Really, really dumb

On 1/14/2020 5:52 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Tuesday, January 14, 2020 at 1:53:47 PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/14/2020 4:24 PM, wrote:
So you don't want someone protecting their home or business against multiple invaders with sufficient ammunition huh?

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q...C9DC&FORM=VIRE

Apparently Tom has "good guy with a gun" fantasies. He envisions himself
whipping out an AR-15 from under his trench coat and blowing away those
bad guys. In his fantasy, medals for heroism would follow.

There are many millions of those guns in the U.S. Why wasn't one used to
stop that theft, Tom? How does "good guy with a gun" go wrong so frequently?

And how does Canada get by without far fewer of these things in
circulation? Canada doesn't seem to be at the mercy of armed robbers.
Quite the opposite, in fact.

https://theconversation.com/a-short-...-canada-123959

Tom is a war lord in Somalifornia. He needs large capacity mag, full auto and the optional grenade launcher.

In fact, he needs a minigun and a move to Texas. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RH-2breIx-g I wish my dad had taken me out to shoot the minigun! That is a truly Amerycun father-son bonding experience.

The battle hardened warrior at 3:15 was particularly impressive.

I do have a couple friends who attend those meets. They also said
something about blowing up stuff downfield.

I think I outgrew that when I turned eight.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 1/14/2020 6:53 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 1/14/2020 3:53 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/14/2020 4:24 PM, wrote:
So you don't want someone protecting their home or
business against multiple invaders with sufficient
ammunition huh?

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q...C9DC&FORM=VIRE



Apparently Tom has "good guy with a gun" fantasies. He
envisions himself whipping out an AR-15 from under his
trench coat and blowing away those bad guys. In his fantasy,
medals for heroism would follow.

There are many millions of those guns in the U.S. Why wasn't
one used to stop that theft, Tom? How does "good guy with a
gun" go wrong so frequently?

And how does Canada get by without far fewer of these things
in circulation? Canada doesn't seem to be at the mercy of
armed robbers. Quite the opposite, in fact.

https://theconversation.com/a-short-...-canada-123959



Don't be silly.
There are literally millions of ARs in our very large country with rare,
literally newsworthy, incidents[1]. How about a pregnant woman who is
not dead due to her defensive AR-15 use?

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news...ar-15-n1076026

"After the woman fired one shot from the family's AR-15-style rifle,
both men fled."

One shot. So why did she need a semi-auto AR-15?

In most such cases (which are far more rare than mass shootings) a
decent gauge shotgun is probably more effective.

[1]Pistol and knife crime is less newsworthy, except in cumulative data.
It's just background noise now.

We can talk about handguns if you like.

Knives are way down the list of problems, and unlike AR style weapons,
knives do have legitimate non-combat uses.

But we should probably get back to arguing about headlights. (I'm going
for a ride.)

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 1/14/2020 6:25 PM, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 14 Jan 2020 17:09:07 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 1/14/2020 4:06 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:


Proficiency in using the long bow required a lot of target practice.
This took time, and required that low born yeomen have the weapons ready
at home.

Agreed.

Frank would have us believe that shooting at targets is just a game, but
of course it has been promoted for military readiness throughout
history.

Note that the two propositions are not mutually exclusive. Yes, target
shooting has historically been promoted for military readiness. But (for
example) Boy Scouts earning their Rifle merit badge are never told "This
is in case there's a war." Almost all American target shooting is for
fun, for competition (i.e. a game) or training for hunting. (I've done
it just for fun.)

The most common counterexample is police training. But that wouldn't be
nearly as necessary if we had rational gun control in this country.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/w...terror-n737551

Your reference article is just a tad misleading as it refers to the
"U.K." police and states that a large percent are not armed which is a
nice end run around the fact that in Northern Ireland, a part of the
U.K., all police are armed.

But Yes, make a law and everything will be O.K. Right?

Do you know about the so called Sullivan Act ?

" The Sullivan Act is a gun control law in New York State that took
effect in 1911. The law required licenses for New Yorkers to possess
firearms small enough to be concealed. Private possession of such
firearms without a license was a misdemeanor, and carrying them in
public was a felony."

So every is hunky-dory and there has been no gun crime in the state of
New York since 1911?
So what's your position, John? Abolish all laws?

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 1/14/2020 6:56 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 1/14/2020 3:57 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/14/2020 2:53 PM, wrote:
No gun originated to hunt with. they were ALL designed
from the beginning to be used to kill people in military
actions.

I let so, so much of Tom's nonsense go by without comment.
But his statement above is ignorant beyond belief.



He's basically correct.

Anomalies include the once-popular pastime of /la belle epoche/, parlor
shooting.Â* The devices were miniature pistols firing 2.5mm rounds at
paper targets.

I'm sure you or anyone can find an exception but Tom's generally right
on that.

Every model gun on the market and in history was designed from the
beginning to be used to kill people?

Every model of 0.22 rimfire rifle was originally designed to kill people
in military actions? Every model of waterfowl gun? Every long-range elk
rifle? Every beautifully engraved over-under bird gun? Every Olympic
competition gun?

Sorry, no.


--
- Frank Krygowski

Frank Krygowski writes:

On 1/14/2020 4:06 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:


Proficiency in using the long bow required a lot of target practice.
This took time, and required that low born yeomen have the weapons ready
at home.

Agreed.

Frank would have us believe that shooting at targets is just a game, but
of course it has been promoted for military readiness throughout
history.

Note that the two propositions are not mutually exclusive. Yes, target
shooting has historically been promoted for military readiness. But
(for example) Boy Scouts earning their Rifle merit badge are never
told "This is in case there's a war." Almost all American target
shooting is for fun, for competition (i.e. a game) or training for
hunting. (I've done it just for fun.)

I'm fairly sure that the original Boy Scouts, back in the days of Baden
Powell, was seen at least in part as military preparedness. Target
shooting was made much more difficult in the UK between the wars, when a
communist revolution seemed a real possibility.

The most common counterexample is police training. But that wouldn't
be nearly as necessary if we had rational gun control in this country.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/w...terror-n737551

--

On 1/14/2020 6:36 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/14/2020 6:25 PM, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 14 Jan 2020 17:09:07 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 1/14/2020 4:06 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:


Proficiency in using the long bow required a lot of
target practice.
This took time, and required that low born yeomen have
the weapons ready
at home.

Agreed.

Frank would have us believe that shooting at targets is
just a game, but
of course it has been promoted for military readiness
throughout
history.

Note that the two propositions are not mutually
exclusive. Yes, target
shooting has historically been promoted for military
readiness. But (for
example) Boy Scouts earning their Rifle merit badge are
never told "This
is in case there's a war." Almost all American target
shooting is for
fun, for competition (i.e. a game) or training for
hunting. (I've done
it just for fun.)

The most common counterexample is police training. But
that wouldn't be
nearly as necessary if we had rational gun control in
this country.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/w...terror-n737551


Your reference article is just a tad misleading as it
refers to the
"U.K." police and states that a large percent are not
armed which is a
nice end run around the fact that in Northern Ireland, a
part of the
U.K., all police are armed.

But Yes, make a law and everything will be O.K. Right?

Do you know about the so called Sullivan Act ?

" The Sullivan Act is a gun control law in New York
State that took
effect in 1911. The law required licenses for New Yorkers
to possess
firearms small enough to be concealed. Private possession
of such
firearms without a license was a misdemeanor, and carrying
them in
public was a felony."

So every is hunky-dory and there has been no gun crime in
the state of
New York since 1911?
So what's your position, John? Abolish all laws?


It may well start with some martinet like Cuomo whining that
'no one needs ten bullets to kill a deer' and then Frank
bans my tubular tires.

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

On Tuesday, 14 January 2020 20:04:10 UTC-5, AMuzi wrote:
On 1/14/2020 6:36 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/14/2020 6:25 PM, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 14 Jan 2020 17:09:07 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 1/14/2020 4:06 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:


Proficiency in using the long bow required a lot of
target practice.
This took time, and required that low born yeomen have
the weapons ready
at home.

Agreed.

Frank would have us believe that shooting at targets is
just a game, but
of course it has been promoted for military readiness
throughout
history.

Note that the two propositions are not mutually
exclusive. Yes, target
shooting has historically been promoted for military
readiness. But (for
example) Boy Scouts earning their Rifle merit badge are
never told "This
is in case there's a war." Almost all American target
shooting is for
fun, for competition (i.e. a game) or training for
hunting. (I've done
it just for fun.)

The most common counterexample is police training. But
that wouldn't be
nearly as necessary if we had rational gun control in
this country.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/w...terror-n737551


Your reference article is just a tad misleading as it
refers to the
"U.K." police and states that a large percent are not
armed which is a
nice end run around the fact that in Northern Ireland, a
part of the
U.K., all police are armed.

But Yes, make a law and everything will be O.K. Right?

Do you know about the so called Sullivan Act ?

" The Sullivan Act is a gun control law in New York
State that took
effect in 1911. The law required licenses for New Yorkers
to possess
firearms small enough to be concealed. Private possession
of such
firearms without a license was a misdemeanor, and carrying
them in
public was a felony."

So every is hunky-dory and there has been no gun crime in
the state of
New York since 1911?
So what's your position, John? Abolish all laws?


It may well start with some martinet like Cuomo whining that
'no one needs ten bullets to kill a deer' and then Frank
bans my tubular tires.

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

We know that Frank is anit-gun with larger than single shot magazines. I wonder how he feels about BIG GUNS such as these:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2eV8N0bUzA0

Or how about these:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HXQn_F3Lndk

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QcoeUr61NPU

For a lot of people shooting large capcity magazine firearms is simply fun. Same as riding a vintage steel bike with cantilever brakes, platform pedals and wide tires.

Cheers

On Tue, 14 Jan 2020 08:10:35 -0800 (PST), 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..

Re military presence in California see
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Califo...can_invasi on
"The California Republic was short lived;[56] the same year marked the
outbreak of the Mexican\u2013American War (1846\u201348).[57] When
Commodore John D. Sloat of the United States Navy sailed into Monterey
Bay and began the military occupation of California by the United
States, Northern California capitulated in less than a month to the
United States forces.[58] After a series of defensive battles in
Southern California, the Treaty of Cahuenga was signed by the
Californios on January 13, 1847, securing American control in
California"

Otherwise refereed to as "U.S. History"
--
cheers,

John B.

On Tue, 14 Jan 2020 08:05:29 -0800 (PST), 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.

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

John feels safe writing that from Thailand.

Why? It is history. Do you refute the history books? Or have you never
bothered to read them?
--
cheers,

John B.

On Tue, 14 Jan 2020 19:04:00 -0600, AMuzi wrote:

On 1/14/2020 6:36 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/14/2020 6:25 PM, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 14 Jan 2020 17:09:07 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 1/14/2020 4:06 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:


Proficiency in using the long bow required a lot of
target practice.
This took time, and required that low born yeomen have
the weapons ready
at home.

Agreed.

Frank would have us believe that shooting at targets is
just a game, but
of course it has been promoted for military readiness
throughout
history.

Note that the two propositions are not mutually
exclusive. Yes, target
shooting has historically been promoted for military
readiness. But (for
example) Boy Scouts earning their Rifle merit badge are
never told "This
is in case there's a war." Almost all American target
shooting is for
fun, for competition (i.e. a game) or training for
hunting. (I've done
it just for fun.)

The most common counterexample is police training. But
that wouldn't be
nearly as necessary if we had rational gun control in
this country.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/w...terror-n737551


Your reference article is just a tad misleading as it
refers to the
"U.K." police and states that a large percent are not
armed which is a
nice end run around the fact that in Northern Ireland, a
part of the
U.K., all police are armed.

But Yes, make a law and everything will be O.K. Right?

Do you know about the so called Sullivan Act ?

" The Sullivan Act is a gun control law in New York
State that took
effect in 1911. The law required licenses for New Yorkers
to possess
firearms small enough to be concealed. Private possession
of such
firearms without a license was a misdemeanor, and carrying
them in
public was a felony."

So every is hunky-dory and there has been no gun crime in
the state of
New York since 1911?
So what's your position, John? Abolish all laws?


It may well start with some martinet like Cuomo whining that
'no one needs ten bullets to kill a deer' and then Frank
bans my tubular tires.

No! The tubular tires are allowed.... as long as they are 28mm :-)
--
cheers,

John B.