Giving photogs a bad name?

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

  1. RichA

    Whisky-dave Guest

    Do I need to justify to the govenment if my hobby were collecting nuclear weapons, would I have to justify my collection of diseases such as the bubonic plague ?
    I think that if you have a hobby or pastime or do anything that is likely to endanger someone else that that hobby should be controlled in a way to minimise the efect on others.
    Yopu don't just hand pout guns to anyone do you, surely there are some checks, yuor govenrment seems quite keen to keep a check on other countries do you have a problem with that ?
    Do you think iran or iraq or North Koera have to justify their weaponary to the USA or anyone else ?


    It should do.

    And what would that be war or revolution ?

    The constition is over 300 years old, sometimes you just have to move on.


    So why not ammend it?, it's been done before and it can be done again.

    What was the last one something about 18 year-olds voting I remmeber that from school. The constitution as ammended.

    Socireties civerlised or otherwise update their laws and cultures to some extent which is usually led by laws, but the idea of a law is to shape the peoples culture.

    That's obvious but what does it mean that the Constitution can't be changed.


    I'm saying the way the population of a contry can be controlled is by changing the law of the land which in turn will affect the way peole behave.

    What's so special about the US constitiution that makes it so difficult to change compared with say other laws.

    Which goes back to the UKs from 1698 which was about self defence (which we still have, but don't NEED to have a gun, and that we could join in with the government to protech our shores, but we've moved on from those times.

    Itv seems that the UK has managed to get away from the idea that yuo need a gun to protect ourselves from either ourselves or invading peoples, but in the US you NEED a gun to protect you from yourselves, which I think is a bit sad.

    I'd hate the idea that the law needed changing so I could feel safe in the knowledge that I NEEDED a gun about my person to feel that I was safe from individuals or the militara.

    I don't want to sit on the shitter with a gun in my hand because I feel I need protecting, and presently in the UK I don't need to do that do you ?








    I very rarely hear of anyone being protected by a gun unless it's in the hand of the armed forces (including the police).

    Where were all the gun heroes here ?

    http://www.euronews.com/2014/04/14/...spected-anti-jewish-hate-crime-in-kansas-usa/

    I'm far less likely to be confronted by a gun carrying person check the stats.

    Or explain why you need to lock so many people up in America why do you have more criminals than we do percentage wise ?

    Take a look at the land of the FREE !

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_incarceration_rate

    USA 716 per 100,000
    England/wales 148 per 100,000

    Perhaps if we had such a high number of criminals in our country we might too feel the need to carry a gun while having a shit.
    So considering our cultures aren't all that differnt why do you feel the need to incarcerate nearly 5 times the number of peole we do, when we also have pretty much the same laws.
     
    Whisky-dave, Jun 2, 2014
    #81
    1. Advertisements

  2. RichA

    PAS Guest

    You don't seem to grasp this, otherwise you wouldn't be using this
    ridiculous analogy. There is a Cosntitutional right to keep and bear arms.
    There isn't one to collect diseases. It's fairly simple.

    A Constitutional right is not a hobby or pastime. Do you consider your
    right to free speech where you live to be a mere hobby?
    There are checks, many of them. The process I had to endure in order to get
    a license for a handgun was a long one.
    This has no bearing on the subject.
    Now you are talking nonsense. There is a specific process outlines in the
    Constitution by which it can be amended, and it has been amended before.
    We value the rights we have, they never get old.
    It can be amended, as I've said more than once. But it not something done
    lightly, as by design of the founders. Do you think it is an easy task to
    wipe away a Constitutional right such as freedom of speech? The founders
    placed a high value on the freedom to keep and bear arms as evident by the
    fact that it is the 2nd amendment in the Constitution. That, and any other
    right, cannot be taken away so easily.
    Laws and cultures are one thing, Constituitionally protected rights are
    another matter.
    It can be changed, but not lightly. Constitutionally protected rights are
    not simply subject to a changing culture.
    Constituional rights are not simply just laws that can be changed easily.
    The Constitution provides for a process for it to be amended. It can be
    changed but is not something done lightly.
    Not once did I ever say I "need" a gun. I have a right to have one if I
    choose to. I have made the choice to exercise that right.
    Despite what you think, the majority of people here don't carry guns with
    them. If more did, we'd see less tragedies like the one you noted.
    I said a "violent criminal". I did not say a gun-carrying criminal, don't
    twist my words. If someone enters into my home and threatens the safety of
    my family or myself, I have a right to defend myslef or my family - with
    deadly force if necessary. I prefer to have an advantage in that situation.
    Whether the criminal who is threatening me has a gun or not does not matter
    to me. He is a threat and I can use whatever force I want to eliminate the
    threat - or him.
    Statistics don't tell the whole story but that's en entirely different
    discussion.
     
    PAS, Jun 2, 2014
    #82
    1. Advertisements

  3. RichA

    PAS Guest

    So where is this proof you claim that progressive groups were investigated
    by the IRS like conservative groups were? Guess I'll google that.
     
    PAS, Jun 2, 2014
    #83
  4. RichA

    Tony Cooper Guest

    Move to Florida. The requirements here to obtain a license for a
    handgun are:

    1. You must be 21 years of age or older
    2. You must be able to demonstrate competency with a firearm.

    That's it, but there are exclusions. You can't be a convicted felon,
    be so physically impaired that you can't handle a firearm safely, be
    committed to a mental institution, be a fugitive from justice, and a
    few more restrictions based on criminal charges.

    The gun store will provide training to allow you to demonstrate
    competency with a firearm. The training is rigorous and requires that
    you can point to the trigger and the barrel and know which way to
    point the gun when firing it. The training process can last as long
    as five minutes.

    You have to endure a bit more if you want a Concealed Weapon Permit.
    You have to take a course, have a photograph taken, have your
    fingerprints taken, sign the application form, and pay $112 for a
    permit that is good for seven years.

    The course required is arduous. You are required to attend a two hour
    class and then a range session. You are required to bring 5 rounds of
    ammunition to the range session. The cost of a course varies, but
    this one charges $50.00. They point out that it is not necessary to
    take notes at the course.

    http://floridagunexchange.com/concealed-weapons-permit-class/

    So, in Florida, to license your Kel Tec PF-9, the gun that George
    Zimmerman used to shoot and kill Travon Martin (who was armed with a
    box of Skittle candy) and get a permit to carry concealed, you have to
    take a few hours of training and be able to fire five shots on a range
    without hitting your instructor or your foot.

    If, instead of owning a gun, you decide to arm yourself with scissors
    and become a barber, you must take 1,200 hours of instruction at a
    licensed barbering school.
     
    Tony Cooper, Jun 2, 2014
    #84
  5. RichA

    PAS Guest

    I'll take Florida's way of doing things any time. In Suffolk County on Long
    Island, here is what I had to do to get my handgun license which permits me
    to have a gun in my home (no open carry, no concealed & carry):

    1) Fill out a long application including previous addresses. I had to list
    three personal references as well as employer, etc.
    2) Provide three affidavits from the personal references
    3) The references were all interviewed by a police investigator
    4) I was interviewed by a police investigator
    5) I had to be finger printed at a cost of $ 100.00 (in addition to the
    application fees)
    6) You are warned that if you get so much as a speeding ticket during the
    application process, you can imperil your chances of getting approved
    7) Finally received approval after a six-month period

    To purchase a handgun, I go to a gun dealer and make my purchase. I am not
    permitted to take possession. I get a form filled out by the gun dealer
    that I then have to take to the police department for their approval. With
    that approval, then I go back to the gun dealer with the stamped form and
    take possession. Then I have to bring the handgun to the police department
    for their inspection and recording of serial number and they put the serial
    number on my license.

    I am only permitted to take the handgun to a range. I have to go from my
    home directly to the range and then directly back home. No stops in
    between, not even to get gas for the car. Get caught stopping and your
    license is revoked and your handgun confiscated. These regulations are made
    at the whim of the police commissioner, not by any elected official.

    In New York State under the new so-called "Safe Act", we law-abiding
    citizens were made into felons overnight if we had any magazines that hold
    more than seven rounds even though the magazines were legal before the law
    was enacted and were manufactured before the law took effect. Since the law
    was rushed through in the dead of night without anyone really reading it, in
    violation of the NY State Constitution that requires a three-day waiting
    period for a new law so that the public can read it and react to it (the
    governor got around this provision of the state constitution by declaring
    the law an "emergency" which doesn't require the three-day waiting period),
    no one realized that the law failed to exempt law-enforcement from the
    seven-round limit in the magazines so they too were in violation of the law.
    A provision had to be rushed through to compensate for that. The other
    issue is that there are no magazines manufactured for seven or less rounds
    for many rifles. Anyone with an "assault rifle" must now register them. An
    assault rifle is an automatic rifle. We have not been permitted to won them
    since the 1930s If a rifle resembles a military rifle, it's an assault
    rifle even though it's not an automatic rifle. Take the same semiautomatic
    rifle and make it without a pistol grip stock and its not an assault rifle
    under the law. Ammo sales are now reported and there will be background
    checks for all ammo sales, even for licenses handgun owners. Internet sales
    of ammo must now be shipped to a state licensed dealer so that the sale can
    be recorded and reported.
     
    PAS, Jun 2, 2014
    #85
  6. RichA

    Tony Cooper Guest

    Wow. Quite a process to protect yourself from Skittle-carrying hooded
    thugs.

    If it takes all of that to arm yourself, what must the requirements be
    to be a barber?
     
    Tony Cooper, Jun 2, 2014
    #86
  7. RichA

    Whisky-dave Guest

    Your right I don;t get it.
    Free speech isn't what it is, there are limits.
    Free speech as far as I know hasn't killed anyone, but is free speech part of the constitituion?

    But that in no way limits teh constitition or does it ?
    So some are restricted under the 'constitition' it doesn't apply to everyone does it.

    I'm hoping assume that if america goes back to the moon or mars that they won;t feel teh need as the constitiution says to bear arms up there.


    IS your constitution only for amercans or those living in america ?
    You do know that outside of the USA your constitition doesn't apply.

    Yes I know 27 times or so, can't remmeber.....
    but everyone talks as if the gun law can't be changed.
    and I'm betting if they were something more powerful and destructive than agun then that would be added to the consittion in that you would be allowed one of those too. I'm thinking along the lines of a phaser.


    A blinkered view.
    Suppose someone invents a new weapon that can be used via thought, when those appear will the constition see them as arms and give americans the right to own one ?

    The founders lived in a differnt world in a differnt time.
    We in the UK do not allow so called freedom of speech when it incite racsism or hate speeches of anothers, you do not have to elimite free speech to spot this sort of thing.
    I dounbt the USA would let abu hamza have his free speech.

    It wasn;t easy getting to the moon and back but it was done, and remmeber that speech do you.
    There's little in life that's worthwhile that is also easy.

    And that's where the problem lies. Very similar in the way religious zealots claim that their god exists and no other can, there's onl;y one rule and that is 'ours' cos we know the facts.

    Then they should be then as laws should support the people of the country in the way they wish to live, or die.

    Well that's obvious it's like a tramps underwear is it.

    We have laws here too and they get changed, it can take a while but if the people agree then the laws eventually get changed.
    We've had our laws changed by Europe too.


    Few important laws are changed lightly.

    Sweden changed it's traffic direction in ~1967 the whole countrys changes from driving on the correct side of the road to the wrong side in a day ;-)



    As a fair few do I assume.

    Why would it be less, the stats prove that in most countires where people commonly carry guns more people get killed by them.

    Introducing guns isn't like a small pox vaccine, where ther populatiojn builds up an imunity.

    so do I.
    We us the term resonable force.
    Doesn't everyone, but your intruders are far far more likely to have a gun or any weapon than they are here. You also have 5 times the number of criminals or so it appears.
    In the UK the majority of breakins are by unarmed and quite often children,I don't know about the USA but in some countries a breakin is more lieklyto be a gang wielding some quite nasty weapons from semi automatic rifles to handguns this rarel;y happens in the UK.
    That's the american way it seems, doesn't seem to work too well you still end up with more criminals than us even with teh 'succsess of shooting them on the doorstep.
    There must be some reason that a lareg numnber of americans need to be locked up.
    But then we all know how paranoid some could get and why some overreact toa relatively harmelss plant.

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...s-fight-against-25year-jail-term-1437937.html

    It must be really scary confronted by someone with a bunch of leaves.
     
    Whisky-dave, Jun 2, 2014
    #87
  8. RichA

    android Guest

    And take place in the yard one would assume...
     
    android, Jun 2, 2014
    #88
  9. RichA

    android Guest

    All those rattle snakes are a true pest, aren't they?!?
     
    android, Jun 2, 2014
    #89
  10. RichA

    android Guest

    I seee... Zzzzzidewwwiiiindersssss??????
    I thought that you lived in the dessert... Opsisis et sorryy!1!
     
    android, Jun 2, 2014
    #90
  11. RichA

    android Guest

    The spelling control don't give out warnings when you misspell with an
    existing word. Jupp. I type to fast... ;-p
     
    android, Jun 2, 2014
    #91
  12. RichA

    PAS Guest

    Of course there are limits, as well as responsibilities when exercising your
    rights. Free speech is protected by the 1st Amendment of the Constitution,
    the right to have arms is protected by the 2nd Amendment. It's bvious that
    the founders placed a very high priority on the right to be armed.
    Many of the checks have attempted to usurp the Constitution. In Washington
    D.C., it was illegal to own a handgun for quite a period of time. And for
    the anti-gun nuts, that city had the highest rate of handgun murders in the
    country despite a complete ban on them. The Supreme Court eventually ruled
    that it was unconstitutional to ban handguns and the city's ban was
    overturned. The same in Chicage which is a more recent case. In my
    opinion, and it's shared by others, many of the current restrictions are
    unconstitutional. But until a case reaches the courts, they remain in
    place. There is no uniform "code" across the country. Each state has its'
    own laws as well as cities, counties, and towns. There are federal laws
    which take precedence over any other locale's laws. The gun laws in one
    state such as Florida are far less restrictive than in New York where I live
    which are some of the most restrictive in the country.
    The restrictions are imposed by federal, state, city, and local laws. The
    constitution doesn't impose those. The laws can be seen as restricting the
    Constitution but the recourse is to bring suit so the case can be rules on
    in the courts, possibly ending up in the Supreme Court which. They rule on
    the constitutionality of a law, as they did in the case of the handgun ban
    in Washington D.C.
    We'll bring our ray guns with us.

    And I still fail to see where this has any beairing on the right of a US
    citizen to own firearms.
    Gun laws are changed constantly, it's the Constitution that is not changed
    often. These are two entirely different things.
    You can call my view whatever you wish. When you don't stand firm on our
    rights and they get taken from you one day then you are the one to blame.
    The Constitution doesn't "see", it is what it is. It's the court system
    that rules on the Constitutionality of the laws that are passed.
    SO then we should revisit the right of people to have free speech, freedom
    of religion, freddom of the press, etc. This is the road you seem to want
    to walk down. Our rights are not to be eroded with the passage of time.
    We are far more lenient in this area than in the UK and even Canada. People
    have the right to their hate speech. If it leads to inciting violence and
    causing harm to someone, then it becomes an issue. But someone can spout
    off all the hateful and racist views they have if they want to, hay have the
    right.
    You are correct, worthwhile things are not always easy but we differ on what
    is worthwhile. I think it's is worhtwhile to stand up and fight to protect
    our rights.
    No, that is not the problem. The Constitution was drafted to provide
    limited power to the federal government and codify what those limited pwers
    are. Our founders knew full well the abuses of unchecked government and
    sought to protect the citizens from government abuse. There is no
    connection ata l to religious zealotry and what I stated.
    And that's why the Constitution can be changed if the representative's of
    the people vote to do so. We have a representative government, we elect
    people who represent us and they cast their votes. You should keep in mind
    that it is not a hard and fast rule that the "majority rules". If the
    majority of people in the USA voted to bring back slavery, should that be
    permitted to happen?
    And that's the way we like it.
    Havng your laws changed by Europe is another matter. I don't believe that
    the UK should ever give up it's sovereignty to the EU.
    I would not have wanted to be on those roads when that happened. I can't
    imagine the confusion on those streets.

    Quite a few, yes
    There are just as many stats that prove that where people carried weapons
    with them, the crime rate plummeted. If you were a criminal would you go to
    an area to committ crimes where you knew people carried guns or would you go
    to one where people didn't carry them. If I recall, the incidence of
    violent crime, including handgun use, increased in the UK as gun conrol laws
    got stricter and stricter
    http://www.gunfacts.info/gun-control-myths/guns-in-other-countries/
     
    PAS, Jun 2, 2014
    #92
  13. RichA

    PAS Guest

    I prefer to shoot at M&M carrying hoods.
    No one has a Constitutional right to be a barber, we do to have guns.
     
    PAS, Jun 2, 2014
    #93
  14. RichA

    PAS Guest

    The Supreme Court seems to fall on my side on this one. What part of the
    "Right to keep and bear arms" do you not interpret to be "the right to be
    armed"?
     
    PAS, Jun 2, 2014
    #94
  15. RichA

    PAS Guest

    Holy crap is right. I frankly don't know why some of these severe
    restrictions haven't been challenged. The so-called "NY Safe Act" is being
    challenged and hopefully will be overturned.

    Even Walmart imposes special rules for us. They will sell handgun ammo if
    you present a license that indicates you own a gun that uses the caliber
    ammo you want to buy. It's not the law here just their policy and it's not
    a policy in all stores outside of Long Island. I've got a rifle that uses
    45 cal ammo. Because I don't have a 45 cal handgun listed on my handgun
    license (I have a 38 Special), they won't sell me the 45 cal because it's
    handgun ammo. Arguing that it's also used in a rifle is fruitless.
     
    PAS, Jun 2, 2014
    #95
  16. RichA

    PeterN Guest

    On 6/2/2014 10:07 AM, PAS wrote:

    from what I heard, it is NOT institutional policy to investigate
    conservative, right leaning groups. The IRS does do a rather complete
    investigation of ALL entities seeking exempt status under 501(c)(3).
    This is a clear case of "your picking on me because I'm <fill in the
    blank.">
     
    PeterN, Jun 3, 2014
    #96
  17. RichA

    PeterN Guest

    You seem to forget that barbers are the predecessors of surgeons. They
    remove growths from the top of your had.
     
    PeterN, Jun 3, 2014
    #97
  18. RichA

    PeterN Guest

    Yes, indeed there is. Subject to limits. I assume that you are a member
    of the tea party because you believe that government should be at a
    local level. Yet you complain when your local government has tighter gun
    control regulations than Florida. I see omewhat of an inconsistency there.
     
    PeterN, Jun 3, 2014
    #98
  19. RichA

    Tony Cooper Guest

    I just don't see that "mental health issues" are anywhere near the
    crux of the problem of who should be considered to be responsible
    enough to own a gun.

    "Mental health issues" cover a very wide range of afflictions. Within
    that range is a very narrow range of mental health problems that
    result in diminished responsibility regarding ownership of a gun.

    Your man walking down the street conversing with a lamppost, and
    insisting that ants are aliens from another galaxy has mental health
    issues. However, his type of mental issues do not present a danger to
    the public. Armed, he'd be no more danger that he is unarmed.

    If being mentally defective is the determinant of who shouldn't be
    allowed to buy a gun, then you'd have deny gun ownership to holocaust
    deniers, non-believers in evolution, those who think homosexuality is
    a choice, and anyone who believes in Biblical inerrancy. (I'm not
    that sure about those of us who think the Cubs will ever be in the
    World Series.)

    What mental health tests don't turn up is the person who will snap
    because someone cuts him off in traffic, the person who will finish
    off an argument with his wife by finishing her off, the person who -
    after a few drinks - will decide someone is hitting on his girlfriend
    and he must salve his wounded pride by wounding the other guy, and the
    jittery idiot who will shoot at anything that goes bump in the night.

    The future unpredictability of a person is not something we can test
    for.

    Anyone who walks into a theater, a bar, or their place of business and
    starts shooting is patently crazy. The problem with deducing from
    that we must screen for the crazy is that these people so often have
    no past history of mental instability. There was no predictive
    indication of that instability that could have been determined by any
    test.

    Sure, you've got the kid that keeps a journal and prepares months in
    advance for his shooting spree, but most gun deaths are not from that
    type. The aggregate numbers from the non-spree shootings far
    out-strip the mass shootings.
     
    Tony Cooper, Jun 3, 2014
    #99
  20. RichA

    android Guest

    ???
     
    android, Jun 3, 2014
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

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

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.