Giving photogs a bad name?

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

  1. RichA

    Whisky-dave Guest

    Suprised you don't mention the threat of small pox as a valid reason.
    We haven't threatened the USA for some time now, although between the wars wasn't the USA planning on attacking the UK soemthing called plan red.


    Trying to remmebr the old joke from school, why didn;'t Neil armstrong and buzz aldrin take guns to the moon, because American hadn't landed there yet.

    or words to that efect it was some time ago.

    Do you think that if america colonises the moon before China or india they'll be a need for everyone to carry a gun(s) as an extention or because of the constitution ?
     
    Whisky-dave, Jun 3, 2014
    1. Advertisements

  2. RichA

    android Guest

    Ohhh... Thank's for the clarification. I feel enlightened!
     
    android, Jun 3, 2014
    1. Advertisements

  3. RichA

    J. Clarke Guest

    He needs to check again. The background check is a Federal requirement.
    There is no special exemption for Alaska. I don't know where people get
    the idea that no background checks are required for firearms purchase in
    the US.

    While improvements are possible in that system, it does exist and has
    existed for more than 20 years.
    Everybody wants "effective gun control". The difference comes in the
    definition of "effective gun control" with the gun-control advocates
    pretty much wanting to ban everything and the the rest of us wanting it
    to be shown that the method proposed will actually be effective in
    disarming criminals rather than furhter harassing the law-abiding to no
    real purpose.
     
    J. Clarke, Jun 3, 2014
  4. RichA

    J. Clarke Guest

    J. Clarke, Jun 3, 2014
  5. RichA

    Whisky-dave Guest

    And for good reasons for those times.
    But times change even in the UK, we update laws, even those that seemed sensible 300 years ago.


    I guess it the word Constitution that's the problem then.

    Would be intresting to see some graphs, all I've found so far is.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ushomicidesbyweapon.svg

    pity there isn't one for gun ownership to compare.

    Which means ...
    so the constitionion can be seen differntly depeding in which state you live in.


    That's what I would expect after all we all know how many americans have reported to have been abducted by aliens so you obviously need to protect yourselves and your cultural heritage.

    That while you quite clearly see the right to protect yourselves you do notsee the right of anyone else to choose the same path, i.e to protect themselves.

    To me even the constitituion is unclear on who the enemy is.
    Someone suggesed that the constition was written so that america can protect themselevs from England, But I'm betting more americans are killed by fellow americans than any other nation, this constitituion appears to be killing more americans every year than muslims piloting planes in to tower blocks have but seem far less concerned by it.

    But strongly connected.

    Rights aren't given by some supernatural power they are given by humans to other humans, soem 'humans' give others the right to stone their wives to death if they think they are having an affair that is no differnt from a constition just differnt words they call theirs sharia law.

    ah it's blind thought as much.


    yes we do.
    The rights of whom, freedom of the press in what way.

    Not from what I've seen or heard.

    https://www.aclu.org/free-speech/hate-speech-campus

    But it really doesn't seem that differnt from the UK.

    Same here

    Same here


    So easily whatever that means.
    According to abu hamza he was doing the same because of americas acts against his people.


    Some cultures refer to that sort of thing as a religious texts.
    Wheather wriiten by monks,
     
    Whisky-dave, Jun 3, 2014
  6. RichA

    Whisky-dave Guest


    The Second Amendment was based partially on the right to keep and bear armsin English common-law and was influenced by the English Bill of Rights of 1689. Sir William Blackstone described this right as an auxiliary right, supporting the natural rights of self-defense, resistance to oppression, and the civic duty to act in concert in defense of the state.[8]

    In United States v. Cruikshank (1876), the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that, "The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence" and limited the applicability of the Second Amendment to the federal government.[9] In United States v. Miller (1939), the Supreme Court ruled thatthe federal government and the states could limit any weapon types not having a "reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia".[10][11]
     
    Whisky-dave, Jun 3, 2014
  7. RichA

    PAS Guest

    Maybe you should get it straight -

    Samual Adams: "The Constitution shall never be construed...to prevent the
    people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their
    arms."

    Patrick Henry: The great objective is that every man be armed...Everyone
    who is able may have a gun."

    Thomas Jefferson: "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."

    Noah Webster: "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be
    disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power
    in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body
    of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of
    regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States."
     
    PAS, Jun 3, 2014
  8. RichA

    PAS Guest

    Where is the inconsistency? Local government can be overreaching too, just
    like the federal government. In this respect, they are overreaching.
     
    PAS, Jun 3, 2014
  9. RichA

    PAS Guest

    They USED to remove those growths from the top of our heads.
     
    PAS, Jun 3, 2014
  10. RichA

    Tony Cooper Guest

    This is rather typical for someone on one side of the issue. In this
    case, the position is that the pro-gun people are logical, rational
    people who want to carefully proceed and institute changes only when
    it is proven that they will be effective. And, that the anti-gun
    people are whack-jobs who want to ban everything that can be pointed
    and fired.

    If Mr Clarke was on the other side, he would say that the pro-gun
    people are whack-jobs who want unlimited access to all weaponry
    without any restrictions of any kind, and that anti-gun people are
    reasoned individuals who want to put into place fair and reasonable
    restrictions to ensure the safety of the American public.

    Of course, the reality is that both camps contain both factions.

    The problem in making progress is that both camps include so many of
    the whack-jobs with extreme positions that the reasonable members of
    both groups are outshouted.

    The pro-gun group will prevail because they are the group with the
    best offensive unit (and I use "offensive" with both meanings): the
    NRA.
     
    Tony Cooper, Jun 3, 2014
  11. RichA

    PeterN Guest

    On 6/3/2014 12:35 AM, Tony Cooper wrote:


    Not sure that would be a bad thing.
     
    PeterN, Jun 3, 2014
  12. RichA

    Tony Cooper Guest

    Yeah, yeah, yeah. It's easy to find examples like Rodgers. However,
    if there was some magic wand that would detect every individual of
    that type, it would not reduce the problem by a significant fraction.

    It wouldn't find the yahoos in this area who were plinking tin cans in
    their back yard last December and a neighbor was killed by a stray
    round. The magic wand might reveal "crazy", but not "stupid".

    Just today there's an article in the newspaper about a homeless man
    who was shot and killed outside of a convenience store. He was
    aggressively begging a person leaving the store for "loose change".
    Not with a weapon, but being "aggressive" according to witnesses.

    The person leaving the store was (legally) armed and shot and killed
    the bum. There are no charges expected to be filed.

    Had the person leaving the store been me, I would have quickly walked
    away from the bum. Not being armed, I would think the prudent thing
    to do would be to walk away. Even at my advanced age, I can out-run a
    bum.

    Once in my car, I would have called the police and let them deal with
    the bum.

    I don't know what gun the shooter carried, but it's entirely possible
    that his action could have killed an innocent person. Bullets go
    through people and continue until something stops them. A child,
    maybe. Bullets miss and hit the wrong person.
     
    Tony Cooper, Jun 3, 2014
  13. RichA

    PAS Guest

    True. But there is more than just the Constitution that the writers left
    behind, their other writing and records of speeches. The predominant writer
    of the 2nd Amendment considered the "militia" to be everyone. Other
    founders were very clear about who has the right to have firearms.
     
    PAS, Jun 3, 2014
  14. RichA

    PeterN Guest

    On 6/3/2014 6:27 AM, J. Clarke wrote:

    It is almost impossible gun control to be 100% effective in stopping
    criminal gun ownership. But, that doesn't mean there shouldn't be some
    reasonable restrictions on gun ownership. I and millions of others of
    non gun owners advocate gun control. I have no desire to won a gun, but
    do not want to "ban everything." The notion of "effective" is an NRA
    bullshit buzzword. Years ago I slowed down to make a turn. I actually
    stopped because there were people walking in front of me. There was an
    idiot behind me who was honking, and after I turned into the parking
    lot, went into a rage and started kicking my car. I happened to have a
    can of spray paint in my car. I sprayed him in the face. that stopped
    him. I am very happy that he didn't have a gun. Casual gun ownership,
    without proper training, and without reason for ownership, should be
    banned. I consider use for target practice, a good reason for ownership.
    I have a friend who used to be a world class target shooter. He has some
    interesting stories about encounters with airline personnel, (pre-911,)
    in his travels to international tournaments.
    Note to PAS, next time I go to a roller derby game, if you come I will
    introduce you. He is also a photographer, and has a unique personality.


    PeterN
     
    PeterN, Jun 3, 2014
  15. RichA

    PeterN Guest

    I used to use Dragon Naturally Speaking in my office, and get Speakos.

    Dictate: "It's hard to recognize speech," and you could get: "It's hard
    to wreck a nice beach."
     
    PeterN, Jun 3, 2014
  16. RichA

    Tony Cooper Guest

    Have you booked your two-week summer duty at a militia camp this year?
    Montana has quite a few with openings.
     
    Tony Cooper, Jun 3, 2014
  17. RichA

    Tony Cooper Guest

    Hell, I just want to have some control over the idiots who are not
    criminals.

    In 2013, 47 guns were confiscated at Orlando International Airport
    from passengers who had them in their carry-on luggage. At Ft
    Lauderdale, 45 were confiscated.

    The owners of the guns "forgot" they were in the carry-on luggage.

    If they have the guns as a means of self-protection, but can't keep
    track of where the guns are, what's the point?

    So it finally happens. A thug accosts them and threatens their life.
    Instead of being able to defend themselves, they stand there trying to
    remember where they put their gun.

    Do these 92 people have a right to own and carry a gun? If we ban
    crazy people from owning and carrying, can we ban stupid?

    If you "forget" that chugging a six pack of beer renders you unable to
    drive safely, and can lose your driver's license for that infraction,
    can we take away those 92 gun licenses?
     
    Tony Cooper, Jun 3, 2014
  18. RichA

    PeterN Guest

    therefore, it should be legal for me to own a fully operational tank;
    howitzer; A bomb; poison gas delivery systems. etc.
     
    PeterN, Jun 3, 2014
  19. RichA

    -hh Guest

    NJ is pretty close to NY's too, although its also IIRC a
    two step process in that one has to get a rifle/shotgun
    permit issued _before_ requesting a pistol permit, so
    the leadtime requirements effectively double.

    One of the subtlties is that the law does include a requirement
    that states that the Govt is only afforded 30 days to issue,
    but there's some loopholes. The unofficial rule of thumb is
    that after 45+ days have transpired, you make a "polite inquiry"
    on its status, and then wait another 30 days before your next
    follow-up...in the end, it works out to be that a pistol
    permit take 60-90 days after it was submitted (after the rifle/
    shotgun was previously processed & approved).

    And finally, while the R/S permit is one for as many as you
    want to subsequently buy, the pistol permit is a 1:1 for each
    individual purchase, and if you ask for more than one of them
    at once, the first question you'll be asked is: "...why?".


    -hh
     
    -hh, Jun 3, 2014
  20. RichA

    PeterN Guest

    I thought his ast words were: "Where did all those f--en Indians come from."
     
    PeterN, 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.