Gun Shots Fired at Art Bell's Property Tonight

[albrecht]

Fixed

Haha. Yep, that would be about right.

[Yorkshire pud]

Yorkshire,

You wrote:  You think the present situation is sustainable? Art Bell has posted an alleged event, and the answer by some is to make his home a version of a small garrison. Yeah, okay.

As to Art's event having been "alleged," keep in mind that he was notified by text message by a neighbour who heard the shots and then by text by another neighbour who saw someone use a rifle to shoot at art's compound, get into a car and speed away. This is not on Art's say-so alone. 

What you say is still an allegation; and until if/when the charges are made and the prosecution presents it's case for the jury to decide one way or the other, it's still an allegation until proven. I hate to be the stick in the mud with the legal shit, but in law (and I'm on a limb here, but I think it's the same in the US as it is here), that's how it is.

As regards the current situation regarding guns being sustainable, please try to imagine that there are mre than two options, i.e., there are options more than "everyone has guns and no civilian has a gun.  I firmly believe that history has amply demonstrated that rogue governments can and do occur in the most unexpected of places.  Any people who want to be subject to a rogue government invites such by surrendering their right to own firearms and whatever else might be necessary for the people to defend themselves against a rogue government. 

Indeed; but the vast majority of said rogue governments have occurred because of and in fact been replaced by military coups. Argentina was one; Any number of African nations, Burma, Indonesia (Although Indonesia in 1963 resulted in a bloodbath initiated by the CIA to replace the elected government); Central American countries..And good old Afghanistan

If memory serves me, in recent times, only Hungary, Baltic states, Poland and the Czech Rep/ Slovakia were bloodless coups. And the people in those instances didn't use firearms.

In the military coups, hundreds of thousands have perished. On this forum a certain individual has advocated the so called 'American Spring'; initiated apparently by an ex US general. I'm curious how that would work out, when we use other military coups as a standard? Or is there some rule that says the average American won't resort to primitive mode and be so shit scared they'll kill anyone they don't know intimately?

I know that's a long answer, but I think you'll find when military coups occur there are many many casualties. and the military have many many more times the fire power than anything Alex Jones thinks everyone should own.

There IS a way to protect society from emotionally unstable people having access to firearms.

I agree; but when that is put forward, the paranoid say it's unconstitutional; as if having mass shootings and 30000 deaths per year, every year isn't! It's also stated by some that no-one is qualified to make a call on someones mental stability! Oddly, the military find a way to sort the wheat from the chaff.

Leglslation  to fund operation of an armory in each police district and which would allow police to confiscate for a 6-month period any firearms that an individual whom a citizen has sworn out a statement they know to have expressed desire to harm others with firearms or to be as unstable as the boy who shot the children in an elementary school has access to.
These could be guns the individual owns or Grandpa's or parents' guns that are not trigger locked. After 6 months, the individual would be re-examined by a psychologist and those with contact to the individual are re-interviewed.  If the individual is found to still be unstable then the holding period for the firearms is renewed for another 6 months.  If he/she is found to have recovered from a period of instability, the guns are released to their owners.  The legislation would also include a provision requiring a jail sentence of 6 months to 1 year for any individual who swears out a statement against an individual in bad faith. The degree of emotional instability required to meet the requirement of this legislation would protect us from instances such as that of the boy who shot up the elementary school or the young an who killed 44 people at Virginia Tech.  Many people could readily see that each of these young men were emotionally unstable to a clinical degree.  This legislation would not protect us 100%, would anything?  No.  But a measure such as this is a way of addressing the mass shootings that are usually done by evidently unstable people who others can readily see are emotionally unstable.  The way our laws currently are, the police have no mandate to act to confiscate guns even if, for example, the danger had been reported to them by the gun range operator who saw the unstable boy who shot up the elementary school being brought to the gun range by his mother to learn to use firearms.  The only choice is not "take away the guns from everyone".  Some thought can lead to a thoughtful approach.

I agree with pretty much all of the above. Sadly what you have is this ingrained right for anyone (who hasn't a history of mental illness) to carry firearms. Airline pilots are psychologically tested regularly, as are many high stress occupations, yet for some reason having a firearm seems a rite of passage and not to be interfered with, no matter what. I've seen the results of one round entering and exiting a body (7.62mm), the mess is incredible. The internal damage may have to be repaired over the next few years as scar tissue forms and breaks.

But the last issue (and I'll try to resist any more on this because it's circular) is the idea that untrained and inexperienced civilians confronted with a high stress, fast moving and confusing armed situation could somehow resolve it by being the 'good guy' and take out the 'bad guy' is tosh. Experienced, well trained and battle hardened soldiers can't and don't always react quick enough. What chance has someone who is still working out where the rounds are coming from, as the first two or three are tearing bits out of his body?

Anyway, what'll be will be. You'll work it out I'm sure.

[Yorkshire pud]

lol@ the anti's wishing Art was disarmed and defenseless. I would think that this might bring some anti's over to our side when it came to personal defense but i guess they just want Art defenseless. Anti's are a queer bunch especially the Brits who seem to love tyranny and being raped by Pakies.

Remind us again who these tyrants might be? Although you might be forgiven for thinking Thatcher was, and Cameron is. One is thankfully dead and the other just bent over for the Chinese this week. Both Conservatives...odd that.

[Yorkshire pud]

My main issue is that psychiatry, and even less so psychology, is not (for the most part) a real "science" and the privacy aspect. The theories change, the DSM expands (and contracts,) new "diseases" are added/subtracted, and efficacy of different types of drugs and therapy vary wildly in effectiveness (or in reproducible studies.) Regarding privacy also: should your medical records also be made public if you wish to practice another Constitutional right? And why should "emotionally disturbed" be allowed to speak, assemble, vote, or practice other rights; under your theory?

"Emotionally disturbed" is not a legal term, and I'm not sure it is even a psychiatric term. Most people have emotions, I guess under your theory a psychopath would be the only one competent to purchase a firearm.  I guess we should have the government monitor everyone, maybe via smartphone or smartwatch, for any biochemical variation so that if a person might have had a bad day, had a fight with a spouse, lost a sports match, got fired, got a B instead of an A, that 'time of the month', going through menopause, lost a pet, is pregnant, gets frustrated in traffic, broke up with their girlfriend, or any other normal situation that causes "emotional disturbance," albeit temporary usually, and have some government minion kick their door down and seize their guns? Then, what, return them once the device registers have no more emotions or "ok emotionally" based on some government standard?" What precisely is "normal emotion" and what is the cut off on both sides to curtail one's rights? And this standard is determined by whom? A consensus of scientists? Psychologists? Psychiatrists? Societal poll? Congress? Some government bureaucrat? The President?

I think clearly if adjudicated as "harm to self or others" or not convicted as "legally insane" shouldn't be able to buy guns but once you start saying that the government needs to give everyone a psychiatric exam periodically worries me and sb]shades of Khrushchev:[/b]

"A crime is a deviation from generally recognized standards of behavior frequently caused by mental disorder. Can there be diseases, nervous disorders among certain people in a Communist society? Evidently yes. If that is so, then there will also be offences, which are characteristic of people with abnormal minds. Of those who might start calling for opposition to Communism on this basis, we can say that clearly their mental state is not norm"

He didn't stop firearms in the USSR. Not even a little bit! In fact he encouraged it. AK47 anyone? By the boatload.

[paladin1991]

Remind us again who these tyrants might be? Although you might be forgiven for thinking Thatcher was, and Cameron is. One is thankfully dead and the other just bent over for the Chinese this week. Both Conservatives...odd sod that.

Fixed.

As for tyrants?  Who disarmed you and made sure that you existed as modern serfs?

[chefist]

Remind us again who these tyrants might be? Although you might be forgiven for thinking Thatcher was, and Cameron is. One is thankfully dead and the other just bent over for the Chinese this week. Both Conservatives...odd that.

Compassionate Liberalism...oxymoron...

[SredniVashtar]

I can't add much to what YP has already said so eloquently. I think we are on the same page about all of this. it always amazes me when people raise the argument of having firearms as a safeguard against a tyrannical government. If a government is genuinely tyrannical, then they will be able to deal with any outbreaks of civilian violence by virtue of being immeasurably better equipped and better trained. To imagine having a few guns in the house is going to prevent that is pie in the sky thinking. If you really have concerns about the direction your government is going, then you need to get involved in the democratic process and try to change things, not simply hunker down and wait for the world to end. A lot of this stuff is linked to the crazy eschatology of the more far-out Christian groups who actually want the world to collapse so that their demented  prophecies can be fulfilled.

[albrecht]

He didn't stop firearms in the USSR. Not even a little bit! In fact he encouraged it. AK47 anyone? By the boatload.

Not for political dissidents there weren't! That is the point. It is bad to use psychiatry for political ends. Depending on the style/time and your prominence you were deemed 'insane' and thrown in a psikhushka, sent to a gulag, sent to lubyanka, or just shot.

[Yorkshire pud]

Fixed.

As for tyrants?  Who disarmed you and made sure that you existed as modern serfs?

He he, c'mon Buddy, you know I only have eyes for you. I don't need no bitchin queen.

[SredniVashtar]

Compassionate Liberalism...oxymoron...

Come on, you can do better than that. What do you mean? Don't just do cheap point-scoring.

[Yorkshire pud]

Compassionate Liberalism...oxymoron...

With Thatcher? You have one hell of a sense of humour! That bitch is a filthy word where I live.

[paladin1991]

I can't add much to what YP has already said so eloquently. I think we are on the same page about all of this. it always amazes me when people raise the argument of having firearms as a safeguard against a tyrannical government. If a government is genuinely tyrannical, then they will be able to deal with any outbreaks of civilian violence by virtue of being immeasurably better equipped and better trained. To imagine having a few guns in the house is going to prevent that is pie in the sky thinking. If you really have concerns about the direction your government is going, then you need to get involved in the democratic process and try to change things, not simply hunker down and wait for the world to end. A lot of this stuff is linked to the crazy eschatology of the more far-out Christian groups who actually want the world to collapse so that their demented  prophecies can be fulfilled.

https://youtu.be/HQfzwFloVqA

[chefist]

Come on, you can do better than that. What do you mean? Don't just do cheap point-scoring.

Compassion means caring...not just about those who agree with you politically...being "thankful" someone is dead that you did not agree with politically does not ingratiate opponents or independents to agree with you...

Perfect example here in the US....

1. George Bush (Republican) and the Iraq War: 4,491 dead
2. Lyndon Johnson (Democrat) and the Vietnam War: 58, 307 dead

Do you hear Democrats demonizing LBJ? NEVER!   Why? Agreeing with a political party or someone's politics is more important than being hypocritical...

[albrecht]

Fixed.

As for tyrants?  Who disarmed you and made sure that you existed as modern serfs?

They disarmed themselves (for the most part- the rich can still hunt and shoot- not foxes in some places though) via an over-reaction to a nutjob who shot up a school in Scotland and sadly killed 17 kids. Now they must rely on their Islamic immigrants, or use Stanley knives, to commit most of the public mayhem (like beheading a soldier in the street in broad daylight or "honor killings") - though the ban worked so well that some crazy taxidriver, yes a taxidriver- not sure if he saw the movie, went on a killing spree with guns in 2010 and killed a bunch of people and himself.

[Yorkshire pud]

Not for political dissidents there weren't! That is the point. It is bad to use psychiatry for political ends. Depending on the style/time and your prominence you were deemed 'insane' and thrown in a psikhushka, sent to a gulag, sent to lubyanka, or just shot.

Political dissidents didn't need or would be advantaged with firearms, and the none dissidents complied. Tyrants in power don't need anything but psychology. Saddam Hussein stayed in power because he knew he had a country full of spies who would literally turn in their own mother if they were suspected of being dissidents. A few weeks/months of torture in jail and/or death would make the rest fall into line. Ably abetted by the West. But Iraq wasn't and isn't the only regime that we kiss the ass of.

[Yorkshire pud]

Compassion means caring...not just about those who agree with you politically...being "thankful" someone is dead that you did not agree with politically does not ingratiate opponents or independents to agree with you...

I don't detest Thatcher and expect anyone else to agree; up to them. I detest her memory for what she did to the area where I lived and still do. I couldn't care less if anyone else feels the same. Same goes for Blair. He should be in the dock at The Hague with Bush.

[Yorkshire pud]

They disarmed themselves (for the most part- the rich can still hunt and shoot- not foxes in some places though) via an over-reaction to a nutjob who shot up a school in Scotland and sadly killed 17 kids. Now they must rely on their Islamic immigrants, or use Stanley knives, to commit most of the public mayhem (like beheading a soldier in the street in broad daylight or "honor killings") - though the ban worked so well that some crazy taxidriver, yes a taxidriver- not sure if he saw the movie, went on a killing spree with guns in 2010 and killed a bunch of people and himself.

Yes, and the combined total is still less than the casualties the USA will have in the next 24 hours. And you have just over four times our population.

[chefist]

I don't detest Thatcher and expect anyone else to agree; up to them. I detest her memory for what she did to the area where I lived and still do. I couldn't care less if anyone else feels the same. Same goes for Blair. He should be in the dock at The Hague with Bush.

The Hague is a joke..a perfect example is that they never called for any action against  Juvénal Habyarimana in the Rawandan genocide...

[albrecht]

Yes, and the combined total is still less than the casualties the USA will have in the next 24 hours. And you have just over four times our population.

Sure, we also could be a lot safer if we all lived in row house or flats, only took public transport, had police view CCTVs to monitor all our movements, played no rough sports, banned alcohol, banned certain foods, had a government-mandated BMI, banned cash (less illegal drug or gun sales,) no immigration, banned tobacco, no parole, and so on....it is a matter how much risk one accepts (as a person/society) and how much freedom or free choice one is willing to give up. And every society, and person, determines that for themselves to some extent. Different strokes, for different strokes.

[DanTSX]

The hysterical gun grabbers need to go start their own circlejerk.

We don't care What statistics you want to bend around the issue.  We have our rights and are given the personal accountability to act responsibly within thouse rights.


Art is on our side.   If you can't handle a little freedom, England is waiting for you.

[ItsOver]

I thought I'd check on the latest with Art's incident.  Somehow, I ended-up on in the politics forum.  I guess it could have been worse.

[DanTSX]

Yes, and the combined total is still less than the casualties the USA will have in the next 24 hours. And you have just over four times our population.

Exclude inner-city Gang violence and suicides and I think we are likely closer than you allude to.

[DanTSX]

I thought I'd check on the latest with Art's incident.  Somehow, I ended-up on in the politics forum.  I guess it could have been worse.

impossible.  SIT hasn't shown up to beat us over the head with out white patriarchy priviliage yet.

[chefist]

I thought I'd check on the latest with Art's incident.  Somehow, I ended-up on in the politics forum.  I guess it could have been worse.

Yea I guessed we digressed a little! 

[DanTSX]

Yea I guessed we digressed a little! 

We can go back to talking about FOI'ing the septic plans for Art's house....

[Yorkshire pud]

The Hague is a joke..a perfect example is that they never called for any action against  Juvénal Habyarimana in the Rawandan genocide...

You're right; I think plan A up against a wall is preferable and a lot less paperwork.

[Yorkshire pud]

The hysterical gun grabbers need to go start their own circlejerk.

We don't care What statistics you want to bend around the issue.  We have our rights and are given the personal accountability to act responsibly within thouse rights.


Art is on our side.   If you can't handle a little freedom, England is waiting for you.

Then why the big deal about AB's property possibly having been shot at? Someone had the freedom to take pop shots. He has rights and freedom too. The logic of your argument.

[DanTSX]

Then why the big deal about AB's property possibly having been shot at? Someone had the freedom to take pop shots. He has rights and freedom too. The logic of your argument.

You missed the part about responsibility I take it?

[ItsOver]

We can go back to talking about FOI'ing the septic plans for Art's house....

Just send in Clint.  "Get off my lawn, you young whippersnappers!"

[Bounder]

Guns are an alright disincentive against low-order attacks and attackers.  Peer to peer.  Woman to woman.  The bullshit comes when a "2nd Amendmentist" denies this simple math:

Drones > Rifles.

Bullets ain't gonna save you from a government raid, buddy.  You're adorable for thinking so.