18 Year old shot by school safety officer.

a reply to: chr0naut

What are you on about in this thread? The United States has a Second Amendment to our Constitution but that has nothing to do with the yahoo in the Original Post shooting some kid since he is a government agent.

And guns in the hands of the public only mean greater freedom in the particular instance of tyrannical government. In times of peace, law, security, and prosperity, however, you already have freedom. So, the necessity to also carry a weapon, is a burden.

Yes and We Law Abiding Citizens of the USA intend to keep our Freedom From A Crooked Government.
a reply to: chr0naut

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: JinMI

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: JinMI

Guns protect us all.

This wouldn't have happened if everyone was armed and had their gun up.

?

Yes, I know. "Trust your government blindly and let them remove anything that could possibly cause you harm, by force if need be."

Your authoritarian stance is well noted in multiple thread.

Thanks for playing.

Noting in my post was authoritarian.

I was pointing out that if everyone is armed, and prepared for shoot-outs at the drop of a hat, there will be.

That is why the 2nd is a bad law for a modern society where all are supposed to have equal recourse to to the law. It completely bypasses that, and the innocent end up dead or maimed, usually for no good reason at all.

When a law becomes a major danger, and cause of death to its citizens, it is a bad law.

Lets see if i'm clear on the above, here...

The Government by proxy, commits a violent, unnecessary aggression against it's own citizen, in this case an 18 year old kid, killing the citizen.

You declare that as an example why an amendment needs revoked, and why said citizens need disarmed.

Heh, ya "dude" nothing authoritarian there man....

a reply to: CrawlingChaos

I love how the poster in question automatically equates being armed to being ready for a shoot out, too, as if that's the only reason anyone would ever entertain the notion of being armed or learning any sort of combative skill - we just can't wait to go use them for death, destruction, murder, mayhem.

That cop should be in jail, poor girl.

Here's another video angle.

I am just not seeing the justification here. Even if the car was putting other people in danger, you stop the driver, you do not shoot randomly down the street.

The car got away from him and that is why he shot at it. He was mad. That is the real reason Mr. Overweight, Low IQ, Angry African "American" cop shot at the car.

(I only say African because if it were a white cop, that is all we would hear.)
(I put American in quotes because you can't really be American if you put a qualifier in front of your allegiance)

I think I have covered all the triggers in my post.

oops

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: chr0naut

What are you on about in this thread? The United States has a Second Amendment to our Constitution but that has nothing to do with the yahoo in the Original Post shooting some kid since he is a government agent.

You have armed 'school safety officers' in your country.

I think there is a relationship to a statute that proliferates firearms, and therefore creates a situation where such a thing is even a possible response.

a reply to: chr0naut

The Second Amendment isn't about anyone other than the People and isn't relevant to what this clown did.

originally posted by: CrawlingChaos

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: JinMI

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: JinMI

Guns protect us all.

This wouldn't have happened if everyone was armed and had their gun up.

?

Yes, I know. "Trust your government blindly and let them remove anything that could possibly cause you harm, by force if need be."

Your authoritarian stance is well noted in multiple thread.

Thanks for playing.

Noting in my post was authoritarian.

I was pointing out that if everyone is armed, and prepared for shoot-outs at the drop of a hat, there will be.

That is why the 2nd is a bad law for a modern society where all are supposed to have equal recourse to to the law. It completely bypasses that, and the innocent end up dead or maimed, usually for no good reason at all.

When a law becomes a major danger, and cause of death to its citizens, it is a bad law.

Lets see if i'm clear on the above, here...

The Government by proxy, commits a violent, unnecessary aggression against it's own citizen, in this case an 18 year old kid, killing the citizen.

You declare that as an example why an amendment needs revoked, and why said citizens need disarmed.

Heh, ya "dude" nothing authoritarian there man....

The 'school safety officer' was armed by the same statute that arms criminals and the law abiding members of the public. It isn't polarized against the criminal and towards the law abiding. It is zero sum in that regard, and therefore is not 'protective' overall, because it is similarly 'destructive'.

Ah, but what about the protection from a tyrannical government? Surely that is a good reason. Except what about the civil war? Did that stop the government from 'putting down' the Confederacy? Definitely firearms enabled the rebellion, but did it work, was the 2nd protective? What about Ruby Ridge? What about The Waco siege? Did they stop the government?

So clearly the 2nd cannot protect against tyrannical government, nor is it protective against criminals. And yet the death toll, for hundreds of years, due to firearms enabled by the statute continues to mount up.

Face it.

originally posted by: bluesman462002
And guns in the hands of the public only mean greater freedom in the particular instance of tyrannical government. In times of peace, law, security, and prosperity, however, you already have freedom. So, the necessity to also carry a weapon, is a burden.

Yes and We Law Abiding Citizens of the USA intend to keep our Freedom From A Crooked Government.
a reply to: chr0naut

Yeah, that's worked.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: chr0naut

The Second Amendment isn't about anyone other than the People and isn't relevant to what this clown did.

If firearms were restricted would there be a need for armed 'school safety officers'?

Other populous countries don't have them.

a reply to: chr0naut

Are you still yabbering on about gun control?

Strewth...

a reply to: chr0naut

Of course, you didn't talk about the millions upon millions murdered by such regimes as Nazi Germany, Pol Pot's Khmer Rouge, Mao's Cultural Revolution, Stalin's Russia, etc.

We haven't discussed genocides like what happened in Armenia or Rwanda or, yes, across Europe thanks to Hitler.

Mostly these atrocities were perpetrated on unarmed and defenseless people.

And we see the government of Australia resorting to the measures used in the past by these types of regimes to control their own people who are also in the main unarmed and defenseless. How long until your neighbors a very short distance away start being killed by their own government? What will you say about it all then when Australians start attempting to float to New Zealand across the Tasman Sea on anything that pretends to be a boat with a halfway working motor?

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: chr0naut

Of course, you didn't talk about the millions upon millions murdered by such regimes as Nazi Germany, Pol Pot's Khmer Rouge, Mao's Cultural Revolution, Stalin's Russia, etc.

The 2nd amendment is in the American Constitution. I only discussed situations where it applies.

In Nazi Germany, Mao's Cultural Revolution, and Stalin's Russia, large numbers of the population were in the armed forces and were armed. Did they make any stand against their tyrannical government?

We haven't discussed genocides like what happened in Armenia or Rwanda or, yes, across Europe thanks to Hitler.

Mostly these atrocities were perpetrated on unarmed and defenseless people.

Yes bullies like their weapons.

And we see the government of Australia resorting to the measures used in the past by these types of regimes to control their own people who are also in the main unarmed and defenseless. How long until your neighbors a very short distance away start being killed by their own government?

A long-long time.

Australia has never had civil war, even in the bad old days, and it was founded at the same time as America.

Various American forces (police, military or paramilitary) have opened fire on numbers of their own citizens multiple times through history:

Blair Mountain, the Bonus Army, the Slave Revolts in 1712, the Civil War, the Memphis and New Orleans massacres of 1866, the Tulsa race massacre, the Atlanta race riot, the Orange riots, the Waco siege, Ruby Ridge, Kent State, the Whiskey Rebellion, the Range Wars, the Anti-Draft Riots in New York, and the Los Angeles Riots in 1992. There are also incidents that have been almost expunged from the history books, like the Rosewood massacre (although that was just a white mob and not an organized or recognized military, police, or paramilitary force).

I don't think Australia has been perfect, but it's a loooong way from US craziness.

What will you say about it all then when Australians start attempting to float to New Zealand across the Tasman Sea on anything that pretends to be a boat with a halfway working motor?

They'll come in by 'plane. It's the 21st Century.

originally posted by: Sublimecraft

You won't hear any more - you see, the shooter was black (and over weight), victim was hispanic.
...

And with whiter skin than the perpetrator...

This is the same as that coward Secret Service agent whom shot Babbit in the neck when she was unarmed, and in the latest interview he kept claiming what he did was right... It wasn't. Just like in this case. She wasn't the one driving either but the officer shot the passenger whom was a mom and now is brain dead... But nothing will happen here to that school officer whose power went to his head...

originally posted by: chr0naut
,,,
In Nazi Germany, Mao's Cultural Revolution, and Stalin's Russia, large numbers of the population were in the armed forces and were armed. Did they make any stand against their tyrannical government?

You are so wrong is not even funny... The nazis disarmed not just minorities but also political opponents... Only those whom swore loyalty to National SOCIALISM were armed... When the nazis took over France the first thing they did was disarm the people... Just like they did everywhere else...

Nazi Germany invaded France in 1940. In every occupied town, Nazi soldiers put up posters that demanded that civilians surrender their firearms within twenty-four hours or else be shot. Despite the consequences, many French citizens refused to comply with the order. In Gun Control in Nazi-Occupied France: Tyranny and Resistance, Stephen P. Halbrook tells this story of Nazi repression and the brave French men and women who refused to surrender to it.
..

Gun Control in Nazi-Occupied France:
Tyranny and Resistance

Those that didn't surrender their firearms were shot...

The resistance had firearms because they hid or were given firearms by allies... But the nazis disarmed all civilians that didn't or couldn't hide...

BTW, Mao, and every communist did the same thing and introduced strict gun control... So you are wrong in EVERYTHING you claim...

...
Mao Zedong remarked "Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun" in 1927 and 1938, a sentiment that was maintained after winning the civil war. The country's strict centralized stance on gun control was officially instated in the country in 1966,[4] and extended in 1996 when the government banned the buying, selling and transporting of firearms without official permission.[4][6] According to the Chinese police, up until 2006, an underground gun-trading triangle in Southwest China fed the Chinese gun market, with guns being manufactured in Songtao and trafficked into Xiushan and Huayuan before reaching a national distribution scale.[6]
...

Gun control in China

I wonder whom these days makes this same argument made by the following evil beast...

originally posted by: chr0naut
Yes bullies like their weapons.

Bullies are the people whom claim regular people don't have a right to defend themselves... The criminals and dictators all over the world thank you for your opinion...

Unfortunately, Mona Rodriguez will be taken off life support.

RIP

a reply to: chr0naut

The 2nd amendment is in the American Constitution. I only discussed situations where it applies.

In other words, you can't talk about places where the citizens were disarmed by their murderers before being murdered because that would hurt your case.

In Nazi Germany, Mao's Cultural Revolution, and Stalin's Russia, large numbers of the population were in the armed forces and were armed. Did they make any stand against their tyrannical government?

That's moving the goalposts. You are talking about firearms in the hands of the civilian populace, not in the hands of agents of the government. Members of the populace in the armed forces would be duly designated agents of the state ... much like our school resource officer. Presumably, in order to be in the armed forces, you must be at least somewhere loyal to the state in question for one reason or another, even if it's only because the state guarantees you a full belly while the people around you starve (as would have been happening in the Ukraine during the famine).

Yes bullies like their weapons.

No. Bullies like their power, and they will do what it takes to maintain it. I've known plenty of bullies and none of them needed weapons to be effective; they only needed power.

They'll come in by 'plane. It's the 21st Century.

Yes, figures the reference would fly right over your head. /quirk eyebrow

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse

originally posted by: chr0naut
,,,
In Nazi Germany, Mao's Cultural Revolution, and Stalin's Russia, large numbers of the population were in the armed forces and were armed. Did they make any stand against their tyrannical government?

You are so wrong is not even funny... The nazis disarmed not just minorities but also political opponents... Only those whom swore loyalty to National SOCIALISM were armed... When the nazis took over France the first thing they did was disarm the people... Just like they did everywhere else...

The Weimar republic, that preceded Hitler's rise to power, had fairly significant gun control due to the number of 1st World War veterans that had brought weapons home as keepsakes, and the societal issues that had caused.

When the Nazi's came to power, they did disarm their opponents. They also armed their adherents, such as the Brown Shirts and party members.

Nazi Germany invaded France in 1940. In every occupied town, Nazi soldiers put up posters that demanded that civilians surrender their firearms within twenty-four hours or else be shot. Despite the consequences, many French citizens refused to comply with the order. In Gun Control in Nazi-Occupied France: Tyranny and Resistance, Stephen P. Halbrook tells this story of Nazi repression and the brave French men and women who refused to surrender to it.
..

I'm not denying that the Nazi's disarmed everyone they invaded.

The disarmament of defeated combatants has been standard military practice for millennia.

(Only the Americans have armed their opponents Iran-Contra, Bin Laden, and Saddam Hussein, to name a few. Oh, and quite recently, the Taliban).

Gun Control in Nazi-Occupied France:
Tyranny and Resistance

Stephen Hallbrook is an NRA lawyer.

His pHD is in philosophy.

In his publication “ARMS IN THE HANDS OF JEWS ARE A DANGER TO PUBLIC SAFETY”: NAZISM, FIREARM REGISTRATION, AND THE NIGHT OF THE BROKEN GLASS", he bases the document upon the arrest record of just three Jewish people on firearms charges: Alfred Flatow, Julius Ignatz Gold, and Alois Adler. He offers no other documentary evidence for his assertions.

Those that didn't surrender their firearms were shot...

And that's your argument that gun ownership can oppose a tyrannical government? Sounds like gun ownership did the diametric opposite of what the 2nd might suggest.

But you don't have to cite what happened in other countries. There are numerous examples of the 2nd not being able to defend against tyranny, right in the USA, where the statute exists in law.

The resistance had firearms because they hid or were given firearms by allies... But the nazis disarmed all civilians that didn't or couldn't hide...

BTW, Mao, and every communist did the same thing and introduced strict gun control... So you are wrong in EVERYTHING you claim...

...
Mao Zedong remarked "Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun" in 1927 and 1938, a sentiment that was maintained after winning the civil war. The country's strict centralized stance on gun control was officially instated in the country in 1966,[4] and extended in 1996 when the government banned the buying, selling and transporting of firearms without official permission.[4][6] According to the Chinese police, up until 2006, an underground gun-trading triangle in Southwest China fed the Chinese gun market, with guns being manufactured in Songtao and trafficked into Xiushan and Huayuan before reaching a national distribution scale.[6]
...

Gun control in China

So these Chinese had guns, but were unable to oppose a tyrannical government, which took their guns away. How does that prove the case that gun ownership can oppose tyranny? It's another fail!

I wonder whom these days makes this same argument made by the following evil beast...

Yeah, but did Hitler ever say that? Please post an authentic transcript of him saying or writing that. I mean, he 'could' have said that, but just because someone 'memed' it does not make it anything like true.

originally posted by: chr0naut
Yes bullies like their weapons.

Bullies are the people whom claim regular people don't have a right to defend themselves... The criminals and dictators all over the world thank you for your opinion...

No, they don't even know, or care, what my opinion is. Nor yours.

But if you give them access to low cost firearms, dang, they'd be liable to use them. The 2nd does that.