Bryan Miller (Ceasefire NJ) runs his mouth about Brian Aitken

[GunLawyer001]

Is Bryan Miller the same scum-ball that debated Meleanie Hain on TV?

If so she owned him, his sound-bite slogans could not stand up to logic and clear thinking.

Yup, same malignant troll. Personally rude, publicly trite, always that little bit of sand you get in your Speedo after a day at the beach, that does nobody any good.

[crlovel]

If there were a just and kind God, New Jersey would break off and sink, and Bryan Miller would catch a slow-moving and terrible disease that would cause his extremities to rot off, one by one.

[streaker69]

If there were a just and kind God, New Jersey would break off and sink, and Bryan Miller would catch a slow-moving and terrible disease that would cause his extremities to rot off, one by one.

That's funny, I already consider NJ to be a leper colony.

[Kodiak]

Free Brian Aitken (Facebook page)

[Bigrepp61]

If there were a just and kind God, New Jersey would break off and sink, and Bryan Miller would catch a slow-moving and terrible disease that would cause his extremities to rot off, one by one.

why do you think the san andres fault line runs through cali??

trying to work his magic there first.

[acosenza2]

Holy Shit, give this man a beer! He is spot on here.

I am going to guess that until this incident Aitken and his family believed that the police were "on his side" and that since he was law abiding and normal, he had nothing to fear.

Yep, I learned a long time ago that in general the police are not on your side. Their job, contrary to popular belief, is not to serve and protect. It is, IMHO, mostly to bring in revenue by enforcing bullshit laws. Now don't get me wrong, I am not a cop hater, I know some pretty stand up guys that try their best not to write a bullshit ticket because they don't agree with some of the bullshit; but in general police are not out to be your friend because it is counterintuitive to their jobs.

This trust of the authorities is very pronounced in Americans (I know the difference, I grew up overseas).

Not all of us ....see above lol

Here is how my overly cynical, world wise ass has to sum this bullshit prosecution up: The police are the enemies of every citizen, do not talk to them, do not trust them, avoid them and whenever possible vote to reduce their budgets. Wait a second, reduce their budgets!?! Yes, reduce the amount of money they have to buy tanks, 10mm MP5's, fiber optic doo-dads, training at Blackwater and other paramilitary miscellanea. We the people have allowed the beast to get what it wants, we have funded the police far too much. Cut the money back and this shit will slow down. I want less police on the streets, not more.

Why less police? Because I do not need any police to protect me, in fact they are more dangerous then helpful. I can handle myself just fine thanks. All these over-funded police departments have to find something to justify their existence. Whether it is pulling people over for air fresheners, stopping and frisking citizens, finding a small bag of pot or conducting random sobriety checks. None of these activities help us as citizens.

I agree with you on this one. Ever see the John Stossel special about gun control and how convicted felons say they are not afraid of the police or laws, but they are very afraid of gun owners. That is because if they commit a crime they will be arrested and get 3 hot meals and a place to sleep, not to mention a whole list of other amenities. Or they are arrested and cut a deal with the DA, cut loose, and then go back to doing the same shit, but as long as they are now in the DA's pocket they can keep doing the same bullshit. Now, if they come upon a gun owner on the other hand, when they break into sometimes house or try to rape your daughter/sister/wife, they will not get 3 hots and a cot, they will get a magazine full of "hots" and a coffin. I know I shouldn't beat a dead horse, but criminals don't want us armed, because that makes what they do exponentially more dangerous.

[streaker69]

I know I shouldn't beat a dead horse, but criminals don't want us armed, because that makes what they do exponentially more dangerous.

I'd think that in his case, criminals could also be synonymous with politicians.

[acosenza2]

I'd think that in his case, criminals could also be synonymous with politicians.

Agreed. An armed society makes what politicians do more dangerous as well. The Founding Fathers put the 2nd Amendment in for a reason: they had just fought their way to independence from a tyrannical government. The 2nd Amendment was a way to ensure that never happened again. The government should always fear the people and operate accordingly, but what is there to fear about an unarmed population?

[jheinze]

While the self-delusion on this thread is absolutely absurd, I want to focus on the comments of Gun"Lawyer"001, who obviously has roughly half the IQ required to pass the bar.

Half of your argument relies upon personal attacks. Not only does this prove you are a scumbag, but it proves you have to rely on witchtrial-like insults to incite support for your viewpoint. Logically, from the first paragraph you write, you prove that fail. You vastly over-exaggerate some absurd situation in which you are being murdered by an apparent stranger (why? for what? that kind of stuff just doesn't happen to everyone like you seem to suggest), and turn it into an issue of race (the shot at Mexican immigrants) which further devalues your argument.

Do you live in a neighborhood with a lot of drugs and a lot illegal immigrants? Because I did, just two miles from the international border. And when you get down to the root of it, neither of those things represent a physical threat to you unless you are a) dealing, b) consuming, or c) paranoid. It's not like Mexican drug dealers seek out your bedroom to sell to you. They are no different than American drug dealers. The question has nothing to do with race, you ridiculous sensationalist. Go to Bill O'Reilly if you want to have a theatric pretend discussion. When you grow up, come back and edit that part of your apparently genius (judging by this thread's reaction) post.

So the question remains, who is it exactly that you think you need "help" from? You are making this into a question of government vs. the individual, but it's really not. And saying that you are truly concerned of the ridiculously remote chance that someone gets it in their mind to do you or your family harm, could you truly call that chance worth the countless lives which handguns (objects designed for the sole purpose of murdering human beings) have caused both accidentally, illegally, and in situations that could have been prevented? Even considering a man is trying to steal jewelery from your house, is it worth it on your conscience to murder him for it? Have you ever killed a man yourself? I feel like you can hardly talk, unless you have. Think about that. Seriously. Do you understand how easy it is with handguns to murder on a mere whim? On an emotion? To choke someone, to stab someone, to beat someone, you really have to mean it. You have to be sick with fury. But to pull a trigger...you can shut your eyes and that's it. You think you can do that willy-nilly? You're the one who should be locked up, if your answer is yes.

Laws against handguns will not prevent all tragedy, and certainly not overnight. But it is the first step in the right direction. The 2nd amendment was established in 1791. That was two-hundred and nineteen years ago. Do you know what the United States was like two-hundred and nineteen years ago? If you did, you would know that but ten years had passed since the British were defeated at Yorktown. You would know that it was an unstable, largely rural country which harbored a tremendous fear of governmental persecution due to the rallying call of the Rebel Army: King George is a dictator. Fine. But two-hundred and nineteen years. The U.S. Army is not going to come take over your home. The government has no evil plan to kidnap your children. There are no serial killers lurking in wait for you. No matter how exciting that all sounds to pretend that it is true, it's just not the case. The need for advanced weaponary stems for unrationalized fear.

You speak briefly (and insultingly) of helpless citizens. What I truly find helpless are people who have so little faith in themselves, who have so little compassion for humanity, that they would rather risk a horrible accident and the continuation of easy murders nationwide, than simply man-up and be brave. Find some courage in that spited soul of yours, Gun"Lawyer". Be the man that this country allows you to be. Face the dangers you seem to perceive (I think you imagine) in the world on your own. I hope you eventually realize how incredibly selfish it is of you to demand the right to always tote about a weapon which can dish out death with a careless pull of your finger. Handguns are unnatural and have no place in a civilized world. If you want to return to savagery, let me know. I know I'd have no trouble making it in a hunter-gatherer world - how do you think you'd fair?

Hope you join me in manhood soon. Also please change your name to something at least remotely feasible.

[Pa. Patriot]

Angry, potty mouth troll perma-banned.

Carry on.