Defending The Second Amendment and The Constitution

[MARIS61]

[video]

[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]

 

[Denny Crane]

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.”

 

[Run BJM]

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.

 

[Natebishop3]

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.

 

[BLAZER PROPHET]

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.

 

[Denny Crane]

 

[Denny Crane]

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.

 

[Denny Crane]

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

 

[magnifier661]

Obama wants to ban your guns. Remember that.

 

[MARIS61]

Obama wants to ban your guns. Remember that.

Banning guns is not within the Constitutional powers of the President. Remember that.

 

[Denny Crane]

Banning guns is not within the Constitutional powers of the President. Remember that.

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.

 

[MARIS61]

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.

 

[Eastoff]

http://greywinn.hubpages.com/hub/Gun-Statistics-Are-Not-Simple

Just thought I'd throw this in.

 

[DaLincolnJones]

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...

 

[RR7]

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...

how do they protect from the government, then?

 

[DaLincolnJones]

how do they protect from the government, then?

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

 

[RR7]

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?

 

[magnifier661]

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.

 

[Natebishop3]

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.

 

[DaLincolnJones]

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?

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

 

[RR7]

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.

I don't think I'm asking what you are answering.

 

[RR7]

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

how the fuck am I trolling?
I'm being serious. People often claim that 2nd amendment is a way tto protect against a tyranical government. But as you said, and I agree, government isn't very likely to just start bombing their citizens. So how is it protection against it?

 

[DaLincolnJones]

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

already answered that

so keep going in circles..I am done

 

[RR7]

yeah, I asked for clarification on that. Wasn't trying to troll or be a dick. You said they'll overthrow the constitution with force. and also that just having guns is our protection against them doing that. I'm not exactly sure what you're saying, sinc e you said it's laughable they would turn guns on the populace.

 

[Denny Crane]

yeah, I asked for clarification on that. Wasn't trying to troll or be a dick. You said they'll overthrow the constitution with force. and also that just having guns is our protection against them doing that. I'm not exactly sure what you're saying, sinc e you said it's laughable they would turn guns on the populace.

Obama's going to surrender the war in Afghanistan. We lost to a bunch of people from the stone age. They don't have a modern army like the cold war era USSR or anything. So... you think they'd do well against armed MIT trained engineers on our own turf? And with a military that might not fight for Obama?

 

[RR7]

So... you think they'd do well against armed MIT trained engineers on our own turf?

Yes, you've tried this dumb argument previously. Our the MIT trained engineers just holding legal guns? If so, then I don't see why they'd fare any better than you or I. Of course, you're implying that the MIT guys will be devising ways to help the citizens with other things, bombs, etc. In which case, what is really protecting us in that very unlikely case is not the second amendment right to bear arms.

 

[Denny Crane]

Yes, you've tried this dumb argument previously. Our the MIT trained engineers just holding legal guns? If so, then I don't see why they'd fare any better than you or I. Of course, you're implying that the MIT guys will be devising ways to help the citizens with other things, bombs, etc. In which case, what is really protecting us in that very unlikely case is not the second amendment right to bear arms.

I think the MIT guys would do a lot better at deceiving the drones or otherwise making things tough on the govt.

Timothy McVeigh was able to blow up a federal building and do all sorts of damage without holding a legal gun. IEDs were the biggest headache for our troops over there (Iraq or Afghanistan).

 

[RR7]

I think the MIT guys would do a lot better at deceiving the drones or otherwise making things tough on the govt.

Timothy McVeigh was able to blow up a federal building and do all sorts of damage without holding a legal gun. IEDs were the biggest headache for our troops over there (Iraq or Afghanistan).

uh huh. Cool story. I'm not arguing about winning a war of citizens versus US military. You providing evidence of people fighting with things not protected under the 2nd amendment doesn't at all, however, help support the 2nd amendment as protection from tyranny argument

 

[Denny Crane]

uh huh. Cool story. I'm not arguing about winning a war of citizens versus US military. You providing evidence of people fighting with things not protected under the 2nd amendment doesn't at all, however, help support the 2nd amendment as protection from tyranny argument

That people are armed keeps the govt. honest.

 

[RR7]

That people are armed keeps the govt. honest.

i'll call bullshit on that