Giving photogs a bad name?

In article ,
says...

"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.

You're overstating the current situation. Several states say that you
cannot own an AR-15 and so far the Supreme Court has not told them
otherwise. That may change or it may not.

On 2014-06-12 00:18:54 +0000, "J. Clarke" said:

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?

That is a solution I could live with.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

On Wed, 11 Jun 2014 20:18:54 -0400, "J. Clarke"
wrote:

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?

See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6m1yN-3n0FU

"Mad minute was a pre-World War I term used by British Army riflemen
during training at the Hythe School of Musketry to describe scoring
a minimum of 15 hits onto a 12" round target[citation needed] at
300 yards (270 m) within one minute using a bolt-action rifle
(usually a Lee-Enfield or Lee-Metford rifle). It was not uncommon
during the First World War for riflemen to greatly exceed this
score. Many riflemen could average 30 plus shots. The record, set
in 1914 by Sergeant Instructor Alfred Snoxall, was 38 hits.[1]"

also https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6m1yN-3n0FU
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

"PeterN" wrote in message
...
On 6/11/2014 9:13 AM, 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.

Are you saying that there should e no regulation of ownership of weapons?
Discussion of the degree of regulation is a different discussion than
whether ownership should be regulated.

No I am not. But there is too much regulation in many cases, as I've
demonstrated.


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. Does my neighbor who has no kids have
to
prove he needs that huge GMC Suburban he drives? If he wants it and can
afford it, he can buy it.

For instance, liberals state that We are advised to NOT judge ALL
Muslims
by
the actions of a few lunatics, but we are encouraged to judge ALL gun
owners
by the actions of a few lunatics.

Funny how that works...

Funny that you make up things which are false in order
to argue something. Why not stick with facts?

So you do not see what totally insane hyperboles he suggested is not
relevant to a normal conversation without the hysteria of the Gun
Control
Proles?!?

The insanity comes from your side, as seen in what you
just said.

IN ALASKA?!? My-my...

Yes, exactly. A place where guns are clearly necessary
and useful. We actually use them for something
reasonable. Note that I don't own an AR-15 or an M16.
I have no high capacity clips, nor even a gun that can
use them.

And it's your choice not to own any of those rifles but your choices
don't
have to be my choices. I have a coworker who is an vocal gun-control
supporter. You'll hear him say over and over that "I don't believe
anyone
should own a gun". His personal beliefs have no bearing on our rights,
thankfully. Your choices have no bearing on them either.




--
PeterN

"J. Clarke" wrote in message
.. .
In article ,
says...

"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.

You're overstating the current situation. Several states say that you
cannot own an AR-15 and so far the Supreme Court has not told them
otherwise. That may change or it may not.

I was stating the current situation in regards to the Supreme Court ruling
that the 2nd Amendment protects an individual's right to own weapons. What
the states do is another matter. The Supreme Court can rule on those laws
only when a case is brought and the wheels spin very slowly in our justice
system. The Supreme Court has ruled on other cases where states or locales
have overstepped and infringed on 2nd Amendment rights.

In article , says...

"J. Clarke" wrote in message
.. .
In article ,
says...

"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.

You're overstating the current situation. Several states say that you
cannot own an AR-15 and so far the Supreme Court has not told them
otherwise. That may change or it may not.

I was stating the current situation in regards to the Supreme Court ruling
that the 2nd Amendment protects an individual's right to own weapons. What
the states do is another matter. The Supreme Court can rule on those laws
only when a case is brought and the wheels spin very slowly in our justice
system. The Supreme Court has ruled on other cases where states or locales
have overstepped and infringed on 2nd Amendment rights.

And when it does, if the ruling goes the way you think it is going to
go, then you will be correct that the government cannot infringe your
right to own an AR-15. In the interim it can and in many localities
does. And do not assume because they ruled one way in one case, they
will continue to rule in a similar manner in others.

On 6/13/2014 12:31 PM, PAS wrote:
"PeterN" wrote in message

snip


Are you saying that there should e no regulation of ownership of weapons?
Discussion of the degree of regulation is a different discussion than
whether ownership should be regulated.

No I am not. But there is too much regulation in many cases, as I've
demonstrated.

At least we agree on something. How much is too much, can lead to
interesting discussions. I can see the reasonable logic for the
regulations you have complained about.


--
PeterN

"PeterN" wrote in message
...
On 6/13/2014 12:31 PM, PAS wrote:
"PeterN" wrote in message

snip


Are you saying that there should e no regulation of ownership of
weapons?
Discussion of the degree of regulation is a different discussion than
whether ownership should be regulated.

No I am not. But there is too much regulation in many cases, as I've
demonstrated.

At least we agree on something. How much is too much, can lead to
interesting discussions. I can see the reasonable logic for the
regulations you have complained about.

Don't we agree on rum raisin too?

"PeterN" wrote in message
On 6/11/2014 9:13 AM, PAS wrote:
"Floyd L. Davidson" wrote in message
...

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.

Are you saying that there should e no regulation of ownership of weapons?
Discussion of the degree of regulation is a different discussion than
whether ownership should be regulated.

No, but in many cases there is far too much regulation of ownership.




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. Does my neighbor who has no kids have
to
prove he needs that huge GMC Suburban he drives? If he wants it and can
afford it, he can buy it.


And it's your choice not to own any of those rifles but your choices
don't
have to be my choices. I have a coworker who is an vocal gun-control
supporter. You'll hear him say over and over that "I don't believe
anyone
should own a gun". His personal beliefs have no bearing on our rights,
thankfully. Your choices have no bearing on them either.




--
PeterN

"Whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
On Monday, 16 June 2014 15:15:26 UTC+1, PAS wrote:



No, but in many cases there is far too much regulation of ownership.

In which particualar cases would you say are over regulated ?

Where I live, in Suffolk County on Long Island.

In a nutshell, this is the process I had to go through to get my handgun
license and first handgun:

1) Fill out a long application including all previous addresses.
2) Provide three personal references and signed and noarized affadavits
from them
3) The references and my employer were all interviewed
4) I had to be fingerprinted & interviewed
5) I was warned of what could disqualify me from being approved. Among
them was getting a traffic ticket within the application process timeframe.
6) I was approved after approximately six months from the time I applied
7) I can no purchase a handgun. I went to a gun dealer and made my
purchase. But I could not take possession. I had to get a form filled out
by the dealer
8) I take the form to the police department and they review the form and
then must approve the form and stamp it
9) I take the form back to the dealer and then take possession
10) I have to bring the handgun to the police department for their
inspection and then to record the serial number on my license
11) I am only permitted to take the handgun from my home directly to firing
range and then directly back home when finished. I cannot make any stops
along the way, no exceptions. If I do, I can lose my license.

That my friend, is over regulated.