Media blackout: Oregon mall shooter was stopped by an armed citizen

[witchy1]

While reports of Tuesday's shooting at the Clackamas Town Center Mall (http://killed%20in%20the%20attack%20were%20steven%20mathew%20forsyth,%2045,%20and%20cindy%20ann%20yuille,%2 054,%20a%2015-year-old%20girl,%20identified%20as%20kristina%20shevchenko,%20was%20seriously%20wounded%20but%20was%20exp ected%20to%20survive./) in Oregon, dominated the national media, until Friday's horrific shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Connecticut, one very important detail has been repeatedly (and intentionally) left out of the MSM's coverage.

The shooter, Jacob Tyler Roberts, was confronted with an armed citizen, at which time he ran away and shot himself. By the time police arrived on the scene, Roberts was already dead.

That armed man was 22-year-old Nick Meli, who was at the mall shopping with a young woman who was babysitting her friend's baby.

On Friday, KGW News Channel 8 (http://www.kgw.com/news/Clackamas-man-armed-confronts-mall-shooter-183593571.html), the only media outlet to cover this part of the story, posted the following report (http://www.kgw.com/news/Clackamas-man-armed-confronts-mall-shooter-183593571.html) on their website:
http://cdn2-b.examiner.com/sites/default/files/styles/large/hash/aa/d7/aad7890cdb998011a86523cb722a80b3.jpg (http://www.examiner.com/video/clackamas-mall-shooter-was-confronted-by-armed-citizen)



Clackamas Mall Shooter was confronted by armed citizen (http://www.examiner.com/video/clackamas-mall-shooter-was-confronted-by-armed-citizen)Clackamas Mall Shooter was confronted by armed citizen (http://www.examiner.com/video/clackamas-mall-shooter-was-confronted-by-armed-citizen)

"I heard three shots and turned and looked at Casey and said, 'are you serious?,'" he said. The friend and baby hit the floor. Meli, who has a concealed carry permit, positioned himself behind a pillar.

"He was working on his rifle," said Meli. "He kept pulling the charging handle and hitting the side." The break in gunfire allowed Meli to pull out his own gun, but he never took his eyes off the shooter.

"As I was going down to pull, I saw someone in the back of the Charlotte move, and I knew if I fired and missed, I could hit them," he said. Meli took cover inside a nearby store. He never pulled the trigger. He stands by that decision.

"I'm not beating myself up cause I didn't shoot him," said Meli. "I know after he saw me, I think the last shot he fired was the one he used on himself."

The gunman was dead, but not before taking two innocent lives with him and taking the innocence of everyone else.

We now know that the assailant's gun had jammed, and when he cleared it, he quickly retreated and shot himself, as Meli continued to keep him in his sights.

Not only has the national media refused to acknowledge this aspect of the deadly event, but law enforcement has as well.

On Tuesday night, Clackamas County Sheriff Craig Roberts held a press conference in which he credited local police officers and deputies with ending the rampage, never mentioning Meli's actions.


Sheriff Roberts said: "I'm really proud of all the different agencies that came together to really step up and put their lives on the line," to "basically hunt down this guy in the mall."


Now, remember, the shooter was already dead when police arrived on the scene.

Killed in the attack were Steven Mathew Forsyth, 45, and Cindy Ann Yuille, 54, A 15-year-old girl, identified as Kristina Shevchenko, was seriously wounded but was expected to survive.


Of course, the Obamamedia is in full support of even harsher gun control laws and it should come as no surprise that they would suppress any story which provides proof that lawfully armed citizens do prevent crimes and save lives.


Here are a few facts about armed Americans:


-In 1982, the town of Kennesaw, Georgia, passed an ordinance (http://www.reuters.com/article/2007/04/18/us-usa-crime-shooting-town-idUSN1719257620070418) which required all heads of household to have at least one gun in the house. The burglary rate immediately dropped an astounding 89 percent. Ten years after the law was passed, the burglary rate was still 72 percent less than it was in 1981.

-Armed citizens (http://www.examiner.com/article/what-s-driving-the-continued-skyrocketing-gun-sales) shoot and kill at least twice as many criminals as the police do every year in this country (1,527 to 606).

-A 1996 University of Chicago study (http://www.zianet.com/web/gunstudy.htm) concluded that states which passed concealed carry laws reduced their murder rates by 8.5 percent, rapes by 5 percent, aggravated assaults by 7 percent, and robbery by 3 percent.

-According to the National Safety Council (http://www.nsc.org/Pages/Home.aspx), with guns being used 2.5 million times a year in self defense against criminals, firearms are actually used more than 80 times more often to protect lives, rather than to take lives.

-A 1979 Justice Department study entitled Rape Victimization in American Cities (http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/search/detailmini.jsp?_nfpb=true&_&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=ED178812&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=no&accno=ED178812), concluded that of more than 32,000 attempted rapes, 32 percent were actually committed. But when a woman was armed with a gun or knife, only 3 percent of the attempted rapes were actually committed.

-Another Justice Department study (http://www.icpsr.umich.edu/icpsrweb/ICPSR/studies/08357) found that 57 percent of felons agreed that "criminals are more worried about meeting an armed victim than they are about running the police."

http://www.examiner.com/article/media-blackout-oregon-mall-shooter-was-stopped-by-an-armed-citizen

[sigma6]

This is the real story

[DNA]

This is a very important part of the story thanks you

[johnf]

His testimony says a lot. Especially about the reactions of a healthy person with the prospect of shooting another human being staring him in the face. Concern for consequences on others.

[soleil]

awesome, glad to see this! (as opposed to not seeing it at all!) good for this dude!

[andrewgreen]

Good on the guy but I'm not sure why the media arn't running with the story?

[Harley]

Good on the guy but I'm not sure why the media arn't running with the story?

Really?

Because the media only propogates thy governments bidding!

I just sent this to all my family and friends.
With a thought:
How many trained cops would have reacted in such a level-headed manner as this young man?
BRAVO!!!

(And they want to take away OUR guns??!!)

[Deborah (ahamkara)]

I live in Oregon. Many Oregonians lawfully carry concealed weapons. I carry, and feel safer doing so. As a woman, who often must travel alone, I never feel like a "victim". A previous neighbor, a female police officer, mentioned that guns are used more often than reported in "deterring" crimes!

Shortly after moving into my current house, a neighbor called, frightened, and said that three young men were going door to door promoting "security" systems in a threatening manner. "Don't open your door!" she pleaded. They did come to my door and I did open it - with my German Shepard and my loaded Sig. I will never forget the shocked look on that young man's face as he literally jumped backwards 5 feet from a standing position. I told them to please leave my porch and not come back. They did ,and they didn't :). Don't live in fear, no matter how you do it. Peace.

[ghostrider]

when the public is armed, the government and police are not needed in an emergency. when the public is unarmed, we depend on someone else for saftey, hence giving away your power...

[sigma6]

8,9 responses? this is the kind of information that should be going viral... very disturbing how people on this site aren't 'getting it'... especially something so straightforward as this, isn't this the very thing that we as a network could easily counter?

ie. spread the word and expose the story and the very forces that would cause such a media blackout?

Don't we have that potential within our membership to do something about this? or this considered too controversial and politically incorrect, please someone enlighten me?

[Flash]

Sigma 6, a very difficult point seems not to cross the mind of may USA citizens.

This forum is not uniquely American. There is people from all over the world on it. And frankly, most of us do not give a damn about the guns laws in USA and whatever it may or may not bring/give. In fact, we do not understand that fascinations americans seems to have for their arms (to us, it is perceived as fascination, not self protection). Also, most of us do not have rights to bear arms in our constitution or our laws, yet our countries are quite quiet when we compare, in a murder/#of citizens ratio, when compared with the USA. Our countries are not the designers of wars either, on average. So, we wonder....

This statement is plainly a description of ways of thinking elsewhere on the planet. Another view of the world. It is very plain, it cannot be discussed much not more than your "fascination for guns" can be, it is culturally biaised.

With this in mind, 8-9 answers is not surprising to me at all. May be the question should be why not more American, actually on this forum, took the hint and wrote.

Those discussions are extremely culturally self centered in our views. So, this is an American thread for most of us and we have nothing to write in it.

[sigma6]

I'm not an American, I am not really a believer in guns, (although they may have application in certain limited situations, like maybe hunting or protection against wild animals) so I can relate to what you are saying... however, within the context of the American situation as it stands right now, the idea of disarming Americans who have grown up with guns as part of their culture is not the solution right now either. Registration, permits, training and education is for now. I think the statistics are clear that within the existing climate, guns are saving more lives then they are taking. And women benefit the most from this.

But on the other hand I can't deny your higher argument. And thanks for bringing that perspective into view... I cannot argue with the idea that ultimately society must move toward an environment where ALL weapons must cease to exist. But that presupposes a lot of things that aren't there. Like decent well educated, well fed, civil people with sound moral underpinnings, living in an environment where there is no want for the basic necessities, and real opportunities to better themselves. Also a proper understanding (education) on what the price and responsibilities are for participating in a republic based on true freedom of expression, where the rights of everyone are respected and protected. Unfortunately that isn't the case. It's just an idea that got railroaded by an infinitesimally small group of despicable and cowardly excuses for human beings, that decided to rape the country for their own personal gain. And this is the world they created.

Until that is corrected, all the other people who see (all this corruption) and feel compelled to follow the example of their leaders and public figures on 'how to get ahead in life' as the only philosophy they know... must be defended against until they are all eliminated or educated.

What you are saying is true in an idealistic sense. What I am saying is considered pragmatic. There has to be a gradual process of moving from one to the other. Practical actionable steps. And killing innocent people, including children, as part of a sophisticated media campaign in order to compensate for, and cover up their lack of moral decrepitude in the first place isn't the answer. There is no doubt if all the money in the world spent on war, including all the guns there would be enough material wealth and prosperity for every man women and child on this planet with an overabundance.

That is just not the plan, never was, and won't be for a while. In the mean time, give the people their guns, and make the lard a**es in government, ask them nicely if they would like the government to stop spending 5 trillion every year maintaining a 1000 Roman Legions around the planet and secret underground bases for the elite military and the rich. (The very people causing all this death and suffering in the first place) But instead would like them to spend it on the people for REAL schools with REAL education, REAL food, free energy, the works, or better yet allow them to spend it on such infrastructure, in exchange they hand over the guns and start figuring out what philosophies should be taught (you have to have a philosophy, one way or another, regardless what 'name' or 'label' you call it) That would be how to create a REAL model that other countries around the world would truly envy...

Then the only guns you would need is at the borders to keep out all the people begging to come in, and share in the prosperity.

[norman]

Flash has said what I might have said too, but I couldn't have said it so well.

It's totally obvious to me that the media hasn't mentioned the armed citizen because that would "shoot their agenda in the foot".


On a more general level, regarding the lifestyle of being personally armed, I think it's a legacy left over from the days when European Americans were engaged in stealing the land from it's previous occupants. Migration usually happens more gently but in America it was a full scale takeover at the fastest possible pace and with a mantra of "The New World" driving it forward with 'divine rite'. No angry native or delinquent opportunistic immigrant would get anything but lethally short shrift.

However, these days, there are such things as media campaigns and smarter technology to deal with.

E.G. Where would an American citizen stand, legally, if he or she was to shoot "in self defense" at a person intending to use a Taser ( not a gun )?

I think it's unlikely that a court would regard it as legitimate killing.

Such a situation is rapidly becoming the most likely scenario an armed citizen would face in regards to the state of play with the right/duty to defend against a rogue and out of control government. This 'dynamic' would persist for quite a while before an all out shooting revolution would get going, and it would feed into a media war against the private citizens on the way into such a shooting revolution..... not a good thing at all.

The sad thing is,..... modern America was won by killing. The citizens have remained armed for all these years, why ?

It's gone on so long that a majority probably think it's a quaint old culture that is now getting out of hand in these crazy times. A minority probably think it's as deadly serious now as it ever was.

What's to happen?

It's very foolish to brave up on the notion that if you've got guns you can fight to survive. Time and technology have moved on. To think that, now - in 2012, is as hopeless as the previous Americans thinking their bows and arrows would keep the Europeans at bay. Geronimo put up a hell of a resistance but they got him in the end.

[Kristin]

Sigma 6, a very difficult point seems not to cross the mind of may USA citizens.

This forum is not uniquely American. There is people from all over the world on it. And frankly, most of us do not give a damn about the guns laws in USA and whatever it may or may not bring/give. In fact, we do not understand that fascinations americans seems to have for their arms (to us, it is perceived as fascination, not self protection). Also, most of us do not have rights to bear arms in our constitution or our laws, yet our countries are quite quiet when we compare, in a murder/#of citizens ratio, when compared with the USA. Our countries are not the designers of wars either, on average. So, we wonder....

This statement is plainly a description of ways of thinking elsewhere on the planet. Another view of the world. It is very plain, it cannot be discussed much not more than your "fascination for guns" can be, it is culturally biaised.

With this in mind, 8-9 answers is not surprising to me at all. May be the question should be why not more American, actually on this forum, took the hint and wrote.

Those discussions are extremely culturally self centered in our views. So, this is an American thread for most of us and we have nothing to write in it.

Hello Flash, I respect your opinion. However please do take into consideration that you are speaking for yourself and not a group of people. Others here on this forum are perfectly able to speak for themselves as well. Their opinions will be unique and varied as we all are individuals here. You use the words "we, our, and us" when describing your individual opinion. There may be a cultural slant one way or the other, but perhaps I'm feeling this due to a nationalist perspective that is strong in you. What ever the case, I just thought I would point it out.

From the Heart,
Kristin

¤=[Post Update]=¤


Flash has said what I might have said too, but I couldn't have said it so well.

It's totally obvious to me that the media hasn't mentioned the armed citizen because that would "shoot their agenda in the foot".


On a more general level, regarding the lifestyle of being personally armed, I think it's a legacy left over from the days when European Americans were engaged in stealing the land from it's previous occupants. Migration usually happens more gently but in America it was a full scale takeover at the fastest possible pace and with a mantra of "The New World" driving it forward with 'divine rite'. No angry native or delinquent opportunistic immigrant would get anything but lethally short shrift.

However, these days, there are such things as media campaigns and smarter technology to deal with.

E.G. Where would an American citizen stand, legally, if he or she was to shoot "in self defense" at a person intending to use a Taser ( not a gun )?

I think it's unlikely that a court would regard it as legitimate killing.

Such a situation is rapidly becoming the most likely scenario an armed citizen would face in regards to the state of play with the right/duty to defend against a rogue and out of control government. This 'dynamic' would persist for quite a while before an all out shooting revolution would get going, and it would feed into a media war against the private citizens on the way into such a shooting revolution..... not a good thing at all.

The sad thing is,..... modern America was won by killing. The citizens have remained armed for all these years, why ?

It's gone on so long that a majority probably think it's a quaint old culture that is now getting out of hand in these crazy times. A minority probably think it's as deadly serious now as it ever was.

What's to happen?

It's very foolish to brave up on the notion that if you've got guns you can fight to survive. Time and technology have moved on. To think that, now - in 2012, is as hopeless as the previous Americans thinking their bows and arrows would keep the Europeans at bay. Geronimo put up a hell of a resistance but they got him in the end.


Norman I thought you expressed yourself very well!
From the Heart,
Kristin

[Gardener]

I am thinking with my british head that if the agenda was to remove fire arms from the US citizens they would have an enormous battle on their hands, it might even be the biggest act of civil disobedience ever, but I could be wrong of course. Nevertheless I think they will stear it in that direction.

In UK guns are licenced and we have to apply for the licence (showing good cause) and provide secure metal case to keep them in. Vilains of course don't have to do this they just acquire the guns. Most farmers have guns and many rural citizens so even here if someone had designs on a 'shoot out' there would always be a way.

[NewFounderHome]

There is presently a major media manipulation being done on the arms subject in the US.

It is a ode and funny subject the fire arms story.

On one side we have the folks that are against all and any fire arms, and they think then an arm or a fire arm will start shooting folks on its own! We had this type of story here in Quebec, Canada, several years ago.

The problem is then even if you restrict the fire arms, robbers, terrorist don't go and say I must register my fire arm because it is the law, they don't follow these type of laws.

Here in Canada the federal government did finally decide to let go the fire arm register, they did spend millions and millions. Now the Quebec provincial government is in court with the federal government to retrieve the database. So now both governments are spending big amounts in court over this database.

They for sure don't understand how fire arms work. They don't shoot alone.

On the other side we have the folks that want to not be baby seat by the government, being told what they can and cannot have, do, eat or bred. And I must say in some field the governments are trying to control all like control freaks.

But in the case of arms we must not allow the sick folks to have access to them and they must be helped, it is not only to eliminate an object, because at the place of a fire arms it could have been a car, hammer , screw driver, box cutter, a plane like the 911. Imagine trying to bane plans.

[Flash]

Sigma 6, a very difficult point seems not to cross the mind of may USA citizens.

This forum is not uniquely American. There is people from all over the world on it. And frankly, most of us do not give a damn about the guns laws in USA and whatever it may or may not bring/give. In fact, we do not understand that fascinations americans seems to have for their arms (to us, it is perceived as fascination, not self protection). Also, most of us do not have rights to bear arms in our constitution or our laws, yet our countries are quite quiet when we compare, in a murder/#of citizens ratio, when compared with the USA. Our countries are not the designers of wars either, on average. So, we wonder....

This statement is plainly a description of ways of thinking elsewhere on the planet. Another view of the world. It is very plain, it cannot be discussed much not more than your "fascination for guns" can be, it is culturally biaised.

With this in mind, 8-9 answers is not surprising to me at all. May be the question should be why not more American, actually on this forum, took the hint and wrote.

Those discussions are extremely culturally self centered in our views. So, this is an American thread for most of us and we have nothing to write in it.

Hello Flash, I respect your opinion. However please do take into consideration that you are speaking for yourself and not a group of people. Others here on this forum are perfectly able to speak for themselves as well. Their opinions will be unique and varied as we all are individuals here. You use the words "we, our, and us" when describing your individual opinion. There may be a cultural slant one way or the other, but perhaps I'm feeling this due to a nationalist perspective that is strong in you. What ever the case, I just thought I would point it out.

From the Heart,
Kristin[COLOR="red"]


There is definitely a cultural slant in what I said, that I called cultural biais, as well as in what Americans say about arms. This was my point precisely.

I writing in "we" because I report what I heard on the subject, from outside USA, when people are aware of the arms policies in the USA, which is usually not the case. The few that are, they just do not understand on average what it is about arms that is so essential. I talk in "we", not for the members of this forum, but for the larger populations I have been in contact with in Canada, Central America, Turkey, France. The kind of comments that I have is what is it about arms in USA, we do not understand.

When I read this forum, I often have the feeling that most American do not see that they are the only ones in the world to have arms ownership in their constitution. They do not, at least it is my feeling, realise that outside USA, we do not quite catch why their arms are so important to them. Some of us have the feeling that it is a remnant of the old Far West mentality (which may not be the case in reality). The latter always makes me smile when I hear it.

All I am talking about here is a question of PERCEPTIONS, which are always somewhat biaised.

Nevertherless, just that I brought up that topic under this angle did stimulate more answers on that thread. I hope those who could not believe they had had only 8-9 posts are now happier.;)

[modwiz]

Good on the guy but I'm not sure why the media arn't running with the story?

They support gun control. The media is just part of the government. You must have missed the memo. :p

[sigma6]

Nevertherless, just that I brought up that topic under this angle did stimulate more answers on that thread. I hope those who could not believe they had had only 8-9 posts are now happier.

you can take the credit if you want, I was hoping that people would go to the wider net... I was more concerned about putting the TRUTH out there, where it can do some good, in front of a few million eye balls ideally... an honest man with a gun in the crowd made a difference, many deaths could be curtailed or prevented if other parties were able to defend themselves, disarming registered licensed citizens doesn't do anything to disarm criminals, therefore it is the opposite of a solution... within this context, at this time

[TargeT]

.. an honest man with a gun in the crowd made a difference, many deaths could be curtailed or prevented if other parties were able to defend themselves, disarming registered licensed citizens doesn't do anything to disarm criminals, therefore it is the opposite of a solution... within this context, at this time

I would not encourage "registered" or "licensed" both those terms IMPLY permission.

now I could possibly see a caveat that when carrying a weapon "concealed" training of some sort is "required" but open carry should always be legal by anyone, and anywhere that the public is allowed to go. I'm a bit torn between not restricting at all and agreeing that some training is highly benificial.

[sigma6]

.. an honest man with a gun in the crowd made a difference, many deaths could be curtailed or prevented if other parties were able to defend themselves, disarming registered licensed citizens doesn't do anything to disarm criminals, therefore it is the opposite of a solution... within this context, at this time

I would not encourage "registered" or "licensed" both those terms IMPLY permission.

now I could possibly see a caveat that when carrying a weapon "concealed" training of some sort is "required" but open carry should always be legal by anyone, and anywhere that the public is allowed to go. I'm a bit torn between not restricting at all and agreeing that some training is highly benificial.

"He who learns must suffer..."
~Aeschylus (I couldn't agree more...)

Registration Of The NAME, A Record Can Be Used As A Title In Trust

The following is probably more then you need but it is helping me work out some other ideas currently, so your getting a 'bonus' (lol) ...

I used to think that too, because it was understood that there was some kind of transfer of title in the process of registration, which made it seem like the point where the registrar was taking ownership of the property and so forth, it turns out this is not entirely accurate. I am developing a new model of understanding on this... as I understand it better, I am trying to figure out how to explain it more articulately to others as well, looking at all the context of my own understanding that may be necessary in order to explain it better. It's not necessarily complex as it is subtle, and context is critical to this (for now)

But simply put, I am now trying to see positive things in what the government is doing, believe it or not (and no it is not easy for me!) But I am learning to see that it is not the system per se, but the individuals who are running it that are manipulating the system to their advantage and abusing it, by all manner of ways and means. In particular by hiding how exactly it works, by writing numerous unnecessary statutes to bind and confuse us, and not providing better access to education on what our rights are or how to express them, and how they actually operate, etc, and thereby tricking us into a jurisdiction by our consent (according to their interpretation) which we wouldn't otherwise 'agree' to if we were truly aware of their interpretation! So early on I realized this always creates two interpretations (the first confusion) ie. ours and theirs, and as unfair as it is, they know it better then we do, or at least the statutory side that they 'tricked' us into (from our point of view) and they do take full advantage of the fact.

Anyhow long story short, there is an understanding in this new model (or really just a different understanding) that the purpose of registration is to protect our property right to things which have great value by maintaining a permanent record as evidence of that right. For example a long time ago Winston Shrout exhorted people to go down to a county recorder's office (I think that is that what they call it in the US?) to file a notice, the purpose being that it would now be a document that could be used in a court of law as evidence. Thus registered documents, are by definition legally protecting us as they can be used as evidence of our right to something (ie. car, house, etc.) Ok, that's that for now, until I develop a more detailed vocabulary on this part.

Now, if there is such a thing, as everything being held in trust by the state, for example (which I believe it is...) see this definition from the Criminal Code (CC)
Municipality (2010):
"municipality"� includes the corporation of a city, town, village,
county, township, parish or other territorial or local division of
a province, the inhabitants of which are incorporated or are
entitled to hold property collectively for public purpose:

Anyhow, it's not because of the registrar at the driver's license bureau, (or gun license bureau?) it's more to do with the NAME trust entity. So if this were true as above seems to be making reference to, ie. that all "property is held collectively for public purpose"... Then what prevents someone from taking your car and driving off with it? if everything is held collectively, etc? (besides your keys) - it's the fact that you have a right to it, and they don't... that 'right' is really what the "property" is... the thing (the car) is a separate issue (as it is 'held collectively'). It's the fact that the car is registered in the NAME... that you in turn have a controlling interest in... which btw is a perfect example of how one can have control of something without "owning" it... (but that's another story!)

Now the issue of a 'license' is another story... and I am still working through more understanding, but so far it does feel like permission I agree, ie. the 'permission' to do something that is otherwise illegal, and yes in a statutory system, that is asking for permission. I think they are trying to mix the two, so it is a kind of deception at this stage of understanding for me too... However we all have to keep in mind that all these documents are actually assigned to a kind of corporation that you operate. So it is the corporation that is registering, and getting the license. You just have access by virtue of your controlling interest in that corporation. And there is in all likelihood a functional reason for the license as well in a public system. Stepping back for a second, and looked at this way, you may be able to see how it might be an advantage. For example, a lot of sophisticated (rich) business people protect themselves by operating and managing accounts and property under a corporation they control but with all the liability on that corporation. Thus they spend money, drive vehicles and use credit cards that are in the NAME of that corporation. If something happens, the corporation takes on all liability. Which is exactly why they set it up like that in the first place! (sounds pretty elitist eh!?)

Now you are probably wondering what the he** all this has to do with you and and your post. And that is because you do in fact have a corporation! I am referring to your NAME, it can operate (does in fact operate) much like a corporation (among many other things) if you understand it and know how to use it properly. And what if, in fact, all you are doing is registering property in a corporation? In the case of a gun, if you should accidentally injure or even kill someone, well I'd say that having it registered to a corporation that takes all liability is a pretty good thing for you! Now how all this operates is something I can't exactly get into more then I have explained thus far, cause I am not sure how many paragraphs it would take me to effectively extrapolate this. And I am still working on my delivery. But you can get the gist of what I am saying and believe that the potential of what I am saying is there. I am sure you should be able to see why this makes sense both for your ultimate benefit and also even more importantly for the public's benefit.

What's cool, is that sure enough, it cross references well with what Winston used to say, as he mentioned that all insurance is re-insurance, because the NAME's liability is always covered (in this interpretation) which is amazing because this is the first time, I finally understand a possible mechanism of WHY!

Ok, a guy named Dean Clifford (http://theunholysee.com/2012/11/30/dean-clifford-tns-radio-14-11-2012/) also talks on this. Although I don't agree with his interpretation on ownership of property, I do think he is spot on in understanding that we must take control of the NAME that is held by the Crown. And this 'is the kicker' ie. the focus is on understanding your relationship to that NAME as the most important consideration. It is a document/title/trust record that was created when your parents 'gave' you a name, but you never got the original signature title (or deed) did you? (btw, photocopies, reproductions, extracts of titles/deeds do not operate as the original ink signature document itself, right? (re: the one you got)) And that is because (in my case) the Crown, stepped in and proceeded to create, record of an event (which became a title in trust) and registered it with the General Registrar (to protect the valuable rights inherent in it) and is now holding it for safekeeping. So this is where your focus should be (as opposed to the gun registration)

Understand how this works and you don't have to worry about registering anything as a 'bad' thing anymore. Because if you set it up so that all liability is on the 'corporation' in exchange for your ability to live according to certain maxims (as opposed to 60 million statutes) you would be 'operating in trust' exercising your rights, and therefore no longer under statutory law by definition ('they' would have to leave you alone!) this would be 'heaven'! (anyhoo... there is plenty more but I have to cut it here for now...)

Regards the issue of training I am not sure what you are getting at... a gun is like a super dangerous tool, I have seen what a bullet hole through someone's foot looks like. I'd say training is without exception, in everybody's best interest. That's how you would have to think too, if you were ever to 'operate in trust', you would have to start becoming responsible for everything in your life, as well as considering obligation and potential harm to others. (like the man in the mall, as someone accurately pointed out, how he decided not to shoot, because of the other person behind his potential target...) This could be an example of what it would be like to operate in trust. So I couldn't imagine how training wouldn't be necessary somewhere along the line.



Links for my own research/reference:

previous:
Missing 35 Plus Trillion Dollars in Bonds
Own Nothing, Control Everything, What Does This Mean? (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?51689-Missing-35-Plus-Trillion-Dollars-in-Bonds-and-Certificates&p=604249&viewfull=1#post604249)


following:
2 firefighters shot dead at fire near Rochester
When You Know Who You Are - You WILL Invoke the Trust (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?53539-2-firefighters-shot-dead-at-fire-near-Rochester-N.Y.&p=605425&viewfull=1#post605425)

[norman]

...... I'm a bit torn between not restricting at all and agreeing that some training is highly benificial.




At the risk of being slapped right out of this conversation for not being an American with a dog in this fight, I'll just add this point.

It seems to be a widely held view among gun owners that "when a population fears the government they have tyranny and when the government fears the population they have freedom".

That's a very good basic principle, and is, no doubt, the reason it was written down as the 4th amendment.

But, what happens when the people fear each other?

The idea of a population acting as "one" against an enemy, foreign or domestic, is clear, and gives the American people something special. How realistic is that idea, in the 21st century, no matter how many good people have guns?

Do they also have satellites, drones, energy weapons and the rest ....... ?

If the ideological conflict in America becomes an all out punch up, it'll soon look like the shocked surprise on the face of the first American Indian who got shot through the chest by a guy holding only a smoking stick.

More likely than not, all those personal fire arms are going be 'the population slaughtering the population', with the real enemies standing back and smiling.

Surely, even a proud American can understand that personal firearms really only work as a deterrent, and mainly while society is still relatively calm and at peace. Once that society breaks down, the guns will make a bad situation into a nightmare.

'Gun Training', also, will only hold good while society is still relatively calm, and it will likely morph into politically controlled 'Vetting'.

I suppose what I've said here will not go down well with some. Let me make it plain. I really, really, don't like pointless fighting or guns. As I see it, once the shooting starts, everybody loses ( except you-know-who ).

Personal sovereignty at the point of a gun, don't make laugh. Sure, if you are the only one around with a gun, you get to have a quiet life, no matter how unwelcome you are or how unreasonable you are. When everyone has a gun, what kind of personal sovereignty is that?

Lastly, it is my own view that gun power does not complement personal power, it replaces it.

[Kristin]

Sigma 6, a very difficult point seems not to cross the mind of may USA citizens.

This forum is not uniquely American. There is people from all over the world on it. And frankly, most of us do not give a damn about the guns laws in USA and whatever it may or may not bring/give. In fact, we do not understand that fascinations americans seems to have for their arms (to us, it is perceived as fascination, not self protection). Also, most of us do not have rights to bear arms in our constitution or our laws, yet our countries are quite quiet when we compare, in a murder/#of citizens ratio, when compared with the USA. Our countries are not the designers of wars either, on average. So, we wonder....

This statement is plainly a description of ways of thinking elsewhere on the planet. Another view of the world. It is very plain, it cannot be discussed much not more than your "fascination for guns" can be, it is culturally biaised.

With this in mind, 8-9 answers is not surprising to me at all. May be the question should be why not more American, actually on this forum, took the hint and wrote.

Those discussions are extremely culturally self centered in our views. So, this is an American thread for most of us and we have nothing to write in it.

Hello Flash, I respect your opinion. However please do take into consideration that you are speaking for yourself and not a group of people. Others here on this forum are perfectly able to speak for themselves as well. Their opinions will be unique and varied as we all are individuals here. You use the words "we, our, and us" when describing your individual opinion. There may be a cultural slant one way or the other, but perhaps I'm feeling this due to a nationalist perspective that is strong in you. What ever the case, I just thought I would point it out.

From the Heart,
Kristin[COLOR="red"]


There is definitely a cultural slant in what I said, that I called cultural biais, as well as in what Americans say about arms. This was my point precisely.

I writing in "we" because I report what I heard on the subject, from outside USA, when people are aware of the arms policies in the USA, which is usually not the case. The few that are, they just do not understand on average what it is about arms that is so essential. I talk in "we", not for the members of this forum, but for the larger populations I have been in contact with in Canada, Central America, Turkey, France. The kind of comments that I have is what is it about arms in USA, we do not understand.

When I read this forum, I often have the feeling that most American do not see that they are the only ones in the world to have arms ownership in their constitution. They do not, at least it is my feeling, realise that outside USA, we do not quite catch why their arms are so important to them. Some of us have the feeling that it is a remnant of the old Far West mentality (which may not be the case in reality). The latter always makes me smile when I hear it.

All I am talking about here is a question of PERCEPTIONS, which are always somewhat biaised.

Nevertherless, just that I brought up that topic under this angle did stimulate more answers on that thread. I hope those who could not believe they had had only 8-9 posts are now happier.;)

Curious as to what your thoughts are on the Swiss army:


The Military of Switzerland perform the roles of Switzerland's militia and regular army. Under the country's militia system, professional soldiers constitute about 5 percent of military personnel; the rest are male citizen conscripts 19 to 34 (in some cases up to 50) years old. Because of a long history of neutrality, the army does not take part in armed conflicts in other countries, but takes part in peacekeeping missions around the world.
The structure of the Swiss militia system stipulates that the soldiers keep their own personal equipment, including all personally assigned weapons, at home (until 2007 this also included ammunition[3]). Compulsory military service concerns all male Swiss citizens, with women serving voluntarily. Males usually receive initial orders at the age of 18 for military conscription eligibility screening. About two-thirds of young Swiss men are found suitable for service, while alternative service exists for those found unsuitable.[4] Annually, approximately 20,000 persons are trained in basic training for a duration from 18 to 21 weeks (increased from 15 weeks, in 2003).
Since 1989, there have been several attempts to curb military activity or even abolish the armed forces altogether (see Group for a Switzerland without an Army). A notable referendum on the subject was held on 26 November 1989 and, although defeated, did see a significant percentage of the voters in favour of such an initiative.[5] However, a similar referendum, called for before, but held shortly after the September 11 attacks in 2001 in the US, was defeated by over 77% of voters.[6]

- Wikipedia

[sigma6]

Curious as to what your thoughts are on the Swiss army:


The Military of Switzerland perform the roles of Switzerland's militia and regular army. Under the country's militia system, professional soldiers constitute about 5 percent of military personnel; the rest are male citizen conscripts 19 to 34 (in some cases up to 50) years old. Because of a long history of neutrality, the army does not take part in armed conflicts in other countries, but takes part in peacekeeping missions around the world.
The structure of the Swiss militia system stipulates that the soldiers keep their own personal equipment, including all personally assigned weapons, at home (until 2007 this also included ammunition[3]). Compulsory military service concerns all male Swiss citizens, with women serving voluntarily. Males usually receive initial orders at the age of 18 for military conscription eligibility screening. About two-thirds of young Swiss men are found suitable for service, while alternative service exists for those found unsuitable.[4] Annually, approximately 20,000 persons are trained in basic training for a duration from 18 to 21 weeks (increased from 15 weeks, in 2003).
Since 1989, there have been several attempts to curb military activity or even abolish the armed forces altogether (see Group for a Switzerland without an Army). A notable referendum on the subject was held on 26 November 1989 and, although defeated, did see a significant percentage of the voters in favour of such an initiative.[5] However, a similar referendum, called for before, but held shortly after the September 11 attacks in 2001 in the US, was defeated by over 77% of voters.[6]

Yeah, I was thinking the same thing, I think their stats are pretty convincing evidence the system works, but they probably have a law against Zionist infiltrators disguising themselves as citizens and creating multi million dollar false flag events... and that's the monkey wrench...

[gaiagirl]

Great find! Thank you Witchy 1 . . . i posted this with the link to my FB account (which I really only use for such purposes; even though FB was really intended to share personal info with friends and family, I never use it as such).

Incidentally, I just finished my license to carry a concealed weapon firearms safety course three weeks ago. I just need to come up with the $100 and take the test to get my lisence. What you have posted is exactly the type of scenario I plan to be (but hope to never actually have to be) ready for.

Having been "anti guns" for years, I finally came to the conclusion that there are far too many violent folks packing heat here in the states. Having a child and living alone most of the year in a secluded spot also contributed to my change of mind on the subject.

[witchy1]

Be safe gaiagirl. I would do the same thing in your place.

[TargeT]

.. an honest man with a gun in the crowd made a difference, many deaths could be curtailed or prevented if other parties were able to defend themselves, disarming registered licensed citizens doesn't do anything to disarm criminals, therefore it is the opposite of a solution... within this context, at this time
Understand how this works and you don't have to worry about registering anything as a 'bad' thing anymore. Because if you set it up so that all liability is on the 'corporation' in exchange for your ability to live according to certain maxims (as opposed to 60 million statutes) you would be 'operating in trust' exercising your rights, and therefore no longer under statutory law by definition ('they' would have to leave you alone!) this would be 'heaven'! (anyhoo... there is plenty more but I have to cut it here for now...)

except that's not how it really works (registration), it's really just a database that tells where I live and what I have in the hands of a government which has repeatedly been shown to be untrustworthy.

as for training, I trust you to be responsible enough to post on the internet, to put your pants on before going out, to eat food for your self, to take care of your self (as this relies on built in instincts, self preservation, ego functions etc..) I do not presume to tell you what to do with your life & would as the same in return.

If someone chooses to take up a fire arm with no training I do not doubt that they will quickly learn the errors of their ways (high probability of not involving others in this lesson too), I would encourage it, and offer it when needed, but not require it or mandate it, this furthers the current system we are oppressed under now & that is the last thing I would want to do.


As I see it, once the shooting starts, everybody loses ( except you-know-who ).

Personal sovereignty at the point of a gun, don't make laugh. Sure, if you are the only one around with a gun, you get to have a quiet life, no matter how unwelcome you are or how unreasonable you are. When everyone has a gun, what kind of personal sovereignty is that?

Lastly, it is my own view that gun power does not complement personal power, it replaces it.

Perspective:
There are somewhere north of 200 MILLION fire arms in the US, and a population of around 311 million. so clearly there is not an issue with guns, or the training of gun owners (gun training is not required for ownership).

Non-US citizens always have this "dirty hairy" idea of gun ownership, "personal sovereignty at the point of a gun" what gives you that idea? your picture of a gun owning society is so far off base it is somewhat comical, do you think I run around town with my gun out scaring people to leave me alone?

I doubt more than 5 people in 200 miles of my location know I have gun(s), I've never used mine for it's manufactured purpose (I carry a gun designed to kill people) and hope that I never will have to use it. that is the mentality of 99% of gun owners (MILLIONS of gun owners).

it's more of a responsability, less of a wild coboy, bully, 007 agent etc.. hollywood mentality. I see myself as the protector of those around me when armed, not as a bully or someone "not to be messed with".

you see, the attitude is very different than you suppose it is (or at least your writing indicates).

[sigma6]

except that's not how it really works (registration), it's really just a database that tells where I live and what I have in the hands of a government which has repeatedly been shown to be untrustworthy.

You just defined a trust relationship without even knowing it (which is how TPTB like it) Trust is not like a bunch of statutory codes and regulations (corporate rules) One of it's cardinal characteristics is that it can come into existence without the knowledge of the grantor, trustee, or beneficiary. One's unawareness of its existence doesn't make it "not count" but will immediately label them as an "incompetent" and pass the power to exercise that relationship to another party.
One of the reasons why they ignore us in court.

If it's just a database, why does the government use it to control you?, if you really own your house, how can the government take it away if you don't pay your taxes?.. why is it the first thing cops ask for when they pull you over, to see your identity (which means proof that you have attached yourself as surety to the title being held by the crown = your consent to their jurisdiction) What is and has always been the first thing they ask you in court? whether it's a parking ticket or a criminal charge ("What is your NAME, or Who Are You?) NEVER anything else, because they, as is their custom, like to establish jurisdiction in the first move, (it actually happens even before that) It's based on the principle of winning or losing in the first moves. They aren't wasting any time, its all just business (commerce) and time is money. There is a method to their control mechanism... They actually have a system to justify it. Everyone would do very well to finding a simple primer on trust interpretation. It has always been with us (for many centuries) and isn't going anywhere soon... Roman maxim "Let he who would be deceived, be deceived"

If we want our control back, we have to 'learn' how to take it back. That's the game. No one said it would be easy. But it is not impossible, there have been enough examples of people who have made the courts bow to their process. And that is where we will eventually have to start. (sounds like the matrix yet?)