Re: Crime and Punishment: Oklahoma (& Texas) style!
Posted: Sat Aug 26, 2017 1:17 am
a discussion forum for Polywell fusion
https://talk-polywell.org/bb/
Diogenes wrote:
We are told we are not allowed to own machine guns. We agreed.
We are told we are not allowed to carry Into government buildings. We agree.
We are told we are not allowed to carry in certain national parks. We agree.
We are told we are not allowed to defend ourselves on college campuses, despite after time and time again being slaughtered on supposedly “gun-free” areas, but we agreed.
We are told in the 90s we are not allowed to own (inappropriately labeled and completely undefinable) “assault weapons,” but it passed as we had to suck it up for 10 years.
We are told that we are DENIED the right to walk the streets of the most crime ridden cities without means of protecting ourselves, and once again we are left with little say.
Here’s my question, where is YOUR compromise?
Let me throw a document into the equation: The Constitution. Yeah, yeah, old news. You’ve heard it a million times.
Well, when the Constitution says “bear arms,” during the period in which it was signed, it meant bear any kind of weapon. Civilians owned the cannons, not the government.
Every man had a rifle. His own. It was either a family heirloom or a tool used to ensure survival. No one dared take a man’s livelihood.
What’s the difference today? Well, most people don’t own cannons. Civies don’t own tanks, helicopters, stealth fighters, or cruise missiles. So what are we left with? Rifles, pistols, in rare cases grenade launchers (which launch non-explosive rounds) and basically the equivalent to pea shooters against a tank.
Seems like a compromise.
We’re not allowed to own anything, because after all, why would any peaceful citizen need one right?
Wrong.
The reason the Second Amendment was the second, and not the tenth, or the fifth, or what have you, is because without it, no other right is guaranteed. Governments, regardless of country or creed takes any measures necessary to further to own authority. It is a promise of history.
What are we, as citizens, left with to defend ourselves with? Literally, pea shooters.
We are told we are not allowed to own machine guns. We agreed.
We are told we are not allowed to carry Into government buildings. We agree.
We are told we are not allowed to carry in certain national parks. We agree.
We are told we are not allowed to defend ourselves on college campuses, despite after time and time again being slaughtered on supposedly “gun-free” areas, but we agreed.
We are told in the 90s we are not allowed to own (inappropriately labeled and completely undefinable) “assault weapons,” but it passed as we had to suck it up for 10 years.
We are told that we are DENIED the right to walk the streets of the most crime ridden cities without means of protecting ourselves, and once again we are left with little say.
Here’s my question, where is YOUR compromise?
I’m not asking you to actually limit your constitutional rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
So far WE as gun owners are the ONLY ones doing any kind of compromising.
We’re not forcing anyone to do anything. We’re not holding lawmakers at gun point. However, lawmakers are literally holding gun owners at gunpoint to follow the law.
Yes. The government enforces laws. With police. And police carry guns.
We just want to be left alone. We’re not breaking the law. However we make compromise after compromise which limits are pushed every time a gun law passes.
I don’t see you having to compromise a darn thing. Oh, you’re scared because law abiding citizens carry? Boo hoo. But why are you afraid of people who wish you no harm? Why aren’t you instead afraid of criminals who *ahem* are criminals. And don’t follow the law anyway? You think because you pass a gun law he’ll magically turn in his gun out of guilt or civic duty? You can’t be serious.
Because real American gun owners don’t pose a threat to you.
You pose a threat to your own darn rights by chipping away at ours. Rights are equal amongst citizens of this country. When you start pretending you can limit ours, you’re really limiting your own as well. Some great compromising you’ve done.
williatw wrote:
From your link:
Despite Democrat leadership in the crime-ridden city imploring citizens to let law enforcement handle the exploding crime, residents — primarily black women — are thinking for themselves and buying guns for self defense.
The Chicago Tribune reported that nearly 1,400 black women in Illinois have received concealed carry permits in 2017. That number has gone up since last year and is almost twice the 800 who did so in 2014. More than 4,000 black women currently have a concealed carry permit in Cook County alone, where Chicago is located.
A local resident told DailyMail.com that Willeford, who attends a different church, was first alerted to the shooting when his daughter called him saying there was a man in body armor gunning down church goers during mass.
He grabbed his gun and headed down to confront the gunman.
Willeford, a local plumber with no military experience, is however an excellent shot according to the resident, and when he came face to face with Kelley, he shot in between his body armor, hitting him in his side.
Diogenes wrote:Pictured: The two heroic locals who shot Texas gunman outside the church, chased him in their truck at 95mph and ran him off the road before he killed himself
Texas lets each church decide whether to allow permitted concealed handguns, and we don’t know whether this particular church allowed it.
williatw wrote:Diogenes wrote:Pictured: The two heroic locals who shot Texas gunman outside the church, chased him in their truck at 95mph and ran him off the road before he killed himself
Thanks for posting the link...I had heard something about the shooter being engaged by an armed citizen but the details I read were sketchy. From your link it says he was shot "between his body armor"; good shooting! Probably why he eventually lost control of his vehicle and crashed.
I'm betting that a lot of churches in Texas are going to start having armed pastors or deacons, or at least some firearms in reserve somewhere in the church. I've read accounts of terrorist style attacks from experts, and they say that the mere fact of a confrontation with another shooter will usually cause someone to drop their original plan and try to flee.williatw wrote: Found this:
Texas lets each church decide whether to allow permitted concealed handguns, and we don’t know whether this particular church allowed it.
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/11/ ... h-gun.html
From an op-ed by John Lott, he usually has reliable info about incidences such as this; wouldn't be surprised if this churches' policy was "gun free"'; mass public shootings usually happen in gun free zones for obvious reasons.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/pos ... d4935805fcThe gunman who opened fire in a church outside San Antonio, killing at least 26 people, escaped from a mental health facility in 2012 after he was caught sneaking guns onto an Air Force base and “attempting to carry out death threats” made against military superiors, according to a police report.