Armed Protest

You can talk about anything here

Moderator: Global Moderator

User avatar
deadhanddan
N3O Member
N3O Member
Posts: 1507
Joined: Thu Nov 06, 2008 11:38 pm
Location: OHIO
Contact:

Armed Protest

Post by deadhanddan »

just read this story about armed protesters at an Obama Speech


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090817/ap_ ... sters_guns
- Dan
User avatar
36drew
Honorary Officer
Posts: 2713
Joined: Tue Nov 20, 2007 6:22 am

Re: Armed Protest

Post by 36drew »

"I want to own an assualt weapon just because I can." This guy should not own a gun.
etrips888
Honorary Member
Honorary Member
Posts: 625
Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 2:27 am
Location: California

Re: Armed Protest

Post by etrips888 »

[quote=""36drew""]"I want to own an assualt weapon just because I can." This guy should not own a gun.[/quote]

+1
This is why the US gun laws can be a problem..there are a good amount of people that have no business owning guns, let alone assault rifles?
User avatar
deadhanddan
N3O Member
N3O Member
Posts: 1507
Joined: Thu Nov 06, 2008 11:38 pm
Location: OHIO
Contact:

Re: Armed Protest

Post by deadhanddan »

[quote=""etrips888""][quote=""36drew""]"I want to own an assualt weapon just because I can." This guy should not own a gun.[/quote]

+1
This is why the US gun laws can be a problem..there are a good amount of people that have no business owning guns, let alone assault rifles?[/quote]

i agree

i am a firm believer in the right to bear arms

i am a member of the NRA

but this is just rediculous imho. ppl like this shouldn't be allowed to breed

my .02$
- Dan
User avatar
Highlander999
Honorary Member
Honorary Member
Posts: 674
Joined: Mon Jan 14, 2008 1:31 am
Location: Scotland

Re: Armed Protest

Post by Highlander999 »

Why the need to own guns? I don't really see any need for it at all. There is only one job of a gun. That's to kill. Simple as that. Anyone one who says they believe they have the right to own a gun, is saying they feel they have the right to kill someone.
Image
User avatar
deadhanddan
N3O Member
N3O Member
Posts: 1507
Joined: Thu Nov 06, 2008 11:38 pm
Location: OHIO
Contact:

Re: Armed Protest

Post by deadhanddan »

[quote=""Highlander999""]Why the need to own guns? I don't really see any need for it at all. There is only one job of a gun. That's to kill. Simple as that. Anyone one who says they believe they have the right to own a gun, is saying they feel they have the right to kill someone.[/quote] well yes , the job of a gun is to deter or kill. but also about the right of personal protection. in USA , its a right that many of us hold dear because it enables the ppl to be self reliant and also defend themselves when neccesary. americans dislike the thought of big government dictating every aspect of thier lives ( including self protection ) have to consider that there are many ppl out there whom are disturbed and that every american is entitled to defend and protect their private property as well as their loved ones such as family from threats


guns are not only made to kill people. farmers / ranchers often need the use of firearms to protect their investments from predation as well as hunting.


you would be surprised to know what exactly can go bump in the night in the ol USA ;) i have personally witnessed bears , mountain lions , coyotes , feral dogs , bob cats, even a damned lion that escaped from the Columbus airport and is curently on the loose in my state ( i didnt see this lion mind you , just know that it hasn't been found yet lol )
- Dan
User avatar
ckei
N3O Member
N3O Member
Posts: 304
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 1:00 pm
Location: Finland

Re: Armed Protest

Post by ckei »

uhmm I dont know Dan. I do agree that farmers and rancher have the rigths to use firearms ,that makes perfectly sense to me. And I do get that you will probably feel safer bearing a gun in the concreate jungle, there are a lot of lunatic people in the world today. but still tho.I couldnt imagine having to face people on the streets bearing a gun.To me it would be very scary,but on the other hand Im pretty sure I meet people at the streets everyday who haves a gun on him/her.

altho Im sure that almost everybody who ownes a gun would never ever use it against humans/animals/objects ,I just cant stop thinking about that tiny little % that is ready to shoot somebody just to get something or just b/c they "feel" like it.


I guess I should just shut up because Ive never even been to america .So I dont feel I have the rigth to critize bea.This is just my own opinion.
Saint
Honorary Member
Honorary Member
Posts: 251
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2008 5:36 pm
Location: Ohio

Re: Armed Protest

Post by Saint »

I used to own about 30+ guns. In 1997 i was living in north west Montana with my wife and son. One night, after a few to many drink and argument took place between my wife and myself.After a bit of yelling and slamming of doors a knock on the door came. When i answered it,there stood 2 "cowboys" ready to help a women in distress. ( she was in no way distressed). In a nutshell, one of them was a neighbor and had designs on my wife and figured this was an opportunity to get his foot in the door with her. Since there was 2 of them and they both had rather nasty looking wood in there hands i decided to even the odds a bit. Next to my front door on a shelf about 7 feet high i kept a snub nose 38 cal. I reached for it leveled it at them and they both took off like bats outa hell! About 10 min later police showed up, arrested me and confiscated all my firearms and ammo. I was indited on 2 counts felony assault with a fire arm.I slent the next 2 years on probation and was informed that i was not legally allowed to own or even reside in a home that contained guns of any kind.Since then i have never hunted again nor have i owned a fire arm.

The moral here is this. Its legal and constitutional to own a gun. However, IF you use that gun for its intended purpose you will most likely have legal issues after the fact.

Theres really no point to owning a gun for personal protection when you endanger yourself when you decide to make use of it.

the whole american gun law issue is outdated and obsolete!


I mean really....Whats the Point?


Peace
Image
aka~Rubber_Chuck
User avatar
deadhanddan
N3O Member
N3O Member
Posts: 1507
Joined: Thu Nov 06, 2008 11:38 pm
Location: OHIO
Contact:

Re: Armed Protest

Post by deadhanddan »

[quote=""Saint""]I used to own about 30+ guns. In 1997 i was living in north west Montana with my wife and son. One night, after a few to many drink and argument took place between my wife and myself.After a bit of yelling and slamming of doors a knock on the door came. When i answered it,there stood 2 "cowboys" ready to help a women in distress. ( she was in no way distressed). In a nutshell, one of them was a neighbor and had designs on my wife and figured this was an opportunity to get his foot in the door with her. Since there was 2 of them and they both had rather nasty looking wood in there hands i decided to even the odds a bit. Next to my front door on a shelf about 7 feet high i kept a snub nose 38 cal. I reached for it leveled it at them and they both took off like bats outa hell! About 10 min later police showed up, arrested me and confiscated all my firearms and ammo. I was indited on 2 counts felony assault with a fire arm.I slent the next 2 years on probation and was informed that i was not legally allowed to own or even reside in a home that contained guns of any kind.Since then i have never hunted again nor have i owned a fire arm.

The moral here is this. Its legal and constitutional to own a gun. However, IF you use that gun for its intended purpose you will most likely have legal issues after the fact.

Theres really no point to owning a gun for personal protection when you endanger yourself when you decide to make use of it.

the whole american gun law issue is outdated and obsolete!


I mean really....Whats the Point?


Peace[/quote] good arguement , but it really depends on the state of residence and the manner of which the firearm is used. here in ohio lets say if i had children and someone got the gumption to break into my home , i am legally allowed to use my firearm if the perp refuses to obey my commands and allow themself to be arrested or if they try to attack or harm a family member. while firearms are a right entitled to a majority of honest and decent citizens , they require the utmost caution and care. i will not argue about gun laws for i feel a good number of them are broken - but if someone is determined to harm another person - gun or no gun they will do it. cannot punish everyone because of a small % of the population and displace blame onto firearms when the one who is at fault is the one weilding the gun and committing the crime.
- Dan
gendarme
N3O Member
N3O Member
Posts: 306
Joined: Tue Jun 23, 2009 10:00 pm

Re: Armed Protest

Post by gendarme »

USA is complicated ^^
Image
User avatar
Aaryn_GenD
Global Moderator
Global Moderator
Posts: 3555
Joined: Fri Nov 21, 2008 9:59 pm
Location: Germany

Re: Armed Protest

Post by Aaryn_GenD »

i agree with dan.
when i was in australia on a frm, they were allowed to have a gun to shoot down kangaroos or other animals which happen to disturb their crops.

i dont think having a gun increases the affinity towards using it to harm people, someone who is disturbed and feels the urge would do it nonetheless.

i personally witnessed a man trying to sneak a pistol at the airport, when he got mentioned, he went to the desk and showed the pistol. i foudn it funny, the pistol was taken aware and it had to be decided what ot do with it.

concerning the news posted by dan, i like the fact how the gun has to be visible, but ii see no reason having it on a presidents speech
Image
Saint
Honorary Member
Honorary Member
Posts: 251
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2008 5:36 pm
Location: Ohio

Re: Armed Protest

Post by Saint »

[quote=""deadhanddan""][quote=""Saint""]I used to own about 30+ guns. In 1997 i was living in north west Montana with my wife and son. One night, after a few to many drink and argument took place between my wife and myself.After a bit of yelling and slamming of doors a knock on the door came. When i answered it,there stood 2 "cowboys" ready to help a women in distress. ( she was in no way distressed). In a nutshell, one of them was a neighbor and had designs on my wife and figured this was an opportunity to get his foot in the door with her. Since there was 2 of them and they both had rather nasty looking wood in there hands i decided to even the odds a bit. Next to my front door on a shelf about 7 feet high i kept a snub nose 38 cal. I reached for it leveled it at them and they both took off like bats outa hell! About 10 min later police showed up, arrested me and confiscated all my firearms and ammo. I was indited on 2 counts felony assault with a fire arm.I slent the next 2 years on probation and was informed that i was not legally allowed to own or even reside in a home that contained guns of any kind.Since then i have never hunted again nor have i owned a fire arm.

The moral here is this. Its legal and constitutional to own a gun. However, IF you use that gun for its intended purpose you will most likely have legal issues after the fact.

Theres really no point to owning a gun for personal protection when you endanger yourself when you decide to make use of it.

the whole american gun law issue is outdated and obsolete!


I mean really....Whats the Point?


Peace[/quote] good arguement , but it really depends on the state of residence and the manner of which the firearm is used. here in ohio lets say if i had children and someone got the gumption to break into my home , i am legally allowed to use my firearm if the perp refuses to obey my commands and allow themself to be arrested or if they try to attack or harm a family member. while firearms are a right entitled to a majority of honest and decent citizens , they require the utmost caution and care. i will not argue about gun laws for i feel a good number of them are broken - but if someone is determined to harm another person - gun or no gun they will do it. cannot punish everyone because of a small % of the population and displace blame onto firearms when the one who is at fault is the one weilding the gun and committing the crime.[/quote]

Im in ohio also dan and i shudder to think what would have happened had i had this situation in this state. Remember this took place in Montana, one of the most gun friendly states in this country.
Image
aka~Rubber_Chuck
User avatar
Highlander999
Honorary Member
Honorary Member
Posts: 674
Joined: Mon Jan 14, 2008 1:31 am
Location: Scotland

Re: Armed Protest

Post by Highlander999 »

[quote=""deadhanddan""] well yes , the job of a gun is to deter or kill. but also about the right of personal protection. in USA , its a right that many of us hold dear because it enables the ppl to be self reliant and also defend themselves when neccesary. americans dislike the thought of big government dictating every aspect of thier lives ( including self protection ) have to consider that there are many ppl out there whom are disturbed and that every american is entitled to defend and protect their private property as well as their loved ones such as family from threats


guns are not only made to kill people. farmers / ranchers often need the use of firearms to protect their investments from predation as well as hunting.


you would be surprised to know what exactly can go bump in the night in the ol USA ;) i have personally witnessed bears , mountain lions , coyotes , feral dogs , bob cats, even a damned lion that escaped from the Columbus airport and is curently on the loose in my state ( i didnt see this lion mind you , just know that it hasn't been found yet lol )[/quote]

I understand the "right to bear arms" and all that, but is it really relevant in 2009? I don't think so. As you pointed out, the only time I see a need for guns is for farmers in keeping wild animals at bay. The argument that it is for protection and deterence is not applicable. I have a set of golf clubs and 3 cricket bats in my room, not to mention numerous other house hold items I could do damage with if someone attempted to attack me or family/friends. You can hurt an attacker with a cricket bat, but can you go on a killing spree with a cricket bat? Good luck with that lol.
Image
User avatar
Kaiser_von_Nuben
Honorary Member
Honorary Member
Posts: 2186
Joined: Fri Jul 04, 2008 11:40 pm
Location: New York, NY USA

Re: Armed Protest

Post by Kaiser_von_Nuben »

I fear that my grim prediction about Obama will come to pass. I've never heard of open gun-toting at a Presidential speech. What is this? Pakistan? It means that people just don't give a damn and are willing to brandish weapons right next to the President. It shows that there are many people with a "certain sentiment" about the President, and it's just a matter of time before that "certain sentiment" turns into "certain action."

Note that no tree-huggers, Pelosi supporters or *** rights activists ever brandished weapons during Bush rallies, even though they probably hated him as much as the conservatives hate Obama. When radical liberals disagree, they get on news shows and politely talk. When radical conservatives disagree, they grab guns.

It happened to JFK. It can happen again. Easily. This is not a post-partisan or post-racial society. This is a viciously divided, combustible collection of people who can barely live peaceably with one another.

I had to re-read that part about the police protecting the guy with the AR-15. I said: "Wait, the police are making sure the GUY WITH THE ASSAULT RIFLE is safe???" wth???? Generally, you should protect unarmed people from armed people, not the other way around.

LOL @ Gendarme: You hit it right on the head, buddy. It doesn't get any more complicated than these "Sometimes" United States.

About the right to bear arms: The Supreme Court decided last year (by 5-4 vote...5 conservatives beat 4 liberals) that the Second Amendment to the Constitution protects an individual liberty to bear ANY arms for self-defense purposes. That sounds like a fair statement. But it's all about intention. All the next gunslinger has to say after shooting someone is: "I had to protect myself." In other words, it's easy to claim you were "just defending yourself" after you dust someone off in cold blood (or hot blood... it doens't really matter once the guy is dead).

My $0.02: Guns may be legal. And in many cases they pose no problem. Still, they are inherently dangerous instruments; the key is making sure only "responsible" people own them and use them. Yet when there are too many floating around, the chances increase that some "less than rational" or "less than responsible" person will get hands on them, justifiably or not. When a guy has a gun, he feels he can take an argument--or a political statement--to the next level. Human beings do not control their emotions well. Even people we think might be rational can "lose it" under sufficient pressure. And when they "lose it" and have a gun nearby, by God, they will sure think about using it. This is why people get killed over pool games and women.

That's bad, in my admittedly leftward view.
"The German Army will not stand for it!"

-Colonel Bockner, King Solomon's Mines (1985)
User avatar
IndyBrit
N3O Officer
N3O Officer
Posts: 1318
Joined: Tue Feb 05, 2008 1:53 am
Location: Indianapolis

Re: Armed Protest

Post by IndyBrit »

You didn't think all of this was going to go on without good ol' Indy getting involved, did you? :-P

@ Saint - I'm sorry about your experience, but you were drinking. Drinking and guns never mix, and you may not fully recollect what you did or realize what your actual posture was. Your experience is no refutation of careful, sober protection.

@Kaiser - your assessment of how the left protests is mistaken. It is the view of the left that the law is invoked to shut down the opposition. The law is guns. In those talk shows, they argue about whether people that doubt global warming should be arrested, and whether talk radio should be mandated to be balanced. Recently, the famed lefty Krugman actually proposed a law to arrest those that oppose climate change initiatives, and is taking the first rhetorical steps in that direction with health care reform. I.e. instead of their own guns being used, they want to use the guns of the state. Lone armed madmen can take out upwards of 17 people, armed states can take out upwards of 17 million. The left is insidious in this regard, because they claim the moral high ground when in fact their ideas are backed by more guns than the ideas they oppose, and when they begin shooting they don't even have to say that was a madman that doesn't represent their view, they claim to have been correct when they gunned them down.

All farming, hunting, "it's my right", etc. arguments for guns are crap in modern society. If the society is harmed by gun ownership, then not any of those things are good enough. If it's solely for the reason that it's in the constitution, the constitution should be amended.

Attacks on "assualt weapons" are likewise crap. That assault rifle that guy was carrying could be a normal rifle with the same ammunition, and suddenly it's not a silly weapon to have, even though it fires an identical projectile at the same velocity. That whole line of argument is therefore nonsense.

There are two justifications for gun ownership in my view. First, personal protection; second, the right of the people to arm themselves against the state. The evidence shows that elimination of guns from society increases violent crime. During the last 15 years, the USA has ramped up concealed carry laws while violent crime has plummeted. Around the time that concealed carry laws were saturated (ie. about everyone had them) violent crime resumed normal fluctuations around a new lower norm. During the same time period, the UK and Australia were getting rid of their guns and their violent crime rates were soaring. Even though their murder rates remain far below those in the US, their violent crime rates in all categories actually exceed the US now.

However, differences in location and demographics outweigh the overall effect of guns. E.g. the effects of age, sex, race, and city far outweigh the effect of the gun laws in your area.

This must be the case, because gun laws can only remove guns from the hands of people unlikely to commit a gun crime. Therefore, a law restricting guns can only increase the power of criminals relative to the populace. First, the criminals are the most physically powerful demographic of society and they get to choose their victims, so even if they choose not to have a gun in a gunless society their position is enhanced. Second, the gun itself is that much more valuable in a gunless society.

Why does anyone therefore support general gun restrictions? Probably for the same reason that they think assault rifles are silly. People are perfectly capable of holding illogical views and suspending disbelief even when lives will be lost as a consequence.

As far as the second justification - maintenance of arms against the state - it's really a bit of a red herring. It does have some utility like the canary in the mine shaft. If the state has not asked for your guns, then you know everything is kosher. All of the great slaughters of people by their state were preceded by a confiscation of guns. However, if it really came down to it, no state can win in armed conflict against its own people. Even if the people didn't have guns generally to begin with, they would quickly have them after any kind of conflict started as guns are easily manufactured.
Post Reply