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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#242
|
|||
|
|||
Giving photogs a bad name?
In article , says...
"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. I really should learn to just killfile anybody who has a knee-jerk reaction to expressions such as "you people". |
#243
|
|||
|
|||
Giving photogs a bad name?
On 6/19/2014 4:37 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
In article , says... "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. I really should learn to just killfile anybody who has a knee-jerk reaction to expressions such as "you people". You really should learn to loosen up. Pas made that comment just to give me the business. Alert, even though hi and I differ religiously and politically, in real life were are friends. I osmetimes give him the business, and he does it to me, but it's not intended to be mean. Just in good fun. -- PeterN |
#244
|
|||
|
|||
Giving photogs a bad name?
On Thu, 19 Jun 2014 09:53:08 -0400, PeterN
wrote: On 6/18/2014 6:06 PM, Tony Cooper wrote: On Wed, 18 Jun 2014 12:07:41 -0400, "J. Clarke" wrote: 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. Except that 100 is *not* the average IQ score of the measured population. If you use IQ as a measure of intelligence, 90 to 109 represents "average" intelligence. That is different from an average of IQ scores. 100 is the median score level of the measured population. An IQ score of 100 means that the test taker scored at the median level in the population of test-takers. If you are of an IQ sufficient to determine the intent of the Founding Fathers, you should know the difference between an average and a median. Are you saying we shouldn't be mean. That's a deviation from the topic. :-( -- Regards, Eric Stevens |
#245
|
|||
|
|||
Giving photogs a bad name?
On Fri, 20 Jun 2014 00:13:54 -0400, Tony Cooper
wrote: On Fri, 20 Jun 2014 10:39:47 +1200, Eric Stevens wrote: On Thu, 19 Jun 2014 09:53:08 -0400, PeterN wrote: On 6/18/2014 6:06 PM, Tony Cooper wrote: On Wed, 18 Jun 2014 12:07:41 -0400, "J. Clarke" wrote: 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. Except that 100 is *not* the average IQ score of the measured population. If you use IQ as a measure of intelligence, 90 to 109 represents "average" intelligence. That is different from an average of IQ scores. 100 is the median score level of the measured population. An IQ score of 100 means that the test taker scored at the median level in the population of test-takers. If you are of an IQ sufficient to determine the intent of the Founding Fathers, you should know the difference between an average and a median. Are you saying we shouldn't be mean. That's a deviation from the topic. :-( Yeah, but that's Standard here. I thought that was normal everywhere. -- Regards, Eric Stevens |
#246
|
|||
|
|||
Giving photogs a bad name?
On 6/18/14 9:13 AM, in article , "Whisky-dave" wrote: On Wednesday, 18 June 2014 15:05:23 UTC+1, George Kerby wrote: 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... Seems I'm not the only one, at least I can spell whisky. ! But not much else... |
#247
|
|||
|
|||
Giving photogs a bad name?
On 6/20/2014 4:56 AM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Fri, 20 Jun 2014 00:13:54 -0400, Tony Cooper wrote: On Fri, 20 Jun 2014 10:39:47 +1200, Eric Stevens wrote: On Thu, 19 Jun 2014 09:53:08 -0400, PeterN wrote: On 6/18/2014 6:06 PM, Tony Cooper wrote: On Wed, 18 Jun 2014 12:07:41 -0400, "J. Clarke" wrote: 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. Except that 100 is *not* the average IQ score of the measured population. If you use IQ as a measure of intelligence, 90 to 109 represents "average" intelligence. That is different from an average of IQ scores. 100 is the median score level of the measured population. An IQ score of 100 means that the test taker scored at the median level in the population of test-takers. If you are of an IQ sufficient to determine the intent of the Founding Fathers, you should know the difference between an average and a median. Are you saying we shouldn't be mean. That's a deviation from the topic. :-( Yeah, but that's Standard here. I thought that was normal everywhere. You two are just in an argumentative mode. -- PeterN |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
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 |