 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeArticlesDiving DestinationsLearning Scuba DivingMarine LifeMiscellaneousDiscussion GroupsGeneralScuba EquipmentScuba LocationsAustralian ScubaUK ScubaDirectoryScuba Clubs |
Scuba Forum / General / March 2007Score!!!
It's not a Supreme Court Ruling, but it's still pretty nice. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070309/ap_on_re_us/dc_gun_ban > It's not a Supreme Court Ruling, but it's still pretty nice. > > http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070309/ap_on_re_us/dc_gun_ban "Silberman wrote that the Second Amendment is still 'subject to the same sort of reasonable restrictions that have been recognized as limiting, for instance, the First Amendment.' Such restrictions might include gun registration, firearms testing to promote public safety or restrictions on gun ownership for criminals or those deemed mentally ill." So even if the Supreme Court, with the majority of its members being Republican appointees, upholds the decision, we can still require gun registration. Nice indeed. As soon as we get a liberal majority on the Court again, we'll collect them all. > So even if the Supreme Court, with the majority of its members being > Republican appointees, upholds the decision, we can still require gun > registration. Nice indeed. As soon as we get a liberal majority on > the Court again, we'll collect them all. Not even close... There's plenty of us who will not register our firearms because we know what will come next... As we've been saying for years, "first comes registration, then confiscation"... Is it so fuckin' difficult to consider that perhaps the FFs actually *meant* what they said when they said, "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED"? >> So even if the Supreme Court, with the majority of its members being >> Republican appointees, upholds the decision, we can still require gun [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > difficult to consider that perhaps the FFs actually *meant* what they > said when they said, "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED"? Hmm, we've had a hand-gun registry since 1934, and I still have mine. Guess your gov is less trustable then mine - which is scary, 'cause I trust mine about as far as I can trow it... Bryan > Hmm, we've had a hand-gun registry since 1934, and I still have mine. > Guess your gov is less trustable then mine - which is scary, 'cause I > trust mine about as far as I can trow it... Hmmm... Had to look "trow" up... Synonym of "believe"... Sounds a bit redundant in that phrase... Obviously things move slower up there in the Great Frozen North... Maybe they can only enact legislation during the periods when things are thawed out? >> Hmm, we've had a hand-gun registry since 1934, and I still have mine. >> Guess your gov is less trustable then mine - which is scary, 'cause I >> trust mine about as far as I can trow it... > > Hmmm... Had to look "trow" up... Synonym of "believe"... Sounds a bit > redundant in that phrase... Shoulda been "throw". > Obviously things move slower up there in the Great Frozen North... > Maybe they can only enact legislation during the periods when things > are thawed out? Or maybe the idea that registration = confiscation is flawed. Now that I think about it, I've been registering my car for years too... Bryan > Or maybe the idea that registration = confiscation is flawed. Few, if any, think that the two concepts are equal, but as long as lawyers like Greg still want to confiscate all firearms, without just compensation, by the way, the risk is still there. By the way, the US has required registration of all firearms for a long time too. They just don't make the lists available to anyone who asks. Why would you release information on who has what firearms to the very people you least want to know, whether they be criminals, terrorists or others? > Now that I think about it, I've been registering my car for years too... Not only registering it, but paying for the right to do so. What do you get in return for your money? Anyway, while a car can be used as a weapon, they're kind of hard to conceal. Definition of assault vehicle: one that may be used to assault another, characterized by having wheels and some means of turning them so as to move the vehicle forward or backward. Any vehicle having such a motive device capable of moving the vehicle forward at a speed in excess of 1 mile an hour or for more than 1 continusous minute. Lee > > Or maybe the idea that registration = confiscation is flawed. > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Not only registering it, but paying for the right to do so. What do you get > in return for your money? Highways, vehicle safety standards oversight, driver ability testing, traffic supervision (which obviously shouldn't apply to me but there are a lot of folks using my roads who need a lot of supervision and control), laws and law enforcement, highway safety measures, rest areas, potholes filled, snow removed, repaving as required. Works for me. In fact, it sounds like a bargain. Would that the powers that be could only apply the same kind of common sense to gun ownership and operation huh? JF > Highways, vehicle safety standards oversight, driver ability testing, > traffic supervision (which obviously shouldn't apply to me but there [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > could only apply the same kind of common sense to gun ownership and > operation huh? What, you want us to shovel snow with guns? What in the f.ck are you rambling about? > > Highways, vehicle safety standards oversight, driver ability testing, > > traffic supervision (which obviously shouldn't apply to me but there [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > What in the f.ck are you rambling about? I think he wants: Government-created/funded ranges, which would correspond to highways. Highway safety measures looks like it wouild correspond to having a nice bckstop at the range, as wel as good ventilation. Also maybe mandating that crooks have to wear a nice silhouette shirt with rings on it, custom tilored so that the x-ring is in the right spot. Vehicle safety standards, which realistically should alredy be covered fro guns via existing product liability? and I think you & he agree on testing for those wishing to carry conealed. Sounds like a good idea, though I think the Mossmans & dechuckas of the nation would then set the bar so high that itbecomes effectively a ban. (e.g. .25 inch group at 100 yards from your pistol....) We already have plenty of laws - enforcement would be good, something else that we agree on. After all, attempting to purchase a firerm when one is prohibited from doing so due to, say, past felony conviction is a crime(1). Yet they don't seem to be prosecuted - at least not very often. Dennis (1) "It shouldn't be - After all, 2nd amendment says "shall not be infringed" - Grumman. // No, he's not here, I'm just channeling. >> > Highways, vehicle safety standards oversight, driver ability testing, >> > traffic supervision (which obviously shouldn't apply to me but there [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > crime(1). > Yet they don't seem to be prosecuted - at least not very often. Or, maybe he wants us to shovel snow with guns. > I think he wants: > Government-created/funded ranges, which would correspond to highways. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > nation would then set the bar so high that itbecomes effectively a ban. > (e.g. .25 inch group at 100 yards from your pistol....) ( over your shoulder as you run away, of course) > Dennis > > (1) "It shouldn't be - After all, 2nd amendment says "shall not be > infringed" - Grumman. > // No, he's not here, I'm just channeling. > Highways, vehicle safety standards oversight, driver ability testing, > traffic supervision (which obviously shouldn't apply to me but there > are a lot of folks using my roads who need a lot of supervision and > control), laws and law enforcement, highway safety measures, rest > areas, potholes filled, snow removed, repaving as required. Works for > me. Obviously all unconstitutional since it wasn't required to have a horse or buggy license in 1776... Yet more proof of the government interfering in our private lives... >> Or maybe the idea that registration = confiscation is flawed. > > Few, if any, think that the two concepts are equal, Grumman made that link pretty clear - "As we've been saying for years, "first comes registration, then confiscation""; that is what I was referring to. The idea that one equals the other is obviously ludicrous; I was just pointing out a real-world example of it. > By the way, the US has required registration of all firearms for a long time > too. They just don't make the lists available to anyone who asks. Why > would you release information on who has what firearms to the very people > you least want to know, whether they be criminals, terrorists or others? Canada doesn't release that info either. >> Now that I think about it, I've been registering my car for years too... > > Not only registering it, but paying for the right to do so. What do you get > in return for your money? It goes into general revenues, so it goes into what they give me - roads, health care, cops, hospitals, my wage, etc, etc, etc. Bryan >>> Or maybe the idea that registration = confiscation is flawed. >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > referring to. The idea that one equals the other is obviously ludicrous; > I was just pointing out a real-world example of it. You would be incorrect. Firearms have been confiscated recently, as a result of registration, in California and New York City. Australia underwent a severe confiscation after registration, of weapons including pump and automatic shotguns (i.e., common hunting weapons). Between this, and your inability to remotely describe an assault rifle, you begin to see why we don't want your type of thinking governing our civil liberties. >>>> Or maybe the idea that registration = confiscation is flawed. >>> Few, if any, think that the two concepts are equal, [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Australia underwent a severe confiscation after registration, of weapons > including pump and automatic shotguns (i.e., common hunting weapons). And there are several examples where registration has not lead to confiscation - for example the 2 in Canada (1934 hand gun registry; late 90's long-gun registry). So registration != confiscation. > Between this, and your inability to remotely describe an assault rifle, > you begin to see why we don't want your type of thinking governing our civil > liberties. Yeah, must be unfortunate when the will of the people actually presides over a democracy. Bryan > >>>> Or maybe the idea that registration = confiscation is flawed. > >>> Few, if any, think that the two concepts are equal, [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > confiscation - for example the 2 in Canada (1934 hand gun registry; late > 90's long-gun registry). So registration != confiscation. Lets see....Canada vs.....California, NY, Australia, Germany in the early part of the twentieth century.... there are far more examples of registration leading to confiscation. > > Between this, and your inability to remotely describe an assault rifle, > > you begin to see why we don't want your type of thinking governing our civil > > liberties. > > Yeah, must be unfortunate when the will of the people actually presides > over a democracy. Fortuantely, we have a Republic. Dennis >>>>> Or maybe the idea that registration = confiscation is flawed. >>>> Few, if any, think that the two concepts are equal, [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > confiscation - for example the 2 in Canada (1934 hand gun registry; late > 90's long-gun registry). So registration != confiscation. Yet. Bans and confiscation have been proposed by some of your politicians, and we can see the level of comprehension that exists on the issue. Regardless, the idea that registration leads to confiscation is an established -fact-, not "ludicrous", as you stated and are still attempting to state. Perhaps you can explain what your own multi-billion dollar gun registry has accomplished. Whenever it's mentioned here, Canadians start shuffling their feet and mumbling. Cite for us how it's stopping the current cited rise in gun crime? >> Between this, and your inability to remotely describe an assault rifle, >> you begin to see why we don't want your type of thinking governing our >> civil liberties. > > Yeah, must be unfortunate when the will of the people actually presides > over a democracy. The will of the people presides now, with continual pro-gun gains. <snip> > Yet. > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Cite for us how it's stopping the current cited rise in gun crime? Without the registry, the rate of increase woud be higher? <snip> Dennis > "Bryan Heit" <bjheit@nospamucalgary.ca> wrote in message >> And there are several examples where registration has not lead to >> confiscation - for example the 2 in Canada (1934 hand gun registry; late >> 90's long-gun registry). So registration != confiscation. > > Yet. 73 years and counting, and nothing on the horizon. > Bans and confiscation have been proposed by some of your politicians, and > we can see the level of comprehension that exists on the issue. Proposed, but not supported or achieved. One can make the same statement about many politicians in the US as well. But there is a second issue here - if it is the will of the people that guns be made illegal, it is their will. Supposedly, the government serves the people... > Regardless, the idea that registration leads to confiscation is an > established -fact-, not "ludicrous", as you stated and are still attempting > to state. It is not an established fact, otherwise I wouldn't own any guns. And yet I do - all duly registered as required by law. Yeah, its another fee, but I still got them. > Perhaps you can explain what your own multi-billion dollar gun registry > has accomplished. It's soon to be gone - current gov's got a bill to remove it. Had it been implemented in a manner even vaguely representing an intelligent manner, who knows if it would have been useful. But it was a complete and total f.ck-up, so its gotta go. Personally speaking, I'd rather see a drivers license-type system in place. I.E. you have to show that your competent before you can buy one. Cannot speak for the US, but up here a lot of gun deaths are due to stupid people doing stupid things with guns. > Whenever it's mentioned here, Canadians start shuffling their feet and > mumbling. > > Cite for us how it's stopping the current cited rise in gun crime? I've never once claimed that such things prevent crime, that's a retarded suggestion. However, I do believe that the people of a country should have the right to regulate potentially dangerous items, and who owns them. Registration & licensing is one such means to that end. >>> Between this, and your inability to remotely describe an assault rifle, >>> you begin to see why we don't want your type of thinking governing our [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > The will of the people presides now, with continual pro-gun gains. Given that the US has more gun control laws then pretty much any other nation on earth (Canada only has 1, US is into the thousands), I'd say its pretty clear that there is a lot of support for control in the US, rather you think so or not. Bryan >> "Bryan Heit" <bjheit@nospamucalgary.ca> wrote in message > Personally speaking, I'd rather see a drivers license-type system in > place. I.E. you have to show that your competent before you can buy one. How odd. I've advocated the same -exact- thing here several times for almost a decade. So according to you, you must be opposed to gun control as well? >>> "Bryan Heit" <bjheit@nospamucalgary.ca> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > I've advocated the same -exact- thing here several times for almost a > decade. I was not aware of that - but then again, I usually avoid the gun threads. Often those topics go into the whole second amendment thing - something which doesn't effect me (not being an American), nor something I entirely understand. > So according to you, you must be opposed to gun control as well? Depends on how you define "gun control". I'd argue that licensing users is a form of control, as the distribution of guns is limited to those smart enough to use them safely. Bryan >> Bans and confiscation have been proposed by some of your politicians, >> and we can see the level of comprehension that exists on the issue. > Proposed, but not supported or achieved. One can make the same statement > about many politicians in the US as well. But there is a second issue > here - if it is the will of the people that guns be made illegal, it is > their will. Supposedly, the government serves the people... When it's been achieved, it's too late to say, "darn, registration really is for the purpose of confiscation." >> Perhaps you can explain what your own multi-billion dollar gun registry >> has accomplished. > > It's soon to be gone - current gov's got a bill to remove it. Had it been > implemented in a manner even vaguely representing an intelligent // > manner, who knows if it would have been useful. Read what you said and then think about why you would even consider supportins something as risky as gun registration, that costs you money to comply with, without knowing, in advance, what you hoped it would accomplish. > Personally speaking, I'd rather see a drivers license-type system in > place. I.E. you have to show that your competent before you can buy one. You don't have such a thing for drivers either. Trust me. I see bunches of them down here in Florida and there's no system at all for ensuring that Canadian drivers know what they're doing before they're issued licenses. > Cannot speak for the US, but up here a lot of gun deaths are due to stupid > people doing stupid things with guns. Car deaths too, no? > I've never once claimed that such things prevent crime, that's a retarded > suggestion. However, I do believe that the people of a country should > have the right to regulate potentially dangerous items, and who owns them. > Registration & licensing is one such means to that end. Me too. No more cars for Canadians. > Given that the US has more gun control laws then pretty much any other > nation on earth (Canada only has 1, US is into the thousands), I'd say its > pretty clear that there is a lot of support for control in the US, rather > you think so or not. You're right that there are plenty of people trying to disguise their intent to do away with one of our guaranteed rights by passing new, equally useless legislation. You may also note that the trend is going the other way . . . finally. Lee > And there are several examples where registration has not lead to > confiscation - for example the 2 in Canada (1934 hand gun registry; late > 90's long-gun registry). So registration != confiscation. Want to bet? I'd be willing to bet that, even back in 1934, there were confiscations during and after the registration period that would not have happened if the registration hadn't. As for the 1990s long gun registry, it's normally considered one of the most expensive failures in the history of attempted gun control. Not a real good example. Those that pushed for registration of your guns were the same people that believe you should not have them. Were they given the choice, registration would be followed, immediately, by confiscation. That didn't happen is not because they didn't want it but because saner minds intervened. Why should anyone voluntarily register anything at the request of those that see registration only as a means to facilitate confiscation, and then pay for the right to do so. Use your head man. It's a conspiracy, one of the most obvious and openly admitted conspiracies there's ever been, and you're supporting it. > Between this, and your inability to remotely describe an assault rifle, >> you begin to see why we don't want your type of thinking governing our >> civil liberties. > Yeah, must be unfortunate when the will of the people actually presides > over a democracy. Does this actually mean something or did your fingers slip on the keys? Lee >> And there are several examples where registration has not lead to >> confiscation - for example the 2 in Canada (1934 hand gun registry; late [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > It's a conspiracy, one of the most obvious and openly admitted > conspiracies there's ever been, and you're supporting it. "In January 2006, the RCMP were asked to probe a Liberal Party consultant over a $380,000 contract: Kim Doran was awarded to lobby the federal government for funds for the ailing firearms registry At the time, Doran was representing the Coalition for Gun Control. The group, which receives both government and private funding, claims to represent anti-firearm groups and municipalities. It is a strong supporter of the gun registry.' "Tony Bernardo, director of the 12,000-member Canadian Shooting Sports Association, opined that the gun registry program funds would be better used for Canadian law and justice purposes. He said his Canadian organization, should also 'get government funding for a consultant to lobby on behalf of law abiding gun owners'. The group asked the RCMP to probe into the matter. "Isn't it inappropriate for the Federal Government to hire a private lobbyist with taxpayers' dollars to lobby itself?" the organization complained to the RCMP. "Isn't it inappropriate for an employee of the Liberal Party to profit from funds granted by the government of Canada?" Doran is listed as Vice-President of Federal Affairs for the Liberals' Ontario Women's Commission and is also the party's Deputy National Director of Organization and Policy."  SignaturePopeye "Best thing for him, really, his therapy was going nowhere." -Dr. Hannibal Lector. www.finalprotectivefire.com > "Isn't it inappropriate for the Federal Government to hire a private > lobbyist with taxpayers' dollars to lobby itself?" This is quite common up here - our government even provides funding for organizations who use that money to sue the gov in supreme court over constitutional matters. And it works - for example, a lot of progress made in terms of womens & minority rights came through such methods. Yes, its odd as hell, but at least the gov doesn't pick & choose only their supporters when it comes to doling out funds. > the organization > complained to the RCMP. "Isn't it inappropriate for an employee of the > Liberal Party to profit from funds granted by the government of Canada?" If so they should be charged, and if convicted, punished accordingly. I'd point out that the political party in question is no longer the government, and has paid heavily for their illegal actions. Bryan > > "Isn't it inappropriate for the Federal Government to hire a private >> lobbyist with taxpayers' dollars to lobby itself?" [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > its odd as hell, but at least the gov doesn't pick & choose only their > supporters when it comes to doling out funds. "So other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?" >> the organization complained to the RCMP. "Isn't it inappropriate for an >> employee of the Liberal Party to profit from funds granted by the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > point out that the political party in question is no longer the > government, and has paid heavily for their illegal actions. But no comment on how the "will of the people" was circumnavigated. Is it me, or did you cut the Dickens out of this post? You cut the message header, so I can't see which batch of FACTS you're hiding from. "Quit clipping the stuff that's damaging to your argument. Makes it look like it has weaknesses. Mayhap it does?" -JOF But I seem to be missing quite a bit of commentary on the Registry. >> > "Isn't it inappropriate for the Federal Government to hire a private >>> lobbyist with taxpayers' dollars to lobby itself?" [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > But no comment on how the "will of the people" was circumnavigated. It's not clear if it was. Opinion polls, for what their worth, put the majority of Canadians in support of the registry. Unfortunately, the government completely screwed up the implementation. > Is it me, or did you cut the Dickens out of this post? > > You cut the message header, so I can't see which batch of FACTS you're > hiding from. They're easy to find, just look up the thread. I cut to keep the messages short. Bryan >>> > "Isn't it inappropriate for the Federal Government to hire a private >>>> lobbyist with taxpayers' dollars to lobby itself?" [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > It's not clear if it was. Only to you. Having -rabid- antigun forces get paid $380,000 of -your- tax dollars to lobby the government for the Registry says it all- about their doubts, and in the fact you can't see it for what it is, your perspective. > Opinion polls, for what their worth, put the majority of Canadians in > support of the registry. I'm sure you can cite a few recent ones, by the government. All the evidence I've read, including the opinions of Canadian Rec.scubans, indicate otherwise. > Unfortunately, the government completely screwed up the implementation. You repeat this mantra. Perhaps you can explain what they did wrong, or, what they could have done different, and -exactly- what different results would have been achieved. >> Is it me, or did you cut the Dickens out of this post? >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > They're easy to find, just look up the thread. I cut to keep the messages > short. I'll repost it, just for you. On Mar 13, 11:23 am, "Douglas W \"Popeye\" Frederick" <Pop...@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote: > >>> > "Isn't it inappropriate for the Federal Government to hire a private > >>>> lobbyist with taxpayers' dollars to lobby itself?" [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > All the evidence I've read, including the opinions of Canadian > Rec.scubans, indicate otherwise. That's Fertiledougspeak for "Anyone who is even mildly critical of our solution, such as suggesting that the implementation of the registry was handled in any way poorly, is therefore against the measure absolutely". His is a very monochromatic world. He reads and hears what suits him, but that makes the discussions in which he participates amusing at times. I expect you've already got his number though. JF > On Mar 13, 11:23 am, "Douglas W \"Popeye\" Frederick" > <Pop...@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote: >> "Bryan Heit" <bjh...@NOSPAMucalgary.ca> wrote in message >> > It's not clear if it was. >> [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > JF Yer such a little -bitch-. Today's word, class, is: -Asswhipping-: " I agree the gun registry is useless. It was only conceived as a teat for the bleeding hearts in the first place and something "proactive" the politicians could point to as their solution to the problem.." "Kind of overwhelmingly against the gun registry, and what they say is right. Most of the gun related occurrences in Canada are evidently gang related or at least related to intended criminal activity as opposed to incidental occurrences happening to involve guns. What good is a gun registry when dealing with individuals who are breaking the law to begin with? It's a joke. Spend the money on enforcing existing laws and/or beefing up the penalties for gun related crimes instead. " "The gun registry really is a bad joke, we've had perfectly adequate registration and control laws for more years than I've been alive. " "FWIW, IMO the gun registry is an ineffective, stupid, ill-conceived and gigantic waste of tax payers' dollars. It won't protect cops going to domestic disturbances, and it won't protect the civilian population. It's making a helluva lot of money for some IT consultants, but I'm not 1 of them. Damn." "The gun registry is just the latest gun legislation, and it's mightily flawed, and most of us see it and want it trashed. You don't seem to understand gun laws here. " ""> No one, *no one* in all of Canada, including your cops, stopped that shitbag > from murdering four LEO's. But, but, but. We spent a billion. "" "I don't know anyone that thought the registry was a good idea. Obviously, there were some, or it wouldn't have happened in the first place. But sheesh. Me, I never thought it was a good idea and like so many others we watched the whole absurdity and our money trickle down the drain . . .yet again." "Gad . . .registry . .. what BS, it was from the beginning and it's so Gad, so...I'm choked. I think I'll say no more." "I'm not one of them and never said I was. In fact, you so like to search and cite, you'll be able to find a number of my posts wherein I speak against the gun registry. " Can you say it with me, John? Aaaassssssssssssssssssssssssssssss... Wwwwwwwhippppppppppping. -All- Canadians. The majority of our regulars. Any of those quotes sound, you know, familiar, Futile? On Mar 13, 2:21 pm, "Douglas W \"Popeye\" Frederick" <Pop...@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote: > > On Mar 13, 11:23 am, "Douglas W \"Popeye\" Frederick" > > <Pop...@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 90 lines] > > Any of those quotes sound, you know, familiar, Futile?- Some of them sound vaguely familiar but not inconsistent with what I said before. The gun registry was ill-conceived given the implementation plan. That doesn't mean the idea was all bad, only the way it was thought out. Why is it some of you are complacent about regulation in almost all things except your guns? What is it that makes them sacrosanct? In most countries this kind of affection and loyalty is only earned by living creatures. JF > On Mar 13, 2:21 pm, "Douglas W \"Popeye\" Frederick" > <Pop...@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote: >> >> All the evidence I've read, including the opinions of Canadian >> >> Rec.scubans, indicate otherwise. [quoted text clipped - 79 lines] > > Some of them sound vaguely familiar Wonder why? > but not inconsistent with what I said before. Oh. Gosh. Can you point out which of your, or the other, statements was "mildly critical"? Can you explain why: " I agree the gun registry is useless. It was only conceived as a teat for the bleeding hearts in the first place and something "proactive" the politicians could point to as their solution to the problem.." Isn't inconsistent with: "That doesn't mean the idea was all bad, only the way it was thought out." Because it sure looks like your feet are flying to me. Which of Chilly's, George Morris's, MfO's Daves' or your comments indicate "That doesn't mean the idea was all bad, only the way it was thought out." We'll see down below. >The gun registry was ill-conceived given the > implementation plan. That doesn't mean the idea was all bad, only the > way it was thought out. A vacuous statement, -still- fleeing in terror from any attempt to explain -exactly- what good gun registration -might possibly- (not as yet) accomplish besides salving your fears? > Why is it some of you are complacent about regulation in almost all > things except your guns? What is it that makes them sacrosanct? In > most countries this kind of affection and loyalty is only earned by > living creatures. More vacuum. Most of us support some level of coherent regulation, as long as it doesn't aid and abet irrationally terrified anti-gun flailers like yourself. C'mon, John. You can say it. It's okay, everyone else already knows. Aaaaaasssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss... Wwwwwwwwwippingggggggggggg. Those were just quotes from two threads. Oh. By the way. Doesn't that make you... A liar? Documented again? "That's Fertiledougspeak for "Anyone who is even mildly critical of our solution, such as suggesting that the implementation of the registry was handled in any way poorly, is therefore against the measure absolutely". His is a very monochromatic world. He reads and hears what suits him, but that makes the discussions in which he participates amusing at times." Ooops. "I expect you've already got his number though." No doubt. I'm having to repost questions that he dodged just like several of us do for you. =============================== Inconsistency? Let's plug in your Futile attempt at "Anti-waffle spin control®" and see how they read: " I agree the gun registry is useless. It was only conceived as a teat for the bleeding hearts in the first place and something "proactive" the politicians could point to as their solution to the problem.." --->"That doesn't mean the idea was all bad, only the way it was thought out."<--- ??? "the gun registry is useless". ===================== "Kind of overwhelmingly against the gun registry, and what they say is right. Most of the gun related occurrences in Canada are evidently gang related or at least related to intended criminal activity as opposed to incidental occurrences happening to involve guns. What good is a gun registry when dealing with individuals who are breaking the law to begin with? It's a joke. Spend the money on enforcing existing laws and/or beefing up the penalties for gun related crimes instead. " --->"That doesn't mean the idea was all bad, only the way it was thought out."<--- ??? "what good is a gun registry? It's a -joke-" ===================== "The gun registry really is a bad joke, we've had perfectly adequate registration and control laws for more years than I've been alive. " --->"That doesn't mean the idea was all bad, only the way it was thought out."<--- ??? A "bad joke" at that, apparently. ===================== "FWIW, IMO the gun registry is an ineffective, stupid, ill-conceived and gigantic waste of tax payers' dollars. It won't protect cops going to domestic disturbances, and it won't protect the civilian population. It's making a helluva lot of money for some IT consultants, but I'm not 1 of them. Damn." --->"That doesn't mean the idea was all bad, only the way it was thought out."<--- ??? "the gun registry is an ineffective, stupid, ill-conceived and gigantic waste" ===================== "The gun registry is just the latest gun legislation, and it's mightily flawed, and most of us see it and want it trashed. You don't seem to understand gun laws here. " --->"That doesn't mean the idea was all bad, only the way it was thought out."<--- ??? "mightily flawed and everyone wants it trashed" ===================== ""> No one, *no one* in all of Canada, including your cops, stopped that shitbag > from murdering four LEO's. But, but, but. We spent a billion. "" (ouch) ==================== "I don't know anyone that thought the registry was a good idea. Obviously, there were some, or it wouldn't have happened in the first place. But sheesh. Me, I never thought it was a good idea and like so many others we watched the whole absurdity and our money trickle down the drain . . .yet again." --->"That doesn't mean the idea was all bad, only the way it was thought out."<--- ??? "the whole absurdity" ===================== "Gad . . .registry . .. what BS, it was from the beginning and it's so Gad, so...I'm choked. I think I'll say no more." --->"That doesn't mean the idea was all bad, only the way it was thought out."<--- ??? "Gad!" (she couldn't say anymore). ===================== "I'm not one of them and never said I was. In fact, you so like to search and cite, you'll be able to find a number of my posts wherein I speak against the gun registry. " --->"That doesn't mean the idea was all bad, only the way it was thought out."<--- ??? "number of posts against the gun registry" ===================== Chshshsheckkk, Dude! I dunno if you're going to be able to pull that "mildly critical" over on the folks. On Mar 13, 4:40 pm, "Douglas W \"Popeye\" Frederick" <Pop...@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote: > I dunno if you're going to be able to pull that "mildly critical" over on > the folks.- It's only hard to understand when you have your head shoved firmly up your own a.s. JF > It's only hard to understand when you have your head shoved firmly up > your own a.s. Hmmm... That's exactly what we've been telling the folks who can't seem to grasp the fact that the 2nd Amendment is an *individual* right... >> It's only hard to understand when you have your head shoved firmly up >> your own a.s. > > Hmmm... That's exactly what we've been telling the folks who can't seem to > grasp the fact that the 2nd Amendment is an *individual* right... Hey, saw a picture of that recently....... Mike Shelley aka Grumman-581 <grumman581@DIE-SPAMMER-SCUM- gmail.com> sputtered: > Hmmm... That's exactly what we've been telling the folks who > can't seem to grasp the fact that the 2nd Amendment is an > *individual* right... Your 'right' stops at the border, Mikey. SignaturePosted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com > On Mar 13, 4:40 pm, "Douglas W \"Popeye\" Frederick" > <Pop...@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > It's only hard to understand when you have your head shoved firmly up > your own a.s. It's obviously hard for you to hear as well, but were you ever going to extol any of the Registry's many virtues, or did Dennis nail it down tightly for you? Do you even remember what he posted, it's been a couple hours. -Wowser!-. Snipping from 292 lines down to 12. Not your record -belly slither- of 650 cut lines, of course, by even half, but, tut tut, you know what they say: "Quit clipping the stuff that's damaging to your argument. Makes it look like it has weaknesses. Mayhap it does?" -JOF Isn't it about time for you to scurr..er, "take a break" because I'm too "excited"? Run along, now, junior, while I whittle another switch for the stack. ;-) major a.s kicking of a brain dead position taken by jof. does he ever read? does he ever understand what he reads? does he ever think? does he ever think about how clueless and ignorant his posts are? at the rate he is failing, he will go diving in that big lake soon, solo. > I dunno if you're going to be able to pull that "mildly critical" over on > the folks. > On Mar 13, 2:21 pm, "Douglas W \"Popeye\" Frederick" <snip> > Some of them sound vaguely familiar but not inconsistent with what I > said before. The gun registry was ill-conceived given the [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > most countries this kind of affection and loyalty is only earned by > living creatures. We're pretty protective of our other rights, si=cuh as feedom of speech, freedom of relgion, etc as well. All part of the constitution. Dennis "Dennis \(Icarus\)" <nojunkmail@ever.invalid> sputtered: > We're pretty protective of our other rights, Nah, you've let the Bush Adminstration pretty much wipe them out. The FBI can and does engage in warrantless survey of USA civilians. The Bush Administration hauls away US citizens without cause and holds them without trial and without access to lawyers. And you fuckwits stand up and cheer. SignaturePosted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com > Perhaps you can explain what they did wrong, or, what they could have > done different, and -exactly- what different results would have been > achieved. Better yet, Brian, perhaps you can explain just what, exactly you think a firearms registry is supposed to accomplish. Lee >> Perhaps you can explain what they did wrong, or, what they could have >> done different, and -exactly- what different results would have been [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Lee Same as a car registry - provide an official record of who owns what. Unlike many, I don't think It'll prevent crime, but it does provide a regulatory process that has the potential to control the flow of guns in our country. Bryan >>> Perhaps you can explain what they did wrong, or, what they could >>> have done different, and -exactly- what different results would have [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Bryan And to add to what I just wrote, I personally don't think the registry is the way to go. I would much rather see a system similar to drivers licenses put in place - where people have to *prove* that they are competent enough to use a gun in a safe manner before their allowed to own one. Bryan >>>> > "Isn't it inappropriate for the Federal Government to hire a private >>>>> lobbyist with taxpayers' dollars to lobby itself?" [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > Only to you. The majority of Canadians supported the registry. And aside from the fact that the registry was implemented in a totally incompetent manner, there is no evidence (at least none made public) that the registry was used inappropriately. > Having -rabid- antigun forces get paid $380,000 of -your- tax dollars to > lobby the government for the Registry says it all- about their doubts, and > in the fact you can't see it for what it is, your perspective. But pro-hunting, "traditional lifestyle", and so forth, groups also receive similar levels of funding, and they tend to be pro-gun. So it's not like only the anti-gunners are getting money. Likewise, there were entire provincial governments in opposition to the program, and the provinces up here are politically more powerful then states in the US, and far better funded then any interest group you can name. >> Opinion polls, for what their worth, put the majority of Canadians in >> support of the registry. > > I'm sure you can cite a few recent ones, by the government. Most public opinion polls in Canada are conducted by private companies such as Ipsos-Reid. For example, this recent poll (conducted by ipsos, paid for by a national news paper): http://www.ipsos-na.com/news/pressrelease.cfm?id=3080 67% want a gun registry (keep in mind, this is AFTER the complete f.ck-up of the first registry) 54% want current one to be scrapped 56% think the failure of the current system was due to gov bungling. > All the evidence I've read, including the opinions of Canadian > Rec.scubans, indicate otherwise. And how many Canadian Rec.Scubian's are their? Me, Chilly, JOF (I think), Nisreael/Carl (sorry about him, BTW), probably a few others. Not exactly a long list - even if I missed 90% of them. The above link represents a much better cross-section of Canadians, and the results are pretty clear. >> Unfortunately, the government completely screwed up the implementation. > > You repeat this mantra. > > Perhaps you can explain what they did wrong, or, what they could have done > different, and -exactly- what different results would have been achieved. Our auditor general can explain everything that went wrong, if you want to read her entire report: http://www.oag-bvg.gc.ca/domino/reports.nsf/html/20021210ce.html Long story short - incompetent management, poor planning/implementation, failure to collect registration fees, registration fees too low to cover cost of program startup, lack of accountability to the gov, & not all provinces cooperated with implementation. Had it been planned better, and competent managers hired, the program could have been implemented. Bryan >>>>> > "Isn't it inappropriate for the Federal Government to hire a >>>>> private >>>>>> lobbyist with taxpayers' dollars to lobby itself?" >>>>> This is quite common up here - our government even provides funding >>>>> for organizations who use that money to sue the gov in supreme court >>>>> over constitutional matters. And it works - for example, a lot of >>>>> progress made in terms of womens & minority rights came through such >>>>> methods. Yes, its odd as hell, but at least the gov doesn't pick & >>>>> choose only their supporters when it comes to doling out funds. >>>> "So other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?" >>>> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > The majority of Canadians supported the registry. No, they don't. > And aside from the fact that the registry was implemented in a totally > incompetent manner, there is no evidence (at least none made public) that > the registry was used inappropriately. Wrong. One guy hacked it in 30 minutes. >> Having -rabid- antigun forces get paid $380,000 of -your- tax dollars >> to lobby the government for the Registry says it all- about their doubts, >> and in the fact you can't see it for what it is, your perspective. > > But pro-hunting, "traditional lifestyle", and so forth, groups also > receive similar levels of funding, and they tend to be pro-gun. Not according to the above cite, prior to snipping. Please prove your statement. > So it's not like only the anti-gunners are getting money. Likewise, > there were entire provincial governments in opposition to the program, and [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > such as Ipsos-Reid. For example, this recent poll (conducted by ipsos, > paid for by a national news paper): Without knowing who paid for the poll, or how the questions were worded, it's pretty useless. Still, you had to spin it for desired effect. Did you find that a little shady, or indicative of the veracity of your argument? I just don't want to see you spiral down to a Futile john. > http://www.ipsos-na.com/news/pressrelease.cfm?id=3080 > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > 56% think the failure of the current system was due to gov bungling. You can squeeze the cowshit out of a cite, I'll tell you that. Here's what it really says: "Canadians Take Aim At Gun Registry" "Majority (54%) Feel Current Gun Registry Should Be Scrapped And Most (56%) Blame Liberal Politicians, Not Bureaucrats (37%), For Bungling But Majority Of Canadians (67%) Also Support Idea Of Having Some Type Of Gun Registry Put In Place By Harper Government" "Some type" of a gun registry, not what currently exists. -Liberal- politicians, not "government". That's a little contradictory to your previous statement that "Opinion polls, for what their worth, put the majority of Canadians in support of the registry." Also, clearly contradictory to this: "And, at the end of the day, our gun control laws are representative of what we as a nation want. I don't think any nation can ask for more - that the will of the people actually be reflected in their laws." Clearly in your cite, the -majority- want the Registry -scrapped-, even if you imply otherwise. Elsewhere I saw that only 43 0r 34% of the public support the registry. >> All the evidence I've read, including the opinions of Canadian >> Rec.scubans, indicate otherwise. > > And how many Canadian Rec.Scuba's are their? Me, Chilly, JOF (I think), > Nisreael/Carl (sorry about him, BTW), I hate to tell you this, but, he's an American citizen living in Canada, or so he says. So allow -me- to apologize... :-) See my other post- I have the clear majority after looking in only two threads. I didn't find (or look for) a "Cam" statement, but I have most who comment on guns. 90% of it came from -one- thread. >probably a few others. Not exactly a long list - even if I missed 90% of >them. The above link represents a much better cross-section of Canadians, >and the results are pretty clear. They sure were. >>> Unfortunately, the government completely screwed up the implementation. >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >> done different, and -exactly- what different results would have been >> achieved. > Long story short - incompetent management, poor planning/implementation, > failure to collect registration fees, registration fees too low to cover [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Had it been planned better, and competent managers hired, the program > could have been implemented. Still looking for "-exactly-" what different results could have been achieved. Any comment about the criminals using the registry to target gun owners, thereby exacerbating the gun crime problem? SignaturePopeye "Best thing for him, really, his therapy was going nowhere." -Dr. Hannibal Lector. www.finalprotectivefire.com >>>>>> > "Isn't it inappropriate for the Federal Government to hire a >>>>>> private [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > No, they don't. Survey says otherwise - 67% in favor of some sort of registry. >> And aside from the fact that the registry was implemented in a totally >> incompetent manner, there is no evidence (at least none made public) that [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > One guy hacked it in 30 minutes. Cite? >>> Having -rabid- antigun forces get paid $380,000 of -your- tax dollars >>> to lobby the government for the Registry says it all- about their doubts, [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Please prove your statement. Billions transfered to native groups (pro-gun, major part of our gun lobby), millions spent in northern development funds - including funds which helped develop my favorite hunting lodge (in Peace River, Alberta - if anyone here likes to hunt (big game or birds) they're worth checking out). Ducks unlimited receives a huge amount of money for their wetlands reconstruction projects - they're pro-hunting (check out their webpage - ducks.org). And so forth. >> So it's not like only the anti-gunners are getting money. Likewise, >> there were entire provincial governments in opposition to the program, and [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Without knowing who paid for the poll, or how the questions were worded, > it's pretty useless. All the info is available in the link I provided, including the questions which were asked. > Still, you had to spin it for desired effect. > [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > "Some type" of a gun registry, not what currently exists. Point being? We (Canadians) want a registry, which is the point I was trying to make. We just don't want an excessively expensive, poorly run one. > -Liberal- politicians, not "government". Liberal up here refers to a specific political party (the liberals). Those names are almost meaningless - at times the conservatives are more liberal then the liberals, or the liberals more conservative then the conservatives. And they're all a bunch of bottom feeding pond scum, so you can't trust them either way. > That's a little contradictory to your previous statement that "Opinion > polls, for what their worth, put the majority of Canadians in [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > can ask for more - that the will of the people actually be reflected in > their laws." Once again poll says we want a gun registry. Its not our (by which I mean the people) fault that the gov did a sh.t job of brining it in, or that certain people decided to use it as some sort of personal playground. Most Canadians liked the registry as it was proposed; problem is that what was implemented did not vaguely represent what was promised. The simple fact that after all the crap we went through, all the scandal, all the money that was lost, we still want one. Speaks pretty strongly towards the will of the people. > Clearly in your cite, the -majority- want the Registry -scrapped-, even if > you imply otherwise. And an even larger majority wants another registry put in place of the one we want scrapped. Which comes back to the point that we want a registry, like the one which was promised to us. > Elsewhere I saw that only 43 0r 34% of the public support the registry. Cite? >>> All the evidence I've read, including the opinions of Canadian >>> Rec.scubans, indicate otherwise. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > I hate to tell you this, but, he's an American citizen living in Canada, > or so he says. I don't think we can trust anything he says... > So allow -me- to apologize... :-) Not your fault he's an idiot. > See my other post- I have the clear majority after looking in only two > threads. > > I didn't find (or look for) a "Cam" statement, but I have most who comment > on guns. You lost me here > 90% of it came from -one- thread. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > They sure were. 67% in favor of a registry. >>>> Unfortunately, the government completely screwed up the implementation. >>> You repeat this mantra. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > Still looking for "-exactly-" what different results could have been > achieved. Well, we would have: a) gotten the registry promised to us (it is still not implemented completely) b) it would have cost a hell of a lot less > Any comment about the criminals using the registry to target gun owners, > thereby exacerbating the gun crime problem? The first thing to say would be that no proven case that has occurred has been proven - right now its just a lot of speculation. And if it were shown that this occurred (which it very well may have, I'm not denying that), it all comes back to incompetence. System should have been set up in a secure manner. If it wasn't then its yet another example of how the implementation of the system was completely bolloxed up. Bryan >>>>>> But no comment on how the "will of the people" was circumnavigated. >>>>> It's not clear if it was. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Survey says otherwise - 67% in favor of some sort of registry. "A" registry-not THE Registry, like if you ask -anyone- if they advocate "gun control", 67% say yes rhetorically. Asking if they advocate confiscation and disarming, you'll get another answer. Every Canadian I ask just laughs at the idea of giving up their guns. We were discussing -THE- registry. But you've got your story, and you're sticking to it. We'll see how soon your "even in view of the current situation/ will of the people" next registry comes to pass. That's the greatest thing about Rec.scuba, I'll be able to bust your hump about it for years. >>> And aside from the fact that the registry was implemented in a totally >>> incompetent manner, there is no evidence (at least none made public) [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Cite? Already provided. >>>> Having -rabid- antigun forces get paid $380,000 of -your- tax dollars >>>> to lobby the government for the Registry says it all- about their [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > reconstruction projects - they're pro-hunting (check out their webpage - > ducks.org). And so forth. Please prove your statement. Show me 380K tax dollars given to pro-gun group to lobby against the Registry. >>> So it's not like only the anti-gunners are getting money. Likewise, >>> there were entire provincial governments in opposition to the program, [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] > Point being? We (Canadians) want a registry, which is the point I was > trying to make. Not that I could tell. This point is rhetorical at best. Some vague notion of a registry is what got you what you have now. And you've still, post after post after post, refused to clarify how your -next- registry will be more functional than this registry. Everyone expects that tap dancing from Futile John, but not from you. Skip the rest, until you get around to answering the repeatedly asked question. We can see, however, how open minded you are here. >>>>>>> But no comment on how the "will of the people" was circumnavigated. >>>>>> It's not clear if it was. [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > We'll see how soon your "even in view of the current situation/ will of > the people" next registry comes to pass. Probably not very soon - not until after the next election at the earliest. Scrapping the registry is on the table; a replacement registry hasn't been (formally) announced by any party. > That's the greatest thing about Rec.scuba, I'll be able to bust your hump > about it for years. [quoted text clipped - 79 lines] > > Not that I could tell. Maybe I should have typed more slowly ;-) > This point is rhetorical at best. Why? It's the desire of the nation. > Some vague notion of a registry is what got you what you have now. An extremely inefficient, potentially corrupt, ineptly maintained registry. I know its a gov run program, so incompetence is to be expected, but this is a little worse then what we're willing to accept. Call it cleaning house, or whatever, but to keep what we have would be quite dumb. > And you've still, post after post after post, refused to clarify how > your -next- registry will be more functional than this registry. And I've pointed out post-to-post that I don't think the registry is the best way to go - I would prefer licensing, as in proving people are competent before we let them have guns. The benefits of a registry are small in comparison - makes it easier to return stolen property, may make it easier to track illicit traffic, and *maybe* make things a little safer for police. The benefits of licensing are obviously far, far better - especially up here where most gun deaths are "accidents" - AKA a polite way of saying stupid people doing stupid things with guns. > Everyone expects that tap dancing from Futile John, but not from you. > > Skip the rest, until you get around to answering the repeatedly asked > question. Which one? Bryan >>>>>>>> But no comment on how the "will of the people" was >>>>>>>> circumnavigated. [quoted text clipped - 143 lines] > best way to go - I would prefer licensing, as in proving people are > competent before we let them have guns. Other licensing procedures haven't stop squat. We still have bad drivers, doctors, lawyers, the licensing procedures are still circumvented by those that choose to not follow the laws. I know Grumann wouldn't/won't agree - but I don't think everyone should be allowed to have a gun or carry one - the problem is the criminals are. Yesterday or the day before two men held up a man in st Louis who had the two perps pulled a gun on him, robbed him and was going to take his car. The victim was from florida and had a right to carry, honored by Missouri. The victim pulled his .45 and shot the perp. No charges filed - the gun turned out to be a pellet gun that looked like a .45. Stupid choice - I know that has nothing to do with this - we do have a licensing system here - Firearm Owners Identification - issued by the state police without it you can not buy a gun, you can not buy most ammunition. Upon conviction of a felony - you surrender the card to the local authorities/probation/parole. Still doesn't keep them from carrying or possessing - I would rather have stricter punishment and make the courts sentence those offenders to the maximum limits The benefits of a registry are > small in comparison - makes it easier to return stolen property, may > make it easier to track illicit traffic, and *maybe* make things a [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Bryan >> And I've pointed out post-to-post that I don't think the registry is >> the best way to go - I would prefer licensing, as in proving people [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > drivers, doctors, lawyers, the licensing procedures are still > circumvented by those that choose to not follow the laws. Which is true, but having driven in countries where there are no licensing procedures in place I can say form first hand experience that they do make a difference. Drivers over here may not be all that good, but they're a damned site better then others I have seen. > I know > Grumann wouldn't/won't agree - but I don't think everyone should be [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > have stricter punishment and make the courts sentence those offenders to > the maximum limits I would agree with the idea that licensing/registration won't prevent crime - hell, up here most gun crimes are done using illegal guns - either ones stolen here, or smuggled over the boarder. However, up here the large majority of gun-related injury and death are not from crime, but rather are "accidents". Of those "accidents" that come to mind, most aren't "accidents" so much as they are stupidity. At least a licensing system would require people to show some degree of competence. As for punishing them, I agree. Pisses me off how short some sentences are. Bryan > I would agree with the idea that licensing/registration won't prevent > crime - hell, up here most gun crimes are done using illegal guns - [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > most aren't "accidents" so much as they are stupidity. At least a > licensing system would require people to show some degree of competence. perhaps we should concentrate on laws that punish people with guns who commit a felony. the presumption should be that a person engaged in a crime of violence has forfeited the benefit of doubt. obviously these are the people that we all want off the streets, and in jail. we need to clearly distinguish between the law abiding citizen, and the armed criminal. they are two clearly separate groups, and should be treated differently. the presumption should be that a law abiding citizen has the right to defend himself and his home, in his home against an intruder who has no lawful right to be there. how is his choice. the presumption should be that a law abiding citizen has the right to defend himself, against a criminal, who threatens violence against him. how is his choice. the presumption should be that a law abiding citizen has the right to defend his property, against a criminal who has no lawful right to the property. how is his choice. we can all see where the opposite presumptions gets not only innocent people, but the society in which they live. > As for punishing them, I agree. Pisses me off how short some sentences > are. > > Bryan <snip> > I would agree with the idea that licensing/registration won't prevent > crime - hell, up here most gun crimes are done using illegal guns - [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > most aren't "accidents" so much as they are stupidity. At least a > licensing system would require people to show some degree of competence. We have a licensing system for drivers, yet folks STILL do stupid things. Heck, twice in the past 4 weeks I've nearly been hit by folks running red lights. Dennis On Mar 15, 8:38 pm, "Dennis \(Icarus\)" <nojunkm...@ever.invalid> wrote: > > I would agree with the idea that licensing/registration won't prevent > > crime - hell, up here most gun crimes are done using illegal guns - [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Heck, twice in the past 4 weeks I've nearly been hit by folks running red > lights. So is that proof that the system doesn't work, or proof that it does? JF > On Mar 15, 8:38 pm, "Dennis \(Icarus\)" <nojunkm...@ever.invalid> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > So is that proof that the system doesn't work, or proof that it does? That licensing as a rationale to prevent folks from having "accidents" is misguided. Dennis > On Mar 15, 8:38 pm, "Dennis \(Icarus\)" <nojunkm...@ever.invalid> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > So is that proof that the system doesn't work, or proof that it does? Neither, the same as gun restrictions. Obviously if stupidity could be controlled by statute restriction, you'd be doing life plus ten. SignaturePopeye "Best thing for him, really, his therapy was going nowhere." -Dr. Hannibal Lector. www.finalprotectivefire.com On Mar 15, 10:52 pm, "Douglas W \"Popeye\" Frederick" <Pop...@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote: > Obviously if stupidity could be controlled by statute restriction, you'd > be doing life plus ten. Get a grip, dude. JF > On Mar 15, 10:52 pm, "Douglas W \"Popeye\" Frederick" > <Pop...@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Get a grip, dude. It must be the weather here, or the fact that no one on 401 can drive. You need to get out more. On Mar 16, 10:38 am, "Douglas W \"Popeye\" Frederick" <Pop...@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote: > > Get a grip, dude. > > It must be the weather here, or the fact that no one on 401 can drive. > > You need to get out more. A lot of folks get nervous driving in Toronto traffic. Don't feel bad. It doesn't bother me, but then I've been driving in it for years. Try it on a motorcycle if you want some real fun. JF > On Mar 16, 10:38 am, "Douglas W \"Popeye\" Frederick" > <Pop...@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > It doesn't bother me, but then I've been driving in it for years. Try > it on a motorcycle if you want some real fun. Sounds like a macho, arrogant attitude to me. > On Mar 16, 10:38 am, "Douglas W \"Popeye\" Frederick" > <Pop...@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > It doesn't bother me, but then I've been driving in it for years. Try > it on a motorcycle if you want some real fun. Just barely bothered me when I was 17. Found it quite the educational experience actually, stood me in good stead. >> On Mar 16, 10:38 am, "Douglas W \"Popeye\" Frederick" >> <Pop...@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Just barely bothered me when I was 17. Found it quite the educational > experience actually, stood me in good stead. And they had cars back then? > > A lot of folks get nervous driving in Toronto traffic. Don't feel bad. > > It doesn't bother me, but then I've been driving in it for years. Try > > it on a motorcycle if you want some real fun. > > Just barely bothered me when I was 17. Found it quite the educational > experience actually, stood me in good stead. My wife does a lot of business in the Big Smoke and she never whines about the traffic either, except the rush hour traffic slowups, of course. I actually find the drivers there for the most part seem pretty good. You just have to get used to bumper to bumper at 120 klicks (that's about 70 mph). There's always one yahoo who refuses to go with the flow of course. He's the same kind of jackass that passes you in a winter whiteout out here in the boonies. Most Toronto drivers are fast and aggressive but reasonably predictable. The problem is the driver who is afraid to run with the herd. It probably helps when you know where you want to get off the 401 and set up early for it. Crossing a bunch of lanes in rush hour is a trial for anyone. JF >> > A lot of folks get nervous driving in Toronto traffic. Don't feel bad. >> > It doesn't bother me, but then I've been driving in it for years. Try [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > about the traffic either, except the rush hour traffic slowups, of > course. Who said anything about traffic? I mentioned driving skills. Driving 150,000 miles a year in 3 countries, I handle worse traffic on a weekly basis that you've ever seen in your life. Like you, your wife just probably doesn't notice being part of the problem. It's the people unaware of their surroundings that cause the most difficulty. > I actually find the drivers there for the most part seem > pretty good. You just have to get used to bumper to bumper at 120 > klicks (that's about 70 mph). Your usual accuracy and arrogance. First, no one goes 120 klicks on the Toronto 401 at rush hour, they're lucky to make 50. Usually because some egotistical dumbass in a "bimmer" who ego-trips about his driving skills was tailgating someone at 120, and wrecked across three lanes. > There's always one yahoo who refuses to > go with the flow of course. He's the same kind of jackass that passes > you in a winter whiteout out here in the boonies. That was an incoherent flip-flop. > Most Toronto drivers > are fast and aggressive but reasonably predictable. Oh, they're predictable, alright, in more than one country. > The problem is the > driver who is afraid to run with the herd. Well, if there are any experts on herd mentality, you'd be it. No one here has ever accused you of being afraid to run with the herd. > It probably helps when you know where you want to get off the 401 That would be Québec. >and set up early for it. Crossing a bunch of lanes in rush hour is a trial > for anyone. Not in a big truck. I just hit the signal, count to five, and leave the decision making to others. > "JOF" <jofrancis@gmail.com> wrote in message <snip> > >and set up early for it. Crossing a bunch of lanes in rush hour is a trial > > for anyone. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > I just hit the signal, count to five, and leave the decision making to > others. <chuckling heartily> SignatureDennis |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message