Child Crucified By Fatal Accident by Newsvine Commentors

send whomever provided the kid with a gun directly to jail.

for life.

...to be using a gun of any kind, regardless of the intent or purpose.

Just thought of one exception...self-defense, but I would think that exception is understood and assumed.

I hunted alone at age 14, although I was almost certainly better trained than this young man and hunted in much more open terrain. That said, we wore ORANGE in the woods during hunting season whether we were hunting or not.

In fact, at the beginning of hunting season, we avoided the woods until the city folks had shot their bag limit of horses, cows, goats, and each other. The bag limit on people seemed to be about one per year in our county.

I agree, this is a slanted op-ed piece.

To respond to the question posed in the last paragraph, I've made mistakes in my life, but none of these mistakes resulted in the taking of a life.

My take, regardless of the circumstances, anyone carrying and shooting a gun is accountable for the results.

No offense iceman, but I don't think it is right for any 14 year old to handle a gun, regardless of how smart you are. I thought hunting licenses could only be obtained by 18 yr old or older (I could see 'accompanied by adult' as an exception). Frankly I shudder at the thought of pre-pubesent boys hunting, and this seems to be the biggest issue that could have been avoided. If I'm wrong on the age thing, then the lawmakers in Washington need to get this changed ASAP, IMO.

Also, hunting season, depending on the animal...is not, IMO, considered generally known information to the public. But then again, I don't live in Washington or even the western region of states, so it might be different there than here in Ohio.

Bull@!$%#.

We all are full of mistakes and we will never be free from them but learning from them and using them to better our lives is what mistakes do help teach.

What is the dead woman supposed to learn, exactly, from the mistakes of the gun-toting sob that shot her dead?

You're pointing a gun and shooting it at a living thing, then want to act surprised when you kill it? Nope. You don't get to call that a mistake.

Consider the overall concept...

An adolescent goes into the forest with a deadly weapon to kill wild animals for recreational activity...

And accidentally shoots and kills a human being.

Crime and appropriate punishment aside for a moment...

What laws allowed such circumstances to materialize?

Wait...wait...I almost lost my way on this one...

I just remembered, GUNS don't kill people...

People with guns kill people.

So, let's see, since the gun didn't kill anyone, and someone is making a case that

The punishment the youth received was fair in every since but the punishment upon his own mind is the worst punishment this child will live with until the day he dies. The death of a human by his hands.

Yeah, right! The lucky victim, dead woman won't be burdened with the "worst punishment." That's right...her days of burden are over. So, that makes this a "mercy killing."

I feel better abouth the whole "mistake" already. I mean, "@!$%# happens," none of us is perfect. Come on, let's get out those Bibles (they go good with the guns, right?) Come on, read it right out loud..."Let he who is without sin cast the first stone..." not to mention...

Shoot some innoncent victims who should have been wearing bright orange.

Some does I am ashamed to be a human being.

"Fatal mistake" my ass. This is the result of bad laws at the hands of compromised legislators getting votes and money from powerful, unconscionale lobbies!

A. Macarthur

Well Said A. Mac...you basically put into words what I felt about this incident...thank you!

U.S parks allow hunting of some sort

If your talking about National Parks, that's not true at all.

Wow, so that's how you can get away with killing someone. Take a kid hunting with you, and let him shoot at anything that moves. Apparently, the weak punishment is justified because the kid feels remorse and sadly HE will suffer from the guilt for the rest of his life. Then again, what if he didn't feel remorse and used the same excuse some of the viners here use, and said "It's her fault for not wearing orange." Would that justify more punishment? I wonder.

Jason S-

This has to be one of the most mind numbingly crack smoking stupid thing I have ever read. First I cannot believe that Washington State allows hunting in its public parks. I cannot believe that anyone would allow a child to hunt in a public park with friggin hiking trails. I really can't believe that you are transferring the blame to the shooting victim because she wasn't wearing an orange vest.

"Perhaps the state should have closed the park[?]" Perhaps the state should have posted a sign saying "BEWARE! Jackasses with high powered rifles and not enough common sense to know not to shoot said rifles with unsuspecting civilians around."

My God man. I shot my first rifle, shotgun, and handgun on 3/22/1983 (my 12th birthday) and all I heard the 11 years before that was "what happens if you miss and if you don't know you don't shoot!" I don't think teenagers with rifles are the problem. I think the problem are the adults who give the kids the rifles.

Jason S-

This has to be one of the most mind numbingly crack smoking stupid thing I have ever read. First I cannot believe that Washington State allows hunting in its public parks. I cannot believe that anyone would allow a child to hunt in a public park with friggin hiking trails. I really can't believe that you are transferring the blame to the shooting victim because she wasn't wearing an orange vest.

"Perhaps the state should have closed the park[?]" Perhaps the state should have posted a sign saying "BEWARE! Jackasses with high powered rifles and not enough common sense to know not to shoot said rifles with unsuspecting civilians around."

My God man. I shot my first rifle, shotgun, and handgun on 3/22/1983 (my 12th birthday) and all I heard the 11 years before that was "what happens if you miss and if you don't know you don't shoot!" I don't think teenagers with rifles are the problem. I think the problem are the adults who give the kids the rifles.

It would have been nice to have the link - I posted something on the tragedy nearly a year ago but it didn't get much traffic. Not sure if this is the one the Op-Ed writer had in mind, someone would really have to dig deep to find it:

http://transfer.newsvine.com/_news/2008/08/04/1720066-boy-hunting-bear-fatally-shoots-wash-woman

I don't know that the kid was crucified but, through a lack of judgement he's breathing and a woman's family is suffering.

Crusher-358088 (#1)

#1.13 & #3.5 post has link to story of shooting. It is also under the title of: "Young hunter who killed hiker gets 30 days". The original article is posted for reading! I clicked the link to #3.5 posting. I'm sure both are same. Thank you, Ire and GeminiGirl.

Proteus, My very first comment (#1) was written before I knew any details; now I have a basic understanding of what happened, but thank you and others for the link. There still seems to be some crucial details left out...like how old was the relative that was with the 14 year old girl, were there signs posted warning that it was bear season, how big or small was the lady that was killed...etc. Whatever the case, there are details missing from this case that prevent me from objectively coming up with an opinion, but I still maintain that 14 is too young to handle firearms, IMO.

Ire, thanks for the link. I was reading this thing expecting at least a modicum of explanation regarding what the situation was, or even what the boy's legal punishment was.

I find it a bit disturbing that Jason tries to rationalize away an apparently weak legal punishment by saying "Oh, but he totally feels bad about it. That's punishment enough." Seriously: WTF?!

I'm also not familiar with gun laws but it seems to me that a 14 yr old child is FAR TOO YOUNG to be using a gun of any kind, regardless of the intent or purpose.

That's funny. Children should be taught proper gun safety and usage. I fired my first 22 caliber rifle at 5, my first shotgun, at 8, and my first automatic weapon at 15. We were ALWAYS taught proper gun safety and we never had any problems.

The first issue here is one of "majority" - that is, can a 14 year old be considered mature enough to understand responsibility for a gun - even though not old enough to drive, buy a beer, or cigarettes, sign a contract; etc. I think the r4esounding answer is NO and the parents should have been held legally responsible - they made the mistake of allowing this child a gun.

The second question is the one about shooting guns in state parks where far too many other people are present and again I woukld hold the state responsible for not having rangers, etc. to stop this (there may be back areas in the park where you could post as gun areas; the state was obvuiously lax and oblivious to the possibilities)

But the tone of this article shows the same childish outright stupidity to the reality at hand - a gun has only one reason to exist - hurting people. It is NOT a TOY! Children should not be given a blank check, this was not an "accident" (someone has to pull the trigger on a gun, it does not load itself nor fire itself) nor is this a simple "mistake"; at a minimum it is manslaughter. Frankly the parents should be jailed and this child found new parents - and not to touch a gun again until 21 and responsible for their own actions

Quit the crap on this; someone got killed and you think 30 days is appropriate? Does that mean you are volunteering as a target for the next live target practice? This attitude is childish, irresponsible, and quite insane

But the tone of this article shows the same childish outright stupidity to the reality at hand - a gun has only one reason to exist - hurting people.

Guns exist for many reasons, among them keeping other people from hurting me.

God made all men equal, Colt keeps them that way.

Lets see: I hunt. I own guns. My neighbors children hunt. They handled guns in my presense at a ripe old age of 5 or 6. First rule - never carry a loaded weapon unless the safety is on. Second rule - always identify what you are hunting. Third rule - never aim the gun at anything until you have identified it 100% and you are going to shoot it. Fourth rule - Only unlock the safety when you are ready to fire and have a clear unobstructed shot.

This 'kid' was either never taught gun safety/hunting safety OR was too immature to be without adult supervision. The person with this 'kid' and the adults who allowed this 'kid' to handle the weapon without proper training are just as responsible for this death and should have shared the punishment.

Exactly Bill, I was thinking the same thing...

Harrison-

if you were to bother to read the "article" you'd be able to deduce that it is itself a response to another news story here on the vine. true it is not obvious where the original came from, and it would have been helpful for this author to have linked to it. i never expect much from the general population but i'd hope for more from a fellow wahoo.

someone got up on the wrong side of the bed today..

come on billy, make Virginia proud!

http://world-news.newsvine.com/_news/2009/07/11/3016700-young-hunter-who-killed-hiker-gets-30-days

I think it's that one.

OMG! I am actually agreeing with Bill Harrison

False headline, false article

I agree. The parents are hold a significant amount of responsibility. But so does the minor who got a 30-day juvenile detention sentence which seems like a reasonable consequence to me.

Only if detention includes the key word to avoid accidents:

E-D-U-C-A-T-I-O-N.

Detention in itself is worthless except for revenge/punishment, in this case. An accident can happen anytime - a premeditated murder happens only at will.

That's bullcrap. The kid is 14 - that's not a kid, he's almost an adult. In 4 years his government will be ready to send him off to fight if he wants to enlist.

There are millions of people who started hunting when they were 7 or 8 years old, hunted all their lives and never killed anybody.

This sob story of an opinion piece is just another psycho wailing that anyone under the age of 18 isn't responsible for what they do. He's 14 - he should have looked before he shot his gun.

If he only got 30 days for killing another human being, I'd say that doesn't even amount to a slap on the wrist.

Would you prefer to simply throw him away? Send him to felony school? The child made a mistake, a tragic mistake that he will have to live with every day for the rest of his life, as for the sentence- it is just. Isn't that the premise of "Justice"? The emotional and decision making process difference between ages 14 and 18 is vast; apparently you do not have, nor have ever been exposed to children, otherwise you'd know that childhood is all about making mistakes (albeit, most less tragic) and learning from them. We, as a society, should never think of our children as future cannon-fodder for the next war not of their choosing

Send him to felony school?

Ummmm... what's "felony school"?

And now that GeminiGirl has provided the link, 30 days in detention for, at the very least, manslaughter is a f---ing travesty.

The parents shouldn't be in trouble. The kid shouldn't be in trouble. This is just an accident through and through

Well, try telling that to the victim's family and see how far you get. Seriously, though shouldn't someone be held accountable and take personal responsibility? Do you not feel 14 years old is too young to handle a hunting rifle? Whats next, are you going to place all the blame on the victim?

Well, try telling that to the victim's family and see how far you get. I wouldn't be that rude, nor would I expect objectivity from them.

Seriously, though shouldn't someone be held accountable and take personal responsibility? You mean the kid who was sentenced to thirty days, 120 hours of community service and one year of probation hasn't been held accountable? Or are you saying that you think he should have been punished more severely? Because those are two different things.

Do you not feel 14 years old is too young to handle a hunting rifle? It depends on the 14 year old, and what level of training they've had with it. This kid broke two of the four rules. Obviously, he wasn't very well trained, and wasn't emotionally mature enough to be out there without an adult supervising him. But that's not an indication that age alone is the only indicator of who is or isn't responsible enough to handle a firearm. I know people three times his age who shouldn't handle firearms.

Whats next, are you going to place all the blame on the victim? Histrionics will not improve the situation, any. I disagree with the notion that this was an "accident" rather than "negligence." But just because someone doesn't agree that the kid should be labeled a murderer is no reason to conclude the such an opinion requires "blaming the victim."

And I can't agree that this was "well-written." It is absolutely horribly written, riddled with spelling and grammatical errors, confused in its presentation of the author's argument, and with nearly no informative content upon which to allow readers to base their opinion. It needs a good editor.

iarnuocon

I was merely trying to highlight how absurd Sectim42's entire comment was, using sarcasm. Granted I should have mentioned sarcasm in my post, my fault. I think the punishment is probably appropriate for the 14 year old, but if an adult was with him; then I think the adult should also have been held accountable as well. As for the age of the kid, frankly I don't feel any person under 18 should be allowed to handle firearms, including hunting. I agree it was negligence and not an accident; I also don't think he should be labeled a murderer either, again sarcasm. And lastly, I agree it was a poorly written article with spelling/grammar mistakes, but I too make those mistakes and that is why I don't usually call people out on that sort of thing.

Sectim42, I'm not trying to be an ass, but this is the most poorly written article I've ever encountered on Newsvine. I don't claim to be a great writer myself, but come on, it seems to have been written by a 14 year old. As to the story itself, it's obviously tragic, but I don't think the child received near enough punishment. On top of that, I personally believe that the adult who allowed this kid to handle a weapon should be punished as well. So many people are so damned hung up on gun rights that the lawmakers are too scared to try to push for responsible laws. As was mentioned above, I think it should be illegal to even touch a gun until you're at least 18, and then only after you've passed a proper certification process and have been licensed by the state. You're not allowed to drive a vehicle until you're 16, and the reason why is simple, it's dangerous and you can hurt yourself and others. I hope we can reach a point in our society where we can at least have some common sense gun laws.

So, I guess based on the story you gave; we should just blame the rabbit (that the kid was shooting at), arrest the bunny and fry him on the little bunny electric chair...sarcasm off.

Again, it also raises the most glaring problem...the fact that 14 year old boys are handling firearms and using them for sport. Accident or not isn't the point, children should not be handling firearms in any way, except for self defense.

I have two girls who were allowed to target shoot .22 rifles, .22 pistols and .32 caliber mussle-loaders, and recurve bows by the time they were 10, under supervision of course. They have never hunted, but if they had wanted to hunt, even at the age of 14 mine would have been supervised, and not hunting something as dangerous as a bear. But that is me and mine.

My husband has two grandsons who are 14, I wouldn't let them own a slingshot. Which is why they are not allowed to hunt quail with their grandpa and carry a gun on our place. I will not allow it. Their younger brother of 10 shows more maturity, and respects authority.

Age is not a qualifier for maturity. I worked for a man who was turned out by his parents at the age of 12 because there was not enough food and he was the oldest child, (probably 1930s) who managed to find work, get an education, and not be bitter toward his parents or life. Yet, I know adults in their 20s, and 30s who sponge off their parents at every opportunity.

And what about military friendly-fire (?) incidents. Do we have 14 year old serving in the military? No, when our servicemen have a tragic accident we must be PC - friendly-fire.

Again, rule 1 identify your target, rule 2 - kill shot. (Rabbits are not vicious, so don't go there please if you reply.) I have never rabbit hunted, but it is usually a moving target you have to "lead" for a shot like bird hunting except rabbits are on the ground so there is the ricochet possibliity. I have not viewed fatality statistics on rabbit hunting, this was my first one ever.

I am not an expert hunter, but was raised in a hunting community with hunters, and my ex-husband was an avid hunter/fisherman who followed hunting safety, and conservation laws.

MoCowgirl:

Perhaps my disdain for guns prevents me from being objective in this case. So I apologize if my post offended you.

Age is not a qualifier for maturity.

Again, you are right, but we have laws that prevent people under 21 from drinking. People have to be 18 to vote, join the military, and go to strip clubs. Casino Gambling and playing the state lottery is another example. I see nothing wrong with establishing an age limit to handle firearms.

Regarding friendly-fire incidents: Not sure what argument you're trying to make here.

This story is a superb example of the great divide in this country when it comes to firearms.

People who live in remote rural areas see deer hunting as a rite of passage. People in urban areas are more likely to kill a deer during a car crash.

I tend to agree with Crusher when it comes to a minimum age for handling firearms for hunting and recreational purposes.

After all, you have to be 16 to drive a car, 18 to join the military, and 21 to legally purchase alcohol.

Waiting until age 18 to fire a hunting rifle won't kill anyone. In fact, it will save a few lives.

It is a tragic story. My heart goes out to all family of the women and to the 14-year old who shoot her (not on purpose).

This is an excellent example of not getting the proper education and having the proper supervision. In most states I think you actually have to go through a hunting saftey course to get a state licsence to legally hunt and minors must hunt with and adult/parent. I do believe that there should be a higher age restriction for minors too.

I too feel the anger and exasperation many here have expressed over the lose of a human life. But this boy did not go out to kill someone intentionally. This is not like kids killing people in the inner cities in gang violence. The difference is intent.

Right there with you Cowgirl. How about swimming pool accidental drownings??? Why are there still crazy people swimming in this country. Ban it . Ban them. Lets pass some more laws.

You know i keep seeing this 14 year olds are too young for guns.

But if you think back to a time not to long ago there where children in the civil war some lied about their age. children as young as the age of 8 where drummer boys and bugel players they played an important role in the battles. How many of these children tragically died in this cause? There where boys as young as 16 fighting side by side with men 18-25. children where also used as spies in the civial war. Anyone remember Andersonville?

Mav

Anyone remember Andersonville?

Not being 150 years old: no, I don't.

But if you think back to a time not to long ago there where children in the civil war some lied about their age. children as young as the age of 8 where drummer boys and bugel players they played an important role in the battles. How many of these children tragically died in this cause? There where boys as young as 16 fighting side by side with men 18-25.

You think that's a good argument for 14 year-olds using guns? That the civil war was monstrous and exploited children?

Your priorities appear to be backwards. That's a good argument against children having guns.

Right there with you Cowgirl. How about swimming pool accidental drownings??? Why are there still crazy people swimming in this country. Ban it . Ban them. Lets pass some more laws.

Actually I think you have a point there. I've been watching the Home and Garden Network when they are doing one of those home renovation shows, and a young couple with itty bitty children are putting a pool in their back yard - I just have to go... "stupid stupid stupid."

I guess though that way they are doing away with their own DNA, but in this gun case the stupid people are doing away with other, most likely smarter people's DNA, who were just trying to enjoy a walk in nature.

Besides, how do you mistake a 50-year old lady for a bear?

Must not make Mother-in-Law joke... Willpower fading...crap.

If he had been hunting badgers, I'd be right there with you!

@T Bourbon

Legal scholars disagree about what right is protected by the 2nd amendment. Some have concluded that this amendment affirms a broad individual right to gun ownership. Others interpret it as protecting only a narrow right to possess firearms as members of a militia. Supreme Court decisions have not resolved the debate. I, personally can understand a person's right to protect themselves and family if an intruder tries to harm them or break into their homes; etc. I hear people say, "guns don't kill....people kill!" I am afraid of guns. It is something that goes back to my child-hood of one of my class-mates (4th grader) killing another boy (3rd grader) because he climbed in the mother's pear tree and took a pear! The description of details about the boy's fatal wound haunted me. The right to bear arms conversations become too heated. People just become extremely emotional about it. Other than my post (#17) ; I have come to realize that kids have been going hunting with or without supervision utilizing bows/arrows, knives, & guns since the beginning of time. As the article stated, this was a means of providing families with food, certain clothing, and, of course the possibility of wild animal attacks upon them. I think it would be difficult in this tumultuous climate we continue to live in not to own a gun. I wish people did not need guns but.......???!! As for the 14 year old boy in this article, it was a tragic accident that will kill his mental stability & possibly drive him to commit suicide. This will occur again until changes are made concerning separating the general public from hunters in some manner. Gun ownership, and parents giving their kids these weapons is continuously on the rise and hunting season will continue as well. Whether we like it or not, that's the way its gonna be!

Agreed, Leo.

Where did your husband grow up? Probably in a remote rural area where hunting was part of daily life.

I have no problem with minors going on hunting trips with adults; I think allowing 14 year olds to hunt unsupervised is a royally bad idea.

MoCowgirl, you wanted to know why I have disdain or dislike for guns; reading Pam's post here is a fairly good example.

Pam - You sincerely have my condolences . I see you included the fact that 3 & 4 year olds should never have access to a gun, and again with the twins, although you didn't state their ages. A 15 year old getting a gun out of someone's couch and managing to get it out of the house???? I've never known anyone to store their pistols in their couch where people actually sit, but, I will take your word for that. My sister at 26 swallowed a handful of pills over a broken marriage, but made a phone call for help in time. I think the fact that your son was making phone calls, he probably really wanted an intervention, and thankfully got it.

Crusher -

Irresponsible parents is your reason for disliking guns? I dislike irresponsible parents for any number of reasons. Children should not have access to household cleaners, medications, plants, electrial outlets, and any number of things until they are old enough and responsible enough to leave them alone.

So as what age should parenthood be legalized? =So to your way of thinking, as I understand it, there is a legal age to: purchasing lighters, smoking a cigarette, drinking booze, driving a car, gambling, voting, joining the military, or handling a firearm? People have to be 18 to vote, join the military, and go to strip clubs. Casino Gambling and playing the state lottery is another example

Read the articles about bullying and children raping other children - no guns involved. Just brute force. There is an interesting article on NV about this subject. I was horrified to read actual, personal accounts of fellow NVers on the thread, of intentional harm, up close and personal enacted by mean-spirited, and violent children.

And finally, I believe the 14 yr old was sentenced under Washington state laws. I think the sentence was fair, based on the fact I have no evidence that he had been in any trouble in the past, and I am assuming the judge would have had access to his school records.

Crusher, you need never have a gun. My nearest neighbor is more than 1/4 mile away, and I'm surrounded by mostly cattle and pastures. I do have a state trooper who lives a mile away - great friend and neighbor. I love my life, and wouldn't change it, just as you love your way of life. That is supposed to be what America is about isn't it -the freedom to choose. And since I am not good with a bow, I really need my gun which is used for the skunks, possums, and armadillos that choose to try to dig into my quail pens or live under my house. If they stay away, I don't hunt them.

I have been working on a letter to my senator about more pressing issues - illegal immigration, bank and credit card companies using unfair tactics, American's being evicted from their homes, jobs going overseas, and China sending shoddy, lethal crap over here to kill us and our children - manufactured FOR American corporations who will not employ Americans, but want us to buy anyway. So, I am going to finsh my letter, go to bed, and start all over tomorrow.

MOcowgirl

You over simplify my dislike for guns. Like all bad things in life, responsibility counts a great deal. Where you live, guns maybe a necessity and I'm guessing you live out in the country; where as I do not. I don't have a frame of reference for living out in the country, so I don't really know about hazards like that. You using guns for hunting and keeping your property free of pests. The great care and responsibility that comes with owning guns isn't something that I would want on my shoulders should an accident happen. You've been raised properly and seem to use guns responsibly, I don't have a problem with that. What I don't like is when irresponsible people are allowed to own guns and I wish there was a way to properly prevent these people from doing so. America seems to be one of the only countries in the world were guns and weapons are highly coveted possessions, and I wish I understood why. It seems like our laws make it too easy for idiots to own guns and the gun lobby glamorizes ownership to a point that makes me sick.

Lastly, we'll have to agree to disagree concerning children handling firearms. I'm sticking to my guns (pun intended), we have age limits for other priveledged items like various vices, cars, and voting. Much like a car, I see owning or using a gun as a privledge that people should work for, not a guaranteed right; regardless of what the constitution states.

Much like a car, I see owning or using a gun as a privledge that people should work for, not a guaranteed right; regardless of what the constitution states. Well, thanks for at least being explicit about your anti-American sentiment. You rarely find anti-2nd Amendment folks so refreshingly honest about their motivation.

Just because my interpretation of the 2nd Amendment doesn't mesh exactly with your interpretation doesn't make me Anti-American; any suggestion of that sort is false. Don't question my patriotism, as it does nothing but make this debate more acrimonious. You tell me that "Histrionics will not improve the situation, any" and then you follow up with more of the same.

Just because my interpretation of the 2nd Amendment doesn't mesh exactly with your interpretation doesn't make me Anti-American; any suggestion of that sort is false. On the contrary, when you say that gun ownership is a privilege, and that you don't care what the Constitution says, you are, in effect, saying you don't care about one of America's founding ideals-- an armed populace. That makes you anti-American. Period.

Don't question my patriotism, as it does nothing but make this debate more acrimonious. Don't make stupid comments dismissing a fundamental aspect of what makes America uniquely American, and I won't have to question your patriotism.

You tell me that "Histrionics will not improve the situation, any" and then you follow up with more of the same. Noting the true meaning of what you've said does not constitute "histrionics." The histrionics are yours, not mine. I'm merely pointing out the logical culmination of your thinking.

On the contrary, when you say that gun ownership is a privilege, and that you don't care what the Constitution says, you are, in effect, saying you don't care about one of America's founding ideals-- an armed populace. That makes you anti-American. Period.

IMO, owning guns should be a privilege. Just because I disagree with how the law is applied doesn't make me anti-American. I've read some of your other posts and while we seem to agree on other political matters we disagree on this matter. Calling me anti-American simply because we don't agree on this issue is a tactic befitting the rabid conservatives who want everyone to think as they do and anyone not doing so is labeled anti-American.

Don't make stupid comments dismissing a fundamental aspect of what makes America uniquely American, and I won't have to question your patriotism.

By the same token, dismissing my opinions and comments as stupid simply because you don't agree doesn't resolve the debate. By questioning my patriotism you only seek to offend rather than politely disagree.

Noting the true meaning of what you've said does not constitute "histrionics." The histrionics are yours, not mine. I'm merely pointing out the logical culmination of your thinking.

Calling me anti-American because we disagree on who should own guns and whether it is a right or a privilege, is histrionics and hyperbole, IMO.

IMO, owning guns should be a privilege. Just because I disagree with how the law is applied doesn't make me anti-American. I've read some of your other posts and while we seem to agree on other political matters we disagree on this matter. Calling me anti-American simply because we don't agree on this issue is a tactic... [blah blah blah] You persist in misunderstanding me. I don't say you're anti-American because we disagree. I'm saying your sentiment (that gun ownership is a privilege, not a right, regardless of what the Constitution of the United States says) is specifically anti-American.

You don't "disagree with how the law is applied." You think the Constitution should be rewritten to say the opposite of what it clearly says. That's what makes you anti-American, not any "disagreement" between us.

By the same token, dismissing my opinions and comments as stupid simply because you don't agree doesn't resolve the debate. I don't dismiss your comment as stupid because we disagree. I dismiss your comment as stupid because you obviously fail to grasp the implications of what you're saying, and persist in trying to claim that your opinion doesn't cut directly contrary to the Constitution of the United States. When you say "I don't care what the Constitution says," defending that against people who note the sentiment is quintessentially anti-American by claiming that they're only trying to distract is quintessentially stupid.

Calling me anti-American because we disagree on who should own guns and whether it is a right or a privilege, is histrionics and hyperbole, IMO. With each post, you're showing that your opinion is worth less and less.

You tell me-- how many of our rights do you think someone needs to dismiss as irrelevant before that person could be said to be anti-American? Three? Five? All of them?

I'm saying your sentiment (that gun ownership is a privilege, not a right, regardless of what the Constitution of the United States says) is specifically anti-American.

So basically, my sentiment or opinion (which is neither right or wrong) on the matter is anti-American because it doesn't mesh with your interpretation of the 2nd ammendment. You do help clarify your comments here but opinions are free for everyone to express. I'm Catholic but don't agree with everything the church tells me to do, so does that make my opinions on certain church teachings equally anti-Catholic because I don't tow the line? Dissent and disagreement are a conerstone of who we are as Americans and it is one of the reasons in which this country was founded.

You don't "disagree with how the law is applied." You think the Constitution should be rewritten to say the opposite of what it clearly says. That's what makes you anti-American, not any "disagreement" between us.

So now you're projecting how I think and feel; without me making any comment regarding the Constitution being rewritten, in this thread. The 2nd ammendment debate has been going on for years among Constitutional scholars. If that debate has been going on for so long then it seems to me that it ISN'T CLEAR what the 2nd ammendment says. The Constitution, much like the Bible, is vaguely written. My point still remains, you don't agree with my opinion and therefore label my view as anti-American, which is inflammatory, in my eyes.

You tell me-- how many of our rights do you think someone needs to dismiss as irrelevant before that person could be said to be anti-American? Three? Five? All of them?

Yet you still say: "Histrionics will not improve the situation, any" - iarnuocon

Again, I'm not suggesting that gun ownership rights be dismissed altogether. I'm saying that people should have to prove they are responsible enought to own a gun. The gun laws that are currently on the books don't seem to be working if this case is any example. But it seems that the Constitution is infalliable in your eyes and there is nothing wrong with it in any way.

So basically, my sentiment or opinion (which is neither right or wrong) If you think opinions can't be wrong, that's a big part of the problem, right there. You're entitled to your opinion. You are not entitled to have your opinion be treated as though it is right, when in fact it is wrong. Let's get that straight, up front, or there is no point in conversing.

So basically, my sentiment or opinion (which is neither right or wrong) on the matter is anti-American because it doesn't mesh with your interpretation of the 2nd ammendment. It doesn't have anything to do with my opinion The 2nd Amendment states pretty clearly the "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." The Constitution states that this is a right. You state that this is a privilege, and not a right. QED, your sentiment is anti-American.

WTF? Don't they teach people how to follow an argument in school, anymore?

I'm Catholic but don't agree with everything the church tells me to do, so does that make my opinions on certain church teachings equally anti-Catholic because I don't tow the line? Yes.

Dissent and disagreement are a conerstone of who we are as Americans and it is one of the reasons in which this country was founded. I agree. And thanks to the First Amendment, and to the fact that there aren't a whole lot of people who feel that free speech is a privilege and not a right, you are able to voice your views without interference from the government. In fact, if you convince enough people that gun ownership is a privilege, there's even a handy and legitimate method written into the Constitution that gives you (the collective "you") the ability to rewrite it and erase the right that the Founders protected in the 2nd Amendment, thereby turning it into a privilege.

So now you're projecting how I think and feel; without me making any comment regarding the Constitution being rewritten, in this thread. So you're saying that you don't want to see restrictions placed on firearms ownership, that you don't think that it is a privilege that people should have to work for, and that you do see keeping firearms as a right which is protected by the Constitution? Because that seems to run completely opposite to the many statements you have made in this thread.

Or is it that you want the law changed and restrictions placed on gun ownership, but you're assuring everyone that you don't intend to argue or work to that purpose?

I'm a little unclear, given your statements, what you're actually trying to say, here.

The 2nd ammendment debate has been going on for years among Constitutional scholars. If that debate has been going on for so long then it seems to me that it ISN'T CLEAR what the 2nd ammendment says. The Constitution, much like the Bible, is vaguely written. Sorry, there was no debate for 160 years, until people who thought guns were an anachronism started looking for reasons to efface the 2nd Amendment following the National Firearms Act of 1934. There's been heated debate since then, as gun-grabbers have been seeking justification to ban guns, but that debate certainly isn't predicated on any purported lack of clarity in the 2nd Amendment.

The Constitution is not vaguely written. You could say that it is, perhaps, incompletely written, as it does not touch on all subjects, but to claim that it's "vague" is simply incorrect. There's nothing vague about the 2nd Amendment.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

We can reformulate that in regard to a number of objects, and it would raise no eyebrows:

A well-educated public, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed.

A well-fed public, being necessary to the health of a free State, the right of the people to keep and eat food shall not be infringed.

Where is the "vagueness"?

Yet you still say: "Histrionics will not improve the situation, any" Yes, I do. I'd like you to actually answer the question-- how many of our rights do you think someone needs to dismiss as irrelevant before that person could be said to be anti-American?

Again, I'm not suggesting that gun ownership rights be dismissed altogether. I'm saying that people should have to prove they are responsible enought to own a gun. Then it's not a right but a privilege which can be removed at will. It looks as though, in addition to investigating what having an opinion actually means, you also need to brush up on what is meant by the term "rights."

The gun laws that are currently on the books don't seem to be working if this case is any example. I think the gun laws work just fine. You will never be able to stop people from being negligent, nor achieve perfect safety-- a point which has already been brought up several times in this thread. And taking this case anecdotally to suggest that restrictions should be placed on firearms ownership is pretty dumb. Case in point, what percentage of 14 year olds hunt? Don't know? Neither do I. Of those 14 year olds, how many have negligently shot someone? Don't know? Neither do I. The difference between us is that I recognize that I'm ignorant of the facts, and don't propose curtailing a right based on my ignorance.

it seems that the Constitution is infalliable in your eyes and there is nothing wrong with it in any way. Now who is putting words in whose mouth? Physician, heal thyself.

I thought of some other examples regarding opinions and the Constitution. From 1919-1933 we had the 18th Ammendment which was deeply unpopular since it invovled banning alcohol sales. So I guess by your measure of someone's opinion being anti-American when the Constitution states otherwise; there were a lot of opinionated anti-Americans running around back then. How about the difference of opinion regarding establishment of religion and prayer in schools...I guess either many secular or religious people's (one of the two) sentiments are anti-american depending their feelings regarding establishment of religion or banning religious items from state property. There are people who feel that coporal punishment violates the 8th Ammendment and the ban of "cruel and unusual punishment."

If you think opinions can't be wrong, that's a big part of the problem, right there.

Opinions can't be wrong, because it is how an individual (me or you) feels. Here is a definition of opinion, in case you forgot; a personal belief or judgment that is not founded on proof or certainty. Of course, we all know the age old phrase, "Opinions are like...everyone's got one."

You are not entitled to have your opinion be treated as though it is right, when in fact it is wrong.

I'm not suggesting that my personal beliefs be treated as a right, because again it is only how I feel and you have a different feeling on the subject. Again, I don't see how personal beliefs can be correct or false when it is the way a person feels...nothing you or I say can take away that feeling.

The Constitution states that this is a right. You state that this is a privilege, and not a right.

The 2nd ammend. also mentions that a well regulated militia, what is that? State National Guard...I don't know how that is defined. Therefore my personal belief is that it is vague. How about Arms, define arms, where do you draw the line? So if some one wants to put a Howitzer in their back yard or stockpile nuclear weapons, will you be ok with that? I'm mere trying to illustrate (perhaps a poor attempt) at what I see as vague clauses in the Constitution.

You state that this is a privilege, and not a right. QED, your sentiment is anti-American.

I did not state that it was a privilege, but that it should be and I acknowledge that it is a right. I do feel that a person needs to show that they are responsible enough to own a firearm. How that responsibility is to be shown (while remaining within the confines of the law) is for Congress to decide. Too many irresponsible people own guns but I also recognize that trying to legislate responsibilty is probably not feasible. It seems there are many current gun laws and not enough are enforced properly, that is also part of the problem.

I'd like you to actually answer the question-- how many of our rights do you think someone needs to dismiss as irrelevant before that person could be said to be anti-American?

I'm not going to answer that question because it is histrionics and hyperbole. I express a personal belief on one of our laws that is different from yours and you proceed to dismiss that personal belief as Anti-American. My personal belief may be un-constitutional and I would cede that point. However, a persons views being unconstitutional or anti-american are two very different things. So if someone doesn't like or agree with a particular law then that sentiment is Anti-American in your eyes? I was under the impression that all federal laws are treated equally. Just because certain federal laws are in the constitution and others are not, doesn't necessarily put more weight to the ones in the Constitution and less weight to the others.

Out of curiousity, are you devout Catholic? If not, then I wonder how a person who isn't Catholic can call someone who is; anti-Catholic.

Incidentally, personal belief and opinion can be used interchangably in this comment, which therefore does not make my opinions correct or false.

I thought of some other examples regarding opinions and the Constitution. From 1919-1933 we had the 18th Ammendment which was deeply unpopular since it invovled banning alcohol sales. So I guess by your measure of someone's opinion being anti-American when the Constitution states otherwise; there were a lot of opinionated anti-Americans running around back then. Bad example-- alcohol sales wasn't expressly protected by the Constitution, so whether or not a ban was anti-American would depend on what rights one feels are protected by the only "vague" Amendment to the Constitution-- the 9th. Some would say that those involved in passing the 18th were anti-American.

But thank you for highlighting an area where I feel the Constitution is not perfect-- the use of Amendments to prohibit freedom, rather than to protect it.

How about the difference of opinion regarding establishment of religion and prayer in schools...I guess either many secular or religious people's (one of the two) sentiments are anti-american depending their feelings regarding establishment of religion or banning religious items from state property. Well, given the fact that the Founders were pretty clear about their intent to remove religions from any participation in government (and vice versa), I think it should be pretty clear that I feel those who try to use the government to force participation in and respect for religious observances are, in fact, pretty anti-American.

At least your example is a better one, here-- given that it addresses a specific right touched on by the Bill of Rights.

There are people who feel that coporal punishment violates the 8th Ammendment and the ban of "cruel and unusual punishment." Lol... being neither cruel nor unusual, I highly doubt that corporal punishment violates the 8th Amendment. Perhaps you meant capital punishment?

Opinions can't be wrong, because it is how an individual (me or you) feels. Here is a definition of opinion, in case you forgot; a personal belief or judgment that is not founded on proof or certainty. Whether an opinion is wrong doesn't rest on "how one feels." Are you seriously trying to argue that judgments and beliefs can't be wrong? What an asinine assertion.

Here's an example: I am of the opinion that the United States has 52 states. Would my opinion be right or wrong? Or, as another example, you're of the opinion that cyanide is a healthy food additive. Would you be right or wrong?

I'll repeat myself-- you're entitled to have an opinion, you're just not entitled to have it be treated as though it were true.

The 2nd ammend. also mentions that a well regulated militia, what is that? It's the body of the populace between the ages of 18 and 46 that are not actively serving in the military. And, again, the militia is not a precondition necessary to enjoy the right.

How about Arms, define arms, where do you draw the line? So if some one wants to put a Howitzer in their back yard or stockpile nuclear weapons, will you be ok with that? Can you "bear" a Howitzer? Can you "bear" nuclear arms? It's not nearly as vague as you make it out to be. The Supreme Court didn't think so in United States v Miller in 1939, nor did they seem to think so last year in Heller.

I did not state that it was a privilege, but that it should be and I acknowledge that it is a right.

Much like a car, I see owning or using a gun as a privledge that people should work for, not a guaranteed right; regardless of what the constitution states.

I commend you, if you've modified your position, somewhat, but what you said was that you feel it is a privilege, regardless of what the Constitution states. That seemed pretty unequivocal, to me.

I do feel that a person needs to show that they are responsible enough to own a firearm. How that responsibility is to be shown (while remaining within the confines of the law) is for Congress to decide. Until Congress amends the Constitution to invalidate the 2nd Amendment, no, it is not for Congress to decide. It's for the Supreme Court to decide.

It seems there are many current gun laws and not enough are enforced properly, that is also part of the problem. So, seriously, you think the solution to that is more laws? Especially since those only impact lawful gun-owners who are not, generally speaking, the problem?

I'm not going to answer that question because it is histrionics and hyperbole. How convenient for your argument. Since you refuse to weigh in on the subject, I guess we'll have to go with my opinion that it only takes someone disagreeing with one right protected by the Constitution for that person to be considered anti-American.

So if someone doesn't like or agree with a particular law then that sentiment is Anti-American in your eyes? If someone disagrees with the Constitution, then, yes, that sentiment is anti-American. The Constitution defines America.

I was under the impression that all federal laws are treated equally. Just because certain federal laws are in the constitution and others are not, doesn't necessarily put more weight to the ones in the Constitution and less weight to the others. You're mistaken. How and why do you think the Supreme Court decides cases? The Constitution takes precedence; the SCOTUS has weighed in innumerable times invalidating federal law because it conflicts with the Constitution.

Out of curiousity, are you devout Catholic? If not, then I wonder how a person who isn't Catholic can call someone who is; anti-Catholic. Nope. But a person doesn't have to BE Catholic to recognize beliefs which go against Catholicism.

Incidentally, personal belief and opinion can be used interchangably in this comment, which therefore does not make my opinions correct or false. Neither case renders your comments immune to criticism, nor to the possibility of being wrong. Again, just because something is your opinion does not mean your opinion is correct, nor does it mean your opinion is not incorrect.

Seriously, if you simply cannot acknowledge that fact, there's little point in continuing.

Whether an opinion is wrong doesn't rest on "how one feels." Are you seriously trying to argue that judgments and beliefs can't be wrong? What an asinine assertion.

An opinion isn't founded on proof or certainty. Therefore saying that you are of the opinion that there are 52 states would fly in the face of fact, proof and certainty. By me saying that I am of the opinion that firearms SHOULD be a privlege rather than a right to own, is an opinion.

I'll repeat myself-- you're entitled to have an opinion, you're just not entitled to have it be treated as though it were true.

Likewise, you aren't entitled to say that opinions are false, unless they are proven wrong and supported by fact. I agree though and I'm not arguing that it should be treated as though it were true, or false (as you insist that it is). My argument is that opinions or personal beliefs cannot be either true or false when there is absense of proof or certainty. My first sentence in post 22.7 states this: "IMO, owning guns should be a privilege." Disagree with the opinion all you want, but it doesn't make it true or false.

Can you "bear" a Howitzer? Can you "bear" nuclear arms? It's not nearly as vague as you make it out to be.

No you can't carry a howitzer, but you can "keep" it. As for a nuke, if it were small enough to fit in a briefcase, then I suppose you could "keep and bear" it. Such as here.

Regarding coporal/capital punishment...I messed up my terminology but you were right I was speaking of capital...good catch on your part.

Honestly, the thing that bothers me more than anything else in this discussion is your penchant for calling another persons opinions regarding the constitution as being anti-american; simply because one disagrees with the wording or the intrepretation/application of various ammendments. Certainly the constitution is a cornerstone for our democracy. It is my personal belief that it gives me and you the right to vocalize our support or critism our own gov't, including the Constitution itself; as the case may be. That right to criticise is also afforded to me and you through the Constitution, but I think it is a nasty choice of words and inflammatory. To each his own I guess.

An opinion isn't founded on proof or certainty. Therefore saying that you are of the opinion that there are 52 states would fly in the face of fact, proof and certainty. By me saying that I am of the opinion that firearms SHOULD be a privlege rather than a right to own, is an opinion. Whether or not there IS proof or certainty has nothing whatsoever to do with what my opinion is founded upon. Therefore, by your own argument, you can't claim that my opinion is wrong, since it is just an opinion. Right?

Or are you willing to concede that opinions can, in fact, be wrong?

And you did not say that the right to own firearms should be a privilege. You said that the right to own firearms IS, in your opinion, a privilege. I've already quoted your words, several times now, that gun ownership is "not a right."

If you're stating that you misspoke, fine. Glad to hear it. You should be more careful with your words. I still think you're wrong, and that the right to own a gun should not be a privilege, but those are both arguments upon which we must weigh the available evidence, consider the implications, and reach our own conclusions.

My first sentence in post 22.7 states this Which is an amendment to your post in #22.3, which stated that you think it IS NOT a right, and to which I responded with the phrase which has apparently ruffled your feathers, so. The undeniable fact is that it IS a right, and that opinion was flatly false. Whether it should be a right is open to argument.

No you can't carry a howitzer, but you can "keep" it. Good, so since you can't bear it, let's forget about it for the moment.

As for a nuke, if it were small enough to fit in a briefcase, then I suppose you could "keep and bear" it. Such as here. I note that says "There has been no official information released on the existence of true suitcase or briefcase-sized nuclear weapons in either the US or Russian arsenals." And in the event that it were true, only two nations, utilizing their full resources, have managed to create (putatively) such devices. It doesn't seem like a very credible example, then, but what the hell. Let's assume that such devices were widely available. Would that mean that the 2nd Amendment is "vaguely" worded? Or would it fall under the same sort of "restrictions" as free speech, cf not being able to shout "fire"in a crowded theater-- i.e. not being allowed to own man-portable weapons that are capable of leveling a city?

I forget which Justice said that the Constitution is not a suicide pact, and I happen to agree with that. You do agree, don't you, that the destructive power of a nuclear weapon far outstrips anything resembling a firearm, including a Howitzer?

Honestly, the thing that bothers me more than anything else in this discussion is your penchant for calling another persons opinions regarding the constitution as being anti-american; simply because one disagrees with the wording or the intrepretation/application of various ammendments. I'm tired of @!$%#ing repeating myself, so feel free to page back up to #22.6, and reread my posts. This doesn't have a damn thing to do with the fact that we "disagree." It has to do with the fact that you and the Constitution of the United States disagree.

It's not my job to teach you basic English.

Therefore, by your own argument, you can't claim that my opinion is wrong, since it is just an opinion. Right?

Right, you are correct and I don't believe I ever did say your opinion was wrong. If I did than I was wrong to do so.

And you did not say that the right to own firearms should be a privilege. You said that the right to own firearms IS, in your opinion, a privilege. I've already quoted your words, several times now, that gun ownership is "not a right."

If you're stating that you misspoke, fine. Glad to hear it. You should be more careful with your words.

By rephrasing my view in 22.7 that it should be a privelege, I thought that it would make it clear. I suppose you can say the last sentence in 22.3 was me not choosing words carefully enough, which is odd because I'm usually better than that.

I forget which Justice said that the Constitution is not a suicide pact, and I happen to agree with that. You do agree, don't you, that the destructive power of a nuclear weapon far outstrips anything resembling a firearm, including a Howitzer?

This should help: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Constitution_is_not_a_suicide_pact

Since you put it that way, yes I would agree wholeheartily. But aren't there firearms that blur those lines between the 2nd ammendment and your definition of destructive power, honest question?

But aren't there firearms that blur those lines between the 2nd ammendment and your definition of destructive power, honest question? I honestly don't think so. I can't think of a single firearm that could be wielded by an individual that remotely rivals the destructive power of a nuclear weapon, or, for that matter, that of an automobile.

The Founders wanted weapons in the hands of the people not only for general purposes, such as hunting or self-defense, but also to rebuff foreign invasion and to defend against a possibly tyrannical government. To that end, they saw state of the art weapons in the hands of individual citizens as a public good, despite the risk. Regardless of the gun-control hype, so did the Supreme Court, in US v Miller.

So do I, for that matter.

I honestly don't think so.

RPG launcher? Is it legal to own one for the general public? You can carry them, they are compact, and have a significant amount of destructive force. Of course not nearly as much as a nuke, but you could do some serious damage. What about land mines? Most aren't that large and you probably won't walk around with them, but you could still "keep" them in your yard or whatever. Obviously these are military grade examples and I honestly don't know what the biggest gun the general public is allowed to own. Is there a line between what the general public can own and not own regarding military grade firearms and weapons. BTW, these are serious questions and so I'm not being dramatic here.

I don't think explosives in general are considered "arms."

As far as what the "biggest" gun is that a private owner can own, I'm pretty sure size isn't a factor for any man-portable gun, either. The largest generally available firearms would be a hunting rifle firing a .700 Nitro Express cartridge, followed by the Barrett M82A1 in .50 caliber. In handguns, I think it's the S&W 500 Magnum revolver, which is a .50 caliber. For that matter, you can pretty much own any of the machine guns that are always talked about as being automagically destructive, provided you apply for the tax stamp and can pay for the gun itself.

If you want a Maxim machine gun capable of firing 600 rounds per minute, you can own one. You just have to be willing to pay thousands of dollars for one. I'm fairly certain that machine guns have been used rarely in crimes, if ever, since the 20s.

I'm fairly certain there are some restrictions on the availability of military grade equipment to the general public, but I'm not sure what they are. I know, for instance, that there's quite a bit of US ordinance that you can't legally get your hands on, money or no money. You'd have to ask someone who is way more into guns than I am as to what those weapons are, though.

Or perhaps he heard a noise and just knew it was big. Perhaps he thought if he waited to see what it was it would be too late. If he thought it was a bear they had come out hunting, that could have been a frightening. Lots of people do unwise things out of fear. Doubt seriously he meant to do a murder. What is the harm in giving him the benefit of the doubt? Why compound the tragedy for both families?

Perhaps the kid should never have been handed a gun because he was too irresponsible to handle it with the proper care and respect, regardless, as a result of his actions a woman is dead. The last thing we need is unsupervised trigger happy kids who are easily scared going off hunting in our national parks and forests, or more tragedies like this will happen. Asking for either the kid, or especially his father, to face up to the crime committed, and have no doubt a crime was committed, is not compounding the tragedy, it is merely asking that justice be done.

Midwestlady:

Please forgive me if I'm misunderstanding your response. Are you trying to say that you do not feel this teenager should be given a jail sentence for manslaughter simply because he didn't mean to kill the woman? I also fail to see how gang violence plays into this situation.

This teen had a rifle.

He did not properly identify his target.

The morning was foggy, and he failed to properly identify his target (repeated on purpose).

He killed a woman as a result of his error.

Just because he wasn't living in an inner city and a member of a gang does not excuse the fact that he killed another human being because he erred in judgement. To me, there is no difference between this incident and a drunk driver hitting a pedestrian (although the drunk will probably be charged with vehicular homicide and not manslaughter). The drunk's mistakes were: Putting the keys into the ignition and deciding that he/she was sober enough to drive.

Age 14 or not, this was manslaughter, and the kid does deserve some kind of punishment. The fact that he got off with a rather light sentence tells me that the judge believe that this child will either never make this mistake again, or will probably never go hunting again for fear of killing another human.

Again, my apologies if I misinterpreted the intent of your post, and if I have, I'll gladly welcome your correction. If I have not, I'll gladly welcome any further discussion you wish to have. 8-)