Giving photogs a bad name?

"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.

On Thu, 05 Jun 2014 11:40:13 +0200, android wrote:

In article ,
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'.]

Way too fast. I guess that I always will...

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'?]

No, that would not be possible... ;-p


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

You a probably a way better typist than me. SO WHAT!!!

You must be very bad then. Especially with the tricks that this
wireless keyboard and mouse plays with me.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

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.

On 2014-06-06 11:32:24 +0000, Whisky-dave said:

But the biggest nutter there was an anti-gun women, who's main gripe on cam
era appeared to be that the guns make really loud noises as she cowered beh
ind her car covering her ears !

Hey! being around guns and shooting is a noisy experience. Always use
hearing protection. Even if you are an anti-gun nut.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

"Savageduck" wrote in message
news:2014060604485463167-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom...
On 2014-06-06 11:32:24 +0000, Whisky-dave said:

But the biggest nutter there was an anti-gun women, who's main gripe on
cam
era appeared to be that the guns make really loud noises as she cowered
beh
ind her car covering her ears !

Hey! being around guns and shooting is a noisy experience. Always use
hearing protection. Even if you are an anti-gun nut.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

You've spent more time at ranges than I will in ten lifetimes. Have you
ever come across anyone at a range that was not wearing hearing protection?

On 2014-06-06 13:22:29 +0000, "PAS" said:

"Savageduck" wrote in message
news:2014060604485463167-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom...
On 2014-06-06 11:32:24 +0000, Whisky-dave said:

But the biggest nutter there was an anti-gun women, who's main gripe on
cam
era appeared to be that the guns make really loud noises as she cowered
beh
ind her car covering her ears !

Hey! being around guns and shooting is a noisy experience. Always use
hearing protection. Even if you are an anti-gun nut.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

You've spent more time at ranges than I will in ten lifetimes. Have you
ever come across anyone at a range that was not wearing hearing protection?

Very few ranges will allow anybody on the firing line without hearing
protection and/or some type of protective eyewear. At an indoor range
the sound pressure levels are so high they are painful, At some outdoor
ranges where there is some room behind the firing line some folks can
tolerate the sound without protection as the sound dissipates better in
the open. However, even outdoors the actual loudness of a high power
handgun or rifle can surprise somebody who gets what they know of guns
from TV or movies.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

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.

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



--
PeterN

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.

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

It should also be noted that the Second Amendment did
not intend to arm citizens to fight the Federal
government.

The Founding Fathers did not want a standing army to
defend the country against *foreign* invaders. They
intended to arm a militia rather than a standing army.
Today we have, and necessarily need, a standing army
(how else could we invade places like Iraq, or
Vietnam...).

The Second Amendment had nothing to do with private
ownership of guns (or "gun control") either for private
purposes or for defense against our own government.

As you say, that's all misinformation from the NRA.

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

On 6/6/2014 4:05 PM, Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
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.

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

It should also be noted that the Second Amendment did
not intend to arm citizens to fight the Federal
government.

The Founding Fathers did not want a standing army to
defend the country against *foreign* invaders. They
intended to arm a militia rather than a standing army.
Today we have, and necessarily need, a standing army
(how else could we invade places like Iraq, or
Vietnam...).

The Second Amendment had nothing to do with private
ownership of guns (or "gun control") either for private
purposes or for defense against our own government.

At the battle oc Cowpens, Morgan used the "reliability" of the militia
to good advantage.


As you say, that's all misinformation from the NRA.



--
PeterN

On 6/4/14 2:40 PM, in article , "PAS"
wrote:

"Whisky-dave" wrote in message


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.

Doesn't seem that free to me when so many are incarsurated FIVE times the
number we lock up here per 100,000. It seems a significant number seem to
need a gun to protect themselves and their family, but from whom is the
big question.
Some on here suggested that it's because of us Brits and our taxes which
was why the 2nd admentment and the right to bear arms comes from.

People are incarcerated because they've committed crimes. Shall we turn
them loose just so that the statistics indicate we have less in jail than
in the UK? Statistics don't tell the whole story, as you should know.
People are locked up here for crimes that do not warrant incarceration in
other countries. If you write a bad check, you can go to jail here. IS
that the case in the UK.

If you want to judge by statistics alone, we shall say the the UK is a very
racist nation because there are proportionally far mor black people jailed
in the UK than in the US. See what statistics can do?


Whiskey should be made aware of the classic "Tale of Two Cities"...

A Tale of Two Cities

Chicago, IL Houston, TX
Population 2.7 million 2.15 million
Median HH Income $38,600 $37,000
% African-American 38.9% 24%
% Hispanic 29.9% 44%
% Asian 5.5% 6%
% Non-Hispanic White 28.7% 26%

Pretty similar until you compare the following:

Chicago, IL Houston, TX
Concealed Carry gun law no yes
# of Gun Stores 0 184 *
Homicides, 2012 1,806 207
Homicides per 100K 38.4 9.6
Avg. January high temperature (F) 31 63

Conclusion: Cold weather causes murder


* Dedicated gun stores plus 1500 - legal places to buy guns Walmart, K-mart,
sporting goods, etc.