Giving photogs a bad name?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by RichA, May 18, 2014.

  1. RichA

    Whisky-dave Guest

    On Friday, 6 June 2014 06:33:26 UTC+1, Tony Cooper wrote:
    > On Thu, 5 Jun 2014 21:33:18 -0400, "J. Clarke" <>
    >
    > wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    > >In article <lmqjg9$2tg$>,

    >
    > >says...

    >
    > >>

    >
    > >> "PeterN"

    >
    > >> > On 6/4/2014 3:40 PM, PAS wrote:

    >
    > >> >> "J. Clarke" <> wrote in message

    >
    > >> >>>>

    >
    > >> >>>> True. But there is more than just the Constitution that the writers

    >
    > >> >>>> left

    >
    > >> >>>> behind, their other writing and records of speeches. The predominant

    >
    > >> >>>> writer

    >
    > >> >>>> of the 2nd Amendment considered the "militia" to be everyone. Other

    >
    > >> >>>> founders were very clear about who has the right to have firearms..

    >
    > >> >>>

    >
    > >> >>> People arguing against the individual rights interpretation are living

    >
    > >> >>> in the past. The Supreme Court has ruled, it is an individual right, it

    >
    > >> >>> is not tied to participatiion in a militia, that ship has sailed, and

    >
    > >> >>> arguing to the contrary is a waste of time and effort.

    >
    > >> >>>

    >
    > >> >>> The gun control advocates need to abandon that rhetoric and find anew

    >
    > >> >>> argument. With DC v Heller they shot themselves in the foot. The

    >
    > >> >>> Supreme Court had managed to avoid ruling on that point for more than

    >
    > >> >>> 200 years but the district attorney in DC presented such a crazy theory

    >
    > >> >>> of law (specifically the notion that the Constitution did not apply in

    >
    > >> >>> DC) that the Supreme Court pretty much _had_ to knock it down. Then

    >
    > >> >>> Chicago stuck their foot in it and got the question of whether it

    >
    > >> >>> restricted the states settled (it does). So now the legal battle is no

    >
    > >> >>> longer over whether there is such a right but what if any the

    >
    > >> >>> limitations on it might be.

    >
    > >> >>

    >
    > >> >> The anti-gun nuts will never consider it settled because they don'tagree

    >
    > >> >> with it.

    >
    > >> >>

    >
    > >> > There is a big difference between against gun nuts, and being anti guns.

    >
    > >> > If you wish to own a gun, fine provided gun ownership is subject to

    >
    > >> > reasonable regulations. Gun nuts, think everyone should have the

    >
    > >> > unrestricted right to own and carry arms, any place, at any time.

    >
    > >> > Using that definition, there are millions of people who are anti gunnuts.

    >
    > >> > Yes there are nuts on both sides of the fence.

    >
    > >>

    >
    > >> Yes, there are nuts on both sides, as there usually is. I like to usethe

    >
    > >> term "anti-gun nut" whenever someone introduces "gun-nut" into the

    >
    > >> discussion. Being in favor of he right to own a gun, I've been referred to

    >
    > >> as a gun-nut from time-to-time, usually by people who simply believe no one

    >
    > >> should ever own a gun for any reason, but also b some others who want to see

    >
    > >> more and more restrictions on our freedom.

    >
    > >

    >
    > >However anyone who persists in the "militia" rhetoric post-Heller is
    > >ignorant, in denial, or nuts.

    >
    >
    >
    > It would seem to me that any reference to the Second Amendment, by a
    > nut on either side, without a mention of "militia" is in denial.


    What I don;t understand is than if a person takes upo such arms and forms agroup of more than one person then it's is a militra.
    So a 'goup of criminals is armed , they aren;'t being paid to be armed or employed and armed. So this implies that an avergae joe of JUST one person is expected or can be said to be a defence against such a militia, I thoughtthat's what the police or armed forces were for, if tehy can;t do it what chance does the average person with a handgun have agaisnt an army with anything from handguns to rocket launchers.



    >
    > Those on the pro-gun-control side bring it up as a condition that is
    > no longer is a threat.


    The worry they appear to have is from peole like themselves that are armed but aren;t professiojnals in the filed or protection such as the police or armed forces.

    > Those on the pro-gun side bring it up
    > obliquely as a need for the citizenry to arm themselves to defend
    > against the only invading force that is feared: our federal
    > government.


    That does seem a bit wierd and I don't understand how they believe that their few guns in their possesion will protect them if teh government send in the army or any other paids with helicopter gunships, aircraft carriers andteh wealth of amrerments that the US army, navy and airforce have.

    The real worlksm isn;t like the independance day movie where a little guy can bring done a whole invading armed force with aq handgun or a laptop.
    It's fantasy it's fiction.



    > professional If the citizenry is prepared to form and defend, that's a
    >
    > militia.


    So they are infact only defending themselves from like minded people i.e nutters ;-)


    Although while watching a program about the NRA, they seemed to be having agood time shooting off round after round with their mates, if the only people that got killed or injured by guns were gun owners I'd say let everyonehave a gun if they want one.
    But the biggest nutter there was an anti-gun women, who's main gripe on camera appeared to be that the guns make really loud noises as she cowered behind her car covering her ears !
     
    Whisky-dave, Jun 6, 2014
    1. Advertising

  2. RichA

    PAS Guest

    "Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message
    news:2014060604485463167-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom...
    > On 2014-06-06 11:32:24 +0000, Whisky-dave <> said:
    >
    > But the biggest nutter there was an anti-gun women, who's main gripe on
    > cam
    >> era appeared to be that the guns make really loud noises as she cowered
    >> beh
    >> ind her car covering her ears !

    >
    > Hey! being around guns and shooting is a noisy experience. Always use
    > hearing protection. Even if you are an anti-gun nut.
    >
    > --
    > Regards,
    >
    > Savageduck


    You've spent more time at ranges than I will in ten lifetimes. Have you
    ever come across anyone at a range that was not wearing hearing protection?
     
    PAS, Jun 6, 2014
    1. Advertising

  3. RichA

    Tony Cooper Guest

    On Fri, 6 Jun 2014 04:32:24 -0700 (PDT), Whisky-dave
    <> wrote:

    >> >However anyone who persists in the "militia" rhetoric post-Heller is
    >> >ignorant, in denial, or nuts.

    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> It would seem to me that any reference to the Second Amendment, by a
    >> nut on either side, without a mention of "militia" is in denial.

    >
    >What I don;t understand is than if a person takes upo such arms and forms
    >a group of more than one person then it's is a militra.


    It depends. A group of armed citizens is either a mob or a militia,
    depending on your viewpoint.

    Back in the old days (which is fair to use since the militia aspect
    goes back to even older days), when an armed mob stormed the jail and
    took the accused out and lynched him, we think of that as wrong.

    We have no indication that any armed mob/militia will behave anymore
    reasonably today.



    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando FL
     
    Tony Cooper, Jun 6, 2014
  4. RichA

    Whisky-dave Guest

    On Friday, 6 June 2014 15:26:28 UTC+1, Tony Cooper wrote:
    > On Fri, 6 Jun 2014 04:32:24 -0700 (PDT), Whisky-dave
    >
    > <> wrote:


    >
    > It depends. A group of armed citizens is either a mob or a militia,
    > depending on your viewpoint.


    Well if their weapons are legal is there a differnce.


    > Back in the old days (which is fair to use since the militia aspect
    > goes back to even older days), when an armed mob stormed the jail and
    > took the accused out and lynched him, we think of that as wrong.


    Well if they are going against the law then I guess they are wrong.


    > We have no indication that any armed mob/militia will behave anymore
    > reasonably today.


    Well perhaps we do, there's a book thats been written can;t remmeber much about it but it stats that on average the world is less violent than it was..
    I can only lok at this ancedotaly from my earlier interests in castle and the fascination I had with torture instruments, I remmeber the eye gourgerswhich were metal imstruments used for removing eyes. There were many othernasty instruments including streaching racks. We used to hang-draw-quarter..
    ah those were they days when we had real punishments rather than sticking a tag on someone leg and remote monitoring them ;-)

    So I do think that overall the world is a less violent place, than it was.
     
    Whisky-dave, Jun 6, 2014
  5. RichA

    Tony Cooper Guest

    On Fri, 6 Jun 2014 08:11:56 -0700 (PDT), Whisky-dave
    <> wrote:

    >On Friday, 6 June 2014 15:26:28 UTC+1, Tony Cooper wrote:
    >> On Fri, 6 Jun 2014 04:32:24 -0700 (PDT), Whisky-dave
    >>
    >> <> wrote:

    >
    >>
    >> It depends. A group of armed citizens is either a mob or a militia,
    >> depending on your viewpoint.

    >
    >Well if their weapons are legal is there a differnce.
    >

    I don't think so. It's the actions, not the legality of owning
    weapons, that make a difference.

    While it may be pointed out that the guns were obtained legally, or
    illegally, we react to a shooting incident based on the actions of the
    shooter.

    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando FL
     
    Tony Cooper, Jun 6, 2014
  6. RichA

    PeterN Guest

    On 6/6/2014 1:33 AM, Tony Cooper wrote:
    > On Thu, 5 Jun 2014 21:33:18 -0400, "J. Clarke" <>
    > wrote:
    >
    >> In article <lmqjg9$2tg$>,
    >> says...
    >>>
    >>> "PeterN"
    >>>> On 6/4/2014 3:40 PM, PAS wrote:
    >>>>> "J. Clarke" <> wrote in message
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> True. But there is more than just the Constitution that the writers
    >>>>>>> left
    >>>>>>> behind, their other writing and records of speeches. The predominant
    >>>>>>> writer
    >>>>>>> of the 2nd Amendment considered the "militia" to be everyone. Other
    >>>>>>> founders were very clear about who has the right to have firearms.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> People arguing against the individual rights interpretation are living
    >>>>>> in the past. The Supreme Court has ruled, it is an individual right, it
    >>>>>> is not tied to participatiion in a militia, that ship has sailed, and
    >>>>>> arguing to the contrary is a waste of time and effort.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> The gun control advocates need to abandon that rhetoric and find a new
    >>>>>> argument. With DC v Heller they shot themselves in the foot. The
    >>>>>> Supreme Court had managed to avoid ruling on that point for more than
    >>>>>> 200 years but the district attorney in DC presented such a crazy theory
    >>>>>> of law (specifically the notion that the Constitution did not apply in
    >>>>>> DC) that the Supreme Court pretty much _had_ to knock it down. Then
    >>>>>> Chicago stuck their foot in it and got the question of whether it
    >>>>>> restricted the states settled (it does). So now the legal battle is no
    >>>>>> longer over whether there is such a right but what if any the
    >>>>>> limitations on it might be.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> The anti-gun nuts will never consider it settled because they don't agree
    >>>>> with it.
    >>>>>
    >>>> There is a big difference between against gun nuts, and being anti guns.
    >>>> If you wish to own a gun, fine provided gun ownership is subject to
    >>>> reasonable regulations. Gun nuts, think everyone should have the
    >>>> unrestricted right to own and carry arms, any place, at any time.
    >>>> Using that definition, there are millions of people who are anti gun nuts.
    >>>> Yes there are nuts on both sides of the fence.
    >>>
    >>> Yes, there are nuts on both sides, as there usually is. I like to use the
    >>> term "anti-gun nut" whenever someone introduces "gun-nut" into the
    >>> discussion. Being in favor of he right to own a gun, I've been referred to
    >>> as a gun-nut from time-to-time, usually by people who simply believe no one
    >>> should ever own a gun for any reason, but also b some others who want to see
    >>> more and more restrictions on our freedom.

    >>
    >> However anyone who persists in the "militia" rhetoric post-Heller is
    >> ignorant, in denial, or nuts.

    >
    > It would seem to me that any reference to the Second Amendment, by a
    > nut on either side, without a mention of "militia" is in denial.
    >
    > Those on the pro-gun-control side bring it up as a condition that is
    > no longer is a threat. Those on the pro-gun side bring it up
    > obliquely as a need for the citizenry to arm themselves to defend
    > against the only invading force that is feared: our federal
    > government. If the citizenry is prepared to form and defend, that's a
    > militia.
    >


    There are those of us who are in favor of gun control, but not against
    the private ownership of guns. The notion of one side or another is just
    more NRA gunk.

    those who claim there is such a need, forget that small arms would be of
    little use against the Federal guvernment.



    --
    PeterN
     
    PeterN, Jun 6, 2014
  7. RichA

    PeterN Guest

    On 6/6/2014 4:05 PM, Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
    > PeterN <> wrote:
    >> On 6/6/2014 1:33 AM, Tony Cooper wrote:
    >>> On Thu, 5 Jun 2014 21:33:18 -0400, "J. Clarke" <>
    >>> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> In article <lmqjg9$2tg$>,
    >>>> says...
    >>>>>
    >>>>> "PeterN"
    >>>>>> On 6/4/2014 3:40 PM, PAS wrote:
    >>>>>>> "J. Clarke" <> wrote in message
    >>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>> True. But there is more than just the Constitution that the writers
    >>>>>>>>> left
    >>>>>>>>> behind, their other writing and records of speeches. The predominant
    >>>>>>>>> writer
    >>>>>>>>> of the 2nd Amendment considered the "militia" to be everyone. Other
    >>>>>>>>> founders were very clear about who has the right to have firearms.
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> People arguing against the individual rights interpretation are living
    >>>>>>>> in the past. The Supreme Court has ruled, it is an individual right, it
    >>>>>>>> is not tied to participatiion in a militia, that ship has sailed, and
    >>>>>>>> arguing to the contrary is a waste of time and effort.
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> The gun control advocates need to abandon that rhetoric and find a new
    >>>>>>>> argument. With DC v Heller they shot themselves in the foot. The
    >>>>>>>> Supreme Court had managed to avoid ruling on that point for more than
    >>>>>>>> 200 years but the district attorney in DC presented such a crazy theory
    >>>>>>>> of law (specifically the notion that the Constitution did not apply in
    >>>>>>>> DC) that the Supreme Court pretty much _had_ to knock it down. Then
    >>>>>>>> Chicago stuck their foot in it and got the question of whether it
    >>>>>>>> restricted the states settled (it does). So now the legal battle is no
    >>>>>>>> longer over whether there is such a right but what if any the
    >>>>>>>> limitations on it might be.
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> The anti-gun nuts will never consider it settled because they don't agree
    >>>>>>> with it.
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>> There is a big difference between against gun nuts, and being anti guns.
    >>>>>> If you wish to own a gun, fine provided gun ownership is subject to
    >>>>>> reasonable regulations. Gun nuts, think everyone should have the
    >>>>>> unrestricted right to own and carry arms, any place, at any time.
    >>>>>> Using that definition, there are millions of people who are anti gun nuts.
    >>>>>> Yes there are nuts on both sides of the fence.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Yes, there are nuts on both sides, as there usually is. I like to use the
    >>>>> term "anti-gun nut" whenever someone introduces "gun-nut" into the
    >>>>> discussion. Being in favor of he right to own a gun, I've been referred to
    >>>>> as a gun-nut from time-to-time, usually by people who simply believe no one
    >>>>> should ever own a gun for any reason, but also b some others who want to see
    >>>>> more and more restrictions on our freedom.
    >>>>
    >>>> However anyone who persists in the "militia" rhetoric post-Heller is
    >>>> ignorant, in denial, or nuts.
    >>>
    >>> It would seem to me that any reference to the Second Amendment, by a
    >>> nut on either side, without a mention of "militia" is in denial.
    >>>
    >>> Those on the pro-gun-control side bring it up as a condition that is
    >>> no longer is a threat. Those on the pro-gun side bring it up
    >>> obliquely as a need for the citizenry to arm themselves to defend
    >>> against the only invading force that is feared: our federal
    >>> government. If the citizenry is prepared to form and defend, that's a
    >>> militia.
    >>>

    >>
    >> There are those of us who are in favor of gun control,
    >> but not against the private ownership of guns. The
    >> notion of one side or another is just more NRA gunk.
    >>
    >> those who claim there is such a need, forget that small
    >> arms would be of little use against the Federal
    >> guvernment.

    >
    > It should also be noted that the Second Amendment did
    > not intend to arm citizens to fight the Federal
    > government.
    >
    > The Founding Fathers did not want a standing army to
    > defend the country against *foreign* invaders. They
    > intended to arm a militia rather than a standing army.
    > Today we have, and necessarily need, a standing army
    > (how else could we invade places like Iraq, or
    > Vietnam...).
    >
    > The Second Amendment had nothing to do with private
    > ownership of guns (or "gun control") either for private
    > purposes or for defense against our own government.


    At the battle oc Cowpens, Morgan used the "reliability" of the militia
    to good advantage.

    >
    > As you say, that's all misinformation from the NRA.
    >



    --
    PeterN
     
    PeterN, Jun 6, 2014
  8. RichA

    Tony Cooper Guest

    On Fri, 06 Jun 2014 17:00:44 -0500, George Kerby
    <> wrote:

    >
    >
    >
    >On 6/4/14 2:40 PM, in article lmnsnm$3gi$, "PAS"
    ><> wrote:
    >
    >> "Whisky-dave" <> wrote in message
    >>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> On 2014-05-28 04:23:14 +0000, "J. Clarke" <> said:
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> That said, no way am I giving up my guns!!
    >>>>>
    >>>>> I'm curious as to why this is or why you feel that way.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> I do understand that in general americans do see guns in a differnt way
    >>>>> to
    >>>>> those of us in the UK and perhaps other countries too.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> I don't see this as a being right or wrong but a reflection on the
    >>>>> society you
    >>>>>
    >>>>> would like to live in and that goes for most things.
    >>>> An armed society is a free society.
    >>>
    >>> Doesn't seem that free to me when so many are incarsurated FIVE times the
    >>> number we lock up here per 100,000. It seems a >significant number seem to
    >>> need a gun to protect themselves and their family, but from whom is the
    >>> big question.
    >>> Some on here suggested that it's because of us Brits and our taxes which
    >>> was why the 2nd admentment and the right to bear arms >comes from.
    >>>
    >>> People are incarcerated because they've committed crimes. Shall we turn
    >>> them loose just so that the statistics indicate we have less >in jail than
    >>> in the UK? Statistics don't tell the whole story, as you should know.
    >>> People are locked up here for crimes that do not >warrant incarceration in
    >>> other countries. If you write a bad check, you can go to jail here. IS
    >>> that the case in the UK.

    >>
    >> If you want to judge by statistics alone, we shall say the the UK is a very
    >> racist nation because there are proportionally far mor black people jailed
    >> in the UK than in the US. See what statistics can do?
    >>

    >
    >Whiskey should be made aware of the classic "Tale of Two Cities"...
    >
    >A Tale of Two Cities
    >
    > Chicago, IL Houston, TX
    >Population 2.7 million 2.15 million
    >Median HH Income $38,600 $37,000
    >% African-American 38.9% 24%
    >% Hispanic 29.9% 44%
    >% Asian 5.5% 6%
    >% Non-Hispanic White 28.7% 26%
    >
    >Pretty similar until you compare the following:
    >
    > Chicago, IL Houston, TX
    >Concealed Carry gun law no yes
    ># of Gun Stores 0 184 *
    >Homicides, 2012 1,806 207
    >Homicides per 100K 38.4 9.6
    >Avg. January high temperature (F) 31 63
    >
    >Conclusion: Cold weather causes murder


    My conclusion is that you can come up with figures to suit your point.

    According to city-data.com, your Chicago murder figure is greatly
    inflated. They say:

    Murder, Houston, 2012, 217.
    Murder, Chicago, 2012, 500.

    http://www.city-data.com/crime/crime-Houston-Texas.html
    http://www.city-data.com/crime/crime-Chicago-Illinois.html


    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando FL
     
    Tony Cooper, Jun 6, 2014
  9. RichA

    PeterN Guest

    On 6/6/2014 6:31 PM, George Kerby wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    > On 6/6/14 2:39 PM, in article , "PeterN"
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >> On 6/6/2014 1:33 AM, Tony Cooper wrote:
    >>> On Thu, 5 Jun 2014 21:33:18 -0400, "J. Clarke" <>
    >>> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> In article <lmqjg9$2tg$>,
    >>>> says...
    >>>>>
    >>>>> "PeterN"
    >>>>>> On 6/4/2014 3:40 PM, PAS wrote:
    >>>>>>> "J. Clarke" <> wrote in message
    >>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>> True. But there is more than just the Constitution that the writers
    >>>>>>>>> left
    >>>>>>>>> behind, their other writing and records of speeches. The predominant
    >>>>>>>>> writer
    >>>>>>>>> of the 2nd Amendment considered the "militia" to be everyone. Other
    >>>>>>>>> founders were very clear about who has the right to have firearms.
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> People arguing against the individual rights interpretation are living
    >>>>>>>> in the past. The Supreme Court has ruled, it is an individual right, it
    >>>>>>>> is not tied to participatiion in a militia, that ship has sailed, and
    >>>>>>>> arguing to the contrary is a waste of time and effort.
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> The gun control advocates need to abandon that rhetoric and find a new
    >>>>>>>> argument. With DC v Heller they shot themselves in the foot. The
    >>>>>>>> Supreme Court had managed to avoid ruling on that point for more than
    >>>>>>>> 200 years but the district attorney in DC presented such a crazy theory
    >>>>>>>> of law (specifically the notion that the Constitution did not apply in
    >>>>>>>> DC) that the Supreme Court pretty much _had_ to knock it down. Then
    >>>>>>>> Chicago stuck their foot in it and got the question of whether it
    >>>>>>>> restricted the states settled (it does). So now the legal battle is no
    >>>>>>>> longer over whether there is such a right but what if any the
    >>>>>>>> limitations on it might be.
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> The anti-gun nuts will never consider it settled because they don't agree
    >>>>>>> with it.
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>> There is a big difference between against gun nuts, and being anti guns.
    >>>>>> If you wish to own a gun, fine provided gun ownership is subject to
    >>>>>> reasonable regulations. Gun nuts, think everyone should have the
    >>>>>> unrestricted right to own and carry arms, any place, at any time.
    >>>>>> Using that definition, there are millions of people who are anti gun nuts.
    >>>>>> Yes there are nuts on both sides of the fence.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Yes, there are nuts on both sides, as there usually is. I like to use the
    >>>>> term "anti-gun nut" whenever someone introduces "gun-nut" into the
    >>>>> discussion. Being in favor of he right to own a gun, I've been referred to
    >>>>> as a gun-nut from time-to-time, usually by people who simply believe no one
    >>>>> should ever own a gun for any reason, but also b some others who want to
    >>>>> see
    >>>>> more and more restrictions on our freedom.
    >>>>
    >>>> However anyone who persists in the "militia" rhetoric post-Heller is
    >>>> ignorant, in denial, or nuts.
    >>>
    >>> It would seem to me that any reference to the Second Amendment, by a
    >>> nut on either side, without a mention of "militia" is in denial.
    >>>
    >>> Those on the pro-gun-control side bring it up as a condition that is
    >>> no longer is a threat. Those on the pro-gun side bring it up
    >>> obliquely as a need for the citizenry to arm themselves to defend
    >>> against the only invading force that is feared: our federal
    >>> government. If the citizenry is prepared to form and defend, that's a
    >>> militia.
    >>>

    >>
    >> There are those of us who are in favor of gun control, but not against
    >> the private ownership of guns. The notion of one side or another is just
    >> more NRA gunk.
    >>

    > Bullshit.
    >
    >> those who claim there is such a need, forget that small arms would be of
    >> little use against the Federal guvernment.
    >>

    >
    > The mind-numbed are SO friggin' helpless are they not, folks?
    >


    Do you think all US citizens should have an unrestricted right to own
    fully operational, in all respects, including armaments:
    (please answer the question for each item)
    For purposes of your answer assume that neither money, nor national
    security is a consideration.


    Assault rifles similar to the AK47

    BAR

    50 CAL rifles

    Apache helicopters

    Mortars

    Bradley fighting vehicles

    Sherman tanks


    Abrams tanks


    Hand grenade

    Bazookas


    M32 grenade launcher


    150 mm Howitzer


    Armed drones


    Nuclear weapons



    --
    PeterN
     
    PeterN, Jun 7, 2014
  10. RichA

    Robert Coe Guest

    On Wed, 04 Jun 2014 09:41:32 -0500, George Kerby <>
    wrote:
    :
    :
    :
    : On 5/27/14 2:34 PM, in article ,
    : "Bowser" <> wrote:
    :
    : > On Tue, 27 May 2014 10:29:24 -0400, "PAS" <>
    : > wrote:
    : >
    : >> "Bowser" <> wrote in message
    : >> news:...
    : >>> On Thu, 22 May 2014 22:28:01 -0400, Robert Coe <> wrote:
    : >>>
    : >>>> On Mon, 19 May 2014 09:44:03 -0500, George Kerby
    : >>>> <>
    : >>>> wrote:
    : >>>> :
    : >>>> :
    : >>>> :
    : >>>> : On 5/19/14 8:48 AM, in article lld23n$co5$, "PAS"
    : >>>> : <> wrote:
    : >>>> :
    : >>>> : >
    : >>>> : > "Bowser" <> wrote in message
    : >>>> : > news:...
    : >>>> : >> On Sat, 17 May 2014 23:00:22 -0700 (PDT), RichA
    : >>>> <>
    : >>>> : >> wrote:
    : >>>> : >>
    : >>>> : >>>
    : >>>>
    : http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2014/05/17/bloggers-arrest-shakes-up-m>>>>
    : i
    : >>>> : >>> ssissippi-republican-primary/
    : >>>> : >>
    : >>>> : >> the blogger was a tea party supporter. 'nuff said.
    : >>>> : >
    : >>>> : > So am I. Don't got the way of a bigot and paint everyone with a broad
    : >>>> : > brush. What the blogger did is reprehensible but it is not a
    : >>>> reflection on
    : >>>> : > the group, just himself.
    : >>>> : >
    : >>>> :
    : >>>> : "bowser" is a lapdog for dimwit libtards. He LOVES Uncle SugarDaddy
    : >>>> running
    : >>>> : his life, so that response was as expected...
    : >>>>
    : >>>> Fine. Think what you like. You will anyway. But unlike you, I've actually
    : >>>> met
    : >>>> Bowser. He and I spent several hours on a photo shoot, prowling the city
    : >>>> where
    : >>>> I work. And he's not at all the way you describe him.
    : >>>
    : >>> OK, you win. I'm buying during the next walkabout in Boston, or
    : >>> whever. :) I'm due for a trip to the big city.
    : >>>
    : >>>>
    : >>>> As I recall, Bowser worked his way through college as a photographer. He
    : >>>> was a
    : >>>> regular contributor to the Shoot-In and served a couple of terms running
    : >>>> it.
    : >>>> Have we ever seen any of your work?
    : >>>>
    : >>>> Bob
    : >>>
    : >>> I committed the cardinal sin: I disagreed with a staunch conservative.
    : >>> As soon as that happens, you are automatically a bleeding heart, left
    : >>> win, commie socialist who wants to feed babies to whales. In reality,
    : >>> I'm a staunch defender of the second amendment, want English as a
    : >>> legal national language, am in favor of sealng the borders, and would
    : >>> vote republican if one, a real one, ever runs again. But hey, let
    : >>> George have his say. He seems to enjoy it quite a bit. Someday he may
    : >>> even post a link to some of his pics.
    : >>>
    : >>> Nah, never happen.
    : >>
    : >> I'm a staunch conservative. If you don't disagree with me on something, I
    : >> wouldn't consider you normal and the same standard applies to me. If we can
    : >> agree on a majority of issues, then we are in the same camp. I'll never
    : >> agree 100% with anyone and neither will you and that's perfectly fine. What
    : >> I refuse to do is pick my friends based on whether we agree politically.
    : >> That would be foolish. Before we were laid off a couple of years ago, the
    : >> one co-worker I got along with best is completely on the other side
    : >> politically. Were still in touch on a regular basis and get along as well
    : >> as we ever did. I tell him he's my favorite Commie. What we have most in
    : >> common is that we treat people with the compassion and respect we wish to be
    : >> treated with.
    : >>
    : >
    : > I have lots of friends who disagree with me politically. My running
    : > gag is "it doesn't bother either one of us that the other is always
    : > wrong."
    : >
    : > But, for some reason, when I call BS on some claims, I'm immediately
    : > labeled as an Obama supporter. Hardly. Calling BS on something is only
    : > that, and just that. But the truth is that I've never seen such
    : > avalanches of BS directed at a president as I have the last 5 years.
    : > It's epic, and pretty embarassing. FEMA camps? The "gun grab?" The UN
    : > invading small towns in Texas? Honestly, at some point all those
    : > "experts" who made these predictions should, and will, feel pretty
    : > stupid. I'm a fan of one thing, and that's facts.
    :
    : With the actions of this Administration in the past week, do you still feel
    : the same toward one of, if not THE, most lawless administrations in US
    : history?
    :
    : Let me say that I only said what I did because you exhibited what most
    : people do when the matters of the Tea Party come up: Belt out immediate
    : negative opinions without knowing the FACTS of those of us who share the
    : values of the Tea Party and that is LESS GOVERNMENT interference in their
    : lives. The Fourth Estate is solely responsible for that picture, I
    : understand, but I would have expected more from you because, otherwise you
    : are a seemingly bright and talented individual.
    :
    : I am not free from doing the same on many occasions. Therefore, I will offer
    : the apology of misspeaking out of built up anger against those who
    : unknowingly portray those of the Tea Party as raving Nazi maniacs, all
    : because of Media bias.
    :
    : BTW: It should be interesting to see how Obama gets out of this little
    : situation with "prisoner" deserter...

    Every single thing we've heard so far is consistent with the possibility that
    Bergdahl was an American spy sent, under the cover of pretending to be a
    deserter, to infiltrate the Taliban. Even if he weren't, the Government might
    choose to behave as though he were, just to keep the Taliban guessing. In
    cases like this it's a mistake to jump to conclusions about the actions or
    motivations of any of the participants.

    Bob
     
    Robert Coe, Jun 7, 2014
  11. RichA

    PeterN Guest

    On 6/6/2014 9:28 PM, Robert Coe wrote:

    <snip>
    >
    > Every single thing we've heard so far is consistent with the possibility that
    > Bergdahl was an American spy sent, under the cover of pretending to be a
    > deserter, to infiltrate the Taliban. Even if he weren't, the Government might
    > choose to behave as though he were, just to keep the Taliban guessing. In
    > cases like this it's a mistake to jump to conclusions about the actions or
    > motivations of any of the participants.
    >
    > Bob
    >

    Why!. If we wait until the facts are in, the radical right will have
    missed a chance to bash our President.


    --
    PeterN
     
    PeterN, Jun 7, 2014
  12. RichA

    Robert Coe Guest

    On Sun, 08 Jun 2014 10:48:18 -0500, George Kerby <>
    wrote:
    :
    : On 6/6/14 8:28 PM, in article ,
    : "Robert Coe" <> wrote:
    :
    : > Every single thing we've heard so far is consistent with the possibility
    : > that Bergdahl was an American spy sent, under the cover of pretending
    : > to be a deserter, to infiltrate the Taliban. Even if he weren't, the
    : > Government might choose to behave as though he were, just to keep the
    : > Taliban guessing. In cases like this it's a mistake to jump to
    : > conclusions about the actions or motivations of any of the participants.
    : >
    : > Bob
    :
    : And pigs fly.

    George, I know you're distressed that you haven't sprouted wings, but just
    give it time …

    Bob
     
    Robert Coe, Jun 8, 2014
  13. RichA

    PeterN Guest

    On 6/8/2014 11:46 AM, George Kerby wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    > On 6/6/14 6:11 PM, in article , "PeterN"
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >> On 6/6/2014 6:31 PM, George Kerby wrote:
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> On 6/6/14 2:39 PM, in article , "PeterN"
    >>> <> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> On 6/6/2014 1:33 AM, Tony Cooper wrote:
    >>>>> On Thu, 5 Jun 2014 21:33:18 -0400, "J. Clarke" <>
    >>>>> wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> In article <lmqjg9$2tg$>,
    >>>>>> says...
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> "PeterN"
    >>>>>>>> On 6/4/2014 3:40 PM, PAS wrote:
    >>>>>>>>> "J. Clarke" <> wrote in message
    >>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>> True. But there is more than just the Constitution that the writers
    >>>>>>>>>>> left
    >>>>>>>>>>> behind, their other writing and records of speeches. The predominant
    >>>>>>>>>>> writer
    >>>>>>>>>>> of the 2nd Amendment considered the "militia" to be everyone. Other
    >>>>>>>>>>> founders were very clear about who has the right to have firearms.
    >>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>> People arguing against the individual rights interpretation are living
    >>>>>>>>>> in the past. The Supreme Court has ruled, it is an individual right,
    >>>>>>>>>> it
    >>>>>>>>>> is not tied to participatiion in a militia, that ship has sailed, and
    >>>>>>>>>> arguing to the contrary is a waste of time and effort.
    >>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>> The gun control advocates need to abandon that rhetoric and find a new
    >>>>>>>>>> argument. With DC v Heller they shot themselves in the foot. The
    >>>>>>>>>> Supreme Court had managed to avoid ruling on that point for more than
    >>>>>>>>>> 200 years but the district attorney in DC presented such a crazy
    >>>>>>>>>> theory
    >>>>>>>>>> of law (specifically the notion that the Constitution did not apply in
    >>>>>>>>>> DC) that the Supreme Court pretty much _had_ to knock it down. Then
    >>>>>>>>>> Chicago stuck their foot in it and got the question of whether it
    >>>>>>>>>> restricted the states settled (it does). So now the legal battle is
    >>>>>>>>>> no
    >>>>>>>>>> longer over whether there is such a right but what if any the
    >>>>>>>>>> limitations on it might be.
    >>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>> The anti-gun nuts will never consider it settled because they don't
    >>>>>>>>> agree
    >>>>>>>>> with it.
    >>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> There is a big difference between against gun nuts, and being anti guns.
    >>>>>>>> If you wish to own a gun, fine provided gun ownership is subject to
    >>>>>>>> reasonable regulations. Gun nuts, think everyone should have the
    >>>>>>>> unrestricted right to own and carry arms, any place, at any time.
    >>>>>>>> Using that definition, there are millions of people who are anti gun
    >>>>>>>> nuts.
    >>>>>>>> Yes there are nuts on both sides of the fence.
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> Yes, there are nuts on both sides, as there usually is. I like to use
    >>>>>>> the
    >>>>>>> term "anti-gun nut" whenever someone introduces "gun-nut" into the
    >>>>>>> discussion. Being in favor of he right to own a gun, I've been referred
    >>>>>>> to
    >>>>>>> as a gun-nut from time-to-time, usually by people who simply believe no
    >>>>>>> one
    >>>>>>> should ever own a gun for any reason, but also b some others who want to
    >>>>>>> see
    >>>>>>> more and more restrictions on our freedom.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> However anyone who persists in the "militia" rhetoric post-Heller is
    >>>>>> ignorant, in denial, or nuts.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> It would seem to me that any reference to the Second Amendment, by a
    >>>>> nut on either side, without a mention of "militia" is in denial.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Those on the pro-gun-control side bring it up as a condition that is
    >>>>> no longer is a threat. Those on the pro-gun side bring it up
    >>>>> obliquely as a need for the citizenry to arm themselves to defend
    >>>>> against the only invading force that is feared: our federal
    >>>>> government. If the citizenry is prepared to form and defend, that's a
    >>>>> militia.
    >>>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> There are those of us who are in favor of gun control, but not against
    >>>> the private ownership of guns. The notion of one side or another is just
    >>>> more NRA gunk.
    >>>>
    >>> Bullshit.
    >>>
    >>>> those who claim there is such a need, forget that small arms would be of
    >>>> little use against the Federal guvernment.
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>> The mind-numbed are SO friggin' helpless are they not, folks?
    >>>

    >>
    >> Do you think all US citizens should have an unrestricted right to own
    >> fully operational, in all respects, including armaments:
    >> (please answer the question for each item)
    >> For purposes of your answer assume that neither money, nor national
    >> security is a consideration.
    >>

    >
    > You are being either a fool or trying to be cute. Neither are working...
    >


    Well, when are you giving a reasoned and rational response?
    I await it with bated breath.

    --
    PeterN
     
    PeterN, Jun 10, 2014
  14. RichA

    PeterN Guest

    On 6/9/2014 10:29 PM, Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
    > PeterN <> wrote:
    >> On 6/8/2014 11:46 AM, George Kerby wrote:
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> On 6/6/14 6:11 PM, in article , "PeterN"
    >>> <> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> On 6/6/2014 6:31 PM, George Kerby wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>> On 6/6/14 2:39 PM, in article , "PeterN"
    >>>>> <> wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> On 6/6/2014 1:33 AM, Tony Cooper wrote:
    >>>>>>> On Thu, 5 Jun 2014 21:33:18 -0400, "J. Clarke" <>
    >>>>>>> wrote:
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> In article <lmqjg9$2tg$>,
    >>>>>>>> says...
    >>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>> "PeterN"
    >>>>>>>>>> On 6/4/2014 3:40 PM, PAS wrote:
    >>>>>>>>>>> "J. Clarke" <> wrote in message
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>> True. But there is more than just the Constitution that the writers
    >>>>>>>>>>>>> left
    >>>>>>>>>>>>> behind, their other writing and records of speeches. The predominant
    >>>>>>>>>>>>> writer
    >>>>>>>>>>>>> of the 2nd Amendment considered the "militia" to be everyone. Other
    >>>>>>>>>>>>> founders were very clear about who has the right to have firearms.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>> People arguing against the individual rights interpretation are living
    >>>>>>>>>>>> in the past. The Supreme Court has ruled, it is an individual right,
    >>>>>>>>>>>> it
    >>>>>>>>>>>> is not tied to participatiion in a militia, that ship has sailed, and
    >>>>>>>>>>>> arguing to the contrary is a waste of time and effort.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>> The gun control advocates need to abandon that rhetoric and find a new
    >>>>>>>>>>>> argument. With DC v Heller they shot themselves in the foot. The
    >>>>>>>>>>>> Supreme Court had managed to avoid ruling on that point for more than
    >>>>>>>>>>>> 200 years but the district attorney in DC presented such a crazy
    >>>>>>>>>>>> theory
    >>>>>>>>>>>> of law (specifically the notion that the Constitution did not apply in
    >>>>>>>>>>>> DC) that the Supreme Court pretty much _had_ to knock it down. Then
    >>>>>>>>>>>> Chicago stuck their foot in it and got the question of whether it
    >>>>>>>>>>>> restricted the states settled (it does). So now the legal battle is
    >>>>>>>>>>>> no
    >>>>>>>>>>>> longer over whether there is such a right but what if any the
    >>>>>>>>>>>> limitations on it might be.
    >>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>> The anti-gun nuts will never consider it settled because they don't
    >>>>>>>>>>> agree
    >>>>>>>>>>> with it.
    >>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>> There is a big difference between against gun nuts, and being anti guns.
    >>>>>>>>>> If you wish to own a gun, fine provided gun ownership is subject to
    >>>>>>>>>> reasonable regulations. Gun nuts, think everyone should have the
    >>>>>>>>>> unrestricted right to own and carry arms, any place, at any time.
    >>>>>>>>>> Using that definition, there are millions of people who are anti gun
    >>>>>>>>>> nuts.
    >>>>>>>>>> Yes there are nuts on both sides of the fence.
    >>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>> Yes, there are nuts on both sides, as there usually is. I like to use
    >>>>>>>>> the
    >>>>>>>>> term "anti-gun nut" whenever someone introduces "gun-nut" into the
    >>>>>>>>> discussion. Being in favor of he right to own a gun, I've been referred
    >>>>>>>>> to
    >>>>>>>>> as a gun-nut from time-to-time, usually by people who simply believe no
    >>>>>>>>> one
    >>>>>>>>> should ever own a gun for any reason, but also b some others who want to
    >>>>>>>>> see
    >>>>>>>>> more and more restrictions on our freedom.
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> However anyone who persists in the "militia" rhetoric post-Heller is
    >>>>>>>> ignorant, in denial, or nuts.
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> It would seem to me that any reference to the Second Amendment, by a
    >>>>>>> nut on either side, without a mention of "militia" is in denial.
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> Those on the pro-gun-control side bring it up as a condition that is
    >>>>>>> no longer is a threat. Those on the pro-gun side bring it up
    >>>>>>> obliquely as a need for the citizenry to arm themselves to defend
    >>>>>>> against the only invading force that is feared: our federal
    >>>>>>> government. If the citizenry is prepared to form and defend, that's a
    >>>>>>> militia.
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> There are those of us who are in favor of gun control, but not against
    >>>>>> the private ownership of guns. The notion of one side or another is just
    >>>>>> more NRA gunk.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>> Bullshit.
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> those who claim there is such a need, forget that small arms would be of
    >>>>>> little use against the Federal guvernment.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>> The mind-numbed are SO friggin' helpless are they not, folks?
    >>>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> Do you think all US citizens should have an unrestricted right to own
    >>>> fully operational, in all respects, including armaments:
    >>>> (please answer the question for each item)
    >>>> For purposes of your answer assume that neither money, nor national
    >>>> security is a consideration.
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>> You are being either a fool or trying to be cute. Neither are working...
    >>>

    >>
    >> Well, when are you giving a reasoned and rational response?
    >> I await it with bated breath.

    >
    > What is working very well though, is how you've cornered him.
    >


    I just let him corner himself.


    --
    PeterN
     
    PeterN, Jun 10, 2014
  15. RichA

    PeterN Guest

    On 6/10/2014 3:46 PM, George Kerby wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    > On 6/9/14 7:37 PM, in article , "PeterN"
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >> On 6/8/2014 11:46 AM, George Kerby wrote:
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> On 6/6/14 6:11 PM, in article , "PeterN"
    >>> <> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> On 6/6/2014 6:31 PM, George Kerby wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>> On 6/6/14 2:39 PM, in article , "PeterN"
    >>>>> <> wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> On 6/6/2014 1:33 AM, Tony Cooper wrote:
    >>>>>>> On Thu, 5 Jun 2014 21:33:18 -0400, "J. Clarke" <>
    >>>>>>> wrote:
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> In article <lmqjg9$2tg$>,
    >>>>>>>> says...
    >>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>> "PeterN"
    >>>>>>>>>> On 6/4/2014 3:40 PM, PAS wrote:
    >>>>>>>>>>> "J. Clarke" <> wrote in message
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>> True. But there is more than just the Constitution that the
    >>>>>>>>>>>>> writers
    >>>>>>>>>>>>> left
    >>>>>>>>>>>>> behind, their other writing and records of speeches. The
    >>>>>>>>>>>>> predominant
    >>>>>>>>>>>>> writer
    >>>>>>>>>>>>> of the 2nd Amendment considered the "militia" to be everyone.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>> Other
    >>>>>>>>>>>>> founders were very clear about who has the right to have firearms.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>> People arguing against the individual rights interpretation are
    >>>>>>>>>>>> living
    >>>>>>>>>>>> in the past. The Supreme Court has ruled, it is an individual
    >>>>>>>>>>>> right,
    >>>>>>>>>>>> it
    >>>>>>>>>>>> is not tied to participatiion in a militia, that ship has sailed,
    >>>>>>>>>>>> and
    >>>>>>>>>>>> arguing to the contrary is a waste of time and effort.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>> The gun control advocates need to abandon that rhetoric and find a
    >>>>>>>>>>>> new
    >>>>>>>>>>>> argument. With DC v Heller they shot themselves in the foot. The
    >>>>>>>>>>>> Supreme Court had managed to avoid ruling on that point for more
    >>>>>>>>>>>> than
    >>>>>>>>>>>> 200 years but the district attorney in DC presented such a crazy
    >>>>>>>>>>>> theory
    >>>>>>>>>>>> of law (specifically the notion that the Constitution did not apply
    >>>>>>>>>>>> in
    >>>>>>>>>>>> DC) that the Supreme Court pretty much _had_ to knock it down. Then
    >>>>>>>>>>>> Chicago stuck their foot in it and got the question of whether it
    >>>>>>>>>>>> restricted the states settled (it does). So now the legal battle is
    >>>>>>>>>>>> no
    >>>>>>>>>>>> longer over whether there is such a right but what if any the
    >>>>>>>>>>>> limitations on it might be.
    >>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>> The anti-gun nuts will never consider it settled because they don't
    >>>>>>>>>>> agree
    >>>>>>>>>>> with it.
    >>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>> There is a big difference between against gun nuts, and being anti
    >>>>>>>>>> guns.
    >>>>>>>>>> If you wish to own a gun, fine provided gun ownership is subject to
    >>>>>>>>>> reasonable regulations. Gun nuts, think everyone should have the
    >>>>>>>>>> unrestricted right to own and carry arms, any place, at any time.
    >>>>>>>>>> Using that definition, there are millions of people who are anti gun
    >>>>>>>>>> nuts.
    >>>>>>>>>> Yes there are nuts on both sides of the fence.
    >>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>> Yes, there are nuts on both sides, as there usually is. I like to use
    >>>>>>>>> the
    >>>>>>>>> term "anti-gun nut" whenever someone introduces "gun-nut" into the
    >>>>>>>>> discussion. Being in favor of he right to own a gun, I've been
    >>>>>>>>> referred
    >>>>>>>>> to
    >>>>>>>>> as a gun-nut from time-to-time, usually by people who simply believe no
    >>>>>>>>> one
    >>>>>>>>> should ever own a gun for any reason, but also b some others who want
    >>>>>>>>> to
    >>>>>>>>> see
    >>>>>>>>> more and more restrictions on our freedom.
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> However anyone who persists in the "militia" rhetoric post-Heller is
    >>>>>>>> ignorant, in denial, or nuts.
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> It would seem to me that any reference to the Second Amendment, by a
    >>>>>>> nut on either side, without a mention of "militia" is in denial.
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> Those on the pro-gun-control side bring it up as a condition that is
    >>>>>>> no longer is a threat. Those on the pro-gun side bring it up
    >>>>>>> obliquely as a need for the citizenry to arm themselves to defend
    >>>>>>> against the only invading force that is feared: our federal
    >>>>>>> government. If the citizenry is prepared to form and defend, that's a
    >>>>>>> militia.
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> There are those of us who are in favor of gun control, but not against
    >>>>>> the private ownership of guns. The notion of one side or another is just
    >>>>>> more NRA gunk.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>> Bullshit.
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> those who claim there is such a need, forget that small arms would be of
    >>>>>> little use against the Federal guvernment.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>> The mind-numbed are SO friggin' helpless are they not, folks?
    >>>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> Do you think all US citizens should have an unrestricted right to own
    >>>> fully operational, in all respects, including armaments:
    >>>> (please answer the question for each item)
    >>>> For purposes of your answer assume that neither money, nor national
    >>>> security is a consideration.
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>> You are being either a fool or trying to be cute. Neither are working...
    >>>

    >>
    >> Well, when are you giving a reasoned and rational response?
    >> I await it with bated breath.

    >
    > I would say "BAITed" breath is more your style.
    >
    > Go make another strawman...
    >


    Just answer the question, please.


    --
    PeterN
     
    PeterN, Jun 10, 2014
  16. RichA

    PAS Guest

    "Floyd L. Davidson" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > George Kerby <> wrote:
    >>On 6/9/14 9:29 PM, in article , "Floyd L.
    >>Davidson"
    >><> wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>Floyd. Learn that throwing down ridiculous propositions is NOT
    >>"cornering",
    >>please.

    >
    > You didn't answer the questions, because they show just
    > what it is that is ridiculous.
    >
    > For one, the idea that "gun control" means "against
    > private ownership" is ridiculous. I own guns, I am very
    > much in favor of significantly increased control of
    > guns. But I am clearly very much in favor of private
    > gun ownership.
    >
    > But why are gun magazines all about assault weapons, not
    > about hunting?


    We are not permitted to own assualt weapons. Assault weapons are automatic.
    This constant drone about "assault" weapons is a lie. Just because a rifle
    resembles a military rifle doesn't make it an assault rifle. You should
    know that.

    > Why does everyone need a handgun that is too big to
    > shoot and has no purpose other than ego inflation or
    > killing people?


    Where does the Constitution indicate that a citizen must demonstrate a
    "need" in order to exercise his/her rights? If I want to get myself a 357
    Magnum like Dirty Harry used, then I can. I don't have to demonstrate to
    anyone whether or not I need one. Does my neighbor who has no kids have to
    prove he needs that huge GMC Suburban he drives? If he wants it and can
    afford it, he can buy it.

    >>For instance, liberals state that We are advised to NOT judge ALL Muslims
    >>by
    >>the actions of a few lunatics, but we are encouraged to judge ALL gun
    >>owners
    >>by the actions of a few lunatics.
    >>
    >>Funny how that works...

    >
    > Funny that you make up things which are false in order
    > to argue something. Why not stick with facts?
    >
    >>So you do not see what totally insane hyperboles he suggested is not
    >>relevant to a normal conversation without the hysteria of the Gun Control
    >>Proles?!?

    >
    > The insanity comes from your side, as seen in what you
    > just said.
    >
    >>IN ALASKA?!? My-my...

    >
    > Yes, exactly. A place where guns are clearly necessary
    > and useful. We actually use them for something
    > reasonable. Note that I don't own an AR-15 or an M16.
    > I have no high capacity clips, nor even a gun that can
    > use them.


    And it's your choice not to own any of those rifles but your choices don't
    have to be my choices. I have a coworker who is an vocal gun-control
    supporter. You'll hear him say over and over that "I don't believe anyone
    should own a gun". His personal beliefs have no bearing on our rights,
    thankfully. Your choices have no bearing on them either.
     
    PAS, Jun 11, 2014
  17. RichA

    PeterN Guest

    On 6/11/2014 9:13 AM, PAS wrote:
    > "Floyd L. Davidson" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> George Kerby <> wrote:
    >>> On 6/9/14 9:29 PM, in article , "Floyd L.
    >>> Davidson"
    >>> <> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> Floyd. Learn that throwing down ridiculous propositions is NOT
    >>> "cornering",
    >>> please.

    >>
    >> You didn't answer the questions, because they show just
    >> what it is that is ridiculous.
    >>
    >> For one, the idea that "gun control" means "against
    >> private ownership" is ridiculous. I own guns, I am very
    >> much in favor of significantly increased control of
    >> guns. But I am clearly very much in favor of private
    >> gun ownership.
    >>
    >> But why are gun magazines all about assault weapons, not
    >> about hunting?

    >
    > We are not permitted to own assualt weapons. Assault weapons are automatic.
    > This constant drone about "assault" weapons is a lie. Just because a rifle
    > resembles a military rifle doesn't make it an assault rifle. You should
    > know that.


    Are you saying that there should e no regulation of ownership of weapons?
    Discussion of the degree of regulation is a different discussion than
    whether ownership should be regulated.

    >
    >> Why does everyone need a handgun that is too big to
    >> shoot and has no purpose other than ego inflation or
    >> killing people?

    >
    > Where does the Constitution indicate that a citizen must demonstrate a
    > "need" in order to exercise his/her rights? If I want to get myself a 357
    > Magnum like Dirty Harry used, then I can. I don't have to demonstrate to
    > anyone whether or not I need one. Does my neighbor who has no kids have to
    > prove he needs that huge GMC Suburban he drives? If he wants it and can
    > afford it, he can buy it.
    >
    >>> For instance, liberals state that We are advised to NOT judge ALL Muslims
    >>> by
    >>> the actions of a few lunatics, but we are encouraged to judge ALL gun
    >>> owners
    >>> by the actions of a few lunatics.
    >>>
    >>> Funny how that works...

    >>
    >> Funny that you make up things which are false in order
    >> to argue something. Why not stick with facts?
    >>
    >>> So you do not see what totally insane hyperboles he suggested is not
    >>> relevant to a normal conversation without the hysteria of the Gun Control
    >>> Proles?!?

    >>
    >> The insanity comes from your side, as seen in what you
    >> just said.
    >>
    >>> IN ALASKA?!? My-my...

    >>
    >> Yes, exactly. A place where guns are clearly necessary
    >> and useful. We actually use them for something
    >> reasonable. Note that I don't own an AR-15 or an M16.
    >> I have no high capacity clips, nor even a gun that can
    >> use them.

    >
    > And it's your choice not to own any of those rifles but your choices don't
    > have to be my choices. I have a coworker who is an vocal gun-control
    > supporter. You'll hear him say over and over that "I don't believe anyone
    > should own a gun". His personal beliefs have no bearing on our rights,
    > thankfully. Your choices have no bearing on them either.
    >
    >



    --
    PeterN
     
    PeterN, Jun 11, 2014
  18. RichA

    Whisky-dave Guest

    On Wednesday, 11 June 2014 14:13:07 UTC+1, PAS wrote:
    > "Floyd L. Davidson" <> wrote in message




    >
    >
    > We are not permitted to own assualt weapons. Assault weapons are automatic.


    So how does the 2nd admentment (think thats the right one) expect an induvidual to protect themselves from an Assault weapon ?



    > > Why does everyone need a handgun that is too big to
    > > shoot and has no purpose other than ego inflation or
    > > killing people?

    >
    >
    > Where does the Constitution indicate that a citizen must demonstrate a
    > "need" in order to exercise his/her rights?


    Perhaps that's part of the problem, there's a reason, I assume I'm not allowed a nuclear weapon or a laser of 10mw. Why can I have what I want provided I pay for it. We have the same problems here.

    I've heard somne wierd laws but it;'s difficult to tell whether they are true or a wind up. I was told by that in LA :-

    "It is a misdemeanor to shoot at any kind of game from a moving vehicle, unless the target is a whale"

    I bet savageduck knows, he may have even arrested someone for it, that would be interesting. Doeswn;t say anything about not shooting at humans.



    >If I want to get myself a 357
    > Magnum like Dirty Harry used, then I can. I don't have to demonstrate to
    > anyone whether or not I need one.


    Why should other contries need to prove they 'need' a nuclear weapon before they are allowed to have them ?


    > Does my neighbor who has no kids have to
    > prove he needs that huge GMC Suburban he drives? If he wants it and can
    > afford it, he can buy it.


    The 'needs' of the many......or the wants of a few.

    wasn;t tehre as shootiong yeasterday in Portland this week.
    Did the person doing the shooting 'need' a gun or 'want' a gun.
    Shoul;d he have been allowed to purchase the gun or own it.

    > >>For instance, liberals state that We are advised to NOT judge ALL Muslims
    > >>by
    > >>the actions of a few lunatics,


    We or rather some of us try not to.

    > but we are encouraged to judge ALL gun
    > >>owners
    > >>by the actions of a few lunatics.


    Is that really the case, I don;t think it is. Trouble is a few lunatics can kill quite a few people, I'd prefer to keep guns out of teh hands of lunatic in the same way I'd like to keep nuclear weapons (& WMDs) out of their hands too.

    But it seems lunatics(and others) quote "the right to bear arms" but I'm betting those founding fathers would have hanged such peole by the neck until they were dead rather than give them weapons to kill fellow americans.


    > >>Funny how that works...





    > >>IN ALASKA?!? My-my...

    >
    > >

    >
    > > Yes, exactly. A place where guns are clearly necessary
    > > and useful. We actually use them for something
    > > reasonable.


    Like crime ?
    http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2011/jan/10/gun-crime-us-state
    Over half the murders were commited using guns.


    > Note that I don't own an AR-15 or an M16.
    > > I have no high capacity clips, nor even a gun that can
    > > use them.

    >
    >
    >
    > And it's your choice not to own any of those rifles but your choices don't
    > have to be my choices.


    We can't all choose the way we die.

    >I have a coworker who is an vocal gun-control
    > supporter. You'll hear him say over and over that "I don't believe anyone
    > should own a gun". His personal beliefs have no bearing on our rights,
    > thankfully. Your choices have no bearing on them either.


    Do you think your personal beliefs have any bearing on those mulims that piloted the planes into the twin towers.
    Do yuo think anyone should be able to own and pilot a plane.
    Would you restrict those owners to when and where they can fly ?

    I notice that 'law 36.25.010' won't allow me to take my flamingo into a barbers shop. I've yet to find a death caused by such a thing.
     
    Whisky-dave, Jun 11, 2014
  19. RichA

    Whisky-dave Guest

    On Wednesday, 11 June 2014 16:00:40 UTC+1, George Kerby wrote:


    >
    > OK, Automobile deaths are WAY ahead of death by guns (along with a myriad of
    > other causes), I HOPE you would agree.


    I do, but

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_motor_vehicle_deaths_in_U.S._by_year
    http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2011/jan/10/gun-crime-us-state


    2011 32,367 motor vehicles
    2011 8583 guns

    1972 54,589 motor vehicles.

    So you see the number of deaths isn't constant and it can be altered depending on what laws and conditions that are in force. For whatever reason 1972 seemed like a bad year in the USA for vehicle deaths.


    > So, let me propose that Government demands and regulates ALL motorists to
    > drive ONLY Smart cars and Fiats,


    Personally I'd make sure those that were driving could actual drive, I'd even suggest a test and anyone that didn;t past the test would n ot be allowed to drive. I'd have another test to make sure that teh vehicles are of a reasonable standard.

    > because statistics show that those two
    > models do NOT seem to kill as many people as other larger vehicles.

    Are you sure it's just size .


    > By this
    > action, people would NOT be allowed to buy and drive SUV's, sports cars,
    > etc.


    I'd make sure they are proficient in driving the vehicle they choose, I'dput age limits on drivers too, just because some passed their test at 18 in a car I wouldn;t assume at the age of 99 they'd still have teh necessary skills.
    if they were blind or death.

    Would you let anyone that wanted to pilot a plane do so over NYC or any other city that wanted to ?, or would you only restrict people of certain beliefs or purhaps colour. After all far more peole get killed in the US by cars than they do by planes.


    > So where YOU think that a particular weapon is 'overkill' so to speak,


    I'd say when it's used to kill someone delibratly rather than accidently and they have no other use for it.




    >
    > > Yes, exactly. A place where guns are clearly necessary
    > > and useful. We actually use them for something
    > > reasonable. Note that I don't own an AR-15 or an M16.
    > > I have no high capacity clips, nor even a gun that can
    > > use them.

    >
    >
    >
    > That's why there is a market for more than Vanilla ice cream.


    There's a market for crack cocaine too.


    > Some people
    > might and some will not. I know it is unlikely, but in the event you might
    > just run across a mama moose with a brand new baby and you startle her and
    > she decides to charge your ass, tell me, which would you rather have? A .22
    > long bolt action or a AR-15?


    I'd rather have a car I could get in and drive away.
    I'd aviod the first choice of shoot first, after all there might be another' american behind a tree stalking the moose and he might shoot me because he thought I was shooting at him. Would you kill teh baby moose too ?
     
    Whisky-dave, Jun 11, 2014
  20. RichA

    PAS Guest

    "Whisky-dave" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Wednesday, 11 June 2014 16:00:40 UTC+1, George Kerby wrote:
    >
    >
    >>
    >> OK, Automobile deaths are WAY ahead of death by guns (along with a myriad
    >> of
    >> other causes), I HOPE you would agree.

    >
    > I do, but
    >
    > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_motor_vehicle_deaths_in_U.S._by_year
    > http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2011/jan/10/gun-crime-us-state
    >
    >
    > 2011 32,367 motor vehicles
    > 2011 8583 guns
    >
    > 1972 54,589 motor vehicles.
    >
    > So you see the number of deaths isn't constant and it can be altered
    > depending on what laws and conditions that are in force. For whatever
    > reason 1972 seemed like a bad year in the USA for vehicle deaths.
    >
    >
    >> So, let me propose that Government demands and regulates ALL motorists to
    >> drive ONLY Smart cars and Fiats,

    >
    > Personally I'd make sure those that were driving could actual drive, I'd
    > even suggest a test and anyone that didn;t past the test would n ot be
    > allowed to drive. I'd have another test to make sure that teh vehicles are
    > of a reasonable standard.


    That's why there are driving tests in order to get one's driver's license.
    Maybe there are some states that don't require one, I don't know. We have
    yearly safety inspections that our cars must pass in NY in order to stay on
    the road. There is also a myriad of regulations for safety in veicles that
    the manufactureres must adhere to. Cars are far more safer now than they
    have ever been.

    >> because statistics show that those two
    >> models do NOT seem to kill as many people as other larger vehicles.

    > Are you sure it's just size .
    >
    >
    >> By this
    >> action, people would NOT be allowed to buy and drive SUV's, sports cars,
    >> etc.

    >
    > I'd make sure they are proficient in driving the vehicle they choose,
    > I'dput age limits on drivers too, just because some passed their test at
    > 18 in a car I wouldn;t assume at the age of 99 they'd still have teh
    > necessary skills.
    > if they were blind or death.


    Good luck with putting an age limit on drivers. The old folks have an
    extremely powerful political lobby here and I suggest that any proposition
    like that will go down in flames. Also, you can't make an arbitrary
    decision that people of "x" age can no longer drive. I know some old folks
    that are excellent drivers and some young ones that shouldn't be behind the
    wheel. If someone proposes that after a certain age one must be retested in
    order to renew a license, they'll claim it is age discrimination. People 65
    and older are involved in more accidents per mile driven than any other age
    group.

    > Would you let anyone that wanted to pilot a plane do so over NYC or any
    > other city that wanted to ?, or would you only restrict people of certain
    > beliefs or purhaps colour. After all far more peole get killed in the US
    > by cars than they do by planes.
    >
    >
    >> So where YOU think that a particular weapon is 'overkill' so to speak,

    >
    > I'd say when it's used to kill someone delibratly rather than accidently
    > and they have no other use for it.



    >
    >>
    >> > Yes, exactly. A place where guns are clearly necessary
    >> > and useful. We actually use them for something
    >> > reasonable. Note that I don't own an AR-15 or an M16.
    >> > I have no high capacity clips, nor even a gun that can
    >> > use them.

    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> That's why there is a market for more than Vanilla ice cream.

    >
    > There's a market for crack cocaine too.
    >
    >
    >> Some people
    >> might and some will not. I know it is unlikely, but in the event you
    >> might
    >> just run across a mama moose with a brand new baby and you startle her
    >> and
    >> she decides to charge your ass, tell me, which would you rather have? A
    >> .22
    >> long bolt action or a AR-15?

    >
    > I'd rather have a car I could get in and drive away.
    > I'd aviod the first choice of shoot first, after all there might be
    > another' american behind a tree stalking the moose and he might shoot me
    > because he thought I was shooting at him. Would you kill teh baby moose
    > too ?


    Let's rephrase it. It's only you and the momma moose with her baby. There's
    no car, you just hiked five miles to the spot you're on. You won't outrun a
    charging moose. You either get severely injured or killed or you shoot. Do
    you want a .22 or an AR-15?
     
    PAS, Jun 11, 2014
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. GovtLawyer

    Press Photogs Use What lenses?

    GovtLawyer, Jan 29, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    646
  2. Replies:
    12
    Views:
    2,989
    Michael Alan Chary
    Feb 23, 2005
  3. Replies:
    0
    Views:
    512
  4. Chris

    Flash Content in Photogs Website?

    Chris, Oct 31, 2006, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    11
    Views:
    576
    PossumTrot
    Nov 2, 2006
  5. John

    Bad media, bad files or bad Nero?

    John, Dec 31, 2007, in forum: Computer Information
    Replies:
    23
    Views:
    1,240
    Keith
    Jan 8, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page