Easy Rob.. I was not trying to call you a fanatic or much of anything at all...

There is certainly the fanatic element on both sides of this discussion though. That was what I was referring to.. Not you specifically. Please except my apologies for not making that clear.

All I am trying to say is that: the Constitution and Bill of Rights are often over simplified or over complicated by the people, the courts and lawyers.

There have been many cases that have been heard over time that have involved many great minds, much more skilled then you and I in Constitutional law, disputing the wording of the Constitution.
We are not Constitutional Lawyers.

Yes.. Of course you seem to hold the phrase
'Happiness is a warm gun' much closer to your heart then I do, but...

In so far as the intent of the forefathers? Especially when they use the term 'Well Regulated Militia'? Why is the word 'regulated' in there? To regulate is to govern.
Compounded with the well known fact that the average citizens of our Country back then was not treated as a citizen... Could not vote, due to lack of money and/or education... The Constitution could be construed to only include the elite of the day.. Not the working class or poor. The working class and poor made excellent cannon fodder though. Not all that much different from the overall philosophy of today.

Back then.. There was no such thing as a cheap firearm either. Mass production was not up to the task. So... the majority of the population could not afford to arm itself anyway. Gun control was built in to the system, by the available technology.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Even if all the laws were immediately deemed unconstitutional... Many of you guys are talking about making gun education mandatory.. Which would be a gun law... Therefore unconstitutional.

We can't have our cake and eat it too.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

In so far as Rambills 'apples to stop signs' comment.

Sure..there is a difference technologically between a rocket and a small arm... There are some similarities too. Both are designed to kill. Both have triggers... Both took a decision by someone to aim and fire.
In the case of friendly fire... Whether it be an M16 or an air to ground missile, both can be aimed at and take out your brother in arms. Simply because someone acted on information that was not of reality. The outcome is the same.
To think that you are above making the same sort of mistake? Is to think that you are better then human. Anyone who believes they are better then human and well armed? Probably shouldn't be.

Although that is a popular way to interpret it.. The Federal Circuit Court, many legal and Constitutional historians would seem to historically have disagreed with you.

If it was so clear? Then why is it so clearly misunderstood?

There is no part in there that says the State cannot tell you what kind of weapons you can bear...and how you can bear it.

It merely says that it cannot infringe on your right to bear them. So long as you have a firearm? Your right to bear it is not infringed upon.

Considering the type of personal weapons available at the time the amendment was written... and the overall political and social climate of the land. I'm relatively sure that they lacked the foresight to see what kind of firepower we would start to see in the late 1800's to early 1900's.

Somehow I am reminded of those that read the Bible way too literally. Without taking into account the social and political climate of the time.

I don't have to research it. I'm fully aware of it. Yet somehow I'm thinking this arguement is not such a political topic simply because people want to go out and plink bottles off of fence rails or go on a hunting trip.
Is it so unreasonable to assume that the average person applying for a carry permit... Their primary purpose has nothing at all to do with entertainment?

Very true. Tragedy does happen all around us. For a variety of reasons. Both valid and not so valid.

We cannot possibly expect to protect us all from everything.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Yet.. In an effort to be the devils advocate.. Please humor me for a minute.

How many things in our world are specifically designed to kill?
I know there are uses for firearms like hunting and hobby.. But weapons in a city? Chances are? They are not going to be used to feed your family, or protect them from the random wild boar roaming the streets. They are designed to take a life..when in that setting. Cars and trucks are not. Garbage disposals are not. Everything else in our world enhances our world in a completely separate way.

Considering the logic presented...

Why do we have such an issue with WMD's? Why should we be so afraid of people other then us having Nuclear capability or Chemical and Biological weapons? Many of them have multiple uses...

Why are we so pissed at those people for taking those Towers and the Pentagon? Were we supposed to protect them?

Even on a smaller yet just as deadly scale. Why do we control the domestic supply of ammonia nitrate? How come I don't hear anybody complaining about that? It actually has another purpose other then making truck bombs with it. We need it to fertilize our crops.

According to the logic presented? We should all call the families and friends of victims of the Oklahoma City bombing and 9/11.. and tell them 'Hey.. We are real sorry about your Mom, Dad, Son or Daughter not coming home... but we can't possibly be expected to Nerf the whole world...'

Then call our troops home, and everyone just amass as much food, fuel and armament as you possibly can...Turn our homes and small towns into fortresses....
We just take our chances then.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I defend myself and mine, just fine without a deadly weapon. There are plenty of weapons of opportunity around, should I need one.
Since I have surrendered my firearms.. I have been in more then a few altercations ~ where if I had one? I may have pulled it. Most everyone else who worked with me was armed and had weapons in their homes. Considering the work we did? I don't really blame them. I chose not to. Somehow.. I managed to survive it.
Trust me.. While denouncing my ability to apply deadly force simply by pointing and shooting.. I am far from a pacifist.

Using deadly force is not something that is easy.. and more often then not? Completely unnecessary.

If you could take some time and explain in as much detail as possible what happened and is happening... Any windows errors you have seen and what they said as specifically as possible...

Including the make and model of your computer, what operating system.. What you were doing when it started acting funny and how long it has been.... Etc..

I need to go do some work, but will try to read what you wrote latter this evening and get back to you.

iceprincess:

I have lived with, worked with folks suffering with a variety of disorders.. acute and clinical depression being one of them.

If it is situational.. It will pass given time, patience and understanding. Like lilith mentioned and you said your son is in.. Professional therapy can help, no matter the diagnoses being situational or clinical.

The only thing I might add? Is to see the therapist yourself, privately.. To seek guidance in how to be as good a source of support through this as you can be.
Sometimes if you are too close to it.. like in a parents capacity? Boundaries can become a bit foggy.

Although it is somewhat conveluted.. I think I get your meaning.

Your friends under 'New Matches' on your profile are noticeably different then your friends profile.
Sound about right?
Those are listed according to the parameters you put in the search tab. Where it says are you a man or woman seeking a man or woman within so many miles of a zip code in said country..



I'm sure your chances will increase greatly if you commit a crime in North East Ohio. I suggest something that looks fairly crazy.. Like running about downtown naked with a baseball bat, breaking out store front windows and threatening anyone that looks at you.

Ummm.. you might want to read that over again.. Carefully. She was using the dollar signs in place of the letter 'S' In so far as your thinking you are mature? It is my experience that our opinion of ourselves really does not count for much.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

As for the OP..
Sometimes my life takes me away from my friends for a time. For reasons that have absolutely nothing to do with them. It happens.

A few tend to become overly excited and take it personally when I do it too...
Which is really odd.. considering they are the same ones that can disappear at will, never offering a reason either before or after the fact.
Of course.. I'm not hounding them for one either...

This ain't his first time. Most likely not his last either. His propensity to act before thinking is probably not his best feature...but the one he puts forward most often.

True enough.

Realizing that this was an isolated circumstance. Yet not the only time I've seen someone miss their target completely or use an overpowered weapon.. Which tends to cause stray bullets flying around city blocks.

Several years ago.. I did first aid on a young man who was not able to respond to any sort of aid. He was caught in the head by a bullet shot from a handgun 3 blocks away, while walking with his young wife and children in a park by the river.
The weapon used was a legally owned 357 revolver. The bullet was intended for a threatening young man standing roughly 10 feet from the shooter.

I'm sure the wife and children understood the subtle differences between guns and people.

That's good Rob. I hope you never have to go through some of the things I've gone through that had me draw my own personal conclusions.
Chances are? You never will. Whether you are carrying a weapon or not.

Fair enough analogy.. With a few flaws though.

It is more like my saying.. As an alcoholic... Drinking alcoholically, might bring you to the same places I have gone. Places you do not want to go.

I am not against owning firearms. I do believe I still have a few registered to me.. Just not in my immediate possesion, and highly doubtful I will ever find a need to recover them.

YHowever.. It is my belief that even with the best training and preparedness.. Carrying a firearm is not a practical form of self defense for most, is highly impractical and actually might be detrimental.

I'm not yelling or screaming.
All I am trying to discuss is the practicality of carrying a weapon. Sure..it is your right! Just because you consider it to be a right, does not mean you need to or have to...

I doubt there is anything I could do to control your gun use or lack there of.. that isn't already being done.

Should an armed rebellion or invasion break out in Oregon... Or I need to feed myself and mine with it... My willingness to be unarmed will change accordingly ~ Legal or not.

In the meantime.. Keeping weapons, for me, is impractical...as it is for most.


Nope.. Casualties. Both fatal and non-fatal. Not including murder, deliberate/accidental or self inflicted.

Yes.. I'm sure war is hell. Not having experienced any military combat. However I have experienced and been witness to gun play more times then I care to count.

Changing my life style has had a tremendous effect on that dynamic. One of those changes, was to lose the fire arms.

Uh-huh.. Neither would I.. But to say it is impossible for me to make a mistake? Even our trained military cannot make that claim.

Statistics indicate otherwise.

Friendly fire casualties in U.S. history.

World War II 21%
Korea 18%
Vietnam 39%
Persian Gulf 52%
Panama .08%
Haiti 0%
Iraq 41%
Afghanistan 13%

So.. I'm led to believe... Well.. nevermind. No use telling someone who thinks they are perfect that they are human and not infallible.

Why would I be? The actual number is really very small. Compared to overall crime statistics, or to the number of CCW permits and home weapons in the United States. Which indicates that carrying/ keeping a weapon is very rarely a sound measure of defense.

Actually.. Your car would be a better one..to remove yourself from the situation... before it actually happens.

I don't give much credence to much of the statistics out there that claim high percentages of crime prevented by legal gun owners. If you crunch the numbers? They tend to be a higher percentage then violent crime itself.
In other words.. The data does not correlate. There is no way that 150% of violent crime was prevented by legally held firearms.

linddy.. There is no need to educate me on the hysteria that comprises the Christian Coalition. I am pretty well versed. I am aware that the PTL club was dissolved. Yet the players still went on. The Bakers and Falwell certainly used their influence as a vehicle for personal, professional and political gain... right up till the wheels fell off. The same thing happened with 'The Moral Majority' Movement.

I find it somewhat peculiar that first you indicate that the coalition has no interest in theocracy with this:



Then reference their site which in my opinion..clearly states that they are a lobby and force. What they fail to say
is that they have been an overwhelming influence on partisan politics by placing like minded people in places of power. Including Reagan, Bush sr. and Bush jr.

Not that there is anything inherently wrong about that... But, please.. If it walks like a duck, sounds like a duck and floats... Lets call it a duck.

The movements have always proclaimed a doctrine of 'Family values'... With a specific meaning of the 'patriarchal family'. Where the husband works and the wife stays home. Too bad that most of the players have had many sordid occurrences caught along the way. Affairs and abuse of power being the least of them.

The other tenet's, two of which are clearly politically motivated are: Pro-life, Defense, and Israel.



The Christian Coalition, 700 club, PTL and Moral Majority are inexplicably tied. Always will be. You can try and change history all you want... But even a monkey can see the connections.

To say that the Christian Coalition comprises the majority of Christians, or even the majority of protestant Christians... is a bold statement. Then minimize the rest as lazy? Wow! I see that their arrogance has rubbed off on
you some! Personally? I find it insulting and alienating.

The Coalition is what is termed as Traditionalist. You seem to have forgotten the other categories of Christianity.
The different types and percentages of Christianity and other religions represented in the United States are listed
below.

Evangelical Protestant 26.3% of total
Comprised of:

Traditionalist Evangelical 12.6%
Centrist Evangelical 10.8%
Modernist Evangelical 2.9%

Mainline Protestant 16.0%
Comprised of:

Traditionalist Mainline 4.3%
Centrist Mainline 7.0%
Modernist Mainline 4.7%

Latino Protestants 2.8%
Black Protestants 9.6%

Catholic 17.5%
Traditionalist Catholic 4.4%
Centrist Catholic 8.1%
Modernist Catholic 5.0%

Latino Catholic 4.5%
Other Christian 2.7%
Other Faiths 2.7%
Jewish 1.9%
Unaffiliated 16,0%
Unaffiliated Believers 5.3%
Secular 7.5%
Atheist, Agnostic 3.2%

*Source: Fourth National Survey of Religion and Politics, Bliss Institute University
of Akron, March-May 2004

Given this information.. It is clear that Traditionalist Evangelicals are not the majority. No matter how you slice it. To say that Traditionalist Evangelicals speak for all Christianity or all Protestant Christianity.. probably makes you feel secure... It is a false security though.

The power is not in the numbers. The power is in the fund raising and ability to throw money around. The power is in the media machine.
The power is in the placement of people in places of power, and using that influence. Or actively pursuing a theistic governing body. In the corporate world? You would be a monopoly. In the gang world? You would be a Mafia.

Hey.. We can't blame you...
It would be out of character for the Christian Coalition to say and do the same thing...

Hypocrisy and doublespeak are how you get things done!

Yeah, yeah.. How many of use carry cars as a weapon of self defense?

I realize the temptation to go there with him... I didn't even address it. Why give credence to a passive aggressive attack and it's varied rationalizations?

You have nothing to prove to him... Neither do I.

Only the fearful who are reacting to that fear, will take up that strategy.

And?

How many of us have actually been a witness to gun violence? Or have been shot at? Or have had a weapon simply brought to bear on them?

Not as a Law Enforcement officer or as military personnel.. Simply as a law abiding citizen. I'm guessing not many.. Maybe measured somewhere between a a half dozen to 10 of all of us who have posted in all the forums, thus far.

My experiences are both when I was armed and not armed. To believe... even with the best of training that a weapon will keep you safe from someone intent on doing you harm? Is simply a false sense of security that will most likely put you in places you would otherwise not be.. Doing things you would otherwise not do... and bring your short life to a shorter end. Or worse.. lose somebody close to you.

All because you want to exercise your right to have a false sense of security.

Gun violence happens quickly. Usually the perpetrator does not warn you of their intent... It ends as soon as it begins. If you have a weapon on you or near you? Chances are you will not have the time or opportunity to use it without getting yourself or someone else shot.

So.. erase all those images of what gun violence is like, you may have gleaned from the last action movie you saw... That is not the reality. You are not John McCain and this is not the set of Die Hard.

The only time I've even considered carrying in the last 10 years or so was when I was helping a friend/ colleague of mine, serve papers for an investigation he was running involving some of our local meth cooks.

I knew I was getting into a touchy situation and was trying to be prepared accordingly...

Typically? Crime does not take advantage of those who are in that mindset. Crime takes advantage of those who are unaware.

Personally? I'd rather be aware and unarmed then always armed and not aware. In other words.. being aware is a much better deterrent then being armed. As well as.. there is no risk of my shooting an innocent with my awareness.