Yet another reason to ban assault weapons

[veni vidi vici]

I found something while doing some reading that may shed some light on the subject.It relates to our right and why from One of the architects of the Constitution.It relate directly to The Sovereignty of the People .
"The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves in all cases to which they think themselves competent (as in electing their functionaries executive and legislative, and deciding by a jury of themselves in all judiciary cases in which any fact is involved), or they may act by representatives, freely and equally chosen; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; that they are entitled to freedom of person, freedom of religion, freedom of property, and freedom of the press." --Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824. ME 16:45
"What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them." --Thomas Jefferson to William Stephens Smith, 1787. ME 6:373, Papers 12:356

 

[veni vidi vici]

IMO Jefferson saw what a government run awry could do ,so we where given the 2nd Amendment.Much heated debate went into which Amendment was to go first ,speech or right to bear arms"The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions, that I wish it to be always kept alive. It will often be exercised when wrong, but better so than not to be exercised at all. I like a little rebellion now and then. It is like a storm in the atmosphere." --Thomas Jefferson to Abigail Adams, 1787.
"God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion... We have had thirteen States independent for eleven years. There has been one rebellion. That comes to one rebellion in a century and a half, for each State. What country before ever existed a century and a half without a rebellion?" --Thomas Jefferson to William S. Smith, 1787. ME 6:372
"The commotions that have taken place in America, as far as they are yet known to me, offer nothing threatening. They are a proof that the people have liberty enough, and I could not wish them less than they have. If the happiness of the mass of the people can be secured at the expense of a little tempest now and then, or even of a little blood, it will be a precious purchase. 'Malo libertatem periculosam quam quietem servitutem.' Let common sense and common honesty have fair play, and they will soon set things to rights." --Thomas Jefferson to Ezra Stiles, 1786. ME 6:25
"Cherish... the spirit of our people, and keep alive their attention. Do not be too severe upon their errors, but reclaim them by enlightening them." --Thomas Jefferson to Edward Carrington, 1787. ME 6:58

 

[reefraff]

Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/2995448
Reefraff, read the statute again. It says aggravated assault under section 13-1204, subsection A, paragraphs 1 and 2.
This is what that section of 13-1204 states:
13-1204. Aggravated assault; classification; definition
A. A person commits aggravated assault if the person commits assault as prescribed by section 13-1203 under any of the following circumstances:
1. If the person causes serious physical injury to another.
2. If the person uses a deadly weapon or dangerous instrument.
So I guess you're going to call their vehicle a 'dangerous instrument'? OK, I'm sure a lawyer could get you off an assault with deadly weapon charge using that one. However, that vague definition could be virtually anything. If you had actually shot at the guys, then you would have been guilty under the same statute.
The only point I'm trying to make with his scenario is you are asking for major legal trouble when you brandish a weapon during a road rage inicident. Reefraff appears to have had every justification for doing what he did, based on his depiction of the event. But there lies the problem. The authorities wouldn't have just listened to his side of the story. Reefraff is making all these assertions about how they taunted him, they swerved at him, he did whatever he could to diffuse the situation... Sorry, just reading his comments in this thread, and the myriad of other threads he posts in, he would in no stretch of the imagination be consisdered a passive individual. I imagine there was a little more 'give and take' in this situation that he's not telling us. You can justify your actions for needing to use your gun all you want to, but when a gun gets put into the mix in situations like this, it ends up doing more harm than good.
I still say he was very lucky it didn't turn more deadly. Considering the lax gun laws Arizona has in regards to carrying weapons in the car, I'm amazed those kids DIDN'T have one. After reefraff lifted his up, they appeared to have backed off and got away from him. After they backed off, I imagine he lowered his weapon and put it back in his holster. But if they'd had a gun, I imagine they would've pulled back up along side him again, and when he looked over, he would've seen a barrel pointing at him. He would have never had the opportunity to pull his weapon back up, or even aim it at them before they unloaded on him. So in that scenario, he would've been the victim of deadly force, not them.
Any time you take steps to defend yourself you have to consider the consequences. Like I said early on, I would rather be judged by 12 than carried by six.
Most semi rational people aren't going to pursue a situation like this if they know the other is armed. But when they thought they were five on one and and we would have been stopped at the light would they have been content to just keep yelling? When the guy in the back started digging around I decided I needed to at least protect my property at a minimum. Had the guy thrown something at the car I wouldn't have shot him. Had they stepped out of the car I probably would have.
If someone makes an aggressive move at you with anything that could be considered a weapon be it a rolling pin, frying pan or bat or a car you have the right to defend yourself. The question is going to come down to is it a credible threat. In my situation it was in my mind and I am pretty well grounded. I've had altercations on the road several times over the years and I can't remember another time when I was even tempted to pull a gun.
It's like one cop told me, If someone comes at you with a knife and you pull a gun and they turn around and run away and you shoot them in the back you are going to have a problem. If you shoot the guy in the chest and there are powder burns on his clothes (indicating close range) there is little chance you are going to be prosecuted.
In this case I didn't let things escalate to the point where I feel I would hav been justified in shooting them or even putting a couple rounds in the car. When you decide to go the extra step to provide your own protection there is absolutely a lot of responsibility that goes along with it.

 

[bionicarm]

Originally Posted by oscardeuce
http:///forum/post/2995902
You answer your own question:
Driving a car AT someone= "trying to commit manslaughter or first or second degree murder."
I still have not seen your answer to my question.
What's your question? You and journey need to get together more often.
Weaving a car close to another is considerd manslaughter or first and second degree murder? Think you need to read the definitions of those terms. What would you call shooting someone with a deadly weapon with or without cause? If you ever have to be in a situation where you do actually kill someone, self denfense or not, you'd better have a rock solid argument or defense for doing it these days.

 

[bionicarm]

Originally Posted by Veni Vidi Vici
http:///forum/post/2995923
I found something while doing some reading that may shed some light on the subject.It relates to our right and why from One of the architects of the Constitution.
It relate directly to The Sovereignty of the People .
"The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves in all cases to which they think themselves competent (as in electing their functionaries executive and legislative, and deciding by a jury of themselves in all judiciary cases in which any fact is involved), or they may act by representatives, freely and equally chosen; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; that they are entitled to freedom of person, freedom of religion, freedom of property, and freedom of the press." --Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824. ME 16:45
"What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them." --Thomas Jefferson to William Stephens Smith, 1787. ME 6:373, Papers 12:356

Sounds to me Jefferson was reciting the key points of the Bill Of Rights to Cartwright for some reason, whoever he was. He wasn't specifically speaking about the right to bear arms with the guy.
Not exactly sure what he was trying to tell Smith. Warning the rulers to preserve spirit of resistance? Sounds like a revolt of the Federal Govt. to me.
It would be interesting to know if Thomas Jefferson or any of the other authors of the Constitution would have second thoughts about making those kinds of statements if the types of weapons that are available today would've have been in their hands back then.

 

[bionicarm]

Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/2996096
Any time you take steps to defend yourself you have to consider the consequences. Like I said early on, I would rather be judged by 12 than carried by six.
Most semi rational people aren't going to pursue a situation like this if they know the other is armed. But when they thought they were five on one and and we would have been stopped at the light would they have been content to just keep yelling? When the guy in the back started digging around I decided I needed to at least protect my property at a minimum. Had the guy thrown something at the car I wouldn't have shot him. Had they stepped out of the car I probably would have.
If someone makes an aggressive move at you with anything that could be considered a weapon be it a rolling pin, frying pan or bat or a car you have the right to defend yourself. The question is going to come down to is it a credible threat. In my situation it was in my mind and I am pretty well grounded. I've had altercations on the road several times over the years and I can't remember another time when I was even tempted to pull a gun.
It's like one cop told me, If someone comes at you with a knife and you pull a gun and they turn around and run away and you shoot them in the back you are going to have a problem. If you shoot the guy in the chest and there are powder burns on his clothes (indicating close range) there is little chance you are going to be prosecuted.
In this case I didn't let things escalate to the point where I feel I would hav been justified in shooting them or even putting a couple rounds in the car. When you decide to go the extra step to provide your own protection there is absolutely a lot of responsibility that goes along with it.

If they'd had a gun, you wouldn't have had to worry about a jury of 12. You'd have been met by the other 6 at the funeral home.
You're now calling these people 'semi rational'? How would you know? That's the problem with your action. You had no clue whatsoever what their reaction was going to be when you showed that gun. Yes, they did back off and leave you alone. But they very well could have been digging for their own gun, and started shooting at you before you had a chance to shoot at them. And what's real scary is you think you would be justified in shooting at them simply because they threw something at your car, or even got out of their car at a stop light. You'd actually murder someone because they threw a beer bottle or some other item at your CAR, and put a dent in it? You'd start shooting as soon as they opened the door of the car and got out, even if they were advancing towards your car? You even go on to say if your were initimidated enough, you'd possible 'put a couple of rounds in their car'. All I can say is I'm speechless. I honestly don't understand your reasoning.
I'm curious, if you would've used your gun on that carload of people, would you have stayed at the scene until the police arrived? What if the car had stopped, and only one or two of them had gotten out. Would you have just shot those two, or just kept pulling the trigger until you made sure all five were dead? What if three or more of them got out, but only one advanced towards your car? Would you have only shot the one guy advancing, or go ahead and shoot all three, even though the other two were staying back? If you would have shot at the moving car, and appeared to only wound one or two of them, and they stopped their car, would you stop yours and wait to see if they needed medical assistance, or would you just keep driving?

 

[darthtang aw]

wow this thread has morphed some.
Ok, I have true story that happened here in New Mexico.
Iraq veteran is at home, A career criminal tries to steal his truck in the middle of the nigh . This criminal also has a warrant for his arrest on a murder charge, has been in Prison on two separate occasions. The veteran hears the noise outside grabs his pistol and goes out to investigate, he wakes his wife up and tells her to call the cops. He goes outside and points the gun at the thief. Tells him to get on the ground. The criminal proceeds to back out of the yard and on the sidewalk. The guy continues to tell him to get on the ground. The criminal then verbaly starts threatening the guy about coming back and killing his family. Very loudly (enough that neighbors wake up and hear this commotion. The guy starts backing down the street the entire time the veteran is telling him to get on the ground...more threats of death comments about his gang coming back and getting the guys family and so one. An officer comes out of his house in the neighborhood and witnesses the following, threats made, then the criminal charges the veteran and reaches into his jacket while doing this. The vet shoots and kills the guy.
Mpw fast forward...the DA charges the veteran...I don't remember what exactly the charge was but they reach a plea agreement to where the vet won't serve time...When they face the judge on this, the judge overturns the sentence agreed upon and gives the vet 5 years in jail.....
The DA charged him because the DA said the criminal was shot in the back even though the officer eyewitness denies this, the autopsy denies this, and the oficers that arrive on scene deny this. Yet the DA went ahead with it anyway.
Long story short the public madea big deal about this on the radio and in the news, the judge eventually changed his sentence after 6 months and released the guy.
Moral of the story.......all it takes is one person with the mindset that Bionicarm holds and you may still serve jail time for these incidents.
All the vet was trying to do was detain the guy.....the criminal charged him even though he was holding a gun on him.
I will have to find the links for these stories about this if anyone is interested...if not, I won't bother.

 

[oscardeuce]

Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/2996312
What's your question? You and journey need to get together more often.
Weaving a car close to another is considerd manslaughter or first and second degree murder? Think you need to read the definitions of those terms. What would you call shooting someone with a deadly weapon with or without cause? If you ever have to be in a situation where you do actually kill someone, self denfense or not, you'd better have a rock solid argument or defense for doing it these days.

Check your teleprompter, I said driving AT someone, not weaving.
The question you never seems to answer, is how to you define "proficient" with a firearm. Like I stated I've shot tens of thousands of rounds in both National and State Matches, I've shot with my Dad (former State Trooper )on the police range. You hemmed and hawed, but never seemed to claerly answer whether sommeone with similar experience would be "proficient". As to a "real, life", then you never know until it happens. You did mention paint ball and moving targets. I actually don't play that much, because I think it can lower the meaning of actually drawing on someone, but I was always the first to be picked.

 

[veni vidi vici]

Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/2996327
Sounds to me Jefferson was reciting the key points of the Bill Of Rights to Cartwright for some reason, whoever he was. He wasn't specifically speaking about the right to bear arms with the guy.
Not exactly sure what he was trying to tell Smith. Warning the rulers to preserve spirit of resistance? Sounds like a revolt of the Federal Govt. to me.
It would be interesting to know if Thomas Jefferson or any of the other authors of the Constitution would have second thoughts about making those kinds of statements if the types of weapons that are available today would've have been in their hands back then.
"What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms."
--Thomas Jefferson to William Stephens Smith, 1787. ME 6:373, Papers 12:356
The types of weaponry is irrelevant.You dont bring a knife to a gun fight.Again the 2nd Amendment is to provide the ability to "Revolt" against tyranny of any entity,weather it be home grow or foreign.
It is to protect the people from the government, not the government from the people.
"Lethargy [is] the forerunner of death to the public liberty."
--Thomas Jefferson to William Stephens Smith, 1787.

 

[bionicarm]

Originally Posted by Darthtang AW
http:///forum/post/2996356
wow this thread has morphed some.
Ok, I have true story that happened here in New Mexico.
Iraq veteran is at home, A career criminal tries to steal his truck in the middle of the nigh . This criminal also has a warrant for his arrest on a murder charge, has been in Prison on two separate occasions. The veteran hears the noise outside grabs his pistol and goes out to investigate, he wakes his wife up and tells her to call the cops. He goes outside and points the gun at the thief. Tells him to get on the ground. The criminal proceeds to back out of the yard and on the sidewalk. The guy continues to tell him to get on the ground. The criminal then verbaly starts threatening the guy about coming back and killing his family. Very loudly (enough that neighbors wake up and hear this commotion. The guy starts backing down the street the entire time the veteran is telling him to get on the ground...more threats of death comments about his gang coming back and getting the guys family and so one. An officer comes out of his house in the neighborhood and witnesses the following, threats made, then the criminal charges the veteran and reaches into his jacket while doing this. The vet shoots and kills the guy.
Mpw fast forward...the DA charges the veteran...I don't remember what exactly the charge was but they reach a plea agreement to where the vet won't serve time...When they face the judge on this, the judge overturns the sentence agreed upon and gives the vet 5 years in jail.....
The DA charged him because the DA said the criminal was shot in the back even though the officer eyewitness denies this, the autopsy denies this, and the oficers that arrive on scene deny this. Yet the DA went ahead with it anyway.
Long story short the public madea big deal about this on the radio and in the news, the judge eventually changed his sentence after 6 months and released the guy.
Moral of the story.......all it takes is one person with the mindset that Bionicarm holds and you may still serve jail time for these incidents.
All the vet was trying to do was detain the guy.....the criminal charged him even though he was holding a gun on him.
I will have to find the links for these stories about this if anyone is interested...if not, I won't bother.
It's not 'my mindset'. I'm not a lawyer or a judge. This story just exemplifies the point I've been trying to get across this entire time. I have no problems whatsoever of anyone protecting themselves, their family, or their home with a gun. I told you, I own a couple of weapons myself for that very reason. However, if you choose to use your weapon, for whatever reason, you better be prepared to face the consequences. What happened to this veteran could have very easily happened to reefraff if he had fired his pistol at this carload of people.

 

[veni vidi vici]

Here is a quote i found very amusing event though it is mear odd coincidence it was still funny to me.Thomas Jefferson talking about Obama.
"Instead of that liberty which takes root and growth in the progress of reason, if recovered by mere force or accident, it becomes with an unprepared people a tyranny still of the many, the few, or the one." --Thomas Jefferson to Lafayette, 1815. ME 14:245

 

[bionicarm]

Originally Posted by oscardeuce
http:///forum/post/2996390
Check your teleprompter, I said driving AT someone, not weaving.
The question you never seems to answer, is how to you define "proficient" with a firearm. Like I stated I've shot tens of thousands of rounds in both National and State Matches, I've shot with my Dad (former State Trooper )on the police range. You hemmed and hawed, but never seemed to claerly answer whether sommeone with similar experience would be "proficient". As to a "real, life", then you never know until it happens. You did mention paint ball and moving targets. I actually don't play that much, because I think it can lower the meaning of actually drawing on someone, but I was always the first to be picked.
Yes, you would be considered 'proficient' with the use of a weapon considering your experience with them in the various shooting competitions you've been in. However, that proficiency can easily be thrown out the door when it comes to facing a situation with another armed individual confronting you, especially one that could care less what happens to them like the Alabama nut. Like you said, you'll never know how 'proficient' you would be until it actually happens.
Most paintball outings usually involve 8 or more people on opposing teams. So yea, it would be hard to compare it to actually drawing on someone face to face. My thought would be that if you did want to see what it was like, you could always set something up using paintball guns. I went to a paintball place one time with a buddy to watch some area team competitions. One of the competitions was a 'one on one' match against opposing teammates. The most 'one on one' wins won the match. They put one player from each team on the field (this was a wooded area with some of the paintball structures thrown in). Neither opposing player knew where the other was placed on the field. At the whistle they would 'stalk' one another and try to 'kill' the other first. It was pretty interesting to watch some of the actions and reactions the two players had when they finally confronted one another.

 

[bionicarm]

Originally Posted by Veni Vidi Vici
http:///forum/post/2996463
Here is a quote i found very amusing event though it is mear odd coincidence it was still funny to me.Thomas Jefferson talking about Obama.
"Instead of that liberty which takes root and growth in the progress of reason, if recovered by mere force or accident, it becomes with an unprepared people a tyranny still of the many, the few, or the one." --Thomas Jefferson to Lafayette, 1815. ME 14:245
(Spock) - "Logic clearly dictates that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.” Kirk replies, “Or the one.”
Star Trek, Wrath Of Khan.

 

[veni vidi vici]

Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/2996475
(Spock) - "Logic clearly dictates that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.” Kirk replies, “Or the one.”
Star Trek, Wrath Of Khan.
I hope you do realize i was just joking right?
Lets see if we can change this up a bit.
What recourse would the American people have if one day a sitting president and a sitting congress agreed and that they wanted to change our form of government to another. Lets use a Monarchy as an example,what if they just slowly decided to strip away our rights we have been given . What recourse would The People have if the 2nd amendment was repealed?
If you or I where in power what would be the first thing you would strip from the people.Free speech or the right to bear arms

?
Im not accusing This President or this congress of that im just asking.And for the record I do have some doubts on the intentions of this sitting President and this Congress to not trample on the Constitution.

 

[bionicarm]

Originally Posted by Veni Vidi Vici
http:///forum/post/2996506
I hope you do realize i was just joking right?
Lets see if we can change this up a bit.
What recourse would the American people have if one day a sitting president and a sitting congress agreed and that they wanted to change our form of government to another. Lets use a Monarchy as an example,what if they just slowly decided to strip away our rights we have been given . What recourse would The People have if the 2nd amendment was repealed?
If you or I where in power what would be the first thing you would strip from the people.Free speech or the right to bear arms

?
Im not accusing This President or this congress of that im just asking.And for the record I do have some doubts on the intentions of this sitting President and this Congress to not trample on the Constitution.
Watch the TV show Jericho. That would answer your questions as to what would happen...
Realistically, what recourse would we have? It's called voting them out. Impeach the President? Invoke term limits for both the House and Senate? Why do you feel the individuals who represent us are above the law or even regarded as superior to the 'normal' American citizen? That's why Checks and Balances are in place. Half the idiots that are currently seated in Congress should've been removed years ago. I'd have to say a majority of them are corrupt, and have no qualms taking kickbacks and perks to benefit themselves. Problem is, the average citizen either doesn't have the common sense to remove them, or simply just doesn't care. They go to the polls on election day, and vote for the same guy year after year because they know the name. They are completely clueless of the issues, and don't even research or consider the other candidates. I think it's ridiculous we have members in Congress that have been in office for 30 or 40 years. I always laughed about Straum Thurman (or however he spells his name). They guy was in office for decades, and was practically on his death bed while he was still in office. They used to roll him into the Rotunda in his wheelchair, and he probably slept the entire time he was there. I doubt he even voted for himself. Voting is the rationale way of dealing with the corruption in Congress. You want to start another Civil War or Armageddon in our own country by using weapons to resolve the issue. Sorry, that makes no sense to me.

 

[veni vidi vici]

Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/2996588
Watch the TV show Jericho. That would answer your questions as to what would happen...
LOL i dont watch Star Trec ,Jericho.or X-Files to form my opinions or to see into the future.
Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/2996588
Realistically, what recourse would we have? It's called voting them out. Impeach the President? Invoke term limits for both the House and Senate? Why do you feel the individuals who represent us are above the law or even regarded as superior to the 'normal' American citizen? That's why Checks and Balances are in place.

I do however watch news and read the news,whats left of legitimate journalism anyway.I dont think these politicians are above the law but it appears they think they are and in most cases they weasel there way out of there wrongdoings by pulling political strings while others fail to do their jobs and up hold the law.However some do get what they have comming.
REP. MARIO BIAGGI (D-NY): In 1988 he was convicted of obstructing justice, tax evasion, conspiracy, extortion, and accepting bribes.
CORRINNE BROWN (D-FL): Failed to pay unemployment taxes to the state of Florida; sued by several airlines for unpaid bills and falsified travel reports; failed to report sale of her Tallahassee travel agency; improperly reported the sale of her Gainesville travel agency; sued by Whirlpool Corp. for unpaid bills; pursued by the IRS for $14,228 in unpaid taxes; investigations by the House Ethics Committee for possible acceptance of bribes; refused to file reports in the House about potential conflicts of interest while overseeing airlines she dealt with through her travel agencies; charged with money laundering.
REP. ALBERT BUSTAMANTE (D-TX): Convicted in 1993 of racketeering and accepting an illegal gratuity.
TONY COELHO (D-CA): Currently under investigation for fraud while serving as U.S. Commissioner General of Expo '98 in Lisbon, Portugal.* He was Al Gore's primary presidential campaign manager until he resigned citing health reasons.
REP. WES COOLEY (R-OR): Convicted of falsifying VA loan applications. Paid $7,000 in fines plus court costs, and placed on probation. Subsequently tried to gather support to get re-elected to Congress.*
REP. JERRY COSTELLO (D-IL):
REP. BOB DORNAN (R-CA): In 1983 attempted to leave Grenada with a stolen AK-47. It was confiscated by the Army and destroyed.
REP. WALTER FAUNTROY (D-DC): Financial disclosure misdemeanor (1995).
REP. BARNEY FRANK (D-MA): Accessory to a male prostitute who ran a whorehouse in their Washington townhouse.
REP. NEWT GINGRICH (R-GA):
STATE REP. ALCEE L. HASTINGS (D-FL): From the 1998 Almanac of American Politics: "He was impeached by the House of Representatives by a vote of 426-3 in 1988 and convicted and removed from office by the Senate by a vote of 69-26. The impeachment arose from allegations that Hastings conspired with a friend to accept $150,000 for giving two convicted swindlers a break in sentencing. Hastings was acquitted in a criminal trial in 1983, but the friend was convicted. In the House, the case for impeachment was made by John Conyers, senior member of the Congressional Black Caucus. Removed from the bench, Hastings was unapologetic."
SEN. JESSE HELMS (R-NC): In 1990, the Helms campaign sent out 125,000 postcards primarily to black North Carolina voters claiming that they might not be able to vote, and would be prosecuted for vote fraud if they tried. His campaign, the North Carolina Republican party, and four consulting and marketing firms were charged with violations of the Voting Rights Act. The Helms campaign signed an admission of guilt (claiming later that they didn't have the money to fight it in court), but Helms and his staff were never prosecuted.
REP. CARROL HUBBARD (D-KY): Convicted in 1994 of misappropriation of funds.

 

[veni vidi vici]

JAY KIM (R-CA): Convicted of accepting illegal campaign contributions from foreign sources.
REP. GERALD KLECZKA (D-WI): Convicted of DUI in 1987; arrested for DUI in 1990 and 1995.
REP. JOE KOLTER (D-PA): Fraud and conspiracy (1996).
REP. NORMAN LENT (R-NY): In 1982 tried to have fifty counterfeit Rolex watches mailed to him from Taiwan.
REP. DONALD E. "BUZ" LUKENS (R-OH): In 1989 was convicted of contributing to the delinquency of a minor.
REP. NICK MAVROULES (D-MA): In 1991 pleaded guilty to charges of bribery and tax evasion.
REP. EDWARD MEZVINSKY (D-IA): Indicted in March of 2001 on federal fraud charges. Claimed that he developed mental problems after using a malaria drug called Lariam. "Clearly, the responsibility lies with the manufacturers," claimed Mezvinsky's lawyer, Michael Barrett.*
REP. JAMES MORAN (D-VA): Charged with spousal abuse, and assault and battery. A regular instigator of bar fights while mayor of Alexandria, VA, his position made him immune to arrest. Once said he thought about becoming a boxer because "I like to hit people."
REP. AUSTIN J. MURPHY (D-PA): Vote fraud, including forgery, conspiracy, and tampering with federal records (1999).*
REP. MARY ROSE OAKAR (D-OH): Charged with seven federal felonies related to financial-disclosure irregularities (1998).
SEN. BOB PACKWOOD (R-OR): Charged with sexual harassment. Oddly enough, many of the women named as harassees defended Senator Packwood.
REP. CARL PERKINS (D-KY): In 1994 pleaded guilty to filing a false financial-disclosure statement, conspiracy to file false statements with the Federal Election Commission, and bank fraud. Sentenced in March of 1995.
REP. MEL REYNOLDS (D-IL): In 1995 was convicted of having --- with a minor and obstructing justice.
CHARLIE ROSE (D-NC): Financial disclosure irregularities (1994).
REP. DAN ROSTENKOWSKI (D-IL): Illegally converted official funds to his personal use and mail fraud; accused in 1996 of embezzling $700,000 from the federal government, he was charged with 13 of the original 17 counts against him. Went to prison after serving in Congress; now back in Washington working as a lobbyist.
REP. LARRY SMITH (D-FL): In 1993 was convicted of income tax evasion and campaign-reporting violations.
REP. PAT SWINDALL (R-GA): In 1988 was convicted of perjury.
REP. JIM TRAFICANT (D-OH): Indicted on 5/4/01 by a Cleveland, OH federal grand jury for bribery, tax evasion, racketeering, conspiracy, and obstruction of justice. Found guilty of all charges in April 2002.
REP. WALTER TUCKER (D-CA): Federal extortion charges; convicted of accepting $30,000 worth of bribes while a Congressman, and sentenced to 27 months in the federal penitentiary.
REP. J.C. WATTS (R-OK):
CHARLES WILSON (D-TX): In 1995 was forced to pay a $90,000 fine to the Federal Election Commission.
Number of members of Congress who escaped tickets and/or arrest from a variety of driving offenses ranging from speeding to DUI in 1999 due to Congressional immunity: 217
29 have been accused of spousal abuse
7 have been arrested for fraud
19 have been accused of writing bad checks
117 have directly or indirectly bankrupted at least 2 businesses
3 have done time for assault
71 cannot get a credit card due to bad credit
14 have been arrested on drug-related charges
8 have been arrested for shoplifting
21 are currently defendants in lawsuits
84 have been arrested for drunk driving in the last year
Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/2996588
Voting is the rationale way of dealing with the corruption in Congress. You want to start another Civil War or Armageddon in our own country by using weapons to resolve the issue. Sorry, that makes no sense to me.
Voting is rational,but you havent answered the what if question .That is the sole purpose of the Second amendment.To prevent or to revolt against what ifs?

 

[veni vidi vici]

This one in particular stil makes me laugh.
REP. BARNEY FRANK (D-MA): Accessory to a male prostitute who ran a whorehouse in their Washington townhouse.
Still in office and still a criminal.

 

[reefraff]

Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/2996348
If they'd had a gun, you wouldn't have had to worry about a jury of 12. You'd have been met by the other 6 at the funeral home.
You're now calling these people 'semi rational'? How would you know? That's the problem with your action. You had no clue whatsoever what their reaction was going to be when you showed that gun. Yes, they did back off and leave you alone. But they very well could have been digging for their own gun, and started shooting at you before you had a chance to shoot at them. And what's real scary is you think you would be justified in shooting at them simply because they threw something at your car, or even got out of their car at a stop light. You'd actually murder someone because they threw a beer bottle or some other item at your CAR, and put a dent in it? You'd start shooting as soon as they opened the door of the car and got out, even if they were advancing towards your car? You even go on to say if your were initimidated enough, you'd possible 'put a couple of rounds in their car'. All I can say is I'm speechless. I honestly don't understand your reasoning.
I'm curious, if you would've used your gun on that carload of people, would you have stayed at the scene until the police arrived? What if the car had stopped, and only one or two of them had gotten out. Would you have just shot those two, or just kept pulling the trigger until you made sure all five were dead? What if three or more of them got out, but only one advanced towards your car? Would you have only shot the one guy advancing, or go ahead and shoot all three, even though the other two were staying back? If you would have shot at the moving car, and appeared to only wound one or two of them, and they stopped their car, would you stop yours and wait to see if they needed medical assistance, or would you just keep driving?
I wouldn't call them semi rational. It was obvious by their actions that if they did have any guns they weren't interested in taking on someone who was equally armed.
Had the guy been digging for a gun and I did nothing I would have been shot or shot at. Had he just been digging for a bat or club and I hadn't done anything what would have happened at the red light? I mean they have already made it pretty obvious that they were interested in escalating things. As luck would have it the light turned green pretty quick so there may not have been enough time at the red light for anything serious to come down.
I had already gone out of my way to put space between me and them. Why would you suggest I would go out of my way to shoot them? Not allowing one's self to become a victim and being a vigilante are two completely different things. If they would have come at my car I would have pointed the gun at them and gave them a warning. Then they would get shot if they didn't back off.
As far as staying at the scene it would depend. If I didn't think it was safe to stay right there I sure as hell would have made tracks to the nearest phone to call the cops. No way in hell would I have ever just tried to leave the scene.

 

[reefraff]

Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/2996450
It's not 'my mindset'. I'm not a lawyer or a judge. This story just exemplifies the point I've been trying to get across this entire time. I have no problems whatsoever of anyone protecting themselves, their family, or their home with a gun. I told you, I own a couple of weapons myself for that very reason. However, if you choose to use your weapon, for whatever reason, you better be prepared to face the consequences. What happened to this veteran could have very easily happened to reefraff if he had fired his pistol at this carload of people.
Now see if you had put it like that to begin with I would have agreed with you. Never assume the judicial system will do the right thing in this day and age.