On Nov 29, 4:49*am, "Upscale" wrote:
"Robatoy" wrote in message
There is a whole ****load of difference between runamuk
sports-****s and greedy killers.

Not really since a significant portion of the mob grows as it moves and many
use the crowd simply as a means to steal.

If you suddenly came upon a swarm of people running to a hole in the wall of
a bank and scooping up handfuls of cash, would you be tempted to do the
same, even for a split second?

No, Absolutely NO. It ain't mine, I ain't taking it.
No exceptions.
Ever.

"Mark & Juanita" wrote in message
Human nature, however has not. The fact that there are still people out
there who would prey upon those weaker than themselves does not make the
right to self-defense any less relevant now than it was in the past.

I can't argue with that, except to say that maybe the means of self defense
should be changed if that is at all possible.

Nor does the threat of an armed citizenry make enslavement of those
citizens any easier now than in the past. There are still those today
who
would impose absolute dictatorial power over others if they were able to
do
so.

No argument.

Just because the excuses given for
that desire for control may have changed, the need to prevent that type of
tyrannical behavior has not changed.

I agree.

"Upscale" wrote in message
...

"todd" wrote in message
Any other of the amendments to the Constitution that you'd like to
eliminate
by back door processes? Maybe let the press have their printing presses
but
tax ink at $1,000,000 / gal? Or maybe a $1,000 tax at the door of your
church to get in.

I think most would agree that there's a significant moral difference
between
the right to bear arms and the right to free speech,

One day, one might rely on the other.

despite the fact that
they're both enshrined in your constitution. And just because something
*is*
enshrined in your constitution, doesn't for one second mean that what was
important then is necessarily important now. During the past 300 years,
population and society have changed significantly.

And you know what, there is a mechanism to change anything that is outdated.
If someone wants to remove the 2nd amendment, they can go through the
defined process. But they're not going to backdoor it with the moronic idea
of taxing ammo.

todd

"Upscale" wrote

important then is necessarily important now. During the past 300 years,
population and society have changed significantly.

But, reading any literature from the past thousand years for ample proof,
human nature has not changed one iota.

Currently reading de Balzac's prolific series "Human Comedy", volumes upon
volumes depicting life/characters in France in the early 1800's, like
"Cousin Pons", "Eugenie Gaudet" and/or "Cousin Betty" for starters, ...
English translations abound:

http://www.thalasson.com/gtn/gtnletB.htm#balzacho

All characters are someone you immediately know, or recognize, today ... in
the latter above, you would swear you were reading about Ms. Ciccone ...

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)

On Nov 30, 6:14*pm, "Swingman" wrote:
"Upscale" wrote

important then is necessarily important now. During the past 300 years,
population and society have changed significantly.

But, reading any literature from the past thousand years for ample proof,
human nature has not changed one iota. *

Absolutely right.

Upscale wrote:


"Mark & Juanita" wrote in message
That's a pretty broad statement, how about a few stats to back it up?
And
if it is true, I'd wonder how similar stats for Canada would correlate
to
the US ones?

The following is a synopsis of the FBI report, if you don't like the
source,
you can peruse the FBI report yourself.
http://www.nraila.org/legislation/read.aspx?id=4181

I certainly don't like the source. The NRA? An organzation whose sole
purpose is the right to bear arm. Decidedly one sided point of view.


While I certainly agree that they have a one-sided point of view, and I
will admit that I have often pointed out biased sources by others in
various discussions, the issue here was not the point of view expressed,
but the statistics cited. In this case, the statistics can be pretty well
relied upon to be what is in the FBI report (I just wasn't going to go
digging for that report). One thing regarding NRA statistics -- you can
pretty well be sure they are correct because the other side spends a great
deal of time fact-checking anything the NRA cites or states. If the NRA
cites were off by a single digit, the media would be all over them for
making up facts. The media treatment of the NRA is quite unlike the
media's treatment of other groups with whose views the media agrees, those
groups can make up whatever figures they like (e.g. # of homeless, degrees
of global warming, # of people hungry or impoverished, dangers of eating
certain types of food, etc.) with little or no fear of being called out on
it.


http://www.reason.com/news/show/28582.html

Another dubious point of view from an individual. How about some unbiased
national statistics?


Don't disagree that parts of this are an opinion piece, however, the
history and statistics cited are consistent with historical events and
other news reports.






--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

On Nov 30, 7:59*pm, Mark & Juanita wrote:
Upscale wrote:

"Mark & Juanita" wrote in message
That's a pretty broad statement, how about a few stats to back it up?
And
if it is true, I'd wonder how similar stats for Canada would correlate
to
the US ones?

The following is a synopsis of the FBI report, if you don't like the
source,
you can peruse the FBI report yourself.
http://www.nraila.org/legislation/read.aspx?id=4181

I certainly don't like the source. The NRA? An organzation whose sole
purpose is the right to bear arm. Decidedly one sided point of view.

* While I certainly agree that they have a one-sided point of view, and I
will admit that I have often pointed out biased sources by others in
various discussions, the issue here was not the point of view expressed,
but the statistics cited. *In this case, the statistics can be pretty well
relied upon to be what is in the FBI report (I just wasn't going to go
digging for that report). *One thing regarding NRA statistics -- you can
pretty well be sure they are correct because the other side spends a great
deal of time fact-checking anything the NRA cites or states. *If the NRA
cites were off by a single digit, the media would be all over them for
making up facts. *The media treatment of the NRA is quite unlike the
media's treatment of other groups with whose views the media agrees, those
groups can make up whatever figures they like (e.g. # of homeless, degrees
of global warming, # of people hungry or impoverished, dangers of eating
certain types of food, etc.) with little or no fear of being called out on
it.

http://www.reason.com/news/show/28582.html

Another dubious point of view from an individual. How about some unbiased
national statistics?

* Don't disagree that parts of this are an opinion piece, however, the
history and statistics cited are consistent with historical events and
other news reports.

--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

Give it up, Mark. You are looking silly now.
You can no longer defend that cluster-flub you're been rooting for.
Even YOU can see it was the absolute worst presidency in US history.

While agreeing that the behaviour of the mob was reprehensible, vile and
displayed the sort of savage disregard for fellow mankind that one might
expect from a pack of rabid dogs, one cannot help but wonder at the social
"norm" that helped precipitate the event. The deliberate engineering of a
competitive "me, me, me first!!" greediness in having a "sale" where a few
items are tangled as bait before a dammed-up wall of wound-up, starting
tape-tearing consumers is every bit as much to blame as the low-life savages
who succumbed to it.

The store's policy is tantamount to incitement to riot and deserves censure
at best. What do they expect when they pull stunts like dangling raw meat
over the heads of a pack of starving wolves for several days, letting it be
known that _only_ the first , fastest, highest jumping wolf will actually get
the gravy?

People - "the people of today" - just aren't that clever or evolved. They
watch reality T.V. They subscribe to political correctness. With the
stripping away of the currently defined "civilization" facade, they bay for
gladiatorial blood or shovel other people into gas ovens for a popular ideal.
They believe in things which are provably untrue and are willing to put to
death anyone who will not accept their ludicrous superstitions. They steal
from other people, attack total strangers purely to enjoy the experience and
drive motor vehicles with total disregard for the comfort and safety of
anyone outside the vehicle. They are savage, brutal and oftentimes only held
in check by fear of reprisals for not conforming to the acceptable norm.
This, among all the compassion, selfless love and splendid and glorious stuff
which balances it out, is the ever-present dark side of the contemporary
human condition. How can we, with impunity, provoke such humankind with
tantalizing evil such as these first-past-the-post "sales" where the
combatants have been psyched-up to believe that the stakes are so damned
high?

We can't. We can't play exploitative games like this and shirk the
consequences. What has happened is the inevitable result of the deliberate,
cynical manipulation of consumers into a competitive position. It will happen
again unless this consumerist model is rethought to accommodate the
volatility of the manipulated resource. Wal-Mart and similar concerns must
reassess their entire strategy and, if they still wish to entertain shoppers
with a competitive element in the hunting and killing of seasonal bargains,
then they must do it in a way that cannot engender physical aggression.

Yes, the people surging into the store were stupid, savage animals but it was
the store's poorly conceived hysteria-raising crowd-damming manipulating of
them that made them that way. Wal-Mart are as much the killers here as
anyone.

"Robatoy" wrote

Even YOU can see it was the absolute worst presidency in US history.

I truly do not have a dog in the fight, but I would caution to let history
decide that. The media, providing the masses the information upon which the
judgment is currently based, is as equally despicable as any politician.

And "the masses" are basically responsible for the very post that started
this thread.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)

"Bored Borg" wrote in message
.com...
While agreeing that the behaviour of the mob was reprehensible, vile and
displayed the sort of savage disregard for fellow mankind that one might
expect from a pack of rabid dogs, one cannot help but wonder at the social
"norm" that helped precipitate the event. The deliberate engineering of a
competitive "me, me, me first!!" greediness in having a "sale" where a few
items are tangled as bait before a dammed-up wall of wound-up, starting
tape-tearing consumers is every bit as much to blame as the low-life
savages
who succumbed to it.

The store's policy is tantamount to incitement to riot and deserves
censure
at best. What do they expect when they pull stunts like dangling raw meat
over the heads of a pack of starving wolves for several days, letting it
be
known that _only_ the first , fastest, highest jumping wolf will actually
get
the gravy?

People - "the people of today" - just aren't that clever or evolved.
They
watch reality T.V. They subscribe to political correctness. With the
stripping away of the currently defined "civilization" facade, they bay
for
gladiatorial blood or shovel other people into gas ovens for a popular
ideal.
They believe in things which are provably untrue and are willing to put to
death anyone who will not accept their ludicrous superstitions. They steal
from other people, attack total strangers purely to enjoy the experience
and
drive motor vehicles with total disregard for the comfort and safety of
anyone outside the vehicle. They are savage, brutal and oftentimes only
held
in check by fear of reprisals for not conforming to the acceptable norm.
This, among all the compassion, selfless love and splendid and glorious
stuff
which balances it out, is the ever-present dark side of the contemporary
human condition. How can we, with impunity, provoke such humankind with
tantalizing evil such as these first-past-the-post "sales" where the
combatants have been psyched-up to believe that the stakes are so damned
high?

We can't. We can't play exploitative games like this and shirk the
consequences. What has happened is the inevitable result of the
deliberate,
cynical manipulation of consumers into a competitive position. It will
happen
again unless this consumerist model is rethought to accommodate the
volatility of the manipulated resource. Wal-Mart and similar concerns must
reassess their entire strategy and, if they still wish to entertain
shoppers
with a competitive element in the hunting and killing of seasonal
bargains,
then they must do it in a way that cannot engender physical aggression.

Yes, the people surging into the store were stupid, savage animals but it
was
the store's poorly conceived hysteria-raising crowd-damming manipulating
of
them that made them that way. Wal-Mart are as much the killers here as
anyone.

You sound like SWMBO ... to your credit.

I normally snip. but the above deserves repeating.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)

On Nov 30, 8:44*pm, "Swingman" wrote:
"Robatoy" wrote

Even YOU can see it was the absolute worst presidency in US history.

I truly do not have a dog in the fight, but I would caution to let history
decide that. The media, providing the masses the information upon which the
judgment is currently based, is as equally despicable as any politician.

And "the masses" are basically responsible for the very post that started
this thread.

--www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)

Hell, even Carter got a few things right....even though I can't come
up with anything just now...NIXON did a few things.... okay..can't
think of anything there either...
..
..
..
I guess if we wait long enough, Bush43 did something right...but it's
hard to imagine what that could have been....

I'm sorry, but I'm still in awe of Reagan.... yea yea yea.. he wasn't
perfect either... but he was COOL!

"Bored Borg" wrote in message
.com...
While agreeing that the behaviour of the mob was reprehensible, vile and
displayed the sort of savage disregard for fellow mankind that one might
expect from a pack of rabid dogs, one cannot help but wonder at the social
"norm" that helped precipitate the event. The deliberate engineering of a
competitive "me, me, me first!!" greediness in having a "sale" where a few
items are tangled as bait before a dammed-up wall of wound-up, starting
tape-tearing consumers is every bit as much to blame as the low-life
savages
who succumbed to it.

I especially like the part in our Constitution that says "all men must
compete for bargains at holidays sales"
No one made them get up to go to the store, be it Wal Mart, Best Buy, JC
Penney, etc.

Lew Hodgett wrote:
"J. Clarke" wrote:

By what mechanism?

Simple.

As you increase the cost of an activity, you reduce the number of
participants.

At a minimun, the number of "Saturday night specials" sold will be
reduced since the cost of ammo for it would more than double the
cost
of a usable weapon.

So how many firearms costing less than 60 dollars are sold in a given
year? And how many people are shot with them?

Prove that the problem your solution will address is the problem that
exists.

Fine, since you seem to think that one cannot obtain used
wheelweights, would you impose restrictions on the possession of
brand
new wheel weights?

The market all ready pretty much takes care of itself.

Cost of new product negates any cost advantage of trying to reclaim
them for another purpose.

So you're saying that new wheelweights cost $100 an ounce?

In that case, I suggest that you go have the cops bust every tire
store in the US.

Totally unnecessary.

The industry has been advised of the hazmat procedures.

Don't know of many companies that are willing to expose themselves
to
hazmat problems for a nominal sum of money.o

Then you need to get out more.


--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

On Nov 30, 8:34 pm, Robatoy wrote:

Hell, even Carter got a few things right....even though I can't come
up with anything just now...

I can't think of any myself

NIXON did a few things.... okay..can't
think of anything there either...

Finally got us out of Indochina.

Ended the draft.

Drafted and signed the first nuclear limitation treaty with Russia
(the SALT treaty).

Opened the first American dialogue with the Chinese (a communist!)
government.

Created the EPA.

Sent the brilliant Henry Kissinger to the middle east to get Egypt,
Syria and Israel to stop fighting. He was successful.

Then... in an unprecedented case of believing one's own bull****
combined with a stew of paranoia, arrogance, and stupidity, he got
involved in Watergate. He will be remembered for nothing else. In
many ways, I think Nixon was a terribly warped man.


I'm sorry, but I'm still in awe of Reagan.... yea yea yea.. he wasn't
perfect either... but he was COOL!

Why be sorry? He was waaaay cool. He was far from perfect, (kinda
like the rest of us...) but he was the right guy at the right place at
the right time. The lefties were in tears as they thought he was too
conservative, and the righties thought he wasn't conservative enough.

After all the years of the country joyfully tearing itself to pieces,
it was neat to be "proud to be an American" again. IIRC, when he ran
for re-election, he was so popular with the public he only lost one
state in the Union.

Sadly, I don't think we will ever see the likes of him again.

Robert

On Mon, 1 Dec 2008 02:42:30 +0000, Ed Pawlowski wrote
(in article ):

I especially like the part in our Constitution that says "all men must
compete for bargains at holidays sales"
No one made them get up to go to the store, be it Wal Mart, Best Buy, JC
Penney, etc.

It's next to the bits that say that in order to be accepted/admired by your
peers:

You must wear clothes and hairstyles that fashion dictates are the norm or
better still, will become the norm in the very near future while maintaining
a slight edge or
difference that will persuade everyone else to follow suit yet enhance your
alpha status
(Meanwhile, you must certainly own a necktie or two.)

You gotta have the very latest ipod, cellphone, satnav to survive.

A city child cannot be educated unless conspicuously driven right to the
school door in a military
or big-game hunting vehicle.

You should proclaim belief in a monotheistic religion from the following
limited options... (C,P,J,X,Y,Z...)

You can have any political views you like, but definitely not _that_ one.

and many, many more things that are not actually written down but
nevertheless are "rules." Some are very loose and need only be followed by
those seeking some sort of alpha or celebrity status, Close behind are those
which to transgress would only have you labelled as "uncool" or "unusual"
in some way. Disregarding others would maybe have you considered as
"harmlessly eccentric" and maybe regarded more or less suspiciously. Yet
others would be very dangerous not to go along with. A lot depends on where
(and when) you are and whom you're with.

This stuff doesn't have to be written down. It still provides leverage on
society.

I agree that nowhere does it say that man must be a sheep, herded by market
forces, manipulated by the marketing industry and driven by advertising to
consume or behave in a certain way - but look around you and tell me it ain't
necessarily so. Were it not, we would not have seen the tragedy that kicked
this thread off.

Look around you and tell me people are _really_ free.

I really wish you could.

On Sun, 30 Nov 2008 17:14:11 -0600, "Swingman" wrote:

"Upscale" wrote

important then is necessarily important now. During the past 300 years,
population and society have changed significantly.

But, reading any literature from the past thousand years for ample proof,
human nature has not changed one iota.

Currently reading de Balzac's prolific series "Human Comedy", volumes upon
volumes depicting life/characters in France in the early 1800's, like
"Cousin Pons", "Eugenie Gaudet" and/or "Cousin Betty" for starters, ...
English translations abound:

http://www.thalasson.com/gtn/gtnletB.htm#balzacho

All characters are someone you immediately know, or recognize, today ... in
the latter above, you would swear you were reading about Ms. Ciccone ...


Yep. Started reading Gibbon again shortly after the election and it
is actually giving me some hope that we have actually made some
progress.


tom



Regards,

Tom Watson
http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1/

"Upscale" wrote in message
...

"todd" wrote in message
Any other of the amendments to the Constitution that you'd like to
eliminate
by back door processes? Maybe let the press have their printing presses
but
tax ink at $1,000,000 / gal? Or maybe a $1,000 tax at the door of your
church to get in.

I think most would agree that there's a significant moral difference
between
the right to bear arms and the right to free speech, despite the fact that
they're both enshrined in your constitution. And just because something
*is*
enshrined in your constitution, doesn't for one second mean that what was
important then is necessarily important now. During the past 300 years,
population and society have changed significantly.




Take Nigeria, for example ...

wrote in message
...
On Nov 30, 8:34 pm, Robatoy wrote:

Hell, even Carter got a few things right....even though I can't come
up with anything just now...

I can't think of any myself

NIXON did a few things.... okay..can't
think of anything there either...

Finally got us out of Indochina.

Ended the draft.

Drafted and signed the first nuclear limitation treaty with Russia
(the SALT treaty).

Opened the first American dialogue with the Chinese (a communist!)
government.

Created the EPA.

Sent the brilliant Henry Kissinger to the middle east to get Egypt,
Syria and Israel to stop fighting. He was successful.

Then... in an unprecedented case of believing one's own bull****
combined with a stew of paranoia, arrogance, and stupidity, he got
involved in Watergate. He will be remembered for nothing else. In
many ways, I think Nixon was a terribly warped man.

Flawed. And very afraid of people. Saw him up close and personal (face to
face) at a rally in Toledo in 1960. The fear was palpable.

On Sun, 30 Nov 2008 20:02:30 GMT, Lew Hodgett cast forth these pearls of
wisdom...:

"J. Clarke" wrote:

By what mechanism?

Simple.

As you increase the cost of an activity, you reduce the number of
participants.


Typical of legitimate participants, Not so with respect to the criminal
element.

At a minimun, the number of "Saturday night specials" sold will be
reduced since the cost of ammo for it would more than double the cost
of a usable weapon.

Alarmists like to use the phrase "Saturday night specials", because it
stirs something up within them, but what in the hell is that name supposed
to mean - and more importantly, what in the hell is it supposed to mean in
the context of this discussion? Why introduce a red herring that has
nothing at all to do with the matter at hand?



--

-Mike-

snip

That's a pretty broad statement, how about a few stats to back it up? And
if
it is true, I'd wonder how similar stats for Canada would correlate to the
US ones?
snip














A LITTLE GUN HISTORY


In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From
1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were
rounded up and exterminated.
------------------------------

In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to
1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up
and exterminated.
------------------------------

Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939
to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend
themselves were rounded up and exterminated.
------------------------------

China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to
1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were
rounded up and exterminated
------------------------------

Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to
1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up
and exterminated.
---- ------------- -------------

Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to
1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and
exterminated.
------------------------------

Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to
1977, one million educated' people, unable to defend themselves, were
rounded up and exterminated.
-----------------------------

Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the
20th Century because of gun control: 56 million.
------------------------------

It has now been 12 months since gun owners in Australia
were forced by new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be
destroyed by their own Government, a program costing Australia taxpayers
more than $500 million dollars. The first year results are now in:

List of 7 items:

Australia-wide, homicides are up 3.2 percent

Australia-wide, assaults are up 8.6 percent

Australia-wide, armed robberies are up 44 percent (yes,
44 percent)!

In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms
are now up 300 percent. Note that while the law-abiding citizens turned them
in, the criminals did not, and criminals still possess their guns!

While figures over the previous 25 years showed a steady
decrease in armed robbery with firearms, this has changed drastically upward
in the past 12 months, since criminals now are guaranteed that their prey is
unarmed.

There has also been a dramatic increase in break-ins and
assaults of the ELDERLY. Australian politicians are at a loss to explain how
public safety has decreased, after such monumental effort, and expense was
expended in successfully ridding Australian society of guns The Australian
experience and the other historical facts above prove it.

You won't see this datum on the US evening news, or hear
politicians disseminating this information.

Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and
property and, yes, gun-control laws adversely affect only the law-abiding
citizens.

Take note my fellow Americans, before it's too late!

The next time someone talks in favor of gun control,
please remind them of this history lesson.

With guns, we are 'citizens'. Without them, we are
'subjects'.

During WWII the Japanese decided not to invade America
because they knew most Americans were ARMED!

If you value your freedom, Please spread this anti-gun
control message to all of your friends.



The purpose of fighting is to win. There is no possible
victory in defense. The sword is more important than the shield, and skill
is more important than either. The final weapon is the brain. All else is
supplemental.

1. Don't pick a fight with an old man. If he is too old to
fight, he'll just kill you.

2. If you find yourself in a fair fight, your tactics
suck.

3. I carry a gun because a cop is too heavy.

4. W hen seconds count, the cops are just minutes away.

5. A reporter did a human-interest piece on the Texas
Rangers. The reporter recognized the Colt Model 1911 the Ranger was carrying
and asked him 'Why do you carry a 45?' The Ranger responded, 'Because they
don't make a 46.'

6. An armed man will kill an unarmed man with monotonous
regularity.

7. The old sheriff was attending an awards dinner when a
lady commented on his wearing his sidearm. 'Sheriff, I see you have your
pistol. Are you expecting trouble?' 'No Ma'am. If I were expecting trouble,
I would have brought my rifle.'

8. Beware the man who only has one gun. HE PROBABLY
KNOWS HOW TO USE IT!!!

But wait, there's more!

I was once asked by a lady visiting if I had a gun in
the house. I said I did. She said 'Well I certainly hope it isn't loaded!'
To which I said, 'Of course it is loaded, can't work without bullets!' She
then asked, 'Are you that afraid of someone evil coming into your house?'
My reply was,
'No, not at all. I am not afraid of the house catching
fire either, but I have fire extinguishers around, and they are all loaded
too.' To which I'll add, having a gun in the house that isn't loaded is like
having a car in the garage without gas in the tank.

I'm a firm believer of the 2nd Amendment! If you are
too, please forward

--------------------------------------------------------------






NOTICE: This communication and any attachments may contain
privileged or otherwise confidential information. If you are not the
intended recipient or believe that you may have received this communication
in error, please reply to the sender indicating that fact and delete the
copy you received without printing, copying, retransmitting, disseminating,
or otherwise using the information. Thank you.





------------------------------------------------------------------
One site has it all. Your email accounts, your social
networks, and the things you love. Try the new AOL.com today!






--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Internal Virus Database is out of date.
Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
Version: 8.0.173 / Virus Database: 270.8.2/1735 - Release Date: 10/20/2008
2:52 PM

"Mike Marlow" wrote:

Alarmists like to use the phrase "Saturday night specials", because
it
stirs something up within them, but what in the hell is that name
supposed
to mean - and more importantly, what in the hell is it supposed to
mean in
the context of this discussion?

"Saturday night specials": AKA: Typically low cost, low quality hand
gun.

Beyond that, you are on your own.

Lew

"J. Clarke" wrote:

So how many firearms costing less than 60 dollars are sold in a
given
year? And how many people are shot with them?

You tell me.

Prove that the problem your solution will address is the problem
that
exists.

Be my guest.

So you're saying that new wheelweights cost $100 an ounce?

Don't think so.

Lew

Lew Hodgett wrote:
"J. Clarke" wrote:

So how many firearms costing less than 60 dollars are sold in a
given
year? And how many people are shot with them?

You tell me.

Why? You're the one proposing a new law--it's up to you to
demonstrate that it will do what you claim it will. If you don't have
the numbers to back your assertion then you're talking out your ass.

Prove that the problem your solution will address is the problem
that
exists.

Be my guest.

Why should I prove that your solution addresses the problem that you
claim exists?

So you're saying that new wheelweights cost $100 an ounce?

Don't think so.

Then how is it that buying wheel weights at a store for purposes of
casting bullets for reloading purposes is not cost effective when you
are charging your ten dollar a bullet tax?

You really don't seem to have even tried to think this idea of yours
through and when challenged to do so you fall back on glib responses
and attempts to shift the burden of proof. I am curious as to why you
are so resistant to examining your own views.

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

On Mon, 01 Dec 2008 16:46:43 GMT, Lew Hodgett cast forth these pearls of
wisdom...:

"Mike Marlow" wrote:

Alarmists like to use the phrase "Saturday night specials", because
it
stirs something up within them, but what in the hell is that name
supposed
to mean - and more importantly, what in the hell is it supposed to
mean in
the context of this discussion?

"Saturday night specials": AKA: Typically low cost, low quality hand
gun.

Beyond that, you are on your own.


I know what a Saturday Night Special is - what I am asking is why you
introduced that into this thread? SNS's have nothing to do with the
discussion that preceeded your introduction of them.

--

-Mike-

"Mike Marlow" wrote:


I know what a Saturday Night Special is - what I am asking is why
you
introduced that into this thread? SNS's have nothing to do with the
discussion that preceeded your introduction of them.

An example of a market segment that would be significantly impacted by
a large increase in ammunition costs.

Nothing sinister.

Lew

"J. Clarke" wrote:

Why? You're the one proposing a new law--it's up to you to
demonstrate that it will do what you claim it will. If you don't
have
the numbers to back your assertion then you're talking out your ass.

The basic statement was that by imposing a significant increase in the
sales/use tax it would reduce the available market.

Your failure to understand that sounds like a personal problem.

Perhaps you might want to try Econ 101 to resolve.

Trying to introduce extraneous intellectual bull**** not withstanding,
the base statement still stands.

I'm out of here.

Lew

Lew Hodgett wrote:
"J. Clarke" wrote:

Why? You're the one proposing a new law--it's up to you to
demonstrate that it will do what you claim it will. If you don't
have
the numbers to back your assertion then you're talking out your
ass.

The basic statement was that by imposing a significant increase in
the
sales/use tax it would reduce the available market.

You have not demonstrated that "reducing the available market" will
accomplish any desirable societal objective.

Your failure to understand that sounds like a personal problem.

Perhaps you might want to try Econ 101 to resolve.

Trying to introduce extraneous intellectual bull**** not
withstanding,
the base statement still stands.

I'm out of here.

Oh, if it were only so.

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

On Mon, 01 Dec 2008 20:13:20 GMT, Lew Hodgett cast forth these pearls of
wisdom...:

"Mike Marlow" wrote:


I know what a Saturday Night Special is - what I am asking is why
you
introduced that into this thread? SNS's have nothing to do with the
discussion that preceeded your introduction of them.

An example of a market segment that would be significantly impacted by
a large increase in ammunition costs.


Not at all impacted. They aren't impacted by the price of guns today -
they don't go to Gander Mountain to buy their guns and ammo. They buy them
on the street. Price goes up? Sell more drugs.

The whole point is that you can't combat the criminal element with tactics
that cost the law abiding elements of society. Those guys aren't affected
by prices, inconveniences, etc.

--

-Mike-

"Mike Marlow" wrote:

Not at all impacted. They aren't impacted by the price of guns
today -
they don't go to Gander Mountain to buy their guns and ammo. They
buy them
on the street. Price goes up? Sell more drugs.

The whole point is that you can't combat the criminal element with
tactics
that cost the law abiding elements of society. Those guys aren't
affected
by prices, inconveniences, etc.

Have you considered submitting your ideas to Bill Bratton here in L/A?

As L/A's top cop, he just might be interested.

Lew

Lew Hodgett wrote:
"Mike Marlow" wrote:

Not at all impacted. They aren't impacted by the price of guns
today -
they don't go to Gander Mountain to buy their guns and ammo. They
buy them
on the street. Price goes up? Sell more drugs.

The whole point is that you can't combat the criminal element with
tactics
that cost the law abiding elements of society. Those guys aren't
affected
by prices, inconveniences, etc.

Have you considered submitting your ideas to Bill Bratton here in L/A?

As L/A's top cop, he just might be interested.

Lew



I'd rather see what Joe Arpio thinks.

Tom Bunetta wrote:

snip

That's a pretty broad statement, how about a few stats to back it up? And
if
it is true, I'd wonder how similar stats for Canada would correlate to
the US ones?
snip














A LITTLE GUN HISTORY

.... snip of history

A bit of more recent history. For those who think disarming the populace
is a good idea, read very carefully the accounts of what happened in Mumbai
last week. Just a couple of armed citizens (heck, one or two armed police
officers with ammunition) could have prevented a lot of savagery. Instead,
the populace was reduced to being a bunch of unarmed, helpless sheep whom
these monsters were able to slaughter at will. The cameraman who got the
pictures of one of the savages made the statement that he wished he had a
gun instead of a camera.
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/world-news/mumbai-photographer-i-wish-id-had-a-gun-not-a-camera-armed-police-would-not-fire-back-14086308.html
He also made the statement that the policemen wouldn't fire on the
terrorists. There is some speculation that the police may have had guns
but no ammunition.



--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

"Mark & Juanita" wrote in message
A bit of more recent history. For those who think disarming the
populace
is a good idea, read very carefully the accounts of what happened in
Mumbai
last week. Just a couple of armed citizens (heck, one or two armed police
officers with ammunition) could have prevented a lot of savagery.

(Rest of the crap snipped)

Of course a person with a gun and willing to use it at the right place and
time might have had a beneficial affect. And if hitler had been strangled at
birth, the second world war might not have happened. That's the benefit pf
hindsight isn't it? By your resoning, if everybody ran around with a
sub-machine gun in their back pocket, nobody would die anywhere. Right? What
a pile of crap. All you'd end up with is pockets of citizens warring with
each other.

The police officers here *are armed*. There *are* any number of swat teams
availalable here that *are* ready to act quickly. They *are* armed and have
plenty of ammunition.

Don't for one second compare what happened in Mumbai to law and order here
in North America. The situations and conditions are completely different and
not even close to being comparable.

On Tue, 02 Dec 2008 03:06:12 GMT, Lew Hodgett cast forth these pearls of
wisdom...:

"Mike Marlow" wrote:

Not at all impacted. They aren't impacted by the price of guns
today -
they don't go to Gander Mountain to buy their guns and ammo. They
buy them
on the street. Price goes up? Sell more drugs.

The whole point is that you can't combat the criminal element with
tactics
that cost the law abiding elements of society. Those guys aren't
affected
by prices, inconveniences, etc.

Have you considered submitting your ideas to Bill Bratton here in L/A?

As L/A's top cop, he just might be interested.

Lew

I'm sure he knows well that raising the price of ammo and guns does little
to impact the criminal element. It seems only you think it will. The cops
and the politicians like to push this stuff because it gets them feel good
points with the non-thinkers out there in public land who feel the just
have to see something done - anything...

--

-Mike-

On Tue, 2 Dec 2008 06:45:26 -0500, Upscale cast forth these pearls of
wisdom...:



Of course a person with a gun and willing to use it at the right place and
time might have had a beneficial affect. And if hitler had been strangled at
birth, the second world war might not have happened. That's the benefit pf
hindsight isn't it? By your resoning, if everybody ran around with a
sub-machine gun in their back pocket, nobody would die anywhere. Right? What
a pile of crap. All you'd end up with is pockets of citizens warring with
each other.

Actually - no. Here in the US, and in other places around the world, guns
are commonplace. Yet - no warring citizens. How do you explain that? At
the same time, you have radical elements who will use guns, knives and even
airplanes to accomplish their objectives. Your point fails you on this
one.



--

-Mike-

"Mike Marlow" wrote:

Not at all impacted. They aren't impacted by the price of guns
today -

Let's agree to disagree and call it a day.

Lew

"Mike Marlow" wrote

Actually - no. Here in the US, and in other places around the world, guns
are commonplace. Yet - no warring citizens.

Not yet, anyway. Strong advocate of 2nd Amendment rights, so no argument
there. But, what worries me is how much of the illegal immigrant population
is currently armed to the teeth? Especially with the Mexican drug cartel
increasingly more active *inside* our border.

Maintaining "weapon parity" is something the average citizen is not going to
consider.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)

Swingman wrote:

"Mike Marlow" wrote


Actually - no. Here in the US, and in other places around the world, guns
are commonplace. Yet - no warring citizens.


Not yet, anyway. Strong advocate of 2nd Amendment rights, so no argument
there. But, what worries me is how much of the illegal immigrant population
is currently armed to the teeth? Especially with the Mexican drug cartel
increasingly more active *inside* our border.

Maintaining "weapon parity" is something the average citizen is not going to
consider.


Can you still legally purchase fully automatic weapons in Texas??? ;-)

--
Jack Novak
Buffalo, NY - USA

Nova wrote:
Swingman wrote:

"Mike Marlow" wrote


Actually - no. Here in the US, and in other places around the
world, guns are commonplace. Yet - no warring citizens.


Not yet, anyway. Strong advocate of 2nd Amendment rights, so no
argument there. But, what worries me is how much of the illegal
immigrant population is currently armed to the teeth? Especially
with the Mexican drug cartel increasingly more active *inside* our
border.

Maintaining "weapon parity" is something the average citizen is not
going to consider.


Can you still legally purchase fully automatic weapons in Texas???
;-)

The states that I'm aware of with full-auto bans are California,
Connecticut, and maybe New York (I'm not clear on whether the Sullivan
Act applies to the whole state or just NYC). However the Feds have
outlawed sales to citizens of any made or imported after 1986, and
between that and the transfer tax the prices have gone through the
roof.

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Swingman wrote:

Especially with the Mexican drug cartel increasingly more active
*inside* our border.

Maintaining "weapon parity" is something the average citizen is not
going to consider.

To put the Mexican drug wars in perspective, last week it was reported
that there were more fatalities in Mexico than in the total MidEast
theater.

37 in TJ alone which included at least 4 decapitations.

Nobody goes to TJ for the weekend these days.


Lew

On Tue, 2 Dec 2008 17:36:53 -0600, Swingman cast forth these pearls of
wisdom...:

"Mike Marlow" wrote

Actually - no. Here in the US, and in other places around the world, guns
are commonplace. Yet - no warring citizens.

Not yet, anyway. Strong advocate of 2nd Amendment rights, so no argument
there. But, what worries me is how much of the illegal immigrant population
is currently armed to the teeth? Especially with the Mexican drug cartel
increasingly more active *inside* our border.

Maintaining "weapon parity" is something the average citizen is not going to
consider.

Point taken, but again - it's a point about a criminal elelment - not a
point about either the right to bear arms, or law abiding citizens. That
criminal element is not going to be affected by any of Lew's proposed
legislation. In fact the only element that is going to be effected, is the
legal element.

--

-Mike-