Metalworking (rec.crafts.metalworking) Discuss various aspects of working with metal, such as machining, welding, metal joining, screwing, casting, hardening/tempering, blacksmithing/forging, spinning and hammer work, sheet metal work.

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #11   Report Post  
Old August 30th 09, 02:35 PM posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
jj jj is offline
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by DIYBanter: Jan 2008
Posts: 17
Default Bring a gun and have some fun in LV

Don Foreman wrote:
Wearing a slung assault rifle to a political rally is clearly
irresponsible abuse of 2d amendment rights. Since there is no need
for defense it is obviously intended to intimidate. Intimidation of
peaceful citizens is exactly contrary to the clear intent of the 2d
amendment.


I definitely agree Don "Red Asshat That 70s Show" Foreman and I also
assume if one does this when the Secret Service is there to cover the
POTUS, then thee shall have at least a couple of agents assigned as
"Job 1." AKA "nail this guy instantly upon an untoward twitch" which
evokes that classic Miami Vice episode in the swamp when Crocket drops
the baddy holding a hostage.

  #12   Report Post  
Old August 30th 09, 03:16 PM posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by DIYBanter: Jul 2007
Posts: 4,564
Default Bring a gun and have some fun in LV

Don Foreman wrote:

Wearing a slung assault rifle to a political rally is clearly
irresponsible abuse of 2d amendment rights. Since there is no need
for defense it is obviously intended to intimidate. Intimidation of
peaceful citizens is exactly contrary to the clear intent of the 2d
amendment.


I wonder if as in a political tactic, it that was the brightest trick in the book. The
man had it slung though and wasn't waving it around and from what I can tell was being
peaceful.


The carrying empty holsters protest such as http://concealedcampus.org/ put on seemed a
bit more effective w/o alarming the hoplophobes.

Wes



--
"Additionally as a security officer, I carry a gun to protect
government officials but my life isn't worth protecting at home
in their eyes." Dick Anthony Heller
  #13   Report Post  
Old August 30th 09, 03:18 PM posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by DIYBanter: Nov 2006
Posts: 12,540
Default Bring a gun and have some fun in LV


"Don Foreman" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 29 Aug 2009 17:28:20 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


wrote in message
...
On Aug 29, 4:12 pm, "Ed Huntress" wrote:

But the city figures are still unreliable for reasons that aren't worth
going into here. The one category of crime that is, and always has been,
extremely accurate is the murder rate. You can't easily hide murders. So
if
you want to be fussy about it, start with that.

But the criticism of M-Q really should be directed at the FBI and at the
local reporting agencies for UCR. M-Q just reports what those agencies
report -- of course it's a "rehash of readily available statistics."
That's
what CQ Press does -- report summaries of official statistics.

Overall, their reports are generally accurate. When you have a murder
rate
of 9.0/100k, like Nevada, and compare it with some state that has a rate
of
8.9, the comparisons are speculative. But when it's 9.0 (Nevada) versus
4.9
(New Jersey), or 1.2 or whatever (Hawaii), those UCR errors are not a
factor.

The criticism about relative city sizes and demographics is something
for
the social scientists to worry about. This is just a state ranking. If
you
live in Nevada, you're roughly twice as likely to be murdered than you
are
if you live in NJ -- and the city issues and demographics actually work
against Nevada in the comparison. Those are just the facts, not
sociological
theorizing.

--
Ed Huntress


Very confusing to me. The city figures are unreliable. The state
figures are compiled from the city figures, but somehow are more
reliable?


No, they aren't just cities. They're compiled from every reporting
jurisdiction.

The bigger cities have been more resistant to using the uniform reporting
procedures, although that's more of an issue in regard to things like
domestic crimes, and to the definitions for clearing crimes. They're still
not 100% compliant.

However, that's not the big issue with the UCR. It isn't the accuracy of
the
numbers that's questioned; it's the conclusions. The big issue is the
mistake of drawing simple conclusions from complex data.

Here's a simplified explanation by the FBI:

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/word.htm


I agree the murder rates ought to be more reliable than say armed
robbery rates. But some murders might get plea bargained to
manslaughter. The number probably varies from state to state.


The data is based on crime incidences known to police, not on convictions.

I knew a guy that robbed a gas station with a shotgun, but was
persuaded to turn himself in. I forget what he was convicted of, but
it was something much less than armed robbery. Se he probably did not
raise the violent crime rate.


Yeah, he did, if the original crime was reported as an armed robbery.

At any rate there is probably no halo effect. In general criminal do
not think they are going to get caught. If they did they would not
commit crimes. In the same way, I do not think that they think about
the possibility that a intended victim might be armed.


The only place it seems to have an effect is in house robberies. The
percentage of homes in the US in which there is a gun is very high;
convicted criminals reported some fear of being shot when they were
interviewed in a DOJ study a decade or more ago.

But that doesn't seem to apply to concealed carry at all. The incidence of
concealed carry is so extremely low (typically around 1% of adults in
shall-issue states; even the total CCW licensing usually is around 2%)
that
it's not likely to figure into their judgments. And the data seems to
support that idea.

I also think that there may be a correlation between the number of
violent crimes and the number of CCW permits. But it is more likely
that a high rate of violent crimes causes an increase in CCW permits.


Very possible. You'd have to spend a lot of time with the data to be sure.

If New Jersey had a high rate of violent crime, the government would
be under a lot of pressure to issue more CCW permits.


I don't know about that. In the late '80s and early '90s, when violent
crime
rates were going through the roof, the response of states like NJ and NY
was
to *tighten* restrictions on gun ownership.


This even though gun ownership does not require nor imply CCW. No CCW
is necessary to defend one's domocile with a firearm.

A variable that seldom or never seems to be addressed is the notion of
rights being associated with responsibility. In days gone by, chores
and responsibilities were part and parcel of growing up. The notion
of "citizenship" was more about responsibilities than rights. We
were graded on citizenship on our report cards. Those grades were
based on our behaviour and contribution, certainly not on our
rhetoric or demands.

Irresponsible abuses of rights by some are bound to motivate others to
limit those rights if they can. I differentiate irresponsible from
disagreeable here. Examples: spewing filth and namecalling, while
certainly a first amendment right, is irresponsible and
non-contributive. Expression of differing thoughtful opinions that
may be disagreeable is responsible and indeed the essence of
democracy.

Wearing a slung assault rifle to a political rally is clearly
irresponsible abuse of 2d amendment rights. Since there is no need
for defense it is obviously intended to intimidate. Intimidation of
peaceful citizens is exactly contrary to the clear intent of the 2d
amendment.


I definitely agree with that, and I further think it reflects the way that
"conservatism" has split in recent years. On one side are the
traditionalists, both the intellectual types (Buckley, Oakeshott, Burke,
etc.) and the empirical types (Midwestern farmers and others who live a
traditionally defined social life). On the other are the libertarians,
neo-anarchists, and minarchists who see their only their "rights" in the
abstract, with no real sense of social responsibility.

They don't really care if the Arizona whack-job with the AR intended to
intimidate anyone. In fact, they take delight in the idea that he did,
although their claim would be that it wasn't his responsibility to consider
others' reactions.

--
Ed Huntress


  #14   Report Post  
Old August 30th 09, 03:23 PM posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by DIYBanter: Nov 2006
Posts: 12,540
Default Bring a gun and have some fun in LV


"Wes" wrote in message
...
Don Foreman wrote:

Wearing a slung assault rifle to a political rally is clearly
irresponsible abuse of 2d amendment rights. Since there is no need
for defense it is obviously intended to intimidate. Intimidation of
peaceful citizens is exactly contrary to the clear intent of the 2d
amendment.


I wonder if as in a political tactic, it that was the brightest trick in
the book. The
man had it slung though and wasn't waving it around and from what I can
tell was being
peaceful.


Carrying a slung rifle in a crowd of people is not peaceful under any
circumstances. Its only functional purpose in that situation is to kill.
Since it's highly unlikely it will be used to kill, the only remaining
purpose is an affective one: to intimidate.

That wasn't about "rights." It was about threats.



The carrying empty holsters protest such as http://concealedcampus.org/
put on seemed a
bit more effective w/o alarming the hoplophobes.

Wes


"Effective" at doing what?

--
Ed Huntress


  #15   Report Post  
Old August 30th 09, 08:52 PM posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by DIYBanter: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,502
Default Bring a gun and have some fun in LV

On Sun, 30 Aug 2009 00:39:35 -0500, Don Foreman
wrote:


Wearing a slung assault rifle to a political rally is clearly
irresponsible abuse of 2d amendment rights. Since there is no need
for defense it is obviously intended to intimidate. Intimidation of
peaceful citizens is exactly contrary to the clear intent of the 2d
amendment.

blink blink....intimidation of peaceful citizens?

Oh..you mean the brainwashed Useful Idiots who consider a rifle ,
whether its incased in 5 square feet of concrete, or slung over ones
shoulder to be "intimidating"?

Then you have no problem with a Conservative being forced to keep his
mouth shut because it "intimidates" far leftist fringe kooks when he
opens it and simply says something truthful?

Thanks Don.

Gunner

Whenever a Liberal utters the term "Common Sense approach"....grab your
wallet, your ass, and your guns because the sombitch is about to do
something damned nasty to all three of them.


  #16   Report Post  
Old August 30th 09, 10:18 PM posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by DIYBanter: Jul 2006
Posts: 2,446
Default Bring a gun and have some fun in LV

Don Foreman wrote:
...

A variable that seldom or never seems to be addressed is the notion of
rights being associated with responsibility. ...

Irresponsible abuses of rights by some are bound to motivate others to
limit those rights if they can. ...

Wearing a slung assault rifle to a political rally is clearly
irresponsible abuse of 2d amendment rights. ...


Well put, as could be expected from you. But as reasonable as it is,
you can still expect the yahoos to get their shorts in knots over it sigh.

Bob
  #17   Report Post  
Old August 30th 09, 11:42 PM posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by DIYBanter: Jul 2007
Posts: 4,564
Default Bring a gun and have some fun in LV

"Ed Huntress" wrote:

Carrying a slung rifle in a crowd of people is not peaceful under any
circumstances. Its only functional purpose in that situation is to kill.
Since it's highly unlikely it will be used to kill, the only remaining
purpose is an affective one: to intimidate.

That wasn't about "rights." It was about threats.


This was Arizona, it wasn't New Jersey. If it had been viewed by those in power as a
threat, the guy would have been hauled away.

He had legal right to do that in the state he was in.

I think this is a matter of perception. For example in 1996 or so, my brother and I were
breakfasting in a diner in Lajita's, TX. We had to be the only people not carrying arms
in the diner. I felt very safe though a bit under dressed.

Might as well tell you the rest of the story, we were bicycle touring south west Texas,
wearing the typical cycling jersey and lycra shorts. I asked my brother if he felt
underdressed and he looked quizzically at me since were dressed pretty normal for what we
were doing. He asked what did I mean and I pointed out that we seemed to be the only ones
not carrying. My brother, who is not into guns, chuckled.





The carrying empty holsters protest such as http://concealedcampus.org/
put on seemed a
bit more effective w/o alarming the hoplophobes.

Wes


"Effective" at doing what?


In the case of Virginia Tech and other campuses in states where CCW is legal, many of the
campuses prohibit carrying. The empty holsters protest was a way of making their point.

Wes
  #18   Report Post  
Old August 31st 09, 12:44 AM posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by DIYBanter: Nov 2006
Posts: 12,540
Default Bring a gun and have some fun in LV


"Wes" wrote in message
...
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

Carrying a slung rifle in a crowd of people is not peaceful under any
circumstances. Its only functional purpose in that situation is to kill.
Since it's highly unlikely it will be used to kill, the only remaining
purpose is an affective one: to intimidate.

That wasn't about "rights." It was about threats.


This was Arizona, it wasn't New Jersey. If it had been viewed by those in
power as a
threat, the guy would have been hauled away.


Nope, there was a conflict between the strict interpretation of the law and
the reality of what was going on. The SS said they had a perimeter in mind,
and he wasn't crossing it alive. I believe them.


He had legal right to do that in the state he was in.


That's right.


I think this is a matter of perception. For example in 1996 or so, my
brother and I were
breakfasting in a diner in Lajita's, TX. We had to be the only people not
carrying arms
in the diner. I felt very safe though a bit under dressed.


Wes, that has nothing to do with what went on here. These were people
demonstrating to make a point. They admitted as much. And anyone with any
sense knows that the point was that the point was to kill. That's why one
carries a gun in a social situation like that -- he carries it to kill, or
to threaten someone with killing. There is no other point to carrying a gun
in open carry, unless you're out plinking or shooting targets. And they
weren't.


Might as well tell you the rest of the story, we were bicycle touring
south west Texas,
wearing the typical cycling jersey and lycra shorts.


Jeez, I used to race road sprints, and even *I* won't wear that stuff. g

I asked my brother if he felt
underdressed and he looked quizzically at me since were dressed pretty
normal for what we
were doing. He asked what did I mean and I pointed out that we seemed to
be the only ones
not carrying. My brother, who is not into guns, chuckled.


g

--
Ed Huntress


  #19   Report Post  
Old August 31st 09, 05:41 AM posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by DIYBanter: Apr 2007
Posts: 3,138
Default Bring a gun and have some fun in LV

On Sun, 30 Aug 2009 18:42:20 -0400, Wes wrote:

"Ed Huntress" wrote:

Carrying a slung rifle in a crowd of people is not peaceful under any
circumstances. Its only functional purpose in that situation is to kill.
Since it's highly unlikely it will be used to kill, the only remaining
purpose is an affective one: to intimidate.

That wasn't about "rights." It was about threats.


This was Arizona, it wasn't New Jersey. If it had been viewed by those in power as a
threat, the guy would have been hauled away.

He had legal right to do that in the state he was in.

I think this is a matter of perception.


Yes, it definitely is.

For example in 1996 or so, my brother and I were
breakfasting in a diner in Lajita's, TX. We had to be the only people not carrying arms
in the diner. I felt very safe though a bit under dressed.


So entering that Texas diner with a slung AR15 may be perceived by
others as unremarkable.

The same might be true in a hunting area during hunting season. My
neighbor at the lake keeps a loaded shotgun leaning outside his back
door in case some ducks happen by as they do from time to time in the
fall. Yawn. Perception: normal.

Open carry of assault rifle at political rally where nobody else is
openly armed isn't quite the same. It's a matter of perception.

  #20   Report Post  
Old August 31st 09, 06:33 AM posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by DIYBanter: Apr 2007
Posts: 3,138
Default Bring a gun and have some fun in LV

On Sun, 30 Aug 2009 12:52:29 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:

On Sun, 30 Aug 2009 00:39:35 -0500, Don Foreman
wrote:


Wearing a slung assault rifle to a political rally is clearly
irresponsible abuse of 2d amendment rights. Since there is no need
for defense it is obviously intended to intimidate. Intimidation of
peaceful citizens is exactly contrary to the clear intent of the 2d
amendment.

blink blink....intimidation of peaceful citizens?

Oh..you mean the brainwashed Useful Idiots who consider a rifle ,
whether its incased in 5 square feet of concrete, or slung over ones
shoulder to be "intimidating"?


I regard an assault rifle slung over the shoulder of a stranger, who
wears no insignia I recognize, to be worrisome. That may be either in
spite of or due to the fact that I'm a vet. If I find it worrisome I
can certainly see how some gentle citizens would find it intimidating.
Incomprehensible as it may be to you, there are indeed quite a few
good people, contributive citizens and intelligent folks, who are
quite unfamiliar with firearms and are frightened by the mere presence
of a gun. Consider that compulsory military service (the draft)
stopped more than a generation ago and that many of today's urban
folks have never been hunting so their impressions and opinions have
been formed by what they've read in the paper and seen on TV.

Nearly all of them I've known are at least two generations distant
from rural roots. I've gently introduced a number of them to handguns
by piquing their curiosity until it overcame their anxiety.

Not all have become gun owners and shooters but more than 50% have.
One of my daughters,Dr. Kelly the screaming liberal university
professor, was once rabidly anti. We've made some progress there.
She'll never be a shooter but she now has shot and enjoyed it. She's
even a little proud of having done that. Look the dragon in the eye
and spit in it. Perhaps she takes after her mother...

I had to grin when she told me that when one of her students
blog-posted that she wondered what sort of handgun might be suitable
for a young female graduate student in Detroit, said daughter
responded that she might like a Walther PPK. That has to be because
other daughter New York Karen purely loved shooting my PPK and shot it
very well indeed. Would Karen rub older sis Kelly's nose in the fact
that she had a super time with Dad shooting at the range -- with
target photos? Naaaahhhh....

Then you have no problem with a Conservative being forced to keep his
mouth shut because it "intimidates" far leftist fringe kooks when he
opens it and simply says something truthful?


I think you know better than that, Gunner, but nice try at deflection
with buzzwords. Your labels (conservative, leftist, fringe, kook)
are irrelevant here, and nothing I've said in this thread or
elsewhere could even remotely be resonably construed as supporting
suppression of anyone's 1st amendment right of free speech.







Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Bring a gun have some fun in LV Ed Huntress Metalworking 15 August 31st 09 07:02 AM
Bring a gun have some fun in LV azotic Metalworking 20 August 31st 09 06:12 AM
Bring it on! 1 [email protected] UK diy 2 June 25th 08 10:33 AM
Bring it on....... [email protected] UK diy 1 June 25th 08 01:37 AM
Bring it on! 1 [email protected] UK diy 0 June 25th 08 01:12 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:37 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2020 DIYbanter.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about DIY & home improvement"

 

Copyright © 2017