Stories from the other side of the gun debate that the national media and gun control advocates do not won't known.
The national media has been in overdrive doing it's best to aid their progressive ally politicians and advocates in their demonetization of guns, people who support their constitutional right to own them and legal gun owners in general. Oddly enough, the media has been silent in reporting stories in which a firearm has been used to save a person or people lives. I came across this story by accident, but it was compelling though, and it proves what I and rational minded people have been saying all along. Guns in the hands a law obeying citizens are used for self defense not to commit crimes. Last year on Christmas Day, Sarah McKinley buried her husband who died of Cancer which left her having to raise their 3 month old son. Thursday, one of the suspects Justin Martin came around to Sarah McKinley's house to case it by pretending to offer his condolences to her over the passing of her husband. On Saturday New Years Eve, 24-year-old Justin Martin along with is partner came back to the McKinley's house armed with a hunting knife in an attempt to rob it. They tried to break down the door. Sarah blocked it with her couch. she then grabbed a 12 gauge shotgun and a handgun then called 911.
To two criminals, what could be more of an easier target then a perceived defenseless woman with her infant child right? In this case as in countless other cases, the inanimate objects aka firearms which liberals hate for some reason, saved this mother and her child's life. Again, stories like this won't make the national news or be talked about by politicians, because it would justify why guns are owned by law obeying citizens. The news story could have been much worse then reporting that this woman shot an intruder carrying a hunter's knife. If she was unarmed, the story could have easily have been that
"a mother and infant were found dead from being stabbed in a home invasion robbery"
or
"mother was sexual assaulted and then killed" etc.
The 911 operator told the woman that she had to protect her child. If she didn't have a gun, how would she have been able to protect her child against two men with one carrying a hunter knife? That is the question I want fascist gun grabbers to answer. If this self defense shooting would have happened in a progressives anti gun state, Sarah McKinley might have actually been charged with possession of a firearm and possible murder. This is why liberal logic makes no sense.
posted by Alpha Conservative Male at 12:20 PM
36 Comments:
As I said before, I don't like guns, but I will exercise my Second Amendment rights to purchase one if I have to protect myself and my family from a home invasion, which I pray that will not happen.
The drawback, which I've seen years before, that the home invader or his family would sue the homeowner for killing or injuring sustained by the homeowner. And it doesn't have to be a gun.
Take for example years ago in my neighborhood, a single mother and her two sons were asleep when the family dog, a boxer, heard the intruder about to come into the front door. The dog's growls and barks alerted the mother, and the intruder breaks in. The dog reacts and attacks the intruder mauling his hand and arm. The mother calls the police and they showed up in a nick of time.
Sometime later, the intruder sues the mother for severe injuries he received by the dog. The dog was eventually put down, because she did not have a BEWARE OF DOG! sign posted. She went through years of legal nightmares to keep from losing her home. She won her case, but legal bills stacked up against her. Thankfully, friends neighbors were there to support her in time of need.
Since most dog owners must have BEWARE OF DOGS! signs, should homeowner be required to have signs that read ARMED AND DANGEROUS! or BEWARE OF GUN!?
-Big Pop
This comment has been removed by the author.
This comment has been removed by the author.
The story about the woman in the house with her babies in Georgia is particularly interesting.
The lame stream left wing media (ABC, NBC, MSNBC) is intentionally, completely ignoring this story for two reasons:
A. The perpetrator is black.
B. It is a story where a homeowner, a white woman BTW, successfully defended herself and her babies with a GUN in the home!
Liberals hate to report on stories like this were people successfully defended themselves with a GUN. And, as you has pointed out in the past, Tyrone, they also loathe to report on black on white crime.
Can you image what this monster would have done to her had she not had a gun and NOT been able to shoot him?
But the lame stream media reports on the Sandy Hook tragedy from sun up until sundown daily, while simultaneously campaigning for gun control.
Now, I am waiting for P Allen or some other libs to defend this waist of a life and apologize and make excuses for this black criminal. Plus he already had a long rap sheet and should have never been back on the street.
But let's see the liberal black criminal apologists come out the wood works now.
I am actually shocked the race hustlers and poverty pimps like Jesse, Al, and the left wing NAACP are not headed down there yet to start a march and/or riot, demanding the woman go to jail.
And you are right, Ty, if this would have been in a liberal progressive state like say...Maryland, this poor woman may be have been looking at jail time for murder and have to pay tens of thousands of dollars to a lawyer to fight it.
I find it interesting that this mother had such easy access to these firearms. In other words these guns were readily available to grab and fire. Don't get me wrong, I'm glad what happened, happened. But legally, firearms are supposed to be unloaded and locked up. In 10 more years this child is more likely to shoot himself or a friend than to slay some random perp coming to harm the family.
Hooray for her! The crooks got what the didn't expect to get. Great story of a woman protecting herself.
Next question... Who's saying she shouldn't have had a gun?
Who's saying she shouldn't have the right to protect herself and her child from an intruder?
Did or did not the "SHOTGUN" (which no one has proposed to be banned) do the job?
Do you think she needed an AR15 or some other type of assault weapon? Perhaps a Safe Room to retreat to, with a M56 Smart Gun mounted outside on a gun turret. Hell, she could join a militia and train in para-military tactics, learn to make bombs, booby-traps and learn spy warfare.
Yet, none of those things were needed to protect her and her child. But let the "gun nuts" tell the story, they need semi-automatic and automatic weaponry to "protect themselves from the tyrannical government." Yet, it wasn't "the government" that attempted to break in her house. It was a couple of punks that got what was coming to them. So she didn't need a semi automatic AR-15.
This is really a sad story.
Popular You Tube Channel Gun Enthusiast Found Murdered. Keith Ratliff, who was a business partner at FPSRussia, had a single gunshot wound the head and police are treating his death as a homicide.
Who knows what happened to where Ratcliff winds up being murdered. It's just sad that there are so many crazed idiots out there. However it happened, it's completely obvious Ratcliff was unable to defend himself.
Allow me to sate this: I OWN 2 GUNS. I AM NOT FOR BANNING OR STRIPPING AWAY MY OWN, OR ANY SANE AMERICANS LEGAL RIGHT TO OWN A GUN FOR PERSONAL PROTECTION. That being said, there is a crazed obsession with a right that causes some people to take that right to an extreme.
Example: In this country driving a car, and becoming a licensed driver, is a "privilege." You don't have "a right" to drive a car. Thus, if a psychotic maniac is caught driving at 100 mph in a 30mph zone without a license, in most states he can go to jail for up to a year. Yet, that same psychotic maniac can buy a semi automatic high powered rifle with a 50 round clip and all the ammunition he wants, by simply clicking a mouse button, and yet, not raise one eyebrow from state authorities.
The question here is, why does anyone need to drive 100mph in a 30mph zone? Do you get it? WHY DOES ANYONE NEED A HIGH POWERED SEMIAUTOMATIC RIFLE WITH A 50 ROUND CLIP THAT FIRE'S MULTIPLE ROUNDS IN A FEW SECONDS. WHAT DO YOU NEED IT FOR??????
What if the men had guns too?
anonymous "What if the men had guns too?"
If the men had guns too, at least she would have had a fighting chance against the two, and she might have been able to scare them off. If she was unarmed, she would probably be dead, a statistic.
p allen "The question here is, why does anyone need to drive 100mph in a 30mph zone? Do you get it? WHY DOES ANYONE NEED A HIGH POWERED SEMIAUTOMATIC RIFLE WITH A 50 ROUND CLIP THAT FIRE'S MULTIPLE ROUNDS IN A FEW SECONDS. WHAT DO YOU NEED IT FOR?????? "
You liberals are such control freak it's annoying as hell. Why does a person need a high powered semiautomatic rifle with a 50 round clip you ask? Because they want it so they need it. It's as simple as that allen. If you do not want to own a gun or a certain type of high powered gun then that is "your business", but you do not nor your fellow progressives hold dominion over others in dictating what they need to own or not need to own. When it comes to cars, you all ask "why does a person need to own a big SUV or Hummer etc. When it comes to people who are rich, it's the same old line. Why do people need to have all that money for? Because they want it.It doesn't impact me, so why should I care one way or the other if a lawful gun owner owns a pistol or a TEC 9? When it comes to abortion, isn't the liberal argument is that "no one can tell a woman what to do with her body". Well in the case of gun ownership. Nobody can tell a person what to do with his or her's PRIVATE property. Did that help you allen?
p allen "Allow me to sate this: I OWN 2 GUNS. I AM NOT FOR BANNING OR STRIPPING AWAY MY OWN, OR ANY SANE AMERICANS LEGAL RIGHT TO OWN A GUN FOR PERSONAL PROTECTION. That being said, there is a crazed obsession with a right that causes some people to take that right to an extreme. "
How is their supposed extreme in owning certain types of firearms negatively impacting your rights or safety allen? Sounds like you along with others like you want others to conform to a "one size fits all" model of thinking when it comes to gun ownership. Liberals who like small cars hate people who drive around in gas guzzler SUV's. They believe those people should also be driving around in small cars. See the pattern?
p allen "
Next question... Who's saying she shouldn't have had a gun?
Ask your fellow libs. I've notice over the past few days how the narrative has been changing from "gun control" to now stopping "gun violence. Some of your buds are saying that all guns should be confiscated allen.
Democratic Representative Dan Muhlbauer wants laws to include confiscating certain types of guns even if they were legally purchased
Talk about "extreme" allen right?
Marcel "Liberals hate to report on stories like this were people successfully defended themselves with a GUN. And, as you has pointed out in the past, Tyrone, they also loathe to report on black on white crime.
Of course Marcel, we both know that if the racial roles of the Trayvon Martin were reversed, it would have only been a local Sanford Florida news story that would have lasted for a day or two. The national media to their shame simply will not do their job when it comes to reporting on stories that goes against their progressive ideology when it comes to the racial identities of an attack and the victim.
Marcel "
But the lame stream media reports on the Sandy Hook tragedy from sun up until sundown daily, while simultaneously campaigning for gun control. "
Notice how the media, the liberal politicians and their hordes aren't saying anything about creating laws dealing with mentally ill people and trying to limit their abilities to be around firearms Marcel. No, all they care about is just demonizing the guns as if they could shoot all by themselves. No wonder so many people do not trust the media.
The Virgina Tech Shooter had mental issues.
The Tuscon Arizona shooter had mental issues.
The Aura Colorado Shooter had mental issues
The Sandy Hook Shooter had mental issues.
The left is ignoring all of this even though it's the mental illness of these people which was the reason they all did what they did in the first place.
Westley Williams "I find it interesting that this mother had such easy access to these firearms. "
I don't know if it easy or not. She did said she placed a couch in front of the door which helped to keep the intruders at bay for a while. She nor the story said that her fire arms were preloaded before the the two tried to break in.
- Big Pop "As I said before, I don't like guns, but I will exercise my Second Amendment rights to purchase one if I have to protect myself and my family from a home invasion, which I pray that will not happen"
I don't own a gun, but I know people who do. If a nut starts shooting in a shopping mall, I would feel much better if a lawful citizen carrying a concealed weapon fires back and kills the kook in the process. Maybe progressives actually believe that the police are suppose to protect them from the bad guys.lol
Big Pop "
The drawback, which I've seen years before, that the home invader or his family would sue the homeowner for killing or injuring sustained by the homeowner. And it doesn't have to be a gun."
That's why the golden rule is to kill them inside and make sure they do not get to the outside. The invader can't sue anyone if he is dead as I see it.
Marcel;"The story about the woman in the house with her babies in Georgia is particularly interesting".
Okay.... but the story Tyrone posted is about a woman in Oklahoma.
And you seem to get a kick out of the idea that the perpetrator in Georgia was black. FYI Marcel, there are some whites who commit crimes also. The dead perp in Oklahoma was white. Explain the "lame stream" media coverage (or lack of) when the perpetrator is white. Then explain the coverage for Asians. Then Jews. Then Arabs. Then Latino's. If I missed any group, just us fill in the blank.
Marcel;"Now, I am waiting for P Allen or some other libs to defend this waist of a life and apologize and make excuses for this black criminal".
Why would you wait for me (or anyone else for that matter) to defend a criminal? And what black criminals has Al, Jesse and the NAACP defended? Mind you classifying some one as a criminal because they get into a fight with a neighborhood watchman, or a high school brawl does not a criminal make. (at least in my mind)
You say you're "waiting" for me to defend a criminal. That's the same as me saying I'm "waiting" for a check to come in the mail, or "waiting" for my ride to pick me up. I only "wait" for something that I want, and/or need. Thus, you "want" me to defend them. You "need" me to defend them. Well Marcel, I'm not in as much pain as you are. I'm not disturbed and warped as you make yourself out to be. I don't "need" mayhem and grief to satisfy my existence.
Precisely, Tyrone. And notice how there is no talk from liberals about cracking down on ILLEGAL gun offenders and repeat offenders in urban America. You know, the ‘CRINIMALS’ with guns. They want to make law abiding citizens pay for these tragedies.
Out of 180 gun murders in Baltimore City last year, only TWO murders involved what libs call ‘assault’ weapons. Just TWO out of 180! And notice how there is never any talk of federal or state mandatory sentencing for illegal handgun offenders in most of these urban cities like Baltimore and Philadelphia. NYC may be the only lib city that does it, I believe. But noooooo, the NAACP, the ACLU, and the rest of the criminal advocates and criminal apologist will vehemently resist any crack down on these ILLEGAL gun runners. And they will cry about how the criminal justice system is already racist toward blacks and Hispanics and blah, blah. No, you can’t give Ray Ray a mandatory sentencing of 10 to 15 years or more for using an illegal gun in crime. No. And there’s no talk from libs about where these criminals are actually getting their guns, either. Oh, I know. Libs will say it is the gun show loop hole! The FAKE gun show loophole myth I should add. Libs only want to focus on law abiding citizens with guns. That’s much easier, and the ACLU will not be on our asses for that one. Maybe if the police start busting in on and tearing down these so called trap houses - as the street thugs call them – in urban areas, they would find plenty of guns. But we can’t violate Ray Ray’s constitutional rights says the liberals and ACLU lawyers, and it might be police brutality on him, too.
The easy way out is use this tragedy to do what the libs having been wanting to do for decades, ban guns in general. Yes, make no mistake about it, folks, handguns, that LAW ABIBING citizens own, are next! Don’t believe me, watch in see after, or if this assault weapons ban gets passed. In the words of the Chicago mayor, whose city racked up over 500 murders in city last – most of which were with ILLEGAL handguns - “you never let a crisis go to waste.”
Tyrone: "Notice how the media, the liberal politicians and their hordes aren't saying anything about creating laws dealing with mentally ill people and trying to limit their abilities to be around firearms Marcel. No, all they care about is just demonizing the guns as if they could shoot all by themselves. No wonder so many people do not trust the media.
The Virgina Tech Shooter had mental issues.
The Tuscon Arizona shooter had mental issues.
The Aura Colorado Shooter had mental issues
The Sandy Hook Shooter had mental issues."
Precisely, Tyrone. And notice how there is no talk from liberals about cracking down on ILLEGAL gun offenders and repeat offenders in urban America. You know, the ‘CRINIMALS’ with guns. They want to make law abiding citizens pay for these tragedies.
Out of 180 gun murders in Baltimore City last year, only TWO murders involved what libs call ‘assault’ weapons. Just TWO out of 180! And notice how there is never any talk of federal or state mandatory sentencing for illegal handgun offenders in most of these urban cities like Baltimore and Philadelphia. NYC may be the only lib city that does it, I believe. But noooooo, the NAACP, the ACLU, and the rest of the criminal advocates and criminal apologist will vehemently resist any crack down on these ILLEGAL gun runners. And they will cry about how the criminal justice system is already racist toward blacks and Hispanics and blah, blah. No, you can’t give Ray Ray a mandatory sentencing of 10 to 15 years or more for using an illegal gun in crime. No. And there’s no talk from libs about where these criminals are actually getting their guns, either. Oh, I know. Libs will say it is the gun show loop hole! The FAKE gun show loophole myth I should add. Libs only want to focus on law abiding citizens with guns. That’s much easier, and the ACLU will not be on our asses for that one. Maybe if the police start busting in on and tearing down these so called trap houses - as the street thugs call them – in urban areas, they would find plenty of guns. But we can’t violate Ray Ray’s constitutional rights says the liberals and ACLU lawyers, and it might be police brutality on him, too.
The easy way out is use this tragedy to do what the libs having been wanting to do for decades, ban guns in general. Yes, make no mistake about it, folks, handguns, that LAW ABIBING citizens own, are next! Don’t believe me, watch in see after, or if this assault weapons ban gets passed. In the words of the Chicago mayor, whose city racked up over 500 murders in city last – most of which were with ILLEGAL handguns - “you never let a crisis go to waste.”
Marcel;"Liberals hate to report on stories like this were people successfully defended themselves with a GUN. And, as you has pointed out in the past, Tyrone, they also loathe to report on black on white crime".
Honestly, people like you scare me. It's people like you that are on the edge of society, and believe that it's "the other guy" who's making things bad for you.
It's a simple concept Marcel. A young woman defended herself and her children from an intruder. That's the way it's supposed to work. The intruder deserves no defense. Believe me, any crook knows that it's possible he could wind up on the wrong end of the gun. That's the chance they take. As long as you keep that idea in mind (ie. the crook lost) it won't wear on your psyche as much.
So, it's unfortunate for you that I won't be giving you the "rush" you need to feed your twisted delusion. However in the spirit of "givin em' what they want", Here's a Link to some whacked out crazed Black Panthers. This should fill that need, and satisfy your hankering for some black people saying real stupid stuff.
CB;"Talk about "extreme" allen right?
".
Yeah, what's "MORE" extreme, wanting to confiscate assault weapons or allowing people to own "ANY" type of weapon?
Here's a thread of Americans who believe you should be able to own ANY TYPE of weapon, including Cannons, RPG's, Rocket Launchers, even weapon grade chemicals.
CB;"Some of your buds are saying that all guns should be confiscated allen".
Shameful LIE! Here's where people like yourself make it impossible to have an honest conversation about gun control and gun violence. Even though the article in Black & White CLEARLY reads;
"Democratic Representative Dan Muhlbauer wants laws to include confiscating certain types of guns even if they were legally purchased".
you still tell your readers he said "all guns should be confiscated".
CB;"Why does a person need a high powered semiautomatic rifle with a 50 round clip you ask? Because they want it so they need it. It's as simple as that allen".
My car has 120mph on the dash. Why can't I drive it at 120mph all the time? Shouldn't I be able to drive 120mph on my street and my neighborhood? I'm an excellent and responsible driver. I don't drink and drive. I've got excellent vision. My car is my property. I pay taxes to build and maintain the roads and streets.
If a maniac has the "right" buy an AR-15 and 5000 rounds of ammunition on the internet, then go into a movie theater and kill people, I should have the right to drive as fast as I want, anywhere I want, and I wont kill anybody!
p allen "
Shameful LIE! Here's where people like yourself make it impossible to have an honest conversation about gun control and gun violence. Even though the article in Black & White CLEARLY reads;"
The definition of the word lie allen is "An intentionally false statement."
Where was my intention to make a false statement? If I wanted to lie about what Dan Muhlbauer said allen, all I had to do was simply say he said it and NOT provide the link. I made a mistake but he did say he would want to confiscate certain firearms which were purchased legally, now tell me he didn't say that allen. The fact of the matter is that the government shouldn't be confiscating any type of firearm which is a citizen can purchase LEGALLY in this country.
p allen "
Here's a thread of Americans who believe you should be able to own ANY TYPE of weapon, including Cannons, RPG's, Rocket Launchers, even weapon grade chemicals."
Anyone with a brain knows that Cannons, RPG's, Rocket Launchers and Chemical Weapons are not "firearms" allen, come on. So they do not fall under the 2nd amendment.
CB;"Where was my intention to make a false statement? If I wanted to lie about what Dan Muhlbauer said allen, all I had to do was simply say he said it and NOT provide the link. I made a mistake...".
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, because I can see that you didn't even read the article yourself. Therefore you "thought" Muhlbauer wanted to ban "ALL" guns. The question now becomes, why would you assume that he wanted to. I believe you assumed as such because you "need" a reason to support your delusion that "libruls" want to take your guns. When you're delusional you're going to, as you say, "make mistakes."
CB;"Anyone with a brain knows that Cannons, RPG's, Rocket Launchers and Chemical Weapons are not "firearms".
The 2nd amendment, as it is written, does not say "firearms." The 2nd amendment as it was written, refers to the "armaments" of that time. That would include any and all weapons manufactured with the intent of being used as an "army" implement for battle. Thus, all weapons are technically "arms."
However, there's no way that the writers of the 2nd amendment in 1791 would have known, or even dreamed of a weapon would be made that could destroy everything on earth. They had no idea that an "armament" could be "fired" from one continent and kill people on another, thousands of miles away.
Anyone with a brain knows that Cannons, RPG's, Rocket Launchers and Chemical Weapons are not "firearms" allen, come on. So they do not fall under the 2nd amendment<<<<<<<<<
A 50 caliber is a cannon. Even if it's a single shot. But gun nuts buy them all the time. As far as nerve agents go, I remember this group in Tyler TX had a bunch of it a few years ago. In regard to rocket launchers, plenty have been found in the hands of civilians. They're great for stopping APC's. Talk to the most hardcore 2nd Amendment supporters. They feel in their hearts that it's their Constitutional right to posses them.
You need to further research this story. This 19 year old with an infant appears dodgy. One thing you didn't mention was that her recently deceased husband was 58 years old. Did this man three times her age marry her as a minor?
P. Allen-"And what black criminals has Al, Jesse and the NAACP defended?"
*How about Stanley "Tookie" Williams, founder of the Crips Gang?
*How about Wayne Williams, the convicted killer of the Atlanta Child Murders case?
*How about convicted cop killer Mumia Abu-Jamal?
*How about the Jena 6?
*How about hoaxers Tawana Brawley and Crystal Gail Magnum who falsely accused innocent men of rape? Anyone who files a false police report should be considered a criminal in my opinion.
-Big Pop
Westley Williams "You need to further research this story. This 19 year old with an infant appears dodgy. One thing you didn't mention was that her recently deceased husband was 58 years old. Did this man three times her age marry her as a minor? "
Please tell me and others Westley exactly what does the age of her husband have have do with her using a firearm to defend herself and her baby? If you say it has nothing to do with it, then you know why I didn't make an issue about it when I read the story.
Westley Williams "
A 50 caliber is a cannon. Even if it's a single shot. But gun nuts buy them all the time. As far as nerve agents go, I remember this group in Tyler TX had a bunch of it a few years ago. In regard to rocket launchers, plenty have been found in the hands of civilians. They're great for stopping APC's. Talk to the most hardcore 2nd Amendment supporters. They feel in their hearts that it's their Constitutional right to posses them."
Let it put it like this Westley. If it falls under the classification of a firearm, the owner is using their property(firearm) and securing it appropriately, I really do not care.
p allen "
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, because I can see that you didn't even read the article yourself."
Actually I did read the story. My mistake was in describing originally what Muhlbauer was wanted to do. I wanted to say that he wanted to "confiscated legal guns" from gun owners but I wrote he wants to "ban guns". Are you in agreement with Muhlbauer allen? I'm not the issue, you know what Muhlbauer said, do you are with him? As for me thinking one thing yet writing something else, it happens. Unlike with progressives, I can admit my mistakes.
p allen " I believe you assumed as such because you "need" a reason to support your delusion that "libruls" want to take your guns."
Don't liberals want to take gun owner's "assault" style weapons"? Wouldn't an "assault" weapons ban make it illegal for citizens to own certain types of guns? Also, if people are caught in possession of these guns, won't those guns be "taken away? think hard allen. Isn't that the whole idea of a "ban" to make sure people don't own the item which is banned?
p allen "When you're delusional you're going to, as you say, "make mistakes."
I make mistakes because I am human. I admit when I make mistakes, because I have integrity in which to do so, that is why I am a conservative and not a liberal. I can make a mistake and my readers know what I was trying to say even if it doesn't come out the right way or I get one detail crossed. Libs have to knit pick at the corners, because they can never attack the core of my arguments, and that will never change allen.
p allen "
The 2nd amendment, as it is written, does not say "firearms." The 2nd amendment as it was written, refers to the "armaments" of that time. That would include any and all weapons manufactured with the intent of being used as an "army" implement for battle. Thus, all weapons are technically "arms." "
Oh is that a fact? Where is the time era reference as it relates to the 2nd amendment allen? The second amendment says
"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."
This is what the founding fathers had to say about 2nd amendment as it pertains to if the government tries to seize power from the people
Can you tell me what then Newark NJ City Councilman Corey Booker said about his feeling about people owning hand guns back in 2000 allen?
CB;"Oh is that a fact? Where is the time era reference as it relates to the 2nd amendment allen?.
You left out the part where I clearly stated:
there's no way that the writers of the 2nd amendment in 1791 would have known.
Are you trying to say that in 1791, the writers of the second amendment wrote it to apply for 200 years in the future? Some of the same men also wrote, Article 1, Section 2, Paragraph 3 of the Constitution. Was that written to apply for 200 years also? But guess what happened? A nasty war broke out, and the new guys wrote in a new amendment because they saw that old amendment COULD NOT, WOULD NOT, DID NOT, AND SHOULD NOT NO LONGER APPLY.
But I digress. We were speaking about what is considered an "ARM." As I stated, the writers of the 2nd amendment had no idea of the type of "ARMS" that were to come. If RPG's, hand grenades, cannons, missiles, etc... aren't considered "ARMS", then what are they? Perhaps you should ask yourself, why call the SALT and START treaties "ARMS" negotiations and agreements? Why call it an "ARMS" race? In your enlightened opinion, have they made a "mistake" by calling them arms? Perhaps the writers of the 2nd amendment made a "mistake."
Your claim of a weapon of war not falling under the 2nd amendment is a weak framed "cop out." You should read it again. They didn't write in any "exclusions" to particular "ARMS." There were cannons, hand grenades and later the Gatling gun, which were all considered "ARMS."
Bottom line to all of this is, THE AVERAGE AMERICAN CITIZEN HAS NO USE FOR AN AR-15 ASSAULT RIFLE OTHER THAN KILLING PEOPLE! Just as you have no need for a cannon, a RPG, a tank, or a SCUD or nuclear missile. The people that are going out and buying these weapons are buying them with the idea in mind that they "might" have to use them to KILL PEOPLE.
Big Pop;"Anyone who files a false police report should be considered a criminal in my opinion.
".
First off, I disagree that "Tookie Williams", Wayne Williams, and Abu Jamal were being "defended" by Jesse, Al, or the NAACP. We'll argue all day about what is defense, versus "cause celeb."
However, if lying in a police report makes one a criminal, certainly lying about WMD's to put your country at war has to be a criminal offense...
Allen-"However, if lying in a police report makes one a criminal, certainly lying about WMD's to put your country at war has to be a criminal offense..."
I agree on that part Allen; I was never a supporter of Bush to begin with. However, I'm surprised that Sharpton, Jackson, and the NAACP have not been charged and convicted by making false claims of racism.
Jackson for years has been shaking down businesses for making false claims of racism to line his and his cronies pocketbooks. I'm surprised he's getting away with extortion.
And why are you referring to the race hustlers by their first name?
-Big Pop
Big Pop;"However, I'm surprised that Sharpton, Jackson, and the NAACP have not been charged and convicted by making false claims of racism".
First off, can you show a legal case where a charge of "false accusation of racism' was brought before a court of law? If not, are you saying that there should be a law? Secondly, accusations of racism is very hard to prove in a court of law. The fact is, one can be a "racist" and not act nor speak of it. Racism is a thought process.
As for Sharpton and Jackson, for the most part they both are self appointed (quote)-leaders- (en-quote). No one voted for the or appointed them to anything. On a personal level, I've never supported the "cause celeb" of either of them, although in certain instances I may agree with, and support particular cases and causes.
The NAACP is completely different in that, they are an organization that has been in the forefront of racial issues for decades. In all of it's years of existence, can you point to "ONE" instance where the NAACP as an "ORGANIZATION", can be charged, or should have been charged with a crime. Name at least one. I've heard some conservatives refer to the NAACP as a racist organization. If you believe they are, then equate any other racist organization, like, let's say, the KKK with the NAACP. The KKK has been charged with crimes before. Pick a crime committed by the KKK, that is similar to a crime committed by the NAACP.
Now answer this... You assert that Jackson, Sharpton and the NAACP should be charged with a crime for "false accusations" of racism. Bear in mind, we're talking about racism. Not an "ACT" perpetrated out of racism, just the accusation of racism. Thus, the accused person can deny such charge (as many conservatives do). Yet upon that denial, you say you see it fit to charge the accuser with a crime.
Using that same logic wouldn't there be grounds to charge "admitted" racist with a crime? The Council of Conservatives Citizens (formally the White Citizens Council) opposes the "mixing" of all races in the United States. For all intents and purposes, I'm sure if I wanted to join the KKK, I'd be rejected...or worse! Thus, using your logic, these groups would be "admittedly" committing a crime!
Big Pop;"And why are you referring to the race hustlers by their first name?".
Because Marcel did... I was answering him.
Mr. Allen,
As an owner of both a 12 guage shotgun and an AR-15, I consider myself credible to comment.
The shotgun is "sufficient" to stop an intruder, but has drawbacks, especially if you are a female of small stature. Shotguns have a serious re-coil which can actually injure you if you don't hold it correctly...like when you're holding an infant.
Shotguns commonly need to be "racked back" which many women find to be a physical challenge.
Shotguns typically have long barrels which make them very clumsy for home defense accuracy.
The AR-15 is the perfect home defense weapon for women. The charging handle is easy to operate for even the weakest of shooter, and once "cocked" a woman can hold an infant with one hand and fire repeatedly with the other. This is also due to the AR's compact size which makes it easy to operate in close quarters situations such as a hallway, or bathroom.
The common 30 round magazine is perfect for convenience at the range and for addressing the uncertainty of knowing just how many meth-addicts will be breaking into your home. It is also handy for addressing the fact that not everyone is a "crack shot" especially under the pressure of facing armed assailants in your home. Then there is also the fact that not every rapist is kind enough to die instantly with one less-than-perfect shot fired by a nearly hysterical woman holding an infant. Go figure.
Beyond these realities, it is simply not for the government (or you)to deny my liberty based on your or some else's interpretation of MY "needs".
Mr. Roadhouse, in all honesty, a person, man or woman, who worries "recoil" shouldn't be handling a gun anyway. A person using a gun should know how to use it properly. Learning to use a gun properly should be first and foremost on any gun owners list. My sister and sister-in-law have Glock 19's. I don't think they weigh 250lbs put together.
Moreover, the last place I'd want to be is within 500 to 600 yards of an asshole firing an AR-15 with a 30 to 50 round magazine, and doesn't know how to handle it. With certain loads, here's what an AR15 can do. As shown in the video, a round fired from the weapon can go through inner and outer walls of the average build home, or apartment dwelling. Yet, you're worried about the "recoil"?????? As I said, if a shooter has concerns about the recoil of a pea shooter, he or she shouldn't have it in their hands!
Roadhouse;"Beyond these realities, it is simply not for the government (or you)to deny my liberty based on your or some else's interpretation of MY "needs".
Neither I (or to the best of my perfectly rational and sane knowledge) nor the government is seeking or wants to take away your "liberties." Contrary to what you might "feel as a need", there is no need for a housewife to protect herself with a weapon that can penetrate her neighbors baby nursery walls.
A high powered assault weapon does not give you liberty. Your social, political, or economic rights and privileges will not be in peril if you can't buy or own an AR-15 assault rifle. Buy law you can't own an RPG rocket launcher. because you can't own an RPG has your "liberty" been denied?
And what is it about your "NEEDS?" Lets see... I buy food because I need to eat. I bought a car because I need to get to work and around town. The food I buy I use to nourish my body and health. I buy and eat foods that will do that. My car is a well build American automobile. I "NEED" my car. It dependable, easy to operate and get's good gas mileage. I eat and drive every single day.
I have a CCW and I own a short nose 38 special given to me by my father. I also own a pump action shotgun. Yet, I "need" my guns "ONLY" for protection, and if I had to shoot someone to protect myself. In 50+ years of life, I've never had to do that. That being said, on the day that I can't buy food without having my gun, or can't drive my car without having my gun, go to work, school, church, the park, the theater, the doctor, etc. without having my gun... then, and only then I will concede that my liberty has been taken away!. With some of the rhetoric coming from people like you, and the NRA, at times you all make it seem as though that's the America you want.
Mr. Allen,
You are making vast assumtions and generalizations about both my and my wife's competency (I forgive you). You seem to be implying that one's rights are dependant upon their physical stature or comfort level with the kick of a 12 guage shotgun.
"a person, man or woman, who worries "recoil" shouldn't be handling a gun anyway"
This is akin to asserting that if you aren't comfortable with driving a top-fuel dragster, then you shouldn't drive a Honda.
I would also go as far as presume that your relatives chose Glock 19s for a similar reason.
It seems that you also assume that all Americans live in close quarters apartments or subdivisions and don't know how to purchase ammo. They do make personal defense rounds for ARs that are designed to NOT continue through to the neighbor's nursery...mine is currently loaded with them.
You also seem to be disputing the fact that a rifle platform is more accurate than a pistol.
And you've conveniently cruised right on past my point about not knowing how many rounds you might need because you have no way to know how many people are going to break into your house.
"A high powered assault weapon does not give you liberty."
Exactly. A high powered assault weapon PROTECTS and DEFENDS liberty. It's our creator that has given us liberty.
"...on the day that I can't buy food without having my gun, or can't drive my car without having my gun, go to work, school, church, the park, the theater, the doctor, etc. without having my gun... then, and only then I will concede that my liberty has been taken away!"
Ironicly, that would be YOUR decision. And I would never advocate that that liberty be taken from you despite what I or someone else deems to be your needs. It's also ironic that you seem to have no problem illustrating how you meet your needs for eating and driving, but forget that it is YOU that chooses what to eat and drive, most likely due to your personal circumstances, and preferences...go figure.
The "RPG" argument is a favorite red herring/straw man tactic of the left, but it's really more of a sign of the weakness of their position...you may want to avoid it. After all, neither I or the NRA is lobbying for the right to own RPGs, morters, thermo-nuclear warheads, etc. For obvious reasons.
As for the "rhetoric" comment, re-read both your comments and mine, and see for yourself where the rhetoric is found.
Roadhouse;"This is akin to asserting that if you aren't comfortable with driving a top-fuel dragster, then you shouldn't drive a Honda".
No Roadhouse, I see you're confused. Learning to drive a dragster is learning how to handle a car in a "race", or drive competitively. To that degree, I completely agree with you. If you don't know how to drive a dragster, you shouldn't be behind the wheel of one. However, learning to drive a Honda is learning how to transport yourself and/or others. Just like you would learn to drive a big rig tractor trailer to transport goods. Or learn to drive a bus to transport people. Or a riding lawn mower to mow your lawn.
Conversely, learning to shoot "ANY" type of gun involves one, and only "ONE" intent and purpose...that is to HIT THE TARGET! Sure, shooting can be done competitively. However, what's the goal? THE GOAL IS TO HIT THE TARGET! A gun, ANY GUN, has only one sole intent and purpose. In this instance your comparison of, learning to drive a vehicle, and learning to shoot is basically comparing "apples and oranges."
A better comparison would be to compare firing a bazooka or an anti aircraft weapon, such as a Stinger Missile. I'll grant you those implements because they would require more training and marksmanship. Moreover... the purpose and intent of these weapons are the same as the smaller arms...TO HIT THE TARGET!
Thus, I "drive" my Honda to get back and forth to work. I "drive" my Dragster to compete in races. I drive my 18 wheeler truck to transport my Honda and my Dragster. When I shoot my gun the only thing I expect it to do (and should do) is HIT THE TARGET!
But if there's something else you do with your guns when you shoot them, I'll be glad to read it. Just keep it clean. I don't think Tyrone allows "kinky" stuff on his blog....
Roadhouse;"You also seem to be disputing the fact that a rifle platform is more accurate than a pistol".
That all depends on the gun, and who's shooting it.
Roadhouse;"It seems that you also assume that all Americans live in close quarters apartments or subdivisions and don't know how to purchase ammo".
I made no such assumption. Yet "many" people do live in close quarters...ever been to New York City?
Roadhouse;"They do make personal defense rounds for ARs that are designed to NOT continue through to the neighbor's nursery...mine is currently loaded with them".
Good for you! Unfortunately, every person that buys ammo doesn't buy the same as you. Did you watch the video I linked to? The guy in the video used 3 different types of loads. All three went through walls.
Roadhouse;"Exactly. A high powered assault weapon PROTECTS and DEFENDS liberty. It's our creator that has given us liberty".
On this one we are as far apart as reality and fantasy. You claim liberty in part because it was written by people who used weapons to "steal" liberty from those who were "created" before they came. Those same people also wrote (constituted) that only they would be granted liberty, while making the same claim of liberty from the creator. That is the REALITY! That clearly leaves your assertion as FANTASY.
Roadhouse;"The "RPG" argument is a favorite red herring/straw man tactic of the left, but it's really more of a sign of the weakness of their position".
Roadhouse, I'm not stupid. A "straw man" argument would be a misrepresentation of your position. An "ARMAMENT" is an "ARMAMENT." An RPG is an armament. Where's the misrepresentation? You can't own a RPG (legally) because the government says you can't. Yet, don't think for a moment that some "gun nut" hasn't found a way to get a few added to his arsenal.
If the government extended owning such a weapon to the general public, there are "scores of assholes" out there that would buy them. The sames goes for hand grenades, anti-aircraft weapons, mortars, bazooka's, and a missile launcher, if they could afford it.
I think you all will find this very interesting. Have fun with this educational ride.
http://youtu.be/g9bRDNgd6E4
Mr. Allen,
I fear that you may be missing my points. The dragster/firearm point was to demonstrate that not every person has the same comfort level with every tool. This goes for cars, trucks, guns, lawn mowers, power drills, motor cycles etc.
Some people are comfortable operating a Yamaha V-max, while others would only be comfortable on a Honda Rebel.
The point was not "purpose", but personal "comfort".
A rifle is always more accurate than a pistol. More practical? Not always. More versatile? Not always. There is a reason Marine snipers would not risk a 300 yard shot with a pistol.
I would advise against someone living in New York city (yes, I've been there) using an AR for personal defense, but not advocate that they have their right to own one taken away.
Kind of a moot point though, because in NYC, the criminals are the only ones with the freedom to use their weapon of choice.
Mr. Allen said:
"On this one we are as far apart as reality and fantasy. You claim liberty in part because it was written by people who used weapons to "steal" liberty from those who were "created" before they came. Those same people also wrote (constituted) that only they would be granted liberty, while making the same claim of liberty from the creator. That is the REALITY! That clearly leaves your assertion as FANTASY."
Revisionist's history aside, what do you propose we do about that? Obsess on the fact that some of the Founders owned slaves, then reject and dismiss the progress made since? Followed by renouncing our citizenship and then pledging our lives to some form of totalitarianism in hopes of resolving some sort of century old guilt trip layed on us by those who can't see that slavery is no more, and all Americans can vote and excercise the rights guaranteed in our founding documents? Will you be the first to take that step?
I think I'll stick with America and the Constitution, and respect the Founders for clearing the way for future generations to both end slavery and advance civilization...despite their personal conflictions. All in a time when slavery was not only the norm, but a world-wide institution. It was the Fouders who made provisions to lead the rest of the world in ending it. You may have heard of a little thing called "The Civil War", and a guy named Lincoln.
Mr. Allen said:
"You can't own a RPG (legally) because the government says you can't. Yet, don't think for a moment that some "gun nut" hasn't found a way to get a few added to his arsenal.
If the government extended owning such a weapon to the general public, there are "scores of assholes" out there that would buy them. The sames goes for hand grenades, anti-aircraft weapons, mortars, bazooka's, and a missile launcher, if they could afford it."
There is a reason the government says RPGs and the like are illegal. And I have yet to meet someone who would disagree with their rationale. An accidental discharge of a firearm is vastly different from an accidental discharge of any explosive device, with a FAR greater likelyhood of tragedy.
But since no one here is claiming a right to carry an RPG, or grenade...the point still stands as a mere distraction from the topic at hand.
But a good effort on your part though.
Post a Comment
<< Home