Giving photogs a bad name?

"Tony Cooper" wrote in message
...
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.

As has been pointed out. the Supreme Court has upheld an individual's right
to own weapons under the 2nd Amendment. You want to ignore that by arguing
about what the militia is and is not. It doesn't matter. You can go on and
on all you want and it still won't matter. The 2nd Amendment protects an
individual right to own weapons, as the Supreme Court has ruled. An
individual does not have to demonstrate any need to won an AR-15. That's
right, I can have one simply because "I can", whether you or anyone else
likes it. That's the beauty of the freedom we have here, I don't have to
have anyone's approval to exercise my rights, nor do I care to have anyone's
approval.

On 6/11/2014 1:13 PM, Floyd L. Davidson wrote:

snip


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.


Reminds me of a surf fishing trip for stripers, when I kept walking down
the beach. I realized that I had walked about two miles and that if I
caught anything, I physically could not carry it back.
My solution for the futu A wide wheel beach cart.




--
PeterN

In article , PAS
wrote:

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.

except you don't have to know much about driving to pass the test and
it's only given once in someone's lifetime.

after that you just renew it, usually with a new photo. no more
testing.

driving tests should be far more rigorous than they are, including
evasive maneuvers such as properly handling skids, tire blowouts,
stalls in traffic, kid running into a street, etc., because that stuff
happens.

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.

not all states have safety inspections and older cars don't need to be
retrofitted for safety features.

Cars are far more safer now than they
have ever been.

that part is true.

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.

that's the problem right there. a bunch of old farts forcing their
demands on everyone and compromising everyone's safety.

it's very simple: if you aren't capable of driving, your license is
revoked.

it's true that older people will fail more than younger people but
that's just the way it is. everyone ages, and some point, they will not
be safe to be driving.

Also, you can't make an arbitrary
decision that people of "x" age can no longer drive.

sure you can, but it won't be popular.

I know some old folks
that are excellent drivers and some young ones that shouldn't be behind the
wheel.

exactly why competency testing should be done.

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.

that's just too damned bad.

if they're unsafe to be driving they should not be driving. very simple.

it doesn't matter what age they are.

People 65
and older are involved in more accidents per mile driven than any other age
group.

all the more reason to limit their driving.

however, older drivers don't drive as much which is why collisions per
mile is high. the collisions are also generally lower speed, which
usually results in bumps and bruises versus major trauma.

teenage drivers have more actual crashes because they drive more miles
and take way more risks.

then there are those drivers who plow into a crowd or building because
they 'confused the brake with the accelerator'. anyone who can't tell
the difference should have their license revoked on the spot, and not
surprisingly, it's usually an elderly driver who does it.

On Wed, 11 Jun 2014 12:32:31 -0400, "PAS"
wrote:

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.

I'm over 65 and now of an age where here in New Zealand I have to pass
several tests to show that I am still fit to drive. That includes eye
sight, a medical examination, and an examination to determine whether
or not I am giving any early sign of dementia. I may be required to
take an on-road driving test. I certainly have no absolute right to
drive.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On 6/11/2014 7:03 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Wed, 11 Jun 2014 12:32:31 -0400, "PAS"
wrote:

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.

I'm over 65 and now of an age where here in New Zealand I have to pass
several tests to show that I am still fit to drive. That includes eye
sight, a medical examination, and an examination to determine whether
or not I am giving any early sign of dementia. I may be required to
take an on-road driving test. I certainly have no absolute right to
drive.


I have a decade on you, and agree completely. I hope that I have enough
common sense so that when the day comes that I cannot drive safely, I
recognize that and stop driving.
My mother-in-law was driving OK in her early eighties. Then one day she
was involved in a fender bender. She claimed she was standing still and
the gas pump was moving. My sister-in-law took the car away, on the
spot. I never understood what she didn't do it sooner.
--
PeterN

On Wed, 11 Jun 2014 19:15:36 -0400, PeterN
wrote:

On 6/11/2014 7:03 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Wed, 11 Jun 2014 12:32:31 -0400, "PAS"
wrote:

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.

I'm over 65 and now of an age where here in New Zealand I have to pass
several tests to show that I am still fit to drive. That includes eye
sight, a medical examination, and an examination to determine whether
or not I am giving any early sign of dementia. I may be required to
take an on-road driving test. I certainly have no absolute right to
drive.


I have a decade on you,

Are you sure? I'm 80.

and agree completely. I hope that I have enough
common sense so that when the day comes that I cannot drive safely, I
recognize that and stop driving.
My mother-in-law was driving OK in her early eighties. Then one day she
was involved in a fender bender. She claimed she was standing still and
the gas pump was moving. My sister-in-law took the car away, on the
spot. I never understood what she didn't do it sooner.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On 2014-06-11 23:15:36 +0000, PeterN said:

On 6/11/2014 7:03 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Wed, 11 Jun 2014 12:32:31 -0400, "PAS"
wrote:

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.

I'm over 65 and now of an age where here in New Zealand I have to pass
several tests to show that I am still fit to drive. That includes eye
sight, a medical examination, and an examination to determine whether
or not I am giving any early sign of dementia. I may be required to
take an on-road driving test. I certainly have no absolute right to
drive.


I have a decade on you, and agree completely. I hope that I have enough
common sense so that when the day comes that I cannot drive safely, I
recognize that and stop driving.
My mother-in-law was driving OK in her early eighties. Then one day she
was involved in a fender bender. She claimed she was standing still and
the gas pump was moving. My sister-in-law took the car away, on the
spot. I never understood what she didn't do it sooner.

Yup! The sign for my grandfather was when he parked his car in the
garage with the garage door closed. My father still drives at 91, he
has no major health issues, but these days he is reluctant to drive at
night, or in questionable weather conditions.
For those times he and his girl(lady) friend want to go out at night, I
have recommend that he use Uber, and he has been open to the suggestion.
He recently had his DL renewed with no restrictions, not even the
prescription lens restriction I have.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 6/11/2014 7:31 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Wed, 11 Jun 2014 19:15:36 -0400, PeterN
wrote:

On 6/11/2014 7:03 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Wed, 11 Jun 2014 12:32:31 -0400, "PAS"
wrote:

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.

I'm over 65 and now of an age where here in New Zealand I have to pass
several tests to show that I am still fit to drive. That includes eye
sight, a medical examination, and an examination to determine whether
or not I am giving any early sign of dementia. I may be required to
take an on-road driving test. I certainly have no absolute right to
drive.


I have a decade on you,

Are you sure? I'm 80.

Then I misread. I thought I saw 65. I do not have a decade on you. You
have a few years on me.



and agree completely. I hope that I have enough
common sense so that when the day comes that I cannot drive safely, I
recognize that and stop driving.
My mother-in-law was driving OK in her early eighties. Then one day she
was involved in a fender bender. She claimed she was standing still and
the gas pump was moving. My sister-in-law took the car away, on the
spot. I never understood what she didn't do it sooner.



--
PeterN

On 6/11/2014 7:48 PM, Savageduck wrote:

snip

Yup! The sign for my grandfather was when he parked his car in the
garage with the garage door closed.


I have a friend who backed out of his garage with the door closed. He
had been living in a house with a breezeway, and this was his first
morning in his new house. His problem was driving while thinking of what
he had to do each day. I can easily relate to that. One day my secretary
moved my waste paper basket. I never noticed, and there was a pile of
waste paper on the floor, right on the spot my waste basket formerly stood.

--
PeterN

In article 2014061108552058049-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom,
says...

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.

Or a bolt action target rifle and good situational awareness?