On Tue, 26 Aug 2014 21:54:59 -0500, "Terry Coombs"
wrote:

Ed Huntress wrote:
On Tue, 26 Aug 2014 17:49:19 -0500, "Terry Coombs"
wrote:

Ed Huntress wrote:
On Tue, 26 Aug 2014 16:32:05 -0500, "Terry Coombs"
wrote:

Gunner Asch wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZo4hbGJjVI


"At the core of liberalism is the spoiled child,
miserable, as all spoiled children are, unsatisfied,
demanding, ill-disciplined, despotic and useless.
Liberalism is a philosophy of sniveling brats."
PJ O'Rourke

You need to see this one too ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=imw8YGyPgk4

"My right is more important than your dead [23 children]," he says.

There's a sociopath who's really shot his wad.

You missed the whole point Ed .

No, I think that you did. The point is that looking inward at what you
think you're entitled to, to the extreme of saying "my right is more
important than your dead [and he was referring to the children at
Sandy Hook]," turns a person into a sociopath living under a thin
veneer of civility.

He's exactly the kind that are most dangerous.

Ed , my take on his words were that "my right to bear arms trumps your
attempt to deny that right by using children that were killed by an
unbalanced individual" .

First, that's not what he said. And he said it twice. It wasn't a
slip.

I don't doubt that he included your point in his thoughts; he said
something to that effect earlier in his speech. But he was becoming
more rabid and emotional as he spoke. His voice cracked. When those
words came out of his mouth, the most generous meaning I could give to
them is this: "I resent that you're using these facts to argue against
my interpretation of my rights."

If you examine that argument (which would be made by many here,
without a doubt), his resentment is based on the fact that many
people, perhaps most, DO consider 23 dead kids to be an argument to
limit the proliferation of high-capacity guns; to strengthen
mental-health prohibitions against gun ownership; to require universal
background checks; and to require registration of certain types of
guns. They don't necessarily apply to the Sandy Hook incident. The
incident was just a reminder of the weaknesses in the whole system.

The NY "Safe" act he was arguing against does those things. He was
resentful because he knows the result he wants, and he has nothing
much to argue against his opposition. Most rational people want those
very kinds of regulations, except possibly the registration, and it's
born out in poll after poll. They don't want to prohibit guns; they
just want gun owners to be checked out.

Inevitably, when he argues the way he did, his argument becomes "those
dead kids don't matter." And that, essentially, is what he wound up
saying. That's the voice and the attitude of gun nutz, as most people
perceive them.

Feel free to disagree with me if you wish , but I have to say that
attempts to deny us our 2nd amendment rights with knee-jerk reactions to
sick and twisted individual's actions is wrong . And may very well end in
bloodshed if they keep trying .

No, it won't end in bloodshed -- except that of one or a few of the
gun nutz. The vast majority of "bloodshed" talk is by mouth-breathers
and loose-talkers who wouldn't have the guts to follow through -- like
Gunner and his "cullers," or Larry and his desire (for someone else,
of course) to threaten elected lawmakers with guns.

Dunno who originally said it , but "Free citizens have arms , subjects
don't" .

The root of Weiss's fury lies in his ignorance. He has an idea in his
mind of what the 2nd means (one that's shared by many here), but which
has no historical or legal basis in fact. The Supreme Court, in
Heller, did the best job any authority has ever done of examining the
history and meaning of the 2nd. Have you read it? I've read it four or
five times now, and there is nothing in it that prohibits anything
like New York's Safe law. It's similar to what we've lived with in NJ
for around 45 years. I own guns, including semiauto pistols. My rights
have not been infringed -- a term that has a specific legal meaning.
Neither have Aaron Weiss's rights been infringed.

He knows what he *wishes* it meant, but he doesn't really know.

--
Ed Huntress

On 8/26/2014 11:09 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Tue, 26 Aug 2014 21:54:59 -0500, "Terry Coombs"
wrote:

Ed Huntress wrote:
On Tue, 26 Aug 2014 17:49:19 -0500, "Terry Coombs"
wrote:

Ed Huntress wrote:
On Tue, 26 Aug 2014 16:32:05 -0500, "Terry Coombs"
wrote:

Gunner Asch wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZo4hbGJjVI


"At the core of liberalism is the spoiled child,
miserable, as all spoiled children are, unsatisfied,
demanding, ill-disciplined, despotic and useless.
Liberalism is a philosophy of sniveling brats."
PJ O'Rourke

You need to see this one too ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=imw8YGyPgk4

"My right is more important than your dead [23 children]," he says.

There's a sociopath who's really shot his wad.

You missed the whole point Ed .

No, I think that you did. The point is that looking inward at what you
think you're entitled to, to the extreme of saying "my right is more
important than your dead [and he was referring to the children at
Sandy Hook]," turns a person into a sociopath living under a thin
veneer of civility.

He's exactly the kind that are most dangerous.

Ed , my take on his words were that "my right to bear arms trumps your
attempt to deny that right by using children that were killed by an
unbalanced individual" .

First, that's not what he said. And he said it twice. It wasn't a
slip.

I don't doubt that he included your point in his thoughts; he said
something to that effect earlier in his speech. But he was becoming
more rabid and emotional as he spoke. His voice cracked. When those
words came out of his mouth, the most generous meaning I could give to
them is this: "I resent that you're using these facts to argue against
my interpretation of my rights."

I saw his emotion, he was speaking from deep feelings. I saw nothing I'd
call rabid.

Do you you feel that the acts of an insane individual are sufficient
cause to violate the rights of the rest of a nation's citizens?

Especially when violating those rights will not effectively grant
security from other insane individuals?

If you examine that argument (which would be made by many here,
without a doubt), his resentment is based on the fact that many
people, perhaps most, DO consider 23 dead kids to be an argument to
limit the proliferation of high-capacity guns; to strengthen
mental-health prohibitions against gun ownership; to require universal
background checks; and to require registration of certain types of
guns. They don't necessarily apply to the Sandy Hook incident. The
incident was just a reminder of the weaknesses in the whole system.

The main weakness I see is of a system that relies on gun prohibition
signs for defense. These signs serve only to announce that there will be
no resistance offered.

How many mass shootings in areas where there are no gun prohibitions?


The NY "Safe" act he was arguing against does those things. He was
resentful because he knows the result he wants, and he has nothing
much to argue against his opposition. Most rational people want those
very kinds of regulations, except possibly the registration, and it's
born out in poll after poll. They don't want to prohibit guns; they
just want gun owners to be checked out.

Inevitably, when he argues the way he did, his argument becomes "those
dead kids don't matter." And that, essentially, is what he wound up
saying. That's the voice and the attitude of gun nutz, as most people
perceive them.

They matter because they demonstrate the failure of gun control to be
effective, and that proposing MORE gun control will not be more effective.


Feel free to disagree with me if you wish , but I have to say that
attempts to deny us our 2nd amendment rights with knee-jerk reactions to
sick and twisted individual's actions is wrong . And may very well end in
bloodshed if they keep trying .

No, it won't end in bloodshed -- except that of one or a few of the
gun nutz. The vast majority of "bloodshed" talk is by mouth-breathers
and loose-talkers who wouldn't have the guts to follow through -- like
Gunner and his "cullers," or Larry and his desire (for someone else,
of course) to threaten elected lawmakers with guns.

Dunno who originally said it , but "Free citizens have arms , subjects
don't" .

The root of Weiss's fury lies in his ignorance. He has an idea in his
mind of what the 2nd means (one that's shared by many here), but which
has no historical or legal basis in fact. The Supreme Court, in
Heller, did the best job any authority has ever done of examining the
history and meaning of the 2nd. Have you read it? I've read it four or
five times now, and there is nothing in it that prohibits anything
like New York's Safe law. It's similar to what we've lived with in NJ
for around 45 years. I own guns, including semiauto pistols. My rights
have not been infringed -- a term that has a specific legal meaning.
Neither have Aaron Weiss's rights been infringed.

He knows what he *wishes* it meant, but he doesn't really know.

I've read Heller and I disagree with its explicit and implied
limitations on the 2nd Amendment.

From a man wiser than me, you or SCOTUS:

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little
temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

Benjamin Franklin for the Pennsylvania Assembly in its Reply to the Governor

David

On Sat, 30 Aug 2014 09:57:20 -0500, "David R. Birch"
wrote:

On 8/26/2014 11:09 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Tue, 26 Aug 2014 21:54:59 -0500, "Terry Coombs"
wrote:

Ed Huntress wrote:
On Tue, 26 Aug 2014 17:49:19 -0500, "Terry Coombs"
wrote:

Ed Huntress wrote:
On Tue, 26 Aug 2014 16:32:05 -0500, "Terry Coombs"
wrote:

Gunner Asch wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZo4hbGJjVI


"At the core of liberalism is the spoiled child,
miserable, as all spoiled children are, unsatisfied,
demanding, ill-disciplined, despotic and useless.
Liberalism is a philosophy of sniveling brats."
PJ O'Rourke

You need to see this one too ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=imw8YGyPgk4

"My right is more important than your dead [23 children]," he says.

There's a sociopath who's really shot his wad.

You missed the whole point Ed .

No, I think that you did. The point is that looking inward at what you
think you're entitled to, to the extreme of saying "my right is more
important than your dead [and he was referring to the children at
Sandy Hook]," turns a person into a sociopath living under a thin
veneer of civility.

He's exactly the kind that are most dangerous.

Ed , my take on his words were that "my right to bear arms trumps your
attempt to deny that right by using children that were killed by an
unbalanced individual" .

First, that's not what he said. And he said it twice. It wasn't a
slip.

I don't doubt that he included your point in his thoughts; he said
something to that effect earlier in his speech. But he was becoming
more rabid and emotional as he spoke. His voice cracked. When those
words came out of his mouth, the most generous meaning I could give to
them is this: "I resent that you're using these facts to argue against
my interpretation of my rights."

I saw his emotion, he was speaking from deep feelings. I saw nothing I'd
call rabid.

So, where do you draw the line? Does he actually have to bite someone
on the leg? From Webster's:

=============================================
ra·bid
adjective \?ra-b?d also ?ra--\

1)affected with rabies

2) having or expressing a very extreme opinion about or interest in
something
============================================

I'll go for 2).


Do you you feel that the acts of an insane individual are sufficient
cause to violate the rights of the rest of a nation's citizens?

Especially when violating those rights will not effectively grant
security from other insane individuals?

Nobody's rights are being violated by NY's Safe Act. This is not an
opinion. It's a matter of fact -- both history and law.

Read Heller. It does a better job of explaining the history and law
than any of the gun nutz.


If you examine that argument (which would be made by many here,
without a doubt), his resentment is based on the fact that many
people, perhaps most, DO consider 23 dead kids to be an argument to
limit the proliferation of high-capacity guns; to strengthen
mental-health prohibitions against gun ownership; to require universal
background checks; and to require registration of certain types of
guns. They don't necessarily apply to the Sandy Hook incident. The
incident was just a reminder of the weaknesses in the whole system.

The main weakness I see is of a system that relies on gun prohibition
signs for defense. These signs serve only to announce that there will be
no resistance offered.

Guns are not prohibited by NY's Safe Act. They couldn't be. The first
federal court would shoot it down, citing Heller.


How many mass shootings in areas where there are no gun prohibitions?

There are no mass shootings in the US *anywhere* there are gun
prohibitions -- because there are no gun prohibitions. Guns are
legally owned in every jurisdiction and municipality in the United
States.



The NY "Safe" act he was arguing against does those things. He was
resentful because he knows the result he wants, and he has nothing
much to argue against his opposition. Most rational people want those
very kinds of regulations, except possibly the registration, and it's
born out in poll after poll. They don't want to prohibit guns; they
just want gun owners to be checked out.

Inevitably, when he argues the way he did, his argument becomes "those
dead kids don't matter." And that, essentially, is what he wound up
saying. That's the voice and the attitude of gun nutz, as most people
perceive them.

They matter because they demonstrate the failure of gun control to be
effective, and that proposing MORE gun control will not be more effective.

Tell that to Weiss. He said the dead kids don't matter.



Feel free to disagree with me if you wish , but I have to say that
attempts to deny us our 2nd amendment rights with knee-jerk reactions to
sick and twisted individual's actions is wrong . And may very well end in
bloodshed if they keep trying .

No, it won't end in bloodshed -- except that of one or a few of the
gun nutz. The vast majority of "bloodshed" talk is by mouth-breathers
and loose-talkers who wouldn't have the guts to follow through -- like
Gunner and his "cullers," or Larry and his desire (for someone else,
of course) to threaten elected lawmakers with guns.

Dunno who originally said it , but "Free citizens have arms , subjects
don't" .

The root of Weiss's fury lies in his ignorance. He has an idea in his
mind of what the 2nd means (one that's shared by many here), but which
has no historical or legal basis in fact. The Supreme Court, in
Heller, did the best job any authority has ever done of examining the
history and meaning of the 2nd. Have you read it? I've read it four or
five times now, and there is nothing in it that prohibits anything
like New York's Safe law. It's similar to what we've lived with in NJ
for around 45 years. I own guns, including semiauto pistols. My rights
have not been infringed -- a term that has a specific legal meaning.
Neither have Aaron Weiss's rights been infringed.

He knows what he *wishes* it meant, but he doesn't really know.

I've read Heller and I disagree with its explicit and implied
limitations on the 2nd Amendment.

Great. Put yourself up for the next open Justice position. Tell them
that you think Scalia is too liberal and not as smart as you are.


From a man wiser than me, you or SCOTUS:

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little
temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

Benjamin Franklin for the Pennsylvania Assembly in its Reply to the Governor

David

No one has to give up an essential liberty. You have a S.C. decision
to protect it.

--
Ed Huntress

On 8/30/2014 10:42 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Sat, 30 Aug 2014 09:57:20 -0500, "David R. Birch"
wrote:


I saw his emotion, he was speaking from deep feelings. I saw nothing I'd
call rabid.

So, where do you draw the line? Does he actually have to bite someone
on the leg? From Webster's:

=============================================
ra·bid
adjective \?ra-b?d also ?ra--\

1)affected with rabies

2) having or expressing a very extreme opinion about or interest in
something
============================================

I'll go for 2).

I don't think that expressing an opinion that disagrees with yours makes
it very extreme.


Do you you feel that the acts of an insane individual are sufficient
cause to violate the rights of the rest of a nation's citizens?

Especially when violating those rights will not effectively grant
security from other insane individuals?

Nobody's rights are being violated by NY's Safe Act. This is not an
opinion. It's a matter of fact -- both history and law.

Read Heller. It does a better job of explaining the history and law
than any of the gun nutz.

I read it. SCOTUS dropped the ball by seeing 2nd limitations that aren't
there.


The main weakness I see is of a system that relies on gun prohibition
signs for defense. These signs serve only to announce that there will be
no resistance offered.

Guns are not prohibited by NY's Safe Act. They couldn't be. The first
federal court would shoot it down, citing Heller.

You missed the point. I was referring to private areas that display
signs saying that private citizens can't be armed in this area.



How many mass shootings in areas where there are no gun prohibitions?

There are no mass shootings in the US *anywhere* there are gun
prohibitions -- because there are no gun prohibitions. Guns are
legally owned in every jurisdiction and municipality in the United
States.

Most of the mass shootings have taken place in private areas that
prohibited armed citizens. The only exception I can think of is the
Gifford shooting which took place in a parking lot.


The NY "Safe" act he was arguing against does those things. He was
resentful because he knows the result he wants, and he has nothing
much to argue against his opposition. Most rational people want those
very kinds of regulations, except possibly the registration, and it's
born out in poll after poll. They don't want to prohibit guns; they
just want gun owners to be checked out.

Inevitably, when he argues the way he did, his argument becomes "those
dead kids don't matter." And that, essentially, is what he wound up
saying. That's the voice and the attitude of gun nutz, as most people
perceive them.

They matter because they demonstrate the failure of gun control to be
effective, and that proposing MORE gun control will not be more effective.

Tell that to Weiss. He said the dead kids don't matter.

In one sense, he's right, they were an insignificant statistical blip,
like all mass shootings are, but media coverage tend to make them prominent.


I've read Heller and I disagree with its explicit and implied
limitations on the 2nd Amendment.

Great. Put yourself up for the next open Justice position. Tell them
that you think Scalia is too liberal and not as smart as you are.

He's not too liberal, he, like all Justices of SCOTUS, has a political
agenda.

And he probably isn't as smart as I am, but he does know about different
things.


From a man wiser than me, you or SCOTUS:

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little
temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

Benjamin Franklin for the Pennsylvania Assembly in its Reply to the Governor

David

No one has to give up an essential liberty. You have a S.C. decision
to protect it.

A decision intended to protect the state at the expense of the rights of
citizens. Ironically, it recognizes part of a right while outlining
restrictions on that right that don't exist in the 2nd Amendment.

David

On Sun, 31 Aug 2014 09:10:57 -0500, "David R. Birch"
wrote:

On 8/30/2014 10:42 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Sat, 30 Aug 2014 09:57:20 -0500, "David R. Birch"
wrote:


I saw his emotion, he was speaking from deep feelings. I saw nothing I'd
call rabid.

So, where do you draw the line? Does he actually have to bite someone
on the leg? From Webster's:

=============================================
ra·bid
adjective \?ra-b?d also ?ra--\

1)affected with rabies

2) having or expressing a very extreme opinion about or interest in
something
============================================

I'll go for 2).

I don't think that expressing an opinion that disagrees with yours makes
it very extreme.

It's easy to lose sight of this here, in a nest of gun nutz, but the
idea that the provisions of the Safe Act are in violation of the 2nd
Amendment is a distinctly minority view. So much a minority, in fact,
that I'd call it extreme.

For example, the last Gallup poll found that 83% of adults in the US
wanted Congress to pass a law requiring universal background checks.
And 56% want to reinstate the complete ban on ARs. The Safe Act is
right in line with mainstream American opinions.

It's a clumsy law that was rushed through, and a few provisions have
been struck down by a federal court (loading no more than 7 rounds in
a 10-round magazine is one for late-night comedy shows), but most of
it stands.

Weiss is out on the fringe, as are many members here.



Do you you feel that the acts of an insane individual are sufficient
cause to violate the rights of the rest of a nation's citizens?

Especially when violating those rights will not effectively grant
security from other insane individuals?

Nobody's rights are being violated by NY's Safe Act. This is not an
opinion. It's a matter of fact -- both history and law.

Read Heller. It does a better job of explaining the history and law
than any of the gun nutz.

I read it. SCOTUS dropped the ball by seeing 2nd limitations that aren't
there.

The Supreme Court based its judgment on a thorough review of the
historical record. Where did your opinion come from?



The main weakness I see is of a system that relies on gun prohibition
signs for defense. These signs serve only to announce that there will be
no resistance offered.

Guns are not prohibited by NY's Safe Act. They couldn't be. The first
federal court would shoot it down, citing Heller.

You missed the point. I was referring to private areas that display
signs saying that private citizens can't be armed in this area.

I doubt if there were any such signs in most of those places. The fact
is, people don't usually carry guns in those places, anyway.

Of course, we now have a lot of gun nutz who say they *should* carry
guns in those places. They want something like a paramilitary state.
Even Israel knocked that off some years ago, and their statistics were
much more supportive than ours. See your note about an "insane
individual," above.

The chances of a school shooting taking place in a US high school in
any given year: 1 in 21,000.

The chances of a school shooting taking place in a US elementary or
middle school in any given year: 1 in 141,463.

So, for that, the gun nutz want to arm the teachers in 93,000 schools
-- and they assume that the teachers will be competent, and not wind
up shooting each other.

I'm in public schools several times each week; I'm not so sure. d8-)

I find that position ironic in light of Weiss's comment that the dead
kids at Sandy Hook "don't matter," and your comment below, that they
are "an insignificant statistical blip." If that's true, what are we
arguing about? Any lives that armed people in those places might save
are an insignificant blip, right?




How many mass shootings in areas where there are no gun prohibitions?

There are no mass shootings in the US *anywhere* there are gun
prohibitions -- because there are no gun prohibitions. Guns are
legally owned in every jurisdiction and municipality in the United
States.

Most of the mass shootings have taken place in private areas that
prohibited armed citizens. The only exception I can think of is the
Gifford shooting which took place in a parking lot.

There were many others. I can supply a list upon request. d8-)



The NY "Safe" act he was arguing against does those things. He was
resentful because he knows the result he wants, and he has nothing
much to argue against his opposition. Most rational people want those
very kinds of regulations, except possibly the registration, and it's
born out in poll after poll. They don't want to prohibit guns; they
just want gun owners to be checked out.

Inevitably, when he argues the way he did, his argument becomes "those
dead kids don't matter." And that, essentially, is what he wound up
saying. That's the voice and the attitude of gun nutz, as most people
perceive them.

They matter because they demonstrate the failure of gun control to be
effective, and that proposing MORE gun control will not be more effective.

Tell that to Weiss. He said the dead kids don't matter.

In one sense, he's right, they were an insignificant statistical blip,
like all mass shootings are, but media coverage tend to make them prominent.

See above.



I've read Heller and I disagree with its explicit and implied
limitations on the 2nd Amendment.

Great. Put yourself up for the next open Justice position. Tell them
that you think Scalia is too liberal and not as smart as you are.

He's not too liberal, he, like all Justices of SCOTUS, has a political
agenda.

And he probably isn't as smart as I am, but he does know about different
things.

Oooh...OK, then, if you're that smart, what is the history that you
think mitigates against the Heller decision?



From a man wiser than me, you or SCOTUS:

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little
temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

Benjamin Franklin for the Pennsylvania Assembly in its Reply to the Governor

David

No one has to give up an essential liberty. You have a S.C. decision
to protect it.

A decision intended to protect the state at the expense of the rights of
citizens. Ironically, it recognizes part of a right while outlining
restrictions on that right that don't exist in the 2nd Amendment.

David

Hardly anything exists "in the 2nd Amendment." It's a thoroughly
ambiguous nominative absolute sentence. In Heller, the Court based the
individual right on a supposed pre-existing right to keep arms in
"common use" for ordinary civilian purposes, which is alluded to in
the independent clause. (Or not, depending on your point of view. I
think that the Court got it right.)

They provided a lot of support for that conclusion. How about you?
What do you have that contradicts it?

--
Ed Huntress

"All... natural rights may be abridged or modified in [their]
exercise by law." --Thomas Jefferson: Opinion on Residence Bill,
1790.

On 8/31/2014 11:46 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Sun, 31 Aug 2014 09:10:57 -0500, "David R. Birch"
wrote:

On 8/30/2014 10:42 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Sat, 30 Aug 2014 09:57:20 -0500, "David R. Birch"
wrote:


I saw his emotion, he was speaking from deep feelings. I saw nothing I'd
call rabid.

So, where do you draw the line? Does he actually have to bite someone
on the leg? From Webster's:

=============================================
ra·bid
adjective \?ra-b?d also ?ra--\

1)affected with rabies

2) having or expressing a very extreme opinion about or interest in
something
============================================

I'll go for 2).

I don't think that expressing an opinion that disagrees with yours makes
it very extreme.

It's easy to lose sight of this here, in a nest of gun nutz, but the
idea that the provisions of the Safe Act are in violation of the 2nd
Amendment is a distinctly minority view. So much a minority, in fact,
that I'd call it extreme.

For example, the last Gallup poll found that 83% of adults in the US
wanted Congress to pass a law requiring universal background checks.
And 56% want to reinstate the complete ban on ARs. The Safe Act is
right in line with mainstream American opinions.

Which is why our Republic was set up to protect minorities from abuse by
majorities.

It's a clumsy law that was rushed through, and a few provisions have
been struck down by a federal court (loading no more than 7 rounds in
a 10-round magazine is one for late-night comedy shows), but most of
it stands.

Weiss is out on the fringe, as are many members here.

As were those who founded our country.




Do you you feel that the acts of an insane individual are sufficient
cause to violate the rights of the rest of a nation's citizens?

Especially when violating those rights will not effectively grant
security from other insane individuals?

Nobody's rights are being violated by NY's Safe Act. This is not an
opinion. It's a matter of fact -- both history and law.

Read Heller. It does a better job of explaining the history and law
than any of the gun nutz.

I read it. SCOTUS dropped the ball by seeing 2nd limitations that aren't
there.

The Supreme Court based its judgment on a thorough review of the
historical record. Where did your opinion come from?

Silly me, I read the 2nd Amendment. I don't see the limitations SCOTUS does.

The main weakness I see is of a system that relies on gun prohibition
signs for defense. These signs serve only to announce that there will be
no resistance offered.

Guns are not prohibited by NY's Safe Act. They couldn't be. The first
federal court would shoot it down, citing Heller.

You missed the point. I was referring to private areas that display
signs saying that private citizens can't be armed in this area.

I doubt if there were any such signs in most of those places. The fact
is, people don't usually carry guns in those places, anyway.

People with CCW licenses carry guns where there is no posting.

The killer in Aurora, Co, bypassed at least one theater to attend one
that had such a sign posted. The killer here in Brookfield, Wi, entered
a beauty salon that was posted. Sandy Hook was posted.

You're the one being silly, now.


Of course, we now have a lot of gun nutz who say they *should* carry
guns in those places. They want something like a paramilitary state.
Even Israel knocked that off some years ago, and their statistics were
much more supportive than ours. See your note about an "insane
individual," above.

The Israelis arm their teachers.


The chances of a school shooting taking place in a US high school in
any given year: 1 in 21,000.

The chances of a school shooting taking place in a US elementary or
middle school in any given year: 1 in 141,463.

Exactly, posting the signs is nothing but "feel good".

I wonder what those numbers would be without the signs.


So, for that, the gun nutz want to arm the teachers in 93,000 schools
-- and they assume that the teachers will be competent, and not wind
up shooting each other.

Putting guns in untrained hands is almost as bad as telling killers that
there will be no one to oppose them, which the signs do.

I'm in public schools several times each week; I'm not so sure. d8-)

I find that position ironic in light of Weiss's comment that the dead
kids at Sandy Hook "don't matter," and your comment below, that they
are "an insignificant statistical blip." If that's true, what are we
arguing about? Any lives that armed people in those places might save
are an insignificant blip, right?

So you'd rather those lives WEREN'T saved?


How many mass shootings in areas where there are no gun prohibitions?

There are no mass shootings in the US *anywhere* there are gun
prohibitions -- because there are no gun prohibitions. Guns are
legally owned in every jurisdiction and municipality in the United
States.

Most of the mass shootings have taken place in private areas that
prohibited armed citizens. The only exception I can think of is the
Gifford shooting which took place in a parking lot.

There were many others. I can supply a list upon request. d8-)

Nah, not interested in a game of "you show me yours, I'll show you mine".

I know you're better at data mining. If you found 10 shootings in posted
areas and 5 that were in unposted areas, you'd show me the 5 and not
mention the 10.




The NY "Safe" act he was arguing against does those things. He was
resentful because he knows the result he wants, and he has nothing
much to argue against his opposition. Most rational people want those
very kinds of regulations, except possibly the registration, and it's
born out in poll after poll. They don't want to prohibit guns; they
just want gun owners to be checked out.

Inevitably, when he argues the way he did, his argument becomes "those
dead kids don't matter." And that, essentially, is what he wound up
saying. That's the voice and the attitude of gun nutz, as most people
perceive them.

They matter because they demonstrate the failure of gun control to be
effective, and that proposing MORE gun control will not be more effective.

Tell that to Weiss. He said the dead kids don't matter.

In one sense, he's right, they were an insignificant statistical blip,
like all mass shootings are, but media coverage tend to make them prominent.

See above.

No comment on the media frenzy in spite of them being as uncommon as you
pointed out?



I've read Heller and I disagree with its explicit and implied
limitations on the 2nd Amendment.

Great. Put yourself up for the next open Justice position. Tell them
that you think Scalia is too liberal and not as smart as you are.

He's not too liberal, he, like all Justices of SCOTUS, has a political
agenda.

And he probably isn't as smart as I am, but he does know about different
things.

Oooh...OK, then, if you're that smart, what is the history that you
think mitigates against the Heller decision?

The narrow decision supporting Hell against DC is supported by the 2nd
Amendment. The 2nd Amendment mitigates against the limitations that
SCOTUS tries to impose.




From a man wiser than me, you or SCOTUS:

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little
temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

Benjamin Franklin for the Pennsylvania Assembly in its Reply to the Governor

David

No one has to give up an essential liberty. You have a S.C. decision
to protect it.

A decision intended to protect the state at the expense of the rights of
citizens. Ironically, it recognizes part of a right while outlining
restrictions on that right that don't exist in the 2nd Amendment.

David

Hardly anything exists "in the 2nd Amendment." It's a thoroughly
ambiguous nominative absolute sentence.



In Heller, the Court based the
individual right on a supposed pre-existing right to keep arms in
"common use" for ordinary civilian purposes, which is alluded to in
the independent clause. (Or not, depending on your point of view. I
think that the Court got it right.)

They provided a lot of support for that conclusion. How about you?
What do you have that contradicts it?

My reading of the Federalist Papers, Anti-Federalist Papers and many of
the other opinions of those who later ratified the COTUS. They were
aware that they had fought a hard battle that would have been impossible
to start if they had allowed the British to disarm them. Many believed
that there may be future battles to be fought because, without
vigilance, tyranny was always around the corner. Of course, as we've
seen too often, they were right.

Sorry, Ed, by default I choose to protect the rights of the citizen
against the authority of the state.

I'm not sure who or what you are trying to protect, but it's not the
rights of the citizen.

David

On Sun, 31 Aug 2014 16:17:12 -0500, "David R. Birch"
wrote:

On 8/31/2014 11:46 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Sun, 31 Aug 2014 09:10:57 -0500, "David R. Birch"
wrote:

On 8/30/2014 10:42 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Sat, 30 Aug 2014 09:57:20 -0500, "David R. Birch"
wrote:


I saw his emotion, he was speaking from deep feelings. I saw nothing I'd
call rabid.

So, where do you draw the line? Does he actually have to bite someone
on the leg? From Webster's:

=============================================
ra·bid
adjective \?ra-b?d also ?ra--\

1)affected with rabies

2) having or expressing a very extreme opinion about or interest in
something
============================================

I'll go for 2).

I don't think that expressing an opinion that disagrees with yours makes
it very extreme.

It's easy to lose sight of this here, in a nest of gun nutz, but the
idea that the provisions of the Safe Act are in violation of the 2nd
Amendment is a distinctly minority view. So much a minority, in fact,
that I'd call it extreme.

For example, the last Gallup poll found that 83% of adults in the US
wanted Congress to pass a law requiring universal background checks.
And 56% want to reinstate the complete ban on ARs. The Safe Act is
right in line with mainstream American opinions.

Which is why our Republic was set up to protect minorities from abuse by
majorities.

First it was "his views aren't extreme," now it's "protecting
minorities from majorities." When you decide which of those nearly
opposite points of view you want to argue, David, let me know.



It's a clumsy law that was rushed through, and a few provisions have
been struck down by a federal court (loading no more than 7 rounds in
a 10-round magazine is one for late-night comedy shows), but most of
it stands.

Weiss is out on the fringe, as are many members here.

As were those who founded our country.

Nonsense.

The people who founded our country wanted democratic representation.
They couldn't vote for members of Parliament and they called that
despotism.

So now we can vote for our legislators, thanks to our ancestors'
sacrifices, fighting and dying for it, and you want what...an
oligarchy of the fringe? A Gun Nutz' Oligarchy?

Just tell us. It sounds like you don't care for what Jefferson called
"The introduction of this new principle of representative democracy
[which] has rendered useless almost everything written before
on the structure of government."





Do you you feel that the acts of an insane individual are sufficient
cause to violate the rights of the rest of a nation's citizens?

Especially when violating those rights will not effectively grant
security from other insane individuals?

Nobody's rights are being violated by NY's Safe Act. This is not an
opinion. It's a matter of fact -- both history and law.

Read Heller. It does a better job of explaining the history and law
than any of the gun nutz.

I read it. SCOTUS dropped the ball by seeing 2nd limitations that aren't
there.

The Supreme Court based its judgment on a thorough review of the
historical record. Where did your opinion come from?

Silly me, I read the 2nd Amendment. I don't see the limitations SCOTUS does.

That's because you didn't read the history of it. You don't know what
they meant. You can't discern it from the Amendment alone.

The sentence is a nominative absolute construction. By definition,
there is no known grammatical relationship between the nominative
phrase and the independent clause. You don't know what, if any,
dependency is intended by the phrase.You don't know what it means. I
don't know what it means. The Supreme Court doesn't know what it
means.

All you can do is make a serious study of its historical context and
see what it *appears* to mean. Which is what the Supreme Court did.
We're not talking about "intent." Robert Bork, the conservative expert
on original intent, told us about the intent. The intent, said Bork,
was to insure that the federal government would not disable the state
militias by disarming their citizens. That's all the 2nd was about,
according to one of the most conservative jurists of our time.

The *meaning* is another matter. What was "the right"? Where is it
explained? Where is it defined? Nowhere, explicitly. And not in the
words of politicians of the time, who were advocates for one side or
another; like politicians today, they only told us what they wanted,
as individuals.

The Founders were, in that sense, politicians. You can only discern
the historical context by a careful and thorough reading of the words
and the laws of the time. I think the Court did it quite well. I agree
that they have correctly decided the case based on the preponderance
of historical evidence.


The main weakness I see is of a system that relies on gun prohibition
signs for defense. These signs serve only to announce that there will be
no resistance offered.

Guns are not prohibited by NY's Safe Act. They couldn't be. The first
federal court would shoot it down, citing Heller.

You missed the point. I was referring to private areas that display
signs saying that private citizens can't be armed in this area.

I doubt if there were any such signs in most of those places. The fact
is, people don't usually carry guns in those places, anyway.

People with CCW licenses carry guns where there is no posting.

Overall, roughly 11.4 million people have CCW permits in the US as of
mid-2014. According to incidental police reports, no more than half
are carrying at any given time. That's 1 out of 60 people.

Paul Merkel of _Shooting Illustrated_ says, "I’ve encountered dozens
of citizens who obtained a permit but don’t carry because they do not
feel comfortable or capable of actually using a gun for personal
protection....I am certain my face shows distress when I hear someone
say they have a CCW permit but they '…only carry it when I think I
might need it.'”

I don't doubt those circumstances are quite common. I talked with some
friends in northern IL late this summer, who are eager to get their
new permits. "Of course, I'll only carry it in Chicago or some of the
suburbs," they said.


The killer in Aurora, Co, bypassed at least one theater to attend one
that had such a sign posted. The killer here in Brookfield, Wi, entered
a beauty salon that was posted. Sandy Hook was posted.

You're the one being silly, now.

Not at all. Again, if you want a list of mass shootings that occurred
in places where there were no such postings (because there couldn't
be), just let me know.



Of course, we now have a lot of gun nutz who say they *should* carry
guns in those places. They want something like a paramilitary state.
Even Israel knocked that off some years ago, and their statistics were
much more supportive than ours. See your note about an "insane
individual," above.

The Israelis arm their teachers.

No, they don't. Their schools, in areas where there are more than a
few Arabs, have, typically, one armed security guard. They don't arm
teachers.

Try getting your facts on this from Israeli security officials, rather
than right-wing propagandists.



The chances of a school shooting taking place in a US high school in
any given year: 1 in 21,000.

The chances of a school shooting taking place in a US elementary or
middle school in any given year: 1 in 141,463.

Exactly, posting the signs is nothing but "feel good".

I wonder what those numbers would be without the signs.

Well, you said they're already just a statistical blip. What would it
matter?



So, for that, the gun nutz want to arm the teachers in 93,000 schools
-- and they assume that the teachers will be competent, and not wind
up shooting each other.

Putting guns in untrained hands is almost as bad as telling killers that
there will be no one to oppose them, which the signs do.

I'm in public schools several times each week; I'm not so sure. d8-)

I find that position ironic in light of Weiss's comment that the dead
kids at Sandy Hook "don't matter," and your comment below, that they
are "an insignificant statistical blip." If that's true, what are we
arguing about? Any lives that armed people in those places might save
are an insignificant blip, right?

So you'd rather those lives WEREN'T saved?

I'm the one who believes ALL of those lives are important. Weiss is
the one who says dead kids aren't important. You're the one who says
they's a "statistical blip."



How many mass shootings in areas where there are no gun prohibitions?

There are no mass shootings in the US *anywhere* there are gun
prohibitions -- because there are no gun prohibitions. Guns are
legally owned in every jurisdiction and municipality in the United
States.

Most of the mass shootings have taken place in private areas that
prohibited armed citizens. The only exception I can think of is the
Gifford shooting which took place in a parking lot.

There were many others. I can supply a list upon request. d8-)

Nah, not interested in a game of "you show me yours, I'll show you mine".

'Getting tired of realizing that your myths and canards don't stand up
to the facts? You won't be the first.


I know you're better at data mining. If you found 10 shootings in posted
areas and 5 that were in unposted areas, you'd show me the 5 and not
mention the 10.

Maybe. It would depend on what your claim was. When you say "most of
the shootings occurred in places where there were no-gun postings,"
and then point to one exception, I'm going to show you the list of 5.
Or 10, which is more like it, that happened in places where there
could have been no such signs.

If you said "many of them," I'd probably show you the list of both.
But that isn't what the issue was.

Actually, I think the no-guns postings had absolutely nothing to do
with anything. You're imagining what was going through the heads of
those shooters, and those shooters were psychopaths. I don't think you
can project your thinking into the mind of a psychopath. Trained
shrinks can't do that; you don't have a chance.

As for the statistics, they tell us a lot. We know, for example, that
something like 1 in 60 people in the US are carrying at any given
time. That's one in 45 adults. That's not a deterrent. That's a joke.

The one in 45 are entitled to be carrying, IMO, and the issue is their
individual protection. But when you try to extend that to some
cockamamie theory of deterrence, the statistics shoot it down.





The NY "Safe" act he was arguing against does those things. He was
resentful because he knows the result he wants, and he has nothing
much to argue against his opposition. Most rational people want those
very kinds of regulations, except possibly the registration, and it's
born out in poll after poll. They don't want to prohibit guns; they
just want gun owners to be checked out.

Inevitably, when he argues the way he did, his argument becomes "those
dead kids don't matter." And that, essentially, is what he wound up
saying. That's the voice and the attitude of gun nutz, as most people
perceive them.

They matter because they demonstrate the failure of gun control to be
effective, and that proposing MORE gun control will not be more effective.

Tell that to Weiss. He said the dead kids don't matter.

In one sense, he's right, they were an insignificant statistical blip,
like all mass shootings are, but media coverage tend to make them prominent.

See above.

No comment on the media frenzy in spite of them being as uncommon as you
pointed out?

Here's the story on the media frenzy: The vast majority of people in
the US, unlike officer Weiss, don't believe that 23 dead school kids
"don't matter." Neither do they accept the idea that they're a
"statistical blip."

Most people, except for sociopaths and people blinded by self-induced
rage, see them as a horror and a symbol of how perverse our gun laws
have become, particularly in their absence. To require background
checks at gun dealers is a very good idea. But to have such a law and
not apply it to private sales is not only perverse; it's psychotic.

So when 23 elementary school kids are killed by a loon with a
high-capacity AR, most people are able to make the connection. His
mother was nutz for having the gun. The kid himself was nutz and
shouldn't have been allowed near a gun. The fact that she had it, and
he got it, can be traced directly to the failure of Congress to
re-instate the AR ban.

Most people realize this without argument. Gun nutz will flop around
like a flounder to deny and evade it. They aren't convincing.

So there you are. That's why the polls so sharply contradict what gun
nutz think the issues and their conclusions are. Again, the last polls
show that 83% of people want universal background checks, and 56% want
to ban ARs.




I've read Heller and I disagree with its explicit and implied
limitations on the 2nd Amendment.

Great. Put yourself up for the next open Justice position. Tell them
that you think Scalia is too liberal and not as smart as you are.

He's not too liberal, he, like all Justices of SCOTUS, has a political
agenda.

And he probably isn't as smart as I am, but he does know about different
things.

Oooh...OK, then, if you're that smart, what is the history that you
think mitigates against the Heller decision?

The narrow decision supporting Hell against DC is supported by the 2nd
Amendment. The 2nd Amendment mitigates against the limitations that
SCOTUS tries to impose.

No it doesn't. Nowhere in history is such a conclusion supported. The
Court cited the common understanding at the time of our founding about
"rights." I qouted Jefferson on it just today. There is nothing to
support your point of view except your own wishful thinking.





From a man wiser than me, you or SCOTUS:

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little
temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

Benjamin Franklin for the Pennsylvania Assembly in its Reply to the Governor

David

No one has to give up an essential liberty. You have a S.C. decision
to protect it.

A decision intended to protect the state at the expense of the rights of
citizens. Ironically, it recognizes part of a right while outlining
restrictions on that right that don't exist in the 2nd Amendment.

David

Hardly anything exists "in the 2nd Amendment." It's a thoroughly
ambiguous nominative absolute sentence.



In Heller, the Court based the
individual right on a supposed pre-existing right to keep arms in
"common use" for ordinary civilian purposes, which is alluded to in
the independent clause. (Or not, depending on your point of view. I
think that the Court got it right.)

They provided a lot of support for that conclusion. How about you?
What do you have that contradicts it?

My reading of the Federalist Papers, Anti-Federalist Papers and many of
the other opinions of those who later ratified the COTUS. They were
aware that they had fought a hard battle that would have been impossible
to start if they had allowed the British to disarm them. Many believed
that there may be future battles to be fought because, without
vigilance, tyranny was always around the corner. Of course, as we've
seen too often, they were right.

Never. You just come up on the short end of voting and elections, and
you call it "tyranny." The Founders would laugh at you, and chew you
out for undermining the principle they fought so hard for, and gave
lives for.


Sorry, Ed, by default I choose to protect the rights of the citizen
against the authority of the state.

I'm not sure who or what you are trying to protect, but it's not the
rights of the citizen.

David

What I want to protect is the rights of the people against despotism
by a small minority of crackpots who want to rule by oligarchy --
Gunner and his "cullers," Larry who wants to threaten (or have someone
else threaten) elected officials if they don't do the bidding of that
minority. And anyone who doesn't like the result of an election or a
vote, in which they come out on the losing side, and rattle swords
about "spilling blood" and "tyranny."

My ancestors fought and died so we can have a representative
democracy, as Jefferson explained it. I won't let it be usurped by a
group that thinks that voting doesn't matter, that dead kids don't
matter, or that mass killings are just a "statistical blip."

"The first principle of republicanism is that the lex majoris partis
is the fundamental law of every society of individuals of equal
rights; to consider the will of the society enounced by the majority
of a single vote as sacred as if unanimous is the first of all lessons
in importance, yet the last which is thoroughly learnt. This law once
disregarded, no other remains but that of force, which ends
necessarily in military despotism." --Thomas Jefferson to Alexander
von Humboldt, 1817. ME 15:127

It was the minority that rejects this fundamental law of equal right
-- the gun nutz who scream "tyranny" when they don't get their way,
like children told they can't have a toy -- that Jefferson was saying
will lead to military despotism. He was right.

--
Ed Huntress

In article , Ed Huntress
wrote:


Overall, roughly 11.4 million people have CCW permits in the US as of
mid-2014. According to incidental police reports, no more than half
are carrying at any given time. That's 1 out of 60 people.

Paul Merkel of _Shooting Illustrated_ says, "I've encountered dozens
of citizens who obtained a permit but don't carry because they do not
feel comfortable or capable of actually using a gun for personal
protection....I am certain my face shows distress when I hear someone
say they have a CCW permit but they "only carry it when I think I
might need it."

I don't doubt those circumstances are quite common. I talked with some
friends in northern IL late this summer, who are eager to get their
new permits. "Of course, I'll only carry it in Chicago or some of the
suburbs," they said.

Data point: My father had a concealed-carry permit for decades, but
had no intention to carry, and never did. He got the CCW permit as
insurance against the complexity of the law in Mass with respect to
guns - a CCW permit pretty much trumps that tangle.

Joe Gwinn

On Tue, 02 Sep 2014 13:50:27 -0500, Richard
wrote:

I guess I really am a throwback to the old days.
Or maybe I was wrong back then.

I always thought that the minority was supposed to be protected from
the majority. Foolish idea, huh?

It seem like you are saying that it's the other way around now.

Majority rules.

So how does an election of less than a majority of the eligible voters work?

To my simple mind that shows no confidence in the candidates offered.

So when one of those candidates is elected in such circumstances, how
is that not a rigged game?

When you live in a Constitutional Republic...there is no "Democracy"
as you imply.

Gunner

"At the core of liberalism is the spoiled child,
miserable, as all spoiled children are, unsatisfied,
demanding, ill-disciplined, despotic and useless.
Liberalism is a philosophy of sniveling brats."
PJ O'Rourke

I guess I really am a throwback to the old days.
Or maybe I was wrong back then.

I always thought that the minority was supposed to be protected from
the majority. Foolish idea, huh?

It seem like you are saying that it's the other way around now.

Majority rules.

So how does an election of less than a majority of the eligible voters work?

To my simple mind that shows no confidence in the candidates offered.

So when one of those candidates is elected in such circumstances, how
is that not a rigged game?

On Tue, 02 Sep 2014 13:50:27 -0500, Richard
wrote:

I guess I really am a throwback to the old days.
Or maybe I was wrong back then.

I always thought that the minority was supposed to be protected from
the majority. Foolish idea, huh?

Only in terms of fundamental rights. Otherwise, it's like this:

"The first principle of republicanism is that the lex majoris partis
is the fundamental law of every society of individuals of equal
rights; to consider the will of the society enounced by the majority
of a single vote as sacred as if unanimous is the first of all lessons
in importance, yet the last which is thoroughly learnt. This law once
disregarded, no other remains but that of force, which ends
necessarily in military despotism." --Thomas Jefferson to Alexander
von Humboldt, 1817. ME 15:127

What alternative would you propose? Rule by the minority? You might
ask Gunner or Larry about that, because that's what they seem to
favor.



It seem like you are saying that it's the other way around now.

Majority rules.

Uh, it's been that way since long before the Constitution was written.


So how does an election of less than a majority of the eligible voters work?

Those who vote, rule. Those who don't, suck wind.


To my simple mind that shows no confidence in the candidates offered.

To my simple mind that shows laziness and irresponsibility.


So when one of those candidates is elected in such circumstances, how
is that not a rigged game?

See above. If you don't vote, you don't have anything to complain
about.

--
Ed Huntress

On 9/2/2014 6:21 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:


The game is rigged, Ed.
Always has been.

It's not rigged. We've just forfeited the game.


Ok, my bad.

So if the game has been forfeited, why play any more?

Richard wrote in
m:

[...]

So when one of those candidates is elected in such circumstances, how
is that not a rigged game?

News flash: it's *all* rigged. Congressional districts are deliberately drawn to *avoid*
competitive elections. Historically, a member of the U.S. House of Representatives is more
likely to die in office than to lose a bid for re-election. Back when the Soviet Union was still
around, the turnover rate was higher in the Supreme Soviet than in the U.S. House.

On 9/2/2014 5:26 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Tue, 02 Sep 2014 16:01:55 -0500,
wrote:

On 9/2/2014 3:06 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:

See above. If you don't vote, you don't have anything to complain
about.


I vote every election.

I have a LOT to complain about - specially the last two presidential
elections!!!


You are campaigning had for status quo...

Voter turn out should be considered as part of the vote.

Or give the ballot a "none of these jerks" option.

That option would be for the jerks -- the voters who don't vote for a
person, that is.

I always find it strange to hear people with a conservative bent
disparaging voting, especially when they don't even vote themselves.
It's an issue of civic responsibility, to me. That's what I was taught
and that's what I live by.

Not voting is something I associate with nihilism, which, in turn, I
associate with the extreme left.

You're going to wind up with someone in that office, regardless. If
you don't vote for your choice, even if it's the lesser of two evils,
you're undermining the system that a lot of people have fought and
died for.



You are missing some content.
First line of my reply!
And the next as well.


The game is rigged, Ed.
Always has been.

I see no way to straighten it out.

On 9/2/2014 3:06 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:

See above. If you don't vote, you don't have anything to complain
about.


I vote every election.

I have a LOT to complain about - specially the last two presidential
elections!!!


You are campaigning had for status quo...

Voter turn out should be considered as part of the vote.

Or give the ballot a "none of these jerks" option.

On Tue, 02 Sep 2014 16:01:55 -0500, Richard
wrote:

On 9/2/2014 3:06 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:

See above. If you don't vote, you don't have anything to complain
about.


I vote every election.

I have a LOT to complain about - specially the last two presidential
elections!!!


You are campaigning had for status quo...

Voter turn out should be considered as part of the vote.

Or give the ballot a "none of these jerks" option.

That option would be for the jerks -- the voters who don't vote for a
person, that is.

I always find it strange to hear people with a conservative bent
disparaging voting, especially when they don't even vote themselves.
It's an issue of civic responsibility, to me. That's what I was taught
and that's what I live by.

Not voting is something I associate with nihilism, which, in turn, I
associate with the extreme left.

You're going to wind up with someone in that office, regardless. If
you don't vote for your choice, even if it's the lesser of two evils,
you're undermining the system that a lot of people have fought and
died for.

--
Ed Huntress

On Tue, 02 Sep 2014 16:00:55 -0500, Richard
wrote:

On 9/2/2014 5:26 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Tue, 02 Sep 2014 16:01:55 -0500,
wrote:

On 9/2/2014 3:06 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:

See above. If you don't vote, you don't have anything to complain
about.


I vote every election.

I have a LOT to complain about - specially the last two presidential
elections!!!


You are campaigning had for status quo...

Voter turn out should be considered as part of the vote.

Or give the ballot a "none of these jerks" option.

That option would be for the jerks -- the voters who don't vote for a
person, that is.

I always find it strange to hear people with a conservative bent
disparaging voting, especially when they don't even vote themselves.
It's an issue of civic responsibility, to me. That's what I was taught
and that's what I live by.

Not voting is something I associate with nihilism, which, in turn, I
associate with the extreme left.

You're going to wind up with someone in that office, regardless. If
you don't vote for your choice, even if it's the lesser of two evils,
you're undermining the system that a lot of people have fought and
died for.



You are missing some content.
First line of my reply!
And the next as well.

I caught them. I didn't mean a personal "you." I meant it in the
plural, non-personal sense. I assumed that you vote.

As for having a lot to complain about, that's our national sport. g
I would ask you what you expect but I'm afraid it would start a long
conversation.

I am not campaigning for the status quo. That would be not voting.
THAT gives you the status quo.


The game is rigged, Ed.
Always has been.

It's not rigged. We've just forfeited the game.

--
Ed Huntress


I see no way to straighten it out.

On Tue, 02 Sep 2014 15:29:09 -0500, Richard
wrote:

On 9/2/2014 6:21 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:


The game is rigged, Ed.
Always has been.

It's not rigged. We've just forfeited the game.


Ok, my bad.

So if the game has been forfeited, why play any more?

Because I refuse to let lazy, irresponsible nihilists tell me when the
game is over. I'll play on, and, from time to time, get involved up to
my elbows.

--
Ed Huntress

On Tue, 02 Sep 2014 05:45:57 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:

On Tue, 02 Sep 2014 13:50:27 -0500, Richard
wrote:

I guess I really am a throwback to the old days.
Or maybe I was wrong back then.

I always thought that the minority was supposed to be protected from
the majority. Foolish idea, huh?

It seem like you are saying that it's the other way around now.

Majority rules.

So how does an election of less than a majority of the eligible voters work?

To my simple mind that shows no confidence in the candidates offered.

So when one of those candidates is elected in such circumstances, how
is that not a rigged game?

When you live in a Constitutional Republic...there is no "Democracy"
as you imply.

Gunner

.....in which Gunner displays, once again, the consequences of being
self-taught on a toxic brew of delusional nonsense.

So how does that "Constitutional Republic" work, Gunner, if not on a
basis of representative democracy, elected by the people?

"The introduction of this new principle of representative democracy
has rendered useless almost everything written before on the structure
of government..." -- Thomas Jefferson, letter to Isaac H. Tiffany.
Washington ed. vii, 32. (M. 1816)

--
Ed Huntress

On 9/5/2014 10:50 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:

I knew a different gun culture, which I sorely miss.



Me too...

A new all-time winner!

540 lines.



#### ## ## #### ######
## ## ### ## ## ## ##
### #### ## ## ## ##
### ## #### ## #####
### ## ### ## ##
## ## ## ## ## ##
#### ## ## #### ####


###### #### ###### #### ## ##
## ## ## # ## # ## ## ## ##
## ## ## ## ## ## ##
##### ## ## ## ######
## ## ## ## ## ## ##
## ## ## ## ## ## ## ##
###### #### #### #### ## ##

On Thursday, September 4, 2014 1:34:52 AM UTC-4, Ed Huntress wrote:


3) People have a right to be armed for their own defense.

The gun culture never really took a turn for the worse, though. Its always been this bad.

If grown-ups have the guns, kids and the mentally or drug impaired will be around these guns. They ultimately will get them on way or another. Fully automatic or not.

This has always been the case. It's always taken a turn for the worst. Not just recently. Just look at these phrases on YouTube:
"8 year old girl shoots full auto MAC 10 ", "Kid fires RPG on a beach ", "4 Year Old Shooting AK-47", "Kid shoots a m11-A1 ", "Kid Accidentally Shoots Dad's AK-47", "LITTLE GIRL SHOOTING AK47!!", "Boy Who Shot Himself With Uzi",

Philosophically, I include carrying firearms in public. I have serious

doubts, however, about their efficacy as a deterrent to crime, in

schools or otherwise.

I remember kids bringing ammo to show off at school.

Armed security guards would be somewhat more

effective in that regard.

Problem is the kids could have the ability to outgun the teachers and security guards ... AND just be joking about it.

4) [a minor point] Although the conclusions reached in Heller are,

IMO, historically correct, the whole enterprise has some arbitrary and

illogical parts. The Court left much of the relationship to militia up

in the air, despite its attempt to close the case by detaching the

individual right.

You'll probably never ever take guns away from these drug-addict parents who blindly buy guns, drugs and alcohol and anything else under the sun for their kids. They sure couldn't stop kids from getting this stuff in the early '30s, so how could they now?

On Fri, 5 Sep 2014 08:18:08 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Thursday, September 4, 2014 1:34:52 AM UTC-4, Ed Huntress wrote:


3) People have a right to be armed for their own defense.

The gun culture never really took a turn for the worse, though. Its always been this bad.

I beg to differ. I got my first gun in 1959. Everyone in my
neighborhood was a hunter. Of all the people I knew in my town who had
guns, only two had handguns. One was a .22 revolver that my friend
used for collecting rattlesnakes while he was trout fishing. The first
day of deer season was a school holiday. We kept our deer rifles in
the school athletic director's lockers until the end of the day.

The whole gun culture was radically different. _American Rifleman_ did
not feature "tactical" rifles on its cover. If you had a military gun,
the first thing you did was try to hide its military origins by
"sporterizing" the stock. If you were caught with a gun that had a
flashlight attached in 1960, you'd be arrested for jacklighting deer.
g

The turnaround began in 1977, with Neal Knox in the lead. Remember,
the NRA supported the GCA of 1968 (and the NFA in the 1930s). After
Harlon Carter and Knox, it all went to hell.


If grown-ups have the guns, kids and the mentally or drug impaired will be around these guns. They ultimately will get them on way or another. Fully automatic or not.

Not if you keep them locked up. And when I was a kid, you didn't even
have to do that.


This has always been the case. It's always taken a turn for the worst. Not just recently. Just look at these phrases on YouTube:
"8 year old girl shoots full auto MAC 10 ", "Kid fires RPG on a beach ", "4 Year Old Shooting AK-47", "Kid shoots a m11-A1 ", "Kid Accidentally Shoots Dad's AK-47", "LITTLE GIRL SHOOTING AK47!!", "Boy Who Shot Himself With Uzi",

None of those guns were on the market at the time I'm talking about.
Semiauto rifles were for Philadelphia nimrods and idiots.


Philosophically, I include carrying firearms in public. I have serious

doubts, however, about their efficacy as a deterrent to crime, in

schools or otherwise.

I remember kids bringing ammo to show off at school.

Armed security guards would be somewhat more

effective in that regard.

Problem is the kids could have the ability to outgun the teachers and security guards ... AND just be joking about it.

4) [a minor point] Although the conclusions reached in Heller are,

IMO, historically correct, the whole enterprise has some arbitrary and

illogical parts. The Court left much of the relationship to militia up

in the air, despite its attempt to close the case by detaching the

individual right.

You'll probably never ever take guns away from these drug-addict parents who blindly buy guns, drugs and alcohol and anything else under the sun for their kids. They sure couldn't stop kids from getting this stuff in the early '30s, so how could they now?

I knew a different gun culture, which I sorely miss.

--
Ed Huntress

On Friday, September 5, 2014 11:50:19 AM UTC-4, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Fri, 5 Sep 2014 08:18:08 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Thursday, September 4, 2014 1:34:52 AM UTC-4, Ed Huntress wrote:

3) People have a right to be armed for their own defense.

The gun culture never really took a turn for the worse, though. Its always been this bad.

I beg to differ. I got my first gun in 1959. Everyone in my

neighborhood was a hunter. Of all the people I knew in my town who had

guns, only two had handguns. One was a .22 revolver that my friend

used for collecting rattlesnakes while he was trout fishing. The first

day of deer season was a school holiday. We kept our deer rifles in

the school athletic director's lockers until the end of the day.


The whole gun culture was radically different. _American Rifleman_ did

not feature "tactical" rifles on its cover. If you had a military gun,

the first thing you did was try to hide its military origins by

"sporterizing" the stock. If you were caught with a gun that had a

flashlight attached in 1960, you'd be arrested for jacklighting deer.

The turnaround began in 1977, with Neal Knox in the lead. Remember,

the NRA supported the GCA of 1968 (and the NFA in the 1930s). After

Harlon Carter and Knox, it all went to hell.

If grown-ups have the guns, kids and the mentally or drug impaired will be around these guns. They ultimately will get them on way or another. Fully automatic or not.

Not if you keep them locked up. And when I was a kid, you didn't even

have to do that.

This has always been the case. It's always taken a turn for the worst. Not just recently. Just look at these phrases on YouTube:

"8 year old girl shoots full auto MAC 10 ", "Kid fires RPG on a beach ", "4 Year Old Shooting AK-47", "Kid shoots a m11-A1 ", "Kid Accidentally Shoots Dad's AK-47", "LITTLE GIRL SHOOTING AK47!!", "Boy Who Shot Himself With Uzi",

None of those guns were on the market at the time I'm talking about.

Semiauto rifles were for Philadelphia nimrods and idiots.

Philosophically, I include carrying firearms in public. I have serious

doubts, however, about their efficacy as a deterrent to crime, in

schools or otherwise.

I remember kids bringing ammo to show off at school.

Armed security guards would be somewhat more

effective in that regard.

Problem is the kids could have the ability to outgun the teachers and security guards ... AND just be joking about it.

4) [a minor point] Although the conclusions reached in Heller are,

IMO, historically correct, the whole enterprise has some arbitrary and

illogical parts. The Court left much of the relationship to militia up

in the air, despite its attempt to close the case by detaching the

individual right.

You'll probably never ever take guns away from these drug-addict parents who blindly buy guns, drugs and alcohol and anything else under the sun for their kids. They sure couldn't stop kids from getting this stuff in the early '30s, so how could they now?

I knew a different gun culture, which I sorely miss.

I know, Every house had guns and therefore was safe and no one was ever to get killed as a result.

Statistics are that 30 homicides occur each day. Not all with guns, but enough. Now when we were kids and we thought guns were cool or *necessary*, that statistic wasn't what we had in mind either.

I think its more a matter of what we WANTED to know, not what we found out. How we WANTED it to be, not how it actually was.

Nobody is calling NRA folks bad terrible people. Its just that they WANT gun culture and the 2nd Amendment to have been a certain way and it didn't turn out like that - though they'll still have their fully automatic guns.

And nobody predicted that the 2nd Amendment would hatch YouTube statements like:
"kid kicks ass shooting 50 cal ". And I'm sure you didn't think that was happening back in 1991.

On Sat, 6 Sep 2014 11:19:14 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Friday, September 5, 2014 11:50:19 AM UTC-4, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Fri, 5 Sep 2014 08:18:08 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Thursday, September 4, 2014 1:34:52 AM UTC-4, Ed Huntress wrote:

3) People have a right to be armed for their own defense.

The gun culture never really took a turn for the worse, though. Its always been this bad.

I beg to differ. I got my first gun in 1959. Everyone in my

neighborhood was a hunter. Of all the people I knew in my town who had

guns, only two had handguns. One was a .22 revolver that my friend

used for collecting rattlesnakes while he was trout fishing. The first

day of deer season was a school holiday. We kept our deer rifles in

the school athletic director's lockers until the end of the day.


The whole gun culture was radically different. _American Rifleman_ did

not feature "tactical" rifles on its cover. If you had a military gun,

the first thing you did was try to hide its military origins by

"sporterizing" the stock. If you were caught with a gun that had a

flashlight attached in 1960, you'd be arrested for jacklighting deer.

The turnaround began in 1977, with Neal Knox in the lead. Remember,

the NRA supported the GCA of 1968 (and the NFA in the 1930s). After

Harlon Carter and Knox, it all went to hell.

If grown-ups have the guns, kids and the mentally or drug impaired will be around these guns. They ultimately will get them on way or another. Fully automatic or not.

Not if you keep them locked up. And when I was a kid, you didn't even

have to do that.

This has always been the case. It's always taken a turn for the worst. Not just recently. Just look at these phrases on YouTube:

"8 year old girl shoots full auto MAC 10 ", "Kid fires RPG on a beach ", "4 Year Old Shooting AK-47", "Kid shoots a m11-A1 ", "Kid Accidentally Shoots Dad's AK-47", "LITTLE GIRL SHOOTING AK47!!", "Boy Who Shot Himself With Uzi",

None of those guns were on the market at the time I'm talking about.

Semiauto rifles were for Philadelphia nimrods and idiots.

Philosophically, I include carrying firearms in public. I have serious

doubts, however, about their efficacy as a deterrent to crime, in

schools or otherwise.

I remember kids bringing ammo to show off at school.

Armed security guards would be somewhat more

effective in that regard.

Problem is the kids could have the ability to outgun the teachers and security guards ... AND just be joking about it.

4) [a minor point] Although the conclusions reached in Heller are,

IMO, historically correct, the whole enterprise has some arbitrary and

illogical parts. The Court left much of the relationship to militia up

in the air, despite its attempt to close the case by detaching the

individual right.

You'll probably never ever take guns away from these drug-addict parents who blindly buy guns, drugs and alcohol and anything else under the sun for their kids. They sure couldn't stop kids from getting this stuff in the early '30s, so how could they now?

I knew a different gun culture, which I sorely miss.

I know, Every house had guns and therefore was safe and no one was ever to get killed as a result.

Statistics are that 30 homicides occur each day. Not all with guns, but enough. Now when we were kids and we thought guns were cool or *necessary*, that statistic wasn't what we had in mind either.

I think its more a matter of what we WANTED to know, not what we found out. How we WANTED it to be, not how it actually was.

Nobody is calling NRA folks bad terrible people. Its just that they WANT gun culture and the 2nd Amendment to have been a certain way and it didn't turn out like that - though they'll still have their fully automatic guns.

And nobody predicted that the 2nd Amendment would hatch YouTube statements like:
"kid kicks ass shooting 50 cal ". And I'm sure you didn't think that was happening back in 1991.

In 1991 I asked the NJSP officer in charge of sending crime data to
the FBI, for the UCR system, how many crimes had been committed in NJ
with ARs.

Answer: "One."

This was not reported at the time, except by me, in an editorial in
one of our state newspapers. It was bylined by one of the paper's
outdoors reporters.

So, what happened? We glorified those guns -- made 'em sound like a
gun for every Walter Mitty/Navy Seals wannabe. Look at who is buying
them. Did you see any of the video of gun stores last year, when
people were going nuts over them? That's the new face of our "gun
culture."

Every knuckle-dragger, crackpot, nutjob and paranoid freak in America
saved up his pennies and tried to buy one. While they were at it, they
cleaned out the .223 ammo, and then most of the other ammo in gun
shops. Some people even started building their own ARs, when the
prices went through the roof.

Criminals and mass murderers caught on and grabbed some while they
were hot.

I don't know whether this will end. Sales of those guns have tanked,
for now. The stock of the publicly traded firearms companies (S&W,
Ruger, Colt) have tanked along with it. Most of them have unsold
inventory of ARs and other semiautomatic rifles.

The rate of gun ownership in America is falling, even as gun sales
have remained pretty high. Gallup's poll numbers have fallen from 51%
of households in 1994 to 37% in their latest poll (2014, I think). Gun
nutz have one gun for every finger and toe these days, but there are
fewer of them.

But the culture probably is done for. Until 1977, the NRA was regarded
as a public-service organization that promoted safety and keeping guns
from criminals, like the Boy Scouts or the Daughters of the American
Revolution. Now they're regarded like the Teamsters Union with guns.
If you drive a truck for a living, or fear gun laws, you know what I
mean. And they're always angry.

For a while, from the late '50s through the mid-'70s, it looked like
public attitudes (and the NRA) were committed to training and
regulations to tighten up the flow of guns that wound up in crime.
Now, "it's not my problem," say the gun nutz.

That's pretty much the end, IMO. It's an existential battle, and the
politics will be rough. So far, the NRA has been good at running a
political terror operation, scaring the hell out of politicians. We'll
see how long it lasts.

--
Ed Huntress