Self-Defense: Furse Clueless
Mike Coleman
: I recently wrote Rep. Furse about my distress over the 10 round magazine
: limit in the recent "assault weapons" ban. My current home defense gun
: has a 15 round magazine, and I wondered why the government would want to
: take 5 rounds away from me in my efforts at self-defense.
Umm, how many bullets does it take to defend yourself? I guess if you
were being attacked in your home by a gang of ruffians then 15 might
not do it, but for the single assailant (or probably up to 3 or 4) 10
rounds should do nicely don't you think?
Mike
Keith Marchington
: mike...@aol.com (MikeT1946) writes:
: >Rep. Furse, are you at all serious about citizens' right to defend
: >themselves from criminal attack? Can you respond with anything other than
: >useless, dishonest, and irrelevant political rhetoric?
: If you want blather, talk to Mr. Witt.
: It is You MikeT and your fellow travellers from the NRA who engage in useless
: irrelevant and dishonest blather. For example, despite the opinion of the
: Supreme Court (as mentioned by Rep. Furse in a recent post) and many legal
: scholars, the NRA folks still seem to be unable to fathom the meaning of
: "militia" in the second ammendment, and therefore choose to ignore it.
(Always start with an insult by declaring the statements of the
opposition to be blather. Nice touch.)
The Supreme Court of the US has never heard a real gun control case.
They seem to shy away from them completely. Additionally, every time
the government loses one, like Rock Island Armory case, the government
decides not to appeal so that the decision will not be viable in all
districts.
In the Miller case, it is unfortunate that Mr. Miller was unable to
appear due to his demise prior to the case being heard, but had any
sort of evidence been presented that the type of weapon that he was
arrested for was indeed a weapon with militia use, the wording of the
decision indicates that the initial conviction would have been
overturned.
As for what the militia is, US Code states that the militia is all
able-bodied males between the ages of 17 and 45. I guess that makes
me part of the militia.
Legal scholars? Could you name a couple of legal scholars or
constitutional scholars that support this view? If you'd like, I can
name a number who have actually studied the issue and come to the
conclusion that no matter how you slice it, the second amendment
enumerates an individual right. Van Alstyne just recently published
such a treatise in the "Yale Law Review." He's not even a gun nut.
In fact, he is pro-control kinda guy. But at least he's honest.
As for the appearence of the word militia in the amendment, if you
will parse the sentence, you will find that the sentence is composed
of two parts, an explanatory phrase, and a proclamation. I'm sure you
can figure out which is which. But you must keep in mind that the
amendment does not guarantee the right to form militias, but
guarantees "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall
not be infringed." Hmmmm...just who are these "people" anyway? Hot
diggity dog, I'm a people. I think they we're talking about me!
Perhaps you should peruse some of the writings of the men who created
the constitution and BoR. The meaning of the amendment is quite
clearly stated by them on numerous occasions.
--
Keith
Keith Marchington
: Keith Marchington (k...@cv.hp.com) wrote:
: : guarantees "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall
: : not be infringed." Hmmmm...just who are these "people" anyway? Hot
: : diggity dog, I'm a people. I think they we're talking about me!
: Ok, I have always wondered this too. Arms, what kind of arms (since you
: only quoted that phrase, I am ignoring the first part too) am I allowed
: to keep? As I understand it I can't keep fully automatic weapons right?
You understand incorrectly. While there is still much debate about
the constitutionality of the 1934 National Firearms Act which
prescribes the licensing and transfer mechanisms for fully automatic
weaponsand the 1986 Gun Control Act which bans the manufacture for
fully automatic weapons for civilian use, presently in Oregon it is
legal, with appropriate license fees and transfer taxes, to obtain and
posess fully automatic weapons.
: Why not, isn't that what the military uses in their activiities, and
: isn't a militia a civil military. What about grenades, rocket launchers,
: tactical nuclear arms - they're used too right?
Well, given that your premise was incorrect, your questions have no
basis.
As for rocket launchers and grenade launchers, they are under the same
controls as full-auto weapons under the auspices of the 1934 NFA.
: Yeah, so I don't make a very sound arguement, I don't have to because
: it's my arguement, and I'm the only one really interested in it anyway right?
Interesting point of view. Do you live in a world of one?
--
Keith
Mike Coleman
: : Yeah, so I don't make a very sound arguement, I don't have to because
: : it's my arguement, and I'm the only one really interested in it anyway right?
: Interesting point of view. Do you live in a world of one?
Actually, sometimes my friends come out and play with me in my head, but
that's only when I am alone.
Mike
Mike Coleman
: >mcol...@cv.hp.com (Mike Coleman) writes:
: >I kinda knew this would happen, but what the hell. First, I am not
: >a gun owner, I have never been a gun owner, and never will. I don't
: >really have much to say about gun owners, or why they own guns, for
: >me (ME) it's just never been a question of whether I want one in my
: >home (I have to many visions of my kids blowing themselves away, or
: >me shooting at a cat and having the bullet stray into a neighbor's
: >house).
: fine, it is your right to choose to not possess a firearm. I would encourage
: anyone who imagines themselves shooting cats, to not own a firearm. But
: please, don't project this fear of yourself onto me.
That cat reference was an incomplete thought. I was referring
to incidences where someone gets accidentally shot when a homeowner
takes a shot at an "intruder" that ends up being a cat. I know it
violates rule 1 (or at least one of the rules) - don't shoot what
you can't see - but it happens.
I have never suggested that my fears should be projected on you,
but if you are my neighbor and I buy that gun you might wanna be
a little fearfull.
: >: To drag out an old saw or two, I'd rather have the 15 bullets, and not
: >: need them, than need them, and not have them.
: >Well, I would agree with you there, but what I was getting at (and obviously
: >didn't make it) was how often - on the average - will a homeowner need
: >15 shots? I am making a supposition that if you own a gun, and are
: 'On the average' is meaningless in this context. 'On the average' you don't
: need fire insurance either, but it is nice to have when your house catches
: fire. The whole point of insurance is the exception to the average.
The whole insurance industry is based on statistics and averages. That's
why you pay less for houses with modern wiring, burglar alarms, fire
detectors etc. I am sure there is a profile of the "average" in home
attack, what its relevance is can definitely be argued.
: shots', but rather to be able to function at all in a violent crisis. I
: don't think that great marksmanship skill is an important factor. And the
Well, I would have to say that marksmanship is vital. Take this scenario,
a guy kicks in your door, you fire three shots towards him. If they hit,
they are slowed way down, if they miss they fire out of your house into
your neighbors or your kids bedroom maybe. Remember that lady that just
died out on the east side.
: What do you think is 'the appropriate training'?
Well, not having been through any training, I would have to say that
from my estimates people need training in proper handling of the gun,
storage of firearms, living with guns and children in the house, and
when to use a firearm.
: >You're right, but given the right caliber of weapon I would assume that the
: >probability of taking the assailant down with a single strike increases
: >as you weaponry gets more powerfull. Kinda the right tool for the job
: >theory.
: With that kind of theory, perhaps a bazooka or maybe a small howitzer would
: be better for home defense. But it just doesn't work that way.
come on, I'm trying to be serious. If the object is home protection, then
you need a weapon that will do the job. You aren't going to whip out a
22 when a .45 will be much more effective right? Besides you'd blow your
house up with a howitzer or bazooka.
: >Well, I am not an avid gun fan, but I have good friends who are. I have
: >listened to them, and talked to them, and what I know is that they enjoy
: >their guns, they're respectable citizens, and they're educated on the use
: >of their weapons - I wish all gun owners were in that category.
: in total agreement!
Well then you pretty much agree with my entire theory on gun ownership.
Too bad we can't find a way to just let the responsible folks have them
huh?
: I strongly advocate training and practice, but _requiring_ certification
: bothers me. What are you going to certify? The things that can be certified,
: such as, can they hit the target, can they field strip clean and reassemble
: their weapon, these things have nothing to do with safe gun handling.
: Safe gun handling is common sense, not rocket science.
If that is the case then we wouldn't have accidental shootings. I know several
people that could benefit from a nice dose of common sense.
: I advocate basic firearms training (as we had in Boy Scouts) as a part of
: any school's physical education program.
Nope, no way. We already have enough problem with guns in our schools! :)
: I also must point out that firearms accidents have been dropping steadily
: for several decades. I fear that this trend will reverse, however, unless
: young people have the opportunity to be trained and to handle firearms.
: I believe that most firearms accidents are the result of lack of training,
: and lack of the opportunity to handle firearms. The most dangerous example
I thought you said safety was common sense. If that's the case you dont'
need training right? I do agree that most accidents are caused by unsafe
behaviour (obviously), but I don't think we want to mandate any training for
those individuals who don't want firearms as part of their lives. Think about
what those folks who won't buy toy guns would do if you told them you're
gonna teach their kids how to handle real weapons?
Later,
Mike
Keith Marchington
: k...@cv.hp.com (Keith Marchington) writes:
: >(Always start with an insult by declaring the statements of the
: >opposition to be blather. Nice touch.)
: I thought it a suitable comment, considering the orig comment directed
: to Rep. Furse, which was rather ugly ("blather" is a rather innocuous
: word IMO, referring to the frequent idle talk during campaigns.)
: (...)
: >As for what the militia is, US Code states that the militia is all
: >able-bodied males between the ages of 17 and 45. I guess that makes
: >me part of the militia.
: You seem to have neglected the "Well Organized" part. Without that, you
: just have a mob rule.
Your stature, already low due to your immediate use of an ad hominem
in your first reply, just dropped again due to an obvious reading
and/or comprehension deficiency. The 2nd amendment does not mention
anything about a "Well Organized" militia. For future reference, the
text of the amendment is:
AMENDMENT II
A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security
of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear
arms, shall not be infringed.
For historical perspective, the term "well-regulated" was used to mean
functioning properly in the 18th century.
--
Keith
Mike Coleman
: guarantees "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall
: not be infringed." Hmmmm...just who are these "people" anyway? Hot
: diggity dog, I'm a people. I think they we're talking about me!
Ok, I have always wondered this too. Arms, what kind of arms (since you
only quoted that phrase, I am ignoring the first part too) am I allowed
to keep? As I understand it I can't keep fully automatic weapons right?
Why not, isn't that what the military uses in their activiities, and
isn't a militia a civil military. What about grenades, rocket launchers,
tactical nuclear arms - they're used too right?
Yeah, so I don't make a very sound arguement, I don't have to because
it's my arguement, and I'm the only one really interested in it anyway right?
Mike
Mike Coleman
: In article <Cx7vr...@hpcvsnz.cv.hp.com>,
: Mike Coleman <mcol...@cv.hp.com> wrote:
: Gee, I wasn't aware the "rules of engagement" observed by criminals allowed
: me to pick how many assailants I get to face.
: <<wide-eyed innocent blinking>>
: They do comply with the "rules of engagement," don't they?
I kinda knew this would happen, but what the hell. First, I am not
a gun owner, I have never been a gun owner, and never will. I don't
really have much to say about gun owners, or why they own guns, for
me (ME) it's just never been a question of whether I want one in my
home (I have to many visions of my kids blowing themselves away, or
me shooting at a cat and having the bullet stray into a neighbor's
house).
But, since people love statistics, how many assilants does the average
victim face in his home. I say in his home because I am assuming that
you don't carry a 15 round clip on the street with you, although I
guess you could right (what does a 9mm beretta hold).
: To drag out an old saw or two, I'd rather have the 15 bullets, and not
: need them, than need them, and not have them.
Well, I would agree with you there, but what I was getting at (and obviously
didn't make it) was how often - on the average - will a homeowner need
15 shots? I am making a supposition that if you own a gun, and are
interested in protecting yourself, you've already installed deadbolts,
adequately lit your property, secured your windows, and any other number
of things that go to deter in-home attacks to begin with. Beyond that,
I am also hoping any individual who is relying on that weapon for safety
has taken the appropriate training and practiced enough to really only
need to take a couple of shots (in an average situation).
: Anecdotal evidence (the least reliable kind) can be dragged out to show
: that, in some situations, even 15 bullets is not enough.
: A New York city cop recently shot at three assailants 10 times without
: downing any of them, and the only reason she's alive is that she was able
: to get to a backup gun in time.
You are right, this sort of example is weak at best. The officer is not
an average citizen. You, I hope, do not patrol the streets and actively
engage criminals. Of course, maybe she was in her apartment watching
Blue when the guys kicked in her door? How many of those assailants
did she actually hit?
: Guns are not magic talismans, and the bad guys don't fall down from a
: single wound every time.
You're right, but given the right caliber of weapon I would assume that the
probability of taking the assailant down with a single strike increases
as you weaponry gets more powerfull. Kinda the right tool for the job
theory.
: If your knowledge of firearms is based on what you see on TV, then 97% of
: what you know about guns is wrong.
Well, I am not an avid gun fan, but I have good friends who are. I have
listened to them, and talked to them, and what I know is that they enjoy
their guns, they're respectable citizens, and they're educated on the use
of their weapons - I wish all gun owners were in that category.
: [I don't speak for Intel. I'll happily teach anyone, for free, safe gun
: handling...]
Hey, I like the idea your willing to instruct people, that is great. I have
often wondered: What do people (NRA'ers) feel about limiting the purchase
of guns to individuals who have been certified on the safe handling of a
firearm?
Just some thoughts,
Mike
Mike Coleman
: Mike Coleman writes:
: >First, I am not
: >a gun owner, I have never been a gun owner, and never will. I don't
: >really have much to say about gun owners, or why they own guns....
: >But, since people love statistics, how many assilants does the average
: >victim face in his home.
: It only takes one killer to ruin your whole day, mike
Wow, that's deep. Can I use that in a .sig?
: >I say in his home because I am assuming that
: >you don't carry a 15 round clip on the street with you, although I
: >guess you could right (what does a 9mm beretta hold).
: Wrong. FYI: A 9mm Beretta 92 - standard issue to the armed forces - holds
: 15 rounds with the factory clip. Cops always carry at least two extra
: clips and often 4 as the belt holsters for extra clips hold two. An after
: market clip will hold 18 and not make the gun taller. Other factory and
: after-market clips hold 30-35 rounds.
Why am I wrong here, I say "I guess I could be wrong - what does a
beretta hold" - meaning a beretata would hold more than 15 - reread
the above sentence.
: >: To drag out an old saw or two, I'd rather have the 15 bullets, and not
: >: need them, than need them, and not have them.
: >Well, I would agree with you there, but what I was getting at (and obviously
: >didn't make it) was how often - on the average - will a homeowner need
: >15 shots?
: See the paragraph above yours. Sheesh!
I did and I guess I miss your point. Where do you tell me how often
I'd need 15 rounds to defend my home against invasion.
: >I am making a supposition that if you own a gun, and are
: >interested in protecting yourself, you've already installed deadbolts,
: >adequately lit your property, secured your windows, and any other number
: >of things that go to deter in-home attacks to begin with. Beyond that,
: >I am also hoping any individual who is relying on that weapon for safety
: >has taken the appropriate training and practiced enough to really only
: >need to take a couple of shots (in an average situation).
: Worthy points.
: >: Guns are not magic talismans, and the bad guys don't fall down from a
: >: single wound every time.
: >You're right, but given the right caliber of weapon I would assume that the
: >probability of taking the assailant down with a single strike increases
: >as you weaponry gets more powerfull. Kinda the right tool for the job
: >theory.
: Again a clueless answer, but without a long lecture on bullet types,
: ballistics and where you actually hit your assailant, let me only suggest
: that this is an area where you need more data. Start with any gun
: magazine on the shelf at a 7-11
I see you have a bad habit of criticizing my points without backup. Let
me explain what I meant. If I hit an assailant in the leg with a .22
he has a much better chance of continuing an attack than if I hit
him in the leg with a .45. Of course, if I use a hollow point, or a
shell that is jacketed in teflon (shell is not the right term right?)
then the stopping power goes way up. Why is that clueless, I have
time for a long lecture.
: >often wondered: What do people (NRA'ers) feel about limiting the purchase
: >of guns to individuals who have been certified on the safe handling of a
: >firearm?
: Unconstitutional.
Maybe so, it would put a minor infringement on people since they'd have
to demonstrate some sort of intelligence and common sense. The other point
is the oft repeated arguement (that i agree with) is that only the non-problem
cases will take the time to do it - the criminals will just steal our legally
obtained weapons.
: Also instructive is the experience of the state of Washington is that
: since 1945 there have been hundred of thousands of these permits issued
: with only 3 crimes committed by permit holders using their weapons.
Agreed (of course I agree it's a statistic) - see above.
: The NRA is first and formost a safety organization. They got into
: politics because there was nobody else to stand in the way of the liberal
: Juggernaut.
: The NRA has offered every school district in the country to come in and
: teach gun safety for free. What do you think educators say to this offer?
I can't say why the schools won't let them. I think I wouldn't mind if it
were an after-school non-mandatory class. I'd want to be there with my kids
and then make sure they had time for questions and answers.
Mike
Mike Coleman
: In article <Cx9CG...@hpcvsnz.cv.hp.com>,
: Mike Coleman <mcol...@cv.hp.com> wrote:
: A feel good bill. A bill that resulted in a lot of people buying these
: weapons in a panic. We've had a couple of instances of the clueless
: misusing these unfamiliar weapons here in Oregon in the last month, both
: times freshly purchased, once resulting in a death.
I agree, it was a crock of shit (to be blunt). I don't favor gun bans
per se. I only wish (and I know it's just a wish) we could find a way
to ensure the safe handling of weapons by honest citizens. I also want
an end to world hunger and an inexhaustible supply of Reser's Peanut
Butter Cups! :)
: >I don't
: >really have much to say about gun owners, or why they own guns, for
: >me (ME) it's just never been a question of whether I want one in my
: >home (I have to many visions of my kids blowing themselves away, or
: >me shooting at a cat and having the bullet stray into a neighbor's
: >house).
: 1. Have you trained your kids in gun safety? They may encounter them
: outside your home, at a friends house, or found in the street.
I plan on it, but I don't know when to start. We already tell them "Guns
aren't toys, if you see one get away. Only adults should have guns". My
kids are 4 and 3, where would they get the training and when would they
start?
: Safety training doesn't mean you own guns or even approve of guns - it
: means that you've given your kids a leg up on survival.
Absolutely 100% agree with that.
: 2. It is possible to keep guns safely around kids - 40 million households
: in this country have guns in them, but fewer than 1400 people *total* die
: from accidental shootings nationwide each year. The number of kids is
: substantially less than that, unless, like HCI, you define kids to include
: murdered gang-bangers up to age 24.
I just don't want my kids to end up on that list. In my house I don't worry
in a friends - who knows. I agree, training for them is the best bet.
: 3. If you are so irresponsible as to shoot at a cat in a residential area,
: *I'm* glad you don't own a gun. I might be more comfortable if you weren't
: driving a car, or spraying pesticides, too.
The scenario is based on a perceived attack/invasion turning out to be
something other than that. I realize that it is an irresponsible move, but
it happens right? I actually don't think I'd brandish a weapon at the sound
of the knocked over trash can, and I definitely wouldn't shoot what I could
not see (at least that is what as I set at my PC).
: >Well, I would agree with you there, but what I was getting at (and obviously
: >didn't make it) was how often - on the average - will a homeowner need
: >15 shots? I am making a supposition that if you own a gun, and are
: >interested in protecting yourself, you've already installed deadbolts,
: >adequately lit your property, secured your windows, and any other number
: >of things that go to deter in-home attacks to begin with. Beyond that,
: >I am also hoping any individual who is relying on that weapon for safety
: >has taken the appropriate training and practiced enough to really only
: >need to take a couple of shots (in an average situation).
: You do fine until that last sentence - in an emergency, your reflexes go
: all to hell, and you start shaking and experiencing tachypsychia (sp?).
: My dad was a cop who trained other cops, as well as being a beat cop
: himself, and even well-trained police seldom hit with more than 25% of
: their shots, based on his experiences, and on what has been written in the
: professional literature.
: I personally know cops who could place 200 of 200 shots into a bullseye at
: the range, and, even with years of experience, emptied their weapons at
: armed perpetrators without hitting them.
: Assuming you miss with 3/4 of your shots in an emergency, and you have two
: assailants, to place one bullet on each will require 8 shots. Up that to a
: 2 hit per requirement, and you're up to 16 shots.
: However, 98% of all situations where a gun-defense occurs *have no shot
: fired at all*, as producing a weapon, and having the attitude of being
: willing to use it, will end almost all encounters.
Thanks for that example. I admit I am not the most educated person when it
comes to that sort of stuff (guns, crime, attacks). But your points above
are very valid.
: >: Anecdotal evidence (the least reliable kind) can be dragged out to show
: >: that, in some situations, even 15 bullets is not enough.
: >
: >: A New York city cop recently shot at three assailants 10 times without
: >: downing any of them, and the only reason she's alive is that she was able
: >: to get to a backup gun in time.
: >
: >You are right, this sort of example is weak at best. The officer is not
: >an average citizen.
: No, she'd been trained in emergency situations and firearms handling, and
: she still didn't down the perps.
True, and given your examples above I can now understand why.
: No, of course not. But, unlike a cop, I'm always around *me*, and prepared
: to help myself and others around me, if trouble occurs near me.
And I support your right to do that.
: >You're right, but given the right caliber of weapon I would assume that the
: >probability of taking the assailant down with a single strike increases
: >as you weaponry gets more powerfull. Kinda the right tool for the job
: >theory.
: Sorta true - it's a complex problem, where bigger isn't always better, and
: shot placement and bullet construction are more important than caliber.
again a generic term used on my part (caliber) to refer to caliber, bullet
type (ie jacketed, hollow point, etc.). I was also thinking that a shot in
the leg (let's say) is going to have more stopping power from a .45 than
a .22.
: After 400 years of study, scientific investigation still can not define
: the effectiveness of gun wounds at incapacitating.
I didn't know that.
I must say kirk, I appreciate you taking the time to present a nice
insight on guns etc. from your point of view. I realize this is an
emotional issue for many folks, and I like that you and I can discuss
it without insults etc. (kinda rare around these parts)
Mike
Scott Rainey
Scott Rainey =SR
SR>: It only takes one killer to ruin your whole day, mike
MC>Wow, that's deep. Can I use that in a .sig?
Sure go ahead. It's not mine anyways.
There's lots of variations of course.
"A mid-air collision will ruin your whole day."
is one I recal from ground school.
MC>: >I say in his home because I am assuming that
>: >you don't carry a 15 round clip on the street with you, although I
>: >guess you could right (what does a 9mm beretta hold).
SR>: Wrong. FYI: A 9mm Beretta 92 - standard issue to the armed forces - holds
>: 15 rounds with the factory clip. Cops always carry at least two extra
>: clips and often 4 as the belt holsters for extra clips hold two. An after
>: market clip will hold 18 and not make the gun taller. Other factory and
>: after-market clips hold 30-35 rounds.
>Why am I wrong here, I say "I guess I could be wrong - what does a
>beretta hold" - meaning a beretata would hold more than 15 - reread
>the above sentence.
Sheesh:
>I am assuming that you don't carry a 15 round clip on the street with you,
When I owned a Beretta model 92 I did indeed carry it with the 15-round
magazine. The glock carries 17.
I'd rather have the 15 bullets, and not need them, than need them, and
not have them. (ibid.)
[snip]
MC>I see you have a bad habit of criticizing my points without backup. Let
>me explain what I meant. If I hit an assailant in the leg with a .22
>he has a much better chance of continuing an attack than if I hit
>him in the leg with a .45. Of course, if I use a hollow point, or a
>shell that is jacketed in teflon (shell is not the right term right?)
>then the stopping power goes way up. Why is that clueless, I have
>time for a long lecture.
I don't have time to compose it and type it. I don't feel like you're
worth the effort. Sorry, that's blunt, but true. I see others do care
and are following this thread.
Your points are droolingly clueless. Again sorry but again true.
weapons technology is not something that can be fully explained in a
paragraph or two. It's even a little more complex than the rules of
footbal, baseball and basketball combined. I am not critiquing your
aptitude only your interest. Your questions and statements are so
primitive that to explain it all here would be like trying to explain the
rules to the above games in a paragraph or two.
MC>: >What do people (NRA'ers) feel about limiting the purchase
>: >of guns to individuals who have been certified on the safe handling of a
>: >firearm?
SR>: Unconstitutional.
MC>Maybe so, it would put a minor infringement on people since they'd have
>to demonstrate some sort of intelligence and common sense. The other point
>is the oft repeated arguement (that i agree with) is that only the non-problem
>cases will take the time to do it - the criminals will just steal our legally
>obtained weapons.
I deeply regret that you feel the constitution is a minor item.
What you are also discussing is the effacacy of prohibition. another
long thread.
SR>: Also instructive is the experience of the state of Washington is that
>: since 1945 there have been hundred of thousands of these permits issued
>: with only 3 crimes committed by permit holders using their weapons.
MC>Agreed (of course I agree it's a statistic) - see above.
SR>: The NRA is first and formost a safety organization. They got into
>: politics because there was nobody else to stand in the way of the liberal
>: Juggernaut.
SR>: The NRA has offered to have volunteers or paid instuctors go to every
>: school district in the country to teach gun safety for free.
>: What do you think educators say to this offer?
MC>I can't say why the schools won't let them.
Sigh. Yet another long thread. ever hear the term: "Politically
Incorrect?"
MC>I think I wouldn't mind if it were an after-school non-mandatory class.
If it were mandatory, the school district should pay for it. Come to
think on it...... Gun safety (no shooting) as mandatory class is a good idea!
MC> I'd want to be there with my kids
>and then make sure they had time for questions and answers.
Waitaminit! This whole treat just got tangled.
If you are sincerely interested in having your kids (and you) learn gun
safety, the appropriate use of deadly force etc. E-mail me. We'll chat
off line on the phone. I will gladly share with you the information you
crave, and direct you to free or very low cost training.
--
sco...@vista.hevanet.com
Mike Coleman
: Mike Coleman writes utterly clueless random thoughts about Guns in
: general and the constitutional right to keep and bear arms.
: This is a subject that is technically complex, politically involved to the
: extreme, riddled with falsehoods, slathered heavily on boths sides of the
: issue with intense emotionalism, posted to death already, the topic of
: multiple masters and doctoral thesis's, the subject of not less than
: 100 daily internet postings.......
: .... and he wonders why I said to him I didn't have the time to educate him.
Actually, since you never did post one iota of intelligible opinion
on this subject I am not even sure you are capable of educating me on it.
Your rhetoric is the kind that turns people off, and sends them running
to your opposition where they might get someone to explain their side.
Luckily several other individuals took a few minutes to point out the
flaws in my logic, and didn't once insult me or my preconceived notions.
: Let me say this with love and respect mike: You are TFC (totally fucking
: cluless on this topic). You really should do more research before
: forming an opinion, or posting unformed ideas.
You've summed up the problem with the majority of people (myself included)
People don't take the time to research things to form opinions, they run
off to the newstand or listen to Rush or watch CNN - they get their educa-
tion from those sources. I made an effort to discuss what I thought I
knew (some of which was correct, most of which wasn't), you made an effort
to try and convince me how busy and important you are and why I shouldn't
open my mouth without first spending hours researching a topic.
: Truly? I make a sincere offer to help you understand the issue about
: which you have so cluelessly blathered, offered you resources and even my
: time and you "Would never Consider...."
You made a sincere effort to come off like an elitist asshole, and
with great success. You think for some reason that because I have not
been imparted with the great knowledge of previous gun control debates
I can't participate in a discussion - how then should I become educated?
You are right, I am clueless on this subject, but I did come here looking
for answers (and got some good ones). Your problem is you never took time
to honestly look at what I was writing, you went off half-cocked and
blasted me. Of course, I do remember you replying that you realized this
after you took the time to read what I was saying.
The funny thing here is that if you had actually taken the time to
read what I wrote as the thread progressed, you would have seen we agree
on most points.
Anyway, so it goes on the net.
Mike
W. Brewster Gillett
>It is You MikeT and your fellow travellers from the NRA who engage in useless
>irrelevant and dishonest blather. For example, despite the opinion of the
>Supreme Court (as mentioned by Rep. Furse in a recent post) and many legal
>scholars, the NRA folks still seem to be unable to fathom the meaning of
>"militia" in the second ammendment, and therefore choose to ignore it.
>Bob Breivogel
>Aloha, OR
Sorry, Bob, but the "many" legal scholars you cite as favoring citizen
disarmament have arrayed against them at least as many legitimate legal
scholars who advance the opposite view. It's another one of those "whose
experts are we hearing from this round?" Try Sanford Levison's piece from
the Yale Law Journal _The Embarrassing 2nd Amendment_. If you like I'll mail
you a copy. Try reading _The Federalist Papers_ and _The Anti-Federalist
Papers_ for a sense of what the _writers_ of the BoR intended. In spite of
the fervent protestations of the latter-day constitutional revisionists, the
"militia" never referred to the National Guard. Try George Mason's
observation regarding who the militia is.
And, no, I am not a member of the NRA. Although I participate in shooting
sports and competitions, have a carry license, and belong to a local club, I
have pointedly skipped NRA membership specifically owing to attitudes like
those you seem to express in your post.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear
arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in
government." - T. Jefferson.
*******************************************************************************
VOTE BREWSTER GILLETT FOR CONGRESS ....................
A rational centrist voice for _you_ in the First District!
The American Party of Oregon
*******************************************************************************
--
_________________________________________________________________
br...@mtek.com
MTEK International, Inc. Throughput Technology Corp.
Throughput!
W. Brewster Gillett
>k...@cv.hp.com (Keith Marchington) writes:
>>As for what the militia is, US Code states that the militia is all
>>able-bodied males between the ages of 17 and 45. I guess that makes
>>me part of the militia.
>You seem to have neglected the "Well Organized" part. Without that, you
>just have a mob rule.
>Bob Breivogel
Talk about clueless, Bob! Please go back to your copy of the BoR, recheck
your reference, and write on the board at least three times:
"well-regulated" "well-regulated" "well-regulated"
"Well Organized" is a figment of your or somebody's imagination.
If you'd like a scholarly analysis of what "well regulated" actually meant
to the _authors_ of the BoR, someone probably has a file on it they could
forward to you. Can't locate mine & am running short on time these days :-)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"There will never be a really free and enlightened state
until the state comes to recognize the individual as a
higher and independant power, from which all its own power
and authority are derived, and treats him accordingly."
- Henry David Thoreau
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------