Why I joined the N.R.A.

Laughing at a woman with a loaded rifle is unwise.

Thanks, Fedral.

I guess Craven was right. Fun and the nostalgic tie-in with your dad.

I think archery is something I want to try. Don't think I could kill anything, though.

I didn't kill him.

But, its sort of like sex with handcuffs. You think you know and trust the other person----but then maybe a look in their eye, an odd silence, you are incredibly vulnerable.... For a second, couldn't you scare the crap out of someone?

<tee hee>

Rapid fire rifles and pistols are good for self defense. I don't hunt any more either, or even target shoot. The guns in my house are all for self defense.

Why I joined the N.R.A.[/u]
Mike S. Adams
April 5, 2004

It was just after midnight in January of 1993 when John and Tiffany left a party at the Sigma Chi house in Starkville, Mississippi. The band was winding down as the couple walked to their car in the parking lot close to where Highway 12 runs into Scott Field on the campus of Mississippi State University.

When they came upon a man who was trying to break into a car parked near their own, all hell broke loose. Before they knew it, they had been abducted at gunpoint. Words cannot describe the horror that John witnessed before Tiffany's life was taken. Shortly thereafter, he too was murdered execution-style by the side of Highway 45. Many tears were shed on Monday night when our fraternity met to mourn the deaths of the two young students.

After the murders, I had to endure driving by the murder site every Thursday night at about six o'clock on my way to Tupelo, Mississippi. My band played once a week at a bar in Tupelo called Jefferson Place. That meant that I had to drive by the murder site again on my way home at about two in the morning. The images got to me after a couple of weeks.....

Tarantulas wrote:

Rapid fire rifles and pistols are good for self defense. I don't hunt any more either, or even target shoot. The guns in my house are all for self defense.

I dont get that. I mean, the logic. You dont specify how many guns you have in your house, but you imply there's quite a few. Yet they "are all for self defense". What are you expecting? A siege?

Some people feel that, in order to fend off a burglar, they need a gun. I feel differently - see my post above about that. But at least I can see the logic. If you get to have that gun when the burglar approaches, and you can keep hold of it, you have power over him, and he might run away.

You may even run out of shots, or something (though that would presuppose you weren't all that well trained, which is unlikely if you're into guns) - and need a second gun or pistol to grab quickly. OK, fine. But how are you gonna ever need five? Eight? A box full, rapid fire rifles included?

Is there any plausible scenario, short of ending up in Waco, in which you would need all that for "self-defense"?

(In fact, on an aside, wouldn't it make you more vulnerable, if anything? If you have one gun in the house, and you got it, you have an edge of sorts on the intruder(s). But if you have five or eight (I dont know where you keep them, on the wall, in a cupboard, under lock?), I would say that any fifth or tenth gun lying around will just cause you headache, while you're standing there by yourself trying to keep hold of as much of the stuff as you can while chasing him/them away.)

Another Gun Fight at the 9th Circuit Corral
Jeff Chorney
The Recorder
04-07-2004


With five judges protesting, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals declined Monday to hear en banc a case that would have allowed it to revisit whether the Second Amendment gives individuals the right to own guns.

In a lengthy dissent, the five argued that an earlier Second Amendment ruling was wrong and needed to be corrected.

The en banc denial in Nordyke v. King, 04 C.D.O.S. 2885, is a victory for gun control advocates, who can continue to lean on the circuit's 2002 ruling in Silveira v. Lockyer, 312 F.3d 1052.

In Silveira, which challenged California's restrictions on assault weapons, Judge Stephen Reinhardt wrote that the Second Amendment applies to militias and guarantees a collective right to bear arms, but doesn't guarantee individuals' rights.

If a majority of the circuit's 26 active judges had voted to take up Nordyke en banc, the court could have revisited the issues in Silveira.

"Our court has erased 10 percent of the Bill of Rights for 20 percent of the American people," wrote Judge Andrew Kleinfeld, one of the dissenters. "No liberties are safe if courts can so easily erase them, and no lover of liberty can be confident that an important right will never become so disfavored in popular or elite opinion as to be vulnerable to being discarded like the Second Amendment."

At least four other judges -- including Diarmuid O'Scannlain and Ronald Gould, who signed the panel decision -- voted with Kleinfeld to take the case en banc.

One other, Judge Alex Kozinski, indicated he agreed with the dissenters, but suggested the court shouldn't revisit the issue -- yet.

In his typical style, Kozinski contributed an 88-word concurrence that included no less than five Second Amendment puns: "triggered," "misfired," "shot down," "militiate" and "bull's-eye." Kozinski wrote that "prudential considerations" weighed against hearing the issue so soon after the Supreme Court, in December, denied certiorari in Silveira.

The rest of the lead 21-page dissent, written by Gould, served as a counterpoint to the Silveira decision. He also wrote a concurrence in Nordyke that criticized the Silveira decision.

Nordyke was filed by gun show promoters challenging an Alameda County ordinance banning guns on county property. Although ostensibly a response to a nonfatal shooting at the county fair several years ago, the measure is broad enough that it outlaws commercial gun shows.

San Jose, Calif., solo Donald Kilmer, who represents the gun show promoters, could not be reached for comment. In earlier interviews he has discussed wanting to get the issue before the U.S. Supreme Court.

So far, though, the high court has dodged that bullet.

Even though 9th Circuit judges in favor of individuals' rights could not muster enough votes for the en banc, Monday's ruling showed they, like advocates on both sides of the gun debate, have very strong feelings on the matter.

But Eugene Volokh, a law professor at UCLA and advocate of individuals' rights, said he doesn't believe the 9th Circuit will take up the controversy again. Considering how many disparate circuit court opinions there are, it's just a matter of time before the Supreme Court settles it, he said.

Volokh said judges in other circuits will also pay attention to the 9th's ruling. He said people should watch the Washington, D.C., circuit court because Washington has the most restrictive gun laws in the country.

The big question, Volokh said, is "whether the D.C. circuit will be influenced more by the views of the majority or the dissent."

"i need my guns to protect me from tyranny." Uh-huh . . . if the feds ever come for you, they'll come in armored personnel carriers, and they'll be wearin' kevlar, helmets, and if needed, night vision goggles. They will have machine pistols, tear gas canisters and launchers, and will track your every move from above with helicopters. So . . . you gonna stop 'em with yer Smith & Wesson . . . i gotta bridge you might like to buy.