Kennedy

OK, so six people think I'm insane. We've had one person come out with a more inclusive interpretation than my own, but there hasn't been a single post by anyone who generally seeks to restrict gun rights. (or include over bearing and intrusive "responsibilities") Kallend? Dekker? Christelsabine? Botellines? Anyone? Come on, six people said I'm nuts for my views. Does any of them have a better idea on what the second amendment means? witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

Keep your hands off my !!! ps - check map quest and use a hanky witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

[bad mafia impression] Youuuuu dirty raaaaaaat... [/mafia] [worse russian accent] I must break you [/ivan] Aint skeered. witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

Yes, it is and no I wouldn't. Try to stay un-broken. witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

I'd rather put them in chain gangs and work them like prisoners. Do you really want to arm them and trust them? witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

I don't know, but it seems to me that what is wanted is for people to call 9/11 first, and then wait for the cops, or announce the cops have been called... [sarcasm] Right, because we all know the cops are there for your protection and have to come when ou call 9-1-1 for help. [/sarcasm] I'll call the cops and let them handle as much as they will, simply because then the liability/lawsuit is their problem. I don't know of anyone who's ever been sued for calling 9-1-1. (yet) witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

Actually, it means the possibility of death. I know the four rules of safe gun handling. In shooting in self defense, you are willing to "destroy" your attacker. However, if you ever had to shoot in self defense and then afterwards said "shoot to kill," you'd much more likely to see the inside of a courtroom. Shoot to kill implies intent to kill. It borders closely on murder. Afterall, whacking some guy in the back of his head while on his knees in a back alley is "shooting to kill." Shooting until the attacker is no longer a threat is shooting to stop. Any shots taken after the attacker is stopped (say, lying on the ground bleeding) would be shooting to kill, and that is murder in must about any jurisdiction. I fully agree that when it comes to self defense, the attacker has made it a him or me and my family situation. I will win, but that doesn't mean I want him dead. Shooting to stop is self defense. Shooting to kill may be murder. Which face do you want to show the cops/lawyers/media? (yes, we have officially given up on the question and begun arguing minutae and semantics) witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

Nope, but she gets all the hugs she wants (provided my better half doesn't cut in). ps - Yeah, I'll be in or near NYC when she is.

Yep, yep, yep, yep, yep, yep, yep, yep, yep. witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

Yes, and it was hot. witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

We can argue hypotheticals and minutae til the cows come home, but the fact remains that it was a righteous shoot, and I still can't figure out what these people want to change that has any bearing on this incident? Anybody know? ps - At that distance in that circumstance, a person would be lucky to hit him at all. Shooting at the range, even with added stress, just isn't the same as the real thing. Just ask anyone who's been there. witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

Is that legal or illegal immigration? Any convenient sources to show that relationship? Do we need to have the discussion about "correlation versus causation" again? witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

Let me guess. You're not a gun owner and have never studied armed self defense, right? Nothing wrong with that, but the "wounding shot" is one of the most widely held misconceptions concerning self defense. Neither is "shoot to kill" the correct mindset. The appropriate way to describe legal self-defense with a firearm is "shoot to stop." The most effective way to stop an attacker is firing center mass- the chest. This may kill him, but that is not the intended outcome. Stopping him is. If he dies as a result, that's terrible but he brought it on himself by attacking. Thinking about it when the attacker is coming at you from 8 to 9 feet away is not a good idea. An atacker can close 21 feet in less that two seconds. This guy was less than half that distance. The only thing you have time to think is "front sight - squeeeeeze." witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

According to the Head Honcho himself, trolling is: From HH's link: See the site, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll, for more indepth answers. witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

I really don't understand what these people want. They say they want the same rules that apply to cops to apply to citizens regarding self defense. Looking at this situation, where the deceased attacked a man with a club, I don't see what needs to be changed. What rule do they want that would have changed the outcome? What other possible outcome is there, other than injury to the man who fired in self defense? witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

Family seeks change in self-defense law By MICHAEL W. HOSKINS Daily Journal staff writer mhoskins@thejournalnet.com April 8, 2005 The family of a White River Township man shot and killed a year ago by a neighbor is trying to change Indiana’s self-defense law, which shielded the shooter from criminal prosecution. Civilians should have to follow rules similar to what police must obey in a shooting and should have to attend classes before getting a permit to own a weapon, the family says. Family members are working with State Rep. David Frizzell, who represents part of White River Township, to make the changes. “As citizens, we do have the right to defend ourselves,” said Terry Doty, uncle of the man shot last year. “But I don’t think we need to strap on guns like in the wild West and shoot without calling police. That’s not what our society is wanting to become.” Doty said discussions about changing the law stem from the death of his nephew, 44-year-old Bruce Mills, last spring. Mills was shot by a neighbor in the Oak Meadows Mobile Home Community on March 29, 2004. Mills had been smashing windows of an empty trailer with an ax handle, and witnesses said he made an aggressive move toward Daniel Floyd, who had come outside his mobile home to investigate the noise. Floyd fired at Mills with a 9-mm handgun from 8 to 9 feet away, hitting him in the neck and lower body. Mills stumbled, collapsed against the vacant trailer and died. Floyd told authorities he was protecting himself and his family, and witnesses corroborated his account. He was not arrested. In June, Johnson County Prosecutor Lance Hamner asked a grand jury to decide whether Floyd should face charges. They decided no. “We weren’t happy with (Floyd) being a vigilante and taking the law into his own hands without calling 911,” Doty said. “There’s nothing we can do about our nephew’s situation, but we’d like to do this in memory of him and make sure the next family has some recourse.” Indiana law gives Hoosiers the right to use deadly force against an attacker if it’s necessary to prevent serious injury or death. In summary, the law says a person is justified in using reasonable force to protect himself or someone else from what he believes to be illegal force. Frizzell said he is interested in working with Mills’ family to explore possible changes. “It’s very difficult to know how you can prevent something like this from happening, but we want to make sure it benefits everyone in the state,” he said. Doty said the family plans to dub any potential legislation as Mills Bill in honor of his nephew. They want state law to mandate that people call 911 or alert police before shooting in self-defense, he said. The Johnson County Sheriff’s Office agrees with that idea and encourages people who witness a crime or fear for their safety to call 911. “The best advice is to call and have us investigate,” Chief Deputy Doug Cox said. “If there’s time, let us make the call about what to do.” If a person does shoot, the family wants individuals to follow the procedures police are required to obey when firing on someone. Police are allowed to use deadly force when someone poses a threat of serious physical harm or threatens the officer with a weapon or to prevent a felon from escaping, Cox said. In training, officers are encouraged to shout, “Please stop,” before firing, Cox said. But he said police are not required to give the warning and sometimes do not have time. “If given the chance, we want them to,” Cox said. “But it’s often a split-second decision; and if we’re taking fire, we can’t be stopping to think about saying something.” Doty said civilians should have to follow the same guidelines if put into a situation where they fear for their safety. The family would also like to require Hoosiers to attend classes on gun use before obtaining a permit, Doty said. He said that Frizzell has not made any promises to the family and that legislators likely will not discuss the issue until next year. “That’s fine. We just don’t want the ball dropped,” Doty said. “Things can happen. It just depends on how interested (lawmakers) are and what kind of public backing there is.” witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=43664 witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

Border Family's Encounters with Illegals witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

Part V witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

Part IV witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

Part III witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

Part II witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

Crime & the Illegal Alien The Fallout from Crippled Immigration Enforcement June 2004 By Heather Mac Donald Part I witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

Sure it is. You religious nut you. (see above post) By those definitions, you're one of the biggest zealots I know. witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

from Miller http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=search&court=US&case=/us/307/174.html The Court said because the firearm didn't have any established showing that it is an appropriate militia arm, the second amendment does not cover it. Of course, if the lawyer had made his case and shown that such firearms are applicable to the militia, the ruling might have been different. (and much more clearly beneficial to the gun-rights movement) However, the Court specifically said it was not protected because it had no demonstrate militia use. That means the Court thinks only military-appropriate firearms are covered by the second amendment. And - for better or for worse - what the Court says is law. Blame the guy for dying and his lawyer for not doing the job. The fact is such a firearm could contribute to the common defense very effectively. witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*