Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Gun Nut World
2 views
Skip to first unread message
John Manning
May 24, 2012, 11:49:12 AM5/24/12
to
Trust Me: You Believe in Gun Control
-- If you ask the typical hyper-political gun owner
(and I have … at Thanksgiving dinner), why it’s important
to own a gun, they’ll bark about the Constitution. Yes, the
Second Amendment: "The Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms
Shall Not Be Infringed!"
This of course is the slogan the National Rifle Association adopted
in the 1970's.
It was then that owning a gun became an absolute right
endowed by God and the Constitution. A blessing passed down
by our forefathers to obliterate game and protect our property.
The NRA was founded in 1870 and for its first hundred years
it was for gun control and didn't mention the Second Amendment
as their cause.
Adam Winkler points out in his delicious book, "Gun Fight,"
what we call the "wild west" had some of the strictest gun control
laws we"ve seen as a nation.
The shoot out at the OK Corral took place, after all,
because Wyatt Earp was trying to disarm the outlaw Cowboys
in accordance with a Tombstone ordinance.
The KKK was among other things, a gun control organization.
They were trying to keep guns out of the hands of newly freed
slaves ... but still gun control.
The part of the Second Amendment omitted from the NRA's slogan is:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a
free State..."
Yes, *WELL REGULATED* — it's in the Constitution!
Now, to some, guns are as sacred as scripture. If you ask,
again, this typical hyper-political gun owner why they need
to stockpile assault rifles, you will get an answer much like
Pat Flynn's, a recent candidate for a Senate seat in Nebraska.
"Really, we have our guns to protect ourselves against the
government, number one," Flynn said in a debate right before
the primary. "Hunting's number two. But protecting us against
our government is number one."
Remember Flynn was trying to land a job in the government
(he didn't win his party's nomination, by the way).
The idea is that we have to be just as armed as our government
in order to be safer or have more liberty (or something).
The U.S. government has unmanned drones armed with supersonic
laser-guided anti-armor Hellfire missiles, "bunker busters,"
and nuclear weapons.
Are far-right politicians saying we need civilians
to have shoulder-fired anti-aircraft missiles "for protection?"
Of course they’re not. They actually do want limits on ownership.
And if you ask the most vehement gun rights advocate why
Everyman Gun Owner shouldn't have nuclear weapons, I'd bet you'd
get the same answer as to why we don’t want every country to have
the capability: "Because they could get into the wrong hands."
So weapons-grade plutonium should be limited. But the
ever-handy semi-auto Glock pistol with a 30-round high-
capacity magazine is an absolute right?
A recent gun buyback drive in Los Angeles resulted in someone
turning in a rocket launcher. Comforting.
So we're not actually talking about limited vs. unlimited.
We are talking about degrees of weapon ownership.
Guns fall into the wrong hands all the time. More guns
and fewer requirements for ownership doesn't curb this.
George Zimmerman was the wrong hands. Zimmerman,
a Florida man now infamous for shooting an unarmed
black teenager at close range after a 911 operator told him
not to engage the alleged suspect and wait for police to arrive,
is now being defended by said hyper-political gun owners.
There's no reason a Neighborhood Watch captain should be
patrolling his block with a criminal record and a pistol. Zimmerman
was a catastrophe realized. Even in the wake of new evidence about
this case, the fact remains if Zimmerman didn't have a gun,
16-year-old Trayvon Martin would be alive.
The United States is number one in the world in civilian
gun ownership. And since we’re not last in gun violence (we're
the 14th highest in deaths — way higher in just injuries) it's safe
to assume that increasing the number of guns doesn't decrease
the number of gun deaths. Just like cutting taxes doesn't
increase revenue — making gun ownership unlimited doesn't make
us safer. It's a lie. A fairy tale of the gun lobby.
Completely unsupported by data or logic. A falsehood.
So unless you think all Americans should get Daisy Cutters
this Christmas — you believe in regulations as to who gets a
weapon, what kind and where they can have it.
Gun control laws are not tyranny — as the family of Trayvon Martin
can testify to — a de-regulated militia is.
http://crooksandliars.com/tina-dupuy/trust-me-you-believe-gun-control
Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
May 24, 2012, 12:00:16 PM5/24/12
to
Customs Officers regularly confiscate firearms that people attempt to
bring into the country (although it's known to be mostly American
citizens who weren't really trying to "sneak them into Canada" but
rather were simply routinely used to having a gun in their possession).
Permits and licensing are typically required, and the last time I read
up on the rules (well over a decade ago) there was special paperwork
that gun owners had to fill out in advance for transport which includes
the schedule, the primary route, and secondary alternative routes (in
case the primary route was unexpectedly blocked).
--
Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
"Ideas are more powerful than guns. We would not let our enemies have
guns, why should we let them have ideas?"
-- Joseph Stalin
John Manning
May 24, 2012, 12:23:29 PM5/24/12
to
Gun deaths per 100,000 population (for the year indicated):
Homicide Suicide Accident
USA (2001) 3.98 5.92 0.36
Italy (1997) 0.81 1.1 0.07
Switzerland (1998) 0.50 5.8 0.10
Canada (2002) 0.4 2.0 0.04
Finland (2003) 0.35 4.45 0.10
Australia (2001) 0.24 1.34 0.10
France (2001) 0.21 3.4 0.49
England/Wales (2002) 0.15 0.2 0.03
Scotland (2002) 0.06 0.2 0.02
Japan (2002) 0.02 0.04 0
Data taken from Cukier and Sidel (2006)
The Global Gun Epidemic.
Praeger Security International. Westport.
http://www.gun-control-network.org/GF01.htm
Mike Painter
May 24, 2012, 2:34:46 PM5/24/12
to
On 5/24/2012 8:49 AM, John Manning wrote:
>
> The part of the Second Amendment omitted from the NRA's slogan is:
> "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a
> free State..."
>
> Yes, *WELL REGULATED* — it's in the Constitution!
The intent of the people who formed the nation was to not have a (large)
>
> The part of the Second Amendment omitted from the NRA's slogan is:
> "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a
> free State..."
>
> Yes, *WELL REGULATED* — it's in the Constitution!
standing army but to rely on a militia in time of war.
It appeared to make sense as the civilian and military weapons of that
time were pretty much the same.
Jump forward to the war of 1812. A 20,000 man American Militia was
soundly defeated by a 4000 man British military group, and Canada
remained Canada.
West Point was one of the results and a few years later a small American
army fought it's way to Mexico city against large odds.
Not that will change any minds.
My experience has been that only having a gun shoved into your face
makes people realize how dangerous they are.
I used to argue with an acquaintance about it.
One day he was traveling on a back county owned road and was stopped at
gunpoint by someone who claimed he owned the road. The guy shot the
front tires out of the car and held him at gun point until the law arrived.
There were no more arguments after that.
"The study estimated that people with a gun were 4.5 times more likely
to be shot in an assault than those not possessing a gun."
http://tinyurl.com/yc3zfon
P.N.
May 24, 2012, 5:09:38 PM5/24/12
to
"John Manning" <jrob...@terra.com.br> skrev i en meddelelse
news:u6ydnU_MypXixSPS...@giganews.com...
>
>
> Trust Me: You Believe in Gun Control
>
In EU we do not have these problems thank God.
>
> Trust Me: You Believe in Gun Control
>
WangoTango
May 24, 2012, 5:22:35 PM5/24/12
to
In article <u6ydnU_MypXixSPS...@giganews.com>,
jrob...@terra.com.br says...
> Yes, *WELL REGULATED* =3F it's in the Constitution!
>
The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and
remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of
something being in proper working order. Something that was well-
regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected.
Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not
the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to
render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.
The hyperbole not withstanding, a gun is the best weapon to handle a
threat with minimal chance of collateral damage. In other words you can
kill the bad guy and not blow up the entire city. All this crap about
hand grenades and atom bombs that get bandied about is so childish to be
funny, but is actually thrown about as if it were a valid viewpoint if
you take the 2nd Amendment to its' logical conclusion. The difference
is in the selectivity of the weapon to the threat. Some of us like ALL
of the Constitution, not just the parts that we don't find scary.
jrob...@terra.com.br says...
> Yes, *WELL REGULATED* =3F it's in the Constitution!
>
The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and
remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of
something being in proper working order. Something that was well-
regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected.
Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not
the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to
render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.
The hyperbole not withstanding, a gun is the best weapon to handle a
threat with minimal chance of collateral damage. In other words you can
kill the bad guy and not blow up the entire city. All this crap about
hand grenades and atom bombs that get bandied about is so childish to be
funny, but is actually thrown about as if it were a valid viewpoint if
you take the 2nd Amendment to its' logical conclusion. The difference
is in the selectivity of the weapon to the threat. Some of us like ALL
of the Constitution, not just the parts that we don't find scary.
Rockinghorse Winner
May 24, 2012, 5:21:56 PM5/24/12
to
* It may have been the liquor talking, but
> to own a gun, they?ll bark about the Constitution. Yes, the
> the 14th highest in deaths ? way higher in just injuries) it's safe
> can testify to ? a de-regulated militia is.
>
> http://crooksandliars.com/tina-dupuy/trust-me-you-believe-gun-control
If you don't like guns, don't buy one.
Terry
--
"For I would ride with you upon the wind, |/
Run on the top of the dishevelled tide, |/ Gentoo Linux
And dance upon the mountains like a flame." |/
-Yeats |/
John Manning <jrob...@terra.com.br> wrote:
>
>
> Trust Me: You Believe in Gun Control
>
>
> -- If you ask the typical hyper-political gun owner
> (and I have ? at Thanksgiving dinner), why it?s important
>
>
> Trust Me: You Believe in Gun Control
>
>
> -- If you ask the typical hyper-political gun owner
> to own a gun, they?ll bark about the Constitution. Yes, the
> Second Amendment: "The Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms
> Shall Not Be Infringed!"
>
> This of course is the slogan the National Rifle Association adopted
> in the 1970's.
>
> It was then that owning a gun became an absolute right
> endowed by God and the Constitution. A blessing passed down
> by our forefathers to obliterate game and protect our property.
>
> The NRA was founded in 1870 and for its first hundred years
> it was for gun control and didn't mention the Second Amendment
> as their cause.
>
> Adam Winkler points out in his delicious book, "Gun Fight,"
> what we call the "wild west" had some of the strictest gun control
> laws we"ve seen as a nation.
>
> The shoot out at the OK Corral took place, after all,
> because Wyatt Earp was trying to disarm the outlaw Cowboys
> in accordance with a Tombstone ordinance.
>
> The KKK was among other things, a gun control organization.
> They were trying to keep guns out of the hands of newly freed
> slaves ... but still gun control.
>
> The part of the Second Amendment omitted from the NRA's slogan is:
> "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a
> free State..."
>
> Yes, *WELL REGULATED* ? it's in the Constitution!
> Shall Not Be Infringed!"
>
> This of course is the slogan the National Rifle Association adopted
> in the 1970's.
>
> It was then that owning a gun became an absolute right
> endowed by God and the Constitution. A blessing passed down
> by our forefathers to obliterate game and protect our property.
>
> The NRA was founded in 1870 and for its first hundred years
> it was for gun control and didn't mention the Second Amendment
> as their cause.
>
> Adam Winkler points out in his delicious book, "Gun Fight,"
> what we call the "wild west" had some of the strictest gun control
> laws we"ve seen as a nation.
>
> The shoot out at the OK Corral took place, after all,
> because Wyatt Earp was trying to disarm the outlaw Cowboys
> in accordance with a Tombstone ordinance.
>
> The KKK was among other things, a gun control organization.
> They were trying to keep guns out of the hands of newly freed
> slaves ... but still gun control.
>
> The part of the Second Amendment omitted from the NRA's slogan is:
> "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a
> free State..."
>
>
> Now, to some, guns are as sacred as scripture. If you ask,
> again, this typical hyper-political gun owner why they need
> to stockpile assault rifles, you will get an answer much like
> Pat Flynn's, a recent candidate for a Senate seat in Nebraska.
> "Really, we have our guns to protect ourselves against the
> government, number one," Flynn said in a debate right before
> the primary. "Hunting's number two. But protecting us against
> our government is number one."
>
> Remember Flynn was trying to land a job in the government
> (he didn't win his party's nomination, by the way).
>
> The idea is that we have to be just as armed as our government
> in order to be safer or have more liberty (or something).
>
> The U.S. government has unmanned drones armed with supersonic
> laser-guided anti-armor Hellfire missiles, "bunker busters,"
> and nuclear weapons.
>
> Are far-right politicians saying we need civilians
> to have shoulder-fired anti-aircraft missiles "for protection?"
> Of course they?re not. They actually do want limits on ownership.
> Now, to some, guns are as sacred as scripture. If you ask,
> again, this typical hyper-political gun owner why they need
> to stockpile assault rifles, you will get an answer much like
> Pat Flynn's, a recent candidate for a Senate seat in Nebraska.
> "Really, we have our guns to protect ourselves against the
> government, number one," Flynn said in a debate right before
> the primary. "Hunting's number two. But protecting us against
> our government is number one."
>
> Remember Flynn was trying to land a job in the government
> (he didn't win his party's nomination, by the way).
>
> The idea is that we have to be just as armed as our government
> in order to be safer or have more liberty (or something).
>
> The U.S. government has unmanned drones armed with supersonic
> laser-guided anti-armor Hellfire missiles, "bunker busters,"
> and nuclear weapons.
>
> Are far-right politicians saying we need civilians
> to have shoulder-fired anti-aircraft missiles "for protection?"
>
> And if you ask the most vehement gun rights advocate why
> Everyman Gun Owner shouldn't have nuclear weapons, I'd bet you'd
> get the same answer as to why we don?t want every country to have
> And if you ask the most vehement gun rights advocate why
> Everyman Gun Owner shouldn't have nuclear weapons, I'd bet you'd
> the capability: "Because they could get into the wrong hands."
>
> So weapons-grade plutonium should be limited. But the
> ever-handy semi-auto Glock pistol with a 30-round high-
> capacity magazine is an absolute right?
>
> A recent gun buyback drive in Los Angeles resulted in someone
> turning in a rocket launcher. Comforting.
>
> So we're not actually talking about limited vs. unlimited.
> We are talking about degrees of weapon ownership.
>
> Guns fall into the wrong hands all the time. More guns
> and fewer requirements for ownership doesn't curb this.
>
> George Zimmerman was the wrong hands. Zimmerman,
> a Florida man now infamous for shooting an unarmed
> black teenager at close range after a 911 operator told him
> not to engage the alleged suspect and wait for police to arrive,
> is now being defended by said hyper-political gun owners.
>
> There's no reason a Neighborhood Watch captain should be
> patrolling his block with a criminal record and a pistol. Zimmerman
> was a catastrophe realized. Even in the wake of new evidence about
> this case, the fact remains if Zimmerman didn't have a gun,
> 16-year-old Trayvon Martin would be alive.
>
> The United States is number one in the world in civilian
> gun ownership. And since we?re not last in gun violence (we're
>
> So weapons-grade plutonium should be limited. But the
> ever-handy semi-auto Glock pistol with a 30-round high-
> capacity magazine is an absolute right?
>
> A recent gun buyback drive in Los Angeles resulted in someone
> turning in a rocket launcher. Comforting.
>
> So we're not actually talking about limited vs. unlimited.
> We are talking about degrees of weapon ownership.
>
> Guns fall into the wrong hands all the time. More guns
> and fewer requirements for ownership doesn't curb this.
>
> George Zimmerman was the wrong hands. Zimmerman,
> a Florida man now infamous for shooting an unarmed
> black teenager at close range after a 911 operator told him
> not to engage the alleged suspect and wait for police to arrive,
> is now being defended by said hyper-political gun owners.
>
> There's no reason a Neighborhood Watch captain should be
> patrolling his block with a criminal record and a pistol. Zimmerman
> was a catastrophe realized. Even in the wake of new evidence about
> this case, the fact remains if Zimmerman didn't have a gun,
> 16-year-old Trayvon Martin would be alive.
>
> The United States is number one in the world in civilian
> the 14th highest in deaths ? way higher in just injuries) it's safe
> to assume that increasing the number of guns doesn't decrease
> the number of gun deaths. Just like cutting taxes doesn't
> increase revenue ? making gun ownership unlimited doesn't make
> the number of gun deaths. Just like cutting taxes doesn't
> us safer. It's a lie. A fairy tale of the gun lobby.
> Completely unsupported by data or logic. A falsehood.
>
> So unless you think all Americans should get Daisy Cutters
> this Christmas ? you believe in regulations as to who gets a
> Completely unsupported by data or logic. A falsehood.
>
> So unless you think all Americans should get Daisy Cutters
> weapon, what kind and where they can have it.
>
> Gun control laws are not tyranny ? as the family of Trayvon Martin
>
> can testify to ? a de-regulated militia is.
>
> http://crooksandliars.com/tina-dupuy/trust-me-you-believe-gun-control
If you don't like guns, don't buy one.
Terry
--
"For I would ride with you upon the wind, |/
Run on the top of the dishevelled tide, |/ Gentoo Linux
And dance upon the mountains like a flame." |/
-Yeats |/
Stewart
May 24, 2012, 6:16:11 PM5/24/12
to
"John Manning" <jrob...@terra.com.br> wrote in message
news:RKKdndy3PbUY_SPS...@giganews.com...
> On 5/24/2012 1:00 PM, Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist
> goddess wrote:
>> On Thu, 24 May 2012 12:49:12 -0300
>> John Manning<jrob...@terra.com.br> wrote:
>>
>>> Trust Me: You Believe in Gun Control
>>>
>>> -- If you ask the typical hyper-political gun owner
>>> (and I have . at Thanksgiving dinner), why it's important
> goddess wrote:
>> On Thu, 24 May 2012 12:49:12 -0300
>> John Manning<jrob...@terra.com.br> wrote:
>>
>>> Trust Me: You Believe in Gun Control
>>>
>>> -- If you ask the typical hyper-political gun owner
>>> to own a gun, they'll bark about the Constitution. Yes, the
>>> Second Amendment: "The Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms
>>> Shall Not Be Infringed!"
>>>
>>> This of course is the slogan the National Rifle Association
>>> adopted
>>> in the 1970's.
>>>
>>> It was then that owning a gun became an absolute right
>>> endowed by God and the Constitution. A blessing passed down
>>> by our forefathers to obliterate game and protect our property.
>>>
>>> The NRA was founded in 1870 and for its first hundred years
>>> it was for gun control and didn't mention the Second Amendment
>>> as their cause.
>>>
>>> Adam Winkler points out in his delicious book, "Gun Fight,"
>>> what we call the "wild west" had some of the strictest gun control
>>> laws we"ve seen as a nation.
>>>
>>> The shoot out at the OK Corral took place, after all,
>>> because Wyatt Earp was trying to disarm the outlaw Cowboys
>>> in accordance with a Tombstone ordinance.
>>>
>>> The KKK was among other things, a gun control organization.
>>> They were trying to keep guns out of the hands of newly freed
>>> slaves ... but still gun control.
>>>
>>> The part of the Second Amendment omitted from the NRA's slogan is:
>>> "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a
>>> free State..."
>>>
>>> Yes, *WELL REGULATED* - it's in the Constitution!
>>> Second Amendment: "The Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms
>>> Shall Not Be Infringed!"
>>>
>>> This of course is the slogan the National Rifle Association
>>> adopted
>>> in the 1970's.
>>>
>>> It was then that owning a gun became an absolute right
>>> endowed by God and the Constitution. A blessing passed down
>>> by our forefathers to obliterate game and protect our property.
>>>
>>> The NRA was founded in 1870 and for its first hundred years
>>> it was for gun control and didn't mention the Second Amendment
>>> as their cause.
>>>
>>> Adam Winkler points out in his delicious book, "Gun Fight,"
>>> what we call the "wild west" had some of the strictest gun control
>>> laws we"ve seen as a nation.
>>>
>>> The shoot out at the OK Corral took place, after all,
>>> because Wyatt Earp was trying to disarm the outlaw Cowboys
>>> in accordance with a Tombstone ordinance.
>>>
>>> The KKK was among other things, a gun control organization.
>>> They were trying to keep guns out of the hands of newly freed
>>> slaves ... but still gun control.
>>>
>>> The part of the Second Amendment omitted from the NRA's slogan is:
>>> "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a
>>> free State..."
>>>
>>> safe
>>> to assume that increasing the number of guns doesn't decrease
>>> the number of gun deaths. Just like cutting taxes doesn't
>>> increase revenue - making gun ownership unlimited doesn't make
>>> to assume that increasing the number of guns doesn't decrease
>>> the number of gun deaths. Just like cutting taxes doesn't
>>> us safer. It's a lie. A fairy tale of the gun lobby.
>>> Completely unsupported by data or logic. A falsehood.
>>>
>>> So unless you think all Americans should get Daisy Cutters
>>> this Christmas - you believe in regulations as to who gets a
>>> Completely unsupported by data or logic. A falsehood.
>>>
>>> So unless you think all Americans should get Daisy Cutters
>>> weapon, what kind and where they can have it.
>>>
>>> Gun control laws are not tyranny - as the family of Trayvon Martin
>>>
>>> can testify to - a de-regulated militia is.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate
>
>
>
>
Mike Lovell
May 24, 2012, 6:17:24 PM5/24/12
to
On 2012-05-24, Rockinghorse Winner <badass....@gmx.com> wrote:
>> Gun control laws are not tyranny ? as the family of Trayvon Martin
>> can testify to ? a de-regulated militia is.
>>
>> http://crooksandliars.com/tina-dupuy/trust-me-you-believe-gun-control
>
> If you don't like guns, don't buy one.
That doesn't stop him posting off-topic and trying to force his opinions
>> Gun control laws are not tyranny ? as the family of Trayvon Martin
>> can testify to ? a de-regulated militia is.
>>
>> http://crooksandliars.com/tina-dupuy/trust-me-you-believe-gun-control
>
> If you don't like guns, don't buy one.
on others.
--
Jews, Christians & Muslims
The content of your posts will show how much you
really believe God is looking over your shoulder
Logan Sacket
May 24, 2012, 6:37:57 PM5/24/12
to
There are many more factors involved.
Here is a link from your page above.
http://www.gun-control-network.org/GF10.htm
Bert
May 24, 2012, 7:14:59 PM5/24/12
to
In news:u6ydnU_MypXixSPS...@giganews.com John Manning
<jrob...@terra.com.br> wrote:
> http://crooksandliars
Crooks and liars?
Your kind of people, certainly.
--
be...@iphouse.com St. Paul, MN
<jrob...@terra.com.br> wrote:
> http://crooksandliars
Crooks and liars?
Your kind of people, certainly.
--
be...@iphouse.com St. Paul, MN
John Manning
May 24, 2012, 8:21:03 PM5/24/12
to
But EVERY country that's listed in that top graph is ALSO far below
the USA in gun death rates in on the Wikipedia graph - which goes
by data from *other* years.
The Wikipedia graph essentially says exactly the same thing...
that the USA has much higher "Gun deaths per 100,000 population"
than those same countries listed in the top graph.
In fact, on the Wikipedia graph - of the 66 countries listed -
there are only 12 countries that have higher gun death rates than
the USA. And most of them are third world countries.
John Manning
May 24, 2012, 8:28:19 PM5/24/12
to
On 5/24/2012 8:14 PM, Bert wrote:
> In news:u6ydnU_MypXixSPS...@giganews.com John Manning
> <jrob...@terra.com.br> wrote:
>
>> http://crooksandliars
>
> Crooks and liars?
>
> Your kind of people, certainly.
>
'Crooks and Liars' refers to the right wingers.
> In news:u6ydnU_MypXixSPS...@giganews.com John Manning
> <jrob...@terra.com.br> wrote:
>
>> http://crooksandliars
>
> Crooks and liars?
>
> Your kind of people, certainly.
>
Stewart
May 24, 2012, 9:00:22 PM5/24/12
to
news:QOidncxZLPrsTSPS...@giganews.com...
And some of therm conflict with the data you have shown, by quite a
large percentage regardless of the year..
>
>
>
large percentage regardless of the year..
>
>
>
thomas p.
May 25, 2012, 2:22:19 AM5/25/12
to
"WangoTango" <Asga...@mindspring.com> skrev i meddelelsen
news:MPG.2a2870a4b...@news.east.earthlink.net...
Something that was well-
> regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected.
> Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not
> the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to
> render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.
>
> The hyperbole not withstanding, a gun is the best weapon to handle a
> threat with minimal chance of collateral damage. In other words you can
> kill the bad guy and not blow up the entire city. All this crap about
> hand grenades and atom bombs that get bandied about is so childish to be
> funny, but is actually thrown about as if it were a valid viewpoint if
> you take the 2nd Amendment to its' logical conclusion. The difference
> is in the selectivity of the weapon to the threat. Some of us like ALL
> of the Constitution, not just the parts that we don't find scary.
>
>
>
Yet you reject the perfectly logical conclusion that the phrase, as
interpreted by you, does indeed permit the possession of any kind of weapon.
After all it says nothing about "selectivity".
--
thomas p
Ignorance is the mother of devotion.
David Hume
news:MPG.2a2870a4b...@news.east.earthlink.net...
> In article <u6ydnU_MypXixSPS...@giganews.com>,
> jrob...@terra.com.br says...
>> Yes, *WELL REGULATED* =3F it's in the Constitution!
>>
> The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and
> remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of
> something being in proper working order.
The phrase refers directly to a militia.
> jrob...@terra.com.br says...
>> Yes, *WELL REGULATED* =3F it's in the Constitution!
>>
> The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and
> remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of
> something being in proper working order.
Something that was well-
> regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected.
> Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not
> the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to
> render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.
>
> The hyperbole not withstanding, a gun is the best weapon to handle a
> threat with minimal chance of collateral damage. In other words you can
> kill the bad guy and not blow up the entire city. All this crap about
> hand grenades and atom bombs that get bandied about is so childish to be
> funny, but is actually thrown about as if it were a valid viewpoint if
> you take the 2nd Amendment to its' logical conclusion. The difference
> is in the selectivity of the weapon to the threat. Some of us like ALL
> of the Constitution, not just the parts that we don't find scary.
>
>
>
interpreted by you, does indeed permit the possession of any kind of weapon.
After all it says nothing about "selectivity".
--
thomas p
Ignorance is the mother of devotion.
David Hume
Jos Boersema
May 25, 2012, 5:08:13 AM5/25/12
to
Op 2012-05-24, John Manning schreef <jrob...@terra.com.br>:
The Government is the wrong hands, especially when it becomes a war
mongering Imperial tyranny infested with crime at all levels particularly
the top.
If you live in the U$A: get your survival stuff: water & food especially.
I prefer to buffer it, always eat the oldest so you don't waste anything.
You can buffer things you normally eat a lot off, maybe pasta or flour
if you make your own bread (as I do).
People are lucky in the U$A that they have legal gun ownership. Get
unmarked and unregistered guns and ammunition. Train in small fireteams,
specifically for actions against death squads in your area, and perhaps
for assaults on prisons and other detention/torture facilities in your
area. Train with some friends so you don't get infiltrated, keep it
small I'd say, to corporal level. Really small, so really hard to
infiltrate. You may not want to network just yet, networks get infiltrated.
Decide you are ready to die for the glory of taking the life of one
tyrannical enemy. The people have strength in numbers.
For a lot about how to organize a well self-regulated militia:
http://www.law4.org/post/004/phalanx/links_scheme5.html
Those are plans I layed, to deal with the threat of tyranny in any nation,
at any time. The militia in this system does not defend the whole
Constitution. If it did so you risk too much debate/dissent. You don't
need schisms during war, you need unity. Hence it only fights for 2
rights: the freedom to assemble, and the freedom of (political) speech.
There is also something to protect against rogue outfits: this so-called
'Phalanx of Freedom,' is inactive until disciplined at the brigade size.
Only from Brigade onward under a Brigade General can it become active.
To protect against infiltration, it has a special form of internal
voting, which leads to a central council for that 'fist.' A fist can
have any size up to an army. 1 1/2 battallion can be a fist, but so
could be a whole corps, or just a half platoon. It is a group who decided
to fight together. Each fist has its own internal democracy, which
quickly means it has a 'central council.' The central council appoints
the top commanders of that fist. For a 1 1/2 battallion sized fist it
would appoint a Colonel for example. For a corps sized fist it would
appoint a 3 star general. It can then quickly re-appoint if the people
in the fist are not satisfied with top command, especially if they
suspect infiltration. You do want to control your top commanders, that
is where 'the fish starts to rot,' as we say: at the head. Take that
serious.
In real life what does this mean ? If there had been this Phalanx of
Freedom effort in the U$A right now, the case of the 'occupy wallstreet'
(trust me I am *no* fan of them) activists who where disappeared for
quite a few hours and kept shackled prematurely for the NATO war council
would be on the desk of the various Phalanx of Freedom fists. Since this
is new ground for tyranny in the U$A, the case might be on the desk
and debated throughout the Empire of the U$A by Phalanx of Freedom people.
At some point a decision wil have to be made as to what the response if
any of the Phalanx of Freedom is going to be. I can not speculate as to
what that should be in this case, the Phalanx should already be there
and decide that on their own.
But I can say wat it will ultimately mean: it will mean killing known
death-squad members, and potentially engaging the entire police force
of the U$A if they go too far with wanton murder and torture; it may
also mean to take rogue elements of the U$A military down by force.
Ideally we can first split the police and military in a loyal and
disloyal part, before we defeat the disloyals by murderous bloody combat
(if need be). Notice how if you had a Phalanx ready, the tyrants in
Government would be shacking on their legs and not dare to engage in
tyranny. Sadly it's not there as much as it could be, but hopefully that
can still change.
--
http://www.law4.org Communism, anarchy and capitalism are insufficient.
>> Why & how: Democratic and Sovereign nations, democratic companies, <<
>> natural resource distribution and socialized investment credit. <<
System for society provided (Constitution etc.) + how to get it done (+ more).
> Trust Me: You Believe in Gun Control
[...]
The Government is the wrong hands, especially when it becomes a war
mongering Imperial tyranny infested with crime at all levels particularly
the top.
If you live in the U$A: get your survival stuff: water & food especially.
I prefer to buffer it, always eat the oldest so you don't waste anything.
You can buffer things you normally eat a lot off, maybe pasta or flour
if you make your own bread (as I do).
People are lucky in the U$A that they have legal gun ownership. Get
unmarked and unregistered guns and ammunition. Train in small fireteams,
specifically for actions against death squads in your area, and perhaps
for assaults on prisons and other detention/torture facilities in your
area. Train with some friends so you don't get infiltrated, keep it
small I'd say, to corporal level. Really small, so really hard to
infiltrate. You may not want to network just yet, networks get infiltrated.
Decide you are ready to die for the glory of taking the life of one
tyrannical enemy. The people have strength in numbers.
For a lot about how to organize a well self-regulated militia:
http://www.law4.org/post/004/phalanx/links_scheme5.html
Those are plans I layed, to deal with the threat of tyranny in any nation,
at any time. The militia in this system does not defend the whole
Constitution. If it did so you risk too much debate/dissent. You don't
need schisms during war, you need unity. Hence it only fights for 2
rights: the freedom to assemble, and the freedom of (political) speech.
There is also something to protect against rogue outfits: this so-called
'Phalanx of Freedom,' is inactive until disciplined at the brigade size.
Only from Brigade onward under a Brigade General can it become active.
To protect against infiltration, it has a special form of internal
voting, which leads to a central council for that 'fist.' A fist can
have any size up to an army. 1 1/2 battallion can be a fist, but so
could be a whole corps, or just a half platoon. It is a group who decided
to fight together. Each fist has its own internal democracy, which
quickly means it has a 'central council.' The central council appoints
the top commanders of that fist. For a 1 1/2 battallion sized fist it
would appoint a Colonel for example. For a corps sized fist it would
appoint a 3 star general. It can then quickly re-appoint if the people
in the fist are not satisfied with top command, especially if they
suspect infiltration. You do want to control your top commanders, that
is where 'the fish starts to rot,' as we say: at the head. Take that
serious.
In real life what does this mean ? If there had been this Phalanx of
Freedom effort in the U$A right now, the case of the 'occupy wallstreet'
(trust me I am *no* fan of them) activists who where disappeared for
quite a few hours and kept shackled prematurely for the NATO war council
would be on the desk of the various Phalanx of Freedom fists. Since this
is new ground for tyranny in the U$A, the case might be on the desk
and debated throughout the Empire of the U$A by Phalanx of Freedom people.
At some point a decision wil have to be made as to what the response if
any of the Phalanx of Freedom is going to be. I can not speculate as to
what that should be in this case, the Phalanx should already be there
and decide that on their own.
But I can say wat it will ultimately mean: it will mean killing known
death-squad members, and potentially engaging the entire police force
of the U$A if they go too far with wanton murder and torture; it may
also mean to take rogue elements of the U$A military down by force.
Ideally we can first split the police and military in a loyal and
disloyal part, before we defeat the disloyals by murderous bloody combat
(if need be). Notice how if you had a Phalanx ready, the tyrants in
Government would be shacking on their legs and not dare to engage in
tyranny. Sadly it's not there as much as it could be, but hopefully that
can still change.
--
http://www.law4.org Communism, anarchy and capitalism are insufficient.
>> Why & how: Democratic and Sovereign nations, democratic companies, <<
>> natural resource distribution and socialized investment credit. <<
System for society provided (Constitution etc.) + how to get it done (+ more).
John Manning
May 25, 2012, 9:36:52 AM5/25/12
to
countries in the top graph. Show me data that shows otherwise.
WangoTango
May 25, 2012, 10:46:34 AM5/25/12
to
In article <RKKdndy3PbUY_SPS...@giganews.com>,
jrob...@terra.com.br says...
> >> to own a gun, theyâ€=3Fll bark about the Constitution. Yes, the
> >> the 14th highest in deaths â€=3F way higher in just injuries) it's safe
> >> can testify to â€=3F a de-regulated militia is.
As if the use/misuse of a right should somehow limit its' availability
to the people.
jrob...@terra.com.br says...
> On 5/24/2012 1:00 PM, Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess wrote:
> > On Thu, 24 May 2012 12:49:12 -0300
> > John Manning<jrob...@terra.com.br> wrote:
> >
> >> Trust Me: You Believe in Gun Control
> >>
> >> -- If you ask the typical hyper-political gun owner
> >> (and I have â€=3F at Thanksgiving dinner), why itâ€=3Fs important
> > On Thu, 24 May 2012 12:49:12 -0300
> > John Manning<jrob...@terra.com.br> wrote:
> >
> >> Trust Me: You Believe in Gun Control
> >>
> >> -- If you ask the typical hyper-political gun owner
> >> to own a gun, theyâ€=3Fll bark about the Constitution. Yes, the
> >> Second Amendment: "The Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms
> >> Shall Not Be Infringed!"
> >>
> >> This of course is the slogan the National Rifle Association adopted
> >> in the 1970's.
> >>
> >> It was then that owning a gun became an absolute right
> >> endowed by God and the Constitution. A blessing passed down
> >> by our forefathers to obliterate game and protect our property.
> >>
> >> The NRA was founded in 1870 and for its first hundred years
> >> it was for gun control and didn't mention the Second Amendment
> >> as their cause.
> >>
> >> Adam Winkler points out in his delicious book, "Gun Fight,"
> >> what we call the "wild west" had some of the strictest gun control
> >> laws we"ve seen as a nation.
> >>
> >> The shoot out at the OK Corral took place, after all,
> >> because Wyatt Earp was trying to disarm the outlaw Cowboys
> >> in accordance with a Tombstone ordinance.
> >>
> >> The KKK was among other things, a gun control organization.
> >> They were trying to keep guns out of the hands of newly freed
> >> slaves ... but still gun control.
> >>
> >> The part of the Second Amendment omitted from the NRA's slogan is:
> >> "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a
> >> free State..."
> >>
> >> Yes, *WELL REGULATED* â€=3F it's in the Constitution!
> >> Shall Not Be Infringed!"
> >>
> >> This of course is the slogan the National Rifle Association adopted
> >> in the 1970's.
> >>
> >> It was then that owning a gun became an absolute right
> >> endowed by God and the Constitution. A blessing passed down
> >> by our forefathers to obliterate game and protect our property.
> >>
> >> The NRA was founded in 1870 and for its first hundred years
> >> it was for gun control and didn't mention the Second Amendment
> >> as their cause.
> >>
> >> Adam Winkler points out in his delicious book, "Gun Fight,"
> >> what we call the "wild west" had some of the strictest gun control
> >> laws we"ve seen as a nation.
> >>
> >> The shoot out at the OK Corral took place, after all,
> >> because Wyatt Earp was trying to disarm the outlaw Cowboys
> >> in accordance with a Tombstone ordinance.
> >>
> >> The KKK was among other things, a gun control organization.
> >> They were trying to keep guns out of the hands of newly freed
> >> slaves ... but still gun control.
> >>
> >> The part of the Second Amendment omitted from the NRA's slogan is:
> >> "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a
> >> free State..."
> >>
> >>
> >> Now, to some, guns are as sacred as scripture. If you ask,
> >> again, this typical hyper-political gun owner why they need
> >> to stockpile assault rifles, you will get an answer much like
> >> Pat Flynn's, a recent candidate for a Senate seat in Nebraska.
> >> "Really, we have our guns to protect ourselves against the
> >> government, number one," Flynn said in a debate right before
> >> the primary. "Hunting's number two. But protecting us against
> >> our government is number one."
> >>
> >> Remember Flynn was trying to land a job in the government
> >> (he didn't win his party's nomination, by the way).
> >>
> >> The idea is that we have to be just as armed as our government
> >> in order to be safer or have more liberty (or something).
> >>
> >> The U.S. government has unmanned drones armed with supersonic
> >> laser-guided anti-armor Hellfire missiles, "bunker busters,"
> >> and nuclear weapons.
> >>
> >> Are far-right politicians saying we need civilians
> >> to have shoulder-fired anti-aircraft missiles "for protection?"
> >> Of course theyâ€=3Fre not. They actually do want limits on ownership.
> >> Now, to some, guns are as sacred as scripture. If you ask,
> >> again, this typical hyper-political gun owner why they need
> >> to stockpile assault rifles, you will get an answer much like
> >> Pat Flynn's, a recent candidate for a Senate seat in Nebraska.
> >> "Really, we have our guns to protect ourselves against the
> >> government, number one," Flynn said in a debate right before
> >> the primary. "Hunting's number two. But protecting us against
> >> our government is number one."
> >>
> >> Remember Flynn was trying to land a job in the government
> >> (he didn't win his party's nomination, by the way).
> >>
> >> The idea is that we have to be just as armed as our government
> >> in order to be safer or have more liberty (or something).
> >>
> >> The U.S. government has unmanned drones armed with supersonic
> >> laser-guided anti-armor Hellfire missiles, "bunker busters,"
> >> and nuclear weapons.
> >>
> >> Are far-right politicians saying we need civilians
> >> to have shoulder-fired anti-aircraft missiles "for protection?"
> >>
> >> And if you ask the most vehement gun rights advocate why
> >> Everyman Gun Owner shouldn't have nuclear weapons, I'd bet you'd
> >> get the same answer as to why we donâ€=3Ft want every country to have
> >> And if you ask the most vehement gun rights advocate why
> >> Everyman Gun Owner shouldn't have nuclear weapons, I'd bet you'd
> >> the capability: "Because they could get into the wrong hands."
> >>
> >> So weapons-grade plutonium should be limited. But the
> >> ever-handy semi-auto Glock pistol with a 30-round high-
> >> capacity magazine is an absolute right?
> >>
> >> A recent gun buyback drive in Los Angeles resulted in someone
> >> turning in a rocket launcher. Comforting.
> >>
> >> So we're not actually talking about limited vs. unlimited.
> >> We are talking about degrees of weapon ownership.
> >>
> >> Guns fall into the wrong hands all the time. More guns
> >> and fewer requirements for ownership doesn't curb this.
> >>
> >> George Zimmerman was the wrong hands. Zimmerman,
> >> a Florida man now infamous for shooting an unarmed
> >> black teenager at close range after a 911 operator told him
> >> not to engage the alleged suspect and wait for police to arrive,
> >> is now being defended by said hyper-political gun owners.
> >>
> >> There's no reason a Neighborhood Watch captain should be
> >> patrolling his block with a criminal record and a pistol. Zimmerman
> >> was a catastrophe realized. Even in the wake of new evidence about
> >> this case, the fact remains if Zimmerman didn't have a gun,
> >> 16-year-old Trayvon Martin would be alive.
> >>
> >> The United States is number one in the world in civilian
> >> gun ownership. And since weâ€=3Fre not last in gun violence (we're
> >>
> >> So weapons-grade plutonium should be limited. But the
> >> ever-handy semi-auto Glock pistol with a 30-round high-
> >> capacity magazine is an absolute right?
> >>
> >> A recent gun buyback drive in Los Angeles resulted in someone
> >> turning in a rocket launcher. Comforting.
> >>
> >> So we're not actually talking about limited vs. unlimited.
> >> We are talking about degrees of weapon ownership.
> >>
> >> Guns fall into the wrong hands all the time. More guns
> >> and fewer requirements for ownership doesn't curb this.
> >>
> >> George Zimmerman was the wrong hands. Zimmerman,
> >> a Florida man now infamous for shooting an unarmed
> >> black teenager at close range after a 911 operator told him
> >> not to engage the alleged suspect and wait for police to arrive,
> >> is now being defended by said hyper-political gun owners.
> >>
> >> There's no reason a Neighborhood Watch captain should be
> >> patrolling his block with a criminal record and a pistol. Zimmerman
> >> was a catastrophe realized. Even in the wake of new evidence about
> >> this case, the fact remains if Zimmerman didn't have a gun,
> >> 16-year-old Trayvon Martin would be alive.
> >>
> >> The United States is number one in the world in civilian
> >> the 14th highest in deaths â€=3F way higher in just injuries) it's safe
> >> to assume that increasing the number of guns doesn't decrease
> >> the number of gun deaths. Just like cutting taxes doesn't
> >> increase revenue â€=3F making gun ownership unlimited doesn't make
> >> the number of gun deaths. Just like cutting taxes doesn't
> >> us safer. It's a lie. A fairy tale of the gun lobby.
> >> Completely unsupported by data or logic. A falsehood.
> >>
> >> So unless you think all Americans should get Daisy Cutters
> >> this Christmas â€=3F you believe in regulations as to who gets a
> >> Completely unsupported by data or logic. A falsehood.
> >>
> >> So unless you think all Americans should get Daisy Cutters
> >> weapon, what kind and where they can have it.
> >>
> >> Gun control laws are not tyranny â€=3F as the family of Trayvon Martin
> >>
> >> can testify to â€=3F a de-regulated militia is.
to the people.
WangoTango
May 25, 2012, 10:58:25 AM5/25/12
to
In article <4fbf2517$0$302$edfa...@dtext01.news.tele.dk>,
gud...@yahoo.com says...
No, you apply a silly conclusion to a simple paragraph.
gud...@yahoo.com says...
plainolamerican
May 25, 2012, 11:51:34 AM5/25/12
to
if you value your life you won't try to take my guns away.
self-defense is a right worth protecting.
thomas p.
May 25, 2012, 1:06:16 PM5/25/12
to
"WangoTango" <Asga...@mindspring.com> skrev i meddelelsen
news:MPG.2a29681ce...@news.east.earthlink.net...
but you imply that it somehow limits the kinds allowed. There is absolutely
nothing in the wording to justify that conclusion. In addition, as I said
above, "well regulated" refers directly to a militia.
Bert
May 25, 2012, 1:42:40 PM5/25/12
to
In news:QOidnc9ZLPq5TyPS...@giganews.com John Manning
You think of yourself as a right winger? You're not one of those folks
who still think that Nazis are right wing, are you?
who still think that Nazis are right wing, are you?
John Manning
May 25, 2012, 1:59:26 PM5/25/12
to
in the OP, and your perverse and obtuse responses, actually define
the mentality of pseudo-intellectual right wingers such as yourself.
You have nothing to offer, Mr Hyman. 'plonk'
Bert Hyman
May 25, 2012, 3:30:36 PM5/25/12
to
In news:1IadnVHm2JXiVSLS...@giganews.com John Manning
<jrob...@terra.com.br> wrote:
> 'plonk'
Promise?
You ostentatious plonkers are so very entertaining.
--
Bert Hyman St. Paul, MN be...@iphouse.com
<jrob...@terra.com.br> wrote:
> 'plonk'
Promise?
You ostentatious plonkers are so very entertaining.
--
Bert Hyman St. Paul, MN be...@iphouse.com
Mike Painter
May 25, 2012, 7:59:17 PM5/25/12
to
On 5/25/2012 8:51 AM, plainolamerican wrote:
> if you don't like guns don't buy one.
>
> if you value your life you won't try to take my guns away.
>
> self-defense is a right worth protecting.
That pretty much sums it up.
> if you don't like guns don't buy one.
>
> if you value your life you won't try to take my guns away.
>
> self-defense is a right worth protecting.
A threat to kill if someone takes property away from a person.
They are like the youth of all nations who have glorious ideas of going
to war and coming back either heroes or being remembered as dying
bravely and painless and clean on the field of battle.
They love their family so of course keep the weapons away from the
children. IN the dark of night they will go to the gun safe, load their
weapons and bravely kill the burglar who stood by and allowed them to do
this.
They of course will veneer be hurt so they can ignore the research
http://www.uphs.upenn.edu/news/News_Releases/2009/09/gun-possession-safety/
And unless they are sociopaths they will never, until the time comes
know if they can overcome what our society has drilled into them since
they were born
IT IS WRONG TO KILL.
Many will never be able to pull the trigger, but of course the manly men
that they are, they are the exception.
Stewart
May 25, 2012, 8:06:43 PM5/25/12
to
news:IKKdnVMW0MtoFyLS...@giganews.com...
Bottom line, if the US is much lower in homicide rate per capita, then
people will find other ways to do in other people.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate
>
>
>
>
people will find other ways to do in other people.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate
>
>
>
>
John Manning
May 25, 2012, 8:13:29 PM5/25/12
to
to lower the risk of them being used, eh?
John Manning
May 25, 2012, 8:18:08 PM5/25/12
to
Penn Study Asks, Protection or Peril? Gun Possession of Questionable
Value in an Assault
-- Those possessing gun in assault situation 4.5 times more likely to be
shot than those not possessing one
PHILADELPHIA – In a first-of its-kind study, epidemiologists at the
University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine found that, on average,
guns did not protect those who possessed them from being shot in an
assault. The study estimated that people with a gun were 4.5 times more
likely to be shot in an assault than those not possessing a gun.
The study was released online this month in the American Journal of
Public Health, in advance of print publication in November 2009.
Full article:
http://www.uphs.upenn.edu/news/News_Releases/2009/09/gun-possession-safety/
Stewart
May 26, 2012, 12:21:25 AM5/26/12
to
news:556dnSUrvfyxvV3S...@giganews.com...
No, it lowers the risk of other weapons being used.
>
>
>
>
walksalone
May 26, 2012, 5:39:37 AM5/26/12
to
Mike Painter <md.pa...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
news:bOednZ1UXcFGgV3S...@giganews.com:
One time response, headers not trimmed.
> On 5/25/2012 8:51 AM, plainolamerican wrote:
>> if you don't like guns don't buy one.
>>
>> if you value your life you won't try to take my guns away.
>>
>> self-defense is a right worth protecting.
>
>
> That pretty much sums it up.
> A threat to kill if someone takes property away from a person.
Really, let's modify that shall we?
A guarantee to kill ion self defense, irregardless of what property is
lost.
You see, I have only one thing of value in my day to day activities. My
life.
The kids, you damn right I will kill over them. But they are not here & I
am.
> They are like the youth of all nations who have glorious ideas of
> going to war and coming back either heroes or being remembered as
> dying bravely and painless and clean on the field of battle.
I don't think so. I suspect that the loss of human life is a matter of
indifference to the universe. Saddsly, that includes mine.
> They love their family so of course keep the weapons away from the
> children. IN the dark of night they will go to the gun safe, load
> their weapons and bravely kill the burglar who stood by and allowed
> them to do this.
If a burgler or any other individual puts themselves in that position with
me, they are so fucked. when I sleep, mine stays loaded & real handy. But
I do have concerns. Though I use a .45 ACP, will the carcass stop the
bullet? I live near trailors with families you see.
> They of course will veneer be hurt so they can ignore the research
> http://www.uphs.upenn.edu/news/News_Releases/2009/09/gun-possession-saf
> ety/
Even combat reflexes can not always prenvent the defender from being hurt,
or killed. It's a matter of time until one of the not so nice people win
one for the Gipper.
> And unless they are sociopaths they will never, until the time comes
> know if they can overcome what our society has drilled into them since
> they were born
Am I a sociopath Mike? I don't believe I am. Yet, I can take a human life
without qualm. I've seen wildlife more deserving of life than some humans
I've met. The humans, not all are xian & destroying the biosphere because
it does not matter. After all, bubba will be here anyday now. Right.
> IT IS WRONG TO KILL.
Across tghe board for fun & games, I agree. I also agree with the late Mr.
Eionstein, to kill, ewven during war, is murder. Hows that for an ethical
dilema.
> Many will never be able to pull the trigger, but of course the manly
> men that they are, they are the exception.
The graveyards, listed or in the wilderness, are just as full of manly men
as anyone else.
Such as, what is a manly man? DIFINO. He is one definition/observation.
There was a guy and he had a girlfriend called Lorraine. She very pretty
and he liked her a lot. One day he went to work to find that a new girl had
started working there.
Her name was Clearly and she was absolutely gorgeous. He began to like her
and after a while it became obvious that she was interested in him too.
But, he was a loyal man and he wouldn't get involved with Clearly while he
was still going out with Lorraine.
He decided that there was nothing for him to do but to break up with
Lorraine and date the new girl. He planned several times to tell Lorraine,
but he couldn't bring himself to do it.
One day as they were walking along the river bank, Lorraine slipped and
fell in to the river. The current carried her off and she drowned. The guy
stopped for a moment by the river and then ran off smiling and singing, "I
can see Clearly now, Lorraine is gone..."
from http://manlyjokes.tripod.com/manly/manly_2.html
walksalone who has no problem taking life, but requires more than I want to
for the reason.
All things dull and ugly,
all creatures short and squat.
All things rude and nasty,
the Lord God made the lot.
Each little snake that poisons,
each little wasp that stings.
He made their brutish venum,
he made their horrid wings.
All things sick and cancerous
All evil great and small.
All things foul and dangerous,
the Lord God made them all.
Each nasty little hornet,
each beastly little squid,
Who made the spiny urchin?
Who made the sharks? He did!!
All things scabbed and ulcerous,
all pox both great and small.
Putrid foul and gangrenous,
the Lord God made them all.
Amen.
news:bOednZ1UXcFGgV3S...@giganews.com:
One time response, headers not trimmed.
> On 5/25/2012 8:51 AM, plainolamerican wrote:
>> if you don't like guns don't buy one.
>>
>> if you value your life you won't try to take my guns away.
>>
>> self-defense is a right worth protecting.
>
>
> That pretty much sums it up.
> A threat to kill if someone takes property away from a person.
A guarantee to kill ion self defense, irregardless of what property is
lost.
You see, I have only one thing of value in my day to day activities. My
life.
The kids, you damn right I will kill over them. But they are not here & I
am.
> They are like the youth of all nations who have glorious ideas of
> going to war and coming back either heroes or being remembered as
> dying bravely and painless and clean on the field of battle.
indifference to the universe. Saddsly, that includes mine.
> They love their family so of course keep the weapons away from the
> children. IN the dark of night they will go to the gun safe, load
> their weapons and bravely kill the burglar who stood by and allowed
> them to do this.
me, they are so fucked. when I sleep, mine stays loaded & real handy. But
I do have concerns. Though I use a .45 ACP, will the carcass stop the
bullet? I live near trailors with families you see.
> They of course will veneer be hurt so they can ignore the research
> http://www.uphs.upenn.edu/news/News_Releases/2009/09/gun-possession-saf
> ety/
or killed. It's a matter of time until one of the not so nice people win
one for the Gipper.
> And unless they are sociopaths they will never, until the time comes
> know if they can overcome what our society has drilled into them since
> they were born
without qualm. I've seen wildlife more deserving of life than some humans
I've met. The humans, not all are xian & destroying the biosphere because
it does not matter. After all, bubba will be here anyday now. Right.
> IT IS WRONG TO KILL.
Eionstein, to kill, ewven during war, is murder. Hows that for an ethical
dilema.
> Many will never be able to pull the trigger, but of course the manly
> men that they are, they are the exception.
as anyone else.
Such as, what is a manly man? DIFINO. He is one definition/observation.
There was a guy and he had a girlfriend called Lorraine. She very pretty
and he liked her a lot. One day he went to work to find that a new girl had
started working there.
Her name was Clearly and she was absolutely gorgeous. He began to like her
and after a while it became obvious that she was interested in him too.
But, he was a loyal man and he wouldn't get involved with Clearly while he
was still going out with Lorraine.
He decided that there was nothing for him to do but to break up with
Lorraine and date the new girl. He planned several times to tell Lorraine,
but he couldn't bring himself to do it.
One day as they were walking along the river bank, Lorraine slipped and
fell in to the river. The current carried her off and she drowned. The guy
stopped for a moment by the river and then ran off smiling and singing, "I
can see Clearly now, Lorraine is gone..."
from http://manlyjokes.tripod.com/manly/manly_2.html
walksalone who has no problem taking life, but requires more than I want to
for the reason.
All things dull and ugly,
all creatures short and squat.
All things rude and nasty,
the Lord God made the lot.
Each little snake that poisons,
each little wasp that stings.
He made their brutish venum,
he made their horrid wings.
All things sick and cancerous
All evil great and small.
All things foul and dangerous,
the Lord God made them all.
Each nasty little hornet,
each beastly little squid,
Who made the spiny urchin?
Who made the sharks? He did!!
All things scabbed and ulcerous,
all pox both great and small.
Putrid foul and gangrenous,
the Lord God made them all.
Amen.
John Manning
May 26, 2012, 1:27:41 PM5/26/12
to
John Manning
May 26, 2012, 1:30:46 PM5/26/12
to
On 5/26/2012 6:39 AM, walksalone wrote:
> Mike Painter<md.pa...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
> news:bOednZ1UXcFGgV3S...@giganews.com:
>
> One time response, headers not trimmed.
>
>> On 5/25/2012 8:51 AM, plainolamerican wrote:
>>> if you don't like guns don't buy one.
>>>
>>> if you value your life you won't try to take my guns away.
>>>
>>> self-defense is a right worth protecting.
>>
>>
>> That pretty much sums it up.
>> A threat to kill if someone takes property away from a person.
>
> Really, let's modify that shall we?
> A guarantee to kill ion self defense, irregardless of what property is
> lost.
> You see, I have only one thing of value in my day to day activities. My
> life.
> The kids, you damn right I will kill over them. But they are not here& I
> Mike Painter<md.pa...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
> news:bOednZ1UXcFGgV3S...@giganews.com:
>
> One time response, headers not trimmed.
>
>> On 5/25/2012 8:51 AM, plainolamerican wrote:
>>> if you don't like guns don't buy one.
>>>
>>> if you value your life you won't try to take my guns away.
>>>
>>> self-defense is a right worth protecting.
>>
>>
>> That pretty much sums it up.
>> A threat to kill if someone takes property away from a person.
>
> Really, let's modify that shall we?
> A guarantee to kill ion self defense, irregardless of what property is
> lost.
> You see, I have only one thing of value in my day to day activities. My
> life.
> am.
>
>> They are like the youth of all nations who have glorious ideas of
>> going to war and coming back either heroes or being remembered as
>> dying bravely and painless and clean on the field of battle.
>
> I don't think so. I suspect that the loss of human life is a matter of
> indifference to the universe. Saddsly, that includes mine.
>
>> They love their family so of course keep the weapons away from the
>> children. IN the dark of night they will go to the gun safe, load
>> their weapons and bravely kill the burglar who stood by and allowed
>> them to do this.
>
> If a burgler or any other individual puts themselves in that position with
> me, they are so fucked. when I sleep, mine stays loaded& real handy. But
>
>> They are like the youth of all nations who have glorious ideas of
>> going to war and coming back either heroes or being remembered as
>> dying bravely and painless and clean on the field of battle.
>
> I don't think so. I suspect that the loss of human life is a matter of
> indifference to the universe. Saddsly, that includes mine.
>
>> They love their family so of course keep the weapons away from the
>> children. IN the dark of night they will go to the gun safe, load
>> their weapons and bravely kill the burglar who stood by and allowed
>> them to do this.
>
> If a burgler or any other individual puts themselves in that position with
> I do have concerns. Though I use a .45 ACP, will the carcass stop the
> bullet? I live near trailors with families you see.
> bullet? I live near trailors with families you see.
Gun Possession of Questionable Value in an Assault
-- Those possessing gun in assault situation are 4.5 times more
Stewart
May 26, 2012, 5:10:23 PM5/26/12
to
news:RqidnVrDor4Tj1zS...@giganews.com...
I don't have to make it up, it's quite obvious. If someone wants to
commit a violent homicidal act, they will use what ever is available.
If they don't have a gun, thy will use a knife. Maybe we should have
more strict knife control. Or they may use a basball bat, so maybe we
should have more strict baseball bat controls.
>
commit a violent homicidal act, they will use what ever is available.
If they don't have a gun, thy will use a knife. Maybe we should have
more strict knife control. Or they may use a basball bat, so maybe we
should have more strict baseball bat controls.
>
John Manning
May 26, 2012, 5:27:25 PM5/26/12
to
to successfully implement.
WATCH this - Indiana Jones : Sword vs. Gun
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4DzcOCyHDqc
And you've ignored this:
Gun Possession of Questionable Value in an Assault
shot than those not possessing one
PHILADELPHIA – In a first-of its-kind study, epidemiologists at the
University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine found that, on average,
guns did not protect those who possessed them from being shot in an
assault. The study estimated that people with a gun were 4.5 times more
likely to be shot in an assault than those not possessing a gun.
The study was released online this month in the American Journal of
Public Health, in advance of print publication in November 2009.
Full article:
http://www.uphs.upenn.edu/news/News_Releases/2009/09/gun-possession-safety/
PHILADELPHIA – In a first-of its-kind study, epidemiologists at the
University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine found that, on average,
guns did not protect those who possessed them from being shot in an
assault. The study estimated that people with a gun were 4.5 times more
likely to be shot in an assault than those not possessing a gun.
The study was released online this month in the American Journal of
Public Health, in advance of print publication in November 2009.
Full article:
http://www.uphs.upenn.edu/news/News_Releases/2009/09/gun-possession-safety/
Mitchell Holman
May 26, 2012, 10:53:17 PM5/26/12
to
"Stewart" <gort...@gmail.com> wrote in news:jprgrh$i0j$1...@dont-email.me:
Name one other product than is sold on the
domestic market that is designed specifically
to kill people.
domestic market that is designed specifically
to kill people.
SkyEyes
May 27, 2012, 4:32:58 AM5/27/12
to
On May 24, 8:49 am, John Manning <jrobe...@terra.com.br> wrote:
> Now, to some, guns are as sacred as scripture. If you ask,
> again, this typical hyper-political gun owner why they need
> to stockpile assault rifles, you will get an answer much like
> Pat Flynn's, a recent candidate for a Senate seat in Nebraska.
> "Really, we have our guns to protect ourselves against the
> government, number one," Flynn said in a debate right before
> the primary. "Hunting's number two. But protecting us against
> our government is number one."
Of course. Most of these gun nuts have fundamentalist christian
> Now, to some, guns are as sacred as scripture. If you ask,
> again, this typical hyper-political gun owner why they need
> to stockpile assault rifles, you will get an answer much like
> Pat Flynn's, a recent candidate for a Senate seat in Nebraska.
> "Really, we have our guns to protect ourselves against the
> government, number one," Flynn said in a debate right before
> the primary. "Hunting's number two. But protecting us against
> our government is number one."
roots, and fundies basically believe every government is eeeeeevil and
is out to take their bibles away. Although guns weren't preached in
the church I grew up in, this notion that goverment was the Evil Other
*was*, and it's a short hop-skip-and-jump to the notion that when the
government tries to make you be not a christian anymore, you take your
gun and fight against it. That's what they're all waiting for: the
iron fist of the government to give them an excuse for a second
American Revolution.
I suffered from horrible cognitive dissonance when I was a kid: on the
one hand, we loved America, we were patriots, Dad was a war hero, we
adored the Founding Fathers, etc., etc., etc.,; then on Sundays we'd
go to church and hear about how the government was taking our rights
away one by one, and any day now they'd come for our bibles. They
even made us sign pledges in those days that we would "Never Bow to
Communism," because that was the pet bugaboo of the day.
So: Monday-Saturday, WE LOVE AMERICA, YAY!!!! Sunday: The 'Merican
Gubmint is EEEEEVIL.
It's a wonder I'm not crazier than I actually *am*.
Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34
BAAWA Knight of the Golden Litterbox
EAC Professor of Feline Thermometrics and Cat-Herding
skyeyes nine at cox dot net OR
skyeyes nine at yahoo dot com
SkyEyes
May 27, 2012, 4:38:29 AM5/27/12
to
On May 26, 2:10 pm, "Stewart" <gorta...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "John Manning" <jrobe...@terra.com.br> wrote in message
> >>>>>>>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_dea...
> >>>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicid...
are also so readily available. (Think about it: you could also kill
somebody with a nuclear weapon, but how many gun stores sell those?)
Yeah, you can kill somebody with a knife, but it's *work*, man. Ditto
a baseball bat. Both things, you need to get up close and personal,
*and nasty*. Having to do just that - get up close and do the wet
work - is enough to deter a good percentage of would-be killers.
With a gun, you can stand back and just blast away, and if you've got
a shotgun, you don't even have to have that good of an aim.
> "John Manning" <jrobe...@terra.com.br> wrote in message
>
> news:RqidnVrDor4Tj1zS...@giganews.com...
>
> > On 5/26/2012 1:21 AM, Stewart wrote:
> >> "John Manning"<jrobe...@terra.com.br> wrote in message
> news:RqidnVrDor4Tj1zS...@giganews.com...
>
> > On 5/26/2012 1:21 AM, Stewart wrote:
> >>news:556dnSUrvfyxvV3S...@giganews.com...
> >>> On 5/25/2012 9:06 PM, Stewart wrote:
> >>>> "John Manning"<jrobe...@terra.com.br> wrote in message
> >>> On 5/25/2012 9:06 PM, Stewart wrote:
> >>>>news:IKKdnVMW0MtoFyLS...@giganews.com...
> >>>>> On 5/24/2012 10:00 PM, Stewart wrote:
> >>>>>> "John Manning"<jrobe...@terra.com.br> wrote in message
> >>>>> On 5/24/2012 10:00 PM, Stewart wrote:
> >>>>>>news:QOidncxZLPrsTSPS...@giganews.com...
> >>>>>>> On 5/24/2012 7:16 PM, Stewart wrote:
> >>>>>>>> "John Manning"<jrobe...@terra.com.br> wrote in message
> >>>>>>> On 5/24/2012 7:16 PM, Stewart wrote:
> >>>>>>>>news:RKKdndy3PbUY_SPS...@giganews.com...
> >>>>>>>>> On 5/24/2012 1:00 PM, Fidem Turbare, the non-existent
> >>>>>>>>> atheist
> >>>>>>>>> goddess wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 24 May 2012 12:49:12 -0300
> >>>>>>>>>> John Manning<jrobe...@terra.com.br> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On 5/24/2012 1:00 PM, Fidem Turbare, the non-existent
> >>>>>>>>> atheist
> >>>>>>>>> goddess wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 24 May 2012 12:49:12 -0300
>
> >>> Adding more and more guns to the equation certainly isn't going
> >>> to lower the risk of them being used, eh?
>
> >> No, it lowers the risk of other weapons being used.
>
> > Sounds like you just made that up.
>
> I don't have to make it up, it's quite obvious. If someone wants to
> commit a violent homicidal act, they will use what ever is available.
> If they don't have a gun, thy will use a knife. Maybe we should have
> more strict knife control. Or they may use a basball bat, so maybe we
> should have more strict baseball bat controls.
The problem with that theory is that few objects kill so reliably and
> >>> Adding more and more guns to the equation certainly isn't going
> >>> to lower the risk of them being used, eh?
>
> >> No, it lowers the risk of other weapons being used.
>
> > Sounds like you just made that up.
>
> I don't have to make it up, it's quite obvious. If someone wants to
> commit a violent homicidal act, they will use what ever is available.
> If they don't have a gun, thy will use a knife. Maybe we should have
> more strict knife control. Or they may use a basball bat, so maybe we
> should have more strict baseball bat controls.
are also so readily available. (Think about it: you could also kill
somebody with a nuclear weapon, but how many gun stores sell those?)
Yeah, you can kill somebody with a knife, but it's *work*, man. Ditto
a baseball bat. Both things, you need to get up close and personal,
*and nasty*. Having to do just that - get up close and do the wet
work - is enough to deter a good percentage of would-be killers.
With a gun, you can stand back and just blast away, and if you've got
a shotgun, you don't even have to have that good of an aim.
Stewart
May 27, 2012, 8:19:05 AM5/27/12
to
news:O8udnfKEFr1c11zS...@giganews.com...
If the US is 12th in gun deaths and 26th in homicide rate, then
someone is using something other than a gun in at least 14 countries.
someone is using something other than a gun in at least 14 countries.
Stewart
May 27, 2012, 8:24:08 AM5/27/12
to
"Mitchell Holman" <nomailcomcast.net> wrote in message
news:XnsA05FDE75ADF76...@216.196.121.131...
http://simonmenner.com/Seiten/MurderWeapons.html
Only 3 of the 32 weapons shown here are guns, some of them are are
normal tools or utensils used every day, while others appear to be
designed for killing something.
>
>
Stewart
May 27, 2012, 8:29:28 AM5/27/12
to
"SkyEyes" <skye...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:2c711b87-f3fd-4109...@pr3g2000pbb.googlegroups.com...
That may be, but the we all know what happens when the gov't
"controls" things. The criminal element will always have them.
Mitchell Holman
May 27, 2012, 9:21:15 AM5/27/12
to
"Stewart" <gort...@gmail.com> wrote in news:jpt6co$e27$1...@dont-email.me:
What other tool does even the NRA think you need
a background check to buy?
a background check to buy?
John Manning
May 27, 2012, 12:05:25 PM5/27/12
to
primitive, less civilized, poverty stricken, dog eat dog,
third world countries.
Why did you ignore and snip the peer-reviewed documented evidence
I provided that having a gun when being assaulted by someone else
with a gun is 4.5 times more likely to get *you* killed?
You have this typical macho cowboy "us" vs "them" paranoid gun nut
mind set that doesn't allow for solutions other than more
and more guns.
John Manning
May 27, 2012, 12:57:16 PM5/27/12
to
It's the typically paranoid "us" vs "them" gun nuts - who think
that owning more and more guns is the only solution to
threatening situations - who are the real crazies.
They're incapable of conceiving any other viable 'root-cause'
solutions and have a need for a simplistic desperate solution
to compensate for their *own* feelings of inadequacy.
These clownish crackpot militia types [and Arizona where
I lived and you currently live, has quite a number of them],
actually think they can take on the current U.S. government and
it's largest military force in the world with their goofy
little rinky-dink Rambo militias.
It would be a big laugh if these bozos weren't getting themselves
and others killed.
I'm sure you're familiar with Arizona's J.T. Ready.
Readers can take a look at this Arizona video clip to see just
how prevalent these kind of wackos are in just Arizona.
Arizona Nazis
WATCH:
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xb3i42_arizona-nazis-brand_shortfilms
Stewart
May 28, 2012, 7:42:50 AM5/28/12
to
news:6cidnZfRlOBVzV_S...@giganews.com...
Not germain to me. See below.
>
> You have this typical macho cowboy "us" vs "them" paranoid gun nut
> mind set that doesn't allow for solutions other than more
> and more guns.
>
I don't own a gun, never owned a gun, probably never will own a
gun....but I respect the constitutional right for those that choose to
own a gun.
Tobbacco kills more people than guns do. Maybe this is where you
should concentrate your efforts.
>
>
>
> You have this typical macho cowboy "us" vs "them" paranoid gun nut
> mind set that doesn't allow for solutions other than more
> and more guns.
>
gun....but I respect the constitutional right for those that choose to
own a gun.
Tobbacco kills more people than guns do. Maybe this is where you
should concentrate your efforts.
>
>
Stewart
May 28, 2012, 7:43:50 AM5/28/12
to
news:XnsA06054C9C5306...@216.196.121.131...
Wouldn't know.
>
>
>
>
>
>
Stewart
May 28, 2012, 7:48:02 AM5/28/12
to
news:R92dndro5t1wwV_S...@giganews.com...
See previous post.
>
> They're incapable of conceiving any other viable 'root-cause'
> solutions and have a need for a simplistic desperate solution
> to compensate for their *own* feelings of inadequacy.
>
> These clownish crackpot militia types [and Arizona where
> I lived and you currently live, has quite a number of them],
> actually think they can take on the current U.S. government and
> it's largest military force in the world with their goofy
> little rinky-dink Rambo militias.
Actually, we do not have the largest military force in the world.
>
> It would be a big laugh if these bozos weren't getting themselves
> and others killed.
>
> I'm sure you're familiar with Arizona's J.T. Ready.
>
> Readers can take a look at this Arizona video clip to see just
> how prevalent these kind of wackos are in just Arizona.
>
> Arizona Nazis
> WATCH:
> http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xb3i42_arizona-nazis-brand_shortfilms
>
Not everyone that believes in the constitutional right to bear arms is
a right wing wacko gun nut, just like everyone that doesn't believe in
the right is not a "what will the gov't do to help control me" whining
liberal.
>
>
>
>
>
> They're incapable of conceiving any other viable 'root-cause'
> solutions and have a need for a simplistic desperate solution
> to compensate for their *own* feelings of inadequacy.
>
> These clownish crackpot militia types [and Arizona where
> I lived and you currently live, has quite a number of them],
> actually think they can take on the current U.S. government and
> it's largest military force in the world with their goofy
> little rinky-dink Rambo militias.
>
> It would be a big laugh if these bozos weren't getting themselves
> and others killed.
>
> I'm sure you're familiar with Arizona's J.T. Ready.
>
> Readers can take a look at this Arizona video clip to see just
> how prevalent these kind of wackos are in just Arizona.
>
> Arizona Nazis
> WATCH:
> http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xb3i42_arizona-nazis-brand_shortfilms
>
a right wing wacko gun nut, just like everyone that doesn't believe in
the right is not a "what will the gov't do to help control me" whining
liberal.
>
>
>
>
John Manning
May 28, 2012, 10:02:07 AM5/28/12
to
Stewart
May 28, 2012, 10:12:24 AM5/28/12
to
news:dpidnZCftKr8GF7S...@giganews.com...
My world isn't unique, nor is it little...but I certainly enjoy it,
especially more so when liberals keep their hands out of my pockets
(the redistribution of wealth and the creation of our current welfare
state) and their asses out of my constitutional rights (by trying to
have the federal government control every aspect of our lives under
the guise of saving us from ourselves).
>
especially more so when liberals keep their hands out of my pockets
(the redistribution of wealth and the creation of our current welfare
state) and their asses out of my constitutional rights (by trying to
have the federal government control every aspect of our lives under
the guise of saving us from ourselves).
>
John Manning
May 28, 2012, 11:05:38 AM5/28/12
to
in the world, by massively huge proportion.
-- Global Firepower - 2012 World Military Strength Ranking --
RANKING #1 USA
Comparative details here: http://www.globalfirepower.com/
===
SEE ALSO: The Military Imbalance: How The U.S. Outspends The World
SEE GRAPH:
http://o.aolcdn.com/mars/17308/635/357/defence-budgets-and-expenditure---iiss.jpg
http://defense.aol.com/2012/03/16/the-military-imbalance-how-the-u-s-outspends-the-world/
===
SEE ALSO: U.S. vs. Global Defense Spending
The United States remains the global leader in
defense spending, surpassing the next closest country
by more than eight times...
In 2008, the most recent year for which complete
global data is available, the U.S. approved $696.3 billion
in defense budget authority (fiscal 2010 dollars)...
This number is eight times more than Russia, 15 times more
than Japan, 47 times more than Israel, and nearly 73 times more
than Iran.
In inflation-adjusted dollars, the total U.S. defense budget
has grown from $432 billion in fiscal 2001 to $720 billion in
fiscal 2011, a real increase of approximately 67 percent...
"It is not a great mystery what needs to change," said
Secretary of Defense Robert Gates. "What it takes is the political
will and willingness, as Eisenhower possessed, to make hard choices."
---See the multiple graphs below the text that demonstrate
your assertion to be just more of your nonsense:
http://armscontrolcenter.org/policy/securityspending/articles/US_vs_Global/
>>
>> It would be a big laugh if these bozos weren't getting themselves
>> and others killed.
>>
>> I'm sure you're familiar with Arizona's J.T. Ready.
>>
>> Readers can take a look at this Arizona video clip to see just
>> how prevalent these kind of wackos are in just Arizona.
>>
>> Arizona Nazis
>> WATCH:
>> http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xb3i42_arizona-nazis-brand_shortfilms
>>
>
> Not everyone that believes in the constitutional right to bear arms is
> a right wing wacko gun nut, just like everyone that doesn't believe in
> the right is not a "what will the gov't do to help control me" whining
> liberal.
>
a right to own a gun ??? ...
There is undeniably however, through an endlessly
relentless, right wing fringe, rabidly fanatic, fear-mongering
propaganda campaign engendering a massively paranoid wacko
mind set that has turned gun ownership into a perpetual fear-based
"us" vs "them" [whoever the "them" of the day happens to be],
Rambo fantasy world.
Like I said, Stewart, enjoy your peculiar little fantasy world.
But don't be surprised at the inevitable, rightly deserved, ridicule.
John Manning
May 28, 2012, 11:13:35 AM5/28/12
to
decades long, Big Money right wing propaganda machine that your
little mind has eaten for breakfast lunch and dinner all along the way.
Rockinghorse Winner
May 28, 2012, 11:32:35 AM5/28/12
to
* It may have been the liquor talking, but
SkyEyes <skye...@cox.net> wrote:
> On May 26, 2:10?pm, "Stewart" <gorta...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> "John Manning" <jrobe...@terra.com.br> wrote in message
>>
>> news:RqidnVrDor4Tj1zS...@giganews.com...
>>
>> > On 5/26/2012 1:21 AM, Stewart wrote:
>> >> "John Manning"<jrobe...@terra.com.br> ?wrote in message
>> >>>>>>>>> ? ? ? ? ?Gun deaths per 100,000 population (for the year
>> >>>>>>>>> indicated):
>>
>> >>>>>>>>> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?Homicide ? Suicide ? ? Accident
>> >>>>>>>>> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? USA (2001) ? ? ? ? 3.98 ? ?5.92 ? ? ? 0.36
>> >>>>>>>>> ? ? ? ? Italy (1997) ? ?0.81 ? ? ? ? ? 1.1 ? ? ? 0.07
>> >>>>>>>>> ? ? ? ? Switzerland (1998) ? 0.50 ? ?5.8 ? ? ? ? 0.10
>> >>>>>>>>> ? ? ? ? Canada (2002) ? 0.4 ? ? ? ? ? 2.0 ? ? ? 0.04
>> >>>>>>>>> ? ? ? ? Finland (2003) ? 0.35 ? ? ? ? ? 4.45 ? ? ? 0.10
>> >>>>>>>>> ? ? ? ? Australia (2001) ? 0.24 ? ? ? ? ? 1.34 ? ? ? 0.10
>> >>>>>>>>> ? ? ? ? France (2001) ? 0.21 ? ? ? ? ? 3.4 ? ? ? 0.49
>> >>>>>>>>> ? ? ? ? England/Wales (2002) ?0.15 ? ? ? ? ? 0.2 ? ? ? 0.03
>> >>>>>>>>> ? ? ? ? Scotland (2002) ? 0.06 ? ? ? ? ? 0.2 ? ? ? 0.02
>> >>>>>>>>> ? ? ? ? Japan (2002) ? 0.02 ? ? ? ? ? 0.04 ? ? ? 0
>> I don't have to make it up, it's quite obvious. ?If someone wants to
>> more strict knife control. ?Or they may use a basball bat, so maybe we
It just wan't worth the work to kill someone....
Terry
--
"For I would ride with you upon the wind, |/
Run on the top of the dishevelled tide, |/ Gentoo Linux
And dance upon the mountains like a flame." |/
-Yeats |/
SkyEyes <skye...@cox.net> wrote:
> On May 26, 2:10?pm, "Stewart" <gorta...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> "John Manning" <jrobe...@terra.com.br> wrote in message
>>
>> news:RqidnVrDor4Tj1zS...@giganews.com...
>>
>> > On 5/26/2012 1:21 AM, Stewart wrote:
>> >>news:556dnSUrvfyxvV3S...@giganews.com...
>> >>> On 5/25/2012 9:06 PM, Stewart wrote:
>> >>>> "John Manning"<jrobe...@terra.com.br> ? wrote in message
>> >>> On 5/25/2012 9:06 PM, Stewart wrote:
>> >>>>news:IKKdnVMW0MtoFyLS...@giganews.com...
>> >>>>> On 5/24/2012 10:00 PM, Stewart wrote:
>> >>>>>> "John Manning"<jrobe...@terra.com.br> ? ?wrote in message
>> >>>>> On 5/24/2012 10:00 PM, Stewart wrote:
>> >>>>>>news:QOidncxZLPrsTSPS...@giganews.com...
>> >>>>>>> On 5/24/2012 7:16 PM, Stewart wrote:
>> >>>>>>>> "John Manning"<jrobe...@terra.com.br> ? ? wrote in message
>> >>>>>>> On 5/24/2012 7:16 PM, Stewart wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>news:RKKdndy3PbUY_SPS...@giganews.com...
>> >>>>>>>>> On 5/24/2012 1:00 PM, Fidem Turbare, the non-existent
>> >>>>>>>>> atheist
>> >>>>>>>>> goddess wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 24 May 2012 12:49:12 -0300
>> >>>>>>>>>> John Manning<jrobe...@terra.com.br> ? ? ?wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>> On 5/24/2012 1:00 PM, Fidem Turbare, the non-existent
>> >>>>>>>>> atheist
>> >>>>>>>>> goddess wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 24 May 2012 12:49:12 -0300
>> >>>>>>>>> indicated):
>>
>> >>>>>>>>> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?Homicide ? Suicide ? ? Accident
>> >>>>>>>>> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? USA (2001) ? ? ? ? 3.98 ? ?5.92 ? ? ? 0.36
>> >>>>>>>>> ? ? ? ? Italy (1997) ? ?0.81 ? ? ? ? ? 1.1 ? ? ? 0.07
>> >>>>>>>>> ? ? ? ? Switzerland (1998) ? 0.50 ? ?5.8 ? ? ? ? 0.10
>> >>>>>>>>> ? ? ? ? Canada (2002) ? 0.4 ? ? ? ? ? 2.0 ? ? ? 0.04
>> >>>>>>>>> ? ? ? ? Finland (2003) ? 0.35 ? ? ? ? ? 4.45 ? ? ? 0.10
>> >>>>>>>>> ? ? ? ? Australia (2001) ? 0.24 ? ? ? ? ? 1.34 ? ? ? 0.10
>> >>>>>>>>> ? ? ? ? France (2001) ? 0.21 ? ? ? ? ? 3.4 ? ? ? 0.49
>> >>>>>>>>> ? ? ? ? England/Wales (2002) ?0.15 ? ? ? ? ? 0.2 ? ? ? 0.03
>> >>>>>>>>> ? ? ? ? Scotland (2002) ? 0.06 ? ? ? ? ? 0.2 ? ? ? 0.02
>> >>>>>>>>> ? ? ? ? Japan (2002) ? 0.02 ? ? ? ? ? 0.04 ? ? ? 0
>>
>> >>>>>>>>> Data taken from Cukier and Sidel (2006)
>> >>>>>>>>> The Global Gun Epidemic.
>> >>>>>>>>> Praeger Security International. ?Westport.
>> >>>>>>>>> Data taken from Cukier and Sidel (2006)
>> >>>>>>>>> The Global Gun Epidemic.
>> commit a violent homicidal act, they will use what ever is available.
>> If they don't have a gun, thy will use a knife. ?Maybe we should have
>> more strict knife control. ?Or they may use a basball bat, so maybe we
>> should have more strict baseball bat controls.
>
> The problem with that theory is that few objects kill so reliably and
> are also so readily available. (Think about it: you could also kill
> somebody with a nuclear weapon, but how many gun stores sell those?)
> Yeah, you can kill somebody with a knife, but it's *work*, man. Ditto
> a baseball bat. Both things, you need to get up close and personal,
> *and nasty*. Having to do just that - get up close and do the wet
> work - is enough to deter a good percentage of would-be killers.
>
> With a gun, you can stand back and just blast away, and if you've got
> a shotgun, you don't even have to have that good of an aim.
Yes, that's why murder was almost unknown until the invention of gunpowder.
>
> The problem with that theory is that few objects kill so reliably and
> are also so readily available. (Think about it: you could also kill
> somebody with a nuclear weapon, but how many gun stores sell those?)
> Yeah, you can kill somebody with a knife, but it's *work*, man. Ditto
> a baseball bat. Both things, you need to get up close and personal,
> *and nasty*. Having to do just that - get up close and do the wet
> work - is enough to deter a good percentage of would-be killers.
>
> With a gun, you can stand back and just blast away, and if you've got
> a shotgun, you don't even have to have that good of an aim.
It just wan't worth the work to kill someone....
Terry
--
"For I would ride with you upon the wind, |/
Run on the top of the dishevelled tide, |/ Gentoo Linux
And dance upon the mountains like a flame." |/
-Yeats |/
Stewart
May 28, 2012, 12:07:31 PM5/28/12
to
news:VvednfqqJeW4C17S...@giganews.com...
It isn't a fantasy world, it is reality/ If you wish to believe in
the liberal mantra, by all means, give everything that you earn to
support those that you believe are entitled to what you have.
Myself, I already pay well more in taxes then the median income for
this country, which is probably more than you and a majority of other
liberals do.
the liberal mantra, by all means, give everything that you earn to
support those that you believe are entitled to what you have.
Myself, I already pay well more in taxes then the median income for
this country, which is probably more than you and a majority of other
liberals do.
Christopher A. Lee
May 28, 2012, 12:11:05 PM5/28/12
to
On Mon, 28 May 2012 08:32:35 -0700, Rockinghorse Winner
<badass....@gmx.com> wrote:
>> With a gun, you can stand back and just blast away, and if you've got
>> a shotgun, you don't even have to have that good of an aim.
>
>Yes, that's why murder was almost unknown until the invention of gunpowder.
>It just wan't worth the work to kill someone....
No.
<badass....@gmx.com> wrote:
>> With a gun, you can stand back and just blast away, and if you've got
>> a shotgun, you don't even have to have that good of an aim.
>
>Yes, that's why murder was almost unknown until the invention of gunpowder.
>It just wan't worth the work to kill someone....
They just did it with poison or knives.
>Terry
Stewart
May 28, 2012, 12:26:28 PM5/28/12
to
news:6_2dncuwMZvbCV7S...@giganews.com...
You stated largest military force, not most effectively well-equipped,
or most money spent. China has the largest force, by a large margin.
They may be just as or even more effectively equipped than we are.....
If you go by total military personnel, we are actually #7.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_number_of_military_and_paramilitary_personnel
We may spend far more than the others, but just maybe we aren't
getting the best bang for our buck. Maybe there are too many $6k
hammers.....
We probably would have quite a difficult time trying to take on China
(Veitnam showed us that), and N Korea with it's huge reserve could be
a major problem going head to head with. FFS, we it took us 10+ years
to take on a handful of freaking bunch of guys dressed up in robes and
turbans, and they are still a problem to this day.
All I've seen is a lot of misinformation and conjecture on your end,
nothing in the way of ridicule.
>
>
>
>
>
or most money spent. China has the largest force, by a large margin.
They may be just as or even more effectively equipped than we are.....
If you go by total military personnel, we are actually #7.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_number_of_military_and_paramilitary_personnel
We may spend far more than the others, but just maybe we aren't
getting the best bang for our buck. Maybe there are too many $6k
hammers.....
We probably would have quite a difficult time trying to take on China
(Veitnam showed us that), and N Korea with it's huge reserve could be
a major problem going head to head with. FFS, we it took us 10+ years
to take on a handful of freaking bunch of guys dressed up in robes and
turbans, and they are still a problem to this day.
nothing in the way of ridicule.
>
>
>
>
>
John Manning
May 28, 2012, 12:28:27 PM5/28/12
to
[snip]
>>
>> Your little world is a fantasy world created by the relentless,
>> decades long, Big Money right wing propaganda machine that your
>> little mind has eaten for breakfast lunch and dinner all along the
>> way.
>>
>>
>
> It isn't a fantasy world, it is reality/ If you wish to believe in
> the liberal mantra, by all means, give everything that you earn to
> support those that you believe are entitled to what you have.
>
> Myself, I already pay well more in taxes then the median income for
> this country, which is probably more than you and a majority of other
> liberals do.
>
Have a nice life in your little world, Stewart. Bye.
>>
>> Your little world is a fantasy world created by the relentless,
>> decades long, Big Money right wing propaganda machine that your
>> little mind has eaten for breakfast lunch and dinner all along the
>> way.
>>
>>
>
> It isn't a fantasy world, it is reality/ If you wish to believe in
> the liberal mantra, by all means, give everything that you earn to
> support those that you believe are entitled to what you have.
>
> Myself, I already pay well more in taxes then the median income for
> this country, which is probably more than you and a majority of other
> liberals do.
>
John Manning
May 28, 2012, 1:06:05 PM5/28/12
to
can't accept the hard documented facts that I've linked to, when
they contradict your fantasy world mind set.
Mike Painter
May 28, 2012, 1:20:45 PM5/28/12
to
On 5/28/2012 7:12 AM, Stewart wrote:
> My world isn't unique, nor is it little...but I certainly enjoy it,
> especially more so when liberals keep their hands out of my pockets
> (the redistribution of wealth and the creation of our current welfare
> state) and their asses out of my constitutional rights (by trying to
> have the federal government control every aspect of our lives under
> the guise of saving us from ourselves).
Where do you live?
> My world isn't unique, nor is it little...but I certainly enjoy it,
> especially more so when liberals keep their hands out of my pockets
> (the redistribution of wealth and the creation of our current welfare
> state) and their asses out of my constitutional rights (by trying to
> have the federal government control every aspect of our lives under
> the guise of saving us from ourselves).
I'm not aware of any welfare state here in California or anyplace else.
Perhaps it's a matter of definition. You don't seem happy with the
government supplying goods and services to you at minimal out of pocket
expense on your part.
Perhaps you mean people on welfare. There are a few supplements
available for people who are on a low income, food stamps, for example.
But how, at least here in California, do you get on the type of welfare
that will help pay your other expenses?
The answer has not changed in over 45 years and I've yet to have anyone
who complained about it know the answer.
Today it is a trivial matter to look it up on the Internet, yet they
remain ignorant.
Stewart
May 28, 2012, 5:10:02 PM5/28/12
to
news:VZOdncayvfgzOl7S...@giganews.com...
Quite the real world, John.....
But AMF to you as well. Try again when you actually have a valid
point with relevent information to back it up.
>
But AMF to you as well. Try again when you actually have a valid
point with relevent information to back it up.
>
Stewart
May 28, 2012, 5:18:29 PM5/28/12
to
news:0J6dnWxq9NYZLV7S...@giganews.com...
all other cites. But of course, you've said goodbye about 8 minutes
prior to this post. You must have really meant to say "have a nice
life, even though I can't help myself so it's only until I respond
again".
> On 5/28/2012 1:26 PM, Stewart wrote:
>> "John Manning"<jrob...@terra.com.br> wrote in message
>> news:6_2dncuwMZvbCV7S...@giganews.com...
>> "John Manning"<jrob...@terra.com.br> wrote in message
>> news:6_2dncuwMZvbCV7S...@giganews.com...
>>> Like I said, Stewart, enjoy your peculiar little fantasy world.
>>> But don't be surprised at the inevitable, rightly deserved,
>>> ridicule.
>>
>> All I've seen is a lot of misinformation and conjecture on your
>> end,
>> nothing in the way of ridicule.
>>
>
>
> By your statement here, you ridicule yourself. You clearly
> can't accept the hard documented facts that I've linked to, when
> they contradict your fantasy world mind set.
>
>
You link to partial information to emphasize your point while ignoring
>>> But don't be surprised at the inevitable, rightly deserved,
>>> ridicule.
>>
>> All I've seen is a lot of misinformation and conjecture on your
>> end,
>> nothing in the way of ridicule.
>>
>
>
> By your statement here, you ridicule yourself. You clearly
> can't accept the hard documented facts that I've linked to, when
> they contradict your fantasy world mind set.
>
>
all other cites. But of course, you've said goodbye about 8 minutes
prior to this post. You must have really meant to say "have a nice
life, even though I can't help myself so it's only until I respond
again".
Waldo Tunnel
May 29, 2012, 1:57:24 AM5/29/12
to
On May 27, 1:32 am, SkyEyes <skyey...@cox.net> wrote:
[...]
>
> Of course. Most of these gun nuts have fundamentalist christian
> roots, and fundies basically believe every government is eeeeeevil and
> is out to take their bibles away. Although guns weren't preached in
> the church I grew up in, this notion that goverment was the Evil Other
> *was*, and it's a short hop-skip-and-jump to the notion that when the
> government tries to make you be not a christian anymore, you take your
> gun and fight against it. That's what they're all waiting for: the
> iron fist of the government to give them an excuse for a second
> American Revolution.
>
> I suffered from horrible cognitive dissonance when I was a kid: on the
> one hand, we loved America, we were patriots, Dad was a war hero, we
> adored the Founding Fathers, etc., etc., etc.,; then on Sundays we'd
> go to church and hear about how the government was taking our rights
> away one by one, and any day now they'd come for our bibles. They
> even made us sign pledges in those days that we would "Never Bow to
> Communism," because that was the pet bugaboo of the day.
>
> So: Monday-Saturday, WE LOVE AMERICA, YAY!!!! Sunday: The 'Merican
> Gubmint is EEEEEVIL.
>
> It's a wonder I'm not crazier than I actually *am*.
Good post.
[...]
>
> Of course. Most of these gun nuts have fundamentalist christian
> roots, and fundies basically believe every government is eeeeeevil and
> is out to take their bibles away. Although guns weren't preached in
> the church I grew up in, this notion that goverment was the Evil Other
> *was*, and it's a short hop-skip-and-jump to the notion that when the
> government tries to make you be not a christian anymore, you take your
> gun and fight against it. That's what they're all waiting for: the
> iron fist of the government to give them an excuse for a second
> American Revolution.
>
> I suffered from horrible cognitive dissonance when I was a kid: on the
> one hand, we loved America, we were patriots, Dad was a war hero, we
> adored the Founding Fathers, etc., etc., etc.,; then on Sundays we'd
> go to church and hear about how the government was taking our rights
> away one by one, and any day now they'd come for our bibles. They
> even made us sign pledges in those days that we would "Never Bow to
> Communism," because that was the pet bugaboo of the day.
>
> So: Monday-Saturday, WE LOVE AMERICA, YAY!!!! Sunday: The 'Merican
> Gubmint is EEEEEVIL.
>
> It's a wonder I'm not crazier than I actually *am*.
Rockinghorse Winner
May 30, 2012, 12:24:54 AM5/30/12
to
* It may have been the liquor talking, but
thomas p.
May 30, 2012, 1:40:28 AM5/30/12
to
"Rockinghorse Winner" <badass....@gmx.com> skrev i meddelelsen
news:slrnjsb88m.jjs....@badass.edu...
would disappear without guns.
>
> Terry
> --
> "For I would ride with you upon the wind, |/
> Run on the top of the dishevelled tide, |/ Gentoo Linux
> And dance upon the mountains like a flame." |/
> -Yeats |/
--
thomas p
Ignorance is the mother of devotion.
David Hume
news:slrnjsb88m.jjs....@badass.edu...
>* It may have been the liquor talking, but
> Christopher A Lee <ca...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 28 May 2012 08:32:35 -0700, Rockinghorse Winner
>> <badass....@gmx.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>> With a gun, you can stand back and just blast away, and if you've got
>>>> a shotgun, you don't even have to have that good of an aim.
>>>
>>>Yes, that's why murder was almost unknown until the invention of
>>>gunpowder.
>>>It just wan't worth the work to kill someone....
>>
>> No.
>>
>> They just did it with poison or knives.
>
> Yes, I know - I was being sarcastic...
And delibrartely missing the point, since no one suggested that homicide
> Christopher A Lee <ca...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 28 May 2012 08:32:35 -0700, Rockinghorse Winner
>> <badass....@gmx.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>> With a gun, you can stand back and just blast away, and if you've got
>>>> a shotgun, you don't even have to have that good of an aim.
>>>
>>>Yes, that's why murder was almost unknown until the invention of
>>>gunpowder.
>>>It just wan't worth the work to kill someone....
>>
>> No.
>>
>> They just did it with poison or knives.
>
> Yes, I know - I was being sarcastic...
would disappear without guns.
>
> Terry
> --
> "For I would ride with you upon the wind, |/
> Run on the top of the dishevelled tide, |/ Gentoo Linux
> And dance upon the mountains like a flame." |/
> -Yeats |/
thomas p
Ignorance is the mother of devotion.
David Hume
SkyEyes
May 31, 2012, 4:46:17 AM5/31/12
to
On May 27, 5:29 am, "Stewart" <gorta...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "SkyEyes" <skyey...@cox.net> wrote in message
Ah. So you're one of those "the gubmint is eeeeeeeeeeevil" guys. Got
it.
> "SkyEyes" <skyey...@cox.net> wrote in message
it.
SkyEyes
May 31, 2012, 4:58:11 AM5/31/12
to
"Caca Arizona"), just seeing that vid makes me want to go out and get
a gun to keep myself safe from *them*.
Got any extra room down there in Brazil, John? Will work for enough
space to put my sleeping bag down in. Good cook. Require nothing
more than high-speed internet access.
Brenda
Terry Cross
May 31, 2012, 7:39:22 AM5/31/12
to
On May 24, 8:49 am, John Manning <jrobe...@terra.com.br> wrote:
> Trust Me: You Believe in Gun Control
>
> -- If you ask the typical hyper-political gun owner
> (and I have … at Thanksgiving dinner), why it’s important
> Trust Me: You Believe in Gun Control
>
> -- If you ask the typical hyper-political gun owner
> to own a gun, they’ll bark about the Constitution. Yes, the
> Second Amendment: "The Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms
> Shall Not Be Infringed!"
>
> This of course is the slogan the National Rifle Association adopted
> in the 1970's.
>
> It was then that owning a gun became an absolute right
> endowed by God and the Constitution. A blessing passed down
> by our forefathers to obliterate game and protect our property.
>
> The NRA was founded in 1870 and for its first hundred years
> it was for gun control and didn't mention the Second Amendment
> as their cause.
>
> Adam Winkler points out in his delicious book, "Gun Fight,"
> what we call the "wild west" had some of the strictest gun control
> laws we"ve seen as a nation.
>
> The shoot out at the OK Corral took place, after all,
> because Wyatt Earp was trying to disarm the outlaw Cowboys
> in accordance with a Tombstone ordinance.
>
> The KKK was among other things, a gun control organization.
> They were trying to keep guns out of the hands of newly freed
> slaves ... but still gun control.
>
> The part of the Second Amendment omitted from the NRA's slogan is:
> "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a
> free State..."
>
> Yes, *WELL REGULATED* — it's in the Constitution!
> Second Amendment: "The Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms
> Shall Not Be Infringed!"
>
> This of course is the slogan the National Rifle Association adopted
> in the 1970's.
>
> It was then that owning a gun became an absolute right
> endowed by God and the Constitution. A blessing passed down
> by our forefathers to obliterate game and protect our property.
>
> The NRA was founded in 1870 and for its first hundred years
> it was for gun control and didn't mention the Second Amendment
> as their cause.
>
> Adam Winkler points out in his delicious book, "Gun Fight,"
> what we call the "wild west" had some of the strictest gun control
> laws we"ve seen as a nation.
>
> The shoot out at the OK Corral took place, after all,
> because Wyatt Earp was trying to disarm the outlaw Cowboys
> in accordance with a Tombstone ordinance.
>
> The KKK was among other things, a gun control organization.
> They were trying to keep guns out of the hands of newly freed
> slaves ... but still gun control.
>
> The part of the Second Amendment omitted from the NRA's slogan is:
> "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a
> free State..."
>
Well regulated does not mean "nailed down by laws." You are imposing
21st Century language on an 18th Century document. Read the case
law:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Meaning_of_.22well_regulated_militia.22
The term "regulated" means "disciplined" or "trained".[114] In Heller,
the U.S. Supreme Court stated that "[t]he adjective 'well-regulated'
implies nothing more than the imposition of proper discipline and
training."[115] Regarding a well regulated militia, Alexander Hamilton
wrote in Federalist No. 29:
A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that
requires time and practice. It is not a day, or even a week, that will
suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the
yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms
for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as
often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which
would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would
be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience
and loss.[47]
Regarding regulation and training of the militia, Alexander Hamilton
wrote in Federalist No. 29:
"If a well regulated militia be the most natural defence of a free
country, it ought certainly to be under the regulation and at the
disposal of that body which is constituted the guardian of the
national security...confiding the regulation of the militia to the
direction of the national authority...(and) reserving to the
states...the authority of training the militia".[47]
TCross
John Manning
May 31, 2012, 1:40:03 PM5/31/12
to
it's any safer here. Brazil has its own perils from the very
powerful 'traficantes' [the Brazilian drug cartels] just here in
Rio... and the very scary massive poverty/crime situation, largely
due to this country's very extreme wealth inequality... and my very,
very possessive Brazilian wife is another matter. ;-)
>
> Brenda
SkyEyes
May 31, 2012, 7:35:01 PM5/31/12
to
to Brazil. ;->
Brenda
John Manning
May 31, 2012, 7:43:19 PM5/31/12
to
Stewart
Jun 1, 2012, 7:28:12 PM6/1/12
to
"SkyEyes" <skye...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:a8e9c330-5f50-4287...@nl1g2000pbc.googlegroups.com...
No, just a realist.
Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
Jun 1, 2012, 11:53:59 PM6/1/12
to
"eeeeeeeeeeevil gubmint," keeps producing so many of these people.
--
Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
"Life is too short to be living somebody else's dream."
-- Hugh Hefner
0 new messages