OmSigDAVID wrote:
OmSigDAVID wrote:
OmSigDAVID wrote:
Federal appeals courts strikes down
California’s concealed weapons license rules
Associated Press
By Paul Elias
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — A divided federal appeals court has struck down
California’s concealed weapons rules, saying they violate
the Second Amendment right to bear arms.
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said that California is wrong
to require applicants to show good cause to receive a license
to carry a concealed weapon.
The court ruled that all law-abiding citizens
are entitled to carry concealed weapons
outside the home for self-defense purposes.
Frank Apisa wrote:A goal to be sought, yes.More guns in the hands of more people.
Frank Apisa wrote:YES; e.g., when some highway robbers took a pot shot at ME,So according to your way of thinking we should become even more peaceful
and polite than we already are!
thay assumed that I was un-armed,
witness the fact that thay proved their desire to be ELSEWHERE fast,
when my OWN gun came out. I heard a scream.
Criminals believe that it brings bad luck
when their victims shoot back.
Thay LIKE a monopoly of power during predatory events.
Supporters of gun control; i.e., victim disarmament,
have given it to them, as a subsidy of their calling.
Frank Apisa wrote:Yes; a good trend on that has begun already.Like I said...we are getting even more guns into the hands of even more people...so, using your reasoning, we should soon be getting much more peaceful and polite as a society.
Considering the fact that we already have more guns in the hands of more people than any other developed country...ya gotta wonder why we are so far down on the list of peaceful, polite societies now.
But I guess if we stick around long enough...and get more and more guns out there...
...it should happen!
Crime is on the way down.
A good sized chunk of the shootings that we HAVE had
were part of gang-warfare for drug turf; much money to be made
as the result of government's drug Prohibition.
Just speaking for myself here, I don t feel affected
by those drug war casualties.
I tried to post a story on that trend, that shows
and refers to a CHART, but I 'm not good at posting that.
I cud not post that chart, so I gave up and did not post the story.
Frank Apisa wrote:Most of OUR citizens are not armedOh, yeah...we are a much safer, more polite society than all those foolish countries
that don't have most of their citizens armed.
and the criminals know it. That is the problem; (I gave my own example).
Frank, if u were driven by such desperation as to become a robber,
wud u prefer to rob a victim who was WELL ARMED,
or one who was helpless??????? Tell us that.
Frank Apisa wrote:I dunno about them. I don t care about them.We have fewer shootings in schools...and in movie theaters...
and in Army bases than those people
Right?
I care about us and here.
Everyone has an inalienable right to defend his life; that is non-negotiable.
Schools and (since Clinton) Army bases have been dis-armed victim zones.
During my academic experience, everything was peaceful all the time; no trouble,
but if someone had actually entered the classroom and began shooting at us,
I 'd have returned fire as fast as I possibly cud; I 'm a fairly decent shot.
All of the shooting victims in classrooms were un-armed,
in abject, docile obedience of ALL gun control laws.
Thay got killed, as a result.
But I am saying that if only we could arm everyone...
including kids in school...
we would, according to your thinking...become a much, much nicer place...a more peaceful place...a safer place...and definitely a more polite place.
I am just mystified why, since we have so many more guns in so many more hands than any of the other industrialized countries...why we are not already leading the world in all those categories.
That's all!
OmSigDAVID wrote:
OmSigDAVID wrote:
OmSigDAVID wrote:
OmSigDAVID wrote:
Federal appeals courts strikes down
California’s concealed weapons license rules
Associated Press
By Paul Elias
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — A divided federal appeals court has struck down
California’s concealed weapons rules, saying they violate
the Second Amendment right to bear arms.
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said that California is wrong
to require applicants to show good cause to receive a license
to carry a concealed weapon.
The court ruled that all law-abiding citizens
are entitled to carry concealed weapons
outside the home for self-defense purposes.
Frank Apisa wrote:A goal to be sought, yes.More guns in the hands of more people.
Frank Apisa wrote:YES; e.g., when some highway robbers took a pot shot at ME,So according to your way of thinking we should become even more peaceful
and polite than we already are!
thay assumed that I was un-armed,
witness the fact that thay proved their desire to be ELSEWHERE fast,
when my OWN gun came out. I heard a scream.
Criminals believe that it brings bad luck
when their victims shoot back.
Thay LIKE a monopoly of power during predatory events.
Supporters of gun control; i.e., victim disarmament,
have given it to them, as a subsidy of their calling.
Frank Apisa wrote:Yes; a good trend on that has begun already.Like I said...we are getting even more guns into the hands of even more people...so, using your reasoning, we should soon be getting much more peaceful and polite as a society.
Considering the fact that we already have more guns in the hands of more people than any other developed country...ya gotta wonder why we are so far down on the list of peaceful, polite societies now.
But I guess if we stick around long enough...and get more and more guns out there...
...it should happen!
Crime is on the way down.
A good sized chunk of the shootings that we HAVE had
were part of gang-warfare for drug turf; much money to be made
as the result of government's drug Prohibition.
Just speaking for myself here, I don t feel affected
by those drug war casualties.
I tried to post a story on that trend, that shows
and refers to a CHART, but I 'm not good at posting that.
I cud not post that chart, so I gave up and did not post the story.
Frank Apisa wrote:Most of OUR citizens are not armedOh, yeah...we are a much safer, more polite society than all those foolish countries
that don't have most of their citizens armed.
and the criminals know it. That is the problem; (I gave my own example).
Frank, if u were driven by such desperation as to become a robber,
wud u prefer to rob a victim who was WELL ARMED,
or one who was helpless??????? Tell us that.
Frank Apisa wrote:I dunno about them. I don t care about them.We have fewer shootings in schools...and in movie theaters...
and in Army bases than those people
Right?
I care about us and here.
Everyone has an inalienable right to defend his life; that is non-negotiable.
Schools and (since Clinton) Army bases have been dis-armed victim zones.
During my academic experience, everything was peaceful all the time; no trouble,
but if someone had actually entered the classroom and began shooting at us,
I 'd have returned fire as fast as I possibly cud; I 'm a fairly decent shot.
All of the shooting victims in classrooms were un-armed,
in abject, docile obedience of ALL gun control laws.
Thay got killed, as a result.
Frank Apisa wrote:Like me.But I am saying that if only we could arm everyone...
including kids in school...
In Arizona we had gunnery teams.
Some of the teachers attended practice and gave us advice
on marksmanship. No one complained nor got even slightly harmed.
I preferred that to ball games, but I was not accurate enuf
to make a gunnery team. It was fun, tho.
I don t remember anyone being impolite.
Frank Apisa wrote:Yes. Think of the Japanese Samurai. Thay were known for politeness.we would, according to your thinking...become a much, much nicer place...a more peaceful place...a safer place...and definitely a more polite place.
Ever see a Japanese Katana? The Samurai used to carry them all the time.
Samurai knew that an infraction of the applicable code of courtesy
might well result in a fatal event with lethal consequences, possibly their last and most final event.
Frank Apisa wrote:I am mystified that u r mystified becauseI am just mystified why, since we have so many more guns in so many more hands than any of the other industrialized countries...why we are not already leading the world in all those categories.
That's all!
I already EXPLAINED that to u. Maybe u forgot.
OK. I am willing to be redundant. Here goes:
in order for the principle to be functionally effective,
most of the citizens need to be personally well armed,
enuf that other folks will ASSUME that thay are defensively armed,
but regardless of Constitutional Rights, many, many citizens do not
bear arms in public. Sadly, that is not a secret. Accordingly, others
(including violent predators) do not assume that their victims are defensively armed
until thay actually SEE your defensive gun. THAT changes the scene abruptly.
Take my word. Such was my experience. Many criminals dont like it
when thay think that thay are about to get shot by indignant victims.
When a sufficient number of citizens are known to carry defensive guns overty or covertly,
then the Samurai principle will become more evident in common human experience.
OmSigDAVID wrote:
OmSigDAVID wrote:
OmSigDAVID wrote:
OmSigDAVID wrote:
Federal appeals courts strikes down
California’s concealed weapons license rules
Associated Press
By Paul Elias
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — A divided federal appeals court has struck down
California’s concealed weapons rules, saying they violate
the Second Amendment right to bear arms.
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said that California is wrong
to require applicants to show good cause to receive a license
to carry a concealed weapon.
The court ruled that all law-abiding citizens
are entitled to carry concealed weapons
outside the home for self-defense purposes.
Frank Apisa wrote:A goal to be sought, yes.More guns in the hands of more people.
Frank Apisa wrote:YES; e.g., when some highway robbers took a pot shot at ME,So according to your way of thinking we should become even more peaceful
and polite than we already are!
thay assumed that I was un-armed,
witness the fact that thay proved their desire to be ELSEWHERE fast,
when my OWN gun came out. I heard a scream.
Criminals believe that it brings bad luck
when their victims shoot back.
Thay LIKE a monopoly of power during predatory events.
Supporters of gun control; i.e., victim disarmament,
have given it to them, as a subsidy of their calling.
Frank Apisa wrote:Yes; a good trend on that has begun already.Like I said...we are getting even more guns into the hands of even more people...so, using your reasoning, we should soon be getting much more peaceful and polite as a society.
Considering the fact that we already have more guns in the hands of more people than any other developed country...ya gotta wonder why we are so far down on the list of peaceful, polite societies now.
But I guess if we stick around long enough...and get more and more guns out there...
...it should happen!
Crime is on the way down.
A good sized chunk of the shootings that we HAVE had
were part of gang-warfare for drug turf; much money to be made
as the result of government's drug Prohibition.
Just speaking for myself here, I don t feel affected
by those drug war casualties.
I tried to post a story on that trend, that shows
and refers to a CHART, but I 'm not good at posting that.
I cud not post that chart, so I gave up and did not post the story.
Frank Apisa wrote:Most of OUR citizens are not armedOh, yeah...we are a much safer, more polite society than all those foolish countries
that don't have most of their citizens armed.
and the criminals know it. That is the problem; (I gave my own example).
Frank, if u were driven by such desperation as to become a robber,
wud u prefer to rob a victim who was WELL ARMED,
or one who was helpless??????? Tell us that.
Frank Apisa wrote:I dunno about them. I don t care about them.We have fewer shootings in schools...and in movie theaters...
and in Army bases than those people
Right?
I care about us and here.
Everyone has an inalienable right to defend his life; that is non-negotiable.
Schools and (since Clinton) Army bases have been dis-armed victim zones.
During my academic experience, everything was peaceful all the time; no trouble,
but if someone had actually entered the classroom and began shooting at us,
I 'd have returned fire as fast as I possibly cud; I 'm a fairly decent shot.
All of the shooting victims in classrooms were un-armed,
in abject, docile obedience of ALL gun control laws.
Thay got killed, as a result.
Frank Apisa wrote:Like me.But I am saying that if only we could arm everyone...
including kids in school...
In Arizona we had gunnery teams.
Some of the teachers attended practice and gave us advice
on marksmanship. No one complained nor got even slightly harmed.
I preferred that to ball games, but I was not accurate enuf
to make a gunnery team. It was fun, tho.
I don t remember anyone being impolite.
Frank Apisa wrote:Yes. Think of the Japanese Samurai. Thay were known for politeness.we would, according to your thinking...become a much, much nicer place...a more peaceful place...a safer place...and definitely a more polite place.
Ever see a Japanese Katana? The Samurai used to carry them all the time.
Samurai knew that an infraction of the applicable code of courtesy
might well result in a fatal event with lethal consequences, possibly their last and most final event.
Frank Apisa wrote:I am mystified that u r mystified becauseI am just mystified why, since we have so many more guns in so many more hands than any of the other industrialized countries...why we are not already leading the world in all those categories.
That's all!
I already EXPLAINED that to u. Maybe u forgot.
OK. I am willing to be redundant. Here goes:
in order for the principle to be functionally effective,
most of the citizens need to be personally well armed,
enuf that other folks will ASSUME that thay are defensively armed,
but regardless of Constitutional Rights, many, many citizens do not
bear arms in public. Sadly, that is not a secret. Accordingly, others
(including violent predators) do not assume that their victims are defensively armed
until thay actually SEE your defensive gun. THAT changes the scene abruptly.
Take my word. Such was my experience. Many criminals dont like it
when thay think that thay are about to get shot by indignant victims.
When a sufficient number of citizens are known to carry defensive guns overty or covertly,
then the Samurai principle will become more evident in common human experience.
Then I am correct.
According to your thinking...if we would just arm more people...including kids going to school...we would become a safer, more polite society.
I am still mystified by why we are not better than most...since we are further toward that goal.
Perhaps...just perhaps...the notion is an absurdity...
and more guns in the hands of more people just leads to more shootings.
Hummmm!
Instead of educating children how to load a gun,
how about we teach them manners?
Manner number 1
Smile at people
2 given them trust
3 shake hands
4 be nice
5 be friendly
6 be kind
7 be helpful
8 be rational etc...
not sure where "show them your gun" fits into this picture.
OmSigDAVID wrote:
OmSigDAVID wrote:
OmSigDAVID wrote:
OmSigDAVID wrote:
OmSigDAVID wrote:
Federal appeals courts strikes down
California’s concealed weapons license rules
Associated Press
By Paul Elias
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — A divided federal appeals court has struck down
California’s concealed weapons rules, saying they violate
the Second Amendment right to bear arms.
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said that California is wrong
to require applicants to show good cause to receive a license
to carry a concealed weapon.
The court ruled that all law-abiding citizens
are entitled to carry concealed weapons
outside the home for self-defense purposes.
Frank Apisa wrote:A goal to be sought, yes.More guns in the hands of more people.
Frank Apisa wrote:YES; e.g., when some highway robbers took a pot shot at ME,So according to your way of thinking we should become even more peaceful
and polite than we already are!
thay assumed that I was un-armed,
witness the fact that thay proved their desire to be ELSEWHERE fast,
when my OWN gun came out. I heard a scream.
Criminals believe that it brings bad luck
when their victims shoot back.
Thay LIKE a monopoly of power during predatory events.
Supporters of gun control; i.e., victim disarmament,
have given it to them, as a subsidy of their calling.
Frank Apisa wrote:Yes; a good trend on that has begun already.Like I said...we are getting even more guns into the hands of even more people...so, using your reasoning, we should soon be getting much more peaceful and polite as a society.
Considering the fact that we already have more guns in the hands of more people than any other developed country...ya gotta wonder why we are so far down on the list of peaceful, polite societies now.
But I guess if we stick around long enough...and get more and more guns out there...
...it should happen!
Crime is on the way down.
A good sized chunk of the shootings that we HAVE had
were part of gang-warfare for drug turf; much money to be made
as the result of government's drug Prohibition.
Just speaking for myself here, I don t feel affected
by those drug war casualties.
I tried to post a story on that trend, that shows
and refers to a CHART, but I 'm not good at posting that.
I cud not post that chart, so I gave up and did not post the story.
Frank Apisa wrote:Most of OUR citizens are not armedOh, yeah...we are a much safer, more polite society than all those foolish countries
that don't have most of their citizens armed.
and the criminals know it. That is the problem; (I gave my own example).
Frank, if u were driven by such desperation as to become a robber,
wud u prefer to rob a victim who was WELL ARMED,
or one who was helpless??????? Tell us that.
Frank Apisa wrote:I dunno about them. I don t care about them.We have fewer shootings in schools...and in movie theaters...
and in Army bases than those people
Right?
I care about us and here.
Everyone has an inalienable right to defend his life; that is non-negotiable.
Schools and (since Clinton) Army bases have been dis-armed victim zones.
During my academic experience, everything was peaceful all the time; no trouble,
but if someone had actually entered the classroom and began shooting at us,
I 'd have returned fire as fast as I possibly cud; I 'm a fairly decent shot.
All of the shooting victims in classrooms were un-armed,
in abject, docile obedience of ALL gun control laws.
Thay got killed, as a result.
Frank Apisa wrote:Like me.But I am saying that if only we could arm everyone...
including kids in school...
In Arizona we had gunnery teams.
Some of the teachers attended practice and gave us advice
on marksmanship. No one complained nor got even slightly harmed.
I preferred that to ball games, but I was not accurate enuf
to make a gunnery team. It was fun, tho.
I don t remember anyone being impolite.
Frank Apisa wrote:Yes. Think of the Japanese Samurai. Thay were known for politeness.we would, according to your thinking...become a much, much nicer place...a more peaceful place...a safer place...and definitely a more polite place.
Ever see a Japanese Katana? The Samurai used to carry them all the time.
Samurai knew that an infraction of the applicable code of courtesy
might well result in a fatal event with lethal consequences, possibly their last and most final event.
Frank Apisa wrote:I am mystified that u r mystified becauseI am just mystified why, since we have so many more guns in so many more hands than any of the other industrialized countries...why we are not already leading the world in all those categories.
That's all!
I already EXPLAINED that to u. Maybe u forgot.
OK. I am willing to be redundant. Here goes:
in order for the principle to be functionally effective,
most of the citizens need to be personally well armed,
enuf that other folks will ASSUME that thay are defensively armed,
but regardless of Constitutional Rights, many, many citizens do not
bear arms in public. Sadly, that is not a secret. Accordingly, others
(including violent predators) do not assume that their victims are defensively armed
until thay actually SEE your defensive gun. THAT changes the scene abruptly.
Take my word. Such was my experience. Many criminals dont like it
when thay think that thay are about to get shot by indignant victims.
When a sufficient number of citizens are known to carry defensive guns overty or covertly,
then the Samurai principle will become more evident in common human experience.
Frank Apisa wrote:Lemme remind u that much of the shooting casualty statistic results from criminal gang warfare.Then I am correct.
According to your thinking...if we would just arm more people...including kids going to school...we would become a safer, more polite society.
I am still mystified by why we are not better than most...since we are further toward that goal.
I don t think that u can convince them to throw their guns in the garbage.
Only those who have an interest in being law-abiding care about gun control laws.
Incidentally, as I have pointed out before,
I did not recommend that we arm anyone,
the same as we don t give them free pens or newspapers.
Let them use their OWN guns.
Frank Apisa wrote:1. More shootings are GOOD,Perhaps...just perhaps...the notion is an absurdity...
and more guns in the hands of more people just leads to more shootings.
Hummmm!
when the victims are not helpless,
but rather defeat the predators, be thay animal or human.
Fewer shootings are BAD, when the victims are slaughtered
because of their abject obedience to gun control laws.
If a wolf or a bobcat were chewing on your leg, then
maybe u 'd think its a good time for a shooting, yes ????
Remember the coyote who killed the (un-armed) 19 year old Canadian girl singer?
2. What 's the difference in regard to the statistics,
unless u intend to argue for repealing our Constitutional Right to fight back?
Do u intend to amend the Bill of Rights?
Wud u like to call it the Bill of Repressions ?
OmSigDAVID wrote:
OmSigDAVID wrote:
OmSigDAVID wrote:
OmSigDAVID wrote:
OmSigDAVID wrote:
Federal appeals courts strikes down
California’s concealed weapons license rules
Associated Press
By Paul Elias
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — A divided federal appeals court has struck down
California’s concealed weapons rules, saying they violate
the Second Amendment right to bear arms.
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said that California is wrong
to require applicants to show good cause to receive a license
to carry a concealed weapon.
The court ruled that all law-abiding citizens
are entitled to carry concealed weapons
outside the home for self-defense purposes.
Frank Apisa wrote:A goal to be sought, yes.More guns in the hands of more people.
Frank Apisa wrote:YES; e.g., when some highway robbers took a pot shot at ME,So according to your way of thinking we should become even more peaceful
and polite than we already are!
thay assumed that I was un-armed,
witness the fact that thay proved their desire to be ELSEWHERE fast,
when my OWN gun came out. I heard a scream.
Criminals believe that it brings bad luck
when their victims shoot back.
Thay LIKE a monopoly of power during predatory events.
Supporters of gun control; i.e., victim disarmament,
have given it to them, as a subsidy of their calling.
Frank Apisa wrote:Yes; a good trend on that has begun already.Like I said...we are getting even more guns into the hands of even more people...so, using your reasoning, we should soon be getting much more peaceful and polite as a society.
Considering the fact that we already have more guns in the hands of more people than any other developed country...ya gotta wonder why we are so far down on the list of peaceful, polite societies now.
But I guess if we stick around long enough...and get more and more guns out there...
...it should happen!
Crime is on the way down.
A good sized chunk of the shootings that we HAVE had
were part of gang-warfare for drug turf; much money to be made
as the result of government's drug Prohibition.
Just speaking for myself here, I don t feel affected
by those drug war casualties.
I tried to post a story on that trend, that shows
and refers to a CHART, but I 'm not good at posting that.
I cud not post that chart, so I gave up and did not post the story.
Frank Apisa wrote:Most of OUR citizens are not armedOh, yeah...we are a much safer, more polite society than all those foolish countries
that don't have most of their citizens armed.
and the criminals know it. That is the problem; (I gave my own example).
Frank, if u were driven by such desperation as to become a robber,
wud u prefer to rob a victim who was WELL ARMED,
or one who was helpless??????? Tell us that.
Frank Apisa wrote:I dunno about them. I don t care about them.We have fewer shootings in schools...and in movie theaters...
and in Army bases than those people
Right?
I care about us and here.
Everyone has an inalienable right to defend his life; that is non-negotiable.
Schools and (since Clinton) Army bases have been dis-armed victim zones.
During my academic experience, everything was peaceful all the time; no trouble,
but if someone had actually entered the classroom and began shooting at us,
I 'd have returned fire as fast as I possibly cud; I 'm a fairly decent shot.
All of the shooting victims in classrooms were un-armed,
in abject, docile obedience of ALL gun control laws.
Thay got killed, as a result.
Frank Apisa wrote:Like me.But I am saying that if only we could arm everyone...
including kids in school...
In Arizona we had gunnery teams.
Some of the teachers attended practice and gave us advice
on marksmanship. No one complained nor got even slightly harmed.
I preferred that to ball games, but I was not accurate enuf
to make a gunnery team. It was fun, tho.
I don t remember anyone being impolite.
Frank Apisa wrote:Yes. Think of the Japanese Samurai. Thay were known for politeness.we would, according to your thinking...become a much, much nicer place...a more peaceful place...a safer place...and definitely a more polite place.
Ever see a Japanese Katana? The Samurai used to carry them all the time.
Samurai knew that an infraction of the applicable code of courtesy
might well result in a fatal event with lethal consequences, possibly their last and most final event.
Frank Apisa wrote:I am mystified that u r mystified becauseI am just mystified why, since we have so many more guns in so many more hands than any of the other industrialized countries...why we are not already leading the world in all those categories.
That's all!
I already EXPLAINED that to u. Maybe u forgot.
OK. I am willing to be redundant. Here goes:
in order for the principle to be functionally effective,
most of the citizens need to be personally well armed,
enuf that other folks will ASSUME that thay are defensively armed,
but regardless of Constitutional Rights, many, many citizens do not
bear arms in public. Sadly, that is not a secret. Accordingly, others
(including violent predators) do not assume that their victims are defensively armed
until thay actually SEE your defensive gun. THAT changes the scene abruptly.
Take my word. Such was my experience. Many criminals dont like it
when thay think that thay are about to get shot by indignant victims.
When a sufficient number of citizens are known to carry defensive guns overty or covertly,
then the Samurai principle will become more evident in common human experience.
Frank Apisa wrote:Lemme remind u that much of the shooting casualty statistic results from criminal gang warfare.Then I am correct.
According to your thinking...if we would just arm more people...including kids going to school...we would become a safer, more polite society.
I am still mystified by why we are not better than most...since we are further toward that goal.
I don t think that u can convince them to throw their guns in the garbage.
Only those who have an interest in being law-abiding care about gun control laws.
Incidentally, as I have pointed out before,
I did not recommend that we arm anyone,
the same as we don t give them free pens or newspapers.
Let them use their OWN guns.
Frank Apisa wrote:1. More shootings are GOOD,Perhaps...just perhaps...the notion is an absurdity...
and more guns in the hands of more people just leads to more shootings.
Hummmm!
when the victims are not helpless,
but rather defeat the predators, be thay animal or human.
Fewer shootings are BAD, when the victims are slaughtered
because of their abject obedience to gun control laws.
If a wolf or a bobcat were chewing on your leg, then
maybe u 'd think its a good time for a shooting, yes ????
Remember the coyote who killed the (un-armed) 19 year old Canadian girl singer?
2. What 's the difference in regard to the statistics,
unless u intend to argue for repealing our Constitutional Right to fight back?
Do u intend to amend the Bill of Rights?
Wud u like to call it the Bill of Repressions ?
So you are sticking with: If we only had more guns in the hands of more people...including kids in schools...we would become a more polite, safer nation.
Many years ago, before age 8,
I was armed only with knives.
I didn 't post this,
but I had been thinking: "what 'll u do if u get attacked,
hit him with your guitar ?"
I didn 't post this,
but I had been thinking: "what 'll u do if u get attacked,
hit him with your guitar ?"
I would probably benefit more by playing my guitar for them.
but if thay think that u taste too good,
then . . . I dunno how long u will last
OmSigDAVID wrote:
OmSigDAVID wrote:
OmSigDAVID wrote:
OmSigDAVID wrote:
OmSigDAVID wrote:
OmSigDAVID wrote:
Federal appeals courts strikes down
California’s concealed weapons license rules
Associated Press
By Paul Elias
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — A divided federal appeals court has struck down
California’s concealed weapons rules, saying they violate
the Second Amendment right to bear arms.
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said that California is wrong
to require applicants to show good cause to receive a license
to carry a concealed weapon.
The court ruled that all law-abiding citizens
are entitled to carry concealed weapons
outside the home for self-defense purposes.
Frank Apisa wrote:A goal to be sought, yes.More guns in the hands of more people.
Frank Apisa wrote:YES; e.g., when some highway robbers took a pot shot at ME,So according to your way of thinking we should become even more peaceful
and polite than we already are!
thay assumed that I was un-armed,
witness the fact that thay proved their desire to be ELSEWHERE fast,
when my OWN gun came out. I heard a scream.
Criminals believe that it brings bad luck
when their victims shoot back.
Thay LIKE a monopoly of power during predatory events.
Supporters of gun control; i.e., victim disarmament,
have given it to them, as a subsidy of their calling.
Frank Apisa wrote:Yes; a good trend on that has begun already.Like I said...we are getting even more guns into the hands of even more people...so, using your reasoning, we should soon be getting much more peaceful and polite as a society.
Considering the fact that we already have more guns in the hands of more people than any other developed country...ya gotta wonder why we are so far down on the list of peaceful, polite societies now.
But I guess if we stick around long enough...and get more and more guns out there...
...it should happen!
Crime is on the way down.
A good sized chunk of the shootings that we HAVE had
were part of gang-warfare for drug turf; much money to be made
as the result of government's drug Prohibition.
Just speaking for myself here, I don t feel affected
by those drug war casualties.
I tried to post a story on that trend, that shows
and refers to a CHART, but I 'm not good at posting that.
I cud not post that chart, so I gave up and did not post the story.
Frank Apisa wrote:Most of OUR citizens are not armedOh, yeah...we are a much safer, more polite society than all those foolish countries
that don't have most of their citizens armed.
and the criminals know it. That is the problem; (I gave my own example).
Frank, if u were driven by such desperation as to become a robber,
wud u prefer to rob a victim who was WELL ARMED,
or one who was helpless??????? Tell us that.
Frank Apisa wrote:I dunno about them. I don t care about them.We have fewer shootings in schools...and in movie theaters...
and in Army bases than those people
Right?
I care about us and here.
Everyone has an inalienable right to defend his life; that is non-negotiable.
Schools and (since Clinton) Army bases have been dis-armed victim zones.
During my academic experience, everything was peaceful all the time; no trouble,
but if someone had actually entered the classroom and began shooting at us,
I 'd have returned fire as fast as I possibly cud; I 'm a fairly decent shot.
All of the shooting victims in classrooms were un-armed,
in abject, docile obedience of ALL gun control laws.
Thay got killed, as a result.
Frank Apisa wrote:Like me.But I am saying that if only we could arm everyone...
including kids in school...
In Arizona we had gunnery teams.
Some of the teachers attended practice and gave us advice
on marksmanship. No one complained nor got even slightly harmed.
I preferred that to ball games, but I was not accurate enuf
to make a gunnery team. It was fun, tho.
I don t remember anyone being impolite.
Frank Apisa wrote:Yes. Think of the Japanese Samurai. Thay were known for politeness.we would, according to your thinking...become a much, much nicer place...a more peaceful place...a safer place...and definitely a more polite place.
Ever see a Japanese Katana? The Samurai used to carry them all the time.
Samurai knew that an infraction of the applicable code of courtesy
might well result in a fatal event with lethal consequences, possibly their last and most final event.
Frank Apisa wrote:I am mystified that u r mystified becauseI am just mystified why, since we have so many more guns in so many more hands than any of the other industrialized countries...why we are not already leading the world in all those categories.
That's all!
I already EXPLAINED that to u. Maybe u forgot.
OK. I am willing to be redundant. Here goes:
in order for the principle to be functionally effective,
most of the citizens need to be personally well armed,
enuf that other folks will ASSUME that thay are defensively armed,
but regardless of Constitutional Rights, many, many citizens do not
bear arms in public. Sadly, that is not a secret. Accordingly, others
(including violent predators) do not assume that their victims are defensively armed
until thay actually SEE your defensive gun. THAT changes the scene abruptly.
Take my word. Such was my experience. Many criminals dont like it
when thay think that thay are about to get shot by indignant victims.
When a sufficient number of citizens are known to carry defensive guns overty or covertly,
then the Samurai principle will become more evident in common human experience.
Frank Apisa wrote:Lemme remind u that much of the shooting casualty statistic results from criminal gang warfare.Then I am correct.
According to your thinking...if we would just arm more people...including kids going to school...we would become a safer, more polite society.
I am still mystified by why we are not better than most...since we are further toward that goal.
I don t think that u can convince them to throw their guns in the garbage.
Only those who have an interest in being law-abiding care about gun control laws.
Incidentally, as I have pointed out before,
I did not recommend that we arm anyone,
the same as we don t give them free pens or newspapers.
Let them use their OWN guns.
Frank Apisa wrote:1. More shootings are GOOD,Perhaps...just perhaps...the notion is an absurdity...
and more guns in the hands of more people just leads to more shootings.
Hummmm!
when the victims are not helpless,
but rather defeat the predators, be thay animal or human.
Fewer shootings are BAD, when the victims are slaughtered
because of their abject obedience to gun control laws.
If a wolf or a bobcat were chewing on your leg, then
maybe u 'd think its a good time for a shooting, yes ????
Remember the coyote who killed the (un-armed) 19 year old Canadian girl singer?
2. What 's the difference in regard to the statistics,
unless u intend to argue for repealing our Constitutional Right to fight back?
Do u intend to amend the Bill of Rights?
Wud u like to call it the Bill of Repressions ?
Frank Apisa wrote:Not "only", as u put it; I advocate weapons and tactical trainingSo you are sticking with: If we only had more guns in the hands of more people...including kids in schools...we would become a more polite, safer nation.
from and including the earliest years of school, along with fonetic spelling.
David
I dunno, but I suspect
that u have the uttermost contempt & disdain for the intelligence
of children. I don t join u in that.
David
