Giving photogs a bad name?

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?

The notion comes from a distrust of government. An armed citizenry is a
check against a tyrannical government.

You know during WWII we semi-armed old people and those not signed up for
war and called them the homeguard just in case the germans or Nazi
invaded, after the war ended we felt less threatened from Germany so
re-called the majority of the weapons as it seemed a good idea.

Do you not know that an appeal was made to Americans to help arm the British
at the outset of WWII due to the lack of wepaons because of the British gun
control laws?


A very appropriate observation on this day, of all days since 1944...

On 6/5/14 6:26 AM, in article
, "Whisky-dave"
wrote:

On Wednesday, 4 June 2014 20:40:42 UTC+1, 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.

So do you have more ort less peole than the UK do that commit 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.


They don't but as yet we dontl; execute peolke that have commited crimes that
can also lower the number of people in jails.


Looks like, judging by your text, you are living up to your moniker...

On 6/6/14 12:33 AM, in article ,
"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.


Admiral Yamamoto said: "To invade the United States would prove most
difficult, because behind every blade of grass is an American with a rifle".

Remembering D-Day today 70 years ago...

On 6/6/14 6:32 AM, in article
, "Whisky-dave"
wrote:

On Friday, 6 June 2014 06:33:26 UTC+1, 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.

What I don;t understand is than if a person takes upo such arms and forms a
group of more than one person then it's is a militra.
So a 'goup of criminals is armed , they aren;'t being paid to be armed or
employed and armed. So this implies that an avergae joe of JUST one person is
expected or can be said to be a defence against such a militia, I thought
that's what the police or armed forces were for, if tehy can;t do it what
chance does the average person with a handgun have agaisnt an army with
anything from handguns to rocket launchers.




Those on the pro-gun-control side bring it up as a condition that is
no longer is a threat.

The worry they appear to have is from peole like themselves that are armed but
aren;t professiojnals in the filed or protection such as the police or armed
forces.

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.

That does seem a bit wierd and I don't understand how they believe that their
few guns in their possesion will protect them if teh government send in the
army or any other paids with helicopter gunships, aircraft carriers and teh
wealth of amrerments that the US army, navy and airforce have.

The real worlksm isn;t like the independance day movie where a little guy can
bring done a whole invading armed force with aq handgun or a laptop.
It's fantasy it's fiction.


See my above post about Admiral Yamamoto...

Nuff-said...

On 6/6/14 10:11 AM, in article
, "Whisky-dave"
wrote:

So I do think that overall the world is a less violent place, than it was.


Tell that to the Taliban, Al-Qaeda, Somalia Pirates, Kim Jong-un and a
myriad of other evil mo-fos, OK?

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?

On 2014-06-06 22:27:39 +0000, George Kerby said:




On 6/6/14 10:11 AM, in article
, "Whisky-dave"
wrote:

So I do think that overall the world is a less violent place, than it was.


Tell that to the Taliban, Al-Qaeda, Somalia Pirates, Kim Jong-un and a
myriad of other evil mo-fos, OK?

Planing a vacation in scenic Syria soon?

--
Regards,

Savageduck

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.


Assault rifles similar to the AK47

BAR

50 CAL rifles

Apache helicopters

Mortars

Bradley fighting vehicles

Sherman tanks


Abrams tanks


Hand grenade

Bazookas


M32 grenade launcher


150 mm Howitzer


Armed drones


Nuclear weapons



--
PeterN

On Fri, 6 Jun 2014 08:54:53 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

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.

As for artillery!
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On 2014-06-06 23:42:47 +0000, Eric Stevens said:

On Fri, 6 Jun 2014 08:54:53 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

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.

As for artillery!

WHAT DID YOU SAY??
There are many old artillery men who are hard of hearing. There is a
reason the hearing-aid business does so well with the former military.

Over the years I have used all sorts of hearing protection from the
good old ear muff type, to waxed cotton balls, foam industrial
earplugs, in-ear sonic valves, and my current hearing protection of
choice is the EP7 Sonic Defender Ultra.
http://www.surefire.com/ep7-sonic-defenders-ultra.html

--
Regards,

Savageduck