Crime and Punishment: Oklahoma (& Texas) style!

[Diogenes]

"There exists a law, not written down anywhere, but inborn in our hearts, a law which comes to us not by training or custom or reading, a law which has come to us not from theory but from practice, not by instruction but by natural intuition. I refer to the law which lays down that, if our lives are endangered by plots or violence or armed robbers or enemies, any and every method of protecting ourselves is morally right."


-- Marcus Tullius Cicero

[MSimon]

So Simon, you noticed that you hit rates on your pro-drug nonsense threads is down to accidental clicks and search bots. Now you have to branch your nonsense out to threads that it has no business in.

You really are alienating folks from this board with all the drug crap. I essentially do not read general threads anymore because of your silliness. It is very common for me to see that you have posted and then choose to ignore that thread these days. I then hit the "mark all read button" and move on. This way I don't give you read hits, which I know is very important to your self esteem, and I do not read (other than accidentally) your childish immature views on governance and drugs.

You are so far off base in actual understandings, because you cherry pick whatever suits your mood at the moment and use out of context work by others as your own "original" ideas. It is as transparent as clear glass. It also damages your credibility where you may actually know something.

Take it elsewhere please.

Don't matter to me. Information is information. That the information conflicts with what you think you know is not unusual. Look at the AGW crowd. They know it all. And the information was conveniently supplied by our government and the MSM.

Now on this other subject you are licking up everything the government and the MSM tells you. It is unseemly.

Me? I'm sceptical of everything. I prefer my own independent research.

But I don't write for you anyway. I write for those whose brains are not locked. And you are probably surprised at how the numbers have changed over the last 40+ years from 12% supporting my point of view in 1972 to about 54% (and rising) today.

I expect the police state you have built will be turned on you when THOSE people are no longer targets. If you wish to resist you will get my unconditional support. I'm against police states for anyone.

[williatw]

I expect the police state you have built will be turned on you when THOSE people are no longer targets. If you wish to resist you will get my unconditional support. I'm against police states for anyone.

Who will those SWAT teams be directed against once dopers are no longer a target?

Well...gun control in the US started with making sure that free blacks after slavery ended weren't allowed to own guns. And as recently as the 1968 Federal firearms act, was clearly aimed at the scary spectacle (to many white Americans) of armed black panthers. Now of course it has inevitably metastasized into the current gun control movement that clearly wants to disarm everyone that isn't a minion of the government. If (hopefully when) the WOD finally ends, what will those heavily militarized SWAT team happy cops/DEA (to say nothing of the Dept. of Homeland security) folks do to justify their existence? They will have to find a new “threat” to justify keeping if not expanding their power and control (probably some species of “terrorism”) to scare gullible people into accepting it.

[Diogenes]

I expect the police state you have built will be turned on you when THOSE people are no longer targets. If you wish to resist you will get my unconditional support. I'm against police states for anyone.

Who will those SWAT teams be directed against once dopers are no longer a target?

Well...gun control in the US started with making sure that free blacks after slavery ended weren't allowed to own guns. And as recently as the 1968 Federal firearms act, was clearly aimed at the scary spectacle (to many white Americans) of armed black panthers. Now of course it has inevitably metastasized into the current gun control movement that clearly wants to disarm everyone that isn't a minion of the government. If (hopefully when) the WOD finally ends, what will those heavily militarized SWAT team happy cops/DEA (to say nothing of the Dept. of Homeland security) folks do to justify their existence? They will have to find a new “threat” to justify keeping if not expanding their power and control (probably some species of “terrorism”) to scare gullible people into accepting it.

http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2014/0 ... idden.html

[williatw]

http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2014/0 ... idden.html

From your link:

GUN CONTROL

Progressive position:
Restrict access to guns as much as possible; ultimately ban and confiscate them all.

False public rationale offered by progressives to justify their position:
Gun violence is a scourge on society; easy access to killing machines unnecessarily facilitates murder and crime.

Conservatives’ inaccurate theory of progressives’ real intent:

Progressives want to disarm the populace to prevent armed resistance to the eventual imposition of a leftist totalitarian police state.


The actual racist origins of the progressive stance:
White urban liberals are deathly afraid of black gangbangers with guns, but are ashamed to admit this publicly, so to mask their racist fears they try to ban guns for everyone, as a way of warding off the perception that their real goal is to target blacks specifically.

And:

Progressives don’t want to ban guns to disarm resistance to any upcoming police state; that idea has never even occurred to them. Instead, progressives want to ban guns because progressives are afraid of black people.

A person or persons can choose to think whatever they wish about their motives...and fear of scary armed black men doubtlessly fuels a generous percentage of the desire for gun control on the part of the "progressives". As an aside, the general public seems to understand that black violent crime is primarily a scourge on the black community, i.e. most homicide is black-on-black; there is little general reaction to say 500 murders in Chicago last year. However mass public shootings involving crazed gunman(usually white) killing large no. of people at once (usually white) produces a decidedly more pronounced reaction; as gun control advocates have started to pick up on. But I digress from my point, which is that it makes little difference if the progressive's motive in disarming all of us is not in their minds to lay the foundation for a Totalitarian or more likely Authoritarian Socialist state; actions (and results) always have and always will trump intentions. In other words their attempted actions are laying that foundation whether they intend to consciously or not; they are useful dupes for those who while they may for the moment be hidden are nonetheless there in the shadows watching and waiting. They (the progressives) may be thinking of only "controlling" blacks; but there are others who lust to disarm/control everyone.

[Diogenes]

In other words their attempted actions are laying that foundation whether they intend to consciously or not; they are useful dupes for those who while they may for the moment be hidden are nonetheless there in the shadows watching and waiting. They (the progressives) may be thinking of only "controlling" blacks; but there are others who lust to disarm/control everyone.

I think Zombie's argument is likely true of many low information urban whites, but as you said, there are others who have intended disarmament of all from the beginning because it is necessary to their goal of creating a super state in the Soviet model.



I think you have the right of it.

[GIThruster]

...and fear of scary armed black men doubtlessly fuels a generous percentage of the desire for gun control on the part of the "progressives".

This is nonsense. Gun control is a modern response in the same vein as all weapons control, which extends back many centuries. there have been countless occasions where the populous has been disarmed by their own government, especially when that government was provided by the victor of a war. however in this country, gun control as a part of civil law has formed no correlation with the civil rights movement and especially not with the work of people like Dr. Martin Luther King. here is a record of our gun control legislation and note there is no correlation with either the civil war, nor with the civil rights movement of the '60's--the correlation and cause where with the assassinations of that time:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/ ... story.html

[williatw]

Gun control is a modern response in the same vein as all weapons control, which extends back many centuries. there have been countless occasions where the populous has been disarmed by their own government, especially when that government was provided by the victor of a war.

Precisely...the desire to disarm us has nothing to do with passing events like assasinations/mass public shootings, rather the state seizes upon the public's reaction to such to do what it wants to do anyway, disarm us.

however in this country, gun control as a part of civil law has formed no correlation with the civil rights movement and especially not with the work of people like Dr. Martin Luther King. here is a record of our gun control legislation and note there is no correlation with either the civil war, nor with the civil rights movement of the '60's--the correlation and cause where with the assassinations of that time:

You could say that the abortive attempt to pass another assault weapons banned was "caused" by the Sandy Hook mass shootings...that would not be exactly wrong; but the reality is that the liberal progressives wanted such before, and was only taking advantage of a narrow window of what they hoped would be public acceptance following the shooting. For instance in New York State they passed their law banning what they were calling assault weapons, pistols that could fire more than 7 shots per magazine; it was passed with such haste they forgot to exclude the police from the ban. They were trying to frantically take advantage of the temporary window of public support; why in reality they want to ban guns has little to do with Sandy Hook (or other mass public shootings).

[GIThruster]

For instance in New York State they passed their law banning what they were calling assault weapons, pistols that could fire more than 7 shots per magazine; it was passed with such haste they forgot to exclude the police from the ban.

That's funny! I don't know what law enforcement wear in NY, bu I would be surprised if any of them normally carried pistols with 7 shots or less except perhaps as a holdout pistol. I never see revolvers anymore. Not since the 80's. Are you saying the police can't carry any of their own weapons? What did they do?

[williatw]

For instance in New York State they passed their law banning what they were calling assault weapons, pistols that could fire more than 7 shots per magazine; it was passed with such haste they forgot to exclude the police from the ban.

That's funny! I don't know what law enforcement wear in NY, bu I would be surprised if any of them normally carried pistols with 7 shots or less except perhaps as a holdout pistol. I never see revolvers anymore. Not since the 80's. Are you saying the police can't carry any of their own weapons? What did they do?

http://reason.com/blog/2013/01/18/cops- ... ks-new-mag

It looks like the New York legislature, which this week reduced the state's magazine limit from 10 rounds to seven, did take an evenhanded approach—but only by accident. According to DNAinfo.com and WABC, the ABC station in New York, legislators were in such a rush to impose new gun restrictions that they forgot to exempt active-duty and retired law enforcement officers from the new magazine rule. Whoops.

They (the legislature & governor) fixed it eventually...and I understand that 7-shot magazine limit (for everyone) was eventually overturned on appeal, don't know what the current status is. The point was they were simply using the public response to a recent mass shooting to ram through the gun control they wanted anyway; having nothing to do with any mass shooting.

[GIThruster]

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government ... kpile-Myth

[GIThruster]

http://dailysignal.com/2014/08/26/happe ... ium=social

[williatw]

Armed & dangerous: 89 year old World War 2 vet shoots armed robber


Arthur M. Lewis, 89.

Arthur M. Lewis may be elderly, but criminals are learning the North Palm Beach man is no easy mark.

The 89-year-old decorated World War II veteran foiled an armed robbery attempt Saturday afternoon at his Lake Park jewelry business that left a 44-year-old suspect with six gunshot wounds, but no loot.

Lewis was working behind the counter at The Jewelry Exchange at 900 N. Federal Highway when he was approached by a gun-wielding man around 3 p.m., according to an arrest report from the Palm Beach County Sheriff’s Office. Lewis said he immediately grabbed the suspect’s revolver and pulled out a .38-caliber handgun from his own pocket.

The two men wrestled for several minutes and fired shots at each other. Despite battling someone half his age, Lewis got the best of it. A man identified by the sheriff’s office as Lennard Patrick Jervis, a Miramar resident, was shot six times by Lewis, including four times in the chest. Lewis’ left arm was grazed by a bullet, but he was otherwise unscathed.

http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/news/ ... oot/ng8cx/

[GIThruster]

http://www.ijreview.com/2014/09/173612- ... pen-carry/

[williatw]

Lancaster Woman Scares Off Bat-Wielding Attackers By Pulling Gun On Them

LANCASTER, Ohio - It happened along a walking path in Lancaster.

Dinah Burns is licensed to carry a concealed gun, but she'd only recently started taking her weapon while walking her dog.

Based on what happened, it looks like she'll make a point of carrying from now on.

"I think if they'd gotten any closer, I probably would have fired,” said Burns.

It was Monday when Burns was on a footpath near Sanderson Elementary School.

"Two gentlemen came out of the woods, one holding a baseball bat, and said 'You're coming with us'."

The men weren't deterred by Dinah's dog Gracie.

"I said, 'Well, what do you want?,' and as I was saying that I reached in to my pocket and slipped my gun out, slipped the safety off as I pulled it out. As I was doing that the other gentleman came toward me and raised the baseball bat. And, I pointed the gun at them and said, 'I have this and I'm not afraid to use it."
The men took off and so far have eluded police. Dinah posted about the incident on Facebook to alert friends and neighbors, to criticism by some.

"Most of the males' opinion was, 'Why didn't you shoot them?'"

Easy to second-guess a decision made under pressure, based on her concealed carry training, and police agree.

"To get out of a situation, back out, get out of it as much as you can without having to discharge your firearm."

"I will say it's a good thing to go from a place of danger to a place of safety, however you get that done,” said Sgt. Matt Chambers, Lancaster Police.

"Very thankful that it turned out the way it did, and hope it doesn't happen again, but I will be prepared."

Dinah says she hopes others will be prepared, too.

She says she only remembers that her assailants were young men, both of them white.

And the thing is most of the thousands of times things like this happen in a given year, no shots are fired, and likely not even reported; so as far as the main stream media is concerned they don't happen. And even that doesn't count the deterrent effect; bet those young men will give pause before they go after another "helpless" lady just taking a walk minding her own business.







http://www.10tv.com/content/stories/201 ... -them.html

Addendum: from the video in the link "she was on a footpath near Sanderson Elementary School". Hope that footpath wasn't within 1000 feet of the school or she just violated federal law...1000 feet gun free zones around schools.