Giving photogs a bad name?

On 2014-05-27 19:35:55 +0000, Bowser said:

On Fri, 23 May 2014 22:36:44 -0400, Robert Coe wrote:

On Fri, 23 May 2014 16:00:29 -0400, Bowser wrote:
: On Thu, 22 May 2014 22:28:01 -0400, Robert Coe wrote:
:
: On Mon, 19 May 2014 09:44:03 -0500, George Kerby
: wrote:
: :
: :
: :
: : On 5/19/14 8:48 AM, in article , "PAS"
: : wrote:
: :
: :
: : "Bowser" wrote in message
: : ...
: : On Sat, 17 May 2014 23:00:22 -0700 (PDT), RichA
: : wrote:
: :
: :
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...t-shakes-up-mi
:

: ssissippi-republican-primary/
: :
: : the blogger was a tea party supporter. 'nuff said.
: :
: : So am I. Don't got the way of a bigot and paint everyone with a broad
: : brush. What the blogger did is reprehensible but it is not a
reflection on
: : the group, just himself.
: :
: :
: : "bowser" is a lapdog for dimwit libtards. He LOVES Uncle
SugarDaddy running
: : his life, so that response was as expected...
:
: Fine. Think what you like. You will anyway. But unlike you, I've
actually met
: Bowser. He and I spent several hours on a photo shoot, prowling the
city where
: I work. And he's not at all the way you describe him.
:
: OK, you win. I'm buying during the next walkabout in Boston, or
: whever. :-) I'm due for a trip to the big city.

After yet another photo shoot where I had to use my crappy old 50-150 lens
because the City's 70-200 was too long for the job, I'm on the point of
braking down and buying a 5D3. (I already have the 24-105 f/4 walking around
lens it requires.) So if/when I pull the trigger, I'll obviously have to take
it out for a break-in walk. I'll let you know. ;^)

I may be in for a gear churn. I might be doing some sports/action
stuff in the near future, and the m4/3 gear just isn't up for it. Who
knows? Maybe I'll be back at Canon? Or, God forbid, Nikon. :-)


: I committed the cardinal sin: I disagreed with a staunch conservative.
: As soon as that happens, you are automatically a bleeding heart, left
: win, commie socialist who wants to feed babies to whales. In reality,
: I'm a staunch defender of the second amendment, want English as a
: legal national language, am in favor of sealng the borders, and would
: vote republican if one, a real one, ever runs again.

I know how you feel. I seem to recall having been called a communist in this
very newsgroup. I, who worked in the campaign of that notorious pinko Barry
Goldwater and even voted for Richard Nixon before he went off the rails.

: But hey, let George have his say. He seems to enjoy it quite a bit.
: Someday he may even post a link to some of his pics.
:
: Nah, never happen.

Bret Douglas will buy a Nikon first.


True. Bret knows good gear. I think.

Only annually on April 1.


--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 2014-05-27 22:05:33 +0000, Tony Cooper said:

On Tue, 27 May 2014 16:13:05 -0400, "PAS"
wrote:



Someone might convince me of the gun grab. What the administration is doing
is unprecedented. Pressuring banks to not provide service to gun dealers?
They would strictly reduce our 2nd amendment rights if they could,

First, one has to accept that the Second Amendment was written with
the concept in mind that rights accorded in the Amendment are the
rights that the NRA is so staunchly defending.

Not all of us accept this.

Second, one has to accept that something written in the 1700s should
be maintained in effect in a completely different society that the
society that existed at the time.

The Constitution, and the Amendments, have been revised many times
since then, but the Second Amendment seems to be bullet-proof against
change.

Not all of us accept this, either.

Retired Justice John Paul Stevens has an interesting fix for the Second
Amendment, with the addition of five words;


http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinio...tml?tid=pm_pop

http://tinyurl.com/ptjgbqu

--
Regards,

Savageduck

On Tue, 27 May 2014 15:35:55 -0400, Bowser wrote:
: On Fri, 23 May 2014 22:36:44 -0400, Robert Coe wrote:
:
: On Fri, 23 May 2014 16:00:29 -0400, Bowser wrote:
: : On Thu, 22 May 2014 22:28:01 -0400, Robert Coe wrote:
: :
: : On Mon, 19 May 2014 09:44:03 -0500, George Kerby
: : wrote:
: : :
: : :
: : :
: : : On 5/19/14 8:48 AM, in article , "PAS"
: : : wrote:
: : :
: : :
: : : "Bowser" wrote in message
: : : ...
: : : On Sat, 17 May 2014 23:00:22 -0700 (PDT), RichA
: : : wrote:
: : :
: : : http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...t-shakes-up-mi
: : : ssissippi-republican-primary/
: : :
: : : the blogger was a tea party supporter. 'nuff said.
: : :
: : : So am I. Don't got the way of a bigot and paint everyone with a broad
: : : brush. What the blogger did is reprehensible but it is not a reflection on
: : : the group, just himself.
: : :
: : :
: : : "bowser" is a lapdog for dimwit libtards. He LOVES Uncle SugarDaddy running
: : : his life, so that response was as expected...
: :
: : Fine. Think what you like. You will anyway. But unlike you, I've actually met
: : Bowser. He and I spent several hours on a photo shoot, prowling the city where
: : I work. And he's not at all the way you describe him.
: :
: : OK, you win. I'm buying during the next walkabout in Boston, or
: : whever. :-) I'm due for a trip to the big city.
:
: After yet another photo shoot where I had to use my crappy old 50-150 lens
: because the City's 70-200 was too long for the job, I'm on the point of
: breaking down and buying a 5D3. (I already have the 24-105 f/4 walking around
: lens it requires.) So if/when I pull the trigger, I'll obviously have to take
: it out for a break-in walk. I'll let you know. ;^)
:
: I may be in for a gear churn. I might be doing some sports/action
: stuff in the near future, and the m4/3 gear just isn't up for it. Who
: knows? Maybe I'll be back at Canon? Or, God forbid, Nikon. :-)

One of my old friends, whom I hadn't seen in a while, is into sports/action
photography, and he's the one who convinced me I needed a 5D3. I did order it,
and it's *supposed* to be here tomorrow, one day before we leave for my 55th
college reunion. So I'm hoping to be able to try it out there.

If you decide to go Canon, you'll presumably get either a 5D3 or a 7D. I'll
have both, so if we get a chance to do a walk before you decide, you can see
which one you like better. (IIRC, your previous Canon was a 5D2.)

Bob

In article 201405271527557555-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom, savageduck1
@{REMOVESPAM}me.com says...

On 2014-05-27 22:05:33 +0000, Tony Cooper said:

On Tue, 27 May 2014 16:13:05 -0400, "PAS"
wrote:



Someone might convince me of the gun grab. What the administration is doing
is unprecedented. Pressuring banks to not provide service to gun dealers?
They would strictly reduce our 2nd amendment rights if they could,

First, one has to accept that the Second Amendment was written with
the concept in mind that rights accorded in the Amendment are the
rights that the NRA is so staunchly defending.

Not all of us accept this.

Second, one has to accept that something written in the 1700s should
be maintained in effect in a completely different society that the
society that existed at the time.

The Constitution, and the Amendments, have been revised many times
since then, but the Second Amendment seems to be bullet-proof against
change.

Not all of us accept this, either.

Retired Justice John Paul Stevens has an interesting fix for the Second
Amendment, with the addition of five words;


http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinio...tml?tid=pm_pop

http://tinyurl.com/ptjgbqu

I'd be fine with that if it also mandated that a militia exist and that
its members be forbidden to swear loyalty to the Federal government.

Regardless, there is a procedure for amending the Constitution. If gun
control advocates want it amended they are welcome to try to sell that
idea to enough of the public to get it amended.

On 2014-05-28 04:23:14 +0000, "J. Clarke" said:

In article 201405271527557555-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom, savageduck1
@{REMOVESPAM}me.com says...

On 2014-05-27 22:05:33 +0000, Tony Cooper said:

On Tue, 27 May 2014 16:13:05 -0400, "PAS"
wrote:



Someone might convince me of the gun grab. What the administration is doing
is unprecedented. Pressuring banks to not provide service to gun dealers?
They would strictly reduce our 2nd amendment rights if they could,

First, one has to accept that the Second Amendment was written with
the concept in mind that rights accorded in the Amendment are the
rights that the NRA is so staunchly defending.

Not all of us accept this.

Second, one has to accept that something written in the 1700s should
be maintained in effect in a completely different society that the
society that existed at the time.

The Constitution, and the Amendments, have been revised many times
since then, but the Second Amendment seems to be bullet-proof against
change.

Not all of us accept this, either.

Retired Justice John Paul Stevens has an interesting fix for the Second
Amendment, with the addition of five words;


http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinio...tml?tid=pm_pop



http://tinyurl.com/ptjgbqu

I'd be fine with that if it also mandated that a militia exist and that
its members be forbidden to swear loyalty to the Federal government.

Now that is an interesting concept which raises several questions
regarding leadership and regional loyalty of members of any State
militia.
My first thought is that any State employed Law Enforcement and Health
& Safety officers would be primary members of the State Militia, with
the State Governor as the regional CIC.
Then the various County agencies would be tapped in the event of mutual
aid demands.
....but the big question raised is, where does the State National Guard
& Air National Guard fall. It is understood that they have split
loyalties between a State Governor as CIC, and POTUS as CIC.
They are a State resource theoretically commanded by the office of the
Governor, yet they remain under the wing of the DOD, which leads back
to POTUS.

Regardless, there is a procedure for amending the Constitution. If gun
control advocates want it amended they are welcome to try to sell that
idea to enough of the public to get it amended.

....and at this time I believe any substantive Constitutional change to
the Second Amendment is just wishful thinking.
There are very philosophically opposite sectors of the public involved
here and I seriously doubt that there will be a meeting of minds to fix
the real problem of gun violence and unnecessary deaths and injuries.
That is a completely different issue to the right to bear arms and the
Second Amendment.

That said, no way am I giving up my guns!!

--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 2014-05-28 05:38:47 +0000, Tony Cooper said:

On Tue, 27 May 2014 21:49:59 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2014-05-28 04:23:14 +0000, "J. Clarke" said:

In article 201405271527557555-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom, savageduck1
@{REMOVESPAM}me.com says...

On 2014-05-27 22:05:33 +0000, Tony Cooper said:

On Tue, 27 May 2014 16:13:05 -0400, "PAS"
wrote:



Someone might convince me of the gun grab. What the administration is doing
is unprecedented. Pressuring banks to not provide service to gun dealers?
They would strictly reduce our 2nd amendment rights if they could,

First, one has to accept that the Second Amendment was written with
the concept in mind that rights accorded in the Amendment are the
rights that the NRA is so staunchly defending.

Not all of us accept this.

Second, one has to accept that something written in the 1700s should
be maintained in effect in a completely different society that the
society that existed at the time.

The Constitution, and the Amendments, have been revised many times
since then, but the Second Amendment seems to be bullet-proof against
change.

Not all of us accept this, either.

Retired Justice John Paul Stevens has an interesting fix for the Second
Amendment, with the addition of five words;


http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinio...tml?tid=pm_pop



http://tinyurl.com/ptjgbqu



I'd be fine with that if it also mandated that a militia exist and that
its members be forbidden to swear loyalty to the Federal government.

Now that is an interesting concept which raises several questions
regarding leadership and regional loyalty of members of any State
militia.
My first thought is that any State employed Law Enforcement and Health
& Safety officers would be primary members of the State Militia, with
the State Governor as the regional CIC.
Then the various County agencies would be tapped in the event of mutual
aid demands.
...but the big question raised is, where does the State National Guard
& Air National Guard fall. It is understood that they have split
loyalties between a State Governor as CIC, and POTUS as CIC.
They are a State resource theoretically commanded by the office of the
Governor, yet they remain under the wing of the DOD, which leads back
to POTUS.

There's no big question. It's covered in HR 4986 National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008. It was previously covered in
the 2007 Defense Authorization Bill, but that was repealed in 2008 and
replaced by HR 4986. Originally, it was covered in the Insurrection
Act of 1807.

As Casey Stengel said "You could look it up".

True. However, right up until you cited the obvious, you might say this
discussion had a hypothetical, er, "what if" and "how about reality?"
flavor to it.

....and the dead pile up.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

"Tony Cooper" wrote in message
news
On Wed, 28 May 2014 00:23:14 -0400, "J. Clarke"
wrote:

In article 201405271527557555-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom, savageduck1
says...

On 2014-05-27 22:05:33 +0000, Tony Cooper
said:


Retired Justice John Paul Stevens has an interesting fix for the Second
Amendment, with the addition of five words;
http://tinyurl.com/ptjgbqu

I'd be fine with that if it also mandated that a militia exist and that
its members be forbidden to swear loyalty to the Federal government.

You want a militia that has no allegiance to the federal government?

Who would have the power to mandate such a militia? Since no
government would form a militia that has no allegiance to the
government that forms it, what you suggest is a ridiculous notion.

The only way a militia without allegiance to a government can be
formed is for a group of citizens to self-mandate their existence, and
that cannot be coupled with a constitutional change.


Regardless, there is a procedure for amending the Constitution. If gun
control advocates want it amended they are welcome to try to sell that
idea to enough of the public to get it amended.

You confuse the "public" with "Congress". Constitutional change is
effected by an amendment proposed by Congress as stated in Article V
of the Constitution.

http://www.archives.gov/federal-regi...article-v.html

Congress, especially the Senate, has not evidenced any interest in
what the people want in this, and several other, issues.

That is on of two methods. The other method can make Constitutional
changes
without the Congress. 2/3 of the state legislatures can call for a
Constitutional Convention. That convention can propose whatever they like
and if 3/4 of the sates approve any of those amendments then the
Constitution is amended - all done without Congress.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando FL

On 2014-05-28 10:38:21 +0000, Whisky-dave said:

On Wednesday, 28 May 2014 05:49:59 UTC+1, Savageduck wrote:
On 2014-05-28 04:23:14 +0000, "J. Clarke" said:


That said, no way am I giving up my guns!!

I'm curious as to why this is or why you feel that way.

First, my statement establishes my position that gun ownership, or the
right to gun ownership for US citizens is imbedded in our culture.
(...and there was a more subtle, and humorous poke at the rabid gun
lobby)

Confiscation of citizen owned guns is going to do nothing to alleviate
the real issue of a society where those with mental health issues can
slip through the cracks to cause death & mayhem. Guns are not the only
instrument of these individuals, as demonstrated by what happened in
the latest of these tragic events where three of the victims were
stabbed to death and three shot, yet the reactionary focus remains on
firearm ownership.

Our system should be refined to be able to deal with individual gun
owners with behavior issues which point to a need for care via some
sort of therapeutic intervention.

Criminality is a different issue, and no gun control is going to stop
those criminal who use mostly illegally obtained firearms.

As far as my personal gun ownership goes, it it has been an integral
part of my life & personal heritage. I started shooting in my pre-teen
years under the guidance of my father.
I was involved in a target shooting program at my high school and in
club sanctioned target shooting with my father.
The first of my guns, a target rifle and a target pistol, I obtained as
a teenager, those are now 50+ years old.
Only two of my weapons would be considered as combat/defense, and those
were bought as personal options to supplement my official agency owned
weapons. I maintain full qualification with both of those as a retired
Peace Officer.

It is my intention to give away, or sell some of my guns to filks who
can appreciate them for what they are, so that my armory is reduced.
Should I ever have the sort of mental health decline which would
indicate that I had become a danger to myself or others I understand
that I could well forfeit my right to possess firearms. That would be
much the same as loosing my driving privilege if my ability to drive
safely was diminished.


I do understand that in general americans do see guns in a differnt way
to those of us in the UK and perhaps other countries too.

Yup!

I don't see this as a being right or wrong but a reflection on the
society you would like to live in and that goes for most things.

The bottom line is, of the millions of civilian owned firearms in the
USA, only a small percentage are fired in anger, and an even smaller
percentage are used in the headline making tragedies. However, when
these things happen the ant-un reaction is understandable.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 2014-05-28 16:13:30 +0000, Savageduck said:

On 2014-05-28 10:38:21 +0000, Whisky-dave said:

On Wednesday, 28 May 2014 05:49:59 UTC+1, Savageduck wrote:
On 2014-05-28 04:23:14 +0000, "J. Clarke" said:


That said, no way am I giving up my guns!!

I'm curious as to why this is or why you feel that way.

First, my statement establishes my position that gun ownership, or the
right to gun ownership for US citizens is imbedded in our culture.
(...and there was a more subtle, and humorous poke at the rabid gun
lobby)

Confiscation of citizen owned guns is going to do nothing to alleviate
the real issue of a society where those with mental health issues can
slip through the cracks to cause death & mayhem. Guns are not the only
instrument of these individuals, as demonstrated by what happened in
the latest of these tragic events where three of the victims were
stabbed to death and three shot, yet the reactionary focus remains on
firearm ownership.

Our system should be refined to be able to deal with individual gun
owners with behavior issues which point to a need for care via some
sort of therapeutic intervention.

Criminality is a different issue, and no gun control is going to stop
those criminal who use mostly illegally obtained firearms.

As far as my personal gun ownership goes, it it has been an integral
part of my life & personal heritage. I started shooting in my pre-teen
years under the guidance of my father.
I was involved in a target shooting program at my high school and in
club sanctioned target shooting with my father.
The first of my guns, a target rifle and a target pistol, I obtained as
a teenager, those are now 50+ years old.
Only two of my weapons would be considered as combat/defense, and those
were bought as personal options to supplement my official agency owned
weapons. I maintain full qualification with both of those as a retired
Peace Officer.

It is my intention to give away, or sell some of my guns to filks who
can appreciate them for what they are, so that my armory is reduced.
Should I ever have the sort of mental health decline which would
indicate that I had become a danger to myself or others I understand
that I could well forfeit my right to possess firearms. That would be
much the same as loosing my driving privilege if my ability to drive
safely was diminished.


I do understand that in general americans do see guns in a differnt way
to those of us in the UK and perhaps other countries too.

Yup!

I don't see this as a being right or wrong but a reflection on the
society you would like to live in and that goes for most things.

The bottom line is, of the millions of civilian owned firearms in the
USA, only a small percentage are fired in anger, and an even smaller
percentage are used in the headline making tragedies. However, when
these things happen the ant-un reaction is understandable.

....er, anti-gun reaction.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 5/28/2014 2:04 AM, Tony Cooper wrote:
On Tue, 27 May 2014 21:49:59 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

...and at this time I believe any substantive Constitutional change to
the Second Amendment is just wishful thinking.
There are very philosophically opposite sectors of the public involved
here and I seriously doubt that there will be a meeting of minds to fix
the real problem of gun violence and unnecessary deaths and injuries.
That is a completely different issue to the right to bear arms and the
Second Amendment.

That said, no way am I giving up my guns!!

I'm an advocate of gun control, but I don't harbor any desire or hopes
of a change in the Constitution or the Second Amendment. Nor do I
wish to take away your guns.

There are some who think that gun control advocates want to confiscate
all the guns, and some who think that anyone who owns a gun and hasn't
shot and killed someone is just a person who hasn't had a chance. I
don't think either is the case with the majority of either group.


That thought is implanted through a campaign of disinformation,
sponsored by the NRA.

--
PeterN