|
Post by justjohn on Jul 27, 2012 12:01:34 GMT -7
|
|
|
Post by justjohn on Jul 28, 2012 8:27:20 GMT -7
Imagine dealing with the Brits if they owned all of North America.
Argentina would be gone. They would probably annex Mexico. The Caribbean islands would all be British.
There would probably be a war with Russia over Alaska.
Enough speculation.
|
|
|
Post by karl on Jul 28, 2012 9:35:31 GMT -7
Imagine dealing with the Brits if they owned all of North America. Argentina would be gone. They would probably annex Mexico. The Caribbean islands would all be British. There would probably be a war with Russia over Alaska. Enough speculation. J.J. You are indeed so, a thinker...It is interesting your thoughts of "Cause and Effect" in of what could be;;;in respect if the Brits were free to conquer and manage that lands they would own... Rather to speculation, for why not of past to serve the present? England is the mother of many currant nations. What they left as a legacy, was a stable government, democracy and language. This in difference to Spanish style legacy. It is true of British sense of fairness, and justice. They may have their faults, but who/what is perfect? Karl
|
|
|
Post by kaima on Jul 28, 2012 9:43:40 GMT -7
JJ, enough of quotations and catch phrases. Do you have any ideas you can compose and express on your own on how we might address misuse of guns in the US more effectively, or do you imagine simply more of the same-same? Are there any limits?
Imagine if we had insisted on maintaining the same freedoms in other areas after 9-11. We would not have given up nearly as much freedom, and we could be proud. Instead we insist upon our guns but give up our privacy, allow intrusive government spying and physical violations of our former rights and freedoms. Is claiming we are the land of the free still valid? We have welcomed Big Brother under George Bush and Barrack Obama has continued the programs.
But then the question is about guns.
|
|
|
Post by wayneprice on Jul 28, 2012 10:23:02 GMT -7
Jaga,
Well, now that almost a week has gone by since the tragic incident in Colorado, it is starting to appear that several people did in fact know that he was "a mentally sick kid" and did nothing about it. I'm anxious to see how the university he was attending handles this.
And you ask: "Why there is NO ANY RECORD KEEPING ON PEOPLE PURCHASING MULTIPLE GUNS ?". Well for the most part there is, and in this particular individuals case, he purchased them not at a gun show, but from reputable, government licensed dealers that do in fact have records.
Now, as far as what we have lost and the terrorists have won as far as commercial travel is concerned, that is a different story altogether. I've also been subjected to the idiocy of the "Ministry of Homeland Security" via TSA, and have to tell you I'm totally disgusted with the whole bunch of them and their incompetent butts would be looking for new jobs tomorrow, and NOT on the federal payroll! These are little people with a lot of power and they flaunt it. Let me give you an example. When I was on active service with US Central Command, we would often fly in and out of Tampa International Airport, on official government orders, with government purchased tickets and with "official" passports, not the blue passports that everyone can get, but official government passports (the red ones!). First, the folks at TSA would almost trip over each other when they found out, that God Forbid!, we had firearms in our luggage! It didn't matter that we were authorized and required to carry those firearms, had written authorization to carry them in our luggage, that they were in there and met all the TSA rules, and yes, the pistols were marked "Property of the US Government". So after getting hassled for about an hour by the TSA folks, they finally loaded our luggage and you would think that would be that, but no. We then went through the "Special Screening" that included swabbing down on desert combat boots for signs of "explosive residue". And low and behold, they found some every time! OF COURSE THEY DID! We were soldiers and tend to come into contact with "trace" amounts of explosives on our boots! I could go on for several more hours about the 'Dick Tracey" wannabe's that our tax money pays for at the airports, but I won't. What I do think is funny, is that in Tel Aviv, there were no so called "security"issues like there were in Tampa, nor were there ever any flying in and out of Warsaw, Tbillsi, or Bucharesti!
Domestically, the terrorist have won already, they terrorize, have cost us millions in bureaucratic idiots at the airports, and the government handed them the victory on a silver platter!
|
|
|
Post by karl on Jul 28, 2012 12:09:13 GMT -7
Jaga
Interesting you mentioned Austian Glock. I have been carrying one of those things for some time {Glock 19 in 9mm}. I do not enjoy to have weapons upon my person and only as required will I carry such.
In as much with travel, no, I do not carry any thing even a pocket knife. What ever I need is available in the area of travel.
Some years past whilst in in CZ. I was in need of a weapon, and a trip to the local police found one new in box, a CZ50 7.65 mm. This one went to Kosovo, I have no idea where it is at present now. It served a purpose and when completed, it was disposed of.
Weapons {fire arms} are simply tools of need. If the tool falls into the wrong hands, then shame on them, if it was foolish, then shame on all.
I still carry bullet fragments in my wrist from a very good shooter. I blame myself for being foolish to travel into the area pre- sighted in between buildings. The shooter,,,,a university professor, the man knew better, but perhaps thought his priority over personal safety was more valuable to the Serbian cause. He died for his beliefs,,,not by my hand...
The man was a human being and deserved better, but then, I was his enemy in as well as he was my enemy, not by politics, but for the reason he tryed to kill me and failed.
Karl
|
|
|
Post by Jaga on Jul 28, 2012 15:23:38 GMT -7
Wayne,
frankly. I do not know exactly how the gun laws work and whether there is any record keeping. If there is, maybe it needs to be coordinated so that if suddenly a young man buys 3 guns somebody pays attention.
referring to airport control - it is excessive, I agree. It is also stricter for airplanes going to the US than all other airplanes. I am sorry to hear about your hassle with the US goverment guns. The most dangerous item we carried this time - was Ela's cocoa. It was checked three times on the way back.
|
|
|
Post by Jaga on Jul 28, 2012 15:24:50 GMT -7
Karl, I did not realize that you have so much experience with guns. Do the bullet fragments affect any airport controls for you?
|
|
|
Post by karl on Jul 28, 2012 18:32:11 GMT -7
Karl, I did not realize that you have so much experience with guns. Do the bullet fragments affect any airport controls for you? Jaga Thank you for your caring, in truth, my intentions were to delete out my post as being overly informative. With the airport security scan, there is no problem as the fragments are copper and lead, it is the x-ray machines that sounds the warning. Usually, I will simply provide in advance of the metal. It is the USA airport and Canadian screening is most intense, the Mexican airport screening is good, but not excessive. Most all others are very good with out extrems. Yes, I am sorry of weapons experience, it serves little other then a measure of protection, supposedly. For in three occasions {one being hit} of a set up, I was never to see the shooter with only one set up as being three meters from me. I felt the muzzle blast as heat whilst slow traveling in an auto with the window in down position. It was a revolver for although six shots were expended, no casings were left.
Twice yearly, I am required to attend weapons school to maintain proficiency skills. It is each a day in length with class room lecture in the morning, and remainder of day on the range. The requirement of passing score is 80%, but this is easily attained with out problem.
One of the situations that must be over come is, the change over from different weapons with different characteristics, one being a pistol with rotating magazine {revolver} to then immediate switch over to one that is auto.
For example, the revolving chamber pistol has not a closed chamber seal between the chamber and barrel, is as so, it will spit burnt powder and flame out through the small aperture.
Above is fine, with exception when the shooter is in barricade position and using as a rest stop, between thumb and fore finger of the opposite hand. Yes, once fired, it becomes immediate realization of this mistake with the resulting darkened ring and burnt area on the skin. Very painful..
Our instructors never criticize mistakes, they very calmly advise and provide assistance, with the skills they teach, are for us, to protect our lives by. The weapons used in training vary from what ever we are to carry {mine is the Glock} to H/K UPS 9MM to various machine pistols of 9MM.
We are commensurately required to attend various up dating in schools of explosives, primarily in identification and use. It is not my intention ever to exercise these skills, it is tools we use in our work.
In as far as hunting,,,, simply out of the question. I have an aversion to needless killing of animals, hunting with a camera is fine. If in survival, yes of course, the killing of animals is necessary to live, for there is the co-existence with nature that must be maintained.
Karl
|
|
|
Post by kaima on Jul 29, 2012 21:17:44 GMT -7
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia ... The 76-year-old Scalia - a leading conservative on the court who has served as a justice since 1986 .... Supreme Court justices rarely give media interviews. Scalia is making the rounds to promote "Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts," a new book he co-wrote....
GUN CONTROL
Scalia wrote the high court's 2008 ruling that a ban on handguns in the U.S. capital violated the right to bear arms enshrined in the Constitution's Second Amendment.
In light of the July 20 massacre in which a gunman killed 12 moviegoers in Colorado, Scalia was asked whether legislatures could ban the sale of semiautomatic weapons.
He said the 2008 ruling stated that future cases will determine "what limitations upon the right to bear arms are permissible. Some undoubtedly are."
Scalia - a proponent of the idea that the Constitution must be interpreted using the meaning of its text at the time it was written - cited "a tort called affrighting" that existed when the Second Amendment was drafted in the 18th century making it a misdemeanor to carry "a really horrible weapon just to scare people like a head ax."
"So yes, there are some limitations that can be imposed," he said. "I mean, obviously, the amendment does not apply to arms that cannot be hand-carried. It's to 'keep and bear' (arms). So, it doesn't apply to cannons. But I suppose there are handheld rocket launchers that can bring down airplanes that will have to be ... decided."
|
|
|
Post by Jaga on Aug 6, 2012 11:41:20 GMT -7
Guys,
we have another clear example that the easy access to guns made people do outrageous things. Home-grown terrorist who can buy freely a gun in any state in the US, a rasist, who was unemployed and probably confused who Shiites are - whether they are muslims or not, did it. He killed 6 people, then he got killed. No any airport control will help if you can buy semi-automatic guns easily.....
I was initially surprised how little FoxNews talked about it.... they started talking later on. Now, they are focusing on Israel and how Israel "needs to defend itself" by attaking Iran.
|
|
|
Post by Jaga on Aug 9, 2012 21:20:08 GMT -7
Only 13% Americans believe there should be NO RESTRICTIONS on gun controls. 48% believe there should be either MAJOR restrictions or make guns illegal.
|
|
|
Post by Eric on Aug 9, 2012 23:36:07 GMT -7
Americans have a unique love affair with guns that seems to be impossible to end.
It seems to be ingrained in the American consciousness that a lack of guns means the country and its people will be overrun by a terrorizing government, crime will skyrocket (!), and total anarchy and a loss of "freedom" will result.
Americans love their freedom... but only at gunpoint!!!!!
|
|
|
Post by JustJohn or JJ on Aug 10, 2012 4:19:33 GMT -7
A great article that needs reading. Common sense at its finest.
WHAT EVERYONE FORGETS WHEN DEBATING GUN CONTROL
By: Selwyn Duke
In the wake of the Aurora mass shooting, the usual pattern is playing out with respect to gun control. People such as Mayor Michael Bloomberg, Piers Morgan and Bill Moyers are beating the drum to restrict firearm ownership, as others try to beat them back. One side says we’d be safer if guns were rarer; the other says that more guns equal less crime. One side says guns kill people, the other that people kill people. Facts and feelings are bandied back and forth (although one side specializes in the facts and the other in the feelings), but in all the commentary, some of which is very good, one point is universally missed.
For the sake of argument, let’s accept the supposition that outlawing firearms would save lives. Does it logically follow from this that guns should be restricted or banned?
Well, it would certainly save lives and countless injuries if people didn’t engage in mountain-climbing, hang-gliding, motorcycle-racing, trampolining, big-wave surfing, cave-diving, heli-skiing and a host of other dangerous activities. And, like guns, knives and baseball bats are common murder weapons. Does it logically follow that these items and activities should be banned?
The point is that we never treat saving lives as the only imperative when devising policy. If we did, we’d perhaps consider reducing speed limits on highways to 5 mph, since this might save most of the 43,000 lives lost on the road each year. Speaking of which, since 40 percent of those deaths are alcohol related, we can consider resurrecting Prohibition, too.
Now, since gun-control advocates think they have morality on their side, they may want to ponder a question: is it moral to sacrifice 43,000 lives just so we can be free to zip around at 55 or 65 mph? The answer here is that the safety imperative is balanced against an economic one, in that too much productivity would be lost with a five-mph speed limit.
But sometimes far more trivial things trump the safety imperative. No one needs to drink alcohol, go rock-climbing, or play baseball when doing so necessitates the availability of a dangerous weapon. So, imagine that, we’re actually placing fun and enjoyment ahead of saving lives. In fact, some among us will even tolerate death on a massive scale if we think the reason is good enough. An example is when the anti-gun left is willing to accept 1.2 million killings a year through abortion.
So if we’ll accept death through fun, should we question death through the gun? As with dangerous recreation, the enjoyment justification exists with firearms, too, in the form of target and sport shooting. As with driving, an economic justification exists in that revenue is collected from hunters and because some poorer rural Americans help feed themselves through hunting. But there is something here that is a true imperative, one that’s greater than most any other:
Thwarting evil.
The apocryphal saying, “God made some men big and others small, but Samuel Colt made them equal,” gets at the point here. Whether it’s a smaller person or group, firearms tend to even the odds. They help create parity, and that’s not what criminals want—they want easy prey. Thus, like a predator in the wilds that generally won’t attack a creature more than half its size, even if a criminal is armed himself, he’ll be reluctant to tackle a target that can target him back.
Even more significantly, as Prohibition, prostitution and drugs have proven, illegal isn’t synonymous with unavailable. So, again, let’s assume a gun criminalization that left firearms in the hands of a few criminals did save lives overall. What should we conclude if those armed miscreants could nonetheless ply their dark trade with little resistance? What should we feel if good people were declawed and rendered powerless to thwart their evil?
A virtuous, justice-oriented person should find this intolerable to the point of outrage.
He should quote Emiliano Zapata and say, “It’s better to die on your feet than live on your knees.” Yet better still is to live on your feet. And a gun in the hand makes that more likely.
As for debating the Second Amendment, there’s nothing wrong with using facts to refute the notion that more guns equal more deaths. But this should be only part of the debate, not the debate itself. Otherwise we miss some great principles, one of which is that life at all costs is too great a cost. Living is about more than just life, and whether the matter is sports that can kill, drink that can kill or guns that can kill, you can’t really live if you’re suffocated with a Big Brother bubble-wrap mentality.
|
|
|
Post by Jaga on Aug 10, 2012 9:31:16 GMT -7
John
good point. Maybe we should limit speed limit on the highways (or control it better), but also control guns better and do not allow psychopats freely buy it. In both recent cases guys bought semi-automatic weapons during last months with no problems at all and used it to kill people.
|
|