[video]http://video.foxnews.com/v/2096824748001/[/video] [video]http://video.foxnews.com/v/2096127376001/bias-bash-is-the-media-demonizing-gun-control-opposition-/[/video] [video]http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/10/us/home-invasion-gun-rights/index.html?iref=obnetwork[/video] [video]http://wtvr.com/2012/12/20/chesterfield-fatal-shooting-likey-a-justified-self-defense/[/video] [video]http://www.kmir6.com/multimedia/videos/?bctid=1144735008001[/video] http://www.insidebayarea.com/breaking-news/ci_22381724/fremont-police-son-fatally-shot-jhis-dad-self Fremont police: Son fatally shot his dad in self-defense during a dispute By Natalie Neysa Alund Bay Area News Group Posted: 01/15/2013 07:18:34 PM PST Updated: 01/15/2013 07:32:37 PM PST FREMONT -- A 48-year-old man fatally shot last week inside his Fremont home was killed by his son in self-defense and police are calling the death a justifiable homicide, authorities said Tuesday. A preliminary investigation by police and the Alameda County District Attorney's Office revealed that the man's 27-year-old son, who also lived in the home, shot him one time in the chest with a handgun, killing him in self-defense during a dispute, said police spokeswoman Geneva Bosques. The 48-year-old's identity has not been released by the county coroner or the police. "At this time (the son) is not being charged," Bosques said. "It was a family dispute between the father and two sons and other family members were present." She did not say what the fight was over. Police are not releasing the identity of the son, who turned himself in following the 5:25 p.m. Thursday shooting in the 39500 block of Pardee Court. Bosques said that this was not the first time officers have responded to the family's home. "We have had contact with the (father and son) in the past, including drug-related incidents," she said. "We do not know if drugs are a factor at this time. But the case is not closed as we are awaiting results of toxicology tests and an autopsy report." http://www.wbir.com/news/article/249589/2/Police-determine-man-shot-killed-son-in-self-defense Roane County authorities have determined a shooting in Oliver Springs was self-defense. According to a report from the Roane County Sheriff's Office, deputies responded to a domestic disturbance call on Old Harriman Highway on Sunday afternoon. District Attorney General Russell Johnson says Vince Brown was defending himself when he shot and killed his 36-year-old son Michael. Officials say Michael drove a car through the garage door. His brother confronted him in the garage, but Michael went upstairs to confront his father. That's when Vince shot his son. Johnson says no charges will be placed against Vince. http://www.wistv.com/Global/story.asp?S=1493846&nav=0RaPIgkj (Spartanburg-AP) Oct. 23, 2003 -- Spartanburg County authorities say the shooting death of a Woodruff man earlier this week was an act of self-defense. Woodruff police and prosecutor Trey Gowdy say they agree the death of 22-year-old Chadwick Avandoor Shelton on Monday was self defense. Police say 26-year-old Tyrone Davis Alexander of Woodruff and Shelton were acquaintances. Woodruff police were called to a house Monday afternoon. They found Shelton lying on the ground in the front yard with a gun under his right hand. Alexander told officers that he was inside Natasha Dianna Pena's home when Shelton and another masked man came through the front door and pulled guns. Alexander told officers the men pushed him into a bedroom and threatened to shoot him. Alexander says he reached for a gun and shot Shelton, who crawled outside. [video=youtube;Mm9o3vhKoF8]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Mm9o3vhKoF8#t=3s[/video]
I was at a party last saturday. Some of the guys gathered around the TV to watch the football games and drink. Some of the gals hung out near the kitchen gabbing as women do. Now, these are typical women, and hearing what they talked about was rather interesting to me when it came to their self defense. One of the women mentioned how her daughter had lost 40 pounds and was now working out. Every day she grabs all her workout gear and go off to the gym. The workout gear included boxing gloves and other MMA type fighting gear, and that here workouts included that sort of exercises. One of the other women immediately said, "that's great, at least she'll be a lot better able to defend herself." Women think about things this way. You guys who want to get rid of guns really ought to consider whose ability to defend themselves you are getting rid of. Not every woman is going to invest the time and energy into becoming a trained fighter. Women are typically smaller and easily physically dominated by men. Call the cops and wait for them to show up maybe too late? Yeah, right. http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...f-defense-expert-paxton-quigley-says-yes.html Do American Women Need Guns? Self-Defense Pro Paxton Quigley Says Yes “Every 2 minutes, a woman is sexually assaulted in the U.S. There are 207,754 victims of sexual assault each year. Eighty percent are under the age of 30,” she says, citing statistics from the Rape, Abuse, and Incest National Network, or RAINN. “That’s a lot of women walking around who are targets. They’re talking on their cellphones or texting, totally unaware of what’s going on. It’s part of the reason why people get themselves into trouble.” It’s also why, she argues, women need a handgun. “There just aren’t many good weapons to protect yourself other than a handgun. If you want to stop an attacker, you have to think about the best means of stopping an attacker.” She adds, “It would be nice to live in a world of utopia, but that’s not the case. I’m a liberal. I’m pro-choice. I’ve never voted for a Republican. I just believe guns protect women.” And what if the rapist also has a gun? “Then you better shoot first,” Quigley says. “If you feel that you can’t use the gun, don’t own it. You have to be ready to stop the attacker. Don’t hesitate. If you want to have a handgun, you have to be trained—I’m not just talking a course for an hour or two, but an all-day course at least. Then go to the range afterward and practice.”
Why don't more women carry guns then? I agree that they think much more about self defense as they live in a world where 50% of the population can overpower them physically (generalizing obviously). Yet I assume women make up a very small percentage of concealed carry gun owners. They seem much more inclined to use pepper spray, tazers, get educated on safety and self defense, or take classes which teach them self defense skills without weapons.
My opinion is that a lot of people (not just women) are afraid of guns. Afraid to have them around, afraid to handle them, afraid to use them, etc.
When a guy grabs a women during an assault, what are the chances she going to be able to get a pistol out of her purse and use it? Maybe 1%. Not that I am opposed to women carrying guns for protection, but it's probably impractical in most situations. Pepper spray in a pocket may be better in those situations.
I'd point out that ABM, I think, was talking about getting his girl a gun. If it's registered to him, but she carries it, it doesn't show up in the polls as if she owns it.
A couple of great reads from a Libertarian magazine site: http://reason.com/archives/2013/01/15/jon-stewart-sandy-hook http://reason.com/blog/2012/12/17/are-mass-shootings-becoming-more-common
He's been anointed king. he can rule by decree. Congress doesn't have to do its duty anymore; may as well do away with it. Hell, do away with elections as well, since we only need the one political party. Just appoint whoever the king wants to whatever politburo committee that decides what liberties we no longer have and get on with it.
Polls showing supposed gun ownership are not of much use. They don't count guns owned by criminals, and they don't count guns owned by many citizens who understand the Second Amendment's purpose. If you fear the government may at some point wish to disarm you, you don't tell them that you have guns in a poll, or by registering your guns, or by applying for a concealed weapons permit. You keep your mouth shut and your powder dry. My guess is over 90% of all American homes have at least one gun in them.
I was watching the videos that Maris posted. What I find obvious seems to escape some people. The Brit was mocking the idea that the right to bear arms was futile and if the government wanted you they had drones and tanks etc..what he could not grasp is that the people behind the drones and inside the tanks are Americans..they are also charged to uphold the constitution and obey lawfull orders. To think that any sane company commander who had fought in combat would turn his guns on the very people he was serving is laughable, there are already counties and states tha are saying that they will not uphold any law or order aginst the constitution...
the very fact that we have an armed population is the protection. To overthrough the constitution and the will of the people would have to be done by force. I have to believe that even the most liberal would take offence to their civel liberties being taken. When states, counties and the population denies the feds, that is our true power
How are they going to do it with force, when the individuals they would need to do it with force wouldn't do it, as you said?
Pretty simple. They take them away from the ones that don't want to go to jail; leaving those that aren't as concerned to risk going to jail for having them. Kinda like England still having very tight gun control; but criminals still using them.
It wouldn't take much of an army to pacify the American public. Our military is quickly moving away from a "boots on the ground" mentality with UAVs and advances in ground and even sea vehicles. When I last did a research paper on the subject back in the early 2000s, DARPA was developing entire squadrons of UAVs that could be controlled by a single person back at the base. Pretty quickly it won't matter if you have the soldiers on your side or not. It would only take a select number of people to run a strong enough force to keep us in check. There is also technology where they can send out a vibrational frequency and it will make you feel like you're on fire... and then there's brown noise. I don't want to get into that. The point is, having a large standing army won't be necessary in the very near future. Our military could be mostly automated in twenty years.
oh I imagine that as the president he could get some of the troops to comply at first..be it FBI, ATF etc..Waco was not that long ago and it has been exposed as a fuck up..it would be hard for even king oboma to push as hard as he would like.. and yeah, you just want to troll and pick nitts..fine, what ever, if you dont want to have a conversation, an exchange of ideas..its ok
