The firearm thread

[pritch]

A drill round does not hold powder as it is either solid metal OR has holes drilled in the casing as it is specifically non-fireable.


That's what the army does, but that's not what Hollywood does. They put some shot in the cartridge so it looks normal but it rattles. There may be scenes where ammunition is handled on screen, so the cartridges need to look normal. They sound different though. Normally that is carefully checked one round at a time.

Lawyers are discussing this on various forums but they are just looking at normal gun safety rules. Hollywood has its own rules and it depends on whether TPTB give them credence or not.



Actors Equity gun safety rules:

Safety Tips for Use of Firearms

Use simulated or dummy weapons whenever possible.
Treat all guns as if they are loaded and deadly.
Unless you are actually performing or rehearsing, the property master must secure all firearms.
The property master or armorer should carefully train you in the safe use of any firearm you must handle. Be honest if you have no knowledge about guns. Do not overstate your qualifications.
Follow all instructions given by the qualified instructor.
Never engage in horseplay with any firearms or other weapons. Do not let others handle the gun for any reason.
All loading of firearms must be done by the property master, armorer or experienced persons working under their direct supervision.
Never point a firearm at anyone including yourself. Always cheat the shot by aiming to the right or left of the target character. If asked to point and shoot directly at a living target, consult with the property master or armorer for the prescribed safety procedures.
If you are the intended target of a gunshot, make sure that the person firing at you has followed all these safety procedures.
If you are required to wear exploding blood squibs, make sure there is a bulletproof vest or other solid protection between you and the blast packet.
Use protective shields for all off stage cast within close proximity to any shots fired.
Appropriate ear protection should be offered to the cast members and stage managers.
Check the firearm every time you take possession of it. Before each use, make sure the gun has been test-fired off stage and then ask to test fire it yourself. Watch the prop master check the cylinders and barrel to be sure no foreign object or dummy bullet has become lodged inside.
Blanks are extremely dangerous. Even though they do not fire bullets out of the gun barrel, they still have a powerful blast than can maim or kill.
Never attempt to adjust, modify or repair a firearm yourself. If a weapon jams or malfunctions, corrections shall be made only by a qualified person.
When a scene is completed, the property master shall unload the firearms. All weapons must be cleaned, checked and inventoried after each performance.
Live ammunition may not be brought into the theater.
If you are in a production where shots are to be fired and there is no qualified property master, go to the nearest phone and call Actors' Equity Association. A union representative will make sure proper procedures are followed.
State and federal safety laws must be honored at all times.
If any of the above safety tips conflict with the instructions given by a qualified instructor, abide by the instructions from the qualified instructor. If you are still not sure, contact your Equity Business Representative

[pete376403]

That's what the army does, but that's not what Hollywood does. They put some shot in the cartridge so it looks normal but it rattles. There may be scenes where ammunition is handled on screen, so the cartridges need to look normal. They sound different though. Normally that is carefully checked one round at a time.

Lawyers are discussing this on various forums but they are just looking at normal gun safety rules. Hollywood has its own rules and it depends on whether TPTB give them credence or not.

reading how in the US everyone is getting their panties in a twist over this (very unfortunate) shooting, but somehow seem to completely skate over the regular school shootings

[husaberg]

reading how in the US everyone is getting their panties in a twist over this (very unfortunate) shooting, but somehow seem to completely skate over the regular school shootings

I was thinking of that exact same scenario

[pritch]

So the sheriff and the DA gave a press conference. It only took a week. It's fair to say we didn't learn much. We learned that a lead bullet was pulled from the shoulder of the director. We might have suspected that but now we know.

Basically that press conference could have been given the next morning. At this speed by the time they announce any charges we won't know what they are referring to. We'll have forgotten.

[TheDemonLord]

reading how in the US everyone is getting their panties in a twist over this (very unfortunate) shooting, but somehow seem to completely skate over the regular school shootings

The furor I think has come from people who preach most vociferously about Gun Control and Gun Safety have demonstrated their hypocrisy:

'Do as I say, not as I do'

Same with the people who preach about Climate Change, whilst traveling in a private jet to attend a climate conference.

I said above, I thought the treatment of Alec was harsh - even though the Equity rules that Pritch posted suggests he as the Actor should bare some blame (and Definitely as the Producer...)

But I understand why it's struck a Chord.

[F5 Dave]

What they really needed on set is a good guy with a gun.


Probably too soon. Poor lass went to work and didn't come home.

[jasonu]

reading how in the US everyone is getting their panties in a twist over this (very unfortunate) shooting, but somehow seem to completely skate over the regular school shootings
Only the press are talking about it, no one else cares.


I was thinking of that exact same scenario
That's because you are an idiot.

[scumdog]

reading how in the US everyone is getting their panties in a twist over this (very unfortunate) shooting, but somehow seem to completely skate over the regular school shootings


As usual when a tragedy involves somebody famous it is grabbed with both hands by the media - "If it bleeds - it leads"

[TheDemonLord]

What they really needed on set is a good guy with a gun.

Indeed - because a Good Guy would have pointed out the unsafe practices ;)


(There's a Will Smith clip that's been doing the rounds where someone is being a fuckwit with a prop firearm and Will slaps the firearm back to a safe direction)

[TheDemonLord]

Apparently the NZDF lost something like 1700 AR Style Magazines.

One rule for the Government, another for Firearm owners...

[pritch]

Apparently the NZDF lost something like 1700 AR Style Magazines.

One rule for the Government, another for Firearm owners...

That wouldn't even be the tip of the iceberg. Better you don't know, it'd only give you ulcers.

[TheDemonLord]

That wouldn't even be the tip of the iceberg. Better you don't know, it'd only give you ulcers.

I don't doubt that for a second - that will only be the ones that have been noticed as missing...

I just find it hilarious after the Government insisted that engraving now-Prohibited Magazines would stop them falling into Criminal hands....


On a different note - I've been watching a lot on the Legal proceedings on Rust and also some commentary in and around it.

So far, my feeling is that the Armorer is probably going to face some form of legal repercussion, So will Alec. The Severity of which remains to be seen.

[TheDemonLord]

Has anyone been keeping up with Kyle Rittenhouse Trial?

Prosecution: "So, he only shot you, when you pulled out your concealed weapon and advanced on him?"
Communist Revolutionary:"Yes"

:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:

The prosecution's face literally collapsed.

Based on the evidence presented, I don't think there could be a more clear-cut case of Self-Defence.

I've also heard rumours that because of how blatantly clear it is, that they might be going after the prosecution/DA for even bringing the case to trial...

[sugilite]

Has anyone been keeping up with Kyle Rittenhouse Trial?

Prosecution: "So, he only shot you, when you pulled out your concealed weapon and advanced on him?"
Communist Revolutionary:"Yes"

:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:

I would like to see your data showing proof that this bloke is a communist revolutionary, and not say.... some gang banger looking to steal shit and cause trouble?

[TheDemonLord]

I would like to see your data showing proof that this bloke is a communist revolutionary, and not say.... some gang banger looking to steal shit and cause trouble?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eAJD9x84bkk

Specifically starting at 5:04.

'You are a member of the Peoples Revolution'
"No I'm not"
'But you've spoken at their rallies'
"I have at one"
'And during that Rally have you made statements such as "Long live the Revolution"'
"I have"
'And you have no affiliation with them?'
"Affiliation? Yes"

Court testimony, under Oath - is that sufficient data for you?

[pritch]

I would like to see your data showing proof that this bloke is a communist revolutionary, and not say.... some gang banger looking to steal shit and cause trouble?

I fail to see the relevance of the description "communist revolutionary". It's not as if that's a legitimate excuse to shoot someone. Much less to travel across state lines with an illegal weapon to shoot someone, when he had no right to even be there armed.

What I've read of this trial so far has not been encouraging. The judge ruled before the start that the victims were not to be referred to as victims. After the trial started the judge went on some rambling biblical soliloquy. The defence lawyer made the case that a skateboard is a weapon capable of decapitating someone. Dunno, but if I was planning a beheading a skateboard wouldn't even be on the list of possible implements. I suspect we are going ot witness a legal circus.

[TheDemonLord]

I fail to see the relevance of the description "communist revolutionary". It's not as if that's a legitimate excuse to shoot someone. Much less to travel across state lines with an illegal weapon to shoot someone, when he had no right to even be there armed.

What I've read of this trial so far has not been encouraging. The judge ruled before the start that the victims were not to be referred to as victims. After the trial started the judge went on some rambling biblical soliloquy. The defence lawyer made the case that a skateboard is a weapon capable of decapitating someone. Dunno, but if I was planning a beheading a skateboard wouldn't even be on the list of possible implements. I suspect we are going ot witness a legal circus.

I'm going to be generous and assume that what you've read has been from the predominantly left-wing media.

What is a Legitimate excuse to shoot someone, is if they are charging towards you and leveling a Concealed Firearm (which he didn't have a permit to own) at you - Just like he said he did. In the snippet where he admits he was charging at Kyle and pulling his Weapon on him, The Prosecutor does some Picard level face-palming.

Whether it was 'legal' or not to cross state lines with the Firearm, the over-arching principle of what Kyle did is perfectly aligned with what the 2nd Amendment was written for - He is evidently a Well Trained Militia, and securing a Free state (by preventing revolutionary Communists from burning, rioting and looting...)

The ruling by the Judge isn't Legal circus but in fact long standing practice - here's an excellent breakdown of that:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Kdv5I_WGHo

(admittedly, I'm linking a lot of videos, and generally prefer to make my own arguments - but in this case - the explanation here as to why this is so is too good not to)

The only Legal circus is the fact it went to trial in the first place, I mean when your 'Star Witness' confirms textbook self-defence....

[pritch]

I
The ruling by the Judge isn't Legal circus but in fact long standing practice - here's an excellent breakdown of that:

.

I will watch that although I have a Zoom meeting about to kick off.

As to the self defence defence. He had zero right to be armed and in that place. Don't you think that is a factor. Never mind obviously you won't.

Do you have an explanation for the biblical rant too?

We'll see.

Gotta run

[TheDemonLord]

I will watch that although I have a Zoom meeting about to kick off.

As to the self defence defence. He had zero right to be armed and in that place. Don't you think that is a factor. Never mind obviously you won't.

I kinda covered that - As far as the 2nd Amendment is concerned, he had every right to be armed and in that place. And it's not just me that thinks that, Several Legal sources have been lambasting the Defence for not pointing at 2A and going 'Kyle did nothing wrong', since the Constitution is the highest legal authority in the country.

I will note that several non-American commentators have said things along the lines of 'We can discuss whether it's right for a 17 year old to go into a protest with a Rifle separately', so it's not like this isn't something where I haven't listened to people debating that point.

The facts of the case are, however, that by all accounts, Kyle is a good guy- offering Medical Aid, Protecting Property, putting out Arson, not rising to the Taunts of the Aggressors, attempted to turn himself in to the police after the shooting, co-operating with the Police in regards to giving them access to his Cell Phone.

The same cannot be said for the people that got shot, however.

Some have suggested that they are going to try and win without referencing the Constitution, because they might open a very large can of Worms and that would have large scale repercussions for various State Law.


Do you have an explanation for the biblical rant too?

Admitedly, I've not seen or heard the Biblical Rant - however in one of the Trial sections, the Judge did talk, at length, about some previous precedent he was involved in when he practiced law.

It was rather long and waffly, so I'll take you on your word that there was a Biblical Rant, and I'll even be generous and say that in my view, such a rant is a violation of the separation between Church and State.

Happy?

[pritch]

I kinda covered that -
The facts of the case are, however, that by all accounts, Kyle is a good guy- offering Medical Aid, Protecting Property, putting out Arson, not rising to the Taunts of the Aggressors, attempted to turn himself in to the police after the shooting, co-operating with the Police in regards to giving them access to his Cell Phone.

The same cannot be said for the people that got shot, however.



OK I watched the clip, all good. I believe Rittenhouse went there to shoot people, his mother should be charged as an accessory. It appears to be a fucked up family. If he went there as a medic he didn't need an AR15 or similar. I believe the medic story to have been created of his lawyer, just as was Rittenhouse's breaking down in court. A circus performance. Albeit a very low grade circus performance.

Most of the social media I'm seeing thinks the judge is biased. Some believe the prosecution thinks so too, and is trying to push the judge to do something that will provide grounds for a mistrial.

Meanwhile the circus continues.

[TheDemonLord]

I believe Rittenhouse went there to shoot people, his mother should be charged as an accessory. It appears to be a fucked up family.

Okay, so as Sugilite challenged me, I'll challenge you - show me the evidence for that claim. You might be referring to the off-hand remark he made about shoplifters, but I'd like to refer to the Judge's comments and rulings on that (hint, they are very very very scathing).

If he was there to shoot people, as you claim, why did he stop shooting?
Then we get to look at the list of the people he shot:

1 Pedo
1 Wife Beater
1 Revolutionary Commie with a Criminal history and an illegal concealed Weapon.

All of whom were (as per the video evidence) attacking or attempting to attack Kyle first.

Furthermore, you 'believe' that, because you've been lied to. I don't mean that glibly.


If he went there as a medic he didn't need an AR15 or similar. I believe the medic story to have been created of his lawyer, just as was Rittenhouse's breaking down in court. A circus performance. Albeit a very low grade circus performance.

When you are going into a Riot - being armed is entirely appropriate. Especially when you are worried about Revolutionary Commies trying to kill you...

But as for the Medic part: This is why I say you are being lied to - we have VIDEO footage of Kyle, on that night, Offering Medical assistance to people - both in an interview where he shows that he's got a Medkit:

https://www.insider.com/kenosha-gunman-kyle-rittenhouse-interview-2020-8

I've seen another clip from that night of him asking 'Does anyone need Medical' - but that seems to have gone down the Memory Hole...

As for his Mother - I think you're referring to statements where she suggested he should go out of State - she suggested, he didn't and turned himself in - not exactly accessory after the Fact...


Most of the social media I'm seeing thinks the judge is biased.

That tells you something about the Social Media you are watching - The judge declined to order a Directed Verdict when the survivor confirmed Kyle didn't shoot him when his hands where up, but only shot him when he pulled his Gun and advanced on him.

The Judge also very nearly dismissed the case (possible via a Mistrial with Prejudice) after the Prosecutor essentially tried to use a Defendants right to Silence against him: There's a great clip of the Judge dismissing the Jury and absolutely unloading on the Prosecutor and you can hear the Judge stop himself:

"You are this close to a.....

well let's leave it at that"

I suspect the Judge has declined to order a verdict or declare a mistrial due to public interest in the case.


Some believe the prosecution thinks so too, and is trying to push the judge to do something that will provide grounds for a mistrial.

Funnily enough, I've seen that too, but I suspect the reasoning will be entirely different - the commentary I've seen is that the Prosecutor knows the whole case is quintessential Self-Defence but is being forced by political interests to proceed anyway - so is doing everything they can to get the aforementioned mistrial with prejudice.

That said, there's mumurs amongst some Lawyers that in particularly going after a constitutional right (5A) is such a big no-no, that he might be hauled before the Bar association for it.


Meanwhile the circus continues.

The only Circus around this is from the Prosecutors antics and the lying about this case from certain left-wing media outlets.

[sugilite]

I laugh out loud when TDL refers to Rittenhouses "off-hand" remark he made about shoplifters (as in his desire to shoot them) when it suits his argument. Had Rittenhouse been a marxist commie dissident and shot some right wing blokes, then that statement all of a sudden would be provided by TDL as dead cert proof Rittenhouse was guilty :laugh: As this case involves two of TDL's prominent triggers - commies n guns with a large helping of right vs left for desert, so TDL's posts in this case will always be severely biased.

I acknowledge this is a very complicated case. For me one thing is fairly simple. Rittenhouse went looking for trouble and found it - jail time of some description is fitting. Had he not gone looking for trouble, those deaths would not of occurred. It for sure was self defense, but he simply should not have been there with a AR15 in his hands in the first place. Decisions have consequences, Rittenhouse should suffer those.

[pritch]

Ignore that the defence claim that Rittenhouse is attending university to study for a nursing degree. That's a lie. The university have explained thst his very recent "enrolment" is not connected to any degree course. His claim that he travelled to give medical assistance if required is not credible. He has neither experience nor qualificatons for that. He travelled interstate with an illegal firearm to administer first aid? You have to be a special kind of deluded to believe that. OK, we do have that.

Better to look at it this way. A mass shooting was in progress. The proverbial "good guy with a gun" tried to stop it but was killed. A good guy with a skateboard also tried to stop it. (OK some good guys are better than others, but that's irrelevant here.) Rittenhouse is an evil little shit but he's supported by the fascists because he shot lefties.

The US legal profession were saying that people shouldn't judge the trial. It might not look good but we shouldn't judge. After a day or two to watch that's changing, people in the legal profession are openly saying the judge is problematic.

It's funny, I've seen the clips TDL is referring to but see them completely differently. The trial is descending into farce. The judge might as well invite Rittenhouse home for dinner. If he hasn't already.

Don't judge US judges by our standards. Some judges in the US are elected not appointed. In some states it is not even necessary that they have a law degree, they just need to have graduated high school. I'd be interested to see Judge Schroeder's background. I wouldn't want him judging a cat show.

Update: Shroeder is qualified and appointed but perhaps also somewhat eccentric. Having everybody in the court, including the jury, applaud a defence witness is problematic. The reason is irrelevant, the fact is he created a favourable impression of a witness prior to the witness giving evidence.

[TheDemonLord]

I laugh out loud when TDL refers to Rittenhouses "off-hand" remark he made about shoplifters (as in his desire to shoot them) when it suits his argument.

As per the Judge: Those two things are totally unrelated:

"There's a difference between saying what you might do IF you had a weapon on you to someone, vs what you actually did when you were armed and being attacked"

He didn't allow the argument, because it's BS.


Had Rittenhouse been a marxist commie dissident and shot some right wing blokes, then that statement all of a sudden would be provided by TDL as dead cert proof Rittenhouse was guilty :laugh:

Take a moment to think why the Judge didn't allow that for Kyle, but did allow it for the Commie?

Why?

Because a Revolutionary Communist, doing revolutionary communist things IS relevant.


As this case involves two of TDL's prominent triggers - commies n guns with a large helping of right vs left for desert, so TDL's posts in this case will always be severely biased.

I'll come back to this statement in a moment...


It for sure was self defense

Exactly, case closed, Kyle Acquitted.

Before you say I've taken this out of context, let me explain why I've done so:

This is, as you say 'For sure Self Defense' - From there, then, where is the Bias (I said I'd come back to it) - Person A attacks Person B, Person A gets shot by Person B, There is no Bias on that judgement.

That you say that there IS bias shows how far to the left your Overton Window has shifted. Now, I'll accept a certain amount of glee that the people who were rioting and looting (and wanting to overthrow everything about the western capitalist society...) got their comeuppance, and the fact that of the 3 people shot, not a single one of them passes for a remotely decent human being, with 2 of them being absolute monsters.

Do I have Bias that a Pedo and a Wife Beater are Dead? Perhaps...

But the real question you need to ask is this: Would you prefer that a Pedo and a Wife Beater were alive? And if so, Why? It's not either of them were facing lengthy jail terms to pay for their crimes...



I acknowledge this is a very complicated case.

In the context of Self Defence, it really isn't.


For me one thing is fairly simple. Rittenhouse went looking for trouble and found it

Okay, let's break down the Video clips we have of Kyle from that night:

1: Cleaning Graffitti - is that looking for Trouble? Nope.
2: Putting out Arson Fires - is that looking for Trouble? Nope.
3: Saying he's here to provide Medical assistance (don't worry Pritch, I'll get to you...), and showing the Reporter his First Aid Kit - Is that looking for Trouble? Nope.
4: Asking people in the Street if they need Medical Assistance - Is that looking for Trouble? Nope.
5: When someone made death threats against him, responding with 'Love you too, Man' - Is that looking for Trouble? Nope.
6: Trying to retreat each time he was attacked - Is that looking for Trouble? Nope.
7: Trying to turn himself into the Police after he shot someone on that night - Is that looking for Trouble? Nope.

So Let me ask this, Based on the video evidence of the night, with no editing, commentary or other manipulation techniques - Pray Tell, How do you come to the conclusion he was looking for Trouble?

EVERY action that we have documented seems to show he was trying to STOP trouble.


- jail time of some description is fitting. Had he not gone looking for trouble, those deaths would not of occurred.

Had the rioters not STARTED the trouble, those deaths would not of occurred.
Had the rioters not ATTACKED Kyle, those deaths would not of occurred.
Had the Protestors been Peaceful and respectful of private property, those deaths would not of occurred.
Had the Protestors obeyed the Curfew, Those deaths would not of occurred.

Are you wanting to jail every single person involved in the riots? I mean I could support you on that if you insisted Kyle did some time to, that would be fair....


but he simply should not have been there with a AR15 in his hands in the first place.

And I fundamentally disagree.

What Kyle was doing was in the long tradition of the 2nd Amendment. Whether it's Rooftop Koreans, Assisting against the Bell Tower Sniper, Mr and Mrs Chadbro - When people start rioting and looting, you have every right to grab your Rifle, Stand in front of your business, or you employers business and present an Armed threat.

I must also remind you of that famous line from Rambo:

'They drew First Blood, Sir, Not me"

They started EVERY instance, as per the above.


Decisions have consequences, Rittenhouse should suffer those.

Indeed, a Medal, Movie and street named in his honor would be appropriate. 20-30 years ago, that's what would have happened.

[TheDemonLord]

Ignore that the defence claim that Rittenhouse is attending university to study for a nursing degree. That's a lie. The university have explained thst his very recent "enrolment" is not connected to any degree course.

Not an argument I've advanced, so no comment.


His claim that he travelled to give medical assistance if required is not credible.

You literally have an interview, with the man himself, before he shot anyone saying that this was his intent AND SHOWING HIS MEDKIT.
We also have video of him asking people if they need Medical.

How is that not Credible?

Now, I said I'd get to you - You are either going to have deny reality of the video evidence we have, or you are going to imply that somehow Kyle is some 5D chess Mastermind who planned out in meticulous detail every action and perfectly predicted every consequence for that evening.


He has neither experience nor qualificatons for that.

You never heard of Boy Scouts or similarly aged boys getting First Aid courses?

On the off-chance you haven't: Have a Read. (https://www.google.com/search?q=boy+scout+first+aid+news&client=firefox-b-d&sxsrf=AOaemvKCl90Q5vZUWYQ5fmgVEAjL7dsj5w%3A1636745 504952&ei=IMGOYd_dOfO0mgfahrqYDg&oq=boy+scout+first+aid+news&gs_lcp=Cgdnd3Mtd2l6EAMyBQghEKABMgUIIRCgATIECCEQFTo HCAAQRxCwAzoECAAQQzoFCAAQgAQ6BggAEBYQHkoECEEYAFC4A ljWBmDQB2gBcAJ4AIABsQKIAeAGkgEHMC4zLjAuMZgBAKABAcg BCMABAQ&sclient=gws-wiz&ved=0ahUKEwjf7aOTyJP0AhVzmuYKHVqDDuMQ4dUDCA4&uact=5)


He travelled interstate with an illegal firearm to administer first aid? You have to be a special kind of deluded to believe that. OK, we do have that.

As per the Man himself "The Firearm is for Protection, here is my Medkit" - And it turns out, he needed it for Protection, multiple times


Better to look at it this way. A mass shooting was in progress.

No it wasn't. Not by the FBI definition and not by reality.


The proverbial "good guy with a gun" tried to stop it but was killed.

No, he survived and he wasn't a Good Guy, he was a Revolutionary Communist who was trying to kill Kyle - I mean as per his Testimony (paraphrased)

"He didn't shoot you when you had your hands up"
"No"
"He only shoot you when you Advanced on him and attempted to pull out your weapon"
"Yes"


A good guy with a skateboard also tried to stop it. (OK some good guys are better than others, but that's irrelevant here.)

Ah yes, the Wife Beater - Such a Good Guy.

Here's a Pro-Tip - if you are hitting someone, who was retreating, on the ground, with a weapon - You aren't the good Guy. He played a stupid game, he won the ultimate stupid prize (and good riddance).


Rittenhouse is an evil little shit but he's supported by the fascists because he shot lefties.

Your Bias is showing. I'll refer to the list I gave Sugilite - Cleaning Graffitti, Putting out fires, offering Medical Assistance, not rising to verbal threats and insults.

Oh, and no Criminal Record for Pedophilia or Domestic Abuse.

Seriously - This is the level to which you have been lied to: You are supporting someone who has done nothing wrong over Pedophiles and Wife Beaters.


The US legal profession were saying that people shouldn't judge the trial. It might not look good but we shouldn't judge. After a day or two to watch that's changing, people in the legal profession are openly saying the judge is problematic.

The only people that are saying that, are Activists. The fact the Judge hasn't issued a Directed Verdict or declared a Mistrial is proof of that.


It's funny, I've seen the clips TDL is referring to but see them completely differently. The trial is descending into farce. The judge might as well invite Rittenhouse home for dinner. If he hasn't already.

The judge is Neutral, and you see him as Biased. That shows how far your Biases have shifted - again, you've been lied to and so badly that you are supporting Pedos, Wife Beaters and Revolutionaries.


Don't judge US judges by our standards. Some judges in the US are elected not appointed. In some states it is not even necessary that they have a law degree, they just need to have graduated high school. I'd be interested to see Judge Schroeder's background. I wouldn't want him judging a cat show.

Clearly then you haven't watched the clips I posted, because if you had, you would have heard the Judge refer to Case precedent from when HE was a Lawyer....

At this moment - you have two very solid grounds for acquittal, that any Judge could do so and not be accussed of Bias. And he's come very close, but he's declined to do so, because he's clearly NOT Biased...




Update: Shroeder is qualified and appointed but perhaps also somewhat eccentric. Having everybody in the court, including the jury, applaud a defence witness is problematic. The reason is irrelevant, the fact is he created a favourable impression of a witness prior to the witness giving evidence.

It's almost like if you've done nothing wrong and don't lie, you don't look bad, who would have thought that...

[sugilite]

TDL - i stand by me assertion that had Rittenhouse been a dastardly commie and done the same thing against right wingers, you would be writing passionate rebuttals against the very points you are attempting to make here. Your right wing eye patch prevents you from posting anything remotely balanced when it comes to Rittenhouse, as your absurd give the guy a medal statement prooves.

[TheDemonLord]

TDL - i stand by me assertion that had Rittenhouse been a dastardly commie and done the same thing against right wingers, you would be writing passionate rebuttals against the very points you are attempting to make here.

Okay, I'll grant you part of that for free and I'll grant you the other part on a condition:

Show me a situation that is close enough to Kyle's situation but the Politics are reversed, in the last 5-10 years and I'll grant the second half of it.

That Right Wing/Conservative/National/Republicans were destroying local towns and businesses, settings fires and protesting and a bunch of well-armed Left Wing supports came to provide assistance, when one was repeatedly attacked and killed their attackers in self defence.

Now, before you raise January 6th - that was against the Government and the only person shot and killed was by Security (and I'm fairly certain I haven't shed many tears about their death, nor have I called for the metaphorical head of the Security person)

And before you raise Charlottesville - the Organizer (Richard Spencer) supports Joe Biden... So, very 'right wing'....

For the record, the part I'm granting you for free is my opposition to any group that wants to undermine the foundational principles of Free, Liberal democracy.

The only reason I focus on the Communists is that it's acceptable to walk around with a T-Shirt with Hammer and Sickle on it, spout Revolutionary nonsense or spout racial supremecist nonsense from a 'critical theory' lens and be embraced by the likes of Mainstream Media, University campuses, Social Media Companies, Mainstream politics etc. etc., whereas the same cannot be said in reverse.


Your right wing eye patch prevents you from posting anything remotely balanced when it comes to Rittenhouse, as your absurd give the guy a medal statement prooves.

Let me try a different tack:

Okay, take the Politics out of it, Kyle is still objectively a Hero.
Take the prior convictions (that Kyle couldn't have known about), Kyle is still objectively a Hero.
Take the good deeds he had been doing on the night (offering assistance, cleaning graffitti, putting out arson attempts), Kyle is still objectively acting in self defence.

It's only when you take away the fact that in all 3 instances, he was attacked first that you could describe the situation as dubious.

As I said to Pritch, The Media have lied so hard about this case that you are ending up trying to say of a convicted Domestic Abuser, that they are

"A good guy with a skateboard also tried to stop it."

That's how far the Bias has gone.

[pritch]

As per the Man himself "The Firearm is for Protection, here is my Medkit" - And it turns out, he needed it for Protection, multiple times


That right there is the crux of the thing. The medkit is a red herring. I believe he went there to shoot people and he did. If he was black he'd be dead already and we eouldn't even be having this discussion. And for the first time on KB we could actually be discussing CRT appropriately.

He seem to have had a strange upbringing,. I have no idea as to the veracity of the attachment but it's clear what it's meant to be.

We will not agree so...

[TheDemonLord]

That right there is the crux of the thing. The medkit is a red herring.

Right, so let's get this clear - you sincerely believe that a 17 year old, took a MedKit as a Prop, got himself interviewed, caught on camera multiple times doing good deeds, somehow instigated himself to be attacked, bearing in mind we have the altercations on Camera and at no point is Kyle the Aggressor, you believe that all of this was done as some form of Mastermind evil plan to:


I believe he went there to shoot people and he did.

See, if he kept shooting at the Crowd - at any point in time, you might have a point.
If it had fired at anyone who was not actively attacking him, you might have a point.

But such things are lacking by their absence.

You believe that, because you've been sold a lie.


If he was black he'd be dead already and we eouldn't even be having this discussion. And for the first time on KB we could actually be discussing CRT appropriately.

Why are you bringing Race into this? There isn't a Racial element to this, At. All.

As for CRT - Have you read the Academic Papers where they confirm it's basically one big scam to try and sneak Marxism in the backdoor? Happy to provide you with the link where Kimberly Crenshaw refers to the work of Antonio Gramsci and of Marx himself.

Hell, I'll even be generous - you set the standard of proof that you will accept to say that CRT is one big Marxist lie, I'm pretty certain I can meet.


He seem to have had a strange upbringing,. I have no idea as to the veracity of the attachment but it's clear what it's meant to be.

Indeed it is clear what it's meant to be:

Poisoning the Well ;)


We will not agree so...

But that is half the Fun.

[sugilite]

TDL, Yes Charlottesville. Just because the organizer supported Biden, does not absolve all the other right wing nut jobs there. That is a prime example of your eye patch at work, Oh the organizer was a Biden supporter, absolving all others of being right wing. Give me a fuckin break. There is no depth to which you will not stoop to absolve the right. I'll give you this - in your desire to lean right and "win the argument", you do not even realize you are doing it. (my theory)

Your eye patch also gives you a very fuzzy perception of law and order. Fight like a fucker when it is left doing shit, but excuses galore when the right do it, hell you pretty much absolve the right for the last 5 to 10 years of doing anything much bad in your last laughable post.

As mentioned many times before to you, I advocate throwing ANY rioters, arsonists in jail, be they left or right. I simply don't care on that front. Unlike yourself. If you were a motorcycle tyre, the right side would be absolutely melted and thrashed all the way to the edge - to the point Rossi would be proud, the left hand side would still be showroom shiny and have the little tags left over from the manufacturing process.

The whole left/right thing is being stoked to the max by each parties media, all to sell more advertising space. Right now the likelihood of civil war is high within 3 to 6 years. Then Russia and China will mop up and our kids future will look very bleak indeed.
But by all means, keep doing the little jig your puppet masters are covertly taking great delight in triggering you to perform.:no:

[TheDemonLord]

TDL, Yes Charlottesville. Just because the organizer supported Biden, does not absolve all the other right wing nut jobs there.]That is a prime example of your eye patch at work, Oh the organizer was a Biden supporter, absolving all others of being right wing.

If you can be a Biden supporter and support the views that were, shall we say, common at Charlottesville, then it stands to reason that those views aren't 'Right Wing', they are something else.

Plenty of People in the Democrats (And labour in the UK) currently have got a number of Opinions on Israel, Plenty of people at Charlottesville ALSO have an opinion 'The Jewish Question'.

There's an Excellent quote from Jordan Peterson about this:


The radical rightists are playing identity politics just like the radical leftists. They just say "Yeah, the world is divided up on racial grounds, just like the radical leftists claim, and I happen to be white. And I'm going to win this game!"

Now, he uses Radical Rightists in the speech, but my view of this is: They are both playing the same game, they are on the same side of the political spectrum - The Libertarian Right Wing (that wants small Government and individual identities and individual rights is the polar opposite of the radical left that wants group identities and group rights.

I could be generous and grant you Horseshoe Theory, but I'm not feeling generous.

You could probably No True Scotsman me - the fact is that Group/collectivist identities (as expressed by the Far Left and the so-called 'Far right') is diametrically opposed to the individual world view of Conservatism. I'm half tempted to post the Wikipedia link to Conservatism and point out all the times it talks about 'The individual'


Give me a fuckin break. There is no depth to which you will not stoop to absolve the right. I'll give you this - in your desire to lean right and "win the argument", you do not even realize you are doing it. (my theory)

Eh, I'll get to that in a moment.


Your eye patch also gives you a very fuzzy perception of law and order. Fight like a fucker when it is left doing shit, but excuses galore when the right do it, hell you pretty much absolve the right for the last 5 to 10 years of doing anything much bad in your last laughable post.

Except for one teensy tiny detail - It's not the Right Wing that gets free reign in Universities, Social Media, Mainstream media etc. You can get on Mainstream TV and say:

"I'm a literal Communist" and no one batts an eye.
You could not say "I'm a literal Fascist/Nazi" and get the same treatment.

My personal preference would be that both groups of people would be yeeted into the persona non grata category. One is, the other isn't.

In terms of mainstream acceptability:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WpfCYq28j60

Does this prove my point? Can you show something at a Conservative or Republican conference with people echoing 'Far Right' Slogans?


As mentioned many times before to you, I advocate throwing ANY rioters, arsonists in jail, be they left or right. I simply don't care on that front.

But when I ask you to call them what they are, Communist Revolutionaries, you suddenly go Shy. When I point to the Mainstream Media running defense/interference for the causes of the Riots and show blatantly false headlines, you again go Shy.
You defend them against the accusation of being what they are as vigorously as I accuse them.

That's the sort of Tacit approval you're accusing me of.


Unlike yourself. If you were a motorcycle tyre, the right side would be absolutely melted and thrashed all the way to the edge - to the point Rossi would be proud, the left hand side would still be showroom shiny and have the little tags left over from the manufacturing process.

So, I'd be a NASCARBIKE then? :lol::lol::lol::lol:


The whole left/right thing is being stoked to the max by each parties media, all to sell more advertising space.

I don't entirely agree, but I don't entirely disagree either....


Right now the likelihood of civil war is high within 3 to 6 years. Then Russia and China will mop up and our kids future will look very bleak indeed.

Right, stop there, Think.

Why.

If you earnestly believe that Russia and China will benefit, Why.

Do Russia and China have a shared Ideological tradition? One that makes them fundamentally opposed to Western Liberal democracy? With the fall of the Soviet Union - it was clear that trying to bash down the gates would never work.

Let me take a quick Segway, I know I've posted the Yuri Bezmenov clip before, but his talks on what the KGB was doing, specifically in Western Universities is entirely relevant:

You teach one generation of Students Marxist inspired crap (Post Modernism, Critical X theory, Feminism etc.), they go out into the real world and disseminate the ideas (for example, you've heard of Systemic Racism), then you get the next Generation - who are being taught by the first and they become even more Radical and so on and so forth.

I've said for ages that the opening salvo in the 'Culture wars' was in 2011, 10 years ago - enough for an entire generation to go through and become increasingly radicalized. Long enough for ideas to be inserted into the Public consciousness.

So, let's take your statement that Civil War is incoming and China/Russia are salivating at the Prospect - if that is the case, is it not reasonable then to conclude that for something so favorable to their end-goals to be happening, that they might have had a hand in it?

We do have documentation from the Cold War that showed the Soviets were indeed funding various groups in the west (McCarthy was right and did nothing wrong...), what reason do you have to presume that they stopped?


But by all means, keep doing the little jig your puppet masters are covertly taking great delight in triggering you to perform.:no:

There's an alternative: If everyone called out the Communist nonsense for the poison that it is, they would loose almost immediately. This is where that comment of 'I'll get back to that' comes

Re-asserting the Liberal traditions of the West, that a Good Society is made up of Good individuals, telling people that a little bit of Patriotism is okay and that despite our past issues, we aren't that bad.

If things were back in Balance, then I might be more inclined to pick on the flaws of the Right Wing a little more vigourously - I mean, afterall, I've said many times that Judith Collins is a Cunt, so it's not like I'm blindly aligned...

It seems that the Battle Ground of Critical Race theory is going to be the key - See, if you read enough CRT, you'll notice that they are explicitly go after the ideals of Martin Luther King's "I have a Dream" Speech, because it promotes Colourblindness - which if you are wanting Communism along Racial Lines instead of Class lines is a bit of an issue, so they are promoting the 'raising of Racial Consciousness'.

They are specifically doing it to Children (this is where the teaching of CRT comes in, they may not be teaching the University course, but they are teaching the principles of CRT), and that happens to be one of the areas where people who aren't as well versed in this go 'Wait, What?' - because it is attempting to undo the last 60 years of thought on Race.

[F5 Dave]

Which is why thejesuslord has been on ignore for so long. I think it is Scumdog or skidmark wanking trying to get a rise by being a complete Turkey on the internet. No one is that stupid. Probably has r666 as another pseudonym.

[pritch]

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/500-national-guard-wisconsin-kyle-rittenhouse-tony-evers_n_618f4768e4b0b1aee9254e82

[sugilite]

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/500-national-guard-wisconsin-kyle-rittenhouse-tony-evers_n_618f4768e4b0b1aee9254e82

500 national guard solders, 500!
All is well in the USA then - obviously :whistle:

[pritch]

Not an argument I've advanced, so no comment.

As strange as it may seem, not every comment I make on KB is directed specifically at you.



No it wasn't. Not by the FBI definition and not by reality.


As it happens his final score failed to make the FBI definition of mass shooter by one. If someone is actively shooting people though, it would be prudent to consider it a mass shooting meantime.
And that is absolutely the sitation those present were faced with. The fact he came up one short of the normal definition is compeletely irrelevant to those there at the time. They were faced with an active shooter.

Your comments that the people who tried to stop him had criminal records is particularly weird, even for you. Is it that your position that only people with blemish free records are permitted to stop an active shooter?

Oh, and as for the little twat cleaning graffiti, there's a photo of Charles Manson playing guitar in church doing the rounds. Using your logic, if that photo had been shown at Manson's trial he might have got off.

[sugilite]

If you can be a Biden supporter and support the views that were, shall we say, common at Charlottesville, then it stands to reason that those views aren't 'Right Wing', they are something else.
Since I'm stuck in a motel on a rainy day waiting for Jacinda and mob to open my home up to level 3, I'll reply. I doubt I'll reply to your rebuttal because as mentioned you are essentially paid to post during the week (btw your kidding yourself you do not spend a lot of work time doing it).

OK, away we go, I notice your lack of reference to the many tiki torch types and other right wind marchers that were there too. left wing tiki torch marchers, yeah right Oppps.



Except for one teensy tiny detail - It's not the Right Wing that gets free reign in Universities, Social Media, Mainstream media etc. You can get on Mainstream TV and say:
OK, I'll give to learning institutions, I'm fairly much taking your word for that (no point posting screes of evidence, I won't have time to read it). However, I won't give you social media or mainstream media, plenty of right wing nuts post on social when they are not getting banned for breaking rules, and the right wing have their own media outlets. I have both left and right mainstream media sites bookmarked and quite often enjoy comparing how both cover the same incidents, especially the comment sections. The accusations and howls of indignant often directly mirror each other.


"I'm a literal Communist" and no one batts an eye.they do.
You could not say "I'm a literal Fascist/Nazi" and get the same treatment.
No one bats an eye? Are you kidding? Right wind media screams commie, commie, socialist, socialist at every tiny opportunity. Oh you mean left wing media? Sure. But it goes the other way on the right. Actually it is just as interesting what BOTH mainstream media arms don't report on as much as what they do report on. Both are fairly evenly weighted in this regard.



Does this prove my point? Can you show something at a Conservative or Republican conference with people echoing 'Far Right' Slogans?
Again, you have to be having laugh, watch any trump rally, both from trump himself and his supporters. Good grief man.



But when I ask you to call them what they are, Communist Revolutionaries, you suddenly go Shy. When I point to the Mainstream Media running defense/interference for the causes of the Riots and show blatantly false headlines, you again go Shy.
You defend them against the accusation of being what they are as vigorously as I accuse them.

That's the sort of Tacit approval you're accusing me of.
I asked for data on the rittenhouse witness, you provided accurate proof. I did not rebut it. My silence in this case was time related. So your assertion that I somehow then defended him and others of his ilk is what I can only guess is you trolling me. The only times I can recall really digging in with you on your "deep knowledge" of people of whom you cannot possibly know well enough to be making the all sweeping judgements upon are the thunberg parents (after whittling down all your knowledge there, it just turned out to be the mum was a opera singer and some antifa t-shirts that may of, or not been photo shopped) and the cyclist who had the audacity to be wearing a mask while cycling, oh and something about a badge or whatnot on his bag. I have always advocated that law breakers such as the portland lot should be prosecuted for their lawlessness.



So, I'd be a NASCARBIKE then? :lol::lol::lol::lol:
Yes, for ever on a boring right circular circle :bleh:



If you earnestly believe that Russia and China will benefit, Why.
No wait you are right, I'm sure neither country would want to see that, or take advantage in a major way :facepalm:


Do Russia and China have a shared Ideological tradition? One that makes them fundamentally opposed to Western Liberal democracy? With the fall of the Soviet Union - it was clear that trying to bash down the gates would never work.

Let me take a quick Segway, I know I've posted the Yuri Bezmenov clip before, but his talks on what the KGB was doing, specifically in Western Universities is entirely relevant:

You teach one generation of Students Marxist inspired crap (Post Modernism, Critical X theory, Feminism etc.), they go out into the real world and disseminate the ideas (for example, you've heard of Systemic Racism), then you get the next Generation - who are being taught by the first and they become even more Radical and so on and so forth.


So, let's take your statement that Civil War is incoming and China/Russia are salivating at the Prospect - if that is the case, is it not reasonable then to conclude that for something so favorable to their end-goals to be happening, that they might have had a hand in it?

We do have documentation from the Cold War that showed the Soviets were indeed funding various groups in the west (McCarthy was right and did nothing wrong...), what reason do you have to presume that they stopped?
Just so I have this straight, you seem to suggest I'm saying Russia and China have a shared ideology, then go on to hypothesize a bunch of shit that I never mentioned, then present it as some sort of "gotcha" moment on me. Bloody hell :blink:


There's an alternative: If everyone called out the Communist nonsense for the poison that it is, they would loose almost immediately. This is where that comment of 'I'll get back to that' comes
Well, the interesting thing is, the surest way to keep communism out of the USA is to keep having free and fair-ish elections. Yet it is the right, mainly trump who is basically the republican party these days doing his darnedest to get as many Americans to lose faith in that very process. The culture and groundwork to keep that distrust going is the main factor that will bring about the pending civil war. Jan 6th is just a mere crumb of what is to come. I'll cover my take on the lefts current shenanigans at the end.


Re-asserting the Liberal traditions of the West, that a Good Society is made up of Good individuals, telling people that a little bit of Patriotism is okay and that despite our past issues, we aren't that bad.
From my direct experience, they have a long way to go on racism in the states, and woman's rights have a way to go too. No surprise that any perceived push that may go a bit to far in the opposite direction, the squeals from the former and current oppressors are hardly surprising, obviously your squeals put you right in among that group. "Even though we have oppressed, marginalized and abused you lot for centuries, how dare you have the temerity to rewrite the history books that we have so carefully crafted to cast ourselves in pious righteousness". :shutup:


If things were back in Balance, then I might be more inclined to pick on the flaws of the Right Wing a little more vigourously - I mean, afterall, I've said many times that Judith Collins is a Cunt, so it's not like I'm blindly aligned...
You would not know balance if it hit you over the nut. Judith Collins is a crook, so no real points for disliking her. There are many aspects of David Seymour I can respect (I'd hate to see him leading the country though). I'm struggling right now to think of another polly in any of the NZ parties I can say that about. Does that make me right leaning?


It seems that the Battle Ground of Critical Race theory is going to be the key - See, if you read enough CRT, you'll notice that they are explicitly go after the ideals of Martin Luther King's "I have a Dream" Speech, because it promotes Colourblindness - which if you are wanting Communism along Racial Lines instead of Class lines is a bit of an issue, so they are promoting the 'raising of Racial Consciousness'.

They are specifically doing it to Children (this is where the teaching of CRT comes in, they may not be teaching the University course, but they are teaching the principles of CRT), and that happens to be one of the areas where people who aren't as well versed in this go 'Wait, What?' - because it is attempting to undo the last 60 years of thought on Race.

CRT has it's place, an open honest discussion on racism is yet to take place, particularly from the oppressors side. Honest balance needs to come about. But you know - humans. So that will never happen.
Humans love to hate down to the smallest denominator.
Families often hate each other
But will combine to hate neighbors.
Who will combine to hate neighbourhoods
Who will combine to hate other towns
Who will combine to hate other countries (and religions too if course)
Maybe we will see the human race combine to hate an alien race, if an AI has not already hit the exterminate button on us lol

Now my feelings on the lefts current state in the USA. The democrats have been poncing around like their power in Government is strong and everlasting. Twats. They are going to get a well deserved kicking even worse that the right got in the Trump era midterms. Biden has been breathtakingly ineffective at taking America forward, Harris has gone out of her way to show the American people why she should never be considered for the top job. She is in charge of the immigration issue, and she resisted visiting the border like it was just unnecessary to show she gives a shit. She is so dimwitted that she appears to think that even if a walkabout may not change much, it does change the impression of voters:facepalm:
As for the socialist/communism mob. Every time they try and advance their cause, be it through the actual system, or through violence such as Portland. They will get nailed by the VAST majority of left and right USA voters that hate the idea of that system. Until Trump
and mob destroy elections once and for all - then it is going to get really interesting.

Soooo, mid-terms, dems are going to get pasted, fuck they may not even take time out of their circular firing squads to notice they just created a lame duck president in Biden - or should I say lamer duck. :laugh:
in the next presidential election, should the repubs run Trump, he will likely lose again and then he will ensure it is off to the races with civil war.
Should the repubs be smart enough to run with another candidate like Desantos (another dickhead, but not (quite) trump level dickhead) they could well win an honest election, then the civil war will be put on hold for a while longer - maybe.

I naively thought that Biden might make a real stand and try and fix the system, ban corporate donations, ban gerrymandering etc. After watching the likes of manchin and sinema in action, I realized there is no fix for corporate donations as there is way to many self interested snouts in that trough.

The USA political system is broken beyond repair, no matter what you say TDL.
I still say civil war is coming, I don't see anything good coming out of it if whatever side wins it.

[TheDemonLord]

Which is why thejesuslord has been on ignore for so long. I think it is Scumdog or skidmark wanking trying to get a rise by being a complete Turkey on the internet. No one is that stupid. Probably has r666 as another pseudonym.

I can confidently and definitively prove that I am Me, not some alias or Pseudonym.

Hell, Sugi has met me.

[TheDemonLord]

As it happens his final score failed to make the FBI definition of mass shooter by one. If someone is actively shooting people though, it would be prudent to consider it a mass shooting meantime.

Except he wasn't. See, there's a world of difference between actively shooting people, and shooting in Self Defence. The Key part is that one is instigated by the shooter, one is instigated by a 3rd party.


And that is absolutely the sitation those present were faced with. The fact he came up one short of the normal definition is compeletely irrelevant to those there at the time. They were faced with an active shooter.

Bull.

Do we need to post the video where we can see Kyle retreating before he was attacked? That's not the actions of an Active Shooter.


Your comments that the people who tried to stop him had criminal records is particularly weird, even for you. Is it that your position that only people with blemish free records are permitted to stop an active shooter?

No, My argument is that of the 3 people who attacked Kyle first, not one of them passes for being a decent Human Being.

Then I'm making an observation that when you've got a convicted Wife Beater, hitting someone who is down on the ground with a Weapon - you are taking the side of the Wife Beater, and from there I'm simply stating that this is the degree to which you have been mislead, that an otherwise Good Person is supporting Wife Beaters and Pedophiles, because of the lies you have consumed.


Oh, and as for the little twat cleaning graffiti, there's a photo of Charles Manson playing guitar in church doing the rounds. Using your logic, if that photo had been shown at Manson's trial he might have got off.

Such Hatred.

I think the venom you hold against him cuts to something deeper within you, I'm not sure what exactly, Something along the lines of Sour Grapes though.

Back to your Charles Manson comparison, You've called him an Evil Little Shit, You've called him a little Twat, you've presented a version of reality that requires Kyle to be some form of Comic Book super villain mastermind, You've dismissed the video evidence of his actions from that night, You've ignored the testimony, in court, of the person who survived, You've gone after the Judge, You've sided with Wife Beaters and Pedophiles:

What is the point when you accept that maybe you've got this wrong? But to do that would be to admit that you've been misled, and admitting you've been misled would require you to call into question those who did the misleading...

[sugilite]

I can confidently and definitively prove that I am Me, not some alias or Pseudonym.

Hell, Sugi has met me.

Yep, he is real, I tried to help TDL in Dannevirke years ago (cannot remember what the issue was, just that I could not help much with it), still would help this fellow biker if was within my power to do so.

So TDL, one of your writings gave me a light bulb moment on how oblivious so many white people are to racism in the states (among many other western countries, nz included). You wrote about the left teaching CRT and it being handed down through future generations. Made me realize how so much of the teaching over the last 100+ years there is responsible for the avalanche of white people in the states being racist and not even realizing it. It is what they have been taught. Balance needs to come, and a certain amount of de-education needs to come with it. This causes pain and anguish to drop ones assumptions and beliefs and admit your culture was wrong to a much greater depth that you had been taught. It will never happen though, so we are in for years of the willfully ignorant squealing for years to come. Guess we better get used to that huh.

[F5 Dave]

So is he as stoopid in meat space? I'm sure this persona is a put on.

[F5 Dave]

. . .
So TDL, one of your writings gave me a light bulb moment on how oblivious so many white people are to racism in the states (among many other western countries, nz included). You wrote about the left teaching CRT and it being handed down through future generations. Made me realize how so much of the teaching over the last 100+ years there is responsible for the avalanche of white people in the states being racist and not even realizing it. It is what they have been taught. Balance needs to come, and a certain amount of de-education needs to come with it. This causes pain and anguish to drop ones assumptions and beliefs and admit your culture was wrong to a much greater depth that you had been taught. It will never happen though, so we are in for years of the willfully ignorant squealing for years to come. Guess we better get used to that huh.

I've been trying to de-program myself for years. Not hugely successful but trying. So much you hear is 'the marr-ies (sp intentional) get everything for free) , but there is an actual long term intergenerational effect of colonialisation that needs to be considered. And it all comes down to property ownership as it is in every country. In the UK it is classes but the effect is the same.

If your dad had enough to support a house, you may have struggled to pay mortgage, but all that money was not lost to rent. It was investment. That little bit had big benefits to every generation after.

Maori weren't actually able to borrow money at crucial times in history and there has been long term effects. Both in inheritance, education and generations of people considered opinions that they were lower class so that is their lot.

And Amerca is way more fucked up coming from slavery and then quite recent apartheid (although they called it something different).

[TheDemonLord]

Since I'm stuck in a motel on a rainy day waiting for Jacinda and mob to open my home up to level 3, I'll reply. I doubt I'll reply to your rebuttal because as mentioned you are essentially paid to post during the week (btw your kidding yourself you do not spend a lot of work time doing it).

OK, away we go, I notice your lack of reference to the many tiki torch types and other right wind marchers that were there too. left wing tiki torch marchers, yeah right Oppps.

I'm familiar with the ideology of the Tiki Torch types, They believe in Group Identity which is (In my opinion) fundamentally opposed to Right Wing Conservatism which has it's roots in Individual identity, that's why I don't reference them - because I don't consider them to be Right Wing - again, feel free to throw a No True Scotsman my way, but that's my view.


OK, I'll give to learning institutions, I'm fairly much taking your word for that (no point posting screes of evidence, I won't have time to read it). However, I won't give you social media or mainstream media, plenty of right wing nuts post on social when they are not getting banned for breaking rules, and the right wing have their own media outlets. I have both left and right mainstream media sites bookmarked and quite often enjoy comparing how both cover the same incidents, especially the comment sections. The accusations and howls of indignant often directly mirror each other.

So, for Social Media - I'll give you 2 examples, one which I doubt you'll do (but I find interesting) and one that is more objective.

On occasion, I like to re-read some past conversations I've had on here (for the days when it's very slow in the office) - and one thing that has stuck out for me, there are videos that people have posted - those that often advance the Left-Wing perspective are still there, in all their glory - but those that are on the spicier end of the Right Wing are often no longer available - as I said, I doubt you'll want to re-read screeds of text, but it's something I have found interesting.

For a more objective proof on Social Media - look at their Policies, specifically their Policies around Trans rights - they have adopted, wholly, the Intersectional World view, this is a Far-Left position (again, Intersectional comes from I believe Kimberly Crenshaw, who was inspired by the Italian Communist Gramsci).

To be clear, the Rules that Social Media have are founded in the Radical Left-Wing world view.

For the Media Outlets, I'll give you half of that, there are indeed a few Right Wing outlets and I completely agree that each side throws mud as you describe, and I'll use CNN and Fox as an example.

The difference is that Fox is very clear that it is a Right Leaning entity, they have a Bias, they are upfront about it, whereas CNN (which may as well be consider part of the Democrat party at this point) still tries to assert that it is neutral.

If we inhabited a World where there was just Fox News and CNN and each one were honest about their biases, then you would have Balance. I think I've used the example of 7sharp when it was Mike Hosking and Toni Street before, but in that show you had both perspectives given, Mike often with the right wing view, Toni with the left - and that worked and was the reason for it's initial popularity.

The other great example is the BBC - Once it was the Gold Standard in impartiality, with a broad range of programming - some catered to certain segments of Society (Eastenders vs University Challenge for example), but overall there was balance, bearing in mind that in the BBC charter it is explicitly to remain unbiased, but recent polling shows that people have the lowest confidence in the BBC than ever before.


No one bats an eye? Are you kidding? Right wind media screams commie, commie, socialist, socialist at every tiny opportunity. Oh you mean left wing media? Sure. But it goes the other way on the right. Actually it is just as interesting what BOTH mainstream media arms don't report on as much as what they do report on. Both are fairly evenly weighted in this regard.

Okay, I'll accept your first part, but that is not what I meant - Consider a hypothetical scenario where someone within the Media or political sphere, were to come on any reputable mainstream show or network, with a Swastika Armband, say "I'm a literal Nazi" and maybe "Hitler did some good things":

Would they be invited back to ANY show or Network to give an opinion piece or being a commentator? They would be blacklisted so hard and fast by everyone (Left, Right etc.).

That is what I mean.


Again, you have to be having laugh, watch any trump rally, both from trump himself and his supporters. Good grief man.

Okay, show me - from a Trump Rally - someone getting up on stage, throwing a Nazi salute and saying 'Sieg Heil' and being applauded by the crowd.

I'll wait.


I asked for data on the rittenhouse witness, you provided accurate proof. I did not rebut it. My silence in this case was time related. So your assertion that I somehow then defended him and others of his ilk is what I can only guess is you trolling me. The only times I can recall really digging in with you on your "deep knowledge" of people of whom you cannot possibly know well enough to be making the all sweeping judgements upon are the thunberg parents (after whittling down all your knowledge there, it just turned out to be the mum was a opera singer and some antifa t-shirts that may of, or not been photo shopped) and the cyclist who had the audacity to be wearing a mask while cycling, oh and something about a badge or whatnot on his bag. I have always advocated that law breakers such as the portland lot should be prosecuted for their lawlessness.

Okay, let me put it this way - before his explicit statement in court, given the other bits of information that are publicly known about him, I would have categorized his political beliefs as being Far Left, and if I did not have that statement, you would have as you say 'Dug in on my with my deep knowledge', when all the necessary information in and around the individuals already exists to make an accurate judgement.

To my view, you are granting them an unreasonable benefit of doubt and that is part of what allows them to proliferate.


Yes, for ever on a boring right circular circle :bleh:

I'm glad you got the right turn joke :lol::lol:



No wait you are right, I'm sure neither country would want to see that, or take advantage in a major way :facepalm:


Just so I have this straight, you seem to suggest I'm saying Russia and China have a shared ideology, then go on to hypothesize a bunch of shit that I never mentioned, then present it as some sort of "gotcha" moment on me. Bloody hell :blink:

You completely missed my point, I'm actually mostly agreeing with you - I'm asking you to then take your statement and reverse engineer it, in the context of the history of The East vs The West.

Yes, I did a fair bit of Conjecture, but Conjecture based on some very well documented historical precedents.


Well, the interesting thing is, the surest way to keep communism out of the USA is to keep having free and fair-ish elections. Yet it is the right, mainly trump who is basically the republican party these days doing his darnedest to get as many Americans to lose faith in that very process. The culture and groundwork to keep that distrust going is the main factor that will bring about the pending civil war. Jan 6th is just a mere crumb of what is to come. I'll cover my take on the lefts current shenanigans at the end.

The surest way is to stop funding it in Universities, stop supporting it via Major corporations (that one is hilariously ironic) and to refer to the various neo-marxist nonsense for what it is.


From my direct experience, they have a long way to go on racism in the states, and woman's rights have a way to go too. No surprise that any perceived push that may go a bit to far in the opposite direction, the squeals from the former and current oppressors are hardly surprising, obviously your squeals put you right in among that group. "Even though we have oppressed, marginalized and abused you lot for centuries, how dare you have the temerity to rewrite the history books that we have so carefully crafted to cast ourselves in pious righteousness". :shutup:

So, I can agree in part with your first statement, to a point.

When you say 'may go a bit too far in the opposite direction', that's a little bit cute- when we are talking about opposition, I'm opposed to things like All female shortlists, or other 'Positive discrimination' tactics - because I hold the view that Discrimination is bad, no matter what the justification is. I want to know that the people who occupy certain positions got their on their own Merits, I don't care if that means 90% of them are Men or 90% of them are Women, all I want to know is that the process is fair.

Recently I saw an article about US University admissions that large numbers of White Students are (falsely) claiming some form of Minority background to improve their chances of getting in.

I'm opposed to a University entrance system whereby someones Race is taken into account - whether it's from the White Supremecist view of "gotta keep those N.... down" or from the Social Justice view of "Gotta get those straight white men out" - I'm opposed to both - and for the same reason:

Individual identity > Group Identity.

As an interesting aside on this - There have been a number of attempts to correct supposed Gender Biases in hiring, such as Blind Auditions for Orchestras or Removing gender Identifiers on CVs....

which were then reversed because it resulted in more Men getting the jobs (showing that there's not only an implicit Gender Bias, but it's the opposite to what was presupposed)



You would not know balance if it hit you over the nut. Judith Collins is a crook, so no real points for disliking her. There are many aspects of David Seymour I can respect (I'd hate to see him leading the country though). I'm struggling right now to think of another polly in any of the NZ parties I can say that about. Does that make me right leaning?

Baby Steps, My friend, Baby steps.



CRT has it's place,

That depends, Do you believe that Communist Revolutions, along racial (instead of Class) lines has a place?



an open honest discussion on racism is yet to take place, particularly from the oppressors side. Honest balance needs to come about. But you know - humans. So that will never happen.
Humans love to hate down to the smallest denominator.
Families often hate each other
But will combine to hate neighbors.
Who will combine to hate neighbourhoods
Who will combine to hate other towns
Who will combine to hate other countries (and religions too if course)
Maybe we will see the human race combine to hate an alien race,

So, where do you think the Conversation should go? I've referenced the 'I have a Dream' speech, which is a good place to start - from there I'd say it shouldn't be a conversation about Race but about Culture.

There are some Cultural practices that are objectively awful, some which are objectively good. There's a lot of grey area and that is where the conversation needs to happen.

As an example - the claim that America is Systemically a White Supremecist blah blah ignores the fact that Indians and Asians are out-performing White people.

I don't believe that has anything to do with Skin Colour and almost entirely to do with Culture. Same also goes for Black Communities with a plague of fatherlessness.


if an AI has not already hit the exterminate button on us lol

The funny thing about some of the AI experiments, let's just say, they aren't exactly 'Politically correct'


Now my feelings on the lefts current state in the USA. The democrats have been poncing around like their power in Government is strong and everlasting. Twats. They are going to get a well deserved kicking even worse that the right got in the Trump era midterms. Biden has been breathtakingly ineffective at taking America forward, Harris has gone out of her way to show the American people why she should never be considered for the top job. She is in charge of the immigration issue, and she resisted visiting the border like it was just unnecessary to show she gives a shit. She is so dimwitted that she appears to think that even if a walkabout may not change much, it does change the impression of voters:facepalm:

Indeed, one might even say they feel secure in their 'fortified' elections... :whistle::whistle::whistle:

point scoring aside, Yes.


As for the socialist/communism mob. Every time they try and advance their cause, be it through the actual system, or through violence such as Portland. They will get nailed by the VAST majority of left and right USA voters that hate the idea of that system. Until Trump
and mob destroy elections once and for all - then it is going to get really interesting.

I agree... IF the voters know that they are Socialists and Communists.

Take BLM as a perfect example, despite the founders saying they are trained Marxists, despite their Logo literally being the Socialist Fist, despite their website previously saying 'Break up the Western Capitalist Patriarchal blah blah blah', you, yourself, still won't damn them in the way that I do.

That's because the cloak that the movement wraps itself in is one of Racial injustice, which the average person finds it difficult to argue against, for fear of sounding like or being called a Racist.

And without reading the reams of university texts and unraveling the labyrinthine citations, it's difficult for the average person to make the case against these.

Just look at our Back and Forth...



Soooo, mid-terms, dems are going to get pasted, fuck they may not even take time out of their circular firing squads to notice they just created a lame duck president in Biden - or should I say lamer duck. :laugh:
in the next presidential election, should the repubs run Trump, he will likely lose again and then he will ensure it is off to the races with civil war.
Should the repubs be smart enough to run with another candidate like Desantos (another dickhead, but not (quite) trump level dickhead) they could well win an honest election, then the civil war will be put on hold for a while longer - maybe.

So, let me don my Metaphorical MAGA Hat and say 'Trump 2024' - I once put it like this:

"Every day of the Biden 'presidency' is a ringing endorsement of the Trump Presidency"

I don't expect you to agree with that (obviously), but the average voter who might have voted for Biden is certainly getting buyers remorse and going 'Well, was Trump that bad?'

As I said above, Baby Steps.


I naively thought that Biden might make a real stand and try and fix the system, ban corporate donations, ban gerrymandering etc. After watching the likes of manchin and sinema in action, I realized there is no fix for corporate donations as there is way to many self interested snouts in that trough.

Now, I don't want to impune your character here, but how could you NOT see that Biden was the very definition of the Establishment Candidate....

I'd suggest your hatred of Trump blinded you, I don't want this to sound mean.


The USA political system is broken beyond repair, no matter what you say TDL.
I still say civil war is coming, I don't see anything good coming out of it if whatever side wins it.

Broken Beyond Repair? I'm not so sure. All the things you mentioned as being Broken, I don't disagree with you - it's the beyond repair part that gives me pause, there's a the great balancing factor(s) - the US Constitution and the US Populace and I'm seeing some signs of hope - as I said above, the opposition to CRT and the realization that it requires people to see each other as their Race is starting to point the moderate masses in the right direction.

As for a Civil war? Maybe, if the Marxist march through certain institutions continues, then yes it will come - however, the realist in me sees the following:

On one side, you've got the types of rioters at Kenosha
On the other side, you've got people like Kyle.

And considering Kyle is 3 and 0, I've got my money who would be victorious. My Hope (and this would be the massive unknown) is that they would stick to the Constitution, or at least a re-imagined version of it, and correct some of the flaws that you pointed out.

That last part is pure conjecture, but I do feel in the collective American Psyche there is the individualist foundations and the notions of Freedom, rights, rule of law and limited Government that breeds a functional society.

If you reply, cool, if not - I'll still be here, for when you next want to chat.

[pritch]

CRT has it's place, an open honest discussion on racism is yet to take place,

CRT has been mentioned here previously. For the record, it's a unversity level subject, normally taken as part of a law degree. It deals with racial discrimination in the US legal system. Only a halfwit would deny that such discrimination exists.

The Republicans have made it some kind of a bogey man, they always need bogey men to keep their easily (mis)led base riled up. Basically none of them have a clue what CRT entails. Some serious books have been written on the subject. What may be described as 'academic articles' here wlll almost certainly be idiot level misinformation.

It is very unlikely that any Republican politician ever studied CRT, so neither they nor their witless sycophants are qualified to comment.

[sugilite]

CRT has been mentioned here previously. For the record, it's a unversity level subject, normally taken as part of a law degree. It deals with racial discrimination in the US legal system. Only a halfwit would deny that such discrimination exists.

The Republicans have made it some kind of a bogey man, they always need bogey men to keep their easily (mis)led base riled up. Basically none of them have a clue what CRT entails. Some serious books have been written on the subject. What may be described as 'academic articles' here wlll almost certainly be idiot level misinformation.

It is very unlikely that any Republican politician ever studied CRT, so neither they nor there witless sycophants are qualified to comment.

Interesting, I thought from TDL's posts it was being taught right down to young child levels.

Rittenhouse has been acquitted of all charges.
Guess we can expect throngs of AR15 carrying "medics" popping off opposing political parties supporters - now this interesting precedent has been set.
Undoubtedly it will be right against left at first, then it will be left against right joining the healing murders.
I'm sure it won't fuel the ever looming civil war at all :rolleyes:
Merca, gotta love it.

[pritch]

Interesting, I thought from TDL's posts it was being taught right down to young child levels.

Rittenhouse has been acquitted of all charges.
Guess we can expect throngs of AR15 carrying "medics" popping off opposing political parties supporters - now this interesting precedent has been set.
Undoubtedly it will be right against left at first, then it will be left against right joining the healing murders.
I'm sure it won't fuel the ever looming civil war at all :rolleyes:
Merca, gotta love it.

As the trial progressed the thought occurred that the little shit will likely do it again if he's acquitted. Now we await the outcome of the Achmaud Arbery killers' trial. Hopefully a more sane outcome but likely not.

[R650R]

CRT has been mentioned here previously. For the record, it's a unversity level subject, normally taken as part of a law degree. It deals with racial discrimination in the US legal system. Only a halfwit would deny that such discrimination exists.

The Republicans have made it some kind of a bogey man, they always need bogey men to keep their easily (mis)led base riled up. Basically none of them have a clue what CRT entails. Some serious books have been written on the subject. What may be described as 'academic articles' here wlll almost certainly be idiot level misinformation.

It is very unlikely that any Republican politician ever studied CRT, so neither they nor their witless sycophants are qualified to comment.

What racial discrimination can you PROVE exists in the legal system. As far as I know the legal system runs on PROVABLE evidence submitted to a judge or group of defendants peers to decide if a PERSON of ANY race is guilty beoyond REASINABLE DOUBT of the allegation.

In NZ we have a reverse racial system where Jim bob gets a DISCOUNT on his sentence of murder/rape/assault/theiving cause he had a rough upbringing living in a caravan getting beaten by
drunk unemployed substitute father.

Like any modern pop culture term words or acronyms for those on per letter typed internet data plans, things often take on the identity of a subset or group of similar ideas. So while for you Critical Race Theiry is some specific high level university course for others it encompasses all the ideals that those infected with the concept spread into other academic institutions.

[TheDemonLord]

Acquitted on all counts.


Now, I can't wait for him to sue the ever-loving shit out of all the lying Media Weasels.

[TheDemonLord]

CRT has been mentioned here previously. For the record, it's a unversity level subject, normally taken as part of a law degree. It deals with racial discrimination in the US legal system.

No, it doesn't.

It follows on from the works of one Antonio Gramsci, which if I had to summerize could be summed up as:

"Common sense exists to maintain the status Quo and therefore the existing power structures"

Said Power Structures were found to be a roadblock to ushering in the Glorious revolution and Utopia. Gramsci also theorized that a direct attack on them would merely galvanize support for them, so instead he outlined what he called 'A War of Position' - by which these power structures and institutions are undermined to the point where they collapse.

It is from this basis that Kimberly Crenshaw drew on with her theory of Intersectionality and her work in CRT - both of which are Academic traditions founded on Marxists principles and on the idea that by removing the existing roadblocks to Revolution, they will be able to create the perfect, Communist society.


Some serious books have been written on the subject. What may be described as 'academic articles' here wlll almost certainly be idiot level misinformation.

Okay then Pritch - that's a Serious accusation, so I'll respond in kind:

Name your level of proof that you would require to prove that CRT is just another set of Marxist BS. I'm more than happy to Oblige.

To start with: https://guides.lib.unc.edu/c.php?g=1066991&p=7764347


"Critical race theory builds on the insights of two previous movements, critical legal studies and radical feminism, to both of which it owes a large debt. It also draws from certain European philosophers and theorists, such as Antonio Gramsci, Michel Foucault, and Jacques Derrida, as well as from the American radical tradition exemplified by such figures as Sojourner Truth, Frederick Douglass, W. E. B. Du Bois, César Chávez, Martin Luther King, Jr., and the Black Power and Chicano movements of the sixties and early seventies."

So let's see:

Radical Feminism (Marxism)
Gramsci (Communist)
Foucaulat and Derrida (PostModernists, aka Neo-Marxists)
W. E. B. Du Bois (Socialist)
César Chávez (Union leader and Socialist)

Do you see a pattern?

[TheDemonLord]

As the trial progressed the thought occurred that the little shit will likely do it again if he's acquitted.

Good. The world could do with less Pedos and Wife Beaters.


Now we await the outcome of the Achmaud Arbery killers' trial. Hopefully a more sane outcome but likely not.

I've only taken a cursory glance at that Case, but my first thought is that the accused should be found guilty of Murder.

[TheDemonLord]

Interesting, I thought from TDL's posts it was being taught right down to young child levels.

Is the full Marxist theory being taught at primary school? No.

Are the effects of CRT being taught at primary school? Yes.

Now, I'll give you 3 different proofs of this happening. One from a pure Logic point of View, One from an empirical point of view and one from an objective point of view.

Logical first:

If you google "CRT in schools" - you'll find umpteen articles proudly declaring that it is not being taught in schools AND numerous articles about Teachers being deeply opposed to the Ban.

If it is not being Taught, then there is no reason to complain about it being banned.
There is only a reason to complain about the Ban if it is being taught, since there are complaints about it being banned - we can conclude from a pure logic perspective, that CRT is being taught in schools.

Empirical:

CRT is very much way of viewing the world, It is taught to Teachers (who are predominantly Left-Leaning), who believe in the axioms of the theory. Those same Teachers, when teaching a subject from which CRT has a particular view, will be teaching it from that viewpoint.

Objective:

https://www.buffaloschools.org/cms/lib/NY01913551/Centricity/Domain/8/CLRI%20Emancipation%20Curriculum%20Cover%20Page%20 and%20Instructions.pdf

Now, I'll grant you, it doesn't explicitly say in that Curriculum that it references CRT - however there are enough concepts:

- systemic oppression and racism
- BLM
- equity and anti-racism
- edify Black and Brown voices in daily instruction

And so when Pritch (and the Media) say that 'It's not being taught in Schools', it's a bait-and-switch. Yes, the University subject isn't being taught, but the world view that is put forward by CRT is being used.


Rittenhouse has been acquitted of all charges.
Guess we can expect throngs of AR15 carrying medics popping off rioting Revolutionary Communists, Pedophiles and Wife Beaters - now this interesting precedent has been set.


The Precedent was always been there and today is a good day, I've also fixed it for you.

And I hope you're right - the next time Antifa and BLM rioters want to go cause havoc and mayhem and the Democrat politicians tell the Cops to stand down, they'll face a bunch of Kyle's armed to the teeth - then maybe they'll think twice about rioting and burning cities down.

[pete376403]

And I hope you're right - the next time Antifa and BLM rioters want to go cause havoc and mayhem and the Democrat politicians tell the Cops to stand down, they'll face a bunch of Kyle's armed to the teeth - then maybe they'll think twice about rioting and burning cities down.

Maybe the antifa and BLMs will take their own weapons and we can have a free for all. Both sides claiming they are only there to administer medical assistance.

[TheDemonLord]

Maybe the antifa and BLMs will take their own weapons and we can have a free for all. Both sides claiming they are only there to administer medical assistance.

Well, they did that already....

And lost.

Turns out the group that Loves 'Murica, Loves Guns and Loves the 2nd Amendment are quicker on the draw and better shots.

Who'd have thought that....

[pritch]

Rittenhouse's bail was apparently set at $2,000,000. The money was raised by donations from RWNJs. (A fool and his money...) One of the two solicitors responsible for raising the money has now received the 2 million back. The other lawyer, Lin Wood, wants a share because he helped raise it. He himself is likely facing major legal expenses as a result of his activities post the 2020 election. Rittenhouse though wants all the money. He is likely facing civil actions from the families of his victims. The families have already initiated legal action against the Kenosha Police Dept.

This case has the potential to provide entertainment for some time yet.

[TheDemonLord]

Rittenhouse's bail was apparently set at $2,000,000. The money was raised by donations from RWNJs. (A fool and his money...) One of the two solicitors responsible for raising the money has now received the 2 million back. The other lawyer, Lin Wood, wants a share because he helped raise it. He himself is likely facing major legal expenses as a result of his activities post the 2020 election. Rittenhouse though wants all the money. He is likely facing civil actions from the families of his victims. The families have already initiated legal action against the Kenosha Police Dept.

This case has the potential to provide entertainment for some time yet.

I'm more hoping that he uses the money to sue the piss out of every lying Media outlet and Joe Biden.

As for the Civil actions of the Families - yeah, good luck with that - he could possibly counter-sue for being attacked and having to use lethal force to defend himself (which would be glorious to see)

[husaberg]

He is likely facing civil actions from the families of his victims. The families have already initiated legal action against the Kenosha Police Dept.

This case has the potential to provide entertainment for some time yet.
that a very good point as OJ found out.
the fact he had a gun that was illegal for him to own,
The 17-year-old said he brought an AR-15-style assault rifle "to protect myself". A friend had purchased it because he was too young to legally buy a gun.

He was in a place he legally wasn't allowed to be,

decided to drive 30 minutes from his home in the state of Illinois, to go out in Kenosha on the night of August 25, 2020.

At some point, Rittenhouse left the dealership, was prevented by police from returning

According to Rittenhouse, he drove to Kenosha on August 24 to stay with his friend Dominick Black, who kept a rifle he purchased for Rittenhouse four months earlier at his Kenosha home

Mr Rittenhouse has come to the streets of Kenosha on the third night of Black Lives Matter protests

Some 250 National Guard members were deployed to the city.
out past a time he was allowed to be at, at a place no one asked him to be.
Go Merica

[sugilite]

Well, they did that already....

And lost.

Turns out the group that Loves 'Murica, Loves Guns and Loves the 2nd Amendment are quicker on the draw and better shots.

Who'd have thought that....

Well that explains it - that is how Rambo got across the top of the waterfall with about a 100 commies attempting to shooting at him with fully automatic weapons :killingme

[TheDemonLord]

the fact he had a gun that was illegal for him to own

Did you miss that part in the Trial?

Oh well, I'll enlighten you - see, it wasn't illegal for him to own, because the Law in Wisconsin has a specific exception:

"when a person under 18 possesses a rifle or shotgun".

Turns out that the DA knew this, tried to press charges (presumably knowing the law AND knowing the exception to it) and when it came to it, the Judge asked if the prosecution had measured the Barrel length (this is what deems a Rifle or a Shotgun under a certain length to be a 'Dangerous Weapon'), they did not, and the Judge rightfully threw that charge out.

Now, if it had been an SBR or a Sawn-off Shotgun, you would be right, but since it wasn't, you aren't.


He was in a place he legally wasn't allowed to be

Again, false - his Family lives in Kenosha, he had as much right to be there as anyone else.


out past a time he was allowed to be at

Except the curfew wasn't applicable


at a place no one asked him to be.

That's the beauty of a Free country, you don't have to ask people permission to move freely.


Go Merica

Absolutely.

Here's a reminder that the Jury acquitted on all charges

[pritch]

"when a person under 18 possesses a rifle or shotgun".

Turns out that the DA knew this, tried to press charges (presumably knowing the law AND knowing the exception to it) and when it came to it, the Judge asked if the prosecution had measured the Barrel length (this is what deems a Rifle or a Shotgun under a certain length to be a 'Dangerous Weapon'), they did not, and the Judge rightfully threw that charge out.

Now, if it had been an SBR* or a Sawn-off Shotgun, you would be right, but since it wasn't, you aren't.



Except that law applies specifically to hunting for which he would have needed to carry a licence. Anyhoo there's no point in us arguing about it the Yanks are big on litigation, they'll likely have at it with a will.

The families are apparently taking action against the police and the bun fight over the 2 million dollars bail money is kicking off.
Lots of water to go under the bridge yet. Other judges might not be as sympathetic as Schroeder.


* In English an "SBR" is called a carbine. From the way back mental stack, if the barrel length is less than 90 times the bore it's a carbine.

[TheDemonLord]

Except that law applies specifically to hunting for which he would have needed to carry a licence. Anyhoo there's no point in us arguing about it the Yanks are big on litigation, they'll likely have at it with a will.

So, the DA, the Defence and the Judge are all incorrect on the Law?

Come on Pritch, this is the perfect point in time to acknowledge the story that you were told by Activist media and the objective facts of the case do not align.

The law is quite clear, he's allowed to open carry a Rifle or a Shotgun under the age of 18.

That you think is anything other than that is proof as to how badly your trusted news sources have been lying to you about this case.


The families are apparently taking action against the police

Which, I actually support. Governments need to understand that if they let political riots happen because they specifically stopped the police from doing their jobs, then they will be held accountable.

All of this could have been stopped if the Rule of Law had been applied:

You can protest peacefully, you can't burn down private property.


Other judges might not be as sympathetic as Schroeder.

This is a narrative (again, from the same lying scumbag media) that the Judge was somehow biased.

A neutral judge could have easily and been *well* within their legal remit to:

- issued a directed verdict when Gage admitted he was only shot after he advanced on Kyle, pulling his weapon. or
- declared a mistrial with prejudice when the prosecution violated Kyle's 5th amendment rights. or
- also declared a mistrial when the Prosecution was tampering with evidence or trying to admit stuff into evidence they had previously been told wouldn't be allowed

A Biased judge would have thrown the case out in the opening day, and even then, given the overwhelming evidence - that wouldn't be that biased.

The fact he let the trial go all the way to Jury deliberation shows how unbiased he was.


* In English an "SBR" is called a carbine. From the way back mental stack, if the barrel length is less than 90 times the bore it's a carbine.

I didn't know that definition of a Carbine, I always thought a Carbine was a specifically shortened model, for use by mounted troops (in this day/age that's Tankers and truckers), whereas an SBR can start life as a full length rifle and be shortened down with a tax stamp.

Although now that I've typed that, it does kinda illuminate that functionally there's not much difference.

[R650R]

You have to ask why was this trial out of all the crazy and wacko things being pushed so much by USA and worldwide media... cause it fits their agenda. Where’s all the media coverage of citizens who legally defended themselves against violence , there’s about 18,000 events a year to choose from according to stats.....

Great that jury reached sensible verdict despite being hounded and stalked by media

And when it all unravelled oh how convenient we have the Xmas parade massacare as fresh distraction....

Must spread rep... well articulated points demonlord

[husaberg]

You have to ask why was this crazy and wacko things being pushed so much .
by yourself on a motorbike forum...

[TheDemonLord]

by yourself on a motorbike forum...

Woah!

So, by that statement, you're implying that it's R650, on Kiwibiker that somehow got the Rittenhouse trial to the attention of the Global populace?

That's some seriously high praise for the man.

I think that must qualify R650 for some form of Journalism prize....







Of course, we could consider the alternative, whereby all the groups aligned with the Communist Revolutionaries (the media, the Celebrity class, the Universities etc.) all deemed that Kyle was the most evil person in history, and used their massive influence to draw awareness to this.

Oh, and one bonus hilarious joke:

Why are all the Hollywood celebrities so upset at the Rittenhouse trial?



They don't like it when children defend themselves against Pedophiles.

[pritch]

You have to ask why was this trial out of all the crazy and wacko things being pushed so much by USA and worldwide media...

That trial was just one of two filling the nation's column inches. I think the Jury in the other has retired to consider their verdict now. The main contrast between the two trials is the restrained, dignified manner of the judge in this one. Oh, that and the numerous defence motions for a mistrial.

It's reported that Kyle wants to take legal action against Biden for calling him a white supremicist. Almost as if his reputation could be damaged. I'm no lawyer but a coupla things spring to mind, there are pictures of him flashing a white power sign and in dodgy company, which could be a problem. I seem to recall frequent mention of a Justice Dept opinion that a sitting president cannot face legal action.

Incidently, Kyle has a publicist. Doesn't everyone?

[TheDemonLord]

That trial was just one of two filling the nation's column inches. I think the Jury in the other has retired to consider their verdict now. The main contrast between the two trials is the restrained, dignified manner of the judge in this one. Oh, that and the numerous defence motions for a mistrial.

It's reported that Kyle wants to take legal action against Biden for calling him a white supremicist. Almost as if his reputation could be damaged. I'm no lawyer but a coupla things spring to mind, there are pictures of him flashing a white power sign and in dodgy company, which could be a problem. I seem to recall frequent mention of a Justice Dept opinion that a sitting president cannot face legal action.

Incidently, Kyle has a publicist. Doesn't everyone?

I've watched bit of the Ahmed trial, personally think that they are guilty, even if it seems equally likely that Ahmed was doing a number of potentially dubious things.

As for the OK symbol, if my memory serves, this was a Prank from 4Chan, along the lines of:

"What is the most ridiculous thing that we can convince the mainstream is White Supremacy, to demonstrate how blindly they'll believe it"

So not actual White Supremacy, I don't know if you can sue a sitting president for Slander, but Kyle should absolute sue the pants off of everyone that's been lying about them.

[pritch]

"What is the most ridiculous thing that we can convince the mainstream is White Supremacy, to demonstrate how blindly they'll believe it"



That may be how it started, and I do seem to recall something like that. The joke is over long since, it is in common usuage as a white power sign and has been for some years now. You need to keep up.

[R650R]

That trial was just one of two filling the nation's column inches. I think the Jury in the other has retired to consider their verdict now. The main contrast between the two trials is the restrained, dignified manner of the judge in this one. Oh, that and the numerous defence motions for a mistrial.

It's reported that Kyle wants to take legal action against Biden for calling him a white supremicist. Almost as if his reputation could be damaged. I'm no lawyer but a coupla things spring to mind, there are pictures of him flashing a white power sign and in dodgy company, which could be a problem. I seem to recall frequent mention of a Justice Dept opinion that a sitting president cannot face legal action.

Incidently, Kyle has a publicist. Doesn't everyone?

They have a secret sign/wave...???. I thought the flaming pitchforks and white robes kinda made them high profile to start with lol

[R650R]

I've watched bit of the Ahmed trial, personally think that they are guilty, even if it seems equally likely that Ahmed was doing a number of potentially dubious things.

As for the OK symbol, if my memory serves, this was a Prank from 4Chan, along the lines of:

"What is the most ridiculous thing that we can convince the mainstream is White Supremacy, to demonstrate how blindly they'll believe it"

So not actual White Supremacy, I don't know if you can sue a sitting president for Slander, but Kyle should absolute sue the pants off of everyone that's been lying about them.

Oh your right....

I remember when extreme alt left media outlets and blogs tried to start that scam off. Obviously they were counting on the Goebbels principle if you repeat a lie often enough....
Of course what happened is people on the right started using it to troll and trigger lefty snowflakes knowing that the BLM/antifa/woke/alt left crowd would believe their own garbage.
Bugger just re read your comment you could be right there too.
All that really matters is that true white supremacist groups are rarest than real terrorists otherwise we would be seeing race based murders/attacks/vandalism etc all the time.
But what do we really see every day? we see predominantly non white gangs attacking other predominantly non white gangs or beating up their own people for drug debts/turf wars etc...
White supremicism really only exists as a cheap shot label to anyone that challenges one of the repeatedly Ill thought out govt policies designed to advantage ethnic minorities.
It’s a rare frINGE element in USA and just about non existent in NZ.

[pritch]

They have a secret sign/wave...???. I thought the flaming pitchforks and white robes kinda made them high profile to start with lol

Well White House staff could hardly turn up in public in their robes. They could and did flash the sign in the White House though. You get that when you have fascists in the house.

That was then though, this is now.

[pritch]

Oh your right....

I remember when extreme alt left media outlets and blogs tried to start that scam off. Obviously they were counting on the Goebbels principle if you repeat a lie often enough....
Of course what happened is people on the right started using it to troll and trigger lefty snowflakes knowing that the BLM/antifa/woke/alt left crowd would believe their own garbage.
Bugger just re read your comment you could be right there too.
All that really matters is that true white supremacist groups are rarest than real terrorists otherwise we would be seeing race based murders/attacks/vandalism etc all the time.
But what do we really see every day? we see predominantly non white gangs attacking other predominantly non white gangs or beating up their own people for drug debts/turf wars etc...
White supremicism really only exists as a cheap shot label to anyone that challenges one of the repeatedly Ill thought out govt policies designed to advantage ethnic minorities.
It’s a rare frINGE element in USA and just about non existent in NZ.

That is fucking amazing. So much wrong in so few words. I'm just reading a book by a guy who has studied the global far right, he got into the KKK and the Militias. The biggest terrorism threat in the USA is now acknowledged to be the RWNJs, and has been for some time, but Trump wouldn't hear about it. So they were chasing Antifa, which is so stupid it's funny. If ypu doubt that, consider that the biggest intelligence resources in the world couldn't find it. It's almost as if it didn't exist. Well, for sane people it didn't exist.

[TheDemonLord]

That may be how it started, and I do seem to recall something like that. The joke is over long since, it is in common usuage as a white power sign and has been for some years now. You need to keep up.

No, my friend, you need to keep up.

The joke is people like you and the punchline is your reaction to it.

I'm being very serious on this. 4Chan has a long history of (and I hate the term, but in this case, it's accurate) of 'Weaponised Autism' - that is, people who are very intelligent, too much time on their hands, a keen eye for patterns and a particular dislike of when rules (both in the legal sense an the social sense) aren't applied fairly.

Their premise was that the Left Wing media obsession with 'White Supremacy' would enable them to call something completely and obviously innocuous as related to 'White Supremacy' and then have the Media propagate it (uncritically) into the wider culture, thus having the Media create 'White Supremacy'.

Now, if there are actual 'White Supremecist' groups that use this (and for the record, I'm highly skeptical of this) - that's entirely because the Media ran this Hoax. Or to put it another way: Any actual 'White Supremacy' that you want to claim is linked to the usage of this symbol, is entirely due to the Media.

The other problem is that the OK symbol has a very long and very wide legacy of meaning 'Everything is OK' - From everything to Divers using non verbal communication - to people just letting others know that they are fine.

Everytime people like you say that it's 'White Supremacy', that means the Joke isn't over, it's still happening - the way to make the Joke over is to realize that you've been played: by some 4D Chess Mastermind(s) on a shitposting board who took the media obsession to it's logical conclusion.

The fact that you're aware it comes from 4Chan yet still believe the Hoax makes it all the more funny.

And do you want to know the Irony of all this?

Firstly, according to US law, Kyle isn't White, he's Latino.

Secondly: I was watching Kyle's interview clips today - and he said he supports BLM and some of their ideals - in particular, he said that he has a lot of sympathy for people that claim prosecutorial overreach, based on his own experience with the Justice system. So for some of the areas where BLM (despite the fact their critique comes from a place of wanting to incite a communist revolution) might have a point, Kyle agrees and would make an excellent example.

Real 'White Supremecist' thinking that, wanting to take a look at Prosecutor misconduct that might have led to bogus charges or false convictions of innocent Black people....

[TheDemonLord]

That is fucking amazing. So much wrong in so few words. I'm just reading a book by a guy who has studied the global far right, he got into the KKK and the Militias. The biggest terrorism threat in the USA is now acknowledged to be the RWNJs, and has been for some time, but Trump wouldn't hear about it.

So, I guess the Wisconsin Truck attack doesn't exist then...

But I've really got to grill you on this point - When you have the likes of Antifa (which is very much real - we've been through this...) and BLM Rioting, Burning, Looting AND Murdering (remember the guy that shot those Cops in Dallas? and now the Wisconsin Terrorist)

Where is the RWNJ Terrorism?

I'll be generous - I'll let you include Jan 6th and Charlottesville - Let's Count the Bodies and compare, shall we?

Doing some quick mental Maths - I've got 2 people dead due to 'RWNJ's and I'm already hitting double digits with just Wisconsin, CHAZ/CHOP, the Dallas shooter etc.

Now, I could hear the argument that since the RWNJs tend to be very much of the '2A and from my Cold Dead Hands' type, that on a practical level, should they choose to launch and assault, they would have significantly greater firepower and from that basis you could make an argument that they *could* become the biggest terrorist threat, but in order to do so, you have to ignore the *actual* biggest terrorist threat which Left Wing revolutionaries.

As for the Panel of experts and the acknowledgement - let me put it this way:

If you ask Israel, they would say that Hamas and the Palestinians were the greatest threat.
If you ask Palestinians, they would say that the Jews and Israel were the greatest threat.

Asking the Left wing what they think is the greatest threat, do you think they are going to say the Revolutionary Communists or the Eeeeevil Right Wingers?



So they were chasing Antifa, which is so stupid it's funny. If ypu doubt that, consider that the biggest intelligence resources in the world couldn't find it. It's almost as if it didn't exist. Well, for sane people it didn't exist.

One might conjecture that one who is willfully blind won't find anything, either.

BTW - any comment on the short snippet from a University about Critical Race Theory that I posted? I've noticed each time you try to hand waive it away and I challenge you to set your standard of proof And give several examples of it being a big Marxist pile of shit you go oddly quiet.

[pritch]

No, my friend, you need to keep up.

The joke is people like you and the punchline is your reaction to it.

I'm being very serious on this. 4Chan has a long history of (and I hate the term, but in this case, it's accurate) of 'Weaponised Autism' - that is, people who are very intelligent, too much time on their hands, a keen eye for patterns and a particular dislike of when rules (both in the legal sense an the social sense) aren't applied fairly.

Their premise was that the Left Wing media obsession with 'White Supremacy' would enable them to call something completely and obviously innocuous as related to 'White Supremacy' and then have the Media propagate it (uncritically) into the wider culture, thus having the Media create 'White Supremacy'.

Now, if there are actual 'White Supremecist' groups that use this (and for the record, I'm highly skeptical of this) - that's entirely because the Media ran this Hoax. Or to put it another way: Any actual 'White Supremacy' that you want to claim is linked to the usage of this symbol, is entirely due to the Media.

The other problem is that the OK symbol has a very long and very wide legacy of meaning 'Everything is OK' - From everything to Divers using non verbal communication - to people just letting others know that they are fine.

Everytime people like you say that it's 'White Supremacy', that means the Joke isn't over, it's still happening - the way to make the Joke over is to realize that you've been played: by some 4D Chess Mastermind(s) on a shitposting board who took the media obsession to it's logical conclusion.

The fact that you're aware it comes from 4Chan yet still believe the Hoax makes it all the more funny.

And do you want to know the Irony of all this?

Firstly, according to US law, Kyle isn't White, he's Latino.

Secondly: I was watching Kyle's interview clips today - and he said he supports BLM and some of their ideals - in particular, he said that he has a lot of sympathy for people that claim prosecutorial overreach, based on his own experience with the Justice system. So for some of the areas where BLM (despite the fact their critique comes from a place of wanting to incite a communist revolution) might have a point, Kyle agrees and would make an excellent example.

Real 'White Supremecist' thinking that, wanting to take a look at Prosecutor misconduct that might have led to bogus charges or false convictions of innocent Black people....

Absolute rubbish from go to whoa. Seriously dude get a grip. Oh and see a while back you gave me red. Have a well deserved one in return.

[TheDemonLord]

Absolute rubbish from go to whoa. Seriously dude get a grip.

Considering the people on 4Chan outright stated what their goal was and you are doing exactly what they predicted people like you would, no, it's not.


Oh and see a while back you gave me red. Have a well deserved one in return.

Now, I've got no problem in getting Red Repped.

However, I do have a very big problem with outright lies.

Firstly - there are only 2 people I think I've ever intentionally given Red Rep to (I think once I gave someone red by accident) - They would be Katman and Madness. That would also be quite a long time ago.

If I look in my Rep history, I have not given a single Red Rep going all the way back to 2018 (which is as far back as it shows). I have stated on multiple occasions that some time ago I made a conscious decision not to Red Rep.

And whilst I can take an attacks on any position that I happen to hold in good grace, I do not do the same for demonstrably false lies about my personal character.

So, here's my Rep history, with the last 2 reps I've given you, you'll notice that all of the ones in the screenshot are green, and I've given you 2 in recent times - you will be able to no doubt confirm that what I've posted is true and accurate - and I expect both an apology and a retraction.

There's some further observations I could make about perception, reality - but I'll leave those be, so long as the right thing to do, is done.

350187

[pritch]

Now, I've got no problem in getting Red Repped.

However, I do have a very big problem with outright lies.

Firstly - there are only 2 people I think I've ever intentionally given Red Rep to (I think once I gave someone red by accident) - They would be Katman and Madness. That would also be quite a long time ago.



I don't know what happened there but it definitely seems I owe you an apology. I had been wandering about less frequently visited parts of KB, and I noticed that I had unknowingly received a number of reds. When people on your ignore list give you red you don't see it. You remain blissfully unaware. I cancelled my ignore list and saw I'd received red from everyone on my ignore list. Although as it turned out it was all but one.

So mea culpa and I apologise for the error.

I give red about as often as you, but I'll have to be more careful in future.

[TheDemonLord]

I don't know what happened there but it definitely seems I owe you an apology. I had been wandering about less frequently visited parts of KB, and I noticed that I had unknowingly received a number of reds. When people on your ignore list give you red you don't see it. You remain blissfully unaware. I cancelled my ignore list and saw I'd received red from everyone on my ignore list. Although as it turned out it was all but one.

So mea culpa and I apologise for the error.

I give red about as often as you, but I'll have to be more careful in future.

Glad we got it sorted out, and no hard feelings. :)

In case anyone is interested - apparently I last gave out Red in 2016.

[sugilite]

Wow

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x9zJyc70yNk

[pritch]

I'd read that but it has more impact shown live as it were.

In another US firearms related story, it seems a thirteen year old made a gun of some sort then shot and killed his fourteen year old sister. So far I've only seen headlines but I have to go out, but might check further when I get back.

Have a good weekend y'all.

Here 'tis: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/georgia-13-year-old-fatally-shoots-14-year-old-sister-with-a-homemade-firearm-police-say/ar-AARrsJT

[sugilite]

I'm sure Jesus would be stoked with this tribute ;)
https://www.stuff.co.nz/world/us-canada/300471560/us-congressmans-guntoting-family-christmas-photo-sparks-outrage-days-after-school-shooting

BTW, loser lefties for falling for the obvious troll :lol:

[pritch]

I'm sure Jesus would be stoked with this tribute ;)
https://www.stuff.co.nz/world/us-canada/300471560/us-congressmans-guntoting-family-christmas-photo-sparks-outrage-days-after-school-shooting

BTW, loser lefties for falling for the obvious troll :lol:

That particular polititian was known in the US as a libertarian. Now he is regarded as just another RWNJ Trumpist and this photo supports that view. I note that the proud daddy cradles what appears to be an M60 machine gun, "the pig". That'll come in handy if his home is ever invaded by zombie muslim lesbian bikers from Hell.

[husaberg]

That particular polititian was known in the US as a libertarian. Now he is regarded as just another RWNJ Trumpist and this photo supports that view. I note that the proud daddy cradles what appears to be an M60 machine gun, "the pig". That'll come in handy if his home is ever invaded by zombie muslim lesbian bikers from Hell.

you need automatic weapons to be a medic patrolling you know, as why should the police of national guard do that.

[TheDemonLord]

That particular polititian was known in the US as a libertarian. Now he is regarded as just another RWNJ Trumpist and this photo supports that view. I note that the proud daddy cradles what appears to be an M60 machine gun, "the pig". That'll come in handy if his home is ever invaded by zombie muslim lesbian bikers from Hell.

Isn't it funny that the Libertarians all tended towards Trump...

And yes, that does appear to be an M60 - weird Flex, but very nice.

[sugilite]

And why not? I will shit myself laughing if this works. :laugh:
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/gavin-newsom-texas-abortion-law-gun-control-supreme-court

[husaberg]

And why not? I will shit myself laughing if this works. :laugh:
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/gavin-newsom-texas-abortion-law-gun-control-supreme-court


of course God clearly wanted them to have automatic weapons
but he made sure to leave clear instructions in his manual for sky pixie followers for the dont do's

like

Never Boil A Baby Goat In Its Mother's Milk

Don't Speak The Names Of Other Gods

When Fighting Another Man, Chop Off His Wife's Hand If She Grabs Your Genital

If Your Slave Refuses Freedom, Pierce Their Ear

You Can't Kill A Burglar During The Day

Don't Plant More Than One Kind of Seed In A Field

Don't Tear Your Clothes

Women Suspected of Adultery Have To Drink Dirty Water

# the idea of this is its understood to cause an abortion.
350261


Don't Sit Where A Menstruating Woman Has Sat

Don't Wear Clothes Made of Both Linen And Wool

Don't Eat Fat

[pritch]

Isn't it funny that the Libertarians all tended towards Trump...



That's because Libertarians generally have the emotional development of toddlers. They've never advanced beyond, "Me me me."

[TheDemonLord]

That's because Libertarians generally have the emotional development of toddlers. They've never advanced beyond, "Me me me."

Ending Slavery then = 'me me me'
Creating Human Rights = 'me me me'

I mean, I could go on, but I think that's sufficient to show how asinine that statement is.

[sugilite]

Haha, now New York is getting in on it.
No doubt the supreme court will block it, showing the hypocrisy of telling woman what they can and cannot do, but don't come for the bang bangs! Once again putting on show just how fucked the US judicial system is - funny as hell though :laugh:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vifOuGAju7w&t=182s

[TheDemonLord]

I'm always surprised at how Lawyers and Politicians seem to struggle to understand:

'Shall not be Infringed'

It's not the Systems that's fucked...

[sugilite]

Ahhhh, but the system is not just the rule book eh, if only. Unfortunately the lawyers, judges, pollies and lobbyists are part of the system - so yeah, it is not just fucked, it is well fucked.

[TheDemonLord]

Ahhhh, but the system is not just the rule book eh, if only. Unfortunately the lawyers, judges, pollies and lobbyists are part of the system - so yeah, it is not just fucked, it is well fucked.

I've been reading a bit of George Washington of late, specifically his views on Political parties:



They serve to organize faction, to give it an artificial and extraordinary force; to put, in the place of the delegated will of the nation, the will of a party, often a small but artful and enterprising minority of the community; and, according to the alternate triumphs of different parties, to make the public administration the mirror of the ill-concerted and incongruous projects of faction, rather than the organ of consistent and wholesome plans digested by common counsels, and modified by mutual interests.

However combinations or associations of the above description may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely, in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people, and to usurp for themselves the reins of government; destroying afterwards the very engines, which have lifted them to unjust dominion.

So at this point, I'm leaning more towards that it isn't the system that is broken, but it's the Fuckwits in the System.

I mean, I'm not really disagreeing per se - more a case of whether the Individuals are part of the system or if the System can be considered distinct from the people in it. I tend to view things from the individualistic sense and not the collective sense (Shock! Horror! I know...) which leads me not to condemn the entire system as broken or 'problematic' but that we should be eternally vigilant for Bad Actors, and deal with them on a case by case basis.

[sugilite]

Unfortunately the current "system" in the States has generated a veritable avalanche of bad actors on both sides of the political spectrum. RIP on what is actually a very, very good system, which has now been overrun with bad actors - and a never ending conveyor belt of them getting ever worse.

[pritch]

I'm always surprised at how Lawyers and Politicians seem to struggle to understand:

'Shall not be Infringed'

It's not the Systems that's fucked...

That refers specifically to the "militia." Not the knuckle dragging fuckwits that need to carry a slung AR to Starbocks or Macca's.

[Kickaha]

I'm always surprised at how Lawyers and Politicians seem to struggle to understand:

'Shall not be Infringed'

It's not the Systems that's fucked...

"shall not be infringed" is bullshit, that right is infringed upon all the time

[TheDemonLord]

That refers specifically to the "militia." Not the knuckle dragging fuckwits that need to carry a slung AR to Starbocks or Macca's.

The Federalist papers, Supreme Court and pretty much the last 200 years of US history disagrees with you.

[sugilite]

Shit, has starbucks and maccas been around that long? :bleh:
Pritch has a point. While living in Arkansas, In saw the occasional egotistical dickhead walking around the local Walmart doing the open carry thing. May as well been walking around with their cocks hanging out their pants as far as I was concerned. The common denominator was they all had a similar strut to a turkey, only the turkeys are more impressive. I guess it kept the government in check though :rolleyes:

[F5 Dave]

I'm shit scared of guns so glad I dont live in merca with people wandering around with them in the breeze as I know most of them are probably educated by comic books.

[TheDemonLord]

Shit, has starbucks and maccas been around that long? :bleh:
Pritch has a point. While living in Arkansas, In saw the occasional egotistical dickhead walking around the local Walmart doing the open carry thing. May as well been walking around with their cocks hanging out their pants as far as I was concerned. The common denominator was they all had a similar strut to a turkey, only the turkeys are more impressive. I guess it kept the government in check though :rolleyes:

The Open Carry thing is an interesting one.

I think it's best to say that I feel it is improper to go into a Public place, so armed - without reason.

That said, there is a lot to say about the public display of potential lethal force being a deterrent for bad behavior. IIRC there's a study in the US that estimates 2.5 Million crimes are stopped by armed individuals (although this study is 20+ years old, newer studies have estimates as high as 6.1 Million - but there's some skepticism about the methodology) - that's something to consider.

There's different philosophies on the use and display of Force - for example The Sikh religion has that one should always be armed with a Kirpan (to defend the weak) and that it should be displayed openly.

Whereas many Concealed Carry proponents are against the public display of being armed - both to put the unarmed public at ease, but also not to draw attention to the fact you are armed.

As I said above - I feel that it's improper to grab an AR, strap it to your back and go shop 'just because', but in the same breath, if you had come from or going to a Hunting trip and didn't want to leave it in your vehicle (because you are a responsible owner) then carrying on your person is a reason.

[pritch]

Many of the 'right to carry' types appear to have an IQ below average. They would make me feel unsafe because most of them are so thick their hardware is likely not in a safe condition.

As for deterent value, somebody with malice aforethought would take them out before they could unsling their penis extension. All they are doing is promoting themselves to victim number one.

Many concealed carry dudes agree with that theory. It's just that you have to trust the CC dudes are all totally sane. Not always a given.

[TheDemonLord]

Many of the 'right to carry' types appear to have an IQ below average. They would make me feel unsafe because most of them are so thick their hardware is likely not in a safe condition.

I feel there is a smug Alec Baldwin joke in there...

but in seriousness, when you see pictures of them, if their hand is on the grip, normally we see good Trigger and muzzle discipline - so I'm not sure I can concur on the last part.


As for deterent value, somebody with malice aforethought would take them out before they could unsling their penis extension. All they are doing is promoting themselves to victim number one.

Many concealed carry dudes agree with that theory. It's just that you have to trust the CC dudes are all totally sane. Not always a given.

This is where it gets interesting:

I think for a certain type of criminal - a visible Armed deterrent is very effective - I'd hazard a guess that it's the type where criminality is a means to an end (e.g. Money, Status, Power).

There is, however, another type of person, for which Criminality is a Means unto itself - Sort of like the Joker in The Dark Knight - one who simply wants to watch the world burn - and for those - I think you're right, they would target those people first.

But in doing so, everyone else has a fraction of a second longer to get away or return fire - so may not be a bad thing. I'm reminded of the Draw Mohammed contest in Texas.

As I said above - the notion of whether Force should be openly (and 'honestly') displayed, or whether it should be kept concealed so that someone has to presume anyone and everyone to be armed is an argument that has gone back Millennia.

[jasonu]

I'm shit scared of guns so glad I dont live in merca with people wandering around with them in the breeze as I know most of them are probably educated by comic books.

Dave I've lived here for 23 years and I've seen maybe 3 open carry in public places.

[jasonu]

Many of the 'right to carry' types appear to have an IQ below average. They would make me feel unsafe because most of them are so thick their hardware is likely not in a safe condition.

As for deterent value, somebody with malice aforethought would take them out before they could unsling their penis extension. All they are doing is promoting themselves to victim number one.

Many concealed carry dudes agree with that theory. It's just that you have to trust the CC dudes are all totally sane. Not always a given.

Words from a stupid old dickhead.

[sugilite]

The Open Carry thing is an interesting one.

I think it's best to say that I feel it is improper to go into a Public place, so armed - without reason.


Well I certainly did not feel safer and would have misgivings that they would make sound decisions if shit hit the fan. Seeing the local sheriff sporting a gun in the same wall mart did not invoke the same misgivings. That particular sheriffs father, a past sheriff was known to be the man to go in and take care of a perp if a court case was deemed undesirable.

More to that, an old mining friend of my wife's had a few stories to tell that highlighted to me how at least in rural Arkansas, different values were placed on Human life to what I was used too. Lee was a straight shooter who's default disposition was decidedly understatement. He told me of two incidents that really stuck with me, and I have zero doubt that these stories were true. The first one was when hippies descended on Montgomery county to raid quartz crystals from the local mines at the height of the 80's crystal craze, the local sheriff got the miners together and told them that if any hippies were reported missing after visiting their said mines, police officers would be instructed to only dig 8 feet down with excavators and no further. Subsequently many hippies did go missing.

At a mine where I paid fees to dig at, I could not help but notice a shotgun in the mine owners truck while taking me to the claim, the mine owner described it as a permanent deterrent lol
The other story Lee told me was he was in a 3 way partnership on another mine, and one of the other partners had a verbal stoush with the other. It was basically a yelling match. Then one partner pulled out a hand gun and shot the other in the gut, and he subsequently became deceased. The shooter than rang the Sheriff, said the other guy drew first (he had not) and boom, it was case over, no investigation nothing.

Both stories highlight how even the best system is totally useless when the PEOPLE in charge of administering them choose not to follow said system.

I"n the current US situation, toilet paper is worth more than the paper the system is written upon.

[TheDemonLord]

Well I certainly did not feel safer and would have misgivings that they would make sound decisions if shit hit the fan. Seeing the local sheriff sporting a gun in the same wall mart did not invoke the same misgivings. That particular sheriffs father, a past sheriff was known to be the man to go in and take care of a perp if a court case was deemed undesirable.

So let me ask you - why did you have those Misgivings about Average Joe (absent any additional information), whereas you didn't have the same Misgivings about someone who grew up in a culture of Vigilante Justice (according to you)?

I would be more concerned about the Latter to be honest.

And I'm not using that to cast aspersions on your Moral Character, more to make the point - that even knowing someone is connected with Vigilantism (even by proxy) - you still view authority with a degree of respect, that you don't extend to the average person.


More to that, an old mining friend of my wife's had a few stories to tell that highlighted to me how at least in rural Arkansas, different values were placed on Human life to what I was used too. Lee was a straight shooter who's default disposition was decidedly understatement. He told me of two incidents that really stuck with me, and I have zero doubt that these stories were true. The first one was when hippies descended on Montgomery county to raid quartz crystals from the local mines at the height of the 80's crystal craze, the local sheriff got the miners together and told them that if any hippies were reported missing after visiting their said mines, police officers would be instructed to only dig 8 feet down with excavators and no further. Subsequently many hippies did go missing.

At a mine where I paid fees to dig at, I could not help but notice a shotgun in the mine owners truck while taking me to the claim, the mine owner described it as a permanent deterrent lol
The other story Lee told me was he was in a 3 way partnership on another mine, and one of the other partners had a verbal stoush with the other. It was basically a yelling match. Then one partner pulled out a hand gun and shot the other in the gut, and he subsequently became deceased. The shooter than rang the Sheriff, said the other guy drew first (he had not) and boom, it was case over, no investigation nothing.

Both stories highlight how even the best system is totally useless when the PEOPLE in charge of administering them choose not to follow said system.

I"n the current US situation, toilet paper is worth more than the paper the system is written upon.

So, I don't doubt either stories either - and it's something I've heard of, that in smaller - insular communities - in the US, that the local Administration (Mayor, Sheriff, Judge etc.) can become extremely corrupt.

Is that a Systemic Issue that means we throw the whole thing out, or is that an Individual issue, where we need to hold the Individual to account?

I would grant you that you could argue that such a system doesn't have sufficient checks/balances and needs tweaking - but then in the context of the US, the check/balance is the 2nd Amendment: Corrupt local officials? Violently overthrow them!

[F5 Dave]

About a year or do ago there was a story in the paper of a woman in a US carpark when these clowns were trying to steal a TV and run away while the shopkeepers chasing yelling Stop thief! So she pulls out he gun and starts unloading it in their direction.

Fortunately she missed, but fuk me, general public are stupid/angry/irrational/irresponsible/horny/stupid/frustrated/stupid. Why the fuk should they be trusted with handguns?

[TheDemonLord]

About a year or do ago there was a story in the paper of a woman in a US carpark when these clowns were trying to steal a TV and run away while the shopkeepers chasing yelling Stop thief! So she pulls out he gun and starts unloading it in their direction.

Fortunately she missed, but fuk me, general public are stupid/angry/irrational/irresponsible/horny/stupid/frustrated/stupid. Why the fuk should they be trusted with handguns?

Why the Fuck should they be trusted with Cars?
Why the Fuck should they be trusted with Hammers?
Why the Fuck should they be trusted with Knives?
Why the Fuck should they be trusted with non-prescription Medicine?

Plus, I have a very low level of sympathy for someone getting shot at, whilst committing a crime. Seems the simple solution to not be shot at is to, y'know, not commit Crime.

[R650R]

Wow so much angry penis envy over the open carry thing.... ever stop to think many of those people would maybe work security or govt agency jobs.....
But hey never mind all the hoodie wearing deadbeats who WILL be dumb enough to be carry a knife and STUPID enough to use it over minor issues.
Funny thing to be worried about during a plague when someone coughing could kill you, albeit with less drama....

[F5 Dave]

Ever stop to think how many of those people not in uniform would be breaching policy to openly show they are carrying guns? So they aren't.

Ever think about anything you post?

[sugilite]

TDL, in answer to your question, if i were to find myself in a scenario where say an active shooter was near me. I would much rather have a trained professional with a family history of law enforcement take care of it than the unknown skills of some egotistical dude strutting around like a turkey.

And yeah, im not advocating throwing out the system. Rather as you allude too, some meaningful checks and balances would not go astray.

[TheDemonLord]

TDL, in answer to your question, if i were to find myself in a scenario where say an active shooter was near me. I would much rather have a trained professional with a family history of law enforcement take care of it than the unknown skills of some egotistical dude strutting around like a turkey.

That's a fair comment, but without wanting to be Glib - having seen and read the standards for Law Enforcement marksmanship, I'm not so sure I'd agree there...

[pritch]

Words from a stupid old dickhead.

And merry Christmas to you. :motu:

[jasonu]

Gun grab working well...
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/hundreds-of-shooting-victims-treated-at-aucklands-hospitals-amid-surging-gun-violence-across-city/UGOALGYK6K2NOJHVWEBQJOEWH4/

[husaberg]

Gun grab working well...
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/hundreds-of-shooting-victims-treated-at-aucklands-hospitals-amid-surging-gun-violence-across-city/UGOALGYK6K2NOJHVWEBQJOEWH4/

6 firearm related deaths recorded by Auckland dhb in last two years
These figures include accidental and self harm. Did you even read it before you posted it?
Odd that you would quote the herald any given what you have posted about it previously.



Fuckwit. You know nothing more than the NZ Herald feeds you.

It is if you get all your dirt from the Herald.

Is that your opinion from personal experience or did you read it in the Herald?

Put the Herald down mate.

Out of interest, how many mass shootings per week in the USA would it take for you to think, gee maybe some gun control is needed in the usa?
Like restrictions of mental capacity or mental illness or on numbers or waiting periods.
here is milwaukee a similar size city as Auckland with similar demograpics
https://madison.com/wsj/news/local/crime-and-courts/milwaukee-records-175-homicides-so-far-in-2021/article_e1a2161e-81c2-5078-b2b1-a1816c4db78b.html
Yet they very different murder rates with firearms

[Swoop]

That's a fair comment, but without wanting to be Glib - having seen and read the standards for Law Enforcement marksmanship, I'm not so sure I'd agree there...

I have to agree totally.
Marksmanship is a perishable skill that requires contant honing and practice to retain.
The costs of ammunition alone, just for practice, would be enormous for every plod to remain "capable" to carry a loaded firearm, then onto that there would be the costs of purchasing the firearms.
It would most certainly lead to far more "issued" firearms going missing.
The gangs would love it.

[husaberg]

I have to agree totally.
Marksmanship is a perishable skill that requires contant honing and practice to retain.
The costs of ammunition alone, just for practice, would be enormous for every plod to remain "capable" to carry a loaded firearm, then onto that there would be the costs of purchasing the firearms.
.
heers, all of which you have just stated makes a total lie of "the good guy with a gun argument" the NRA and its other peddlers push, so thanks.:msn-wink:

[TheDemonLord]

heers, all of which you have just stated makes a total lie of "the good guy with a gun argument" the NRA and its other peddlers push, so thanks.:msn-wink:

Not at all.

What it shows is:

Good, UNTRAINED guy with a Gun is much less effective than Good, TRAINED guy with a Gun.

And trained means regular shooting. I've been enjoying listening to Massad Ayoob recently, one Stat he cites is that the untrained CCW holder is successful about 70% of the time in a scenario where Lethall Force is used.

Whereas (and admittedly this is cherry picked) - one training organization that he isn't affiliated with has a 100% record - that is ever CCW holder that attended that course, that went on to draw their Firearm to stop a threat, lived.

[pritch]

Marksmanship is a perishable skill that requires contant honing and practice to retain.


There's more than marksmanship involved. The problem is that the people who train the police don't always know the basics. There have been, and are likely still, people in the force with the knowledge but they aren't always asked.

[Kickaha]

There's more than marksmanship involved. The problem is that the people who train the police don't always know the basics. There have been, and are likely still, people in the force with the knowledge but they aren't always asked.

A friend of mine who is a competition pistol shooter does some training for the police, he doesn't have a very high opinion of their ability but said they basically don't get or do enough range time

[F5 Dave]

As long as you can spray enough bullets out you're bound to hit something. It's a bit like vaccine roll out, they need to get caps in ass's.

[TheDemonLord]

As long as you can spray enough bullets out you're bound to hit something. It's a bit like vaccine roll out, they need to get caps in ass's.

I know this is tongue in cheek - but going back to the Massad Ayoob lectures (highly recommended if you are interested in this sort of thing) he calls this sort of thing out with great zeal.

[TheDemonLord]

There's more than marksmanship involved. The problem is that the people who train the police don't always know the basics. There have been, and are likely still, people in the force with the knowledge but they aren't always asked.

Sadly true in many organizations.

There are incompetent or even dangerous people that have Managements' Ear and favor.

[TheDemonLord]

A friend of mine who is a competition pistol shooter does some training for the police, he doesn't have a very high opinion of their ability but said they basically don't get or do enough range time

Yep, I've heard this same thing from multiple people and multiple sources. Something like 200 rounds a year for training for the NZ Police, whereas any competition shooter would likely be doing more than that every weekend.

[pritch]

A friend of mine who is a competition pistol shooter does some training for the police, he doesn't have a very high opinion of their ability but said they basically don't get or do enough range time

That training wouldn't necessarily solve the problem I was referring to. Competition shooting is one thing, and I was a competition shooter, when bullets are coming back at you though, that's a whole nutha thing. The police training I saw ignored this latter development completely. Even if the instructors had seen the old military training manuals they would have been teaching better technique, but the guys running the training had obviously not seen the manuals.

There are usually guys in the Police who have the required knowledge, but they are thin on the ground and not available everywhere.

[R650R]

Never mind the training/lack of/frequency the real problem in nz is the politically correct rules of engagement. Even in a physical altercation/arrest the police are restricted in what parts of the body they are allowed to strike and what they can strike with.
Anyone who has done any kind of martial arts cringes watching some of the unnecessarily awkward takedowns cops are forced to do. There are many things you can do that are unpleasant for the attacker but will not result in serious long term injury but are outside the “rules of the game”...
To confound this problem police are now forced to recruit on ethnic/race based criteria which obviously diminishes the selection made from the group of people with best life experience/skills base.
To their credit though in recent t times when nz cops have HAD to fire their weapons they’ve actually been taking out the bad guys, so their doing ok overall.
Really though how often do Hollywood style levels of marksman ship be required? If the guy has hostage that will fegerevyo withdrawal and sepecialist armed Offenders Squad. If a general duties cop needs to present a weapon it’s because a nutter is charging them with a weapon uncompliant to instructions. Then it’s just a case of pull the trigger at centre of body mass close range.

[pritch]

To their credit though in recent t times when nz cops have HAD to fire their weapons they’ve actually been taking out the bad guys, so their doing ok overall.


One person's 'doing OK' is another person's fail. The Commisioner would probably agree with you, but in recent times the police have lost a few of their own and there's the small matter of collateral damage and a dead civilian.


Then it’s just a case of pull the trigger at centre of body mass close range.

From what I saw they mainly practice at 7m. There are reasons for that, some of which I believe to be spurious, but also because their statistics say that's where most police shootings happen internationally. Close enough for your centre mass at close range but even that would be optimistic. There was an instance during an attempted bank robbery in town here where a cop emptied his pistol at a guy in the same room for a result of one minor flesh wound.

[TheDemonLord]

From what I saw they mainly practice at 7m. There are reasons for that, some of which I believe to be spurious, but also because their statistics say that's where most police shootings happen internationally.

7 Meters is approx 21 feet - which I believe is the Tueller Distance. That is - just a bit further than the average person armed with a contact weapon (Knife, Club etc.) can close the distance and strike before being incapacitated. Assuming that the defender has their Firearm holstered.

So, yeah - 7 Meters sounds about right for what they should drill at, as that would be the stand-off distance they would likely be wanting to maintain between them and an armed suspect.

[F5 Dave]

One person's 'doing OK' is another person's fail. The Commisioner would probably agree with you, but in recent times the police have lost a few of their own and there's the small matter of collateral damage and a dead civilian.



From what I saw they mainly practice at 7m. There are reasons for that, some of which I believe to be spurious, but also because their statistics say that's where most police shootings happen internationally. Close enough for your centre mass at close range but even that would be optimistic. There was a instance during an attempted bank robbery in town here where a cop emptied his pistol at a guy in the same room for a result of one minor flesh wound.

Where did the other bullets go?
You know? If anyone else cares?

[pritch]

Where did the other bullets go?
You know? If anyone else cares?

Into the wall? The cops knew about this robbery attempt in advance, they had guys in the bank and outside, our man was inside. The Police plan was published in the paper subsequently. The drawing was hilarious. If the cops had all opened up they'd have been shooting at each other.

Ambushes are best kept simple. A simple one sided shape is preferable. An L shape might be OK. A box shape is generally not recommended, :whistle: but that was pretty much what they had drawn. Or as the saying goes, a circular firing squad.

[husaberg]

https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-43930be8942c836b3730ae6d5c25d3d6-lq

[F5 Dave]

Well here's a cherry story

https://i.stuff.co.nz/world/us-canada/300491434/us-toddler-accidentally-shoots-mum-younger-sibling-outside-walmart

What they needed was a good guy with a gun.

[pritch]

7 Meters is approx 21 feet - which I believe is the Tueller Distance. That is - just a bit further than the average person armed with a contact weapon (Knife, Club etc.) can close the distance and strike before being incapacitated. Assuming that the defender has their Firearm holstered.

So, yeah - 7 Meters sounds about right for what they should drill at, as that would be the stand-off distance they would likely be wanting to maintain between them and an armed suspect.

The seven yard thing was a suggestion in a magazine article, but it has become universal and some US police forces have come to regard it as law. It isn't, it was a hypothetical proposition in a magazine article. A reasonable one, but it's not law. There's a YouTube clip of some dude having a mental health episode, he's just walking along the footpath with a number of cops following him along trying to communicate. One of the cops ran in front and stopped when the guy approached to about seven yards he was shot. I doubt that was ever the intention of the original author.

[TheDemonLord]

The seven yard thing was a suggestion in a magazine article, but it has become universal and some US police forces have come to regard it as law. It isn't, it was a hypothetical proposition in a magazine article. A reasonable one, but it's not law. There's a YouTube clip of some dude having a mental health episode, he's just walking along the footpath with a number of cops following him along trying to communicate. One of the cops ran in front and stopped when the guy approached to about seven yards he was shot. I doubt that was ever the intention of the original author.

That's kinda missing a couple of key points, whilst it was in a Magazine article - it was an experimentally derived answer:

They timed how long it took the average officer to Draw and fire their weapon (1.5 Seconds) from an initial stimulus, then timed how far someone could run and stab someone in that distance.

They even did it on Mythbusters - where they found that at 20 ft (6.1 m) the Average person was able to get a shot off at the attacker, but only just as they reached them - at which point the person getting shot centre mass would still have enough momentum/blood to strike the person.

As for what is and isn't the law - you kinda contradict yourself - in that when it comes to Self Defense, there is a standard of Reasonableness. Therefore, if it's reasonable that someone within 7 meters, armed with a knife is capable of reaching you before you draw your weapon, then you've fulfilled part of the legal requirements.

By saying it's reasonable, you're saying it meets the legal standard.

Now - I agree that someone having a Mental Health episode and getting shot isn't ideal. Ideally, they get treatment. Reality is, however, that at that distance, he becomes a threat and if he's acting Crazy, The officer has to decide if it's Crazy-but-harmless or Crazy-and-deadly.

Put it this way: If there's an alternative option that can reliably fully incapacitate a Human Male that is hyped up on Adrenalin (either from Drugs, Mental issues or other) without being lethal - I'll champion that as the alternative.

I'm reminded of the incident in NZ when the cop shot the guy that was busy smashing up the high street and everyone pilloried the Officer.

[pritch]

I'm reminded of the incident in NZ when the cop shot the guy that was busy smashing up the high street and everyone pilloried the Officer.

An interesting example. The guy was not shot for 'smashing up' McLean Sreet, he was shot when he headed for the female cop wielding a 'weapon'. My first reaction on seeing a photo of the deceased in the paper was to thank the lord that we wouldn't have to listen to, or read, a lot of crap about racist police. The person in the photo looked white to me. OK, apparently he wasn't as white as he appeared. The PM at the time, Helen Clark, raised racism as a potential motive for the Police shooting.

I know the cop in question, although we aren't mates or anything. Appearances suggest that there's more Maori in his whakapapa than in that of the the deceased. I'm assuming the commisioner made that information available to Ms Clark because she shut up fairly quick.

I'm told there is something of a shrine at the local cemetery. I'm also told that the shotee 'nutted off' frequenty and that his family would head for the hills and hide during these episodes. Now though he's an innocent killed by racist police. Yeah right.

None of which is to say that institutional racism does not actually exist.

[TheDemonLord]

An interesting example. The guy was not shot for 'smashing up' McLean Sreet, he was shot when he headed for the female cop wielding a 'weapon'. My first reaction on seeing a photo of the deceased in the paper was to thank the lord that we wouldn't have to listen to, or read, a lot of crap about racist police. The person in the photo looked white to me. OK, apparently he wasn't as white as he appeared. The PM at the time, Helen Clark, raised racism as a potential motive for the Police shooting.

I know the cop in question, although we aren't mates or anything. Appearances suggest that there's more Maori in his whakapapa than in that of the the deceased. I'm assuming the commisioner made that information available to Ms Clark because she shut up fairly quick.

I'm told there is something of a shrine at the local cemetery. I'm also told that the shotee 'nutted off' frequenty and that his family would head for the hills and hide during these episodes. Now though he's an innocent killed by racist police. Yeah right.

I was going off memory - I personally thought the treatment of the Officer was BS - I also remember the counter argument that Policy was that he should back off and let the Armed Offenders squad deal with it, which was nice in theory - but as you say - he was shot when he presented a threat.

And isn't it ironic, your position on this, I'm reminded of quite a number of topical incidents of late where terrible people who have done terrible things and are filmed doing more terrible things, get shot for their terrible behavior - then certain segments of society (with an Axe to grind) portray them as the Patron Saint of Gentleness, yet for the examples where you don't have personal knowledge, you sit on the other side of the fence.

Just a thought...


None of which is to say that institutional racism does not actually exist.

Of course, but here's the regular reminder that said concept was 'invented' by a raving Black Supremacist Marxist, who said very nice things about a certain Adolf... How much attention you think we should pay to ideas by such a person is up to you...

[pritch]

And isn't it ironic, your position on this, I'm reminded of quite a number of topical incidents of late where terrible people who have done terrible things and are filmed doing more terrible things, get shot for their terrible behavior - then certain segments of society (with an Axe to grind) portray them as the Patron Saint of Gentleness, yet for the examples where you don't have personal knowledge, you sit on the other side of the fence.



Meanwhile back in Lala land...

[husaberg]

Meanwhile back in Lala land...
no need for armed police you could have a good guy with a gun preferably an ar15 or even better an Ar18
It seem someone misses that Shargin Stephens and Steven wallace before him and were not shot for their ethnicity or for damaging property, but were shot as they were going at armed police officers armed with weapons despite warnings.

[TheDemonLord]

Meanwhile back in Lala land...

Well...

Jacob Blake
Michael Brown
Ma'Khia Bryant
Anthony Huber

Care to reconsider your position on any of those?

[TheDemonLord]

no need for armed police you could have a good guy with a gun preferably an ar15 or even better an Ar18

Ironically, the AR-18 was never popular, although the action was used or influenced the design of the L85, F2000, G36, SCAR etc.


It seem someone misses that Shargin Stephens and Steven wallace before him and were not shot for their ethnicity or for damaging property, but were shot as they were going at armed police officers armed with weapons despite warnings.

See above to Pritch...

It's almost like there's a pattern here, that if it's in NZ and both people are white - you are able to evaluate the facts of the case, whereas if it's in the US and the person who was shot is black, you loose your mind and can only see racism...

[R650R]

https://youtu.be/nQ1mo-ecOzI

[pritch]

Well...

Jacob Blake
Michael Brown
Ma'Khia Bryant
Anthony Huber

Care to reconsider your position on any of those?

No. I'll raise you:
Michael Brown
Tamilr Rice
Sandra Bland
Akai Gurley
Eric Garner
John Crawford
Walter Scott
Freddie Gray
Phiando Castile
Alton Stirling

These are just some that I recall. I'd add in Kalief Browder but he wasn't killed by Police, he was the victim of a broken court system.

The sheriff in tha Sandra Bland case said there was no racism in the area. They have a black undertaker and a white undertaker. They have a black cemetery and a white cemetery. But they don't have any racism.

[TheDemonLord]

No. I'll raise you:
Michael Brown

I mean, I already included this one - 'Hands up, don't shoot' is a complete fabrication, we have the Video evidence for it - he was fighting with the Police - So that's 0/1.


Tamilr Rice

Police were called about someone with a Gun, asked him to show him their hands, he didn't. It may have been a Toy Gun, but that wasn't information the Officers didn't have at the time (although Dispatch does). 0/2.


Sandra Bland

She committed Suicice. 0/3.


Akai Gurley

Cop was a Minority himself and I'll be charitable and say the Cop was Negligent - but the claim here is one of Racism, so 0/4.


Eric Garner

This one is more interesting - and I could be strict and say he resisted arrest, but I'm feeling charitable because there does seem to be an element of profiling and so will give it, so 1/5.


John Crawford

Much the same as Tamir, Officers were told there was a suspect with a Gun - one of the witnesses says he was 'waving it around', Officers did not know it was a BB gun. 1/6


Walter Scott

Had a dodgy tail light, Had an outstanding warrant, Fought with the cop, ran from the Cop, got shot by the Cop. 1/7


Freddie Gray

Was arrested for a Knife, possibly an illegal knife, but again, I'll be generous and grant this one - because although he wasn't shot, there does seem sufficient evidence that they deliberately intended to hurt him by using the car. 2/8


Phiando Castile

This one is perhaps the most interesting. On the claim of racism, the officer involved was Hispanic (not white) and it seems to be a misunderstanding that ended in tragedy. There's umpteen videos made by CCW advocacy groups on how to interact with an Officer when you are licenced and carrying. The evidence at hand is that the Victim didn't do what the Officer told him - as I said, Tragedy. 2/9


Alton Stirling

Shot whilst reaching for a Gun. 2/10


These are just some that I recall.

Of the 10 examples you provided, we've got 2 where the Officers didn't have the information it was a Toy, 3 where the Victim had at one point fought with the cops, 2 that were Negligence, 1 that isn't relevant and 2 where I'm being very generous and giving it (in so far as one was resisting arrest and had health issues, the other had been arrested with a Knife).

All the information to reach those determinations was from Wikipedia, not 'Right Wing Nut Job' sites. You've got the Media narrative 'Racist White Cops shoot Black person!' then you've got the reality.

So here comes the serious part: You have this 'body of evidence' that you say is proof of systemic claims, but when it's scrutinised at the individual level, on the merits of each event, you end up with 20% of what you started with. This is further borne out by the Washington Post's police shootings Database, which when you filter out those that were armed, were fighting (or otherwise resisting arrest), those that were High or had Mental issues (and unfortunately acting eratically) - the total number of people shot is a fraction of the number.

The claim is built on a foundation of lies: Both from it's philosophical roots (any comment on the origins of that Pritch?, Stokely Carmichael?) and the evidence that's provided.

What's more - we have a perfect control case, that is the shooting of Ma'Khia Bryant.

Let's do a quick refresher - Cops arrive on scene, Person A tries to Stab Person B, Person A gets shot, Person B lives. There has never been a more clear-cut, captured on video instance of the correct deployment of Lethal Force to stop an imminent threat to life and limb.

All we have to do is look at certain Media Headlines and how they attempt to perpetuate the Lie:

The Guardian:

Ma’Khia Bryant: 16-year-old girl shot dead by police in Columbus, Ohio
This article is more than 8 months old
Teenager shot and killed by police responding to attempted stabbing, moments before judge delivered verdict in Chauvin trial

The Washington Post:

Ma’Khia Bryant’s family remembers her as loving, affectionate: ‘She didn’t even have a chance to live her life’
Relatives and others are mourning the loss of the 16-year-old, killed by police this week

The New York Times:

‘More Than Just Tragic’: Ma’Khia Bryant and the Burden of Black Girlhood
Two academics discuss the fatal shooting of the 16-year-old in Columbus, Ohio, highlighting the different standards that young Black girls are held to.

I mean, I never thought I'd say this, but the Guardian is the most accurate, it at least mentions there was an attempted Stabbing.

And all this is to lead us to the point Pritch:

Just like Rittenhouse, you are being lied to by people who you have a misplaced trust in. They are giving you a false set of facts, omitting key details in order to craft and maintain a narrative.

If you compare the case, in NZ, that you have proximal knowledge of and how it was portrayed in the media and then compare it to all the examples listed - you'll see that the similarities align nearly perfectly.


The sheriff in tha Sandra Bland case said there was no racism in the area. They have a black undertaker and a white undertaker. They have a black cemetery and a white cemetery. But they don't have any racism.

Is that Racism or is that community preference? Does the White Undertaker say 'Sorry, I don't do Darkies' or is it that the Black Community prefers to be in the company of their peers?

[pritch]

Nah, that's all so coloured that what you represent has no relationship to reality. I knew you had mentioned Michael Brown that's why I put him at the head of the list.
The officials were totally biased and presented false information to the grand jury. Information which apparently you believe but I don't. The prosecutor should have been prosecuted himself for presenting false information, I think they got rid of him since. If I recall correctly the local Klan members were having meetings with the chief cop, but yeah, sure, it's all kosher.

Your understanding of Tamir Rice's shooting is totally wrong. There was no demand to put the gun down. The car had not even stopped before the cop jumped out and started shooting.

And so it goes...

No point in discussing anything with you the connection to reality is just so tenuous. I mean you actually defended Trump. QED

[TheDemonLord]

Nah, that's all so coloured that what you represent has no relationship to reality. I knew you had mentioned Michael Brown that's why I put him at the head of the list.
The officials were totally biased and presented false information to the grand jury. Information which apparently you believe but I don't. The prosecutor should have been prosecuted himself for presenting false information, I think they got rid of him since. If I recall correctly the local Klan members were having meetings with the chief cop, but yeah, sure, it's all kosher.

Let's put aside opinion and focus on hard, undisputed facts, again - all sourced from Wikipedia, so you can't complain that it's a Right Wing source:

Brown Stole something = Criminal act.
Brown's Blood was on the Gun, There was bruising on the Officers face = They had been fighting, hand-to-hand fighting.

You fight with an armed Officer and resist arrest, if you start to get the upper hand, you're getting shot. End of. All the other stuff you mention is irrelevant. You'll notice in that, there is no mention of race.


Your understanding of Tamir Rice's shooting is totally wrong. There was no demand to put the gun down. The car had not even stopped before the cop jumped out and started shooting.

We have the sworn testimony, but if you want to dispute that, okay fine - you've got the video that he appeared to reach for his waistband, which is when he was shot.

The Officers on the scene believed he had a Gun (as that was what they were told by dispatch) and saw him reaching. What should a reasonable person conclude?


And so it goes...

No point in discussing anything with you the connection to reality is just so tenuous. I mean you actually defended Trump. QED

Ah yes, I defended Trump, therefore everything I say is tainted...

And since you're quoting Latin, that's your classic Ad Hominem, or to put it another way - you can't refute the proposition, so resort to name calling.

But if we are going to go Name calling - Yeah, I defended Trump. You've championed philosophical concepts created by a Racial Supremecist who said Hitler was a Genius - by your own standards, who has the Tenuous connection to reality?

I'll also note that there was no refutation or even a denunciation of that fact, one might call that ever so curious.

[husaberg]

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSOwLSermoK-YseSiPN4jy8JRbgAcpGJhaT8Q&usqp=CAU

[R650R]

Houston P D multiple body cams

https://youtu.be/YMMe6djzyfE

[husaberg]

Houston P D multiple body cams

https://youtu.be/YMMe6djzyfE


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6S8OsJOP4Bw

[Swoop]

7 Meters is approx 21 feet - which I believe is the Tueller Distance. That is - just a bit further than the average person armed with a contact weapon (Knife, Club etc.) can close the distance and strike before being incapacitated. Assuming that the defender has their Firearm holstered.

So, yeah - 7 Meters sounds about right for what they should drill at...

I regularly see around 1.5 metres from the paper target, being used for training.
(Easier to achieve the required hits to get qualified/remain current...):facepalm:

[Swoop]

heers, all of which you have just stated makes a total lie of "the good guy with a gun argument" the NRA and its other peddlers push, so thanks.:msn-wink:
I don't know how you mis-read & misinterpreted that, but I guess in your world it is comprehensible.

[F5 Dave]

My interpretation of that was pretty clear. Instead of Good guy stopping the bad guy in his tracks, you are more likely to just get a bucket load more badly aimed bullets spraying around ready to do what they are intended to do.

More guns in the public, having met many examples of, the public, doesn't seem like a top idea.

[husaberg]

I don't know how you mis-read & misinterpreted that, but I guess in your world it is comprehensible.

Your lack of understanding is the problem

You are slagging off policemen as not being up to the task of policing. As you i and others on the thread insinuate what you infer as a lack of creditable skills with a firearm.
Yet think at the same time a average yokel ie ""a good guy with a gun" is at the same time somehow skilled enough to be able to act professionally and calm in a professional environment.
Your lack of understanding is clearly he issue at play.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PDkEFX52r9M

Good guy with a Gun.



In a 2015 study using data from the FBI and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, for example, researchers at Boston Children's Hospital and Harvard University reported that firearm assaults were 6.8 times more common in the states with the most guns versus those with the least. Also in 2015 a combined analysis of 15 different studies found that people who had access to firearms at home were nearly twice as likely to be murdered as people who did not.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/sciam/assets/Image/saw1017Moye31_d(1).png

violent crime rates have actually dropped in the U.S. in recent decades. According to the FBI, rates were a whopping 41 percent lower in 2015 than they were in 1996. The NRA attributes this decrease to the acquisition of more guns. But that is misleading. What has increased is the number of people who own multiple guns—the actual number of people and households who own them has substantially dropped.


John Donohue, an economist at Stanford University, reported in a working paper in June 2017 that when states ease permit requirements, most violent crime rates increase and keep getting worse. A decade after laws relax, violent crime rates are 13 to 15 percent higher than they were before

[TheDemonLord]

Your lack of understanding is the problem

You are slagging off policemen as not being up to the task of policing. As you i and others on the thread insinuate what you infer as a lack of creditable skills with a firearm.
Yet think at the same time a average yokel ie ""a good guy with a gun" is at the same time somehow skilled enough to be able to act professionally and calm in a professional environment.
Your lack of understanding is clearly he issue

There's your problem - see, you are doing a dishonest bait and switch.

You are substituting someone with a CCP with 'An Average Yokel'.

Now, sure if it was some random off the street, you'd have a point, but it's not - it's someone who has gone through the time and effort to obtain a Concealed Carry Permit, to assume that such a person wouldn't either shoot regularly for recreation or for proficiency or wouldn't consider undergoing additional training.

Further to that, someone who has obtain a CCP is likely to have considered the scenario of 'What if it happens to me?' - which anecdotally can have a big impact on performance in a high-stress situation.

US Cops are a little different from NZ insofar as in most jurisdictions, they have sufficient rights to train privately with their Service Weapon, but that doesn't happen in NZ (not anymore, thanks Bancinda).

[R650R]

https://youtu.be/f5XMCHmzUoA

[pritch]

You are substituting someone with a CCP with 'An Average Yokel'.


No he's not. They are one and the same. CCP requirements vary from state to state, if they actually have any. Still, the psychological understanding doesn't come with the permit. The same lack of understnding I saw with the Police training I witnessed here. Then there was the Special tactics Group... I'd laugh but it was tragic.

[TheDemonLord]

Good guy with a Gun.

What an interesting set of Quotes you've given - particularly this one:

"In a 2015 study using data from the FBI and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, for example, researchers at Boston Children's Hospital and Harvard University reported that firearm assaults were 6.8 times more common in the states with the most guns versus those with the least. Also in 2015 a combined analysis of 15 different studies found that people who had access to firearms at home were nearly twice as likely to be murdered as people who did not. "

There's a couple of bits in that excerpt that sounded quite curious... So I went looking for the source and when reading the source, I came across this:


Of the 15 studies included in the meta-analysis, the only one that did not find a statistically meaningful increase in the odds of death associated with access to firearms was from New Zealand, where guns are much less available than they are in the United States

Bearing in mind this was in 2015, when we still had access to those Eeeeevil Semi-Autos.

Also interesting in that study, is that it doesn't say 'Twice as likely to be murdered', it says 'Twice as likely to be killed', Why killed instead of Murdered?

Because it included Suicides in those stats.

And seeing as we are citing CDC - Any comments about the 4-6 million Crimes stopped by Armed citizen Intervention?

[TheDemonLord]

No he's not. They are one and the same. CCP requirements vary from state to state, if they actually have any. Still, the psychological understanding doesn't come with the permit. The same lack of understnding I saw with the Police training I witnessed here. Then there was the Special tactics Group... I'd laugh but it was tragic.

That was an interesting read, there's 21 states that have Constitutional Carry, but many of them still issue a permit so that people can Carry in other states.

I agree that just having a permit doesn't imbue the owner with all the particulars, but the fact that there's a greater buy-in on the part of the individual is a factor. If you've had to put in a bit of effort to obtain something, chances are you are more personally invested in whatever that thing is.

Or to put it another way:

Who would you trust:

The NZ Cop who goes to the range once a year and squeezes of 200 rounds for certification or
The Guy that goes every month and shoots the same number of rounds at each session?

[jasonu]

An interesting example. The guy was not shot for 'smashing up' McLean Sreet, he was shot when he headed for the female cop wielding a 'weapon'. My first reaction on seeing a photo of the deceased in the paper was to thank the lord that we wouldn't have to listen to, or read, a lot of crap about racist police. The person in the photo looked white to me. OK, apparently he wasn't as white as he appeared. The PM at the time, Helen Clark, raised racism as a potential motive for the Police shooting.

I know the cop in question, although we aren't mates or anything. Appearances suggest that there's more Maori in his whakapapa than in that of the the deceased. I'm assuming the commisioner made that information available to Ms Clark because she shut up fairly quick.

I'm told there is something of a shrine at the local cemetery. I'm also told that the shotee 'nutted off' frequenty and that his family would head for the hills and hide during these episodes. Now though he's an innocent killed by racist police. Yeah right.

None of which is to say that institutional racism does not actually exist.

Yeah except you are a stupid old cunt that believes anything spoon fed to you by any trendy lefty media outlet.

[FJRider]

Or to put it another way:

Who would you trust:

The NZ Cop who goes to the range once a year and squeezes of 200 rounds for certification or
The Guy that goes every month and shoots the same number of rounds at each session?

I spent a number of years in the NZ Army. A driver by trade ... but had to qualify on the range each year (7.62 SLR's).

Each year I managed at least 17 of the 18 rounds the magazine held ... inside the man size/shape figure on the target at 100 Meters.

NZ cops would be less than 20 Meters from their target.


I know of a few that can shoot 500 rounds in a range shoot ... and only get a quarter of them on the target.

Don't underestimate the value of proper training.

[TheDemonLord]

Don't underestimate the value of proper training.

Totally Agree.

Which is the point being made:

The individual who has taken proper training, regardless of whether they have a badge or not, is going to be better than someone who hasn't had proper training (but has a current Badge)

[R650R]

I spent a number of years in the NZ Army. A driver by trade ... but had to qualify on the range each year (7.62 SLR's).

Each year I managed at least 17 of the 18 rounds the magazine held ... inside the man size/shape figure on the target at 100 Meters.

NZ cops would be less than 20 Meters from their target.


I know of a few that can shoot 500 rounds in a range shoot ... and only get a quarter of them on the target.

Don't underestimate the value of proper training.

Police are unlikely in NZ to be firing at 100m distance from a threat. With the legal vagueries of target indentification and harm to innocents in trajectory path it’s prob outside their allowed circumstances to fire.

[frogfeaturesFZR]

Wasn’t a courier driver shot and killed by mistake a while back by police ?

[FJRider]

Police are unlikely in NZ to be firing at 100m distance from a threat. With the legal vagueries of target indentification and harm to innocents in trajectory path it’s prob outside their allowed circumstances to fire.

I qualified on the 9mm Browning pistol. On a 25 meter range. The targets were the usual man size image. No problems hitting the target.

The bad guys are easy to identify ... they're the ones trying to kill YOU. If they AREN'T trying to kill you ... no need to shoot.

The funny part is ... the bad guys don't think they will be the one's actually getting shot.

The old ... "They wont pull the trigger" belief ... and the look on their face when they do :ar15: ... Classic ... :whistle:

[FJRider]

Wasn’t a courier driver shot and killed by mistake a while back by police ?

Yep ... wrong place ... wrong time. Cop missed his target.



I noticed that the Bangkok Police seemed to have a policy of keeping on shooting until the "suspect" stops ...

Either going down hit ... or stops running and puts their hands up. Collateral damage isn't a big concern there.

[R650R]

Computer game styles.... cop fires M16 through own windscreen while in pursuit whilextaking fire


https://youtu.be/S4wtHUz-xNI

[pritch]

The funny part is ... the bad guys don't think they will be the one's actually getting shot.


It's not just the bad guys.

Previously I mentioned "psychological understanding."

When the police train in this country they often use pistol club ranges. These ranges may sometimes be equipped with items that can be used as 'cover' and the police are free to utilise these. It was very obvious from the way the police used the available cover, or more accurately misused it, that the thought that they may be the shootee rather than the shooter had never seriously crossed their minds. Which is what I meant by psychological understanding.

If that understanding comes suddenly, it may be a shock.

[R650R]

How to properly interact with the police when you get pulled over with car load of guns onboard.

FFWD to 4m20 when back up arrives for the entertaining conversation


https://youtu.be/XBEQ1bM66CE

[pzkpfw]

Part of getting a firearms licence now is when the police "check your firearms security".

Does anyone know if they still do that if you simply don't own or possess an actual firearm?

(May seem a dumb question or a dumb scenario, but I can't be arsed typing all the details, sorry.)

[pritch]

Part of getting a firearms licence now is when the police "check your firearms security".

Does anyone know if they still do that if you simply don't own or possess an actual firearm?

(May seem a dumb question or a dumb scenario, but I can't be arsed typing all the details, sorry.)

There was a guy locally who had B & C endorsements, possibly also E but I don't know that for sure. He complained that he received a request to check his security after he had sold his guns and advised the Arms Officer to that effect. He explained the situation but the check went ahead.

Why? Who knows. The Police make an appointment, it's not as if someone is going to leave an illegal handgun in their safe. If they still even have a safe.

[TheDemonLord]

Part of getting a firearms licence now is when the police "check your firearms security".

Does anyone know if they still do that if you simply don't own or possess an actual firearm?

(May seem a dumb question or a dumb scenario, but I can't be arsed typing all the details, sorry.)

Not Dumb at all.

So the short answer is 'Yes'.

Longer answer: When you apply for a Firearms Licence, you have to prove that before you are granted a licence, you have somewhere safe to store your Firearms.

Several tangents:

I believe this used to be a 'A lockable container of Stout and Sturdy construction' (which could include Victorian style Wooden Gun Cabinets made of Oak or similar hard woods).

Although I've heard that nowadays, the Police for new licence holders are essentially only certifying proper Gun Safes. I could quibble about this being the Police interpreting the Law, but on the flipside, I know someone whose 'gun safe' is one of those old-school steel work lockers, and the Firearms Officer was happy with it.

Anyways, back to the answer - Once you have a Licence, they are less strict, when I moved house (which, bearing in mind, was AFTER the Chch shooting) - I submitted my forms for change of address and got an email from the Arms Officer asking if I had a Safe.

Now - I want to be clear here - I have a safe, it's been bolted to the stud in a wall, and it's in a room where the door has 2 locks on it (one at bottom and one at the top where only an adult can reach) and security studs on the jamb so that it can't be pried off the hinges. It's also in a room that is not in any of the major access ways. In short - my setup is nice and secure.

I thought then (and still do now) that whilst they were busy going around 'buying back' all the scary rifles, they couldn't be bothered to get off their arses and do their job and actually check that I had a safe and it was properly installed.

And you can bet that if someone did move house, fail to install their safe properly and the Police didn't check, it wouldn't be the Police who the Media blamed...

TL;DR - yes it's a requirement.

[TheDemonLord]

Well, I have now ticked off one of my bucket list firearms.

Have a nice, full wood, un-sporterized SMLE.

[pzkpfw]

Thanks for the answers.

I suppose it's fair enough, as once someone gets a licence then they can go buy a firearm ... and it needs to be stored safely. The law can't rely on someone saying they don't plan to actually get a firearm.

Not too bad in my case, I can afford a safe and can stick non-firearm valuables in it so it's not wasted space.

Worse for my Son, he's flatting at Uni so the safe is a stickier issue in a couple of ways.

(I was living in a Uni hostel when I first got a licence ... wonder where the safe would have been expected?!)

[TheDemonLord]

Not too bad in my case, I can afford a safe and can stick non-firearm valuables in it so it's not wasted space.

All I'm going to say is that for my Wife's Expensive rings...

[TheDemonLord]

350875

And there she is, 1945 I believe, bolt and reciever don't match, but luckily I'm not in it for that sort of collecting.

[scumdog]

And there she is, 1945 I believe, bolt and reciever don't match, but luckily I'm not in it for that sort of collecting.

Good score!:clap:

[frogfeaturesFZR]

Good stuff
Now you need to start reloading your own ammo 😁

I used the line that it’s cheaper, but then found I fired off twice as many rounds
Lucky I have a long suffering wife.

[pritch]

Good stuff
Now you need to start reloading your own ammo 😁



The bank account takes a serious hit when you are setting up to roll yer own.

[frogfeaturesFZR]

The bank account takes a serious hit when you are setting up to roll yer own.

Depends how deep ( and quickly ) you go down the rabbit hole
Lee loader, buy projectiles, primers and powder, and reload your fired cases.
I started out that way, and added bits and pieces for various calibres. :2thumbsup

[TheDemonLord]

Good stuff
Now you need to start reloading your own ammo 😁

I used the line that it’s cheaper, but then found I fired off twice as many rounds
Lucky I have a long suffering wife.

I may or may not have been scoping out an RCBS kit....

[frogfeaturesFZR]

I may or may not have been scoping out an RCBS kit....

Be warned, it becomes addictive
Actually I think it adds to the firearms ‘experience’ shooting ammo you’ve loaded yourself.
Of course, I could be justifying the money I’ve spent !:whistle:

[Swoop]

The bank account takes a serious hit when you are setting up to roll yer own.

Especially at this moment in time. Powder is difficult to find, as are projectiles.

[pritch]

I may or may not have been scoping out an RCBS kit....

No disrespect to anyone but I was told not to buy Lee. I bought RCBS.

Some fifteen years or so after I bought it I wanted to load a (very) light calibre. The ads said you could load charges of any size with the RCBS powder measure but that wasn't quite true. I wrote a letter to RCBS (this was pre Internet days) explaining my problem.

A couple of weeks later the thought occurred that I might get a reply soon. On checking the letter box there was a small but heavy package with US$15.00 worth of stamps and a Customs declaration, "Replacements under warranty, No charge." The package contained a new rotor and adjustment screw suitable for the smallest charges.

I was impressed at the time, I still am.

[pritch]

A good guy with a gun? Maybe not. The US being the US though, I suspect he's soon to be a broke guy with a gun

https://abc7.com/victorville-mall-shooting-arrest-shoplifters/11744517/

[TheDemonLord]

No disrespect to anyone but I was told not to buy Lee. I bought RCBS.

Some fifteen years or so after I bought it I wanted to load a (very) light calibre. The ads said you could load charges of any size with the RCBS powder measure but that wasn't quite true. I wrote a letter to RCBS (this was pre Internet days) explaining my problem.

A couple of weeks later the thought occurred that I might get a reply soon. On checking the letter box there was a small but heavy package with US$15.00 worth of stamps and a Customs declaration, "Replacements under warranty, No charge." The package contained a new rotor and adjustment screw suitable for the smallest charges.

I was impressed at the time, I still am.

Hmmmm that is the third strong recommendation for RCBS - so that pretty much seals the deal. It will be on my list of things to purchase in the near future.

[sugilite]

I wonder how many people Abbott's poli stunt has killed. 35,000 people declined guns after failing a background check. Now at the stroke of an egotistical polies pen, all 35000 can get a gun, including those that never applied knowing they would fail.
Poetic justice would see Abbott get 2 in the head from a psych patient just out of hospital and neighboring gun store. Unfortunately, few pollies ever face real consequences of their bullshit law changes. (missing reelection does not count as much of a consequence if their policies have killed innocent people)


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KHgaDmcrNM4

[TheDemonLord]

I wonder how many people Abbott's poli stunt has killed. 35,000 people declined guns after failing a background check. Now at the stroke of an egotistical polies pen, all 35000 can get a gun, including those that never applied knowing they would fail.
Poetic justice would see Abbott get 2 in the head from a psych patient just out of hospital and neighboring gun store. Unfortunately, few pollies ever face real consequences of their bullshit law changes. (missing reelection does not count as much of a consequence if their policies have killed innocent people)


If this is about what I think this is about, it's about Constitutional Carry without the requirement of getting CCP. In which case - both your and the videos statement isn't accurate. The rational is that if it's legal for you to own a Firearm (and pass the background checks to initially obtain it), then it's legal for you to carry it.

O'Rourke makes the point about more women killed by partners with guns - how many of those would be inside the home vs outside the home? I'm gunna hazard a guess and say 99.9999% would be inside the home, therefore the new law would have no bearing on this stat, even assuming that it was 100% effective in stopping people from illegally carrying.

[sugilite]

If this is about what I think this is about, it's about Constitutional Carry without the requirement of getting CCP. In which case - both your and the videos statement isn't accurate. The rational is that if it's legal for you to own a Firearm (and pass the background checks to initially obtain it), then it's legal for you to carry it.

O'Rourke makes the point about more women killed by partners with guns - how many of those would be inside the home vs outside the home? I'm gunna hazard a guess and say 99.9999% would be inside the home, therefore the new law would have no bearing on this stat, even assuming that it was 100% effective in stopping people from illegally carrying.

The trouble with gloss is that it is completely transparent and see through. Interesting you support no background checks letting 35000 people previously declined to arm up - thus supporting more needless gun deaths.

[TheDemonLord]

The trouble with gloss is that it is completely transparent and see through. Interesting you support no background checks letting 35000 people previously declined to arm up - thus supporting more needless gun deaths.

It's not Gloss though - it's trying to dishonestly equate 2 things:

A Background check to purchase a Firearm is not a background check for a CCW Permit.

If you already have the gun, you're already armed up.

[sugilite]

It's not Gloss though - it's trying to dishonestly equate 2 things:

A Background check to purchase a Firearm is not a background check for a CCW Permit.

If you already have the gun, you're already armed up.
Still leads to more death, people deemed not safe to have a CCW now being blessed to do so. Police asked him not to do it, but Abbott still went ahead. More deaths, and if course no accountability for the death dealing pollie. Business as usual.

[sugilite]

I cannot understand why Abbott wanted to make guns even more accessible in Texas, well apart from pandering to potential voters.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nwsFjKljhJ0

[pritch]

Interesting to note that the NRA, which does everything it can to facilitate "freedom" with guns, once again bans guns from its conference.

[TheDemonLord]

Interesting to note that the NRA, which does everything it can to facilitate "freedom" with guns, once again bans guns from its conference.

Let's try that again, only this time with the truth.

It's not the NRA, it's the Secret Service.
And it's because a former president is giving a speech.

[pritch]

Let's try that again, only this time with the truth.

It's not the NRA, it's the Secret Service.
And it's because a former president is giving a speech.

Are you saying guns are permitted? If they are banned, it is the truth.

[TheDemonLord]

Are you saying guns are permitted? If they are banned, it is the truth.

I'm saying that it's not the NRA that banned them, as you stated:

"... The NRA ... Once again bans guns..."

This is an untrue statement.

It should read:

"The Secret Service has banned guns because of blanket rules around sitting and former presidents"

But I guess that doesn't evoke the desired feelings of hypocrisy.

[sugilite]

Musk is bang on with this one.
https://www.thestreet.com/technology/elon-musk-chooses-sides-on-gun-control-debate

[TheDemonLord]

Musk is bang on with this one.
https://www.thestreet.com/technology/elon-musk-chooses-sides-on-gun-control-debate

I agree, Assault Rifles should require proper checks.

Good thing the AR isn't an Assault Rifle...


Okay, Pedantic point-scoring aside - Very few 'pro gun' people that I've interacted with (especially those from the US) object to Background checks, however when I've talked to them there's a theme that keeps coming up:

1: What the average person considers a 'Background check' and what is pushed for in the law are often vastly different
2: It's unclear at best how such a law would work in Private Sales


Also - Remember when Elon made a Flamethower to make a point, cause I do....

[sugilite]

Very few 'pro gun' people that I've interacted with (especially those from the US) object to Background checks
Except the repuplican party. The party of scumbags that are more than happy to have children going to school to get murdered. If course unless it were to happen to their children, then background checks would be approved yesterday I would bet. If I hear another fucken US pollie utter thoughts and prayers. <_<

https://thehill.com/news/house/3501301-here-are-the-gun-bills-stalled-in-congress/

[husaberg]

Are you saying guns are permitted? If they are banned, it is the truth.

Why not ban the people......
https://www.azquotes.com/picture-quotes/quote-i-keep-hearing-this-expletive-thing-that-guns-don-t-kill-people-but-people-kill-people-ozzy-osbourne-50-25-07.jpg

[TheDemonLord]

Except the repuplican party. The party of scumbags that are more than happy to have children going to school to get murdered. If course unless it were to happen to their children, then background checks would be approved yesterday I would bet. If I hear another fucken US pollie utter thoughts and prayers. <_<

https://thehill.com/news/house/3501301-here-are-the-gun-bills-stalled-in-congress/

Okay - so remember what I posted, before your article:


2: It's unclear at best how such a law would work in Private Sales

"But unlicensed gun sellers — like those frequently operating at gun shows or on the internet — are not required to conduct the same screenings."

AKA Private Sales. Now, put aside the 'Gun Show Loophole' (which is just a marketing term) - in the US if Person A wants to sell Person B a Firearm, they don't have to do a background check. Let's assume the law comes into effect, how does Person A run these checks on Person B? What are the privacy concerns for Person B?

In NZ, by having a Licensing system, we kinda bypass most (but not all...) of these problems. There is (for example) nothing to stop someone who is licensed from selling to someone who isn't (as we've seen multiple times by people doing sock-puppet purchases) - but for the LFO, by sighting a license, I've effectively done the background check (or at least, a background check up to when the license was issued).

I'll admit I've not read all the details of all the different draft proposed universal background checks - however, given how the discussions I've had with my Yank friends, it's almost always that they come up with some weird and wacky system that is either overly tyrannical or overlying invasive to try and get private sales to do background checks.

[sugilite]

I'll admit I've not read all the details of all the different draft proposed universal background checks - however, given how the discussions I've had with my Yank friends, it's almost always that they come up with some weird and wacky system that is either overly tyrannical or overlying invasive to try and get private sales to do background checks.
Yeah, much better to not work together and just stand by why children get murdered at schools pretty much every week. Thoughts and prayers to the rescue.

[TheDemonLord]

Yeah, much better to not work together and just stand by why children get murdered at schools pretty much every week. Thoughts and prayers to the rescue.

That's one perspective.

There's another perspective that one side isn't acting in good faith, having a fundamental problem with the US Constitution.

And an even wilder perspective would be to point out that 'mass shootings', make up a small percentage of Firearm murders in the US, to the tune of around 300 vs 15,000.

Most of which happen in heavily democrat areas (Chicago, California etc) due to rampant crime and gun laws that target the law abiding citizen.

Now, who do we know that is very left wing, introduced 'strict' new gun laws in response to a tragedy and has advocated being 'kind', only to have a significant increase in gun crime?

Almost like there's a causal link...

[Kickaha]

Most of which happen in heavily democrat areas (Chicago, California etc) due to rampant crime and gun laws that target the law abiding citizen.


Most of which are committed with guns trafficked in from areas with lax gun laws

[TheDemonLord]

Most of which are committed with guns trafficked in from areas with lax gun laws

A line I've heard often, but the data that backs it up isn't quite so clear. Now, I'm not saying that it doesn't happen - but when the claim is that someone in New York is going all the way to Texas or Florida to do a straw purchase, when there are a number of states in between with laws that aren't as strict as NY, it makes me skeptical.

Especially when often the focus is 'against' Red states with constitutionally based Firearm laws. Almost like there is a bias or agenda in the research.

However, as experience in London has shown (as a very good example) if you remove the Guns, Inner city gangs will find other ways to be violent towards each other.

[YellowDog]

A line I've heard often, but the data that backs it up isn't quite so clear. Now, I'm not saying that it doesn't happen - but when the claim is that someone in New York is going all the way to Texas or Florida to do a straw purchase, when there are a number of states in between with laws that aren't as strict as NY, it makes me skeptical.

Especially when often the focus is 'against' Red states with constitutionally based Firearm laws. Almost like there is a bias or agenda in the research.

However, as experience in London has shown (as a very good example) if you remove the Guns, Inner city gangs will find other ways to be violent towards each other.

Culturally, suggesting that an 18 year old Texan shouldn't be able to buy guns unhindered is pointless. They just claim: "People die every day everywhere". The historical influence from their Cowboys and Indians heritage ain't gonna change. However there are many states in the US of a less third-world culture and that should present a good starting point for a 'lead by example' initiative.

I'm in London ATM. There's very little gun crime however knife crime has escalated hugely.

[TheDemonLord]

Culturally, suggesting that an 18 year old Texan shouldn't be able to buy guns unhindered is pointless. They just claim: "People die every day everywhere". The historical influence from their Cowboys and Indians heritage ain't gonna change. However there are many states in the US of a less third-world culture and that should present a good starting point for a 'lead by example' initiative.

The problem that you will face is that the US look to those other states and other parts of the world and saw just how quickly their freedoms were revoked during Covid. That, if anything, provided the strongest rebuttal and proved that a well armed society is a free society.

I'm still waiting on the facts though - I've heard from sources that he did pass background checks, I've heard from other sources that he had a history of Violence.

I also saw a quote from his Mother, and suffice to say - I think I know one factor based on that.


I'm in London ATM. There's very little gun crime however knife crime has escalated hugely.

Exactly, it's not the tools, it's the people. Take away Guns, they'll use Knives. Take away Knives, they'll use Trucks. Take away Trucks, they'll use Fertilizer.

Any sufficiently motivated person will find a way to inflict mass carnage.

[sugilite]

This 4 star admiral has some interesting things to say about the gun issue in the states, also some interesting comments on Nato and what is going on at the moment.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kr8DyojB-zY

[TheDemonLord]

This 4 star admiral has some interesting things to say about the gun issue in the states, also some interesting comments on Nato and what is going on at the moment.

I would reply with 3 words to his 3 words.

'Read the Constitution'

and then remind him of the Oath he swore when he enlisted:


I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic

[sugilite]

I would reply with 3 words to his 3 words.

'Read the Constitution'

and then remind him of the Oath he swore when he enlisted:

I'm sure that the 4 star admiral and previous grand poobah of NATO would warmly welcome your advice. :whistle:

It is almost like he is saying that the constitution in it's current form has become an enormous problem. A problem the right do not want to fix. The right, including yourself it would appear, essentially support children getting murdered week in week out.
I wonder if an 18 year old managed to bust into congress or the senate and gun down 20 or 30 of them every few weeks or so, I wonder how fast the constitution might get amended then?

[TheDemonLord]

I'm sure that the 4 star admiral and previous grand poobah of NATO would warmly welcome your advice. :whistle:

It is almost like he is saying that the constitution in it's current form has become an enormous problem. A problem the right do not want to fix. The right, including yourself it would appear, essentially support children getting murdered week in week out.
I wonder if an 18 year old managed to bust into congress or the senate and gun down 20 or 30 of them every few weeks or so, I wonder how fast the constitution might get amended then?

I think the bigger question is how much better would the country be run.....

You say the Right do not want to fix it - I think it's more accurate to say that the Right reject the assertion that the change being requested will fix it and furthermore, it cannot be fixed without an Amendment.

Show me the Democrats that have put forward an attempt to amend the second amendment, if not - then they are being dishonest.

And again - there's no guarantee that banning the latest Weapon du Jour is going to solve the issue - plenty of malevolent people have used alternate means to commit mass murder.

[sugilite]

You say the Right do not want to fix it - I think it's more accurate to say that the Right reject the assertion that the change being requested will fix it and furthermore, it cannot be fixed without an Amendment.
So what are the right proposing to make meaningful change? They are very good at blocking, are they as good at fixing?
In More Than 100 GOP midterm Ads This Year: Guns, Guns, Guns. For Republicans, brandishing firepower is a visual shorthand for hard-core conservatism.


Show me the Democrats that have put forward an attempt to amend the second amendment, if not - then they are being dishonest.
Dunno, I see any and every option they put forward being swatted down by the right, with seemingly no meaningful fix of their own being touted. I've read 90% of polled population want some sort of restrictions put in place. It is almost like the NRA political donations are causing some sort of conflict of interest to go against 90% of the population. :pinch:



And again - there's no guarantee that banning the latest Weapon du Jour is going to solve the issue - plenty of malevolent people have used alternate means to commit mass murder.
The Americans have bought weekly mass murder upon themselves. Constantly doing nothing has created this. So what, you are saying, continue to do nothing as there is no guarantees it will stop, so keep doing nothing. This is why I say, essentially you support the status quo of children being constantly murdered.

No rebuttal on my how fast would the amendment would get changed if it were the pollies getting shot up on a weekly basis by 18 year olds running around with AR's 3 years before they can legally buy a beer?

The thing that really sticks in my craw, is watching the likes of Abbott visit the school, and do a bunch of postured press conferences. Seriously, it makes me want to vomit.

What might the supreme court be looking at doing in this time of crisis?
https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/supreme-court-verge-expanding-second-amendment-gun-rights

If they really do this - it just supports my accusation they are nothing more than pollies in drag doing their parties bidding. You can come in and wank on about how they should be allowed to carry guns as per the amendment blah blah. Seems to me gun fans like yourself are fine with wholesale murder, just as long as it does not directly involve you or your families.
This massive disconnect within humanity has manifested into government sanctioned country wide mass murder in the USA with no end in sight.

[TheDemonLord]

So what are the right proposing to make meaningful change? They are very good at blocking, are they as good at fixing?
In More Than 100 GOP midterm Ads This Year: Guns, Guns, Guns. For Republicans, brandishing firepower is a visual shorthand for hard-core conservatism.

It's almost like there's been a whole bunch of Left Wing Riots, Defund the Police and an assault on Personal Liberties.

So yes, Guns Guns Guns because Force is the ultimate Arbiter of Right and Wrong.


Dunno, I see any and every option they put forward being swatted down by the right, with seemingly no meaningful fix of their own being touted. I've read 90% of polled population want some sort of restrictions put in place. It is almost like the NRA political donations are causing some sort of conflict of interest to go against 90% of the population. :pinch:

Okay - let's take that on face value - the Right have enough Electoral support to Swat down every option and this action does not cause them to loose their voterbase.

What does that say about 90% of the Population?

Secondly - they are trying every way possible except for the only way that is honest. They are seeking to undermine, or evade 2A - however it was written to be unambigous - Shall not be Infringed.

And the Dems know that if they try and touch the Bill of Rights, they will go down faster than a Lead Balloon.


The Americans have bought weekly mass murder upon themselves. Constantly doing nothing has created this. So what, you are saying, continue to do nothing as there is no guarantees it will stop, so keep doing nothing. This is why I say, essentially you support the status quo of children being constantly murdered.

Hold up - let's look at the UK - You have Hungerford - so they Banned Semi-Autos.

Then you had Dunblaine, so they Banned Pistols

Then you had Cumbria

Then you had Plymouth

Now, the Death Toll for Hungerford was 16, approximately the same for Dunblaine, Cumbria (which used a Bolt Action and a Shotgun) was 12, and Plymouth was 5.

12 isn't too far away from 16 - banning the type of Gun didn't stop an individual with malevolent intent from carrying it out. And that's not even the greatest loss of life - Terrorist Bombings come to mind.

During the same time from Dunblaine, NZ maintained a large supply of Semi-Autos and didn't have an issue till 2019 (when the Police didn't do their Job).

My point is - Banning does not fix the problem. However - some things that are of interest - How many of these people had diagnosed Mental issues, how many were on Medication? How many felt rejected by society and decided to burn the literal village down?


No rebuttal on my how fast would the amendment would get changed if it were the pollies getting shot up on a weekly basis by 18 year olds running around with AR's 3 years before they can legally buy a beer?

But it's not - Rifles (of which the AR is classified) is used in a fraction of Gun Violence in the US - 2% of all Homocides and it's like 300-400 out of 15,000 for Gun Murders.


The thing that really sticks in my craw, is watching the likes of Abbott visit the school, and do a bunch of postured press conferences. Seriously, it makes me want to vomit.

Just like how I felt when Jacinda did the same.


What might the supreme court be looking at doing in this time of crisis?
https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/supreme-court-verge-expanding-second-amendment-gun-rights

This comes back to my point about Roe V Wade - whether you agree or not with it (In this case the NZ Lockdowns, Vaccine Passports and other wholesale abuse of Ancient Rights and Liberties have put me firmly on the 2A train) - The Law is what it is - and it is the Justice's job to uphold the Law.


If they really do this - it just supports my accusation they are nothing more than pollies in drag doing their parties bidding. You can come in and wank on about how they should be allowed to carry guns as per the amendment blah blah.

Well, no, that's exactly it - if they Law says they are allowed to, then they are allowed to - if you don't think they should - then change the Law - but no one is saying that cause they know it would be suicide.


Seems to me gun fans like yourself are fine with wholesale murder, just as long as it does not directly involve you or your families.
This massive disconnect within humanity has manifested into government sanctioned country wide mass murder in the USA with no end in sight.

I'd be in favour of greater numbers of licenced Firearm owners who were properly vetted by the Police and whose armed resistance provided a bulwark against Government Encroachment.

Again, Equal and Opposite reaction - you piss on my rights, I'm going to get more passionate about defending them.

[Kickaha]

Secondly - they are trying every way possible except for the only way that is honest. They are seeking to undermine, or evade 2A - however it was written to be unambigous - Shall not be Infringed.

There are multiple types of people who aren't allowed to possess firearms in the USA so the whole shall not be infringed is a load of crap




My point is - Banning does not fix the problem.


They're not talking about banning them

[TheDemonLord]

There are multiple types of people who aren't allowed to possess firearms in the USA so the whole shall not be infringed is a load of crap

Mainly Felons and people with histories of Violence.

Felons have generally been excluded from certain rights and protections, Histories of Violence is more nuanced.


they're not talking about banning them

They've been wanting to Ban scary black rifles in the US since the 1980s.

[Kickaha]

Mainly Felons and people with histories of Violence.

Felons have generally been excluded from certain rights and protections, Histories of Violence is more nuanced.



What part of "shall not be infringed" don't you understand

[TheDemonLord]

What part of "shall not be infringed" don't you understand

Well hold up, There's a whole lineage of English Legal history and precedent that stands behind the Constitution. It is a codified Social Contract.

When you imprison someone, for example, they no longer have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The right of Liberty has been taken away. It is on this basis that certain rights (The right to vote, Right to own Firearms) are revoked once someone has breached the Social Contract that exists between 'We, The People' and The United States Government.

If you, the individual, have broken your side of the bargain first - then it is inline with both the Constitution and nearly 1,000 years of tradition that some rights are revoked.

This is no different from when the Barons of the Norman era had to forfeit their land when convicted of a Crime.

[sugilite]

Just like how I felt when Jacinda did the same.
Why? Unlike Abbott and Ilk, she actually did something. Furthermore, the Islamic community very much appreciated her sentiments. Youtube scumbag Abbotts school visit, trust me, it was not well received.




This comes back to my point about Roe V Wade - whether you agree or not with it (In this case the NZ Lockdowns, Vaccine Passports and other wholesale abuse of Ancient Rights and Liberties have put me firmly on the 2A train) - The Law is what it is - and it is the Justice's job to uphold the Law. Well, no, that's exactly it - if they Law says they are allowed to, then they are allowed to - if you don't think they should - then change the Law - but no one is saying that cause they know it would be suicide.

Boom! You walked right into that one - The pollies that should be making the changes refuse to do so.




you piss on my rights, I'm going to get more passionate about defending them.

Have a good hard look at the photo below. What about their rights to have a life? Heartless gun toten fucks don't give a shit about their rights. I sure don't see any concern from you about them.

https://e3.365dm.com/22/05/1600x900/skynews-texas-school-shooting_5784701.jpg

[TheDemonLord]

Why? Unlike Abbott and Ilk, she actually did something. Furthermore, the Islamic community very much appreciated her sentiments. Youtube scumbag Abbotts school visit, trust me, it was not well received.

She was practically falling over herself that now she had a reason to ban those Evil Guns. Why? Because it was standing on corpses to push an agenda. And nothing she had done prior or since has convinced me that she really does care about anything other than following her Agenda.


Boom! You walked right into that one - The pollies that should be making the changes refuse to do so.

Hold up - why has none of the Politicians, Left or Right - raised the question of Amending the 2nd Amendment. It's within their power to do so...

Because it would be political suicide in the US - which means one thing - there is not the backing of the populace to do so.

And whilst it IS the Law, the Supreme Court is within their rights to take up a Textualist interpretation, referencing things such as the Federalist Papers and to expand Gun rights, in keeping with 2A.


Have a good hard look at the photo below. What about their rights to have a life? Heartless gun toten fucks don't give a shit about their rights. I sure don't see any concern from you about them.


The Government did not infringe on their right to life.

Take the core of your argument - I could probably pull up endless pictures of all the Children who died due to Car Accidents - and make the argument that to save lives we must ban cars.

Or Bicycles
Or Swimming Pools

All of which kill more kids per year than 'Mass Shootings'

What about the rights of nearly 4,000,000 Americans a year to not be a victim of a Crime due to Armed Citizen intervention?

It's not heartless - banning the Tool does not stop the Crime. I've provided multiple examples from the UK showing that Mass Shootings despite numerous gun Law changes have still happened. I've provided examples from other countries with the same access to the class of Firearm that do not appear to have this issue.

The evidence that is coming out on this one, like Chch - is that the Authorities made multiple major fuck-ups that lead to this.

[onearmedbandit]

S

Take the core of your argument - I could probably pull up endless pictures of all the Children who died due to Car Accidents - and make the argument that to save lives we must ban cars.

Or Bicycles
Or Swimming Pools

All of which kill more kids per year than 'Mass Shootings'



Car accidents
Bicycle accidents
Drowning accidents
Mass shooting accidents?

[TheDemonLord]

Car accidents
Bicycle accidents
Drowning accidents
Mass shooting accidents?

Accident or intentional - they are still dead - and isn't that what we are concerned about?

And in this case, there's a number of details that have been released, that if true (I'm still reserving judgement) strongly point to the issue being with Authorities response (or more correctly - Lack thereof), and I'm not just talking about the Police actions.

[pete376403]

Accident or intentional - they are still dead - and isn't that what we are concerned about?

And in this case, there's a number of details that have been released, that if true (I'm still reserving judgement) strongly point to the issue being with Authorities response (or more correctly - Lack thereof), and I'm not just talking about the Police actions.

Wonder if you would feel this way if it was your partner and child/ren who got slaughtered. Good dinner time discussion for you with your family tonight "you'll be pleased to know I value the right to have and use guns over your right to life" - let us know that goes.

[pritch]

I'm sure that the 4 star admiral and previous grand poobah of NATO would warmly welcome your advice. :whistle:


I'm sure that the Admiral is aware of what's in the constitution. Particularly the 2nd Amendment.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

The RWNJs always point at just the last part of that sentence while ignoring the first part. An eighteen year old, who on his eighteenth birthday, buys two AR15 type weapons and a load of ammunition on time payment, can not by any definition be considered "A well regulated militia".

Sheer idiocy.


As mentioned elsewhere here the local Uvalde cops, on the advice of their lawyers, are pleading the Fifth Amendment and will not cooperate with the State investigation.

Nothing shonky there then.

[Kickaha]

Well hold up, There's a whole lineage of English Legal history and precedent that stands behind the Constitution. It is a codified Social Contract.

When you imprison someone, for example, they no longer have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The right of Liberty has been taken away. It is on this basis that certain rights (The right to vote, Right to own Firearms) are revoked once someone has breached the Social Contract that exists between 'We, The People' and The United States Government.

If you, the individual, have broken your side of the bargain first - then it is inline with both the Constitution and nearly 1,000 years of tradition that some rights are revoked.

This is no different from when the Barons of the Norman era had to forfeit their land when convicted of a Crime.

The very words "Shall not be infringed" negate all that bunch of waffle above, it doesn't say Shall not be infringed unless you commit a crime or breach a non existent social contract or anything else we don't like



Hold up - why has none of the Politicians, Left or Right - raised the question of Amending the 2nd Amendment. It's within their power to do so...

Because it would be political suicide in the US - which means one thing - there is not the backing of the populace to do so.


It doesn't mean that at all it's because it means the politicians going up against their lords and masters in the NRA who have bought and paid for a great many of them like your mate Donald to the tune tens of millions of dollars

[sugilite]

Accident or intentional - they are still dead - and isn't that what we are concerned about?
Well demonstratively not you with your attempts of "look over here" trivialization's - making out accidents are the same as outright murder.
And as for your notion that Jacindas sole reason for her comforting that traumatized community was to get rid of guns. Seriously, grow the fuck up. A massive majority of the NZ Political parties supported the move, it was far from being just Jacinda. The parties actually worked together. Somthing the US could learn from the NZ Pollies. When shit gets real, real shit needs to get done.



"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

The RWNJs always point at just the last part of that sentence while ignoring the first part. An eighteen year old, who on his eighteenth birthday, buys two AR15 type weapons and a load of ammunition on time payment, can not by any definition be considered "A well regulated militia".

Sheer idiocy.


Indeed, even the smallest of proposed restrictions become an instant wah, waah, waaaaaaah. As evidenced in this very thread.

[TheDemonLord]

Wonder if you would feel this way if it was your partner and child/ren who got slaughtered. Good dinner time discussion for you with your family tonight "you'll be pleased to know I value the right to have and use guns over your right to life" - let us know that goes.

Let me ask this:

Anyone who has lost a loved one in a Car Crash, or as the result of a malicious act - say a drunk Driver:

Do you still Drive and do you seek to ban Cars?

If so, then your reasons for doing so are the same reasons that I do so.

[TheDemonLord]

I'm sure that the Admiral is aware of what's in the constitution. Particularly the 2nd Amendment.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

The RWNJs always point at just the last part of that sentence while ignoring the first part. An eighteen year old, who on his eighteenth birthday, buys two AR15 type weapons and a load of ammunition on time payment, can not by any definition be considered "A well regulated militia".

Sheer idiocy.

You'll need to take that line of argument up with the Founding Fathers and the Supreme Court Justices - they've regularly re-affirmed that the Militia refers to an individual.

I'm sorry that this is a massive hole in the argument you are trying to make.


As mentioned elsewhere here the local Uvalde cops, on the advice of their lawyers, are pleading the Fifth Amendment and will not cooperate with the State investigation.

Nothing shonky there then.

As Shonky one might say, as someone who can't pay their phone bill being able to spend thousands on high-end ARs on credit.

[TheDemonLord]

Well demonstratively not you with your attempts of "look over here" trivialization's - making out accidents are the same as outright murder.
And as for your notion that Jacindas sole reason for her comforting that traumatized community was to get rid of guns. Seriously, grow the fuck up. A massive majority of the NZ Political parties supported the move, it was far from being just Jacinda. The parties actually worked together. Somthing the US could learn from the NZ Pollies. When shit gets real, real shit needs to get done.

That wasn't her Sole reason, but she couldn't wait to do it. Remember how she changed the submissions process so that there wasn't the proper time to have Public debate on it.

The other parties voted for it because they are a bunch of feckless cowards. NZ First were drummed out of Parliament for it and National forgot they were in Opposition.


Indeed, even the smallest of proposed restrictions become an instant wah, waah, waaaaaaah. As evidenced in this very thread.

And for good reason. Firstly because there's a law that prohibits such restrictions, but secondly because it is the Check and Balance against Government overreach. Given how the likes of Aus, NZ, UK, Canada etc. had tyrannical lockdown rules - the US rightly goes 'And this is why we are armed'

[TheDemonLord]

The very words "Shall not be infringed" negate all that bunch of waffle above, it doesn't say Shall not be infringed unless you commit a crime or breach a non existent social contract or anything else we don't like

The Constitution IS a Social Contract... It exists between the People and the Government.

But furthermore - you are trying to ignore the context in which the document was written, what was meant. In this respect, there was a long legal tradition from England that the Founding Fathers were immersed in, I believe that Magna Carta was cited by one of the first Supreme Court Justices for that reason.

Even though Magna Carta is not mentioned anywhere in the Constitution.

As an example - today we might thing that Execution is a Cruel Punishment, and try to point to the prohibition against Cruel and Unusual Punishment in the Law. The problem is that at the time of writing, Execution was not considered Cruel or Unusual, therefore it is not prohibited by that law, as the founding Fathers intended it.

So when a Felon commits a crime, they forfeit some of their rights in line with English Jurisprudence of the time, and so the intent of that this isn't extended to convicted Felons is correct.


It doesn't mean that at all it's because it means the politicians going up against their lords and masters in the NRA who have bought and paid for a great many of them like your mate Donald to the tune tens of millions of dollars

So, you want me to believe that the entire Democrat party, which is seeking these changes in opposition to the likes of the NRA, won't say they want to repeal 2A because the NRA are funding them?

Yeah, because that makes sense... not.

[pritch]

You'll need to take that line of argument up with the Founding Fathers and the Supreme Court Justices - they've regularly re-affirmed that the Militia refers to an individual.


Complete bollocks of course. If enough Yanks wise up the government and the SCOTUS will change. Sadly the Republican policy of keeping the citizenry stupid is working better than they could have imagined.

[pete376403]

Let me ask this:

Anyone who has lost a loved one in a Car Crash, or as the result of a malicious act - say a drunk Driver:

Do you still Drive and do you seek to ban Cars?

If so, then your reasons for doing so are the same reasons that I do so.

Even the drunkest driver is unlikely to go out on the road asking "how many people can I kill tonight". Being drunk/drugged does not in any way excuse what they did, but its unlikely there was any malice behind their actions.

How did the dinner conversation go?

[Kickaha]

The Constitution IS a Social Contract... It exists between the People and the Government.

But furthermore - you are trying to ignore the context in which the document was written, what was meant. In this respect, there was a long legal tradition from England that the Founding Fathers were immersed in, I believe that Magna Carta was cited by one of the first Supreme Court Justices for that reason.

Even though Magna Carta is not mentioned anywhere in the Constitution.

As an example - today we might thing that Execution is a Cruel Punishment, and try to point to the prohibition against Cruel and Unusual Punishment in the Law. The problem is that at the time of writing, Execution was not considered Cruel or Unusual, therefore it is not prohibited by that law, as the founding Fathers intended it.

So when a Felon commits a crime, they forfeit some of their rights in line with English Jurisprudence of the time, and so the intent of that this isn't extended to convicted Felons is correct.



So, you want me to believe that the entire Democrat party, which is seeking these changes in opposition to the likes of the NRA, won't say they want to repeal 2A because the NRA are funding them?

Yeah, because that makes sense... not.

"Shall not be infringed" is a pretty clear statement, one which you are trying to ignore by talking a whole lot of bullshit, show me in the constitution, in 2a were it allows exceptions for any reason and if an exception is made to decline gun ownership for any reason then it can be done for anyone

Look up the funding from the NRA for the politicians that oppose any gun control, there's tens of millions of dollars spread around

[TheDemonLord]

"Shall not be infringed" is a pretty clear statement, one which you are trying to ignore by talking a whole lot of bullshit, show me in the constitution, in 2a were it allows exceptions for any reason and if an exception is made to decline gun ownership for any reason then it can be done for anyone

Read in the context of the 18th century legal traditions.

That is why, for example, a Well Regulated Militia extends to the Individual (despite Pritch's protestations).

I'm not trying to ignore - I'm pointing to the exact reasoning used by the Supreme Court as to how it should be interpreted - and forfeiture of Rights and Property for breaking the Law is a principle that existed in British Legal tradition (and therefore American Legal tradition) long before the constitution.

So denying a Felon the right is not the exception you are making it out to be.


Look up the funding from the NRA for the politicians that oppose any gun control, there's tens of millions of dollars spread around

And I'm sure I could find tens of millions of dollars spent by various Left-Wing 'institutions' spent on promoting Gun Control.

[TheDemonLord]

Complete bollocks of course. If enough Yanks wise up the government and the SCOTUS will change. Sadly the Republican policy of keeping the citizenry stupid is working better than they could have imagined.

It really isn't. Have you read the Federalist papers, where Jefferson talks about the Arming of the Populace and how being armed is integral to being able to defend yourself.

What you are advocating is the position of RBG had - which is an interpretive view of the Constitution, whereby any position can be advocated for, so long as the words are re-defined in the common parlance, thus rendering the protections the Constitution gives null and void.

But I agree - if enough people vote for someone who says they will repeal 2A, then it will change.

[TheDemonLord]

Even the drunkest driver is unlikely to go out on the road asking "how many people can I kill tonight". Being drunk/drugged does not in any way excuse what they did, but its unlikely there was any malice behind their actions.

I agree there is a difference in intent, however getting behind the wheel of a Car drunk is the same as firing blindly into a crowd of people - sure you may not have intended to kill that specific person, but it's such reckless behavior that you know someone might get killed


How did the dinner conversation go?

Deliciously.

[pritch]

It really isn't. Have you read the Federalist papers, where Jefferson talks about the Arming of the Populace and how being armed is integral to being able to defend yourself.

What you are advocating is the position of RBG had - which is an interpretive view of the Constitution, whereby any position can be advocated for, so long as the words are re-defined in the common parlance, thus rendering the protections the Constitution gives null and void.

But I agree - if enough people vote for someone who says they will repeal 2A, then it will change.

If you read past the obvious sentence there are details about the militia. It is formed, funded and organised by Congress. It's not any morbidly obese fuckwits dressing up and playing soldiers to protect themselves from the evil government. Which seems to be a popular view among the illiterati.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MKrFQVuB1iU

[TheDemonLord]

If you read past the obvious sentence there are details about the militia. It is formed, funded and organised by Congress. It's not any morbidly obese fuckwits dressing up and playing soldiers to protect themselves from the evil government. Which seems to be a popular view among the illiterati.

No, it's not.

Again, you are using the modern interpretation of the word. Not the original meaning.

Militia, at the time, referred to Able Bodied Men. Bonus for Kickaha - this is why 18 years olds can buy Guns, but 10 year olds can't.

And Well Regulated means that they are prepared to do their duty - e.g. 'playing soldiers to protect themselves from the evil government'.

You can try and argue this and say I'm wrong, the problem is that the weight of the Constitution, the weight of the surrounding documents, the weight of the Supreme Court opinion is all on my side.

This is why the only honest option is to advocate a repeal of 2A - but no one wants to do that because it would be suicide politically.

[sugilite]

That wasn't her Sole reason, but she couldn't wait to do it. Remember how she changed the submissions process so that there wasn't the proper time to have Public debate on it.
Reminds me of national constantly pushing shit through in the last hour before xmas break. It needed to be done and it was. I at least 70% disapprove of Adern/labors actions, or rather inaction's. But for this issue, I 100% approved.


The other parties voted for it because they are a bunch of feckless cowards. NZ First were drummed out of Parliament for it and National forgot they were in Opposition.
They voted for it because it was the right thing to do, and it followed general public consensus. I have no doubt it caused an uproar in gun circles, but for the vast rest of the population it was welcomed, hence barely a ripple of discontent outside the bang bang circles. And just because a political party is in opposition, it does not mean they must fight every proposal put forward by the other team no matter what. This is your trumpisym coming through.


And for good reason. Firstly because there's a law that prohibits such restrictions, but secondly because it is the Check and Balance against Government overreach. Given how the likes of Aus, NZ, UK, Canada etc. had tyrannical lockdown rules - the US rightly goes 'And this is why we are armed'
Once Trump was dispatched along with his the virus will go away do nothing approach, I must of missed the part where the population formed a militia as per 2e and rose up against the Biden Government and it's mandates. :laugh: For me, this last paragraph of yours completes your transition to Right Wing Nut Job. (though in truth, you were already 99.9% there with your "words do not matter" statement). From this time forward, my responses to your posts will be greatly diminished as your just to far gone to warrant my time. If I want to interact with a RWNJ, I'll stick to my pithy one line hit jobs in the fox news comments section. They LOVE me there :love:

[TheDemonLord]

Reminds me of national constantly pushing shit through in the last hour before xmas break. It needed to be done and it was. I at least 70% disapprove of Adern/labors actions, or rather inaction's. But for this issue, I 100% approved.

Do I need to roll out my 'Fuck National' Quotes again?

And you're entitled to approve of it.


They voted for it because it was the right thing to do, and it followed general public consensus. I have no doubt it caused an uproar in gun circles, but for the vast rest of the population it was welcomed, hence barely a ripple of discontent outside the bang bang circles. And just because a political party is in opposition, it does not mean they must fight every proposal put forward by the other team no matter what. This is your trumpisym coming through.

Interesting - so the people that a law doesn't affect are overwhelmingly in favor of it, and the people who the law affects are against it.

I can think of a good number of instances where laws that were approved of by the Majority, against a Minority, were overturned on principle because they were Unjust. Gay Rights spring to mind.

In fact, any law that specifically targeted a Minority and not grounded in Natural Rights would apply here, excuse me whilst I pull out my long list of racial minority laws from the 20th Century.

Are you saying that these were just because the Majority approved it?

The reason this law is Immoral is the same reason that those laws were immoral.


Once Trump was dispatched along with his the virus will go away do nothing approach, I must of missed the part where the population formed a militia as per 2e and rose up against the Biden Government and it's mandates. :laugh: For me, this last paragraph of yours completes your transition to Right Wing Nut Job. (though in truth, you were already 99.9% there with your "words do not matter" statement). From this time forward, my responses to your posts will be greatly diminished as your just to far gone to warrant my time. If I want to interact with a RWNJ, I'll stick to my pithy one line hit jobs in the fox news comments section. They LOVE me there :love:

They didn't need to - they just moved to places like Florida and Texas, where the individual States embraced Freedom.

If they had tried to enforce certain mandates upon the individual states (and IIRC they were rightly defeated by the SC), then you may well have seen an armed response.

However, I'd like to refresh your memory a little: https://www.npr.org/2020/05/14/855918852/heavily-armed-protesters-gather-again-at-michigans-capitol-denouncing-home-order

You don't need to fire a bullet to have an Armed response against Government Tyranny. You just need to show up, armed to the Teeth with the threat of implied force, the 'Fuck around and find out' approach.

The Canadians Tried, they tried in NZ too - but without the ability to backup a protest with Force, the State always wins.

You may disagree (No Doubt) but you cannot deny that this is the essence of the 2nd Amendment and it is why America holds it in such high regard. And a look at the restrictive lockdowns in places that also had restrictive Gun rights vs the places that maintained freedom.

As the Yanks are fond of saying "Freedom isn't Free"

[pete376403]

I agree there is a difference in intent, however getting behind the wheel of a Car drunk is the same as firing blindly into a crowd of people - sure you may not have intended to kill that specific person, but it's such reckless behavior that you know someone might get killed



Deliciously. Did you make the specific statement I wrote?

[sugilite]

The president of the USA praises Adern on Gun laws. He is smart enough to ask a leader that has actually achieved something in this area. Smart. Meanwhile his ousted blow hard predecessor attends an NRA convention.
https://www.1news.co.nz/2022/06/01/biden-picks-arderns-brain-on-combatting-violence-extremism/

[TheDemonLord]

Did you make the specific statement I wrote?

Not that specific statement, because it's a mis-characterization of what I believe.

I believe in Freedom, knowing that with freedom there will be people who are killed and people who will die.

Everyday I get behind the wheel, there's a chance I could either die myself or I could cause someone else to die.

Everytime I hire a Power tool, I could either injure myself, others or worse.

If I was possessed of a Malevolent disposition, everything I would need could be purchased at a local RD1, or hired from Hireace, or 'obtained' from the NZ Police or a myriad of other ways that have been used elsewhere to inflict mass casualties.

[TheDemonLord]

The president of the USA praises Adern on Gun laws. He is smart enough to ask a leader that has actually achieved something in this area. Smart. Meanwhile his ousted blow hard predecessor attends an NRA convention.
https://www.1news.co.nz/2022/06/01/biden-picks-arderns-brain-on-combatting-violence-extremism/

All she achieved was less than 30% at best handed in.

Oh, and a significant increase in Gun Crime.

Let's not forget that whilst she was queening around on the world stage, there were 7 shootings in South Auckland.

So yeah, really achieved something... (Tui Ad moment there)

[Kickaha]

They voted for it because it was the right thing to do, and it followed general public consensus.

It wasn't the right thing to do, it was kneejerk reaction to an event that was unlikely to be repeated and pushed through while it was still fresh in peoples minds to get the result they wanted


The president of the USA praises Adern on Gun laws. He is smart enough to ask a leader that has actually achieved something in this area.

She achieved fuck all because the people that needed to have firearms taken off them weren't ever going to hand them in, don't you watch or read the news, two more shooting in Auckland overnight, wasn't it seven a few days ago, gun crime has risen

[husaberg]

It wasn't the right thing to do, it was kneejerk reaction\
So the rest of the world is wrong but the US is right?
We should follow the example of doing nothing like the USA do, while kids get shoot and mass shootings to increase every year?

Also note
But when comparing that to population, the rate of firearms related injuries were the fifth worst on record, with the previous highest being 2016.
So your figures a re a bit doubtful they also don't take into account the effect of the increase in NZ organized crime brought about as a result of the 501 deportees


Also odd as in reality after a British gunman killed 16 people in 1987, the country banned semiautomatic weapons like those he had used.
It did the same with most handguns after a 1996 school shooting.
It now has one of the lowest gun-related death rates in the developed world.

In Australia, a 1996 massacre prompted mandatory gun buybacks that saw, with as many as one million firearms melted into slag.
The rate of mass shootings plummeted from once every 18 months to, so far, only one in the 26 years since.
If we tally mass shootings that have killed four or more people, in the United States there have been well over 100 since the Port Arthur tragedy. But in Australia, there has been just one in the 26 years since their gun laws were passed. Plus, gun homicides have decreased by 60%.

Canada changed gun laws after a 1989 mass shooting.
So did Germany in 2002,
New Zealand in 2019
Norway 2021.

[pete376403]

Not that specific statement, because it's a mis-characterization of what I believe.

I believe in Freedom, knowing that with freedom there will be people who are killed and people who will die.

Everyday I get behind the wheel, there's a chance I could either die myself or I could cause someone else to die.

Everytime I hire a Power tool, I could either injure myself, others or worse.

If I was possessed of a Malevolent disposition, everything I would need could be purchased at a local RD1, or hired from Hireace, or 'obtained' from the NZ Police or a myriad of other ways that have been used elsewhere to inflict mass casualties.

i suppose it is no use noting that of cars, power tools and firearms, only one is expressly designed to kill when used in the manner intended, and of the other two, the manufacturers go to great lengths to prevent injury or death, even when not used expressly as designed or by a suitably qualified person.

[F5 Dave]

I think the vast majority of the population never realised how lax our gun laws were. There are a fuck lot of gun violence incidents despite being lowest employment levels currently. Dont expect it to get better if the economy tanks.

Also don't expect it to get better if we release more guns into the country. The more guns, the more trading and stealing and use of them on family members.

That's just math on available data.

[TheDemonLord]

i suppose it is no use noting that of cars, power tools and firearms, only one is expressly designed to kill when used in the manner intended, and of the other two, the manufacturers go to great lengths to prevent injury or death, even when not used expressly as designed or by a suitably qualified person.

Or defend, when used in the manner intended....

And those that are killed, are still dead.

This Freedom comes at a cost.

[TheDemonLord]

So the rest of the world is wrong but the US is right?
We should follow the example of doing nothing like the USA do, while kids get shoot and mass shootings to increase every year?

Given how many Semi-Autos are still out there, if there's another mass shooting before 2045, we'll know the new laws didn't change shit.


Also note
But when comparing that to population, the rate of firearms related injuries were the fifth worst on record, with the previous highest being 2016.
So your figures a re a bit doubtful they also don't take into account the effect of the increase in NZ organized crime brought about as a result of the 501 deportees

'When compared to Population'

Translation:

'When we adjust the figures downwards because it makes our stats look better because our Population has increased'


Also odd as in reality after a British gunman killed 16 people in 1987, the country banned semiautomatic weapons like those he had used.
It did the same with most handguns after a 1996 school shooting.
It now has one of the lowest gun-related death rates in the developed world.

But neither of those laws stopped the Cumbria shooting in 2010, killing 12 people.


In Australia, a 1996 massacre prompted mandatory gun buybacks that saw, with as many as one million firearms melted into slag.
The rate of mass shootings plummeted from once every 18 months to, so far, only one in the 26 years since.

No, that's a lie - using the FBI definition of 'Mass shooting' there have been at least 10, Including 2 IIRC that used banned Firearms.


Canada changed gun laws after a 1989 mass shooting.
So did Germany in 2002,
New Zealand in 2019

Germany had a mass shooting in 2009 and again in 2016.
Canada in 2018 and 1999

Seems these Gun Law changes don't actually stop someone who is truly determined.


Norway 2021.

How interesting - I can see newspaper posts saying they were going to change their laws in 2021, but when I go to the actual Norwegian law, I can't find any record of a Ban of Semi-Autos.

Semi-Autos that can be easily converted to Full Auto are banned - but that's about all I could find (admitedly with Google Translate) - but then when you copy and paste the New York Times (who copy and paste from other useless sources) what do you expect?

[husaberg]

i suppose it is no use noting that of cars, power tools and firearms, only one is expressly designed to kill when used in the manner intended, and of the other two, the manufacturers go to great lengths to prevent injury or death, even when not used expressly as designed or by a suitably qualified person.


I have figured you might already know the answer, but dont fear, no mater what you actually write, capt multi-quote will just counter points you never made.

[Berries]

But neither of those laws stopped the Cumbria shooting in 2010, killing 12 people.
Germany had a mass shooting in 2009 and again in 2016.
Canada in 2018 and 1999
Seems these Gun Law changes don't actually stop someone who is truly determined.
A few pages ago you quoted four UK mass shootings which covered a 34 year period. Is it just a simple coincidence that there have been 34 mass shootings in the US so far this year? You seem like an intelligent chap, but on this topic you just appear argumentative for the sake of being argumentative. Any same person must realise that the constitution needs changing if that is what is behind all this needless killing. Jeez, I am pretty sure I cant go back to England and shoot someone in a duel and expect legislation from 1723 to save me from prison. Times change, legislation needs to change as well.


I believe in Freedom, knowing that with freedom there will be people who are killed and people who will die.
Everyday I get behind the wheel, there's a chance I could either die myself or I could cause someone else to die.
Everytime I hire a Power tool, I could either injure myself, others or worse.
Your choice, your risk. What about every time you send your kids to school in the rootin tootin US of A?

The whole discussion just beggars belief.

PS - I lied about the number of shootings in the USA this year. I don't know the number and frankly if they can't be arsed trying to fix the problem then I don't care, they will just keep happening. Unlike in the UK or NZ. Or in Germany, Canada or Norway. For an English bloke you seem to be very apologetic for the seppos and their outdated laws.

[sugilite]

Ohio set to allow teachers to carry guns with reduced training requirements

https://www.foxnews.com/us/ohio-teachers-carry-guns-training

Sooooooo, more guns and less training. What could possibly go wrong.

[Kickaha]

Ohio set to allow teachers to carry guns with reduced training requirements

https://www.foxnews.com/us/ohio-teachers-carry-guns-training

Sooooooo, more guns and less training. What could possibly go wrong.

That's retarded but what you'd expect for over there, someone in that position should be trained to a very high standard and have to have ongoing training

I do wonder how long it will be before the first "teacher shoots up school" news item

[F5 Dave]

Car backfires and Mrs Cromley takes out 3 hall monitors and the janitor.


Freedumb! :facepalm:

[TheDemonLord]

A few pages ago you quoted four UK mass shootings which covered a 34 year period. Is it just a simple coincidence that there have been 34 mass shootings in the US so far this year? You seem like an intelligent chap, but on this topic you just appear argumentative for the sake of being argumentative.

Okay, ready for the point:

There are other countries, which have statistically rare events (Mass shootings), enact 'tough' new legislation, and the statistically rare event still happens rarely. Banning the Guns did not stop the problem.

So, why does it keep happening in America? It must be the Guns, right? But there are many other westernized countries, with long histories of Civillian Marksmanship and high rates of Gun Ownership, including places like Switzerland that allows you to buy your Assault Rifle (actual Assault Rifle, aka a Full Auto) from the Government after you complete your national service.

Therefore, it is neither the lack of legislation nor the prescence of 'Assault Rifles' that is the Causal link. There are other issues at play, other factors which must be present in the US to a higher degree than they are present in these other places.

Perhaps if we bothered to look at those factors, we might have a better outcome - but that would be difficult and wouldn't concentrate power disproportionately to the Government, so we can't do that.


Any same person must realise that the constitution needs changing if that is what is behind all this needless killing. Jeez, I am pretty sure I cant go back to England and shoot someone in a duel and expect legislation from 1723 to save me from prison. Times change, legislation needs to change as well.

I remember reading in NZ history when certain people said the Treaty was outdated... If it's current law and hasn't been repealed... or amended then it stands.



Your choice, your risk. What about every time you send your kids to school in the rootin tootin US of A?

The whole discussion just beggars belief.

It's no different than every time I strap my kids into my Car. In fact, it's statistically significantly more likely they will die of a Car Crash than of a Mass Shooter, by several orders of magnitude.


PS - I lied about the number of shootings in the USA this year. I don't know the number and frankly if they can't be arsed trying to fix the problem then I don't care, they will just keep happening. Unlike in the UK or NZ. Or in Germany, Canada or Norway. For an English bloke you seem to be very apologetic for the seppos and their outdated laws.

That outdated law was what stopped certain states instituting harsh Covid policies for which the world is now paying the price.

[TheDemonLord]

Ohio set to allow teachers to carry guns with reduced training requirements

https://www.foxnews.com/us/ohio-teachers-carry-guns-training

Sooooooo, more guns and less training. What could possibly go wrong.

Reduced Training?

Are ya'll ready?

Not a fan of that.