Barack H. Obama and your Second Amendment Rights !

[Big_Bill]

Chris W. Cox
NRA-ILA Executive Director
02/17/2012
Obama’s Budget is a Sneak Attack on our Second Amendment
Freedoms
Editorial in The Daily Caller
Ever since taking office, President Barack Obama has tried desperately to convince gun owners and
sportsmen that he supports the Second Amendment. But actions speak louder than words, and Obama's
latest budget proposal contains numerous sneak attacks aimed at the heart of our firearm freedoms.
For example, NRA members and gun owners fought hard for a law to ban government agencies like the
Centers for Disease Control from using our tax dollars to produce blatant anti-gun propaganda. Obama
wants to kill it in his budget.
We fought hard for a law to ban the Obama administration from spending our tax dollars on illegal
schemes like Operation Fast and Furious, which funneled thousands of guns to violent Mexican drug
cartels. Obama wants to kill it in his budget.
We fought hard to protect the Federal Flight Deck Officer program, which allows armed, trained
commercial airline pilots to serve as the last line of defense should terrorists breach the cockpit and
attempt another 9/11-style attack. Obama wants to slash the funding for this potentially life-saving
program in half.
Perhaps he doesn't have the money to protect airline passengers because he spent it all sending guns to
Mexico.
We fought hard for a law that prevents the Obama White House from spending our tax dollars to ban
shotguns and to stop historic and collectible firearms from being imported into the United States. Obama
wants to kill both of these in his budget.
Obama's budgetary assault on our gun rights doesn't stop there. For years gun owners have been buying
and recycling our military's spent brass as a way to keep the cost of firearm ownership down. Not
anymore. If Obama gets his way with the budget, all of this brass will be melted at taxpayers' expense.
You have to ask yourself: If Obama is so serious about protecting our gun rights, what's so wrong with
stopping government agencies from using our tax dollars to attack our Second Amendment rights?
With innocent lives being cut short on both the U.S. and Mexican side of our border, why would Obama
go out of his way to reject a ban on funding for illegal operations like Fast and Furious?
The answer is simple. Everything Barack Obama says about protecting the Second Amendment is a
bald-faced lie. He will use every weapon at his disposal — including our hard-earned tax dollars — in his
mission to destroy our Second Amendment freedoms.
The Second Amendment is America's first freedom, because it's the one freedom that guarantees all of our precious liberties. Barack Obama's values have never been, and will never be, compatible with this
freedom. His latest budget proposal proves it.

http://home.nra.org/ds/flex_funcs/pdfer?name=ChrisWCox_02172012.pdf&method=inline

[finnbow]

I suppose the GOP's use of the Catholic Church to criticize Obama backfired. Why not try the NRA now? After the recent school shootings, this will fall flat as well.

I own about a dozen guns and don't feel threatened whatsoever by Obama. The GOP is just trying to find the right strings to pull to get your attention, Bill. Gun control is a non-issue in this election cycle and the GOP is trying to elevate it. Ignore them.

[Big_Bill]

I suppose the GOP's use of the Catholic Church to criticize Obama backfired. Why not try the NRA now? After the recent school shootings, this will fall flat as well.

I own about a dozen guns and don't feel threatened whatsoever by Obama. The GOP is just trying to find the right strings to pull to get your attention, Bill. Gun control is a non-issue in this election cycle and the GOP is trying to elevate it. Ignore them.


I suppose that our age Finn,
That we can ignore just about everything except troops breaking down the doors demanding our firearms. We can even ignore the dismantling of the Constitution of the United States, after all, we will be dead soon enough anyway. We don't need our firearms, or that old piece of paper.

But what will we leave our children and grandchildren, other than a crushed economy, a populous in kayos, a government of opportunists and thieves ?
I had hopes of leaving them something better, but your correct, I won't be here very long.

I do hope that the younger owners of firearms, fight for their freedoms, stand tall and rebuild America and her economy and even cast out the liars and thieves from Washington D.C.. We didn't, shame on us.

Bill

[d-ray657]

Oh! The drama, the drama . . . .

Regards,

D-Ray

[finnbow]

Lots of claptrap there, BB.

[neophyte]

echoes of McCarthyism

[Charles]

The Democrats learned their lesson about gun control. And the lesson they learned is not to talk about it...unless you want to lose some elections.

Beyond that, their ideology hasn't changed, only their tactics.

Chas

[BlueStreak]

Nobody is coming after your penis, oh sorry, my bad...your guns, so relax, geek.

Dave

[Big_Bill]

Nobody is coming after your penis, oh sorry, my bad...your guns, so relax, geek.

Dave



Bad day at work Dave ?

Or just a case of penis envy ?

Bill

[BlueStreak]

It's a referral to Freud and "compensation". You know, men who are inadequate "down there" or suffer from other sexual insecurities must compensate with toys that make them feel masculine. Like a rack full of guns, for instance.:p

Dave

[JJIII]

The Democrats learned their lesson about gun control. And the lesson they learned is not to talk about it...unless you want to lose some elections.

Beyond that, their ideology hasn't changed, only their tactics.

Chas

Quoted for truth.

[noonereal]

Bad day at work Dave ?

Or just a case of penis envy ?

Bill

yeah, our local militia needs all our guns

[merrylander]

The only thing separating the men from the boys is the price of their toys.:rolleyes:

[Zeke]

I don't know if this will work or not...

GUN CONTROL (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bFIYLimyRHU)

[Oerets]

If this what you are talking about, http://www.factcheck.org/2009/06/georgia-arms/

Seems to be more of a sales pitch from suppliers.


From article

"Why It Happened

What emerges from the DLA’s letters and the accounts of the NRA’s lobbyist and the Newsmax reporter is that the policy had originated with an order the previous year (during the Bush administration) from the Office of the Secretary of Defense to prohibit the sale of uniquely military items controlled by the Department of State through its munitions list. This order eventually worked its way down to the DLA’s Defense Reutilization and Marketing Service, the department responsible for selling military surplus items. DRMS found that small arms cartridge cases were listed as "sensitive" munitions items, according to the DLA letters, and thus sales of empty cases were halted.

Cox, the NRA’s lobbyist, said the DLA’s explanation "put to rest various theories and rumors that were circulated on the internet, concerning the reason for the suspension." He said the sales had been stopped "in the interest of national security." Newsmax’s reporter said the order was intended "to keep sensitive military hardware from making it into the hands of liquidators and, potentially, the enemy."

An Undead Theory

But those facts haven’t buried the zombie claims that the Obama administration is trying to eliminate the supply of reloaded military small-arms ammunition. We keep getting those messages. The most recent carries the subject line: "Why Ammo is Scarce."

Ammo may well be scarce: Georgia Arms warns buyers on its Web site that shipping times are delayed five to seven weeks. But the reason isn’t any Obama administration move to shut down reloaders. Georgia Arms states that it is "due to a huge increase in demand."

And it’s logical to think that surge in demand is coming from gun owners who are needlessly concerned"





Barney

[CarlV]

Is Obama coming for our guns again? http://www.audiokarma.org/forums/images/smilies/boring.gif


Carl

[d-ray657]

But what will we leave our children and grandchildren, other than a crushed economy, a populous (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Populous) in kayos (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/kayo), a government of opportunists and thieves ?

Bill

Let me get this straight. We're going to get knocked out by a computer game?

Regards,

D-Ray

[piece-itpete]

Quoted for truth.

X2.

Sidenote, CCW is up 100% in Ohio over the last 3 years, and violent crime is down.

Pete

[Big_Bill]

Let me get this straight. We're going to get knocked out by a computer game?

Regards,

D-Ray


Where did I say "knocked out", "D" ?

For a Barrister, a supposedly intelligent individual, I sometimes wonder.

If you really would like to play word games, I have a few Mensa Puzzle Books you should try.

Always remember: If your not part of the solution, your surely part of the problem.

Sincerely,

Bill

[BlueStreak]

X2.

Sidenote, CCW is up 100% in Ohio over the last 3 years, and violent crime is down.

Pete

Chardon.

Dave

[merrylander]

We had a 13 year old girl in Baltimore playing with a couple of friends and they accidentaly killed her with a .22 rifle. The boys panicked and drug her body out to the alleyway and covered it with trash.

The interesting part is that the rifle turned up in the back seat of an off duty cop's cruiser. Going to be interesting to see how this turns out.

Having had a 16 year old cousin shot and killed in a hunting "accident" I am really no fan of the wild distribution of firearms.

[Big_Bill]

If this what you are talking about, http://www.factcheck.org/2009/06/georgia-arms/

Seems to be more of a sales pitch from suppliers.


From article

"Why It Happened

What emerges from the DLA’s letters and the accounts of the NRA’s lobbyist and the Newsmax reporter is that the policy had originated with an order the previous year (during the Bush administration) from the Office of the Secretary of Defense to prohibit the sale of uniquely military items controlled by the Department of State through its munitions list. This order eventually worked its way down to the DLA’s Defense Reutilization and Marketing Service, the department responsible for selling military surplus items. DRMS found that small arms cartridge cases were listed as "sensitive" munitions items, according to the DLA letters, and thus sales of empty cases were halted.

Cox, the NRA’s lobbyist, said the DLA’s explanation "put to rest various theories and rumors that were circulated on the internet, concerning the reason for the suspension." He said the sales had been stopped "in the interest of national security." Newsmax’s reporter said the order was intended "to keep sensitive military hardware from making it into the hands of liquidators and, potentially, the enemy."

An Undead Theory

But those facts haven’t buried the zombie claims that the Obama administration is trying to eliminate the supply of reloaded military small-arms ammunition. We keep getting those messages. The most recent carries the subject line: "Why Ammo is Scarce."

Ammo may well be scarce: Georgia Arms warns buyers on its Web site that shipping times are delayed five to seven weeks. But the reason isn’t any Obama administration move to shut down reloaders. Georgia Arms states that it is "due to a huge increase in demand."

And it’s logical to think that surge in demand is coming from gun owners who are needlessly concerned"





Barney


I don't know why I am surprised that you believe that rifle and pistol cases are "Sensitive Munitions" ?
Or that you would believe that this is their concern, as the abandoned a "Super Secret Stealth Observation Aircraft" in Iran, without trying to destroy it before it could be sent to Russia and China to reverse engineered and study.

Ammunition cases have not changed in over 100 years ! I have examined them, weighted them, checked their volumes and hardness and ounce fired cases are all within the acceptable normal variances, depending on the type of weapon they are fired from. So their secrets are already revealed.

And if this was a situation of National Security, they would have our troops in the Sand Box police their cases before they left the battle field.

The politicians lie, the government confirms their lies, what else is new.
But I am sure you will continue believe what you wish. Or believe what ever they tell you to believe.

Sincerely,

Bill

[d-ray657]

You're right Bill. I wouldn't believe a word from the NRA's chief lobbyist either. :rolleyes:

Regards,

D-Ray

[Big_Bill]

We had a 13 year old girl in Baltimore playing with a couple of friends and they accidentaly killed her with a .22 rifle. The boys panicked and drug her body out to the alleyway and covered it with trash.

The interesting part is that the rifle turned up in the back seat of an off duty cop's cruiser. Going to be interesting to see how this turns out.

Having had a 16 year old cousin shot and killed in a hunting "accident" I am really no fan of the wild distribution of firearms.

While I feel for your loss Merry,

I had a friend killed by a baseball bat as we played a game. He moved to the outside of the plate to catch a curve ball, the batter pulled the bat back and struck him on the top of his head. He died days latter from brain injuries.

Any tool can and most likely has caused the death of someone, even when used properly.

But as an hunter I know that there is nothing more alarming than to have people that you do not know, handling firearms around you.

Again I am sorry for your loss,

Bill

[d-ray657]

I'm not surprised "D", I have never known a Barrister that allowed the truth influence his case yet. Or prevent them from prosecuting an inocent person, or defending a guilty person yet.

Barristers would be beneath a politician, if politicians were not mostly Barristers first.

Sincerely,

Bill

We are also trained at exposing illogical propositions, inconsistency and deception. Now you decide whether you have a problem with that.

The particular inconsistency here, is that you questioned another poster's reliance on a report. The primary source cited for that report was a lobbyist for the NRA. I pointed out that I too, would be skeptical of an NRA lobbyist. In this case, however, he seems to be contradicting an article from his organization's publication. You were aware of that irony, were you not?

Regards,

D-Ray

[piece-itpete]

Including Chardon, violent crime is down.

Pete

[Big_Bill]

We are also trained at exposing illogical propositions, inconsistency and deception. Now you decide whether you have a problem with that.

The particular inconsistency here, is that you questioned another poster's reliance on a report. The primary source cited for that report was a lobbyist for the NRA. I pointed out that I too, would be skeptical of an NRA lobbyist. In this case, however, he seems to be contradicting an article from his organization's publication. You were aware of that irony, were you not?

Regards,

D-Ray

My apologies "D",

I find myself guilty of seeing what I expected to read, rather then what was actually printed. In the future I will try to read twice, open my mouth ounce.

Again, My Apologies.

Sincerely,

Bill

[Zeke]

Any tool can be used to inflict pain, injury or death.

The most efficient, of course, are those tools specifically designed to do so.

I don't mind some fairly stringent limitations on who is allowed to obtain said instruments.

[piece-itpete]

They've been continuously loosened here over the last 10 years or so, after a very careful start, and violent crime keeps going down, down, down.

Which makes sense.

Pete

[Big_Bill]

Any tool can be used to inflict pain, injury or death.

The most efficient, of course, are those tools specifically designed to do so.

I don't mind some fairly stringent limitations on who is allowed to obtain said instruments.


I totally agree Zeke,

The only problem is that murders, armed robbers, drug sellers and users and other people that show diminished mental control are already prohibited from owning firearms. And criminals by nature, do not obey laws at all.
So what limitations do you feel would work ?

Bill

[BlueStreak]

We had a 13 year old girl in Baltimore playing with a couple of friends and they accidentaly killed her with a .22 rifle. The boys panicked and drug her body out to the alleyway and covered it with trash.

The interesting part is that the rifle turned up in the back seat of an off duty cop's cruiser. Going to be interesting to see how this turns out.

Having had a 16 year old cousin shot and killed in a hunting "accident" I am really no fan of the wild distribution of firearms.

See, this is the part that bugs me. Although I believe the 2nd Amendment does not refer to individual ownership at all, rather it clearly refers to "the state" and "the people" in a plural (collective) context. IMHO, I am not against reasonable gun ownership, by sane, carefully vetted individual citizens.

The problem lies here; Define "reasonable".

To my mind, "reasonable" would be a few guns appropriate for legal hunting and one personal protection type weapon per qualified adult family member.
To my mind this is enough.

Some people seem to think there is no reasonable limit. That they should be allowed to own tactical nukes if they want them. I think they have mental issues. Seriously.

Here in VA, our governor recently struck down a decades old "one gun purchase per month" rule. WTF would ANYONE need to purchase more than one gun per month for?:confused: We've had this rule for a long time and it hasn't "infringed" on anybodies ability to defend themselves or to shoot varmints, believe me.

Dave

[RamblinE]

I'm not reading anything sourced from the NRA as it's probably based more in the realm of propaganda than facts.

I aspire to own a rifle someday, an M1903 Springfield or an 1898 Mauser.

However.

Handguns are made with one purpose in mind, killing other human beings. They should be banned and considered assault weapons.

[barbara]

See, this is the part that bugs me. Although I believe the 2nd Amendment does not refer to individual ownership at all, rather it clearly refers to "the state" and "the people" in a plural (collective) context. IMHO, I am not against reasonable gun ownership, by sane, carefully vetted individual citizens.

The problem lies here; Define "reasonable".

To my mind, "reasonable" would be a few guns appropriate for legal hunting and one personal protection type weapon per qualified adult family member.
To my mind this is enough.

Some people seem to think there is no reasonable limit. That they should be allowed to own tactical nukes if they want them. I think they have mental issues. Seriously.

Here in VA, our governor recently struck down a decades old "one gun purchase per month" rule. WTF would ANYONE need to purchase more than one gun per month for?:confused: We've had this rule for a long time and it hasn't "infringed" on anybodies ability to defend themselves or to shoot varmints, believe me.

Dave

+1
Well stated. Why is it people have to have be so extreme when it comes to firearms!?

[bhunter]

The problem lies here; Define "reasonable".

To my mind, "reasonable" would be a few guns appropriate for legal hunting and one personal protection type weapon per qualified adult family member.
To my mind this is enough.

Some people seem to think there is no reasonable limit. That they should be allowed to own tactical nukes if they want them. I think they have mental issues. Seriously.

Here in VA, our governor recently struck down a decades old "one gun purchase per month" rule. WTF would ANYONE need to purchase more than one gun per month for?:confused: We've had this rule for a long time and it hasn't "infringed" on anybodies ability to defend themselves or to shoot varmints, believe me.

Dave

Our tight gun laws here in California have not seemed to reduced gun crimes. Deaths caused by accidents do happen, but that is the fault of the gun owner and not the availability of guns IMHO. It is interesting that a lot of areas with tight gun control also have a high gun crime rate. Dramatic gun incidents get a tremendous amount of news coverage relative to the threat or use of firearms curtailing crime.

[merrylander]

Our tight gun laws here in California have not seemed to reduced gun crimes. Deaths caused by accidents do happen, but that is the fault of the gun owner and not the availability of guns IMHO. It is interesting that a lot of areas with tight gun control also have a high gun crime rate. Dramatic gun incidents get a tremendous amount of news coverage relative to the threat or use of firearms curtailing crime.

Because unless all states institute sensible laws the weapons just cross state lines. New York is very upset with Virginia because so many guns used in the commission of crime originated in Virginia.

[bhunter]

+1
Well stated. Why is it people have to have be so extreme when it comes to firearms!?

What people? How many people have large gun collections? What percentage of firearms are used in crime or are a tool associated with accidental death? The extremists are those that seek to remove guns from individual ownership. We've already seen how effective that's been in reducing crime. What is your goal in restricting firearms? Look at where and why crime occurs and what groups are raising the crime rate. Legalization of illicit drugs would likely do more to reduce muder rates than trying to control access to firearms.

[Bigerik]

It even comes up here. We have pretty serious laws controlling the sale and possession of handguns, but whatever the bad guys need just comes across the border.

[Bigerik]

What people? How many people have large gun collections? What percentage of firearms are used in crime or are a tool associated with accidental death? The extremists are those that seek to remove guns from individual ownership. We've already seen how effective that's been in reducing crime. What is your goal in restricting firearms? Look at where and why crime occurs and what groups are raising the crime rate. Legalization of illicit drugs would likely do more to reduce muder rates than trying to control access to firearms.

Which is why America, with hundreds of millions of guns has the worlds lowest crime rate, right?

[d-ray657]

Our tight gun laws here in California have not seemed to reduced gun crimes. Deaths caused by accidents do happen, but that is the fault of the gun owner and not the availability of guns IMHO. It is interesting that a lot of areas with tight gun control also have a high gun crime rate. Dramatic gun incidents get a tremendous amount of news coverage relative to the threat or use of firearms curtailing crime.

You being a computer guy, you would have to admit that computer logic would reject that statement. If no guns were available, there would no accidental gun deaths. Ipso facto, gun deaths are related to the availability of guns. :cool:

Actually, I understand your point that there is an element of negligent ownership in most every accidental gun death. And I know that it is absurd to suggest that there be no guns available. By computer logic, a stopped watch is more accurate than a slow watch, because the stopped watch is correct twice a day. Any you can tell me that I know squat about computer logic, and I couldn't rebut it. It was just a fun little foray into sophistry.

Sophistry aside, it appears that the AMA found statistical evidence to support the effectiveness of the Virginia's one gun per month limit. (http://jama.ama-assn.org/content/275/22/1759.abstract) I suppose that there will be an opportunity for some comparative statistics, since the law was just repealed.

Regards,

D-Ray

[bhunter]

Which is why America, with hundreds of millions of guns has the worlds lowest crime rate, right?

It has more to do with culture and the demand for illegal drugs than on the availability of firearms:

Intentional Homicide By Country:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

Gun Ownership By Country:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country

I'd also suggest that the greater homogeneity of a society the less conflict. Who's killing who sheds a bit of light on the cause.

[Charles]

I'm not reading anything sourced from the NRA as it's probably based more in the realm of propaganda than facts.

I aspire to own a rifle someday, an M1903 Springfield or an 1898 Mauser.

However.

Handguns are made with one purpose in mind, killing other human beings. They should be banned and considered assault weapons.

Handguns are designed for portability, as a rule. By and large, they aren't designed for killing other humans. Even sidearms purpose built for the military and police are considered to be self defense weapons.

However, the two rifles you mentioned WERE designed for killing other humans. And the only reason I would buy either is as a collectable.

If you aspire to own a rifle, start with a .22. .22's are fun, getting beat up by high powered rifles isn't.

Chas

[bhunter]

You being a computer guy, you would have to admit that computer logic would reject that statement. If no guns were available, there would no accidental gun deaths. Ipso facto, gun deaths are related to the availability of guns. :cool:


Sophistry aside, it appears that the AMA found statistical evidence to support the effectiveness of the Virginia's one gun per month limit. (http://jama.ama-assn.org/content/275/22/1759.abstract) I suppose that there will be an opportunity for some comparative statistics, since the law was just repealed.

Regards,

D-Ray

You're right! I should have been more careful and qualified that statement. But alas, I have a sinus infection and my head hurts. I really do think that comparisons across countries or even across states is difficult.

[Bigerik]

It has more to do with culture and the demand for illegal drugs than on the availability of firearms:

Intentional Homicide By Country:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

Gun Ownership By Country:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country

I'd also suggest that the greater homogeneity of a society the less conflict. Who's killing who sheds a bit of light on the cause.

Canada and the US ain't THAT different, but your homicide rate is 3 times higher.

[Bigerik]

Actually, based on the number of guns in the US in the chart above, I'm guessing you could stop the sale of guns completely tomorrow, and it would have no negative effect on the intentions of the drafters of the 2nd amendment. If getting nigh onto to parity in between guns and people does provide for enough of a militia, I don't know what will.

[Charles]

Canada and the US ain't THAT different, but your homicide rate is 3 times higher.

Meebee we got 3X the number of sumbitches who need killin'.

Chas

[d-ray657]

You're right! I should have been more careful and qualified that statement. But alas, I have a sinus infection and my head hurts. I really do think that comparisons across countries or even across states is difficult.

I agree with you that eliminating the profitability of the criminal distribution of drugs would significantly improve our safety (and that of our neighbors in Mexico). Eliminating poverty would also significantly reduce crime. BTW, as much as I disagree with you about politics, I appreciate your honesty.

P.S. lots of fluids, Mucinex, and vitamin C. Feel better.

Regards,

D-Ray

[Charles]

You're right! I should have been more careful and qualified that statement. But alas, I have a sinus infection and my head hurts. I really do think that comparisons across countries or even across states is difficult.

I keep a stash of Fish Mox & Fish Flex just for that reason...speaking of sinus infections.

Damned doctors won't give me antibiotics any more.

Chas

[painter]

It's a referral to Freud and "compensation". You know, men who are inadequate "down there" or suffer from other sexual insecurities must compensate with toys that make them feel masculine. Like a rack full of guns, for instance.:p

Dave

Then Its a damn good thing those guys at Bunker Hill were short changed...who knows what might have happened. Sorry...just couldn't miss the opportunity. :D

[bhunter]

Canada and the US ain't THAT different, but your homicide rate is 3 times higher.

What criteria are you using to compare the two countries?

[d-ray657]

Then Its a damn good thing those guys at Bunker Hill were short changed...who knows what might have happened. Sorry...just couldn't miss the opportunity. :D

You're pretty good with euphemisms, ya know that? :rolleyes:

Regards,

D-Ray

[d-ray657]

I keep a stash of Fish Mox & Fish Flex just for that reason...speaking of sinus infections.

Damned doctors won't give me antibiotics any more.

Chas

Speaking of honesty, you'd tell the Pope if he had a booger hanging out.

Regards,

D-Ray

[RamblinE]

The logic I'm operating under goes like this:

The rifles I want are desperately obsolete. High-powered and designed to kill yes, a hundred years ago. By today's standards they're large, heavy and cumbersome. Low capacity magazines with a relatively low rate of fire. Bolt action and stuff. Not to mention, not so easy to find anymore.

Handguns? Why, I could go buy one right now. No reason why I personally wouldn't qualify. Handguns are small, compact and concealable. They are easy to use and have a high rate of fire. Yet, they don't have the range or the velocity to take properly take down animals. If you can't hunt with it what else are you supposed to shoot with it then?

I live in the Philadelphia metro area which includes such places as Trenton and Camden NJ, where the police forces are being systematically cut even in the face of increasing crime rates. Hell, the crime rates in the entire area are rising, which goes against the national trend. In light of that, I view handgun ownership as doing more to put the people around you in jeopardy than defend yourself. You get robbed on the street, you can replace your cell phone, your wallet, your band cards, your media player, etc. No reason to start a shoot out and to take a life over material stuff.

And you know what? We don't have enough control over our own fates to prevent ourselves from falling victim to violent crime in the first place. Anyone who thinks they can prevent it are deluding themselves and firearms are a false tonic creating a false sense of security that they can't possibly enforce.

Also, the way I understand the 2nd Amendment, long arms were surely covered as they're pretty close to what colonial militias themselves used. :D

[Oerets]

I don't know why I am surprised that you believe that rifle and pistol cases are "Sensitive Munitions" ?
Or that you would believe that this is their concern, as the abandoned a "Super Secret Stealth Observation Aircraft" in Iran, without trying to destroy it before it could be sent to Russia and China to reverse engineered and study.

Ammunition cases have not changed in over 100 years ! I have examined them, weighted them, checked their volumes and hardness and ounce fired cases are all within the acceptable normal variances, depending on the type of weapon they are fired from. So their secrets are already revealed.

And if this was a situation of National Security, they would have our troops in the Sand Box police their cases before they left the battle field.

The politicians lie, the government confirms their lies, what else is new.
But I am sure you will continue believe what you wish. Or believe what ever they tell you to believe.

Sincerely,

Bill

This morning after reading your source material, then looking for another article. Just to see what you were talking about. This is due to the fact the NRA is biased in their reporting.

No where did I say I was in agreement with the article posted. Was just trying to get some of the facts. From the article it appears to state it was first purposed and implemented by the former President prior to this administration.

The jest of the article was to generate a feeding frenzy benefiting the manufacturing of ammo industries.

I am a gun owner and remember the scare when Obama was elected causing shortages on ammo. Driving up the prices and making some calibers scarce.
I have not seen anything by this administration done to curtail my gun rights to date. I can still go and buy the same guns and ammo today as four years ago.

Selling surplus Military brass on the open market could be used to supply foreign entities of some kind we should agree. So someone saw a need for this in the nations interests.





Barney

[Bigerik]

What criteria are you using to compare the two countries?

How do you mean?

[painter]

You're pretty good with euphemisms, ya know that? :rolleyes:

Regards,

D-Ray

Thanks D-Ray. It's the anesthetic. Once it wears off who knows? :D

[noonereal]

I have a few Mensa Puzzle Books

Bill

lol


good stuff billy!

[Big_Bill]

See, this is the part that bugs me. Although I believe the 2nd Amendment does not refer to individual ownership at all, rather it clearly refers to "the state" and "the people" in a plural (collective) context. IMHO, I am not against reasonable gun ownership, by sane, carefully vetted individual citizens.

Fortunately for us all Dave, the SCOTUS has decided differently, otherwise the First, second, fourth, ninth and tenth Amendments would all be Collective Rights and Not Individual Rights.

The problem lies here; Define "reasonable".

To my mind, "reasonable" would be a few guns appropriate for legal hunting and one personal protection type weapon per qualified adult family member.
To my mind this is enough.

Well Dave, not if you are a hunter and/or a target shooter. Not to mention if you just like to collect guns, you might benefit from a few more guns.

Some people seem to think there is no reasonable limit. That they should be allowed to own tactical nukes if they want them. I think they have mental issues. Seriously.

If you remember your history, the British went to Concord, MS. on April 19, 1775 ordered to seize and destroy all Artillery, Ammunition, Provisions, Tents, Small Arms, and all Military Stores whatever. Note CANNONS, a weapon of mass destruction of their day. While I can not see any reasonable person wanting a thermo nuclear device, I believe that the Second Amendment wanted the American People to have every weapon required to be able to stop any attack on America, like the 1776–1777 - Second Cherokee War, 1776–1794 - Chicago Wars, 1785–1795 - Northwest Indian War, 1786–1787 – Shays' Rebellion, 1791–1794 – Whiskey Rebellion, 1799–1800 – Fries's Rebellion, a Pennsylvania protest against war taxes, 1806 – Spanish Mexico – A platoon under Captain Zebulon Pike invaded Spanish territory at the headwaters of the Rio Grande on orders from General James Wilkinson. He was made prisoner without resistance at a fort he constructed in present-day Colorado, taken to Mexico, and later released after seizure of his papers., 1812–15 – War of 1812. On June 18, 1812, the United States declared war against the United Kingdom. Among the issues leading to the war were British impressment of American sailors into the Royal Navy, interception of neutral ships and blockades of the United States during British hostilities with France., 1813 – West Florida (Spanish territory). On authority given by Congress, General Wilkinson seized Mobile Bay in April with 600 soldiers. A small Spanish garrison gave way. Thus U.S. troops advanced into disputed territory to the Perdido River, as projected in 1810. No fighting., 1806–10 – Gulf of Mexico. American gunboats operated from New Orleans against Spanish and French privateers off the Mississippi Delta, chiefly under Captain John Shaw and Master Commandant David Porter., etc. information from:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_wars



Here in VA, our governor recently struck down a decades old "one gun purchase per month" rule. WTF would ANYONE need to purchase more than one gun per month for?:confused: We've had this rule for a long time and it hasn't "infringed" on anybodies ability to defend themselves or to shoot varmints, believe me.

Well Dave, I can think of a few reasons that the purchase of more than one gun a month might be necessary, like buying a personal collection, or or going on a hunting trip and requiring a back-up rifle, or just wanting to get you and your child a matching rifle to hunt with, I know that you can get a better price when buying in quantity.

Dave

Sincerely,

Bill

[Big_Bill]

It even comes up here. We have pretty serious laws controlling the sale and possession of handguns, but whatever the bad guys need just comes across the border.

Erik,

Many things cross the border from both sides.

Anything that is banned, will always cause a market, people just don't like their governments to tell them what they can do, and what they can have.

And for the right price, I'm sure someone will sell anyone, anything.

Bill

[Charles]

The logic I'm operating under goes like this:

The rifles I want are desperately obsolete. High-powered and designed to kill yes, a hundred years ago. By today's standards they're large, heavy and cumbersome. Low capacity magazines with a relatively low rate of fire. Bolt action and stuff. Not to mention, not so easy to find anymore.

Handguns? Why, I could go buy one right now. No reason why I personally wouldn't qualify. Handguns are small, compact and concealable. They are easy to use and have a high rate of fire. Yet, they don't have the range or the velocity to take properly take down animals. If you can't hunt with it what else are you supposed to shoot with it then?

I live in the Philadelphia metro area which includes such places as Trenton and Camden NJ, where the police forces are being systematically cut even in the face of increasing crime rates. Hell, the crime rates in the entire area are rising, which goes against the national trend. In light of that, I view handgun ownership as doing more to put the people around you in jeopardy than defend yourself. You get robbed on the street, you can replace your cell phone, your wallet, your band cards, your media player, etc. No reason to start a shoot out and to take a life over material stuff.

And you know what? We don't have enough control over our own fates to prevent ourselves from falling victim to violent crime in the first place. Anyone who thinks they can prevent it are deluding themselves and firearms are a false tonic creating a false sense of security that they can't possibly enforce.

Also, the way I understand the 2nd Amendment, long arms were surely covered as they're pretty close to what colonial militias themselves used. :D

I suppose that since you're a bright, progressive college student from Philly, and I'm an old, ignert hillbilly from Bugtussell, who has been using firearms for 45 years, we are bound to disagree to a certain extent.

We may as well be from different planets.

Concerning handguns, I've been hunting with them for years. Rifles and shotguns become boring after awhile.

Now I can appreciate the fact that you wish that no one is the metro areas, such as you live, had possession of a handgun. And I would like to commend you for your lack of desire to kill someone over a simple robbery, I'm not so sure that I would care to do so as well.

But I'm hardly deluded in thinking that a firearm, in a dangerous situation, would not offer me at least a certain tactical advantage.

Take care, I have to run,

Chas

[finnbow]

I've also owned guns for about 45 years, but somehow have never thought of them as a means of personal defense (and I've lived in some pretty shady areas including New Orleans and downtown DC). All my guns remain unloaded and under lock and key. In fact, there is not a single instance in 45 years that any of my guns have been loaded while in my house or vehicle. Not once.

Nowadays, I prefer shooting blackpowder to any other style of gun.

[noonereal]

But I'm hardly deluded in thinking that a firearm, in a dangerous situation, would not offer me at least a certain tactical advantage.



Chas

Chas
Would this be true almost exclusively only if your adversary had a gun and you knew in advance that he was coming to "get you."

I don't think for a moment that you or anyone is deluded, I think you feeling safer is an emotion comfort brought to you by a firearm which may not be the case in fact.

Walking down the street or being asleep at home and caught off guard having a gun at the ready might well prove to have the opposite effect of keeping you and yours safe.

Least this is what most studies not done by the NRA find.

[barbara]

The thing I can never understand about gun enthusiasts.... They say they need them for protection. Then they say they are responsible gun owners who keep their guns locked up and unloaded.
It just seems to me that if one finds themselves in a position where they have to defend themselves..like, say a robber comes into their home.... What is that gun owner going to do.... Tell the robber to wait one minute while they go unlock the gun and load it? I've never been a burglar, but I would imagine the element of surprise is an advantage over the victim and waiting for the victim to go get a gun and load it might be counter productive.

[Charles]

Chas
Would this be true almost exclusively only if your adversary had a gun and you knew in advance that he was coming to "get you."

I don't think for a moment that you or anyone is deluded, I think you feeling safer is an emotion comfort brought to you by a firearm which may not be the case in fact.

Walking down the street or being asleep at home and caught off guard having a gun at the ready might well prove to have the opposite effect of keeping you and yours safe.

Least this is what most studies not done by the NRA find.

We may as well be from different planets concerning this issue.

Chas

[merrylander]

While I am not in the least crazy about guns I do know how to use them. We are seriously considering acquisition of pistols for one simple reason. The recent break-ins, especially the homes of senior citizens, is not merely to steal. These perps beat the older folks senseless even to the point of death. Sure my credit cards and possessions can be replaced, not my life. Sitting on 4.5 acres our house is reasonably separated from the neighbours. The doors and windows all have strong locks and won't kick in all that easily or quietly. If we do get pistols the will be loaded and on the night stands - with the safety on and no round chambered. One of the reasons why I want Florence to try them out first to see how easily she can work the slide. Since we are alone in the house there is no one else to worry about.

During daytime they will be close at hand. Interestingly someone has taken Maryland to court over their very strict concealed carry laws, so we might even have to get holsters.

[Charles]

The thing I can never understand about gun enthusiasts.... They say they need them for protection. Then they say they are responsible gun owners who keep their guns locked up and unloaded.
It just seems to me that if one finds themselves in a position where they have to defend themselves..like, say a robber comes into their home.... What is that gun owner going to do.... Tell the robber to wait one minute while they go unlock the gun and load it? I've never been a burglar, but I would imagine the element of surprise is an advantage over the victim and waiting for the victim to go get a gun and load it might be counter productive.

I keep some loaded, hidden from sight, but accessible.

I also consider myself to be a responsible gun owner, only I define the terms of what being responsible actually are.

Chas

[painter]

I come from a family that hunted as young men. Guns safety was taught early. Dad used to say...when you're walking in the woods...you want to make sure your back is covered by a safe hunting buddy. Now...I have another thought here...why is it only important to shove a gun in a soldiers arms with the intent of killing?
You see...there are dual purposes to everything. The use or abuse is in the hands of the holder.
If you've ever been a victim (or potential victim of a crime) you might have a different opinion. Especially if you're a woman or the husband or father of a victim.

[Zeke]

My discovered simple truth is this, and no manner of training, expertise, or skill (by anyone involved including me) has been able to change it:

1. If a firearm is not available, accessible, loaded and willing to be used then it may as well be an anvil a thousand miles away.

2. If a firearm is available, accessible, loaded and willing to be used than you have just made the situation more dangerous for everyone, including yourself.

Amongst the general populace, carrying concealed is just bringing your baby blanket with you. It might make you feel empowered/comfortable but only because you've never thought about it or been there.

[painter]

My discovered simple truth is this, and no manner of training, expertise, or skill (by anyone involved including me) has been able to change it:

1. If a firearm is not available, accessible, loaded and willing to be used then it may as well be an anvil a thousand miles away.

2. If a firearm is available, accessible, loaded and willing to be used than you have just made the situation more dangerous for everyone, including yourself.

Amongst the general populace, carrying concealed is just bringing your baby blanket with you. It might make you feel empowered/comfortable but only because you've never thought about it or been there.


Zeke...I respect and agree with your opinion on carrying a concealed a weapon for the average guy/woman on the street...unless your job is such that you might encounter a situation where your life would be endangered. As for the home base...location...location and crime stats.

[barbara]

My discovered simple truth is this, and no manner of training, expertise, or skill (by anyone involved including me) has been able to change it:

1. If a firearm is not available, accessible, loaded and willing to be used then it may as well be an anvil a thousand miles away.

2. If a firearm is available, accessible, loaded and willing to be used than you have just made the situation more dangerous for everyone, including yourself.

Amongst the general populace, carrying concealed is just bringing your baby blanket with you. It might make you feel empowered/comfortable but only because you've never thought about it or been there.

I agree, Zeke.
After the shooting in which Gabby Giffords got shot I heard a lot of gun enthusiasts who insisted that if a citizen had been carrying a gun they could have stopped the perpetrator. Then, I saw an interview with a witness who did actually have a gun on him that day and he was asked why he didn't use it. His response was that he felt if he pulled it out, he might be mistaken for the bad guy and shot..

[merrylander]

Zeke...I respect and agree with your opinion on carrying a concealed a weapon for the average guy/woman on the street...unless your job is such that you might encounter a situation where your life would be endangered. As for the home base...location...location and crime stats.

Agree about the home base situation. Would I be prepared to use it. Let me put it very simply, Florence is my life, if you kill her you may as well kill me so yes, I will use it.

[Bigerik]

My discovered simple truth is this, and no manner of training, expertise, or skill (by anyone involved including me) has been able to change it:

1. If a firearm is not available, accessible, loaded and willing to be used then it may as well be an anvil a thousand miles away.

2. If a firearm is available, accessible, loaded and willing to be used than you have just made the situation more dangerous for everyone, including yourself.

Amongst the general populace, carrying concealed is just bringing your baby blanket with you. It might make you feel empowered/comfortable but only because you've never thought about it or been there.

Great post, Zeke.
So very true.

[Bigerik]

I agree, Zeke.
After the shooting in which Gabby Giffords got shot I heard a lot of gun enthusiasts who insisted that if a citizen had been carrying a gun they could have stopped the perpetrator. Then, I saw an interview with a witness who did actually have a gun on him that day and he was asked why he didn't use it. His response was that he felt if he pulled it out, he might be mistaken for the bad guy and shot..

Yeah, wouldn't that have made things better. A bunch of folks in the middle of a crowd pulling out their guns and letting loose. Good plan!

[Bigerik]

I also don't get how you are that much better having 10 guns than one.

[Charles]

My discovered simple truth is this, and no manner of training, expertise, or skill (by anyone involved including me) has been able to change it:

1. If a firearm is not available, accessible, loaded and willing to be used then it may as well be an anvil a thousand miles away.

2. If a firearm is available, accessible, loaded and willing to be used than you have just made the situation more dangerous for everyone, including yourself.

Amongst the general populace, carrying concealed is just bringing your baby blanket with you. It might make you feel empowered/comfortable but only because you've never thought about it or been there.

As a rule, I'd say you're probably correct.

Chas

[Charles]

I also don't get how you are that much better having 10 guns than one.

Firearms have specialized uses.

Chas

[Bigerik]

Firearms have specialized uses.

Chas

I do know that. I used to shoot competitively. CIL up here presented me with a gold Marksman award years back.

But I still don't see where all but a VERY few would need 10 different guns.

[merrylander]

I do know that. I used to shoot competitively. CIL up here presented me with a gold Marksman award years back.

But I still don't see where all but a VERY few would need 10 different guns.

Coincidence, my oldest brother worked for CIL before his death.

[piece-itpete]

Canada and the US ain't THAT different, but your homicide rate is 3 times higher.

Canadians are just plain nicer.

Meebee we got 3X the number of sumbitches who need killin'.

Chas

LMAO!

... Guns safety was taught early.
...

Here it is! Whether libs like it or not guns are a part of life in the US. Gun safety should be taught in early grades of elementary school.

There was a great ccw story, a lady was accosted by 2 men just out of prision as she unlocked her apartment door. They demanded money, she gave it to them. Then one said - the story said remove your clothes but bet that's censored? - so she pulled her pistol and shot them.

Many more:http://www.americanrifleman.org/BlogList.aspx?id=21&cpage=1

Pete

[Zeke]

Whether libs like it or not guns are a part of life in the US.

They don't have to be, which is the point. (And that's not a liberal or conservative thought, it's a rational one.)

And no, I am not "anti-gun."

Guns are a tool and that would be like being "anti-shovel." But -- even for a mere shovel -- there are folks you are supposed to phone before you dig in your own yard to keep from hitting stuff. :D

Metaphorically, that's all I am asking for regarding gun control: prove to me you're not a dumbass before I hand you a tool specifically designed to kill people.

[Zeke]

Zeke...I respect and agree with your opinion on carrying a concealed a weapon for the average guy/woman on the street...unless your job is such that you might encounter a situation where your life would be endangered. As for the home base...location...location and crime stats.

I would argue that such a job means you are not the "average guy on the street" and that (just like you) "home base" is sacrosanct.

[CarlV]

They don't have to be, which is the point. (And that's not a liberal or conservative thought, it's a rational one.)

And no, I am not "anti-gun."

Guns are a tool and that would be like being "anti-shovel." But -- even for a mere shovel -- there are folks you are supposed to phone before you dig in your own yard to keep from hitting stuff. :D

Metaphorically, that's all I am asking for regarding gun control: prove to me you're not a dumbass before I hand you a tool specifically designed to kill people.

Good point.
Parents seek justice for unarmed son's killing

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505263_162-57393088/parents-seek-justice-for-unarmed-sons-killing/

Looks like the cop in the video is not sure how to cover up for this goon that shot the kid armed with iced tea and a bag of Skittles.



Carl

[Big_Bill]

Chas
Would this be true almost exclusively only if your adversary had a gun and you knew in advance that he was coming to "get you."

If I knew that an adversary were coming, I would call the police and have him arrested upon entry to my home !

I don't think for a moment that you or anyone is deluded, I think you feeling safer is an emotion comfort brought to you by a firearm which may not be the case in fact.

Not nearly as deluded as a person that does not have a firearm feels, and believes they are safe.

Walking down the street or being asleep at home and caught off guard having a gun at the ready might well prove to have the opposite effect of keeping you and yours safe.

I am never off guard on the streets ! And in my home I have devices that warn me if anything enters the building, so again I am never totally off guard.
The responsibility of the lives of my family and myself, are mine, and I take that responsibility seriously.

Least this is what most studies not done by the NRA find.

A very interesting situation, noon, but studies only show what they want to show you. Every year thousands of citizens ward off threats and attacks by merely showing their firearm. And these are rarely reported, as nothing occurred, the criminals prefer unarmed victims, so they fled. Besides, the news rarely reports attempted assaults, nor do the police investigate attempted assaults, as they have little hope of investigating actual physical assaults where injuries do occur.

I have no pity for men that are too afraid to protect and defend there families and homes.

Sincerely,

Bill

[Big_Bill]

The thing I can never understand about gun enthusiasts.... They say they need them for protection. Then they say they are responsible gun owners who keep their guns locked up and unloaded.
It just seems to me that if one finds themselves in a position where they have to defend themselves..like, say a robber comes into their home.... What is that gun owner going to do.... Tell the robber to wait one minute while they go unlock the gun and load it? I've never been a burglar, but I would imagine the element of surprise is an advantage over the victim and waiting for the victim to go get a gun and load it might be counter productive.

So Please inform us barbara,

Tell us what an expert like you does to protect their families and themselves from criminals !

Bill

[Zeke]

I have no pity for men that are too afraid to protect and defend there families and homes.

I have no pity for men who do not realize their actions typically reduce the safety of those whom they profess to hold dear.

Tell us what an expert like you does to protect their families and themselves from criminals!

Step One would be to destroy the fallacy that I am suddenly "safe" if packing. :rolleyes:

[Big_Bill]

My discovered simple truth is this, and no manner of training, expertise, or skill (by anyone involved including me) has been able to change it:

1. If a firearm is not available, accessible, loaded and willing to be used then it may as well be an anvil a thousand miles away.

2. If a firearm is available, accessible, loaded and willing to be used than you have just made the situation more dangerous for everyone, including yourself.

Amongst the general populace, carrying concealed is just bringing your baby blanket with you. It might make you feel empowered/comfortable but only because you've never thought about it or been there.


I respectfully disagree Zeke,

While when carrieng a weapon, and not needing it, is a security blanket. However if for any reason a situation arises that requires you to protest your family and/or your self it becomes the difference between life and death or serious injury.
I have been in that situation, and there is a great deal of responsibility in when and how one reacts to a criminal attack. By displaying my pistol forcefully, I thwarted off both attacks by multiple attackers. If not I would have had to kill or injure these men.
And I might point out that I have had to cause very damaging injuries to attackers, when I defended my family and myself, as well as receiving injuries to myself during this attack.

Sincerely,

Bill

[bobabode]

So, what all this boils down to is . Since the slut card didn't fly, the gun card is floated. Hmmmm, I thinks I'm gettin' a whiff o McKeefe in de air.:rolleyes::p

[bobabode]

I respectfully disagree Zeke,

While when carrieng a weapon, and not needing it, is a security blanket. However if for any reason a situation arises that requires you to protest your family and/or your self it becomes the difference between life and death or serious injury.
I have been in that situation, and there is a great deal of responsibility in when and how one reacts to a criminal attack. By displaying my pistol forcefully, I thwarted off both attacks by multiple attackers. If not I would have had to kill or injure these men.
And I might point out that I have had to cause very damaging injuries to attackers, when I defended my family and myself, as well as receiving injuries to myself during this attack.

Sincerely,

Bill


I'm curious as to the details, if you don't mind. Since you mention personal experience with physical attacks.

[piece-itpete]

The thought that I and my family is less safe when packing strikes me as odd. 'I'm sorry wife! I meant to shoot the bad guy not you!'

That's pretty bad aim....

Pete

[Zeke]

The thought that I and my family is less safe when packing strikes me as odd. 'I'm sorry wife! I meant to shoot the bad guy not you!'

That's pretty bad aim....

Pete

Have you ever had to rack one into the chamber and actually hit anything under extreme stress or duress? (Combat Accuracy is an 8.5x11 sheet of paper at ten feet, MOST of the time.)

I am NOT pulling the "I've been there" card.

I AM saying that your quote isn't as well thought out as I typically believe you to be.

Under extreme stress, we're all just lucky to not shoot ourselves in the foot.

[Big_Bill]

I'm curious as to the details, if you don't mind. Since you mention personal experience with physical attacks.


Which attacks, the armed or unarmed attacks ?

I can also provide you with military attacks in Viet Nam, and Attacks by criminals when I worked for the BATF&E.

Bill

[piece-itpete]

It's all training. And the fact is, as CCW has increased in Ohio violent crime has gone down. I think, of course.

I have no problem with a law abiding citizen in this free country carrying a gun.

Pete

[BlueStreak]

So, what all this boils down to is . Since the slut card didn't fly, the gun card is floated. Hmmmm, I thinks I'm gettin' a whiff o McKeefe in de air.:rolleyes::p

I think you're on to something. The GOP is playing the gun card again. Sounds about right.

Dave

[BlueStreak]

I also don't get how you are that much better having 10 guns than one.

Especially when they're all in a safe, with the ammo locked up in another room.

Hey Erik, watch this.............

Dave

[BlueStreak]

So, when Obama sends the Black Panther Storm Troopers around to kick in your door and rape everyone in the house; Will you be able to fend them off? This is the question you should be asking yourself!

Dave

[barbara]

So Please inform us barbara,

Tell us what an expert like you does to protect their families and themselves from criminals !

Bill

Bill, I never claimed to be an expert.

But, what I can tell you from my life experience, is that prevention is the first line of defense.

Now a days there are many gadgets and products that ensure home safety. If your home is hard to access, a burglar will go somewhere else.

I've lived in some of the roughest parts of the country and have been in some precarious situations as well as been the victim of crime. I have also armed myself at times. I found that having a weapon can, and usually does, escalate any given situation.

Context plays an important role in my self protection. When I go to work in the morning and it is still dark out, not so concerned about the street person sleeping on the sidewalk that I walk around, but the couple sashaying down the street as if they are sightseeing is suspect.

If I'm in a rough part of town, I know where I'm going ahead of time so I don't look lost. I walk purposely. ( laugh if you will, but attitude is paramount). I modify what I wear such as jewelry that might be inviting and shoes I can run in. Sometimes I carry an umbrella. (again, you can laugh, but more that once I have successfully defended myself with it).

Bill, protection depends on the situation. There are times when I believe a gun in the hands of a well trained person is appropriate. But not for the average Joe, especially one who thinks a gun is the end all of protection.

[BlueStreak]

Right.

If the intruder has a gun and he sees you reaching for yours, he will likely try to kill you before you have a chance to kill him. There is that narrow window of (your) reaction time for him to get off the first good shot.

However, if his intention is to kill you anyways, I don't believe not having a gun would help you at all either.

Dave

[finnbow]

Bill, I never claimed to be an expert.

But, what I can tell you from my life experience, is that prevention is the first line of defense.

Now a days there are many gadgets and products that ensue home safety. If your home is hard to access, a burglar will go somewhere else.

I've lived in some of the roughest parts of the country and have been in some precarious situations as well as been the victim of crime. I have also armed myself at times. I found that having a weapon can, and usually does, escalate any given situation.

Context plays an important role in my self protection. When I go to work in the morning and it is still dark out, not so concerned about the street person sleeping on the sidewalk that I walk around, but the couple sashaying down the street as if they are sightseeing is suspect.

If I'm in a rough part of town, I know where I'm going ahead of time so I don't look lost. I walk purposely. ( laugh if you will, but attitude is paramount). I modify what I wear such as jewelry that might be inviting and shoes I can run in. Sometimes I carry an umbrella. (again, you can laugh, but more that once I have successfully defended myself with it).

Bill, protection depends on the situation. There are times when I believe a gun in the hands of a well trained person is appropriate. But not for the average Joe, especially one who thinks a gun is the end all of protection.

+1. I have taught firearms safety, NRA Hunter Safety, and Rifle and Shotgun Shooting merit badge for the Boy Scouts and have taught my 3 kids to shoot and respect firearms. I've belonged to an excellent gun club for 20 years and earned an NRA Distinguished Expert with rimfire rifles years ago. That said, there are precious few people who I'm comfortable around with loaded firearms. I pick my hunting buddies very carefully and am completely anal about safety at the range.

I'm about as experienced and accomplished with firearms as anybody I know and I would be uncomfortable packing heat even if I could (it's not so easy in Maryland, though that may be changing due to a recent court ruling). Probably the single best, safest and experienced shooter I know lives in Virginia and carries a weapon damn near everywhere he goes (it's much easier there). Despite his skills and judgment, I feel better around unarmed friends than him when he's carrying. It's not that I fear him shooting me, but I feel there's much greater downside risk being around a loaded gun in an uncontrolled environment (i.e., away from the range) that there is being unarmed.

[piece-itpete]

I understand what you mean about attitude in bad neighborhoods. I also dress down sometimes.

Here's an interesting fact I dug up at the CDC: in 04 the accidental death rate from firearms in Ohio was .22 per 100,000. In 09, the last year avail, it was .18. CCW goes up, accidental goes down - as well as violent crime.

Pete

[BlueStreak]

I understand what you mean about attitude in bad neighborhoods. I also dress down sometimes.

Here's an interesting fact I dug up at the CDC: in 04 the accidental death rate from firearms in Ohio was .22 per 100,000. In 09, the last year avail, it was .18. CCW goes up, accidental goes down - as well as violent crime.

Pete

I live in the 'hood and always dress like a slob, so it's never a problem. It helps if they all think you're crazy, as well.

Dave

[bobabode]

Which attacks, the armed or unarmed attacks ?

I can also provide you with military attacks in Viet Nam, and Attacks by criminals when I worked for the BATF&E.

Bill

The two you mentioned, Bill. Unless you are saying that you took your family to a firebase? WTF ?:confused:

[finnbow]

FWIW, I had a fellow pull a .357 Magnum on me over a parking space in New Orleans on New Years Eve years ago. As frightening as this was, I have never once wished that I would have been armed at the time.

[BlueStreak]

FWIW, I had a fellow pull a .357 Magnum on me over a parking space in New Orleans on New Years Eve years ago. As frightening as this was, I have never once wished that I would have been armed at the time.

Right, he already had weapon drawn. If you would have reached for one, he likely would have shot you.

Dave

[Zeke]

CCW goes up, accidental goes down - as well as violent crime.

Makes me wonder how they quantify CCW shootings? :rolleyes:

FWIW, I had a fellow pull a .357 Magnum on me over a parking space in New Orleans on New Years Eve years ago. As frightening as this was, I have never once wished that I would have been armed at the time.

Had you pulled a weapon, you would likely be dead.

[barbara]

Right, he already had weapon drawn. If you would have reached for one, he likely would have shot you.

Dave

Exactly right!

[epifanatic]

I totally agree Zeke,

The only problem is that murders, armed robbers, drug sellers and users and other people that show diminished mental control are already prohibited from owning firearms. And criminals by nature, do not obey laws at all.
So what limitations do you feel would work ?

Bill

Not if some on the right have their way:
http://nebraskaradionetwork.com/2011/03/29/gun-rights-could-be-restored-for-those-with-mental-health-past/

[BlueStreak]

Not if some on the right have their way:
http://nebraskaradionetwork.com/2011/03/29/gun-rights-could-be-restored-for-those-with-mental-health-past/

Ever been to Nebraska? Long term isolation drives people crazy. Excluding the mentally disturbed probably killed gun sales there. But, they do vote.:p

Dave

[epifanatic]

Ever been to Nebraska? Long term isolation drives people crazy. Excluding the mentally disturbed probably killed gun sales there. But, they do vote.:pDave

lol... I live in Nebraska Dave. 1 million in the Omaha Metro, and still a bunch of armed nuts runninig around.

[Charles]

FWIW, I had a fellow pull a .357 Magnum on me over a parking space in New Orleans on New Years Eve years ago. As frightening as this was, I have never once wished that I would have been armed at the time.

I stay home on amateur nite.

Chas

[bobabode]

I stay home on amateur nite.

Chas

:DMe ,too. None of those gun totin' drunkards is gonna kill me when they're out doing the demolition derby behind the wheel.:eek:

[finnbow]

The first confrontation occurred as I escorted my wife to a business in Camden, NJ. The business turned out to be on an old industrial section, with most of the businesses closed down. As we approached the building, two men exited a deep dark doorway and came towed us. I placed her behind me, and watched the two men continue to approach us. I opened my coat when they reached about 6 feet from us. At that point one of the men opened his coat. at that time I drew my pistol, and informed him that I do not have anything worth dieing for, and that I do not wish to kill him, but will if he makes me. He closed his coat and returned to their dark doorway. We conducted her business and I left the building first, with my gun in my hand and my hand in my coat pocket, I checked the area out, gathered my wife, and exited in our car.

The second attack, Occurred on a darkened city street. Three men walked out of the entryway of a closed Movie Theater in front of us, demanding money, I informed them that I had none. They insisted that I give them my wallet so that they could see for themselves. There leader began approaching us, I stepped in front of my wife and daughter and drew my pistol, pointing it directly at his head and told him to leave, he laughed and informed me that there were three of them, and I responded that, that's two bullets each, more than enough. He looked back at his accomplices and they encouraged him to leave. Which they did.

These occurrences are not exciting, it is not necessary to prove my ability with a firearm, only to insure the safety of my family.

I have never found pleasure killing anything. But I also learned many years ago; "That a Mans Got To Do, When A Mans Got To Do It". Meaning to the best of my understanding, that A Man must do things he finds distasteful or unpleasant, If he is to be a MAN.

Sincerely,

Bill

You sure take your wife to some nice places.:eek:

[Big_Bill]

You sure take your wife to some nice places.:eek:

Well Finn,

The first place she intended to goto alone, I had to insist on taking her.

The second place was in downtown Philadelphia, on Market Street, after a movie let out. We were walking to our parked car, on what looked like an empty street.

Hell Finn this was Sunday School compared to Veit Nam, their they just killed you first, then took what they liked, from your dead body.

Bill

[finnbow]

Hell Finn this was Sunday School compared to Veit Nam, their they just killed you first, then took what they liked, from your dead body.

Bill

Did that ever happen to you?:eek:

[Charles]

The first confrontation occurred as I escorted my wife to a business in Camden, NJ. The business turned out to be on an old industrial section, with most of the businesses closed down. As we approached the building, two men exited a deep dark doorway and came towed us. I placed her behind me, and watched the two men continue to approach us. I opened my coat when they reached about 6 feet from us. At that point one of the men opened his coat. at that time I drew my pistol, and informed him that I do not have anything worth dieing for, and that I do not wish to kill him, but will if he makes me. He closed his coat and returned to their dark doorway. We conducted her business and I left the building first, with my gun in my hand and my hand in my coat pocket, I checked the area out, gathered my wife, and exited in our car.

The second attack, Occurred on a darkened city street. Three men walked out of the entryway of a closed Movie Theater in front of us, demanding money, I informed them that I had none. They insisted that I give them my wallet so that they could see for themselves. There leader began approaching us, I stepped in front of my wife and daughter and drew my pistol, pointing it directly at his head and told him to leave, he laughed and informed me that there were three of them, and I responded that, that's two bullets each, more than enough. He looked back at his accomplices and they encouraged him to leave. Which they did.

These occurrences are not exciting, it is not necessary to prove my ability with a firearm, only to insure the safety of my family.

I have never found pleasure killing anything. But I also learned many years ago; "That a Mans Got To Do, When A Mans Got To Do It". Meaning to the best of my understanding, that A Man must do things he finds distasteful or unpleasant, If he is to be a MAN.

Sincerely,

Bill

Personally, if I were in the position you were in at the abandoned theater, once the leader informed me, with a pistol at his head, that there were three of them, there would have been two of them and I would have had five rounds left.

Chas

[Zeke]

it is not necessary to prove my ability with a firearm, only to insure the safety of my family.

Good, because you failed at both.

In either instance, if they wanted you, they had you.

The issue here is the use of the word "dark" in both scenarios. (If you don't control the environment, you do not control the confrontation.)

They left you alone because they really weren't that interested and didn't know what they would do with a woman and child after beating you up. In sum, your presumed "Ace in the hole" worked only because they weren't hardened enough to actually be in the game.

"Thugs" not "criminals."

[Zeke]

A Man must do things he finds distasteful or unpleasant, If he is to be a MAN.

And that's the biggest load of John Wayne bullshit I've ever seen on this site. :rolleyes:

A "MAN" bothers to ask why such things must be done, regardless of the neanderthal brainwashed masses throwing Patriotism or pseudo-masculinity at them.

[Charles]

Good, because you failed at both.

In either instance, if they wanted you, they had you.

The issue here is the use of the word "dark" in both scenarios. (If you don't control the environment, you do not control the confrontation.)

They left you alone because they really weren't that interested and didn't know what they would do with a woman and child after beating you up. In sum, your presumed "Ace in the hole" worked only because they weren't hardened enough to actually be in the game.

"Thugs" not "criminals."

In other words, there is no defense against back shooters?

If that is the argument, I'll agree.

Taking Bill at his word, he makes a strong case not only the possession of a firearm, but concealed carry as well.

Chas

[Big_Bill]

And that's the biggest load of John Wayne bullshit I've ever seen on this site. :rolleyes:

A "MAN" bothers to ask why such things must be done, regardless of the neanderthal brainwashed masses throwing Patriotism or pseudo-masculinity at them.

Yes he does Zeke,

But when you must do what you dread, dislike, find distasteful or unpleasant, he does them. He doesn't cry and stamp his feet, he does what is needed to be done, when it's needed to be done.

Perhaps you have found yourself unable to do things ,that you knew that you should have done. That's not my problem. If I find that there is something that needs to be done today, it will be done today.

Bill

[Big_Bill]

Personally, if I were in the position you were in at the abandoned theater, once the leader informed me, with a pistol at his head, that there were three of them, there would have been two of them and I would have had five rounds left.

Chas

Well Chas,

The theater was closed not abandoned.

And do you know all the trouble that you go through when you kill someone !

I always do what is necessary, not what I might like to do in a situation like this.

And if I wished to lie here, I would have killed all of these fockers, just to teach them a lesson. Who do they think their fockin with.
But I'll leave the Bull Shit to Zeke, he's an expert !

Bill

[Big_Bill]

Good, because you failed at both.

In either instance, if they wanted you, they had you.

The issue here is the use of the word "dark" in both scenarios. (If you don't control the environment, you do not control the confrontation.)

They left you alone because they really weren't that interested and didn't know what they would do with a woman and child after beating you up. In sum, your presumed "Ace in the hole" worked only because they weren't hardened enough to actually be in the game.

"Thugs" not "criminals."

Sorry to disagree with you Zeke,

If they wanted me, and proceeded any further, they would have died.

And can you read, it was a deep dark doorway, I didn't say it was DARK ???

The second attack occurred on a DARKENED STREET, the stores were closed and they were unlit, the street lights were still on, and I could clearly see them ounce they emerged from the CLOSED theaters un-illuminated entrance.

I knew it would be insane of me to respond to this :mad:

I ounce believed that you might have been a police officer Zeke, but your review of my situations described here, you would not be accepted as a security guard in a county dump.

Sincerely,

Bill

[Zeke]

I knew it would be insane of me to respond to this :mad:

And yet you couldn't help yourself.

Who is actually in control, here? :p

I assure you, you're not what most would consider to be a man.

[Bigerik]

I remember having about a half a dozen guys come after a friend and I in NYC in the late 80's. We got lucky because we moved briskly into a well lit area and they backed off. I hadn't thought about that incident in ages, and I don't recall thinking then, or even now, that having a gun would have made it better. Chances are that my 1 gun would have met multiple guns on their side. So a simple mugging would have turned into a shootout.

[Bigerik]

So, when Obama sends the Black Panther Storm Troopers around to kick in your door and rape everyone in the house; Will you be able to fend them off? This is the question you should be asking yourself!

Dave

You got it all wrong, Dave. They ain't coming after your wimmin. They be coming after your guns!

[d-ray657]

It seems that having to declare one's manhood is akin to a TV network having to declare itself fair and balanced.

Regards,

D-Ray

[Big_Bill]

And yet you couldn't help yourself.

Who is actually in control, here? :p

I assure you, you're not what most would consider to be a man.


Political Chat is an enigma surrounded by Pandora's box.

Anything that you say can, and will be used against you....

If I ignored the question, I have one group doubting my veracity.

If I answer the question, I have a different group calling me a fool ?

The fact that we all survived these incidents, tells everyone that can read, that you are fool, jealous that someone accomplished what you only wish that you could have done! A Real Man Does Do, What A Real Man Must Do, When He Has Too Do It. That leaves you playing with you Barbie Dolls, Missy.

I am in control, as I now know that you are not and never were a police officer. I also know that either you can not read, or purposely distort the words of others to embellish you statements.

Sincerely,

Bill

[bobabode]

Sorry that I asked, Bill. This may sound contrarian but I can't fault your actions, I admit placed in the same scenario I probably wouldv've dropped the hammer in front of the movie theater. I'm glad it never came to somebody getting shot.

Vietnam? I would rather that had never happened, I'm sure you would agree. Commiting troops to an unwinnable military action is a raw deal all around, particularly for our troops. Then and now.

[bobabode]

Back on topic. I don't pay much attention to Chris Cox. He's a bit of a blowhard politico imo. As I recollect The President backed off the "snatch all the rednecks guns" rhetoric.

The Dems have to promise unrealistic crap to keep the lunatic fringe happy and the same goes the for Repubs. Don't let the rhetoric here or there give you a stroke, man. Polititians/ diapers always start out nice and clean but give them a little time and they end up smelling the same. Change 'em often!

[bobabode]

Political Chat is an enigma surrounded by Pandora's box.

Anything that you say can, and will be used against you....

If I ignored the question, I have one group doubting my veracity.

If I answer the question, I have a different group calling me a fool ?


Sincerely,

Bill

You expected different?:rolleyes:

[Zeke]

The fact that we all survived these incidents, tells everyone that can read, that you are fool

No. It says you were VERY lucky, if said "incidents" actually occurred.

jealous that someone accomplished what you only wish that you could have done!

Get lucky? I don't say what I "accomplished" because, well, I know I got lucky.

A Real Man Does Do, What A Real Man Must Do, When He Has Too Do It. That leaves you playing with you Barbie Dolls, Missy.

Whatever. Being unwilling to think is not being a "MAN." You stand as case in point.

I am in control, as I now know that you are not and never were a police officer.

(sigh) Well, not law enforcement that didn't think.

I also know that either you can not read, or purposely distort the words of others to embellish you statements.

If they're your words -- directly -- how can they be distorted?

You're an embarrassment to humanity.

[epifanatic]

Save your keystrokes Zeke, the keyboard commandos will never get it.

[Zeke]

Save your keystrokes Zeke, the keyboard commandos will never get it.

1. Noted.
2. But I could have been over the top.
3. It's "unbecoming."

There was no need for me to personalize.

I have an unique perspective on firearms but that is no excuse.

Sorry for the verbal vomit.

[bobabode]

You're in danger of becoming a huggable fuzzy wuzzy Zeke.;) I was entertained more than I care to admit.:o:D

[Charles]

Well Chas,

The theater was closed not abandoned.

And do you know all the trouble that you go through when you kill someone !

I always do what is necessary, not what I might like to do in a situation like this.

And if I wished to lie here, I would have killed all of these fockers, just to teach them a lesson. Who do they think their fockin with.
But I'll leave the Bull Shit to Zeke, he's an expert !

Bill

I've got a pretty good idea of what happens if you kill someone, whether justified or not.

In Missouri we have the Castle Doctrine Law, which only gives you a defense for the use of lethal force, not a right. And by the same token, if you produce a firearm first, you have now given your adversary the same defense.

As I was taught, if you are in fear of your life to the extent that you pull a weapon, then you should be in fear of your life to the extent to use it. The argument being that if you don't use your weapon, then you weren't actually in fear of your life.

The lawyers will decide that one while you're sitting in court.

My thinking is, if the only thing that stood between my wife and multiple opponents was myself with a revolver, and they showed no indication to break off the engagement, I would PROBABLY start things by changing the odds we were facing.

Of course I live in Bugtussell, don't lock my doors, and although I have a CCW, the only time I've carried was when I was changing locks for some people who were have a heated domestic at the time.

Chas

[Charles]

1. Noted.
2. But I could have been over the top.
3. It's "unbecoming."

There was no need for me to personalize.

I have an unique perspective on firearms but that is no excuse.

Sorry for the verbal vomit.

I have a unique perspective on firearms as well. 99.9% of the time, I don't give them a second thought.

And probably 75% of the time when I do, it's because I'm stupid enough to become engaged in one of these mindless discussions as we are currently having.

Chas

[merrylander]

The closest thing to a situation was really rather funny in the end. Was over ten years ago Florence and me went into DC to see Les Miserables. DC is strange, most parking garages close at 5:30 or so. This one said you can park on the ramp because we only lock the gates at the top.

After the show we walked back to the garage and saw a group of young men sitting by their idling car. Now we were driving a new Ford Probe but parked behind it was and older Toyota sedan. We quickly got into the car and drove out. I gather that they thought these two older folks were driving the sedan so they figured to get on with the task of stealing the Probe after we left. The looks on their faces were priceless.

[piece-itpete]

Makes me wonder how they quantify CCW shootings? :rolleyes:

Had you pulled a weapon, you would likely be dead.

You shoot a bad guy, it's not a crime :rolleyes:

Personally, if I were in the position you were in at the abandoned theater, once the leader informed me, with a pistol at his head, that there were three of them, there would have been two of them and I would have had five rounds left.

Chas

I'm hanging with this guy.

I can't believe I'm actually arguing the topic, that I'm NOT safer with a gun on me.

Pete

[Bigerik]

You shoot a bad guy, it's not a crime :rolleyes:



I'm hanging with this guy.

I can't believe I'm actually arguing the topic, that I'm NOT safer with a gun on me.

Pete

And how much safer would the world be if everyone was armed. Just imagine! The world would be a perfect place then.

[Zeke]

You shoot a bad guy, it's not a crime :rolleyes:

When you're actually shooting, it's pretty difficult to determine who the "Bad Guys" are, especially if you're typical John Q. And, if you're wrong, the Bad Guy is in the mirror.

I'm hanging with this guy.

The guy who was exceedingly fortunate due to misplaced bravado? BRILLIANT! (Not.)

I can't believe I'm actually arguing the topic, that I'm NOT safer with a gun on me.

Me either, because it is pretty evident that -- in most instances -- you're not.

[piece-itpete]

Which do you prefer - 'The Great Equalizer' or 'The Peacemaker'?

I think I'm having a flashback or maybe I've been transported to bizarro world. When are the Dems announcing that they are nominating Jeb Bush to run against the Republican Obama? :p

Pete

[piece-itpete]

Facts aside, Zeke?

Pete

[Zeke]

Facts aside, Zeke?

Pete

When you rationalize that "it doesn't count when you shoot Bad Guys," without being able to specify who they are... :rolleyes:

[piece-itpete]

Is shooting a guy while he's trying to rob and or beat you a crime Zeke?

Pete

[Zeke]

Is shooting a guy while he's trying to rob and or beat you a crime Zeke?

Pete

In many, many places, the answer to that question is "yes."

And I would agree with those places.

Me putting a bullet in a guy's skull because he bowed up on me is ludicrous and cowardly.

[piece-itpete]

Read any of the stories in that link? I have to accept a beating (or worse) in the name of someone's feelings?

Pete

[Zeke]

Read any of the stories in that link? I have to accept a beating (or worse) in the name of someone's feelings?

Pete

No.

But there are MANY alternatives to the one you seem to prefer.

[piece-itpete]

They are?

Btw, I would prefer them to be law abiding citizens.

Pete

[bobabode]

They are?

Btw, I would prefer them to be law abiding citizens.

Pete

I would prefer to ship them to Australia...:D

[Zeke]

I would prefer them to be law abiding citizens.

Until they do something illegal, they are. :rolleyes:

[piece-itpete]

Right. That's why I don't go around shooting poeple at random.

For the record, I don't carry a gun, yet. I don't think I want to. I'm unsure if I'd be able to shot someone. I think so. If they threatened my wife, certainly.

But if someone shoots someone else in self defense that is the attackers fault, not the shooters.

Pete

[Zeke]

But if someone shoots someone else in self defense that is the attackers fault, not the shooters.

Rabidly incorrect and why giving John Q. firearms is not always a good idea. (For example, I found neither of the moments when Bill brandished a firearm to have been particularly threatening.)

If you use deadly force prior to being threatened with it, that's on you in both a legal and moral sense.

Yes, that implies fault.

[piece-itpete]

Hence 'self defense'!! The hypothetical shooter COULDN'T be shooting in self defense if the other wasn't threatening him.

Gaaa! Are you messing with my head? :D

Pete

[Zeke]

The hypothetical shooter COULDN'T be shooting in self defense if the other wasn't threatening him.

"Threatening" is nowhere near lethal force and nowhere near justifying a lethal response.

And escalating -- through the introduction of a firearm -- any sort of incident to lethal force is ALWAYS the fault of the person who did it.

In nearly every model offered in this thread, that has been John Q and not the alleged criminal.

[piece-itpete]

The prosecutor and or the jury decides.....

Pete

[BlueStreak]

Save your keystrokes Zeke, the keyboard commandos will never get it.

QFT.

Dave

[BlueStreak]

The first confrontation occurred as I escorted my wife to a business in Camden, NJ. The business turned out to be on an old industrial section, with most of the businesses closed down. As we approached the building, two men exited a deep dark doorway and came towed us. I placed her behind me, and watched the two men continue to approach us. I opened my coat when they reached about 6 feet from us. At that point one of the men opened his coat. at that time I drew my pistol, and informed him that I do not have anything worth dieing for, and that I do not wish to kill him, but will if he makes me. He closed his coat and returned to their dark doorway. We conducted her business and I left the building first, with my gun in my hand and my hand in my coat pocket, I checked the area out, gathered my wife, and exited in our car.

The second attack, Occurred on a darkened city street. Three men walked out of the entryway of a closed Movie Theater in front of us, demanding money, I informed them that I had none. They insisted that I give them my wallet so that they could see for themselves. There leader began approaching us, I stepped in front of my wife and daughter and drew my pistol, pointing it directly at his head and told him to leave, he laughed and informed me that there were three of them, and I responded that, that's two bullets each, more than enough. He looked back at his accomplices and they encouraged him to leave. Which they did.

These occurrences are not exciting, it is not necessary to prove my ability with a firearm, only to insure the safety of my family.

I have never found pleasure killing anything. But I also learned many years ago; "That a Mans Got To Do, When A Mans Got To Do It". Meaning to the best of my understanding, that A Man must do things he finds distasteful or unpleasant, If he is to be a MAN.

Sincerely,

Bill

Less than two blocks from my house I had a man threaten to kill me, because he asked me for a smoke and I told him I didn't have any. "Don't smoke." He demanded I give him some money so he could "buy" some cigarettes. I told him, "Blow me.".

"Muthafucka, I will KILL you!"

"Do it."

"What?"

"My life pretty much sucks anyhow. Just fuckin' kill me and get it over with, dumbass. If you gonna do it, do it, you piece of shit."

He stepped back and let me go. Stared at me, stunned, as I walked away.

Sometimes all you need is a bad attitude and to be seen as a little bit crazy.

Then again, I never saw a gun and I doubt he really had one.

Dave

[piece-itpete]

LOL! Have to have the wife try that on a rapist :p

Pete

[Oerets]

Less than two blocks from my house I had a man threaten to kill me, because he asked me for a smoke and I told him I didn't have any. "Don't smoke." He demanded I give him some money so he could "buy" some cigarettes. I told him, "Blow me.".

"Muthafucka, I will KILL you!"

"Do it."

"What?"

"My life pretty much sucks anyhow. Just fuckin' kill me and get it over with, dumbass. If you gonna do it, do it, you piece of shit."

He stepped back and let me go. Stared at me, stunned, as I walked away.

Sometimes all you need is a bad attitude and to be seen as a little bit crazy.

Then again, I never saw a gun and I doubt he really had one.

Dave

Just ask a policeman how smart that was. You would be surprised how many of the dead have surprised looks on there faces who say similar things to gun holders... "He told me to do it"


Luckily for me I do not remember much from the time disarming a purse snacher years ago. Just the adrenalin and everything a blur. But he was trying to shoot just fumbled at a bad time. I still don't know how his arm got hurt to this day.

I have lifetime CCP but so far never felt the need to carry other then when going the range.



Barney

[Zeke]

You would be surprised how many of the dead have surprised looks on there faces who say similar things to gun holders... "He told to do it"

Which is why -- of course -- we need less gun holders...

[Oerets]

Which is why -- of course -- we need less gun holders...

I think it should be harder for people to get guns. But still available just a requirement of proficiency and common sense. Know the laws and safety sort of things. I'm sure most know more then a few gun owners who fit in the unfit category. But because of the laws on the books they can own one.



Barney

[Zeke]

I think it should be harder for people to get guns. But still available just a requirement of proficiency and common sense. Know the laws and safety sort of things. I'm sure most know more then a few gun owners who fit in the unfit category. But because of the laws on the books they can own one.



Barney

Concur.

I'm not Draconian but think there should be a modicum of sanity.

[Bigerik]

Concur.

I'm not Draconian but think there should be a modicum of sanity.

Sanity? When did you acquire such a taste for luxuries?

[Zeke]

Sanity? When did you acquire such a taste for luxuries?

When I realized we're rolling out guns like Docs do aspirin to Cro-Magnon idiots who wave them around like metallic phalluses and pretend that they're "men."

Or, was that too direct? :D

[BlueStreak]

Just ask a policeman how smart that was. You would be surprised how many of the dead have surprised looks on there faces who say similar things to gun holders... "He told to do it"


Luckily for me I do not remember much from the time disarming a purse snacher years ago. Just the adrenalin and everything a blur. But he was trying to shoot just fumbled at a bad time. I still don't know how his arm got hurt to this day.

I have lifetime CCP but so far never felt the need to carry other then when going the range.



Barney

Actually, Barney, at the time I don't think I would have cared at all. It wasn't a tactic to disuade him from shooting me. There are times when my will to go on truly is mighty slim. My saving grace is that I'm too much of an optimist to turn the gun on myself, I keep telling myself tomorrow might be better. It never is, but it's a nice thought. One that keeps me going.


Dave

[Big_Bill]

Zeke,

I would very much like to know just what your qualifications are, to be determining the probable success or failure of any situation where a firearm was used in defense of a crime. Or for that matter any criminal situation ?

Bill

[Zeke]

Zeke,

I would very much like to know just what your qualifications are, to be determining the probable success or failure of any situation where a firearm was used in defense of a crime. Or for that matter any criminal situation ?

Bill

Of course you would.

It's been well documented here, many times. I've been trained by the best and worked in the (Kansas and Missouri) worst.

But here's the rub: that doesn't really matter.

You're trying to create an ad hominem argument (and failing).

Bottom line is that if you introduce lethal force, that it occurs is YOUR responsibility.

If you're a moron -- as I'd surmise that you could be -- it's still the truth.

[neophyte]

Of course you would.

It's been well documented here, many times. I've been trained by the best and worked in the (Kansas and Missouri) worst.

But here's the rub: that doesn't really matter.

You're trying to create an ad hominem argument (and failing).

Bottom line is that if you introduce lethal force, that it occurs is YOUR responsibility.

If you're a moron -- as I'd surmise that you could be -- it's still the truth.

this board needs to see this Zeke more often. As humorous as I find it, you're often talking chess to some that think in terms of checkers.

well done.

[Independent]

Big Bill is definitely "IN" the Bill Maher republican bubble!

:D

Oh, let's bomb Iran too!

Oh, and Obama is Muslim!

Oh, and Obama wasn't born in the USA!

Oh, and now their going to beat down my door and take my guns!

Oh, and now their going to beat down my door and take my bible too!

Oh, and the government has set up "death panels" to see who live and dies because of Obamacare!

Oh, and it's ALL Obama's fault that the gas prices are so high!

Drill, baby, drill!

Oh, and Hannity, Limbaugh and Beck always tell the truth and are still my heroes!

Paranoia will desrtroya.......

You know, I've mentioned this before, but republican scare tactics only work for the the dumb, "I'm going to vote republican no matter what", far right anyway. So what are they gaining by even doing it? I guess maybe to make sure they keep that 20% base of idiots? :confused:



Indy

[bhunter]

"Threatening" is nowhere near lethal force and nowhere near justifying a lethal response.

And escalating -- through the introduction of a firearm -- any sort of incident to lethal force is ALWAYS the fault of the person who did it.

In nearly every model offered in this thread, that has been John Q and not the alleged criminal.

I agree with you in some nebulous general sense; however, wouldn't your argument also hold for law enforcement, thus precluding them from even drawing their firearm prior to percieving a firearm threat to themselves? In your view, can a law enforcement officer threatened by a knife use a firearm to remove that threat?

[Independent]

Here it is! Whether libs like it or not guns are a part of life in the US.

Pete


Most of the "libs" I know do own guns.....



Indy

[bhunter]

Big Bill is definitely "IN" the Bill Maher republican bubble!

:

You know, I've mentioned this before, but republican scare tactics only work for the the dumb, "I'm going to vote republican no matter what", far right anyway. So what are they gaining by even doing it? I guess maybe to make sure they keep that 20% base of idiots? :confused:
Indy

The only problem with your little list is that a lot of republicans are not in those clever categories. Of course, the democrats want to convince everyone that they are and with the help of the jackass pundits on the right might be successful. The democrats do a much better job at maintaining a common unity of purpose.

[Independent]

The only problem with your little list is that a lot of republicans are not in those clever categories. Of course, the democrats want to convince everyone that they are and with the help of the jackass pundits on the right might be successful. The democrats do a much better job at maintaining a common unity of purpose.

Okay, then what I'd like to see is just any of the four left in the republican primary "denounce" anything off that list even though they know it's not true.

Won't happen. Hell, they wouldn't even scold Limbaugh for fear of retaliation from his devoted listeners, the 20% base of paranoid idiots.....



Indy

[merrylander]

... The democrats do a much better job at maintaining a common unity of purpose.

"I do not belong to any organized political party - I am a Democrat" Will Rogers.:)

[Charles]

I would think that three men approaching someone else in a threatening manner could easily be defined as an exhibition of lethal force. Since when do you need a gun, or a knife, or even an ink pen to kill someone?

And if these three men initiated the situation, then they would assume the responsibility of introducing lethal force into the equation. Besides, I believe the laws are generally written as to allow a defense for the use of lethal force if in fear of your life OR of bodily harm.

That's the way I see it. And let me tell you friends, the world isn't populated entirely by good Methodists.

Chas

[Bigerik]

Is $20 in your wallet worth more than a person's life?

[Charles]

Okay, then what I'd like to see is just any of the four left in the republican primary "denounce" anything off that list even though they know it's not true.

Won't happen. Hell, they wouldn't even scold Limbaugh for fear of retaliation from his devoted listeners, the 20% base of paranoid idiots.....



Indy

And if they're smart they won't.

Santorum was stupid enough to open his mouth and get caught in this "state v religion" debate, and Rush simply took bad to worse with his comments.

This issue is a loser for the Pubbies, as it is currently defined in the press.

If any of the candidates are stupid enough to make any kind of statement, no matter how rational, all they will succeed in doing it to continue this dog and pony show for a couple of more news cycles. And that would go for the rest of your "list".

It's what you call politics.

Chas

[merrylander]

Is $20 in your wallet worth more than a person's life?

The problem with that is the perps are showing an increasing tendency to take the $5 or $10 or $20 and then kill you. Possibly because they are high on drugs or worse strung out because they need a fix.

[Charles]

Is $20 in your wallet worth more than a person's life?

Or is someone elses $20 worth THEIR life, a question they should perhaps ask themselves before they put themselves in a position where they might get their head busted, or worse.

Perhaps if hoodlums offered a written guarantee that ALL they wanted was 20 bucks, we wouldn't be having this discussion. Or they could simply ask for it. I've yet to turn a slob down who was desperate enough to ASK me for money, by and large I don't give them all the want, because by and large their cock and bull story is nothing but a pack of lies, and they never repay me when they get their paycheck, as they always promise.

I've found that "loaning" someone $10 is just effective at making sure I'll never see them again as giving them $20.

Besides, this argument isn't about $20, it's about self defense. And to be honest, I've met people whose life wasn't worth $20.

Chas

[finnbow]

I would think that three men approaching someone else in a threatening manner could easily be defined as an exhibition of lethal force. Since when do you need a gun, or a knife, or even an ink pen to kill someone?


I'm not sure we want to declare open season on people who look scary to us.

[Charles]

The problem with that is the perps are showing an increasing tendency to take the $5 or $10 or $20 and then kill you. Possibly because they are high on drugs or worse strung out because they need a fix.

Some people simply enjoy it.

And that's the cold, hard, facts of life.

Chas

[Charles]

I'm not sure we want to declare open season on people who look scary to us.

As far as I know, we haven't.

This is more of a discussion of situations and not appearances, IMHO.

Chas

[Independent]

And if they're smart they won't.

Santorum was stupid enough to open his mouth and get caught in this "state v religion" debate, and Rush simply took bad to worse with his comments.

This issue is a loser for the Pubbies, as it is currently defined in the press.

If any of the candidates are stupid enough to make any kind of statement, no matter how rational, all they will succeed in doing it to continue this dog and pony show for a couple of more news cycles. And that would go for the rest of your "list".

It's what you call politics.

Chas

I agree 100%!

But that will be their undoing.

As mentioned on some talk show I watched last night, once the republican party does have a clear-cut presidential representative, there is absolutely no way that person can keep ALL of the different factions of the republican party happy, no matter who it is.

Santorum = Far right wingnut.
Gingrich = Somewhere between Santorum & Romney.
Romney = Top 1% and Mormon with political leanings more towards the middle.
Paul = Libertarian and will never win the nomination.

To be honest, once all is said and done, I really believe Gingrich would have the best shot of beating Obama. Everyone else is leaning either too far one way, or the other....

Just my $.02




Indy

[finnbow]

To be honest, once all is said and done, I really believe Gingrich would have the best shot of beating Obama. Everyone else is leaning either too far one way, or the other....

Just my $.02

Indy

Naw. Gingrich has more baggage than Samsonite. Romney has the best chance of the Republicans if he can secure the nomination. He can get a fair share of the independent and women's vote. Neither Santorum nor Gingrich would get any from these all-important demographics.

[Charles]

I agree 100%!

But that will be their undoing.

As mentioned on some talk show I watched last night, once the republican party does have a clear-cut presidential representative, there is absolutely no way that person can keep ALL of the different factions of the republican party happy, no matter who it is.

Santorum = Far right wingnut.
Gingrich = Somewhere between Santorum & Romney.
Romney = Top 1% and Mormon with political leanings more towards the middle.
Paul = Libertarian and will never win the nomination.

To be honest, once all is said and done, I really believe Gingrich would have the best shot of beating Obama. Everyone else is leaning either too far one way, or the other....

Just my $.02




Indy

In a way, I still think Romney has the best chance at beating Obama. My reasoning is that he is the standard issue stuffed shirt, plain vanilla, comforting as a moth eaten pair of house shoes candidate...with the least amount of baggage, that the Pubbies currently have.

In times of turmoil, people lean towards a Capo who appears to be a steady at the helm kind of guy who isn't prone to abrupt maneuvers. And that's the way Romney appears to me...hell, you about need to drive a stake beside him to see if he's moved or not. If he were fat, had white hair and a goatee, he could almost pass for one of those cardboard cutouts of Colonel Sanders.

Then again, I may be allowing the media to influence my perception on who is electable or not.

Believe it or not, I'm finding this to be the most boring election cycle that I've experienced. Of course, I figure that we're so far up shit creek that it almost doesn't matter who has the paddle.

Still, I'll turn out and vote for my choice of the lesser of two evils...being a good American and all.

Chas

[Zeke]

I agree with you in some nebulous general sense; however, wouldn't your argument also hold for law enforcement, thus precluding them from even drawing their firearm prior to percieving a firearm threat to themselves?

Law enforcement isn't supposed to draw a firearm prior to perceiving potential lethal threat to themselves. In most situations, once a gun is drawn you've lost the tactical upper hand. ("What? You gonna SHOOT me now, mother fucker? For talking to my own wife?")

In your view, can a law enforcement officer threatened by a knife use a firearm to remove that threat?

It depends upon both the officer and the knife as to whether there is a threat.

A six-foot and enraged man who is not in his right mind whilst holding a butcher's knife? That's a serious situation.

A despondent and suicidal pre-teen with a 2" blade lockback who has just had his heart broken for the first time? I'm not drawing on that kid.

I would think that three men approaching someone else in a threatening manner could easily be defined as an exhibition of lethal force.

Or, they could just want directions and be as scared as you (colloquial "you") are at approach?

At the hearing? "Joe walked over to find whether we turn right or left on Main, reached in his pocket to light a cigarette, and before the Zippo reached his lips this guy had shot him!"

See the problem? :(

Folks like Big Bill would have us say, "Yeah! He shouldn't have approached me."

BULLSHIT.

[Big_Bill]

Of course you would.

It's been well documented here, many times. I've been trained by the best and worked in the (Kansas and Missouri) worst.

I would guess, by your hesitation to mention your trainers name, that you were trained in a prison system, as that is the only place that I have ever heard your quote; (If you don't control the environment, you do not control the confrontation.) Anyone that has ever been in combat or on the streets will tell you that you never can control the environment unless your in a controlled environment like a prison. And likewise controlling the confrontation, as confrontations are fluid, and constantly changing. So your training did not teach you how to work or fight on the streets, only in the prisons. And prison control requires 5- 6 guards handling any one uncooperative prisoner at a time, now that shouldn't be too hard at all.


But here's the rub: that doesn't really matter.

Your correct, it doesn't matter at all, because your prison training is worthless on the street and Jungles. Your training is even worthless during a small prison riot, because ounce you have lost control of that environment, you don't know what to do, just run for the gates and hope you make it. Then you can call in the State Police to regain control in your environment for you.

You're trying to create an ad hominem argument (and failing).

Not at all Zeke, I'm just pointing out the fallacy of your training and opinions.

Bottom line is that if you introduce lethal force, that it occurs is YOUR responsibility.

Actually, Robbery is the crime of taking or attempting to take something of value by force or threat of force or by putting the victim in fear. At common law, robbery is defined as taking the property of another, with the intent to permanently deprive the person of that property, by means of force or fear.

During this crime, a person has the right defend themselves by using all the reasonable force necessary to protect your life, and the life of any others.

Factually, the criminal created the situation were lethal force was required, so the responsibility is theirs, the criminals.


If you're a moron -- as I'd surmise that you could be -- it's still the truth.

Zeke, If I were you, I would keep your cowardly advice to yourself, as many victims of crime have been killed or injured even after complying with their criminal attackers. We survived because I did what was necessary, when it was necessary. If you wish to place the safety of your family and/or yourself in the hands of criminals, be my guest. But I would suggest you grow a pair, and get some training for when your outside the prison, you need it.

Bill

[Zeke]

Zeke, If I were you, I would keep your cowardly advice to yourself...

Do you mean "thinking?" :D

Do you see the difference, here? I've already got credibility. Folks already know my story. (It's not necessary for me to compile a list of names on multiple certificates in a manila file I haven't accessed in five years to evidence my credentials: as if you'd even know who such people are.)

You, however, possess very little credibility and continue to frag what remains.

I find it to be hilarious.

[CarlV]

"I do not belong to any organized political party - I am a Democrat" Will Rogers.:)

http://www.audiokarma.org/forums/images/smilies/banana.gif





Carl

[Independent]

In a way, I still think Romney has the best chance at beating Obama. My reasoning is that he is the standard issue stuffed shirt, plain vanilla, comforting as a moth eaten pair of house shoes candidate...with the least amount of baggage, that the Pubbies currently have.

In times of turmoil, people lean towards a Capo who appears to be a steady at the helm kind of guy who isn't prone to abrupt maneuvers. And that's the way Romney appears to me...hell, you about need to drive a stake beside him to see if he's moved or not. If he were fat, had white hair and a goatee, he could almost pass for one of those cardboard cutouts of Colonel Sanders.

Then again, I may be allowing the media to influence my perception on who is electable or not.

Believe it or not, I'm finding this to be the most boring election cycle that I've experienced. Of course, I figure that we're so far up shit creek that it almost doesn't matter who has the paddle.

Still, I'll turn out and vote for my choice of the lesser of two evils...being a good American and all.

Chas

From my point of view, and what I've seen over the last several months, Romney and Santorum have just supplied the dems with way more negative ad ammunition than Gingrich has. Sure Gingrich has a lot of past garbage that everyone has already known about for years, but he really doesn't have anything negatively new to speak of, except maybe colonizing the moon?

The other huge problem with Romney, and not the other candidates, is his flip-flopping on several major republican positions he's taken over the years. I'm sure the dems have plenty of video of that too.

IMHO, this republican primary has given the dems all the negative ad commercials they'll need to make the repubs look even more stupid than anyone can immagine. They're just sitting there with a billion in the bank waiting to see who wins the primary before they strike.



Indy

[merrylander]

The biggest problem with Gingrich is that Stepford Wife.

[Big_Bill]

Do you mean "thinking?" :D

Do you see the difference, here? I've already got credibility. Folks already know my story. (It's not necessary for me to compile a list of names on multiple certificates in a manila file I haven't accessed in five years to evidence my credentials: as if you'd even know who such people are.)

You, however, possess very little credibility and continue to frag what little remains.

I find it to be hilarious.


Well Zeke,

If your credibility here has anything to do with your "STORY", your credibility stinks, just like the bull shit you espouse as knowledge.

I have meet males like you before, they call them toxic males. These are males that have so much doubt about their masculinity that the attack any one, or any idea that presents a masculine ideal that they feel that they can not obtain themselves . Like your quote: "And that's the biggest load of John Wayne bullshit I've ever seen on this site." you could never live up to the masculine example of John Wayne, so you berate him so that you might feel that you are more a man then he was. But you can not even separate the fictional Character from the actor ? John Wayne was fictional example of male masculinity, and that even threatens you.

But your "STORY" is still pure BULLSHIT !

Bill

[Independent]

Do you mean "thinking?" :D

Do you see the difference, here? I've already got credibility. Folks already know my story. (It's not necessary for me to compile a list of names on multiple certificates in a manila file I haven't accessed in five years to evidence my credentials: as if you'd even know who such people are.)

You, however, possess very little credibility and continue to frag what remains.

I find it to be hilarious.

Come on Zeke, BB is a "MAN" among boys here (just ask him), so we should quit picking on him.



Indy

[finnbow]

Come on Zeke, BB is a "MAN" among boys here (just ask him), so we should quit picking on him.

Indy

Indeed, Indy. The proverbial "legend in his own mind."

[Charles]

Law enforcement isn't supposed to draw a firearm prior to perceiving potential lethal threat to themselves. In most situations, once a gun is drawn you've lost the tactical upper hand. ("What? You gonna SHOOT me now, mother fucker? For talking to my own wife?")



It depends upon both the officer and the knife as to whether there is a threat.

A six-foot and enraged man who is not in his right mind whilst holding a butcher's knife? That's a serious situation.

A despondent and suicidal pre-teen with a 2" blade lockback who has just had his heart broken for the first time? I'm not drawing on that kid.



Or, they could just want directions and be as scared as you (colloquial "you") are at approach?

At the hearing? "Joe walked over to find whether we turn right or left on Main, reached in his pocket to light a cigarette, and before the Zippo reached his lips this guy had shot him!"

See the problem? :(

Folks like Big Bill would have us say, "Yeah! He shouldn't have approached me."

BULLSHIT.

I see the problem, Joe should have tried to light the cigarette instead of his lips!!!

And while this is just my standard smart assed response, it does in fact address the problem.

Bill laid out a scenario where he, along with his wife and daughter, were approached by three men in a manner that he found menacing enough to pull down on them. Now I'm assuming that Bill, as a combat veteran, can differentiate between three girl scouts armed with cookies and an actual threat. Personally, if I read this situation correctly, Bill was fully justified in his response, especially after the one with the gun to his head was still bold enough to point out that there were three of them. I would take this as intent to cause harm.

Then Mr. Wizzard here comes along and states that he (I) would have simply shot the one I already had in my sights to start the dance.

Now this was biased not on Bill's story, but on the premise that the other two, or possibly all three had continued to advance in a threatening manner. Perhaps you wouldn't, perhaps even I wouldn't, I was simply making the case that you would be giving up a tactical advantage by not doing so, as facing multiple opponents puts you at a disadvantage in the first place. All of which would depend on the actual situation at the time.

None of which addresses the ACTUAL problem.

The actual problem is not Bill's actions, which I find to be reasonable, or any off the cuff and out of context comments I may have made, but Bill himself.

Due to his somewhat abrasive personality and political views, this has become a referendum on Bill himself and not on what constitutes the use of lethal force. Or the threat of lethal force, which is what actually happened. This has grown into a personal and ideological battle in which the actual situation serves as no more than the catalyst to advance our own prejudices and dislikes.

Chas

[bobabode]

The problem with that is the perps are showing an increasing tendency to take the $5 or $10 or $20 and then kill you. Possibly because they are high on drugs or worse strung out because they need a fix.

The voter approved initiative called Three Strikes is responsible for these miscreants killing victims /potential witnesses, IMO, more so than being high.

[Charles]

Posted by Bill, "I would guess, by your hesitation to mention your trainers name, that you were trained in a prison system".

Easy there Hoss, I was trained by the Missouri Department of Corrections. I fired FIVE round out of a S&W .38, FIVE rounds out of a crummy Universal .30 carbine (which jammed every three rounds like clockwork), and THREE rounds out of a 12 ga pump.

And I was instructed on how to give CPR to a rubber dummy with a lightbulb in it's nose.

Don't be acting like I don't know nothing!!!

Chas

[Charles]

From my point of view, and what I've seen over the last several months, Romney and Santorum have just supplied the dems with way more negative ad ammunition than Gingrich has. Sure Gingrich has a lot of past garbage that everyone has already known about for years, but he really doesn't have anything negatively new to speak of, except maybe colonizing the moon?

The other huge problem with Romney, and not the other candidates, is his flip-flopping on several major republican positions he's taken over the years. I'm sure the dems have plenty of video of that too.

IMHO, this republican primary has given the dems all the negative ad commercials they'll need to make the repubs look even more stupid than anyone can immagine. They're just sitting there with a billion in the bank waiting to see who wins the primary before they strike.



Indy

Damn, and I thought Mitt was the PERFECT stuffed shirt.

Shows you what I know.

Chas

[Zeke]

Well Zeke,

If your credibility here has anything to do with your "STORY", your credibility stinks, just like the bull shit you espouse as knowledge.

I have meet males like you before, they call them toxic males. These are males that have so much doubt about their masculinity that the attack any one, or any idea that presents a masculine ideal that they feel that they can not obtain themselves . Like your quote: "And that's the biggest load of John Wayne bullshit I've ever seen on this site." you could never live up to the masculine example of John Wayne, so you berate him so that you might feel that you are more a man then he was. But you can not even separate the fictional Character from the actor ? John Wayne was fictional example of male masculinity, and that even threatens you.

But your "STORY" is still pure BULLSHIT !

Bill

Do you mean the John Wayne who was consistently NOT wearing boots in the vast majority of his movies so that "long shots" had to be cropped? Or the guy from Iowa (Have you been to his childhood home? I have.) who changed his name to something more masculine than Marion? Or the one who made, essentially, a bad Vietnam Era propaganda film -- the Green Berets -- and is known to have worn lifts in his shoes so that he could approach the height of James Arness?

Sum? Only a person who is simplistic, easily fooled, unable to understand metaphor, and short on insight would s-t-r-e-t-c-h to the theory that I, or anyone, would be threatened by such a caricature. Oh, wait. :rolleyes:

Plus, you're -- as per usual -- completely missing the point. Nobody is showing any disrespect for Marion Morrison, it's blatant disrespect for you being brandished. Even better is your belief that I, or anyone, would do such a thing simply because we might be threatened by your inherent masculinity.

I've read a few rich jokes on this board but that level of delusion is simply delicious to behold. You exhibit the best kind of Kenny Fucking Powers lunacy and you do it with a straight face. (Kudos!) Tell me, do you fondle yourself whilst watching Full Metal Jacket or do you wait until the movie is over? :D

This has grown into a personal and ideological battle in which the actual situation serves as no more than the catalyst to advance our own prejudices and dislikes.

Can't say that I disagree. Just so we're all on the same page, I'll give up a couple of mine.

"I carry a visceral disdain for mindless dicks with guns."

"I don't think Bill should have a gun."

Take that as you may.

Come on Zeke, BB is a "MAN" among boys here (just ask him), so we should quit picking on him.

Understood.

[Independent]

The actual problem is not Bill's actions, which I find to be reasonable, or any off the cuff and out of context comments I may have made, but Bill himself.

Due to his somewhat abrasive personality and political views, this has become a referendum on Bill himself and not on what constitutes the use of lethal force. Or the threat of lethal force, which is what actually happened. This has grown into a personal and ideological battle in which the actual situation serves as no more than the catalyst to advance our own prejudices and dislikes.

Chas


Ding, ding, ding, by golly I think we have a winner here!

Just about everything Bill starts out posting here, as the original poster, from what I've read anyway, is for trolling, or for letting the rest of us know how much of a "macho man" he is. As a matter of fact, I think that song, "Macho Man" was specifically written for BB. Yep, him and Randy Savage are one in the same! :D



Indy

[d-ray657]

Ding, ding, ding, by golly I think we have a winner here!

Just about everything Bill starts out posting here, as the original poster, from what I've read anyway, is for trolling, or for letting the rest of us know how much of a "macho man" he is. As a matter of fact, I think that song, "Macho Man" was specifically written for BB. Yep, him and Randy Savage are one in the same! :D



Indy

And shame on us for taking the bait. :mad:

Regards,

D-Ray

[Zeke]

And shame on us for taking the bait. :mad:

Regards,

D-Ray

Yes.

I own some of that.

[merrylander]

But it is just so much fun to yank his chain.:p

[Charles]

Myself, I like an Okuma Magda Pro 15DX, with a 6'6" med heavy rod and 12 lb braided. With that rig, I can keep the bait right in front of their nose every time.

Sometimes, I run left and right planars, to catch the one's that have been spooked from the center.

Chas

[Independent]

But it is just so much fun to yank his chain.:p

Yep, when trolls become the trolled, that is kind of fun isn't it!

:p




Indy

[BlueStreak]

The only problem with your little list is that a lot of republicans are not in those clever categories. Of course, the democrats want to convince everyone that they are and with the help of the jackass pundits on the right might be successful. The democrats do a much better job at maintaining a common unity of purpose.

They do?

I happen to agree with Will Rogers on that point.

Dave

[BlueStreak]

Naw. Gingrich has more baggage than Samsonite. Romney has the best chance of the Republicans if he can secure the nomination. He can get a fair share of the independent and women's vote. Neither Santorum nor Gingrich would get any from these all-important demographics.

Right. I think that most Republicans will hold their nose, vote for Romney and hope for the best, even though he's really little more than Obama in drag. Personally, I hate the SOB. To my mind, he symbolizes everything that is wrong with America, the purely self interested corporate raider who doesn't give a damn about anyone but himself or anything but his own self-enrichment. Gordon Gekko manifest as a real life Presidential candidate.

Gingrich is just a straight up conceited, arrogant a-hole who has decided he has the lock on truth, knows everything and has a God given birth-right to run the whole f**king world. Which explains why he is so popular with the good ol' boys here in the South. Peas in a Pod and all of that.

Dave

[finnbow]

Gingrich is just a straight up conceited, arrogant a-hole who has decided he has the lock on truth, knows everything and has a God given birth-right to run the whole f**king world. Which explains why he is so popular with the good ol' boys here in the South. Peas in a Pod and all of that.

Dave

A modern-day Jefferson Davis.;)

[piece-itpete]

So I can only be justified in defending myself if I've already been shot. In a womans' case, only after penetration?

Pete

[Zeke]

You are only justified in using lethal force when under threat of such or grievous injury (I believe imminent rape or threat thereof would count).

Blowing a guy away because you were intimidated by him doesn't cut it.

And, as many CCW'ers carry guns to begin with because they are, in fact, intimidated... :rolleyes:

[piece-itpete]

So a guy pulls a knife and says hand over your money. That's not threat of injury, but just intimidation? :confused:

Pete

[Zeke]

What kind of knife, what kind of guy, how much $$$?

I'm not vaporizing a 5'6" skinny white kid with a pen knife for $5.

I might beat his ass, but blowing him away isn't worth the nightmares: which makes me worthy of having a CCW.

If someone thinks the answer is turning this kid's head into a canoe, they don't deserve to carry a gun.

[piece-itpete]

You need to come up here and try to find a 5' 6" skinny white kid straw man mugger.

Pete

[Zeke]

You need to come up here and try to find a 5' 6" skinny white kid straw man mugger.

Pete

Will he be as scary as your 6'5" muscular black one?

[piece-itpete]

Tyson? :D

But no ;)

Pete

[Zeke]

Tyson? :D

But no ;)

Pete

I'll be honest, I think that was one of my best redirects. :D

[BlueStreak]

You need to come up here and try to find a 5' 6" skinny white kid straw man mugger.

Pete

He left in 1982, joined the Navy. Now, he's a chubby 48 year old kid who'd probably have a heart attack trying to wrestle a straw man........

Dave

[piece-itpete]

Zeke, LMAO! I had to bite my tongue - I was going to say injuns :p

Pete

[piece-itpete]

Is that you Dave? :) I could probably take out a bad guy, while simultaneously blowing out my knees and back!

Pete