Doug Miller wrote:
In article , "Joseph Meehan"
wrote:

[snip]
And quite frankly I would not want to be responsible for someone's
death even if they were threatening me.

So you would rather die, than to kill in self-defense. That is, of
course,
your choice.

It is actually an evil choice. The logical conclusion to Mr. M's profundity
is that he would rather stand around and let innocent people die, then to do
anything to effectively stop someone from murdering someone else.

Just don't try to force others to make the same choice.

He has to. He doesn't want to be left alone in his abject helplessness.

--
Dave
www.davebbq.com

In article , wrote:

Yes, but there are a lot of highly relevant facts that apply
to each and every one of those topics. Public policy decisions
made in the absence (or defiance) of those facts are unlikely
to be sound.

Oh, really?

So, after the US faced the REAL threat of Russian missiles for over 40 years
without the Patriot Act and a Department of Homeland Security, the decision to
create both of them was based on FACTS rather than emotions? Give me a break!

The threat changed very significantly so I think the facts
strongly supported a change in response.

Yes, there was good deal of emotion involved in that
particular decisionmaking and the quality of the decisions
was probably lower than it might otherwise have been
for precisely that reason.

--
|~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~|
| Malcolm Hoar "The more I practice, the luckier I get". |
| Gary Player. |
| http://www.malch.com/ Shpx gur PQN. |
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

In article , "Joseph Meehan" wrote:

Well the Constitution was written to allow changes when and if
necessary. We have made changes before, I believe we may need one again,
depending on how the courts decide what the constitution really means in
this matter as it is now written.

In fact, the Constitution *was* changed -- to specifically
provide a right to keep and bare arms. That's why it's called
the second AMENDMENT.

Neither of the major parties is going to support the repeal
(or significant weakening) of same. The GOP on principle
and the Dems because they couldn't/wouldn't take the hit
in terms of votes.

Don't hold your breath on this one!




--
|~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~|
| Malcolm Hoar "The more I practice, the luckier I get". |
| Gary Player. |
| http://www.malch.com/ Shpx gur PQN. |
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

(Malcolm Hoar) wrote:

In article , "Joseph Meehan" wrote:

Well the Constitution was written to allow changes when and if
necessary. We have made changes before, I believe we may need one again,
depending on how the courts decide what the constitution really means in
this matter as it is now written.

In fact, the Constitution *was* changed -- to specifically
provide a right to keep and bare arms. That's why it's called
the second AMENDMENT.

Neither of the major parties is going to support the repeal
(or significant weakening) of same. The GOP on principle
and the Dems because they couldn't/wouldn't take the hit
in terms of votes.

Don't hold your breath on this one!

In addition, it would never be approved by enough states. This is one
place were the population of the state does not mean anything.
--
Jim Rusling
More or Less Retired
Mustang, OK
http://www.rusling.org

Joseph Meehan wrote:

Well the Constitution was written to allow changes when and if
necessary. We have made changes before, I believe we may need one
again, depending on how the courts decide what the constitution
really means in this matter as it is now written.

I very much agree with the constitution. Do you agree that it can
legally be changed under the constitution or not?

The Constitution has (almost) nothing to do with the conversation. The 2nd
Amendment does not apply to the states or individual citizens (see
"Incorporation Doctrine" almost anywhere).

A case now before SCOTUS (Parker vs D.C.) may change that, though it is more
likely that SCOTUS will rule narrowly and not extend the 2nd to the states.
But who knows?


State constitutions, however, DO matter.

Joseph Meehan wrote:

She's a Pinkerton. You trust your safety to a Pinkerton with a gun,
but you refuse to trust yourself with a gun? What does that say
about you?

It says I am not currently well trained in the use of guns,
especially hand guns. The last time I had a gun in my had was in the
army during the Vietnam war. That was a long time ago and at that
time, while I scored well with the M12, M16, 3.5 rocket launcher and
M60 I barely qualified with the 45 hand gun. I was also not trained
in the type of situations that would be most likely in the US where
defining the target with a very high degree of accuracy and being
able to single out just the threatening targets meaning I might end
up doing more damage to a innocent person that a real threat. And
quite frankly I would not want to be responsible for someone's death
even if they were threatening me.

I'm not well-trained in flying a 747 but that doesn't mean I wouldn't TRY if
the choice was between me doing my best it up and crashing for sure.

Trust me, it doesn't matter whether one is well-trained. Even the
well-trained can die. But a possibility of living, small as it may be, is a
far, far greater good than the certainity of death.

Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article ,
"HeyBub" wrote:

Kurt Ullman wrote:

And there is no requirement (as in some states) that you try to
avoid conflict. Generally speaking in Indiana as long as the first
drop of blood is inside the threshold, you are in the clear.

I'm not familiar with Indiana law, but that sounds like an urban
legend. I would think that in ANY jurisdiction you have the right to
defend yourself if you are in fear of your life.

We were discussing specifically burglars and others entering the
house, and it was not to considered the ONLY time you could drop the
dude. The prosecutor in Indy actually used that as *A* safe harbor
type illustration.

First, if the house is occupied, it's not a burglary - it's a robbery.

Second, I looked it up. Indiana does have a "Castle Doctrine" law (since
March of 2006). A Castle Doctrine law says that if someone forceably enters
your home, you can rely on the legal presumption that they intend to do you
grievous bodily harm. They need no other qualification. That is, they need
not threaten you, produce a weapon, or anything else. Moreover, you are
under no obligation to retreat. Bottom line: somebody breaks in (or attempts
to do so), you can kill 'em for free.

JC wrote:
"Oren" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 12:37:34 -0600, "HeyBub"
wrote:
Oren wrote:
On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 10:44:11 -0600, "HeyBub"
wrote:
My town (Houston), is in the news because a couple of weeks ago a
chap named Joe Horn wasted two goblins as they were burglarizing
his neighbor's house.

I never got the follow-up news, iirc he was on a 911 call -
stating he was going too shoot the burglars next door. The shot
gun blast (TWO?) was heard on the 911 tape released to the media.

These were not goblins. Check their history of predatory nature.
These were serious crooks/thugs on the street.

What I missed; is not knowing if Joe Horn has been cleared. My take
the law would be on his side.

Do a Google on Texas Penal Code 9.42 [Deadly Force to Protect
Property] for
the straight skinney.

I don't think that's valid. Here is the Texas Penal Code Title 9
TITLE 9. OFFENSES AGAINST PUBLIC ORDER AND DECENCY

CHAPTER 42. DISORDERLY CONDUCT AND RELATED OFFENSES

CHAPTER 43. PUBLIC INDECENCY

No, it's correct. Here's 9.41 Protection of One's Own Property, 9.42 Deadly
Force to Protect Property, and 9.43 Protection of a Third Person's Property
(all bearing on the issue)

http://law.onecle.com/texas/penal/9.41.00.html
http://www.bakers-legal-pages.com/pc/0942.htm
http://www.bakers-legal-pages.com/pc/0943.htm

wrote in :

On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 19:32:28 GMT, (Malcolm Hoar)
wrote:

In article ,
wrote:
On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 19:00:40 GMT, (Malcolm Hoar)
wrote:

In article ,
wrote:

Okay, please give us "facts" pertaining to why you got married that
are not really just based on emotion.

Why? That's a purely personal choice. Not a public policy
question that he seeks to impose on the rest of the citizens.

I was trying to point out that emotions can guide decisions and be
just as valid as "facts".

I know. It wasn't a good example ;-)

There are MANY very controversial issues that are really
controversial only because of the emotions involved. Abortion, Gun
Control, Gay Marriage, etc.

Yes, but there are a lot of highly relevant facts that apply
to each and every one of those topics. Public policy decisions
made in the absence (or defiance) of those facts are unlikely
to be sound.

Oh, really?

So, after the US faced the REAL threat of Russian missiles for over 40
years without the Patriot Act and a Department of Homeland Security,
the decision to create both of them was based on FACTS rather than
emotions? Give me a break!




well,the Russians are SANE,while the Islamics are not.
One can make treaties with the Russians,and reasonably expect them to
follow the treaty terms,but one cannot with Islamics,as it says right in
the Koran that it's permissible with infidels,to make agreements and then
not abide by them.

MAD only works with rational players.

Also,war used to be solely between nations,but now is occurring between
nations and multi-state groups like terrorists.

IOW,REAL reasons.


--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 15:16:26 -0500, "Joseph Meehan"
wrote:

And quite frankly I would not want to be responsible for someone's
death even if they were threatening me.


If it was your life or his, which would you choose?
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Retired Shop Rat: 14,647 days in a GM plant.
Speak softly and carry a loaded .45
Lifetime member; Vast Right Wing Conspiricy
Web Site: www.destarr.com
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

"Joseph Meehan" wrote in
:

"Jim Yanik" wrote in message
...
..
You want to take them from law abiding folk?

Yes, see below.


Well the Constitution was written to allow changes when and if
necessary. We have made changes before, I believe we may need one
again, depending on how the courts decide what the constitution really
means in this matter as it is now written.

I very much agree with the constitution. Do you agree that it can
legally be changed under the constitution or not?



"progressives" are NOT trying to amend the Constitution,they are trying to
REDEFINE terms to mean new things.They don't try to enact an
amendment,because they know they cannot achieve that.
They want a "living Consitution" that is interpreted by public
opinion,changing as opinion changes.They want a changing court(with no
accountability to the People,and life terms) to re-interpret as public
opinion changes.(or by what a FOREIGN nation does!)

They enact laws that are plainly unconstitutional,and depend on the courts
to make them stick.
A person has to go up against the Government,which has unlimited resources
and unlimited time,and risk their very lives,to overturn an
unconstitutional law. Thus,it's rare that that happens.

BTW,that's Constitution,with a Capital C.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

"Joseph Meehan" wrote in
:



wrote in message
...

I understand she was working as a security guard at the time,
which
only
supports my point. She should not be considered a civilian.

She's a Pinkerton. You trust your safety to a Pinkerton with a gun,
but you refuse to trust yourself with a gun? What does that say
about you?

It says I am not currently well trained in the use of guns,
especially
hand guns. The last time I had a gun in my had was in the army during
the Vietnam war. That was a long time ago and at that time, while I
scored well with the M12, M16, 3.5 rocket launcher and M60 I barely
qualified with the 45 hand gun. I was also not trained in the type
of situations that would be most likely in the US where defining the
target with a very high degree of accuracy and being able to single
out just the threatening targets meaning I might end up doing more
damage to a innocent person that a real threat.

that CRAP about needing "sufficient training" is pure nonsense;here in the
Orlando area,a 50 yr old woman had a stalker smash thru her patio
door,armed with a gun and a piece of rope.After she was shot a couple of
times,she still managed to get to her handgun,and shot and killed the
stalker.The Seminole County Sheriff's had RECOMMENDED she buy a gun for
self-defense,and a deputy sheriff gave her minimal training with it,only 20
minutes of practice. The NRA's Armed Citizen column has enough examples of
elderly people using guns in legitimate DGUs,no other item can match a
handgun for self-defense,that can be used by the widest selection of
people,of all physical conditions,as effective against single or multiple
assailants,armed with guns,knives,clubs,or other weapons.
Elderly,handicapped,small,weak,female,straight,hom osexual,black,white,all
have benefitted from guns for their self-defense,when the police were not
present to act for them.


And quite frankly I
would not want to be responsible for someone's death even if they were
threatening me.



Yes,you would rather they escape and stay free,to prey on other people.

BTW,shooting someone does NOT always result in their death,in fact,far more
people survive their gunshot wounds. BUT,shooting a criminal means they get
apprehended ewhen seeking medical treatment for their gunshot
wounds,that MUST be reported by law. Thuis,shooting a criminal means the
crook cannot go on to other prey,thus a PUBLIC SERVICE.
Making others safer.

and if they do die,so what? no great loss.
Criminals are a terrific drain on society,a terrible cost.

Let the criminals risk THEIR lives,not our ODCs.


--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

"Dave Bugg" wrote in
:

Doug Miller wrote:
In article , "Joseph Meehan"
wrote:

[snip]
And quite frankly I would not want to be responsible for someone's
death even if they were threatening me.

So you would rather die, than to kill in self-defense. That is, of
course,
your choice.

It is actually an evil choice. The logical conclusion to Mr. M's
profundity is that he would rather stand around and let innocent
people die, then to do anything to effectively stop someone from
murdering someone else.

Just don't try to force others to make the same choice.

He has to. He doesn't want to be left alone in his abject
helplessness.


Yes,he wants us ALL to be as helpless,in his desire for an imaginary,false
security.
He wants us ALL to bear the terrible costs of their crimes.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

But we have a lot of guns in circulation and that does
increase the risks of accidents. We also have a lot of
guns in the hands of folks that shouldn't have access
to firearms.

What was the major cause of deaths on wagon trains in the 1880s? Bears?
Indians? Stampeding buffalo? Snakebites?

No. Accidental shootings.

And these were a lot of men who just came from the killing fields of the
Eastern half of the US.

Many happened when someone just did something stupid with a gun and whacked
themselves. Many happened when someone was in the brush taking relief, and
was shot by mistake. Many happened when someone did something stupid with a
gun and another was on the wrong end. Point is, people are killed by
knives, bats, Christmas lights, and a thousand other things.

**** happens, and life goes on.

The gun that killed someone fed the family later that week.

Steve

On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 15:16:26 -0500, "Joseph Meehan"
wrote:



wrote in message
.. .

I understand she was working as a security guard at the time, which
only
supports my point. She should not be considered a civilian.

She's a Pinkerton. You trust your safety to a Pinkerton with a gun,
but you refuse to trust yourself with a gun? What does that say
about you?

It says I am not currently well trained in the use of guns, especially
hand guns. The last time I had a gun in my had was in the army during the
Vietnam war. That was a long time ago and at that time, while I scored well
with the M12, M16, 3.5 rocket launcher and M60 I barely qualified with the
45 hand gun. I was also not trained in the type of situations that would
be most likely in the US where defining the target with a very high degree
of accuracy and being able to single out just the threatening targets
meaning I might end up doing more damage to a innocent person that a real
threat. And quite frankly I would not want to be responsible for someone's
death even if they were threatening me.


Did you take your position on guns (remove from law-abiding) after
the Vietnam Conflict? I do not want to think you would hold fire and
not protect brothers in harms way. Now if you were behind the front,
maybe you just counted beans ....

On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 15:00:39 -0500, "Joseph Meehan"
wrote:

... I very much agree with the [C]constitution. Do you agree that it
can legally be changed under the constitution or not?...


Yes, when enough States ratify an Amendment.

I think getting the Constitution amended to take guns from law-abiding
folks; would be like, ****ing up a rope.

Look around at states that repealed/removed - "retreat to the wall"
before you can kill.

You carry the gun and if you get threatened just toss it to me.

No need to amend the Constitution.

In article , "Joseph Meehan" wrote:

1) How, exactly, would a law prohibiting the private possession of
firearms
prevent criminals -- that is, those who don't obey laws anyway -- from
possessing them?

I never said it would. Although since the criminal has to get the gun
somewhere, that gun often got into the system by being sold legally to
someone. Take more guns out of the system, it should make it harder for the
bad guys to get them too. However I don't consider this a deal breaker.

I come from a country where gun ownership has been largely
prohibited for decades. The bad guys don't seem to find
a problem obtaining firearms. The bad guys are armed and
the good guys are not! This would be the result, as sure
as night follows day. Does that sound like a desirable
state of affairs to you?

2) Consider that there are already a multitude of laws in place
prohibiting
the possession of cocaine, marijuana, methamphetamine, and so forth. What
reason is there to believe that a law prohibiting the possession of
firearms
will be any more effective at preventing their possession than are the
current
laws pertaining to those, and other, drugs?

People break speed laws all the time. They drive drunk all the time,
should we eliminate those laws? Should we eliminate the laws against drugs?

Many progressives think we should (eliminate the drug laws).
We did eliminate the prohibition on alcohol and one doesn't
hear too many complaints about that.

However, you're proposing to prohibit legitimate (currently
legal) gun ownership. That's more akin to prohibiting the
legitimate (prescribed) use of drugs simply because that
substance has some POTENTIAL for abuse. That's just great
news for the terminally ill!

--
|~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~|
| Malcolm Hoar "The more I practice, the luckier I get". |
| Gary Player. |
| http://www.malch.com/ Shpx gur PQN. |
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

In article , "SteveB" wrote:

"Joseph Meehan" wrote

I never said it would. Although since the criminal has to get the gun
somewhere, that gun often got into the system by being sold legally to
someone. Take more guns out of the system, it should make it harder for
the bad guys to get them too.

I consider there to be a high number of cars that are possessed by people
who should not have them. They are horrible drivers. A threat to my life
every day I drive. I have not had such a threat level from anyone with a
gun. Yet.

The laws regarding people driving who have demonstrated that they shouldn't
be driving should be strengthened, or the cars restricted, just as you
suggest for guns.

But under Meehan's logic, we'd have to take the cars away from
the good drivers too. Hey, I bet a lot of those bad drivers
obtained their vehicles from good drivers. We need to cut off
the supply lines.

After all, cars are bad, right? They kill people. They pollute
the environment, cause global warming, and deprive the public
transport system of revenue. Positively evil. A much bigger
problem than guns, in fact.

--
|~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~|
| Malcolm Hoar "The more I practice, the luckier I get". |
| Gary Player. |
| http://www.malch.com/ Shpx gur PQN. |
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Joseph Meehan" wrote

I never said it would. Although since the criminal has to get the gun
somewhere, that gun often got into the system by being sold legally to
someone. Take more guns out of the system, it should make it harder for
the bad guys to get them too.

I consider there to be a high number of cars that are possessed by people
who should not have them. They are horrible drivers. A threat to my life
every day I drive. I have not had such a threat level from anyone with a
gun. Yet.

The laws regarding people driving who have demonstrated that they shouldn't
be driving should be strengthened, or the cars restricted, just as you
suggest for guns.

Either that, or relax the laws for just pulling someone out of a car and
thumping the **** out of them when they do something stupid enough to
deserve it.

And don't stop with cars. There are lots of things that are very dangerous
to humanity or one particular group that should be regulated.

Like women's makeup and padded bras.

See whut uh mean, Vern?

Steve

On Dec 13, 4:48 pm, "Joseph Meehan"
wrote:

snip

People break speed laws all the time. They drive drunk all the time,
should we eliminate those laws? Should we eliminate the laws against drugs?




What a wild leap of logic! Show where anyone is advocating
eliminating laws against illegal use of weapons then that bit would be
a bit more on topic. As it is, it doesn't even peripherally touch the
issue.

Harry K

On Dec 13, 10:46 am, wrote:
On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 07:58:31 -0800 (PST), Harry K
wrote:





On Dec 12, 6:17 pm, Jim Yanik wrote:
"Joseph Meehan" wrote :

"HeyBub" wrote in message
...
Joseph Meehan wrote:

...

One further note, it is not sufficient to discount a finding by
questioning the qualifications of its proponents. This reverse
"appeal to authority" is similar to "if you can't fault the message,
condem the messenger."

I agree. I have not discounted the findings, I have clearly
stated I
have not ever reviewed them However I did point out that the normal
and usual expected expertise of an Economist does not include crime
studies. That certainly does not make him wrong, but it does eliminate
any special authoritative weight

If there is a flaw in Lott's methodology or conclusion, state it; if
someone using the same data can reach a differing conclusion, we'd
all like to see it. Whether Lott is a criminologist, lawyer, or rodeo
clown is irrelevant.

As stated I have not reviewed it. I did not car to download the
detail
and without the detail it is nothing more than the opinion of someone
without any apparent authority on the subject.

IOW,you're just blowing wind.
Your mind is made up,and no facts will change it.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

What's worse is he has made his mind up on a very important item with
no attempt to study it then ignores any information provided.

"Guns are bad...I just know that"

Brilliant!

Harry K

Okay, please give us "facts" pertaining to why you got married that are not
really just based on emotion.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I can't tell to whom you are responding as the attributes seem screwed
up. If that is addressed to me:

Mine is/was a marriage of convenience on my part. Can't speak for my
wife but I suspect it was there also.

Harry K

On Dec 13, 11:28 am, wrote:
On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 19:00:40 GMT, (Malcolm Hoar) wrote:
In article , wrote:

Okay, please give us "facts" pertaining to why you got married that are not
really just based on emotion.

Why? That's a purely personal choice. Not a public policy
question that he seeks to impose on the rest of the citizens.

I was trying to point out that emotions can guide decisions and be just as valid
as "facts".

There are MANY very controversial issues that are really controversial only
because of the emotions involved. Abortion, Gun Control, Gay Marriage, etc.

Quite true and anyone engaging in them should be at least _looking_ at
the evidence, literature, etc, IOW educate oneself before deciding,
especially when it is handed to them on a platter as it was up thread.

Argument based on "because I believe it" are worthless.

Harry K

On Dec 13, 12:16 pm, "Joseph Meehan"
wrote:
wrote in message

...



I understand she was working as a security guard at the time, which
only
supports my point. She should not be considered a civilian.

She's a Pinkerton. You trust your safety to a Pinkerton with a gun,
but you refuse to trust yourself with a gun? What does that say
about you?

It says I am not currently well trained in the use of guns, especially
hand guns. The last time I had a gun in my had was in the army during the
Vietnam war. That was a long time ago and at that time, while I scored well
with the M12, M16, 3.5 rocket launcher and M60 I barely qualified with the
45 hand gun. I was also not trained in the type of situations that would
be most likely in the US where defining the target with a very high degree
of accuracy and being able to single out just the threatening targets
meaning I might end up doing more damage to a innocent person that a real
threat. And quite frankly I would not want to be responsible for someone's
death even if they were threatening me.

--
Joseph Meehan

Dia 's Muire duit

So because you think _you_ are unqualified, you want to take guns away
from everyone. What logic.

Harry K

On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 19:33:52 -0800 (PST), Harry K
wrote:

On Dec 13, 12:16 pm, "Joseph Meehan"
wrote:
wrote in message

...



I understand she was working as a security guard at the time, which
only
supports my point. She should not be considered a civilian.

She's a Pinkerton. You trust your safety to a Pinkerton with a gun,
but you refuse to trust yourself with a gun? What does that say
about you?

It says I am not currently well trained in the use of guns, especially
hand guns. The last time I had a gun in my had was in the army during the
Vietnam war. That was a long time ago and at that time, while I scored well
with the M12, M16, 3.5 rocket launcher and M60 I barely qualified with the
45 hand gun. I was also not trained in the type of situations that would
be most likely in the US where defining the target with a very high degree
of accuracy and being able to single out just the threatening targets
meaning I might end up doing more damage to a innocent person that a real
threat. And quite frankly I would not want to be responsible for someone's
death even if they were threatening me.

--
Joseph Meehan

Dia 's Muire duit

So because you think _you_ are unqualified, you want to take guns away
from everyone. What logic.

Harry K

He seems to think he is unqualified. The military said different
during his Vietnam tour. A Marksman is not an Expert medal. Even
Economist carried/were issued weapons. Then became bean
counters...right? He must've been mad in boot camp, having to drill
with weapons or being trained to kill the enemy. Don't let that weapon
touch me!!

"Malcolm Hoar" wrote in message
...
In article , "SteveB"
wrote:

"Joseph Meehan" wrote

I never said it would. Although since the criminal has to get the
gun
somewhere, that gun often got into the system by being sold legally to
someone. Take more guns out of the system, it should make it harder for
the bad guys to get them too.

I consider there to be a high number of cars that are possessed by people
who should not have them. They are horrible drivers. A threat to my life
every day I drive. I have not had such a threat level from anyone with a
gun. Yet.

The laws regarding people driving who have demonstrated that they
shouldn't
be driving should be strengthened, or the cars restricted, just as you
suggest for guns.

But under Meehan's logic, we'd have to take the cars away from
the good drivers too. Hey, I bet a lot of those bad drivers
obtained their vehicles from good drivers. We need to cut off
the supply lines.

After all, cars are bad, right? They kill people. They pollute
the environment, cause global warming, and deprive the public
transport system of revenue. Positively evil. A much bigger
problem than guns, in fact.


I cannot count the instances where my life was put in danger by someone in a
car. If you drive much, or live in a densely populated area, it happens
more than once a day. I have never had my life put in danger by someone
with a gun. And yet, people like Mr. Meehan want to take away my right to
have a gun, of for guns to even exist. One could easily project a better
point for cars to be banned than guns. Talk about the killing of innocents.
It happens all around us every day with cars, and no one is outraged.

Steve

In article , "Joseph Meehan" wrote:


"Doug Miller" wrote in message
. net...
In article , "Joseph Meehan"
wrote:
"Jim Yanik" wrote in message
.. .
...
You want to take them from law abiding folk?

Yes, see below.


Well the Constitution was written to allow changes when and if
necessary. We have made changes before, I believe we may need one again,
depending on how the courts decide what the constitution really means in
this matter as it is now written.

I very much agree with the constitution.

Including the part that says I have a right to keep and bear arms?

Sure until we wake up and change it.


Do you agree that it can
legally be changed under the constitution or not?

Of course it can be. The question is, should it? And to answer that
question,
you need to answer a few others first:

1) How, exactly, would a law prohibiting the private possession of firearms
prevent criminals -- that is, those who don't obey laws anyway -- from
possessing them?

I never said it would.

Then why do you support legislation that you admit will not work?

Although since the criminal has to get the gun
somewhere, that gun often got into the system by being sold legally to
someone. Take more guns out of the system, it should make it harder for the
bad guys to get them too.

Harder, perhaps -- but far from impossible.

However I don't consider this a deal breaker.

IOW -- it doesn't disturb you that criminals will still be able to get guns,
but law-abiding citizens won't.

Why is that?


2) Consider that there are already a multitude of laws in place prohibiting
the possession of cocaine, marijuana, methamphetamine, and so forth. What
reason is there to believe that a law prohibiting the possession of firearms
will be any more effective at preventing their possession than are the current
laws pertaining to those, and other, drugs?

People break speed laws all the time. They drive drunk all the time,
should we eliminate those laws? Should we eliminate the laws against drugs?

Answer the question. What reason is there to think that firearms laws will be
any more effective than drug laws?

And, for the record, yes, I do think we should eliminate most laws against
drugs. Private consumption of drugs does no demonstrable harm to society at
large, and thus society has no legitimate interest in prohibiting it. If you
want to get doped up in the privacy of your living room, it's no business of
mine or anyone else's. OTOH, if you get doped up and then drive your car on a
public road, then it *does* become society's business, because you're creating
a hazard to others.

Which brings us right back to guns: possession of firearms by law-abiding
citizens poses no demonstrable harm to society at large, and thus society has
no legitimate interest in prohibiting it.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

In article , "HeyBub" wrote:
Joseph Meehan wrote:

Well the Constitution was written to allow changes when and if
necessary. We have made changes before, I believe we may need one
again, depending on how the courts decide what the constitution
really means in this matter as it is now written.

I very much agree with the constitution. Do you agree that it can
legally be changed under the constitution or not?

The Constitution has (almost) nothing to do with the conversation. The 2nd
Amendment does not apply to the states or individual citizens (see
"Incorporation Doctrine" almost anywhere).

Nonsense -- unless you contend that the same phrase, "the right of the
people," which appears in the First, Second, and Fourth Amendments, means an
individual right in the First and Fourth, but a collective right in the
Second. There is no support, either linguistically or historically, for that
position.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

Doug Miller wrote:

In article , "Joseph Meehan" wrote:


"Doug Miller" wrote in message
.net...


In article , "Joseph Meehan"
wrote:


"Jim Yanik" wrote in message
. ..
...


You want to take them from law abiding folk?


Yes, see below.


Well the Constitution was written to allow changes when and if
necessary. We have made changes before, I believe we may need one again,
depending on how the courts decide what the constitution really means in
this matter as it is now written.

I very much agree with the constitution.


Including the part that says I have a right to keep and bear arms?


Sure until we wake up and change it.



Do you agree that it can
legally be changed under the constitution or not?


Of course it can be. The question is, should it? And to answer that
question,
you need to answer a few others first:

1) How, exactly, would a law prohibiting the private possession of firearms
prevent criminals -- that is, those who don't obey laws anyway -- from
possessing them?


I never said it would.



Then why do you support legislation that you admit will not work?



Although since the criminal has to get the gun
somewhere, that gun often got into the system by being sold legally to
someone. Take more guns out of the system, it should make it harder for the
bad guys to get them too.



Harder, perhaps -- but far from impossible.



However I don't consider this a deal breaker.



IOW -- it doesn't disturb you that criminals will still be able to get guns,
but law-abiding citizens won't.

Why is that?


2) Consider that there are already a multitude of laws in place prohibiting
the possession of cocaine, marijuana, methamphetamine, and so forth. What
reason is there to believe that a law prohibiting the possession of firearms
will be any more effective at preventing their possession than are the current
laws pertaining to those, and other, drugs?


People break speed laws all the time. They drive drunk all the time,
should we eliminate those laws? Should we eliminate the laws against drugs?



Answer the question. What reason is there to think that firearms laws will be
any more effective than drug laws?

And, for the record, yes, I do think we should eliminate most laws against
drugs. Private consumption of drugs does no demonstrable harm to society at


Wrong! It leads to addiction, loss of family, loss of jobs, impairment
in critical functions (including work), overdose,
bizarre and violent behavior, smuggling, etc.
You are advocating eliminating regulation of all "controlled
substances"? All prescription regulations and warnings?

large, and thus society has no legitimate interest in prohibiting it. If you
want to get doped up in the privacy of your living room, it's no business of
mine or anyone else's. OTOH, if you get doped up and then drive your car on a
public road, then it *does* become society's business, because you're creating
a hazard to others.

Which brings us right back to guns: possession of firearms by law-abiding
citizens poses no demonstrable harm to society at large, and thus society has
no legitimate interest in prohibiting it.



Any stats on how many gun crimes with legally owned guns which are the
direct result of drug/alcohol abuse?

In article , Norminn wrote:

And, for the record, yes, I do think we should eliminate most laws against
drugs. Private consumption of drugs does no demonstrable harm to society at

Wrong! It leads to addiction, loss of family, loss of jobs, impairment
in critical functions (including work), overdose,
bizarre and violent behavior, smuggling, etc.

If used to excess, yes. Alcohol has the same results, too, if used in
immoderation -- should that also be banned? We tried that once, remember. It
didn't work. Just like the contemporary "Prohibition" isn't working, and for
much the same reasons.

Note, also, that if a person is impaired on the job, no matter what he's
impaired by, or what he's doing, his consumption is no longer entirely
private, and the employer certainly has the right to take whatever action is
necessary to safeguard the workplace -- but that's not a situation requiring
government intervention, either.

You are advocating eliminating regulation of all "controlled
substances"?

Pretty much, yes. The best solution I've ever heard is one a friend of mine
proposed a number of years ago -- get rid of all existing drug laws, and put
this one in their place: here's a list of all the drugs we don't like; if
you're caught with anything on the list, whatever amount of it you have, you
gotta eat, right now.

Principal results are the effective decriminalization of possession of small,
personal-use quantities, and an instantaneous death penalty for narcotics
dealers.

I don't see a downside.

All prescription regulations and warnings?

Of course not -- whatever gave you that idea?

large, and thus society has no legitimate interest in prohibiting it. If you
want to get doped up in the privacy of your living room, it's no business of
mine or anyone else's. OTOH, if you get doped up and then drive your car on a
public road, then it *does* become society's business, because you're creating
a hazard to others.

Which brings us right back to guns: possession of firearms by law-abiding
citizens poses no demonstrable harm to society at large, and thus society has
no legitimate interest in prohibiting it.

Any stats on how many gun crimes with legally owned guns which are the
direct result of drug/alcohol abuse?

Dunno -- why don't you try to find some? Hint: you won't find very many such
cases, because the number of legally owned guns which are involved in crimes
of any sort is pretty low.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

"HeyBub" wrote:

Oren wrote:
On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 10:44:11 -0600, "HeyBub" wrote:

My town (Houston), is in the news because a couple of weeks ago a
chap named Joe Horn wasted two goblins as they were burglarizing his
neighbor's house.

I never got the follow-up news, iirc he was on a 911 call - stating he
was going too shoot the burglars next door. The shot gun blast (TWO?)
was heard on the 911 tape released to the media.

These were not goblins. Check their history of predatory nature. These
were serious crooks/thugs on the street.

What I missed; is not knowing if Joe Horn has been cleared. My take
the law would be on his side.

Do a Google on Texas Penal Code 9.42 [Deadly Force to Protect Property] for
the straight skinney.

I got a chuckle out of:

§ 9.34. PROTECTION OF LIFE OR HEALTH.
[...]
(b) A person is justified in using both force and deadly
force against another when and to the degree he reasonably believes
the force or deadly force is immediately necessary to preserve the
other's life in an emergency.


The old "I had to kill him to save him" defense.

-- Doug

In article , "SteveB" wrote:

I cannot count the instances where my life was put in danger by someone in a
car. If you drive much, or live in a densely populated area, it happens
more than once a day. I have never had my life put in danger by someone
with a gun. And yet, people like Mr. Meehan want to take away my right to
have a gun, of for guns to even exist. One could easily project a better
point for cars to be banned than guns. Talk about the killing of innocents.
It happens all around us every day with cars, and no one is outraged.

Oh, they get outraged around here. Mainly about car pool
violations, it seems sigh.

Personally, I'd like to see mandatory prison sentences for
"driving without paying attention [to the driving]".

--
|~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~|
| Malcolm Hoar "The more I practice, the luckier I get". |
| Gary Player. |
| http://www.malch.com/ Shpx gur PQN. |
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Malcolm Hoar wrote:

In article , "SteveB" wrote:



I cannot count the instances where my life was put in danger by someone in a
car. If you drive much, or live in a densely populated area, it happens
more than once a day. I have never had my life put in danger by someone
with a gun. And yet, people like Mr. Meehan want to take away my right to
have a gun, of for guns to even exist. One could easily project a better
point for cars to be banned than guns. Talk about the killing of innocents.
It happens all around us every day with cars, and no one is outraged.



Oh, they get outraged around here. Mainly about car pool
violations, it seems sigh.

Personally, I'd like to see mandatory prison sentences for
"driving without paying attention [to the driving]".



My husband always threatens to shoot them. Yesterday, downtown
intersection at the courthouse, stopped at red
light in right lane, ready to go straight. Light turns green, driver in
middle lane turns right in front of me. He was good enough to signal.
Good thing my feet aren't lead )

Doug Miller wrote:

The Constitution has (almost) nothing to do with the conversation.
The 2nd Amendment does not apply to the states or individual
citizens (see "Incorporation Doctrine" almost anywhere).

Nonsense -- unless you contend that the same phrase, "the right of the
people," which appears in the First, Second, and Fourth Amendments,
means an individual right in the First and Fourth, but a collective
right in the
Second. There is no support, either linguistically or historically,
for that position.

But there is support legally for the position.

Perhaps you misunderstood. The CONTENT of the 2nd Amendment (milita, people,
etc.) is immaterial to my statement.

The original Bill of Rights applied ONLY to the federal government. Once the
14th Amendment was passed, various bits of the BOR trickled down to the
states via the "incorporation" doctrine. These bits were applied at various
times. For example from the 1st Amendment:

-Establishment of Religion - 1947
-Free exercise of religion - 1940
-Freedom of speech - 1945
-Freedom of the press - 1931
-Freedom of assembly - 1937
-Redress of grievances - NOT INCORPORATED. Specifically, you do not have a
constitutional right to petition your city council, that is, your city
council could make it illegal to circulate a petition in your community
(assuming state law is silent on the subject).
-Freedom of association - 1958

The 2nd, 3rd (quartering of soldiers), part of the 4th (indictment), part of
the 6th (unaimous verdict), 7th, and part of the 8th (excessive bail) have
NOT been incorporated are are not binding on the state or the people.

Douglas Johnson wrote:

What I missed; is not knowing if Joe Horn has been cleared. My take
the law would be on his side.

Do a Google on Texas Penal Code 9.42 [Deadly Force to Protect
Property] for the straight skinney.

I got a chuckle out of:

§ 9.34. PROTECTION OF LIFE OR HEALTH.
[...]
(b) A person is justified in using both force and deadly
force against another when and to the degree he reasonably believes
the force or deadly force is immediately necessary to preserve the
other's life in an emergency.


The old "I had to kill him to save him" defense.


You think that's hilarous? Check:

PC 9.42 Deadly force to protect property. A person is justified in using
deadly force against another to protect land, or tangible, movable property:
(2) When and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is
immediately necessary:
(B) to preven the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery,
aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or CRIMINAL MISCHIEF DURING
THE NIGHTTIME; ... (emphasis added)

This includes such stuff as doing wheelies in the yard, toilet-papering
trees, uprooting mailboxes, throwing eggs, and peeing on the bushes.

"Malcolm Hoar" wrote

Personally, I'd like to see mandatory prison sentences for
"driving without paying attention [to the driving]".

I've seen people talking on the cell phone, changing channels on the radio,
slapping Junior, putting on makeup, eating a taco, reading, and picking
their nose while driving. AND DOING IT ALL AT THE SAME TIME. And I hear
people who moan, Oh, I can do more than just drive.

Failure to pay full time and attention to driving. I think if they
VIGOROUSLY enforced that law, that they could ticket people for just about
anything they are doing while driving if the officer saw that it caused them
to weave or do something not a part of driving.

I DO NOT TALK ON THE CELL WHILE DRIVING. I tell people I will call them
back, or I pull over. I see these stupid little girls with the cell phone
to their ear BEING HELD BY THE OPPOSITE HAND (what's up with that) and they
look like a pretzel. And usually, they're right on my ass. (I love hitting
the brakes and watching their faces.)

They ought to make getting a driver's license and keeping one at least as
hard as getting a gun permit.

Steve

On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 16:37:24 GMT, (Malcolm Hoar)
wrote:

In article , "SteveB" wrote:

I cannot count the instances where my life was put in danger by someone in a
car. If you drive much, or live in a densely populated area, it happens
more than once a day. I have never had my life put in danger by someone
with a gun. And yet, people like Mr. Meehan want to take away my right to
have a gun, of for guns to even exist. One could easily project a better
point for cars to be banned than guns. Talk about the killing of innocents.
It happens all around us every day with cars, and no one is outraged.

Oh, they get outraged around here. Mainly about car pool
violations, it seems sigh.

Personally, I'd like to see mandatory prison sentences for
"driving without paying attention [to the driving]".

Thirty years ago, when 8-track tapes were popular, I knew someone who
got into an accident because of it. While driving down Van Buren
street, he reached over to change the tape and "got hit by a parked
car".
--
11 days until the winter solstice celebration

Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.laughingsquid.com

"Never underestimate the power of stupid
people in large groups"

On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 19:48:27 -0500, "Joseph Meehan"
wrote:



I never said it would. Although since the criminal has to get the gun
somewhere, that gun often got into the system by being sold legally to
someone. Take more guns out of the system, it should make it harder for the
bad guys to get them too. However I don't consider this a deal breaker.

It would make getting a gun about as hard as getting marijuana is now.

BTW, it's possible to make a gun out of materials available at any hardware
store. Going to ban that too?

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Retired Shop Rat: 14,647 days in a GM plant.
Speak softly and carry a loaded .45
Lifetime member; Vast Right Wing Conspiricy
Web Site: www.destarr.com
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

In article , (Malcolm Hoar) wrote:

Personally, I'd like to see mandatory prison sentences for
"driving without paying attention [to the driving]".

Or a new category of offense: DWS (Driving While Stupid).

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

In article , "HeyBub" wrote:
Doug Miller wrote:

The Constitution has (almost) nothing to do with the conversation.
The 2nd Amendment does not apply to the states or individual
citizens (see "Incorporation Doctrine" almost anywhere).

Nonsense -- unless you contend that the same phrase, "the right of the
people," which appears in the First, Second, and Fourth Amendments,
means an individual right in the First and Fourth, but a collective
right in the
Second. There is no support, either linguistically or historically,
for that position.

But there is support legally for the position.

Perhaps you misunderstood. The CONTENT of the 2nd Amendment (milita, people,
etc.) is immaterial to my statement.

The original Bill of Rights applied ONLY to the federal government. Once the
14th Amendment was passed, various bits of the BOR trickled down to the
states via the "incorporation" doctrine. These bits were applied at various
times.

Ah, yes, I did misunderstand. My apologies.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

In article , (Doug Miller) wrote:
In article , (Malcolm Hoar)
wrote:

Personally, I'd like to see mandatory prison sentences for
"driving without paying attention [to the driving]".

Or a new category of offense: DWS (Driving While Stupid).

Excellent proposal.

DWS seems to be most prevalent around elementary schools.
It's quite amazing -- the 3rd and 4th grades seem to have
more road sense than the parents chaufeuring them.


--
|~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~|
| Malcolm Hoar "The more I practice, the luckier I get". |
| Gary Player. |
| http://www.malch.com/ Shpx gur PQN. |
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~