Gun Control- Just of interest

[jon]

Ive deliberately taken a much sweeter tone for this post as i dont want to continue to argue with you over something we have both already made up our minds over. That said i did think i should clear a few things up.

For a start my comment regarding carrying small arms as being cowardly was out of place, i can admit that. I should have stated that my real feelings towards this relate to people living in my own country where carrying a handgun is illegal. For a person to carry a handgun here they really would be a coward as no one else carrys guns. IF however you live in a country where carrying of small arms is legal i can totaly see why you would want to have an even score card. My reasons for viewing it as cowardly are based on the fact that over here guns are not commen hence carrying one means your trying to tip the odds heavily in your favor. So i guess i should appologise to those who are perfectly within there legal rights as it was not you im aiming at.
These are not meant to start another stir i just wanted to clear a few things up:


"directing it at another individual for the most part is a thin shield to hide behind"
* This is really not my fault, you took a post i addressed to someone else and decided to make a personal issue out of it

"As for cussing at me, its been done before."
* I deliberatly tried to not swear and only use silly insults that wouldnt be taken to seriously. Im sorry if your kids read this but remember you throw the first stone here. My comments where a bit out of place but you didnt need to respond with personal insults.

"So you think I fight like a girl? Thank you. I know a few girls that can hold their own pretty well, even with real bad boys like you."
* You obviously missed the humor in my comment, it was due to your way of trying to twist my words to fit your arguement. Most girls are great at this tactic, i said you insult like a girl not fight like one. The comment was also not really supposed to be sexist or serious, it was very much tounge in cheek.

"I've never been in a stand up fight? You're sure? I could make all kinds of claims here, but what is the point? "
* I couldnt possibly know how well you fight, i said 'proberly' and the comment was again more a silly insult than serious debate.

"I listed my initials and my location when I joined this forum."
* Ive listed my real first name, location and the name of my sifu, i have to be carefull what i say and i can respect you have the same responsibility.

"I have said that all I own right now is a muzzle loading rifle. You think I sleep with it under my pillow? Wierd! Do I load it, or just cuddle up real close? "
* Definately loaded and im certain you do cuddle it close [j\k]

"No, I don't feel sorry for you because of your views on gun legislation. I feel sorry for you because of your attitude, which, as I said, is pathetic."
* I tried to restate my view with a little more accuracy above, if you still view it as pathetic then fair enough, we will just have to disagree. Still you would do better to try and sway people to your view rather than just insulting theres. This whole thing has only made me more happy we have gun restrictions in place.

"I was refering to your accusation that we don' bother to train for empty hands fighting"
* I was very carefull to say that 'SOME' have the attidude of why learn to fight when you can carry a gun. Please stop accusing me of things i havent said and taking my words well out of context.

"I have a high and mighty attitude? OK, if you say so. Let me take this oppornuty to invite you to come up to my standard. The view is great up here, and folks are a lot nicer."
* My post was in responce to yours, i hardly see how you can claim your standard is above mine when your the one who started with the personal insults. As for folks being a lot nicer, this board [street\reality] has been nothing but a hassle for me and ive only made a few posts. Im a regular on both the main forum and the southern and i never cop this kind of treatment. I think ill avoid these 'nicer folks' you speak of thanks.

I have no wish to keep this going Dnc I only orginaly wanted to state what it was like in a country with good gun control and give my opinion. I can respect not all will agree with it but that is no excuse to then start hurling flames.
I even noticed my so called 'insults' have been edited out of my post, thats beyond a joke and blatently against freedom of speech. There was no swearing and the whole paragraph was tounge in cheek. This board wreaks of bad management and a sence of 'locals only'... I will make it my buisness to let others know this, I see no point in posting when its not even certain your view will be recieved intact.

[- I Edited out my own lame threats to the moderators about freedom of speech withdrawl ]

[dnc101]

Jon,

Actually, you're right. I love that gun (sniff)!

Seriously, thanks for the apology, the new tone, and the clarification. I can accept that your post may have been taken wrong. But when you started out, the comments were directed to what appeared to be gun owners in general, then you moved on to a particular individual. So yes, I took it as a personal attack. Maybe I should have asked for clarification before I had at you, so I too must apologise.

As for the comment that was edited from your post, I can only guess that it was seen as possibly offensive to women.

I'd also like to clear up one point, even though no one has yet accused me of this. I don't dislike Australians. In fact, I liked both of the Crocodile Dundee movies. He's my hero! Did you see that shot he took- at least 300 yds downhill, a quick snapshot, under fire, and he creased his partners head and saved his life! If you guys can shoot like that, it seems a shame to disarm you.

I've never been to Australia, so I don't know what it's like there. And your laws are your business. I have read comments from a lot of you which decry the loss of freedom and the injustices of gun control. So I know it is a contentios issue there, just as it is here. And it tends to get peoples hackles up quick. I can argue politely with those who have opposing views (read some of my discussions with others). But your comments raised my hackles, and I bared my fangs and went for the jugular. You have a good point- that is not the best way to change someones mind.

I'm sorry you had such a rough time here ( I'm not being mean spirited this time). I do think you have to take some responsibility for that, though. You have to admit, some of your comments were pretty rude as stated, regardless of how they were meant. Of course, so were my replies, so I'm willing to call it even for my part in this mess.

One last thing- the bad issue. Of course I have no idea how bad you are, or whether you are a coward. That was a "Yeah, so are you" reply, which I admit is not really a higher standard. And I don't mean to come off as bad either. I have been in a few fights, but I'd be ashamed to tell you how many I lost. Attitude sometimes counts for more than training when things get really nasty ( sorry guys, but if you think different, you are in for a rude awakening ). And I've had the misfortune to meet some who went to the MA school of hard knocks who would eat anything you throw at them and still come on hard. They were bad, I was had. Trust me, I would have loved to have had a gun a few times, even one on one. And truth be known, there are times I've backed off from a fight. It was a bitter pill to swallow. But when the deck is stacked against you, it's like they say, "Discretion is the better part of valor." It just doesn't feel that way at the time. So I guess this is a case of the pot calling the kettle black ( or in your case, the billie ). And my guess is that most of us, or at least those of us who didn't have the sense to stay out of the bad areas, have had similar experiences. It doesn't make any of us cowards.

So Godspeed, and keep up the training. And I hope you reconsider about leaving the forum.

[jon]

You have just shamed me
That was proberly the most intelligent well thought out responce ive ever read on this forum - with a dash of humour
Your views and your opinions are well stated and to be frank you have actualy turned me slightly in your direction. I have to admit i have no idea as to the standard of interlect or thought process that a gun owner has and i was stupid to act like i did.
You sir deserve your gun, if everyone else who owned one also had your sence of reason we proberly wouldnt be in this mess.
I feel a bit stupid about my being so axed at my comments being cut i just couldnt believe they werent seen for what they where. The main forum is a total mess of swearing and general insults and i was a bit shocked at this moderators lack of humor. Also just to be a real fly in the ointment you can only construde my comments as sexist if you already believe men to be superiour. Otherwise [just as you wisely did] you would simply see it as either pointless or a compliment.
Anyway it was a real pleasure to read your post and you have certainly made me both feel less insulted and more in favor of your argument.
Full props to you dnc101 you have my respects.
Jon

[myosimka]

since we are on the subject of rights and freedoms. Freedom of speech is a great thing. The problem is most people presume (a)that means a guaranteed forum and (b)that any restrictions are a violation of that right. And that just ain't so.

Somebody's paying for server space and domain registration. If they want to let people talk on their site, that's their right. But they also get to make the rules. And if they pull your comments, then they are expressing their freedom of expression. Ie. they control their webpage.

(If only they'd exercise it more regularly, maybe we'd be spared Ralek, jacki, Spinning Backfist and all the rest.)


That being said the filter is darned annoying. I understand cutting out some but it annoys me to not be able to say ****geneous, ****cide, ****sexual...all of which I can see cause for in polite debates on martial arts, weapons, etc. (And personally cutting out the 'offensive' stuff is annoying too.)

[fmann]

it's homicide, not hom o cide.

[dnc101]

Jon: Even up, then. And no worries, mate ( best Aussie accent )!

Myosimka: Excellent point! But this is a bit scarry- you are sounding a lot like Rush Limbaugh. The way he put it, you have the right to speak- but you don't have the right to have anyone listen.

Also a good point about the regulation of the site. It is unfortunate that we live in a litigious society, and they have to protect themselves.

While we are on this subject, I'm sorry I chose an individual letter to point out the disrespect inherent in public profanity. That was, in retrospect, a little disrespectful in itself ( that is to everyone who had to endure the tirade of emotions I was engaged in ).

Moderators- that would have to be a tough job sometimes. And since I complained this thread probably came under a little extra scrutiny.

Jon, since you havn't come into contact with guns, I would assume you havn't met a lot of gun owners. So it is understandable you wouldn't know how we think or view firearms. If you're interested, I'll give you a look inside my mind.
*A gun is a tool, and like using any tool you have to pick the right one for the job. Some are made for combat, some for self defense, hunting, target shooting, plinking, and some are mostly ornamental.
*A gun may be a sporting accessory- hunting and target shooting are good examples.
*A gun may be a work of art. Keep your Rembrandts, I'll take the functional beauty of a well crafted firearm any day.
*Guns are science at the level of the common man. Shooting is a very technical art. Trajectory, wind velocity and direction, and temperature are just a few of the things to consider in making a well placed shot. And you must discipline your body to take and hold a good, steady position. Your mind must also be disciplined to bring it all together before you squeeze the trigger. And handloading your own ammo is going through an entire production process from design, product testing, manufacture, quality control, distrubition and use.
*Guns are history. From military firearms that helped decide the fate of nations to those that opened "new" lands to exploration and settlement, the history of the modern world was written with guns.
*Guns are security. Self defense is a legitimate use for any tool, from empty hands to firearms. And no nation is truly secure without a well armed military.
*Guns are myth and legend. This is especially true in America, where we have the tales of the West- some true, most embellished, and then there's Hollywood.
*Guns are a moral issue. Like having martial arts training, having a gun carries a lot of responsibility. You can't give life, so you don't have the right to take life without good reason, whether by intent or by negligence. As with anything, accidents may happen. But it is your responsibility to make every reasonable effort to prevent them.
*Guns are a social issue. I don't think I need to say anything about that on THIS forum.
Pretty impressive for a hunk of metal and wood, don't you think?

Good on yer, mates! ( OK, I'll stop with the corny accent- jeeze! )

[dnc101]

On a personal note, you too have gained my respect.

Some times we loose sight of the fact that everyone here is a martial artist. And whether we train for fighting, sport, or just for fun, we've all put a lot of effort and discipline into our art. I think that speaks volumes of all of us, we just have to stop and listen.

The same goes for shooting. It requires a lot of the same effort and discipline as the martial arts to do it right. But I have to admit that there are some who don't put in much more effort into their art than putting down the cash and taking it home. And there are a few who are rediculously irresponsible or, as you said, want an edge. No one dislikes them more than responsible gun owners. The good news for you is that the edge gained without discipline can, and often is, turned against them. A person who depends only on the possesion of a gun to control the situation is in a defensive mindset. As a martial artist, you probably can see the folly in that, as well as the opportunity for you. You just have to be cognizent of the fact that it isn't the one that holds the gun who has the advantage, it is the one who controls the gun. And that, sir, is you- if you've trained a little and know a few of the basic principles. I'd recomend playing with it ia little just for the experience. It is fun as well as useful to practice disarmament. Get a toy dart gun for a little realism- if the dart hits you, you did it wrong. Add some weight for a better feel ( lead inthe handle works ). And cut off the trigger guard- your partner will appreciate not having his finger riped and twisted off. And don't forget about rifles and shotguns- whole different ballgame there. If you want to try it let me know and I'll give you some more tips. Maybe even start a new thread.

Just a thought or two. Good training, and good luck.

[jon]

dnc101
Thank you for your insights you seem to have a good handle on the whole situation. One idea i could see as certainly more benificial is better gun education in the states where they are common. Mainly in the area of handling of firearms and saftey issues related to the use of them. I think the points you brought up on history was interesting as well. I sometimes forget i have a room full of chinese swords which i love dearly and would never allow anyone to take away.
I have trained a little gun disarming but i have to say if your close its not to hard, if your more than 4 feet away your basicaly toast.

Regarding the issue of moderation on a public board, i edited out my previous post becouse i had basicaly flipped my lid but i will restate here what i said in much sweeter terms.

This is actualy a private board thats paid for by advertising, if comments are constantly edited for poor reasons and views are not able to be expressed in full then people will simply stop comming here. Hence no more money no more board...
There is nothing to stop me [other than my good will] from making it a mission to let others know about this 'moderation' and in turn ruin any reputation that this street\reality forum has.
Im sure if i posted this even on the main page of this very site it would do enough to stop some people from ever posting in this section again. If you dont believe it then fair enough but you only need to look at the number of people who post in the main section on topics that obviously 'could' go on here to see that this board already doesnt have much of a reputation.
A shining example of this shoddy standard can be seen in JF Springers post which was not at all rude and mearly stated Ralek had not shown up. This post was fine on every other forum on this site yet for some reason Johhny felt the need to delete it here. I would be VERY interested in knowing just how he justifies that one on a commerical public message board.
We have enough to worry about with trolls we dont need to worry about having to please finicky moderators to go with it.

[fmann]

Moderators have to use their judgement on what they deem is appropriate. If there is a thread that was cross-posted everywhere on the forum, then why not just link to the main thread instead of allowing all these side threads to take up bandwidth?

Wasting bandwidth and space = wasting money.

Same thing with appropriate conduct. If you following the Whippinghand posts in the Wing Chun forum, you know that the moderators adhere to a code of minimal conduct: control the flames and brash, crass comments. It's not that hard to express oneself without stooping to a low level.

[dnc101]

Points well taken about moderators and advertising, and this being a public forum. I don't know how much harm you'd actually do, but my experience has been that when I go off on a personal crusade I make more people mad at me than my intended victim. For example, we sure got a reaction from each other, Jon. And if I'd ever learn to keep my mouth shut I probably wouldn't get nearly the experience to throw arround here.

You are right about distance and disarming. Even four feet is dicey. That is where negotiation comes into play. If I can talk him out of it, OK. But the main purpose of negotiation is to give him a false sense of security and control and draw him in close enough to give me the edge. This is done verbally, of course, but body language is more important. And you do have to be careful what you say.

There are methods to disarm from across a room. I can't do it- you have to move with the speed of Neo ( but no dramatic wasted motion ) and the athletic moves of Jackie Chan. And it is only intended for the situation where he's going to kill you regardless. It involves moving forward in a serries of rolls, never taking your eyes off his trigger finger. As he aims and squeezes you reverse your roll. ( I'd rather negotiate! ) And the first time it was shown to me I completely nullified his counter attack by crouching and fireing, which took away one of the angles I had to deal with and put us both in the same plane of operation. I doubt that the average punk who somehow got ahold of a gun would think of that, and since a lot of them tend to just spray the area and hope they hit something you might have a chance by just rushing in a serries of dodges. It would beat standing there and getting shot.

Education is also a good idea, and it is one area that all sides prety much agree on as benifficial. But we tend to disagree when it comes to content and a few other details, even among those who aren't totally opposed to guns. Myosimkas posts are a good example of that viewpoint. I am obviosly pro gun rights- although I don't have a problem restricting full autos with 'nade launchers, and nukes are a definate no no.

There is a radical anti gun faction that does not want any gun safety education. A couple of years ago the pro gun side called their bluff by giving them everything they wanted, including registration, but not an outright ban. President Clinton refused to sign it. He instead raised the standard- I think the excuse was a petty detail in the trigger lock portion of the bill. Wayne LaPierre ( VP of the NRA ) called that one perfectly when he said that they didn't want gun safety, that they desire a certain level of gun violence so they have an issue to demigogue. And of course, that radical element wants nothing less than a total ban on private firearms ownership. In other words, if someone has to die to provide them with the headlines, that is fine- they hate guns so much that the ends justify those means. Unfortunately, we find this attitude mostly in the elite circles of politics, the media, education, and Hollywood.

[myosimka]

Thanks fmann!! I finally get to go back to my parents and ***** about my classical education. Putting to gether latin roots hom0 and cidium I have been spelling it wrong for years. I still get to ***** about the terms hom_osexual and ****geneous though.

[tnwingtsun]

There Is No Middle Ground

by Larry Pratt
Executive Director, Gun Owners of America

February 6, 2002

"A new book makes it clear that understanding the gun control debate is hardly likely to end the debate.

The book is entitled Armed: New Perspectives on Gun Control, and it is written by two well known authorities in the field, criminologist Gary Kleck and attorney Don Kates.

Those who claim to be for "reasonable, common sense gun control" deny their intentions of banning guns, but their own statements and their own logic belie their denials.

Kleck is willing to support certain limited gun control measures but believes that the absolutist logic and statements of the leading pro-control advocates has polarized the debate. Those in the Handgun Control, Inc. camp (now known as the Brady Center to Stop Gun Violence) have made the middle ground untenable according to Kleck.

He quotes Rep. William Clay of Saint Louis saying:

"We need much stricter gun control, and eventually we should bar the ownership of handguns except in a few cases."

Likewise, Kleck quotes Rep. Bobby Rush of Chicago saying that:

"ultimately, I would like to see the manufacture and possession of handguns banned except for military and police use. But that's the endgame. And in the meantime, there are some specific things that we can do with legislation."

Just as blatant is this citation from syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer:

"In fact, the assault weapons ban will have no significant effect either on the crime rate or on personal security. Nonetheless, it is a good idea....Its only real justification is not to reduce crime but to desensitize the public to the regulation of weapons in preparation for their ultimate confiscation."

And of course, the Sarah Brady file is full of statements about how each new gun control conquest is a good first step. In fact, Kates mentions that HCI went to court to keep the DC gun ban from being repealed.

HCI donated to the unsuccessful handgun ban referendum in Massachusetts in 1976, and at one time belonged to the National Coalition to Ban Handguns. Nowhere on the HCI website does one find a condemnation of a domestic or foreign gun ban.

For these and many other similar reasons, Kleck lays the blame on the door of the leading pro-control spokesmen for the refusal of even moderate pro-gun freedom supporters to accept any controls whatsoever.

Moreover, the nature of the gun controls put forth is to impact mostly the non-criminals. This further convinces the middle-of-the-road gun owner that gun regulations are unlikely to have much impact on anyone but them. They get the point. Gun controls are aimed at the law-abiding, not the criminals.

In other words, the best arguments against gun control compromises have come, ironically, from the "we want it all" statements and policies of the Sarah Brady fraternity.

This helps explain why, according to Kleck, the non-compliance with the California semi-auto ban has been around 90 percent.

Kleck provides a substantial collection of quotes from prominent Americans who favor banning guns, topped off by former President Bill Clinton. Regarding a ban, Clinton said:

"I don't think the American people are there right now....But there are certain kinds of guns that can be banned and a lot of other reasonable regulations that can be imposed."

An example of constantly raising the bar for gun owners to jump over is the HCI law suit against Beretta. HCI said that it was negligence for gun companies to make guns without a "gun loaded" indicator. Beretta makes handguns with such devices, but HCI sued them anyway — the indicator was not good enough for them.

Of the half-dozen states that have registration laws, Kleck finds that

"state registration laws have no measurable effect on rates of crime or violence....HCI places highest priority on giving the government a resource that would indisputably facilitate mass confiscation of guns, but that has no documented value for reducing crime or violence."

Kleck submitted his chapter on the absolutist goals of Handgun Control to HCI, but they refused to comment.

At the end of the day, my reading of Armed makes crystal clear to me that giving in to the slightest of the demands of the pro-control leaders (in and out of Congress) is to set foot on the slippery slope that plummets toward victim disarmament."



QUOTES TO REMEMBER
Gun control? It's the best thing you can do for crooks and gangsters. I want you to have nothing. If I'm a bad guy, I'm always gonna have a gun. Safety locks? You will pull the trigger with a lock on, and I'll pull the trigger. We'll see who wins. — Sammy "The Bull" Gravano, whose testimony convicted John Gotti.



As for training??

My first session happened when I was five years old,I climbed up
to grab a rifle on my grandfather's gun rack,next thing I knew I saw stars from the back of his hand,a lession never forgot.

That was back in the old days when morals were of a higher standerd.

Firearms were a big part of my life growing up,hunting(and fishing) and maybe it was that socity was differant in those days
where the family took it opon themselves to educate their children.
There were many more firearms back then,boyscouts were trusted when it came to target practice,they were provided training but most already had this knowledge from Dads,Uncles,ect.
What has changed since those days?
Alot!
Are we being progressive to the point that the old ways no longer have bearing with our children?
Take a look at video games children play today,most are violent.
Take a look at the movies hollywood cranks out!
Our children are watching these movies!!
The left and the right complain about the violence in movies and games.
Who pumps the money into the lefts campains?
HOLLYWOOD!!
I was programed as a child to respect firearms as the ocean,I do not fear either one but I respect BOTH!

As a soldier I was programed to be aware at all times where my muzzel was in relation to my buddy in the stack(shoot your buddy and your OUT!).
Maybe I got lucky that my family ranging from WW2 Vets-Nam Vets took an interest in instilling morals that are on the decay
in todays world.

And who is responsible for this lack of edjucation for our children?

Its NOT the Govs place,its ours as parents,uncles grandfathers!!

And the punks that were not lucky as I was brought up with firearms knowledge because they have parents that either not care or they have no guidence and use a firearm to harm somebody else(see product of their envioment)
then all the reason for me to own a firearm and teach my children the right way!


As far as class 3 firearms are concerned(select fire rifles,machine guns) I would much rather engage an untrained person with a subgun or a crew served weapon with my firearm using fire control.

BTW,a Simi-large capacity-mag rifle is NOT an Assult Rifle(see class 3 weapons)


Any person WELL trained in the art of firearms Military/Police knows that a well placed shot is better than the spray and pray mentality.

As far as resisting my/our of the people US Gov. if they go bonkers
not surviving,think again.

[Radhnoti]

Well said. I especially liked the portion discussing the "untenable" nature of the middle ground for pro-gun advocates.
Great article tnwingtsun. Very relevant to the discussion, in my opinion.

[tnwingtsun]

Like it or not, we are the militia
By Jessica Mainard, Collegiate Programs Director - SAF

The militia is often discussed in the pro-gun foundation where I work. Usually I’m on the other side of the fence arguing against its existence. Being young, maybe I just don’t understand. I’ve never felt the need to enlist into a military service that does not even exist in any measurable way. I even remember saying just six months ago “Why do we need a militia? We’re the leaders of the free world. We’re the United States of America.”

This question came to mind again while reading an Internet newsgroup post, so I researched the history and definition of this “militia.” Often people refer to “militias” as those people with bunkers in the mountains and all varieties of strange political beliefs. Sometimes you’ll even hear people argue that the militia is actually now the National Guard (which was once state militias and later nationalized to become an armed service) but in fact that is not the case.

The ready militia is defined in 10 USC 311 as: “All able-bodied males at least 17 years of age…and under 45 years of age who are or have made a declaration of intention to become citizens of the United States.” Additionally, another provision allows for a reserve militia, which includes women, children and the elderly.

The interesting thing is just how implausible the militia really is. It cannot be summoned by any government, but must be mustered from within. Additionally, there is no penalty for not fulfilling a militia responsibility. How does one know when it is his or her responsibility to muster the militia?

I wondered what form a “muster” might take. A guy standing on the street with a bugle, playing some civil-war-era charge? Maybe a broadcasted call to arms?

My eyes fell on a article from the Washington Times. Peter Hannaford wrote about United Airlines’ September 19 flight 564 at Denver International Airport.

On the tarmac, waiting for takeoff, the pilot addressed the passengers giving directions on how to attack and disarm a would-be terrorist. He closed his comments just before takeoff saying:

The Declaration of Independence says “We the People” and that is just what it is when we’re in the air; we, the people, vs. would-be terrorists. I don’t think that we’re going to have any such problem today or tomorrow, or for a while, but sometime down the road its going to happen again, and I want you to know what to do. Now, since we’re family for the next few hours, I’ll ask you to turn to the person next to you, introduce yourself, and ask them to do the same.”

As his statement ended, all of the passengers began to applaud. I read this for at least the third time before I realized that this pilot has just mustered his own militia, and moreover, this was not the first time that’s happened recently.

Reports from cellular phone calls show that the passengers (quite possibly all of the passengers) of flight 93 took a vote to attack the hijackers who may have been intending to crash the jet into the White House or Capitol.

From among those passengers, volunteers stepped forward to attack the hijackers. Unarmed, with no defenses, a stewardess boiled water in the galley to be used as a weapon, hoping to injure or distract their captors. The volunteers then phoned mothers, wives and friends. One even called a telephone operator asking her to pass a message to his wife and kids, and to recite the Lords’ prayer with him.

The volunteers on that flight were not as well qualified as many soldiers in defense, but they were capable of mounting their attack. Mark Bingham was a physically fit Rugby player who had once wrestled a gun from a mugger’s hand. Tom Burnet was a star quarterback in high school he was fast and muscular. Jeremy Glick was a judo champion, and Todd Beamer, a father of three, sounded their final battle cry. Ending his phone call to the telephone operator, he shouted “Are you guys ready? Let’s Roll!”

These brave men died in a field in rural Pennsylvania. Hardly a glamorous or overwhelming show of force, with no war or obvious victors. Some people are even critical of the decision to award them the President’s Medal of Freedom, and Purple Hearts for their courage and sacrifice.

This passenger militia left a legacy and a new standard of duty for their children, and an entire generation. My generation. Showing us that there is no such thing as great men, only ordinary men in extraordinary circumstances. Men who rise to the occasion like they did.

I’d like to close with a poem from Herman Melville, ironically, written the day President Abraham Lincoln died. There is a sobbing of the strong,


And a pall upon the land;
But the people in their weeping,
Bare an Iron hand;
Beware the people weeping when they bare the iron hand

[tnwingtsun]

Too much text for this forum,some may read some may not.

Those on the anti gun/registration(same thing) side tell me what you think.



http://communities.prodigy.net/sportsrec/gz-noc1.html




Read before you reply.