What Happens After Cops Start Getting Shot?

[BillBoard]

Re: What Happens After Cops Start Getting Shot?

Of course not. I agree with what you said.

The right to bear is to protect the citizens from tyrannical governments. Twice in the last century we saw the reasons.

Hitler confiscated guns. Millions died.

Stalin and Mao confiscated guns. Tens of millions died.

Chicago already has the toughest guns laws. Who still has guns there to kill?

"the pen is mightier than the sword"

Being ignorant and having a gun to defend yourself is pretty much useless.

The present condition is all about debt, how those running the system have monetized debt and have gained control over all of us through the use of contract law.

The guns are there to keep those running the government in check from exceeding their authority.

The blacks and the poor have the problem that they cannot articulate their grievances openly and coherently, and in their frustration they will use violence to retaliate.

Cops themselves are ignorant of their oaths and positions, falling victim to their bosses' directed quotas to issue tickets, which leads to the victimization of the least able to afford a defense.

What's the solution:

1. "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be.^[1] If we are to guard against ignorance and remain free, it is the responsibility of every American to be informed."
   

Learn, learn, learn, teach, teach, teach, all about usury and debt.


P.S. Look how these brilliant men did it, and through the use of guns launched the greatest experiment in self government:

http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/

IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America

hen in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected, whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:

For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:

For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:

For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies

For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:

For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. — And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.

New Hampshire:
Josiah Bartlett, William Whipple, Matthew Thornton

Massachusetts:
John Hancock, Samuel Adams, John Adams, Robert Treat Paine, Elbridge Gerry

Rhode Island:
Stephen Hopkins, William Ellery

Connecticut:
Roger Sherman, Samuel Huntington, William Williams, Oliver Wolcott

New York:
William Floyd, Philip Livingston, Francis Lewis, Lewis Morris

New Jersey:
Richard Stockton, John Witherspoon, Francis Hopkinson, John Hart, Abraham Clark

Pennsylvania:
Robert Morris, Benjamin Rush, Benjamin Franklin, John Morton, George Clymer, James Smith, George Taylor, James Wilson, George Ross

Delaware:
Caesar Rodney, George Read, Thomas McKean

Maryland:
Samuel Chase, William Paca, Thomas Stone, Charles Carroll of Carrollton

Virginia:
George Wythe, Richard Henry Lee, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Harrison, Thomas Nelson, Jr., Francis Lightfoot Lee, Carter Braxton

North Carolina:
William Hooper, Joseph Hewes, John Penn

South Carolina:
Edward Rutledge, Thomas Heyward, Jr., Thomas Lynch, Jr., Arthur Middleton

Georgia:
Button Gwinnett, Lyman Hall, George Walton

[Woodsman]

Re: What Happens After Cops Start Getting Shot?

vt, this thread produced at least one interesting aspect of this general problem. Guns are readily available today to anyone in the US, whether black, white, or striped, mentally ill or sane, a law-abiding citizen who wants to defend his or her home, family, and friends or a criminal who wants to attack those folks, and so on. Some of the most vociferous advocates for this ready access seem to assume that only they have this access, that the "other" will come to the gunfight armed only with a knife depending on the situation, the knife is likely deadlier). They seem surprised that others are also able to equip themselves with expensive, high-end munitions. Do they really think that the right to bear arms, as they interpret it, applies only to themselves?!

Verrocchio, I think you have it turned around, but it's an interesting variant to an old anti-gun trope.

I've been around the American gun culture most of my life and I don't believe it's true that 2nd Amendment advocates assume that the "other" will come to the gunfight armed only with a knife (more dangerous, in some cases). The most vociferous of those advocates I've encountered take proactive steps to avoid being surprised by criminals with guns, expensive or otherwise. Bit too much for my taste, but that's America.

I don't think I know of any vociferous advocates for illegal access to guns but as is evident, there are many who advocate that the law abiding be permitted to exercise their civil rights and many who think they should be stripped of them regardless. I'm also not clear on how denying people who follow the law the means to exercise their rights will deter those who neither follow the law or have such rights to exercise. The fact that people abuse the law does not mean that those who follow it should be punished for doing so.

And yes, I'm very sure that lawful gun owners, vociferous or meek, do indeed think that the right to bear arms as the courts have interpreted it, applies only to themselves. This is probably because it says so right there in the black letter of the law that distinguishes them from entire classes of persons prevented by federal and state law from purchasing or possessing a firearm. These include felons, persons adjudicated of certain misdemeanors, those adjudicated mentally incompetent, and others with similar infirmities.

Now you may not like guns, never used one, never held one, and never care to. You may want to see the 2nd Amendment repealed and a mass confiscation of all firearms, followed by life imprisonment for anyone caught near one. You may feel safer in the knowledge that only police and soldiers possess them. You would not be alone in those preferences, but you would be in a political minority with decades of lost effort behind you that failed to make a dent in the gun culture or availability of guns.

Like it or not, Americans seem to consider guns second only to the Bible in symbolic importance (an aside: bitter clingers, I've heard them called, and curiously enough by the greatest gun salesman in history). That's why the First Amendment is first and the Second, second. I tease, of course, but it may as well be true. There are something on the order of 300 million guns circulating in a country of some 323 million. Most will never be used in anger, some will save lives, and some are bound to end up in the wrong hands, fast and furiously. Unless we are prepared to make fundamental changes in the way the state relates to its people, I think we are wasting our time here.

But of late it does seem that this relationship has changed, at least for black Americans. The gentleman in Baton Rouge apparently had no such right to exercise, whereas the gentleman in Minnesota did. One, had he survived his encounter with the police, would have been charged with illegal possession. The other, had he lived, would in the best of worlds have had his credentials checked and sent on his merry way.

In both cases, the system broke down because a policeman with a gun decided for himself to be judge, jury and executioner. In each instance the only time a gun was weilded was by a policeman; the only time a gun was fired was by a policeman, and those who were killed died with their hands empty. So here, the cop is the criminal and the criminal (and law abiding) is the victim. Go figure.

I used to be against gun control but the events of late have moved me to change my position. I am now an enthusiastic supporter of gun control...for police. It's becoming increasingly clear that most police do not have the requisite judgement necessary to employ these tools safely. And as there is no constitutional or legal guarantee or requirement mandating that police be armed, I believe the time has come to disarm all but the most carefully vetted and extensively trained among them and establish an unarmed constabulary similar to our English cousins.

[Verrocchio]

Re: What Happens After Cops Start Getting Shot?

Verrocchio, I think you have it turned around, but it's an interesting variant to an old anti-gun trope.

I've been around the American gun culture most of my life and I don't believe it's true that 2nd Amendment advocates assume that the "other" will come to the gunfight armed only with a knife (more dangerous, in some cases). The most vociferous of those advocates I've encountered take proactive steps to avoid being surprised by criminals with guns, expensive or otherwise. Bit too much for my taste, but that's America.

I don't think I know of any vociferous advocates for illegal access to guns but as is evident, there are many who advocate that the law abiding be permitted to exercise their civil rights and many who think they should be stripped of them regardless. I'm also not clear on how denying people who follow the law the means to exercise their rights will deter those who neither follow the law or have such rights to exercise. The fact that people abuse the law does not mean that those who follow it should be punished for doing so.

And yes, I'm very sure that lawful gun owners, vociferous or meek, do indeed think that the right to bear arms as the courts have interpreted it, applies only to themselves. This is probably because it says so right there in the black letter of the law that distinguishes them from entire classes of persons prevented by federal and state law from purchasing or possessing a firearm. These include felons, persons adjudicated of certain misdemeanors, those adjudicated mentally incompetent, and others with similar infirmities.

Now you may not like guns, never used one, never held one, and never care to. You may want to see the 2nd Amendment repealed and a mass confiscation of all firearms, followed by life imprisonment for anyone caught near one. You may feel safer in the knowledge that only police and soldiers possess them. You would not be alone in those preferences, but you would be in a political minority with decades of lost effort behind you that failed to make a dent in the gun culture or availability of guns.

Like it or not, Americans seem to consider guns second only to the Bible in symbolic importance (an aside: bitter clingers, I've heard them called, and curiously enough by the greatest gun salesman in history). That's why the First Amendment is first and the Second, second. I tease, of course, but it may as well be true. There are something on the order of 300 million guns circulating in a country of some 323 million. Most will never be used in anger, some will save lives, and some are bound to end up in the wrong hands, fast and furiously. Unless we are prepared to make fundamental changes in the way the state relates to its people, I think we are wasting our time here.

But of late it does seem that this relationship has changed, at least for black Americans. The gentleman in Baton Rouge apparently had no such right to exercise, whereas the gentleman in Minnesota did. One, had he survived his encounter with the police, would have been charged with illegal possession. The other, had he lived, would in the best of worlds have had his credentials checked and sent on his merry way.

In both cases, the system broke down because a policeman with a gun decided for himself to be judge, jury and executioner. In each instance the only time a gun was weilded was by a policeman; the only time a gun was fired was by a policeman, and those who were killed died with their hands empty. So here, the cop is the criminal and the criminal (and law abiding) is the victim. Go figure.

I used to be against gun control but the events of late have moved me to change my position. I am now an enthusiastic supporter of gun control...for police. It's becoming increasingly clear that most police do not have the requisite judgement necessary to employ these tools safely. And as there is no constitutional or legal guarantee or requirement mandating that police be armed, I believe the time has come to disarm all but the most carefully vetted and extensively trained among them and establish an unarmed constabulary similar to our English cousins.

To clear up a misunderstanding or two, Woodsman, you quoted me as writing that a knife was sometimes more dangerous than a gun. I don't disagree with that, but that was your idea and you added that phrase to my quoted message.

For the record, your speculation about whether I liked guns, etc., isn't relevant to my comment or its validity, but it insinuates something about me that is pretty far from reality. I'm an Army veteran who owns guns -- and knives, for that matter.

I don't want to see the 2nd Amendment repealed, either, but I would like to see the restrictions on gun sales to people with records of mental problems or criminal records effectively enforced.

The weapons I own are more than adequate for personal and home defense. I have no interest, however, in weapons that would enable me to lay down a sustained rapid rate of fire or to acquire body armor. I don't think that these should be for sale to the public.

[jk]

Re: What Happens After Cops Start Getting Shot?

I don't want to see the 2nd Amendment repealed, either, but I would like to see the restrictions on gun sales to people with records of mental problems or criminal records effectively enforced.

the mental health exclusion is virtually impossible to create and enforce. the virginia tech shooter had never been hospitalized. adam [?] lanza - the sandy hook shooter who killed 5 and 6 year old kids - had to my knowledge never been hospitalized. [otoh, i have patients who have been hospitalized at some point in their history who would be perfectly capable and responsible about owning a gun.]

what are the criteria for the mental health exclusion? and how is it to be enforced? what happens to the right of privacy of the tens of millions of people who happen to have anxiety or depression or an attention deficit disorder if you apply the exclusion to everyone who has had psychiatric treatment? and wouldn't such a system of reporting all such patients to a central database also discourage people from getting needed help?

mental health is always a handy thing to talk about in retrospect in these cases, but i don't see how it works absent a time machine.

[lektrode]

Re: What Happens After Cops Start Getting Shot?

"the pen is mightier than the sword"

.....

http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/

quite interesting - IF the signors are listed in order of signing - that NH's delegation was The First to Sign The Declaration.

NH was also The Last State to ratify that oh-so-corrupting document in 1913.

and STILL, going on near 400 years later?

has NO INCOME TAX
has NO SALES TAX
has a VOLUNTEER LEGISLATURE (that 'gets paid' $100/year for their 30day session)

which is also the largest legislative body in The US
and somehow manages to get the state's biz done every year, in a SINGLE 30 DAY SESSION

oh... and yeah...

all that and STILL DOES NOT HAVE A MANDATORY SEAT BELT LAW

the ONLY state in The US that regards as sacrosanct
THE RIGHT for adults to choose whether or not to wear them!

[Woodsman]

Re: What Happens After Cops Start Getting Shot?

To clear up a misunderstanding or two, Woodsman, you quoted me as writing that a knife was sometimes more dangerous than a gun. I don't disagree with that, but that was your idea and you added that phrase to my quoted message.

For the record, your speculation about whether I liked guns, etc., isn't relevant to my comment or its validity, but it insinuates something about me that is pretty far from reality. I'm an Army veteran who owns guns -- and knives, for that matter.

I don't want to see the 2nd Amendment repealed, either, but I would like to see the restrictions on gun sales to people with records of mental problems or criminal records effectively enforced.

The weapons I own are more than adequate for personal and home defense. I have no interest, however, in weapons that would enable me to lay down a sustained rapid rate of fire or to acquire body armor. I don't think that these should be for sale to the public.

Sorry if I seemed to make changes to your text, Verrocchio. Totally unintended; perils of a small screen and virtual keyboard. My sincerest apologies, sir (or Sergeant, in case you worked for a living when you served).

They don't appeal to me either, the space guns. Then again, except for an old Ruger 10/22 my grandfather bought me when I was a kid, my dad's weird collection of single shot and revolver derringers (half dozen or so, with two American Arms modern renditions), and the Ruger Red Eagle Standard Pistol his father gave him as a youngster, anything I fire I rent. Otherwise I have to clean it and really I haven't fired a shot in anger at paper or clay in so many months it would be embarrassing to watch.

Maybe the AR-15 is the new Kentucky Rifle in the minds of the average gun owner. I suppose it's what we call "freedom" nowadays, even if we have a broader concept of it. Still if you're not the sort of person who could spend hours browsing through the "Shotgun News" and "American Rifleman" without getting bored, you just wouldn't get it. It's a culture thing; and for damn sure a Southern thing. Which is just another way of saying American. Effed-up, I agree, but then again, they eat dogs in China and honor-murder their daughters in India, so everybody everywhere is effed-up somehow. Just happy the Trimbles came here when they did.

[Woodsman]

Re: What Happens After Cops Start Getting Shot?

the mental health exclusion is virtually impossible to create and enforce. the virginia tech shooter had never been hospitalized. adam [?] lanza - the sandy hook shooter who killed 5 and 6 year old kids - had to my knowledge never been hospitalized. [otoh, i have patients who have been hospitalized at some point in their history who would be perfectly capable and responsible about owning a gun.]

what are the criteria for the mental health exclusion? and how is it to be enforced? what happens to the right of privacy of the tens of millions of people who happen to have anxiety or depression or an attention deficit disorder if you apply the exclusion to everyone who has had psychiatric treatment? and wouldn't such a system of reporting all such patients to a central database also discourage people from getting needed help?

mental health is always a handy thing to talk about in retrospect in these cases, but i don't see how it works absent a time machine.

Good points. I think the pro gun folks shy away from this for the very same reasons you cite. They are reluctant to move to hard here, so if one is an anti gun, this is a productive line of attack and a loophole.

Conflicts of laws and rights and duties are where it hurts the most and where in the resolution we can grow as humans, societies and cultures. But these things take time, so in the interim, we fight.

[vt]

Re: What Happens After Cops Start Getting Shot?

The police need to be much better trained. All should have body cameras and cars with dashboard cameras.

When stopping a vehicle it there is any worry the officer should call for backup. If two officers approach a car one should have non lethal force with the other having a gun.

Drivers should be trained to have the driver's ready and the registration easy to get (center console) so they have these out before the officer approach the vehicle. A good idea would be for the driver to show both hands out the window with the license and registration ready.

There are common sense ways to deescalate.

We definitely need much more work with the force on how to handle situations when the gun is drawn. We have to protect the officer's life too.

Hopefully one day a robot can approach the stopped vehicle first to keep everyone safe.

As for guns, I don't mess around with them and don't hang around with anyone who does. But I do feel good citizens have a right to protect their families.

[Woodsman]

Re: What Happens After Cops Start Getting Shot?

One day has arrived!

[BillBoard]

Re: What Happens After Cops Start Getting Shot?

https://youtu.be/jUZLaJpVzMM

[vt]

Re: What Happens After Cops Start Getting Shot?

I ran the following that was sent to me on Snopes.com and they haven't been able to refute it. I do agree that the 2nd amendment let's some who shouldn't have guns get them. I also feel true assault weapons and body armor are not necessary. This is a very difficult problem to balance.

As I always have seen it the 2nd amendment is to protect the people from a tyrannical government, and to allow law abiding citizens to protect their family. Can anyone find evidence to the contrary of the following figures?


"A LITTLE GUN HISTORY

In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.

China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.

Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million educated people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control:56 million.

You won't see this data on the US evening news, or hear politicians disseminating this information.

Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws adversely affect only the law-abiding citizens.

Take note my fellow Americans, before it's too late!

The next time someone talks in favor of gun control, please remind them of this history lesson.

With guns, we are 'citizens'. Without them, we are 'subjects'.

During WWII the Japanese decided not to invade America because they knew most Americans were ARMED!"

[shiny!]

Re: What Happens After Cops Start Getting Shot?

If by "true assault weapons" you mean weapons capable of fully automatic fire, they're already illegal and have been since the 30's. The only time you see these weapons is in the movies and TV because for the most part, the only non-governmental people who have permits for fully automatic weapons are Hollywood movie and TV producers (who are notoriously and hypocritically anti-gun). Seeing so many fully automatic weapons spraying bullets in the action movies leads people to think our streets are awash with these weapons so they're easily manipulated into crying out for gun control.

Semiautomatic rifles and pistols are legal. They only fire one shot per trigger pull. There's zero functional difference between a semiautomatic hunting rifle with a pretty wooden stock and a scary looking semiauto "assault weapon" with a black plastic stock. Laws to ban the latter are referred to by shooters as "ugly gun bans."

Some people say there's no valid reason why civilians need semiautomatic weapons with extended magazines, that only the police should have such firepower. Nonsense.

True story: My husband had just moved out of LA a month before the Rodney King riots. He had friends in southside LA. They told him that the police didn't respond to calls. One Korean convenience store owner saved his business by standing on the roof all night with one of those ugly guns. The looters trashed his street but gave him and his store a wide berth.

Since Orlando, media propagandists are calling for a ban on citizens having "assault weapons and body armor" and suddenly everyone jumps on the bandwagon! All the while, employees of the IRS, the EPA, the FDA etc. are getting armed to the teeth with these same weapons and body armor at taxpayer expense. Who benefits in this scenario?

[Woodsman]

Re: What Happens After Cops Start Getting Shot?

Well, I thought technically you could get a "Class 3 license" and pay to become an "SOT," but it's been a long time since I knew about such things. And really I think that means you have to go through the trouble of annual inspections, secure storage and such, so by that point if we're talking about an individual doing it as a hobby, it's really the domain of rich and obsessive sort of dudes. And that presumes you find what you want in the registry. It's just not a big problem in the real world and is all Hollywood.

That's not to say that some chucklehead doesn't from time to time go off and buy machine tools and tries to finesse things. Trust me. You don't ever want to do that.

[jk]

Re: What Happens After Cops Start Getting Shot?

I ran the following that was sent to me on Snopes.com and they haven't been able to refute it. I do agree that the 2nd amendment let's some who shouldn't have guns get them. I also feel true assault weapons and body armor are not necessary. This is a very difficult problem to balance.

As I always have seen it the 2nd amendment is to protect the people from a tyrannical government, and to allow law abiding citizens to protect their family. Can anyone find evidence to the contrary of the following figures?


"A LITTLE GUN HISTORY

In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.

China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.

Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million educated people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control:56 million.

You won't see this data on the US evening news, or hear politicians disseminating this information.

Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws adversely affect only the law-abiding citizens.

Take note my fellow Americans, before it's too late!

The next time someone talks in favor of gun control, please remind them of this history lesson.

With guns, we are 'citizens'. Without them, we are 'subjects'.

During WWII the Japanese decided not to invade America because they knew most Americans were ARMED!"

the fallacy in this analysis lies in the phrase "unable to defend themselves." the implied assumption is that if they'd had weapons the slaughter would not have occurred. wrong. the same slaughter would have occurred, but they might have been able to take some [more?] state agents with them.

[dcarrigg]

Re: What Happens After Cops Start Getting Shot?

Can anyone find evidence to the contrary of the following figures?


"A LITTLE GUN HISTORY

In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million were rounded up and exterminated.

In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, were rounded up and exterminated.

Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jewswere rounded up and exterminated.

...

Yes, I can find plenty of evidence to disprove this. Especially the stuff happening during WWII. Private gun ownership was actually banned in Germany until 1928. The Nazis actually opened it up. They did have registration. But they needed lots of private gun ownership. Actually, even the gun ban was kind of nonsense in the Weimar Republic, considering almost every family had a veteran of WWI and all of them had weapons.

Think about it this way: How did Hitler kill all the Communists in the Beer Hall Putsch without private guns? How did the SA, before the Nazis came to power, intimidate and bully their way through elections without guns? The commies, of course, had guns too. Just about everyone was armed.

Anyways, the March 1938 law actually opened gun ownership up further. It allowed anyone with a hunting license to sell or transfer weapons, whereas before you needed to have a license to be a gun dealer. This essentially recreated the 'gun show loophole' and let anyone sell just about any kind of weapon they wanted. It also lowered the age of gun ownership from 20 years old to 18 years old. It completely deregulated longguns and shotguns, so only handguns were under any kind of regulation at all. It did explicitly ban Jews from owning weapons factories or gun stores. But cops were given wide latitude to simply disarm Jews or anyone else they found 'untrustworthy' whenever they wanted.

In fact, the rules of the road established for guns by the Nazis in 1938 don't sound terribly different than what goes on today. Here's a lot more background in a short paper.


_____________

As far as Turkey goes, I must admit, I know far less offhand about Turkish history. But there's something I do know about Turkish history. Turkey doesn't become a country until 1923. 1911 would have been the Ottoman Empire. If the Ottoman Empire established gun control in 1911, we're talking full gun control in an area that today stretches from Kuwait City, Kuwait to Sochi, Russia, from Sofia, Bulgaria to Jerusalem, Israel, and all the way down to Sana'a, Yemen. It's almost unfathomable that the monarch of an aging, crumpling, falling-apart empire like the Ottoman Empire could have established a bureaucracy that was even remotely effective at disarming so many peoples over such a large area.

In fact, whatever gun control they instituted (if indeed they did at all) must have been extensively weak, considering soon after Bulgaria fights and wins a war for independence, then Libya in 1912, then Yemen, Crete and Albania in 1913...and this is all before the Armenian Genocide begins in 1915. But it's too late. The Ottoman Empire is still collapsing. They lash out at Armenians and Kurds, the unsuccessful independence fighters. But Russia fills the vacuum pretty quick and snaps up Georgia and Armenia. Random British and French mandates hold the rest of the shaky nonsense together. Here's a prime example.

Anyways, I can't prove Turkey didn't establish gun control in 1911. But I can prove it wasn't a country yet...and that the story makes little sense.

________________________


Guns and Russia / USSR are complicated. So far as I know, they were never banned in any sense of the word. But generally they weren't allowed in cities. So a peasant logger out in bear country would be expected to have a couple rifles for hunting and dealing with big game. Ditto some poor soul trying to make a hack at life in the Siberian woods where big mean creatures like tigers still roam around. But you were supposed to check weapons in when you went into a big city, and they'd sit there in storage and you'd get them again when you went out.

Actually, there was a bit of a push previous to Stalin under Lenin if I recall to limit hunting weapons, and it didn't go down so well and never really got implemented. And I'm sure there were, as always in Russian history, attempts to disarm tartars and other non-Russian nationalist groups here and there, although somehow they always throughout Russian history manage to find weapons and horses to mount rebellions anyways. I suppose it would be something akin to an old Western in the USA where say President Tyler or something would announce that Indians can't own guns. I guess that's gun control on paper. But fat chance enforcing it. Same sort of idea.

And actually, giving up your weapons at the city limits has long and old traditions in America too. If the sheriff of Tombstone or Deadwood or Dodge banned handguns within city limits, you'd best turn yours in at the city limits. That simple. So this was sort of the Russian model, best as I can tell. In fact, I can't find any evidence of any Soviet law regarding domestic gun ownership in 1929 whatsoever...and Soviet laws are pretty well documented (unlike the Ottomans'). I don't think there was any 1929 law. Just like there was no Turkey in 1911...