XPost: sci.electronics.repair, 24hoursupport.helpdesk, alt.sport   
   .football.pro.sd-chargers   
   XPost: rec.audio.car   
   From: dhky@shaw.ca   
      
   On 19/04/2013 9:29 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.   
   >   
      
   I disagree in part-any legal limitations don't mean a damn to   
   criminals-but  what you have is a situation where any kook can walk into   
   a store and buy a gun, or where this isn't allowed, go to a gun show and   
   do it -without any background checks. The "rights" should be limited- do   
   you have a "right" to drive a car- I don't think so- you have the   
   privilege- provided that you present information as to your  ability to   
   do it within conditions of capability. Shouldn't the same be done with   
   respect to weapons?   
     As to reloading magazines- true-just think, instead of firing 50   
   rounds into a movie theater, one has to stop after 10 to reload. Even   
   that is too much.   
   As for shooting back- the odds are that in such a firefight, the   
   collateral damage is high-my experience with an automatic (or semi-)   
   weapon  is that it tends to walk around a lot from where it is aimed. Oh   
   Shit- spraying bullets around hit some innocent people- while the   
   intended target is unharmed- witness gang shootouts.   
   I do think a "long gun" registry doesn't work- but restrictions on   
   particular weapons do help. Illegal weapons do get into criminal hands-   
   but facts may indicate that making these weapons licit increases the   
   chance of innocents being harmed. The old west idea of gunfights as a   
   form of duel - may well be fiction- it is easier to shoot an opponent in   
   the back that to walk down the street and  duel to appropriate music.   
     Anyhow, I can disagree with you -but it will not be beyond  the extent   
   of arguing over which of us is to buy the next round if we ever meet.   
      
      
      
      
      
   --   
   Don Kelly   
   remove the cross to reply   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)