Posted on 10/26/2003 4:41:29 AM PST by lifacs
No. But I don't think it applies in this case. Prior to purchase yes, after purchase, no.
Before the 1968 GCA, many states such as mine, CA, did have mandatory safety training for minors, over 12 years and under 18, to receive "Hunter Safety Training" before they could be issued a hunting license. The NRA was the state mandated organization named to provide that training. No one, in those days objected. Least of all, the parents.
What some of you are trying to imply is that there was no gun control before the '68 GCA or the Brady Bill, but there was. We controlled ourselves. We feared our Dad's more than the sheriff. A gun store owner could refuse to sell a firearm and he wouldn't be sued. Now he would be. Now it is the movies and other children that teach children how to, or rather how not to, handle guns. I consider ignorance to be a real "infringement" on my rights.
Among those of us that hunt, the unsafe were shunned and not invited hunting the next year. I don't think it is infringement if the other hunters along the slopes of the Sierra Nevada Mountains are trained in the safe use of a hunting rifle. Quite frankly, it is your duty to yourself and your family, other hunters AND the 2nd. Amendment that you do seek training. I know you'll disagree with that, but two of my hunting partners are now watching this post, over my shoulder on this computer at my office, and are moving their heads in agreement.
I do not believe the 2nd Amendment applies to children, period. To shoot a gun is a privilege afforded to a child by the childs parents. When the child is an adult, 18 or 21, the 2nd Amendment applies. If you have a problem with age, or "Maturity Qualifications", take it up with the Constitution. It sets the age at being able to represent your neighbors in Congress at 25yrs and your state in the Senate at 30yrs. Oh, and since "Everyone can grow up to be President", any Natural citizen cannot do that until they are at least 35 years old. Is that "infringement"? I don't think so, I think it is the wisdom of the Founding Fathers.
Do you also support state-mandated potty training?
For you, personally? Yes!
You're obviously unaware of the large numbers of home invasions, murders, robberies, and rapes that are iniated by a knock at the door.
A prudent man or woman would not only be prepared for such scenarios, but prepared to prevail should they occur.
Likewise, a prudent man or woman would extend common-sense courtesies to others when at their door. This includes hands out of pockets, and standing several feet back from the door.
Crowding the door, or pretending (cognizantly or not) to have a hidden object, is asking for trouble.
//////////////////////////
Perhaps you should also investigate LITERACY training? In the VERY post to which you were responding with this gross distortion of my view of gun-safety training, I had already posted the following for ALL to see:
Training is not an infringement -- and no one I know ever said it was, so your post is inaccurate at best.
In fact, training is our friend.
However, MANY of us say (and correctly, so) that state-mandated training requirements are an infringement.
"Sorry about the rant, I just needed to say that.
If us ol' geezers want to push that pendulum back, it is time to start befriending and mentoring the younger generation, not viewing them with unwarranted derision and suspicion."
--------------------------------------------------------
Nice rant....
Can't say that I disagree with much of anything you said.....
Best FRegards,
But there are laws against harassment.
BTW, a wall which minors like to climb could end up being an "attractive nuisance" and become a liability. Check into that. Anyone who has had a child climb their motorcycle unbidden should be familiar with the term.
What I fail to understand in all this is why the guy didn't arm himself with something really good like a Streetsweeper. You pop a round into the chamber on that sucker and they'll stand up at attention and await your next command.
The Streetsweeper was classified as a "destructive device" under BATF rules when Lloyd Bentsen was Secretary of the Treasury (which ran BATF until recently). It more closely resembles an oversized revolver, with a 'wheel' type magazine, than any conventional shotgun. Loading the firearm is innocuous enough, operating it is, by all accounts a definite attention-getter. It was designed to put a lot of lead pellets either in the air at a mass of rioters, or better, to skip those shot off of the pavement into the advancing mob, usually trying to hit them in the legs. Rate of fire is fast enough to sweep from one side of an urban street to the other before the mob has advanced very far, hence the name "Streetsweeper". Facing only a couple of riot patrol police with these would generally give a mob second thoughts. To my knowledge, the weapon is South African in origin.
If you mean the distinctive noise a pump shotgun makes when racking the slide, that might be a deterrent--as might be the distinctive sound of a semi-automatic pistol slide going into battery--or if Law Enforcement came calling (wrong address-no knock warrant) you just might get yourself killed.
It appears you would bet all your chips on passive defense items, which is your right. Maybe walls, signs, and locked gates are appropriate where you live.
Criminals, Mad Dogs, children, and lunatics are notoriously bad at reading signs and following directions.
Walls and high fences are not appropriate where I live, and can create a hazard in winter. I have the means to defend myself when needed. My wife can do so as well, without the need to hide behind walls other than those of our home. To date, we have not had to kill anyone (nor have we done so).
Often, a pistol bullet is survivable, depending on placement and the type of bullet used. A shotgun at close range is devastating.
Your posts seem antagonistic toward using firearms for defense. Not everyone can afford walls, locked gates and private security.
In the case of this event, there may well have been an inappropriate use of a firearm--with tragic results. The courts will have to sort this out. They can get the facts and act appropriately.
In literally millions more instances each year, firearms are used in self defense, more often than not without requiring a shot to be fired. The mere presence of the firearm in the hands of the potential victim is sufficient deterrent.
Review my posts. You will find that I have repeatedly stated that the person who did the shooting may well have been in the wrong, but that we do not have the full picture.
Apparently, the local Law Enforcement folks did not see the need to arrest the shooter or file charges at the time, which says there was at least some significant question in their minds about whether the shooting was unjustified.
It seems you would hold all firearms owners responsible for this event.
If a drunk runs over someone's 5 year-old at three AM, would you blame all drinkers? all drivers? or would you wonder what the 5-year-old was doing in the street at 3 AM?
Whatever extenuating circumstances are involved, the simple fact remains, the kid would be alive today if the kid hadn't been screwing around the guy's house at all.
Inasmuch as I am a hardcore defender of the Second Amendment, I am not sure where you are coming from.
Have you heard my use of the First, Second and Third as a demonstration that the Founders looked to French history as their rationale for the Bill of Rights? Taken together those three amendments even support the idea that the Founders were desirous of protecting America as a "Protestant", not just "Christian" nation.
In the interest of clearing up some misconception, I'd like you to cite the post where I said that.
As for defending the Second Amendment, show me where I have not.
As for 'victims', I see firearms as a means of preventing one from joining their ranks. While that does not stop good, honest, people from becoming victims through the criminal use of firearms, it does level the playing field somewhat. If this six foot, two hundred pound 'child' was harassing or even terrorizing someone, then he placed himself in harm's way. While I cannot argue (in absence of the facts) that the punishment is in any way appropriate for the crime, the fact remains that if the 'child' had not been there, he would not have been killed.
Certain legal constraints have been applied to the use of deadly force, at a minimum, these should be observed. Consider them Rules of Engagement.
As others have pointed out (and I agree), just because the legal parameters are met, there is not necessarily sufficient moral cause to use lethal force. Beyond the legalities, moral or other issues may apply, depending on the individuals involved.
This in no way abrogates the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, merely urges the responsible use of those arms.
As for Christianty being a founding force in the formation of this nation, the fact is pretty obvious when one considers that several colonies were founded to escape religious persecution, by Catholic and Protestant denominations alike. The Magna Carta and English (pre- and post-Anglican)Common Law were definite factors in the attitude of the Founders toward individual rights, even though those rights were not conferred on everyone equally.
You might not consider the "kid" a "potential victim", although he was (because it's quite clear he became a "victim"). If he'd had a firearm, as you suggest, would that have prevented his assailant from firing on him?
In a few days we will hear more about this case.
We didn't have to wait a few days. Here's the article about the coroner reporting, FUR SHUR, that the kid was SHOT IN THE BACK.
Whole 'nuther story. Guy's going to have to prove some stuff he's not likely to be able to prove.
God have mercy on his soul.
Like any other tool, it can be abused or used for evil purposes in the wrong hands. People have been killed with hammers, wrenches, ice picks, even a leg of mutton (and that before it was cooked).
Anyone who claims to be a supporter of the 2nd Amendment should not need this spelled out for them.
In North Dakota, where I live, anyone engaged in criminal activity loses their ability to claim victimhood if they suffer injury in the process, by State Law. I am not familliar with Florida law.
We do not know (nor will we from the article posted) whether this was a lone incident, or just one more in a string of harassment. We do not know if the homeowner had other reasons to fear for his life, death threats, etc. which were unrelated to the kid. As far as victimhood goes, the fact remains that if the kid had not been screwing around on the guy's doorstep, he would have not been shot. That appears to be the first in a series of bad decisions which led to his death. Actions have consequences.
Now, before you twist that, I am not defending either party in this case. It appears, especially in view of your second post, that both were wrong, just one has paid more heavily for it at this point. What consequences they will have for the homeowner remain in the hands of the courts, but at the least, he can expect to lose everything he has unless he can mount an impressive defense.
Regardless of the actions of the persons involved, I still strongly believe that being armed is the first and best defense against the violent criminal element, and I will continue to embrace that responsibility.
From the article:
"A 16-year-old boy killed during a seemingly innocent late-night prank was shot in the back, according to emergency room records.
Please note, that this is not an autopsy (Coroner's report), but is more in the form of a press release by the attorney for the family, who has stated intent to file a wrongful death suit.
Also from the article: Levin has not been charged in the shooting. His attorney, Bo Hitchcock, did not immediately return a phone message Sunday. Mike Edmondson, spokesman for Palm Beach County State Attorney Barry Krischer, declined to comment on the hospital report.
While I'm content to wait and see what the coroner says, but I am also willing to admit it'd be really hard to mix up entry and exit wounds.
If this is the case, and the guy back-shot him, Guy's going to have to prove some stuff he's not likely to be able to prove. and God have mercy on his soul. are two statements I sure can't argue with.
In his straits, I'd get the best lawyer money can buy, too.
It is up the courts, now.
Ballistics probably won't tell much, per se, but wound channel angle might, powder burns (if present), location of the bullet either inside or outside of the body (if recovered and if a through and through wound with little or no deflection off of skeletal elements).
Blood and tissue distribution in the grass/on the sidewalk, etc. from an exit wound could provide the location at the time of the shooting, and to some degree the angle of the shot. (Warm climate, wait a day and watch for flies--they'll locate the meaty bits.)
Anyway, Levin's world, and life is on the line here. He's going to figure if he stays out of prison, he can relocate and work to pay the bills, whatever they are.
I have to believe that the prosecutor selected charges which have some likelyhood of producing a conviction or which they deem appropriate to the offense. Mitigating circumstances might include an unrelated death threat or other factors we will not read about in the papers. Keep in mind that most newspapers are owned by media outlets which are anti-gun and which are perfectly willing to hang any CCW permit holder (even though he probably didn't need a permit in his home), just to further the 'Dodge City' myth.
I own a bodyshop. At 11:30 pm one night, I heard a knocking at my front door. I jumped out of bed and grabbed a small .22 handgun. I answered the door. There was a black man standing there. The first thing he tried to do, was take a step into my house. I showed him my gun, and he was startled and stepped back. To make a long story short, it was a man I had given an estimate to , 2 weeks prior to this. He wanted to talk about fixing his car.
I told him to leave and find someone else to repair his car. No way I wanted to work on a guys car that would pull a stunt like this.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.