In article ,
wrote:

As much as I like the idea of Hubble and all the pretty pictures, it
could have been replaced with
the money spent on repairing it. It
really hasn't had a great ROI.

One interesting bit from the Hubble. When the mirror was out of whack,
the nerd put together an algorithm to correct for it that cleared things
up quite a bit. Someone (I think it was at GE, but don't remember for
sure), found out about it and adapted it to things like mammograms and
CT scans, etc. and greatly cleared those up, also.



--
America is at that awkward stage. It's too late
to work within the system, but too early to shoot
the *******s."-- Claire Wolfe

On Dec 31, 4:16*am, harry wrote:
On Dec 31, 12:47*am, Dean Hoffman "
wrote:

On 12/30/12 6:36 PM, wrote:

The supposition is it would be one nobody was supposed to know about,
ours or theirs.
The reality is they did bring the Hubble into the cargo bay and fix
it. That may have been the most useful thing the Shuttle ever did.

Harry is right that the shuttle had a 40% failure rate and it sucked
most of the money out of the NASA budget, stifling further rocket
development and putting us where we are today. (riding with the
Ruskies)

* * *Would the International Space Station have been possible without
the Shuttle? *I haven't heard much about it lately.

Failure is not talked about in America.
I think there is an American up there right now.
The US finds it cheaper to pay the Russians than do their *own thing.

How's the UK space program doing?

Oh, and BTW, your boasting about how smart the Britts are
got me thinking again about the Concorde disaster. I looked into
it a bit more. Actually quite interesting. Yeah, it was a small
piece
of metal from a Continental plane that left Paris CDG 5 mins
earlier that was the initiating event. But I had thought that the
metal was what cut the wing fuel tank and caused the fire.
It was not.

The metal only caused one of the tires to blow. Tires that
already had a high rate of blowouts from takeoffs and landings
The Concorde puts much higher stress on them. A 10 lb
piece of tire flew up and hit the wing. But even that didn't
puncture the wing. It just created a shock wave in the wing
fuel tank that the tank could not handle and burst. That
released the fuel that somehow ignited, most likely they
think by electrical wiring that was also severed in the landing
gear. The designers had never considered the possibility
that a decent size chunk of tire from a blowout could do
that. All the planes were grounded for 18 months while
major design changes were made to the tires and the
fuel tanks were reinforced.

In other words, without major design defects, the accident
never would have happened. It's remarkably similar to the
space shuttle accident where the effects of insulation hitting
the vehicle during takeoff were thought to be insignificant.

On Mon, 31 Dec 2012 01:18:03 -0800 (PST), harry
wrote:

On Dec 31, 2:14*am, wrote:
On Sun, 30 Dec 2012 18:47:33 -0600, Dean Hoffman

" wrote:
On 12/30/12 6:36 PM, wrote:

The supposition is it would be one nobody was supposed to know about,
ours or theirs.
The reality is they did bring the Hubble into the cargo bay and fix
it. That may have been the most useful thing the Shuttle ever did.

As much as I like the idea of Hubble and all the pretty pictures, it
could have been replaced with the money spent on repairing it. *It
really hasn't had a great ROI.

Harry is right that the shuttle had a 40% failure rate and it sucked
most of the money out of the NASA budget, stifling further rocket
development and putting us where we are today. (riding with the
Ruskies)

* * Would the International Space Station have been possible without
the Shuttle? *I haven't heard much about it lately.

Has the ISS done anything useful in its life, other than give the
Shuttle some place to go?

They have done a lot of experimentation only possible in zero G.

....and the useful results?

On Mon, 31 Dec 2012 05:49:14 -0500, Kurt Ullman
wrote:

In article ,
wrote:

As much as I like the idea of Hubble and all the pretty pictures, it
could have been replaced with
the money spent on repairing it. It
really hasn't had a great ROI.

One interesting bit from the Hubble. When the mirror was out of whack,
the nerd put together an algorithm to correct for it that cleared things
up quite a bit. Someone (I think it was at GE, but don't remember for
sure), found out about it and adapted it to things like mammograms and
CT scans, etc. and greatly cleared those up, also.

That wasn't anything new. Image correction has been going on for a
*long* time. Indeed, that's how compound telescopes are designed in
the first place.

On 12/31/2012 3:07 AM, harry wrote:
On Dec 30, 11:47 pm, "Steve B" wrote:
"The Daring Dufas" wrote



I seem to recall a statistic about baseball bats being the most
common weapon used to commit blunt force murders. Bat control
laws should be passed into law immediately! ^_^

TDD

Careful, or the flying type will be included. I have seen
normally sensible people go crazy when a bat or spider or snake
shows up. They will literally run off a cliff and kill themselves
over a small living creature.


How is it I don't believe that? Unless things are a lot worse in the
USA than I thought.


Harry, you may be suffering from H.I.S.I., pronounced "hissy". It stands
for (H)umor (I)rony (S)arcasm (I)mpairment. People with that particular
mental disease are said to have H.I.S.I. fits and often put on a big
display of pseudo-intellectualism about the subject at hand when they
fail to see the humor or bizarreness of statements made by someone who
is attempting to pull their leg. It's also called The Mr. Data response
in some circles. ^_^

TDD

On 12/31/2012 3:05 AM, harry wrote:
On Dec 30, 2:06 am, The Daring Dufas the-daring-du...@stinky-
finger.net wrote:
On 12/29/2012 6:31 PM, Jim Elbrecht wrote:









On Sat, 29 Dec 2012 18:43:32 -0500, Wes Groleau
wrote:

On 12-29-2012 12:40, The Daring Dufas wrote:
Why do most outer space aliens speak English with a Canadian
accent? The most evil ones have a British accent. A
reflection of the real world perhaps? ^_^

As a child, I watched "Daniel Boone." Or "Davy Crocket,"
forget which.

I was always perplexed by the "Indian" supporting character
with a British accent.

Oxford will do that to you. Don't know if they said how long
he spent there- but that's where Mingo got some education. [There
were probably *real* Cherokee of that era who went to Oxford--
There were certainly *real* Native Americans that went to England
for school.]

Ed Ames, who played Mingo was from Massachusetts- He faked the
accent better than the skin color.

Jim

I thought he played Tonto in The Lone Ranger but that was Jay
Silverheels / Harold J. Smith who was a real Indian. Ames was
Jewish and child of Ukrainian immigrants. Of course Mel Brooks
made fun of the fact that a lot of Jewish actors played American
Indians in cowboy movies during a scene in Blazing Saddles. ^_^

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jYVtGqnjrgs

TDD

The real indians had more sense.


Harry, you must be suffering from H.I.S.I., pronounced "hissy". It
stands for (H)umor (I)rony (S)arcasm (I)mpairment. People with that
particular mental disease are said to have H.I.S.I. fits and often put
on a big display of pseudo-intellectualism about the subject at hand
when they fail to see the humor or bizarreness of statements made by
someone who is attempting to pull their leg. It's also called The Mr.
Data response in some circles. ^_^

TDD

On 12/31/2012 3:18 AM, harry wrote:
On Dec 31, 2:14 am, wrote:
On Sun, 30 Dec 2012 18:47:33 -0600, Dean Hoffman

" wrote:
On 12/30/12 6:36 PM, wrote:

The supposition is it would be one nobody was supposed to know about,
ours or theirs.
The reality is they did bring the Hubble into the cargo bay and fix
it. That may have been the most useful thing the Shuttle ever did.

As much as I like the idea of Hubble and all the pretty pictures, it
could have been replaced with the money spent on repairing it. It
really hasn't had a great ROI.

Harry is right that the shuttle had a 40% failure rate and it sucked
most of the money out of the NASA budget, stifling further rocket
development and putting us where we are today. (riding with the
Ruskies)

Would the International Space Station have been possible without
the Shuttle? I haven't heard much about it lately.

Has the ISS done anything useful in its life, other than give the
Shuttle some place to go?

They have done a lot of experimentation only possible in zero G.


NASA couldn't get Barbarella so a few married couples were sent up for
coitus experiments. O_o

TDD

On Mon, 31 Dec 2012 09:56:00 -0600, The Daring Dufas
wrote:

On 12/31/2012 3:18 AM, harry wrote:
On Dec 31, 2:14 am, wrote:
On Sun, 30 Dec 2012 18:47:33 -0600, Dean Hoffman

" wrote:
On 12/30/12 6:36 PM, wrote:

The supposition is it would be one nobody was supposed to know about,
ours or theirs.
The reality is they did bring the Hubble into the cargo bay and fix
it. That may have been the most useful thing the Shuttle ever did.

As much as I like the idea of Hubble and all the pretty pictures, it
could have been replaced with the money spent on repairing it. It
really hasn't had a great ROI.

Harry is right that the shuttle had a 40% failure rate and it sucked
most of the money out of the NASA budget, stifling further rocket
development and putting us where we are today. (riding with the
Ruskies)

Would the International Space Station have been possible without
the Shuttle? I haven't heard much about it lately.

Has the ISS done anything useful in its life, other than give the
Shuttle some place to go?

They have done a lot of experimentation only possible in zero G.


NASA couldn't get Barbarella so a few married couples were sent up for
coitus experiments. O_o

If only Jane had stuck to scripts she could do justice...

On Dec 31, 3:16*pm, wrote:
On Mon, 31 Dec 2012 01:18:03 -0800 (PST), harry









wrote:
On Dec 31, 2:14*am, wrote:
On Sun, 30 Dec 2012 18:47:33 -0600, Dean Hoffman

" wrote:
On 12/30/12 6:36 PM, wrote:

The supposition is it would be one nobody was supposed to know about,
ours or theirs.
The reality is they did bring the Hubble into the cargo bay and fix
it. That may have been the most useful thing the Shuttle ever did.

As much as I like the idea of Hubble and all the pretty pictures, it
could have been replaced with the money spent on repairing it. *It
really hasn't had a great ROI.

Harry is right that the shuttle had a 40% failure rate and it sucked
most of the money out of the NASA budget, stifling further rocket
development and putting us where we are today. (riding with the
Ruskies)

* * Would the International Space Station have been possible without
the Shuttle? *I haven't heard much about it lately.

Has the ISS done anything useful in its life, other than give the
Shuttle some place to go?

They have done a lot of experimentation only possible in zero G.

...and the useful results?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SABRE_(rocket_engine)

On Dec 31, 3:53*pm, The Daring Dufas the-daring-du...@stinky-
finger.net wrote:
On 12/31/2012 3:05 AM, harry wrote:









On Dec 30, 2:06 am, The Daring Dufas the-daring-du...@stinky-
finger.net wrote:
On 12/29/2012 6:31 PM, Jim Elbrecht wrote:

On Sat, 29 Dec 2012 18:43:32 -0500, Wes Groleau
wrote:

On 12-29-2012 12:40, The Daring Dufas wrote:
Why do most outer space aliens speak English with a Canadian
accent? The most evil ones have a British accent. A
reflection of the real world perhaps? ^_^

As a child, I watched "Daniel Boone." *Or "Davy Crocket,"
forget which.

I was always perplexed by the "Indian" supporting character
with a British accent.

Oxford will do that to you. * *Don't know if they said how long
he spent there- but that's where Mingo got some education. [There
were probably *real* Cherokee of that era who went to Oxford--
There were certainly *real* Native Americans that went to England
for school.]

Ed Ames, who played Mingo was from Massachusetts- *He faked the
accent better than the skin color.

Jim

I thought he played Tonto in The Lone Ranger but that was Jay
Silverheels / Harold J. Smith who was a real Indian. Ames was
Jewish and child of Ukrainian immigrants. Of course Mel Brooks
made fun of the fact that a lot of Jewish actors played American
Indians in cowboy movies during a scene in Blazing Saddles. ^_^

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jYVtGqnjrgs

TDD

The real indians had more sense.

Harry, you must be suffering from H.I.S.I., pronounced "hissy". It
stands for (H)umor (I)rony (S)arcasm (I)mpairment. People with that
particular mental disease are said to have H.I.S.I. fits and often put
on a big display of pseudo-intellectualism about the subject at hand
when they fail to see the humor or bizarreness of statements made by
someone who is attempting to pull their leg. It's also called The Mr.
Data response in some circles. ^_^

TDD

I think it's pretty humourous that Tonto means idiot in Spanish. Was
that intentional or not?

On Mon, 31 Dec 2012 08:06:41 -0800 (PST), harry
wrote:

On Dec 31, 3:16*pm, wrote:
On Mon, 31 Dec 2012 01:18:03 -0800 (PST), harry









wrote:
On Dec 31, 2:14*am, wrote:
On Sun, 30 Dec 2012 18:47:33 -0600, Dean Hoffman

" wrote:
On 12/30/12 6:36 PM, wrote:

The supposition is it would be one nobody was supposed to know about,
ours or theirs.
The reality is they did bring the Hubble into the cargo bay and fix
it. That may have been the most useful thing the Shuttle ever did.

As much as I like the idea of Hubble and all the pretty pictures, it
could have been replaced with the money spent on repairing it. *It
really hasn't had a great ROI.

Harry is right that the shuttle had a 40% failure rate and it sucked
most of the money out of the NASA budget, stifling further rocket
development and putting us where we are today. (riding with the
Ruskies)

* * Would the International Space Station have been possible without
the Shuttle? *I haven't heard much about it lately.

Has the ISS done anything useful in its life, other than give the
Shuttle some place to go?

They have done a lot of experimentation only possible in zero G.

...and the useful results?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SABRE_(rocket_engine)

....and that has to do with the ISS, how?

On 12/31/2012 10:16 AM, harry wrote:
On Dec 31, 3:53 pm, The Daring Dufas the-daring-du...@stinky-
finger.net wrote:
On 12/31/2012 3:05 AM, harry wrote:









On Dec 30, 2:06 am, The Daring Dufas the-daring-du...@stinky-
finger.net wrote:
On 12/29/2012 6:31 PM, Jim Elbrecht wrote:

On Sat, 29 Dec 2012 18:43:32 -0500, Wes Groleau
wrote:

On 12-29-2012 12:40, The Daring Dufas wrote:
Why do most outer space aliens speak English with a Canadian
accent? The most evil ones have a British accent. A
reflection of the real world perhaps? ^_^

As a child, I watched "Daniel Boone." Or "Davy Crocket,"
forget which.

I was always perplexed by the "Indian" supporting character
with a British accent.

Oxford will do that to you. Don't know if they said how long
he spent there- but that's where Mingo got some education. [There
were probably *real* Cherokee of that era who went to Oxford--
There were certainly *real* Native Americans that went to England
for school.]

Ed Ames, who played Mingo was from Massachusetts- He faked the
accent better than the skin color.

Jim

I thought he played Tonto in The Lone Ranger but that was Jay
Silverheels / Harold J. Smith who was a real Indian. Ames was
Jewish and child of Ukrainian immigrants. Of course Mel Brooks
made fun of the fact that a lot of Jewish actors played American
Indians in cowboy movies during a scene in Blazing Saddles. ^_^

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jYVtGqnjrgs

TDD

The real indians had more sense.

Harry, you must be suffering from H.I.S.I., pronounced "hissy". It
stands for (H)umor (I)rony (S)arcasm (I)mpairment. People with that
particular mental disease are said to have H.I.S.I. fits and often put
on a big display of pseudo-intellectualism about the subject at hand
when they fail to see the humor or bizarreness of statements made by
someone who is attempting to pull their leg. It's also called The Mr.
Data response in some circles. ^_^

TDD

I think it's pretty humourous that Tonto means idiot in Spanish. Was
that intentional or not?


That is funny and I remember an interview with one of the
writer/creators of the 1960's Batman TV series where the
writers were using horrible curse words in many foreign
languages as names for the villains. The censors caught on
and the script had to be run by them first. One name for a
villain which meant nothing was rejected by the censors so
the writers changed it to a nasty foreign curse word and the
script was approved. ^_^

TDD

"The Daring Dufas" wrote in message
...
On 12/31/2012 3:07 AM, harry wrote:
On Dec 30, 11:47 pm, "Steve B" wrote:
"The Daring Dufas" wrote



I seem to recall a statistic about baseball bats being the most
common weapon used to commit blunt force murders. Bat control
laws should be passed into law immediately! ^_^

TDD

Careful, or the flying type will be included. I have seen
normally sensible people go crazy when a bat or spider or snake
shows up. They will literally run off a cliff and kill themselves
over a small living creature.


How is it I don't believe that? Unless things are a lot worse in the
USA than I thought.


Harry, you may be suffering from H.I.S.I., pronounced "hissy". It stands
for (H)umor (I)rony (S)arcasm (I)mpairment. People with that particular
mental disease are said to have H.I.S.I. fits and often put on a big
display of pseudo-intellectualism about the subject at hand when they
fail to see the humor or bizarreness of statements made by someone who
is attempting to pull their leg. It's also called The Mr. Data response
in some circles. ^_^

TDD

It is actually a combination of both. I really have seen some people injure
themselves when fleeing from something that could not cause as much injury
to the person as the person caused to themself. In particular, a woman who
went off a 15 foot rock face when a few bats buzzed her.

Steve

On Dec 31 2012, 10:51*am, The Daring Dufas the-daring-du...@stinky-
finger.net wrote:
On 12/31/2012 3:07 AM, harry wrote:





On Dec 30, 11:47 pm, "Steve B" wrote:
"The Daring Dufas" wrote

I seem to recall a statistic about baseball bats being the most
common weapon used to commit blunt force murders. Bat control
laws should be passed into law immediately! ^_^

TDD

Careful, or the flying type will be included. *I have seen
normally sensible people go crazy when a bat or spider or snake
shows up. They will literally run off a cliff and kill themselves
over a small living creature.

How is it I don't believe that? Unless things are a lot worse in the
USA than I thought.

Harry, you may be suffering from H.I.S.I., pronounced "hissy". It stands
for (H)umor (I)rony (S)arcasm (I)mpairment. People with that particular
mental disease are said to have H.I.S.I. fits and often put on a big
display of pseudo-intellectualism about the subject at hand when they
fail to see the humor or bizarreness of statements made by someone who
is attempting to pull their leg. It's also called The Mr. Data response
in some circles. ^_^

TDD- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I think that is the least of the mental problems harry is suffering
from.

"Ashton Crusher" wrote in message
news
On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 17:28:19 -0600, " Attila Iskander"
wrote:


"Doug" wrote in message
. ..
On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 14:17:51 -0600, " Attila Iskander"
wrote:


"Doug" wrote in message
m...
On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 06:59:26 -0800 (PST), "
wrote:

Let's apply that logic. We have a new experimental drug for
cancer. Many studies have been done. Some show the drug
increased the 5 year survival rate. An equal number say the
drug decreased the 5 year survival rate. So, the FDA should
approve the drug, put it on the market, because, as you say
"taking no action is not the solution".

You really are quite the village idiot.


No you are. Guns are not drugs.

Really ?
At least you figured that much out
So let's try it again

STUDIES show that gun-control has NO EFFECT because the results are
INCONCLUSIVE

No not ineffective, just INCONCLUSIVE. See my earlier reference to
the CDC.

If you spend money and effort for 30+ years and yet get NO POSITIVE
DEMONSTRATABLE RESULTS, only a fool would not consider that a failure and
argue to keep doing the same all over again.
Are you a fool ??


I'm beginning to think he's a highly placed official in the War on
Drugs.


He'd be a great recruit for the war on intelligence.

"Dean Hoffman" " wrote in message
...
On 12/24/12 5:08 PM, z wrote:
On Mon, 24 Dec 2012 14:50:42 -0800, Oren wrote:

On Mon, 24 Dec 2012 06:55:44 -0500, Kurt Ullman
wrote:

(Never have had any kind of answer of why the 2nd has to be limited in
such a manner but the 1st (for example) doesn't.


Politics

Democrats started gun control.

The first is next.


Isn't the First Amendment getting hammered in our institutions of
"higher learning"?

Not just
It goes all the way down to kindergarten too..

"Doug" wrote in message
...


I can't speak for a true "anti" gunner but speaking for myself, I just
want better limitations on the use of guns with grandfathered rights.
I don't feel people with guns have the rights to ANY guns in order to
protect themselves. Maybe we need to scrap all the gun laws and
start over ???

Maybe gun-controllers need to scrap their paranoid fears and get medical
help
And maybe they like you, need to stop using terms like "ANY guns", and
instead educate yourself on what is covered by the 2nd Amendment (and NO,
it's not nuclear bombs, aircraft carriers, and other such.)
The 2nd Amendment actually gives you a framework defining which guns are the
most protected.
They are those that would be standard issue to a soldier, were the militia
called up and issued military arms to serve.
The other part covers anything that an individual would deem appropriate for
defense of self, others and property, against BOTH criminals, and government
goons intent on abrogating your rights. Right there, you also have a
definition that you have a right to ANY and ALL the weapons that a
government on the road to tyranny would use against you. (Waco, Ruby Ridge,
Fast and Furious, anyone ?).


Today that would mean any or a combination of, a select fire rifle, a
shotgun, a long-range sniper rifle, a squad automatic rifle, and a handgun.

"Doug" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 25 Dec 2012 21:23:57 -0700, Ashton Crusher
wrote:

On Mon, 24 Dec 2012 06:47:24 -0600, Doug
wrote:

On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 23:50:43 -0700, Ashton Crusher
wrote:

On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 19:33:00 -0500, Arms and the Man
wrote:

KR Williams ) wrote:

I think armed guards (professionals) will be better at protecting
the students.

Possible but an incredibly expensive solution.

I'm not saying that armed teachers can't protect students but I
see potential problems with this idea.

What problems? Teachers are citizens, too.

You are incapable of understanding human-factors, ergonomics and
probabilities.

Think of the thousands of hours, hundreds of thousands of hours per
week
that teachers are in classrooms, interacting with students.

Now imagine that some fraction (some HIGH fraction according to the
wishes of some people) of those teachers bring guns into the classroom.

Now imagine what can happen because people are people and kids are
kids.

Imagine what can happen when guns fall out of a holsters or waistbands.

Imagine what can happen when guns are absent-mindedly left somewhere -
in a lunch room or washroom or a desk.

Imagine what can happen when a gun is grabbed by a student.

Imagine what can happen when a chalk-board eraser falls to the ground
or
a delinquent in the playground fires a pellet gun or throws a rock at
the window and the teacher mistakes that for a gun-shot - and reaches
for their gun and fumbles and the gun is discharged.

Imagine what can happen when a teacher is stressed out and at the end
of
their rope in a classroom full of noisy, bratty kids.

I know that you, KR Williams, lives in an alternate universe where
nothing ever goes wrong, but think a moment about this universe and how
real people act and function.

What a nice country to live in.

Everyone armed - and on edge.


Those are all the same tired old arguments the anti-gunners trot out
every time an effort was mounted to allow citizens the right to carry
weapons. Eventually many states allowed it anyway. And guess what..
NONE of those ridiculous "what ifs" happens. To hear you anti gunners
tell it, every person in the world is just a hairs width away from
going insane and killing everyone within a 50 mile radius. What you
need to realize is that every day you are out and about you
undoubtedly are within shooting distance of someone who's not a
criminal carrying a gun and guess what, nothing happens. You want to
disarm 350 million people because of the possibly of an average of
perhaps one person out of those 350 million people might go crazy and
start a mass shooting. It's completely irrational to think as you do.
You have far more chance of being struck by lightening yet I bet you
don't have lightening rods on your house and I bet you go out in the
rain anyway if you have a desire to.


I can't speak for a true "anti" gunner but speaking for myself, I just
want better limitations on the use of guns with grandfathered rights.
I don't feel people with guns have the rights to ANY guns in order to
protect themselves. Maybe we need to scrap all the gun laws and
start over ???

Maybe we should just follow what the second amendment says, ".. the
right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". And if you don't
like that try to get the second amendment changed. That's how things
are supposed to be done, not by just ignoring the clearly delineated
rights we have because some people don't want us to have those rights.


Ok but where does it say "ANY" arms in the constitution?


It doesn't, you idiot
So stop trying to bring up that strawman.

"Doug" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 29 Dec 2012 03:45:29 +0000 (UTC), Doug Miller
wrote:

Doug wrote in
m:

Ok but where does it say "ANY" arms in the constitution?

It doesn't need to. It says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms
shall not be
infringed." Any and all arms are implicitly included in that phrasing,
because anything less
than that is inherently an infringement.

You do know the courts have upheld the ban on machine guns sales? The
courts do not take the words literally.


Did they ??
When was that ??
Feel free to cite those cases

And then turn it around and review those cases in the light of the Heller
and Macdonald decisions which are MAJOR game-changers..


They recognize the time in which the amendment was written
and take that into account when interpreting the words.

Maybe in your fantasies
I know of no such cases
You had better cite them for us.

"Doug" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 29 Dec 2012 01:38:17 -0500, wrote:

On Fri, 28 Dec 2012 23:41:52 -0600, Doug
wrote:

You do know the courts have upheld the ban on machine guns sales?

Why do you think that is true?
You just need a $200 tax stamp.

Google up BATF Form 4


Interesting since that's what CNN Jeff Toubin said a few days ago.
He's a lawyer on their network.


BWAHAHAHAHAHA !
Wow !

And so a lawyer, speaking on a network with a known history of gun-control
is a reliable source to you ?

You should memorize the following
"Trust BUT VERIFY !"
And actually do that on ANYTHING you hear on one of the MSM.
And do NOT make reference to it UNTIL AFTER you have done a thorough
verification..

Trust me, it will avoid you coming across as an ignoramus

wrote in message
...
On Sat, 29 Dec 2012 13:42:41 +0000 (UTC), Doug Miller
wrote:

No I don't because that's not what CNN lawyer Jeff Toubin (sp?) said a
few days ago. Care to elaborate?

I guess part of your problem is believing what you hear on CNN...

It's not illegal to own a machine gun in the U.S. Ownership is restricted,
and heavily taxed,
but it's perfectly legal. Maybe you should do a bit of research on that...

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=is+it+legal+to+...+gun+in+the+us

"Heavily taxed" if you think $200 is a lot of money. You pay more tax
on that for a used car in most states. The only trick is having a
clear criminal record and having a local sheriff who thinks it is OK.

Remember that in 1934, $200 was a lot of money
Today according to:
http://www.usinflationcalculator.com/
that would be about $3436.

Now granted with the 1968 FOPA, machines gun prices are highly inflated
But you could build yourself easily for less than $500.
So that represents a +700% tax.
Which in quite egregious and would quite likely NOT survive a challenge
using USSC "Star Tribune vs. Commissioner" as a basis for the challenge.

"Doug" wrote in message
news
On Sat, 29 Dec 2012 15:37:16 -0600, "ChairMan"
wrote:

Doug wrote:
On Sat, 29 Dec 2012 07:51:34 -0500, Kurt Ullman

wrote:

In article ,
Doug wrote:

Ok but where does it say "ANY" arms in the constitution?

Constitutions, espeically the American one, work the
other way. IF
they wanted limits, the FF put them in. Since it doesn't
say "all
arms but these..." then, by definition, it means all
arms.

No, not per CNN legal. They basically opposite to you.

CNN???
see what I mean, Dug?
LOL


Maybe read about the Supreme Court case "District of Columbia v.
Heller" . Court clearly does not agree with "ANY".


Now dougie is into spin mode

"The Daring Dufas" wrote in message
...
On 12/24/2012 12:05 AM, Attila Iskander wrote:

"The Daring Dufas" wrote in message
...
On 12/23/2012 7:38 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 13:09:14 -0800, Oren wrote:

On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 14:34:44 -0600, The Daring Dufas
wrote:

Pennsylvania might need to consider banning "high capacity assault
shovels".

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2252172/Woman-charged-threatening-kill-elementary-school-children-bus-stop-shovel.html



I darn near killed a burglar with my bare hands, should we have fist
control laws? O_o

TDD

Can't you register your hands as deadly weapons? And buy insurance on
them?


Most lawyers would advise that a legal holder of a gun would be in
less trouble for shooting someone than a guy who beat someone to
death.


When I catch someone in my place and that miscreant throws a brick at
my face, no jury would convict me of murder for beating the gremlin to
death. ^_^

That sounds like a lot of work.
A couple of bullets to the head is far quicker and more humane.


I haven't owned a gun in years, I wish I hadn't sold my Browning Hi-Power.
I'm in the market for a good 380 pistol now, double tap
to the mouth will stop anything. ^_^


The CZ82-83 are very solid
I have a collection of Makarovs, that can be converted down to .380
But I prefer to stick with the 9mm Makarov round, which is more potent and
can actually be loaded up quite a bit. You just need a heavier recoil spring
is all.

wrote in message
...
On Mon, 24 Dec 2012 11:00:31 -0500, z wrote:

On Mon, 24 Dec 2012 07:42:40 -0600, The Daring Dufas


I haven't owned a gun in years, I wish I hadn't sold my Browning
Hi-Power. I'm in the market for a good 380 pistol now, double tap
to the mouth will stop anything. ^_^

At the last gun show I went to, I bought a Walther PPK (S&W made).
It's a nice pocket gun.

.380 used to be the go to caliber for pocket guns but Kimber has a
real nice 9mm now that is the size of most .380s
It s a bit spendy tho.


The go Kel-tec P or P11

wrote in message
...
On Wed, 26 Dec 2012 12:34:07 -0800, Oren wrote:

On Wed, 26 Dec 2012 10:16:50 -0700, "Steve B"
wrote:

A .380 in the pocket is better than a .380 in the truck.

Love my little KelTec 3AT. Small enough to carry in any pocket, and not
arouse any suspicion whatsoever. It does poke small holes vs. 45 cal,
and
all that nonsense, but just a couple of days ago, a PO was killed by a
.380.
I'll take my chances when I take my wimpy little pistol. And when I want
more confidence, I just put on my .357 on a Safariland paddle. The
muzzle
blast from that one is enough to stop every person in the room, and that
is
360 degrees from direction of muzzle. Kinda like a stun grenade in an
enclosed room. Don't know, I never had the balls to try it in a closed
room. Might blow the glass out.

Steve

I've said before, my .357 "barks over here and bites over yonder."

The nice thing about a .357 is that you can feed it .38 which is a lot
easier on the ears and wallet. The downside of mine is that it's way
too big to conceal (6" barrel), though that's not why I bought it.
Come to think of it, I didn't. My wife bought it for me. ;-)

I have a 2" Colt Lawman MkIII
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...d.php?t=638433
I use .38Special +P defense ammo in it
It's my car gun with a couple of Bianchi strippers

"harry" wrote in message
...
On Dec 26, 8:34 pm, Oren wrote:
On Wed, 26 Dec 2012 10:16:50 -0700, "Steve B"
wrote:

A .380 in the pocket is better than a .380 in the truck.

Love my little KelTec 3AT. Small enough to carry in any pocket, and not
arouse any suspicion whatsoever. It does poke small holes vs. 45 cal, and
all that nonsense, but just a couple of days ago, a PO was killed by a
.380.
I'll take my chances when I take my wimpy little pistol. And when I want
more confidence, I just put on my .357 on a Safariland paddle. The muzzle
blast from that one is enough to stop every person in the room, and that
is
360 degrees from direction of muzzle. Kinda like a stun grenade in an
enclosed room. Don't know, I never had the balls to try it in a closed
room. Might blow the glass out.

#
# Uneducated, as I thought.
#360 degrees takes you right back to where you were dopey.
#
# I assume you meant 180?

No you intellectual pebble.
He meant that ANYONE in a CIRCLE around him (hence the 360) would be
affected.

"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message
...
In article , z
wrote:

On Mon, 24 Dec 2012 06:51:19 -0500, Kurt Ullman
wrote:

In article , z
wrote:



Not really if the schedules are well managed.

$100-$200K per school times how many schools in the US?

That is awful expensive for an armed guard.

You're going to need at least two (vacations, sick time, etc.) and
figure an employee costs about 2x direct compensation, particularly a
school employee.

FWIW, you would not need two per school. One full time and one rover
for every X number of schools to cover the above.

You assume one is sufficient. ...and if he's shot? There are dozens
of teachers every school.

I am not assuming anything. You made the statement that you are going
to need at least two per school to cover the school and the vacations,
sick time, etc., I was merely pointing out that you could do one and a
rover (or for that matter two with rovers, or three or whatever). You
don't need another FTE solely to cover the ects.


How many schools have teachers who are gun-owners
How many schools have teachers with carry permits
How many of those schools could have teachers armed while on the job ?

How many schools have adult parents who are gun-owners
How many schools have adult parents with carry permits
How many schools would be able to have such parents volunteer to spend some
time in school just hanging out while armed ?

If they gave me a desk with internet access, I would do most of my work in
that building instead of home. Don't even need a phone line since I would
have my cell.

I'm sure that I'm not the only parent willing and able to spend some time in
my kids' schools
Hell, I used to schedule my time so that I could be a chaperone on all their
field trips, even those that took them out of town for a week.
And I NEVER went naked.

"harry" wrote in message
...
On Dec 24, 4:35 pm, wrote:
On Mon, 24 Dec 2012 00:05:05 -0800 (PST), harry

wrote:
After Newtown, another 20 kids were killed in cars by the following
Tuesday but I don't see anyone banning cars. It didn't even make the
news

You don't see because you are stupid.

The ones killed in cars was by accident.
Newtown was deliberate.

Are the kids any less dead?
#
# And which is the most culpable?
#

Do you think the dead kids care ??
I'm willing to be that they all would have preferred to stay alive.

"Doug" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 24 Dec 2012 00:01:08 -0600, " Attila Iskander"
wrote:


"Doug" wrote in message
. ..
On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 20:26:44 -0500, z wrote:

On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 16:43:52 -0800, Oren wrote:

On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 19:17:08 -0500, z wrote:

I think teachers should just teach.

That's a unique idea. Maybe they should try it.


School board members should be taught that Texas has a border with
Mexico.

I think armed guards (professionals) will be better at protecting the
students.

Possible but an incredibly expensive solution.

Not really if the schedules are well managed.

$100-$200K per school times how many schools in the US?

I'm not saying that armed teachers can't protect students but I see
potential
problems with this idea.

What problems? Teachers are citizens, too.

... and have a right to carry

Exactly the point. It costs nothing to allow them to do what they
have the right to do without doing anything.


Having rights doesn't supersede common sense or making better use of
weapons. No doubt teachers could be trained but I think the problems
and logistics of teachers having guns on the job is complex

1) There are ALREADY many teachers who are experienced shooters
2) There are ALREADY many teachers who have carry permits
3) There are NO "problems and logistics" to allow teachers, school
staff,
volunteers and parents to be armed in schools
4) It only takes a rule change by the school board that says "we
encourage our staff and parents" to get their carry permits and help keep
the schools their children attend safer

Problem solved

and it would be simpler to use armed guards who could be better
qualified
than using teachers.

1) In actual fact it would be more complex and FAR MORE expensive.

2) The teachers know both staff and most students at their schools
They would have no problems identifying either a shooter or
stranger
at the school

3) As to better qualified, that is highly doubtfull

In worst case scenario, better to replace a dead
guard than a dead teacher.


At Red Lake (Mn) High school, they had to replace a dead guard, (who sadly
proved useless) AND a number of teacher and students

Your arguments fails on so many counts, it's not even funny.





You don't make sense but I'm not going to waste time and talk to a
wall any longer.

What you are really saying dougie, is that I debunked ALL of your arguments
and showed you for an ignorant fool.
So instead of facing the truth, you run away..
Guess who the real "wall" is ?
(Hint: It's NOT me ! )

"Doug" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 23:37:10 -0600, " Attila Iskander"
wrote:


"Doug" wrote in message
. ..



I think teachers should just teach. I think armed guards
(professionals) will be better at protecting the students. I'm not
saying that armed teachers can't protect students but I see potential
problems with this idea.

Go ahead and list them


If you can't figure out what they are, I give up. I honestly thought
it was intuitive.


What you are really saying is that you can NOT list them to support your
argument
In an intelligent debate, the debaters LIST their arguments instead of
expecting others to "intuit" them

But considering your past performance and all the silly things you assumed
to be true, yet were patently false, that comes as NO surprise
YOU definitely are one of those that Ronald Reagan meant in:
"It's not that our friends on the Left are ignorant..
It's just that so much of what they know is wrong.."

"Doug" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 24 Dec 2012 19:52:30 -0500, z wrote:

On Mon, 24 Dec 2012 17:44:28 -0600, Doug
wrote:

On Mon, 24 Dec 2012 17:09:04 -0500, z wrote:

On Mon, 24 Dec 2012 10:57:58 -0600, Doug
wrote:

On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 23:37:10 -0600, " Attila Iskander"
wrote:


"Doug" wrote in message
news:at6fd81p7bjm34afm92siidneahpg2nrig@4ax. com...



I think teachers should just teach. I think armed guards
(professionals) will be better at protecting the students. I'm not
saying that armed teachers can't protect students but I see
potential
problems with this idea.

Go ahead and list them


If you can't figure out what they are, I give up.


You've never stated them. Go ahead. We all waiting.

I honestly thought it was intuitive.

You haven't honestly had a thought in your life.


Whatever....

Then we're all in agreement; you're an idiot. That's a good way to
end the discussion, though it would have been better if you'd learned
*something*.

I did. I could say more but outa respect for some today, I won't.

No dougie, you learned nothing
And that's because you are UNABLE to face the fact that you were wrong and
ignorant
So instead of actually turning on your brain and trying to use it, you just
give up and run away.
A coward's choice.

wrote in message
...
On Fri, 28 Dec 2012 21:40:43 -0600, Doug
wrote:

On Tue, 25 Dec 2012 15:38:52 -0500, z wrote:

On Tue, 25 Dec 2012 07:18:18 -0600, Doug
wrote:

On Mon, 24 Dec 2012 19:52:30 -0500, z wrote:

On Mon, 24 Dec 2012 17:44:28 -0600, Doug
wrote:

On Mon, 24 Dec 2012 17:09:04 -0500, z wrote:

On Mon, 24 Dec 2012 10:57:58 -0600, Doug
wrote:

On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 23:37:10 -0600, " Attila Iskander"
wrote:


"Doug" wrote in message
news:at6fd81p7bjm34afm92siidneahpg2nrig@4 ax.com...



I think teachers should just teach. I think armed guards
(professionals) will be better at protecting the students. I'm
not
saying that armed teachers can't protect students but I see
potential
problems with this idea.

Go ahead and list them


If you can't figure out what they are, I give up.


You've never stated them. Go ahead. We all waiting.

I honestly thought it was intuitive.

You haven't honestly had a thought in your life.


Whatever....

Then we're all in agreement; you're an idiot. That's a good way to
end the discussion, though it would have been better if you'd learned
*something*.

I did. I could say more but outa respect for some today, I won't.

What a sniveling little worm.

Go pound salt

No thanks. You're *much* more fun.

Too bad, he's far less intelligent

"Doug" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 17:26:17 -0600, " Attila Iskander"
wrote:


"Doug" wrote in message
. ..
On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 14:14:28 -0600, " Attila Iskander"
wrote:


"Doug" wrote in message
m...
On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 05:55:19 -0800 (PST), "
wrote:


Do you realize that we did ban "assault weapons" and high
capacity magazines for a decade, starting in 1994. Study after
study done by various organizations, including the CDC, which
clearly has no pro-gun agenda, concluded it made no difference
in crime rates, murder rates, etc.


Oh by the way, that's not what the CDC said. If you go to their
website...http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5214a2.htm
they say ....
"Evidence was INSUFFICIENT to determine the effectiveness of any of
these laws for the following reasons." They explain this as
depending on which study you go by, some say it went higher and other
studies say it went lower.


DOH !
1) The CDC has a history of being pro gun-control
2) The CC has had it's knuckles rapped by Congress because they got
caught
at it
3) They studied more than 30 years of studies, and all they could come
up
with is that ?

HELLO ?

How long do you want to study something before you go..
Hmmm
No evidence to support this theory after 30 years of studies
Maybe it's time to come up with a different theory
This is not "global warming" with a planet that operates by millenia
This is simple social issues that operate a MUCH, MUCH SHORTER scale
Try 5-10 years to have meaninfull data

Therefore, since it's inconclusive, I'd say to do it because taking no
action is NOT the solution.

Fine
But since it's INCONCLUSIVE after 30 years, then intelligent people are
NOT
going to go back and do the same old, same old that has proven
inconclusive
after all this time
SMART people are going to try something COMPLETELY DIFFERENT.

How about trying to do what the Israeli did to protect their schools
after
the palestinian terrorists decided to target their schools
They have nearly 40 years of NO MORE attacks on schools, while we with
our
"Gun Free Zones" have 30+ years of school attacks being repeated over
and
over...

HELLO ??




I have no problem with trying DIFFERENT so we may agree on that point
but I bet we'll disagree after that.

Then we can only hope that you do continue your "research" on not only the
2nd Amendment, but other subjects as well, so that you can come back and
argue more out of knowledge than ignorance.


I think you guys are really scared of research.

Funny how we are the ones that pounded you into the ground with facts, while
you just spouted ignorance and stupid presumptions
We've done our research
You just claimed to have done some, that proved so superficial that it was
pathetic.

"Doug" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 24 Dec 2012 17:11:14 -0500, z wrote:

On Mon, 24 Dec 2012 11:02:17 -0600, Doug
wrote:

On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 17:26:17 -0600, " Attila Iskander"
wrote:


"Doug" wrote in message
m...
On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 14:14:28 -0600, " Attila Iskander"
wrote:


"Doug" wrote in message
news:f26ed8th1h306r0mk8pp4hdl68h6hjeofq@4ax. com...
On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 05:55:19 -0800 (PST), "
wrote:


Do you realize that we did ban "assault weapons" and high
capacity magazines for a decade, starting in 1994. Study after
study done by various organizations, including the CDC, which
clearly has no pro-gun agenda, concluded it made no difference
in crime rates, murder rates, etc.


Oh by the way, that's not what the CDC said. If you go to their
website...http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5214a2.htm
they say ....
"Evidence was INSUFFICIENT to determine the effectiveness of any
of
these laws for the following reasons." They explain this as
depending on which study you go by, some say it went higher and
other
studies say it went lower.


DOH !
1) The CDC has a history of being pro gun-control
2) The CC has had it's knuckles rapped by Congress because they got
caught
at it
3) They studied more than 30 years of studies, and all they could come
up
with is that ?

HELLO ?

How long do you want to study something before you go..
Hmmm
No evidence to support this theory after 30 years of studies
Maybe it's time to come up with a different theory
This is not "global warming" with a planet that operates by millenia
This is simple social issues that operate a MUCH, MUCH SHORTER scale
Try 5-10 years to have meaninfull data

Therefore, since it's inconclusive, I'd say to do it because taking
no
action is NOT the solution.

Fine
But since it's INCONCLUSIVE after 30 years, then intelligent people
are
NOT
going to go back and do the same old, same old that has proven
inconclusive
after all this time
SMART people are going to try something COMPLETELY DIFFERENT.

How about trying to do what the Israeli did to protect their schools
after
the palestinian terrorists decided to target their schools
They have nearly 40 years of NO MORE attacks on schools, while we with
our
"Gun Free Zones" have 30+ years of school attacks being repeated over
and
over...

HELLO ??




I have no problem with trying DIFFERENT so we may agree on that point
but I bet we'll disagree after that.

Then we can only hope that you do continue your "research" on not only
the
2nd Amendment, but other subjects as well, so that you can come back and
argue more out of knowledge than ignorance.


I think you guys are really scared of research.

Good God, you're funny. You clearly have done none, yet claim
everyone else, including SCotUS is wrong. Your ignorance is simply
unbelievable.


Study the CDC site. Maybe you'll learn something for a change.

Which part, dougie ??
You're not even able to support ANY of your claims with SPECIFIC data that
supports them
Instead you're reduced to stupid claims of "Study the CDC site".
The CDC site covers a LOT of DISPARATE material.

"Doug" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 24 Dec 2012 21:22:09 -0500, Wes Groleau
wrote:

On 12-24-2012 12:02, Doug wrote:
I think you guys are really scared of research.

Well, then show some and we'll run away screaming
leaving you to have the last word.


Ok, see the CDC web site.

Clearly something you have NEVER done, since you can't even point us to
something specific.
Take your own advice, loser
Go pound sand.

At least you'll be in company of your intellectual equals

"Oren" wrote in message
news
On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 23:37:10 -0600, " Attila Iskander"
wrote:


"Doug" wrote in message
. ..



I think teachers should just teach. I think armed guards
(professionals) will be better at protecting the students. I'm not
saying that armed teachers can't protect students but I see potential
problems with this idea.

Go ahead and list them

Touche'

Did you notice how dougie consistently fails to response when asked to list
anything to support his claims
He'll either disappear in the woodwork, or claim
"don't need to list it, it's intuitive and you should know it.."
"go to the CDC site.."

BUT NEVER a list of reasons or arguments to support his "position".

"Oren" wrote in message
news
On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 23:52:28 -0600, " Attila Iskander"
wrote:

What problems? Teachers are citizens, too.

... and have a right to carry

NOT when their employers, the school boards make a rule that they can NOT
carry.

Simple. The state can pass a preemption law, NOT grandfather any
local, city or county to have gun laws. Only the state legislature can
make the laws.

That will get around the school boards. There!

I think that what we need now are challenges to State laws using Heller and
MacDonald to question the constitutionality of the state laws.

On Jan 1, 11:04*am, " Attila Iskander"
wrote:
"Doug" wrote in message

...





On Tue, 25 Dec 2012 21:23:57 -0700, Ashton Crusher
wrote:

On Mon, 24 Dec 2012 06:47:24 -0600, Doug *
wrote:

On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 23:50:43 -0700, Ashton Crusher
wrote:

On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 19:33:00 -0500, Arms and the Man
wrote:

KR Williams ) wrote:

I think armed guards (professionals) will be better at protecting
the students.

Possible but an incredibly expensive solution.

I'm not saying that armed teachers can't protect students but I
see potential problems with this idea.

What problems? *Teachers are citizens, too.

You are incapable of understanding human-factors, ergonomics and
probabilities.

Think of the thousands of hours, hundreds of thousands of hours per
week
that teachers are in classrooms, interacting with students.

Now imagine that some fraction (some HIGH fraction according to the
wishes of some people) of those teachers bring guns into the classroom.

Now imagine what can happen because people are people and kids are
kids.

Imagine what can happen when guns fall out of a holsters or waistbands.

Imagine what can happen when guns are absent-mindedly left somewhere -
in a lunch room or washroom or a desk.

Imagine what can happen when a gun is grabbed by a student.

Imagine what can happen when a chalk-board eraser falls to the ground
or
a delinquent in the playground fires a pellet gun or throws a rock at
the window and the teacher mistakes that for a gun-shot - and reaches
for their gun and fumbles and the gun is discharged.

Imagine what can happen when a teacher is stressed out and at the end
of
their rope in a classroom full of noisy, bratty kids.

I know that you, KR Williams, lives in an alternate universe where
nothing ever goes wrong, but think a moment about this universe and how
real people act and function.

What a nice country to live in.

Everyone armed - and on edge.

Those are all the same tired old arguments the anti-gunners trot out
every time an effort was mounted to allow citizens the right to carry
weapons. *Eventually many states allowed it anyway. *And guess what..
NONE of those ridiculous "what ifs" happens. *To hear you anti gunners
tell it, every person in the world is just a hairs width away from
going insane and killing everyone within a 50 mile radius. *What you
need to realize is that every day you are out and about you
undoubtedly are within shooting distance of someone who's not a
criminal carrying a gun and guess what, nothing happens. *You want to
disarm 350 million people because of the possibly of an average of
perhaps one person out of those 350 million people might go crazy and
start a mass shooting. *It's completely irrational to think as you do.
You have far more chance of being struck by lightening yet I bet you
don't have lightening rods on your house and I bet you go out in the
rain anyway if you have a desire to.

I can't speak for a true "anti" gunner but speaking for myself, I just
want better limitations on the use of guns with grandfathered rights.
I don't feel people with guns have the rights to ANY guns in order to
protect themselves. * Maybe we need to scrap all the gun laws and
start over ???

Maybe we should just follow what the second amendment says, ".. the
right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". *And if you don't
like that try to get the second amendment changed. *That's how things
are supposed to be done, not by just ignoring the clearly delineated
rights we have because some people don't want us to have those rights.

Ok but where does it say "ANY" arms in the constitution?

It doesn't, you idiot
So stop trying to bring up that strawman.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

The constitution doesn't use the word "any" with regard to free speech
either.

"nestork" wrote in message
...

I'm one person who questions the notion that anyone who takes a gun and
kills a whole bunch of people, is, by definition, mentally ill.

The guy that shot up the movie theatre in Aurora, Colorado was a PhD
student for crying out loud. He certainly had enough gray stuff between
his ears, and he knew the difference between right and wrong.


And you're claiming that just because "he's got a lot of gray stuff", the
gray stuff was functionning properly ??
Mental ilness is about the "grey stuff" functions, INDEPENDANT of how much
you may have
And NO, if the grey stuff is NOT working properly, you may NOT know the
difference between right and wrong.



Doing something horrible does not automatically mean that person is
crazy. Perfectly level headed people can decide to throw their life
away if they feel their life is so screwed up that it's not salvagable.
It's a stupid decision, it's desperation, but it's not mental illness.


It the act is "crazy" in comparison to general behavior, then guess what ?
So where did you do your studies in "mental health" ???


So, if the NRA wants the US Government to put together a list of
mentally ill people,


Where did you get the silly notion that
"the NRA wants the US Government to put together a list of mentally ill
people" ?
HELLO ?
Are you crazy ?


what about everyone who thinks their life has been
wasted and that they're a failure.


Stop talking about yourself...


We need to make a list of those
people to make sure they never get their hands on a gun, too.


Go ahead
Don't forget to put your name down first..

On Jan 1, 11:03*am, " Attila Iskander"
wrote:
"Doug" wrote in message

...



I can't speak for a true "anti" gunner but speaking for myself, I just
want better limitations on the use of guns with grandfathered rights.

Like what? Grandfathering murder? It's been illegal for a very
long time to use a gun to murder someone.





I don't feel people with guns have the rights to ANY guns in order to
protect themselves. * Maybe we need to scrap all the gun laws and
start over ???

Maybe gun-controllers need to scrap their paranoid fears and get medical
help
And maybe they like you, need to stop using terms like "ANY guns", and
instead educate yourself on what is covered by the 2nd Amendment (and NO,
it's not nuclear bombs, aircraft carriers, and other such.)
The 2nd Amendment actually gives you a framework defining which guns are the
most protected.
They are those that would be standard issue to a soldier, were the militia
called up and issued military arms to serve.
The other part covers anything that an individual would deem appropriate for
defense of self, others and property, against BOTH criminals, and government
goons intent on abrogating your rights. Right there, you also have a
definition that you have a right to ANY and ALL the weapons that a
government on the road to tyranny would use against you. (Waco, Ruby Ridge,
Fast and Furious, anyone ?).

Today that would mean any or a combination of, a select fire rifle, a
shotgun, a long-range sniper rifle, a squad automatic rifle, and a handgun.