Armed bystander almost shot hero that disarmed AZ shooter

Get over yourselves.

he made Ed look like a moron on his own show, right after he started spewing that anti gun bs.

Without the gun, who says he would have even helped at all?> If he wasnt packing, he probably wouldnt have helped out, and someone else may have gotten hurt because of that.

Anti gun peoples logic is so backwards.

Get over it, its our INALIENABLE RIGHTS to carry.

Not you, or anyone else on this planet can take away that right from me.

Its not your position to do so.

You dont like our Natural Born rights here in America, theres the door.

I just wanted to add a couple of pictures to aid in discussion.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/77db8e5cffff.jpg[/atsimg]


[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/fcaddae93d08.jpg[/atsimg]


[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/636e4fafc23a.jpg[/atsimg]

reply to post by MikeNice81


Nicely done Mike!

Especially the red!

Originally posted by MikeNice81
I just wanted to add a couple of pictures to aid in discussion.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopSecret.com/images/member/77db8e5cffff.jpg[/atsimg]


[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/fcaddae93d08.jpg[/atsimg]


[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/636e4fafc23a.jpg[/atsimg]

edit on 22-1-2011 by MikeNice81 because: (no reason given)

Argument flawed my friend.. Let me ask you a simple question, do you think every nation on planet earth should have nuclear wepons...using ur logic of guns making peeps safer the woud not arming every country do the same?
Woud you fee safer in a world with more nuclear wepons...
soz i havnt been replying i have been busy

happy days

kx

reply to post by MikeNice81


I can't find that quote anywhere Mike, here are some more nice ones though:

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 gangbanger, and a single gay guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk 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 mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger’s 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 weightlifter. 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.

Source

“The gun has been called the great equalizer, meaning that a small person with a gun is equal to a large person, but it is a great equalizer in another way, too. It insures that the people are the equal of their government whenever that government forgets that it is servant and not master of the governed. When the British forgot that they got a revolution. And, as a result, we Americans got a Constitution; a Constitution that, as those who wrote it were determined, would keep men free. If we give up part of that Constitution we give up part of our freedom and increase the chance that we will lose it all. I am not ready to take that risk. I believe that the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms must not be infringed if liberty in America is to survive.”
—Ronald Reagan

Those who hammer their guns into ploughs will plough for those who do not.

-- Thomas Jefferson

reply to post by felonius

Even in Matrifocal societies, there was always a warrior class. Weapons are necessary. One day you will be slaying the King Stag and the people devouring the meat. The next you will be defending from Romans. The weapon is the same, the use is different. I do think that the PTB have abused the "need" for industrialization. Not so much for the manufacturing but the way they do it. i.e. strip mining for coal? I'm dead against that when we all know there are alternatives that will never see the light of day (besides the "bloom box's" used at Google HQ). My wife (a feminist as well) says in an oblique manner, industrialization somewhat spurred the equality movement with women being allowed to work. I disagreed with her and said that I saw it as stripping "womanhood" from women and their role as the prime "child raiser" (for lack of better terminology). I dont imply that women should be "barefoot, pregnant, and in the kitchen" but having a mother actually RAISE HER CHILD is not replaceable. It wasnt easy to keep the bills paid but my daughter is VASTLY superior to those raised in "day care" centers. She is also raised to be a strong woman! (not hard, she IS German LOL) when the kid turned 5 and went to school, my wife went back to work. Believe it or not, I am somewhat of a feminst. Hell, religiously I range somewhere between pagan and gnostic as they both serve the Goddess! But remember, the Goddess has a dark face as well and there are times she makes war. Hell hath no fury..? Our culture would do better to embrace the feminine more. The Catholics were close but they sterilized Her and made Her to a sempering, weak, shell. Yes, I do see Mary as the Goddess as well. We are horribly out of balance and there is Evil in the world. We must accept that. We cant destroy it entirely. There is the White Lodge and the Black. They are codependant on the other. So long as there is Evil, the Good must stand against it. Weapons are a necessity at our level of human evolution. In a thousand years and Majick is restored, there will still be weapons. Those will be the weapons of the soul and mind. Weapons will always exist. I am a Defender and have been forever. Over life times my weapons have changed, the need for them never has. While you tend Her alter, I will tend to the perimeter that you may do Her work. We all serve in our own capacity. Blessed Be. Please respond. I'm enjoying this. Damn shame your across the pond. I'd like to meet you (with my wife) over a pint.

Hey i havnt been replying much casi have been busy. In all fairness some of the points raised in this thread have made me question some of my beliefs. When I have time i wil address them....
We do live in a very malecentric world where aggresion is rewarded. Maybe you are correct when you say wepons will always exist. However the way we live today i think is very skewed and off balance. It is not just the wepons that cause the violence. It is our infactuation with violence and our cultural values.
Where there warrior classes in ancient socities...maybe. You have to go back and look at the myths and legends and many of them talk about a time when we were in harmony with our surrounding. A time when there was a lot less violence.

There are other significant reasons why these peoples would have seen earlier times as a Golden Age. There is a great deal of evidence suggesting that prehistoric human beings were much less war-like than later peoples. Archaeological studies throughout the world have found hardly any evidence of warfare during the whole of the hunter-gatherer phase of history. There are, in fact, just two indisputable cases of group violence during all of these tens of thousands of years

further...

The lack of evidence for warfare is striking. There are no signs of violent death, no signs of damage or disruption by warfare, and although many other artefacts have been found, including massive numbers of tools and pots, there is a complete absence of weapons. As Ferguson points out, “it is difficult to understand how war could have been common earlier in each area and remain so invisible.”

and intrestingly.....

Contemporary indigenous peoples are sexually egalitarian too. Before European conquest and colonisation, many of them traced descent and ownership of property through the mother’s rather than the father’s side of the family

All of this strongly argues against the idea that prehistoric human beings were brutes whose only concern was survival, and whose lives were full of cruelty and conflict, as men competed against each other for status and food and sex. Warfare, social oppression and male domination – and an existence that was “nasty, brutish and short” – belong to a later phase of human history. Evidence from artwork, cemeteries and battle sites suggests there was an “eruption” of these social pathologies during the fourth millennium BCE, starting in the Middle East and central Asia. The root cause of this change seems to have been environmental

Environment indicates a change in how we view and interact with our landscape. A change of relationship with our mother planet and the begining of our egotistic expoitive nature... It is intersting to note the ego is accosiated with the male and subconscience female. In todays culture we worship the male - the aggresior. This is refected in the types of phychoacyives that are legal or socialy acceptable. ie tobacco, tea, coffee (stimulants) Alchohol that is an ego booster, and coc aine in the work place, another stimulant and ego booster. What is illegal? The subtances that open the non ego mind...
The relationship we have we our planet and fundamently the relationship we have with ourselves is the governing factor in the violence we see around us today. It is getting worse...not better.
When peeps say to me that war and killing are part of human nature I have to diagree. I think they are relationship probelms. The are belief systems and they can be changed and to a big extent are manipulated by the powers that be to there own end.

and yes maybe i am a dreamer...but someone did once say to me...it is dreamers that change the world...

happy days

kx

reply to post by felonius


nice reply btw..
star for you..

kx

Originally posted by Primordial

Armed bystander almost shot hero that disarmed AZ shooter

If his weapon didn't discharge then he didn't almost shoot anybody.

The way I see it, if he had gotten there sooner he could have potentially stopped the gunman from shooting a bunch of people.

So rather than 'he almost shot an innocent man', really, he almost saved a bunch of people.

See how twisting things around works?

edit on 21-1-2011 by Primordial because: (no reason given)

Yes that is a far point and to some extent it caused me to reavalute my thought process. It has equal credence to the statement i made earlier.. But i do find it hard to follow it out. my common sense argues the opposite.
Using the premise that armed citizens can protect themselves against assilants...arming all people would reduce crime..
If this is the case would arming every country with nuclear wepons also reduce war?

kx

reply to post by purplemer


I am actually for stripping nuclear weapons from every country on this green earth. The difference is simple for any sane minded person. An idiot with a single gun might get twenty people. An idiot with a nuke can wipe out 100,000 in the blink of an eye and change life for the whole planet.

Having nuclear weapons is like deeming yourself a god. I don't believe anybody should have that much power.

reply to post by purplemer




I've been busy as well. I moved my "man cave" to a different room so my daughter would be in a warmer room at night. No biggie. Gotta take care of my female "John Conner" (or would she be a Sara Conner?) Any way.

Lemer, I think we have far more in common than either of us thought.

Males being conscious and Females subconscious? Absolutely! Why do you think all of the greatest seers have been female? Yall hook into the divine differently than we do.

That is also why men should be privilaged to protect yall. You're special. As I said previously, we each serve in our own way.

Do we all need nukes? The object of war is to take over territory. Would you really want glow in the dark veggies? Personally, they are a modern equivolent to Pandora's Box. Really, how many times do we need to be able to crack the planet in half? They (hopefully) will never be used but they will exist. Cant put'em back now. Getting toothpaste back into the tube would be easier!

As far as (back to the subject ) firearms go, I'd be just fine to never have to skin my .45 on an idiot again. I have PLENTY of fun going to the range or the occasionaly wild hog for the table. We have too bloody many of those in these parts. I make sure my kills are instant in respect to the animal.

They actually tear the asphalt off of roads!

But, we do have idiots (and groups there of) that are threats. Threats must be met. Until we can evolve past, we must deal with each incident accordingly. I fear that will be quite a while. As martial as I am in nature (with a bit of venus ) I would like to end my days as an old man that never again had to use a weapon against a person.

I'm fine at my shooting bench putting holes in paper and having the only goal to be building a better load for a tighter group.

reply to post by Common Good


In the last picture, there is the black man holding the rifle. I thought at first it was a 1903a3. Now I think it may be a FN49. Is there more of that pic?

That's a lucky man to have that piece! I kick myself everytime I see one now. 20 years ago they were 150 bucks out the door....clean!

Ooops. This was meant for MikeNice.

sorry.

reply to post by purplemer


Actually, as I stated earlier your logic is flawed.
The reason countries seek nukes is as a deterrent to their enemies that have them.
Countries don't want to nuke countries that can nuke them back.

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by purplemer

 

Actually, as I stated earlier your logic is flawed.
The reason countries seek nukes is as a deterrent to their enemies that have them.
Countries don't want to nuke countries that can nuke them back.

your missing me here. it i was not a conclusion it is a question. Im trying ot follow the gun argument through. if peeps having guns makes them more equal and therefore more safe...does the same apply for countires...
would the world be safer if all countires had nuclear wepons..


kx