"Lew Hodgett" wrote:
"Leon" wrote:

Oh good golly Lew. Do you really thing that an ex law person that is
capable of murder is going to give up his guns?
---------------------------------------------
It's either surrender your guns or spend some time in one of your
Texas "Graybar Hotels".

Lew

Ummmm they can't put you in jail for something they can't find.

On 4/18/13 11:13 PM, Dave wrote:
On Thu, 18 Apr 2013 22:54:38 -0500, -MIKE-
I can also point out that there are a thousand times more deaths by
automobile, but no one is banning them. There are hundreds of times more
deaths from baseball bats and hammers, but no one is trying to ban them.

And your replay is feeble. Automobiles, baseball bats, hammers,
whatever else everyday item you want to present, usually have other
uses and originated with a different purpose.

Perhaps you should read this.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/baseballbats.asp


Then look up knives. And WTF does the original purpose of something have
to do with its ability to kill. Aren't the lives takes the reason
everyone wants to band guns?


Firearms originated with just one purpose. The first maker of a gun
didn't just think one day, "Hmmm, think I'll make gun for target
shooting". Instead he thought, "I'll make a gun to kill some animal or
go kill someone in a fight".

In any event, when all other argument fails, people in the US fall
back on the second amendment. That was several hundred years ago.
Society was considerably different then. I'd suggest that the second
amendment is out of date in today's society.


When the 1st Amendment was written all we have was a printing press and
it took a month for new to get across the country. We now have the
internet and instant press across the world. Should we limit the 1st
Amendment because of that.


But, I understand the want to keep it. It's like anything else.
Someone gave you something and you're damned if anybody is going to
take it away from you. Guess you're going to have to find some other
method to handle your gun crimes.


It's an inalienable right, as understood by the authors of the
constitution.
The only one who gave it to us was our creator.

But why am I arguing with a Canadian?


--

-MIKE-

"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com

---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply

On Fri, 19 Apr 2013 00:05:17 -0500, -MIKE-
Then look up knives. And WTF does the original purpose of something have
to do with its ability to kill. Aren't the lives takes the reason
everyone wants to band guns?

Knives have a considerable amount of use other than killing people. As
do your hammers and many other objects that have been used to kill
people.

Guns are pretty much a single use item.

When the 1st Amendment was written all we have was a printing press and
it took a month for new to get across the country. We now have the
internet and instant press across the world. Should we limit the 1st
Amendment because of that.

I didn't mention other amendments. You keep trying to inject other
variables into this discussion.

It's an inalienable right, as understood by the authors of the
constitution. The only one who gave it to us was our creator.

Your creator? You mean your father? Surely, you can't be talking about
God? Did God give you something? Wow, you're a lucky guy.

A man or men gave it to you. Men are not perfect and times are
different now than 300 years ago.

But why am I arguing with a Canadian?

Oh well, I guess that's a good a reason as any to end this discussion.
But, since God gave you the 2nd Amendment, perhaps he can also give
you a sense of humour?

Dave wrote:
On Thu, 18 Apr 2013 15:24:16 -0500, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
Simply put if controlling guns would work, it already would have
worked. There have been countless restrictions put in place in the
last 40 years and it would appear that things have gotten worse, not
better.

Come on Leon. Are you actually going to tell me that many "effective"
gun restrictions have been put in place in the US? I have the greatest
respect for you, but I have to seriously question your opinion of what
constitutes "gun control"?

That's not what he said Dave - take a second look at Leon's comment that you
included.


Sandy Hook was one of the most shameful shootings this world has ever
seen and still your US gun lobby stands firm.


They stand firm against the proposals that have been put forward so far,
becuase those proposals were more political rhetoric than they were a
predictor of anything beneficial.


Just today, the proposal to expand the background checks for people
buying guns online and at gun shows fell six votes short of winning
the 60 votes needed to pass.


Yes it did, but in what way does that have any impact? It was a bill that
was crafted by leveraging the emotions of a society, and not one that was
based on a logical approach to a problem. Moreso, it was a bill that was
based on the desires of a special interest group which by its own admission,
had the agenda of eliminating all private gun ownership in the US. It was a
bad law and it should not have passed.


--

-Mike-

"Lew Hodgett" wrote in
eb.com:

[...]

If universal background check had been in place, the JP would
have lost his right to possess firearms as a result of becoming a convicted
felon, and both these senseless murders would have been avoided.

Nonsense. That has nothing at all to do with "universal background check". Convicted felons
*already* lose the right to possess firearms.

Proponents of gun control, such as yourself, insist that if we pass laws prohibiting the
possession of illegal guns, then nobody will have any illegal guns.

I'll believe that, as soon as you can show me that laws prohibiting the posssession of illegal
drugs have ensured that nobody has any illegal drugs.

Dave wrote:


It has been repeatedly proven that it takes constant training and
preparedness by people (those in law enforcement for example) to react
properly to on the spot gun shootings. You'd have your everyday
citizen armed and ready to pull out a gun and start shooting? Don't be
ridiculous.

That's something of an unfounded fear Dave. If that were the case, we would
see that problem alive and well at this time, but we don't. Your position
is arguing a fear that has not proven itself to be real.

--

-Mike-

-MIKE- wrote in :

[...]
I can also point out that there are a thousand times more deaths by
automobile, but no one is banning them. There are hundreds of times more
deaths from baseball bats and hammers, but no one is trying to ban them.

This is untrue.

There are very nearly as many deaths due to firearms in the U.S. as due to automobiles
(roughly 31000 vs 34000, respectively, in 2011).

Over 60% of the firearm deaths are suicides, about 2% are accidents, around 25-30% are
murders, and roughly 5% each non-murder homicide (e.g. self-defense) and "undetermined
intent".

"Mike Marlow" wrote:
Dave wrote:
On Thu, 18 Apr 2013 15:24:16 -0500, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
Simply put if controlling guns would work, it already would have
worked. There have been countless restrictions put in place in the
last 40 years and it would appear that things have gotten worse, not
better.

Come on Leon. Are you actually going to tell me that many "effective"
gun restrictions have been put in place in the US? I have the greatest
respect for you, but I have to seriously question your opinion of what
constitutes "gun control"?

That's not what he said Dave - take a second look at Leon's comment that you
included.


Sandy Hook was one of the most shameful shootings this world has ever
seen and still your US gun lobby stands firm.


They stand firm against the proposals that have been put forward so far,
becuase those proposals were more political rhetoric than they were a
predictor of anything beneficial.


Just today, the proposal to expand the background checks for people
buying guns online and at gun shows fell six votes short of winning
the 60 votes needed to pass.


Yes it did, but in what way does that have any impact? It was a bill that
was crafted by leveraging the emotions of a society, and not one that was
based on a logical approach to a problem. Moreso, it was a bill that was
based on the desires of a special interest group which by its own admission,
had the agenda of eliminating all private gun ownership in the US. It was a
bad law and it should not have passed.



And as an example of crap that slides through is the new gun control law
thar requires AZ law enforcement to quit destroying guns that were
voluntarily turned in an start reselling them. How in the world does that
control guns.

On 04/19/2013 05:32 AM, Leon wrote:
"Mike Marlow" wrote:
Dave wrote:
On Thu, 18 Apr 2013 15:24:16 -0500, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
Simply put if controlling guns would work, it already would have
worked. There have been countless restrictions put in place in the
last 40 years and it would appear that things have gotten worse, not
better.

Come on Leon. Are you actually going to tell me that many "effective"
gun restrictions have been put in place in the US? I have the greatest
respect for you, but I have to seriously question your opinion of what
constitutes "gun control"?

That's not what he said Dave - take a second look at Leon's comment that you
included.


Sandy Hook was one of the most shameful shootings this world has ever
seen and still your US gun lobby stands firm.


They stand firm against the proposals that have been put forward so far,
becuase those proposals were more political rhetoric than they were a
predictor of anything beneficial.


Just today, the proposal to expand the background checks for people
buying guns online and at gun shows fell six votes short of winning
the 60 votes needed to pass.


Yes it did, but in what way does that have any impact? It was a bill that
was crafted by leveraging the emotions of a society, and not one that was
based on a logical approach to a problem. Moreso, it was a bill that was
based on the desires of a special interest group which by its own admission,
had the agenda of eliminating all private gun ownership in the US. It was a
bad law and it should not have passed.



And as an example of crap that slides through is the new gun control law
thar requires AZ law enforcement to quit destroying guns that were
voluntarily turned in an start reselling them. How in the world does that
control guns.


Those buying the turned in guns from law enforcement must pass a
background check. The state would like to recover the money it paid out
for the turned in guns. The result is those guns are now in the hands
of law abiding citizens and the state isn't losing money to accomplish
that. Also, many of those turned in guns are non-functional and end up
being destroyed anyway.


--
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure,the creed of ignorance, and the
gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery"
-Winston Churchill

Doug Winterburn wrote in news:5171465b$0$44662$c3e8da3
:

[...]
Also, many of those turned in guns are non-functional and end up
being destroyed anyway.

Isn't that the truth. A community group here in Indianapolis sponsored a gun buy-back last
summer. I got two crisp new fifty-dollar bills for a .22 revolver that could not be cocked, and a
20-ga break action shotgun with fixed sights that were off by two feet at ten yards. Many of the
other guns I saw being turned in were obviously very old and rusty -- and nearly all of them
were long guns.

I don't think it accomplished very much except to make the leaders of that community group
feel good about themselves.

On 4/19/13 12:21 AM, Dave wrote:
On Fri, 19 Apr 2013 00:05:17 -0500, -MIKE-
Then look up knives. And WTF does the original purpose of something have
to do with its ability to kill. Aren't the lives takes the reason
everyone wants to band guns?

Knives have a considerable amount of use other than killing people. As
do your hammers and many other objects that have been used to kill
people.

Guns are pretty much a single use item.


So what? How is that relevant? It's not.


When the 1st Amendment was written all we have was a printing press and
it took a month for new to get across the country. We now have the
internet and instant press across the world. Should we limit the 1st
Amendment because of that.

I didn't mention other amendments. You keep trying to inject other
variables into this discussion.

It's an inalienable right, as understood by the authors of the
constitution. The only one who gave it to us was our creator.

Your creator? You mean your father? Surely, you can't be talking about
God? Did God give you something? Wow, you're a lucky guy.


I'm discussing the rights granted in the US Constitution. The authors
believe our rights were granted by God, not by man, therefor they
shouldn't be taken away by man.


A man or men gave it to you. Men are not perfect and times are
different now than 300 years ago.


Which is exactly why I brought up the 2nd Amendment. Time are different
now. BTW, I don't believe times are different. Men have been trying to
kill other men for millennia.


But why am I arguing with a Canadian?

Oh well, I guess that's a good a reason as any to end this discussion.
But, since God gave you the 2nd Amendment, perhaps he can also give
you a sense of humour?





--

-MIKE-

"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com

---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply

On 4/19/13 6:16 AM, Doug Miller wrote:
-MIKE- wrote in :

[...]
I can also point out that there are a thousand times more deaths by
automobile, but no one is banning them. There are hundreds of times more
deaths from baseball bats and hammers, but no one is trying to ban them.

This is untrue.

There are very nearly as many deaths due to firearms in the U.S. as due to automobiles
(roughly 31000 vs 34000, respectively, in 2011).

Over 60% of the firearm deaths are suicides, about 2% are accidents, around 25-30% are
murders, and roughly 5% each non-murder homicide (e.g. self-defense) and "undetermined
intent".


Ok, so if that's accurate then cars are just as dangerous as guns.
Why don't we have a national 35mph speed limit?
Why don't we restrict the top speed of cars?
Why don't we ban cars?


--

-MIKE-

"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com

---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply

On Fri, 19 Apr 2013 00:13:54 -0400, Dave wrote:

I'd suggest that the second amendment is out of date in today's society.

I've been staying out of this one because it's a waste of time. But that
statement was just too much. It's true only if you believe that freedom
is out of date in today's society. Of course, considering we didn't rise
up in revolt when the so-called Patriot Act was passed, maybe it is.

--
When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and
carrying a cross.

On 4/19/2013 8:27 AM, Doug Winterburn wrote:
On 04/19/2013 05:32 AM, Leon wrote:
"Mike Marlow" wrote:
Dave wrote:
On Thu, 18 Apr 2013 15:24:16 -0500, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
Simply put if controlling guns would work, it already would have
worked. There have been countless restrictions put in place in the
last 40 years and it would appear that things have gotten worse, not
better.

Come on Leon. Are you actually going to tell me that many "effective"
gun restrictions have been put in place in the US? I have the greatest
respect for you, but I have to seriously question your opinion of what
constitutes "gun control"?

That's not what he said Dave - take a second look at Leon's comment
that you
included.


Sandy Hook was one of the most shameful shootings this world has ever
seen and still your US gun lobby stands firm.


They stand firm against the proposals that have been put forward so far,
becuase those proposals were more political rhetoric than they were a
predictor of anything beneficial.


Just today, the proposal to expand the background checks for people
buying guns online and at gun shows fell six votes short of winning
the 60 votes needed to pass.


Yes it did, but in what way does that have any impact? It was a bill
that
was crafted by leveraging the emotions of a society, and not one that
was
based on a logical approach to a problem. Moreso, it was a bill that
was
based on the desires of a special interest group which by its own
admission,
had the agenda of eliminating all private gun ownership in the US.
It was a
bad law and it should not have passed.



And as an example of crap that slides through is the new gun control law
thar requires AZ law enforcement to quit destroying guns that were
voluntarily turned in an start reselling them. How in the world does
that
control guns.


Those buying the turned in guns from law enforcement must pass a
background check. The state would like to recover the money it paid out
for the turned in guns. The result is those guns are now in the hands
of law abiding citizens and the state isn't losing money to accomplish
that. Also, many of those turned in guns are non-functional and end up
being destroyed anyway.


I am sure it is all above board but the media is playing this up as an
improved gun control. Yes improved in balancing out costs for the
program but not for keeping the guns out of circulation.

On 4/19/2013 10:14 AM, Doug Miller wrote:
Doug Winterburn wrote in news:5171465b$0$44662$c3e8da3
:

[...]
Also, many of those turned in guns are non-functional and end up
being destroyed anyway.

Isn't that the truth. A community group here in Indianapolis sponsored a gun buy-back last
summer. I got two crisp new fifty-dollar bills for a .22 revolver that could not be cocked, and a
20-ga break action shotgun with fixed sights that were off by two feet at ten yards. Many of the
other guns I saw being turned in were obviously very old and rusty -- and nearly all of them
were long guns.

I don't think it accomplished very much except to make the leaders of that community group
feel good about themselves.


Exactly. Politics working as usual.

-MIKE- wrote in :

On 4/19/13 12:21 AM, Dave wrote:
On Fri, 19 Apr 2013 00:05:17 -0500, -MIKE-
Then look up knives. And WTF does the original purpose of something have
to do with its ability to kill. Aren't the lives takes the reason
everyone wants to band guns?

Knives have a considerable amount of use other than killing people. As
do your hammers and many other objects that have been used to kill
people.

Guns are pretty much a single use item.


So what? How is that relevant? It's not.

It's not even true, and only someone who knows nothing about guns would think that it is.

Guns, like knives, "have a considerable amount of use other than killing people." Mostly, I
use mine for deer hunting, somewhat less often to hunt small game. I also use them for
target shooting. When we lived in the country, I used them for vermin control and to protect
livestock from predators.

And once I drew a pistol in self-defense.

My brother has used his defensively twice: once to defend himself, and once when he
walked into a public restroom and saw a knife-point robbery in progress.

Neither I nor my brother has ever killed a person. Neither one of us even fired our weapons
in those situations; simply making the adversary aware that we were armed was enough.

-MIKE- wrote in
:

On 4/19/13 6:16 AM, Doug Miller wrote:
-MIKE- wrote in
:

[...]
I can also point out that there are a thousand times more
deaths by automobile, but no one is banning them. There are
hundreds of times more deaths from baseball bats and hammers,
but no one is trying to ban them.

This is untrue.

There are very nearly as many deaths due to firearms in the
U.S. as due to automobiles (roughly 31000 vs 34000,
respectively, in 2011).

Over 60% of the firearm deaths are suicides, about 2% are
accidents, around 25-30% are murders, and roughly 5% each
non-murder homicide (e.g. self-defense) and "undetermined
intent".


Ok, so if that's accurate then cars are just as dangerous as
guns. Why don't we have a national 35mph speed limit?
Why don't we restrict the top speed of cars?
Why don't we ban cars?

I did not intend my post to be understood as in any way supporting
restrictions on firearm ownership or possession. My only purpose
was to state accurate figures about the relative numbers of deaths
due to firearms and other causes. Guns kill nearly as many people
annually in the US as cars do, and *far more* people are killed by
guns than by ball bats and hammers.

Actual death figures from the CDC for 2011:
homicide by discharge of firearms -- 11,101
homicide by *all*other*means* -- 4,852
suicide by discharge of firearms -- 19,766
accidental discharge of firearms -- 851 (unusually high that year;normal is about half that)
discharge of firearms, undetermined intent -- 222

total of firearms homicide, suicide, accident, undetermined --
31,940 motor vehicle accidents -- 34,677
accidental poisoning -- 33,554 (includes drug overdoses)

"Larry Blanchard" wrote in message ...

On Fri, 19 Apr 2013 00:13:54 -0400, Dave wrote:

I'd suggest that the second amendment is out of date in today's society.

I've been staying out of this one because it's a waste of time. But that
statement was just too much. It's true only if you believe that freedom
is out of date in today's society. Of course, considering we didn't rise
up in revolt when the so-called Patriot Act was passed, maybe it is.

Between that and all the Executive Orders coming out of the White House it
sure does make you wonder... The mass warrantless searches of homes underway
in the Boston area don't sit too well either.

-MIKE- writes:
On 4/19/13 6:16 AM, Doug Miller wrote:
-MIKE- wrote in :

[...]
I can also point out that there are a thousand times more deaths by
automobile, but no one is banning them. There are hundreds of times more
deaths from baseball bats and hammers, but no one is trying to ban them.

This is untrue.

There are very nearly as many deaths due to firearms in the U.S. as due to automobiles
(roughly 31000 vs 34000, respectively, in 2011).

Over 60% of the firearm deaths are suicides, about 2% are accidents, around 25-30% are
murders, and roughly 5% each non-murder homicide (e.g. self-defense) and "undetermined
intent".


Ok, so if that's accurate then cars are just as dangerous as guns.
Why don't we have a national 35mph speed limit?
Why don't we restrict the top speed of cars?
Why don't we ban cars?

Why don't you need a license to operate a gun?

John Grossbohlin
wrote:
"Larry Blanchard" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 19 Apr 2013 00:13:54 -0400, Dave wrote:

I'd suggest that the second amendment is out of date in
today's
society.

I've been staying out of this one because it's a waste of
time. But
that statement was just too much. It's true only if you
believe
that freedom is out of date in today's society. Of
course,
considering we didn't rise up in revolt when the
so-called Patriot
Act was passed, maybe it is.

Between that and all the Executive Orders coming out of
the White
House it sure does make you wonder... The mass warrantless
searches
of homes underway in the Boston area don't sit too well
either.

I find it interesting that no one has mentioned the use of
military helicopters in Boston.
Why military and not news and police choppers?
Also, the forefathers were smart enough to make free speech
the first priorty and the right to defend that right second

(Scott Lurndal) wrote in news
-MIKE- writes:
Ok, so if that's accurate then cars are just as dangerous as guns.
Why don't we have a national 35mph speed limit?
Why don't we restrict the top speed of cars?
Why don't we ban cars?

Why don't you need a license to operate a gun?

In the United States, owning and operating a gun is a right protected by the Constitution,
whereas owning and operating a car is not -- in fact, operating a car on public roads has been
found by our courts to be a *privilege* granted by the government, not a fundamental right.

"ChairMan" wrote in :

[...]
Also, the forefathers were smart enough to make free speech
the first priorty and the right to defend that right second

Actually, the very first right enumerated is freedom of religion, not speech.

"ChairMan" wrote in message ...

John Grossbohlin
wrote:
"Larry Blanchard" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 19 Apr 2013 00:13:54 -0400, Dave wrote:

I'd suggest that the second amendment is out of date in today's
society.

I've been staying out of this one because it's a waste of time. But
that statement was just too much. It's true only if you believe
that freedom is out of date in today's society. Of course,
considering we didn't rise up in revolt when the so-called Patriot
Act was passed, maybe it is.

Between that and all the Executive Orders coming out of the White
House it sure does make you wonder... The mass warrantless searches
of homes underway in the Boston area don't sit too well either.

I find it interesting that no one has mentioned the use of military
helicopters in Boston.
Why military and not news and police choppers?
Also, the forefathers were smart enough to make free speech the first
priorty and the right to defend that right second

The "official" word coming out of the press is that they are being used only
as transport for officials... not sure what all those code words really
mean!

On 4/19/13 1:04 PM, Doug Miller wrote:
-MIKE- wrote in
:

On 4/19/13 6:16 AM, Doug Miller wrote:
-MIKE- wrote in
:

[...]
I can also point out that there are a thousand times more
deaths by automobile, but no one is banning them. There are
hundreds of times more deaths from baseball bats and hammers,
but no one is trying to ban them.

This is untrue.

There are very nearly as many deaths due to firearms in the
U.S. as due to automobiles (roughly 31000 vs 34000,
respectively, in 2011).

Over 60% of the firearm deaths are suicides, about 2% are
accidents, around 25-30% are murders, and roughly 5% each
non-murder homicide (e.g. self-defense) and "undetermined
intent".


Ok, so if that's accurate then cars are just as dangerous as
guns. Why don't we have a national 35mph speed limit?
Why don't we restrict the top speed of cars?
Why don't we ban cars?

I did not intend my post to be understood as in any way supporting
restrictions on firearm ownership or possession. My only purpose
was to state accurate figures about the relative numbers of deaths
due to firearms and other causes. Guns kill nearly as many people
annually in the US as cars do, and *far more* people are killed by
guns than by ball bats and hammers.

Actual death figures from the CDC for 2011:
homicide by discharge of firearms -- 11,101
homicide by *all*other*means* -- 4,852
suicide by discharge of firearms -- 19,766
accidental discharge of firearms -- 851 (unusually high that year;normal is about half that)
discharge of firearms, undetermined intent -- 222

total of firearms homicide, suicide, accident, undetermined --
31,940 motor vehicle accidents -- 34,677
accidental poisoning -- 33,554 (includes drug overdoses)


When I posted that the first time, I was thinking "assault" weapons,
anyway.
Something like .6% of gun homicides are with "assault" weapons.


--

-MIKE-

"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com

---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply

On 4/19/13 1:20 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
-MIKE- writes:
On 4/19/13 6:16 AM, Doug Miller wrote:
-MIKE- wrote in :

[...]
I can also point out that there are a thousand times more deaths by
automobile, but no one is banning them. There are hundreds of times more
deaths from baseball bats and hammers, but no one is trying to ban them.

This is untrue.

There are very nearly as many deaths due to firearms in the U.S. as due to automobiles
(roughly 31000 vs 34000, respectively, in 2011).

Over 60% of the firearm deaths are suicides, about 2% are accidents, around 25-30% are
murders, and roughly 5% each non-murder homicide (e.g. self-defense) and "undetermined
intent".


Ok, so if that's accurate then cars are just as dangerous as guns.
Why don't we have a national 35mph speed limit?
Why don't we restrict the top speed of cars?
Why don't we ban cars?

Why don't you need a license to operate a gun?


I might be in favor of that, except that driving isn't a right protected
by the constitution.

I believe people should treat their cars as the weapons they are and I
believe people should become as familiar with operating a firearm as
they are a car.


--

-MIKE-

"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com

---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
...
"ChairMan" wrote in
:

[...]
Also, the forefathers were smart enough to make free speech
the first priorty and the right to defend that right second

Actually, the very first right enumerated is freedom of religion, not
speech.

Actually, and/or. And isn't freedom of religion part and parcel to free
speech?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech,
or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to
petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

"John Grossbohlin" wrote in message
...
"ChairMan" wrote in message ...

John Grossbohlin
wrote:
"Larry Blanchard" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 19 Apr 2013 00:13:54 -0400, Dave wrote:

I'd suggest that the second amendment is out of date in today's
society.

I've been staying out of this one because it's a waste of time. But
that statement was just too much. It's true only if you believe
that freedom is out of date in today's society. Of course,
considering we didn't rise up in revolt when the so-called Patriot
Act was passed, maybe it is.

Between that and all the Executive Orders coming out of the White
House it sure does make you wonder... The mass warrantless searches
of homes underway in the Boston area don't sit too well either.

I find it interesting that no one has mentioned the use of military
helicopters in Boston.
Why military and not news and police choppers?
Also, the forefathers were smart enough to make free speech the first
priorty and the right to defend that right second

The "official" word coming out of the press is that they are being used
only as transport for officials... not sure what all those code words
really mean!



Stilll sounds hokey to me.
They could easily be shuttled with regular choppers.
I agree with you on the "code" words. Who knows?shrug

-MIKE- wrote in :
When I posted that the first time, I was thinking "assault" weapons,
anyway.
Something like .6% of gun homicides are with "assault" weapons.

Most are with handguns AFAIK.

"ChairMan" wrote in message
...

"John Grossbohlin" wrote in message
...
"ChairMan" wrote in message ...

John Grossbohlin
wrote:
"Larry Blanchard" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 19 Apr 2013 00:13:54 -0400, Dave wrote:

I'd suggest that the second amendment is out of date in today's
society.

I've been staying out of this one because it's a waste of time. But
that statement was just too much. It's true only if you believe
that freedom is out of date in today's society. Of course,
considering we didn't rise up in revolt when the so-called Patriot
Act was passed, maybe it is.

Between that and all the Executive Orders coming out of the White
House it sure does make you wonder... The mass warrantless searches
of homes underway in the Boston area don't sit too well either.

I find it interesting that no one has mentioned the use of military
helicopters in Boston.
Why military and not news and police choppers?
Also, the forefathers were smart enough to make free speech the first
priorty and the right to defend that right second

The "official" word coming out of the press is that they are being used
only as transport for officials... not sure what all those code words
really mean!



Stilll sounds hokey to me.
They could easily be shuttled with regular choppers.
I agree with you on the "code" words. Who knows?shrug

The military, particularly the national guard, has often supplied helicopter
transport during emergencies. They are often used during mountain and
wilderness rescues. I talked to a national guard helicopter pilot about
this once. He said that they consider it a good training exercise and are
happy to help out. I think it really boils down to where they want to spend
the money. When you consider that all of Boston area cops are working 12
hour shifts now and many of them are working beyond that without pay, where
do they come up with funds to pay for some very expensive aircraft flying
time and pilots? Having some other government agency step in and help
defray the considerable expense seems like a win/ win situation for
everybody. It isn't like the military copter are flying combat missions and
shooting missiles at civilians. They are providing eyes in the sky and taxi
service during a civil emergency. It is totally a support function.

I fail to see how that is not a good thing. It is good we have those
resource available during a time of civil emergency. And if an act of
domestic terrorism is not a civil emergency, I don't know what is.

On 4/19/2013 6:32 AM, Leon wrote:

And as an example of crap that slides through is the new gun control law
thar requires AZ law enforcement to quit destroying guns that were
voluntarily turned in an start reselling them. How in the world does that
control guns.

If each gun sold is accompanied by a background check, as it surely must
be, where is the harm in the program? And where do I sign up?

On 4/18/2013 11:21 PM, Dave wrote:

Guns are pretty much a single use item.

That's a fallacy. It is true that one utilitarian purpose of a firearm
is to propel a projectile at high speed. It is not true that the single
purpose of propelling that projectile is to cause the death of a living
thing, which is what must "single use" arguments claim. Defensive
weapons have another purpose, which is to prevent violence by their mere
presence. And firearms have other uses besides the utilitarian ones.
Many of them are works of art and excellence in craftsmanship to be
admired in their own right. And owning one can in and of itself be a
political statement and a form of free speech. There, I've already
listed at least four uses right off the top of my head. I'm sure there
are others.

On 4/19/2013 5:16 AM, Doug Miller wrote:
-MIKE- wrote in :

[...]
I can also point out that there are a thousand times more deaths by
automobile, but no one is banning them. There are hundreds of times more
deaths from baseball bats and hammers, but no one is trying to ban them.

This is untrue.

There are very nearly as many deaths due to firearms in the U.S. as due to automobiles
(roughly 31000 vs 34000, respectively, in 2011).

Over 60% of the firearm deaths are suicides, about 2% are accidents, around 25-30% are
murders, and roughly 5% each non-murder homicide (e.g. self-defense) and "undetermined
intent".

There are more privately owned firearms in the USA than there are
registered vehicles, but fewer firearm deaths than vehicular deaths. It
is impossible to say how much ammunition is sold to those private
firearm owners, but it is "many" billions of rounds a year. The actual
risk of harm from firearm use by law-abiding citizens is miniscule. Most
gun-control proposals target those law-abiding citizens, not the
criminal use of firearms.

On 4/19/2013 1:21 PM, -MIKE- wrote:
On 4/19/13 1:04 PM, Doug Miller wrote:
-MIKE- wrote in
:

On 4/19/13 6:16 AM, Doug Miller wrote:
-MIKE- wrote in
:

[...]
I can also point out that there are a thousand times more
deaths by automobile, but no one is banning them. There are
hundreds of times more deaths from baseball bats and hammers,
but no one is trying to ban them.

This is untrue.

There are very nearly as many deaths due to firearms in the
U.S. as due to automobiles (roughly 31000 vs 34000,
respectively, in 2011).

Over 60% of the firearm deaths are suicides, about 2% are
accidents, around 25-30% are murders, and roughly 5% each
non-murder homicide (e.g. self-defense) and "undetermined
intent".


Ok, so if that's accurate then cars are just as dangerous as
guns. Why don't we have a national 35mph speed limit?
Why don't we restrict the top speed of cars?
Why don't we ban cars?

I did not intend my post to be understood as in any way supporting
restrictions on firearm ownership or possession. My only purpose
was to state accurate figures about the relative numbers of deaths
due to firearms and other causes. Guns kill nearly as many people
annually in the US as cars do, and *far more* people are killed by
guns than by ball bats and hammers.

Actual death figures from the CDC for 2011:
homicide by discharge of firearms -- 11,101
homicide by *all*other*means* -- 4,852
suicide by discharge of firearms -- 19,766
accidental discharge of firearms -- 851 (unusually high that
year;normal is about half that)
discharge of firearms, undetermined intent -- 222

total of firearms homicide, suicide, accident, undetermined --
31,940 motor vehicle accidents -- 34,677
accidental poisoning -- 33,554 (includes drug overdoses)


When I posted that the first time, I was thinking "assault" weapons,
anyway.
Something like .6% of gun homicides are with "assault" weapons.


To actually qualify as an assault weapon, the firearm must be capable of
firing multiple rounds with a single trigger pull. Most so-called
"assault" weapons are only semiautomatics and are not really assault
weapons at all. How does that affect your .6%?

On 4/19/2013 12:20 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
-MIKE- writes:
On 4/19/13 6:16 AM, Doug Miller wrote:
-MIKE- wrote in :

[...]
I can also point out that there are a thousand times more deaths by
automobile, but no one is banning them. There are hundreds of times more
deaths from baseball bats and hammers, but no one is trying to ban them.

This is untrue.

There are very nearly as many deaths due to firearms in the U.S. as due to automobiles
(roughly 31000 vs 34000, respectively, in 2011).

Over 60% of the firearm deaths are suicides, about 2% are accidents, around 25-30% are
murders, and roughly 5% each non-murder homicide (e.g. self-defense) and "undetermined
intent".


Ok, so if that's accurate then cars are just as dangerous as guns.
Why don't we have a national 35mph speed limit?
Why don't we restrict the top speed of cars?
Why don't we ban cars?

Why don't you need a license to operate a gun?

Because requiring a government license would mean the use of a gun is a
privilege (it is not), rather than a constitutional right (which it is).
If it was a privilege, the government would have the power to prevent
gun ownership altogether, which would be unconstitutional. This is a
MAJOR distinction from cars - operating a car is a privilege, not a right.

On 4/19/2013 5:10 AM, Mike Marlow wrote:
Dave wrote:


It has been repeatedly proven that it takes constant training and
preparedness by people (those in law enforcement for example) to react
properly to on the spot gun shootings. You'd have your everyday
citizen armed and ready to pull out a gun and start shooting? Don't be
ridiculous.

That's something of an unfounded fear Dave. If that were the case, we would
see that problem alive and well at this time, but we don't. Your position
is arguing a fear that has not proven itself to be real.

It's more of a personality/character thing. There are regular news
stories of people without "constant training" who use their guns to
protect themselves, their homes and other people from violent crimes.

There are hundreds of thousands of people with concealed carry licenses,
and millions of people who have the right to open carry. Their numbers
are probably an order of magnitude greater than was true in the
so-called "Wild West" (which really wasn't so wild after all).
Q: How often do they "pull out a gun and start shooting?"
A: Never.

On 4/18/2013 10:52 PM, Lew Hodgett wrote:
"Leon" wrote:

Oh good golly Lew. Do you really thing that an ex law person that is
capable of murder is going to give up his guns?
---------------------------------------------
It's either surrender your guns or spend some time in one of your
Texas "Graybar Hotels".

Or quietly go about their business and not call attention to themselves.

On 4/19/2013 5:08 AM, Doug Miller wrote:
"Lew Hodgett" wrote in
eb.com:

[...]

If universal background check had been in place, the JP would
have lost his right to possess firearms as a result of becoming a convicted
felon, and both these senseless murders would have been avoided.

Nonsense. That has nothing at all to do with "universal background check". Convicted felons
*already* lose the right to possess firearms.

Proponents of gun control, such as yourself, insist that if we pass laws prohibiting the
possession of illegal guns, then nobody will have any illegal guns.

I'll believe that, as soon as you can show me that laws prohibiting the posssession of illegal
drugs have ensured that nobody has any illegal drugs.

I would be willing to bet good money than most legal gun owners would
become illegal gun owners before they would surrender their guns.

Just Wondering wrote in news:5171bd6d$0$11409$862e30e2
@ngroups.net:

On 4/19/2013 5:08 AM, Doug Miller wrote:
"Lew Hodgett" wrote in
eb.com:

[...]

If universal background check had been in place, the JP would
have lost his right to possess firearms as a result of becoming a convicted
felon, and both these senseless murders would have been avoided.

Nonsense. That has nothing at all to do with "universal background check". Convicted
felons
*already* lose the right to possess firearms.

Proponents of gun control, such as yourself, insist that if we pass laws prohibiting the
possession of illegal guns, then nobody will have any illegal guns.

I'll believe that, as soon as you can show me that laws prohibiting the posssession of
illegal
drugs have ensured that nobody has any illegal drugs.

I would be willing to bet good money than most legal gun owners would
become illegal gun owners before they would surrender their guns.


Not taking that bet.

"Just Wondering" wrote in message
...

On 4/18/2013 11:21 PM, Dave wrote:

Guns are pretty much a single use item.

That's a fallacy. It is true that one utilitarian purpose of a firearm
is to propel a projectile at high speed. It is not true that the single
purpose of propelling that projectile is to cause the death of a living
thing, which is what must "single use" arguments claim. Defensive
weapons have another purpose, which is to prevent violence by their mere
presence. And firearms have other uses besides the utilitarian ones.
Many of them are works of art and excellence in craftsmanship to be
admired in their own right. And owning one can in and of itself be a
political statement and a form of free speech. There, I've already
listed at least four uses right off the top of my head. I'm sure there
are others.
================================================== =============================
Trap shooting. Beats video games by far. Pest control. When I was growing
up, pest control was my job. Guns were a big part of that.

On 4/19/13 4:44 PM, Just Wondering wrote:
On 4/19/2013 1:21 PM, -MIKE- wrote:
On 4/19/13 1:04 PM, Doug Miller wrote:
-MIKE- wrote in
:

On 4/19/13 6:16 AM, Doug Miller wrote:
-MIKE- wrote in
:

[...]
I can also point out that there are a thousand times more
deaths by automobile, but no one is banning them. There are
hundreds of times more deaths from baseball bats and hammers,
but no one is trying to ban them.

This is untrue.

There are very nearly as many deaths due to firearms in the
U.S. as due to automobiles (roughly 31000 vs 34000,
respectively, in 2011).

Over 60% of the firearm deaths are suicides, about 2% are
accidents, around 25-30% are murders, and roughly 5% each
non-murder homicide (e.g. self-defense) and "undetermined
intent".


Ok, so if that's accurate then cars are just as dangerous as
guns. Why don't we have a national 35mph speed limit?
Why don't we restrict the top speed of cars?
Why don't we ban cars?

I did not intend my post to be understood as in any way supporting
restrictions on firearm ownership or possession. My only purpose
was to state accurate figures about the relative numbers of deaths
due to firearms and other causes. Guns kill nearly as many people
annually in the US as cars do, and *far more* people are killed by
guns than by ball bats and hammers.

Actual death figures from the CDC for 2011:
homicide by discharge of firearms -- 11,101
homicide by *all*other*means* -- 4,852
suicide by discharge of firearms -- 19,766
accidental discharge of firearms -- 851 (unusually high that
year;normal is about half that)
discharge of firearms, undetermined intent -- 222

total of firearms homicide, suicide, accident, undetermined --
31,940 motor vehicle accidents -- 34,677
accidental poisoning -- 33,554 (includes drug overdoses)


When I posted that the first time, I was thinking "assault" weapons,
anyway.
Something like .6% of gun homicides are with "assault" weapons.


To actually qualify as an assault weapon, the firearm must be capable of
firing multiple rounds with a single trigger pull. Most so-called
"assault" weapons are only semiautomatics and are not really assault
weapons at all. How does that affect your .6%?

I'm sure it doesn't. That's why I always put "assault' in quotation
marks whenever I debate this topic. Because there are no legal assault
weapons readily, legally, available to the public in the US.

I'm quite certain that statistic includes only weapon that are
cosmetically "military-style" or come with a swappable magazine.


--

-MIKE-

"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com

---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply