DEFENSELESSNESS = DANGER

Well, I would not trust your average 10 year old to be able to properly fire and handle the recoil
of any weapon in public, except maybe a .22 rifle while lying down.

I could just imagine kids walking around with .44 magnums
and sending bullets everywhere once they start squeezing the trigger

...no I think we're better off waiting for the cops to arrive than playing that scenario.

OmSigDAVID wrote:

I 'm getting to like u, Lyn.

A Lyn Fei wrote:

yet they are expected (by you) to be able to shoot well?

Yes; thay can be and have been very accurate,
with practice; even trick shots. Annie Oakley was 8,
when she started shooting and became a trick shot.

Some children develop more quickly, sure.
But the vast majority DON'T have the capacity to make moral,
justified, logical decisions on whom to vote for .

I was politically active when I was a kid, joining in Republican campaigns, as conservative as I was able to find.
I felt abused, cheated and screwed out of my natural democratic right to vote.
When I argued with voters (all of whom were adults) I very ofen found
that thay were profoundly ignorant of the available candidates, of the issues and of applicable history.

or when to shoot and when not to

I 'm not sure that its best to entangle voting and shooting so closely together, for optimal results.
Anyway, it can be much easier to decide about defensive shooting,
e.g., robbery, burglary, kidnapping etc.
Defensive shooting is usually rendered within a very short distance, around 5 feet, point blank range.
For instance, think of when an elderly couple were jogging in the woods
and the husband was set upon by a cougar.
His wife was beating the cougar with a stick.
It woud have been better if thay 'd been armed with guns.

But I do have a question for you.
Have you read the second amendment?
Because, when I actually bothered to read the thing word for word
I was surprised at how interpretive it really is.

The first time I read the 2nd Amendment, I was 9 years old.
While the teacher was teaching, I chanced to look in the back of the history book,
whereupon I found the Constitution of the United States.
I thawt: "THIS seems interesting."
It is short and I read it from the Preamble to the last amendment; (not in one sitting).

Here it is word for word:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,
the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed. "

To me this can say a number of things: one of which is that in order to protect the States rights outside
of the Federal Government, there should be State Militia, or Police, as we have. It does not say, in my interpretation,
that the INDIVIDUAL has the right to keep and bear arms.

In the case of US v. VERDUGO (199O) 11O S.Ct. 1O56
(at P. 1O61) the US Supreme Court declares that:

"The Second Amendment protects
'the right of the people to keep
and bear arms'".

THE SUPREME COURT THEN PROCEEDS TO DEFINE "THE PEOPLE" AS BEING THE
SAME PEOPLE WHO CAN VOTE TO ELECT THE US HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
EVERY SECOND YEAR. (Notably, one need not join the State Police
in order to vote for his congressman.) The Court further defined
"the people" to mean those people who have a right peaceably to
assemble [1st Amendment] and those who have the right to be free of
unreasonable searches and seizures [4th Amendment] in their persons
houses, papers and effects (personal rights, not rights of states,
as the authoritarian-collectivists allege of the 2nd Amendment).
THE COURT HELD THAT THE TERM "THE PEOPLE" MEANS THE SAME THING
EVERYWHERE THAT IT IS FOUND IN THE CONSTITUTION OF 1787, AND
EVERYWHERE THAT IT IS FOUND IN THE BILL OF RIGHTS.

In VERDUGO (supra), the Court indicated that the same people
are protected by the First, SECOND, Fourth, Ninth and Tenth Amendments;
i.e. THE PEOPLE who can speak n worship freely are THE PEOPLE who can keep and bear arms.
The Supreme Court re-affirmed this holding in D.C. v. HELLER 554 US 290; 128 S.Ct. 2783 (2008)

In the 1700s, there were NO police anywhere in the USA,
nor were there any in England, until the following century.
Police were popularly viewed as an instrument of despotism.
Each citizen was expected to defend himself.
Indeed, in Colonial times, it was against the law to go to Church
in an unarmed condition. It was considered irresponsible or indecent.
Apparently, thay 'd been losing too many Christians on the way to Church.

I'm sure to many, many people it does and it really doesn't matter because the point of my showing this
is that the law should fall somewhere in the middle.

Most respectfully, Lyn, I must dissent from that proposition, about falling in the middle.
Will u hire an accountant whose accuracy falls "somewhere in the middle" ?
Woud u use a surgeon whose known standards of cleanliness on-the-job are "somewhere in the middle"?
I don't think so.

It is the same for business law and health care.
Why it is ever such a problem to reach compromises between left and right is mind boggling.

Well, one of the reasons can be whether government has relevant jurisdiction or not.
(I don 't choose to discuss health care.)

My GOODNESS, u overestimate recoil.
5 years ago, after surgery I was too enfeebled to walk,
but I 'm 100% confident that I coud have easily fired off
all 9 rounds from my little .22 Taurus revolver; recoil is next to nothing.
.38 woud have been easy too.

With his father and a firearms instructor standing nearby, an 8-year-old Connecticut boy shot himself in the head with a submachine gun yesterday, killing himself in an accident some say should never have happened.

8-year-old shoots himself in the head at a Massachusetts gun show.Christopher Bizilj was testing a 9 mm Micro Uzi at the Westfield Sportsman's Club in Westfield, Mass., as part of the Machine Gun Shoot and Firearms Expo, when he shot himself Sunday.

"The firearm instructor prepped the weapon for him, and once it was ready he handed it to the child," Westfield Police Lt. Hipolito Nunez told ABCNews.com today. Christopher then pulled the trigger, and the gun's recoil pulled the barrel upward, causing a round to hit him on the right side of his head, according Nunez. He was pronounced dead a short time later at Baystate Medical Center in nearby Springfield.

Massachusetts law allows a child to fire a gun with parental consent, so long as there's an active permit for the gun and a licensed firearm instructor is supervising. It is unclear whether the gun had a permit or whether the instructor was licensed, but Nunez said Christopher's father was nearby

Don't get me wrong, Annie Oakley is a very good person for a girl to look up to, and she was an amazing shot.
This does not make every eight year old a good shot.
She was quite famous for being above the average.

Some children develop more quickly, sure.
But the vast majority DON'T have the capacity to make moral,
justified, logical decisions on whom to vote for .

I was politically active when I was a kid, joining in Republican campaigns, as conservative as I was able to find.
I felt abused, cheated and screwed out of my natural democratic right to vote.
When I argued with voters (all of whom were adults) I very ofen found
that thay were profoundly ignorant of the available candidates, of the issues and of applicable history.

I was also politically active as a kid. This does not mean I had a well rounded outlook of history and politics.

And I have gotten into some excellent debates with people such as yourself, and some useless debates with the uninformed. Adults are not necessarily informed voters; this is true. However, they do have a minimum of education and life experience which one can only hope has given them the tools to make informed decisions should they wish to use them.

One thing I believe you are forgetting is that we DO NOT live in a Democracy. We live in a Democratic Republic.

This is not a semantic issue, it is an issue of rights.

The reason our Founding Fathers did not create a Democracy is because they did not want the rash reaction of the masses to determine our countries course of action. Likewise, they did not want decisions to be made quickly or in favor of one side more than the other. And every decision should have the option of being overturned.

or when to shoot and when not to

I 'm not sure that its best to entangle voting and shooting so closely together, for optimal results.
Anyway, it can be much easier to decide about defensive shooting,
e.g., robbery, burglary, kidnapping etc.
Defensive shooting is usually rendered within a very short distance, around 5 feet, point blank range.
For instance, think of when an elderly couple were jogging in the woods
and the husband was set upon by a cougar.
His wife was beating the cougar with a stick.
It woud have been better if thay 'd been armed with guns.

Perhaps true not to entangle voting with shooting because of the difference in the type of decision making each requires. However, children walking around with guns STILL presents an emotional problem.

If I had a gun with me at the supermarket every time my parents decided I couldn't get a certain piece of candy, at the age of six, I might have threatened them with it.

Sincerely. I loved candy. Now that I am full grown and not a selfish child, I don't eat candy, and I know it is morally wrong to threaten someone. That took biological development which you have admitted holds importance here.

But I do have a question for you.
Have you read the second amendment?
Because, when I actually bothered to read the thing word for word
I was surprised at how interpretive it really is.

The first time I read the 2nd Amendment, I was 9 years old.
While the teacher was teaching, I chanced to look in the back of the history book,
whereupon I found the Constitution of the United States.
I thawt: "THIS seems interesting."
It is short and I read it from the Preamble to the last amendment; (not in one sitting).

Yes, I have read it all as well. Not at nine, admittedly. I give you much respect for that.

Here it is word for word:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,
the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed. "

To me this can say a number of things: one of which is that in order to protect the States rights outside
of the Federal Government, there should be State Militia, or Police, as we have. It does not say, in my interpretation,
that the INDIVIDUAL has the right to keep and bear arms.

In the case of US v. VERDUGO (199O) 11O S.Ct. 1O56
(at P. 1O61) the US Supreme Court declares that:

"The Second Amendment protects
'the right of the people to keep
and bear arms'".

THE SUPREME COURT THEN PROCEEDS TO DEFINE "THE PEOPLE" AS BEING THE
SAME PEOPLE WHO CAN VOTE TO ELECT THE US HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
EVERY SECOND YEAR. (Notably, one need not join the State Police
in order to vote for his congressman.) The Court further defined
"the people" to mean those people who have a right peaceably to
assemble [1st Amendment] and those who have the right to be free of
unreasonable searches and seizures [4th Amendment] in their persons
houses, papers and effects (personal rights, not rights of states,
as the authoritarian-collectivists allege of the 2nd Amendment).
THE COURT HELD THAT THE TERM "THE PEOPLE" MEANS THE SAME THING
EVERYWHERE THAT IT IS FOUND IN THE CONSTITUTION OF 1787, AND
EVERYWHERE THAT IT IS FOUND IN THE BILL OF RIGHTS.

In VERDUGO (supra), the Court indicated that the same people
are protected by the First, SECOND, Fourth, Ninth and Tenth Amendments;
i.e. THE PEOPLE who can speak n worship freely are THE PEOPLE who can keep and bear arms.
The Supreme Court re-affirmed this holding in D.C. v. HELLER 554 US 290; 128 S.Ct. 2783 (2008)

In the 1700s, there were NO police anywhere in the USA,
nor were there any in England, until the following century.
Police were popularly viewed as an instrument of despotism.
Each citizen was expected to defend himself.
Indeed, in Colonial times, it was against the law to go to Church
in an unarmed condition. It was considered irresponsible or indecent.
Apparently, thay 'd been losing too many Christians on the way to Church.

Citing Supreme Court cases might well legally prove that "the people" means each citizen protected by the constitution.
I will only say that Supreme Court decisions can be overturned
and obviously this case you have cited did not give everyone
their right to bear arms. Why do you believe that is?

I'm sure to many, many people it does and it really doesn't matter because the point of my showing this
is that the law should fall somewhere in the middle.

Most respectfully, Lyn, I must dissent from that proposition, about falling in the middle.
Will u hire an accountant whose accuracy falls "somewhere in the middle" ?
Woud u use a surgeon whose known standards of cleanliness on-the-job are "somewhere in the middle"?
I don't think so.

Of course, you are right: I would never settle for a mediocre doctor. I would settle for a centrist politician, however.
Mediocre and centrist are not the same thing.

I believe you and I are good examples of two people sitting on opposites sides of an issue who are well informed of the history and data relating to the topic. If we suddenly received the right to carry weapons around with us everywhere, this would appease you. If suddenly everyone was only allowed a weapon in their home, this would appease me. I fail to see how either results in the maximum appeasement for the maximum amount of people. That would not be a fair and juste America.

It is the same for business law and health care.
Why it is ever such a problem to reach compromises between left and right is mind boggling.

Well, one of the reasons can be whether government has relevant jurisdiction or not.
(I don 't choose to discuss health care.)

Absolutely a good idea not to muddle the debate with health care, though I'm absolutely sure I'd be interested in what your thoughts are on the matter. As far as business is concerned, I am a strong supporter of business. I am also a strong supporter of diversity and living well.

With much respect,
A Lyn

My GOODNESS, u overestimate recoil.
5 years ago, after surgery I was too enfeebled to walk,
but I 'm 100% confident that I coud have easily fired off
all 9 rounds from my little .22 Taurus revolver; recoil is next to nothing.
.38 woud have been easy too.

I've fired handguns, and I don't think most children could handle one,
if it's in a larger caliber. Make them legal for kids, and they'll all get daddy to go out and buy them a "big 'un".

Yea, you're right that recoil doesn't affect the first shot,
but when some little kid thinks a big bad "stranger" is coming after him
and pulls the revolver, you think he's gonna stop with one?

I support the individual right to bear arms, for adults.

Children need protection too, and that should be what parents are for.

In most states, minors can, at least with their parents' permission, use long guns,
but I don't see any reason why they should be out with handguns.

If they are going to help defend the home from attack, they can do this with a shotgun just as well.

U r telling us that children have NOT fallen victim to violent crime,
thay have NOT been violently killed, because their parents were there defending them.
Is that your position ?

I saw something horrible on TV (not fiction).
One of the worst things I 've heard of in my life; abhorent in the extreme:
a 7 year old boy went out riding his bike after dinner.
A pervert grabbed him and cut his throat; left him for dead,
after cutting off his sexual organ. The boy survived his wounds.

If it were within my power to change history,
I 'd prefer that the victim put a couple of .38 rounds into the pervert 's face.
(I think that woud slow him down.)

Correct me if I am rong; CORRECT ME, IF I AM RONG, but from reading your posts,
I infer that given a choice YOU'd prefer the scenario to lay out the way that it actually HAPPENED,
rather than MY preference. Right ???

In contrast, I choose the success of the VICTIM n the downfall of the predator.

Its easy to spit on someone ELSE's right to exist, huh?

Defending the home is OK, huh,
but defending his life or his wallet in the street, is no good ??

You have convinced me on several points.

Am I to conclude, however, that you are a lawyer?

Still, I do not believe gun rights should be given to persons of a certain age or ability.

I DO believe that no government should usurp power,
and therefore, see your point. I apologize for alluding to a specific personality flaw of mine
which is to hope that everyone who votes is well educated,
when you are correct in that this is not a requirement.

The emotional problem to which I was referring is the "gimme"
attitude of a five year old. When I was young, I had very little
sense of right and wrong and certainly no sense of mortality.
I never had grandparents or experienced death as many children do,
so perhaps I am an exception to the general norm.

But I really have an issue with one of your points. NO MATTER how safely you might try to teach gun etiquette,
putting a loaded weapon into a school will result in death and harm.

I do not believe that the overall outcome will outweigh the initial damage.

Also, I live in NY and am always looking for an excuse to dine finely.

As long as no one shoots me for my liberal beliefs. (Joke)

A Lyn

On Wednesday, October 6th, 2010
there will be a small dinner of the
Opulent Mensan Special Interest Group of New York Mensa.

Delight in the warm beauty and historical interest
of ONE IF BY LAND, TWO IF BY SEA at 17 Barrow St.,
a few feet east of 7th Avenue in lower Manhattan.

Its succulent Beef Wellington (baked to your taste) is hedonicly superb, altho
there is peril of addiction to the rapturous, sybaritic contentment thereby engendered.
Their menu offerings have been exceptionally savory & deeply satisfying, but
u may attain sprain of the brain from the pain of choosing
from among the multiply alluring menu offerings that woud seduce u
from the TRUE PATH that leads to the Beef Wellington; yield not your culinary virtue!

This restaurant was previously owned by Vice President Aaron Burr,
before he slew America's first Secretary of the Treasury, Alexander Hamilton on July 12, 1804.


Check the menu (note scroll bar, on the right)
on the designated link hereinafter set forth,
and those denizens of A2k who r interested, lemme know
so that I can give the restaurant an accurate count:

http://www.oneifbyland.com/menu9.html

No smoking; cash is preferred over credit cards; minimum 20% tip





David