Helpless Englishmen Cower from Rioting Mobs

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

We had this problem with the gun lunatics at the time of the Virginia Tech shootings.

Setanta is one of the gun lunatics.
He 'd have it so that ONLY outlaws possessed guns,
by operation of law.

Setanta wrote:

All of the gun nuts were claiming that had students been allowed to go around armed,
the tragedy would have been averted.

Yes; when Cho began shooting into the class,
the victims woud have fired back instantly,
killing him within a few seconds; maybe 3 seconds.
That 's pretty good; not perfect, but good.

Setanta wrote:

Of course, the lunacy of that is immediately obvious
to someone not obsessed to distraction with fondling his peni . . . er, firearm.

Was THAT obvious to the unarmed students who were busy getting shot, Setanta ?

Setanta wrote:

First, as soon as word got out that there was a shooter on the loose,

FIRST, he 'd NOT be "on the loose"
if he were lying on the classroom floor DEAD
from defensive gunshot wounds, Setanta.

Can u reason that out????

Setanta wrote:

any number of heroic cowboy types would be suddenly encountering one another, and likely one or both of them would be shot as a consequce, never mind attempting to estimate how many bystanders would have been shot.

That has happened either SELDOM or never in American history.
In any case, the victims had and have an absolute right
to defend themselves and have NO DUTY to offer themselves up for the slaughter, as u imply that thay do.

Setanta wrote:

In the second place, when the police arrived,
they'd have been encountering any number of gun toting fools,
who, had they not put down their weapons immeidately,
would probably have been shot by the police.

In other words,
u believe that the police are equally as crazy as Cho,
just blasting away promiscuously, at anyone who is exercising his Constitutional rights, right???

Setanta wrote:

Finally, of course, the mere possession of a firearm
does not confer either expertise nor accuracy on the possessor.

Make it a required course in Virginia Tech,
or a high school pre-requisite for admission to the collage.

Setanta wrote:

That's why bystander casualties would likely have been high in such a situation.

The likelihood is confined to your cowardly fantasies. How ofen has that happened?????

Setanta wrote:

When Congresswoman Gifford was shot in Arizona, the shooter calmly dropped the magazine from his weapon and was in the act of reloading. Two unarmed bystanders just as calmly tackled him, and held him until police arrived. It wasn't necessary to pepper the plaza with small arms fire to handle the situation.

O, Yea, I 'm sure the victims who were undefended by any armed citizen
agree with Setanta that shooting back at the homicidal maniac "wasn't necessary" as he puts it, O, yea.

As soon as the gunfire stopped
because the threat had been killed,
there 'd have been no further gunfire; no place to put one 's shots,
unless one wishes to shoot a corpse; that seldom happens.
When the gunfire has ended, no one is going to do anything violent.
There is no reason to do so; nothing to be gained.
That is OBVIOUS, except in Setanta's twisted, cowardly brain.

David

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

Why did the armed men in the crowd Gifford was addressing not fire at the gunman? Was it because most people who carry guns are cowards at heart, preferring to hide behind a gun? Cometh the moment, cometh the unarmed woman in her sixties, the armed men were useless, as always.

1 Reply

Davide, had the "homicidal maniac NOT HAD A GUN, the Gifford shooting would never have happened in the first place. But YOU AND YOUR ILK of course maintain that EVERYBODY INCLUDING "HOMICDAL MANIACS AND DRUG CARTEL GANGSTERShas the right to have a gun for "Self Defense", which oh so easily turns into OFFENSE with the gun you've ensured that they could buy. YOU AND YOUR HIDEOUS ALLIES ARE DIRECTLY RESPONSIBLE FOR INCIDENTS LIKE THE GIFFORD SHOOTING HAPPENING IN THE FIRST PLACE. Follow a sane policy like the uk and it wouldn't happen.

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

izzythepush wrote:

Why did the armed men in the crowd Gifford was addressing not fire at the gunman?

Izzy, this was a Democratic Party assemblage, for the most part; people who voted for her and leaned toward the left.
It is not likely that thay were armed.
If u know of ANY evidence that some of them had guns,
please tell us what it IS.

izzythepush wrote:

Was it because most people who carry guns are cowards at heart, preferring to hide behind a gun?

It was not. No.
It was the same as motorists not HIDING
behind their jacks and spare tires in their trunks.
We do not cower in fear of flat tires,
but we r ready to handle them, if thay occur. Got the idea???

Were we in error
when we sent guns to England in the early Second World War??
Did our doing so convert the English citizens into cowards???????
Shoud the English citizens have REJECTED our guns, as insults to their bravery?????
Please tell me that.
When or if the people of England were busy fighting
on the beaches, in the streets, and in the hills, etc.
did proper COURAGE require them to be bare handed??? Maybe just wooden clubs??
Is that what Churchill wanted???
(I imagine that the nazis wanted u to be unarmed; same as the rioters.)

I find it very odd
that u speak of hiding behind a gun,
as if there were something rong
with having the proper equipment to handle emergencies; very strange; weird.

izzythepush wrote:

Cometh the moment, cometh the unarmed woman in her sixties, the armed men were useless, as always.

WHICH armed men???? The police and the army??
Admittedly: the police were and ARE useless during riots; repeatedly.
We are ON OUR OWN. We better have the necessary firepower to control the situation;
(either THAT, or give ourselves into the unlimited discretion of the predators).
In a predatory emergency,
I want to control the situation; I don't want the predator to control it.
THAT is the difference between the English cowards and ME.

David

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

OmSigDAVID wrote:

Were we in error
when we sent guns to England in the early Second World War??

Did you know that WW2 is over?

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

OmSigDAVID wrote:

Were we in error
when we sent guns to England in the early Second World War??

izzythepush wrote:

Did you know that WW2 is over?

Izzy, it is poor judgment
to hide behind that fact,
pretending, like the ostrich who (allegedly) buries his head
in the face of approaching danger,
that there exists no risk of violent depredations,
as if Hitler had a MONOPOLY on them.
The SAME principles of self defense apply now; thay r timeless, like arithmetic.

Every predatory event is a contest of POWER.
The victim needs to have more power than the predator;
enuf defensive power for the victim to control the situation.

( Note that u have not replied to my inquiry:
shoud the citizens of America have REFUSED
to send some of our guns to the citizens of England, for their defense????? )

David

0 Replies

@MontereyJack,

MontereyJack wrote:

Davide, had the "homicidal maniac NOT HAD A GUN,
the Gifford shooting would never have happened in the first place.

For WHAT reason woud he NOT have a gun, Jack?? Can u think of one???
( I suspect that u r going to say something about gun control laws. Yes?? )
HOW do u convince a murderer to OBAY anti-gun laws???????
There are no blackmarket gunsmiths??
Guns were hand made CENTURIES before the advent of electric tools
and of engineering plans available on the Internet and in paper libraries.
Are the murderers as co-operative in obaying anti-gun prohibitions
as the potheads have been so eager to do what government wants them to do, in avoiding marijuana?????
Maybe u think that the same way that no citizen has any cocaine,
without permission from government,
so also, criminals will be in a BIG RUSH to try to make government happy by disarming??????
Maybe all the criminals will throw all their guns in the garbage
along with their heroin and quaaludes, because thay love government so much, RIGHT, Jack??
SURE, because prohibitions ALWAYS WORK !!!

MontereyJack wrote:

But YOU AND YOUR ILK of course maintain that EVERYBODY INCLUDING "HOMICDAL MANIACS AND DRUG CARTEL GANGSTERShas the right to have a gun for "Self Defense",

Well, the Constitution requires "equal protection of the laws".
I 've also repeatedly advocated that people who have proven
by their histories of criminal violence (sane or not)
to be intolerable risks to the decent people
shoud be ISOLATED, preferably NOT on the North American Continent.

MontereyJack wrote:

which oh so easily turns into OFFENSE with the gun you've ensured that they could buy.

That 's OK, if he is behind 1,OOOs of miles of ocean water
when he becomes offensive, Jack.

MontereyJack wrote:

YOU AND YOUR HIDEOUS ALLIES ARE DIRECTLY RESPONSIBLE FOR INCIDENTS LIKE THE GIFFORD SHOOTING HAPPENING IN THE FIRST PLACE. Follow a sane policy like the uk and it wouldn't happen.

In other words, U BELIEVE that there were NO murders before guns were invented, right????
In other words, making bombs was below his dignity;
not even a Molotov Cocktail or 2 ???
Of course, he 'd not run her over with his car,
nor stab her like Caesar was, either, RIGHT????

Your hysterical tirade is not well reasoned, Jack.
U did not put enuf thought into it
and u began a sentence with a conjunction.

David

0 Replies

re David:Damned straight I began a sentence with a conjunction. And will again. As everybody does and has done for centuries except hopeless pedants like you, who people rightly ridicule for your illogical preoccupations.

I notice your cite is railing against the fact that the English didn't have guns to "defend" themselves. I believe the laws were passed in 1998. Which means that in fact they have worked, and in a short time. Your contentions that thugs will be th onbly ones with guns is proven empirically false. Considering that the main sources of illegal guns are legal sales and straw buyer sales from legal gun dealers, sales at unregulated gun shows, thefts and burglaries of legal guns from legal owners, and thefts from legal shops and manufacturers, if you shut those sources off, criminals soon won't have guns either.

Your argument that guns can be handmade doesn't hold much water either. It's true, but largely irrelevant. It is much harder, takes much more time, and is MUCH more expensive to hand make a gun than to machine make and stamp out guns on an assembly line.. Which is why very little manufacturing is done one-off by hand anymore. It was also considerably easier to make a flintlock musket with a lead ball than it is to produce anything like modern armaments, not to mention modern ammunition. Even percussion caps aren't ghat easy to make in quantity. Try to make an automatic weapon by hand with handmade ammunition, and homemade propellants beyond gunpowder and you'd be lucky to get two shots before the thing jammed and fouled hopelessly. Anybody trying to make guns in quantity under those conditions isn't likely to survive very long before the feds are in with guns blazing. the kid who shot Giffords, and the kid who shot up VA Tech would never have been able to afford a handmade illegal gun, let along have the connections to find one in the first place.

The disarmament worked in the UK, which is why the riots were just bloody rather than fatal.

And that sequestering deal you keep bringing up is really another simplistic dumb idea. First it's almost certainly unconstitutional, cruel and unusual punishment. Second, where are you going to put them? No other country is going to offer to take them. Sarah Palin would bitch like hell if you tried to put them in Alaska. And there's no more unclaimed land anymore. Idiotic and totally unworkable. Didn't work that well for the Brits when they had a whole continent to exile them to when they stole a loaf of bread. The Aussies are still pissed at them for it. And there're no more vacant Australias.

2 Replies

@MontereyJack,

At the end of the day Dave is more like the maniac who shot Gifford, than the brave woman who wrestled him to the ground. All this bombast about WW2 and his weird fonts and colours is just a smokescreen. He's basically a sad inadequate who needs to surround himself with guns in order to feel a man.

1 Reply

@MontereyJack,

MontereyJack wrote:

re David:Damned straight I began a sentence with a conjunction. And will again.

I was having a little fun with u.
Relax; don 't get a heart attack.

MontereyJack wrote:

As everybody does and has done for centuries except hopeless pedants like you,

Thay HAVE.
Thay truely have, more 's the pity.

MontereyJack wrote:

who people rightly ridicule for your illogical preoccupations.

Well, its just an effort to be logical,
like adding numbers correctly.

MontereyJack wrote:

I notice your cite is railing against the fact that the English didn't have guns to "defend" themselves. I believe the laws were passed in 1998.
Which means that in fact they have worked, and in a short time.

Y do u believe that it means THAT??
Your assertion appears like a non-sequitur, to me.

MontereyJack wrote:

Your contentions that thugs will be th onbly ones with guns is proven empirically false.

Yea?? HOW did that happen??

MontereyJack wrote:

Considering that the main sources of illegal guns are legal sales and straw buyer sales from legal gun dealers, sales at unregulated gun shows, thefts and burglaries of legal guns from legal owners, and thefts from legal shops and manufacturers, if you shut those sources off, criminals soon won't have guns either.

Y not, Jack?? Will the 1OOs of millions of guns vanish, like water?
Can 't thay MAKE them?
Many centuries ago, long before electric tools were available,
thay made guns; Columbus had them.
The engineering diagrams are freely available in paper libraries
and on the Internet, as well as in monthly gun publications.
Has the Law of Supply and Demand (for guns) been repealed???
Underground gunsmiths don 't wanna earn any money??
I might go into the business myself.

MontereyJack wrote:

Your argument that guns can be handmade doesn't hold much water either. It's true, but largely irrelevant.
It is much harder, takes much more time, and is MUCH more expensive
to hand make a gun than to machine make and stamp out guns on an assembly line..

BEAUTIFUL, homemade custom guns, made with pride, as works of art
are on sale in gunstores.
I imagine that underground gunsmiths will mass produce guns. Y not??

MontereyJack wrote:

Which is why very little manufacturing is done one-off by hand anymore. It was also considerably easier to make a flintlock musket with a lead ball than it is to produce anything like modern armaments, not to mention modern ammunition.

I saw a piece on 6O Minutes
of some Moslems in the mountains of Afganistan,
with no electricity in their town, who thrive
by encroaching upon the patents of manufacturers
of fully automatic weapons of all kinds.

MontereyJack wrote:

Even percussion caps aren't ghat easy to make in quantity. Try to make an automatic weapon by hand with handmade ammunition, and homemade propellants beyond gunpowder and you'd be lucky to get two shots before the thing jammed and fouled hopelessly.

It sounds like u speak from experience.
I have an instruction manual from Paladin Press
on how to make a submachinegun; estimated work time is a week.
I read of criminals in prison who made a fully operational submachinegun
in the prison workshop one-part-at-a-time, with the guards around,
assembled in private. Thay shot their way out, but were captured
by guards in hot pursuit, when thay drove into a tree.
This was maybe c.3O years ago. I don 't remember which prison.

MontereyJack wrote:

Anybody trying to make guns in quantity under those conditions isn't likely to survive very long before the feds are in with guns blazing. the kid who shot Giffords, and the kid who shot up VA Tech would never have been able to afford a handmade illegal gun, let along have the connections to find one in the first place.

Zip guns are very, very cheap.
Better quality depends on willingness to spend more time
and careful attention, as well as reasonable skill.
If thay were as good as u say,
then thay 'd have ended the supply of alcohol in the 192Os
and ended the supply of marijuana many years n decades ago.
How many years have thay been trying to DO that,
throwing endless billions of $$ toward that futile goal??
Can u learn anything from that???

Additionally, such raids woud violate the Bill of Rights.
Thay 'd be the same as raids to rob the citizens of their Bibles.
A citizen has as much right to a gun as to a Bible.
UNITED STATES CODE TITLE 18
CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE PART I
CRIMES CHAPTER 13 - CIVIL RIGHTS
§§ 242. Deprivation of rights under color of law
Whoever, under color of any law, statute,
ordinance, regulation, or custom,
willfully subjects any inhabitant of any State,
Territory, or District to the deprivation of any rights,
privileges, or immunities secured or protected
by the Constitution or laws of the United States, . . .
shall be fined not more than $1,000
or imprisoned not more than one year, or both;
and if bodily injury results shall be fined under this title
or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both;
and if death results shall be subject to imprisonment
for any term of years or for life.

MontereyJack wrote:

The disarmament worked in the UK, which is why the riots were just bloody rather than fatal.

Well, the rioters also survived intact; not so good.

MontereyJack wrote:

And that sequestering deal you keep bringing up is really another simplistic dumb idea.
First it's almost certainly unconstitutional, cruel and unusual punishment.

IF the USSC decides the rong way on the 8th Amendment,
then it woud be worth it, in terms of drastically reducing violent felonies,
to amend it, Constitutionally; that 'd be very popular,
promoting the safety of the voters.
IF the USSC interprets it the right way,
then there is no problem. I see no problem with it.
Killing them has been constitutional.
BANISHING them shoud be.
Note that I do not suggest that the criminals be KEPT anywhere.
I merely want them ISOLATED from the decent people of America.
We take their DNA, fingerprints, retinal scans,
dental impressions and pictures, etc.

After we dump them off somewhere,
I don 't give a damn where thay go,
except that, in my plan, the death penalty
applies to sneaking back here, in violation of the banishment.
Thay r INFORMED of that fact.

MontereyJack wrote:

Second, where are you going to put them? No other country is going to offer to take them.

Answered hereinabove.

MontereyJack wrote:

Sarah Palin would bitch like hell if you tried to put them in Alaska. And there's no more unclaimed land anymore. Idiotic and totally unworkable. Didn't work that well for the Brits when they had a whole continent to exile them to when they stole a loaf of bread. The Aussies are still pissed at them for it. And there're no more vacant Australias.

Well, America owns land in the Aleutians that is closer to Japan than to America.
Where there is a will, there is a way.
Maybe we can rent some space somewhere, to dump them off.
Again: I do not suggest that we KEEP them anywhere.
I just want plenty of distance between them and the decent people of America.

David

0 Replies

@izzythepush,

izzythepush wrote:

At the end of the day Dave is more like the maniac who shot Gifford, than the brave woman who wrestled him to the ground. . . .

Izzy is very similar to Heinrich Himmler.

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

OmSigDAVID wrote:

izzythepush wrote:
At the end of the day Dave is more like the maniac who shot Gifford, than the brave woman who wrestled him to the ground. . . .
Izzy is very similar to Heinrich Himmler.

I suppose I should be grateful for the fact that for once, your comment directed towards me is short, and to the point. You're the one who divides society into 'decent' people and the rest. You're the one who wants to ship all the undesirables off to some island/camp. You're the one who sees the world in simplistic black and white terms. And, let's not forget, you're the one who is unable to work out a simple rhyme. I need say no more. ( Did you notice how I started a sentence with 'And?')

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

izzythepush wrote:

At the end of the day Dave is more like the maniac who shot Gifford,
than the brave woman who wrestled him to the ground. . . .

OmSigDAVID wrote:

Izzy is very similar to Heinrich Himmler.

izzythepush wrote:

I suppose I should be grateful for the fact that for once,
your comment directed towards me is short, and to the point.

U r welcome, but don 't expect me to begin calling u "Heinrich"; I refuse.

izzythepush wrote:

You're the one who divides society into 'decent' people and the rest.

Yes.

izzythepush wrote:

You're the one who wants to ship all the undesirables off to some island/camp.

That is not my position (which is justified by principles of self defense
as well as of vengeance). Accordingly, problems of overbreadth
can arise if we ship out ALL undesirables, unless thay have proven
by their histories of criminal violence, to be intolerable risks.
I woud not ship ALL Democrats there.
I 'd ship them to a toxic waste dump somewhere
and dump the toxic waste there and forget it.
( It 'd be such a dump only by the purpose to which we apply it.)

izzythepush wrote:

You're the one who sees the world in simplistic black and white terms.

Binary is good.

izzythepush wrote:

And, let's not forget, you're the one who is unable to work out a simple rhyme. I need say no more.

I don't recognize the word that Bill identified.
On 2nd thawt, . . . I seem to recall hearing some people
being called "policy wanks".

izzythepush wrote:

( Did you notice how I started a sentence with 'And?')

I did. Its like public speaking, while u r chewing gum; makes u look bad; dum thing to do.

David

1 Reply

David says:

Quote:

On 2nd thawt, . . . I seem to recall hearing some people
being called "policy wanks".

Policy WONKS. To wank is to masturbate, and I know you're much too prim and proper to do any such thing, or even to know what the term means, apparently.

And the world does not come in binary. The world comes in analog.

1 Reply

@MontereyJack,

Binary seems to have worked better than analogus.

David

0 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

OmSigDAVID wrote:

izzythepush wrote:
( Did you notice how I started a sentence with 'And?')
I did. Its like public speaking, while u r chewing gum; makes u look bad; dum thing to do.

So rhetoric can join rhyming in the list of things you don't understand. A limited vocabulary is not something most people would boast about. It's clear that Mensa is an acronym for 'Mentally Exhausted Nationalistic Silly Arses.' Thanks for clearing that one up.

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

Its not that I don 't understand rhyming.
Its just that its not important to DO that.

David

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

It is, if you want to have any understanding of how the vagaries of the English language manifest themselves throughout the globe. Intellectual curiosity is an important attribute. I have yet to see any evidence that it is one you possess.

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

izzythepush wrote:

It is, if you want to have any understanding of how the vagaries
of the English language manifest themselves throughout the globe.
Intellectual curiosity is an important attribute.
I have yet to see any evidence that it is one you possess.

I don't give a rat 's ass about the GLOBE; that 's off topic.

Start a thread about the globe or about poetry, if u want.
This thread is about riots and fighting back against them (or cowardly failure to do so).

David

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

Regardless of the thread you have a lack of intellectual curiosity, that is illogical. You need to shut down now Robbie.

1 Reply

Helpless Englishmen Cower from Rioting Mobs

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know