Giving photogs a bad name?

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

  1. RichA

    Tony Cooper Guest

    On Wed, 11 Jun 2014 09:13:07 -0400, "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.


    To be a "nut" on either side requires distorting language and ignoring
    meaning to make a case.

    The anti-gun nut says "Why do you need an assault rifle to hunt deer?"

    The gun nut replies "This constant drone about 'assault' weapons is a
    lie."

    The anti-gun nut is not concerned that the NRA lobby has squeezed the
    definition of "assault weapons" down to certain types of weapons:
    those which fire on an automatic setting. The M4A1 is an assault
    rifle, and the AR-15 is not. The question is *not* "Why do you need
    an M4A1 to hunt deer?" The question is "Why do you need either to
    hunt deer?".

    By achieving a limited definition of "assault rifle", the NRA has
    accomplished creating a gap in the logical interpretation of the
    language.

    What is the function of either the M4A1 or the AR-15 if not to be used
    in assault tactics? In what situation would anyone not engaged in a
    military action need an AR-15? That's the question in the mind of the
    anti-gun nut.

    The gun nut is incapable of providing any reason to own a M4A1 other
    than "A bunch of guys in wigs and knee breeches in the 1700s were
    worried that the citizens who revolted against the King might need
    weapons to revolt against the next group of rulers.". Or, in other
    words, "because I can".

    >
    >> 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.


    Of course the Second Amendment indicates a need: to provide a well
    regulated militia.

    Are you a member of a militia? You want to ignore one part of the
    statement, but use the other part.

    The current form of "militia" is the military. We don't deny them the
    right to carry an assault rifle.



    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando FL
     
    Tony Cooper, Jun 11, 2014
    1. Advertising

  2. On 6/11/2014 1:15 PM, Tony Cooper wrote:
    > On Wed, 11 Jun 2014 09:13:07 -0400, "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.

    >
    > To be a "nut" on either side requires distorting language and ignoring
    > meaning to make a case.
    >
    > The anti-gun nut says "Why do you need an assault rifle to hunt deer?"
    >
    > The gun nut replies "This constant drone about 'assault' weapons is a
    > lie."
    >
    > The anti-gun nut is not concerned that the NRA lobby has squeezed the
    > definition of "assault weapons" down to certain types of weapons:
    > those which fire on an automatic setting. The M4A1 is an assault
    > rifle, and the AR-15 is not. The question is *not* "Why do you need
    > an M4A1 to hunt deer?" The question is "Why do you need either to
    > hunt deer?".
    >
    > By achieving a limited definition of "assault rifle", the NRA has
    > accomplished creating a gap in the logical interpretation of the
    > language.
    >
    > What is the function of either the M4A1 or the AR-15 if not to be used
    > in assault tactics? In what situation would anyone not engaged in a
    > military action need an AR-15? That's the question in the mind of the
    > anti-gun nut.
    >
    > The gun nut is incapable of providing any reason to own a M4A1 other
    > than "A bunch of guys in wigs and knee breeches in the 1700s were
    > worried that the citizens who revolted against the King might need
    > weapons to revolt against the next group of rulers.". Or, in other
    > words, "because I can".
    >
    >>
    >>> 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.

    >
    > Of course the Second Amendment indicates a need: to provide a well
    > regulated militia.
    >
    > Are you a member of a militia? You want to ignore one part of the
    > statement, but use the other part.
    >
    > The current form of "militia" is the military. We don't deny them the
    > right to carry an assault rifle.
    >


    I'd generally agree with you in that the "militia" is the National
    Guard in the US. I think the British call it the "Territorial Army" or
    "National Reserve"


    --
    Jim Silverton (Potomac, MD)

    Extraneous "not." in Reply To.
     
    James Silverton, Jun 11, 2014
    1. Advertising

  3. On 6/11/2014 1:13 PM, Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
    > "PAS" <> wrote:
    >> "Whisky-dave" <> wrote:
    >>> On Wednesday, 11 June 2014 16:00:40 UTC+1, George Kerby wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> 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?

    >
    > Either would be a very poor decision.
    >
    > Of course you have to also realize that while you may
    > have seen one moose, in a zoo, in your entire life, I've
    > seen dozens of cow moose with calves in the wild.
    >
    > I've *never* felt any need to shoot in that
    > circumstance.
    >
    >>> 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?

    >
    > Why won't you outrun a moose? Sheesh, all you'd need to
    > do is *walk* away from it! (Or stand behind even a small
    > tree.)
    >
    > But let say you do have to shoot. You don't want
    > something smaller than about 6.5mm caliber, just for
    > starters. To go it one more step though, the smallest I
    > would want is a 220gr 30-06, but not for the moose.
    > Once you shoot the moose you become bear bait...
    >
    > BTW, shooting a moose after a 5 mile hike is really
    > really dumb. I realize lots of really really dumb
    > people do things like that with regularity. But packing
    > 1200 pounds of moose 5 miles is in fact really really
    > dumb.
    >

    Not just dumb but impossible unless you cut the beast up!

    --
    Jim Silverton (Potomac, MD)

    Extraneous "not." in Reply To.
     
    James Silverton, Jun 11, 2014
  4. RichA

    PAS Guest

    "Tony Cooper" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Wed, 11 Jun 2014 09:13:07 -0400, "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.

    >
    > To be a "nut" on either side requires distorting language and ignoring
    > meaning to make a case.
    >
    > The anti-gun nut says "Why do you need an assault rifle to hunt deer?"
    >
    > The gun nut replies "This constant drone about 'assault' weapons is a
    > lie."
    >
    > The anti-gun nut is not concerned that the NRA lobby has squeezed the
    > definition of "assault weapons" down to certain types of weapons:
    > those which fire on an automatic setting. The M4A1 is an assault
    > rifle, and the AR-15 is not. The question is *not* "Why do you need
    > an M4A1 to hunt deer?" The question is "Why do you need either to
    > hunt deer?".
    >
    > By achieving a limited definition of "assault rifle", the NRA has
    > accomplished creating a gap in the logical interpretation of the
    > language.
    >
    > What is the function of either the M4A1 or the AR-15 if not to be used
    > in assault tactics? In what situation would anyone not engaged in a
    > military action need an AR-15? That's the question in the mind of the
    > anti-gun nut.
    >
    > The gun nut is incapable of providing any reason to own a M4A1 other
    > than "A bunch of guys in wigs and knee breeches in the 1700s were
    > worried that the citizens who revolted against the King might need
    > weapons to revolt against the next group of rulers.". Or, in other
    > words, "because I can".
    >
    >>
    >>> 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.

    >
    > Of course the Second Amendment indicates a need: to provide a well
    > regulated militia.
    >
    > Are you a member of a militia? You want to ignore one part of the
    > statement, but use the other part.
    >
    > The current form of "militia" is the military. We don't deny them the
    > right to carry an assault rifle.


    As has been pointed out. the Supreme Court has upheld an individual's right
    to own weapons under the 2nd Amendment. You want to ignore that by arguing
    about what the militia is and is not. It doesn't matter. You can go on and
    on all you want and it still won't matter. The 2nd Amendment protects an
    individual right to own weapons, as the Supreme Court has ruled. An
    individual does not have to demonstrate any need to won an AR-15. That's
    right, I can have one simply because "I can", whether you or anyone else
    likes it. That's the beauty of the freedom we have here, I don't have to
    have anyone's approval to exercise my rights, nor do I care to have anyone's
    approval.
     
    PAS, Jun 11, 2014
  5. RichA

    PeterN Guest

    On 6/11/2014 1:13 PM, Floyd L. Davidson wrote:

    <snip>

    >
    > BTW, shooting a moose after a 5 mile hike is really
    > really dumb. I realize lots of really really dumb
    > people do things like that with regularity. But packing
    > 1200 pounds of moose 5 miles is in fact really really
    > dumb.
    >


    Reminds me of a surf fishing trip for stripers, when I kept walking down
    the beach. I realized that I had walked about two miles and that if I
    caught anything, I physically could not carry it back.
    My solution for the future: A wide wheel beach cart.




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

    nospam Guest

    In article <lna0ar$33h$>, PAS <>
    wrote:

    > > 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.


    except you don't have to know much about driving to pass the test and
    it's only given once in someone's lifetime.

    after that you just renew it, usually with a new photo. no more
    testing.

    driving tests should be far more rigorous than they are, including
    evasive maneuvers such as properly handling skids, tire blowouts,
    stalls in traffic, kid running into a street, etc., because that stuff
    happens.

    > 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.


    not all states have safety inspections and older cars don't need to be
    retrofitted for safety features.

    > Cars are far more safer now than they
    > have ever been.


    that part is true.

    > >> 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.


    that's the problem right there. a bunch of old farts forcing their
    demands on everyone and compromising everyone's safety.

    it's very simple: if you aren't capable of driving, your license is
    revoked.

    it's true that older people will fail more than younger people but
    that's just the way it is. everyone ages, and some point, they will not
    be safe to be driving.

    > Also, you can't make an arbitrary
    > decision that people of "x" age can no longer drive.


    sure you can, but it won't be popular.

    > I know some old folks
    > that are excellent drivers and some young ones that shouldn't be behind the
    > wheel.


    exactly why competency testing should be done.

    > 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.


    that's just too damned bad.

    if they're unsafe to be driving they should not be driving. very simple.

    it doesn't matter what age they are.

    > People 65
    > and older are involved in more accidents per mile driven than any other age
    > group.


    all the more reason to limit their driving.

    however, older drivers don't drive as much which is why collisions per
    mile is high. the collisions are also generally lower speed, which
    usually results in bumps and bruises versus major trauma.

    teenage drivers have more actual crashes because they drive more miles
    and take way more risks.

    then there are those drivers who plow into a crowd or building because
    they 'confused the brake with the accelerator'. anyone who can't tell
    the difference should have their license revoked on the spot, and not
    surprisingly, it's usually an elderly driver who does it.
     
    nospam, Jun 11, 2014
  7. RichA

    PeterN Guest

    On 6/11/2014 7:03 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
    > On Wed, 11 Jun 2014 12:32:31 -0400, "PAS" <>
    > wrote:
    >
    >> 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.

    >
    > I'm over 65 and now of an age where here in New Zealand I have to pass
    > several tests to show that I am still fit to drive. That includes eye
    > sight, a medical examination, and an examination to determine whether
    > or not I am giving any early sign of dementia. I may be required to
    > take an on-road driving test. I certainly have no absolute right to
    > drive.
    >


    I have a decade on you, and agree completely. I hope that I have enough
    common sense so that when the day comes that I cannot drive safely, I
    recognize that and stop driving.
    My mother-in-law was driving OK in her early eighties. Then one day she
    was involved in a fender bender. She claimed she was standing still and
    the gas pump was moving. My sister-in-law took the car away, on the
    spot. I never understood what she didn't do it sooner.
    --
    PeterN
     
    PeterN, Jun 12, 2014
  8. RichA

    PeterN Guest

    On 6/11/2014 7:31 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
    > On Wed, 11 Jun 2014 19:15:36 -0400, PeterN
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >> On 6/11/2014 7:03 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
    >>> On Wed, 11 Jun 2014 12:32:31 -0400, "PAS" <>
    >>> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> 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.
    >>>
    >>> I'm over 65 and now of an age where here in New Zealand I have to pass
    >>> several tests to show that I am still fit to drive. That includes eye
    >>> sight, a medical examination, and an examination to determine whether
    >>> or not I am giving any early sign of dementia. I may be required to
    >>> take an on-road driving test. I certainly have no absolute right to
    >>> drive.
    >>>

    >>
    >> I have a decade on you,

    >
    > Are you sure? I'm 80.


    Then I misread. I thought I saw 65. I do not have a decade on you. You
    have a few years on me.


    >
    >> and agree completely. I hope that I have enough
    >> common sense so that when the day comes that I cannot drive safely, I
    >> recognize that and stop driving.
    >> My mother-in-law was driving OK in her early eighties. Then one day she
    >> was involved in a fender bender. She claimed she was standing still and
    >> the gas pump was moving. My sister-in-law took the car away, on the
    >> spot. I never understood what she didn't do it sooner.




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

    PeterN Guest

    On 6/11/2014 7:48 PM, Savageduck wrote:

    <snip>
    >
    > Yup! The sign for my grandfather was when he parked his car in the
    > garage with the garage door closed.



    I have a friend who backed out of his garage with the door closed. He
    had been living in a house with a breezeway, and this was his first
    morning in his new house. His problem was driving while thinking of what
    he had to do each day. I can easily relate to that. One day my secretary
    moved my waste paper basket. I never noticed, and there was a pile of
    waste paper on the floor, right on the spot my waste basket formerly stood.

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

    J. Clarke Guest

    In article <2014061108552058049-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom>,
    savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com says...
    >
    > On 2014-06-11 14:39:14 +0000, Whisky-dave <> said:
    > > On Wednesday, 11 June 2014 14:13:07 UTC+1, PAS wrote:
    > >>
    > >> 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 ?

    >
    > With a bunker, a minefield, and a good rocket launcher.


    Or a bolt action target rifle and good situational awareness?
     
    J. Clarke, Jun 12, 2014
  11. RichA

    J. Clarke Guest

    In article <lna77t$mb5$>,
    says...
    >
    > "Tony Cooper" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    > > On Wed, 11 Jun 2014 09:13:07 -0400, "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.

    > >
    > > To be a "nut" on either side requires distorting language and ignoring
    > > meaning to make a case.
    > >
    > > The anti-gun nut says "Why do you need an assault rifle to hunt deer?"
    > >
    > > The gun nut replies "This constant drone about 'assault' weapons is a
    > > lie."
    > >
    > > The anti-gun nut is not concerned that the NRA lobby has squeezed the
    > > definition of "assault weapons" down to certain types of weapons:
    > > those which fire on an automatic setting. The M4A1 is an assault
    > > rifle, and the AR-15 is not. The question is *not* "Why do you need
    > > an M4A1 to hunt deer?" The question is "Why do you need either to
    > > hunt deer?".
    > >
    > > By achieving a limited definition of "assault rifle", the NRA has
    > > accomplished creating a gap in the logical interpretation of the
    > > language.
    > >
    > > What is the function of either the M4A1 or the AR-15 if not to be used
    > > in assault tactics? In what situation would anyone not engaged in a
    > > military action need an AR-15? That's the question in the mind of the
    > > anti-gun nut.
    > >
    > > The gun nut is incapable of providing any reason to own a M4A1 other
    > > than "A bunch of guys in wigs and knee breeches in the 1700s were
    > > worried that the citizens who revolted against the King might need
    > > weapons to revolt against the next group of rulers.". Or, in other
    > > words, "because I can".
    > >
    > >>
    > >>> 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.

    > >
    > > Of course the Second Amendment indicates a need: to provide a well
    > > regulated militia.
    > >
    > > Are you a member of a militia? You want to ignore one part of the
    > > statement, but use the other part.
    > >
    > > The current form of "militia" is the military. We don't deny them the
    > > right to carry an assault rifle.

    >
    > As has been pointed out. the Supreme Court has upheld an individual's right
    > to own weapons under the 2nd Amendment. You want to ignore that by arguing
    > about what the militia is and is not. It doesn't matter. You can go on and
    > on all you want and it still won't matter. The 2nd Amendment protects an
    > individual right to own weapons, as the Supreme Court has ruled. An
    > individual does not have to demonstrate any need to won an AR-15. That's
    > right, I can have one simply because "I can", whether you or anyone else
    > likes it. That's the beauty of the freedom we have here, I don't have to
    > have anyone's approval to exercise my rights, nor do I care to have anyone's
    > approval.


    You're overstating the current situation. Several states say that you
    cannot own an AR-15 and so far the Supreme Court has not told them
    otherwise. That may change or it may not.
     
    J. Clarke, Jun 12, 2014
  12. RichA

    Whisky-dave Guest

    On Wednesday, 11 June 2014 17:32:31 UTC+1, PAS wrote:
    > "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.


    Yes and it reduces the number of accidents that cause a death but I doubt it has an efect on the number of murders where the car is the tool used.


    > >> 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.


    Yes I've seen teh southpark episode......

    > 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.


    The age limit would be almost impossible to set, I wonder how insurance companies adjust there levels if they've found it's a problem. we don;t seem to have thsi problem in the UK, it's more young drivers that appear to cause more accidents.
    One way around this is to have to re-take your test or do a special profincey test if you're found guilty of driving badly or dangerously, rather than just endless or taking your license away for a year or so, whch in some case should still be done.



    > > 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.


    CNRL-ALT-DEL

    > You either get severely injured or killed or you shoot. Do
    > you want a .22 or an AR-15?


    could I have a phaser set to stun.

    I wonder how many americans that carry guns find themselves in this situation.

    Of course ther are many othere animals where a gun would be a blessing nut I wonder what the percentage is comparing those shooting animals to protect themselevs and those shooting other human being to protect themselves and then as agressors.
     
    Whisky-dave, Jun 13, 2014
  13. RichA

    PAS Guest

    "PeterN" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > 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.


    No I am not. But there is too much regulation in many cases, as I've
    demonstrated.

    >>
    >>> 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
     
    PAS, Jun 13, 2014
  14. RichA

    PAS Guest

    "J. Clarke" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > In article <lna77t$mb5$>,
    > says...
    >>
    >> "Tony Cooper" <> wrote in message
    >> news:...
    >> > On Wed, 11 Jun 2014 09:13:07 -0400, "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.
    >> >
    >> > To be a "nut" on either side requires distorting language and ignoring
    >> > meaning to make a case.
    >> >
    >> > The anti-gun nut says "Why do you need an assault rifle to hunt deer?"
    >> >
    >> > The gun nut replies "This constant drone about 'assault' weapons is a
    >> > lie."
    >> >
    >> > The anti-gun nut is not concerned that the NRA lobby has squeezed the
    >> > definition of "assault weapons" down to certain types of weapons:
    >> > those which fire on an automatic setting. The M4A1 is an assault
    >> > rifle, and the AR-15 is not. The question is *not* "Why do you need
    >> > an M4A1 to hunt deer?" The question is "Why do you need either to
    >> > hunt deer?".
    >> >
    >> > By achieving a limited definition of "assault rifle", the NRA has
    >> > accomplished creating a gap in the logical interpretation of the
    >> > language.
    >> >
    >> > What is the function of either the M4A1 or the AR-15 if not to be used
    >> > in assault tactics? In what situation would anyone not engaged in a
    >> > military action need an AR-15? That's the question in the mind of the
    >> > anti-gun nut.
    >> >
    >> > The gun nut is incapable of providing any reason to own a M4A1 other
    >> > than "A bunch of guys in wigs and knee breeches in the 1700s were
    >> > worried that the citizens who revolted against the King might need
    >> > weapons to revolt against the next group of rulers.". Or, in other
    >> > words, "because I can".
    >> >
    >> >>
    >> >>> 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.
    >> >
    >> > Of course the Second Amendment indicates a need: to provide a well
    >> > regulated militia.
    >> >
    >> > Are you a member of a militia? You want to ignore one part of the
    >> > statement, but use the other part.
    >> >
    >> > The current form of "militia" is the military. We don't deny them the
    >> > right to carry an assault rifle.

    >>
    >> As has been pointed out. the Supreme Court has upheld an individual's
    >> right
    >> to own weapons under the 2nd Amendment. You want to ignore that by
    >> arguing
    >> about what the militia is and is not. It doesn't matter. You can go on
    >> and
    >> on all you want and it still won't matter. The 2nd Amendment protects an
    >> individual right to own weapons, as the Supreme Court has ruled. An
    >> individual does not have to demonstrate any need to won an AR-15. That's
    >> right, I can have one simply because "I can", whether you or anyone else
    >> likes it. That's the beauty of the freedom we have here, I don't have to
    >> have anyone's approval to exercise my rights, nor do I care to have
    >> anyone's
    >> approval.

    >
    > You're overstating the current situation. Several states say that you
    > cannot own an AR-15 and so far the Supreme Court has not told them
    > otherwise. That may change or it may not.


    I was stating the current situation in regards to the Supreme Court ruling
    that the 2nd Amendment protects an individual's right to own weapons. What
    the states do is another matter. The Supreme Court can rule on those laws
    only when a case is brought and the wheels spin very slowly in our justice
    system. The Supreme Court has ruled on other cases where states or locales
    have overstepped and infringed on 2nd Amendment rights.
     
    PAS, Jun 13, 2014
  15. RichA

    J. Clarke Guest

    In article <lnf9hi$gfu$>, says...
    >
    > "J. Clarke" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    > > In article <lna77t$mb5$>,
    > > says...
    > >>
    > >> "Tony Cooper" <> wrote in message
    > >> news:...
    > >> > On Wed, 11 Jun 2014 09:13:07 -0400, "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.
    > >> >
    > >> > To be a "nut" on either side requires distorting language and ignoring
    > >> > meaning to make a case.
    > >> >
    > >> > The anti-gun nut says "Why do you need an assault rifle to hunt deer?"
    > >> >
    > >> > The gun nut replies "This constant drone about 'assault' weapons is a
    > >> > lie."
    > >> >
    > >> > The anti-gun nut is not concerned that the NRA lobby has squeezed the
    > >> > definition of "assault weapons" down to certain types of weapons:
    > >> > those which fire on an automatic setting. The M4A1 is an assault
    > >> > rifle, and the AR-15 is not. The question is *not* "Why do you need
    > >> > an M4A1 to hunt deer?" The question is "Why do you need either to
    > >> > hunt deer?".
    > >> >
    > >> > By achieving a limited definition of "assault rifle", the NRA has
    > >> > accomplished creating a gap in the logical interpretation of the
    > >> > language.
    > >> >
    > >> > What is the function of either the M4A1 or the AR-15 if not to be used
    > >> > in assault tactics? In what situation would anyone not engaged in a
    > >> > military action need an AR-15? That's the question in the mind of the
    > >> > anti-gun nut.
    > >> >
    > >> > The gun nut is incapable of providing any reason to own a M4A1 other
    > >> > than "A bunch of guys in wigs and knee breeches in the 1700s were
    > >> > worried that the citizens who revolted against the King might need
    > >> > weapons to revolt against the next group of rulers.". Or, in other
    > >> > words, "because I can".
    > >> >
    > >> >>
    > >> >>> 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.
    > >> >
    > >> > Of course the Second Amendment indicates a need: to provide a well
    > >> > regulated militia.
    > >> >
    > >> > Are you a member of a militia? You want to ignore one part of the
    > >> > statement, but use the other part.
    > >> >
    > >> > The current form of "militia" is the military. We don't deny them the
    > >> > right to carry an assault rifle.
    > >>
    > >> As has been pointed out. the Supreme Court has upheld an individual's
    > >> right
    > >> to own weapons under the 2nd Amendment. You want to ignore that by
    > >> arguing
    > >> about what the militia is and is not. It doesn't matter. You can go on
    > >> and
    > >> on all you want and it still won't matter. The 2nd Amendment protects an
    > >> individual right to own weapons, as the Supreme Court has ruled. An
    > >> individual does not have to demonstrate any need to won an AR-15. That's
    > >> right, I can have one simply because "I can", whether you or anyone else
    > >> likes it. That's the beauty of the freedom we have here, I don't have to
    > >> have anyone's approval to exercise my rights, nor do I care to have
    > >> anyone's
    > >> approval.

    > >
    > > You're overstating the current situation. Several states say that you
    > > cannot own an AR-15 and so far the Supreme Court has not told them
    > > otherwise. That may change or it may not.

    >
    > I was stating the current situation in regards to the Supreme Court ruling
    > that the 2nd Amendment protects an individual's right to own weapons. What
    > the states do is another matter. The Supreme Court can rule on those laws
    > only when a case is brought and the wheels spin very slowly in our justice
    > system. The Supreme Court has ruled on other cases where states or locales
    > have overstepped and infringed on 2nd Amendment rights.


    And when it does, if the ruling goes the way you think it is going to
    go, then you will be correct that the government cannot infringe your
    right to own an AR-15. In the interim it can and in many localities
    does. And do not assume because they ruled one way in one case, they
    will continue to rule in a similar manner in others.
     
    J. Clarke, Jun 13, 2014
  16. RichA

    PeterN Guest

    On 6/13/2014 12:31 PM, PAS wrote:
    > "PeterN" <> wrote in message


    <snip>

    >>
    >> 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.

    >
    > No I am not. But there is too much regulation in many cases, as I've
    > demonstrated.
    >

    At least we agree on something. How much is too much, can lead to
    interesting discussions. I can see the reasonable logic for the
    regulations you have complained about.


    --
    PeterN
     
    PeterN, Jun 13, 2014
  17. RichA

    PAS Guest

    "PeterN" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On 6/13/2014 12:31 PM, PAS wrote:
    >> "PeterN" <> wrote in message

    >
    > <snip>
    >
    >>>
    >>> 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.

    >>
    >> No I am not. But there is too much regulation in many cases, as I've
    >> demonstrated.
    >>

    > At least we agree on something. How much is too much, can lead to
    > interesting discussions. I can see the reasonable logic for the
    > regulations you have complained about.


    Don't we agree on rum raisin too?
     
    PAS, Jun 16, 2014
  18. RichA

    PAS Guest

    "PeterN" wrote in message
    > On 6/11/2014 9:13 AM, PAS wrote:
    >> "Floyd L. Davidson" <> wrote in message
    >> news:...
    >>
    >> 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.


    No, but in many cases there is far too much regulation of ownership.

    >
    >>
    >>
    >> 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.
    >>
    >>
    >> 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
     
    PAS, Jun 16, 2014
  19. RichA

    Whisky-dave Guest

    On Monday, 16 June 2014 15:15:26 UTC+1, PAS wrote:


    >
    > No, but in many cases there is far too much regulation of ownership.


    In which particualar cases would you say are over regulated ?
     
    Whisky-dave, Jun 16, 2014
  20. RichA

    PAS Guest

    "Whisky-dave" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Monday, 16 June 2014 15:15:26 UTC+1, PAS wrote:
    >
    >
    >>
    >> No, but in many cases there is far too much regulation of ownership.

    >
    > In which particualar cases would you say are over regulated ?


    Where I live, in Suffolk County on Long Island.

    In a nutshell, this is the process I had to go through to get my handgun
    license and first handgun:

    1) Fill out a long application including all previous addresses.
    2) Provide three personal references and signed and noarized affadavits
    from them
    3) The references and my employer were all interviewed
    4) I had to be fingerprinted & interviewed
    5) I was warned of what could disqualify me from being approved. Among
    them was getting a traffic ticket within the application process timeframe.
    6) I was approved after approximately six months from the time I applied
    7) I can no purchase a handgun. I went to a gun dealer and made my
    purchase. But I could not take possession. I had to get a form filled out
    by the dealer
    8) I take the form to the police department and they review the form and
    then must approve the form and stamp it
    9) I take the form back to the dealer and then take possession
    10) I have to bring the handgun to the police department for their
    inspection and then to record the serial number on my license
    11) I am only permitted to take the handgun from my home directly to firing
    range and then directly back home when finished. I cannot make any stops
    along the way, no exceptions. If I do, I can lose my license.

    That my friend, is over regulated.
     
    PAS, Jun 16, 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:
    667
  2. Replies:
    12
    Views:
    3,041
    Michael Alan Chary
    Feb 23, 2005
  3. Replies:
    0
    Views:
    535
  4. Chris

    Flash Content in Photogs Website?

    Chris, Oct 31, 2006, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    11
    Views:
    589
    PossumTrot
    Nov 2, 2006
  5. John

    Bad media, bad files or bad Nero?

    John, Dec 31, 2007, in forum: Computer Information
    Replies:
    23
    Views:
    1,272
    Keith
    Jan 8, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page