Giving photogs a bad name?

On 6/3/2014 12:35 AM, Tony Cooper wrote:


snip



If being mentally defective is the determinant of who shouldn't be
allowed to buy a gun, then you'd have deny gun ownership to holocaust
deniers, non-believers in evolution, those who think homosexuality is
a choice, and anyone who believes in Biblical inerrancy. (I'm not
that sure about those of us who think the Cubs will ever be in the
World Series.)

Not sure that would be a bad thing.





--
PeterN

On 2014-06-03 10:52:07 +0000, Whisky-dave said:

On Tuesday, 3 June 2014 02:32:21 UTC+1, Savageduck wrote:
On 2014-06-03 00:49:25 +0000, Eric Stevens said:

From my reading on the subject they did this on the basis of older and
pre-existing English common-law rights.

Why not do a little deeper research?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_...s_Constitution


The

Second Amendment was based partially on the right to keep and bear arms
in English common-law and was influenced by the English Bill of Rights of
1689. Sir William Blackstone described this right as an auxiliary right, su
pporting the natural rights of self-defense, resistance to oppression, and
the civic duty to act in concert in defense of the state.[8]

In United States v. Cruikshank (1876), the Supreme Court of the United Stat
es ruled that, "The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution;
neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existenc
e" and limited the applicability of the Second Amendment to the federal gov
ernment.[9] In United States v. Miller (1939), the Supreme Court ruled that
the federal government and the states could limit any weapon types not hav
ing a "reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well
regulated militia".[10][11]

You should keep with cutting and pasting from Wikipedia. It is far
easier to read than anything you type.

....but at least now you might understand that the interpretation of the
Second Amendment is not clear cut for all, and the pro and anti gun
forces are going to always interpret the wording and question the
intent of the writers.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

"Savageduck" wrote in message
news:2014060307434294749-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom...
On 2014-06-03 10:52:07 +0000, Whisky-dave said:

On Tuesday, 3 June 2014 02:32:21 UTC+1, Savageduck wrote:
On 2014-06-03 00:49:25 +0000, Eric Stevens
said:

From my reading on the subject they did this on the basis of older and
pre-existing English common-law rights.

Why not do a little deeper research?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_...s_Constitution


The

Second Amendment was based partially on the right to keep and bear arms
in English common-law and was influenced by the English Bill of Rights
of
1689. Sir William Blackstone described this right as an auxiliary right,
su
pporting the natural rights of self-defense, resistance to oppression,
and
the civic duty to act in concert in defense of the state.[8]

In United States v. Cruikshank (1876), the Supreme Court of the United
Stat
es ruled that, "The right to bear arms is not granted by the
Constitution;
neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its
existenc
e" and limited the applicability of the Second Amendment to the federal
gov
ernment.[9] In United States v. Miller (1939), the Supreme Court ruled
that
the federal government and the states could limit any weapon types not
hav
ing a "reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a
well
regulated militia".[10][11]

You should keep with cutting and pasting from Wikipedia. It is far easier
to read than anything you type.

...but at least now you might understand that the interpretation of the
Second Amendment is not clear cut for all, and the pro and anti gun forces
are going to always interpret the wording and question the intent of the
writers.

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.

On 6/3/2014 6:27 AM, J. Clarke wrote:

snip

Everybody wants "effective gun control". The difference comes in the
definition of "effective gun control" with the gun-control advocates
pretty much wanting to ban everything and the the rest of us wanting it
to be shown that the method proposed will actually be effective in
disarming criminals rather than furhter harassing the law-abiding to no
real purpose.


It is almost impossible gun control to be 100% effective in stopping
criminal gun ownership. But, that doesn't mean there shouldn't be some
reasonable restrictions on gun ownership. I and millions of others of
non gun owners advocate gun control. I have no desire to won a gun, but
do not want to "ban everything." The notion of "effective" is an NRA
bull**** buzzword. Years ago I slowed down to make a turn. I actually
stopped because there were people walking in front of me. There was an
idiot behind me who was honking, and after I turned into the parking
lot, went into a rage and started kicking my car. I happened to have a
can of spray paint in my car. I sprayed him in the face. that stopped
him. I am very happy that he didn't have a gun. Casual gun ownership,
without proper training, and without reason for ownership, should be
banned. I consider use for target practice, a good reason for ownership.
I have a friend who used to be a world class target shooter. He has some
interesting stories about encounters with airline personnel, (pre-911,)
in his travels to international tournaments.
Note to PAS, next time I go to a roller derby game, if you come I will
introduce you. He is also a photographer, and has a unique personality.


PeterN

On 6/2/2014 8:33 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Mon, 02 Jun 2014 19:50:10 +0200, android wrote:

The spelling control don't give out warnings when you misspell with an
existing word. Jupp. I type to fast... ;-p

Have you lost much wait?


I used to use Dragon Naturally Speaking in my office, and get Speakos.

Dictate: "It's hard to recognize speech," and you could get: "It's hard
to wreck a nice beach."

--
PeterN

On 2014-06-03 14:41:38 +0000, Tony Cooper said:

On Mon, 2 Jun 2014 22:34:30 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

I give you Elliot Rodger to consider.

This is an individual who slid through the cracks in the system.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. It's easy to find examples like Rodgers. However,
if there was some magic wand that would detect every individual of
that type, it would not reduce the problem by a significant fraction.

It is individuals such as Rodger & Lanza whi need to be identified
before the make headlines. They are just one small fraction of those
who should be disqualified from firearm ownership. There is also the
issue of proxy purchases and illegal sales to individuals who would be
disqualified for gun ownership by current standards.

It wouldn't find the yahoos in this area who were plinking tin cans in
their back yard last December and a neighbor was killed by a stray
round. The magic wand might reveal "crazy", but not "stupid".

I have always held that all gun owners bear a heavy responsibility, and
stupidity should not exempt them from that responsibility and liability.

Just today there's an article in the newspaper about a homeless man
who was shot and killed outside of a convenience store. He was
aggressively begging a person leaving the store for "loose change".
Not with a weapon, but being "aggressive" according to witnesses.

The person leaving the store was (legally) armed and shot and killed
the bum. There are no charges expected to be filed.

There is no reasonable justification for that shooting as you have
described it, and it points to yet another problem with Florida's
*Stand your ground* law. That shooter should have been prosecuted by a
D.A. with the courage to do so in the face of the pro-gun lobby. In the
same way Zimmerman should have been convicted of Voluntary Manslaughter.

Had the person leaving the store been me, I would have quickly walked
away from the bum. Not being armed, I would think the prudent thing
to do would be to walk away. Even at my advanced age, I can out-run a
bum.

Agreed. That would have been the prudent and correct thing to do.

Once in my car, I would have called the police and let them deal with
the bum.

Why? What crime did the bum commit? His begging and panhandling is
actually protected speech under the First Amendment.

I don't know what gun the shooter carried, but it's entirely possible
that his action could have killed an innocent person. Bullets go
through people and continue until something stops them. A child,
maybe. Bullets miss and hit the wrong person.

Every day.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 2014-06-03 15:14:02 +0000, Tony Cooper said:

On Tue, 3 Jun 2014 11:00:18 -0400, "PAS" wrote:

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.

Have you booked your two-week summer duty at a militia camp this year?
Montana has quite a few with openings.

This is beginning to remind me of Custer's last words; "I've never seen
so many damn Indians in all my life! I need a bigger gun."

--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 6/3/2014 8:39 AM, PAS wrote:
"Floyd L. Davidson" wrote in message
...
"PAS" wrote:
"Floyd L. Davidson" wrote in message
...
"PAS" wrote:
Of course there are limits, as well as responsibilities when exercising
your
rights. Free speech is protected by the 1st Amendment of the
Constitution,
the right to have arms is protected by the 2nd Amendment. It's bvious
that
the founders placed a very high priority on the right to be armed.

With all due respect, the Founders said nothing about
any "right to be armed". What they wrote was a
*requirement* to be ready and able to serve in militia
to defend the country.

It was the Supreme Court of the United States that
inserted the concept of a right to bear arms. And we
necessarily, like it or not, have to accept that the
Court has the authority to do that. If we don't like it
there are ways to change it.

I believe it should be changed and some day will be, but
clearly it is unlikely that such changes will be made
any time soon. Hence while I don't like it, I accept
that what the Constitution of the United States says
/today/ is that there is a "Right to Bear Arms".

But don't claim that is what the Founding Fathers meant
when the wrote the Second Amendment; they didn't.

The Supreme Court seems to fall on my side on this one. What part of the
"Right to keep and bear arms" do you not interpret to be "the right to be
armed"?

The Founding Fathers provided a context for that right.
Nowhere in any of their writings did even a single one
of them ever suggest it had the universal meaning you
give it. What the Constitution in fact says is,

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the
security of a free State, the right of the people to
keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

The context is that a citizen's duty to be prepared,
as part of a militia, to defend the United States, shall
not be infringed. It does not say anyone can keep a gun
intended to be used to shoot the neighbor for any
reason, including to protect one's self.

The US Supreme Court recognized the original meaning of
the Founding Fathers for well over 200 years. In 1876
the Court said,

"The right to bear arms is not granted by the
Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent
upon that instrument for its existence"

That was again upheld as recently as 1939, when the
court specifically said the context required a

"reasonable relationship to the preservation or
efficiency of a well regulated militia"

Some 217 years after the Second Amendment was added to
our Constitution the US Supreme Court decided to change
the meaning such that it included a context outside that
provided by the Founding Fathers, and protect a right of
any citizen at any time to own a gun.

Today, because the Supreme Court has made it so, that
*is* what the Constitution means. But that was not what
the Founding Fathers meant, is not what the Court in
1876 said it meant, is not what the court in 1939 said
it meant, and is not what any court from 1791 until 2008
was willing rule it meant.

Get your history straight.

Maybe you should get it straight -

Samual Adams: "The Constitution shall never be construed...to prevent the
people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their
arms."

Patrick Henry: The great objective is that every man be armed...Everyone
who is able may have a gun."

Thomas Jefferson: "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."

Noah Webster: "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be
disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power
in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body
of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of
regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States."


therefore, it should be legal for me to own a fully operational tank;
howitzer; A bomb; poison gas delivery systems. etc.

--
PeterN

On Monday, June 2, 2014 12:04:22 PM UTC-4, Savageduck wrote:
On 2014-06-02 14:53:12 +0000, "PAS" said:
[long description of NY's gun laws]

Holy crap!

Even in California there is only a ten day waiting period for firearms
purchase.

NJ is pretty close to NY's too, although its also IIRC a
two step process in that one has to get a rifle/shotgun
permit issued _before_ requesting a pistol permit, so
the leadtime requirements effectively double.

One of the subtlties is that the law does include a requirement
that states that the Govt is only afforded 30 days to issue,
but there's some loopholes. The unofficial rule of thumb is
that after 45+ days have transpired, you make a "polite inquiry"
on its status, and then wait another 30 days before your next
follow-up...in the end, it works out to be that a pistol
permit take 60-90 days after it was submitted (after the rifle/
shotgun was previously processed & approved).

And finally, while the R/S permit is one for as many as you
want to subsequently buy, the pistol permit is a 1:1 for each
individual purchase, and if you ask for more than one of them
at once, the first question you'll be asked is: "...why?".


-hh

On 6/3/2014 11:22 AM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2014-06-03 15:14:02 +0000, Tony Cooper said:

On Tue, 3 Jun 2014 11:00:18 -0400, "PAS" wrote:

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.

Have you booked your two-week summer duty at a militia camp this year?
Montana has quite a few with openings.

This is beginning to remind me of Custer's last words; "I've never seen
so many damn Indians in all my life! I need a bigger gun."


I thought his ast words we "Where did all those f--en Indians come from."

--
PeterN