Giving photogs a bad name?

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

  1. RichA

    Tony Cooper Guest

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    The current form of "militia" is the military. We don't deny them the
    right to carry an assault rifle.
     
    Tony Cooper, Jun 11, 2014
    1. Advertisements

  2. I'd generally agree with you in that the "militia" is the National
    Guard in the US. I think the British call it the "Territorial Army" or
    "National Reserve"
     
    James Silverton, Jun 11, 2014
    1. Advertisements

  3. Not just dumb but impossible unless you cut the beast up!
     
    James Silverton, Jun 11, 2014
  4. RichA

    PAS Guest

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

    PeterN Guest

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

    Reminds me of a surf fishing trip for stripers, when I kept walking down
    the beach. I realized that I had walked about two miles and that if I
    caught anything, I physically could not carry it back.
    My solution for the future: A wide wheel beach cart.
     
    PeterN, Jun 11, 2014
  6. RichA

    Guest Guest

    That's why there are driving tests in order to get one's driver's license.[/QUOTE]

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

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

    driving tests should be far more rigorous than they are, including
    evasive maneuvers such as properly handling skids, tire blowouts,
    stalls in traffic, kid running into a street, etc., because that stuff
    happens.
    not all states have safety inspections and older cars don't need to be
    retrofitted for safety features.
    that part is true.
    that's the problem right there. a bunch of old farts forcing their
    demands on everyone and compromising everyone's safety.

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

    it's true that older people will fail more than younger people but
    that's just the way it is. everyone ages, and some point, they will not
    be safe to be driving.
    sure you can, but it won't be popular.
    exactly why competency testing should be done.
    that's just too damned bad.

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

    it doesn't matter what age they are.
    all the more reason to limit their driving.

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

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

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

    PeterN Guest

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

    PeterN Guest

    Then I misread. I thought I saw 65. I do not have a decade on you. You
    have a few years on me.
     
    PeterN, Jun 12, 2014
  9. RichA

    PeterN Guest

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


    I have a friend who backed out of his garage with the door closed. He
    had been living in a house with a breezeway, and this was his first
    morning in his new house. His problem was driving while thinking of what
    he had to do each day. I can easily relate to that. One day my secretary
    moved my waste paper basket. I never noticed, and there was a pile of
    waste paper on the floor, right on the spot my waste basket formerly stood.
     
    PeterN, Jun 12, 2014
  10. RichA

    J. Clarke Guest

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

    J. Clarke Guest

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

    Whisky-dave Guest

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

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


    could I have a phaser set to stun.

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

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

    PAS Guest

    No I am not. But there is too much regulation in many cases, as I've
    demonstrated.
     
    PAS, Jun 13, 2014
  14. RichA

    PAS Guest

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

    J. Clarke Guest

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

    PeterN Guest

    At least we agree on something. How much is too much, can lead to
    interesting discussions. I can see the reasonable logic for the
    regulations you have complained about.
     
    PeterN, Jun 13, 2014
  17. RichA

    PAS Guest

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

    PAS Guest

    No, but in many cases there is far too much regulation of ownership.
     
    PAS, Jun 16, 2014
  19. RichA

    Whisky-dave Guest

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

    PAS Guest

    Where I live, in Suffolk County on Long Island.

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

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

    That my friend, is over regulated.
     
    PAS, Jun 16, 2014
    1. 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.