9-year-old fatally shot -- Armed Homes are Safe Homes -- LOL!
"- Prof. Jonez坼
By Eileen Kelley and Kirk Mitchell
The Denver Post
Wednesday, March 16, 2005 -
Pueblo - Nine-year-old Julia Arellano was playing Monday afternoon in the room
that her 6-year-old brother shares with their father when she pulled a
.22-caliber handgun from beneath a dresser.
Despite the boy's pleading that she put the gun away, Julia found bullets and
loaded them in the magazine, authorities said.
"He knew not to play with it, and was telling her, 'Put it up, put it up, put it
up,"' Pueblo sheriff's Detective Keith Ervin said.
The siblings struggled over the gun and, moments later, the third-grader was on
the floor, with a gunshot wound to her chest.
A family member called 911 at 5:43 p.m., and medical personnel arrived eight
minutes later at the one-story home just east of the city limits. They tried
unsuccessfully to resuscitate Julia.
Sheriff's officials said they believe she died from an accidental,
self-inflicted wound.
Sheriff Dan Corsentino said authorities have not decided if they will pursue
criminal charges against the girl's father, Ruben Arellano, and grandmother, who
were home at the time of the shooting. He said authorities were "terribly
distraught" that children had such easy access to a gun.
In addition to the handgun found in the bedroom, authorities said they found
three other firearms in the home, which sits between a junkyard and a salvage
yard in the Belle Plain industrial park.
"When you lose a beautiful little 9-year-old ... you don't want that ever to
happen again," said Steve Bryant, spokesman for the Pueblo County Sheriff's
Office. "It's horrible, absolutely horrible."
Ruben Arellano was admitted to a local hospital with chest pains Monday night.
It was believed that he was still in the hospital Tuesday afternoon, but his
condition was not available.
Family members declined to comment Tuesday. Authorities said the boy was staying
with other family members.
At Franklin Elementary School, students and adults said they were saddened by
Julia's death.
They took time early in the day to remember the young girl whose smile beamed
nearly as brightly as her fiery mane of red hair.
Beneath a large poster that read, "We Love You Julia," dozens of cards with
colorful hand- drawn pictures of sad faces, broken hearts and flowers sat atop a
table outside the principal's office.
"Julia, I miss you. I'm very sad that you died. I wish you were here with me. I
never told you that I liked the way you cut your hair," read one card, signed
"Your true friend, Dianne."
"She was a very likable girl," said Greg Sinn, communications director for
District 60 in Pueblo County. "The school is taking it hard. They're just trying
to support each other today."
Six counselors were on hand Tuesday to help students and staff.
The school's DARE officer is planning to discuss gun safety with all of the
school's students, rather than just fifth-graders as had been planned, principal
Jose Duarte said.
Corsentino urged gun owners to keep their weapons where children cannot access
them, advising that weapons should be locked away and ammunition kept elsewhere.
He said most kids can't distinguish between the fiction of guns in movies and
cartoons and the reality of deadly weapons in the home.
"Children need to be educated about handguns," Corsentino said. He said parents
need to spend time with their kids explaining the difference between play guns
and real guns.
Corsentino said that as part of what they dubbed "project child safe," his
office distributed 2,000 free gun locks to Pueblo County residents last fall.
Mark Henry
>
> The school's DARE officer is planning to discuss gun safety with all of the
> school's students, rather than just fifth-graders as had been planned, principal
> Jose Duarte said.
>
> Corsentino urged gun owners to keep their weapons where children cannot access
> them, advising that weapons should be locked away and ammunition kept elsewhere.
> He said most kids can't distinguish between the fiction of guns in movies and
> cartoons and the reality of deadly weapons in the home.
>
> "Children need to be educated about handguns," Corsentino said. He said parents
> need to spend time with their kids explaining the difference between play guns
> and real guns.
>
The single thread all of these accidental shootings has in common is the
total disregard for safety by the owner of the weapon. Hard as it
sounds, the owner of the gun should/must/wont be held responsible for
what happened. Unfortunately, the public reaction will be to hold the
weapon responsible and absolve the owner of any responsiblity in what
was (obviously) a horrible event.
Programs such as what this DARE officer is going to provide should be
mandatory from grades K-5. Obviously it wont stop all accidental
shootings (kids will be kids), but if it prevents one death it's worth it.
Mark Henry
Concord, NC
FerdinandAkin
http://www.nrahq.org/safety/eddie/
There has been an effective program available for 16 years that the
gun grabbing liberals suppress because the hate the messenger.
/sea/
Steve@carolinabreezehvac
Ban all ropes! Cut down all the trees!
Geesus....ya know, kids aint always gonna be bright, and when you have
parents that leave guns out for them to find, accidents will happen, but if
the story you show is true, its obvious that the young lady that had found
the gun had about as much sense as her parents for leaving it out.
Just curious, was the gun legal?
Do the parents in question have the right to legally own a gun?
If you cant answer those questions, then the article you cite has no merit
or bearing on those of us that are legal and responsible gun owners.
"Mark Henry" <mrh...@carolina.rr.com> wrote in message
news:IMd_d.37777$_i3.1...@twister.southeast.rr.com...
Bama Brian
Parents taking their kids to the range so the kids can see what a gun
can do is a far more responsible attitude, with more long-lasting
effects. Have a DARE officer in a school spouting official pomposities
only tweaks a kids' interest. Kids see it as being DARE'd to do something.
--
Cheers,
Bama Brian
Libertarian
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."
George Santayana, "The Life of Reason", vol. 1, 1905
Peter Franks
> Bama Brian <bamaNO...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Parents taking their kids to the range so the kids can see what a
>>gun can do is a far more responsible attitude, with more
>>long-lasting effects.
>
>
<snip>
So what is your point? What is your interpretation of the problem? What is
your proposed *COMPREHENSIVE* solution?
Peter Franks
"Armed Homes are Safe Homes"
You are right, they are:
(CA) Intruder shot in deputy's home MON 01.13.2003 10.14 PT
http://www.DailyBulletin.com
RANCHO CUCAMONGA - An off-duty San Bernardino County sheriff's deputy shot and
wounded a burglar Friday afternoon after he broke into his residence and
approached him with a long knife, a San Bernardino County sheriff's spokesman said.
The wounded burglar, believed to be a juvenile, was expected to survive after
he was flown by helicopter to an area hospital, where he underwent surgery
Friday night, sheriff's spokesman Chip Patterson said.
Harold Burton
"Nisarel" <hostl...@postmaster.co.uk> wrote in message
news:Xns961C6276DE43Cho...@130.133.1.4...
> Bama Brian <bamaNO...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> Robert had his arms wrapped around his 6-year-old son, Tyler,
> and together they were holding a .45 caliber handgun at a
> spot about three miles away from the camping spot. His son
> pulled the trigger and sent off the first round, said
> Melissa. The gun recoiled toward the two, and Tyler was
> unable to control the gun - he accidentally pulled the
> trigger a second time, as the gun was swinging backward
> toward his father's head, according to sheriff's reports.
I did start my six and seven year olds with a .45 ACP pistol, however
I single loaded it. I 'd seen too many adult novices make foolish mistakes
with self loaders. I spent some time preparing them for their trips to the
range as well. My adult eldest son tells me that, when they were playing
cowboys and indians, I had instructed them, that the moment their game
stopped, they had to fall into "real gun" handling mode and deal with their
cap guns as real firearms. I don't remember doing this and it may be that
this was something they had worked out on their own based on gun handling
examples they had picked up from me. They had watched me and my favorite
cousin (and best shooting buddy) shooting both handguns and rifles several
times as younger kids. Kids need safety instruction if they can reasonably
be expected to have any firearms exposure. Ignorance is not a valid
protective system.
Harold Burton
RD Sandman
> Corsentino urged gun owners to keep their weapons where children cannot access
> them, advising that weapons should be locked away and ammunition kept elsewhere.
> He said most kids can't distinguish between the fiction of guns in movies and
> cartoons and the reality of deadly weapons in the home.
This is true.
> "Children need to be educated about handguns," Corsentino said. He said parents
> need to spend time with their kids explaining the difference between play guns
> and real guns.
One reason why firearms safety should be taught in schools.
> Corsentino said that as part of what they dubbed "project child safe," his
> office distributed 2,000 free gun locks to Pueblo County residents last fall.
Good. Those that came to get them may, in fact, use them. Those that
don't wouldn't use them in the first place.
--
Sleep well tonight.........RD (The Sandman)
http://home.comcast.net/~rdsandman
School - Four walls with tomorrow inside.
"The fatal attraction of government is that it allows busybodies to
impose decisions on others without paying any price themselves."
"It is hard to imagine a more stupid or more dangerous way of making
decisions than by putting those decisions in the hands of people who
pay no price for being wrong" Author Thomas Sowell
RD Sandman
> http://www.wxii12.com/news/4290141/detail.html
>
> Ban all ropes! Cut down all the trees!
>
> Geesus....ya know, kids aint always gonna be bright, and when you have
> parents that leave guns out for them to find, accidents will happen, but if
> the story you show is true, its obvious that the young lady that had found
> the gun had about as much sense as her parents for leaving it out.
The kid was 9 years old. Do you expect her to show the same level of
maturity that her parents *should*?
> Just curious, was the gun legal?
In this case what difference does it make?n A legal gun left out kills
just as easily as an illegal gun left out.
> Do the parents in question have the right to legally own a gun?
Again, just what difference do you think that should make? The point is
the safety of the gun from the kids not whether or not the parents legally
own it.
> If you cant answer those questions, then the article you cite has no merit
> or bearing on those of us that are legal and responsible gun owners.
Of course it does.
RD Sandman
> FerdinandAkin <Ferdin...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> http://www.nrahq.org/safety/eddie/
>> There has been an
>
> a program that has not been proved effective and has been proved ineffective.
>
> The National Academy of Science recently issued the report Firearms and Violence: A
> Critical Review. One chapter in this book examined firearm injury prevention programs.
> On page 213, they concluded "Of the more than 80 other programs described at least
> briefly in the literature, few have been adequately evaluated as to their effectiveness.
> Those that have been evaluated provide little empirical evidence that they have a
> positive impact on children’s knowledge, attitudes, and beliefs." They also noted that
> "A closer examination of these programs, however, suggests that present educational
> efforts may not be effective at reducing the risk of firearm morbidity and mortality
> among children, and in fact may have the opposite effect for some youth."
It still beats the shit out of nothing which is what you seem to prefer.
RD Sandman
> Bama Brian <bamaNO...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>> Parents taking their kids to the range so the kids can see what a
>> gun can do is a far more responsible attitude, with more
>> long-lasting effects.
>
> Death is quite long-lasting
>
> The Mountain Democrat, Placerville CA
> July 24, 2002
>
> A father was accidentally fatally shot by his 6-year-old son
> during an attempt at target practice that went tragically
> wrong on Saturday evening.
>
> Robert had his arms wrapped around his 6-year-old son, Tyler,
> and together they were holding a .45 caliber handgun at a
> spot about three miles away from the camping spot. His son
> pulled the trigger and sent off the first round, said
> Melissa. The gun recoiled toward the two, and Tyler was
> unable to control the gun - he accidentally pulled the
> trigger a second time, as the gun was swinging backward
> toward his father's head, according to sheriff's reports.
I doubt one should start the kid off with a .45 ACP.
Buckaroo Banzai
It's amazing to me that people like you can read that story and take from it
that it was the gun's fault for the little girl dying! The gun-owner is
solely responsible for this accident.
"- Prof. Jonez坼
> It's amazing to me that people like you can read that story and take
> from it that it was the gun's fault for the little girl dying!
Of course not nitwit, it was the bullet that killed her.
> The gun-owner is solely responsible for this accident.
So then Armed Homes are not always Safe Homes, are they?
"- Prof. Jonez坼
> On 17 Mar 2005 14:42:26 GMT, Nisarel wrote:
>
> > FerdinandAkin <Ferdin...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >
> > > http://www.nrahq.org/safety/eddie/
> > > There has been an
> >
> > a program that has not been proved effective and has been proved
> > ineffective.
> >
> > The National Academy of Science recently issued the report Firearms
> > and Violence: A Critical Review. One chapter in this book examined
> > firearm injury prevention programs. On page 213, they concluded "Of
> > the more than 80 other programs described at least briefly in the
> > literature, few have been adequately evaluated as to their
> > effectiveness. Those that have been evaluated provide little
> > empirical evidence that they have a positive impact on children's
> > knowledge, attitudes, and beliefs." They also noted that "A closer
> > examination of these programs, however, suggests that present
> > educational efforts may not be effective at reducing the risk of
> > firearm morbidity and mortality among children, and in fact may
> > have the opposite effect for some youth."
>
> It still beats the shit out of nothing which is what you seem to
> prefer.
Ah, the Bush Foreign Policy principle, better to attack and invade
the wrong country for the wrong reasons, killing 100,000+ people
in the process, than to "do nothing" -- i.e. (make sure you take the time
to do the right thing)
You blithering jackass.
j...@gardnerclan.net
No home is completely safe. Would you have preferred the kid to have
died from eating Drano, falling down the stairs, or drowning in the
bathtub?
Sam Bam
> So then Armed Homes are not always Safe Homes, are they?
No, just "safer".
"- Prof. Jonez坼
Is that what happened to you?
"- Prof. Jonez坼
Sure Scum Bum, tell it to the dead 9-year-old.
Steve@carolinabreezehvac
"RD Sandman" <rdsa...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:289gqwku...@hopewell.invalid...
> On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 07:24:11 -0500, Steve@carolinabreezehvac wrote:
>
> > http://www.wxii12.com/news/4290141/detail.html
> >
> > Ban all ropes! Cut down all the trees!
> >
> > Geesus....ya know, kids aint always gonna be bright, and when you have
> > parents that leave guns out for them to find, accidents will happen, but
if
> > the story you show is true, its obvious that the young lady that had
found
> > the gun had about as much sense as her parents for leaving it out.
>
> The kid was 9 years old. Do you expect her to show the same level of
> maturity that her parents *should*?
Did you read, and fully understand the sentence there?
The level of maturity isnt aimed at the child, but her parents. But, I can
tell you this, when I was SIX, thats the same age of that kid that killed
his dad by accident in the other post, that I knew how to properly handle
and what I could and could not shoot. Maybe I am the exception, altho most
of the guys I know and shoot with would tend to agree that about the same
age is when they started.
>
> > Just curious, was the gun legal?
>
> In this case what difference does it make?n A legal gun left out kills
> just as easily as an illegal gun left out.
It makes alot of difference.
If the post was, and I am sure it is, made to illustrate how bad guns are
and how they need to be banned, then to someone that lives in a state that
can claim that NONE of the legal CCW holders have been involved in such an
accident NOR have been involved in illegal activity involving their guns it
makes alot of difference.
Just because one adult was too damn stupid to do what is required by yet
ANOTHER law and thats put the gun away in a manner that the child cant get
to it, does not make the rest of us some criminal.
Does it make a difference? Why yes, yes it does. If the gun wasnt legal, the
responsibilty of proper ownership isnt there, therefore, the parent would
not feel the need to worry about where the weapon was. I know where all mine
are, at all times. My wife knows where her weapons are, and what they are
loaded or not loaded with at any given time.
>
> > Do the parents in question have the right to legally own a gun?
>
> Again, just what difference do you think that should make? The point is
> the safety of the gun from the kids not whether or not the parents legally
> own it.
Point taken, but I believe again, you are missing my point.
If the guns illegal, or the parents have no legal right to the gun, then the
actions of one stupid parent, have no bearing on my right to carry and own.
Period.
>
> > If you cant answer those questions, then the article you cite has no
merit
> > or bearing on those of us that are legal and responsible gun owners.
>
> Of course it does.
No, it does not, other than the fact that some liberal bleedin heart will
run with it to show how all guns, even those in the hands of responsible and
qualified owners need to be banned and taken.
Do I feel sorry about what happened? Sure. Does it have one ounce of bearing
on my firearms? None.
I have two grandkids that are over often. Will they ever find a loaded gun
where they can get to it? No. Will they find that if they DO get into the
safe to the guns, that they can fire them? Nope. One ignorant parent, and we
all have to pay?
Fraid not....
Notice you didnt even say anything about the link in the start of this
post....should the parents if the child that killed himself by accident be
held responsible for his possession of the rope and the obvious lack of
supervision? How about guys like me that keep a couple of hundred feet on
our service trucks...should we start keeping them in a seperate safe on the
vans?
Normally I agree with alot of what you post, but I really dont know if we
just dont get where each other is standing, or if the fact that I found out
this morning that a friend of mine, in LE, inst going to be charged with
murder (???) by the local DA over a shooting in December just infurated me
and nothings coming out right...
I never knew they were gonna consider charging him for doing his
job....thats just crazy....altho, this countys DA leaves alot to be desired.
Steve@carolinabreezehvac
" "- Prof. Jonez©"" <jo...@norcom.ca> wrote in message
news:7fj_d.15$5d2...@news.uswest.net...
Safer than an unarmed home.
Born Again Sam
The dead 9 year old doesn't agree with you.
So is a Nuclear Armed Iran safer than a non nuclear armed Iran?
"We are the strongest nation in the world today.
We should never apply that political, economic or military
power unilaterally. If we had followed that rule in Vietnam,
we wouldn't have been there. None of our allies supported us,
not Japan, not Germany, not Britain, nor France.
If we can't persuade nations with comparable values of the
merit of our cause, we better reexamine our reasoning"
-- Robert McNamara
former US Secretary of Defense reflecting
on the errors of the Vietnam conflict.
Steve@carolinabreezehvac
"Born Again Sam" <e...@carinae.org> wrote in message
news:39u14gF...@individual.net...
> Steve@carolinabreezehvac wrote:
> > " "- Prof. Jonez©"" <jo...@norcom.ca> wrote in message
> > news:7fj_d.15$5d2...@news.uswest.net...
> >> Buckaroo Banzai wrote:
> >>> It's amazing to me that people like you can read that story and take
> >>> from it that it was the gun's fault for the little girl dying!
> >>
> >> Of course not nitwit, it was the bullet that killed her.
> >>
> >>> The gun-owner is solely responsible for this accident.
> >>
> >> So then Armed Homes are not always Safe Homes, are they?
> >>
> >>
> >
> > Safer than an unarmed home.
>
> The dead 9 year old doesn't agree with you.
>
> So is a Nuclear Armed Iran safer than a non nuclear armed Iran?
The Iranians think so...
Now...is my home armed safer for me, or the idiot that tries to enter it
unwelcomed?
I am willing to bet, that for ME, and my family, its safer than an unarmed
home.I am not willing to make that statement for anyone that can actually
make it in uninvited.
its perception.
How hard is it to understand that if the gun was where it was supposed to be
the girl would still be alive and the home would still be safer, if the
parents knew how to properly use it?
Its obvious they didnt know how to properly use it, or their kid would still
be alive....RIGHT?
Of course, there were laws already in place that are supposed to prevent
this thing.....but...someone didnt follow the rules too well did they?
Now they get to live with it....I didnt kill the girl, for all intents and
purposes when a firearm is found by a child, and used in a manner as such in
this case, its the parent that is responsible....at least according to the
law....
Michael Manring
As soon as you tell us what drugs you were using when you were
hallucinating about this rather tall tale.
Jeffrey C. Dege
>Parents taking their kids to the range so the kids can see what a gun
>can do is a far more responsible attitude, with more long-lasting
>effects.
Most of these parents can't take their kids to the range, because most
of these parents are criminals themselves.
--
A constitution is not the act of a government, but of a people
constituting a government; and government without a constitution is
power without a right. All power exercised over a nation, must have
some beginning. It must be either delegated, or assumed. There are
not other sources. All delegated power is trust, and all assumed power
is usurpation. Time does not alter the nature and quality of either.
- Thomas Paine
The Lone Weasel
> Now...is my home armed safer for me, or the idiot that tries to enter it
> unwelcomed?
What was his name again?
Are you really so afraid of an imaginary burglar that you'd keep a real
gun loaded and handy 24/7/365 the rest of your life?
A dog is much safer, much better protection, and dogs actually need
families to adopt them, unlike guns which are obviously useless unless you
actually have a real person attacking you, they suck for self-defense as
the dead Mr. Wilson proved in the Tyler shootout, and in fact you're far
more likely to blab about your gun and soon after have somebody break in
and steal it than ever use the gun to save your life.
[begin excerpt]
Examining data from the National Crime Victimization Survey
and the FBI's Uniform Crime Reports, Cook and Ludwig found
that gun ownership actually increases the likelihood that a
home will be burglarized. A 10-percent increase in a
county's gun-ownership rate results in a 3-to-7-percent
increase in the likelihood that a home in that county will
be burglarized, the authors found.
"One possible reason why the risk of burglary increases with
gun prevalence is that guns are valuable loot," they wrote.
"Providing some support for this theory is the fact that in
14 percent of the burglaries ... in which a gun was stolen,
it was the only item stolen."
New Research 'Shoots Down' Concealed-Carry Claims by Dick
Dahl, 11/1/2002
[end excerpt]
As for any personal right to have guns under the Second Amendment, you
won't find any such thing in the long history of binding legal precedent
in state and federal case law. So the NRA can promise you anything, but
they've never been able to just simply bring a federal case that overturns
Second Amendment case law, and the case law says you have to belong to a
well-regulated militia, which is the National Guard these days, and even
if you were in the National Guard you'd still have to show that your gun
had some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a
well regulated militia.
Guys on gun newsgroups lie about that fact all the time, but they still
have no individual right to have guns under the Second Amendment, and
never will.
> How hard is it to understand that if the gun was where it was supposed
> to be the girl would still be alive and the home would still be safer,
> if the parents knew how to properly use it?
Another myth. In the Smith County Courthouse shooting a very experienced
handgun shooter was killed because he made one mistake - he missed the
shooter, and the shooter killed him.
How hard is it to understand that just having a loaded gun in your hand is
not automatic protection - you may have to kill somebody who's shooting at
you and yelling and moving and whatever.
If you don't have a credible threat, get a dog and you'll have a much
better chance of never having a problem.
If you choose the gun, remeber that any honest mistakes on your part could
get you and everybody in your family killed in a horribly violent way.
> Its obvious they didnt know how to properly use it, or their kid would
> still be alive....RIGHT?
Circular reasoning always boomerangs, eh Sleeve? Lots of gun owners with
lots of target range experience and even combat training get killed in a
real gunfight.
Unless you're a real badass with combat experience, and maybe especially
if you have combat experience, get a dog, keep a baseball bat handy just
in case.
When you have an imminent and credible threat to your safety, if you have
a 12 gauge you'll be much better off than with a handgun. I bought a
couple of shotguns for home defense, but realized there was no serious
threat and sold them. Still have my dogs, a cluttered house and an
aluminum baseball bat, and everybody in town knows I don't have any
fucking guns...
And that I might get a little crazy when I lose my temper...
That's usually all the protection you need. If you're just afraid of
everything join the NRA. They're looking for suckers like you...
Laugh laugh laugh laugh laugh.
________________
Considering Sonzinsky v. United States (1937), 300 U.S. 506,
513, and what was ruled in sundry causes arising under the
Harrison Narcotic Act [footnote 2] - United States v. Jin
Fuey Moy (1916), 241 U. S. 394; United States v. Doremus
(1919), 249 U. S. 86, 94; Linder v. United States (1925),
268 U. S. 5; Alston v. United States (1927), 274 U. S. 289;
Nigro v. United States (1928), 276 U. S. 332 - the objection
that the Act usurps police power reserved to the States is
plainly untenable.
In the absence of any evidence tending to show that
possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than
eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable
relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well
regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment
guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.
Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon
is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its
use could contribute to the common defense. Aymette v.
State, 2 Humphreys (Tenn.) 154, 158.
The Constitution as originally adopted granted to the
Congress power - "To provide for calling forth the Militia
to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and
repel Invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and
disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of
them as may be employed in the Service of the United States,
reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the
Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia
according to the discipline prescribed by Congress." With
obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render
possible the effectiveness of such forces the declaration
and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be
interpreted and applied with that end in view.
[...]
Most if not all of the States have adopted provisions
touching the right to keep and bear arms. Differences in
the language employed in these have naturally led to
somewhat variant conclusions concerning the scope of the
right guaranteed. But none of them seem to afford any
material support for the challenged ruling of the court
below.
In the margin some of the more important opinions and
comments by writers are cited. [Footnote 3].
We are unable to accept the conclusion of the court below
and the challenged judgment must be reversed. The cause
will be remanded for further proceedings.
_____
3. Concerning The Militia - Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S.
252; Robertson v. Baldwin, 165 U. S. 275; Fife v. State, 31
Ark. 455; Jeffers v. Fair, 33 Ga. 347; Salina v. Blaksley,
72 Kan. 230; 83 P. 619; People v. Brown, 253 Mich. 537; 235
N. W. 245; Aymette v. State, 2 Humphr. (Tenn.) 154; State v.
Duke, 42 Texas 455; State v. Workman, 35 W. Va. 367; 14 S.
E. 9; Cooley's Constitutional Limitations, Vol. 1, p. 729;
Story on The Constitution, 5th Ed., Vol. 2 p. 646;
Encyclopaedia of the Social Sciences, Vol. X, p. 471, 474.
U.S. v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939)
--
Yours truly,
The Lone Weasel
Michael Manring
Nisarel wrote:
>
> "Steve@carolinabreezehvac" <st...@removethis.carolinabreezehvac.com>
> wrote:
>
> > I am willing to bet, that for ME, and my family, its safer than an
> > unarmed home.
>
> Maybe for you but with the firearms in the house, the biggest threat to your family is one of
> your family members.
YOUR family, perhaps!
Not a normal one.
Read any good non-existing books lately?
Michael Manring
Nisarel wrote:
>
> "Steve@carolinabreezehvac" <st...@removethis.carolinabreezehvac.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Of course, there were laws already in place that are supposed to
> > prevent this thing.
>
> The laws aren't there to prevent acts, they are there to punish offenders.
So what's the punishment for idiots that make up their own stories?
Oh! That's right! It's called FICTION!
Sam Bam
His usual anti-gun asinine crapola.
> Are you really so afraid of an imaginary burglar that you'd keep a real
> gun loaded and handy 24/7/365 the rest of your life?
"Imaginary"?
When does a burglar cease to be "imaginary"?
> A dog is much safer, much better protection,
Some people don't want to _take care of_ a dog you fucking weasel-shit!
Peter Franks
No credible conclusion can be drawn from a sample size of 1 (or 2 if you use
the other similar post earlier in the week).
Credible conclusions are drawn on an unbiased examination of the body of the
evidence.
While you are researching the body of evidence so that you can arrive at a
credible conclusion, you may wish to look into other factors relevant to this
type of incident: training of the gun owner; licensensed/unlicensed owner;
proper/improper storage techniques; education/lack of the youngsters, including
availability of violence in the home, including domestic,
thematic/environmental, literary, cinematic, interactive (pc/video games), etc.
SaPeIsMa
"Mark Henry" <mrh...@carolina.rr.com> wrote in message
news:IMd_d.37777$_i3.1...@twister.southeast.rr.com...
> "- Prof. JonezŠ" wrote:
>>
>> The school's DARE officer is planning to discuss gun safety with all of
>> the school's students, rather than just fifth-graders as had been
>> planned, principal Jose Duarte said.
>>
>> Corsentino urged gun owners to keep their weapons where children cannot
>> access them, advising that weapons should be locked away and ammunition
>> kept elsewhere. He said most kids can't distinguish between the fiction
>> of guns in movies and cartoons and the reality of deadly weapons in the
>> home.
>>
>> "Children need to be educated about handguns," Corsentino said. He said
>> parents need to spend time with their kids explaining the difference
>> between play guns and real guns.
>>
>
> The single thread all of these accidental shootings has in common is the
> total disregard for safety by the owner of the weapon. Hard as it sounds,
> the owner of the gun should/must/wont be held responsible for what
> happened. Unfortunately, the public reaction will be to hold the weapon
> responsible and absolve the owner of any responsiblity in what was
> (obviously) a horrible event.
>
> Programs such as what this DARE officer is going to provide should be
> mandatory from grades K-5. Obviously it wont stop all accidental shootings
> (kids will be kids), but if it prevents one death it's worth it.
>
It wouldn't hurt to take the kids to the local range and let them watch
gallon milk jugs filled with water blow up when hit with a HP bullet
Trust me, kids realize VERY QUICKLY the difference between REAL damage and
the fiction in the media, when the get to see the difference first hand.
The Lone Weasel
> The Lone Weasel wrote:
>
> His usual anti-gun asinine crapola.
>
>> Are you really so afraid of an imaginary burglar that you'd keep a real
>> gun loaded and handy 24/7/365 the rest of your life?
>
> "Imaginary"?
It means the perceived threat is not real. Hard concept for a gunfucker
like you to wrap his ass around, eh Sam?
> When does a burglar cease to be "imaginary"?
Usually when nobody's home. Then you come home and your guns have been
stolen, and other stuff you wanted to hang onto.
>> A dog is much safer, much better protection,
>
> Some people don't want to _take care of_ a dog you fucking weasel-shit!
So they won't take care of their competency to use a gun effectively in
combat situations, and they'll be likely to tell everybody at work that
they have guns and in a few weeks a burglar will break into their house
and steal their guns.
He probably wouldn't steal a dog.
Point proven.
SaPeIsMa
If you had read the NAS report, you would have realized that they were
dancing around to avoid facing the foolowing truths:
1) Gun control does not reduce crime
2) Gun education does reduce accidental shootings.
And there is enough evidence out there to support both of those theses.
You just have to go out and get them and educate yourself.
SaPeIsMa
"FerdinandAkin" <Ferdin...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:9JudnXF0dOz...@comcast.com...
> Mark Henry wrote:
>
>> "- Prof. JonezŠ" wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> The school's DARE officer is planning to discuss gun safety with all of
>>> the school's students, rather than just fifth-graders as had been
>>> planned, principal Jose Duarte said.
>>>
>>> Corsentino urged gun owners to keep their weapons where children cannot
>>> access them, advising that weapons should be locked away and ammunition
>>> kept elsewhere. He said most kids can't distinguish between the fiction
>>> of guns in movies and cartoons and the reality of deadly weapons in the
>>> home.
>>>
>>> "Children need to be educated about handguns," Corsentino said. He said
>>> parents need to spend time with their kids explaining the difference
>>> between play guns and real guns.
>>>
>>
>> The single thread all of these accidental shootings has in common is the
>> total disregard for safety by the owner of the weapon. Hard as it sounds,
>> the owner of the gun should/must/wont be held responsible for what
>> happened. Unfortunately, the public reaction will be to hold the weapon
>> responsible and absolve the owner of any responsiblity in what was
>> (obviously) a horrible event.
>>
>> Programs such as what this DARE officer is going to provide should be
>> mandatory from grades K-5. Obviously it wont stop all accidental
>> shootings (kids will be kids), but if it prevents one death it's worth
>> it.
>>
>> Concord, NC
>>
> http://www.nrahq.org/safety/eddie/
> There has been an effective program available for 16 years that the
> gun grabbing liberals suppress because the hate the messenger.
> /sea/
And the program works just as well on a 5 year-old as a 15 or 25 year-old.
SaPeIsMa
> Buckaroo Banzai wrote:
>> It's amazing to me that people like you can read that story and take
>> from it that it was the gun's fault for the little girl dying!
>
> Of course not nitwit, it was the bullet that killed her.
>
>> The gun-owner is solely responsible for this accident.
>
> So then Armed Homes are not always Safe Homes, are they?
>
You're the only idiot spouting nonsense that a gun in the home is some magic
charm that wards against risks, including human stupidity.
Clearly by that position, you don't have a gun in your home, since you are
clearly unprotected from it in your home.
Sam Bam
> s...@bam.slam said:
>
>
>>The Lone Weasel wrote:
>>
>>His usual anti-gun asinine crapola.
>>
>>
>>>Are you really so afraid of an imaginary burglar that you'd keep a real
>>>gun loaded and handy 24/7/365 the rest of your life?
>>
>>"Imaginary"?
>
>
> It means the perceived threat is not real.
There are no illegal home entries or burglaries?
> Hard concept for a gunfucker
> like you to wrap his ass around, eh Sam?
No forced entries?
>>When does a burglar cease to be "imaginary"?
>
>
> Usually when nobody's home.
But they also strike when people ARE home!
> Then you come home and your guns have been
> stolen, and other stuff you wanted to hang onto.
Well that's a risk we all must decide how to cope with, be it guns, art,
or electronics.
>>>A dog is much safer, much better protection,
>>
>>Some people don't want to _take care of_ a dog you fucking weasel-shit!
>
>
> So they won't take care of their competency to use a gun effectively in
> combat situations,
They won't?
Prove it you sack of dog shit!
> and they'll be likely to tell everybody at work that
> they have guns and in a few weeks a burglar will break into their house
> and steal their guns.
Oh?
Every time eh?
> He probably wouldn't steal a dog.
Dogs get stolen all the time and sold to dog fighting rings.
> Point proven.
>
> --
That you're a monumental dumbass - YES!
Steve@carolinabreezehvac
"The Lone Weasel" <lonewe...@SPAMyahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Xns961C875CADFD6...@130.133.1.4...
> st...@removethis.carolinabreezehvac.com said:
>
> > Now...is my home armed safer for me, or the idiot that tries to enter it
> > unwelcomed?
>
> What was his name again?
The one that entered my home in CA with my wife in the office and myself in
the shower or the guy that tried to steal some items while we were on
vacation last time?
>
> Are you really so afraid of an imaginary burglar that you'd keep a real
> gun loaded and handy 24/7/365 the rest of your life?
Imaginary....tell that to my wife, who was attacked, raped and beaten in her
home in CA when she was 16...
or to my wife, who was home with me when our Palm Springs CA home was
invaded...
or to my neighbor, who was surprised to find someone breaking into my garage
one day while he was on the way over to feed those dogs that are so great to
have....
Oh yea..imaginary...I guess if it happens again, Ill just ignore the guy and
hope hes got imaginary weapons...or not...
>
> A dog is much safer, much better protection, and dogs actually need
> families to adopt them, unlike guns which are obviously useless unless you
> actually have a real person attacking you, they suck for self-defense as
> the dead Mr. Wilson proved in the Tyler shootout, and in fact you're far
> more likely to blab about your gun and soon after have somebody break in
> and steal it than ever use the gun to save your life.
Shows how little you know.
I have 4....
I had one in CA at the time of our home invasion...
>
> [begin excerpt]
>
> Examining data from the National Crime Victimization Survey
> and the FBI's Uniform Crime Reports, Cook and Ludwig found
> that gun ownership actually increases the likelihood that a
> home will be burglarized. A 10-percent increase in a
> county's gun-ownership rate results in a 3-to-7-percent
> increase in the likelihood that a home in that county will
> be burglarized, the authors found.
>
> "One possible reason why the risk of burglary increases with
> gun prevalence is that guns are valuable loot," they wrote.
> "Providing some support for this theory is the fact that in
> 14 percent of the burglaries ... in which a gun was stolen,
> it was the only item stolen."
>
These two guys sound like rocket scientist wannabes..
What happened to common sense? OF COURSE owning a gun(s) puts you at a
higher risk for having those guns stolen, provided you leave them out and
not in a good safe like so many do.
> New Research 'Shoots Down' Concealed-Carry Claims by Dick
> Dahl, 11/1/2002
>
> [end excerpt]
>
> As for any personal right to have guns under the Second Amendment, you
> won't find any such thing in the long history of binding legal precedent
> in state and federal case law. So the NRA can promise you anything, but
> they've never been able to just simply bring a federal case that overturns
> Second Amendment case law, and the case law says you have to belong to a
> well-regulated militia, which is the National Guard these days, and even
> if you were in the National Guard you'd still have to show that your gun
> had some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a
> well regulated militia.
>
> Guys on gun newsgroups lie about that fact all the time, but they still
> have no individual right to have guns under the Second Amendment, and
> never will.
>
> > How hard is it to understand that if the gun was where it was supposed
> > to be the girl would still be alive and the home would still be safer,
> > if the parents knew how to properly use it?
>
> Another myth. In the Smith County Courthouse shooting a very experienced
> handgun shooter was killed because he made one mistake - he missed the
> shooter, and the shooter killed him.
That could have happened if he didnt have a gun..point?
>
> How hard is it to understand that just having a loaded gun in your hand is
> not automatic protection - you may have to kill somebody who's shooting at
> you and yelling and moving and whatever.
No one said it was...but you are welcome at anytime to come with us to the
local LE range, where the majority of those I shoot with wear a badge and go
out every day to insure those that are too worried about having a gun can
feel safe, and they can simply do the paperwork about the aftermath of the
incident...
Anytime you want to qualify, and actually do such in a manner that you are
moving, shouting, and lots of background noise is around, let me know.
I go more often than alot of the LE guys here.
>
> If you don't have a credible threat, get a dog and you'll have a much
> better chance of never having a problem.
Define credible threat, and while you are at it, go ahead and name the next
oh.....3 homes that will be broken into by someone that will have something
more devious than just getting the family silver on his mind.
>
> If you choose the gun, remeber that any honest mistakes on your part could
> get you and everybody in your family killed in a horribly violent way.
While the concern is noted, I would be willing to bet that the wife would
tell you to piss up a rope and suck on the bitter end.
I would also be willing to bet shes a better shot than most of the guys I
shoot with that carry for a living.
>
> > Its obvious they didnt know how to properly use it, or their kid would
> > still be alive....RIGHT?
>
> Circular reasoning always boomerangs, eh Sleeve? Lots of gun owners with
> lots of target range experience and even combat training get killed in a
> real gunfight.
It sure does...as it just did to you again...
And lots of people with no guns, no training, and no way of being given a
fighting chance get killed in a one sided gunfight..
That said, it could also be said that lots of people never have to experence
a gunfight by the simple matter that they have a gun too.
You really think that a crook breaks into a home willing to die?
Having been in that situation face to face with my intruder one time, I can
tell you the answer is no.
>
> Unless you're a real badass with combat experience, and maybe especially
> if you have combat experience, get a dog, keep a baseball bat handy just
> in case.
Again, have 4 dogs...can have a 5th trained in Dutch that was bought for,
and owned by a local K9 LEO that in his words, trusts me as much as anyone
he works with..
I prefer knowing I have Glassers ready in a 12ga tactical.
>
> When you have an imminent and credible threat to your safety, if you have
> a 12 gauge you'll be much better off than with a handgun. I bought a
> couple of shotguns for home defense, but realized there was no serious
> threat and sold them. Still have my dogs, a cluttered house and an
> aluminum baseball bat, and everybody in town knows I don't have any
> fucking guns...
>
Good god...everyone in town knows I have guns. I shoot on a local skeet
team, I am a business owner that is prominent in the area....and all my
neighbors own guns too...on weekends when its slow we get together and bust
clays just around the corner. They also know I have a decal on the office
and home that says :Be smart, rob someone else. We have guns and will not
hesitate to kill you.
I got those right after we joined the local volunteer department of the
Sherriffs department, since stopped with the new guy thats a total moron,
and will allow his guys to be hung out to dry with partners that run and
hide when someone shoots back at them....
> And that I might get a little crazy when I lose my temper...
>
> That's usually all the protection you need. If you're just afraid of
> everything join the NRA. They're looking for suckers like you...
The NRA isnt some org that I would want to join. Its like the BBB...pay us,
and we make you feel good kind of thing.
Of course, there are consumers that actually believe the BBB is there for
them as well..
Most NRA guys, (no offence to those that are reading this) but MOST..not
all, are as you say..suckers.
I dont believe that the NRA is out for anyone, but the NRA....period. If you
read up on them, they are one of the most ANTIgun groups out there.
>
> Laugh laugh laugh laugh laugh.
I have said it before, and will say it yet again.
If you do not want a gun, thats great. Dont tell me for one second I cant.
Tis better to have and not need, than it is to need, and not have.
The idea isnt to go play Rambo...the idea is to never need to fire it by
virtue of possesion.
Steve@carolinabreezehvac
"Sam Bam" <s...@bam.slam> wrote in message
news:trl_d.1661693$Zm5.2...@news.easynews.com...
> The Lone Weasel wrote:
> > s...@bam.slam said:
> >
> >
> >>The Lone Weasel wrote:
> >>
> >>His usual anti-gun asinine crapola.
> >>
> >>
> >>>Are you really so afraid of an imaginary burglar that you'd keep a real
> >>>gun loaded and handy 24/7/365 the rest of your life?
> >>
> >>"Imaginary"?
> >
> >
> > It means the perceived threat is not real.
>
> There are no illegal home entries or burglaries?
And the cops that work their asses off for peanuts can all go home now and
get other jobs....HEY..thats GREAT news..I know of about 20 that I hang out
with that will LOVE to hear that..
Zero crime rate...what a concept! I love it..
>
> > Hard concept for a gunfucker
> > like you to wrap his ass around, eh Sam?
gunfucker? (snicker) Thats almost cute.
>
> No forced entries?
>
> >>When does a burglar cease to be "imaginary"?
> >
> >
> > Usually when nobody's home.
>
> But they also strike when people ARE home!
No shit.
>
> > Then you come home and your guns have been
> > stolen, and other stuff you wanted to hang onto.
Stuffs stuff...including the guns, TVs, computers...etc...you are insured
right?
>
> Well that's a risk we all must decide how to cope with, be it guns, art,
> or electronics.
>
> >>>A dog is much safer, much better protection,
> >>
> >>Some people don't want to _take care of_ a dog you fucking weasel-shit!
> >
> >
> > So they won't take care of their competency to use a gun effectively in
> > combat situations,
Offer stands to you as well, LW, anytime you want to go with us, you are
welcome. It gets interesting at times....reminds me more of basic training
than training to hit your target thats moving while you are as well...
>
> They won't?
>
> Prove it you sack of dog shit!
>
> > and they'll be likely to tell everybody at work that
> > they have guns and in a few weeks a burglar will break into their house
> > and steal their guns.
Helps when the safe they are in, costs more than most rednecks car...LOL
God..now I gotta worry about that safe...
>
> Oh?
>
> Every time eh?
> > He probably wouldn't steal a dog.
In this area, more dogs are stolen a month, than guns....
Jerry
Don't you people realize by now this maggot is nothing more than a scum
troll and you're doing nothing but feeding him.
The Lone Weasel
> "The Lone Weasel" <lonewe...@SPAMyahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns961C875CADFD6...@130.133.1.4...
>> st...@removethis.carolinabreezehvac.com said:
>> > Now...is my home armed safer for me, or the idiot that tries to enter
>> > it unwelcomed?
>>
>> What was his name again?
>
> The one that entered my home in CA with my wife in the office and myself
> in the shower or the guy that tried to steal some items while we were on
> vacation last time?
Both please.
And did either of them actually attack you? Did you file a police report?
>> Are you really so afraid of an imaginary burglar that you'd keep a real
>> gun loaded and handy 24/7/365 the rest of your life?
>
> Imaginary....tell that to my wife, who was attacked, raped and beaten in
> her home in CA when she was 16...
How old is she now? Does she have a reasonable fear of being assaulted
again by this man?
> or to my wife, who was home with me when our Palm Springs CA home was
> invaded...
Were either of you personally attacked? When you say "invaded" you mean
somebody just walked in? With or without criminal intent beyond walking
into a house without your permission?
> or to my neighbor, who was surprised to find someone breaking into my
> garage one day while he was on the way over to feed those dogs that are
> so great to have....
I see. So you filed a police report, and the guy got away with lots of
your stuff? And your neighbor didn't hear any dogs barking even though
they could clearly see the burglar, your neighbor saved the day all by
himself?
> Oh yea..imaginary...I guess if it happens again, Ill just ignore the guy
> and hope hes got imaginary weapons...or not...
Why don't you explain a couple of things? First, how it is that you and
your wife live in a crime infested area and still bitch about the crime?
Second, if you beat your dogs for barking they'll just stop barking, so
what did you expect?
>> A dog is much safer, much better protection, and dogs actually need
>> families to adopt them, unlike guns which are obviously useless unless
>> you actually have a real person attacking you, they suck for
>> self-defense as the dead Mr. Wilson proved in the Tyler shootout, and
>> in fact you're far more likely to blab about your gun and soon after
>> have somebody break in and steal it than ever use the gun to save your
>> life.
>
> Shows how little you know.
> I have 4....
> I had one in CA at the time of our home invasion...
Yeah, when you abuse dogs for doing their job you just train them not to
do their job. It's obviously YOUR fault, dumbass...
Point proven.
_____________________
“The Second Amendment has no place in modern society.”
- Alan Dershowitz. Harvard Crimson, April 9, 2003.
The Lone Weasel
> The Lone Weasel wrote:
>> s...@bam.slam said:
>>>The Lone Weasel wrote:
>>>
>>>His usual anti-gun asinine crapola.
>>>
>>>>>>>Are you really so afraid of an imaginary burglar that you'd keep a
real
>>>>gun loaded and handy 24/7/365 the rest of your life?
>>>
>>>"Imaginary"?
>>
>> It means the perceived threat is not real.
>
> There are no illegal home entries or burglaries?
When was the last time you needed a gun to kill somebody who was attacking
you at that exact moment?
>> Hard concept for a gunfucker
>> like you to wrap his ass around, eh Sam?
>
> No forced entries?
>
>>>When does a burglar cease to be "imaginary"?
>>
>>
>> Usually when nobody's home.
>
> But they also strike when people ARE home!
And this happened to you when?
>> Then you come home and your guns have been
>> stolen, and other stuff you wanted to hang onto.
>
> Well that's a risk we all must decide how to cope with, be it guns, art,
> or electronics.
And then you gun turns up as the murder weapon in a gas station robbery.
Oh well, eh Sham?
_____________________
“The Second Amendment has no place in modern society.”
- Alan Dershowitz. Harvard Crimson, April 9, 2003.
Randy Sweeney
"The Lone Weasel" <lonewe...@SPAMyahoo.com> wrote in message
> It means the perceived threat is not real. Hard concept for a gunfucker
> like you to wrap his ass around, eh Sam?
Lee, do you find the anal imagery helps you?
But back to facts (according to the BJS)
each year violent face-to-face robberies affect about 2.5 people per 1000
14% of these are in-home
So in a city of 1 million people, there will be roughly one home invasion
type robbery per day
Hardly imaginary.
C.M.German
"The Lone Weasel" <lonewe...@SPAMyahoo.com> wrote in message
snip...
>
> Yeah, when you abuse dogs for doing their job you just train them not to
> do their job. It's obviously YOUR fault, dumbass...
>
> Yours truly,
>
> The Lone Weasel
Of Course it's his fault! He owns a big bad murderous gun. That scares the
hell out of you and shrinks them up quicker than cold water.
On the other hand, why are you so upset at someone simply exercising their
2nd amendment rights?
betweentheeyes
news:Xns961C6276DE43Cho...@130.133.1.4...
> Bama Brian <bamaNO...@mindspring.com> wrote:
<snip>
Was your attbi (aka comcast) account canx?
betweentheeyes
> "Harold Burton" <hwbu...@cableone.net> wrote:
>
>> Kids need safety instruction if they can reasonably
>> be expected to have any firearms exposure.
>
> They need effective instruction.
>
> Eddie Eagle isn't effective.
Who has a better one?
betweentheeyes
> RD Sandman <rdsa...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> One reason why firearms safety should be taught in schools.
>
> Using effective methods, not Eddie Eagle.
Catl suggesting firearm instruction in public schools. ....
Go ahead God, you can call me home, I've heard it all.
Mike Watt
betweentheeyes wrote:
>
> "Nisarel" <hostl...@postmaster.co.uk> wrote
> > Eddie Eagle isn't effective.
The books that you said you read that don't exist are?
> Who has a better one?
None has a better program, as Catl (or is it Carl, now that he learned
how to spell his name) can name one person that utilized the "Eddie
Eagle" program has murdered or killed another!
Bama Brian
> RD Sandman <rdsa...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
>>One reason why firearms safety should be taught in schools.
>
>
> Using effective methods, not Eddie Eagle.
Effective meaning teaching the kids how to use a gun, how to clean it,
and real gun safety.
But Eddie Eagle would be just as good as a DARE officer shooting his
mouth off, all the while with a gun at his hip.
Talk about hypocrisy in schools!
--
Cheers,
Bama Brian
Libertarian
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."
George Santayana, "The Life of Reason", vol. 1, 1905
Mike Watt
The Lone Weasel wrote:
> When was the last time you needed a gun to kill somebody who was attacking
> you at that exact moment?
When was the last time you needed more fat, chubby?
Tell us more about how you yer right to be stupid is granted!
"- Prof. Jonez坼
Translation: You can't refute the position you disagree with.
"- Prof. Jonez坼
> The Lone Weasel wrote:
>
> His usual anti-gun asinine crapola.
>
> > Are you really so afraid of an imaginary burglar that you'd keep a
> > real gun loaded and handy 24/7/365 the rest of your life?
>
> "Imaginary"?
>
> When does a burglar cease to be "imaginary"?
Scam Bam's afraid of her own shadow, a genetic coward
if there ever was one.
>
> > A dog is much safer, much better protection,
>
> Some people don't want to _take care of_ a dog you fucking
> weasel-shit!
That's ok Scam Bam, we'll find someone, somewhere to take
care of you.
"- Prof. Jonez坼
There's 2 Powerball winners nearly every week, don't change the
fact that the odds you winning are still more than a million to one.
Now go get your asbestos hat on, Chicken Little, your odds of getting
hit by lightening are higher.
"- Prof. Jonez坼
> "The Lone Weasel" <lonewe...@SPAMyahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns961C875CADFD6...@130.133.1.4...
> > st...@removethis.carolinabreezehvac.com said:
> >
> > > Now...is my home armed safer for me, or the idiot that tries to
> > > enter it unwelcomed?
> >
> > What was his name again?
>
> The one that entered my home in CA with my wife in the office and
> myself in the shower or the guy that tried to steal some items while
> we were on vacation last time?
>
> >
> > Are you really so afraid of an imaginary burglar that you'd keep a
> > real gun loaded and handy 24/7/365 the rest of your life?
>
> Imaginary....tell that to my wife, who was attacked, raped and beaten
> in her home in CA when she was 16...
> or to my wife, who was home with me when our Palm Springs CA home was
> invaded...
> or to my neighbor, who was surprised to find someone breaking into my
> garage one day while he was on the way over to feed those dogs that
> are so great to have....
Boy o' boy, you've just got Victim tatooed all over your forehead, don't you
sucker.
>
> Oh yea..imaginary...I guess if it happens again, Ill just ignore the
> guy and hope hes got imaginary weapons...or not...
So, being you are obviously a magnet for crime, how would having
a gun hidden in the house have helped in any of these situations, the
situtions where no one was shot and/or killed.
>
>
> >
> > A dog is much safer, much better protection, and dogs actually need
> > families to adopt them, unlike guns which are obviously useless
> > unless you actually have a real person attacking you, they suck for
> > self-defense as the dead Mr. Wilson proved in the Tyler shootout,
> > and in fact you're far more likely to blab about your gun and soon
> > after have somebody break in and steal it than ever use the gun to
> > save your life.
>
> Shows how little you know.
> I have 4....
> I had one in CA at the time of our home invasion...
Helped alot, didn't it?
>
>
> >
> > [begin excerpt]
> >
> > Examining data from the National Crime Victimization Survey
> > and the FBI's Uniform Crime Reports, Cook and Ludwig found
> > that gun ownership actually increases the likelihood that a
> > home will be burglarized. A 10-percent increase in a
> > county's gun-ownership rate results in a 3-to-7-percent
> > increase in the likelihood that a home in that county will
> > be burglarized, the authors found.
> >
> > "One possible reason why the risk of burglary increases with
> > gun prevalence is that guns are valuable loot," they wrote.
> > "Providing some support for this theory is the fact that in
> > 14 percent of the burglaries ... in which a gun was stolen,
> > it was the only item stolen."
> >
>
> These two guys sound like rocket scientist wannabes..
>
> What happened to common sense? OF COURSE owning a gun(s) puts you at a
> higher risk for having those guns stolen, provided you leave them out
> and not in a good safe like so many do.
So how useful is a gun locked in a safe while your wife is being
raped at home, alone?
EmailF...@yahoo.com
irresponsible. When I was raised, I started with bb guns. Next, I
went to rifles but only shot .22's until I was about 12. And, even at
that, it was first .22 single shot rifles until I got that down. Went
to clip-fed bolt actions, then finally semi-auto's. I didn't get to
shoot a pistol until I was 13 and that was a .22. No larger pistols
until I was in high school. And, I wasn't allowed to shoot any of the
rifles without supervision.
You start a kid on a bike with training wheels first, seems you'd
follow a similar approach with guns. Anything less is not responsible.
It's sad what happened to this guy and his kid but he wasn't thinking
it through.
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
> When was the last time you needed a gun to kill somebody who was attacking
> you at that exact moment?
I have never needed a gun to kill someone. I have needed a gun to possibly
prevent me getting killed. A fellow got out of his car coming towards me with a
knife in his hand. I opened my coat and let him see the .45 on my belt. He
turned right around and got rid of the knife. Nobody got shot and nobody got
knifed.... most importantly: me.
--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
morts...@carolina.rr.com.REMOVE
EmailF...@yahoo.com
won't find any such thing in the long history of binding legal
precedent
in state and federal case law. So the NRA can promise you anything,
but
they've never been able to just simply bring a federal case that
overturns
Second Amendment case law, and the case law says you have to belong to
a
well-regulated militia, which is the National Guard these days, and
even
if you were in the National Guard you'd still have to show that your
gun
had some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a
well regulated militia.
Guys on gun newsgroups lie about that fact all the time, but they still
have no individual right to have guns under the Second Amendment, and
never will. "
Guess your power trumps the Department of Justice.
The Lone Weasel
The US Constitution, federal statutes and federal case law trumped
Asscraft; he was just too stupid to realize it.
And yes, when I have the binding legal precedent of the Federal Judiciary
and especially the US Supreme Court on my side, I become Wimp2-DOJ's
higher power.
You didn't know that, eh SlaveDave? This country is ruled by laws, not
Wimp2 or the NRfuckingA.
--
Randy Sweeney
" "- Prof. Jonez©"" <jo...@norcom.ca> wrote in message news:D7n_d.44
>> But back to facts (according to the BJS)
>> each year violent face-to-face robberies affect about 2.5 people per
>> 1000 14% of these are in-home
>>
>> So in a city of 1 million people, there will be roughly one home
>> invasion type robbery per day
>>
>> Hardly imaginary.
>
> There's 2 Powerball winners nearly every week, don't change the
> fact that the odds you winning are still more than a million to one.
Those odds are per day, every day. The odds of winning the big one on
Powerball are 120 million to 1 (according to PA lottery)... yet people play
Powerball all the time.
Additionally, unlike Powerball, the robberies are not random, but stuctured,
meaning that depending on where you live, the odds may be much much higher.
Take here in Richmond VA, the robbery rate is 4x the national norm... so,
instead of the million to 1, you have a 1:250,000 chance of home invasion
every day, 365 days a year - assuming that the crime is dispersed evenly
over the city (it isn't).
So let's ZOOM in and check some REAL numbers.
Let's take one upscale urban census tract ( #411) in the fashionable area of
Richmond known as The Fan District... houses there run from $400,000 to
several million.
Using the miracle of the internet and on-line databases, we can see that the
tract's 1671 households reported 44 face to face roberies in 2004 - if the
average 14% were home invasions, then there were 6 home invasions for those
1671 families or one in 271
1 in 271 odds for home invasion for a single year in a nice urban
neighborhood
Wanna bet?
The Aryan
TA
--
" "- Prof. JonezŠ"" <jo...@norcom.ca> wrote in message
news:1J9_d.59$ix1....@news.uswest.net...
> Pueblo 9-year-old fatally shot
>
> By Eileen Kelley and Kirk Mitchell
> The Denver Post
>
>
> Wednesday, March 16, 2005 -
>
> Pueblo - Nine-year-old Julia Arellano was playing Monday afternoon in the
room
> that her 6-year-old brother shares with their father when she pulled a
> .22-caliber handgun from beneath a dresser.
>
> Despite the boy's pleading that she put the gun away, Julia found bullets
and
> loaded them in the magazine, authorities said.
>
> "He knew not to play with it, and was telling her, 'Put it up, put it up,
put it
> up,"' Pueblo sheriff's Detective Keith Ervin said.
>
> The siblings struggled over the gun and, moments later, the third-grader
was on
> the floor, with a gunshot wound to her chest.
>
> A family member called 911 at 5:43 p.m., and medical personnel arrived
eight
> minutes later at the one-story home just east of the city limits. They
tried
> unsuccessfully to resuscitate Julia.
>
> Sheriff's officials said they believe she died from an accidental,
> self-inflicted wound.
>
> Sheriff Dan Corsentino said authorities have not decided if they will
pursue
> criminal charges against the girl's father, Ruben Arellano, and
grandmother, who
> were home at the time of the shooting. He said authorities were "terribly
> distraught" that children had such easy access to a gun.
>
> In addition to the handgun found in the bedroom, authorities said they
found
> three other firearms in the home, which sits between a junkyard and a
salvage
> yard in the Belle Plain industrial park.
>
> "When you lose a beautiful little 9-year-old ... you don't want that ever
to
> happen again," said Steve Bryant, spokesman for the Pueblo County
Sheriff's
> Office. "It's horrible, absolutely horrible."
>
> Ruben Arellano was admitted to a local hospital with chest pains Monday
night.
> It was believed that he was still in the hospital Tuesday afternoon, but
his
> condition was not available.
>
> Family members declined to comment Tuesday. Authorities said the boy was
staying
> with other family members.
>
> At Franklin Elementary School, students and adults said they were saddened
by
> Julia's death.
>
> They took time early in the day to remember the young girl whose smile
beamed
> nearly as brightly as her fiery mane of red hair.
>
> Beneath a large poster that read, "We Love You Julia," dozens of cards
with
> colorful hand- drawn pictures of sad faces, broken hearts and flowers sat
atop a
> table outside the principal's office.
>
> "Julia, I miss you. I'm very sad that you died. I wish you were here with
me. I
> never told you that I liked the way you cut your hair," read one card,
signed
> "Your true friend, Dianne."
>
> "She was a very likable girl," said Greg Sinn, communications director for
> District 60 in Pueblo County. "The school is taking it hard. They're just
trying
> to support each other today."
>
> Six counselors were on hand Tuesday to help students and staff.
>
> The school's DARE officer is planning to discuss gun safety with all of
the
> school's students, rather than just fifth-graders as had been planned,
principal
> Jose Duarte said.
>
> Corsentino urged gun owners to keep their weapons where children cannot
access
> them, advising that weapons should be locked away and ammunition kept
elsewhere.
> He said most kids can't distinguish between the fiction of guns in movies
and
> cartoons and the reality of deadly weapons in the home.
>
> "Children need to be educated about handguns," Corsentino said. He said
parents
> need to spend time with their kids explaining the difference between play
guns
> and real guns.
>
> Corsentino said that as part of what they dubbed "project child safe," his
> office distributed 2,000 free gun locks to Pueblo County residents last
fall.
>
>
The Lone Weasel
> The Lone Weasel wrote:
>> When was the last time you needed a gun to kill somebody who was
>> attacking you at that exact moment?
>
> I have never needed a gun to kill someone. I have needed a gun to
> possibly prevent me getting killed. A fellow got out of his car coming
> towards me with a knife in his hand.
Why?
> I opened my coat and let him see
> the .45 on my belt. He turned right around and got rid of the knife.
So you're sure he was attacking you with the knife, not just that he had it
in his hand?
So what happened after he put away the knife, you gave your father a big
hug?
Jerry
> The US Constitution, federal statutes and federal case law trumped
> Asscraft; he was just too stupid to realize it.
>
> And yes, when I have the binding legal precedent of the Federal Judiciary
> and especially the US Supreme Court on my side, I become Wimp2-DOJ's
> higher power.
>
You don't have them on your side numb nuts..........
Since you obviously failed reading comprehension and history consider this:
"Very simply, and very effectively, our Founding Fathers protected the
ability of each individual citizen, and the state of which he is a part,
to "keep and bear arms" for defense. In reading this amendment, you must
focus on the first tiny comma, for that punctuation mark divides this
guarantee into two separate, but equal, parts. First, each "free state"
of the Union was granted the ability to create and maintain a "well
regulated militia"; note that his guarantee says, "well regulated", not
Federal Government regulated!
After the comma, a second guarantee was granted, i.e., the "right of the
people" to " keep and bear arms". The term, "people" simply means the
individual citizen of the United States of America. Therefore, each
individual citizen has a Constitutionally-guaranteed right to keep and
bear arms."
Now since the US Supreme Court has only heard 5 cases concerning the
second amendment maybe you might like to point out which one denys the
right of all people to have guns......... want to take a shot at it
bright boy. Didn't think so but for your education here are some quotes
from our founding fathers who anticipated ignorance such as your's.
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms" -Thomas Jefferson
"All power is inherent in the people...and it is their right and duty to
be at all times armed" --- Thomas Jefferson
"Your arms, wherewith you could defend yourselves, are gone...Did you
ever read of any revolution in a nation...inflicted by those who had no
power at all?" --- Patrick Henry
"The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in
full possession of them.- Zachriah Johnson
"The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword
because the whole body of the people are armed" - Noah Webster
"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" - Tenche Coxe
"To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of the people
possess arms and be taught alike how to use them." - Richard Henry Lee
"The constitution shall never be constructed to authorize congress to
prevent the people of the United States from keeping their own arms" -
Samuel Adams
"Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived the use of
arms" - Thomas Paine
"Resistance to sudden violence, for the preservation of myself and my
property, is a right which I could not surrender if I would."- John Adams
"The right of bearing arms is declared to be inherent in the people ---
Fisher Ames
"The constitution preserves the advantage of being armed which Americans
possess over the people of every other nation - James Madison
One loves to possess arms, though they hope never to have occasion for
them. --- Thomas Jefferson
A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I
advise the gun...Let your gun therefore be the constant companion of
your walks. --- Thomas Jefferson
A string of amendments were presented to the lower house. These
altogether represnted personal liberty. --- William Greyson
"The people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear
their private arms." - Tenche Coxe
"Congress has no power to disarm the militia, their swords and every
other terrible impliment of the soldiar are the birthright of an
American". --- Tenche Coxe
"The militia when properly formed are the people themselves and include
all men capable of bearing arms." --- Fisher Ames
"The militia consists now of the whole people with the exception of a
few public officers." --- George Mason
Jerry
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
>> I have never needed a gun to kill someone. I have needed a gun to
>> possibly prevent me getting killed. A fellow got out of his car coming
>> towards me with a knife in his hand.
>
> Why?
I had just repossessed his girlfriend's car. I wasn't always a nurse.
> So you're sure he was attacking you with the knife, not just that he had it
> in his hand?
He was a very large man and he was madder than hell. You figure it out.
> So what happened after he put away the knife, you gave your father a big
> hug?
I let him get her personal belongings out of the car, then towed it to the yard
and locked it up.
ben
> "Steve@carolinabreezehvac" <st...@removethis.carolinabreezehvac.com>
> wrote:
>
>> I am willing to bet, that for ME, and my family, its safer than an
>> unarmed home.
>
> Maybe for you but with the firearms in the house, the biggest threat to
> your family is one of your family members.
Bullshit. Prove it. Prove that children in homes with guns are more
likely to be shot by a relative, then to be killed by any other means,
like accidental poisoning.
--
Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/
smokinjo
Topic #1.
WHAT THE FOUNDING FATHERS THOUGHT ABOUT "GUN CONTROL"
Benjamin Franklin: Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a
little temporary
safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." (Nov 11 1755, from the
Pennsylvania Assembly's reply to
the Governor of Pennsylvania.)
Thomas Jefferson: "Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those
who are neither
inclined or determined to commit crimes. Such laws only make things worse
for the assaulted and
better for the assassins; they serve to encourage than to prevent homicides,
for an unarmed man
may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." (1764 Letter and
speech from T.
Jefferson quoting with approval an essay by Cesare Beccari)
John Adams: "Arms in the hands of citizens may be used at individual
discretion in private self
defense." (A defense of the Constitution of the US)
George Washington: "Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution
itself. They are the
people's liberty teeth (and) keystone... the rifle and the pistol are
equally indispensable... more than
99% of them [guns] by their silence indicate that they are in safe and sane
hands. The very
atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference [crime]. When
firearms go, all goes,
we need them every hour." (Address to 1st session of Congress)
George Mason: "To disarm the people is the most effectual way to enslave
them." (3 Elliot,
Debates at 380)
Noah Webster: "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed,
as they are in
almost every country in Europe." (1787, Pamphlets on the Constitution of the
US)
George Washington: "A free people ought to be armed." (Jan 14 1790, Boston
Independent
Chronicle.)
Thomas Jefferson: "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." (T.
Jefferson papers,
334, C.J. Boyd, Ed. 1950)
James Madison: "Americans have the right and advantage of being armed,
unlike the people of
other countries, whose people are afraid to trust them with arms."
(Federalist Paper #46)
Topic #2:
WHAT THE FOUNDING FATHERS MEANT BY THE "MILITIA"
George Mason: "I ask you sir, who are the militia? They consist now of the
whole people." (Elliott,
Debates, 425-426)
Richard Henry Lee: "A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people
themselves...and
include all men capable of bearing arms." (Additional letters from the
Federal Farmer, at 169, 1788)
James Madison: "A WELL REGULATED militia, composed of the people, trained to
arms, is the
best and most natural defense of a free country." (1st Annals of Congress,
at 434, June 8th 1789,
emphasis added.
IMPORTANT NOTE: Back in the 18th century, a "regular" army meant an army
that had
standard military equipment. So a "well regulated" army was simply one that
was "well equipped." It
does NOT refer to a professional army. The 17th century folks used the term
"STANDING Army"
to describe a professional army. THEREFORE, "a well regulated militia" only
means a well equipped
militia. It does not imply the modern meaning of "regulated," which means
controlled or administered
by some superior entity. Federal control over the militia comes from other
parts of the Constitution,
but not from the second amendment. (my personal opinion)
Patrick Henry: "The people have a right to keep and bear arms." (Elliott,
Debates at 185)
Alexander Hamilton: "...that standing army can never be formidable
(threatening) to the liberties
of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all
inferior to them in the use of arms."
(Federalist Paper #29)
"Little more can be aimed at with respect to the people at large than to
have them properly armed
and equipped." (Id) {responding to the claim that the militia itself could
threaten liberty}" There is
something so far-fetched, and so extravagant in the idea of danger of
liberty from the militia that one
is at a loss whether to treat it with gravity or raillery (mockery). (Id)
Topic #3:
MODERN LEADERS THOUGHTS ON GUN CONTROL:
Adolf Hitler: "This year will go down in history. For the first time, a
civilized nation has full gun
registration. Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the
world will follow our lead."
(Chancelor's Speech, 1935)
Charles Shumer: (US Congress, has sworn an oath to defend the US
Constitution) "All we ask for
is registration, just like we do for cars." (Press conference, 1993, exact
date being sought)
Adof Hitler: "The most foolish mistake we could make would be to allow the
subject peoples to
possess arms. So let's not have any talk about native militias." (Hitler's
Secret Conversations,
1941-44, Farrar, Strauss and Young, 1953)
Mao Tse Tung: "All political power comes from the barrel of a gun. The
communist party must
command all the guns, that way, no guns can ever be used to command the
party." (Problems of
War and Strategy, Nov 6 1938, published in "Selected Works of Mao Zedong,"
1965)
Diane Feinstein: "US Senator, If I could have banned them all- 'Mr. and Mrs.
America turn in
your guns' -I would have!" (Statement on TV program 69 Minutes, Feb 5 1995)
Mahatma Gandhi: "Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India,
history will look upon the
act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest." ("Gandhi, an
Autobiography," M.K. Gandhi,
446)
Sigmund Freud: "A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional
maturity."
("General Introduction to Psychoanalysis," S. Freud)
Bill Clinton: (US President, has sworn an oath to defend the US
Constitution, (not to violate it,
criticize it, and belittle it)) "When we got organized as a country, [and]
wrote a fairly radical
Constitution, with a radical Bill of Rights, giving radical amounts of
freedom to Americans, it was
assumed that Americans who had that freedom would use it responsibly...When
personal freedom is
being abused, you have to move to limit it." (April 19 1994, on MTV)
TOPIC #4:
FOUNDING FATHERS INTENT BEHIND THE CONSTITUTION:
Samual Adams: "The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the
people of the United
States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." (Convention
of the Commonwealth
of Mass., 86-87, date still being sought)
Noah Webster: "Good intentions will always be pleaded for every assumption
of authority...the
Constitution was made to guard against the dangers of good intentions. There
are men in all ages
who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good
masters, but they mean
to be masters." (Source still being sought)
Thomas Jefferson: "On every occasion...[of Constitutional interpretation]
let us carry ourselves
back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit
manifested in the debates,
and instead of trying [to force] what meaning may be squeezed out of the
text, or invented against it,
[instead let us] conform to the probable one in which it was passed." (June
12 1823, Letter to
William Johnson)
Topic #5:
RELIGION, WEAPONS AND SELF DEFENSE:
"Now there was no metal smith found in all the land of Israel, for the
Philistines had said, "Lest the
Hebrews make for themselves swords or spears"...But all the Israelites went
down to the Philistines,
each man to sharpen his plow blade, his coulter, his ax and his maddock. So
it came to pass on the
day of battle, that there was neither sword nor spear found in the hand of
any of the people that
were with Saul or Johnathan; but with Saul and Jaohnathan there was found
[other lethal weapons]
1 Samuel 13:19-22)
"Jesus said, 'But now whoever has a purse or a bag, must take it and whoever
does not have a
sword must sell his cloak and buy one.'" (Luke 22:36) "If a thief is caught
breaking in and is struck so he dies, the defender is not guilty of
bloodshed." (Exodus 22:2) (Note, the test later indicates that this right to
kill does not apply to a daytime break in. So in daylight, self defense must
be shone.)
"When a strong man, fully armed, guards his house, his possessions are
safe." (Matthew 11:21)
(Note, the text later states that a stronger or better armed criminal could
overpower a weaker or
poorly armed victim, so get a magnum!)
" "- Prof. Jonez©"" <jo...@norcom.ca> wrote in message
Cole Firearms Inc.
Mortimer Schnerd, RN wrote:
> The Lone Weasel wrote:
>
>>When was the last time you needed a gun to kill somebody who was attacking
>>you at that exact moment?
>
>
>
> I have never needed a gun to kill someone.
Do you mean the people who work in hospitals, kill lots of people? ;)
--
""Sic Semper Tyrannis" - Thus Always with Tyrants - John Wilkes Booth"
"Per ardua nec flectitur nec mutat. Confido,
est voluntas dei, invictus maneo. Addere leci justitiam
deo certavi et vici." - Rev. Shawn Cole, Cole Firearms Inc.
The Lone Weasel
> The Lone Weasel wrote:
>
>> The US Constitution, federal statutes and federal case law trumped
>> Asscraft; he was just too stupid to realize it.
>>
>> And yes, when I have the binding legal precedent of the Federal
>> Judiciary and especially the US Supreme Court on my side, I become
>> Wimp2-DOJ's higher power.
>
> You don't have them on your side numb nuts.
Yes I do and you can't prove otherwise.
> Since you obviously failed reading comprehension and history consider
this:
Sorry, you didn't cite it so I didn't read it.
Saves lots of my time.
> Now since the US Supreme Court has only heard 5 cases concerning the
> second amendment
No kidding? Your gunlobby lawloon Kopel seems to think there are around
100 USSC cases dealing with the Second Amendment.
I always thought he was lying too. Miranda was not a Second Amendment
case just because that amendment was mentioned in passing. Dred Scott was
not a Second Amendment case. Kopel seems desperate to create some case
law; but he fails pretty miserably. It's just not there.
And you post the usual collection of fake or intentionally misconstrued
quotes which I also didn't read because the case law is on my side in the
states and in the federal juiciary including the USSC.
Did you have any actual examples in binding precedent in federal case law
to the contrary didn't think so.
Why don't you watch some basketball? Maybe you could write down the
scores and debate basketball loons about who won the game. You'll have
the winning score but they'll say the other team won for some stupid
reason. There'll be no way you can convence them about the actual scores.
Then you'll know how I feel listening to you claim federal case law says
something it has never said, and that goes back to 1820 at least.
As Justice Story says, "it is almost too plain for argument," but your
ignorance lets you go on.
________________
It is almost too plain for argument, that the power here
given to Congress over the militia is of a limited nature,
and confined to the objects specified in these clauses; and
that in all other respects, and for all other purposes, the
militia are subject to the control and government of the
state authorities. Nor can the reservation to the states of
the appointment [51] of the officers and authority of the
training the militia according to the discipline prescribed
by Congress, be justly considered as weakening this
conclusion. That reservation constitutes an exception merely
from the power given to Congress "to provide for organizing,
arming, and disciplining the militia"; and is a limitation
upon the authority, which would otherwise have devolved upon
it as to the appointment of officers. But the exception from
a given power cannot, upon any fair reasoning, be considered
as an enumeration of all the powers which belong to the
states over the militia. What those powers are must depend
upon their own constitution; and what is not taken away by
the constitution of the United States, must be considered as
retained by the states or the people. The exception, then
ascertains only that Congress have not, and that the states
have, the power to appoint the officers of the militia, and
to train them according to the discipline prescribed by
Congress. Nor does it seem necessary to contend that the
power "to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining
the militia" is exclusively vested in Congress. It is merely
an affirmative power, and if not in its own nature
incompatible with the existence of a like power in the
states, it may well leave a concurrent power in the latter.
But when once Congress has carried this power into effect,
its laws for the organization, arming, and discipline of the
militia, are the supreme law of the land; and all
interfering state regulations must necessarily be suspended
in their operation. It would certainly seem reasonable, that
in the absence of all interfering pro- [52]visions by
Congress on the subject, the states should have authority to
organize, arm, and discipline their own militia. The general
authority retained by them over the militia would seem to
draw after it these, as necessary incidents. If Congress
should not have exercised its own power, how, upon any other
construction than that of a concurrent power, could the
states sufficiently provide for their own safety against
domestic insurrections, or the sudden invasion of a foreign
enemy? They are expressly prohibited from keeping troops or
ships of war in time of peace; and this, undoubtedly, upon
the supposition, that in such cases the militia would be
their natural and sufficient defense. Yet what would the
militia be without organization, arms, and discipline? It is
certainly not compulsory upon Congress to exercise its own
authority upon this subject. The time, the mode, and the
extent, must rest upon its means and sound discretion. If,
therefore, the present case turned upon the question,
whether a state might organize, arm, and discipline its own
militia in the absence of, or subordinate to, the
regulations of Congress, I am certainly not prepared to deny
the legitimacy of such an exercise of authority. It does not
seem repugnant in its nature to the grant of a like
paramount authority to Congress; and if not, then it is
retained by the states. The fifth [sic] amendment to the
constitution, declaring that "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," may
not, perhaps, be thought to have any important bearing on
this point. If [53] it have, it confirms and illustrates,
rather than impugns, the reasoning already suggested.
But Congress have also the power to provide "for governing
such part of the militia as may be employed in the service
of the United States." It has not been attempted in argument
to establish that this power is not exclusively in Congress,
or that the states have a concurrent power of governing
their own militia when in the service of the Union. On the
contrary, the reverse has been conceded both here and before
the other tribunals, in which this cause has been so ably
and learnedly discussed. And there certainly are the
strongest reasons for this construction. When the militia is
called into the actual service of the United States, by
which I understand actual employment in service, the
constitution declares that the President shall be the
commander-in-chief. The militia of several states may, at
the same time, be called out for the public defense; and to
suppose each state could have an authority to govern its own
militia in such cases, even subordinate to the regulations
of Congress, seems utterly inconsistent with that unity of
command and action on which the success of all military
operations must essentially depend. There never could be a
stronger case put from the argument of public inconvenience,
against the adoption of such a doctrine. It is scarcely
possible that any interference, however small, of a state
under such circumstances in the government of the militia,
would not materially embarrass, and directly, or indirectly,
impugn the authority of the Union. In most cases there would
be an utter [54] repugnancy. It would seem, therefore, that
a rational interpretation must construe this power as
exclusive in its own nature, and belonging solely to
Congress."
Joseph Story, Houston v. Moore, 5 Wheat. 1 (1820)
The Lone Weasel
> The Lone Weasel wrote:
>>> I have never needed a gun to kill someone. I have needed a gun to
>>> possibly prevent me getting killed. A fellow got out of his car
>>> coming towards me with a knife in his hand.
>>
>> Why?
>
> I had just repossessed his girlfriend's car. I wasn't always a nurse.
Oh. And you carried a gun to repossess cars?
>> So you're sure he was attacking you with the knife, not just that he
>> had it in his hand?
>
> He was a very large man and he was madder than hell.
Carrying what kind of knife?
> You figure it out.
It was a spatula.
>> So what happened after he put away the knife, you gave your father a
>> big hug?
>
> I let him get her personal belongings out of the car, then towed it to
> the yard and locked it up.
Oh, personal belongings. Now I understand. You didn't tell them you were
repossessing the car, you were just taking it.
So while repossessing the car you were also stealing his girlfriend's
purse? Sounds like a lucrative setup.
I see cars being repossessed and unrepossessed once in awhile, and I don't
see all this conflict, near death experiences, gun-wielding.
So SCRUBS, that's all taken from real life isn't it?
__________________
There was another who used to say: Into seven pits does the
man of peace fall and come out, and the wicked does not come
out from the first into which he falls. And to this also
said Samuel to R. Jehudah: It is a repetition of the verse,
Prov. xxiv. 16: "For though the righteous were to fall seven
times, he will rise up again"; and should the wicked fall in
one, he will not rise again.
Talmud. Tract Sanhedrin, Chapter 1, p 13
Jeffrey C. Dege
>Nisarel wrote:
>>
>> Using effective methods, not Eddie Eagle.
>
>Effective meaning teaching the kids how to use a gun, how to clean it,
>and real gun safety.
http://www.ncjrs.org/pdffiles/urdel.pdf.
Figure 13: Relationship Between Type of Gun Owned and Percent Committing
Street, Gun, an d Drug Crimes
Percent Engaging in Behavior
Street Crimes Gun Crimes Drug Use
No Gun 24 1 15
Legal Gun 14 0 13
Illegal Gun 74 24 41
Gun ownership and delinquency
Adolescent ownership and use of firearms is a growing concern, and
results from the Rochester study suggest the concern is well founded.
By the ninth and tenth grades, more boys own illegal guns (7 percent)
than own legal guns (3 percent). Of the boys who own illegal guns, about
half of the whites and African-Americans and nearly 90 percent of the
Hispanics carry them on a regular basis.
Figure 13 shows a very strong relationship between owning illegal guns and
delinquency and drug use. Seventy-four percent of the illegal gunowners
commit street crimes, 24 percent commit gun crimes, and 41 percent use
drugs. Boys who own legal firearms, however, have much lower rates
of delinquency and drug use and are even slightly less delinquent than
nonowners of guns.
The socialization into gun ownership is also vastly different for legal
and illegal gunowners. Those who own legal guns have fathers who own
guns for sport and hunting. On the other hand, those who own illegal
guns have friends who own illegal guns and are far more likely to be gang
members. For legal gunowners, socialization appears to take place in the
family; for illegal gunowners, it appears to take place "on the street."
--
Lord Karasumaru considered it a grave mistake on the part of the gods to
have made a man like himself a nobleman. And, though a servant of the
Emperor, he saw only two paths open to him: to live in constant misery or
to spend his time carousing. The sensible choice was to rest his head
on the knees of a beautiful woman, admire the pale light of the moon,
view the cherry blossoms in season and die with a cup of sake in his hand.
- Eiji Yoshikawa, "Musashi"
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
> Oh. And you carried a gun to repossess cars?
That's right. It's a dangerous business.
> Carrying what kind of knife?
A big goddamn Bowie.
> Oh, personal belongings. Now I understand. You didn't tell them you were
> repossessing the car, you were just taking it
That's the way it works. You buy the car. You stop making the payments on the
car. I take the fucking car and give it back to the lender. Do you understand?
> So while repossessing the car you were also stealing his girlfriend's
> purse? Sounds like a lucrative setup.
Nope. No purse. I'm curious: are you going out of your way to be stupid or
does it just come natural to you? I've noticed you're very good at it. Most
people leave things in their car that they'd like to keep... besides wallets and
purses. You've probably left your Haldol in yours.
> I see cars being repossessed and unrepossessed once in awhile, and I don't
> see all this conflict, near death experiences, gun-wielding.
I have no doubt you've seen reposessions once or twice. Probably out of your
front yard. It would explain why you ride the bus.
Dad
"The Aryan" <ary...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:65edncXui7E...@comcast.com...
"- Prof. Jonez©"
> Good job, you just reposted the entire BS you say to ignore.
Aryans aren't the smartest hillbillies in the trailer park.
FerdinandAkin
>FerdinandAkin <Ferdin...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>>http://www.nrahq.org/safety/eddie/
>> There has been an
>>
>>
>
>a program that has not been proved effective and has been proved ineffective.
>
>The National Academy of Science recently issued the report Firearms and Violence: A
>Critical Review. One chapter in this book examined firearm injury prevention programs.
>On page 213, they concluded "Of the more than 80 other programs described at least
>briefly in the literature, few have been adequately evaluated as to their effectiveness.
>Those that have been evaluated provide little empirical evidence that they have a
>positive impact on children’s knowledge, attitudes, and beliefs." They also noted that
>"A closer examination of these programs, however, suggests that present educational
>efforts may not be effective at reducing the risk of firearm morbidity and mortality
>among children, and in fact may have the opposite effect for some youth."
>
>
My personal experience with kids who have seen an Eddie Eagle program
shows the program to be effective. Since I did not see Eddie Eagle
directly mentioned in your quote, I went to page 213 and guess what? I
do not have a copy of the NAS report, so we will have to take it on your
word.
/sea/
"- Prof. Jonez坼
> On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 21:23:59 GMT, Bama Brian
> <bamaNO...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> > Nisarel wrote:
> > >
> > > Using effective methods, not Eddie Eagle.
> >
> > Effective meaning teaching the kids how to use a gun, how to clean
> > it,
> > and real gun safety.
>
>
> http://www.ncjrs.org/pdffiles/urdel.pdf.
>
> Figure 13: Relationship Between Type of Gun Owned and Percent
> Committing
> Street, Gun, an d Drug Crimes
>
> Percent Engaging in Behavior
> Street Crimes Gun Crimes Drug Use
>
> No Gun 24 1 15
> Legal Gun 14 0 13
> Illegal Gun 74 24 41
Just curious, how does a person in the No Gun category commit
the 1 gun crime listed?
"- Prof. Jonez坼
> The Lone Weasel wrote:
> > Oh. And you carried a gun to repossess cars?
>
>
> That's right. It's a dangerous business.
Bullshit. I had a repo business for 3 years and
99% of the time, contrary to Tee Vee and Hollywood
and your BS, we simply knocked on the front door,
told them we were there for their car, and asked for
and received the keys from them. They know the gig's up
by the time the repo man comes around.
The other 1% problem repos, we just ask local PD or
Sheriff for an escort to keep the peace. No one
got too frisky with Law Enforcement on hand. Oddly
enough, the rare problem repos were almost always
females.
>
>
> > Carrying what kind of knife?
>
>
> A big goddamn Bowie.
>
>
> > Oh, personal belongings. Now I understand. You didn't tell them
> > you were repossessing the car, you were just taking it
>
>
> That's the way it works. You buy the car. You stop making the
> payments on the car. I take the fucking car and give it back to the
> lender. Do you understand?
Yeah tough-guy, and if you were really in the business you wouldn't
spout the utter bullshit you do.
Jerry
>>You don't have them on your side numb nuts.
>
>
> Yes I do and you can't prove otherwise.
I just did but I knew you were to stupid to understand.
>
> Sorry, you didn't cite it so I didn't read it.
>
> Saves lots of my time.
Since you can't even understand what I printed how can anyone expect you
to comprehend court documents.
>
>
>>Now since the US Supreme Court has only heard 5 cases concerning the
>>second amendment
>
>
> No kidding? Your gunlobby lawloon Kopel seems to think there are around
> 100 USSC cases dealing with the Second Amendment.
Awwww......poor little boy, he can't figure out the difference between a
state and the US supreme court..... figures.
>
> I always thought he was lying too. Miranda was not a Second Amendment
> case just because that amendment was mentioned in passing. Dred Scott was
> not a Second Amendment case. Kopel seems desperate to create some case
> law; but he fails pretty miserably. It's just not there.
>
> And you post the usual collection of fake or intentionally misconstrued
> quotes which I also didn't read
Wow .. a liar to boot....... if you didn't read them then you don't know
if they were fake.
> Did you have any actual examples in binding precedent in federal case law
> to the contrary didn't think so.
Her you go little man ........ squirm out of this or should I say
slither out of this. http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndsup.html
>
> As Justice Story says, "it is almost too plain for argument," but your
> ignorance lets you go on.
>
Are you really that stupid....... of course you are. This decision
concerned the right of the federal government to call up the militia
instead of the states. The militia being all the armed citizens. It in
no way was a challenge to the word militia itself. What a dumb ass....
Now go play in your sandbox before mommy gets mad at you.....
Jerry
Gray Ghost
news:1111099817.2...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com:
> Who in their right mind has a 6-year old shooting a .45? That to me is
> irresponsible. When I was raised, I started with bb guns. Next, I
> went to rifles but only shot .22's until I was about 12. And, even at
> that, it was first .22 single shot rifles until I got that down. Went
> to clip-fed bolt actions, then finally semi-auto's. I didn't get to
> shoot a pistol until I was 13 and that was a .22. No larger pistols
> until I was in high school. And, I wasn't allowed to shoot any of the
> rifles without supervision.
>
> You start a kid on a bike with training wheels first, seems you'd
> follow a similar approach with guns. Anything less is not responsible.
> It's sad what happened to this guy and his kid but he wasn't thinking
> it through.
>
>
Exactly my thought. That is far to much gun for a six yo, assisted or
not. Stupidity should be fatal. It would purge the world of idiots like Catl.
Gray Ghost
news:Xns961C8F87EA690ho...@130.133.1.4:
> "Steve@carolinabreezehvac" <st...@removethis.carolinabreezehvac.com>
> wrote:
>
>> I am willing to bet, that for ME, and my family, its safer than an
>> unarmed home.
>
> Maybe for you but with the firearms in the house, the biggest threat to
> your family is one of your family members.
>
Care to quantify that in any meaningful way or is that just pulled outta
yer ass like everything else you spout, you ignorant clod.
Gray Ghost
news:Xns961CD63062068ho...@130.133.1.4:
> Bama Brian <bamaNO...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>> But Eddie Eagle would be just as good as a DARE officer shooting
>> his mouth off, all the while with a gun at his hip.
>
> Those two programs are equally ineffective.
Gray Ghost
news:Xns961CCADDE7501...@130.133.1.4:
You are beyond pathetic.
SaPeIsMa
" "- Prof. Jonez©"" <jo...@norcom.ca> wrote in message
news:XUr_d.77$5d2....@news.uswest.net...
> Jeffrey C. Dege wrote:
>> On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 21:23:59 GMT, Bama Brian
>> <bamaNO...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>> > Nisarel wrote:
>> > >
>> > > Using effective methods, not Eddie Eagle.
>> >
>> > Effective meaning teaching the kids how to use a gun, how to clean
>> > it,
>> > and real gun safety.
>>
>>
>> http://www.ncjrs.org/pdffiles/urdel.pdf.
>>
>> Figure 13: Relationship Between Type of Gun Owned and Percent
>> Committing
>> Street, Gun, an d Drug Crimes
>>
>> Percent Engaging in Behavior
>> Street Crimes Gun Crimes Drug Use
>>
>> No Gun 24 1 15
>> Legal Gun 14 0 13
>> Illegal Gun 74 24 41
>
> Just curious, how does a person in the No Gun category commit
> the 1 gun crime listed?
>
<sigh>
It's a PERCENT value...
NOT a single incident.
Jeffrey C. Dege
>Jeffrey C. Dege wrote:
>>
>> http://www.ncjrs.org/pdffiles/urdel.pdf.
>>
>> Figure 13: Relationship Between Type of Gun Owned and Percent
>> Committing
>> Street, Gun, an d Drug Crimes
>>
>> Percent Engaging in Behavior
>> Street Crimes Gun Crimes Drug Use
>>
>> No Gun 24 1 15
>> Legal Gun 14 0 13
>> Illegal Gun 74 24 41
>
>Just curious, how does a person in the No Gun category commit
>the 1 gun crime listed?
"No Gun" are the kids who don't own guns. Looks like 1% of the kids
who didn't own guns were involved in some sort of gun crime. How did
they manage that? Maybe they borrowed one.
>> The socialization into gun ownership is also vastly different for legal
>> and illegal gunowners. Those who own legal guns have fathers who own
>> guns for sport and hunting. On the other hand, those who own illegal
>> guns have friends who own illegal guns and are far more likely to be
>> gang members. For legal gunowners, socialization appears to take place in the
>> family; for illegal gunowners, it appears to take place "on the
>> street."
The above is, of course, the important part.
--
And yet, for reasons that remain mysterious to me, many liberals seem to
think that the U.N. is somehow a democratic institution because its members
vote. Never mind that many of these votes are cast by people who don't
represent their constituents in any democratic sense. The same people who
despise the federal and republican aspects of the United States - states'
rights, the electoral college, indirect elections, etc. - will swoon over
the moral authority of U.N. "votes" criticizing the United States. This is
like having a gang of criminals "vote" on which old lady they're going rob
and kill and then, looking at the corpse, say, "Well, it was a democratic
decision."
- Jonah Goldberg