[OT] Second Ammendment Question
 

On Thu, 21 Feb 2013 14:15:50 -0500, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:


As always, Ed is interested in other men's meat.

I'm guessing 'possum, right? Or maybe fence lizards? How do you cook
those things? g

Go troll a gay bar,
you disgusting old queer.

Ooh, such language. Your drool cup must be running over.

You said you would never be back, so it's no
surprise to see you trolling again.

You damned liar. I never said any such thing. In fact, I just left,
when I was getting buried with work and kept putting off returning.
After a week without you, everything smelled better, so I thought I'd
stay away for a while.

I have to add you to the troll
bucket on yet another replacement computer.

Up yours, Michael. All you do it spit and sputter most of the time.

You are #78 this time. You
were #2 on the last computer. Go find a new street corner to prostitute
yourself.

Go play in traffic, Michael. It will be good for your reflexes.

--
Ed Huntress

[OT] Second Ammendment Question
 

On 2/21/2013 11:24 AM, Larry Jaques wrote:

--
"Bother", said Pooh, as he chambered another round...



Love it!

[OT] Second Ammendment Question
 

On Thursday, February 21, 2013 12:24:38 PM UTC-5, Larry Jaques wrote:

I'd like to see weapons training given to every single student in

school, with walk-in classes for the home-schooled and infirm. It

would take the mystique off the tools and instill respect from an

early age. Both are necessary for optimal safety. Lessons learned in

a half-day class would likely be retained forever, but each school

should have them: elem/jr/high school. Boosters, as it were.


I'd rather see classes in how to shop, cook and balance a checkbook.

[OT] Second Ammendment Question
 

I'd like that. But, with the present admin, the chances are zero.

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...

I'd like to see weapons training given to every single student in
school, with walk-in classes for the home-schooled and infirm. It
would take the mystique off the tools and instill respect from an
early age. Both are necessary for optimal safety. Lessons learned in
a half-day class would likely be retained forever, but each school
should have them: elem/jr/high school. Boosters, as it were.

--
"Bother", said Pooh, as he chambered another round...

[OT] Second Ammendment Question
 

On Thursday, January 31, 2013 8:22:14 AM UTC-5, rangerssuck wrote:
Pardon me if this is obvious and I somehow missed it, but: In all the recent talk about guns in the past few weeks (and especially in the past few days), two themes have come up repeatedly and have met with rather fierce opposition from the NRA. They are 1) universal background checks and 2) gun registration.



The only objections I have heard to either of those proposals is that the "bad guys" won't follow the rules and will have their guns anyway, and that neither of those proposals would have prevented the Newtown shootings.



Perhaps that is all true, but I heard this morning that, in cases where background checks were performed, some not-insignificant number of applicants were denied a permit because of prior criminal activity. OK, that doesn't get all the guns out of the hands of all the criminals, but it's at least preventing some more guns from getting in the hands of some more criminals.



I also don't see a problem with registration. Being able to trace the ownership of a weapon from the time of its manufacture doesn't seem to me to be a bad thing. At worst, it's a bit of paperwork. At best, it can help track how a gun got into the hands of a criminal.



So, other than "it wouldn't stop bad guys from breaking the rules" and "it wouldn't have prevented Newtown" (and, I might as well throw in the inevitable jabs at me for being a gun-grabbing liberal), what are the objections to these two measures? How do you, as presumably law-abiding gun owners, see these actions affecting you personally?



And please, let's try to keep this civil.



Just askin'

As the original poster in this thread, I'd just like to bring it back into focus.

OTHER THAN
a) only criminals follow rules
b) because the second amendment says so
c) it wouldn't have prevented Newtown

What are your objections to:
1) universal background checks
2) cradle to grave registration

And PLEASE keep it civil.

[OT] Second Ammendment Question
 

On 2/21/2013 5:11 PM, rangerssuck wrote:

As the original poster in this thread, I'd just like to bring it back into focus.

OTHER THAN
a) only criminals follow rules
b) because the second amendment says so
c) it wouldn't have prevented Newtown


What are your objections to:
1) universal background checks
2) cradle to grave registration

And PLEASE keep it civil.


1) background checks - check for what?
Really. Define what we are to be checked for.

Criminal history? What level? How far back?

What else?
My VA advisor says the feds are pressing for names and addresses
of PTSD veterans - to be declared as mentally ill people.
Even tho they have not been adjudicated incompetent.
It's a major paradigm shift.

2) Now that we know who has guns, we know who to arrest when the
time comes to mop up the opposition.
Considering the desire to murder untried (unaccused) people
with drones, I think this is a valid concern.

Civil enough?

[OT] Second Ammendment Question
 

On 2/21/2013 9:44 AM, Richard wrote:
On 2/21/2013 8:33 AM, Tom Gardner wrote:

I don't believe those statistics. And, if it's a matter of polls and
votes, vote to change the constitution. You want to poll rights
away...do it legally, change the Constitution. The founding fathers will
spin in their graves. It's not about guns. it's about control. What
percentage of murders are committed with assault rifles? 0.0012%, I see
why their such a big target. How many shots are fired on average in a
murder? Less than two! Now, tell me what ALL the proposed laws will
accomplish?

It will prevent honest law abiding people from being able to protect
themselves from violent criminals.

Not law will ever prevent evil people from breaking the law.



It only makes liberals feel good about themselves.

[OT] Second Ammendment Question
 

On 2/21/2013 10:21 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Thu, 21 Feb 2013 09:33:44 -0500, Tom Gardner Mars@Tacks wrote:

On 2/20/2013 6:58 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Wed, 20 Feb 2013 18:11:07 -0500, Tom Gardner Mars@Tacks wrote:

On 2/5/2013 1:33 AM, Gunner wrote:
I have a rather nice library of history books. Most of which indicate
you are senile.

https://picasaweb.google.com/1040422...96864834567058


Shrug

Gunner


Arguing with an anti-gun liberal is rather pointless, they will never
get it. Ed once told me I was crazy when I said that Christians will be
persecuted and mass murdered in the Middle East Later he didn't
remember such statements.

No, I didn't say any such thing. What you repeated a few days ago is
that you had said they were going to be "rounded up." I don't recall
responding to that, but in any case, they haven't been "rounded up."


In the same way he opposes the NRA and the 2nd "A". He just doesn't get
it. And, those of us that do get it are "NRA gun nuts". Funny, the
statistics for NRA members committing a gun related crime are
practically non-existent. Yet the NRA is the big bad guy in all this
****. What a bunch of stupid liberals! They should stick to what the
definition of "is" is.

Tom, all of that is bull****. Here's what you don't "get":

54% of gun owners in America want to ban semi-automatic firearms

60% of gun owners want a federal database to track gun sales

85% of gun owners want background checks for private sales and for all
sales at gun shows

49% of gun owners want a ban on high-capacity magazines.

http://www.people-press.org/2013/01/...ority-support/

A Fox News poll shows that 91% of respondants favor laws "Requiring
criminal background checks on all gun buyers, including those buying
at gun shows and private sales"

The same Fox poll shows that 80% of respondants favor laws "Requiring
criminal background checks on anyone buying bullets and ammunition"

The same Fox poll shows that 56% of respondants favor laws "Banning
high-capacity ammunition clips that can shoot dozens of bullets
without stopping to reload"

The same Fox poll shows that 54% favor laws "Banning assault rifles
and semi-automatic weapons"

52% of those Fox News poll respondants live in a household in which
guns are owned.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/inte...d-gun-control/

You'd better get out of this echo chamber and look around, bud. This
is serious business. Meanwhile, you, Gunner, Larry and the rest of the
gun nutz boyz are patting yourselves on the backs, as if you know that
everyone thinks like you do and that everything is just hunky-dory.

You're blowing smoke up each other's ass.


I don't believe those statistics.

shrug Voters won't care what you believe.


And, if it's a matter of polls and
votes, vote to change the constitution.

It's not a matter of polls. It is a matter of votes. And it has little
to do with the Constitution, which the Court has already dealt with.
The Court likely will have to deal with many more gun issues, but so
far, you're in no danger of seeing the Constitution violated.

This is just a guess, but I think that a ban on all semi-automatic
handguns would be declared unconstitutional. But that's about it, from
the lists of proposals I've seen.

You want to poll rights
away...do it legally, change the Constitution.

No "rights" are involved, so far. See D.C. v. Heller.


The founding fathers
will spin in their graves. It's not about guns. it's about control.

It's mostly about what kind of a civic culture we're going to have in
this country. You could call it a matter of different views on
civilization in general. That's where the political split lies.

What percentage of murders are committed with assault rifles? 0.0012%,
I see why their such a big target. How many shots are fired on average
in a murder? Less than two! Now, tell me what ALL the proposed laws
will accomplish?

Those are good points, and it's a good question. That's why I fought
the NJ bans on ARs in the early '90s, including lobbying for our NRA
affiliate.

But this is what has changed: A lot of people, probably most people,
based on the polls, dislike what ARs have done to our culture -- our
gun culture, in my view. "Renewing your man card," as Bushmaster calls
it, appeals to loons with manhood or other issues. And to the loony
militias. When someone wants a gun for slaughtering masses of people,
he grabs an AR or a Glock with a big magazine.

The horror of those slaughters has a depressing effect that goes 'way
beyond the numbers killed. But it's a reminder that something is sick
in our gun culture, and it provokes all of the other negative feelings
about our extraordinary gun-homicide rates.

So you have a cultural problem. It's a "right and wrong" issue.
Judgements of right and wrong are questions of morality. And, as
Robert Bork has said, all laws are legislation of morality.

So now you have a potential legal problem. And the polls are a little
scary.


I don't own an AR nor do I want to. I'm not involved with any sports
that use them but I know a LOT of people that do participate in serious,
organized, nation-wide sporting events. These guys LOVE their sporting
events and travel all over the country. I AM into pistol sports and in
addition to teaching CCW and a number of other classes I LIKE to
compete! Nobody has YET to consider the guys that participate in these
sports...and there are MILLIONS of us.

In all the gun homicides, just who is shooting who and what law could
POSSIBLY change that? Why not make murder illegal?

[OT] Second Ammendment Question
 

On 2/21/2013 10:22 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Thu, 21 Feb 2013 09:35:31 -0500, Tom Gardner Mars@Tacks wrote:

On 2/21/2013 6:41 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Thu, 21 Feb 2013 00:39:58 -0600, Richard
wrote:

On 2/21/2013 12:00 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Wed, 20 Feb 2013 23:42:46 -0600,
wrote:

Thanks you for that, Ed.

A phone survey of 1500 people...
And you think that means something?

It means a confidence level of 95% with a margin of error of +/- 3%
(that would be for a sample size of 1068; the accuracy is actually
slightly higher with 1500).

They've broken down the error margins and confidence levels for
individual questions at the end of what you quoted below. That's a
more accurate way to do it than just doing the confidence-interval
stats for the whole sample, as I did above. But they have more
incentive to get fancy than I do. d8-)

Are you with me?


You just shot a toe off, buddy.

Do you understand survey statistics?



Yes, I do.

But 1500 people, do not speak for 300 million.

So how many do you think you'd need?


Nobody I know was asked!

And nobody I know voted for Romney. d8-)



I'm not surprised in the least!

[OT] Second Ammendment Question
 

On 2/21/2013 11:30 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:

the first thing I want is for universal background checks. I'm
open to suggestions on how to extinguish straw purchases. I'll go for
registration and securing requirements for guns if nothing better
crops up.

You keep missing my parallel to your statement a couple of years ago
that Christians are NOT going to be murdered. Universal gun
registration for private sales is just one baby-step away from
confiscation. I know, you will say it will never happen...right? Well,
Christians ARE being murdered at about 10,000 per year. So, in my mind
registration = confiscation in time. Restrictions on "evil-looking"
guns and banning imports is just a blatant act to get people to think
restrictions are benign.

(Don't worry, they are only taking away and murdering the Jews)

Second Ammendment Question
 

On 2/21/2013 11:44 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Thu, 21 Feb 2013 08:02:09 -0800 (PST), "
wrote:

Nobody I know was asked!

And nobody I know voted for Romney. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress

So you deny knowing a lot of the people on this news group?

I know Iggy. I've never met any of the rest of you. God only knows who
you are.

Sometimes I imagine all of the gun nutz in drag, smoking hash in a
bong and shooting flies off the ceiling with their .44 Blackhawks. It
comforts me, and makes some sense of many of the remarks we hear on
this NG...


I imagine all leftists have no idea how to balance a check-book, not
having a clue what to do unless some higher up leftist tells them.
dream about aborting babies and marrying their own gender, feel that
they are special and entitled, worship at the altar of GlobyWarmy, curse
the name of God, viciously hate believers, would rather see a woman
gang-raped rather than let her carry a gun, never take responsibility
for anything, and in general lie through their teeth about anything.

It doesn't comfort me. it scares the **** out of me because unlike your
fanciful imaginings, I'm just about spot-on!

I don't have a Ruger, flies, hash, drag clothes

[OT] Second Ammendment Question
 

On Thu, 21 Feb 2013 19:51:28 -0500, Tom Gardner Mars@Tacks wrote:

On 2/21/2013 11:30 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:

the first thing I want is for universal background checks. I'm
open to suggestions on how to extinguish straw purchases. I'll go for
registration and securing requirements for guns if nothing better
crops up.

You keep missing my parallel to your statement a couple of years ago
that Christians are NOT going to be murdered. Universal gun
registration for private sales is just one baby-step away from
confiscation. I know, you will say it will never happen...right?

Give us an example.

Well,
Christians ARE being murdered at about 10,000 per year.

A dumb parallel. And your statement was that they were going to be
"rounded up."

What's actually happened is that something like Gunner's "cullers"
have been freelancing and killing them. Not like a government
"confiscation" at all. Gunner isn't proposing a "rounding up." He's
proposing a freelance, selective murder. Something like the Christians
you're talking about.

You really need a better example, Tom, or a better parallel.

So, in my mind
registration = confiscation in time. Restrictions on "evil-looking"
guns and banning imports is just a blatant act to get people to think
restrictions are benign.

There is registration on various types of guns in California, Hawaii,
D.C., New Jersey, Maryland, Michigan, New York, and Washington state.

In NJ, it's been in effect for at least 30 years and there is more
than one handgun for every man, woman, and child in the state. Tell us
about all of the "confiscations" that have occurred.


(Don't worry, they are only taking away and murdering the Jews)

Pure paranoia.

--
Ed Huntress

[OT] Second Ammendment Question
 

On Thu, 21 Feb 2013 14:23:45 -0500, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:


Larry Jaques wrote:

On Thu, 21 Feb 2013 10:13:12 -0500, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:


Larry Jaques wrote:

That is, indeed, absurd, if it is correct. I would guess that since
guns were a part of life back when the Boy Scouts were formed, it was
something which was taken for granted that every single boy would know
how to properly handle a gun, as they did it at home every day. Kids
were the source of meat in homes back then, using their mighty .22s
until they bigger and could handle Dad's Winchester.

That is where I learned gun safety and how to shoot in the'60s, and
I've never shot anyone.

I didn't hunt, but Dad taught me to shoot on the AFB range in me yout.
Not well enough, because I put a round between our feet after shooting
his Colt Woodsman pistol the first time. I don't recall ever hearing
him say "Keep your finger -off- the trigger unless you are ready to
shoot." until then. blush It was a lesson well learned, as you can
imagine, and have kept my forefinger straight ever since.


There was no place close enough to go hunting when I was a kid. I
was working part time, and teaching myself electronics so I had little
free time and no way to get 10 to 15 miiles out to where I could hunt.

There was no need on the family's farm when we went to visit, and too
many chores to do. Why go hunting when the smokehouse is full, and no
room to put more can goods in Grammy's root cellar? We did spend some
time shooting a 22 pistol in a clay pit a half mile from the farmhouse
when we were there more than overnight. We would shoot till the box or
two of ammo was gone. The first shot became the target, since there was
no way to limb the curved wall. :)

I had the privilege to go onto Interstate 15 in California before it
was paved. It was 4 lanes of smooth dirt each way. We went out
haulin' ass and then plinking with our .22s. What a blast! We were
lucky we weren't nailed for anything, including the open Coors. We
liked it because of the nice, tiny Os in the name. Good targets for a
little .22 round.


I'd like to see weapons training given to every single student in
school, with walk-in classes for the home-schooled and infirm. It
would take the mystique off the tools and instill respect from an
early age. Both are necessary for optimal safety. Lessons learned in
a half-day class would likely be retained forever, but each school
should have them: elem/jr/high school. Boosters, as it were.


That along with a one semester course in car & truck saftey, and
emergency maintence.

ACTUAL driving skills lessons at a real performance track (so they can
learn what it means to skid and how NOT to react) would help the
sheeple immensely.

Happiness is a nice 4-wheel drift...

But if you removed the silly little maintenance gripes people have,
AAA would be out of business in a hurry. g



"Bother", said Pooh, as he chambered another round...

...Troll season is only one week this year...

evil grinne

--
The more you know, the less you need.
-- Aboriginal Saying

[OT] Second Ammendment Question
 

What are your objections to:
1) universal background checks
CY: That's something called "prior restraint". You can only buy a gun, if
the government approves it. Not the way our Republic works. NICS check is
example of prior restraint. It was set up that if you didn't hear back in
three days, the sale went through. Not any more, from what I hear. If the
Gov simply stops doing NICS checks, all sales are prevented. Of course, that
would not have prevented the Newtown shooting. And, it's not a power
delegated by the Constitution.

2) cradle to grave registration
CY: The only reason for registration, is to make it easier to confiscate. I
don't trust the government with that information. Since the Second
Ammendmant prohibits the governmet from infringing the right, I think we've
got a good case to have the gun control acts of 1934 and 1969 repealed, and
also the NICS nightmare. After all, they would not have prevented the
Newtown shooting, and they violate the Second Ammendmant.


And PLEASE keep it civil.
CY: I also oppose so called "pistol permits" as prior restraint. I think the
government has no say if I want to carry a firearm.

[OT] Second Ammendment Question
 

On 2/21/2013 9:00 PM, Stormin Mormon wrote:

CY: I also oppose so called "pistol permits" as prior restraint. I think the
government has no say if I want to carry a firearm.

Oklahoma has much "liberal" attitude about that.
You can carry on your hip in broad daylight if you want.



Earlier someone brought up car registration as an example for CC permits.

We all let that pass because we are so used to registering cars.

But nobody ever had to register a horse...

[OT] Second Ammendment Question
 

That is Former to both. And adress(sic) is address. We like
to double up stuff. Collage(sic) is College, Engrish(sic) is English
but I was a Physics E&M / Electronics type.

Martin

On 2/21/2013 6:16 AM, Stormin Mormon wrote:
I'm guessing you will know what the liberals will reply?

(since you're a college professor, I'll do the spelling netpick:)

Pray: adress God in prayer.
Prey: Act hostile towards.

A missionary was wandering the African veldt when he encountered a lion.
There was nowhere to run so the man fell to his knees and said, "Lord,
please make this lion a Christian beast!" Surprisingly the lion also fell to
a crouch and bowed his head. "Lord, for this meal I am about to eat, let me
be truly thankful."

Didn't teach Collage Engrish, firstly yes, you?

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.

"Martin Eastburn" wrote in message
...
If you read of the old west and such - school teachers always protected
their students. They often kept a rifle in the corner of the room near
the desk / blackboard (if they were lucky) and used it to kill wolves
and cats that were praying on the children on recess. Many school
teachers lost their lives in the protection of their students.

Martin - former Teacher, College Professor.

snip

Plenty of teachers are volunteering to carry concealed weapons. And
the cost of knife ownership, baseball bat ownership, steel pipe
ownership, and rock ownership is footed by all taxpayers. Why should
guns be any different? All can be used either as tools or weapons.
Why differentiate?

[OT] Second Ammendment Question
 

Larry Jaques wrote:

On Thu, 21 Feb 2013 14:23:45 -0500, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:


Larry Jaques wrote:

On Thu, 21 Feb 2013 10:13:12 -0500, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:


Larry Jaques wrote:

That is, indeed, absurd, if it is correct. I would guess that since
guns were a part of life back when the Boy Scouts were formed, it was
something which was taken for granted that every single boy would know
how to properly handle a gun, as they did it at home every day. Kids
were the source of meat in homes back then, using their mighty .22s
until they bigger and could handle Dad's Winchester.

That is where I learned gun safety and how to shoot in the'60s, and
I've never shot anyone.

I didn't hunt, but Dad taught me to shoot on the AFB range in me yout.
Not well enough, because I put a round between our feet after shooting
his Colt Woodsman pistol the first time. I don't recall ever hearing
him say "Keep your finger -off- the trigger unless you are ready to
shoot." until then. blush It was a lesson well learned, as you can
imagine, and have kept my forefinger straight ever since.


There was no place close enough to go hunting when I was a kid. I
was working part time, and teaching myself electronics so I had little
free time and no way to get 10 to 15 miiles out to where I could hunt.

There was no need on the family's farm when we went to visit, and too
many chores to do. Why go hunting when the smokehouse is full, and no
room to put more can goods in Grammy's root cellar? We did spend some
time shooting a 22 pistol in a clay pit a half mile from the farmhouse
when we were there more than overnight. We would shoot till the box or
two of ammo was gone. The first shot became the target, since there was
no way to limb the curved wall. :)

I had the privilege to go onto Interstate 15 in California before it
was paved. It was 4 lanes of smooth dirt each way. We went out
haulin' ass and then plinking with our .22s. What a blast! We were
lucky we weren't nailed for anything, including the open Coors. We
liked it because of the nice, tiny Os in the name. Good targets for a
little .22 round.


You're right, but those Chippies didn't patrol closed roads. ;-)


I'd like to see weapons training given to every single student in
school, with walk-in classes for the home-schooled and infirm. It
would take the mystique off the tools and instill respect from an
early age. Both are necessary for optimal safety. Lessons learned in
a half-day class would likely be retained forever, but each school
should have them: elem/jr/high school. Boosters, as it were.


That along with a one semester course in car & truck saftey, and
emergency maintence.

ACTUAL driving skills lessons at a real performance track (so they can
learn what it means to skid and how NOT to react) would help the
sheeple immensely.

Happiness is a nice 4-wheel drift...


Did you ever take the National Safety Council's winter driving test?
I did in '73 in Alaska on an iced over parking lot, with standing water
they had just sprayed on top. You're driving through the cones when the
instructor grabs the steering wheel and gives it a jerk. If you hit
even one cone, you fail. :)


But if you removed the silly little maintenance gripes people have,
AAA would be out of business in a hurry. g

"Bother", said Pooh, as he chambered another round...

...Troll season is only one week this year...

evil grinne

--
The more you know, the less you need.
-- Aboriginal Saying


One would hope so. :)

[OT] Second Ammendment Question
 

Tom Gardner wrote:

On 2/21/2013 11:30 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:

the first thing I want is for universal background checks. I'm
open to suggestions on how to extinguish straw purchases. I'll go for
registration and securing requirements for guns if nothing better
crops up.

You keep missing my parallel to your statement a couple of years ago
that Christians are NOT going to be murdered. Universal gun
registration for private sales is just one baby-step away from
confiscation. I know, you will say it will never happen...right? Well,
Christians ARE being murdered at about 10,000 per year. So, in my mind
registration = confiscation in time. Restrictions on "evil-looking"
guns and banning imports is just a blatant act to get people to think
restrictions are benign.

(Don't worry, they are only taking away and murdering the Jews)


He wouldn't like it if they required reqistration to be an editor, or
journalists. Talk about straw, when so many use fake names to hide
their identity. First they came for the editors...

[OT] Second Ammendment Question
 

On Thu, 21 Feb 2013 06:55:50 -0800, Larry Jaques wrote:

On Thu, 21 Feb 2013 06:28:05 +0000 (UTC), Przemek Klosowski
wrote:
- insurance against damage to others

If you damage something with your gun, the courts already impose fines
and/or jail time and require you to reimburse the victim for damages. We
don't need insurance, other than theft.

I see what you're doing here---you're externalizing the cost of the risk
associated with guns, and saying that we'll just amortize it over what
everybody already pays. It is not a small risk: 12000 gun-related deaths
in a year is almost an order of magnitude more than the risk associated
with, say, a land war in Afghanistan.

Plus, the NRA was really good at passing laws blocking the damages
claims, so such damages are rare.

My bottom line is that you are asking me to subsidize your noble hobby,
to which I object.

[OT] Second Ammendment Question
 

Richard wrote:

On 2/21/2013 9:00 PM, Stormin Mormon wrote:

CY: I also oppose so called "pistol permits" as prior restraint. I think the
government has no say if I want to carry a firearm.

Oklahoma has much "liberal" attitude about that.
You can carry on your hip in broad daylight if you want.

Earlier someone brought up car registration as an example for CC permits.

We all let that pass because we are so used to registering cars.

But nobody ever had to register a horse...


OTOH, when was the last time you heard of a 30 horse pileup? ;-)

[OT] Second Ammendment Question
 

Przemek Klosowski wrote:

On Thu, 21 Feb 2013 06:55:50 -0800, Larry Jaques wrote:

On Thu, 21 Feb 2013 06:28:05 +0000 (UTC), Przemek Klosowski
wrote:
- insurance against damage to others

If you damage something with your gun, the courts already impose fines
and/or jail time and require you to reimburse the victim for damages. We
don't need insurance, other than theft.

I see what you're doing here---you're externalizing the cost of the risk
associated with guns, and saying that we'll just amortize it over what
everybody already pays. It is not a small risk: 12000 gun-related deaths
in a year is almost an order of magnitude more than the risk associated
with, say, a land war in Afghanistan.

Plus, the NRA was really good at passing laws blocking the damages
claims, so such damages are rare.

My bottom line is that you are asking me to subsidize your noble hobby,
to which I object.


Then move to Afghanistan.

[OT] Second Ammendment Question
 

On Thu, 21 Feb 2013 19:37:36 -0500, Tom Gardner Mars@Tacks wrote:

On 2/21/2013 10:21 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Thu, 21 Feb 2013 09:33:44 -0500, Tom Gardner Mars@Tacks wrote:

On 2/20/2013 6:58 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Wed, 20 Feb 2013 18:11:07 -0500, Tom Gardner Mars@Tacks wrote:

On 2/5/2013 1:33 AM, Gunner wrote:
I have a rather nice library of history books. Most of which indicate
you are senile.

https://picasaweb.google.com/1040422...96864834567058


Shrug

Gunner


Arguing with an anti-gun liberal is rather pointless, they will never
get it. Ed once told me I was crazy when I said that Christians will be
persecuted and mass murdered in the Middle East Later he didn't
remember such statements.

No, I didn't say any such thing. What you repeated a few days ago is
that you had said they were going to be "rounded up." I don't recall
responding to that, but in any case, they haven't been "rounded up."


In the same way he opposes the NRA and the 2nd "A". He just doesn't get
it. And, those of us that do get it are "NRA gun nuts". Funny, the
statistics for NRA members committing a gun related crime are
practically non-existent. Yet the NRA is the big bad guy in all this
****. What a bunch of stupid liberals! They should stick to what the
definition of "is" is.

Tom, all of that is bull****. Here's what you don't "get":

54% of gun owners in America want to ban semi-automatic firearms

60% of gun owners want a federal database to track gun sales

85% of gun owners want background checks for private sales and for all
sales at gun shows

49% of gun owners want a ban on high-capacity magazines.

http://www.people-press.org/2013/01/...ority-support/

A Fox News poll shows that 91% of respondants favor laws "Requiring
criminal background checks on all gun buyers, including those buying
at gun shows and private sales"

The same Fox poll shows that 80% of respondants favor laws "Requiring
criminal background checks on anyone buying bullets and ammunition"

The same Fox poll shows that 56% of respondants favor laws "Banning
high-capacity ammunition clips that can shoot dozens of bullets
without stopping to reload"

The same Fox poll shows that 54% favor laws "Banning assault rifles
and semi-automatic weapons"

52% of those Fox News poll respondants live in a household in which
guns are owned.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/inte...d-gun-control/

You'd better get out of this echo chamber and look around, bud. This
is serious business. Meanwhile, you, Gunner, Larry and the rest of the
gun nutz boyz are patting yourselves on the backs, as if you know that
everyone thinks like you do and that everything is just hunky-dory.

You're blowing smoke up each other's ass.


I don't believe those statistics.

shrug Voters won't care what you believe.


And, if it's a matter of polls and
votes, vote to change the constitution.

It's not a matter of polls. It is a matter of votes. And it has little
to do with the Constitution, which the Court has already dealt with.
The Court likely will have to deal with many more gun issues, but so
far, you're in no danger of seeing the Constitution violated.

This is just a guess, but I think that a ban on all semi-automatic
handguns would be declared unconstitutional. But that's about it, from
the lists of proposals I've seen.

You want to poll rights
away...do it legally, change the Constitution.

No "rights" are involved, so far. See D.C. v. Heller.


The founding fathers
will spin in their graves. It's not about guns. it's about control.

It's mostly about what kind of a civic culture we're going to have in
this country. You could call it a matter of different views on
civilization in general. That's where the political split lies.

What percentage of murders are committed with assault rifles? 0.0012%,
I see why their such a big target. How many shots are fired on average
in a murder? Less than two! Now, tell me what ALL the proposed laws
will accomplish?

Those are good points, and it's a good question. That's why I fought
the NJ bans on ARs in the early '90s, including lobbying for our NRA
affiliate.

But this is what has changed: A lot of people, probably most people,
based on the polls, dislike what ARs have done to our culture -- our
gun culture, in my view. "Renewing your man card," as Bushmaster calls
it, appeals to loons with manhood or other issues. And to the loony
militias. When someone wants a gun for slaughtering masses of people,
he grabs an AR or a Glock with a big magazine.

The horror of those slaughters has a depressing effect that goes 'way
beyond the numbers killed. But it's a reminder that something is sick
in our gun culture, and it provokes all of the other negative feelings
about our extraordinary gun-homicide rates.

So you have a cultural problem. It's a "right and wrong" issue.
Judgements of right and wrong are questions of morality. And, as
Robert Bork has said, all laws are legislation of morality.

So now you have a potential legal problem. And the polls are a little
scary.


I don't own an AR nor do I want to. I'm not involved with any sports
that use them but I know a LOT of people that do participate in serious,
organized, nation-wide sporting events. These guys LOVE their sporting
events and travel all over the country. I AM into pistol sports and in
addition to teaching CCW and a number of other classes I LIKE to
compete! Nobody has YET to consider the guys that participate in these
sports...and there are MILLIONS of us.

We considered it in NJ, in 1991. We lost the AR battle but we did get
them grandfathered in. I was a rifle instructor and a DCM range
officer, and they continued to be used in DCM competition. Not many,
because most clubs, like ours, mostly shot surplus M1 Garands that the
club owned.

So I'm sympathetic to the people who like to shoot them, even though I
find them repulsive. I had been shooting in rifle competition, and for
NRA Sharpshooter bars, since 1960. I shot M1 carbines (there's a real
piece of crap) in junior DCM since 1961. Having spent many thousands
of rounds in offhand competition, it's beyond me why someone would
want to spend all that money to go in reverse by about 100 years and
shoot rifles that have lock times on the order of 10-16 milliseconds,
when we were shooting guns with times of 4 milliseconds or less. Even
an out-of-the-box Remington 700 would do that.

But each to his own. Still, you're talking about target games, and the
issue is what it does to a society to have mass murders going on
because the guns are as available to schizophrenics as to your
national match shooters. For most people, if you carp about loving
your target guns but resist anything that might limit the supply chain
of those guns to nutcases and criminals, they're going to bristle at
your screwed-up sense of values. And that's reflected in the current
polls.


In all the gun homicides, just who is shooting who and what law could
POSSIBLY change that? Why not make murder illegal?

I think you know the answer. You just don't like it, because it might
annoy you. How sad.

--
Ed Huntress

Second Ammendment Question
 

On Thu, 21 Feb 2013 20:07:38 -0500, Tom Gardner Mars@Tacks wrote:

On 2/21/2013 11:44 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Thu, 21 Feb 2013 08:02:09 -0800 (PST), "
wrote:

Nobody I know was asked!

And nobody I know voted for Romney. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress

So you deny knowing a lot of the people on this news group?

I know Iggy. I've never met any of the rest of you. God only knows who
you are.

Sometimes I imagine all of the gun nutz in drag, smoking hash in a
bong and shooting flies off the ceiling with their .44 Blackhawks. It
comforts me, and makes some sense of many of the remarks we hear on
this NG...


I imagine all leftists have no idea how to balance a check-book, not
having a clue what to do unless some higher up leftist tells them.
dream about aborting babies and marrying their own gender, feel that
they are special and entitled, worship at the altar of GlobyWarmy, curse
the name of God, viciously hate believers, would rather see a woman
gang-raped rather than let her carry a gun, never take responsibility
for anything, and in general lie through their teeth about anything.

It doesn't comfort me. it scares the **** out of me because unlike your
fanciful imaginings, I'm just about spot-on!

My, my. That explains a lot, Tom. Do you have these dreams often? Do
they end with you finding yourself riding on a bus in your underwear,
and everyone is staring at you? g


I don't have a Ruger, flies, hash, drag clothes

Well, then, maybe you're not one of the gun nutz.

--
Ed Huntress

[OT] Second Ammendment Question
 

On Thu, 21 Feb 2013 22:00:27 -0500, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:


What are your objections to:
1) universal background checks
CY: That's something called "prior restraint". You can only buy a gun, if
the government approves it. Not the way our Republic works.

Uh, you have a right to vote, too, but you can't vote until you're
registered.

Same thing.

NICS check is
example of prior restraint.

Only if you're restrained -- in other words, if you're a criminal or
an adjudicated loon trying to buy a gun illegally and you're turned
down. If you pass the background check, you aren't restrained at all.
That's why the courts have rejected claims that it's prior restraint.

It was set up that if you didn't hear back in
three days, the sale went through. Not any more, from what I hear.

In NJ, we typically wait 30 days.

If the
Gov simply stops doing NICS checks, all sales are prevented. Of course, that
would not have prevented the Newtown shooting.

It would have if Lanza's mother had been "prevented."

And, it's not a power
delegated by the Constitution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necessa..._Proper_Clause



2) cradle to grave registration
CY: The only reason for registration, is to make it easier to confiscate.

No, the real reason is to find out who supplied a gun to a criminal.
It's almost impossible under current laws, so strawman purchases are a
profitable business. Registration and a requirement to report thefts
would make it VERY risky business to do straw purchases. As it is now,
there's virtually no risk at all. In most states, there isn't even any
real liability. All you have to do is say, "Gee, that gun was stolen a
year ago."

I
don't trust the government with that information. Since the Second
Ammendmant prohibits the governmet from infringing the right, I think we've
got a good case to have the gun control acts of 1934 and 1969 repealed, and
also the NICS nightmare. After all, they would not have prevented the
Newtown shooting, and they violate the Second Ammendmant.

Keep your day job, Chris.



And PLEASE keep it civil.
CY: I also oppose so called "pistol permits" as prior restraint. I think the
government has no say if I want to carry a firearm.

The Supreme Court disagrees with you. And they actually studied law.
d8-)

--
Ed Huntress

[OT] Second Ammendment Question
 

On Thu, 21 Feb 2013 21:58:36 -0600, Richard
wrote:

On 2/21/2013 9:00 PM, Stormin Mormon wrote:

CY: I also oppose so called "pistol permits" as prior restraint. I think the
government has no say if I want to carry a firearm.

Oklahoma has much "liberal" attitude about that.
You can carry on your hip in broad daylight if you want.



Earlier someone brought up car registration as an example for CC permits.

We all let that pass because we are so used to registering cars.

But nobody ever had to register a horse...

You have to register to vote, even though voting is a right.

--
Ed Huntress

[OT] Second Ammendment Question
 

I got my ass kicked pretty bad, when I tried to
install the license plate the state sent me, to put
on back of my horse. State provided the self
tapping screws, but I wasn't fast enough to
avoid the back kick. It was a Model A(ss)
horse. Forgot to retard the spark.

No one under age 40 is likely to understand all
the subtle reference, and I'm not explaining them.

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..

"Michael A. Terrell" wrote in message
...


But nobody ever had to register a horse...


OTOH, when was the last time you heard of a 30 horse pileup? ;-)

[OT] Second Ammendment Question
 

On Fri, 22 Feb 2013 12:39:48 +0000 (UTC), Przemek Klosowski
wrote:

On Thu, 21 Feb 2013 06:55:50 -0800, Larry Jaques wrote:

On Thu, 21 Feb 2013 06:28:05 +0000 (UTC), Przemek Klosowski
wrote:
- insurance against damage to others

If you damage something with your gun, the courts already impose fines
and/or jail time and require you to reimburse the victim for damages. We
don't need insurance, other than theft.

I see what you're doing here---you're externalizing the cost of the risk
associated with guns,

There are none. Tools have an origin cost and a maintenance cost, all
of which are paid by the owners.


and saying that we'll just amortize it over what
everybody already pays. It is not a small risk: 12000 gun-related deaths
in a year is almost an order of magnitude more than the risk associated
with, say, a land war in Afghanistan.

Bzzzzt! ERROR! Guns don't cause death, ==PEOPLE DO==. Your criminal
element is using them to kill people, so don't haul your trash on us.
It's a -criminal- cost, not a gun cost. Guns are inanimate objects.


Plus, the NRA was really good at passing laws blocking the damages
claims, so such damages are rare.

This is a good thing. False lawsuits are a bad thing. Making a
company pay for the crimes criminals commit with their product is
absolutely criminal in itself, damnit. The jerks who thought -that-
one up should spend some time in jail, too.


My bottom line is that you are asking me to subsidize your noble hobby,
to which I object.

I most certainly am not. You lefties can take a hike. I pay my way
and you'll have to pay yours. YOU let bad guys out of prison or
interfere with their death sentences and YOU should pay the price of
recidivism and crime because you have so much feigned compassion for
the jerks. Don't whine to us, turkey. This is on YOU.

OK, we've said our pieces. Let's end this discussion here.

--
The more you know, the less you need.
-- Aboriginal Saying

[OT] Second Ammendment Question
 

And, that's been fraught with issues, too. Ask
any negro living in the south if it's easy to register
to vote, a generation or two ago.

Just because a right has been infringed over here
doesn't mean it's OK to infringe it over there.

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

But nobody ever had to register a horse...

You have to register to vote, even though voting is a right.

--
Ed Huntress

[OT] Second Ammendment Question
 

Just because a right has been infringed over here
doesn't mean it's OK to infringe it over there.

I didn't speak up, because I wasn't an editor.

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..

"Michael A. Terrell" wrote in message
...

Christians ARE being murdered at about 10,000 per year. So, in my mind
registration = confiscation in time. Restrictions on "evil-looking"
guns and banning imports is just a blatant act to get people to think
restrictions are benign.

(Don't worry, they are only taking away and murdering the Jews)


He wouldn't like it if they required reqistration to be an editor, or
journalists. Talk about straw, when so many use fake names to hide
their identity. First they came for the editors...

[OT] Second Ammendment Question
 

"Michael A. Terrell" wrote in message
...

He wouldn't like it if they required reqistration to be an editor,
or
journalists. Talk about straw, when so many use fake names to hide
their identity. First they came for the editors...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobo_Timerman

[OT] Second Ammendment Question
 

On Fri, 22 Feb 2013 07:41:30 -0500, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:


Richard wrote:

On 2/21/2013 9:00 PM, Stormin Mormon wrote:

CY: I also oppose so called "pistol permits" as prior restraint. I think the
government has no say if I want to carry a firearm.

Oklahoma has much "liberal" attitude about that.
You can carry on your hip in broad daylight if you want.

Earlier someone brought up car registration as an example for CC permits.

We all let that pass because we are so used to registering cars.

But nobody ever had to register a horse...


OTOH, when was the last time you heard of a 30 horse pileup? ;-)

Proof! Horses are smarter than sheeple.

--
The more you know, the less you need.
-- Aboriginal Saying

[OT] Second Ammendment Question
 

I bet the crime rate is lower than, for example,
Chicago?

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..

"Richard" wrote in message
m...

CY: I also oppose so called "pistol permits"
as prior restraint. I think the
government has no say if I want to carry a firearm.

Oklahoma has much "liberal" attitude about that.
You can carry on your hip in broad daylight if you want.

[OT] Second Ammendment Question
 

It's all gud. I mispell werds now and agan.

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..

"Martin Eastburn" wrote in message
...
That is Former to both. And adress(sic) is address. We like
to double up stuff. Collage(sic) is College, Engrish(sic) is English
but I was a Physics E&M / Electronics type.

Martin

On 2/21/2013 6:16 AM, Stormin Mormon wrote:
I'm guessing you will know what the liberals will reply?

(since you're a college professor, I'll do the spelling netpick:)

Pray: adress God in prayer.
Prey: Act hostile towards.

A missionary was wandering the African veldt when he encountered a lion.
There was nowhere to run so the man fell to his knees and said, "Lord,
please make this lion a Christian beast!" Surprisingly the lion also fell
to
a crouch and bowed his head. "Lord, for this meal I am about to eat, let
me
be truly thankful."

Didn't teach Collage Engrish, firstly yes, you?

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.

"Martin Eastburn" wrote in message
...
If you read of the old west and such - school teachers always protected
their students. They often kept a rifle in the corner of the room near
the desk / blackboard (if they were lucky) and used it to kill wolves
and cats that were praying on the children on recess. Many school
teachers lost their lives in the protection of their students.

Martin - former Teacher, College Professor.

snip

Plenty of teachers are volunteering to carry concealed weapons. And
the cost of knife ownership, baseball bat ownership, steel pipe
ownership, and rock ownership is footed by all taxpayers. Why should
guns be any different? All can be used either as tools or weapons.
Why differentiate?

Second Ammendment Question
 

On 2/22/2013 8:44 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:

My, my. That explains a lot, Tom. Do you have these dreams often? Do
they end with you finding yourself riding on a bus in your underwear,
and everyone is staring at you? g


Not dreams, observations! Haven't been on a bus since '74.

[OT] Second Ammendment Question
 

"Przemek Klosowski" wrote in message
...

My bottom line is that you are asking me to subsidize your noble
hobby,
to which I object.

Do you object to subsidizing the enormous cost of drug habits?

The anti-gun rant is merely a smoke screen to conceal the real social
problem underlying violence.

[OT] Second Ammendment Question
 

On 2/21/2013 12:21 PM, Jim Wilkins wrote:
"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

And nobody I know voted for Romney. d8-)

Ed Huntress

And that highlights the problem with phone polls on controversial
legality issues. The caller knows your phone number and thus your
identity, but the voting booth is anonymous.



Gee, are you saying that polls are targeting the responders they WANT?
Say it ain't so!

[OT] Second Ammendment Question
 

On Fri, 22 Feb 2013 10:17:57 -0500, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:

And, that's been fraught with issues, too. Ask
any negro living in the south if it's easy to register
to vote, a generation or two ago.

Just because a right has been infringed over here
doesn't mean it's OK to infringe it over there.

What would voting be like if no one had to register?

Why is registering an infringement, in other words, and not a
necessary regulation to enable the intent of the right to vote?

The constitutionality of laws is not determined by their
effectiveness, either, so that's not a place you want to go if you're
judging constitutionality.

--
Ed Huntress


Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
.. .

But nobody ever had to register a horse...

You have to register to vote, even though voting is a right.

[OT] Second Ammendment Question
 

On 2/22/2013 8:23 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:

I think you know the answer. You just don't like it, because it might
annoy you. How sad.


Oh, I KNOW the answer is house-to-house confiscation using gun-smelling
dogs. (Don't laugh, dogs are being trained NOW! It's coming!) But I'd
bet that guns would STILL be available at a bit higher price. I still
ask you: Why not make murder illegal? Wouldn't that solve the problem?

It's OK, they are only coming for the Jews!

[OT] Second Ammendment Question
 

On Fri, 22 Feb 2013 10:26:44 -0500, Tom Gardner Mars@Tacks wrote:

On 2/21/2013 12:21 PM, Jim Wilkins wrote:
"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

And nobody I know voted for Romney. d8-)

Ed Huntress

And that highlights the problem with phone polls on controversial
legality issues. The caller knows your phone number and thus your
identity, but the voting booth is anonymous.



Gee, are you saying that polls are targeting the responders they WANT?
Say it ain't so!

It ain't so. Pew's system, which is common these days, is to have a
computer produce a random-number sample from each of the three-digit
exchanges in the calling area. Then they start calling.

If you guys who claim to understand polling were on your game, you
would stop right there, because this practice results in a statistical
problem. But since you know so much, you surely already know that.
d8-)

--
Ed Huntress

[OT] Second Ammendment Question
 

Stormin Mormon wrote:

I got my ass kicked pretty bad, when I tried to
install the license plate the state sent me, to put
on back of my horse. State provided the self
tapping screws, but I wasn't fast enough to
avoid the back kick. It was a Model A(ss)
horse. Forgot to retard the spark.

No one under age 40 is likely to understand all
the subtle reference, and I'm not explaining them.


Silly rabbit! That's why the make horse hide glue.