[Drlee]

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.

[The Resister]

© 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.

[The Resister]

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.

[ingliz]

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

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

[Drlee]

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.

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.

[ingliz]

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

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.

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.

[ingliz]

Fucking up in a gunfight.

Fun fact...

Shooting oneself.

Most negligent discharges happen while drawing or re-holstering a handgun.

[Drlee]

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.

[annatar1914]

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.

[ingliz]

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.

[annatar1914]

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.

[The Resister]

I've been waiting to see if anyone is really posting on this board. It looks like you only have a couple of sockpuppets with virtually nobody that is interested in civil discourse on The Charter itself.

The Charter now at www.usresisters.com has expanded and Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene having introduced the usresister's bill to abolish the BATFE is now before Congress. I'd like to thank those who have supported our efforts thus far and thank the owners of this board for allowing us to discuss The Charter in spite of the unwarranted criticism.

[B0ycey]

You post and I'll read it @The Resister. Although I am not American and not interested in your ideology, you are interesting in any case.

[Drlee]

Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene having introduced the usresister's bill to abolish the BATFE is now before Congress.

She is an idiot Q drone and IF she has such a bill it will go exactly nowhere. But it is nice she is occupied doing this monumental waste of time. It keeps her from annoying the adults.

[annatar1914]

She is an idiot Q drone and IF she has such a bill it will go exactly nowhere. But it is nice she is occupied doing this monumental waste of time. It keeps her from annoying the adults.

@Drlee ;

Let's think about that Bill for a moment.

An abolition of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms would mean an even more lucrative trade in arms already illegal, and in items that while legal themselves, would be delivered to their customers un-taxed, depriving local, state and federal governments of revenue for internal improvements.

It's this outlaw mentality that is going to backfire on these lunatics, perhaps. There are many persons in America of traditional and conservative backgrounds who (when looking at this GOP Anarchism) don't want to live in a deliberate structural Afghanistan or Somalia, and who value a more robust use of governmental power to improve society. But then I remember anti-taxation GOP leaders years ago like Grover Norquist (who wanted to reduce the government to almost non-existence) who also happened to be married to a Muslim activist, and I think; maybe their goal really is America as a Somalia or Afghanistan?

[Rich]

If one reads his other thread - all Ubermenschen Whites and the Untermensch, the poor Black destined to serve - I think it's obvious what @The Resister wants. He acknowledges that rights are nonsense, a nonsense that any sensible person wouldn't expect his inferiors to enjoy, and invites us to go on a journey.

Perhaps nothing demonstrates the triumph of Cultural Marxism better than this post. That people can pass over this without batting an eyelid. First off, who is White? Are Japanese White? I'm a person of tan am I White? Are Sri Lankans Black? But what ever your definition of Black is, what percentage of Nazi Germany's servant and slave workers were Black? Was Albert Einstein part of this supposedly Black untermensch?

[ingliz]

First off

He was parroting Silver Shirt/American Nazi Party bollocks calling for a Christian Commonwealth in America that would combine the principles of racism, nationalism, and theocracy while excluding Jews and non-Whites, with a particular emphasis on non-Whites as he defined them.

What else is one to think?

[Drlee]

First off, who is White? Are Japanese White? I'm a person of tan am I White? Are Sri Lankans Black? But what ever your definition of Black is, what percentage of Nazi Germany's servant and slave workers were Black?

Oddly the answer to this is "all Germans in Nazi Germany were servants and slaves". Race, though they did not know it at the time, was a distinction without a difference with regard to state servitude.

I remember when I was in the Army there was a joke going around. "Solders. In the Army there are no black soldiers. There are no white soldiers. There are only green soldiers. Now after this meeting I want the dark green soldiers to clean up the meeting room."

I agree also with @annatar1914 that some of this may blow up in their faces. Many of my enthusiastic far right friends are mellowing. Trump's participation in the Virginia is seemingly harming the Republican candidate.

[Rich]

He was parroting Silver Shirt/American Nazi Party bollocks calling for a Christian Commonwealth in America that would combine the principles of racism, nationalism, and theocracy while excluding Jews and non-Whites, with a particular emphasis on non-Whites as he defined them.

What else is one to think?

I often find myself at a disadvantage in debating leftists as they so often seem so familiar with modern extreme morphological racist and extreme anti-Jewish websites, publications and organisations, while I remain almost completely ignorant of them. Rightly or wrongly as I haven't seen them as particularly politically or culturally important or contributing much in terms of interesting ideas. But anyway the picture you posted was of Adolph Hitler not the American Nazi party. While Hitler never disavowed his Catholicism, I don't think anyone could reasonably accuse him of trying to create a Christian Commonwealth in Germany.

In addition @The Resister seems to be virulently anti-Socialist, so I can't quite see the connection with National Socialist Hitler. Now I personally don't believe in property restitution or individual compensation beyond a 150, although I do believe in reparations for the use of German slave labour after world war II and from the successor states to the Barbary pirates. But as I understand it the normal justification for the appropriation of so called Indian land, by "The Constitutionalists" is that there was no individual property rights in these lands to violate. Again this is totally different to the occupation of Poland or Czechoslovakia or indeed the seizure of Jewish property in Germany by the Nazis where there were clearly established individual property rights.

[Pants-of-dog]

For the sake of historical accuracy, many Indigenous communities had (and still have) their own property laws and “rights”.

European settlers merely disregarded these laws and claims, which is where we get the myth that Indigenous people had no concept of land ownership.

Part of it was racism, part of it was that the underlying paradigms informing land ownership were very different (not only between Indigenous communities and Europeans, but also between Indigenous communities), and part of it was simply greed.