Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 27

Thread: Good shooting of one bad man, good arrest of another

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,863

    Post imported post

    Good shooting of one bad man, good arrest of another

    "Clemmons deserved to die. He was a poster child for everything that is bad about the justice system, and everything wrong (and wrong-headed) about the gun control agenda. Clemmons used a .38 Special revolver and carried a stolen 9mm semiautomatic pistol when he opened fire at the Forza coffee shop in Parkland, a couple of blocks south of Highway 512. He left both of those guns at the scene; the revolver with six empty cartridge cases in the cylinder (it was the primary murder weapon in Parkland) and the semi-auto with one round expended."



    http://www.examiner.com/x-4525-Seattle-Gun-Rights-Examiner~y2010m4d7-Good-shooting-of-one-bad-man-good-arrest-of-another

    Or try this:

    http://tinyurl.com/y9vowvn



  2. #2
    Regular Member amzbrady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Marysville, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,522

    Post imported post

    Senseless waste of taxpayers money. I cant believe they put the officer on trial to determine if the shooting was justified. I see stupidity at its finest.

    BTW Dave, another good article. I agree, the anti's probably will use the fact Wilson had a CPL. We need to put out a request that all firearm owners start showing a little more responsibility these days, (I know, we shouldnt have to mention it or remind gun owners to be responsible). With all the attention firearms are getting, they dont need any angry dumbass's helping the anti's.

    From now on, all slayings shall need to be done with wooden post's from Brady Campaigner protest signs.
    If you voted for Obama to prove you are not a racist...
    what will you do now to prove you are not stupid?

    "The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism. But, under the name of "liberalism," they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program, until one day America will be a socialist nation, without knowing how it happened." - Norman Thomas

    "They who can who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve niether liberty nor safety." - Ben Franklin

  3. #3
    Campaign Veteran gogodawgs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Federal Way, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,667

    Post imported post

    Two things:

    I believe that the Yakima man is NOW a former CPL holder (or soon to be).

    The .38 Spl? Where did it come from? I continue to hear that the 9mm was stolen, but the .38?
    Live Free or Die!

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,863

    Post imported post

    gogodawgs wrote:
    Two things:

    I believe that the Yakima man is NOW a former CPL holder (or soon to be).

    The .38 Spl? Where did it come from? I continue to hear that the 9mm was stolen, but the .38?
    To my knowledge, he still has the CPL but probably won't for long since he's under indictment.



    It still isn't clear to me where the .38 Special came from in the Lakewood thing. I'll check back with the police Thursday and see if something new has been revealed.

  5. #5
    Regular Member SpyderTattoo's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Kent, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,018

    Post imported post

    amzbrady wrote:
    Senseless waste of taxpayers money. I cant believe they put the officer on trial to determine if the shooting was justified. I see stupidity at its finest.
    Why shouldn't the police face the same system that any of us would have to face?

    I expect the police to be held to an even higher standard than "non-police" citizens.

    How would it feel if the police never had to face the court system for any of their actions, especially a shooting? I guarantee that the rest of us would be pretty upset if police didn't have to go through due process like any of us would.
    Certified Glock Armorer

    "A government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular individual citizen..." -- Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. App.181)

    A 1911 that works properly is as rare as a Glock that doesn't.

  6. #6
    Regular Member FMCDH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    St. Louis, MO
    Posts
    2,043

    Post imported post

    SpyderTattoo wrote:
    amzbrady wrote:
    Senseless waste of taxpayers money. I cant believe they put the officer on trial to determine if the shooting was justified. I see stupidity at its finest.
    Why shouldn't the police face the same system that any of us would have to face?

    I expect the police to be held to an even higher standard than "non-police" citizens.

    How would it feel if the police never had to face the court system for any of their actions, especially a shooting? I guarantee that the rest of us would be pretty upset if police didn't have to go through due process like any of us would.
    +1, I agree.

    The system is there to uphold a level of accountability. We cant just accept the emotional relief of the outcome and throw the system out the window because it may not be expedient or popular this time. This is as system that was put there ultimately as a level of protection for you and me.

    Consistency in the law in good or bad is suppose to be one of the major factors that makes it legitimate, and not just a side show for the masses.

    The system isn't perfect, but it works more often than it doesn't. Try not to bash the system when its working in your ultimate favor.

  7. #7
    Regular Member amzbrady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Marysville, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,522

    Post imported post

    SpyderTattoo wrote:
    amzbrady wrote:
    Senseless waste of taxpayers money. I cant believe they put the officer on trial to determine if the shooting was justified. I see stupidity at its finest.
    Why shouldn't the police face the same system that any of us would have to face?

    I expect the police to be held to an even higher standard than "non-police" citizens.

    How would it feel if the police never had to face the court system for any of their actions, especially a shooting? I guarantee that the rest of us would be pretty upset if police didn't have to go through due process like any of us would.
    Under normal circumstances I agree 100%. The officer shot a known killer, who had an officers stolen handgun on him. Given the circumstances, thats what makes it a waste of time, esp using justification as a reason.
    If you voted for Obama to prove you are not a racist...
    what will you do now to prove you are not stupid?

    "The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism. But, under the name of "liberalism," they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program, until one day America will be a socialist nation, without knowing how it happened." - Norman Thomas

    "They who can who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve niether liberty nor safety." - Ben Franklin

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Wa, ,
    Posts
    2,769

    Post imported post

    amzbrady wrote:
    Senseless waste of taxpayers money. I cant believe they put the officer on trial to determine if the shooting was justified. I see stupidity at its finest.
    As long as I have been a member on this forum, I have read the complaints about the"judge, jury and executioner" mentality of police. For the most part this has been put down by those of us that support the police, recognizing that there is the rogue cop that shows up on occassion.

    Now I see this same thing being advocated as the way to deal with the criminal element. Try to remember, Clemmons still had the same rights to a trial and protection of the law that you and I enjoy. Granted, he was scum in my book, but he still had those rights.

    It was very appropriate that the officer was held to account for his actions and to be found justified or not justified as the evidence would dictate.



  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Port Orchard, Washington, USA
    Posts
    897

    Post imported post

    But unlike Wilson, who left messages for the senator that openly suggested she should be killed, rational law-abiding gun owners – who haven’t harmed anybody – would never dream of using a .38-caliber pistol, or any other kind of firearm, on Sen. Murray. They have a far more powerful weapon at their disposal, one that has already cut short the career of many a politician, and for which no background check or waiting period is required, and every American citizen has one. It’s called a ballot.
    Sorry, but if this were the case, we would have decent people in office instead of corrupt criminals and communists.
    ]

  10. #10
    Regular Member amzbrady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Marysville, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,522

    Post imported post

    Trigger Dr wrote:
    amzbrady wrote:
    Senseless waste of taxpayers money. I cant believe they put the officer on trial to determine if the shooting was justified. I see stupidity at its finest.
    As long as I have been a member on this forum, I have read the complaints about the"judge, jury and executioner" mentality of police. For the most part this has been put down by those of us that support the police, recognizing that there is the rogue cop that shows up on occassion.

    Now I see this same thing being advocated as the way to deal with the criminal element. Try to remember, Clemmons still had the same rights to a trial and protection of the law that you and I enjoy. Granted, he was scum in my book, but he still had those rights.

    It was very appropriate that the officer was held to account for his actions and to be found justified or not justified as the evidence would dictate.

    I disagree, he gave those rights up when he was fidgeting to pull the gun out of his pocket. He could have however retained those rights by not advancing on the officer and putting his hands up as requested. He made the decision not to have his day in court. The point I am getting at is "how, given the circumstances, would the shooting not have been justified". How about I answer my own question. It would have been worth questioning justification had Clemmons not been armed when he was shot. I am not a judge, a cop, or have I ever been on a jury. I dont need to be any of the afore mentioned to knowthe shooting was justified,given the evidence and circumstances.
    If you voted for Obama to prove you are not a racist...
    what will you do now to prove you are not stupid?

    "The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism. But, under the name of "liberalism," they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program, until one day America will be a socialist nation, without knowing how it happened." - Norman Thomas

    "They who can who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve niether liberty nor safety." - Ben Franklin

  11. #11
    Campaign Veteran gogodawgs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Federal Way, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,667

    Post imported post

    amzbrady wrote:
    Trigger Dr wrote:
    amzbrady wrote:
    Senseless waste of taxpayers money. I cant believe they put the officer on trial to determine if the shooting was justified. I see stupidity at its finest.
    As long as I have been a member on this forum, I have read the complaints about the"judge, jury and executioner" mentality of police. For the most part this has been put down by those of us that support the police, recognizing that there is the rogue cop that shows up on occassion.

    Now I see this same thing being advocated as the way to deal with the criminal element. Try to remember, Clemmons still had the same rights to a trial and protection of the law that you and I enjoy. Granted, he was scum in my book, but he still had those rights.

    It was very appropriate that the officer was held to account for his actions and to be found justified or not justified as the evidence would dictate.

    I disagree, he gave those rights up when he was fidgeting to pull the gun out of his pocket. He could have however retained those rights by not advancing on the officer and putting his hands up as requested. He made the decision not to have his day in court. The point I am getting at is "how, given the circumstances, would the shooting not have been justified". How about I answer my own question. It would have been worth questioning justification had Clemmons not been armed when he was shot. I am not a judge, a cop, or have I ever been on a jury. I dont need to be any of the afore mentioned to knowthe shooting was justified,given the evidence and circumstances.

    This was a matter of transparency and politics in a very high profile matter. There were several points of fact that were confirmed in the hearing. Without transparency, even where to some it is blatently obvious, corruption is allowed. I am not sure if the facts that were confirmed by the jury in this hearing can be used against the family who aided Clemmons, but if they can then they should all be getting ready for a long time in Walla Walla.

    Live Free or Die!

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,863

    Post imported post

    sirpuma wrote:
    But unlike Wilson, who left messages for the senator that openly suggested she should be killed, rational law-abiding gun owners – who haven’t harmed anybody – would never dream of using a .38-caliber pistol, or any other kind of firearm, on Sen. Murray. They have a far more powerful weapon at their disposal, one that has already cut short the career of many a politician, and for which no background check or waiting period is required, and every American citizen has one. It’s called a ballot.
    Sorry, but if this were the case, we would have decent people in office instead of corrupt criminals and communists.
    ]

    Well, it IS the case, like it or not.
    You simply have the disadvantage of not being able to get enough like-minded people off their fat asses to vote.
    They would much rather sit back and complain about, well, "corrupt criminals and communist" now in government

    The challenge is to get these people to vote. Then they wouldn't have anything to complain about.

    In any event, it's bad form to leave voice mails that suggest you are going to kill a politician. It's illegal, too.


  13. #13
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338

    Post imported post

    This guy who did the threats way to give the tyrannical folks more ammo for taking away our rights.

    But on a side note? Isn't the 2A already an implied threat of violence against politicians?
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,863

    Post imported post

    sudden valley gunner wrote:
    This guy who did the threats way to give the tyrannical folks more ammo for taking away our rights.

    But on a side note? Isn't the 2A already an implied threat of violence against politicians?
    No.



  15. #15
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338

    Post imported post

    Dave Workman wrote:
    sudden valley gunner wrote:
    This guy who did the threats way to give the tyrannical folks more ammo for taking away our rights.

    But on a side note? Isn't the 2A already an implied threat of violence against politicians?
    No.


    Explain, Or do you believe the 2A was written for hunting and self defense?

    Because from my understanding 2A was about removing tyranny.

    What was that quote from Thomas Jefferson? .......blood of tyrants.....?

    Not that I am advocating violence, or condoning this physcho's actions.

    But is the fear of an armed republic that is supposed to stop outrageous actions by our politicians.

    "While the people have property, arms in their hands, and only a spark of noble spirit, the most corrupt Congress must be mad to form any project of tyranny."
    - Rev. Nicholas Collin, Fayetteville Gazette (N.C.), October 12, 1789

    Here's some more recent ones..
    [*]HUBERT H. HUMPHREY (Senator, Vice President)
    • "Certainly one of the chief guarantees of freedom under any government, no matter how popular and respected, is the right of citizens to keep and bear arms...The right of citizens to bear arms is just one guarantee against arbitrary government, one more safeguard, against the tyranny which now appears remote in America but which historically has proven to be always possible." (22 October 1959)

    Don't be afraidto take a stand Dave all opinions are welcomed here. By simply saying no makes me believe you don't understand what the 2A was for.



    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  16. #16
    Regular Member OrangeIsTrouble's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Tukwila, WA, ,
    Posts
    1,398

    Post imported post

    sudden valley gunner wrote:

    But on a side note? Isn't the 2A already an implied threat of violence against politicians?
    Yes.


    Been harassed by the police? Yelled at by the anti-gun neighbors? Mother doesn't approve?

    Then this is the place for you! Click here to get back at them!

  17. #17
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338

    Post imported post

    Poosharker wrote:
    sudden valley gunner wrote:

    But on a side note? Isn't the 2A already an implied threat of violence against politicians?
    Yes.

    Yes my young padawan you are being brought up well. LOL.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  18. #18
    Campaign Veteran gogodawgs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Federal Way, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,667

    Post imported post

    Poosharker wrote:
    sudden valley gunner wrote:

    But on a side note? Isn't the 2A already an implied threat of violence against politicians?
    Yes.
    No.... not against individual politicians. Against tyranny....yes. Against a tryrant...yes.
    Live Free or Die!

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,863

    Post imported post

    sudden valley gunner wrote:
    Dave Workman wrote:
    sudden valley gunner wrote:
    This guy who did the threats way to give the tyrannical folks more ammo for taking away our rights.

    But on a side note? Isn't the 2A already an implied threat of violence against politicians?
    No.


    Explain, Or do you believe the 2A was written for hunting and self defense?

    Because from my understanding 2A was about removing tyranny.

    What was that quote from Thomas Jefferson? .......blood of tyrants.....?

    Not that I am advocating violence, or condoning this physcho's actions.

    But is the fear of an armed republic that is supposed to stop outrageous actions by our politicians.

    "While the people have property, arms in their hands, and only a spark of noble spirit, the most corrupt Congress must be mad to form any project of tyranny."
    - Rev. Nicholas Collin, Fayetteville Gazette (N.C.), October 12, 1789

    Here's some more recent ones..

    [*]HUBERT H. HUMPHREY (Senator, Vice President)
    • "Certainly one of the chief guarantees of freedom under any government, no matter how popular and respected, is the right of citizens to keep and bear arms...The right of citizens to bear arms is just one guarantee against arbitrary government, one more safeguard, against the tyranny which now appears remote in America but which historically has proven to be always possible." (22 October 1959)
    Don't be afraidto take a stand Dave all opinions are welcomed here. By simply saying no makes me believe you don't understand what the 2A was for.


    I answered a question about whether the 2A is an "implied threat of violence" against politicians.
    I don't have to explain that at all. What part of "no" don't you understand?

    It is an "insurance policy" against tyranny, but it is not an "implied threat of violence" against politicians.

    Besides, one look at the way Congress has conducted itself over the years is all one needs to conclude they don't take it as an implied threat of violence.



  20. #20
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338

    Post imported post

    Dave Workman wrote:
    sudden valley gunner wrote:
    Dave Workman wrote:
    sudden valley gunner wrote:
    This guy who did the threats way to give the tyrannical folks more ammo for taking away our rights.

    But on a side note? Isn't the 2A already an implied threat of violence against politicians?
    No.


    Explain, Or do you believe the 2A was written for hunting and self defense?

    Because from my understanding 2A was about removing tyranny.

    What was that quote from Thomas Jefferson? .......blood of tyrants.....?

    Not that I am advocating violence, or condoning this physcho's actions.

    But is the fear of an armed republic that is supposed to stop outrageous actions by our politicians.

    "While the people have property, arms in their hands, and only a spark of noble spirit, the most corrupt Congress must be mad to form any project of tyranny."
    - Rev. Nicholas Collin, Fayetteville Gazette (N.C.), October 12, 1789

    Here's some more recent ones..


    [*]HUBERT H. HUMPHREY (Senator, Vice President)
    • "Certainly one of the chief guarantees of freedom under any government, no matter how popular and respected, is the right of citizens to keep and bear arms...The right of citizens to bear arms is just one guarantee against arbitrary government, one more safeguard, against the tyranny which now appears remote in America but which historically has proven to be always possible." (22 October 1959)
    Don't be afraidto take a stand Dave all opinions are welcomed here. By simply saying no makes me believe you don't understand what the 2A was for.


    I answered a question about whether the 2A is an "implied threat of violence" against politicians. I don't have to explain that at all. What part of "no" don't you understand?

    It is an "insurance policy" against tyranny, but it is not an "implied threat of violence" against politicians.

    Besides, one look at the way Congress has conducted itself over the years is all one needs to conclude they don't take it as an implied threat of violence.

    And how is it an "insurance policy", by being an implied threat of violence if they mess up, right? Why do you always have to be condencending ass?
    What part of explain yourself did you not understand? Jeez Dave what click counts down?

    Yes the modern congress doesn'tseem threatened byit, but that does not change what it was written for now does it? HMMMMM? Again explain how it is an insurance policy if not an implied threat of violence?
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,863

    Post imported post

    sudden valley gunner wrote:
    And how is it an "insurance policy", by being an implied threat of violence if they mess up, right? Why do you always have to be condencending ass? What part of explain yourself did you not understand? Jeez Dave what click counts down?

    Yes the modern congress doesn'tseem threatened byit, but that does not change what it was written for now does it? HMMMMM? Again explain how it is an insurance policy if not an implied threat of violence?

    Now who's being condescending and an "arrogant ass?"

    I gave a simple answer "No."

    Poosharker answered "yes" and you didn't try baiting him into a debate, you verbally patted him on the head for agreeing with you. Simply because I gave the answer you don't agree with, I'm an "arrogant ass" and condescending.

    Gee, what happened to:
    Don't be afraidto take a stand Dave all opinions are welcomed here.
    If that's so, why the personal attacks?

    Call Patty Murray's office and leave a voice message that the Second Amendment is an implied threat of violence against politicians. Probably not a good idea to sprinkle it with "F" bombs like that guy in Selah.

    Let us know what happens.





  22. #22
    Regular Member OrangeIsTrouble's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Tukwila, WA, ,
    Posts
    1,398

    Post imported post

    gogodawgs wrote:
    Poosharker wrote:
    sudden valley gunner wrote:

    But on a side note? Isn't the 2A already an implied threat of violence against politicians?
    Yes.
    No.... not against individual politicians. Against tyranny....yes. Against a tryrant...yes.
    I'm going to be careful with what I say here, as I don't have too much experience with this.

    I did not see that as "individuals", I saw that as politician"S".

    Second, all this talk about "insurance" and "implied violence" is just politics. All names. All names just to adjust accordingly per person. In the end, it means the same. Should a "New Orleans" event happen, I am sure you won't just happily wear your gun and the police will just roll over and not try to disarm you.

    From "http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=violence"

    (n) violence, force (an act of aggression (as one against a person who resists)) "he may accomplish by craft in the long run what he cannot do by force and violence in the short one"
    Those police disarming those folks there, according to princeton dictionary, were using "violence". Although some might not use "violence", they might use words like "unconstitutional", which goes back to it being all politics. Just names for the same thing.


    Been harassed by the police? Yelled at by the anti-gun neighbors? Mother doesn't approve?

    Then this is the place for you! Click here to get back at them!

  23. #23
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338

    Post imported post

    Dave Workman wrote:
    sudden valley gunner wrote:
    And how is it an "insurance policy", by being an implied threat of violence if they mess up, right? Why do you always have to be condencending ass? What part of explain yourself did you not understand? Jeez Dave what click counts down?

    Yes the modern congress doesn'tseem threatened byit, but that does not change what it was written for now does it? HMMMMM? Again explain how it is an insurance policy if not an implied threat of violence?

    Now who's being condescending and an "arrogant ass?"

    I gave a simple answer "No."

    Poosharker answered "yes" and you didn't try baiting him into a debate, you verbally patted him on the head for agreeing with you. Simply because I gave the answer you don't agree with, I'm an "arrogant ass" and condescending.

    Gee, what happened to:
    Don't be afraidto take a stand Dave all opinions are welcomed here.
    If that's so, why the personal attacks?

    Call Patty Murray's office and leave a voice message that the Second Amendment is an implied threat of violence against politicians. Probably not a good idea to sprinkle it with "F" bombs like that guy in Selah.

    Let us know what happens.



    I notice how you left out the "What part of no did you not understand" in your reply that was the condenscending ass part I was reffering too. If you dish it out expect it back Dave.

    And you didn't offer an opinion or an argument backing up your statement, look at the timeline who replied first you or Poo, obvioulyPoo answered the same way I feel so I understand why he answered yes, I still don't understand why you would answer"no".If you don't want to give one fine. But you seem to be the only one getting "baited". But this is an open forum for open debate and stories. Gogo gave an opinion on the subject with out a "personal attack" or being arrogant, figured you could do the same, my bad.

    But then you try a good political move of misdirecting and suggesting somehow that I have something in common with this A hole who threatened Patty McMurray. Real nice guy.

    GogoDawgs wrote:
    No.... not against individual politicians. Against tyranny....yes. Against a tryrant...yes.
    As Dave pointed out it is an "insurance" policy, against all politicians. It is the darker side of the 2A maybe a touchy subject but we can't forget what it was written for. And it wasn't written for self defense or hunting. And as Dave points out our politicians seemed to have forgotten what it was written for.

    Other than Poo here is some others who would have answered yes.

    Susanna Haptia Grup talking toTexas legislature(paraphrasing) " ....second ammendment is about protecting us from you ...."

    -- Robert Dornan
    US Congressman (CA-R)
    Source: January 25, 1994, responding to Bill Clinton's "State of the Union" speech


    "..and by the way, Mr.Speaker, the Second Amendment is not for killing little ducks and leaving Huey and Dewey and Louie without an aunt and uncle. It's for hunting politicians, like in Grozny, and in the colonies in 1776, or when they take your independence away."

    "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.
    -- John F. Kennedy



    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  24. #24
    Campaign Veteran gogodawgs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Federal Way, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,667

    Post imported post

    gogodawgs wrote:
    Poosharker wrote:
    sudden valley gunner wrote:

    But on a side note? Isn't the 2A already an implied threat of violence against politicians?
    Yes.
    No.... not against individual politicians. Against tyranny....yes. Against a tryrant...yes.
    After reading a couple of more posts, I am going to explain it to one more level.

    The 2A is an insurance policy against tyranny and a tyrant, which we have neither at this time. Never against individual politicians.

    When do individual politicians become tyrants? When all of them have banded together and usurped the very freedoms we enjoy. At this point only they are on that path, but are very far from usurping the rights of men. The political spectrum has swings back and forth, right now we are in a quickly swinging pendulum moving away from the rights of men. It must be met with the force of the ballot this year, if not then how close we move away from individual rights will determine how close we move towards the next revolution.
    Live Free or Die!

  25. #25
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338

    Post imported post

    I totally agree with what you are saying GogoDawgs, so it still remains as a threat of violence even if it is the last resort. The same way Open Carry is a detterant against criminals. It is an implied threat of violence. May not be the politically correct way of putting it and might rub folks the wrong way but it is the truth of the matter. I hope to God to never have to use my weapon against someone the same way I never would want to have to engage in the activity the 2A was written for.

    I agree with your scenario and reasoning, but think this is a more "evolved" way of thinking than originally intended. My belief is that the founders intended to keep politicians/gov. in check by putting the right to bear arms against them into the constitution. And if you look at many on the 2A from them it bears out that that was their intention also. Samual Adams and George Washington had some great ones. Along with the obvious famous Thomas Jefferson ones.

    My statement/question really wasn't questioning when it gets used but what the 2A was intended for. I am always open to veiwpoints and think we are on the same page, and am glad that you are open for discussion. Openly discussing things is how we learn, from each other. And I better state loud and clearly I do not endorse this Yakima's actions and do feel he deserves his jailtime. Although that won't dettertrolls who already have their mind made up.

    Hey on side note I have been working a lot in South sound area Puyallup/Tacoma would love to get together for coffee sometime with you "Southerners". Since I haven't been able to keep up with our weekly informal meets up here.

    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •