• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."
  • Community Question: What makes a good motherboard?

PSA to gun advocates: They won't save you from the Aryan Brotherhood

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

mect

Platinum Member
Jan 5, 2004
2,077
984
136
WTH?

You're the one who made this whole thing about the AB. It's in the damn thread title.

And yes, they are "worst case".

So no, I'm not the "loon" here, you are. It's your scenario and it bit you on the azz.



By "they" I mean the professional killers that the AB is.

If you're out-manned enough and out-gunned enough having an assault weapon may not save you in the end. But I'd rather have some chance rather than no chance, which is what you've got with no gun.



Self-defense in an enumerated constitutional right according to the SCOTUS. So yes, a gun designed for that purpose (within reason) should be legal.




Probably won't, especially if they get you with the first shot. So what?



"Nope". Just "nope"?

Fern
Full marks for effort, bu I think you'll find a lot of pain trying to have an intelligent conversation with this guy. You've laid everything out as clearly as anyone could hope for, but a certain limited amount of raw intelligence is required on the part of the reader.

There are two conclusions that can be logically drawn from this story. The first, this is a isolated incident that should hold no bearing on policy beyond and additional datum to add to the body of information on the impact of firearm ownership on self defense. The second, this man had insufficient protection to defend himself, and we need to loosen regulations on private ownership. Obviously, the first is the better conclusion to draw, but if the OP chooses to isolate the incident, I don't see how anyone could argue this means guns are worthless for self defense. There would be no chance of him surviving without a firearm. The more powerful the weapon (and the more suited to personal defense), the better his chances of survival. Oh well, what can you do.
 

2timer

Golden Member
Apr 20, 2012
1,803
0
0
Sorry, they only mentioned the AB boogieman is passing with no "circumstantial evidence" at all. None.




Bullshit, there is no "circumstantial evidence" mentioned in the story. None.
It's not mentioned in the particular story I linked, which was more intended to highlight the DA's effort to arm himself. But if you want a source for the circumstantial evidence, here it is:

http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/01/justice/texas-da-killed/

While authorities have not said whether they have established a link between the deaths of Hasse and McLelland, or the involvement of white supremacists, Texas law enforcement agencies did warn shortly after the November 2012 indictment that there was "credible information" that members of the Aryan Brotherhood were planning to retaliate" for the indictment.
After the indictment of 32 AB members for racketeering charges, Texas law enforcement did say there was "credible information" that members of the AB were planning retaliation.

But yes, you are absolutely correct in saying that, for now, there is no physical evidence linking the AB to the killings:

Kaufman County Judge Bruce Wood said Monday that no physical evidence links McLelland's death and Hasse's, although previously he had said he believes there is a "strong connection" between the killings.
However if officials in Kaufman County are inclined to believe the involvement of the Aryan Brotherhood, is it wrong for me to suggest so as well?
 

2timer

Golden Member
Apr 20, 2012
1,803
0
0
WTH?

You're the one who made this whole thing about the AB. It's in the damn thread title.

And yes, they are "worst case".

So no, I'm not the "loon" here, you are. It's your scenario and it bit you on the azz.
By "worst case scenario" I didn't mean to reference the AB. What I was referencing is the idea of a group of armed men using military style tactics. And my point is that, were that the case, then the possession of an assault style rifle would not likely change the outcome much.

Self-defense in an enumerated constitutional right according to the SCOTUS. So yes, a gun designed for that purpose (within reason) should be legal.
And guns intended for self defense are legal. :colbert:
 

Tom

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
13,294
1
76
OP, you're an ignorant troll with your head up your ass. Shall we now list for you the 100,000 to 2,500,000 persons who DID successfully defend themselves using firearms last year? Well, not really list, but cite research evidence.

Will it ALWAYS work? Of course not. Nothing always anything. Without it, however, you have next to no options other than bending over.
people defend themselves all the time..with phones.
 

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
103,500
18,063
136
Sorry, they only mentioned the AB boogieman is passing with no "circumstantial evidence" at all. None.




Bullshit, there is no "circumstantial evidence" mentioned in the story. None.
"circumstantial evidence."

I think that word does not mean what you think it means.
 

waggy

No Lifer
Dec 14, 2000
68,155
8
81
this is a great example why you need to protect yourself and not relay on the cops. they knew this guy was a target. they knew people were out to get him. yet they couldn't do it.
 

monovillage

Diamond Member
Jul 3, 2008
8,445
0
0
this is a great example why you need to protect yourself and not relay on the cops. they knew this guy was a target. they knew people were out to get him. yet they couldn't do it.
If the target had taken the steps he obviously needed to keep himself and his wife safe the lefties on this forum would have labeled him a paranoid gun nut and would be making jokes about the extreme steps he was taking to ensure his own safety.
 

BrayD

Member
Oct 12, 2012
32
0
0
You guys need to listen to the op, he's right! Because the DA owned a gun and it didn't save him, it's absolute proof that guns don't save lives. At all. We need to make them all illegal because they are useless. Also, since seat belts don't save lives all the time, we need to eliminate those as well. And I think there is some concrete, undeniable evidence that vaccines cause hundreds of billions of kids to get autism, so lets not give out vaccines anymore.

On a more serious note, op mentioned the DA carried a gun with him everywhere. Ok, does that also mean he carried it on him at all times in his house? I know people who carry on them all the time when they're outside their house, but as soon as they get home they lock up their firearm in a safe. So just because this man carried on him most of the time, doesn't mean he had access to a firearm at that particular time. As a lot defensive carry advocates will tell you, its the one time you don't have access to your firearm that you need it the most.

To say that a gun owner, who was killed by unknown assailants, for unknown reasons, is proof enough that we need to make guns illegal is the most ignorant and dangerous thing I have heard so far this week. It is a statement completely devoid of ANY fact or logic.
 
Last edited:

DucatiMonster696

Diamond Member
Aug 13, 2009
4,269
1
71
Or maybe you're indirectly letting everyone know that a high level agent of government wasn't able to be saved by the very government he worked for in the end.

In other words if someone wants to kill you and they are determined they will have a good chance of finding a way to do so in some cases no matter what laws are put in place and the only other sound alternative would be to potentially tilt the odds would be to have the right to defend and arm yourself because obviously laws against firearms work about as well as laws against murder.

However it is in no way a 100% foolproof option but no one who supports the 2nd amendment would state it would be however except for the anti-2nd amendment prohibitions who falsely make the case that they do and falsely believe that allowing government and criminals to have a monopoly on the use of force will somehow bring about societal harmony and a mythological perfection of civility and respect for human life amongst both groups versus the average person in society.
 

Fern

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Sep 30, 2003
26,916
172
106
I heard a man, whom I believe is the editor of the paper where these murders occurred, giving an update of the details his newspaper has learned.

This is all still premature and not yet sufficiently substantiated:

1. The murderers came through the front door. There is some reason to believe it may have been forced open (broken), but at the same there is a belief that the murderers were dressed as police and may have 'tricked' their way in.

2. The wife was murdered first. Her body was found near the front door.

3. The husband was shot in a hallway towards the back of the house. He was unarmed. He was said to be running to a back room where his gun was kept and was shot and killed before he got there. Current reports say he was shot 20 times.

IDK if the above info will be confirmed as true, but if it is the whole premise of this thread has been derailed.

Fern
 
Last edited:
May 16, 2000
13,529
0
0
people defend themselves all the time..with phones.
No, they call for investigation of the crimes after they're committed. It's VERY rare for police to arrive DURING a serious crime in progress. Tell you what...I'll start beating the shit out of you, and you take out your phone and call for police to come stop it. Or better yet, I'll sneak in and start raping you in your sleep, but rather than try and stop me yourself, go ahead and call for help and see how long it takes to arrive.
 

monovillage

Diamond Member
Jul 3, 2008
8,445
0
0
When every second counts, the police are only minutes away.



If they bother to come at all.
 

2timer

Golden Member
Apr 20, 2012
1,803
0
0
To say that ... we need to make guns illegal is the most ignorant and dangerous thing I have heard so far this week. It is a statement completely devoid of ANY fact or logic.
I never said "We need to make guns illegal." Can you point out anywhere in this thread where I said guns need to be illegal?

All that wind coming out of your mouth and you can't even add two and two together. Epic fail, try again.

Or maybe you're indirectly letting everyone know that a high level agent of government wasn't able to be saved by the very government he worked for in the end.
I'm not sure what you mean, was there a particular part of government responsible for providing security?

I heard a man, whom I believe is the editor of the paper where these murders occurred, giving an update of the details his newspaper has learned.

This is all still premature and not yet sufficiently substantiated:

1. The murderers came through the front door. There is some reason to believe it may have been forced open (broken), but at the same there is a belief that the murderers were dressed as police and may have 'tricked' their way in.

2. The wife was murdered first. Her body was found near the front door.

3. The husband was shot in a hallway towards the back of the house. He was unarmed. He was said to be running to a back room where his gun was kept and was shot and killed before he got there. Current reports say he was shot 20 times.

IDK if the above info will be confirmed as true, but if it is the whole premise of this thread has been derailed.

Fern
:confused:

Can you provide a source for that?
 

Juror No. 8

Banned
Sep 25, 2012
1,108
0
0
Let's objectively think about what cops, prosecutors, and judges across America do for a living. They kidnap hundreds of thousands of people, put them in chains, and throw them in veritable rape cages for the non-crime of possessing or smoking a naturally growing plant. Think about that for a moment. To smoke or possess marijuana isn't a real crime, as there is no victim.

To kidnap and jail people for non-crimes is the real crime here. This means the real criminals are the cops, prosecutors, and judges who take part in the process of enforcing tyrannical laws and destroying families and freedom. And no, the "they are just doing their job" excuse is no more sufficient justification than it was for the Nazis at Nuremberg.

That's why it's hard to feel sorry for victims in these killings. Live by the sword...
 

monovillage

Diamond Member
Jul 3, 2008
8,445
0
0
I'm not sure what you mean, was there a particular part of government responsible for providing security?
It's in the original article you posted.

For about a month after Hasse's slaying, sheriff's deputies were parked in the district attorney's driveway, said Sam Rosander, a McLelland neighbor.
The County Sheriff was providing security.
 

2timer

Golden Member
Apr 20, 2012
1,803
0
0
It's in the original article you posted.

The County Sheriff was providing security.
The County Sheriff was not providing security at the time of the killing.

You fail again, for the umpteenth time in this thread. First you denied that the story was even real. FAIL. Then you denied there was circumstantial evidence to suspect the Aryan Brotherhood. FAIL. Now you say the County Sheriff was responsible and provided security, when they weren't. FAIL.

3 strikes and you're out. You're a useless moron, proven by useless, stupid postings made again and again. Why?
 

monovillage

Diamond Member
Jul 3, 2008
8,445
0
0
The County Sheriff was not providing security at the time of the killing.

You fail again, for the umpteenth time in this thread. First you denied that the story was even real. FAIL. Then you denied there was circumstantial evidence to suspect the Aryan Brotherhood. FAIL. Now you say the County Sheriff was responsible and provided security, when they weren't. FAIL.

3 strikes and you're out. You're a useless moron, proven by useless, stupid postings made again and again. Why?
You're the ignorant asshole. You asked and i'll quote you.
I'm not sure what you mean, was there a particular part of government responsible for providing security?
again

"I'm not sure what you mean, was there a particular part of government responsible for providing security? "

The county sheriff was responsible for providing him security. The county sheriff failed at it. That doesn't make him any less "responsible" for providing it.
 

2timer

Golden Member
Apr 20, 2012
1,803
0
0
You're the ignorant asshole. You asked and i'll quote you.

again

"I'm not sure what you mean, was there a particular part of government responsible for providing security? "

The county sheriff was responsible for providing him security. The county sheriff failed at it. That doesn't make him any less "responsible" for providing it.
The county sheriff didn't fail and it wasn't responsiblefor providing him security, they chose to provide him security. There's a difference. Again, to reiterate, he was killed *after* the Sheriff stopped providing voluntary security.

There is no Texas law that says the sheriff must provide the District Attorney with a 24 hour security detail. You are the dumbass.
 
Last edited:

monovillage

Diamond Member
Jul 3, 2008
8,445
0
0
No, I thought you were asking a fairly serious question, since the County Sheriff had been providing security for the DA then i'd assume he would have continued. In the larger sense of "....was there a particular part of government responsible for providing security" Then of course not, the only one responsible for providing any security or safety to a citizen is the citizen himself or herself. Hopefully armed with the best fucking weapon they can use. In fact it's a US Supreme Court ruling.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/28scotus.html?_r=0

Which just comes backs and shows how stupid your OP was to pro-gun advocates. You idiot.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY