Really, really dumb

On 1/13/2020 8:17 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Monday, January 13, 2020 at 4:53:21 PM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
On 1/13/2020 6:32 PM, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 13 Jan 2020 11:50:31 -0800 (PST), wrote:

On Sunday, January 12, 2020 at 2:35:24 PM UTC-8, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 12 Jan 2020 15:14:50 -0600, AMuzi wrote:

On 1/12/2020 2:06 PM, wrote:
On Sunday, January 12, 2020 at 9:53:24 AM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
On 1/11/2020 7:51 PM, pH wrote:
On Saturday, January 11, 2020 at 4:36:19 PM UTC-8, jbeattie wrote:
On Saturday, January 11, 2020 at 2:48:05 PM UTC-8, wrote:
On Saturday, January 11, 2020 at 9:07:07 AM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
On 1/11/2020 12:38 AM, John B. wrote:
On Fri, 10 Jan 2020 21:43:59 -0800 (PST), pH wrote:

snip

There is no right to own a gun in the Constitution. The Second Amendment simply prohibits the federal government from infringing on the right to keep and bear arms for use in a well-regulated state militia. Nothing in the Constitution prohibited the states from taking away your gun, cutting off your testicles or doing basically anything it wanted.

The only reasons the states can't rip your gun out of your cold dead hands is because of the Fourteenth Amendment and the conclusion by some farting old white judges that gun ownership is a "fundamental right." The word "gun" or "arms" does not appear in the Fourteenth Amendment. Activist judges! AOC is right and a leading olde-tyme conservative strict constructionist!

-- Jay Beattie

I always wondered where Constitutional authority for the draft comes from.
Isn't it sort of like forced servitude, ie: slavery?

Not trying to be incendiary, just curious.

pH in Aptos

If I am not mistaken the constitution provides the authorization for
the Congress to "raise and support Armies" and I believe that the
Supreme court ruled ( in 1918 I believe) that "the power of Congress
to classify and conscript manpower for military service is beyond
question".



It was 'questioned' by some chunk of the citizenry who
turned out for the draft riots in 1863.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971


In times of national emergencies many of the rights in the Constitution can be temporarily suspended. The draft was instituted four times in the history of the US starting in the War of 1812. The latest ran from 1940 to 1973. This means that it was a year and a half before Pearl Harbor so Churchill managed to convince Roosevelt that it was coming.

That it was extended through Korea and Vietnam is curious.

Well, the question is really one of federal power versus individual liberty. You don't have a right not to be drafted. You have a right not to be a slave, and you have the right to due process before being deprived of your liberty, but you don't have a right not to be drafted. Why, because some old white farts said so. I love the 13th Amendment ipse dixit analysis:

"Finally, as we are unable to conceive upon what theory the exaction by government from the citizen of the performance of his supreme and noble duty of contributing to the defense of the rights and honor of the nation, as the result of a war declared by the great representative body of the people, can be said to be the imposition of involuntary servitude in violation of the prohibitions of the Thirteenth Amendment, we are constrained to the conclusion that the contention to that effect is refuted by its mere statement."

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/245/366/

Okey-dokey! (turning head, coughing .. . lilting strains of "Over There" rising in the background).

In the Selective Draft Law cases, the big issue was whether there was Constitutional authority for the draft, which there is (somewhere between the lines) -- although it is questionable in peace time, but that's just a matter of definition.

-- Jay Beattie.

Since "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" were enumerated very
early on in the document as part of our UNALIENABLE rights...that is, cannot be taken away, even if we wanted.
So I always wondered how there could be a death penalty if the right to life
were unalienable and on to the draft question as well.

I know, very simplistic thinking on my part. And there certainly is a death
penalty and the draft so....well, I'm way too old to be drafted now anyway.

Thank-you to you and John B. for responding to my question and I'll go read the 13th amendment

pH in Aptos


Sidestepping your question, the US Army finds most
_volunteer_ recruits unsuitable, physically or
intellectually. Besides no current draft, it's unlikely,
given the military's necessary standards, that it will
return any time soon.


As time goes on fewer and fewer ground troops are required and the military already can't use what they have. So they keep them in reserve in case they were ever to find a reason to use them that a cruise missile would fix a lot cheaper and more rapidly. The only reason that Seal Team 6 actually took out Ben Laden was to positively identify him.


There's that but there are things missiles/drones/artillery
just cannot do. Fewer yes, but more highly skilled in
narrower areas.

Plus there's the ratio of tooth to tail- you need a lot of
guys moving fuel, wrenching etc (support= cute term 'beans
bullets and band-aids') to run a tank sortie for example.
The not-obvious support areas (GPS, communication, target
identification, data security and so on) are more important
every year.

I think that the theory of "modern warfare" requiring fewer troops has
been in fashion, probably since the Romans defeated Carthage, but
other than Rome's solution to the "Carthage problem" "feet on the
ground" has been required to maintain effective control of conquered
territory.
--
cheers,

John B.

In case you've missed this boat as well - the US doesn't conquer territory.

I guess it depends on what you call "conquer", doesn't? Lets see...

In 1776 the embryo U.S. seized the territory of a foreign government
and established an illegal government on said territory and in 1812
they successfully defended this theft.

Then in 1861 the northern half of said country did invade and conquer
the southern half, replacing the existing government and destroying
the existing economy.

In 1898 the U.S. attacked Spain and seized Spanish territories in the
Pacific Region a portion of which they retain to this day.

In 1917 the U.S. unilaterally declared war on Germany, a country that
had never conducted military actions against the U.S. and lost 100,000
men. Then, with the other conquering nations, imposed such extremely
punitive economic sanctions on Germany that they may be said to have
caused, or been the underlying cause, of WW II.

In 1945 they defeated their enemy Japan and established a military
government headed by an army general to govern the country.

After the U.S. - Japan war the U.S. seized control of the southern
portion of Korea and established a military government there.

In 1955 the U.S. refusing to agree to the U.N. mandated agreement to
allow Vietnam to determine their own form of government by plebiscite
and installed a puppet governor and seized effective control of the
southern portion of the country. It might be mentioned that this
resulted in what was, undoubtedly the most politically damaging war
that the U.S. ever engaged in.

I can go on, if you wish....
--
cheers,

John B.


nice summary of Leonard Zinn if not Chairman Xi himself.

Well, it is accurate to state that we occupied Germany and Japan for a period of time after WWII, and that we occupied and then permanently acquired land previously held by Spain. That's not anti-american -- its history. And we did need a lot of boots on the ground to occupy Texas and California. Out there in Wisconsin, you had to beat up a lot of Winnebagos, and there is nothing worse than a beat-up Winnebago. https://beaterlifedotcom.files.wordp...n-rv.png?w=723

-- Jay Beattie.


Yep, I ride on the Military Road surveyed by the US Army
during those campaigns in Wisconsin Territory. The Winnebago
weren't much on straight lines or road building.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On Monday, January 13, 2020 at 4:53:21 PM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
On 1/13/2020 6:32 PM, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 13 Jan 2020 11:50:31 -0800 (PST), wrote:

On Sunday, January 12, 2020 at 2:35:24 PM UTC-8, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 12 Jan 2020 15:14:50 -0600, AMuzi wrote:

On 1/12/2020 2:06 PM, wrote:
On Sunday, January 12, 2020 at 9:53:24 AM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
On 1/11/2020 7:51 PM, pH wrote:
On Saturday, January 11, 2020 at 4:36:19 PM UTC-8, jbeattie wrote:
On Saturday, January 11, 2020 at 2:48:05 PM UTC-8, wrote:
On Saturday, January 11, 2020 at 9:07:07 AM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
On 1/11/2020 12:38 AM, John B. wrote:
On Fri, 10 Jan 2020 21:43:59 -0800 (PST), pH wrote:

snip

There is no right to own a gun in the Constitution. The Second Amendment simply prohibits the federal government from infringing on the right to keep and bear arms for use in a well-regulated state militia. Nothing in the Constitution prohibited the states from taking away your gun, cutting off your testicles or doing basically anything it wanted.

The only reasons the states can't rip your gun out of your cold dead hands is because of the Fourteenth Amendment and the conclusion by some farting old white judges that gun ownership is a "fundamental right." The word "gun" or "arms" does not appear in the Fourteenth Amendment. Activist judges! AOC is right and a leading olde-tyme conservative strict constructionist!

-- Jay Beattie

I always wondered where Constitutional authority for the draft comes from.
Isn't it sort of like forced servitude, ie: slavery?

Not trying to be incendiary, just curious.

pH in Aptos

If I am not mistaken the constitution provides the authorization for
the Congress to "raise and support Armies" and I believe that the
Supreme court ruled ( in 1918 I believe) that "the power of Congress
to classify and conscript manpower for military service is beyond
question".



It was 'questioned' by some chunk of the citizenry who
turned out for the draft riots in 1863.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971


In times of national emergencies many of the rights in the Constitution can be temporarily suspended. The draft was instituted four times in the history of the US starting in the War of 1812. The latest ran from 1940 to 1973. This means that it was a year and a half before Pearl Harbor so Churchill managed to convince Roosevelt that it was coming.

That it was extended through Korea and Vietnam is curious.

Well, the question is really one of federal power versus individual liberty. You don't have a right not to be drafted. You have a right not to be a slave, and you have the right to due process before being deprived of your liberty, but you don't have a right not to be drafted. Why, because some old white farts said so. I love the 13th Amendment ipse dixit analysis:

"Finally, as we are unable to conceive upon what theory the exaction by government from the citizen of the performance of his supreme and noble duty of contributing to the defense of the rights and honor of the nation, as the result of a war declared by the great representative body of the people, can be said to be the imposition of involuntary servitude in violation of the prohibitions of the Thirteenth Amendment, we are constrained to the conclusion that the contention to that effect is refuted by its mere statement."

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/245/366/

Okey-dokey! (turning head, coughing .. . lilting strains of "Over There" rising in the background).

In the Selective Draft Law cases, the big issue was whether there was Constitutional authority for the draft, which there is (somewhere between the lines) -- although it is questionable in peace time, but that's just a matter of definition.

-- Jay Beattie.

Since "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" were enumerated very
early on in the document as part of our UNALIENABLE rights...that is, cannot be taken away, even if we wanted.
So I always wondered how there could be a death penalty if the right to life
were unalienable and on to the draft question as well.

I know, very simplistic thinking on my part. And there certainly is a death
penalty and the draft so....well, I'm way too old to be drafted now anyway.

Thank-you to you and John B. for responding to my question and I'll go read the 13th amendment

pH in Aptos


Sidestepping your question, the US Army finds most
_volunteer_ recruits unsuitable, physically or
intellectually. Besides no current draft, it's unlikely,
given the military's necessary standards, that it will
return any time soon.


As time goes on fewer and fewer ground troops are required and the military already can't use what they have. So they keep them in reserve in case they were ever to find a reason to use them that a cruise missile would fix a lot cheaper and more rapidly. The only reason that Seal Team 6 actually took out Ben Laden was to positively identify him.


There's that but there are things missiles/drones/artillery
just cannot do. Fewer yes, but more highly skilled in
narrower areas.

Plus there's the ratio of tooth to tail- you need a lot of
guys moving fuel, wrenching etc (support= cute term 'beans
bullets and band-aids') to run a tank sortie for example.
The not-obvious support areas (GPS, communication, target
identification, data security and so on) are more important
every year.

I think that the theory of "modern warfare" requiring fewer troops has
been in fashion, probably since the Romans defeated Carthage, but
other than Rome's solution to the "Carthage problem" "feet on the
ground" has been required to maintain effective control of conquered
territory.
--
cheers,

John B.

In case you've missed this boat as well - the US doesn't conquer territory.

I guess it depends on what you call "conquer", doesn't? Lets see...

In 1776 the embryo U.S. seized the territory of a foreign government
and established an illegal government on said territory and in 1812
they successfully defended this theft.

Then in 1861 the northern half of said country did invade and conquer
the southern half, replacing the existing government and destroying
the existing economy.

In 1898 the U.S. attacked Spain and seized Spanish territories in the
Pacific Region a portion of which they retain to this day.

In 1917 the U.S. unilaterally declared war on Germany, a country that
had never conducted military actions against the U.S. and lost 100,000
men. Then, with the other conquering nations, imposed such extremely
punitive economic sanctions on Germany that they may be said to have
caused, or been the underlying cause, of WW II.

In 1945 they defeated their enemy Japan and established a military
government headed by an army general to govern the country.

After the U.S. - Japan war the U.S. seized control of the southern
portion of Korea and established a military government there.

In 1955 the U.S. refusing to agree to the U.N. mandated agreement to
allow Vietnam to determine their own form of government by plebiscite
and installed a puppet governor and seized effective control of the
southern portion of the country. It might be mentioned that this
resulted in what was, undoubtedly the most politically damaging war
that the U.S. ever engaged in.

I can go on, if you wish....
--
cheers,

John B.


nice summary of Leonard Zinn if not Chairman Xi himself.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

John feels safe writing that from Thailand.

On Monday, January 13, 2020 at 6:17:08 PM UTC-8, jbeattie wrote:
On Monday, January 13, 2020 at 4:53:21 PM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
On 1/13/2020 6:32 PM, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 13 Jan 2020 11:50:31 -0800 (PST), wrote:

On Sunday, January 12, 2020 at 2:35:24 PM UTC-8, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 12 Jan 2020 15:14:50 -0600, AMuzi wrote:

On 1/12/2020 2:06 PM, wrote:
On Sunday, January 12, 2020 at 9:53:24 AM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
On 1/11/2020 7:51 PM, pH wrote:
On Saturday, January 11, 2020 at 4:36:19 PM UTC-8, jbeattie wrote:
On Saturday, January 11, 2020 at 2:48:05 PM UTC-8, wrote:
On Saturday, January 11, 2020 at 9:07:07 AM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
On 1/11/2020 12:38 AM, John B. wrote:
On Fri, 10 Jan 2020 21:43:59 -0800 (PST), pH wrote:

snip

There is no right to own a gun in the Constitution. The Second Amendment simply prohibits the federal government from infringing on the right to keep and bear arms for use in a well-regulated state militia. Nothing in the Constitution prohibited the states from taking away your gun, cutting off your testicles or doing basically anything it wanted.

The only reasons the states can't rip your gun out of your cold dead hands is because of the Fourteenth Amendment and the conclusion by some farting old white judges that gun ownership is a "fundamental right." The word "gun" or "arms" does not appear in the Fourteenth Amendment. Activist judges! AOC is right and a leading olde-tyme conservative strict constructionist!

-- Jay Beattie

I always wondered where Constitutional authority for the draft comes from.
Isn't it sort of like forced servitude, ie: slavery?

Not trying to be incendiary, just curious.

pH in Aptos

If I am not mistaken the constitution provides the authorization for
the Congress to "raise and support Armies" and I believe that the
Supreme court ruled ( in 1918 I believe) that "the power of Congress
to classify and conscript manpower for military service is beyond
question".



It was 'questioned' by some chunk of the citizenry who
turned out for the draft riots in 1863.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971


In times of national emergencies many of the rights in the Constitution can be temporarily suspended. The draft was instituted four times in the history of the US starting in the War of 1812. The latest ran from 1940 to 1973. This means that it was a year and a half before Pearl Harbor so Churchill managed to convince Roosevelt that it was coming.

That it was extended through Korea and Vietnam is curious.

Well, the question is really one of federal power versus individual liberty. You don't have a right not to be drafted. You have a right not to be a slave, and you have the right to due process before being deprived of your liberty, but you don't have a right not to be drafted. Why, because some old white farts said so. I love the 13th Amendment ipse dixit analysis:

"Finally, as we are unable to conceive upon what theory the exaction by government from the citizen of the performance of his supreme and noble duty of contributing to the defense of the rights and honor of the nation, as the result of a war declared by the great representative body of the people, can be said to be the imposition of involuntary servitude in violation of the prohibitions of the Thirteenth Amendment, we are constrained to the conclusion that the contention to that effect is refuted by its mere statement."

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/245/366/

Okey-dokey! (turning head, coughing .. . lilting strains of "Over There" rising in the background).

In the Selective Draft Law cases, the big issue was whether there was Constitutional authority for the draft, which there is (somewhere between the lines) -- although it is questionable in peace time, but that's just a matter of definition.

-- Jay Beattie.

Since "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" were enumerated very
early on in the document as part of our UNALIENABLE rights...that is, cannot be taken away, even if we wanted.
So I always wondered how there could be a death penalty if the right to life
were unalienable and on to the draft question as well.

I know, very simplistic thinking on my part. And there certainly is a death
penalty and the draft so....well, I'm way too old to be drafted now anyway.

Thank-you to you and John B. for responding to my question and I'll go read the 13th amendment

pH in Aptos


Sidestepping your question, the US Army finds most
_volunteer_ recruits unsuitable, physically or
intellectually. Besides no current draft, it's unlikely,
given the military's necessary standards, that it will
return any time soon.


As time goes on fewer and fewer ground troops are required and the military already can't use what they have. So they keep them in reserve in case they were ever to find a reason to use them that a cruise missile would fix a lot cheaper and more rapidly. The only reason that Seal Team 6 actually took out Ben Laden was to positively identify him.


There's that but there are things missiles/drones/artillery
just cannot do. Fewer yes, but more highly skilled in
narrower areas.

Plus there's the ratio of tooth to tail- you need a lot of
guys moving fuel, wrenching etc (support= cute term 'beans
bullets and band-aids') to run a tank sortie for example.
The not-obvious support areas (GPS, communication, target
identification, data security and so on) are more important
every year.

I think that the theory of "modern warfare" requiring fewer troops has
been in fashion, probably since the Romans defeated Carthage, but
other than Rome's solution to the "Carthage problem" "feet on the
ground" has been required to maintain effective control of conquered
territory.
--
cheers,

John B.

In case you've missed this boat as well - the US doesn't conquer territory.

I guess it depends on what you call "conquer", doesn't? Lets see...

In 1776 the embryo U.S. seized the territory of a foreign government
and established an illegal government on said territory and in 1812
they successfully defended this theft.

Then in 1861 the northern half of said country did invade and conquer
the southern half, replacing the existing government and destroying
the existing economy.

In 1898 the U.S. attacked Spain and seized Spanish territories in the
Pacific Region a portion of which they retain to this day.

In 1917 the U.S. unilaterally declared war on Germany, a country that
had never conducted military actions against the U.S. and lost 100,000
men. Then, with the other conquering nations, imposed such extremely
punitive economic sanctions on Germany that they may be said to have
caused, or been the underlying cause, of WW II.

In 1945 they defeated their enemy Japan and established a military
government headed by an army general to govern the country.

After the U.S. - Japan war the U.S. seized control of the southern
portion of Korea and established a military government there.

In 1955 the U.S. refusing to agree to the U.N. mandated agreement to
allow Vietnam to determine their own form of government by plebiscite
and installed a puppet governor and seized effective control of the
southern portion of the country. It might be mentioned that this
resulted in what was, undoubtedly the most politically damaging war
that the U.S. ever engaged in.

I can go on, if you wish....
--
cheers,

John B.


nice summary of Leonard Zinn if not Chairman Xi himself.

Well, it is accurate to state that we occupied Germany and Japan for a period of time after WWII, and that we occupied and then permanently acquired land previously held by Spain. That's not anti-american -- its history. And we did need a lot of boots on the ground to occupy Texas and California.. Out there in Wisconsin, you had to beat up a lot of Winnebagos, and there is nothing worse than a beat-up Winnebago. https://beaterlifedotcom.files.wordp...n-rv.png?w=723

-- Jay Beattie.

Where did you see this military presence in California? Furthermore, after Santa Ana's surrender, there was absolutely no need for military in Texas beyond the usual garrisons just in case. Your imagination that somehow the US is nothing more than an invading military power STARTED after WW I and was entirely in the hands of the Democrats. War is their game..

On Monday, January 13, 2020 at 7:17:31 PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/13/2020 8:10 PM, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 13 Jan 2020 11:31:49 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 1/12/2020 10:47 PM, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 12 Jan 2020 21:46:37 -0500, Frank Krygowski wrote:


I'm not panicking. But unlike the NRA and its current (as opposed to
historic) members, I don't think it's a good thing to arm millions of
citizens with guns designed specifically for killing other people. Most
of the developed world agrees.

But Frank, every type of firearm invented in the history of the weapon
can be said to be designed for killing people. The modern bolt action
rifle is a descendent of the so called "Needle Rifle" developed in
1836, and adopted by the Prussian Army in 1841. The first "lever
action" rifle, an American classic, was developed by Benjamin Tyler
Henry. Patented in 1960 it was in the hand of Union Soldiers by mid
1862.

I think it's always been true that warfare has driven technology, and I
don't doubt that bolt action (for example) was developed with military
use in mind. But bolt action is far more practical for legitimate
civilian use than its predecessor systems. Hunters or target shooters
benefit greatly from not having to load through the muzzle.

The AR-15 style has characteristic features that have no reasonable use
in hunting or ordinary target competition. Who needs the designed-in
ability to accept a 30 (or even 100) round magazine? This style of gun
was _specifically_ designed for killing people. Its design was optimized
for that purpose. It's why it exists.

There are many guns optimized for more civilized uses - shotguns
optimized for hunting birds, long range hunting rifles for elk at 1000
yards, ordinary hunting rifles (like a Ruger 10/22 for example),
competition target rifles, ordinary 0.22s that are good at tin cans, etc.


Err... the lowly .22 was the weapon of choice of the Israeli Wrath of
God operatives to destroy the Black September terrorists.

You mentioned bows and arrows. But the bows sold in sporting goods
stores near me were never designed with homicide or armed combat in
mind. The AR-15 absolutely was.

Why do you say that?

Because it's absolutely true. Anyone can look up the history of the
gun's development and see what the design objectives were. They can look
at the early sales (or procurement) history to confirm things.

Do you imagine that modern self bows and arrows
are significantly different from the war bows and arrows of, oh say,
the battle of Crecy?

John, you're picking at nits in an unsuccessful attempt at distraction.
Before Crecy (and probably after) armies also used stones as weapons.
(Look up the historic military use of slings.) But we've never had
modern mass murders committed by people using slings or arrows. Those
weapons are irrelevant.

The AR-15 type was absolutely designed as a people killer, and it's been
used that way by criminals and nut cases with distressing regularity.
Its combat features are not needed for normal hunting, for shooting of
pest animals, for target shooting or for legitimate self defense.

And I think the sales of this style of gun are driven to a large extent
by Rambo fantasies - or fantasies about defending one's home from
government agents who will come to rip all your guns out of your hands..

I am not going to get into that discussion except to say that in the
late 1800's and early 1900's the activities of western shooters was
widely publicized in popular literature. Perhaps "Ramboism" in one
form or another is a normal facet of the human male.

I think you're correct on that point. And I think if human males are so
dedicated to that fantasy, they should enlist in a proper military or
police unit and learn some discipline. Most of those "Rambo" fantasy
boys are fat sluggards who couldn't qualify, but just want to play with
the toys and pretend. Let them stick to their silly video games.


--
- Frank Krygowski

Frank, you might as well quit your attempt to lie your way out of anything and everything you have to say. ALL guns were always invented for war and LATTER were used for other purposes. Only war could supply the development funding necessary to advance the science. But you might as well spew another 18 long paragraphs of bull**** in an attempt to make yourself look an even greater ass. We're all used to it. When you wanted a picture of that tree lim

On Monday, January 13, 2020 at 7:17:31 PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/13/2020 8:10 PM, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 13 Jan 2020 11:31:49 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 1/12/2020 10:47 PM, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 12 Jan 2020 21:46:37 -0500, Frank Krygowski wrote:


I'm not panicking. But unlike the NRA and its current (as opposed to
historic) members, I don't think it's a good thing to arm millions of
citizens with guns designed specifically for killing other people. Most
of the developed world agrees.

But Frank, every type of firearm invented in the history of the weapon
can be said to be designed for killing people. The modern bolt action
rifle is a descendent of the so called "Needle Rifle" developed in
1836, and adopted by the Prussian Army in 1841. The first "lever
action" rifle, an American classic, was developed by Benjamin Tyler
Henry. Patented in 1960 it was in the hand of Union Soldiers by mid
1862.

I think it's always been true that warfare has driven technology, and I
don't doubt that bolt action (for example) was developed with military
use in mind. But bolt action is far more practical for legitimate
civilian use than its predecessor systems. Hunters or target shooters
benefit greatly from not having to load through the muzzle.

The AR-15 style has characteristic features that have no reasonable use
in hunting or ordinary target competition. Who needs the designed-in
ability to accept a 30 (or even 100) round magazine? This style of gun
was _specifically_ designed for killing people. Its design was optimized
for that purpose. It's why it exists.

There are many guns optimized for more civilized uses - shotguns
optimized for hunting birds, long range hunting rifles for elk at 1000
yards, ordinary hunting rifles (like a Ruger 10/22 for example),
competition target rifles, ordinary 0.22s that are good at tin cans, etc.


Err... the lowly .22 was the weapon of choice of the Israeli Wrath of
God operatives to destroy the Black September terrorists.

You mentioned bows and arrows. But the bows sold in sporting goods
stores near me were never designed with homicide or armed combat in
mind. The AR-15 absolutely was.

Why do you say that?

Because it's absolutely true. Anyone can look up the history of the
gun's development and see what the design objectives were. They can look
at the early sales (or procurement) history to confirm things.

Do you imagine that modern self bows and arrows
are significantly different from the war bows and arrows of, oh say,
the battle of Crecy?

John, you're picking at nits in an unsuccessful attempt at distraction.
Before Crecy (and probably after) armies also used stones as weapons.
(Look up the historic military use of slings.) But we've never had
modern mass murders committed by people using slings or arrows. Those
weapons are irrelevant.

The AR-15 type was absolutely designed as a people killer, and it's been
used that way by criminals and nut cases with distressing regularity.
Its combat features are not needed for normal hunting, for shooting of
pest animals, for target shooting or for legitimate self defense.

And I think the sales of this style of gun are driven to a large extent
by Rambo fantasies - or fantasies about defending one's home from
government agents who will come to rip all your guns out of your hands.

I am not going to get into that discussion except to say that in the
late 1800's and early 1900's the activities of western shooters was
widely publicized in popular literature. Perhaps "Ramboism" in one
form or another is a normal facet of the human male.

I think you're correct on that point. And I think if human males are so
dedicated to that fantasy, they should enlist in a proper military or
police unit and learn some discipline. Most of those "Rambo" fantasy
boys are fat sluggards who couldn't qualify, but just want to play with
the toys and pretend. Let them stick to their silly video games.


--
- Frank Krygowski

I wonder if you subjected your students to this vast array of bull**** you spew? ALL guns were initially designed for war and only after the development costs were absorbed by that undertaking were they available for other uses.

But you can throw out another 18 paragraphs of absolute bull**** thinking that somehow you can talk your way out of look like exactly what you are.

On 1/14/2020 10:10 AM, wrote:
On Monday, January 13, 2020 at 6:17:08 PM UTC-8, jbeattie wrote:
On Monday, January 13, 2020 at 4:53:21 PM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
On 1/13/2020 6:32 PM, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 13 Jan 2020 11:50:31 -0800 (PST), wrote:

On Sunday, January 12, 2020 at 2:35:24 PM UTC-8, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 12 Jan 2020 15:14:50 -0600, AMuzi wrote:

On 1/12/2020 2:06 PM, wrote:
On Sunday, January 12, 2020 at 9:53:24 AM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
On 1/11/2020 7:51 PM, pH wrote:
On Saturday, January 11, 2020 at 4:36:19 PM UTC-8, jbeattie wrote:
On Saturday, January 11, 2020 at 2:48:05 PM UTC-8, wrote:
On Saturday, January 11, 2020 at 9:07:07 AM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
On 1/11/2020 12:38 AM, John B. wrote:
On Fri, 10 Jan 2020 21:43:59 -0800 (PST), pH wrote:

snip

There is no right to own a gun in the Constitution. The Second Amendment simply prohibits the federal government from infringing on the right to keep and bear arms for use in a well-regulated state militia. Nothing in the Constitution prohibited the states from taking away your gun, cutting off your testicles or doing basically anything it wanted.

The only reasons the states can't rip your gun out of your cold dead hands is because of the Fourteenth Amendment and the conclusion by some farting old white judges that gun ownership is a "fundamental right." The word "gun" or "arms" does not appear in the Fourteenth Amendment. Activist judges! AOC is right and a leading olde-tyme conservative strict constructionist!

-- Jay Beattie

I always wondered where Constitutional authority for the draft comes from.
Isn't it sort of like forced servitude, ie: slavery?

Not trying to be incendiary, just curious.

pH in Aptos

If I am not mistaken the constitution provides the authorization for
the Congress to "raise and support Armies" and I believe that the
Supreme court ruled ( in 1918 I believe) that "the power of Congress
to classify and conscript manpower for military service is beyond
question".



It was 'questioned' by some chunk of the citizenry who
turned out for the draft riots in 1863.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971


In times of national emergencies many of the rights in the Constitution can be temporarily suspended. The draft was instituted four times in the history of the US starting in the War of 1812. The latest ran from 1940 to 1973. This means that it was a year and a half before Pearl Harbor so Churchill managed to convince Roosevelt that it was coming.

That it was extended through Korea and Vietnam is curious.

Well, the question is really one of federal power versus individual liberty. You don't have a right not to be drafted. You have a right not to be a slave, and you have the right to due process before being deprived of your liberty, but you don't have a right not to be drafted. Why, because some old white farts said so. I love the 13th Amendment ipse dixit analysis:

"Finally, as we are unable to conceive upon what theory the exaction by government from the citizen of the performance of his supreme and noble duty of contributing to the defense of the rights and honor of the nation, as the result of a war declared by the great representative body of the people, can be said to be the imposition of involuntary servitude in violation of the prohibitions of the Thirteenth Amendment, we are constrained to the conclusion that the contention to that effect is refuted by its mere statement."

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/245/366/

Okey-dokey! (turning head, coughing .. . lilting strains of "Over There" rising in the background).

In the Selective Draft Law cases, the big issue was whether there was Constitutional authority for the draft, which there is (somewhere between the lines) -- although it is questionable in peace time, but that's just a matter of definition.

-- Jay Beattie.

Since "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" were enumerated very
early on in the document as part of our UNALIENABLE rights...that is, cannot be taken away, even if we wanted.
So I always wondered how there could be a death penalty if the right to life
were unalienable and on to the draft question as well.

I know, very simplistic thinking on my part. And there certainly is a death
penalty and the draft so....well, I'm way too old to be drafted now anyway.

Thank-you to you and John B. for responding to my question and I'll go read the 13th amendment

pH in Aptos


Sidestepping your question, the US Army finds most
_volunteer_ recruits unsuitable, physically or
intellectually. Besides no current draft, it's unlikely,
given the military's necessary standards, that it will
return any time soon.


As time goes on fewer and fewer ground troops are required and the military already can't use what they have. So they keep them in reserve in case they were ever to find a reason to use them that a cruise missile would fix a lot cheaper and more rapidly. The only reason that Seal Team 6 actually took out Ben Laden was to positively identify him.


There's that but there are things missiles/drones/artillery
just cannot do. Fewer yes, but more highly skilled in
narrower areas.

Plus there's the ratio of tooth to tail- you need a lot of
guys moving fuel, wrenching etc (support= cute term 'beans
bullets and band-aids') to run a tank sortie for example.
The not-obvious support areas (GPS, communication, target
identification, data security and so on) are more important
every year.

I think that the theory of "modern warfare" requiring fewer troops has
been in fashion, probably since the Romans defeated Carthage, but
other than Rome's solution to the "Carthage problem" "feet on the
ground" has been required to maintain effective control of conquered
territory.
--
cheers,

John B.

In case you've missed this boat as well - the US doesn't conquer territory.

I guess it depends on what you call "conquer", doesn't? Lets see...

In 1776 the embryo U.S. seized the territory of a foreign government
and established an illegal government on said territory and in 1812
they successfully defended this theft.

Then in 1861 the northern half of said country did invade and conquer
the southern half, replacing the existing government and destroying
the existing economy.

In 1898 the U.S. attacked Spain and seized Spanish territories in the
Pacific Region a portion of which they retain to this day.

In 1917 the U.S. unilaterally declared war on Germany, a country that
had never conducted military actions against the U.S. and lost 100,000
men. Then, with the other conquering nations, imposed such extremely
punitive economic sanctions on Germany that they may be said to have
caused, or been the underlying cause, of WW II.

In 1945 they defeated their enemy Japan and established a military
government headed by an army general to govern the country.

After the U.S. - Japan war the U.S. seized control of the southern
portion of Korea and established a military government there.

In 1955 the U.S. refusing to agree to the U.N. mandated agreement to
allow Vietnam to determine their own form of government by plebiscite
and installed a puppet governor and seized effective control of the
southern portion of the country. It might be mentioned that this
resulted in what was, undoubtedly the most politically damaging war
that the U.S. ever engaged in.

I can go on, if you wish....
--
cheers,

John B.


nice summary of Leonard Zinn if not Chairman Xi himself.

Well, it is accurate to state that we occupied Germany and Japan for a period of time after WWII, and that we occupied and then permanently acquired land previously held by Spain. That's not anti-american -- its history. And we did need a lot of boots on the ground to occupy Texas and California. Out there in Wisconsin, you had to beat up a lot of Winnebagos, and there is nothing worse than a beat-up Winnebago. https://beaterlifedotcom.files.wordp...n-rv.png?w=723

-- Jay Beattie.

Where did you see this military presence in California? Furthermore, after Santa Ana's surrender, there was absolutely no need for military in Texas beyond the usual garrisons just in case. Your imagination that somehow the US is nothing more than an invading military power STARTED after WW I and was entirely in the hands of the Democrats. War is their game..


??
Santa Ana surrendered to the Texas Republic after San
Jacinto, not the US of A.

p.s. He ended up on Staten Island where he established the
first successful chewing gum company. We're the prime
exemplar of a culture which embraces second chances and new
beginnings!

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On 1/13/2020 11:30 PM, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 13 Jan 2020 22:17:26 -0500, Frank Krygowski wrote:

On 1/13/2020 8:10 PM, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 13 Jan 2020 11:31:49 -0500, Frank Krygowski wrote:


You mentioned bows and arrows. But the bows sold in sporting goods
stores near me were never designed with homicide or armed combat in
mind. The AR-15 absolutely was.

Why do you say that?

Because it's absolutely true. Anyone can look up the history of the
gun's development and see what the design objectives were. They can look
at the early sales (or procurement) history to confirm things.

Do you imagine that modern self bows and arrows
are significantly different from the war bows and arrows of, oh say,
the battle of Crecy?

John, you're picking at nits in an unsuccessful attempt at distraction.
Before Crecy (and probably after) armies also used stones as weapons.
(Look up the historic military use of slings.) But we've never had
modern mass murders committed by people using slings or arrows. Those
weapons are irrelevant.

The AR-15 type was absolutely designed as a people killer, and it's been
used that way by criminals and nut cases with distressing regularity.
Its combat features are not needed for normal hunting, for shooting of
pest animals, for target shooting or for legitimate self defense.

But Frank, the latest "mass killing" at the wasn't a AR-15 type.... it
was a Glock 9 pistol as carried by many police officers. The shootings
at the Washington Navy Yard shootings in 2013 was with a Remington 870
shotgun.

I think that you are witch hunting, After all the AR-15 is a
semi-automatic rifle and the first semi-automatic rifle produced and
sold in the U.S. was the Remington Model 8 which went on sale in 1905.

One conter-example doesn't change the facts. You're squirming away from
my main point. The AR-15 was designed for killing people, not for any
other practical use like hunting or target shooting. It retains the
features that make it an efficient people killer but confer no other
benefit. It's not needed by sane gun users without a Rambo fetish.

What's next? The 20 round magazine? But I have already explained that
the Henry, from way back when, held 16 cartridges and as you haven't
ranted about that I can only assume that you don't oppose large
magazines.

Your memory is short. In the past, I've said there is no reason for
non-military guns to have a rapid fire capability. I stand by that.
Competent hunters don't fire in bursts. That capability is not needed
for self defense, and the only target shooters who do that are the Rambo
wannabees. Save the "pow pow pow pow pow pow pow" experience for
military combat - and if you insist, stupid video games. (Although I'll
note the Mexican kid that triggered this thread was into those stupid
games.)

It is probably also pertinent to mention that mass shootings from 1982
to 1919 have overwhelmingly been carried out with pistols .

Right. I'm in favor of Canada's policies on handguns.

BTW, Sir Ridesalot never answered my question. How are things going in
your city, given Canada's rational gun control laws? Are you able to
somehow get by despite those laws? Or perhaps because of them?

See
https://www.nationalobserver.com/201...ompare-canadas

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 1/14/2020 6:37 AM, Eric Pozharski wrote:
with Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/12/2020 10:47 PM, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 12 Jan 2020 21:46:37 -0500, Frank Krygowski wrote:

I'm not panicking. But unlike the NRA and its current (as opposed to
historic) members, I don't think it's a good thing to arm millions
of citizens with guns designed specifically for killing other
people. Most of the developed world agrees.
But Frank, every type of firearm invented in the history of the
weapon can be said to be designed for killing people. The modern bolt
action rifle is a descendent of the so called "Needle Rifle"
developed in 1836, and adopted by the Prussian Army in 1841. The
first "lever action" rifle, an American classic, was developed by
Benjamin Tyler Henry. Patented in 1960 it was in the hand of Union
Soldiers by mid 1862.
*SKIP*
You mentioned bows and arrows. But the bows sold in sporting goods
stores near me were never designed with homicide or armed combat in
mind. The AR-15 absolutely was.

Speaking of. Just a week ago a clerk (she wasn't even kind of chief or
somehting) had been nailed to her car with an arrow (crossbow I believe,
I've never seen a bow being sold). Getting permit for firearms is quite
cumbersome here however possible. Go figure -- crossbows don't kill
people.

*CUT*


hmmm.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world...naged-survive/

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/boy-thr...t-by-crossbow/

https://kfor.com/2017/10/23/official...r-old-injured/

https://abcnews.go.com/International...ry?id=62448191

https://www.freep.com/story/news/loc...es/2449871002/

UK has more restrictive firearms regulation:
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...rth-wales-dies

Couldn't find 'pinned to car with crossbow bolt'.

p.s. in a random sample of weapons seized with some stone
cold killers, not one crossbow and not one AR-15/ M16. Nice
detailed image he

https://thenypost.files.wordpress.co...catrina-18.jpg

further:
https://nypost.com/2020/01/14/cartel...ops-in-mexico/
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On Tuesday, January 14, 2020 at 8:22:49 AM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
On 1/14/2020 10:10 AM, wrote:
On Monday, January 13, 2020 at 6:17:08 PM UTC-8, jbeattie wrote:
On Monday, January 13, 2020 at 4:53:21 PM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
On 1/13/2020 6:32 PM, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 13 Jan 2020 11:50:31 -0800 (PST), wrote:

On Sunday, January 12, 2020 at 2:35:24 PM UTC-8, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 12 Jan 2020 15:14:50 -0600, AMuzi wrote:

On 1/12/2020 2:06 PM, wrote:
On Sunday, January 12, 2020 at 9:53:24 AM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
On 1/11/2020 7:51 PM, pH wrote:
On Saturday, January 11, 2020 at 4:36:19 PM UTC-8, jbeattie wrote:
On Saturday, January 11, 2020 at 2:48:05 PM UTC-8, wrote:
On Saturday, January 11, 2020 at 9:07:07 AM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
On 1/11/2020 12:38 AM, John B. wrote:
On Fri, 10 Jan 2020 21:43:59 -0800 (PST), pH wrote:

snip

There is no right to own a gun in the Constitution. The Second Amendment simply prohibits the federal government from infringing on the right to keep and bear arms for use in a well-regulated state militia. Nothing in the Constitution prohibited the states from taking away your gun, cutting off your testicles or doing basically anything it wanted.

The only reasons the states can't rip your gun out of your cold dead hands is because of the Fourteenth Amendment and the conclusion by some farting old white judges that gun ownership is a "fundamental right." The word "gun" or "arms" does not appear in the Fourteenth Amendment. Activist judges! AOC is right and a leading olde-tyme conservative strict constructionist!

-- Jay Beattie

I always wondered where Constitutional authority for the draft comes from.
Isn't it sort of like forced servitude, ie: slavery?

Not trying to be incendiary, just curious.

pH in Aptos

If I am not mistaken the constitution provides the authorization for
the Congress to "raise and support Armies" and I believe that the
Supreme court ruled ( in 1918 I believe) that "the power of Congress
to classify and conscript manpower for military service is beyond
question".



It was 'questioned' by some chunk of the citizenry who
turned out for the draft riots in 1863.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971


In times of national emergencies many of the rights in the Constitution can be temporarily suspended. The draft was instituted four times in the history of the US starting in the War of 1812. The latest ran from 1940 to 1973. This means that it was a year and a half before Pearl Harbor so Churchill managed to convince Roosevelt that it was coming.

That it was extended through Korea and Vietnam is curious.

Well, the question is really one of federal power versus individual liberty. You don't have a right not to be drafted. You have a right not to be a slave, and you have the right to due process before being deprived of your liberty, but you don't have a right not to be drafted. Why, because some old white farts said so. I love the 13th Amendment ipse dixit analysis:

"Finally, as we are unable to conceive upon what theory the exaction by government from the citizen of the performance of his supreme and noble duty of contributing to the defense of the rights and honor of the nation, as the result of a war declared by the great representative body of the people, can be said to be the imposition of involuntary servitude in violation of the prohibitions of the Thirteenth Amendment, we are constrained to the conclusion that the contention to that effect is refuted by its mere statement."

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/245/366/

Okey-dokey! (turning head, coughing .. . lilting strains of "Over There" rising in the background).

In the Selective Draft Law cases, the big issue was whether there was Constitutional authority for the draft, which there is (somewhere between the lines) -- although it is questionable in peace time, but that's just a matter of definition.

-- Jay Beattie.

Since "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" were enumerated very
early on in the document as part of our UNALIENABLE rights...that is, cannot be taken away, even if we wanted.
So I always wondered how there could be a death penalty if the right to life
were unalienable and on to the draft question as well.

I know, very simplistic thinking on my part. And there certainly is a death
penalty and the draft so....well, I'm way too old to be drafted now anyway.

Thank-you to you and John B. for responding to my question and I'll go read the 13th amendment

pH in Aptos


Sidestepping your question, the US Army finds most
_volunteer_ recruits unsuitable, physically or
intellectually. Besides no current draft, it's unlikely,
given the military's necessary standards, that it will
return any time soon.


As time goes on fewer and fewer ground troops are required and the military already can't use what they have. So they keep them in reserve in case they were ever to find a reason to use them that a cruise missile would fix a lot cheaper and more rapidly. The only reason that Seal Team 6 actually took out Ben Laden was to positively identify him.


There's that but there are things missiles/drones/artillery
just cannot do. Fewer yes, but more highly skilled in
narrower areas.

Plus there's the ratio of tooth to tail- you need a lot of
guys moving fuel, wrenching etc (support= cute term 'beans
bullets and band-aids') to run a tank sortie for example.
The not-obvious support areas (GPS, communication, target
identification, data security and so on) are more important
every year.

I think that the theory of "modern warfare" requiring fewer troops has
been in fashion, probably since the Romans defeated Carthage, but
other than Rome's solution to the "Carthage problem" "feet on the
ground" has been required to maintain effective control of conquered
territory.
--
cheers,

John B.

In case you've missed this boat as well - the US doesn't conquer territory.

I guess it depends on what you call "conquer", doesn't? Lets see...

In 1776 the embryo U.S. seized the territory of a foreign government
and established an illegal government on said territory and in 1812
they successfully defended this theft.

Then in 1861 the northern half of said country did invade and conquer
the southern half, replacing the existing government and destroying
the existing economy.

In 1898 the U.S. attacked Spain and seized Spanish territories in the
Pacific Region a portion of which they retain to this day.

In 1917 the U.S. unilaterally declared war on Germany, a country that
had never conducted military actions against the U.S. and lost 100,000
men. Then, with the other conquering nations, imposed such extremely
punitive economic sanctions on Germany that they may be said to have
caused, or been the underlying cause, of WW II.

In 1945 they defeated their enemy Japan and established a military
government headed by an army general to govern the country.

After the U.S. - Japan war the U.S. seized control of the southern
portion of Korea and established a military government there.

In 1955 the U.S. refusing to agree to the U.N. mandated agreement to
allow Vietnam to determine their own form of government by plebiscite
and installed a puppet governor and seized effective control of the
southern portion of the country. It might be mentioned that this
resulted in what was, undoubtedly the most politically damaging war
that the U.S. ever engaged in.

I can go on, if you wish....
--
cheers,

John B.


nice summary of Leonard Zinn if not Chairman Xi himself.

Well, it is accurate to state that we occupied Germany and Japan for a period of time after WWII, and that we occupied and then permanently acquired land previously held by Spain. That's not anti-american -- its history.. And we did need a lot of boots on the ground to occupy Texas and California. Out there in Wisconsin, you had to beat up a lot of Winnebagos, and there is nothing worse than a beat-up Winnebago. https://beaterlifedotcom.files.wordp...n-rv.png?w=723

-- Jay Beattie.

Where did you see this military presence in California? Furthermore, after Santa Ana's surrender, there was absolutely no need for military in Texas beyond the usual garrisons just in case. Your imagination that somehow the US is nothing more than an invading military power STARTED after WW I and was entirely in the hands of the Democrats. War is their game..


??
Santa Ana surrendered to the Texas Republic after San
Jacinto, not the US of A.

p.s. He ended up on Staten Island where he established the
first successful chewing gum company. We're the prime
exemplar of a culture which embraces second chances and new
beginnings!

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

Texas was an independent Republic at the time after Santa Ana's surrender. Remember I was stationed down there for awhile. And at the time they were more than willing to shove Texas history down your throat whether you wanted it or not. Most of the Texas army of independence were citizens of the US. If my memory is correct they were a Republic for less than 9 years.

As for Santa Ana - I don't think he actually had anything to do with chewing gum. He brought Chicle to the USA from Europe(?) to try and convince tire companies to use it instead of rubber.

On Tuesday, January 14, 2020 at 8:51:25 AM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/13/2020 11:30 PM, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 13 Jan 2020 22:17:26 -0500, Frank Krygowski wrote:

On 1/13/2020 8:10 PM, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 13 Jan 2020 11:31:49 -0500, Frank Krygowski wrote:


You mentioned bows and arrows. But the bows sold in sporting goods
stores near me were never designed with homicide or armed combat in
mind. The AR-15 absolutely was.

Why do you say that?

Because it's absolutely true. Anyone can look up the history of the
gun's development and see what the design objectives were. They can look
at the early sales (or procurement) history to confirm things.

Do you imagine that modern self bows and arrows
are significantly different from the war bows and arrows of, oh say,
the battle of Crecy?

John, you're picking at nits in an unsuccessful attempt at distraction..
Before Crecy (and probably after) armies also used stones as weapons.
(Look up the historic military use of slings.) But we've never had
modern mass murders committed by people using slings or arrows. Those
weapons are irrelevant.

The AR-15 type was absolutely designed as a people killer, and it's been
used that way by criminals and nut cases with distressing regularity.
Its combat features are not needed for normal hunting, for shooting of
pest animals, for target shooting or for legitimate self defense.

But Frank, the latest "mass killing" at the wasn't a AR-15 type.... it
was a Glock 9 pistol as carried by many police officers. The shootings
at the Washington Navy Yard shootings in 2013 was with a Remington 870
shotgun.

I think that you are witch hunting, After all the AR-15 is a
semi-automatic rifle and the first semi-automatic rifle produced and
sold in the U.S. was the Remington Model 8 which went on sale in 1905.

One conter-example doesn't change the facts. You're squirming away from
my main point. The AR-15 was designed for killing people, not for any
other practical use like hunting or target shooting. It retains the
features that make it an efficient people killer but confer no other
benefit. It's not needed by sane gun users without a Rambo fetish.

What's next? The 20 round magazine? But I have already explained that
the Henry, from way back when, held 16 cartridges and as you haven't
ranted about that I can only assume that you don't oppose large
magazines.

Your memory is short. In the past, I've said there is no reason for
non-military guns to have a rapid fire capability. I stand by that.
Competent hunters don't fire in bursts. That capability is not needed
for self defense, and the only target shooters who do that are the Rambo
wannabees. Save the "pow pow pow pow pow pow pow" experience for
military combat - and if you insist, stupid video games. (Although I'll
note the Mexican kid that triggered this thread was into those stupid
games.)

It is probably also pertinent to mention that mass shootings from 1982
to 1919 have overwhelmingly been carried out with pistols .

Right. I'm in favor of Canada's policies on handguns.

BTW, Sir Ridesalot never answered my question. How are things going in
your city, given Canada's rational gun control laws? Are you able to
somehow get by despite those laws? Or perhaps because of them?

See
https://www.nationalobserver.com/201...ompare-canadas

Frank - there is NO difference between a 30.06 M1 Garand and the same identical semiautomatic rifle used for hunting. An AR-15 or any of the like are just as effect at hunting as for using in war. That you do not know this shows that you don't know the first thing about weapons of any sort or what makes them unique one from the other.