Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 | >
Show 30 post(s) from this thread on one page

Gold & Silver Forum (http://goldismoney.info/forums/index.php)
- Firearms (http://goldismoney.info/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=159)
- - Napolitano to head Homeland Security. (http://goldismoney.info/forums/showthread.php?t=324008)

oz in sc | 11-20-2008 12:03 PM
Napolitano to head Homeland Security. Hmmm, a nice 2nd amendment hating politician.... Which group do you think will be the new terrorist threat to the homeland??? http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/200...RQ5tOmtuyyFz4D

The Argent Dragon | 11-20-2008 12:05 PM
Re: Napolitano to head Homeland Security. I'm disgusted although it's not surprising with Obamination. :rant: :rant: :rant: :banghead:

oz in sc | 11-20-2008 12:11 PM
Re: Napolitano to head Homeland Security. Well....it is getting difficult to deny that things seem to be lining up in regards to the tin foil predictions we have all been making.

JJ_ | 11-20-2008 01:44 PM
Re: Napolitano to head Homeland Security. Quote:
Originally Posted by oz in sc (Post 1426351) Well....it is getting difficult to deny that things seem to be lining up in regards to the tin foil predictions we have all been making.
:36_1_32v:all hail the master of understatement:biggrin:

The Argent Dragon | 11-20-2008 01:47 PM
Re: Napolitano to head Homeland Security. http://www.ilovebonnie.net/tinfoil-hat.jpg

Silver Shield | 11-20-2008 02:05 PM
Re: Napolitano to head Homeland Security. Silly me I thought it was Judge Andrew Napolitano.....

igorthesmall | 11-20-2008 02:11 PM
Re: Napolitano to head Homeland Security. Quote:
Originally Posted by Silver Shield (Post 1426553) Silly me I thought it was Judge Andrew Napolitano.....
HAHA. I thought that too at first. Great guy, but Im sure Obama wouldnt nominate him for anything.

Twisted Avatar | 11-21-2008 06:43 AM
Re: Napolitano to head Homeland Security. All they are doing is making this the best christmas EVER for the gun industry. Idiots. T

hoarder | 11-21-2008 11:56 AM
Re: Napolitano to head Homeland Security. Did you see her pic? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janet_Napolitano Very interesting...well not surprising. Marrano. http://www.jewishaz.com/jewishnews/0...nections.shtml Constituent connections Napolitano, Goddard work closely with Jewish community BARRY COHEN Editor In their imminent respective roles as Arizona governor and attorney general, Janet Napolitano and Terry Goddard said they would maintain a close connection with the Valley's Jewish community. Janet Napolitano has been named a lifetime member of the Hadassah Valley of the Sun Hadassah chapter. Terry Goddard has worked closely with the Arizona Jewish Historical Society to purchase the Culver Street Synagogue and have it declared a historic site. "She stands for everything I stand for and Hadassah stands for," including women's rights and the importance of education, said Leigh Levine, VOS Hadassah chapter president, of the governor-elect. Goddard explained what needed to be done to return the Culver Street synagogue to the Jewish community, said Risa Mallin, AJHS executive director, about the incoming attorney general. He attended the Save-our-Synagogue event, Nov. 18, 2001, to rally support to purchase the structure, which was built in 1921 and home to Temple Beth Israel from 1922-1949. And he was present at the Jewish Heritage Fair earlier this month - the first communitywide event at the site since AJHS purchased the property, said Mallin. Both Goddard and a spokesman for Napolitano noted efforts to maintain an ongoing connection with the Valley Jewish community. Napolitano has attended local Hadassah chapter functions and more, said Noah Kroloff, policy director for Napolitano's campaign for governor. During the gubernatorial campaign she met at various synagogues throughout the community and the state. She also set up working groups developing education, economic and business policies that included representatives from the Jewish community, he noted. "I would characterize the relationship between Janet Napolitano and the Jewish community as very strong," he said. As governor, Napolitano intends to maintain these ties by attending meetings and "making sure the Jewish community has an open line of communication to the governor's office," he said. Of his efforts with the AJHS, Goddard said, "I was very excited about the purchase and restoration (of the Culver Street synagogue), and I've tried to help in any way I can." Asked about other issues on which Napolitano would focus, Kroloff identified education "as near and dear to the Jewish community," as well as cited equal rights for all Arizonans and business development. Napolitano will push for a venture capital program through legislative action to allow small businesses to access capital through the state, he noted. "This is pertinent to the Jewish community because so many Jews are involved with businesses in Arizona, small and large," he explained. Goddard said he would target civil rights, human rights and the separation of church and state." "I also plan on tapping into the Jewish community" as well as other communities, to provide advice to the attorney general's office on a number of areas, such as local business relations, said Goddard. Other Valley Jewish professionals and business leaders spoke of the community's connection with Napolitano and Goddard and the best means to maintain it, as well as how to foster connections with other elected officials. Napolitano will be "supportive, understanding and available," said Sid Rosen, chairman of Democrats for Matt Salmon. David Bodney, attorney and managing partner of Steptoe & Johnson, noted that civil liberties and religious freedoms connect Napolitano, Goddard and Valley Jews. "They have no tolerance for hatred, bigotry or prejudice in our democratic way of life. ... Both will continue taking steps to safeguard rights of minorities," he explained. He stressed the need for voters to maintain connections with and to communicate hopes and expectations not only with the governor-elect and the attorney general-elect in particular, but with elected officials in general. "Start with ... getting involved in the community and public life," Bodney noted, and connect with officials through phone calls, letters or public meetings. Members of the community can deal as individuals with elected officials' staffs or voice their concerns through such organizations as the American Jewish Committee, the Anti-Defamation League or the Jewish Federation of Greater Phoenix, said Paul Steen, president of the Arizona Chapter of the AJC. "One thing every voter should do, wherever we live or work, is to make an appointment with our two state representatives and one senator," said Meyer Turken, Valley businessman. "Everyone can get a 10-minute appointment ... whether you voted for them or not." At these appointments, it's helpful to share some biographical information, along with desires and concerns, said Turken. Getting involved is "beyond writing checks alone," said Rosen. "We as Jews in a Christian society need to establish relationships (and) friendships" with elected officials. This requires years of effort and involvement on a grassroots level, he added. Another means of establishing a connection with politicians is through attending and testifying before legislative hearings, said George Weisz, deputy chief of staff for Gov. Jane Hull. The problem is when officials hear only what the extremists have to say, he noted. "Extremists always show their passion. If the mainstream does not show the same passion, then the extremists win." Contact the writer at barry_cohen@jewishaz.com. .....and more here: http://www.jewishpost.com/news/promo...n-america.html

Lt Dan | 11-21-2008 12:40 PM
Re: Napolitano to head Homeland In-Security. Quote:
Originally Posted by oz in sc (Post 1426340) Hmmm, a nice 2nd amendment hating politician.... Which group do you think will be the new terrorist threat to the homeland??? http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/200...RQ5tOmtuyyFz4D
There I think I fixed your title for you.:biggrin:

TheNocturnalEgyptian | 11-21-2008 08:36 PM
Re: Napolitano to head Homeland Security. Let's see what an "original jurisdiction" governer feels about laws restricting what a citizen may do with private property.

AZLiberty | 11-22-2008 01:58 AM
Re: Napolitano to head Homeland Security. I am full of joy myself. We get rid of her as our Governor, and get a decent pro gun (Jan Brewer) governor in exchange.

budfox | 11-22-2008 04:01 AM
Re: Napolitano to head Homeland Security. Quote:
Originally Posted by AZLiberty (Post 1429490) I am full of joy myself. We get rid of her as our Governor, and get a decent pro gun (Jan Brewer) governor in exchange.
+100, absolutely!

Worldmariner | 11-22-2008 10:09 AM
Re: Napolitano to head Homeland Security. Quote:
Originally Posted by Twisted Avatar (Post 1427848) All they are doing is making this the best christmas EVER for the gun industry. Idiots. T
Yes, the last Hurrah for several years. By this time next year there will be only a ghost of the gun industry left. I think the sellers know this, and hence they are getting whil eth egetting is still able to be gotten.

cugir321 | 11-23-2008 01:00 AM
Re: Napolitano to head Homeland Security. Patriots, not terroists. Saviors, not threats. Jefferson said, be like fertilizer when you suffer, suffer, suffer, again. Hope she doesn't make us suffer. Quote:
Originally Posted by oz in sc (Post 1426340) Hmmm, a nice 2nd amendment hating politician.... Which group do you think will be the new terrorist threat to the homeland??? http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/200...RQ5tOmtuyyFz4D

ohioarmedneutrality | 11-23-2008 08:10 AM
Re: Napolitano to head Homeland Security. Don't y'all worry now. I'm sure that she, in conjunction with the Attorney General and other assorted federal agencies, will do their best to protect the American people from the dangers of women holding infants (Vicki Weaver), 5-year-olds that wish to escape political oppression (Elian Gonzales), and the children of religious nuts (21 dead children of Waco). [sarcasm OFF]

AndreaGail | 11-23-2008 11:04 AM
Re: Napolitano to head Homeland Security. :yippee:........ Quote:
UJC gives thumbs up to Napolitano By Eric Fingerhut � November 20, 2008 Barack Obama's rumored pick for Secretary of Homeland Security is Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano, and the United Jewish Communities is praising the selection. The organization works with the Department of Homeland Security to obtain government funding for security improvements at non-profit institutions. Here's a link to UJC's vice president for public policy and Washington office director William Daroff interviewing Napolitano about two years ago, discussing immigration reform and faith-based initiatives, and here are Daroff's comments today: Governor Janet Napolitano is a long-time friend of the Jewish community. Her efforts on behalf of Jewish social service agencies in Arizona have been exemplary. Governor Napolitano's efforts to reform Medicaid in a caring and compassionate way have been a model for other states across the country. Her relationship with the Jewish federations and Jewish communities in Phoenix and Tuscon give us confidence that she understands the unique threats posed to Jewish communal institutions in the post 9/11 world. Therefore, we are hopeful that she will be supportive of UJC's efforts to continue and expand the Non-profit Security Grant Program, which provides needed funds to protect non-profit institutions from terror.

tulsamal | 11-24-2008 03:38 PM
Re: Napolitano to head Homeland Security. Quote:
By this time next year there will be only a ghost of the gun industry left.
Please! That's the same BS I was being told back in 1968. People were running around buying all the guns they could find "off the books" before the "crazy new guns laws" took effect. The US was going to have total gun registration in a very few years. We were going to see a total ban on handguns complete with confiscation of those handguns that owners were "stupid enough" to fill out the paperwork on. There were some dark days for gun owners in the 60's. Even into the 70's. And it has mostly gotten better since then. Nobody back then would have ever believed how CCW laws would change in most of the states. As I filled out my address info to buy a single box of .22 LR's back in the 70's, I never expected a future where I would be able to buy any ammo I want without ID checks and address information. We have made a lot of gains. If we lose a few in the coming years, we can always turn right around and take them back. Get your heads up people! Gregg

Willie Peter | 11-24-2008 04:01 PM
Re: Napolitano to head Homeland Security. Rather manly looking....... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janet_Napolitano

Armed.peasant | 11-24-2008 04:44 PM
Re: Napolitano to head Homeland Security. Wow a new Janet Reno, maybe they are dating?

budfox | 11-24-2008 04:46 PM
Re: Napolitano to head Homeland Security. Wait until you see her in her new brown uniform.

hoarder | 12-01-2008 11:51 AM
Re: Napolitano to head Homeland Security. Another interesting perspective on Napolitano: Napolitano's Background Janet was born in New York City, the daughter of Jane Marie (n�e Winer) and Leonard Michael Napolitano, who was the Dean of the University of New Mexico School of Medicine. She has two siblings, Leonard Michael Jr. and Nancy Angela Haunstein. She graduated from Santa Clara University in Santa Clara, California, where she won a Jewish Scholarship She served as a law clerk for Judge Mary M. Schroeder, and then joined the law firm Lewis and Roca. Her Heritage And Bloodline Her genetic mother's surname is Winer. TheWiner Name Meaning and History is - 1. Jewish (Ashkenazic): variant of Wiener, and 2. Jewish and German: Americanized spelling of Weiner. 4 Her father's name of Napalitno is a typical of Jewish Marano Surnames. These are derived from Italian villages or cities Napolitano - Nepi - Nola - Norlenghi - Norsa (Norcia) -4 http://judicial-inc.org/811Napalitano.htm

COSMO | 12-01-2008 12:57 PM
Re: Napolitano to head Homeland Security. Quote:
Originally Posted by oz in sc (Post 1426340) Hmmm, a nice 2nd amendment hating politician.... Which group do you think will be the new terrorist threat to the homeland??? http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/200...RQ5tOmtuyyFz4D
She is the governor of Arizona and Arizona has some of the most lax gun laws in the nation. You can walk in to any store in Arizona and walk out in FIVE MINUTES with a gun of your choice.

Brent | 12-01-2008 01:06 PM
Re: Napolitano to head Homeland Security. Quote:
Originally Posted by COSMO (Post 1442720) She is the governor of Arizona and Arizona has some of the most lax gun laws in the nation. You can walk in to any store in Arizona and walk out in FIVE MINUTES with a gun of your choice.
That doesn't mean anything. In fact from what I understand she fought a law there that says you may brandish your firearm if you are being threatened in order to neutralize the threat without violence. Now it is a felony to "Brandish" your firearm so if you clear leather you better be prepared to use it. This is the type of thing this bitch does. She knows it would be political suicide to go after the guns or make any huge changes but she can tweak the law and veto enough stuff to make it so that you have bullshit laws like that. Even if that was all a bunch of bullshit (and it might be, I havent verified that information) just because a politician is a governor of a state with decent gun laws doesn't mean that that governor is pro-gun. That just means she hasn't had enough time to downgrade the gun laws from "decent" to "piss poor". I'm sure her replacement will do the job though, dont worry! EDIT: Just re-read the thread and saw JZ in AZ's post. http://www.goldismoney.info/forums/s...09&postcount=9 I know you can come up better stuff than that Cosmo. Frankly I'm a bit disappointed.

Doge | 12-01-2008 01:23 PM
Re: Napolitano to head Homeland Security. Quote:
Originally Posted by budfox (Post 1433099) Wait until you see her in her new brown uniform.
I think red is more of her color.

AgBar | 12-01-2008 03:05 PM
Re: Napolitano to head Homeland Security. Quote:
Originally Posted by COSMO (Post 1442720) She is the governor of Arizona and Arizona has some of the most lax gun laws in the nation. You can walk in to any store in Arizona and walk out in FIVE MINUTES with a gun of your choice.
I can do that in New York, which has some of the most restrictive gun laws in the US.

Rahm_Emmanuel | 12-01-2008 03:26 PM
Re: Napolitano to head Homeland Security. She is a great choice. With this selection there will be absolutely no stopping of the amnesty bills in 2009.

COSMO | 12-01-2008 08:36 PM
Re: Napolitano to head Homeland Security. Quote:
Originally Posted by Brent (Post 1442737) That doesn't mean anything. In fact from what I understand she fought a law there that says you may brandish your firearm if you are being threatened in order to neutralize the threat without violence. Now it is a felony to "Brandish" your firearm so if you clear leather you better be prepared to use it. This is the type of thing this bitch does. She knows it would be political suicide to go after the guns or make any huge changes but she can tweak the law and veto enough stuff to make it so that you have bullshit laws like that. Even if that was all a bunch of bullshit (and it might be, I havent verified that information) just because a politician is a governor of a state with decent gun laws doesn't mean that that governor is pro-gun. That just means she hasn't had enough time to downgrade the gun laws from "decent" to "piss poor". I'm sure her replacement will do the job though, dont worry! EDIT: Just re-read the thread and saw JZ in AZ's post. http://www.goldismoney.info/forums/s...09&postcount=9 I know you can come up better stuff than that Cosmo. Frankly I'm a bit disappointed.
Anyone who has been trained properly to handle firearms knows you do not 'brandish' them. If you pull a gun out you fire it and you shoot to kill. Period. People who brandish weapons, shoot warning shots and shoot to injure instead of kill get themselves injured or killed most of the time. If a gun comes out of the holster you shoot it. When you take some proper firearms courses and get the right kind of training you will learn this on the first day of class. I dont like the DHS and I would be much happier if that department was done away with but if we have to have it I think Janet is a great pick to head and probably the most harmless choice I can think of from the party establishment. Anyone who says she is a gun grabber has no idea what they are talking about, she has supported gun rights in Arizona for decades. She has many faults but that really isnt one of them and she is a MUCH better choice and less frightening than that asshole Chertoff.

Brent | 12-01-2008 09:44 PM
Re: Napolitano to head Homeland Security. More bullshit how surprising.

COSMO | 12-01-2008 09:55 PM
Re: Napolitano to head Homeland Security. Quote:
Originally Posted by Brent (Post 1443763) More bullshit how surprising.
Oh is that right? Then tell me Mr know-it-all, who trained you in firearms and told you it is ok to brandish them. I want to know is ****ing name so I can have his teaching certificate revoked and I will see to it that it happens, bet on it. There is only ONE REASON to pull a firearm from its holster and be protected legally: If your life or the life of someone else is IN IMMINENT DANGER. That means the other person has a gun and is threatening to kill you or someone else, THAT BEING THE CASE you are not going to pull your weapon and BRANDISH IT (hey buddy check out my glock!) you are going to pull it and fire it as fast as you can and hope you fire before the other person does. The only situation where you may want to brandish it is if the person has a KNIFE perhaps, and THAT BEING THE CASE you would NOT have legal protection to use a firearm and threfore your best course of action is to REMOVE YOURSELF FROM THAT SITUATION by RUNNING as fast as you can, you CAN run from a KNIFE you CANNOT run from a GUN. Brandishing a firearm in that situation is NOT THE PROPER RESPONSE nor will you have legal protection for doing such. Again the ONLY TIME you are legally protected to draw and fire a firearm is if your life or the life of another is in IMMINENT DANGER and in that situation you DRAW and YOU FIRE IMMEDIATELY you do not BRANDISH THE WEAPON. You obviously have had no professional firearms training and if you have I want the persons name and the organization they work for because if they have taught you that BRANDISHING A FIREARM is the proper way to deal WITH ANY SITUATION they are WRONG and they are teaching people a great way to get themselves killed or in to some serious legal problems. If you are in a situation where a firearm needs to be used it is going to be a situation where someone is about to KILL YOU and that being the case you will DRAW AND FIRE. PERIOD. When you finally get some training from a real firearms instructor come back here and talk to me, until then you are misleading people and teaching them things that will put them in harms way. There is one thing I TAKE VERY SERIOUSLY, and that is FIREARMS. They have been a part of my life since I can remember and I know how to ****ing use them and I am not going to let mouthy know it all kid tell me different.

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:18 AM. |
Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 | >
Show 30 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2010, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright = None use it and Link to GIM

Gold & Silver Forum - Napolitano to head Homeland Security.

Page 2 of 2 | < | 1 | 2
Show 30 post(s) from this thread on one page

Gold & Silver Forum (http://goldismoney.info/forums/index.php)
- Firearms (http://goldismoney.info/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=159)
- - Napolitano to head Homeland Security. (http://goldismoney.info/forums/showthread.php?t=324008)

drafter | 12-01-2008 10:27 PM
Re: Napolitano to head Homeland Security. Quote:
Originally Posted by COSMO (Post 1443787) The only situation where you may want to brandish it is if the person has a KNIFE perhaps, and THAT BEING THE CASE you would NOT have legal protection to use a firearm and threfore your best course of action is to REMOVE YOURSELF FROM THAT SITUATION by RUNNING as fast as you can, you CAN run from a KNIFE you CANNOT run from a GUN. Brandishing a firearm in that situation is NOT THE PROPER RESPONSE nor will you have legal protection for doing such.
Not sure where you live (are we still talking AZ only?), but around here that constitutes a threat to my life and I'd have no problem putting a bullet in them and I'm pretty sure there's enough evidence to the lethal effectiveness of a knife to show as such. If there's distance and opportunity, by all means run because nobody wants to deal with a legal hassle anyways, but running just isn't an option sometimes, i.e. you're with your wife or child when someone tries to rob you. Only place I could see "brandishing" as being usefull is in a mob/riot scenario, since it becomes a "who wants to get shot first" kinda thing and in most cases no one wants to be one of the lucky ones to get it.

COSMO | 12-01-2008 10:43 PM
Re: Napolitano to head Homeland Security. Quote:
Originally Posted by drafter (Post 1443860) Not sure where you live (are we still talking AZ only?), but around here that constitutes a threat to my life and I'd have no problem putting a bullet in them and I'm pretty sure there's enough evidence to the lethal effectiveness of a knife to show as such. If there's distance and opportunity, by all means run because nobody wants to deal with a legal hassle anyways, but running just isn't an option sometimes, i.e. you're with your wife or child when someone tries to rob you. Only place I could see "brandishing" as being usefull is in a mob/riot scenario, since it becomes a "who wants to get shot first" kinda thing and in most cases no one wants to be one of the lucky ones to get it.
There are certainly some situations where you could make the case that a knife poses a lethal enough threat to justify firing on someone, but it would have to be a unique situation with no opportunity for you or someone else to remove themselves without harm. If someone had a knife at someones throat, for example, that would certainly qualify as a lethal threat with a life in imminent danger. My point in all of this is that there are really no situations, legally speaking, where the proper response to brandish a firearm. Civilians are not police officers, police officers can pull a firearm to NEUTRALIZE a situation, civilians do not have that right, we are justified in pulling a firearm only when our lives or the lives of someone else are in immiment danger with the threat of death looming. In that situation there would be no reason whatsoever to BRANDISH the weapon, you would unholster the weapon and immediately fire and would very likely have legal protection for doing so. If someone simply pulls a knife on you and there is opportunity for you to remove yourself from that situation you are expected and obligated to do so, there would be no reason at all to brandish the weapon, certainly you would like to be able to pull the weapon if not only to neutralize the situation and bring a quick end to it but that is not the properly trained response to that situation FOR A CIVILIAN. It is for a POLICE OFFICER, but NOT a civilian. The point of this thread was to somehow paint Janet Napolitano as a gun grabber because she supported a law making it a felony to brandish a weapon but she fully supported the right of anyone to defend themselves by firing said weapon if thier life is in danger. While I do NOT agree that brandishing a weapon should be a FELONY, I do agree that it is not the proper CIVILIAN response for any possible situation. And the fact that she supported this law in no way makes her a GUN GRABBER which is what some posters on this thread have tried to imply. She has never been a gun-grabber and in fact Arizona has some of the best and most lax gun laws in the union. Biden IS a gun-grabber, Obama MIGHT be a gun-grabber, but Janet is NOT and has no record of being one and has stated numerous times on the record that she supports the right to bear arms. IF there is going to be any gun-grabbing by the Obama Administration it will be initiated by someone other than Janet, of that I am certain.

drafter | 12-01-2008 10:59 PM
Re: Napolitano to head Homeland Security. Well best case is they let the status quo remain. Bush admin sure as hell didn't do anything "positive" for gun owners other than "maintain" things as they were. After 8 years of a supposed "pro-gun" administration we're still saddled with Reagan's MG maufacturing ban and Daddy Bush's import ban. At least Clinton's sin had an expiration date, which the last admin waited for to expire rather than show some backbone and repeal. As for bradishing being a felony in AZ. Everything is a felony anymore it seems. It's all a question of whether or not they want to charge with something. I'd suspect every one of us commits a few felonies every now and then that we have no idea even exist. Just something else for DA's to use as bargining chips in the circus that is the American "justice" system.

COSMO | 12-01-2008 11:03 PM
Re: Napolitano to head Homeland Security. Quote:
Originally Posted by drafter (Post 1443927) Well best case is they let the status quo remain. Bush admin sure as hell didn't do anything "positive" for gun owners other than "maintain" things as they were. After 8 years of a supposed "pro-gun" administration we're still saddled with Reagan's MG maufacturing ban and Daddy Bush's import ban. At least Clinton's sin had an expiration date, which the last admin waited for to expire rather than show some backbone and repeal. As for bradishing being a felony in AZ. Everything is a felony anymore it seems. It's all a question of whether or not they want to charge with something. I'd suspect every one of us commits a few felonies every now and then that we have no idea even exist. Just something else for DA's to use as bargining chips in the circus that is the American "justice" system.
I suspect the main reason they passed the brandishing law is because of gang violence, it gives them another tool by which to charge gang members with since they commonly are the ones who brandish weapons for fun and games, but I dont know that for sure.

koyaanisqatsi | 12-02-2008 12:51 AM
Re: Napolitano to head Homeland Security. Some people seem to say that brandishing a weapon is generally, and with few specific exceptions, either pointless, foolish or dangerous. They say that anyone who is trained properly comes to know this as fact. And yet I read such things as this: Lott argues in both More Guns, Less Crime and The Bias Against Guns that media coverage of defensive gun use is rare, noting that in general, only shootings ending in fatalities are discussed in news stories. In More Guns, Less Crime, Lott writes that "since in many defensive cases a handgun is simply brandished, and no one is harmed, many defensive uses are never even reported to the police". Attempting to quantify this phenomenon, in the first edition of the book, published in May 1998, Lott wrote that "national surveys" suggested that "98 percent of the time that people use guns defensively, they merely have to brandish a weapon to break off an attack." The higher the rate of defensive gun uses that do not end in the attacker being killed or wounded, the easier it is to explain why defensive gun uses are not covered by the media without reference to media bias. Lott cited the figure frequently in the media, including publications like the Wall Street Journal and the Los Angeles Times. In 2002, he repeated the study, and reported that brandishing a weapon was sufficient to stop an attack 95% of the time. Other researchers criticized his methodology, saying that his sample size of 1,015 respondents was too small for the study to be accurate and that the majority of similar studies suggest a value between 70 and 80 percent. Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz's 1994 estimate rises to 92 percent when brandishing and warning shots are added together. Lott explained the lower rates found by others was at least in part due to the different questions that were asked. The other surveys all asked people to recall events over the previous five years, while Lott had only asked people about events that had occurred during just the previous year. Lott used the higher estimate because it was biased against his claim of media bias. The survey questions have also been made available for years to anyone who would have liked to replicate the survey themselves. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Lott All I want is the truth ... What do you say?

COSMO | 12-02-2008 12:58 AM
Re: Napolitano to head Homeland Security. Quote:
Originally Posted by koyaanisqatsi (Post 1444120) Some people seem to say that brandishing a weapon is generally, and with few specific exceptions, either pointless, foolish or dangerous. They say that anyone who is trained properly comes to know this as fact. And yet I read such things as this: Lott argues in both More Guns, Less Crime and The Bias Against Guns that media coverage of defensive gun use is rare, noting that in general, only shootings ending in fatalities are discussed in news stories. In More Guns, Less Crime, Lott writes that "since in many defensive cases a handgun is simply brandished, and no one is harmed, many defensive uses are never even reported to the police". Attempting to quantify this phenomenon, in the first edition of the book, published in May 1998, Lott wrote that "national surveys" suggested that "98 percent of the time that people use guns defensively, they merely have to brandish a weapon to break off an attack." The higher the rate of defensive gun uses that do not end in the attacker being killed or wounded, the easier it is to explain why defensive gun uses are not covered by the media without reference to media bias. Lott cited the figure frequently in the media, including publications like the Wall Street Journal and the Los Angeles Times. In 2002, he repeated the study, and reported that brandishing a weapon was sufficient to stop an attack 95% of the time. Other researchers criticized his methodology, saying that his sample size of 1,015 respondents was too small for the study to be accurate and that the majority of similar studies suggest a value between 70 and 80 percent. Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz's 1994 estimate rises to 92 percent when brandishing and warning shots are added together. Lott explained the lower rates found by others was at least in part due to the different questions that were asked. The other surveys all asked people to recall events over the previous five years, while Lott had only asked people about events that had occurred during just the previous year. Lott used the higher estimate because it was biased against his claim of media bias. The survey questions have also been made available for years to anyone who would have liked to replicate the survey themselves. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Lott All I want is the truth ... What do you say?
I told you the truth and I dont care what anyone else says. You dont pull a gun unless your life is in MORTAL DANGER and when you pull it you shoot to kill. ANY circumstance where a BRANDISH would be needed is a circumstance you can WALK AWAY FROM. Period. If you cannot walk away from it then you SHOOT, if you can walk away from it then there is NO NEED to unholster the weapon. It really isnt complicated, either your life is in mortal danger or it isnt. If it is you can justifiably shoot to kill, if it isnt then the weapon never comes in to play and you remove yourself from any such situation, if, during the process of removing yourself it turns in to a life threatening situation then you shoot, but you must be threatened with mortal danger to unholster a weapon as a civilian, anyone telling you different has not been trained properly. When a firearm is unholstered you are 100% committed to SHOOTING AT A DECIDED UPON TARGET, PERIOD. No firearm should ever be unholstered unless it is being cleaned or inspected WITHOUT A DECIDED UPON TARGET IN SITE AND A 100% COMMITTED DECISION TO SHOOT.

koyaanisqatsi | 12-02-2008 01:12 AM
Re: Napolitano to head Homeland Security. Quote:
Originally Posted by COSMO (Post 1444126) I told you the truth and I dont care what anyone else says. You dont pull a gun unless your life is in MORTAL DANGER and when you pull it you shoot to kill. ANY circumstance where a BRANDISH would be needed is a circumstance you can WALK AWAY FROM. Period. If you cannot walk away from it then you SHOOT, if you can walk away from it then there is NO NEED to unholster the weapon.
An argument consists of three stages. First of all, the propositions which are necessary for the argument to continue are stated. These are called the premises of the argument. They are the evidence or reasons for accepting the argument and its conclusions. I gave you my premises, sound accepted studys by foremost 'experts' perhaps, regarding this closely related issue. What is the support for your point of view other than just personal opinion? Or is it just your opinion, based on opinion? Excuse me but ... have you ever heard this song? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AjSVLxIQWzc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AjSVLxIQWzc

Rahm_Emmanuel | 12-02-2008 01:12 AM
Re: Napolitano to head Homeland Security. Quote:
Originally Posted by COSMO (Post 1444126) I told you the truth and I dont care what anyone else says. You dont pull a gun unless your life is in MORTAL DANGER and when you pull it you shoot to kill. ANY circumstance where a BRANDISH would be needed is a circumstance you can WALK AWAY FROM. Period. If you cannot walk away from it then you SHOOT, if you can walk away from it then there is NO NEED to unholster the weapon.
Coming face to face with denial is the first step towards recovery, can I recommend a 12 step program?

COSMO | 12-02-2008 01:15 AM
Re: Napolitano to head Homeland Security. Quote:
Originally Posted by koyaanisqatsi (Post 1444144) An argument consists of three stages. First of all, the propositions which are necessary for the argument to continue are stated. These are called the premises of the argument. They are the evidence or reasons for accepting the argument and its conclusions. I gave you my premises, sound accepted studys by foremost 'experts' perhaps, regarding this closely related issue. What is the support for your point of view other than just personal opinion? Or is it just your opinion, based on opinion? Excuse me but ... have you ever heard this song? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AjSVLxIQWzc
I have offered no opinion. Not a single one. I am telling you how it is. What is shocking to me is that so many people here on GIM do not understand that this is the proper way of handling a gun. You guys are poster boys for gun control. If you dont know how to handle a firearm and understand when and how it is to be used then you should not own one because you are more a danger to me, yourself and the community than your average criminal. You do not unholster a firearm unless you are COMMITTED TO SHOOTING IT and have COMMITTED 100% TO A TARGET.

jedemdasseine | 12-02-2008 01:19 AM
Re: Napolitano to head Homeland Security. Wow, COSMO. You sure dug yourself in deep with this one! Brandishing a weapon can be a great tool if you're smart about it. The second you pull the trigger you greatly complexify the situation. Sometimes you can get results just by letting them know that you're armed. This technique is as old as the hills.

COSMO | 12-02-2008 01:20 AM
Re: Napolitano to head Homeland Security. Quote:
Originally Posted by Rahm_Emmanuel (Post 1444148) Coming face to face with denial is the first step towards recovery, can I recommend a 12 step program?
Do you have anything to add to this discussion or are you too busy trolling?

COSMO | 12-02-2008 01:22 AM
Re: Napolitano to head Homeland Security. Quote:
Originally Posted by jedemdasseine (Post 1444150) Wow, COSMO. You sure dug yourself in deep with this one! Brandishing a weapon can be a great tool if you're smart about it. The second you pull the trigger you greatly complexify the situation. Sometimes you can get results just by letting them know that you're armed. This technique is as old as the hills.
Incorrect, that might be how they do things in the hills but that is not proper gun training. You are either in mortal danger or you are not. If you are, you shoot. If you are not, you get the **** out of the situation BY REMOVING YOURSELF FROM IT. Brandishing a weapon when you are NOT IN A LIFE THREATENING SITUATION is only going to serve to CREATE A LIFE THREATENING SITUATION that was NOT THERE TO BEGIN WITH. What dont you understand, it is EITHER OR. Youre either being threatened with DEATH or you ARE NOT.

jedemdasseine | 12-02-2008 01:34 AM
Re: Napolitano to head Homeland Security. Quote:
Originally Posted by COSMO (Post 1444156) Incorrect, that might be how they do things in the hills but that is not proper gun training. You are either in mortal danger or you are not. If you are, you shoot. If you are not, you get the **** out of the situation BY REMOVING YOURSELF FROM IT. Brandishing a weapon when you are NOT IN A LIFE THREATENING SITUATION is only going to serve to CREATE A LIFE THREATENING SITUATION that was NOT THERE TO BEGIN WITH. What dont you understand, it is EITHER OR. Youre either being threatened with DEATH or you ARE NOT.
Telling an aggressor to back away doesn't always work. Guns speak louder than words. Why do you think cops brandish weapons, even if their lives aren't in mortal danger? It's the same principle as parading your tanks and ICBM's through the streets. No one messes with the caveman with the biggest club. It's a show of force.

Brent | 12-02-2008 10:41 AM
Re: Napolitano to head Homeland Security. Mhmmm truth...you can almost always recognize it because it MAKES SENSE. Thank you for posting. Quote:
Originally Posted by koyaanisqatsi (Post 1444120) Some people seem to say that brandishing a weapon is generally, and with few specific exceptions, either pointless, foolish or dangerous. They say that anyone who is trained properly comes to know this as fact. And yet I read such things as this: Lott argues in both More Guns, Less Crime and The Bias Against Guns that media coverage of defensive gun use is rare, noting that in general, only shootings ending in fatalities are discussed in news stories. In More Guns, Less Crime, Lott writes that "since in many defensive cases a handgun is simply brandished, and no one is harmed, many defensive uses are never even reported to the police". Attempting to quantify this phenomenon, in the first edition of the book, published in May 1998, Lott wrote that "national surveys" suggested that "98 percent of the time that people use guns defensively, they merely have to brandish a weapon to break off an attack." The higher the rate of defensive gun uses that do not end in the attacker being killed or wounded, the easier it is to explain why defensive gun uses are not covered by the media without reference to media bias. Lott cited the figure frequently in the media, including publications like the Wall Street Journal and the Los Angeles Times. In 2002, he repeated the study, and reported that brandishing a weapon was sufficient to stop an attack 95% of the time. Other researchers criticized his methodology, saying that his sample size of 1,015 respondents was too small for the study to be accurate and that the majority of similar studies suggest a value between 70 and 80 percent. Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz's 1994 estimate rises to 92 percent when brandishing and warning shots are added together. Lott explained the lower rates found by others was at least in part due to the different questions that were asked. The other surveys all asked people to recall events over the previous five years, while Lott had only asked people about events that had occurred during just the previous year. Lott used the higher estimate because it was biased against his claim of media bias. The survey questions have also been made available for years to anyone who would have liked to replicate the survey themselves. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Lott All I want is the truth ... What do you say?

President | 12-02-2008 12:05 PM
Re: Napolitano to head Homeland Security. Quote:
UJC gives thumbs up to Napolitano By Eric Fingerhut � November 20, 2008 Barack Obama's rumored pick for Secretary of Homeland Security is Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano, and the United Jewish Communities is praising the selection.
Wait until you see my new Disarm America executive order.

Worldmariner | 12-02-2008 02:27 PM
Re: Napolitano to head Homeland Security. Quote:
Originally Posted by oz in sc (Post 1426340) Hmmm, a nice 2nd amendment hating politician.... Which group do you think will be the new terrorist threat to the homeland??? http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/200...RQ5tOmtuyyFz4D
Well, the only way to combat this Socialist politician is through politics. We need more people to write to thier Member of Congress (that means your elected Representative to the House of Representatives. Thier job is to listen to the citizenry). By "more people" I mean **YOU**, the reader. "You" need to register to vote, "You" write to your elected officials, "You" join pro-second amendment organizations, like the GOA and the NRA. "You" need to go to local government meetings and voice your opinions. Many many GIM'ers seem to be the paranoid wall flower "I don't want my name on a list! I am not even registered to vote!" types... They wring thier hands about what is happeneing, but they want SOMEONE ELSE to do the dirty work and take a chance, speak up, write the letters, cast the votes, yet reap the rewards. If you are one of these types, (YOU KNOW WHO YOU ARE!!) you need to remember this: If you have ever filled out a Form 4473, trust me, you are in a database. If you are a member of GOA or the NRA, trust me, you are in a database. If you have ever registered to vote, trust me, you are in a database. If you have a driver's license, trust me, you are in a database. If you use your SSN to earn income, trust me, you are in a database. If you ever used your credit card to buy gun parts or ammo, you are in a database. If you were ever in the military... well you get the idea... keyed in on your name and DOB. Cross referenced with your SSN. If you are too cowardly to stand up and be counted, to make your voice heard, what will you do with your gun when tyranny arrives? I mean, you already know that you are a coward, so what will you do? Take your super secret gun and go shoot someone in a blue helmet? I think not. We know what you will do. You will whisper about the Good Ol Days and hope that "someone else" does something, while you let your supersecret gun rust in it's supersecret hiding place, and be angry and post angry messages on forums about how somebody "should have done something". (pardon me a moment whilst I vomit) That "someone" is **YOU**. Get off your ASS and start DOING something about it, and posting messages on forums is NOT action! It is talk. Better idea: Buy as many firearms as you want. Give them as gifts! Register as many SBR's and suppressors as you can, join EVERY pro gun lobby group you can, and learn how to start grass roots legislation. Urge your friends to get CCW permits and to buy guns, including assault rifles. Take them shooting and let them burn through a box of your ammo. Turn them on to firearms. Get them re-acquainted with personal responsibility. Get them going in the right direction. Turn America BACK INTO a gun culture and freedom culture and personal responsibility culture. THAT is how to beat DHS, Napolitano, Clinton, other anti-firearms groups, and generally "The Fed". The Feds just follow the rules. If the rules change, so do they. They are like the Borg. They are guys, most... smart, but not brilliant, that are working away at a Federal retirement, doing thier job. If the rules change tomorrow and allow everyone to own an unregistered suppressor, believe me, the hour the legislation passes, they will stop activity related to supressors. Most of those ATF guys (that I know anyway) are not rabidly anti-gun. Most all of them own firearms themselves. They are just following the rules. They do not get cash bonuses for finding illegal guns, such as the IRS agents receive for "recovering" "lost" revenue from recalcitrant tax payers. (Everyone here knows that, right? The IRS guys get a slice of the recovered money as an "on the spot cash award". THAT is why the IRS guys are so rabid. They are motivated by greed) Soapbox Rant Complete. Thanks for reading!

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:18 AM. |
Page 2 of 2 | < | 1 | 2
Show 30 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2010, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright = None use it and Link to GIM