Gun Controll question.

[R. Richard]

What is this, trying to score Man points?

Liar, you asked a question, I answered your question. To answer your latest question, real men don't fear. Since I fear, I must not be a real man. If you can't see that, I fear for your sanity.

 

[Weird Harold]

there are hardly any SC decisions about the meaning of the 2nd amendment.

it's sufficiently fuzzy that a 'clarification' could be applied. it would take fewer gymanstics than was evident in the 'partial birth' decision; or even the 'privacy' decision.

Perhaps there are so few SC decisions because the meaning is fairly straightforward and doesn't require drawing inferences about implied rights to privacy and engaging in verbal gymnastics to make discrimination a violation of "Constitutional Rights."

One of the few SC decisions that does exist upholds the interpretation that "The People" means "Individual Citizens." (although they did sidestep the "Militia" question in the process.)

The bottom line, is that the Bill of Rights explicitly mentions a right to keep and bear arms from the very beginnings of the US, while "discrimination" doesn't appear in the Constitution until some 150+ years later and "privacy" still isn't explicitly mentioned.

the swiss law, i think is even stronger: if you're in the militia you MUST keep a working firearm [rifle] handy to grab and 'bear' if you're called.

You're under-stating the Swiss mandatory service law: Swiss militiamen are required to keep and maintain a standardized, military-grade, assault weapon -- such as the US anti-gun lobby is most determined to outlaw as "beyond the intent of the Second Amendment."

If you're going to play the "militia card," the logical conclusion is that weapons like my single action revolver are NOT covered by the Second Amendment because it is outdated for military issue and I should be required to upgrade to a semi-automatic pistol with a high-capacity magazine.

My bolt-action hunting rifles migh be safe because they're basically the same model as issued to Snipers, but I'd probably have to replace them with a different (larger, more powerful,) caliber so they use standard military issue ammunition.

And before you quibble about being a member of a "public militia" -- in my case, I AM technically a member of a "militia" since I'm still liable to recall to active service Liable under some rather severe circumstances because of my age, but still liable nonetheless -- Not that I'd be expected to bring my personal weapons if I was recalled.

 

[Liar]

Liar, you asked a question, I answered your question.

The only queston I have asked lately is what likely reasons Kendo would have to willingly venture into clear and obvious trouble if he was to visit Jamaica. Which I still don't get.

 

[kendo1]

The only queston I have asked lately is what likely reasons Kendo would have to willingly venture into clear and obvious trouble if he was to visit Jamaica. Which I still don't get.

i've been to Jamaica. I've been to Marseilles - lovely place ( we stayed in a hotel down near the docks). The French are charming people, especially if you are Scottish.

I'm going down to the same area in the summer.

 

[elsol]

there are hardly any SC decisions about the meaning of the 2nd amendment.

it's sufficiently fuzzy that a 'clarification' could be applied. it would take fewer gymanstics than was evident in the 'partial birth' decision; or even the 'privacy' decision.

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

i would gloss this to mean: "if a person is in a public [not private] militia, he may, pursuant to being prepared for militia call up, keep, in his residence, those firearms he might be called upon to bear."
.

Of course, then you deny the meaning of "people" as used in the Amendment 1.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Or as used in amendment 4...

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Or amendment 9

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Or in the Preamble.

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

or Article 1

Section 2. The House of Representatives shall be composed of members chosen every second year by the people of the several states, and the electors in each state shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the state legislature.

The word people is used in a very specific fashion in other places of the US Constitution... how about we not redefine the word over a single issue when so many other rights are attached to its use.

Usually I try not to offend people... but for once, I think I'll put down my courtesy gene. The 'only members of militia' is a fucking idiotic translation of that passage.

GODFUCKINGDAMMIT... they used 'the right of the people' in three amendments!

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

Of course, then you deny the meaning of "people" as used in the Amendment 1.



Or as used in amendment 4...



Or amendment 9



Or in the Preamble.



or Article 1



The word people is used in a very specific fashion in other places of the US Constitution... how about we not redefine the word over a single issue when so many other rights are attached to its use.

Usually I try not to offend people... but for once, I think I'll put down my courtesy gene. The 'only members of militia' is a fucking idiotic translation of that passage.

GODFUCKINGDAMMIT... they used 'the right of the people' in three amendments!

Or the oft-neglected Amendment 10:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

If the people and the states were interchangeable, they wouldn't have both been included.

It's quite evident the literal meaning of the term "people" is meant here. To use Occham's Razor, "All else being equal, the simplest explanation tends to be true."

 

[R. Richard]

The only queston I have asked lately is what likely reasons Kendo would have to willingly venture into clear and obvious trouble if he was to visit Jamaica. Which I still don't get.

Kendo asks:
"So what does he do when he goes to another country? (God forbid!)
Do RR or Weird feel naked without a gun? Any less safe in a normal country?"

I simply asked why didn't Kendo try going to the places I get paid to go to. Then Kendo would understand what I sometimes do when I go to another country.

If Kendo or his friends go to the tourist parts of Marseille or Jamaica, I would presume that they find pleasant places. Kendo or his friends pay to go to the pleasant places. I get paid to go to the less than pleasant places. Kendo doesn't need a gun in the pleasant places, he uses money rather than a gun. My options are much more limited. If Kendo wants answers to his questions, then Kendo will just have to go where I go. Simple.

 

[shereads]

Shereads:
Once again you beg the questions. It is easier than having to think, but begging the question does have its drawbacks.

IIRC, you make your living teaching students who are frogmarched into your classroom by armed scumbags. [If I seem a bit harsh, you shold remember that I was once sucn a student.] You seem to have no problem with forcing unarmed people to do what armed people want. I do.

No, I have no intention of conducting a campus massacre. I donlt believe in using weapons to force my point of view on unarmed people who are not realistically able to defend themselve, a point you seem unable to understand.

A problem is the insane possessing weapons, particularly firearms. However, it has been demonstrated time and again that there is no realistic way, in a free society, to prevent the insane from possessing weapons. This last is particularly true since the insane typically run societies. The only practical solution is to allow those who can and are willing to, defend themselves with weapons, particularly firearms. There are drawbacks to allowing citizens to possess weapons, particularly firearms, but the advantages seem to strongly favor the idea. As was just pointed out, you don't really need an automatic weapon to defend your home, until someone like Mugabe sends in goons to steal your property and rape your wife. But that can't happen here in Rhodesia/Zimbabwe, we have laws here.

Just to clarify things, I myself was a teacher. I taught students who were not only not coerced into attending my classes, but had to get their employers to pay for the privilege and that only when there was room in my classes. I used my own, proprietary method to teach said classes. Wgeb my students graduated from my classes, they could demonstrate the work skills they had been sent to learn. I had to flunk two students out of some 300, solely because they were not willing to do the work the other students did.

Did you just make some kind of point?

Here's mine again, since you have yet to get close: An ordinary citizen has no more need for a military-style, rapid-fire automatic weapon than he has for a bomb; both are weapons of mass destruction. By your logic, you should have legal access to bombs because criminals use bombs.

Of course, you probably have a bomb. Nevermind then.

 

[SeaCat]

You know, I started this thread as a venue for posting ideas about Gun Control. I didn't start it as a venue for people to show they make Richard Marcinko and Arnold Schwarzeneggar look like wimps. (Yes some of you make Audie Murphy look like a Sweet Pea. Or so you think.)

Let's keep this a thread dealing with real life. Let's keep it polite and maybe even considerate. What the hell, let us keep it civilized and real.

Cat

 

[R. Richard]

Did you just make some kind of point?

Here's mine again, since you have yet to get close: An ordinary citizen has no more need for a military-style, rapid-fire automatic weapon than he has for a bomb; both are weapons of mass destruction. By your logic, you should have legal access to bombs because criminals use bombs.

R. Richard says:
"As was just pointed out, you don't really need an automatic weapon to defend your home, until someone like Mugabe sends in goons to steal your property and rape your wife. But that can't happen here in Rhodesia/Zimbabwe, we have laws here." [Hint: There is a point, cleverly hidden in the above paragraph.]

Shereads says:
"An ordinary citizen has no more need for a military-style, rapid-fire automatic weapon than he has for a bomb; both are weapons of mass destruction." [You state what I believe is an untenable position.]

OK, Shereads lets take it real slow. Someone like Mugabe [in Zimbabwe] sends in goons to steal your property and rape your wife/children/you. You have a military-style, rapid-fire automatic weapon. You and your neighbors can defend yourselves and at least conduct a fighting retreat. [Explain how you handle the situation without military-style, rapid-fire automatic weapons, why your position is tenable. TIA.]

 

[Pure]

perfect sense

Someone like Mugabe [in Zimbabwe] sends in goons to steal your property and rape your wife/children/you. You have a military-style, rapid-fire automatic weapon.

right on, if you live in Zimbabwe, or someplace like it.

makes perfect sense.

then of course, if you live in Iraq, GWB may send troops, tanks, and airplanes, and you and your family may be killed, and your daughter raped (as happened, according to a recent US court martial proceeding). so you need: anti tank weaponry, IEDs, and perhaps an anti aircraft gun, or at least a rocket launcher that can knock down a helicopter.

 

[Pure]

?

pure said, //there are hardly any SC decisions about the meaning of the 2nd amendment.

it's sufficiently fuzzy that a 'clarification' could be applied. it would take fewer gymanstics than was evident in the 'partial birth' decision; or even the 'privacy' decision.

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

i would gloss this to mean: "[since a militia is necessary] if a person is in a public [not private] militia, he may, pursuant to being prepared for militia call up, keep, in his residence, those firearms he might be called upon to bear." //
.
===
el solOf course, then you deny the meaning of "people" as used in the Amendment 1.


Quote:
//Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. //

i don't see what you're driving at, at all. if anything, your examples strengthen my argument, since these other 'people's rights' are not linked verbally to a specific objective, as is the case in the second amendment.

in any case, all 'people's rights' have limitations recognized at all court levels.
so all these constitutional phrasings that sound unqualified, actually are not.

as to the point about unenumerated rights, it's not clear owning a gun is one; there aren't a lot of SC decisions around 9th and 10 amt issues. if you assume owning a gun is such a right, then you argue in a circle.

 

[shereads]

Someone like Mugabe [in Zimbabwe] sends in goons to steal your property and rape your wife/children/you. You have a military-style, rapid-fire automatic weapon.

right on, if you live in Zimbabwe, or someplace like it.

Pure, in R. Richard's mind, everyplace is someplace like Zimbabwe. It's called paranoia.

 

[shereads]

Someone like Mugabe [in Zimbabwe] sends in goons to steal your property and rape your wife/children/you. You have a military-style, rapid-fire automatic weapon.

right on, if you live in Zimbabwe, or someplace like it.

makes perfect sense.

then of course, if you live in Iraq, GWB may send troops, tanks, and airplanes, and you and your family may be killed, and your daughter raped (as happened, according to a recent US court martial proceeding). so you need: anti tank weaponry, IEDs, and perhaps an anti aircraft gun, or at least a rocket launcher that can knock down a helicopter.

And armbands. Don't forget armbands!

 

[yevkassem72]

pure said, //there are hardly any SC decisions about the meaning of the 2nd amendment.

it's sufficiently fuzzy that a 'clarification' could be applied. it would take fewer gymanstics than was evident in the 'partial birth' decision; or even the 'privacy' decision.

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

i would gloss this to mean: "[since a militia is necessary] if a person is in a public [not private] militia, he may, pursuant to being prepared for militia call up, keep, in his residence, those firearms he might be called upon to bear." //
.


el solOf course, then you deny the meaning of "people" as used in the Amendment 1.


Quote:
//Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. //

i don't see what you're driving at, at all. if anything your examples strengthen my argument, since these other 'people's rights' are not linked verbally to a specific objective, as is the case in the second amendment.

in any case, all 'people's rights' have limitations recognized at all court levels.
so all this talk that sounds unqualified, actually is not.

as to the point about unenumerated rights, it's not clear owning a gun fits this; there isn't a lot of SC decisions around this issue. if you assume owning a gun is such a right, then you argue in a circle.

Since the specific objective is a national militia, that is a body of armed private citizens able to defend the Republic, I don't see where that helps the anti-gun movement. Citizen-soldiers are citizens first. They just tend to use their own weapons.

Personally, I like unqualified freedoms. Exceptions can water down freedoms. But that's just me. I don't trust politicians to protect my liberties. Why should I? They're politicians. Lying, cheating, embezzling hypocrites, in many cases. Precisely why the Framers of this country gave the People protection against their invasions and encroachments on their rights.

 

[R. Richard]

OK, Pure and Shereads, your position is simple:
1) It can't happen here.
2) R. Richard is paranoid.

Please explain "The Trail of Tears." [The forced relocation of Amerind tribes under the guns of the US Army. There were several more forced relocations and, if you wish you may also address those. The Seminoles were armed and fought the US Army. The Seminoles are still in Florida and, no it is not really that simple.]

[Cloudy, feel free to jump in here, but remember, ladylike language.]

 

[Weird Harold]

Here's mine again, since you have yet to get close: An ordinary citizen has no more need for a military-style, rapid-fire automatic weapon than he has for a bomb; both are weapons of mass destruction. By your logic, you should have legal access to bombs because criminals use bombs.

Why do you insist on equating my bolt action rifles and (1860's tech) single action revolver with a classes of weapons that are already severely restricted to the point where anyone who legally has access can hardly be considered an "ordinary ciizen."

I haven't seen anyone seriously propose that the firearms act of 1935, which essentially banns automatic weapons from private ownership, should be repealed.

What I have seen is a LOT of fear-mongering and ad absurdium argumentation on both sides of the issue.

I simply cannot understand the irrational fear of firearms and total ignorance about what firearms are and are capable of that your posts suggest.

People are simply in danger of being killed by so many other things (either deliberately or by accident) that guns shouldn't even be listed as a risk factor in most people's lives.

 

[shereads]

OK, Shereads lets take it real slow.

I'm not sure I can do this any slower. But for your sake, I'll try.

Someone like Mugabe [in Zimbabwe] sends in goons to steal your property and rape your wife/children/you. You have a military-style, rapid-fire automatic weapon. You and your neighbors can defend yourselves and at least conduct a fighting retreat. [Explain how you handle the situation without military-style, rapid-fire automatic weapons, why your position is tenable. TIA.]

You get a lot of genocidal warlords in your part of the USA?

That sucks. Have you notified the authorities?

I had a couple of break-ins after I moved here. Installing motion-detector lights at the front gate has been a big help. We also have Neighborhood Crime Watch.

Maybe your neighborhood is different.

 

[yevkassem72]

Why do you insist on equating my bolt action rifles and (1860's tech) single action revolver with a classes of weapons that are already severely restricted to the point where anyone who legally has access can hardly be considered an "ordinary ciizen."

I haven't seen anyone seriously propose that the firearms act of 1935, which essentially banns automatic weapons from private ownership, should be repealed.

What I have seen is a LOT of fear-mongering and ad absurdium argumentation on both sides of the issue.

I simply cannot understand the irrational fear of firearms and total ignorance about what firearms are and are capable of that your posts suggest.

People are simply in danger of being killed by so many other things (either deliberately or by accident) that guns shouldn't even be listed as a risk factor in most people's lives.

This is the same mentality that sees anything with a magazine more than 10 rounds or even looks like an assault rifle as "semi-auto". If it looks military, it must be dangerous, right? Too dangerous for us peasants to be trusted with, yes. The great leaders must save us from our incompetence.

Explaining why guns were banned just for looking military probably won't get much of a reaction, of course.

And the Seminole thing is a relevant example. So is Gitmo. No Republic is permanently safe from tyranny.

 

[shereads]

Why do you insist on equating my bolt action rifles and (1860's tech) single action revolver with a classes of weapons that are already severely restricted to the point where anyone who legally has access can hardly be considered an "ordinary ciizen."

I haven't seen anyone seriously propose that the firearms act of 1935, which essentially banns automatic weapons from private ownership, should be repealed.

What I have seen is a LOT of fear-mongering and ad absurdium argumentation on both sides of the issue.

I simply cannot understand the irrational fear of firearms and total ignorance about what firearms are and are capable of that your posts suggest.

Oh, get over it. I'm not attacking your right to own a gun or a gun collection. My views on gun control are mainstream; I'm not trying to repeal the 2nd Amendment. I simply think it should be applied rationally, and not used as carte blanche for every Tom, Dick and R. Richard to arm themselves with everything shiny that makes them feel dangerous and manly.

I think it's reasonable to assume that the framers of the Constitution did not foresee the advent the Walther P22, gangs, drive-by shootings, or random killings for sport.

I'm ignorant about "what firearms are capable of?" Really? I know they're capable of firing a projectile at speeds that can penetrate bone and mangle flesh. Do they have other capabilities?

In my city, drive-by shootings are so frequent that they rarely make the front pages unless a child is killed. 2006 was a banner year, with about one child per month over a six-month period. This made the news last Friday because it involved four members of one family:

The family was eating and socializing outside their house when, police said, they were shot by someone with an AK-47 in a drive-by shooting.

R. Richard is sitting there nodding and thinking, "If their neighbors had been armed, they could have shot the driver as he sped away." (Or shot at the driver and missed, and hit some other poor schmuck at the house across the street.) I'm thinking, we've made too much firepower too easily available to too many people.

Here:

In 1980, semi-automatic pistols accounted for only 32 percent of the 2.3 million handguns produced in America. The majority were revolvers. By 1991 this number had reversed itself with semiautomatic pistols accounting for 74 percent of the 1.8 million handguns produced that year.

I don't know how you feel, but when my neighbor's kid sneaks his dad's weapon out of the house and takes it to school to show off to his friends, I'd prefer that it be a plain old revolver.

If you and the NRA think that's irrational, you can bite me.

Meanwhile, guys, your penises are probably fine as they are. More firepower and more horsepower will not improve them.

 

[Weird Harold]

I think it's reasonable to assume that the framers of the Constitution did not foresee the advent the Walther P22, gangs, drive-by shootings, or random killings for sport.

I think they did forsee drive-by shootings and random-killings for sport -- Both are much older human pastimes than the US.

They may not have been able to forsee the exact specifications of somehing like the Walther or the AK line of assualt rifles, but they definitely knew that firearms technology wasn't going to stop at single shot muzzle-loaders. After all, some of he the firstbreech-loading rifles were used in combat for the first time in the Revolutionary War and I'm sure that the founding fathers were familiar with Leonardo DaVinci and some of his designs for blackpowder muzzle-loading weapons with estimated short-term rates of fire higher than a modern heavy machine-gun.

I'm ignorant about "what firearms are capable of?" Really? I know they're capable of firing a projectile at speeds that can penetrate bone and mangle flesh. Do they have other capabilities?

In my city, drive-by shootings are so frequent that they rarely make the front pages unless a child is killed. 2006 was a banner year, with about one child per month over a six-month period. This made the news last Friday because it involved four members of one family:

The family was eating and socializing outside their house when, police said, they were shot by someone with an AK-47 in a drive-by shooting.

I'd guess that you're probably ignorant of the fact that the .50 or .75 caliber flintlock rifles you advocated limiting private arms ownership to will do more damage on a bullet for bullet basis from a much longer range than the terrifying -- and probably illegal -- AK-47 mentioned in your news flash. (If it actually WAS an AK-47 and not some other type of weapon that uses the same ammunition, or one of the many derivatives and copies available on the black market.) Drive-by shootings with flintlocks, as were not completely unknown as early as the Thirty Years War in the early 17th century, require a few more people, but they're possibly even more devastating than the modern version. The gangsters in your area don't seem to be all that short of people, so I don't think limiting them to flintlocks would cramp their style all that much.

Oh, get over it. I'm not attacking your right to own a gun or a gun collection. My views on gun control are mainstream; I'm not trying to repeal the 2nd Amendment. I simply think it should be applied rationally, and not used as carte blanche for every Tom, Dick and R. Richard to arm themselves with everything shiny that makes them feel dangerous and manly.

But by trying to keep "AK-47s" out of the hands of the criminals that engage in indiscriminate drive-by shootings, you ARE attacking my right to own a gun or gun collection. You're advocating imposing restrictions on every law-abiding gun-owner across the entire country because you have a local problem with criminals who aren't obeying the existing gun-control laws.

If you're truly concerned by the drive-by shootings and other gangster activity in your vicinity, I suggest you campaign for your local law-enforcement to act against the gangsters. (You can start by campaigning for an end to the War on Drugs and removing the profit motive for your local gangsters to engage in drive-by shootings.)

Perhaps just campaigning against your public officials who aren't enforcing the existing laws concerning mandatory sentencing for gun crimes and the RICO laws against gang activity would reduce the criminal activity problem you seem to have.

You see, your city does NOT have a gun problem, it has a criminal gang activity problem. Changing gun control legislation in any way is NOT going to do anything to make your city safer -- and just might make it less safe.

 

[Weird Harold]

Ps

In 1980, semi-automatic pistols accounted for only 32 percent of the 2.3 million handguns produced in America. The majority were revolvers. By 1991 this number had reversed itself with semiautomatic pistols accounting for 74 percent of the 1.8 million handguns produced that year.

I don't know how you feel, but when my neighbor's kid sneaks his dad's weapon out of the house and takes it to school to show off to his friends, I'd prefer that it be a plain old revolver.

What difference would it make if the kid took a revolver or a full-auto WWII souvenier Luger for Show and Tell?

If the gun goes off accidentally, the kid is going to drop it and shit his pants -- one round fired, possibly as many as three rounds for a full-auto.

If the neighbor kid sneaks his father's weapon out of the house intending to use it, that's an entirely different story, but the type of gun won't make a big difference in the outcome in that case either -- one kid killed or thirty kids killed, it's still a tragedy brought about by poor parenting and a breakdown in the system that is supposed to provide support to troubled families.

In either case, most jurisdictions in the US and your lovely state in particular have laws on the books to deal with the parents for child endangerment, failure to secure a firearm, negligence resulting in bodily harm, and a half-dozen other statutes that apply to leaving a loaded gun where a child has access to it. They also have laws to deal with children possessing firearms without adult supervision.

Why do we need more laws when the laws we already have aren't enforced or being obeyed?

 

[rgraham666]

You can't shoot fear.

 

[R. Richard]

I'm not sure I can do this any slower. But for your sake, I'll try.

You get a lot of genocidal warlords in your part of the USA?

That sucks. Have you notified the authorities?

I had a couple of break-ins after I moved here. Installing motion-detector lights at the front gate has been a big help. We also have Neighborhood Crime Watch.

Maybe your neighborhood is different.

The problem is not so much about the immediate area in which I live. The problem is down along the border with Mexico. Yes, there are genocidal warlords in the border area and quite a few of them. Said genocidal warlords have killed many Mexican scumbags and terrifired the rest. Only the Mexican army can deal with them. Of course, the Mexicans have probably not tried motion-detector lights at the front gate and Neighborhood Crime Watch. You might try suggesting the tactics to them.

 

[R. Richard]

In my city, drive-by shootings are so frequent that they rarely make the front pages unless a child is killed. 2006 was a banner year, with about one child per month over a six-month period. This made the news last Friday because it involved four members of one family:

Drive by shootings are almost all done by inner city gangs. The shooter is almost always a 15-year-old kid or someone who is provably insane. Neither 15-year-old kids nor the provably insane are allowed to possess firearms under our current laws. Frequently, the 'child' who is killed in a drive by shooting is the 15-year-old kid who was the trigger boy in last weeks drive by shooting.

R. Richard is sitting there nodding and thinking, "If their neighbors had been armed, they could have shot the driver as he sped away." (Or shot at the driver and missed, and hit some other poor schmuck at the house across the street.) I'm thinking, we've made too much firepower too easily available to too many people.

No, R. Richard is sitting here thinking, "Why don't the authorities put a stop to people, whom the authorites have signed up to train into decent citizens, shooting others in drive by shootings?" I will state that said authorities are not doing their job. I have made the same comment in City Council meetings where I live. Said authorities are even better at begging the question than you are.