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
  #51  
Old May 29th 14, 05:39 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Bowser
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 265
Default Giving photogs a bad name?

On Wed, 28 May 2014 22:26:09 -0400, "J. Clarke"
wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Wed, 28 May 2014 13:51:55 -0400, PeterN
wrote:

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.


Exactly. Case in point: Ted Nugent. He threatened the president's
life, and nobody took his weapons. If ever they had a case, that was
it. And they left him alone.

The NRA, who once fought for gun control in the 60s, has sunk to
levels that are incredibly low.


What "gun control" did the NRA "fight for"?


When the Black Panthers were armng, the NRA tried to limit their
acquisitions. The NRA is nothing more than a collection of insane
hyprocites now. It's a shame what that organization has degenerated
into, really. Here's a couple of links:

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/...f-guns/308608/

http://www.theroot.com/articles/poli...ip_flop. html

For the NRA, black people with guns is bad, white people with guns is
good. They are a joke.
  #52  
Old May 29th 14, 05:48 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
John McWilliams
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,945
Default Giving photogs a bad name?

On 5/28/14 PDT, 7:24 PM, J. Clarke wrote:

A problem with any "fix" is that it has to pass Supreme Court muster,
and the Court has been taking a dim view of any deprivation of rights
that does not involve at least a judge and usually a jury. If you are
going to disarm someone because he is crazy you are going to have to
define "crazy" in a way that the courts will accept and put a procedure
in place for making the determination that the courts will accept.


A very good point, and critical.
Anyone with a solution— or a reasoned rebuttal?

--
John McWilliams


  #53  
Old May 29th 14, 09:20 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
PeterN[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,246
Default Giving photogs a bad name?

On 5/29/2014 12:48 PM, John McWilliams wrote:
On 5/28/14 PDT, 7:24 PM, J. Clarke wrote:

A problem with any "fix" is that it has to pass Supreme Court muster,
and the Court has been taking a dim view of any deprivation of rights
that does not involve at least a judge and usually a jury. If you are
going to disarm someone because he is crazy you are going to have to
define "crazy" in a way that the courts will accept and put a procedure
in place for making the determination that the courts will accept.


A very good point, and critical.
Anyone with a solution— or a reasoned rebuttal?


What some courts will accept may depend on who you are. Nobody can say,
with certainty, what definition any court will accept, on any given day.
Having said that, we need not use the term "crazy." Just a person, who
is more likely than not, constitute a danger to himself, or others, as a
starting point.
It is easy to write a definition. The problem is writing one that the
NRA won't oppose. As an industry lobbying group the NRA places money
above human lives.


--
PeterN
  #54  
Old May 29th 14, 11:20 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
PeterN[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,246
Default Giving photogs a bad name?

On 5/29/2014 5:17 PM, Tony Cooper wrote:
On Thu, 29 May 2014 16:20:00 -0400, PeterN
wrote:

On 5/29/2014 12:48 PM, John McWilliams wrote:
On 5/28/14 PDT, 7:24 PM, J. Clarke wrote:

A problem with any "fix" is that it has to pass Supreme Court muster,
and the Court has been taking a dim view of any deprivation of rights
that does not involve at least a judge and usually a jury. If you are
going to disarm someone because he is crazy you are going to have to
define "crazy" in a way that the courts will accept and put a procedure
in place for making the determination that the courts will accept.

A very good point, and critical.
Anyone with a solution— or a reasoned rebuttal?


What some courts will accept may depend on who you are. Nobody can say,
with certainty, what definition any court will accept, on any given day.
Having said that, we need not use the term "crazy." Just a person, who
is more likely than not, constitute a danger to himself, or others, as a
starting point.
It is easy to write a definition. The problem is writing one that the
NRA won't oppose. As an industry lobbying group the NRA places money
above human lives.


Florida has the Florida Mental Health Act of 1971, commonly known as
the Baker Act, that allows involuntary confinement for mental health
screening. A person can be held up to 72 hours if suspected to have a
mental illness that would result in a danger to that person or others.

So far, Marion Hammer has not been taken into custody by way of the
Baker Act although she presents a clear and present danger to
Floridians.

http://www.meetthenra.org/nra-member/Marion-P-Hammer


Most States have a similar act. That's where I got the language from

--
PeterN
  #55  
Old May 30th 14, 09:06 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
J. Clarke[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,273
Default Giving photogs a bad name?

In article ,
says...

On Wed, 28 May 2014 22:26:09 -0400, "J. Clarke"
wrote:

In article ,

says...

On Wed, 28 May 2014 13:51:55 -0400, PeterN
wrote:

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.

Exactly. Case in point: Ted Nugent. He threatened the president's
life, and nobody took his weapons. If ever they had a case, that was
it. And they left him alone.

The NRA, who once fought for gun control in the 60s, has sunk to
levels that are incredibly low.


What "gun control" did the NRA "fight for"?


When the Black Panthers were armng, the NRA tried to limit their
acquisitions. The NRA is nothing more than a collection of insane
hyprocites now. It's a shame what that organization has degenerated
into, really. Here's a couple of links:

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/...f-guns/308608/

http://www.theroot.com/articles/poli...ip_flop. html

For the NRA, black people with guns is bad, white people with guns is
good. They are a joke.


I don't see any evidence in either of those articles that the NRA
actually "supported" anything. There are vague assertions and one
statement that the NRA supported banning mail-order sales.


  #57  
Old May 30th 14, 01:12 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
-hh
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 838
Default Giving photogs a bad name?

On Wednesday, May 28, 2014 7:09:52 PM UTC-4, Bowser wrote:
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?
..


Pressuring banks? Really? First I've heard that one. Can you point me
to an article on it?


I've not heard it before either, so I took a quick look.

I only found the usual fringe lunatic claims; nothing from
any source that I'd consider credible, let alone objectively
authoritative.

Anyone else find anything tangibly real to support this allegation?

-hh
  #58  
Old May 30th 14, 02:14 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Bowser
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 265
Default Giving photogs a bad name?

On Fri, 30 May 2014 05:12:34 -0700 (PDT), -hh
wrote:

On Wednesday, May 28, 2014 7:09:52 PM UTC-4, Bowser wrote:
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?
..


Pressuring banks? Really? First I've heard that one. Can you point me
to an article on it?


I've not heard it before either, so I took a quick look.

I only found the usual fringe lunatic claims; nothing from
any source that I'd consider credible, let alone objectively
authoritative.

Anyone else find anything tangibly real to support this allegation?

-hh


I looked, as well. And the "official" statement from the NRA says they
have no evidence of such a program.

As usual, just more internet bull****.

"And I leave behind
This hurricane of ****ing lies"

Green Day
  #59  
Old May 30th 14, 02:16 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
PAS
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 480
Default Giving photogs a bad name?

"Tony Cooper" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 28 May 2014 20:27:05 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

If you want to define "reasonable precautions" at a level achievable to
a normal person with a modest income, and prosecute anybody who failed
to take those precautions that's one thing, but prosecuting anybody
whose firearms are stolen no matter what precautions they took is
ludicrous.


A gun owner SHOULD have the responsibility to reasonably secure any of
his weapons not directly under his/her control. All of my weapons are
in a safe, with the exception of my Kimber CDP 1911, which I will just
say is readily at hand.

The concept of prosecution of a firearms owner for theft of his guns
was Tony's not mine. That said, the gun owner should be able to
demonstrate that they had taken reasonable precautions to deter, or
prevent any such weapons theft. In not there is a responsibility for
them to bear.


What are the options other than prosecution? If you feel that the gun
owner should take responsibility, but the gun owner doesn't, then what
options are there other than prosecution?


If you leave your car in the street and someone steals it and then runs down
a pedestrian, you should be prosecuted for criminal negligence. MY handgun
is locked in a safe and in a locked home. Someone can still break into my
home and break into my safe and steal my handgun if they want to. I should
be prosecuted if this happens?


  #60  
Old May 30th 14, 02:26 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
PAS
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 480
Default Giving photogs a bad name?

"-hh" wrote in message
...
On Wednesday, May 28, 2014 7:09:52 PM UTC-4, Bowser wrote:
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?
..


Pressuring banks? Really? First I've heard that one. Can you point me
to an article on it?


I've not heard it before either, so I took a quick look.

I only found the usual fringe lunatic claims; nothing from
any source that I'd consider credible, let alone objectively
authoritative.

Anyone else find anything tangibly real to support this allegation?

-hh


To clarify what you posted, the accounts of businesses who have their
accounts terminated are "the usual fringe lunatic claims"? Just checking.


 




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 11:02 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.