Right on, I’m all for the castle bill. Oh, and I’m a liberal.

I just happen to know the difference between when all options have been exhausted, and that between a short and long term solution.

Left by John Jarzemsky on October 15th, 2007 at 4:19 pm

I also support the Castle Doctrine, but the only thing it really changed in Texas, was to codify the “no retreat” aspect. In the event of an attack, and you had to protect yourself with deadly force, telling the Grand Jury that “I feared for my life” has always been an acceptable reply for acquittal. However, if the entry wound, the exit wound, and the hole in the floor were in perfect alignment, then you might have further ’splainin’ to do.
I can’t imagine the terror this family must have experienced, without any means of ending the attack.
As for a home defense shotgun, I have had the venerable, and now out of production, Winchester 1300 Defender, in it’s earlier iteration, with the wood stock, and bead sights. Usually, I have #7 birdshot in the tube, but with the availability of numerous specialty shotgun shells, such as these, and these, I have a mix in the tube directed for home defense, with more lethal and longer range shells in the side saddle shell holder.
I do keep it locked in the safe, with the magazine tube only half full, so as not to compress the magazine spring, rendering it inoperable over time. I am an adherent of the philosophy that a pistol is for fighting your way to your rifle(or shotgun), and keep my go anywhere/anytime 1911a1 by my bed at night, loaded with 230gr Federal HydraShoks, next to my one million candlepower flashlight.
I do not advocate recoil compensators on home defense weapons, as they increase the muzzle blast and flash, by about 65%, thus rendering the shooter and the criminal deaf and blind, in an enclosed encounter, such as the hallway or bedroom. That’s why I like the .45acp or .38Sp for home defense, both rounds are subsonic, and hearing protection isn’t required.

Left by no2liberals on October 15th, 2007 at 4:47 pm

Henh…and we can’t forget the ladies.

Left by no2liberals on October 15th, 2007 at 4:55 pm

N2L — that might be the greatest comment I’ve ever read.

Left by Robbie on October 15th, 2007 at 7:26 pm

Thanks!
Uhhh…which one.

Left by no2liberals on October 15th, 2007 at 7:33 pm

If you are referring to the long one, I have many years of useful and useless knowledge about guns, self-preservation, and preparedness I am glad to share.
Let me ask you, and any other readers a few questions, if you own guns.
1)Do you have a semi-auto pistol or rifle? If so, and your magazines are fully loaded, you should remove half of the rounds, so the spring won’t compress, and cause feeding malfunctions.
2)Your weapons that are stored, is the firing pin/striker plate in the cocked position? If so, take a “snap cap” or empty brass casing, put it in the chamber, and pull the trigger, relieving the tension of the firing pin spring. If not, leaving that tiny spring compressed will damage it, and the tension will be lost, thus causing a misfire. That is for any weapon other than a revolver.

Left by no2liberals on October 15th, 2007 at 7:43 pm

I’m not a big gun control advocate but I seriously don’t understand these self-defense fetishes. I shot a gun plenty of times when I was younger but I simply don’t fantasize about home invasions where I pull out my gun and kill some bad guys. Considering that every time a gun in the home was used in a self-defense or legally justifiable shooting, there were four unintentional shootings, seven criminal assaults or homicides, and 11 attempted or completed suicides.
It reminds me of the parents who want a “safe car” for their kids but end up buying an SUV that’s more likely to roll over and much, much more likely to lead to an accidental backover death of their own child.
Robbie, if you’re concerned with extending your life I feel pretty confident that statistics would back up that you should give up the barbecue and the motorcycle long before you buy a gun.

Left by Preston on October 15th, 2007 at 9:27 pm

Fantasies and fetishes…henh!
Shooting a gun is one thing, but have you ever had someone shooting at you while you are shooting? I didn’t think so.
It’s a whole other world out there Preston, and not the safe, all men are of good will fantasy world, either.
That one little study was very limited in it’s sample size and demographics. For a better look at the number of legal self-defense uses of firearms, you’ll have to view the ground breaking research done by ACLU member, Prof. Gary Kleck. His study published in 1991, and the book titled Point Blank:Guns And Vilolence In America, won the 1993 Hindelang award from the American Society of Criminology. It was initially done to remove any doubt that defensive uses of firearms were insignificant, compared to the risks of gun ownership. He’s still a hardcore liberal academic, but his research and statistical analysis has removed all doubt of the benefits of lawful gun ownership by law-abiding citizens, and defensive uses have been greatly underestimated. In his book, Targeting Guns(1997), it is an updated and less scientific presentation of the data, which states:

the defensive uses of firearms by citizens amount to 2.5 million uses per year and dwarf the offensive gun uses by criminals. Between 25-75 lives are saved by a gun for every life lost to a gun. Medical costs saved by guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens are 15 times greater than costs incurred by criminal uses of firearms. Guns also prevent injuries to good people and protect billions of dollars of property every year.

Who Is Gary Kleck?
How Often Are Firearms Used in Self-Defense?
Armed Resistance to Crime:
Then there is Prof. John Lott, and his exhaustive study of the crime data for each-and-every-county-in-the-U.S. His research led to the best selling book, More Guns:Less Crime(1998), which revealed:

In his book, Prof. Lott studied the FBIs massive yearly crime statistics for all 3,054 U.S. counties over 18 years (1977-1994), the largest national survey on gun ownership and state police documentation in illegal gun use, and he comes to some startling conclusions:

While neither state waiting periods nor the federal Brady Law is associated with a reduction in crime rates, adopting concealed carry gun laws cut death rates from public, multiple shootings (e.g., as those which took place in Jonesboro, Arkansas, and Springfield, Oregon, in 1998; the Columbine High School shooting in Littleton, Colorado, in 1999; or the 1993 shooting on the Long Island subway) Ð by a whopping 69 percent.

Allowing people to carry concealed weapons deters violent crime Ð without any apparent increase in accidental death. If states without right to carry laws had adopted them in 1992, about 1,570 murders, 4,177 rapes, and 60,000 aggravated assaults would have been avoided annually.

Children 14 to 15 years of age are 14.5 times more likely to die from automobile injuries, 5 times more likely to die from drowning or fire and burns, and 3 times more likely to die from bicycle accidents than they are to die from gun accidents.

Prof. Lott found that when concealed carry laws went into effect in a given county, murders fell by 8 percent, rapes by 5 percent, and aggravated assaults by 7 percent.

For each additional year concealed carry gun laws have been in effect, the murder rate declines by 3 percent, robberies by over 2 percent, and rape by 1 percent.13 Suicide and “Crimes of Passion”

I know you are of the liberal persuasion, but making surly statements laced with disdain reveals your lack of knowledge on this subject. Perhaps you should question all issues, and find the info or ask others for more info, rather than accepting the party line or the myths on issues such as gun ownership.

Left by no2liberals on October 15th, 2007 at 11:30 pm

Of course, the primary reason for the Second Amendment is illustrated here.

Left by no2liberals on October 15th, 2007 at 11:57 pm

reason with, sanction, or employed some other form of diplomacy with those teens who were trying to destroy your home and harm your family — after all, nothing is worth fighting or killing for

No, I would have completely disregarded “those teens” and found some wimpy thugs in another city to shoot. It’s what I’ve learned from Republicans!

“those teens” = al Qaeda
“wimpy thugs” = S. Hussein
“Mossberg HS 410 w/birdshot” = U.S. Army and Marines

Left by breadcrust on October 16th, 2007 at 4:16 am

N2L-

Those numbers are simply unbelievable. You’re asking me to accept that there are ‘only’ 850,000 annual incidents of aggravated assault and 400,000 robberies, yet TWO MILLION incidents of ‘defensive gun use’? That’s preposterous.

John Lott is a Fraud.

Have you read the Second Amendment? A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed. You interpret this as a mandate for rebellion? Yes, I’ll stand my diagnosis of ‘fantasy’ and ‘fetish’.

Once again, I don’t have any particular antagonism against guns or gun owners but as Breadcrust suggests this is a military delusion that pervades right-wing thinking.

Left by Preston on October 16th, 2007 at 5:21 am

Just to clarify you’re saying that every robber/ perpetrator of assault was chased away from TWO gunowners before finding one victim. All this despite the fact that gun owners make up just half of the population and even a smaller number use these guns defensively. Does this seem remotely possible or conform with everyday experience?

I’m afraid your numbers must be extrapolated from a survey of P-Diddy’s posse.

Left by Preston on October 16th, 2007 at 5:39 am

Way to go, Preston. You’ve stuck to the liberal agenda and party line.
John Lott’s work is accurate and historic, even if you chose to stick to the liberal meme. Prof. Kleck’s research doesn’t get the same reaction from you, is that because he’s a liberal? Yet it his numbers that most liberals have trouble with.
Marvin Wolfgang:

I am as strong a gun-control advocate as can be found among the criminologists in this country. If I were Mustapha Mond of Brave New World, I would eliminate all guns from the civilian population and maybe even from the police. I hate guns–ugly, nasty instruments designed to kill people. …

What troubles me is the article by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz. The reason I am troubled is that they have provided an almost clear-cut case of methodologically sound research in support of something I have theoretically opposed for years, namely, the use of a gun in defense against a criminal perpetrator… I have to admit my admiration for the care and caution expressed in this article and this research. …

Can it be true that about two million instances occur each year in which a gun was used as a defensive measure against crime? It is hard to believe. Yet, it is hard to challenge the data collected. We do not have contrary evidence. The National Crime Victim Survey does not directly contravene this latest survey, nor do the Mauser and Hart studies. …

Nevertheless, the methodological soundness of the current Kleck and Gertz study is clear. I cannot further debate it. …

The Kleck and Gertz study impresses me for the caution the authors exercise and the elaborate nuances they examine methodologically. I do not like their conclusions that having a gun can be useful, but I cannot fault their methodology. They have tried earnestly to meet all objections in advance and have done exceedingly well.
— Marvin E. Wofgang, “A Tribute to a View I Have Opposed,” Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 1995, Vol. 86 No. 1.)

I suspect you don’t like the numbers, but unlike Prof. Wolfgang elegant statement, you just lash out with the words preposterous and unbelievable.
Yes I have read the Second Amendment, have you read the Federalist Papers? The reason the framers of the Constitution wanted us armed, was for many reasons, but primarily as a last resort against a tyrant taking control of the government. Like Hillary and her fellow traveler commies.

“Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive.”

Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution (Philadelphia 1787)

“When the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised by an artful man, who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually…I ask, who are the militia? They consist of now of the whole people, except a few public officers. But I cannot say who will be the militia of the future day. If that paper on the table gets no alteration, the militia of the future day may not consist of all classes, high and low, and rich and poor…”
George Mason

“Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is argument of tyrants. It is the creed of slaves.” William Pitt 1783

As for your concurrence with breadcrumbs comment, I am reminded that you too have BDS. Maybe you and breadcrumb could give a good explano for Clintoons adventures, and why twice as many members of our military died under his administration, as have during the Bush administration?

Left by no2liberals on October 16th, 2007 at 7:54 am

One other thing, before my day turns to serious matters, Preston’s notion of fantasies and fetishes pertaining to preparedness, is unenlightened and potentially dangerous to his, and his families, well being. If one doesn’t have a plan, and an event occurs, such as a burglary or home invasion or even a fire, then you will panic, and when you panic, you are lost.
I have no intention of ever losing to some low-life criminal, and abdicating my responsibilities as a law-abiding citizen. I would find it difficult to live with myself, if I didn’t live up to those responsibilities, and protect myself, family, neighbors, and property.
It doesn’t take much planning, and to become familiar with the law, and understanding a shoot/n0-shoot situation isn’t difficult. I think that what Preston, and most likely others, have the most difficulty with is confronting the psychological cost of killing, and instead strike out at those who have already analyzed and considered the cost.
Don’t be so insecure, Preston. Having a gun and using a gun are not the same thing, and if you are attacked, the criminal has the advantage if you aren’t armed with a weapon, the skill, and the mindset to come out on top, or at least unharmed. That also means studying and knowing the appropriate ammunition for the situations you might encounter, and spending time properly maintaining your weapons, so that they will perform as intended.
As for making snide remarks implying that I would derive any type of sexual pleasure from shooting or killing anyone shows your lack of understanding, insecurity, and childishness. I have shot, shot at, and been shot at by mean men, and I am still here, and have never derived any pleasure from those events, other than the strong affection I have for adrenaline. If you find anything sexual about guns or their use, then you need to deal with those thoughts.

Left by no2liberals on October 16th, 2007 at 9:17 am

yeah, what he said!

Left by adam on October 16th, 2007 at 11:22 am

Preston:

Gun control and censorship are the two biggest issues I take with the rest of my liberal ilk, primarily because I feel they run completely counter to what my chosen political ideology is all about.

I do not trust the federal government. Period. I’m in favor of the smallest possible fed I can get, and I’ll be goddamned before any corrupt, overpaid, underworked, hypocritcal asshole, be he/she Republican or Democrat is able to tell me what’s BEST FOR ME.

Personally, I don’t own a gun. I really have no plans to own a gun in the future, except maybe to take up sharpshooting once I’m out of school and have a little more free time and expendable cash on my hands. However, I’m adamantly opposed to the notion that the federal government has such broad power to take away a gun from a law-abiding American citizen. I’m as rigid on this issue as I am on wire-tapping and Gitmo.

I think the general population needs to realize that personal freedom is a two-way street, and that this country is far too big and diverse to conform to one select group’s idea of what liberty is. In my America gays have a right to marry one another, jobs applicants are picked based on skills, an American citizen can speak out and protest against the federal government, and I can purchase a weapon to use as within the scope of the law.

Left by John Jarzemsky on October 16th, 2007 at 2:48 pm

John- I haven’t said anything to oppose all that. I have simply questioned the fetishization of self-defense- the detailed fantasies of shooting someone in the face with your Mossberg HS 410 shotgun loaded with birdshot.

N2L- actually, I had never heard of your citation so I wasn’t swayed by your portrayal of him as a ‘liberal’. In any case, it was the ‘liberal’ who I took the time to question. John Lott’s ethical problems have been widely reported and didn’t seem worth comment.

In any case, I expected you to respond with a defense that you are simply preparing for the worst case scenario. This is, of course, admirable behavior- despite your suggestions I do indeed plot out bad situations regarding any number of disasters.

It’s impossible to draw a bright line between rational precaution and over-indulgence but it is simply my observation that many voices from the right offer quite detailed descriptions of their plans to save their life in the case of, say, a carjacking while they are decidedly more silent on the much more dangerous threat of heart disease, for instance. If the goal is to save lives, forget the concealed gun laws and expand SCHIP and Medicaid.

Left by Preston on October 16th, 2007 at 5:53 pm

Preston, the only ethical problems concerning Prof. John Lott, have been those contrived about him by the Brady Bunch. His research, which is plainly astounding, has never been refuted in a scholarly manner, and the book was published almost ten years ago. Had his research been flawed, then surely a well funded replication of his research would have been done by now, to reveal the fallacies in his work, but as of this post, that hasn’t occurred. Of course, there was Prof. Michael Bellesiles attempt at revising the history of guns in this country, but of course, we all know how that turned out. No, Prof. Lott only did what no one had ever done, private or public, in researching the volumes of FBI data for each county, for eighteen years, and extrapolating that data on cities/communities with commonality in population density, and also evaluating the economic costs of crime and it’s prevention. Ignore or deride his work if you wish, but denying it’s significance in the debate over concealed handgun laws is not beneficial to your being fully informed.
As for generalizing the voices from the right concerning self-defense, that is your construct. I tend to generalize the voices from the left, so we can both forgive each other our biases. Actually, I have several liberal friends, as we have known each other most of our lives, and we get along fine by avoiding inflaming each others political proclivities. One in particular, one of my very best friends, actually owns a gun shop, among several small businesses. I get guns at just above cost from him, and he gets to enjoy shooting them when we take his boys out for target practice, and he also relies on my basic knowledge of guns and smithing, as situations arise. None of us are blood-thirsty or seeking any confrontation involving shooting someone, as we both know the cost associated with it, including having to live with the knowledge, even if justified. However, I will gladly live with the tedious legal issues, and the psychological effects, if it means I and others who are innocent will survive. As the old saying goes, better to be judged by twelve, than carried by six.
Henh…as for SCHIP, the President wanted to increase funding for the program as it was designed, and Medicaid is soon to be bankrupt anyway, without lowering the age or requirements. If what you want is HillaryCare, then that’s what needs to be advertised, and remove the C from SCHIP, and be honest about what the plans are for the program, but then, the public will react the same way they did thirteen years ago.

Left by no2liberals on October 16th, 2007 at 7:45 pm

This seems a good spot for an email a friend sent. Perhaps you’ve seen it, perhaps not, but here it is, and it seems appropriate considering the mention of S(C)HIP.

There was a Chemistry professor in a large college that had a few exchange students in the class. One day while the class was in the lab, the Professor noticed one exchange student who kept rubbing his back and stretching as if his back hurt.

The professor asked the young man what was the matter. The student told him he had a bullet lodged in his back. He had been shot while fighting communists in his native country who were trying to overthrow his country’s government and install a new communist government.

In the midst of his story, he looked at the professor and asked a strange question. He asked, “Do you know how to catch wild pigs?”

The professor thought it was a joke and asked for the punch line. The young man said this was no joke. “You catch wild pigs by finding a suitable place in the woods and putting corn on the ground. The pigs find it and begin to come everyday to eat the free corn. When they are used to coming every day, you put a fence down one side of the place where they are used to coming.
When they get used to the fence, they begin to eat the corn again and you put up the second side of the fence. They get used to that and start to eat again. You continue until you have all four sides of the fence up with a gate in the last side. The pigs, who are used to the free corn, start to come through the gate to eat, you slam the gate on them and catch the whole herd.

Suddenly the wild pigs have lost their freedom. They run around and around inside the fence, but they are caught. Soon they go back to eating the free corn. They are so used to it that they have forgotten how to forage in the woods for themselves and so they accept their captivity.

The young man then told the professor that is exactly what he sees happening to America. The government keeps pushing us toward Communism/socialism and keeps spreading the free corn out in the form of programs such as supplemental income, tax credit for unearned income, tobacco subsidies, dairy subsidies, payments not to plant crops (CRP), welfare, medicine, drugs, etc. While we continually lose our freedoms- just A little at a time.

One should always remember “There is no such thing as a free lunch!” You can never hire someone to provide a service for you cheaper than you can do it yourself.

If you see that all of this wonderful government “help” is a problem confronting the future of democracy in America, you might want to send this on to your friends.
If you think the free ride is essential to your way of life then you will probably delete this email, but God help you when the gate slams shut!

Left by no2liberals on October 16th, 2007 at 8:05 pm

Regarding preparedness, here is an interesting video, regarding a tool.

Left by no2liberals on October 16th, 2007 at 8:11 pm

N2L:

I would suggest that your analogy of catching pigs is highly applicable to this Administration’s approach to the Bill of Rights.

I don’t understand why ‘conservatives’ don’t see how the 1st Amendment is infinitely more crucial to the continuation of our liberty than the 2nd Amendment.

Left by Preston on October 16th, 2007 at 8:36 pm

N2L,

1)I was extending the metaphor because I know people who think beating up Ezra Klein to prove a point find it easier to follow something if guns are mentioned. What’s this about the “Clintoons” and the military?

2)Guns are good; everyone go buy one after you learn how to use it. And pay attention to laser sights. I think they’ll be the obvious choice within five years.

3)Suffering from BDS is a sign that you’re sensate. It’s like being told you suffer from Recoil From Fire Syndrome. Even Bill Buckley, Brink Lindsey, and George Will have it.

4)Almost half of Republicans still claim in surveys that Hussein had something to do with 9-11, which is why we invaded Iraq. Which is what I was talking about.

Left by breadcrust on October 16th, 2007 at 9:19 pm

Preston, because the Second Amendment makes all the other Amendments possible.
The only reason the First Amendment is what it is, is due to randomness, not because they viewed it first above all others. There was heated and protracted debate about which should be first, and they couldn’t come to an agreement. If you truly believe that words are more powerful than the sword, try telling that to the folks in Myanmar…if they ever get internet service again.

Left by no2liberals on October 16th, 2007 at 9:47 pm

Preston, because the Second Amendment makes all the other Amendments possible.

Can you list me examples in US history where the right to bear arms has, for instance, changed governmental policy or increased personal freedom.

I could give you, oh, about 1,000 examples for the First Amendment.

It’s boring to come back to this but it is the same fetishization of violence as evidenced by close range handguns and post-war bomb shelters. In fact, it wasn’t the threat of Susan B. Anthony wielding a Gatling Gun that gave women the right to vote- it was the right to assemble.

Left by Preston on October 16th, 2007 at 10:22 pm

So, breadcrust, you missed the humor in the charity boxing challenge.
I found Natalie’s humor very sharp, pondering how Ezra would fair in a boxing match with Michelle.
As for the deaths under Clintoon, and under Bush, here is a link with some pretty pictures that you might like, and here is a government pdf on military losses, since the beginning of recorded U.S. history.
Guns are good…absolutely, it’s some people that I have doubts about.
Suffering BDS shows a limited mind.
We invaded Iraq because of 9-11? Who told you that, those Krazy Kos Kidz?
We re-invaded Iraq because Saddam failed to live up to the truce signed at the end of Desert Storm, violating seventeen unanimous UN resolutions, refusing weapons inspectors access to his facilities, and kicking the inspectors out of the country, continually trying to shoot down our planes in the no-fly zone, and attempting to assassinate former President Bush. Read the President’s statement to the UN for yourself.
I don’t site polls very often. If they were significant, then this current Congress, with the lowest poll ratings in history, will be gone in just over a year. Congresses poll numbers have gotten as low as 11%, so low, that Congress would have to stand on each other’s shoulders just to sniff W’s butt.

Left by no2liberals on October 16th, 2007 at 10:40 pm

You’re right, it is boring, as the right to peacefully assemble would be in jeopardy, if the civilian population wasn’t armed. Myanmar…China, remember those places? No tyrant or out of control government can make us shut up, as we can fight back. I’m all for free speech, I want people to speak freely, so I can know what I’m dealing with, and I will oppose any government attempting to halt speech or peaceful assembly.
I don’t know why you find this such a difficult concept.
I can list one example, which is all I have time for, but there are others.

Left by no2liberals on October 16th, 2007 at 10:50 pm

Preston,

Can you list me examples in US history where the right to bear arms has, for instance, changed governmental policy or increased personal freedom.

People who promote gun ownership for other than self-defense don’t think they can stop tanks with rifles (unless they read Soldier of Fortune). They think that they threaten a potential overbearing government with asymmetrical warfare. If a government is deciding whether to institute prima nocte or Sharia in Minnesota, gun owners want that government to know that sneaky assassinations and destruction of supply lines would be soon to follow, because there’s obviously no way to bridge the tech gap in a straight-up fight. Gun owners don’t want to spell this out because it makes them sound like a bunch of nuts.

Left by breadcrust on October 16th, 2007 at 11:04 pm

Dang, there was still time for you to edit your post, after seeing mine, breadcrust. But you didn’t!
LOL!

Left by no2liberals on October 16th, 2007 at 11:31 pm

Interesting story, N2L. I was wondering if we’d get to the civil rights movement. I guess, by ideology, you are a proponent of the Black Panthers. Myself, I think it’s obvious that the non-violent organization that preceded the Panthers were much more successful in achieving their goals.

As for your international examples of the relationship between guns and democracy, it’s my understanding that the Iraqi people are well armed, indeed. As Breadcrust notes, it’s folly for militia members and puffed-up NRA members to flatter themselves with the notion that they will meet the US Marines on a field of battle with their Mossberg HS 410 shotguns and their Taurus Judges and end up some way besides dead.

Left by Preston on October 17th, 2007 at 5:41 am

Interesting story?
Does that mean you don’t believe it, or that you don’t want to believe it because it contradicts your carefully crafted notions of how unimportant an armed citizenry is?
Hey, you wanted an example, I gave you one, and now you equivocate?
Tienneman Square, and Burma, remember? Those began as peaceful demonstrations, but ended as slaughters, because the words of the protesters were not as powerful as the governments guns. The tyrannical governments in those cases had nothing to fear.
Our Founding Fathers had just seen the carnage from years of war, to expel a tyrant, and insured that we would always be able to take our country back.
Henh…yeah, the Iraqi people are well armed…now! Not when they were being beat down, raped, and murdered by Saddam. Now, more Iraqis are taking ownership of their country, one community at a time, and protecting themselves from AQ and militias.
Your denigration of the NRA was to be expected, and perhaps I should say, long overdue for a liberal that has lost an argument. You speak of rights, yet you wish to impugn the NRA, the oldest civil rights organization in this country.
So your personal creed must be “Give me liberty, or I will whine some more!”

Left by no2liberals on October 17th, 2007 at 6:38 am

When I say ‘interesting story’ it means that I find it to be an interesting story. As we said in the 5th grade: Take a chill pill.

Left by Preston on October 17th, 2007 at 6:52 am

Jarzemsky, just a quick note before I go to work.
I saw your comment about wanting to get involved in competitive shooting, and you are correct, it can get expensive.
If you know which area of shooting you are interested in, perhaps I could offer a tip or two, whether it is rifle, shotgun, or handgun.
One thing you could do, if expense is a consideration, is get a high quality .22 rifle or pistol, to start practicing. Ammo is very cheap, and the most important aspects of shooting translate to any weapon or caliber. Posture, breathing, sight alignment, and trigger control, are the most important elements of a good marksman.
I shot competitively when I was in the USAF, and spent eight hours at the range, five days a week, firing sixteen hundred rounds in two daily sessions. I could never have afforded the ammo as a private citizen, not to mention the parts that had to be replaced, but with a .22, you can get a brick(five hundred rounds) of good quality ammo for thirty bucks or so.
Here’s an interesting story I found, by a woman that went to the range for the first time, and shot a .22.

Left by no2liberals on October 17th, 2007 at 6:53 am

Preston
Saying “interesting story,” then equivocating, doesn’t indicate much enthusiasm, thus my response.

Left by no2liberals on October 17th, 2007 at 6:46 pm

I doubt they have a Castle Doctrine in the Netherlands.
Maybe they should.

Left by no2liberals on October 17th, 2007 at 10:58 pm

After Burma and China finally an example of a country with a democratically chosen government. With 160 murder a year (total, including gun related) we really do not need such a law. We thank the US for being a bad example.

It’s my believe that people feel safer here in Holland without a gun than in the US with several of them. I know I do.

For the record: The police officer was stabbed 4 times, 2 in her chest and two in her back. While bleeding, she managed (on adrenaline) to get her gun, when the offender attacked her colleague, and did the ‘one shot only thing’

They both (police officers) doing better right now.

Left by Jacques on October 18th, 2007 at 3:25 am

Henh.
Trouble in paradise, eh?
No more Hofsted group, eh?
Glad the officers are doing well.

Security improves, when citizens get involved.

FORWARD OPERATING BASE KALSU, Iraq – A 72-year-old man stopped a suspected suicide bomber from detonating himself at a checkpoint in Arab Jabour Oct. 14.
The man approached a checkpoint where Mudhehr Fayadh Baresh was standing guard, but did not make it very far.
Baresh, a tribal commissioner and member of the Arab Jabour Concerned Citizens program, said he ordered the man to lift his shirt - using training received from Coalition Forces - when he did not recognize him as a local villager.
The suspect refused to lift his shirt. Baresh repeated the command again, and the suspect exposed his suicide vest, running toward the checkpoint.
Baresh opened fire which caused the vest to detonate, killing the suspect.
“I did it for the honor of my family and the honor of my country,” said Baresh, when he met with Col. Terry Ferrell, commander of the 2nd Brigade Combat Team, 3rd Infantry Division.
Lt. Col. Kenneth Adgie, commander of the 1st Battalion, 30th Infantry Regiment presented Mudher with a battalion coin for his valor Oct. 16.

Gateway Pundit.
Let Freedom Ring!

Left by no2liberals on October 18th, 2007 at 1:38 pm

Hee-Hee!
Hey, Robbie, you might want to check-out this story.
I seldom watch the local news, so was unaware of this incident.
A well known reporterette gets suspended for an ambush interview on an armed citizen, that has had to defend his life, family, and property.

Left by no2liberals on October 18th, 2007 at 1:50 pm

Yeah — I watched the video of that old lady ambushing that old man.

That lady has zero idea of what “journalistic ethics” means. Not only should she be suspended, but she should be fired.

She’d be ideal on The View.

Left by Robbie on October 18th, 2007 at 3:45 pm

Maybe Rebecca could become the media rep for the Brady Bunch…or Code Stinko!

Left by no2liberals on October 18th, 2007 at 5:14 pm