Religious School---People Killed

[Ed Pettibone]

Stupid question, Ed---he asked a real one and your give a cheap diversion

Ed P. as distinguished from ET: Gene, where in the the post on which my question was based did Hal E. ask a question? It so happens I have mixed emotions about the NRA. I dropped my membership years ago because of what I feel is their political involvement in areas beyond their original purpose. I still think they serve a good purpose in their promotion of gun safety. That there are some religious nuts in some chapters does not make the organization a religious right organization. BTW their is no such thing as a stupid question just stupid people who do not understand them and/or do not know the answer.

[Gene Scarborough]

Hal has this question embeded in a comment:

Should you get laws passed to allow such gun-bearing legality,

So deal with that over distracting from the main subject.

[Ed Pettibone]

Hal has this question embeded in a comment:

Should you get laws passed to allow such gun-bearing legality,

So deal with that over distracting from the main subject.

Ed P.: Gene diagram Hal's, declarative statement for which his "Should you get laws passed to allow such gun-bearing legality," was a part. Hal is saying what he would do If ET or whoever where to get laws passed to allow ''such gun-bearing legality'', as had been proposed in ET's post. You are the one distracting from the flow of the thread which had something to do with the subject until you tired to become a moderator. Perhaps you should butt out unless you want to address the issue. which has been gun control, in case you had forgotten. By the way i think you meant "embedded" rather than embeded.

[Gene Scarborough]

I have already stated earlier that assault weapons are far different than hunting weapons.

All the right to bear arms are based on self protection and the right to riot with a weapon if push comes to shove. Since I am a marksman class user of a deer rifle, at shot to the head or heart is guaranteed to eliminate an assaulter. With a good .357 magnum loaded with a .38 slug, the intruder will be scared to death from the sound if I don't have to bust him between the eyes or center mass.

Either way, my rule is to never point any weapon at something or somone I do not intend to kill. They are deadly and do not need to be in the hands of criminals or immature kids.

Is that clear enough---and I knew you would be diagraming sentences rather than discussing issues, Ed

[ET]

I was suggesting that religious right organizations -- like the NRA, for instance -- and many of the religious-based militant survivalist groups in the USA -- mix their fear of being attacked with a belligerent philosophy of how-to-handle differences of opinion.

Ed: Tell me more about your attitude toward the principle of allowing everybody to carry a deadly weapon.

Should you get laws passed to allow such gun-bearing legality, I, for one, would move elsewhere, for fear that some grandmother (ala your noted proof-text) would target me for bumping her cart in Wal-Mart.

As Ed P said, your statement is the first I've heard that the NRA is a part of the "religious right". Can you tell me their stated positions on any religious matters.

Why do you jump to such an extreme example to make an argument? I remember a few news stories 3 or 4 years ago about militia groups around the country. Haven't heard anything about them since. Guess they haven't gone on any shooting rampages or anything. Don't recall any of them being religious based in particular, but there's been end-of-the-world survivalist groups around for probably all my life and they've been more a source of amusement than fear. If the zombie apocalypse ever comes, you may find them quite handy folks to have around.

You and Gene may not be up-to-speed on the matter, but I believe at last count 39 states issue concealed carry permits as long as one can pass some basic requirements. I don't know in what state you live, Hal, but for most of the country, the legal reality is that people who feel so inclined have the liberty to carry a "deadly weapon" (with some restrictions such as into schools, government buildings, establishments that serve alcohol, etc.). Your residency options due to your desire to avoid so-called "gun-bearing lethality" are highly limited. I also suggest you stay out of the states of Vermont, Arizona, Alaska and Wyoming. One does not even need a permit to carry a "deadly weapon" (firearm) in those states.

As for my general attitude on the matter, it is that the law-abiding should not be disarmed and made to defer the defense of their lives and property to a small force that will most likely never be a round when you truly need them, only after the fact. The law-abiding should not have their rights curtailed due to the criminal element. The Second Amendment has nothing to do with hunting. With almost every other Constitutional right the political left seeks to always be looking for ways to expand the rights or at the very least to see that they are not reduced. With the Second Amendment they continually seek ways to limit that right. There are members on this board who had strongly worded posts regarding what they believed to be the curtailment of American liberties in the aftermath of 9/11 and the ensuing passage of The Patriot Act. They argued that the rights of American citizens should not be further limited in order to protect us from terrorist attacks. However, many of those same people will turn around and argue that the law-abiding must have their Second Amendment rights limited in order to protect us from the action of other Americans or enemies who might do us harm by taking advantage of that right. Why do some people argue that it's not OK to limit our rights to protect us from terrorists, but it is OK to limit our rights to protect us from say, the potential actions of "religious-based militant survivalist groups in the USA"? Why should one right be sacrificed in the name of protecting us and another should not?

But I take us back to my original argument. The availability of guns - or any other weapons for that matter - is not the problem. The lack of a moral compass and human decency is what is lacking, or something is now missing in the cultural makeup of Americans that was previously there to restrain people from using such "solutions" to problems they encounter with other people. If the Swiss can be mandated to keep full-fledged assault rifle in their homes and don't have the problems with guns that we do, then it's not the guns that are the problem, just a symptom of something deeper.

[Gene Scarborough]

The core problem is anger and frustration with this economy.

Until we practice what we preach on freedom and equality, we will remain so.

[Hal Eaton]

My boo-boo with regard to suggesting that the NRA was a Religious Righteous organization set off a string of retorts (some of them I earned). But . . .

In years past I rode a motorcycle over these sparsely-populated mountains, and usually was armed with a Ruger revolver in a plain-view holster. I never once thought that I would use it to shoot, or even threaten, a fellow human being; I used it only once, to dispatch a sick-looking ground hog.

However: The gun was ultimately stolen from my gun cabinet; the thief moved immedicatly to New York City where the gun was undoubtedly used for GKW (God Knows What).

The reference to army-type rifles in Swiss homes reminds me of the story of the German who visited in Switzerland, and was told by a Swiss citizen that 500,000 Swiss men had the rifles in their homes. He retorted, "What will you do if we attack you with 1,000,000 soldiers?" The terse reply was, "We will tell each man to shoot twice."

The nit-pickers, who love to quote the Constitution's permission (right) for citizens to bear arms, regularly ignore the requirement that they be part of a militia; they further miss the requirement that said militia be "well-regulated."

For those who deny the threat posed by un-regulated militant groups in our country, posing as inspired by patriotism or religion, or both, Google "Militia," and read on one website 90 newsworthy references to violations of the public order by such organizations and their members. Belligerence, bellicosity, pugnacity, paranoia, and militancy are common traits of the genre.

[Gene Scarborough]

Scary news just backed up by the crazies inflitrated by the FBI who were going to damage to Cleveland and it's citizens.

I wish my guns had not been stolen. I am a crack shot and would fit in well with the Swiss melitia! It is scary when you think masses could be anihilated as were the Jews in Germany when leaders go wild with hate---as it is starting to happen today.

My concern is when people start saying, "God is directing me to kill." That is attibuting our hostilities to God who clearly gave us "Thou shalt not kill."

[ET]

The nit-pickers, who love to quote the Constitution's permission (right) for citizens to bear arms, regularly ignore the requirement that they be part of a militia; they further miss the requirement that said militia be "well-regulated."

For those who deny the threat posed by un-regulated militant groups in our country, posing as inspired by patriotism or religion, or both, Google "Militia," and read on one website 90 newsworthy references to violations of the public order by such organizations and their members. Belligerence, bellicosity, pugnacity, paranoia, and militancy are common traits of the genre.

Well, Hal, not to "nit-pick", but the Constitution doesn't say that there is a requirement to be part of a "well-regulated militia" in order to keep and bear arms. As there were no police forces or large national defense forces at the time, it is logical that the role of community and state defense fell to the militia when something came up outside the ability of one person or a few people to handle. However, there is no solid logical argument that in order for the people to "keep and bear arms" that there must be a well-regulated militia and you must be a member of it. Again, I am amazed at how narrowly some people wish to interpret one right while normally giving an expansive read to the rest.

I hope it's another boo-boo on your part, but the far more evil part of your argument is to phrase a right enshrined in the Constitution as a "permission".

"Belligerence, bellicosity, pugnacity, paranoia, and militancy are common traits of the genre.".....Even if true, so what? How does that justify taking away a right?

"Un-regulated militant groups"....Again, so what? Is government to have the power to regulate right to free association, or is freedom of association also to be classified as a "permission"? Just because they call themselves "militia" does not mean they have any legal standing to act in that role.

But in all of this no one has attempted to answer the far more substantial questions I have raised previously. Gun control hasn't fixed crime problems in other countries. Why should we buy into the notion that it will here? Oh, it may have "fixed" selective readings of crime statistics by lowering "gun" violence, but I doubt anyone that has had a loved one murdered in those countries finds any solace in the fact that the death was due to a knife or club instead of a gun.

It's not a "gun problem"...it's a "people problem".

“The Constitution shall never be construed... to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.” -- Samuel Adams

"[T]hose who are willing to surrender their freedom for security have always demanded that if they give up their full freedom it should also be taken from those not prepared to do so." -- F.A. Hayek

[ET]

In other news.....
Two burglars dead after breaking into the home of two Marines.

JACKSONVILLE, N.C. – Authorities continue to investigate a Sunday morning shooting during a burglary that left two intruders dead. The shooting happened around 2 o'clock Sunday morning at 107 Country Club Drive....According to police, three residents returned home to find two intruders in the house....Police say the intruders attacked the residents and gunfire was exchanged.

I will again ask the same questions that I asked Timothy earlier:

1) Notice that the article says "gunfire was exchanged", meaning we can deduce the intruders were armed. If only the intruders were armed because government dictated that guns were only permissible for hunting, who would have been better off in this incident?

2) Would a cell or land line phone been of any use upon discovering the intruders? Where were the police? Why were they not available to address this situation?

3) While we don't know the particulars of whether these Marines were "packing heat" or retrieved them from their home when they got there, how would this story not provide evidence that there is a valid reason for those who wish to do so to carry a firearm?

We have a national defense force because we do not trust our country to be defenseless and left to the good graces of those who would do us harm. We arm our police officers because we do not wish for them to left to the good graces of the criminal element. Why should individuals be excluded?

The world is an evil place. Whether or not someone decides to arm themselves for personal protection should be left up to the individual, not to government to dictate. Some will choose to do so. Others will not. Some will gamble that they will never face a life-and-death situation between themselves and a criminal. Others do not wish to take that gamble. Some people wish to keep the right to decide for themselves whether or not a firearm is a tool they wish to use for personal protection. Some people wish that right did not exist and seek to take it away from everyone else.

[Gene Scarborough]

Good evidence that the right to bear arms is important. Just not good enough to promote military-style weapons for any fool who wants to hurt and kill.

[Hal Eaton]

Sez ET: Two burglars dead after breaking into the home of two Marines.

Check ET's post which gives the source of this event. Google his "blue clickie" of the event, then read the first page of comments following the news article. I did not take time to read the next 4 or 5 pages of comments . . . so I don't know if ET commented . . .

When the aforementioned modern-day militias are researched, they often claim that they are genuine patriots who will join in a revolution against the government when it gets out of control.

To respond to this attitude, first google Lidice. History provides a modern-day lesson for Jesus's admonishment, "They that take the sword will perish with the sword . . ."

OOOPS!! Having quoted the Good Book, I'm sure that more quotes will come my way . . .

Another quote from ET: It's not a "gun problem"...it's a "people problem".

No, it's a "people with guns problem."

A reading of the Constitution's take on the issue, as if the document is on the level of inerrancy, word-for-word Truth, and infallibility of the Bible, is an abuse of the framers' attitudes, motivations, and ethics.

IMO

[KeithE]

Another quote from ET: It's not a "gun problem"...it's a "people problem".

No, it's a "people with guns problem."

A reading of the Constitution's take on the issue, as if the document is on the level of inerrancy, word-for-word Truth, and infallibility of the Bible, is an abuse of the framers' attitudes, motivations, and ethics.

IMO

And even in a straightforward, word-for-word reading of The Constitution, the right to bear arms was for the “militia” which in those days were formed for defense from foreign countries. Nobody is denying the right of our modern day equivalent (DoD) to have guns. The Constitution does not speak to whether general populace gun ownerships should be allowed or not.

The Constitution was and should be viewed as a “living and amendable document”. Times change; today’s “militias” are not the same as in the late 1700’s.

[ET]

Good evidence that the right to bear arms is important. Just not good enough to promote military-style weapons for any fool who wants to hurt and kill.

The problem with your statement is that when one gets into defining "military-style weapons", it's based solely on appearance or some subjective standard of what one person thinks another person needs or doesn't need.

The 1903 Springfield .30-06 made "military style" bolt-actions popular and moved many a WWI vet away from their lever action 30-30. The M1 Garand came along and made popular "military style" semi-auto rifles. Now the M16/M4 has spawned any number of AR-15 semi-auto rifles (what the uniformed call "assault rifles") in calibers ranging from .223 to .308. For those experienced with the military versions, I can understand why they would like to have a deer rifle using the M4/AR15 platform and chambered in whatever caliber they want for whatever type of hunting they do.

[ET]

No, it's a "people with guns problem."

So is adultery a "people with genitalia" problem? Is drunk driving a "drunk people with vehicles problem"? What do you plan to ban after you get rid of the guns and people are still killing people? Do you consider police officers to be "living by the sword"? You would have them be stand-ins for unarmed civilians in possessing the ability to visit violence on perpetrators via firearm, but if they are simply armed in lieu of you and me, then are they not "living by the sword" in our place, and we have simply transferred that sword from individuals to a small minority? And if we can transfer that "right of the sword" to police officers, then it means that we as individuals inherently have a "right to the sword" for our own personal protection.

A reading of the Constitution's take on the issue, as if the document is on the level of inerrancy, word-for-word Truth, and infallibility of the Bible, is an abuse of the framers' attitudes, motivations, and ethics.

Of course it's not infallible. That's why there's an amendment process. Abuse of the framers' attitudes, motivations and ethics? Hmmm. All for you, my friend:

"The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them." -- Justice Joseph Story, 1833, appointed to the Supreme Court by James Madison

"That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms ..." -- Samuel Adams, "Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts"

"[W]hen 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, by totally disusing and neglecting the militia." -- George Mason, speech in the Virginia Ratifying Convention, 1788

"The advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any…" -- James Madison, Federalist Paper #48

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms ... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." - Cesare Beccaria, On Crimes and Punishment, quoted by Thomas Jefferson in Commonplace Book, 1774-1776

"If the party himself, or any of these his relations, be forcibly attacked in his person or property, it is lawful for him to repel force by force. . . . For the law, in this case, respects the passions of the human mind; and . . .makes it lawful in him to do himself that immediate justice, to which he is prompted by nature. . . . It considers that the future process of law is by no means an adequate remedy for injuries accompanied with force; since it is impossible to say to what wanton lengths of rapine or cruelty outrages of this sort might be carried, unless it were permitted a man immediately to oppose one violence with another." -- William Blackstone, English philosopher

"No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Draft Constitution for Virginia, June 1776

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of 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." -- Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787.

There's plenty more. Before you go off rambling about "abuse of the framers' attitudes, motivations and ethics", I suggest you at least have some evidence to support that position. You have managed so far to avoid answering any questions of substance on the matter.

Constitutional arguments aside and going back to some excerpts from one of my earlier posts in this thread, if it's a "people with guns problem", how to you explain the following:

• Handguns are outlawed in Luxembourg, and gun ownership extremely rare, yet its murder rate is nine times greater than in Germany, which has one of the highest gun ownership rates in Europe.
• Hungary's murder rate is nearly three times higher than nearby Austria's, but Austria's gun ownership rate is over eight times higher than Hungary's.
• Murder in Europe was at an all-time low before the gun controls were introduced
• In the 19th and early 20th century England, there were no firearms restrictions in England and it had little violent crime; by the late 1990s, however, England moved from stringent controls to a complete ban on all handguns and many types of long guns. By the year 2000, violent crime had so increased that England and Wales had Europe's highest violent crime rate, far surpassing even the United States.
• In America, on the other hand, despite constant and substantially increasing gun ownership, the United States saw progressive and dramatic reductions in criminal violence in the 1990s.

Furthermore, how do you justify disarming people from THE most effective means of self-defense? With all the propaganda over women's issues at the moment and since women are one of the fastest growing groups of gun owners, what do you offer in the way of personal protection against larger and stronger adversaries who seek to do them harm? A 5'2", 120lb woman can drop a 250lb, 6'4" attacker with nothing more than a projectile 1/3 to 4/10ths of an inch in diameter before the attacker ever gets within an arm's length of her.

You take issue with the Jacksonville, NC post. What about the grandmother in the previous story I posted? If you require additional stories of self-defense use of a firearm, they are plentiful enough. Probably be one on your local evening news tonight or within the next few days. There was one here locally or regionally within the last month or so about some bad guy being held at bay by a 90-something year old lady using her late husband's pistol. Let's see her do that with a cell phone or can of mace.

[Hal Eaton]

Copied from one of my earlier posts:

"Sez ET: Two burglars dead after breaking into the home of two Marines.

"Check ET's post which gives the source of this event. Google his "blue clickie" of the event, then read the first page of comments following the news article. I did not take time to read the next 4 or 5 pages of comments . . . so I don't know if ET commented . . ."

I don't know if any of you followed my suggestion. DO IT! The comments are proof of several kinds of pudding, notably the attitude of of those who rejoiced at the death of the two burglars. I have not found a follow-up of the details of the shoot-out.

And one more plea: With regard to an armed citizenry (the "militians" of which we spoke) making the government toe the line, Google "Lidice." One fellow, with a deer rifle, cancelled the officer-in-charge of those who threatened his village.

[ET]

What does a comments section have to do with the issues at hand, Hal? Diversion?....because you do not wish to address the issues? So I offer another similar story from the AP today: Korean War vet shoots intruder inside home

ELIZABETH, Pa. (AP) — Police say an 84-year-old western Pennsylvania man wounded a home invasion suspect with the gun he carried in the Korean War.....Elizabeth Township police say 25-year-old Raymond Hiles was captured not long after trying to break into Fred Ricciutti's home early Tuesday morning.

84 year old man. 25 year old bad guy with a screwdriver and a taser. Without the firearm - a military service firearm, not a hunting one - what defense did this gentleman have against a taser? What other self-defense tool available to the American citizen can an 84 year old man or a 57 year old grandmother pick up and immediately negate the size and strength of the adversaries they faced?

There are no solutions - only tradeoffs. When you ban guns from private ownership, you simply make the grandmother and the old man victims of assault, robbery and potentially murder in order to reduce "gun violence". You didn't do squat to lessen crime by banning guns. You just made everyone else more susceptible to being a victim and the only thing that was achieved is that the category in which the crime gets tallied changed. Now instead of a "gun crime", folks are just dead from plain old violence. Woo-hoo!! We lowered "gun violence"!! The lady down the street got robbed or raped because she couldn't deter or shoot the bad guy and the old guy got robbed or beaten because he didn't have his Korean war service rifle, but at least we don't have "gun violence" anymore!!!

Check out the home invasion stats in Britain. Home invasions while residents are home are almost twice what they are here because Britains are unarmed and the "progressives" over there have made it more of a crime to defend yourself than to commit the crime in the first place. Then once the "progressives" get rid of the guns, they'll move on to "long, sharp kitchen knives": Kitchen knife ban sought (from a 2005 U.K. news article...a bit dated, but illustrative nonetheless).

Oh, and one last comment on Keith's observation that the Constitution leaves the issue of a individual right to bear arms unaddressed. If we accept that premise, then I direct attention towards Amendments 9 and 10 in the Bill of Rights. If the Constitution leaves it unaddressed, then at a very minimum the federal government needs to stay the....uhh....stay out of the matter.

[Gene Scarborough]

This is a complex issue boiling down to the ability of people to get along and respect the goods of others.

I think the reason behind the crime is bad examples from society's leaders with their ethics (or lack of). Government / banks / fuel companies / etc. steal with the stroke of a pen so what is the problem with breaking into a house?

Are we seeing the grounds forming for a renewal of the Wild West and everyone "toting iron?"

[Hal Eaton]

In reply to ET's post ("What does a comments section have to do with the issues at hand, Hal?").

The comments section on the news article reveals the warped attitudes of most of those who responded.

Instead of denying their relation or importance to the incident, why don't you read them? Most of them reveal just what I listed* as the rather common attitude of those who endlessly argue for gun possession as a cure-all for evil.

*Remember? "Belligerence, bellicosity, pugnacity, militancy?"

Also, incessant statistics on isolated news stories regarding rather rare incidents (for a nation of over 300,000,000 people!!!) do not offer validation for arming everybody. Universal gun-bearing rights would, obviously, arm an amazing number of those evil fellows (and girls) about whom some rejoice when they get wounded (or killed).

By the way, I've got 6 or 8 guns in my cabinet (I don't even know how many without a current count). Almost all my neighbors have a similar number. (All are for hunting.) If my county, or state, or federal govt. ever sees fit to make our neighborhood safer by asking us to give up the guns, I don't know of any hereabouts who would claim that they must be "taken from our cold, dead, hands."

One request repeated (again): Google "Lidice." Those who don't know history are doomed (or deemed, or damned) to repeat it.

[Neil Heath]

I'm with you, Hal. One recent positive story in Macon and a few others around the country doesn't offset the number of killings that happen in this city every month--very few of which, if any, would have been prevented by gun ownership.

[ET]

In reply to ET's post ("What does a comments section have to do with the issues at hand, Hal?").

The comments section on the news article reveals the warped attitudes of most of those who responded.

Instead of denying their relation or importance to the incident, why don't you read them? Most of them reveal just what I listed* as the rather common attitude of those who endlessly argue for gun possession as a cure-all for evil.

*Remember? "Belligerence, bellicosity, pugnacity, militancy?"

Also, incessant statistics on isolated news stories regarding rather rare incidents (for a nation of over 300,000,000 people!!!) do not offer validation for arming everybody. Universal gun-bearing rights would, obviously, arm an amazing number of those evil fellows (and girls) about whom some rejoice when they get wounded (or killed).

By the way, I've got 6 or 8 guns in my cabinet (I don't even know how many without a current count). Almost all my neighbors have a similar number. (All are for hunting.) If my county, or state, or federal govt. ever sees fit to make our neighborhood safer by asking us to give up the guns, I don't know of any hereabouts who would claim that they must be "taken from our cold, dead, hands."

One request repeated (again): Google "Lidice." Those who don't know history are doomed (or deemed, or damned) to repeat it.

Did you notice that the site on which the article was listed was MassCops.com? Wonder how many of those posting comments you didn't like were those protecting people in their respective communities? "Remember? Belligerence, bellicosity, pugnacity, militancy?"

I find your statement that people "endlessly argue for gun possession as a cure-all for evil" to be quite stupid. It would be a dumb argument to make in the first place and I've never heard or read of anyone attempting to make it. Gun possession is a cure-all for nothing, just like banning guns is not the cure-all for violence that the attempting to take liberties from others claim it will be. Even the NRA is not for "universal gun-bearing rights". Just how many straw men can you construct in one post?

I believe the incidents that you mention are not nearly as rare as you imply, but because they don't usually don't result in the carnage of the incident such as the one that started this thread and are usually only local news, they don't get the publicity. Statistics are hard to quantify on the matter, but estimates of guns deterring acts of crime or used in self-defense are far from rare. But as you pointed out, how does one guy in a nation of 300,000,000 justify taking away the liberties of the rest?

As for incessant statistics, as I pointed out earlier in this thread, there are far greater threats to people in this country than guns. I have also posted results from a study that shows that giving up guns or having them banned does not make anyone any safer.

From an article I found, UCLA professor James Q. Wilson estimates that the number of uses for firearms in self-defense is north of 100,000 a year. Hardly trivial or rare. If only 10% of those uses save lives, you've saved as many lives as are lost to "gun violence" each year.

Oh, and the Department of Justice's National Institute of Justice issued a 1994 report that estimated the defensive use of firearms to be 1.5 MILLION PER YEAR. See the report here. Not very rare or trivial either.

[ET]

I think you've got it backwards, Gene. I don't think that society is sinking lower due to leaders. I think it's the other way around. Leaders are more corrupt because society - for all our talk about "progress" - is more corrupt. Leaders, whether they be CEOs or Presidents, do not acquire character deficiencies as they rise through the ranks of political or economic power. Those character deficiencies are just magnified because they affect more people and their actions are more noticeable to the public. However, the public is far more tolerant of deficiencies in their political leaders than of anyone else. Examples are numerous.

It all reminds me of the story of Adam and Eve. When the Lord asked Adam if he had disobeyed His instructions, what did Adam do? He blamed someone else. Now we blame the gun instead of Eve. Cain didn't need a gun to kill Able. We don't want to look in the mirror and see that the "gun problem" or the corrupt politicians are a sign of our own sinfulness and we can't expect government to fix it.

As I've stated before, "gun violence" (and other criminal or unethical activity) is a symptom of the disease of sin and lack of moral restraint. Government cannot do anything to cure the disease. It can only, at best, treat the symptoms -- thus "gun control" and other restrictions on liberty.

"Good government generally begins in the family, and if the moral character of a people once degenerate, their political character must soon follow." -- Elias Boudinot

P.S. I find a good bit of irony in your statement about "respect the goods of others". More people are demanding that others pay for the goodies in life that they want or that demand that politicians relieve them of so many burdens in life and the politicians - who do not "respect the goods of others" - are all too happy to manipulate government to take said "goods" from one person and give them to another.

[ET]

I'm on a roll.....woo-hoo!!!

I have not found a follow-up of the details of the shoot-out.

Follow-up details:

In the early morning hours of Sunday, 15 April, two thugs burglarizing neighborhood cars decided to burglarize a house. Unknown to the perpetrators, the house is owned by a Marine from neighboring Camp Lejeune.

According to the official investigative finding of the Jacksonville Police Department, the Naval Criminal Investigative Service and the District Attorney, the Marine, who will remain unnamed, returned to his house with another Marine and a civilian friend, around 0140 Sunday after attending a birthday party and then patronizing a local club.

Upon entering his home, the Marine noted that things were not in order. As he walked toward the back of his house, Maurice Skinner, 33, stepped out and hit the Marine in the face with the butt of a Mossberg shotgun belonging to the Marine. Skinner and Diego Everette, also 33, had forced entry through the back of the house and had discovered the shotgun under a bed.

Skinner ordered the Marine and his two friends onto the floor and demanded their wallets and cell phones. Everette and Skinner told the men they would kill them if they caused any problems, but reassuringly noted that they would not shoot the Marine who was a father.

Skinner demanded duct tape and rope with which to bind the three victims.

At one point, as Skinner looked away, the Marine resident reached for the shotgun and a struggle ensued. Everette entered the room and joined the brawl, hitting the Marine and his civilian guest with a crowbar. Skinner pointed the shotgun at the Marine and said, "You are going to die now," and squeezed the trigger. However, while the Marine resident kept the gun loaded, as a safety practice he didn't keep a round chambered.

The Marine resident then kicked Skinner and freed the shotgun from the assailant's hands. The Marine resident retrieved the firearm, chambered a first round, shot Skinner and then shot Skinner again. The Marine resident then moved to the other side of the room where Everette and the other Marine struggled. The Marine resident shot Everette once and then shot Everette again.

The Marine guest dialed 911 and Jacksonville police officers arrived on the scene to find perp Skinner and perp Everette deceased. The Marine, his Marine guest and the civilian all had significant injuries and their clothing was bloodied.

According to District Attorney Lee, "Both Everette and Skinner [had] criminal histories." Everette had numerous assault charges, but Skinner had the most serious charges including a previous felony conviction for assault. Both had served time in prison. Lee noted that neither of the Marines, nor their civilian guest, had previous criminal convictions.

Moving on.

And one more plea: With regard to an armed citizenry (the "militians" of which we spoke) making the government toe the line, Google "Lidice." One fellow, with a deer rifle, cancelled the office-in-charge of those who threatened his village.

So you want to use a WWII incident of German-occupied Czechoslovakia in which some people defending their homeland killed a German officer and the Germans retaliated as an example of the downside of a militia in today's world? REALLY?

For one, your history is bad. The guys who took out the German officer were not militia. They were Czech men serving with Polish forces in Britain. They parachuted into the area to take care of business. They may have been working with or assisted by the local partisans, but the guys who knocked off Heydrich were proper military.

Oh, and I don't know your source, but according to multiple sources on the first page of a search, the cause of Heydrich's death was due to mortal injuries from an explosive device, not a "deer rifle". Wikipedia is bit more specific and says an anti-tank grenade was thrown after one of the shooter's Sten gun jammed. As far as I know, you would be the first person to ever claim that a STEN gun was a deer rifle.

[Gene Scarborough]

ET---

You are dealing with a "chicken / egg" non-answerable question on ethics.

The President has just made a compassionate decision that gay marriage should be honored in the US. I am sure he will draw fire and lightening from many religionists and conservatives, but he is reflecting the "best dream" of the Founding Fathers with respect to people being allowed to live in freedom.

In these troubled times is would be easier---and possibly politically wiser---to keep his mouth shut, but he didn't.

One of John Kennedy's favorite quotes was "When the going gets tough, the tough get going."

Right now times are tough thanks to the collusion and theft by leaders in banking and industry who have bought our Congress to do their bidding and turn their heads with regulation and violators of SEC and Banking law. Most of the major players in paper theft are not yet indited. Only an "example few" are convicted and in prison for their deeds.

And you think the major players are influenced more by society than society is by them???? Tell that to Jesus as he stood and died for being God in flesh among us----and it was religion and government that drove those nails.

[ET]

You're way off topic, Gene.