On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 11:04:15 -0400, Ed Huntress wrote:

They need lots of practice in Nevada, the most dangerous state in the
country, with a crime rate 24% higher than the national average.



Show us the citation that backs up that hysterical remark.

Thanks,
Rich

Hysterical? Rich, the slightest effort on your part would show you where
that came from.

sigh Sometimes I feel like I should run a basic self-education class for
righties. That's based on the CQ Press methodology, which ranks states on
five violent crimes plus auto theft. You can check them out against the UCR.
I've done so, and it would take about 15 minutes if you want to go to the
original source.

But the summary is in the links from he

http://www.cqpress.com/product/Crime...ings-2008.html

--

Ed Huntress

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 11:04:15 -0400, Ed Huntress wrote:

They need lots of practice in Nevada, the most dangerous state in the
country, with a crime rate 24% higher than the national average.



Show us the citation that backs up that hysterical remark.

Thanks,
Rich

Hysterical? Rich, the slightest effort on your part would show you where
that came from.

sigh Sometimes I feel like I should run a basic self-education class for
righties. That's based on the CQ Press methodology, which ranks states on
five violent crimes plus auto theft. You can check them out against the
UCR. I've done so, and it would take about 15 minutes if you want to go to
the original source.

But the summary is in the links from he

http://www.cqpress.com/product/Crime...ings-2008.html

--

Ed Huntress

Ed you might want to find a new source:

Article: Some Call Dangerous-City Ratings a Crime
Article from:
The Washington Post
Article date:
November 21, 2007
Author:
Elizabeth Williamson - Washington Post Staff Writer CopyrightThis
material is published under license from the Washington Post. All inquiries
regarding rights should be directed to the Washington Post. (Hide copyright
information)

If the FBI has said it once, it has said it a thousand times: Do not use its
crime statistics to rank the nation's most dangerous cities.
That didn't stop CQ Press from releasing a book this week that does just
that. And it didn't stop officials from cities on the list -- not the ones
ranked safest, of course -- from furiously protesting that the rankings were
not only meaningless but unfair.

Several criminologists say a new report by a private publishing company that
ranks cities is flawed.

"Morgan Quitno computed the rankings by using rates for six of the seven
offenses -- murder, rape, robbery, aggravated assault, burglary and motor
vehicle theft -- excluding larceny theft. James Alan Fox, a sociologist and
professor of criminal justice at Northeastern University in Boston, said the
report is 'a rehash of readily available crime statistics.' He said that
cities' wide variations in size, demographics, geography and economic
conditions make comparisons of their relative safety questionable."

I Question CQ press, state ratings. Just simply compile your own stats from
daily newspapers on the web, only took a hour
of reasearch using google to determine that the CQ ratings are a crock of
****. One wonders if the authors got some payola
to make some cities look better and others look worse or they were
incredibley incompetent, lazy and sloppy ?

Best Regards
Tom.

"azotic" wrote in message
...

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 11:04:15 -0400, Ed Huntress wrote:

They need lots of practice in Nevada, the most dangerous state in the
country, with a crime rate 24% higher than the national average.



Show us the citation that backs up that hysterical remark.

Thanks,
Rich

Hysterical? Rich, the slightest effort on your part would show you where
that came from.

sigh Sometimes I feel like I should run a basic self-education class
for righties. That's based on the CQ Press methodology, which ranks
states on five violent crimes plus auto theft. You can check them out
against the UCR. I've done so, and it would take about 15 minutes if you
want to go to the original source.

But the summary is in the links from he

http://www.cqpress.com/product/Crime...ings-2008.html

--

Ed Huntress

Ed you might want to find a new source:

Article: Some Call Dangerous-City Ratings a Crime
Article from:
The Washington Post
Article date:
November 21, 2007
Author:
Elizabeth Williamson - Washington Post Staff Writer CopyrightThis
material is published under license from the Washington Post. All
inquiries regarding rights should be directed to the Washington Post.
(Hide copyright information)

If the FBI has said it once, it has said it a thousand times: Do not use
its crime statistics to rank the nation's most dangerous cities.
That didn't stop CQ Press from releasing a book this week that does just
that. And it didn't stop officials from cities on the list -- not the ones
ranked safest, of course -- from furiously protesting that the rankings
were not only meaningless but unfair.

Several criminologists say a new report by a private publishing company
that ranks cities is flawed.

"Morgan Quitno computed the rankings by using rates for six of the seven
offenses -- murder, rape, robbery, aggravated assault, burglary and motor
vehicle theft -- excluding larceny theft. James Alan Fox, a sociologist
and professor of criminal justice at Northeastern University in Boston,
said the report is 'a rehash of readily available crime statistics.' He
said that cities' wide variations in size, demographics, geography and
economic conditions make comparisons of their relative safety
questionable."

I Question CQ press, state ratings. Just simply compile your own stats
from daily newspapers on the web, only took a hour
of reasearch using google to determine that the CQ ratings are a crock of
****. One wonders if the authors got some payola
to make some cities look better and others look worse or they were
incredibley incompetent, lazy and sloppy ?

Best Regards
Tom.

I had read that WP article in '07, Tom. Notice that I didn't use the city
rankings, only the states.

Back in '91 through '93 I wrote several editorials about UCR statistics, and
I was one of those complaining to the FBI about the non-comparability of
figures. If you followed the whole situation you'd know that the FBI clamped
down hard on the state reporting -- even ran classes for the UCR reporters
in each state -- and that the state-by-state figures are much improved, and
quite good, by the late '90s.

But the city figures are still unreliable for reasons that aren't worth
going into here. The one category of crime that is, and always has been,
extremely accurate is the murder rate. You can't easily hide murders. So if
you want to be fussy about it, start with that.

But the criticism of M-Q really should be directed at the FBI and at the
local reporting agencies for UCR. M-Q just reports what those agencies
report -- of course it's a "rehash of readily available statistics." That's
what CQ Press does -- report summaries of official statistics.

Overall, their reports are generally accurate. When you have a murder rate
of 9.0/100k, like Nevada, and compare it with some state that has a rate of
8.9, the comparisons are speculative. But when it's 9.0 (Nevada) versus 4.9
(New Jersey), or 1.2 or whatever (Hawaii), those UCR errors are not a
factor.

The criticism about relative city sizes and demographics is something for
the social scientists to worry about. This is just a state ranking. If you
live in Nevada, you're roughly twice as likely to be murdered than you are
if you live in NJ -- and the city issues and demographics actually work
against Nevada in the comparison. Those are just the facts, not sociological
theorizing.

--
Ed Huntress

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...



But the city figures are still unreliable for reasons that aren't worth
going into here. The one category of crime that is, and always has been,
extremely accurate is the murder rate. You can't easily hide murders.

How about Vince Foster? :-)

"ATP*" wrote in message
...

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...



But the city figures are still unreliable for reasons that aren't worth
going into here. The one category of crime that is, and always has been,
extremely accurate is the murder rate. You can't easily hide murders.

How about Vince Foster? :-)

How about him? Ask Gunner. He's done extensive post-doctoral research about
it. From nearly 3,000 miles away, he thinks he knows all about it.

--
Ed Huntress

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"ATP*" wrote in message
...

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...



But the city figures are still unreliable for reasons that aren't worth
going into here. The one category of crime that is, and always has been,
extremely accurate is the murder rate. You can't easily hide murders.

How about Vince Foster? :-)

How about him? Ask Gunner. He's done extensive post-doctoral research
about it. From nearly 3,000 miles away, he thinks he knows all about it.

--
Ed Huntress
Speaking of murder mysteries, I just started reading "Inherent Vice". Not
sure if I can recommend it yet, but it's definitely easier to follow than
"Against the Day".

On Aug 29, 4:12*pm, "Ed Huntress" wrote:

But the city figures are still unreliable for reasons that aren't worth
going into here. The one category of crime that is, and always has been,
extremely accurate is the murder rate. You can't easily hide murders. So if
you want to be fussy about it, start with that.

But the criticism of M-Q really should be directed at the FBI and at the
local reporting agencies for UCR. M-Q just reports what those agencies
report -- of course it's a "rehash of readily available statistics." That's
what CQ Press does -- report summaries of official statistics.

Overall, their reports are generally accurate. When you have a murder rate
of 9.0/100k, like Nevada, and compare it with some state that has a rate of
8.9, the comparisons are speculative. But when it's 9.0 (Nevada) versus 4..9
(New Jersey), or 1.2 or whatever (Hawaii), those UCR errors are not a
factor.

The criticism about relative city sizes and demographics is something for
the social scientists to worry about. This is just a state ranking. If you
live in Nevada, you're roughly twice as likely to be murdered than you are
if you live in NJ -- and the city issues and demographics actually work
against Nevada in the comparison. Those are just the facts, not sociological
theorizing.

--
Ed Huntress

Very confusing to me. The city figures are unreliable. The state
figures are compiled from the city figures, but somehow are more
reliable?

I agree the murder rates ought to be more reliable than say armed
robbery rates. But some murders might get plea bargained to
manslaughter. The number probably varies from state to state.

I knew a guy that robbed a gas station with a shotgun, but was
persuaded to turn himself in. I forget what he was convicted of, but
it was something much less than armed robbery. Se he probably did not
raise the violent crime rate.

At any rate there is probably no halo effect. In general criminal do
not think they are going to get caught. If they did they would not
commit crimes. In the same way, I do not think that they think about
the possibility that a intended victim might be armed.

I also think that there may be a correlation between the number of
violent crimes and the number of CCW permits. But it is more likely
that a high rate of violent crimes causes an increase in CCW permits.
If New Jersey had a high rate of violent crime, the government would
be under a lot of pressure to issue more CCW permits.


Dan

wrote in message
...
On Aug 29, 4:12 pm, "Ed Huntress" wrote:

But the city figures are still unreliable for reasons that aren't worth
going into here. The one category of crime that is, and always has been,
extremely accurate is the murder rate. You can't easily hide murders. So
if
you want to be fussy about it, start with that.

But the criticism of M-Q really should be directed at the FBI and at the
local reporting agencies for UCR. M-Q just reports what those agencies
report -- of course it's a "rehash of readily available statistics."
That's
what CQ Press does -- report summaries of official statistics.

Overall, their reports are generally accurate. When you have a murder rate
of 9.0/100k, like Nevada, and compare it with some state that has a rate
of
8.9, the comparisons are speculative. But when it's 9.0 (Nevada) versus
4.9
(New Jersey), or 1.2 or whatever (Hawaii), those UCR errors are not a
factor.

The criticism about relative city sizes and demographics is something for
the social scientists to worry about. This is just a state ranking. If you
live in Nevada, you're roughly twice as likely to be murdered than you are
if you live in NJ -- and the city issues and demographics actually work
against Nevada in the comparison. Those are just the facts, not
sociological
theorizing.

--
Ed Huntress

Very confusing to me. The city figures are unreliable. The state
figures are compiled from the city figures, but somehow are more
reliable?

No, they aren't just cities. They're compiled from every reporting
jurisdiction.

The bigger cities have been more resistant to using the uniform reporting
procedures, although that's more of an issue in regard to things like
domestic crimes, and to the definitions for clearing crimes. They're still
not 100% compliant.

However, that's not the big issue with the UCR. It isn't the accuracy of the
numbers that's questioned; it's the conclusions. The big issue is the
mistake of drawing simple conclusions from complex data.

Here's a simplified explanation by the FBI:

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/word.htm


I agree the murder rates ought to be more reliable than say armed
robbery rates. But some murders might get plea bargained to
manslaughter. The number probably varies from state to state.

The data is based on crime incidences known to police, not on convictions.

I knew a guy that robbed a gas station with a shotgun, but was
persuaded to turn himself in. I forget what he was convicted of, but
it was something much less than armed robbery. Se he probably did not
raise the violent crime rate.

Yeah, he did, if the original crime was reported as an armed robbery.

At any rate there is probably no halo effect. In general criminal do
not think they are going to get caught. If they did they would not
commit crimes. In the same way, I do not think that they think about
the possibility that a intended victim might be armed.

The only place it seems to have an effect is in house robberies. The
percentage of homes in the US in which there is a gun is very high;
convicted criminals reported some fear of being shot when they were
interviewed in a DOJ study a decade or more ago.

But that doesn't seem to apply to concealed carry at all. The incidence of
concealed carry is so extremely low (typically around 1% of adults in
shall-issue states; even the total CCW licensing usually is around 2%) that
it's not likely to figure into their judgments. And the data seems to
support that idea.

I also think that there may be a correlation between the number of
violent crimes and the number of CCW permits. But it is more likely
that a high rate of violent crimes causes an increase in CCW permits.

Very possible. You'd have to spend a lot of time with the data to be sure.

If New Jersey had a high rate of violent crime, the government would
be under a lot of pressure to issue more CCW permits.

I don't know about that. In the late '80s and early '90s, when violent crime
rates were going through the roof, the response of states like NJ and NY was
to *tighten* restrictions on gun ownership.

--
Ed Huntress

wrote:
On Aug 29, 4:12 pm, "Ed Huntress" wrote:

At any rate there is probably no halo effect.


Sure there is.
Just not from simple ownership or carry considerations.

At any rate ( Ha-ha ), what I've concluded is that Bobby Rush and the NRA
are probably in cahoots.
They both need an issue without the slightest possibility of there being
consequences beyond the well being of Bobby and Wayne LaPierre.

It's a marriage made in Heaven - or elsewhere.


--
John R. Carroll

On Sat, 29 Aug 2009 17:28:20 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


wrote in message
...
On Aug 29, 4:12 pm, "Ed Huntress" wrote:

But the city figures are still unreliable for reasons that aren't worth
going into here. The one category of crime that is, and always has been,
extremely accurate is the murder rate. You can't easily hide murders. So
if
you want to be fussy about it, start with that.

But the criticism of M-Q really should be directed at the FBI and at the
local reporting agencies for UCR. M-Q just reports what those agencies
report -- of course it's a "rehash of readily available statistics."
That's
what CQ Press does -- report summaries of official statistics.

Overall, their reports are generally accurate. When you have a murder rate
of 9.0/100k, like Nevada, and compare it with some state that has a rate
of
8.9, the comparisons are speculative. But when it's 9.0 (Nevada) versus
4.9
(New Jersey), or 1.2 or whatever (Hawaii), those UCR errors are not a
factor.

The criticism about relative city sizes and demographics is something for
the social scientists to worry about. This is just a state ranking. If you
live in Nevada, you're roughly twice as likely to be murdered than you are
if you live in NJ -- and the city issues and demographics actually work
against Nevada in the comparison. Those are just the facts, not
sociological
theorizing.

--
Ed Huntress

Very confusing to me. The city figures are unreliable. The state
figures are compiled from the city figures, but somehow are more
reliable?

No, they aren't just cities. They're compiled from every reporting
jurisdiction.

The bigger cities have been more resistant to using the uniform reporting
procedures, although that's more of an issue in regard to things like
domestic crimes, and to the definitions for clearing crimes. They're still
not 100% compliant.

However, that's not the big issue with the UCR. It isn't the accuracy of the
numbers that's questioned; it's the conclusions. The big issue is the
mistake of drawing simple conclusions from complex data.

Here's a simplified explanation by the FBI:

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/word.htm


I agree the murder rates ought to be more reliable than say armed
robbery rates. But some murders might get plea bargained to
manslaughter. The number probably varies from state to state.

The data is based on crime incidences known to police, not on convictions.

I knew a guy that robbed a gas station with a shotgun, but was
persuaded to turn himself in. I forget what he was convicted of, but
it was something much less than armed robbery. Se he probably did not
raise the violent crime rate.

Yeah, he did, if the original crime was reported as an armed robbery.

At any rate there is probably no halo effect. In general criminal do
not think they are going to get caught. If they did they would not
commit crimes. In the same way, I do not think that they think about
the possibility that a intended victim might be armed.

The only place it seems to have an effect is in house robberies. The
percentage of homes in the US in which there is a gun is very high;
convicted criminals reported some fear of being shot when they were
interviewed in a DOJ study a decade or more ago.

But that doesn't seem to apply to concealed carry at all. The incidence of
concealed carry is so extremely low (typically around 1% of adults in
shall-issue states; even the total CCW licensing usually is around 2%) that
it's not likely to figure into their judgments. And the data seems to
support that idea.

I also think that there may be a correlation between the number of
violent crimes and the number of CCW permits. But it is more likely
that a high rate of violent crimes causes an increase in CCW permits.

Very possible. You'd have to spend a lot of time with the data to be sure.

If New Jersey had a high rate of violent crime, the government would
be under a lot of pressure to issue more CCW permits.

I don't know about that. In the late '80s and early '90s, when violent crime
rates were going through the roof, the response of states like NJ and NY was
to *tighten* restrictions on gun ownership.

This even though gun ownership does not require nor imply CCW. No CCW
is necessary to defend one's domocile with a firearm.

A variable that seldom or never seems to be addressed is the notion of
rights being associated with responsibility. In days gone by, chores
and responsibilities were part and parcel of growing up. The notion
of "citizenship" was more about responsibilities than rights. We
were graded on citizenship on our report cards. Those grades were
based on our behaviour and contribution, certainly not on our
rhetoric or demands.

Irresponsible abuses of rights by some are bound to motivate others to
limit those rights if they can. I differentiate irresponsible from
disagreeable here. Examples: spewing filth and namecalling, while
certainly a first amendment right, is irresponsible and
non-contributive. Expression of differing thoughtful opinions that
may be disagreeable is responsible and indeed the essence of
democracy.

Wearing a slung assault rifle to a political rally is clearly
irresponsible abuse of 2d amendment rights. Since there is no need
for defense it is obviously intended to intimidate. Intimidation of
peaceful citizens is exactly contrary to the clear intent of the 2d
amendment.

Don Foreman wrote:
Wearing a slung assault rifle to a political rally is clearly
irresponsible abuse of 2d amendment rights. Since there is no need
for defense it is obviously intended to intimidate. Intimidation of
peaceful citizens is exactly contrary to the clear intent of the 2d
amendment.

I definitely agree Don "Red Asshat That 70s Show" Foreman and I also
assume if one does this when the Secret Service is there to cover the
POTUS, then thee shall have at least a couple of agents assigned as
"Job 1." AKA "nail this guy instantly upon an untoward twitch" which
evokes that classic Miami Vice episode in the swamp when Crocket drops
the baddy holding a hostage.

Don Foreman wrote:

Wearing a slung assault rifle to a political rally is clearly
irresponsible abuse of 2d amendment rights. Since there is no need
for defense it is obviously intended to intimidate. Intimidation of
peaceful citizens is exactly contrary to the clear intent of the 2d
amendment.

I wonder if as in a political tactic, it that was the brightest trick in the book. The
man had it slung though and wasn't waving it around and from what I can tell was being
peaceful.


The carrying empty holsters protest such as http://concealedcampus.org/ put on seemed a
bit more effective w/o alarming the hoplophobes.

Wes



--
"Additionally as a security officer, I carry a gun to protect
government officials but my life isn't worth protecting at home
in their eyes." Dick Anthony Heller

"Don Foreman" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 29 Aug 2009 17:28:20 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


wrote in message
...
On Aug 29, 4:12 pm, "Ed Huntress" wrote:

But the city figures are still unreliable for reasons that aren't worth
going into here. The one category of crime that is, and always has been,
extremely accurate is the murder rate. You can't easily hide murders. So
if
you want to be fussy about it, start with that.

But the criticism of M-Q really should be directed at the FBI and at the
local reporting agencies for UCR. M-Q just reports what those agencies
report -- of course it's a "rehash of readily available statistics."
That's
what CQ Press does -- report summaries of official statistics.

Overall, their reports are generally accurate. When you have a murder
rate
of 9.0/100k, like Nevada, and compare it with some state that has a rate
of
8.9, the comparisons are speculative. But when it's 9.0 (Nevada) versus
4.9
(New Jersey), or 1.2 or whatever (Hawaii), those UCR errors are not a
factor.

The criticism about relative city sizes and demographics is something
for
the social scientists to worry about. This is just a state ranking. If
you
live in Nevada, you're roughly twice as likely to be murdered than you
are
if you live in NJ -- and the city issues and demographics actually work
against Nevada in the comparison. Those are just the facts, not
sociological
theorizing.

--
Ed Huntress

Very confusing to me. The city figures are unreliable. The state
figures are compiled from the city figures, but somehow are more
reliable?

No, they aren't just cities. They're compiled from every reporting
jurisdiction.

The bigger cities have been more resistant to using the uniform reporting
procedures, although that's more of an issue in regard to things like
domestic crimes, and to the definitions for clearing crimes. They're still
not 100% compliant.

However, that's not the big issue with the UCR. It isn't the accuracy of
the
numbers that's questioned; it's the conclusions. The big issue is the
mistake of drawing simple conclusions from complex data.

Here's a simplified explanation by the FBI:

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/word.htm


I agree the murder rates ought to be more reliable than say armed
robbery rates. But some murders might get plea bargained to
manslaughter. The number probably varies from state to state.

The data is based on crime incidences known to police, not on convictions.

I knew a guy that robbed a gas station with a shotgun, but was
persuaded to turn himself in. I forget what he was convicted of, but
it was something much less than armed robbery. Se he probably did not
raise the violent crime rate.

Yeah, he did, if the original crime was reported as an armed robbery.

At any rate there is probably no halo effect. In general criminal do
not think they are going to get caught. If they did they would not
commit crimes. In the same way, I do not think that they think about
the possibility that a intended victim might be armed.

The only place it seems to have an effect is in house robberies. The
percentage of homes in the US in which there is a gun is very high;
convicted criminals reported some fear of being shot when they were
interviewed in a DOJ study a decade or more ago.

But that doesn't seem to apply to concealed carry at all. The incidence of
concealed carry is so extremely low (typically around 1% of adults in
shall-issue states; even the total CCW licensing usually is around 2%)
that
it's not likely to figure into their judgments. And the data seems to
support that idea.

I also think that there may be a correlation between the number of
violent crimes and the number of CCW permits. But it is more likely
that a high rate of violent crimes causes an increase in CCW permits.

Very possible. You'd have to spend a lot of time with the data to be sure.

If New Jersey had a high rate of violent crime, the government would
be under a lot of pressure to issue more CCW permits.

I don't know about that. In the late '80s and early '90s, when violent
crime
rates were going through the roof, the response of states like NJ and NY
was
to *tighten* restrictions on gun ownership.

This even though gun ownership does not require nor imply CCW. No CCW
is necessary to defend one's domocile with a firearm.

A variable that seldom or never seems to be addressed is the notion of
rights being associated with responsibility. In days gone by, chores
and responsibilities were part and parcel of growing up. The notion
of "citizenship" was more about responsibilities than rights. We
were graded on citizenship on our report cards. Those grades were
based on our behaviour and contribution, certainly not on our
rhetoric or demands.

Irresponsible abuses of rights by some are bound to motivate others to
limit those rights if they can. I differentiate irresponsible from
disagreeable here. Examples: spewing filth and namecalling, while
certainly a first amendment right, is irresponsible and
non-contributive. Expression of differing thoughtful opinions that
may be disagreeable is responsible and indeed the essence of
democracy.

Wearing a slung assault rifle to a political rally is clearly
irresponsible abuse of 2d amendment rights. Since there is no need
for defense it is obviously intended to intimidate. Intimidation of
peaceful citizens is exactly contrary to the clear intent of the 2d
amendment.

I definitely agree with that, and I further think it reflects the way that
"conservatism" has split in recent years. On one side are the
traditionalists, both the intellectual types (Buckley, Oakeshott, Burke,
etc.) and the empirical types (Midwestern farmers and others who live a
traditionally defined social life). On the other are the libertarians,
neo-anarchists, and minarchists who see their only their "rights" in the
abstract, with no real sense of social responsibility.

They don't really care if the Arizona whack-job with the AR intended to
intimidate anyone. In fact, they take delight in the idea that he did,
although their claim would be that it wasn't his responsibility to consider
others' reactions.

--
Ed Huntress

"Wes" wrote in message
...
Don Foreman wrote:

Wearing a slung assault rifle to a political rally is clearly
irresponsible abuse of 2d amendment rights. Since there is no need
for defense it is obviously intended to intimidate. Intimidation of
peaceful citizens is exactly contrary to the clear intent of the 2d
amendment.

I wonder if as in a political tactic, it that was the brightest trick in
the book. The
man had it slung though and wasn't waving it around and from what I can
tell was being
peaceful.

Carrying a slung rifle in a crowd of people is not peaceful under any
circumstances. Its only functional purpose in that situation is to kill.
Since it's highly unlikely it will be used to kill, the only remaining
purpose is an affective one: to intimidate.

That wasn't about "rights." It was about threats.



The carrying empty holsters protest such as http://concealedcampus.org/
put on seemed a
bit more effective w/o alarming the hoplophobes.

Wes

"Effective" at doing what?

--
Ed Huntress

On Sun, 30 Aug 2009 00:39:35 -0500, Don Foreman
wrote:


Wearing a slung assault rifle to a political rally is clearly
irresponsible abuse of 2d amendment rights. Since there is no need
for defense it is obviously intended to intimidate. Intimidation of
peaceful citizens is exactly contrary to the clear intent of the 2d
amendment.

blink blink....intimidation of peaceful citizens?

Oh..you mean the brainwashed Useful Idiots who consider a rifle ,
whether its incased in 5 square feet of concrete, or slung over ones
shoulder to be "intimidating"?

Then you have no problem with a Conservative being forced to keep his
mouth shut because it "intimidates" far leftist fringe kooks when he
opens it and simply says something truthful?

Thanks Don.

Gunner

Whenever a Liberal utters the term "Common Sense approach"....grab your
wallet, your ass, and your guns because the sombitch is about to do
something damned nasty to all three of them.

Don Foreman wrote:
...

A variable that seldom or never seems to be addressed is the notion of
rights being associated with responsibility. ...

Irresponsible abuses of rights by some are bound to motivate others to
limit those rights if they can. ...

Wearing a slung assault rifle to a political rally is clearly
irresponsible abuse of 2d amendment rights. ...

Well put, as could be expected from you. But as reasonable as it is,
you can still expect the yahoos to get their shorts in knots over it sigh.

Bob

"Ed Huntress" wrote:

Carrying a slung rifle in a crowd of people is not peaceful under any
circumstances. Its only functional purpose in that situation is to kill.
Since it's highly unlikely it will be used to kill, the only remaining
purpose is an affective one: to intimidate.

That wasn't about "rights." It was about threats.

This was Arizona, it wasn't New Jersey. If it had been viewed by those in power as a
threat, the guy would have been hauled away.

He had legal right to do that in the state he was in.

I think this is a matter of perception. For example in 1996 or so, my brother and I were
breakfasting in a diner in Lajita's, TX. We had to be the only people not carrying arms
in the diner. I felt very safe though a bit under dressed.

Might as well tell you the rest of the story, we were bicycle touring south west Texas,
wearing the typical cycling jersey and lycra shorts. I asked my brother if he felt
underdressed and he looked quizzically at me since were dressed pretty normal for what we
were doing. He asked what did I mean and I pointed out that we seemed to be the only ones
not carrying. My brother, who is not into guns, chuckled.





The carrying empty holsters protest such as http://concealedcampus.org/
put on seemed a
bit more effective w/o alarming the hoplophobes.

Wes

"Effective" at doing what?

In the case of Virginia Tech and other campuses in states where CCW is legal, many of the
campuses prohibit carrying. The empty holsters protest was a way of making their point.

Wes

"Wes" wrote in message
...
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

Carrying a slung rifle in a crowd of people is not peaceful under any
circumstances. Its only functional purpose in that situation is to kill.
Since it's highly unlikely it will be used to kill, the only remaining
purpose is an affective one: to intimidate.

That wasn't about "rights." It was about threats.

This was Arizona, it wasn't New Jersey. If it had been viewed by those in
power as a
threat, the guy would have been hauled away.

Nope, there was a conflict between the strict interpretation of the law and
the reality of what was going on. The SS said they had a perimeter in mind,
and he wasn't crossing it alive. I believe them.


He had legal right to do that in the state he was in.

That's right.


I think this is a matter of perception. For example in 1996 or so, my
brother and I were
breakfasting in a diner in Lajita's, TX. We had to be the only people not
carrying arms
in the diner. I felt very safe though a bit under dressed.

Wes, that has nothing to do with what went on here. These were people
demonstrating to make a point. They admitted as much. And anyone with any
sense knows that the point was that the point was to kill. That's why one
carries a gun in a social situation like that -- he carries it to kill, or
to threaten someone with killing. There is no other point to carrying a gun
in open carry, unless you're out plinking or shooting targets. And they
weren't.


Might as well tell you the rest of the story, we were bicycle touring
south west Texas,
wearing the typical cycling jersey and lycra shorts.

Jeez, I used to race road sprints, and even *I* won't wear that stuff. g

I asked my brother if he felt
underdressed and he looked quizzically at me since were dressed pretty
normal for what we
were doing. He asked what did I mean and I pointed out that we seemed to
be the only ones
not carrying. My brother, who is not into guns, chuckled.

g

--
Ed Huntress

On Sun, 30 Aug 2009 18:42:20 -0400, Wes wrote:

"Ed Huntress" wrote:

Carrying a slung rifle in a crowd of people is not peaceful under any
circumstances. Its only functional purpose in that situation is to kill.
Since it's highly unlikely it will be used to kill, the only remaining
purpose is an affective one: to intimidate.

That wasn't about "rights." It was about threats.

This was Arizona, it wasn't New Jersey. If it had been viewed by those in power as a
threat, the guy would have been hauled away.

He had legal right to do that in the state he was in.

I think this is a matter of perception.

Yes, it definitely is.

For example in 1996 or so, my brother and I were
breakfasting in a diner in Lajita's, TX. We had to be the only people not carrying arms
in the diner. I felt very safe though a bit under dressed.

So entering that Texas diner with a slung AR15 may be perceived by
others as unremarkable.

The same might be true in a hunting area during hunting season. My
neighbor at the lake keeps a loaded shotgun leaning outside his back
door in case some ducks happen by as they do from time to time in the
fall. Yawn. Perception: normal.

Open carry of assault rifle at political rally where nobody else is
openly armed isn't quite the same. It's a matter of perception.

On Sun, 30 Aug 2009 12:52:29 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:

On Sun, 30 Aug 2009 00:39:35 -0500, Don Foreman
wrote:


Wearing a slung assault rifle to a political rally is clearly
irresponsible abuse of 2d amendment rights. Since there is no need
for defense it is obviously intended to intimidate. Intimidation of
peaceful citizens is exactly contrary to the clear intent of the 2d
amendment.

blink blink....intimidation of peaceful citizens?

Oh..you mean the brainwashed Useful Idiots who consider a rifle ,
whether its incased in 5 square feet of concrete, or slung over ones
shoulder to be "intimidating"?

I regard an assault rifle slung over the shoulder of a stranger, who
wears no insignia I recognize, to be worrisome. That may be either in
spite of or due to the fact that I'm a vet. If I find it worrisome I
can certainly see how some gentle citizens would find it intimidating.
Incomprehensible as it may be to you, there are indeed quite a few
good people, contributive citizens and intelligent folks, who are
quite unfamiliar with firearms and are frightened by the mere presence
of a gun. Consider that compulsory military service (the draft)
stopped more than a generation ago and that many of today's urban
folks have never been hunting so their impressions and opinions have
been formed by what they've read in the paper and seen on TV.

Nearly all of them I've known are at least two generations distant
from rural roots. I've gently introduced a number of them to handguns
by piquing their curiosity until it overcame their anxiety.

Not all have become gun owners and shooters but more than 50% have.
One of my daughters,Dr. Kelly the screaming liberal university
professor, was once rabidly anti. We've made some progress there.
She'll never be a shooter but she now has shot and enjoyed it. She's
even a little proud of having done that. Look the dragon in the eye
and spit in it. Perhaps she takes after her mother...

I had to grin when she told me that when one of her students
blog-posted that she wondered what sort of handgun might be suitable
for a young female graduate student in Detroit, said daughter
responded that she might like a Walther PPK. That has to be because
other daughter New York Karen purely loved shooting my PPK and shot it
very well indeed. Would Karen rub older sis Kelly's nose in the fact
that she had a super time with Dad shooting at the range -- with
target photos? Naaaahhhh....

Then you have no problem with a Conservative being forced to keep his
mouth shut because it "intimidates" far leftist fringe kooks when he
opens it and simply says something truthful?

I think you know better than that, Gunner, but nice try at deflection
with buzzwords. Your labels (conservative, leftist, fringe, kook)
are irrelevant here, and nothing I've said in this thread or
elsewhere could even remotely be resonably construed as supporting
suppression of anyone's 1st amendment right of free speech.

On Mon, 31 Aug 2009 00:33:50 -0500, Don Foreman
wrote:

On Sun, 30 Aug 2009 12:52:29 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:

On Sun, 30 Aug 2009 00:39:35 -0500, Don Foreman
wrote:


Wearing a slung assault rifle to a political rally is clearly
irresponsible abuse of 2d amendment rights. Since there is no need
for defense it is obviously intended to intimidate. Intimidation of
peaceful citizens is exactly contrary to the clear intent of the 2d
amendment.

blink blink....intimidation of peaceful citizens?

Oh..you mean the brainwashed Useful Idiots who consider a rifle ,
whether its incased in 5 square feet of concrete, or slung over ones
shoulder to be "intimidating"?

I regard an assault rifle slung over the shoulder of a stranger, who
wears no insignia I recognize, to be worrisome. That may be either in
spite of or due to the fact that I'm a vet. If I find it worrisome I
can certainly see how some gentle citizens would find it intimidating.
Incomprehensible as it may be to you, there are indeed quite a few
good people, contributive citizens and intelligent folks, who are
quite unfamiliar with firearms and are frightened by the mere presence
of a gun. Consider that compulsory military service (the draft)
stopped more than a generation ago and that many of today's urban
folks have never been hunting so their impressions and opinions have
been formed by what they've read in the paper and seen on TV.

Nearly all of them I've known are at least two generations distant
from rural roots. I've gently introduced a number of them to handguns
by piquing their curiosity until it overcame their anxiety.

Not all have become gun owners and shooters but more than 50% have.
One of my daughters,Dr. Kelly the screaming liberal university
professor, was once rabidly anti. We've made some progress there.
She'll never be a shooter but she now has shot and enjoyed it. She's
even a little proud of having done that. Look the dragon in the eye
and spit in it. Perhaps she takes after her mother...

I had to grin when she told me that when one of her students
blog-posted that she wondered what sort of handgun might be suitable
for a young female graduate student in Detroit, said daughter
responded that she might like a Walther PPK. That has to be because
other daughter New York Karen purely loved shooting my PPK and shot it
very well indeed. Would Karen rub older sis Kelly's nose in the fact
that she had a super time with Dad shooting at the range -- with
target photos? Naaaahhhh....

Then you have no problem with a Conservative being forced to keep his
mouth shut because it "intimidates" far leftist fringe kooks when he
opens it and simply says something truthful?

I think you know better than that, Gunner, but nice try at deflection
with buzzwords. Your labels (conservative, leftist, fringe, kook)
are irrelevant here, and nothing I've said in this thread or
elsewhere could even remotely be resonably construed as supporting
suppression of anyone's 1st amendment right of free speech.

Yet you did indeed suggest the suppression of that black gentlemans 1st
AND 2nd Amendment rights.

Think hard before replying.

G

Gunner






Whenever a Liberal utters the term "Common Sense approach"....grab your
wallet, your ass, and your guns because the sombitch is about to do
something damned nasty to all three of them.

On Sun, 30 Aug 2009 23:25:27 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:

On Mon, 31 Aug 2009 00:33:50 -0500, Don Foreman
wrote:

On Sun, 30 Aug 2009 12:52:29 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:

On Sun, 30 Aug 2009 00:39:35 -0500, Don Foreman
wrote:


Wearing a slung assault rifle to a political rally is clearly
irresponsible abuse of 2d amendment rights. Since there is no need
for defense it is obviously intended to intimidate. Intimidation of
peaceful citizens is exactly contrary to the clear intent of the 2d
amendment.

blink blink....intimidation of peaceful citizens?

Oh..you mean the brainwashed Useful Idiots who consider a rifle ,
whether its incased in 5 square feet of concrete, or slung over ones
shoulder to be "intimidating"?

I regard an assault rifle slung over the shoulder of a stranger, who
wears no insignia I recognize, to be worrisome. That may be either in
spite of or due to the fact that I'm a vet. If I find it worrisome I
can certainly see how some gentle citizens would find it intimidating.
Incomprehensible as it may be to you, there are indeed quite a few
good people, contributive citizens and intelligent folks, who are
quite unfamiliar with firearms and are frightened by the mere presence
of a gun. Consider that compulsory military service (the draft)
stopped more than a generation ago and that many of today's urban
folks have never been hunting so their impressions and opinions have
been formed by what they've read in the paper and seen on TV.

Nearly all of them I've known are at least two generations distant
from rural roots. I've gently introduced a number of them to handguns
by piquing their curiosity until it overcame their anxiety.

Not all have become gun owners and shooters but more than 50% have.
One of my daughters,Dr. Kelly the screaming liberal university
professor, was once rabidly anti. We've made some progress there.
She'll never be a shooter but she now has shot and enjoyed it. She's
even a little proud of having done that. Look the dragon in the eye
and spit in it. Perhaps she takes after her mother...

I had to grin when she told me that when one of her students
blog-posted that she wondered what sort of handgun might be suitable
for a young female graduate student in Detroit, said daughter
responded that she might like a Walther PPK. That has to be because
other daughter New York Karen purely loved shooting my PPK and shot it
very well indeed. Would Karen rub older sis Kelly's nose in the fact
that she had a super time with Dad shooting at the range -- with
target photos? Naaaahhhh....

Then you have no problem with a Conservative being forced to keep his
mouth shut because it "intimidates" far leftist fringe kooks when he
opens it and simply says something truthful?

I think you know better than that, Gunner, but nice try at deflection
with buzzwords. Your labels (conservative, leftist, fringe, kook)
are irrelevant here, and nothing I've said in this thread or
elsewhere could even remotely be resonably construed as supporting
suppression of anyone's 1st amendment right of free speech.

Yet you did indeed suggest the suppression of that black gentlemans 1st
AND 2nd Amendment rights.

Think hard before replying.

G

Gunner

I suggested no such thing. If my intent wasn't clear then shame on me
for poor writing though I doubt that was so.

"Think hard before replying" is coyly trolling like you have a secret
trap to spring. That's an adolescent girl game you're not nearly cute
enough to play with me.

On Mon, 31 Aug 2009 02:03:31 -0500, Don Foreman
wrote:

On Sun, 30 Aug 2009 23:25:27 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:

On Mon, 31 Aug 2009 00:33:50 -0500, Don Foreman
wrote:

On Sun, 30 Aug 2009 12:52:29 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:

On Sun, 30 Aug 2009 00:39:35 -0500, Don Foreman
wrote:


Wearing a slung assault rifle to a political rally is clearly
irresponsible abuse of 2d amendment rights. Since there is no need
for defense it is obviously intended to intimidate. Intimidation of
peaceful citizens is exactly contrary to the clear intent of the 2d
amendment.

blink blink....intimidation of peaceful citizens?

Oh..you mean the brainwashed Useful Idiots who consider a rifle ,
whether its incased in 5 square feet of concrete, or slung over ones
shoulder to be "intimidating"?

I regard an assault rifle slung over the shoulder of a stranger, who
wears no insignia I recognize, to be worrisome. That may be either in
spite of or due to the fact that I'm a vet. If I find it worrisome I
can certainly see how some gentle citizens would find it intimidating.
Incomprehensible as it may be to you, there are indeed quite a few
good people, contributive citizens and intelligent folks, who are
quite unfamiliar with firearms and are frightened by the mere presence
of a gun. Consider that compulsory military service (the draft)
stopped more than a generation ago and that many of today's urban
folks have never been hunting so their impressions and opinions have
been formed by what they've read in the paper and seen on TV.

Nearly all of them I've known are at least two generations distant
from rural roots. I've gently introduced a number of them to handguns
by piquing their curiosity until it overcame their anxiety.

Not all have become gun owners and shooters but more than 50% have.
One of my daughters,Dr. Kelly the screaming liberal university
professor, was once rabidly anti. We've made some progress there.
She'll never be a shooter but she now has shot and enjoyed it. She's
even a little proud of having done that. Look the dragon in the eye
and spit in it. Perhaps she takes after her mother...

I had to grin when she told me that when one of her students
blog-posted that she wondered what sort of handgun might be suitable
for a young female graduate student in Detroit, said daughter
responded that she might like a Walther PPK. That has to be because
other daughter New York Karen purely loved shooting my PPK and shot it
very well indeed. Would Karen rub older sis Kelly's nose in the fact
that she had a super time with Dad shooting at the range -- with
target photos? Naaaahhhh....

Then you have no problem with a Conservative being forced to keep his
mouth shut because it "intimidates" far leftist fringe kooks when he
opens it and simply says something truthful?

I think you know better than that, Gunner, but nice try at deflection
with buzzwords. Your labels (conservative, leftist, fringe, kook)
are irrelevant here, and nothing I've said in this thread or
elsewhere could even remotely be resonably construed as supporting
suppression of anyone's 1st amendment right of free speech.

Yet you did indeed suggest the suppression of that black gentlemans 1st
AND 2nd Amendment rights.

Think hard before replying.

G

Gunner

I suggested no such thing. If my intent wasn't clear then shame on me
for poor writing though I doubt that was so.

You did indeed get upset about the gentleman using both his 1st and 2nd
amendment rights. Rather snippy about it as well.

"Think hard before replying" is coyly trolling like you have a secret
trap to spring. That's an adolescent girl game you're not nearly cute
enough to play with me.

Game? Thats rather marginal of you to think this is a game Im playing.
Don..its not. Its quite serious in fact. To think otherwise shames both
of us.

You did indeed suggest that the gentleman give up his 1st AND 2nd
amendment rights while out showing the flag. And that is tragic.

And very midwestern.

Shrug

Gunner

Whenever a Liberal utters the term "Common Sense approach"....grab your
wallet, your ass, and your guns because the sombitch is about to do
something damned nasty to all three of them.

"Don Foreman" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 30 Aug 2009 18:42:20 -0400, Wes wrote:

"Ed Huntress" wrote:

Carrying a slung rifle in a crowd of people is not peaceful under any
circumstances. Its only functional purpose in that situation is to kill.
Since it's highly unlikely it will be used to kill, the only remaining
purpose is an affective one: to intimidate.

That wasn't about "rights." It was about threats.

This was Arizona, it wasn't New Jersey. If it had been viewed by those in
power as a
threat, the guy would have been hauled away.

He had legal right to do that in the state he was in.

I think this is a matter of perception.

Yes, it definitely is.

For example in 1996 or so, my brother and I were
breakfasting in a diner in Lajita's, TX. We had to be the only people not
carrying arms
in the diner. I felt very safe though a bit under dressed.

So entering that Texas diner with a slung AR15 may be perceived by
others as unremarkable.

The same might be true in a hunting area during hunting season. My
neighbor at the lake keeps a loaded shotgun leaning outside his back
door in case some ducks happen by as they do from time to time in the
fall. Yawn. Perception: normal.

Open carry of assault rifle at political rally where nobody else is
openly armed isn't quite the same. It's a matter of perception.

I perceive it as a person stating, "I'm going to do this while I still can
before this stupid ****ing liberal has all the guns melted down and turned
into abortion clinic handrails, and maybe wake some people up that there are
people in our government and society that would keep me from my
Constitutional rights to do so."

Yeah, perception is everything.

Steve

On Mon, 31 Aug 2009 08:51:57 -0600, "SteveB"
wrote:


"Don Foreman" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 30 Aug 2009 18:42:20 -0400, Wes wrote:

"Ed Huntress" wrote:

Carrying a slung rifle in a crowd of people is not peaceful under any
circumstances. Its only functional purpose in that situation is to kill.
Since it's highly unlikely it will be used to kill, the only remaining
purpose is an affective one: to intimidate.

That wasn't about "rights." It was about threats.

This was Arizona, it wasn't New Jersey. If it had been viewed by those in
power as a
threat, the guy would have been hauled away.

He had legal right to do that in the state he was in.

I think this is a matter of perception.

Yes, it definitely is.

For example in 1996 or so, my brother and I were
breakfasting in a diner in Lajita's, TX. We had to be the only people not
carrying arms
in the diner. I felt very safe though a bit under dressed.

So entering that Texas diner with a slung AR15 may be perceived by
others as unremarkable.

The same might be true in a hunting area during hunting season. My
neighbor at the lake keeps a loaded shotgun leaning outside his back
door in case some ducks happen by as they do from time to time in the
fall. Yawn. Perception: normal.

Open carry of assault rifle at political rally where nobody else is
openly armed isn't quite the same. It's a matter of perception.

I perceive it as a person stating, "I'm going to do this while I still can
before this stupid ****ing liberal has all the guns melted down and turned
into abortion clinic handrails, and maybe wake some people up that there are
people in our government and society that would keep me from my
Constitutional rights to do so."

Yeah, perception is everything.

Steve

Think it worked?

On Mon, 31 Aug 2009 02:48:16 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:

On Mon, 31 Aug 2009 02:03:31 -0500, Don Foreman
wrote:

On Sun, 30 Aug 2009 23:25:27 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:

On Mon, 31 Aug 2009 00:33:50 -0500, Don Foreman
wrote:

On Sun, 30 Aug 2009 12:52:29 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:

On Sun, 30 Aug 2009 00:39:35 -0500, Don Foreman
wrote:


Wearing a slung assault rifle to a political rally is clearly
irresponsible abuse of 2d amendment rights. Since there is no need
for defense it is obviously intended to intimidate. Intimidation of
peaceful citizens is exactly contrary to the clear intent of the 2d
amendment.

blink blink....intimidation of peaceful citizens?

Oh..you mean the brainwashed Useful Idiots who consider a rifle ,
whether its incased in 5 square feet of concrete, or slung over ones
shoulder to be "intimidating"?

I regard an assault rifle slung over the shoulder of a stranger, who
wears no insignia I recognize, to be worrisome. That may be either in
spite of or due to the fact that I'm a vet. If I find it worrisome I
can certainly see how some gentle citizens would find it intimidating.
Incomprehensible as it may be to you, there are indeed quite a few
good people, contributive citizens and intelligent folks, who are
quite unfamiliar with firearms and are frightened by the mere presence
of a gun. Consider that compulsory military service (the draft)
stopped more than a generation ago and that many of today's urban
folks have never been hunting so their impressions and opinions have
been formed by what they've read in the paper and seen on TV.

Nearly all of them I've known are at least two generations distant
from rural roots. I've gently introduced a number of them to handguns
by piquing their curiosity until it overcame their anxiety.

Not all have become gun owners and shooters but more than 50% have.
One of my daughters,Dr. Kelly the screaming liberal university
professor, was once rabidly anti. We've made some progress there.
She'll never be a shooter but she now has shot and enjoyed it. She's
even a little proud of having done that. Look the dragon in the eye
and spit in it. Perhaps she takes after her mother...

I had to grin when she told me that when one of her students
blog-posted that she wondered what sort of handgun might be suitable
for a young female graduate student in Detroit, said daughter
responded that she might like a Walther PPK. That has to be because
other daughter New York Karen purely loved shooting my PPK and shot it
very well indeed. Would Karen rub older sis Kelly's nose in the fact
that she had a super time with Dad shooting at the range -- with
target photos? Naaaahhhh....

Then you have no problem with a Conservative being forced to keep his
mouth shut because it "intimidates" far leftist fringe kooks when he
opens it and simply says something truthful?

I think you know better than that, Gunner, but nice try at deflection
with buzzwords. Your labels (conservative, leftist, fringe, kook)
are irrelevant here, and nothing I've said in this thread or
elsewhere could even remotely be resonably construed as supporting
suppression of anyone's 1st amendment right of free speech.

Yet you did indeed suggest the suppression of that black gentlemans 1st
AND 2nd Amendment rights.

Think hard before replying.

G

Gunner

I suggested no such thing. If my intent wasn't clear then shame on me
for poor writing though I doubt that was so.

You did indeed get upset about the gentleman using both his 1st and 2nd
amendment rights. Rather snippy about it as well.

"Think hard before replying" is coyly trolling like you have a secret
trap to spring. That's an adolescent girl game you're not nearly cute
enough to play with me.

Game? Thats rather marginal of you to think this is a game Im playing.
Don..its not. Its quite serious in fact. To think otherwise shames both
of us.

You did indeed suggest that the gentleman give up his 1st AND 2nd
amendment rights while out showing the flag. And that is tragic.

And very midwestern.

Shrug

Gunner

OK, Gunner. Let it be clear from this point forward that I did not
and do not advocate suppressing anyone's rights. I do advocate
responsible behavior and disdain posturing with firearms. Might this
be a midwestern concept you find incomprehensible?

Don Foreman wrote:
On Mon, 31 Aug 2009 02:48:16 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:


Game? Thats rather marginal of you to think this is a game Im playing.
Don..its not. Its quite serious in fact. To think otherwise shames both
of us.

You did indeed suggest that the gentleman give up his 1st AND 2nd
amendment rights while out showing the flag. And that is tragic.

And very midwestern.

Shrug

Gunner

OK, Gunner. Let it be clear from this point forward that I did not
and do not advocate suppressing anyone's rights. I do advocate
responsible behavior and disdain posturing with firearms. Might this
be a midwestern concept you find incomprehensible?


Bull's eye

On Mon, 31 Aug 2009 08:51:57 -0600, "SteveB"
wrote:


"Don Foreman" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 30 Aug 2009 18:42:20 -0400, Wes wrote:

"Ed Huntress" wrote:

Carrying a slung rifle in a crowd of people is not peaceful under any
circumstances. Its only functional purpose in that situation is to kill.
Since it's highly unlikely it will be used to kill, the only remaining
purpose is an affective one: to intimidate.

That wasn't about "rights." It was about threats.

This was Arizona, it wasn't New Jersey. If it had been viewed by those in
power as a
threat, the guy would have been hauled away.

He had legal right to do that in the state he was in.

I think this is a matter of perception.

Yes, it definitely is.

For example in 1996 or so, my brother and I were
breakfasting in a diner in Lajita's, TX. We had to be the only people not
carrying arms
in the diner. I felt very safe though a bit under dressed.

So entering that Texas diner with a slung AR15 may be perceived by
others as unremarkable.

The same might be true in a hunting area during hunting season. My
neighbor at the lake keeps a loaded shotgun leaning outside his back
door in case some ducks happen by as they do from time to time in the
fall. Yawn. Perception: normal.

Open carry of assault rifle at political rally where nobody else is
openly armed isn't quite the same. It's a matter of perception.

I perceive it as a person stating, "I'm going to do this while I still can
before this stupid ****ing liberal has all the guns melted down and turned
into abortion clinic handrails, and maybe wake some people up that there are
people in our government and society that would keep me from my
Constitutional rights to do so."

Yeah, perception is everything.

Steve

Well said Sir..well said indeed!!!


Whenever a Liberal utters the term "Common Sense approach"....grab your
wallet, your ass, and your guns because the sombitch is about to do
something damned nasty to all three of them.

On Mon, 31 Aug 2009 11:26:46 -0500, Don Foreman
wrote:

On Mon, 31 Aug 2009 02:48:16 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:

On Mon, 31 Aug 2009 02:03:31 -0500, Don Foreman
wrote:

On Sun, 30 Aug 2009 23:25:27 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:

On Mon, 31 Aug 2009 00:33:50 -0500, Don Foreman
wrote:

On Sun, 30 Aug 2009 12:52:29 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:

On Sun, 30 Aug 2009 00:39:35 -0500, Don Foreman
wrote:


Wearing a slung assault rifle to a political rally is clearly
irresponsible abuse of 2d amendment rights. Since there is no need
for defense it is obviously intended to intimidate. Intimidation of
peaceful citizens is exactly contrary to the clear intent of the 2d
amendment.

blink blink....intimidation of peaceful citizens?

Oh..you mean the brainwashed Useful Idiots who consider a rifle ,
whether its incased in 5 square feet of concrete, or slung over ones
shoulder to be "intimidating"?

I regard an assault rifle slung over the shoulder of a stranger, who
wears no insignia I recognize, to be worrisome. That may be either in
spite of or due to the fact that I'm a vet. If I find it worrisome I
can certainly see how some gentle citizens would find it intimidating.
Incomprehensible as it may be to you, there are indeed quite a few
good people, contributive citizens and intelligent folks, who are
quite unfamiliar with firearms and are frightened by the mere presence
of a gun. Consider that compulsory military service (the draft)
stopped more than a generation ago and that many of today's urban
folks have never been hunting so their impressions and opinions have
been formed by what they've read in the paper and seen on TV.

Nearly all of them I've known are at least two generations distant
from rural roots. I've gently introduced a number of them to handguns
by piquing their curiosity until it overcame their anxiety.

Not all have become gun owners and shooters but more than 50% have.
One of my daughters,Dr. Kelly the screaming liberal university
professor, was once rabidly anti. We've made some progress there.
She'll never be a shooter but she now has shot and enjoyed it. She's
even a little proud of having done that. Look the dragon in the eye
and spit in it. Perhaps she takes after her mother...

I had to grin when she told me that when one of her students
blog-posted that she wondered what sort of handgun might be suitable
for a young female graduate student in Detroit, said daughter
responded that she might like a Walther PPK. That has to be because
other daughter New York Karen purely loved shooting my PPK and shot it
very well indeed. Would Karen rub older sis Kelly's nose in the fact
that she had a super time with Dad shooting at the range -- with
target photos? Naaaahhhh....

Then you have no problem with a Conservative being forced to keep his
mouth shut because it "intimidates" far leftist fringe kooks when he
opens it and simply says something truthful?

I think you know better than that, Gunner, but nice try at deflection
with buzzwords. Your labels (conservative, leftist, fringe, kook)
are irrelevant here, and nothing I've said in this thread or
elsewhere could even remotely be resonably construed as supporting
suppression of anyone's 1st amendment right of free speech.

Yet you did indeed suggest the suppression of that black gentlemans 1st
AND 2nd Amendment rights.

Think hard before replying.

G

Gunner

I suggested no such thing. If my intent wasn't clear then shame on me
for poor writing though I doubt that was so.

You did indeed get upset about the gentleman using both his 1st and 2nd
amendment rights. Rather snippy about it as well.

"Think hard before replying" is coyly trolling like you have a secret
trap to spring. That's an adolescent girl game you're not nearly cute
enough to play with me.

Game? Thats rather marginal of you to think this is a game Im playing.
Don..its not. Its quite serious in fact. To think otherwise shames both
of us.

You did indeed suggest that the gentleman give up his 1st AND 2nd
amendment rights while out showing the flag. And that is tragic.

And very midwestern.

Shrug

Gunner

OK, Gunner. Let it be clear from this point forward that I did not
and do not advocate suppressing anyone's rights. I do advocate
responsible behavior and disdain posturing with firearms. Might this
be a midwestern concept you find incomprehensible?

I find that it appears to be a midwest concept that the gentleman was
acting irresponsibly and posturing.

Shall we ask the other readers if it was, or wasnt?

Feel free.

G

Gunner

Whenever a Liberal utters the term "Common Sense approach"....grab your
wallet, your ass, and your guns because the sombitch is about to do
something damned nasty to all three of them.

Don Foreman wrote:

Open carry of assault rifle at political rally where nobody else is
openly armed isn't quite the same. It's a matter of perception.

From what I've heard he wasn't the only person there openly armed. The others were open
carrying sidearms.

While Arizona does allow private ownership of a class 3 firearm, it is not clear he was
carrying a machinegun. I really dislike the term assault rifle used for a semi auto.

Wes

"Don Foreman" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 31 Aug 2009 08:51:57 -0600, "SteveB"
wrote:


"Don Foreman" wrote in message
. ..
On Sun, 30 Aug 2009 18:42:20 -0400, Wes wrote:

"Ed Huntress" wrote:

Carrying a slung rifle in a crowd of people is not peaceful under any
circumstances. Its only functional purpose in that situation is to
kill.
Since it's highly unlikely it will be used to kill, the only remaining
purpose is an affective one: to intimidate.

That wasn't about "rights." It was about threats.

This was Arizona, it wasn't New Jersey. If it had been viewed by those
in
power as a
threat, the guy would have been hauled away.

He had legal right to do that in the state he was in.

I think this is a matter of perception.

Yes, it definitely is.

For example in 1996 or so, my brother and I were
breakfasting in a diner in Lajita's, TX. We had to be the only people
not
carrying arms
in the diner. I felt very safe though a bit under dressed.

So entering that Texas diner with a slung AR15 may be perceived by
others as unremarkable.

The same might be true in a hunting area during hunting season. My
neighbor at the lake keeps a loaded shotgun leaning outside his back
door in case some ducks happen by as they do from time to time in the
fall. Yawn. Perception: normal.

Open carry of assault rifle at political rally where nobody else is
openly armed isn't quite the same. It's a matter of perception.

I perceive it as a person stating, "I'm going to do this while I still can
before this stupid ****ing liberal has all the guns melted down and turned
into abortion clinic handrails, and maybe wake some people up that there
are
people in our government and society that would keep me from my
Constitutional rights to do so."

Yeah, perception is everything.

Steve

Think it worked?

It DID get a lot of people's attention.

On Mon, 31 Aug 2009 16:13:35 -0600, "SteveB"
wrote:


"Don Foreman" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 31 Aug 2009 08:51:57 -0600, "SteveB"
wrote:


"Don Foreman" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 30 Aug 2009 18:42:20 -0400, Wes wrote:

"Ed Huntress" wrote:

Carrying a slung rifle in a crowd of people is not peaceful under any
circumstances. Its only functional purpose in that situation is to
kill.
Since it's highly unlikely it will be used to kill, the only remaining
purpose is an affective one: to intimidate.

That wasn't about "rights." It was about threats.

This was Arizona, it wasn't New Jersey. If it had been viewed by those
in
power as a
threat, the guy would have been hauled away.

He had legal right to do that in the state he was in.

I think this is a matter of perception.

Yes, it definitely is.

For example in 1996 or so, my brother and I were
breakfasting in a diner in Lajita's, TX. We had to be the only people
not
carrying arms
in the diner. I felt very safe though a bit under dressed.

So entering that Texas diner with a slung AR15 may be perceived by
others as unremarkable.

The same might be true in a hunting area during hunting season. My
neighbor at the lake keeps a loaded shotgun leaning outside his back
door in case some ducks happen by as they do from time to time in the
fall. Yawn. Perception: normal.

Open carry of assault rifle at political rally where nobody else is
openly armed isn't quite the same. It's a matter of perception.

I perceive it as a person stating, "I'm going to do this while I still can
before this stupid ****ing liberal has all the guns melted down and turned
into abortion clinic handrails, and maybe wake some people up that there
are
people in our government and society that would keep me from my
Constitutional rights to do so."

Yeah, perception is everything.

Steve

Think it worked?

It DID get a lot of people's attention.

And it showed the People what a lying pack of mutant pond scum the media
is.

And they dont forget.


Gunner

Whenever a Liberal utters the term "Common Sense approach"....grab your
wallet, your ass, and your guns because the sombitch is about to do
something damned nasty to all three of them.

On Aug 31, 3:42*pm, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Mon, 31 Aug 2009 11:26:46 -0500, Don Foreman



wrote:
On Mon, 31 Aug 2009 02:48:16 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:

On Mon, 31 Aug 2009 02:03:31 -0500, Don Foreman
wrote:

On Sun, 30 Aug 2009 23:25:27 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:

On Mon, 31 Aug 2009 00:33:50 -0500, Don Foreman
wrote:

On Sun, 30 Aug 2009 12:52:29 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:

On Sun, 30 Aug 2009 00:39:35 -0500, Don Foreman
wrote:

Wearing a slung assault rifle to a political rally is clearly
irresponsible *abuse of 2d amendment rights. *Since there is *no need
for defense it is obviously *intended to intimidate. *Intimidation of
peaceful citizens *is exactly contrary to *the clear *intent of the 2d
amendment.

blink blink....intimidation of peaceful citizens?

Oh..you mean the brainwashed Useful Idiots who consider a rifle ,
whether its incased in 5 square feet of concrete, or slung over ones
shoulder to be "intimidating"?

I regard an assault rifle slung over the shoulder of a stranger, who
wears no insignia I recognize, to be worrisome. *That may be either in
spite of or due to the fact that I'm a vet. If I find it worrisome I
can certainly see how some gentle citizens would find it intimidating.
Incomprehensible as it may be to you, there are indeed quite a few
good people, contributive citizens and intelligent folks, who are
quite unfamiliar with firearms and are frightened by the mere presence
of a gun. * Consider that compulsory military service (the draft)
stopped more than a generation ago and that many of today's urban
folks have never been hunting so their impressions and opinions have
been *formed by what they've read in the paper and seen on TV.

Nearly all of them I've known are at least two generations distant
from rural roots. *I've gently introduced a number of them to handguns
by piquing their curiosity until it overcame their anxiety.

Not all have become gun owners and shooters *but more than 50% have.
One of my daughters,Dr. Kelly the screaming liberal university
professor, was once rabidly anti. * We've made some progress there..
She'll never be a shooter but she now has shot and enjoyed it. She's
even a little proud of having done that. *Look the dragon in the eye
and spit in it. Perhaps she takes after her mother... *

I had to grin when she told me that when one of her students
blog-posted that she wondered what sort of handgun might be suitable
for a young female graduate student in Detroit, said daughter
responded that she might like a Walther PPK. *That has to be because
other daughter New York Karen purely loved shooting my PPK and shot it
very well indeed. Would Karen rub older sis Kelly's nose in the fact
that she had a super time with Dad shooting at the range -- with
target photos? * Naaaahhhh....

Then you have no problem with a Conservative being forced to keep his
mouth shut because it "intimidates" far leftist fringe kooks when he
opens it and simply says something truthful?

I think you know better than that, Gunner, but nice try at deflection
with buzzwords. * Your labels (conservative, leftist, fringe, kook)
are *irrelevant here, *and nothing I've said in this thread or
elsewhere could even remotely be resonably construed as supporting
suppression of anyone's 1st amendment right of free speech.

Yet you did indeed suggest the suppression of that black gentlemans 1st
AND 2nd Amendment rights.

Think hard before replying.

G

Gunner

I suggested no such thing. If my intent wasn't clear then shame on me
for poor writing though I doubt that was so. *

You did indeed get upset about the gentleman using both his 1st and 2nd
amendment rights. Rather snippy about it as well.

"Think hard before replying" is coyly trolling like you have a secret
trap to spring. *That's an adolescent girl game you're not nearly cute
enough to play with me. * *

Game? *Thats rather marginal of you to think this is a game Im playing.
Don..its not. Its quite serious in fact. *To think otherwise shames both
of us.

You did indeed suggest that the gentleman give up his 1st AND 2nd
amendment rights while out showing the flag. *And that is tragic.

And very midwestern.

Shrug

Gunner

OK, Gunner. *Let it be clear from this point forward that I did not
and do not advocate suppressing anyone's rights. *I do advocate
responsible behavior and disdain posturing with firearms. Might this
be a midwestern concept you find incomprehensible?

I find that it appears to be a midwest concept that the gentleman was
acting irresponsibly and posturing.

Shall we ask the other readers if it was, or wasnt?

Feel free.

G

Gunner

*Whenever a Liberal utters the term "Common Sense approach"....grab your
*wallet, your ass, and your guns because the sombitch is about to do
*something damned nasty to all three of them.

There's no way in the world that guy wasn't looking to start
something. If he had an opinion that he want to be heard, he could,
just as easily written it on a piece of cardboard like "normal"
protesters do.

Just because you have a right, doesn't mean you have to constantly
flaunt it. And this was flaunting. He was purposely making the people
around him nervous, and daring the cops to do something about it.

Bringing a weapon like that into an event like that is irresponsible
on oh so many levels. Even if this guy was the most well trained gun
handler in the world, what was to stop a crazed person from grabbing
the gun away from him and doing some real damage? No, Gunner, the only
reason he brought that gun to that place was to be an ass. He
succeeded.

On Mon, 31 Aug 2009 12:42:26 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:



OK, Gunner. Let it be clear from this point forward that I did not
and do not advocate suppressing anyone's rights. I do advocate
responsible behavior and disdain posturing with firearms. Might this
be a midwestern concept you find incomprehensible?

I find that it appears to be a midwest concept that the gentleman was
acting irresponsibly and posturing.

Shall we ask the other readers if it was, or wasnt?

Yes, let's do that. That could be interesting.

On Tue, 01 Sep 2009 00:47:59 -0500, Don Foreman
wrote:

On Mon, 31 Aug 2009 12:42:26 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:



OK, Gunner. Let it be clear from this point forward that I did not
and do not advocate suppressing anyone's rights. I do advocate
responsible behavior and disdain posturing with firearms. Might this
be a midwestern concept you find incomprehensible?

I find that it appears to be a midwest concept that the gentleman was
acting irresponsibly and posturing.

Shall we ask the other readers if it was, or wasnt?

Yes, let's do that. That could be interesting.


Anyone have a comment one way or the other?

Was the black guy with the AR15 over his shoulder, peacefuly standing in
an Arizona Tea Party demonstration, along with 15 or 20 other armed
guys, acting like a wack job or not? The Left of course hid the fact he
was black, and started talking about armed white racism and so forth.

Any comments?

Gunner

Whenever a Liberal utters the term "Common Sense approach"....grab your
wallet, your ass, and your guns because the sombitch is about to do
something damned nasty to all three of them.

On Tue, 01 Sep 2009 00:41:24 -0700, the infamous Gunner Asch
scrawled the following:

On Tue, 01 Sep 2009 00:47:59 -0500, Don Foreman
wrote:

On Mon, 31 Aug 2009 12:42:26 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:



OK, Gunner. Let it be clear from this point forward that I did not
and do not advocate suppressing anyone's rights. I do advocate
responsible behavior and disdain posturing with firearms. Might this
be a midwestern concept you find incomprehensible?

I find that it appears to be a midwest concept that the gentleman was
acting irresponsibly and posturing.

Shall we ask the other readers if it was, or wasnt?

Yes, let's do that. That could be interesting.


Anyone have a comment one way or the other?

Was the black guy with the AR15 over his shoulder, peacefuly standing in
an Arizona Tea Party demonstration, along with 15 or 20 other armed
guys, acting like a wack job or not? The Left of course hid the fact he
was black, and started talking about armed white racism and so forth.

Any comments?

I have mixed emotions about it. On the one hand, it was a statement
that he, along with millions of patriotic Americans, was fed up with
the status quo and fed up with liberal demonrats throwing money away.

OTOH, he gave the moronic HUYAs in the media more anti-gun fodder.

The smart move would have been to have left the gun at home. After
this stunt, when the American Revolution II inevitably kicks in, he'll
likely be instantly targeted and de-weaponed by them revenuer folks.

Speaking of throwing money away and being completely unaware of the
ecological damage from said actions, how many gallons of gas has Obama
wasted running Air Force One all over hell and back (both globally and
locally) on a daily basis? How many tons of CO2 has he spewed, about
the same as any U.S. _state_ since he was elected? Way to go, Mr.
President! You and your party say one thing and do another.

Well, the voters got their "change", alright. I have yet to see
anything I'm proud of the man for.

--
Good intentions will always be pleaded for every assumption of authority.
It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard
the people 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. --Daniel Webster

On Tue, 01 Sep 2009 00:41:24 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:

On Tue, 01 Sep 2009 00:47:59 -0500, Don Foreman
wrote:

On Mon, 31 Aug 2009 12:42:26 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:



OK, Gunner. Let it be clear from this point forward that I did not
and do not advocate suppressing anyone's rights. I do advocate
responsible behavior and disdain posturing with firearms. Might this
be a midwestern concept you find incomprehensible?

I find that it appears to be a midwest concept that the gentleman was
acting irresponsibly and posturing.

Shall we ask the other readers if it was, or wasnt?

Yes, let's do that. That could be interesting.


Anyone have a comment one way or the other?

Was the black guy with the AR15 over his shoulder, peacefuly standing in
an Arizona Tea Party demonstration, along with 15 or 20 other armed
guys, acting like a wack job or not?

He was acting irresponsibly and contrary to his own interests. He had
no good reason to be carrying an AR15 and should have known (unless he
_is_ a wack job) that doing so under the circumstances would alarm
most folks. Assert your rights in an irresponsible manner and you're
more likely to compromise than protect them.

In the interest of context, I live in Maine, which has a long
tradition of hunting and gun ownership. I haven't owned a gun myself
in many years, but used to be a pretty good target shooter. I'm
comfortable with my neighbors who own guns, but would wonder about the
judgement of one who showed up at a political rally toting an AR15.

The Left of course hid the fact he
was black, and started talking about armed white racism and so forth.

You just poisoned the poll with that remark.

--
Ned Simmons

"Gunner Asch" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 01 Sep 2009 00:47:59 -0500, Don Foreman
wrote:

On Mon, 31 Aug 2009 12:42:26 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:



OK, Gunner. Let it be clear from this point forward that I did not
and do not advocate suppressing anyone's rights. I do advocate
responsible behavior and disdain posturing with firearms. Might this
be a midwestern concept you find incomprehensible?

I find that it appears to be a midwest concept that the gentleman was
acting irresponsibly and posturing.

Shall we ask the other readers if it was, or wasnt?

Yes, let's do that. That could be interesting.


Anyone have a comment one way or the other?

Was the black guy with the AR15 over his shoulder, peacefuly standing in
an Arizona Tea Party demonstration, along with 15 or 20 other armed
guys, acting like a wack job or not? The Left of course hid the fact he
was black, and started talking about armed white racism and so forth.

Any comments?

What Don and Ned said.

--
Ed Huntress

"Don Foreman" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 31 Aug 2009 12:42:26 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:



OK, Gunner. Let it be clear from this point forward that I did not
and do not advocate suppressing anyone's rights. I do advocate
responsible behavior and disdain posturing with firearms. Might this
be a midwestern concept you find incomprehensible?

I find that it appears to be a midwest concept that the gentleman was
acting irresponsibly and posturing.

Shall we ask the other readers if it was, or wasnt?

Yes, let's do that. That could be interesting.

Define "posturing".

Steve

"Gunner Asch" wrote

Was the black guy with the AR15 over his shoulder, peacefuly standing in
an Arizona Tea Party demonstration, along with 15 or 20 other armed
guys, acting like a wack job or not? The Left of course hid the fact he
was black, and started talking about armed white racism and so forth.

Any comments?

Gunner

That pesky press just leaves stuff out that they deem unimportant to the
story line. Or what their bosses tell them to include in the news. Until
this day, I did not know he was black. Probably the reason he didn't get
thumped on the spot. Saw a big black guy last night screaming at the
police, "I don't have to leave and you are NOT going to arrest me". One
second later he was looking at a Taser, and his whole mood shifted. Laid on
the ground like a puppy. These people aren't just Joe Average out there.
They are trained people who know how to walk the line, and what to do and
not to do. Lucky, one of ours was out there to make his point about
carrying guns, and nice that the PD ruled he was within his rights.

Steve