Discussion in 'Fly Fishing Forum' started by Desolate, Jan 3, 2012.
This is substantially how I feel about Voting Rights.......
No, no, no. Just because someone served time in the military, even as warfighter, does not make them capable of this indiscriminate crime against another human. There is a difference and the difference is clear in my mind. If it is not clear in yours, perhaps you should seek help from a mental health professional before there are more stories in the newspaper. I have the ability to make decisions about the outcome of an event. That which I can control and choose to control is as much a part of me as anything else.
This criminal act against another human was not in a war zone with all the survival senses on high alert. It was a senseless homocide by someone who was broken. All service members, current and past, are not the same. It is insulting to make such an associative generalization.
In support of Ed (aka Mumbles) comment, the VAST majority of veterans, especially combat vets, avoid violence at all costs. They've seen enough to last many lifetimes. In the case of the veteran of subject, there are many, many questions that need to be answered to get insight into his erratic, crazy behavior. I worked with hundreds of combat vets over a 24 year career as a therapist, there is more that meets the eye in this case. There are personal history questions that need to be examined and, given his extreme body building focus, I would ask about steroid use (a serious problem in some locations in the military), also use of other substances. There is also the possible issue of traumatic brain injury which is the "syndrome of Iraq" for the current veteran population similar to what PTSD was for the Vietnam era.
As for outreach for military personnel and veterans, the biggest issue is mistrust of anything government. The military is shifting, albeit slowly, in it's approach to helping active duty folks in their struggles. The VA has an active, though frequently ineffective, outreach program for veterans. (If you were a combat veteran would you try to walk into the behemoth VA hospital in Seattle and try to ask a total stranger how you get help in resolving the most horrible experiences of your life?)
There are a number of combat vets on this forum, they own weapons and, as civilians, have never pointed them at another human let alone pulled the trigger. You won't even know they are carrying.
You know what scares the crap out of me? It isn't veterans with firearms, it's all of the idiots with their "smart phones" texting while they are driving 4000+ lb vehicles at 40+ mph thinking they aren't impaired and dangerous. And I have to deal with these IDIOTS daily.
Not trying to start a separate thread but the Bill of Rights itself - which among other things included the 2nd Amendment and as a general statement was filled with some pretty big ticket items - was not part of the Constitution when ratified in 1787. It was not ratified until 1791. Additionally, amendments themselves (27 ratified to date over the last few hundred years) are by definition considered changes to "fundamental law" in the U.S. I may have misread Richard O's post - and yours so apologies in advance if that is the case - but that seems to goes to the very heart of his point.
I wonder if women and African-Americans would agree with the contention that there haven't been any fundamental changes in the foundations of U.S. law since the late 18th century? I will dig up my jock and hard cup out of my closet and then go ask my wife
Happy New Year everyone! Disappointed in myself that I added to this thread instead of spending the time daydreaming about fly-fishing...
it's human nature to fear change, even in a nation that was founded on it.
Interesting thought from some of you: Since last year, firearms are permitted at national parks IF they are concealed and carried by those of us who have CCW permits. I pack mine in Yellowstone, Glacier, and most other places as well. The NPS policy change was forced upon them most likely because of the Heller decision.
I recall three women being raped and murdered in Yosemite almost a decade ago. My question then-as it is now, is if they would still have become victims if they'd been armed. Study the responses of criminals concerning their feelings about concealed carry, and you'll find the huge majority of them will go elsewhere, quickly.
Questioning if the Constitution is somehow an outmoded document since it dates from the 18th century however, is a simplistic, common question. The answer lies in a study of the philosophy involved in the creation of the document. That, I find, is timeless.
Seems like most folks have gotten it wrong. The gun is the culprit. It loaded itself, put itself in the shooter's vehicle, put itself in the shooter's hand, pointed itself at the ranger, and then pulled its own trigger to shoot and kill the ranger. Just like all its cousin guns do whenever someone (or some animal) gets shot and killed. Heck they even shoot themselves at clay targets, bulls eyes, traffic signs, billboards, glass bottles, cans, etc. No siree, ya just can't trust them guns atall!!!
I apologize in advance for raising a trivial side issue to this important thread about two tragedies. Does anybody else want to raise objection to the fact that the Park Service closed this important National Park for about a week. Why? Of course they had a moving "crime scene" to examine. But since it was a straightforward incident involving few people, why couldn't that have been done in 24 hours? Once again acting as though they own the people's park that they supervise, dozens of Park Svc. employees gave themselves an unscheduled vacation, at the expense of hundreds of the public.
HUH? While I agree that it seems like they could have reopened sooner, my educated guess is that all Park Service employees were at work last week (and many probably took advantage of the absence of visitors to catch up on a lot of back work that had been set aside over recent weeks/months/years at a typically understaffed/overworked Park) and the hourly wage earners who work for the concessions had an unplanned and unpaid leave.
Isn't that a bumper sticker?
Some words to the wise. Shooting Advice from various Conceal Carry
Instructors. If you own a gun, you will appreciate this. If not, you should
get one and learn how to use it:
Guns have only two enemies - rust and politicians.
It's always better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6.
Cops carry guns to protect themselves, not you.
Never let someone or something that threatens you get inside arm's length.
Never say "I've got a gun". If need to use deadly force, the first sound
they hear should be the safety clicking off.
The average response time of a 911 call is 23 minutes, the response time of
a .357 is 1400 feet per second.
The most important rule in a gunfight is: Always win - cheat if necessary.
Make your attacker advance through a wall of bullets . . .
You may get killed with your own gun, but he'll have to beat you to death
with it, 'cause it'll be empty.
If you're in a gun fight:
If you're not shooting, you should be loading.
If you're not loading, you should be movin'.
If you're not movin', you're dead.
In a life and death situation, do something . . . It may be wrong, but do
If you carry a gun, people call you paranoid. Nonsense! If you have a gun,
what do you have to be paranoid about?
You can say 'stop' or 'alto' or any other word, but a large bore muzzle
pointed at someone's head is pretty much a universal language.
You cannot save the planet, but you may be able to save yourself and your
If you believe in the 2nd Amendment, please forward.
I did not write but thought it fit the conversation
Words to live by... along with one other: "the sound of a pump shotgun being chambered is often the only one needed"
Bingo & ever the voice of reason. Thanks, Ed! As for me, I may someday again be targeted as a potential victim, but then as before I won't be a "helpless victim." Works for and will continue to work for me.
disclaimer: i like guns and grew up with them, and own them, and would carry them for self defense if i thought i needed to. i also grew up with a law enforcement father who was trained at quantico over and over and who knows where else the govt sent him. he was a range instructor for a federal law enforcement agency for two decades - not just shooting targets but all the law enforcement scenarios you can picture: sniper, raid, under-cover, etc. - and had a long career. i'm just saying i've heard a lot about gun fights and training for them all my life from the horse's mouth. so when i read the way so many of you guys talk on here about the value of a gun for self defense it just strikes me as strange. you've got a gun and therefore you won't be helpless? we'll all be safe when we are all armed and trained to shoot before the other guy? the list of what-if's you could throw at such bravado would just get too long for a post here. the statistical probability of anyone needing a gun in a conflict in the woods is crazy low. the further probability that the average guy who owns a gun, and even has some training with it, will be able to react and shoot before it's too late is even lower, and the lowest probability of all is that such a person would fucking hit anything on purpose when they shot under life-threatening circumstances - which would certainly be unlike any fantasy they have played out in their head about their own courage and skill. the bravado is comical. probably the only people on this forum who would really be solid in a gun-fight are the kind who would never post about it. imo the best thing you can arm yourself with for self-defense is the wisdom to identify and avoid such conflicts before they develop. carry the gun too, i'm not against that. but all the big talk is hollow.
My wife and I watched the memorial service for Ranger Anderson. A two year old daughter and a four year old daughter have lost their Mommy, and a grieving husband has lost his beloved. It breaks my heart.
Thank You, MHO also
Appreciate your insight and think that for the most part you're spot on. But, I'm glad you weren't this person's grief counseler after her husband passed. The responsibility lies with the person who decides to arm themselves, not someone else who thinks they know what's best for them.
A young Oklahoma mother shot and killed an intruder to protect her 3-month-old baby on New Year's Eve, less than a week after the baby's father died of cancer.
Sarah McKinley says that a week earlier a man named Justin Martin dropped by on the day of her husband's funeral, claiming that he was a neighbor who wanted to say hello. The 18-year-old Oklahoma City area woman did not let him into her home that day.
On New Year's Eve Martin returned with another man, Dustin Stewart, and this time was armed with a 12-inch hunting knife. The two soon began trying to break into McKinley's home.
As one of the men was going from door to door outside her home trying to gain entry, McKinley called 911 and grabbed her 12-gauge shotgun.
McKinley told ABC News Oklahoma City affiliate KOCO that she quickly got her 12 gauge, went into her bedroom and got a pistol, put the bottle in the baby's mouth and called 911.
"I've got two guns in my hand -- is it okay to shoot him if he comes in this door?" the young mother asked the 911 dispatcher. "I'm here by myself with my infant baby, can I please get a dispatcher out here immediately?"
The 911 dispatcher confirmed with McKinley that the doors to her home were locked as she asked again if it was okay to shoot the intruder if he were to come through her door.
"I can't tell you that you can do that but you do what you have to do to protect your baby," the dispatcher told her. McKinley was on the phone with 911 for a total of 21 minutes.
When Martin kicked in the door and came after her with the knife, the teen mom shot and killed the 24-year-old. Police are calling the shooting justified.
"You're allowed to shoot an unauthorized person that is in your home. The law provides you the remedy, and sanctions the use of deadly force," Det. Dan Huff of the Blanchard police said.
Stewart soon turned himself in to police.
McKinley said that she was at home alone with her newborn that night because her husband just died of cancer on Christmas Day.
"I wouldn't have done it, but it was my son," McKinley told ABC News Oklahoma City affiliate KOCO. "It's not an easy decision to make, but it was either going to be him or my son. And it wasn't going to be my son. There's nothing more dangerous than a woman with a child."