Don Gwinn

I don't really know. We have a certain number of fools and knuckle draggers, of course, but it depends where you go. In my own town, the police department is pretty badly screwed up. Lots of losers in this town and they seem intent on hiring more. However, a couple of towns over they're excellent. We call pretty much everybody sir, but authority figures do tend to call for that and we do consider police officers authority figures when they've pulled us over. I know that to be hired in my town you have to go through the police academy that's offered in the capital, but they will sometimes hire someone who has not and send him through on the city's dime. See, you have to have the course to be hired, but you're not allowed to take the course without the sponsorship of a department that has hired you. Hard to break in. Seriously, Bitseach, I think you should check out The Firing Line. Lots of cops, lots of citizens running the gamut from those who think cops can do no wrong to those who hate all cops equally. I think you might find it interesting. You will have to tone down the attitude a little, though. Personal attacks will get you banned. The address is in my sig if you're interested. In the meantime, let me dig out the Lawdog Tales. I have them here somewhere. I think you all might enjoy a look at life in rural Texas through the eyes of a small-town law officer. Lawdog's real name is Ian McMurtrie and for most of his youth he was more British than American. Grew up in Nigeria, Libya, and other fun places. Now he is simply. . . the Lawdog.

No predator in the world hunts fairly. Prey generally learns dirty tricks, too. I repeat--every meal that fox has ever eaten has been an animal that was ripped to shreds while still alive by a small dog. We are to shed tears because the fox will be torn up by dogs? My smaller dog, Ginger, who looks like a fox with a bad attitude, actually caught a blackbird in midair yesterday. If I hadn't seen it, I wouldn't have believed it. The bird suffered a cruel fate, but I'm sure all the insects it ate suffered too. Of course, they weren't as cute and cuddly as a fox is (to those who don't have to pick up the pieces of their own animals every couple of days.) In my in-laws' neighborhood near Chicago, IL, the foxes eat house cats and leave the heads in the front yards near the road. Don't get me wrong. I think the whole idea of hunting that way is downright weird. But that doesn't make it evil, and it's really none of my business. Be honest--does the average Englishman really object to the cruelty of fox hunting, or just see a chance to stick it to the elitist "toffs"? I know fox hunting is percieved as an upper-class sport.

I'm sure there are TKD players who can do all those movements. But kick someone into the air and kick them three more times before they hit the ground? BTW, Jun IS a girl.

Thank you, Bitseach. We may learn many things from each other before we're done here. CCH, with all due respect, your definition of "redneck" is an old one not used by most people who actually know rednecks. "Redneck" was meant to be a pejorative term the landed gentry in the South used to refer to people who were low and contemptible because their class worked with their hands in the outdoors for a living (thus developing sunburns and red necks.) Basically, a snob term. However, it was used by people who, despite their greater wealth, privilege and education, had most of the attitudes you associate with a redneck. Virden is about half an hour South of Springfield. If you drive South on I-55 from Chicago you pass within a few miles of it. We all have our stereotypes. Personally, I have a . . . . less than kind attitude toward Chicago city slickers. I know this is wrong, but it's there. I know some nice people there, but most seem so helpless and at the same time so arrogantly certain that everything South of I-80 is wasteland populated by inbred mouth-breathers. My mother works for the Department of Conservation, and they once called the Chicago office to ask for volunteers to work at the Illinois State Fair in Springfield. The woman who answered the phone gushed "Oh, I'll volunteer I've never been out of the state before!" I'm sure you're a nice person, but you had the misfortune of having Chicago represented by my in-laws and my old college roommate ("You know, down here, when night falls, it gets really. . . .DARK!") On the issue of homosexuality, I don't really have an opinion one way or another. I simply mind my own business. I find that a man who minds his own business need not spend a lot of time figuring out how to bend others to his will.

Your words speak for themselves. I for one will now heave a huge sigh of relief that you don't consider the above, technically, to be "hate." Thanks a lot.

"Mace" is a brand name for a version of CS. People use it to mean all defensive sprays, but most of the others are OC, at least over here. You can get sprays that mix the two.

Yes, that's certainly a difference between us. Americans LIKE being able to tell the difference. Britons almost seem like they want to be able to pretend . . . . . . If you ever get to the U.S., find a Shiner Bock. I promise, no urine traits. It's just damn good stuff. I've been told it's not really a bock, but I wouldn't know. It's not Coors or Budweiser, I promise. At least you took Madonna off our hands. We are, however, going to have to smack you around for the Spice Girls. Sorry, it's a matter of principle. If we let you do something like that to us we'll be getting it from all sides; we've already got the damn Canadians sending everybody they don't want to listen to South to bug us. You don't by any chance want George Michael and Hugh Grant back, do you? Because that could be arranged.

It's considered pejorative here, too, by a lot of people. But in the states there was a mad scramble a few years ago to find euphemisms to replace all the words that had become pejorative even though they were accurate descriptions. "Retarded" became "special" and "mentally handicapped." "Handicapped," meanwhile, became "disabled" and, when that wasn't soft enough, "differently abled." The problem was that these terms were not accurate. If you're handicapped, say you are in a wheelchair, you are not "differently abled." The inability to use your legs is a handicap. Nothing wrong with you as a person, but you do have a handicap. "Differently abled" makes it sound like you have psychic powers or the ability to fly. The real problem, however, was predictable--people weren't making fun of -retarded kids because they thought the word -retarded had a funny ring to it. The word had nothing to do with it. The sorry sacks of pus were making fun of the kids for their handicap, and no matter what euphemism you substituted for the last "pejorative term" you couldn't keep up. They'd be chanting it on the schoolyard the next day with enough venom to make a kid cry. Changing the word accomplished nothing except to make communication more difficult and muddy the language further, which wasn't something English exactly needed in the first place.

Thanks. . . . . I think. You have something against gun-toting rednecks? You ain't one o' them city boys, is you?

Ralph Macchio vs. all three little kids from Three Ninjas

Bended=folded? That's OK. With modern steel you don't really need that. The Japanese were very steel-poor when they developed their sword design. They had to smelt iron out of iron-bearing sand and add carbon in a fairly difficult process. This resulted in steel of very uneven quality; if you forged a billet into a blade, you might have a few inches of top-quality steel with the proper carbon content, followed by a few inches with too much of some alloying element, followed by an inch with none of that element. In order to minimize this problem, they developed their famous method of repeatedly folding and welding the billet. Forge welding is not exactly what most people think of when they think of welding with a modern wire-feed welder. Two large chunks can be effectively blended and welded into one piece, not just along a narrow edge where a "bead" is formed. By doing this and then folding it again and welding that fold shut, and repeating the process hundreds (sometimes thousands) of times they would spread out impurities and alloying elements alike and create a more homogenous blend. What strata there were ended up as one or two out of a thousand layers all solidly welded as one chunk of steel. To be able to weld that way--perfect welds along the entire face of a large billet, over and over again hundreds of times in a row without ever creating a cold shut or burning out the carbon. . . it's something. I can weld, which is considered something of a milestone for a smith, but I'm a long way from being able to do that. And all by eye! If you haven't tried it, you can't know how really impossible it seems. Anyway, the point is, a folded sword is well worth the price if you have the money. The smith has put many hours into it with a skill most people will never possess. It took him years and years of apprenticeship and making next to nothing as someone else's assistant just to be able to make such a blade and make a profit on it. BUT. . . . with modern steels, it isn't necessary. If you order a billet of 5160, it's 5160. All of it. You can take it out back, forge it to shape, do the heat treat correctly and have an awesome blade that will be a match for any 500-year-old kahamagane piece. Of course, that's a little like saying you can build your Camaro to be faster than a Corvette. It might be, but the Corvette owner will still prefer his car. It has that "something." So does a truly old sword. As a matter of fact, the persistent myth that Japanese swords were superior to European blades of the same period is also untrue. The European smiths had much better steel to work with and did not generally develop the amazing skill a Japanese smith required to make a good blade, but their swords were good nonetheless and certainly a match for the Japanese.

Comfortable shoes and a handgun. Best for running, best for for fighting. Absolutely no question. Do you mean which weapon commonly studied in "martial arts" (traditional Oriental hand-to-hand training?) A very distant second is probably the stick or double stick the way it's taught in the Filipino arts. If you can use a stick, you can pick up anything from a chunk of firewood to a bottle to a piece of pipe and have a good chance. You can also carry an ASP extendable baton in some states (not mine) so you don't have to pick up litter. If you should find yourself with a knife, stick training will translate well.

I can perform the Kata Dante in under 10 seconds and thus am eligible for an automatic black belt rank from the Black Dragon Society. However, that would jeopardize several deep cover missions I'm working on right now for the SEELs (I could tell you, but I'd have to kill you) * so I'm learning the basic form (Ki Cho?) for my white belt in TKD. I believe my school is WTF, but I know the black belts are required to know both Palgwe and Tae Geuk forms. *Everything from this point on is true.

Of course. America has a few weird things too. (Just a few, mind you. ) Pork Rinds. Whose idea was THAT, anyway? I have a friend who likes the freaking things and recently tried--I swear--microwaveable pork rinds. He puked. SUVs. Dear God, do I hate those wannabe station wagons. Buy a truck or buy a wagon, people. Punkin Chunkin' Actually, I like this one a lot. It's a big contest where people build all manner of cannon, catapaults and trebuchet and launch pumpkins for distance. Very cool. Still weird. Our speed limits drive me nuts. I'd prefer the German model even with all the additional driver training. We're REALLY religious. I get the impression that we take it a lot more seriously than Europeans do. Which is fine if you're into that, but to an outsider looks a little. . . . weird. Everything has to be bigger. More food! Bigger SUV! I looked it up recently and I think a super-size #4 meal from McDonald's, which I used to love to have with a Coke, is the equivalent of my current daily calorie intake. What the hell is up with that? Still. . . . all that said. . . . at least we know enough to chill beer.

Bryan Fury. King has the coolest combos, though.

"As an example, when presented with danger from another in a public place, a private citizen is under a duty to retreat unless in doing so he would be placed in greater danger." From a law enforcement seminar on the "myth" of citizen arrest as opposed to citizen detainment in North Carolina. That's at least one state where if you don't walk away from a public threat, you have agreed to fight and are responsible for your actions as if you had attacked with no provocation. The exception is when you cannot safely retreat. If you're cornered, or you'd have to swim a raging river or something, you can stand and fight with no legal consequences. http://www.jus.state.nc.us/NCJA/!apr97.htm Bon, you can worry about the consequences later, but by then it will be too late to take the most sensible tack, which is to tell the police the truth and let the chips fall where they may. By the time they track you down and force you to face the consequences you are, in everyone's mind, the man who hurt someone and ran away. This establishes an idea of guilt before you ever have a chance to tell your side. Bad idea, but it's your life.

Whoa, whoa, whoa, Bon, I know that! I'm the one who trains TKD, IPSC (firearms) and knives, remember? I'm on your side here. But I'm telling you there are prosecutors and (especially) civil suit litigators out there who will tell juries that the fact that you weren't satifsied with learning one deadly art but had to learn more ways to kill people with your bare hands shows what a bloodthirsty psycho you are and proves that you planned your attack on his poor, innocent client from the moment you saw him. His client, on the other hand, will be a misguided youth who had turned his life around. He was planning on getting off the crack and intended to leave his gang and marry his girlfriend, which of course can no longer happen because his promising young life was tragically cut short by the psycho vigilante. But at least we can all take comfort in the fact that he had accepted Jesus Christ as his savior before he went--he was, in fact, on his way to church when the psycho (that's you and me, remember) assaulted him for no reason.

No child ever has a say in whether he's raised by his parents. You really think the child raised by two gay people who love him is going to wake up horrified one morning with the thought--"hey, wait a minute! They were KISSING yesterday! Eeewwww!" What about a child who grows up and finds himself attracted to other men? He had no choice in whether he was raised by straight people and had to put up with all their strange (to him) ideas. It's worse for him, most likely. Most gay parents would not raise their child with a strong conviction that the child has to be gay like them. Many straight parents would. Mankr, please define natural. You're the second one to throw that out there and I'm tell you that homosexuality is natural by anyone's definition. God did not found our nation nor write it's laws. Its highest law states, in part, that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. Simply put, God is not in this argument. If he's up there, and he really truly thinks that a man lying with a man is an "abomination" as the Bible says, then he'll mete out the punishment, not us.

Depends on who's buying. We sell a lot of weapons to governments. The Chinese sell a lot as well, and the old parts of the Soviet Union sell to anyone. Is there something immoral about selling weapons?

Cops are expected to know more law than the average lawyer does, and they get strange ideas. Don't rely on them for legal advice. It's not their fault, it's just the nature of the job they do. Phantasm, just because someone is in your house does not necessarily mean you can shoot him. The standard is whether you were reasonable in believing that he was a threat and your life or the life of someone else was in danger. If you confront a burglar with a gun, for instance, and he gives up and follows your commands, you'd better not fire. This is a pretty reasonable law. If he advances upon you, refuses to drop his weapon, etc, you are justified in stopping him. NEVER think in terms of what justifies "killing" someone. NOTHING does, legally. You are to STOP him. This is also better from a self-defense standpoint; there are many things you can do that would kill the attacker but unless he is immediately incapacitated he can continue the attack and kill you before he goes. Not much of a victory. In empty-hand terms, you might be able to open a cut that will eventually be lethal. However, that can't be your concern because in the meantime he can still fight and will kill you before he dies unless you STOP him. Make him incapable of attacking again or cause him to give up. And again, nothing in law justifies the attitude that you will set out to kill him, even if he tries to kill you. It only justifies using a level of force that could or likely will kill him. That's why we speak of "using lethal force" rather than "killing." The two really are different.

Kickchick, that may be true in Connecticut, and it is true in Illinois as well, but there are still many "must retreat" states. There are even states where you must retreat from your own home before you can legally defend yourself. Only if pursued and caught are you legally allowed to fight. I'll try to get the names of the individual states in a moment and come back with them. CKStudent, Eye of the Tiger succinctly stated the risk in your position. Whoever first reports the incident will be believed until evidence shows otherwise. Additionally, there are bound to be witnesses. Believe me, I've been through this scenario a million times. The gun-owner community is full of people who believet that anti-self-defense prosecutors and police will crucify them if they defend themselves, so they advocate simply running off if there were no witnesses. Some go as far as "Shoot, shovel, and shut up." Then of course, there's the old chestnut about putting a knife in the dead burglar's hand or dragging him inside. Not that you would advocate those things, I just needed a moment to relive the silliness. The problem with these ideas is that they'll get you caught. Unless you're in the middle of the desert, there are ALWAYS witnesses. In an urban setting there are probably between 3-5 if the street looks completely empty to you. As long as you used force in a justified way, these people are assets. If they percieve it as "mutually agreed combat" and you running off to hide your crime, you're in trouble. There is almost always physical evidence as well. You may leave blood or saliva on the ground or your assailant; you may lose a button or drop your keys; you will certainly leave hair and dead skin, if they can find them. If you just popped the guy one, that might not be a big deal (unless his dad's a big contributor to the sherriff) but if he died or came close, they'll do the DNA tests. If they find any other excuse to question or arrest you, they've got you. Now, even after running away, if it's a VERY clear-cut case of justified self-defense, you MIGHT be able to prove that and get off the hook. But once you run and try to hide you will be investigated on the presumption that you did something wrong. Wait for the police. Say nothing except "He attacked me, I didn't want to hurt him, I was in fear for my life, I want a lawyer."

You shouldn't be laughing. . . . Drunken Boxing is a formidable art . . . . .

This is why you can't always just play along and trust in the nice robbers, who clearly are only robbing you because they were abused as children and they need to steal just enough to feed their own hungry kids. It's too bad they were able to bind her; it sounds like she might have lived otherwise. Shouldn't have let them do that but there's no telling whether she had any opening at all at that time. http://www.arizonarepublic.com/ariz...10murder10.html Mesa mom dies saving daughter, friend in robbery By Senta Scarborough and Patricia Biggs The Arizona Republic July 10, 2002 12:00:00 A Mesa woman, bound with duct tape, saved the lives of her teenage daughter and friend by facing off against two armed intruders, fatally shooting one before she was slain in her bedroom. Wallace heard Kuhne telling the assailants, "Take all my money, take everything." "They seemed to agree that they were going to start killing, with me first," Wallace said.

Could be worse--you could be in Illinois. There is NO CCW, ever, for any reason. No exceptions. You're a battered woman and your husband has threatened your life? Sorry, no. You're a cop whose department doesn't authorize carrying off-duty? Too bad. Oh? You say some Crip has threatened to kill your daughter and rape your wife? That's REALLY too bad. Good luck with that. There is only one way to be allowed to carry a gun concealed in Illinois--be a law enforcement officer. HOWEVER--if you are an alderman in Chicago, you are technically considered an LEO. Therefore, you don't NEED a permit to carry a concealed weapon. Thus we can't prove that these people who won't even let their citizens own firearms are carrying guns themselves by checking CCW records. CCW simply does not exist in Illinois. However, we know they carry, at least some of them. How do we know this? Besides gossip, there is Dorothy "The Hat" Tillman." "The Hat" is an alderman and thus privileged by the crown to carry a firearm. We know she has taken advantage of this privilege because she drew a revolver and waved it around at the rest of the council once in a meeting about public transit, apparently to make a point. She was not charged with anything nor forced to step down. Apparently, it's OK for her to be a complete idiot with a fiream since she belongs to the elite Political Class, but I, who can prove I know what I'm doing anywhere and any time, am simply not trustworthy.

Quick answer? Everything that has to do with war or fighting is "martial." Hence, "martial arts"--the art of fighting.