So says the 5-Judge majority as stated by Judge Alito.

Why is this a surprise? It shouldn’t be… Think about the first 10 Amendments…

They are limitations on governmental power over citizens. Shall we review?

1st - Establishment Clause, Free Exercise Clause; freedom of speech, of the press, and of assembly; right to petition

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.

2nd - Militia (United States), Sovereign state, Right to keep and bear arms.

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.

3rd - Protection from quartering of troops.

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

4th - Protection from unreasonable search and seizure.

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.

5th - Due process, double jeopardy, self-incrimination, eminent domain.

No person shall be held to answer for any capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

6th - Trial by jury and rights of the accused; Confrontation Clause, speedy trial, public trial, right to counsel

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district where in the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.

7th - Civil trial by jury.

In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

8th - Prohibition of excessive bail and cruel and unusual punishment.

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

9th - Protection of rights not specifically enumerated in the Constitution.

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

10th - Powers of States and people.

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.

All of these grant rights to citizens that are to be guaranteed to the citizens of the USA. I think that is a good thing…

“Liberal” Judges don’t get it and, thank God, can’t sell it…

Yahoo has a news link that states:

Justices John Paul Stevens and Stephen Breyer, joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor, each wrote a dissent. Stevens said that unlike the Washington case, Monday’s decision “could prove far more destructive — quite literally — to our nation’s communities and to our constitutional structure.”

Does he recall that the reason we have a country is that the citizens had guns? Just because people can use guns unwisely isn’t a reason to reduce the rights of the citizenry… If that were the case, Free Speech would be reduced first since most arguments and fights begin with words… Perhaps the Judges in their “Ivory Tower” have forgotten this fact… I hope they aren’t that … ignorant!

The passage of concealed carry laws has been “trumpeted” as being so dangerous by many anti-gun groups including the Brady Campaign… However, none of the states with such “Shall Issue” laws has seen any of this destruction to any of their communities. While not funny, it is enlightening that the areas with the most strict gun control laws are those very places where gun violence is so bad-Chicago, Washington D.C., …

Constitutional Victory

Nobody likes like gun violence. Nobody.

Liberals should be granting liberal rights to the citizenry rather than reducing citizen rights. Funny that it appears to be those labeled as “conservative” that grant rights to all of us…

For those who think this will create bad violence and killings, I have a statement…

If the President of the Brady Campaign went out and bought a gun and obtained a concealed carry permit, he/she would not be any more likely to commit gun violence than any other citizen who does the same… Those you need to worry about are those criminals who break the laws and who are willing to use gun violence to “get what they want.”

Remember, the criminal is committing a crime. I don’t think making it illegal to own a firearm is going to stop a criminal from owning a firearm. It hasn’t worked in the United Kingdom, and it won’t work anywhere…

Think critically rather than with your emotions. One is good, the other is scary.

According to the news, “Two police officers who had pulled over a suspicious vehicle were shot and wounded by the driver, and the suspect was killed when the officers returned fire, Baltimore police said Sunday.”

Police Commissioner Frederick H. Bealefeld III stated

the officers who were shot and other officers who have been working to get guns off the street and make the city safer. He has directed officers to target enforcement efforts toward “bad guys with guns” in the city long plagued by violence.

Nowhere in the article is it stated whether the gun was registered to the owner/wielder or whether this was an illegal gun in the hand of a criminal. If it was an illegal gun, where did the gun come from?

Many seem to come from police sales…

Funny that…

Starbucks is getting heat right now over people openly carrying firearms into their stores where it is legal to open carry firearms anywhere unless prohibited by legal means. Gun blogs, such as Alphecca, are posting the story and providing discussion about the issue.

The Brady Campaign is using a scare tactic to try an limit the carrying into Starbuck locations. If Starbuck caves into the Brady Campaign, I’ll never buy at Starbucks again…

Here is my issue…

Statements such as the following by Paul Helmke lack any critical thinking…

The decision by Starbucks to welcome guns in its restaurants where the law permits represents a public health risk. While food-borne illnesses are estimated to kill 5,000 Americans each year, more than 30,000 of us are killed annually by firearms. Guns represent a public health threat at least as great as food poisoning. Firearm fatalities are consistently ranked as one of the leading causes of death among young people in America. As Dr. David Hemenway of the Harvard School of Public Health wrote in 2004, “Across U.S. regions and states, where there are more guns, children are at a significantly greater risk of dying.”

Showing large numbers of deaths without a reason
Of the 30k that are killed, lets see what constitutes that 30,000 deaths…

Newbius has a page that discusses the CDC statistics on deaths. Go read it and be educated… That is government data there, and the data is not provided by the “gun nuts”–whoever they may be.

It is all a lack of Critical Thinking
The reasoning seems to be that firearms could cause death, so we should deny entry of such ‘dangerous’ items into Starbucks…

Should we not allow anyone to enter Starbucks since we all carry E. coli? Should we deny entry to those 1,000,000 or so individuals who carry the virus that causes AIDS? Should we deny entry to … You get the idea… SCARE TACTIC!

Don’t get me started about denying drive-thru service since automobile accidents cause about 35,000 deaths per year in the USA…

Don’t be fooled. You are just as likely to be shot by someone in Starbucks as you are contracting AIDS because Starbucks serves those with the virus that causes AIDS. You are much more likely to die in a car accident than end up with the two examples from the last sentence–perhaps you should stop driving to be safe?

Think critically. Fight for everyone’s rights rather tan jump on a bandwagon that has no thought to their reasoning–especially when there is NO logic for the reasons they give…

You may be asking why anyone would carry a loaded gun in public.

Of course, the police do it every day, and most people have no problem with the police carrying guns around in broad daylight.

Why are “normal civilians” any different? It might be that the person carrying the firearm has more training than the police. You never know. The person carrying the firearm may have no training. Funny how that works…

A story carried by the Associated Press states

Meleanie Hain made headlines after she attended her then 5-year-old daughter’s soccer game in a park on Sept. 11, 2008, with her 9mm Glock pistol in plain view holstered on her hip, upsetting other parents.

The county sheriff, Michael DeLeo, revoked her gun-carrying permit nine days later.

Hain successfully appealed the permit revocation, although the judge who restored the permit questioned her judgment and said she had “scared the devil” out of other people at the game.

Unfortunately, the article alleges their kids ran from the house yelling that their dad had shot their mom in a “murder-suicide.”

Back to the Issue…

When you see a policeman carrying a gun, nobody panics even though we don’t really know that the person in the uniform and carrying the gun is a police officer. We assume the person is an officer and we expect them to carry guns and know how to use firearms.

Our expectations kill us and appear to force us to not think critically.

Many of those “upset parents” at the soccer game likely know her but were scared by the “open carry” which is legal in many jurisdictions.

An attorney with the Brady Center (anti-gun group), one David Vice, was quoted in the article

“It is a case that calls out for common sense,” Brady Center attorney Daniel Vice said then. “It’s ridiculous to bring a gun to a child’s soccer game.”

I sincerely hope that nobody wants to make a point at a game where his child is running around playing soccer unless one educated, knowledgeable, and trained civilian is carrying a firearm with a valid concealed carry permit.

I’d hate to think that anyone’s child had to die because “we” were afraid that “we” couldn’t appropriately and carefully use a firearm to protect the public even though we are not “police officers.”

If someone was to pull a gun in public and start shooting, how long would it take the police to arrive?

What would you think of a civilian, your neighbor perhaps, if they pulled a gun and shot the lunatic that opened up at a kid’s soccer game with an uzi? Hero or someone lacking in “common sense?”

I’ll tell you what I think…

I wrote earlier about what is “scary.” I still think we act childish–flippant, critical, belittling, and other derogatory actions. Why do we act this way?

The media shows it is acceptable and, even, profitable.

Joy Behar on Glen Beck - “I think he is frequently rediculous. somebody who frequently yells, “Fire!” in a crowded theater. But I believe in free speech, and, as long as there are no weapons involved, he is fine.

Remember Joy (and Glen), that weapons don’t get up by themselves and shoot people. People, often when mad and upset, pick up guns and kill people. So communication between people would be better if it was civil.

Calling people “ridiculous” and “stupid” does not solve any problems. Calling Glen ridiculous when she says the same type of things he says appears to say “It is okay if I do it but not if you do it.”

Sort of like Polanski…

Instead of “joining the crowd,” why doesn’t someone confront this media blitz that generates profits by appealing to the entertainment crowd with a show that promotes a serious discussion without detracting from the discussion?

Realize that we are over 300 million people. Why does anyone expect that every other person (all 299,999,999 of them) will or should think exactly like me? Why is it that “they,” whoever “they” are, are always the ones who are “wrong?”

Why can’t they just have a difference of opinion that might be based on the experiences of their life? Why do most people have to classify something else they have not experienced and do not understand as “stupid” or “ridiculous?”

Examples

Abortion, Firearms and Hunting, Politics, Environment, Money, …

The list goes on.

People can be for or against each of these “issues.” Each person may have a personal story about why they have their opinion. However, most people appearing on television or in the media appear to think the “other side” is just wrong without any concerted effort to understand their position.

Where is the empathy?

I guess I shouldn’t expect empathy from everyone. However, where is the civility?

Do you think getting mad is solving any issues?

Actually, practice shows it does…

Here is the rub.

People accept a lack of civility as a “First Amendment Right.” People accept people having a right to be critical of others and to exclude them from “their group.” People expect the freedom to (whatever) without any regard to how the exercise of that freedom may affect anyone else.

People who complain get results because people cave to their yelling, criticism, or other action, and I think caving in to this type of behavior is rewarding bad behavior rather than rewarding good behavior.

Exercising their First Amendment right to Freedom of Speech may alienate a child and, in effect, help them find an outlet using violence. Virginia Tech, Long Island, and other recent examples come to mind.

Often, the person committing these violent outbursts was a victim many times over prior to committing any violent act. At some point, most people will “pop.”

Don’t focus on the act–however violent and terrible. Focus on what caused the act, who is responsible, what helped cause the problem, and how can we change so that these outbursts are less likely to happen.

cough

Calling people “stupid” and “ridiculous” does not solve any problem, and speaking in those terms says a lot about the speaker and nothing about those spoken about.

However, most listeners and viewers don’t realize that people speaking say something about the person speaking. Rather, people seem to think that the spoken work (much like the printed word on the Internet) is full of truth.

Where is critical thought?

Please teach your children that someone saying, “X is stupid” only means that a person said “X is stupid” and does not mean that “X is stupid.” Rather it means the speaker is hoping that others will think X is stupid, and the real question is why does the speaker want people to think that way? What do they have to gain?

And you all thought putting a “spin” on a story was only what politicians did? Funny, I seem to recall that putting “spin” on a story started in school…

Unfortunately, there is no real focus to teach kids to think critically–anywhere that I can find.

Summary

Need proof?

Even the Library of Congress, on a page dealing with the discussion of the Emancipation Proclamation, stated that the Emancipation Proclamation ended slavery in the United States of America.

If you think that is true, you need to go read the document… You might be surprised.

We are “taught” things that we accept as “truths.” What we should be doing is accepting what others say and then questioning…

Critical thinking and Empathy - the only way to enlightenment.

Someone carrying a firearm at a political event…

What do you think?

Let me tell you what I think…

The truth

Let me point out a few thoughts…

1. I think everyone at the “political event” had an opinion;
2. Most people at the event likely wanted to “get attention” about their view;
3. Arizona is one state where such “open carry” is legal;

So, anyone carrying a firearm legally should be no different than someone yelling their opinion–both are exercising their rights guaranteed by the bill of rights.

Reasoning

Just because someone disagrees with his position doesn’t mean he is “nuts” because he has a gun. A person may be nuts regardless of what side of the street they are located, and possession of a gun has nothing to do with them being “nuts.”

We in the USA have the First Amendment Right of Freedom of Speech. This freedom protects us and allows us to “speak our mind” SO LONG AS we do not slander anyone… Slanderous statements subject you to civil prosecution or, in rare jurisdictions, criminal prosecution (in some parts).

So, slanderous statements made by someone at an event is not supported by society and can subject you to prosecution because slanderous statements are not something we want to protect.

Shooting someone at an event may be illegal–it does depend on whether you shoot someone in defense of your own life. However, carrying a gun at a political event, where legal, is as legal (in that jurisdiction) as speaking your mind on your opinion–so long as your spoken statements are not slanderous…

Go read that again, please… Try to understand the legal rights being discussed and remove your “emotion” from the discussion/analysis.

Summary

You have rights in the USA. The right to an attorney (always take it and do NOT talk to police..), the right to remain silent (do so after requesting your attorney…), the right to speak your mind, and the right to own and possess a gun.

Go ask your Congressman or Congresswoman a question

I bet most of the politicians don’t know what the amendments to the constitution provide for or protect.. Don’t agree? Go ask them. I dare you.

Constitution, what it is for

The USA Constitution is a shield that protects everyone’s rights rather than a sword to remove any right from anyone not in the majority or in the White House. We need to remember that our founding fathers did revolt to form this country–they did find the situation at that time “oppressive.”

The founding fathers wanted us to have the ability to fight off a government that became “too oppressive” to those governed. I don’t think we are anywhere near that point at this time…(so back off…).

However, why does any politician seem to be fond of saying speaking up at political rallies and “town hall meetings” is “un-American” or “disruptive.” Why is it our politicians seem to want to take away the rights that even our constitution guarantees? I mean if we can’t speak out in opposition to a political position at a “town hall” event where the topic IS that political position, where are we supposed to discuss these issues?

Think about that…

Double Standard Politicians

Many of the politicians who say “speaking your mind in opposition to their position” is un-American and unpatriotic have supported “disruption” and protest in the past. To support it when you are “not in power” and to oppose it when “you are in power” is an obvious double standard–it is okay for me to do but not okay for you to do.

It is an easy step for them to next say you can’t speak your mind because it is causing opposition to your government. Congress can pass a law to make that illegal.

You are not saying that is not possible… I give you HISTORY… Go read it for yourself. Go read it somewhere else where you might be willing to see reason.

Wikipedia states

United States

[edit] Civilian

There have been 24 attempts in the United States to regulate speech that has been deemed seditious. In 1798, President John Adams signed into law the Alien and Sedition Acts, the fourth of which, the Sedition Act or “An Act for the Punishment of Certain Crimes against the United States” set out punishments of up to two years’ imprisonment for “opposing or resisting any law of the United States” or writing or publishing “false, scandalous, and malicious writing” about the President or Congress (but specifically not the Vice-President). The act was allowed to expire in 1801 after the election of Thomas Jefferson to the presidency. He was Vice President at the time of the Act’s passage.

Under the Espionage Act of 1917, section 3 made it a crime, punishable by 20 years’ imprisonment and a fine of up to $10,000, to wilfully spread false news of the US military with an intent to disrupt their operations, to foment mutiny in the ranks, or obstruct recruiting. The act was amended in 1918 by the Sedition Act, which expanded the purview of the Espionage Act to any statement criticizing the government. The act was upheld in 1919 in Schenck v. United States, but was largely repealed in 1921, leaving laws forbidding espionage and allowing military censorship of sensitive material.

In 1940, the Alien Registration Act or Smith Act was passed, which made it a crime to advocate or teach the desirability of overthrowing the United States Government, or to be a member of any organization which does the same. It was often used against Communist organizations. The act was invoked in three major trials, one of the Socialist Worker’s Party in Minneapolis in 1941, resulting in 23 convictions, and again in what became known as the Great Sedition Trial of 1944 in which a number of pro-Nazi figures were indicted but released when the proceedings ended in a mistrial. A series of trials of 140 leaders of the Communist Party USA was also predicated upon the Smith Act beginning in 1949, and lasting until 1957. Although the Supreme Court upheld the convictions of 11 CPUSA leaders in 1951, the court reversed itself in 1957 in Yates v. United States by ruling that teaching an ideal, no matter how harmful it may seem, does not equal advocating or planning its implementation. Although unused since at least 1961, the Smith Act remains US law.

Laura Berg, a nurse at a United States Department of Veterans Affairs-run hospital in New Mexico was investigated for sedition in September 2005^[13] after writing a letter^[14][15] to the editor of a local newspaper, accusing several national leaders of criminal negligence. Though their action was later deemed unwarranted by the director of Veteran Affairs, local human resources personnel took it upon themselves to request an FBI investigation. Ms Berg was represented by the ACLU^[16]. Charges were dropped in 2006[1].

[edit] Military

Sedition is a punishable offence under the United States Uniform Code of Military Justice, Article 94^[17].

Again, if you don’t think this is true, go do your own research. Just try to think critically before responding…

Any debate has people on “sides.” However, the idea of the debate is to discuss issues and to address the reasoning and theories being addressed and proposed by the “sides.”

So, when I see people like hawgrider (forum name on the Times Colomnist forum) talk about putting people in jail if they possess a firearm, I wonder where the reason is in that statement. That hawgrider does not like guns is clear, but I don’t get the reason or logic of their thought process…

Lets assume we make possession of a firearm illegal. Work with me…

So now, after passage of that legislation, possession of a firearm is illegal. What happens?

Do the criminals stop carrying their firearms over the fear of a mandatory 5-year sentence for the possession?

If not, what does it do? Wait, the legislation makes committing a crime with any firearm receive a mandatory 10-year sentence… Most violent crimes that are committed with a firearm can already receive such sentences. But wait, they are not always mandatory…

Lets say we arrest 1 million people who carry. Since most countries can’t house the criminals now, how do we: 1. pay for it; 2. sustain it; …

The issue here is that making possession a crime does nothing to lower or limit people from becoming criminals… Does it?

Where must we start?

We must teach empathy–to kids. Kids must understand that people who are critical to other kids are trying to feel better about themselves or to look better, somehow, to other kids.

Let me explain if you don’t understand… Kids who call other kids “fat” don’t do it because the kid is overweight–anyone can see that if it is true. They do it to get people to laugh or to point out that they, the speaker, are not “fat.” This is done to either make the “fat” kid look “bad” and to make the “speaker” look “good” or, at a minimum, to take the focus off of the speaker…

The kid who calls the other kid “fat” is the one who looks weak to me since they are resorting to an activity, being critical to others, that does not solve any problem but simply shows they are unable to constructively deal with their emotions.

We need to teach kids to deal with their emotional baggage so that it doesn’t resort to violence.

We don’t outlaw alcohol because it “causes” death, and I don’t see us outlawing automobiles because they result in the death of many people.

While guns and cars have been used to kill people, those items don’t act on their own. Rather, a person directs the action.

If you can change how people act, you can lower violence and murder. If you don’t think you can alter behavior, then you have given up and want to remove the public’s right to freedom in some vain attempt to have a “safe” life. Might as well prohibit mountain climbing, skiing, and other activities that are “dangerous” since life is so precious.

That is a really bad example, but I think saying limiting the legal possession of a firearm will lower violent firearm violence is just as much as a logical fallacy. You see, the criminal already breaking the law by committing the crime (with our without the firearm). What makes you think the criminal would not have a firearm regardless of what the law allows? Do you think the extra 5 year sentence will actually make the crook stop and say, “Oh, that isn’t worth it?”

I don’t think the criminal thinks that way. I think the criminal would say, “I’ll move to Canada because people there won’t be armed. At least it will be safer for me to steal from people I know aren’t armed.”

Violence in the USA is high. It is also very high in cities where firearm rules prohibit most citizens from carrying firearms. If firearm violence in NYC, LA, and Chicago is so high when it is illegal to carry there (for most), how does making possession illegal reduce that crime or violence?

If most of those committing that violence are gangs of underage kids, who are already breaking the law since it is illegal for them to possess the handgun, how will passage of a new law prevent that kid from getting a gun?

We need better enforcement of laws that prevent guns from getting into the hands of those who shouldn’t have them. When was the last time you heard of the police arresting people for the illegal sale of these arms? Isn’t that a problem?

As an example, did making possession of marijuana a crime reduce the possession of marijuana by those that wanted to use it? The laws that are passed will prevent those who follow the law from possession. The law does nothing to curb use by those who will use anyway…

Oh, but the marijuana only kills me. That is what I hear. Sure… The argument about the law making the possession illegal that did not decrease the use of marijuana is what I say is irrelevant. I didn’t say you should or should not possess marijuana if YOU want to. I just said the law wouldn’t stop people from possessing it. Sort of like my argument that laws passed to make possession of a firearm a crime will not stop people from carrying… It just criminalizes the possession of the firearm regardless of whether that possession ever hurts anyone…

I get it people don’t like firearms. But to prevent someone from carrying it who will never murder an innocent person does not mean the only reason to carry one is in order to kill someone. Even if it does mean that, I don’t think there is a reason to remvoe that person’s right to carry a firearm.

Don’t think so? Let me explain… If a person, who was murdered by a criminal committing a crime with handgun had a gun and knew how to use it, would that murdered person been “wrong” or a “murderer” IF they could have killed the criminal trying to murder them? Would that person be a criminal? If not, possessing and carrying a firearm should not be illegal. We should have a right to self defense.

Or do you find some flaw with my argument that you can explain to me so that I can understand–even if I disagree with your rationale?

I accept that people will have opinions that differ from mine, and I welcome a difference of opinion…

You knew there was a “but” in there didn’t you?

I would prefer if a person reaches an opinion through the use of critical thinking.

The Christian Science Monitor has an article called “A trigger lock for the gun lobby.” It makes for a slightly amusing reading…

Don’t get me wrong, the article does have great logical points. They state that armed students on campus may be difficult to differentiate from the perpetrators/criminals. How will Law Enforcement Officers tell the difference if they arrive on the scene and there are 6 people with guns? Should we expect the LEO to look around and see where all 6 students are located in order to determine, if it is even possible, which is the criminal?

Of course, we can agree how people should react when the LEO arrives–cease and desist perhaps?

However, the editorial board adopts some logical fallacies as well.

Neither is it very smart to mix armed students with alcohol, which flows freely on many college campuses. The same logic applies to conceal-and-carry in taverns. Why is it that even two states – Tennessee and Arizona – approved this lethal cocktail of weapons and drinking establishments?

Can you see the problem with this paragraph?

First, the editorial board is making an immediate plea for your emotional support by saying it is not very smart…

Second, the statements made are judgmental and prejudiced because they are misleading–people who carry concealed (even in Tennessee) are not allowed to carry while drinking. You see, those states pass laws that state it is illegal to drink alcohol while carrying your firearm. Implying otherwise is disingenuous.

We allow drive-through stores that sell alcohol (sometimes only sell alcoholic beverages). We allow people to drive to restaurants to drink. We don’t prevent taverns from selling alcohol because someone has to drive back home… We make no assumption that people will drink and drive even after they have had a drink. Yet, the editorial board is willing to say that people who carry guns will, somehow, run afoul of the law, drink, and get into “a lethal cocktail” of trouble…

Is the editorial board making a “logical” jump that says because it is legal to carry but not drink, those who are carrying will just drink anyway? Of course, criminals who do not follow the law will be carrying their firearms concealed everywhere, regardless of what might be allowed by law. It appears as if the editorial board suggests that the firearm-carrying public will pick and choose the parts of the law they like and ignore the parts they do not like… This is assuming that everyone that wants to carry a firearm is already a criminal who is not following the law.

Remember, a person who is carrying a firearm, concealed or open, may be following the law and exercising their legal rights.

Sure, the editorial board doesn’t say these firearm owners will drink, but, fi the assumption isn’t made, what is the concern since firearms and alcohol will not be mixing? So there is an implication made when the editorial board wonders how someone could approve ” lethal cocktail of weapons and drinking establishments”-again appealing to our emotional side using “purple prose” like “lethal cocktail.”

I think this use of language is like a nice piece of ass–it is all about grabbing your attention and making you not see what is really important–your legal rights. Kind of like assuming a person with a nice piece of ass (male or female, don’t make that gender assumption…) is going to be nice, worthwhile, or ethical just because of any physical attribute (or lack thereof).

I have carried a firearm for many years–as have many people I know. Very few of us have ever had to use the firearm in an “altercation,” and I hope nobody ever does. I do know people have been approached by “individuals” wielding a knife asking for money who have pulled their weapon only to have the “individual” raise their hands and back away…

Suggesting we should just give them our money makes two errors: 1. That theft is acceptable and part of life; and 2. The assumption that the thief was just after your cash/money. How does one know what a criminal may want?

I have never “imbibed” when I carried. As most hunters and other gun owners know, safety is paramount. The only “safe” gun is a gun with no magazine and whose slide is open–so you can be sure there is no ammunition…

I find that it is those with very little knowledge of firearms who are “afraid” of them somehow causing harm. Most of those uneducated people (those who don’t know much about firearms) worry about people who carry “locked and cocked” or who carry with “one in the chamber.” I am uneducated about many things, but I try not to make opinions about things of which I have little knowledge/data…

These assumptions made by the editorial board appear as if they are not based on any knowledge of firearms or those who use firearms. You want to say something about “those people” (whichever group you refer to)? You might as well go spend some time with them prior to making your statements–and preferably prior to forming an opinion. Otherwise, you might appear as if you don’t know what you are talking about.

Those of the general public who don’t think critically may accept whatever they are told. However, the blind leading the blind may not be a good thing either… Education is never a waste of time. Look at it this way, you might alter your articles to make more logical sense IF you knew more about firearms and those who use firearms.

Assuming a person who could cause harm will cause harm is like assuming a person infected with HIV is going to infect everyone around them. Heaven forbid, we should not let “those people” come into contact with “those of us who are healthy and think straight.” This type of “reactionary language” does not educate the public and shows the speaker has little knowledge of the issues involved.

If you “hate” firearms or dislike guns, I would suggest you go to a local western shooting event.. Meet some people out there who use guns. You may be surprised to find that we are your neighbors and friends. You might be surprised to find people you like–people like you. In fact, you might be educated to drop some of the assumptions you have been making.

If you are so “liberal,” don’t describe those that disagree with you as “stupid” or somehow wanting to create “lethal cocktails.” If you do, you are adopting techniques of the “right” that you state are a waste of time and serve no purpose. If you have to resort to spin, you shouldn’t be selling your opinion.

There are SO many “discussions” taking place on-line regarding appropriate size of the ammunition we use, and everyone seems to think that the “larger the caliber the better.”

Let me give you a version on a typical on-line forum…

ogukuo72:
Has anyone actually seen someone hit in a critical area with a 9mm and still keep coming? It sounds like one of those episodes where people keep repeating as anedotal evidence of the weakness of the 0.38, the existence of UFO, etc, but had never actually seen it.

Ratamacue:
Ogukuo, think of it this way. In Somalia, the 5.56mm round was found to take several shots to drop Somalis jacked up on khat (a coke-like drug in plant form that you chew) whereas the 7.62mm would stop them dead in their tracks. The same really applies for the 45ACP vs. 9mm argument.

Of course, Ratamacue never answered the question which IS the issue… Where did the 5.56mm (.223) ammo hit those attacking versus where the 7.62mm hit those attacking?

Saying the 7.62mm is better than the 5.56mm because “those shot with the 7.62mm” went down faster may be a logical fallacy… WHERE they attackers were hit may have been MUCH more important than that bullet hit them…

I’ll get back to this later…

Here is a question

Why did the USA Army go from the M1 Garand (Cal. .30-06) to the 5.56×45mm (.223 Remington) in today’s “M16″ style rifles IF the smaller caliber argument was always valid?

I’d love to see an answer if someone has one…

Placement is paramount.

You need to practice with your weapon, and many people are killed with small-arms.

“Why,” you ask, “are the FBI and other agencies moving to the .40 S&W or larger calibers?”

Perhaps marketing, perhaps experience with armored criminals, or other reasons. The average non-governmental person who carries a handgun is not likely to encounter an armored individual. Pulling a small .380 Auto out and shooting the attacker in the head is … quite efficient at ending the attacker’s life.

Perhaps we think “bigger-is-better.” The Panzer tank was certainly big (88mm gun, lots of armor, etc.), but it could go about 60 miles before needing to refuel. The “story” is that you need to have the “gun” when you need the gun to fire.

Carrying a “big” gun in the winter and a small gun in the summer due to clothes, layers, heat, etc. may mean you are not as “trained” in the shooting of your chosen gun as you could be…

Remember, you are not likely to encounter an army of bad guys.  Two or three are the most attackers most people encounter.  You may not need 45 rounds that can “pierce a tank…”

You likely will be scared (for you or your family), and your adrenaline will be running through your body…  This will affect how you shoot–will the gun jump?  Will you get more than one round off before being “blinded” by the flash from the gun? …

Another Red Herring…

The issue over speed vs. weight of cartridge should be ignored. Why? Go look up “momentum” on-line.  Recall your physics.  Physics doesn’t lie… Don’t let the “nuts” tell you differently…  Remember, though, that weight may be important, but only in relation to bullet size…

Summary

Hosted on the Firearms Tacical web-site is a document by the FBI that has determined

Kinetic energy does not wound. Temporary cavity does not wound. The much discussed “shock” of bullet impact is a fable and “knock down” power is a myth. The critical element is penetration. The bullet must pass through the large, blood bearing organs and be of sufficient diameter to promote rapid bleeding. Penetration of less than 12 inches is too little, and, in the words of two of the participants in the 1987 Wound Ballistics Workshop, “too little penetration will get you killed.” Given the desirable and reliable penetration, the only way to increase bullet effectiveness is to increase the severity of the would by increasing the size of hole made by the bullet. Any bullet which will not penetrate through vital organs from less than optimal angles is not acceptable. Of those that will penetrate, the edge is always with the bigger bullet.

So, .380 or .45 will kill. The .45 simply may have an “edge.”

However, most people can get accurate shots (in those situations when it is needed–when the adrenaline is pumping) with a smaller caliber handgun cartridge.

Ranges should allow target practice with yells, lights flashing, etc… Why?

If everyone could fire as accurately in those instances as they could at the range, “police” and other “governmental staff” wouldn’t miss with so many bullets during the shootouts. Don’t believe me? I’ll let YOU go find that data on the internet…