Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2007 10:00:02 -0700 From: eskrima-request@martialartsresource.net Subject: Eskrima digest, Vol 14 #108 - 7 msgs X-Mailer: Mailman v2.0.13.cisto1 MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain To: eskrima@martialartsresource.net Errors-To: eskrima-admin@martialartsresource.net X-BeenThere: eskrima@martialartsresource.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.13.cisto1 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: eskrima@martialartsresource.net X-Reply-To: eskrima@martialartsresource.net X-Subscribed-Address: fma@martialartsresource.com List-Id: Eskrima-FMA discussion forum, the premier FMA forum on the Internet. List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , List-Help: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on plus11.host4u.net X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.3 required=5.0 tests=NO_REAL_NAME autolearn=no version=2.63 X-Spam-Level: Status: O X-Status: X-Keywords: Send Eskrima mailing list submissions to eskrima@martialartsresource.net To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit http://martialartsresource.net/mailman/listinfo/eskrima or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to eskrima-request@martialartsresource.net You can reach the person managing the list at eskrima-admin@martialartsresource.net When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of Eskrima digest..." <<---- The Sudlud-Inayan Eskrima/Kali/Arnis/FMA mailing list ---->> Serving the Internet since June 1994. Copyright 1994-2007: Ray Terry and Martial Arts Resource The Internet's premier discussion forum devoted to Filipino Martial Arts. 2400 members. Provided in memory of Mangisursuro Michael G. Inay (1944-2000). See the Filipino Martial Arts (FMA) FAQ and the online search engine for back issues of the Eskrima/FMA digest at http://MartialArtsResource.com Mabuhay ang eskrima! Today's Topics: 1. We the Unorganized Militia (Marc Denny) 2. RE: More on Guns (Wieneke, Myron) 3. Re: More on Guns (Steve Ames) 4. Re: guns? (Steve Ames) 5. Re: Aliens (Steve Ames) 6. Re: Aliens (Patrick Pace) 7. Re: Guns (Michael Gallagher) --__--__-- Message: 1 From: "Marc Denny" To: Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2007 06:49:07 -0700 Subject: [Eskrima] We the Unorganized Militia Reply-To: eskrima@martialartsresource.net Woof All: The concerns expressed by our Canadian and Euro friends are logical, but in my opinion are contradicted by our empirical experience-- and if the data that has reached me is fair and balanced ;-) contradicted as well by violent crime surges in the UK and Australia after their unilateral disarmaments. My understanding is that the data in the US clearly shows a correlation between high legal ownership of guns and lower crime rates. Working from memory, something like 40 states now have some sort of right to carry laws and the voluble fears of "wild west" (as correctly noted, something of a historical fantasy) have proven quite unfounded. Please forgive me if this is a repost, but it seems pertinent to the conversation: TAC, CD ========================= We the Unorganized Militia By Randy E. Barnett is the Austin B. Fletcher Professor at Boston University and the author of The Structure of Liberty: Justice and the Rule of Law. September 18, 2001 11:30 a.m. "Well-regulated militia being essential to the security of a free state..." The next time someone tells you that the militia referred to in the Second Amendment has been "superceded" by the National Guard, ask them who it was that prevented United Airlines Flight 93 from reaching its target. The National Guard? The regular Army? The D.C. Police Department? None of these had a presence on Flight 93 because, in a free society, professional law-enforcement and military personnel cannot be everywhere. Terrorists and criminals are well aware of this - indeed, they count on it. Who is everywhere? The people the Founders referred to as the "general militia." Cell-phone calls from the plane have now revealed that it was members of the general militia, not organized law enforcement, who successfully prevented Flight 93 from reaching its intended target at the cost of their own lives. The characterization of these heroes as members of the militia is not just the opinion of one law professor. It is clearly stated in Federal statutes. Perhaps you will not believe me unless I quote section 311 of US Code Title 10, entitled, "Militia: composition and classes" in its entirety (with emphases added): "(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard. (b) The classes of the militia are - (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia." This is not to score political points at a moment of great tragedy, though had the murderers on these four airplanes been armed with guns rather than knives, reminders of this fact would never end. Rather, that it was militia members who saved whatever was the terrorists' target - whether the White House or the Capitol - at the cost of their lives points in the direction of practical steps - in some cases the only practical steps - to reduce the damage cause by any future attacks. An excellent beginning was provided by Dave Kopel and David Petteys in their NRO column "Making the Air Safe for Terror." Whether or not their specific recommendations are correct, they are too important to be ignored and they are not the only persons to reach similar conclusions about the need for effective self-defense. Refusing to discuss what measures really worked, what really failed, and what is likely to really work in future attacks - on airplanes and in other public spaces - for reasons of political correctness would be unconscionable. And we need to place this discussion in its larger constitutional context. Asking all of us if we packed our own bags did not stop this attack. X-rays of all carry-on baggage did not stop this attack (though it may well have confined the attackers to using knives). And preventing us from using e-tickets or checking our bags at the street (for how long?) would neither have stopped this nor any future attack. All these new "security" proposals will merely inconvenience millions of citizens driving them away from air travel and seriously harming our economy and our freedom. As others have noted, it would be a victory for these murderers rather than an effective way to stop them in the future. A way around them will always be open to determined mass murderers. More importantly, none bear any relation to the attack that actually occurred on September 11th. Ask yourself every time you hear a proposal for increased "security": Would have in any way have averted the disaster that actually happened? Will it avert a future suicide attack on the public by other new and different means? Any realistic response to what happened and is likely to happen in the future must acknowledge that, when the next moment of truth arrives in whatever form, calling 911 will not work. Training our youth to be helpless in the face of an attack, avoiding violence at all costs will not work. There will always be foreign and domestic wolves to prey on the sheep we raise. And the next attack is unlikely to take the same form as the ones we just experienced. We must adopt measures that promise some relief incircumstances we cannot now imagine. Here is the cold hard fact of the matter that will be evaded and denied but which must never be forgotten in these discussions: Often - whether on an airplane, subway, cruise ship, or in a high school - only self defense by the "unorganized militia" will be available when domestic or foreign terrorists chose their next moment of murder. And here is the public-policy implication of this fact: It would be better if the militia were more prepared to act when it is needed. If the general militia is now "unorganized" and neutered - if it is not well-regulated - whose fault is it? Article I of the Constitution gives Congress full power "to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia." The Second Amendment was included in the Bill of Rights in large part because many feared that Congress would neglect the militia (as it has) and, Congress could not be forced by any constitutional provision to preserve the militia, the only practical means of ensuring its continued existed was to protect the right of individual militia members to keep and bear their own private arms. Nevertheless, it remains the responsibility of Congress to see to it that the general militia is "well-regulated." A well-regulated militia does not require a draft or any compulsory training. Nor, as Alexander Hamilton recognized, need training be universal. "To attempt such a thing which would abridge the mass of labor and industry to so considerable extent, would be unwise," he wrote in Federalist 29, "and the experiment, if made, could not succeed, because it would not long be endured." But Congress has the constitutional power to create training programs in effective self-defense including training in small arms - marksmanship, tactics, and gun safety - for any American citizen who volunteers. Any guess how many millions would take weapons training at government expense or even for a modest fee if generally offered? Rather than provide for training and encouraging persons to be able to defend themselves - and to exercise their training responsibly - powerful lobbying groups have and will continue to advocate passivity and disarmament. The vociferous anti-self-defense, anti-gun crusaders of the past decades will not give up now. Instead they will shift our focus to restrictions on American liberties that will be ineffective against future attacks. Friday on Fox, Democratic Minority Leader Dick Gephart was asked whether additional means we have previously eschewed should be employed to capture and combat foreign terrorists. His reply was appalling. Now was the time, he replied, to consider adopting a national identity card and that we would have to consider how much information such "smart" cards would contain. Rather than make war on the American people and their liberties, however, Congress should be looking for ways to empower them to protect themselves when warranted. The Founders knew - and put in the form of a written guarantee - the proposition that the individual right to keep and bear arms as the principal means of preserving a militia that was "essential," in a free state, to provide personal and collective self-defense against criminals of all stripes, both domestic and foreign. A renewed commitment to a well-regulated militia would not be a panacea for crime and terrorism, but neither will any other course of action now being recommended or adopted. We have long been told that, in a modern world, the militia is obsolete. Put aside the fact that the importance of the militia to a "the security of a free state" is hardwired into the text of the Constitution. The events of this week have shown that the militia is far from obsolete in a world where war is waged by cells as well as states. It is long past time we heeded the words of the Founders and end the systematic effort to disarm Americans. Now is also the time to consider what it would take in practical terms to well- regulate the now-unorganized militia, so no criminal will feel completely secure when confronting one or more of its members. --__--__-- Message: 2 From: "Wieneke, Myron" To: "'eskrima@martialartsresource.net'" Subject: RE: [Eskrima] More on Guns Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2007 14:52:38 +0100 Reply-To: eskrima@martialartsresource.net Agreed, people keep on making generalization and sweeping statements about the US, like the one below. "Hell, that's up to you lot. I don't live there. But don't you see that to many people living in 'the outside world', you seem to be heading towards some kind of Mad Max society?" Over 200 years of the constitutional right to bear arms and now we're turning into a "Mad Max society". As a teenager I lived in Wyoming in the late 80s, almost every car/truck had a gun. We went hunting every weekend and bought our ammo from the local sports shop etc, fairly free access to firearms. There were a lot of people who got into fist-fights, road-rage arguments, etc. Not once have I seen people actually start pointing guns, let alone shoot at each other even among "raging hormones" teenagers. Is in indicative of how everyone is in the US, no, however it also does show that open access to guns does not make for a "Mad Max" situation. Obviously this guy in virginia had a lot of psychological issues. With the release of his so-called manifesto, he was going to kill people no matter what. He even had pictures with knives and a hammer so he was obviously going to use anything he could get his hands on to kill. Most likely he would have probably looked at getting a gun through illegal means anyway. Gun ownership is a very difficult topic to discuss, its like religious or political discussions, no one is going to win and everyone just gets upset. Can we just move on and let this topic go? Myron -----Original Message----- From: rterry@idiom.com [mailto:rterry@idiom.com] Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2007 9:08 AM To: eskrima@martialartsresource.net Subject: Re: [Eskrima] More on Guns > In the two days that followed that truly horrendous event, that same > number of children and teenagers will have died in gun accidents alone in the U.S. > And for every day that follow, another 16 youngsters will continue to > die that way. We are now straying from MA... but where are you finding this stat?!? Gun accidents are fairly rare here in the US, primarily thanks to the firearm safety efforts of the NRA over the last many years. With 300 million people in the US, many with access to firearms (thankfully), sure there will be occasional accidents. In the same way that there are accidents from just walking to work each day. Ray Terry rterry@idiom.com _______________________________________________ Eskrima mailing list, 2400 members Eskrima@martialartsresource.net Copyright 1994-2007: Ray Terry and Martial Arts Resource Standard disclaimers apply Subscribe or Unsubscribe: http://eskrima-fma.net ============================================================================== Please access the attached hyperlink for an important electronic communications disclaimer: http://www.credit-suisse.com/legal/en/disclaimer_email_ib.html ============================================================================== --__--__-- Message: 3 Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2007 09:54:27 -0400 From: Steve Ames To: eskrima@martialartsresource.net Subject: Re: [Eskrima] More on Guns Reply-To: eskrima@martialartsresource.net On Thu, Apr 19, 2007 at 10:18:26AM +0100, Ollie Batts wrote: > Like I said, I was playing Devil's Advocate - at least to an extent - and > sought only to open up a reasoned debate on the subject. I certainly wasn't > in any way attempting to change anyone's point of view on the subject, and > certainly not someone with such deeply entrenched feelings about it as you > seem to have. > > When I said 'rely on who is quickest..." I meant that if everyone walks the > streets carrying a firearm, in order for them to stay alive if/when they > fall foul of another person, also armed, they would have to rely on their > skill being better than that of their opponent(s). Otherwise they lose. The That argument is rather specious. If I don't have a gun at all I also lose. If he has a knife and I don't I likely also lose. What are you relying on today if not your own sound judgement, ability to avoid such altercations, and the goodwill of your fellow man? The rest of your points follow along the same vein. *shrug* > The Korean 'Fruitcake', whose right you continue to defend to be allowed to > carry a firearm - ("Short answer is yes. Being under medical care doesn't > take away any of your rights unless a court orders it...") killed 32 people. > In the two days that followed that truly horrendous event, that same number > of children and teenagers will have died in gun accidents alone in the U.S. > And for every day that follow, another 16 youngsters will continue to die > that way. Americans speak of their "right to bear arms". Along with those > rights, shouldn't there also be some responsibilities too? Absolutely their should be responsibility. I believe that our society as a whole is avoiding their responsibilities. The more the government does for you the less you have to do for yourself. That goes way past gun ownership. I may debate your numbers but thats an irrelevent debate. Even one "accidental" death is too many. With freedom should come the responsibility to use that freedom properly and to defend that freedom. Unfortunately its never anyone's fault anymore. Its always the other guy. The manufacturer should have provided a child lock, or a heavier trigger pull. The governement shouldn't have allowed me to have a gun in the first place, etc... our courts back that. No one wants to tell grieving parents "It's your own damn fault". Eventually people will realize that when you give away your responsibilitty, eventually your freedom will follow. If fully agree that righs/responsibilities go hand in hand. I'd be 100% behind stiffer penalties for people who fail to meet their responsibilties. I'd even be good with a lecture and having to sign off on those responsibilties everytime I purchase a gun. Just like sitting in the exit row on an airplane. You buy a gun, leave it laying around your house, your child dies, you go to prison forever. I'm good with that. You accidentally shoot yourself and your "right to own a gun" gets pulled. I'm ok with that also. But as long as I am responsibile then the government shall make no law affecting my freedom to keep and bear arms. Simple that. The US government has been fighting a "War on Drugs" for decades. They can't even keep drugs out of their prisons let alone off their streets. They are not qualified to run such a war. If they can't do it for drugs they won't be albe to do it for guns either. Criminals can get drugs. Criminals can get guns. As long as their is a market their will be suppliers. Anti-gun laws have been tried in other countries. > My comments don't mean that I call for a ban on guns in the United States. > Hell, that's up to you lot. I don't live there. But don't you see that to > many people living in 'the outside world', you seem to be heading towards > some kind of Mad Max society? Are the numbers increasing? Can you site a reliable, un-biased source for that? The media portrays whatever gets the ratings. A bunch of boring and responsible gun owners isn't front page news. Automobiles are way more dangerous and in theory drivers have all passed a test. Of course they probably weren't eating a big mac in one hand and talking on their cell phone with the other during that test, all the time dealing with a screaming child in a rear facing carseat. You know how hard it is to lose your license to drive? I would have thought that one drunk driving conviction would do it. Nope. One vehicular manslaughter while under the influence? Nope. Where's the respnsibility there? :) And I'm off my pedastal for the day. -Steve --__--__-- Message: 4 Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2007 10:03:47 -0400 From: Steve Ames To: eskrima@martialartsresource.net Subject: Re: [Eskrima] guns? Reply-To: eskrima@martialartsresource.net On Thu, Apr 19, 2007 at 05:18:04AM -0700, TenDigitTouch wrote: > Why hasn't anyone started a discussion of how all schools, government > agencies, large scale employers, and so on should be having regular > training and drills for students and employees on "man with a gun" > situations? We used to have tornado drills. We used to have "cold > war" drills. People should be trained, and have some conditioning. > If you fight how you are trained, why not? Obviously it takes the > police a while to respond/react, and in the mean time ...? Heh. Duck and cover. Cold war drills were a psychological exercise. There's a cost-v-reward issue here. To drill often enough to be useful requires a serious investment of time and money.. all to address a situation that is (in all likelyhood) never going to happen. I attended Purdue University. There are 30,000 students at Purdue. Training 30,000 people is insane. Most have zero interest in such training and wouldn't (or couldn't) use it even if you forced it on them (which you shouldn't). -Steve --__--__-- Message: 5 Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2007 10:20:46 -0400 From: Steve Ames To: eskrima@martialartsresource.net Subject: Re: [Eskrima] Aliens Reply-To: eskrima@martialartsresource.net On Thu, Apr 19, 2007 at 01:14:16PM +0100, Ollie Batts wrote: > Please forgive me if I'm wrong but, are you saying that people who are > visitors to your country should have sub-standard rights when it comes to > protecting themselves then? :) Welcome to the 21st century of terrorism paranoia. A decade ago I bet the response to this question would have been different. Now there's going to be a lot of knee-jerk "foreigners" speak as if everyone not american is automatically a potential terrorist until proven innocent. *sigh* > Whilst your own citizens have the right to bear arms and defend themselves, > who will defend the visitors against the low-life in your society? Our citizens have the right to bear arms and defend themselves AND others. > As for the oft-quoted 'second amendment', do you see the resident non-alien > population in America as all being part of a "...well regulated Militia..." > then? :) --__--__-- Message: 6 Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2007 08:34:59 -0700 Subject: Re: [Eskrima] Aliens From: Patrick Pace To: eskrima@martialartsresource.net Reply-To: eskrima@martialartsresource.net I spoke last night to an ex sherriff regarding this issue...he said that gun laws only affect "Law abiding citizens". If a criminal, low life wants to carry a gun and shoot people, then they will find a way of doing so laws or no laws...guys we have to remember we are talking about people (criminals) who think differently to the rest of us.... P On Thursday, April 19, 2007, at 05:14 AM, Ollie Batts wrote: > Please forgive me if I'm wrong but, are you saying that people who are > visitors to your country should have sub-standard rights when it comes > to > protecting themselves then? > > Whilst your own citizens have the right to bear arms and defend > themselves, > who will defend the visitors against the low-life in your society? > > As for the oft-quoted 'second amendment', do you see the resident > non-alien > population in America as all being part of a "...well regulated > Militia..." > then? > > > Pugil > > > From: Beungood8@aol.com > Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2007 23:20:00 EDT > To: eskrima@martialartsresource.net > Subject: [Eskrima] Re: > Reply-To: eskrima@martialartsresource.net > > Resident Aliens should not have firearms or permits. Or a few > licensed gun > owners sitting in class might have taken care of it. Anyone of sound > mind > and body should have the right. I am a Police Officer and I believe > in the > second Amendment. Gun Laws only restrict law abiding citizens. > _______________________________________________ > Eskrima mailing list, 2400 members > Eskrima@martialartsresource.net > Copyright 1994-2007: Ray Terry and Martial Arts Resource > Standard disclaimers apply > Subscribe or Unsubscribe: http://eskrima-fma.net --__--__-- Message: 7 Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2007 12:06:06 -0400 To: eskrima@martialartsresource.net From: Michael Gallagher Subject: Re: [Eskrima] Guns Reply-To: eskrima@martialartsresource.net At 06:55 AM 4/18/2007, you wrote: >So, playing Devil's Advocate here... > >...would you have everyone in the US carry a gun around with them and rely >on who is quickest to the draw, and most accurate with their shot(s)? > >What about those people who have a short fuse, or who are currently taking >counselling (like our Korean friend), or who are on medication to control >their schizophrenia, etc. Do you also allow them the 'right to bear arms? > >And what happens when the red mist comes down, after you nudge some angry >person's arm and spill their beer, or when you just happen to pull into that >one remaining parking space at the shopping mall ahead of them, for example. >Do you simply trust that your reactions and aim will be better than theirs? > >Isn't that a step back in time to the days of the Old West? Isn't it true that in the Philippines, most people walk around with knives on them? And yet they're all very patient with each other? And isn't it also true that areas with high gun control have high crime, and areas with less gun control have less crime? Looks like there is truth to "An armed society is a polite society." :) >Pugil > > > > >Comments by John Farnam... >********************************** >16 Apr 07 > >Incident in VA: > >As details of today's murder spree (no, it not a "tragedy" It's a crime!) >in VA slowly trickle out, several facts are not in dispute: > >(1) The perpetrator carried firearms onto a college campus in flagrant and >contemptuous defiance of existing "rules" prohibiting guns on campus. Such >rules were obviously a "deterrent" only to those who don't commit crimes >anyway. > >(2) Every innocent person who was shot was, at the time, unarmed and >defenseless. There were no armed, good people physically present as murders >were >being committed. No one in a position to stop these crimes had the ability >to >confront the perpetrator with lethal force. And, nothing less was, or would >have been, effective! > >(3) Armed police responded aggressively, courageously, and about as fast as >they've ever going to. Nonetheless, all murders had already been completed >by the time they arrived. They did not get there in time to prevent a >single >one. They never fired a shot! > >(4) With all recent, similar incidents, the foregoing has been the >pattern. > >The usual "solutions" are predictably being regurgitated by leftist >politicians and media socialists, ranging from airport-like security at the >entrance to all educational buildings, to a camera on every corner! No one >dares >mention the only solution that can work, or has ever worked: good people, >armed. To naive grasseaters, such a thing is beyond imagination! > >Real Americans, however, are not waiting for assorted political gasbags to, >once again, make their tired case for a Soviet-style police-state. I just >talked with a friend who is a large gun retailer in CO. Today was his >busiest, >single sales day in several years. People flooded his store and carried >away nearly every gun and round of ammunition he had in stock! Americans >are >weary of hearing about government "security plans." They are putting >together their own, personal "security plan!" > >Our Second Amendment, the original "Homeland Security," is >alive and well, except in designated "Criminal Empowerment Zones," like >college campuses! >********* >_______________________________________________ >Eskrima mailing list, 2400 members >Eskrima@martialartsresource.net >Copyright 1994-2007: Ray Terry and Martial Arts Resource >Standard disclaimers apply >Subscribe or Unsubscribe: http://eskrima-fma.net --__--__-- _______________________________________________ Eskrima mailing list Eskrima@martialartsresource.net http://martialartsresource.net/mailman/listinfo/eskrima Subscribe or Unsubscribe: http://eskrima-fma.net Old digest issues @ ftp://ftp.martialartsresource.com/pub/eskrima Copyright 1994-2007: Ray Terry, MartialArtsResource.com, Sudlud.com Standard disclaimers apply. Remember September 11. End of Eskrima Digest