You have a point? What is it?
My use of them was deliberately ironic, implying that were you to act on uncontrollable anger that any resulting incident would not actually be accidental. Thus scare quotes are appropriate (see the Wikipedia citation earlier).

You claimed you actually meant literally "accidents", no irony, which would call for no scare quotes.

And you also said there was no error.

That's contradictory. Which is it?

Hardly plausible that seven shots were fired *after* the close range headshot. The headshot was probably coupe de grace last shot to make sure the deputy would not be able to identify the shooter. Not what is ordinarily meant by "an execution", but it makes better news copy.

Human emotion can be a funny thing; I suspect the cops emptied their guns into this guy because he shot the dog. Somehow that was seen as more venial than shooting the cop.

Yes, although that highly hypothetical strawman isn't high on my list of unconstitutional weapons prohibitions to worry about.

Much higher are the liberals who want to confiscate the much more ordinary weapons that I actually do have (and could actually use in justified self-defense without causing megadeaths of collateral damage, most likely including myself) on the specious theory that doing so will somehow reduce violent crime.

I think there's a lot of provisions of the National Firearms Act that are unconstitutional too. The Pennsylvania State Police maintans a gun registry that's forbidden by an explicit statue. There's lots of gun laws that suck mightily, but I try to reserve my attention for the ones that matter most.

For example, why does "full faith and credit" apply to drivers licences, but not to gun licences and marriage licences? (It's interesting that both gun licencing and marriage licencing were invented to instiutionalize racial discrimination...perhaps that's why somehow Article IV, Section 1 is ignored in those cases)

We hear the "nuke" strawman trotted out every so often to get us onto the slippery slope of "some weapons should be prohibited", and start the old prohibitionist salami game category by category. The folks behind the Clinton Gun Ban admitted quite openly that that was exactly what they intended to do.

Wouldn't anybody who assembling a nuke be arrested under the "risking a catastrophe" statutes? It's not necessary to sacrifice the Second Amendment principle to address this mostly imaginary "problem".

Maggie - just let it go - it's not worth it.

Again, if you don't like guns... don't buy one.

Those days are long gone, wounded knee, Ruby ridge, Waco.
If you run afoul of one of their laws, most likely your contact will be with a local police officer. If he leaves with a load of buckshot in his ass, they will come down on you in biblical proportion. You will not win.
They have the power to send an "army" without even going outside the County for help.
If your buddy joins you, a State will join them.
If two buddies join you, the Federal Government will join them.

No, staying on top of the politicians is the only shot at preventing onerous laws making your life miserable.;)

Well, if you don't write coherently, that's not my fault. Conversely, if your writing reveals more of your thinking than you like, that's on you also.

Not necessarily.

Like at the ballot box, a few isolated individuals don't mean much, but collectively, the more the merrier...so to speak. Especially when the boys in blue have a lot of shared values with the general population.

Thats a scary Apache photo you have there. Two words: posse commitatus.

It's not necessary to "win" or even to load up. There mere threat of 1 out of 1000 principled bathtub gin owners (or whatever) taking a stand is enough to influence the power.

Nobody "won" at Waco but the rules of engagement are forever changed.

Exactly.
Plus, since then, I promise you those agents will not get that close to a compound again.

Whatever.

Don't worry Yesman...you're better off not wasting your effort on pointless discussions. You're not the only one she fails to comprehend. ;)

Wow, it's a good thing nobody ever gets shot over anything petty like grammar or spelling.

Yeah we'd miss out on all tw's posts too, and that would suck! Really, although I disagree with tw most of the time, I find his posts interesting if nothing else.

Oh and thanks Ali. I was beginnig to think it WAS just me.

Well, yesman, I've only been half following your discussion with MaggieL, but the half I saw tells me you need to understand guns and the guns-and-people interface considerably better than you do.

I see that in the fact that you're not pro-gun enough. I can suggest a few written works that would help your understanding a great deal -- as they helped mine. Shall I do a PM?

MaggieL is the opposite of arrogant -- that's more in my line -- so you really couldn't claim to be put off by her manner -- but she does know more about the benevolent effects of privately owned killing tools than you've ever thought of.