patrick.net

Oh, man, this is precious. That 10,000 figure sounded like typical thomaswong.1986 BS, so I googled that shit:

http://www.streetgangs.com/news/discovery-channel-lies-about-the-number-of-gangs-in-oakland

lollercoasters.

Please, keep being afraid of everyone around you, places you've never been, and people you've never met. You're only helping rational people look good.

I mean, shit, have you ever even been to Oakland? It's not 1985. The poor people who join gangs can't afford to live there anymore. It's just another gentrified san francisco suburb.

The worst part? Despite these improvements, Oakland is still one of the most violent cities in the country. "Most violent" here is relative. The most violent cities today have less than half of the violent crimes and murders today than the AVERAGE city had in the late 70s.

So one of the most violent cities in the country has "maybe 2000" gang members out of a population of 400,000 people, virtually all of the crime is concentrated in 3 very poor districts, and the crime rate is decreasing every year.

And yet....people like thomas believe that everything is so scary that they need a fucking ar15 because they're afraid of black people.

Don't worry, though, dude, virtually all of the people being assaulted are young black men and latinos. All other ethnic groups together accounted for less than 8% of violent crime victims in the city last year (and 10% of suspects...so, you know...). You're probably safe.

Just to reiterate my point, since I think a few people didn't get it... I wish the pro-gun people (and the anti-gun people) where as gung ho about all the other human and civil rights as they are about gun rights.

Why is the right not to be sexually assaulted and strip searched at the airport (or any place) not as sacred as the right to a gun? Why isn't free speech as sacred as the right to a gun? Wayne clearly doesn't hold that freedom as important. Why isn't the right to privacy and the right to observe and record the police held as sacred? Why can these rights be watered down, compromised, and suspended, but not any gun rights?

Surely, these other rights are at least as important as gun rights. As such, no one should compromise on any of these rights. You want to suspend the right of Habeas Corpus? Over my dead body. You want to listen in on my Google searches? When you pry my encryption keys from my cold, dead hands. The people should give government as much of a hard time on all our other civil liberties as we do about guns.

thomaswong.1986 says

Yes, thats how violence happens in the big city.. some gangbangers lays claim from down the street...

The 1980s called and wants its fear mongering back. YouTube videos and watching "Colors" every weekend are not representative of city crime statistics.

thomaswong.1986 says

10,000 gang members ... and thats just one city... and all you have is 8 cops for protection.

In Oakland and any city with a "high" gang problem, about half the homicides are gang related and most of the gang related murders are gang members killing each other. Unless you are a young man who is a gang member living in a low socioeconomic neighborhood your chances of getting shot by a non-gang member are much greater.

Yes, and as Kevin said Oakland does have more than 8 cops.

IDDQD says

Most of "pro-gun lunatics" I know are also strongly against TSA. Rand Paul, for example, had some well-publicized run-ins with this lovely organization and has filed several anti-TSA bills in Senate.

And in how many of those run-ins did Rand Paul use a gun to defend himself from abuse by the TSA?

leo707 says

And in how many of those run-ins did Rand Paul use a gun to defend himself from abuse by the TSA?

I would pay to see that. And I would support Rand Paul if he did.

IDDQD says

leo707 says

And in how many of those run-ins did Rand Paul use a gun to defend himself from abuse by the TSA?

"That's a clown question, bro" (c) Harry Reid

No, Leo's point that guns can't protect us from government tyranny is perfectly valid. We can't even use guns to protect us from rape scanners and sexual molestation by TSA agents. How would guns protect us from serious government attention?

Now, there many be many good reasons for a well-armed society, but defense against the federal or even local government isn't one of them. No one in our country's history has ever, ever come even close to defeating the federal government, a state government, or even a local government using guns.

The only person who defied the state using any kind of physical force and had any kind of success -- and by success, I mean inflicting some damage before committing suicide -- was the great, late Marvin Heemeyer, the tank hero of Granby, Colorado.

This guy was so awesome, I'd have his babies if I could.

But even his success was minimal and obtained using a home built tank, not a gun.

leo707 says

The 1980s called and wants its fear mongering back. YouTube videos and watching "Colors" every weekend are not representative of city crime statistics.

Now this is terrifying violence from the 1980s:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sbsUsXVyKBw

thunderlips11 says

leo707 says

The 1980s called and wants its fear mongering back. YouTube videos and watching "Colors" every weekend are not representative of city crime statistics.

Now this is terrifying violence from the 1980s:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sbsUsXVyKBw

Horrifying, makes me want to carry a gun so I can avoid being victimized like that.

Dan8267 says

The only person who defied the state using any kind of physical force and had any kind of success -- and by success, I mean inflicting some damage before committing suicide -- was the great, late Marvin Heemeyer, the tank hero of Granby, Colorado.

Yeah, that is a really sad story. It is kind of the American version of those monks who burn themselves in protest.

Dan8267 says

Why is the right not to be sexually assaulted and strip searched at the airport (or any place) not as sacred as the right to a gun?

The answer is, "Abstraction." People think they understand gun rights but miss the abstract societal elements that keep violence as integral to human experience. Other constitutional amendments are more obviously abstract, so they're easy to play without triggering the notice of those less aware.

robertoaribas says

FortWayne says

Crime doesn't wait 7 days to come and violate you.

pointless of course. Unless you advocate that every city must have a gun store open 24/7 so that the moment you feel threatened you can run and get one...

Texas has made gun shopping even easier:

This particular store is in Schulenburg which is just a few miles south of La Grange, the same La Grange from the song of the same name by ZZ top.

Guns, booze and hookers - Its a mans world in Texas!

Dan8267 says

The people should give government as much of a hard time on all our other civil liberties as we do about guns.

"The people" is too broad.

RKBA advocates are by and large, worshipful of authority and rigid structures and rules. All problems can of course be solved by people with guns. You want less illegals? Border guards with guns. You want less drugs? DEA agents with guns. You want peace in the Middle East, sell them lots of guns, and oh by the way sail the largest fleet in the world into the middle of it. School shooting? Teachers and janitors, with guns.

Much TALK of being against strong central governments, but it's not really meant. Oh yes but they do want an insurance policy in case shit goes down. For which the solution is.... lots of guns.

I'm sympathetic to RKBA myself, for decades I was an NRA member and staunch unyielding advocate who would have said "right on!" to LaPierre. However these days I feel like it's a group of people for which they have a hammer and every problem looks like a nail.

So ultimately, no most of them don't give two figs about online privacy or waterboarding or anything else in the civil liberties arena. They see RKBA as the ultimate insurance so don't worry about little infringements. It sorta NEEDS to get so bad and slide down that slippery slope so the militia can rise up, neh?

Vicente says

RKBA advocates are by and large, worshipful of authority and rigid structures and rules. All problems can of course be solved by people with guns.

Unfortunate, but true. And that is why the two sides will never see eye to eye.

Dan8267 says

This guy was so awesome, I'd have his babies if I could.

Marvin Heemeyer is a hero. When the government scum and corrupted scum pushed it too far, he did what had to be done.

Dan8267 says

No one in our country's history has ever, ever come even close to defeating the federal government, a state government, or even a local government using guns.

One being the operative word. However if things really went south, a small percentage would go a long way. Particularly snipers.

Mick Russom says

Dan8267 says

No one in our country's history has ever, ever come even close to defeating the federal government, a state government, or even a local government using guns.

One being the operative word. However if things really went south, a small percentage would go a long way. Particularly snipers.

Militia groups have fared far worse. Just ask David Koresh.

The fact is that legislation like the Patriot Act and the NDAA make it trivially easy for the government to label any militia a terrorist organization. And then you militia people have no rights. No rights to a trial, no right to a lawyer, no rights to charges, no right to contact anyone, no right to live. And yes, the government is going after any militia organization that pops up. And the only side of history told will be the government's.

http://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/2011/september/militia_092211

Last March, nine members of an extremist militia group were charged in Michigan with seditious conspiracy and attempted use of weapons of mass destruction in connection with an alleged plot to attack law enforcement and spark an uprising against the government.

It’s just one example of the dangers posed by so-called militia extremists—the latest topic in our series to educate the nation on domestic terror threats that the FBI investigates today.

Homeland Security: You’re All ‘Militia Extremists’ Now

It turns out that all those anti-civil-rights laws we liberals we're bitching about for the past 12 years, can also be used to disband militias and take away your guns.

Just because it's difficult to present an armed resistance against an oppressive government doesn't mean that it won't happen or that it won't be effective. The nature of such actions requires that the rebels be 100% committed, and to also realize that they will likely die in the attempt. It's the second or third wave of rebels that usually succeed, when the movement builds to numbers that can't be suppressed by government firepower. Across the world, when the people rise up in armed revolt, eventually soldiers join them and the government is overthrown. Why else would there be such a push right now for taking guns from the public?

Americans aren't completely stupid, though. More guns are being bought right now than at any time in the past couple of decades as people workout and previous interest in firearms are acquiring them now before the government takes away that right.

I predict a second civil war if our government decides, in its wisdom, to forcibly disarm the populace.
Libtards will be hiding in their basements, trying over and over to get their web pages to refresh. I say libtard because true liberals are practically extinct, an certainly could find no place in either party, especially not the democrat party.

Quigley says

Across the world, when the people rise up in armed revolt, eventually soldiers join them and the government is overthrown.

I'm not so convinced. Where's the uprising in Pakistan? Where's the armed revolt in Afghanistan? It's a different era. If you can get a 100% kill rate from miles away without standoffs and agents endangered, things can change. It becomes harder to find suicidal recruits. At least that's the theory we are operating under, that of attrition and demoralization and.... TERROR delivered to the terrorists. It's easier to convince Bobby Joe that at least when he's apprehended he can go down in a BLAZE OF GLORY and take out some hated black-suited agents with him. Now how about when he'd die while driving in a car, and never even see the UAV that killed him? Frankly I don't know where it will end in those countries but it seems the more time passes the more it just becomes a low-level conflict that 99% of people would rather avoid than join into.

IDDQD says

Leo is trolling here and you both know that. TSA is not kind of problem to be fixed with an armed rebellion. Pretending that it is would be similar to calling Bloomberg's ban on big drink containers "nazism".

The TSA sexually assaults people every day. If anyone resists, they or police at their beckoning, use violence against the person resisting. Whether or not "armed rebellion" is plausible is an entirely different issue than whether or not it is justifiable to use violence to defend oneself or others against violence.

I see nothing in Leo's posting that even remotely resembles trolling.

Vicente says

Where's the uprising in Pakistan?

Exactly. When people who have nothing to lose won't even rebel because the odds are so insane, then what is the chance that fat, lazy Americans are going to rebel under the same or worse odds?

The Professor says

I believe, if the government got too tyrranical, many in the police and armed forces would not support them.

The police are the most tyrannical part of the government. Armed forces come a close second.

Dan8267 says

Why is the right not to be sexually assaulted and strip searched at the airport (or any place) not as sacred as the right to a gun? Why isn't free speech as sacred as the right to a gun? Wayne clearly doesn't hold that freedom as important. Why isn't the right to privacy and the right to observe and record the police held as sacred? Why can these rights be watered down, compromised, and suspended, but not any gun rights?

All of these things I hold as equally important to the right to bear arms. No more, no less important. Guns yes, NRA yes (until all PAC's are BANNED), and NO I am not a "Nut". People STAND UP and UNDERSTAND / WORK for you Liberty!

The damn republicans and democrats need to stop arguing with each other like enemies and come together on the basic foundation of our gooberment! Stop worrying about all of those Piss Ant laws you're trying to get enacted and focus on getting the country back to what actually matters!

Quigley says

Libtards will be hiding in their basements, trying over and over to get their web pages to refresh. I say libtard because true liberals are practically extinct, an certainly could find no place in either party, especially not the democrat party.

I think there are more "libtard" gun owners on this board than "conservatard" ones.

leo707 says

FortWayne says

I'll play along, but how about a 7 day waiting period for free speech, would you like that?

Do you really think that it is a good idea to let untrained, scared and/or angry people to have instant access to guns?

leo ... those same folks can make a fist, grab a bat, grab a knife, get a rope, get in a car, put gas in a bottle with a rag top, put rat poison in some food, .... there's many other ways a person can react that are dangerous ... but it is a right for Americans to be armed if they so wish .. and as for the degree or size of weapon, I say the same weapons that are beared(born?) by those under Gov control is the MINIMUM that a law following AMerican citizen should have access to, and no other limits are acceptable. If the Obama National Forces foot soldier that is ordered to come take your weapon from you is able to carry a ACME FlameThrower 5000, then you too should have full access to that same weapon.

leo707 says

Quigley says

Libtards will be hiding in their basements, trying over and over to get their web pages to refresh. I say libtard because true liberals are practically extinct, an certainly could find no place in either party, especially not the democrat party.

I think there are more "libtard" gun owners on this board than "conservatard" ones.

not in terms of percentages, but in terms of total numbers

Dan8267 says

The Professor says

I believe, if the government got too tyrranical, many in the police and armed forces would not support them.

The police are the most tyrannical part of the government. Armed forces come a close second.

This is why I like you Dan. But, would you ammend "police" to say "law enforcement and legal system" so as to include to currupt judges and lawyers? I think most C.O.P.'s are pretty good guys, doing their best at a particular profession (like you and I do), but I think lawyers and judges are a big problem in America.

ForcedTQ says

All of these things I hold as equally important to the right to bear arms.

So, if you had to choose between your 14-year-old daughter be stripped searched, having a cop insert his hand into her vagina and ass, and lifting up her clitoral hood, or that daughter being denied possession of a semi-automatic rifle, then you would say, "ah, flip a coin to decide because it's a wash."?

I call bullshit on that.

Bap33 says

This is why I like you Dan. But, would you ammend "police" to say "law enforcement and legal system" so as to include to currupt judges and lawyers?

Yes. Most, if not all, judges are corrupt. Judges are lawyers who entered politics, and both lawyers and politicians are corrupt, evil scum.

Sure, there is a chance a person could enter law or politics with good intentions, but such a person rarely would advance far in his or her career. Elizabeth Warren is one of the extremely rare exceptions and in her case, her election was the result of a lot of public anger at corrupt bankers.

Bap33 says

But, would you ammend "police" to say "law enforcement and legal system" so as to include to currupt judges and lawyers? I think most C.O.P.'s are pretty good guys, doing their best at a particular profession (like you and I do), but I think lawyers and judges are a big problem in America.

Sure there are a lot of cops who are good guys, but it is one of those professions that attracts psychotic assholes--you know just like lawyers. Compassionate people, just trying to do what is right, are not equally distributed throughout professions.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/01/06/these-are-the-top-10-jobs-most-likely-to-attract-psychopaths-should-we-be-worried/

I thought you might like to check out this reference on the Blaze

Bap33 says

If the Obama National Forces foot soldier that is ordered to come take your weapon from you is able to carry a ACME FlameThrower 5000, then you too should have full access to that same weapon.

I'm very much in favor of the goal of citizens being able to rebel and overthrow their governments whether in the United States or any other country. I do not object to that goal.

However, I do not thing the goal is realistic. That's the point. The U.S. citizen militia isn't going to have access to the same weapons that the federal or even state government will have access to. No militia is going to have nukes, ICBMs, jet fighters, stealth bombers, land mines, tanks, armor personnel vehicles, drones with hellfire missiles, Apache helicopters, napalm, flame throwers, or the vast array of undisclosed weapons that our military has.

The only possible way a rebellion in the United States might work is if all the marines, sailors, and soldiers in all our armed forces under the rank of colonel all organized a rebellion and coordinated a mutiny at the same time. In the Information Age, such coordination could not possibly happen because all communication channels are monitored. The brass would find out about the plans before they could be carried out. So even this scenario is implausible.

You guys understand that the value of living in america falls to zero in the event of a tyrannical government triggering a civil war, right?

Even if you 'win' the result is a shitty place to live.

Kevin says

You guys understand that the value of living in america falls to zero in the event of a tyrannical government triggering a civil war, right?

Even if you 'win' the result is a shitty place to live.

Yes, I am extremely skeptical that any post revolution government setup by the NRA and Rupert Murdoch would be better than the tyrannical government that inspired the revolt.

leo707 says

I am not so sure.

loe, I was being PatNet specific in my comment.

Dan8267 says

So, if you had to choose between your 14-year-old daughter be stripped searched, having a cop insert his hand into her vagina and ass, and lifting up her clitoral hood, or that daughter being denied possession of a semi-automatic rifle, then you would say, "ah, flip a coin to decide because it's a wash."?

I call bullshit on that.

Why are you creating a choice situation like that out of me agreeing that all amendments are of equal importance (And by the way should not be watered down as you previously posted)? They have NO bounds to do the search, nor deny her the possession of a semi-automatic rifle.

Can't figure out how you'd hide a semi-auto up either orifice anyhow!

Call it Crazy says

Well, if you have a well armed civilian population, wouldn't that be a deterrent to the .gov from triggering a civil war or trying to take more freedoms away??

Aren't we already living under tyranny? I've been hearing that sort of talk for about 4 years. Perhaps the American Freedom Militia got lost on their way to the insurgency.

I find that the TSA officers get a mite uneasy if I moan in pleasure at their pat downs. If they grab your junk just say, "I'll give you ten minutes to quit that!"

Call it Crazy says

If Feinstein's bill goes through, maybe that will be the "trigger"....

It won't.

However, it may inspire a Byron Williams or Martin Hohenegger type to murder some "libtards" who they imagine are oppressing them.

They will meet the same level of success that Timothy Mcveigh met when trying to inspire revolution.

ForcedTQ says

Why are you creating a choice situation like that out of me agreeing that all amendments are of equal importance

1. All amendments are not of equal importance. The Eighteenth Amendment sure as fuck isn't as important as the First Amendment.

2. That is not what you said. You said that all rights are equally important, and that certainly is not true. Exhibit A:

ForcedTQ says

Dan8267 says

Why is the right not to be sexually assaulted and strip searched at the airport (or any place) not as sacred as the right to a gun? Why isn't free speech as sacred as the right to a gun? Wayne clearly doesn't hold that freedom as important. Why isn't the right to privacy and the right to observe and record the police held as sacred? Why can these rights be watered down, compromised, and suspended, but not any gun rights?

All of these things I hold as equally important to the right to bear arms. No more, no less important.

3. The statement I made stands true. Basic human rights involving control over one's own body and human dignity are way the hell more important than the question of which firearms you can possess and which you cannot.

leo707 says

They will meet the same level of success that Timothy Mcveigh met when trying to inspire revolution.

Yep, to this day Timothy McVeigh is called a terrorist, not a hero, and he was one of our troops, you know the people all politicians pay lip service to.

Granted McVeigh was a racist, like almost all militia / survivalist people, and he didn't care about collateral damage (i.e., innocents people being killed) just like everyone in our armed forces. So one can surely make the point that he's no hero, but even if he had the morals of Superman, he'd still be written down as a terrorist in history.

The article says:
"This fear of slippery slopes is why gun-rights advocates seem so unreasonable — they are unwilling to compromise today because they do not trust that the terms of their deal will be honored by the public and by gun-rights opponents in the future. The British and Australian experiences with gun-rights legislation actually supports this sense of paranoia. In both countries, the politics following several mass killings have led to remarkably restrictive gun-rights regimes that most Americans would oppose. If America's gun owners concede even small things now, they risk further erosions of rights later."

The article is right. We have no intention of honoring the terms of any deal that allows any gun in the hands of the average joe.
Chipping away at the worst guns at any given time is our strategy. Everyone knows it, and no one including the NRA can do anything about it.
It's just a matter of time my friends.