|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#141
|
|||
|
|||
Really, really dumb
On Tuesday, January 14, 2020 at 12:44:48 PM UTC-8, jbeattie wrote:
On Tuesday, January 14, 2020 at 11:15:56 AM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote: 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/ Well, there is this: https://nypost.com/2017/10/03/the-tr...d-in-massacre/ Pretty trick-out AR-15s. AR-15 variants are popular with mass-shooters. https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/we...ooting-aurora/ I don't see the need for a 100 round mag. Limit size and give people a chance to run while the lunatic re-loads. If you can't hit a deer or a target with ten rounds, you've got other problems. -- Jay Beattie. 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 |
Ads |
#142
|
|||
|
|||
Really, really dumb
On Tuesday, January 14, 2020 at 12:53:08 PM UTC-8, Radey Shouman wrote:
John B. writes: 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: 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. I think you forgot the largest acquisition by force. Texas was annexed in 1845 after a group of settlers from the US rebelled against Mexico in 1836. Texas annexation probably would have happened sooner, but, being a significant victory for the slave states it was politically complicated. This kicked off the Mexican war in 1846, resulting in the conquest of much of what is today California, Arizona, New Mexico, Colorado, and Utah. Finally, in order to secure a southern railroad route the Gadsden purchase was negotiated under duress in 1853-1854, resulting in the addition of southern Arizona and the bootheel of New Mexico. 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. People FROM the United States. Not Representing the United States. California was not taken by the US but by people FROM the US. You don't appear to have a tight grasp on this sort of thing. Did Vikings invading northern England represent Norway? Did Moors invading central Africa represent the lands of the Moors in northern Africa? Did the Slavic invasion of eastern Europe represent south eastern Asia. |
#144
|
|||
|
|||
Really, really dumb
|
#145
|
|||
|
|||
Really, really dumb
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 -- - Frank Krygowski |
#146
|
|||
|
|||
Really, really dumb
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. -- Jay Beattie. -- Jay Beattie. |
#147
|
|||
|
|||
Really, really dumb
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? -- cheers, John B. |
#148
|
|||
|
|||
Really, really dumb
On 1/14/2020 2:59 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
Frank Krygowski writes: On 1/13/2020 7:53 PM, 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.... nice summary of Leonard Zinn if not Chairman Xi himself. ?? This guy? https://www.velopress.com/velopress-.../lennard-zinn/ I suspect Mr Muzi intended to write "Howard Zinn". Indeed. Thank you -- Andrew Muzi www.yellowjersey.org/ Open every day since 1 April, 1971 |
#149
|
|||
|
|||
Really, really dumb
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 [1]Pistol and knife crime is less newsworthy, except in cumulative data. It's just background noise now. -- Andrew Muzi www.yellowjersey.org/ Open every day since 1 April, 1971 |
#150
|
|||
|
|||
Really, really dumb
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. 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. -- Andrew Muzi www.yellowjersey.org/ Open every day since 1 April, 1971 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
This is just dumb... | Uncle Dave | Racing | 19 | September 28th 09 08:58 AM |
HOW dumb?? | Brimstone[_6_] | UK | 89 | April 6th 09 03:49 PM |
this is so dumb | brockfisher05 | Unicycling | 10 | December 18th 04 02:38 AM |
Dumb question | the black rose | General | 12 | October 19th 04 09:37 PM |
How dumb am I? | Andy P | UK | 2 | September 18th 03 08:37 PM |