Jump to content

France Unrest


Recommended Posts

http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3b7f78c351b6.htm

Monarchist philosopher Jean Bodin, writing in 1606, denounced free speech and arms possession by commoners. Subjects must be disarmed to prevent democratic sedition, he said. The Swiss proved, Bodin wrongly averred, that arms bearing was "the cause of an infinite number of murders."

The Swiss militia model, however, preserved democracy and held Europe's despots at bay. In fact, it inspired the rebellious American colonists.

John Adams praised the democratic Swiss Cantons, where every man was entitled to vote on laws and to bear arms. Patrick Henry, another American Founding Father, lauded the Swiss for maintaining their independence without "a mighty and splendid President" or a standing army.

The Swiss influence is clear in the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which provides: "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." Today, it has become fashionable to hate this orphan of the Bill of Rights.

However, a quick glance at history shows that tyrannical governments kill far more than do private criminals. But first, governments must disarm their victims. In 1933, the

Nazis seized power via massive search-and-seizure operations for firearms against "Communists," i.e., all political opponents. In 1938, during the Night of the Broken Glass, they disarmed the Jews. When the Nazis occupied Europe in 1939-41, they proclaimed the death penalty for any person who failed to surrender all firearms within 24 hours.

There may be various reasons why the Nazis did not invade Switzerland, but one of those reasons is that every Swiss man had a rifle at home.

For this we have no better record than the Nazi invasion plans, which stated that, because of the Swiss shooting skills, Switzerland would be difficult to conquer and pacify.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 211
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

quote:

Originally posted by Aperson:

quote:

Originally posted by Jaguar:

quote:

Originally posted by Aperson:

Maybe, there is of course the chance that the rioters might decide to use firearms after they've been shot at.

Let them, rioters are normally those that are poor, uneducated, and liberal, they have NO idea how to use a gun.

I Would rather be the target of an untrained gun toter then a trained one.

MOST trained gun owners are law abiding citizens who will not riot to just destroy property to make a point, they will go after those who have created the problem.

Let then grab guns, then they are REAL 110% pure LEGAL targets....


So would that make them not legal targets beforehand?

Hopefully if a riot does end up happening near you then turns into firefight that your right.


That is why I said 110%, not 100%, I would rather they have guns, because then I wouldn't feel so bad using them for target practice, but even if they were armed with just molotov cocktails and rocks, I'd still shoot their stupid butts... And it would still be legal.

That's right, you live in Canada, I keep forgetting....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yep, and Canada has a lower crime rate, and a lower homicide rate, than America*. And yet, we don't need to bear arms. Either this proves the "Weapons decrease crime rate" philosophy wrong or Canada dosn't follow the same rules of behavior as the rest of the world (neither would be particulary surprising).

Granted, the number of people who bear arms or not might only be a small factor in crime rate with other things, such as culture, have a bigger impact.

* At least as far as I can judge from US goverment sites, as they make the Canadian goverment websites look good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by Aperson:

Yep, and Canada has a lower crime rate, and a lower homicide rate, than America*. And yet, we don't need to bear arms. Either this proves the "Weapons decrease crime rate" philosophy wrong or Canada dosn't follow the same rules of behavior as the rest of the world (neither would be particulary surprising).

Granted, the number of people who bear arms or not might only be a small factor in crime rate with other things, such as culture, have a bigger impact.

* At least as far as I can judge from US goverment sites, as they make the Canadian goverment websites look good.

http://www.saf.org/JFPP14ch5.htm

Also, interesting to note, when Clinton was in office, crime rates sky rocketed, when Conservatives are in office, they drop. Not linking crime rates to administrations, but nevertheless it's interesting.

"The drop in the criminal violence is much more dramatic in the US than it is in Canada (Gannon 2001). Over the past decade, the Canadian homicide rate has declined about 25%, but the violent crime rate has not changed. In the US during the same time period, both the homicide and the violent crime rates have plummeted by more than 40%. We can't credit gun laws entirely with this success. In both countries, the aging population has helped bring down crime rates, and, in the US, long jail sentences for violent criminals has also been effective."

"Nevertheless, gun laws have played an important role in reducing crime rates in the US. Since 1986, more than 25 states have passed new laws encouraging responsible citizens to carry concealed handguns. As a result, the numbers of armed Americans in malls and in their cars has grown to almost 3 million men and women. As surprising as it is to the media, these new laws have caused violent crime rates to drop, including homicide rates. In his scholarly book, More Guns, Less Crime, Professor John Lott shows how violent crime has fallen faster in those states that have introduced concealed carry laws than in the rest of the US (Lott 2000). His study is the most comprehensive analysis of American crime data ever completed. He shows that criminals are rational enough to fear being shot by armed civilians. "

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by Aperson:

Yep, and Canada has a lower crime rate, and a lower homicide rate, than America*. And yet, we don't need to bear arms. Either this proves the "Weapons decrease crime rate" philosophy wrong or Canada dosn't follow the same rules of behavior as the rest of the world (neither would be particulary surprising).

Granted, the number of people who bear arms or not might only be a small factor in crime rate with other things, such as culture, have a bigger impact.

* At least as far as I can judge from US goverment sites, as they make the Canadian goverment websites look good.

I don't go to Canada, the last time I went there, I got accosted in Vancouver by some street bum, I wish that I had had my gun, but they made me store it at the border.

I carry a weapon at all times, and have yet to fire it at anyone, have brandished it twice, and have only to tell someone that I had a weapon 3 times.

5 times I have kept a crime from being done against me and 2 others, BECAUSE I carry a weapon.

I have a concealed weapons permit that is recognized in Washington, Oregon, Montana, Idaho, Arizona, Texas and about 10 other states.

Soon there will be a federal concealed permit, and I will be the first in line, and it will drive the Californians NUTS!! LOL

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jag, do you prefer to becalled Marshall or Deputy?

Not sure where you hang out, but I'm kind of shocked at the number of times it's come in handy for you. Though seeing as you've never had to pull the trigger I can understand why you're so anxious to pop a few caps.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by Jaguar:

I don't go to Canada, the last time I went there, I got accosted in Vancouver by some street bum, I wish that I had had my gun, but they made me store it at the border.

Bad experiance as I, (or anyone I know for that matter) have never had something similar to that happen to me(them).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you haven't been robbed yet. Someday, chances are, you will.

If your house haven't been broken into yet. Chances are, someday it will.

If you haven't been a victim of violent crime. Chances are, you will be.

If your wife hasn't been assaulted in your own home. Chances are, she will be.

It only takes ONE time for something to happen to screw up your life. Interesting to see if you will be laughing when it does happen. I would feel sorry for your significant others, your family, kids, wife, friends, ect...because in a bad situation, you are completly incompetent in protecting them. But then again, it's their choice to trust those who can't protect them with their lives.

I'm sure you can tell those French that did get assaulted, robbed, their property torched that the government will always protect them. If they were anti gun before, or had their weapons taken away from them, those that did get affected by these riots would spit in your face now if you tried telling them that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by Grizzle:

Jag, do you prefer to becalled Marshall or Deputy?

Not sure where you hang out, but I'm kind of shocked at the number of times it's come in handy for you. Though seeing as you've never had to pull the trigger I can understand why you're so anxious to pop a few caps.

Just call me a citizen of the United States, protecting my rights and those of the citizens around me.

A fight broke out in a mall, I pushed my way into it, and told the little SOB's to quit beating up on the old man, warned them twice, one got snotty, told him what I would do, and they backed off.

I get involved when I see something bad happening, unlike others who sit on their butt and watch it occur.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, and that's SO TRUE.

Here, last year, some teenage punk was dragging a teenage girl down the street for 5 BLOCKS, that's FIVE BLOCKS, by her hair, while she was kicking and screaming for help. He ended up killing her. How many people helped? ZERO. They all stared, and some called the cops, which obviously didn't get there in time.

Tell that girls parents that guns should be illegal. Or that they don't prevent crime. If at least ONE citizen had a gun, he would have interviened and at the very least scared that murderer away.

And no matter, you can say how dispicable that act was, how horrible it is, and how you send your condolences to the family, YOU are the ones who wouldn't have done anything to prevent it. You can beat your chest all you want, and say that you would have intervened, your posts here however tell a different story. Here, in privacy of anonymity, you show exactly who you are. And the MOST you would have done is pull out your cell and dialed 911. Just like the rest of those incompetents did.

Yeah, society is when people work together. LOL, right Grizzle, you mean work together to loot people of ability. And I don't mean just monetarily, I mean our skills, our knowledge, our competence, our courage, our bravery, and our freedoms.

All you do is weaken us, make it impossible to live our lives, and destroy the country from within. Making it impossible for us to protect ourselfs. Be it from the rioting barbarians in France, to the looting legal and illegal scum in US.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Soback that post sounds like it's directed at me. And again you are assuming too much and making far too many generalizations. If you've nothing better to do than make foolish statements about me or any other poster on this board then I suggest you just keep it to yourself and grow up.

Just so you know, and to prove how wrong you are in your assumptions...

I have nothing against guns and their owners, I do not support stronger gun control and all I ask is that gun owners be responsible and keep them in a gun safe when not needed to avoid them getting into the hands of criminals.

Despite my disagreements with Jag, I actually respect the guy. I may poke fun at him from time to time (and he to me) but he's entitled to his opinion and I respect that. I wish I could say the same about you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"They are rioting in Denmark over a cartoon that they feel disrespects their pedophile cut throat "prophet," Muhammad. "

Yeah, I bet people don't know that Muhammad's brother had a 9 year old wife. Muhammad was in love with her (yeah, with a 9 year old girl), and miraculously he had a vision in which God told him that his brothers wife is to be HIS wife. So he had his brother divorce her (or however they had to separate), and has taken that 9 year old for himself. ALL of his visions are self serving. Every single one of them delivering him either some sick gratification or power. How he could ever have been named a prophet is mind boggling.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by nomad:

Fact of the matter is that everybody with a functioning brain may learn to operate a firearm in a few minutes, and when rioting in an environment rich in firearms, there's no reason to prevent rioters to use those also. So the advantage of widespread gun access works both ways.

To get back to this thread, I was right on policies and even got the correct day: french authorities have announced yesterday night that curfews will be imposed in critical zones and tolerance will be lowered.

In a few minutes?

IN A FEW MINUTES? operate one, yes, actual hit what they are shooting at, not on your life.

I have been practicing and using firearms for over 35 years, and am still not happy with my aim.

At 50 yards with a CZ70 pistol, I can only do a 3 inch shotgroup, it is disgusting!!

With my 10-22, I can make a 2 inch shotgroup at 100 yards, still nothing to write home about.

The fact is, it has taken me YEARS to learn how to shoot like that, someone can't just pick up a gun and start firing it and actually hit what they are aiming at.

I would much rather be at the business end of a weapon with an inexperienced shooter at the trigger side, then if it were someone trained.

If I am standing next to you and someone without experience shoots at you, I am more likely to get hit then you are.

Rioters with guns, just create a more target rich environment, it's NOT likely that they are going to hit me when they shoot back.... If they get a chance to shoot back.

2 in the chest, 1 in the head, END OF RIOTER, and end of riots.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by nomad:

Jag, you made exactly my point.

Everybody may learn to load a gun and remove the safety in a few minutes. But not only it takes years to learn to shoot correctly, there's another factor: if it's easy to shoot on paper, it's not against a human. There are two cases, self-defense who often involves more reaction than reasoning, or to do it with premeditation. To learn to do it with premeditation takes a lot of psychological readyness and focus, if not, you may do more harm than good.

Sorry, complete and utter Bullpucky....

It is VERY easy to shoot at a human being, don't think it's not, especially when that Human being is trying to kill you.

Why do you always make things more complicated then they really are?

quote:

Now I don't really believe that we may expect from a population, splitted among assaulting rioters and enraged or scared civilians, to operate these firearms with the required cold mind. Mix that with alcohol, drugs and mood modifyers abuse, and you get the picture.


Yes, I get the picture, and I still say, complete and utter Bullpucky.

Training is what counts, and the American gunowners are some of the most highly trained gunowners in the world, besides the fact we are one of the few ACTUAL citizens in the world.

quote:

That's why I consider that firearms should mainly be left to police forces who by definition not only know HOW to use them, but also WHEN.

That is why we consider you a socialist, and serf of your government.

quote:

IMO, I don't believe that citizens should be barred from owning guns, but except for those involved in professions with increased risks (security agent, jeweler, atc...), civilian firearms should only be allowed either in practicing facilities, at hunting, or at home for self-defense (taking into account that effectively, the day somebody violates your home's integrity, there's little chances police will be able to intervene quick enough).

Good thing you don't live here then, stay in Spain please....

quote:

Besides, given the lethal nature of firearms, I don't think that's too much asking that every gun owner should follow an operational course and undergo some psychological tests in order to assess if said purchase doesen't bear an obvious harmful potential for society. It won't resolve all problems, but may prevent some of them.

Again, I am glad you live in Spain, please stay there with that attitude.

quote:

I still have a stainless FS92 with supressor and subsonic ammunition. It's 9 years now that it's sitting in a safe, and I did'n touch it since. Those who know what is to operate, dismount and remount a weapon for years under any condition, even with half-frozen fingers, understand you never forget. What you loose is some operational speed & aim. Anyhow, my main point is you can own firearms, provided that the first thing you learn is NOT to use unless in the correct environment or as absolute last resort.

OK, whatever you say Nomad...

quote:

Once a society is filled-up with firearms, it is very difficult to achieve disarmament, because by definition, only law abiding citizens would relinquish their weapons. So in one sense it's an irrevocable step, and when such line is crossed, only the maturity of the population may prevent the situation from degenerating. Now we all know how everything is dynamic, isn't it ? Societies, mentalities, economy and living conditions change over time, but weapons remain...

Yep, and they WILL ALWAYS remain in the United States, we have the 2nd amendment, and when and if the government ever decides it's time to take our guns, it will be the end of that government.

There are more guns then citizens in this country, and FAR more firepower then most peole realize in civilian hands.

Forget it Nomad, you have grown up depending on Mommy Government to take care of you, We here in the US have not, and WILL NOT deal with such a Nanny state, nor such a controlling state.

The US government has just about reached an invisible line, and when the Fed's cross it, they will NOT like the result.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Americans DON'T HAVE to wait for Police, we are armed and ready to go at the drop of a hat, at least in the less wussyfied areas, as this picture in Texas after one of the Hurricanes, testifies.

katrinaTEXAS-vi.jpg?500375

We also have a sense of humor about it....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Everybody may learn to load a gun and remove the safety in a few minutes. But not only it takes years to learn to shoot correctly, there's another factor: if it's easy to shoot on paper, it's not against a human. There are two cases, self-defense who often involves more reaction than reasoning, or to do it with premeditation. To learn to do it with premeditation takes a lot of psychological readyness and focus, if not, you may do more harm than good.

Are we talking about CIVILIANS here? Or ALL?

If all, then your WRONG:

The military trains people to use firearms effectivelly, like myself and my fellow brothers, we all attained very high accuracy scores on the shooting range(in only our 4th week of training). Some of us, like myself, NEVER fired a gun, nor had one in our hands

The point is: If a human being is ready to take on the challenge, then they can succeed. Military personnel have perhaps the highest accuracy and aim than civilians, as well as some of the best sharpshooters

It's also a proven point that it only take's military personnel 8-9 weeks to shoot 30 out of 30 targets, less for marines and even lesser for those with a trained eye and steady hand

By saying it takes years, your saying that snipers take years to get to there positions, where in fact, sniper training school only takes about 8 months to complete, less than a year

****

Nice picture Jag

Americans aren't afraid to defend themselves, I personally have already killed one person in my life beceause they broke into my house and almost killed my niece (who was 6 at the time) My feeling at the time? None; I had no sympathy for that person at all.. why? Cause they broke into my house and wanted to harm my family.

It's no different anywhere else, people won't give a rats butt about you if you intend to do harm. And taking firearms away from the citizens will do MORE HARM than good; basically because the crimanials can get said firearms off the black market

So it doesn't help either way, the government is just helping the criminals attend there goal... and... the terrorist's to.. but I won't go there

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by nomad:

To get back to this thread, I was right on policies and even got the correct day: french authorities have announced yesterday night that curfews will be imposed in critical zones and tolerance will be lowered.

Oh, everybody, breaking news. I just wanted to make sure everyone saw this.

The FRENCH authorities, made an announcement. Cerfews in critical zones, and TOLERANCE will be lowered. ROFL That's right, instead of getting attention by burning down a woman and 5 cars, you will now get it with only 3 cars and an infant. And authorities have LOWERED their tolerance to that new level. (Is that kinda like Orange in US? Nah, cause here it took 2 high rises and thousands dead to get it to red, so theirs must be like dark green or something.)

We better watch what we say about the incompetence in France. I hear their intelligence is very good, and with lower tolerance levels, they might consider us a higher threat than those rioters, after all, they can just send spam and DOS attacks on our internet, rioters on the other hand, if they tried to control them, they might shoot back. No wonder it's been over a week, their intelligence is looking into a better way to control the situation. LOL

BTW, I saw the video on the news yesterday. So much wealth wasted. So much work destroyed, and so much harm done to people. Those French authorities are USELESS. Maybe, just maybe, the French will learn that, and wake up to the notion that they alone are responsible for their government and their lives. Not the other way around, of government being responsible for them. But then again, they are socialists.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by Soback:

If you haven't been robbed yet. Someday, chances are, you will.

If your house haven't been broken into yet. Chances are, someday it will.

If you haven't been a victim of violent crime. Chances are, you will be.

If your wife hasn't been assaulted in your own home. Chances are, she will be.


Poor, logical arguement, but I think its a rational arguement.

And I'm a tad young to have a wife. Plus I hypothetical have a less than 1% a year of having my house broken into.

quote:

Originally posted by Soback:

It only takes ONE time for something to happen to screw up your life. Interesting to see if you will be laughing when it does happen. I would feel sorry for your significant others, your family, kids, wife, friends, ect...because in a bad situation, you are completly incompetent in protecting them. But then again, it's their choice to trust those who can't protect them with their lives.


I'd pity anyone who thought I could protect their life. And yes, I would feel bad as otherwise I would seek mental help for a different reason.

Should I find it humourous that you think I have or will have a social life?

Kalshion:

I think they mean it takes years to get to the upper ends of the skill level (as with pretty much any skill).

Also, if you didn't feel any remorse afterwards, its not really healthy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As far as that 1% chance goes, my friend had lasic corrective vision surgery done. It's less than 0.3% of anything going wrong, in ONE eye. He had his BOTH eyes messed up, FOR LIFE. So keep on rolling the dice on that 1%. One day it will come up, and if you are not ready, I pity you and those who trusted you with their safety.

Feeling remorse for someone who tried killing your niece? Or hurting your family?

Feeling remorse for someone who broke into your house, tried killing your niece, or hurting your family, THAT is what's "not really healthy".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by Aperson:

Kalshion:

I think they mean it takes years to get to the upper ends of the skill level (as with pretty much any skill).

Also, if you didn't feel any remorse afterwards, its not really healthy.

Indeed, it has taken me 35 years to be able to shoot the way I do, although military service helped me a great deal in that regard.

Feel remorse, for scum that breaks into your house?

Everyone has a right to life, until they give it up by infringing upon YOUR rights.

Feel guilty, not on your life, if someone breaks into my house, they aren't leaving except in a bag...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by Aperson:

I'd pity anyone who thought I could protect their life.

Should I find it humourous that you think I have or will have a social life?

[/QB]

What more can I say that Aperson hasn't?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Also, if you didn't feel any remorse afterwards, its not really healthy.

Ahhh.. so by your understanding; I should care about the idiot who breaks into my house, attempts to murder a family member but instead, I kill him because he not only tresspased on private properity, but also because he was a threat to the family?

ha.. ha.. ha... no thanks

In short:

If someone breaks into my fathers house, they've forfeited there life and deserve death, the only thing they'll be leaving in is a cardboard box, perhaps with honey all over there body

Seriously though, why should we care about those who wish to harm us?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe I used the wrong word, but if someone doesn't have any feelings of regret after killing someone, no matter how justified they were, is either A: especialy hardened and havn't yet killed enough people to be affected or B: mentaly unstable.

Soback:

So, I should be afraid everytime I walk out in a storm because there is a chance that I'll get struck by lightining? Or should I enter the lottery or start gambling when I can because there is a chance that I might "win the big one"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...