CIVILIAN RESERVE TO FIGHT TERRORISTS
Ray Keller
Subject: [freedoms_voice] CCRKBA Alerts
Date: Wednesday, October 15, 2003 8:37 PM
CCRKBA TELLS CLARK: 'WE ALREADY HAVE CIVILIAN RESERVE TO FIGHT TERRORISTS:
ARMED CITIZENS'
Responding to Democrat presidential candidate Gen. Wesley Clark's plan to
create a "civilian reserve to respond to terrorist attacks," the Citizens
Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (CCRKBA) said today, "We
already have that, Gen. Clark. They're called armed private citizens."
"We don't need to create a new military-style reserve force like Gen. Clark
envisions," said CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb. "We've got millions of
legally-armed private citizens right now, and they could easily provide a
formidable deterrent to terrorists, same as they currently pose to
predatory thugs all over the country.
"In all but a handful of states," Gottlieb added, "private citizens are
licensed to carry concealed handguns, for defense of themselves and the
state. That's spelled out in many state constitutions. Thirty-six states
have shall-issue concealed carry statutes on the books, and in some states,
including Alaska, Arizona, Ohio and Vermont, open carry is a legal option.
For Gen. Clark to suggest we need to mobilize American citizens against a
terrorist threat indicates that he's way behind the learning curve."
Added CCRKBA Executive Director Joe Waldron, "By their very nature, many
state concealed carry laws actually promote defensive handgun training by
requiring citizens to learn firearms basics in order to get a concealed
carry license. Tens of thousands of these armed citizens have become
skilled shooters, and are well-versed in use-of-force statutes.
"Not coincidentally," Waldron continued, "many of these same armed citizens
belong to volunteer fire departments, search-and-rescue or other community
groups. They've taken first aid training, and are capable of responding to
a disaster. But Gen. Clark, along with many other politicians, overlooks
these good citizens as America's broadest line of defense."
"Gen. Clark and every other politician," Gottlieb noted, "need to brush up
on their history. That's where they would learn that the Second Amendment,
and the courageous citizens who daily exercise the right it protects, is
America's original homeland security."
With more than 650,000 members and supporters nationwide, the Citizens
Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is one of the nation's
premier gun rights organizations. As a non-profit organization, the
Citizens Committee is dedicated to preserving firearms freedoms through
active lobbying of elected officials and facilitating grass-roots
organization of gun rights activists in local communities throughout the
United States.
----------
Copyright © 2003 Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms,
All Rights Reserved.
Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms
James Madison Building
12500 N.E. Tenth Place
Bellevue, WA 98005 Voice: 425-454-4911
Toll Free: 800-426-4302
FAX: 425-451-3959
email: <mailto:in...@ccrkba.org>in...@ccrkba.org
To stop receiving these alerts, send an email to
<mailto:cc_a...@liberty.seanet.com?subject=REMOVE>cc_a...@liberty.seanet
.com
with remove in the subject line.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Buy Ink Cartridges or Refill Kits for your HP, Epson, Canon or Lexmark
Printer at MyInks.com. Free s/h on orders $50 or more to the US & Canada.
http://www.c1tracking.com/l.asp?cid=5511
http://us.click.yahoo.com/mOAaAA/3exGAA/qnsNAA/xYTolB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Jeff McCann
"Ray Keller" <rayk...@theriver.com> wrote in message
news:bml91s$6ec$0...@206.25.50.85...
>
> Subject: [freedoms_voice] CCRKBA Alerts
> Date: Wednesday, October 15, 2003 8:37 PM
>
> CCRKBA TELLS CLARK: 'WE ALREADY HAVE CIVILIAN RESERVE TO FIGHT
TERRORISTS:
> ARMED CITIZENS'
>
> Responding to Democrat presidential candidate Gen. Wesley Clark's plan
to
> create a "civilian reserve to respond to terrorist attacks," the
Citizens
> Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (CCRKBA) said today, "We
> already have that, Gen. Clark. They're called armed private citizens."
LORD, HEAR OUR PRAYER
Oh, Lord, please spare we highly trained members of the various
organized agencies who are able to respond in a coordinated, controlled
manner to emergencies from well-intentioned but unorganized mobs of
mostly untrained but armed individuals descending upon us and
interfering with our ops. Lord, please remind them that their role is
to act as necessary to aid themselves and others around them if actually
caught up in the emergency, then get out of the damn way unless their
continued help is needed and requested by the arriving professionals.
Lord, bless them and thank them for their vital individual efforts in
the very early stages of the emergency, but also give them the wisdom to
leave if they can and stay away entirely if they aren't already
involved, for they know not that they contribute greatly to the chaos,
confusion, and workload in getting the situation under control. Lord,
grant them a steady hand, a sharp aim and a clear conscience if they
must use deadly force to stop a terrorist, but help them see how
dangerous it would be to have too many stressed-out, over-excited and
well-armed but under-trained, independently-acting individuals in the
operational area, actually making it harder to, for example, apprehend
and stop a terrorist once the professionals have effective control
there.
Lord, let them know we will welcome them into our ranks if they get the
proper training, and learn and follow guidance of our leadership first.
Lord, I ask you these things because there are already huge, trained,
organized forces ready to respond rapidly to any major disaster, many of
whom are but little known to the general public, and well-meaning
individuals free-lancing in the operational area have been like a plague
of locusts upon us in the past. Amen.
Jeff
Jeff McCann
news:qfosov4jm99c348ck...@4ax.com...
>
> Yep, a wannabees wet dream - "organized agencies" of "highly
> trained professionals" out to save the world. The LSAT
> really knows how to pick 'em.
Who's the wannabee, Strabo? BTDT. I'm sure I've got more emergency
medical, SAR, technical rescue, mass casualty, hazmat, and disaster
relief real-world experience than you imagine. Why, my t-shirt
collection alone fills my dresser! ;-)
> Considering your condescending attitude and lack of
> understanding of history and human nature, I suspect that
> confronting a real emergency will cause you to fold.
That's funny! I haven't folded in over 20 years of real-world
experience. I've always thought of you as kind of a marginal idiot,
full of half baked ideas and nutso theories. This confirms it.
> You better hope that there's a non-professional around
> to bail you out.
There are lots of highly-effective non-professionals out there. You
just aren't one of them.
> >Lord, bless them and thank them for their vital individual efforts in
> >the very early stages of the emergency, but also give them the wisdom
to
> >leave if they can and stay away entirely if they aren't already
> >involved, for they know not that they contribute greatly to the
chaos,
> >confusion, and workload in getting the situation under control.
Lord,
> >grant them a steady hand, a sharp aim and a clear conscience if they
> >must use deadly force to stop a terrorist, but help them see how
> >dangerous it would be to have too many stressed-out, over-excited and
> >well-armed but under-trained, independently-acting individuals in the
> >operational area, actually making it harder to, for example,
apprehend
> >and stop a terrorist once the professionals have effective control
> >there.
>
> Whaddaya know, a passive-aggressive authoritarian.
Nope. Just experienced. In some situations, at some times, a little
authority is called for.
> >Lord, let them know we will welcome them into our ranks if they get
the
> >proper training, and learn and follow guidance of our leadership
first.
> >Lord, I ask you these things because there are already huge, trained,
> >organized forces ready to respond rapidly to any major disaster, many
of
> >whom are but little known to the general public, and well-meaning
> >individuals free-lancing in the operational area have been like a
plague
> >of locusts upon us in the past. Amen.
>
> More elitist claptrap. The government's definitely got your
> number. Give you boys a couple stripes and you think you're God.
Lots of these organizations aren't government-run. Some are. Elitist
only in the sense that some people are better trained and organized than
others to carry out certain tasks. I've got your number too, you are
one of those "rugged individualists" like the people who refuse to
evacuate in advance of a hurricane, throw a party in their beach house,
then get scared when the wind and waves hit and call us demanding to be
rescued during the height of the storm.
> It's really ironic that one so untested and naive as yourself
> teaches. It seems you've been setup for a major fall. I
> just wonder how many you'll take with you when the time comes.
Pretty smug and full of yourself, aren't you? Since you obviously know
nothing about what I've done, what I've been through, what I've been
trained to do, what groups I'm affiliated with, or anything much but
your own rather senseless rants here, you are basically talking out your
ass, as usual.
Jeff
Stormin Mormon
had lots of civillians present (sometimes even airplanes full of them) but
no government goons.
Wouldn't it be interesting if the citizens all became able to defend
themselves?
--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
www.mormons.org
.
.
"Ray Keller" <rayk...@theriver.com> wrote in message
news:bml91s$6ec$0...@206.25.50.85...
Subject: [freedoms_voice] CCRKBA Alerts
Ray Keller
"Jeff McCann" <NoS...@NoThanks.Com> wrote in message
news:hiqjb.3201$Ec1.2...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>
> "Ray Keller" <rayk...@theriver.com> wrote in message
> news:bml91s$6ec$0...@206.25.50.85...
> >
> > Subject: [freedoms_voice] CCRKBA Alerts
> > Date: Wednesday, October 15, 2003 8:37 PM
> >
> > CCRKBA TELLS CLARK: 'WE ALREADY HAVE CIVILIAN RESERVE TO FIGHT
> TERRORISTS:
> > ARMED CITIZENS'
> >
Elitest Govt whore
Myal
"Stormin Mormon" <cayo...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:bmm3s...@enews3.newsguy.com...
> Is it just me? I've been noticing that each of these terrorist acts lately
> had lots of civillians present (sometimes even airplanes full of them) but
> no government goons.
>
> Wouldn't it be interesting if the citizens all became able to defend
> themselves?
>
That would have far more serious effects as making it dificult for
politicians to feel so comfortable crapping on the general public.
Never mind the side issues like the right to defend oneself , it is the
bigger more important things that need to be considered.Politicians pockets
and egos for instance....
Myal
A.T. Hagan
wrote:
>LORD, HEAR OUR PRAYER
Good luck, Jeff. You oughta know how this is going to play in this
group of rugged individualists.
Basically, you are right but as always there's this tremendous public
relations problem.
People want to help and in the absence of you professionals many will
help. They'll do the job well, they'll do the job poorly. Beats hell
out of a group of numb nuts just standing there watching somebody die
saying "somebody DO something!"
I'm not a highly trained professional, but I have had CERT training,
First Responder first aid training, and spent more than ten years
doing security work so now I've had a chance to sort of experience
this problem from both sides. I've watched well-intentioned people
who were only trying to help make matters worse because they didn't
know what they were doing. For every one of those I've seen more that
stood there slack jawed and did nothing at all so that a situation
that should have been minor became major for lack of simple
initiative. I've also seen a professional or two immediately piss
everyone in the area off when they come in after the fact, take
control of everything and then kick out the people who had been coping
with the situation before their arrival treating them like they were a
part of the problem.
Yes, once the pro's are on the scene and have the situation under
control then we lesser trained (or untrained) folks should bow out.
But we really get bent when we're treated like an impediment instead
of the people who were the ones who had to do what we could until you
guys showed up.
It's a public relations problem. The American willingness to
volunteer even in the face of personal danger to help those who are
themselves in danger is an asset that should be most carefully
conserved. Once the professionals have shown up in sufficient
strength to gain control of the situation it's time for us lesser
mortals to bow out but we should not be made to feel like we're part
of the problem. There's only so many of you guys and you cannot be
everywhere at once. From time to time there's going to be situations
where you simply aren't going to have the manpower to cope and then
you're either going to have to rely on us or the job simply won't get
done.
Come up with a way to make us a part of the solution instead of
treating us like we're part of the problem. Even if it's only to say,
"Thanks for handling things until we could get here, we'll take over
now" it's a sight better than making us feel like we're only in the
way.
We need you, you need us.
Beats hell out of the alternative which is to panic and run screaming
in circles which we see far too often.
The folks who'll keep their wits about them in a crisis and try to
bring order out of chaos seem to grow thinner on the ground with every
passing year. We need to figure out how to complement each other's
abilities.
.....Alan.
--
Curiosity killed the cat -
lack of it is killing mankind.
Jeff McCann
> had lots of civillians present (sometimes even airplanes full of them) but
> no government goons.
>
> Wouldn't it be interesting if the citizens all became able to defend
> themselves?
It sure would help if there were an armed and competent citizen or two was
around when some crazy or terrorist starts shooting into a group of
schoolkids or tries to set off a bomb.
Jeff
Jeff McCann
Ray, get back to us when you have the first original thought in that pointy
little head of yours, instead of clipping the words of others who can at
least string a few coherent thoughts together. Mouthing insults you heard
somebody else use doesn't count.
Jeff
Jeff McCann
"A.T. Hagan" <ath...@REMOVETHISatlantic.net> wrote in message
news:3f91db9d...@news.atlantic.net...
They think I am denigrating them. That's only true if they are dumb enough
to try to interject themselves into a situation that doesn't concern them
AFTER sufficient help is at hand. Otherwise, they are exactly they kind of
folks you want to find, i.e., having taken reasonable precautions in advance
to mitigate the problem, able to keep a cool head, willing to help their
neighbors, and not needing much, if any, help.
> Basically, you are right but as always there's this tremendous public
> relations problem.
Very true. That "I'm in charge here" attitude doesn't sell. As an outside
group, we always work with the local authorities and community members.
After all, its their homes and lives, not ours. Many times the locals know
plenty of important stuff you don't. People have rights and deserve respect
and consideration. For example, if an area is supposed to be evacuated due
to a wildfire, and we see some homeowner clearing brush around his house,
nobody's going to mess with him, most likely. Sure, he's ignoring the Fire
Marshal's order, but he's also doing something effective to save his house.
If the same guy is standing there with his garden hose, thinking he can wet
down all the brush around his house so it won't burn, he'll probably
eventually be asked to leave. Another example: the good hearted people of
NYC brought literally tons of home made food for the workers at NYC, to the
point it was literally stacked up on the sidewalks. Not many had the heart
to tell them that we couldn't possibly use all that food, and that it was
becoming a sanitation problem, drawing rats, etc. They just smiled, took
what was offered, and said "thanks" or "God bless you."
> People want to help and in the absence of you professionals many will
> help. They'll do the job well, they'll do the job poorly. Beats hell
> out of a group of numb nuts just standing there watching somebody die
> saying "somebody DO something!"
Abso-f'ing-lutely! Ordinary people are, as I clearly stated, vital because
they are the ones that are there and the ones that begin all the rescue and
mitigation efforts. People are usually glad to be relieved of that role
once the professionals (paid or unpaid, public or private, doesn't matter)
begin to arrive and take up where they left off. On the other hand, I don't
really want a bunch of armed individual volunteers from who knows where
providing "security" for me on their own accord, wandering around people's
abandoned homes, personal property, and unlocked businesses and stores.
> I'm not a highly trained professional, but I have had CERT training,
> First Responder first aid training, and spent more than ten years
> doing security work so now I've had a chance to sort of experience
> this problem from both sides.
Acting as a first responder with your training, you are a professional to
me.
> I've watched well-intentioned people
> who were only trying to help make matters worse because they didn't
> know what they were doing. For every one of those I've seen more that
> stood there slack jawed and did nothing at all so that a situation
> that should have been minor became major for lack of simple
> initiative. I've also seen a professional or two immediately piss
> everyone in the area off when they come in after the fact, take
> control of everything and then kick out the people who had been coping
> with the situation before their arrival treating them like they were a
> part of the problem.
Sometimes, thanking them for their efforts, listening to their experiences
and advice, and informing them of what you have to offer, in other words,
treating them with the common courtesy and respect due someone who's been
through a disaster and yet managed to keep it together, goes a long way. In
my experience, it's best to work alongside these folks and make a gradual
transition, which insures continuity of operations. The experiences and
advise of a person who's actually been through the disaster from the
beginning can be invaluable. Furthermore, there are some folks who are so
obviously doing a good job that they are encouraged to just keep on doing
what they are doing until the end.
> Yes, once the pro's are on the scene and have the situation under
> control then we lesser trained (or untrained) folks should bow out.
> But we really get bent when we're treated like an impediment instead
> of the people who were the ones who had to do what we could until you
> guys showed up.
I understand. I am a veteran paramedic. If I happen to stop at a bad car
crash off duty, I don't like being shoved aside by some rookie EMT. I try
really hard to LISTEN, and be respectful and appreciative.
> It's a public relations problem. The American willingness to
> volunteer even in the face of personal danger to help those who are
> themselves in danger is an asset that should be most carefully
> conserved. Once the professionals have shown up in sufficient
> strength to gain control of the situation it's time for us lesser
> mortals to bow out but we should not be made to feel like we're part
> of the problem. There's only so many of you guys and you cannot be
> everywhere at once.
And we can virtually NEVER be there in those most critical early stages. If
you get your arm cut off in a wreck, what you really need is one dude with
enough sense to keep you from bleeding to death within a few minutes. It
really doesn't matter to you if the best trauma surgeon in the world shows
up 10 minutes too late.
> From time to time there's going to be situations
> where you simply aren't going to have the manpower to cope and then
> you're either going to have to rely on us or the job simply won't get
> done.
I agree with that 100%. Very well stated.
>
> Come up with a way to make us a part of the solution instead of
> treating us like we're part of the problem. Even if it's only to say,
> "Thanks for handling things until we could get here, we'll take over
> now" it's a sight better than making us feel like we're only in the
> way.
>
> We need you, you need us.
>
> Beats hell out of the alternative which is to panic and run screaming
> in circles which we see far too often.
>
> The folks who'll keep their wits about them in a crisis and try to
> bring order out of chaos seem to grow thinner on the ground with every
> passing year. We need to figure out how to complement each other's
> abilities.
Yes. its definitely a partnership.
Jeff
Jeff McCann
"Robert Sturgeon" <rst...@inreach.com> wrote in message
news:p4atovo8l6h054c0q...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 05:47:57 GMT, "Jeff McCann" <NoS...@NoThanks.Com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >news:bml91s$6ec$0...@206.25.50.85...
> >>
> >> Subject: [freedoms_voice] CCRKBA Alerts
> >> Date: Wednesday, October 15, 2003 8:37 PM
> >>
> >> CCRKBA TELLS CLARK: 'WE ALREADY HAVE CIVILIAN RESERVE TO FIGHT
> >TERRORISTS:
> >> ARMED CITIZENS'
> >>
> >> Responding to Democrat presidential candidate Gen. Wesley Clark's plan
> >to
> >> create a "civilian reserve to respond to terrorist attacks," the
> >Citizens
> >> Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (CCRKBA) said today, "We
> >> already have that, Gen. Clark. They're called armed private citizens."
> >
> >LORD, HEAR OUR PRAYER
> >
> >Oh, Lord, please spare we highly trained members of the various
> >organized agencies who are able to respond in a coordinated, controlled
> >manner to emergencies from well-intentioned but unorganized mobs of
> >mostly untrained but armed individuals descending upon us and
> >interfering with our ops. Lord, please remind them that their role is
> >to act as necessary to aid themselves and others around them if actually
> >caught up in the emergency, then get out of the damn way unless their
> >continued help is needed and requested by the arriving professionals.
>
> long I have no toleration for it anymore. You "professionals" failed
> abysmally on 9/11. The "professional" boat drivers just killed 10 and
> injured 44 in New York. "Professional" police officers routinely
> break into the wrong "crack house" and kill innocent victims. You can
> prove you REALLY want civilians to be able to be "first responders"
> (before you most excellent professionals show up) by whole-heartedly
> supporting the people's right to keep and bear arms.
Which I do, as anyone with a decent memory who's has been around here long
enough knows. Google me on the subject. I defer to no one in my defense of
our 2nd Amendment civil rights. Lose your stereotyping ideological
blinders.
> But since, IIRC, you're a typical Democrat lawyer, which strongly
> suggests that you support all (or at least most of) the illiberal gun
> control laws, take your misplaced "professional" elitism and shove it.
It's not about elitism. It's about yahoos with guns descending on a chaotic
scene and making it worse. I have immense respect for the heroism and help
extended to others by those who find themselves in an emergency or disaster.
As I clearly indicated, they are the first line of defense. But a bunch of
outsiders with no business there looking to play hero or merely gawking, or
worse, acting as vigilantes, isn't very helpful to anyone, IMHO.
> Just as some wit once said he'd rather be governed by the first 200
> names in the Boston phone book than by the faculty of Harvard
> University, I'd rather be "saved" by the first 10 civilians to appear
> on scene than by the first 10 professionals, who will probably be
> late, mostly concerned with their own personal safety (remember
> Columbine?), and paying more attention to "proper procedure" than with
> saving me.
> Proud member of the vast right wing
> conspiracy and the evil gun culture.
Well, lets just say I'm not a big fan of the cops. When professional
rescuers screw up, it's automatically big news; when the job is done right,
it's just what is expected. There are plenty of examples of free-lancers
screwing everything up for others that don't get reported on much. People
on their own in trouble tend to do damn well with coping and helping others
near them. But dipshit outsiders with no reason to inject themselves into
the situation tend to be trouble.
Jeff
Jeff McCann
"Robert Sturgeon" <rst...@inreach.com> wrote in message
news:p4atovo8l6h054c0q...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 05:47:57 GMT, "Jeff McCann" <NoS...@NoThanks.Com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >news:bml91s$6ec$0...@206.25.50.85...
> >>
> >> Subject: [freedoms_voice] CCRKBA Alerts
> >> Date: Wednesday, October 15, 2003 8:37 PM
> >>
> >> CCRKBA TELLS CLARK: 'WE ALREADY HAVE CIVILIAN RESERVE TO FIGHT
> >TERRORISTS:
> >> ARMED CITIZENS'
> >>
> >> Responding to Democrat presidential candidate Gen. Wesley Clark's plan
> >to
> >> create a "civilian reserve to respond to terrorist attacks," the
> >Citizens
> >> Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (CCRKBA) said today, "We
> >> already have that, Gen. Clark. They're called armed private citizens."
> >
> >LORD, HEAR OUR PRAYER
> >
> >Oh, Lord, please spare we highly trained members of the various
> >organized agencies who are able to respond in a coordinated, controlled
> >manner to emergencies from well-intentioned but unorganized mobs of
> >mostly untrained but armed individuals descending upon us and
> >interfering with our ops. Lord, please remind them that their role is
> >to act as necessary to aid themselves and others around them if actually
> >caught up in the emergency, then get out of the damn way unless their
> >continued help is needed and requested by the arriving professionals.
>
> long I have no toleration for it anymore. You "professionals" failed
> abysmally on 9/11. The "professional" boat drivers just killed 10 and
> injured 44 in New York. "Professional" police officers routinely
> break into the wrong "crack house" and kill innocent victims. You can
> prove you REALLY want civilians to be able to be "first responders"
> (before you most excellent professionals show up) by whole-heartedly
> supporting the people's right to keep and bear arms.
>
> suggests that you support all (or at least most of) the illiberal gun
> control laws, take your misplaced "professional" elitism and shove it.
> names in the Boston phone book than by the faculty of Harvard
> University, I'd rather be "saved" by the first 10 civilians to appear
> on scene than by the first 10 professionals, who will probably be
> late, mostly concerned with their own personal safety (remember
> Columbine?), and paying more attention to "proper procedure" than with
> saving me.
>
>
> --
> Robert Sturgeon
> http://www.vistech.net/users/rsturge
N9NWO
know. Frankly no one really knows was Wesley has in
mind. Sounds like reinventing the militia, minus the
guns.
Questions: would you have to sign a contract like the
military? Would it be totally voluntary, so you could
drop out at any time? Is it is a reinvention of the
America Corps and Peace Corps so that a bunch of rich
kids can get money for college (something that the liberals
resent that the military has)?
Ray Keller
"Jeff McCann" <NoS...@NoThanks.Com> wrote in message
LIAR
Groups
Advanced Groups Search Preferences Groups Help
Search only in misc.emerg-services Search all groups Search the Web
Groups search result 6 for Jeff McCann gun group:misc.emerg-services
group:misc.emerg-services group:misc.emerg-services
Search Result 6
From: Jeff McCann (j.mc...@worldnet.att.net)
Subject: Re: Patients with guns
View: Complete Thread (61 articles)
Original Format
Newsgroups: misc.emerg-services
Date: 1997/06/03
First, I strongly urge you to consult a Texas attorney for specific
legal advice. That being said, I have some general thoughts for you.
1) Its your ambulance. I don't suppose the citizen permit allows them
to introduce a firearm into a conveyance without consent.
2) An injured or ill and armed person is a danger to crew and
bystanders. You have a responsibility to provide a secure scene. Does
Texas have a law against something like "interfering with an emergency
response"?
3) Every medic should know enough about firearms to safely unload
pistols, revolvers, rifles and shotguns. Don't mess up a crime scene,
but feel free to unload stray weapons laying around. If you find it on
a patient, turn it over to a LEO for safe-keeping. If you find it on
the patient enroute, empty it and lock it up with your narcs until you
can turn it over to a LEO.
4) If the pt is being an a**hole about it, insist he unload it and give
you the cartridges "for now". Let him keep his precious phallus
extender, er, gun. Be aware of extra ammo and do a search during your
secondary survey.
5) Any crap, take your toys, your partner, and leave. It just became a
LEO problem, not an EMS problem.
As for crime scenes, well, do the very best you can not to disturb any
evidence. That's really important to make sure that the bad guys go to
the big house. But the MOST important thing is my and my partner's
safety. If you accidently find yourself at, say, a shooting with no
cops around, and bystanders of unknown intent milling about, you just go
ahead and secure that weapon. Screw the D.A. and the cops, we ain't
taking no stinkin' bullet for no one. Tell 'em I told you to do it. I
done it myself twice. They'll be pissed, but they'll just have to get
over it.
By the way, what are y'all doing to patients over there, that they feel
the need to arm themselves for self-defense enroute to the hospital?
By the way (2), ever wonder how many medics got a piece strapped to an
ankle, maybe?
Best Regards,
Jeff
--
=============================================
Jeffrey Allen McCann, P.A. Attorney at Law
j.mc...@worldnet.att.net (904) 477-0820
P.O. Box 10833 Pensacola, FL 32524-0833
=============================================
DISCLAIMER/WARNING:
This message is NOT legal advice and is not confidential.
Legal concepts mentioned probably don't apply to your jurisdiction or
circumstances, so consult your attorney for specific legal advice.
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and probably don't reflect the views
of my clients or employers.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Google Home - Advertise with Us - Business Solutions - Services & Tools -
Jobs, Press, & Help
©2003 Google
Ray Keller
"Jeff McCann" <NoS...@NoThanks.Com> wrote in message
news:bgDjb.181562$0v4.13...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>
Search Result 1
From: Ray Keller (rayk...@theriver.com)
Subject: Re: Another reason to hate lawyers
View: Complete Thread (104 articles)
Original Format
Newsgroups: misc.survivalism
Date: 2003-01-25 10:44:54 PST
Search Result 15
From: Jeff McCann (j.mc...@worldnet.att.net)
Subject: Re: Patients with guns
View: Complete Thread (61 articles)
Original Format
Newsgroups: misc.emerg-services
Date: 1997/06/03
First, I strongly urge you to consult a Texas attorney for specific
legal advice. That being said, I have some general thoughts for you.
1) Its your ambulance. I don't suppose the citizen permit allows them
to introduce a firearm into a conveyance without consent.
2) An injured or ill and armed person is a danger to crew and
bystanders. You have a responsibility to provide a secure scene. Does
Texas have a law against something like "interfering with an emergency
response"?
3) Every medic should know enough about firearms to safely unload
pistols, revolvers, rifles and shotguns. Don't mess up a crime scene,
but feel free to unload stray weapons laying around. If you find it on
a patient, turn it over to a LEO for safe-keeping. If you find it on
the patient enroute, empty it and lock it up with your narcs until you
can turn it over to a LEO.
4) If the pt is being an a**hole about it, insist he unload it and give
you the cartridges "for now". Let him keep his precious phallus
extender, er, gun. Be aware of extra ammo and do a search during your
secondary survey.
snip
Search Result 79
From: Jeff McCann (McCa...@att.net)
Subject: Re: KILLING IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD--WHAT ARE LEGAL WAY TO PROTECT
YOURSELF
View: Complete Thread (21 articles)
Original Format
Newsgroups: misc.survivalism
Date: 2002-11-02 20:36:09 PST
Of course not, and I see your point. But one of the better ways to insulate
yourself from crime is to move from a higher crime area to a community or
neighborhood where crime rates are low. You can't do that if you lose your
job, your ability to obtain any similar job, and spend a substantial amount
of your savings to fight criminal charges. I don't know whether NYC has any
felony charges for first offenders in weapons cases, but even a misdemeanor
can cost you a law license, teachers certificate, security clearance,
bonding or similar. It's a risk/benefit assessment every person needs to
make for themselves, along with a host of other considerations in deciding
whether to carry a weapon. I'm fortunate to be able to lawfully carry a
concealed weapon in a large number of states.
snip
Draw your own conclusions.
Jeff McCann
Search Result 1
From: Jeffrey A. McCann
Subject: Re: OT--Re: Guns and fleas
View: Complete Thread (52 articles)
Original Format
Newsgroups: rec.backcountry
Date: 2001-01-19 19:50:31 PST
As Tonto was reported to have replied when told by the Lone Ranger "We are
cut off and surrounded by a thousand Indians, Tonto!"
"What do you mean 'we,' Paleface?"
Perhaps it is you, Sir, have made a fool of yourself by contending that I
was attempting to compare the generally excellent UK crime statistics with
our own abysmal US crime statistics, because you have missed the main point
entirely. Unfortunately, it is all too common for those opposed to the
civil rights of gun owners to mischaracterize or fail to comprehend the
position of those who support 2nd Amendment civil rights. So, please pay
attention, because I am only going to explain this one more time:
There is little to no credible evidence that enacting harsher gun
control legislation in the US will result in decreased crime or
weapons-related crime rates. The existing record of various gun control
measures in the US tends to demonstrate this, although the liberalization of
concealed carry laws has proven to be safe and effective. Furthermore, for
a variety of reasons, the experiences of other countries is inapposite to
the argument for harsher gun control in the US.
So rent, borrow or buy a clue before you make yourself look any more
foolish than you already do!
I have appended some comments I recently wrote regarding my view of the
2nd Amendment below, for those who may be interested.
Jeff
"B V" <bvanc...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:26287-3A...@storefull-164.iap.bryant.webtv.net...
> Mr McCann:
>
> How can you even compare these stats with those in the US? My God... 42
> homicides in the whole country! Many of our large and midsized cities
> have stats like that in half the year or less. Pullease... stop before
> you make all of us look any more foolish than we already do!!! the wiz
By Jeff McCann
"[X]" wrote [snip] "This urban myth about the Second Amendment providing an
individual right to have guns will die out once the gun manufacturers sign
the HUD agreement."
Dear [X]:
Although I respect your right to your own view of the 2nd Amendment,
that view is unsustainable by reference to either Constitutional law or
historical fact. The reason that the right of citizens to have and bear
arms is protected in the 2nd amendment, just after speech, press, religion,
and assembly in the 1st amendment is this: Our Founding Fathers had
previously declared in the Declaration of Independence that we are all born
with certain inalienable rights, granted to us by our creator. From this,
the right of a free people to "throw off the shackles" of a tyrannical
government is inherent. Tyrants don't cede willingly, as they had so
recently learned from King George. It takes force, and force means guns.
The phrase "a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a
free state" as used by 18th century men, does not mean "regulated" in the
restrictive government rulemaking sense we use it today. It meant, then and
now, regulated like a clockwork, i.e., functional, capable and up to the
task at hand. In its proper context, it reflected the intent of the
Founders that we must at all times have the means at our disposal to protect
our inalienable rights from infringement by any government that has become
tyrannical, if all other means have failed.
This is the great lesson born of our founding fathers' protracted
struggle to gain their inalienable rights for themselves and their progeny.
The American Revolution broke into warfare only after a years-long campaign
of political action, civil disobedience, protest, and appeals to reason
failed in the face of increasingly tyrannical conduct by the King's
government in the colonies. In fact, "the shot heard 'round the world,"
marking the beginning of the war, was fired only because the British
commander at Boston sent armed troops to seize weapons and ammunition
lawfully in the hands of the citizenry, and those patriots known as the
Minutemen had the courage to stand shoulder to shoulder with their neighbors
in defiance of the most powerful army in the world to defend their God-given
rights as free men. Our founding fathers knew, from painful first hand
experience, that the tree of liberty must, from time to time, be nourished
with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is their gift to us, their
progeny, that they would not have us disarmed at time of need.
Now, this may seem to you as a remote artifact of history, without
meaning today, but even in an age when wars can be fought with nuclear
weapons, tyranny against a government's own people can still be most
effectively resisted one front door at a time. Some effective, stable
democratic governments largely ban private gun ownership, as is their right
under their own laws. But ALL despotic governments seek to disarm their
subjects, usually as their first
order of business. Thus, the sole purpose of our 2nd amendment is to serve
as a final check on our government, to ensure that it governs only by the
consent of the governed, and this is the foundation of our Republic and our
way of life. Thanks to the wisdom of our forefathers in giving us a
Constitution and a Republic that continues to uphold the rights of its
people, we may never again need to take up arms against a would-be tyrant,
but, thanks again to their wisdom, we can if we should have to.
Hunting, shooting sports, and self-defense are certainly the most
popular reasons that Americans give for having guns. However, the only
reason Americans have a Constitutional right to have guns is to protect all
of our other rights against governmental infringement if, on some difficult
to imagine future day, the government slips off its Constitutional
restraints and becomes tyrannical. This sets up a cognitive dissonance
between the right and the reasons, and clouds the debate on gun control. In
other words, people want their guns, but not necessarily for the reasons
they have the right to own them. Therefore, arguments addressing their
reasons for wanting to own guns, the societal costs of gun ownership, or the
"reasonableness" of restrictions on gun ownership are wholly inapplicable to
the underlying Constitutional right to own guns in the first place. In
short, if you would deny the people their right to keep and bear arms you
have two choices: either unlawfully ban and seize their arms in violation of
their Constitutional and natural rights, or lawfully repeal the 2nd
Amendment by proper constitutional means.
In my view, some current state laws restricting gun ownership are about
as constitutionally valid and moral as the evil old "Jim Crow" segregation
laws on the books of many southern states before the modern civil rights
movement. Furthermore, it is important to remember that 2nd Amendment
rights ARE civil rights, and I am frankly disappointed at the way some
liberals, who have been the champions of civil rights in the past, feel free
to pick and choose which civil rights are "worthy" of being upheld today.
Thanks for taking time to read this. I'm stepping off my soapbox and
putting it away now, for a little while at least.
Jeff
> Search Result 1
> From: Ray Keller (rayk...@theriver.com)
> Subject: Re: Another reason to hate lawyers
> View: Complete Thread (104 articles)
> Original Format
> Newsgroups: misc.survivalism
> Date: 2003-01-25 10:44:54 PST
>
>
> Search Result 15
> From: Jeff McCann
> Subject: Re: KILLING IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD--WHAT ARE LEGAL WAY TO PROTECT
> YOURSELF
> View: Complete Thread (21 articles)
> Original Format
> Newsgroups: misc.survivalism
> Date: 2002-11-02 20:36:09 PST
>
>
> Of course not, and I see your point. But one of the better ways to
insulate
> yourself from crime is to move from a higher crime area to a community or
> neighborhood where crime rates are low. You can't do that if you lose
your
> job, your ability to obtain any similar job, and spend a substantial
amount
> of your savings to fight criminal charges. I don't know whether NYC has
any
> felony charges for first offenders in weapons cases, but even a
misdemeanor
> can cost you a law license, teachers certificate, security clearance,
> bonding or similar. It's a risk/benefit assessment every person needs to
> make for themselves, along with a host of other considerations in deciding
> whether to carry a weapon. I'm fortunate to be able to lawfully carry a
> concealed weapon in a large number of states.
>
Look at the group and the subject and draw your own conclusion
Jeff
Jeff McCann
RETARD. My offer to let you say these things to my face still stands, by
the way, you cowardly little worm.
Jeff
Dear [X]:
Jeff
> Groups search result 6 for Jeff McCann gun group:misc.emerg-services
Jeff McCann
> On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 20:33:11 GMT, "Jeff McCann" <NoS...@NoThanks.Com>
> wrote:
>
> I'm sure you're right. There's just something about your posts that
> generally pisses me off - can't say exactly why, they just do. Sorry.
Thank you for your honest response. You should know that I have a good deal
or respect for you, and that your posts often piss me off, too. I hope you
don't mind if I continue you to respond to you, and I always welcome your
replies to me, even if I have to double the dose of my blood pressure
medicine afterwards, sometimes. There's little benefit in discussing things
with people who mirror your own point of view, or with people who aren't
able to articulate their views coherently, or or just too plain stupid to
have any views worth considering. I learn a lot from you guys, and I hope
you find a small nugget or two of something worth considering in my posts
from time to time, even if it is only to sharpen and clarify why you were
right all along. Intellegent people like you, Gunner and a few others who
can carry on intellegent and thoughtful discussions make the newsgroup fun
and worthwhile for me.
Jeff
Jeff McCann
> On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 04:25:56 GMT, "Jeff McCann" <NoS...@NoThanks.Com>
> wrote:
>
> Hey Jeff! Did you write the message Ray quoted, or not?
Yep. I wrote 'em and I stand by everything I wrote. Pay attention to the
group, the context of the entire thread, and the subject. One is dealing
with sick, hurt or unstable people introducing guns (illegally) into
ambulances as discussed in an emergency medical group. Not a good idea, for
any number of reasons, and something that is increasing in frequency, with
more and more CCWs and gangbangers carrying. Why would one feel the need to
be armed while riding in an ambulance enroute to the ER, where it is also
illegal to be armed, for heaven's sake? The other had to do with, IIRC, a
guy asking about LEGAL methods of reducing his risk of crime because he
couldn't get a CCW in NYC, and was concerned about crime in his
neighborhood. I suggest some alternatives, like moving to a safer area and
describe the risks of carrying illegally, then suggest he make his own
decision for himself. I think my advice was sound in both cases. Feel free
to disagree.
Our resident bonehead, Ray, likes to repost these from time to time because,
for some reason, he thinks it embarrasses me. But I stand behind everything
I write, or I've made a mistake and I'll admit it. You might want to take a
look at my replies to Ray. Any questions?
Jeff
Jeff McCann
> On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 05:08:48 GMT, "Jeff McCann" <NoS...@NoThanks.Com>
> "Let him keep his precious phallus extender, er, gun.", I heavily
> discount the usefulness of the message.
That's your choice. But the message wasn't for you.
> I really don't care about the news group it was posted to. It
> indicates something other than an adherence to the right to keep and
> bear arms.
No, it doesn't. I'm mocking a grossly unreasonable attitude in a very
specific circumstance. Actually, I'm advocating letting the patient KEEP
his gun if he wants, if you wanna get technical about it.
> It is the sort of thing one would expect from a rabid gun
> "controller" (read - gun confiscator).
Hmm. Maybe so. I damn sure hate to sound like a gun grabber. That really
hurts! I may have been running a little 'tude at the time due to a specific
incident at work relating to this subject.
>I would NOT be proud to "stand
> behind" it.
Proud? Your word, not mine. Stand behind it? Yep. I wrote it. I think
you make rather too much of that single phrase taken, as you indicate, out
of it's context. It's intended to humorously reflect what I view as the
idiocy of the person's particular behavior, not my global attitude towards
firearms. I guess that just flew right over your head. Oh, well.
> But you are? It wasn't a mistake?
I seriously question the judgment of a person who feels a real need to hold
on to a gun while being transported in an ambulance when it can be safely
stored and returned to him when he leaves the ER. There is no valid reason
for the patient to be armed in such a circumstance, at least not any I can
think of. Furthermore, an ill or injured patient has a diminished capacity,
to resist a weapons grab from the drug crazed psycho in the next ER bed, if
nothing else. Also more medics are going to see armed thugs and criminals
than CCWs.
So if this patient perceives such a need, it is not based on reason.
Therefore, it is based on something else, like the patient's internal
psychological dynamics. In other words, the firearm is serving as some form
of security blanket or talisman for the patient, not as an actual defensive
tool. Like a man in a mid-life crisis who suddenly buys a fancy sports car,
you know its not about transportation but fading virility and insecurity.
The patient is obviously in need, not of protection (unless he thinks the
medic is suddenly going to turn on him), but of a feeling of adequacy, power
or control he presently lacks and that his firearm provides. Did you really
not get that? Are you so hung up on mere vocabulary that that the actual
meaning escaped you entirely? If so, I am surprised you can't see the
forest for the trees.
Jeff
A.T. Hagan
>On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 05:08:48 GMT, "Jeff McCann"
><NoS...@NoThanks.Com> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Robert Sturgeon" <rst...@inreach.com> wrote in message
>>news:disuovkq08ph6jk06...@4ax.com...
>>> On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 04:25:56 GMT, "Jeff McCann" <NoS...@NoThanks.Com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hey Jeff! Did you write the message Ray quoted, or not?
>>
>>Yep. I wrote 'em and I stand by everything I wrote. Pay attention to the
>>group, the context of the entire thread, and the subject. One is dealing
>>with sick, hurt or unstable people introducing guns (illegally) into
>>ambulances as discussed in an emergency medical group. Not a good idea, for
>>any number of reasons, and something that is increasing in frequency, with
>>more and more CCWs and gangbangers carrying. Why would one feel the need to
>>be armed while riding in an ambulance enroute to the ER, where it is also
>>illegal to be armed, for heaven's sake?
>
>Writ large, the question becomes, "Why would one feel the need to
>carry a pocketkife while riding in an airplane where it is
>illegal to be armed."
>
>From ambulance to airplane to anywhere. The principle of
>self-responsibility and self-reliance is compromised
>to the guise of security. The "expert", the "professional",
>will judge the outsider and execute based on class distinction.
>
>"An injured or ill and armed person is a danger to crew and
>bystanders. You have a responsibility to provide a secure
>scene."
>
>"...feel free to unload stray weapons laying around. If you find
>it on a patient, turn it over to a LEO for safe-keeping. If you
>find it on the patient enroute, empty it and lock it up with your
>narcs until you can turn it over to a LEO."
>
>"If the pt is being an a**hole about it, insist he unload it and
>give you the cartridges "for now". Let him keep his precious
>phallus extender, er, gun. Be aware of extra ammo and do a
>search during your secondary survey..."
>
>As I read it, if I have a heart attack in my residence and
>you respond to the call and see a shotgun in the corner or
>a pistol on a table, you will "unload it".
>
>As I read it, if I break my leg and take a ride in your ambulance
>you will purloin my "phallus extender" and turn it over to a LEO.
>Why? Because you are threatened? I think not.
>
>You will say its the law but since you claim to be pro but
>act anti, I think its a personal control issue. You place
>yourself in positions of institutional authority, like law or
>licensed life-saver, in order to
Well, I suppose they could allow the sick or injured person who is not
acting rationally to simply keep their gun AND LEAVE HIM LAYING WHERE
THEY FOUND HIM. Which is exactly what I'd do since I would even think
about transporting someone who may present a personal danger to me or
my crew.
If a person is in such a bad way that they need to be transported by
ambulance to the hospital then it's quite likely they're not their
normal selves at that point. They may be in intense pain, irrational
from illness, half out of their heads from toxic effects of whatever
it was they were exposed to.
If the guy is capable of carrying on a rational, level headed
conversation so that I wouldn't be concerned about my or my crew's
safety then what are the chances he'd need the services of paramedics
and ambulances in the first place?
Sure, let the guy who isn't getting a good oxygen flow to his brain
keep his loaded weapon. The fellow who is experiencing low blood
pressure, but not so low that he passes out obviously should be
handling loaded weapons. The guy who has been exposed to some sort of
hazardous chemical and is now in some sort of altered state of
consciousness. The guy who perhaps mistakenly double dosed himself
with his prescription medication and is acting irrationally really
needs to be able to defend himself.
That last one is one I personally experienced when one of my best
friends unwittingly double dosed himself on his blood pressure
medication and his BP fell dangerously low. He started acting crazy
with a knife. Fortunately he whacked his head on the doorway hard
enough to knock himself to the floor. Laying on his back he started
getting enough blood to his brain to realize he needed help. I'd sure
want him to be able to carry his .45 to the hospital. He's an NRA
firearms instructor and a better shot than I'll ever likely be. But
just then I'd have gladly whacked him in the head with an axe handle
if that's what it had taken to get the knife away from him.
Use some common sense here people. Ambulances transport people who
are badly injured or very ill. Neither type of person is likely to be
in a rational state of mind. Do you really want people who are
behaving irrationally to be carrying loaded guns?
If they are in a rational, level headed stated of mind and capable of
SAFELY handling loaded guns what are the chances they'll need the
services of an ambulance?
Magic Nose Goblin
> I read that on Drudge and have sent it on to folks I
> know. Frankly no one really knows was Wesley has in
> mind. Sounds like reinventing the militia, minus the
> guns.
>
> Questions: would you have to sign a contract like the
> military? Would it be totally voluntary, so you could
> drop out at any time? Is it is a reinvention of the
> America Corps and Peace Corps so that a bunch of rich
> kids can get money for college (something that the liberals
> resent that the military has)?
First emergency that would cause the rich kids to interrupt
their partying and get their hands dirty will see a LOT of
AWOLS and desertions.
Jeff McCann
> On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 05:08:48 GMT, "Jeff McCann"
> <NoS...@NoThanks.Com> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Robert Sturgeon" <rst...@inreach.com> wrote in message
> >news:disuovkq08ph6jk06...@4ax.com...
> >> On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 04:25:56 GMT, "Jeff McCann" <NoS...@NoThanks.Com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> Hey Jeff! Did you write the message Ray quoted, or not?
> >
> >Yep. I wrote 'em and I stand by everything I wrote. Pay attention to the
> >group, the context of the entire thread, and the subject. One is dealing
> >with sick, hurt or unstable people introducing guns (illegally) into
> >ambulances as discussed in an emergency medical group. Not a good idea,
for
> >any number of reasons, and something that is increasing in frequency,
with
> >more and more CCWs and gangbangers carrying. Why would one feel the need
to
> >be armed while riding in an ambulance enroute to the ER, where it is also
> >illegal to be armed, for heaven's sake?
>
> illegal to be armed."
Reductio ad absurdium, unworthy of further response.
>
> From ambulance to airplane to anywhere. The principle of
> self-responsibility and self-reliance is compromised
> to the guise of security. The "expert", the "professional",
> will judge the outsider and execute based on class distinction.
>
> "An injured or ill and armed person is a danger to crew and
> bystanders. You have a responsibility to provide a secure
> scene."
>
> "...feel free to unload stray weapons laying around. If you find
> it on a patient, turn it over to a LEO for safe-keeping. If you
> find it on the patient enroute, empty it and lock it up with your
> narcs until you can turn it over to a LEO."
>
> "If the pt is being an a**hole about it, insist he unload it and
> give you the cartridges "for now". Let him keep his precious
> phallus extender, er, gun. Be aware of extra ammo and do a
> search during your secondary survey..."
>
> As I read it, if I have a heart attack in my residence and
> you respond to the call and see a shotgun in the corner or
> a pistol on a table, you will "unload it".
Actually, I was thinking of a typical street shooting scene, not a patient's
residence. Where I work, the average resident was several loaded guns on
the premises. No problemo. Different story than a drive by with armed
street punks dropping their gats, their homeys or their enemies milling
about, etc. Admittedly, I wasn't clear on that, but it was a different
conversation altogether being quoted out of context here.
> As I read it, if I break my leg and take a ride in your ambulance
> you will purloin my "phallus extender" and turn it over to a LEO.
> Why? Because you are threatened? I think not.
Because I can't bring you into the ER with it, anymore than I could if you
were covered with anthrax spores.
> You will say its the law but since you claim to be pro but
> act anti, I think its a personal control issue. You place
> yourself in positions of institutional authority, like law or
> licensed life-saver, in order to
I actually am in a position of institutional responsibility, and conduct
myself accordingly. I refuse to toe the Politically Correct party line you
are attempting to dictate for me. Get over it.
Jeff
Jeff McCann
> On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 06:48:25 GMT, "Jeff McCann" <NoS...@NoThanks.Com>
> wrote:
>
> (snips)
>
> >> No questions; just one conclusion - whenever I see something like,
> >> "Let him keep his precious phallus extender, er, gun.", I heavily
> >> discount the usefulness of the message.
> >
> >That's your choice. But the message wasn't for you.
>
> with the same misconception - that they can say "A" to one group and
> "B" to the next, without getting caught in the contradiction. We have
> video tape to keep politicians from getting away with being
> duplicitous. Google does the same thing for usenet contributors.
> attitude. It's about yours. Did you really mean that guns are
> "phallus extenders"?
As I carefully explained in the part of my post that you oh so conveniently
snipped out, for some individuals, a firearm is not a legitimate defense
tool, but a sort of psychological crutch. That single phrase you are so
fixated on to the exclusion of all reason was a humorous reference to that.
Now, since you being so obtuse and snide, why don't you go back and read the
part you snipped out again?
> (not expecting a straight answer, snipping the rest)
With all due respect, go fuck yourself, Robert.
Jeff
Jeff McCann
> On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 06:48:25 GMT, "Jeff McCann" <NoS...@NoThanks.Com>
> wrote:
>
> (snips)
>
> >> No questions; just one conclusion - whenever I see something like,
> >> "Let him keep his precious phallus extender, er, gun.", I heavily
> >> discount the usefulness of the message.
> >
> >That's your choice. But the message wasn't for you.
>
> with the same misconception - that they can say "A" to one group and
> "B" to the next, without getting caught in the contradiction. We have
> video tape to keep politicians from getting away with being
> duplicitous. Google does the same thing for usenet contributors.
>
> attitude. It's about yours. Did you really mean that guns are
> "phallus extenders"?
>
>
I would add that it is damn easy to be all politically correct and
judgmental when you don't have to actually deal with these in real life
practical application. For you, its mostly just theory, talk and bullshit.
For me, its my daily life. I calls 'em likes I sees 'em. You don't like
it? Too bad.
Jeff
Condor Chef
> > That doesn't answer the question. It's not about the patient's
> > attitude. It's about yours. Did you really mean that guns are
> > "phallus extenders"?
> >
> > (not expecting a straight answer, snipping the rest)
>
> judgmental when you don't have to actually deal with these in real life
> practical application. For you, its mostly just theory, talk and
bullshit.
> For me, its my daily life. I calls 'em likes I sees 'em. You don't like
> it? Too bad.
First, Jeff, let me assure you that I understand your position on disarming
ambulance passengers and fully realize the reasons behind it - further, I
don't have a problem with it, and I don't believe Robert or Strabo do (in
principle), either. Ambulance companies are businesses, and like any other
business, can largely set any condition they see fit as a prerequisite for
exchange of their services.
IMHO, what caused the rebukes/rebuttals was your initial use of the terms
"Yahoos" and "phallus extenders" when referring to armed citizens -- that
type of terminology usually identifies the individual using it as an
affiliate of the liberal elite. Reading those words raised my hackles as
well, but everyone's entitled to their opinion. You later claimed that the
people you referenced were ill, injured, or not in their right minds - fine,
but if I were injured and you were loading me into the ambulance, would the
1911 on my hip then be a "phallus extender"? Likewise, would I then become
a "Yahoo"?
So, while no one is asking for or expecting an apology - understand that
your words, not your actions, brought about these protests.
CC
Jeff McCann
"Condor Chef" <condo...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:8aWjb.2729$B_2.681@okepread02...
First, I appreciate your ability to be reasonable about this. If you read
all the posts on the posts on this thread, things should be clear to you.
Obviously, I am not applying these terms to all or merely "armed citizens."
No, indeed, despite all the hair splitting, obtuseness and world class nit
picking going on by the self-righteous, self-appointed orthodoxy police of
our pro-2nd Amendment crowd, who demand political correctness and compliance
with their own personal version of the party line.
The phrase "phallus extender" referred specifically to a person who
displayed an inappropriate fixation and acute psychological need to have his
gun with him even under a grossly inappropriate circumstance, as previously
defined. One can imagine such a person showering with a gun on or making
love wearing nothing but his sweatsocks and a shoulder holster. The phrase
"yahoo" referred only to those "with guns descending on a chaotic scene and
making it worse. . . . a bunch of outsiders with no business there looking
to play hero or merely gawking, or worse, acting as vigilantes." To me,
that's exactly the kind of stupid behavior that makes a person a yahoo.
Context matters, any claims to the contrary notwithstanding. Perhaps your
hackles got raised because you identified with the "gun owning" part, and
failed to see the "stupid behavior" qualifier? Maybe that's where I went
wrong.
> Reading those words raised my hackles as
> well, but everyone's entitled to their opinion. You later claimed that
the
> people you referenced were ill, injured, or not in their right minds -
fine,
> but if I were injured and you were loading me into the ambulance, would
the
> 1911 on my hip then be a "phallus extender"? Likewise, would I then
become
> a "Yahoo"?
No, and no. You would be an armed citizen who happened to get hurt or
suddenly take ill. If you are at home, I suppose you'd want to leave your
1911 with your wife, neighbor or in your secure storage. If you didn't
happen to think of it, I'd politely suggest it to you. If you forgot it
until we were enroute, I'd offer to lock it securely in my narcotics locker
for you, and ask you if I should give it to your wife or whomever was coming
to the hospital for you. Then, if you refused, I'd insist, and we'd go from
there. If you were out of it and no responsible family member was around,
say, after a car crash, I'd give it to the LEO for safekeeping so it didn't
"grow little feet and walk off by itself." No family around? I'm going to
turn it over to a LEO for safekeeping. Usually, such stuff can be retrieved
24 hours a day, so it should work for you.
Now, if you were some drug dealer who just got shot by a "business
competitor," laying there bleeding on the sidewalk and you also had your gun
out, or the shooter dropped his stolen piece on the scene, you bet I'm gonna
snatch it up then and there, for my own safety. Again, context matters. I
do work in the rural South, after all. Most folks around here keep a loaded
gun handy, and Florida is a "shall issue" state. I own many guns, I'm an
NRA member, and a CCW holder. The mere sight of a pistol butt peeking out
of a waistband isn't going to make me go all weak in the knees.
On the other hand, the mere physical possession of a firearm doesn't make
one suddenly become a responsible, peaceable and law abiding "armed
citizen," either. Any punk, doper, thug, or psychopath can usually get his
hands on a gun. He's still a punk, doper, thug or psychopath, only now he's
a hell of a lot more dangerous to me, and not this hypothetically noble
"armed citizen" so worthy of my respect and consideration. I respond
accordingly.
> So, while no one is asking for or expecting an apology - understand that
> your words, not your actions, brought about these protests.
Yep. You are right, stated the way you state it. As for some others, I
failed to meet someone's arbitrary standard of political correctness in my
choice of vocabulary, so they are entitled to fixate on that and ignore both
the context and the meaning entirely? If they are so reactionary that they
lose their ability to read for comprehension, that's not my problem. Let's
set aside for the moment the fact that "phallus extender" was from something
I wrote on a very specific topic in a totally different context that was all
about ambulances and not at all about gun rights, over six years ago, that
pathetic little Ray keeps reposting in an effort to cause trouble for me.
Lucky for him, a few here rose to the troll bait this time.
Now, if they'd said that I'd made a poor choice of words in expressing my
thoughts, or that I was rude, offensive, or didn't convey my meaning
properly, that would have been different. I might have agreed with that,
apologized, explained and moved on. Instead, they wrote things like,
"LIAR," "duplicitous," "elitist," "you're a typical Democrat lawyer, which
strongly suggests that you support all (or at least most of) the illiberal
gun control laws," and "whore." This stuff is barely even rational, let
alone justified by a simple word or phrase taken out of context. And we
wonder why they call us gun "nuts"? I certainly hope they manage more
proportionality and circumspection with guns than they do with words.
Ah, well. It's a free country, and we all get our say. I've had mine,
that's for sure. I hope you understand my position, even if you don't
agree. Again, thanks for being rational, and expressing yourself so
reasonably and clearly.
Jeff
Ray Keller
"Jeff McCann" <NoS...@NoThanks.Com> wrote in message
You still have not shown up.
Just what I thought, a loudmouthed coward who thinks he sounds
tough by being rude and insulting to strangers while remaining out of
reach.
Ray Keller
"Jeff McCann" <NoS...@NoThanks.Com> wrote in message
> "What do you mean 'we,' Paleface?"
>
> Perhaps it is you, Sir, have made a fool of yourself by contending that
I
> was attempting to compare the generally excellent UK crime statistics with
> our own abysmal US crime statistics, because you have missed the main
point
> entirely. Unfortunately, it is all too common for those opposed to the
> civil rights of gun owners to mischaracterize or fail to comprehend the
> position of those who support 2nd Amendment civil rights. So, please pay
> attention, because I am only going to explain this one more time:
Dumbass govt whore.
Take your civil rights and shove them up your ass.
The BOR is a recognition of inherent natural rights...They can be violated
by govt but cannot be revoked by the govt
Civil rights are granted by the govt...and can be revoked by the govt.
Jeff McCann
> On Sat, 18 Oct 2003 01:18:36 GMT, "Jeff McCann" <NoS...@NoThanks.Com>
> wrote:
>
> (snips)
>
> >The phrase "phallus extender" referred specifically to a person who
> >displayed an inappropriate fixation and acute psychological need to have
his
> >gun with him even under a grossly inappropriate circumstance, as
previously
> >defined. One can imagine such a person showering with a gun on or making
> >love wearing nothing but his sweatsocks and a shoulder holster.
>
> gun owners see their guns as phallus extenders or substitutes.
There you go again, overgeneralizing from a single word or phrase into a
whole series of conclusions not justified by the actual facts. I never made
a comment about gun owners generally as a group, only about gun owners
exhibiting certain inappropriate behavior, a fact you consistently ignore
for your own rhetorical purposes. Either I have overestimated your
intelligence or you are being intentionally obtuse, I suppose. What part of
"humorous reference" are you pretending not to grasp? Or perhaps my
comments struck a little too close to home? Do you feel nervous and
uncomfortable without a gun, even if there is no reasonable possibility of
violent assault? I always have a seatbelt on in my car; I feel
uncomfortable in a car seat without one, but I don't have a seatbelt on the
recliner in my family room.
>It's a
> dead giveaway.
Oh, I see. Talk about psycho-babble! You sure jump to a lot of
conclusions, don't you?
> Did any of your irate gun-toting patients ever say
> anything that would lead you to believe they saw their guns as phallus
> extenders? You know, like saying, "Don't touch my penis," when you
> were touching his gun instead?
False literalism applied to this context is foolish, if not idiotic. If I
say you have "shit for brains," I don't mean you literally have excrement
in your cranium.
> If not, it is your own
> pseudo-psycho-babble diagnosis. And it says more about you than about
> your (inappropriately) armed patients.
>
> No sane person would object to your disarming of patients in your
> ambulance. The big question mark is - why do you assume that an armed
> patient uses his gun as a phallus extender??? THAT is what discredits
> your explanation.
Not literally, and you know it. You are just being persnickity for the heck
of it. Like "shit for brains" meant stupid, "phallus extender" meant
unreasonable attachment to one's gun for other than defensive reasons.
P.S. Your disagreement with this doesn't "discredit" it. Your rather rabid
reaction is like fodder for gun grabbers, however.
Jeff
Jeff McCann
> > > LIAR
> >
> > RETARD. My offer to let you say these things to my face still stands,
by
> > the way, you cowardly little worm.
> >
> Any time.
> You still have not shown up.
> Just what I thought, a loudmouthed coward who thinks he sounds
> tough by being rude and insulting to strangers while remaining out of
> reach.
Um, Ray, I'll be out your way this Spring. I renew the offer you turned
down last time. Review the record, Ray. You began attacking me, in your
silly-assed, ineffectual little way, first, like the no-load lightweight
little bitch you are. But at least I've got you to write a few posts of
your own, or did you need help, Ray? Usually you are only capable of cut
and snip posts written by others.
Jeff
Jeff McCann
> Dumbass govt whore.
You cut me to the quick, Sir!
> Take your civil rights and shove them up your ass.
> The BOR is a recognition of inherent natural rights...They can be violated
> by govt but cannot be revoked by the govt
> Civil rights are granted by the govt...and can be revoked by the govt.
Hey! Ray learned a new phrase! He even used it correctly in a sentence,
sort of. That's very good, Ray. So, Ray, why don't you tell us everything
you know about political philosophy as it relates to rights? Go ahead.
I've got a minute. Where do natural rights come from, Ray? Do they depend
on a belief in God? If one is an atheist, Buddhist or Mohammedan, does one
still have natural rights? What exactly is the scope and limit of our
natural rights? How did we learn of these rights? What other natural
rights do we have, Ray? What political philosophers influenced the Founding
Fathers? What role did Mill play? Hobbs? Luther? C'mon Ray. You are the
big expert now, aren't you?
Why is it incorrect, when discussing the Constitution, to refer to "civil"
rights if the civil right flows from the natural right? I was discussing
the development of the Founding Fathers' views towards gun rights, which
they placed in the Constitution they wrote. Should the Founding Fathers
"shove them up [their] ass," too, Ray, instead of including them in the 2nd
Amendment of the BOR? I suppose you'd rather not have a 2nd Amendment at
all, is that it? Can you explain your opposition to the 2nd Amendment, Ray?
Ray, you really are a hoot; do you know that?
Below are the views Ray says I should shove up my ass, whatever that means.
Frankly, Ray thinking in any way about my ass makes me really uncomfortable,
but that's beside the point. This is apparently the view Ray objects to.
Jeff McCann
[snip]
> A "civil" right? How about a "natural" right? You can't think
> around your conditioning even when trying.
[snip]
I don't suppose you see how this is such a trivial distinction that it makes
you look like a world-class nit-picker, do you? "How about a "natural"
right?" To answer your implied question, Yes, I believe in (and teach my
students about) natural and inalienable rights, as endowed to us by our
Creator. (Some administrators would probably faint if they knew I was
talking about all this in a public college class). However, I am
specifically interested in protecting and expanding the application of the
2nd Amendment. I fully comprehend the differences and similarities between
the two, but I think that getting the uninformed to see this as a civil
rights issue is a positive step in the right direction. Or do you join Ray
in opposing the 2nd Amendment?
Jeff
PS Are you so sure that my views are merely the product of conditioning,
while yours,
of course, are the product of free and unfettered intellect? Does the
Universe revolve around your navel, too?
Jeff McCann
> On Sat, 18 Oct 2003 05:00:08 GMT, "Jeff McCann" <NoS...@NoThanks.Com>
> wrote:
>
> (snips)
>
> >Not literally, and you know it. You are just being persnickety for the
heck
> >of it. Like "shit for brains" meant stupid, "phallus extender" meant
> >unreasonable attachment to one's gun for other than defensive reasons.
>
> way you could substitute one for the other without seeing the
> inappropriateness of the comparison is if you agree with the
> psycho-babblers about guns as phallus extenders. Otherwise writing it
> makes no sense.
>
> >P.S. Your disagreement with this doesn't "discredit" it. Your rather
rabid
> >reaction is like fodder for gun grabbers, however.
>
> controllers) that a gun is a phallus extender, not me.
Oh, I see now. Let me be clear. "Phallus extender" is just a phrase I use.
I didn't mean it literally. I could have as easily said "security blanket."
Firefighter/Paramedic types have this tendency to buy really big, fancy
trucks and dress them up with lots of chrome, lights and stuff. They then
spend hours around the station, detailing and waxing them, etc. So I tease
them about their "phallus extender" trucks making up for their short dicks.
There's a lot of kidding like that. So "phallus extender" just sort of
entered my slang vocabulary.
I DO NOT see guns as literal psycho-sexual "phallus extenders." I do think
a tiny fraction of gun owners were somehow neurotic anyway, and somehow
fastened on guns as a sort of talisman or palliative for their mental
distress or feelings of inadequacy. This isn't about the guns, if it didn't
happen to be guns, it surely would have been something else. I DO NOT think
any nutso psychological theory about gun ownership relating to sexual
inadequacy applies, except maybe to some tiny fraction of already mentally
ill people, if at all. I am convinced that, as a group, gun owners are
better adjusted, more responsible, and better citizens overall.
On the other side, I strongly suspect that many anti-gun folks have serious
mental problems that they then project onto guns and gun owners. Others are
just mis-informed or mis-guided.
Does that clear it up for you?
Jeff
Jeff McCann
> On Sat, 18 Oct 2003 06:09:51 GMT, "Jeff McCann" <NoS...@NoThanks.Com>
> wrote:
> >Does that clear it up for you?
>
> Pulling teeth would be easier.
Apparently you weren't understanding me any better than I was
understanding you. Your initial complaints seemed awfully vague and
general to me. Once we got down to the specifics of your objections, I
could answer specifically.
Jeff
Ray Keller
"Jeff McCann" <NoS...@NoThanks.Com> wrote in message
You keep claiming you want to confront me.
you come to me.
You need the address again?
Milepost 308.8 highway 288 Young, Az
just what I thought, a loudmouthed coward who thinks he sounds tough by
being rude and insulting to strangers while remaining out of reach.
--
Ray Keller
rayk...@theriver.com
http://personal.riverusers.com/~raykeller/
"You don't expect governments to obey the law because of some
higher moral development. You expect them to obey the law because
they know that if they don't, those who aren't shot will be hanged."
-Michael Shirley
Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other
terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American ...the
unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or
state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the
hands of the people.
-Tench Coxe, 20 Feb 1788
Gun Control: The theory that a woman found dead in an alley, raped and
strangled with her panty hose, is somehow morally superior to a
woman explaining to police how her attacker got that fatal bullet wound
I would prefer to live in a free society than
a drug free society - even if the latter could
actually be achieved.
Every man, woman, and responsible child has a natural,
fundamental, and inalienable human, individual and
Constitutional right (within the limits of the Non-Aggression
Principle) to obtain, own, and carry, openly or concealed, any
weapon -- handgun, shotgun, rifle, machinegun, anything
-- anytime, anywhere, without asking anyone's permission.
,
The Atlanta Declaration
-- L. Neil Smith
http://www.lneilsmith.com/
In truth, one who believes it wrong to arm himself against criminal
violence shows contempt of God's gift of life (or, in modern parlance,
does not properly value himself), does not live up to his responsibilities
to his family and community, and proclaims himself mentally and morally
deficient, because he does not trust himself to behave responsibly. In
truth, a state that deprives its law-abiding citizens of the means
to effectively defend themselves is not civilized but barbarous,
becoming an accomplice of murderers, rapists, and thugs and revealing
its totalitarian nature by its tacit admission that the disorganized,
random havoc created by criminals is far less a threat than are men and
women who believe themselves free and independent, and act accordingly.
- Jeffrey Snyder, "Nation of Cowards"
Ray Keller
"Jeff McCann" <NoS...@NoThanks.Com> wrote in message
Typical lawyer
Back pedeling and weaseling
Jeff McCann
I find it hilarious that you paraphrase the very words I used on a previous
occasion to describe you, to now describe me. Don't you EVER have an
original thought of your own, Ray?
The post below is just to set the record straight about how you started
hurling all the obscenities and insults at me personally, instead of
sticking more or less to the subject at hand. But perhaps I was too hard on
you, given your apparently quite limited capacity for self-expression? This
also shows how you refused to agree to the only lawful way I could think of
to settle this in the old-fashioned manner, knowing it would save your ass,
being as I'm such a "law-abiden' an' upstandin' citizen, an' all." You
turned down my challenge, and that makes you a coward in my book, Ray. I'm
sure you disagree, and I respect your right to do so. I'm open to
consideration of any lawful "alternative dispute resolution" you would care
to suggest. While I find it mildly amusing to insult you, I'd much rather
give you a chance to fully express yourself to me in a manner more
consistent with your limitations. Any ideas? We've got to come up with a
better way than, doubtless, boring everyone else here to tears. Whaddya
say?
Jeff
"Jeff McCann" <NoS...@noThanks.Com> wrote in message
news:JKlY9.2171$rq4.1...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>
> "Ray Keller" <rayk...@theriver.com> wrote in message
> news:b0sn03$fje$0...@206.25.50.85...
> >
> > "Jeff McCann" <NoS...@noThanks.Com> wrote in message
> > news:8JjY9.2035$rq4.1...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> > > "Jeff McCann" <NoS...@noThanks.Com> wrote in message news:...
> > > > "Ray Keller" <rayk...@theriver.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:b0s3ag$1na$0...@206.25.50.83...
> > > [snip] Because I want to allow my mother the opportunity to enjoy a
> > > dinner out, a movie, or a shopping trip, does that make me a bad
person?
> > > All I want is for my mother to have a decent life and enjoy the things
> > > she is still able to do. Is it unreasonable to expect businesses to
> > > comply
> > > with the law?
> > > > Unconstitutional BS
> > > Would it be wrong if I then sued on my mother's behalf after being
> > > unable to obtain reasonable compliance through lesser means?
> > >
> > > > Untill(sic) you accept and fight for the constitution as it was
written
> > > > your(sic) just another whore.
> > >
> > > Sorry, Ray. I missed your appointment to the Supreme Court. YOU
> > > are not the arbiter of the Constitution, what is constitutional, or
what
> > > the Constitution means "as written." See Article I, Section VIII. The
> > > law is, in fact constitutional.
> > >
> > > > Every citizen is "arbiter" of what is constitutional
> > > > Liar
> > >
> > > I also invite you to call me a whore to my face.
> > >
> > > > No problem
> > > > Like most lawyers you are a liar and whore trying to convince the
> > > > populis(sic) that only a member of the bar can determin(sic) what is
legal or
> > > > constitutional.
> > >
> > > OK. I'm located in Pensacola, FL, but I travel frequently. Where are
> > > you? I've had it with your type of ignorant, psychotic ranting. I'm
> > > ready for a little mutually voluntary physical training, so put up or
> > > shut up.
> > >
> > > Jeff
> > >
> > > Ok, Ray. My theory is that you are like many ignorant, half-wit
> > > blowhards on this NG, i.e., talking tough, and being generally rude,
> > > arrogant and insolent to your betters by typing away with one hand
while
> > > your other hand describes an endless loop between bag of Doritos, your
> > > mouth, and your crotch. So I'm willing to bet that you haven't got
the
> > > guts to say to my face what you write so easily from the safety of
your
> > > mother's basement.
> > >
> > > What I propose is that we pick us out a nice piece of remote desert,
and
> > > see if its really "no problem" for you to gratuitously insult me to my
> > > face, by means of a wholly voluntary and mutual exercise.
> > >
> > > Specifically, I propose that we mutually agree to the following:
> > >
> > > We meet freely and voluntarily for the sole and exclusive purpose of
> > > practicing, demonstrating and learning the art of unarmed
self-defense,
> > > which is certainly a skill of interest within our mutual interests as
> > > survivalists.
> > >
> > > No weapons or objects of any kind whatsoever, and no protective
> > > equipment.
> > >
> > > All parts of the body are legitimate strike zones, and all parts of
the
> > > body may be used to strike with.
> > >
> > > The match continues until one party signals a halt, or becomes
> > > incapacitated.
> > >
> > > No complaints, no regrets, no cops, no lawsuits. Each party is solely
> > > responsible for any and all consequences and agrees to hold the other
> > > party blameless.
> > >
> > > No gratuitous infliction of injury.
> > >
> > > The match, being strictly for training purposes, gets videotaped and
> > > posted to MS or any other use by either party with no further consent
or
> > > compensation required.
> > >
> > > How about it? Sound fair to you? The Nevada desert can be quite
lovely
> > > in early March
> > >
> > > Jeff
> > Bullshit
> > I have only one "rule" for combat
> > I win by whatever means necessary
>
> You really are a twinkie, Ray, aren't you? This is about an
> old-fashioned lesson in good manners, not criminal assault. Nice pose,
> though. Nonetheless, we have now established that you were completely
> full of BS when you wrote that you would have "no problem" insulting me
> to my face in the same manner you did from the safety of your mama's
> basement, hiding behind the anonymity of the internet. Having declined
> essentially the only voluntary and lawful available means to demonstrate
> that you actually possess the courage you attempt to portray, you have
> thereby proved that you are a coward. Take a good look in the mirror,
> Ray. Do you disgust yourself as much as you disgust me? You should.
>
> Jeff
Jeff McCann
> that certain steps might be necessary. For the thinking man this
> simply notes the exception to the rule. Yet you seem preoccupied
> with the exception. This is clear as you say one thing while your
> emotion indicates another.
Well, there may be some truth in that. Keep in mind that the greater
weight of my actual experience is the "exception" not the "rule." My
jobs are basically described as bringing order out of chaos. I get
involved when the exception happens. Somebody gets shot, I'm there as a
paramedic. Somebody screws up badly, or gets screwed over badly, I'm
there as a lawyer. Somebody gets hit with a terrorist attack, biohazard
emergency, or natural disaster, or the military gets overwhelming
casualties, I'm there with my medical team. Everybody knows the "rule,"
but I'm also well-acquainted with the "exception.
> You are being hoisted on your own pitard.
Funny, I don't feel hoisted. The reaction struck me as mostly emotional
knee-jerking and illogical outrage, with certain exceptions.
> Your references and descriptions are being thrown back at you
> because they reflect an attitude that is 180 degrees out of
> phase with your explanations,
I disagree. I think there was a little comprehension problem here,
though.
> and the values of the group. The
> dominant theme for this NG is resiliance, self-reliance,
> knowledge and the wisdom to apply these factors in a winning
> formula, to which the content and spirit of your 'prayer' runs
> counter.
Talk is cheap, but experience is expensive. I've seen the price come
due many times. What we all do here is talk. Some here talk a good
game, but their lack of real experience sometimes peeks through all
their fine talk, posturing, empty rhetoric and pretense of expertise, to
those in the know. I imagine its like a combat veteran listening to all
those armchair generals out there, pontificating on war with no actual
experience of it. You and I know that some armchair "survivalists" here
would never make it through a real emergency, despite all their blather.
> Of course a part of you knew when you posted it that it
> would rub most people the wrong way.
Um, nope. All of me knew that! ;-) Me, too-ism is sooo boring,
nothing, really, but a big circle jerk. You gotta have your
pre-conceptions and biases shaken up once in awhile, or you grow stale
and dull.
Jeff
Jeff McCann
> On Sat, 18 Oct 2003 05:00:08 GMT, "Jeff McCann"
> <NoS...@NoThanks.Com> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Robert Sturgeon" <rst...@inreach.com> wrote in message
> >news:fa61pv091dt310nk0...@4ax.com...
> >> On Sat, 18 Oct 2003 01:18:36 GMT, "Jeff McCann"
<NoS...@NoThanks.Com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> (snips)
> >>
> >> >The phrase "phallus extender" referred specifically to a person
who
> >> >displayed an inappropriate fixation and acute psychological need
to have
> >his
> >> >gun with him even under a grossly inappropriate circumstance, as
> >previously
> >> >defined. One can imagine such a person showering with a gun on or
making
> >> >love wearing nothing but his sweatsocks and a shoulder holster.
> >>
> >> There is where you betray your acceptance of the "liberal" theory
that
> >> gun owners see their guns as phallus extenders or substitutes.
> >
> >There you go again, overgeneralizing from a single word or phrase
into a
> >whole series of conclusions not justified by the actual facts.
>
> just twist it around and argue "actual facts" versus
> "facts".
>
>
> > I never made
> >a comment about gun owners generally as a group, only about gun
owners
> >exhibiting certain inappropriate behavior, a fact you consistently
ignore
> >for your own rhetorical purposes.
>
> what? All gun oweners are inappropriate, unless
> of course, they're licensed.
>
>
> > Either I have overestimated your
> >intelligence or you are being intentionally obtuse, I suppose.
>
>
> > What part of
> >"humorous reference" are you pretending not to grasp?
>
> just try a different tactic.
>
>
> > Or perhaps my
> >comments struck a little too close to home?
>
>
> > Do you feel nervous and
> >uncomfortable without a gun, even if there is no reasonable
possibility of
> >violent assault?
>
> without a gun. You're a sick individual.
>
>
> > I always have a seatbelt on in my car;
>
>
> > I feel
> >uncomfortable in a car seat without one, but I don't have a seatbelt
on the
> >recliner in my family room.
>
> what? I make a lot more money than you do. Ha!
>
>
> Yes, it comes through loud and clear. The implied accusation of
> of mental weakness and instability.
>
> Expensively well-trained and conditioned, the lawyer is
> permanently deformed in the "duck and weave" stance.
>
>
>
> >>It's a
> >> dead giveaway.
> >
> >Oh, I see. Talk about psycho-babble! You sure jump to a lot of
> >conclusions, don't you?
> >
> >> Did any of your irate gun-toting patients ever say
> >> anything that would lead you to believe they saw their guns as
phallus
> >> extenders? You know, like saying, "Don't touch my penis," when you
> >> were touching his gun instead?
> >
> >False literalism applied to this context is foolish, if not idiotic.
>
> for chrissakes! Have a little respect! Besides, you
> can't lay a glove on me and you're an idiot for trying.
>
>
> >if I say you have "shit for brains," I don't mean you literally have
excrement
> >in your cranium.
>
> Translation: I really do but I need to pacify you gorts.
>
>
> >> If not, it is your own
> >> pseudo-psycho-babble diagnosis. And it says more about you than
about
> >> your (inappropriately) armed patients.
> >>
> >> No sane person would object to your disarming of patients in your
> >> ambulance. The big question mark is - why do you assume that an
armed
> >> patient uses his gun as a phallus extender??? THAT is what
discredits
> >> your explanation.
> >
> >Not literally, and you know it.
>
>
>
> > You are just being persnickity for the heck
> >of it. Like "shit for brains" meant stupid, "phallus extender"
meant
> >unreasonable attachment to one's gun for other than defensive
reasons.
>
>
>
> >P.S. Your disagreement with this doesn't "discredit" it. Your
rather rabid
> >reaction is like fodder for gun grabbers, however.
>
> should only be available to us professionals. You deign to
> disagree? It doesn't matter. As a god I don't answer to
> mere humans.
>
>
> >Jeff
>
> Once again the wisdom of the common law jury lays waste the
> technocratic and egocentric ramblings of the lawyer.
>
> "Give me a premise and I will deduce a world." Words have
> meaning, and value. Particularly when said words and phrases
> form a theme. And when this theme is opposed to the values of the
> jury, the jury just might conclude that the defendant is
> dissembling.
Gee, Strabo, thanks for "translating" for me. But I can handle it,
really. I'll just speak for myself, thanks!
Jeff
Jeff McCann
> On Sat, 18 Oct 2003 06:09:51 GMT, "Jeff McCann"
> my wifey calls my car that all the time.
>
> Uh, oh. They're really pushing this phallus thing.
> I'm gonna need to twist it around a bit...
>
> >I didn't mean it literally.
>
> lengtheners but the gun really works! What a turn-on!!!
>
>
> > I could have as easily said "security blanket."
>
>
>
> >Firefighter/Paramedic types have this tendency to buy really big,
fancy
> >trucks and dress them up with lots of chrome, lights and stuff. They
then
> >spend hours around the station, detailing and waxing them, etc. So I
tease
> >them about their "phallus extender" trucks making up for their short
dicks.
>
> evil! That's why I've got to take yours away.
>
>
> >There's a lot of kidding like that. So "phallus extender" just sort
of
> >entered my slang vocabulary.
>
> Now, they've got big phallus extenders AND a badge.
> Sometime I get to talk to them. Wow!
>
> Durn! I'm a lawyer. I oughta be able to wear, er ah,
> have a phallus extender. Why can't lawyers have badges
> too?
>
>
> >I DO NOT see guns as literal psycho-sexual "phallus extenders."
>
> extenders. But you shouldn't have one. You're not a
> professional.
>
>
> >I do think
> >a tiny fraction of gun owners were somehow neurotic anyway, and
somehow
> >fastened on guns as a sort of talisman or palliative for their mental
> >distress or feelings of inadequacy.
>
> mean, they're not professionals!
>
> Anyway, guns are a great talisman and palliatives to
> alleviate our mental distress and feelings of inadequacy.
>
>
> > This isn't about the guns,
>
>
> > if it didn't
> >happen to be guns, it surely would have been something else.
>
> what would the other professionals think? So guns are a
> good substitute.
>
> > I DO NOT think
> >any nutso psychological theory about gun ownership relating to sexual
> >inadequacy applies, except maybe to some tiny fraction of already
mentally
> >ill people, if at all.
>
>
>
> > I am convinced that, as a group, gun owners are
> >better adjusted, more responsible, and better citizens overall.
>
>
>
> >On the other side, I strongly suspect that many anti-gun folks have
serious
> >mental problems that they then project onto guns and gun owners.
Others are
> >just mis-informed or mis-guided.
>
> serious mental problems that they then project onto guns and
> gun owners. Others are just mis-informed or mis-guided.
>
>
>
>
> >Does that clear it up for you?
>
You really seem hung up on this "professional" thing. If, in your world
view Professional = Bad and Common Man = Good, I suggest you bypass real
doctors, for example, and have your next surgery performed by any of
those commom men who go around doing surgery in their garages. I can
give you a few names. You also seem to forget, that in most every
aspect of their lives except one, professionals are merely common men.
Jeff McCann
> On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 15:59:16 GMT, "Jeff McCann"
> repsonse so I'll throw out some Latin mumbo jumbo to
> impress everyone.
I'm not very impressed by you, Strabo, but I'm sure you like to think I
am. Just because you are ignorant of something doesn't make it "mumbo
jumbo." All knowledge and wisdom begins and ends with you, huh? I see
the universe still revolves around your navel. You do know what
"myopia" means, don't you?
> Translation: They won't let me into the ER but I sure wish
> you were covered with anthrax spores.
>
>
> >> You will say its the law but since you claim to be pro but
> >> act anti, I think its a personal control issue. You place
> >> yourself in positions of institutional authority, like law or
> >> licensed life-saver, in order to
> >
> >I actually am in a position of institutional responsibility, and
conduct
> >myself accordingly. I refuse to toe the Politically Correct party
line you
> >are attempting to dictate for me. Get over it.
>
> Translation: I'm a professional and have superior motives. So,
> I'll pervert the use of the term "politically correct" and
> try to divert and confuse you.
Most people aren't so simple minded or doctrinaire that they can't see
the political correctness cuts both ways. At least you get an "A" for
consistency.
Jeff
Jeff McCann
> repsonse so I'll throw out some Latin mumbo jumbo to
> impress everyone.
I'm not very impressed by you, Strabo, but I'm sure you like to think I
that I am, and I can tell that you are pretty impressed with yourself.
By the way, just because you are ignorant of something doesn't make it
"mumbo jumbo." All knowledge and wisdom begins and ends with you, huh?
I see that you still think the Universe revolves around your navel. You
do know what "myopia" means, don't you?
> >> From ambulance to airplane to anywhere. The principle of
> Translation: They won't let me into the ER but I sure wish
> you were covered with anthrax spores.
>
>
> >> You will say its the law but since you claim to be pro but
> >> act anti, I think its a personal control issue. You place
> >> yourself in positions of institutional authority, like law or
> >> licensed life-saver, in order to
> >
> >I actually am in a position of institutional responsibility, and
conduct
> >myself accordingly. I refuse to toe the Politically Correct party
line you
> >are attempting to dictate for me. Get over it.
>
> Translation: I'm a professional and have superior motives. So,
> I'll pervert the use of the term "politically correct" and
> try to divert and confuse you.
Most people aren't so simple minded or doctrinaire* that they can't see
that political correctness cuts both ways. At least you get an "A" for
consistency.
Jeff
* Just so you know it's not "mumbo jumbo":
\Doc`tri*naire"\, n. [F. See {Doctrine}.]
One who would apply to political or other practical concerns
the abstract doctrines or the theories of his own
philosophical system.
Gunner
Well said!
Gunner
"You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle
behind each blade of grass." --Japanese Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto
Gunner
wrote:
>The phrase "phallus extender" referred specifically to a person who
>displayed an inappropriate fixation and acute psychological need to have his
>gun with him even under a grossly inappropriate circumstance, as previously
>defined. One can imagine such a person showering with a gun on or making
>love wearing nothing but his sweatsocks and a shoulder holster.
Hummmm does that mean I should remove my socks and ankle holster
before dipping the wick?
Really?
Damn.
Ill try to remember next time.
On the subject of being armed in an ambulance as a wounded patient, I
can only speak from personal experience. On the several times I was in
the wrong place at the wrong time, people were attempting quite
seriously, in mass, to kill me, and at that point..were making a
pretty good job of it. My mindset was such that there was NO way I was
going to give up a perfectly good weapon, in case they were going to
try again, particularly in light of my diminished physical condition.
This is a survival mindset. Period. Now..granted it may not be
reasonable under civilian circumstances, particulary if the bad guy(s)
are hor du combat, or have split. " If they are not dead..they might
come back and finish the job"... a very traumatic mindset can be
involved. Most of the time, my weapon was only removed from me, by the
application of several syrettes of mophine simultainiously. And then
they had to struggle to peel my fingers off my weapon, or so I was
told.
So Jeff, while I dont know the details of your particular horror
story, just keep in mind, the injured individuals back brain may still
be in control, when making a decision about the "quality" of that
individual. And yes, taking the weapon away from him is the best thing
under most circumstances. I once did it by telling him "my weapon was
busted and I needed his to keep us both alive, Id cover him". Worked.
Shrug, YMMV
Gunner
wrote:
>
>Oh, I see now. Let me be clear. "Phallus extender" is just a phrase I use.
>I didn't mean it literally. I could have as easily said "security blanket."
Jeff..words mean something. You either had a Freudian slip moment, or
committed a brain fart, because you hit about 4 different hot buttons
by your words, whether you ment them literally or not.
If I told you your wife was a good fuck and complimented you on your
choice, Im sure it would hit a hot button or 3. Even if I had never
had carnal relations with her.
So dont be surprised if you get a bit of feedback if you choose to
parrot the words of our arch enemies.
Jeff McCann
news:kpe3pvoekdbd0mlfo...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 18 Oct 2003 01:18:36 GMT, "Jeff McCann" <NoS...@NoThanks.Com>
> wrote:
>
> >The phrase "phallus extender" referred specifically to a person who
> >displayed an inappropriate fixation and acute psychological need to
have his
> >gun with him even under a grossly inappropriate circumstance, as
previously
> >defined. One can imagine such a person showering with a gun on or
making
> >love wearing nothing but his sweatsocks and a shoulder holster.
>
> Hummmm does that mean I should remove my socks and ankle holster
> before dipping the wick?
>
> Really?
>
> Damn.
>
> Ill try to remember next time.
Doesn't it depend on the gal, in two ways? First, is she packin' too,
and are you getting the job done right for her? Second, does the
hardware (or the sweatsocks???) turn her on?
> On the subject of being armed in an ambulance as a wounded patient, I
> can only speak from personal experience. On the several times I was in
> the wrong place at the wrong time, people were attempting quite
> seriously, in mass, to kill me, and at that point..were making a
> pretty good job of it. My mindset was such that there was NO way I was
> going to give up a perfectly good weapon, in case they were going to
> try again, particularly in light of my diminished physical condition.
Exception to the exception to the rule? OK. I can imagine getting
suckered into a still-evolving violent situation where I wouldn't want
to disarm the patient, for much the same reasons. Heck, I might even
ask if he had a backup for me to use, seeing as how I'm not allowed to
carry on the truck, and I, of course, would never, ever, consider
violating that rule.
> This is a survival mindset. Period. Now..granted it may not be
> reasonable under civilian circumstances, particulary if the bad guy(s)
> are hor du combat, or have split. " If they are not dead..they might
> come back and finish the job"... a very traumatic mindset can be
> involved.
And a realistic one, too. The unstated premise is that the ambo doesn't
go in until the scene is declared secure. You never really know,
though. Our local gendarmes respond with us on most calls, as a matter
of routine.
> Most of the time, my weapon was only removed from me, by the
> application of several syrettes of mophine simultainiously. And then
> they had to struggle to peel my fingers off my weapon, or so I was
> told.
>
> So Jeff, while I dont know the details of your particular horror
> story,
That would be stories, plural. It's been a long career. [Sigh]
> just keep in mind, the injured individuals back brain may still
> be in control, when making a decision about the "quality" of that
> individual. And yes, taking the weapon away from him is the best thing
> under most circumstances. I once did it by telling him "my weapon was
> busted and I needed his to keep us both alive, Id cover him". Worked.
> Shrug, YMMV
The future may not only be stranger than you imagine, it may be stranger
than you CAN imagine. Every situation is unique, and life has a nasty
habit of throwing curveballs. So there are very few hard and fast rules
you can rely on. You can only be prepared, aware, and flexible.
Jeff
Jeff McCann
> On Sat, 18 Oct 2003 06:09:51 GMT, "Jeff McCann" <NoS...@NoThanks.Com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >Oh, I see now. Let me be clear. "Phallus extender" is just a phrase
I use.
> >I didn't mean it literally. I could have as easily said "security
blanket."
>
> Jeff..words mean something. You either had a Freudian slip moment, or
> committed a brain fart, because you hit about 4 different hot buttons
> by your words, whether you ment them literally or not.
I agree with that.
Quoting my own earlier post:
"Now, if they'd said that I'd made a poor choice of words in expressing
my thoughts, or that I was rude, offensive, or didn't convey my meaning
properly, that would have been different. I might have agreed with
that, apologized, [as you just did] explained and moved on. Instead,
they wrote things like, "LIAR," "duplicitous," "elitist," "you're a
typical Democrat lawyer, which strongly suggests that you support all
(or at least most of) the illiberal gun control laws," and "whore."
This stuff is barely even rational, let alone justified by a simple word
or phrase taken out of context. And we
wonder why they call us gun "nuts"? I certainly hope they manage more
proportionality and circumspection with guns than they do with words."
> If I told you your wife was a good fuck and complimented you on your
> choice, Im sure it would hit a hot button or 3. Even if I had never
> had carnal relations with her.
>
> So dont be surprised if you get a bit of feedback if you choose to
> parrot the words of our arch enemies.
Point taken, and filed for future reference. Things must be going a
little better for you now, eh? I was looking forward to your input, but
I thought you might join in the slammage. Your fire seems to have
settled down some. Anyway, I hope so.
Jeff
Ray Keller
"Jeff McCann" <NoS...@NoThanks.Com> wrote in message
I say you are a overeducated blowhard punk.
If you realy want to try me you know where I'm at.
snip
You think I'm stupid enough to trust a scumbag lawyer???
Vidiotape evidence of assault? your stupider than you think I am
> > > >
> > > > How about it? Sound fair to you? The Nevada desert can be quite
> lovely
> > > > in early March
> > > >
> > > > Jeff
> > > Bullshit
> > > I have only one "rule" for combat
> > > I win by whatever means necessary
> >
> > You really are a twinkie, Ray, aren't you? This is about an
> > old-fashioned lesson in good manners, not criminal assault. Nice pose,
> > though. Nonetheless, we have now established that you were completely
> > full of BS when you wrote that you would have "no problem" insulting me
> > to my face in the same manner you did from the safety of your mama's
> > basement, hiding behind the anonymity of the internet. Having declined
> > essentially the only voluntary and lawful available means to demonstrate
> > that you actually possess the courage you attempt to portray, you have
> > thereby proved that you are a coward. Take a good look in the mirror,
> > Ray. Do you disgust yourself as much as you disgust me? You should.
> >
> > Jeff
>
>
Come on over and I will tell you what I think of you and lawyers in general
at great length.
Take swing at me and you will either be arrested for assault or shot
depending on circumstances.
Ray Keller
> On Sat, 18 Oct 2003 05:00:08 GMT, "Jeff McCann"
> <NoS...@NoThanks.Com> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Robert Sturgeon" <rst...@inreach.com> wrote in message
> >news:fa61pv091dt310nk0...@4ax.com...
> >> On Sat, 18 Oct 2003 01:18:36 GMT, "Jeff McCann" <NoS...@NoThanks.Com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> (snips)
> >>
> >> >The phrase "phallus extender" referred specifically to a person who
> >> >displayed an inappropriate fixation and acute psychological need to
have
> >his
> >> >gun with him even under a grossly inappropriate circumstance, as
> >previously
> >> >defined. One can imagine such a person showering with a gun on or
making
> >> >love wearing nothing but his sweatsocks and a shoulder holster.
> >>
> >> There is where you betray your acceptance of the "liberal" theory that
> >> gun owners see their guns as phallus extenders or substitutes.
> >
> >There you go again, overgeneralizing from a single word or phrase into a
> >whole series of conclusions not justified by the actual facts.
>
> just twist it around and argue "actual facts" versus
> "facts".
>
>
> >a comment about gun owners generally as a group, only about gun owners
> >exhibiting certain inappropriate behavior, a fact you consistently ignore
> >for your own rhetorical purposes.
>
> what? All gun oweners are inappropriate, unless
> of course, they're licensed.
>
>
> >intelligence or you are being intentionally obtuse, I suppose.
>
>
> >"humorous reference" are you pretending not to grasp?
>
> just try a different tactic.
>
>
> >comments struck a little too close to home?
>
>
> >uncomfortable without a gun, even if there is no reasonable possibility
of
> >violent assault?
>
> without a gun. You're a sick individual.
>
>
>
>
> >uncomfortable in a car seat without one, but I don't have a seatbelt on
the
> >recliner in my family room.
>
> what? I make a lot more money than you do. Ha!
>
>
> Yes, it comes through loud and clear. The implied accusation of
> of mental weakness and instability.
>
> Expensively well-trained and conditioned, the lawyer is
> permanently deformed in the "duck and weave" stance.
>
>
>
> >> dead giveaway.
> >
> >Oh, I see. Talk about psycho-babble! You sure jump to a lot of
> >conclusions, don't you?
> >
> >> Did any of your irate gun-toting patients ever say
> >> anything that would lead you to believe they saw their guns as phallus
> >> extenders? You know, like saying, "Don't touch my penis," when you
> >> were touching his gun instead?
> >
> >False literalism applied to this context is foolish, if not idiotic.
>
> for chrissakes! Have a little respect! Besides, you
> can't lay a glove on me and you're an idiot for trying.
>
>
excrement
> >in your cranium.
>
> Translation: I really do but I need to pacify you gorts.
>
>
> >> pseudo-psycho-babble diagnosis. And it says more about you than about
> >> your (inappropriately) armed patients.
> >>
> >> No sane person would object to your disarming of patients in your
> >> ambulance. The big question mark is - why do you assume that an armed
> >> patient uses his gun as a phallus extender??? THAT is what discredits
> >> your explanation.
> >
> >Not literally, and you know it.
>
>
>
> >of it. Like "shit for brains" meant stupid, "phallus extender" meant
> >unreasonable attachment to one's gun for other than defensive reasons.
>
>
>
rabid
> >reaction is like fodder for gun grabbers, however.
>
> should only be available to us professionals. You deign to
> disagree? It doesn't matter. As a god I don't answer to
> mere humans.
>
>
> >Jeff
>
> Once again the wisdom of the common law jury lays waste the
> technocratic and egocentric ramblings of the lawyer.
>
> "Give me a premise and I will deduce a world." Words have
> meaning, and value. Particularly when said words and phrases
> form a theme. And when this theme is opposed to the values of the
> jury, the jury just might conclude that the defendant is
> dissembling.
>
>
Well said!
Gunner
wrote:
Hell Jeff, I take you and most individuals in the aggregate, not in
the single instance. You are a bit left of the rest of us..way left in
some regards, but you are a straight arrow for the large part. and one
never has to wonder where you stand on an issue. You share enough of
my ideas, that the few you have off in bizzaro la la land can mostly
be over looked <G>
I figure you would do to ride the river with, and thats good enough
for me.
Jeff McCann
Boy, you really are either dense or marginally literate, aren't you,
Ray? What part of "mutually agree . . . freely and voluntary" did you
not understand?
Is that all you want? I have a toll free phone number. would you like
to tell me at my expense? I don't doubt that you can speak much more
articulately than you can write. Let me know and I'll set it up. All I
ask in return is that you confine your future posts to the actual
contents of what I write.
> Take swing at me and you will either be arrested for assault or shot
> depending on circumstances.
Ray, you know, and are relying upon, the fact that I would never take a
swing at you except with your consent or in self defense. Actually, I
was volunteering more or less to let you take a free swing at me, or
several, which you declined. End of story. Now here's a free legal
tip: you better not shoot anybody just for taking a swing at you. I am
no threat to you whatsoever, except by what I write here. Regardless of
what I think about you as a man, you are still a human being, and I
don't harm people without good reason. If I found you hurt or in need,
I would try to help you if you let me. I would even give you free legal
advice if you were in a jam, just because I know you from here on M.S.
(not that you would ever ask a scumbag lawyer, especially me, for
advice)
Jeff
Jeff McCann
Ray Keller
"Jeff McCann" <NoS...@NoThanks.Com> wrote in message
> >
> > You think I'm stupid enough to trust a scumbag lawyer???
> >
> > Vidiotape evidence of assault? your stupider than you think I am
>
> Boy, you really are either dense or marginally literate, aren't you,
> Ray? What part of "mutually agree . . . freely and voluntary" did you
> not understand?
>
I understand "mutually agree . . . freely and voluntary" perfectly.
Many bar parkinglot fights are mutually agreed . . . free and voluntary,
dosn't bother the arresting officer one bit.
snip
> > >
> > Come on over and I will tell you what I think of you and lawyers in
> general
> > at great length.
>
> Is that all you want? I have a toll free phone number. would you like
> to tell me at my expense? I don't doubt that you can speak much more
> articulately than you can write. Let me know and I'll set it up. All I
> ask in return is that you confine your future posts to the actual
> contents of what I write.
>
Hmmm.... 1st amendment.
I will post as I damn well please!
This includes exposing you publicly for the elitest scum you are.
> > Take swing at me and you will either be arrested for assault or shot
> > depending on circumstances.
>
> Ray, you know, and are relying upon, the fact that I would never take a
> swing at you except with your consent or in self defense. Actually, I
> was volunteering more or less to let you take a free swing at me, or
> several, which you declined. End of story. Now here's a free legal
> tip: you better not shoot anybody just for taking a swing at you. I am
> no threat to you whatsoever, except by what I write here. Regardless of
> what I think about you as a man, you are still a human being, and I
> don't harm people without good reason. If I found you hurt or in need,
> I would try to help you if you let me. I would even give you free legal
> advice if you were in a jam, just because I know you from here on M.S.
> (not that you would ever ask a scumbag lawyer, especially me, for
> advice)
>
> Jeff
>
>
Snicker
Back pedaling weaseling and ass covering
I took your original "invitation" for exactly what it was...A carefuly
worded threat -meet me in the street and I'l kick your ass- worded to legaly
to cover your ass.
Jeff McCann
>
> "Jeff McCann" <NoS...@NoThanks.Com> wrote in message
> news:69wkb.184515$0v4.14...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> > "Ray Keller" <rayk...@theriver.com> wrote in message
> > news:bmsure$25u$0...@206.25.50.88...
> > >
> snip
> > >
> > > You think I'm stupid enough to trust a scumbag lawyer???
> > >
> > > Vidiotape evidence of assault? your stupider than you think I am
> >
> > Boy, you really are either dense or marginally literate, aren't
you,
> > Ray? What part of "mutually agree . . . freely and voluntary" did
you
> > not understand?
> >
> Trying to lie by omission???.....You are a miserable failure.
> I understand "mutually agree . . . freely and voluntary" perfectly.
> Many bar parkinglot fights are mutually agreed . . . free and
voluntary,
> dosn't bother the arresting officer one bit.
There is some difference between two drunks in a streetside parking lot
and two individuals out in the desert, all by themselves, engaging in a
gentlemanly training session in unarmed combative techniques, complete
with rules for the match, for educational purposes, and a video camera
so the results can be viewed and studied by other parties. Does
everything that is the least bit complex escape you entirely?
> snip
> > > >
> > > Come on over and I will tell you what I think of you and lawyers
in
> > general
> > > at great length.
> >
> > Is that all you want? I have a toll free phone number. would you
like
> > to tell me at my expense? I don't doubt that you can speak much
more
> > articulately than you can write. Let me know and I'll set it up.
All I
> > ask in return is that you confine your future posts to the actual
> > contents of what I write.
> >
>
>
> Hmmm.... 1st amendment.
> I will post as I damn well please!
I'm sure you will. You don't comprehend the nature of an agreement any
better than you understand anything else. Let me break it down for you.
I agree to give you the opportunity to tell me "what [you] think of [me]
and lawyers in general" at my expense, and, in return, you agree to
limit your exercise your "1st [A]mendment" right to "post as [you] damn
well please." You are just about as slow as you can be.
> This includes exposing you publicly for the elitest scum you are.
Translation: "Everyone who isn't a simpleton like me is an elitist"
Sure, say whatever you want. But don't imagine many others take you
any more seriously than I do. Folks can draw their own conclusions
without your "help" . . . about both of us.
Ray, with your limited abilities, there is no telling how you will take
anything. But you are right about one thing, I do tend to obey the law,
except for an unfortunate lead foot or a real emergency. So I do like
to "legaly(sic) cover" my ass. And keep in mind, my proposal covers
your ass, too. Yet you have again declined an opportunity to match your
words with deeds, with complete impunity. What does THAT say about you,
Ray? Hmmm.
Jeff
Ray Keller
"Jeff McCann" <NoS...@NoThanks.Com> wrote in message
Shure there is....not
>
> > snip
> > > > >
> > > > Come on over and I will tell you what I think of you and lawyers
> in
> > > general
> > > > at great length.
> > >
> > > Is that all you want? I have a toll free phone number. would you
> like
> > > to tell me at my expense? I don't doubt that you can speak much
> more
> > > articulately than you can write. Let me know and I'll set it up.
> All I
> > > ask in return is that you confine your future posts to the actual
> > > contents of what I write.
> > >
> >
> >
> > Hmmm.... 1st amendment.
> > I will post as I damn well please!
>
> I'm sure you will. You don't comprehend the nature of an agreement any
> better than you understand anything else. Let me break it down for you.
> I agree to give you the opportunity to tell me "what [you] think of [me]
> and lawyers in general" at my expense, and, in return, you agree to
> limit your exercise your "1st [A]mendment" right to "post as [you] damn
> well please." You are just about as slow as you can be.
Your terms??? snicker..coff...gasp..sputter..ROTFLMAO
Now why would I make an agreement againts my interests????
>
> > This includes exposing you publicly for the elitest scum you are.
>
> Translation: "Everyone who isn't a simpleton like me is an elitist"
Translation: Damn, I can't sucker him
>
> Sure, say whatever you want. But don't imagine many others take you
> any more seriously than I do. Folks can draw their own conclusions
> without your "help" . . . about both of us.
>
They will anyway...Thats why I will keep this in a public forum.
How serious do you think they are going to take you?
Or the ocasional criminal asault?
Most criminals "tend to obey the law" except for thier prefered criminal
activity.
BTW I see no denial here so I can only conclude I am correct (-meet me in
the street and I'l kick your ass- )
> So I do like to "legaly(sic) cover" my ass.
> And keep in mind, my proposal covers
> your ass, too.
Liar
> Yet you have again declined an opportunity to match your
> words with deeds, with complete impunity. What does THAT say about you,
> Ray? Hmmm.
It says I'm smart enough not to agree to your terms....and that realy grates
on you, doesent it.
If you want a piece of me your going to hafta come to me.
Just in case you'r too dense to understand: I don't "decline" to meet
you...on my terms.
Your the one that wants to kick my ass...Why should I let you do it on your
terms to my disadvantage?
What does THAT say about you,
> Jeff? Hmmm.
Jeff McCann
That would be up to them. The opinions of some matter to me more than
others, and yours matters to me not at all.
Nope. I know you're running scared, but I have already assured you
that you have nothing to fear from me.
> Most criminals "tend to obey the law" except for thier prefered
criminal
> activity.
Actually, you're right, for once, and I agree with you completely.
Congratulations!
> BTW I see no denial here so I can only conclude I am correct (-meet me
in
> the street and I'l kick your ass- )
>
> > So I do like to "legaly(sic) cover" my ass.
>
> > And keep in mind, my proposal covers
> > your ass, too.
>
> Liar
Talk is cheap, Ray. Where's the lie?
> > Yet you have again declined an opportunity to match your
> > words with deeds, with complete impunity. What does THAT say about
you,
> > Ray? Hmmm.
> It says I'm smart enough not to agree to your terms....and that realy
grates
> on you, doesent it.
You drastically overestimate your importance to me, Ray. My terms were
eminently fair, equal and lawful; they conveyed no advantage to either
party, which is the most likely reason you've repeatedly declined them.
Cowards don't operate that way. I stand ready to consider any other
alternative you'd care to propose, since you also declined the only
alternative you suggested, citing specifically your 1st Amendment rights
(What!? Not a Natural Right? Shame on you, Ray)
The root of your problem, it seems to me, is that I show a degree of
respect to others who disagree with me, but not you. "and that
realy(sic) grates on you, doesent(sic) it"? But that is because you
just aren't in their class, Ray. Even if they disagree with me, they
often make points worth considering, and display often impressive
reasoning ability that I can learn something valuable from. Your
"contributions" amount to little more than an inarticulate grunt, in
comparison.
> If you want a piece of me your going to hafta come to me.
> Just in case you'r too dense to understand: I don't "decline" to meet
> you...on my terms.
> Your the one that wants to kick my ass...Why should I let you do it on
your
> terms to my disadvantage?
Ray, You're the one who started all this. If I met you on the street, I
wouldn't touch you. I might even buy you a beer, just for the amusement.
I know you are running scared, but I have no particular desire to kick
your ass, and I don't even know if I can. But, unlike you, I'm willing
to risk finding out. I just wanted to see if you were man enough to
back up your words with deeds, and the record has established that,
indeed, you are not man enough. If all you are going to do is use
words, then you should try to be better at it, though. Now, what,
specifically, about my terms do you think puts you at a disadvantage?
Their fairness? Face it, you are marked for the coward you are, by your
own words and (lack of) deeds.
> What does THAT say about you,
> > Jeff? Hmmm.
Oh, I don't know. Maybe that I've already wasted too much time on a
cowardly little worm?
Jeff
Sue
wrote:
>"Ray Keller" <rayk...@theriver.com> wrote in message
>news:bmuh6c$lfl$0...@206.25.50.84...
>>
>> "Jeff McCann" <NoS...@NoThanks.Com> wrote in message
>> news:69wkb.184515$0v4.14...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>> This includes exposing you publicly for the elitest scum you are.
>
>Translation: "Everyone who isn't a simpleton like me is an elitist"
>
>Sure, say whatever you want. But don't imagine many others take you
>any more seriously than I do. Folks can draw their own conclusions
>without your "help" . . . about both of us.
My conclusion about Mr. Keller was that he deserved killfiling awhile
back. You might think about that. <G>
Sue
Jeff McCann
news:nj96pvgf35ssgba86...@4ax.com...
Nah. I'm still having a little fun with him, but he's getting pretty
close to boring now, so I think he'll be in there soon. Plus, I've been
pretty hard on the boy, so he deserves a chance to shoot back, too,
don't you think?
Jeff
Sue
wrote:
>"Sue" <seb...@thegrid.net> wrote in message
>news:nj96pvgf35ssgba86...@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 22:00:50 GMT, "Jeff McCann" <NoS...@NoThanks.Com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >"Ray Keller" <rayk...@theriver.com> wrote in message
>> >news:bmuh6c$lfl$0...@206.25.50.84...
>> >>
>> >> "Jeff McCann" <NoS...@NoThanks.Com> wrote in message
>> >>
>news:69wkb.184515$0v4.14...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>>
>> >> This includes exposing you publicly for the elitest scum you are.
>> >
>> >Translation: "Everyone who isn't a simpleton like me is an elitist"
>> >
>> >Sure, say whatever you want. But don't imagine many others take you
>> >any more seriously than I do. Folks can draw their own conclusions
>> >without your "help" . . . about both of us.
>>
>> My conclusion about Mr. Keller was that he deserved killfiling awhile
>> back. You might think about that. <G>
>> Sue
>
>Nah. I'm still having a little fun with him, but he's getting pretty
>close to boring now, so I think he'll be in there soon. Plus, I've been
>pretty hard on the boy, so he deserves a chance to shoot back, too,
>don't you think?
Chuckle. Your choice. I know it can be fun. I had fun with that
don there for awhile but he got exceedingly boring and inane so he
just had to go. ;o) Mr. Keller, on the other hand, I found to be
absolutely vicious in his attacks (and repetitive, too).
You're doing quite well. If the meet takes place let me know when and
where but I'm not offering to be anyone's second. ;o)
Sue
>
>Jeff
>
Ray Keller
"Jeff McCann" <NoS...@NoThanks.Com> wrote in message
Snicker...You think yours matters to me? snicker
I'm laughing to hard to run!
but I have already assured you
> that you have nothing to fear from me.
> > Most criminals "tend to obey the law" except for thier prefered
> criminal
> > activity.
>
> Actually, you're right, for once, and I agree with you completely.
> Congratulations!
>
> > BTW I see no denial here so I can only conclude I am correct (-meet me
> in
> > the street and I'l kick your ass- )
> >
> > > So I do like to "legaly(sic) cover" my ass.
> >
> > > And keep in mind, my proposal covers
> > > your ass, too.
> >
> > Liar
>
> Talk is cheap, Ray. Where's the lie?
The lie is the implication that a mutual assault is legal outside a
sanctioned sporting event.
>
> > > Yet you have again declined an opportunity to match your
> > > words with deeds, with complete impunity. What does THAT say about
> you,
> > > Ray? Hmmm.
> > It says I'm smart enough not to agree to your terms....and that realy
> grates
> > on you, doesent it.
>
> You drastically overestimate your importance to me, Ray. My terms were
> eminently fair, equal and lawful; they conveyed no advantage to either
> party, which is the most likely reason you've repeatedly declined them.
> Cowards don't operate that way.
> I stand ready to consider any other
> alternative you'd care to propose, since you also declined the only
> alternative you suggested, citing specifically your 1st Amendment rights
> (What!? Not a Natural Right? Shame on you, Ray)
>
I suggested?
Ben robbing the ambulance drug box again?
I pity your clients!
Copy from above:
I agree to give you the opportunity to tell me "what [you] think of
[me]
and lawyers in general" at my expense, and, in return, you agree to
limit your exercise your "1st [A]mendment" right to "post as [you]
damn well please."
Copy from below:
If you want a piece of me your going to hafta come to me.
Just in case you'r too dense to understand: I don't "decline" to meet
you...on my terms.
Damn...Looks like your a liar again
> The root of your problem, it seems to me, is that I show a degree of
> respect to others who disagree with me, but not you. "and that
> realy(sic) grates on you, doesent(sic) it"? But that is because you
> just aren't in their class, Ray. Even if they disagree with me, they
> often make points worth considering, and display often impressive
> reasoning ability that I can learn something valuable from. Your
> "contributions" amount to little more than an inarticulate grunt, in
> comparison.
Thats all thats needed to show you for the lying idiot you are
>
> > If you want a piece of me your going to hafta come to me.
> > Just in case you'r too dense to understand: I don't "decline" to meet
> > you...on my terms.
>
> > Your the one that wants to kick my ass...Why should I let you do it on
> your
> > terms to my disadvantage?
>
> Ray, You're the one who started all this.
Who issued the invitation to combat???
Looks like you are a liar again.
>If I met you on the street, I
> wouldn't touch you.
Yup...too many witnesses
>I might even buy you a beer, just for the amusement.
> I know you are running scared,
Snicker
>but I have no particular desire to kick
> your ass,
Then why flap your gums about It?
>and I don't even know if I can. But, unlike you, I'm willing
> to risk finding out.
No your not...
> I just wanted to see if you were man enough to
> back up your words with deeds,
You dont have the balls to find out...You are just going to sit in your
mama's basement
with your hands making the round between your crotch, your mouth,the
keyboard and the dirito's bag.
> and the record has established that,
> indeed, you are not man enough.
And the record has established all your going to do is flap your gums
>If all you are going to do is use
> words, then you should try to be better at it, though.
I'm good enough to expose you for the liar you are.
Jeff McCann
>
> "Jeff McCann" <NoS...@NoThanks.Com> wrote in message
you,
> > Ray? What part of "mutually agree . . . freely and voluntary" did
> > you not understand?
> Trying to lie by omission???.....You are a miserable failure.
> I understand "mutually agree . . . freely and voluntary"
> perfectly.
> Many bar parkinglot fights are mutually agreed . . . free and
> voluntary, dosn't bother the arresting officer one bit.
> >There is some difference between two drunks in a streetside parking
> > lot and two individuals out in the desert, all by themselves,
engaging
> > in a gentlemanly training session in unarmed combative techniques,
> > complete with rules for the match, for educational purposes, and a
video
> > camera so the results can be viewed and studied by other parties.
Does
> > everything that is the least bit complex escape you entirely?
> Shure there is....not
[snip]
> > > > > Hmmm.... 1st amendment.
> > > > > I will post as I damn well please!
[snip]
> > > > > This includes exposing you publicly for the elitest scum you
are.
> > > >
> > > > Translation: "Everyone who isn't a simpleton like me is an
elitist"
> > >
> > > Translation: Damn, I can't sucker him
Yes, Ray, you are quite the slippery little coward, aren't you?
> > > > Sure, say whatever you want. But don't imagine many others
take
> > you
> > > > any more seriously than I do. Folks can draw their own
conclusions
> > > > without your "help" . . . about both of us.
> > >
> > > They will anyway...Thats why I will keep this in a public forum.
> > > How serious do you think they are going to take you?
> >
> > That would be up to them. The opinions of some matter to me more
than
> > others, and yours matters to me not at all.
> Snicker...You think yours matters to me? snicker
To borrow from you for my reply, as you have done with me: "Then why
flap your gums about It(sic)?"
Me: (going completely over Ray's head, as usual) "Ray, you know, and are
relying upon, the fact that I would never take a swing at you except
with your consent or in self defense. Actually, I was volunteering more
or less to let you take a free swing at me, or several, which you
declined. End of story. Now here's a free legal tip: you better not
shoot anybody just for taking a swing at you. I am no threat to you
whatsoever, except by what I write here. Regardless of what I think
about you as a man, you are still a human being, and I don't harm people
without good reason."
Perhaps that was too many words for you to comprehend (get) all at once.
Sorry, Ray.
> > > > So I do like to "legaly(sic) cover" my ass.
> > >
> > > > And keep in mind, my proposal covers
> > > > your ass, too.
> > >
> > > Liar
> >
> > Talk is cheap, Ray. Where's the lie?
>
> The lie is the implication that a mutual assault is legal outside a
> sanctioned sporting event.
I was talking an old fashioned lesson in manners and self-defense
techniques, Ray, not an assault, or, technically, battery. I suppose
there are no legal martial arts dojo's, self-defense classes, or the
like, then? We both, as survivalists, have a mutual interest in honing
our self-defense skills, do we not? You should know that not every
human activity requires the sanction of some authority, which you are
now attempting to hide behind. By the way, it shouldn't be too hard to
get this sanctioned, if that's all that's holding you back. Dodge,
dodge, quibble, quibble, cluck, cluck.
> > > > Yet you have again declined an opportunity to match your
> > > > words with deeds, with complete impunity. What does THAT say
about
> > you,
> > > > Ray? Hmmm.
> > > It says I'm smart enough not to agree to your terms....and that
realy
> > grates
> > > on you, doesent it.
> >
> > You drastically overestimate your importance to me, Ray. My terms
were
> > eminently fair, equal and lawful; they conveyed no advantage to
either
> > party, which is the most likely reason you've repeatedly declined
them.
> > Cowards don't operate that way.
>
>
> > I stand ready to consider any other
> > alternative you'd care to propose, since you also declined the only
> > alternative you suggested, citing specifically your 1st Amendment
rights
> > (What!? Not a Natural Right? Shame on you, Ray)
No other proposals, Ray? Cluck, cluck.
> I suggested?
> Ben robbing the ambulance drug box again?
> I pity your clients!
You: "Come on over and I will tell you what I think of you and lawyers
in general at great length."
Me: "Is that all you want? I have a toll free phone number. Would you
like to tell me at my expense? I don't doubt that you can speak much
more articulately than you can write. Let me know and I'll set it up.
All I ask in return is that you confine your future posts to the actual
contents of what I write."
You: "Hmmm.... 1st amendment. I will post as I damn well please!"
Cluck, cluck.
> If you want a piece of me your going to hafta come to me.
> Just in case you'r too dense to understand: I don't "decline" to meet
> you...on my terms.
Cluck, cluck. What terms are those, Ray?
> Damn...Looks like your a liar again
>
> > The root of your problem, it seems to me, is that I show a degree of
> > respect to others who disagree with me, but not you. "and that
> > realy(sic) grates on you, doesent(sic) it"? But that is because
you
> > just aren't in their class, Ray. Even if they disagree with me,
they
> > often make points worth considering, and display often impressive
> > reasoning ability that I can learn something valuable from. Your
> > "contributions" amount to little more than an inarticulate grunt, in
> > comparison.
> Thats all thats needed to show you for the lying idiot you are
Cluck, cluck.
> > > Your the one that wants to kick my ass...Why should I let you do
it on
> > your
> > > terms to my disadvantage?
Only if you are disadvantaged by complete fairness, as cowards always
are.
> > Ray, You're the one who started all this.
> Who issued the invitation to combat???
> Looks like you are a liar again.
Cluck, cluck. You declined, and after all your ranting rage and
personal insults, too, all the while knowing you were safe from the
natural consequences. Coward. Cluck, cluck.
> >If I met you on the street, I
> > wouldn't touch you.
> Yup...too many witnesses
> >I might even buy you a beer, just for the amusement.
> > I know you are running scared,
> Snicker
Translation: "Cluck, cluck."
> >but I have no particular desire to kick
> > your ass,
> Then why flap your gums about It?
> >and I don't even know if I can. But, unlike you, I'm willing
> > to risk finding out.
> No your not...
And you are, Ray?
> > I just wanted to see if you were man enough to
> > back up your words with deeds,
> You dont have the balls to find out...You are just going to sit in
your
> mama's basement
> with your hands making the round between your crotch, your mouth,the
> keyboard and the dirito's bag.
Ah, another quote stolen from me about you, Ray. That's truly funny,
and not a little pathetic. Cluck, cluck.
> > and the record has established that,
> > indeed, you are not man enough.
> And the record has established all your going to do is flap your gums
What other choice do you leave me, Ray? Cluck, cluck.
Jeff
Ray Keller
"Jeff McCann" <NoS...@NoThanks.Com> wrote in message
> What other choice do you leave me, Ray? Cluck, cluck.
>
> Jeff
You have my address.
Yup...I hear you clucking.
You are getting boring.
Plonk