Terrorists In WI Assault Citizens With Violence And Extortion

reply to post by AdAbsurdum

You can take personal responsibility for your own personal defense without the use of firearms. I do. It's called Martial Arts. No weapons other than my own body are required. And in all honesty, it doesn't matter where I am, IF I needed the assistance of some external force against a person (with, say, a knife) a table or chair or basically anything else can be utilized if you think quickly. The most important weapon of all is the mind and knowing how to use it to avoid use of violence.

There is absolutely no need for firearms on this planet at all. We can harm and kill each other just fine w/o out any firearms. It happens all the time (domestic abuse, vehicular manslaughter, stabbings, drugs, etc.). We do not NEED to be armed with firearms for our own protection.

If NO ONE carried firearms there wouldn't be calls like this and criminals would think long and hard before trying anything since any type of offense would likely be a more even "playing field".

I still stand by my statement that the OP's title is misleading, inaccurate and sensationalist based upon the details of the events.

reply to post by Nivcharah


No martial art in the world stops .45ACP. If the SHTF and all you have are your fists, you are easy pickings. If you don't believe me, feel free to review current events in Argentina.

You remove the gun and it will be replaced with the sword and arrow. No more Colt? Fine, how's Hanzo doing nowadays? There is power in weaponry. Those that seek power will seek better ways to destroy those that stand against them.

You can not escape the fact that some people will take from others and that some people are stronger than others. No matter how a good a woman can be with her hands, she doesn't have the weight advantage. You may be able to stop 210 pound me, she won't. There is a reason for weight classes...

Originally posted by Nivcharah
reply to post by AdAbsurdum

 

You can take personal responsibility for your own personal defense without the use of firearms. I do. It's called Martial Arts. No weapons other than my own body are required. And in all honesty, it doesn't matter where I am, IF I needed the assistance of some external force against a person (with, say, a knife) a table or chair or basically anything else can be utilized if you think quickly. The most important weapon of all is the mind and knowing how to use it to avoid use of violence.

There is absolutely no need for firearms on this planet at all. We can harm and kill each other just fine w/o out any firearms. It happens all the time (domestic abuse, vehicular manslaughter, stabbings, drugs, etc.). We do not NEED to be armed with firearms for our own protection.

If NO ONE carried firearms there wouldn't be calls like this and criminals would think long and hard before trying anything since any type of offense would likely be a more even "playing field".

I still stand by my statement that the OP's title is misleading, inaccurate and sensationalist based upon the details of the events.

So in your opinion, old ladies should learn martial arts rather than carrying a gun in their purse.

Of course, such a statement is totally irrational, reactionary, and completely illogical.

Guns aren't called "the great equalizers" for nothing.

Prior to the advent of firearms, the world was in a state of dis-equality. Young fit men could physically impose themselves on the weak with little fear of retaliation. The strong dominated the weak. The gun is the first device in history that allows power to be equalized regardless of a persons physical strength and health.

If there were no guns, the gangs created by drug prohibition would be running wild in the streets, raping and robbing anyone who crossed their path.

Today, violent crime rates are taking a nose dive even while the economy implodes and more people are unemployed. This is because the rate of armed citizens has increased dramatically during the same time period. We also see states passing CCW laws left and right. As more states have passed CCW laws, violent crime rates have decreased.

Originally posted by slinger

Originally posted by Curiousisall

Originally posted by MikeNice81
reply to post by Curiousisall

 

Just answer the question. If you have the right to bear arms, why can you not open carry. How does it not allow you that right? Answer the question.

It is a false question because it is not based on what I actually said. Show me where it specifies the right to OPEN carry or move along.

The second amendment says the right to bear arms, end of story bear meaning carry your gun bear to have,to carry, can it be any more plain as day than to bear? you can not open carry in some places because of UNCONSTUTIONAL laws! SHALL NOT ABRIDGE MEANS TO NEVER HINDER OR LIMIT THAT RIGHT!

No one, by posting that guns are not allowed on their property is hindering or limiting your rights, unless you REALLY REALLY REALLY like their breakfast burritos.

ColoradoJens

reply to post by AdAbsurdum


reply to post by mnemeth1



Violence begets violence.

Violence is never the answer.

There are no winners in war.

War is not limited to politicians, military and foreign soil.

War is currently a part of everyday life on this planet.

If so much as 1 person is killed in a war, the war is a tragedy.

The more who are killed, the bigger the tragedy.

The only real power comes from Peace.

The only way to truly win a war is with peace . . . not piece.


Unless you accept this as fact and truth, there is no point in my further discussion on this thread.

Originally posted by Nivcharah
reply to post by AdAbsurdum

 

You can take personal responsibility for your own personal defense without the use of firearms. I do. It's called Martial Arts. No weapons other than my own body are required. And in all honesty, it doesn't matter where I am, IF I needed the assistance of some external force against a person (with, say, a knife) a table or chair or basically anything else can be utilized if you think quickly. The most important weapon of all is the mind and knowing how to use it to avoid use of violence.

There is absolutely no need for firearms on this planet at all....

If NO ONE carried firearms there wouldn't be calls like this and criminals would think long and hard before trying anything since any type of offense would likely be a more even "playing field".

edit on 9/30/2010 by Nivcharah because: (no reason given)

Yeah disarming people lowers the crime rate. That is why in 2003 Canada had a violent crime rate more than double that of America. That is why in Brazil where they have strict licensing laws, storage laws, transportation laws, and ban new gun sales to civilians, the murder rate is nearly three times that of America.

According to the UK paper The Guardian it is estimated that there are nearly three million illegally owned guns in England and nearly one in three criminals under 25 has access to a gun. According to The Times the decade since handguns were effectively banned in the UK saw a doubling of crimes committed with firearms.

In the first two years after guns were confiscated in Australia the murde rate went up 20%

I think I'll hold on to my right to keep and bear arms. It seems to work better.


Sources:

Juristat: Crime Statistics in Canada, 2004 and FBI Uniform Crime Statistics online

Homicide trends in the United States, U.S. data: Bureau of Justice Statistics, September, 2004. Brazil
data: Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, 2005.

Reported in The Guardian, September 3, 2000.

Weapons sell for just £50 as suspects and victims grow ever younger, The Times, August 24, 2007.

Report #46: Homicide in Australia, 2001-2002, Australian Institute of Criminology, April 2003.

reply to post by Nivcharah


To paraphrase Patton, no man has ever won a war by giving up his life. I have a weapon. I train with that weapon. That does not mean I want war. That means that I want to survive if defense is necessary.

You train in martial arts. Does that mean you are looking to beat on people? Nope it means you want to stop some one from beating on you. It is the same with a gun. I don't want to shoot anyone. However, if someone wants to escelate matters to a point where hands are not enough I want to be prepared.

Sorry but a chair will not stop a bullet. A pen is a feeble weapon when some one is slashing and jabbing with a double edged knife.

Originally posted by Nivcharah

 

Violence begets violence.

I am in complete disagreement with this statement. There is no peaceful, acceptable, resolution to rape. She does not bring future evil upon herself for violently defending herself from a rapist nor do I if defend her.

Violence is never the answer.

Again I completely disagree. You might be luckily enough to live in a place that allows such naivete, but in the world I come from violence is often the only way to defend yourself and family from others.

There are no winners in war.

Depends on how you look at it. If you mean this from a personal level, I am in full agreement.

War is not limited to politicians, military and foreign soil.

Very true.

War is currently a part of everyday life on this planet.

I would say that violence is a part of everyday life on this planet. It could be argued that war is, I agree, but than you would have to acknowledge all kinds of violent actions by the state.... Which would put you in agreement with the OP...

Every time you eat, that is an act of violence. That doesn't mean we are at war with vegetables. However, there are asymmetrical forms of warfare that would appear less violent than the act of eating a carrot until the strategy came together and into view.

If so much as 1 person is killed in a war, the war is a tragedy.

....and if a million, a statistic.

The only real power comes from Peace.

What is anymore "real" about it that kind of power? This is a fallacy. I refuse to allow the state to have a monopoly on violence. It only makes perfect sense that idea that violence is wrong is rammed down our throats at any given moment by any institution with a microphone. You want to believe that dialogue, you are more than welcome. Just understand where it comes from.

Unless you accept this as fact and truth, there is no point in my further discussion on this thread.

Can't handle an alternate world view, eh? I understand that in theory you just state all this heartfelt stuff about peace and everyone recognizes that to be the "best way" and we can all work together to get rid of violence and live happily ever after.

But, that isn't going to happen. Why? Because there are people that want to kill you.

I'm an individual that in a SHTF scenario would be utilizing my know-how to take advantage of people that refused to arm themselves. Is it right? I call it class warfare and I'll sleep just fine at night. You might think I'm evil because I would kill another human being to feed myself, but I'm not. I'm what you call: Human. My survival is much more important than yours. I won't be giving you the chance to figure out if you should follow your philosophy and just let me take what I want or change your mind about how the world operates.

The strong prey on the weak. That is fact of nature, that is a fact of life.

Originally posted by AdAbsurdum
I'm an individual that in a SHTF scenario would be utilizing my know-how to take advantage of people that refused to arm themselves. Is it right? I call it class warfare and I'll sleep just fine at night. You might think I'm evil because I would kill another human being to feed myself, but I'm not. I'm what you call: Human. My survival is much more important than yours. I won't be giving you the chance to figure out if you should follow your philosophy and just let me take what I want or change your mind about how the world operates.

The strong prey on the weak. That is fact of nature, that is a fact of life.

You completely miss my point. Violence of any kind is an act of war.
To be human is to have compassion for others. My blood is no more valuable than anothers and vice versa.

We are all equal as human beings, but you won't understand this because you are a selfish taker. At least, that's how you view yourself (from your own statements). I don't see you as evil but as misguided and confused about what it truly means to be Human.

In the animal kingdom, the strong prey on the weak. In humanity, the strong teach the weak to become stronger because as a society you are only as strong as your weakest link. (Example: GW Bush was a really weak link and look what he did to the USA.)

The bottom line is this: IF we as a people all valued and respected each other and their rights equally, THEN there would be NO NEED for anyone to feel as though they need to carry a weapon of any kind, much less a firearm into a crowded family restaurant. Unfortunately, we are nowhere near this as a society. And by the looks of the posts on this thread it won't happen in my lifetime.

Peace out, my brother.

Originally posted by Nivcharah
~snip~
The bottom line is this: IF we as a people all valued and respected each other and their rights equally, THEN there would be NO NEED for anyone to feel as though they need to carry a weapon of any kind, much less a firearm into a crowded family restaurant. Unfortunately, we are nowhere near this as a society. And by the looks of the posts on this thread it won't happen in my lifetime.

Peace out, my brother.

And the BOTTOMER line is this: Ain't gonna happen. Until there's no more humans, human nature will remain what it has been since the dawn of man, so, what we do to prepare for the worst mankind has to offer, well that's a personal choice each of us has to make. Some choose to do nothing. Some choose hope. Some choose firearms. Some give it no thought whatsoever.

You're right though...."IF..."

Originally posted by Nivcharah

Violence begets violence.

Violence is never the answer.

I totally agree, which is why everyone should be armed.

People generally don't engage in violence willingly unless they think they have a decent chance of winning the fight.

For example, a 100 lbs female would most likely not attempt strong-arm robbery against a 300 lbs male linebacker because she would get her butt kicked.

She may however decide it is in her best interest to assault a scrawny teenager for some cash.

Guns resolve this problem by equalizing force between the physically weak and the physically strong.

This prevents violence from occurring in the first place.

Being against guns is equal to being in favor of violence.

I'm going to break out my favorite treatise on why guns are the great equalizer.

Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that's it.

In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.

When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force. The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gang banger, and a single guy on equal footing with a carload of drunken guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.

There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we'd be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a [armed] mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the muggers potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat--it has no validity when most of a mugger's potential marks are armed.

People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that's the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.

Then there's the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser. People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don't constitute lethal force watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst.

The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level. The gun is the only weapon that's as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weight lifter. It simply wouldn't work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn't both lethal and easily employable.

When I carry a gun, I don't do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I'm looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don't carry it because I'm afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn't limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation...and that's why carrying a gun is a civilized act.

Reason vs Force

reply to post by MikeNice81


nice.

Pretty much what I said in more eloquent prose.

reply to post by Nivcharah


I agree with that post,a gun can stop tragedy from happening! by carrying a gun if a killer sees it he may think twice before entering a place he thinks he has free reign to go postal at !
If someone is getting beat to death and I show up with my gun the people doing the beating will stop !
A gun must be the last defence,and all on this thread are aware of the fact that, all other options should be
exhausted before the gun is used ! The right to have that last option must never be taken away ever,the real tragedy is seeing someone you love murdered when you could have stopped that tragedy.

Originally posted by Nivcharah
The bottom line is this: IF we as a people all valued and respected each other and their rights equally, THEN there would be NO NEED for anyone to feel as though they need to carry a weapon of any kind, much less a firearm into a crowded family restaurant. Unfortunately, we are nowhere near this as a society. And by the looks of the posts on this thread it won't happen in my lifetime.

Peace out, my brother.

So then you would agree that firearms a necessary evil?

Also, I am not a 'taker' as you say. I am a human being who puts his personal survival and the survival of his loved ones over you and yours. The reality of the human situation is that desperate people do desperate things and we don't need a SHTF scenario to play out to meet those individuals.

reply to post by MikeNice81


Reason versus force?
How about facts versus your reason?

www.neahin.org...

Faulty records enable terrorists, illegal aliens and criminals to purchase guns. Over a two and a half-year period, at least 9,976 convicted felons and other illegal buyers in 46 states obtained guns because of inadequate records

* Americans for Gun Safety produced a 2003 report that reveals that 20 of the nation’s 22 national gun laws are not enforced. According to U.S. Department of Justice data (FY 2000-2002), only 2% of federal gun crimes were actually prosecuted. Eighty-five percent of cases prosecuted relate to street criminals in possession of firearms. Ignored are laws intended to punish illegal gun trafficking, firearm theft, corrupt gun dealers, lying on a criminal background check form, obliterating firearm serial numbers, selling guns to minors and possessing a gun in a school zone.

* Studies show that 1 percent of gun stores sell the weapons traced to 57 percent of gun crimes. According to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF), the dealer that armed the DC area sniper is among this small group of problem gun dealers that "supply the suppliers" who funnel guns to the nation's criminals. (Between 1997 and 2001, guns sold by this dealer were involved in 52 crimes, including homicides, kidnappings and assaults. Still open today, it also can't account for 238 guns or say whether they were stolen, lost or sold, or if their buyers underwent felony-background checks.) As a result, these few gun dealers have a vastly disproportionate impact on public safety. The ATF can recognize such dealers based on: (1) guns stolen from inventory; (2) missing federal sales records, needed by police to solve crimes; (3) having 10 weapons a year traced to crimes; (4) frequently selling multiple guns to individual buyers; and (5) short times between gun sales and their involvement in crimes. Yet ATF enforcement is weak due to a lack of Congressional support and resources.

* Terrorists have purchased firearms at gun shows, where unlicensed sellers are not currently required to conduct background checks or to ask for identification. According to the Middle East Intelligence Report, for example, a Hezbollah member was arrested in November 2000, after a nine-month investigation by the FBI's counter-terrorism unit. Ali Boumelhem was later convicted on seven counts of weapons charges and conspiracy to ship weapons and ammunition to Lebanon. Federal agents had observed Boumelhem, a resident of Detroit and Beirut, travel to Michigan gun shows and buy gun parts and ammunition for shipment overseas. Boumelhem was prohibited from legally purchasing guns as gun stores because he was a convicted felon. Additional cases involve a Pakistani national with an expired (1988) student visa; a Lebanese native and Hamas member with numerous felony convictions; and a supporter of the Irish Republican Army. (USA Today, Wednesday, November 28, 2001 Americans for Gun Safety)

Originally posted by rusethorcain

did you even read your quoted sources???

Everything you listed was a failure of government. Completely irrelevant to the argument of gun ownership and the right to armed defense.

reply to post by rusethorcain

Faulty records enable terrorists, illegal aliens and criminals to purchase guns. Over a two and a half-year period, at least 9,976 convicted felons and other illegal buyers in 46 states obtained guns because of inadequate records

According to the same study 8 million people under go the NICS check annually. It toook them 30 months for 9,976 people to get through the cracks. So out of 20 million back ground checks less than 10,000 people slipped through the cracks. That is a 0.005% failure rate.

How many other systems can boast that accuarcy rating. Tell me which other program has a 99.995% success rate?

According to the latest report the system has gotten better since the numbers above released.

In this new report, we conclude that the background check system is better and more accurate than five years ago,...

So now the accuracy rate is better than 99.995%! I think I fail to see the problem with the current system.

Americans for Gun Safety produced a 2003 report that reveals that 20 of the nation’s 22 national gun laws are not enforced. According to U.S. Department of Justice data (FY 2000-2002), only 2% of federal gun crimes were actually prosecuted.

See gun owners agree with this. We also believe that this is a problem that needs to be addressed. If we could get these guys off of the streets everybody would be safer. That doesn't mean I need to give up my constitutional rghts.

That would be like me telling you to give up your car because the government doesn't do a good enough job prosecuting drunk drivers. It makes no sense.

Studies show that 1 percent of gun stores sell the weapons traced to 57 percent of gun crimes

What does that have to do with me? If the government knows who these 1% are and they don't shut them down it isn't my fault. Should you give up your car because drunk drivers that aren't punished kill people?

This has nothing to do with legal gun owners or the NICS process. It also has nothing to do with the fact that to get a Concealed Carry Permit I had to sign a paper allowing the sheriff to directly contact hospitals in my area, and through out the state, to review my medical records. They will be reviewing my mental and physical health records to ensure no "defects" tha prevent me from handling or owning a gun safely.

Terrorists have purchased firearms at gun shows, where unlicensed sellers are not currently required to conduct background checks

According to Firearm Use by Offenders, Bureau of Justice Statistics, February 2002 0.7% of convicted criminals got their gun at a gun show. Less than 1% of all "crime guns" came from a gun show. The percentage has actually went down over the years. Many show operators and state laws have addressed this problem.

There was a middle eastern gentleman that used his Ford Explorer to target and run over students at the University of North Carolina. Because this one terrorist was able to buy a SUV and use it in a terror attack, should we ban all car sales without a back ground check? Should we ban Ford Explorers?

You did not mention one thing that applies to legal gun owners. Nothing you have posted shows why honest and law abiding citizens should give up their constitutional rights. If anything you have shown that honest people should be armed. Why? Because the government isn't doing their part to convict criminals.

A little math and a little common sense go a long way in understanding what you are actually being told.

Nothing you published in any way invalidated the point of the piece "Reason vs Force." How about you bring an argument that addresses the piece or admit that it is right.

Update, I have received new information on the case.

You can listen to the 911 call here-tijil.org...

On September 29th, Wisconsin Carry, Inc filed a Federal lawsuit against the City of Madison and Madison Police Chief Noble Wray.

It can be read here-www.wisconsincarry.org...

Here is a partial list of facts-

10. The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution provides: “a well
regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep
and bear Arms shall not be infringed.”
11. The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides, in part: “No
State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens
of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without
due process of law; nor deny any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
12. The Second Amendment is incorporated as against the States and their political
subdivisions pursuant to the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
13. Article I, §25 of the Wisconsin Constitution provides that: “[t]he people have the
right to keep and bear arms for security, defense, hunting, recreation or any other lawful
purpose.”

Read more at the link and I suggest you listen to the audio. Quite informative. Especially when the 911 operator stated that the individuals had the RIGHT to open carry.

reply to post by saltheart foamfollower


That lawsuit is great news. If they can get a federal ruling in favor of the plantiffs... I'm thinking this could open up challenges to the way a lot of municipalities deal with open carry.