Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

GUNS GUNS GUNS GUNS GUNS GUNS GUNS GUNS GUNS GUNS


Guest Sparoism

Recommended Posts

This forum is supported by the 12ozProphet Shop, so go buy a shirt and help support!
This forum is brought to you by the 12ozProphet Shop.
This forum is brought to you by the 12oz Shop.
  • Replies 130
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Guest Sparoism

I haven't had much chance to keep up with the debate...no constitutional threadjacks, no serious fights...okay.

 

Come on, SF...there's gotta be at least one Heeb you like. I'm part Heeb...1/4 kosher, to be precise.

 

My mom's family got out of there after WWI and before the Nazis gayed up the scene, but Weimar Germany was hard for everyone...after a while, it got so bad they needed someone to blame and they knew EXACTLY who to turn their wrath on...the bankers, of course! Who were incindentally Jewish, by the way, so logic would lead me to conclude the following-

 

A) One version of the story goes like this- the Germans were too busy picking up rubble and organizing meetings at beer halls to manage their own financial affairs, and the inflation was ridiculous since the war had pretty much laid Eurpoe to waste. It cost a wheelbarrow full of marks to do a week's shopping. The inflation got progressively worse as people began to hoard (worthless) money...EVERYONE did it...then, instead of the government doing something to HELP the economy such as bond isues or public works projects-whatever governments do to made dough.... they just printed a bunch of new money that, at one point, cost more to make than it was worth, and succeeded in driving inflation to unprecendented levels.

 

So, did people blame the state? NO FUCKIN' WAY. The Nazis did not have a reputation for being open to criticism. If one person said, "Hey, our hut has fleas from when the Fuhrer visited and you said that you would take care of the fleas... " That would get your whole village burnt down, They blamed bankers for inflation, Something like, "We gave them our money and now it's worthless....it's the Jews that did it!" Add that burning sensation to centuries of distrust and lack of communication, and voila! A pogrom is born.

 

Suddenly, thanks to National Socialism and some HUGE pep rallies, all of the people with nationalist tendencies in Germany had a common goal- They were gonna come back stronger than ever, so they could personally kick the ass of everyone on the planet. Starting with the "defectives" seemed to be an efficent way of purging society as well as getting some long overdue murder practice in.

 

The story ends with Germany losing the war. But things have come a long way, since then- 60 years later they elected their first female president. I'd settle for a president who can win an argument...

 

So, AS long as you ARE kidding, SF, I'll join in...I can use a laugh at times, and I have always thought yarmulkes look a little like potholders to me. but, we should all be cool, anyways....I'm tired, I've been recording some DJ sets and I think I'm stating the obvious here...I have no beef with anyone right now, I think... And it's my birthday Tuesday....and my first day at a new job...SO BE NICE TO ME, and the other Jews will have to look out for themselves. Oh. and it's Hanukkah. Not that it means anything, but it's a good enough reason to be chill.

 

GOOD NIGHT....I'll post some stuff that I couldn't get to today later.

 

 

(The above was a story for the 12 oz. Jewish community in light of the fact that it's a holiday and it seemed right. Yes, I'm drunk.)

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Sparoism

Guns of Abraham? It's sort of funny and sad at the same time. OHHH....Gun Owners of America, got it. I have read a little more about 2nd Amendment lately and the fact that it does indeed require everyone who is trained and equipped to mobilize in the event of an emergency...

 

Now, don't get me wrong. I want a SHOTGUN to have around the house. I have no interest in any other guns, beyond a tool to have around the house in case of an emergency. I am aware that states with CCW permits tend to have lower crime than those who don't. I am aware that the vast majority of licensed gun owners in the USA are just regular, law abididng folks who want to take responsibility for their own safety. They don't see it as a situation where they can leave their safety to others and hope for the best.

 

But, somehow....I don't see private arms ownership being a lasting part of the New World Disorder. Bush may trust his friends and protectors/handlers to safely carry weapons in close proximity to him....Somehow I doubt that guy actually KNOWS that the 2nd Amendment is still very much in effect...I think he might have said, "Turn it off, brain, it's...OOOOWWWW" when he realized that Lincoln had freed the slaves and was not just the name of the car he rode in everyday.

 

Sometimes, I do think there is a higher power....on account of the fact that George Bush does not seem to be concerned or alarmed that he isn't in charge of PRESIDENTIAL issues anymore. Ever since Katrina and the Scooter Libby scandal, I see Cheney and Rice hanging out all over the world, and conspicuously w/o George Bush...who is currenty waging a war against humbugs. I think after all the places I've seen the VP signing something or being hustled into a G-8 meeting, and the fact that he looks as if he's used to traveling this way all the time...unlike W, who looked a little peeved when he had to sit in the back seat.

 

You know, getting locked in a dining hall at a state dinner/function would shake me up.....I think about it all the time. But Bush? HE MADE A FUNNY...whoa.

 

 

Oh, yeah..well, funny shit....who knew?

Link to post
Share on other sites

angel of death- governments dont make laws that protect your 'natural rights' governments make laws that restrict your natural rights for the common good of members of the society they govern.

 

I personally dont think that the public should have access to friearms jsut on the premise of self protection, maybe for hunting and shit like that, and its not because i think everyones going to go and kill everyone else its just because of all the accidents that happen like a little kid finds his dads gun then shoots himself in the face.

 

Then again americans seems to have a mindset like everyone else is out to get them and they need guns to kill anyone that looks like theyre going to do something to them. I dunno id probably have a different attitude if i grew up in america but to me the idea of everyone owning guns seems really backwards

Link to post
Share on other sites

i have a like/hate relationship with guns.

i really don't care about gun rights or control.

 

my hands are thrown up in the face of an impossible situation

too many guns already exist to stop their proliferation

and too many people are obsessed with them to stop their propagation

 

they are instruments of death

and i hate them

but they are fun to play with

and i enjoy them.

 

as far as everyone else, to each his own

 

everyone knows you are FAR more likely to kill or accidentally kill someone you know and maybe love with a gun, so we deserve every last piece of misery we inflict upon humanity with guns.

 

but they sure do come in handy sometimes.

 

i'll also add: getting shot at sucks.

 

 

some statistics:

In 2002, there were 30,242 gun deaths in the U.S:

 

* 17,108 suicides (56% of all U.S gun deaths),

* 11,829 homicides (39% of all U.S gun deaths),

* 762 unintentional shootings (3% of all U.S gun deaths),

* and 300 from legal intervention and 243 from undetermined intent (2% of all U.S gun deaths combined).

 

While handguns account for only one-third of all firearms owned in the United States, they account for more than two-thirds of all firearm-related deaths each year. A gun in the home is 4 times more likely to be involved in an unintentional shooting, 7 times more likely to be used to commit a criminal assault or homicide, and 11 times more likely to be used to attempt or commit suicide than to be used in self-defense.

 

-Numbers obtained from CDC National Center for Health Statistics mortality report online, 2005.

 

Access to lethal means, especially firearms, greatly increases the likelihood that someone will commit suicide. A gun in the home is 11 times more likely to be used to attempt or commit a suicide than to be used in self-defense.

 

The firearms used in 72% of unintentional firearm deaths and injuries and in firearm suicide attempts and completions for people ages 0-19 were stored in the residence of the victim, their relative, or their friend.

 

 

Contrary to popular belief, young children do possess the physical strength to fire a gun: 25% of 3-to-4-year-olds, 70% of 5-to-6-year-olds, and 90% of 7-to-8-year-olds can fire most handguns.

 

From 1977 to 1996, the U.S. firearm industry produced 85,644,715 firearms, 39,024,786 handguns, 26,651,062 rifles and 19,969,867 shotguns in the United States.

- Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms

 

People who keep guns at home have a 72% greater chance of being killed by firearms and are 3.44 times more likely to commit suicide than those who do not keep guns at home (Annals of Emergency Medicine, Vol 41, p. 771).

Link to post
Share on other sites

The idea of having a firearm for self or home protection is incredibly stupid in most people's cases. If you have some rugrats running around, the only safe way to keep a weapon is with a safety lock and in a locked gun case. When someone breaks into your home, just tell them to wait a minute while you get the Remington out. Or, someone is robbing your house when you get home and surprise them. They might have your loaded shotgun and don't paticularly like the idea of going to prison. Also, keep in mind most people freeze when it comes down to taking another person's life.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder if just being a member of the NRA increases your chances of suicide and or death by firearm. Modern day militias are really pointless. If guns aren't needed for self protection then why do you guys keep using this milita argument for owning guns? Are you guys gonna defeat the dea/fbi when they kick your doors in? Or is the point that if we all had guns we would all be safe from each other and the gov't?

 

I agree guns are cool. They look cool, they are capable of shooting bullets (which is really cool) and they are made to kill things. That IS cool. And if we all had one we could resort to our guns when we feel threatened, I can't think of a better scenario....americans scared shitless by their gov't and stockpiling automatic rifles with an endless supply of bullets. So that one day...when our gov't has the strongest most deadly military ever, we can rise up.... ....and then die. yay.

And in the meantime, while we stock our ammo and guns we'll be tricked into voting republican (so we can keep our sacred guns) and allow our gov't to strip us of REAL NATURAL RIGHTS.

Link to post
Share on other sites

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

 

 

 

 

 

 

^^ thats all the 2nd admendment says. I think people read into it too much. to me that says that States have the right to have an army (such as state police or national guard) and that the federal gov't can not take away that right from the states...it doesn't say nothing about people collecting guns, having hand guns etc etc... I stand by my earlier statement above and also agree with hoboknife...

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Sparoism

I know there's a lot of different ways to look at this. I just happen to see it from a practical point of view, i.e. I need to do what the cops can't do, which is handle the situation RIGHT NOW. The average 911 response time in my area is 10 to 20 minutes. Those are not odds I would care to play.

 

I agree, Stereotype, that killing people in the academic sense and actually doing the deed are very different points of view. But, if it's clearly a situation of me or the other guy, then I'd rather be the one cleaning up the mess than the mess someone had to clean up.

 

I'm not interested in the "having a gun so the government knows who's boss" argument, either. That's not my point. The American populace at large could care less about what civil liberties they have, as long as the ILLUSION of those liberties is maintained. Oh, and if they have an SUV to drive to work and a cell with the 50 cent ringtone, they'll let you fuck them in the ass, too.

 

I KNOW what our government is up to. It's just now starting to come to light, and if 10% of the people (30 million) were angry enough to do something like march on Washington, DC tomorrow morning, the only thing that would stop them is the same kind of stuff Our Beloved Leaders claim to be saving us from....such as tactical nukes...or sarin..or bubonic plague. That's a PR nightmare just waiting to happen, but if it came down to it, I don't think Cheney would bat an eye at anything he deemed "neccessary force" to quell an uprising of that magnitude. Also, (and this is not meant to be a knock at some people) the guys who collect guns and think they're doing it as a check to the government would be caled "insurgents", or whatever they're called this week. And they would be mowed the FUCK down since there aren't that many of them...but if the country would WAKE UP and decide to effect some real change, it would be a different story.

 

Well, you could put the guys with the guns on the front lines, I guess. I would be willing to negotiate terms, however...I'm a reasonable guy.

Link to post
Share on other sites

the militia argument is brought up soley because it is in the second amendment. the second amendment is not about hunting, or target shooting. it is about being armed as a last resort for self defense and to protect from tyranny in government.

 

"angel of death- governments dont make laws that protect your 'natural rights' governments make laws that restrict your natural rights for the common good of members of the society they govern."

 

im assuming your not from america. the constitution of the US, IS A LIMITING DOCUMENT. IT GRANTS NO RIGHTS! the constitution recognizes people of a free societys' natural rights granted at birth, and builds a government to protect them.

every human has a right to defend life, liberty and property.

I do not give a rats ass if it makes sense or not to be armed for your own self defense or to protect your property, but the amendment created to protect the rights of citizens in a free society, tells the government to keep hands off of guns. it is an inalienable right. disarming the populace has preluded the rise of the most brutal dictators in the 20th century

 

the only reason we even have a constitution today is because of the bill of rights. the federalists wanted a centralised state to run the country. the anti federalists wanted decentralised government. the bill of rights was the compromise. the federalists wanted a central bank and life term presidents.

 

these arguments present the key differences between liberals and conservatives(including libertarians). liberals believe in collective rights like the 2nd amendment only pertains to collective government bodies and police forces. conservatives believe in individual rights, as did the founders of this country. the second amendment, is an individual right, as declared by the framers of this country, and was put in place soley to keep the populace armed for the final check on the federal government. if there was no second amendment, there wouldnt be any others.

 

i'll leave you with these.

 

the constitution says what it says.

"On every question of construction (of the Constitution) let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed." (Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823, The Complete Jefferson, p. 322)

 

"The whole of the Bill (of Rights) is a declaration of the right of the people at large or considered as individuals.... It establishes some rights of the individual as unalienable and which consequently, no majority has a right to deprive them of." (Albert Gallatin of the New York Historical Society, October 7, 1789)

 

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms has been recognized by the General Government; but the best security of that right after all is, the military spirit, that taste for martial exercises, which has always distinguished the free citizens of these States....Such men form the best barrier to the liberties of America" - (Gazette of the United States, October 14, 1789.)

 

"No Free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." (Thomas Jefferson, Proposal Virginia Constitution, 1 T. Jefferson Papers, 334,[C.J.Boyd, Ed., 1950])

 

"The right of the people to keep and bear...arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country..." (James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434 [June 8, 1789])

 

"A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves...and include all men capable of bearing arms." (Richard Henry Lee, Additional Letters from the Federal Farmer (1788) at 169)

 

"What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty.... Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins." (Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, spoken during floor debate over the Second Amendment [ I Annals of Congress at 750 {August 17, 1789}])

 

"...to disarm the people - that was the best and most effectual way to enslave them." (George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 380)

 

"Americans have the right and advantage of being armed - unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." (James Madison, The Federalist Papers #46 at 243-244)

 

"the ultimate authority ... resides in the people alone," (James Madison, author of the Bill of Rights, in Federalist Paper #46.)

 

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States" (Noah Webster in `An Examination into the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution', 1787, a pamphlet aimed at swaying Pennsylvania toward ratification, in Paul Ford, ed., Pamphlets on the Constitution of the United States, at 56(New York, 1888))

 

"...but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights..." (Alexander Hamilton speaking of standing armies in Federalist 29.)

 

"As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms." (Tench Coxe in `Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution' under the Pseudonym `A Pennsylvanian' in the Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789 at 2 col. 1)

 

"Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American... The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state government, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people" (Tench Coxe, Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788)

 

"That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of The United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms..." (Samuel Adams, Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, at 86-87 (Peirce & Hale, eds., Boston, 1850))

 

 

"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms, and be taught alike especially when young, how to use them." (Richard Henry Lee, 1788, Initiator of the Declaration of Independence, and member of the first Senate, which passed the Bill of Rights, Walter Bennett, ed., Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republican, at 21,22,124 (Univ. of Alabama Press,1975)..)

 

"The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full possession of them." (Zachariah Johnson, 3 Elliot, Debates at 646)

 

"Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?" (Patrick Henry, 3 J. Elliot, Debates in the Several State Conventions 45, 2d ed. Philadelphia, 1836)

 

"And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms....The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants" (Thomas Jefferson in a letter to William S. Smith in 1787. Taken from Jefferson, On Democracy 20, S. Padover ed., 1939)

 

"The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." -- (Thomas Jefferson)

 

"Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence ... From the hour the Pilgrims landed, to the present day, events, occurrences, and tendencies prove that to insure peace, security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable . . . the very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that is good" (George Washington)

 

"...the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms" (from article in the Philadelphia Federal Gazette June 18, 1789 at 2, col.2,)

 

 

"The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them. And yet, though this truth would seem so clear, and the importance of a well regulated militia would seem so undeniable, it cannot be disguised, that among the American people there is a growing indifference to any system of militia discipline, and a strong disposition, from a sense of its burthens, to be rid of all regulations. How it is practicable to keep the people duly armed without some organization, it is difficult to see. There is certainly no small danger, that indifference may lead to disgust, and disgust to contempt; and thus gradually undermine all the protection intended by this clause of our national bill of rights." (Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States; With a Preliminary Review of the Constitutional History of the Colonies and States before the Adoption of the Constitution [boston, 1833])

 

"The tank, the B-52, the fighter-bomber, the state-controlled police and military are the weapons of dictatorship. The rifle is the weapon of democracy. If guns are outlawed, only the government will have guns. Only the police, the secret police, the military. The hired servants of our rulers. Only the government-and a few outlaws. I intend to be among the outlaws." (Edward Abbey, "The Right to Arms," Abbey's Road [New York, 1979])

 

 

"To prohibit a citizen from wearing or carrying a war arm . . . is an unwarranted restriction upon the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of constitutional privilege." [Wilson v. State, 33 Ark. 557, at 560, 34 Am. Rep. 52, at 54 (1878)]

 

For, in principle, there is no difference between a law prohibiting the wearing of concealed arms, and a law forbidding the wearing such as are exposed; and if the former be unconstitutional, the latter must be so likewise. But it should not be forgotten, that it is not only a part of the right that is secured by the constitution; it is the right entire and complete, as it existed at the adoption of the constitution; and if any portion of that right be impaired, immaterial how small the part may be, and immaterial the order of time at which it be done, it is equally forbidden by the constitution." [bliss vs. Commonwealth, 12 Ky. (2 Litt.) 90, at 92, and 93, 13 Am. Dec. 251 (1822)]

 

" `The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.' The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the milita, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right." [Nunn vs. State, 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243, at 251 (1846)]

 

"The provision in the Constitution granting the right to all persons to bear arms is a limitation upon the power of the Legislature to enact any law to the contrary. The exercise of a right guaranteed by the Constitution cannot be made subject to the will of the sheriff." [People vs. Zerillo, 219 Mich. 635, 189 N.W. 927, at 928 (1922)]

 

"The maintenance of the right to bear arms is a most essential one to every free people and should not be whittled down by technical constructions." [state vs. Kerner, 181 N.C. 574, 107 S.E. 222, at 224 (1921)]

 

"The right of a citizen to bear arms, in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the State government. It is one of the "high powers" delegated directly to the citizen, and `is excepted out of the general powers of government.' A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power." [Cockrum v. State, 24 Tex. 394, at 401-402 (1859)]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

please dont even TRY to tell me that the right to bear arms is a collective right pertaining to police forces and that the founders didnt intend for citizens to own them. what would you think if we placed restrictions like gun control on freedom of speech, press, right to trial by jury, no unwarranted search and seizures, and told everyone they could practice any religion they want to as long as it was either christianity or islam?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Sparoism

I'm going out on a limb here, but everybody has read "1984", right?

 

It's getting to the point that if they want to make constitutional amendments without Congressional or Supreme Court intervention, the people who would be up in arms over it would likely be in the minority and unable to do much about it. Their best bet would be to leave before they "legislate" to seal the borders "as a powerful deterrent to terrorists". Hello? Timothy McVeigh? He was from here...as well as the Unabomber, and Earth First, and the ALF and ELF...there's plenty of unrest right here that isn't being addressed and it has a lot ot do with the status quo.

 

The rest of the poulation probably wouldn't even notice. If you flip them a Tivo and a lifetime prescription for Xanax, they'd probably even vote for it.

 

It's all about the spin, baby. These guys can sell freezers to the Eskimos. People who will do anything to be "safe" eventually discover that the only way you can accomplish that is by giving up all of your freedom...and a gilded cage is still a cage.

 

But by then, it's too late. I don't know, the things this government gets away with makes me think it might already be too late. How far have they sold us down the river? Will it all come out in the end? That depends on whether there's people somewhere near the top who are willing to come clean, and as long as there's a gravy train to ride, you can bet they'll only leak enough for us to wonder what's REALLY going on.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There is strong evidence that Timothy McVeigh had ties to alqueda in the Philippines. And the militia he was with had a foreigner as one of the main leaders, whose agenda was Aryan power and like the Islamic terrorists, anti Semitic. The explosives he used are similar to the truck bomb used in the twin tower bombing.

 

bellum omnium contra omnes, meaning "the war of all against all." In this state any person has a right to do any thing to preserve their own liberty or safety.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Sparoism
Originally posted by SOAKER@Dec 27 2005, 05:07 PM

There is strong evidence that Timothy McVeigh had ties to alqueda in the Philippines. And the militia he was with had a foreigner as one of the main leaders, whose agenda was Aryan power and like the Islamic terrorists, anti Semitic. The explosives he used are similar to the truck bomb used in the twin tower bombing.

 

bellum omnium contra omnes, meaning "the war of all against all." In this state any person has a right to do any thing to preserve their own liberty or safety.

That's nuts...I never knew that. I knew the bomb that was used was similar, and the MO, but the anti-Semitic connection is a lot clearer in retrospect.

 

What state are you in? Can I move there once they secede from the union?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by John Birch@Dec 27 2005, 09:06 PM

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

 

 

 

 

 

 

^^ thats all the 2nd admendment says. I think people read into it too it doesn't say nothing about people collecting guns, having hand guns etc etc...

 

 

You know you just contradicted the shit out of yourself right?--->

 

"the right of the -->PEOPLE<-- to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is why they banned military type-rifles in australia, (they were never for 'protection' anyway)

 

* * *

 

For the owners of the numerous shops and caf�s at the Port Arthur Historical site in Tasmania, fine weather usually meant good crowds and Sunday April 28, 1996 was no exception. Once the site of one of Australia's most brutal penal settlements, Port Arthur had become the premiere tourist attraction in Tasmania. By 1.00 pm, over five hundred visitors were at the site, enjoying the many attractions that the area had to offer.

Broad Arrow Cafe

 

By 1.30 pm the pace at the 'Broad Arrow' caf� had slowed after the busy lunchtime period but at least sixty people still remained, finishing meals or browsing through the gift shop. No one seems to recall seeing the young man with long blond hair enter the caf� and order a meal, but they do remember his comment when he sat down on the front balcony area to eat his lunch. "There's a lot of wasps about today," he said to no one in particular and began to eat his meal. A few minutes later, he made another remark about the lack of Japanese tourists.

 

He made no further comments as he finished his meal and picked up his bags and went back into the caf�. Moving towards the back of the room, he lifted a long, blue sports bag onto a vacant table and placed a video camera beside it. For several minutes he stood staring at a group of diners at an adjoining table before turning his attention to an Asian couple that were sitting near him. Before anyone had realized what was happening, he unzipped the larger bag and produced an AR15 semi-automatic rifle and shot the Asian man, Moh Yee Ng, in the neck, killing him instantly. Swinging the rifle from the hip he pointed it towards Soo Leng Chung, the man's companion, and shot her through the head. Turning his attention back to the first group he lifted the rifle to his shoulder and fired a shot at Mick Sargent, grazing his scalp and knocking him to the floor. Before Mick could shout a warning, the gunman fired a fourth shot that hit Mick's girlfriend in the back of the head. In a matter of seconds, the young man had claimed three victims.

 

The fusillade continued as the gunman selected new targets, the acrid smell of gun smoke hanging in the air as his helpless victims dodged for cover. One man at the front of the room who bravely stood to shout a belated warning, died when a bullet tore through his neck. Husbands were killed as they tried to protect their wives and families, one man receiving massive head injuries when a bullet that had passed through a previous victim hit him. Some were killed instantly but many others lay bleeding from their wounds.

 

Walking towards the front entrance of the caf�, the gunman fired methodically, shooting left and right as the terrified crowd scrambled for cover. Fifteen seconds later, a total of twenty people lay dead with fifteen more wounded, many of them seriously. Leaving the Broad Arrow, the gunman walked out into the parking lot where over a hundred people were milling about in confusion. Many, hearing the shots, had started walking in the general direction of the caf� in the mistaken belief that a re-enactment was in progress. Others, who had been close enough to observe the carnage, ran for cover, screaming warnings to anyone they came in contact with.

 

Seeing the crowd gathered in the car park, the gunman opened fire. Several tourists fell as the rest, finally aware of what was happening, screamed and ran. Walking towards a tour bus parked nearby, the gunman shot the driver and three passengers. As the latest fusillade echoed across the parking lot, several tourists who were waiting to board the bus crawled under it for safety but the gunman saw them and calmly squatted down and shot them before walking back to his car, a yellow Volvo 244GL sedan with a surfboard strapped to the roof.

 

The gunman then drove three hundred yards down the road, to where a young woman and her two children were walking beside the road. Pulling to a stop, he fired two quick shots killing the woman and the child she was carrying. When the older child ran away to take refuge behind a tree, the gunman followed her and killed her with one shot. Returning to his vehicle, the gunman then drove a further two hundred yards towards the entrance gate where a gold coloured BMW was parked. Three shots were fired in rapid succession and the car's three male occupants lay dead. After dragging the bodies from the car, the gunman transferred his firearms into the BMW and drove away.

 

A short distance up the road he saw a couple sitting in a white Toyota and stopped beside them. The female driver froze as the man approached holding a gun and ordered her male companion to get out of the car. The man obeyed, pleading with the gunman not to shoot, but the gunman ignored him and instead, ordered the man to climb into the open trunk of the BMW. The gunman then slammed the lid and returned to the front of the car and fired two shots through the driver's window killing the young woman instantly. With the man still locked in the trunk, the gunman sped away towards a local guesthouse called the Seascape Cottage where the final chapter of the deadly saga would eventually unfold.

Seascape Cottage

 

As he drove towards the entrance to Seascape Cottage, the gunman saw another vehicle approaching and opened fire, but his bullets missed their target. Turning his attention to the next vehicle, a four-wheel-drive jeep driven by a holidaying couple from Melbourne, the young man fired two shots, one of which tore into the bonnet, the other smashing the windscreen. A second volley of shots ripped through the side windows showering the occupants with glass and hitting the female driver in the forearm. Realizing the driver was hit; the male passenger leaned over and attempted to drive the vehicle to safety but was unable to do so as the throttle cable had been severed by one of the bullets.

 

Seconds later, a Ford sedan with two married couples on board, drove towards the cottage and were hit by a hail of bullets that penetrated the windshield, wounding the driver. Bleeding profusely from his wounds, the driver of the Ford continued on to where the jeep was parked and managed to rescue the occupants before speeding away to the Fox and Hounds, another guesthouse further down the road. Another vehicle, approaching along the Arthur Highway, saw the man standing on the road with a gun and rapidly changed direction.

 

After the Ford drove away, the gunman walked back to the BMW and drove down the entrance road and parked in front of the cottage. He then removed his guns from the car before releasing the man from the trunk. After taking him inside the house and handcuffing him to a stair rail, the gunman returned to the BMW, poured petrol over it and set it alight.

 

Only minutes after the shooting began at Port Arthur, the first police were summoned to the scene. Hearing the emergency radio call, two young constables, Paul Hyland and Garry Whittle, drove rapidly towards the area. As Constable Hyland approached Seascape Cottage, he saw the damaged vehicles on the side of the road and stopped to investigate. Seeing smoke billowing from the car parked in front of the cottage, he drove back down the highway to set up a roadblock. By this time Constable Whittle had arrived and he also parked his vehicle across the highway on the other side of the entrance to seal off the area.

 

Soon after two other police arrived, the BMW exploded sending them diving for cover. As they maneuvered their vehicles into safer positions, shots were fired in their direction from the cottage. The police held their positions until members of the Special Operations Group relieved them shortly after dark. As they took up flanking positions around the guesthouse, more shots were fired from within the cottage. The operation was further hampered by poor radio reception making it almost impossible for the police to confirm each other's positions.

Martin Bryant

 

As the hours ticked away, information about the gunman began to seep through. The lone gunman was believed to be Martin Bryant, a twenty-eight-year-old resident of New Town, a suburb of Hobart. Bryant was described as being tall with long blond hair and pale skin, almost albino in appearance and "a little slow." Another piece of information that filtered through caused greater concern. In addition to the AR15 and FN semi-automatic rifles that Bryant was known to be carrying, he had access to several more firearms that belonged to David and Sally Martin, the owners of Seascape Cottage. Given the additional weapons, at least three hostages and the lack of suitable cover around the cottage, a direct assault was ruled out and a specialist negotiation team was summoned.

 

Off and on for the next six hours, the senior police negotiator, Sergeant Terry McCarthy spoke to Bryant over the phone. During the course of the negotiations, Bryant's only demand was that he be given a "ride" in an army helicopter. Eventually, contact with the cottage was lost when the batteries went flat on the cordless phone that Bryant was using. As the vigil continued, police reinforcements from as far away as Victoria and New South Wales arrived at the scene creating the largest single police action in Australia's history.

The charred ruins

 

The next morning, Monday, April 29, senior police met to decide the next course of action. Shortly after, smoke was seen billowing from the cottage and at 8.25 am, Martin Bryant ran from the building, his clothing ablaze. As police rushed forward to make the arrest, Bryant tore his clothes from his body and gave himself up. Later, as ambulance officers smothered his skin with ointment, Bryant asked them if it was petrol they were using. He was later conveyed to the same hospital where many of his victims were fighting for their lives. After the fire was put out, more bodies were found inside the cottage. Included in the dead were the Seascape's owners, David and Sally Martin and Glenn Pears, the man that had been locked in the car. Police would later establish that Pears had been murdered sometime during the negotiations and Bryant killed the Martins prior to his arrival at Port Arthur. In a period of just over nineteen hours, Martin Bryant, a man described by locals as being "a quiet lad and a bit of a loner," had killed thirty-five men, women and children and wounded another eighteen making him the most notorious spree killer of all time.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by Sparoism@Dec 27 2005, 06:27 PM

I'm going out on a limb here, but everybody has read "1984", right?

 

It's getting to the point that if they want to make constitutional amendments without Congressional or Supreme Court intervention, the people who would be up in arms over it would likely be in the minority and unable to do much about it. Their best bet would be to leave before they "legislate" to seal the borders "as a powerful deterrent to terrorists". Hello? Timothy McVeigh? He was from here...as well as the Unabomber, and Earth First, and the ALF and ELF...there's plenty of unrest right here that isn't being addressed and it has a lot ot do with the status quo.

 

The rest of the poulation probably wouldn't even notice. If you flip them a Tivo and a lifetime prescription for Xanax, they'd probably even vote for it.

 

It's all about the spin, baby. These guys can sell freezers to the Eskimos. People who will do anything to be "safe" eventually discover that the only way you can accomplish that is by giving up all of your freedom...and a gilded cage is still a cage.

 

But by then, it's too late. I don't know, the things this government gets away with makes me think it might already be too late. How far have they sold us down the river? Will it all come out in the end? That depends on whether there's people somewhere near the top who are willing to come clean, and as long as there's a gravy train to ride, you can bet they'll only leak enough for us to wonder what's REALLY going on.

 

word.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...