3 Pittsburgh Police Officers Murdered

[Ice]

https://img15.imageshack.us/img15/1898/artpittsflagsgi.jpg (https://img15.imageshack.us/my.php?image=artpittsflagsgi.jpg)


http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/04/06/pittsburgh.officers.shot/index.html

The chief said Sciullo was the first to approach the home, and was shot in the head as he entered the doorway. When Mayhle tried to help his fellow officer, he also was shot in the head. Kelly arrived at the scene and was shot before he could aid the other two officers, Harper said.

Harper said the suspect fired from a bedroom window, shooting at an armored vehicle carrying a SWAT team -- preventing those officers and medics from reaching the wounded policemen.

Two other officers, Timothy McManaway and Brian Jones, were injured. McManaway was shot in the hand and Jones, who was trying to secure the rear of the house, broke his leg trying to get over a fence, Harper said.

Autopsies showed that Kelly died of gunshot wounds to the trunk and lower extremities, Sciullo died from gunshot wounds to the head and trunk, and Mayhle was shot in the head, the complaint said.

"We have never had to lose three officers in the line of duty on one call," Harper, the police chief, said. "They have paid the ultimate sacrifice."
advertisement

Authorities believe Poplawski, wearing a bullet-proof vest, aimed more than 100 rounds at police, using an AK-47, Harper said Saturday.

Police had responded to calls from the home two or three times previously, Harper said

This Strikes a bit close to home because I use to live in Pittsburgh and perceived it to be a very safe city. RIP.

Can anyone explain to me why one should be able to own a bullet proof vest and AK-47? Leave the constitution aside please.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Can someone please explain to me why some people think guns are the worst problem ever in a society and must start questioning whether or not we should have the right to own something because the media likes to play only negative eye catching stories.

EDIT: If the police officers had been chopped to death would you be asking why anyone should own knives?

[Strike For The South]

Because One tragedy does not amount to much.

AKs are collectors items here in the states, body armor doesn't have many practical uses but I fail to see why it should be abolished.

ACIN: Your argument holds no water one can't chop an officer with a knife. As the officer would shoot him

[Lemur]

It's kinda hard to "leave the Constitution aside," what with it being the binding document of our nation. Also worth noting that body armor would have done little to help the first two victims, since Richard Poplawski went for headshots.

I'm more interested in the fact that this murderous idiot was drinking deep from the paranoia fountains on several fronts, not least of which was the wingnutter conspiracy theories. The only person responsible for the crimes of Richard Poplawski is Richard Poplawski, but the far right should be aware of what kind of tinder they're scraping a flint over (http://www.postgazette.com/pg/09096/960938-100.stm).


"The federal government, mainstream media, and banking system in these United States are strongly under the influence of -- if not completely controlled by -- Zionist interest," the post declares. "An economic collapse of the financial system is inevitable, bringing with it some degree of civil unrest if not outright balkanization of the continental US, civil/revolutionary/racial war . . . This collapse is likely engineered by the elite Jewish powers that be in order to make for a power and asset grab." [...]

Mr. Pitcavage today said Mr. Poplawski's comments bear out a growing concern by extremist-watchers in the wake of the election of President Barack Obama.

"We've been concerned about the possibility of an upsurge in right-wing extremist violence due to two possibilities: the vitriolic reaction of the extreme right to the election of Barack Obama and the severe economic recession that the country is in," he said.

Note that today Congresswoman and insane person Michelle Bachman declared on the radio that Obama's administration intends to herd our young people into re-education camps (http://minnesotaindependent.com/31237/bachmann-reedcuation-camps). You can't go selling this sort of crazy on a national level and not expect some fringe lunatics to, you know, act on it.

[Ice]

Can someone please explain to me why some people think guns are the worst problem ever in a society and must start questioning whether or not we should have the right to own something because the media likes to play only negative eye catching stories.

EDIT: If the police officers had been chopped to death would you be asking why anyone should own knives?

Oh get off your high horse already. Notice how i said Ak 47 and Kevlar vest. Did I say all guns? No I did not.

[Ice]

It's kinda hard to "leave the Constitution aside," what with it being the binding document of our nation. Also worth noting that body armor would have done little to help the first two victims, since Richard Poplawski went for headshots.


When I said "leaving the constiution aside" I simply meant do not turn this into a legal battle. Look at it from a logical perspective. I'm not saying the 2nd amendment isn't logical, but I don't want this thread to spiral into that kind of debate.

I also wasn't referring to the police when I said body armor. I meant the shooter.

Edit:


AKs are collectors items here in the states, body armor doesn't have many practical uses but I fail to see why it should be abolished.

Body armor (for civilian use) should be abolished because I fail to see it's practical use other than gearing up to rob a bank or take on the police. You don't have time to put on body armor when someone is trying to rob your house, nor does anyone (most I asusme) wear it on a regular basis.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Oh get off your high horse already. Notice how i said Ak 47 and Kevlar vest. Did I say all guns? No I did not.

How about you stop pretending to be naive about what you tried to do with this post. You posted a deadly and tragic shooting and asked why do we allow such guns and armor to be allowed, to get pissed over this turning into another gun control debate is idiotic. Thats like posting a story about a stupid 13 year old having 6 abortions asking why she is allowed to do such a thing and then getting pissed when it turns into a giant abortion debate.

EDIT: Yeah, go ahead and flag me mods, I don't care at this point.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

When I said "leaving the constiution aside" I simply meant do not turn this into a legal battle. Look at it from a logical perspective. I'm not saying the 2nd amendment isn't logical, but I don't want this thread to spiral into that kind of debate.


From the description I don't see that the ak-47 was an issue over a regular gun. It says they were shot in the head at close range.


Body armor (for civilian use) should be abolished because I fail to see it's practical use other than gearing up to rob a bank or take on the police. You don't have time to put on body armor when someone is trying to rob your house, nor does anyone (most I asusme) wear it on a regular basis.

The questions here are "how long does it take to put body armor on" and "how hard is it to make"?

I don't know a lot about it but I can't imagine it takes long to put on or is particularly hard to make. They made a vest out of bathroom tiles on mythbusters that stopped a 9mm.

[Strike For The South]

Body armor (for civilian use) should be abolished because I fail to see it's practical use other than gearing up to rob a bank or take on the police. You don't have time to put on body armor when someone is trying to rob your house, nor does anyone (most I asusme) wear it on a regular basis.

If you work in a bad part of town perhaps?

[Ice]

How about you stop pretending to be naive about what you tried to do with this post. You posted a deadly and tragic shooting and asked why do we allow such guns and armor to be allowed, to get pissed over this turning into another gun control debate is idiotic. Thats like posting a story about a stupid 13 year old having 6 abortions asking why she is allowed to do such a thing and then getting pissed when it turns into a giant abortion debate.

EDIT: Yeah, go ahead and flag me mods, I don't care at this point.

I'm not going to flag the mods... not sure where you got that idea.

I'm not trying to be naive at all. For the record, I do approve of gun ownership, just on a very restricted basis. I do not believe anyone needs/should be allowed to own an Ak47.


From the description I don't see that the ak-47 was an issue over a regular gun. It says they were shot in the head at close range.

I was more directed toward the fact that he was able to suppress police long enough for the officers to die, although I do admit I'm not sure how much help would have done. We will never know. Would a lower caliber weapon done less damage?


he questions here are "how long does it take to put body armor on" and "how hard is it to make"?

I don't know a lot about it but I can't imagine it takes long to put on or is particularly hard to make. They made a vest out of bathroom tiles on mythbusters that stopped a 9mm

I've just never heard of anyone using body armor for home defense. I very well could be wrong, but that is the impression I have.

[Ice]

If you work in a bad part of town perhaps?

Point taken, but I've known plenty of people to work in dangerous/crappy parts of town where my home is around Detroit. Not one of them wore body armor. You would probably wear it a for a few days, and realize how much of a pain in the ass it would be and how it probably wouldn't save your life if push came to shove.

Edit:

You probably shouldn't be working there if you need to wear body armor to work.

[Strike For The South]

Point taken, but I've known plenty of people to work in dangerous/crappy parts of town where my home is around Detroit. Not one of them wore body armor. You would probably wear it a for a few days, and realize how much of a pain in the ass it would be and how it probably wouldn't save your life if push came to shove.

Some body armor is quite light and movement friendly. The expensive kind but still

[Lemur]

Actually, body armor is restricted on a State-by-State basis. Some States ban it for civilian use outright, others just make it a felony to commit a crime while wearing the stuff (if this seems pointless to you, consider how a DA can heap up the charges on a defendant; throwing in another violation makes it that much worse for the criminal).

Body armor is not protected under the Second Amendment, and nobody has made a serious argument that it is.

That said, I did a long article for a now-defunct publication on the subject of body armor, and most of their clients had genuine needs. Businessmen traveling to dangerous areas, for example, or public figures with multiple stalkers. One guy even told me about selling a Spectra-lined coat to a woman who was afraid of her ex-husband, who mad threatened to shoot her on more than one occasion.

I don't see how you could have hoped to avoid this turning into a gun control thread, what with your premise. Seems kinda ... naive ...

[a completely inoffensive name]

I'm not going to flag the mods... not sure where you got that idea.

I'm not trying to be naive at all. For the record, I do approve of gun ownership, just on a very restricted basis. I do not believe anyone needs/should be allowed to own an Ak47.


I was talking to the mods not you. I just don't understand the concept of approving gun ownership then restricting what and how much the public can buy when the criminals themselves don't follow the gun laws and buy them illegally on the black market, which are usually untraceable. The only people you are preventing getting guns are the law abiding citizens.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Some body armor is quite light and movement friendly. The expensive kind but still

I saw somewhere a company that made Kevlar lined suits and coats for men and women, which had various degrees of protection depending on how much you shelled out for the higher end products. Is that what you are talking about?

[Ice]

I was talking to the mods not you. I just don't understand the concept of approving gun ownership then restricting what and how much the public can buy when the criminals themselves don't follow the gun laws and buy them illegally on the black market, which are usually untraceable. The only people you are preventing getting guns are the law abiding citizens.

I never liked that argument. I would venture to guess that most people don't exactly know where to go to buy an Ak off the black market


I don't see how you could have hoped to avoid this turning into a gun control thread, what with your premise. Seems kinda ... naive ...

That was the point of the thread. To clarify, I do not want a legal battle. This is why I asked to exclude the Constitution from decision. A logical debate about gun control is fine though.

For the specific situations in which mentioned, I would have no problem allowing those people to wear body armor. Perhaps I believe it should be more closely regulated. You should need a legitimate reason for purchasing armor. Reasons such as "I need the armor when the entire country collapses and descends into total anarchy" should not be a good reason to purchase armor.

[Lemur]

Trust me, Kevlar is old-school. All the Secret Service guys had moved on to Spectra Shield (http://www51.honeywell.com/sm/afc/products-details/shield-details/Spectra-Shield.html?c=32) when I did the article, and that was back in the nineties. Who knows what they're using now.

For the specific situations in which mentioned, I would have no problem allowing those people to wear body armor. Perhaps I believe it should be more closely regulated. You should need a legitimate reason for purchasing armor.
Well, as any cop or lawyer can tell you, the law is a blunt instrument, famously bad at discerning intent. If we could draw up all of our laws to apply only to people with bad motives and crazy running around in their heads, we wouldn't need many laws at all.

For example, many states allow you to purchase suppressed ("silenced") weapons, but only if you can convince your local law enforcement that you have a need. This has been inefficient at best, and generally means that people related to the local sheriff are allowed to buy suppressed weapons and nobody else can. But that's as close as the law has gotten to your "only have it if you can demonstrate a need" idea.

[a completely inoffensive name]

I never liked that argument. I would venture to guess that most people don't exactly know where to go to buy an Ak off the black market



That was the point of the thread. To clarify, I do not want a legal battle. This is why I asked to exclude the Constitution from decision. A logical debate about gun control is fine though.

For the specific situations in which mentioned, I would have no problem allowing those people to wear body armor. Perhaps I believe it should be more closely regulated. You should need a legitimate reason for purchasing armor. Reasons such as "I need the armor when the entire country collapses and descends into total anarchy" should not be a good reason to purchase armor.

Law abiding citizens don't, criminals do. Again, criminals are different from the average person, it is their life to to buy these weapons and commit crimes with them. It is the life of an English teacher to teach others the difference between your and you're yet from what I have seen I would venture to guess that the average Internet user does not seem to know this. (Especially on bigger forums then the org)

EDIT:
Also who has the right to tell us what we can and cannot buy?

Half of the consumer products people buy nowadays are backed up with as little reasoning as buying some body armor.

[Ice]

Law abiding citizens don't, criminals do. Again, criminals are different from the average person, it is their life to to buy these weapons and commit crimes with them. It is the life of an English teacher to teach others the difference between your and you're yet from what I have seen I would venture to guess that the average Internet user does not seem to know this. (Especially on bigger forums then the org)

What's stopping otherwise law abiding citizens from using these weapons incorrectly in either a crime of passion or in a premeditated manner?



Also who has the right to tell us what we can and cannot buy?

The government already does this to many things. Unless you are in favor of absolutely no government intervention, this argument does not hold weight.


Half of the consumer products people buy nowadays are backed up with as little reasoning as buying some body armor.

I agree, but so what? An easy bake oven does not equate to body armor.

[Ice]

Trust me, Kevlar is old-school. All the Secret Service guys had moved on to Spectra Shield (http://www51.honeywell.com/sm/afc/products-details/shield-details/Spectra-Shield.html?c=32) when I did the article, and that was back in the nineties. Who knows what they're using now.

Well, as any cop or lawyer can tell you, the law is a blunt instrument, famously bad at discerning intent. If we could draw up all of our laws to apply only to people with bad motives and crazy running around in their heads, we wouldn't need many laws at all.

For example, many states allow you to purchase suppressed ("silenced") weapons, but only if you can convince your local law enforcement that you have a need. This has been inefficient at best, and generally means that people related to the local sheriff are allowed to buy suppressed weapons and nobody else can. But that's as close as the law has gotten to your "only have it if you can demonstrate a need" idea.

That just sounds down right corrupt. I wouldn't think it would be too difficult to apply for body armor for the reasons of visiting a dangerous part of the world or having a crazy ex spouse.

[a completely inoffensive name]

What's stopping otherwise law abiding citizens from using these weapons incorrectly in either a crime of passion or in a premeditated manner?

Nothing, but that is something that is simply out of our control. Those who preemptively strive at a criminal career will not frequent a gun shop, but an emotional man or woman will, yes, however this is simply human nature and cannot be prevented unless we get the power to read peoples minds such as in that movie "Minority Report". What is to stop law abiding citizens from using anything as a weapon? Nothing, it is one of the many prices we pay for the ability of enjoying the freedom we do of living life however we want, with as many guns as we want to feel safe.




The government already does this to many things. Unless you are in favor of absolutely no government intervention, this argument does not hold weight.
For the most part, I really am in favor of less gov. intervention in most subjects. What we can buy with our money, what we can do and put in our bodies are really no places for the gov. to be putting in its input.



I agree, but so what? An easy bake oven does not equate to body armor.
Well, the logic is still the same. There is no reason to own body armor, it should not be allowed to be purchased. There is no reason to buy that new version of Margaritaville with salt dispenser, it should not be allowed to be purchased. You can't target body armor for not having a reason to be purchased while ignoring the fact that 90% of purchases nowadays have no reason.


123

[Xiahou]

Actually, body armor is restricted on a State-by-State basis. Some States ban it for civilian use outright, others just make it a felony to commit a crime while wearing the stuff (if this seems pointless to you, consider how a DA can heap up the charges on a defendant; throwing in another violation makes it that much worse for the criminal).It still sounds pointless. I can just imagine some guy getting ready to go out and shoot up a bank... "Let's see, where's my body armor- oh wait, better leave it, that'd be a felony to wear while robbing a bank." :beam:

To the OP...
People always try to use isolated, statistically insignificant emotional appeals to tell everyone else what they "need" or don't "need". It's a poor basis for decision making.

[Lemur]

I can just imagine some guy getting ready to go out and shoot up a bank... "Let's see, where's my body armor- oh wait, better leave it, that'd be a felony to wear while robbing a bank." :beam:
You're looking at it purely as prevention, which it is not. Talk to any DA or public prosecutor, and they'll explain the benefit of being able to pile up the charges on a violent criminal.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

You're looking at it purely as prevention, which it is not. Talk to any DA or public prosecutor, and they'll explain the benefit of being able to pile up the charges on a violent criminal.

I can see how that would be useful, but it seems like it would be a bad thing in general. If they wish to increase the penalty for robbing a bank then they should do so directly.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Okay, first point; I very much doubt this was an AK-47. An AK-47 is a fully-automatic assault rifle. These cost tens of thousands of dollars in the US and require all sort of legal hoops to jump through.

It is much more probable that it was simply a semi-automatic copy of an AK-47 and so very similar to the great deal of semi-automatic weapons.


This Strikes a bit close to home because I use to live in Pittsburgh and perceived it to be a very safe city. RIP.

Can anyone explain to me why one should be able to own a bullet proof vest and AK-47? Leave the constitution aside please.

Well I'll get to the reason behind the Constitution; we should be able to own these weapons in order to have the ability to effectively overthrow a tyrannical government. Or, in short, so we can kill those enforcing oppression on us.

Now, since this was likely a semi-auto rifle, does that mean you are complaining against people having real, fully auto AK-47s, which is a negligible issue, or against people having any semi-auto weapon?


I'm more interested in the fact that this murderous idiot was drinking deep from the paranoia fountains on several fronts, not least of which was the wingnutter conspiracy theories.

Indeed. The first few articles I read made a big deal out of how he feared Obama's gun laws. This is somewhat reassuring...at least, in that gun enthusiasts aren't whackos. I mean, any real gun rights person would know that this is the absolute worst thing you could do to advance gun rights.


For example, many states allow you to purchase suppressed ("silenced") weapons, but only if you can convince your local law enforcement that you have a need.

In WA we can buy them after jumping through the federal hoops, but we can never legally use them.


That just sounds down right corrupt. I wouldn't think it would be too difficult to apply for body armor for the reasons of visiting a dangerous part of the world or having a crazy ex spouse.

And how would your plan not lead to more corruption? Sheriffs having discretion in handing out concealed weapon licenses also leads to corruption.

And I don't see any reason to ban body armor. One whacko should not dictate policy for everyone.

CR

[ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88]

Well I'll get to the reason behind the Constitution; we should be able to own these weapons in order to have the ability to effectively overthrow a tyrannical government. Or, in short, so we can kill those enforcing oppression on us.

Now, since this was likely a semi-auto rifle, does that mean you are complaining against people having real, fully auto AK-47s, which is a negligible issue, or against people having any semi-auto weapon


We don't need AK-47 Rabbit. I live in the Pittsburgh region and watched it on the news when it was happening. I'm all for guns and that.... I used Shotguns and .22's and even shot a pistol (with blanks of course).... But I am NOT for AK-47 or those style of guns.


Besides, if the Government is coming after us, it not going to matter what we got, unless we got RPG's and that :yes: :laugh4:!

[Xiahou]

One whacko should not dictate policy for everyone.That sums it all up, really. :yes:

[Crazed Rabbit]

We don't need AK-47 Rabbit. I live in the Pittsburgh region and watched it on the news when it was happening. I'm all for guns and that....

No, you're not.


I used Shotguns and .22's and even shot a pistol (with blanks of course).... But I am NOT for AK-47 or those style of guns.

Do you mean real, fully automatic AK-47s, or merely semi-automatic rifles? There's no logical reasoning for this, because the main difference between the two types of guns you mentioned is emotional in this debate. AKs are the target of gun bans because they look scary. You can't be partially for a right. On a practical level, what do you think the gun banners will go after when they've banned semi-auto rifles?



Besides, if the Government is coming after us, it not going to matter what we got, unless we got RPG's and that :yes: :laugh4:!

I'm sorry, but there's no reasoning behind that.


Can anyone explain to me why one should be able to own a bullet proof vest and AK-47? Leave the constitution aside please.

Given how marijuana use has surely contributed to more than three deaths, why should we not institute New York Rockefeller laws across the nation?

CR

[ajaxfetish]

It is the life of an English teacher to teach others the difference between your and you're yet from what I have seen I would venture to guess that the average Internet user does not seem to know this. (Especially on bigger forums then the org)

I'm sorry, but I can't help myself. It should be "Especially on bigger forums than the org)." ~;)

Ajax

[Husar]

Link (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=2199854&postcount=138).

Deserves it's own topic though, pretty sad, especially since I don't really see any good reason for it, the police weren't even out to get him, he called them himself because he thought the government was out to get him?! I mean it's fine if you think the new world order is coming to get you but in that case you should not call the new world order and make them come to you, that's just nuts...


Can someone please explain to me why some people think guns are the worst problem ever in a society and must start questioning whether or not we should have the right to own something because the media likes to play only negative eye catching stories.
Perhaps, if you can explain why you should have the right to own something that has the primary purpose of killing people?
Don't say because it's in the constitution, had I made that constitution, it might not be in there.


EDIT: If the police officers had been chopped to death would you be asking why anyone should own knives?
How many police officers are chopped to death and how many are shot to death?
Let's just say there's a reason the military doesn't use only knives even though they are considerably cheaper.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

Far more crime is committed with computers than firearms. What right does anyone have to an internet connection? And obviously only the government needs compilers.



Perhaps, if you can explain why you should have the right to own something that has the primary purpose of killing people?
The purpose of firearms is to accelerate projectiles. The far, far, far majority in the US are not used for killing. Are they being misused? (Perhaps that's a good reason to confiscate them from anyone outside of the government.)

[a completely inoffensive name]

Perhaps, if you can explain why you should have the right to own something that has the primary purpose of killing people?
Don't say because it's in the constitution, had I made that constitution, it might not be in there.


Can you explain why you feel that safety is more important then someone else's freedom?

[Husar]

Can you explain why you feel that safety is more important then someone else's freedom?

Yes, because if i die for my freedom I don't exactly have much from that freedom, except if i believe that only death will make me truly free but in that case I can just kill myself right away instead of fighting for my freedom. What good is freedom when you're dead?
Despite that please tell me why firearms are necessary to be free? And just because it's so much fun, do you feel any less free as long as you're not allowed to have nuclear warheads?

Come on, their main purpose is to create a chain reaction of nuclear fission and release energy, everyone needs energy to be truly free! :dizzy2:

Next up someone tells me an AK-47 is a hunting rifle. :laugh4:

[a completely inoffensive name]

Yes, because if i die for my freedom I don't exactly have much from that freedom, except if i believe that only death will make me truly free but in that case I can just kill myself right away instead of fighting for my freedom. What good is freedom when you're dead?
Despite that please tell me why firearms are necessary to be free? And just because it's so much fun, do you feel any less free as long as you're not allowed to have nuclear warheads?

Come on, their main purpose is to create a chain reaction of nuclear fission and release energy, everyone needs energy to be truly free! :dizzy2:

Next up someone tells me an AK-47 is a hunting rifle. :laugh4:

If you die for your freedom then you are living with a purpose. What good is life without freedom? The idea of "safe" is a pipe dream in the first place. You will never, ever, be safe. There is always at any moment in your life a chance of dieing. So why would you reduce the quality of your life just for a preconceived notion that somehow it will make you safe when you will never be safe anyway?

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

Yes, because if i die for my freedom I don't exactly have much from that freedom, except if i believe that only death will make me truly free but in that case I can just kill myself right away instead of fighting for my freedom. What good is freedom when you're dead?
Despite that please tell me why firearms are necessary to be free? And just because it's so much fun, do you feel any less free as long as you're not allowed to have nuclear warheads?

Come on, their main purpose is to create a chain reaction of nuclear fission and release energy, everyone needs energy to be truly free! :dizzy2:

Next up someone tells me an AK-47 is a hunting rifle. :laugh4:
The freedom to own an automobile works the same way. Heck, you're far more likely to die in an auto accident than be shot with an AK-47. We accept the thousands of deaths in auto accidents for... a little convenience. Certainly a far smaller price should be payed for a far greater value - liberty.

[Ironside]

If you die for your freedom then you are living with a purpose. What good is life without freedom? The idea of "safe" is a pipe dream in the first place. You will never, ever, be safe. There is always at any moment in your life a chance of dieing. So why would you reduce the quality of your life just for a preconceived notion that somehow it will make you safe when you will never be safe anyway?

You mean by carrying around a consealed firearm all the time? :juggle:

To increase the quality of life would be to never bother about the issue in the first place.

[Husar]

If you die for your freedom then you are living with a purpose. What good is life without freedom?
Except I'm not living anymore after I died for my freedom. :dizzy2:
How can I live with a purpose after I died for my freedom?
Despite that I thought I live to work for a company and make someone else rich, complete freedom is a pipe dream as well, if it's not I challenge you to spread your wings and come over flying to prove it. ~;)


The idea of "safe" is a pipe dream in the first place. You will never, ever, be safe. There is always at any moment in your life a chance of dieing. So why would you reduce the quality of your life just for a preconceived notion that somehow it will make you safe when you will never be safe anyway?
And how does perceived "freedom" improve the quality of your life? There is no absolute freedom either, this is all about degrees.
And I certainly don't feel any less free here just because we cannot own guns, in fact, when no guns are involved one can feel more relaxed and thus even freer because there are less objects of physical violence around. I can ring the neighbor's doorbell to ask for some salt without having to fear that I might look down a barrel or something like that, certainly for me that means I have more freedom while in the US those NIMBY guys might shoot me just for accidentally touching their property.

I still don't see how owning guns is essential for being free.


The freedom to own an automobile works the same way. Heck, you're far more likely to die in an auto accident than be shot with an AK-47. We accept the thousands of deaths in auto accidents for... a little convenience. Certainly a far smaller price should be payed for a far greater value - liberty.
I don't like automobiles a lot and enjoy the freedom of taking the train or subway, that argument falls on infertile ground in my ears. As a free human I also have feet to move around, cars are also not really a symbol of freedom as people become dependant on them for their jobs etc. That's like saying a heroin addict has a free mind. :dizzy2:

[Crazed Rabbit]

Except I'm not living anymore after I died for my freedom. :dizzy2:
How can I live with a purpose after I died for my freedom?
Despite that I thought I live to work for a company and make someone else rich, complete freedom is a pipe dream as well, if it's not I challenge you to spread your wings and come over flying to prove it. ~;)

You're not living in the first place if you're not free.


And how does perceived "freedom" improve the quality of your life? There is no absolute freedom either, this is all about degrees.
And I certainly don't feel any less free here just because we cannot own guns, in fact, when no guns are involved one can feel more relaxed and thus even freer because there are less objects of physical violence around. I can ring the neighbor's doorbell to ask for some salt without having to fear that I might look down a barrel or something like that, certainly for me that means I have more freedom while in the US those NIMBY guys might shoot me just for accidentally touching their property.

I still don't see how owning guns is essential for being free.

I know some guys who go around with guns on their hips at their apartment most of the time. But I don't feel the slightest hesitation to knock on their door and ask to burrow a pan of some sort. It's pretty obvious you're just making this up.

As for being essential to being free-
Guns are a tool that provide a person with greater force. This means that such an empowered person can't be forced around by an armed government like an unarmed person can be. Why do you think so many authoritarian governments banned guns?


I don't like automobiles a lot and enjoy the freedom of taking the train or subway, that argument falls on infertile ground in my ears. As a free human I also have feet to move around, cars are also not really a symbol of freedom as people become dependant on them for their jobs etc. That's like saying a heroin addict has a free mind. :dizzy2:

That, sir, is quite a stretch. "Freedom" of using a form of transportation that had its own schedule and doesn't wait for you? People become dependent on cars but not, say, subways? It must be because all the European countries are so small (relatively).

CR

[rory_20_uk]

You're not living in the first place if you're not free.
As for being essential to being free
Guns are a tool that provide a person with greater force. This means that such an empowered person can't be forced around by an armed government like an unarmed person can be. Why do you think so many authoritarian governments banned guns?

You're not free. There are constraints on everything you do. Many are so ingrained you're not even aware of them any more.

Odd the number of people in America who are shot as "they had a gun" (or phone / sandwich - depending on skin colour). I never hear that groups of armed men have any more latitude with the law than anyone else. There is no evidence that guns help curtail the state.

~:smoking:

[a completely inoffensive name]

There is no evidence that guns help curtail the state.

~:smoking:

So the American Revolution would have still worked if they threw rocks instead?

[Husar]

You're not living in the first place if you're not free.

So basically if you own a dog, then that dog is not a living being?
What you say there sounds just like some overblown heroic propaganda to me and has absolutely no relation to reality.

[a completely inoffensive name]

So basically if you own a dog, then that dog is not a living being?
What you say there sounds just like some overblown heroic propaganda to me and has absolutely no relation to reality.

What does a dog have to do with anything? We are talking about humans and the rights they have. Inherent human rights because only humans have such a high level of intelligence to be able to think and reason.

Freedom isn't a pipe dream. You can have total freedom up till the point where you interfering with another person's freedom. At that point it is called tyranny not freedom.

[Husar]

Freedom isn't a pipe dream. You can have total freedom up till the point where you interfering with another person's freedom. At that point it is called tyranny not freedom.

And what would guns have to do with it?
Total freedom would include being allowed to have nukes, so that's what you want?
And why do you want to deny that freedom to iranians if not being free means not being alive?
You're basically calling for genociding the entire iranian population, surely that is also tyranny if I go by your and CR's statements. :dizzy2:

[a completely inoffensive name]

And what would guns have to do with it?
Total freedom would include being allowed to have nukes, so that's what you want?
And why do you want to deny that freedom to iranians if not being free means not being alive?
You're basically calling for genociding the entire iranian population, surely that is also tyranny if I go by your and CR's statements. :dizzy2:

Just like CR said, you are making stuff up and putting words in my and CR's mouth. When have I mentioned not letting Iran have nukes? When have I even talked about Iran? Never. Thanks for saying I want genocide, you obviously are running out of arguments and now you are just trying to portray me as some promoter of violence.

Guns provide the freedom of having your government respect you and leaving you alone. This has been said a thousand times already, if there is no guns among the citizens, there really is nothing to stop the government from doing whatever they want.

[Veho Nex]

This sounds a lot like the recent shooting here in the bay area. A man shot and killed 2 motor cycle cops then 2 more cops as they were going to arrest him. When they finally up and killed the guy, there was major outrage in the community for police brutality.
http://www.insidebayarea.com/news/oakland-police-shooting
http://www.insidebayarea.com/news/oakland-police-shooting/ci_12018993

The news reports claim it to be the most officers killed in the line of duty since 9/11 Though I do not know how true that is.

[Husar]

Just like CR said, you are making stuff up and putting words in my and CR's mouth. When have I mentioned not letting Iran have nukes? When have I even talked about Iran? Never. Thanks for saying I want genocide, you obviously are running out of arguments and now you are just trying to portray me as some promoter of violence.
Well, you're right about the Iran argument but you probably missed the uhm, sarcasm.
The Iran argument I drew from the fact that at least Cr and probably you are american and you Americans in general seem to have a problem with Iran having nukes. couple that with the fact that when your president bows to a king it means all of america bows so when your predsident is against iranian nukes I can assume so are you....
Well, and then CR said if you are not free you do not live, you defended that argument so I guess you agree with it. I combined it all to make some really outrageous argument and put in the word genocide just to be sure you would respond to it. ~D
I still haven't seen any substantial proof that slaves were undead or anything like that so my point stands that CR's argument that when you are not free you do not live is just propaganda and rhetoric.
And I also maintain that there is not just black and white when it comes to freedom but there are shades of grey, there are quite a few countries where not everyone is allowed to have guns and we are neither undead zombies nor slaves of our governments and certainly not both.


Guns provide the freedom of having your government respect you and leaving you alone. This has been said a thousand times already, if there is no guns among the citizens, there really is nothing to stop the government from doing whatever they want.

It has also been said a thousand times already that your guns won't stop the government's tanks from doing whatever they want, neither will they stop your government's nukes or bombers etc.
there are also enough countries without gun toting populations where the government respects it's citizens, just like there are countries where the government suppresses all the guys with guns or even worse, countries where all the guys with guns constantly fight over who is the government.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Well, you're right about the Iran argument but you probably missed the uhm, sarcasm.
The Iran argument I drew from the fact that at least Cr and probably you are american and you Americans in general seem to have a problem with Iran having nukes. couple that with the fact that when your president bows to a king it means all of america bows so when your predsident is against iranian nukes I can assume so are you....
Well, and then CR said if you are not free you do not live, you defended that argument so I guess you agree with it. I combined it all to make some really outrageous argument and put in the word genocide just to be sure you would respond to it. ~D
I still haven't seen any substantial proof that slaves were undead or anything like that so my point stands that CR's argument that when you are not free you do not live is just propaganda and rhetoric.
And I also maintain that there is not just black and white when it comes to freedom but there are shades of grey, there are quite a few countries where not everyone is allowed to have guns and we are neither undead zombies nor slaves of our governments and certainly not both.



It has also been said a thousand times already that your guns won't stop the government's tanks from doing whatever they want, neither will they stop your government's nukes or bombers etc.
there are also enough countries without gun toting populations where the government respects it's citizens, just like there are countries where the government suppresses all the guys with guns or even worse, countries where all the guys with guns constantly fight over who is the government.

I think you might be taking the "Without freedom you are not really living." a bit too literally.

Also, for your second paragraph I would like some examples please.

[Tribesman]

Guns provide the freedom of having your government respect you and leaving you alone. This has been said a thousand times already, if there is no guns among the citizens, there really is nothing to stop the government from doing whatever they want.

Bollox , guns don't stop the government from doing anything , and if you think your government repects you in any way beyond some empty lip service around election time then you must be dreaming .

[Crazed Rabbit]

So basically if you own a dog, then that dog is not a living being?
What you say there sounds just like some overblown heroic propaganda to me and has absolutely no relation to reality.

Heroic? Nothing to do with that. And -surprise!- maybe you shouldn't interpret "living" quite so literally.

The way I see it, if you're not free, it's because other people are forcing you to do something against your will. You are not able to choose freely what to do with your life; instead the course of it is decided by others. You're not living because you're not making the choices that affect your life.


It has also been said a thousand times already that your guns won't stop the government's tanks from doing whatever they want, neither will they stop your government's nukes or bombers etc.

:strawman2: -> :strawman3: -> :strawman1:

Well DUH, but maybe the people fighting the government wouldn't run directly at the tanks, screaming all the while. Maybe they'd skip fighting the soldiers and military altogether and just go after government officials.

CR

[Banquo's Ghost]

Bollox , guns don't stop the government from doing anything , and if you think your government repects you in any way beyond some empty lip service around election time then you must be dreaming .

I fear that the argument from Americans that gun ownership underpins their right of refusal against government is but a romantic fiction. One indeed, that their governments allow to ensure docility.

Firstly, I can't see the correlation.

The United States citizenry is armed to the teeth, and that country has developed some of the most intrusive, controlling, rights-denying government of recent times and each election, this trend gets worse. I see lots of bellyaching, but little defence of rights on the streets. Heck, they are not even allowed to have unions that aren't controlled by vested interests. (Note: the government doesn't allow, yet somehow that's fine).

On the other hand, Afghanistan is also armed to the teeth and they have their tiny rump of a government absolutely terrified. So terrified in fact, that they invite foreign powers with enormous guns into their country to impose the government will onto the people.

Finally on the spectrum, we have the Somalians who are armed to the teeth and have successfully dispensed with government. Somalia must therefore be a US conservative's wet dream?

Secondly, The United States likes to see itself as a revolutionary country with a restless citizenry resentful of government. But history shows that they are in fact, British. One revolution, which, barely had the dust settled, was consigned to romance and the old order restored under a slightly different set of grace and favour. Jefferson and Cromwell safely retired to resentful oblivion while the vested interests got back to business. The fiction that gun ownership frightens the government is not remotely borne out by a supine citizenry who don't protest corrupt policemen, interfering courts, massive and generational indebtedness, foreign adventures, warrantless wire-taps, and endless political pork and corruption, to name just a few. Where are the citizens on the streets? Opposition to the government seems to comprise less of armed rebellion and more of switching on a radio and listening to a fat man shout.

Only the French understand revolution. They understood that first you have to behead the aristocracy, literally, not figuratively. Having made that statement, the citizens have to go on frightening their government, not with guns, but by being ungovernable.

Liberty is a revolution that happens every day, in every citizen's mind, the moment they sip their coffee.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

Finally on the spectrum, we have the Somalians who are armed to the teeth and have successfully dispensed with government. Somalia must therefore be a US conservative's wet dream?
I believe that's false on both counts - I'd like to see some numbers on personal firearm ownership in Somalia, and I would like to point out that between the warlords, clan system, and Islamic courts, Somalia has plenty of government. It's simply not a centralized state.


I fear that the argument from Americans that gun ownership underpins their right of refusal against government is but a romantic fiction. One indeed, that their governments allow to ensure docility.
Probably. I'd like to cling to my fiction as other nations cling to theirs.

[Tribesman]

I'd like to see some numbers on personal firearm ownership in Somalia
For that you would need a government and some sort of firearms regulation in Somalia so they can compile figures .
But as they don't exist you will just have to go with John R. Boltons description of Mogadishu as probably the most heavily armed city in the world .

Good post Banquo , revolutions just replace on bunch of idiots that won't respect the people with another bunch of idiots who are just the same .
BTW are you doing any of the revolution celebrations tomorrow ?
I will take the kids down to the statue of that English fella in town to watch all the clowns have their little slot one after another in the "we are the revolutionaries" pantomime . With any luck the SF RSF and 32SC muppets might end up having a fight .

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

For that you would need a government and some sort of firearms regulation in Somalia so they can compile figures .
But as they don't exist you will just have to go with John R. Boltons description of Mogadishu as probably the most heavily armed city in the world .
And if the firearms are owned and controlled by the warlords/clan leaders/courts and not individuals...

But as you say there is no government there (:rolleyes:), we can't actually know what's going on in Somalia. :rolleyes:

[Tribesman]

But as you say there is no government there (), we can't actually know what's going on in Somalia.
Which is why your statement was so silly .
Though of course you can get some information like from the Ethiopian Ugandan AU and UN presence . That John Bolton fella had something to do with the UN didn't he

[KukriKhan]

I fear that the argument from Americans that gun ownership underpins their right of refusal against government is but a romantic fiction. One indeed, that their governments allow to ensure docility.

I hope you're wrong about that. But I admit, the more I look about for support, or like-minded opposition to my government, the more eyes I see glazed over. So I wonder: when the day comes, will I be alone?

Castro's "successful" revolution seems to have entailed constantly reminding his subjects that America was their enemy, out to get them at every turn; never stop keeping a watchful eye on the evil Yanqui.

To revive our revolution, maybe we should blame everything bad on King George and his successors.

[Banquo's Ghost]

I hope you're wrong about that. But I admit, the more I look about for support, or like-minded opposition to my government, the more eyes I see glazed over. So I wonder: when the day comes, will I be alone?

I wish I was wrong as well, but look at the development of this topic. Lots of US posters angry at blatant misuses of power by gestapo-like policemen, but not even a mention of citizens out on the streets protesting, let alone armed insurrection.

And the efficacy argument seems to be doomed by history as well. The only time I can see where citizens of the United States collectively took up arms against the interference of a government they felt had overstepped its powers, they got stamped into the ground by that government. It took a few years, but they comprehensively lost.

The wonderful thing about the US is of course that which was noted some posts before. Incredible changes in the fabric of society have been effected, but via peaceful marches, protests, and the ballot box. The only guns brought to those parties were carried by the government, and proved ineffective against the will of people prepared to die for their beliefs.

[Husar]

There, Banquo explained it all, better than I ever could I might add.

[Husar]

And the efficacy argument seems to be doomed by history as well. The only time I can see where citizens of the United States collectively took up arms against the interference of a government they felt had overstepped its powers, they got stamped into the ground by that government. It took a few years, but they comprehensively lost.

Does that count? Was it individual gun ownership? ~;)

[a completely inoffensive name]

I fear that the argument from Americans that gun ownership underpins their right of refusal against government is but a romantic fiction. One indeed, that their governments allow to ensure docility.

Firstly, I can't see the correlation.

The United States citizenry is armed to the teeth, and that country has developed some of the most intrusive, controlling, rights-denying government of recent times and each election, this trend gets worse. I see lots of bellyaching, but little defence of rights on the streets. Heck, they are not even allowed to have unions that aren't controlled by vested interests. (Note: the government doesn't allow, yet somehow that's fine).

On the other hand, Afghanistan is also armed to the teeth and they have their tiny rump of a government absolutely terrified. So terrified in fact, that they invite foreign powers with enormous guns into their country to impose the government will onto the people.

Finally on the spectrum, we have the Somalians who are armed to the teeth and have successfully dispensed with government. Somalia must therefore be a US conservative's wet dream?

Secondly, The United States likes to see itself as a revolutionary country with a restless citizenry resentful of government. But history shows that they are in fact, British. One revolution, which, barely had the dust settled, was consigned to romance and the old order restored under a slightly different set of grace and favour. Jefferson and Cromwell safely retired to resentful oblivion while the vested interests got back to business. The fiction that gun ownership frightens the government is not remotely borne out by a supine citizenry who don't protest corrupt policemen, interfering courts, massive and generational indebtedness, foreign adventures, warrantless wire-taps, and endless political pork and corruption, to name just a few. Where are the citizens on the streets? Opposition to the government seems to comprise less of armed rebellion and more of switching on a radio and listening to a fat man shout.

Only the French understand revolution. They understood that first you have to behead the aristocracy, literally, not figuratively. Having made that statement, the citizens have to go on frightening their government, not with guns, but by being ungovernable.

Liberty is a revolution that happens every day, in every citizen's mind, the moment they sip their coffee.


I wish I was wrong as well, but look at the development of this topic. Lots of US posters angry at blatant misuses of power by gestapo-like policemen, but not even a mention of citizens out on the streets protesting, let alone armed insurrection.

And the efficacy argument seems to be doomed by history as well. The only time I can see where citizens of the United States collectively took up arms against the interference of a government they felt had overstepped its powers, they got stamped into the ground by that government. It took a few years, but they comprehensively lost.

The wonderful thing about the US is of course that which was noted some posts before. Incredible changes in the fabric of society have been effected, but via peaceful marches, protests, and the ballot box. The only guns brought to those parties were carried by the government, and proved ineffective against the will of people prepared to die for their beliefs.

These posts made me sad, because I know they're true....
Except for the French, I don't believe to have a revolution you need the mindless killing of aristocracy. I would just like to point out, that if the French did it right and the US did it wrong, how did we end up with a successful Republic and the French got Napoleon?

Also, guns are not the cure all and end all to resisting government, but they sure as hell make things a lot easier. And I think that an ungovernable mod with guns will have fewer casualties against the gov. troops then just an ungovernable mob.

[ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88]

Well, Citizens don't need to be armed with Assault Rifles. They are to be used by Miltiary/SWAT/Policemen. When you start giving normal people Assault Rifles, you asking for touble.


But people still can't give me a logical reason why you need an Assault Rifle.

[Husar]

Also, guns are not the cure all and end all to resisting government, but they sure as hell make things a lot easier. And I think that an ungovernable mod with guns will have fewer casualties against the gov. troops then just an ungovernable mob.

I don't think the point of being ungovernable is to engage in a deadly confrontation. It's something you do before the government starts using deadly force against it's citizens to prevent it from happening in the first place. One could even say that americans just let it all happen and wait until it comes to said deadly confrontation while the french populace extinguish all sorts of bad government policies before it even comes to that. Or in other words, Americans may wait until it's already too late because "we got these gunz if it gets too bad" is too convenient an excuse while the french are aware they have to keep the government in check at all times before it even gets close to being really bad.

[Tribesman]

These posts made me sad, because I know they're true....

One of the best comments I have read here .
If you are ever out west in the banana republic without the bananas have a good drink on me at Hughes
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xBpAiKlesTU

[a completely inoffensive name]

I don't think the point of being ungovernable is to engage in a deadly confrontation. It's something you do before the government starts using deadly force against it's citizens to prevent it from happening in the first place. One could even say that americans just let it all happen and wait until it comes to said deadly confrontation while the french populace extinguish all sorts of bad government policies before it even comes to that. Or in other words, Americans may wait until it's already too late because "we got these gunz if it gets too bad" is too convenient an excuse while the french are aware they have to keep the government in check at all times before it even gets close to being really bad.

Government won't relinquish power unless forced to. And yes, guns nowadays are probably used as a crutch while the gov still does what it wants, but that is just because of a lack of understanding about the origins and ideals of the country. Most people don't know the purpose of most of the amendments including the 2nd amendment. This is why I can't understand why education is always the first to be cut.

The 2nd amendment is to secure guns for the populace to help the citizens overthrow the government when it gets too powerful and too abusive.

For some reason it is mostly interpreted nowadays as:

The 2nd amendment is to secure guns for the populace to help the citizens overthrow the government if it gets too powerful and too abusive.

The first one holds that you must remain vigilant because at any time to may need to take up your gun against bad government which is inevitable as time goes on and it becomes bigger.

The second one holds that the guns are the main deterrent against bad government and as long as we have them we are safe from them. Which just isn't true.

[Husar]

Government won't relinquish power unless forced to.[...]This is why I can't understand why education is always the first to be cut.

Doesn't the government cut education? You may have answered your own question.

There are however ways to make them do it without guns, courts, protests and a lot of public pressure can do that until the government actually suppresses these things which is what people should not let happen, guns or not.