The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > Hogan's Alley > Tactics and Training

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old October 21, 2010, 09:50 AM   #126
Glenn E. Meyer
Staff
 
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 15,547
That's a bit of a thread change. Those figures come in part from Kleck and Lott's work. Mainly, Kleck.

If you deep into the criminological literature, there is quite a bit of controversy over the numbers and types of incidents.

Might go to Google scholar or a university set of data bases to study up on that.

The number of high density area mass shootings is pretty uncommon though.

To Azak: If in an incident, a civilian shoots you or yours by accident, do you think action should be taken against them in civil or criminal courts?

Should one even consider if their actions were not wise - or do they get an automatic pass?
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc.
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...05_Feature.htm
Being an Academic Shooter
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...11_Feature.htm
Being an Active Shooter
Glenn E. Meyer is online now  
Old October 21, 2010, 11:10 AM   #127
Frank Ettin
Staff
 
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 6,538
The legal/social consequences of a defensive mis-use of a gun can be significant. Here are some examples of apparent defensive mis-uses:

http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=188599

http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=350239

http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=365683

http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=411205

Last edited by Frank Ettin; October 23, 2010 at 08:00 PM.
Frank Ettin is offline  
Old October 21, 2010, 01:21 PM   #128
booker_t
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 21, 2009
Posts: 797
Interesting discussion.

One comment..

Quote:
..you're not well trained..It won't do you any good..that piece of metal doesn't do anything at all on its own. It requires a competent user to make it work.
Reality check: It takes just a little more skill than taking out your car keys to pull a loaded gun, shove it into somebody's face and scatter brain and skull all over the sidewalk.

We have thousands of youth in this country with premeditated firearm homicides to their credit. Scant few of them have attended formal 'tactical' firearms training, nor grew up on a farm or in the mountains and learned to shoot from Grandpappy. They don't read message boards, they don't know the first thing about a trigger job, and they don't have any interest in reloading.

Chris Costa put it well, something like there's nothing defensive about pointing a gun at another human and pulling the trigger.

I'm not trying to downplay the value of training for the responsible, mindful, self-deterministic, patriotic, law-abiding, tax-paying, red-blooded, firearm-carrying US citizen. It's incredibly valuable, and the cost of most private courses is money well spent, assuming you show up prepared and do your part. And not just in terms of defensive shooting, but protecting yourself legally after the incident.

What I'm saying is that oftentimes we get caught up in the details of the machinery, the technique, the mindset, training options, legal issues with carry and self defense, and everything else that's available; and lose sight of the raw reality associated with the moment of truth, and if we're talking about survival, preservation of one's life (and perhaps fellow human beings) at all costs, then that's where we need to be.

Last edited by booker_t; October 21, 2010 at 02:02 PM.
booker_t is offline  
Old October 21, 2010, 01:50 PM   #129
AZAK
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 15, 2008
Location: the object towards which the action of the sea is directed
Posts: 2,103
Now I am even more unsure of the point.
Glenn E. Meyer asks:
Quote:
To Azak: If in an incident, a civilian shoots you or yours by accident, do you think action should be taken against them in civil or criminal courts?
I believe that I addresses that topic in a few places including:
Quote:
While handing over political power to the government (which now can legislate/regulate or at the minimum attempt to regulate the people, in theory working for the best interests of the people while maintaining the "standards" set forth upon the creation of the government) that government can create "rules" that the individual will be held accountable to; however, ultimately it is still the individual's own moral code and values which will determine their personal belief system.
If I personally do not like the rules, I am free to "petition" for changing those rules, just as I am free to live within the rules with no comment, my personal moral choice (however, I am fully aware of the fact that there are consequences for my actions); God Bless America! I am also free to choose to live in a location that tends to parallel my own personal beliefs.

bikerbill states:
Quote:
with the help of the instructor, she passed the second time around.
ending with:
Quote:
But I do remember exactly what she looked like, and if I see her, I'm heading in the other direction -- fast.
Also including:
Quote:
Did she desperately need training? Hell, yes. Picturing her walking the street with a concealed weapon and no idea how to use it is scary to me.
Given pax's OP statement that:
Quote:
As long as we can point to valid experiences that show that neither accidents nor crime rates go up when untrained people exercise their right to carry guns (and we can! over and over and over again)
I contend that I am seeing a lot of irrational fear of an overall non-issue.
__________________
The lowest paid college major/degree in this country after graduation...
Elementary Education.

Now, go figure...
AZAK is offline  
Old October 21, 2010, 03:01 PM   #130
markj
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 27, 2005
Location: Crescent Iowa
Posts: 2,965
Quote:
About 80 people were in the restaurant at the time
Killeeen TX.

Aint that many folks in our entire town. Think Mayberry rfd

My point is to force folks to take advanced training for a permit to carry is wrong. Maybe I need to put it this way so it is easy to understand what I am saying.

Know the permit laws (classroom) be able to load aim and shoot 7 to 10 yards.

Thats my point and is all I have said.
markj is offline  
Old October 21, 2010, 04:13 PM   #131
Frank Ettin
Staff
 
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 6,538
Quote:
Originally Posted by markj
...My point is to force folks to take advanced training for a permit to carry is wrong...
While some have written in support of training requirements, the point of this thread, and the OP's point, is not that training should be required. It is that getting training is the wise and responsible thing to do.

And as Jeff Cooper used to say, "It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully."

Quote:
Originally Posted by markj
...Know the permit laws (classroom) be able to load aim and shoot 7 to 10 yards...
It's an open question whether that alone is even sufficient. But aside from that, it appears from a lot that gets posted here and on other boards that many gun owners, and gun carriers, have only a sketchy idea of the laws of self defense and the use of force.

And from observations at various ranges, most folks don't handle their guns well, nor do they reliably get decent hits on their targets, even slow fire at 7 yards in the relatively stress free environment of the range.
Frank Ettin is offline  
Old October 21, 2010, 05:08 PM   #132
aarondhgraham
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 1, 2009
Location: Stillwater, OKlahoma
Posts: 7,000
Quote:
the point of this thread, and the OP's point, is not that training should be required. It is that getting training is the wise and responsible thing to do.
That has also been the thorn in everyone's side in this thread,,,
In that the phrase "required training" kept (keeps) showing up.

I have read every word (all six pages) of this thread twice now,,,
I'm not sure how anyone would not have thought the OP was arguing for training requirements before getting a license to carry.

Normally I read every word that a few of the people here care to write,,,
In most cases PAX writes clearly, concisely, and to a definite point.

In this one It took me several readings to decipher exactly what she was advocating.

If I am correct she is simply stating everyone who is carrying a weapon would benefit from advanced training in it's use both physically and tactically.

Now personally I have no problem with that position,,,
My gawsh, it's just common sense to agree,,,
More training = better trained person.

But her arguments on why it's a good thing can also be used to bolster the argument for state mandated training as a requirement for licensure.

There's that danged camel again,,,
trying to get his nose in my danged tent.

Would it not be ironic if an anti-gunner quoted parts of her post as an argument for high levels of required training.

The whole sheepdog versus lone wolf thing is moot in my case,,,
Oklahoma law is very specific as to the fact you are only allowed to defend you and yours.

If you intervene in a situation and get it right you are a hero,,,
DA's, being elected officials, rarely ever prosecute a lawful hero.

But if you intervene and don't get it right,,,
That same DA will hang you out to dry as a vigilante.

PAX' point could be interpreted to mean,,,
That extra high level training could help you to get it right.

But everything being a double-edged sword,,,
I have seen cases here in Oklahoma where that training was used to illustrate that the person was a blood-thirsty vigilante who very much wanted to shoot someone.

Don't jump on me for restating that I am against state mandates for "Required" training,,,
This topic goes hand-in-hand with that danger.

If we start talking about how it's a good thing,,,
The anti-gunners will say "That person is a gun writer and 2nd amendment advocate and that person believes we need to require that training as well."

Very dangerous topic,,,
Full of pitfalls and subtle traps.

.
__________________
Caje: The coward dies a thousand times, the brave only once.
Kirby: That's about all it takes, ain't it?
Combat: "A Silent Cry"
Aarond is good,,, Aarond is wise,,, Always trust Aarond! (most of the time)
aarondhgraham is offline  
Old October 21, 2010, 05:14 PM   #133
AZAK
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 15, 2008
Location: the object towards which the action of the sea is directed
Posts: 2,103
aarondhgraham

Camels? And here I thought that it was the elephant in the room! Slippery slope time.

Hear, hear!
__________________
The lowest paid college major/degree in this country after graduation...
Elementary Education.

Now, go figure...
AZAK is offline  
Old October 21, 2010, 05:23 PM   #134
Glenn E. Meyer
Staff
 
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 15,547
Azak - would you press the DA to take criminal action or institute a civil suit if you or yours were injured by the actions of a civilian in a rampage shoot out or store robbery? The shooter acted incompetently and you or yours have suffered permanent damage with associated monetary losses.

That's a direct question. Not a statement about governmental philosopy.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc.
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...05_Feature.htm
Being an Academic Shooter
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...11_Feature.htm
Being an Active Shooter
Glenn E. Meyer is online now  
Old October 21, 2010, 05:49 PM   #135
Frank Ettin
Staff
 
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 6,538
Quote:
Originally Posted by aarondhgraham
...I have seen cases here in Oklahoma where that training was used to illustrate that the person was a blood-thirsty vigilante who very much wanted to shoot someone....
To which the indicated response is, "No, he's a conscientious citizen who recognizes and appreciates the significant responsibility that goes with having a gun.

Quote:
Originally Posted by aarondhgraham
...Very dangerous topic,,,
Full of pitfalls and subtle traps...
Agreed. But I don't think that a "We don't need no stinkin' training" attitude helps us.
Frank Ettin is offline  
Old October 21, 2010, 05:58 PM   #136
William Lee
Member
 
Join Date: September 16, 2010
Posts: 19
Interesting question, Glenn.

I have no formal training, but it is only because I do not have the financial resources right now. I certainly see the benefit of training for surprise situations, but I don't feel that I'm necessarily missing out. When I get a job after school there will be more time and importantly money for training classes, but in the interim, I have found ways to incorporate a more dynamic element into my personal practice. For instance, I shoot trap with a pump gun calling from the hip with a round in the stock cuff and attempt to load that round and hit the bird before it hits the ground. It was near impossible at first, but I have since gotten the hang of doing it rather regularly. My record so far with this technique is 19/25.
I've also gotten into the habit of shooting my revolver starting with a full cylinder and reloading every two or three bullets, trying to master the elusive art of keeping the revolver gassed at all times. After a few hundred embarrassments, I began to see results. I've also practiced dummy reloads at home with empty shells, which is harder to do than with real round-nosed bullets, making the transition to the real thing even easier.
The culmination of these little adjustments, at no extra cost to me, were some serious improvements when we held a no-holds barred practice session on private land. Slug changes with the shotgun became effortless, as did full and partial reloads with the revolver. It also helps your confidence, which is one of the more important survival tools.
William Lee is offline  
Old October 21, 2010, 06:08 PM   #137
AZAK
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 15, 2008
Location: the object towards which the action of the sea is directed
Posts: 2,103
Glenn

Quote:
The shooter acted incompetently
If the DA believes that the shooter acted incompetently, then the DA will pursue this if the law says as much; minus "political influences".

Your question is too vague.

If my neighbor was helping to defend me and mine from armed assault and accidentally shot me in the foot I find it unlikely that I am going to sue him for his lack of Gunsite training.

If Mr. Joe average unloads his "high cap" magazine "spray and pray" fashion in the produce section of the grocery store because "grandma" who is almost blind and deaf says loudly, "Stick em up higher, Jr." to her grandson concerning the tomatoes that she can hardly see, and I and/or others are injured as a result, different story entirely.

Neither of these scenarios are likely or common. Again falling back on pax's comment in the OP, which seems to undermine much:
Quote:
As long as we can point to valid experiences that show that neither accidents nor crime rates go up when untrained people exercise their right to carry guns (and we can! over and over and over again)
What I finding challenging about this thread is that I am finding it increasingly difficult to determine exactly what the point is. For example, why question me instead of directly stating exactly what your point is or responding directly to challenges of your point; I do realize that you have made some direct comments including early on:
Quote:
IMHO, controversial, they have the moral duty to train to minimize harm to innocents.
And in seemingly the same breath stopping the discussing of "back door" mandated state or federal gun control.
Quote:
Aaron and others - get off the issue of the state mandate. That's not the debate. Again
.
Quote:
The issue for me is that you have the moral responsibility not to do harm through incompetence when you act in an environment that contains more people than you!

That's the current issue.
And I have failed to see any substantial "evidence" or reasoning for this stance. Especially in light of pursuing a mandated training agenda does work rather well for government gun regulation and control; exactly who is "professional enough" to make these decisions? (I personally believe that The Bill of Rights answered this question to my satisfaction.)

Note: there has NOT been anyone on this thread who has said that good training is NOT productive and beneficial. What I am seeing is a concern for the "slippery slope" argument that is being introduced and pretty much ignored/dismissed; the elephant in the room.
__________________
The lowest paid college major/degree in this country after graduation...
Elementary Education.

Now, go figure...
AZAK is offline  
Old October 21, 2010, 09:35 PM   #138
pax
Staff
 
Join Date: May 16, 2000
Location: Washington state
Posts: 6,905
Look, I know it's difficult for some folks to wrap their heads around this, but just because something is arguably "good" doesn't mean there should be a law requiring you to do it.

Exercise is "good." It'll help you live longer, stay healthier, spend fewer health care dollars. Does that mean I support a state requirement that forces you to get out and do calisthenics along with your neighbors 7 mornings a week? Hell no!

Eating more vegetables is "good." It'll help you live longer. Does that mean I support a state law requiring you to purchase and consume x number of vegetables a week? Hell no!

Just because something is arguably good doesn't mean the state should require you to do it.

I'm sorry some people thought I was arguing FOR state-required training when I said that such state-required training doesn't do much toward helping you stay alive during a violent encounter. I'm sorry that it confused some folks when I said that accidental-shooting rates simply don't bear out the notion that everyone is less safe when a state allows concealed carry but doesn't require training. What I meant was this: Laws requiring training before allowing people to concealed carry are sometimes politically expedient, but they aren't based on any rational measure.

Now, setting that firmly aside. How much training YOU should receive thus isn't really about the laws. It's about YOUR personal situation and YOUR personal sense of morals / ethics / duty.

Here's my point:

If your morals would require you to intervene to save the live of another person, you need to know more than just how to pull out a gun and yank the trigger. Perhaps a lot more.

And if you want to stay out of jail, avoid making really-really-really stupid decisions in the heat of the moment, and perhaps avoid doing something so stupid that it gets someone you care about killed, you'll get real training regardless of what your state does or does not require.

That's pretty much all I said.

pax
__________________
Kathy Jackson
My personal website: Cornered Cat
pax is offline  
Old October 22, 2010, 12:03 AM   #139
booker_t
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 21, 2009
Posts: 797
Wearing a seatbelt is good, and the state requires us to do it. Should they?

Staying under the speed limit is supposedly good, and the state requires us to do it.

Not smoking marijuana is supposedly good, and (most) states really frown on those who do.

There is plenty of regulation on food and drug items, posting of calorie/nutrition information at restaurants, trans fats, and now legislation is on the table to reduce sodium in prepared foods and tax calorie-rich nutrition-empty sodas and sweetened drinks (intent being economic-induced behavior modification). Not ingesting bad things is good for us, but the state is there to supposedly protect consumers from making poor or misinformed decisions.



Aaron Graham makes a good point, I'd like to emphasize one portion of it. The law-abiding citizen with extensive training who carries and screws up (or just gets unlucky), injuring/killing an innocent in an event where they could have done nothing, is perhaps even more exposed to criminal and civil liability than the law-abiding citizen with no training. If you've spent a significant portion of your disposable income on firearms training, it is presumed that you are proficient at arms, you could be considered somewhat of a subject matter expert, and therefore held more accountable. It's like a Formula 1 driver getting into a fender bender in the parking lot. The guy's a pro, it shouldn't happen, right? What does that say about the system?
booker_t is offline  
Old October 22, 2010, 12:17 AM   #140
Frank Ettin
Staff
 
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 6,538
Quote:
Originally Posted by booker_t
...The law-abiding citizen with extensive training who carries and screws up (or just gets unlucky), injuring/killing an innocent in an event where they could have done nothing, is perhaps even more exposed to criminal and civil liability than the law-abiding citizen with no training. If you've spent a significant portion of your disposable income on firearms training, it is presumed that you are proficient at arms, you could be considered somewhat of a subject matter expert, and therefore held more accountable...
We've seen that conjecture before, but no one has ever provided any support for it. Indeed, I've never seen a lawyer say that.

On the other hand, as a lawyer I would rather deal with attacks on my client because of his training than attacks on my client because of his lack of training.

Consider, for example, the Diallo case. The NYC police officers who shot and killed Amadou Diallo, apparently reaching for a gun in his back pocket but actually getting a wallet, were charged with and tried for manslaughter. They pleaded self defense and were acquitted.

Massad Ayoob has done a detailed analysis of the event and the trial. He has discussed how the officers were able to effectively use evidence regarding their training to show the jury that a reasonable person knowing what they knew would also have concluded that Diallo was a lethal threat and that, given the circumstances, their response with lethal force was justified.

A key factor is what they knew and understood from their training allowed the accused officers to articulate a rational basis for their actions.

Last edited by Frank Ettin; October 23, 2010 at 08:01 PM.
Frank Ettin is offline  
Old October 22, 2010, 02:36 AM   #141
AZAK
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 15, 2008
Location: the object towards which the action of the sea is directed
Posts: 2,103
pax

Quote:
Laws requiring training before allowing people to concealed carry are sometimes politically expedient, but they aren't based on any rational measure.
This statement is greatly disturbing to me on a multitude of levels. But, as you say,
Quote:
Now, setting that firmly aside.
I note a great deal of conviction in your words.
Quote:
How much training YOU should receive thus isn't really about the laws. It's about YOUR personal situation and YOUR personal sense of morals / ethics / duty.
I wonder if you share the same sense of moral obligation in regard to training that Glenn E. Meyer states:
Quote:
The issue for me is that you have the moral responsibility not to do harm through incompetence when you act in an environment that contains more people than you!
A moral responsibility to not be incompetent. How is this being defined? As has been brought up, many "shooters" with little or no training or "old timers", who may eschew such suggestions as they "need" additional training, may be the ones who could really use the training; the incompetent ones?

How do we determine exactly when "competence" is achieved? Is there a standard that needs to be met?

In my mind it is one thing to state that we all can benefit from training, and may want to take our responsibilities as gun owners and carriers very seriously and then outlining how additional training could help in a worst case scenario; especially in light of the possibility of injuring or possibly killing an innocent person. (And if that is what you are advocating here, and I have misunderstood your intentions in any way, I apologize for my lack of understanding.)

It is quite another to state a moral obligation to obtain such training; especially with a determined standard, worse yet with a "as of yet to be determined standard" or "when I say so". I find this mindset inseparable from the concept of state and/or federal regulation and at odds with an inalienable right.
__________________
The lowest paid college major/degree in this country after graduation...
Elementary Education.

Now, go figure...
AZAK is offline  
Old October 22, 2010, 03:13 AM   #142
MLeake
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
AZAK...

... I think Pax has pretty clearly stated that the moral responsibility is an internal, personal thing, and not something she feels should be regulated.

The truly clueless out there, who probably need the most training, will be the least likely to voluntarily seek it, but Pax has said that even for them, statistics don't bear out nor justify state regulation.

So I'm not clear on why you are arguing with her about this, unless you feel she shouldn't state an opinion that there is a moral and ethical reason why individuals should feel a need, as responsible gun owners and carriers, to ensure they are (at least in their own minds) doing what they can in order to be safe and proficient.

I don't think too many people here would disagree with her viewpoint on that, which I interpret to be:

1) The State should not regulate a basic right, but

2) Individuals should feel an internal, moral compass call to do what they can to be safe, proficient shooters / weapon handlers.
MLeake is offline  
Old October 22, 2010, 05:06 AM   #143
smince
Junior member
 
Join Date: October 9, 2004
Location: Northeast Alabama
Posts: 2,580
Like mordis in the previous posts, I had zero access to professional training for a long time. And I just couldn't afford the trip to Gunsite or T.R. So I made do with DVD's and things like PDTV and IDPA when available.

And I learned a lot from this type of media. Would I have been able to handle a fight at 7-10 yds? Maybe. What if my fight was at 30+ yds in the mall? Again, maybe. Until I took some actual hands-on training with a professional, I didn't know what all I really didn't know.

I sought out higher training because I don't know what my fight will be when it comes to me. It may be in-your-face distance or it may be farther out.

I'm fortunate enough now to have three very good trainers in less than 100 miles from me, and have taken classes from traveling instructors who were hosted locally.

There is quite a bit you just won't be able to get from DVD's or TV.
smince is offline  
Old October 22, 2010, 05:39 AM   #144
BlueTrain
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 26, 2005
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 5,825
The title of this thread is mildly provocative, isn't it? Perhaps that was intended, given as how it has generated several pages of comments.

I have to take issue with the phrase "handing over political power to the government." That suggests "the people" (us) are giving up something to something of a foreign entity. It should not be seen in that light. Government is created by the citizens and such power as it has might be called political power, though it has other powers the citizens never had individually. Yet the citizens retain certain powers like voting, though some choose not exercise those powers. If the government has no political (or other) powers, there is no effective government.
__________________
Shoot low, sheriff. They're riding Shetlands!
Underneath the starry flag, civilize 'em with a Krag,
and return us to our own beloved homes!
Buy War Bonds.
BlueTrain is offline  
Old October 22, 2010, 06:34 AM   #145
MLeake
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
In general, BlueTrain, you are right...

... the government, good or ill, is us by extension.

Still, when it comes to RKBA, the right of the people shall not be abridged; that doesn't really allow much leeway for government regulation, at least, not in my book.
MLeake is offline  
Old October 22, 2010, 07:56 AM   #146
BlueTrain
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 26, 2005
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 5,825
Nobody said it was perfect but "regulated" appears in the first line before it says "shall not be infringed." Funny how that ended up being written. The idea behind that part was an attempt to prevent private armies, or private militias, if you will.
__________________
Shoot low, sheriff. They're riding Shetlands!
Underneath the starry flag, civilize 'em with a Krag,
and return us to our own beloved homes!
Buy War Bonds.
BlueTrain is offline  
Old October 22, 2010, 08:36 AM   #147
Glenn E. Meyer
Staff
 
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 15,547
Quote:
1) The State should not regulate a basic right, but

2) Individuals should feel an internal, moral compass call to do what they can to be safe, proficient shooters / weapon handlers.

MLeake nailed Kathy's and my view. Thanks.

If you don't want to take this step in #2, you are not stepping up to the moral batter's box and not helping the RKBA. You have the same moral obligation to be informed when you vote. But there is not legal requirement not to be an ignoramus.

The sophistry of some is not impressive.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc.
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...05_Feature.htm
Being an Academic Shooter
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...11_Feature.htm
Being an Active Shooter
Glenn E. Meyer is online now  
Old October 22, 2010, 09:15 AM   #148
psyfly
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 27, 2007
Location: Texas
Posts: 763
Pardon for slightly off-topic but;

"..."regulated" appears in the first line before it says "shall not be infringed.,,"

Before you settle completely on a definition for 'regulated' in its constitutional usage, research von Clausewitz' contribution(s) to the formation of the Continental Army.

W
__________________
Show me the data
psyfly is offline  
Old October 22, 2010, 10:16 AM   #149
BlueTrain
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 26, 2005
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 5,825
I prefer to take George Mason's viewpoint on the matter. Von Clausewitz was born in 1780.
__________________
Shoot low, sheriff. They're riding Shetlands!
Underneath the starry flag, civilize 'em with a Krag,
and return us to our own beloved homes!
Buy War Bonds.

Last edited by BlueTrain; October 22, 2010 at 10:25 AM.
BlueTrain is offline  
Old October 22, 2010, 10:29 AM   #150
psyfly
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 27, 2007
Location: Texas
Posts: 763
Thank you, BT.

I really hate it when I find I trust the wrong sources when I'm trying to learn something.

Best,

Will
__________________
Show me the data
psyfly is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:21 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.18736 seconds with 7 queries