Giving photogs a bad name?

"Floyd L. Davidson" wrote in message
...
George Kerby wrote:
On 6/9/14 9:29 PM, in article , "Floyd L.
Davidson"
wrote:


Floyd. Learn that throwing down ridiculous propositions is NOT
"cornering",
please.

You didn't answer the questions, because they show just
what it is that is ridiculous.

For one, the idea that "gun control" means "against
private ownership" is ridiculous. I own guns, I am very
much in favor of significantly increased control of
guns. But I am clearly very much in favor of private
gun ownership.

But why are gun magazines all about assault weapons, not
about hunting?

We are not permitted to own assualt weapons. Assault weapons are automatic.
This constant drone about "assault" weapons is a lie. Just because a rifle
resembles a military rifle doesn't make it an assault rifle. You should
know that.

Why does everyone need a handgun that is too big to
shoot and has no purpose other than ego inflation or
killing people?

Where does the Constitution indicate that a citizen must demonstrate a
"need" in order to exercise his/her rights? If I want to get myself a 357
Magnum like Dirty Harry used, then I can. I don't have to demonstrate to
anyone whether or not I need one. Does my neighbor who has no kids have to
prove he needs that huge GMC Suburban he drives? If he wants it and can
afford it, he can buy it.

For instance, liberals state that We are advised to NOT judge ALL Muslims
by
the actions of a few lunatics, but we are encouraged to judge ALL gun
owners
by the actions of a few lunatics.

Funny how that works...

Funny that you make up things which are false in order
to argue something. Why not stick with facts?

So you do not see what totally insane hyperboles he suggested is not
relevant to a normal conversation without the hysteria of the Gun Control
Proles?!?

The insanity comes from your side, as seen in what you
just said.

IN ALASKA?!? My-my...

Yes, exactly. A place where guns are clearly necessary
and useful. We actually use them for something
reasonable. Note that I don't own an AR-15 or an M16.
I have no high capacity clips, nor even a gun that can
use them.

And it's your choice not to own any of those rifles but your choices don't
have to be my choices. I have a coworker who is an vocal gun-control
supporter. You'll hear him say over and over that "I don't believe anyone
should own a gun". His personal beliefs have no bearing on our rights,
thankfully. Your choices have no bearing on them either.

On 6/11/2014 9:13 AM, PAS wrote:
"Floyd L. Davidson" wrote in message
...
George Kerby wrote:
On 6/9/14 9:29 PM, in article , "Floyd L.
Davidson"
wrote:


Floyd. Learn that throwing down ridiculous propositions is NOT
"cornering",
please.

You didn't answer the questions, because they show just
what it is that is ridiculous.

For one, the idea that "gun control" means "against
private ownership" is ridiculous. I own guns, I am very
much in favor of significantly increased control of
guns. But I am clearly very much in favor of private
gun ownership.

But why are gun magazines all about assault weapons, not
about hunting?

We are not permitted to own assualt weapons. Assault weapons are automatic.
This constant drone about "assault" weapons is a lie. Just because a rifle
resembles a military rifle doesn't make it an assault rifle. You should
know that.

Are you saying that there should e no regulation of ownership of weapons?
Discussion of the degree of regulation is a different discussion than
whether ownership should be regulated.


Why does everyone need a handgun that is too big to
shoot and has no purpose other than ego inflation or
killing people?

Where does the Constitution indicate that a citizen must demonstrate a
"need" in order to exercise his/her rights? If I want to get myself a 357
Magnum like Dirty Harry used, then I can. I don't have to demonstrate to
anyone whether or not I need one. Does my neighbor who has no kids have to
prove he needs that huge GMC Suburban he drives? If he wants it and can
afford it, he can buy it.

For instance, liberals state that We are advised to NOT judge ALL Muslims
by
the actions of a few lunatics, but we are encouraged to judge ALL gun
owners
by the actions of a few lunatics.

Funny how that works...

Funny that you make up things which are false in order
to argue something. Why not stick with facts?

So you do not see what totally insane hyperboles he suggested is not
relevant to a normal conversation without the hysteria of the Gun Control
Proles?!?

The insanity comes from your side, as seen in what you
just said.

IN ALASKA?!? My-my...

Yes, exactly. A place where guns are clearly necessary
and useful. We actually use them for something
reasonable. Note that I don't own an AR-15 or an M16.
I have no high capacity clips, nor even a gun that can
use them.

And it's your choice not to own any of those rifles but your choices don't
have to be my choices. I have a coworker who is an vocal gun-control
supporter. You'll hear him say over and over that "I don't believe anyone
should own a gun". His personal beliefs have no bearing on our rights,
thankfully. Your choices have no bearing on them either.




--
PeterN

On 6/10/14 4:22 PM, in article , "Floyd L.
Davidson" wrote:

George Kerby wrote:
On 6/9/14 9:29 PM, in article , "Floyd L. Davidson"
wrote:

PeterN wrote:
On 6/8/2014 11:46 AM, George Kerby wrote:



On 6/6/14 6:11 PM, in article , "PeterN"
wrote:

On 6/6/2014 6:31 PM, George Kerby wrote:



On 6/6/14 2:39 PM, in article , "PeterN"
wrote:

On 6/6/2014 1:33 AM, Tony Cooper wrote:
On Thu, 5 Jun 2014 21:33:18 -0400, "J. Clarke"
wrote:

In article ,
says...

"PeterN"
On 6/4/2014 3:40 PM, PAS wrote:
"J. Clarke" wrote in message

True. But there is more than just the Constitution that the
writers
left
behind, their other writing and records of speeches. The
predominant
writer
of the 2nd Amendment considered the "militia" to be everyone.
Other
founders were very clear about who has the right to have firearms.

People arguing against the individual rights interpretation are
living
in the past. The Supreme Court has ruled, it is an individual
right,
it
is not tied to participatiion in a militia, that ship has sailed,
and
arguing to the contrary is a waste of time and effort.

The gun control advocates need to abandon that rhetoric and find a
new
argument. With DC v Heller they shot themselves in the foot. The
Supreme Court had managed to avoid ruling on that point for more
than
200 years but the district attorney in DC presented such a crazy
theory
of law (specifically the notion that the Constitution did not apply
in
DC) that the Supreme Court pretty much _had_ to knock it down.
Then
Chicago stuck their foot in it and got the question of whether it
restricted the states settled (it does). So now the legal battle
is
no
longer over whether there is such a right but what if any the
limitations on it might be.

The anti-gun nuts will never consider it settled because they don't
agree
with it.

There is a big difference between against gun nuts, and being anti
guns.
If you wish to own a gun, fine provided gun ownership is subject to
reasonable regulations. Gun nuts, think everyone should have the
unrestricted right to own and carry arms, any place, at any time.
Using that definition, there are millions of people who are anti
gun
nuts.
Yes there are nuts on both sides of the fence.

Yes, there are nuts on both sides, as there usually is. I like to
use
the
term "anti-gun nut" whenever someone introduces "gun-nut" into the
discussion. Being in favor of he right to own a gun, I've been
referred
to
as a gun-nut from time-to-time, usually by people who simply believe
no
one
should ever own a gun for any reason, but also b some others who
want
to
see
more and more restrictions on our freedom.

However anyone who persists in the "militia" rhetoric post-Heller is
ignorant, in denial, or nuts.

It would seem to me that any reference to the Second Amendment, by a
nut on either side, without a mention of "militia" is in denial.

Those on the pro-gun-control side bring it up as a condition that is
no longer is a threat. Those on the pro-gun side bring it up
obliquely as a need for the citizenry to arm themselves to defend
against the only invading force that is feared: our federal
government. If the citizenry is prepared to form and defend, that's a
militia.


There are those of us who are in favor of gun control, but not against
the private ownership of guns. The notion of one side or another is
just
more NRA gunk.

Bull****.

those who claim there is such a need, forget that small arms would be
of
little use against the Federal guvernment.


The mind-numbed are SO friggin' helpless are they not, folks?


Do you think all US citizens should have an unrestricted right to own
fully operational, in all respects, including armaments:
(please answer the question for each item)
For purposes of your answer assume that neither money, nor national
security is a consideration.


You are being either a fool or trying to be cute. Neither are working...


Well, when are you giving a reasoned and rational response?
I await it with bated breath.

What is working very well though, is how you've cornered him.

Floyd. Learn that throwing down ridiculous propositions is NOT "cornering",
please.

You didn't answer the questions, because they show just
what it is that is ridiculous.

For one, the idea that "gun control" means "against
private ownership" is ridiculous. I own guns, I am very
much in favor of significantly increased control of
guns. But I am clearly very much in favor of private
gun ownership.

But why are gun magazines all about assault weapons, not
about hunting?

Why does everyone need a handgun that is too big to
shoot and has no purpose other than ego inflation or
killing people?


OK, Automobile deaths are WAY ahead of death by guns (along with a myriad of
other causes), I HOPE you would agree.

So, let me propose that Government demands and regulates ALL motorists to
drive ONLY Smart cars and Fiats, because statistics show that those two
models do NOT seem to kill as many people as other larger vehicles. By this
action, people would NOT be allowed to buy and drive SUV's, sports cars,
etc.

So where YOU think that a particular weapon is 'overkill' so to speak,
another individual would not, and also may prefer his Lambo just fine, thank
you.

For instance, liberals state that We are advised to NOT judge ALL Muslims by
the actions of a few lunatics, but we are encouraged to judge ALL gun owners
by the actions of a few lunatics.

Funny how that works...

Funny that you make up things which are false in order
to argue something. Why not stick with facts?

It is facts. You are being the emotional one here...

So you do not see what totally insane hyperboles he suggested is not
relevant to a normal conversation without the hysteria of the Gun Control
Proles?!?

The insanity comes from your side, as seen in what you
just said.

Bull****. You are being used as a tool.


IN ALASKA?!? My-my...

Yes, exactly. A place where guns are clearly necessary
and useful. We actually use them for something
reasonable. Note that I don't own an AR-15 or an M16.
I have no high capacity clips, nor even a gun that can
use them.

That's why there is a market for more than Vanilla ice cream. Some people
might and some will not. I know it is unlikely, but in the event you might
just run across a mama moose with a brand new baby and you startle her and
she decides to charge your ass, tell me, which would you rather have? A .22
long bolt action or a AR-15?

On 6/11/14 8:13 AM, in article , "PAS"
wrote:

"Floyd L. Davidson" wrote in message
...
George Kerby wrote:
On 6/9/14 9:29 PM, in article , "Floyd L.
Davidson"
wrote:


Floyd. Learn that throwing down ridiculous propositions is NOT
"cornering",
please.

You didn't answer the questions, because they show just
what it is that is ridiculous.

For one, the idea that "gun control" means "against
private ownership" is ridiculous. I own guns, I am very
much in favor of significantly increased control of
guns. But I am clearly very much in favor of private
gun ownership.

But why are gun magazines all about assault weapons, not
about hunting?

We are not permitted to own assualt weapons. Assault weapons are automatic.
This constant drone about "assault" weapons is a lie. Just because a rifle
resembles a military rifle doesn't make it an assault rifle. You should
know that.

Sadly, he doesn't. He is obsessed with the false term presented by the media
morons. Emotionally driven liberals amaze me...

Why does everyone need a handgun that is too big to
shoot and has no purpose other than ego inflation or
killing people?

Where does the Constitution indicate that a citizen must demonstrate a
"need" in order to exercise his/her rights? If I want to get myself a 357
Magnum like Dirty Harry used, then I can. I don't have to demonstrate to
anyone whether or not I need one. Does my neighbor who has no kids have to
prove he needs that huge GMC Suburban he drives? If he wants it and can
afford it, he can buy it.

For instance, liberals state that We are advised to NOT judge ALL Muslims
by
the actions of a few lunatics, but we are encouraged to judge ALL gun
owners
by the actions of a few lunatics.

Funny how that works...

Funny that you make up things which are false in order
to argue something. Why not stick with facts?

So you do not see what totally insane hyperboles he suggested is not
relevant to a normal conversation without the hysteria of the Gun Control
Proles?!?

The insanity comes from your side, as seen in what you
just said.

IN ALASKA?!? My-my...

Yes, exactly. A place where guns are clearly necessary
and useful. We actually use them for something
reasonable. Note that I don't own an AR-15 or an M16.
I have no high capacity clips, nor even a gun that can
use them.

And it's your choice not to own any of those rifles but your choices don't
have to be my choices. I have a coworker who is an vocal gun-control
supporter. You'll hear him say over and over that "I don't believe anyone
should own a gun". His personal beliefs have no bearing on our rights,
thankfully. Your choices have no bearing on them either.

THANK GOD!!!

On 2014-06-11 14:39:14 +0000, Whisky-dave said:
On Wednesday, 11 June 2014 14:13:07 UTC+1, PAS wrote:

We are not permitted to own assualt weapons. Assault weapons are automatic.

So how does the 2nd admentment (think thats the right one) expect an
induvidual to protect themselves from an Assault weapon ?

With a bunker, a minefield, and a good rocket launcher.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

"Whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
On Wednesday, 11 June 2014 16:00:40 UTC+1, George Kerby wrote:



OK, Automobile deaths are WAY ahead of death by guns (along with a myriad
of
other causes), I HOPE you would agree.

I do, but

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...n_U.S._by_year
http://www.theguardian.com/news/data...crime-us-state


2011 32,367 motor vehicles
2011 8583 guns

1972 54,589 motor vehicles.

So you see the number of deaths isn't constant and it can be altered
depending on what laws and conditions that are in force. For whatever
reason 1972 seemed like a bad year in the USA for vehicle deaths.


So, let me propose that Government demands and regulates ALL motorists to
drive ONLY Smart cars and Fiats,

Personally I'd make sure those that were driving could actual drive, I'd
even suggest a test and anyone that didn;t past the test would n ot be
allowed to drive. I'd have another test to make sure that teh vehicles are
of a reasonable standard.

That's why there are driving tests in order to get one's driver's license.
Maybe there are some states that don't require one, I don't know. We have
yearly safety inspections that our cars must pass in NY in order to stay on
the road. There is also a myriad of regulations for safety in veicles that
the manufactureres must adhere to. Cars are far more safer now than they
have ever been.

because statistics show that those two
models do NOT seem to kill as many people as other larger vehicles.
Are you sure it's just size .


By this
action, people would NOT be allowed to buy and drive SUV's, sports cars,
etc.

I'd make sure they are proficient in driving the vehicle they choose,
I'dput age limits on drivers too, just because some passed their test at
18 in a car I wouldn;t assume at the age of 99 they'd still have teh
necessary skills.
if they were blind or death.

Good luck with putting an age limit on drivers. The old folks have an
extremely powerful political lobby here and I suggest that any proposition
like that will go down in flames. Also, you can't make an arbitrary
decision that people of "x" age can no longer drive. I know some old folks
that are excellent drivers and some young ones that shouldn't be behind the
wheel. If someone proposes that after a certain age one must be retested in
order to renew a license, they'll claim it is age discrimination. People 65
and older are involved in more accidents per mile driven than any other age
group.

Would you let anyone that wanted to pilot a plane do so over NYC or any
other city that wanted to ?, or would you only restrict people of certain
beliefs or purhaps colour. After all far more peole get killed in the US
by cars than they do by planes.


So where YOU think that a particular weapon is 'overkill' so to speak,

I'd say when it's used to kill someone delibratly rather than accidently
and they have no other use for it.




Yes, exactly. A place where guns are clearly necessary
and useful. We actually use them for something
reasonable. Note that I don't own an AR-15 or an M16.
I have no high capacity clips, nor even a gun that can
use them.



That's why there is a market for more than Vanilla ice cream.

There's a market for crack cocaine too.


Some people
might and some will not. I know it is unlikely, but in the event you
might
just run across a mama moose with a brand new baby and you startle her
and
she decides to charge your ass, tell me, which would you rather have? A
.22
long bolt action or a AR-15?

I'd rather have a car I could get in and drive away.
I'd aviod the first choice of shoot first, after all there might be
another' american behind a tree stalking the moose and he might shoot me
because he thought I was shooting at him. Would you kill teh baby moose
too ?

Let's rephrase it. It's only you and the momma moose with her baby. There's
no car, you just hiked five miles to the spot you're on. You won't outrun a
charging moose. You either get severely injured or killed or you shoot. Do
you want a .22 or an AR-15?

"PAS" wrote:
"Whisky-dave" wrote:
On Wednesday, 11 June 2014 16:00:40 UTC+1, George Kerby wrote:

Some people might and some will not. I know it is
unlikely, but in the event you might just run across
a mama moose with a brand new baby and you startle
her and she decides to charge your ass, tell me,
which would you rather have? A .22 long bolt action
or a AR-15?

Either would be a very poor decision.

Of course you have to also realize that while you may
have seen one moose, in a zoo, in your entire life, I've
seen dozens of cow moose with calves in the wild.

I've *never* felt any need to shoot in that
circumstance.

I'd rather have a car I could get in and drive away.
I'd aviod the first choice of shoot first, after all
there might be another' american behind a tree
stalking the moose and he might shoot me because he
thought I was shooting at him. Would you kill teh baby
moose too ?

Let's rephrase it. It's only you and the momma moose
with her baby. There's no car, you just hiked five
miles to the spot you're on. You won't outrun a
charging moose. You either get severely injured or
killed or you shoot. Do you want a .22 or an AR-15?

Why won't you outrun a moose? Sheesh, all you'd need to
do is *walk* away from it! (Or stand behind even a small
tree.)

But let say you do have to shoot. You don't want
something smaller than about 6.5mm caliber, just for
starters. To go it one more step though, the smallest I
would want is a 220gr 30-06, but not for the moose.
Once you shoot the moose you become bear bait...

BTW, shooting a moose after a 5 mile hike is really
really dumb. I realize lots of really really dumb
people do things like that with regularity. But packing
1200 pounds of moose 5 miles is in fact really really
dumb.

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

On 6/11/2014 1:15 PM, Tony Cooper wrote:
On Wed, 11 Jun 2014 09:13:07 -0400, "PAS"
wrote:

"Floyd L. Davidson" wrote in message
...
George Kerby wrote:
On 6/9/14 9:29 PM, in article , "Floyd L.
Davidson"
wrote:


Floyd. Learn that throwing down ridiculous propositions is NOT
"cornering",
please.

You didn't answer the questions, because they show just
what it is that is ridiculous.

For one, the idea that "gun control" means "against
private ownership" is ridiculous. I own guns, I am very
much in favor of significantly increased control of
guns. But I am clearly very much in favor of private
gun ownership.

But why are gun magazines all about assault weapons, not
about hunting?

We are not permitted to own assualt weapons. Assault weapons are automatic.
This constant drone about "assault" weapons is a lie. Just because a rifle
resembles a military rifle doesn't make it an assault rifle. You should
know that.

To be a "nut" on either side requires distorting language and ignoring
meaning to make a case.

The anti-gun nut says "Why do you need an assault rifle to hunt deer?"

The gun nut replies "This constant drone about 'assault' weapons is a
lie."

The anti-gun nut is not concerned that the NRA lobby has squeezed the
definition of "assault weapons" down to certain types of weapons:
those which fire on an automatic setting. The M4A1 is an assault
rifle, and the AR-15 is not. The question is *not* "Why do you need
an M4A1 to hunt deer?" The question is "Why do you need either to
hunt deer?".

By achieving a limited definition of "assault rifle", the NRA has
accomplished creating a gap in the logical interpretation of the
language.

What is the function of either the M4A1 or the AR-15 if not to be used
in assault tactics? In what situation would anyone not engaged in a
military action need an AR-15? That's the question in the mind of the
anti-gun nut.

The gun nut is incapable of providing any reason to own a M4A1 other
than "A bunch of guys in wigs and knee breeches in the 1700s were
worried that the citizens who revolted against the King might need
weapons to revolt against the next group of rulers.". Or, in other
words, "because I can".


Why does everyone need a handgun that is too big to
shoot and has no purpose other than ego inflation or
killing people?

Where does the Constitution indicate that a citizen must demonstrate a
"need" in order to exercise his/her rights? If I want to get myself a 357
Magnum like Dirty Harry used, then I can. I don't have to demonstrate to
anyone whether or not I need one.

Of course the Second Amendment indicates a need: to provide a well
regulated militia.

Are you a member of a militia? You want to ignore one part of the
statement, but use the other part.

The current form of "militia" is the military. We don't deny them the
right to carry an assault rifle.


I'd generally agree with you in that the "militia" is the National
Guard in the US. I think the British call it the "Territorial Army" or
"National Reserve"


--
Jim Silverton (Potomac, MD)

Extraneous "not." in Reply To.

On 6/11/2014 1:13 PM, Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
"PAS" wrote:
"Whisky-dave" wrote:
On Wednesday, 11 June 2014 16:00:40 UTC+1, George Kerby wrote:

Some people might and some will not. I know it is
unlikely, but in the event you might just run across
a mama moose with a brand new baby and you startle
her and she decides to charge your ass, tell me,
which would you rather have? A .22 long bolt action
or a AR-15?

Either would be a very poor decision.

Of course you have to also realize that while you may
have seen one moose, in a zoo, in your entire life, I've
seen dozens of cow moose with calves in the wild.

I've *never* felt any need to shoot in that
circumstance.

I'd rather have a car I could get in and drive away.
I'd aviod the first choice of shoot first, after all
there might be another' american behind a tree
stalking the moose and he might shoot me because he
thought I was shooting at him. Would you kill teh baby
moose too ?

Let's rephrase it. It's only you and the momma moose
with her baby. There's no car, you just hiked five
miles to the spot you're on. You won't outrun a
charging moose. You either get severely injured or
killed or you shoot. Do you want a .22 or an AR-15?

Why won't you outrun a moose? Sheesh, all you'd need to
do is *walk* away from it! (Or stand behind even a small
tree.)

But let say you do have to shoot. You don't want
something smaller than about 6.5mm caliber, just for
starters. To go it one more step though, the smallest I
would want is a 220gr 30-06, but not for the moose.
Once you shoot the moose you become bear bait...

BTW, shooting a moose after a 5 mile hike is really
really dumb. I realize lots of really really dumb
people do things like that with regularity. But packing
1200 pounds of moose 5 miles is in fact really really
dumb.

Not just dumb but impossible unless you cut the beast up!

--
Jim Silverton (Potomac, MD)

Extraneous "not." in Reply To.

James Silverton wrote:
On 6/11/2014 1:13 PM, Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
"PAS" wrote:
"Whisky-dave" wrote:
On Wednesday, 11 June 2014 16:00:40 UTC+1, George Kerby wrote:

Some people might and some will not. I know it is
unlikely, but in the event you might just run across
a mama moose with a brand new baby and you startle
her and she decides to charge your ass, tell me,
which would you rather have? A .22 long bolt action
or a AR-15?

Either would be a very poor decision.

Of course you have to also realize that while you may
have seen one moose, in a zoo, in your entire life, I've
seen dozens of cow moose with calves in the wild.

I've *never* felt any need to shoot in that
circumstance.

I'd rather have a car I could get in and drive away.
I'd aviod the first choice of shoot first, after all
there might be another' american behind a tree
stalking the moose and he might shoot me because he
thought I was shooting at him. Would you kill teh baby
moose too ?

Let's rephrase it. It's only you and the momma moose
with her baby. There's no car, you just hiked five
miles to the spot you're on. You won't outrun a
charging moose. You either get severely injured or
killed or you shoot. Do you want a .22 or an AR-15?

Why won't you outrun a moose? Sheesh, all you'd need to
do is *walk* away from it! (Or stand behind even a small
tree.)

But let say you do have to shoot. You don't want
something smaller than about 6.5mm caliber, just for
starters. To go it one more step though, the smallest I
would want is a 220gr 30-06, but not for the moose.
Once you shoot the moose you become bear bait...

BTW, shooting a moose after a 5 mile hike is really
really dumb. I realize lots of really really dumb
people do things like that with regularity. But packing
1200 pounds of moose 5 miles is in fact really really
dumb.

Not just dumb but impossible unless you cut the beast up!

Lets not be trivially silly.

If you shoot a moose the law says you *will* cut it up
and salvage all edible meat. We get very serious about
jail terms for those who don't.

Most of us have the sense to shoot a moose within a few
feet (not yards, feet) of a boat, ATV, truck, airplane
or whatever. If that isn't possible, don't shoot it!

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)