XPost: sci.electronics.repair, 24hoursupport.helpdesk, alt.sport   
   .football.pro.sd-chargers   
   XPost: rec.audio.car   
      
   On Sat, 20 Apr 2013 17:58:23 +1000, Trevor Wilson   
    wrote:   
      
   >On 4/20/2013 2:29 AM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:   
   >>   
   >> Don Kelly wrote:   
   >>>   
   >>> On 18/04/2013 8:36 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:   
   >>>>   
   >>>> **What part of "....well regulated militia..." do you not understand.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Face it, the 2nd Amendment was written:   
   >>>>   
   >>>> * At a time when reload times were measured in MINUTES, not milliseconds.   
   >>>> * At a time when accuracy of muzzle-loading weapons was inferior to a   
   >>>> bow and arrow.   
   >>>> * At a time when dangerous animals roamed free.   
   >>>> * At a time when a vicious colonial power ruled America.   
   >>>> * At a time when angry indigenous people roamed free.   
   >>>> * At a time when refrigeration was unheard of.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> **Of course. Equally as moronic as those who defend the NRA and their   
   >>>> gutless politicians they have in their pocket.   
   >>>>   
   >>>>   
   >>> Thank you- some common sense coming out. (the vicious colonial power   
   >>> excepted-the Mel Gibson movie is not a historically valid reference).   
   >>> In a later time- prior to and after the war of 1812 fiasco- it was   
   >>> expected that "Canadians" were to carry and use arms in defense of their   
   >>> country.An obligation -not a right. It was always noted that, as a   
   >>> frontier country, that there would be a need to have arms and training   
   >>> in the use of these arms for defense was required (and the need for   
   >>> providing fresh meat was also rather important).   
   >>> What I don't understand is the need for an assault weapon for defense   
   >>> dragging it out from under the pillow to shoot at the horde of home   
   >>> invaders (or late returning children) who are after one's virtue ( if   
   >>> their intention was otherwise they would solve this problem earlier)- or   
   >>> for hunting (instant hamburger?). The term "assault" comes to mind.   
   >>> These weapons are not intended for defense but are intended to throw a   
   >>> lot of bullets in the assumed direction of an enemy. If someone innocent   
   >>> gets in the way it is "collateral damage".   
   >>> A gun registry may be of limited or no use. The banning of  weapons that   
   >>> can spray a theater or school with bullets can help and doesn't infringe   
   >>> on a right to bear arms. This wouldn't affect the responsible gun owners   
   >>> but could reduce the availability of such weapons to the kooks.   
   >>> I am not a US citizen and as such, all I can do is stand by in dismay at   
   >>> what some; in a country I respect and whose people I have met and lived   
   >>> with ( as well as claim as relatives) who are warm, helpful, friendly,   
   >>> supportive of strangers and just good neighbors; have this gun fetish   
   >>> based on ??   
   >>   
   >>   
   >>    Guns aren't the problem, and it only takes a second or two to change a   
   >> magazine, so the size doesn't make any difference if no one is shooting   
   >> back.  The problem is that sleazy lawyers got 'rights' for the mentally   
   >> ill to be on the streets.  A gun is a tool, and doesn't kill by itself.   
   >> It takes an unstable person or criminal who places no value on human   
   >> life to use one to maim or kill in cold blood.   
   >   
   >**Which is why good, strong, sane, homogeneous gun control laws make a   
   >great deal of good sense. Something that does not exist in the US.   
      
   Right.  Strong gun law:  Every action has an equal and opposite   
   reaction.   
      
   Gun control: Killing what you aim at.   
      
   >>     People like 'Trevor' are responsible for creating 'Gun free zones'   
   >> which are the perfect targets for shooting sprees where no one will   
   >> shoot back.  He is down under, and has no business spouting off about   
   >> gun control in the US.   
   >>   
   >   
   >**Sure I have. I get to say whatever I wish (within limits). I have   
   >freedom of speech, despite what you would wish.   
      
   Yes, even the idiots have "freedom of speech".  Unfortunately, they're   
   all too free with their mouths.   
      
   >"Gun free zones". Gotta love that old NRA gobbledegook. You have been   
   >comprehensively brainwashed.   
      
   You're completely clueless but we all knew that.  If the facts   
   disagree with your puny world view, the facts are evil.  Typical   
   leftist moron.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)