Why Fear an Armed Public?

page: 1
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 17 2004 @ 12:52 PM
link   
Why Fear an Armed Public?

by Larken Rose

September 22, 2003



KeepAndBearArms.com -- Some inside the United States government view me as an enemy of the state. Why? Because I speak my mind and I tell the truth, even when the government doesn’t like the truth. In my free report entitled “Taxable Income” (available at www.taxableincome.net) and in my video, “Theft By Deception (Deciphering the Federal Income Tax)” (available at www.theft-by-deception.com), I use the law itself to show how the income tax has been grossly misrepresented to the American public, and misapplied by the IRS. In short, according to the law itself, only those engaged in certain kinds of international trade receive income subject to the income tax. The rest of us don’t owe a dime, despite what “conventional wisdom” says. That is what the law itself has shown for over 80 years.

But this article is not about tax law.

"The reason tyrants are afraid of armed citizens is because tyrants do things which sometimes make people want to shoot them."

On May 6, 2003, in an effort to terrorize me into shutting up (under the guise of a “search warrant”), the IRS staged an armed invasion of my home, stole most of my computers (which I have since gotten back), and all of my financial records. They also stole a couple hundred copies (every copy they could find) of my “Theft By Deception” video. They obviously wanted to keep it from the public, even though they know that the video is perfectly legal, and even though the Supreme Court specifically says that what they did is a violation of the First Amendment. (Incidentally, their attempt at censorship via terrorism failed, as I was restocked the next day, and there are now about 15,000 copies of the video in circulation.)

But this article is not about the First Amendment.


Edit: Member's, do not post entire articles. Please post a few paragraphs and provide a working link to your article/source. MEMBERS: Do not simply post news articles in the forums without comment. If you feel inclined to make the board aware of current events, please post the first paragraph, a link to the entire story, AND your opinion, twist or take on the news item.
Link:
FIREARMSRIGHTS.COM


[edit on 17-12-2004 by Seekerof]




posted on Dec, 17 2004 @ 01:11 PM
link   

during the day one agent, who was the least mentally stable of the bunch, kept harping on the fact that I had taken a firearm with me to go to the 7-11 at 2:00 a.m., describing me as “paranoid” for doing so


This seems to make sense, If I knew everyone was armed, Id wanna be too, folk mug folk! good reason NOT to have every one armed, no? Imagine the amount of shootouts between paranoid folk out about their bizz at early hours, jumping any lil noise and shooting at anything that moved! Chaos! Already America has folk shootin other folk all over, mostly gangs etc, but if every one had em, imagine the Hans Moleman types shootin at someone because they thought they were walkin behind them, and they thought they were gonna get mugged!
Or the drunk tough guy staggering out of a pub full of dutch courage and paking a glock, doesent like the look of somebody across the street?
Dangerous.



posted on Dec, 17 2004 @ 01:17 PM
link   
Whether it's true or not, it was a good read and was very insightful as to why people should be armed, and as to why a government wouldn't want it's people armed. The guns = violence equation does not apply. Humans = violence is more accurate. The arguement that guns are used to kill people intentionally or un-intentionally doesn't hold water, because if it wasn't guns people were using to kill others, it would just be something else.

You take the good with the bad, and unfortunately, guns are necessary in this day and age just as swords and knives were necessary in times long gone. I am not saying one should be armed no matter where they go, that's paranoid, but one should be armed at home.

Accidents happen with guns yes, but accidents happen with all things, and guns are no more evil than a corporation distributing a product they know to be harmful to people's health.

Guns are not the enemy, we turn them into the enemy because we can't take responsibility for our own violent and irresponsible tendancies.

An unwelcome visitor should be afraid to come to a person's home in fear of getting shot, this goes for officials and civilians alike.



posted on Dec, 17 2004 @ 01:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by instar

Or the drunk tough guy staggering out of a pub full of dutch courage and paking a glock, doesent like the look of somebody across the street?
Dangerous.


Its illegal to drink alcohol while carrying a concealed weapon so he would be breaking the law just by drinking at the bar. You learn this when taking classes for your CC no responsible gun owner would do that.

Your painting a picture like anyone with a legal handgun is a cowboy which is so far from the truth.



posted on Dec, 17 2004 @ 01:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by ShadowXIX
Your painting a picture like anyone with a legal handgun is a cowboy which is so far from the truth.


Actually, a great many of gun fanatics are ignorant, arrogant f-tards that treat the casual handgunner like they are a piece of crap...but that's besides the point...

[edit on 17-12-2004 by Thorfinn Skullsplitter]



posted on Dec, 17 2004 @ 01:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Thorfinn Skullsplitter

Actually, a great many of gun fanatics are ignorant, arrogant f-tards that treat the casual handgunner like they are a piece of crap...but that's besides the point...

[edit on 17-12-2004 by Thorfinn Skullsplitter]


I dont know I would agree with a great many since there are a 100 million gun owners in the US. If most of them were crazy cowboys there wouldn't be much of us left in this country.

But like any group you will find fanatics are ignorant people anywhere you look.



posted on Jul, 29 2006 @ 03:39 PM
link   
No one fears an armed populace more than government. That is why we must all stand together, as Americans (I'm sorry about the rest of you), to insure that our Second Amendment rights are never destroyed.

This is just one example of the effort by some to disarm America and the noble efforts by some to prevent such:

www.nraila.org...

Google Search

[edit on 2006/7/29 by GradyPhilpott]



posted on Aug, 12 2006 @ 06:14 PM
link   
Know what I fear?

The WRONG PART of the public being armed. The criminal element.

Look at Washington. Look at Winnepeg and Toronto. I've actually started a thread of about it just across the way:

politics.abovetopsecret.com...

Now, with kids crashing parties and stabbin' folks, gang beatings, and crazy drug problems (even before a major influx of meth...we're still waiting for that) I feel unsafe in my home, which is in an upper-class suburb. It didn't help some folks in town...more than a few folks in town. So, I have very rapidly become an advocate for firearms rights. For those that disagree...your cellphone does not trump a criminal's screwdriver. Or knife, bat, gun, etc. remember that.

DE



posted on Aug, 13 2006 @ 12:23 AM
link   
The human race is an unpredictable and violent species, exercising caution when moving abroad amongst them is nothing other than reasonable.

Right now here in Phoenix, we have 3 serial killers on the loose (it may be down to just 1 now) - caution is obviously advised.

When I lived in the UK, violent street crime was far more prevalent than it is here in the US, I have had both friends and relatives suffer violent, unprovoked attacks over there - shouldn't they be safer in a gun control society. Concealed carry tends to eliminate many types of such behavior, simply by the threat of a victim being armed is enough.

I know people who have carried for 20 years, they are happy, socially successful individuals who regard such actions as nothing more than common sense in a nation that permits them that privilege. They have fire extinguishers, home alarm systems and side airbags in their cars, would the ownership of such items also justify a label of paranoid? I think not. We gun owners see no difference, others may do - it's a case of personal choice, but we should always remember that we are truly fortunate to have that choice.



posted on Aug, 13 2006 @ 02:17 AM
link   
Given a society where everyone is armed, one positive viewpoint to take is that government would certainly be more responsive.

I know that this is an old argument but, bear with me, the first thing that a totalitarian regime; i.e., Hitler, Stalin etc., seems to do is to take away guns from the poplulace. Why? Because without weapons, the populace is defenseless. The population of the totalitarian regime is unable to say "NO MORE" and resist and overthrow the totalitarian government.

Now, in a country such as the U.S. or Canada, in spite of current trends to control weapons (and you have to wonder the "real" reasons why), the governments have good reason to try to be responsive or to even "placate" the populace. The ultimate control lies with the people.

If a the government of a country such as the U.S. or Canada began to dictate and enact laws on the populace which was "more than simply unpopular", the people DO have a final recourse after everything else failed; i.e., petitions, strikes, mass labor walk-outs, and civil unrest -- REVOLUTION.



posted on Aug, 29 2006 @ 09:07 AM
link   
Sadly I'm a member of the public, and I'm terrified at the thought of every idiot being able to go out and buy themselves a gun! You can't trust a person to fill up a pint properly, let alone allow them to carry a weapon that can kill from a distance!

We need a society where no one would ever need to carry a gun.

To walk around the streets carrying a weapon that can take someone's life in a split second of passion (i'm including knives in this too) is a disgusting and reprehensible notion.



posted on Aug, 29 2006 @ 10:07 AM
link   
Utopias like that don't exist. It'd be damn nice if we didn't NEED those weapons, but guess what...

We do. Well, those of us who don't want to become victims, whatever the chances of that happening. If you were mugged or attacked, what would you want more- a handgun or a cell phone?

DE



posted on Aug, 29 2006 @ 10:29 AM
link   
We don't need those weapons. If someone came up to me with a knife or a gun (I was once mugged at knifepoint, but I imagine a gun would be much the same) and demands my phone.....then sod it.....my life's worth more than a bloody phone....take it.

If I was carrying a gun or a knife, I'd probably do the same thing, partly because the possibility of killing someone is too awful to contemplate over such a triviality and also since I'm not some kind of super cowboy ninja that most proponents of such extreme measures of security consider themselves to be and as a result would probably get shot or stabbed as I clumsily attempt to tear my revolver free from it's ankle holster.

A simple way of staying safe is to be aware of what's going on around you and using common sense.



posted on Aug, 29 2006 @ 10:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by DenyAllKnowledgeA simple way of staying safe is to be aware of what's going on around you and using common sense.


To bad this didn't stop you from being mugged, but just because you are not competent enough to defend yourself with a gun doesn't mean the rest of us arn't. If your not comfortable to with having a firearm, why would you oppose others rights to do so. Remember folks, the crimminals will have guns whether they are legal or not.



posted on Aug, 29 2006 @ 11:06 AM
link   
I'm going to have to agree with LD- because you're imcompetent, why should the rest of us suffer? I carry a folding knife just about everywhere I go. I can draw it, safely and quickly. I can do the same with a handgun, because I took the time to learn how.

Anyways, as many know (but few are left to attest to), giving in to an attacker's demands does not by any means guarantee your safety. And while not all situations require the use of whatever you choose to carry, some may. The fact that you are unwilling -not even unable, unwilling- to defend yourself is both troubling and perplexing.

DE



posted on Aug, 29 2006 @ 01:59 PM
link   
I am definitely for having no gun control and I support the NRA. It wasn't always that way, I used to be very much against guns. I lived in a large city in California all my life and, like many Californians just simply refused to have one.

One year ago, however, I moved to the remote and rugged mountains of Tennessee in a very small town. We have lots of mountain lions, wild dog packs, foxes, raccoons, etc. Since we have horses and other livestock, and since all the locals told us to get a shotgun, we did get one and I'm very glad. Many neighbors have had their goats, chickens, etc. killed. So we haven't used it yet but probably will need to one day. A college friend taught me how to shoot and approproiate gun handling/safety and I still remember that.

But a while ago, there was a guy who lives here in town and is infamous for being cruel to animals and humans. He just about owns the town, so of course he gets away with it. He came onto our land with the intent of harming one of our horses. That was when we decided to get a gun so we could at least threaten him if he ever came back and possibly wound him if need be.

Almost everyone around here owns at least one gun. But there is literally no violence here, no random murders of strangers or of friends. My point is that with all these guns, we have no violence, proof that guns don't cause violence. I don't even know anyone who locks their doors, ever. Maybe it's because everyone is armed there is no crime? I dont know but I'm sold on owning a gun now. Besides, if the govt ever gets crazy enough to come for us at least we'll have a chance.

Thanks NRA for keeping the 2nd amendment alive!



posted on Aug, 29 2006 @ 02:46 PM
link   
Forestlady
Everyone owning a gun in a small rural town may work fine indeed, but not in a large city. Comparing the two is apples and oranges.
As for there being no gun control? Are you kidding? Does this mean that I can get that .50 cal machine gun I’ve always wanted for my Jeep?
Finally praising the NRA for keeping the second amendment alive? Of course we need the second amendment with no military to defend us we need those guns to stop the British from reinvading at any moment



posted on Aug, 29 2006 @ 06:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by DeusEx

The fact that you are unwilling -not even unable, unwilling- to defend yourself is both troubling and perplexing.

DE


To be perfectly honest, when you're 16, in a country you don't know well, can barely speak the language and a very seedy character holds a knife to you demanding your wallet - well, giving it to him sounds like the best way to defend myself that I can think of!

I would've thought that if everyone was armed to the teeth, tooled up with knives and concealed pistols (which seems to get a few people pretty excited it appears) wouldn't the criminal element simply kill whoever they wanted to mug and take what they want anyway? Thereby in fact lowering the chances of survival? Net result being more people dead, same number of wallets nicked.

And:

Originally posted by DeusExAnyways, as many know (but few are left to attest to), giving in to an attacker's demands does not by any means guarantee your safety


Alot of times it, in fact, did.

When I lived in France, I owned a shotgun, living in the middle of nowhere you could shoot a rabbit and cook it up for dinner. In my opinion a very reasonable use for the weapon. If someone broke into my house, would I have turned it on them? Perhaps, but not with any intention to harm only to scare (which I suppose many petty criminals use them for). But I doubt I could kill anyone........ I find it amazing and a little scary about how blasé some people are in their apparent willingness to take someones life.



posted on Aug, 29 2006 @ 06:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by DenyAllKnowledge
If someone broke into my house, would I have turned it on them? Perhaps, but not with any intention to harm only to scare (which I suppose many petty criminals use them for). But I doubt I could kill anyone....


Producing a firearm in a confrontation is a good way to defuse the situation, but it could also escalate. If you're unwilling to act, you're dead, or worse.



posted on Aug, 29 2006 @ 07:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott

Producing a firearm in a confrontation is a good way to defuse the situation, but it could also escalate. If you're unwilling to act, you're dead, or worse.


This is certainly a problem. However the impression they I get from the average gun fetishist is that they genuinely believe themselves to be faster, better and more morally upright than a citizen who would like to get through life without killing anyone!

So, you have a bar, two slightly drunk men arguing. One flashes his revolver, making it clear that this is not a drunken opinion to be taken lightly. The other bar-room philosopher whips out his hand cannon, clearly distressed at this unwarrented (albeit sexy) display of machismo, in order to attempt to diffuse the situation. Man number one activates his well honed reflexes (hours infront of the mirror, all building towards this moment of pure, savage clarity) and kills the poor b@%^ÂŁd. One murderer and a bar room full of itchy trigger fingers.

And don't pretend a gun owner is any more reasonable and restrained than the rest of the insane masses out there. All that responsibility and respect for the weapon rubbish, someone can go berzerk and turn their car into a killing machine. But then no doubt a gun owning citizen will shoot out the tyres sending the vehicle spinning into a well placed canal, just before it hit a child. I am converted..... clearly time to exercise some gunishment on the rogue elements in society.

Who am I to argue? I haven't got a gun.





new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join