Muscle and Brawn Forums
 

Go Back   Muscle and Brawn Forums > General > General Board
Mark Forums Read
Register Articles Members List Search Today's Posts

Notices

General Board You can talk about anything here. Life, sports, rants, whatever.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 04-16-2011, 09:01 AM   #1
BendtheBar
Bearded Beast of Duloc
Max Brawn
Points: 1,554,481, Level: 100 Points: 1,554,481, Level: 100 Points: 1,554,481, Level: 100
Activity: 49% Activity: 49% Activity: 49%
 
BendtheBar's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Louisiana
Posts: 79,944
Training Exp: 20+ years
Training Type: Powerbuilding
Fav Exercise: Deadlift
Fav Supp: Butter
Reputation: 2584002
BendtheBar is one with Crom!BendtheBar is one with Crom!BendtheBar is one with Crom!BendtheBar is one with Crom!BendtheBar is one with Crom!BendtheBar is one with Crom!BendtheBar is one with Crom!BendtheBar is one with Crom!BendtheBar is one with Crom!BendtheBar is one with Crom!BendtheBar is one with Crom!
Default When Can We Shoot To Defend?

Interesting read I thought I would post...

The Maryanne Godboldo question: When do parents have the right to shoot back against state-sponsored kidnappers?

The Maryanne Godboldo question: When do parents have the right to shoot back against state-sponsored kidnappers?


Quote:
The story of Maryanne Godboldo and how armed government agents broke down her door and attempted to kidnap her daughter because she wouldn't feed her psychiatric drugs (http://www.naturalnews.com/032089_a...) brings to light an important question: When is it justified to shoot back?

I'll explore both sides of this argument here and then share my own views.

On the "shoot back" side of the argument, this woman had every right to defend herself against armed assailants who were engaged in acts of violence (breaking down her door) and who conspired to kidnap her daughter. In the legal world, the term "conspiracy" simply means more than one person was involved in planning the event. This was, without question, a conspiracy to kidnap a human being.

Shooting back was the only reasonable solution remaining for Maryanne, who had already tried to verbally say no when Child Protective Services insisted they were going to take her daughter away. Notably, it was CPS that brought guns to the scene by calling the police. So the escalation of the event can only be blamed on CPS, not Godboldo.

On the "don't shoot back" site of the argument, the only argument I've really heard so far is from people who say "you should never shoot back against government agents." In other words, the fact that the kidnappers and assailants are on the city payroll somehow gives them the right to violate your rights and freedom, to assault your person and your home, and to commit the felony act of kidnapping your teenage daughter. This seems a bizarre bit of logic.

I suppose another argument against shooting back would be the philosophical argument that violence never solves anything. But it sure can be a deterrent to would-be thieves, rapists and kidnappers, which is exactly what Maryanne just proved. She was able to hold them off for 12 hours by allegedly firing a single round. Do you think they would have stayed away for 12 hours if she didn't have a gun?

Now, to use Obama's current doublespeak, the truth is that Maryanne didn't even fire a gun at all. She was only engaged in "kinetic action" in the protection of her child. That term -- "kinetic action" -- is what Obama uses to explain how the war in Libya is not a war. It's just "kinetic action" (i.e. pieces of lead moving at very high velocities).

I'm thinking of posting a sign on the front door of my own home that reads, "This house is protected by kinetic action."

Why Hitler loved a disarmed population
But let's get back to the issue of when it's appropriate to shoot back. The "don't shoot back" crowd seems to think that the government can do no wrong. If the government comes for you in the middle of the night to kidnap your children for no justifiable reason, you're supposed to just surrender and do what you're told. This is the entire argument of the "don't shoot back" crowd.

Hitler would have loved this idea, of course. In fact, he pursued it quite diligently. One of the most important elements of his plan to exterminate the Jews was to disarm them first. That's why Hitler passed gun control laws before he started rounding up Jews and sending them off to the gas chambers. It's always easier to round people up if they don't shoot back, you see. An armed population is much more difficult to subject to genocide because they have the pesky problem of causing kinetic action to take place.

This is the reasoning behind the non-profit group JPFO -- Jews for the Preservations of Firearms Ownership (JPFO Homepage). Far from being a bunch of gun nuts, these folks are scholars of history who fully realize that if the Jews in the late 1930's hadn't given up their guns under Hitler's gun control agenda, they would have been able to assemble a far more effective resistance against government tyranny.

The French Resistance, of course, kept their guns. And their explosives. This is what made the French Resistance so effective at interdicting German supply lines (blowing up railroad tracks, ammo dumps, German vehicles and so on). The French Resistance is a significant factor of why we won the war against tyranny in World War II. We have to remember to thank the French for holding on to their rifles and bullets. Otherwise, Hitler might have succeeded in his world conquest.

See, governments far too often become tyrannical, out-of-control police states that end up assaulting (and sometimes murdering) their own citizens. It happened in Germany. It happened in Russia. It happened in China and a dozen other countries around the world. And although America today certainly isn't as bad as Nazi Germany in 1941, there are very clear signs that America is headed into precisely such a scenario, where innocent civilians are targeted by armed government thugs who commit felony crimes in the name of the government.

The situation with Maryanne Godboldo is precisely such a sign. When a woman is threatened, coerced, and has her front door broken down by armed thugs conspiring to kidnap her daughter -- merely because she refused to give her daughter a dangerous psychiatric drug -- that is a sure sign that the medical police state has descended upon us and is operating in a bold, aggressive manner.

Learn more: The Maryanne Godboldo question: When do parents have the right to shoot back against state-sponsored kidnappers?
__________________
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Destroy That Which Destroys You

"Let bravery be thy choice, but not bravado."


BendtheBar is online now   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Reply

Bookmarks

Tags
defend, shoot


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Wisconsin Video Shoot Opportunity BendtheBar Muscle Building and Bodybuilding 17 09-15-2010 09:38 AM
Somebody shoot me Grim83 General Board 12 02-28-2010 08:51 PM
Greene to Defend ASC Crown Against “Best Ever” Field Gladiatrix General Board 0 12-21-2009 05:31 PM

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:46 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.