You are viewing olegvolk

Mon, Dec. 10th, 2007, 07:53 pm
A common feature of most mass shootings

Tue, Dec. 11th, 2007 01:59 am (UTC)
dantheserene

I think I'm going to start carrying a Sharpie so I can add the clarification to any signs I see.

Thu, Dec. 13th, 2007 07:09 pm (UTC)
(Anonymous): Your Message Here

At one time I carried a few pre-printed stickers in my wallet that said:

Management assumes complete legal and civil liability for deaths or injuries to disarmed patrons.

Whenever I saw a "no guns" sign, I would slap one of these right below it. I'm sure they opened a few eyes (I know they opened the eyes of the management who sent people out to remove them).

Sat, Dec. 15th, 2007 08:54 am (UTC)
(Anonymous): Re: Your Message Here

I REALLY like that idea!! I may just make some of those sickers for myself. --Rocky

Tue, Dec. 11th, 2007 02:32 am (UTC)
evilegg: ::mutters::

Damn criminals committing crimes.

Tue, Dec. 11th, 2007 06:03 am (UTC)
2percentright: Re: ::mutters::

You're right! Damn politicians should outlaw criminals!
;-)

Tue, Dec. 11th, 2007 03:25 am (UTC)
syberghost

And the other common feature:

They stop when a person with a gun stops them. So you gotta decide; if it happens to you, do you want that person with the gun to be 1 second away, or 10 minutes?

Tue, Dec. 11th, 2007 05:48 am (UTC)
blackbirdcd

Makes me crazy. And I work in an environment with similar rules.

Tue, Dec. 11th, 2007 06:00 am (UTC)
(Anonymous)

A true masterpiece.

DRZ

Tue, Dec. 11th, 2007 07:02 am (UTC)
po6om

Очень удачная работа!!!

Tue, Dec. 11th, 2007 07:25 am (UTC)
agkistrodon_c_c: May well be your best to date.

Excellent! Thank you for being our visual "voice".
Yours in Synergey...
agi

Tue, Dec. 11th, 2007 07:57 am (UTC)
(Anonymous): Можно еще как-то так обыграть -

"No Legal Guns Allowed" => "Nonlegal Guns Allowed"

Tue, Dec. 11th, 2007 08:41 am (UTC)
avryabov

very good

Tue, Dec. 11th, 2007 04:17 pm (UTC)
boydk425

I was taking part in several threads about the Omaha mall shooting on wa-ccw (an email list here http://groups.yahoo.com/group/wa-ccw/) and thought "I wonder if Oleg has a poignant new image about this". It turns out there are dumb questions, of course Oleg has a poignant new image about a current topic. Thanks for your work for freedom.

Tue, Dec. 11th, 2007 06:43 pm (UTC)
arlak

история как в банке одной прибалтийской страны (вот не помню названия - не то Эстония, не то Молдова, не то Литва, ....) 2 посетителя с легальным оружием предотвратили ограбление (охранников грабители попросту расстреляли, а вот посетителей просто заставили лечь на пол) их ничему не научила...
ну-ну....

я думаю грабители в их заведениях будут себя чувствовать более уверенно не опасаясь выстрела в спину

Tue, Dec. 11th, 2007 08:27 pm (UTC)
kbarrett

The proper term is "massacre".

As long as this nation is only partially armed, the massacres will continue.

Wed, Dec. 12th, 2007 09:26 pm (UTC)
(Anonymous)

OK, I'll bite: Name one nation, society, fiefdom, kingdom, tribe, etc., for the last 10 thousand years, that has been fully armed.

Thu, Dec. 13th, 2007 12:35 am (UTC)
(Anonymous)

Switzerland

Sat, Dec. 15th, 2007 02:37 am (UTC)
(Anonymous)

Maybe Switzerland. Do most Swiss citizens carry guns when out shopping? I've heard that men in a certain age range keep assault rifles at home, but that's a different matter. Do they regularly carry handguns? -- Lyle

Tue, Dec. 11th, 2007 09:28 pm (UTC)
(Anonymous)

DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS UNDER COLOR OF LAW
Summary:
Section 242 of Title 18 makes it a crime for a person acting under color of any law to willfully deprive a person of a right or privilege protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States.
For the purpose of Section 242, acts under "color of law" include acts not only done by federal, state, or local officials within the their lawful authority, but also acts done beyond the bounds of that official's lawful authority, if the acts are done while the official is purporting to or pretending to act in the performance of his/her official duties. Persons acting under color of law within the meaning of this statute include police officers, prisons guards and other law enforcement officials, as well as judges, care providers in public health facilities, and others who are acting as public officials. It is not necessary that the crime be motivated by animus toward the race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status or national origin of the victim.
The offense is punishable by a range of imprisonment up to a life term, or the death penalty, depending upon the circumstances of the crime, and the resulting injury, if any.
TITLE 18, U.S.C., SECTION 242
Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, ... shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnaping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.
==========================
-- Lyle

Tue, Dec. 11th, 2007 09:30 pm (UTC)
(Anonymous)

And for private interests, we shouldn't forget 18 USC 241:

CONSPIRACY AGAINST RIGHTS

Summary:

Section 241 of Title 18 is the civil rights conspiracy statute. Section 241 makes it unlawful for two or more persons to agree together to injure, threaten, or intimidate a person in any state, territory or district in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him/her by the Constitution or the laws of the Unites States, (or because of his/her having exercised the same). Unlike most conspiracy statutes, Section 241 does not require that one of the conspirators commit an overt act prior to the conspiracy becoming a crime.


The offense is punishable by a range of imprisonment up to a life term or the death penalty, depending upon the circumstances of the crime, and the resulting injury, if any.

TITLE 18, U.S.C., SECTION 241

If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same;...

They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.
===============================
-- Lyle

Tue, Dec. 11th, 2007 09:32 pm (UTC)
(Anonymous)

And while we're on the subject, here is the Congressional Oath of Office:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God."
========================
-- Lyle

Wed, Dec. 12th, 2007 10:13 pm (UTC)
mikew07

Great work as usual Oleg. I think I'll post a few up around campus.

Wed, Dec. 12th, 2007 11:54 pm (UTC)
(Anonymous): Please....

Please do not send anymore messages to my email address. You are entitled to your opinion, as I am entitled to mine. Im not interested in how you want to take my rights as an American citizen away. So, please take me off your list, or I will consider this as Harrassment! And I will report this to the proper authority! Thanks and have a nice day!

Thu, Dec. 13th, 2007 01:24 am (UTC)
mikew07: Re: Please....

is this comment directed at me? I haven't sent any messages to anyone.

Thu, Dec. 13th, 2007 11:15 am (UTC)
haat

I got into a lengthy debate about this issue with a Brit. He couldn't quite understand that in some countries ownership is the base line, and it won't budge. And with ownership comes the possibility for any owner to carry as well. So you might as well legalize carrying.

We can argue whether ownership or a total ban would be the better solution (of course you can guess which side I'm on), but when ownership is legal, carrying should also be legal by default. To claim anything else bears huge logical phallacies, and in addition to reason it defies real life.

He pointed at Jokela and Dunblane as examples of problems from carrying, and I never got through to him that carrying was already illegal in both cases.

Thu, Dec. 13th, 2007 04:02 pm (UTC)
mzmadmike

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=beUQBXI22CA show him this.

Tue, Dec. 18th, 2007 12:38 am (UTC)
haat

Already did. Actually he did agree that gun-free zones don't help. He wants a gun-free (or "gun-free" as I would put it) world.

Tue, Dec. 18th, 2007 01:18 am (UTC)
mzmadmike

Ah, fantasyland.

Fri, Dec. 21st, 2007 05:29 pm (UTC)
(Anonymous)

Yeah, and I want a crimson unicorn with a sparkling horn of gold... He needs to grow up and face reality. A "gun-free" world is as close to impossible as anything can be.

Fri, Dec. 14th, 2007 12:38 am (UTC)
hebathraid

Good point! I'd never thought of it quite that way, but it makes a lot of sense.

And just to reassure you that not all Brits are blind hoplophobes incapable of changing their minds regardless of the evidence or any argument, i'm a Brit (though now living in the USA) who got interested in the topic while still in Britain. And following c. 2 years of thought and research into the history and philosophy of the Right to Bear Arms, and the history of Crime and Gun Control in Britain and around the world over the last 300 years to the present day, my opinions have changed radically (thanks in no small part to intelligent, sensible and committed gun rights activists on the web such as Oleg)to the point where i would now largely agree with Oleg.

Oh, and 3 weeks ago i bought my first gun:-). Now i just have to learn to use it....


Tue, Dec. 18th, 2007 12:47 am (UTC)
haat

Don't worry, I've discussed the matter with enough people from all over the world that I don't make sweeping statements based on nationalities.

The only reason I mentioned this person's nationality is that he actually had the nerve to bring up Jokela to me (being a Finn) in a general self-defence debate in the first place, and brag about how well things are going in the UK. It seems to me that his denial is a form of "relaxing the sphincter" and letting the Stockholm syndrome take the best of you.

Thu, Dec. 13th, 2007 04:00 pm (UTC)
(Anonymous): No legal guns

When I can't carry, It puts me in harms way. Citizens have to be able to protect themselves.