A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Digital Photography » Digital Photography
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Giving photogs a bad name?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #232  
Old June 18th 14, 03:05 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
George Kerby
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,798
Default Giving photogs a bad name?




On 6/18/14 5:22 AM, in article
, "Whisky-dave"
wrote:

On Tuesday, 17 June 2014 17:14:22 UTC+1, George Kerby wrote:
On 6/17/14 8:02 AM, in article , "PAS"

wrote:



"Whisky-dave" wrote in message


...


On Monday, 16 June 2014 20:37:56 UTC+1, PAS wrote:


"James Silverton" wrote in message




...




On 6/16/2014 11:48 AM, PAS wrote:




"Whisky-dave" wrote in message




...




On Monday, 16 June 2014 15:15:26 UTC+1, PAS wrote:
















No, but in many cases there is far too much regulation of ownership.








In which particualar cases would you say are over regulated ?








Where I live, in Suffolk County on Long Island.








In a nutshell, this is the process I had to go through to get my


handgun




license and first handgun:








1) Fill out a long application including all previous addresses.




2) Provide three personal references and signed and noarized


affadavits




from them




3) The references and my employer were all interviewed




4) I had to be fingerprinted & interviewed




5) I was warned of what could disqualify me from being approved.


Among




them was getting a traffic ticket within the application process




timeframe.




6) I was approved after approximately six months from the time I


applied




7) I can no purchase a handgun. I went to a gun dealer and made my




purchase. But I could not take possession. I had to get a form


filled




out




by the dealer




8) I take the form to the police department and they review the form


and




then must approve the form and stamp it




9) I take the form back to the dealer and then take possession




10) I have to bring the handgun to the police department for their




inspection and then to record the serial number on my license




11) I am only permitted to take the handgun from my home directly to




firing




range and then directly back home when finished. I cannot make any


stops




along the way, no exceptions. If I do, I can lose my license.








That my friend, is over regulated.












Well, you got your gun! Just think what it would be like in the UK.








True, in the UK it's impossible to get one.




yes of course it is, but where do you get these sort of 'facts'




http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/olympics/18911651



I'm not sure what "facts" you're speaking of. Am I wrong that in the UK an


"ordinary citizen" like you and I are not permitted to won handguns?








Whiskey does not discern between long arms and handguns...


Whiskey doesn't need to.


BUT, Whiskey needs to find a Newsreader besides this insane Google and it's
double spacing annoyance, AND a spellchecker to boot...

  #233  
Old June 18th 14, 03:37 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Peter Irwin
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 352
Default Giving photogs a bad name?

J. Clarke wrote:

However, your opinion matters not one iota. The Supreme Court has
ruled, that ruling is that the right to bear arms is a personal right
that has nothing to do with participation in a militia, and unless you
can muster enough votes to change the Constitution, its opinion
overrides yours.


The Supreme Court of the US determines what the 2nd amendment
means now, but it has no influence on the interesting question of
what it meant when it was written.

In order to understand what it meant when written, you must
keep in mind three facts:

1) The 10 amendments when written were about restrictions on
what the federal government would be allowed to do.

2) To "bear arms" in the English of the 18th century never means
to "carry weapons", but can mean "to be part of an army, militia etc."

3) The word "State" in the US constitution refers to the individual
states in the union, and not to the US as a whole.

With this in mind, here is a modern rephrasing of the intent of the
2nd amendment:

Because it is necessary for each State to have a well regulated militia
in order to remain free and secure, the federal government may not
interfere with the right of the people of each state to join the
militia and to keep weapons for that purpose.

That is way closer to what it meant originally than what the US Supreme
court causes it to mean now.

I really wish you people would accept reality and drop this whole
"militia" line of argument, because all it is doing is making you look
like the same kind of deep-in-denial nutters who claim that the income
tax violates the Constitution.


It might have prior to the Sixteenth Amendment. Oddly enough the people
who proposed the 16th Amendment did not intend to give the federal
government the right to an income tax, they assumed that it would never
receive enough state ratification, and the proposed amendment being
left dead would make it clear that federal income tax would be
unconstitutional. This backfired, and the states ratified it rather
quickly.

Peter.
--


  #234  
Old June 18th 14, 03:40 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Savageduck[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,487
Default Giving photogs a bad name?

On 2014-06-18 13:17:18 +0000, PeterN said:

On 6/17/2014 10:53 PM, J. Clarke wrote:

snip

The Founders made a clear distinction between the "militia" and the
"military". They provided for an Army, for a Navy, and for a militia,
in separate articles.


We should note that there is no Constitutional provision for an Air Force.


Remember, even Ben Franklin had his son fly the kite.

....and the Air Force only came into being in 1947.

However, your opinion matters not one iota. The Supreme Court has
ruled, that ruling is that the right to bear arms is a personal right
that has nothing to do with participation in a militia, and unless you
can muster enough votes to change the Constitution, its opinion
overrides yours.

I really wish you people would accept reality and drop this whole
"militia" line of argument, because all it is doing is making you look
like the same kind of deep-in-denial nutters who claim that the income
tax violates the Constitution.


WHO ARE "YOU PEOPLE."


We have met the enemy and he are us.


--
Regards,

Savageduck

  #235  
Old June 18th 14, 03:45 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Savageduck[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,487
Default Giving photogs a bad name?

On 2014-06-18 13:58:49 +0000, George Kerby said:




On 6/17/14 11:49 AM, in article
201406170949556752-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom, "Savageduck"
wrote:

On 2014-06-17 15:52:17 +0000, Tony Cooper said:

On Tue, 17 Jun 2014 09:02:54 -0400, "PAS"
wrote:

I'm not sure what "facts" you're speaking of. Am I wrong that in the UK an
"ordinary citizen" like you and I are not permitted to won handguns?

Some ordinary citizens are dangerous to themselves and/or others.

Seventy year-old L.C. Williams shot himself in the foot yesterday. The
Orlandoan was carrying his gun tucked in the waistband of his trousers
and it dropped to ground. It discharged wounding Williams.
The round ricocheted and did $500 of estimated damages to a Dodge
Charger in the supermarket parking lot where the incident occurred.

I feel badly for the owner of the Dodge Charger.


Tucked in the waistband of his trousers! What an idiot!
There are too many irresponsible gun owners who get their concept of
how to carry a pistol from Hollywood and TV. If you insist on carrying
a handgun inside your waistband, which is probably the most insecure &
dangerous way of concealing a handgun, consider an *inside the
waistband holster*. They exist.

http://www.galcogunleather.com/walka..._8_7_1336.html


For my two carry weapons (I only use one at a time) I have three types
of holster:
1: A handmade belt loop holster made by Andy Aratoonian an English
leather artist who makes his holsters one at a time, and has a nine
month backlog on filling orders.
http://www.holsters.org/covert_22-holster.htm

2: A less exclusive Galco *Paddle* holster which is a grab and go rig
and both my Kimber and Glock live in one of these.
http://www.galcogunleather.com/ccp-c..._8_5_1054.html

3: Then there is the one I seldom use these days, and was only used
when there was a specific need at work, a *Small of Back* SOB holster
which makes a good concealed carry holster, with a few drawbacks. For
one, you don't want to use one of those if you are going to be sitting
in a car any length of time.
http://www.desantisholster.com/S-O-B-SMALL-OF-BACK


And there is always this model, made for those with double-digit IQ
scores...

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/...un-waistband-n
131666


Obviously not the brightest guy on the block.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

  #236  
Old June 18th 14, 05:04 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
J. Clarke[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,273
Default Giving photogs a bad name?

In article 2014061807401474819-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom,
says...

On 2014-06-18 13:17:18 +0000, PeterN said:

On 6/17/2014 10:53 PM, J. Clarke wrote:

snip

The Founders made a clear distinction between the "militia" and the
"military". They provided for an Army, for a Navy, and for a militia,
in separate articles.


We should note that there is no Constitutional provision for an Air Force.


Remember, even Ben Franklin had his son fly the kite.

...and the Air Force only came into being in 1947.

However, your opinion matters not one iota. The Supreme Court has
ruled, that ruling is that the right to bear arms is a personal right
that has nothing to do with participation in a militia, and unless you
can muster enough votes to change the Constitution, its opinion
overrides yours.

I really wish you people would accept reality and drop this whole
"militia" line of argument, because all it is doing is making you look
like the same kind of deep-in-denial nutters who claim that the income
tax violates the Constitution.


WHO ARE "YOU PEOPLE."


We have met the enemy and he are us.


It's interesting that he cannot figure out that "YOU PEOPLE" refers to
the people who continue to argue that the right to bear arms is
guaranteed only to members of a militia after the Supreme Court has
ruled otherwise.




  #237  
Old June 18th 14, 05:07 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
J. Clarke[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,273
Default Giving photogs a bad name?

In article 2014061807452520591-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom,
says...

On 2014-06-18 13:58:49 +0000, George Kerby said:




On 6/17/14 11:49 AM, in article
201406170949556752-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom, "Savageduck"
wrote:

On 2014-06-17 15:52:17 +0000, Tony Cooper said:

On Tue, 17 Jun 2014 09:02:54 -0400, "PAS"
wrote:

I'm not sure what "facts" you're speaking of. Am I wrong that in the UK an
"ordinary citizen" like you and I are not permitted to won handguns?

Some ordinary citizens are dangerous to themselves and/or others.

Seventy year-old L.C. Williams shot himself in the foot yesterday. The
Orlandoan was carrying his gun tucked in the waistband of his trousers
and it dropped to ground. It discharged wounding Williams.
The round ricocheted and did $500 of estimated damages to a Dodge
Charger in the supermarket parking lot where the incident occurred.

I feel badly for the owner of the Dodge Charger.

Tucked in the waistband of his trousers! What an idiot!
There are too many irresponsible gun owners who get their concept of
how to carry a pistol from Hollywood and TV. If you insist on carrying
a handgun inside your waistband, which is probably the most insecure &
dangerous way of concealing a handgun, consider an *inside the
waistband holster*. They exist.

http://www.galcogunleather.com/walka..._8_7_1336.html


For my two carry weapons (I only use one at a time) I have three types
of holster:
1: A handmade belt loop holster made by Andy Aratoonian an English
leather artist who makes his holsters one at a time, and has a nine
month backlog on filling orders.
http://www.holsters.org/covert_22-holster.htm

2: A less exclusive Galco *Paddle* holster which is a grab and go rig
and both my Kimber and Glock live in one of these.
http://www.galcogunleather.com/ccp-c..._8_5_1054.html

3: Then there is the one I seldom use these days, and was only used
when there was a specific need at work, a *Small of Back* SOB holster
which makes a good concealed carry holster, with a few drawbacks. For
one, you don't want to use one of those if you are going to be sitting
in a car any length of time.
http://www.desantisholster.com/S-O-B-SMALL-OF-BACK


And there is always this model, made for those with double-digit IQ
scores...

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/...un-waistband-n
131666


Obviously not the brightest guy on the block.


Interesting that George uses "double digit IQ scores" as a pejorative,
thereby insulting half the population. Earth to George, 100 is
"average" and the difference between 99 and 101 is undetectable.
  #239  
Old June 19th 14, 01:36 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
PeterN[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,246
Default Giving photogs a bad name?

On 6/18/2014 12:04 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
In article 2014061807401474819-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom,
says...

On 2014-06-18 13:17:18 +0000, PeterN said:

On 6/17/2014 10:53 PM, J. Clarke wrote:

snip

The Founders made a clear distinction between the "militia" and the
"military". They provided for an Army, for a Navy, and for a militia,
in separate articles.


We should note that there is no Constitutional provision for an Air Force.


Remember, even Ben Franklin had his son fly the kite.

...and the Air Force only came into being in 1947.

However, your opinion matters not one iota. The Supreme Court has
ruled, that ruling is that the right to bear arms is a personal right
that has nothing to do with participation in a militia, and unless you
can muster enough votes to change the Constitution, its opinion
overrides yours.

I really wish you people would accept reality and drop this whole
"militia" line of argument, because all it is doing is making you look
like the same kind of deep-in-denial nutters who claim that the income
tax violates the Constitution.


WHO ARE "YOU PEOPLE."


We have met the enemy and he are us.


It's interesting that he cannot figure out that "YOU PEOPLE" refers to
the people who continue to argue that the right to bear arms is
guaranteed only to members of a militia after the Supreme Court has
ruled otherwise.

'YOU PEOPLE" is a pejorative expression typically used to paint all who
disagree with the utterer with a broad brush, when the utterer has a
position he cannot intellectually defend.


--
PeterN
  #240  
Old June 19th 14, 01:59 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
PAS
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 480
Default Giving photogs a bad name?

"PeterN" wrote in message
...
On 6/18/2014 12:04 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
In article 2014061807401474819-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom,
says...

On 2014-06-18 13:17:18 +0000, PeterN said:

On 6/17/2014 10:53 PM, J. Clarke wrote:

snip

The Founders made a clear distinction between the "militia" and the
"military". They provided for an Army, for a Navy, and for a militia,
in separate articles.


We should note that there is no Constitutional provision for an Air
Force.

Remember, even Ben Franklin had his son fly the kite.

...and the Air Force only came into being in 1947.

However, your opinion matters not one iota. The Supreme Court has
ruled, that ruling is that the right to bear arms is a personal right
that has nothing to do with participation in a militia, and unless you
can muster enough votes to change the Constitution, its opinion
overrides yours.

I really wish you people would accept reality and drop this whole
"militia" line of argument, because all it is doing is making you look
like the same kind of deep-in-denial nutters who claim that the income
tax violates the Constitution.


WHO ARE "YOU PEOPLE."

We have met the enemy and he are us.


It's interesting that he cannot figure out that "YOU PEOPLE" refers to
the people who continue to argue that the right to bear arms is
guaranteed only to members of a militia after the Supreme Court has
ruled otherwise.

'YOU PEOPLE" is a pejorative expression typically used to paint all who
disagree with the utterer with a broad brush, when the utterer has a
position he cannot intellectually defend.


You people are all alike.


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Giving photogs a bad name? Eric Stevens Digital Photography 9 May 20th 14 12:43 AM
Giving photogs a bad name? Savageduck[_3_] Digital Photography 4 May 18th 14 09:30 PM
Giving up. Pablo Digital Photography 56 November 7th 12 02:50 PM
Giving up Badasghan Lukacina APS Photographic Equipment 0 August 22nd 04 09:11 AM
Giving up Beneactiney Redgrave Film & Labs 0 August 21st 04 10:59 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:35 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.