Results 1 to 25 of 25

Thread: Anti-gun couple has a conversion

  1. #1
    State Researcher HankT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Invisible Mode
    Posts
    6,217

    Post imported post

    Wow, what a story. So much good yet still a lot of bad. Simplicity but with attendent complexity.

    Looks like we havetwo people who had an attittude change inbut a few terrifying moments last month. Things are not great but they're very lucky to be alive.





    Cape Coral couple tries to cope after attack at their home
    By PHILLIP BANTZ, Daily News Correspondent

    Tuesday, May 29, 2007

    Jacob Seckler keeps a gun in his pocket when he mows the lawn. He keeps a gun in his pillowcase when he tries to sleep, but the shadows dancing across the bedroom walls keep him awake.

    “I’m strictly against guns. I never wanted them in the house,” said Seckler. “Now I wouldn’t be in the house without a gun.”

    Seckler’s stance on guns changed the morning of May 16. He was mowing his lawn when he turned around and saw two 20-year-old men standing behind him. Seckler said one of the men was pointing a gun at his head.

    After Seckler, 50, raised his hands to the sky, the two men pushed him past the garage toward the front door of his home in northeast Cape Coral. They held him at gunpoint and said they were getting into his house no matter what.

    A struggle ensued at the front door. Seckler refused to let the men inside and they beat him over the head with the pistol and their elbows and fists. One of the men bit Seckler’s back. Seckler’s fiancée, Elizabeth Kachnic, 37, said she heard screaming and the door slam repeatedly.

    “I don’t know what happened to me,” said Seckler. “I was so scared. I’m not crazy like that, but I knew I had to do something.”

    The gun was pressed against Seckler’s temple. He said he pushed the assailant’s hand down and the gun fell to the ground. Seckler said he screamed for Kachnic to call 911 as he and the two men scrambled for the weapon.

    “I got the gun. I just turned around and shot,” said Seckler. “If they did not come here with a gun, they would be alive. It’s their fault.”

    He fired every bullet in the clip. One of the men, John Patrick Moore Jr., was hit as he sprinted across Seckler’s driveway. He stumbled to the edge of the street and died.

    Police say Moore’s accomplice, Damion Jordan Shearod, fled when they lost control of the gun. Seckler said Shearod was hiding in the garage or the side of his home and appeared after the gunfire ceased and ran to a car parked in the street outside Seckler’s residence.

    Police say Moore’s 19-year-old girlfriend, Jazzmyne Carrol-Love, was waiting behind the wheel and the two sped away.

    Seckler had just killed a man. He hadn’t held or fired a gun since he was 18 years old and serving in the German Army. Even then, he was only aiming at practice targets.

    “I was crying, screaming and hurting,” said Seckler, a large man who became tearful while recounting the shooting. “If they would have gotten in they would have killed us both. Everybody says I did the right thing, but it feels so bad. I killed another person.”

    Lives changed forever

    Long bands of yellow police tape cordoned off their home and detectives stood in their driveway looking down at a puddle of blood as Seckler and Kachnic packed their essentials and drove away on the evening of the shooting.

    They lived in an area hotel for a week. Then they rented a camper and left Lee County for a while. Seckler said he had an emotional breakdown at the RV park and requested a priest. The priest was not available and the police were called, but they could not ease Seckler’s troubled mind.

    The couple returned to their Cape Coral home Monday. The house had symbolized a new beginning for the pair, who left the perpetual hustle of New York behind in January and headed for the Sunshine State.

    On the afternoon of their return, Seckler slid his new handgun into his pocket and started up the lawn mower. He mowed part of the side yard before the fear took hold. He went back into his home and locked the doors.

    “We have to lock ourselves in to feel safe during the day,” said Seckler. “We don’t feel safe going to dinner and coming home at night. It feels like someone’s hiding around the corner.”

    A jogger dressed in dark clothing coming down their street in the middle of the afternoon incites panic. Seckler and Kachnic must always be together when at home. If one is swimming in the backyard pool, the other is watching for an attacker lurking in the bushes or around the corner of the house.

    “I don’t know if I’ll ever ride my bike around the neighborhood,” Kachnic said. “We came down here to start a new life and it’s just not fair. It will never feel safe again like it used to.”

    When a gardener knocked on the couple’s front door as they spoke about the shooting, Kachnic jumped off the couch and asked Seckler if she should get the gun before answering. They were both crying.

    Seckler and Kachnic both have upcoming appointments with therapists. Seckler also has an appointment with a neurologist. Ever since he was pistol-whipped on the temple, his vision has been blurry and he can’t read magazines or street signs.

    While Seckler works to obtain a concealed-weapon permit, Kachnic will be getting a gun of her own, she said.

    “It was meant for us both to be dead and they would have robbed us,” said Kachnic. “You can’t imagine the fear. We just don’t know what to do.”

    Shearod and Carrol-Love were arrested and remain in the Lee County Jail; both have been charged with one count each of homicide and robbery with a firearm.

    In 2005, a Lee County jury found Shearod guilty of murdering an 18-year-old Lehigh Acres man, but Judge James R. Thompson overturned the conviction, citing a lack of evidence.

    The State Attorney’s Office is awaiting a judge’s decision on an appeal in the case. The jury’s verdict will be upheld if the appeal is granted and Shearod will be sentenced.

    “The judge who let him go should be in jail,” said Kachnic. “Who knows how many people he’s shot and how many times he’s gotten away with it. I hope they (Carrol-Love and Shearod) stay in jail forever.”

    Meanwhile, Seckler and Kachnic are desperately trying to piece their lives back together. They have considered selling their home and starting a new life somewhere else. They have also considered turning their residence into a fortress of sorts, installing surveillance cameras and a tall privacy fence around the property. Seckler is leaning towards the latter option.

    “I’m not going to give in,” he said. “We’re going to stay here and make it safer. I know it will never feel like it felt when we moved in, but we’ve got to make the best of it.”

    http://www.bonitanews.com/news/2007/may/29/cape_coral_couple_tries_cope_after_attack_their_ho/?latest



  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    , Tennessee, USA
    Posts
    416

    Post imported post

    I'm glad the couple survived. I'm sorry that it took an incident to change their minds.

    ProguninTN

  3. #3
    Regular Member paramedic70002's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Franklin, VA, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    1,448

    Post imported post

    That guy is going to end up shooting the wrong person or in the loonie bin. Hope he gets help fast.
    "Each worker carried his sword strapped to his side." Nehemiah 4:18

    Guns Save Lives. Paramedics Save Lives. But...
    Paramedics With Guns Scare People!

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Englewood, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    654

    Post imported post

    My thougths too, Para....

    This man or his fiancee at this time in their lifes do not need to have a gun.

    If they get counseling and realize what has happened wasn't their fault, then they should think about it at that time. But right now I'm concerned that the mailman, the paperboyor some other innocent person who comes up to their door or into their yard is going to get shot.

    Then this tragic incident will become even more tragic.

  5. #5
    Founder's Club Member OC-Glock19's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Woodbridge, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    561

    Post imported post

    That story kind of brings home the gravity of the end result of using a firearm defensively -- you're still alive, but deeply affected. Those who think that we who carry guns daily are "itching to shoot someone" don't realize that we have imagined ourselves in the above scenario or some other similar situation, and we know that it's a life-changing event that we will do our best to avoid, not seek out.



    Thank you HankT for reminding us of the reality of defensive shooting.

  6. #6
    Regular Member paramedic70002's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Franklin, VA, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    1,448

    Post imported post

    This guy was totally unprepared mentally for a self defense shooting. I think there are many garden variety citizens and a few of us "armchair warriors" that would be in the same boat.

    I've seen a lot of human carnage in my time. I also have the mindset of ME FIRST. I doubt I would be racked by emotional trauma, having done what I set out to do, which is survive. I also hope I never have to find out personally.

    It's all about mindset. Would I regret taking a human life? Yes. That's what separates me (us) from the wolves. Would I lose sleep over surviving a self defense shooting? As long as it came out of the wash as a clean shoot, I doubt it.
    "Each worker carried his sword strapped to his side." Nehemiah 4:18

    Guns Save Lives. Paramedics Save Lives. But...
    Paramedics With Guns Scare People!

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    363

    Post imported post

    Anti-gun couple has a conversion.... Its too bad it had to happen that way, after the fact.

  8. #8
    State Researcher HankT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Invisible Mode
    Posts
    6,217

    Post imported post

    OC-Glock19 wrote:
    That story kind of brings home the gravity of the end result of using a firearm defensively -- you're still alive, but deeply affected. Those who think that we who carry guns daily are "itching to shoot someone" don't realize that we have imagined ourselves in the above scenario or some other similar situation, and we know that it's a life-changing event that we will do our best to avoid, not seek out.



    Thank you HankT for reminding us of the reality of defensive shooting.

    You're welcome, OCG19.

    Yeah, there's definitely that angle to the story--the real reality of killing someone.

    Y'know, I'm continually amazed at the lack of appreciation expressedby certain individuals on some gunforumsabout the hard reality of actually shooting/killing someone. Even if you're totally right in shooting/killing someone, not a cinch by any means, you still have consequences.Deep, severe, tough consequences across many levels ofyour life. And the lives of others.

    Some, those a bit naive, simplisticandheadstrong, think any threat, any person, any bad guy...can simply be neutralized when the time comes. That typedoesn't know how, when or why. They even show anticipation of being in such an event.

    They just know... neutralize...as if it will happen by magic. And, asif everyone will be happy ever after....

    That type does not live in reality.

    This Cape Coral couple story is reality. And they were totally in the right...

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    , New York, USA
    Posts
    122

    Post imported post

    More than a conversion, more like a break down.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    27

    Post imported post

    This story also seems to lay out the really unfortunate extremist mentality of some individuals.

    Originally the couple wanted nothing to do with guns, felt safe and thought carrying to protect themselves was unnecessary.

    Having their mental schema of the world shattered by the harsh truth of reality they've overreacted and flipped to the opposite extreme. The world is now a place beyond their control and rather than attempting to soldier on with this truth in mind and taking appropriate actions as so many others do on a daily basis, they've developed what sounds like agoraphobia and sociophobia, and armed themselves. While I agree with the latter, that should have been done prior to the attack and in their current mental state I hope neither qualify for a concealed carry permit. If awarded permits, innocents percieved though the veil of fear as hostiles may pay the ultimate price.

    I've never been forced to take a human life and if I'm even remotely lucky I will never know how it feels to do so. I get heartsick shooting vermin down in Stafford. This being said I cannot fully comprehend the emotional reprocussions of such an event but would like to think I would handle it better than having a complete nervous breakdown. Such a reaction is precisely what I fear will start occuring far more often due to all the "over-protecting" of today's children. Giving them a false sense of security throughout life can have a severe impact down the road when reality shows no discretion for the "Imaginary Safe World" bubble society keeps forcing upon them.

    I started to question how a 50 year old who served in the German Military would have such an unfortunate reaction to such events until I did some simple subtraction and realized we're so far into the new millenium.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    46

    Post imported post

    as everyone has pointed out, this is ahorrible experience. But it could have been more horrible. The innocent people could be dead instead.

    I note that the man wanted a priest. So it is probably a safe assumption that he is a religious man. Too bad that at the age of 50 he hasn't learned anything at all about proper observance of his religion. One of God's strictures is that we protect innocent life as it is his most valuable gift to us in this world. Perhaps he will find a priest that goes against the flow enough to point this out to him. I hope so.

    Hurting or killing someone is not something any sane person relishes, but no sane person would refuse to do so if his life is threatened by bad people. I think the guy may not be entirely sane to not know this. I am glad his instinct to live was stronger than his thought process and his fantasy philosophy. There is just no way to know how many lives he saved besides the two in the immediate instant.

    I do hope he finds peace.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Toledo, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    245

    Post imported post

    Lthrnck wrote:
    My thougths too, Para....

    This man or his fiancee at this time in their lifes do not need to have a gun.

    If they get counseling and realize what has happened wasn't their fault, then they should think about it at that time. But right now I'm concerned that the mailman, the paperboyor some other innocent person who comes up to their door or into their yard is going to get shot.

    Then this tragic incident will become even more tragic.
    Wait a second. How is that for us to decide? The amount of time that passed from the moment I chose to get a gun and when I actually got a gun was nine months. I knew at the time I decided that I wasn't ready. That was MY choice to make. Had I made the wrong choice and hurt somebody else as a result, I would've suffered the consequences. As will anybody. The fact remains that it is any given individuals choice, not ours. We don't come from their background, we weren't raised like them, we don't have the same values, and we haven't had the same life experiences. They have made a decision that they deem appropriate and it's theirs to make.

    I also disagree with your statement that they don't need a gun at this point in their life. This is a great time in their life to choose a gun. The article tells us of several people who mistook him for a victim most likely due to his advanced age. Without armaments, the men prey upon the women, the big guys prey upon the little, the groups prey upon the individuals, the able prey upon the handicapped, and indeed, the young prey upon the old. Which again, even if this weren't the truth, not for us to decide.

    OC-Glock19 wrote:
    That story kind of brings home the gravity of the end result of using a firearm defensively -- you're still alive, but deeply affected. Those who think that we who carry guns daily are "itching to shoot someone" don't realize that we have imagined ourselves in the above scenario or some other similar situation, and we know that it's a life-changing event that we will do our best to avoid, not seek out.



    Thank you HankT for reminding us of the reality of defensive shooting.
    Indeed. I originally took on a gun NOT because I was eager to shoot somebody. Though after a life of being victimized, I must confess that I enjoyed the vision of being able to fight back with impunity. This all changed the first time I was in a situation where I had to THINK about drawing. There was this guy much bigger than me, who had cornered me, vocalized a desire to harm me, and did not slow down despite my commands to not come any closer. Yet I was sick to my stomach for even having to make such a decision. It got easier as there were more encounters. But I can only imagine what it would be like to actually take another human life, even if they begged for it and even if it was the only way to spare our own. It's because of this effect that I wish crooked politicians and prosecutors would stop harrassing the victims by just adding to the pile a bunch of irrational fears on how a slanted society will leave them to live in peace after such a horrible occurance.


  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    27

    Post imported post

    Demarest wrote:
    Had I made the wrong choice and hurt somebody else as a result, I would've suffered the consequences.
    Well, you'd suffer consequences as a result of the legal system prosecuting you of course. But if you hurt someone, they also have to suffer the consequences of your actions, provided they were only hurt. Clearly if they're dead they're not...well, doing much of anything.

    We're less concerned with them being dealt with after the fact, I think. Trying not to speak for everyone. I think we're far more concerned with the damage they might do to others.
    Perhaps the reporter was exaggerating as to how easily startled and fearful these two are of the world. If so, then I can't speculate. However, if they are both jumping off couches and going for the gun everytime they hear something that may remotely resemble a threat (especially when his vision is blurry) then I question their ability to properly use a firearm. I mean, you use a firearm to defend yourself when you're in fear for your life. These two now live in constant fear of their life. How do they decide when to use a firearm? Is this guy at the door pulling out a pen? Or is he drawing a knife?
    It seems they've switched dependencies here. Prior to the attack they were dependant on society to protect them from bad guys, rather than protecting themselves. That failed miserably and now they're dependant on a firearm to protect them from bad guys and see everyone as a very real threat. The term "reasonable person" is used in a lot of legal-ese I see. I really question if it is "reasonable" to be afraid of every knock at the door.

    Do I still carry around the house? Sure. Is the thought of having to use my pistol when I open the door in my mind? Somewhere. But you can bet damn well it's not at the forefront. I think "Oh! Who could it be?" not "Oh no! Get the gun! Someone is outside! And they're...they're....knocking!"

    You shoot the guy sneaking around out back and only if he attacks you. You shoot the guy who breaks into your house. You don't immediately plan to defend your life from someone who announces their presence at your residence in a conventional and friendly manner.

    Or at least you shouldn't, in my opinion.
    --Fox


    They need a security system with CCTV.

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Sioux Falls, South Dakota, USA
    Posts
    133

    Post imported post

    On the afternoon of their return, Seckler slid his new handgun into his pocket and started up the lawn mower. He mowed part of the side yard before the fear took hold. He went back into his home and locked the doors.

    “We have to lock ourselves in to feel safe during the day,” said Seckler. “We don’t feel safe going to dinner and coming home at night. It feels like someone’s hiding around the corner.”

    A jogger dressed in dark clothing coming down their street in the middle of the afternoon incites panic. Seckler and Kachnic must always be together when at home. If one is swimming in the backyard pool, the other is watching for an attacker lurking in the bushes or around the corner of the house.

    “I don’t know if I’ll ever ride my bike around the neighborhood,” Kachnic said. “We came down here to start a new life and it’s just not fair. It will never feel safe again like it used to.”

    When a gardener knocked on the couple’s front door as they spoke about the shooting, Kachnic jumped off the couch and asked Seckler if she should get the gun before answering. They were both crying.

    Seckler and Kachnic both have upcoming appointments with therapists. Seckler also has an appointment with a neurologist. Ever since he was pistol-whipped on the temple, his vision has been blurry and he can’t read magazines or street signs.
    These two need serious therapy and possibly medication. Both are suffering from PTSD and neither should have a gun at this time.

    In their current state they could easily shoot someone without cause.

    Just my opinion though.


  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    , , USA
    Posts
    134

    Post imported post

    I doubt I could ever actually shoot someone. About as close as I could come is a shot to the legs perhaps. No need to kill anyone, most of the time. Just get them to stop.

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Toledo, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    245

    Post imported post

    Particle wrote:
    I doubt I could ever actually shoot someone.
    If you're unable to pull the trigger when the circumstances require it, you shouldn't carry a gun. Otherwise your attack is also going to be the theft of your gun after it's used to murder you.

    Particle wrote:
    About as close as I could come is a shot to the legs perhaps. No need to kill anyone, most of the time. Just get them to stop.
    You aim for the center of mass for many, many reasons. If your shot misses, you won't be stopping your assailant. If the wound is fatal, that's not your fault. Yes, I realize the context here is having to live with it afterwards. Truth of the matter is that many COM shootees live without issue while people suffering from leg shots can die or become paralyzed. The imprint of just being attacked is going to stick with you. And while I have no basis of reference, I'm quite certain that it's easier to live with having killed somebody when it was the only way to save your own than it is to live without the use of the left side of your body, your legs, your eyes, or not living at all.


  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    27

    Post imported post

    gsh341 wrote
    These two need serious therapy and possibly medication. Both are suffering from PTSD and neither should have a gun at this time.

    In their current state they could easily shoot someone without cause.

    Just my opinion though.
    On a side note of the PTSD:
    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1901053/posts
    I question if we're agreeing with them now.

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Sioux Falls, South Dakota, USA
    Posts
    133

    Post imported post

    Fox wrote:
    gsh341 wrote
    These two need serious therapy and possibly medication. Both are suffering from PTSD and neither should have a gun at this time.

    In their current state they could easily shoot someone without cause.

    Just my opinion though.
    On a side note of the PTSD:
    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1901053/posts
    I question if we're agreeing with them now.
    We're not agreeing at all.

    PTSD can be treated successfully. After treatment most PTSD victims should be able to handle stressful situations. The article you linked to would be a permanent ban on firearms ownership. These people just need some time and counseling, possibly some temporary light medication, before being allowed to make life and death decisions.


  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Toledo, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    245

    Post imported post

    gsh341 wrote:
    Both are suffering from PTSD and neither should have a gun at this time.
    The question has been posed though: Who are we to decide? This is the land of the free. Whether or not ANY aspect of LIFE, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is deemed relevant by us, the outsiders, or even the government is of no concern. They have a right to live and the right to feel secure in their own home. If they feel a gun will provide that forum, we'd by not just hypocritical for discouraging them, but we'd also be helping our common enemy by parroting their overtone of guns are bad, we don't need guns, and so forth.

    Fox wrote:
    We're less concerned with them being dealt with after the fact, I think. Trying not to speak for everyone. I think we're far more concerned with the damage they might do to others.
    But this isn't Minority Report. There is no pre-crime. "Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither" -Benjamin Franklin. As gun owners, each of us pay EVERY SINGLE DAY for the wrong-doings of OTHERS. Don't encourage those who press this agenda against us. That we cannot stop bad things from happening is a fact of life.


  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Sioux Falls, South Dakota, USA
    Posts
    133

    Post imported post

    Those that are saying thatthe couple should have a guns right now whether we like it or not (and the hell with the PTSDthat this couple is suffering from) may not have seen the problems associated with PTSD.

    In the military you can often see soldiers suffering from PTSD and even plain old "burn out". In virtually every case their commanders will park their butts in the rear and get them counseling for a week or so. The extreme cases might even get shipped out of theater for extended recuperation.

    They do this not because the person is insane or a danger to others, but because they are not thinking clearly enough, at that time, to make life and death decisions.

    When a loved one dies, many people are advised to not touch the insurance money or inheritance for 4-6 months. Not because they are crazy, but because they need a period of time to sort out their feelings and gain a sense of normalcy before making major financial decisions. Would you advocate that a grieving wife or child have access to $500,000 to $1,000,000 in life insurance the day after the funeral?

    This couple is having a collective panic attack and need to get away from their house and even the city they live in for a couple months so they can come to grips with their fears. If the wife starts crying because of a knock at the door and the husband can't even mow his yard because of fear there are definitely issues that need to be addressed.

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    27

    Post imported post

    I have to agree. Psychological testing currently prohibits certain individuals from handling firearms as they may be unstable and cause real harm to others, possibly without meaning to do so. Given this situation, for a time period the couple in the story shouldn't be around firearms or they might do the same.

    They're simply not mentally stable right now. Hopefully that'll change with time. The problem is how you go about testing these boundaries. I realize you can't just jump on this like it's a bandwagon or someone could start a witch hunt and declare everyone mentally incapable of safely owning a firearm. I'm not going for that. But there are reasonable limits that need to be addressed. There's a reason we keep handguns locked away from toddlers and stress safety so much.

    Just my opinion.

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Toledo, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    245

    Post imported post

    I guess I have a different perception of what individual liberty is. Can you imagine somebody trying to take your gun away because you were attacked? How would you feel if you found out that the people trying to take it were gun owners themselves?

    They were already victimized. They've already been victimized after being victimized. They don't need to be victimized further by being ripened for the exact same thing to happen again. Least of all by the very people who should be applauding their conversion regardless of our personal opinion as to whether or not they're fit.

    The moment we entertain such a notion, we are supporting ALL gun control. We all know that gun control is racist in nature and is historically just a way for one class to pretend they are capable of choosing who is fit to be armed and who isn't. Look at the Virginia Tech shooting. They turned around and passed legislation to broaden the definition of mental weapons disability. Now they're talking about legislation that would prevent you from owning a gun if you previously were said to have ADHD. This is what they do. They know they can't take our guns, so they redraw the lines so that fewer and fewer have them. Until one day, there's more of them then there are of us and they can swoop in and liberty is dead. WE are part of that process the moment we stand up and pretend that we can say that any free man is unfit to be armed for ANY reason.

    Again, this is THEIR decision to make. If they make the wrong one and infringe upon somebody else's rights in the process, they will suffer the consequences. This is as it should be and indeed, the best we could hope for. If we're not punished for abusing our rights until we actually abuse them, that means we can fully enjoy those rights for as long as we don't. FULLY. As in no background checks, no waiting periods... Or simply put: "...shall not be infringed."

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Sioux Falls, South Dakota, USA
    Posts
    133

    Post imported post

    Demarest wrote:
    Again, this is THEIR decision to make. If they make the wrong one and infringe upon somebody else's rights in the process, they will suffer the consequences. This is as it should be and indeed, the best we could hope for. If we're not punished for abusing our rights until we actually abuse them, that means we can fully enjoy those rights for as long as we don't. FULLY. As in no background checks, no waiting periods... Or simply put: "...shall not be infringed."
    I agree this is their decision to make. I never said that "we" should take their guns away. I meant what I said in the manner of someone falling asleep should not be driving until they have rested. Tired drivers have killed themselves or others and this situation isn't all that different. This is a decision they need to make, but not having guns at this time should be suggested by those close to them or otherwise involved.

    If they were thinking clearly (and they aren't at the moment) they would realize this for themselves.


  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    34

    Post imported post

    Another reporter using "clip" in place of correct terminology i.e. magazine.

    Sorry, I know that was anal of me. His being German too. I guess their country is not as gun-loving as the good old USA! :celebrateYES YES YES

    Goes to show why I carry my Beretta 21A .22 LR (don't laugh) in my pocket at all times. Day and night. My H&K USP 45 at night or traveling (winter as well....more layers....less "gun printing") There, I'm having to worry about people calling the cops on a "man with a gun" again.

    Ain't our country grand these days?

  25. #25
    State Researcher HankT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Invisible Mode
    Posts
    6,217

    Post imported post

    nauss wrote:
    Another reporter using "clip" in place of correct terminology i.e. magazine.

    Sorry, I know that was anal of me. His being German too. I guess their country is not as gun-loving as the good old USA! :celebrateYES YES YES

    Goes to show why I carry my Beretta 21A .22 LR (don't laugh) in my pocket at all times. Day and night. My H&K USP 45 at night or traveling (winter as well....more layers....less "gun printing")
    You only carry a .22 most/a lotof the time?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •