Discussion:
gun control? The gun nuts are in control.
(too old to reply)
Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D.
2012-12-16 05:29:20 UTC
Permalink
and 20 children, all 6 or 7 years old, died for it
;-(
Dave Head
2012-12-16 10:05:44 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 15 Dec 2012 21:29:20 -0800, "Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D."
Post by Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D.
and 20 children, all 6 or 7 years old, died for it
;-(
S*** happens. You'd be happier if the nut-case used 5 gallons of
gasoline and a match to kill that many or more?

Meanwhile, guns are used 1.5 - 2.5 million times a year by the
American poblic to thwart attacks upon individuals. You never hear
about those because there's no news story, no body count to go with
that. The intended victim simply shows the gun, or draws and points
it, and the bad guy decides there's something else he'd rather be
doing at that moment, and runs the other way...



The following article is appearing in the Orange County (CA)
Register on Sunday, September 19, 1993, and an upcoming issue
of Gun Week. Reproduction on computer bulletin boards is
permitted for informational purposes only. Copyright (c) 1993
by J. Neil Schulman. All other rights reserved.



PRIVATE FIREARMS STOP CRIME 2.5 MILLION TIMES EACH YEAR,
NEW UNIVERSITY SURVEY CONFIRMS

By J. Neil Schulman

Gary Kleck, Ph.D. is a professor in the School of
Criminology and Criminal Justice at Florida State University in
Tallahassee author of "Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America"
(Aldine de Gruyter, 1991), a book widely cited in the national
gun-control debate. In an exclusive interview, Dr. Kleck
revealed some preliminary results of the National Self-Defense
Survey which he and his colleague Dr. Marc Gertz conducted in
Spring, 1993. Though he stresses that the results of the
survey are preliminary and subject to future revision, Kleck
is satisfied that the survey's results confirm his analysis of
previous surveys which show that American civilians commonly use
their privately-owned firearms to defend themselves against
criminal attacks, and that such defensive uses significantly
outnumber the criminal uses of firearms in America.

The new survey, conducted by random telephone sampling of
4,978 households in all the states except Alaska and Hawaii,
yield results indicating that American civilians use their
firearms as often as 2.5 million times every year defending
against a confrontation with a criminal, and that handguns alone
account for up to 1.9 million defenses per year. Previous
surveys, in Kleck's analysis, had underrepresented the extent of
private firearms defenses because the questions asked failed to
account for the possibility that a particular respondent might
have had to use his or her firearm more than once.

Dr. Kleck will first present his survey results at an
upcoming meeting of the American Society of Criminology, but he
agreed to discuss his preliminary analysis, even though it is
uncustomary to do so in advance of complete peer review, because
of the great extent which his earlier work is being quoted in
public debates on firearms public policy.

The interview was conducted September 14-17, 1993 by J. Neil
Schulman, a novelist, screenwriter, and journalist who has
written extensively on firearms public policy for several years.

Readers may be interested to know that Kleck is a member
of the ACLU, Amnesty International USA, and Common Cause,
among other politically liberal organizations. He is also a
lifelong registered Democrat. He is not and has never been a
member of or contributor to the NRA, Handgun Control Inc., or
any other advocacy group on either side of the gun-control
issue, nor has he received funding for research from any
such organization.
##

SCHULMAN: Dr. Kleck, can you tell me generally what was
discovered in your recent survey that wasn't previously known?

KLECK: Well, the survey mostly generated results pretty
consistent with those of a dozen previous surveys which generally
indicates that defensive use of guns is pretty common and
probably more common than criminal uses of guns. This survey
went beyond previous ones in that it provided detail about how
often people who had used a gun had done so. We asked people was
the gun used defensively in the past five years and if so how
many times did that happen and we asked details about what
exactly happened. We nailed down that each use being reported
was a bona fide defensive use against a human being in connection
with a crime where there was an actual confrontation between
victim and offender. Previous surveys were a little hazy on the
details of exactly what was being reported as a defensive gun
use. It wasn't, for example, clear that the respondents weren't
reporting investigating a suspicious noise in their back yard
with a gun where there was, in fact, nobody there. Our results
ended up indicating, depending on which figures you prefer
to use, anywhere from 800,000 on up to 2.4, 2.5 million defensive
uses of guns against human beings -- not against animals -- by
civilians each year.

SCHULMAN: Okay. Let's see if we can pin down some of these
figures. I understand you asked questions having to do with just
the previous one year. Is that correct?

KLECK: That's correct. We asked both for recollections
about the preceding five years and for just what happened in the
previous one year, the idea being that people would be able to
remember more completely what had happened just in the past year.

SCHULMAN: And your figures reflect this?

KLECK: Yes. The estimates are considerably higher if
they're based on people's presumably more-complete recollection
of just what happened in the previous year.

SCHULMAN: Okay. So you've given us the definition of what a
"defense" is. It has to be an actual confrontation against a
human being attempting a crime? Is that correct?

KLECK: Correct.

SCHULMAN: And it excludes all police, security guards, and
military personnel?

KLECK: That's correct.

SCHULMAN: Okay. Let's ask the "one year" question since you
say that's based on better recollections. In the last year how
many people who responded to the questionnaire said that they had
used a firearm to defend themselves against an actual
confrontation from a human being attempting a crime?

KLECK: Well, as a percentage it's 1.33 percent of the
respondents. When you extrapolate that to the general
population, it works out to be 2.4 million defensive uses of guns
of some kind -- not just handguns but any kind of a gun -- within
that previous year, which would have been roughly from Spring of
1992 through Spring of 1993.

SCHULMAN: And if you focus solely on handguns?

KLECK: It's about 1.9 million, based on personal, individual
recollections.

SCHULMAN: And what percentage of the respondents is that?
Just handguns?

KLECK: That would be 1.03 percent.

SCHULMAN: How many respondents did you have total?

KLECK: We had a total of 4,978 completed interviews, that
is, where we had a response on the key question of whether or not
there had been a defensive gun use.

SCHULMAN: So roughly 50 people out of 5000 responded that in
the last year they had had to use their firearms in an actual
confrontation against a human being attempting a crime?

KLECK: Handguns, yes.

SCHULMAN: Had used a handgun. And slightly more than that
had used any gun.

KLECK: Right.

SCHULMAN: So that would be maybe 55, 56 people?

KLECK: Something like that, yeah.

SCHULMAN: Okay. I can just hear critics saying that 50 or
55 people responding that they used their gun and you're
projecting it out to figures of around 2 million, 2-1/2 million
gun defenses. Why is that statistically valid?

KLECK: Well, that's one reason why we also had a five-year
recollection period. We get a much larger raw number of people
saying, "Yes, I had a defensive use." It doesn't work out to be
as many per year because people are presumably not remembering as
completely, but the raw numbers of people who remember some kind
of defensive use over the previous five years, that worked out to
be on the order of 200 sample cases. So it's really a small raw
number only if you limit your attention to those who are
reporting an incident just in the previous year. Statistically,
it's strictly the raw numbers that are relevant to the issue.

SCHULMAN: So if between 1 percent to 1-1/3 percent of your
respondents are saying that they defended themselves with a gun,
how does this compare, for example, to the number of people who
would respond that they had suffered from a crime during that
period?

KLECK: I really couldn't say. We didn't ask that and I
don't think there are really any comparable figures. You could
look at the National Crime Surveys for relatively recent years
and I guess you could take the share of the population that had
been the victims of some kind of violent crime because most of
these apparently are responses to violent crimes. Ummm, let's
see. The latest year for which I have any data, 1991, would be
about 9 percent of the population had suffered a personal crime
-- that's a crime with personal contact. And so, to say that 1
percent of the population had defended themselves with a handgun
is obviously still well within what you would expect based on the
share of the population that had suffered a personal crime of
some kind. Plus a number of these defensive uses were against
burglars, which isn't considered a personal crime according to
the National Crime Survey. But you can add in maybe another 5
percent who'd been a victim of a household burglary.

SCHULMAN: Let's break down some of these gun defenses if we
can. How many are against armed robbers? How many are against
burglars? How many are against people committing a rape or an
assault?

KLECK: About 8 percent of the defensive uses involved a
sexual crime such as an attempted sexual assault. About 29
percent involved some sort of assault other than sexual assault.
Thirty-three percent involved a burglary or some other theft at
home. Twenty-two percent involved robbery. Sixteen percent
involved trespassing. Note that some incidents could involve
more than one crime.

SCHULMAN: Do you have a breakdown of how many occurred on
somebody's property and how many occurred, let's say, off
somebody's property where somebody would have had to have been
carrying a gun with them on their person or in their car?

KLECK: Yes. We asked where the incident took place.
Seventy-two percent took place in or near the home, where the gun
wouldn't have to be "carried" in a legal sense. And then some of
the remainder, maybe another 4 percent, occurred in a friend's
home where that might not necessarily involve carrying. Also,
some of these incidents may have occurred in a vehicle in a
parking lot and that's another 4 percent or so. So some of those
incidents may have involved a less-regulated kind of carrying.
In many states, for example, it doesn't require a license to
carry a gun in your vehicle so I'd say that the share that
involved carrying in a legal sense is probably less than a
quarter of the incidents. I won't commit myself to anything more
than that because we don't have the specifics of whether or not
some of these away-from-home incidents occurred while a person
was in a car.

SCHULMAN: All right. Well, does that mean that
approximately a half million times a year somebody carrying a gun
away from home uses it to defend himself or herself?

KLECK: That's what it would imply, yes.

SCHULMAN: All right. As many as one-half million times
every year somebody carrying a gun away from home defends himself
or herself.

KLECK: Yes, about that. It could be as high as that. I
have many different estimates and some of the estimates are
deliberately more conservative in that they exclude from our
sample any cases where it was not absolutely clear that there was
a genuine defensive gun use being reported.

SCHULMAN: Were any of these gun uses done by anyone under
the age of 21 or under the age of 18?

KLECK: Well we don't have any coverage of persons under the
age of 18. Like most national surveys we cover only adults age
18 and up.

SCHULMAN: Did you have any between the ages of 18 and 21?

KLECK: I haven't analyzed the cross tabulation of age with
defensive gun use so I couldn't say at this point.

SCHULMAN: Okay. Was this survey representative just of
Florida or is it representative of the entire United States?

KLECK: It's representative of the lower 48 states.

SCHULMAN: And that means that there was calling throughout
all the different states?

KLECK: Yes, except Alaska and Hawaii, and that's also
standard practice for national surveys; because of the expense
they usually aren't contacted.

SCHULMAN: How do these surveys make their choices, for
example, between high-crime urban areas and less-crime rural
areas?

KLECK: Well, there isn't a choice made in that sense. It's
a telephone survey and the telephone numbers are randomly chosen
by computer so that it works out that every residential telephone
number in the lower 48 states had an equal chance of being
picked, except that we deliberately oversampled from the South
and the West and then adjusted after the fact for that
overrepresentation. It results in no biasing. The results are
representative of the entire United States, but it yields a
larger number of sample cases of defensive gun uses. They are,
however, weighted back down so that they properly represent the
correct percent of the population that's had a defensive gun use.

SCHULMAN: Why is it that the results of your survey are so
counter-intuitive compared to police experience?

KLECK: For starters, there are substantial reasons for
people not to report defensive gun uses to the police or, for
that matter, even to interviewers working for researchers like me
-- the reason simply being that a lot of the times people either
don't know whether their defensive act was legal or even if they
think that was legal, they're not sure that possessing a gun at
that particular place and time was legal. They may have a gun
that's supposed to be registered and it's not or maybe it's
totally legally owned but they're not supposed to be walking
around on the streets with it.

SCHULMAN: Did your survey ask the question of whether people
carrying guns had licenses to do so?

KLECK: No, we did not. We thought that would be way too
sensitive a question to ask people.

SCHULMAN: Okay. Let's talk about how the guns were actually
used in order to accomplish the defense. How many people, for
example, had to merely show the gun, as opposed to how many had
to fire a warning shot, as to how many actually had to attempt to
shoot or shoot their attacker?

KLECK: We got all of the details about everything that
people could have done with a gun from as mild an action as
merely verbally referring to the gun on up to actually shooting
somebody.

SCHULMAN: Could you give me the percentages?

KLECK: Yes. You have to keep in mind that it's quite
possible for people to have done more than one of these things
since they could obviously both verbally refer to the gun and
point it at somebody or even shoot it.

SCHULMAN: Okay.

KLECK: Fifty-four percent of the defensive gun uses involved
somebody verbally referring to the gun. Forty-seven percent
involved the gun being pointed at the criminal. Twenty-two
percent involved the gun being fired. Fourteen percent involved
the gun being fired at somebody, meaning it wasn't just a warning
shot; the defender was trying to shoot the criminal. Whether
they succeeded or not is another matter but they were trying to
shoot a criminal. And then in 8 percent they actually did wound
or kill the offender.

SCHULMAN: In 8 percent, wounded or killed. You don't have
it broken down beyond that?

KLECK: Wound versus kill? No. Again that was thought to be
too sensitive a question. Although we did have, I think, two
people who freely offered the information that they had, indeed,
killed someone. Keep in mind that the 8 percent figure is based
on so few cases that you have to interpret it with great
caution.

SCHULMAN: Did anybody respond to a question asking whether
they had used the gun and it was found afterward to be
unjustified?

KLECK: We did not ask them that question although we did ask
them what crime they thought was being committed. So in each
case the only incidents we were accepting as bona fide defensive
gun uses were ones where the defender believed that, indeed, a
crime had been committed against them.

SCHULMAN: Did you ask any follow-up questions about how many
people had been arrested or captured as a result of their
actions?

KLECK: No.

SCHULMAN: Did you ask any questions about aid in law
enforcement, such as somebody helps a police officer who's not
themselves an officer?

KLECK: No. I imagine that would be far too rare an incident
to get any meaningful information out of it. Highly unlikely
that any significant share of these involved assisting law
enforcement.

SCHULMAN: The question which this all comes down to is that
we already have some idea, for example from surveys on CCW
license holders, how rare it is for a CCW holder to misuse their
gun in a way to injure somebody improperly. But does this give
us any idea of what the percentages are of people who carry a
gun having to use it in order to defend himself or herself? In
other words, comparing the percentage of defending yourself to
the percentage of being attacked, does this tell us anything?

KLECK: We asked them whether they carried guns at any time
but we didn't directly ask them if they were carrying guns, in
the legal sense, at the time they had used their gun defensively.
So we can probably say what fraction of gun carriers in our
sample had used a gun defensively but we can't say whether they
did it while carrying. They may, for example, have been people
who at least occasionally carried a gun for protection but they
used a gun defensively in their own home.

SCHULMAN: So what percentage of gun carriers used it
defensively?

KLECK: I haven't calculated it yet so I couldn't say.

SCHULMAN: So if we assume, let's say, that every year
approximately 9 percent of people are going to be attacked, and
approximately every year that 1 percent of respondents used their
guns to defend against an attack, is it fair to say that around
one out of nine people attacked used their guns to defend
themselves?

KLECK: That "risk of being attacked" shouldn't be phrased
that way. It's the risk of being the victim of a personal crime.
In other words, it involved interpersonal contact. That could be
something like a nonviolent crime like purse snatching or
pickpocketing as well. The fact that personal contact is
involved means there's an opportunity to defend against it using
a gun; it doesn't necessarily mean there was an attack on the
victim.

SCHULMAN: Did you get any data on how the attackers were
armed during these incidents?

KLECK: Yes. We also asked whether the offender was armed.
The offender was armed in 47.2 percent of the cases and they
had a handgun in about 13.6 percent of all the cases
and some other kind of gun in 4.5 percent of all the cases.

SCHULMAN: So in other words, in about a sixth of the cases,
the person attacking was armed with a firearm.

KLECK: That's correct.

SCHULMAN: Okay. And the remainder?

KLECK: Armed with a knife: 18.1 percent, 2 percent with some
other sharp object, 10.1 percent with a blunt object, and 6 percent
with some other weapon. Keep in mind when adding this up that
offenders could have had more than one weapon.

SCHULMAN: So in approximately five sixths of the cases
somebody carrying a gun for defensive reasons would find
themselves defending themselves either against an unarmed
attacker or an attacker with a lesser weapon?

KLECK: Right. About five-sixths of the time.

SCHULMAN: And about one-sixth of the time they would find
themselves up against somebody who's armed with a firearm.

KLECK: Well, certainly in this sample of incidents that was
the case.

SCHULMAN: Which you believe is representative.

KLECK: It's representative of what's happened in the last
five years. Whether or not it would be true in the future we
couldn't say for sure.

SCHULMAN: Are there any other results coming out of this
which are surprising to you?

KLECK: About the only thing which was surprising is how
often people had actually wounded someone in the incident.
Previous surveys didn't have very many sample cases so you
couldn't get into the details much but some evidence had
suggested that a relatively small share of incidents involved the
gun inflicting wounds so it was surprising to me that quite so
many defenders had used a gun that way.

SCHULMAN: Dr. Kleck, is there anything else you'd like to
say at this time about the results of your survey and your
continuing analysis of them?

KLECK: Nope.

SCHULMAN: Then thank you very much.

KLECK: You're welcome.


##

Reply to:
J. Neil Schulman
Mail: P.O. Box 94, Long Beach, CA 90801-0094
JNS BBS: 1-310-839-7653,,,,25
Internet: ***@genie.geis.com

Post as filename: KLEKVIEW.TXT

Downloaded from GUN-TALK (703-719-6406)
A service of the
National Rifle Association
Institute for Legislative Action
Washington, DC 20036
{PB
Halmyre
2012-12-16 11:56:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dave Head
On Sat, 15 Dec 2012 21:29:20 -0800, "Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D."
Post by Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D.
and 20 children, all 6 or 7 years old, died for it
;-(
S*** happens.  You'd be happier if the nut-case used 5 gallons of
gasoline and a match to kill that many or more?
Meanwhile, guns are used 1.5 - 2.5 million times a year by the
American poblic to thwart attacks upon individuals.  You never hear
about those because there's no news story, no body count to go with
that.  The intended victim simply shows the gun, or draws and points
it, and the bad guy decides there's something else he'd rather be
doing at that moment, and runs the other way...
 The following article is appearing in the Orange County (CA)
 Register on Sunday, September 19, 1993, and an upcoming issue
 of Gun Week.  Reproduction on computer bulletin boards is
 permitted for informational purposes only.  Copyright (c) 1993
 by J. Neil Schulman.  All other rights reserved.
Well, there's an unbiased platform if ever I saw one.

And " reproduction on computer bulletin boards is permitted for
informational purposes only" ? What, as opposed to spreading pro-gun
propaganda?

--
Halmyre
Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D.
2012-12-16 13:22:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dave Head
On Sat, 15 Dec 2012 21:29:20 -0800, "Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D."
Post by Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D.
and 20 children, all 6 or 7 years old, died for it
;-(
S*** happens.
Great response, asshole...and massacres *will* continue to happen.
Post by Dave Head
Meanwhile, guns are used 1.5 - 2.5 million times a year by the
American poblic to thwart attacks upon individuals.
Total bullshit "statistics" made up by the gun goofballs.
;-)
Dave Head
2012-12-16 15:27:26 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 16 Dec 2012 05:22:21 -0800, "Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D."
Post by Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D.
Post by Dave Head
On Sat, 15 Dec 2012 21:29:20 -0800, "Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D."
Post by Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D.
and 20 children, all 6 or 7 years old, died for it
;-(
S*** happens.
Great response, asshole...and massacres *will* continue to happen.
Post by Dave Head
Meanwhile, guns are used 1.5 - 2.5 million times a year by the
American poblic to thwart attacks upon individuals.
Total bullshit "statistics" made up by the gun goofballs.
;-)
Actually, it was very scientifically conducted research.

The bottom line is that making guns more difficult to get tends to
disarm the law-abiding, and subjects them to the depredations of the
criminals who either get their guns anyway, or are so big and strong
compared to their victims that they don't need a gun. And how do you
explain the plummeting crime rate over the last 20 years or so while
gun ownership has grown immensely in the same time, as well as the
proliferation of states that have passed concealed carry of weapon
permit laws over the same time? Both of these facts suggest that, if
the presence of guns in society affects criminal activity at all, it
tends to diminsh it.
peter skelton
2012-12-16 15:39:46 UTC
Permalink
"Dave Head" wrote in message news:***@4ax.com...

On Sun, 16 Dec 2012 05:22:21 -0800, "Dr. Vincent Quin,
Ph.D."
Post by Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D.
Post by Dave Head
On Sat, 15 Dec 2012 21:29:20 -0800, "Dr. Vincent Quin,
Ph.D."
Post by Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D.
and 20 children, all 6 or 7 years old, died for it
;-(
S*** happens.
Great response, asshole...and massacres *will* continue to
happen.
Post by Dave Head
Meanwhile, guns are used 1.5 - 2.5 million times a year
by the
American poblic to thwart attacks upon individuals.
Total bullshit "statistics" made up by the gun goofballs.
;-)
Actually, it was very scientifically conducted research.
The bottom line is that making guns more difficult to get
tends to
disarm the law-abiding, and subjects them to the
depredations of the
criminals who either get their guns anyway, or are so big
and strong
compared to their victims that they don't need a gun. And
how do you
explain the plummeting crime rate over the last 20 years or
so while
gun ownership has grown immensely in the same time, as well
as the
proliferation of states that have passed concealed carry of
weapon
permit laws over the same time? Both of these facts suggest
that, if
the presence of guns in society affects criminal activity at
all, it
tends to diminsh it.

Crime rates have dropped in most prosperous countries over
the same period, whatever their gun control rules.

Try not to spout obviously silly nonsense.
Ian B MacLure
2012-12-19 05:29:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by peter skelton
Crime rates have dropped in most prosperous countries over
the same period, whatever their gun control rules.
So how's crime in the UK?

IBM
Jeffrey Hamilton
2012-12-16 22:41:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dave Head
On Sun, 16 Dec 2012 05:22:21 -0800, "Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D."
Post by Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D.
Post by Dave Head
On Sat, 15 Dec 2012 21:29:20 -0800, "Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D."
Post by Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D.
and 20 children, all 6 or 7 years old, died for it
;-(
S*** happens.
Great response, asshole...and massacres *will* continue to happen.
Post by Dave Head
Meanwhile, guns are used 1.5 - 2.5 million times a year by the
American poblic to thwart attacks upon individuals.
Total bullshit "statistics" made up by the gun goofballs.
;-)
Actually, it was very scientifically conducted research.
The bottom line is that making guns more difficult to get tends to
disarm the law-abiding, and subjects them to the depredations of the
criminals who either get their guns anyway, or are so big and strong
compared to their victims that they don't need a gun. And how do you
explain the plummeting crime rate over the last 20 years or so while
gun ownership has grown immensely in the same time, as well as the
proliferation of states that have passed concealed carry of weapon
permit laws over the same time? Both of these facts suggest that, if
the presence of guns in society affects criminal activity at all, it
tends to diminsh it.
And only YOU and the NRA believe that nonsense, congratulations.

cheers....Jeff
dott.Piergiorgio
2012-12-17 00:11:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dave Head
Actually, it was very scientifically conducted research.
The bottom line is that making guns more difficult to get tends to
disarm the law-abiding, and subjects them to the depredations of the
criminals who either get their guns anyway, or are so big and strong
compared to their victims that they don't need a gun. And how do you
explain the plummeting crime rate over the last 20 years or so while
gun ownership has grown immensely in the same time, as well as the
proliferation of states that have passed concealed carry of weapon
permit laws over the same time? Both of these facts suggest that, if
the presence of guns in society affects criminal activity at all, it
tends to diminsh it.
well, what is the avg. distance (and time to response) from the police
station in america ? and what is the social prestige of American cop ?

Here in the old world we have smaller distances (and shorter time to
response) and high social prestige of policemen (whose in not few EU
countries are actually gendarmes, that is, policemen with military status)

and in my country the gendarmes (Carabinieri) are actually the Senior
Service....

and, what is the avg difference of serving time between (unarmed)
burglary and (armed) robbery in the mess of US criminal codes ?

this is why all I need for house defence is a pickhandle's handle (whose
is a bit more deadly/crippling than a baseball bat...)

discussing the people's defence of popular sovereignty and Republic is a
much longer treatise (because US Republic actually are modelled after
the Original built on the seven hills not far from where I live....)

Best regards from Italy,
dott. Piergiorgio.
Jeffrey Hamilton
2012-12-16 22:36:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dave Head
On Sat, 15 Dec 2012 21:29:20 -0800, "Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D."
Post by Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D.
and 20 children, all 6 or 7 years old, died for it
;-(
S*** happens. You'd be happier if the nut-case used 5 gallons of
gasoline and a match to kill that many or more?
Meanwhile, guns are used 1.5 - 2.5 million times a year by the
American poblic to thwart attacks upon individuals. You never hear
about those because there's no news story, no body count to go with
that. The intended victim simply shows the gun, or draws and points
it, and the bad guy decides there's something else he'd rather be
doing at that moment, and runs the other way...
The following article is appearing in the Orange County (CA)
Register on Sunday, September 19, 1993, and an upcoming issue
of Gun Week. Reproduction on computer bulletin boards is
permitted for informational purposes only. Copyright (c) 1993
by J. Neil Schulman. All other rights reserved.
PRIVATE FIREARMS STOP CRIME 2.5 MILLION TIMES EACH YEAR,
NEW UNIVERSITY SURVEY CONFIRMS
<elided for space>

Good post, dude, *now* how many mass killings have you had since 1993 ?
Everyone knows America averages 10,000 deaths (murders) due to gunplay every
year, with a further 15,000 suicides every year.
Now put those two stats into perspective, if you can.

cheers....Jeff
Ian B MacLure
2012-12-19 05:07:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D.
and 20 children, all 6 or 7 years old, died for it
Sad to be sure but you are being dishonest as usual.

Its not "gun control" its "firearms prohibition"

Lets say we try a little "looney control" and get
idiots like Lanza off the streets before they become a danger.

IBM
Ben
2012-12-22 02:07:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D.
and 20 children, all 6 or 7 years old, died for it
;-(
Gun control is not enough. America needs strict people control, like
Singapore. People with mental problems should be isolated and
quarantined in special areas, some remote islands in the Pacific. All
men and guns must have RFID tags and GPS tracking devices so that
police could track them whenever they move to public areas such as
schools and shopping mall. Cameras should be everywhere on the street.
TSA can keep airports safe from terrorists for the past ten years, all
American cities should be monitored and controlled like airports. TSA
at airoprts check luggage, pockets, underwear and have no fly list,
cities and schools should do the same. Bad people should be listed in
Nodriving list.
Freedom of having guns should not come free, citizens must pay for it
with strict government control.
meport
2012-12-23 17:31:41 UTC
Permalink
The gun nuts have THE MONEY and are willing to spend it.

It's that simple. It really is.

They bought congress.

They bought the courts (Scalia and Roberts were literally bought. Scalia
makes no bones about it.).

And they bought the media.

So now we're getting what we deserve for letting them buy what they paid
their money for. It's capitalism at work.

Yes, we deserve what we're getting because it's the simple return on the
investment that they made.

So now we have to live with the investments we let them make.

YES, WE'RE SIMPLY GETTING WHAT WE DESERVE FOR LETTING THEM INVEST THEIR
MONEY WHERE THEY INVESTED IT.

We're to blame, not them. They paid for what they got, and we let them pay
for it. So we better get use to it because they bought it fair and square.
-----
meport

"Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D." wrote in message news:***@supernews.com...


and 20 children, all 6 or 7 years old, died for it
;-(
Mark Test
2012-12-23 19:22:22 UTC
Permalink
"meport" wrote in message news:J-***@earthlink.com...

The gun nuts have THE MONEY and are willing to spend it.

It's that simple. It really is.

They bought congress.

They bought the courts (Scalia and Roberts were literally bought. Scalia
makes no bones about it.).

And they bought the media.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What world are you living in? Annually in the US over 2200 kids (0-14 yrs
old)
are killed by cars....yet no one screams to ban cars. BTW,
those that are killed by guns is less than 500. Deaths by abuse and
drowning in
swimming pools also rank higher than gun deaths.

So, you want to help kids?? Ban cars, abusive parents, and pools. But you
could care less, you just want to see the Constitution trampled.
Arved Sandstrom
2012-12-23 20:07:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by meport
The gun nuts have THE MONEY and are willing to spend it.
It's that simple. It really is.
They bought congress.
They bought the courts (Scalia and Roberts were literally bought. Scalia
makes no bones about it.).
And they bought the media.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What world are you living in? Annually in the US over 2200 kids (0-14
yrs old)
are killed by cars....yet no one screams to ban cars. BTW,
those that are killed by guns is less than 500. Deaths by abuse and
drowning in
swimming pools also rank higher than gun deaths.
So, you want to help kids?? Ban cars, abusive parents, and pools. But you
could care less, you just want to see the Constitution trampled.
Speaking as neutrally as I can, I think the main fear of many gun rights
advocates, certainly of the NRA hardcore, is not so much that the
Constitution (2nd Amendment) will get "trampled", but simply that it
will get _amended_ by due process. That's where the NRA effort goes
primarily, to thwart that.

For the record I believe in the 2nd Amendment enough to have been an NRA
member off and on. I'm just one of that group of NRA members - which is
not small - that doesn't see the world quite as black and white as Wayne
does.

AHS
peter skelton
2012-12-23 20:26:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by meport
The gun nuts have THE MONEY and are willing to spend it.
It's that simple. It really is.
They bought congress.
They bought the courts (Scalia and Roberts were literally
bought. Scalia
makes no bones about it.).
And they bought the media.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What world are you living in? Annually in the US over 2200
kids (0-14
yrs old)
are killed by cars....yet no one screams to ban cars.
BTW,
those that are killed by guns is less than 500. Deaths by
abuse and
drowning in
swimming pools also rank higher than gun deaths.
So, you want to help kids?? Ban cars, abusive parents, and
pools. But you
could care less, you just want to see the Constitution
trampled.
Speaking as neutrally as I can, I think the main fear of
many gun rights
advocates, certainly of the NRA hardcore, is not so much
that the
Constitution (2nd Amendment) will get "trampled", but simply
that it
will get _amended_ by due process. That's where the NRA
effort goes
primarily, to thwart that.
Post by meport
For the record I believe in the 2nd Amendment enough to
have been an NRA
member off and on. I'm just one of that group of NRA
members - which is
not small - that doesn't see the world quite as black and
white as Wayne
does.

It's difficult for some to admit that many things are fun,
and that they are fun justifies them. They need some deeper,
more important, justification. Sex can't be fun, it has to
be procreation. Owning a gun can't be because skeet is a
blast, because there's joy in mastering the skills involved,
or the pleasure of working quietly through the Autumn woods,
it has to be to defend the loved ones against the evil
hordes, or to live up to the duty to rebel against
oppression. Somehow, these same people (using the word
loosely) regard the precautions necessary to prevent the
joys in life from causing pain, or from being taken to
excess as evil.
Daryl
2012-12-23 21:37:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Arved Sandstrom
Post by meport
The gun nuts have THE MONEY and are willing to spend it.
It's that simple. It really is.
They bought congress.
They bought the courts (Scalia and Roberts were literally
bought. Scalia
makes no bones about it.).
And they bought the media.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What world are you living in? Annually in the US over 2200 kids (0-14
yrs old)
are killed by cars....yet no one screams to ban cars. BTW,
those that are killed by guns is less than 500. Deaths by
abuse and
drowning in
swimming pools also rank higher than gun deaths.
So, you want to help kids?? Ban cars, abusive parents, and
pools. But you
could care less, you just want to see the Constitution trampled.
Speaking as neutrally as I can, I think the main fear of many
gun rights
advocates, certainly of the NRA hardcore, is not so much that the
Constitution (2nd Amendment) will get "trampled", but simply that it
will get _amended_ by due process. That's where the NRA effort goes
primarily, to thwart that.
Post by meport
For the record I believe in the 2nd Amendment enough to have
been an NRA
member off and on. I'm just one of that group of NRA members -
which is
not small - that doesn't see the world quite as black and white as Wayne
does.
It's difficult for some to admit that many things are fun, and
that they are fun justifies them. They need some deeper, more
important, justification. Sex can't be fun, it has to be
procreation. Owning a gun can't be because skeet is a blast,
because there's joy in mastering the skills involved, or the
pleasure of working quietly through the Autumn woods, it has to
be to defend the loved ones against the evil hordes, or to live
up to the duty to rebel against oppression. Somehow, these same
people (using the word loosely) regard the precautions necessary
to prevent the joys in life from causing pain, or from being
taken to excess as evil.
I don't own a gun but I don't want to try and take your right to
own a hunting, target or home defense weapon away from you. I
see too many people trying to take even basic rights away every
day. Like the crazy neighbor that screams out here door, "Get the
F out of here" when you are on the sidewalk. Or the one that
thinks a public area is for them only. Or...... Those kind get
really pissed at me for all the obvious reasons. Waving that
kind of red flag is NOT the way to get cooperation. I see the
ones that wish to completely take away your right to own a
hunting, target or home defense weapon as flying that red flag.

As for weapons not really useful for the criteria I laid out, to
have it's equally preposterous to have them completely free of
license or responsibility. If you want to own a Mac10, M-60,
M-16, AK47, Grenades, etc. apply for the proper licensing and
have the proper storage and there is a very good chance you will
receive the license making it legal to own such weapons. The
laws are already in place for these types of weapons. And the
people that have done this have almost ZERO chance of misusing
their weapons in any way. But if you are a felon, under a
restraining order, just got out of the nut house, don't bother
applying, you won't be cleared.

The problem hasn't been the people listed above, it's been people
primarily misusing the Hunting, Target and Home Defense weapons.
Sickos that haven't been previously identified as a threat.
They pop up, do their thing then die in the process. I wonder if
their real intent was to die all along. These are the people
that we have absolutely no control over or previous warning. And
these are the ones that will crop up from time to time. Making
the weapons illegal will only make them seek the weapons on the
illegal market. But, Now, they will have that M-16, ak47, mac10,
etc.. Instead of a handful murdered, it might turn into 50 or
100, etc..

As for mandatory arming of the Teachers, I only know of a couple
of cops that became teachers. The rest of the Teachers, for the
most part, would be more dangerous with a weapon on them to the
students and themselves than the bad guy. With very few
exceptions, Teachers make bad cops and Cops make lousy teachers.
I don't see any problem with armed guards though. Trained
Security People that are roving the property usually stops this
kind of thing. Walking into a school with a long rain coat when
the weather is clear is a very clear indicator there is something
not quite right. Let the trained Security confront that person,
not an Educator with little or no training.

I, too, have been an on again, off again NRA member.

Just some thoughts.
--
http://tvmoviesforfree.com
for free movies and Nostalgic TV. Tons of Military shows and
programs.
Jim Wilkins
2012-12-23 22:13:18 UTC
Permalink
I don't see any problem with armed guards though. Trained Security
People that are roving the property usually stops this kind of
thing. Walking into a school with a long rain coat when the weather
is clear is a very clear indicator there is something not quite
right. Let the trained Security confront that person, not an
Educator with little or no training.
School Resource Officers are more than just armed guards:
http://onconcord.com/Police/concordv2.asp?siteindx=P20,05,01,08
http://www.nasro.org/
Daryl
2012-12-23 23:35:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jim Wilkins
I don't see any problem with armed guards though. Trained Security
People that are roving the property usually stops this kind of
thing. Walking into a school with a long rain coat when the weather
is clear is a very clear indicator there is something not quite
right. Let the trained Security confront that person, not an
Educator with little or no training.
http://onconcord.com/Police/concordv2.asp?siteindx=P20,05,01,08
http://www.nasro.org/
These are the programs needed. But with the shortage of
Officers, it's a luxury these days.

Daryl
--
http://tvmoviesforfree.com
for free movies and Nostalgic TV. Tons of Military shows and
programs.
dott.Piergiorgio
2012-12-24 05:45:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jim Wilkins
I don't see any problem with armed guards though. Trained Security
People that are roving the property usually stops this kind of
thing. Walking into a school with a long rain coat when the weather
is clear is a very clear indicator there is something not quite
right. Let the trained Security confront that person, not an
Educator with little or no training.
http://onconcord.com/Police/concordv2.asp?siteindx=P20,05,01,08
http://www.nasro.org/
Agree on that school guards needs a rather complex and through training,
dealing with juvenile issues isn't easy, and dealing with offenders
amidst too many innocents around need a *really* first rate weapon
training... but OTOH, why don't try to open these job places to vets ?
I'm sure that this cure vets morale issues, and gives already trained
and motivated people...

(in the interim, why not try assigning local high schools JROTCs more
security roles ? trust me, this can works wonders)

Best regards from Italy,
dott. Piergiorgio.
Kerryn Offord
2012-12-26 04:48:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by dott.Piergiorgio
Post by Jim Wilkins
I don't see any problem with armed guards though. Trained Security
People that are roving the property usually stops this kind of
thing. Walking into a school with a long rain coat when the weather
is clear is a very clear indicator there is something not quite
right. Let the trained Security confront that person, not an
Educator with little or no training.
http://onconcord.com/Police/concordv2.asp?siteindx=P20,05,01,08
http://www.nasro.org/
Agree on that school guards needs a rather complex and through training,
dealing with juvenile issues isn't easy, and dealing with offenders
amidst too many innocents around need a *really* first rate weapon
training... but OTOH, why don't try to open these job places to vets ?
I'm sure that this cure vets morale issues, and gives already trained
and motivated people...
(in the interim, why not try assigning local high schools JROTCs more
security roles ? trust me, this can works wonders)
Best regards from Italy,
dott. Piergiorgio.
And in USA you only need enough to protect a bit under 99,000 public
schools...
http://www.infoplease.com/askeds/number-us-public-schools.html
"According to the National Center for Education Statistics, there were
98,817 public schools during the 2009-2010 school year."

How much do they cost,and what doesn't get bought (from the education
budget) to pay for them..
Actually.. Who will be responsible for paying them?
Jim Wilkins
2012-12-26 12:25:53 UTC
Permalink
...> How much do they cost,and what doesn't get bought (from the
education budget) to pay for them..
Actually.. Who will be responsible for paying them?
Too much. Your children aren't worth it. Let the bullying and its
deadly responses continue and keep trying to pin the blame for
failures on white adult males outside the educational system.

Or we could declare them an added benefit for the teachers that
replaces a few years of raises.
tutall
2012-12-26 15:24:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jim Wilkins
...> How much do they cost,and what doesn't get bought (from the
education budget) to pay for them..
Actually.. Who will be responsible for paying them?
Too much. Your children aren't worth it. Let the bullying and its
deadly responses continue and keep trying to pin the blame for
failures on white adult males outside the educational system.
When did race come into this? This must be a personal hobby horse of
yours.
Do you think Christmas is under attack too?
Post by Jim Wilkins
Or we could declare them an added benefit for the teachers that
replaces a few years of raises.
You know, you're talking socialism here, making everyone pay extra to
protect our children so a few childish adults can play with deadly
toys.

It's really simple, take their toys away from them and the killings
will pretty much stop. Maybe a reduction of hate talk on broadcast TV
and radio would be helpful too.

You know the ancient principle of "divide and conquer" of course. It's
being done to the US populace right now. They've been pretty
successful too.
Jim Wilkins
2012-12-26 16:59:50 UTC
Permalink
"tutall" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:814cd412-34fe-4bad-b27e-***@gg5g2000pbc.googlegroups.com...
-It's really simple, take their toys away from them and the killings
-will pretty much stop. Maybe a reduction of hate talk on broadcast TV
-and radio would be helpful too.

Prove that by taking away the cause of most US killings, drugs.
Daryl
2012-12-26 17:21:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jim Wilkins
-It's really simple, take their toys away from them and the killings
-will pretty much stop. Maybe a reduction of hate talk on broadcast TV
-and radio would be helpful too.
Prove that by taking away the cause of most US killings, drugs.
Jim, you are being troll by a 404thk00k. If you expect him to
make any sense, it's a long wait. It's a troll, and not a very
good one.

Daryl
--
http://tvmoviesforfree.com
for free movies and Nostalgic TV. Tons of Military shows and
programs.
tutall
2012-12-26 17:48:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Daryl
Jim, you are being troll by a 404thk00k.
Heh, coming from you that's a compliment.

Dude, people have seen what you consider "reasoning". You are a big
reason I stopped reading R.A.M.

It's just wall to wall Darryl attention whore blather these days.
Dean Markley
2012-12-26 17:51:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by tutall
Post by Daryl
Jim, you are being troll by a 404thk00k.
Heh, coming from you that's a compliment.
Dude, people have seen what you consider "reasoning". You are a big
reason I stopped reading R.A.M.
It's just wall to wall Darryl attention whore blather these days.
And yet here you are actively promoting off topic spam. At least Darryl keeps it on topic.
Daryl
2012-12-26 20:44:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by tutall
Post by Daryl
Jim, you are being troll by a 404thk00k.
Heh, coming from you that's a compliment.
Dude, people have seen what you consider "reasoning". You are a big
reason I stopped reading R.A.M.
It's just wall to wall Darryl attention whore blather these days.
Don't let the door hit you in the ass when you leave.

Daryl
--
http://tvmoviesforfree.com
for free movies and Nostalgic TV. Tons of Military shows and
programs.
Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D.
2012-12-27 00:28:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by tutall
Post by Daryl
Jim, you are being troll by a 404thk00k.
Heh, coming from you that's a compliment.
Dude, people have seen what you consider "reasoning". You are a big
reason I stopped reading R.A.M.
It's just wall to wall Darryl attention whore blather these days.
oh just do what i do...ignore the peabrain...
;-)
Orval Fairbairn
2012-12-27 02:03:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D.
Post by tutall
Post by Daryl
Jim, you are being troll by a 404thk00k.
Heh, coming from you that's a compliment.
Dude, people have seen what you consider "reasoning". You are a big
reason I stopped reading R.A.M.
It's just wall to wall Darryl attention whore blather these days.
oh just do what i do...ignore the peabrain...
;-)
That is pretty much what we do with the phony "doctor."
Daryl
2012-12-27 02:21:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Orval Fairbairn
Post by Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D.
Post by tutall
Post by Daryl
Jim, you are being troll by a 404thk00k.
Heh, coming from you that's a compliment.
Dude, people have seen what you consider "reasoning". You are a big
reason I stopped reading R.A.M.
It's just wall to wall Darryl attention whore blather these days.
oh just do what i do...ignore the peabrain...
;-)
That is pretty much what we do with the phony "doctor."
If the 404thk00k doesn't like me and the good (I use that word
loosely) doctor doesn't like me then I must be living right.

Funny way hor the 404thk00k ignores me. More like follows me
around like a little puppy dog. Yap, Yap. I can live with that
as long as the retirement check (soon to be checks) keep right on
coming in.

Daryl
--
http://tvmoviesforfree.com
for free movies and Nostalgic TV. Tons of Military shows and
programs.
Dean Markley
2012-12-27 13:18:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Daryl
Post by Orval Fairbairn
Post by Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D.
Post by tutall
Post by Daryl
Jim, you are being troll by a 404thk00k.
Heh, coming from you that's a compliment.
Dude, people have seen what you consider "reasoning". You are a big
reason I stopped reading R.A.M.
It's just wall to wall Darryl attention whore blather these days.
oh just do what i do...ignore the peabrain...
;-)
That is pretty much what we do with the phony "doctor."
If the 404thk00k doesn't like me and the good (I use that word
loosely) doctor doesn't like me then I must be living right.
Funny way hor the 404thk00k ignores me. More like follows me
around like a little puppy dog. Yap, Yap. I can live with that
as long as the retirement check (soon to be checks) keep right on
coming in.
Daryl
Daryl, just out of curiousity, where did that 404thkooks moniker originate?
DGVREIMAN
2013-01-02 18:54:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Orval Fairbairn
Post by Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D.
Post by tutall
Post by Daryl
Jim, you are being troll by a 404thk00k.
Heh, coming from you that's a compliment.
Dude, people have seen what you consider "reasoning". You are a big
reason I stopped reading R.A.M.
It's just wall to wall Darryl attention whore blather these days.
oh just do what i do...ignore the peabrain...
;-)
That is pretty much what we do with the phony "doctor."
Doug Says: Our (American) Founding Fathers wanted a Constitution that
guaranteed American citizens would have special rights far and above
those of Europeans. They realized that Governments, when they have
complete control, oppress their citizens. Ergo, the guns that
Americans are allowed to own must equal at least in part the guns the
Government can furnish its military - if not then the citizens could
not overthrow the Government if it became oppressive. I say this in a
limited manner as American citizens should not be able to own tanks,
machine guns, etc. . but at least semi-automatic weapons with 30 round
clip magazines - which is the law today, and is the law that has been
upheld by the Supreme Court.

The advantage citizens have over the government with their
semi-automatic weapons as opposed to the Government's machine guns is
there are millions more armed citizens in America than the
Government's military - this was the other reason our founding fathers
wanted Americans to possess guns. What foreign nation would be stupid
enough to invade the USA when it knew it was up against millions of
well armed Americans?

American Guns are not meant just for deer hunting and sport
shooting - they are designed to protect families, schools, homes, and
to protect against oppressive governments and foreign invasions.

The cowards that use guns to murder defenseless children will never
stop murdering them regardless of how we reduce the selection of guns
at their disposal. In the case of 1st graders, the evil coward that
murdered those kids in Newtown could have done so with a sharp stick -
they were completely defenseless children and there was no one there
to protect them.

If a single police officer had been located inside the Newtown school
the maniac with the gun would not even been able to get through the
front door not to mention murder 26 defenseless people.

America is different from Europe, and it was meant to be that way. We
need to find a way to live with our right to bear arms - and that
means we need to start defending heretofore defenseless targets. When
is the last time you heard about one of these evil cowards attacking a
Police station or a military base? They never attack entities that
are defended with lethal force - they deliberately choose defenseless
targets like cowards and bullies usually do. We need armed Police
inside our public schools - that solution is instant, obvious and is
clearly the only one that will work.

I applaud the NRA for agreeing with my previous posts that called for
armed Police inside our public schools. I was not a member before
but I will be now.

Doug Grant (Tm)
DGVREIMAN
2013-01-02 18:54:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D.
Post by tutall
Post by Daryl
Jim, you are being troll by a 404thk00k.
Heh, coming from you that's a compliment.
Dude, people have seen what you consider "reasoning". You are a big
reason I stopped reading R.A.M.
It's just wall to wall Darryl attention whore blather these days.
oh just do what i do...ignore the peabrain...
Doug Says: Our (American) Founding Fathers wanted a Constitution that
guaranteed American citizens would have special rights far and above
those of Europeans. They realized that Governments, when they have
complete control, oppress their citizens. Ergo, the guns that
Americans are allowed to own must equal at least in part the guns the
Government can furnish its military - if not then the citizens could
not overthrow the Government if it became oppressive. I say this in a
limited manner as American citizens should not be able to own tanks,
machine guns, etc. . but at least semi-automatic weapons with 30 round
clip magazines - which is the law today, and is the law that has been
upheld by the Supreme Court.

The advantage citizens have over the government with their
semi-automatic weapons as opposed to the Government's machine guns is
there are millions more armed citizens in America than the
Government's military - this was the other reason our founding fathers
wanted Americans to possess guns. What foreign nation would be stupid
enough to invade the USA when it knew it was up against millions of
well armed Americans?

American Guns are not meant just for deer hunting and sport
shooting - they are designed to protect families, schools, homes, and
to protect against oppressive governments and foreign invasions.

The cowards that use guns to murder defenseless children will never
stop murdering them regardless of how we reduce the selection of guns
at their disposal. In the case of 1st graders, the evil coward that
murdered those kids in Newtown could have done so with a sharp stick -
they were completely defenseless children and there was no one there
to protect them.

If a single police officer had been located inside the Newtown school
the maniac with the gun would not even been able to get through the
front door not to mention murder 26 defenseless people.

America is different from Europe, and it was meant to be that way. We
need to find a way to live with our right to bear arms - and that
means we need to start defending heretofore defenseless targets. When
is the last time you heard about one of these evil cowards attacking a
Police station or a military base? They never attack entities that
are defended with lethal force - they deliberately choose defenseless
targets like cowards and bullies usually do. We need armed Police
inside our public schools - that solution is instant, obvious and is
clearly the only one that will work.

I applaud the NRA for agreeing with my previous posts that called for
armed Police inside our public schools. I was not a member before
but I will be now.

Doug Grant (Tm)
Post by Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D.
;-)
Keith W
2013-01-02 19:18:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by DGVREIMAN
Post by Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D.
Post by tutall
Post by Daryl
Jim, you are being troll by a 404thk00k.
Heh, coming from you that's a compliment.
Dude, people have seen what you consider "reasoning". You are a big
reason I stopped reading R.A.M.
It's just wall to wall Darryl attention whore blather these days.
oh just do what i do...ignore the peabrain...
Doug Says: Our (American) Founding Fathers wanted a Constitution that
guaranteed American citizens would have special rights far and above
those of Europeans. They realized that Governments, when they have
complete control, oppress their citizens.
The trouble with that theory is that there were essentially no gun control
laws in Europe and governments of the time had little trouble in
oppressing the populace.

In England the 1689 Bill of Rights specifically reaffirmed the rights
of protestamts to carry own and carry guns. It was 1903 before any
firearms laws were enacted and that was more a revenue raiser than
anything else as you could simply buy a license over the
counter at a post office.

More likely is that the founders wanted to reaffirm the rights they
had while English colonies and to ensure that sufficient of the
citizenry would be armed to form a militia.

Keith
DGVREIMAN
2013-01-03 04:12:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Keith W
Post by DGVREIMAN
Post by Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D.
Post by tutall
Post by Daryl
Jim, you are being troll by a 404thk00k.
Heh, coming from you that's a compliment.
Dude, people have seen what you consider "reasoning". You are a big
reason I stopped reading R.A.M.
It's just wall to wall Darryl attention whore blather these days.
oh just do what i do...ignore the peabrain...
Doug Says: Our (American) Founding Fathers wanted a Constitution that
guaranteed American citizens would have special rights far and above
those of Europeans. They realized that Governments, when they have
complete control, oppress their citizens.
The trouble with that theory is that there were essentially no gun control
laws in Europe and governments of the time had little trouble in
oppressing the populace.
Doug Says: There were many revolutions in Europe that overthrew
oppressive governments even AFTER our revolution and they did so with
their guns! You can start with the French revolution. Without guns
in the hands of the population that revolution would not have been
possible. You also are forgetting the German and Russian revolutions,
and even the armed insurrections in Estonia that forced out the
Russian overlords. How about the recent "Arab Spring?" Do you
believe the Egyptians, Libyans or even the Syrians could have won
their battles against their oppressive governments without guns? Your
history is waning. Of course the people need guns to overthrow an
oppressive government - and that fact was stated clearly by our
founding fathers.
Post by Keith W
In England the 1689 Bill of Rights specifically reaffirmed the
rights
of protestamts to carry own and carry guns. It was 1903 before any
firearms laws were enacted and that was more a revenue raiser than
anything else as you could simply buy a license over the
counter at a post office.
Doug Says: England did not oprress its people - it opressed the Irish
people, and the Irish needed their guns to drive out the Brits and
establish an Irish Republic. Without guns in the hands of the IRA
there would be no Irish Republic today.
Post by Keith W
More likely is that the founders wanted to reaffirm the rights they
had while English colonies and to ensure that sufficient of the
citizenry would be armed to form a militia.
Keith
Doug Says: Of course they wanted an armed militia - but the militia
represented civilian soldiers that were housed not in a barracks but
in their own homes. If they (the militia members) did not possess
guns in their own homes how could they report quickly to a militia
muster? There were many reasons our founding fathers wanted Americans
to possess weapons; militia, defense and to defend against or
overthrow their own government if necessary. Read Tommy Jefferson on
this issue - without guns NONE of the revolutions I mentioned above
(and there are many more) could not have been possible without an
armed population.

What did Joe Stalin and Adolph Hitler have in common? They both made
gun ownership by the civilian population illegal. You can add Fidel
Casto and Mao to that list as well. Only despots and dictators are
afraid to allow their own people to possess guns - for good reason.

Doug Grant (Tm)

Doug Grant (Tm)
Keith W
2013-01-03 08:47:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by DGVREIMAN
Post by Keith W
Post by DGVREIMAN
Post by Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D.
Post by tutall
Post by Daryl
Jim, you are being troll by a 404thk00k.
Heh, coming from you that's a compliment.
Dude, people have seen what you consider "reasoning". You are a big
reason I stopped reading R.A.M.
It's just wall to wall Darryl attention whore blather these days.
oh just do what i do...ignore the peabrain...
Doug Says: Our (American) Founding Fathers wanted a Constitution that
guaranteed American citizens would have special rights far and above
those of Europeans. They realized that Governments, when they have
complete control, oppress their citizens.
The trouble with that theory is that there were essentially no gun control
laws in Europe and governments of the time had little trouble in
oppressing the populace.
Doug Says: There were many revolutions in Europe that overthrew
oppressive governments even AFTER our revolution and they did so with
their guns! You can start with the French revolution. Without guns
in the hands of the population that revolution would not have been
possible.
Bad example. The masses involved in the original revolution
were largely armed with nothing more than clubs and knives.
The Bastille was stormed specifically to seize the arms
believed to be stored there. Thay foumd exactly 7 prisoners
there, most of whom were sex offenders.

The most intense period of repression in 18th century France
of course was implemented by the Jacobins who executed
around 40,000 people during the reign of terror. This was
only ended by the army seizing power.
Post by DGVREIMAN
You also are forgetting the German and Russian revolutions,
Both of course involved revolts by the armed services during
wartime. Its worth pointing out that in 1919 the Freikorps
recruited from the WW1 German Army ruthlessly suppressed
the Spartacist revolt.

In Russia the original revolution was largely successful due to
the mutiny of large parts of the army. The same happened
again during the Bolshevik revolution
Post by DGVREIMAN
and even the armed insurrections in Estonia that forced out the
Russian overlords.
Largely unarmed as it happens and they left because the Soviet
leadership had no stomach for further bloodletting
Post by DGVREIMAN
How about the recent "Arab Spring?" Do you
believe the Egyptians, Libyans or even the Syrians could have won
their battles against their oppressive governments without guns?
Dammed few Egyptians in Tahrir Square carried guns. That
would have been a big mistake as it would have empowered
the government who could have claimed armed revolution.

Libya is a tribal society. That section of the army that was not
of Ghadaffi's tribe opposed his forces. The presence of
civilian owned firearms was inconsequential. It was
the presence of armed troops that was critical. I rather
doubt that many 37mm guns and 12 mm machine guns
were in private hands.

Syria isn't over yet
Post by DGVREIMAN
Your
history is waning. Of course the people need guns to overthrow an
oppressive government - and that fact was stated clearly by our
founding fathers.
Then you'll have no problem finding a cite
Post by DGVREIMAN
Post by Keith W
In England the 1689 Bill of Rights specifically reaffirmed the rights
of protestamts to carry own and carry guns. It was 1903 before any
firearms laws were enacted and that was more a revenue raiser than
anything else as you could simply buy a license over the
counter at a post office.
Doug Says: England did not oprress its people - it opressed the Irish
people, and the Irish needed their guns to drive out the Brits and
establish an Irish Republic. Without guns in the hands of the IRA
there would be no Irish Republic today.
Post by Keith W
More likely is that the founders wanted to reaffirm the rights they
had while English colonies and to ensure that sufficient of the
citizenry would be armed to form a militia.
Keith
Doug Says: Of course they wanted an armed militia - but the militia
represented civilian soldiers that were housed not in a barracks but
in their own homes. If they (the militia members) did not possess
guns in their own homes how could they report quickly to a militia
muster?
The way militias always have with a local blockhouse where
weapons are stored just as the national guard does today.
Civilian weapons are a nightmare for any quartermaster.
The revolution was fought by the Continental Army.

After the revolution each state was expected to stockpile
arms and powder to equip a state militia. This proved to
be entirely unworkable and was replaced in 1791 with
the Legion of the United States which in turn became
the US Army

There were many reasons our founding fathers wanted Americans
Post by DGVREIMAN
to possess weapons; militia, defense and to defend against or
overthrow their own government if necessary. Read Tommy Jefferson on
this issue - without guns NONE of the revolutions I mentioned above
(and there are many more) could not have been possible without an
armed population.
What did Joe Stalin and Adolph Hitler have in common? They both made
gun ownership by the civilian population illegal.
This is of course complete nonsense. Hunting rifles and other long
arms were widely used in Germany and Russia, the famous
snipers of Stalingrad were recruited from hunters. Hand guns
in cities were licensed in Germany but there were large
numbers in circulation.

Keith
Jim Wilkins
2012-12-26 18:02:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jim Wilkins
-It's really simple, take their toys away from them and the
killings
-will pretty much stop. Maybe a reduction of hate talk on broadcast TV
-and radio would be helpful too.
Prove that by taking away the cause of most US killings, drugs.
Jim, you are being troll by a 404thk00k. If you expect him to make
any sense, it's a long wait. It's a troll, and not a very good one.
Daryl
We can't allow raving antisocial misfits to distract us from the
reality that the people who demand collective in place of individual
security have proven themselves unwilling or incompetent to provide
either in the cities they solidly control.

Boston's mayor recently celebrated the FIRST violence-free day this
year.

Same for New York, a day WITHOUT a killing makes the news:
http://www.cnn.com/2012/11/28/justice/new-york-murder-free-day/index.html
"There was not a single reported slaying, stabbing, shooting or
knifing in any of the five boroughs on Monday, according to the New
York Police Department."

How well Chicago's gun control works. Naturally any problems are all
someone else's fault:
http://frontpagemag.com/2012/dgreenfield/60-children-murdered-in-chicago-this-year/
Daryl
2012-12-26 20:43:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jim Wilkins
Post by Jim Wilkins
-It's really simple, take their toys away from them and the
killings
-will pretty much stop. Maybe a reduction of hate talk on broadcast TV
-and radio would be helpful too.
Prove that by taking away the cause of most US killings, drugs.
Jim, you are being troll by a 404thk00k. If you expect him to make
any sense, it's a long wait. It's a troll, and not a very good one.
Daryl
We can't allow raving antisocial misfits to distract us from the
reality that the people who demand collective in place of individual
security have proven themselves unwilling or incompetent to provide
either in the cities they solidly control.
Boston's mayor recently celebrated the FIRST violence-free day this
year.
http://www.cnn.com/2012/11/28/justice/new-york-murder-free-day/index.html
"There was not a single reported slaying, stabbing, shooting or
knifing in any of the five boroughs on Monday, according to the New
York Police Department."
How well Chicago's gun control works. Naturally any problems are all
http://frontpagemag.com/2012/dgreenfield/60-children-murdered-in-chicago-this-year/
I don't have any idea how to stop the illegal firearms. Unless
we spend a lot more money and have a large Elliot Ness type push
it will still be a problem.

As for the most recent shootings, most of the weapons were legal
weapons wielded by fruitcakes. I have no idea how to stop that
unless we shore up our Law Enforcement including placing them in
the schools.

Daryl
--
http://tvmoviesforfree.com
for free movies and Nostalgic TV. Tons of Military shows and
programs.
Jim Wilkins
2012-12-26 18:02:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jim Wilkins
-It's really simple, take their toys away from them and the
killings
-will pretty much stop. Maybe a reduction of hate talk on broadcast TV
-and radio would be helpful too.
Prove that by taking away the cause of most US killings, drugs.
Jim, you are being troll by a 404thk00k. If you expect him to make
any sense, it's a long wait. It's a troll, and not a very good one.
Daryl
We can't allow raving antisocial misfits to distract us from the
reality that the people who demand collective in place of individual
security have proven themselves unwilling or incompetent to provide
either in the cities they solidly control.

Boston's mayor recently celebrated the FIRST violence-free day this
year.

Same for New York, a day WITHOUT a killing makes the news:
http://www.cnn.com/2012/11/28/justice/new-york-murder-free-day/index.html
"There was not a single reported slaying, stabbing, shooting or
knifing in any of the five boroughs on Monday, according to the New
York Police Department."

How well Chicago's gun control works. Naturally any problems are all
someone else's fault:
http://frontpagemag.com/2012/dgreenfield/60-children-murdered-in-chicago-this-year/
Daryl
2012-12-26 17:21:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jim Wilkins
-It's really simple, take their toys away from them and the killings
-will pretty much stop. Maybe a reduction of hate talk on broadcast TV
-and radio would be helpful too.
Prove that by taking away the cause of most US killings, drugs.
Jim, you are being troll by a 404thk00k. If you expect him to
make any sense, it's a long wait. It's a troll, and not a very
good one.

Daryl
--
http://tvmoviesforfree.com
for free movies and Nostalgic TV. Tons of Military shows and
programs.
Jeffrey Hamilton
2012-12-26 18:18:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jim Wilkins
-It's really simple, take their toys away from them and the killings
-will pretty much stop. Maybe a reduction of hate talk on broadcast TV
-and radio would be helpful too.
Prove that by taking away the cause of most US killings, drugs.
Mitigate that by removing most of the reason, legalize drugs.

cheers....Jeff
Jim Wilkins
2012-12-26 18:38:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jeffrey Hamilton
Post by Jim Wilkins
-It's really simple, take their toys away from them and the
killings
-will pretty much stop. Maybe a reduction of hate talk on broadcast TV
-and radio would be helpful too.
Prove that by taking away the cause of most US killings, drugs.
Mitigate that by removing most of the reason, legalize drugs.
cheers....Jeff
Register and tax drug owners and dealers to pay for school guards.
Illegal activity can still be taxed:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jonathan-eig/tax-day-2010-how-the-inco_b_538070.html
Jeffrey Hamilton
2012-12-26 22:27:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jim Wilkins
Post by Jeffrey Hamilton
Post by Jim Wilkins
-It's really simple, take their toys away from them and the
killings
-will pretty much stop. Maybe a reduction of hate talk on broadcast TV
-and radio would be helpful too.
Prove that by taking away the cause of most US killings, drugs.
Mitigate that by removing most of the reason, legalize drugs.
cheers....Jeff
Register and tax drug owners and dealers to pay for school guards.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jonathan-eig/tax-day-2010-how-the-inco_b_538070.html
I've seen no correlation between any of these mass murders in schools, or
Safeway Stores and drug usage/dealing have you ?

cheers....Jeff
Jim Wilkins
2012-12-26 22:42:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jeffrey Hamilton
I've seen no correlation between any of these mass murders in
schools, or Safeway Stores and drug usage/dealing have you ?
cheers....Jeff
Stop pretending your 'hobby" has no social consequences:
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-57499523/mexican-drug-cartels-fight-turf-battles-in-chicago/
Jeffrey Hamilton
2013-01-05 00:01:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jim Wilkins
Post by Jeffrey Hamilton
I've seen no correlation between any of these mass murders in
schools, or Safeway Stores and drug usage/dealing have you ?
cheers....Jeff
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-57499523/mexican-drug-cartels-fight-turf-battles-in-chicago/
Stop pretending that the Safeway Store and Gabby Giffords, or the shooting
at the Sikh Temple, or Virginia Tech, or Columbine shootings "et al", have
NO social consequences, To YOUR hobby if you can !
Oh yeah and Shove your CBS News up your arse !

cheers....Jeff
Jim Wilkins
2013-01-05 11:56:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jeffrey Hamilton
Oh yeah and Shove your CBS News up your arse !
It doesn't take much prodding to reveal the snarling beast in you.
Jim Wilkins
2012-12-26 18:38:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jeffrey Hamilton
Post by Jim Wilkins
-It's really simple, take their toys away from them and the
killings
-will pretty much stop. Maybe a reduction of hate talk on broadcast TV
-and radio would be helpful too.
Prove that by taking away the cause of most US killings, drugs.
Mitigate that by removing most of the reason, legalize drugs.
cheers....Jeff
Register and tax drug owners and dealers to pay for school guards.
Illegal activity can still be taxed:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jonathan-eig/tax-day-2010-how-the-inco_b_538070.html
Orval Fairbairn
2012-12-26 21:35:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jeffrey Hamilton
Post by Jim Wilkins
-It's really simple, take their toys away from them and the killings
-will pretty much stop. Maybe a reduction of hate talk on broadcast TV
-and radio would be helpful too.
Prove that by taking away the cause of most US killings, drugs.
Mitigate that by removing most of the reason, legalize drugs.
cheers....Jeff
That would make "Jeff" happy, wouldn't it?
Jeffrey Hamilton
2012-12-26 22:46:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Orval Fairbairn
Post by Jeffrey Hamilton
Post by Jim Wilkins
-It's really simple, take their toys away from them and the killings
-will pretty much stop. Maybe a reduction of hate talk on broadcast TV
-and radio would be helpful too.
Prove that by taking away the cause of most US killings, drugs.
Mitigate that by removing most of the reason, legalize drugs.
cheers....Jeff
That would make "Jeff" happy, wouldn't it?
Not for any reason that you'd understand, Orval. The War On Drugs (TM) is an
unmitigated very expensive disaster.
It is also of no use in keeping semi-automatic combat style weapons with
large capacity magazines, off the streets and out of the hands of lunatics.

cheers....Jeff
Jeffrey Hamilton
2012-12-26 18:18:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jim Wilkins
-It's really simple, take their toys away from them and the killings
-will pretty much stop. Maybe a reduction of hate talk on broadcast TV
-and radio would be helpful too.
Prove that by taking away the cause of most US killings, drugs.
Mitigate that by removing most of the reason, legalize drugs.

cheers....Jeff
Andrew Swallow
2012-12-28 14:20:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jim Wilkins
-It's really simple, take their toys away from them and the killings
-will pretty much stop. Maybe a reduction of hate talk on broadcast TV
-and radio would be helpful too.
Prove that by taking away the cause of most US killings, drugs.
They would like to take the drugs away. Unfortunately the Government
does not know how.

Andrew Swallow
Jim Wilkins
2012-12-28 14:36:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrew Swallow
Post by Jim Wilkins
-It's really simple, take their toys away from them and the
killings
-will pretty much stop. Maybe a reduction of hate talk on broadcast TV
-and radio would be helpful too.
Prove that by taking away the cause of most US killings, drugs.
They would like to take the drugs away. Unfortunately the
Government does not know how.
Andrew Swallow
Half of the government is afraid to alienate its own power base, so
they twist the blame for social dysfunction in the Blue areas they
control onto their opponents. The Red counties are quite capable of
handling their own problem as long as Washington doesn't interfere..
Jim Wilkins
2012-12-26 16:59:50 UTC
Permalink
"tutall" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:814cd412-34fe-4bad-b27e-***@gg5g2000pbc.googlegroups.com...
-It's really simple, take their toys away from them and the killings
-will pretty much stop. Maybe a reduction of hate talk on broadcast TV
-and radio would be helpful too.

Prove that by taking away the cause of most US killings, drugs.
Jeffrey Hamilton
2012-12-26 16:31:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jim Wilkins
...> How much do they cost,and what doesn't get bought (from the
education budget) to pay for them..
Actually.. Who will be responsible for paying them?
Too much. Your children aren't worth it. Let the bullying and its
deadly responses continue and keep trying to pin the blame for
failures on white adult males outside the educational system.
Or we could declare them an added benefit for the teachers that
replaces a few years of raises.
Why victimize the teachers, they're not the ones doing the killing and
shooting ?
Put a tax where it belongs, on the gun owners and the NRA, they can pay for
all these armed guards that seemingly are now needed.

cheers....Jeff
Daryl
2012-12-26 17:22:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jeffrey Hamilton
Post by Jim Wilkins
...> How much do they cost,and what doesn't get bought (from the
education budget) to pay for them..
Actually.. Who will be responsible for paying them?
Too much. Your children aren't worth it. Let the bullying and its
deadly responses continue and keep trying to pin the blame for
failures on white adult males outside the educational system.
Or we could declare them an added benefit for the teachers that
replaces a few years of raises.
Why victimize the teachers, they're not the ones doing the killing and
shooting ?
Put a tax where it belongs, on the gun owners and the NRA, they can pay for
all these armed guards that seemingly are now needed.
cheers....Jeff
You know, that might be an idea. Instead of getting them on
Illegal Weapons that they will be out in a matter of months, bag
them on not paying tax on those weapons. Makes it worth years.

Works for me :)

Daryl
--
http://tvmoviesforfree.com
for free movies and Nostalgic TV. Tons of Military shows and
programs.
Daryl
2012-12-26 17:22:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jeffrey Hamilton
Post by Jim Wilkins
...> How much do they cost,and what doesn't get bought (from the
education budget) to pay for them..
Actually.. Who will be responsible for paying them?
Too much. Your children aren't worth it. Let the bullying and its
deadly responses continue and keep trying to pin the blame for
failures on white adult males outside the educational system.
Or we could declare them an added benefit for the teachers that
replaces a few years of raises.
Why victimize the teachers, they're not the ones doing the killing and
shooting ?
Put a tax where it belongs, on the gun owners and the NRA, they can pay for
all these armed guards that seemingly are now needed.
cheers....Jeff
You know, that might be an idea. Instead of getting them on
Illegal Weapons that they will be out in a matter of months, bag
them on not paying tax on those weapons. Makes it worth years.

Works for me :)

Daryl
--
http://tvmoviesforfree.com
for free movies and Nostalgic TV. Tons of Military shows and
programs.
Jim Wilkins
2012-12-26 17:31:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jeffrey Hamilton
Put a tax where it belongs, on the gun owners and the NRA, they can
pay for all these armed guards that seemingly are now needed.
cheers....Jeff
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2972296/posts
Jeffrey Hamilton
2012-12-26 18:38:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jim Wilkins
Post by Jeffrey Hamilton
Put a tax where it belongs, on the gun owners and the NRA, they can
pay for all these armed guards that seemingly are now needed.
cheers....Jeff
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2972296/posts
I stopped reading after this :"Liberals Panic As They Lose the Gun
Narrative".

The NRA's whole mantra was 'let's tax the American people to pay for armed
guards so thet we "gun bunnies" can have our way and accept no
responsibility for piss-poor laws that we've assured got passed, by
congress'.

cheers....Jeff
Daryl
2012-12-26 20:46:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jeffrey Hamilton
Post by Jim Wilkins
Post by Jeffrey Hamilton
Put a tax where it belongs, on the gun owners and the NRA, they can
pay for all these armed guards that seemingly are now needed.
cheers....Jeff
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2972296/posts
I stopped reading after this :"Liberals Panic As They Lose the Gun
Narrative".
The NRA's whole mantra was 'let's tax the American people to pay for armed
guards so thet we "gun bunnies" can have our way and accept no
responsibility for piss-poor laws that we've assured got passed, by
congress'.
cheers....Jeff
We sort of did that in Colorado. But the fallout of that was
Santa ate some brownies, washed it down with the milk and was
next seen in a Chitos Factory pigging out.

Daryl
--
http://tvmoviesforfree.com
for free movies and Nostalgic TV. Tons of Military shows and
programs.
Jeffrey Hamilton
2012-12-26 16:31:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jim Wilkins
...> How much do they cost,and what doesn't get bought (from the
education budget) to pay for them..
Actually.. Who will be responsible for paying them?
Too much. Your children aren't worth it. Let the bullying and its
deadly responses continue and keep trying to pin the blame for
failures on white adult males outside the educational system.
Or we could declare them an added benefit for the teachers that
replaces a few years of raises.
Why victimize the teachers, they're not the ones doing the killing and
shooting ?
Put a tax where it belongs, on the gun owners and the NRA, they can pay for
all these armed guards that seemingly are now needed.

cheers....Jeff
tutall
2012-12-24 03:38:54 UTC
Permalink
 I see the
ones that wish to completely take away your right to own a
hunting, target or home defense weapon as flying that red flag.
Yeah! Who are these people anyway? Can you name even one?

Or is this another ignorantly stupid strawman that copies from other
ignorantly stupid people?
I don't own a gun but I don't want to try and take your right to
own a hunting, target or home defense weapon away from you.
I, too, have been an on again, off again NRA member.
Just some thoughts.
Of a blantant liar and poor plagiarizer.
Daryl
2012-12-24 05:50:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by tutall
Post by Daryl
I see the
ones that wish to completely take away your right to own a
hunting, target or home defense weapon as flying that red flag.
Yeah! Who are these people anyway? Can you name even one?
Or is this another ignorantly stupid strawman that copies from other
ignorantly stupid people?
Post by Daryl
I don't own a gun but I don't want to try and take your right to
own a hunting, target or home defense weapon away from you.
I, too, have been an on again, off again NRA member.
Just some thoughts.
Of a blantant liar and poor plagiarizer.
Quiet, 404thk00k.
--
http://tvmoviesforfree.com
for free movies and Nostalgic TV. Tons of Military shows and
programs.
meport
2013-01-03 22:03:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Arved Sandstrom
Post by meport
The gun nuts have THE MONEY and are willing to spend it.
It's that simple. It really is.
They bought congress.
They bought the courts (Scalia and Roberts were literally bought. Scalia
makes no bones about it.).
And they bought the media.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What world are you living in? Annually in the US over 2200 kids (0-14
yrs old)
are killed by cars....yet no one screams to ban cars. BTW,
those that are killed by guns is less than 500. Deaths by abuse and
drowning in
swimming pools also rank higher than gun deaths.
So, you want to help kids?? Ban cars, abusive parents, and pools. But you
could care less, you just want to see the Constitution trampled.
Speaking as neutrally as I can, I think the main fear of many gun rights
advocates, certainly of the NRA hardcore, is not so much that the
Constitution (2nd Amendment) will get "trampled", but simply that it
will get _amended_ by due process. That's where the NRA effort goes
primarily, to thwart that.
Post by meport
For the record I believe in the 2nd Amendment enough to have been an NRA
member off and on. I'm just one of that group of NRA members - which is
not small - that doesn't see the world quite as black and white as Wayne
does.
It's difficult for some to admit that many things are fun, and that they
are fun justifies them. They need some deeper, more important,
justification. Sex can't be fun, it has to be procreation. Owning a gun
can't be because skeet is a blast, because there's joy in mastering the
skills involved, or the pleasure of working quietly through the Autumn
woods, it has to be to defend the loved ones against the evil hordes, or
to live up to the duty to rebel against oppression. Somehow, these same
people (using the word loosely) regard the precautions necessary to
prevent the joys in life from causing pain, or from being taken to
excess as evil.
I bet Skeet would not be very much fun if you used a .223 Bushmaster on
the Skeet Range. Or if you tried to use a 9mm Glock to shoot at those
little saucers (I know, birds, but they really are just plain saucers).
What would the Olympic gold medal score be if the Skeet shooters used
.223 Bushmasters? Not 99 or 98 out of 100, time after time after time.
The score would be more like 2 out of 100 or maybe 3 out of 100, all
the time.

That's where the "everything is the same and nothing is not the same"
argument the NRA uses falls flat on it's face. Ever tried to shoot a
rabbit with a .223?. I'm not a President's 100 caliber shooter but I'm
not bad. I can shoot. I missed a real live little bunny at less than
25 yards when I tried to plug it with a .223 round. With a shotgun,
even on full choke, I would have gotten it.

So the argument that the NRA uses when they say that all shooting is the
same is like saying an a Piper Cub is the equal of an F22 and that a
dingy is just as battle worthy as a Nimitz Class Carrier. It just isn't
true or factual.
--
---
meport
Dean Markley
2013-01-04 18:10:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by meport
Post by Arved Sandstrom
Post by meport
The gun nuts have THE MONEY and are willing to spend it.
It's that simple. It really is.
They bought congress.
They bought the courts (Scalia and Roberts were literally bought. Scalia
makes no bones about it.).
And they bought the media.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What world are you living in? Annually in the US over 2200 kids (0-14
yrs old)
are killed by cars....yet no one screams to ban cars. BTW,
those that are killed by guns is less than 500. Deaths by abuse and
drowning in
swimming pools also rank higher than gun deaths.
So, you want to help kids?? Ban cars, abusive parents, and pools. But you
could care less, you just want to see the Constitution trampled.
Speaking as neutrally as I can, I think the main fear of many gun rights
advocates, certainly of the NRA hardcore, is not so much that the
Constitution (2nd Amendment) will get "trampled", but simply that it
will get _amended_ by due process. That's where the NRA effort goes
primarily, to thwart that.
Post by meport
For the record I believe in the 2nd Amendment enough to have been an NRA
member off and on. I'm just one of that group of NRA members - which is
not small - that doesn't see the world quite as black and white as Wayne
does.
It's difficult for some to admit that many things are fun, and that they
are fun justifies them. They need some deeper, more important,
justification. Sex can't be fun, it has to be procreation. Owning a gun
can't be because skeet is a blast, because there's joy in mastering the
skills involved, or the pleasure of working quietly through the Autumn
woods, it has to be to defend the loved ones against the evil hordes, or
to live up to the duty to rebel against oppression. Somehow, these same
people (using the word loosely) regard the precautions necessary to
prevent the joys in life from causing pain, or from being taken to
excess as evil.
I bet Skeet would not be very much fun if you used a .223 Bushmaster on
the Skeet Range. Or if you tried to use a 9mm Glock to shoot at those
little saucers (I know, birds, but they really are just plain saucers).
What would the Olympic gold medal score be if the Skeet shooters used
.223 Bushmasters? Not 99 or 98 out of 100, time after time after time.
The score would be more like 2 out of 100 or maybe 3 out of 100, all
the time.
That's where the "everything is the same and nothing is not the same"
argument the NRA uses falls flat on it's face. Ever tried to shoot a
rabbit with a .223?. I'm not a President's 100 caliber shooter but I'm
not bad. I can shoot. I missed a real live little bunny at less than
25 yards when I tried to plug it with a .223 round. With a shotgun,
even on full choke, I would have gotten it.
So the argument that the NRA uses when they say that all shooting is the
same is like saying an a Piper Cub is the equal of an F22 and that a
dingy is just as battle worthy as a Nimitz Class Carrier. It just isn't
true or factual.
--
---
meport
If you missed a rabbit at 25 yards, that's not because you used a .223, that's because you are a bad shot.
Peter Stickney
2013-01-06 03:18:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dean Markley
Post by meport
Post by Arved Sandstrom
Post by meport
The gun nuts have THE MONEY and are willing to spend it.
It's that simple. It really is.
They bought congress.
They bought the courts (Scalia and Roberts were literally
bought. Scalia
makes no bones about it.).
And they bought the media.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post by Dean Markley
Post by meport
Post by Arved Sandstrom
Post by meport
What world are you living in? Annually in the US over 2200 kids (0-14
yrs old)
are killed by cars....yet no one screams to ban cars. BTW,
those that are killed by guns is less than 500. Deaths by abuse and
drowning in
swimming pools also rank higher than gun deaths.
So, you want to help kids?? Ban cars, abusive parents, and
pools. But you
could care less, you just want to see the Constitution trampled.
Speaking as neutrally as I can, I think the main fear of many gun rights
advocates, certainly of the NRA hardcore, is not so much that the
Constitution (2nd Amendment) will get "trampled", but simply that it
will get _amended_ by due process. That's where the NRA effort goes
primarily, to thwart that.
Post by meport
For the record I believe in the 2nd Amendment enough to have been an NRA
member off and on. I'm just one of that group of NRA members - which is
not small - that doesn't see the world quite as black and white as Wayne
does.
It's difficult for some to admit that many things are fun, and that they
are fun justifies them. They need some deeper, more important,
justification. Sex can't be fun, it has to be procreation. Owning a gun
can't be because skeet is a blast, because there's joy in
mastering the
skills involved, or the pleasure of working quietly through the Autumn
woods, it has to be to defend the loved ones against the evil hordes, or
to live up to the duty to rebel against oppression. Somehow, these same
people (using the word loosely) regard the precautions necessary to
prevent the joys in life from causing pain, or from being taken to
excess as evil.
I bet Skeet would not be very much fun if you used a .223
Bushmaster on
the Skeet Range. Or if you tried to use a 9mm Glock to shoot at those
little saucers (I know, birds, but they really are just plain
saucers).
What would the Olympic gold medal score be if the Skeet shooters used
.223 Bushmasters? Not 99 or 98 out of 100, time after time after time.
The score would be more like 2 out of 100 or maybe 3 out of 100, all
the time.
That's where the "everything is the same and nothing is not the same"
argument the NRA uses falls flat on it's face. Ever tried to shoot a
rabbit with a .223?. I'm not a President's 100 caliber shooter but I'm
not bad. I can shoot. I missed a real live little bunny at less than
25 yards when I tried to plug it with a .223 round. With a
shotgun,
even on full choke, I would have gotten it.
So the argument that the NRA uses when they say that all shooting is the
same is like saying an a Piper Cub is the equal of an F22 and that a
dingy is just as battle worthy as a Nimitz Class Carrier. It just isn't
true or factual.
--
---
meport
If you missed a rabbit at 25 yards, that's not because you used a
.223, that's because you are a bad shot.
Just so - the Youngest Brother, Tank Boy, nailed a jackrabbit at
1000m with a 105mm APDS during a night Table Eight at Pinon Canyon.
As for the shotgun, anybody who has studied the spread of a shit
pattern would tell you that if you missed with the .223 at 25 yds,
you most likely would have missed with a shotgun.
(THe pattern's about fist sized)

The bullets go where you aim them.
--
Pete Stickney
From the foothills of the Florida Alps
Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D.
2013-01-04 18:46:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by meport
Post by Arved Sandstrom
Post by meport
The gun nuts have THE MONEY and are willing to spend it.
It's that simple. It really is.
They bought congress.
They bought the courts (Scalia and Roberts were literally bought.
Scalia
makes no bones about it.).
And they bought the media.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What world are you living in? Annually in the US over 2200 kids (0-14
yrs old)
are killed by cars....yet no one screams to ban cars. BTW,
those that are killed by guns is less than 500. Deaths by abuse and
drowning in
swimming pools also rank higher than gun deaths.
So, you want to help kids?? Ban cars, abusive parents, and pools. But you
could care less, you just want to see the Constitution trampled.
Speaking as neutrally as I can, I think the main fear of many gun rights
advocates, certainly of the NRA hardcore, is not so much that the
Constitution (2nd Amendment) will get "trampled", but simply that it
will get _amended_ by due process. That's where the NRA effort goes
primarily, to thwart that.
Post by meport
For the record I believe in the 2nd Amendment enough to have been an NRA
member off and on. I'm just one of that group of NRA members - which is
not small - that doesn't see the world quite as black and white as Wayne
does.
It's difficult for some to admit that many things are fun, and that they
are fun justifies them. They need some deeper, more important,
justification. Sex can't be fun, it has to be procreation. Owning a gun
can't be because skeet is a blast, because there's joy in mastering the
skills involved, or the pleasure of working quietly through the Autumn
woods, it has to be to defend the loved ones against the evil hordes, or
to live up to the duty to rebel against oppression. Somehow, these same
people (using the word loosely) regard the precautions necessary to
prevent the joys in life from causing pain, or from being taken to
excess as evil.
I bet Skeet would not be very much fun if you used a .223 Bushmaster on
the Skeet Range. Or if you tried to use a 9mm Glock to shoot at those
little saucers (I know, birds, but they really are just plain saucers).
What would the Olympic gold medal score be if the Skeet shooters used
.223 Bushmasters? Not 99 or 98 out of 100, time after time after time.
The score would be more like 2 out of 100 or maybe 3 out of 100, all
the time.
That's where the "everything is the same and nothing is not the same"
argument the NRA uses falls flat on it's face. Ever tried to shoot a
rabbit with a .223?. I'm not a President's 100 caliber shooter but I'm
not bad. I can shoot. I missed a real live little bunny at less than
25 yards when I tried to plug it with a .223 round. With a shotgun,
even on full choke, I would have gotten it.
So the argument that the NRA uses when they say that all shooting is the
same is like saying an a Piper Cub is the equal of an F22 and that a
dingy is just as battle worthy as a Nimitz Class Carrier. It just isn't
true or factual.
Yep.

We all know it's true, yet we let the NRA goofballs paralyze
us (into inaction) with their goofy "statistics".
;-)
Dean Markley
2013-01-04 21:10:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D.
Post by meport
Post by Arved Sandstrom
Post by meport
The gun nuts have THE MONEY and are willing to spend it.
It's that simple. It really is.
They bought congress.
They bought the courts (Scalia and Roberts were literally bought.
Scalia
makes no bones about it.).
And they bought the media.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What world are you living in? Annually in the US over 2200 kids (0-14
yrs old)
are killed by cars....yet no one screams to ban cars. BTW,
those that are killed by guns is less than 500. Deaths by abuse and
drowning in
swimming pools also rank higher than gun deaths.
So, you want to help kids?? Ban cars, abusive parents, and pools. But
you
could care less, you just want to see the Constitution trampled.
Speaking as neutrally as I can, I think the main fear of many gun rights
advocates, certainly of the NRA hardcore, is not so much that the
Constitution (2nd Amendment) will get "trampled", but simply that it
will get _amended_ by due process. That's where the NRA effort goes
primarily, to thwart that.
Post by meport
For the record I believe in the 2nd Amendment enough to have been an NRA
member off and on. I'm just one of that group of NRA members - which is
not small - that doesn't see the world quite as black and white as Wayne
does.
It's difficult for some to admit that many things are fun, and that they
are fun justifies them. They need some deeper, more important,
justification. Sex can't be fun, it has to be procreation. Owning a gun
can't be because skeet is a blast, because there's joy in mastering the
skills involved, or the pleasure of working quietly through the Autumn
woods, it has to be to defend the loved ones against the evil hordes, or
to live up to the duty to rebel against oppression. Somehow, these same
people (using the word loosely) regard the precautions necessary to
prevent the joys in life from causing pain, or from being taken to
excess as evil.
I bet Skeet would not be very much fun if you used a .223 Bushmaster on
the Skeet Range. Or if you tried to use a 9mm Glock to shoot at those
little saucers (I know, birds, but they really are just plain saucers).
What would the Olympic gold medal score be if the Skeet shooters used
.223 Bushmasters? Not 99 or 98 out of 100, time after time after time.
The score would be more like 2 out of 100 or maybe 3 out of 100, all
the time.
That's where the "everything is the same and nothing is not the same"
argument the NRA uses falls flat on it's face. Ever tried to shoot a
rabbit with a .223?. I'm not a President's 100 caliber shooter but I'm
not bad. I can shoot. I missed a real live little bunny at less than
25 yards when I tried to plug it with a .223 round. With a shotgun,
even on full choke, I would have gotten it.
So the argument that the NRA uses when they say that all shooting is the
same is like saying an a Piper Cub is the equal of an F22 and that a
dingy is just as battle worthy as a Nimitz Class Carrier. It just isn't
true or factual.
Yep.
We all know it's true, yet we let the NRA goofballs paralyze
us (into inaction) with their goofy "statistics".
;-)
Dear faker, there is no "us" as you proclaim. There is just you and your snide remarks and off topic posts.
Dean Markley
2012-12-23 22:33:07 UTC
Permalink
Your thoughts mirror mine exactly. I too have been an on and off NRA member.
dott.Piergiorgio
2012-12-24 05:24:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Arved Sandstrom
Post by meport
The gun nuts have THE MONEY and are willing to spend it.
It's that simple. It really is.
They bought congress.
They bought the courts (Scalia and Roberts were literally bought. Scalia
makes no bones about it.).
And they bought the media.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Speaking as neutrally as I can, I think the main fear of many gun rights
advocates, certainly of the NRA hardcore, is not so much that the
Constitution (2nd Amendment) will get "trampled", but simply that it
will get _amended_ by due process. That's where the NRA effort goes
primarily, to thwart that.
For the record I believe in the 2nd Amendment enough to have been an NRA
member off and on. I'm just one of that group of NRA members - which is
not small - that doesn't see the world quite as black and white as Wayne
does.
well, here in Italy, gun laws and politics are subtly intertwined
(italians can buy unlimited replica flintlocks, guess where is the best
worldwide manufacturer of replica weapons ? and the national bench
happens to be located in a small mountain town called Gardone Val
Trompia...) and Italy don't have gun nuts. perhaps the difference lies
in an half-millennia of continuous commercial & industrial practice ?

Best regards from Italy,
dott. Piergiorgio.
Daryl
2012-12-24 05:52:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by dott.Piergiorgio
Post by Arved Sandstrom
Post by meport
The gun nuts have THE MONEY and are willing to spend it.
It's that simple. It really is.
They bought congress.
They bought the courts (Scalia and Roberts were literally
bought. Scalia
makes no bones about it.).
And they bought the media.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Speaking as neutrally as I can, I think the main fear of many
gun rights
advocates, certainly of the NRA hardcore, is not so much that the
Constitution (2nd Amendment) will get "trampled", but simply
that it
will get _amended_ by due process. That's where the NRA effort goes
primarily, to thwart that.
For the record I believe in the 2nd Amendment enough to have
been an NRA
member off and on. I'm just one of that group of NRA members - which is
not small - that doesn't see the world quite as black and white as Wayne
does.
well, here in Italy, gun laws and politics are subtly intertwined
(italians can buy unlimited replica flintlocks, guess where is
the best worldwide manufacturer of replica weapons ? and the
national bench happens to be located in a small mountain town
called Gardone Val Trompia...) and Italy don't have gun nuts.
perhaps the difference lies in an half-millennia of continuous
commercial & industrial practice ?
It also could be that your country directly saw the direct result
of some really nasty gun people. Well, at least 6 or 7 years of
it.

Daryl
--
http://tvmoviesforfree.com
for free movies and Nostalgic TV. Tons of Military shows and
programs.
dott.Piergiorgio
2012-12-24 06:38:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by dott.Piergiorgio
Post by Arved Sandstrom
Speaking as neutrally as I can, I think the main fear of many gun rights
advocates, certainly of the NRA hardcore, is not so much that the
Constitution (2nd Amendment) will get "trampled", but simply
that it
will get _amended_ by due process. That's where the NRA effort goes
primarily, to thwart that.
For the record I believe in the 2nd Amendment enough to have
been an NRA
member off and on. I'm just one of that group of NRA members - which is
not small - that doesn't see the world quite as black and white as Wayne
does.
well, here in Italy, gun laws and politics are subtly intertwined
(italians can buy unlimited replica flintlocks, guess where is
the best worldwide manufacturer of replica weapons ? and the
national bench happens to be located in a small mountain town
called Gardone Val Trompia...) and Italy don't have gun nuts.
perhaps the difference lies in an half-millennia of continuous
commercial & industrial practice ?
It also could be that your country directly saw the direct result of
some really nasty gun people. Well, at least 6 or 7 years of it.
I'll count 14, from 1968 to 1982, plus the 1999-2001 resurfacing, and is
a certainty that these "really nasty people", as you call it, are still
active......

But basically you're correct, the core of gun control laws was enacted
during that unpleasant timeframe, the Years of Lead.

Best regards from Italy,
dott. Piergiorgio.
DGVREIMAN
2012-12-25 10:40:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by dott.Piergiorgio
Post by Arved Sandstrom
Post by meport
The gun nuts have THE MONEY and are willing to spend it.
It's that simple. It really is.
They bought congress.
They bought the courts (Scalia and Roberts were literally bought.
Scalia
makes no bones about it.).
And they bought the media.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Speaking as neutrally as I can, I think the main fear of many gun rights
advocates, certainly of the NRA hardcore, is not so much that the
Constitution (2nd Amendment) will get "trampled", but simply that it
will get _amended_ by due process. That's where the NRA effort goes
primarily, to thwart that.
For the record I believe in the 2nd Amendment enough to have been an NRA
member off and on. I'm just one of that group of NRA members - which is
not small - that doesn't see the world quite as black and white as Wayne
does.
well, here in Italy, gun laws and politics are subtly intertwined
(italians can buy unlimited replica flintlocks, guess where is the
best worldwide manufacturer of replica weapons ? and the national
bench happens to be located in a small mountain town called Gardone
Val Trompia...) and Italy don't have gun nuts. perhaps the
difference lies in an half-millennia of continuous commercial &
industrial practice ?
Best regards from Italy,
dott. Piergiorgio.
Doug Says: Our (American) Founding Fathers wanted a Constitution that
guaranteed American citizens would have special rights far and above
those of Europeans. They realized that Governments, when they have
complete control, oppress their citizens. Ergo, the guns that
Americans are allowed to own must equal at least in part the guns the
Government can furnish its military - if not then the citizens could
not overthrow the Government if it became oppressive. I say this in a
limited manner as American citizens should not be able to own tanks,
machine guns, etc. . but at least semi-automatic weapons with 30 round
clip magazines - which is the law today, and is the law that has been
upheld by the Supreme Court.

The advantage citizens have over the government with their
semi-automatic weapons as opposed to the Government's machine guns is
there are millions more armed citizens in America than the
Government's military - this was the other reason our founding fathers
wanted Americans to possess guns. What foreign nation would be stupid
enough to invade the USA when it knew it was up against millions of
well armed Americans?

American Guns are not meant just for deer hunting and sport
shooting - they are designed to protect families, schools, homes, and
to protect against oppressive governments and foreign invasions.

The cowards that use guns to murder defenseless children will never
stop murdering them regardless of how we reduce the selection of guns
at their disposal. In the case of 1st graders, the evil coward that
murdered those kids in Newtown could have done so with a sharp stick -
they were completely defenseless children and there was no one there
to protect them.

If a single police officer had been located inside the Newtown school
the maniac with the gun would not even been able to get through the
front door not to mention murder 26 defenseless people.

America is different from Europe, and it was meant to be that way. We
need to find a way to live with our right to bear arms - and that
means we need to start defending heretofore defenseless targets. When
is the last time you heard about one of these evil cowards attacking a
Police station or a military base? They never attack entities that
are defended with lethal force - they deliberately choose defenseless
targets like cowards and bullies usually do. We need armed Police
inside our public schools - that solution is instant, obvious and is
clearly the only one that will work.

I applaud the NRA for agreeing with my previous posts that called for
armed Police inside our public schools. I was not a member before
but I will be now.

Doug Grant (Tm)
Daryl
2012-12-25 11:17:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by DGVREIMAN
Post by dott.Piergiorgio
Post by Arved Sandstrom
Post by meport
The gun nuts have THE MONEY and are willing to spend it.
It's that simple. It really is.
They bought congress.
They bought the courts (Scalia and Roberts were literally
bought. Scalia
makes no bones about it.).
And they bought the media.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Speaking as neutrally as I can, I think the main fear of many gun rights
advocates, certainly of the NRA hardcore, is not so much that the
Constitution (2nd Amendment) will get "trampled", but simply
that it
will get _amended_ by due process. That's where the NRA effort goes
primarily, to thwart that.
For the record I believe in the 2nd Amendment enough to have
been an NRA
member off and on. I'm just one of that group of NRA members - which is
not small - that doesn't see the world quite as black and
white as Wayne
does.
well, here in Italy, gun laws and politics are subtly
intertwined (italians can buy unlimited replica flintlocks,
guess where is the best worldwide manufacturer of replica
weapons ? and the national bench happens to be located in a
small mountain town called Gardone Val Trompia...) and Italy
don't have gun nuts. perhaps the difference lies in an
half-millennia of continuous commercial & industrial practice ?
Best regards from Italy,
dott. Piergiorgio.
Doug Says: Our (American) Founding Fathers wanted a Constitution
that guaranteed American citizens would have special rights far
and above those of Europeans. They realized that Governments,
when they have complete control, oppress their citizens. Ergo,
the guns that Americans are allowed to own must equal at least in
part the guns the Government can furnish its military - if not
then the citizens could not overthrow the Government if it became
oppressive.
Many of the weapons that the Military has has absolutely no
Civilian use what so ever. And I doubt the 2nd amendment was
ever designed for us to own those.
Post by DGVREIMAN
I say this in a limited manner as American citizens
should not be able to own tanks, machine guns, etc. . but at
least semi-automatic weapons with 30 round clip magazines - which
is the law today, and is the law that has been upheld by the
Supreme Court.
but you are wrong. We CAN own those things. If you have the
storage facility required, apply for the appropriate license and
are granted it, aren't a felon, not under a restraining order, no
record of violence then you will almost be assured to be able to
possess these weapons and clips. And if you have the facility to
fire them, you can go out and fire them.
Post by DGVREIMAN
The advantage citizens have over the government with their
semi-automatic weapons as opposed to the Government's machine
guns is there are millions more armed citizens in America than
the Government's military - this was the other reason our
founding fathers wanted Americans to possess guns. What foreign
nation would be stupid enough to invade the USA when it knew it
was up against millions of well armed Americans?
American Guns are not meant just for deer hunting and sport
shooting - they are designed to protect families, schools, homes,
and to protect against oppressive governments and foreign invasions.
No place in home defense, school defense or hunting does a gun
that can fire over 200 rounds per minute (cyclic rate) have a
place. Nowhere does a 20 or a 50 or more round clip have a
place. These need to be left to the ones that follow the law,
get the proper license for them. These folks have a ZERO history
of misusing any type of firearm.
--
http://tvmoviesforfree.com
for free movies and Nostalgic TV. Tons of Military shows and
programs.
dott.Piergiorgio
2012-12-26 10:43:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by DGVREIMAN
The advantage citizens have over the government with their
semi-automatic weapons as opposed to the Government's machine guns is
there are millions more armed citizens in America than the Government's
military - this was the other reason our founding fathers wanted
Americans to possess guns. What foreign nation would be stupid enough
to invade the USA when it knew it was up against millions of well armed
Americans?
and Iraq, Afghanistan and 'Nam don't have teached America that for a
good home defense militia isn't needed the last type of deadly instrument ?

a Semi-auto rifle, or even an handgun can be deadly effective in a
context of armed resistance to an invasor.... and American Ingenuity can
provide plenty of different means of resisting invasors, from IED down.

I truly wished to not have resorted to this jab in the groins, but is
what I imply in pointing out that US constituition is of 1700s
vintage... warfare has changed much since 1775, and the modern citizen's
militia are today called Insurgents, or freedom Fighters, or terrorists.....

so, please stop this off-topic political/idological nonsense and look up
actual defense & warfare...

Best regards from Italy,
dott. Piergiorgio.
Bob Martin
2012-12-28 07:44:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by DGVREIMAN
The advantage citizens have over the government with their
semi-automatic weapons as opposed to the Government's machine guns is
there are millions more armed citizens in America than the Government's
military - this was the other reason our founding fathers wanted
Americans to possess guns. What foreign nation would be stupid enough
to invade the USA when it knew it was up against millions of well armed
Americans?
The USA is the only country whose hobby is invading other countries.
Jim Wilkins
2012-12-28 13:02:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob Martin
.
The USA is the only country whose hobby is invading other countries.
F-A-L-K-L-A-N-D-S.
Steve Hix
2012-12-28 17:29:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob Martin
Post by DGVREIMAN
The advantage citizens have over the government with their
semi-automatic weapons as opposed to the Government's machine guns is
there are millions more armed citizens in America than the Government's
military - this was the other reason our founding fathers wanted
Americans to possess guns. What foreign nation would be stupid enough
to invade the USA when it knew it was up against millions of well armed
Americans?
The USA is the only country whose hobby is invading other countries.
You haven't been outside much, have you? To say nothing of holding any sort of
historical perspective.

Or talked to any Georgians, Tibetans, ...
Orval Fairbairn
2012-12-28 18:43:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob Martin
Post by DGVREIMAN
The advantage citizens have over the government with their
semi-automatic weapons as opposed to the Government's machine guns is
there are millions more armed citizens in America than the Government's
military - this was the other reason our founding fathers wanted
Americans to possess guns. What foreign nation would be stupid enough
to invade the USA when it knew it was up against millions of well armed
Americans?
The USA is the only country whose hobby is invading other countries.
WRONG!! How about Germany, Japan, China, Russia, France, Britain, the
Netherlands -- to name a few?
Keith W
2012-12-28 20:37:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Orval Fairbairn
Post by Bob Martin
Post by DGVREIMAN
The advantage citizens have over the government with their
semi-automatic weapons as opposed to the Government's machine guns
is there are millions more armed citizens in America than the
Government's military - this was the other reason our founding
fathers wanted Americans to possess guns. What foreign nation
would be stupid enough to invade the USA when it knew it was up
against millions of well armed Americans?
The USA is the only country whose hobby is invading other countries.
WRONG!! How about Germany, Japan, China, Russia, France, Britain, the
Netherlands -- to name a few?
Ah they did it as a matter of business not a mere hobby :)

Keith
Daryl
2012-12-28 21:19:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Keith W
Post by Orval Fairbairn
Post by Bob Martin
Post by DGVREIMAN
The advantage citizens have over the government with their
semi-automatic weapons as opposed to the Government's machine guns
is there are millions more armed citizens in America than the
Government's military - this was the other reason our founding
fathers wanted Americans to possess guns. What foreign nation
would be stupid enough to invade the USA when it knew it was up
against millions of well armed Americans?
The USA is the only country whose hobby is invading other countries.
WRONG!! How about Germany, Japan, China, Russia, France, Britain, the
Netherlands -- to name a few?
Ah they did it as a matter of business not a mere hobby :)
Keith
As a business, you are there to make money. But the
Colonialization was one really expensive hobby.
--
http://tvmoviesforfree.com
for free movies and Nostalgic TV. Tons of Military shows and
programs.
Keith W
2012-12-28 22:31:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Daryl
Post by Keith W
Post by Orval Fairbairn
Post by Bob Martin
Post by DGVREIMAN
The advantage citizens have over the government with their
semi-automatic weapons as opposed to the Government's machine
guns is there are millions more armed citizens in America than
the Government's military - this was the other reason our
founding fathers wanted Americans to possess guns. What foreign
nation would be stupid enough to invade the USA when it knew it
was up against millions of well armed Americans?
The USA is the only country whose hobby is invading other
countries.
WRONG!! How about Germany, Japan, China, Russia, France, Britain,
the Netherlands -- to name a few?
Ah they did it as a matter of business not a mere hobby :)
Keith
As a business, you are there to make money. But the
Colonialization was one really expensive hobby.
In the case of the British Empire it was mostly established by
private enterprise and made pots of money.

You may recall that the initial American colonies were
established by the Virginia Company and Plymouth Company
both good old fashioned capitalist ventures in the form
of joint stock companies.

India was the fiefdom of another joint stock group,
the East India Company. The shares were owned by
wealthy investors, the government had no shares.
It had its own army and navy. It was the company not
the British Crown that supplied Clive with the army that
drove the French out. The Duke of Wellington learned his
trade commanding Company forces in India before
commanding troops of the British Army. It was the trading
operations of the East India Company in China that lead to
the first Opium War.

In Africa the proponents of Empire were men like Cecil
Rhodes whou founded the British South Africa Company
especially to gain control of the native lands in southern
Africa. He was a businessman not a government employee.

It was the mid 19th century before the Government decided
to get involved and it took the Indian mutiny to make it happen.

Americans like to think of themselves as arch capitalists
but compared to the Victorian entrepeneurs of Britain
they are wooly minded liberals :)

Keith
Jim Wilkins
2012-12-28 22:54:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Keith W
Americans like to think of themselves as arch capitalists
but compared to the Victorian entrepeneurs of Britain
they are wooly minded liberals :)
Keith
Oh, we know. They are the ones who set off Karl Marx and Charles
Dickens. Scrooge is our symbol of the ultimate bad boss too.
Andrew Chaplin
2012-12-29 14:45:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Keith W
Post by Daryl
As a business, you are there to make money. But the
Colonialization was one really expensive hobby.
In the case of the British Empire it was mostly established by
private enterprise and made pots of money.
You may recall that the initial American colonies were
established by the Virginia Company and Plymouth Company
both good old fashioned capitalist ventures in the form
of joint stock companies.
<snip>
Post by Keith W
It was the mid 19th century before the Government decided
to get involved and it took the Indian mutiny to make it happen.
Americans like to think of themselves as arch capitalists
but compared to the Victorian entrepeneurs of Britain
they are wooly minded liberals :)
The stage was set for the Victorians in the Stewart period when The
Company of Adventurers Trading into Hudson's Bay lauched the Great Fur
Opera.

That said, mercantilism and attendant colonialism never really paid off
unless you exploited the stuffin' out of the colonies. The Spanish made a
profit from it, but blew it on wars against Protestants in Europe and left
their colonies wrecks. The British companies made money from it, but, on
the whole, it cost GB and then the UK, usually as a result of private
companies' clashes with those of other states (the clashes with companies
of one's own state, as in the HBC versus the North West Co, could be dealt
with by the courts or containable violence).
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)
Andrew Swallow
2012-12-28 14:13:18 UTC
Permalink
On 25/12/2012 10:40, DGVREIMAN wrote:
{snip}>
Post by DGVREIMAN
Doug Says: Our (American) Founding Fathers wanted a Constitution that
guaranteed American citizens would have special rights far and above
those of Europeans. They realized that Governments, when they have
complete control, oppress their citizens. Ergo, the guns that Americans
are allowed to own must equal at least in part the guns the Government
can furnish its military - if not then the citizens could not overthrow
the Government if it became oppressive. I say this in a limited manner
as American citizens should not be able to own tanks, machine guns, etc.
. but at least semi-automatic weapons with 30 round clip magazines -
which is the law today, and is the law that has been upheld by the
Supreme Court.
Those weapons are out of date. Modern soldiers wear body armour, so
anti-soldier weapons need to be able to break the armour.

The use of Rocket Propelled grenades (RPG) by the Taliban is not
accidental, they are what works. Consequently these are the sort of
weapons the modern Militia members should be buying.

Andrew Swallow
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...