Do that to me and my car and see what happens. A few .45 Federal Home Defense hollow-points from my concealed carry weapon would put an end to his uselessness.

Yeah, but the instant you start talk of repealing or restricting the right to own weapons, you put forth an image that you want them unarmed for your own gain.


Oops, meant to reply in the video. Oh well.
In reply to this comment by VoodooV:
>> ^kymbos:

If I was wandering down the street and happened upon a man or two walking with those fucking guns I would shit my pants! Are you serious? The idea that this is ok to do is fucking perverted. Insane.


I'd be ok with armed open carry civilians..if crime really was that rampant. But it's not! We're just not fighting for our lives on a daily basis here. We have a gov't that allows for peaceful change and we vote for a president every four years. These people who casually throw around the idea of "2nd amendment remedies" just haven't really experienced a truly oppressive gov't Oh crap, the price of a latte went up. Time to lock and load fellas!! First world problems.

If I'm just walking along and I see these kids openly carrying, How am I supposed to know that they're going to protect me if some armed robber magically jumps out from the bushes? How do I know these kids aren't the robbers themselves? I'm sorry, we don't live in a world where we can easily identify our protectors with their shining auras and perfect teeth and the bad guys can be identified with their black top hat and their furled mustache.

I'm ok with an armed citizenry. Just not to this degree. It just shows how insecure and paranoid we are.

I just feel the 2nd amendment serves more of a symbolic function than an actual practical one. All it really says is that you have a duty to do something if your gov't truly becomes oppressive. By who's judgement? Again, we have people throwing around the idea of "2nd amendment remedies" whenever a vote doesn't go their way. That's not oppressive gov't people. Come back to me when we actually can't vote anymore. Any successful revolt is going to need large popular support. If you don't have that, then maybe your revolt wasn't meant to succeed.

Here's the thing though, when has the lack of a 2nd amendment ever stopped anyone from overthrowing their gov't if enough people thought it was oppressive throughout history? if an oppressive gov't revokes your right to firearms. Do you just go home and twiddle your thumbs? No, you revolt anyway. Oppressive gov'ts don't just sit around and wait to be overthrown. If they make you an outlaw for having a gun and revolting...so what? being labeled an outlaw never stopped a successful revolt. If they take away your guns...you steal them back. To me it just doesn't seem to make a difference if we have a 2nd amendment or not. A modern military is not going to be deterred by dad's old shotgun. so even if you were allowed only home defense weapons and you needed to revolt. The first thing you do is that you steal some military weapons and/or you find sympathetic members of the military to side with you. if the gov't really has gotten that bad, you'll find entire outfits willing to defect I'd be willing to bet. You're going to need military training for your revolt in any case. 2nd amendment just tells you that you aught to revolt if gov't gets bad. Doesn't say anything about whether or not revolt would be easy. 2nd Amendment or no, ANY revolt is going to be massively bloody.

So hey..maybe we should put down the guns and solve our problems like adults in the 21st century. No one wants a revolution on their hands.

>> ^kymbos:

If I was wandering down the street and happened upon a man or two walking with those fucking guns I would shit my pants! Are you serious? The idea that this is ok to do is fucking perverted. Insane.


I'd be ok with armed open carry civilians..if crime really was that rampant. But it's not! We're just not fighting for our lives on a daily basis here. We have a gov't that allows for peaceful change and we vote for a president every four years. These people who casually throw around the idea of "2nd amendment remedies" just haven't really experienced a truly oppressive gov't Oh crap, the price of a latte went up. Time to lock and load fellas!! First world problems.

If I'm just walking along and I see these kids openly carrying, How am I supposed to know that they're going to protect me if some armed robber magically jumps out from the bushes? How do I know these kids aren't the robbers themselves? I'm sorry, we don't live in a world where we can easily identify our protectors with their shining auras and perfect teeth and the bad guys can be identified with their black top hat and their furled mustache.

I'm ok with an armed citizenry. Just not to this degree. It just shows how insecure and paranoid we are.

I just feel the 2nd amendment serves more of a symbolic function than an actual practical one. All it really says is that you have a duty to do something if your gov't truly becomes oppressive. By who's judgement? Again, we have people throwing around the idea of "2nd amendment remedies" whenever a vote doesn't go their way. That's not oppressive gov't people. Come back to me when we actually can't vote anymore. Any successful revolt is going to need large popular support. If you don't have that, then maybe your revolt wasn't meant to succeed.

Here's the thing though, when has the lack of a 2nd amendment ever stopped anyone from overthrowing their gov't if enough people thought it was oppressive throughout history? if an oppressive gov't revokes your right to firearms. Do you just go home and twiddle your thumbs? No, you revolt anyway. Oppressive gov'ts don't just sit around and wait to be overthrown. If they make you an outlaw for having a gun and revolting...so what? being labeled an outlaw never stopped a successful revolt. If they take away your guns...you steal them back. To me it just doesn't seem to make a difference if we have a 2nd amendment or not. A modern military is not going to be deterred by dad's old shotgun. so even if you were allowed only home defense weapons and you needed to revolt. The first thing you do is that you steal some military weapons and/or you find sympathetic members of the military to side with you. if the gov't really has gotten that bad, you'll find entire outfits willing to defect I'd be willing to bet. You're going to need military training for your revolt in any case. 2nd amendment just tells you that you aught to revolt if gov't gets bad. Doesn't say anything about whether or not revolt would be easy. 2nd Amendment or no, ANY revolt is going to be massively bloody.

So hey..maybe we should put down the guns and solve our problems like adults in the 21st century. No one wants a revolution on their hands.

Zimmerman should hope they release a lot of information done by both white and black investigators from all over. If he doesn't get some very public information showing that they can't find evidence to arrest him or put him before a jury and convince them. The only thing that is going to allow him to live any sort of life after this is that kind of public release with many of the investigators involved saying the same exact thing....no discrepancies and no one better be left saying the police didn't interview them. No one should say the security cameras were not checked. No one should say phone records were not collected. The botched investigation has at much to do with the outrage as Zimmerman chasing down Trayvon and killing him. If the investigation were done properly there would not be all of this doubt and intrigue around the case, buy they know they screwed up, otherwise they would have come forward with the information instead of getting outside investigations into it. Or someone knows they screwed up, and ordered it that way to cover their ass.


The racism part of it will never be satisfied to any sort of middle ground for most people...just is not going to happen at this point.

If they fail to do all of this one more time, Zimmerman will be screwed. I don't even think witness protection would keep people from recognizing him for quite awhile after this, if he could get it.

And shang, I don't believe you. I've seen other people say a lot of these things and anything they point to gets debunked a day later.

If they had eye witness reports of Trayvon attacking Zimmerman, they would not have news reports saying there is about a minute of unknown sequence of events between the 911 call ending and a witness seeing Zimmerman on his back with Trayvon on top.

Trayvon has no arrest record that has ever come out. There ARE people making claims that he has a "criminal activity record", making it sounds like a police record. But when questioned the best they can come up with is that the school suspended him for....... and even a lot of that is made up and debunked after the news "breaks" it and they have to retract their claims. Zimmerman has 4 case records, 2 are related to him having an encounter with an officer where he got PTD. 2 are related to domestic violence case in civil court. So he has been arrested and taken what amounts to a "get your shit straight or be found guilty" program in lieu of trial for it being his first offense.

According to a witness, Zimmerman was not found on the ground when police arrived. He was standing over Trayvon just moments after he shot him. Police found him this way. Otherwise, Trayvon would have been laying on top of him if he was still found on the ground..since Trayvon was on top of him during the fight and supposedly when he shot and killed him.

SYG has stipulations for home defense in line with Castle Doctrine, but it does not apply here unless they have unreleased information saying that he was trying to defend his vehicle. I am of the opinion that Trayvon Martin should be covered under SYG, but I won't post all that here...it's in another sift on here regarding TYT covering the case.

The idea that banning guns to make the country safer is NOT laughable when you have a civil society that enjoys its freedoms and doesn't have guerilla forces as part of a rebellion. The reason those people exist is basically to "Fight the Man" and last time I checked, the U.S.A. doesn't exactly have that problem.

Hi Shepppard! Thanks for completely ignoring the factual basis of my post. Here it is for you AGAIN, stated more simply for you:

1: Firearms have been smuggled into prisons. They can be smuggled into a country. If they are illegal then by definition the only private citizens that can get their hands on them are criminals.

(hurp hurp, it's the old "if guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns" bit.)

2: Weapons are assembled in the middle of nowhere (jungle camps, Pakistani villages, etc) and do not require extremely specialized machinery to make. Even if they could not be manufactured openly, and even if they could not be smuggled in, criminals would still have no trouble manufacturing firearms and ammunition. To put a stop to this, you'd have to ban or regulate a lot of tools and materials that have many constructive uses.

This is why it's vital that private citizens retain the right to carry firearms. Because you can't stop them from getting them.

Private citizens require firearms to make sure they can defend themselves against criminals? Seriously? you don't think people carry guns when they break into peoples houses? That's just naive.

Where did you get the idea that most break-ins are committed by people packing heat? I don't doubt it happens that some do have guns, but from all the break-in cases I've heard, the usual burlger/rapist is armed with something that's less obviously a weapon (and not as expensive as a gun), like a heavy pipe, wrench, or a knife.

If you're that worried that someone's gonna break into your house, sleep next to a bat. If neither side has a gun, it's basically which ever one has the bigger melee weapon wins, and last time I checked, if you're breaking into someones house, you don't take a claymore, They draw a knife, you pick up the bat. Problem solved.

Well, I guess we'll all have to yield to your vast experience and/or research in the field of "home defense melee combat".

1: Failing that, saner people will realize that someone breaking into your house is going to have the advantage of surprise and will probably be stronger than you (as an expert in this field I'm surprised you didn't mention strength as a deciding factor in melee combat). Making you SOL.

It's much less of a problem if you have a gun though. You might be terrible at baseball bat fencing after being woken up midway through your sleep cycle and fighting someone on nocturnal sleep cycle, but that is less of an issue with a gun, nor do guns care how strong you are.

2. If he brings friends, then you're almost certainly SOL.

A gun solves the issue of being outnumbered nicely, since fights end sooner it's less likely you'll end up fighting two people at the same instant, and makes you more or less immune to being immobilized by one while the other attacks (because you can kill them before they get that close).

Last but not least this has nothing to do with someone "breaking into our house". The chances of someone being a victim of any kind of robbery are very low, and in any case it's not robbery that's the problem.

This has to do with your personal safety wherever you are. If there was a way to tell a burglar from a rapist or murderer, I'd be all for letting them take whatever they want and letting the police sort things out, or not. Even if I don't get my stuff back, it's not worth killing someone over. Unfortunately, the only way to tell ahead of time is let them rape or murder you.

In addition to all the other terrible flaws with your "baseball bat" idea, it's utterly useless when you're anywhere other than at home or home base. Last I checked, people also get mugged, and you'll get funny looks carrying a baseball bat around, in addition to it being completely ineffective against a decent mugger/rapist/murder/gang, which again will have the advantage of surprise.

Again, this has nothing to do with my personal worries. The chances that any of this happens to anyone are very low, but should it happen you're completely utterly fucked without a gun.

I contend that passing a law forbidding private citizens from carrying firearms leads to situations where one person can kill many, with the many helpless. This is unconscionable.

oh, and as for your "Extra lols", Really? Do you think that the secret service doesn't care that there's loaded firearms at a rally for the president?
are you THAT naive? your country has a bit of a track record for assassinations and attempted assassinations. If there's ANY person carrying a weapon at a rally, you can bet your ass they're being watched like a hawk.

Yeah, except if you read the article you'd know the secret service wasn't worried because
A) the rallies took place well away from where the president was and they of course had that area secured (no firearms are allowed in a federal venue). As for our track record for assassinations, I can't recall one that had the assassin carrying openly while loudly demonstrating. Assassins like to keep a low profile, but I guess you wouldn't know that since you majored in "home defense melee combat" and not "underhanded techniques of murder for hire".

"There's a reason that the police force was invented, and contrary to common belief, no, it was not to go around tazing people."

Not relevant, even if true.

The police can't protect you unless they're aware that you're in danger, and they're near enough to help. Those two facts mean there would have be many, many more police to make them an effective means of self defense. As it is, they are not an effective means for the defense of your person.

Fun fact: retired police officers and military love carrying and owning firearms. I wonder why?

Really, your post shows that you're about as in touch with reality as the right wing idiots that watch fox news.

Personally, I use a 12 gauge shotgun for home defense. It was cheap, but good construction, easy to fire and very clearly tells intruders whats coming for them. My first warning for intruders is yelling "Who's there?" My 2nd is chambering a shell. That is a truly universal sound in this day in age.

1. Gun Grabber? Are you a member of a well regulated militia? Do you have guns at home for personal home defense or recreation? Then you're fine. Is trading foreign-made assault rifles at gun shows or concealing pistols something you enjoy? Only a chance of a problem. This is a non-issue that the old conservatives use to drum up votes.

Divide and conquer. "That's right, we're only going after gun show people." (Next year) "Don't worry rifle owners/hunters, we're only going after handguns." And so on.
During Katrina, armed "good guys" arrived at less-damaged homes and confiscated all firearms from private citizens without any lawful reason. While some years are more intense than others, there will never be a time to relax vigilance on this issue.

The easiest thing, unfortunately, is to try to place restrictions on who can buy guns, who can buy ammo, what kinds of guns can be sold, etc.

All the 50.000 gun laws we have on the books now do is keep honest people honest, make it harder for them to defend themselves and, of course, squeeze a few dollars more out of them via licensing. The criminals, obviously, don't care about gun control laws.

I did look at the Barack firearms page. There's nothing there that he can do that hasn't already been tried or isn't being done. Very little of it has an impact, and even if Barack put a personalized stamp on each idea, no one could reasonably hold any single politician accountable for such vague, general measures.

2. Oh Jesus, capital gains tax... are we talking long-term capital gains? 5% is less than 20%? ... my ears are open as to how that works. Keep in mind I don't listen to O'Reilly or Limbaugh.

Lower taxes = higher government revenue, as in revenue for your government funding, etc. Whether it comes from Limbaugh or Franken, a fact is a fact. Raising taxes as a way to demonstrably "punish the rich" satisfies the so-called little guys' illusions while hurting them all the more. "You may lose a hand, but we're going to make those evil rich people lose an arm!" (No, I'm not wealthy, but I don't want to drive wealthy people away with higher taxes and more regulations).

.3. Heh, lol on this one. At least you didn't say the ex-Marine was anti-American.

Lee Harvey Oswald was also an ex-Marine. We needn't go there.

Wright remains a crank. Barack took too long to disassociate himself, and even if he hadn't, he's been aligned with Wright's political church for 20+ years.

We can agree on this: Obama's supporters are willing to overlook anything they find wrong with Wright, and to his non-supporters, there's no positive angle to the Obama/Wright association.

Not to cut this short, but our differences are philosophical about the purpose of government:

You're a scientist in a field that either earns most of its bread from government funding (or has limited opportunities in the private sector). Concurrent with that, you see government as a tool to balance natural inequities in economics and social dynamics. Were I you, I'd vote for Obama or Hillary.

Generally, I view government as a water-stream of good intentions sprayed onto an oil fire of problemos. I believe in what Patrick Moynihan called, "Benign neglect", letting natural consequences and the free market shape society. Government is at its best when enforcing the few laws that make sense, and killing barbarians at the gate. But on its best day, it's still nothing more than raw force, a good servant but terrible master.

Every time the government is given power, it's power we the people never get back again. Therefore I'm wary.

Who knows how McLame (or McShamnesty or McNasty, take your pick) might 'lead' as President, but even at his most liberal he won't be as liberal as O-bam or Hillary. That might not bring you much comfort, but odds are you'll have your funding and employment regardless of who makes it in. Although the mainstream media denies it, Bush is a liberal about everything but Iraq.

For fun: if I had to choose only between Barack and Hillary, I'd choose Barack.


In reply to this comment by bamdrew:
1. Gun Grabber? Are you a member of a well regulated militia? Do you have guns at home for personal home defense or recreation? Then you're fine. Is trading foreign-made assault rifles at gun shows or concealing pistols something you enjoy?....

You're right gun-free 'zones' don't work. When you're one of few states in country that on the whole has liberal gun ownership laws and simply ludicrous gun ownership levels compared to any other developed country, you'd be naive to propose than it would be anything but marginally more difficult for criminals to smuggle legally purchased firearms in from neighbouring states, unless you enforce highly stringent cross border checks.

There are more peaceful countries with more guns per person than the USA. Mind you, they have small, homogenous populations and guns are more a part of their sport culture. No matter the country, the bad guys have guns and can get guns. Always will.

I've lived in both kinds of states. The People's Republic of Mexifornia has stringent gun control laws in violation of the 2nd Amendment. Unless carrying illegally, the citizens there are unarmed sheep. The idea there is to keep people dependent on Big Government. Individual victims are unimportant.

In right-to-carry states (close to 40 states now) crimes shift from invasion (victims at home) and carjacking to theivery when the victim isn't around, though I always enjoy reading about a 90-year-old granny with an S&W permanently recalling some deserving idiot who tried to break into her home.

In the same way, a universal ban on firearms would likely not have any immediate drastic effects on violent crime involving firearms, other factors such as living standards, unemployment levels notwithstanding. A governmental requisitioning of all registered firearms would be far more effective, such the one conducted in Australia which saw 650,000 firearms surrendered in 1997, and a 47% decrease of firearms related deaths in just four years. Again though, with an estimated 50% of US households owning guns with a significant number unregistered, and a potentially far higher average gross amount, the effects would be unlikely to be felt immediately.

My understanding is that crime went up after Australia's gun ban.

http://www.geoffmetcalf.com/aus.html

It only makes sense. If a guy holding a cricket bat doesn't know if I have a gun behind my back, he might not be so quick to attack. Take away that criminal's certainty that he won't be seriously injured and you only embolden him. There's simply no reason to believe that criminals will stop acquiring guns by any means necessary. Gun control punishes only the law-abiding.

Pushing the libertarian approach of the Second Ammendment is skirting around the issue in two ways. Firstly the Second Ammendment talks about the need for a well trained armed militia which is arguable at best in terms of modern necessity and the likely initial motivation for the clause.

The Supreme Court of the United States does not share the liberal view that 'The People' refers to organized militias. It is defined as an individual right.

Secondly where is this connection between the assumption that gun ownership is a supposed human right and the Second Ammendment? That's an separate argument entirely and is very debatable.

Self-defense is a fundamental human right. Firearms are merely a technological extension/expression of this right. People who believe in non-violence to the point they would not resist an attack from someone trying to kill them have the right to not resist and be killed, though most people would call such a thing "suicide by murder." But people do not have the right to hinder or remove others' right to self-defense just because they think disarmament will create "a safer environment". If there was a walled village somewhere that wanted to ban all guns, and all the people living there agreed to it, I don't see anything wrong with that. Unless they were going to be robbed.

The state's role is to provide collective security, it's not simply true that individual freedoms should be protected at any cost and to any extreme case by default, that's a circular argument. How far would you take that absolute argument exactly?

In addition to the right to bear arms--which truly is a right that should apply to every human being save criminals--I believe there are reasonable standards for self-defense that should never be infringed upon. There's no valid reason why any adult citizen of sound mind could not have a firearm to protect the lives of family and to a limited degree, property. Most Americans are unaware it's perfectly legal to own machine guns, and many hobbyists and collectors pay the extra licensing fees and do. We all know a missile launcher for home defense is as impractical as driving a dragster to work; it's not really an issue.

Hard drugs like cocaine? Biological weapons? In my view collective security includes restricting gun ownership to police and trained security personnel. Obviously your view differs but it's not logical to claim that by default without any justification as to why you draw the line exactly where you do.

I understand your point of view. Again, in countries like Japan where people are obedient rule followers, the State can get away with total gun control. However, the downside of that level of obedience is when the Emperor commands, "Go crash your plane into ship." There are certain segments of societies that can and do live without guns. But it only works if it's by choice and there are zero criminals about.

Oh and just out of interest, how likely do you really think that faced with a gun pointing at your face, you'd be able to protect yourself with a loaded and armed firearms conveniently with you at all times (which you of course know how to use) and not tucked away and unarmed in a desk drawer to ensure your 4 year old doesn't get their hands on it?

I think you've answered your own question in a roundabout way. If you think that it's impossible to defend yourself with a nearby firearm, how do YOU expect police and trained security personnel to save you? In America, there's no law that says a cop has to take a bullet for you or is required to give their life to save yours. American law loosely defines police as supposed to "protect society." That doesn't mean anythng to you and me personally. The joke is: 9-1-1 is govt.-sponsored Dial-a-Prayer.

The 4-year-old and gun safety issues are aided by the same thing that allows people to move relatively safely in a world of chainsaws, cars and not smoking while pumping gasoline: education.

Regarding your Wild West scenario, most criminals are after cash or other valuables. They don't want to have extended shootouts, and even when they're nutballs like the coward at Virgina Tech, they don't want anyone else being able to shoot back. While no single student with a gun may have been able to take out that nut, the more people that might've had a gun the better the odds would've been of stopping him sooner.

In the USA, guns are used to save lives over 2 millions times a year. Most of those incidents, the gun isn't fired, merely drawn.

Even if you never own a gun, don't you owe it to yourself to learn firearm basics and safety? They are a part of this world.

For those wondering about the relevance of these posts to this sift, B. Hussein Obama is a gun-grabbing leftist. Those that don't trust a citizenry with guns should not be trusted with power.

How did that search for a home defense shotgun turn out, dc? (I own a relatively-inexpensive Mossberg Model 500 very similar to the one depicted, sans heatshield and bayonet lug.)

or a Terminator. Perfect for Home Defense.
That's a 30mm round that's being fired. Get a ruler and see how fat 30mm diameter is. Big.

One of those mounted on the hood of your car would make freeway travel much more pleasant. Plus it's perfect for home defense!

actually it kinda reminds me of SkyNet
http://youtube.com/watch?v=I49A09-o9ls

yet, as previously noted, despite all that firepower we still can't shoot our way out of a sandbox full of guys wearing towels on their heads.

makes me wonder why you were researching a home defense shotgun deathcow

"I was researching a home defense shotgun when I found this."

Whiskey Tango Foxtrot?