Han wrote:
(Doug Miller) wrote in
:

If you disagree with the statements, an explanation of why you think
they are incorrect would be far more persuasive than raising ad
hominem attacks against the person who made them.

Do you think that Glock pistols and 33-round magazines should be
available to everyone?

I think this is the third or fourth time I've seen you make reference to 33
round magazines. Why the continued reference to them? Most gun owners -
legal and illegal, do not own or use such things. It may not be your
attempt, but when I see that kind of reference repeatedly, as I've seen in
your recent comments, it strikes me that you are trying to rely more on
sensationalism than on a factual position. Or - more than on a simple
opinion, even.

--

-Mike-

"DGDevin" wrote in
m:



"Andrew Barss" wrote in message
...

J. Clarke wrote:

: A despot wouldn't _dare_ try to get away with the taxes
: we pay.

Eh? The US has the second lowest taxes of all developed
nations in the world. And our taxes right now are lower
that they've been since the late 1940s-early 1950s.

Sure, but they're convinced they're being taxed at
breathtaking rates because the politicians in a certain
party tell them that every chance they get.

If you think we're not paying enough you're free to donate
more to the system if you like. Myself, I'm confident that I'm
paying my fair share when nearly 1/2 of my wages go to some
form of tax. And I don't need a politician to tell me
either...

Larry

"Mike Marlow" wrote in
:

I think this is the third or fourth time I've seen you make reference
to 33 round magazines. Why the continued reference to them? Most gun
owners - legal and illegal, do not own or use such things. It may not
be your attempt, but when I see that kind of reference repeatedly, as
I've seen in your recent comments, it strikes me that you are trying
to rely more on sensationalism than on a factual position. Or - more
than on a simple opinion, even.

I can't imagine you didn't know that the Tucson shooter had 33-round (or
was it 31-round?) magazines. There is absolutely no reason for a
"regular" citizen to have such things.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

On 2/27/2011 7:38 AM, Larry wrote:
wrote in
m:



"Andrew Barss" wrote in message
...

J. wrote:

: A despot wouldn't _dare_ try to get away with the taxes
: we pay.

Eh? The US has the second lowest taxes of all developed
nations in the world. And our taxes right now are lower
that they've been since the late 1940s-early 1950s.

Sure, but they're convinced they're being taxed at
breathtaking rates because the politicians in a certain
party tell them that every chance they get.

If you think we're not paying enough you're free to donate
more to the system if you like. Myself, I'm confident that I'm
paying my fair share when nearly 1/2 of my wages go to some
form of tax. And I don't need a politician to tell me
either...

In Texas for 2009 (according to taxfoundation.org) the total federal,
state and local tax rate paid on a per capita income of $40,498 was
22.9%. (15% federal, 7.9% state and local)

While Texas ranked about 43 in states, in my book, that is still more
than enough tax burden to be ****ed about.

What's even more aggravating is the condescending attitude/use of the
third-person, personal pronoun (as if themselves are somehow above
"they") of those on the public tit (notice your respondents .edu email
address).

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlC@ (the obvious)

In article , Han wrote:
Larry Jaques wrote in
:

On 27 Feb 2011 00:37:50 GMT, Han wrote:

Larry, I said:

Now personally, I'm really in favor of limiting guns and ammo ...

The fact that people get killed because unstable persons can get hold
of guns and VAST supplies of ammo this easily is proof that LIMITING
should work.

Han, limiting legal guns has no effect on the number of guns in
criminal hands. You can buy a black market gun on many streetcorners
in any large city, and in most small ones. Your gun bans would only
limit the number of _defensive_ weapons in law-abiding citizens'
hands. It would encourage the criminals to commit more crime. Christ,
look at Great Britain for a perfect example. With no guns, their crime
rate is far higher than ours now.

False logic, Larry. If that idiot had been unable to buy a gun, or even
unable to buy a 33-round magazine, there would have been far less
slaughter. Can't you see that? If someone has a legitimate reason for
buying a weapon, I'll let him or her. I just would like to make it more
difficult for idiots to buy lethality.

And how do you propose to do that?

In article , Han wrote:
(Doug Miller) wrote in
:

If you disagree with the statements, an explanation of why you think
they are incorrect would be far more persuasive than raising ad
hominem attacks against the person who made them.

Do you think that Glock pistols and 33-round magazines should be available
to everyone?

Non sequitur; the context, which you removed (why?) was Larry's statement that
increasing the availability of guns has been shown to reduce crime. I made no
claims one way or the other about any gun issues; I simply pointed out that,
rather than dispute the statement, Lew chose to mock and abuse Larry.

In article , Swingman wrote:

In Texas for 2009 (according to taxfoundation.org) the total federal,
state and local tax rate paid on a per capita income of $40,498 was
22.9%. (15% federal, 7.9% state and local)

And I'll bet that takes into account *only* direct taxes on income, and leaves
out...
- Federal excise tax on tires, motor vehicle fuel, tobacco, alcoholic
beverages, etc.
- state excise taxes on same
- Federal excise tax on telephone service
- state and local sales taxes
- state and local property taxes
- state and Federal corporate income taxes. Yes, that's right, business taxes.
Corporations don't pay taxes. Their *customers* do. Whatever percentage of its
gross revenue WalMart pays in corporate income tax, that's how many pennies of
every dollar you spend there constitute an additional, hidden, tax payment.
- the "employer's share" of the FICA tax. See above; the employer doesn't pay
that, the employees and/or the customers do.
- other business taxes such as workmen's compensation and unemployment. Again,
businesses don't pay those either, their customers do.

(Doug Miller) wrote in -
september.org:

And how do you propose to do that?

Real penalties for offenders. Re-instatement of rules that (IMNSHO) were
imprudently canceled, and enforcement of existing rules. Those rules
should also govern gun shows, and private transactions.

Just MY opinion.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

On 2/27/2011 8:52 AM, Doug Miller wrote:
In articlew5Cdnd0JDs0i_ffQnZ2dnUVZ_vOdnZ2d@giganews. com, wrote:

In Texas for 2009 (according to taxfoundation.org) the total federal,
state and local tax rate paid on a per capita income of $40,498 was
22.9%. (15% federal, 7.9% state and local)

And I'll bet that takes into account *only* direct taxes on income, and leaves
out...

You would be right ... AFAICT the figures were limited to state, local,
federal tax rates.

Of course, some of the local and state can possibly be deducted from
federal, but they still must first be paid, in almost all cases, out of
"after federal tax income".

Personally, I could give a rat's ass what other countries do with regard
to taxes. Anything more than 10% of my hard earned income to any
government entity is too damn much, regardless.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlC@ (the obvious)

On 27 Feb 2011 12:36:43 GMT, Han wrote:

Larry Jaques wrote in
:

On 27 Feb 2011 00:37:50 GMT, Han wrote:

Larry, I said:

Now personally, I'm really in favor of limiting guns and ammo ...

The fact that people get killed because unstable persons can get hold
of guns and VAST supplies of ammo this easily is proof that LIMITING
should work.

Han, limiting legal guns has no effect on the number of guns in
criminal hands. You can buy a black market gun on many streetcorners
in any large city, and in most small ones. Your gun bans would only
limit the number of _defensive_ weapons in law-abiding citizens'
hands. It would encourage the criminals to commit more crime. Christ,
look at Great Britain for a perfect example. With no guns, their crime
rate is far higher than ours now.

False logic, Larry. If that idiot had been unable to buy a gun, or even
unable to buy a 33-round magazine, there would have been far less

False logic, Han. Illegal guns -are- available on the streets, period.
Laws or no laws. Accept it. It is _fact_, whether any of us likes it
or not. Gun control laws don't have any affect on their presence on
the street.

BTW, Loughner was using a semi-auto pistol. Even without the large
magazine, he could have swapped another one into it within a second
and a half. The size of magazine in his gun doesn't matter to a perp
when nobody is trying to stop him. And he probably could have killed
at least half those people if he came into the scene with a tire iron
or machete, not a gun. Shock and awe cause people to either freeze
and/or run away, not wanting to be struck.


slaughter. Can't you see that? If someone has a legitimate reason for
buying a weapon, I'll let him or her. I just would like to make it more
difficult for idiots to buy lethality. Seems to me you have to agree if
you ever want to look an innocent vistim in the eye.

Your goal is laudable, but your actions would, without any doubt,
allow for -more- death and destruction than is currently happening.


The vast majority of people may be sane and careful etc, etc, the few
fools should NOT get hold of guns. It was a really good thing that
the people who came to the rescue in Tucson didn't start shooting,
because that would have been true slaughter then. It's great that it
then ended because the potential was just terrible.

If an armed person could have gotten a shot off into the killer before
he killed all those people, it would have been LESS of a slaughter.

See above, If that idiot had been unable to buy a gun, or even unable to
buy a 33-round magazine, there would have been far less slaughter. Can't
you see that?

Bad people get guns, bad people borrow guns, bad people steal guns,
and bad people make guns. You will never stop that with your law.


People who come unhinged and want to kill someone will use whatever is
in front of them, including pocket knives, guns, rocks, clubs,
baseball bats, golf clubs, pieces of glass, bottles, pencils, etc. to
get their evil deed done. If you limit guns, the victim won't be able
to defend himself from the perps. If you want to be an unarmed
victim, fine. I sure as hell don't.

Your statement here again is nonsense in the context of that idiot's
unhingedness.

You're totally blinded by your hate for guns, sir. It's too bad that
you can't see the logic of slowing/stopping criminals with more guns.

Well, sadly, there is no sense talking to a closed mind. Ta!

(P.S: I still dare you to research this subject.)

--
You can't wait for inspiration. You have to go after it with a club.
--Jack London

On 27 Feb 2011 13:53:59 GMT, Han wrote:

"Mike Marlow" wrote in
:

I think this is the third or fourth time I've seen you make reference
to 33 round magazines. Why the continued reference to them? Most gun
owners - legal and illegal, do not own or use such things. It may not
be your attempt, but when I see that kind of reference repeatedly, as
I've seen in your recent comments, it strikes me that you are trying
to rely more on sensationalism than on a factual position. Or - more
than on a simple opinion, even.

I can't imagine you didn't know that the Tucson shooter had 33-round (or
was it 31-round?) magazines. There is absolutely no reason for a
"regular" citizen to have such things.

Sure there is. But regular citizens would be using it for defensive
purposes only. Why is that so hard for you to accept? It's a tool,
and 99% of people (the good guys) use it as such.

--
You can't wait for inspiration. You have to go after it with a club.
--Jack London

"DGDevin" wrote in message
m...


"Andrew Barss" wrote in message
...

J. Clarke wrote:

: A despot wouldn't _dare_ try to get away with the taxes we pay.

Eh? The US has the second lowest taxes of all developed
nations in the world. And our taxes right now are lower that
they've been since the late 1940s-early 1950s.

Sure, but they're convinced they're being taxed at breathtaking rates
because the politicians in a certain party tell them that every chance
they get. That same party claims the other party is the one that spends
taxpayer dollars like crazy, yet the last time they were in power they
doubled the national debt, an odd thing for the supposed party of fiscal
responsibility to have done.

But they've CHANGED! PROMISE!

Dave in Houston

Larry Jaques wrote in
news
On 27 Feb 2011 12:36:43 GMT, Han wrote:

Larry Jaques wrote in
m:

On 27 Feb 2011 00:37:50 GMT, Han wrote:

Larry, I said:

Now personally, I'm really in favor of limiting guns and ammo ...

The fact that people get killed because unstable persons can get
hold of guns and VAST supplies of ammo this easily is proof that
LIMITING should work.

Han, limiting legal guns has no effect on the number of guns in
criminal hands. You can buy a black market gun on many
streetcorners in any large city, and in most small ones. Your gun
bans would only limit the number of _defensive_ weapons in
law-abiding citizens' hands. It would encourage the criminals to
commit more crime. Christ, look at Great Britain for a perfect
example. With no guns, their crime rate is far higher than ours now.

False logic, Larry. If that idiot had been unable to buy a gun, or
even unable to buy a 33-round magazine, there would have been far less

False logic, Han. Illegal guns -are- available on the streets, period.
Laws or no laws. Accept it. It is _fact_, whether any of us likes it
or not. Gun control laws don't have any affect on their presence on
the street.

BTW, Loughner was using a semi-auto pistol. Even without the large
magazine, he could have swapped another one into it within a second
and a half. The size of magazine in his gun doesn't matter to a perp
when nobody is trying to stop him. And he probably could have killed
at least half those people if he came into the scene with a tire iron
or machete, not a gun. Shock and awe cause people to either freeze
and/or run away, not wanting to be struck.


slaughter. Can't you see that? If someone has a legitimate reason
for buying a weapon, I'll let him or her. I just would like to make
it more difficult for idiots to buy lethality. Seems to me you have
to agree if you ever want to look an innocent vistim in the eye.

Your goal is laudable, but your actions would, without any doubt,
allow for -more- death and destruction than is currently happening.


The vast majority of people may be sane and careful etc, etc, the
few fools should NOT get hold of guns. It was a really good thing
that the people who came to the rescue in Tucson didn't start
shooting, because that would have been true slaughter then. It's
great that it then ended because the potential was just terrible.

If an armed person could have gotten a shot off into the killer
before he killed all those people, it would have been LESS of a
slaughter.

See above, If that idiot had been unable to buy a gun, or even unable
to buy a 33-round magazine, there would have been far less slaughter.
Can't you see that?

Bad people get guns, bad people borrow guns, bad people steal guns,
and bad people make guns. You will never stop that with your law.


People who come unhinged and want to kill someone will use whatever
is in front of them, including pocket knives, guns, rocks, clubs,
baseball bats, golf clubs, pieces of glass, bottles, pencils, etc.
to get their evil deed done. If you limit guns, the victim won't be
able to defend himself from the perps. If you want to be an unarmed
victim, fine. I sure as hell don't.

Your statement here again is nonsense in the context of that idiot's
unhingedness.

You're totally blinded by your hate for guns, sir. It's too bad that
you can't see the logic of slowing/stopping criminals with more guns.

Well, sadly, there is no sense talking to a closed mind. Ta!

(P.S: I still dare you to research this subject.)

--
You can't wait for inspiration. You have to go after it with a club.
--Jack London

I don't hate guns, Larry, although I am a bit afraid of them, as a person
who sometimes reacts too fast. And you forgot that I said to really
punish the bad guys. That ought to be part of the whole thing.

Afraid we'll never agree, but respect is there, from me!!

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

On 2/26/2011 9:03 PM, Andrew Barss wrote:
J. wrote:

: A despot wouldn't _dare_ try to get away with the taxes we pay.

Eh? The US has the second lowest taxes of all developed
nations in the world. And our taxes right now are lower that
they've been since the late 1940s-early 1950s.

-- Andy Barss

But they're much higher than they were when the American colonies threw
a tea party in the 1770's ...

On Sun, 27 Feb 2011 09:16:59 -0600, Swingman wrote:

On 2/27/2011 8:52 AM, Doug Miller wrote:
In articlew5Cdnd0JDs0i_ffQnZ2dnUVZ_vOdnZ2d@giganews. com, wrote:

In Texas for 2009 (according to taxfoundation.org) the total federal,
state and local tax rate paid on a per capita income of $40,498 was
22.9%. (15% federal, 7.9% state and local)

And I'll bet that takes into account *only* direct taxes on income, and leaves
out...

You would be right ... AFAICT the figures were limited to state, local,
federal tax rates.

Of course, some of the local and state can possibly be deducted from
federal, but they still must first be paid, in almost all cases, out of
"after federal tax income".

Personally, I could give a rat's ass what other countries do with regard
to taxes. Anything more than 10% of my hard earned income to any
government entity is too damn much, regardless.

Like it or not, we are in a global economy. What other countries do matters a
lot. Making business more expensive here makes the business go there.

On 27 Feb 2011 16:23:20 GMT, Han wrote:

Larry Jaques wrote in
news
On 27 Feb 2011 12:36:43 GMT, Han wrote:

You're totally blinded by your hate for guns, sir. It's too bad that
you can't see the logic of slowing/stopping criminals with more guns.

Well, sadly, there is no sense talking to a closed mind. Ta!

(P.S: I still dare you to research this subject.)

I don't hate guns, Larry, although I am a bit afraid of them, as a person
who sometimes reacts too fast. And you forgot that I said to really
punish the bad guys. That ought to be part of the whole thing.

Afraid we'll never agree, but respect is there, from me!!

Right, I doubt we'll agree, but I respect your _other_ opinions.

--
You can't wait for inspiration. You have to go after it with a club.
--Jack London

On 2/27/2011 10:56 AM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Sun, 27 Feb 2011 09:16:59 -0600, wrote:


Personally, I could give a rat's ass what other countries do with regard
to taxes. Anything more than 10% of my hard earned income to any
government entity is too damn much, regardless.

Like it or not, we are in a global economy. What other countries do matters a
lot. Making business more expensive here makes the business go there.

Let me rephrase my original: "Like it or not", anything more than 10% of
my hard earned income to ALL government entities, in toto, is too damn
much, regardless.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlC@ (the obvious)

On Sun, 27 Feb 2011 12:04:56 -0600, Swingman wrote:

On 2/27/2011 10:56 AM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Sun, 27 Feb 2011 09:16:59 -0600, wrote:


Personally, I could give a rat's ass what other countries do with regard
to taxes. Anything more than 10% of my hard earned income to any
government entity is too damn much, regardless.

Like it or not, we are in a global economy. What other countries do matters a
lot. Making business more expensive here makes the business go there.

Let me rephrase my original: "Like it or not", anything more than 10% of
my hard earned income to ALL government entities, in toto, is too damn
much, regardless.

If 10% is good enough for Jesus, it's good enough for Uncle Sam? ;-)

wrote in message
...
On Sun, 27 Feb 2011 12:04:56 -0600, Swingman wrote:

On 2/27/2011 10:56 AM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Sun, 27 Feb 2011 09:16:59 -0600, wrote:


Personally, I could give a rat's ass what other countries do with
regard
to taxes. Anything more than 10% of my hard earned income to any
government entity is too damn much, regardless.

Like it or not, we are in a global economy. What other countries do
matters a
lot. Making business more expensive here makes the business go there.

Let me rephrase my original: "Like it or not", anything more than 10% of
my hard earned income to ALL government entities, in toto, is too damn
much, regardless.

If 10% is good enough for Jesus, it's good enough for Uncle Sam? ;-)

You may be on to sometheing there however the devil is never satisfied.

On 2/27/2011 12:18 PM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:

If 10% is good enough for Jesus, it's good enough for Uncle Sam? ;-)

You got it, Bubba!

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlC@ (the obvious)

In article , Han wrote:
(Doug Miller) wrote in -
september.org:

And how do you propose to do that?

Real penalties for offenders.

In other words, enforcement of existing laws?

Re-instatement of rules that (IMNSHO) were
imprudently canceled, and enforcement of existing rules. Those rules
should also govern gun shows, and private transactions.

And how do you propose to guarantee that the rules are followed in private
transactions? Remember that -- by definition -- criminals are people who don't
obey the law. So what mechanism do you propose that would ensure that
criminals would abide by whatever new laws you might instate?

In article , Swingman wrote:
On 2/27/2011 8:52 AM, Doug Miller wrote:
In articlew5Cdnd0JDs0i_ffQnZ2dnUVZ_vOdnZ2d@giganews. com,
wrote:

In Texas for 2009 (according to taxfoundation.org) the total federal,
state and local tax rate paid on a per capita income of $40,498 was
22.9%. (15% federal, 7.9% state and local)

And I'll bet that takes into account *only* direct taxes on income, and
leaves
out...

You would be right ... AFAICT the figures were limited to state, local,
federal tax rates.

Of course, some of the local and state can possibly be deducted from
federal, but they still must first be paid, in almost all cases, out of
"after federal tax income".

Personally, I could give a rat's ass what other countries do with regard
to taxes. Anything more than 10% of my hard earned income to any
government entity is too damn much, regardless.

That's pretty much the way I feel about it too, Karl -- if ten percent is
enough for God, it oughta be enough for Caesar too.

Han wrote:
"Mike Marlow" wrote in
:

I think this is the third or fourth time I've seen you make reference
to 33 round magazines. Why the continued reference to them? Most
gun owners - legal and illegal, do not own or use such things. It
may not be your attempt, but when I see that kind of reference
repeatedly, as I've seen in your recent comments, it strikes me that
you are trying to rely more on sensationalism than on a factual
position. Or - more than on a simple opinion, even.

I can't imagine you didn't know that the Tucson shooter had 33-round
(or was it 31-round?) magazines. There is absolutely no reason for a
"regular" citizen to have such things.

I realize that - but you kept repeating that as if the size of the magazine
really means anything. Take it out of the picture and any shooter could
just as easily stick 3 ten round magazines in his pocket. It takes a second
or two to pop one and insert the new one. Though it sounds like a 30 round
magazine actually means something, it really doesn't.

As for the reasons - that's your opinion, and you are certainly entitled to
that opinion. There are however, all sorts of legitimate reasons why a
private citizen might want to own one. None of those reasons need to have
anything to do with killing people.

--

-Mike-

Han wrote in
:

"Mike Marlow" wrote in
:

I think this is the third or fourth time I've seen you
make reference to 33 round magazines. Why the continued
reference to them? Most gun owners - legal and illegal,
do not own or use such things. It may not be your
attempt, but when I see that kind of reference repeatedly,
as I've seen in your recent comments, it strikes me that
you are trying to rely more on sensationalism than on a
factual position. Or - more than on a simple opinion,
even.

I can't imagine you didn't know that the Tucson shooter had
33-round (or was it 31-round?) magazines. There is
absolutely no reason for a "regular" citizen to have such
things.


Sure there is, if for no other reason, because I *want* one.
You can't seem to get a grasp of it, the problem is the
criminals. If you feel otherwise there are plently of places
in the world for you to live that have strict gun control if
that makes you more comfortable. Stop trying to change one of
the fundamental principles the country was founded on.

Larry

On Feb 27, 2:41*pm, "Mike Marlow"
wrote:


I realize that - but you kept repeating that as if the size of the magazine
really means anything. *Take it out of the picture and any shooter could
just as easily stick 3 ten round magazines in his pocket. *It takes a second
or two to pop one and insert the new one. *Though it sounds like a 30 round
magazine actually means something, it really doesn't.


What justification could there ever be for a 30 round mag?

a) Lousy shot?

b) "Necessary" because the threat is _that_ ominous? (Which would
make me think that another choice of weapon might be better?)

c) Some guy decided to manufacture those 30 round mags because he knew
some idiot would feel the need to buy one?

Seriously... why? Wouldn't it be better to pack TWO Glocks and hold
them sideways when firing after you've turned your ballcap around 90°?
Maybe a 30-round mag is a fashion statement to the romanticized
gangbangers?

Personally, if I can't eliminate a threat in 10 rounds, why would I
even bother to carry a gun?

Robatoy wrote:
On Feb 27, 2:41 pm, "Mike
wrote:


I realize that - but you kept repeating that as if the size of the magazine
really means anything. Take it out of the picture and any shooter could
just as easily stick 3 ten round magazines in his pocket. It takes a second
or two to pop one and insert the new one. Though it sounds like a 30 round
magazine actually means something, it really doesn't.


What justification could there ever be for a 30 round mag?

a) Lousy shot?

b) "Necessary" because the threat is _that_ ominous? (Which would
make me think that another choice of weapon might be better?)

c) Some guy decided to manufacture those 30 round mags because he knew
some idiot would feel the need to buy one?

Seriously... why? Wouldn't it be better to pack TWO Glocks and hold
them sideways when firing after you've turned your ballcap around 90°?
Maybe a 30-round mag is a fashion statement to the romanticized
gangbangers?

Personally, if I can't eliminate a threat in 10 rounds, why would I
even bother to carry a gun?

Multiple threats? That click and the time to reload could cost ya...

On Feb 27, 1:35*pm, Swingman wrote:
On 2/27/2011 12:18 PM, wrote:

If 10% is good enough for Jesus, it's good enough for Uncle Sam? *;-)

You got it, Bubba! *

--www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlC@ (the obvious)

I'm there... sign me up.

On Feb 27, 3:41*pm, Bill wrote:
Robatoy wrote:
On Feb 27, 2:41 pm, "Mike
wrote:

I realize that - but you kept repeating that as if the size of the magazine
really means anything. *Take it out of the picture and any shooter could
just as easily stick 3 ten round magazines in his pocket. *It takes a second
or two to pop one and insert the new one. *Though it sounds like a 30 round
magazine actually means something, it really doesn't.

What justification could there ever be for a 30 round mag?

a) Lousy shot?

b) "Necessary" because the threat is _that_ *ominous? (Which would
make me think that another choice of weapon might be better?)

c) Some guy decided to manufacture those 30 round mags because he knew
some idiot would feel the need to buy one?

Seriously... why? Wouldn't it be better to pack TWO Glocks and hold
them sideways when firing after you've turned your ballcap around 90 ?
Maybe a 30-round mag is a fashion statement to the romanticized
gangbangers?

Personally, if I can't eliminate a threat in 10 rounds, why would I
even bother to carry a gun?

Multiple threats? *That click and the time to reload could cost ya...

Perhaps selecting a weapon more capable?.

On 2/27/2011 1:48 PM, Robatoy wrote:
On Feb 27, 1:35 pm, wrote:
On 2/27/2011 12:18 PM, wrote:

If 10% is good enough for Jesus, it's good enough for Uncle Sam? ;-)

You got it, Bubba!

--www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlC@ (the obvious)

I'm there... sign me up.

I'm also fine with the idea - as long as it's NOT 10% for Uncle Sam,
another 10% for the state, another 10% for the county, another 10% for
the city, another 10% for the local school district...

Matt

(Doug Miller) wrote in
:

In article , Han
wrote:
(Doug Miller) wrote in
- september.org:

And how do you propose to do that?

Real penalties for offenders.

In other words, enforcement of existing laws?

Re-instatement of rules that (IMNSHO) were
imprudently canceled, and enforcement of existing rules. Those rules
should also govern gun shows, and private transactions.

And how do you propose to guarantee that the rules are followed in
private transactions? Remember that -- by definition -- criminals are
people who don't obey the law. So what mechanism do you propose that
would ensure that criminals would abide by whatever new laws you might
instate?

The law says that you have to obey. As far as I know, even the excuse
"I didn't know that was the law" isn't a valid excuse. Don't you get a
ticket when going 75 mph in a 55 mph zone even if you didn't see the
sign?

Just make the penalty good enough for people to start paying attention.
Sheesh.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Bill wrote in :

Robatoy wrote:
On Feb 27, 2:41 pm, "Mike
wrote:


I realize that - but you kept repeating that as if the size of the
magazine really means anything. Take it out of the picture and any
shooter could just as easily stick 3 ten round magazines in his
pocket. It takes a second or two to pop one and insert the new one.
Though it sounds like a 30 round magazine actually means something,
it really doesn't.


What justification could there ever be for a 30 round mag?

a) Lousy shot?

b) "Necessary" because the threat is _that_ ominous? (Which would
make me think that another choice of weapon might be better?)

c) Some guy decided to manufacture those 30 round mags because he
knew some idiot would feel the need to buy one?

Seriously... why? Wouldn't it be better to pack TWO Glocks and hold
them sideways when firing after you've turned your ballcap around
90°? Maybe a 30-round mag is a fashion statement to the romanticized
gangbangers?

Personally, if I can't eliminate a threat in 10 rounds, why would I
even bother to carry a gun?

Multiple threats? That click and the time to reload could cost ya...

I walk across Manhattan unarmed. Some of you might think I'm crazy. I
think you are crazy if you let yourself get in a situation where you
would have needed a serious machine gun to get out of it. It's all
situational, and your opinionis just as valid as mine. Just YOU make
sure I never have to confront a loony with serious armaments.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Larry wrote in :

Sure there is, if for no other reason, because I *want* one.
You can't seem to get a grasp of it, the problem is the
criminals. If you feel otherwise there are plently of places
in the world for you to live that have strict gun control if
that makes you more comfortable. Stop trying to change one of
the fundamental principles the country was founded on.

Larry, I don't accept wanting to have such a magazine as a valid reason.
In my really seriously considered opinion it is irresponsible to even think
that, let alone state it. To me it is the same as saying I want to have
the recipe and the ingredients for making a nuclear device.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Han wrote in
:

Larry wrote in
:

Sure there is, if for no other reason, because I *want*
one. You can't seem to get a grasp of it, the problem is
the criminals. If you feel otherwise there are plently of
places in the world for you to live that have strict gun
control if that makes you more comfortable. Stop trying to
change one of the fundamental principles the country was
founded on.

Larry, I don't accept wanting to have such a magazine as a
valid reason. In my really seriously considered opinion it
is irresponsible to even think that, let alone state it.
To me it is the same as saying I want to have the recipe
and the ingredients for making a nuclear device.


There is nothing irresponsible about it. I'm a law obeying,
mentally stable person, with no criminal record. There's no
good reason why I shouldn't be able to own one. Where do you
draw the line? We've already established that you think 33 is
too many rounds. Is 20, 10, or maybe even 5 too many? Who gets
to judge that? Maybe you even think 1 is enough.

What happens in the middle of the night if 2 armed intruders
are attempting to illegally enter my residence. You're then
telling me that my most basic right, the right to defend
myself and family, is null and void because *you* think there
is no reason I should own a high capacity magazine.

I can understand a person not wanting to own a firearm. That
is their right and I respect that. But as long as I'm a law
obeying citizen I don't see many limits I would want to
enforce.

The supreme court has ruled in several cases that law
enforcement has no responsibility to protect a citizen. That
leaves the responsibility squarely in your lap. If you choose
not to exercise your rights as a citizen, you do so willingly.
Me, I'm not up for a fight. I'm going to give myself every
chance I can to survive if the need ever arises.

Just like the other thread, we'll never agree and I don't
expect us to.

Larry

On 02/27/2011 03:05 PM, Han wrote:
(Doug Miller) wrote in
:

In , Han
wrote:
(Doug Miller) wrote in
- september.org:

And how do you propose to do that?

Real penalties for offenders.

In other words, enforcement of existing laws?

Re-instatement of rules that (IMNSHO) were
imprudently canceled, and enforcement of existing rules. Those rules
should also govern gun shows, and private transactions.

And how do you propose to guarantee that the rules are followed in
private transactions? Remember that -- by definition -- criminals are
people who don't obey the law. So what mechanism do you propose that
would ensure that criminals would abide by whatever new laws you might
instate?

The law says that you have to obey. As far as I know, even the excuse
"I didn't know that was the law" isn't a valid excuse. Don't you get a
ticket when going 75 mph in a 55 mph zone even if you didn't see the
sign?

Just make the penalty good enough for people to start paying attention.
Sheesh.


The "law" also says it is illegal to enter the country without permission.

Sheesh indeed!

On Sun, 27 Feb 2011 14:26:50 -0700, Matt wrote:

On 2/27/2011 1:48 PM, Robatoy wrote:
On Feb 27, 1:35 pm, wrote:
On 2/27/2011 12:18 PM, wrote:

If 10% is good enough for Jesus, it's good enough for Uncle Sam? ;-)

You got it, Bubba!

--www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlC@ (the obvious)

I'm there... sign me up.

I'm also fine with the idea - as long as it's NOT 10% for Uncle Sam,
another 10% for the state, another 10% for the county, another 10% for
the city, another 10% for the local school district...

You'd *still* come out ahead.

Doug Winterburn wrote in
eb.com:

The "law" also says it is illegal to enter the country without
permission.

Sheesh indeed!

Yes indeed. It's so easy to overstay a visitor visa, and so it's done.
There is a great deal of collusion between people/companies needing cheap
labor and people desperate for work.

Btw, I did legally enter and then I naturalized. I also pay taxes grin.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

On 2/27/2011 6:07 PM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Sun, 27 Feb 2011 14:26:50 -0700, wrote:

On 2/27/2011 1:48 PM, Robatoy wrote:
On Feb 27, 1:35 pm, wrote:
On 2/27/2011 12:18 PM, wrote:

If 10% is good enough for Jesus, it's good enough for Uncle Sam? ;-)

You got it, Bubba!

--www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlC@ (the obvious)

I'm there... sign me up.

I'm also fine with the idea - as long as it's NOT 10% for Uncle Sam,
another 10% for the state, another 10% for the county, another 10% for
the city, another 10% for the local school district...

You'd *still* come out ahead.


Not on my retirement income! :-)

On Sun, 27 Feb 2011 12:34:15 -0800 (PST), Robatoy
wrote:

On Feb 27, 2:41Â*pm, "Mike Marlow"
wrote:


I realize that - but you kept repeating that as if the size of the magazine
really means anything. Â*Take it out of the picture and any shooter could
just as easily stick 3 ten round magazines in his pocket. Â*It takes a second
or two to pop one and insert the new one. Â*Though it sounds like a 30 round
magazine actually means something, it really doesn't.


What justification could there ever be for a 30 round mag?

Biker gang (or herd of looters, or even a swarm of Alaskan mosquitoes)
pulls into your driveway. Whaddya do?


a) Lousy shot?

Muslim Spray and Pray?


b) "Necessary" because the threat is _that_ ominous? (Which would
make me think that another choice of weapon might be better?)

Verily, but who are you guys to tell me how to face my situations?
Maybe the guy burst into my home and the 33 Glock was the first thing
into my hand. What if Barry sent our troops into Sarnia?


c) Some guy decided to manufacture those 30 round mags because he knew
some idiot would feel the need to buy one?

Seriously... why? Wouldn't it be better to pack TWO Glocks and hold

Oh, no. You'll need the other hand to dial 911. Let the cops save you
in a couple hours.


them sideways when firing after you've turned your ballcap around 90°?
Maybe a 30-round mag is a fashion statement to the romanticized
gangbangers?

Yeah, isn't Hollywood realistic?


Personally, if I can't eliminate a threat in 10 rounds, why would I
even bother to carry a gun?

Peace of mind for the other 99.999 possible threats?

--
You can't wait for inspiration. You have to go after it with a club.
--Jack London

On 02/27/2011 06:20 PM, Han wrote:
Doug wrote in
eb.com:

The "law" also says it is illegal to enter the country without
permission.

Sheesh indeed!

Yes indeed. It's so easy to overstay a visitor visa, and so it's done.
There is a great deal of collusion between people/companies needing cheap
labor and people desperate for work.

Btw, I did legally enter and then I naturalized. I also pay taxesgrin.


I'm referring to the 15% of the citizens of Mexico sneaking across our
border.

On 27 Feb 2011 22:13:45 GMT, Han wrote:

Larry wrote in :

Sure there is, if for no other reason, because I *want* one.
You can't seem to get a grasp of it, the problem is the
criminals. If you feel otherwise there are plently of places
in the world for you to live that have strict gun control if
that makes you more comfortable. Stop trying to change one of
the fundamental principles the country was founded on.

Larry, I don't accept wanting to have such a magazine as a valid reason.
In my really seriously considered opinion it is irresponsible to even think
that, let alone state it. To me it is the same as saying I want to have
the recipe and the ingredients for making a nuclear device.

You call it overkill, I call it insurance. Chances are good that it
will never get used, but if...

BTW, a semi-automatic pistol is NOT a serious machine gun, as you just
put it.

Do you also want to outlaw extra gas tanks on pickup trucks? That's
all the magazines a extra fuel.

--
You can't wait for inspiration. You have to go after it with a club.
--Jack London