Guns Used.....cont

[MrJonno]

All emergency staff try to reduce risks as low as possible , ie to avoid heroism. They become heroes when this fails. Anyone who joins the emergency services to be a hero is likely to end up either dead or sacked

I think wumbologist mentioned that. Paramedics are barred from entering into a situation that puts them in personal danger because they could get injured themselves and require more paramedics on the scene or something like that.

Its not just that if someone went to an army recruitment centre and was asked why do you want to join the army and then said 'Because I want to be a hero' I would hope any serious recruitment officer would either say go away and think again , or even don't come back.

As for relative risks in jobs I believe being a fisherman or miner is pretty much at the top (real heroes as pretty much the risks are unavoidable) and at surprisingly working in an office is more dangerous than working an ambulance man or even a policeman as you are far less likely to get any exercise so heart disease is going to get you. It's slightly different in the US with the police but thats only because of the number of guns around but in the UK its less than 1 policeman killed on duty per year

[Seth]

Fuck with our gun rights at your peril, political, economic or personal.

Yes.. I've watched the ranting gun nutters on television programmes promising the slaughter of the 'sheeple' if anyone threatens their guns. Do you think this strengthens your position?

What strengthens my position is my keeping and bearing of arms. Fuck with that at your peril.

[Jason]

Fuck with our gun rights at your peril, political, economic or personal.

Yes.. I've watched the ranting gun nutters on television programmes promising the slaughter of the 'sheeple' if anyone threatens their guns. Do you think this strengthens your position?

What strengthens my position is my keeping and bearing of arms. Fuck with that at your peril.

So you've completely abandoned rational discourse and resorted to outright threats? What if, and this is purely hypothetical, the constitution were amended in such a way that removed your 'right' to bear arms and put in place a 'privilege' to bear arms subject to various screenings and requirements? Would you obey the law, or carry out a campaign of guerrilla warfare as so many extremists threaten?

[aspire1670]

Fuck with our gun rights at your peril, political, economic or personal.

Yes.. I've watched the ranting gun nutters on television programmes promising the slaughter of the 'sheeple' if anyone threatens their guns. Do you think this strengthens your position?

What strengthens my position is my eating lots and lots of pies keeping and bearing of arms. Fuck with that at your peril.

Do you have a conceal carry permit for your pies, Seth?

[Seth]

Fuck with our gun rights at your peril, political, economic or personal.

Yes.. I've watched the ranting gun nutters on television programmes promising the slaughter of the 'sheeple' if anyone threatens their guns. Do you think this strengthens your position?

What strengthens my position is my keeping and bearing of arms. Fuck with that at your peril.

So you've completely abandoned rational discourse and resorted to outright threats?

There are many perils one can face, including as I mentioned, political and economic perils, as the organizers of the sports and outdoor show in Harrisburg discovered.

In the end, however, defense of the RKBA relies upon the RKBA itself, as a self-fulfilling prophecy. You cannot enslave someone who is willing to die rather than be enslaved, and you cannot take the arms from someone who is willing to die to preserve that right and those arms without killing him...which inherently includes the peril that he will kill you instead.

What if, and this is purely hypothetical, the constitution were amended in such a way that removed your 'right' to bear arms and put in place a 'privilege' to bear arms subject to various screenings and requirements? Would you obey the law, or carry out a campaign of guerrilla warfare as so many extremists threaten?

The Constitution does not grant rights, the right to keep and bear arms is natural and inherent. All the Second Amendment does is forbid government to infringe upon that right. Therefore, any law (or amendment) which purports to infringe on the right to keep and bear arms is, as the Supreme Court put it, "no law at all."

The tyrannical majority can no more take away my right to keep and bear arms than it can take away my life without expecting me to resist with every fiber of my being and tool at my disposal. In other words, even in the absence of any Constitution at all, my right to keep and bear arms is not to be infringed upon by anyone, and I will enforce that right, which I claim against all attempts to infringe it or remove it, with whatever force is required of me.

The right to keep and bear arms accrues to each and every human being on the planet by virtue of their existence, and may not be infringed by the state. Those states that do so only do so because the citizenry they tyrannize are not able to physically (or perhaps psychologically) resist attempts at disarmament. Anyone who rebels against attempts at infringing on the right to keep and bear arms is fully justified in doing so, because the right claimed is not granted by the collective and not subject to infringement by the collective.

[Seth]

Fuck with our gun rights at your peril, political, economic or personal.

Yes.. I've watched the ranting gun nutters on television programmes promising the slaughter of the 'sheeple' if anyone threatens their guns. Do you think this strengthens your position?

What strengthens my position is my eating lots and lots of pies keeping and bearing of arms. Fuck with that at your peril.

Do you have a conceal carry permit for your pies, Seth?

Don't need one...yet. Though with Obama in office you might need a permit and a note from your doctor to be allowed to eat pie if Michelle has her way...as she did with public schools.

I do however have a concealed carry permit for my handgun. Several of them in fact. I just did the (mandatory) class in Las Vegas for a Nevada permit and submitted the paperwork, which should show up in about six weeks. That, combined with my Florida and Utah permits will allow me to carry in 40 states. Nevada was the last piece in the puzzle of "shall issue" states because it doesn't recognize my Colorado permit.

[Jason]

Fuck with our gun rights at your peril, political, economic or personal.

Yes.. I've watched the ranting gun nutters on television programmes promising the slaughter of the 'sheeple' if anyone threatens their guns. Do you think this strengthens your position?

What strengthens my position is my keeping and bearing of arms. Fuck with that at your peril.

So you've completely abandoned rational discourse and resorted to outright threats?

There are many perils one can face, including as I mentioned, political and economic perils, as the organizers of the sports and outdoor show in Harrisburg discovered.

In the end, however, defense of the RKBA relies upon the RKBA itself, as a self-fulfilling prophecy. You cannot enslave someone who is willing to die rather than be enslaved, and you cannot take the arms from someone who is willing to die to preserve that right and those arms without killing him...which inherently includes the peril that he will kill you instead.

What if, and this is purely hypothetical, the constitution were amended in such a way that removed your 'right' to bear arms and put in place a 'privilege' to bear arms subject to various screenings and requirements? Would you obey the law, or carry out a campaign of guerrilla warfare as so many extremists threaten?

The Constitution does not grant rights, the right to keep and bear arms is natural and inherent. All the Second Amendment does is forbid government to infringe upon that right. Therefore, any law (or amendment) which purports to infringe on the right to keep and bear arms is, as the Supreme Court put it, "no law at all."

The tyrannical majority can no more take away my right to keep and bear arms than it can take away my life without expecting me to resist with every fiber of my being and tool at my disposal. In other words, even in the absence of any Constitution at all, my right to keep and bear arms is not to be infringed upon by anyone, and I will enforce that right, which I claim against all attempts to infringe it or remove it, with whatever force is required of me.

The right to keep and bear arms accrues to each and every human being on the planet by virtue of their existence, and may not be infringed by the state. Those states that do so only do so because the citizenry they tyrannize are not able to physically (or perhaps psychologically) resist attempts at disarmament. Anyone who rebels against attempts at infringing on the right to keep and bear arms is fully justified in doing so, because the right claimed is not granted by the collective and not subject to infringement by the collective.

So that's two yeses.

[Ian]

Here's a fun game: "Who said it?"

Seven quotes... match the quote to the correct person:

1. “Well, I think there has to be some [gun] control.”
2. “I think maybe there could be some restrictions that there had to be a certain amount of training taken.”
3. “Every year, an average of 9,200 Americans are murdered by handguns, according to Department of Justice statistics. This does not include suicides or the tens of thousands of robberies, rapes and assaults committed with handguns. This level of violence must be stopped.”
4. “With the right to bear arms comes a great responsibility to use caution and common sense on handgun purchases.”
5. “Certain forms of ammunition have no legitimate sporting, recreational, or self-defense use and thus should be prohibited.”
6. “I do not believe in taking away the right of the citizen for sporting, for hunting and so forth, or for home defense. But I do believe that an AK-47, a machine gun, is not a sporting weapon or needed for defense of a home.”
7. “This is a matter of vital importance to the public safety … While we recognize that assault-weapon legislation will not stop all assault-weapon crime, statistics prove that we can dry up the supply of these guns, making them less accessible to criminals.”

People:
A. Barack Obama
B. Joe Biden
C. Dianna Feinstein
D. George W. Bush
E. Bill Clinton
F. Ronald Reagan
G. Jimmy Carter

Answers:

Trigger Warning!!!1! :

They're all quotes from one person: Ronald Reagan.

[Jason]

Without looking I'll guess #1 is GWB. The rest are far too coherent.

[Jason]

Ah!

[JimC]

[Seth]

...And again...

Crime
Great-Grandmother Fires at Thug 11 Times After Brazen Mid-Morning Robbery in Detroit
Jan. 28, 2013 11:40am Erica Ritz

127
196
0
0
0

Great Grandmother Fires at Robber 11 Times After Mid Morning Bus Robbery in Detroit

Many Americans tend to view cities like Chicago and Detroit the way they would Mexico — they may have their perks, but you certainly wouldn’t want to be alone there at night. The latest story out of the Michigan city certainly won’t help ameliorate the reputation of lawlessness, but at least the victim was uninjured and defiant in the end.

ClickOnDetroit relates:

56-year-old grandmother and great grandmother from Clinton Township [Ramona Taylor Kamate] has a permit to carry a gun, and when she was attacked on a city bus, she used it.

It’s a bus route Kamate is quite familiar with, she’s also grown accustomed to seeing some of the same people who take the bus with her.

But, when Kamate boarded a city bus at Northland Mall in Southfield, she says a young friendly face turned on her.

“He was saying ‘you smell good, looks like you have money’ and I said no I don’t,” Kamate said.

It went downhill from there. “He grabbed my book bag and I grabbed it back and we started tussling, I bit him on his left hand. When he struck me in my head we started fighting,” she said.

Kamate says no one tried to intervene. “It’s sad you have all those men on the bus, and no one helped me,” she said. [Emphasis added]

In an interview with WJBK, the grandmother said one man told her, “You by yourself, b—-.”

The attacker then ran off with Kamate’s possessions, and people started yelling that he had a gun.

“Somebody said he had a gun, and when he turned and faced me…I just pulled my 9 out and started shooting him,” Kamate recalled. She fired 11 shots, but is unsure whether any of them made contact. No one else was injured.

“At first, I felt remorse because I have grandchildren,” she said after the mugging. “[But] if my grandchildren are out here doing what these punks are doing, they need to get the same thing.”

Kamate says she acted in self defense, and will continue working with police to apprehend the suspect.

Watch the entire lively interview, below:

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Fuck with our gun rights at your peril, political, economic or personal.

Yes.. I've watched the ranting gun nutters on television programmes promising the slaughter of the 'sheeple' if anyone threatens their guns. Do you think this strengthens your position?

Seeth Nugent.

[Seth]

...and again...

Guns and Gear
Poll: Two-thirds of American voters with household guns would ‘defy’ gun laws
11:32 AM 01/27/2013
inShare
Email This Article
Print This Article
Jessica Stanton

See All Articles
Email Jessica Stanton
Subscribe to RSS
Follow on Twitter

Related Articles



As anti-gun lawmakers push for a government ban of more than 150 types of firearms, a new Fox News poll shows that two-thirds of American voters who have guns in their household would “defy” any law requiring them to give up the guns.

A majority of poll respondents – 52 percent – revealed that someone in their home owns a gun. Those respondents were then asked, “If the government passed a law to take your guns, would you give up your guns or defy the law and keep your guns?”

Approximately 65 percent indicated they would “defy the law,” including 70 percent of Republicans and 52 percent of Democrats who answered the question. Only 22 percent said they would “give up” their guns, while 13 percent were not sure.

On Thursday, Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein introduced the “Assault Weapons Ban of 2013,” which would prohibit the sale, transfer, importation and manufacture of hundreds of rifles, shotguns and pistols. The legislation also bans magazines that can hold more than 10 rounds. (RELATED: Feinstein stages dramatic anti-gun press conference)

At the Thursday press conference, Feinstein stated her belief that massacres like the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting occur because of the country’s “weak” gun laws.

Nearly 78 percent of those polled apparently disagree, indicating that “people who commit these kinds of acts will always find the guns to commit violent acts.” Only 22 percent “think tougher gun laws can help stop shootings,” and 58 percent believe if “more law abiding citizens owned guns,” there would be less violent crime in the United States.

The poll sampled 1,008 registered voters and was conducted from Jan.15 to 17. It has a margin of error of a plus or minus 3 percentage points.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2013/01/27/poll- ... z2JIT7ssgX

[Seth]

...And a dash of hypocrisy from Media Matters:

Politics
Brock’s Glock: In anti-gun DC, Media Matters for America gave bodyguard illegal weapons to guard founder David Brock
11:54 PM 01/27/2013
inShare2
Email This Article
Print This Article
Vince Coglianese
Senior Online Editor

See All Articles
Email Vince Coglianese
Subscribe to RSS
Follow on Twitter
Bio

Related Articles

A staffer at left-wing Media Matters for America committed numerous felonies in the District of Columbia and around the country by carrying a firearm to defend the organization’s founder, David Brock, The Daily Caller has learned.

According to a knowledgeable source, multiple firearms used to protect the Media Matters founder were purchased with Brock’s blessing — and apparently with the group’s money.

TheDC has previously reported that Brock’s one-time aide, Haydn Price-Morris, carried a concealed Glock handgun as he traveled with the liberal leader to public events in Washington, D.C. (RELATED: Sources, memos reveal erratic behavior, Media Matters’ close coordination with White House and news organizations)

But the extent of Brock’s armed activities have been largely unknown until now, even among those closest to him. An array of current and former Media Matters sources, all with intimate knowledge about the inner workings of the organization, granted extensive interviews to TheDC.

Brock, whose struggles with mental health have seen him hospitalized in the past, became increasingly concerned by late 2010 that he was being targeted by right-wing assassins.

TheDC has learned that by that time, Brock had armed his assistant — who had no permit to carry a concealed firearm — with a Glock handgun.

According to an internal email exchange obtained by TheDC, the gun was purchased with cash in Maryland, likely to diminish the chances such a purchase would appear on the tax-exempt group’s books.

Between Price-Morris’ early 2009 arrival and late 2010 departure from Media Matters, he also acquired a shotgun for Brock’s protection.

Price-Morris was regularly armed when accompanying Brock on trips around the country, according to a source, and his firearm possession in Washington, D.C. constituted multiple felonies.

On at least one occasion, Brock — accompanied by his armed aide — visited California to attend a “Democracy Alliance” summit of major Democratic donors and lawmakers.

That gathering included such major figures in Democratic politics as billionaires George Soros, Peter Lewis and Bill Benter, former Service Employees International Union Secretary-Treasurer Anna Burger, and the politician behind the federal government’s 1994 “Assault Weapons Ban,” California Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein.

On Thursday, Feinstein re-introduced a new version of the ban which would reinstate and greatly expand the law, which expired in 2004. Reached Thursday, a spokesman for Feinstein did not respond to a request for comment related to the senator’s attendance, alongside Brock and Price-Morris, at the Democracy Alliance meeting.

Spokespersons for Soros and Benter did not reply to emailed requests for comment.
Next Page

Brock's bodyguard had a personal weapon with a 17-round magazine

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2013/01/27/illeg ... z2JITmbN3C