Virginia Tech Shootings - Gun Debate

[Nemesis6]

A man with mask will never admit the cover on his face is a mask. When he thought people don't know that's a mask then it's practical. And it's comfortable for him when he got his tips from his master. Do you agree?

So do you mean that I walk around with a mask? Last time I wore a mask(a gorilla one), it was humid as hell inside. My breath literally made it dripping-wet. I would never wear a mask like that again without a breathing hole. By the way, I don't see how wearing a mask all the time would benefit me.

Well, sure, wearing a mask is fun. You can pretend you're like Darth Vader or something, but I don't think anyone will believe you. I mean, I can see when people wear masks. But they rarely do outside kintergarten or carnivals.

Gettings tips from ones master doesn't really make it less itchy, now does it? Wait... does the master wear a mask, too?

 

[kathaksung]

492. S.S.G. in VT shooting spree (8) (6/23/07)

10. The two key person in VT case practiced in shooting range shortly before the VT killing.

The news made me think Cho was instructed by an organization to buy a gun and practice it in a shooting range .

Re: " Camps/ Thousands gather at memorials

VT Police Chief Wendell Flinchum said police had not entirely ruled out the possibility that two people were involved. (in camp shooting) ......

The person of interest was identified as Karl David Thornhill of Blacksburg. According to federal affidavits released Tuesday, Thornhill was said to be a friend of Emily Hilscher, the woman killed in the first shooting. Police wanted to talk to him because the woman's roommate, Heather Haugh, told them Thornhill and Hilscer fired guns at a shooting range as recently as two weeks ago.

Some reports Monday indicated that Cho was angry at Hilscher for breaking off a romantic relationship. Haugh said Tuesday that she did not believe Hilscher knew Cho."
(Mercury News 4/18/2007)

1. E. Hilscher was a freshman, Cho was at his final year of education. And Cho was a lonely, silent person who avoid personal communication. There was rare chance for them to meet together. Hilscher's roommate proved it.

2. The story that Cho had a romantic relationship with Hilscher could be used to justify why Hilscher was selected as first victim to be shot at. But it came out without any foundation. So who had the motive to create that story?

3. When police didn't rule out the possibility that two people were involved in shooting case, what made them to think so? Remember the man of interesting was not an oriental but Karl David Thornhill. Someone may have witnessed the person with Hilscher at her last moment was not an oriental but a similar racial like K.D.Thornhill. Boy friend does not necessary become a suspect when a woman was murdered.

4. The most important thing is that Hilscher, a woman of 18 (?) and Cho were least likely to have a gun hobby. But they suddenly went to the shooting range to practice the gun just weeks before the VT shooting case. One was the first victim in the case and the other was accused of being gunman, both were the key figure in that big tragedy, was it a coincidence? Shooting range is certainly not a popular thing as cinema. Were they preparing for something? Or most likely, they were instructed or led to do so. Which organization was powerful enough to force them to do it?

5. To my knowledge with the Feds, they prepared with support group which would give cover up and "reliable witness" for each case let alone the big one such like Virginia Tech. massacre.
I think Hilscher and Cho were all recruited informant and were used as S.S.G. in this case. (there probably were more S.S.G. in this event, only we never know.)

6. Then why Emily Hilscher was killed as first victim?
Not everyone is as evil as the Feds. Hilscher may have thought it was fun to work for the intelligence. To follow the suspect to the beach, luxury hotel and casinos, exciting and romantic life like what she saw in film "007". When she was told her job was to kill the undead innocent students, her morale told her to refuse such a mission. She was instantly killed by her handler.

I think Hilscher's death was an incident, not in Feds plan. S.S.G. used to be instructed their detailed work at the last minute before they were sent to carry out their mission if it was a secret job. This one was a top secret. Since there was a Feds command team for that plot in Virginia Tech. on 4/16 already, so there could be a "stand down" order immediately from Feds to local police. They didn't want their plan to be disrupted. The local police also was told the suspect was out of state, an information only Feds could give. And to tie Cho with Hilscher, they even developed a story of romance later.

But even they have that story, it's still a big flaw that Cho killed two people in dormitory, then went on for other business for more than two and half hour, then came back to go on with his shooting spree. It doesn't make sense. Could you imagine that the two gunmen in Columbine High, went to school, killed a teacher, then left for a breakfast in McDonald, then came back continue with their shootings?

As a matter of fact, Cho, (or some other S.S.G.) like other students, didn't know there was a shooting happened in the dorm two hours ago. (The information was censored that morning.) So he could unhurriedly chained the door of Noris building to the plan.

(to be continued)

 

[kathaksung]

494. Preconception, a tactic of the Feds (9)(7/3/07)

I used to remind people that a terror attack may come when there is a news about terror case or terror warning from government. I think it is a psychological operation of the intelligence. They pre-settle public's mind for the coming event they plotted. The news of Al Qaida/Taliban suicide teams (see #493) is a typical sample. When that kind of bombing happens, the first thing goes to public's mind will be: it must be done by Al Qaida. The real criminal will be ignored.

On 6/28, I alerted people that there might be massive suicide bombings in Europe and US.(see #493) Next day and the day after, there were three car bombing cases in UK. I think it was part of the July 4th plot.

11. VT case was originally planned as a Terror attack.

In Virginia Tech. shooting case, Feds also had a preconception process. They had issued an article about "terrorist attack school" two weeks before VT shooting case. I have been alarmed by that article in early April and posted a reply to that message. I immediately recalled the article when the massacre took place and back traced it.

Re: Terrorists - coming to a school near you
Police ill-equipped to defend against an American Beslan
Posted: April 2, 2007
Authorities fear the school massacre that shook Russia a few years ago may be a dress rehearsal for what al-Qaida plans to do in America - only on a grander scale, launching multiple school attacks simultaneously across the country.
In 2004, Chechen terrorists associated with al-Qaida seized a school building in Beslan, Russia, and slaughtered 338, including 172 children.
Three years later, schools and local police in this country are still unprepared to deal with such an assault, experts warn. Most don't have response plans for handling a single active shooter, let alone a cell of trained terrorists launching a large-scale attack.

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_id=54975

Clues show that the VT shooting case originally was planned as a "terror case".

Re: "Bomb threats last two weeks
Police said there had been bomb threats on campus over the past two weeks but that they had not determined a link to the shootings."

<http://infowars.com/articles/us/va_tech_shooter_was_mind_controlled_assassin.htm>

Re: "Virginia School Shooting: Another Government Black-Op?

The shootings came three days after a bomb threat Friday forced the cancellation of classes in three buildings, WDBJ in Roanoke reported. Also, the 100,000-square-foot Torgersen Hall was evacuated April 2 after police received a written bomb threat, The Roanoke Times reported. "

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/april2007/160407blackop.htm

We can see how the warning article matches the bomb threat in Virginia Tech. camps.
4/2. Article of terror attack on school issued.
4/2. First bomb threat in Virginia Tech.
4/13. last bomb threat in Virginia Tech.
4/16. Shooting spree in Virginia Tech.

In massive reports from the mainstream media after the case broke off, there were few words about the bomb threat. Because Feds changed their tactic at last minute. So the propaganda was concentrated on individual gunman instead of "terror bombing".

(to be continued)

 

[Jintor]

Kathaksung, there's no point posting. Noone listens to you.

 

[kathaksung]

How much the tips is for discredit and discouraging?

---------

496. Cover up and demonize ( VT shooting case 11) (7/13/07)

Distract is a very important tactic Feds used to use. A terror bombing in school could well achieved the goal. Then why did the Feds changed their tactic in last minute? Because terror bombing in school only distract, an Oriental gunman kill US students could achieve more.

The extra advantage if it was a Chinese gunman who did the VT shooting.

1. A hostility between China and US in appearance would cover up the collaboration of the secret police of these two countries in this case.
2. Demonize the Chinese because the main target of the whole plot were Chinese Americans. They would be wronged in a framed drug case. It's a psychological operation: let people believe Chinese were criminals.

Here is my experience of this tactic.

1. Re: "Because of persecution on me was intensified at that time, I left for HongKong in March, 1999. The visa granted me a three months stay in HongKong. My wife and parents urged me to go to Shanghai but I refused. I had been there in 1994 and 1995. The bitter experience then told me Chinese secret police was co-operated with US agents in persecution. I told them I'd go somewhere else but not China.

On 5/8, NATO bombed Chinese Embassy in Yugoslavia. Three missiles hit the building and caused three deaths. The official explanation was that army Misunderstood the target by using an old map. Of course most people don't believe it. There were big protest in China and HongKong. Media reported anti-US sentiment growing in China. I fell in that propaganda. And thought that in such a situation, China secret police might not work so eagerly for US agency. Maybe I would be safe to go to China at this time?

I visited Chinese travel agency in later May. And applied for a visa there on 6/1.

Then I was hesitated because there was an unusual warm welcome from my relatives. One lesson for me after the drug case is the drift apart of friends and relatives. (see "9. Estranged friends and customers") People were intimidated by agents. Though they won't refuse if I ask for help. To actively welcome a person of "trouble" is perversive. With continued call from my relatives in Shanghai, I had a feeling the invitation were from secret agent. After a re-consideration, I decided to go to South-east Asia.

I was once curious at the event of Chinese Embassy bombing. Was it a designated one or a coincidence? I was almost fell in that psychology trap and went for a dangerous trip to China. But in 1999, it seemed NATO was far from FBI, DEA. "You may over sensitive." I told myself. (That missile bombing actually was done by Pentagon without acknowledge to NATO)

Later development proved my suspicion is reasonable. Similar event re-acted in 2001." (see #193)

2. Re: "194. D.o.D. worked for D.o.J. (1/6/04)

In April 2001, an US EP-3 spy plane collided with a Chinese fighter above South China sea and was forced landing in HaiNan Island of China. In same month both directors of FBI and DEA announced resignation that they would leave in June.

A news in internet revealed that FBI and DEA took part in a secret deal in which they paid a large sum of money to China to release the spy plane and the crew. (The main point of that secret deal was to frame a drug case original from China) I realized in the name of solving spy plane crisis, D.o.J. bribed Chinese secret police to frame a drug case on me. The attempt repeated several times and finally proved by the break out of Fujian drug case. (see attempted drug case at message #61 to 65. See spy plane case at: 'Why DEA, FBI involved in secret deal of spy plane?'
http://hometown.aol.com/sunkat563/myhomepage/profile.html
See Fujiang drug case at messages: 141,142,143,150, 155)

The two accidents (bombing Chinese Embassy in Yugoslavia and collision of spy plane)
played cover up role for the plot of D.o.J.. They create a hostile appearance between US and China to make any plot more deceivable. People would hardly believe there was a conspiracy between two hostile countries. So they would believe framed drug case a true one."

So on the day of 4/16, when the TV reported the heavy casulty in VT shooting spree and it was done by a "Chinese who came from Shanghai via San Francisco." I realized it was created for my case.

(to be continued)

 

[Geogaddi]

I anxiously await part 2.

 

[mastag]

kathaksung, if, IF, IF the government is as dastardly as you say, don't you believe that they would be a bit more secretive? I mean, if some pissant forum members can blow their cover, they are screwed.

 

[Llama]

don't bother responding. It's well known Kathaksung isn't human.

He's a Jewish lizard king.

 

[MTGunNut]

I think guns should be illegal. Saying that that infringes upon ones's right to defend themselves is like saying that a ban on crack cocaine is unjustified because it violates one's right to be addicted to and die as a result of crack.

There are plenty of ways to defend yourself that don't involve guns. It's a matter of scale... guns are simply too dangerous to be widely available, sort of like rocket launchers. The facts speak clearly... a ban on guns reduces gun-related murders.

You do understand that when there's a gun in someone's home, rather than being protected, they're more likely to be murdered in the event of a robbery? Guns kill people, period, and they aren't picky about who they kill.

2nd amendment means nothing to you?


and guns kill people? no, sir, people kill people. The gun is a tool. Cars kill people too. should we ban them too? Chainsaws kill people too, ban them. So why dont we just ban people then?

Being an avid gun owner shooter, hunter, and CCW carrier, I just could not stand to have someone have the NERVE to say ban guns. The 1994 AWB (pure bullshit) solved nothing. It actually made crime JUMP?

So, tell me. What am I to do if Im attacked? Call the cops. It could take up to 30 minutes to be there. Sure, the cops will be there, and more than likely to take pictures of your dead, beaten body. Bu, with that "evil" gun, your chances are ALOT higher of avoiding the attack, and possibly save your life. Think about it. Someone wants to rob and murder you. The perp has every intention of killing you. Why not fight back? If it where me in that situation, the perp WOULD have a .45 slug in his skull.

My point here is: wake up. The world is not some happy carefree place. There are EVIL people out there. and remember (i know it's overused, but)
"When you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have them":cheers:

Good day,

 

[MTGunNut]

kathaksung, if, IF, IF the government is as dastardly as you say, don't you believe that they would be a bit more secretive? I mean, if some pissant forum members can blow their cover, they are screwed.

you dont read arfcom ever, do you.

 

[Baratos]

"When you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have them"

Japan disagrees. They have experienced fewer than 30 gun deaths in over 10 years.

 

[mastag]

Japan disagrees. They have experienced fewer than 30 gun deaths in over 10 years.

pwnt.

 

[MTGunNut]

Japan disagrees. They have experienced fewer than 30 gun deaths in over 10 years.

you cant really compare The glorious United States of America to Japan. Japan has NEVER allowed guns in the country. Japan is also very very small, where as the good ole USA is huge.

 

[Ennui]

kathaksung, you're a moron.

2nd amendment means nothing to you?

Have you ever analyzed the 2nd Amendment on your own? This is what it 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.

Both the structure and semantics in this sentence are very open to interpretation. It does not read "The citizens of the United States have a right to own guns for self-defense." Just as strong a case for the interpretation that it means merely that we may have local police forces (a militia) can be made as for the currently accepted one. Gun ownership is not a solid right, it was created through interpretation, just like the right to privacy and many others. I personally feel that this amendment grants power to the people to "keep and bear arms" as part of a militia, not as individual citizens for their own reasons. The second amendment is not a steady fallback, nor is the Constitution an ideological doctrine for me, so an argument based off it merits only token attention.

and guns kill people? no, sir, people kill people. The gun is a tool. Cars kill people too. should we ban them too? Chainsaws kill people too, ban them. So why dont we just ban people then?

One important distinction you failed to acknowledge is the fact that cars, and chainsaws are not designed or intended to kill people. They can be used to kill, but that is not their primary function, contrary to what zombie films will lead you to believe. People pull the trigger... but guns are designed specifically to cause a lot of damage to a living organism as efficiently as possible. You cannot compare it to anything like a car or chainsaw because it is fundamentally different.

Being an avid gun owner shooter, hunter, and CCW carrier, I just could not stand to have someone have the NERVE to say ban guns. The 1994 AWB (pure bullshit) solved nothing. It actually made crime JUMP?

I doubt there was much connection between the Auto Weapons Ban and the crime rate. I'm not sure if you have any knowledge of statistics, but it's doubtful that an increase or decrease in crime rate can be reliably related to anything. Also, may I ask, what do you need a fully-automatic weapon for? Not to hunt, I imagine, and you can defend yourself fine with a handgun. All that that ban did was make it more difficult for criminals to get their hands on that sort of weapon... and that's a good thing, don't you agree?

So, tell me. What am I to do if Im attacked? Call the cops. It could take up to 30 minutes to be there. Sure, the cops will be there, and more than likely to take pictures of your dead, beaten body. Bu, with that "evil" gun, your chances are ALOT higher of avoiding the attack, and possibly save your life. Think about it. Someone wants to rob and murder you. The perp has every intention of killing you. Why not fight back? If it where me in that situation, the perp WOULD have a .45 slug in his skull.

More people kill themselves with, are killed by, or have a family member killed by their own gun than they do kill an attacker or robber. They either accidentally shoot a family member while trying to get the robber who is in their house, or the criminal wrestles their gun away and proceeds to SHOOT THEM WITH IT. To be honest, the chance of your scenario there happening are extremely slim. Almost no criminal intends to kill you unless he absolutely has to, and if he did he would do it before you had time to unholster, cock, aim, and fire your weapon. Having a gun will only 1) make him shoot you before you shoot him, 2) give him a chance to get it away from you and 3) provide a false sense of security.

999 times out of 1000, he just wants your wallet and whatever else is with you. So give it to him, instead of getting yourself killed trying to shoot him.

My point here is: wake up. The world is not some happy carefree place. There are EVIL people out there. and remember (i know it's overused, but)
"When you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have them":cheers:

Good day,

The United States has the highest percentage of households with guns in the world - about 40%. We have the highest percentage of gun-related murders as well, trailing only Brazil, North Ireland, Estonia, and Mexico, all of which have many, many more reasons for this than our country. Do not try to act like more guns is going to fix this, because every single statistic and bit of evidence suggests otherwise.

 

[MTGunNut]

kathaksung, you're a moron.


Have you ever analyzed the 2nd Amendment on your own? This is what it 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.

Both the structure and semantics in this sentence are very open to interpretation. It does not read "The citizens of the United States have a right to own guns for self-defense." Just as strong a case for the interpretation that it means merely that we may have local police forces (a militia) can be made as for the currently accepted one. Gun ownership is not a solid right, it was created through interpretation, just like the right to privacy and many others. I personally feel that this amendment grants power to the people to "keep and bear arms" as part of a militia, not as individual citizens for their own reasons. The second amendment is not a steady fallback, nor is the Constitution an ideological doctrine for me, so an argument based off it merits only token attention.


One important distinction you failed to acknowledge is the fact that cars, and chainsaws are not designed or intended to kill people. They can be used to kill, but that is not their primary function, contrary to what zombie films will lead you to believe. People pull the trigger... but guns are designed specifically to cause a lot of damage to a living organism as efficiently as possible. You cannot compare it to anything like a car or chainsaw because it is fundamentally different.


I doubt there was much connection between the Auto Weapons Ban and the crime rate. I'm not sure if you have any knowledge of statistics, but it's doubtful that an increase or decrease in crime rate can be reliably related to anything. Also, may I ask, what do you need a fully-automatic weapon for? Not to hunt, I imagine, and you can defend yourself fine with a handgun. All that that ban did was make it more difficult for criminals to get their hands on that sort of weapon... and that's a good thing, don't you agree?


More people kill themselves with, are killed by, or have a family member killed by their own gun than they do kill an attacker or robber. They either accidentally shoot a family member while trying to get the robber who is in their house, or the criminal wrestles their gun away and proceeds to SHOOT THEM WITH IT. To be honest, the chance of your scenario there happening are extremely slim. Almost no criminal intends to kill you unless he absolutely has to, and if he did he would do it before you had time to unholster, cock, aim, and fire your weapon. Having a gun will only 1) make him shoot you before you shoot him, 2) give him a chance to get it away from you and 3) provide a false sense of security.

999 times out of 1000, he just wants your wallet and whatever else is with you. So give it to him, instead of getting yourself killed trying to shoot him.



The United States has the highest percentage of households with guns in the world - about 40%. We have the highest percentage of gun-related murders as well, trailing only Brazil, North Ireland, Estonia, and Mexico, all of which have many, many more reasons for this than our country. Do not try to act like more guns is going to fix this, because every single statistic and bit of evidence suggests otherwise.

the 1994 ban was NOT for full auto. Libs took care of that in 86. bastards. Criminals even say they are more afraid of an armed victim than the police.
Watch this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j_YTM_eAWnQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u3EdeH5PBjU

and that shit is coming from the mainstream lib media.

 

[MTGunNut]

kathaksung, you're a moron.


Have you ever analyzed the 2nd Amendment on your own? This is what it 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.

Both the structure and semantics in this sentence are very open to interpretation. It does not read "The citizens of the United States have a right to own guns for self-defense." Just as strong a case for the interpretation that it means merely that we may have local police forces (a militia) can be made as for the currently accepted one. Gun ownership is not a solid right, it was created through interpretation, just like the right to privacy and many others. I personally feel that this amendment grants power to the people to "keep and bear arms" as part of a militia, not as individual citizens for their own reasons. The second amendment is not a steady fallback, nor is the Constitution an ideological doctrine for me, so an argument based off it merits only token attention.


One important distinction you failed to acknowledge is the fact that cars, and chainsaws are not designed or intended to kill people. They can be used to kill, but that is not their primary function, contrary to what zombie films will lead you to believe. People pull the trigger... but guns are designed specifically to cause a lot of damage to a living organism as efficiently as possible. You cannot compare it to anything like a car or chainsaw because it is fundamentally different.


I doubt there was much connection between the Auto Weapons Ban and the crime rate. I'm not sure if you have any knowledge of statistics, but it's doubtful that an increase or decrease in crime rate can be reliably related to anything. Also, may I ask, what do you need a fully-automatic weapon for? Not to hunt, I imagine, and you can defend yourself fine with a handgun. All that that ban did was make it more difficult for criminals to get their hands on that sort of weapon... and that's a good thing, don't you agree?


More people kill themselves with, are killed by, or have a family member killed by their own gun than they do kill an attacker or robber. They either accidentally shoot a family member while trying to get the robber who is in their house, or the criminal wrestles their gun away and proceeds to SHOOT THEM WITH IT. To be honest, the chance of your scenario there happening are extremely slim. Almost no criminal intends to kill you unless he absolutely has to, and if he did he would do it before you had time to unholster, cock, aim, and fire your weapon. Having a gun will only 1) make him shoot you before you shoot him, 2) give him a chance to get it away from you and 3) provide a false sense of security.

999 times out of 1000, he just wants your wallet and whatever else is with you. So give it to him, instead of getting yourself killed trying to shoot him.



The United States has the highest percentage of households with guns in the world - about 40%. We have the highest percentage of gun-related murders as well, trailing only Brazil, North Ireland, Estonia, and Mexico, all of which have many, many more reasons for this than our country. Do not try to act like more guns is going to fix this, because every single statistic and bit of evidence suggests otherwise.

As far as guns more likely to kill family, that is utter bullshit. Many of of gun owners practice different senarios. Many of us have senarios ready for when SHTF. We identify our target, ass the situation and take the proper action.

Id rather give a criminal lead in the face and heart for trying to think he can get away with robbing me. He does not deserve to get MY hard earned material possessions, he deserves to DIE.

And if anyone is naive to think you are safe from your gov't, I pity you.


Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive.
---Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution (Philadelphia 1787)


it is harder to control an armed population. Adolf hilter, what did he do? Banned guns.

Its rediculous. I hate to think that people take THEIR OWN rights so lightly and give them away so freely, but they do.

"Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither"
-ben Franklin

and F*ck Sarah Brady.

1994 AWB was not Full auto ban.

 

[CptStern]

As far as guns more likely to kill family, that is utter bullshit.

you are far more likely to be killed by an aquaintance/family member than you are a complete stranger

Many of of gun owners practice different senarios. Many of us have senarios ready for when SHTF. We identify our target, ass the situation and take the proper action.

give me a break ..what does that have to do with killing your family? sounds like you're reading from a manual

Id rather give a criminal lead in the face and heart for trying to think he can get away with robbing me. He does not deserve to get MY hard earned material possessions, he deserves to DIE.

yes because that's exactly how a mugging happens in real life ..guy comes up to you unarmed and demand money ..he then waits for you to pull out your gun, take the safety off, take a shooters stance and fire a round into his face ...you people live in an utter fantasy world where rambos rule the day

And if anyone is naive to think you are safe from your gov't, I pity you.

what? and you're going to stop the government with a handgun and a hunting rifle? give me a break ..every single time in modern american history when there's anything even remotely resembling an insurrection the government crushes any opposition ..watt riots, Detroit riots, harlem riots, Waco etc ..you wouldnt stand a chance the government would steamroll over in a matter of days ..what chance do you have against a tank? where would you get your ammunition? wal-mart? do you really think wal-mart would be open if there was large scale civil unrest ...fantasy world

Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive.
---Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution (Philadelphia 1787)

ya notice the date? 1787? they didnt jave tanks then ..you stand no chance, insurrection crushed within days

it is harder to control an armed population. Adolf hilter, what did he do? Banned guns.

yes because that's a good comparison ..america today is like nazi germany circa mid 30's :upstare:

Its rediculous. I hate to think that people take THEIR OWN rights so lightly and give them away so freely, but they do.

give me a ****ing break ..why arent you on capital hill screaming about unconstitutiona;l wiretapping or curtailing of freedoms? you people only ever talk about freedom when it comes to gun possession all else is meaningless ..the giovernment can prohibit you from organising a protest over a legitimate issue and you dumb ****s dont bat an eyelash but god forbid someone threaten your right to own guns ..well here's a little slice of reality: the government doesnt want you to give up your guns, the gun industry and it's lobbyists make far too much money, they have far too much influence for anything ever to happen

"Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither"
-ben Franklin

http://news.com.com/2100-1028_3-5172948.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,1725652,00.html
http://www.aclu.org/freespeech/protest/30298prs20070628.html

go right now and protest these issues, put your money where your mouth is

"and F*ck Sarah Brady.

1994 AWB was not Full auto ban.

explain why you need an automatic weapon for anything except idiotic machismo bordering on the homoerotic

 

[MTGunNut]

you are far more likely to be killed by an aquaintance/family member than you are a complete stranger



give me a break ..what does that have to do with killing your family? sounds like you're reading from a manual



yes because that's exactly how a mugging happens in real life ..guy comes up to you unarmed and demand money ..he then waits for you to pull out your gun, take the safety off, take a shooters stance and fire a round into his face ...you people live in an utter fantasy world where rambos rule the day




what? and you're going to stop the government with a handgun and a hunting rifle? give me a break ..every single time in modern american history when there's anything even remotely resembling an insurrection the government crushes any opposition ..watt riots, Detroit riots, harlem riots, Waco etc ..you wouldnt stand a chance the government would steamroll over in a matter of days ..what chance do you have against a tank? where would you get your ammunition? wal-mart? do you really think wal-mart would be open if there was large scale civil unrest ...fantasy world




ya notice the date? 1787? they didnt jave tanks then ..you stand no chance, insurrection crushed within days




yes because that's a good comparison ..america today is like nazi germany circa mid 30's :upstare:



give me a ****ing break ..why arent you on capital hill screaming about unconstitutiona;l wiretapping or curtailing of freedoms? you people only ever talk about freedom when it comes to gun possession all else is meaningless ..the giovernment can prohibit you from organising a protest over a legitimate issue and you dumb ****s dont bat an eyelash but god forbid someone threaten your right to own guns ..well here's a little slice of reality: the government doesnt want you to give up your guns, the gun industry and it's lobbyists make far too much money, they have far too much influence for anything ever to happen



http://news.com.com/2100-1028_3-5172948.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,1725652,00.html
http://www.aclu.org/freespeech/protest/30298prs20070628.html

go right now and protest these issues, put your money where your mouth is




explain why you need an automatic weapon for anything except idiotic machismo bordering on the homoerotic

I never said I needed a MG, I just want one?


You abviously know Nothing about shooting and guns for that matter.

 

[CptStern]

I never said I needed a MG, I just want one?

I want a goddam cruise missle, Sarin Toxin, and a nuclear warhead

You abviously know Nothing about shooting and guns for that matter.

please explain how that has anything to do with what I said

I also noticed you avoided my other tough to answer points ...typical of the gun movement: they'll scream bloody murder for their right to own guns but when questioned as to why, all they can seem to muster up is a pitiful "just because"

 

[MTGunNut]

you are far more likely to be killed by an aquaintance/family member than you are a complete stranger

I still call Bullshit. Like I said I dont shoot blindly at anyone. I CONFIRM that who ever I would shoot is in fact, not authorized to be in my house. I have no small children, yet I still store my guns in a safe.

give me a break ..what does that have to do with killing your family? sounds like you're reading from a manual

Killing my family? Where are you getting this shit from. You can only do something that f*cking stupid if you aint paying a bit of attention and shoot without identifying your target. Guns dont MAGICALLY jump up and kill people.

yes because that's exactly how a mugging happens in real life ..guy comes up to you unarmed and demand money ..he then waits for you to pull out your gun, take the safety off, take a shooters stance and fire a round into his face ...you people live in an utter fantasy world where rambos rule the day

Wow. Just, wow. I kind of watch my surroundings. I can usually tell when Im being followed, or even watched. I like to pay attention when I go out, which I rarely do. Drawing my weapon is another thing any responsible CCW'er should do. I practice so I can draw my weapon in about 3-4 seconds if needed, which is something I could still work on. Usualy, the sight of a gun is enough to deter an attack. Anyone ive ever had to try to start shit with me usually left me alone after going for the draw.The safety is a non issue. I fail to see why you bring it up. I dont need to get in a "shooting" stance. Again, another thing that need to be practiced/

what? and you're going to stop the government with a handgun and a hunting rifle? give me a break ..every single time in modern american history when there's anything even remotely resembling an insurrection the government crushes any opposition ..watt riots, Detroit riots, harlem riots, Waco etc ..you wouldnt stand a chance the government would steamroll over in a matter of days ..what chance do you have against a tank? where would you get your ammunition? wal-mart? do you really think wal-mart would be open if there was large scale civil unrest ...fantasy world

Most of us bulk up on ammo to prepare for when SHTF. If Shit hits like how you describe, that is BO time. All the incidents you describe where all mindless crazy loons, minus waco, and thems where religious nuts.

ya notice the date? 1787? they didnt jave tanks then ..you stand no chance, insurrection crushed within days

See, the people FEAR the gov't

yes because that's a good comparison ..america today is like nazi germany circa mid 30's :upstare:

:frown:

give me a ****ing break ..why arent you on capital hill screaming about unconstitutiona;l wiretapping or curtailing of freedoms? you people only ever talk about freedom when it comes to gun possession all else is meaningless ..the giovernment can prohibit you from organising a protest over a legitimate issue and you dumb ****s dont bat an eyelash but god forbid someone threaten your right to own guns ..well here's a little slice of reality: the government doesnt want you to give up your guns, the gun industry and it's lobbyists make far too much money, they have far too much influence for anything ever to happen

Thats not the issue this thread is about, now is it. If that was the issue, id chime in. Wiretaps do suck. ****ing invasion of privacy. I dont care if it may catch a bad guy, I dont like it. Git a goddamn court order to do that shit.

http://news.com.com/2100-1028_3-5172948.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,1725652,00.html
http://www.aclu.org/freespeech/protest/30298prs20070628.html

go right now and protest these issues, put your money where your mouth is




explain why you need an automatic weapon for anything except idiotic machismo bordering on the homoerotic

sorry, I only had a moment earlier.

 

[Jintor]

Seriously though. Guns kill people, and the obvious solution would be to have less guns, or even possibly no guns. Unfortunately that would never work in America due to a) American Culture and America itself are absolutely saturated in guns, and b) It's too late; there's no way to remove the damn things and, of course, c) The American Mindset of "We're free to do whatever damn thing we please, **** you."

 

[Sparta]

Complete and utter lunancy

Is this a gimmick?

Seriously this has gotta be a gimmick right?

 

[repiV]

I also noticed you avoided my other tough to answer points ...typical of the gun movement: they'll scream bloody murder for their right to own guns but when questioned as to why, all they can seem to muster up is a pitiful "just because"

Why on earth should he need to justify his right to own guns?

The very essence of a free society is that everything is legal unless an extremely convincing case is put forward for why it should be illegal. You're the one who needs to explain why guns need to be illegal.

Next time it'll be your hobby that's in the firing line - games cause violence, we must ban them. Or mine - too many people die on motorcycles, let's take them off the roads (I believe they're planning to eventually ban bikes in Sweden actually, as part of their rather misguided road safety policy).

In fact, they very, very nearly managed to ban airsoft guns here on some spurious bullshit grounds of public safety (a pure PR move), which would have wiped out an entire sport, hobby and industry with no benefit to anyone and to the detriment of many. Just another sacrifice...

 

[MTGunNut]

Why on earth should he need to justify his right to own guns?

The very essence of a free society is that everything is legal unless an extremely convincing case is put forward for why it should be illegal. You're the one who needs to explain why guns need to be illegal.

Next time it'll be your hobby that's in the firing line - games cause violence, we must ban them. Or mine - too many people die on motorcycles, let's take them off the roads (I believe they're planning to eventually ban bikes in Sweden actually, as part of their rather misguided road safety policy).

Thank you. Atleast I know that someone here agrees with me.:cheers:

 

[repiV]

Thank you. Atleast I know that someone here agrees with me.:cheers:

I'm no gun nut, I just deplore big government.

Having said that, I'd definitely own a handgun if they were legal here.

 

[MTGunNut]

I'm no gun nut, I just deplore big government.

Having said that, I'd definitely own a handgun if they were legal here.

isnt it rediculously hard to even get gun in uk?

I feel bad for you guys in the UK.

:cheers: hope you can get a handgun someday.

 

[repiV]

isnt it rediculously hard to even get gun in uk?

I feel bad for you guys in the UK.

The only places I've ever seen real guns are military bases, airshows, airports and as carried by the police in Whitehall. Oh, and when the armed police took up position outside the house opposite me...but that's another story.
They just aren't a part of life here, although the tabloids will tell you we have a gun crime epidemic.

:cheers: hope you can get a handgun someday.

We'll see, eh...

 

[Skar]

explain why you need an automatic weapon for anything except idiotic machismo bordering on the homoerotic

Because they are fun. And in a free society, things should not be banned unless they pose a clear and present danger to that society.

From a 'tactical' perspective, there is little difference between full auto weapons and semi-autos in terms of effectiveness. Those in the military spend most of their time shooting in semi-auto mode.

I see it much like owning a Ferrari instead of my damn Buick. Serves the same basic purpose, but one can be used to have a lot more fun even if it doesn't really serve a purpose.

Fear of full autos, much like fear of suppressors, etc... comes from people watching far too many movies, I think. Thousands of people own full autos in the United States, and anyone who can buy a rifle can buy a full auto this very day yet we see no pandemic of crime from these weapons. The government has regulated full autos, suppressors, grenade launchers, and other 'destructive devices' since 1934. All you need to do to get one is pay $200, fill out some paperwork, and wait for a couple of weeks. Now since the registry was closed in 1986, prices on full autos have sky-rocketed, but they can still be had from about 3-4 thousand dollars.

Anyway, in this time, from 1934 to present, can you guess how many crimes have been committed by one of these legally owned weapons? One. That's right, one. A police officer killed his wife in a crime of passion. That's it. Crime with these guns is virtually nonexistent and they clearly pose no threat to society.

Edit:

If you disagree with citizens being able to own firearms, I can respect that. However, the distinctions so many want to make based on magazine capacity, length, pistol grips, bayonet lugs, stocks, bullet size, bolt action vs semi auto vs full auto, etc... are really dumb. Almost all of those bans are driven by people who have little understanding of the workings or implementation of firearms. They fear the appearance of certain weapons, and do not have a realistic view of them.

Take pistol grips, for example. I've heard multiple times on national nightly news, no less, that they are for "spraying from the hip". That is the biggest load of hogwash I've ever heard. First of all, there is no point to firing from the hip as you won't hit anything. Aimed fire from the shoulder is exponentially more effective. Second, even if you wanted to fire from the hip, traditional American and European wood rifle stocks are just as easy, if not easier, to fire from the hip with. Third, pistol grips exist because frequently modern firearm designers want to put the bore in perfect alignment with the stock thus greatly reducing rotational movement of the gun when firing (imagine your shoulder as a rotating point, the farther the bore is from that pivot point, the greater the torque on your shoulder). Grabbing a traditional stock set up in this manner would be very awkward. Pistol grips allow you to keep your arms lower, the stock shorter, and your hands in a more natural position when the rifle is shouldered.

 

[mastag]

I'm still waiting for part 2 of Kathasungs ranting.

 

[HunterSeeker]

I want to own a nuclear missile with corresponding launch equipment, becouse they are fun. I have no criminial record or mental instability so why should I not be able to buy one? Do you know how many people have been murdered by nuclear weapons in the cource of human history (with the exception of wars)? None!

If the goverment comes after me I will need a nuke to protect me from armed occupation, becouse the military in my nation consists of nothing but robots that would gladly kill their friends and family so the goverment can take armed control of the nation.

 

[Skar]

I assume the above post is in response to my post. If so, I think Mr. HunterSeeker needs to understand that nuclear missiles haven't been in the hands of civilians for 70 years, but full automatic weapons have. That's a seriously week argument.

Bombs, especially nuclear ones, are in a different ballpark anyway.

And while I said nothing about defending myself against the government, I do wish to point out that history has shown that government officials (from all over the world) will obey unjust or even inhuman orders with very few exceptions.

 

[HunterSeeker]

Bombs, especially nuclear ones, are in a different ballpark anyway.

Why? I can think of tons more of usefull nonviolent uses for bombs then guns.

Besides all ammunition contains explosives.

 

[Sulkdodds]

I want to own a nuclear missile with corresponding launch equipment, becouse they are fun. I have no criminial record or mental instability so why should I not be able to buy one? Do you know how many people have been murdered by nuclear weapons in the cource of human history (with the exception of wars)? None!

If the goverment comes after me I will need a nuke to protect me from armed occupation, becouse the military in my nation consists of nothing but robots that would gladly kill their friends and family so the goverment can take armed control of the nation.

That doesn't make sense.

...following a sort of utilitarian harm principle with freedom as its base unit of morality:

We don't allow nuclear bombs because the freedom to possess and use one really only amounts to the freedom to kill a million people in a split-second. The mass curtailment of freedom this causes (everybody dies) ultimately and unquestionably outweighs the freedom of one person to kill a million, and the freedom of that person to 'defend' himself. We don't let people own some tools because they make it just too easy to cause massive harm.

Does the loss of freedom when people are shot dead outweigh the freedom gained by allowing weapons? I'm inclined to argue yes, while supporters of gun legality would argue no...blah, blah, blah.

 

[Jintor]

The freedom to own a gun goes hand-in-hand with the freedom to get shot by some punk with a gun.

 

[Skar]

The inability to purchase firearms does not preclude being shot by one, nor does the ownership of firearms ensure you will be.

Most people who own weapons are just average joes who like knowing that they have a means to recreation and protection.

 

[CptStern]

Why on earth should he need to justify his right to own guns?

what's he supposed to write on his placard at the next nra convention? "We have a right to guns ...just because!!"

and dont answer for him, let him state why he wants guns ...oh and I want sarin toxin, please being to give this to me

The very essence of a free society is that everything is legal unless an extremely convincing case is put forward for why it should be illegal.

sarin toxin please

You're the one who needs to explain why guns need to be illegal.

sarin toxin please ..same principle ..what's the difference? shouldnt I be able to get a license to handle sarin toxin and then store it in my home just in case someone tries to enter my house ...or a flamethrow, hot diggity dog I'm gonna make 'em into crispy critters

Next time it'll be your hobby that's in the firing line - games cause violence, we must ban them.

not even close .. you cannot threaten my rights and freedoms with a game, you cannot kill me with a game ..frankly I dont want you, you or you to have the ability to take everything I have just so that you can selflishly satisfy your own needs ..screw you, my family is more important than your hobby

Or mine - too many people die on motorcycles, let's take them off the roads (I believe they're planning to eventually ban bikes in Sweden actually, as part of their rather misguided road safety policy).

apples and oranges, motorcycles are not designed to kill guns are ..why dont you all carry blanks? you're not going to kill anyone so why live ammunition? look, I'll let you all have guns up the wazoo but no bullets only blanks ..it's my right to protect my freedom by take away your means to destroy it ..why do you feel you have this right?

In fact, they very, very nearly managed to ban airsoft guns here on some spurious bullshit grounds of public safety (a pure PR move), which would have wiped out an entire sport, hobby and industry with no benefit to anyone and to the detriment of many. Just another sacrifice...

hey does the UK have 14,000 + murders a year with over 65% involving firearms? no? be thankful

 

[MTGunNut]

what's he supposed to write on his placard at the next nra convention? "We have a right to guns ...just because!!"

and dont answer for him, let him state why he wants guns ...oh and I want sarin toxin, please being to give this to me



sarin toxin please



sarin toxin please ..same principle ..what's the difference? shouldnt I be able to get a license to handle sarin toxin and then store it in my home just in case someone tries to enter my house ...or a flamethrow, hot diggity dog I'm gonna make em into crisy critters



not even close .. you cannot threaten my rights and freedoms with a guame, you cannot kill my children with games ..frankly I dont want you, you or you to have the ability to take everything I have with something designed soley to kill


apples and oranges, motorcycles are not designed to kill guns are ..why dont you all carry blanks? you're not going to kill anyone so why live ammunition? look, I'll let you all have guns up the wazoo but no bullets only blanks ..it's my right to protect my freedom by take away your means to destroy it ..why do you feel you have this right?




hey does the UK have 14,000 + murders a year with over 65% involving firearms? no? be thankful

There's just no talking sense into some people.

 

[CptStern]

you can barely string two words together to form a sentence yet somehow I'm supposed to trust you'll use a firearm responsibily? ...riiight

 

[MTGunNut]

you can barely string two words together to form a sentence yet somehow I'm supposed to trust you'll use a firearm responsibily? ...riiight

oh, screw off. I'll just go back to Pirate4x4. Im done with this political bullshit.


I dont need a ****ing reason for my right to bare arms, goddamit. My country and my god both give me the right to protect myself, and Im not gonna let anyone change that. Some people will just never see the importance of owning and knowing how to use a gun until its too late. As for you, I pity you, I honestly do.

Good day sir, and enjoy your blissful ignorance.

 

[CptStern]

oh, screw off. I'll just go back to Pirate4x4. Im done with this political bullshit.


I dont need a ****ing reason for my right to bare arms, goddamit.

goddam it I'd fight for the right to bare arms as well. everyone should have a right to bare arms it's a god given right ...except the flabby, they should always remained shirted

My country and my god both give me the right to protect myself, and Im not gonna let anyone change that.

I hear banjos

Some people will just never see the importance of owning and knowing how to use a gun until its too late. As for you, I pity you, I honestly do.

yes, you truely are trustworthy enough to handle a firearm, cletus

Good day sir, and enjoy your blissful ignorance.

you dont even know whatn that means