Discussion:
Public Support for Gun Control
(too old to reply)
Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D.
2012-07-31 07:37:34 UTC
Permalink
"statistics" from tv news...

Public Support for Gun Control
86% want background checks
63% want ban on high capacity clips
69% want limit on gun purchases
66% want national gun registry
88% want ban for terror watch list

seem too low to me
;-)
Dean Markley
2012-07-31 12:01:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D.
"statistics" from tv news...
Public Support for Gun Control
86% want background checks
63% want ban on high capacity clips
69% want limit on gun purchases
66% want national gun registry
88% want ban for terror watch list
seem too low to me
;-)
75% of statistics are made up by frauds.
David E. Powell
2012-07-31 21:54:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dean Markley
Post by Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D.
"statistics" from tv news...
Public Support for Gun Control
86% want background checks
63% want ban on high capacity clips
69% want limit on gun purchases
66% want national gun registry
88% want ban for terror watch list
seem too low to me
;-)
75% of statistics are made up by frauds.
Yep. No "Statistics" on percentage or demographics polled, where or
when.

DEP
Bill
2012-07-31 17:39:33 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 31 Jul 2012 00:37:34 -0700, "Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D."
Post by Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D.
"statistics" from tv news...
Public Support for Gun Control
86% want background checks
63% want ban on high capacity clips
69% want limit on gun purchases
66% want national gun registry
88% want ban for terror watch list
seem too low to me
That actually sounds almost reasonable, but if it's true Obama could
bring in a form of gun licensing without a problem, and he can't...

In which case I beg leave to doubt your statistics and would like a
credible source that isn't 'I saw it on the TV'.
Malcom "Mal" Reynolds
2012-07-31 19:31:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D.
"statistics" from tv news...
Public Support for Gun Control
86% want background checks
63% want ban on high capacity clips
69% want limit on gun purchases
66% want national gun registry
88% want ban for terror watch list
seem too low to me
;-)
what an interesting cite, but your link doesn't work for me
Daryl
2012-07-31 21:45:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Malcom "Mal" Reynolds
Post by Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D.
"statistics" from tv news...
Public Support for Gun Control
86% want background checks
63% want ban on high capacity clips
69% want limit on gun purchases
66% want national gun registry
88% want ban for terror watch list
seem too low to me
;-)
what an interesting cite, but your link doesn't work for me
If you can't control a gun you shouldn't be out in public with
it. Yes, I support gun control. Get a better grip on it.
--
http://tvmoviesforfree.com
for free movies and Nostalgic TV. Tons of Military shows and
programs.
Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D.
2012-07-31 22:11:45 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 31 Jul 2012 00:37:34 -0700, in alt.war.vietnam "Dr. Vincent
Post by Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D.
"statistics" from tv news...
Public Support for Gun Control
86% want background checks
63% want ban on high capacity clips
69% want limit on gun purchases
66% want national gun registry
88% want ban for terror watch list
seem too low to me
;-)
Well, you'll never get any agreement on exactly what the numbers are;
for example: 69% of exactly what population want to limit gun
purchases? The simple fact remains that I can invest $500 today and
sell it tomorrow, NQA, at a 50% profit... lots of people are making
*lots* of money! When people are making money, they tend to be happy.

The problem with revocation of a person's rights based on inclusion in
some "terror watch list" is that how a person gets on such a list is
classified; what agency maintains the list is classified; finally,
even who is on the list is classified.

Jones
Peter Franks
2012-07-31 23:08:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D.
On Tue, 31 Jul 2012 00:37:34 -0700, in alt.war.vietnam "Dr. Vincent
Post by Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D.
"statistics" from tv news...
Public Support for Gun Control
86% want background checks
63% want ban on high capacity clips
69% want limit on gun purchases
66% want national gun registry
88% want ban for terror watch list
seem too low to me
;-)
Well, you'll never get any agreement on exactly what the numbers are;
for example: 69% of exactly what population want to limit gun
purchases? The simple fact remains that I can invest $500 today and
sell it tomorrow, NQA, at a 50% profit... lots of people are making
*lots* of money! When people are making money, they tend to be happy.
The problem with revocation of a person's rights based on inclusion in
some "terror watch list" is that how a person gets on such a list is
classified; what agency maintains the list is classified; finally,
even who is on the list is classified.
A right is a license to exercise some characteristic or trait that is
not subject to just legislation or control.

If a "right" is revoked based on some list, the there is one of two
possibilities:

It isn't a right;

The legislation isn't just.

Since we know, per Amendment II, that it IS a right, that leaves the
only possibility that the legislation isn't just.

Second point: since rights can't be legislated, it doesn't matter what
the statistics say. Rights aren't subject to democratic rule. 100% of
the people can be for gun control, but it doesn't matter, the right
CAN'T be legislated away. AT MOST, the people can choose not to
exercise their right, of their own free will and choice, but again, it
can't be legislated away.
Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D.
2012-08-01 22:18:14 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 31 Jul 2012 16:08:16 -0700, in alt.war.vietnam Peter Franks
Post by Peter Franks
Post by Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D.
On Tue, 31 Jul 2012 00:37:34 -0700, in alt.war.vietnam "Dr. Vincent
Post by Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D.
"statistics" from tv news...
Public Support for Gun Control
86% want background checks
63% want ban on high capacity clips
69% want limit on gun purchases
66% want national gun registry
88% want ban for terror watch list
seem too low to me
;-)
Well, you'll never get any agreement on exactly what the numbers are;
for example: 69% of exactly what population want to limit gun
purchases? The simple fact remains that I can invest $500 today and
sell it tomorrow, NQA, at a 50% profit... lots of people are making
*lots* of money! When people are making money, they tend to be happy.
The problem with revocation of a person's rights based on inclusion in
some "terror watch list" is that how a person gets on such a list is
classified; what agency maintains the list is classified; finally,
even who is on the list is classified.
A right is a license to exercise some characteristic or trait that is
not subject to just legislation or control.
If a "right" is revoked based on some list, the there is one of two
It isn't a right;
Well, similarly to the OP's position, you'll never get two opposing
people to agree on exactly what 2A means. The simple fact is that we
routinely deny gun "rights" based on only the most flimsy of
pretenses. For example, a person could not be denied the right to be
a Methodist because he or she was convicted of an unrelated crime;
however, the same person cannot own a gun. I conclude that you have
the ability to own a gun; however, in practice, there exists no such
"right".

But I have serious issues with the so-called "terrorist watch lists"
in that I believe these can easily be used to violate our civil
liberties.

Jones
Post by Peter Franks
The legislation isn't just.
Since we know, per Amendment II, that it IS a right, that leaves the
only possibility that the legislation isn't just.
Second point: since rights can't be legislated, it doesn't matter what
the statistics say. Rights aren't subject to democratic rule. 100% of
the people can be for gun control, but it doesn't matter, the right
CAN'T be legislated away. AT MOST, the people can choose not to
exercise their right, of their own free will and choice, but again, it
can't be legislated away.
Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D.
2012-08-04 17:22:50 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 2 Aug 2012 12:49:05 -0700 (PDT), Shawn Wilson
So, in addition to your remarks,which are as usual on point, I have to
add my usual rejoinder: the gun crown suffers from a lack of
imagination. They assume for some reason that the Tyrannical Gummit
will be evil enough to throw down the Constitution, dragoon the
regular military (somehow) into violating their oaths, turn military
arms against the suburbs, and yet, and yet, NOT be so evil as to just
kill everybody who disagrees with them and be done with it. They will
instead drive tanks and APCs into the suburbs and farm areas and try
to win hearts and minds over to the cause of evil. The Wal-Mart crowd,
who never studied history and can't spell "kulak", don't consider that
the evil military could use stand-off nerve gas, napalm, or just wall
off the rebel areas, herbicide the crops, cut off power, gas, water,
and meds, and wait at a safe distance for winter to do the job.
Yeah, I will note that the US Army lost to the VC...
And I will note that the orders to the US Army were not "Kill everyone
north of this line." Which they could have done in a month or less,
with USN and USAF help, and with few US casualties.
Then, son, note too that the U.S. was afraid of China entering the war, as
they said they would.

Go read a history book son...not mindless U.S. Army propaganda/apologists.
Hearts and minds? Harder.
Especially when they know you are the bad guys.
;-)
Steve
jonathan
2012-08-01 00:52:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D.
"statistics" from tv news...
Public Support for Gun Control
86% want background checks
The Brady Bill makes background checks
mandatory nationwide.
Post by Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D.
63% want ban on high capacity clips
Only 3% of firearm homicides are with rifles.
Some 90% with handguns.
http://www.firearmsid.com/feature%20articles/0900guic/guns%20used%20in%20crime.htm


And the latest court rulings are that handguns
in the home for self defense is a right. That
doesn't mean anything goes of course, but
handguns are the problem, and you can't
legislate that right away without changing
the constitution.
Post by Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D.
69% want limit on gun purchases
66% want national gun registry
88% want ban for terror watch list
100% of our politicians want to get reelected, and
...meaningful gun control is political suicide.
Post by Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D.
seem too low to me
;-)
Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D.
2012-08-01 19:39:36 UTC
Permalink
can't legislate that right
Let us know when you can freely carry a loaded shotgun in downtown Miami.

son, the so-called "right" became obsolete when muskets became obsolete
;-)
jonathan
2012-08-01 23:47:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D.
can't legislate that right
Let us know when you can freely carry a loaded shotgun in downtown Miami.
You have to get a concealed permit and keep
the gun...concealed to be legal~
A concealed permit cost $117 bucks.
Gotta love this country!


Florida Concealed Carry Permit Information

Automobile carry:

You may carry your weapon on you or in a
"securely encased" state
http://www.usacarry.com/florida_concealed_carry_permit_information.html


Florida gun laws

State Requirements

Rifles and Shotguns

a.. Permit to purchase rifles and shotguns? No
b.. Registration of rifles and shotguns? No
a.. Licensing of owners of rifles and shotguns? No
a.. Permit to carry rifles and shotguns? No

Handguns

a.. Permit to purchase handgun? No
b.. Registration of handguns? No
c.. Licensing of owners of handguns? No
d.. Permit to carry handguns? Yes

Purchase and Possession:

No state permit is required to possess or purchase
a rifle, shotgun or handgun.

Carrying

Unless covered under the exceptions, it is unlawful to openly
carry on or about the person any firearm, or to carry a
concealed firearm on or about the person
.....without a license.

Exceptions:

a.. Persons having firearms at their home or place of business.
b.. Enrolled members of clubs organized for target, skeet, or
trapshooting, while at, or going to or from shooting practice.
a.. Members of clubs organized for collecting antique or
modern firearms while at or going to or from exhibitions.
b.. Persons engaged in fishing, camping or hunting and while going
to or from such activity.
c.. Persons engaged in target shooting under safe conditions and in a safe
place or while going to or from such place.
d.. Persons who are firing weapons for target practice in a safe and
secure indoor range.
e.. Persons traveling by private conveyance if the weapon is securely
encased, or in a public conveyance if the weapon is securely
encased and not in the person's manual possession
http://crime.about.com/od/gunlawsbystate/p/gunlaws_fl.htm
Post by Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D.
son, the so-called "right" became obsolete when muskets became obsolete
;-)
Hardly~


s
Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D.
2012-08-02 15:31:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by jonathan
Post by Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D.
can't legislate that right
Let us know when you can freely carry a loaded shotgun in downtown Miami.
You have to get a concealed permit and keep
the gun...concealed to be legal~
A concealed permit cost $117 bucks.
Correct, son...it is not a right...apparently you don't know what a right is.
Post by jonathan
Post by Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D.
son, the so-called "right" became obsolete when muskets became obsolete
There probably never was a "right" to carry even a loaded musket anywhere desired.

your complete and total ignorance is boring me now...
;-)
John Weiss
2012-08-02 18:22:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D.
Correct, son...it is not a right...apparently you don't know what a right is.
Yet again you rely on a strawman argument that a right is not a right
if it is regulated AT ALL...

Well, permits are needed for MANY public assemblies, and business
licenses are needed for newspapers and publishers. If we use your
argument, then First Amendment rights are not rights, either...
!Jones
2012-08-03 18:37:00 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 2 Aug 2012 18:22:14 +0000 (UTC), in alt.war.vietnam "John
Post by John Weiss
Yet again you rely on a strawman argument that a right is not a right
if it is regulated AT ALL...
Well, permits are needed for MANY public assemblies, and business
licenses are needed for newspapers and publishers. If we use your
argument, then First Amendment rights are not rights, either...
Such an argument wouldn't be a "strawman"; one "pummels a strawman"
when the person changes your position into something more easily
attacked.

I would suggest that an individual "right", in fact, cannot be
regulated, licensed, or taxed.

For example: you have the right to be a Methodist; you don't need a
permit; if you commit a crime, you still have the right to be a
Methodist.

Further, you have the right to an attorney; you don't need a license;
if you commit a crime, you still have the right to attorney.

Still further, you have the right to free expression, both in writing
and verbal speech; your speech and writing isn't taxed or regulated.
If you're adjudicated legally insane, you still retain the right to
expression.

Now, consider firearms and the right thereto as currently practiced in
the US&A. Let's say that you commit something like mail fraud or
embezzlement... you wouldn't, of course, but go with the hypothetical
situation. By government fiat, you have just lost your "right" ever
to have a gun in your possession for the rest of your life. My point
is that you couldn't be told that you can't be a Methodist because
that's a right, per se. The other point here is that your
hypothetical crime had absolutely nothing to do with guns and the
prohibition wasn't an adjudicated punishment handed down by a jury!

If some mental health worker with nothing more than an associate's
degree in counseling from her local community college refers you to a
shrink, you cannot have a gun. If your ex-wife takes out a
restraining order against you, you cannot have a gun; I could go on
and on.

By the way, the US isn't exactly alone in constitutionally protecting
speech, religion, and the rights of persons accused of crimes. Read
the constitution of any country in Europe and you'll find the same
thing... then, go read the Bolivian constitution and, guess what?

The second amendment was essentially the right of the people to form a
militia in a time before we had a standing army. During the War of
1812, the US militias were so regularly and soundly trounced by
English mercenaries that we decided we needed a standing federal army.

Yes, you *may* have a gun so long as the mental health workers and
your ex-wife agree and you should be able to have a gun; however, in
practice, it's not a *right* anyplace in the world including the US

Jones
dino
2012-08-03 20:08:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by !Jones
On Thu, 2 Aug 2012 18:22:14 +0000 (UTC), in alt.war.vietnam "John
If some mental health worker with
nothing more than an associate's
degree in counseling from her local
community college refers you to a
shrink, you cannot have a gun.
Not by Florida law. The mental patient would have had to have been an
in-patient. Out-patients or shrink visits do not apply. Where in the hell is
Nigel?
Post by !Jones
If your ex-wife takes out arestraining
order against you, you cannot have a
gun;
I took out a restraining order against my ex-wife but there were no gun
restrictions placed against her. On the other hand I worked with a guy who
smacked his wife during thier divorce and the cops took his concealed weapons
permit from him. Don't think they took his guns though.
!Jones
2012-08-04 01:42:32 UTC
Permalink
On 3 Aug 2012 13:08:13 -0700, in alt.war.vietnam dino
Post by dino
Not by Florida law. The mental patient would have had to have been an
in-patient. Out-patients or shrink visits do not apply. Where in the hell is
Nigel?
I took out a restraining order against my ex-wife but there were no gun
restrictions placed against her. On the other hand I worked with a guy who
smacked his wife during thier divorce and the cops took his concealed weapons
permit from him. Don't think they took his guns though.
The laws vary greatly in their enforcement; the chap who shot up the
VT campus a few years back had never been seen by a real shrink, yet
the clamor was that he shouldn't ever have been allowed to have
purchased the gun. He had seen a campus mental health worker for
screening and had been referred. Methinks that the definition of
"mentally unstable" will probably become more lax... but it's poorly
defined what it means and what is reported to NCIS.

Restraining orders are similar turf in that it's frequently
unenforced. Actually, I have a greater problem here than I do with
the mental health bit. But I think that the restraining order carries
a no-guns clause somewhere... which is bad because the subject hasn't
ever had his or her day in court.

Dunno what became of Nigel. See if he's trolling the jet skiers.

Jones
dino
2012-08-04 21:20:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by !Jones
On 3 Aug 2012 13:08:13 -0700, in alt.war.vietnam dino
Restraining orders are similar turf in that it's frequently
unenforced. Actually, I have a greater problem here than I do with
the mental health bit. But I think that the restraining order carries
a no-guns clause somewhere... which is bad because the subject hasn't
ever had his or her day in court.
Restraing orders are temporary initially in Florida. To make it permanent both
parties have to appear before a judge and argue their point. The judge then
decides whether to make it permanent.

I got a permanent injunction against my ex-wife but the cops were reluctant to
act upon it. She could fool an awful lot of people but she didn't fool the
judge.

A temporary injunction is necessary beause violent people need to be kept at bay
quickly. If falsely accused, they can appeal to the court or wait till the time
period expires.

I've been in England for about 2 1/2 weeks now and enjoying every bit of it.
Another 1 1/2 weeks to go. Bought a Scottish beer today that said it was an
American Double IPA (India Pale Ale)? It is supposed to be based on Californian
beer? What the hell is Californian beer? Californian wine, sure, but
Californian beer? There are restaurants here that have USA fried chicken or
southern fried chicken. There are even some places that sell hamburgers. In
fact you can buy hot dogs and hamburgers in a CAN! Of course here they call it
a 'tin.'

Found me some Indian Balti cooking pans. There's no hope of coming across them
in the States. The wife loves Indian curries so I try to cook them as
authentically as possible. At home I have over 60 different spices.
Bill
2012-08-04 21:39:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by dino
I've been in England for about 2 1/2 weeks now and enjoying every bit of it.
Another 1 1/2 weeks to go. Bought a Scottish beer today that said it was an
American Double IPA (India Pale Ale)?
Correct, originally designed for transport to India in bottles.

There are restaurants here that have USA fried chicken or
Post by dino
southern fried chicken. There are even some places that sell hamburgers. In
fact you can buy hot dogs and hamburgers in a CAN! Of course here they call it
a 'tin.'
And they're not like US dogs or burgers...

Closest to dogs is probably 'bratwurst', sold in most supermarkets.

Burgers, well, you need a decent butcher with a burger making
machine or a pub that sells decent food...
Post by dino
Found me some Indian Balti cooking pans. There's no hope of coming across them
in the States. The wife loves Indian curries so I try to cook them as
authentically as possible. At home I have over 60 different spices.
Well done that man.

However spices sold in Europe have been heated to kill anything living
in them and so don't have the full flavour.

We buy ours in India.

By the way, 'balti' (which is Hindi for bucket) isn't an Indian
cooking form, it's unique to the UK.

Indians usually use the copper bottomed pans that look like what
you've got but are often larger and are called 'chatties'.
!Jones
2012-08-04 01:57:13 UTC
Permalink
Man, that episode of heat stress really ran a trip on me... I didn't
ever know the symptoms included a fever; actually, that's up there in
the heat stroke category. It's been over 48 hours since the episode
and I'm still having chills; however, less so today.

The weird part was that I never recognized any symptoms until I
couldn't have told you who I was.

Jones
jonathan
2012-08-04 00:09:42 UTC
Permalink
'A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a
free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms
shall not be infringed."

There are two parts of course to the amendment, but the
relationship between them can be interpreted in ...two
different ways.

One, the militia half could....qualify...the second part so that
the individual right only exists in the narrow context of a militia.

Or two, the militia part could ...explain why...the people are
being given an unqualified individual right, so states can always
raise a militia.

The second definition is the far broader right, and is almost
certain to be the correct interpretation. The reason is because
a state's right and an individual right are apples and oranges.
They are two entirely different kinds of rights.

It makes no sense to qualify an individual right with a state's right.
Nowhere else in the constitution does that happen.

Also, nowhere else in the constitution is an individual right
qualified, all others are unconditional rights.

We have the individual right....period!


Jonathan

s
imatoiletplunger
2012-08-04 02:43:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by jonathan
'A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a
free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms
shall not be infringed."
There are two parts of course to the amendment, but the
relationship between them can be interpreted in ...two
different ways.
One, the militia half could....qualify...the second part so that
the individual right only exists in the narrow context of a militia.
Or two, the militia part could ...explain why...the people are
being given an unqualified individual right, so states can always
raise a militia.
The second definition is the far broader right, and is almost
certain to be the correct interpretation. The reason is because
a state's right and an individual right are apples and oranges.
They are two entirely different kinds of rights.
It makes no sense to qualify an individual right with a state's right.
Nowhere else in the constitution does that happen.
Also, nowhere else in the constitution is an individual right
qualified, all others are unconditional rights.
We have the individual right....period!
Jonathan
s
.... I alway thought it was where they put the comma.....
Steve Hix
2012-08-04 20:50:17 UTC
Permalink
.... I alway thought it was where they put the comma [ in the text of the second amendment ] .....
One problem with that is that punctuation in early copies of the text varies,
the comma doesn't appear in all of them.
Neolibertarian
2012-08-04 10:04:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by jonathan
'A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a
free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms
shall not be infringed."
There are two parts of course to the amendment, but the
relationship between them can be interpreted in ...two
different ways.
One, the militia half could....qualify...the second part so that
the individual right only exists in the narrow context of a militia.
Or two, the militia part could ...explain why...the people are
being given an unqualified individual right, so states can always
raise a militia.
The second definition is the far broader right, and is almost
certain to be the correct interpretation. The reason is because
a state's right and an individual right are apples and oranges.
They are two entirely different kinds of rights.
It makes no sense to qualify an individual right with a state's right.
Nowhere else in the constitution does that happen.
Also, nowhere else in the constitution is an individual right
qualified, all others are unconditional rights.
We have the individual right....period!
While you're on the right track, you've come up just short of the answer.

Read your state constitution.

You are ALREADY a member of the militia. You may not have known it, but
it's always been right there in black and white.

In most cases, you've been a member of the militia since you were 18.
--
Neolibertarian

"Global Warming: It ain't the heat, it's the stupidity."
Andrew Swallow
2012-08-04 13:52:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by jonathan
'A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a
free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms
shall not be infringed."
There are two parts of course to the amendment, but the
relationship between them can be interpreted in ...two
different ways.
One, the militia half could....qualify...the second part so that
the individual right only exists in the narrow context of a militia.
Or two, the militia part could ...explain why...the people are
being given an unqualified individual right, so states can always
raise a militia.
The second definition is the far broader right, and is almost
certain to be the correct interpretation. The reason is because
a state's right and an individual right are apples and oranges.
They are two entirely different kinds of rights.
It makes no sense to qualify an individual right with a state's right.
Nowhere else in the constitution does that happen.
Also, nowhere else in the constitution is an individual right
qualified, all others are unconditional rights.
We have the individual right....period!
Jonathan
The US Constitution has several rules applying to the Militia. A
discipline can only work if individuals are expected to obey it.

Andrew Swallow
Jim Yanik
2012-08-04 15:55:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrew Swallow
Post by jonathan
'A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a
free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms
shall not be infringed."
There are two parts of course to the amendment, but the
relationship between them can be interpreted in ...two
different ways.
One, the militia half could....qualify...the second part so that
the individual right only exists in the narrow context of a militia.
No.
writings of the various Founders were clear about the CITIZENS having
arms,not just in militia duty or membership.

Thomas Jefferson: "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." (T.
Jefferson papers, 334, C.J. Boyd, Ed. 1950)

Thomas Jefferson: "What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers
are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of
resistance. Let them take arms." (Thomas Jefferson to James Madison)

Thomas Jefferson: "Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only
those who are neither inclined or determined to commit crimes. Such laws
only make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assassins; they
serve to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be
attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." (1764 Letter and
speech from T. Jefferson quoting with approval an essay by Cesare Beccari)

John Adams: "Arms in the hands of citizens may be used at individual
discretion in private self defense." (A defense of the Constitution of the
US)

Samuel Adams: "The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the
people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their
own arms." (Convention of the Commonwealth of Mass., 86-87, date still
being sought)

George Washington: "Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution
itself. They are the people's liberty teeth (and) keystone... the rifle and
the pistol are equally indispensable... more than 99% of them by their
silence indicate that they are in safe and sane hands. The very atmosphere
of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference .When firearms go, all
goes, we need them every hour." (Address to 1st session of Congress)

George Washington: "A free people ought to be armed." (Jan 14 1790, Boston
Independent Chronicle.)

George Mason: "To disarm the people is the most effectual way to enslave
them." (3 Elliot, Debates at 380)

Noah Webster: "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be
disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe." (1787, Pamphlets
on the Constitution of the US)

James Madison: "Americans have the right and advantage of being armed,
unlike the people of other countries, whose rulers are afraid to trust them
with arms." (Federalist Paper #46)

Patrick Henry: "The people have a right to keep and bear arms." (Elliott,
Debates at 185)

Richard Henry Lee: "To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body
of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when
young, how to use them..." (Richard Henry Lee writing in Letters from the
Federal Farmer to the Republic, 1787-1788).

Alexander Hamilton: "The best we can help for concerning the people at
large is that they be properly armed" (The Federalist Papers at 184-8)
Post by Andrew Swallow
Post by jonathan
Or two, the militia part could ...explain why...the people are
being given an unqualified individual right, so states can always
raise a militia.
The second definition is the far broader right, and is almost
certain to be the correct interpretation. The reason is because
a state's right and an individual right are apples and oranges.
They are two entirely different kinds of rights.
It makes no sense to qualify an individual right with a state's right.
Nowhere else in the constitution does that happen.
Also, nowhere else in the constitution is an individual right
qualified, all others are unconditional rights.
We have the individual right....period!
Jonathan
The US Constitution has several rules applying to the Militia. A
discipline can only work if individuals are expected to obey it.
Andrew Swallow
there is NO language in the Second Amendment that restricts the right to
keep AND BEAR arms to militias or militia membership. the right is "of the
People";individuals.

all the first part of the 2nd Amendment says is that militias are
"necessary to a free state",NOTHING more.
it's like saying militias are a nice thing.
It's just ONE reason why the government "shall not infringe" on the
People's RKBA. They could not list every reason.

The 2nd also makes no requirement that militias BE "well-regulated".
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com
Bill
2012-08-04 16:45:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jim Yanik
there is NO language in the Second Amendment that restricts the right to
keep AND BEAR arms to militias or militia membership. the right is "of the
People";individuals.
all the first part of the 2nd Amendment says is that militias are
"necessary to a free state",NOTHING more.
it's like saying militias are a nice thing.
It's just ONE reason why the government "shall not infringe" on the
People's RKBA. They could not list every reason.
The 2nd also makes no requirement that militias BE "well-regulated".
So why are you not allowed effective military firearms and support
weapons?

You've been seduced away from effective firearms by the false security
of being allowed pistols.
Jim Wilkins
2012-08-04 16:55:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill
So why are you not allowed effective military firearms and support
weapons?
You've been seduced away from effective firearms by the false
security
of being allowed pistols.
Everyone knows you can't defend your house with an AK-47.

What were those dumb Russians THINKING?
Andrew Swallow
2012-08-04 18:29:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jim Yanik
Post by Andrew Swallow
Post by jonathan
'A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a
free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms
shall not be infringed."
There are two parts of course to the amendment, but the
relationship between them can be interpreted in ...two
different ways.
One, the militia half could....qualify...the second part so that
the individual right only exists in the narrow context of a militia.
No.
writings of the various Founders were clear about the CITIZENS having
arms,not just in militia duty or membership.
Thomas Jefferson: "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." (T.
Jefferson papers, 334, C.J. Boyd, Ed. 1950)
Thomas Jefferson: "What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers
are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of
resistance. Let them take arms." (Thomas Jefferson to James Madison)
Thomas Jefferson: "Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only
those who are neither inclined or determined to commit crimes. Such laws
only make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assassins; they
serve to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be
attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." (1764 Letter and
speech from T. Jefferson quoting with approval an essay by Cesare Beccari)
John Adams: "Arms in the hands of citizens may be used at individual
discretion in private self defense." (A defense of the Constitution of the
US)
Samuel Adams: "The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the
people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their
own arms." (Convention of the Commonwealth of Mass., 86-87, date still
being sought)
George Washington: "Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution
itself. They are the people's liberty teeth (and) keystone... the rifle and
the pistol are equally indispensable... more than 99% of them by their
silence indicate that they are in safe and sane hands. The very atmosphere
of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference .When firearms go, all
goes, we need them every hour." (Address to 1st session of Congress)
George Washington: "A free people ought to be armed." (Jan 14 1790, Boston
Independent Chronicle.)
George Mason: "To disarm the people is the most effectual way to enslave
them." (3 Elliot, Debates at 380)
Noah Webster: "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be
disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe." (1787, Pamphlets
on the Constitution of the US)
James Madison: "Americans have the right and advantage of being armed,
unlike the people of other countries, whose rulers are afraid to trust them
with arms." (Federalist Paper #46)
Patrick Henry: "The people have a right to keep and bear arms." (Elliott,
Debates at 185)
Richard Henry Lee: "To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body
of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when
young, how to use them..." (Richard Henry Lee writing in Letters from the
Federal Farmer to the Republic, 1787-1788).
Alexander Hamilton: "The best we can help for concerning the people at
large is that they be properly armed" (The Federalist Papers at 184-8)
Post by Andrew Swallow
Post by jonathan
Or two, the militia part could ...explain why...the people are
being given an unqualified individual right, so states can always
raise a militia.
The second definition is the far broader right, and is almost
certain to be the correct interpretation. The reason is because
a state's right and an individual right are apples and oranges.
They are two entirely different kinds of rights.
It makes no sense to qualify an individual right with a state's right.
Nowhere else in the constitution does that happen.
Also, nowhere else in the constitution is an individual right
qualified, all others are unconditional rights.
We have the individual right....period!
Jonathan
The US Constitution has several rules applying to the Militia. A
discipline can only work if individuals are expected to obey it.
Andrew Swallow
there is NO language in the Second Amendment that restricts the right to
keep AND BEAR arms to militias or militia membership. the right is "of the
People";individuals.
all the first part of the 2nd Amendment says is that militias are
"necessary to a free state",NOTHING more.
it's like saying militias are a nice thing.
It's just ONE reason why the government "shall not infringe" on the
People's RKBA. They could not list every reason.
The 2nd also makes no requirement that militias BE "well-regulated".
The 2nd Amendment does not need to, that is covered by the original
Constitution. Article 1 Section 8

[quote]
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and
for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the
United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of
the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the
discipline prescribed by Congress;
[/quote]

Andrew Swallow
Jim Yanik
2012-08-05 16:20:25 UTC
Permalink
snip for brevity
Post by Andrew Swallow
Post by Jim Yanik
Post by Andrew Swallow
The US Constitution has several rules applying to the Militia. A
discipline can only work if individuals are expected to obey it.
Andrew Swallow
there is NO language in the Second Amendment that restricts the right
to keep AND BEAR arms to militias or militia membership. the right is
"of the People";individuals.
all the first part of the 2nd Amendment says is that militias are
"necessary to a free state",NOTHING more.
it's like saying militias are a nice thing.
It's just ONE reason why the government "shall not infringe" on the
People's RKBA. They could not list every reason.
The 2nd also makes no requirement that militias BE "well-regulated".
The 2nd Amendment does not need to, that is covered by the original
Constitution. Article 1 Section 8
[quote]
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and
for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of
the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the
Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia
according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
[/quote]
Andrew Swallow
that's when IN the MILITIA,yes,but the people don't have to be IN the
militia to have or bear arms. That RKBA "shall not be infringed".
so the people will have arms to be able to form a militia should the need
arise. Arms that the government does not own or control.

Otherwise,there'd be no need for a Second Amendment. it would be redundant.

the 2nd Amendment is to restrict GOVERNMENT,not the people.
(as is the entire Constitution.)
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com
Steve Hix
2012-08-04 20:53:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrew Swallow
Post by jonathan
'A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a
free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms
shall not be infringed."
There are two parts of course to the amendment, but the
relationship between them can be interpreted in ...two
different ways.
One, the militia half could....qualify...the second part so that
the individual right only exists in the narrow context of a militia.
Or two, the militia part could ...explain why...the people are
being given an unqualified individual right, so states can always
raise a militia.
...
Post by Andrew Swallow
Post by jonathan
We have the individual right....period!
The US Constitution has several rules applying to the Militia. A
discipline can only work if individuals are expected to obey it.
And "well-regulated" at the time meant "functioning properly, according to a
standard". It was used in that sense commonly in reference to adjusting a time
piece, or setting up a shotgun to shoot to point of aim, etc.
John Weiss
2012-08-05 01:10:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steve Hix
Post by Andrew Swallow
Post by jonathan
We have the individual right....period!
The US Constitution has several rules applying to the Militia. A
discipline can only work if individuals are expected to obey it.
And "well-regulated" at the time meant "functioning properly,
according to a standard". It was used in that sense commonly in
reference to adjusting a time piece, or setting up a shotgun to shoot
to point of aim, etc.
IIRC, there is also a body of argument that contends that, in context,
"regulated" means "supplied"...
Steve Hix
2012-08-05 06:50:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Weiss
Post by Steve Hix
Post by Andrew Swallow
Post by jonathan
We have the individual right....period!
The US Constitution has several rules applying to the Militia. A
discipline can only work if individuals are expected to obey it.
And "well-regulated" at the time meant "functioning properly,
according to a standard". It was used in that sense commonly in
reference to adjusting a time piece, or setting up a shotgun to shoot
to point of aim, etc.
IIRC, there is also a body of argument that contends that, in context,
"regulated" means "supplied"...
Might could be, except militia were supposed to acquire and maintain a minimum
store of powder and lead, in addition to their weapon.
Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D.
2012-08-04 17:25:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by jonathan
'A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a
free state,
Son, that is false...a lie.

you seem to think the U.S. Constitution is an infallible bible
;-)
Bert
2012-08-04 19:54:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D.
you seem to think the U.S. Constitution is an infallible bible
You seem to think that your insane ramblings have some connection with
reality.

But then ... Well, you know the rest.
--
***@iphouse.com St. Paul, MN
Mark Test
2012-08-05 23:21:17 UTC
Permalink
"jonathan" wrote in message news:***@giganews.com...


'A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a
free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms
shall not be infringed."

There are two parts of course to the amendment, but the
relationship between them can be interpreted in ...two
different ways.
------------------------------------------------------------------

Yep.....part one: States can have militias
part two: people can bear arms

It is that simple.

Mark
Bret Cahill
2012-08-08 03:01:58 UTC
Permalink
   'A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a
    free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms
    shall not be infringed."
There are two parts of course to the amendment, but the
relationship between them can be interpreted in ...two
different ways.
One, the militia half could....qualify...the second part so that
the individual right only exists in the narrow context of a militia.
Or two, the militia part could ...explain why...the people are
being given an unqualified individual right, so states can always
raise a militia.
In other words, if Tim McVeigh wanted to keep and bear suitcase nukes
and the militia had regulations where all militiamen could keep and
bear was an M-16, then all McVeigh would need to do to keep and bear
suitcase nukes would be to quit or not join the militia.

Them framers done left a loop hole you could drive a mushroom cloud
through!


Bret Cahill
Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D.
2012-08-04 16:35:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Weiss
Well, permits are needed for MANY
well, son, let us know when you gun goofballs are openly carrying
loaded shotguns (or sidearms) in downtown Miami.
;-)
John Weiss
2012-08-04 18:46:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D.
Post by John Weiss
Well, permits are needed for MANY
well, son, let us know when you gun goofballs are openly carrying
loaded shotguns (or sidearms) in downtown Miami.
Dunno how this refutes the fact that many other rights are also
regulated or limited...

Oh, yeah -- there ISN'T a valid refutation!
Dean Markley
2012-08-02 19:06:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D.
Post by jonathan
Post by Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D.
can't legislate that right
Let us know when you can freely carry a loaded shotgun in downtown Miami.
You have to get a concealed permit and keep
the gun...concealed to be legal~
A concealed permit cost $117 bucks.
Correct, son...it is not a right...apparently you don't know what a right is.
Post by jonathan
Post by Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D.
son, the so-called "right" became obsolete when muskets became obsolete
There probably never was a "right" to carry even a loaded musket anywhere desired.
your complete and total ignorance is boring me now...
;-)
"There probably never was..."? Well that's a pretty definite statement you old fraud!
Harold Burton
2012-08-10 02:19:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D.
Post by jonathan
Post by Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D.
can't legislate that right
Let us know when you can freely carry a loaded shotgun in downtown Miami.
You have to get a concealed permit and keep
the gun...concealed to be legal~
A concealed permit cost $117 bucks.
Correct, son...it is not a right...
Give the supremes time. It takes a while to slap down oppressive
governments.



snicker
Bert
2012-08-02 16:52:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D.
Let us know when you can freely carry a loaded shotgun in downtown Miami.
The only reason open carry is frowned on is that it frightens the sheep.
--
***@iphouse.com St. Paul, MN
Bill
2012-08-02 17:17:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bert
Post by Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D.
Let us know when you can freely carry a loaded shotgun in downtown Miami.
The only reason open carry is frowned on is that it frightens the sheep.
And, of course, for when someone comes around behind you, smacks
you over the head with a sock full of wet sand, and steals that $600
gun you're wearing openly on your hip.

(Black's First Law of Weapons: Any suitably sturdy hosiery is
indistinguishable from a lethal weapon)

That's assuming you're wearing your gun somewhere where it's needed.

Or are you only wearing it as a sort of male jewellery?
Bert
2012-08-02 17:23:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill
And, of course, for when someone comes around behind you, smacks
you over the head with a sock full of wet sand, and steals that $600
gun you're wearing openly on your hip.
Oh yeah; that happens to the cops around here all the time.
--
***@iphouse.com St. Paul, MN
Bill
2012-08-02 17:42:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bert
Post by Bill
And, of course, for when someone comes around behind you, smacks
you over the head with a sock full of wet sand, and steals that $600
gun you're wearing openly on your hip.
Oh yeah; that happens to the cops around here all the time.
A couple of points:

1. In dangerous areas cops go around in twos.

2. Cops get a lot of training in not being smacked over the head when
not looking.
Bert
2012-08-02 19:45:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill
Post by Bert
Post by Bill
And, of course, for when someone comes around behind you, smacks
you over the head with a sock full of wet sand, and steals that
$600 gun you're wearing openly on your hip.
Oh yeah; that happens to the cops around here all the time.
1. In dangerous areas cops go around in twos.
And of course, everybody just "knows" what's a dangerous area, and
nothing bad ever happens anywhere else.
Post by Bill
2. Cops get a lot of training in not being smacked over the head when
not looking.
Hey! That's funny. Stupid, but funny.
--
***@iphouse.com St. Paul, MN
Bill
2012-08-02 21:13:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bert
Post by Bill
Post by Bert
Post by Bill
And, of course, for when someone comes around behind you, smacks
you over the head with a sock full of wet sand, and steals that
$600 gun you're wearing openly on your hip.
Oh yeah; that happens to the cops around here all the time.
1. In dangerous areas cops go around in twos.
And of course, everybody just "knows" what's a dangerous area, and
nothing bad ever happens anywhere else.
Cops know where the bad areas are and who the bad guys are.

There are invariably a limited number of criminals.
Post by Bert
Post by Bill
2. Cops get a lot of training in not being smacked over the head when
not looking.
Hey! That's funny. Stupid, but funny.
Lack of content noted.
Bert
2012-08-02 22:27:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill
Cops know where the bad areas are and who the bad guys are.
There are invariably a limited number of criminals.
And the hits just keep coming.
--
***@iphouse.com St. Paul, MN
dino
2012-08-03 06:58:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bert
Post by Bill
Cops know where the bad areas are and who the bad guys are.
There are invariably a limited number of criminals.
And the hits just keep coming.
He becomes even more of a riot when you start to realize that he believes in
what he says...
Orval Fairbairn
2012-08-03 03:42:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill
Post by Bert
Post by Bill
And, of course, for when someone comes around behind you, smacks
you over the head with a sock full of wet sand, and steals that $600
gun you're wearing openly on your hip.
Oh yeah; that happens to the cops around here all the time.
1. In dangerous areas cops go around in twos.
2. Cops get a lot of training in not being smacked over the head when
not looking.
Just look at what happened in Australia:
https://usjf.net/2012/08/video-watch-what-happens-when-a-nation-bans-guns
/?utm_source=USJF+List&utm_campaign=67ed6f67f2-RSS_EMAIL_CAMPAIGN&utm_med
ium=email
Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D.
2012-08-04 16:42:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bert
Post by Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D.
Let us know when you can freely carry a loaded shotgun in downtown Miami.
The only reason open carry is frowned on is that it frightens the sheep.
and you gun goofballs are the sheep too afraid to litigate up to
the Supreme Court...because you *know* you will lose
;-)
Bay Man
2012-08-29 23:01:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D.
"statistics" from tv news...
Public Support for Gun Control
86% want background checks
63% want ban on high capacity clips
69% want limit on gun purchases
66% want national gun registry
88% want ban for terror watch list
seem too low to me
;-)
The sooner the USA bans all guns the better they will be. Civilization will
then be within your grasp. Then introduce a NHS and you are there.
Dave Kearton
2012-08-29 23:20:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bay Man
Post by Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D.
"statistics" from tv news...
Public Support for Gun Control
86% want background checks
63% want ban on high capacity clips
69% want limit on gun purchases
66% want national gun registry
88% want ban for terror watch list
seem too low to me
;-)
The sooner the USA bans all guns the better they will be. Civilization
will then be within your grasp. Then introduce a NHS and you are there.
Where did all these worms come from, all over the desk....
--
Cheers

Dave Kearton
Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D.
2012-08-30 05:03:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bay Man
The sooner the USA bans all guns the better they will be.
Nonsense. A gun for home defense is sagacious.
;-)
Bay Man
2012-08-31 23:59:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D.
Post by Bay Man
The sooner the USA bans all guns the better they will be.
Nonsense. A gun for home defense is sagacious.
;-)
Total nonsense. The USA has to stop the sale of guns and ways they can be
obtained. Look at other countries around the world.
Daryl
2012-09-01 00:17:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bay Man
Post by Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D.
Post by Bay Man
The sooner the USA bans all guns the better they will be.
Nonsense. A gun for home defense is sagacious.
;-)
Total nonsense. The USA has to stop the sale of guns and ways
they can be obtained. Look at other countries around the world.
You mean like Britain where they still have violent gun crimes
where the homeowner faces the criminals guns?

Then we can go on about Illegal Immigration using Oz land.

You write like all the problems in the world are not only in the
United States,alone, or the US is causing them.
--
http://tvmoviesforfree.com
for free movies and Nostalgic TV. Tons of Military shows and
programs.
Bill
2012-09-01 00:40:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Daryl
Post by Bay Man
Post by Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D.
Post by Bay Man
The sooner the USA bans all guns the better they will be.
Nonsense. A gun for home defense is sagacious.
;-)
Total nonsense. The USA has to stop the sale of guns and ways
they can be obtained. Look at other countries around the world.
You mean like Britain where they still have violent gun crimes
where the homeowner faces the criminals guns?
And how many of those were there last year?
Bay Man
2012-09-12 10:44:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Daryl
Post by Bay Man
Post by Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D.
Post by Bay Man
The sooner the USA bans all guns the better they will be.
Nonsense. A gun for home defense is sagacious.
;-)
Total nonsense. The USA has to stop the sale of guns and ways
they can be obtained. Look at other countries around the world.
You mean like Britain where they still have violent gun crimes
where the homeowner faces the criminals guns?
You made that up.
Orval Fairbairn
2012-09-01 02:47:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bay Man
Post by Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D.
Post by Bay Man
The sooner the USA bans all guns the better they will be.
Nonsense. A gun for home defense is sagacious.
;-)
Total nonsense. The USA has to stop the sale of guns and ways they can be
obtained. Look at other countries around the world.
Why? Statistics show that the more liberal (in the traditional sense)
the lower the crime rate, since criminals don't know who is an who is
not armed. Being lazy cowards, they avoid armed confrontation.
Bill
2012-09-01 11:36:40 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 31 Aug 2012 22:47:38 -0400, Orval Fairbairn
Post by Orval Fairbairn
Post by Bay Man
Post by Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D.
Post by Bay Man
The sooner the USA bans all guns the better they will be.
Nonsense. A gun for home defense is sagacious.
;-)
Total nonsense. The USA has to stop the sale of guns and ways they can be
obtained. Look at other countries around the world.
Why? Statistics show that the more liberal (in the traditional sense)
the lower the crime rate, since criminals don't know who is an who is
not armed. Being lazy cowards, they avoid armed confrontation.
Cite please, and from a site with no axe to grind...

Me, I'm with Wyatt Earp on this one...
Orval Fairbairn
2012-09-01 19:07:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill
On Fri, 31 Aug 2012 22:47:38 -0400, Orval Fairbairn
Post by Orval Fairbairn
Post by Bay Man
Post by Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D.
Post by Bay Man
The sooner the USA bans all guns the better they will be.
Nonsense. A gun for home defense is sagacious.
;-)
Total nonsense. The USA has to stop the sale of guns and ways they can be
obtained. Look at other countries around the world.
Why? Statistics show that the more liberal (in the traditional sense)
the lower the crime rate, since criminals don't know who is an who is
not armed. Being lazy cowards, they avoid armed confrontation.
Cite please, and from a site with no axe to grind...
Me, I'm with Wyatt Earp on this one...
I don't have the numbers in front of me, but it should be readily
available. It is the gun banner's inconvenient truth.
Bill
2012-09-01 19:12:08 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 01 Sep 2012 15:07:36 -0400, Orval Fairbairn
Post by Orval Fairbairn
Post by Bill
On Fri, 31 Aug 2012 22:47:38 -0400, Orval Fairbairn
Post by Orval Fairbairn
Post by Bay Man
Post by Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D.
Post by Bay Man
The sooner the USA bans all guns the better they will be.
Nonsense. A gun for home defense is sagacious.
;-)
Total nonsense. The USA has to stop the sale of guns and ways they can be
obtained. Look at other countries around the world.
Why? Statistics show that the more liberal (in the traditional sense)
the lower the crime rate, since criminals don't know who is an who is
not armed. Being lazy cowards, they avoid armed confrontation.
Cite please, and from a site with no axe to grind...
Me, I'm with Wyatt Earp on this one...
I don't have the numbers in front of me, but it should be readily
available. It is the gun banner's inconvenient truth.
I repeat, cite please.
!Jones
2012-09-01 21:18:47 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 31 Aug 2012 22:47:38 -0400, in alt.war.vietnam Orval Fairbairn
Post by Orval Fairbairn
Why? Statistics show that the more liberal (in the traditional sense)
the lower the crime rate, since criminals don't know who is an who is
not armed. Being lazy cowards, they avoid armed confrontation.
Actually, the crime rate rises and falls with absolutely no
relationship to gun laws.

You see, when the crime rate is in a low part of its cycle, people
tend not to pass new gun laws, either pro or anti.

Then, as it always happens, the crime rate rises. As the rates
approach a point of negative inflection, we all start shrieking that
we must *do* something! Thus, we change our gun laws from whatever
they were to something else altogether different... and the crime rate
subsequently goes down... and the law's proponents thump their chests
and say: "We told you so." It's like the rooster claiming to have
forced the sun to rise.

Your average burglar isn't afraid of your guns. In fact, guns are by
far the item most frequently reported stolen in home insurance claims.
A burglar avoids *any* contact with his clients. He wants you
careless, complacent, and well armed. Guns are at the very top of a
burglar's shopping list.

Jones
Orval Fairbairn
2012-09-02 01:13:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by !Jones
On Fri, 31 Aug 2012 22:47:38 -0400, in alt.war.vietnam Orval Fairbairn
Post by Orval Fairbairn
Why? Statistics show that the more liberal (in the traditional sense)
the lower the crime rate, since criminals don't know who is an who is
not armed. Being lazy cowards, they avoid armed confrontation.
Actually, the crime rate rises and falls with absolutely no
relationship to gun laws.
You see, when the crime rate is in a low part of its cycle, people
tend not to pass new gun laws, either pro or anti.
Then, as it always happens, the crime rate rises. As the rates
approach a point of negative inflection, we all start shrieking that
we must *do* something! Thus, we change our gun laws from whatever
they were to something else altogether different... and the crime rate
subsequently goes down... and the law's proponents thump their chests
and say: "We told you so." It's like the rooster claiming to have
forced the sun to rise.
Your average burglar isn't afraid of your guns. In fact, guns are by
far the item most frequently reported stolen in home insurance claims.
A burglar avoids *any* contact with his clients. He wants you
careless, complacent, and well armed. Guns are at the very top of a
burglar's shopping list.
Jones
I recall that, some time ago, there was a mole inside the Santa Clara
County (CA) Sheriff's office who sold the lists of new handgun
purchasers to a burglary ring. Since you had to wait several days to
pick up your gun, the crooks staked out the new gun owners' houses until
they left the premises and then broke in and stole the gun(s).

It's so nice to have such laws!
!Jones
2012-09-02 02:34:40 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 01 Sep 2012 21:13:21 -0400, in alt.war.vietnam Orval Fairbairn
Post by Orval Fairbairn
I recall that, some time ago, there was a mole inside the Santa Clara
County (CA) Sheriff's office who sold the lists of new handgun
purchasers to a burglary ring. Since you had to wait several days to
pick up your gun, the crooks staked out the new gun owners' houses until
they left the premises and then broke in and stole the gun(s).
It's rare, but it happens. There have been cases of the gun shop
feeding information to the burgs, also.

J
DGVREIMAN
2012-09-03 04:14:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by !Jones
On Sat, 01 Sep 2012 21:13:21 -0400, in alt.war.vietnam Orval
Fairbairn
Post by Orval Fairbairn
I recall that, some time ago, there was a mole inside the Santa Clara
County (CA) Sheriff's office who sold the lists of new handgun
purchasers to a burglary ring. Since you had to wait several days to
pick up your gun, the crooks staked out the new gun owners' houses until
they left the premises and then broke in and stole the gun(s).
It's rare, but it happens. There have been cases of the gun shop
feeding information to the burgs, also.
J
If you stop or even deter the legal purchase of guns you will create
a black market on guns that (1) cannot be traced (2) that will
include silencers (which are now illegal) and will certainly produce
fully automatic weapons. A good Afghan gun shop can produce five
AK-47's per day, and they do not have the sophisticated machinery we
would have - not to mention the new forced air weapons that would
suddenly appear (hard to trace ballistics) and of course Criminals
would not care whether they purchased their weapon legally or
illegally, they still would have access to them and still will use
them.
We cannot even control Weed, or our borders, and the idea our
Government can control the sale of deadly weapons is about the same as
believing our Government should be in control of our health care. No
thanks.

Doug Grant (Tm)
!Jones
2012-09-03 13:08:03 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 2 Sep 2012 21:14:06 -0700, in alt.war.vietnam "DGVREIMAN"
... you will create
a black market on guns that (1) cannot be traced (2) that will
include silencers...
I don't believe that there is any such thing as a "silencer". I tried
to build one once about 40 years ago.

My first prototype looked as cool as James Bond but it didn't cause
women to jump into bed with me and didn't do a damn thing to reduce
the sound of the shot.

So, I decided to make it bigger to trap more gas. Same result only my
girlfriend left me because I was spending all my free time in the
machine shop.

So, I machined a piece of 4" ID tubing that was 36" long and packed it
carefully. That reduced the sound some, but it still went *BANG!* as
opposed to "pemph" ... more so if you were to the front of the device
than to the rear.

I decided that the 9mm slug hitting the atmosphere at over 400 m/s was
the primary source of most of the "bang". To test that, I loaded a
big honkin' slug with the same powder. My ballistic pendulum
indicated 275 m/s and it did make a significant difference... but it
still went fucking "BANG!"

Note to the feds: statutes of limitations have long since expired and
I sawed them into little pieces decades ago.

Jones
DGVREIMAN
2012-09-03 20:45:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by !Jones
On Sun, 2 Sep 2012 21:14:06 -0700, in alt.war.vietnam "DGVREIMAN"
... you will create
a black market on guns that (1) cannot be traced (2) that will
include silencers...
I don't believe that there is any such thing as a "silencer". I tried
to build one once about 40 years ago.
My first prototype looked as cool as James Bond but it didn't cause
women to jump into bed with me and didn't do a damn thing to reduce
the sound of the shot.
So, I decided to make it bigger to trap more gas. Same result only my
girlfriend left me because I was spending all my free time in the
machine shop.
So, I machined a piece of 4" ID tubing that was 36" long and packed it
carefully. That reduced the sound some, but it still went *BANG!* as
opposed to "pemph" ... more so if you were to the front of the
device
than to the rear.
I decided that the 9mm slug hitting the atmosphere at over 400 m/s was
the primary source of most of the "bang". To test that, I loaded a
big honkin' slug with the same powder. My ballistic pendulum
indicated 275 m/s and it did make a significant difference... but it
still went fucking "BANG!"
Note to the feds: statutes of limitations have long since expired and
I sawed them into little pieces decades ago.
Jones
I have heard that a baby bottle nipple works as well as others - but I
have never tried it myself. Some Mafia types used pillows I was told,
and others placed tin cans on the end of their barrels. Again, all
hearsay, nothing I would try. The Russians supposedly built a good
silencer for a 9MM - but I have never seen one.

Doug Grant (Tm)
Jim Wilkins
2012-09-03 21:38:30 UTC
Permalink
The Russians supposedly built a good silencer for a 9MM - but I have
never seen one.
Doug Grant (Tm)
Several govt entities tried to recruit me. You can hear the firing pin
hit the primer, the bullet strike, and a faint whoosh as the trapped
gas exits.

I wanted to build the toys rather than use them, but they had no
openings for chemists. If I'd known in advance I would have brought my
candy-bar-sized folding pocket crossbow that launches flashbulb-tipped
arrows.
!Jones
2012-09-04 00:31:20 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 3 Sep 2012 17:38:30 -0400, in alt.war.vietnam "Jim Wilkins"
Post by Jim Wilkins
Several govt entities tried to recruit me. You can hear the firing pin
hit the primer, the bullet strike, and a faint whoosh as the trapped
gas exits.
I wanted to build the toys rather than use them, but they had no
openings for chemists. If I'd known in advance I would have brought my
candy-bar-sized folding pocket crossbow that launches flashbulb-tipped
arrows.
Hey, I believe everything! Yup, I do!

Jones... I'm from Missouri.
!Jones
2012-09-04 00:29:44 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 3 Sep 2012 13:45:23 -0700, in alt.war.vietnam "DGVREIMAN"
Post by DGVREIMAN
I have heard that a baby bottle nipple works as well as others - but I
have never tried it myself. Some Mafia types used pillows I was told,
and others placed tin cans on the end of their barrels. Again, all
hearsay, nothing I would try. The Russians supposedly built a good
silencer for a 9MM - but I have never seen one.
Doug Grant (Tm)
Yeah, so far for me, it's all 007 movies and hearsay. You can *tell*
me any damn thing you want... the term "liar" isn't in my vocabulary,
so everyone is safe. But I won't believe it until I hear (or don't
hear) it actually demonstrated in my presence.

I say there is no such thing as a "silencer".

Jones
Bill
2012-09-04 12:49:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by !Jones
On Mon, 3 Sep 2012 13:45:23 -0700, in alt.war.vietnam "DGVREIMAN"
Post by DGVREIMAN
I have heard that a baby bottle nipple works as well as others - but I
have never tried it myself. Some Mafia types used pillows I was told,
and others placed tin cans on the end of their barrels. Again, all
hearsay, nothing I would try. The Russians supposedly built a good
silencer for a 9MM - but I have never seen one.
Doug Grant (Tm)
Yeah, so far for me, it's all 007 movies and hearsay. You can *tell*
me any damn thing you want... the term "liar" isn't in my vocabulary,
so everyone is safe. But I won't believe it until I hear (or don't
hear) it actually demonstrated in my presence.
I say there is no such thing as a "silencer".
Loading Image...
Paul J. Adam
2012-09-04 20:21:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill
Post by !Jones
I say there is no such thing as a "silencer".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Smg_sten_Mk_VI.jpg
And also:-


And also:-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Lisle_carbine

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welrod
--
He thinks too much, such men are dangerous.
Bill
2012-09-04 20:38:00 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 04 Sep 2012 21:21:40 +0100, "Paul J. Adam"
Post by Paul J. Adam
Post by Bill
Post by !Jones
I say there is no such thing as a "silencer".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Smg_sten_Mk_VI.jpg
And also:-
And also:-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Lisle_carbine
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welrod
If there were no such things as silencers/moderators armies wouldn't
buy them...

Neither, come to that, would pest controllers...
!Jones
2012-09-08 22:14:21 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 04 Sep 2012 21:38:00 +0100, in alt.war.vietnam Bill
Post by Bill
If there were no such things as silencers/moderators armies wouldn't
buy them...
Huh? Armies never buy anything that doesn't work???

That's an amazing statement!

Jones
Bill
2012-09-09 00:06:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by !Jones
On Tue, 04 Sep 2012 21:38:00 +0100, in alt.war.vietnam Bill
Post by Bill
If there were no such things as silencers/moderators armies wouldn't
buy them...
Huh? Armies never buy anything that doesn't work???
That's an amazing statement!
Well they don't, not that get operationally deployed.

We know Welrod pistols remained in the CIA inventory until at least
1945.
Dean Markley
2012-09-09 18:10:08 UTC
Permalink
But there was no CIA in 1945.
!Jones
2012-09-08 22:12:51 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 04 Sep 2012 21:21:40 +0100, in alt.war.vietnam "Paul J. Adam"
Post by Paul J. Adam
And also:-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Lisle_carbine
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welrod
Yeah, well... pictures usually *are* silent.

Jones ... who still hasn't seen one work.
Bill
2012-09-09 00:13:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by !Jones
On Tue, 04 Sep 2012 21:21:40 +0100, in alt.war.vietnam "Paul J. Adam"
Post by Paul J. Adam
And also:-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Lisle_carbine
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welrod
Yeah, well... pictures usually *are* silent.
Jones ... who still hasn't seen one work.
I have seen a Delisle carbine fired.

It was almost completely silent on a range in daylight with only
birdsong as background noise.

I was at the old 'School of Infantry' (now the Land Warfare Centre)
at Warminster.

They shot a suppressed Sterling SMG at the same time, but that was
quite noisy as there's a lot of reciprocating machinery moving about
when that fires.
dino
2012-09-04 15:05:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by !Jones
I say there is no such thing as a "silencer".
I had a friend years ago who drilled a hole in bottom of the barrel of a .22
caliber bolt action rifle just beyond the forestock. A .22 short made only a
light puffing noise. A great way to hunt squirrel or birds without attracting
attention. Of course a .22 short is quite deadly on humans too, so I've been
told. Difficult to conceal though. Maybe walk around with it stuffed in a
curtain rod box?
Bill
2012-09-04 15:44:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by dino
Post by !Jones
I say there is no such thing as a "silencer".
I had a friend years ago who drilled a hole in bottom of the barrel of a .22
caliber bolt action rifle just beyond the forestock. A .22 short made only a
light puffing noise. A great way to hunt squirrel or birds without attracting
attention. Of course a .22 short is quite deadly on humans too, so I've been
told. Difficult to conceal though. Maybe walk around with it stuffed in a
curtain rod box?
Look, if there were no such things as 'silencers' (more correctly
known as 'moderators') armies wouldn't be buying them.
!Jones
2012-09-08 22:44:32 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 04 Sep 2012 16:44:05 +0100, in alt.war.vietnam Bill
Post by Bill
Look, if there were no such things as 'silencers' (more correctly
known as 'moderators') armies wouldn't be buying them.
By that logic, we wouldn't have had "floating tanks" in WWII because
the same properties of a device that make it an effective tank tend to
cause it to be unseaworthy. If you'll recall, they didn't work.

Similarly, one of the properties of a gun that makes it a gun is that
it throws a massive projectile at high speed... where "high speed"
would be at least 400 m/s or in that ballpark, anyway. Most of the
sound of a gunshot comes from the "sonic boom" of the bullet. You can
do as you please with the gun's muzzle; the noise comes from the
projectile hitting the air.

But, yeah... they were called "scatters" on M-16s in Vietnam and they
didn't work there, either.

Maybe you're watching too many movies?

Jones
Keith W
2012-09-08 23:08:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by !Jones
On Tue, 04 Sep 2012 16:44:05 +0100, in alt.war.vietnam Bill
Post by Bill
Look, if there were no such things as 'silencers' (more correctly
known as 'moderators') armies wouldn't be buying them.
By that logic, we wouldn't have had "floating tanks" in WWII because
the same properties of a device that make it an effective tank tend to
cause it to be unseaworthy. If you'll recall, they didn't work.
As it happens they worked rather well at Gold beach on 6 June 1944
where they effectively suppressed the German defences.
By nightfall 50th Northumbrian division supported by Sherman DD
tanks of the 8th Armoured Brigade had landed 25,000 men and advanced
almost 6 miles inland for only 400 casualties

The problem at Omaha beach was they were launched too far
offshore in rough seas.

Keith
Bill
2012-09-09 00:05:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by !Jones
On Tue, 04 Sep 2012 16:44:05 +0100, in alt.war.vietnam Bill
Post by Bill
Look, if there were no such things as 'silencers' (more correctly
known as 'moderators') armies wouldn't be buying them.
By that logic, we wouldn't have had "floating tanks" in WWII because
the same properties of a device that make it an effective tank tend to
cause it to be unseaworthy. If you'll recall, they didn't work.
Actually they worked repeatedly.

On one occasion they didn't work.

All modern light tanks and APCs 'swim'.
Post by !Jones
Similarly, one of the properties of a gun that makes it a gun is that
it throws a massive projectile at high speed... where "high speed"
would be at least 400 m/s or in that ballpark, anyway. Most of the
sound of a gunshot comes from the "sonic boom" of the bullet. You can
do as you please with the gun's muzzle; the noise comes from the
projectile hitting the air.
That's why they used .32 Colt and .45 apc, they're subsonic...
Paul J. Adam
2012-09-09 20:34:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by !Jones
On Tue, 04 Sep 2012 16:44:05 +0100, in alt.war.vietnam Bill
Post by Bill
Look, if there were no such things as 'silencers' (more correctly
known as 'moderators') armies wouldn't be buying them.
By that logic, we wouldn't have had "floating tanks" in WWII because
the same properties of a device that make it an effective tank tend
to cause it to be unseaworthy. If you'll recall, they didn't work.
They did, and they still do (for values of "tank" like a PT-76 you don't
even need a flotation screen). On Omaha Beach they were launched from
far too far out, in bad weather, and only a handful made it to shore
(note, not "none") but elsewhere they were much more successful.
Post by !Jones
Similarly, one of the properties of a gun that makes it a gun is that
it throws a massive projectile at high speed... where "high speed"
would be at least 400 m/s or in that ballpark, anyway.
Unless you're using the mighty .45ACP, which has a muzzle velocity of
~270m/s, or unless you're finding some other means to get velocity
subsonic. Or, unless you accept a supersonic bullet but just muffle the
muzzle blast.
Post by !Jones
Most of the sound of a gunshot comes from the "sonic boom" of the
bullet. You can do as you please with the gun's muzzle; the noise
comes from the projectile hitting the air.
Which gives you an n-wave as the bullet passes you... which the human
ear isn't able to get a direction from. You know you're being fired on
and you were just near-missed, but you don't know where from.

Suppressors seem quite popular on rifles these days (we issue them for
use with our .338 Lapua sniper rifles) even with thoroughly supersonic
ammunition: not because they make the firing silent, but because they
cut down the muzzle flash and blast and make the firer harder to locate
- snipers like that for some reason.
--
He thinks too much, such men are dangerous.
Bay Man
2012-09-12 10:45:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Orval Fairbairn
Post by Bay Man
Post by Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D.
Post by Bay Man
The sooner the USA bans all guns the better they will be.
Nonsense. A gun for home defense is sagacious.
;-)
Total nonsense. The USA has to stop the sale of guns and ways they
can be obtained. Look at other countries around the world.
Why? Statistics show that the more liberal (in the traditional sense)
the lower the crime rate, since criminals don't know who is an who is
not armed. Being lazy cowards, they avoid armed confrontation.
Total tripe! Look at the UK.
Orval Fairbairn
2012-09-12 16:22:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bay Man
Post by Orval Fairbairn
Post by Bay Man
Post by Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D.
Post by Bay Man
The sooner the USA bans all guns the better they will be.
Nonsense. A gun for home defense is sagacious.
;-)
Total nonsense. The USA has to stop the sale of guns and ways they
can be obtained. Look at other countries around the world.
Why? Statistics show that the more liberal (in the traditional sense)
the lower the crime rate, since criminals don't know who is an who is
not armed. Being lazy cowards, they avoid armed confrontation.
Total tripe! Look at the UK.
Yes -- look at the UK, where gangs of thugs run rampant, beating up
people and burglarizing homes and shops repeatedly, with impunity.
Bill
2012-09-12 17:12:03 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 12 Sep 2012 12:22:32 -0400, Orval Fairbairn
Post by Orval Fairbairn
Post by Bay Man
Post by Orval Fairbairn
Post by Bay Man
Post by Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D.
Post by Bay Man
The sooner the USA bans all guns the better they will be.
Nonsense. A gun for home defense is sagacious.
;-)
Total nonsense. The USA has to stop the sale of guns and ways they
can be obtained. Look at other countries around the world.
Why? Statistics show that the more liberal (in the traditional sense)
the lower the crime rate, since criminals don't know who is an who is
not armed. Being lazy cowards, they avoid armed confrontation.
Total tripe! Look at the UK.
Yes -- look at the UK, where gangs of thugs run rampant, beating up
people and burglarizing homes and shops repeatedly, with impunity.
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/two-men-charged-over-farm-break-211921987.html
Orval Fairbairn
2012-09-13 01:17:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill
On Wed, 12 Sep 2012 12:22:32 -0400, Orval Fairbairn
Post by Orval Fairbairn
Post by Bay Man
Post by Orval Fairbairn
Post by Bay Man
Post by Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D.
Post by Bay Man
The sooner the USA bans all guns the better they will be.
Nonsense. A gun for home defense is sagacious.
;-)
Total nonsense. The USA has to stop the sale of guns and ways they
can be obtained. Look at other countries around the world.
Why? Statistics show that the more liberal (in the traditional sense)
the lower the crime rate, since criminals don't know who is an who is
not armed. Being lazy cowards, they avoid armed confrontation.
Total tripe! Look at the UK.
Yes -- look at the UK, where gangs of thugs run rampant, beating up
people and burglarizing homes and shops repeatedly, with impunity.
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/two-men-charged-over-farm-break-211921987.html
"Mr and Mrs Ferrie were arrested on suspicion of causing grievous bodily
harm after a legally-owned shotgun was fired during a break-in in the
early hours of Sunday."


So, why did the authorities arrest the couple in the first place? The
dirtbags who broke into their home deserved to get blown away.

You Brits seem to have a perverted sense of right and wrong.
DGVREIMAN
2012-09-13 03:57:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Orval Fairbairn
Post by Bill
On Wed, 12 Sep 2012 12:22:32 -0400, Orval Fairbairn
Post by Orval Fairbairn
Post by Bay Man
Post by Orval Fairbairn
Post by Bay Man
Post by Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D.
Post by Bay Man
The sooner the USA bans all guns the better they will be.
Nonsense. A gun for home defense is sagacious.
;-)
Total nonsense. The USA has to stop the sale of guns and ways they
can be obtained. Look at other countries around the world.
Why? Statistics show that the more liberal (in the traditional sense)
the lower the crime rate, since criminals don't know who is an who is
not armed. Being lazy cowards, they avoid armed confrontation.
Total tripe! Look at the UK.
Yes -- look at the UK, where gangs of thugs run rampant, beating up
people and burglarizing homes and shops repeatedly, with impunity.
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/two-men-charged-over-farm-break-211921987.html
"Mr and Mrs Ferrie were arrested on suspicion of causing grievous bodily
harm after a legally-owned shotgun was fired during a break-in in the
early hours of Sunday."
So, why did the authorities arrest the couple in the first place? The
dirtbags who broke into their home deserved to get blown away.
You Brits seem to have a perverted sense of right and wrong.
Where is it easier than any other place in the world that has any kind
of gun control to purchase a fully automatic weapon?

Answer: London U.K.

The more laws that are passed against guns, the more criminals have
them and law abiding citizens do not. And we are not talking about a
black market in the hunting weapons or shotguns, but the AK-47's,
MAC10's and similar fully automatic weapons.

All any government has managed to do with strict gun control is (1)
create a black market for all types of guns that cannot be traced (2)
only criminals have access to them (3) law abiding people cannot
defend themselves against criminals - they must wait until they are
killed and then their families hope the police catch the murderers
before they murder someone else - which they rarely do.

If people handle and own weapons responsibly, and use them to defend
themselves or their loved ones or their property, then what the hell
is wrong with that? Forget hunting and such as there is nothing to
hunt in London except Rats - but defense against London scum, that is
another tale altogether.

Every study on this issue has shown where law abiding citizens have
been allowed to carry concealed weapons the violent crime rate has
dropped. Of course the lawyers/politicians do not want everyone to
have guns as that would be bad for their business.

I believe every woman in the USA and in the civilized world should
carry some type of hand gun in her purse. Especially when she is
walking her kids to the playground and back.

Doug Grant (Tm)
Bay Man
2012-09-13 08:18:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Orval Fairbairn
You Brits seem to have a perverted sense of right and wrong.
Where is it easier than any other place in the world that has any kind of
gun control to purchase a fully automatic weapon?
Answer: London U.K.
Total Tripe, written by gun obsessed Yanks. I know of no shops or outlets
where these weapons are obtained. THEY ARE BANNED. They are NOT available
on street corners either. Replica guns are banned as well.
Bill
2012-09-13 12:12:24 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 12 Sep 2012 20:57:38 -0700, "DGVREIMAN"
Post by DGVREIMAN
Post by Orval Fairbairn
Post by Bill
On Wed, 12 Sep 2012 12:22:32 -0400, Orval Fairbairn
Post by Orval Fairbairn
Post by Bay Man
Post by Orval Fairbairn
Post by Bay Man
Post by Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D.
Post by Bay Man
The sooner the USA bans all guns the better they will be.
Nonsense. A gun for home defense is sagacious.
;-)
Total nonsense. The USA has to stop the sale of guns and ways they
can be obtained. Look at other countries around the world.
Why? Statistics show that the more liberal (in the traditional sense)
the lower the crime rate, since criminals don't know who is an who is
not armed. Being lazy cowards, they avoid armed confrontation.
Total tripe! Look at the UK.
Yes -- look at the UK, where gangs of thugs run rampant, beating up
people and burglarizing homes and shops repeatedly, with impunity.
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/two-men-charged-over-farm-break-211921987.html
"Mr and Mrs Ferrie were arrested on suspicion of causing grievous bodily
harm after a legally-owned shotgun was fired during a break-in in the
early hours of Sunday."
So, why did the authorities arrest the couple in the first place? The
dirtbags who broke into their home deserved to get blown away.
You Brits seem to have a perverted sense of right and wrong.
Where is it easier than any other place in the world that has any kind
of gun control to purchase a fully automatic weapon?
Answer: London U.K.
The more laws that are passed against guns, the more criminals have
them and law abiding citizens do not. And we are not talking about a
black market in the hunting weapons or shotguns, but the AK-47's,
MAC10's and similar fully automatic weapons.
That'll account for all those dead bodies...

Look, imbecile, if the streets were awash with that sort of stuff
there'd be a rising tide of dead bodies, and there isn't...
Keith W
2012-09-13 08:01:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Orval Fairbairn
"Mr and Mrs Ferrie were arrested on suspicion of causing grievous
bodily harm after a legally-owned shotgun was fired during a break-in
in the early hours of Sunday."
So, why did the authorities arrest the couple in the first place?
Well now when folks get shot we kinda thimk its worth investigating
what happened, call us suspicious but sometimes people tell lies
and shootings in burglaries are pretty dammed unusual here.
Post by Orval Fairbairn
The
dirtbags who broke into their home deserved to get blown away.
You Brits seem to have a perverted sense of right and wrong.
Well no see the police investigation vindicated the Ferne's and
the intruders were charged, we prefer that the courts hand
out punishments to criminals rather than submit to gun law.

Strangely enough US courts tend to do the same thing and
last I heard dont condemn people to death for simple
burglary.

Keith
Bay Man
2012-09-13 08:14:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Orval Fairbairn
Post by Bill
On Wed, 12 Sep 2012 12:22:32 -0400, Orval Fairbairn
Post by Orval Fairbairn
Post by Bay Man
Post by Orval Fairbairn
Post by Bay Man
Post by Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D.
Post by Bay Man
The sooner the USA bans all guns the better they will be.
Nonsense. A gun for home defense is sagacious.
;-)
Total nonsense. The USA has to stop the sale of guns and ways they
can be obtained. Look at other countries around the world.
Why? Statistics show that the more liberal (in the traditional sense)
the lower the crime rate, since criminals don't know who is an who is
not armed. Being lazy cowards, they avoid armed confrontation.
Total tripe! Look at the UK.
Yes -- look at the UK, where gangs of thugs run rampant, beating up
people and burglarizing homes and shops repeatedly, with impunity.
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/two-men-charged-over-farm-break-211921987.html
"Mr and Mrs Ferrie were arrested on suspicion of causing grievous bodily
harm after a legally-owned shotgun was fired during a break-in in the
early hours of Sunday."
So, why did the authorities arrest the couple in the first place? The
dirtbags who broke into their home deserved to get blown away.
You Brits seem to have a perverted sense of right and wrong.
You do not shoot people. You do not inflict harm on people or kill them.
People are above property, unlike your self-serving materialistic nation.
Simple.

Get you gun obsessed mind right.
peter skelton
2012-09-13 11:54:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill
On Wed, 12 Sep 2012 12:22:32 -0400, Orval Fairbairn
Post by Orval Fairbairn
Post by Bay Man
Post by Orval Fairbairn
Post by Bay Man
Post by Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D.
Post by Bay Man
The sooner the USA bans all guns the better they
will be.
Nonsense. A gun for home defense is sagacious.
;-)
Total nonsense. The USA has to stop the sale of guns
and ways they
can be obtained. Look at other countries around the
world.
Why? Statistics show that the more liberal (in the
traditional sense)
the lower the crime rate, since criminals don't know
who is an who is
not armed. Being lazy cowards, they avoid armed
confrontation.
Total tripe! Look at the UK.
Yes -- look at the UK, where gangs of thugs run rampant,
beating up
people and burglarizing homes and shops repeatedly, with
impunity.
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/two-men-charged-over-farm-break-211921987.html
"Mr and Mrs Ferrie were arrested on suspicion of causing
grievous bodily
harm after a legally-owned shotgun was fired during a
break-in in the
early hours of Sunday."
Post by Bill
So, why did the authorities arrest the couple in the first
place? The
dirtbags who broke into their home deserved to get blown
away.
Post by Bill
You Brits seem to have a perverted sense of right and
wrong.
They were arrested but not charged, released on bail (which
was probably a relatively trivial sum, or just a promise to
appear). That's because one of them shot at someone. The
action was deemed justified after investigation, no charges
were laid, the bail conditions were released. There are
other ways of handling the situation, but this one seems
reasonable.
Bill
2012-09-13 12:10:22 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 12 Sep 2012 21:17:59 -0400, Orval Fairbairn
Post by Orval Fairbairn
Post by Bill
On Wed, 12 Sep 2012 12:22:32 -0400, Orval Fairbairn
Post by Orval Fairbairn
Post by Bay Man
Post by Orval Fairbairn
Post by Bay Man
Post by Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D.
Post by Bay Man
The sooner the USA bans all guns the better they will be.
Nonsense. A gun for home defense is sagacious.
;-)
Total nonsense. The USA has to stop the sale of guns and ways they
can be obtained. Look at other countries around the world.
Why? Statistics show that the more liberal (in the traditional sense)
the lower the crime rate, since criminals don't know who is an who is
not armed. Being lazy cowards, they avoid armed confrontation.
Total tripe! Look at the UK.
Yes -- look at the UK, where gangs of thugs run rampant, beating up
people and burglarizing homes and shops repeatedly, with impunity.
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/two-men-charged-over-farm-break-211921987.html
"Mr and Mrs Ferrie were arrested on suspicion of causing grievous bodily
harm after a legally-owned shotgun was fired during a break-in in the
early hours of Sunday."
So, why did the authorities arrest the couple in the first place?
Because someone had been shot.

This doesn't happen terribly often here so the police more or less say
"Let's get everyone down to the station and sort out exactly what's
happening shall we..."

The
Post by Orval Fairbairn
dirtbags who broke into their home deserved to get blown away.
They did, promptly followed by an appearance in court...
Post by Orval Fairbairn
You Brits seem to have a perverted sense of right and wrong.
The people who shot the burglars are out without a stain on their
character. What more do you want?
Bay Man
2012-09-13 13:05:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill
On Wed, 12 Sep 2012 21:17:59 -0400, Orval Fairbairn
Post by Orval Fairbairn
Post by Bill
On Wed, 12 Sep 2012 12:22:32 -0400, Orval Fairbairn
Post by Orval Fairbairn
Post by Bay Man
Post by Orval Fairbairn
Post by Bay Man
Post by Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D.
Post by Bay Man
The sooner the USA bans all guns the better they will be.
Nonsense. A gun for home defense is sagacious.
;-)
Total nonsense. The USA has to stop the sale of guns and ways they
can be obtained. Look at other countries around the world.
Why? Statistics show that the more liberal (in the traditional sense)
the lower the crime rate, since criminals don't know who is an who is
not armed. Being lazy cowards, they avoid armed confrontation.
Total tripe! Look at the UK.
Yes -- look at the UK, where gangs of thugs run rampant, beating up
people and burglarizing homes and shops repeatedly, with impunity.
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/two-men-charged-over-farm-break-211921987.html
"Mr and Mrs Ferrie were arrested on suspicion of causing grievous bodily
harm after a legally-owned shotgun was fired during a break-in in the
early hours of Sunday."
So, why did the authorities arrest the couple in the first place?
Because someone had been shot.
This doesn't happen terribly often here so the police more or less say
"Let's get everyone down to the station and sort out exactly what's
happening shall we..."
The
Post by Orval Fairbairn
dirtbags who broke into their home deserved to get blown away.
They did, promptly followed by an appearance in court...
Post by Orval Fairbairn
You Brits seem to have a perverted sense of right and wrong.
The people who shot the burglars are out without a stain on their
character. What more do you want?
They are klillers.

Bay Man
2012-09-13 08:10:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Orval Fairbairn
Post by Bay Man
Post by Orval Fairbairn
Post by Bay Man
Post by Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D.
Post by Bay Man
The sooner the USA bans all guns the better they will be.
Nonsense. A gun for home defense is sagacious.
;-)
Total nonsense. The USA has to stop the sale of guns and ways they
can be obtained. Look at other countries around the world.
Why? Statistics show that the more liberal (in the traditional sense)
the lower the crime rate, since criminals don't know who is an who is
not armed. Being lazy cowards, they avoid armed confrontation.
Total tripe! Look at the UK.
Yes -- look at the UK, where gangs of thugs run rampant, beating up
people and burglarizing homes and shops repeatedly, with impunity.
You amde that up. I noticed you are gun obessed a Yank - so that figures.
Get your mind seen to.
150flivver
2012-09-04 22:35:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D.
"statistics" from tv news...
Public Support for Gun Control
86% want background checks
63% want ban on high capacity clips
69% want limit on gun purchases
66% want national gun registry
88% want ban for terror watch list
seem too low to me
;-)
Saw a homemade suppressor for 22LR. Did pretty much eliminate the bang but not the crack from the supersonic round. Used a subsonic 22 round next and the crack was gone with the loudest noise being the action functioning. .45ACP would be a good round to suppress since it's mostly subsonic from pistols. Youtube has lots of videos of suppressors in use--some are better than others.
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...