lol, your funny. Your analysis and proposal is quixotic and we'll never happen.

love that gang in blue dont ya? till they "accidentaly" shoot some one you love 41 times on their doorstep for trying to show them your ID.

same here had experiances with lots of asshole pigs never had a criminal point a gun at me. i did have them flash it a time or two though

I'm sorry you had such a shitty experience, where do you live that the cops are so bad?

I'm from LA, so I know that cops can be complete cunts. But usually, no party is innocent in an issue like that. Straight-up dirty or retarded cops are fairly rare, we just hear about them a while lot because it isn't exactly breaking news when a good cop does his job well.

ls, I never said I "love" them. But I do love presumptions though.

The first time I got into a fight in a second floor apartment, with a set of steep straight stairs all the way from the door to ground... I got attacked by a rather large fellow he threw me down the stairs, I avoided the fight and went to the closest convenient store... I figured he wouldn't attack me in public... He did, anyway 911 was called by a bystander.. When the cops arrived I was half beat up and feeling a hangover coming on.. Well the cops kept harassing me, and the guy was dangerous enough I figured why not tell them where he is at... I was so drunk I let them talk me into walking up the stairs again, the guy kicked me right down the stairs, ran down them and started attacking me... I made it to my feet and to try to defend myself, and about then the cops all turned on their spotlights, and yelled "freeze"... I didn't know if they would shoot me or not, and if the guy would've had the knife on him he initially came at me with they may have...

(no charges were filed on the attacker by me, nor were any picked up and filed by the state)

The second time someone lied and said I had a "meth-lab" (damn x-girlfriends), anyway they raided my house with a swat teams, drug me out the shower butt naked (that was the one I made the reference to the "Barney Fife" looking cop shaking more than me)... Anyway, 1 swat team that included 2 K-9 units, sent after one person, they didn't find the first ANYTHING having to do with any drug...

And other times in front of a judge is nunya....

Maybe it won't happen, but I don't have a use for a pig... Neither does society, all they are is hired thugs for the ruling elite...

I like the 357, it's not as massive and jumpy as the 44, and will put a bad guy wearing kevlar on the ground. This cannot be said of the 40.

wow agreed patraus. now will you admit that the cops exist to protect the rich and their money?

Fair enough, but it actually isn't your responsibility to defend yourself. Nor are you really qualified unless you have military training.

Even then, I would hope that our society isn't so callous that it considers blowing people apart an acceptable form of crime prevention.

I'm not really a fan of the .40 Short & Weak as we call it although it has a pretty good record. I do like a .357 wheelgun and the .357 Sig is a hellova round. I'm a .45 (1911) guy but do like the 10mm. Check out the .44 Special if you like wheelguns. In my opinion it is the best revolver round out there. 240 SWC at about 800- 850 fps. Nothing more needed.

The responsibility and duty of the police is to protect people and property in addition to enforcing the law. Most of them really don't care what you do unless the legislature has passed some law making some behavior illegal or you run your mouth to them bringing you to their attention. In my experience most cops dislike the very rich more than the poor due to the fact that there seems to be tendency for the very wealthy to treat them like servants. This may be a self fulfilling prophecy as the police are labeled "public servants". I have a LOT of problems with some of what they do. Many are bad, many are good. Do NOT put them in the position where they think they are not in control of a situation. A lot of that has to do with the authority thing, no they are not compensating for anything, and the fact that they are usually outnumbered. They go from quiet to extremely violent in a vertical line.

I disagree. It is everyone right and responsibility to defend yourself. It is also your right to decide not to. Choosing to be or not be a victim is an individual thing.
As to "blowing people apart", well it depends on whether or not you wish to be a victim. I would find that form of crime prevention, as you put it, more acceptable than having my family be a victim of violent crime. Somehow it does not sit well with me nor do I think we have any type of obligation whatsoever to be a victim.

I'm not asking you to be a victim. And when I say it's not your responsibility, I mean that in the same sense that it's not your responsibility to practice medicine to take care of yourself.

Sure, you need to know certain things just to stick around. But it really sin't your responsibility to, say, stop a bank robbery against two dozen armed assailants. That's a job for professionals.

As for blowing people apart, this was not some judgment as to whether or not you were going to choose to be a victim of violent crime. What I was getting at is that it would far more preferable that a criminal be rehabilitated than to be killed.

This may be hard for you to understand, but even criminals are people and most of them had very little choice in life. If you seriously would kill one without any pity and not when it wasn't absolutely necessary, it might be you that needs to be locked up.

Ya, love the toys.

Perhaps it isnot your responsibility to practice medicine to take care of yourself but sometimes you have to put on the bandaid.
I have never heard of a bank robbery done by 24 people but I would not willingly engage 24 in a gun battle by myself, neither will a lone police officer.
If someone is doing me violence, rehabilitation is generally not on the table.
Regardless of how bad someones life is they s till have a choice as to how to behave. Property crime to feed ones family is vastly different to people crime. The former would be stealing groceries, the latter is robbery/rape etc. In spite of what you last sentence is, without going into background, I have no compunction about dropping the hammer on anyone trying to harm my family. If you do that is your issue and that is fine.

Fair enough, we don't seem to disagree.

I'd just like to think that even bad people can be good, they just need another chance.

And even though I'm an atheist, I always liked that old bit of wisdom that goes, "there but for the grace of God go I."

November 5th is a Saturday. I'll spend somewhere between $100 and $200 Saturday night. If I purchase tickets to an event it could be more. That should offset any spending all the people on this board would have done. I need a new Cherokee. Maybe I'll buy a new 5.7L, V8 Cherokee Limited that day (MSRP 39K).

more and more Im convinced that you are a poor ass hick living in a delapidated trailer somewhere in the Georgia boonys. Keep living that fantasy.

No he isn't and you are way off geographically and otherwise but as Forrest Gump said, "That's all I have to say about that".

how do you know so much about warren? you two in the same Klan?

Actually citizens can in fact arm themselves and stop oppressors. We Americans have all the gear and ability to take control of our corrupt police state.

Defending yourself is the right way, gang members are less trained than I am.

You don't need a lot of people you just need a few of the right ones to win. In a country where the police are owned by the gangs, the people can win if they stick together.

Absolutely. Actually the police and the gangs are less trained than many of us out there.

I'd rather all the members of my community be responsible and trained enough to be able handle themselves...

& Fuck the drug war, it created all the cartel violence, and the practice of leaving dismembered body parts all around in Mexico....

In Massachusetts the Park Police were merged into the State Police department. These guys are scary. It's Barney Fife with a loaded firearm. I had an experience with one of them. I had rolled a stop sign on a corner built like a merge intersection. A tall delivery truck blocked my view of the stop sign. After about forty-five minutes of attempting to badger and unnerve me, I challenged the guy. I told him to let me go, give me a ticket and let me go or arrest me. I told him if he didnt make a choice I would have him charged with harassment.

I told the cop my first call would be to a relative/lawyer who will call the top defense lawyer (named him/friend of the family) in the state. Because I didn't have my registration in the car the cop accused me of stealing the sticker on my license plate, a federal offense.

When I mentioned the lawyer's name, the cop couldn't let me go fast enough. When I walked into the grocery store there was a crowd gathered. One said with the attention I was getting (three police cars/lights flashing/my car boxed in) they thought I was a major criminal.

There are police who give law enforcement a bad name. They draw almost all the publicity. Most are good guys. Some have tough jobs in tough areas.

The Police are not less trained, they are trained to capture, we don't capture. That's why thieves prefer the police to a home owner.

The militias that exist here would probably be the ones robbing the countryside, were law and order ever to sufficiently break down like that.

In fact, if at any time the citizenry must rely upon itself to stop literally dozens of people from attacking them, it really doesn't matter what the fuck you do because your civilization has failed.

In any case, guns are almost totally unrestricted in this country and it really has not lowered crime. Unsurprisingly, since crime has nothing to do with whether or not criminals or their victims are armed.

And don't even get me started on "states' rights."

In short, you have no idea what you're talking about in virtually everything you've said in this post.

And just in case you try to bring it up, I'm not in favor of gun control. I just think you have this issue unbelievably wrong.

I agree you would most probably have to defend yourself against the Militias.

Really....

I clearly pointed out that whenever you bring up things like "militias" or people being able to self police, it gets twisted all to often into a left/right thing....

I understand what militias are generally for in other countries, I know clearly what they used to be here in this country. Our militias served to protect ourselves from the "red coats", which seemed to show up after we decided to quit being so heavily taxed by a monarchy. That's how they really got there start here, and at times it's been suggested they defended villages and towns from Native American Indian raids....

So I'm very familiar with what a "militia" in the U.S. is about.

I admit I changed subject and maybe not clearly enough in that comment linked the connection between the 2 topics I see it...

What I was suggesting is that any number of issues break down into a left/right thing, and for whatever reasons at the time those two concepts weren't all that far off in my head... Both would be traditionally thought off as more a "right wing" thing....

No I have the issue and the points I've made correct.

I think it would be allot safer if cops didn't exist and people self policed, and nobody was getting paid to break into someones house in the middle of the night on bad intelligence and shoots someones dog, only after they shoot the homeowner... As to why I posted this article which caused the comment(s)you totally disagree with...

But please do get into "states rights" topic..... I know California loves the idea...

The second paragraph is irrelevant to the discussion.
You may want to take a look at areas which ban firearms altogether ie: Chicago relative to their opposites to see how the crime rate is doing.

Then your view on militias is delusional, seeing as how we haven't needed any for at least 150 years and they haven't been for defense from foreign invasion for at least that long as well.

Most "militia" groups are whacked-out weirdos who are either semi-paramilitary groups hell bent on overthrowing the government or are Fundamentalist/racist crazies trying to shoot Mexicans near the border.

Moreover, in the modern era, they're next to useless unless they are unimaginably large (like in the millions).

If people self-policed, what you'd essentially have is wild-west mob violence, because large groups of people are incapable of governing themselves except through prejudice and violence.

Moreover, there are plenty of areas in which the people who doing "self-policing" would in fact be criminals. There would not be a whole lot of "self-policing" in Compton, for instance.

The fundamental flaw with your conclusion is a couple of faulty assumptions. One, that responsible, upstanding citizens will always be stronger than criminals. And two, that there is some sort of clear cut line between responsible and irresponsible citizen, and that the power of such a position wouldn't corrupt the so-called "responsible" ones.

I don't like the police either, but I assure you that their presence (even as out of control as they've become) is far better than the alternative.

If you don't believe me, look at countries that *do* self-police, like Somalia. Lemme know if that's the kind of system you're down for.

As for "states' rights," being from California, I'm not sure what you're talking about. Most people here are dumb and have no responsible position on the role of government outside of its basic services (schools, police, firefighters, etc.). States' rights is almost always a code-word for anti-civil rights, or anti-workers' rights or some other insidious plot to undermine necessary Federal regulation of shitty state behavior.

After all, with the exception of the Drug War, it is State governments who consistently violate peoples' rights and are the biggest threats to our freedom.

Don't forget, before the 14th amendment, the constitution didn't even apply to states, which means they did whatever the hell they wanted. And they *did*.

The second paragraph is entirely relevant. The point I'm making is that should it become necessary to defend yourself from sixty armed assailants, something is *really* fucking wrong with your country. BASIC decency should prevent such actions or, at the very least, you'd have some kind of protection against that kind of behavior.

It is not a citizen's job to defend themselves from bandits and assailants, that is the prime directive of government! If it's not doing that, then it has ZERO purpose.

As for your second comment, I'd say what of it? Because areas that just let loose with their guns laws DO NOT have lower crime rates.

Put simply, the availability of guns does NOT deter crime one way or the other. If you think otherwise, you've watched Die Hard one too many times.

Guns being available to criminals or victims does not deter the act itself because it is not the cause OR the prevention of criminal activity. Criminal acts are always linked to poverty, racial tensions, desperation, high unemployment, anti-social behavior and any other factors which remove someone from their social environment and force them to fight to survive.