It's not about a reason for having it.

Richard Shank fuzzball7 • an hour ago − It's not about a reason for having it. It's not up to anyone telling you that you can't especially YOU! It's about the freedom as long as you don't hurt or threaten others but at that point you are a criminal for doing so and can end up using any weapon. Seriously, who the hell are you to tell me or anyone else that's obeying the laws of the land and not threatening anyone what we can or can not do! No one has the right to do that especially Feinstein or Obama, and I voted for him. He only started this gun crap because he doesn't have to run again and I promise you this...Because the Democrats pulled this crap I'll vote anything else other than next time around. The promise of fixing things was the change and then they have to throw in that same old 60's BS instead of making things right again. Well, no more Jackson... The Second Amendment isn't going ANYWHERE and you Hippie Generation are about to die out soon of old age anyway so why don't you use your remaining time to pass better Mental Health care laws so these sick people who's been shooting up the place can get some help. That's the real problem isn't it! I have yet to see or hear about a law abiding gun owner shoot anything except Targets, Hunting and Bad Guys committing a crime.

Liberator - Dawn of the Wiki Weapons

http://daily.bhaskar.com/article/WOR-TOP-dashboard-camera-captures-man-fire-37-rounds-of-ak-47-on-traffic-police-4254559-NOR.html

Well first off, I'd like to see a post link that references the police report about this specific incident. I would not believe everything that I see, and I think credibility is important when it comes to dramatic footage lest we all get picked up and dropped by a large eagle.

What can you draw from this incident? Is the AK-47 really very useful? Consider the worst case scenario: if the suspect w/AK in this incident was truly an awesome marksman he would have needed only two rounds to kill the responding constabulary (assuming that two officers were in the patrol car, we do not know exactly all details as we have no incident report see aformentioned). Instead, he (suspect) discharges seemingly many to little or no effect. In the worst case (the suspect) could have theoretically missed each police officer but nevertheless hit innocent bystanders by his fires, etc. James Gilkerson, the suspect identified as the shooter according to this source, is the only casualty in this incident as I read it. The theoretical potential of the AK's lethality or "defensiveness?", if such a nebulous concept be invoked, does not seem to be maximized by Gilkerson in this incident. See the youtube video which is admittedly dramatic and tragic.

The AK-47 is, like any weapon system, contingent on the user(s) skill and luck to achieve maximum effectiveness. We might arbitrarily define maximum effectiveness as the ratio of bullets fired to persons killed. I've heard the ratio of rifle rounds fired to enemy KIA in Vietnam was something like 250,000 per KIA. Humans seemingly the world over have evolved an innate ability to hide or otherwise take cover when faced with small arms fire. For this and many other reasons then it is actually very rare for a single individual to conduct an attack which results in multiple fatalities even when they have 1. the element of surprise which to a certain extent Gilkerson appears to have had and 2. a powerful means of offense such as an AK-47 type rifle.

Finally, commendations are in order for the local security forces who were able to effectively return fire.
11 minutes ago · Edited · Like

From Forbes "Meet the Liberator..." comment section...

Dan Cheshire 1 day ago

I suppose it was inevitable. You can make all of the gun laws you want but it will never get all of the weapons off the streets and people will begin to make their own weapons as technology like this begins to evolve. Evolution for ourselves as well as our technology will hopefully remove the violence from our species. For now, the evolution of our technology is outpacing our own evolution. Gun laws will be a start but in the end, helping people to be happier in life will help to eliminate or reduce the violence.

Russia in Afghanistan 1979 to 1989 - Part 2 of 3

Ban Swimming Pools!

No one should be allowed to possess a pool more than four feet deep. Assault pools endanger the lives of our children. Senseless deaths can be prevented by outlawing swimming pools. Think of the children and do whats right. No parent should have to go through this because some people want to cool off during the summer. The NPA is a sick organization that has a strangle hold on the politics of pool regulation. They profit from the deaths of children. You don't need a pool with that many gallons. If you want to swim, fill up your bath tube! If you need more water to do laps in then you don't need to be swimming in the first place! BAN POOLS NOW!


RE: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/04/14/children-pool-death/2083223/

70 years of reckless and irresponsible social policies...

Why accept moral responsibility for 70 years of reckless and irresponsible social policies, which created the societal chaos, soulless monsters and lawlessness which America must defend itself against... when you can demonize an object and its accessories?

In the socialist utopia of the progressive psyche must rest a profound belief that the solution to every societal ill is always just another law away...as their social policies continue to enable the transformation of America's cities and towns into lawless, Third World ghetto's, and war zones.

Of course none of this seems to really matter, nor does it strain their "national conscience," much less THEIR Hollywood social media's wholesale marketing and exploitation of blood, guts, drugs, profanity and mayhem 24/7 (for $billions) into the home of every kid in America.

Why should they face the consequences of their societal madness, when they can all just set back and watch their cities burn?

lightning jack

Oak Harbor, WA

359 comments