Florida's new law

[Boxlicker101]

Well, you had a lucid moment there, box.

Now it's the same tired sloganing.

The idea that getting lots of handguns out there to the citizenry is a way of lowering crime is without any evidence to support it.

Box: //Law-abiding citizens should be able to buy handguns and keep them at at home or on their persons//

And of the negative side there are incidents like that below (though it's not yet certain it was a firearm).

Most nations of the West, and Japan etc have reached the obvious conclusion. Minimize handgun ownership. Oddly, these are nations with far lower crime/murder/and home invasion rates.

----
Here's a small note to the reading challenged. You've said you favor the Florida law. RRichard is worried about prosecutions and jailings of homeowners on gun charges, though he can't find any. Both of you might note that the FLA law simply says, if you, fearing grave harm, shoot a burglar, you cannot be charged *for that killing.*

IOW, it's entirely possible to be charged with illegal possession or other crimes (like unsafe storage; endangering children, etc.). In short, the law does not prevent the situations--chargings and jailings-- RR was worried about (should they happen to exist).

What you really want, as you say, is not so much the FLA law, as one that licences or encourages gun ownership, lets say, gives you some tax and insurance breaks if you own and keep a gun. Make all expenditures on home weaponry over 500 dollars, doubly tax deductible. Perhaps make it possible to buy handguns at the corner store, as people now do with porn. As it stands the FLA law would not prevent the Freamon situation--posted by RR-- from unfolding as it did.
====
www.cbc.ca

3 dead in Manitoba domestic dispute: RCMP

Last Updated Mon, 11 Apr 2005 11:00:57 EDT
CBC News

WINNIPEG - A Manitoba churchgoer arriving for early mass found a man's body in a parking lot Sunday, leading police to discover two more bodies inside a nearby house.

RCMP believe a domestic dispute resulted in the deaths of the three people in St. Andrews, 25 kilometres north of Winnipeg.

Sgt. Steve Colwell said a parishioner at St. Margaret's Roman Catholic Church found the first body at about 8:30 a.m.

"They went over and checked to see if this person was maybe sleeping and they were unable to arouse him," he said.

"Another congregation member went to the residence and noticed the front door open and some papers were strewn about inside, so they backed off and contacted the RCMP."

Police found the bodies of a man and a woman inside the house.

Colwell said a firearm may have been used in the crime.

Autopsies are scheduled for Monday.

The victims appear to be in their 30s, Colwell saidOne of the dead men and the dead woman had been in a troubled relationship in the past, the officer said.
The couple's children were not in the house at the time of the deaths, he added

You are claiming I said a lot of things I really didn't say. I believe that law abiding persons should be able to own and carry firearms but that they should have to undergo checks on their backgrounds to prove they are really law-abiding. If the corner store is a department store or a sporting goods store, they should be able to buy them there. If the corner store is a something else, then probably not.

I believe there should be some control on gun ownership. They should be registered, probably with a division of the police, much like cars are registered with the DMV and if one is sold or stolen, the proper authorities should be notified. To register a gun, an owner should be required to show that he knows how to use one. As for the other things you accuse me of advocating, that would remain to be seen.

Possession of an unregistered gun would be illegal and, since registration would be so simple and routine, such ownership would be suspicious in itself. This would not be the same as the laws in NY where ownership is illegal, not just not having a gun unregistered.

An armed citizenry CAN prevent crime. The evidence is anecdotal but no more so than what you have said about the crime rates in nations with few guns in provate hands.

The headline of that news article seems to be extremely misleading. Three persons were killed but there's no real evidence that it was a domestic dispute except there was alleged to be a record of domestic problems. The police said there might have been a gun involved but, since they don't know, apparently they haven't found one. It might very well have been a home invasion robbery where armed people killed unarmed ones and then left.

 

[ishtat]

Second Amendment

What does the second amendment say in full not just the bit the NRA quotes?

D'you know?

 

[Boxlicker101]

What does the second amendment say in full not just the bit the NRA quotes?

D'you know?

This is not an exact quote but it's close enough:

Because of the need of a well-regulated militia, the rights of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged.

 

[Op_Cit]

More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun-Control Laws
OK, for those of you who can't come to grips with the fact that more guns make for less crime, please go read this book, do the research and refute it. You will make tons of money, guaranteed. You will be famous, guaranteed.

Why? Because no one has been able to show the findings to be invalid. The research is thorough and accurate, and contrary studies have been debunked and discredited over and over again. This one they can't touch, and so mostly they (the anti-gun group) try to ignore it.

This guy did the leg work, and all his opponents can say is (effectively) "oh, yeah? Says you." Because it's a plain analysis based on factual data. Understand: every study supporting gun control has been debunked on an academic/scientific basis. We're not talking about opinion pieces, we're talking about actual facts and data from the real world (not the imaginary nirvana we desire).

Seriously, put your effort where your mouth is. Acurately debunk this book and I guarantee you that you will be set for life. Otherwise, you might save time and just simplify your arguments to "Oh, yeah? Says you."

 

[R. Richard]

Op_Cit:
Outstanding post! I have checked a bit of John R. Lott Jr's book and it is one of the kind that opponents hate. It is clear and well researched. It is also impossible to argue rationally against.

 

[R. Richard]

This is not an exact quote but it's close enough:

Because of the need of a well-regulated militia, the rights of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged.

The actual text:
Amendment II

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

 

[Pure]

Guns, Crime, and the Elusive policeman 'Ed Chenel'

Hi RR,


I reply,

1)That Chenel quote is floating around the internet at a couple hundred pro-gun locations, and has been discussed at several sites.

2)Chenel probably doesn't exist. See below, texas outdoors forum.

3) Snopes, a pretty reliable 'hoax' source debunked it, as follows, see below. Note the figures are not always fictitious, but the interpretation is whacky.

4) Also, a year's stats, even if solid, are not really good proof of any trends, let alone, causal relationship.

5) Further, even if officer Chenel exists, and is worried, it's well known that the police chiefs in North America, through their associations, generally favor limiting assault weapons and handguns: they have to face them, and the carnage of domestic situations.

Best,
pure.


{on ed chenel}

http://www.texasoutdoors.us/forum/showthread.php?t=511

An australian replied as follows, as was not refuted, as to the existence of 'chenel'.

[posting]
AnAussie vbmenu_register("postmenu_2074", true);
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 2

Re: From: Ed Chenel, A police officer in Australia

This email has been doing the rounds for quite a while now. It's listed on just about every hoax / urban legend site as false. It's not 12 months since the gun laws were en-acted in Australia. They were proclamined in 1996. So make it 8 years. The statistics given are misleading or very generalised. They're also now quite out of date.

No Ed Chenel has ever been found to have worked for any of the police forces in Australia. That's pretty easy to check as there are only 7 of them, one for each state and one federal.

Or if you want to try to find Mr Chenel try the online white pages for Australia ... www.whitepages.com.au. It shouldn't be too difficult as Chenel isn't a particularly common name down here. In fact there is only one listed. Though maybe all the others got sick of people trying to find Ed?

Which reminds me Ed is a very unusual first name in Australia. Edward is usually shortened to Ted. So how come nobody has been able to find him since he posted his report? And how come he hasn't updated the statistics?

It has also been pointed out that the gun laws in Australia are totally different to those in America, before and after 1996. The majority of people in Australia don't own guns, and don't want to.

I've seen a few version of it with minor changes. This is typical of urban legends. In one Ed Chenel becomes a Police Chief. There's a slight problem here in that there is no such position in the Australian police force. In another version he suddenly becomes a police fire arms expert. Again sorry no such position. They both have different titles, which someone from Australia would have known.

Even the wording of the report makes it sound unlikely that it was written by an Australian. I've never heard the expression "you all" except with an American accent.

So sorry but it's a hoax ...
[end posting]
====

discussed at http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/1083331/posts

critiqued at:

http://www.snopes.com/crime/statistics/ausguns.asp

[start snopes]

Claim: Statistics demonstrate that crime rates in Australia have increased substantially since the government there instituted a gun buy-back program in 1997. Status: Multiple — see below.

Example: [Collected on the Internet, 2001]

From: Ed Chenel, a police officer in Australia. Hi Yanks, I thought you all would like to see the real figures from Down Under. It has now been 12 months since gun owners in Australia were forced by a new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by our own government, a program costing Australia taxpayers more than $500 million dollars.

The first year results are now in: Australia-wide, homicides are up
3.2 percent, Australia-wide, assaults are up 8.6 percent; Australia-wide, armed robberies are up 44 percent (yes, 44 percent!). In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now up 300 percent. (Note that while the law-abiding citizens turned them in, the criminals did not and criminals still possess their guns!)

While figures over the previous 25 years showed a steady decrease
in armed robbery with firearms, this has changed drastically upward in the past 12 months, since the criminals now are guaranteed that their prey is unarmed. There has also been a dramatic increase in break-ins and assaults of the elderly. Australian politicians are at a loss to explain how public safety has decreased, after such monumental effort and expense was expended in "successfully ridding Australian society of guns."

You won't see this data on the American evening news or hear your
governor or members of the state Assembly disseminating this information. The Australian experience proves it. Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws affect only the law-abiding citizens. Take note Americans, before it's too late!

-----
[[start Snopes analysis and critique]]

Origins:

Although
the old adage says that "Figures don't lie, but liars figure," those who seek to influence public opinion often employ a variety of means to slant statistical figures into seemingly supporting their point of view:
Percentages by themselves often tell far from a complete story, particularly when they involve small sample sizes which do not adequately mask normal fluctuations or the potential influence of a number of extraneous factors affecting the phenomenon under study.

A statement such as "The number of deaths attributable to cancer increased by 2% between 1973 and 1983" is probably much more significant if the number of cancer deaths increased by twenty thousand among a population of one million than if they increased by two among a population of one hundred. (In the latter case, for example, two people who already had cancer could have moved into an otherwise cancer-free small town, but it's far less likely that immigration would completely account for an increase of twenty thousand cancer cases amidst a city of one million.)

Context is especially important, and percentages alone don't provide context. A statement such as "The home run total in the American League jumped by an astounding 50% between 1960 and 1961" sounds misleadingly impressive if you don't know that after 1960, the American League expanded by two teams and increased the length of its schedule, thereby adding two hundred more games to the season.

Most importantly, percentages don't establish cause-and-effect relationships — at best they highlight correlations which may be due to any number of factors. If (to continue our previous example), the total number of home runs hit by all teams increased by 30% from one year to the next while the number of games remained the same, a great many people might claim that the baseballs used in the latter year had obviously been "juiced" (i.e., manufactured in such a way as to cause them to travel farther when hit). But a number of other unconsidered factors (individually or collectively) might be responsible for the increase, such as an abundance of warm weather, or an expansion in the number of teams which brought more inexperienced and ineffective pitchers into the league.

In the specific case offered here, context is the most important factor. The piece quoted above leads the reader to believe that much of the Australian citizenry owned handguns until their ownership was made illegal and all firearms owned by "law-abiding citizens" were collected by the government through a buy-back program in 1997.

This is not so. Australian citizens do not (and never did) have a constitutional right to own firearms — even before the 1997 buyback program, handgun ownership in Australia was restricted to certain groups, such as those needing weapons for occupational reasons, members of approved sporting clubs, hunters, and collectors.

Moreover, the 1997 buyback program did not take away all the guns owned by these groups; only some types of firearms (primarily semi-automatic and pump-action weapons) were banned. And even with the ban in effect, those who can demonstrate a legitimate need to possess prohibited categories of firearms can petition for exemptions from the law.

Given this context, any claims based on statistics (even accurate ones) which posit a cause-and-effect relationship between the gun buyback program and increased crime rates because "criminals now are guaranteed that their prey is unarmed" are automatically suspect, since the average Australian citizen didn't own firearms even before the buyback. But beyond that, most of the statistics offered here are misleading and present only "first year results" where long-term trends need to be considered in order to draw valid cause-and-effect conclusions.

For example, the first entry states that "Homicides are up 3.2%." This statistic is misleading because it reflects only the absolute number of homicides rather than the homicide rate. (A country with a rapidly-growing population, for example, might experience a higher number of crimes even while its overall crime rate decreased.) An examination of statistics from the Australian Institute of Criminology (AIC) reveals that the overall homicide rate in Australia has changed little over the past decade and actually dipped slightly after the 1997 gun buy-back program. (The chart found at this link also demonstrates how easily statistics based on small sample sizes can mislead, as when the homicide rate in Tasmania increased nearly eight-fold in one year based on a single incident in which 35 people were killed.)

Then we have the claim that "In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now up 300 percent." This is another example of how misleading statistics can be when the underlying numbers are not provided: Victoria, a state with a population of over four-and-a-half million people in 1997, experienced 7 firearm-related homicides in 1996 and 19 firearm-related homicides in 1997 (an increase of 171%, not 300%). An additional twelve homicides amongst a population of 4.5 million is not statistically significant, nor does this single-year statistic adequately reflect long-term trends.

Moreover, the opening paragraph mixes two very different types of statistics — number of homicides vs. percentage of homicides committed with firearms. In the latter case, it should be noted that the Australia-wide percentage of homicides committed with firearms is now lower than it was before the gun buy-back program, and lower than it has been at any point during the past ten years. (In the former case, the absolute number of firearm homicides in Australia in 1998-99 was the lowest in the past ten years.)

Other claims offered here, such as the statement that "While figures over the previous 25 years showed a steady decrease in armed robbery with firearms, this has changed drastically upward in the past 12 months" and "There has also been a dramatic increase in break-ins and assaults of the elderly" are even more difficult to evaluate, because they don't offer any figures or standards of measurement at all. Do they deal with absolute numbers, or percentages? Do they reflect all incidents of crime, or only those committed with firearms? How much of an increase constitutes a "dramatic" increase?

According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, the proportion of firearms used to commit armed robbery has actually declined over the last several years:
1995 - 27.8%
1996 - 25.3%
1997 - 24.1%
1998 - 17.6%
1999 - 15.2%
2000 - 14.0%

The ABS does report that the number of assaults on victims aged 65 and over has increased over the last few years, but hardly in a proportion one would describe as "dramatic":
Number of victims of assault aged 65 and over:
1996 - 1474
1997 - 1662 (12.8% increase from previous year)
1998 - 1663 (0.06% increase from previous year)
1999 - 1793 (7.8% increase from previous year)

The main point to be learned here is that determining the effect of changes in Australia's gun ownership laws and the government's firearm buy-back program on crime rates requires a complex long-term analysis and can't be discerned from the small, mixed grab bag of short-term statistics offered here. And no matter what the outcome of that analysis, the results aren't necessarily applicable to the USA, where laws regarding gun ownership are (and always have been) much different than those in Australia.

Last updated: 28 January 2004
[end snopes]

 

[R. Richard]

Good work Pure! I apologize. I was taken in by a fraud.

 

[Pure]

Hi RR,
That was a gracious posting.
One point that should be made is that cultures vary a great deal, and the effects in Australia may not translate elsewhere. Likewise, the Japanese have few firearms and a very low murder rate. It's pretty hard to predict, for a given location, esp. one rife with crime, macho gangs, etc., what the effect, if any, of a 'gun control' law (which could have many forms) will be.

-----

I did some checking, and the elusive Chenel never did surface, nor update 'his' statistics.

The Obs-Gyn doctors and nurses discussed the possible hoax in this thread, asking for verification from 'down under.' None was found.

http://forums.obgyn.net/ob-gyn-l/OBGYNL.0208/0054.html
----

The 'free republic' had a debate thread at

http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/1083331/posts

but many posting were simply calling snopes a leftist who couldn't be trusted. 'black rain' had some interesting points.

----
The sporting shooters of Australia has an interesting site with urls.

http://www.ssaa.org.au/

The alleged effects of the 1997 law are hard to discern, since even where there is association, there may be no causal linkages.

As far as statistical linkages go, these graphs are from Aus Gov urls at the site:

victims of armed robbery graph

http://www.ssaa.org.au/graph/VictimsArmedRobbery19932001.jpg
-----

victims of murder graph

http://www.ssaa.org.au/graph/VictimsMurder19932001.jpg

---
The graphs do not seem to indicate any dramatic rise in rates since 1997.


There are many discussions of 'buy back' programs in various locales. Many evaluations seem to reach the conclusion of 'no effect.'

See links at the sporting shooters site:

http://www.ssaa.org.au/buybackindex.html

In any case, as argued above, buyback in Australia may not have the effects of buyback in Wash. DC.

Another unclear area is deterrent effect. It will be interesting to see if the new Fla law actually deters burglary or home invasion. Lots of burglars seem to get shot with relative impunity, so I'd predict no change. Apparently many burglars are armed, for these contingencies.

 

[Evil Attorney]

personaly, while I agree with it, it does manage to scare the living crap out of me. I can see a lot of inocent people getting injured because of this law. I say that because the next logical step the state can take is to make it even easier for a person to carry concealed than it already is. I know people who carry concealed who I persoanly think shouldn't be allowed near sharp objects, much less firearms.

Many of these people own and are willing to use high caliber, high capacity firearms. (Pre ban magazines are easily available.) These people rarely go to the range, and when they do spend hundreds of dollars throwing lead down range at a high rate and rarely even hit the target boards.

That was the argument used when FL first adopted the Shall Issue policy toward permits, and the problem never materialised.

Funny how violent confrontational crime dropped in the years after Florida started to allow people to carry firearms.

Guess it didn't devolve into wild west shoot-outs.

Oh, and the "ban" is dead, FYI.

 

[SeaCat]

That was the argument used when FL first adopted the Shall Issue policy toward permits, and the problem never materialised.

Funny how violent confrontational crime dropped in the years after Florida started to allow people to carry firearms.

Guess it didn't devolve into wild west shoot-outs.

Oh, and the "ban" is dead, FYI.

Greeting Evil Attorny,

I haven't seen you here before but I'm sure you've been around. Neat name by the way.

Let's see where shall i start?
Yes I do know the ban has ended. I am now able to purchase 14+ round mags for my Beretta. Joys. (Believe it or not I saw a 20 round mag for it the other day. That should weaken the springs as well as lead to stoppages from miss feeds.)

The number of violent confrontations has dropped? Could be but you couldn't prove it by looking at West Palm Beach this year. Nor can you prove that these people practice and are good with their weapons of choice. We have had several small kids, (under ten,) hit by "stray" rounds so far this year.

Now don't get me wrong, I am against a ban of firearms. I don't even have a problem with Concealed Carry. I have a permit and have had one in several states for many years. Banning these does absolutely no good. As a matter of fact it does more harm than anything. (Look at New York City where even the private ownership of a handgun is illegal. It has certainly stopped those who wish to obey the law from being able to defend themselves. I'm sorry that I don't remember the name of the Act which prohibits the private ownership.)

Where I do have a problem is the liscencing of almost anyone to carry with very little training. As I mentioned in the post you quoted it is not uncommon to see yahoo's at the range throwing lead downrange at a very impressive rate, and not hitting a damned thing. These people are the ones who will injure inocents, as well as give responsible gun owners a bad name.

How do we cure this problem? I don't know although I do have several ideas. One of which is mandatory testing of those with concealed carry permits. Not just paper taget testing either, make it a stress test. Something like a NCPC range would be good for this. If you can't pass the test you can't carry until you can carry.

As far as homeowners with firearms, I have no easy answer to that one. I do know I still prefer other weapons to my handgun for home protection. (I have found a T-Ball bat works wonders in close quarters, and a sabre has a very intimidating presence when seen close up.)

Cat

 

[rgraham666]

(I have found a T-Ball bat works wonders in close quarters, and a sabre has a very intimidating presence when seen close up.)

Cat

Sai are good in close quarters as well. I'm also fond of kukri.

I'm with you on this one, Seacat. It isn't the guns that are dangerous, it's the people using them.

If you're not trained in the proper use of any weapon you're going to be more of a danger if you have one. You won't react properly and you won't hit the target.

And let's not forget the psychological aspect. Too many people carry weapons to hold their egos up. These are, in my opinion, not the sort to carry weapons. They're too likely to pull the trigger for an even bigger ego boost.

 

[Evil Attorney]

Are you familiar with the old literacy tests for blacks who wished to vote.

One day, this guy goes to the polls and waits in line, till he comes upon the voting official, who tells him he has to pass a literacy test to be able to vote.

The guy hands him a chinese news paper and tells him to read the headline, then looks at him and says "Well, can you tell me what it says."

He looks back at the man and says "Sure. It says this nigger ain't gonna vote today"

When you start talking about raising the training requirements or other kinds of tests for people to pass before they are able to carry a firearm, it brings up images like the story above in my mind.

You either have the right to defend yourself, or you do not.

If you have the right to defend yourself, then you should be allowed to do it with the best possible equiptment you can afford, because you will be, by definition, behind the curve of action in reacting to agression.

If you "have the right to defend yourself" yet are denied the gear to properly excercise that right, then do you have that right at all?

The training standards for a permit are basic for a reason. Its a basic proficiency test. The permit is more than firearm skill, its mostly a background check to see if you are kosher to have the weapon in the first place.

Yes, people should obtain more training, but we don't live in a perfect world, and some people simply won't.

I would prefer people to be better trained, but I'd prefer they be better drivers as well, and be forced to take a basic math and reading test before being allowed to fuck so that future children are born to literate parents, but that won't happen either.


Oh, and as for your beretta...be a man and get a glock.

 

[Evil Attorney]

Oh, and as to performance under stress, most police officers end up with about a 20% to 60% rate of hits on target in a gunfights at distances under 7 yards.

There will always be stray rounds, from police, criminals, and unfortunately, civilian self defense.

It is the nature of the beast.

If people would not attack others, then the stray rounds would be a moot point, but as long as criminals will be violent fucks, shit will happen.

 

[wildB]

I like FLA USA more every day....

 

[Evil Attorney]

As far as homeowners with firearms, I have no easy answer to that one. I do know I still prefer other weapons to my handgun for home protection. (I have found a T-Ball bat works wonders in close quarters, and a sabre has a very intimidating presence when seen close up.)

Cat

You want saber...we got saber.

Golden Saber.

185 grain bonded Golden Saber .45 ACP + P

Its very intimidating when you see that big, brass jacketed hollow point as you look down the muzzle of a .45 pistol pointed right at your head.

Of course...if I have actualy drawn the weapon, either in the course of home defense or defense of myself outside the home, you wouldn't be staring down the bullet for very long, as you would likely be either:

1 - dead, because you are a grave threat to my personal safety, and I have responded appropriately with aimed, rapid fire.

2 - running like hell, because you do not wish to be shot.

3 - obeying my commands to get onto your knees, place your hands above your head, palms up and fingers laced, legs crossed at the ankles and eyes closed, so that I can call the police to take you away, and if you so much as twitch in my direction, see #1.

I'll take my saber over yours any day of the week.

I'll agree, though, a handgun isn't the thing for home protection.

Use a shotgun and 00 buck.

 

[Evil Attorney]

What does the second amendment say in full not just the bit the NRA quotes?

D'you know?

Yes. Actualy I do. Try reading about the language use and construction here:

http://www.virginiainstitute.org/publications/primer_on_const.php

and

http://www.constitution.org/mil/rkba1982.htm

From the first link:

THE MILITIA PREFACE

It should come as no surprise that there are so many obvious problems with reading the operative clause of the Second Amendment to protect any sort of right belonging to state governments. If the Constitution had simply provided that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed," nobody could maintain with a straight face that the provision could mean anything other than that individuals have that right. Doubts about the plain and obvious meaning of that clause have been raised only because of the prefatory phrase "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State . . . . "

Before looking at these words more closely, we should pause to focus on a few things that the Second Amendment does not say:

1. It emphatically does not say that it protects the right of the militia to keep and bear arms.

2. Nor does the Second Amendment say that the people's right to arms is sufficient to establish a well regulated militia, or that a well regulated militia is sufficient for the security of a free state.

3. Nor does the Second Amendment say that the right of the people to keep and bears arms is protected only to the extent that such a right fosters a well regulated militia or the security of a free state.

As these observations suggest, the grammar of the Second Amendment emphasizes the indefiniteness of the relation between the introductory participial phrase and the main clause. If you parse the Amendment, it quickly becomes obvious that the first half of the sentence is an absolute phrase (or ablative absolute) that does not modify or limit any word in the main clause. The usual function of absolute phrases is to convey information about the circumstances surrounding the statement in the main clause, such as its cause. For example: "The teacher being ill, class was cancelled."

The importance of this can be illustrated with a simple example. Suppose the Constitution provided:

A well educated Electorate, being necessary to self-governance in a free State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not be infringed.13

This provision, which is grammatically identical to the Second Amendment, obviously means the following: because a well educated electorate is necessary to the health of a free state, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed. The sentence does not say, imply, or even suggest that only registered voters have a right to books. Nor does the sentence say, imply, or even suggest that the right to books may be exercised only by state employees. Nor does the lack of identity between the electorate and the people create some kind of grammatical or linguistic tension within the sentence. It is perfectly reasonable for a constitution to give everyone a right to books as a means of fostering a well educated electorate. The goal might or might not be reached, and it could have been pursued by numerous other means. The creation of a general individual right, moreover, would certainly have other effects besides its impact on the electorate's educational level. And lots of legitimate questions could be raised about the scope of the right to books. But none of this offers the slightest reason to be mystified by the basic meaning of the sentence.

The Second Amendment is no different. Modern readers may have difficulty in seeing how a general right of individuals to keep and bear arms could contribute to a well regulated militia and to the security of a free state, and we shall explore that question in more detail below. But the text of the Second Amendment offers not the slightest warrant for presupposing that the answer to the question is that its framers were semi-literate fools who meant to say something like "The states shall have the right to maintain independent military forces for use against the federal government."
THE PATENT AND COPYRIGHT CLAUSE AND THE CONSTITUTION'S PREAMBLE

The Second Amendment is unique among the elements of the Bill of Rights in containing an explanation of its purpose. But one provision of the original Constitution is similar to the Second Amendment in this respect. The Patent and Copyright Clause provides:

The Congress shall have Power . . . To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.14

Unlike the Second Amendment, this constitutional provision really does seem to imply through its grammatical structure that its statement of purpose serves a definite limiting function. On its face, the provision grants Congress a power to pursue a stated goal and to do so only by specified means. The natural reading of the provision is that Congress may grant copyrights to authors and patents to inventors only if doing so will promote the progress of science and useful arts. From this natural and logical reading, it would seem to follow that Congress has no power at all to grant copyrights to pornographers or racist hate mongers, whose writings do nothing to promote the progress of science or useful knowledge. Similarly, it would seem to follow that Congress has no power to grant copyrights to Luddites, who are actively seeking to retard the progress of science and the useful arts.15

Notwithstanding these obvious implications from the text of the clause, Congress has extended copyright protection to all manner of writings that obviously contribute nothing, or less than nothing, to the progress of knowledge. And the courts have never held or even suggested that Congress has thereby exceeded its authority. If the grammatically limiting language of the Patent and Copyright Clause does not in fact limit the power granted by that clause, the prefatory language of the Second Amendment-which does not serve a limiting function grammatically-cannot possibly limit the scope of the right in the amendment's operative clause.

Similarly, the Constitution's Preamble says that its purposes include the establishment of "justice" and promotion of the "general welfare." Nobody thinks that this authorizes the courts to strike down every unjust statute or every special interest pork barrel appropriation. Moreover, state constitutions from the founding period were littered with explanatory prefaces like the one in the Second Amendment, and they have never been construed to change the meaning of the operative clauses to which they were appended.16

The conclusion is inescapable: the prefatory language of the Second Amendment does not imply, or even suggest, that the operative clause means anything different than what it would mean without the prefatory explanation.

 

[Evil Attorney]

The key phrase to use when the police arrive is...."I was in fear for my life." A police officer told me that one.

The key phrase is to shut the fuck up and talk to a lawyer before you say anything.

Its all on the record, you get one chance to make a statement, and you don't get to say "well, I didn't mean that"

Shut up.

Call the lawyer.

The end of your conversation with the police until your lawyer tells you its ok to speak.

 

[SeaCat]

You want saber...we got saber.

Golden Saber.

185 grain bonded Golden Saber .45 ACP + P

Its very intimidating when you see that big, brass jacketed hollow point as you look down the muzzle of a .45 pistol pointed right at your head.

Of course...if I have actualy drawn the weapon, either in the course of home defense or defense of myself outside the home, you wouldn't be staring down the bullet for very long, as you would likely be either:

1 - dead, because you are a grave threat to my personal safety, and I have responded appropriately with aimed, rapid fire.

2 - running like hell, because you do not wish to be shot.

3 - obeying my commands to get onto your knees, place your hands above your head, palms up and fingers laced, legs crossed at the ankles and eyes closed, so that I can call the police to take you away, and if you so much as twitch in my direction, see #1.

I'll take my saber over yours any day of the week.

I'll agree, though, a handgun isn't the thing for home protection.

Use a shotgun and 00 buck.[/QUOT

Evil A,

Ummmmm, you might want to wipe your chin, you're drooling a bit here.

I find it rather amusing that while we agree with the basic premis of firearms ownership and the idea of self defense we differ on it's application.

While I agree that the testing of people who wish to carry concealed can be abused, just as the issuance is abused in some states, I believe it should be done not only or the safety of the public at large but for the safety of the gun owner themselves. If you notice I do not mention psychological checks, these are carried out by many states as part of the background check. (In the state of Florida it is illegal to purchase or own a firearm if you have been convicted of a felony or if you have been convicted of Spousal Abuse even if this was a misdemeanor conviction. It is also illegal to purchase or own if you have been treated in the past or are undergoing treatment for a Mental Disorder unless you have a written okay from your Psych. This does have to undergo a review by the state before you are allowed to purchase.)

The type of testing I am thinking of is more on the level of proficiency testing. Yes I also believe Police should undergo this testing as well. (I have seen the footage of the shoot out between a cop and a person who he was trying to arrest. Both emptied their magazines at a range of about 15 feet. Both missed.) Anyone who is allowed to carry a firearm in public should be able to differentiate between friend and foe, and be able to hit what they are shooting at under stress. Yes I know the arguments about this taking time, practice and money but what is more important? The lives of innocents or the contents of your wallet? (Before you start in about the level of training, I'm not saying people have to be good enough to compete in ICPC at the national level.)

Now about the firearms we prefer. I'm not going to get into a pissing contest about who has the bigger gun. That type of debate is better suited for the range.

Cat

 

[SeaCat]

Sai are good in close quarters as well. I'm also fond of kukri.

I'm with you on this one, Seacat. It isn't the guns that are dangerous, it's the people using them.

If you're not trained in the proper use of any weapon you're going to be more of a danger if you have one. You won't react properly and you won't hit the target.

And let's not forget the psychological aspect. Too many people carry weapons to hold their egos up. These are, in my opinion, not the sort to carry weapons. They're too likely to pull the trigger for an even bigger ego boost.

Ahh but Rob while we may agree on this there is one thing we have to admit. These types of weapons take training, and skill to use effectivly. Unfortunately as is seen with firearms too many people are not willing to invest the time or the effort to gain these skills even if it is to preserve their lives or the lives of their loved ones.

Cat

I realize that with this thread and my comments on some other threads people may mistake me for being confrontational and even warlike, reveling in the blood and injury of my opponents. People may believe this if they wish but if they were to get to know me they would be quickly disalusioned. I am one of the most peacefull people one would ever meet, I just believe in defending myself and standing up for what I believe is right.

 

[rgraham666]

I believe that is why I prefer archaic hand-to-hand weapons over firearms, Seacat.

It takes a great deal of training to become even mildly proficient in their use.

With a gun, it's too easy (apparently). Wave the firearm in the general direction of the target, pull the trigger until the weapon clicks empty.

As Michael Crichton pointed out in Jurassic Park, it's rarely the karate expert who wigs out and kills their wife and kids.

I'll see if I can find that thread where I posted the story about the samurai and his three sons.

 

[rgraham666]

Found it! Reposting here rather than bumping the old thread.

________

There was once an old samurai who had decided to retire and become a priest. But before he could do so, he had to give his sword to one of his three sons. And since the sword is the soul of the samurai, he had to give it to the correct one.

So he decided to set a test for them. He went to a room and placed a small wooden block on top of the shoji, the sliding door that was the entrance. When the door was opened, the block would fall, striking the person in the door.

The old man first called his youngest son. This son was a swordman. He practiced constantly. He was fast, sharp and accurate with the blade.

The youngest son came and opened the door. The block fell and struck him. Before the block hit the ground, it was cut in two by this son.

The old man was enraged. "Get out of this house!" he shouted. "You are disowned! You do not know what it means to be samurai and never will."

The old man next called his middle son. This son practiced frequently with the sword, but made time to study other things as well.

The middle son came to the door and opened it. The block struck him and he caught it before it hit the ground.

"I am sorry, my son," explained the old samurai. "You are not yet worthy of my sword. But I can see that someday you will be."

The eldest son was called next. This son spent little time studying swordsmanship. He had too many other things to work on.

This son approached the door, opened it… and stopped. He reached up and removed the block. Entering the room, he closed the door and replaced the block. He turned to his father, bowed, and asked, "Father, you wished to see me?"

"Yes," replied the old man. "You are the one who receives my sword for you are the one who most understands what it means to be samurai."

________

It took me a long time to fully understand this story.

The sword represents power.

The youngest son failed the test because he did not see the trap and reacted badly. As a result, he was likely to misuse the power given by the sword.

The middle son also did not see the trap, but reacted wisely. So although he did not pass, he had the potential to become worthy. He was much less likely to misuse the power.

The eldest was the only one who saw the trap, and disarmed it before it could strike. He was the one least likely to use the power, and thus the one who should wield it.

Power is best kept in the hands of those who are not going to use it, unless necessary.

This was a good lesson for me to learn so young. I've kept it close to my heart ever since. A pity so few people ever learn it.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Found it! Reposting here rather than bumping the old thread.

________

There was once an old samurai who had decided to retire and become a priest. But before he could do so, he had to give his sword to one of his three sons. And since the sword is the soul of the samurai, he had to give it to the correct one.

So he decided to set a test for them. He went to a room and placed a small wooden block on top of the shoji, the sliding door that was the entrance. When the door was opened, the block would fall, striking the person in the door.

The old man first called his youngest son. This son was a swordman. He practiced constantly. He was fast, sharp and accurate with the blade.

The youngest son came and opened the door. The block fell and struck him. Before the block hit the ground, it was cut in two by this son.

The old man was enraged. "Get out of this house!" he shouted. "You are disowned! You do not know what it means to be samurai and never will."

The old man next called his middle son. This son practiced frequently with the sword, but made time to study other things as well.

The middle son came to the door and opened it. The block struck him and he caught it before it hit the ground.

"I am sorry, my son," explained the old samurai. "You are not yet worthy of my sword. But I can see that someday you will be."

The eldest son was called next. This son spent little time studying swordsmanship. He had too many other things to work on.

This son approached the door, opened it… and stopped. He reached up and removed the block. Entering the room, he closed the door and replaced the block. He turned to his father, bowed, and asked, "Father, you wished to see me?"

"Yes," replied the old man. "You are the one who receives my sword for you are the one who most understands what it means to be samurai."

________

It took me a long time to fully understand this story.

The sword represents power.

The youngest son failed the test because he did not see the trap and reacted badly. As a result, he was likely to misuse the power given by the sword.

The middle son also did not see the trap, but reacted wisely. So although he did not pass, he had the potential to become worthy. He was much less likely to misuse the power.

The eldest was the only one who saw the trap, and disarmed it before it could strike. He was the one least likely to use the power, and thus the one who should wield it.

Power is best kept in the hands of those who are not going to use it, unless necessary.

This was a good lesson for me to learn so young. I've kept it close to my heart ever since. A pity so few people ever learn it.

A gun is power. A gun in the hands of someone competant with it is exceedingly powerful. A blackjack, lead pipe or just his hands are exceedingly powerful if the man is big enough and ruthless enough to use them.

When such a man enters my home with intent to relieve me of my property or do bodily harm, he has the advantage, unless he is very small and not too physically gifted. He may be huge, trained as a matial artist, ad infintum, but when I reach down and grab that .38 chief's special with hydroschock shells loaded, wee are no longer looking at the same situation. A gun is the ultimate equalizer in the hands of someone who knows how to use it and isn't afraid of it.

I think I am unlikely to abuse the power of my gun, but I am quite certain I am prepared to use it if the occasion warrants. When someon eenters my home without my permission and with evil intent, they invite a response. In my case, the response is likely to be deadly.

I am perhaps not able to see the trap, or even to react wisely when I spring it, but if the threat is in the form of an intruder, I think he will rue the day he chose my home, should he live.

 

[Evil Attorney]

Maybe I'm reading you wrong, but you guys seem to be ascribing the worst possible mindset and intentions to people.

Have you not at least entertained the idea that you are not seeing the vast majority of people who carry firearms because they are educated and responsible in the handling of those weapons and the use of force?

You will never notice the people who don't act like idiots, just those who do.

 

[Evil Attorney]

Found it! Reposting here rather than bumping the old thread.

________

There was once an old samurai who had decided to retire and become a priest. But before he could do so, he had to give his sword to one of his three sons. And since the sword is the soul of the samurai, he had to give it to the correct one.

So he decided to set a test for them. He went to a room and placed a small wooden block on top of the shoji, the sliding door that was the entrance. When the door was opened, the block would fall, striking the person in the door.

The old man first called his youngest son. This son was a swordman. He practiced constantly. He was fast, sharp and accurate with the blade.

The youngest son came and opened the door. The block fell and struck him. Before the block hit the ground, it was cut in two by this son.

The old man was enraged. "Get out of this house!" he shouted. "You are disowned! You do not know what it means to be samurai and never will."

The old man next called his middle son. This son practiced frequently with the sword, but made time to study other things as well.

The middle son came to the door and opened it. The block struck him and he caught it before it hit the ground.

"I am sorry, my son," explained the old samurai. "You are not yet worthy of my sword. But I can see that someday you will be."

The eldest son was called next. This son spent little time studying swordsmanship. He had too many other things to work on.

This son approached the door, opened it… and stopped. He reached up and removed the block. Entering the room, he closed the door and replaced the block. He turned to his father, bowed, and asked, "Father, you wished to see me?"

"Yes," replied the old man. "You are the one who receives my sword for you are the one who most understands what it means to be samurai."

________

From my studying of daito-ryu, I find myself disagreeing with you.

The purpose of a samurai was to die in the service of his lord. To be at war. To kill.

They were a brutal people for a brutal time, with brutal methods of fighting other people who used the same methods.

Don't make them more than they were.