XPost: sci.electronics.repair, 24hoursupport.helpdesk, alt.sport   
   .football.pro.sd-chargers   
   XPost: rec.audio.car   
      
   On Tue, 23 Apr 2013 21:58:41 -0700, Don Kelly  wrote:   
      
   >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 above is a deliberate lie.  Dealers at gun shows have to perform   
   the same background check as any other dealer. Always have.   
      
   >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?   
      
   Where does the Constitution mention cars?  How do cars *PROTECT* life?   
      
   >  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.   
      
   Wrong again. Even that is ridiculous.  You *obviously* know nothing of   
   what you speak.   
      
   >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.   
      
   The facts prove you wrong, but that's to be expected from *ANY* gun   
   grabber.   
      
   >I do think a "long gun" registry doesn't work- but restrictions on   
   >particular weapons do help.   
      
   Bullshit.  Proof required.   
      
   >Illegal weapons do get into criminal hands-   
   >but facts may indicate that making these weapons licit increases the   
   >chance of innocents being harmed.   
      
   What "facts"?  You've stated none.   
      
   >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.   
      
   "Buy the next round"?  A rather unfortunate choice of words, eh?   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)