Re: OT: Gn Control Poll

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by RichA, Jan 19, 2013.

  1. RichA

    RichA Guest

    On Jan 18, 11:40 pm, "Dudley Hanks" <> wrote:
    > http://www.dudley-hanks.com/index.html
    >
    > --
    > "The balance between staying positive and being realistic lies somewhere in
    > the area of remaining hopeful."
    > -- Irwin Barker
    >
    > "It is easy to take a photograph, but it is harder to make a masterpiece in
    > photography than in any other art medium."
    > -- Ansel Adams
    >
    > "When you're blind, each day is as sunny as you can imagine."
    > -- Dudley Hanks
    >
    > http://www.blind-apertures.ca/index.php


    How about "criminal control?" Or is that too direct?
    RichA, Jan 19, 2013
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. RichA

    DanP Guest

    On Saturday, 19 January 2013 09:45:59 UTC, RichA wrote:

    > How about "criminal control?" Or is that too direct?


    How do you achieve that? How do you stop a killer before committing the murder?


    DanP
    DanP, Jan 19, 2013
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. RichA

    nick c Guest

    On 1/19/2013 2:45 AM, DanP wrote:
    > On Saturday, 19 January 2013 09:45:59 UTC, RichA wrote:
    >
    >> How about "criminal control?" Or is that too direct?

    >
    > How do you achieve that? How do you stop a killer before committing the murder?
    >
    >
    > DanP
    >


    In this land of make believe it seems the only time the government
    trusts you to have a weapon of mass destruction is when you get drafted
    into military service. Then officialdom is only too anxious to not only
    arm you with an automatic weapon but you can also get all the ammo,
    hand-grenades, mortar shells, satchel-bombs, etal. that you can carry.
    However, even though you put your life on the line to protect and
    preserve the seat of government, when you get home, one would get the
    impression this gratuitous government, which adorns one with medals,
    doesn't trust you to own a firearm.

    My main camera bag alone has about $10,000 USD worth of equipment and
    when I applied for a concealed permit ('cause I'm not in fighting shape)
    I was told not to endanger myself, just insure my equipment and have
    done with it. Yes sir, in this land of opportunities, crime pays. I have
    to wonder, when I was in military service why didn't someone tell me not
    to endanger myself. (<<<G>>>)
    nick c, Jan 19, 2013
    #3
  4. RichA

    Tony Cooper Guest

    On Sat, 19 Jan 2013 09:04:07 -0800, Savageduck
    <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

    >All joking aside, there is a need for some change to our national
    >concept of our "gun culture". I feel that a logical start is a stronger
    >screening & background check policy. Also there is an ignorance among
    >non-gun folks regarding their perception of the description
    >"semi-automatic". There is a big difference between "semi-automatic",
    >"selective fire" and "automatic" when it comes to the function of
    >firearms.


    I could easily look it up, but offhand I don't think I could provide a
    good distinction between those terms. I don't care, though.

    Restricting gun owners to muzzle loaders is a bit harsh, but not all
    that bad an idea. A single-shot weapon is as far as I'll go.

    >The idea of armed teachers is one gun advocates might like,


    It is one of most ludicrous ideas ever presented.

    >So, for now my vote goes to improved and enforced screening &
    >background checks with longer wait periods, perhaps even as much as up
    >to a month before a weapon can be delivered to a properly screened
    >buyer. The rest of the gun control proposals are a distraction from the
    >real issue, which is, the mentally ill, and/or criminals having access
    >to firearm, legal or contraband.


    Many of the "mentally ill" who commit gun crimes were not diagnosed as
    mentally ill before the incident, but one could say that anyone who
    guns down a group of strangers of any age for any reason is mentally
    ill. Mental illness takes many forms, and to try to decide if a
    person suffers from a form that might lead to violence against others
    would be an almost-impossible task.





    --
    Tony Cooper, Orlando FL
    Tony Cooper, Jan 19, 2013
    #4
  5. RichA

    nick c Guest

    On 1/19/2013 9:04 AM, Savageduck wrote:
    > On 2013-01-19 04:24:47 -0800, nick c <> said:
    >
    >> On 1/19/2013 2:45 AM, DanP wrote:
    >>> On Saturday, 19 January 2013 09:45:59 UTC, RichA wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> How about "criminal control?" Or is that too direct?
    >>>
    >>> How do you achieve that? How do you stop a killer before committing
    >>> the murder?
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> DanP
    >>>

    >>
    >> In this land of make believe it seems the only time the government
    >> trusts you to have a weapon of mass destruction is when you get
    >> drafted into military service. Then officialdom is only too anxious to
    >> not only arm you with an automatic weapon but you can also get all the
    >> ammo, hand-grenades, mortar shells, satchel-bombs, etal. that you can
    >> carry. However, even though you put your life on the line to protect
    >> and preserve the seat of government, when you get home, one would get
    >> the impression this gratuitous government, which adorns one with
    >> medals, doesn't trust you to own a firearm.
    >>
    >> My main camera bag alone has about $10,000 USD worth of equipment and
    >> when I applied for a concealed permit ('cause I'm not in fighting
    >> shape) I was told not to endanger myself, just insure my equipment and
    >> have done with it. Yes sir, in this land of opportunities, crime pays.
    >> I have to wonder, when I was in military service why didn't someone
    >> tell me not to endanger myself. (<<<G>>>)

    >
    > What State do you live in?


    California. The land of fruits and nuts.

    >
    > Then depending on State and the political climate in different areas of
    > various states (California for example) in some jurisdictions it is
    > almost impossible to get a CCW permit (San Francisco County) and in
    > other counties a mere formality.


    Mere formality? Not in LA county.

    >
    > Then there are the different State regulations with differences in the
    > way the CCW permits are issued and regulated. The one "denial" State is
    > Illinois, other states are divided into "Shall Issue", "May Issue", and
    > some restricted to State residents within the two other types.
    > All CCW permits are still dependent on clearing screening, background
    > check, etc.
    > This site gives a pretty good run down of the local weapons laws
    > pertaining to CCW permits.
    > < http://www.handgunlaw.us/ >
    >
    > Retired law enforcement officers are permitted to carry a concealed
    > firearm in all 50 states on the condition they qualify with their carry
    > weapons annually.


    The Second Amendment says nothing about the need to qualify.

    > So I can carry either one of these (the two weapons I am qualified with
    > for concealed carry).
    > < http://db.tt/fxUzPGcL >
    > < https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/FileChute/Savageduck Kw.jpg >


    There's that the word "qualify" again.

    At one time (as recent as the 40's and 50's) one could openly carry
    almost any firearm in California. That was before the advent of "common
    sense" or "compromise" took hold of peoples imaginations and a movement
    began to circumvent the Constitution.


    >
    > ...and for "gun control" do this:
    > < http://db.tt/Q8XAaCLW >
    >
    > All joking aside, there is a need for some change to our national
    > concept of our "gun culture".


    "Gun culture"? Oh yes, that's the new party line. No, there isn't a "gun
    culture" excepting what exists in an anti-gunners mind. What there is a
    need of is for people to realize what the blazing hell we have gone to
    war to preserve. Since mankind has walked in an upright position he has
    made means to defend himself against those who may do him harm.

    I wasn't born with a gun in my hand. Who was it that gave me weapons and
    told me to kill; the seat of government. The farmer remains a farmer,
    the engineer remains an engineer, the teacher remains a teacher, etc.,
    etc., etc., regardless of whoever takes over the seat of government,
    so... in times of war, what are we killing people for if not to protect
    what we hold dear .... such as our rights and freedoms. Where-the-hell
    in the Constitution does it say that "compromise" shall be the governing
    factor in the observance of Constitutional rights.

    > I feel that a logical start is a stronger
    > screening & background check policy. Also there is an ignorance among
    > non-gun folks regarding their perception of the description
    > "semi-automatic". There is a big difference between "semi-automatic",
    > "selective fire" and "automatic" when it comes to the function of firearms.


    You just gotta be a Democrat. That appears to be the most recent party
    line. I heard TV news commentators say the same thing. [<<G>>]

    People may be politically ignorant but I think they know the difference
    between a semi-automatic and a fully automatic. Geeze ... even my wife
    knows the difference and she is a card-carrying, full-fledged,
    honest-to-goodness, anti-gunner.

    >
    > The idea of armed teachers is one gun advocates might like, but folks
    > need to be aware that even well trained, and regularly qualified
    > professionals with years of practice and thousands of rounds fired, can
    > find a combat situation beyond their ability to handle. To expect a
    > teacher to react as a trained combat specialist under stress is
    > unreasonable. I would not expect these teachers to be spending their
    > free time on a range to perfect their combat and defense shooting
    > skills. These are teachers, and I wouldn't expect more than a small
    > percentage to take up firearms with any enthusiasm.


    Trained combat specialist? You mean to say only those trained by
    officialdom should be considered as being a trained combat specialists?
    I know of ill-informed Sheriff's who don't know crap about the
    particulars of firearms. A point of note is, any person who was exposed
    to military combat conditions could qualify as being a combat
    specialist. That term should not be reserved for just the law
    enforcement agencies of the country nor agents thereof. No law
    enforcement person I ever knew, when in the performance of their
    civilian law enforcement duties, constantly spent days on end with
    nerves on the verge of cracking.

    >
    > So, for now my vote goes to improved and enforced screening & background
    > checks with longer wait periods, perhaps even as much as up to a month
    > before a weapon can be delivered to a properly screened buyer. The rest
    > of the gun control proposals are a distraction from the real issue,
    > which is, the mentally ill, and/or criminals having access to firearm,
    > legal or contraband.


    "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free
    State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be
    infringed." Remember those words? What's so difficult to understand why
    they were written.

    It's the right of the people (not just government controlled agencies
    nor agents there of) to keep and bear arms. Since when did those words
    mean "negotiate" or "compromise." As far as I'm concerned one can own
    whatever firearm they can bear to carry. Search the Internet and one can
    find ways and means to create ways to kill off lots of people thereby
    having no guns being used in the accomplishment of that task.

    During the LA Watt's riots, when stores were being looted and woman were
    assaulted, the police just drove by the rioters. It wasn't the police or
    the National Guard that stopped the rioters, it was an armed citizenry
    that openly displayed their arms and threatened to shoot anyone who
    invaded their property. They stood in their front yards and on roof tops
    in defiance of the rioters. The police did little to nothing to protect
    property and rioters kept their loot.

    >
    >
    nick c, Jan 19, 2013
    #5
  6. RichA

    nick c Guest

    On 1/19/2013 4:35 PM, Savageduck wrote:
    > On 2013-01-19 15:39:19 -0800, nick c <> said:
    >
    >> On 1/19/2013 9:04 AM, Savageduck wrote:
    >>> On 2013-01-19 04:24:47 -0800, nick c <> said:
    >>>
    >>>> On 1/19/2013 2:45 AM, DanP wrote:
    >>>>> On Saturday, 19 January 2013 09:45:59 UTC, RichA wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> How about "criminal control?" Or is that too direct?
    >>>>>
    >>>>> How do you achieve that? How do you stop a killer before committing
    >>>>> the murder?
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>> DanP
    >>>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> In this land of make believe it seems the only time the government
    >>>> trusts you to have a weapon of mass destruction is when you get
    >>>> drafted into military service. Then officialdom is only too anxious to
    >>>> not only arm you with an automatic weapon but you can also get all the
    >>>> ammo, hand-grenades, mortar shells, satchel-bombs, etal. that you can
    >>>> carry. However, even though you put your life on the line to protect
    >>>> and preserve the seat of government, when you get home, one would get
    >>>> the impression this gratuitous government, which adorns one with
    >>>> medals, doesn't trust you to own a firearm.
    >>>>
    >>>> My main camera bag alone has about $10,000 USD worth of equipment and
    >>>> when I applied for a concealed permit ('cause I'm not in fighting
    >>>> shape) I was told not to endanger myself, just insure my equipment and
    >>>> have done with it. Yes sir, in this land of opportunities, crime pays.
    >>>> I have to wonder, when I was in military service why didn't someone
    >>>> tell me not to endanger myself. (<<<G>>>)
    >>>
    >>> What State do you live in?

    >>
    >> California. The land of fruits and nuts.
    >>
    >>>
    >>> Then depending on State and the political climate in different areas of
    >>> various states (California for example) in some jurisdictions it is
    >>> almost impossible to get a CCW permit (San Francisco County) and in
    >>> other counties a mere formality.

    >>
    >> Mere formality? Not in LA county.
    >>
    >>>
    >>> Then there are the different State regulations with differences in the
    >>> way the CCW permits are issued and regulated. The one "denial" State is
    >>> Illinois, other states are divided into "Shall Issue", "May Issue", and
    >>> some restricted to State residents within the two other types.
    >>> All CCW permits are still dependent on clearing screening, background
    >>> check, etc.
    >>> This site gives a pretty good run down of the local weapons laws
    >>> pertaining to CCW permits.
    >>> < http://www.handgunlaw.us/ >
    >>>
    >>> Retired law enforcement officers are permitted to carry a concealed
    >>> firearm in all 50 states on the condition they qualify with their carry
    >>> weapons annually.

    >>
    >> The Second Amendment says nothing about the need to qualify.
    >>
    >>> So I can carry either one of these (the two weapons I am qualified with
    >>> for concealed carry).
    >>> < http://db.tt/fxUzPGcL >
    >>> < https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/FileChute/Savageduck Kw.jpg >

    >>
    >> There's that the word "qualify" again.
    >>
    >> At one time (as recent as the 40's and 50's) one could openly carry
    >> almost any firearm in California. That was before the advent of
    >> "common sense" or "compromise" took hold of peoples imaginations and a
    >> movement began to circumvent the Constitution.
    >>
    >>
    >>>
    >>> ...and for "gun control" do this:
    >>> < http://db.tt/Q8XAaCLW >
    >>>
    >>> All joking aside, there is a need for some change to our national
    >>> concept of our "gun culture".

    >>
    >> "Gun culture"? Oh yes, that's the new party line. No, there isn't a
    >> "gun culture" excepting what exists in an anti-gunners mind. What
    >> there is a need of is for people to realize what the blazing hell we
    >> have gone to war to preserve. Since mankind has walked in an upright
    >> position he has made means to defend himself against those who may do
    >> him harm.

    >
    > Hell! Just yesterday three of us retired old fart cops and one daughter
    > used a private range to shoot several hundred rounds of .45 ACP, .357
    > Mag, .38 Spec, .22, and 223/5.56mm.
    > ...and we had a lot of fun. It is fun to shoot and hit old bowling pins
    > at 50yds with a 45.


    I am (or was) a AAA Trap shooter (in singles and doubles), a AA Skeet
    shooter, and hold two champion trophy's in pistols. I'm a expert
    rifleman and used to load my own specially loaded ammo; which included
    brass trimming, projectile weighting, brass hardness measurements, neck
    sizing, powder type, and other interacting considerations.

    >
    >> I wasn't born with a gun in my hand. Who was it that gave me weapons
    >> and told me to kill; the seat of government. The farmer remains a
    >> farmer, the engineer remains an engineer, the teacher remains a
    >> teacher, etc., etc., etc., regardless of whoever takes over the seat
    >> of government, so... in times of war, what are we killing people for
    >> if not to protect what we hold dear .... such as our rights and
    >> freedoms. Where-the-hell in the Constitution does it say that
    >> "compromise" shall be the governing factor in the observance of
    >> Constitutional rights.

    >
    >>> I feel that a logical start is a stronger
    >>> screening & background check policy. Also there is an ignorance among
    >>> non-gun folks regarding their perception of the description
    >>> "semi-automatic". There is a big difference between "semi-automatic",
    >>> "selective fire" and "automatic" when it comes to the function of
    >>> firearms.

    >>
    >> You just gotta be a Democrat. That appears to be the most recent party
    >> line. I heard TV news commentators say the same thing. [<<G>>]

    >
    > I am certainly not a "Tea Partier".
    > ...but I am a gun owner & carrier (when appropriate)


    I'm not anything. I don't believe in holding to political Party Lines.

    >
    >> People may be politically ignorant but I think they know the
    >> difference between a semi-automatic and a fully automatic. Geeze ...
    >> even my wife knows the difference and she is a card-carrying,
    >> full-fledged, honest-to-goodness, anti-gunner.

    >
    > You would be surprised just how ignorant some people can be when it
    > comes to firearms.


    I guess if it's possible for a majority of people to be politically
    ignorant, then it's possible for some people to be ignorant in the use
    of firearms. [<<g>>]

    >
    > The media by-line for almost any shooting today is to declare the weapon
    > used a "semi-automatic" without any idea of what a "semi-automatic" is
    > or how it functions. Even if the weapon used was a wheel gun.
    >
    > Anyway here are my batch of "semi-automatic" handguns (funny, but back
    > in the 60's I always referred to them as automatics) and not so
    > automatic revolvers.
    > < http://db.tt/9GbJXt1p >


    It seems we both have S&W Model 41's. I also have several others in
    (tuned) 357's and 9mm's (including 9mm short-380's). Several local
    sheriffs have offered me as much as $15oo for my polished stainless Colt
    357 (triple stage trigger pull) python revolver. Though I don't use it
    anymore and I have no need of the money, it stays with me.

    >
    > BTW: you should see what Jerry Miculek can do with a wheel gun. There is
    > a man who can embarrass most "semi-automatic" shooters.
    > < http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lLk1v5bSFPw >


    Shooting 12 shots under 3 seconds should put an end to the fears of
    automatic weaponry.

    >
    >>> The idea of armed teachers is one gun advocates might like, but folks
    >>> need to be aware that even well trained, and regularly qualified
    >>> professionals with years of practice and thousands of rounds fired, can
    >>> find a combat situation beyond their ability to handle. To expect a
    >>> teacher to react as a trained combat specialist under stress is
    >>> unreasonable. I would not expect these teachers to be spending their
    >>> free time on a range to perfect their combat and defense shooting
    >>> skills. These are teachers, and I wouldn't expect more than a small
    >>> percentage to take up firearms with any enthusiasm.

    >>
    >> Trained combat specialist? You mean to say only those trained by
    >> officialdom should be considered as being a trained combat specialists?

    >
    > No! I mean to say that there is more to self defense and combat shooting
    > than buying a hand gun and following the example of Hollywood for using
    > that weapon.


    In my opinion, the entertainment industry contributes a lot to the way
    people think. I know some people tend to excuse their productions but
    one way to learn to do something is to observe how it's done.

    > There is an responsibility that goes with gun ownership for self defense
    > and some training and regular practice, be it under the guidance of
    > "officialdom" or through an organization such as GunSite Academy is a
    > responsible act. Knowledge of the laws regarding use of deadly force are
    > also useful and will keep you out of court.
    > < http://www.gunsite.com/main/ >
    >
    >> I know of ill-informed Sheriff's who don't know crap about the
    >> particulars of firearms.

    >
    > Agreed! I personally know many who meet that description.
    >
    >> A point of note is, any person who was exposed to military combat
    >> conditions could qualify as being a combat specialist.

    >
    > Certainly that is true for those military combat circumstances. However
    > those skills do not translate directly to the non-military combat arena.
    > I know, I have experienced both.


    Dead is dead no matter how or where it occurs.

    >
    >> That term should not be reserved for just the law enforcement agencies
    >> of the country nor agents thereof. No law enforcement person I ever
    >> knew, when in the performance of their civilian law enforcement
    >> duties, constantly spent days on end with nerves on the verge of
    >> cracking.

    >
    > Where did I ever say that. Though I know may in law enforcement I would
    > not want to be any where near in a gun fight. Strangely enough I can
    > think of several individuals I served with in the Army I can say the
    > same thing of. There is a concern for the untrained and poorly practiced
    > gun owner who is going to need some guidance for that time he/she is
    > faced with having to make some serious decisions and possibly use
    > effective deadly force.


    There is more to be feared in the fear of guns than there is in the use
    of guns.

    >
    >>> So, for now my vote goes to improved and enforced screening & background
    >>> checks with longer wait periods, perhaps even as much as up to a month
    >>> before a weapon can be delivered to a properly screened buyer. The rest
    >>> of the gun control proposals are a distraction from the real issue,
    >>> which is, the mentally ill, and/or criminals having access to firearm,
    >>> legal or contraband.

    >>
    >> "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free
    >> State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be
    >> infringed." Remember those words? What's so difficult to understand
    >> why they were written.
    >>
    >> It's the right of the people (not just government controlled agencies
    >> nor agents there of) to keep and bear arms. Since when did those words
    >> mean "negotiate" or "compromise." As far as I'm concerned one can own
    >> whatever firearm they can bear to carry. Search the Internet and one
    >> can find ways and means to create ways to kill off lots of people
    >> thereby having no guns being used in the accomplishment of that task.
    >>
    >> During the LA Watt's riots, when stores were being looted and woman
    >> were assaulted, the police just drove by the rioters. It wasn't the
    >> police or the National Guard that stopped the rioters, it was an armed
    >> citizenry that openly displayed their arms and threatened to shoot
    >> anyone who invaded their property. They stood in their front yards and
    >> on roof tops in defiance of the rioters. The police did little to
    >> nothing to protect property and rioters kept their loot.

    >
    > I am not going to enter the Constitutional debate right now. All I can
    > say I was a gun owner and shooter long before I received military and
    > law enforcement training, and when the words "gun control" come up I
    > feel the hair rise a bit on the back of my neck.
    >
    > That said, times and weapons have changed since I was a kid shooting
    > with my father, and some thought and consideration needs to be applied
    > to the problem sensibly without prodding emotions on either side of this
    > debate.
    >
    >


    Times may have changed but mankind has never changed. With the
    exceptions of personal hygiene and education, there is no difference in
    the eccentricities and human emotions between modern man and the
    neanderthal man.

    Have to say, I think you're a super guy Duck; it's just that we tend to
    disagree at times when it appears your wrong. :)))

    An aside:

    I used to think the Brit's and Aussies were, shall we say ... privileged
    people (leastwise, in my eyes). That is to say, I've always held them in
    high esteem regardless of political disagreements that may surface from
    time to time. Though I may have been at odds, at times with their
    politics, should any nation threaten them, then I would get pissed-off.
    But when they sheepishly gave up their firearms to government entities,
    (it was for the children) that was a thumbs-down move and it dimmed my
    respect for them. Somehow, I think the survivors of Dunkirk would not
    have approved their actions.

    Quote me:

    For every law passed, a freedom door is slammed shut .
    nick c, Jan 20, 2013
    #6
  7. RichA

    Robert Coe Guest

    On Sat, 19 Jan 2013 04:24:47 -0800, nick c <> wrote:
    : On 1/19/2013 2:45 AM, DanP wrote:
    : > On Saturday, 19 January 2013 09:45:59 UTC, RichA wrote:
    : >
    : >> How about "criminal control?" Or is that too direct?
    : >
    : > How do you achieve that? How do you stop a killer before committing the murder?
    : >
    : >
    : > DanP
    : >
    :
    : In this land of make believe it seems the only time the government
    : trusts you to have a weapon of mass destruction is when you get drafted
    : into military service. Then officialdom is only too anxious to not only
    : arm you with an automatic weapon but you can also get all the ammo,
    : hand-grenades, mortar shells, satchel-bombs, etal. that you can carry.
    : However, even though you put your life on the line to protect and
    : preserve the seat of government, when you get home, one would get the
    : impression this gratuitous government, which adorns one with medals,
    : doesn't trust you to own a firearm.

    It's not so much that as that it doesn't trust the nutcase to whom you may
    accidentally sell the gun or who may manage to steal it from your home.

    : My main camera bag alone has about $10,000 USD worth of equipment and
    : when I applied for a concealed permit ('cause I'm not in fighting shape)
    : I was told not to endanger myself, just insure my equipment and have
    : done with it. Yes sir, in this land of opportunities, crime pays. I have
    : to wonder, when I was in military service why didn't someone tell me not
    : to endanger myself. (<<<G>>>)

    Now you're conflating two totally unrelated points. The fact that this country
    risks the lives of its service personnel in stupid, unnecessary wars doesn't
    make it sensible to risk your life to avoid an insurance premium. Even if
    you're packing when you encounter a robber, he's probably got the drop on you;
    and he's not the one who's suddenly startled out of his wits by a situation he
    didn't expect. And you're just as dead if you got shot on the street as if you
    were killed in a battle somewhere. The only difference is that you don't get
    adorned with a medal.

    Bob
    Robert Coe, Jan 20, 2013
    #7
  8. RichA

    nick c Guest

    On 1/19/2013 8:30 PM, Robert Coe wrote:
    > On Sat, 19 Jan 2013 04:24:47 -0800, nick c <> wrote:
    > : On 1/19/2013 2:45 AM, DanP wrote:
    > : > On Saturday, 19 January 2013 09:45:59 UTC, RichA wrote:
    > : >
    > : >> How about "criminal control?" Or is that too direct?
    > : >
    > : > How do you achieve that? How do you stop a killer before committing the murder?
    > : >
    > : >
    > : > DanP
    > : >
    > :
    > : In this land of make believe it seems the only time the government
    > : trusts you to have a weapon of mass destruction is when you get drafted
    > : into military service. Then officialdom is only too anxious to not only
    > : arm you with an automatic weapon but you can also get all the ammo,
    > : hand-grenades, mortar shells, satchel-bombs, etal. that you can carry.
    > : However, even though you put your life on the line to protect and
    > : preserve the seat of government, when you get home, one would get the
    > : impression this gratuitous government, which adorns one with medals,
    > : doesn't trust you to own a firearm.
    >
    > It's not so much that as that it doesn't trust the nutcase to whom you may
    > accidentally sell the gun or who may manage to steal it from your home.
    >
    > : My main camera bag alone has about $10,000 USD worth of equipment and
    > : when I applied for a concealed permit ('cause I'm not in fighting shape)
    > : I was told not to endanger myself, just insure my equipment and have
    > : done with it. Yes sir, in this land of opportunities, crime pays. I have
    > : to wonder, when I was in military service why didn't someone tell me not
    > : to endanger myself. (<<<G>>>)
    >
    > Now you're conflating two totally unrelated points. The fact that this country
    > risks the lives of its service personnel in stupid, unnecessary wars doesn't
    > make it sensible to risk your life to avoid an insurance premium. Even if
    > you're packing when you encounter a robber, he's probably got the drop on you;
    > and he's not the one who's suddenly startled out of his wits by a situation he
    > didn't expect. And you're just as dead if you got shot on the street as if you
    > were killed in a battle somewhere. The only difference is that you don't get
    > adorned with a medal.
    >
    > Bob
    >


    So, for hypothetical reasons alone you would approve actions that would
    deprive millions of people of their right to decide whatever actions
    they would choose to take.

    Since time itself can never be regained, when someone robs you of an
    item, that item cost you time. That is time that can never be regained,
    the robber didn't just rob you of an item, he robbed you of the time it
    took to earn the money to buy that item. Philosophically, he robbed you
    of a period of time of your life.

    I would be fairly certain anti-gunners would not walk around with a sign
    that says "I am unarmed and will refuse to stop anyone taking anything I
    own." Why should they advertise the fact that they live in a state of fear.

    An aside:

    Years ago, in New York City, while the sun shined on a crystal clear
    day, a woman was stabbed 12 times while she was standing at a street
    corner. When the police questioned people in the neighborhood, no one
    saw what had happened (translation: no one wanted to become involved).
    There was no rush to control knives as New York's Sullivan Law does for
    guns. I suppose that woman didn't deserve the right to at least feel
    emotionally secure by carrying a gun. Anyway, she was deprived of making
    her own decisions.
    nick c, Jan 20, 2013
    #8
  9. RichA

    DanP Guest

    On Sunday, January 20, 2013 2:24:58 AM UTC, nick c wrote:

    >
    > I used to think the Brit's and Aussies were, shall we say ... privileged
    > people (leastwise, in my eyes). That is to say, I've always held them in
    > high esteem regardless of political disagreements that may surface from
    > time to time. Though I may have been at odds, at times with their
    > politics, should any nation threaten them, then I would get pissed-off.
    > But when they sheepishly gave up their firearms to government entities,
    > (it was for the children) that was a thumbs-down move and it dimmed my
    > respect for them. Somehow, I think the survivors of Dunkirk would not
    > have approved their actions.


    UK and Australia are democracies and at least in the case of gun control they do what the people want them to do, ban guns. There is overwhelming support for gun control. Your speculations of what the survivors of Dunkirk think are just that, speculations.

    The Second Amendment was inspired by an English law passed a century earlier to allow Protestants to protect themselves against a Catholic Monarch. Some 30 years after the Second Amendment UK had to introduce gun control, toomany soldiers returning from the Napoleonic Wars found themselves without a job and with a gun.


    DanP
    DanP, Jan 20, 2013
    #9
  10. RichA

    nick c Guest

    On 1/20/2013 1:19 PM, DanP wrote:
    > On Sunday, January 20, 2013 2:24:58 AM UTC, nick c wrote:
    >
    >>
    >> I used to think the Brit's and Aussies were, shall we say ... privileged
    >> people (leastwise, in my eyes). That is to say, I've always held them in
    >> high esteem regardless of political disagreements that may surface from
    >> time to time. Though I may have been at odds, at times with their
    >> politics, should any nation threaten them, then I would get pissed-off.
    >> But when they sheepishly gave up their firearms to government entities,
    >> (it was for the children) that was a thumbs-down move and it dimmed my
    >> respect for them. Somehow, I think the survivors of Dunkirk would not
    >> have approved their actions.

    >
    > UK and Australia are democracies and at least in the case of gun control they do what the people want them to do, ban guns. There is overwhelming support for gun control. Your speculations of what the survivors of Dunkirk think are just that, speculations


    I'm aware that the UK news media managed to conduct an successful
    campaign gathering over some 700,000 signatures from a horrified public
    after the Dunblane incident in 96, which was then sent to the PM, John
    Major.

    I think the UK has a population of about 50 million people and the way I
    see the issue is that about 700,000 plus signatures is not really a
    representative figure of a majority of people. I suppose there were many
    who didn't own a firearm and had nothing to surrender, yet signed the
    petition because Dunblane was such a horrific incident. However, nothing
    has actually changed in the UK that would insure such an incident would
    never happen again, perhaps not with guns but by other means, unless
    loony's obey laws.

    In any event, guns were banned and crime appears to have increased up to
    35% .

    http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiep...ars-in-england-where-guns-are-banned-n1464528

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-154307/Gun-crime-soars-35.html

    One has to wonder how gun related crimes in the UK can soar 35% (I've
    read other sites that say 40%) in a nation were guns are banned.

    > The Second Amendment was inspired by an English law passed a century earlier to allow Protestants to protect themselves against a Catholic Monarch. Some 30 years after the Second Amendment UK had to introduce gun control, too many soldiers returning from the Napoleonic Wars found themselves without a job and with a gun.
    >



    >
    > DanP
    >
    nick c, Jan 21, 2013
    #10
  11. RichA

    Peter Guest

    On 1/19/2013 6:39 PM, nick c wrote:
    > On 1/19/2013 9:04 AM, Savageduck wrote:
    >> On 2013-01-19 04:24:47 -0800, nick c <> said:
    >>
    >>> On 1/19/2013 2:45 AM, DanP wrote:
    >>>> On Saturday, 19 January 2013 09:45:59 UTC, RichA wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> How about "criminal control?" Or is that too direct?
    >>>>
    >>>> How do you achieve that? How do you stop a killer before committing
    >>>> the murder?
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> DanP
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>> In this land of make believe it seems the only time the government
    >>> trusts you to have a weapon of mass destruction is when you get
    >>> drafted into military service. Then officialdom is only too anxious to
    >>> not only arm you with an automatic weapon but you can also get all the
    >>> ammo, hand-grenades, mortar shells, satchel-bombs, etal. that you can
    >>> carry. However, even though you put your life on the line to protect
    >>> and preserve the seat of government, when you get home, one would get
    >>> the impression this gratuitous government, which adorns one with
    >>> medals, doesn't trust you to own a firearm.
    >>>
    >>> My main camera bag alone has about $10,000 USD worth of equipment and
    >>> when I applied for a concealed permit ('cause I'm not in fighting
    >>> shape) I was told not to endanger myself, just insure my equipment and
    >>> have done with it. Yes sir, in this land of opportunities, crime pays.
    >>> I have to wonder, when I was in military service why didn't someone
    >>> tell me not to endanger myself. (<<<G>>>)

    >>
    >> What State do you live in?

    >
    > California. The land of fruits and nuts.
    >
    >>
    >> Then depending on State and the political climate in different areas of
    >> various states (California for example) in some jurisdictions it is
    >> almost impossible to get a CCW permit (San Francisco County) and in
    >> other counties a mere formality.

    >
    > Mere formality? Not in LA county.
    >
    >>
    >> Then there are the different State regulations with differences in the
    >> way the CCW permits are issued and regulated. The one "denial" State is
    >> Illinois, other states are divided into "Shall Issue", "May Issue", and
    >> some restricted to State residents within the two other types.
    >> All CCW permits are still dependent on clearing screening, background
    >> check, etc.
    >> This site gives a pretty good run down of the local weapons laws
    >> pertaining to CCW permits.
    >> < http://www.handgunlaw.us/ >
    >>
    >> Retired law enforcement officers are permitted to carry a concealed
    >> firearm in all 50 states on the condition they qualify with their carry
    >> weapons annually.

    >
    > The Second Amendment says nothing about the need to qualify.
    >
    >> So I can carry either one of these (the two weapons I am qualified with
    >> for concealed carry).
    >> < http://db.tt/fxUzPGcL >
    >> < https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/FileChute/Savageduck Kw.jpg >

    >
    > There's that the word "qualify" again.
    >
    > At one time (as recent as the 40's and 50's) one could openly carry
    > almost any firearm in California. That was before the advent of "common
    > sense" or "compromise" took hold of peoples imaginations and a movement
    > began to circumvent the Constitution.
    >
    >
    >>
    >> ...and for "gun control" do this:
    >> < http://db.tt/Q8XAaCLW >
    >>
    >> All joking aside, there is a need for some change to our national
    >> concept of our "gun culture".

    >
    > "Gun culture"? Oh yes, that's the new party line. No, there isn't a "gun
    > culture" excepting what exists in an anti-gunners mind. What there is a
    > need of is for people to realize what the blazing hell we have gone to
    > war to preserve. Since mankind has walked in an upright position he has
    > made means to defend himself against those who may do him harm.
    >
    > I wasn't born with a gun in my hand. Who was it that gave me weapons and
    > told me to kill; the seat of government. The farmer remains a farmer,
    > the engineer remains an engineer, the teacher remains a teacher, etc.,
    > etc., etc., regardless of whoever takes over the seat of government,
    > so... in times of war, what are we killing people for if not to protect
    > what we hold dear .... such as our rights and freedoms. Where-the-hell
    > in the Constitution does it say that "compromise" shall be the governing
    > factor in the observance of Constitutional rights.
    >
    >> I feel that a logical start is a stronger
    >> screening & background check policy. Also there is an ignorance among
    >> non-gun folks regarding their perception of the description
    >> "semi-automatic". There is a big difference between "semi-automatic",
    >> "selective fire" and "automatic" when it comes to the function of
    >> firearms.

    >
    > You just gotta be a Democrat. That appears to be the most recent party
    > line. I heard TV news commentators say the same thing. [<<G>>]
    >
    > People may be politically ignorant but I think they know the difference
    > between a semi-automatic and a fully automatic. Geeze ... even my wife
    > knows the difference and she is a card-carrying, full-fledged,
    > honest-to-goodness, anti-gunner.
    >
    >>
    >> The idea of armed teachers is one gun advocates might like, but folks
    >> need to be aware that even well trained, and regularly qualified
    >> professionals with years of practice and thousands of rounds fired, can
    >> find a combat situation beyond their ability to handle. To expect a
    >> teacher to react as a trained combat specialist under stress is
    >> unreasonable. I would not expect these teachers to be spending their
    >> free time on a range to perfect their combat and defense shooting
    >> skills. These are teachers, and I wouldn't expect more than a small
    >> percentage to take up firearms with any enthusiasm.

    >
    > Trained combat specialist? You mean to say only those trained by
    > officialdom should be considered as being a trained combat specialists?
    > I know of ill-informed Sheriff's who don't know crap about the
    > particulars of firearms. A point of note is, any person who was exposed
    > to military combat conditions could qualify as being a combat
    > specialist. That term should not be reserved for just the law
    > enforcement agencies of the country nor agents thereof. No law
    > enforcement person I ever knew, when in the performance of their
    > civilian law enforcement duties, constantly spent days on end with
    > nerves on the verge of cracking.
    >
    >>
    >> So, for now my vote goes to improved and enforced screening & background
    >> checks with longer wait periods, perhaps even as much as up to a month
    >> before a weapon can be delivered to a properly screened buyer. The rest
    >> of the gun control proposals are a distraction from the real issue,
    >> which is, the mentally ill, and/or criminals having access to firearm,
    >> legal or contraband.

    >
    > "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free
    > State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be
    > infringed." Remember those words? What's so difficult to understand why
    > they were written.
    >
    > It's the right of the people (not just government controlled agencies
    > nor agents there of) to keep and bear arms. Since when did those words
    > mean "negotiate" or "compromise." As far as I'm concerned one can own
    > whatever firearm they can bear to carry. Search the Internet and one can
    > find ways and means to create ways to kill off lots of people thereby
    > having no guns being used in the accomplishment of that task.
    >
    > During the LA Watt's riots, when stores were being looted and woman were
    > assaulted, the police just drove by the rioters. It wasn't the police or
    > the National Guard that stopped the rioters, it was an armed citizenry
    > that openly displayed their arms and threatened to shoot anyone who
    > invaded their property. They stood in their front yards and on roof tops
    > in defiance of the rioters. The police did little to nothing to protect
    > property and rioters kept their loot.
    >


    Should everybody be permitted to store atomic weapons, machine guns,
    howitzers, and chemical weapons, etc.

    --
    PeterN
    Peter, Jan 21, 2013
    #11
  12. RichA

    Peter Guest

    On 1/20/2013 12:07 AM, nick c wrote:


    <snip>

    >
    > An aside:
    >
    > Years ago, in New York City, while the sun shined on a crystal clear
    > day, a woman was stabbed 12 times while she was standing at a street
    > corner. When the police questioned people in the neighborhood, no one
    > saw what had happened (translation: no one wanted to become involved).
    > There was no rush to control knives as New York's Sullivan Law does for
    > guns. I suppose that woman didn't deserve the right to at least feel
    > emotionally secure by carrying a gun. Anyway, she was deprived of making
    > her own decisions.
    >


    You and I may not understand the deplorable silence, until we know that:
    the incident happened in a neighborhood dominated by people who had
    grown up in a culture of constant fear, where to call the authorities,
    was an invitation to almost certain punishment, that usually resulted in
    torture and/or death. (Nazi Germany.)
    Fortunately neither you nor I have personal experience with that.



    --
    PeterN
    Peter, Jan 21, 2013
    #12
  13. RichA

    Peter Guest

    On 1/20/2013 12:06 PM, George Kerby wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    > On 1/19/13 11:04 AM, in article
    > 2013011909040791745-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom, "Savageduck"
    > <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
    >
    >> On 2013-01-19 04:24:47 -0800, nick c <> said:
    >>
    >>> On 1/19/2013 2:45 AM, DanP wrote:
    >>>> On Saturday, 19 January 2013 09:45:59 UTC, RichA wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> How about "criminal control?" Or is that too direct?
    >>>>
    >>>> How do you achieve that? How do you stop a killer before committing the
    >>>> murder?
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> DanP
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>> In this land of make believe it seems the only time the government
    >>> trusts you to have a weapon of mass destruction is when you get drafted
    >>> into military service. Then officialdom is only too anxious to not only
    >>> arm you with an automatic weapon but you can also get all the ammo,
    >>> hand-grenades, mortar shells, satchel-bombs, etal. that you can carry.
    >>> However, even though you put your life on the line to protect and
    >>> preserve the seat of government, when you get home, one would get the
    >>> impression this gratuitous government, which adorns one with medals,
    >>> doesn't trust you to own a firearm.
    >>>
    >>> My main camera bag alone has about $10,000 USD worth of equipment and
    >>> when I applied for a concealed permit ('cause I'm not in fighting
    >>> shape) I was told not to endanger myself, just insure my equipment and
    >>> have done with it. Yes sir, in this land of opportunities, crime pays.
    >>> I have to wonder, when I was in military service why didn't someone
    >>> tell me not to endanger myself. (<<<G>>>)

    >>
    >> What State do you live in?
    >>
    >> Then depending on State and the political climate in different areas of
    >> various states (California for example) in some jurisdictions it is
    >> almost impossible to get a CCW permit (San Francisco County) and in
    >> other counties a mere formality.
    >>
    >> Then there are the different State regulations with differences in the
    >> way the CCW permits are issued and regulated. The one "denial" State is
    >> Illinois, other states are divided into "Shall Issue", "May Issue", and
    >> some restricted to State residents within the two other types.
    >> All CCW permits are still dependent on clearing screening, background
    >> check, etc.
    >> This site gives a pretty good run down of the local weapons laws
    >> pertaining to CCW permits.
    >> < http://www.handgunlaw.us/ >
    >>
    >> Retired law enforcement officers are permitted to carry a concealed
    >> firearm in all 50 states on the condition they qualify with their carry
    >> weapons annually.
    >> So I can carry either one of these (the two weapons I am qualified with
    >> for concealed carry).
    >> < http://db.tt/fxUzPGcL >
    >> < https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/FileChute/Savageduck Kw.jpg >
    >>
    >> ...and for "gun control" do this:
    >>
    >> < http://db.tt/Q8XAaCLW >
    >>
    >> All joking aside, there is a need for some change to our national
    >> concept of our "gun culture". I feel that a logical start is a stronger
    >> screening & background check policy. Also there is an ignorance among
    >> non-gun folks regarding their perception of the description
    >> "semi-automatic". There is a big difference between "semi-automatic",
    >> "selective fire" and "automatic" when it comes to the function of
    >> firearms.
    >>
    >> The idea of armed teachers is one gun advocates might like, but folks
    >> need to be aware that even well trained, and regularly qualified
    >> professionals with years of practice and thousands of rounds fired, can
    >> find a combat situation beyond their ability to handle. To expect a
    >> teacher to react as a trained combat specialist under stress is
    >> unreasonable. I would not expect these teachers to be spending their
    >> free time on a range to perfect their combat and defense shooting
    >> skills. These are teachers, and I wouldn't expect more than a small
    >> percentage to take up firearms with any enthusiasm.
    >>
    >> So, for now my vote goes to improved and enforced screening &
    >> background checks with longer wait periods, perhaps even as much as up
    >> to a month before a weapon can be delivered to a properly screened
    >> buyer. The rest of the gun control proposals are a distraction from the
    >> real issue, which is, the mentally ill, and/or criminals having access
    >> to firearm, legal or contraband.
    >>

    >
    > Watch this video. Her parents were murdered in a busy Texas restaurant by a
    > loony case and she was helpless because she left her weapon in the car. From
    > this particular event the beginning of CCW became a reality. Her testimony
    > before Congress...
    >
    > <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M1u0Byq5Qis>
    >


    And if the looney had no gun???

    --
    PeterN
    Peter, Jan 21, 2013
    #13
  14. RichA

    Tony Cooper Guest

    On Sun, 20 Jan 2013 22:29:56 -0500, Peter <>
    wrote:

    >On 1/19/2013 6:39 PM, nick c wrote:
    >> On 1/19/2013 9:04 AM, Savageduck wrote:
    >>> On 2013-01-19 04:24:47 -0800, nick c <> said:
    >>>
    >>>> On 1/19/2013 2:45 AM, DanP wrote:
    >>>>> On Saturday, 19 January 2013 09:45:59 UTC, RichA wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> How about "criminal control?" Or is that too direct?
    >>>>>
    >>>>> How do you achieve that? How do you stop a killer before committing
    >>>>> the murder?
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>> DanP
    >>>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> In this land of make believe it seems the only time the government
    >>>> trusts you to have a weapon of mass destruction is when you get
    >>>> drafted into military service. Then officialdom is only too anxious to
    >>>> not only arm you with an automatic weapon but you can also get all the
    >>>> ammo, hand-grenades, mortar shells, satchel-bombs, etal. that you can
    >>>> carry. However, even though you put your life on the line to protect
    >>>> and preserve the seat of government, when you get home, one would get
    >>>> the impression this gratuitous government, which adorns one with
    >>>> medals, doesn't trust you to own a firearm.
    >>>>
    >>>> My main camera bag alone has about $10,000 USD worth of equipment and
    >>>> when I applied for a concealed permit ('cause I'm not in fighting
    >>>> shape) I was told not to endanger myself, just insure my equipment and
    >>>> have done with it. Yes sir, in this land of opportunities, crime pays.
    >>>> I have to wonder, when I was in military service why didn't someone
    >>>> tell me not to endanger myself. (<<<G>>>)
    >>>
    >>> What State do you live in?

    >>
    >> California. The land of fruits and nuts.
    >>
    >>>
    >>> Then depending on State and the political climate in different areas of
    >>> various states (California for example) in some jurisdictions it is
    >>> almost impossible to get a CCW permit (San Francisco County) and in
    >>> other counties a mere formality.

    >>
    >> Mere formality? Not in LA county.
    >>
    >>>
    >>> Then there are the different State regulations with differences in the
    >>> way the CCW permits are issued and regulated. The one "denial" State is
    >>> Illinois, other states are divided into "Shall Issue", "May Issue", and
    >>> some restricted to State residents within the two other types.
    >>> All CCW permits are still dependent on clearing screening, background
    >>> check, etc.
    >>> This site gives a pretty good run down of the local weapons laws
    >>> pertaining to CCW permits.
    >>> < http://www.handgunlaw.us/ >
    >>>
    >>> Retired law enforcement officers are permitted to carry a concealed
    >>> firearm in all 50 states on the condition they qualify with their carry
    >>> weapons annually.

    >>
    >> The Second Amendment says nothing about the need to qualify.
    >>
    >>> So I can carry either one of these (the two weapons I am qualified with
    >>> for concealed carry).
    >>> < http://db.tt/fxUzPGcL >
    >>> < https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/FileChute/Savageduck Kw.jpg >

    >>
    >> There's that the word "qualify" again.
    >>
    >> At one time (as recent as the 40's and 50's) one could openly carry
    >> almost any firearm in California. That was before the advent of "common
    >> sense" or "compromise" took hold of peoples imaginations and a movement
    >> began to circumvent the Constitution.
    >>
    >>
    >>>
    >>> ...and for "gun control" do this:
    >>> < http://db.tt/Q8XAaCLW >
    >>>
    >>> All joking aside, there is a need for some change to our national
    >>> concept of our "gun culture".

    >>
    >> "Gun culture"? Oh yes, that's the new party line. No, there isn't a "gun
    >> culture" excepting what exists in an anti-gunners mind. What there is a
    >> need of is for people to realize what the blazing hell we have gone to
    >> war to preserve. Since mankind has walked in an upright position he has
    >> made means to defend himself against those who may do him harm.
    >>
    >> I wasn't born with a gun in my hand. Who was it that gave me weapons and
    >> told me to kill; the seat of government. The farmer remains a farmer,
    >> the engineer remains an engineer, the teacher remains a teacher, etc.,
    >> etc., etc., regardless of whoever takes over the seat of government,
    >> so... in times of war, what are we killing people for if not to protect
    >> what we hold dear .... such as our rights and freedoms. Where-the-hell
    >> in the Constitution does it say that "compromise" shall be the governing
    >> factor in the observance of Constitutional rights.
    >>
    >>> I feel that a logical start is a stronger
    >>> screening & background check policy. Also there is an ignorance among
    >>> non-gun folks regarding their perception of the description
    >>> "semi-automatic". There is a big difference between "semi-automatic",
    >>> "selective fire" and "automatic" when it comes to the function of
    >>> firearms.

    >>
    >> You just gotta be a Democrat. That appears to be the most recent party
    >> line. I heard TV news commentators say the same thing. [<<G>>]
    >>
    >> People may be politically ignorant but I think they know the difference
    >> between a semi-automatic and a fully automatic. Geeze ... even my wife
    >> knows the difference and she is a card-carrying, full-fledged,
    >> honest-to-goodness, anti-gunner.
    >>
    >>>
    >>> The idea of armed teachers is one gun advocates might like, but folks
    >>> need to be aware that even well trained, and regularly qualified
    >>> professionals with years of practice and thousands of rounds fired, can
    >>> find a combat situation beyond their ability to handle. To expect a
    >>> teacher to react as a trained combat specialist under stress is
    >>> unreasonable. I would not expect these teachers to be spending their
    >>> free time on a range to perfect their combat and defense shooting
    >>> skills. These are teachers, and I wouldn't expect more than a small
    >>> percentage to take up firearms with any enthusiasm.

    >>
    >> Trained combat specialist? You mean to say only those trained by
    >> officialdom should be considered as being a trained combat specialists?
    >> I know of ill-informed Sheriff's who don't know crap about the
    >> particulars of firearms. A point of note is, any person who was exposed
    >> to military combat conditions could qualify as being a combat
    >> specialist. That term should not be reserved for just the law
    >> enforcement agencies of the country nor agents thereof. No law
    >> enforcement person I ever knew, when in the performance of their
    >> civilian law enforcement duties, constantly spent days on end with
    >> nerves on the verge of cracking.
    >>
    >>>
    >>> So, for now my vote goes to improved and enforced screening & background
    >>> checks with longer wait periods, perhaps even as much as up to a month
    >>> before a weapon can be delivered to a properly screened buyer. The rest
    >>> of the gun control proposals are a distraction from the real issue,
    >>> which is, the mentally ill, and/or criminals having access to firearm,
    >>> legal or contraband.

    >>
    >> "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free
    >> State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be
    >> infringed." Remember those words? What's so difficult to understand why
    >> they were written.
    >>
    >> It's the right of the people (not just government controlled agencies
    >> nor agents there of) to keep and bear arms. Since when did those words
    >> mean "negotiate" or "compromise." As far as I'm concerned one can own
    >> whatever firearm they can bear to carry. Search the Internet and one can
    >> find ways and means to create ways to kill off lots of people thereby
    >> having no guns being used in the accomplishment of that task.
    >>
    >> During the LA Watt's riots, when stores were being looted and woman were
    >> assaulted, the police just drove by the rioters. It wasn't the police or
    >> the National Guard that stopped the rioters, it was an armed citizenry
    >> that openly displayed their arms and threatened to shoot anyone who
    >> invaded their property. They stood in their front yards and on roof tops
    >> in defiance of the rioters. The police did little to nothing to protect
    >> property and rioters kept their loot.
    >>

    >
    >Should everybody be permitted to store atomic weapons, machine guns,
    >howitzers, and chemical weapons, etc.


    I think any American should be able to own any weapon he or she
    chooses to own...as long as they can prove they are a member of a
    well-regulated militia.
    --
    Tony Cooper, Orlando FL
    Tony Cooper, Jan 21, 2013
    #14
  15. RichA

    Peter Guest

    On 1/20/2013 10:44 PM, Savageduck wrote:
    > On 2013-01-20 19:29:56 -0800, Peter <> said:
    >
    >> On 1/19/2013 6:39 PM, nick c wrote:
    >>> On 1/19/2013 9:04 AM, Savageduck wrote:
    >>>> On 2013-01-19 04:24:47 -0800, nick c <> said:
    >>>>
    >>>>> On 1/19/2013 2:45 AM, DanP wrote:
    >>>>>> On Saturday, 19 January 2013 09:45:59 UTC, RichA wrote:
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>> How about "criminal control?" Or is that too direct?
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> How do you achieve that? How do you stop a killer before committing
    >>>>>> the murder?
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> DanP
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>> In this land of make believe it seems the only time the government
    >>>>> trusts you to have a weapon of mass destruction is when you get
    >>>>> drafted into military service. Then officialdom is only too anxious to
    >>>>> not only arm you with an automatic weapon but you can also get all the
    >>>>> ammo, hand-grenades, mortar shells, satchel-bombs, etal. that you can
    >>>>> carry. However, even though you put your life on the line to protect
    >>>>> and preserve the seat of government, when you get home, one would get
    >>>>> the impression this gratuitous government, which adorns one with
    >>>>> medals, doesn't trust you to own a firearm.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> My main camera bag alone has about $10,000 USD worth of equipment and
    >>>>> when I applied for a concealed permit ('cause I'm not in fighting
    >>>>> shape) I was told not to endanger myself, just insure my equipment and
    >>>>> have done with it. Yes sir, in this land of opportunities, crime pays.
    >>>>> I have to wonder, when I was in military service why didn't someone
    >>>>> tell me not to endanger myself. (<<<G>>>)
    >>>>
    >>>> What State do you live in?
    >>>
    >>> California. The land of fruits and nuts.
    >>>
    >>>>
    >>>> Then depending on State and the political climate in different areas of
    >>>> various states (California for example) in some jurisdictions it is
    >>>> almost impossible to get a CCW permit (San Francisco County) and in
    >>>> other counties a mere formality.
    >>>
    >>> Mere formality? Not in LA county.
    >>>
    >>>>
    >>>> Then there are the different State regulations with differences in the
    >>>> way the CCW permits are issued and regulated. The one "denial" State is
    >>>> Illinois, other states are divided into "Shall Issue", "May Issue", and
    >>>> some restricted to State residents within the two other types.
    >>>> All CCW permits are still dependent on clearing screening, background
    >>>> check, etc.
    >>>> This site gives a pretty good run down of the local weapons laws
    >>>> pertaining to CCW permits.
    >>>> < http://www.handgunlaw.us/ >
    >>>>
    >>>> Retired law enforcement officers are permitted to carry a concealed
    >>>> firearm in all 50 states on the condition they qualify with their carry
    >>>> weapons annually.
    >>>
    >>> The Second Amendment says nothing about the need to qualify.
    >>>
    >>>> So I can carry either one of these (the two weapons I am qualified with
    >>>> for concealed carry).
    >>>> < http://db.tt/fxUzPGcL >
    >>>> < https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/FileChute/Savageduck Kw.jpg >
    >>>
    >>> There's that the word "qualify" again.
    >>>
    >>> At one time (as recent as the 40's and 50's) one could openly carry
    >>> almost any firearm in California. That was before the advent of "common
    >>> sense" or "compromise" took hold of peoples imaginations and a movement
    >>> began to circumvent the Constitution.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>
    >>>> ...and for "gun control" do this:
    >>>> < http://db.tt/Q8XAaCLW >
    >>>>
    >>>> All joking aside, there is a need for some change to our national
    >>>> concept of our "gun culture".
    >>>
    >>> "Gun culture"? Oh yes, that's the new party line. No, there isn't a "gun
    >>> culture" excepting what exists in an anti-gunners mind. What there is a
    >>> need of is for people to realize what the blazing hell we have gone to
    >>> war to preserve. Since mankind has walked in an upright position he has
    >>> made means to defend himself against those who may do him harm.
    >>>
    >>> I wasn't born with a gun in my hand. Who was it that gave me weapons and
    >>> told me to kill; the seat of government. The farmer remains a farmer,
    >>> the engineer remains an engineer, the teacher remains a teacher, etc.,
    >>> etc., etc., regardless of whoever takes over the seat of government,
    >>> so... in times of war, what are we killing people for if not to protect
    >>> what we hold dear .... such as our rights and freedoms. Where-the-hell
    >>> in the Constitution does it say that "compromise" shall be the governing
    >>> factor in the observance of Constitutional rights.
    >>>
    >>>> I feel that a logical start is a stronger
    >>>> screening & background check policy. Also there is an ignorance among
    >>>> non-gun folks regarding their perception of the description
    >>>> "semi-automatic". There is a big difference between "semi-automatic",
    >>>> "selective fire" and "automatic" when it comes to the function of
    >>>> firearms.
    >>>
    >>> You just gotta be a Democrat. That appears to be the most recent party
    >>> line. I heard TV news commentators say the same thing. [<<G>>]
    >>>
    >>> People may be politically ignorant but I think they know the difference
    >>> between a semi-automatic and a fully automatic. Geeze ... even my wife
    >>> knows the difference and she is a card-carrying, full-fledged,
    >>> honest-to-goodness, anti-gunner.
    >>>
    >>>>
    >>>> The idea of armed teachers is one gun advocates might like, but folks
    >>>> need to be aware that even well trained, and regularly qualified
    >>>> professionals with years of practice and thousands of rounds fired, can
    >>>> find a combat situation beyond their ability to handle. To expect a
    >>>> teacher to react as a trained combat specialist under stress is
    >>>> unreasonable. I would not expect these teachers to be spending their
    >>>> free time on a range to perfect their combat and defense shooting
    >>>> skills. These are teachers, and I wouldn't expect more than a small
    >>>> percentage to take up firearms with any enthusiasm.
    >>>
    >>> Trained combat specialist? You mean to say only those trained by
    >>> officialdom should be considered as being a trained combat specialists?
    >>> I know of ill-informed Sheriff's who don't know crap about the
    >>> particulars of firearms. A point of note is, any person who was exposed
    >>> to military combat conditions could qualify as being a combat
    >>> specialist. That term should not be reserved for just the law
    >>> enforcement agencies of the country nor agents thereof. No law
    >>> enforcement person I ever knew, when in the performance of their
    >>> civilian law enforcement duties, constantly spent days on end with
    >>> nerves on the verge of cracking.
    >>>
    >>>>
    >>>> So, for now my vote goes to improved and enforced screening &
    >>>> background
    >>>> checks with longer wait periods, perhaps even as much as up to a month
    >>>> before a weapon can be delivered to a properly screened buyer. The rest
    >>>> of the gun control proposals are a distraction from the real issue,
    >>>> which is, the mentally ill, and/or criminals having access to firearm,
    >>>> legal or contraband.
    >>>
    >>> "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free
    >>> State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be
    >>> infringed." Remember those words? What's so difficult to understand why
    >>> they were written.
    >>>
    >>> It's the right of the people (not just government controlled agencies
    >>> nor agents there of) to keep and bear arms. Since when did those words
    >>> mean "negotiate" or "compromise." As far as I'm concerned one can own
    >>> whatever firearm they can bear to carry. Search the Internet and one can
    >>> find ways and means to create ways to kill off lots of people thereby
    >>> having no guns being used in the accomplishment of that task.
    >>>
    >>> During the LA Watt's riots, when stores were being looted and woman were
    >>> assaulted, the police just drove by the rioters. It wasn't the police or
    >>> the National Guard that stopped the rioters, it was an armed citizenry
    >>> that openly displayed their arms and threatened to shoot anyone who
    >>> invaded their property. They stood in their front yards and on roof tops
    >>> in defiance of the rioters. The police did little to nothing to protect
    >>> property and rioters kept their loot.
    >>>

    >>
    >> Should everybody be permitted to store atomic weapons, machine guns,
    >> howitzers, and chemical weapons, etc.

    >
    > Only if you are well regulated. I understand the 2nd Amendment insists
    > on that.
    >
    > I believe the point of national disagreement lies with the manner that
    > regulation is implemented.
    >


    Yup!
    Much FUD and fear mongering is spread by lined pockets.


    --
    PeterN
    Peter, Jan 21, 2013
    #15
  16. RichA

    Peter Guest

    On 1/20/2013 10:55 PM, Tony Cooper wrote:
    > On Sun, 20 Jan 2013 22:29:56 -0500, Peter <>
    > wrote:



    Snip>

    >> Should everybody be permitted to store atomic weapons, machine guns,
    >> howitzers, and chemical weapons, etc.

    >
    > I think any American should be able to own any weapon he or she
    > chooses to own...as long as they can prove they are a member of a
    > well-regulated militia.
    >



    Certain weapons should only be owned by a well regulated militia.
    i suspect that most of our weapons of war are the property of our
    government.
    Other weapons may be owned by individuals. Which weapons,and to what
    extent individuals may own them is a matter of legitimate discussion.

    --
    PeterN
    Peter, Jan 21, 2013
    #16
  17. RichA

    Tony Cooper Guest

    On Sun, 20 Jan 2013 23:01:51 -0500, Peter <>
    wrote:

    >On 1/20/2013 10:55 PM, Tony Cooper wrote:
    >> On Sun, 20 Jan 2013 22:29:56 -0500, Peter <>
    >> wrote:

    >
    >
    >Snip>
    >
    >>> Should everybody be permitted to store atomic weapons, machine guns,
    >>> howitzers, and chemical weapons, etc.

    >>
    >> I think any American should be able to own any weapon he or she
    >> chooses to own...as long as they can prove they are a member of a
    >> well-regulated militia.
    >>

    >
    >
    >Certain weapons should only be owned by a well regulated militia.
    >i suspect that most of our weapons of war are the property of our
    >government.
    >Other weapons may be owned by individuals. Which weapons,and to what
    >extent individuals may own them is a matter of legitimate discussion.


    Peter, your irony meter needs adjustment.


    --
    Tony Cooper, Orlando FL
    Tony Cooper, Jan 21, 2013
    #17
  18. RichA

    nick c Guest

    Eric Stevens wrote:
    > On Sun, 20 Jan 2013 18:02:34 -0800, nick c <>
    > wrote:
    >
    >> On 1/20/2013 1:19 PM, DanP wrote:
    >>> On Sunday, January 20, 2013 2:24:58 AM UTC, nick c wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> I used to think the Brit's and Aussies were, shall we say ... privileged
    >>>> people (leastwise, in my eyes). That is to say, I've always held them in
    >>>> high esteem regardless of political disagreements that may surface from
    >>>> time to time. Though I may have been at odds, at times with their
    >>>> politics, should any nation threaten them, then I would get pissed-off.
    >>>> But when they sheepishly gave up their firearms to government entities,
    >>>> (it was for the children) that was a thumbs-down move and it dimmed my
    >>>> respect for them. Somehow, I think the survivors of Dunkirk would not
    >>>> have approved their actions.
    >>> UK and Australia are democracies and at least in the case of gun control they do what the people want them to do, ban guns. There is overwhelming support for gun control. Your speculations of what the survivors of Dunkirk think are just that, speculations

    >> I'm aware that the UK news media managed to conduct an successful
    >> campaign gathering over some 700,000 signatures from a horrified public
    >> after the Dunblane incident in 96, which was then sent to the PM, John
    >> Major.
    >>
    >> I think the UK has a population of about 50 million people and the way I
    >> see the issue is that about 700,000 plus signatures is not really a
    >> representative figure of a majority of people. I suppose there were many
    >> who didn't own a firearm and had nothing to surrender, yet signed the
    >> petition because Dunblane was such a horrific incident. However, nothing
    >> has actually changed in the UK that would insure such an incident would
    >> never happen again, perhaps not with guns but by other means, unless
    >> loony's obey laws.
    >>
    >> In any event, guns were banned and crime appears to have increased up to
    >> 35% .

    >
    > I'm not aware of any evidence that there is any connection.


    No evidence of a connection?

    "The Government's latest crime figures were condemned as "truly
    terrible" by the Tories today as it emerged that gun crime in England
    and Wales soared by 35% last year."

    >
    >> http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiep...ars-in-england-where-guns-are-banned-n1464528
    >>
    >> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-154307/Gun-crime-soars-35.html
    >>
    >> One has to wonder how gun related crimes in the UK can soar 35% (I've
    >> read other sites that say 40%) in a nation were guns are banned.

    >
    > For reasons which have notyhing to do with guns.


    The posted disclosures are about gun related stats. What do you think is
    driving what is said to be a "soaring" crime rate.

    >>> The Second Amendment was inspired by an English law passed a century earlier to allow Protestants to protect themselves against a Catholic Monarch. Some 30 years after the Second Amendment UK had to introduce gun control, too many soldiers returning from the Napoleonic Wars found themselves without a job and with a gun.
    >>>

    >>
    >>> DanP
    >>>
    nick c, Jan 21, 2013
    #18
  19. RichA

    nick c Guest

    Peter wrote:
    > On 1/19/2013 6:39 PM, nick c wrote:
    >> On 1/19/2013 9:04 AM, Savageduck wrote:
    >>> On 2013-01-19 04:24:47 -0800, nick c <> said:
    >>>
    >>>> On 1/19/2013 2:45 AM, DanP wrote:
    >>>>> On Saturday, 19 January 2013 09:45:59 UTC, RichA wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> How about "criminal control?" Or is that too direct?
    >>>>>
    >>>>> How do you achieve that? How do you stop a killer before committing
    >>>>> the murder?
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>> DanP
    >>>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> In this land of make believe it seems the only time the government
    >>>> trusts you to have a weapon of mass destruction is when you get
    >>>> drafted into military service. Then officialdom is only too anxious to
    >>>> not only arm you with an automatic weapon but you can also get all the
    >>>> ammo, hand-grenades, mortar shells, satchel-bombs, etal. that you can
    >>>> carry. However, even though you put your life on the line to protect
    >>>> and preserve the seat of government, when you get home, one would get
    >>>> the impression this gratuitous government, which adorns one with
    >>>> medals, doesn't trust you to own a firearm.
    >>>>
    >>>> My main camera bag alone has about $10,000 USD worth of equipment and
    >>>> when I applied for a concealed permit ('cause I'm not in fighting
    >>>> shape) I was told not to endanger myself, just insure my equipment and
    >>>> have done with it. Yes sir, in this land of opportunities, crime pays.
    >>>> I have to wonder, when I was in military service why didn't someone
    >>>> tell me not to endanger myself. (<<<G>>>)
    >>>
    >>> What State do you live in?

    >>
    >> California. The land of fruits and nuts.
    >>
    >>>
    >>> Then depending on State and the political climate in different areas of
    >>> various states (California for example) in some jurisdictions it is
    >>> almost impossible to get a CCW permit (San Francisco County) and in
    >>> other counties a mere formality.

    >>
    >> Mere formality? Not in LA county.
    >>
    >>>
    >>> Then there are the different State regulations with differences in the
    >>> way the CCW permits are issued and regulated. The one "denial" State is
    >>> Illinois, other states are divided into "Shall Issue", "May Issue", and
    >>> some restricted to State residents within the two other types.
    >>> All CCW permits are still dependent on clearing screening, background
    >>> check, etc.
    >>> This site gives a pretty good run down of the local weapons laws
    >>> pertaining to CCW permits.
    >>> < http://www.handgunlaw.us/ >
    >>>
    >>> Retired law enforcement officers are permitted to carry a concealed
    >>> firearm in all 50 states on the condition they qualify with their carry
    >>> weapons annually.

    >>
    >> The Second Amendment says nothing about the need to qualify.
    >>
    >>> So I can carry either one of these (the two weapons I am qualified with
    >>> for concealed carry).
    >>> < http://db.tt/fxUzPGcL >
    >>> < https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/FileChute/Savageduck Kw.jpg >

    >>
    >> There's that the word "qualify" again.
    >>
    >> At one time (as recent as the 40's and 50's) one could openly carry
    >> almost any firearm in California. That was before the advent of "common
    >> sense" or "compromise" took hold of peoples imaginations and a movement
    >> began to circumvent the Constitution.
    >>
    >>
    >>>
    >>> ...and for "gun control" do this:
    >>> < http://db.tt/Q8XAaCLW >
    >>>
    >>> All joking aside, there is a need for some change to our national
    >>> concept of our "gun culture".

    >>
    >> "Gun culture"? Oh yes, that's the new party line. No, there isn't a "gun
    >> culture" excepting what exists in an anti-gunners mind. What there is a
    >> need of is for people to realize what the blazing hell we have gone to
    >> war to preserve. Since mankind has walked in an upright position he has
    >> made means to defend himself against those who may do him harm.
    >>
    >> I wasn't born with a gun in my hand. Who was it that gave me weapons and
    >> told me to kill; the seat of government. The farmer remains a farmer,
    >> the engineer remains an engineer, the teacher remains a teacher, etc.,
    >> etc., etc., regardless of whoever takes over the seat of government,
    >> so... in times of war, what are we killing people for if not to protect
    >> what we hold dear .... such as our rights and freedoms. Where-the-hell
    >> in the Constitution does it say that "compromise" shall be the governing
    >> factor in the observance of Constitutional rights.
    >>
    >>> I feel that a logical start is a stronger
    >>> screening & background check policy. Also there is an ignorance among
    >>> non-gun folks regarding their perception of the description
    >>> "semi-automatic". There is a big difference between "semi-automatic",
    >>> "selective fire" and "automatic" when it comes to the function of
    >>> firearms.

    >>
    >> You just gotta be a Democrat. That appears to be the most recent party
    >> line. I heard TV news commentators say the same thing. [<<G>>]
    >>
    >> People may be politically ignorant but I think they know the difference
    >> between a semi-automatic and a fully automatic. Geeze ... even my wife
    >> knows the difference and she is a card-carrying, full-fledged,
    >> honest-to-goodness, anti-gunner.
    >>
    >>>
    >>> The idea of armed teachers is one gun advocates might like, but folks
    >>> need to be aware that even well trained, and regularly qualified
    >>> professionals with years of practice and thousands of rounds fired, can
    >>> find a combat situation beyond their ability to handle. To expect a
    >>> teacher to react as a trained combat specialist under stress is
    >>> unreasonable. I would not expect these teachers to be spending their
    >>> free time on a range to perfect their combat and defense shooting
    >>> skills. These are teachers, and I wouldn't expect more than a small
    >>> percentage to take up firearms with any enthusiasm.

    >>
    >> Trained combat specialist? You mean to say only those trained by
    >> officialdom should be considered as being a trained combat specialists?
    >> I know of ill-informed Sheriff's who don't know crap about the
    >> particulars of firearms. A point of note is, any person who was exposed
    >> to military combat conditions could qualify as being a combat
    >> specialist. That term should not be reserved for just the law
    >> enforcement agencies of the country nor agents thereof. No law
    >> enforcement person I ever knew, when in the performance of their
    >> civilian law enforcement duties, constantly spent days on end with
    >> nerves on the verge of cracking.
    >>
    >>>
    >>> So, for now my vote goes to improved and enforced screening & background
    >>> checks with longer wait periods, perhaps even as much as up to a month
    >>> before a weapon can be delivered to a properly screened buyer. The rest
    >>> of the gun control proposals are a distraction from the real issue,
    >>> which is, the mentally ill, and/or criminals having access to firearm,
    >>> legal or contraband.

    >>
    >> "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free
    >> State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be
    >> infringed." Remember those words? What's so difficult to understand why
    >> they were written.
    >>
    >> It's the right of the people (not just government controlled agencies
    >> nor agents there of) to keep and bear arms. Since when did those words
    >> mean "negotiate" or "compromise." As far as I'm concerned one can own
    >> whatever firearm they can bear to carry. Search the Internet and one can
    >> find ways and means to create ways to kill off lots of people thereby
    >> having no guns being used in the accomplishment of that task.
    >>
    >> During the LA Watt's riots, when stores were being looted and woman were
    >> assaulted, the police just drove by the rioters. It wasn't the police or
    >> the National Guard that stopped the rioters, it was an armed citizenry
    >> that openly displayed their arms and threatened to shoot anyone who
    >> invaded their property. They stood in their front yards and on roof tops
    >> in defiance of the rioters. The police did little to nothing to protect
    >> property and rioters kept their loot.
    >>

    >
    > Should everybody be permitted to store atomic weapons, machine guns,
    > howitzers, and chemical weapons, etc.
    >


    Lets see just how far your anti "bear arms"pendulum has swung. Could you
    "bear" (as in .. carry) an atomic bomb, howitzer, or even a mortar?
    Could you "bear" a 30cal water cooled heavy machine gun and baseplate?
    Then we have sub-machine guns to consider. Machine guns are presently
    permitted to be owned but a required yearly fee has to be paid. For
    example: Years ago, should a person seek to buy a Thompson Sub machine
    gun, a fee of about $1000/year fee had to be paid, after a investigation
    was conducted. Since I don't know anyone who seeks to own such a machine
    gun, to my knowledge that law still exists but the fee has most likely
    changed considerably. As for chemical weapons, they are not considered
    to be an "arm" therefore are not covered by the Constitution.
    nick c, Jan 21, 2013
    #19
  20. RichA

    DanP Guest

    On Monday, January 21, 2013 2:02:34 AM UTC, nick c wrote:
    > On 1/20/2013 1:19 PM, DanP wrote:
    >
    > > On Sunday, January 20, 2013 2:24:58 AM UTC, nick c wrote:

    >
    > >

    >
    > >>

    >
    > >> I used to think the Brit's and Aussies were, shall we say ... privileged

    >
    > >> people (leastwise, in my eyes). That is to say, I've always held them in

    >
    > >> high esteem regardless of political disagreements that may surface from

    >
    > >> time to time. Though I may have been at odds, at times with their

    >
    > >> politics, should any nation threaten them, then I would get pissed-off..

    >
    > >> But when they sheepishly gave up their firearms to government entities,

    >
    > >> (it was for the children) that was a thumbs-down move and it dimmed my

    >
    > >> respect for them. Somehow, I think the survivors of Dunkirk would not

    >
    > >> have approved their actions.

    >
    > >

    >
    > > UK and Australia are democracies and at least in the case of gun control they do what the people want them to do, ban guns. There is overwhelming support for gun control. Your speculations of what the survivors of Dunkirkthink are just that, speculations

    >
    >
    >
    > I'm aware that the UK news media managed to conduct an successful
    > campaign gathering over some 700,000 signatures from a horrified public
    > after the Dunblane incident in 96, which was then sent to the PM, John
    > Major.
    >
    >
    >
    > I think the UK has a population of about 50 million people and the way I
    > see the issue is that about 700,000 plus signatures is not really a
    > representative figure of a majority of people. I suppose there were many
    > who didn't own a firearm and had nothing to surrender, yet signed the
    > petition because Dunblane was such a horrific incident. However, nothing
    > has actually changed in the UK that would insure such an incident would
    > never happen again, perhaps not with guns but by other means, unless
    > loony's obey laws.
    >


    Again, you speak about public opinion in UK, you have no idea what the UK public thinks. I live in UK.

    A drug dealer on the run in Manchester killed 2 policewomen last year by reporting a burglary and shooting them when they arrived. The regular police do not carry guns. There were some voices saying the police should carry guns, the police force spoke against the idea.

    Nothing can be done to "make sure it never happens again", this kind of speak is either deluded or insincere. Is owning guns a solution to solve the problem once and for all?

    Look up some figures per 100.000 population for murders in US and UK, ignore the gun related deaths.


    DanP
    DanP, Jan 21, 2013
    #20
    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. William W. Plummer

    Poll for new mail?

    William W. Plummer, Jul 3, 2004, in forum: Firefox
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    380
    Moz Champion
    Jul 3, 2004
  2. FattyMcGee
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    858
    FattyMcGee
    Mar 30, 2005
  3. Mike
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    3,643
  4. Siri_y
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    1,137
    shawpnendu
    May 17, 2009
  5. Tony Cooper

    Re: OT: Gn Control Poll

    Tony Cooper, Jan 19, 2013, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    154
    Peter
    Jan 21, 2013
Loading...

Share This Page