XPost: sci.electronics.repair, 24hoursupport.helpdesk, alt.sport
.football.pro.sd-chargers
XPost: rec.audio.car
From: trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au
On 4/24/2013 10:39 PM, krw@attt.bizz wrote:
> 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.
**There is little to stop a person who has a clean record form walking
into a gun show, buying whatever guns they are asked to buy, by someone
waiting outside the show. This is PRECISELY the method used by the
Columbine killers to obtain at least one of their guns. It is a stupid
loop-hole and one which can easily be closed.
>
>> 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.
**Cite these alleged "facts" you speak of.
>
>> I do think a "long gun" registry doesn't work- but restrictions on
>> particular weapons do help.
>
> Bullshit. Proof required.
**Australia introduced bans on certain firearms in 1996, to deal with
the crime of mass murder, via gunshot. In the 18 years prior to 1996,
there were 13 incidences of mass murder, via gunshot. Since 1996, there
have been none.
>
>> 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.
**10,000 Americans are shot to death each year.
--
Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
