Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

It's time to show all you assault rifle hating flower weenies the truth!!!!

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Anti-war protests erupted on the streets of Kent two days later on Friday, May 1. A large on-campus protest was scheduled for May 4 and a number of non-student "agitators" were stirring up campus anger at the government's actions. Bands of roving protesters set several town shops on fire and placed burning tires in the streets to block firefighters sent to put out the blazes. The local police, despite being hit with rocks, pushed the crowds back to campus.

    Battles erupted again the following afternoon between students and police. By midday, as the number of demonstrators grew and the level of violence increased, the police began losing control. Mayor LeRoy Satrom asked the governor to send Guardsmen to supplement the police in restoring peace.

    Rhodes called Maj. Gen. S.T. Del Corso, Ohio adjutant general, and ordered him to immediately dispatch at least 400 men to Kent State.
    Del Corso deployed men already on state duty for the truckers strike. He selected the 1st Battalion, 145th Infantry and the 2nd Squadron, 107th Armored Cavalry. Troops of the advanced elements were put in trucks and buses in Akron and began moving to Kent.

    But by late afternoon, trouble on campus grew even more intense when protesters set fire to the ROTC building. When firemen arrived to bring the blaze under control, the rioters pelted them with rocks and cut their fire hoses. Demonstrators chanted anti-war slogans while the firemen stood by helplessly watching the building burn.

    When the first Guardsmen arrived on campus about 9:30 p.m., they found the remains of the ROTC building still smoldering. They set up a perimeter, but most of the protesters had already left. Patrols were established around town and on part of the campus. The troops drove Jeeps, trucks and 15 M-113 armored personnel carriers, along with 17 helicopters to watch for large gatherings on campus.

    As the Guardsmen deployed, the mayor met with the adjutant general and Brig. Gen. Robert Canterbury, the assistant adjutant general for Army, neither of whom assumed an active role in the command of troops. Lt. Col. Charles Fassinger of 1/145th Infantry was appointed as the on-site commander.

    They decided in the meeting that the Guard would take control, as proscribed by law when local authorities request assistance. Following this meeting, the adjutant general left to visit another Guard operation. Canterbury remained in Kent.

    Sunday morning and afternoon remained quiet. Some shop owners in Kent said they received anonymous calls telling them to post signs in their windows saying "Guard Go Home" and other anti-Guard slogans. But the troops experienced no trouble during their patrols. After authorities imposed an overnight curfew until 6 a.m. Monday, Guardsmen warned students in town to return to their homes. Most quietly complied.

    It was only after Guardsmen started moving a crowd toward campus that rocks and bottles were thrown at them. The Guard responded with the only non-lethal tools they had -- CS gas. A moving battle took place, with 10 Guardsmen injured as they pushed protesters onto campus, where they dispersed around 11:30 p.m.

    May 4 started quietly on campus. Following discussions with Guard and local officials, the school president decided to cancel the scheduled rally against the war. Though the campus radio station ran announcements of the cancellation, many students remained unaware of the change. While it was a regular day of classes, there were a number of non-students milling around, stirring up the anger of a small but vocal group of students. By late morning, the crowd had grown to about 2,500. Most of the protesters were located on a large open area known at the "Commons," near the charred remains of the ROTC building.

    As the tempo of their anti-war, anti-military chanting intensified, they were encouraged by other students not participating in the protest.

    Guard personnel around the ROTC building consisted of detachments from Companies A and C, 1/145th Infantry and Troop G of the 2/107th Armored Cavalry. They totaled about 125 men.

    Most were armed with M-1 rifles and bayonets. Each man was issued live rounds, which they were ordered to load. Many of the NCOs carried pistols and a few senior NCOs were issued riot shotguns. Specially trained "grenadiers" carried M-79 grenade launchers to fire CS tear gas canisters farther than a man can throw.
    Many of the soldiers were also supplied with CS hand grenades. These were the only non-lethal weapons the troops had available. At the time, the Guard was not issued crowd control batons or shields. The only protection the soldiers had were their steel helmets. They had no body armor or face shields, though they did wear protective masks.

    As the crowd grew larger and more vocal, the troops became apprehensive. Most of the Guardsmen were about the same age as the protesters. Many were sympathetic to the students' cause. But they were sworn to enforce the law and found themselves growing uneasy as the shouting intensified.

    Late in the morning, a police official, riding in a Guard Jeep, approached the students and read them an order to disperse or face arrest. The protesters pelted the Jeep with rocks, forcing it to retreat. One Guardsman was injured by shattered glass from the windshield and was the first of 50 soldiers who would be hurt in the next hour.

    Canterbury, who was on-site by the ROTC ruins, asked troops to move the students off the Commons and to the other side of Taylor Hall. Canterbury, Fassinger and the three company commanders developed a plan to envelope the students and push the crowd over Blanket Hill. The company commanders ordered their men to "lock and load" their weapons, fix bayonets, and adjust their protective masks. As the grenadiers fired their first CS tear gas rounds, 125 Guardsmen stepped off toward them and into history.

    The shouting protesters allowed themselves to be pushed back at first. But as the troops approached the Blanket Hill base, they came under an intense shower of rocks, bricks and pieces of concrete with protruding steel rods, which the protesters had stockpiled. The Guardsmen began taking casualties.

    Company C had six men hurt, three of whom needed hospital treatment including one man hit in the mouth, breaking some teeth. Ten men in company A were injured, one of whom was struck seven times by projectiles. Thirty-three soldiers in troop G were hit. Several of had broken bones and cut faces.

    Amid thick clouds of gas, about 70 Guardsmen crested the hill, moving to the left of a metal sculpture, nicknamed the "Pagoda." After some maneuvering, which pushed the protesters into a parking lot by Prentice Hall (a dorm overlooking the hill), the troops moved to the right side of the Pagoda. The soldiers ran out of tear gas and the crowd moved toward them.

    The barrage of rocks increased, continuing to injure men. The troops felt cut off and many later said they feared for their lives. Suddenly, the shouting was broken by an unidentified gunshot followed by more gunfire as Guardsmen shot into the crowd.

    Despite extensive federal, state and private investigations, no one has ever determined who actually fired the first shot. No order was given.

    Many of the Guardsmen and some bystanders in the crowd said they heard a single shot from Prentice Hall, which was quickly followed by a ragged volley from the troops.

    Though various sources give different numbers of Guardsmen shooting and the number of rounds fired, the official accounts state 16 men fired between 35 and 40 rounds, all from M-1 rifles. Of the 13 people shot, four were killed.

    According to Guard records based on a medical examiner's report, one of the students was struck by a non-military round in the back of the head, though the bullet was never produced as evidence.

    A search of Prentice Hall uncovered firearms but none had been recently fired. A metal sculpture near the Pagoda, which was behind the troops when they fired, has a bullet-type hole, indicating the round came from the area of the crowd, toward the soldiers....

    The crowd and the Guardsmen were stunned. For a moment, a hush fell over the scene as the last of the gas and rifle smoke cleared. Then the silence was broken by protesters shouting "Kill the Pigs!" and other curses.

    However, they maintained their distance and stopped throwing rocks. The troops, some still in shock, reformed their ranks and marched without interference back to their start point and surrendered their weapons. Their ammunition was counted, but the number of rounds issued remains unclear.

    The university president closed Kent State for the rest of the school year. There were detailed federal and state investigations.

    An Ohio grand jury refused to charge any Guardsmen with criminal conduct. However, in 1974 the federal government charged eight men with violating the students' civil rights; but the case was later thrown out. In addition, the families of two of the dead students sued the governor and the State of Ohio in federal court, but settled the case in 1979 before a verdict was reached.

    No Guardsman was ever convicted for the shooting.



    ****ing anarchists!
    http://tools.wikimedia.de/~gmaxwell/jorbis/JOrbisPlayer.php?path=John+Williams+The+Imperial+M arch+from+The+Empire+Strikes+Back.ogg&wiki=en

    Comment


    • Originally posted by GePap

      Then you are not a police officer, obviously, being ignorant of the circumstances of many crimes. Every single police department in the country is for this ban, and for good reason. As for "the military purpose"- nowhere does it say any citizen at any time should have any weapon with "military viability". You can;t leaglly own a tow missile system- is that your constituional rights being denied? No, not anymore than you can decry not owning a howlitzer.
      I don't expect police executives (the ones who make policy for the police department) to protect my rights which they deem contrary to their own interests. As long as you think they have good reason for their attempt to influence law, perhaps you'd like to embark on a personal wager with me regarding the number of police officers killed by assault weapons in the next year? I think the number will be smaller than this year or the same. Do you think it will rise, and if so what do you propose as a stake?

      What the police executives really want is to see more and more restrictive laws put on the books. It makes their jobs easier, just like waiving the entire bill of rights would make their jobs easier. While I understand their position, it is not my purpose in life to surrender my birthright and that of coming generations in order to ease the way for paper pushers in the P.D.


      Originally posted by GePap

      What would be the point of a bayonnet? to hunt dear with?
      Why does something which is contextually harmless require an explanation for it to be OK with you and the other gun grabbbers? I don't like tassels on bike handles, yet I require no one to submit to my preferences in the matter. They might even cause a couple of injuries a year, but I'm ok with that. They aren't a menace, and I'd rather live in country that allows such unfunctional impedimentia to those who prefer it.

      And again, what the hell does hunting have to do with anything in any of the arguments presented on these numerous pages on this topic?

      I will explain why bayonnet lugs were banned though. As with many illogical actions it is only illogical when one assumes that those who favored it were dealing in good faith. A lot of "assault weapons" were produced on the same assembly lines as, or were modified versions of military surplus weapons. As such these weapons were built with the bayonnet lugs integral to them. Rather than trying to fairly ban these guns openly, they used the bayonnet lug rule to ban them through the back door. Ditto the flash supressor.


      As for the militia argument. It seems that the people of Iraq don't seem to believe your argument that they have no chance against the U.S. Army. They also seem to value even the sorts of weapons that are still legal in the U.S. as well as real assault weapons. Note that for all of our bombers, tanks, artillery etc. the most common weapon deployed by the U.S. is still the assault weapon, with the machine gun in second place. This is because these weapons still have a great amount of utility in modern warfare. How would we be doing in Iraq if the Army decided to simply trash all of our lead throwers because they are obslete? Not as well I can tell you.


      Originally posted by GePap

      Wonderful piece, but utterly ignoring the basic realities of both Iraq and what you claim people need assault rifles to do. I don;t think anyone in Iraq thinks they can, by a pitched battle, defeat the US. They can't. But that is not their aim (maybe fantasy, not aim). Their aim is to defeat the US politically- to create chaos, undermine the new interim authority, and then drive us out that way, not by a total military victory.

      The aim of any militia would be to "defend their homes", 1., and to undermine the control of a "dictatorial regime". Just having assault weapons would simply jnot do much in the way of achieving that aim. Great example of that- Iraq itself. Do you think that multiplicity of assault weapons now in Iraq came out of nowhere? Or solely from the armies armories? No, people in Iraq were hevaily armed- Saddam gave out assault weapons to the people-to protect him. So many Iraqis had assault rifles, and as far as I know, it did diddly for their freedom or ability to fight off the Saddam Regime, which is not even in the same order of magnitude as strong as the US.

      The only part of Iraq where people were able to keep Saddam at bay was in the North, were foreign powers interveend to limit Saddam's abilities.
      Where does it require the people to defeat the enemies of the United States in pitched battles in the 2nd Amendment? Oh yea, no where. I think you are being purposefully obtuse, or could use a good course on the Revolutionary War. Possibly both. The pitched battles get the coverage, but it was largely a guerilla war in most of the area that became the U.S. This included all the nasty hallmarks of such a war including driving away people who are likely to side with or provide information to the enemy, sniping, destruction of crops by irregulars, the works. The framers were not unaware of the political war that had just convulsed the nation, nor were they unaware of the irregular units usefullness in wearing down regulars by putting pressure on their supply lines, killing their informants etc. And we see this happening in Iraq right now.

      As for your argument that because Iraq had a fair number of arms extent during Saddams rule (though fewer and further between than during the American occupation, as Baath party officials handed them out by the hundreds of thousands before the invasion) it somehow invalidates my argument that an armed populace can resist an army:

      This assumes that all threats to the people are Saddam Hussein or someone who is equally or more brutal. It also assumes that the people of the United States are somehow going to react in a similar fashion to the people of Iraq to a Stalinist regime despite our culture and traditions. It assumes that the religious and ethnic divides in this country are so serious that the fear of "the other" would allow us to dehumanize one another. Those things might be possible over many years, but they would never be likely.


      Originally posted by GePap
      Which is all very nice, but only has a chance of success if the enemy regime has some inherent weakness that some other non-violent opposition that can use the crackdown as an excuse for its own actions. Without another weakness a guerrilla war will collapse. Guerrila wars can bring down regimes with internal crakcs, but not strong ones, which will simply ruthlessly crush the opposition. BUt you miss something more insidious, which is the control of the media. As I have said before, it never need get to the point were you have a militia at all- the modern states has multiple ways of undermining any possibly violent opposition from the start-cutting them off at the knees without consequence. Anyone so isolated that they can't be brought to ruin otherwise is too isolated to be political significant (like the freemen in Montana).

      A simple method would be to accuse them of tax fraud and ruin them financially as they fight the charges. Or even simple "identity theft". I mean, the ways to find and eliminate someone as a possible resistor in the modern world are endless. And having an assault rifle won't help you worth ****.
      Remind me not to have you give halftime pep talks to any team I care about, and in particular Team America. Warfare is a contest, and contests can be lost whether you're the high tech army or the tenacious guerilla. Randy Walker and his family killed a Federal Agent who was trying to enforce just such an entrapment scenario. He simply resisted it, got a great kill ratio for a guerilla (1 to 2) and at the end of the day the government's case against him was thrown out of court and the judge spent a good deal of time castigating them. The case and a few others like it forced the government to look into the way federal law enforcement agencies did business, and as a result the FBI, the BATF and the Federal Marshalls all changed some of their policies.

      From a purely guerilla war perspective the existence of firearms already has a significant effect on the amount of federal law enforcement activity. Notice how the Feds move in large groups in order to execute a search warrant (which due to bungling didn't even help them in Waco). Believe me, they'd rather have a couple of G-men simply pull up in a sedan and do the job. In a more active guerilla warfare scenario they would be even more restriced. Not only would they have to overcome possible shootouts when they go on operations, but they have to deal with the very real possibility that they are going to be the object of enemy operations. Not only are the cops / army guys alone at risk, but of course their families will be as well.

      I'm not really sure what it is exactly that you are afraid of. Are you afraid that you will be murdered by a semi-automatic rifle? Your chances are less than being killed by lightening. How much time to you spend worrying about that?
      He's got the Midas touch.
      But he touched it too much!
      Hey Goldmember, Hey Goldmember!

      Comment


      • This is why having a written constitution sucks.
        Jon Miller: MikeH speaks the truth
        Jon Miller: MikeH is a shockingly revolting dolt and a masturbatory urine-reeking sideshow freak whose word is as valuable as an aging cow paddy.
        We've got both kinds

        Comment


        • Now more stupid people can kill each other!
          Is it me, or is MOBIUS a horrible person?

          Comment


          • Its interesting to see that no one disputes the facts about 'assault rifles' and crimes i.e. they are only used in a small fraction of crimes and that banning a rifle based upon what it 'looks like' is ridiculous knee-jerk nonsense.
            We need seperate human-only games for MP/PBEM that dont include the over-simplifications required to have a good AI
            If any man be thirsty, let him come unto me and drink. Vampire 7:37
            Just one old soldiers opinion. E Tenebris Lux. Pax quaeritur bello.

            Comment


            • [qE] Originally posted by Ned
              The point, K, is that the purpose of the Amendment is to arm citizens in a manner so that they can form military units.[/q]

              As I said, the purpose of the amendment is completely irrelevent as to what the amendment actually does. If I wrote "all shall eat cheese on Wednesday", it doesn't matter that I intended that amendment to protect our right to freedom of assembly.


              The Amendment protects ONLY military weapons, and the Supremes have endorsed this view.


              1) what the Supremes say is ALSO irrelevent to the actual meaning of the Constitution. They can't change the meaning inherent in the words.

              2) This depends on the definition of "arms", which (obviously ignoring a reference to the right to possess certain limbs) can reasonably interpreted to mean any sort of weapon, given that there's no specification of military arms, and that any armament can serve a military purpose.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Ned
                Joe, the Federal ban on assault weapons was clearly unconstitutional under the Second Amendment as it banned military style weapons. However, a California ban on the same weapons is nominally constitutional unless it interferes with a Federal law or interstate commerce.
                The Constitution didn't specify the right as inviolable by the federal government; it simply said "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". Clearly neither the States nor the federal government can ban it.

                Comment


                • Okay, first off, I'm an actual revolutionary. I study revolutions, who and why they happen, etc.


                  Studying ants doesn't make you an ant.

                  But they won't win. And that's the real point, winning. We atheists don't get 72 virgins (and why would we want them? I want 72 women who know what they're doing!) for dying for our cause when it's hopeless.
                  Are you saying American victory in Iraq is a guarantee?

                  Also, consider, without armed resitance, Al Sadr would be in jail, his papers shut down, and America would be riding the Iraqis from the backside right now. Instead, America has to be a little more careful about how it treats the Iraqis.

                  You say you are a revolutionary, but where is your gun? You are a student, but can never be a leader if you are not willing to be a soldier first.

                  It was the French who defeated Britain, we just helped.


                  What do you mean "just helped". How can you deny an armed populace was an integral part of the American revolution? I can't believe you are trying to re-write history like this. The French did their part, yes, But the American patriots fired the first shots, showed the first resistance, and gave Britain her first loss.


                  This is incorrect. At best, irregularies would be auxilaries, who are used to harrass and interdict the enemy. They would not be used to fight battles, except maybe at the very end of the fight.

                  And we don't need to be armed now to form irregulars in the event of civil war.


                  What civil war? What revolution? There are hundreds of possibilities of revolution and civil war. Perhaps not in your scheme American communist revolution. How can you claim to predict how an american revolution or civil war would pan out?

                  Perhaps the US militray would be quite helpless, as the war would be more of a series of anarchistic lynchings and mob battles. Maybe it would be a quiet revolution, with a series of assasinations and sabotage directed at supporters of opposing causes.
                  Pentagenesis for Civ III
                  Pentagenesis for Civ IV in progress
                  Pentagenesis Gallery

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Kuciwalker


                    The Constitution didn't specify the right as inviolable by the federal government; it simply said "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". Clearly neither the States nor the federal government can ban it.
                    This only goes to illustrate that you know very little about constitutional law.

                    The Bill of Rights restrictions on powers were directed only to Federal power unless the States were expressly included. The Supremes gradually changed that over the years by including more and more of the Bill of Rights in the Due Process guarantees of the 14th Amendment that expressly applied to the States. Important to this incorporation doctrine is that only "fundamental" rights expressed in the Bill of Rights are included in the 14th Amendment. The Supremes have never decided that the right to bear arms is "fundamental."
                    http://tools.wikimedia.de/~gmaxwell/jorbis/JOrbisPlayer.php?path=John+Williams+The+Imperial+M arch+from+The+Empire+Strikes+Back.ogg&wiki=en

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Kuciwalker

                      This depends on the definition of "arms", which (obviously ignoring a reference to the right to possess certain limbs) can reasonably interpreted to mean any sort of weapon, given that there's no specification of military arms, and that any armament can serve a military purpose.
                      I will not disagree to much on your point here. However, the people who support the second amendment typically argue that they have a right to hunt. But that is not the "purpose" for the Amendment.

                      The Supremes have ruled that the Second Amendment does not protect sawed-off shotguns as sawed-off shotguns are not military weapons.
                      http://tools.wikimedia.de/~gmaxwell/jorbis/JOrbisPlayer.php?path=John+Williams+The+Imperial+M arch+from+The+Empire+Strikes+Back.ogg&wiki=en

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by SpencerH
                        Its interesting to see that no one disputes the facts about 'assault rifles' and crimes i.e. they are only used in a small fraction of crimes and that banning a rifle based upon what it 'looks like' is ridiculous knee-jerk nonsense.
                        In the US, the issue has been contorted into "why" would the ordinary citizen need an assault rifle to hunt. As you can see from my other posts, the purpose of the Second Amendment is to protect the right of the people to own military weapons for the purpose of forming military units, not for the purpose of hunting.
                        http://tools.wikimedia.de/~gmaxwell/jorbis/JOrbisPlayer.php?path=John+Williams+The+Imperial+M arch+from+The+Empire+Strikes+Back.ogg&wiki=en

                        Comment


                        • I remember this.

                          I got my glock before this went into effect. I have two 17 round magazines for it. After this was passed, those magazines became illegal to sell.

                          personally I can care less about the bill. It had no effect as I knew it would happen.

                          The only way to reduce crime is have the military forcibly remove weapons from all residences. This would have very bad side effects of course.

                          Comment


                          • Dissident, I think it might also be possible to reduce crime by increasing the penalties and reducing lawyers. My God, Christ was arrested, tried, convicted, flogged and crucified in less than 24 hours. If we were going to amend the constitution to reduce crime, I would look in this direction rather than removing weapons from ordinary citizens.
                            http://tools.wikimedia.de/~gmaxwell/jorbis/JOrbisPlayer.php?path=John+Williams+The+Imperial+M arch+from+The+Empire+Strikes+Back.ogg&wiki=en

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Ned
                              This only goes to illustrate that you know very little about constitutional law.


                              Rather, how much I care about Supreme Court precedent.

                              The Bill of Rights restrictions on powers were directed only to Federal power unless the States were expressly included.


                              Where does it say that? In fact, it simply says shall not be infringed. It doesn't say by whom. In contrast, the 1st Amendment specfifically states that Congress shall make no law...

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Ned
                                Dissident, I think it might also be possible to reduce crime by increasing the penalties and reducing lawyers. My God, Christ was arrested, tried, convicted, flogged and crucified in less than 24 hours. If we were going to amend the constitution to reduce crime, I would look in this direction rather than removing weapons from ordinary citizens.
                                You would like to look to the system which arrested, tried, convicted, flogged, and crucified someone like Jesus?
                                Rethink Refuse Reduce Reuse

                                Do It Ourselves

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X