL.

Call me, let's grab a beer one day.[/QUOTE]Well, your point is very clear to me. You agree having 'everyone' armed to their teeth because who knows, maybe someday perhaps a crazy mad man takes over and we find ourselves without any help.

That will be wonderful if we all are mentally OK! (Whatever that means!) , we are well trained on how to use those weapons in different conditions (psychology evaluation here!) because one thing is to go to a shooting range, and other using them in a moment of distress, and keeping them safe (I don't know what is out there for that) , just in case someone as the guy in Connecticut commits an atrocity.

I think the Swiss are doing, that, although they have their share of problems like keeping only certain amount ammunitions at home etc.

Your friend and the crazy chica with the knife in his apartment? What if she had a gun in her purse because 'she had the rights' to carry one as soon as she arrived to 'Estacion Retiro' from Paraguay?

About the beer? How about a good glass of Malbec from Mendoza? Is on me of course!

[QUOTE=Punter 127; 431000]On January 4th Obama signed the National Defense Authorization Act which provides funds for Guantánamo Bay prison.

NDAA 2013 also has a provision which allows for the [b]indefinite imprisonment of USA citizens, [/b] Or as Obama calls it 'prolonged detention. ' [b]Prolonged detention allows for the detention of an individual without a charge or trial. [/b]

So much for your ' Constitutional right of a fair trial', Obama and the Chicago boys view the Constitution as just another piece of paper.[/QUOTE]Instead of your knee-jerk reaction to always blame Obama, did it ever occur to you to ask, [b][i]Why didn't Congress send Obama a better bill? [/i][/b]

In the bill it passed, the Republican-led House didn't bother to address the indefinite detention issue at all. The Democrat-led Senate did. In November, the Senate passed Amendment #3018 by a wide margin of 67-29. Known as the Feinstein-Lee Amendment, it provided protection against indefinite detention. However, in December a House-Senate conference committee led by Senator John McCain stripped Amendment #3018 from the new draft of the NDAA bill. This committee was tasked with merging the House and Senate versions of the 2013 NDAA. Here's what Sen. Rand Paul said about it:

[QUOTE]"The decision by the NDAA conference committee, led by Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) to strip the National Defense Authorization Act of the amendment that protects American citizens against indefinite detention now renders the entire NDAA unconstitutional," Sen. Paul warned.

'When I entered the United States Senate, I took an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution. It is for this reason that I will strongly oppose passage of the McCain conference report that strips the guarantee to a trial by jury, ' Paul further elaborated.[/QUOTE]Congress had much more to do with the 2013 NDAA than the President. And if Congressional Republicans had been more concerned about the indefinite detention issue, this would have played out differently.

You Go Girl!

A 30 Round Clip Would Have Helped!

[url]http://news.yahoo.com/mom-shot-intruder-inspires-gun-control-foes-003753089.html[/url]

TL

Keep Shooting Baby !

[QUOTE=Esten; 431007]Instead of your knee-jerk reaction to always blame Obama, did it ever occur to you to ask, [b][i]Why didn't Congress send Obama a better bill? [/i][/b]

In the bill it passed, the Republican-led House didn't bother to address the indefinite detention issue at all. The Democrat-led Senate did. In November, the Senate passed Amendment #3018 by a wide margin of 67-29. Known as the Feinstein-Lee Amendment, it provided protection against indefinite detention. However, in December a House-Senate conference committee led by Senator John McCain stripped Amendment #3018 from the new draft of the NDAA bill. This committee was tasked with merging the House and Senate versions of the 2013 NDAA. Here's what Sen. Rand Paul said about it:

Congress had much more to do with the 2013 NDAA than the President. And if Congressional Republicans had been more concerned about the indefinite detention issue, this would have played out differently.[/QUOTE].

The bottom line is Obama signed the bill into law, he had the power to veto, but like a good lefty he pissed and moaned an whined about how much he didn't like the bill, then he signed it anyway. I suspect if the truth be known he waited for NDAA with baited breath. But regardless of why he signed it Americans can be held in indefinite detention without being charged and without a trial.

[i]"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."[/i] Great job Mr. President!

BTW why didn't he just ignore Congress and issue more executive orders? After all that's how he plans to deal with gun control isn't it? If he does try to take guns away by means of executive order he may well unleash more civil unrest than this country has seen since the Civil war.

Notice the weasel move by Punter. It's Republicans that are supposed to be strong about defending the Constitution. But they weren't when it came to the indefinite detention issue in the 2013 NDAA. And Punter just blames Obama.

That's like me blaming a Republican president for signing a bill to weaken Medicaid, when Congressional Democrats had the power to prevent it but did nothing. I wouldn't blame the President, I would blame Democrats for not fighting for a core Democrat position.

Constitutionalists were let down by their own party, even Sen. Rand Paul recognized this.

Anyone blaming only Obama here is blatantly ignoring where the real problem lies. I suspect folks like Punter aren't genuinely upset about the indefinite detention issue, but rather just looking for another excuse to piss and moan about Obama.

More gun violence and personal injury.

This time at a school in Taft, California. One teacher and a 16-year-old student were shot, the latter in critical condition.

The school normally has an armed guard, but he didn't make it to work today.

[url]http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/10/taft-high-school-armed-guard_n_2450710.html[/url]

[QUOTE=Esten;431022]Notice the weasel move by Punter. It's Republicans that are supposed to be strong about defending the Constitution. But they weren't when it came to the indefinite detention issue in the 2013 NDAA. And Punter just blames Obama.[/quote]ROFLMAO Who signed the bill into law? Obama is the President isn't he? WTF do you think this guy is made of teflon and nothing will stick to him?

Didn't the President take an oath promising to defend the Consitution? I think it went something like this; [i]"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and [b][u]defend the Constitution of the United States."[/i][/u] [/b]

[quote=Esten;431022]That's like me blaming a Republican president for signing a bill to weaken Medicaid, when Congressional Democrats had the power to prevent it but did nothing. I wouldn't blame the President, I would blame Democrats for not fighting for a core Democrat position.[/quote]Really, I doubt it, but we'll just put this statement in the bank for future reference.

[quote=Esten;431022]Constitutionalists were let down by their own party, even Sen. Rand Paul recognized this.[/quote]I don't disagree that Republicans may have let "Constitutionalists" down, but what did Obama do to Civil liberties? The last time I checked two wrongs do not equal a right.

Rand Paul and Esten, WOW desperation sure makes for strange bedfellows.

[quote=Esten;431022]Anyone blaming only Obama here is blatantly ignoring where the real problem lies. I suspect folks like Punter aren't genuinely upset about the indefinite detention issue, but rather just looking for another excuse to piss and moan about Obama.[/QUOTE]You can 'suspect' anything you want, but you are dead wrong! I would never support detaining American citizens without 'due process'. If you go back and look you will see that I spoke out against the patriot act and TSA a long time ago (before Obama). And just for the record I'm also against assassinating American citizens just because some government agency labels them a "terrorist". (Are you?)

All American citizens are entitled to their Consitutional rights and protections, and I've got a big problem with people like you that want to walk on the Constitution in order to further a political agenda.

Obama is POTUS he signed the bill into law and he gets the credit for it, goes with the job. If You can't take the heat get the fuck out of the kitchen.

BTW your personal attack on me just reveals your desperation, the weakness of your argument, and your lack of credibility. (which we already knew from you previous actions) It's very easy to call people names from the safety of a keyboard, I wonder how tough you'd be in person?

[QUOTE=Caricoso; 431002]Sir, you changed the subject!

You were explaining how to get on the top of the roof of your home with your rifle and defend your family against couple of tanks and soldiers carrying more hardware (and eager to use them!) than you can find underground in Beijing!

Have you read about the 'dirty war' in Argentina? Only the headlines? Please, ask 'TL'. He's a 6 month old Argentinian, and an expert and defender of Argentinian issues!

Sure! You will said that had the citizens being armed to their teeth with rifles and guns (Tanks, airplanes, bazookas, and. Drones- in the modern era) would never had to go what 'we' went through.

You will probably say that the Argentinians didn't have 'balls', and what happened to us was just a lack of preparation, and again, lack of 'balls' the reason we didn't applied the Dirty Harry system!

You state that if people in Germany (and other places in the world) had been armed, could defend themselves (in Germany for instance) against the SS. (Suggestions please!) [/QUOTE]Caricoso,

Please pay attention here, because this is the 3rd time I've said this to you, and yet it continues to fly right over your head.

I did not say anything about using firearms to defend your family [i]against government troops[/i].

What I clearly said was.

[quote]...the way an armed citizenry fights a tyrannical government, either foreign or domestic, is by using guerrilla strategies, not by a direct confrontation which they would surely lose. History is replete with examples of citizens successfully thwarting tyrannical government forces in this manner, but you need look no further than the accounts of our own military's difficulties in dealing with "lightly armed" citizens in Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq.[/quote]However, you suggested that instead of getting personally involved in a resistance movement, you would instead need to go home "to protect my family". Given our mutual assumption that individuals cannot prevail in a direct confrontation with government troops, I assumed that you were talking about "protecting" them from criminals, which led me ask how exactly you were going to protect your family [against criminals] when you are unarmed.

To summarize:

- Armed citizen in direct confrontation with tyrannical government troops = NO Good.

- Armed citizen in guerrilla action against tyrannical government troops = Good!

- Unarmed citizen protecting family against criminals = NO Good.

- Armed citizen protecting family against criminals = Good!

My point being that even if you accept the argument that citizens do not need to be armed to resist government tyranny, they most certainly need to be armed to protect themselves [and their families] against criminals.

Get it?

I doubt it, because you obviously have your eyes closed and your hands over your ears.

Thanks,

Jackson

[QUOTE=Jackson; 431032]Caricoso,

Please pay attention here, because this is the 3rd time I've said this to you, and yet it continues to fly right over your head.

I did not say anything about using firearms to defend your family [i]against government troops[/i].

What I clearly said was.

However, you suggested that instead of getting personally involved in a resistance movement, you would instead need to go home "to protect my family". Given our mutual assumption that individuals cannot prevail in a direct confrontation with government troops, I assumed that you were talking about "protecting" them from criminals, which led me ask how exactly you were going to protect your family [against criminals] when you are unarmed.

To summarize:

- Armed citizen in direct confrontation with tyrannical government troops = NO Good.

- Armed citizen in guerrilla action against tyrannical government troops = Good!

- Unarmed citizen protecting family against criminals = NO Good.

- Armed citizen protecting family against criminals = Good!

My point being that even if you accept the argument that citizens do not need to be armed to resist government tyranny, they most certainly need to be armed to protect themselves [and their families] against criminals.

Get it?

I doubt it, because you obviously have your eyes closed and your hands over your ears.

Thanks,

Jackson[/QUOTE]I guess my 'Shakespearian English' is not sufficient to explain what I am trying to say about this guns thing!

Ok, this is my point of view:

I've read the 2nd amendment. I try to transport myself to the times where it was written, and it makes perfect sense to me.

Now, would you 'please' explain to me how you keep these nuts for killing innocent people? One of my family members could be the next victim. My son or my daughter at the school? At the movie theater? Shopping mall?

Who say that I don't have the tools necessary to protect my family at home? But, should I go to the street with them? Not much if a nut carries a semi-auto Pum! Pum! While I am in the shopping mall. Should I give my kids a Chinese ak47? 'Just in case' to protect themselves at the school? But wait, what if another kid brings a grenade and wants to immolate himself and bring some companions to heaven?

The above was about "personal protection!"

Next: you said. 'I doubt it, because you obviously have your eyes closed and your hands over your ears'

I say. Were you with my in the seventies as an army soldier in Cordoba, and Buenos Aires and see and feel the 'real scene' of what happened when some people play hero in real life because they are experts in video games?

Were you with me as a civilian three years after in class at the university 'UBA' in Baires, and a platoon of army soldiers interrupt the classes carrying F. A. L. 's while the police was interrogating us?

Fortunately a friend of mine and me, because we were in the military, knew the codes of how to talk to them and 'what not to do! The others? Were shiting on their pants!

Ironic, I remember patrolling some of the street in Recoleta (Junin included). Now I stroll with the chicas from Black, Hippo, Madahos etc.

'Mr. Jackson', I understand and I respect your point of view, but I wish I have someone that will tell me how to avoid the killing of innocent people and not just tell me that the killer is the person and not the gun. What do they use to kill 20 inocent kids in 45 seconds? It's my simple question!

Thank you!

[QUOTE=Punter 127;431025]Obama is the President isn't he? WTF do you think this guy is made of teflon and nothing will stick to him?[/QUOTE]Yes, so long as he continues to use to use the country's credit card to give free money to 51% of the voters.

Jackson, you know you are wasting your time arguing with folks who believe guns kill people and pencils misspell words.

The only shocking thing I see is how the left wing news media never reports on the times firearms stop violence. Most recently the mother in Georgia and the young girl in Wisconsin who either killed or wounded the criminals invading their homes. In one case the deceased criminal had in his possession a Model 1911 taken from a previous home invasion in which the 70 year old home owner was murdered.

I own many firearms: pistols, rifles, shotguns and the dreaded assault rifle (Colt AR 15, AK97, SL8, and a Styer Aug). I have never in more than 50 years of gun ownership observed one of these weapons jump up, run out and kill anyone of its own volition.

Obama's Chicago has some of the most restrictive gun laws in the nation but they still had over 500 homicides – that's an average of more than one a day.

Automobile accidents kill more people annually than firearms, but since everyone depends on vehicles this 'uncontrolled violence' is tolerated.

While you are at it the attached articles are worth a read.

[url]http://www.wnd.com/2013/01/is-it-time-to-call-for-hammer-control/[/url]

[url]http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/01/03/FBI-More-People-Killed-With-Hammers-and-Clubs-Each-Year-Than-With-Rifles[/url]

[QUOTE=Doppelganger; 431041]Jackson, you know you are wasting your time arguing with folks who believe guns kill people and pencils misspell words.

The only shocking thing I see is how the left wing news media never reports on the times firearms stop violence. Most recently the mother in Georgia and the young girl in Wisconsin who either killed or wounded the criminals invading their homes. In one case the deceased criminal had in his possession a Model 1911 taken from a previous home invasion in which the 70 year old home owner was murdered.

I own many firearms: pistols, rifles, shotguns and the dreaded assault rifle (Colt AR 15, AK97, SL8, and a Styer Aug). I have never in more than 50 years of gun ownership observed one of these weapons jump up, run out and kill anyone of its own volition.

Obama's Chicago has some of the most restrictive gun laws in the nation but they still had over 500 homicides – that's an average of more than one a day.

Automobile accidents kill more people annually than firearms, but since everyone depends on vehicles this 'uncontrolled violence' is tolerated.

While you are at it the attached articles are worth a read.

[url]http://www.wnd.com/2013/01/is-it-time-to-call-for-hammer-control/[/url]

[url]http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/01/03/FBI-More-People-Killed-With-Hammers-and-Clubs-Each-Year-Than-With-Rifles[/url][/QUOTE]I really miss my toys!

I had a Steyr Aug, an HK 91 with a G3 Fully Automatic Trigger Group, folding bi-pod, sniper scope and an adujtable stock; both very nice and when the importation was banned by Clinton it had a magical effect on these weapons. The values sky-rocketed! From about $900. 00 to $5000. 00 plus! That will happen again if they go through with the proposed ban. Nice for some people!

I guess my ball and pin hammer collection along with my sledge hammers will go up too!

TL

I read that 1 in 4 Americans have criminal records, the same for mental illness. Americans are dropping in their educational standards, Americans have hugh credit card debts. Why? How?

It seems ethics, morality, discipline are going by the wayside. Self destruction started down the slippery slope many decades ago, but it is almost full bloom now. All this hate talk about tyranny, liberty & freedom is part of the self destruction. I saw a guy who sounded like Russ Limbaugh, but he turn out to be Alex Jones. Where they find him? Should I fear him or should I fear the government. Oklahoma City revisited.

Happy New Year