It is currently Fri Apr 25, 2014 3:23 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Welcome to Talkback 27!
This is your forum to comment on current affairs and news stories.
The comments you make here may be used on our television newscasts.
If you wish, you may also leave your thoughts on our telephone feedback line.
That number is (717) 265-8527.



Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 30 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Whenever The Government Grabbed Guns
PostPosted: Fri Dec 21, 2012 2:34 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2010 12:34 am
Posts: 3854
Historically, Whenever The Government Grabbed Guns, It Went Bad for the Peeps

By Clash Daily / 20 December 2012 / 46 Comments

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!
If you value your freedom, please spread this antigun-control message to all of your friends.
SWITZERLAND ISSUES EVERY HOUSEHOLD A GUN!
SWITZERLAND’S GOVERNMENT TRAINS EVERY ADULT THEY ISSUE A RIFLE.
SWITZERLAND HAS THE LOWEST GUN RELATED CRIME RATE OF ANY CIVILIZED COUNTRY IN THE WORLD!
IT’S A NO BRAINER!

DON’T LET OUR GOVERNMENT WASTE MILLIONS OF OUR TAX DOLLARS IN AN EFFORT TO MAKE ALL LAW ABIDING CITIZENS AN EASY TARGET.
Spread the word everywhere you can that you are a firm believer in the 2nd Amendment!

It’s time to speak loud before they try to silence and disarm us.
You’re not imagining it, history shows that governments always manipulate tragedies to attempt to disarm the people.

Read more at politicalchips.org


Read more: http://clashdaily.com/2012/12/historically-whenever-the-government-grabbed-guns-it-went-bad-for-the-peeps/#ixzz2FiFBDQR6
Get more Clash on ClashDaily.com, Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube.

_________________
"AMERICANS Used To ROAR Like LIONS For LIBERTY,- NOW They BLEAT Like SHEEP For SECURITY."- ~~ Norman Vincent Peale-______ ~~ COPS ARRIVE IN TIME TO DRAW CHALK LINES , ~~~IT'S UP TO YOU TO SEE THE OUTLINE ISN'T AROUND YOU ~~.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Whenever The Government Grabbed Guns
PostPosted: Fri Dec 21, 2012 6:32 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Jul 30, 2010 4:49 pm
Posts: 1279
Good info, NP. Over and over and over again, when there is a mass shooting, the emphasis is on the gun--not the idiot using it. The media is just as guilty in reporting, as they also emphasize the gun, not the idiot using it. Sloppy journalism in my mind.

On one hand, everyone defends their first amendment rights for free speech(although some comments need to be thought out before saying), misinterprets freedom of religion vs freedom from religion (not in Bill of Rights), and now wants to limit guns. C'mon, don't try to tell me it is just "automatic weapons". When the criminal goes to a pistol, will they want to ban them? and a shotgun, ban them? and a rifle, ban them? You can see where this is going, unless you original objective is to ban all weapons(Oh no, that is not what you are saying).


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Whenever The Government Grabbed Guns
PostPosted: Fri Dec 21, 2012 10:22 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Jul 30, 2010 11:08 am
Posts: 897
The fact that Switzerland hasn't had an armed conflict since the mid-1800's says a lot about their culture and value placed on human life. We didn't have a massacre problem in this country until attitudes switched from sport hunting and homeland defense to self proclaimed entitlements to take innocent lives or property. I personally don't see a need for the public to have access to body armor....especially when mass shooters kill themselves anyway, and I don't think even semi-auto military clone rifles would deter a military invasion when nukes and biological weapons are on the table. A lot can be said for a single shot 12 gauge when it comes to hunting or home defense....not so much if you just wanna kill a lot of people leaving no opportunity to be stopped.

_________________
There's nothing worse than that moment during an argument when you realize you're wrong.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Whenever The Government Grabbed Guns
PostPosted: Sat Dec 22, 2012 11:49 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Jul 30, 2010 4:31 pm
Posts: 6246
If the Jews of Nazi Germany had been armed with M16's the holocaust never would have happened.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Whenever The Government Grabbed Guns
PostPosted: Sat Dec 22, 2012 6:10 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Aug 01, 2010 10:08 am
Posts: 1743
Dugl wrote:
The fact that Switzerland hasn't had an armed conflict since the mid-1800's says a lot about their culture and value placed on human life. We didn't have a massacre problem in this country until attitudes switched from sport hunting and homeland defense to self proclaimed entitlements to take innocent lives or property. I personally don't see a need for the public to have access to body armor....especially when mass shooters kill themselves anyway, and I don't think even semi-auto military clone rifles would deter a military invasion when nukes and biological weapons are on the table. A lot can be said for a single shot 12 gauge when it comes to hunting or home defense....not so much if you just wanna kill a lot of people leaving no opportunity to be stopped.

Historically arms have been defined to include what we term "body armor" today.
[The 1773 edition of Samuel Johnson’s dictionary defined “arms” as “weapons of offence, or armour of defence.” 1 Dictionary of the English Language 107 (4th ed.) ]
[Timothy Cunningham’s important 1771 legal dictionary defined “arms” as “any thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands, or useth in wrath to cast at or strike another.” 1 A New and Complete Law Dictionary (1771)]
[Heller (2008) quoting Miller (1939) observe arms in common use are protected in 2nd amendment]

As Newspolice points out, the right to arms is given special emphasis via the 2nd amendment because it is of utmost importance that the citizenry be able to defend against a tyrannical govt.

This point was specifically bought up in several forms during the debate over the bill of rights.

Almost as often brought up was the lack of need and even danger of singling out protections against what was obvious the federal govt was not given the power to control because of the implication that powers undefined were not delegated and therefore did not exist to the federal govt.

This is a major failing of the weak language of and decision to even have a bill of rights. In my view, the federalists were correct in this prediction and the federal govt impedes in so many areas they are not permitted.

It is not important what I, you or anyone else things their fellow citizens need - as none of us has the power to decide what someone else needs [and is the height of moralistic egotism] - but it is important that their right to conduct themselves in any manner they choose for themselves while not violating anyone else's rights be defended.

That is their decision as a free person.

_________________
"Liberty is not a thing for the great masses of men. It is the exclusive possession of a small and disreputable minority, like knowledge, courage and honor." - H.L. Mencken


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Whenever The Government Grabbed Guns
PostPosted: Sun Dec 23, 2012 9:47 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Jul 30, 2010 11:08 am
Posts: 897
bfranklin wrote:
It is not important what I, you or anyone else things their fellow citizens need - as none of us has the power to decide what someone else needs [and is the height of moralistic egotism] - but it is important that their right to conduct themselves in any manner they choose for themselves while not violating anyone else's rights be defended.

That is their decision as a free person.


I agree that "rights" exceed needs or perceived entitlements. I also seriously doubt the citizenry could defend itself with small arms against todays military /government if it turned tyrannical or fell to a coupe. I suppose we can only keep a watchful eye on species who randomly kill mass numbers of fellow citizens.....not the life authors of the 2nd Amendment had to live.

_________________
There's nothing worse than that moment during an argument when you realize you're wrong.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Whenever The Government Grabbed Guns
PostPosted: Sun Dec 23, 2012 11:11 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Aug 01, 2010 10:08 am
Posts: 1743
Dugl wrote:
bfranklin wrote:
It is not important what I, you or anyone else things their fellow citizens need - as none of us has the power to decide what someone else needs [and is the height of moralistic egotism] - but it is important that their right to conduct themselves in any manner they choose for themselves while not violating anyone else's rights be defended.

That is their decision as a free person.


I agree that "rights" exceed needs or perceived entitlements. I also seriously doubt the citizenry could defend itself with small arms against todays military /government if it turned tyrannical or fell to a coupe. I suppose we can only keep a watchful eye on species who randomly kill mass numbers of fellow citizens.....not the life authors of the 2nd Amendment had to live.

Look around the world and see what small arms are doing against armies.

We have been fighting in Afghanistan against those with no helicopters, tanks, artillery, minimal explosives or intel collection abilities and it's been 9 years.

They also fought off Russia with minimal US support.

Most conflicts are fought with small arms, not impressive armaments in Hollywood movies.

And what nation in the world can resist supplying weaponry to a "rebellion"?
Syria, Lybia

The life the authors of the 2nd amendment had to live involved putting their lives on the line as traitors to the King of England against the most powerful army in the world at the time. Far more serious consequences than any of us understand, which is exactly why they did understand the importance.

Your point is just another version of the "people don't need AR15s argument - the 2nd amendment applies to muskets".
If that is true, then the 1st amendment doesn't apply to the Internet or television.
Both are ridiculous assertions.

The emotional response to highly touted news items is to look for a quick solution that identifies the evil and makes us feel better.
The logical solution is to not worry about it because you have an almost 0% chance of this happening - which is why it makes the news.

Chance of dying from heart disease 1:4 << worry about that

Here are a few overlooked facts about the dreaded mass killing:

- Mass shootings are no more common than they have been in past decades, despite the impression given by the media.

- In fact, the high point for mass killings in the U.S. was 1929, according to criminologist Grant Duwe of the Minnesota Department of Corrections.

- Incidents of mass murder in the U.S. declined from 42 in the 1990s to 26 in the first decade of this century.

- The chances of being killed in a mass shooting are about what they are for being struck by lightning.

- Until the Newtown horror, the three worst K–12 school shootings ever had taken place in either Britain or Germany.

- The worst slaughter in a school in our nation’s history occurred in 1927 in Bath Township, Michigan. In that incident, Andrew Kehoe, over a period of hours, used explosives to kill 45 people, mostly children attending the local school.

_________________
"Liberty is not a thing for the great masses of men. It is the exclusive possession of a small and disreputable minority, like knowledge, courage and honor." - H.L. Mencken


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Whenever The Government Grabbed Guns
PostPosted: Sun Dec 23, 2012 6:41 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Jul 30, 2010 3:00 pm
Posts: 1123
Excellent post BF.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Whenever The Government Grabbed Guns
PostPosted: Sun Dec 23, 2012 9:08 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Jul 30, 2010 11:08 am
Posts: 897
[quote="bfranklin
Your point is just another version of the "people don't need AR15s argument - the 2nd amendment applies to muskets".
If that is true, then the 1st amendment doesn't apply to the Internet or television.
Both are ridiculous assertions.

The emotional response to highly touted news items is to look for a quick solution that identifies the evil and makes us feel better.
The logical solution is to not worry about it because you have an almost 0% chance of this happening - which is why it makes the news.

Mass shootings are no more common than they have been in past decades, despite the impression given by the media.
[/quote]


You've made a believer out of me.....I'm gonna buy some AR15's, a couple of Glocks and thousands of rounds.

_________________
There's nothing worse than that moment during an argument when you realize you're wrong.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Whenever The Government Grabbed Guns
PostPosted: Mon Dec 24, 2012 12:58 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Jul 30, 2010 3:00 pm
Posts: 1123
Dugl wrote:
[quote="bfranklin
Your point is just another version of the "people don't need AR15s argument - the 2nd amendment applies to muskets".
If that is true, then the 1st amendment doesn't apply to the Internet or television.
Both are ridiculous assertions.

The emotional response to highly touted news items is to look for a quick solution that identifies the evil and makes us feel better.
The logical solution is to not worry about it because you have an almost 0% chance of this happening - which is why it makes the news.

Mass shootings are no more common than they have been in past decades, despite the impression given by the media.



You've made a believer out of me.....I'm gonna buy some AR15's, a couple of Glocks and thousands of rounds. [/quote]



Good luck, although the prices have always been high for those firearms they are now through the roof.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Whenever The Government Grabbed Guns
PostPosted: Mon Dec 24, 2012 9:03 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Jul 30, 2010 4:31 pm
Posts: 6246
Dugl wrote:
[quote="bfranklin
Your point is just another version of the "people don't need AR15s argument - the 2nd amendment applies to muskets".
If that is true, then the 1st amendment doesn't apply to the Internet or television.
Both are ridiculous assertions.

The emotional response to highly touted news items is to look for a quick solution that identifies the evil and makes us feel better.
The logical solution is to not worry about it because you have an almost 0% chance of this happening - which is why it makes the news.

Mass shootings are no more common than they have been in past decades, despite the impression given by the media.



You've made a believer out of me.....I'm gonna buy some AR15's, a couple of Glocks and thousands of rounds. [/quote]
:lol:


Last edited by Vic on Mon Dec 24, 2012 5:03 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Whenever The Government Grabbed Guns
PostPosted: Mon Dec 24, 2012 3:29 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2010 1:10 pm
Posts: 202
Dugl wrote:
bfranklin wrote:
It is not important what I, you or anyone else things their fellow citizens need - as none of us has the power to decide what someone else needs [and is the height of moralistic egotism] - but it is important that their right to conduct themselves in any manner they choose for themselves while not violating anyone else's rights be defended.

That is their decision as a free person.


I agree that "rights" exceed needs or perceived entitlements. I also seriously doubt the citizenry could defend itself with small arms against todays military /government if it turned tyrannical or fell to a coupe. I suppose we can only keep a watchful eye on species who randomly kill mass numbers of fellow citizens.....not the life authors of the 2nd Amendment had to live.


One thing you do not realize, if our government ordered our military to forcefully remove weapons/guns from law abiding citizens, many if not all of our military would walk out the gate with every piece armament they could leave with. And stand beside the American poeple in defence of freedom. Our Military is one of the deadliest on the battlefield because the leaders are able to think for themselves. And when you sign up to serve our Country you take an oath to defend it against all enemies, foreign and domestic. It is very possible for the Government to become an enemy of the people and the Country they make up.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Whenever The Government Grabbed Guns
PostPosted: Mon Dec 24, 2012 3:38 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2010 11:45 pm
Posts: 1078
Location: Harrisburg
schlep1967 wrote:
Dugl wrote:
bfranklin wrote:
It is not important what I, you or anyone else things their fellow citizens need - as none of us has the power to decide what someone else needs [and is the height of moralistic egotism] - but it is important that their right to conduct themselves in any manner they choose for themselves while not violating anyone else's rights be defended.

That is their decision as a free person.


I agree that "rights" exceed needs or perceived entitlements. I also seriously doubt the citizenry could defend itself with small arms against todays military /government if it turned tyrannical or fell to a coupe. I suppose we can only keep a watchful eye on species who randomly kill mass numbers of fellow citizens.....not the life authors of the 2nd Amendment had to live.


One thing you do not realize, if our government ordered our military to forcefully remove weapons/guns from law abiding citizens, many if not all of our military would walk out the gate with every piece armament they could leave with. And stand beside the American poeple in defence of freedom. Our Military is one of the deadliest on the battlefield because the leaders are able to think for themselves. And when you sign up to serve our Country you take an oath to defend it against all enemies, foreign and domestic. It is very possible for the Government to become an enemy of the people and the Country they make up.


Thought of that many times schlep

_________________
Image

A Pessimist is an Optimist with Experience


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Whenever The Government Grabbed Guns
PostPosted: Mon Dec 24, 2012 4:11 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Jul 30, 2010 1:50 pm
Posts: 1716
Location: Lancaster, PA
tenringx wrote:
schlep1967 wrote:
One thing you do not realize, if our government ordered our military to forcefully remove weapons/guns from law abiding citizens, many if not all of our military would walk out the gate with every piece armament they could leave with. And stand beside the American poeple in defence of freedom. Our Military is one of the deadliest on the battlefield because the leaders are able to think for themselves. And when you sign up to serve our Country you take an oath to defend it against all enemies, foreign and domestic. It is very possible for the Government to become an enemy of the people and the Country they make up.


Thought of that many times schlep

Hopefully it's the case among the rank and file troops. Someone seems to be systematically decapitating the military leadership. I'm not into conspiracy theories, but has anyone noticed that's it's not just Petraeus that has been taken down recently for matters not directly related to his Command. Several flag officers (generals and admirals) have faced a similar fate in the last few months, be it for sexual impropriety or other things. They all seem to be guys whose record until then was impeccable. It makes one wonder what's going on.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Whenever The Government Grabbed Guns
PostPosted: Tue Dec 25, 2012 12:58 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2010 11:45 pm
Posts: 1078
Location: Harrisburg
Rudey wrote:
tenringx wrote:
schlep1967 wrote:
One thing you do not realize, if our government ordered our military to forcefully remove weapons/guns from law abiding citizens, many if not all of our military would walk out the gate with every piece armament they could leave with. And stand beside the American poeple in defence of freedom. Our Military is one of the deadliest on the battlefield because the leaders are able to think for themselves. And when you sign up to serve our Country you take an oath to defend it against all enemies, foreign and domestic. It is very possible for the Government to become an enemy of the people and the Country they make up.


Thought of that many times schlep

Hopefully it's the case among the rank and file troops. Someone seems to be systematically decapitating the military leadership. I'm not into conspiracy theories, but has anyone noticed that's it's not just Petraeus that has been taken down recently for matters not directly related to his Command. Several flag officers (generals and admirals) have faced a similar fate in the last few months, be it for sexual impropriety or other things. They all seem to be guys whose record until then was impeccable. It makes one wonder what's going on.


In the last few POST, this topic got SCARY.

_________________
Image

A Pessimist is an Optimist with Experience


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Whenever The Government Grabbed Guns
PostPosted: Tue Dec 25, 2012 6:11 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Aug 27, 2010 2:12 pm
Posts: 371
What I am finding (sarcastically) humorous, the original AP report that came out indicated that two pistols (sig sauer and glock) were the weapons of 'choice' and the bushmaster was either in the back seat or trunk of the car, but we all know that the government controls the media, so that's why the story had to change to give the government 'leverage', and I will further add that (at least I can't) the original 'story' cannot be found anywhere.

_________________
live for today.....tomorrow is not guaranteed...


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Whenever The Government Grabbed Guns
PostPosted: Tue Dec 25, 2012 10:15 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2010 11:45 pm
Posts: 1078
Location: Harrisburg
They call it COVER UP, doing what they do best. MEDIA,tool for the Gov. to create mass hysteria, with false facts.

_________________
Image

A Pessimist is an Optimist with Experience


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Whenever The Government Grabbed Guns
PostPosted: Tue Dec 25, 2012 1:43 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Jul 30, 2010 3:00 pm
Posts: 1123
I'm not into conspiracy theory's either but one thing that most of them have in common, although they are far fetched, is that they are entirely possible and perhaps should be further investigated rather than dismissed out of hand.

Merry Christmas to one and all.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Whenever The Government Grabbed Guns
PostPosted: Tue Dec 25, 2012 11:10 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Jul 30, 2010 2:28 pm
Posts: 3432
Location: Summerdale, PA
Here's a link u no:
http://www.abc27.com/story/20346074/school-shooting-reported-in-newtown-conn

32nd paragraph, or 10th from the bottom:
Quote:
At least three guns were found - a Glock and a Sig Sauer, both pistols, inside the school, and a .223-caliber rifle in the back of a car, authorities said. A law enforcement official speaking on condition of anonymity said some of the guns used in the attack may have belonged to Lanza's family. His mother had legally registered four weapons, his father two.

_________________
"I believe in an open mind, but not so open that your brains fall out." --Arthur Hays Sulzberger
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Whenever The Government Grabbed Guns
PostPosted: Wed Dec 26, 2012 2:54 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Aug 27, 2010 2:12 pm
Posts: 371
LocalGrown wrote:
Here's a link u no:
http://www.abc27.com/story/20346074/school-shooting-reported-in-newtown-conn

32nd paragraph, or 10th from the bottom:
Quote:
At least three guns were found - a Glock and a Sig Sauer, both pistols, inside the school, and a .223-caliber rifle in the back of a car, authorities said. A law enforcement official speaking on condition of anonymity said some of the guns used in the attack may have belonged to Lanza's family. His mother had legally registered four weapons, his father two.


Which further proves my point.

_________________
live for today.....tomorrow is not guaranteed...


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Whenever The Government Grabbed Guns
PostPosted: Wed Dec 26, 2012 4:15 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2010 12:34 am
Posts: 3854
School Obama’s Daughters Attend Has 11 Armed Guards

By Clash Daily / 24 December 2012 / 36 Comments

Some interesting news has broken in the wake of the latest push for gun control by President Obama and Senate Democrats: Obama sends his kids to a school where armed guards are used as a matter of fact.

The school, Sidwell Friends School in Washington, DC, has 11 security officers and is seeking to hire a new police officer as we speak.

If you dismiss this by saying, “Of course they have armed guards — they get Secret Service protection,” then you’ve missed the larger point.

The larger point is that this is standard operating procedure for the school, period. And this is the reason people like NBC’s David Gregory send their kids to Sidwell, they know their kids will be protected from the carnage that befell kids at a school where armed guards weren’t used (and weren’t even allowed).

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Read more at breitbart.com

But one at the door for our kids in one too many and the NRA is nuts ....OK??? .............................

~~MAYBE SOME OF YOU REMEMBER THE LA RIOTS ,WHERE THE POLICE RAN AWAY , MAYBE YOU SHOULD ASK SOME OF THE KOREAN SHOP OWNERS IF ARS SHOUDL BE LEGAL. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ When ‘assault weapons’ saved Koreatown

By: Ryan James Girdusky
12/23/2012 06:12 PM



This year marked the 20th anniversary of the Los Angeles riots, sparked by the acquittal of four Los Angeles Police Department officers accused of beating the now-deceased Rodney King. During the five days, mobs around Los Angeles looted stores, burnt 3,767 buildings, caused more than $1 billion in property damage, and led to the deaths of more than 50 people and left another 4,000 injured. A story that has been forgotten since then is that of the brave storeowners in Koreatown who fended off mobs with handguns, rifles and assault weapons.

On the second day of the riots, the police had abandoned much of Koreatown. Jay Rhee, a storeowner in the area, stated to The Los Angeles Times, “we have lost faith in the police.”

With the cops nowhere to be found, hundreds of people marauded through the streets towards Koreatown. The neighborhood suffered 45 percent of all the property damage and five fatalities of storeowners during the riots. Having had enough of waiting for police, Korean storeowners assembled into militias to protect themselves, their families, and businesses.

According to the Los Angeles Times, “From the rooftops of their supermarkets, a group of Koreans armed with shotguns and **automatic weapons peered onto the smoky streets…Koreans have turned their pastel-colored mini-malls into fortresses against looters tide.”

Rhee claimed that the storeowners shot off 500 rounds into the sky and ground in order to break up the masses of people. The only weapons able to clear that much ammo in a very short time are assault weapons. Single shot pistols or rifles might not have been able to deter the crowd hell-bent on destroying the neighborhood.

By the end of the day storeowners had slain four looters and fended off the mob. It would be 24 more hours until the National Guard arrived and another two days before the riots were completely put down. Had the riots occurred just a couple of years later when the Congress banned assault weapons, many of these storeowners may not have been so lucky. It’s situations like the LA riots, which, while being rare, can occur anywhere from the streets of Los Angeles to far off countries during the Arab Spring.

Assault weapons are legal for this reason: they protect people from extreme cases of assault.

Many liberal pundits like talk show host Piers Morgan, who immigrated to this country several years ago, cannot see a reason why assault weapons might be practical to be owned by civilians. Had he been a Korean immigrant in South Los Angeles in 1992, he would have been decrying, “from my cold dead hands.”

In the wake of the recent tragedy in Connecticut, it is important to focus discussion with a more broad perspective on lawful gun ownership. Instead of creating a media blitz that fails to remember the day when a neighborhood was saved by an assault weapon. But lest it be forgotten, assault weapons don’t save neighborhoods, people save neighborhoods.

Ryan James Girdusky writes from New York City. Follow him on twitter @Ryan_JamesG. If you enjoyed the article please #RememberKoreaTown on twitter.

~~DON'T BE AFRAID TO SHARE THIS ~~ ** that should have read semi auto weapon another media slip

_________________
"AMERICANS Used To ROAR Like LIONS For LIBERTY,- NOW They BLEAT Like SHEEP For SECURITY."- ~~ Norman Vincent Peale-______ ~~ COPS ARRIVE IN TIME TO DRAW CHALK LINES , ~~~IT'S UP TO YOU TO SEE THE OUTLINE ISN'T AROUND YOU ~~.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Whenever The Government Grabbed Guns
PostPosted: Wed Dec 26, 2012 10:17 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Jul 30, 2010 1:50 pm
Posts: 1716
Location: Lancaster, PA
Newspolice wrote:
Many liberal pundits like talk show host Piers Morgan, who immigrated to this country several years ago, cannot see a reason why assault weapons might be practical to be owned by civilians.

from The Associated Press:

Dec 24, 9:10 AM EST
Thousands sign US petition to deport Piers Morgan

LONDON (AP) -- Tens of thousands of people have signed a petition calling for British CNN host Piers Morgan to be deported from the U.S. over his gun control views.

Morgan has taken an aggressive stand for tighter U.S. gun laws in the wake of the Newtown, Connecticut, school shooting. Last week, he called a gun advocate appearing on his "Piers Morgan Tonight" show an "unbelievably stupid man."

Now, gun rights activists are fighting back. A petition created Dec. 21 on the White House e-petition website by a user in Texas accuses Morgan of engaging in a "hostile attack against the U.S. Constitution" by targeting the Second Amendment. It demands he be deported immediately for "exploiting his position as a national network television host to stage attacks against the rights of American citizens."

The petition has already hit the 25,000 signature threshold to get a White House response. By Monday, it had 31,813 signatures.

Morgan seemed unfazed - and even amused - by the movement.

In a series of Twitter messages, he alternately urged his followers to sign the petition and in response to one article about the petition said "bring it on" as he appeared to track the petition's progress.

"If I do get deported from America for wanting fewer gun murders, are there any other countries that will have me?" he wrote.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/E/EU_BRITAIN_US_PIERS_MORGAN?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2012-12-24-07-01-03


NOON UPDATE: Double that.

Anti-Piers Morgan petition tops 65K signers
http://www.politico.com/story/2012/12/anti-piers-petition-tops-60k-signers-85472.html?hp=r3

If you want a good laugh today, follow the link. Crazy moonbats and bedwetters hijacked the comments section :lol: :lol: .


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Whenever The Government Grabbed Guns
PostPosted: Wed Dec 26, 2012 4:32 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2010 12:34 am
Posts: 3854
Rudey wrote:
Newspolice wrote:
Many liberal pundits like talk show host Piers Morgan, who immigrated to this country several years ago, cannot see a reason why assault weapons might be practical to be owned by civilians.

from The Associated Press:

Dec 24, 9:10 AM EST
Thousands sign US petition to deport Piers Morgan

LONDON (AP) -- Tens of thousands of people have signed a petition calling for British CNN host Piers Morgan to be deported from the U.S. over his gun control views.

Morgan has taken an aggressive stand for tighter U.S. gun laws in the wake of the Newtown, Connecticut, school shooting. Last week, he called a gun advocate appearing on his "Piers Morgan Tonight" show an "unbelievably stupid man."

Now, gun rights activists are fighting back. A petition created Dec. 21 on the White House e-petition website by a user in Texas accuses Morgan of engaging in a "hostile attack against the U.S. Constitution" by targeting the Second Amendment. It demands he be deported immediately for "exploiting his position as a national network television host to stage attacks against the rights of American citizens."

The petition has already hit the 25,000 signature threshold to get a White House response. By Monday, it had 31,813 signatures.

Morgan seemed unfazed - and even amused - by the movement.

In a series of Twitter messages, he alternately urged his followers to sign the petition and in response to one article about the petition said "bring it on" as he appeared to track the petition's progress.

"If I do get deported from America for wanting fewer gun murders, are there any other countries that will have me?" he wrote.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/E/EU_BRITAIN_US_PIERS_MORGAN?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2012-12-24-07-01-03


NOON UPDATE: Double that.

Anti-Piers Morgan petition tops 65K signers
http://www.politico.com/story/2012/12/anti-piers-petition-tops-60k-signers-85472.html?hp=r3

If you want a good laugh today, follow the link. Crazy moonbats and bedwetters hijacked the comments section :lol: :lol: .

[b] See my post on the 27 news forum the UK don't want him back ,Canada offer to take him .HA!![/b]

_________________
"AMERICANS Used To ROAR Like LIONS For LIBERTY,- NOW They BLEAT Like SHEEP For SECURITY."- ~~ Norman Vincent Peale-______ ~~ COPS ARRIVE IN TIME TO DRAW CHALK LINES , ~~~IT'S UP TO YOU TO SEE THE OUTLINE ISN'T AROUND YOU ~~.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Whenever The Government Grabbed Guns
PostPosted: Thu Dec 27, 2012 12:41 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Jul 30, 2010 11:08 am
Posts: 897
u no wrote:
What I am finding (sarcastically) humorous, the original AP report that came out indicated that two pistols (sig sauer and glock) were the weapons of 'choice' and the bushmaster was either in the back seat or trunk of the car, but we all know that the government controls the media, so that's why the story had to change to give the government 'leverage', and I will further add that (at least I can't) the original 'story' cannot be found anywhere.


This is a bit off-topic, but I also thought I saw some aerial footage that showed SWAT removing a rifle from the trunk of a car and unloading it.

_________________
There's nothing worse than that moment during an argument when you realize you're wrong.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Marine Warns Feinstein: 'I will not be disarmed'...
PostPosted: Thu Jan 03, 2013 6:28 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Jul 30, 2010 1:50 pm
Posts: 1716
Location: Lancaster, PA
Marine Writes Letter to Sen. Dianne Feinstein: ‘I will not be disarmed’ (VIDEO)
1/03/13 | by S.H. Blannelberry

A letter written by an 8-year Marine veteran to U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein, the architect of the comprehensive 2013 Assault Weapons Ban, has gone viral.

The author of the letter, Cpl. Joshua Boston who was deployed to Afghanistan between 2004-05, told CNN that he opposes gun registration because it will lead to confiscation. Moreover, that passing more gun control laws will only serve to disarm law-abiding citizens, leaving them defenseless.

“I own the guns I own because I acknowledge mankind’s shortcomings instead of pretending like they don’t exist. There are evil men in this world and there just may be a time when I need to do the unthinkable to protect me or my family,” Boston said.

Here is the letter Boston wrote, courtesy of CNN’s iReport:
It's a little long, so here is the link to the story.
http://www.guns.com/2013/01/03/marine-writes-letter-to-sen-dianne-feinstein-i-will-not-be-disarmed-video/

Be sure to see the video of "DiFi" remarking on the previous "assault weapons" ban. Here's a direct link to it. Like the story says, "it’s clear we’re not dealing with a logical individual."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=blXkl9YVoHo


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 30 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group