Really, really dumb

On Friday, January 10, 2020 at 5:58:14 PM UTC-8, sms wrote:
On 1/9/2020 6:33 PM, jbeattie wrote:

snip

There is no right to own a gun in the Constitution.

Correct. Who has ever claimed otherwise?

Would you mind explaining that statement in light of the 2nd Amendment?

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.

On Saturday, January 11, 2020 at 10:46:31 AM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/11/2020 12:34 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 1/11/2020 11:16 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/11/2020 12:02 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 1/10/2020 10:08 PM, John B. wrote:
On Fri, 10 Jan 2020 19:45:15 -0800 (PST), Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On Friday, January 10, 2020 at 8:54:54 PM UTC-5, AMuzi
wrote:
On 1/10/2020 5:31 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/10/2020 1:08 PM, wrote:

Tell us all what happens to any state that bans the
ownership of weapons.

No state ever has. It's a right wing fantasy.


Mexico does.

You're allowed to have weapons in Mexico. You're allowed
to have
weapons in every other nation on earth.

But no nation on earth allows _all_ types of weapons for
_any_ people.
Even though when bombs are outlawed, only outlaws will
have bombs.

https://nypost.com/2020/01/10/mexico...everal-others/



Maybe they just "need better laws".

The alternative is ... what? Give the kid an AR-15
instead? That
doesn't seem to work well here.


I find it interesting that AR-15's seem to be treasured
mainly by
those who never had to carry them in earnest. :-)


An AR-15 is a small-caliber semi. Doesn't fire any faster
than a revolver. Or a 30.06 M1, which has a lot more
impact. It's not a 'military' weapon, and certainly not at
all a sturmgewehr.

So, back to my question: Give them to kids? All kids? Or
just the ones fixated on first person shoot-em-up games? Or
what?



In my youth, grammar school age boys brought rifles to school in hunting
season, picked up by their fathers in the remains of daylight. Nothing
notable ever happened.

Yes. But somehow those hunters managed without having to spray a dozen
rounds into a rabbit or a deer within a few seconds. I'd be embarrassed
to say I needed that capability for hunting.

But back to my question: Give AR-15s to kids? All kids? Or
just the ones fixated on first person shoot-em-up games? Or
what?


--
- Frank Krygowski

If you've never hunted don't make yourself look like a fool. Semiautos make it easy to take a second shot if necessary. We save "spraying shots all over the place" for you.

On Sat, 11 Jan 2020 11:02:37 -0600, AMuzi wrote:

On 1/10/2020 10:08 PM, John B. wrote:
On Fri, 10 Jan 2020 19:45:15 -0800 (PST), Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On Friday, January 10, 2020 at 8:54:54 PM UTC-5, AMuzi wrote:
On 1/10/2020 5:31 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/10/2020 1:08 PM, wrote:

Tell us all what happens to any state that bans the
ownership of weapons.

No state ever has. It's a right wing fantasy.


Mexico does.

You're allowed to have weapons in Mexico. You're allowed to have
weapons in every other nation on earth.

But no nation on earth allows _all_ types of weapons for _any_ people.
Even though when bombs are outlawed, only outlaws will have bombs.

https://nypost.com/2020/01/10/mexico...everal-others/

Maybe they just "need better laws".

The alternative is ... what? Give the kid an AR-15 instead? That
doesn't seem to work well here.


I find it interesting that AR-15's seem to be treasured mainly by
those who never had to carry them in earnest. :-)


An AR-15 is a small-caliber semi. Doesn't fire any faster
than a revolver. Or a 30.06 M1, which has a lot more impact.
It's not a 'military' weapon, and certainly not at all a
sturmgewehr.

Yes, it is a small caliber weapon but there seems to be an implication
that "small" is somehow not dangerous and one of the design parameters
of the original AR-15, from which the 223 Remington cartridge descends
required the penetration of .135" steel plate at 500 yards.


It is amazingly popular and thus has staggeringly large
selections of variants, options, support, parts, ammo and so
on at very low prices. What it doesn't have is magic;
neither good nor evil mojo.

You fail to mention that modification of the AR-15 to convert the
weapon to a fully automatic weapon also is a common practice. So
common, in fact, that Amazon even sells a manual of instructions for
doing so. See:
https://www.amazon.com/Full-Auto-Ar-.../dp/9991697322
--
cheers,

John B.

On Saturday, January 11, 2020 at 3:34:31 PM UTC-8, John B. wrote:
On Sat, 11 Jan 2020 11:02:37 -0600, AMuzi wrote:

On 1/10/2020 10:08 PM, John B. wrote:
On Fri, 10 Jan 2020 19:45:15 -0800 (PST), Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On Friday, January 10, 2020 at 8:54:54 PM UTC-5, AMuzi wrote:
On 1/10/2020 5:31 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/10/2020 1:08 PM, wrote:

Tell us all what happens to any state that bans the
ownership of weapons.

No state ever has. It's a right wing fantasy.


Mexico does.

You're allowed to have weapons in Mexico. You're allowed to have
weapons in every other nation on earth.

But no nation on earth allows _all_ types of weapons for _any_ people.
Even though when bombs are outlawed, only outlaws will have bombs.

https://nypost.com/2020/01/10/mexico...everal-others/

Maybe they just "need better laws".

The alternative is ... what? Give the kid an AR-15 instead? That
doesn't seem to work well here.


I find it interesting that AR-15's seem to be treasured mainly by
those who never had to carry them in earnest. :-)


An AR-15 is a small-caliber semi. Doesn't fire any faster
than a revolver. Or a 30.06 M1, which has a lot more impact.
It's not a 'military' weapon, and certainly not at all a
sturmgewehr.

Yes, it is a small caliber weapon but there seems to be an implication
that "small" is somehow not dangerous and one of the design parameters
of the original AR-15, from which the 223 Remington cartridge descends
required the penetration of .135" steel plate at 500 yards.


It is amazingly popular and thus has staggeringly large
selections of variants, options, support, parts, ammo and so
on at very low prices. What it doesn't have is magic;
neither good nor evil mojo.

You fail to mention that modification of the AR-15 to convert the
weapon to a fully automatic weapon also is a common practice. So
common, in fact, that Amazon even sells a manual of instructions for
doing so. See:
https://www.amazon.com/Full-Auto-Ar-.../dp/9991697322
--
cheers,

John B.

John, explain to everyone here what hollow point ammunition will penetrate an 1/8th in of steel.

On Sat, 11 Jan 2020 11:02:37 -0600, AMuzi wrote:

On 1/10/2020 10:08 PM, John B. wrote:
On Fri, 10 Jan 2020 19:45:15 -0800 (PST), Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On Friday, January 10, 2020 at 8:54:54 PM UTC-5, AMuzi wrote:
On 1/10/2020 5:31 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/10/2020 1:08 PM, wrote:

Tell us all what happens to any state that bans the
ownership of weapons.

No state ever has. It's a right wing fantasy.


Mexico does.

You're allowed to have weapons in Mexico. You're allowed to have
weapons in every other nation on earth.

But no nation on earth allows _all_ types of weapons for _any_ people.
Even though when bombs are outlawed, only outlaws will have bombs.

https://nypost.com/2020/01/10/mexico...everal-others/

Maybe they just "need better laws".

The alternative is ... what? Give the kid an AR-15 instead? That
doesn't seem to work well here.


I find it interesting that AR-15's seem to be treasured mainly by
those who never had to carry them in earnest. :-)


An AR-15 is a small-caliber semi. Doesn't fire any faster
than a revolver. Or a 30.06 M1, which has a lot more impact.
It's not a 'military' weapon, and certainly not at all a
sturmgewehr.

Yes, it is a small caliber weapon but there seems to be an implication
that "small" is somehow not dangerous and one of the design parameters
of the original AR-15, from which the 223 Remington cartridge descends
required the penetration of .135" steel plate at 500 yards.


It is amazingly popular and thus has staggeringly large
selections of variants, options, support, parts, ammo and so
on at very low prices. What it doesn't have is magic;
neither good nor evil mojo.

You fail to mention that modification of the AR-15 to convert the
weapon to a fully automatic weapon also is a common practice. So
common, in fact, that Amazon even sells a manual of instructions for
doing so. See:
https://www.amazon.com/Full-Auto-Ar-.../dp/9991697322
--
cheers,

John B.

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.

On Sat, 11 Jan 2020 15:48:02 -0800 (PST), wrote:

On Saturday, January 11, 2020 at 3:34:31 PM UTC-8, John B. wrote:
On Sat, 11 Jan 2020 11:02:37 -0600, AMuzi wrote:

On 1/10/2020 10:08 PM, John B. wrote:
On Fri, 10 Jan 2020 19:45:15 -0800 (PST), Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On Friday, January 10, 2020 at 8:54:54 PM UTC-5, AMuzi wrote:
On 1/10/2020 5:31 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/10/2020 1:08 PM, wrote:

Tell us all what happens to any state that bans the
ownership of weapons.

No state ever has. It's a right wing fantasy.


Mexico does.

You're allowed to have weapons in Mexico. You're allowed to have
weapons in every other nation on earth.

But no nation on earth allows _all_ types of weapons for _any_ people.
Even though when bombs are outlawed, only outlaws will have bombs.

https://nypost.com/2020/01/10/mexico...everal-others/

Maybe they just "need better laws".

The alternative is ... what? Give the kid an AR-15 instead? That
doesn't seem to work well here.


I find it interesting that AR-15's seem to be treasured mainly by
those who never had to carry them in earnest. :-)


An AR-15 is a small-caliber semi. Doesn't fire any faster
than a revolver. Or a 30.06 M1, which has a lot more impact.
It's not a 'military' weapon, and certainly not at all a
sturmgewehr.

Yes, it is a small caliber weapon but there seems to be an implication
that "small" is somehow not dangerous and one of the design parameters
of the original AR-15, from which the 223 Remington cartridge descends
required the penetration of .135" steel plate at 500 yards.


It is amazingly popular and thus has staggeringly large
selections of variants, options, support, parts, ammo and so
on at very low prices. What it doesn't have is magic;
neither good nor evil mojo.

You fail to mention that modification of the AR-15 to convert the
weapon to a fully automatic weapon also is a common practice. So
common, in fact, that Amazon even sells a manual of instructions for
doing so. See:
https://www.amazon.com/Full-Auto-Ar-.../dp/9991697322
--
cheers,

John B.

John, explain to everyone here what hollow point ammunition will penetrate an 1/8th in of steel.

Tom, I told you that one of the original design parameters of the
AR-15 was the penetration of .135" of steel at 500 yards.

If you want to rabbet on about hollow points, armor piercing,
explosive, whatever, than go ahead. It doesn't change the original
design parameters one tiny bit.

I might add that since the inception of the M-16, in 1964, a
considerable number of people have discovered that even the much
maligned full jacketed bullet is quite effective at ending life.
--
cheers,

John B.

On Sat, 11 Jan 2020 14:50:56 -0800 (PST), wrote:

On Saturday, January 11, 2020 at 10:46:31 AM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/11/2020 12:34 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 1/11/2020 11:16 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/11/2020 12:02 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 1/10/2020 10:08 PM, John B. wrote:
On Fri, 10 Jan 2020 19:45:15 -0800 (PST), Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On Friday, January 10, 2020 at 8:54:54 PM UTC-5, AMuzi
wrote:
On 1/10/2020 5:31 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/10/2020 1:08 PM, wrote:

Tell us all what happens to any state that bans the
ownership of weapons.

No state ever has. It's a right wing fantasy.


Mexico does.

You're allowed to have weapons in Mexico. You're allowed
to have
weapons in every other nation on earth.

But no nation on earth allows _all_ types of weapons for
_any_ people.
Even though when bombs are outlawed, only outlaws will
have bombs.

https://nypost.com/2020/01/10/mexico...everal-others/



Maybe they just "need better laws".

The alternative is ... what? Give the kid an AR-15
instead? That
doesn't seem to work well here.


I find it interesting that AR-15's seem to be treasured
mainly by
those who never had to carry them in earnest. :-)


An AR-15 is a small-caliber semi. Doesn't fire any faster
than a revolver. Or a 30.06 M1, which has a lot more
impact. It's not a 'military' weapon, and certainly not at
all a sturmgewehr.

So, back to my question: Give them to kids? All kids? Or
just the ones fixated on first person shoot-em-up games? Or
what?



In my youth, grammar school age boys brought rifles to school in hunting
season, picked up by their fathers in the remains of daylight. Nothing
notable ever happened.

Yes. But somehow those hunters managed without having to spray a dozen
rounds into a rabbit or a deer within a few seconds. I'd be embarrassed
to say I needed that capability for hunting.

But back to my question: Give AR-15s to kids? All kids? Or
just the ones fixated on first person shoot-em-up games? Or
what?


--
- Frank Krygowski

If you've never hunted don't make yourself look like a fool. Semiautos make it easy to take a second shot if necessary. We save "spraying shots all over the place" for you.

Second shot? Whatever for? One assumes that if you are blundering
around on the woods you are at least a competent shooter. My
grandfather, who killed at least one deer every year took seven years
to use up a box of 10, 38-55 cartridges. My father killed 5 deer in
five years with five 300 Savage cartridges.

But when you talk about the AR-15 lads than "spraying shots" is very
much true. I used to go to the range with, perhaps, 20 rounds and
shoot three or four 5 shot strings at, say, 100,200 and 300 yards. The
AR-15 lads would bring ammo cans full of cheap European ammo to the
range a d shoot it all off and than point to 50 yard targets that
looked like someone had fired a shotgun at them and say, "look what I
did!"

And as I previously wrote the bulk of the AR-15/M-16 shooters are
people who never used the weapon in earnest.
--
cheers,

John B.

On 1/11/2020 5:50 PM, wrote:
On Saturday, January 11, 2020 at 10:46:31 AM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/11/2020 12:34 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 1/11/2020 11:16 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/11/2020 12:02 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 1/10/2020 10:08 PM, John B. wrote:
On Fri, 10 Jan 2020 19:45:15 -0800 (PST), Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On Friday, January 10, 2020 at 8:54:54 PM UTC-5, AMuzi
wrote:
On 1/10/2020 5:31 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/10/2020 1:08 PM, wrote:

Tell us all what happens to any state that bans the
ownership of weapons.

No state ever has. It's a right wing fantasy.


Mexico does.

You're allowed to have weapons in Mexico. You're allowed
to have
weapons in every other nation on earth.

But no nation on earth allows _all_ types of weapons for
_any_ people.
Even though when bombs are outlawed, only outlaws will
have bombs.

https://nypost.com/2020/01/10/mexico...everal-others/



Maybe they just "need better laws".

The alternative is ... what? Give the kid an AR-15
instead? That
doesn't seem to work well here.


I find it interesting that AR-15's seem to be treasured
mainly by
those who never had to carry them in earnest. :-)


An AR-15 is a small-caliber semi. Doesn't fire any faster
than a revolver. Or a 30.06 M1, which has a lot more
impact. It's not a 'military' weapon, and certainly not at
all a sturmgewehr.

So, back to my question: Give them to kids? All kids? Or
just the ones fixated on first person shoot-em-up games? Or
what?



In my youth, grammar school age boys brought rifles to school in hunting
season, picked up by their fathers in the remains of daylight. Nothing
notable ever happened.

Yes. But somehow those hunters managed without having to spray a dozen
rounds into a rabbit or a deer within a few seconds. I'd be embarrassed
to say I needed that capability for hunting.

But back to my question: Give AR-15s to kids? All kids? Or
just the ones fixated on first person shoot-em-up games? Or
what?


--
- Frank Krygowski

If you've never hunted don't make yourself look like a fool. Semiautos make it easy to take a second shot if necessary. We save "spraying shots all over the place" for you.

Semi-auto does not equal AR-15. AR-15 is a subset of semi-auto.

And "second shot?" Keep going, Tom. One of the gun's distinguishing
characteristics is the ability to rapidly fire many rounds. A 20 round
magazine is pretty much standard.

My best hunting friend likes black powder. He takes deer with one shot.

OTOH, my friend who's into guns like the AR-15 says he went hunting only
once. He got a deer, but as he put it "But then I thought, what am I
going to do with this thing? I'm here out in the woods maybe a mile from
the truck. I hated dragging it out. I'll never do that again. I can buy
my meat."

But he still plays with guns, including going to occasional machine gun
shoots. I'll bet he plays first person shooter games, too.


--
- Frank Krygowski