Giving photogs a bad name?

"Whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
On Wednesday, 28 May 2014 17:13:30 UTC+1, Savageduck wrote:
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.

That's what I was hoping for it's more a culture thing than an actual need
or requirement.

Our rights to own guns is not predicated on our proving a need to have one.

(...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.

I ageee you can't really go 'backwards' in a short time period any more
successfully than you can eliminate racism in a day.

You seem to be equating racism with our Constitutional right to own guns.
There is no connection.

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.

Some say anything can be used to kill, here in the UK we try to keep those
things that commonly kill (other than by accident) out of the hands of
those that can't be trusted with them, doesn't always work of course.

We also have a 'ban' on knives althouth this doesn't mean a total ban on
all knives in all places either, we try to have a sensible approach to
such things.
There can be a time and a placed for most things.

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.

That's one way of looking at it, although personally I'd have thought it
easier not to allow those with behavior issues to carry guns or even own
them.

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

It might not stop it, but I believe that the more guns in a society the
more likely it is that they'll be used illegally.
Working out what makes one item illegal and another legal is yet another
problem.

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.

So it's part of your culture and upbring which can't be changed overnight.

It is not just a part of our culture, it is a Constitutional right, just as
freedom of speech and religion is.


Whyen you fist started shooting I bet there was also more racism in the USA
50 years ago, but I hope it's less now or at the very least less people
are adversly affected by it. Same with homophobia, most things can be
changed with laws and actions bit by bit.

Now you seem to equate so-called "homophobia" with the right to own guns.
This is not a difficult concept. We have a constitutional right to own
firearms, jst as we do to exercise free speech. Being a racist or not
agreeing with a certain lifestyle is has no connection to this.

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.

There we have the cause and effect, you appear to have chosen a gun almost
like I'd choose a computer, which I didn't have a need for 40 years ago
even though some people had them I didn't need one, I do now because
society has changed.

Again, there is no requirement to provide a need in order to exercise our
rights.


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.

Sounds good in theory but as with most things it doesn't always work quite
like that does it. How many old drivers just don't realise they are unfit
to drive.
If everyone was fit enough and menatlly aware to drive they'd be far fewer
accidents in most countries. Here' I'm thinking of a southpark episode
where 'old' people are driving and causing carnage on the roads, exagerated
of course.
But the point is getting peole to realise they are a danger to themselves
or others and that isnl;t always easy, sometime you need laws quite
restrictive laws too.

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,

I wonder what percentage that is, and the important point is do you think
less guns would be fired in anger if there were less guns in circulation
that is the bottom line from my POV.

Don't ignore the fact that there are many crimes that are thwarted by gun
onwers. Those incidents don't garner much publicity.

and an even smaller
percentage are used in the headline making tragedies. However, when
these things happen the ant-un reaction is understandable.

Some tragedies can be avioded, some are so called accidents most can be
avioded it just depends on how you go about things.

I was suprised by the number of deaths while building the olympic stadiums
but it seems some countrieds are better than others at keeping it's
workers/citizens safe.

Greece 2004 13 died
London 2012 Zero died.
Sochi 2014 60 died
Quatar 2014 900 dead, so far

I believe a country should have some control over it's 'accidents' and be
able to learn from others.

On 2014-05-30 08:06:23 +0000, "J. Clarke" said:

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.

My father & I were NRA members from 1960 through 1968 in the days when
there was less emphasis on political lobbying and more on sport,
lifestyle, and firearm history. There were NRA sanctioned target
shooting events we took part in. All was wholesome and very normal in a
very American sense.

After the JFK assassination in 1963, the NRA dropped the mail order
adds from the American Rifleman. In those adds all sorts of ex-military
weapons could be had for a song. From obscure handguns to Finnish ski
mounted 20mm rifles, and most infamously the Italian Mannlicher Carcano
rifle sold to Oswald for $24.

Our membership lapsed in 1968 when I had other things on my mind given
events in South East Asia, and a Selective Service number of #54.
Today's NRA is not the NRA I was a member of in the 60's.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

"Tony Cooper" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 30 May 2014 09:40:42 -0400, "PAS"
wrote:

So it's part of your culture and upbring which can't be changed
overnight.

It is not just a part of our culture, it is a Constitutional right, just
as
freedom of speech and religion is.

It's a right that is debatable based on the interpretation of the
wording of the Amendment. Where is the "organized militia"?

An old and tired argument touted by the anti-gun nuts. I suggest a little
research into who the founding fathers, particularly George Mason who is the
main author of the 2nd Amendment, felt was the "militia". Mason said "I
ask, sir, what is the milita? It is the whole people, except for a few
public officials."

Don't ignore the fact that there are many crimes that are thwarted by gun
onwers. Those incidents don't garner much publicity.

This is an old canard touted by the gun nuts. The number of crimes
thwarted by gun owners is about equal to the number of crimes thwarted
by someone yelling "Stop! Thief!".

Believe what you will.

If such an incident occurs, it will be publicized. Newspapers and
other news outlets *want* to publicize things like this. It's the
kind of thing that brings in readers/viewers.

Gun people will claim that the "liberal" news media suppress these
stories. Bull****. The news media doesn't suppress anything that
brings in an audience.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando FL

PAS wrote:
"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?

Google is your friend, you'll find as much info as you need.

Oh, how unfortunate: instead of being as civil and providing
substantiation of his claim, "PAS" attempts to dodge with a
weak hand-waive. No authoritative, credible citations which
substantiates his claim have been demonstrated to exist.


I have the sneaking suspicion that it won't matter to
you anyway in light of what you posted.

Oh, how unfortunate: a lame Ad Hominem attack, which
is a logical fallacy and damages whatever remaining
credibility that PAS might have had after his first dodge.


-hh

"Whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
On Friday, 30 May 2014 14:40:42 UTC+1, PAS wrote:
"Whisky-dave" wrote in message

First, my statement establishes my position that gun ownership, or the
right to gun ownership for US citizens is imbedded in our culture.


That's what I was hoping for it's more a culture thing than an actual
need
or requirement.

Our rights to own guns is not predicated on our proving a need to have
one.

Them maybe that's the problem or the cause.

No, that's not the problem. Must you justify a need to the government to
exercise every right you have?

I ageee you can't really go 'backwards' in a short time period any more
successfully than you can eliminate racism in a day.

You seem to be equating racism with our Constitutional right to own guns.
There is no connection.

I wasn't saying there was a connection as such. But there were times when
you could tale slaves beat them and have sex with them but in todays
world most people don't see things that way. I don;t see why you think
there needs to be a connection between them.
What has happened is that the majority of americans don;t feel teh need to
have a slave or two but at some point you must have has some right to
own a slave even if that right was only to not outlaw owning a slave.

It appears that your are trying to equate them. A change in culture over
time does not alter our Constitutional rights. Our rights are not subject
to culture, public opinion, etc. There is a specific process that has to
occur in order to amend the Constitution.


So it's part of your culture and upbring which can't be changed
overnight.

It is not just a part of our culture, it is a Constitutional right, just
as
freedom of speech and religion is.

And what exactly does a Constitutional right mean to you then, was it
delivered by God like the 10 commandments ?, Rights have been given to
many people over the centuries it doesn't mean those rights have to remain
forever.
I assume it's also your Constitutional right to close your eyes and walk
where you wish, but I'd say that conflicts with crossing the road because
doing so is dangerous and stupid even though you have the right to cross
the road with your eyes closed.

It's fairly evident what a Constitutional right is. No one has said they
are cast in stone forever. But they are not subject to public opinion or
the whims of any politician. There is a specific process in place in order
to amend the Constitution. Until it is amended, the righte enumerated in it
are final.

Whyen you fist started shooting I bet there was also more racism in the
USA
50 years ago, but I hope it's less now or at the very least less people
are adversly affected by it. Same with homophobia, most things can be
changed with laws and actions bit by bit.

Now you seem to equate so-called "homophobia" with the right to own guns.

No I'm trying to explain how society changes and adapts with time.

But that is not analagous to our Constitution.


In the UK (as with other countries) we used to refuse to allow women to
vote.
So you may now say I'm comparing gun control with voting.

We in the UK used to insist that in the early days of driving a person had
to walk in front of your car to protect pedestrais, but things have
evolved now we require that the cars themselves are safety mantained and
that driver knows how to drive.
This is not a difficult concept. We have a constitutional right to own
firearms, jst as we do to exercise free speech.

yes and other contires have their versions of what rights they have too.

And this fits into the discussion about the US Constitution in what way?


Being a racist or not
agreeing with a certain lifestyle is has no connection to this.

It used to be your right to be a racist and beat people you 'owned' you
could even rape your wife without being prosecuted are you telling me
these revisions in the law were bad ?
In some countriesd they have the 'right' to beat a pregnant women to death
because she refused to marry the person chosen for her.

Anyone still has the "right" to be a racist. There is no law against that.
Slavery was abolished, the Constitution was amended and, as I have said,
there is a process for that. Until the 2nd Amendment is changed, the
anti-gun nuts will have to accept the fact that we have the right to "keep
and bear arms".

Don't ignore the fact that there are many crimes that are thwarted by gun
onwers. Those incidents don't garner much publicity.

Perhaps because they rarely happen in the way you imagine them.

Perhaps not. If confronted by a violent criminal, perhaps you are happy to
be unarmed. I am not.

On 5/30/2014 9:40 AM, PAS wrote:
snip

It is not just a part of our culture, it is a Constitutional right, just as
freedom of speech and religion is.


Absolutely correct. Neither is an absolute right. There are limits to
both. Would you be in favor to quote: "...Nobody has a right to yell
fire in a crowded movie theater...."


Whyen you fist started shooting I bet there was also more racism in the USA
50 years ago, but I hope it's less now or at the very least less people
are adversly affected by it. Same with homophobia, most things can be
changed with laws and actions bit by bit.

Now you seem to equate so-called "homophobia" with the right to own guns.
This is not a difficult concept. We have a constitutional right to own
firearms, jst as we do to exercise free speech. Being a racist or not
agreeing with a certain lifestyle is has no connection to this.


See above.



--
PeterN

On Fri, 30 May 2014 09:40:42 -0400, "PAS"
wrote:

You seem to be equating racism with our Constitutional right to own guns.

Are you a member of a militia?

Is it well regulated?
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

In article , tonycooper214
@gmail.com says...

On Wed, 28 May 2014 20:22:20 -0400, "J. Clarke"
wrote:

The National Guard is sworn to Federal service, its loyalty is not
split--it takes orders from the Governor unless the President tells it
to do otherwise. It is essentially a Federal reserve rented to the
states. That makes it part of the standing army and not the check on
that army that the founders intended.

What is your source on what the founders intended?

Federalist papers, antifederalist papers, constitutional convention
debates.

In article , tonycooper214
@gmail.com says...

On Fri, 30 May 2014 09:40:42 -0400, "PAS"
wrote:

So it's part of your culture and upbring which can't be changed overnight.

It is not just a part of our culture, it is a Constitutional right, just as
freedom of speech and religion is.

It's a right that is debatable based on the interpretation of the
wording of the Amendment.

Tony, that ship sailed on June 26, 2008, on which date the United States
Supreme Court ruled that "The Second Amendment protects an individual
right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to
use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense
within the home."

Arguing alternative interpretations was fine before there was a Supreme
Court ruling in the matter, but there has been one and there is no
longer any doubt which interpretation is the law of the land.

On 2014.05.29, 07:26 , Whisky-dave wrote:

Some tragedies can be avioded, some are so called accidents most can be avioded it just depends on how you go about things.

I was suprised by the number of deaths while building the olympic stadiums but it seems some countrieds are better than others at keeping it's workers/citizens safe.

Greece 2004 13 died
London 2012 Zero died.
Sochi 2014 60 died
Quatar 2014 900 dead, so far

Quatari deaths are mostly "guest" workers from Pakistan, Indonesia,
India and so on. On arrival their passports are seized, they're stuffed
into a container (living quarters) with a dozen or so other 'guests' and
share a discarded 20 litre bucket for a toilet). They are also not paid
full wages per contract, not paid promptly, beaten, threatened and
occasionally murdered.

--
I was born a 1%er - I'm just more equal than the rest.