tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1696618898580620397.post6789767998948702041..comments2023-11-27T23:16:46.222-08:00Comments on New Trajectory: Playing "Wyatt Earp" With Their GunsBaldr Odinsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11818934498607763309noreply@blogger.comBlogger41125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1696618898580620397.post-79851808640433439382011-12-28T09:47:20.633-08:002011-12-28T09:47:20.633-08:00@ Patrick: Your "statistics" regarding ...@ Patrick: Your "statistics" regarding police have the smell of completely made up. Do you actually have numbers, or just jabbering?<br /><br />Sorry, I don't know of any of those "well-documented instances" you speak of. Again, it has the whiff of completely made up. Cite, please.<br /><br />No, legally I am not wrong. With no duty to chase the criminal, and with every opportunity to back out of the conflict, this shooter was engaging in vigilantism. This is different from police, obviously, who have an official duty to catch criminals.<br /><br />I'm not posting your inflammatory comments about rape.Baldr Odinsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11818934498607763309noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1696618898580620397.post-36918461776879345172011-12-28T09:35:28.798-08:002011-12-28T09:35:28.798-08:00"This IS vigilantism, and (at that point) was..."This IS vigilantism, and (at that point) was not a self-defense act. "<br /><br />Legally you are wrong. The citizen was exercising the general police power, a power held by all law abiding citizens. <br /><br />It's easy to tell the difference between the general police power and vigilantism. The former would not be a crime if exercised by a police officer, the latter would be.TestyMctesterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03708669013186742464noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1696618898580620397.post-14090560606747332172011-12-28T09:33:27.704-08:002011-12-28T09:33:27.704-08:00"I don't know of any instances where a pe..."I don't know of any instances where a person needed more than 10 bullets in a clip to defend themselves, "<br /><br />I don't have a link but there was a carjacking in the last year where the "victim"/defender fired 12 rounds against 3 or 4 attackers. He would have shot more but that was all the magazine held.<br /><br />In addition there are the well documented instances of fully automatic weapons being used in self defense and a number of home invasions.TestyMctesterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03708669013186742464noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1696618898580620397.post-33666546500435925192011-12-28T09:27:22.820-08:002011-12-28T09:27:22.820-08:00"Even highly-trained police only hit their ta..."Even highly-trained police only hit their target about 15% of the time in a firefight. "<br /><br />What evidence do you have that the police are "highly-trained"?<br /><br />Also...the average citizen self defense shooting uses <3 rounds. Assuming that at least 1 of those 3 hits the target (and based on the news reports at least one usually does) then the average hit rate for citizens would be twice that of the police (and with far less shots, and missed shots!!!)TestyMctesterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03708669013186742464noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1696618898580620397.post-5015993881909975622011-12-23T12:25:05.351-08:002011-12-23T12:25:05.351-08:00@GMC: What some, like you, would characterize as g...@GMC: What some, like you, would characterize as going "above and beyond the call" would be what some, like me, would characterize as "going too far."<br /><br />I would also add, that, when the shooter chose to pull his gun and chase the robber (before the robber ever threatened his life), he was prepared to shoot and kill, when he didn't have a duty to do so. This IS vigilantism, and (at that point) was not a self-defense act.Baldr Odinsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11818934498607763309noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1696618898580620397.post-19218261595372775782011-12-23T10:44:12.875-08:002011-12-23T10:44:12.875-08:00. . . as simple as hitting an old lady with a pist...<em>. . . as simple as hitting an old lady with a pistol and running off with her purse.</em><br /><br />"Simple?" Why do you minimize this act? There's little that's more henious, in my opinion. The robber here made his choice: he chose to use a weapon, as a weapon, against an elderly lady (yes, pistol-whipping is using it as a deadly weapon, and has been so recognized in my jurisdiction); when confronted by a Good Samaritan, he chose to raise his weapon again, at which time the Good Samaritan responded with force, which was his legal and moral right to do.<br /><br />I'm not sure I'd have followed the guy to try to get her purse back, but I'll certainly not criticize the gentleman for doing so.<br /><br /><br />Perhaps I appear hard-hearted; I'm not. I'm a defense attorney, and I'm certainly not ready to write off all criminals as lost causes. There is much wrong with our system, and longer and longer sentences which simply warehouse people is not always the answer. Smart criminal justice does not always mean hard criminal justice, though a justice system that does not have a significant element of retributive justice in it isn't doing justice at all. "Justice" and rehabilitation are two different things, and not at all mutually exclusive. <br /><br />And that's not even touching on the increasing, and troubling, militarization of police, and increasing tendancy of police to escalate violence by using SWAT-type tactics when same are entirely unnecessary.<br /><br />But you mischaracterize this incident when you say he was "chased down and shot for something as simple as hitting an old lady with a pistol and running off with her purse." That's not why he was shot at all. He was shot because he threatened deadly force against an individual who was acting as the law permitted. Moreover, he had already used deadly force against an elderly woman, picking out a weaker individual to attack with a deadly weapon for the meager contents of a purse. He had already decided that the contents of that purse were worth a life. <br /><br />It just turned out to be his life. <br /><br />This is not a demonstration of what's wrong with CC; it's a incident of a CC holder going above and beyond the call, and acting entirely within the law, both legally and morally. It's most certainly NOT a case of "vigilante justice."<br /><br />I as a CC holder have no duty to protect anyone but myself (interestingly, police have no duty to protect any particular individual either). I'd like to think, however, that should the situation ever arise, I'd be willing to assist others who are threatened, even though I may have no duty to do so, and even though doing so may put myself at greater risk. I hope, again, I never have to find out. <br /><br />I'm quite confused as to why anti-rights cultists latched onto this incident as an example of what's "wrong." This incident is an example of what's right. If this is "playing Wyatt Earp," then let's see more of it.GMC70https://www.blogger.com/profile/07790867512106398290noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1696618898580620397.post-43883802549912167052011-12-23T09:20:27.543-08:002011-12-23T09:20:27.543-08:00@ GMC: I'm going a bit off topic here, but I&...@ GMC: I'm going a bit off topic here, but I'd like to take a moment to share a thought. There is often a lot of commentary from you gun guys where you deride criminals as worthless, as deserving of death for crimes as simple as theft, as being worthy of being locked away forever, even for robbery. Of being lost causes once they go down that road.<br /><br />I'm not crying for them either. They should know the risks of their deviant behavior, including this criminal. They should know that if they beat and rob someone, their victim or a bystander may step in and take violent action to stop them.<br /><br />But I don't feel they are always lost causes. You guys are very much in favor of the retributive philosophy of criminal justice. Though I am in favor of strong sentencing and against lenient paroling, I am more in favor of rehabilitation, if possible. Some criminals clearly are lost causes or seriously mentally ill. But I have known cases, including people I have known personally, who had, in their youth, been criminal types. One had sold drugs and thieved. Another had sold illegal guns for a gang. Another had been a gangster in the 50's. In each of these cases, they had seen the error of their ways, changed, and become good family men, hard workers, and upright law-abiding citizens who worked to keep others from going down the road they did. Most are not like these guys, I admit, but let us not write off all criminals as lost causes or advocate they be chased down and shot for something as simple as hitting an old lady with a pistol and running off with her purse.Baldr Odinsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11818934498607763309noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1696618898580620397.post-12655442062630472012011-12-23T08:36:15.662-08:002011-12-23T08:36:15.662-08:00Another interesting point: the robber was shot mul...<em>Another interesting point: the robber was shot multiple times, but none of the reports say where the wounds were. The location of the wounds might say a lot about what actually happened, since the robber died before he could give his version of the account.</em><br /><br />This is going to sound crass, but given that the robber had just pistol-whipped a lady, why do we care how many or where the rounds hit? Isn't it enough to say "good riddance?" Moreover, given that he was an armed robber, his version of the story (had he been able to tell it) inherently lacks credibility.<br /><br /><br />When I first got my CC license, I off-handedly told the local sheriff (who I knew well) and speaking entirely seriously that if I ever had to use my weapon, there would only be one witness to what happened. His response: "I know. As it should be."<br /><br />I've never had occasion to use my weapon. I very much hope I never have to. But I will continue to carry same, just as I continue to keep a fire extinguisher in the house. The potential benefits far outweigh the costs, both for myself and society in general. I will not cry for the criminal who has already chosen to employ deadly force against an innocent; he, and he alone, is responsible for the outcome.GMC70https://www.blogger.com/profile/07790867512106398290noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1696618898580620397.post-39382110951038496642011-12-22T18:09:44.439-08:002011-12-22T18:09:44.439-08:00@ TS: You are assuming the shooter stopped the ro...@ TS: You are assuming the shooter stopped the robbery, which would be heroic, but that's not what the articles I read said happened. They say only that he witnessed the robbery, then gave chase.<br /><br />Another interesting point: the robber was shot multiple times, but none of the reports say where the wounds were. The location of the wounds might say a lot about what actually happened, since the robber died before he could give his version of the account.<br /><br />Re: the "unloaded" statement: I don't see your point about bringing up the magazine capacity limit thing. I don't know of any instances where a person needed more than 10 bullets in a clip to defend themselves, unless it was police in a standoff situation.Baldr Odinsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11818934498607763309noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1696618898580620397.post-56733382520681731052011-12-22T17:24:54.196-08:002011-12-22T17:24:54.196-08:00Personally, I don’t think he should have chased th...Personally, I don’t think he should have chased the assailant after he ran away because of the associated risks. However, you are dismissing the fact that he stopped the assault in progress. That makes him a hero. A cell phone call does not stop the woman from being bludgeoned. There was a call to 911 while she was being attacked, but that is not what stopped it. How far was the assailant going to take it? We don’t know, but he was using a deadly weapon. The facts of the case are that the CCW holder stopped the attack in progress, and then gave pursuit, but we don’t know if the presence of the gun was a factor in the assailant fleeing. If the hero was only interested in vigilante killing, why did he chase him instead of blowing him away right away? It sounds to me like the assailant didn’t expect to be chased, so he went to his gun to kill the hero who then acted to defend his life. Would the CCW holder have interjected in the first place if he didn’t have the means to defend himself? We don’t know that either, but I’d say it was less likely. The guy armed with a phone made a phone call. The guy armed with a gun stopped the attack. That said, the point of CCW is for self-protection, not public protection. As a society we never expect people to act heroic, but we praise them when they do. In other words, I wouldn’t use this anecdote as a reason for CCW, because it does not come with the responsibility of coming to a stranger’s aide. But kudos when they do- and that is worlds better than the opposite approach- the anti-snitching code. Finally, since you value the opinion of gun violence victims more than us, maybe we can find out what that little old lady thinks about Mr. Wyatt Vigilante Earp?<br /><br />Baldr: “The guns may be unloaded, but it only takes a moment to do so.”<br /><br />Will you stick to that argument when you talk about why it is so important to make mass shooters reload more often? <br /><br />The unloaded open carry law is incredibly stupid. You are right that having it unloaded makes no difference as the aggressor. It only takes two seconds to get it loaded and charged- hardly a factor to someone bent on murder. But those two seconds are ultra critical after realizing that you are being attacked. That is why the unloaded open carry law, as well as magazine capacity limits only hurt those looking to defend themselves. They are practically inconsequential to the aggressor.TShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04667036856347626234noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1696618898580620397.post-19380499461284009702011-12-22T11:57:49.142-08:002011-12-22T11:57:49.142-08:00And since our government still rules by consent of...<em>And since our government still rules by consent of its people, via representatives, we still live up to the Declaration's premise.</em><br /><br />Indeed, at least consent of a sort. For now. And I hope and pray it always stays so. <br /><br />I, however, am not naive enough to simply accept it will always be so. And I will not surrender the means to make changes, should that become necessary.<br /><br />That's why we have a 2nd Am., after all.<br /><br />I utterly reject your characterization that the 2nd does not have, in significant part, such an intent. Indeed, given that the right is a personal one, not a collective one, the Amendment makes little sense without such an intent. We'll simply have to agree to disagree on this one. And I'll note that the Founders writings and historical evidence agree with me. <br /><br />And, BTW, a little paranoia is a very healthy thing. ;-)GMC70https://www.blogger.com/profile/07790867512106398290noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1696618898580620397.post-19466646239504725872011-12-22T11:53:54.766-08:002011-12-22T11:53:54.766-08:00@ Bob S.: Like I said, I'm not posting your co...@ Bob S.: Like I said, I'm not posting your comments. You continue to try to put words in my mouth, and ridiculous assumptions about my goals, and I'm just not going there.Baldr Odinsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11818934498607763309noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1696618898580620397.post-33869614045482492752011-12-22T10:39:32.703-08:002011-12-22T10:39:32.703-08:00@ Bob S.: Sorry, but I'm not going down the r...@ Bob S.: Sorry, but I'm not going down the rabbit hole with you and your ridiculous hypothetical situations, nor posting them.Baldr Odinsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11818934498607763309noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1696618898580620397.post-51052799698571027932011-12-22T09:00:44.082-08:002011-12-22T09:00:44.082-08:00@GMC: Last I checked, our rule of law, including ...@GMC: Last I checked, our rule of law, including the 2A, was governed by the Constitution, not the Declaration of Independence. And since our government still rules by consent of its people, via representatives, we still live up to the Declaration's premise. In any case, my definition of "insurrectionist" still stands correct and is not mis-characterized, however much you wish it to be different to justify your paranoia.Baldr Odinsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11818934498607763309noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1696618898580620397.post-38686839494022439422011-12-22T07:08:45.871-08:002011-12-22T07:08:45.871-08:00in this case, someone who mistakenly believes the ...<em>in this case, someone who mistakenly believes the Second Amendment was written to allow home gun ownership for the purpose of allowing anyone who disagrees with the government the right to overthrow that government. </em><br /><br /><br />Nothing mistaken about it, though as usual, you purposely mischaracterize same. Sorry; I think Jefferson trumps your sorry excuse for demonization:<br /><br /><em>We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. </em><br /><br />Ah. Someone who believes the Declaration of Independence means what it says is, in your words, an "insurrectionist." One who believes that, even here, it may at some time be the case that limited government may become unlimited, and no longer derive its just powers from the consent of the governed. <br /><br />And should that be the case, it is indeed the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and replace it with one of their own choosing. <br /><br />Likely, in the near future? No. Possible? Of course; history tells us so repeatedly. Should citizens retain weapons to deter same or, if necessary, to overthrow same? Last resort? Of course. Overthrowing a government is always a task to be undertaken only as a last resort; the outcome is by no means certain. <br /><br />It may also become necessary. If that makes me what you label an "insurrectionist," so be it. Moreover, I'm right, not only as a matter of natural law, but historical record. The Founders' writings agree with me. <br /><br />Does the Constitution and the government is creates as in institution accept same? Of course not; no government willingly accepts its own ending. That's the nature of governments. The Founders were labeled as traitors, and knew it, and accepted it. <br /><br /><br /><br />As contrasted with yourself, who believes the State can do no wrong, and that individuals - and populations - have no moral authority to refuse to go marching off to be slaughtered. <br /><br />That's called "serfdom."<br /><br />Great. Most of the 20th century's nastiest tyrants and murderers agree fully with you.<br /><br />Just put that in your banner, and run under it. You own it.GMC70https://www.blogger.com/profile/07790867512106398290noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1696618898580620397.post-30174589117620914062011-12-21T21:05:26.686-08:002011-12-21T21:05:26.686-08:00"Basically, he gave her a scratch on the head..."Basically, he gave her a scratch on the head when he pistol-whipped her."<br /><br />Whoa there. Do you know what pistol whipping is? She's lucky she only had a 'scratch', getting hit in the head with a piece of metal can kill you, seriously. That was deadly force, don't make it sound like a stubbed toe. <br /><br />It sounds like he intervened because he feared she would be bludgeoned to death. It's also legal, but maybe not wise, to pursue someone who just committed a felony. And then, supposedly, the attacker aimed his gun which caused the CCW holder to defend himself.<br /><br />You can say we don't know for sure if that last part happened the way he said it did, but it looks like law enforcement was willing to take the CCW holder's word over a man who just violently bludgeoned a woman.Pyrotek85https://www.blogger.com/profile/06287477248875225661noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1696618898580620397.post-6807110066614092262011-12-21T18:42:31.540-08:002011-12-21T18:42:31.540-08:00"But is a scratch on an old woman's head ..."But is a scratch on an old woman's head and the value of a purse sufficient reason to kill a person."<br /><br />Definitely not. But the escalated act of drawing a weapon on another individual with intent to kill or cause bodily harm most certainly is. <br /><br /><br />Listen, do I think this is a shining example of what the intent of CCW is? No. But your response is a microcosm of the overall anti-gun ideology which misses two key points. 1) None of this happens unless the criminal (most typically, a recidivist who in any 'common sense' judicial system, wouldn't be out on the streets anyway) makes the voluntary choice to place themselves in a position where there is the distinct possibility of someone not wishing to become a victim, and 2) scenarios like these are pumped with emotionalism and criminal apologist rhetoric by the anti-gun side in order to hide the reality that statistically, it's a non-issue compared to the times legally carried firearms are used with restraint, respect, and with justification.<br /><br />Your target audience is the fence sitters. Those who read the "wyatt Earp" headline, not knowing fact one about guns, and immediately think, "yeah, I've heard about those Wild West Shootouts!(tm) on the Colbert Report! Guns are bad!" <br /><br />All that time and effort attacking guns and gun owners. Meanwhile, the criminal machine keeps churning 'em out.molonlabehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05168421230234762485noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1696618898580620397.post-41721923845929127442011-12-21T16:24:28.285-08:002011-12-21T16:24:28.285-08:00@ Molon: I'm not manipulating facts nor being...@ Molon: I'm not manipulating facts nor being disingenuous. The facts are that the shooter, seeing the assault and robbery, chose to chase the criminal in an act of vigilantism. What happened afterward, including the robber supposedly pulling his gun on the shooter, is a direct result of the shooter's vigilantism choice. No one had to die, here, and there was nothing stopping the shooter from simply pulling out his phone and dialing 911.<br /><br />Was the shooting justified? According to one professional gun trainer, it likely was not. Consider this quote (from the following article on the incident: http://goo.gl/dkkRa):<br /><br />"Erik Pakieser, a military veteran who has trained police and civilians in the use of firearms and teaches Minnesota gun-permit classes, said state law and the courts generally look at four elements to determine whether a case is self-defense:<br /><br />-- Whether the person was a "reluctant participant" and took steps to avoid the conflict.<br /><br />-- Whether the person had a reasonable fear of immediate death or bodily harm.<br /><br />-- Whether the person was faced with deadly force.<br /><br />-- Whether retreat was impractical.<br /><br />'The two issues I see are reluctant participation and retreat. If he chased the guy, he didn't retreat,' said Pakieser, who has taught courses for the American Association of Certified Firearms Instructors. "<br /><br /><br />More importantly, I would ask if the shooter had a legitimate reason for his vigilante behavior. The robber assaulted an old woman. Basically, he gave her a scratch on the head when he pistol-whipped her. Then he stole the purse. But is a scratch on an old woman's head and the value of a purse sufficient reason to kill a person (the reason for chasing the robber with a drawn gun)? Not at all. That's the problem with vigilante justice. The average citizen does not necessarily have an appropriate judgement over what is worthy of a life and death decision.Baldr Odinsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11818934498607763309noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1696618898580620397.post-90916349170874659842011-12-21T16:07:26.889-08:002011-12-21T16:07:26.889-08:00"Most gun owners, including conceal carriers,..."Most gun owners, including conceal carriers, are not stupid enough to engage in vigilante justice and play "Wyatt Earp"."<br /><br />Very telling statement. Reminds me of the Gabby Giffords tragedy where anti-gunners demonized that the CCW holder who exercised discretion and didn't pull his firearm and used it as an example as a failure of CCW.<br /><br />I'm sorry that you equate discretion to simply "not being stupid enough..."<br /><br />No statistics to back your claims, and worse yet, being disingenuous about the actual situations themselves.molonlabehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05168421230234762485noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1696618898580620397.post-2141416040478801462011-12-21T15:58:15.954-08:002011-12-21T15:58:15.954-08:00"@ benminer: I gave you an example already. A..."@ benminer: I gave you an example already. A conceal carry holder, seeing an assault and robbery of an old woman for her purse, decided to play the role of vigilante and go after the bad guy. He then shot the robber in an alley, claiming the robber pulled his gun on him."<br /><br />You're manipulating the facts to fit your agenda. The CCW holder pursued a dirt bag who pistol whipped, assaulted, and robbed an eldery woman. This only turned into a justifiable homicide scenario when the criminal CHOOSE to pull his weapon. I suppose had the criminal not pulled his weapon, he'd still be around to prove that he "was just a good kid who needs a 2nd chance" and the CCW holder would be heralded as a hero.<br /><br />What's sad is that in order to try to devalue the actions of everyday citizens coming to the assistance of victims who may or may not use their legally carried firearms in self defense, gun-controllers inevitably have to be criminal apologists and attack the justified.<br /><br />Again, I personally wouldn't have pursued. But in reality, karma's a B.molonlabehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05168421230234762485noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1696618898580620397.post-30211618137230410352011-12-21T15:28:05.162-08:002011-12-21T15:28:05.162-08:00@ Molon: No, I wouldn't say that it should be ...@ Molon: No, I wouldn't say that it should be commonplace. Most gun owners, including conceal carriers, are not stupid enough to engage in vigilante justice and play "Wyatt Earp". However, it does happen, and a disturbing number of extremists cite the potential as a reasonable reason for conceal carry.Baldr Odinsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11818934498607763309noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1696618898580620397.post-71264052062442680572011-12-21T15:25:01.332-08:002011-12-21T15:25:01.332-08:00@ benminer: I gave you an example already. A conc...@ benminer: I gave you an example already. A conceal carry holder, seeing an assault and robbery of an old woman for her purse, decided to play the role of vigilante and go after the bad guy. He then shot the robber in an alley, claiming the robber pulled his gun on him. Thus it was ruled justifiable (it's the gun owner's word against the word of the dead guy). But no shooting needed to take place if he hadn't decided to play "Wyatt Earp". Do you deny that the gun owner was playing the role of vigilante?Baldr Odinsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11818934498607763309noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1696618898580620397.post-49993492905831901292011-12-21T15:21:31.758-08:002011-12-21T15:21:31.758-08:00@GMC: "insurrectionist": in this case,...@GMC: "insurrectionist": in this case, someone who mistakenly believes the Second Amendment was written to allow home gun ownership for the purpose of allowing anyone who disagrees with the government the right to overthrow that government.<br /><br />To quote my friend, JadeGold:<br /><br />"First, such a position requires us to believe the Founders decided to place a 'self-destruct' clause into the Constitution. Basically we're being asked to believe the Founders created a framework for Government, democracy and society only to have some clause that says citizens can use mob violence to get the results they desire.<br /><br />Second, while the 2A is ambiguously worded--Artile III Section 3 isn't. Article III Section 3 is crystal clear--it declares treason as waging war against the US or in providing its enemies aid and comfort."<br /><br />(quoted from comments at: http://mikeb302000.blogspot.com/2010/07/insurrectionist-idea.html )Baldr Odinsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11818934498607763309noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1696618898580620397.post-4254998646621214582011-12-21T11:56:06.250-08:002011-12-21T11:56:06.250-08:00You say "vigilante" several times yet fa...You say "vigilante" several times yet fail to point to single example of anybody acting like one. Why is this?Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05541077074030903450noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1696618898580620397.post-67694463832808960442011-12-21T08:09:38.824-08:002011-12-21T08:09:38.824-08:00And to prove your point, you use one situation of ...And to prove your point, you use one situation of justifiable homicide.<br /><br />Again, with all these CCW holders in the US, shouldn't these Wyatt Earp scenarios be commonplace instead of an aberration?molonlabehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05168421230234762485noreply@blogger.com