Case for the 2nd Amendment made clear for all
POSTED BY: AURaptor
UPDATED: Sunday, September 6, 2026 19:46
VIEWED: 4322
PAGE 1 of 5
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4069761537893819675
Case closed. Sorry anti gun rights zealots. You lose.
"The 2nd Amendment is not about duck hunting.... it's about OUR rights, all of our rights to be able to protect ourselves from all of you guys up there" - Dr Suzanna Gratia , addressing Congress. 
It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager
" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
That wonderful lady is responsible for the fact that the majority of States now allow concealed carry. She got it all rolling and we owe her our thanks.
Ted Nugent speaks for me.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I have to agree with Rap on this one.
The nutjob was going to have an assault rifle regardless. During the ban, countless assault rifles were smuggled into the country along with countless amounts of cocaine and heroin.
Still, even if govt. is incompetent, there has to be a way to stop this.
These cases are still a minority, and the majority are random gun owners going nuts whether from drugs or stress or whatever, and going and killing someone, and statistically, excluding self defense, which is also a minority, that person, that they kill, is very often themselves.
Momentary lapse of reason should not be one of the top killers in this country, and a society should be able to protect itself. But that doesn't mean that just because your town owners have guns that they are protected. If every household in your town has a gun, and one of those people goes into a school or church or a diner like in the story, folks are going to die.
To protect ourselves, we need to evolve the gun. We need a weapon that can stop the attacker, without killing him. Not because I value the life of the attacker, but because its because I don't know who the next attacker is going to be. When I got into that second amendment argument, remember a friend of mine had just been killed with an assault rifle. I wouldn't have felt any better if it had gone the other way.
But say I set up my own town, and I want to stop this from happening in it. Giving everyone a gun, that's not going to do it. So, yes, you're right, but, and here's my counterpoint, over time, we need to develop a better defense.
IMHO, the depopulation crowd has a vested interest, and the industry of weapons makers have a vested interest, in the sale of weapons. The current weapons. We need a better weapon, and I think we have the technology. It can take a dead man 30 seconds to lose all brain function, and stop shooting. We can design a faster tranq than that. And yes, I know that the Geneva Convention rules that out. But, coming from a Right to Life perspective, I say, I'm willing to cross that line, not to protect the life of the shooter in this story, but to protect the life of the people in my community, from themselves. Because ultimately, that's going to be the next madman, he's one of the normal citizens, who one day flips.
Here's another little story. My brother as you know is a law professor. Here's why. He used to work for a lawfirm. The job was so stressful that one night he awoke with what he thought was a heart attack. It turned out to be chest muscles that had seized up from stress, but they told him, that he needed to reduce stress, or it could be a heart attack next time. So he quit. Two weeks after he quit, one of his coworkers came in with an assault rifle and shot everyone, killing 12. Four of the wounded survived, after the killer, believing he had killed everyone, shot himself.
Now, who knows how else the scenario could have played out, but tomorrow's mad shooter isn't a random animal, he's one of us. Something in this guys head made him react differently to the stress than my brother did. Fight or flight, My brother fled.
A society that is capable of defending itself needs not fewer weapons, it needs better weapons. Weapons that can stop an attacker faster, but weapons that also, should the next madman be the guy you're standing next to in the mens room, or wherever you're least expecting it, have something a little less deadly.
When we talk second amendment, this issue doesn't end with assault rifles. The last line in that video is the solid truth. What exactly do you say to the people in Waco? Sorry, you're fucked? Or do you say, yes, in your case, I think anti-tank artillery is merited. Yeah, of course it's merited. But you see, it ain't gonna be one fine line. They can fill every house in america with a machine gun, and IMHO, the only result of that is gonna be that more dinner table arguments are going to end in a dead family. And don't think for a second that there aren't people in our govt. who would just love to see that h
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Government is scary scary, I understand the original point of the second amendment (though I doubt the public can ever overcome the complacency that's been cultivated in them, if the public did ever need to make a change).
I used to be crazy nuts anti-gun laws. I was one of the zealots (and most anti-gun people really AREN'T. I was). It just seemed like so much pointless wasted life, and I never saw enough citizen action or police brutality or crime to justify all the suicides, suicide killing sprees, and inter-gang fighting.
Those feelings are all still there, but now I understand you can't tell people not to do anything, and especially what they can and can't possess. Ethically, it's a judgment, and whenever I find judging I also find people being high-handed. High-handedness is a dangerous mindset for everybody.
Again I find myself agreeing with DT. For an interim plan, less lethal weapons is a good idea.
But if the public has it's hands on effective non-lethal weapons, the people who still really want to kill (and they are out there) will find a way. And then what? You can take them out fast, maybe, but someone probably is still going to be wounded before that happens.
What we really need is something to address the depression, sadism, self-absorption, and whatever else it is that causes people to decide to hurt other people. And I think that it's systematic, something inherent in our society. This aspect has always been around, there's always been murders and suicides, but percentage-wise it all seems so much higher than it ever has been.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
This aspect has always been around, there's always been murders and suicides, but percentage-wise it all seems so much higher than it ever has been.
Homicide rates recently declined to levels last seen in the late 1960's
The homicide rate nearly doubled from the mid 1960's to the late 1970's.
In 1980, it peaked at 10.2 per 100,000 population and subsequently fell off to 7.9 per 100,000 in 1984.
It rose again in the late 1980's and early 1990's to another peak in 1991 of 9.8 per 100,000.
From 1992 to 2000, the rate declined sharply. Since then, the rate has been stable.
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/hmrt.htm
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Kirkules:
That wonderful lady is responsible for the fact that the majority of States now allow concealed carry. She got it all rolling and we owe her our thanks.
Ted Nugent speaks for me.
Ted Nugent, didn't he pay a pimp to let his 17-year-old daughter be "adopted" by Nugent?
Just like Woody Allen.
Saw it on VH1. Wink wink nudge nudge.
Hell is having to sing Cat Scratch Fever 10,000 times.
THE U.S. CIVIL WAR WILL BEGIN BETWEEN 2009 AND 2012
www.infowars.com/?p=5938
"This sucker (USA) is going to go DOWN!"
-President George W Bush, 2008
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
double post
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
But if the public has it's hands on effective non-lethal weapons, the people who still really want to kill (and they are out there) will find a way. And then what? You can take them out fast, maybe, but someone probably is still going to be wounded before that happens.
then the real killers will be stopped by the populous armed with tranqs. They can then do what they want, cut of his head if they want, but probably lock him up is what they'll do
Quote:
What we really need is something to address the depression, sadism, self-absorption, and whatever else it is that causes people to decide to hurt other people. And I think that it's systematic, something inherent in our society. This aspect has always been around, there's always been murders and suicides, but percentage-wise it all seems so much higher than it ever has been.
We need both. Most of this madness I think is induced by two things: 1. substance abuse, and 2. the overwhelming stress society puts on its member, esp. workers.
These numbers are much higher because there is more stress, more drugs, and easier access to automatic weapons, sorry folks but true. Cho is a rarety. Most spree killers can't do that much with a Glock. We need to change society, true, but that's a long term plan.
Thanks for the facts, caveman
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Well, until you get number 2 there done - something I myself work at by tryin to dump sand in the gears of the "monster factories", I'll be keeping my means of defense against the end product.
And I think you mis-estimate the impact of human psychology when it comes to non-lethal defensive arms, since that would imho increase, rather than decrease violence since it would not carry the same level of discouragement a bullet in the brain pan does, nor would it remove them permanently from the society they prey upon.
And thems my two pennysworth on it.
-F
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
yeah, it would happen, and would be annoying, after which, you would be not dead.
One of the runaways I was helping stabbed her boyfriend 22 times or so with a crumbless cutter. Now, I don't know if you know this blade, but it looks sort of like this:
It's about 2 feet long.
He had snuck in, in the middle of the night with intent kill her, and brought the knife. The apt. was the first floor of a large house, and some drunken frat boys had broken down the front door in an attempt to beat up the people upstairs, who had the sin of ignoring one of their members attempt to pick a fight. The moronic police had sat there and just waited for the guys to break down this big 200 yo door, because they wanted "a crime committed" and "trespassing" "wasn't big enough" anyway, so we had no security. Thats another story, back to a**hole boyfriend here.
He was about 6" tall, adult male, 200 lbs or so, she was 15, around 5" and 105 lbs. She took the knife from him and proceeded to kick the living daylights out of him, and I just stood there and watched as she beat him and stabbed him and through him down the back steps.
Honestly, actually, it was hard not to crack up at a would be killer getting his ass kicked so badly. Here's the kicker. A crumbless cutter looks like a deadly weapon, but it's a cake knife, of the kind you would use at a wedding. This means the blade is pretty thin, not that sharp, and very flexible. It's like trying to kill someone with a spatula.
This clever guy had decided that he would pull the inventive and career advancement move of tracking down his little runaway, and undoubtedly grabbed the biggest knife he could find, from his parents house, or maybe he broke into hers first, I don't know how he found out where she was. But just watching him get River'ed was hysterical. Okay, he came off a bit bloody, but most of that was from being thrown down the stairs. Watching the blade repeatedly bend like a a bendy thing... oh that, and the whole would be murderer getting his ass royally handed to him by a little girl.
Now, if he had picked a different weapon, the whole seen would have ended quite differently. If I recall correctly there were five kids at the time staying in the room I had set up. It was a pretty big room, so they each had their own beds, I think it was 2 guys and three girls, but none of them were a size match to take on the guy by any means, if this little girl hadn't had an inner River, or at least a Tonya Harding. But picture the scene if he had picked a real weapon, like say, an old fashion breadknife, instead of a cakeknife. I have one of these, it's some kind of other century, Idk, but it's old enough that the handle is made of wrapped cloth and wood, and it's non stainless steel and I figure you'd probably kill someone on a first go with it, considered they're asleep. Anyway, it's a little more deadly than this
really doesn't do it justice as probably one of the most potentially deadly weapons I've seen. But no, Mr. Douchebag had to bring his own. My knife is very shard, double edged and has no bend, maybe a foot long blade. There would have been a lot of blood.
Now, if he'd brought a handgun, he'd have just shot her, and she wouldn't've woken up. Then he mighta shot anyone else who intervened. Unless being the oaf that he was, he'd woken her up and she'd've shot him.
Now picture if he had come in with an assault rifle. He'd just have sprayed the room with bullets and killed them all. wouldn't need to go that near the beds, just fire 'til everything turns red.
Now, there was a guy in the building with a guy. He was didn't use it that night. One night he did feel the need, and brought it out of its drawer, loaded it up, and spattered his own brains on the wall.
That's real life. I've got a host of real life stories. None of them approach the gun fantasy. The reality is that there are a lot of guns, and vari
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME