Guns And The Laws That Govern Them

@OmSigDAVID,

OmSigDAVID wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:

From the NY Daily News:
An Arizona man has reportedly confessed to stabbing his 12-year-old
half brother to death simply because he "felt like killing."

Andrew Ward, 27, was described as standing covered in blood with a knife
in his pocket when he placed a 911 call for his mutilated brother
from a Phoenix Circle K Wednesday.

"He was real shaky and scared. I could see in his eyes something bad
had happened," store worker Kristina Krasovich, who said she let Ward
borrow her cell phone, told ABC15.

In his phone call police say Ward indicated that he had just stabbed someone.
Krasovich said he gave her a thumbs up when she asked if he was OK.

Back at the nearby home Ward shared with his family, police reported
finding his alleged victim barely alive.

Austin Tapia, a sixth grader known for his "infectious smile and caring attitude"
by his school, had been stabbed multiple times before left for dead,
according to police. The boy's mother and sisters returned home
from dinner shortly after to swarming police cars. They told police
that they left the pair home to play video games.

I doubt that the victim had expected THAT to happen.
It was with this broad and general pro-self defense state-of-mind
that I armed myself with a .38 revolver when I was 8, in Arizona.
I wish that this stabbing victim had been as well, or better armed.
I surmise that this stabbing victim had been so injudicious as to be un-armed.
He paid the penalty for that.

This case shud be an ORGASMIC DELIGHT to supporters of gun control:
both predator and victim were fully and 1OO% obedient to ALL gun control laws,
so the victim was completely HELPLESS. That is what the suppressionists LIKE

David

Frank Apisa wrote:
Right.

More guns means a kinder, safer, more polite society...
I suspect that guns r not related to kindness
any more than slide-rules.

Frank Apisa wrote:
as America proves every day...
since we are the kindest, most polite, and safest society on the planet,
because we have more guns per capita than any other country.

RIGHT?????
Yes (except as to kindness).
If I take off my guns to go swimming, I dont feel more nor less kind.
Its important that people actually WEAR THEIR GUNS,
not just forget them n leave them at home.

For all I know, this victim might have had plenty of fine guns,
just beyond his reach at the time.

( In my imagination, I wish that I had been able
to go and let the victim borrow a nice .44 revolver
loaded with hollowpointed slugs, when he was in need. )

David

Frank Apisa wrote:
Okay. We can eliminate "kinder."

So you are saying that more guns in the hands of more people
makes for a more polite and safer society...
Yes; an armed society is a polite society;
(witness the Japanese culture from their Samurai heritage).

Frank Apisa wrote:
as America proves every day...
since we are the most polite, and safest society on the planet,
because we have more guns per capita than any other country.

RIGHT?????
Yes, but note that I am not
well prepared to argue statistics, for my lack of statistical information.

David

I understand.

Neither am I.

But I am almost certain that we are not the safest country in the world...

...and we are not even close to being most polite.

2 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

I understand.

Neither am I.

But I am almost certain that we are not the safest country in the world...

...and we are not even close to being most polite.

Yes; it saddens me to take cognizance
of the fact that a lot of my fellow Americans fail to
exercise the Bill of Rights. Too many have lost their lives
for being un-armed. That is an un-safe condition.
I believe that violent criminals ofen assume that their prey is un-armed.
Thay just HATE IT, when thay get the one-gun salute from their victims.

I lament the fact that the enfeeblement of age
is rendering me less likely to be ABLE to bear arms in my own defense.
Just walking has become a challenge, tho I 'm still a decent shot.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

So you are saying that more guns in the hands of more people
makes for a more polite and safer society...

Yes; an armed society is a polite society;
(witness the Japanese culture from their Samurai heritage).

Frank Apisa wrote:

as America proves every day...
since we are the most polite, and safest society on the planet,
because we have more guns per capita than any other country.

RIGHT?????

DAVID wrote:

Yes, but note that I am not
well prepared to argue statistics, for my lack of statistical information.

David

Frank Apisa wrote:

I understand.

Neither am I.

But I am almost certain that we are not the safest country in the world...

...and we are not even close to being most polite.

In another century,
1O years after I retired from the practice of law,
I assisted someone to get elected Governor of NY.
I received a comfortable job in the government of NY State.
I was designated to preside in Harlem.
Upon my arrival, I was a little taken aback to find that
the blacks were a lot more polite among themselves
than I had expected (tho I 'd not given it much thought).
The citizens of Harlem have been known to be disproportionately well armed.

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

OmSigDAVID wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:
So you are saying that more guns in the hands of more people
makes for a more polite and safer society...
Yes; an armed society is a polite society;
(witness the Japanese culture from their Samurai heritage).

Are you saying the Japanese have more guns per capita than the USA?

If not, why are you bringing it up?

Quote:

Frank Apisa wrote:
as America proves every day...
since we are the most polite, and safest society on the planet,
because we have more guns per capita than any other country.

RIGHT?????
DAVID wrote:
Yes, but note that I am not
well prepared to argue statistics, for my lack of statistical information.

David

Frank Apisa wrote:
I understand.

Neither am I.

But I am almost certain that we are not the safest country in the world...

...and we are not even close to being most polite.
In another century,
1O years after I retired from the practice of law,
I assisted someone to get elected Governor of NY.
I received a comfortable job in the government of NY State.
I was designated to preside in Harlem.
Upon my arrival, I was a little taken aback to find that
the blacks were a lot more polite among themselves
than I had expected (tho I 'd not given it much thought).
The citizens of Harlem have been known to be disproportionately well armed.

I'm not sure about how relatively well-armed the people of Harlem are...but do you actually think that the people of Harlem are SAFER than people elsewhere????

I'm assuming you are talking about the Harlem just below the South Bronx, right...not the one in the Netherlands?

Do you think people in Harlem, USA are more polite and safer than people in Harlem, the Netherlands, where gun ownership is much less?

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

OmSigDAVID wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:
So you are saying that more guns in the hands of more people
makes for a more polite and safer society...
Yes; an armed society is a polite society;
(witness the Japanese culture from their Samurai heritage).

Frank Apisa wrote:

Are you saying the Japanese have more guns per capita than the USA?

No.

Frank Apisa wrote:

If not, why are you bringing it up?

Because the concept that u challenged
is more broad than guns; it also embraces bladed weapons.
IF a man is enuf of an athlete,
then a sword can be an effective weapon.
The Japanese culture came from a heritage of swords, as armament.

Frank Apisa wrote:

as America proves every day...
since we are the most polite, and safest society on the planet,
because we have more guns per capita than any other country.

RIGHT?????

DAVID wrote:

Yes, but note that I am not
well prepared to argue statistics, for my lack of statistical information.

David

Frank Apisa wrote:

I understand.

Neither am I.

But I am almost certain that we are not the safest country in the world...

...and we are not even close to being most polite.

DAVID wrote:

In another century,
1O years after I retired from the practice of law,
I assisted someone to get elected Governor of NY.
I received a comfortable job in the government of NY State.
I was designated to preside in Harlem.
Upon my arrival, I was a little taken aback to find that
the blacks were a lot more polite among themselves
than I had expected (tho I 'd not given it much thought).
The citizens of Harlem have been known to be disproportionately well armed.

Frank Apisa wrote:

I'm not sure about how relatively well-armed the people of Harlem are...
but do you actually think that the people of Harlem are SAFER
than people elsewhere????

Thay are safer than thay 'd be
if thay were defenseless, un-armed, but there are some
countervailing conditions there, to wit: drug turf wars
that result from the War on Drugs.

Frank Apisa wrote:

I'm assuming you are talking about the Harlem just below the South Bronx,
right...not the one in the Netherlands?

Yes.

Frank Apisa wrote:

Do you think people in Harlem, USA are more polite and safer than people in Harlem,
the Netherlands, where gun ownership is much less?

I dunno the rate of violent crime there,
but in Holland there prevails ingestive freedom, so far as I 've heard;
i.e., there is NO War on any Drugs, as distinct from Harlem where there is,
with consequent turf wars.

With regard to POLITENESS: yes.
I deem the blacks in Harlem to be more polite
than in Holland, according to my observation.

David

0 Replies

MISSISSIPPI ENACTS TAX HOLIDAY
ON GUNS & AMMUNITION

Today, the Mississippi House of Representatives passed Senate Bill 2425,
NRA-backed legislation sponsored by state Senator Philip Moran
(R-Hancock and Harrison Counties), by a 101 to 16 vote.

As previously reported, SB 2425 creates a tax-free weekend in the
Magnolia State during the month of September for individual sales
of firearms, ammunition, archery equipment and certain hunting supplies.

Special thanks to state Representative Jeff Smith (R-Lowndes County),
the chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee who handled
this measure on the House floor, and to House Speaker Philip Gunn
(R-Hinds, Madison, Warren and Yazoo Counties), who sponsored a
similar House bill. Please be sure to thank your state Representative
if he or she voted for SB 2425.

Now there is NO EXCUSE for anyone going around un-armed!

Thus attesteth:

David

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

OmSigDAVID wrote:

MISSISSIPPI ENACTS TAX HOLIDAY
ON GUNS & AMMUNITION

Today, the Mississippi House of Representatives passed Senate Bill 2425,
NRA-backed legislation sponsored by state Senator Philip Moran
(R-Hancock and Harrison Counties), by a 101 to 16 vote.

As previously reported, SB 2425 creates a tax-free weekend in the
Magnolia State during the month of September for individual sales
of firearms, ammunition, archery equipment and certain hunting supplies.

Special thanks to state Representative Jeff Smith (R-Lowndes County),
the chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee who handled
this measure on the House floor, and to House Speaker Philip Gunn
(R-Hinds, Madison, Warren and Yazoo Counties), who sponsored a
similar House bill. Please be sure to thank your state Representative
if he or she voted for SB 2425.

Now there is NO EXCUSE for anyone going around un-armed!

Thus attesteth:

David

And if only we would get enough guns into the hands of more people...we would be a much more courteous and safer country.

Although why we are not already by far the most courteous and safest country on the planet still remains a mystery.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

OmSigDAVID wrote:

MISSISSIPPI ENACTS TAX HOLIDAY
ON GUNS & AMMUNITION

Today, the Mississippi House of Representatives passed Senate Bill 2425,
NRA-backed legislation sponsored by state Senator Philip Moran
(R-Hancock and Harrison Counties), by a 101 to 16 vote.

As previously reported, SB 2425 creates a tax-free weekend in the
Magnolia State during the month of September for individual sales
of firearms, ammunition, archery equipment and certain hunting supplies.

Special thanks to state Representative Jeff Smith (R-Lowndes County),
the chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee who handled
this measure on the House floor, and to House Speaker Philip Gunn
(R-Hinds, Madison, Warren and Yazoo Counties), who sponsored a
similar House bill. Please be sure to thank your state Representative
if he or she voted for SB 2425.

Now there is NO EXCUSE for anyone going around un-armed!

Thus attesteth:

David

Frank Apisa wrote:

And if only we would get enough guns into the hands of more people...
we would be a much more courteous and safer country.

Yes. Thank u for bringing out that point, Frank.
We woud restore the status quo ante.
Too few of our citizens possess your wisdom.

Frank Apisa wrote:

Although why we are not already by far the most courteous and safest country
on the planet still remains a mystery.

Its because of the slackers, Frank !
Too many of our fellow citizens are not sufficiently well armed.
That creates an un-safe condition, encouraging violent criminals.
After some criminals shot at me, on the road, thay swiftly departed
for points hence after my OWN gun appeared on the scene.
Some criminals INSIST upon having a monopoly of power
in whose absence thay simply refuse to work. Thay insist on gun control.
Thay deem it too dangerous to work without it.

Politeness is not necessarily confined to the Samurai.
It is my opinion that if sufficient numbers of American citizens
believed that everyone else is well armed, thay will be less likely to act like jerks.
Witness the fact of much higher standards of etiquette prevailing in America
ante-dating the accursed advent of gun control.

David

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

OmSigDAVID wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:

MISSISSIPPI ENACTS TAX HOLIDAY
ON GUNS & AMMUNITION

Today, the Mississippi House of Representatives passed Senate Bill 2425,
NRA-backed legislation sponsored by state Senator Philip Moran
(R-Hancock and Harrison Counties), by a 101 to 16 vote.

As previously reported, SB 2425 creates a tax-free weekend in the
Magnolia State during the month of September for individual sales
of firearms, ammunition, archery equipment and certain hunting supplies.

Special thanks to state Representative Jeff Smith (R-Lowndes County),
the chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee who handled
this measure on the House floor, and to House Speaker Philip Gunn
(R-Hinds, Madison, Warren and Yazoo Counties), who sponsored a
similar House bill. Please be sure to thank your state Representative
if he or she voted for SB 2425.

Now there is NO EXCUSE for anyone going around un-armed!

Thus attesteth:

David

Frank Apisa wrote:
And if only we would get enough guns into the hands of more people...
we would be a much more courteous and safer country.
Yes. Thank u for bringing out that point, Frank.
We woud restore the status quo ante.
Too few of our citizens possess your wisdom.

Frank Apisa wrote:
Although why we are not already by far the most courteous and safest country
on the planet still remains a mystery.
Its because of the slackers, Frank !
Too many of our fellow citizens are not sufficiently well armed.
That creates an un-safe condition, encouraging violent criminals.
After some criminals shot at me, on the road, thay swiftly departed
for points hence after my OWN gun appeared on the scene.
Some criminals INSIST upon having a monopoly of power
in whose absence thay simply refuse to work. Thay insist on gun control.
Thay deem it too dangerous to work without it.

Politeness is not necessarily confined to the Samurai.
It is my opinion that if sufficient numbers of American citizens
believed that everyone else is well armed, thay will be less likely to act like jerks.
Witness the fact of much higher standards of etiquette
prevailing in America ante-dating gun control.

David

But since you are arguing that more GUNS in the hands of more people makes for a more courteous and safer people...

...the question of why we are not now the most courteous and safest people on the planet.

We already have more guns per capita in the hands of more people as any other nation on the planet...

...(and as many knives and other implements of "protection")...

...so if your reasoning were correct, it would follow that we would be the most courteous and safest nation on the planet.

But even lovers of country can see that we are not...BY A LONG SHOT.

Perhaps your reasoning is wrong...bizarre as that might seem, David.

1 Reply

The Legislature of Georgia Passes Pro-Gun Freedom Bill

The GA Senate, in a late night session, passed HB60, the massive pro-gun bill in GA.

The bill was previously HB875, but the Senate gutted the bill and
watered it down in committee, before it reached the senate floor.
In order to counteract this process, the House attached the full language
to a bill, HB60, which was previously passed by the Senate.
This sent the bill directly to the senate floor.

The bill was passed by the senate with a vote 37 – 18.

The bill covers carrying firearms in bars, churches and government buildings,
clarifies some confusing existing wording in the law, and makes
the carry license renewal process more streamlined and faster.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

But since you are arguing that more GUNS in the hands of more people
makes for a more courteous and safer people...

...the question of why we are not now the most courteous and safest people on the planet.

We already have more guns per capita in the hands of more people
as any other nation on the planet...

...(and as many knives and other implements of "protection")...

...so if your reasoning were correct, it would follow that we would be
the most courteous and safest nation on the planet.

But even lovers of country can see that we are not...BY A LONG SHOT.

Perhaps your reasoning is wrong...bizarre as that might seem, David.

Don t worry; it will be fine when we get enuf guns
into everyone 's hands. Those who carry shud get tax credits -- not 1OO%,
maybe 3O%, to keep it within reason.

Any un-armed slackers will pay compensatorily higher taxes
since thay require public defense.
Will u agree that that is reasonable ?

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

OmSigDAVID wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:
But since you are arguing that more GUNS in the hands of more people
makes for a more courteous and safer people...

...the question of why we are not now the most courteous and safest people on the planet.

We already have more guns per capita in the hands of more people
as any other nation on the planet...

...(and as many knives and other implements of "protection")...

...so if your reasoning were correct, it would follow that we would be
the most courteous and safest nation on the planet.

But even lovers of country can see that we are not...BY A LONG SHOT.

Perhaps your reasoning is wrong...bizarre as that might seem, David.

Don t worry; it will be fine when we get enuf guns
into everyone 's hands. Those who carry shud get tax credits -- not 1OO%,
maybe 3O%, to keep it within reason.

Any un-armed slackers will pay compensatorily higher taxes
since thay require public defense.
Will u agree that that is reasonable ?

I am arguing that your contention "more guns in the hands of more people will make us a more courteous and safer people" is an absurdity.

You are trying to avoid dealing with that by diversion.

Good move on your part, because even you probably can see that the argument sinks of its own weight.

But...I would prefer to stick with that rather than indulge your diversion.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:
But since you are arguing that more GUNS in the hands of more people
makes for a more courteous and safer people...

...the question of why we are not now the most courteous and safest people on the planet.

We already have more guns per capita in the hands of more people
as any other nation on the planet...

...(and as many knives and other implements of "protection")...

...so if your reasoning were correct, it would follow that we would be
the most courteous and safest nation on the planet.

But even lovers of country can see that we are not...BY A LONG SHOT.

Perhaps your reasoning is wrong...bizarre as that might seem, David.

Don t worry; it will be fine when we get enuf guns
into everyone 's hands. Those who carry shud get tax credits -- not 1OO%,
maybe 3O%, to keep it within reason.

Any un-armed slackers will pay compensatorily higher taxes
since thay require public defense.
Will u agree that that is reasonable ?

I am arguing that your contention "more guns in the hands of more people will make us a more courteous and safer people" is an absurdity.

You are trying to avoid dealing with that by diversion.

Good move on your part, because even you probably can see that the argument sinks of its own weight.

But...I would prefer to stick with that rather than indulge your diversion.

I like that too.
Go ahead with it.

I am not diverting.

David

0 Replies

The NRA is flexing its muscles and actively working to derail Dr. Vivek Murthy’s nomination and confirmation to the position of U.S. Surgeon General. Why? Because, like many other doctors, he has referred to gun violence as a threat to public health.

The NRA has no business meddling in who should be the United States’ foremost champion for public health issues. Tell the White House and the U.S. Senate to stand firm behind the nomination of Dr. Murthy as our next U.S. Surgeon General and move forward on his confirmation now!

http://action.momsrising.org/sign/Murthy4SurgeonGeneral/

https://scontent-a-lga.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/t1.0-9/1383616_10151926601801610_2019104618_n.jpg

1 Reply

@RexRed,

I AM THE GUN LOBBY ( not the whole thing ).
I will call both of my Senators tomorrow
in opposition to obama 's nomination.

FREE SPEECH FOR NRA!

David

0 Replies

GEORGIA WOMAN KILLS INTRUDER
WITH HER .22 CALIBER PISTOL

A PhD educator in her 50′s shoots and kills (using a .22 pistol) a man
in his 20′s who broke into her home and confronted her with a kitchen knife.

The man may have been planning on raping the woman, based on
his criminal past.

Fortunately the would be victim was fast thinking, fast acting and
was able to turn the tables on her would be assailant.

Even though the suspect was not armed with a firearm, this is clearly
a case where a gun was used as an equalizer.

A fully grown man with bad intentions could easily overpower an older female
and commit deadly physical harm without even using a weapon.

Please note:
I do not recommend that anyone use a .22 pistol to kill criminals.
1. Pistols are not sufficiently reliable: use revolvers.

2. It is very poor judgment to use .22 caliber ammunition
as an anti-personnel weapon. Use .44 or .45 caliber, with
preferably hollowpointed slugs for better STOPPING POWER.

3. Have plenty of target practice. Get the liberals to hold the targets for u.

David

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

David, the fact that one person is physically stronger than another person is probably a deterrent from attack.

Some people are so skilled they can disarm an attacker in seconds.

One could challenge another to a duel and one picks up a rock and one picks up a stone, then one picks up a chair and one picks up a sword, one picks up a gun and one rolls out a canon.

All of these are deterrents but it is the escalation of these deterrents that can become the ruin of a society.

The whole idea is to deter from violence. There can comes a point where one's own arsenal can become used against themselves.

There will always be some sort of deterrent force between people. Sometimes people just holler at each other and the one who screams loudest, wins.

It is a great oversight to underestimate and to militarize society blindly as you so do. And I might admit your veracity for "guns" is (in my opinion) a discredit to your personality.

You advocate to suppress a small voice in society that needs no gun, or rocks, or stones, or loud words but only a whisper... Contrarily you only advocate for a bang... chaos... anarchy.

Now you can think that you have to comment to each thing I have written here. In this that you want to militarize but you only further reveal how disconnected you are from the scope of life. Yes I said, scope...

You are so focused right in the you don't see or even sense the periphery of your view. That does not a good hunter make.

You advocate guns while you are heartlessly and vocally blind to the misuse.

Why not say yes I believe in the 2nd amendment but I also believe in regulation to protect the peace?

But no, you only care about the right to push guns on even those who are clearly prone to misuse.

This indicates you are either ignorant or disingenuous. Either way that does't a good person make.

Some people have allergic reactions to seafood and some people are not meant to own or have access to guns. This is not debatable.

Were I to go to a town hall meeting and I should speak in a forum of how I think public policy should be with elected officials I don't want guns in my face from any opposition.

Some things are about reason and not about force and firepower.

Let reason and good will be the deterrent.

We have deterrents in this world even if we merely resort to stones. Anyone to argue we don't have deterrents would be a fool.

What makes us civilized is that we know when to lay down our weapons and be peaceable with our neighbors.

Let deterrent be where deterrence need be and for it will ALWAYS be there and let peace be were peace need be.

Too much deterrent can poison a society and there can never be to little deterrent because there will always be angry words and stones.

1 Reply

@RexRed,

RexRed wrote:

David, the fact that one person is physically stronger
than another person is probably a deterrent from attack.

Yes, sometimes, but that is a one-way street. Yes?? Agree ?
When everyone is known (or suspected) to be defensively well armed,
the society gets a lot more POLITE (e.g., the Samurai) and
there is a lot less attacking. For an American example:
years ago, I helped someone get elected Governor of NY.
The Governor appointed me to quite a comfortable job.
I was assigned to preside in Harlem (whose citizens are
known to be disproportionately defensively well armed).
I was taken aback at the contrast of how polite thay were
to one another, in my observation.

RexRed wrote:

Some people are so skilled they can disarm an attacker in seconds.

Yes. My friend, Donald, studied the martial arts for years, in the 1970s.
He was slender then. He since got married and got grotesquely obese,
especially in his legs. He can hardly walk. I have some problems
like that too, but not that bad. I asked him: with all of your study
of the martial arts, if u had to defend your family from attack
in the street, wud u be able to do it?? He said: "no; not without a weapon."
In 2005, I had major abdominal surgery. I was too weak to walk.
My strength did not sustain my weight. I got my strength back,
but not 1OO%. As I was walking to the parking lot of the hospital,
I was joking to myself in my thoughts: "I better not get into any fights.
A butterfly cud take me." It was all I cud do just to walk.

RexRed wrote:

One could challenge another to a duel
and one picks up a rock and one picks up a stone,

In your considered opinion,
which one makes the better weapon ??

RexRed wrote:

then one picks up a chair and one picks up a sword,
one picks up a gun and one rolls out a canon.

All of these are deterrents but it is the escalation of these deterrents
that can become the ruin of a society.

I dont think that has ever happened.

RexRed wrote:

The whole idea is to deter from violence.

That 's Y I want the victims to be better armed
than the predators.
Every predatory event is a contest of power.
IF the victim brings more power to bear upon the predator,
then he will be defeated and the good guy will win.
Its reminiscent of when the communists went to war
against little Finland in 1939, but were defeated and Finland remained free.

RexRed wrote:

There can come a point where one's own arsenal can become used against themselves.

There will always be some sort of deterrent force between people.

That is what personal armament is for. Yes.

RexRed wrote:

Sometimes people just holler at each other
and the one who screams loudest, wins.

Sometimes guys just wave dismissively and walk away; not always.

RexRed wrote:

It is a great oversight to underestimate
and to militarize society blindly as you so do.

In the same spirit as urging our friends
to wear seatbelts, or not to drive drunk,
I urge them to wear their guns for safety.
We shud return to the social paradigm of
the 18OOs of better armament and better courtesy.
There was a time when guys were not well dressed
without their swords or their hats. Extend that to guns.

RexRed wrote:

And I might admit your veracity [veracity means truth]
for "guns" is (in my opinion) a discredit to your personality.

I like talking to u.
My sentiments toward possession of guns is a major part of who I am.
I can remember my 3rd Birthday; my mom thru a party.
Around that time, I saw revolvers on the hips of NYC Police officers.
My eyes locked on them.
At nite, in bed, my memory savored those guns
like the richest, creamiest most flavorful candy.
O, how I yearned to hold a revolver in my hand,
but I had no access thereto in NY, until at age 8,
we went to Arizona: then I had them in abundance.
My gun collection flourished, but I was not as well armed
as my nabors. I dunno, but I can 't help but wonder if in
another incarnation my last act was desperately to try
to reach a defensive handgun, but I did not quite make it.

RexRed wrote:

You advocate to suppress a small voice in society that needs no gun,
or rocks, or stones, or loud words but only a whisper...

No, Rex.
That is a factual mistake. As a libertarian, I support freedom of speech
even of commies and nazis, both of whom I have had as friends.
In 1977, I supported the USSC's decision of Nazis v. Village of Skokie.
I have never advocated censoring supporters of gun control.
That issue arose again, when a "snuff" movie was being shown
in Times Square. A women's group was protesting in front
of the theater. I said to one of them that its OK to kill
the murderers, but its not OK to censor their free speech.

RexRed wrote:

Contrarily you only advocate for a bang... chaos... anarchy.

The State of Vermont has never had any gun laws.
I advocate that state of affairs, Rex.
Alaska and Arizona repealed their gun laws some years ago.
I advocate that for every State of the USA in which the Bill of Rights applies.
Chaos does not prevail in those States, Rex. Do u agree ???

At gunnery ranges in schools or elsewhere, everyone stands there
with his gun, doing his job with it. I have never seen any trouble,
any anger nor gunfights. So far as I know, during the entire history
of America, there has never been a gunfight inside a gunnery range.

RexRed wrote:

Now you can think that you have to comment
to each thing I have written here.

Its not that I think that I have to do it,
but rather that I enjoy conversing with u. I like u.

RexRed wrote:

In this that you want to militarize but you only further reveal
how disconnected you are from the scope of life.

I don t mind revealing my position, Rex.
I brandish my opinions. I 'm not ashamed of them.

RexRed wrote:

Yes I said, scope...[??]

OK.

RexRed wrote:

You are so focused right in the [?] you don't see or even sense the periphery of your view.

Yes; I spend a lot of my waking hours trying to end
the disarming of victims of future crimes
by interference of government.

RexRed wrote:

That does not a good hunter make.

Rex, please note that I am not a hunter.
The last (and only) time that I went hunting
(against my better judgment) was when I was 9 years old
at the behest of my friend (a year younger) who shares my first name.
He insisted that we take some of our guns and go hunting snakes
out on the Arizona desert; we found nothing. I 'm glad.
I like animals. I choose not to harm any of them (except insects).
When I was a teenager, I drove some friends into the woods
on a camping trip. We stuffed my car full of friends
and all of their tents and camping equipment.
We all took our guns, for target practice.
One fellow, a friend of a friend whom I did not know well,
opted to bring his new AR-7 .22 rifle to try for the first time.
We did not think much of that rifle; flimsy. I still don 't.
Anyway, as a sniper, unknown to me, this guy aimed at
and assassinated a sparrow. I got mad.
I was threatening to leave him there to drag all of his stuff
home by himself (tho I did not actually do it, and he did not
murder any more birds). I did not see it, but I 'm pretty sure
that he did not fire upon the ill-fated sparrow in self defense.
I 'm not a hunter. My guns are for ornamental, artistic display
and for security.

RexRed wrote:

You advocate guns while you are heartlessly
and vocally blind to the misuse.

Yes; the same as traffic accidents
and the same as deaths in swimming pools.
We know from consideration of history that being un-armed
is an un-safe condition (tho candor moves me to admit
that both here in Florida and b4 that, in NY, I felt 1OO% safe).
Feeling healthy does not mean that u will not get a heart attack.
When I was shot at on the road, I felt completely safe; i.e.,
my emotions of the moment were un-related to the actual danger.

RexRed wrote:

Why not say yes I believe in the 2nd amendment but I also believe in
regulation to protect the peace?

Because that woud make me complicit in the fraud
that government has any jurisdiction in this matter,
when I know very well from history that it does not.
That 's like saying:
yes, I believe in the 13th Amendment but I also believe that
the blacks shud work for free on alternate Thursdays.
Its simply not a true interpretation of the Supreme Law of the Land.
In addition, universal armament of the citizenry BETTER protects the peace.
What u ask of me is to be un-truthful about the Bill of Rights.
I 'd rather not do that, with all respect.

RexRed wrote:

But no, you only care about the right to push guns
on even those who are clearly prone to misuse.

No, Rex.
If I knew of an aberrant person, mentally unhealthy,
then I 'd not be in a hurry to urge him to arm himself,
but he will do it anyway, if that is what he wants,
the same as he will get marijuana or heroin, if so
he chooses. Right???

RexRed wrote:

This indicates you are either ignorant or disingenuous.

I assure u that there are billions
and billions of facts whereof I remain IGNORANT.
I like to be candid and forthcoming; its fun.

RexRed wrote:

Either way that does't a good person make.

Some people have allergic reactions to seafood
and some people are not meant to own or have access to guns.

Not meant by whom???

RexRed wrote:

This is not debatable.

OK. Then we will not debate it.

RexRed wrote:

Were I to go to a town hall meeting and I should speak in a forum
of how I think public policy should be with elected officials I don't
want guns in my face from any opposition.

Neither I, nor any other gun-lover
whom I have ever known woud do that; its a crime.
That conduct is not protected by the Bill of Rights.
Where I am now, in Florida, that is the crime of BRANDISHING,
which has a penalty of ten years in prison.

RexRed wrote:

Some things are about reason and not about force and firepower.

We gun-lovers agree with that; yes!

RexRed wrote:

Let reason and good will be the deterrent.

Yes, IF THAY WORK,
but whether thay do or not:
government STILL has no jurisdiction of gun possession,
the same as it has no jurisdiction of my choice to sleep
on Sundays instead of going to Church. Its a private choice.

RexRed wrote:

We have deterrents in this world even if we merely resort to stones.

Yes; some are better than others.
Criminals interviewed in prisons have freely said
that it is too dangerous to rob an armed man.
Thay don t like it; thay like gun control; its safer for them on-the-job.
Robbers n rapists prefer weak, helpless victims.

RexRed wrote:

Anyone to argue we don't have deterrents would be a fool.

OK.

RexRed wrote:

What makes us civilized is that we know when to lay down
our weapons and be peaceable with our neighbors.

The gun control movement, as we know it,
began in the 19OOs. Are u saying that before then, we were not civilized??

RexRed wrote:

Let deterrent be where deterrence need be and for it will ALWAYS
be there and let peace be were peace need be.

Too much deterrent can poison a society and there can never be
to little deterrent because there will always be angry words and stones.

OK; I 'll take your word for it.

David

0 Replies

ALL ARE WELCOME !

Reminder from: NYSRPA-alert Yahoo Group

Title: 2nd Annual Women’s Concealed Gun Carry Fashion Show

Date: Saturday March 29, 2014
Time: 3:00 pm - 7:00 pm (GMT+00:00)
Location: Birch Hill Catering, One Celebration Way, Schodack, New York 12033

0 Replies

JEWS FOR THE PRESERVATION
OF FIREARMS OWNERSHIP

March 25, 2014
"Journalist" Attacks 9-Year Old
Is This Any Way to Promote a Political Agenda?
By Nicki Kenyon

"Gun Control is not Kosher", returns -- latest AR-15 Draw.
25th Anniversary Special -- package with special signed books and t-shirt.
The Main 25th Anniversary Page-- superb knives to be won.
"Waco a New Revelation" DVD -- now only $12.95 on close out.
"Gun Control in the Third Reich" -- book, copies still available.

Shyanne Roberts is nine years old. She lives in New Jersey with her family,
is an honor student in the fourth grade, likes the beach, music,
soccer, fishing and hanging out with her friends. She is also a
competitive shooter who is skilled in numerous firearms, and who
has been wowing fans at tournaments for the past two years.

Recently, Shyanne also wowed some New Jersey state legislators
by testifying against a proposed law that would limit the size of
magazines in the state. "I am not a gangbanger or domestic terrorist,"
Shyanne told the legislators. "This bill, if it becomes law, will severely
impact me and a million other gun owners."

Why will this law impact Shyanne? Because when she is competing
against shooters from states that do not have these arbitrary limits,
she will have to reload her magazine more often, which will impact
her speed and her performance. All Shyanne wants is to be the best
at her chosen sport.

And for this, so-called "journalist" Mike Kelly, a columnist for some
New Jersey fishwrap called The Record has gone on the offensive
against Shyanne, claiming her sport of choice is "creepy," and
essentially accusing her of being an unwitting pawn of the big, bad
NRA, unable to think or reason for herself and manipulated by the
nasty gun lobby. Kelly writes:

Kelly wrote:

Watching the video, posted on Facebook, of little Shyanne with her new AR-15 is chilling.
She likes the fact that the gun was painted purple and black -- her favorite colors,
she says, though she adds that she also likes pink, too.
"It's beautiful," she says of the gun, noting that she found it "well balanced."
What's astonishing is that if you closed your eyes, you might think
that Shyanne is really an adult. But she's not. Think of this tale as
the weaponized version of the TV beauty pageant show, Toddlers
and Tiaras -- kids trying to act like adults, with adult make-up and
jewelry, cheered on by adults for the sake of themselves.
Only, in this case, instead of a rhinestone tiara and ruby-red lipstick,
the prime accessory for this child is an assault rifle [sic],
with a magazine that holds 15 bullets [sic].

What this mediot finds appalling is that a child can be responsible,
focused and good at what she does. She's well-rounded and eloquent.
She has been taught and coached well by her father, and has shown a
considerable amount of skill at a sport that is both challenging and exciting.
Apparently Shyanne's maturity and eloquence is something that Kelly
cannot stomach, because she is a well-spoken, determined child who
excels at an "adult" activity, and because he seemingly believes that
being a child is necessarily equivalent to being stupid, naïve and goal-less
and because this child speaks with conviction and skill, and enjoys
her sport of choice, she must necessarily be manipulated by the evil,
cunning NRA that controls these shooting competitions, and the adults
around her, including her own father!

This is the world according to Mike Kelly.
Because, really! What child could write such an articulate, convincing
speech all by herself (according to some of the comments in the story,
her father did help her with basic grammar and structure)? What child
could have developed these "adult" ideas in her head all by herself?
Children are supposed to be clueless and helpless, in this mediot's
uninformed opinion! It's all part of childhood, right?

How can a human being with any decency and common sense, let
alone an educated "journalist," compare a child who excels at an
activity that requires focus, accountability, personal responsibility,
determination and concentration, and who so powerfully explains
her positions to a room full of adult legislators, to the vapid, empty,
spoiled reality show brats on Toddlers and Tiaras?

For the TV show, parents, many of whom are desperate to relive their
youth vicariously through their little ones, paint them to look like prostitots.
On the other hand, Shyanne's father taught her basic gun safety at
a young age, and helped her excel at a challenging skill that eludes many adults.

While painted, overdressed dolls parading their frightening fashion
is a caricature of maturity, Shyanne is developing, honing, focusing,
competing and winning at an actual sport that requires concentration,
self-control, and the highest standards of personal responsibility and ethics.

And this pusillanimous punk Mike Kelly has decided to attack a child
from behind his poisonous keyboard by comparing her sport to
Toddlers and Tiaras, and her considerable skill to the clownish
mockery of life that is that show.
Yeah, it takes a real man to ridicule a little girl from behind the
warmth and safety of his computer screen, clutching his oh-so
masculine Café Latte and nibbling biscotti, while mischaracterizing
an AR-15 as an "assault weapon," ignorantly referring to magazines
as "bullet clips" and snidely, hypocritically deriding a fourth-grader
as ignorant and easily manipulated.

If Mike Kelly kept a shred of credibility after showing his lack of
research skills and knowledge deficiencies about firearms, it was
terminally decimated by his cowardly, low attacks on a talented,
intelligent, skilled, determined young lady.
-----
Nicki Kenyon has been an avid gun rights advocate since she returned
to the United States from an overseas Army tour in Germany.
She began writing about Second Amendment issues in 2001 when
KeepAndBearArms.com published her first essay, "The Moment".
She holds a Bachelor of Science degree in International Relations from
the Johns Hopkins University and a Master of Arts degree in National
Security Studies from American Military University. Her area of expertise
in those fields is European and Eurasian affairs. When not writing
about gun rights or hanging out with her husband and son, she
practices dry-firing her M1911 at the zombies of "The Walking Dead."

0 Replies

Guns And The Laws That Govern Them

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know