Man shoots at noisy teenagers, killing one

"Asmodeus" wrote in message
. 199.17...

Cite your evidence for this drivel.

Speaking of drivel, ...

Just exactly what part of "Shall Not Be Infringed" don't you understand?

Which part of "a well regulated militia" don't *you* understand?

Apparently, all of it. Maybe you can get Yanik to help you.
--
C.R. Krieger
(Who's read the *whole* Constitution.)

In article , C.R. Krieger wrote:

Which part of "a well regulated militia" don't *you* understand?

As I understnd it, in the use of the english language at the time, this
phrase was an example of why people should keep arms. Reading other
writings of the time by the same people supports this concept.

Penny Gaines wrote in
:

P. Tierney wrote in INPyb.186867$Dw6.710538@attbi_s02:

I've read some news stories of people in the UK who have defended
themselves from criminals, using firearms to do so, and thusly
have had incured rather extreme penalties. Much more than the
criminal who attacked them.

Got any links?

A google search fails to turn up the articles I remember reading a
couple years ago. I failed to save the urls so finding the articles
at this point would be difficult.

It's worth a look. Something that seems unjust on the
surface of things isn't always so when the details are explored.

He might be thinking of the Tony Martin case. I don't remember the
details, but Tony Martin lived in an isolated farmhouse. When two
youths broke into his house, he shot them as they were leaving,
killing one.

After suffering repeated burglaries.

OTOH,a Miami,FL shopkeeper,after suffering repeated burglaries to his small
appliance store,set up an electrified grate indoors,next to the roof vent
used as the crook's entrance.The crook had made several trips in and out
before completing the circuit and electrocuting himself.The police
prosecuted him for manslaughter but he was acquitted by a jury.



You'll probably be able to get more details if you search on
news.bbc.co.uk.




--
Jim Yanik,NRA member
jyanik-at-kua.net

In article ,
Banty wrote:

The best you can argue is that this isn't murder one. This is a good-old
fashioned case of stupidly killing someone in anger. The man who shoots his
wife caught en-flagrante is still a murderer, the gang member who shoots another
banger because 'he was in my face' is still a murderer. Bernie Getz was a
murderer.

Bernie Goetz was acquitted of murder and manslaughter.
--
Matthew T. Russotto
"Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in pursuit
of justice is no virtue." But extreme restriction of liberty in pursuit of
a modicum of security is a very expensive vice.

In article ,
C.R. Krieger wrote:
"Asmodeus" wrote in message
.199.17...

Cite your evidence for this drivel.

Speaking of drivel, ...

Just exactly what part of "Shall Not Be Infringed" don't you understand?

Which part of "a well regulated militia" don't *you* understand?

Which part of "the right of the people" don't YOU understand?


C.R. Krieger
(Who's read the *whole* Constitution.)

I have as well, and not just looking for loopholes like one Supreme
Court Justice I could name...



--
Matthew T. Russotto
"Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in pursuit
of justice is no virtue." But extreme restriction of liberty in pursuit of
a modicum of security is a very expensive vice.

On Wed, 3 Dec 2003 10:49:31 -0600, "C.R. Krieger"
wrote:

"Asmodeus" wrote in message
.199.17...

Cite your evidence for this drivel.

Speaking of drivel, ...

Just exactly what part of "Shall Not Be Infringed" don't you understand?

Which part of "a well regulated militia" don't *you* understand?

Maybe you can look up what a comma means before posting your
uneducated bull****.

"C.R. Krieger" wrote in message
. ..
"Asmodeus" wrote in message
. 199.17...

Cite your evidence for this drivel.

Speaking of drivel, ...

Just exactly what part of "Shall Not Be Infringed" don't you understand?

Which part of "a well regulated militia" don't *you* understand?

Apparently, all of it. Maybe you can get Yanik to help you.
--
C.R. Krieger
(Who's read the *whole* Constitution.)

....but who apparently didn't understand what he read. That a well regulated
militia is stated as a reason for the right to bear arms, just like any
other parts of the constitutional amendments, does not act as an exclusion
to all other reasons unless it is so stated -- and it is not so stated.


--
"There are 10 kinds of people in the world:
those who understand binary numbers and those who don't."
-----------------------------
Byron "Barn" Canfield

Carol Saxton wrote in message ...

Mellon, 44, reported the shooting, Steen said.
He was charged with murder, assault with a
deadly weapon inflicting serious injury,
assault with a deadly weapon and discharging
a weapon into occupied property.

He was held in jail without bond.
**********************************
http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/11/29/te....ap/index.html

Since the daily death toll caused by speeders far exceeds that one
incident, I think he should be allowed to plead temporary insanity if
the teens' behavior was chronic and he'd asked them to stop many
times.

People who use cars for ego trips, or to harass other drivers and
neighborhood residents are a lower life form, in my opinion, and do
not deserve to be treated as "innocent victims."

Here's what aggressive teenage driving does to truly innocent victims
each day:

http://news.google.com/news?num=100&...g+crash+killed


C.T.

http://www.geocities.com/aggressive_driving/

On Wed, 3 Dec 2003 10:49:31 -0600, "C.R. Krieger"
wrote:



Speaking of drivel, ...

Just exactly what part of "Shall Not Be Infringed" don't you understand?

So you think 5 year old kids should be allowed to have guns?

Which part of "a well regulated militia" don't *you* understand?

Nobody knows what that silly phrase means.

AlexT wrote in message ...

The cause of the death was not "speeding", it was yet another irrational
person using and abusing their right to own a gun in the US.

Go ahead and say that, as long as you realize that speeding teens kill
a LOT more people than one enraged father in a freak incident. People
don't equate speeding so readily with murder because the deaths
usually aren't intentional.

But if that man went temporarily nuts and shot at the kids mainly to
scare them, there's not a huge difference between him and road
terrorists who tailgate like maniacs and intimidate other drivers.
They are just controlling much heavier projectiles than bullets.

http://news.google.com/news?num=100&...g+crash+killed

Most dry news stories about shooting incidents omit the full history
of the victims. A big percentage of them were rotten people long
before the one fateful day. We would applaud their deaths in a movie
scene, but of course this is a nation of laws.

C.T.

http://www.geocities.com/aggressive_driving/