Robatoy wrote:


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

As a shooter - in my opinion, there really isn't a reason for a 30 round mag
for a handgun. That said, once one is created, you can bet there will be
collectors, and the like that will want to have one, just because they
exist.


a) Lousy shot?

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

That would be my thought.


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?

Agreed.

--

-Mike-

Han wrote:


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.

I walk across and all over certain areas of Manhattan with no gun as well -
have for decades. Of course, you and I don't walk in those other areas of
Manhattan - ever.

--

-Mike-

"Larry" wrote in message
...
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.

Problem solved! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OuX-nFmL0II

Dave in Houston

Han wrote:


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.

How do you consider it in any way irresponsible for a "normal" person to
want or to own a magazine like that? You do understand that it in and of
itself is not dangerous... Lots of people seek things like this just for
the mechanical aspect of it, the uniqueness of it, etc. It strikes me as
odd that you come down so strongly on something like this. It does not make
sense - as has been pointed out, a pocket full of 10 round magazines are
equally as threatening.

--

-Mike-

On Sat, 26 Feb 2011 16:15:23 -0600, "HeyBub"
wrote:

dhall987 wrote:
On Mon, 21 Feb 2011 08:27:59 -0600, "HeyBub"
wrote:




Third, the Constitution says whatever the Supreme Court says it
does, that's why a couple of recent cases have recognized that the
2nd Amendment protects an individual right to own firearms to the
dismay of all those folks who disagree. So until the court rules
there shouldn't be a federal Dept. of Education, there will be one,
and anyone who disagrees is welcome to vote for the party that is
currently trying to strip funding from any government agency that
has inconvenienced the corporate sponsors of that party.

So I take it from this that you actually WANT to be ruled by a
dictatorship of 9 old people appointed for life?

Um, yeah, I guess. What's the alternative? Nine young people appointed for
life? Nine old people appointed for two years? Six old people appointed for
life?

Still, the best form of government is a benevolent despot.

Second best is probably what we've got.

I guess to me the "best form" would be to expect the Supreme Court to
apply the Constitution appropriately and not accept that "the
Constitution says whatever the Supreme Court says it does". The whole
concept of the Constitution being a "living document" just seems
bizarre to me. Unfortunately I still want to believe in a government
of laws, not men - but if we accept that the 9 can simply ignore the
law and make up whatever they want then that old saw doesn't quite
work.

Now the 2nd amendment and our court's failure, currently and
historically, to uphold it is a prime example to me. I truly believe
and wish that the government could control private ownership of arms.
However, even a simpleton reading the 2nd amendment and the history of
its enactment know that such controls are illegal. If our courts had
held that way historically, we would have replaced the 2nd amendment
decades ago. The amendment does not talk about handguns or rifles or
muskets or bows & arrows ~ it talks about "arms". This clearly meant
all forms of arms because it clearly meant the arms necessary to
protect ourselves against an over-reaching central (federal)
government. Yet courts a long time ago allowed the government to
strictly govern and restrict our rights to keep and bear arms such as
155MM howitzers, 50 cal machine guns, mortars, etc. Believe me, if the
2nd amendment were interpreted as meant, we would have scared
ourselves enough to overturn it a very long time ago.

So, to kind of summarize, I am that odd person who is a strict
constructionist that wants to have gun control. I just believe that we
must (and should) change the constitution first. I do not think that
the Supreme Court should be able to decide that society has "reached a
new concensus" and dictate it. If we reach such a concensus then we
should express it in one of the 2 ways set out in the Constitution for
making that change.

On Sat, 26 Feb 2011 17:30:39 -0800, "DGDevin"
wrote:



"dhall987" wrote in message
.. .


So I take it from this that you actually WANT to be ruled by a
dictatorship of 9 old people appointed for life?

If you have a better idea than a division of powers between the executive,
the legislature and the judiciary, by all means describe it for us.

My point was that people seem to accept (and even celebrate) that the
Supreme Court does not "interprete" or even "apply" the Constitution.
The poster that I replied to seemed to like the idea that the
Constitution says whatever the Court says it does. Other celebrate the
concept of the Constitution as a "living document", which simply
meqans that the Court can change its meaning on a whim. The document
clearly describes 2 methods by which we as a federal union can rwach a
"new concensus" and neither of those is by simply a majority vote of 9
old people.

The separation of powers is clearly one of the better things that the
constitutional convention came up with along with the "Great
Compromise" for representation.

In article ,
says...

On Sat, 26 Feb 2011 16:15:23 -0600, "HeyBub"
wrote:

dhall987 wrote:
On Mon, 21 Feb 2011 08:27:59 -0600, "HeyBub"
wrote:




Third, the Constitution says whatever the Supreme Court says it
does, that's why a couple of recent cases have recognized that the
2nd Amendment protects an individual right to own firearms to the
dismay of all those folks who disagree. So until the court rules
there shouldn't be a federal Dept. of Education, there will be one,
and anyone who disagrees is welcome to vote for the party that is
currently trying to strip funding from any government agency that
has inconvenienced the corporate sponsors of that party.

So I take it from this that you actually WANT to be ruled by a
dictatorship of 9 old people appointed for life?

Um, yeah, I guess. What's the alternative? Nine young people appointed for
life? Nine old people appointed for two years? Six old people appointed for
life?

Still, the best form of government is a benevolent despot.

Second best is probably what we've got.

I guess to me the "best form" would be to expect the Supreme Court to
apply the Constitution appropriately and not accept that "the
Constitution says whatever the Supreme Court says it does". The whole
concept of the Constitution being a "living document" just seems
bizarre to me. Unfortunately I still want to believe in a government
of laws, not men - but if we accept that the 9 can simply ignore the
law and make up whatever they want then that old saw doesn't quite
work.

Now the 2nd amendment and our court's failure, currently and
historically, to uphold it is a prime example to me. I truly believe
and wish that the government could control private ownership of arms.
However, even a simpleton reading the 2nd amendment and the history of
its enactment know that such controls are illegal. If our courts had
held that way historically, we would have replaced the 2nd amendment
decades ago. The amendment does not talk about handguns or rifles or
muskets or bows & arrows ~ it talks about "arms". This clearly meant
all forms of arms because it clearly meant the arms necessary to
protect ourselves against an over-reaching central (federal)
government. Yet courts a long time ago allowed the government to
strictly govern and restrict our rights to keep and bear arms such as
155MM howitzers, 50 cal machine guns, mortars, etc. Believe me, if the
2nd amendment were interpreted as meant, we would have scared
ourselves enough to overturn it a very long time ago.

If you research the case law, in the case that upheld the NFA, I believe
that you will find that the defendant was dead and the defense counsel
did not present arguments, so the court ruled based on the evidence and
arguments before it. They didn't make up any law there however with a
defense presented they might very well have ruled differently.

As for "failure currently", what "failure" is that? They have ruled
that it's an individual right, they've incorporated it under the 14th,
so future cases will determine where the limits of the government's
authority lie.

And I think that an attempt to "replace the Second Amendment" is going
to be an uphill battle. Amending the Constitution is deliberately not
easy.



So, to kind of summarize, I am that odd person who is a strict
constructionist that wants to have gun control. I just believe that we
must (and should) change the constitution first. I do not think that
the Supreme Court should be able to decide that society has "reached a
new concensus" and dictate it. If we reach such a concensus then we
should express it in one of the 2 ways set out in the Constitution for
making that change.

"dhall987" wrote in message
...


I guess to me the "best form" would be to expect the Supreme Court to
apply the Constitution appropriately and not accept that "the
Constitution says whatever the Supreme Court says it does".

Think about that, exactly who gets to tell the Supreme Court which
interpretation is "appropriate"? Other than a Constitutional Amendment, the
SCOTUS is the end of the road. So the realistic view is that the
Constitution says what the court says it does.

The whole
concept of the Constitution being a "living document" just seems
bizarre to me.

At least some of the men who wrote the Constitution disagreed, Jefferson
among them (although of course he also distrusted the judiciary having the
final say over constitutional issues). But Jefferson made it clear that the
Constitution was not a perfected document, that at times improvements would
only be possible "by inches" and thus had to be ongoing.

Unfortunately I still want to believe in a government
of laws, not men - but if we accept that the 9 can simply ignore the
law and make up whatever they want then that old saw doesn't quite
work.

What is the alternative? Many people believe the Constitution is
intentionally vague because the Framers knew they couldn't possibly go into
detail on every issue. So the law had to be left up to the various branches
of government (which includes the courts) with broad guidance from the
Constitution. But interpretation was inevitable, and sooner or later that
buck has to stop somewhere.

Now the 2nd amendment and our court's failure, currently and
historically, to uphold it is a prime example to me. I truly believe
and wish that the government could control private ownership of arms.
However, even a simpleton reading the 2nd amendment and the history of
its enactment know that such controls are illegal. If our courts had
held that way historically, we would have replaced the 2nd amendment
decades ago. The amendment does not talk about handguns or rifles or
muskets or bows & arrows ~ it talks about "arms". This clearly meant
all forms of arms because it clearly meant the arms necessary to
protect ourselves against an over-reaching central (federal)
government.

Not really, if you look for it you can find exactly what the Framers meant
because they spelled it out, e.g. Virginia's state constitution which
detailed what sort of arms citizens were required to bring when summoned to
militia duty--personal arms such as muskets or pikes--no artillery. It is
reasonable to think the Framers meant for the arms citizens commonly owned
at the time to be protected--muskets/rifles, shotguns, handguns--not forms
of weaponry which few private citizens possessed.

Yet courts a long time ago allowed the government to
strictly govern and restrict our rights to keep and bear arms such as
155MM howitzers, 50 cal machine guns, mortars, etc. Believe me, if the
2nd amendment were interpreted as meant, we would have scared
ourselves enough to overturn it a very long time ago.

Amusing, but not historically accurate.

So, to kind of summarize, I am that odd person who is a strict
constructionist that wants to have gun control. I just believe that we
must (and should) change the constitution first. I do not think that
the Supreme Court should be able to decide that society has "reached a
new concensus" and dictate it. If we reach such a concensus then we
should express it in one of the 2 ways set out in the Constitution for
making that change.

Again, if you read what they wrote outside the Constitution you can find
*why* the Framers thought the 2nd Amendment was necessary, namely that they
thought the 2nd was the amendment that made all the rest of the Bill of
Rights possible, a concept they actually inherited from English law. As you
say, if that is now an obsolete concept then the Constitution provides the
means for itself to be amended. But if no government is willing to
undertake that process, then it is inevitable that the courts will have deal
with it.

"dhall987" wrote in message
...

If you have a better idea than a division of powers between the executive,
the legislature and the judiciary, by all means describe it for us.

My point was that people seem to accept (and even celebrate) that the
Supreme Court does not "interprete" or even "apply" the Constitution.

But it clearly does exactly that, and has for a long time.

The poster that I replied to seemed to like the idea that the
Constitution says whatever the Court says it does.

It isn't a question of liking it, but of recognizing that is what
happens--in the end the court makes the call, there is no appeal to a league
commissioner after the game. So if Washington DC passes a law saying you
can't own a handgun there, and you think that is unconstitutional, who else
do you appeal to? Some folks say the 2nd Amendment protects an individual
right, others say it's a collective right only in the context of service in
a militia, in the end we need someone to make a call, and the court has now
done that--it's an individual right, subject to regulation.

Other celebrate the
concept of the Constitution as a "living document", which simply
meqans that the Court can change its meaning on a whim.

Not really, the court doesn't exist in a vacuum, it responds to shifts in
what American society broadly believes and will accept. Individual justices
and groups of justices bring their own beliefs to bear of course, but it
isn't like the court is going to announce it has changed its mind and the
19th Amendment wasn't enacted properly and thus women no longer have the
vote.

The document
clearly describes 2 methods by which we as a federal union can rwach a
"new concensus" and neither of those is by simply a majority vote of 9
old people.

Constitutional amendments are impractical for deciding the volume of
questions we ask of the courts. We're not living in an 18th century largely
agrarian society with a population of five million. These issues are going
to come up, they do in every society which practices the rule of law, none
of them has been able to do away with the courts, and so long as there are
both courts and a constitution then the former is going to be called on to
interpret the latter.

Doug Winterburn wrote in
eb.com:

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.

Didn't I say
"There is a great deal of collusion between people/companies needing
cheap labor and people desperate for work."?

Personally I think those people (who will have difficulty collecting SS
or other benefits) contribute to the wealth of some of our citizens, and
pay some of our taxes. It is the people who hire them who should be
fined or otherwise punished.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Larry Jaques wrote in
:

I knew there was a minigun version.
Han, THIS is a serious machine gun. vbg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YAZ2qvhJGgU

--
Invest in America: Buy a CONgresscritter today!

Larry, I haven't knowingly seen any vehicle equipped like that on the road
in the NE.

Is there a connection between the gun you show and your statement
"Invest in America: Buy a CONgresscritter today!" ??

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

"Mike Marlow" wrote in
:

Han wrote:


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.

How do you consider it in any way irresponsible for a "normal" person
to want or to own a magazine like that? You do understand that it in
and of itself is not dangerous... Lots of people seek things like
this just for the mechanical aspect of it, the uniqueness of it, etc.
It strikes me as odd that you come down so strongly on something like
this. It does not make sense - as has been pointed out, a pocket full
of 10 round magazines are equally as threatening.

It may take only a second or to exchange a magazine, but a Glock is
reported to be able to shoot more than one round per second, so there is
a pause in the shooting when exchanging magazines. Moreover the
apparently easy availability of these huge magazines to persons who
should not even have a firearm of any kind is proof enough for me that it
is irresponsible to have them available. Just like it is irresponsible
for a gun dealer to state that it is illela but this is how you make a
semiautomatic gun/rifle into a fully automatic one.


--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

In article , Han wrote:
(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.

In most U.S. states, the crime of murder is punishable by death. Even that
penalty hasn't proven "good enough for people to start paying attention" to
the fact that murder is against the law.

Again, I ask: Since criminals are, by definition, people who don't obey laws,
how do you propose that *any* law is going to modify their behavior?

(Doug Miller) wrote in
:

In article , Han
wrote:
(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.

In most U.S. states, the crime of murder is punishable by death. Even
that penalty hasn't proven "good enough for people to start paying
attention" to the fact that murder is against the law.

Again, I ask: Since criminals are, by definition, people who don't
obey laws, how do you propose that *any* law is going to modify their
behavior?

It seems that you are now saying that laws have no use, since criminals
pay no attention anyway.
Are you advocating a free for all as the alternative? An eye for an eye?
Or sharia? Or what?

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Han wrote:

In most U.S. states, the crime of murder is punishable by death. Even
that penalty hasn't proven "good enough for people to start paying
attention" to the fact that murder is against the law.

Again, I ask: Since criminals are, by definition, people who don't
obey laws, how do you propose that *any* law is going to modify their
behavior?

It seems that you are now saying that laws have no use, since
criminals pay no attention anyway.
Are you advocating a free for all as the alternative? An eye for an
eye? Or sharia? Or what?

No, he said that laws do not deter CRIMINALS.

What laws are supposed to do is to deter a righteous citizen from BECOMING a
criminal.

Han wrote:

It may take only a second or to exchange a magazine, but a Glock is
reported to be able to shoot more than one round per second, so there
is a pause in the shooting when exchanging magazines. Moreover the
apparently easy availability of these huge magazines to persons who
should not even have a firearm of any kind is proof enough for me
that it is irresponsible to have them available. Just like it is
irresponsible for a gun dealer to state that it is illela but this is
how you make a semiautomatic gun/rifle into a fully automatic one.

There IS a line to be drawn somewhere.

Here we have a case of carnage involving a large-capacity magazine. You
would outlaw these devices because there was ONE event in recorded history
of their misuse. In essence, you would penalize thousands to prevent a VERY
rare event.

A pitiful mindset indeed.

"HeyBub" wrote in
m:

Han wrote:

In most U.S. states, the crime of murder is punishable by death.
Even that penalty hasn't proven "good enough for people to start
paying attention" to the fact that murder is against the law.

Again, I ask: Since criminals are, by definition, people who don't
obey laws, how do you propose that *any* law is going to modify
their behavior?

It seems that you are now saying that laws have no use, since
criminals pay no attention anyway.
Are you advocating a free for all as the alternative? An eye for an
eye? Or sharia? Or what?

No, he said that laws do not deter CRIMINALS.

What laws are supposed to do is to deter a righteous citizen from
BECOMING a criminal.

Then there is no problem. Criminals are supposed to be punished,
rehabilitated or locked up.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

"HeyBub" wrote in
:

Han wrote:

It may take only a second or to exchange a magazine, but a Glock is
reported to be able to shoot more than one round per second, so there
is a pause in the shooting when exchanging magazines. Moreover the
apparently easy availability of these huge magazines to persons who
should not even have a firearm of any kind is proof enough for me
that it is irresponsible to have them available. Just like it is
irresponsible for a gun dealer to state that it is illela but this is
how you make a semiautomatic gun/rifle into a fully automatic one.

There IS a line to be drawn somewhere.

Here we have a case of carnage involving a large-capacity magazine.
You would outlaw these devices because there was ONE event in recorded
history of their misuse. In essence, you would penalize thousands to
prevent a VERY rare event.

A pitiful mindset indeed.

Indeed a line to be drawn. Ther is no real use for the large capacity
magazines other than to spray many rounds real fast. Ergo, either
prohibit or limit their sale. Indiscriminate distribution is wrong. It
really is that simple.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Han wrote:


It may take only a second or to exchange a magazine, but a Glock is
reported to be able to shoot more than one round per second, so there
is a pause in the shooting when exchanging magazines. Moreover the
apparently easy availability of these huge magazines to persons who
should not even have a firearm of any kind is proof enough for me
that it is irresponsible to have them available. Just like it is
irresponsible for a gun dealer to state that it is illela but this is
how you make a semiautomatic gun/rifle into a fully automatic one.

Well Han - I'm going to have to join those who have said that they'll just
have to disagree with you on this point.

--

-Mike-

Now there is a complete surprise....LOL


"Mike Marlow" wrote in message
...
Well Han - I'm going to have to join those who have said that they'll just
have to disagree with you on this point.

On 02/28/2011 03:49 AM, Han wrote:
Doug wrote in
eb.com:

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.

Didn't I say
"There is a great deal of collusion between people/companies needing
cheap labor and people desperate for work."?

Personally I think those people (who will have difficulty collecting SS
or other benefits) contribute to the wealth of some of our citizens, and
pay some of our taxes. It is the people who hire them who should be
fined or otherwise punished.

We have a sheriff here in Arizona who does go after them as well as the
people who hire them. He gets thoroughly trashed by all the libs, but
keeps getting elected. The problem in Arizona is the flood is so great
that law enforcement is unable to keep up. When you have the equivalent
of the entire US military in numbers getting caught each year and that
is only 25% of the total, it can only be described as an invasion.

In article ,
says...

Han wrote:

It may take only a second or to exchange a magazine, but a Glock is
reported to be able to shoot more than one round per second, so there
is a pause in the shooting when exchanging magazines. Moreover the
apparently easy availability of these huge magazines to persons who
should not even have a firearm of any kind is proof enough for me
that it is irresponsible to have them available. Just like it is
irresponsible for a gun dealer to state that it is illela but this is
how you make a semiautomatic gun/rifle into a fully automatic one.

There IS a line to be drawn somewhere.

And the reasonable one is where the founders drew it--"A well regulated
militia . . ." That means an M-16 with multiple 30 round magazines.

Here we have a case of carnage involving a large-capacity magazine. You
would outlaw these devices because there was ONE event in recorded history
of their misuse. In essence, you would penalize thousands to prevent a VERY
rare event.

A pitiful mindset indeed.

When a politician says "if it only helps one . . ." get out the
Preparation H because you're about to take it up the butt.

On 28 Feb 2011 10:49:38 GMT, Han wrote:

Doug Winterburn wrote in
web.com:

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.

Didn't I say
"There is a great deal of collusion between people/companies needing
cheap labor and people desperate for work."?

If we stopped the illegals at the borders, all those out of work
Americans could start working and save (or attempt to save) their
mortgages and livelihood. And companies wouldn't be tempted to hire
cheaper illegal workers.


Personally I think those people (who will have difficulty collecting SS
or other benefits) contribute to the wealth of some of our citizens, and
pay some of our taxes.

Research that a bit, Han. You'll find lots of cases where the illegal
grabbed someone else's SSN and used it to collect benefits.


It is the people who hire them who should be
fined or otherwise punished.

True, both fined and punished! Make the CEOs pick up litter on the
freeways and city streets.

--
Invest in America: Buy a CONgresscritter today!

On 28 Feb 2011 10:52:12 GMT, Han wrote:

Larry Jaques wrote in
:

I knew there was a minigun version.
Han, THIS is a serious machine gun. vbg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YAZ2qvhJGgU

--
Invest in America: Buy a CONgresscritter today!

Larry, I haven't knowingly seen any vehicle equipped like that on the road
in the NE.

Is there a connection between the gun you show and your statement
"Invest in America: Buy a CONgresscritter today!" ??

No, the switch to that sig happened without regard to the posting.
And I resent the implication that I'm targeting Congress.

--
Invest in America: Buy a CONgresscritter today!

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

In most U.S. states, the crime of murder is punishable by death. Even
that penalty hasn't proven "good enough for people to start paying
attention" to the fact that murder is against the law.

Again, I ask: Since criminals are, by definition, people who don't
obey laws, how do you propose that *any* law is going to modify their
behavior?

It seems that you are now saying that laws have no use, since criminals
pay no attention anyway.

I didn't say that.

Are you advocating a free for all as the alternative? An eye for an eye?
Or sharia? Or what?

I advocate strict enforcement of existing laws. I also believe that
legislatures should not pass laws that cannot be enforced, on the grounds that
doing so wastes time and promotes disrespect for the legislature and the law.

(Doug Miller) wrote in
:

I advocate strict enforcement of existing laws. I also believe that
legislatures should not pass laws that cannot be enforced, on the
grounds that doing so wastes time and promotes disrespect for the
legislature and the law.


I do too.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

On 28 Feb 2011 18:42:25 GMT, Han wrote:

(Doug Miller) wrote in
:

I advocate strict enforcement of existing laws. I also believe that
legislatures should not pass laws that cannot be enforced, on the
grounds that doing so wastes time and promotes disrespect for the
legislature and the law.


I do too.

Thirded.

--
Invest in America: Buy a CONgresscritter today!

On Mon, 28 Feb 2011 07:34:38 -0600, HeyBub wrote:

Are you advocating a free for all as the alternative? An eye for an
eye? Or sharia? Or what?

No, he said that laws do not deter CRIMINALS.

What laws are supposed to do is to deter a righteous citizen from
BECOMING a criminal.

And specify the punishment for those who break the laws.

--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw

On 02/28/2011 06:41 AM, Han wrote:
wrote in
:

Han wrote:

It may take only a second or to exchange a magazine, but a Glock is
reported to be able to shoot more than one round per second, so there
is a pause in the shooting when exchanging magazines. Moreover the
apparently easy availability of these huge magazines to persons who
should not even have a firearm of any kind is proof enough for me
that it is irresponsible to have them available. Just like it is
irresponsible for a gun dealer to state that it is illela but this is
how you make a semiautomatic gun/rifle into a fully automatic one.

There IS a line to be drawn somewhere.

Here we have a case of carnage involving a large-capacity magazine.
You would outlaw these devices because there was ONE event in recorded
history of their misuse. In essence, you would penalize thousands to
prevent a VERY rare event.

A pitiful mindset indeed.

Indeed a line to be drawn. Ther is no real use for the large capacity
magazines other than to spray many rounds real fast. Ergo, either
prohibit or limit their sale. Indiscriminate distribution is wrong. It
really is that simple.

Here was one good reason:

http://www.network54.com/Forum/451309/thread/1296928404/This+is+just+to+cool+not+to+spread+around

Doug Winterburn wrote in
.com:

On 02/28/2011 06:41 AM, Han wrote:
wrote in
:

Han wrote:

It may take only a second or to exchange a magazine, but a Glock
is reported to be able to shoot more than one round per second, so
there is a pause in the shooting when exchanging magazines.
Moreover the apparently easy availability of these huge magazines
to persons who should not even have a firearm of any kind is proof
enough for me that it is irresponsible to have them available.
Just like it is irresponsible for a gun dealer to state that it is
illela but this is how you make a semiautomatic gun/rifle into a
fully automatic one.

There IS a line to be drawn somewhere.

Here we have a case of carnage involving a large-capacity magazine.
You would outlaw these devices because there was ONE event in
recorded history of their misuse. In essence, you would penalize
thousands to prevent a VERY rare event.

A pitiful mindset indeed.

Indeed a line to be drawn. There is no real use for the large
capacity magazines other than to spray many rounds real fast. Ergo,
either prohibit or limit their sale. Indiscriminate distribution is
wrong. It really is that simple.

Here was one good reason:

http://www.network54.com/Forum/45130...This+is+just+t
o+cool+not+to+spread+around

Yes that was (past tense) a good reason. Nowadays in my daily routines
and on vacation, I do not go anywhere where such an attitude (which I
think was a very good one) is still necessary.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

"Han" wrote in message ...


It may take only a second or to exchange a magazine, but a Glock is
reported to be able to shoot more than one round per second, so there is
a pause in the shooting when exchanging magazines. Moreover the
apparently easy availability of these huge magazines to persons who
should not even have a firearm of any kind is proof enough for me that it
is irresponsible to have them available.

If we could keep firearms out of the hands of lunatics and criminals then
they could have all the high-capacity magazines they wanted and it wouldn't
matter. It's *guns* in the hands of violent people that are the problem,
solve that and the rest is easy.

Real easy!

Just remove ALL the guns from society at large.


"DGDevin" wrote in message
...
If we could keep firearms out of the hands of lunatics and criminals then
they could have all the high-capacity magazines they wanted and it wouldn't
matter. It's *guns* in the hands of violent people that are the problem,
solve that and the rest is easy.

Han wrote:

There IS a line to be drawn somewhere.

Here we have a case of carnage involving a large-capacity magazine.
You would outlaw these devices because there was ONE event in
recorded history of their misuse. In essence, you would penalize
thousands to prevent a VERY rare event.

A pitiful mindset indeed.

Indeed a line to be drawn. Ther is no real use for the large capacity
magazines other than to spray many rounds real fast. Ergo, either
prohibit or limit their sale. Indiscriminate distribution is wrong.
It really is that simple.

What use is a baby?

It may be difficult, but wrap your mind around this concept: When it comes
to guns, "need" or "real use" or "hunting" has no traction with the gun
community.

The only thing that counts is "want."

In ,
Josepi spewed forth:
Real easy!

Just remove ALL the guns from society at large.




No, the criminals will still have them, because they are "criminals"

"HeyBub" wrote in
m:

Han wrote:

There IS a line to be drawn somewhere.

Here we have a case of carnage involving a large-capacity magazine.
You would outlaw these devices because there was ONE event in
recorded history of their misuse. In essence, you would penalize
thousands to prevent a VERY rare event.

A pitiful mindset indeed.

Indeed a line to be drawn. Ther is no real use for the large
capacity magazines other than to spray many rounds real fast. Ergo,
either prohibit or limit their sale. Indiscriminate distribution is
wrong. It really is that simple.

What use is a baby?

Huh? I find babies fascinating. 4 grandchildren and real good
relationships with our kids and their families.

It may be difficult, but wrap your mind around this concept: When it
comes to guns, "need" or "real use" or "hunting" has no traction with
the gun community.

The only thing that counts is "want."

Sorry, bud, doesn't count. See the rules on sex.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

"DGDevin" wrote in
:



"Han" wrote in message
...


It may take only a second or to exchange a magazine, but a Glock is
reported to be able to shoot more than one round per second, so there
is a pause in the shooting when exchanging magazines. Moreover the
apparently easy availability of these huge magazines to persons who
should not even have a firearm of any kind is proof enough for me
that it is irresponsible to have them available.

If we could keep firearms out of the hands of lunatics and criminals
then they could have all the high-capacity magazines they wanted and
it wouldn't matter. It's *guns* in the hands of violent people that
are the problem, solve that and the rest is easy.

Fine by me. You have my vote. Go ahead.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

"ChairMan" wrote in news:XF_ap.2$6A6.0
@unlimited.newshosting.com:

In ,
Josepi spewed forth:
Real easy!

Just remove ALL the guns from society at large.




No, the criminals will still have them, because they are "criminals"

please take a course in logic. Once all guns are removed, there are no
more guns. I'm not saying it would be easy, but ...


--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

"Han" wrote in message
No, the criminals will still have them, because they are "criminals"

please take a course in logic. Once all guns are removed, there are no
more guns. I'm not saying it would be easy, but ...

That course of action, at least as it appears to many in the US, is too
difficult for them to even consider trying. Instead, they're only prepared
to take the easy way out of just legalizing everything, despite the fact
that it could be fraught with very serious consequenses. Status quo for the
illegal drug problem. *That* is the biggest problem, the apathetic nature of
too many. Any act really worth doing isn't done without considerable effort.

On Mar 1, 7:42*am, "Josepi" wrote:
At least it is an admission that the country of the USA, in general, has an
uncontrollable criminal element and their government is not willing to do
their job to enforce the laws they have.

It is too late for the USA anyway. They have supplied the criminals with
"all the weapons they can eat" and cannot go back. With very *ineffective
criminal controls they supply the rest of the people with weapons in an
attempt to do their job. They sheeple accept that logic as they haven't been
educated out of the 1800s mentality yet.

I just find it very ironic that it that the "Weapons of mass destruction do
not kill people. People kill people" slogan doesn't apply to other races of
people.


It is sortakinda like driving by an accident... sometimes you just
have to look.
I saw Hose-pie's name on a header as lofty as "Welcome To Big Time
Politics" and thought: "this ought to be good."
It was. Complete and total laughable bull****. What a ****ing idiot.
..
..
..
..
.....oops. did I say that?

Han wrote:

What use is a baby?

Huh? I find babies fascinating. 4 grandchildren and real good
relationships with our kids and their families.

## Same thing with guns, then. Entertainment value.


It may be difficult, but wrap your mind around this concept: When it
comes to guns, "need" or "real use" or "hunting" has no traction with
the gun community.

The only thing that counts is "want."

Sorry, bud, doesn't count. See the rules on sex.

## Same thing as with sex. Sometimes I can't afford the sex I want.