 |
 | 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 / February 2008Dear John:
"You're scared to go to school lecture halls, and I'm going to be looking over my shoulder and skeptical of people coming to class late," said Allison Warren, a 20-year-old NIU student. "You kind of think it won't happen around here. It could happen anywhere ... and there's no way of really protecting yourself." NIU, which is spread over 755 acres about 65 miles west of Chicago, illustrates the difficulty in protecting college campuses that have scores, or hundreds of buildings. Locking them, installing metal detectors or putting security personnel in each of them are not considered practical security measures. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23191393/ > "You're scared to go to school lecture halls, and I'm going to be > looking over my shoulder and skeptical of people coming to class late," [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23191393/ Unfortunately these killers are the same as suicide bombers. There just isn't anyway to stop someone hell bent on killing themselves. I don't understand how a human being just shoots another for no apparent reason. I can understand self-defense (hope I am never faced with that situation) I can even barely understand it in a commission of a crime. I will never understand how a human being just kills people. Along those lines I will never understand the reasoning for the holocaust, or the ethnic cleansing seen through Europe, and Africa. Taking away our guns isn't the answer -they will just another way. I wish one of these mass murderers could come back and tell us just where their God has reserved his special place in the after life. I refuse to be scared, I choose to protect myself > > "You're scared to go to school lecture halls, and I'm going to be > > looking over my shoulder and skeptical of people coming to class late," [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > those lines I will never understand the reasoning for the holocaust, or > the ethnic cleansing seen through Europe, and Africa. A homicidal sociopath who has already accepted suicide as an escape route is the most dangerous person in our society, no matter what weapons he chooses. All we can hope for is that he chooses the less powerful killing tool over the obvious ones if he wants to pile up some numbers before he dies. That's why so many folks cry for a gun ban. I understand the arguments against an all out ban on guns. As if the practical reasons weren't enough, there remains the right of every responsible member of our society to protect self and family. > Taking away our guns isn't the answer -they will just another way. I > wish one of these mass murderers could come back and tell us just where > their God has reserved his special place in the after life. The problem as I see it is that in fighting against these calls for total disarmament of the civilian sector the gun culture has done too good a job of promoting the power of guns, planting seeds in the fevered imaginations of fellers like the young man at the latest school massacre that if you're gonna go, go big. Count lots of coup. What if the gun culture promoted the preaceful uses of guns in the civilian world - wilderness safety, hunting, recreation, collecting, etc with less promotion of guns as the ultimate personal killing device and our amateur killer's first thought was to turn to a kitchen knife, baseball bat or golf club instead to wreak havoc on innocent people. I can already hear the snorts of derision. > I refuse to be scared, I choose to protect myself Then do it without fanfare, without the whistling in the dark. The professional hoodlums don't go around telling the world generally that they're armed and dangerous and that a man is a fool or a sheep if he doesn't arm up. And for the most part those professional hoodlums don't go around using their weaponry on anyone but their own kind and the law enforcement people. The guns being used against the civilian sector are those being wielded by the amateurs and punks who have bought into the gun culture's advertising. > What if the gun culture promoted the preaceful uses of guns in the > civilian world - wilderness safety, hunting, recreation, collecting, > etc with less promotion of guns as the ultimate personal killing > device and our amateur killer's first thought was to turn to a kitchen > knife, baseball bat or golf club instead to wreak havoc on innocent > people. I can already hear the snorts of derision. Because only a handful of nuts engage in any of the above "preaceful uses". Even the hunters' lobbies show far less than 10% of Americans engage in the the killing of live animals for sport: "The NSSF estimates that there are 20.6 million active hunters in the United States. Active hunters are defined as having hunted more than once in the past year. These hunters are the economic strong-arm of the industry. (National Sporting Goods Association, 2004 - a nationwide survey of persons 7 years old and older who had participated more than once in the past year.)" http://www.nssf.org/IndustryResearch/FAQ-ans.cfm?Qno=02&AoI=generic And out of that tiny psychopathic minority, one still hears of the frequent hunting accident. Dick Cheney immediately comes to mind. There are a lot more hunting accidents every year than animal attacks on humans in the wilderness, therefore "wilderness safety" obvious means keeping the damn guns out of the wilderness. If guns don't belong in the wilderness and they don't belong in populated areas, clearly there's no place for them at all besides police and military arsenals. Otherwise it's more of the same, day after day after day: "A 15-year-old boy who was shot at his junior high school died of head wounds, an autopsy showed Friday. Lawrence King was taken off life support and had some of his organs harvested, said Armando Chavez, a senior deputy medical examiner with Ventura County. King was targeted this week by a younger boy because he came to school in Oxnard dressed in feminine attire, classmates said. Prosecutors have charged 14-year- old Brandon David McInerney with premeditated murder and want him tried as an adult." http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080216/ap_on_re_us/junior_high_shooting;_ylt=AmMZmy zHPrfjRv_Dovle6wVvzwcF >>>"You're scared to go to school lecture halls, and I'm going to be >>>looking over my shoulder and skeptical of people coming to class late," [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] > knife, baseball bat or golf club instead to wreak havoc on innocent > people. I can already hear the snorts of derision. We have heard that from you before.... You still think that that is the answer. We don't Seems that the kid was in a psychological inpatient facility a few years ago, (which should have excluded him from the purchase of a firearm), yet since no one reported it, it didn't show up during his NICS check. So all the hoops that the rest of the purchasers had to go though were worthless. As we have said before. Just like the VA Tech shooter. 'twas the system that is broken, not the gun owners.  Signature“TANSTAAFL” ____________________________________________________________________________ America: Ironically, the safest place to be anti-American. ____________________________________________________________________________ "A prudent man foresees the difficulties ahead and prepares for them; the simpleton goes blindly on and suffers the consequences." - Proverbs 22:3 On Feb 16, 8:49 am, Joe English <t...@temp.com> wrote: > Douglas W. "Popeye" Frederick wrote: <snip> >A homicidal sociopath who has already accepted suicide as an escape >route is the most dangerous person in our society, no matter what [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >the practical reasons weren't enough, there remains the right of every >responsible member of our society to protect self and family. Good that you realize this. >The problem as I see it is that in fighting against these calls for >total disarmament of the civilian sector the gun culture has done too >good a job of promoting the power of guns, planting seeds in the >fevered imaginations of fellers like the young man at the latest >school massacre that if you're gonna go, go big. Count lots of coup. If you would, what part of the "gun culture" says that "if you're going to go, go big"? >What if the gun culture promoted the preaceful uses of guns in the >civilian world - wilderness safety, hunting, recreation, collecting, >etc with less promotion of guns as the ultimate personal killing >device and our amateur killer's first thought was to turn to a kitchen >knife, baseball bat or golf club instead to wreak havoc on innocent >people. I can already hear the snorts of derision. Check out www.nra.org. In norder to get the idea of "guns as a killing device" you'd have to rework all movies, books, the military. They're not even the ultimate killing device. Bombs can kill fare more folks in one shot, as McVeigh showed. >> I refuse to be scared, I choose to protect myself >Then do it without fanfare, without the whistling in the dark. The >professional hoodlums don't go around telling the world generally that [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >sector are those being wielded by the amateurs and punks who have >bought into the gun culture's advertising. Could you cite some of that advertising, you know, the ones that the amateurs and punks have bought into? Dennis On Feb 16, 7:41 pm, "Dennis \(Icarus\)" <nojunkm...@ever.invalid> wrote: > On Feb 16, 8:49 am, Joe English <t...@temp.com> wrote:> Douglas W. "Popeye" Frederick wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Good that you realize this. I've said it from Day One here. You just got too caught up in all your own malarkey to listen to what i was saying. Good that you've finally started paying attention. > >The problem as I see it is that in fighting against these calls for > >total disarmament of the civilian sector the gun culture has done too [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > If you would, what part of the "gun culture" says that "if you're going to > go, go big"? The part that wants bigger and better guns able to unleash more rounds per minute with more stopping power to be readily available to all and sundry. The part that talks like buyers for the pentagon armory instead of civilian enthusiasts. The part that preachs fear and loathing to gull the impressionable into arming up or be called a coward by their peers. That's a start. > >What if the gun culture promoted the preaceful uses of guns in the > >civilian world - wilderness safety, hunting, recreation, collecting, [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > They're not even the ultimate killing device. Bombs can kill fare more folks > in one shot, as McVeigh showed. But we're not talking about bombs here. That's the dodge you always want to pull, sidetracking the argument off guns. A pretty good sign you're feeling the corner closing in on yer back, I'd say. > >> I refuse to be scared, I choose to protect myself > >Then do it without fanfare, without the whistling in the dark. The [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Could you cite some of that advertising, you know, the ones that the > amateurs and punks have bought into? Rec.scuba for a start. JF >"JOF" <jofrancis@gmail.com> wrote in message news:241c7a3d-4752-43b7-8e97-23e12e28d676@n77g2000hse.googlegroups.com... >On Feb 16, 7:41 pm, "Dennis \(Icarus\)" <nojunkm...@ever.invalid> >wrote: [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >> >> Good that you realize this. >I've said it from Day One here. You just got too caught up in all your No, you haven't. >own malarkey to listen to what i was saying. Good that you've finally >started paying attention. I've BEEN paying attention, John. >> >The problem as I see it is that in fighting against these calls for >> >total disarmament of the civilian sector the gun culture has done too [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >loathing to gull the impressionable into arming up or be called a >coward by their peers. That's a start. And what part is that? Specifics, John, be specific. >> >What if the gun culture promoted the preaceful uses of guns in the >> >civilian world - wilderness safety, hunting, recreation, collecting, [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >> They're not even the ultimate killing device. Bombs can kill fare more folks >> in one shot, as McVeigh showed. >But we're not talking about bombs here. That's the dodge you always >want to pull, sidetracking the argument off guns. A pretty good sign >you're feeling the corner closing in on yer back, I'd say. John, it was your claim that "promotion of guns as the ultimate killing device" was being made. I'm pointing out that's not the case. After all, explosives are far more of an "ultimate killing device" than are firearms. Still, who is doing this promotion you claimed? Be specific. >> >> I refuse to be scared, I choose to protect myself >> >Then do it without fanfare, without the whistling in the dark. The [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >> Could you cite some of that advertising, you know, the ones that the >> amateurs and punks have bought into? >Rec.scuba for a start. You think they read rec.scuba? Dennis On Feb 17, 2:41 am, "Dennis \(Icarus\)" <nojunkm...@ever.invalid> wrote: > >"JOF" <jofran...@gmail.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > > I've BEEN paying attention, John. Then you've been immediately tossing out what I've been saying if you don't remember. > >> >The problem as I see it is that in fighting against these calls for > >> >total disarmament of the civilian sector the gun culture has done too [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > And what part is that? Specifics, John, be specific. I thought that I was pretty specific already. The progunners who see more guns as the solution to the gun problem. Have you missed those comments here too while you've BEEN paying attention? Ask Lee or Bert for instance what their solution is to the problem of gun violence. Their arguments sound to me like a call for more armed people in the streets, albeit law abiding people concerned with their own safety and the safety of other law abiding folks. The part that thinks an automatic recoilless shotgun is pretty damned cool. I'm sure the professional bad guys are thrilled it's been created and can hardly wait for it to hit the streets. And when they finally get it the Colt Cowboys will be in seventh heaven cuz they'll then have an excuse to get at least one for themselves "just for protection, y'understand." The part that sees some accidental shootings as just collateral damage, the price of being able to carry and defend. We have people here who mock those who choose not to become gun slaves, calling us cowards and sheep, trying to shame us into becoming part of their gun culture, if not by carrying guns ourselves then at least by showing the proper appreciation for those self appointed defenders of all that's good and holy who do keep a well oiled piece at hand against the day some whackjob explodes in their presence and they can "take him down" just the way real cops would if only they were properly trained. If you'd really BEEN listening you'd have picked up those little nuances of the discussions that have gone on here for the past few years. But that doesn't fit the agenda, does it? > >> >What if the gun culture promoted the preaceful uses of guns in the > >> >civilian world - wilderness safety, hunting, recreation, collecting, [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > I'm pointing out that's not the case. After all, explosives are far more of > an "ultimate killing device" than are firearms. You're not that obtuse. Guns are the most efficient, effective and accessible personal killing device known to man. They can be carried legally as opposed to pretty much any kind of bomb. They're available everywhere with a minimum of control. Thye take little maintenance or skill to use the first time or two and after that aren't exactly techno-marvels to maintain. If that weren't the case why are most LEO's equipped with guns instead of grenades. Why is the military still buying and/or developing guns? > Still, who is doing this promotion you claimed? Be specific. > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > >> Could you cite some of that advertising, you know, the ones that the > >> amateurs and punks have bought into? > >Rec.scuba for a start. > > You think they read rec.scuba? It wouldn't be the first time a great ad campaign was wasted on bad targetting. JF > On Feb 17, 2:41 am, "Dennis \(Icarus\)" <nojunkm...@ever.invalid> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 63 lines] > comments here too while you've BEEN paying attention? Ask Lee or Bert > for instance what their solution is to the problem of gun violence. I think you are projecting more guns as the answer. We don't want OUR guns taken away - we choose to protect ourselves - I don't remember anyone using more guns as the answers - we have promoted not taken ours. > Their arguments sound to me like a call for more armed people in the > streets, albeit law abiding people concerned with their own safety and > the safety of other law abiding folks. The part that thinks an > automatic recoilless shotgun is pretty damned cool. So what - a shotgun is a weapon normally used in hunting, some use it for unlawful purposes, the recoilless feature would be irrelevant to a criminal in the big scheme of things I'm sure the > professional bad guys are thrilled it's been created and can hardly > wait for it to hit the streets. And when they finally get it the Colt > Cowboys will be in seventh heaven cuz they'll then have an excuse to > get at least one for themselves "just for protection, y'understand." > The part that sees some accidental shootings as just collateral > damage, the price of being able to carry and defend. More of your patently famous projections and just plain old lies > We have people here who mock those who choose not to become gun > slaves, calling us cowards and sheep, trying to shame us into becoming [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > they can "take him down" just the way real cops would if only they > were properly trained. While you have been called a sheep - it is because we choose to protect ourselves and not having to call a doctor when a felon comes knocking on our door. Some of us choose to protect ourselves with a gun, you choose a hockey stick or baseball bat, however in your world where you do not need to protect yourself because it is violence-free - except when attending a city council meeting - why would you need the stick or the bat to protect yourself? > If you'd really BEEN listening you'd have picked up those little > nuances of the discussions that have gone on here for the past few > years. But that doesn't fit the agenda, does it? The crux of the agenda here is - criminal control not gun control - gun control has done little to reduce any violent crime - criminals are criminals because they choose not to obey the law - why introduce more laws that only further restrict those that choose to effectively protect themselves? >>>>>What if the gun culture promoted the preaceful uses of guns in the >>>>>civilian world - wilderness safety, hunting, recreation, collecting, [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > LEO's equipped with guns instead of grenades. Why is the military > still buying and/or developing guns? They use guns instead of bombs/grenades because of collateral damage. It is one thing mass killers and suicide bombers consider and use them - more death. The Columbine shooters had propane bombs in the schools - they were unable to detonate them - hundreds more would have been injured or killed if hey had been. JOF, why do you think these two nut cases choose a school? >>Still, who is doing this promotion you claimed? Be specific. >> [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > JF > On Feb 17, 2:41 am, "Dennis \(Icarus\)" <nojunkm...@ever.invalid> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 63 lines] > comments here too while you've BEEN paying attention? Ask Lee or Bert > for instance what their solution is to the problem of gun violence. Since you seem to be missing it (and I don't pretend to speak for Lee here) I think that the solution is less restrictive RESPONSIBLE gun ownership and carry, and more enforcement of our current laws (in order to remove those who do not follow them from the streets). Mandatory jail time for those who attempt to circumvent our laws, or who apply for a permit under false pretenses. Mandatory jail time for those who use ore even carry a firearm in the commission of a crime. "Less restrictive" means that those who have no reason to not be issued a permit to carry should be issues a permit to carry. THis does not include those who have been, or are being treated for psychological problems, or who are on medication to keep them sane or balanced. "Mandatory jail time" means additional time served, not being paroled after 6 months for good behavior. > Their arguments sound to me like a call for more armed people in the > streets, albeit law abiding people concerned with their own safety and > the safety of other law abiding folks. The above is true. THe below is not. The part that thinks an > automatic recoilless shotgun is pretty damned cool. I'm sure the > professional bad guys are thrilled it's been created and can hardly [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > nuances of the discussions that have gone on here for the past few > years. But that doesn't fit the agenda, does it? And most of that is the product of your fertile imagination, fueled by your illogical fear of folks with firearms that you do not consider "professional". Your imagination is working to provide you with "proof" to fit your agenda. >>>>>What if the gun culture promoted the preaceful uses of guns in the >>>>>civilian world - wilderness safety, hunting, recreation, collecting, [quoted text clipped - 57 lines] > > JF Signature“TANSTAAFL” ____________________________________________________________________________ America: Ironically, the safest place to be anti-American. ____________________________________________________________________________ "A prudent man foresees the difficulties ahead and prepares for them; the simpleton goes blindly on and suffers the consequences." - Proverbs 22:3 On Feb 17, 3:04 pm, dazed and confuzzed <dedmann@comcast_remove.net> wrote: > > I thought that I was pretty specific already. The progunners who see > > more guns as the solution to the gun problem. Have you missed those [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > permit under false pretenses. Mandatory jail time for those who use ore > even carry a firearm in the commission of a crime. You'd first need to convince the skeptics that "less restriction" doesn't mean even easier access for sociopaths like the most recent school shooter. When I once suggested psych profiling for gun permits some of you scoffed. What's your answer. Let a guy like that have easier access until he commits a crime and then use the crime as proof that he's not fit to carry or possess? And I doubt that everyone here is in favour of tougher sentencing as it is just another infringement on their constitutional rights. > "Less restrictive" means that those who have no reason to not be issued > a permit to carry should be issues a permit to carry. THis does not > include those who have been, or are being treated for psychological > problems, or who are on medication to keep them sane or balanced. Fine. I said the same thing years ago here and hit a wall of resistance. Who has a reason to carry? I ask that in all sincerity. Who's gonna judge the reasonability of the application, and who will set the standards? > "Mandatory jail time" means additional time served, not being paroled > after 6 months for good behavior. [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > "professional". Your imagination is working to provide you with "proof" > to fit your agenda. C'mon Bert - "coward, sheep" isn't my imagination. What was that crap if not blatant pressure on us to get with the program, to buy into the culture? I appreciate you trying to reason this through but be honest while you're about it. JF > On Feb 17, 3:04 pm, dazed and confuzzed <dedmann@comcast_remove.net> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > Who's gonna judge the reasonability of the application, and who will > set the standards? Both the V-tech shooter and the NYU shooter had been under treatment for psychological issues . The NYU guy had been confined and drugged as an attempt to control his issues. IIRC, neither should have been able to purchase a firearm under existing laws. The system put in place by the government failed. (lack of reporting by the medical establishment? Privacy laws?) You want to punish and infringe on the rights of all firearms owners because someone failed to do their job, and because someone was a whacko. >>"Mandatory jail time" means additional time served, not being paroled >>after 6 months for good behavior. [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > culture? I appreciate you trying to reason this through but be honest > while you're about it. You were called a coward and a sheep not because you choose not to carry, but rather for other comments you made which were.....sheeplike. You made the connection, not me. I think you are a coward because of comments you have made here. I assumed you were serious, not just "playing around". Act like a sheep, and you will get called one. We advocate choice, not fearful banning, and not forced carrying. You seem to feel differently. But I can go to my courthouse and not fear violence. You, where handguns are banned, cannot. Wonder if there is a connection? > JF Signature“TANSTAAFL” ____________________________________________________________________________ America: Ironically, the safest place to be anti-American. ____________________________________________________________________________ "A prudent man foresees the difficulties ahead and prepares for them; the simpleton goes blindly on and suffers the consequences." - Proverbs 22:3 On Feb 17, 2:41 am, "Dennis \(Icarus\)" <nojunkm...@ever.invalid> wrote: <snip> >> I've BEEN paying attention, John. >Then you've been immediately tossing out what I've been saying if you >don't remember. Feel free to provide the reference to the google-archived article. :-) <snip> >> >The part that wants bigger and better guns able to unleash more rounds >> >per minute with more stopping power to be readily available to all and [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >> >> And what part is that? Specifics, John, be specific. >I thought that I was pretty specific already. The progunners who see No, you weren't. >more guns as the solution to the gun problem. Have you missed those And these would be....? Again specifics. >comments here too while you've BEEN paying attention? Ask Lee or Bert >for instance what their solution is to the problem of gun violence. Responsible ownership, responsible carrying, stricter enforcement of existing laws, harsher punishments for use of firearms illegally. Sound reasonable to you? >Their arguments sound to me like a call for more armed people in the >streets, albeit law abiding people concerned with their own safety and >the safety of other law abiding folks. The part that thinks an Yes. Think of 'em as volunteers. Have you forgotten Doug's training requirements that he'd like to see implemented? >automatic recoilless shotgun is pretty damned cool. I'm sure the >professional bad guys are thrilled it's been created and can hardly >wait for it to hit the streets. And when they finally get it the Colt An automatic shotguns would be covered under a 1933 law, requiring a class-1 license. >Cowboys will be in seventh heaven cuz they'll then have an excuse to >get at least one for themselves "just for protection, y'understand." >The part that sees some accidental shootings as just collateral >damage, the price of being able to carry and defend. You mean like auto accidents are the collateral damage of being able to drive? >We have people here who mock those who choose not to become gun >slaves, calling us cowards and sheep, trying to shame us into becoming And strangely, we also have folks who mock gun owners, calling 'em stuff like Colt Cowboys. Sound at all familiar to you? Recall that when I asked earlier, you admitted to throwing the first stone? :-) >part of their gun culture, if not by carrying guns ourselves then at >least by showing the proper appreciation for those self appointed >defenders of all that's good and holy who do keep a well oiled piece >at hand against the day some whackjob explodes in their presence and >they can "take him down" just the way real cops would if only they >were properly trained. Or present at the given location. >If you'd really BEEN listening you'd have picked up those little >nuances of the discussions that have gone on here for the past few >years. But that doesn't fit the agenda, does it? John, givn how you've miscontrued things,. misunderstood things, or simply choosing to go with your intuited logic rather than facts, I thought it best to try oto get you to be a sspecific as possible - in particular, who are making the claims * that wants bigger and better guns able to unleash more rounds per minute with more stopping power to be readily available to all and sundry. * that talks like buyers for the pentagon armory instead of civilian enthusiasts. * that preachs fear and loathing to gull the impressionable into arming up or be called a coward by their peers. Sadly, even now, you've still not answered them. You've mentioned Lee and Bert, but they don't preach fear and loathing, nor try to gull the impressionable. >> John, it was your claim that "promotion of guns as the ultimate killing >> device" was being made. >> I'm pointing out that's not the case. After all, explosives are far more of >> an "ultimate killing device" than are firearms. >You're not that obtuse. Guns are the most efficient, effective and >accessible personal killing device known to man. They can be carried But not the ultimate killing device, as you claimed. I'll repeat: it was your claim that "promotion of guns as the ultimate killing device" was being made. The only person here claiming that it is.....is you. So if you want it stopped, stop doing it. >legally as opposed to pretty much any kind of bomb. They're available >everywhere with a minimum of control. Thye take little maintenance or 20,000 laws currently control firearms. >skill to use the first time or two and after that aren't exactly >techno-marvels to maintain. If that weren't the case why are most >LEO's equipped with guns instead of grenades. Why is the military >still buying and/or developing guns? Guns are useful, but, to repeat, they're not "the ultimate killing device". >> Still, who is doing this promotion you claimed? Be specific. Dodged that, I see. <snip> >> >> Could you cite some of that advertising, you know, the ones that the >> >> amateurs and punks have bought into? >> >Rec.scuba for a start. >> >> You think they read rec.scuba? >It wouldn't be the first time a great ad campaign was wasted on bad >targetting. Or it's not an advertising campaign at all - just your imagination. JF > An automatic shotguns would be covered under a 1933 law, requiring a > class-1 license. A totally unconstitutional laws since it explicitly violates the SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED clause of the 2nd Amendment... > 20,000 laws currently control firearms. And of which, all that came after the 2nd Amendment are totally unconstitutional... SignatureSee NNTP header field "X-Real-Email-Address" to reply by email. > > An automatic shotguns would be covered under a 1933 law, requiring a > > class-1 license. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > And of which, all that came after the 2nd Amendment are totally > unconstitutional... Ok, JOF, so there is one person who wants unrestricted access to all. :-) Dennis >>>An automatic shotguns would be covered under a 1933 law, requiring a >>>class-1 license. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Dennis I could certainly accept Grumman's strict interpretation, and philosophically agree with it. But being a reasonable person, I can understand some laws/controls. Personally, I would have no problem in a pschyciatric exam to determine if I could carry - as long as it was being done honestly and not as a tool that meant no one would pass. I can understand why some arms could be put under a can not buy umbrella. My Brother in law (next door) has a .50 Caliber pistol. It is heavy, hard to shoot, difficult to aim, certainly could not carry concealed. It is a very poor choice as a weapon of defense or to be used in the commission of a crime. He has it because he can - maybe an investment - I have no problem with it. The problem with my reasonable views is that those that thing they are shiny bang toys, and are the most effective killing machines at mass murders is that it starts us down the slippery slope of total confiscation. No of us here who believe in self protection, and effective protection of our families are willing to one day being faced with national gun registration, and the ultimate end result of the anti-gunners - CONFISCATION. We have given in to way too much as it is. All the solutions being presented now do nothing to reduced gun crime or just crime - it is what it is - gun grabbing from legal and responsible owners > I could certainly accept Grumman's strict interpretation, and > philosophically agree with it. At some point, you have to draw a line... I choose to draw it at the very top of the slippery slope instead of somewhere along the way down it like the liberals over at the NRA or at even at the bottom of it like the leftist Democrats... Either you believe in what the FFs said or not... If you truly believe in what they said, then to attempt to reinterpret their intentions is nothing short of blasphemy... Punish the deed, not the tool used... SignatureSee NNTP header field "X-Real-Email-Address" to reply by email. > At some point, you have to draw a line... I choose to draw it at the > very top of the slippery slope instead of somewhere along the way down [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > their intentions is nothing short of blasphemy... Punish the deed, not the > tool used... I choose to draw it at those otherwise entitled to the full benefits of citizenship. That means not a convicted felon, mentally competent to make decisions and having reached their majority. Personally, I think citizenship should also be a prerequisite. I'm not quite so clear on those that have threatened, or who may reasonably be presumed to be a threat to others or to those who, due to legal or illegal use or abuse of alcohol or drugs are temporarily not mentally competent. That's the kind of issue I think a jury of one's peers is best able to determine depending on the circumstances of the individual event. The question of what weapons should be allowed is a bit more complex. My best answer to that is, the right is an individual right. If an individual can carry the weapon and use it effectively, up close and personal, then it's covered by the right. That pretty much rules out vehicle mounted weapons, bombs and the like. Lee Lee I'm a bit iffy on restricting those who have > I choose to draw it at those otherwise entitled to the full benefits of > citizenship. That means not a convicted felon, mentally competent to make > decisions and having reached their majority. Personally, I think > citizenship should also be a prerequisite. The FFs didn't make any provisions for a citizenship nor any other type of requirement... They said, "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" and as such, if I have to choose on which line to stand on, that'll be the one... > The question of what weapons should be allowed is a bit more complex. My > best answer to that is, the right is an individual right. If an > individual can carry the weapon and use it effectively, up close and > personal, then it's covered by the right. That pretty much rules out > vehicle mounted weapons, bombs and the like. Punish the action, not the tool used to facilitate the action... The more I look at what our country has become, the more I think that the FFs were right when voting was restricted to white male landowners... You'll notice that even when this was the case, they didn't restrict gun ownership to just that same group of people... SignatureSee NNTP header field "X-Real-Email-Address" to reply by email. > The FFs didn't make any provisions for a citizenship nor any other type of > requirement... Are you sure? I find it a lot more likely that they were making rules for the citizens and government of their new country than that they were making them for all people, everywhere. >> The question of what weapons should be allowed is a bit more complex. My >> best answer to that is, the right is an individual right. If an >> individual can carry the weapon and use it effectively, up close and >> personal, then it's covered by the right. That pretty much rules out >> vehicle mounted weapons, bombs and the like. Then you don't find it an individual right but, instead, a group right? You're further down that slippery slope than I am. The problem with unlimited weaponry is that when you cross the line to weapons of mass destruction, the consequences of even one mistake make 9/11/2001 look like a fender bender. One modern nuclear weapon, used inappropriately by only one irresponsible person, could kill more people than all citizen owned buns have since the civil war. > Punish the action, not the tool used to facilitate the action... You have to be around to punish anyone. Lee > On Feb 16, 7:41 pm, "Dennis \(Icarus\)" <nojunkm...@ever.invalid> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] >>>fevered imaginations of fellers like the young man at the latest >>>school massacre that if you're gonna go, go big. Count lots of coup. I have never seen anything of the sort. Would you have a cite for that 'promotion.? >>If you would, what part of the "gun culture" says that "if you're going to >>go, go big"? [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > loathing to gull the impressionable into arming up or be called a > coward by their peers. That's a start. While there probably are some that want bigger and better, the vast majority do not and have not wanted bigger and better. Personally, I don't care what my neighbor has - as long as it is used in appropriate manner. I have a paid mercenary that lives behind me (he has moved) and he has quite an arsenal. I have no problem with his guns. I would feel sorry for anyone that tried to relieve him of those weapons tho.... >>>What if the gun culture promoted the preaceful uses of guns in the >>>civilian world - wilderness safety, hunting, recreation, collecting, >>>etc with less promotion of guns as the ultimate personal killing >>>device and our amateur killer's first thought was to turn to a kitchen >>>knife, baseball bat or golf club instead to wreak havoc on innocent >>>people. I can already hear the snorts of derision. wow - where have you been - MARS? Have you ever checked out any hunting sites, wilderness channels, the NRA, my GOD man open your eyes >>Check outwww.nra.org. >>In norder to get the idea of "guns as a killing device" you'd have to rework [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > JF On Feb 16, 7:41 pm, "Dennis \(Icarus\)" <nojunkm...@ever.invalid> wrote: > "JOF" <jofran...@gmail.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Good that you realize this. I've said it from Day One here. You just got too caught up in all your own malarkey to listen to what i was saying. WHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEHEEHEEHEEHEEHEEHEEHEEWHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEHEEHEEHEEHEEHEEHEEHEEWHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEHEEHEEHEEHEEHEEHEEHEEWHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEHEEHEEHEEHEEHEEHEEHEEWHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEHEEHEEHEEHEEHEEHEEHEEWHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEHEEHEEHEEHEEHEEHEEHEEWHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEHEEHEEHEEHEEHEEHEEHEEWHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEHEEHEEHEEHEEHEEHEEHEEWHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEHEEHEEHEEHEEHEEHEEHEEWHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEHEEHEEHEEHEEHEEHEEHEEWHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEHEEHEEHEEHEEHEEHEEHEEWHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEHEEHEEHEEHEEHEEHEEHEEWHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEHEEHEEHEEHEEHEEHEEHEEWHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEHEEHEEHEEHEEHEEHEEHEEWHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEHEEHEEHEEHEEHEEHEEHEE... JF Signature-- Not a claim, merely an observation, Joe. Can you honestly say that in these discussions your ego hasn't swelled even a little with renewed pride over the superiority your guns provide over lesser mortals? -JOF Popeye/www.finalprotectivefire.com <snip> > >The problem as I see it is that in fighting against these calls for > >total disarmament of the civilian sector the gun culture has done too [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > If you would, what part of the "gun culture" says that "if you're going to > go, go big"? The same part that says that a 9mm is for pussies while real men carry 45s, perhaps? > <snip> > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > The same part that says that a 9mm is for pussies while real men carry 45s, > perhaps? Do real gun owners actually talk to each other like that? JF -------------------------------------------- On Feb 19, 12:26 pm, "Chris Guynn" <chris.gu...@gamil.com> wrote: > "Dennis (Icarus)" <nojunkm...@ever.invalid> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > The same part that says that a 9mm is for pussies while real men carry 45s, > perhaps? Do real gun owners actually talk to each other like that? JF ------------------------------------ I've no doubt that some do. It's not the majority though. >><snip> >> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > JF Yes, except for the liberal types. They choose the .40 as a compromise to prevent conflict.... Signature“TANSTAAFL” ____________________________________________________________________________ America: Ironically, the safest place to be anti-American. ____________________________________________________________________________ "A prudent man foresees the difficulties ahead and prepares for them; the simpleton goes blindly on and suffers the consequences." - Proverbs 22:3 >>>The same part that says that a 9mm is for pussies while real men carry >>>45s, >>>perhaps? >> Do real gun owners actually talk to each other like that? Sure we do. It's much like when one black person calls another black person a Nigger. Not a big deal. By the way, boaters, car drivers, motorcycle drivers and even divers talk to each other the same way. Hell, the former head of WKPP thought my most advanced dives hardly qualified as dives at all. Compared to the dives he was doing at the time, he was right. > Yes, except for the liberal types. They choose the .40 as a compromise to > prevent conflict.... Nah, they chose .40 because they couldn't effectively handle the recoil of a 10mm. The FBI, once exclusively men 5' 8 1/2" or taller, opened their qualifications up to include women and smaller men. That created a problem with the larger grip, heavy recoiling 10mm. As it happens, I was one that made the choice to step back from the 10mm. It's not to powerful, or large for me to shoot, but the recoil, with a full power round, is too much for me to effective defense use, where the standard is, if they need to be shot once, it's best to shoot them twice. Very few people can effectively double tap a full power 10mm. I still carry mine in the woods, where, if I need to shoot at all, I'm more likely to need that extra velocity and muzzle energy. The first step away from the more powerful handguns was reduction of the 10mm loads. These days, you have to look hard for the full power rounds that used to be available anywhere. Corbon still makes them, as do a few other specialty ammunition sources. You can reload to the same power, but not without exceeding the maximum charges recommended in the reloading manuals. Some people still work up to hot loads, watching for signs that they are approaching the safe limit. I don't bother. The max loads recommended for the caliber are good enough for what I carry the gun for. Contrary to John's uninformed opinion, we don't all go out and get the biggest available and, even those that do, don't usually carry their largest guns. Like everything else, there's a right tool for the job. Of course deciding which is right, is part of the fun. At any rate, what may be the death of the 10mm started when the .40 was developed. .40 caliber and 10mm are the same thing. They are the same except for the length of the case. I reload both with the same 180 grain bullets. The .40, because it is shorter, allows a smaller grip. Because it's not normally loaded to the same velocity, it's lighter recoiling, but still better than anything else, well, except for the .45. The .40 gain a lot of popularity due to the fact that a standard sized pistol will hold a lot more rounds than the same sized .45 pistol. There's a real question how much that should matter, but in this respect, John is probably right. Most gun owners opt for bigger capacity rather than bigger caliber. The .40 is currently the most common caliber in competition and in law enforcement, followed by the .45 and the 9mm. I most often shoot a .40 in competition. It's the smallest caliber that "makes major," outside of the open division. "Major" is a power designation that affects the way targets are scored. The .40 took over from the .45 as the most common round because of the capacity advantage I already mentioned. In a timed shooting sport, how many shots you can fire before reloading is an important consideration. In open class, 9mm major, a hopped up 9mm, and .38 Super and Super Comp are more common rounds for the same reason. You can load more of them in the same space than .40s. By the way, the last time I checked comparative information, the full power 10mm beat out the .45 for one shot stops. That particular testing was done by a state Highway Patrol, Indiana, I think. Lee > <snip> > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > The same part that says that a 9mm is for pussies while real men carry 45s, > perhaps? If Real Men carry 45s, Angry White Men carry .50AE Desert Eagles. The more compensation, the better. >><snip> >> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > If Real Men carry 45s, Angry White Men carry .50AE Desert Eagles. The > more compensation, the better. Well nice try, Gregory, but this is pure delusion and more of your silly projections, and dishonest at that >> If Real Men carry 45s, Angry White Men carry .50AE Desert Eagles. The >> more compensation, the better. Wrong again. You'd think you'd learn. I carry a 9mm daily. It conceals well, I can hit what I'm shooting at with it, and it's loaded with rounds that I expect will stop in the target rather than passing trough, possibly injuring someone that does not deserve it. I don't carry a .45 because it does not conceal as easily and because a full power .45, in a gun small enough to be concealed, recoils more than I prefer in a weapon I may have to fire again quickly. I carry a 10mm, in the Everglades and woods because if I ever have to defend myself against a wild animal, I won't be as worried about over penetration and wounding innocent bystanders. I don't carry a .50 pistol anywhere because I have insufficient need for the power to justify the recoil and over penetration risk. See how simple it is? See how "mine is bigger than yours" really has nothing at all to do with the decision? If you go back and look, you'll find that Scott's disagreement with me is based entirely on his perception versus mine regarding what is most desirable. Neither of us promoted bigger is better, simply for the sake of bigger. Lee ------------------------------------------------- On Feb 19, 9:26 am, "Chris Guynn" <chris.gu...@gamil.com> wrote: > "Dennis (Icarus)" <nojunkm...@ever.invalid> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > The same part that says that a 9mm is for pussies while real men carry 45s, > perhaps? If Real Men carry 45s, Angry White Men carry .50AE Desert Eagles. The more compensation, the better. ---------------------------------------------- While real men want to do as much damage as possible, they also want to make sure that the damage done is to the other person. Because of that, they realize that a .50AE Desert Eagle is not the best choice because it is just as likely to hurt them as it is to hurt their attacker. Besides, the only people who carry .50AE Desert Eagles do so because of their penis envy for the real men who don't need a .50. That's my story and I'm sticking to it. > That's my story and I'm sticking to it. Here you go... SignatureSee NNTP header field "X-Real-Email-Address" to reply by email. > That's my story and I'm sticking to it. Here you go... http://www.vincelewis.net/60magnum.html SignatureSee NNTP header field "X-Real-Email-Address" to reply by email. > Here you go... http://www.vincelewis.net/60magnum.html "As a Single Action revolver the hammer needs to be cocked before the gun can be fired." I'll bet one of the hardest things to do is cock that hammer the second time. I hope the anti American anti gun people take note that the gun was made in Austria for someone in Switzerland. So much for our American fixation on size. Lee > "As a Single Action revolver the hammer needs to be cocked before the > gun can be fired." > > I'll bet one of the hardest things to do is cock that hammer the second > time. I saw a page where TC created a more lightweight handgun in that caliber... Single shot, of course, just like all the other TC handguns... They showed where someone fired it and the recoil was so high that the handgun flew out of his hands and hit him in the shoulder... The key factor in taking the 2nd shot would first be *finding* where the handgun ended up after the 1st shot... It's nice that we have the right to create and own weapons like this, but I have to wonder about the brains that someone might be endowed with if he ever attempted to fire it... SignatureSee NNTP header field "X-Real-Email-Address" to reply by email. > I saw a page where TC created a more lightweight handgun in that > caliber... Single shot, of course, just like all the other TC handguns... [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > create and own weapons like this, but I have to wonder about the brains > that someone might be endowed with if he ever attempted to fire it... One of the first Contenders I shot was a .44 magnum with a light barrel. The design of the gun kicked back into my hand so hard, I carried an obvious bruise for weeks. I later bought a Contender, including a heavy .44 magnum barrel. I had not trouble shooting it at all, or shooting it in .35 Remington, a fairly healthy rifle cartridge. The difference was weight. I have a Contender now, but only have a long heavy .22 rimfire barrel for it. It's the most useless gun I've ever owned. It's too heavy to hold like a pistol and illegal to add a stock to and shoot as a rifle. Anybody want to buy or trade for a .22 Contender bull barrel? Lee > While real men want to do as much damage as possible, they also want to > make [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > That's my story and I'm sticking to it. The only people I know of that carry something that large, do so only because they live in areas where very large, very dangerous animals are found. If I had to share my part of the environment with polar bears, grizzly bears, or lions and tigers, I think I'd carry a large, powerful gun too. What am I talking about. I do carry a large powerful gun when in areas frequented by lions, bears, wild hogs and alligators. I just don't carry one that large. It is, however, larger, than what I carry for protection against two legged animals found in my part of the world. Lee > > While real men want to do as much damage as possible, they also want to > > make [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > grizzly bears, or lions and tigers, I think I'd carry a large, powerful gun > too. Me too. > What am I talking about. I do carry a large powerful gun when in areas > frequented by lions, bears, wild hogs and alligators. I just don't carry one > that large. It is, however, larger, than what I carry for protection against > two legged animals found in my part of the world. I do my best to avoid inhospitable locales. Downtown at night is about as nasty as I choose to tolerate, and that doesn't require a gun around here. JF >> >The problem as I see it is that in fighting against these calls for >> >total disarmament of the civilian sector the gun culture has done too >> >good a job of promoting the power of guns, planting seeds in the >> >fevered imaginations of fellers like the young man at the latest >> >school massacre that if you're gonna go, go big. Count lots of coup. That would be the shootings in a gun free zone? You mean the ones in a school where nobody is allowed to have a firearm? The one where students, teachers, and visitors alike, are all required to be disarmed? That's the shootings you're blaming on the gun culture? Here's a clue. If just one citizen had been able to defend him or her self as provided by the Constitution, "count lots of coup" would never have happened. Lee >>> >The problem as I see it is that in fighting against these calls for >>> >total disarmament of the civilian sector the gun culture has done too [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > as provided by the Constitution, "count lots of coup" would never have > happened. Perhaps Greg or Futile John could find us an example where a "gun nut" had to shoot his way through armed security before opening fire and terminating all the un-armed victims in the gun-free zone. Of course, we know how that worked out in the double church shooting. Signature-- Not a claim, merely an observation, Joe. Can you honestly say that in these discussions your ego hasn't swelled even a little with renewed pride over the superiority your guns provide over lesser mortals? -JOF Popeye/www.finalprotectivefire.com On Feb 19, 1:35 pm, "Douglas W. \"Popeye\" Frederick" <Pop...@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote: > Perhaps Greg or Futile John could find us an example where a "gun nut" had > to shoot his way through armed security before opening fire and terminating > all the un-armed victims in the gun-free zone. Huh? I'm all in favor of armed security, as long as we still need protection from the gun nuts. > On Feb 19, 1:35 pm, "Douglas W. \"Popeye\" Frederick" > <Pop...@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Huh? I'm all in favor of armed security, as long as we still need > protection from the gun nuts. the reason I am is not the gun nuts I am armed to protect from criminals that wish to do me harm by whatever means the criminal uses. Gun Nuts choose places where people are not armed, such as churches, malls, and schools. Places I am not use to frequenting. > <snip> > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > 45s, > perhaps? Have you heard that anywhere? Or should I say: Was that said anywhere? Signature-- Not a claim, merely an observation, Joe. Can you honestly say that in these discussions your ego hasn't swelled even a little with renewed pride over the superiority your guns provide over lesser mortals? -JOF Popeye/www.finalprotectivefire.com > > <snip> > > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Or should I say: Was that said anywhere? I have heard that somewhere. It has been said somewhere. To the best of my knowledge, that somewhere is not here. > <snip> > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > The same part that says that a 9mm is for pussies while real men carry 45s, > perhaps? Don't think so, as it looked to me like "going to go, go big" meant that if you were going to go out, take a few folks with you. Dennis > Taking away our guns isn't the answer -they will just another way. I > wish one of these mass murderers could come back and tell us just where > their God has reserved his special place in the after life. The problem as I see it is that in fighting against these calls for total disarmament of the civilian sector the gun culture has done too good a job of promoting the power of guns, planting seeds in the fevered imaginations of fellers like the young man at the latest school massacre that if you're gonna go, go big. Count lots of coup. The only "fevered imagination" involved is yours. You might cite the Hollywood culture for that, but not what -you- consider the "gun culture". And instead of implying a wide-spread paradigm, you might mention that the shooter is -one- in maybe 50,000,000. What if the gun culture promoted the preaceful uses of guns in the civilian world - wilderness safety, hunting, recreation, collecting, etc with less promotion of guns as the ultimate personal killing device and our amateur killer's first thought was to turn to a kitchen knife, baseball bat or golf club instead to wreak havoc on innocent people. I can already hear the snorts of derision. That's because it was a stupid conclusion to a delusional premise. Signature-- Not a claim, merely an observation, Joe. Can you honestly say that in these discussions your ego hasn't swelled even a little with renewed pride over the superiority your guns provide over lesser mortals? -JOF Popeye/www.finalprotectivefire.com On Feb 16, 4:51 am, "Douglas W. \"Popeye\" Frederick" <Pop...@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote: > "You're scared to go to school lecture halls, and I'm going to be looking > over my shoulder and skeptical of people coming to class late," said Allison [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > putting security personnel in each of them are not considered practical > security measures. "On Feb. 9, Kazmierczak walked into a Champaign gun store and picked up two guns -- a Remington shotgun and a Glock 9mm handgun. He bought the two other handguns at the same shop -- a Hi-Point .380 on Dec. 30 and a Sig Sauer on Aug. 6." http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080216/ap_on_re_us/niu_shooting_144 "Others pointed out that violence is not limited to college campuses. In the past two weeks, there have been fatal shootings at a Louisiana vocational college in the urban setting of Baton Rouge, a Missouri city hall and a clothing chain store in suburban Chicago. "People go crazy whether it's at a school or at a workplace." http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080216/ap_on_re_us/niu_shooting_helpless;_ylt=Au8ZO wG7gOX5iSPoDTOg2ndH2ocA "The push to allow guns on campus rankles Garrett Evans, who was shot in both legs during the Virginia Tech rampage, and Omar Samaha, whose younger sister, Reema, was killed. "Having guns in the classroom only makes things worse," says Evans, 31. He says the Virginia Tech gunman, Seung Hui Cho, walked into his German class and began shooting so quickly that no one would have had time to shoot back. Samaha says guns on campus are a risk in an environment where young people drink and fight and are not always able to control their emotions. "It's kind of a crazy notion to think about," he says. "It takes us back to the Wild, Wild West." [Yee haw!] http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-02-14-guns-shooting_N.htm In article <0c5b9645-05ac-4c6c-bf6a-10951d905641 @h11g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, mossman@qnet.com says... - -"Others pointed out that violence is not limited to college campuses. -In the past two weeks, there have been fatal shootings at a Louisiana -vocational college in the urban setting of Baton Rouge, a Missouri -city hall and a clothing chain store in suburban Chicago. "People go -crazy whether it's at a school or at a workplace." right. liberals can not identify the problem. liberals can not solve the problem. liberals can not help the people who become the problem. liberals can not take effective action against the criminals. liberals can blame inanimate objects. so... liberals make laws affecting inanimate objects and the innocent law abiding citizens depriving them of their Constitutional rights. and they see nothing wrong with that approach. what happenned to "presumed innocent" ?? SignatureBob Crownfield crownfield@verizon.net > liberals can not identify the problem. The problem is crazy people with access to guns. You can't stop people from going crazy, but you can prevent their access to guns. > liberals can not solve the problem. Closing all the gun shops where a crazy guy can walk in and easily buy 4 guns to use to shoot up his school would be a big start. > liberals can not help the people who become the problem. Why do you want to help the crazy guy? I'd rather help the victims. > liberals can not take effective action against the criminals. It's a lot easier to take effective action against them when they're not holding guns. > liberals make laws affecting inanimate objects and > the innocent law abiding citizens > depriving them of their Constitutional rights. It's hardly a liberal/conservative issue. Everyone with any sense knows that conservatives, especially under the Bush regime, have caused far more harm to individual rights than liberals. You're simply being ridiculous here. The one "right" that liberals want to take away, your "right" to go into gun stores and buy as many guns as you want, seems to be the only "right" you conservatives care about. We liberals care about the right to be free from being shot in our schools and workplaces by loonies who just legally bought their guns hours before. Since our right is a matter of life and death, it obviously trumps your "right" have your shiny bang toys. > and they see nothing wrong with that approach. It's a balance. The right to life versus the "right" to shoot innocent little groundhougs and beercans. Hardly a difficult choice. > what happenned to "presumed innocent" ?? Nothing at all. What's your point? When (if) you get arrested for illegal possession of a firearm, you'll still be presumed innocent until the jury sees enough evidence of your guilt and convicts you. >>liberals can not identify the problem. > > The problem is crazy people with access to guns. You can't stop o > people from going crazy, but you can prevent their access to guns. It sucks to live in a free society - punish those that break the laws. Don't punish so many because of your fears, and committed by such a minute number guns are a legal product, you going to ban cars, water, electricity, baseball bats, and hockey sticks. Start with those - they aren't guaranteed us by our Constitution >>liberals can not solve the problem. > > Closing all the gun shops where a crazy guy can walk in and easily buy > 4 guns to use to shoot up his school would be a big start. Wouldn't stop many. but to do as you say would put many in danger >>liberals can not help the people who become the problem. > > Why do you want to help the crazy guy? I'd rather help the victims. Then don't restrict our 2nd amendment right - there will be victims >>liberals can not take effective action against the criminals. > > It's a lot easier to take effective action against them when they're > not holding guns. it is even easier when they think you might have one = watch out if we ever get to the point that 'they' know you can not be armed >>liberals make laws affecting inanimate objects and >> the innocent law abiding citizens [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > caused far more harm to individual rights than liberals. You're > simply being ridiculous here. Maybe, but there hasn't been as much attacks on the 2nd Amendment as under liberal administrations > The one "right" that liberals want to take away, your "right" to go > into gun stores and buy as many guns as you want, seems to be the only > "right" you conservatives care about. We liberals care about the > right to be free from being shot in our schools and workplaces by > loonies who just legally bought their guns hours before. and in a so-called gun free zone/ Don't tell that there are people who break the law and carry into a gun free zone? Since our > right is a matter of life and death, it obviously trumps your "right" > have your shiny bang toys. I have no shiny bang toys. A gun is NEVER a toy. Too bad that is your narrow minded depiction >>and they see nothing wrong with that approach. > > It's a balance. The right to life versus the "right" to shoot > innocent little groundhougs and beercans. Hardly a difficult choice. Don't forget the right to protect yourself and your family. Self-preservation and all >>what happenned to "presumed innocent" ?? > > Nothing at all. What's your point? When (if) you get arrested for > illegal possession of a firearm, you'll still be presumed innocent > until the jury sees enough evidence of your guilt and convicts you. so what - defense lawyers have no problem with getting hardened, vicious criminals back on the street > guns are a legal product, you going to ban cars, water, electricity, > baseball bats, and hockey sticks. Start with those - they aren't > guaranteed us by our Constitution Doesn't that in itself suggest something is seriously out of whack? Do you really believe guns are more important to your society than cars, water & electricity? As far as I know your FF's knew next to nothing about cars & the potential of municipalities piping water into every home. Good ole Ben apparently had some idea about electricity but surely not the extent to which it would affect our modern lives. Doesn't this all cast at least a small shadow of doubt over the ongoing applicability of the second amendment as you want it interpreted? JF >"JOF" <jofrancis@gmail.com> wrote in message news:e737d5b3-cd38-41b5-b1c6-4ed6169f20f8@e60g2000hsh.googlegroups.com... >> guns are a legal product, you going to ban cars, water, electricity, >> baseball bats, and hockey sticks. Start with those - they aren't >> guaranteed us by our Constitution > >Doesn't that in itself suggest something is seriously out of whack? No. >Do you really believe guns are more important to your society than cars, water & electricity? As important, sure. >As far as I know your FF's knew next to nothing about cars & the potential of municipalities piping water into every >home. Good ole Ben apparently had some idea about electricity but >surely not the extent to which it would affect our modern lives. >Doesn't this all cast at least a small shadow of doubt over the >ongoing applicability of the second amendment as you want it >interpreted? Nope. If folks want the 2nd amendment changed, then there's a process for doing so. Dennis On Feb 17, 2:51 am, "Dennis \(Icarus\)" <nojunkm...@ever.invalid> wrote: > Nope. If folks want the 2nd amendment changed, then there's a process for > doing so. Isn't that what the antigun movement is about, the process of change? JF >"JOF" <jofrancis@gmail.com> wrote in message news:44a64c9f-9155-47b5-9952-dfdc8de423dd@60g2000hsy.googlegroups.com... >On Feb 17, 2:51 am, "Dennis \(Icarus\)" <nojunkm...@ever.invalid> >wrote: >> Nope. If folks want the 2nd amendment changed, then there's a process for >> doing so. > >Isn't that what the antigun movement is about, the process of change? Not in the correct manner - you know, one that'd follow the law - or do you have a copy of their proposed constitutional amendment? :-) Dennis > On Feb 17, 2:51 am, "Dennis \(Icarus\)" <nojunkm...@ever.invalid> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > JF yes and they have been back dooring it for years. The progun movement has given in thousands of times already. Enough is enough. They will never stop until they reach a total ban. Then what happens, JOF? What if the UN is successful in its total ban of weapons throughout the world? Are you ready to protect yourself from the ethnic cleansing that has been rampant throughout Eastern Europe or Africa? That example maybe a little far fetched - however it is in comparison to the idiotic examples you provide here for banning all guns and the situations that 'could' occur > > On Feb 17, 2:51 am, "Dennis \(Icarus\)" <nojunkm...@ever.invalid> > > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > world? Are you ready to protect yourself from the ethnic cleansing that > has been rampant throughout Eastern Europe or Africa? Not the best example, I'm afraid http://hnn.us/articles/7302.html according to Ward Churchill, a professor of ethnic studies at the University of Colorado, the reduction of the North American Indian population from an estimated 12 million in 1500 to barely 237,000 in 1900 represents a "vast genocide . . . , the most sustained on record. "By the end of the 19th century, writes David E. Stannard, a historian at the University of Hawaii, native Americans had undergone the "worst human holocaust the world had ever witnessed, roaring across two continents non-stop for four centuries and consuming the lives of countless tens of millions of people." If you are intersted you can also check Indian Removal Act of 1830 :-))) Janusz > That example > maybe a little far fetched - however it is in comparison to the idiotic > examples you provide here for banning all guns and the situations that > 'could' occur >>>On Feb 17, 2:51 am, "Dennis \(Icarus\)" <nojunkm...@ever.invalid> >>>wrote: [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > > Janusz Ward Churchill..... <snicker> Signature“TANSTAAFL” ____________________________________________________________________________ America: Ironically, the safest place to be anti-American. ____________________________________________________________________________ "A prudent man foresees the difficulties ahead and prepares for them; the simpleton goes blindly on and suffers the consequences." - Proverbs 22:3 |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message