Giving photogs a bad name?

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

  1. RichA

    Whisky-dave Guest

     
    Whisky-dave, Jun 6, 2014
    1. Advertisements

  2. RichA

    PAS Guest

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

  3. RichA

    Tony Cooper Guest

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

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

    We have no indication that any armed mob/militia will behave anymore
    reasonably today.
     
    Tony Cooper, Jun 6, 2014
  4. RichA

    Whisky-dave Guest

    Well if their weapons are legal is there a differnce.

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

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

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

    Tony Cooper Guest

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

    While it may be pointed out that the guns were obtained legally, or
    illegally, we react to a shooting incident based on the actions of the
    shooter.
     
    Tony Cooper, Jun 6, 2014
  6. RichA

    PeterN Guest

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

    those who claim there is such a need, forget that small arms would be of
    little use against the Federal guvernment.
     
    PeterN, Jun 6, 2014
  7. RichA

    PeterN Guest

    At the battle oc Cowpens, Morgan used the "reliability" of the militia
    to good advantage.
     
    PeterN, Jun 6, 2014
  8. RichA

    Tony Cooper Guest

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

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

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

    http://www.city-data.com/crime/crime-Houston-Texas.html
    http://www.city-data.com/crime/crime-Chicago-Illinois.html
     
    Tony Cooper, Jun 6, 2014
  9. RichA

    PeterN Guest

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


    Assault rifles similar to the AK47

    BAR

    50 CAL rifles

    Apache helicopters

    Mortars

    Bradley fighting vehicles

    Sherman tanks


    Abrams tanks


    Hand grenade

    Bazookas


    M32 grenade launcher


    150 mm Howitzer


    Armed drones


    Nuclear weapons
     
    PeterN, Jun 7, 2014
  10. RichA

    Robert Coe Guest

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

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

    Bob
     
    Robert Coe, Jun 7, 2014
  11. RichA

    PeterN Guest

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

    Why!. If we wait until the facts are in, the radical right will have
    missed a chance to bash our President.
     
    PeterN, Jun 7, 2014
  12. RichA

    Robert Coe Guest

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

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

    Bob
     
    Robert Coe, Jun 8, 2014
  13. RichA

    PeterN Guest

    Well, when are you giving a reasoned and rational response?
    I await it with bated breath.
     
    PeterN, Jun 10, 2014
  14. RichA

    PeterN Guest

    I just let him corner himself.
     
    PeterN, Jun 10, 2014
  15. RichA

    PeterN Guest

    Just answer the question, please.
     
    PeterN, Jun 10, 2014
  16. RichA

    PAS Guest

    We are not permitted to own assualt weapons. Assault weapons are automatic.
    This constant drone about "assault" weapons is a lie. Just because a rifle
    resembles a military rifle doesn't make it an assault rifle. You should
    know that.
    Where does the Constitution indicate that a citizen must demonstrate a
    "need" in order to exercise his/her rights? If I want to get myself a 357
    Magnum like Dirty Harry used, then I can. I don't have to demonstrate to
    anyone whether or not I need one. Does my neighbor who has no kids have to
    prove he needs that huge GMC Suburban he drives? If he wants it and can
    afford it, he can buy it.
    And it's your choice not to own any of those rifles but your choices don't
    have to be my choices. I have a coworker who is an vocal gun-control
    supporter. You'll hear him say over and over that "I don't believe anyone
    should own a gun". His personal beliefs have no bearing on our rights,
    thankfully. Your choices have no bearing on them either.
     
    PAS, Jun 11, 2014
  17. RichA

    PeterN Guest

    Are you saying that there should e no regulation of ownership of weapons?
    Discussion of the degree of regulation is a different discussion than
    whether ownership should be regulated.
     
    PeterN, Jun 11, 2014
  18. RichA

    Whisky-dave Guest

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


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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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


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

    We can't all choose the way we die.
    Do you think your personal beliefs have any bearing on those mulims that piloted the planes into the twin towers.
    Do yuo think anyone should be able to own and pilot a plane.
    Would you restrict those owners to when and where they can fly ?

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

    Whisky-dave Guest

    I do, but

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


    2011 32,367 motor vehicles
    2011 8583 guns

    1972 54,589 motor vehicles.

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

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

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

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

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



    There's a market for crack cocaine too.

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

    PAS Guest

    That's why there are driving tests in order to get one's driver's license.
    Maybe there are some states that don't require one, I don't know. We have
    yearly safety inspections that our cars must pass in NY in order to stay on
    the road. There is also a myriad of regulations for safety in veicles that
    the manufactureres must adhere to. Cars are far more safer now than they
    have ever been.
    Good luck with putting an age limit on drivers. The old folks have an
    extremely powerful political lobby here and I suggest that any proposition
    like that will go down in flames. Also, you can't make an arbitrary
    decision that people of "x" age can no longer drive. I know some old folks
    that are excellent drivers and some young ones that shouldn't be behind the
    wheel. If someone proposes that after a certain age one must be retested in
    order to renew a license, they'll claim it is age discrimination. People 65
    and older are involved in more accidents per mile driven than any other age
    group.
    Let's rephrase it. It's only you and the momma moose with her baby. There's
    no car, you just hiked five miles to the spot you're on. You won't outrun a
    charging moose. You either get severely injured or killed or you shoot. Do
    you want a .22 or an AR-15?
     
    PAS, Jun 11, 2014
    1. 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.