Giving photogs a bad name?

On 2014-06-03 16:16:09 +0000, -hh said:

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?".

In California you can only buy one firearm at a time within a 30 day
period. So if you wanted to buy two pistols and there is nothing which
could complicate a background check you would take possession of pistol
#1 10 days after purchase. You cannot start the process for pistol #2
for another 30 days, then there is the next 10 day waiting period. The
firearms safety certificate is good for all subsequent purchases.

A CCW permit is a whole different issue and is dependent on the county
you live in. Your best chances are in rural counties.
For example the odds of getting a civilian CCW permit in San Francisco
County are slim to none. The interesting thing there is there are 12
CCWs issued in SF County, four are to judges, one to Sen. Dianne
Feinstein, one to former mayor Willie Brown, and the remaining 6 to
unidentified individuals.
....and yet there are shooting incidents daily in San Francisco.

http://blog.sfgate.com/crime/2014/06...rict-shooting/

--
Regards,

Savageduck

On Tue, 03 Jun 2014 11:16:53 +0200, android wrote:

In article ,
Eric Stevens wrote:

On Tue, 03 Jun 2014 08:54:58 +0200, android wrote:

In article ,
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?

???

Duh!

Ohhh... Thank's for the clarification. I feel enlightened!

OK. I may have been a bit abrupt.

You: I type to fast. [You really meant 'I type too fast'.]

Me (thinking aloud* and taking you literally): 'fast' is the noun form
of 'fasting' which means deliberately not eating. Why is he
deliberately not eating? Don't know. Doesn't matter. I wonder if the
fasting is causing him to lose weight. I know, I will ask him.

Me: Have you lost much wait? [I reall mean 'Have you lost much
weight'?]


*All you need to do now is tell me such thinking is not allowed. :-(
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Tue, 3 Jun 2014 02:22:08 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2014-06-03 09:06:52 +0000, Whisky-dave said:

On Monday, 2 June 2014 17:15:41 UTC+1, Savageduck wrote:
On 2014-06-02 15:28:47 +0000, Whisky-dave said:
On Monday, 2 June 2014 14:30:57 UTC+1, PAS wrote:

Le Snip

You don't seem to grasp this, otherwise you wouldn't be using this
ridiculous analogy. There is a Cosntitutional right to keep and bear arms.

Your right I don;t get it.

Then perhaps you should try to get some understanding of US
Constitutional history.


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

You

have to remember, we as a nation were emerging from under the thumb
and "tyranny" of the English crown which considered our resistance to
George III's rule and imbalanced taxation of the colonies a rebellion.

Suprised you don't mention the threat of small pox as a valid reason.

Now you are bring asinine and downright stupid.

We haven't threatened the USA for some time now, although between the
wars wasn't the USA planning on attacking the UK soemthing called plan
red.

As I said, stupid, with more stupidity to follow.

Not stupid. Quite correct. See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Plan_Red which compared with other
sources I have read understates the seriousness of the US planning.


Trying to remmebr the old joke from school, why didn;'t Neil armstrong
and buzz aldrin take guns to the moon, because American hadn't landed
there yet.

or words to that efect it was some time ago.

Do you think that if america colonises the moon before China or india
they'll be a need for everyone to carry a gun(s) as an extention or
because of the constitution ?
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On 6/3/2014 8:21 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Tue, 03 Jun 2014 11:16:53 +0200, android wrote:

In article ,
Eric Stevens wrote:

On Tue, 03 Jun 2014 08:54:58 +0200, android wrote:

In article ,
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?

???

Duh!

Ohhh... Thank's for the clarification. I feel enlightened!

OK. I may have been a bit abrupt.

You: I type to fast. [You really meant 'I type too fast'.]

Me (thinking aloud* and taking you literally): 'fast' is the noun form
of 'fasting' which means deliberately not eating. Why is he
deliberately not eating? Don't know. Doesn't matter. I wonder if the
fasting is causing him to lose weight. I know, I will ask him.

Me: Have you lost much wait? [I reall mean 'Have you lost much
weight'?]


*All you need to do now is tell me such thinking is not allowed. :-(


I thought your use of the word "wait" was a deliberate pun after the
comment about sloppy typing, which is why I brought speakos into the mix.

--
PeterN

On Tue, 03 Jun 2014 20:37:19 -0400, PeterN
wrote:

On 6/3/2014 8:21 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Tue, 03 Jun 2014 11:16:53 +0200, android wrote:

In article ,
Eric Stevens wrote:

On Tue, 03 Jun 2014 08:54:58 +0200, android wrote:

In article ,
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?

???

Duh!

Ohhh... Thank's for the clarification. I feel enlightened!

OK. I may have been a bit abrupt.

You: I type to fast. [You really meant 'I type too fast'.]

Me (thinking aloud* and taking you literally): 'fast' is the noun form
of 'fasting' which means deliberately not eating. Why is he
deliberately not eating? Don't know. Doesn't matter. I wonder if the
fasting is causing him to lose weight. I know, I will ask him.

Me: Have you lost much wait? [I reall mean 'Have you lost much
weight'?]


*All you need to do now is tell me such thinking is not allowed. :-(


I thought your use of the word "wait" was a deliberate pun after the
comment about sloppy typing, which is why I brought speakos into the mix.

You are right: it was.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

In article ,
says...

"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.

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.

In article 2014060308224547882-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom,
says...

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."

It wold have been more like "why did I leave those two Gatlings back at
the fort?"

On 2014-06-04 10:58:41 +0000, "J. Clarke" said:

In article 2014060308224547882-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom,
says...

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."

It wold have been more like "why did I leave those two Gatlings back at
the fort?"

Now that is the truth!

--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 5/28/14 5:38 AM, in article
, "Whisky-dave"
wrote:

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.

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.
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.


An armed society is a free society.

Having said that, I strongly disagree with these idiots here in Texas who
march into restaurants with their long-guns. They are Drama Queens.

On 5/28/14 7:54 AM, in article , "PAS"
wrote:

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

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

Congress? "We don't need no stinkin' Congress!"

Just ask your POTUS concerning the Terrorists released from Guantanamo...