The Charter and Proclamation of the Rights of Man - Page 10 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Any other minor ideologies.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#15182735
Earlier in this very thread @The Resister posted this:
I don't fully agree with the government's position on land. FWIW - BEFORE the anti - immigrant lobby cleaned out the civilian militias I was supporting the civilian militias effort to crack down on eminent domain abuses. In the last case I got involved in, a couple sold their land to private buyers (a married couple). Before the closing, the husband passed away. While this was being settled, Walmart went to the county commission, got the property condemned, and tried to steal the land for far less than what the private buyer was willing to pay for it.

I camped on that property, rifle in hand and had no intention of allowing the land grab to take place. The county commission and Walmart met with the woman's attorney and he called to say they worked it out. And so I vacated the property.


So despite all of those words he just posted the above clearly shows that he is pretty quick to pull a gun on the government. I would advise against doing this. All the more so if he wants to join groups expressly formed to pull guns on the US military. That is not a winning strategy IMO.
#15182737
ingliz wrote:Image
© Martin Rowson


:)


Q: Why is he wearing a business suit after boasting of paying the balance on his trailer early?

A: He made a big thing out of taking trips to California in the company plane.



And with that, you've exposed your level of mental midgetry to all who might have cared. We're done.
#15182741
Drlee wrote:Earlier in this very thread @The Resister posted this:


So despite all of those words he just posted the above clearly shows that he is pretty quick to pull a gun on the government. I would advise against doing this. All the more so if he wants to join groups expressly formed to pull guns on the US military. That is not a winning strategy IMO.


You are entitled to your opinion, Admin Edit: Rule 2 Violation I carry a gun every day. The LAST thing I've thought about in the several decades of carrying a weapon is aiming it another human being. Even if you dot all the I s and cross every T, the moment that someone uses a firearm (even in self defense) their own life is transformed in a minute.

You can twist and turn my words, but you will never be Perry Mason. You are only good at lying.

During the course of my lifetime, I've been involved in two instances where the local constabularies knew that if they enforced an unconstitutional law, all Hell would be unleashed. My experiences prove your opinion wrong. When the pain is greater than the gain, even the government figures out how to negotiate. Regardless of whether you are a civilian, LEO, or soldier this will prove true IF you ever get exposed to a situation where the civilians hold all the cards.

For that reason I've supported civilian militias, and one especially. And, in their 34 years of existence, they've never had a case where any member was arrested, jailed, or imprisoned. We know where you're going and the counter argument is that nothing in this world is worth you saying no to if the government cracks the whip at you. You are a good little subject. I'm done with you.
#15182744
The Resister wrote:you've exposed your level of mental midgetry to all who might have cared.

"contemplating extraordinary actions"

I thought it very apt.

A picture is worth a thousand words.


:)

The LAST thing I've thought about...

If you are carrying, that is the FIRST thing you should be thinking about.

It's called situational awareness.

You should be paying attention to who else is in your space, where they are in relationship to you, angles, and backstops.

The LAST thing I've thought about in the several decades of carrying a weapon is aiming it another human being

Not thinking? Well, that would likely explain why 1,250 people were unintended casualties, fatal and non-fatal*, shot in the 742 incidents of defensive gun use in the US this year.

In an urban environment, missing and overpenetration have consequences.


* GVA numbers. Data Sources Verified: 26 July 2021

ingliz wrote:situational awareness ... backstops

Amaria Jones, 13, was showing her mother a dance step when a bullet tore through a window and a television set before striking the girl in the neck, killing her. The gunman had opened fire from more than a block away, police said.

— Chicago Gun Violence Spikes and Increasingly Finds the Youngest Victims. New York Times, July 5, 2020
Last edited by ingliz on 28 Jul 2021 16:58, edited 3 times in total.
#15182844
I carry a gun every day. The LAST thing I've thought about in the several decades of carrying a weapon is aiming it another human being.


:roll:

You must have an irrational fear of snakes.

Try to post something at least a little bit believable.

And do try to learn some basic politeness. You are sounding excessively angry... Certainly too much uncontrolled anger to recommend your carrying a firearm.
#15182852
The Resister wrote:cross every T

People were asked open-ended questions about defensive gun use incidents and detailed questions about self-defense gun use.

Five criminal court judges were then asked to assess whether the self-reported defensive gun use was likely to have been legal.

Assuming that the respondents had described the events honestly, a majority of the reported self-defense gun uses were rated as probably illegal by a majority of judges.

D Hemenway et al. (2000) Gun use in the United States: results from two national surveys


:lol:

aiming it another human being

Comparing numbers

Civilian legal defensive homicides* - 1,538 (Cramer 2013)

Unintended casualties of defensive gun use - 1,250 (GVA 2021)

The numbers are most likely wrong. The CLDH is an extrapolation from a limited set. The GVA is taken from newspaper reports written before circumstances are being tested in the courts. The only thing defensive gun use studies seem to agree on is that statistically, outcomes are significantly better if you put your gun away and run or hide before being injured or killed.


* Note: These are not justifiable homicides as reported by the FBI - 310 in 2012 - They are, for the most part, shooters charged with murder or manslaughter, initially. The charges later being dropped.

ingliz wrote:If you are carrying, that is the FIRST thing you should be thinking about.

It's called situational awareness.

You should be paying attention to who else is in your space, where they are in relationship to you, [cover,] angles, and backstops.

This was half-written in jest. Taking the piss out of the tacticool. Yes, in an ideal world, this should be what you are aiming for. Not that it will do you much good if the shit hits the fan, a few seconds at most, and the stress of constantly being on your guard would turn most people into paranoid wrecks.

The US is not a warzone yet.
#15183067
Well Ingliz. (And remember that I own several firearms) I could not agree more. People who arm themselves because they have a "right" to do it are pretty pathetic. The ones who arm themselves to protect themselves are even more pathetic. All of the statistics are clear. The best way to avoid gun violence is to avoid guns. The notion of the hero charging in to save the Walmart from an active shooter is mostly a myth.

Having said that. I can carry concealed virtually anytime I like. I have been trained not only in the expert use of firearms but also in the laws of engagement. I do not. Why would I be deliberately unsafe? Am I going to stop a bank robbery? Endanger everyone in the bank, not to mention myself, for a few thousand dollars? In the past couple of years I did choose to arm myself once for protection. (Other than going to the range to keep my skills up.) I had a lady friend who was being victimized by a felon and former prisoner who she contracted with for some home repair. She tried to fire him and he threatened her. So while she and I were working alone at her house I armed myself to protect her if necessary. This was after the police had been notified of his threats and were looking for him. (They got him and took him for a parole violation by the way.) I did not just stick a gun under my jacket. I carefully prepared for how I would handle various scenarios. Suffice it to say that the only scenario that would have caused me to produce my firearm was one in which she or I was in mortal danger and I intended to shoot him. Not threaten. Shoot.

Sadly we have blowhards all over this country who believe it is "macho" to carry a gun. I always have a piece of advice for them. I tell them to file the front sights off of their pistol because it won't hurt so bad when someone sticks it up their ass. For most untrained people, and all who carry exposed, this is a distinct possibility.

Our OP is a classic example of the sort of person who has not the temperament nor training to carry a firearm and is the poster child for why licenses should be required to do so. By his own admission he has threatened the government with a firearm. He should not be permitted to own any ever again and that is a lucky outcome given what he said he did.
#15183160
Drlee wrote:Well Ingliz. (And remember that I own several firearms) I could not agree more. People who arm themselves because they have a "right" to do it are pretty pathetic. The ones who arm themselves to protect themselves are even more pathetic. All of the statistics are clear. The best way to avoid gun violence is to avoid guns. The notion of the hero charging in to save the Walmart from an active shooter is mostly a myth.

Having said that. I can carry concealed virtually anytime I like. I have been trained not only in the expert use of firearms but also in the laws of engagement. I do not. Why would I be deliberately unsafe? Am I going to stop a bank robbery? Endanger everyone in the bank, not to mention myself, for a few thousand dollars? In the past couple of years I did choose to arm myself once for protection. (Other than going to the range to keep my skills up.) I had a lady friend who was being victimized by a felon and former prisoner who she contracted with for some home repair. She tried to fire him and he threatened her. So while she and I were working alone at her house I armed myself to protect her if necessary. This was after the police had been notified of his threats and were looking for him. (They got him and took him for a parole violation by the way.) I did not just stick a gun under my jacket. I carefully prepared for how I would handle various scenarios. Suffice it to say that the only scenario that would have caused me to produce my firearm was one in which she or I was in mortal danger and I intended to shoot him. Not threaten. Shoot.

Sadly we have blowhards all over this country who believe it is "macho" to carry a gun. I always have a piece of advice for them. I tell them to file the front sights off of their pistol because it won't hurt so bad when someone sticks it up their ass. For most untrained people, and all who carry exposed, this is a distinct possibility.

Our OP is a classic example of the sort of person who has not the temperament nor training to carry a firearm and is the poster child for why licenses should be required to do so. By his own admission he has threatened the government with a firearm. He should not be permitted to own any ever again and that is a lucky outcome given what he said he did.


@Drlee , I have been exposed to the ''Gun Culture'' all my life; gun violence and intimidation too. One thing that these weapons do not do is preserve liberties and defend lives, for the most part. That's one thing I always knew,didn't have the luxury of pretending otherwise. People with guns are intent on violence and intimidation (usually one more than another) because everyone on some level knows that they are weapons of death, the power of death over people's lives. Honestly, who needs that bullshit?

Those who bear the tools of death should be those trained to know when to use them and when not to, this is a wisdom as old as Cain and st. Abel. With everyone else, it's about murdering the righteous man, and each other, that's all that it is about.
#15183165
annatar1914 wrote:People with guns are intent on violence and intimidation

Not me.

CCWs are very rarely issued here. Threats to life? It's mainly organised crime killing their own. The only time I could see myself using deadly force - as *required* by law, a prima facie CLDH - is if someone was daft enough to attempt to steal my guns.

There is a legal notice on the books allowing me to use disproportionate force in the case of a home invasion at night. In that instance, I wouldn't have to show a threat to life or my guns. Could I lawfully use a firearm, though? I don't know. Shotgun, maybe. Rifle or pistol, I think not. But that's never been tested in court as the only time somebody needed it, she, and it was a she, used a butcher knife.

"Rifle or pistol"

There are specific clauses in the laws governing their use that make using them in this circumstance questionable. You'd probably get charged with something and have to defend your actions in court.
#15183205
ingliz wrote:Not me.

CCWs are very rarely issued here. Threats to life? It's mainly organised crime killing their own. The only time I could see myself using deadly force - as *required* by law, a prima facie CLDH - is if someone was daft enough to attempt to steal my guns.

There is a legal notice on the books allowing me to use disproportionate force in the case of a home invasion at night. In that instance, I wouldn't have to show a threat to life or my guns. Could I lawfully use a firearm, though? I don't know. Shotgun, maybe. Rifle or pistol, I think not. But that's never been tested in court as the only time somebody needed it, she, and it was a she, used a butcher knife.

"Rifle or pistol"

There are specific clauses in the laws governing their use that make using them in this circumstance questionable. You'd probably get charged with something and have to defend your actions in court.


@ingliz , I should have modified what I said earlier, that in general the gun culture in America and elsewhere is one of overt or implied violence and intimidation. And this is the case whether from ''law-abiding citizens'' or the criminal sub-culture.
  • 1
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10

So Biden's attorney general is after Hillary Clin[…]

This in my opinion shows that there are other me[…]

What about a real Universal Basic Income? A paym[…]

hello

Welcome to PoFo! Why is your cat named Ninja? T[…]