MKEgal
Regular Member
.
-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
An extreme view from an anti-rights voice
- Thread starter MKEgal
- Start date
MKEgal
Regular Member
My brother & his family have entirely reasonable & fact-based views about firearms, even though they live in CA.
Some of the people he's FaceBook 'friends' with, not so much.
And of course, they don't listen to reason.
I've posted citations from & links to probably 8-12 scientifically-done studies which disprove his opinions, and this guy I quote below dismisses them as "selected references collected by an amateur". (But of course, he can't come up with ANY studies supporting his opinions... because they don't exist.)
Someone with some common sense asked him:
And Ken even blames lawfully-armed citizens and the "we're not gonna take this any more" mentality* for causing crime! He says that LACs are worse for society than violent predators!
I'm almost afraid to ask him what he means by "the extended 'urban' hating mindset"... Think maybe he's being racist there?
Some of the people he's FaceBook 'friends' with, not so much.
And of course, they don't listen to reason.
I've posted citations from & links to probably 8-12 scientifically-done studies which disprove his opinions, and this guy I quote below dismisses them as "selected references collected by an amateur". (But of course, he can't come up with ANY studies supporting his opinions... because they don't exist.)
Kenneth O'Brien said:
Someone with some common sense asked him:
And Ken's reply was:
Kenneth O'Brien said:
Kenneth O'Brien said:
And Ken even blames lawfully-armed citizens and the "we're not gonna take this any more" mentality* for causing crime! He says that LACs are worse for society than violent predators!
* Or perhaps, as Kathy Jackson puts it, "not me, not mine, not today".Kenneth O'Brien said:
I'm almost afraid to ask him what he means by "the extended 'urban' hating mindset"... Think maybe he's being racist there?
Last edited:
papa bear
Regular Member
sounds like Ken just wants to be a victim at best, a Tory at worst
OC for ME
Regular Member
With grammar like that, Mr. O'Brien's parents need to demand a refund from Lehigh U.
eye95
Well-known member
He is free to choose to be a victim. I don't care.
However, he is asking for the taking of our Right, thereby choosing victimhood for us too. That is unacceptable.
Deanimator
Regular Member
Tell them that, then throw in, "NO, I REFUSE."
It literally drives them insane with rage.
Those types have NEVER been told "no" in their lives. When they are, it almost invariably sends them into an infantile hissy fit. Almost as entertaining as a good episode of "Big Bang Theory"...
minarchist
Regular Member
That is what infuriates me about sheeple like him.
minarchist
Regular Member
I wonder if Kenneth O'Brien has any problem with cops having the power of "judge, jury, and executioner" when facing deadly force. For some reason that I can't put my finger on, I doubt it.
OC for ME
Regular Member
It is prudent to dissuade oneself from generalizations.
Citizen
Founder's Club Member
Any anti-rights view is an extreme one. Our civilization spent some 561 years from Magna Carta to the Bill of Rigthts aquiring the very few rights recognized at law--anybody who wants to go backward from that is a radical.
motoxmann
Regular Member
would this be the Kenneth O'Brien that lives in Portland, Maine?? using a photo of Tillie Shaeffer (NY Giant) as his profile pic, and Obama with a bunch of young women as his cover photo?
ron73440
Regular Member
Originally Posted by Kenneth O'Brien, Lehigh U
There is nothing simple about turning over justice, security and punishment to the instantaneous assessment/whim of each and every private individual.
I would like to know when has this happened recently? I guess you could make the argument that there were vigilantes in the old west, but the only real justice and punishment administered outside the court system these days is by criminals who can't get legal help to right wrongs, LAC's that carry do so for self defence, not to be judge, jury, and executioner.
I sincerely pray that I am never in a situation where I have to use my pistol, but if I need it more prayer won't help as much as being prepared.
One thing I would like to say to anti gun people, if you were in Sandy Hook, what would you have done? Hid under the desk with the kids?
I and the group you like to call "gun nuts" would have gone 2 to the chest and one to the head.
Which seems to be a better answer to such an evil situation? If that means in your mind I am "turning over justice, security and punishment to the instantaneous assessment/whim of each and every private individual." than so be it.
There is nothing simple about turning over justice, security and punishment to the instantaneous assessment/whim of each and every private individual.
I would like to know when has this happened recently? I guess you could make the argument that there were vigilantes in the old west, but the only real justice and punishment administered outside the court system these days is by criminals who can't get legal help to right wrongs, LAC's that carry do so for self defence, not to be judge, jury, and executioner.
I sincerely pray that I am never in a situation where I have to use my pistol, but if I need it more prayer won't help as much as being prepared.
One thing I would like to say to anti gun people, if you were in Sandy Hook, what would you have done? Hid under the desk with the kids?
I and the group you like to call "gun nuts" would have gone 2 to the chest and one to the head.
Which seems to be a better answer to such an evil situation? If that means in your mind I am "turning over justice, security and punishment to the instantaneous assessment/whim of each and every private individual." than so be it.
Last edited:
Citizen
Founder's Club Member
Moreover, OBrien's comment is utterly strawman--to the point of a deliberate lie because justice, security, and punishment are not being turned over to the lawfully armed citizen. Any lawfully armed citizen who exceeds his authority to defend self and others is liable both civilly and criminally.
OC for ME
Regular Member
Turning over the security of those children at Sandy Hook to a lawfully armed citizen should have been the preferred option until LE arrived to assist in, and then assume those security duties.
eye95
Well-known member
Exactly. The real reason those children are dead is that we, as a nation, left them undefended--and advertised this fact to crazies looking for soft targets.
[/Mr. Spock voice]
While it has always puzzled me why someone would get up in the face of a person obviously wearing a gun on their hip and insult that person, their morals, their judgement, and tell outrageous lies about their behavior as well as the relationship between the gun-toter's parents, it seems said individuals never appear to have any actual fear that the gun-toter would actually act in the ways of which they just accused them.
:banghead:
stay safe.
Freedom1Man
Regular Member
Last edited:
motoxmann
Regular Member
Freedom1Man
Regular Member
OOOO! I like that! sharing via social media now
Thanks I made it up after reading that post.