Not sure about over there, but over here its important that the body is back in the house .. means a lot to the law..
See when the intruder is in your house he is a threat
After chasing him down the street ; not so much of a threat. The victim became the attacker at that point
..I do understand your feelings though
#1. Shoot the S.O.B.
#2. Drag the dead body "back" in the home
Not saying this would or should work for everyone, but I promise that would be the plan around my house.
Later
Where I used to live( Florida ) and were I live now ( North Carolina ) the use of deadly force is allowed anywhere if you feel threatened. Can be anywhere on a hiking trail on the street. Just need to feel threatened and BOOM your gone Mr./Ms bad person!
The case pointed to here was much more than a case of self defense.
It was much worse than a simple self defense situation.
They took it upon themselves to be the judge, jury and executioner.
That is wrong any way you shake it.
Advocating the "drag 'em back inside" crap will not work, either. You will not beat the forensics anyway, and such is just plain WRONG.
--Mac
Criminals have too many rights. He lost his when he entered some one elses home.
Give the defender probation or a suspended sentence, but not jail time, after what he and his family have been through. That the offender, who is known to have committed this and numerous other crimes, was allowed to go free is a further travesty.
I have seen similar stories in the British news of individuals jailed for defending themselves, and others from Australia. The concepts of private property and the right to self defense are disappearing. Their world has indeed gone mad.
R.
Quote:
The case pointed to here was much more than a case of self defense.
It was much worse than a simple self defense situation.
They took it upon themselves to be the judge, jury and executioner.
That is wrong any way you shake it.
Advocating the "drag 'em back inside" crap will not work, either. You will not beat the forensics anyway, and such is just plain WRONG.
--Mac
I did not say it was right or I'd beat the charge Mac, I just said that if someone was in my home and has threatened me or a family member and he/she happened to get outside after the initial confrontation the fight would not be over.
I consider it just plain WRONG when a law-abiding citizen is threatened in his or her own home, or anywhere else for that matter. Truth be told, I would not be doing any body dragging but I would do my best to put them to rest and then let the law and the good Lord pass their judgment when the time comes.
Merry Christmas
Unfortunately Danny, you would have plenty of time to do in depth bible study in jail.
A bad incident happened to a neighbor who lived right across the street from me in Hermosa Beach, California about 15 years ago. I heard a loud boom and shortly there were police all over the place. The residence is a big 2 story condo with a short driveway leading to the garage. Two armed guys broke in, tied up the wife, threatened them with a guns, took some stuff and while one of them went down to the driveway and sat in his Porsche, the other one was still inside but got separated from the husband. Somehow he went upstairs, got a shotgun he kept in a closet, went out on the balcony and shot the guy in the car through the windshield killing him and the other one ran away and was captured later. Being this is in very liberal California, there was a huge hue and cry about was this murder, self defense or what. It was all you heard on the radio for months. Finally, no charges were filed because the homeowner was still threatened by the other armed guy still in the house and the car was still in his driveway and the one in the car could come back in any time looking for his buddy. As I remember all the legal analysis, that was the key, there was still one armed perp in the house and the one in the car had his gun on him and could have come back in so it's justified self defense even in California. I remember all the bleeding heart types talking about the one in the car could have been trying to get away but he was in the passenger side, not the drivers.
That kind of talk is easy Danny, it's a very difficult position to be put in for sure, but you don't want to spend 20 to life in a nice comfy prison with these kinds of guys as roommates. I'm sure they would love to have some fun with a self styled vigilante. Not to mention, once the threat is gone or at least diminished then it is wrong, you're turning yourself into The Punisher.
Bob
Quote:
Criminals have too many rights. He lost his when he entered some one elses home.
I agree 100%!
I guess it all depends how much you actually know about this case. The article cited first here is perhaps a bit lopsided in its coverage.
Quote:
THREE men have appeared in court accused of beating a man with a metal pole and cricket bat after he was said to have broken into one of their homes and held their family at knifepoint.
Munir Hussain’s family were held by three men with knives – but he fought back against one and attacked him with two relatives who lived nearby, Reading Crown Court was told.
Waled Salem, 56, previously of Boreham Wood, Hertfordshire, was left with a fractured skull and severe bruising of the brain after the street attack.
A witness said he thought Mr Salem was going to be killed.
Source
Quote:
Sentencing, Judge John Reddihough said it was his "public duty" to jail Hussain. He said that people should not be permitted to inflict "their own instant and violent punishment" or risk undermining the rule of law.
Source
We should be allowed to stop intruders at whatever level it takes to do so.
We do not have the right or authority to continue beating the intruder with a metal pole and a cricket bat in an effort to vent our own misguided rage or take our own avengement/revenge out on the intruder, crook or otherwise.
A Cricket Bat?
To the head?
Repeatedly?
I'd rather take my chances on gettin' shot at that point.
--Mac
Yeah, sounds like it got ugly
Like I said, his goof was chasing the guy down the street. At that point the law (in this area) sees that the victim became the aggressor..
the rest is rage and stupidity in action.
Then again, being in his shoes, rage is something that may occur.. but controlling it is the issue
A man's gotta excercise self control.
Period, end of sentence.
--Mac
I think the current legal criteria in the UK of using only 'reasonable' or 'proportional' force to defend oneself in these circumstance force is open to interpretation. In the heat of the moment and given a very real immediate threat to ones life from an intruder clearly intending to act violently who's to say what 'reasonable' force amounts to? However an intruder making their escape after a burglary where no one was physically threatened or hurt, does not come into this definition of real immediate threat i would think.
I would caution anyone in the USA getting their information on this or any other UK story from the Dail Mail whos coverage often qualifies for frequent satirical comment here.
Some years ago the this intensely right wing 'newspaper' ran a concerted campaign to free a man jailed for killing a fleeing burglar with a shot to the back as he ran from his property.
It's the kind of newspaper that tries to find easy solutions for complex problems and appeals to those looking for scapegoats for the worlds ills.
Its view on public spending and social programs is similarly to the right of Atilla the Hun, labelling the poorest and most vulnerable in society as a rabid feckless underclass, undeserving drain on public expenses.
For many here, the Daily Mail is a newpaper in very much the same sense as Fox News is a fair and unbiased purveyor of quality journalism or Anne Coulter is a sane commentator on American culture and politics.
Regards
Alan
Well, sadly, this is an easy one for me. But I do see Macs' point of view too.
Two guys come into my house and i dont know them, they are clearly "the enemy" now.
It's a reasonable assumption that they will do harm to me or my family. It's also a reasonable
assumption that when I kill the one but the other gets away, I'm guessing he'll come back for
retribution at some point. I will follow "the enemy" until i find him and extinguish him. Hopefully,
the publicity will serve as a deft deterant to any potential enemy from waltzing into someones home.
I wish I were more evolved than this but it is what it is. Too many times we've seen victoms of home invasions
( especailly here in Mich.) where people do what the bad guy says and there reward is death. And too many
times the bad guys dont get caught: or if they do, they get off or a light sentense. Yes, bad guys come into my home,
you should have no problem being the judge, jury and executioner. Very sad.....
Although I wouldn't want to underestimate the level of violence this family was subjected to or prejudge the response of the jailed man in this or similar instances, a line has to be drawn somewhere.
Proportional response should mean sufficient force to incapacite the the intruder. If in the process the perpetrator dies from an unexpected or unforseeable complication arising from such a proprtional response by the victim then this is grounds for leniency. However an attempt to go beyond incapacitation to actually a full red blooded attempt to kill the assailant is something that has to be weighed very carefully by a court of law for mitigating circumstances.
This is why we have laws and courts and legal systems; otherwise each person would be free to meet out his/her idea of justice to all and sundry without accounting to anyone but themselves
American culture is still completely caught up with its frontier myths of summary justice and rights gun ownership and this complicates the matter by tacitly encouraging vigillante style reactions that bypass the legal process and the rule of law. If America truly feels that the right to kill any person that intrudes on ones property whatever the circumstances or level of personal threat, then why does your legal system not reflect this? Could it be because the majority of people in the states actually feel this would be wrong?
Regards
Alan
Beautifully articulated, Al. Not a good job of hiding your anti-USA bent, but the equivicating is beautiful noetheless.
When two intruders come into your home and one of them puts a gun to your head while the other rapes your wife in front of you and your 10 year old daughter is next, doesn't it make your above pious diatribe seem astonishingly nieve? It does to me and most of this countrys' men who have to bear witness to how painfully inadaquate our legal system can be. ( can you say..OJ?:) I promise you if this scenario were to , God forbid, happen to you or someone you know, I'm pretty sure you'd have a much different predisposition.
Quote:
In the heat of the moment and given a very real immediate threat to ones life from an intruder clearly intending to act violently who's to say what 'reasonable' force amounts to?
I think that any sane judge or jury would be able to come to that conclusion.
Quote:
The amount of force necessary to protect oneself or one's property. Reasonable force is a term associated with defending one's person or property from a violent attack, theft, or other type of unlawful aggression. It may be used as a defense in a criminal trial or to defend oneself in a suit alleging tortious conduct. If one uses excessive force, or more than the force necessary for such protection, he or she may be considered to have forfeited the right to defense. Reasonable force is also known as legal force.
A person is generally justified in using force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm if the person reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent the commission of a forcible felony. The person is also generally justified in using such extreme force to prevent or terminate another's unlawful entry into or attack upon a dwelling, if: (1) the entry is made or attempted in a violent manner and he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent personal violence to himself or another then in the dwelling, or (2) he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent the commission of a felony in the dwelling.
emphasis added
Source: http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Reasonable+Force
@swanman
The Inadequacies of your legal system are well known to most I suspect, but that in itself doesn't give anyone carte blanche to sidestep the law as it stands. The way to change it is to campaign for change. That's how the law evolves.
My 'diatribe' as you put it doesnt preclude the use of force and if you read it you would see that i'm not against self defence or even a pre-emptive strike in the case of being held captive and having to witness the extreme violence you mention. In an instance like that it would take a very hard-hearted jury or an extremely cynical and skilfull defence lawyer to successfully argue against mitigating circumstances.
Im only against the kind of indiscriminate use of force that can happen say when an intruder is making his escape having caused no physical harm or the kind of response that says any tresspass on one's property or home, armed or otherwise is grounds for killing someone. Is that so difficult a concept to take on board?
That's not pious equivocation, its called making a valid distinction
Regards
Alan
There was a similar case over here some years ago, when a guy was charged with assault on a home intruder. I'll never forget his comments just before his court case. He said "I'd rather be judged by twelve of my peers, that carried in a coffin by six of my friends."
I call it, "being civil," Alan.
Freedoms come with responsibilites.
Maybe that's why we are losing them at an alarming rate.
--Mac
@Allen
Coulda fooled me, bro.
Mac is the Voice of Reason in this discussion. And absolutely right.
There is only defense when there is an offending force. When the threat is gone you cannot continue the violence and still call it defense. You can however hold the (formal) offender until the law enforcement arrives to take over. Although it might seem like a good idea to beat or shoot the crap out of the bad guy, it is not the place of an civilian to be judge, jury and executioner.
And I feel the same as Swanman does when some stranger enters my house uninvited: That person is the enemy and a direct thread. He will be forced down and tie-wrapped asap.
Does this mean I should contemplate locking my doors? I'd never find the keys. An insurance friend of mine convinced me last year to not put my keys for the car under the seat.
Citaat:
An insurance friend of mine convinced me last year to not put my keys for the car under the seat.
And darned right he is! Your car will not start if you put your keys there 
Quote:
Not sure about over there, but over here its important that the body is back in the house .. means a lot to the law..
See when the intruder is in your house he is a threat
After chasing him down the street ; not so much of a threat. The victim became the attacker at that point
..I do understand your feelings though
Common myth about the body being inside your house. You can use deadly force to defend your life or others, no matter your location. Some states insist you must have no means of escape. True, chasing him down the street probably won't fly here either.
Quote:
Unfortunately Danny, you would have plenty of time to do in depth bible study in jail.
A bad incident happened to a neighbor who lived right across the street from me in Hermosa Beach, California about 15 years ago. I heard a loud boom and shortly there were police all over the place. The residence is a big 2 story condo with a short driveway leading to the garage. Two armed guys broke in, tied up the wife, threatened them with a guns, took some stuff and while one of them went down to the driveway and sat in his Porsche, the other one was still inside but got separated from the husband. Somehow he went upstairs, got a shotgun he kept in a closet, went out on the balcony and shot the guy in the car through the windshield killing him and the other one ran away and was captured later. Being this is in very liberal California, there was a huge hue and cry about was this murder, self defense or what. It was all you heard on the radio for months. Finally, no charges were filed because the homeowner was still threatened by the other armed guy still in the house and the car was still in his driveway and the one in the car could come back in any time looking for his buddy. As I remember all the legal analysis, that was the key, there was still one armed perp in the house and the one in the car had his gun on him and could have come back in so it's justified self defense even in California. I remember all the bleeding heart types talking about the one in the car could have been trying to get away but he was in the passenger side, not the drivers.
That kind of talk is easy Danny, it's a very difficult position to be put in for sure, but you don't want to spend 20 to life in a nice comfy prison with these kinds of guys as roommates. I'm sure they would love to have some fun with a self styled vigilante. Not to mention, once the threat is gone or at least diminished then it is wrong, you're turning yourself into The Punisher.
Bob
But in the final verdict, seems the California court wasn't so "bleeding heart" after all.
It never went to court, he was not charged in the first place. I recall the DA's office was making noises that they really wanted to charge him but most legal commentators felt they would have a very hard time getting a jury to convict. The bleeding hearts were a collection of law professors, attorneys and others that were on all the talk shows, they really felt that the guy went over the line by shooting the one in the car from his balcony. I was leaning that way too until it came out that the second guy was still in the house with a gun at that point in time. That's a scary situation for a homeowner, no doubt about it. If the husband left the one in the car and went downstairs to confront the other one, now he's lost sight of the first one and has no idea where he is or what he's doing. I think he made the right decision by eliminating the threat he could see, then go and find the other one who wisely decided to flee the scene.
Now, lets say there was only one guy and he left the house and on the way out decided to check out the car. At that point, the homeowner is in a superior position with a shotgun on the balcony. He can just watch and see if the guy gets out of the car and takes off or looks like he's coming back into the house. If he heads to the street he has to let him go, if the homeowner shoots him anyway, that's a felony. If he made a move towards the house, he could let a blast go in the bushes and tell him to take off or the next one is his head. He would take off I think. The problem with killing him there in the driveway is proving in court he was coming back into the house.
Bob
Quote:
It never went to court, he was not charged in the first place. I recall the DA's office was making noises that they really wanted to charge him but most legal commentators felt they would have a very hard time getting a jury to convict. The bleeding hearts were a collection of law professors, attorneys and others that were on all the talk shows, they really felt that the guy went over the line by shooting the one in the car from his balcony. I was leaning that way too until it came out that the second guy was still in the house with a gun at that point in time. That's a scary situation for a homeowner, no doubt about it. If the husband left the one in the car and went downstairs to confront the other one, now he's lost sight of the first one and has no idea where he is or what he's doing. I think he made the right decision by eliminating the threat he could see, then go and find the other one who wisely decided to flee the scene.
Now, lets say there was only one guy and he left the house and on the way out decided to check out the car. At that point, the homeowner is in a superior position with a shotgun on the balcony. He can just watch and see if the guy gets out of the car and takes off or looks like he's coming back into the house. If he heads to the street he has to let him go, if the homeowner shoots him anyway, that's a felony. If he made a move towards the house, he could let a blast go in the bushes and tell him to take off or the next one is his head. He would take off I think. The problem with killing him there in the driveway is proving in court he was coming back into the house.
Bob
I wouldn't stop firing until I was SURE everyone was safe.
I just leave my car keys on the front seat.
Next to the Doberman.
--Mac
I kinda like the Texas law. Maybe you'll recall about 2 years there was 911 recording where a neighbor called and said there was someone breaking into his neighbors house and asked for the police.
He stayed on the phone the whole time and 20 minutes later the police still aren't there. He finally told the 911 operator that the thief was climbing out the back window with bags of stuff and that if the police didn't show up immediately, that he was going to shoot him.
The police didn't show up. The guy didn't hang up the phone. He just told the 911 operator that he was going to shoot the thief. He laid the phone down, (didn't hang up), and you heard a big boom in the the background. He came back on the phone, told the 911 operator that he had just killed the thief in his NEIGHBORS yard.
Turns out the thief was wanted for rape, murder, assault and burglary.
He was never charged. Deemed it a "righteous shooting".
Bob
Alan,
I agree with Swanman.
Your anti USA beliefs are shining through. Some of the reasons our forefathers fought and died were for the right to bear arms and to use deadly force to protect our families and property.
Bob
Alan,
Now's the time for you to make some kind of "cowboy" or "redneck" comment.
"Cowboys" and "rednecks" are part of what makes this country GREAT! Along with all of the other etnicites we have. Including Scottish.
LOL.
Bob
I do understand the premise of "proportionality". I mean, if i were to see some teenage kid running out of my garage with one of my stereo speakers, I'm not gonna hunt him down and shoot him. I'd report the theft and hope the kid gets caught. And , knowing me, I wouldnt press charges as long as i got the speaker back.
Unfortunately, those of us who were born here have grown up in a country that has been violent since it's inception. Because we have so many violent criminals roaming the streets, it stands to reason that the response is going to be similar for the sake of simple survival. I would agree in most instances, the doling out of punishment should be left to the authorities. But sometimes, circumstances come up that you have to make those brutal life and death decisions...for yourself and the bad guy.
Taking the law into your own hands? If that's the case, where was the so-called law when the family was being attacked? Why was the perp allowed to go free? If he had not broken into those people's home he wouldn't have gotten hurt.
I see this sort of trash going on more and more in the liberal courts these days. Right is wrong and wrong is right, seems to be law now.
In Louisiana, we have the legal right carry a fire arm on our hip. Loaded. We have a shoot to kill law if we are being threatened. Even if someone leaves their car and comes at you then you have the right to tell them to stay put. If they don't then you have the right to shoot them, even if you don't have a witness. You still have to goto court. But these types of cases are usually closed.
If you believe that gun control is good then do you have a gun? If you goto purchase a gun you have to be finger printed and have a background check done on you. If a criminal goes to buy a gun he usually doesn't goto the local gun shop. he buys it off the street blackmarket. Usually stolen weapons. What good does gun control do for this sort of person?
Where do you suppose all this is going when states all over America are suddenly telling its citizens to arm themselves? What do you think they're telling them to arm themselves with? Paintball guns? Why are they telling them to arm themselves? Just for the fun of it? No. These stupid twisted laws that came into being after the 60's messed up everything. Now we're getting more and more central thinking people in office. Take the law into my own hands? Sure ... if there's no police around to protect me.
Last week, I think it was in Arkansas that a 70 old woman called 911 to report an intruder in her house and she was hiding behind her bed with a rifle speaking to the 911 operator saying how scared she was and can someone please come to her rescue. She was afraid she was going to die, as she heard the intruder comming up the stairs. The 911 tape was played on FOX ( which I usually cant stomach watching) and as you listen to her breathing heavily into the phone, trying to stay quiet, the 911 operator stopped talking too, as she was horrifyingly riveted to what might be about to happen. Just then, the old woman whispers into the phone that the intruder is about to come into the bedroom. ( this is at approx. 1:00 am) Then she whispers, voice shaking, that she doesnt want to kill him..and she starts praying into the phone over and over. Just then, you hear a loud "bang" and intruder dead.
Turns out the guy had been released from prison a couple months previous. He had done 15 years or so of a 25 year sentence for rape and murder.
Sadly, those stories are becomming more and more frequent. Happily, the bad guy got exactly what he deserved.
And, speaking of FOX, whatever happened to the good ole days when you could actually watch the news and what you got.........was news?
I dont have a problem listening to someones political diatribes, ( freinds, bar aquantances, ect.) but it sure would be nice to be able to turn on CNN or FOX or MSNBC and get news as opposed to non stop political gamemenship. (" your guys are A-Holes"....."No, your guys are A-Holes") God love us Independants...."you're all A-Holes!!!"
Quote:
@swanman
The Inadequacies of your legal system are well known to most I suspect, but that in itself doesn't give anyone carte blanche to sidestep the law as it stands. The way to change it is to campaign for change. That's how the law evolves.
My 'diatribe' as you put it doesnt preclude the use of force and if you read it you would see that i'm not against self defence or even a pre-emptive strike in the case of being held captive and having to witness the extreme violence you mention. In an instance like that it would take a very hard-hearted jury or an extremely cynical and skilfull defence lawyer to successfully argue against mitigating circumstances.
Im only against the kind of indiscriminate use of force that can happen say when an intruder is making his escape having caused no physical harm or the kind of response that says any tresspass on one's property or home, armed or otherwise is grounds for killing someone. Is that so difficult a concept to take on board?
That's not pious equivocation, its called making a valid distinction
Regards
Alan
Nahhh! That's not making a valid distinction. That's just letting a thief get away. I say if he steals from you then you have the right to take him out. Oh give him/her a chance to halt and put the stuff down, then leave. But to just let a person steal your stuff? That's just plain idiodic to me. First of all, if a person broke into your house, that means he/she most likely broke a window or kicked the door in. That means he damaged your property. I'm one of those who believes in God's law. Read Deuteronomy 19.
Quote:
He came back on the phone, told the 911 operator that he had just killed the thief in his NEIGHBORS yard.
Turns out the thief was wanted for rape, murder, assault and burglary.
Not quite, Bob. I know this is a simple music forum but lets quote the actual story, I followed this one closely too. You have it essentially right but here's the Wiki article about this: Wikipedia Note there were two guys, they were both illegals, they both had rap sheets and one had been deported but no rape or murder. Still, bad guys for sure. They did cross over onto Horn's property, he was watching them through his window or screen door and when he saw them come into his front yard, that's when he went out and shot them. I heard the 911 tape myself and the transcript presented in the Wiki sounds right to me. There is a "use deadly force to protect property law" in Texas as opposed to most states where deadly force is only allowed to protect life, not property. I thought this case was excessive and he should have been charged but that didn't happen. Horn has a large yard and he was watching them from inside his house with a shotgun. If they had turned and walked towards his house, different story but to go outside and shoot two people in the back who's only crime against him personally is trespassing? That's murder in my opinion. After he went outside, then the guys acted in a way that Horn felt in danger but he's the one who went outside and started the confrontation in the first place against the express opinion of the 911 operator. Common sense would tell anyone to stay inside but carefully watch those two.
I'm not afraid to shoot someone in self defense and certainly if they're in my house but this would be too much for my conscience. Even if I lived in Texas I couldn't do that but that's me.
Bob
Top story in our internet version of a newspaper is the DC cop who pulled his gun on kids having a snowball fight. Lots of kids. I'd have to start re-thinking my snow fort building skills if some one was going for a gun. Kevlar. He felt threatened. Kids in snow suits would be some easy shooting.
We were brought up that the only moving thing we could pitch snow balls at was the buses. And never the delivery horses, my bother threw a nice piece of horse## at the milkwagon horse when he was 5 and got a red backside. I still say that was a step up from eating it which he did for about a year....We kept the best pieces to use a hockey pucks.
Oh and the guys on other side of the pond might know this, but the cops in the US all have guns, not just staff sargents who keep it in the boot in a case with a lock. I think the even take the thing home, which is illegal here.
I am going to carry a gun (22 rifle) on Thursday night as we are having xmas eve and a few days in the cabin. No one will be within 20 miles or so, and there are lots of wolves. The rest of the family get long sharpened sticks, about 8 feet long. Leave here at noon so it will be dark when we get there around midnight. Should be able to shoot some partridge for lunch too. But no cell phone service, no power, no tv, and no fox news. (not that I watch it, we know they are organizing an invasion though).
Cultural differences....they do exist eh?
jazzmmamal
I stand corrected. There were 2 guys. My memory is getting fuzzy in my old age. I didn't follow the story, just heard about it a couple of times on the news.
I wouldn't have done what he did either, since it was his neighbors house, not his. But if it were my own home or family, then an intruder has picked a bad place to intrude.
I actually believe there would far less break ins and assaults if the crooks knew that the people inside were armed. Kind of like a playground bully, he won't pick on you if he knows you'll fight back. Here in WV, most homes have at least one gun. That's one of the reasons break ins with people at home are so rare. The last one I remember hearing about was 2 punks who broke in on a little old lady who lived alone because they thought she would be easy pickins'. Bad choice. She killed one and sent the other one running with a couple of slugs in him. After he got treated at the hospital, he got to enjoy the hospitality at the state pen.
Most of the other shootings here are drug related and many involve drug dealers from Detroit or Columbus coming here to sell their poison. These are far too common. And we also have our own homegrown meth heads who cook up their poison in a trailer up a hollow and violence goes hand in hand with that.
But as a rule, the ones who have to worry about getting shot by the good old boys are the deer! Not the general public.
And changing subjects, I hardly ever watch the news anymore since most of it is so depressing and ALL of the news networks have an agenda. Thing is, they always have had an agenda. But years ago there were so few news outlets and they all were in lockstep so it came down to which anchor you liked the best and the public bought the agenda because everyone said the same thing.
But if there's something major going on, then I go to Fox because at least I know I'm not going to be getting anti-American garbage.
Bob
Fox is a joke. A sick joke. I removed them from my TV-remote years ago.
Prolly got a tingle up yer leg, too...
Quote:
Prolly got a tingle up yer leg, too...
You mean down my leg - like I'm incontinent?
How'd you know?
My doctor must be spreading it around. Think I'll shoot that sumbitch!
HappyT,
Quote:
Fox is a joke. A sick joke. I removed them from my TV-remote years ago.
LOL. I'm not suprised we disagree on Fox News. I like them because they will come down on politicians on both sides of the aisle. They hammered Bush as much as they do Obama. If you were watching them, you'd know that. And yes they do lean to the conservative side. Just as the other networks lean to the left. Everyone has an agenda.
But that's one of the great things about America. Our forefathers tried really hard to set up a country where it's okay to disagree with each other and even with the government itself! That's part of what freedom is.
So God bless ya' man. Merry Christmas.
Bob 
Good point, flatpicker......sort of...;)
Glen Beck and Sean Hannity make millions of bucks a year hammering Obama relentlessly.It's, literally, all they do. A couple of "Rush lites".
When either of these guys have critisized Bush and or his administration, it's always been with a firm "but" attached to it along with the requisit
blame placed on the liberal left in the senate or congress. I mean, Obama hadn't even so much as sat down in the chair in the white house and these two" chucle-heads" were rippin him a new butthole. And when Bush and his cronies were making bad decisions after bad decisions, these clowns were rationalizing and enabling them every step of the way. I mean, 8 years of watching the country nose dive and do nothing but let it get worse and worse till we're at the edge of a total economic meltdown. Well; he did start the "TARP" thing.
But it's always the same "Republican Mantra" of......"well...just lower taxes and all will be well" Right..............;)
Obama and his administration are actually doing things for improvement. Being a pro-active goverment is sometimes neccesary.....especially after what Bush & co. had a huge hand in doing to this country.
But hey; these are the best of times for Beck and Hannity. Look at there paystubs. No wonder they're such Bush slappys.
Quote:
HappyT,
Quote:
Fox is a joke. A sick joke. I removed them from my TV-remote years ago.
LOL. I'm not suprised we disagree on Fox News. I like them because they will come down on politicians on both sides of the aisle. They hammered Bush as much as they do Obama. If you were watching them, you'd know that. And yes they do lean to the conservative side. Just as the other networks lean to the left. Everyone has an agenda.
But that's one of the great things about America. Our forefathers tried really hard to set up a country where it's okay to disagree with each other and even with the government itself! That's part of what freedom is.
So God bless ya' man. Merry Christmas.
Bob
Great thing about modern TVs. I can erase what I don't like to see, and you can do likewise.
What do Beck, Hannity, O'reilly, Rush Limbaugh, Obama and Bill Clinton have in common?
None served a single day in the military.
Swanman,
Quote:
Good point, flatpicker......sort of...;)
Glen Beck and Sean Hannity make millions of bucks a year hammering Obama relentlessly.It's, literally, all they do. A couple of "Rush lites".
No way I'm gettin' into a political debate!
Just to clarify, all of the "news" networks have a part of the day devoted to "news" and a part of it devoted to commentary, (pundits who mouth off their opinions). Beck, O'Rielly, Hannity and Greta van whatshername are NOT news. Larry King, Nancy Grace and others on CNN are NOT news. Chris Matthews and his fellow pundits on MSNBC are NOT news.
I don't watch any of these blowhards because I can come up with my opinions without being told what I should think.
Obama should be hammered by these Fox pundits because ALL of the other networks make him out to be the "Messiah". Worshipping the president is a really dangerous thing. Our freedom is way more important than the occupant in the white house, especially if he's a socialist, and there's NO legitimate argument that Obama's not a socialist. It's not even debatable. Not my opinion, just plain fact.
So we need somebody like Fox to counterbalance the "hero worship" that Chris Matthews and the others have for Obama. As I said before, I don't watch any of them, but if I want news I'll watch Fox when the blowhards aren't on. And if I want to hear what the Obama administration says is news, I'll watch CNN, MSNBC, NBC, ABC or CBS. I never want to hear a word out of Obama's mouth.
Ever!
But more than likely, I'll have to ignore him for 2 terms. More time for me to play with BIAB.
Merry Christmas Swanny! Hope you have a good one.
Bob
A journalist is supposed to bring you the facts. Not his/her or the network's political or ideological view. They're supposed to....
Just this evening a young documentary-maker said: "I'm not a journalist, I just let people from both sides tell their story. The viewer has to determine for himself what the truth is."
Go figure....
Yes, we all are lead to believe certain things. Yes, all politicians have their own agenda. And please stop the global warming! We are up to our neck in snow. Here, where a white Christmas only appears when h*ll freezes over!
HappyT,
Aren't you going to wish me a Merry Christmas? Come on, you can do it.
LOL
Bob
Most of the blowhards don't claim to be journalists, because they're not.
Trouble is, most of the so called journalists aren't jounalists either. They are pundits who try to pass themselves off as newspeople.
Just like the global warming myth that has been shoved down our throats. It's just another lie to advance a group of peoples agenda to get power, money and control over people's lives. The earth has always been getting warmer, then colder, warmer, then colder. It always will.
Bob
No big deal flatster but, in all candor, you're reciting the "republican mantra" verbatum, man.
I dont care what people say: he's by far the most intelligent and articulate prez we've had in my lifetime. And i think its pretty cool.
Plus; he smokes ( like me) drinks bud lite ( like you, no doubt;) plays b-ball every day ( like alot of guys)..and his wife , as smart as he is, might be smarter.
The only people I've seen or heard who go around clamoring that he's " The Messiah" are the da-hoosh bags" ( coughing) on FOX, man. cmon..lol...
Maybe because Bush was so incredibly inarticulate and clueless that Obama seems so "all that".
I dunno, man. All i know is thank God there's another team in there now cause the other team was getting so beat down by there own inabilty to manage the country that it actually got scary. So lets give the guy a fair shot. Rip him after 4 years but lets see what happens before we draw conclusions after a year. He couldnt have picked a worse possible time to be president, either; with the mess he's been left to clean up thanks to FOXS' team of good ole boys....( Rumsfelf, Chaney, Bush..ect.;)
One last parting shot: They called FDR a socialist. Think he did a pretty damn good job, dont you?
And, inasmuch as I cant stand "slick willie) , they called him a socialist too and he presided over the strongest economic boon this country has ever seen. Who knows: maybe I'll have healthcare when all is said and done. ( havnt had it for 2 years now...to expensive
I have never watched Fox news. But they make the news here all the time, because they talk about invading the commie nation to the north and that makes our news. None of think that will ever happen, but if it did it would turn into the grand-daddy of all wars, I cannot think of many countries who wouldn't turn up to help.
I cannot fathom the lack of health care. More is spent per capita in the US. I'd be broke and dead or both without it, so much crap is wrong. I cannot imagine having a gall bladder go south and having to die over it, or becoming destitute. I don't view that as socialist, it's a human rights issue in my book.
I refuse to get into American presidents arguments, I know so little about politics south of the border, but I did find it cool that any small town can have a parade, and the politicians pay to be in it and they give the money to bands to play. I swear 70 percent of that parade I was in every year in Romeo MI was politicians. Here the mayor expects a convertible to ride up front and maybe 2 others will be in the parade, and were 400,000 compared to what 15k in Romeo, and that parade was twice as big.
To bad the closed the border up so tight we canceled all 9 American parades, somedays it took 2 to 3 hours of trying to get past the M16's and that was less time than it used to take to go over spend some cash and come back. More Canadians are going to Cuba now than go to the US. Over 1 million will visit this year alone. 3 direct flights a day from my city, and 2.5 hours and you are on a beach. I wanted to rent a car in Miami and for the wife and I the cost of the flights and car rental was 2,000 for 2 weeks. no food, no lodging, no drinks. Two weeks all inclusive to Varadero was 900 each.
Here's hoping everyone has a nice holiday, and stays well. I'm probably making my last 2 mile hike on snowshoes into the cabin for christmas, although getting off the paved streets, sidewalks and hard surfaces seems to make my feet and legs feel way better.
I used to hang out here all the time...one of the main contributors on the old forum.
I had forgotten why I rarely check in any more.
After reading this thread, I now remember.
It's not the forum, cress, just the occasional discussion that turns toxic. Almost always when it turns political, though.
R.
Quote:
I used to hang out here all the time...one of the main contributors on the old forum.
I had forgotten why I rarely check in any more.
After reading this thread, I now remember.
What?? This is one thread out of dozens in the off topic forum where people are talking about their equipment, their latest recordings, new software, all kinds of interesting stuff. Wow, I hope you're not this narrow minded with other things in your life.
If you don't like this thread ignore it and read the ones that interest you.
Bob
Swanny,
Ryzard seems to think our conversation has became toxic.
Quote:
It's not the forum, cress, just the occasional discussion that turns toxic. Almost always when it turns political, though.
R.
Personally, I don't think it has became toxic. But I don't drink Bud Light. It's Bud Select for me! LOL.
I'm also a smoker,(like you and Obama), I no longer have health insurance since I lost my job a few months ago. Therefore I can relate to you not having any insurance.
So what's your opinion? Toxic or non-toxic? Good natured discussion and ribbing between cyber friends or heated debate ?
Your thoughts please.
Bob
P.S. By the way, if you're ever in my neck of the woods in WV, beers are on me. Maybe we could even pick a few tunes.
I dont see it as "toxic. But, like anyone else, he's entitled to his opinion. Our culture is all about agreeing to disagree periodically.Or a bit more than periodically. Hey, any government that has at its core a huge mix of lawyers making policy that effects all of us ( the wolrd too on occasion) is a bit scary. Think we can all agree on that.
Generally, it doesnt bother me who critizises our governentment as long as it's fair and reasonably accurate. What I find "toxic" is people unfairly critizising the American citizens themselves. On this site it's predictably the same usual suspects. Usually amounts to a envy, IMO. But hey: that's only my opinion.
Merry christmas....;)
Quoting Swanman
Quote:
I dont see it as "toxic. But, like anyone else, he's entitled to his opinion. Our culture is all about agreeing to disagree periodically.Or a bit more than periodically. Hey, any government that has at its core a huge mix of lawyers making policy that effects all of us ( the wolrd too on occasion) is a bit scary. Think we can all agree on that.
Generally, it doesnt bother me who critizises our governentment as long as it's fair and reasonably accurate. What I find "toxic" is people unfairly critizising the American citizens themselves. On this site it's predictably the same usual suspects. Usually amounts to a envy, IMO. But hey: that's only my opinion. Merry christmas....;)
I'm with you 100% Swanman.
I hope 2010 brings ALL of us better fortunes than 2009 has.
By the way, that offer of the "beers are on me" doesn't have an expiration date. Just send me a PM and I'll bring two guitars so we can pick a few tunes.
Merry Christmas to you Swanny and to all of the PG family.
Bob
Hey, nice to see you guys are still friends. I don't think it's gotten "toxic" here at all, and most people seem to be agreement as to how to treat unwanted guests anyway. As far as America bashing goes most comments were against the administration(s) and not the citizens. I think that is pretty standard the world over. What makes us Europeans nervous is that when things go as wrong as they have done in America (Banks, Bush..etc) things can get dangerous. Your "socialists" by the way would still be classed as right wing in most European countries, so go easy on them, they haven't done at all bad.
I don't think threads like this do any harm, and I am surprised it went as far as it did. A positive side effect is that I have got to know some of you much better than a standard introduction would have allowed.
Those news items were a bit of a surprise to me as I have not lived in England for about thirty years, and back then that would not have happened. So the world has become a crazy place, but it is also what you make it.
I'm not a churchgoer, and for me Christmas is just a few days off, but I do subscribe to "Peace on Earth to all men (and women)" and a few other ethics, as I guess most of us do.
The "non toxic" level of this thread is a compliment to all of you. Merry Christmas.
Chris
I really haven't seen much of politics here, to be honest. It's kind of refreshing to see ONE thread which discusses a 'NEW DAWN', so to speak. What a messy one! LOL!
Anyway, I think there's more social chatter going on about music than anything else here in these parts. Nuttin' wrong with that, IMHO.
Happy Holidays!
Mike
Quote:
Nahhh! That's not making a valid distinction. That's just letting a thief get away. I say if he steals from you then you have the right to take him out. Oh give him/her a chance to halt and put the stuff down, then leave. But to just let a person steal your stuff? That's just plain idiodic to me. First of all, if a person broke into your house, that means he/she most likely broke a window or kicked the door in. That means he damaged your property. I'm one of those who believes in God's law. Read Deuteronomy 19.
Yeah well maybe you should read the 6th commandment, 'thou shalt not kill' . Or why not try Jesus,.. 'Let he who is without sin cast the first stone". Aren't you supposed to believe in that?
Do you really need to 'take him out'? just because he steals your stuff? I'd think again about that one if I were you. Is damaging your property grounds for taking his life ? I can't believe your pastor would approve or your God for that matter, but hey what do I know?. I'm just a 'commie- loving' non-American who's obviously motivated only by hatred and jealousy of how great America is. It couldn't possibly be the case that any non-American could have something valid to contribute to this debate, could it?
Regards
Alan
Isn't Scotland in Ohio? I did here once there was one somewhere off the beaten path somewhere near the North Atlantic...........oh well....no matter.............;)
err..."hear"....( ahh...Jack Daniels...;)
AlanS. said:"
Yeah well maybe you should read the 6th commandment, 'thou shalt not kill' . Or why not try Jesus,.. 'Let he who is without sin cast the first stone". Aren't you supposed to believe in that?Yup. Absolutely. I've not killed a single person in my life so far. I also keep that 6th commandment in the forfront of my mind. But let's not twist the scriptures. There were a whole ton of commandements before the 10. Remember? Moses smashed those plates on the rocks. Then he had a bunch of people killed.
AlanS. said:
Do you really need to 'take him out'? just because he steals your stuff? I'd think again about that one if I were you. Is damaging your property grounds for taking his life ?Only if he don't stop when I tell him to. I'll also fire a warning shot so now he has a choice. Either stop or ... ya know.
Ya see, American politicians have gotten soft on the law. They've changed it from law to a silly words and money game. Slap the drug dealer on the back of the hand, take all the money they can find from him, then turn him back out. The ones that have no money goto prison.
Well, Merry Christmas everyone. Hope it's the best for ya'll there ever was. And don't worry Alan. I promise not to shoot Santa Claus.
Merry Christmas Sinbad,
Quote:
Hey, nice to see you guys are still friends.
Swanman and I have had a few conversations on the PG forum and most of the time we've been in agreement. Just because we disagree about news channels or presidents doesn't mean that we can't be cyber friends. We've never met, but if we did I'd bet that we would slam a few beers and play a few tunes.
We all need to to get past the thinking that if we disagree, then we can't be friends.
That's what humanity is all about! We all are different. That's okay! Actually it's good. The world would be a really boring place if we were all the same.
We just need to accept each other and at times, we agree to disagree. It doesn't mean that we don't treat each other with respect.
So "Merry Christmas to all, and to all a good night".
Bob
Passes Picker a bag of coal.............;)
LOL Swanman,
A bag of coal is much better than a lump of coal. You could keep yourself warm on a cold lonely night with a whole bag!
Bob
Alan,
I don't understand this comment.
Quote:
American culture is still completely caught up with its frontier myths of summary justice and rights gun ownership and this complicates the matter by tacitly encouraging vigillante style reactions that bypass the legal process and the rule of law. If America truly feels that the right to kill any person that intrudes on ones property whatever the circumstances or level of personal threat, then why does your legal system not reflect this? Could it be because the majority of people in the states actually feel this would be wrong?
I am a gun owner, I have a concealed carry weapons permit. That legally allows me to carry my pistol in certain locations concealed. It is not 007, a license to kill. There is NO right to kill a person intruding on your property. However, the laws of the land ALLOW you to defend yourself, and not only in your home or property. If I am carrying my weapon, something I do very rarely, and I am put in a position where I feel my life is in jeopardy, then I am, at least in my state, allowed to use deadly force to protect myself. After the incident, it MAY be for a jury to decide whether or not I made the correct decision at the time.
In the case of Mr. Hussein, the judge ordered him to jail, but it does not indicate that he was tried by a jury of his peers. Since I do not understand the British legal system, nor make any claims to it, was there a jury trial, and was he found guilty by that jury? If so, then the judge acted correctly. If not, then the judge, and the British legal system, is acting a judge, jury and executioner in this matter. It is simply the judge's opinion.
As to the final question in your statement, the upswing of gun ownership and purchases, and the feeling of needing to protect yourself in the last 15 months has been incredible. In our county, which is a highly Democratic, highly liberal, very left leaning area, the number of gun purchases and permits to carry have increased by hundreds of percent.
This story was published in September, 2008
http://www.seattlepi.com/local/377385_gunpermits02.html
In the time since then, and I can't find the article now, the number of carry permits issued in our county has quadrupled...or more, over last year. Earlier this year, there were over 10,000 requests for permits.
So, I believe that we are seeing a renaissance, in the United States, for fear of being a crime victim, and also out of fear of those minority who are so loud, that would remove our Constitutional right to bear arms, where the number of people who will legally own and carry weapons is increasing.
Gary
Russ,
My definition of 'Gun Control'
Hitting what I aimed at! Repeatedly!
Gary
Alan,
Quote:
Yeah well maybe you should read the 6th commandment, 'thou shalt not kill' . Or why not try Jesus,.. 'Let he who is without sin cast the first stone". Aren't you supposed to believe in that?
Actually, that is a mistranslation. It should read 'Thou shall not do murder.' Quite a difference. As to Jesus' comment, the Pharasses that he was addressing were attempting to stone a prostitute, whom they were claiming should be stoned for her sins. In fact, she *was* in violation of the law, but it was also known to Jesus that the sins of these Pharissees (sp) would prevent them from stoning her, they were as guilty as she was.
Gary
Quote:
Russ,
My definition of 'Gun Control'
Hitting what I aimed at! Repeatedly!
Gary
LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!! That is right on TARGET!!!
Gary,
I find it sad that people should feel so unsafe that they feel they must carry weapons, concealed or not. Although as you point out you don't carry it all the time, it still amazes me. In Europe this is unheard of. If as you say gun ownership is on the rise, then some questions as to how a society can spiral out of control like that are allowed. Is it a real threat or are you being bombarded with newsreels 24 hours a day in a sort of brainwashing? All one sees on TV these days is violence either real or acted. I'm not saying that TV and film are the root cause of violence, but they play a major role in spreading its acceptance. In a country of over 200 million there are bound to be some evil people around, so could it be that the threat is out of proportion?
Unfortunately in Europe the trend toward more violence is becoming apparent with the influx of immigrants from Eastern European countries. Maybe it is because they were recently at war with each other, but the level of violence in some of the Balkan and ex-Russian nationals is quite discerning. I doubt whether Europeans will arm themselves as Americans do because we don't have a tradition of carrying guns. Mind you I can't speak for the next generation. I must admit I wouldn't feel safe anywhere if I thought that the guy on the next table had a gun.
Maybe the world has gone mad.
I fear more in the big city than I do in the dark forest ..
My commentary for better or worse:
The simplest solution is almost inward knowledge or common sense.
You must destroy the source which perpetuates this TOTAL unfairness, that which causes it to linger.
In this case (and many others) this source is most likely the lawyers who thrive on the miseries of others. And they are "excused" from all judgement. The judges who play god, are even worse.
What other profession can you work at, and get paid whether you win or lose, or whether you are defending a innocent victem or serial killer.
Not all lawyers fall under this category, but you know the ones I mean.
And of course the ultimate scum are the polititians who make laws which cause fear and frustration, not justice, among the public. Can anyone remember how many of these laws passed were by people they voted for? I can't. It seems like once the polititians enters the "royal kingdom", they forget all promises to the people who voted for them.
With that fear, comes control, ... and they are doing well ... they are doing very well.
And probably most important regarding disintegration of the fabric of society, are the media moguls. The media has historically been gaining strength in controlling our polititians (and consequently any laws they pass).
see this link for more info on this.
http://freedocumentaries.org/int.php?filmID=87We bitch and complain and in many cases our tax dollars pay their salary, and yet we live in fear of a country with no justice. I remember years ago some friends of mine were in the Peace Corps in the Ukraine. They told me that the people had a choice of mail delivery... either through the government mail system or through the ukraine "mafia" mail system, ... both were equally bad and corrupt. This is more often than not found in third world countries who are extremely in dept .... oh I forgot, .. we are one of them ...
If i have offended anyone who fall into any of these categories .... all i can say is ... get used to it.
Sinbad,
Quote:
I find it sad that people should feel so unsafe that they feel they must carry weapons, concealed or not. Although as you point out you don't carry it all the time, it still amazes me. In Europe this is unheard of. If as you say gun ownership is on the rise, then some questions as to how a society can spiral out of control like that are allowed.
Whether you want to acknowledge it or not, the criminals are going to have guns. Therefore it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that the more law abiding citizens that have guns there are, the safer they are from the criminal element.
The last apartment I lived in with my son was so bad after dark that when my son came home at night, he would call ahead and I meet him outside to escort him into the apartment. And yes I was armed.
I also have a conceal and carry permit, but I rarely carry it, but if I know I'm going to be in a high crime area it will be with me.
Most American police will tell you that it's (unfortunately) your responsibility to protect yourself, and it's their responsibility to capture and prosecute the criminals after you've became a victim. I'd rather not be a victim.
And for your info, it's not the people with conceal and carry permits who are commiting gun crimes. The number of gun crimes commtied by these people is almost statistically %0.
If you want to read a related story, google info about a Texas congresswoman who did have a conceal and carry permit. She was meeting her parents at MacDonalds for lunch. She left her gun in the console of her car. An armed lunatic with an illegally obtained weapon came in and started killing people. Her parents were killed right in front of her eyes. She still regrets to this day that her parents, (and a lot of other people), might still be alive if she had kept her gun in her purse. I think he was killed by a citizen, but it may have been the cops. She's now a very strong advocate for our second ammendment rights and encourages law abiding citizens to get conceal and carry permits.
Stop judging a society that you clearly don't understand.
Bob
I got the restuarant wrong. It was Luby's. Couple of other details too. Story below.
Quote:
On October 16, 1991, Hennard drove his 1987 Ford Ranger pickup truck through the front window of a Luby's Cafeteria at 1705 East Central Texas Expressway in Killeen, yelled "This is what Bell County has done to me!", then opened fire on the restaurant's patrons and staff with a Glock 17 pistol and later a Ruger P89. He stalked, shot, and killed 23 people while wounding another 20 before committing suicide. About 80 people were in the restaurant at the time. The first victim was local veterinarian Dr. Michael Griffith, who ran up to the driver's side of the pickup truck to offer assistance after the truck came through the window. During the shooting, Hennard approached Suzanna Gratia Hupp and her parents. Hupp had actually brought a handgun to the Luby's Cafeteria that day but had left it in her vehicle because laws in force at the time forbade citizens from carrying firearms. According to her later testimony in favor of Missouri's HB-1720 bill and in general, after she realized that her firearm was not in her purse but "a hundred feet away in [her] car," her father charged at Hennard in an attempt to subdue him but was gunned down; a short time later, Hupp's mother was also shot and killed. Hupp later expressed regret for abiding by the law in question by leaving her firearm in her car rather than keeping it on her person. One patron, Tommy Vaughn, threw himself through a plate-glass window to allow others to escape. Hennard allowed a mother and her four-year-old child to leave. He reloaded several times and still had ammunition remaining when he committed suicide by shooting himself in the head after being cornered and wounded by police. [1][2][3]
[edit] Victims
Fatalities from this shooting included:
Name Age Home
Patricia Brawn Carney 57 Belton, Texas
Jimmie Eugene Caruthers 48 Austin, Texas
Kriemhild A. Davis 62 Killeen, Texas
Lt. Col. Steven Charles Dody 43 Fort Hood, Texas
Al Gratia 71 Copperas Cove, Texas
Ursula Edith Marie Gratia 67 Copperas Cove, Texas
Debra Ann Gray 33 Copperas Cove, Texas
Dr. Michael Edward Griffith 48 Copperas Cove, Texas
Venice Ellen Henehan 70 Metz, Missouri
Clodine Delphia Humphrey 63 Marlin, Texas
Sylvia Mathilde King 30 Marlin, Texas
Zona Mae Lynn 45 Marlin, Texas
Connie Dean Peterson 55 Austin, Texas
Ruth Marie Pujol 36 Copperas Cove, Texas
Su-zann Neal Rashott 30 San Antonio, Texas
John Raymond Romero Jr 33 Copperas Cove, Texas
Thomas Earl Simmons 55 Killeen, Texas
Glen Arval Spivey 44 Harker Heights, Texas
Nancy Faye Stansbury 44 Harker Heights, Texas
Olgica Andonovsk Taylor 45 Waco, Texas
James Walter Welsh 75 Waco, Texas
Lula Belle Welsh 64 Waco, Texas
Iva Juanita Williams 64 Temple, Texas
[edit] Consequences
Reacting to the massacre,[4] in 1995 the Texas Legislature passed a shall-issue gun law, which requires that all qualifying applicants be issued a Concealed Handgun License (Texas's required permit to carry concealed weapons), removing the personal discretion of the issuing authority to deny such licenses. The law had been campaigned for by Suzanna Hupp, who was present at the Luby's massacre where both of her parents were shot and killed. Hupp later expressed sadness for abiding by the law in question by leaving her firearm in her car rather than keeping it on her person.[5] Hupp testified across the country in support of concealed-handgun laws, and was elected to the Texas House of Representatives in 1996.[6] The law was signed by then-Governor George W. Bush and became part of a broad movement to allow U.S. citizens to carry concealed firearms.[7]
Alan & Sinbad,
Read the list of the deceased. It also doesn't include the 20 who were wounded.
I wonder if the two of you could look these families in the eye and tell them you don't think any of the law abiding citizens there that day should have been armed.
Bob
Quote:
Gary,
I find it sad that people should feel so unsafe that they feel they must carry weapons, concealed or not. Although as you point out you don't carry it all the time, it still amazes me.
I'll handle this a little bit at a time. When I lived on the east coast, outside of Philadelphia, I was assaulted three times, once at knifepoint. One of the other times was a gang of young men and a dog (German Shepard) who attempted to rob me. I have had my car broken into, my home broken into, and suffered financial loss from crimes. That was before I purchased my first gun. Living in the Pacific Northwest now, a liberal Democrat bastion of 'let people do what they want' I have not been robbed or assaulted, however, my parents home was broken into and many things stolen. I know a young man who was shot outside of a bar over a simple game of pool, where the perpetrator demanded his money back, and then went to his car, retrieved an illegal gun, and proceeded to shoot this step son of a friend of mine. In Seattle, in the area around University of Washington, there are a group of people referred to as 'Ave Rats', and they are a criminal element who often are homeless, on drugs, or otherwise criminal. They assaulted a roommate of my boss's son for NO APPARENT REASON, other than he was 'just there.'
So, within my own life, and those who touch my life, there is a definite need for some sort of protection. When asked why he carried a gun, a pro gun carry individual replied 'Because I can't carry a cop!' This is unfortunate. I live in an area where over the past five years, we are seeing an increase in all sorts of crimes. Statistics show this. Of course, statistics can be made to show anything, but it's hard to not show an increase in crime.
Quote:
In Europe this is unheard of. If as you say gun ownership is on the rise, then some questions as to how a society can spiral out of control like that are allowed. Is it a real threat or are you being bombarded with newsreels 24 hours a day in a sort of brainwashing? All one sees on TV these days is violence either real or acted. I'm not saying that TV and film are the root cause of violence, but they play a major role in spreading its acceptance. In a country of over 200 million there are bound to be some evil people around, so could it be that the threat is out of proportion?
While I will agree that in Europe, people don't carry guns, it is because of the laws that restrict it. How does the crime rate look like in the EU? Over here, two reports were released, one by the Brady Organization, which is vehemently anti gun. That report ranked the 50 states in order of their 'gun control' posture. The second report came from a law enforcement agency ranking the violent crime statistics by state. Unsurprisingly, those states that the Brady organization listed as having the most restrictive gun control also topped the list of the states with the most violent crime. In fact, the states with the lowest Brady rankings, meaning that they supported gun owners and gun rights, also had the lowest violent crime rates.
Quote:
Unfortunately in Europe the trend toward more violence is becoming apparent with the influx of immigrants from Eastern European countries. Maybe it is because they were recently at war with each other, but the level of violence in some of the Balkan and ex-Russian nationals is quite discerning. I doubt whether Europeans will arm themselves as Americans do because we don't have a tradition of carrying guns. Mind you I can't speak for the next generation. I must admit I wouldn't feel safe anywhere if I thought that the guy on the next table had a gun.
Maybe the world has gone mad.
The world went mad a long time ago. If the guy at the table next to you DID have a gun, it is doubtful that you would even know it. Gun owners and people who carry guns do not have a big neon sign over their head that says 'Gun Owner.' Nor do they look any different than any one else. They may be a little more perceptive of what is going on around them, especially in an area known for crime.
Every month I get a magazine from the National Rifle Association, and in that magazine is a section called the Armed Citizen. They detail a few situations each month where someone used a weapon to defend themselves, families or property from a criminal. Most of this is often a home break in, and often the criminal is armed in some form or another. Just simple, every day people who have decided that they would not be a victim.
One of the biggest stories over here recently was a teen who was beaten, and eventually died, by other teens. He was beaten by a baseball bat. Two things to say about that. Number one, if he had been over 21, and been carrying a pistol, he could have defended himself, and possibly the attackers would have died. Of course, if that *had* happened, then all the anti gun nuts would be going crazy that a person used a gun and killed teenagers. Since this violent and horrific killing, there has been no call or cry for a National Bat Registration, no call for people to have police checks before they can purchase a bat, no chants for Bat Control legislation, no one calling for Bats to be only on approved and controlled baseball fields.
Secondly, if there had been an armed citizen, someone there who was carrying a concealed weapon, that person could have been a hero, and saved that teens life. No one was.
Crime happens. It happens too often. It happens everywhere. People are sent to jail, but instead of paying for the crime in a manner which befits the crime, they are sentenced, and then eventually let go due to 'prison overpopulation' or 'we think he'll be okay.' or they aren't even sent to jail at all. So many of the criminals are repeat offenders who have been released from prison, or never sent to prison. If you are sent to prison, there is a very good reason for it. Even those individuals on Death Row, something that some people find 'inhumane' (tell that to the family of the victims, usually, and they'll laugh at the concept) have multiple avenues of appeal, and often are 20 or more years before sentencing is carried out, if at all.
When you mean what you say, and say what you mean, and provide the actions to follow up, people believe you. When you say something, and then don't do anything about it, it just leaves you as a wimp, and those predatory individuals eat wimps for lunch. Unfortunately, in our country, we have too many wimps in our legislature and justice systems.
Does this shed any kind of light?
Gary
Gary,
Very well spoken.
Here in WV, we probably have one of the highest percentage rates of gun ownership in the USA. We also have one of the lowest violent crime rates in the nation.
The vast majority of our violent crimes invlove drugs. Break in's are rare, especially if the homeowners are at home.
I guess the criminals don't like the idea of staring down a 12ga. shotgun or a .357 magnum. Those are 2 good reasons to mind your own business and leave other people and their families and property alone.
Bob
And here we have a good example of the *French military practicing to protect themselves from an invader:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-8MEVVU3bxMAnd do you know how many gears a French tank has? It's only got 1 speed in forward. But it has 6 speeds in reverse!
Good thing for Europe that us gun toting Americans are always there to bail them out when the going gets tough! Maybe if they allowed their citizens to own guns, they might actually be able to use them instead of having to call on us "redneck cowboys" to save their a**es.
LOL.
Bob
*Actually it's French-Canadian infantry using a French made anti-tank missle.
Quote:
Good thing for Europe that us gun toting Americans are always there to bail them out when the going gets tough! Maybe if they allowed their citizens to own guns, they might actually be able to use them instead of having to call on us "redneck cowboys" to save their a**es.
LOL.
Not something America is likely to be called on to do again thankfully. Besides if the US forces all have heads as big as yours seems to be there wouldn't be enough space over here to accommodate them.
Its doubtful if America's war effort was primarily for Europe's benefit anyway seeing as you only enetered it after Pearl Harbour. Apart from that how would a fascist victory in Europe have helped the America to achieve its aims of commercial dominance throughout the Western World? Thats something that could only be achieved if America could make Europe safe for its markets, its multinational corporations and its cultural products.
America as always has its own agenda for joiningand perpetrating wars; always has done.
in fact as far as the 'going getting tough' is concerned, one of the biggest threats to world peace since the second world war is America's desire to extend its sphere of economic cultural and political control far beyond its own borders. If America hadn't spent so much time backing right wing dictators like Saddam Hussein, General Pinochet and any amount of tinpot fascists around the globe simply because America could do business with them there might not be the kind of resentment that breeds conflict and instability in the first instance.
Regards
Alan
Alan,
I knew that with just a little bit of "coaching", you'd let loose with both barrels and show your anti-American hatred in all of it's glory!
Thanks for cooperating!
LOL.
Bob
Its not hatred, it just a statement of fact as to how America, or rather the people you invest your trust in to govern, operate. Why do you assume i hate all Amercans? I love lots of things that have come out of America and i like the people (most of them I have met ) as individuals. I find them warm-hearted funny and full of life. i do not hate Americans...so lets knock that one on the head! If I had i would hardly have gone half way across the world to marry one of them. LOL
You see its one thing to pass comment on american foreign policy and criticse it and another thing entirely to say one 'hates' America. I wish America and indeed Britain and other western nations would wake up and stop letting a powerful elite set their own self-interested agenda and indoctrinate their poulations with the kind of unthinking patriotism that sees any criticism as hatred.
Regards
Alan
Come to think of it ..if you really did say something deliberately inflammatory just to get me back on the thread so you and others could indulge in a bit of gloating and foreigner-baiting that doesn't say much for you I'm afraid. Its almost a microcosm of how American foreign policy operates. Do something to incite and provoke a response then try and crush it as a perceived attack on the nation.
Regards
Alan
Alan,
The only thing I said that was "deliberately inflammatory" was the video joke about the French rocket launcher. And it was just a joke.
Maybe you don't have a sense of humor, so I guess you didn't get it.
When it comes to critisizing our government, leave that us. Believe me, I, and millions of other Americans do it every day.
But we really don't like hearing it from across the pond. Especially when you're using the "imperialistic" cliches.
Anytime anyone in the entire world needs help, who do they turn to? The USA. And we always help. And our hands that are "feeding", (aka helping), the world are constantly getting bitten by the very mouths being fed.
So instead of focusing your hatred on the greatest and most generous nation on the planet, have ever heard of North Korea, Iran, China or Venezuela? Cuba maybe? Some of the many tyranical regimes in Africa?
If you used your misplaced ill will toward America and focused it on the other countries that are treating their own people like dirt, maybe someone over here would actually listen to it.
Bob
Alan,
By the way, we are getting off track from the original thread of the right to self defense, and in America, the right to "keep and bear arms".
You never did mention whether you would be able to look into the eyes of the families of the victims of the masacre in Texas and tell them that no private citizen should have had the right and ability to have protected their loved ones that day. What about the lady who obeyed the law and left her gun in the car, only to see her family murdered? If she had brought it in and taken down the gunman, saved her parents and many other people, would you have called for her head for breaking the law that was current at the time?
Or is your hypocrisy so deep seated that you won't take a stance on this?
Bob
My hypocracy? Thats rich. The situation you describe is partly the making of the gun laws and the society we live in anyway. The second is the refusal of western Countries in general and America in particular to be honest about underlying causes of crime or tackle directly them directly . You constanly vote for low taxation governments that put social programs, adequate policing bottom of the heap in terms of priority because you're indoctrinated with a concept of freedom that says its every man for himself, that 'big' government is basically a bad thing. And the free access to guns works both ways. How are you to tell whether legally acquired guns don't eventually get used for illegal purposes.?
I can look these people in the eye and say they have a right to be protected. Sure i can. Of course people given the situation as it stands will feel justified in using guns to protect themselves in cases like the one you mention and my sympathies are with them. You've misunderstood me completely on this.
I return to my original point about degree of provocation, and i dont see whats wrong in defending yourself or your family in extreme danger in this way if there is no other alternative. Its just that i dont believe any improvements in the long term will come about with gun laws the way they are and with the kind of mindset that leaves people to fend for themselves. The thing is that unless you get real about the need for collective provision in your country and taxation to fund change and address the social side of the crime equation you will never get to the bottom of it.
Regards
Alan
Alan,
Quote:
I return to my original point about degree of provocation, and i dont see whats wrong in defending yourself or your family in extreme danger in this way if there is no other alternative.
How are going to do that Alan if you don't have a gun? You say it's okay to defend yourself with a gun in "extreme danger". But you also say the general public shouldn't have guns. The criminals will always have guns!
There's the hypocrisy!!!!!!!!!!!!
Bob
Also Alan,
Quote:
You constanly vote for low taxation governments that put social programs, adequate policing bottom of the heap in terms of priority because you're indoctrinated with a concept of freedom that says its every man for himself, that 'big' government is basically a bad thing.
If you think our taxes are "low" in America, then you're more misinformed than I originally thought.
Yes I am indoctrinated with the concept of freedom! That's what my forefathers fought and died for!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
And in case you glossed over my previous statement about several cops telling me that it was up to each individual to protect themselves, let me relate one more story.
My ex-girlfriend lived in another state and had a stalker. I couldn't be there to protect her. The cops told her to get a gun,(SC), and blow the guy away if he came through the door. When we then met with a judge in his chambers. He asked me if I had a gun I could loan her. I said yes. Her gave her the same advice.
Maybe being self sufficient is a foriegn concept to you, but it is not to those of us who are proud to call the USA our home. Maybe you want the government to post a cop at every door?
Maybe you aren't man enough to stand up for yourself and your family? Do you need Big Brother to do it for you?
Would you really wait for "extreme danger" before trying to protect your wife?
I really hope you're not, nor do I think, that you are an example of the average Scottish man. If you were, Scotland would have ceased to exist long ago!
Bob
All i'm saying is that In the situation as it stands poeple will do what they have to do in the absence of adequate enforcement. The question is what is being done about that? Is there an aim to do away with a gun owning culture by trying to make policing better, to spend more on education create a fairer safer society or is there just a resignation about the whole thing?
It might be naive to expect much to be done about it given America's lack of propensity for collective provision of anything far less making its streets safe but it's not hypocritical to say thats whats needed. It's hypocritical to say you're concerned about crime and then merely say that nothing needs to be done about it except ensure that everyone has access to guns. As if somehow that will be enough.
My point is that you seems to be extolling gun ownership as something that prevents crime, almost as an ideal. I dont see it that way. If youre as concerned about crime you say you area then you'll take on board my point about the underlying issues.
This is my last word on this as its late here (4.30am!!) and i dont think we're going to have much more to say to each other, so entrenched are your views on gun ownership and America's 'greatness'.
Regards
Alan
Goodnight Alan,
It's late here too. (12:10AM).
I'm not advocating a soft on crime stance. Quite the opposite actually.
The government needs to come down HARD on crime, especially violent crime. They also need to protect and uphold our 2nd ammendment rights to "keep and bear arms" and the right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness".
Any criminal who is taken out while breaking in to someone's home, violating a child or a woman, stealing an old woman's welfare check, murdering, raping, kidnapping, etc., will never do that again if a citizen that's in danger gives him a one way ticket off this earth!
If you'll notice, I haven't said anything bad about your country. I have no reason to. And you have no reason or right to run this country down. When you run down America, you are running down Americans. If you ever move here and start paying taxes, voting and taking part in our system of government, then you have the right to run it down all you want.
Until then, please keep your offensive remarks on the other side of the pond.
Bob
Alan,
May I please address some of your points;
Quote:
Adequate enforcement and better policing
Most Americans are for the above, however we don't want, nor will we tolerate living in a police state. The police are corrupt enough without us handing over even more power to them. And even the good and corrupt ones will tell you they can't protect everyone.
Quote:
Is there an aim to do away with a gun owning culture?
There is vocal minority that is trying to do just that. They are going against the very constitution that this country is based upon. The second ammendment is key to the freedoms we enjoy. That's why gun and ammunition sales are at an all time high. The American public will never allow that to happen.
Quote:
Spend more on education
I don't think there's any country in the world that spends as much on education as the USA. We actually spend more on education in OTHER countries than many of these countries spend on their own people.
Quote:
Collective provision
Lets' see. Unemployment, welfare, food stamps, WIC, Medicare, Medicaid, public housing, Social Security, and the list goes on. Every effort is being made to care for the needy in this country and others by the USA. Hell, we even provide most of these services to illegal immigrants! For the most part, crime isn't commited by the needy. It's done by people who choose this way of life, or by people who are inherently evil.
Crime has to be addressed by the police AND the general public. It's cooperation between the 2 that will reduce crime in our individual neighborhoods.
Quote:
America's greatness
The USA is great! To deny this is to deny history, past and present.
I hope someday that you have as much pride in your country as I have in my own. Don't put my country down and I won't put yours down.
Take care and good luck Alan,
Bob
Allan:
I'm sure you're a good guy and all, but isnt it kind of asinine to question the motives of a country that, without her help, an entire continent would've been summarily run over by Germany? A simple " thanks" would've been nice. I'm a Vet so yeah; It's a touchy subject for me.
Kristen: sadly, I agree with almost everything you said.
Hey Swanny,
I think I've told you this before, but I thank you and all of the other vets who've served our country.
If it wasn't for people like you, my dad, my brothers, my uncles and both of my grandfathers, then we wouldn't be able to sit around and freely talk about our views of anything without worrying about whether Big Brother was scrutinizing our every word.
Alan doesn't seem to realize that he owes this country a debt he can never repay. What America did gives him the freedom to sit in Scotland and pass judgement on this country and everything it stands for. The least he could do is show gratitude to the vets of this country for saving his country from being under the thumb of the Nazi's.
World War II would have been lost without America. All of the other countries would have fallen in short order.
Bob
Citaat:
Alan,
I knew that with just a little bit of "coaching", you'd let loose with both barrels and show your anti-American hatred in all of it's glory!
Citaat:
Good thing for Europe that us gun toting Americans are always there to bail them out when the going gets tough! Maybe if they allowed their citizens to own guns, they might actually be able to use them instead of having to call on us "redneck cowboys" to save their a**es.
LOL.
Bob
Ehm, let me get this straight: Someone making a critical remark towards the USA's political histoty is called an anti-American and that is therefor a bad person.
An American making remarks that are anti-everything-non-American is plain right?
Thanks for clearing that up for me 
A part of the issue with the US is the desire to keep our freedoms and privacy. It is considered a right over here. We do not want cameras on every corner and a cop at every door. Some of us would feel we were being watched and oppressed, and may not trust the organization in charge of the cameras and cops anyway. There are other aspects of freedom that come into play that we do not want to compromise for the 'safety'. To some, this sort of 'safety' is confining and restricting, and freedoms have more value. We should not have to compromise freedom for safety, that is how too many countries start down the road to losing all freedom.
I know - if you are not doing anything wrong, then the cameras shouldn't matter.. but its a 'feeling' we would have to adjust to living with. Besides, the 'bad guys' have already figured out how to disable the cameras when they need to, so its a false security.
Crime in this country is more developed and violent than in many places. When gangs get into an area things become much more dicey as there is no respect for others, only members. While working in construction in Chicago I had the opportunity to spend a lot of time with a few 'ex- gang-bangers' that worked construction at the time. I learned a lot about how they view society. You would think that it would be easy to round these guys up, since they will stand on corners and flash signs announcing their gang membership, but alas we have laws about it not being a crime to belong to an organization..
These ex-gang guys told me that if there is a gun or a big dog in the house, the house will probably be left alone... they don't want to get injured they just want to steal and abuse..
I also had a situation in Chicago, just before I moved out to the woods here, where my home and family were protected by just the sound of my 12 gauge being pumped as a group of 'young men' snuck up on my front porch. They left quickly and never returned. It was not their first time visiting that day. They had thrown a smoke bomb into my living room, narrowly missing my 3 day old child about an hour before. (BTW the police never showed up that night after we called).
I was told (by those same co-workers) this was done to check my reaction and get a feel for how I would respond... and the fact that I had gone out alone to see who had done it let them know I was the only male there. The coworkers told me these guys would likely return so I put the large well trained dog in the back yard and the shotgun near the front door. I guess they got a pretty good idea of how I would respond when they did return. Never heard from them again.
So I would say firearms are a pretty good deterrant, even when not used.
What we need is to keep the criminals off the street once they are caught, that is where we most often fail. And if people would be more responsible when they do see crime, instead of turning away... many turn away out of fear, but that cycle needs to be broken. The fear would lessen if more people stood up to stop the crimes in the first place.
Don't want vigilantes, just citizens with a conscience.. the fear is that if someone said 'Joe broke into the pharmacy' that word would get back to Joe before it got to the police... and that is a genuine fear these days.
Mike,
I hopes this "clears up" things for you.
1. I didn't say Alan was a bad person.
2. Nowhere did I say that I'm "anti-everything-non-American".
3. I'm sick and tired of the anti-American rhetoric, regardless of where it comes from. You've got a right to say it. I've got a right to be offended by it.
Bob
Bob,
Often when this sort of discussion is going on here, the words "Anti-American" are written down as a reaction on a poster that was criticising USA gouverment policy. It seems like no non-USA citizen is allowed to disagree with or critisize any USA-related subject without being called a USA-hater.
In the your post that I quoted you degraded Europe to a todler that needs to be babysit by the USA. This may come as a suprise to you, but that is very insulting!
Now, back to the original topic (sort of)
Where I live gun-ownership is rare: Only people who practice sportshooting and have at least been a shootingclub member for a year can apply for a permit to have a gun at home. The gun must be stored in a gun safe. Ammo and gun are to be kept seperate. Only semi-automatic weopons are allowed.
I do not have nor do I feel the need have a gun in my house.
If I lived in the USA I might feel different about that. As a matter of fact: reading the posts by some forummembers I defenatly would have a Glock under my pillow!
So, it all boils down to situations. What's the right thing to do in one location/situation doesn't have to work for another place/situaion.
Good story,rharv.
No big deal, but just wanted to say that most of the folks who disaggree on various topics around here are good, well intentioned people, IMHO. Maybe because the USA has such a high profile and everyone seems to have an idea of what goes on here that we get critisized the way we do. It's understandable and reasonable. Perhaps if we here in the USA knew anything about small contries like Scotlad, Austria, ect. , we could level some constructive critisizm your way and not have to feel like it's so one sided. lol....but the 24/7 news cycle here is pretty insular....unless something catostrophic happens somewhere else, we're not gonna know about it, generally speaking.
Mike,
I guess part of the problem for me is that the USA is the only government that gets critisized around here. And it's almost always Europeans doing it.
Find a new target for your criticism! We're tired of it.
Bob
Mike,
And if you ever move here, don't put a Glock under your pillow. Put a Smith & Wesson revolver under there.
It never jams and there's no safety to slow you down.
Bob
Woow! Please show me the post(s) where I criticised the USA. As far as I know on this forum I have allways kept myself from getting into politics.
Yes, I did point out that some people jump to conclusions very quick and/or feel offended far to easy. And you are right that people all over the world have all kinds of opinions about the USA. Here in Europe we watch the USA, keep track of the main political issues and the finacial situation. We also watch the rest of Europe, and the rest of the world for that matter. If one tries to place himself into another persons situation, one might understand from which angle that person's looking at certain things. This way one can understand why that person would think and act a certain way. And one can place all into perpective.
Now back to my opening: show me the offending posts where I critisized the USA.
As far as choise of weapon: the Glock holds more ammo, is quicker to reload and has a quick-aim. Just aim and hit.
I would like to add some more fuel to the inferno.
What was is was, and what is is. The world may owe us a debt of gratitude for what was done 60 years ago, or 50, or even 40 years ago, depending on where you are. They may also, while not willing to admit it, owe us something for what we continue to do today, even if they don't agree with it.
However, too many times I've seen 'the ugly American' both here and abroad raise their heads and shame our country and what we stand for, just by their attitude. How can people from other countries act when we have people who are plain jackasses? Our government is often times no better. Shit falls down, not up, although it may rise up from the underlying current or content below it. So, we can have it in our country, and at our top levels of government, and Democrat or Republican, conservative or liberal, I think we can safely say that over the past 20 years, we've had a lot of shit at the top of the heap. Last time I checked, it isn't any cleaner.
We aren't the great country we once were. Our 'Bread and Circus' form of welfare has guaranteed that. Someone stated earlier that we do help the needy, meaning the low income. Yup, we do. And often time that help is into a comfortable chair where that person or family stays, working the system because it's easy. We DO see crime, and lots of it, coming from these type of people. Been there, done that, thank God I'm gone. Not that I was ever a criminal, but I was low income, working my butt off to make something of myself, but I lived around and with these people, and I saw first hand how much crime is associated with welfare. When that is reported on the news, it's hard to think about how great we once were.
I wonder what percentage of European people would go to work and not lock their homes, and what percentage of Americans would do the same.
I make no claim that Europeans are better than Americans, or Americans are better than anyone else, even if it so seems to come across that way.
On the other hand, for over the last 100 years, it seems that the U.S. has been the big brother, world police officer, and breadbasket for the needy. So, I also would wonder what might happen if the United States stopped doing the things we've done for so long, protecting others, offering aid and humanitarian relief. I wonder what it would be like if we stopped providing arms to countries that we are allied with, or even convienently associated with. At the beginning of World War II, most of the United States felt that it was a 'European' problem and to leave us out of it. Of course, those in Washington knew better, and provided all sort of help, from 'Lend/Lease' to actual military intervention before we were 'officially' in the war. Imagine what that would be today, if we adopted that policy.
I get a little antsy at the rhetoric that spews forth Anti-Americanisms, but then again, some of them are very well deserved, and I can't blame someone for calling them like they see them, especially when they're true. I just wish my own countrymen would get their heads out of their asses and look around them, and look at the impending doom.
In 1977, I attended a teaching in Virginia Beach, Va., taught by what I considered to be the most educated man in the Bible and God's Word at that time, and he told us that things that had happened in the previous two years had already launched this country over the cliff, and that we would not recover from it before we crashed. For thirty years since, I have continued to watch our country careen out control, toppling end over end as we plunge ever faster and faster towards the rocks below. When it will all happen, I do not know, but that it will, I have no doubt.
At that point, I wonder what the world will do.
Gary
Mike,
Depending on how many targets you have, a S&W revolver, in the right caliber, will do as much, or more damage, than a Glock, especially in 9mm. Personally, I like .357 Magnum. However, my choice is my reliable 1911A1 .45. If you're in a situation where you need to reload, and you're inside your house, you're already dead.
Gary
Citaat:
I wonder what percentage of European people would go to work and not lock their homes, and what percentage of Americans would do the same.
I think you'll find no difference. Going to work without locking your home: BAD idea. (unless you're into Russian Roulette)
Citaat:
I make no claim that Europeans are better than Americans, or Americans are better than anyone else, even if it so seems to come across that way.
Gary
That's why they invented the Olympic Games and all sorts of World Cups. The person on the top step wearing the gold medal is the best. peroid. That is, untill the next tournament.
Mike,
When I said "find a new target for your criticism", I wasn't directing that at you personally. It was directed toward all of the anti-Amercican garbage I've read here over the years.
So I offer my apologies to you for making it seem as if I was talking about you. I can't think of a single instance where you were one of the America bashers. Poor wording on my part.
Now, as far as the choice of guns go, all semi-automatics jam at one one time or another. I own revolvers, semi's, shotguns and rifles.
IMHO, a revolver is the best choice to keep under your pillow. It will always fire when you pull the trigger.
Take care Mike,
Bob
Gary,
Quote:
For thirty years since, I have continued to watch our country careen out control, toppling end over end as we plunge ever faster and faster towards the rocks below. When it will all happen, I do not know, but that it will, I have no doubt.
At that point, I wonder what the world will do.
Gary
If it happens, what the world will do then Gary, is blame America for having the audacity to crash and burn. Who will help them then? Who will be the first on the scene after a natural disaster? Who will offer billions in aid to Africa to fight aids? Which ally will step forward when they are attacked? Who will spend billions in their countries to feed the hungry? Where will the billions of tax dollars from hard working Americans be?
It will all be our fault...........according to the world. Their "breadbasket" will be gone.
Bob
Bob,
It's all good. I guess I jumped up too quickly. Should've read better.
Back to guns: I guess I've gotta do some targetpractice with a revolver then. Never fired one of those yet.
Quote:
...Which ally will step forward when they are attacked?..
Bob
Well, as I see it we Brits have always stepped up to the bar when asked to do so. We’re losing a soldier a day doing so at this very moment in the Middle East. Thanks friend, so much for the special relationship...
I haven't been taking part in this forum for a long while now precisely because of the massive anti-anything-not-American vitriol that gets spewed forth at the drop of a hat. If a post so much as whiffs of criticism of the US, out come the Bubbas, all guns blazing. Free speech? Nah, not when anyone takes the slightest issue with the US for something. What is it with you guys and the Europeans anyway? You're a huge hybrid race of Europeans and Africans anyway, so why the hatred for your roots?
Personally, I don't lump a whole country's population in with their governments, now that would be crazy. And I don't make assumptions about all forum members because of the tetchiness of a minority: I'm just put off from the sheer aggression on show sometimes. My brother in law is American and our families had a great time at our home on Christmas Day, even discussing politics with no over-sensitivity on anyone’s part or either of us perceiving our nations’ fundamental values had been 'got at’.
I've always had a soft spot for the US. I'm an avid student of US history and have immense admiration for the early pioneers and the grit at the heart of US culture. I've been on many visits and always loved the welcome and hospitality I experience. Nothing will change that in me.
I hold the same warmth for my many long-standing US friends on this forum. I just wish some forum members wouldn't take the odd note of criticism as a full-on, all-out attack on the fundamental ethos of the US as a country, responding with barely-disguised rage. Over the last few decades some folks in the US seems to have a developed an alarming “they're out to get us, the ungrateful swines” psyche. I'm puzzled as to the origin of this.
Music brought us all together, let’s stay together. A Happy and Peaceful New Year to all.
I’ll maybe drop by again at some time in the future.
Wishing a happy and peaceful New Year to you too Skyline.
I hope I wasn't one who came across as vindictive. My post was meant to explain that we have plenty of problems, and the gun issue is not the problem, (sometimes it is the solution). That seemed to have become the focus of the thread. Without knowing how things are here it is easy to assume.
you said-
" some folks in the US seems to have a developed an alarming “they're out to get us, the ungrateful swines” psyche. I'm puzzled as to the origin of this."
The US has plenty of problems right now, but we are trying to get thru them .. I personally wish we would focus more on our own problems as opposed to the world's.
Right here in Detroit they attempted to take another shot at us over the weekend with another plane. I can almost understand why people get defensive. Seems like we are a target a lot of the time. Maybe its like that everywhere, but its fairly new to us, being attacked like that.
Well spoken, Skyline.
Like i said above, the only thing truely that irritates me ( and let me assure you, every red blooded american) is questioning the motives of a country joining the Europian conflict .( and sacrificing almost a half a million men) To us, it sounds unbeleiveably ungrateful. If i misunderstood the guy then my bad. But if that's an attitude that is pervassive throughout your society, then that is abjectly mystifying to us.
I've never been to England but a couple of buddies have. One said he felt like he was constantly being condesended to by the folks there. The other said the folks were incredibly polite and accomodating. I'm sure if we were all sitting down at a table having a beer talking about this stuff, we'd realize that we are much more alike with each other than not. But it's easy to misconstrue folks' intent when you cant look them in the eye and hear the tenor in there voice or inflection. That's probably why folks fron both sides of the pond are so quick to snap to judgement. I'm as guilty as anyone of you guys in that regaurd.So, for that; I do appologize.
Happy New Years...:)
Of course,after a few beers and being half Irish, I'd have to kick your brit candy ass. But then I'd help you up, by you another beer and tell you how much I love ya.
Quote:
...and i dont see whats wrong in defending yourself or your family in extreme danger in this way if there is no other alternative.
Defend themselves with what, Alan? In your world that would be a cell phone so the cops show up in 10 minutes if you're lucky? Maybe you're a wannabe UFC fighter so you're going to go up against two armed thugs hand to hand?
Drug smugglers have proven time and time again that anything the criminals want can and will get into any country including whatever guns they need.
Again, defend themselves with what??
Bob
How come the same people who believe so much in the right to bear arms never seemto understand that church and state are supposed to be separate. I guess it's Constitution-a-la-carte for them.
Trails,
I own guns, and have no problem with the idea of separation of church and state. But, since every coin the U.S. produces says 'In God We Trust', and the reason for moving here in the first place was to practice religious freedom, I think that we need to go back and see what 'separation of Church and State' really means.
In fact, what it truly means is that no Church or religious body shall be in a position of government. So, the local diocese of the Catholic Church is not going to be in the halls of Congress setting forth legislation. Of course, we all know that even religious organizations have political action committees, adherent followers, and outspoken lay people who will attempt to influence legislation and legislators, just as any other organization.
However, the concept was that the Church would not hold sway over the governing agencies, other religions, or such.
Things like prayers in school, the Ten Commandments being displayed in a court house, or other such trivial items are not what the First Article of the Constitution intended.
Gary
.
>>>...the only thing truely that irritates me ( and let me assure you, every red blooded american) is questioning the
motives...>>>
Speak for yourself, Swanman. You do not speak for me, and, last time I checked, you had not been elected to speak for the majority of Americans.
.
Quote:
Gary,
Very well spoken.
Here in WV, we probably have one of the highest percentage rates of gun ownership in the USA. We also have one of the lowest violent crime rates in the nation.
The vast majority of our violent crimes invlove drugs. Break in's are rare, especially if the homeowners are at home.
I guess the criminals don't like the idea of staring down a 12ga. shotgun or a .357 magnum. Those are 2 good reasons to mind your own business and leave other people and their families and property alone.
Bob
WV also has a very low rate of polar bear attacks.
Quote:
And here we have a good example of the *French military practicing to protect themselves from an invader:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-8MEVVU3bxM
And do you know how many gears a French tank has? It's only got 1 speed in forward. But it has 6 speeds in reverse!
Good thing for Europe that us gun toting Americans are always there to bail them out when the going gets tough! Maybe if they allowed their citizens to own guns, they might actually be able to use them instead of having to call on us "redneck cowboys" to save their a**es.
LOL.
Bob
*Actually it's French-Canadian infantry using a French made anti-tank missle.
120,000 French soldiers were killed fighting the Germans in the beginning of WWII. That's hardly a nation of cowards.
Quote:
Allan:
I'm sure you're a good guy and all, but isnt it kind of asinine to question the motives of a country that, without her help, an entire continent would've been summarily run over by Germany? A simple " thanks" would've been nice. I'm a Vet so yeah; It's a touchy subject for me.
Kristen: sadly, I agree with almost everything you said.
There was also the little matter of the Red Army. Half of the men in Russia were killed fighting Hitler. The Allies might have won anyway, but it would have taken years longer without the Russians.
The purpose of the modern US military is to protect the interests of huge multi-national corporations and their wealthy CEOs and investors.
Quote:
Quote:
Gary,
Very well spoken.
Here in WV, we probably have one of the highest percentage rates of gun ownership in the USA. We also have one of the lowest violent crime rates in the nation.
The vast majority of our violent crimes invlove drugs. Break in's are rare, especially if the homeowners are at home.
I guess the criminals don't like the idea of staring down a 12ga. shotgun or a .357 magnum. Those are 2 good reasons to mind your own business and leave other people and their families and property alone.
Bob
WV also has a very low rate of polar bear attacks.
And the North Pole and surrounding areas have a very low rate of break ins, assault, burglary, rape, or other violent crimes. Your point is?
Gary
I wonder if Trails, being adrift on his raft, far, far away from lan.... has also drifted away from reality?
France lost about 217,000 people in WWII, the U.S. lost about 417,000, the Japanese 2+ Million, the Chinese 2-3 million, the Germans over 5 million and the Soviets anywhere between 10 and 20 million people. However, the majority of the Soviet losses were in defense of their own country, and not until in 1945 did they move out of their country and into Germany.
Gary
Goodness gracious! You miss a few posts and there's so much to catch up on.
HappyT,
Quote:
Gary,
Very well spoken.
Here in WV, we probably have one of the highest percentage rates of gun ownership in the USA. We also have one of the lowest violent crime rates in the nation.
The vast majority of our violent crimes invlove drugs. Break in's are rare, especially if the homeowners are at home.
I guess the criminals don't like the idea of staring down a 12ga. shotgun or a .357 magnum. Those are 2 good reasons to mind your own business and leave other people and their families and property alone.
Bob
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
And a personal contribution from HappyT,
Quote:
WV also has a very low rate of polar bear attacks.
I would post a comment, but I've got to go outside and check for polar bears. It makes as much sense as what HappyT said!
If there is a polar bear, I have a "solution" in the closet.
Anyone up for a polar bear barbecue? Do you need a fuzzy new rug?
LOL.
Bob
Flatfoot,
Your bowtie tells everyone that you don't speak for the majority of Americans.
Bob
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Gary,
Very well spoken.
Here in WV, we probably have one of the highest percentage rates of gun ownership in the USA. We also have one of the lowest violent crime rates in the nation.
The vast majority of our violent crimes invlove drugs. Break in's are rare, especially if the homeowners are at home.
I guess the criminals don't like the idea of staring down a 12ga. shotgun or a .357 magnum. Those are 2 good reasons to mind your own business and leave other people and their families and property alone.
Bob
WV also has a very low rate of polar bear attacks.
And the North Pole and surrounding areas have a very low rate of break ins, assault, burglary, rape, or other violent crimes. Your point is?
Gary
Correlation does not imply causality.
Quote:
Flatfoot,
Your bowtie tells everyone that you don't speak for the majority of Americans.
Bob
No one speaks for the majority of Americans.
Some are just louder and speak more often.
Quote:
I wonder if Trails, being adrift on his raft, far, far away from lan.... has also drifted away from reality?
France lost about 217,000 people in WWII, the U.S. lost about 417,000, the Japanese 2+ Million, the Chinese 2-3 million, the Germans over 5 million and the Soviets anywhere between 10 and 20 million people. However, the majority of the Soviet losses were in defense of their own country, and not until in 1945 did they move out of their country and into Germany.
Gary
I agree with your numbers, but you don't have the number of German troops that were tied up fighting the Russians all those years. Those men were not available to fight us.
If Hitler had not been so foolish as to open up two fronts, he might have been able to keep a big chunk of western Europe, or at best, it would have taken us many more years to beat him. He might even have gotten the A-bomb first.
HappyTrails, (a.k.a., Unhappy-always negative-damn you for being happy-stay the hell off my-Trails),
I'm back from checking for polar bears now. I can't find any! I'm really disappointed because I wanted some barbeque P.B. and one of my Canadian friends wanted the pelt!
Anyway, your last post:
Quote:
I agree with your numbers, but you don't have the number of German troops that were tied up fighting the Russians all those years. Those men were not available to fight us.
If Hitler had not been so foolish as to open up two fronts, he might have been able to keep a big chunk of western Europe, or at best, it would have taken us many more years to beat him. He might even have gotten the A-bomb first.
It kind of sounds like that you think you could have helped lead Hitler to victory!
Whoa!!!!!!!!!!!!
Bob
Quote:
HappyTrails, (a.k.a., Unhappy-always negative-damn you for being happy-stay the hell off my-Trails),
I'm back from checking for polar bears now. I can't find any! I'm really disappointed because I wanted some barbeque P.B. and one of my Canadian friends wanted the pelt!
Anyway, your last post:
Quote:
I agree with your numbers, but you don't have the number of German troops that were tied up fighting the Russians all those years. Those men were not available to fight us.
If Hitler had not been so foolish as to open up two fronts, he might have been able to keep a big chunk of western Europe, or at best, it would have taken us many more years to beat him. He might even have gotten the A-bomb first.
It kind of sounds like that you think you could have helped lead Hitler to victory!
Whoa!!!!!!!!!!!!
Bob
And you sound like an ignorant redneck.
.
Quote:
Flatfoot, Your bowtie tells everyone that you don't speak for the majority of Americans. Bob
FF: I never claimed to do so. Not here, not now, not ever.
.
I find I must concur with HT to an extent here. There is no doubt that the entry of the US into WWII turned the tide, but as I have stated in this very forum a couple of years ago, they didn't do it on their own, and proportionally their losses weren't a patch on the Germans and Japanese.
I will not play the "What if" game, but had the US entered WWII much earlier, say 1939, things would have been very different. Would they have been better or worse? I don't know. Better I hope, but who can tell?
Better historians than any of us have studied WWII.
One thing is certain - Hitler and the Japs at that time were evil and good men stopped them.
HappyTrails, (a.k.a., Unhappy-always negative-damn you for being happy-stay the hell off my-Trails),
Quote:
And you sound like an ignorant redneck.
You only got it about 10% right.
I'm not ignorant.
Because of the state I live in, many consider all the people that live here to be rednecks. I guess that astronauts like Jon McBride, test pilots like Charles Elwood "Chuck" Yeager, country music's Kathy Mattea, Daniel Boone, Thomas "Stonewall"Jackson", Mary Lou Retton, Booker T. Washington, Jerry West and etc., etc., etc. would all, by that definition, be rednecks.
So I guess I'm in pretty good company. Therefore, you can boost that redneck percentage up another 10 points!
Since I like bluegrass and country music, let's add another 5 points to that.
So that means you're only 75% wrong. (I'm trying to help to help you out here, UnhappyT).
And in the spirit of the season, here's my gift to you:
http://www.thehappyguy.com/
You can even sign up for your "daily dose of happiness".
Let me know how it works out for you.
Happy New Year,
Bob 
Hey Flatfoot,
I don't speak for anyone but myself, nor am I trying to.
I hope you had a VERY Merry Christmas and I hope for God's blessing on you in the New Year.
Bob
HappyT,
In a previous thread based on a comedy clip about Tiger Woods, you went from assault, to murder, to making wife beating jokes, and finished off with threatening to put up pics of O.J. Simpson's wife with her throat cut. I asked at that time how you were going to "lower", (not top), yourself then, and I guess I now have my answer.
Here is HappyTrails comment on weinsam's "Merry Christmas" thread;
Quote:
Either God knew and allowed it, or He is not all powerful. Sorry, but you can't have it both ways.
Hard to accept that the God in the Bible is a baby-killer, but I guess you can interpret it any way you like.
He killed millions of innocent people in the old testament too - IF you believe in the bible.
I guess you finish off by saying that God is a "baby killer" and mass murderer.
Do you have any more witty and heartwarming things for us for the holiday season?
Please don't go any lower!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Bob 
Was speaking genrally, flatfoot. Makes my point about if folks were sitting at a table talking, things wouldn't be taken so flippin literally.
If youre on some street corner, flatfoot, and you're getting beaten by some guy to within an inch of your life and i come along and stop it; after i come see you in the hospitol after your 6 life saving surgeries, would you actually question my "motives" for saving yer ass? Cmon man...lol......thats all i mean.
And quick note: the Russians "were" a part of the allies.
Quote:
Better historians than any of us have studied WWII.
One thing is certain - Hitler and the Japs at that time were evil and good men stopped them.
Happy, I usually agree with a lot of what you say especially concerning religious hypocrisy and this quote is right on but what is this next one all about?
Quote:
The purpose of the modern US military is to protect the interests of huge multi-national corporations and their wealthy CEOs and investors.
How does your first quote reconcile with the second? Protecting the interests of wealthy corporations is right out of the far left lunatic fringe playbook. Any free country's economy is based on the average person working for a rich one either an individual or a large corporation, ergo what's good for the wealthy is generally good for the country, within reason of course. When you said "...their wealthy CEO's and investors" you're talking about yourself if you own any stock or mutual fund even if it's through your employer.
Defending the country by definition also means defending the means of producing products which means defending the economy which means defending wealthy corporations.
Without the wealthy we have squat including health care. Without them, there's no taxes so no federal government either. I'm sure you do know that something like 60% of all income taxes are paid by the wealthy, don't you? This is what I've never understood about the left trashing big corporations and the rich. They want bigger government to fund all kinds of things yet they want to kill the goose that's required to pay for it all. The economy IS the country, without a strong economy, there is nothing left to defend.
The thousands of bombing raids into Germany were mostly all about killing the German economy. The oil fields, the ball bearing factories, the dams, the shipyards, everything necessary for a strong economy.
Bob
Swanman,
If I was getting my ass kicked on a street corner, I'd be happy to see you come along.
LOL.
Bob
Swanman,
Quote:
And quick note: the Russians "were" a part of the allies.
I'm really glad that you said "were". I don't know how many people caught that. Oops. Maybe I should have been quiet!
Lol.
Bob