Discussion:
"The Reality of Red-State Fascism"
(too old to reply)
Fooled By Folksy Republicans
2007-01-10 20:50:03 UTC
Permalink
Interesting perspective from a Libertarian, not that I would agree with
everything here:

"The American right today has managed to be solidly anti-leftist while
adopting an ideology - even without knowing it or being entirely conscious
of the change - that is also frighteningly anti-liberty. This reality turns
out to be very difficult for libertarians to understand or accept."

http://www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/red-state-fascism.html


quote

The Reality of Red-State Fascism
by Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.


Year's end is the time for big thoughts, so here are mine. The most
significant socio-political shift in our time has gone almost completely
unremarked, and even unnoticed. It is the dramatic shift of the red-state
bourgeoisie from leave-us-alone libertarianism, manifested in the
Congressional elections of 1994, to almost totalitarian statist nationalism.
Whereas the conservative middle class once cheered the circumscribing of the
federal government, it now celebrates power and adores the central state,
particularly its military wing.

This huge shift has not been noticed among mainstream punditry, and hence
there have been few attempts to explain it - much less have libertarians
thought much about what it implies. My own take is this: the Republican
takeover of the presidency combined with an unrelenting state of war, has
supplied all the levers necessary to convert a burgeoning libertarian
movement into a statist one.

The remaining ideological justification was left to, and accomplished by,
Washington's kept think tanks, who have approved the turn at every crucial
step. What this implies for libertarians is a crying need to draw a clear
separation between what we believe and what conservatives believe. It also
requires that we face the reality of the current threat forthrightly by
extending more rhetorical tolerance leftward and less rightward.

Let us start from 1994 and work forward. In a stunningly prescient memo,
Murray N. Rothbard described the 1994 revolution against the Democrats as
follows:

"a massive and unprecedented public repudiation of President Clinton, his
person, his personnel, his ideologies and programs, and all of his works;
plus a repudiation of Clinton's Democrat Party; and, most fundamentally, a
rejection of the designs, current and proposed, of the Leviathan he heads..
what is being rejected is big government in general (its taxing, mandating,
regulating, gun grabbing, and even its spending) and, in particular, its
arrogant ambition to control the entire society from the political center.
Voters and taxpayers are no longer persuaded of a supposed rationale for
American-style central planning.. On the positive side, the public is
vigorously and fervently affirming its desire to re-limit and de-centralize
government; to increase individual and community liberty; to reduce taxes,
mandates, and government intrusion; to return to the cultural and social
mores of pre-1960s America, and perhaps much earlier than that."

This memo also cautioned against unrelieved optimism, because, Rothbard
said, two errors rear their head in most every revolution. First, the
reformers do not move fast enough; instead they often experience a crisis of
faith and become overwhelmed by demands that they govern "responsibly"
rather than tear down the established order. Second, the reformers leave too
much in place that can be used by their successors to rebuild the state they
worked so hard to dismantle. This permits gains to be reversed as soon as
another party takes control.

Rothbard urged dramatic cuts in spending, taxing, and regulation, and not
just in the domestic area but also in the military and in foreign policy. He
saw that this was crucial to any small-government program. He also urged a
dismantling of the federal judiciary on grounds that it represents a clear
and present danger to American liberty. He urged the young radicals who were
just elected to reject gimmicks like the balanced-budget amendment and the
line-item veto, in favor of genuine change. None of this happened of course.
In fact, the Republican leadership and pundit class began to warn against
"kamikaze missions" and speak not of bringing liberty, but rather of
governing better than others.

Foreshadowing what was to come, Rothbard pointed out: "Unfortunately, the
conservative public is all too often taken in by mere rhetoric and fails to
weigh the actual deeds of their political icons. So the danger is that
Gingrich will succeed not onlyin betraying, but in conning the revolutionary
public into thinking that they have already won and can shut up shop and go
home." The only way to prevent this, he wrote, was to educate the public,
businessmen, students, academics, journalists, and politicians about the
true nature of what is going on, and about the vicious nature of the
bi-partisan ruling elites.

The 1994 revolution failed of course, in part because the anti-government
opposition was intimidated into silence by the Oklahoma City bombing of
April 1995. The establishment somehow managed to pin the violent act of an
ex-military man on the right-wing libertarianism of the American
bourgeoisie. It was said by every important public official at that time
that to be anti-government was to give aid and support to militias,
secessionists, and other domestic terrorists. It was a classic intimidation
campaign but, combined with a GOP leadership that never had any intention to
change DC, it worked to shut down the opposition.

In the last years of the 1990s, the GOP-voting middle class refocused its
anger away from government and leviathan and toward the person of Bill
Clinton. It was said that he represented some kind of unique moral evil
despoiling the White House. That ridiculous Monica scandal culminated in a
pathetic and pretentious campaign to impeach Clinton. Impeaching presidents
is a great idea, but impeaching them for fibbing about personal peccadilloes
is probably the least justifiable ground. It's almost as if that entire
campaign was designed to discredit the great institution of impeachment.

In any case, this event crystallized the partisanship of the bourgeoisie,
driving home the message that the real problem was Clinton and not
government; the immorality of the chief executive, not his power; the
libertinism of the left-liberals and not their views toward government. The
much heralded "leave us alone" coalition had been thoroughly transformed in
a pure anti-Clinton movement. The right in this country began to define
itself not as pro-freedom, as it had in 1994, but simply as anti-leftist, as
it does today.

There are many good reasons to be anti-leftist, but let us revisit what
Mises said in 1956 concerning the anti-socialists of his day. He pointed out
that many of these people had a purely negative agenda, to crush the
leftists and their bohemian ways and their intellectual pretension. He
warned that this is not a program for freedom. It was a program of hatred
that can only degenerate into statism.

The moral corruption, the licentiousness and the intellectual sterility of a
class of lewd would-be authors and artists is the ransom mankind must pay
lest the creative pioneers be prevented from accomplishing their work.
Freedom must be granted to all, even to base people, lest the few who can
use it for the benefit of mankind be hindered. The license which the shabby
characters of the quartier Latin enjoyed was one of the conditions that made
possible the ascendance of a few great writers, painters and sculptors. The
first thing a genius needs is to breathe free air.

He goes on to urge that anti-leftists work to educate themselves about
economics, so that they can have a positive agenda to displace their purely
negative one. A positive agenda of liberty is the only way we might have
been spared the blizzard of government controls that were fastened on this
country after Bush used the events of 9-11 to increase central planning,
invade Afghanistan and Iraq, and otherwise bring a form of statism to
America that makes Clinton look laissez-faire by comparison. The Bush
administration has not only faced no resistance from the bourgeoisie. it has
received cheers. And they are not only cheering Bush's reelection; they have
embraced tyrannical control of society as a means toward accomplishing their
anti-leftist ends.

After September 11, even those whose ostensible purpose in life is to
advocate less government changed their minds. Even after it was clear that
9-11 would be used as the biggest pretense for the expansion of government
since the stock market crash of 1929, the Cato Institute said that
libertarianism had to change its entire focus: "Libertarians usually enter
public debates to call for restrictions on government activity. In the wake
of September 11, we have all been reminded of the real purpose of
government: to protect our life, liberty, and property from violence. This
would be a good time for the federal government to do its job with vigor and
determination."

The vigor and determination of the Bush administration has brought about a
profound cultural change, so that the very people who once proclaimed hated
of government now advocate its use against dissidents of all sorts,
especially against those who would dare call for curbs in the totalitarian
bureaucracy of the military, or suggest that Bush is something less than
infallible in his foreign-policy decisions. The lesson here is that it is
always a mistake to advocate government action, for there is no way you can
fully anticipate how government will be used. Nor can you ever count on a
slice of the population to be moral in its advocacy of the uses of the
police power.

Editor & Publisher, for example, posted a small note the other day about a
column written by Al Neuharth, the founder of USA Today, in which he mildly
suggested that the troops be brought home from Iraq "sooner rather than
later." The editor of E&P was just blown away by the letters that poured in,
filled with venom and hate and calling for Neuharth to be tried and locked
away as a traitor. The letters compared him with pro-Hitler journalists, and
suggested that he was objectively pro-terrorist, choosing to support the
Muslim jihad over the US military. Other letters called for Neuharth to get
the death penalty for daring to take issue with the Christian leaders of
this great Christian nation.

I'm actually not surprised at this. It has been building for some time. If
you follow hate-filled sites such as Free Republic, you know that the
populist right in this country has been advocating nuclear holocaust and
mass bloodshed for more than a year now. The militarism and nationalism
dwarfs anything I saw at any point during the Cold War. It celebrates the
shedding of blood, and exhibits a maniacal love of the state. The new
ideology of the red-state bourgeoisie seems to actually believe that the US
is God marching on earth - not just godlike, but really serving as a proxy
for God himself.

Along with this goes a kind of worship of the presidency, and a celebration
of all things public sector, including egregious law like the Patriot Act,
egregious bureaucracies like the Department of Homeland Security, and
egregious centrally imposed regimentation like the No Child Left Behind Act.
It longs for the state to throw its weight behind institutions like the
two-parent heterosexual family, the Christian charity, the homogeneous
community of native-born patriots.

In 1994, the central state was seen by the bourgeoisie as the main threat to
the family; in 2004 it is seen as the main tool for keeping the family
together and ensuring its ascendancy. In 1994, the state was seen as the
enemy of education; today, the same people view the state as the means of
raising standards and purging education of its left-wing influences. In
1994, Christians widely saw that Leviathan was the main enemy of the faith;
today, they see Leviathan as the tool by which they will guarantee that
their faith will have an impact on the country and the world.

Paul Craig Roberts is right: "In the ranks of the new conservatives,
however, I see and experience much hate. It comes to me in violently worded,
ignorant and irrational emails from self-professed conservatives who
literally worship George Bush. Even Christians have fallen into idolatry.
There appears to be a large number of Americans who are prepared to kill
anyone for George Bush." Again: "Like Brownshirts, the new conservatives
take personally any criticism of their leader and his policies. To be a
critic is to be an enemy."

In short, what we have alive in the US is an updated and Americanized
fascism. Why fascist? Because it is not leftist in the sense of egalitarian
or redistributionist. It has no real beef with business. It doesn't
sympathize with the downtrodden, labor, or the poor. It is for all the core
institutions of bourgeois life in America: family, faith, and flag. But it
sees the state as the central organizing principle of society, views public
institutions as the most essential means by which all these institutions are
protected and advanced, and adores the head of state as a godlike figure who
knows better than anyone else what the country and world's needs, and has a
special connection to the Creator that permits him to discern the best means
to bring it about.

The American right today has managed to be solidly anti-leftist while
adopting an ideology - even without knowing it or being entirely conscious
of the change - that is also frighteningly anti-liberty. This reality turns
out to be very difficult for libertarians to understand or accept. For a
long time, we've tended to see the primary threat to liberty as coming from
the left, from the socialists who sought to control the economy from the
center. But we must also remember that the sweep of history shows that there
are two main dangers to liberty, one that comes from the left and the other
that comes from the right. Europe and Latin America have long faced the
latter threat, but its reality is only now hitting us fully.

What is the most pressing and urgent threat to freedom that we face in our
time? It is not from the left. If anything, the left has been solid on civil
liberties and has been crucial in drawing attention to the lies and abuses
of the Bush administration. No, today, the clear and present danger to
freedom comes from the right side of the ideological spectrum, those people
who are pleased to preserve most of free enterprise but favor top-down
management of society, culture, family, and school, and seek to use a
messianic and belligerent nationalism to impose their vision of politics on
the world.

There is no need to advance the view that the enemy of my enemy is my
friend. However, it is time to recognize that the left today does represent
a counterweight to the right, just as it did in the 1950s when the right
began to adopt anti-communist militarism as its credo. In a time when the
term patriotism means supporting the nation's wars and statism, a
libertarian patriotism has more in common with that advanced by The Nation
magazine:

"The other company of patriots does not march to military time. It prefers
the gentle strains of 'America the Beautiful' to the strident cadences of
'Hail to the Chief' and 'The Stars and Stripes Forever.' This patriotism is
rooted in the love of one's own land and people, love too of the best ideals
of one's own culture and tradition. This company of patriots finds no glory
in puffing their country up by pulling others' down. This patriotism is
profoundly municipal, even domestic. Its pleasures are quiet, its services
steady and unpretentious. This patriotism too has deep roots and long
continuity in our history."

Ten years ago, these were "right wing" sentiments; today the right regards
them as treasonous. What should this teach us? It shows that those who saw
the interests of liberty as being well served by the politicized proxies of
free enterprise alone, family alone, Christianity alone, law and order
alone, were profoundly mistaken. There is no proxy for liberty, no cause
that serves as a viable substitute, and no movement by any name whose
success can yield freedom in our time other than the movement of freedom
itself. We need to embrace liberty and liberty only, and not be fooled by
groups or parties or movements that only desire a temporary liberty to
advance their pet interests.

As Rothbard said in 1965:

"The doctrine of liberty contains elements corresponding with both
contemporary left and right. This means in no sense that we are
middle-of-the-roaders, eclectically trying to combine, or step between, both
poles; but rather that a consistent view of liberty includes concepts that
have also become part of the rhetoric or program of right and of left. Hence
a creative approach to liberty must transcend the confines of contemporary
political shibboleths."

There has never in my lifetime been a more urgent need for the party of
liberty to completely secede from conventional thought and established
institutions, especially those associated with all aspects of government,
and undertake radical intellectual action on behalf of a third way that
rejects the socialism of the left and the fascism of the right.

Indeed, the current times can be seen as a training period for all true
friends of liberty. We need to learn to recognize the many different guises
in which tyranny appears. Power is protean because it must suppress that
impulse toward liberty that exists in the hearts of all people. The impulse
is there, tacitly waiting for the consciousness to dawn. When it does, power
doesn't stand a chance.

December 31, 2004

Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr. [send him mail] is president of the Ludwig von
Mises Institute in Auburn, Alabama, editor of LewRockwell.com, and author of
Speaking of Liberty.
Copyright © 2004 LewRockwell.com
Lew Rockwell Archives



Find this article at:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/red-state-fascism.html


end quote


This passage is spot on:


"Along with this goes a kind of worship of the presidency, and a celebration
of all things public sector, including egregious law like the Patriot Act,
egregious bureaucracies like the Department of Homeland Security, and
egregious centrally imposed regimentation like the No Child Left Behind Act.
It longs for the state to throw its weight behind institutions like the
two-parent heterosexual family, the Christian charity, the homogeneous
community of native-born patriots. "




Fooled By Folksy Republicans
Guerite.
2007-01-10 21:09:41 UTC
Permalink
Yawn

http://www.discoverthenetwork.com/groupProfile.asp?grpid=7171
Fooled By Folksy Republicans
2007-01-10 21:21:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Guerite.
Yawn
Un-yawn.
Post by Guerite.
http://www.discoverthenetwork.com/groupProfile.asp?grpid=7171
Re-yawn.

FBFR
e***@netpath.net
2007-01-10 22:35:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Fooled By Folksy Republicans
"The American right today has managed to be solidly anti-leftist while
adopting an ideology - even without knowing it or being entirely conscious
of the change - that is also frighteningly anti-liberty.
Bullshit. It's core urban Blue Nation that is the most
anti-freedom; try LEGALLY owning a handgun in New York City,
Washington, or Chicago if you doubt that. It's core urban Blue Nation
where local taxes are so high as to make "liberty" meaningless - as
residents there have so much of their earnings sucked away by city and
county politicians and bureaucrats.

No $4 to park! No $6 admission! http://www.INTERNET-GUN-SHOW.com
Scott Smith
2007-01-10 22:46:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by e***@netpath.net
Post by Fooled By Folksy Republicans
"The American right today has managed to be solidly anti-leftist while
adopting an ideology - even without knowing it or being entirely conscious
of the change - that is also frighteningly anti-liberty.
Bullshit. It's core urban Blue Nation that is the most
anti-freedom; try LEGALLY owning a handgun in New York City,
Washington, or Chicago if you doubt that.
What you fail to understand is that the *majority* of us who
live in "core urban Blue Nation" don't want just any yahoo
who wants a gun to be able to have one (or at least to carry
it around on the streets with them). That's why we write and
talk to our legislators, and tell them to vote for the wishes of
their constituents. We asked for it to be that way, and generally
we like it that way.
Post by e***@netpath.net
It's core urban Blue Nation where local taxes are so high as to make
"liberty" meaningless - as residents there have so much of their earnings
sucked away by city and county politicians and bureaucrats.
Again, you fail to realize that the *majority* of us who live in
"core urban Blue Nation" utilize the various services provided
by those taxes, and aren't afraid to pay a little more if it means
better transportation services, better public education, better
health care and hospitals, etc. That is part of our "liberty".

Is it a perfect system? No. Is it better than what the "survival of
the fittest" conservatives and libertarians suggest? You bet.




- Scott Smith: ***@sludgereport.org
Books Blog: http://scottsbooks.blogspot.com
Blue States Rising: http://www.bluestaterising.blogspot.com
Bill Smith
2007-01-11 00:25:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scott Smith
What you fail to understand is that the *majority* of us who
live in "core urban Blue Nation" don't want just any yahoo
who wants a gun to be able to have one (or at least to carry
it around on the streets with them). That's why we write and
talk to our legislators, and tell them to vote for the wishes of
their constituents. We asked for it to be that way, and generally
we like it that way.
What's your definition of a "Yahoo"?

Bill Smith

Cum catapultae proscriptae erunt tum soli proscripti catapultas
habebunt
Felix D.
2007-01-11 01:17:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill Smith
Post by Scott Smith
What you fail to understand is that the *majority* of us who
live in "core urban Blue Nation" don't want just any yahoo
who wants a gun to be able to have one (or at least to carry
it around on the streets with them). That's why we write and
talk to our legislators, and tell them to vote for the wishes of
their constituents. We asked for it to be that way, and generally
we like it that way.
What's your definition of a "Yahoo"?
Anybody that isn't him or his friends.
l***@yahoo.com
2007-01-11 01:30:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill Smith
Post by Scott Smith
What you fail to understand is that the *majority* of us who
live in "core urban Blue Nation" don't want just any yahoo
who wants a gun to be able to have one (or at least to carry
it around on the streets with them). That's why we write and
talk to our legislators, and tell them to vote for the wishes of
their constituents. We asked for it to be that way, and generally
we like it that way.
What's your definition of a "Yahoo"?
Well....Bush has a degree from Yale, an MBA from Harvard...but he's
still a reichwing, red state yahoo....guess you're yearning to be just
like him. Otherwise, your education and mental abilities would have
combined to grasp the concept of "yahoo-ness" and not need a "Cliff's
Notes" study guide.

Got it?
Post by Bill Smith
Bill Smith
Cum catapultae proscriptae erunt tum soli proscripti catapultas
habebunt
Nice Latin. However, if you could have done it in Mandarin Chinese,
you'd actually impress me. It's kinda "Yahoo"-ish of you to think Latin
is impressive. Hey! There's your definition! Think about it. (Anyone
can cut and paste off the Internet.)
Bill Smith
2007-01-11 15:54:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by l***@yahoo.com
Post by Bill Smith
Post by Scott Smith
What you fail to understand is that the *majority* of us who
live in "core urban Blue Nation" don't want just any yahoo
who wants a gun to be able to have one (or at least to carry
it around on the streets with them). That's why we write and
talk to our legislators, and tell them to vote for the wishes of
their constituents. We asked for it to be that way, and generally
we like it that way.
What's your definition of a "Yahoo"?
Well....Bush has a degree from Yale, an MBA from Harvard...but he's
still a reichwing, red state yahoo....guess you're yearning to be just
like him. Otherwise, your education and mental abilities would have
combined to grasp the concept of "yahoo-ness" and not need a "Cliff's
Notes" study guide.
Got it?
You gave an example, but not a definition. Aside from that, you assume
that Bush has something to do with this conversation and that I share
his political views.

Wrong on all counts, it would seem.

Bill Smith

Cum catapultae proscriptae erunt tum soli proscripti catapultas
habebunt
Al Montestruc
2007-01-13 23:55:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by l***@yahoo.com
Post by Bill Smith
Post by Scott Smith
What you fail to understand is that the *majority* of us who
live in "core urban Blue Nation" don't want just any yahoo
who wants a gun to be able to have one (or at least to carry
it around on the streets with them). That's why we write and
talk to our legislators, and tell them to vote for the wishes of
their constituents. We asked for it to be that way, and generally
we like it that way.
What's your definition of a "Yahoo"?
Well....Bush has a degree from Yale, an MBA from Harvard...but he's
still a reichwing, red state yahoo
He was born in Connecticut to the very wealthy Bush family that has
been deep into US federal politics for over three generations (Samuel
P. Bush [federal bureaucrat], Senator Prescott Bush, George Bush 41,
George W. Bush 43) They are wealthy old money new englanders. Cut the
BS.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Prescott_Bush

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prescott_Bush

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_H.W._Bush

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush

That "W" lived in Texas for a while and married a Texan does not make
him a "red stater".
Frank Ney
2007-01-18 02:59:29 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 10 Jan 2007 16:25:19 -0800, an orbiting mind control laser caused Bill
Post by Bill Smith
Post by Scott Smith
What you fail to understand is that the *majority* of us who
live in "core urban Blue Nation" don't want just any yahoo
who wants a gun to be able to have one (or at least to carry
it around on the streets with them). That's why we write and
talk to our legislators, and tell them to vote for the wishes of
their constituents. We asked for it to be that way, and generally
we like it that way.
What's your definition of a "Yahoo"?
Anyone who reads/posts to TPG.

Frank Ney N4ZHG WV/EMT-B NRA(L) GOA CCRKBA JPFO ProvNRA LPWV
--
"Whether the authorities be invaders or merely local tyrants, the
effect of such [gun] laws is to place the individual at the mercy of
the state, unable to resist."
- Robert Heinlein, in a 1949 letter concerning _Red Planet_
United Airlines Must Die! http://www.dont-fly.com
Abuses by the BATF http://www.elfie.org/~croaker/batfabus.html
Bill Smith
2007-01-18 15:51:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Frank Ney
Post by Bill Smith
What's your definition of a "Yahoo"?
Anyone who reads/posts to TPG.
LOL!

Bill Smith

Cum catapultae proscriptae erunt tum soli proscripti catapultas
habebunt
Felix D.
2007-01-11 01:16:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scott Smith
What you fail to understand is that the *majority* of us who
live in "core urban Blue Nation" don't want just any yahoo
who wants a gun to be able to have one (or at least to carry
it around on the streets with them). That's why we write and
talk to our legislators, and tell them to vote for the wishes of
their constituents. We asked for it to be that way, and generally
we like it that way.
Utter nonsense. Every time the proposal to disarm the people is put on the
ballot (no matter where) it's voted down by wide margins.

The problem you libbies have is not everyone buys your crap. You can turn
NYC and LA into an urban nightmare if you want, just leave the rest of us
the fuck alone.

We mean it. We have guns, remember?

Once that's understood, no wonder you want to disarm everybody!
Don Homuth
2007-01-11 01:21:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Felix D.
Post by Scott Smith
What you fail to understand is that the *majority* of us who
live in "core urban Blue Nation" don't want just any yahoo
who wants a gun to be able to have one (or at least to carry
it around on the streets with them). That's why we write and
talk to our legislators, and tell them to vote for the wishes of
their constituents. We asked for it to be that way, and generally
we like it that way.
Utter nonsense. Every time the proposal to disarm the people is put on the
ballot (no matter where) it's voted down by wide margins.
What proposals? Be specific.
Post by Felix D.
The problem you libbies have is not everyone buys your crap. You can turn
NYC and LA into an urban nightmare if you want, just leave the rest of us
the fuck alone.
We mean it. We have guns, remember?
Heh! As if you knew how to do anything important with them.
Post by Felix D.
Once that's understood, no wonder you want to disarm everybody!
No one wants to disarm everybody. There are no proposals on the
ballot to disarm everybody.

The proposals requiring everybody to be armed also get voted down,
when they come up.

And you're tilting at windmills.
a***@attbi.com
2007-01-11 20:35:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Don Homuth
Post by Felix D.
Post by Scott Smith
What you fail to understand is that the *majority* of us who
live in "core urban Blue Nation" don't want just any yahoo
who wants a gun to be able to have one (or at least to carry
it around on the streets with them). That's why we write and
talk to our legislators, and tell them to vote for the wishes of
their constituents. We asked for it to be that way, and generally
we like it that way.
Utter nonsense. Every time the proposal to disarm the people is put on the
ballot (no matter where) it's voted down by wide margins.
What proposals? Be specific.
I recall Washingotn state had a proposition to do just that (Prop 78?)
and California also had one a few years back that went down in flames.
Post by Don Homuth
Post by Felix D.
The problem you libbies have is not everyone buys your crap. You can turn
NYC and LA into an urban nightmare if you want, just leave the rest of us
the fuck alone.
We mean it. We have guns, remember?
Heh! As if you knew how to do anything important with them.
Any time you want a demonstration of what can be accomplished with a
firearm, let me know.
Post by Don Homuth
Post by Felix D.
Once that's understood, no wonder you want to disarm everybody!
No one wants to disarm everybody. There are no proposals on the
ballot to disarm everybody.
We have learned to ignore the fine phrases and soothing utterances of
Lib-Dem anti-rights enthusiasts.
Post by Don Homuth
The proposals requiring everybody to be armed also get voted down,
when they come up.
And you're tilting at windmills.
And you sir are full of self-righteous shit.
Don Homuth
2007-01-11 21:19:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by a***@attbi.com
Post by Felix D.
Every time the proposal to disarm the people is put on the
Post by Felix D.
ballot (no matter where) it's voted down by wide margins.
What proposals? Be specific.
I recall Washingotn state had a proposition to do just that (Prop 78?)
You may be thinking of the San Francisco proposal.
Post by a***@attbi.com
and California also had one a few years back that went down in flames.
The one in SF passed.
Post by a***@attbi.com
Post by Felix D.
Post by Felix D.
The problem you libbies have is not everyone buys your crap. You can turn
NYC and LA into an urban nightmare if you want, just leave the rest of us
the fuck alone.
We mean it. We have guns, remember?
Heh! As if you knew how to do anything important with them.
Any time you want a demonstration of what can be accomplished with a
firearm, let me know.
Child, I am quite the Last person who requires a demonstration. You
can make noise and make small holes in things at a distance.

Having gotten past that, the larger question is whether or not you can
do anything Important -- and in this case that means in the public
policy realm -- with them. And the answer is you can't.

Armed Insurrections are Very difficult to undertake. It requires an
Actual Clue to do it. By and large, gun fondlers find those in short
supply.

So all that Manly Nutscratching about how You Have Guns seems to
overlook that important fact. And another -- so do others, who are
not in league with you.

Ponder on that when you can spare the second neuron.
Post by a***@attbi.com
Post by Felix D.
Post by Felix D.
Once that's understood, no wonder you want to disarm everybody!
No one wants to disarm everybody. There are no proposals on the
ballot to disarm everybody.
We have learned to ignore the fine phrases and soothing utterances of
Lib-Dem anti-rights enthusiasts.
Yeah -- you have also learned not to pay any attention to Reality(tm)
either.
Post by a***@attbi.com
Post by Felix D.
The proposals requiring everybody to be armed also get voted down,
when they come up.
And you're tilting at windmills.
And you sir are full of self-righteous shit.
Yeah -- that's about the level of discourse I've come to expect from
the Manly Gun Fondlers out there.

I figure it's a hormonal dysfunction of some sort.

Don't presume that if you decide to open fire for some cause or other
that others who also own guns will join up with you.
j***@ix.netcom.com
2007-01-11 22:16:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Don Homuth
Post by a***@attbi.com
Post by Felix D.
Every time the proposal to disarm the people is put on the
Post by Felix D.
ballot (no matter where) it's voted down by wide margins.
What proposals? Be specific.
I recall Washingotn state had a proposition to do just that (Prop 78?)
You may be thinking of the San Francisco proposal.
No, Washington State:


Washington State:
Initiative 676 Gun Control
7,419 of 7,420 precincts - 99 percent
Yes, 409,515 - 29.6 percent
No, 973,974 - 70.4 percent


"We didn't spend enough money, and we didn't tell enough lies." [WRT
the reasons Washington Safety First and Handgun Control
Incorporated lost the WA State I-676 handgun control inititive]
--Charles W. `The Needle' Pluckhahn; aka: "CWP" <***@seanet.com>

Subject: Re: WA I-676 - lessons learned
From: "CWP" <***@seanet.com>
Date: 1997/11/10
Message-ID: <01bced76$2aa4d2a0$***@default>
We didn't spend enough money, and we didn't tell enough lies. For
instance,the pro-676 crowd should have gotten the teachers unions to
support it, and then places signs around the state, "10,000 teachers
can't be wrong, vote for I-676." The gun nuts waged a very slick,
sophisticated campaign, one that can teach the pro-safety and pro-gun
control lobbies quite a bit in the future.
RD (The Sandman)
2007-01-12 16:42:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Don Homuth
Post by a***@attbi.com
Post by Felix D.
Every time the proposal to disarm the people is put on the
Post by Felix D.
ballot (no matter where) it's voted down by wide margins.
What proposals? Be specific.
I recall Washingotn state had a proposition to do just that (Prop 78?)
You may be thinking of the San Francisco proposal.
Nope. Prop 87 in Washington state.
Post by Don Homuth
Post by a***@attbi.com
and California also had one a few years back that went down in flames.
The one in SF passed.
It was a local one and I hope you don't believe that no one is SF has a
handgun. ;)

For one, it didn't affect those who only work there, only the residents.
Post by Don Homuth
Post by a***@attbi.com
Post by Felix D.
Post by Felix D.
The problem you libbies have is not everyone buys your crap. You
can turn NYC and LA into an urban nightmare if you want, just leave
the rest of us the fuck alone.
We mean it. We have guns, remember?
Heh! As if you knew how to do anything important with them.
Any time you want a demonstration of what can be accomplished with a
firearm, let me know.
Child, I am quite the Last person who requires a demonstration. You
can make noise and make small holes in things at a distance.
Having gotten past that, the larger question is whether or not you can
do anything Important -- and in this case that means in the public
policy realm -- with them. And the answer is you can't.
I can defend myself and my loved ones.....something that the police are
not chartered to do.
Post by Don Homuth
Armed Insurrections are Very difficult to undertake. It requires an
Actual Clue to do it.
Most of us aren't really interested in that. We still use the ballot
box.
Post by Don Homuth
By and large, gun fondlers find those in short supply.
This wouldn't be myopic daydreaming coming to the fore would it?
--
Sleep well tonight.........RD (The Sandman)
http://home.comcast.net/~rdsandman

"Tis far better to burn the flag while wrapped in the Constitution than
to burn the Constitution while wrapped in the flag."

".357Mag...my personal version of Homeland Security"

"We'll fill landfills with tons and tons of garbage, but when our trash
is shaped like a human, we [somehow] feel the need to keep it around."
John P...2006
Don Homuth
2007-01-11 21:42:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by a***@attbi.com
Post by Felix D.
Every time the proposal to disarm the people is put on the
Post by Felix D.
ballot (no matter where) it's voted down by wide margins.
What proposals? Be specific.
I recall Washingotn state had a proposition to do just that (Prop 78?)
The last "gun control" proposal in WA was prop I-676, if memory
serves. It was not a "ban" by any stretch of the imagination. Its
complete text may be found here:

http://www.secstate.wa.gov/elections/initiatives/text/i676.pdf

Feel free to read for yourself what it actually says. It discusses
operating trigger locks and a handgun license for exampe. But no Ban
by any stretch of the imagination.

Methinks your paranoia is outracing your propensity for the Real(tm)
World.
j***@ix.netcom.com
2007-01-11 22:22:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Don Homuth
Post by a***@attbi.com
Post by Felix D.
Every time the proposal to disarm the people is put on the
Post by Felix D.
ballot (no matter where) it's voted down by wide margins.
What proposals? Be specific.
I recall Washingotn state had a proposition to do just that (Prop 78?)
The last "gun control" proposal in WA was prop I-676, if memory
serves. It was not a "ban" by any stretch of the imagination. Its
http://www.secstate.wa.gov/elections/initiatives/text/i676.pdf
Feel free to read for yourself what it actually says. It discusses
operating trigger locks and a handgun license for exampe. But no Ban
by any stretch of the imagination.
Methinks your paranoia is outracing your propensity for the Real(tm)
World.
"...Once we get (the Brady Bill), I think it will become easier and
easier to get the laws we need passed."
- Sarah Brady, New York Times, Aug. 15, 1993


Sarah Brady a key player in gun "wars'
Holly Yeager
EXAMINER WASHINGTON BUREAU Oct. 23, 1997

"They are looking only to protect gun owners' quote - and I stress
that - rights, because I don't believe gun owners have rights."


"We must get rid of all the guns."
--Sarah Brady, speaking on behalf of Handgun Control Inc
Phil Donahue Show, September 1994 --- with Sheriff
Jay Printz & others

Our ultimate goal -- total control of handguns in the United States --
is going to take time. My estimate is from seven to ten years. The
problem is to slow down the increasing number of handguns sold in this
country. The second problem is to get them all registered. And the
final problem is to make the possession of *all* handguns and *all*
handgun ammunition -- except for the military, policemen, licensed
security guards, licensed sporting clubs, and licensed gun collectors
--
totally illegal."
-- Nelson T. "Pete" Shields; Chairman, HCI
"A Reporter At Large: Handguns",
_The New Yorker_, July 26, 1976, 57-58

"A victory for Initiative 676 will take us a giant leap down the road
toward eventual passage of a national gun licensing law -- just as
California's passage of an assault weapons ban in 1989 led to the
national assault weapons ban we have today."
--Handgun Control Inc. letter, Oct 7, 1997

http://www.kirotv.com/News/Elections/Elex_Results.htm> (expired)

"We didn't spend enough money, and we didn't tell enough lies."
[WRT the reasons Washington Safety First and Handgun Control
Incorporated lost the WA State I-676 handgun control initiative]
--Charles W. Pluckhahn; aka: "CWP" <***@seanet.com>


Washington State:
Initiative 676 Gun Control
7,419 of 7,420 precincts - 99 percent
Yes, 409,515 - 29.6 percent
No, 973,974 - 70.4 percent
Don Homuth
2007-01-11 22:32:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by j***@ix.netcom.com
Post by Don Homuth
Post by a***@attbi.com
Post by Felix D.
Every time the proposal to disarm the people is put on the
Post by Felix D.
ballot (no matter where) it's voted down by wide margins.
What proposals? Be specific.
I recall Washingotn state had a proposition to do just that (Prop 78?)
The last "gun control" proposal in WA was prop I-676, if memory
serves. It was not a "ban" by any stretch of the imagination. Its
http://www.secstate.wa.gov/elections/initiatives/text/i676.pdf
Feel free to read for yourself what it actually says. It discusses
operating trigger locks and a handgun license for exampe. But no Ban
by any stretch of the imagination.
Methinks your paranoia is outracing your propensity for the Real(tm)
World.
"...Once we get (the Brady Bill), I think it will become easier and
easier to get the laws we need passed."
- Sarah Brady, New York Times, Aug. 15, 1993
Yep -- the paranoia just keeps continuing even more than a dozen years
later.

But there's no Actual Threat out there. No one is attempting to
Disarm The People.
Felix D.
2007-01-12 06:40:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Don Homuth
But there's no Actual Threat out there. No one is attempting to
Disarm The People.
LOL! Have you got your head in a bag, or what?
Don Homuth
2007-01-12 15:23:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Felix D.
Post by Don Homuth
But there's no Actual Threat out there. No one is attempting to
Disarm The People.
LOL! Have you got your head in a bag, or what?
Nothing of the sort.

Your guns just aren't really important enough, unless you get stupid
with them.

Which is possible, but unlikely.

Whatever threat you imagine isn't real. It's just something you've
been spoon-fed for fundraising purposes.
a***@attbi.com
2007-01-12 18:33:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Don Homuth
Whatever threat you imagine isn't real. It's just something you've
been spoon-fed for fundraising purposes.
Sorry, Don, but I'll pay attention to the lib dem politicians in this
state who are hell bent on disarming the public.
Don Homuth
2007-01-12 18:44:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by a***@attbi.com
Post by Don Homuth
Whatever threat you imagine isn't real. It's just something you've
been spoon-fed for fundraising purposes.
Sorry, Don, but I'll pay attention to the lib dem politicians in this
state who are hell bent on disarming the public.
Nah -- you'll invent some.

No one is trying to Disarm The Public.
a***@attbi.com
2007-01-12 23:39:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Don Homuth
Post by a***@attbi.com
Post by Don Homuth
Whatever threat you imagine isn't real. It's just something you've
been spoon-fed for fundraising purposes.
Sorry, Don, but I'll pay attention to the lib dem politicians in this
state who are hell bent on disarming the public.
Nah -- you'll invent some.
No one is trying to Disarm The Public.
Then have your lib dem pals drop the push for gun control and banning
"assault weapons."
Don Homuth
2007-01-12 23:44:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by a***@attbi.com
Post by Don Homuth
No one is trying to Disarm The Public.
Then have your lib dem pals drop the push for gun control
Gun Control measures are not Disarming the Public, said Don,
disarmingly.
Post by a***@attbi.com
...and banning "assault weapons."
Thus far, the "assault weapons ban" had one salient and interesting
characteristic:

It didn't Ban any assault weapons.

Make of that what you will.
Scott Smith
2007-01-13 00:00:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Don Homuth
Post by a***@attbi.com
Post by Don Homuth
No one is trying to Disarm The Public.
Then have your lib dem pals drop the push for gun control
Gun Control measures are not Disarming the Public, said Don,
disarmingly.
I don' expect you will ever get the rabid gun fondlers to believe
that, even if it is the truth.

I served in the U.S. Army as a unit armorer. I hunt. I own guns.
But I will never associate myself with this rabid gun nut crowd.
They are mostly very delusional and hysterical nuts, IMO.



- Scott Smith: ***@sludgereport.org
Books Blog: http://scottsbooks.blogspot.com
Blue States Rising: http://www.bluestaterising.blogspot.com
Don Homuth
2007-01-13 00:12:17 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 12 Jan 2007 18:00:05 -0600, Scott Smith
Post by Scott Smith
I served in the U.S. Army as a unit armorer.
Cool! The battalion armorer was my hoochmate when I was in Viet Nam.
We had No End of fun fooling with the silly things. We even had an
actual Schmeisser, which had been captured in a weapons cache.

No idea how that ever got there, but there it was!

(It was confiscated by a 1st Inf Div one-star -- likely for his
Personal collection, I suspect.)

We played with all manner of firearms on a regular basis. To the
point where for most of my 20-month tour, I carried an optimized
AK-47, and not the M-16 I had been issued.

Caught some heat for that, but never gave it up. I like guns that
Work!
Post by Scott Smith
I hunt.
I used to, till I returned from the Land of Smoke. Then I tried to
hunt up by Blackduck, and ended up with bullets whistling through the
area around me.

There are Idiots in the Woods!

Bird hunting was too much work, what with needing a dog and all, and
the folks on whose land I used to hunt in Nordakoda decided to post it
because of the Idiots on the Prairie!

Both groups of Idiots have now taken to ATV riding, which continues
the devolutionary pattern.

So I took up fishing with a vengeance instead. And now I have a nice
collection of fishing rods, including a nicely restored 1938 H&I
bamboo fly rod that the local flyrod guru just finished for me this
summer. It's a beauty! Bought it at a garage sale, in its original
case, for $7.50, but it cost about $130 to have it redone.

Every bit as pretty as any firearm you can find, and a Lot less
bother.
Post by Scott Smith
I own guns.
As do I. My preference now runs to match-grade, both long and short.
Tack-drivers all.

But then, I'm a Shooter -- not a gun fondler. I see them as the tools
they are, and not Symbols of American Pride, or something to do with
testosterone poisoning. They do precisely two things well: Make
noise and small round holes at a distance.

Which is a limited range of usefulness, save under the Oddest of
conditions.
Post by Scott Smith
But I will never associate myself with this rabid gun nut crowd.
They are quite the hoplophiles. They take themselves nearly as
seriously as their objects of veneration. I suspect they have dreams
of someday being stone killers in the Great Fondlers Armed
Insurrection.

And I suspect they do Really Believe that their guns protect the
nation.

They never quite getting around to saying from what, though.
Post by Scott Smith
They are mostly very delusional and hysterical nuts, IMO.
I like the guns I own. I remain a skilled shot with all of them, as I
have been for years. Eventually I will sell them or give them away to
someone who appreciates them as much as I do.

But not to any Revolutionary/Militia Wannabees.

But ya know -- my Craftsman toolchest full of tools has much more
actual usefulness than the guns.

(And I find that if I really Want venison, all I have to do is have
friends in Northern Minnyusoda send me 20-25 lbs or so, and that's
more than enough.)

The entire discussion is mostly nothing much about nothing much.
a***@attbi.com
2007-01-12 23:42:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Don Homuth
No one is trying to Disarm The Public.
Oh, really, Don? Then have your lib-dem buddies drop the push for gun
control and quit trying to "ban" things.

I remember Michael Dukakis, failed presidential nominee, saying" I
won't rest until the citizens of Massachusetts are disarmed." Lucky
for the Republic, he never got into the White House.
Don Homuth
2007-01-12 23:48:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by a***@attbi.com
Post by Don Homuth
No one is trying to Disarm The Public.
Oh, really, Don? Then have your lib-dem buddies drop the push for gun
control and quit trying to "ban" things.
I don't mind Banning fully automatic weapons, rocket launchers
(surface and anti-aircraft) and most High Explosives from across the
counter purchase, or limiting those who may buy them, or carefully
monitoring their use once purchased. Even if the system is imperfect.

I don't mind banning the cheap handguns known as Saturday Night
Special in years past from general sale in the retail trade. (Though
you can still pick them up at gun shows here and there mostly as
curiosity items now and then.)

I don't mind limiting the magazine capacities of some firearms, or
coming up with regulations against carrying them while loaded in a
vehicle.

Do you?

OTOH, the "assault weapons ban" didn't actually ban any assault
weapons, did it?
Post by a***@attbi.com
I remember Michael Dukakis, failed presidential nominee, saying" I
won't rest until the citizens of Massachusetts are disarmed."
Now when was that -- 22 Years ago??

I figure the guy's got to be Awfully tired by now, don't you?
Post by a***@attbi.com
Lucky for the Republic, he never got into the White House.
The Republic didn't notice that he did or didn't, nor would it have.
The guns have nothing to do with keeping the Republic safe, one way or
another.

They just aren't all that damned important.
RD (The Sandman)
2007-01-13 17:16:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Don Homuth
Post by a***@attbi.com
Post by Don Homuth
No one is trying to Disarm The Public.
Oh, really, Don? Then have your lib-dem buddies drop the push for gun
control and quit trying to "ban" things.
I don't mind Banning fully automatic weapons, rocket launchers
(surface and anti-aircraft) and most High Explosives from across the
counter purchase, or limiting those who may buy them, or carefully
monitoring their use once purchased. Even if the system is imperfect.
I agree with what you posted above except for the full auto. I have no
problem with full auto weaponry in the submachine gun or assault rifle
range being legal. I don't really feel the same way about vehicle
mounted weaponry, though.
Post by Don Homuth
I don't mind banning the cheap handguns known as Saturday Night
Special in years past from general sale in the retail trade. (Though
you can still pick them up at gun shows here and there mostly as
curiosity items now and then.)
And why would that be? I know that the poor can buy used police arms and
some revolvers for the same low price, but what is your problem with the
so called "Ring of fire" guns other than they are very cheaply made?
Post by Don Homuth
I don't mind limiting the magazine capacities of some firearms,
Is someone somehow deader if shot with the 11th round from a magazine
instead of the 10th?
Post by Don Homuth
or
coming up with regulations against carrying them while loaded in a
vehicle.
Those regulations are already in place. Check your state statutes.
Post by Don Homuth
Do you?
OTOH, the "assault weapons ban" didn't actually ban any assault
weapons, did it?
Only prevented the sale of those with certain combinations of *cosmetic*
features. Then when the manufacturers changed their features to comply
with the law, many argued about loopholes.
--
Sleep well tonight.........RD (The Sandman)
http://home.comcast.net/~rdsandman

"Tis far better to burn the flag while wrapped in the Constitution than
to burn the Constitution while wrapped in the flag."

".357Mag...my personal version of Homeland Security"

"We'll fill landfills with tons and tons of garbage, but when our trash
is shaped like a human, we [somehow] feel the need to keep it around."
John P...2006
Don Homuth
2007-01-13 22:50:34 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 13 Jan 2007 11:16:25 -0600, "RD (The Sandman)"
Post by RD (The Sandman)
Post by Don Homuth
Post by a***@attbi.com
Post by Don Homuth
No one is trying to Disarm The Public.
Oh, really, Don? Then have your lib-dem buddies drop the push for gun
control and quit trying to "ban" things.
I don't mind Banning fully automatic weapons, rocket launchers
(surface and anti-aircraft) and most High Explosives from across the
counter purchase, or limiting those who may buy them, or carefully
monitoring their use once purchased. Even if the system is imperfect.
I agree with what you posted above except for the full auto.
Nothing says you must agree.
Post by RD (The Sandman)
I have no
problem with full auto weaponry in the submachine gun or assault rifle
range being legal.
I do.
Post by RD (The Sandman)
I don't really feel the same way about vehicle
mounted weaponry, though.
We don't need gun control legislation to handle that. Vehicle
legislation can handle it quite nicely, and it should. Simply go with
the statutory language that describes what automotive equipment is
legal and what is not, and let the state and local LEAs handle it,
without BATF involvement.

That'll work just fine.
Post by RD (The Sandman)
Post by Don Homuth
I don't mind banning the cheap handguns known as Saturday Night
Special in years past from general sale in the retail trade. (Though
you can still pick them up at gun shows here and there mostly as
curiosity items now and then.)
And why would that be? I know that the poor can buy used police arms and
some revolvers for the same low price, but what is your problem with the
so called "Ring of fire" guns other than they are very cheaply made?
That they are very cheaply made, downright dangerous to use, and to be
frank the entire discussion about "the poor" falls on deaf ears for
me.
Post by RD (The Sandman)
Post by Don Homuth
I don't mind limiting the magazine capacities of some firearms,
Is someone somehow deader if shot with the 11th round from a magazine
instead of the 10th?
No -- but those who are Not good shots have more chances to shoot more
rounds faster with a larger magazine.
Post by RD (The Sandman)
Post by Don Homuth
or
coming up with regulations against carrying them while loaded in a
vehicle.
Those regulations are already in place. Check your state statutes.
I know -- and I quite approve. Though the gun fondlers are fond of
quoting that there are something like 20k "gun control statutes" as a
way of pointing out how terribly oppressed they are. But if you look
at the statutes, Most of them are fall into the hunting restrictions
against carrying loaded firearms in an automobile, or within other
automotive restrictions.

As I said -- I quite approve.
Post by RD (The Sandman)
Post by Don Homuth
Do you?
OTOH, the "assault weapons ban" didn't actually ban any assault
weapons, did it?
Only prevented the sale of those with certain combinations of *cosmetic*
features.
No -- it didn't. Gun fondlers are forever saying that, but it's
simply not true. Such sales were Not prohibited.
Post by RD (The Sandman)
Then when the manufacturers changed their features to comply
with the law, many argued about loopholes.
They did indeed. That is the very nature of written statutes -- that
they contain loopholes. And the AWB contained a bunch of them. I
didn't much care for it, personally, not so much because it Banned
something, but because it was called a Ban when it was not.

As a general rule, I don't much care for statutes without meaning, and
that one had nothing particular to recommend it.
drp
2007-01-14 03:22:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Don Homuth
That they are very cheaply made, downright dangerous to use,
Cheap guns don't have the "fit and finish" of rich folks firearms, and
look clunkey. But, as a practical matter, they have the same safety
features. In fact, some California rules about being resistant to
dropping form heights, etc. were meant to apply to cheap guns. Much
to the banners disappointment, they passed with no problems.

PHP
Don Homuth
2007-01-14 03:51:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by drp
Post by Don Homuth
That they are very cheaply made, downright dangerous to use,
Cheap guns don't have the "fit and finish" of rich folks firearms, and
look clunkey. But, as a practical matter, they have the same safety
features. In fact, some California rules about being resistant to
dropping form heights, etc. were meant to apply to cheap guns. Much
to the banners disappointment, they passed with no problems.
Interesting factoid, and just doesn't matter much.
RD (The Sandman)
2007-01-14 18:06:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by drp
Post by Don Homuth
That they are very cheaply made, downright dangerous to use,
Cheap guns don't have the "fit and finish" of rich folks firearms, and
look clunkey. But, as a practical matter, they have the same safety
features. In fact, some California rules about being resistant to
dropping form heights, etc. were meant to apply to cheap guns. Much
to the banners disappointment, they passed with no problems.
I believe he is talking about the Ring of Fire guns like Raven, Lorcin,
etc..
--
Sleep well tonight.........RD (The Sandman)
http://home.comcast.net/~rdsandman

"Tis far better to burn the flag while wrapped in the Constitution than
to burn the Constitution while wrapped in the flag."

".357Mag...my personal version of Homeland Security"

"We'll fill landfills with tons and tons of garbage, but when our trash
is shaped like a human, we [somehow] feel the need to keep it around."
John P...2006
RD (The Sandman)
2007-01-14 18:05:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Don Homuth
On Sat, 13 Jan 2007 11:16:25 -0600, "RD (The Sandman)"
Post by RD (The Sandman)
Post by Don Homuth
Post by a***@attbi.com
Post by Don Homuth
No one is trying to Disarm The Public.
Oh, really, Don? Then have your lib-dem buddies drop the push for
gun control and quit trying to "ban" things.
I don't mind Banning fully automatic weapons, rocket launchers
(surface and anti-aircraft) and most High Explosives from across the
counter purchase, or limiting those who may buy them, or carefully
monitoring their use once purchased. Even if the system is
imperfect.
I agree with what you posted above except for the full auto.
Nothing says you must agree.
??? I was simply posting a statement.
Post by Don Homuth
Post by RD (The Sandman)
I have no
problem with full auto weaponry in the submachine gun or assault rifle
range being legal.
I do.
May I ask why?
Post by Don Homuth
Post by RD (The Sandman)
I don't really feel the same way about vehicle
mounted weaponry, though.
We don't need gun control legislation to handle that. Vehicle
legislation can handle it quite nicely, and it should. Simply go with
the statutory language that describes what automotive equipment is
legal and what is not, and let the state and local LEAs handle it,
without BATF involvement.
I doubt weaponry is among the listed items of what is not legal.
Post by Don Homuth
That'll work just fine.
Post by RD (The Sandman)
Post by Don Homuth
I don't mind banning the cheap handguns known as Saturday Night
Special in years past from general sale in the retail trade.
(Though you can still pick them up at gun shows here and there
mostly as curiosity items now and then.)
And why would that be? I know that the poor can buy used police arms
and some revolvers for the same low price, but what is your problem
with the so called "Ring of fire" guns other than they are very
cheaply made?
That they are very cheaply made, downright dangerous to use,
Some of them are, yes. I agree with you on that reason, but that is not
a reason to ban them. There are lots of things that are cheaply made and
downright dangerous to use that are not banned.
Post by Don Homuth
and to be
frank the entire discussion about "the poor" falls on deaf ears for
me.
Too bad, you ought to try it sometime.
Post by Don Homuth
Post by RD (The Sandman)
Post by Don Homuth
I don't mind limiting the magazine capacities of some firearms,
Is someone somehow deader if shot with the 11th round from a magazine
instead of the 10th?
No -- but those who are Not good shots have more chances to shoot more
rounds faster with a larger magazine.
Nope. More rounds, maybe, but adding a large capacity magazine does not
make the gun shoot any faster. All of them can be shot at about the same
speed as my 5 shot revolver. The only difference is capacity.

Now, I ask again, is someone somehow deader if shot with (the 6th round
in my case, or by) the 11th round in the case of a semi auto?

Is there some kind of magic that makes 10 OK and 11 not? Why not make it
13 and 14? Or 7 and 8?
Post by Don Homuth
Post by RD (The Sandman)
Post by Don Homuth
or
coming up with regulations against carrying them while loaded in a
vehicle.
Those regulations are already in place. Check your state statutes.
I know -- and I quite approve. Though the gun fondlers are fond of
quoting that there are something like 20k "gun control statutes" as a
way of pointing out how terribly oppressed they are. But if you look
at the statutes, Most of them are fall into the hunting restrictions
against carrying loaded firearms in an automobile, or within other
automotive restrictions.
As I said -- I quite approve.
Do you approve of concealed carry? If not, why not?
Post by Don Homuth
Post by RD (The Sandman)
Post by Don Homuth
Do you?
OTOH, the "assault weapons ban" didn't actually ban any assault
weapons, did it?
Only prevented the sale of those with certain combinations of
*cosmetic* features.
No -- it didn't. Gun fondlers are forever saying that, but it's
simply not true. Such sales were Not prohibited.
They were by dealers. Individuals could still sell used ones to each
other.
Post by Don Homuth
Post by RD (The Sandman)
Then when the manufacturers changed their features to comply
with the law, many argued about loopholes.
They did indeed. That is the very nature of written statutes -- that
they contain loopholes. And the AWB contained a bunch of them. I
didn't much care for it, personally, not so much because it Banned
something, but because it was called a Ban when it was not.
As a general rule, I don't much care for statutes without meaning, and
that one had nothing particular to recommend it.
Bingo. It really had nothing to recommend it. It was purely a statute
based on cosmetics except for the magazine limit which you seem to be in
favor of. However, it was an attempt to limit sales of firearms to
honest citizens.
--
Sleep well tonight.........RD (The Sandman)
http://home.comcast.net/~rdsandman

"Tis far better to burn the flag while wrapped in the Constitution than
to burn the Constitution while wrapped in the flag."

".357Mag...my personal version of Homeland Security"

"We'll fill landfills with tons and tons of garbage, but when our trash
is shaped like a human, we [somehow] feel the need to keep it around."
John P...2006
Don Homuth
2007-01-14 18:19:22 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 14 Jan 2007 12:05:37 -0600, "RD (The Sandman)"
Post by RD (The Sandman)
Post by Don Homuth
On Sat, 13 Jan 2007 11:16:25 -0600, "RD (The Sandman)"
Post by RD (The Sandman)
I have no
problem with full auto weaponry in the submachine gun or assault rifle
range being legal.
I do.
May I ask why?
Because there are Idiots on the loose, and they're going to want to
demonstrate how Very Manly they are with all that much firepower.
Whatever can be done to restrict such opportunities works just fine
for me.

I've used those weapons in earnest. Don't care to have them available
across the counter, tyvm. Does that mean I don't really Trust other
supposedly well-meaning folks.

You bet!
Post by RD (The Sandman)
Post by Don Homuth
Post by RD (The Sandman)
I don't really feel the same way about vehicle
mounted weaponry, though.
We don't need gun control legislation to handle that. Vehicle
legislation can handle it quite nicely, and it should. Simply go with
the statutory language that describes what automotive equipment is
legal and what is not, and let the state and local LEAs handle it,
without BATF involvement.
I doubt weaponry is among the listed items of what is not legal.
Not so far. I propose that it ought to be, however.
Post by RD (The Sandman)
Post by Don Homuth
I know that the poor can buy used police arms
Post by RD (The Sandman)
and some revolvers for the same low price, but what is your problem
with the so called "Ring of fire" guns other than they are very
cheaply made?
That they are very cheaply made, downright dangerous to use,
Some of them are, yes. I agree with you on that reason, but that is not
a reason to ban them. There are lots of things that are cheaply made and
downright dangerous to use that are not banned.
Most of which are not lethal weapons, however. The SNS ban works just
fine for me.
Post by RD (The Sandman)
Post by Don Homuth
and to be
frank the entire discussion about "the poor" falls on deaf ears for
me.
Too bad, you ought to try it sometime.
Try what? Being Poor? Thanks all the same, but I'll pass. Never
really cared for it, personally, and worked rather hard to avoid it.
Post by RD (The Sandman)
Post by Don Homuth
Post by RD (The Sandman)
Is someone somehow deader if shot with the 11th round from a magazine
instead of the 10th?
No -- but those who are Not good shots have more chances to shoot more
rounds faster with a larger magazine.
Nope. More rounds, maybe, but adding a large capacity magazine does not
make the gun shoot any faster. All of them can be shot at about the same
speed as my 5 shot revolver. The only difference is capacity.
Nonsense! On its face. We can each shoot 30 rounds faster from a
30-rd magazine than from 3 10-round magazines. I know that for a
Fact, and maybe you might as well.
Post by RD (The Sandman)
Now, I ask again, is someone somehow deader if shot with (the 6th round
in my case, or by) the 11th round in the case of a semi auto?
And the answer is to be found not in specific cases, but in the total
rounds fired. Fewer rounds = statistically less danger. Unless it's
me or some other competent shooter using the weapon, that is. But
that is seldom the case, viz the armored bank robbers that was shown
on the teevee a while back.

There's a lot to be said for Luck in such instances, and pretty much
everyone on the receiving end of the fire was. Mostly because
criminals tend to be clueless. But it could easily have gone the
other way. So statistically limiting firepower works just fine for
me. I quite approve of it.
Post by RD (The Sandman)
Is there some kind of magic that makes 10 OK and 11 not? Why not make it
13 and 14? Or 7 and 8?
From my frame of reference, the question is content-free altogether.
Post by RD (The Sandman)
Do you approve of concealed carry? If not, why not?
Sure, providing there's a good reason for it, and can be justified.
But do I approve of it for just everyone out there? Not particularly.

I always liked the previous application process, found it to be
worthwhile, and supported it across the board.
Post by RD (The Sandman)
Post by Don Homuth
Post by RD (The Sandman)
Post by Don Homuth
OTOH, the "assault weapons ban" didn't actually ban any assault
weapons, did it?
Only prevented the sale of those with certain combinations of
*cosmetic* features.
No -- it didn't. Gun fondlers are forever saying that, but it's
simply not true. Such sales were Not prohibited.
They were by dealers. Individuals could still sell used ones to each
other.
Dealers could still sell AWs with All of the features. And did. They
were advertised as "pre-ban" models. They were sold by dealers and at
gun shows and by individuals. They were never "banned" as the term is
properly used.
Post by RD (The Sandman)
Post by Don Homuth
As a general rule, I don't much care for statutes without meaning, and
that one had nothing particular to recommend it.
Bingo. It really had nothing to recommend it. It was purely a statute
based on cosmetics except for the magazine limit which you seem to be in
favor of. However, it was an attempt to limit sales of firearms to
honest citizens.
Nope. Any honest citizen could Still get the AWs with all the
features intact even after the "ban." I objected to it because a Ban
that doesn't actually Ban anything is an exercise in futility and
breeds disrespect for the law.
RD (The Sandman)
2007-01-14 19:44:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Don Homuth
On Sun, 14 Jan 2007 12:05:37 -0600, "RD (The Sandman)"
Post by RD (The Sandman)
Post by Don Homuth
On Sat, 13 Jan 2007 11:16:25 -0600, "RD (The Sandman)"
Post by RD (The Sandman)
I have no
problem with full auto weaponry in the submachine gun or assault
rifle range being legal.
I do.
May I ask why?
Because there are Idiots on the loose,
True, I meet most of them on the highways. Do you wish to ban
automobiles simply because some of the drivers are idiots?
Post by Don Homuth
and they're going to want to
demonstrate how Very Manly they are with all that much firepower.
Whatever can be done to restrict such opportunities works just fine
for me.
See above. How consistent are you?
Post by Don Homuth
I've used those weapons in earnest.
So have many of us. You are not unique.
Post by Don Homuth
Don't care to have them available
across the counter, tyvm. Does that mean I don't really Trust other
supposedly well-meaning folks.
You bet!
IOW, you consider yourself to be an elite who would not do these things,
but the masses.....
Post by Don Homuth
Post by RD (The Sandman)
Post by Don Homuth
Post by RD (The Sandman)
I don't really feel the same way about vehicle
mounted weaponry, though.
We don't need gun control legislation to handle that. Vehicle
legislation can handle it quite nicely, and it should. Simply go
with the statutory language that describes what automotive equipment
is legal and what is not, and let the state and local LEAs handle
it, without BATF involvement.
I doubt weaponry is among the listed items of what is not legal.
Not so far. I propose that it ought to be, however.
How far do you think you would get in your state legislature trying to
pass a statute that one cannot put a machine gun on their '67 Chevy? ;)
Post by Don Homuth
Post by RD (The Sandman)
Post by Don Homuth
I know that the poor can buy used police arms
Post by RD (The Sandman)
and some revolvers for the same low price, but what is your problem
with the so called "Ring of fire" guns other than they are very
cheaply made?
That they are very cheaply made, downright dangerous to use,
Some of them are, yes. I agree with you on that reason, but that is
not a reason to ban them. There are lots of things that are cheaply
made and downright dangerous to use that are not banned.
Most of which are not lethal weapons, however.
Huh? I have seen very cheaply made chain saws, drills and other power
tools. You don't think that they could be lethal?
Post by Don Homuth
The SNS ban works just fine for me.
Of course, it bans a firearm. If it didn't or banned something else, you
wouldn't even give it a second thought.
Post by Don Homuth
Post by RD (The Sandman)
Post by Don Homuth
and to be
frank the entire discussion about "the poor" falls on deaf ears for
me.
Too bad, you ought to try it sometime.
Try what? Being Poor? Thanks all the same, but I'll pass. Never
really cared for it, personally, and worked rather hard to avoid it.
Good, but why deny them access to some of the same things you have access
to if their is a cheaper version of it? You haven't really given any
reason for your ban other than the guns may be cheaply made.
Post by Don Homuth
Post by RD (The Sandman)
Post by Don Homuth
Post by RD (The Sandman)
Is someone somehow deader if shot with the 11th round from a
magazine instead of the 10th?
No -- but those who are Not good shots have more chances to shoot
more rounds faster with a larger magazine.
Nope. More rounds, maybe, but adding a large capacity magazine does
not make the gun shoot any faster. All of them can be shot at about
the same speed as my 5 shot revolver. The only difference is
capacity.
Nonsense!
Actually, that is the only difference. Now, as you posted below one can
shoot 30 rounds in less time from a 30 round mag than one can from 3 10
round mags. No argument. But the fact remains that you cannot fire the
gun any faster.

On its face. We can each shoot 30 rounds faster from a
Post by Don Homuth
30-rd magazine than from 3 10-round magazines. I know that for a
Fact, and maybe you might as well.
Post by RD (The Sandman)
Now, I ask again, is someone somehow deader if shot with (the 6th
round in my case, or by) the 11th round in the case of a semi auto?
And the answer is to be found not in specific cases, but in the total
rounds fired. Fewer rounds = statistically less danger.
Yep. But if I only fire five rounds, it makes no difference if they were
from my 5 shot revolver or a 100 round magazine in some 9mm.
Post by Don Homuth
Unless it's
me or some other competent shooter using the weapon, that is. But
that is seldom the case, viz the armored bank robbers that was shown
on the teevee a while back.
You mean the Hollywood bank shoot out? They were using *illegally*
modified AK clones not legal firearms. How many robberies or crimes do
you think have been committed by folks with *legal* full auto weaponry?
Post by Don Homuth
There's a lot to be said for Luck in such instances, and pretty much
everyone on the receiving end of the fire was. Mostly because
criminals tend to be clueless. But it could easily have gone the
other way. So statistically limiting firepower works just fine for
me. I quite approve of it.
Post by RD (The Sandman)
Is there some kind of magic that makes 10 OK and 11 not? Why not make
it 13 and 14? Or 7 and 8?
From my frame of reference, the question is content-free altogether.
No, it isn't. You are just refusing to answer it. Where would you set
the limit and why?
Post by Don Homuth
Post by RD (The Sandman)
Do you approve of concealed carry? If not, why not?
Sure, providing there's a good reason for it, and can be justified.
How do you define 'justification'? I have fire extinguishers in my home
(and carry fire insurance) but it would he hard to justify them since I
have never had a fire. What would you consider justification?
Post by Don Homuth
But do I approve of it for just everyone out there? Not particularly.
It's not given to just anyone out here. In the majority of states, it
requires a background, testing of knowledge on firearms safety and, in my
state at least, some demonstration of proficiency on the range.
Post by Don Homuth
I always liked the previous application process, found it to be
worthwhile, and supported it across the board.
You mean the one where unless I personally knew someone or had pictures
of them or their wife going down on somebody, I couldn't get one? That
system?
Post by Don Homuth
Post by RD (The Sandman)
Post by Don Homuth
Post by RD (The Sandman)
Post by Don Homuth
OTOH, the "assault weapons ban" didn't actually ban any assault
weapons, did it?
Only prevented the sale of those with certain combinations of
*cosmetic* features.
No -- it didn't. Gun fondlers are forever saying that, but it's
simply not true. Such sales were Not prohibited.
They were by dealers. Individuals could still sell used ones to each
other.
Dealers could still sell AWs with All of the features. And did. They
were advertised as "pre-ban" models. They were sold by dealers and at
gun shows and by individuals. They were never "banned" as the term is
properly used.
They could only sell them as long as they had them in stock. After stock
ran out, they couldn't get new ones. They were stuck with either used
ones (just like everyone else) or had to sell guns that did not meet the
AWB criteria. The only thing in that ban that wasn't cosmetic was the 10
round limit on capacity.

Of course, I like what resulted because of that capacity ban although I
am sure that the antis don't. We now have guns available to us in
smaller more concealble packages that have that same capacity as the full
size guns did prior to the ban. There is a lot of neat hardware out
there now that didn't exist prior to the ban. ;)
Post by Don Homuth
Post by RD (The Sandman)
Post by Don Homuth
As a general rule, I don't much care for statutes without meaning,
and that one had nothing particular to recommend it.
Bingo. It really had nothing to recommend it. It was purely a
statute based on cosmetics except for the magazine limit which you
seem to be in favor of. However, it was an attempt to limit sales of
firearms to honest citizens.
Nope.
Yep. It just didn't work like they thought it would.
Post by Don Homuth
Any honest citizen could Still get the AWs with all the
features intact even after the "ban." I objected to it because a Ban
that doesn't actually Ban anything is an exercise in futility and
breeds disrespect for the law.
Not the law so much as some of our lawmakers. ;)
--
Sleep well tonight.........RD (The Sandman)
http://home.comcast.net/~rdsandman

"Tis far better to burn the flag while wrapped in the Constitution than
to burn the Constitution while wrapped in the flag."

".357Mag...my personal version of Homeland Security"

"We'll fill landfills with tons and tons of garbage, but when our trash
is shaped like a human, we [somehow] feel the need to keep it around."
John P...2006
Don Homuth
2007-01-14 20:44:30 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 14 Jan 2007 13:44:16 -0600, "RD (The Sandman)"
Post by RD (The Sandman)
Post by Don Homuth
On Sun, 14 Jan 2007 12:05:37 -0600, "RD (The Sandman)"
Post by RD (The Sandman)
Post by Don Homuth
On Sat, 13 Jan 2007 11:16:25 -0600, "RD (The Sandman)"
Post by RD (The Sandman)
I have no
problem with full auto weaponry in the submachine gun or assault
rifle range being legal.
I do.
May I ask why?
Because there are Idiots on the loose,
True, I meet most of them on the highways. Do you wish to ban
automobiles simply because some of the drivers are idiots?
I can deal with the automobiles. They are large, obvious and at least
I have some control over what My vehicle will do. That is not the
case with FAWs.
Post by RD (The Sandman)
Post by Don Homuth
and they're going to want to
demonstrate how Very Manly they are with all that much firepower.
Whatever can be done to restrict such opportunities works just fine
for me.
See above. How consistent are you?
Precisely as much as I need to be, and no more than just that.

A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds.
Post by RD (The Sandman)
Post by Don Homuth
Don't care to have them available
across the counter, tyvm. Does that mean I don't really Trust other
supposedly well-meaning folks.
You bet!
IOW, you consider yourself to be an elite who would not do these things,
but the masses.....
Nope. I just don't want that much firepower out there on the loose,
unregulated, inexpensive and easy to get. Not for you, not for me,
not for anyone.

It's not an untenable position at all.
Post by RD (The Sandman)
Post by Don Homuth
Post by RD (The Sandman)
Post by Don Homuth
Post by RD (The Sandman)
I don't really feel the same way about vehicle
mounted weaponry, though.
We don't need gun control legislation to handle that. Vehicle
legislation can handle it quite nicely, and it should. Simply go
with the statutory language that describes what automotive equipment
is legal and what is not, and let the state and local LEAs handle
it, without BATF involvement.
I doubt weaponry is among the listed items of what is not legal.
Not so far. I propose that it ought to be, however.
How far do you think you would get in your state legislature trying to
pass a statute that one cannot put a machine gun on their '67 Chevy? ;)
Probably easily enough, should it become a problem. But thus far,
most nutcases don't particularly want to do that.
Post by RD (The Sandman)
Post by Don Homuth
I have seen very cheaply made chain saws, drills and other power
tools. You don't think that they could be lethal?
Only at arm's length -- not several hundred meters downrange.
Post by RD (The Sandman)
Post by Don Homuth
The SNS ban works just fine for me.
Of course, it bans a firearm. If it didn't or banned something else, you
wouldn't even give it a second thought.
I don't mind banning the over the counter sale of ammonium nitrate
either. It's just not that big a deal.
Post by RD (The Sandman)
Post by Don Homuth
Post by RD (The Sandman)
Post by Don Homuth
and to be
frank the entire discussion about "the poor" falls on deaf ears for
me.
Too bad, you ought to try it sometime.
Try what? Being Poor? Thanks all the same, but I'll pass. Never
really cared for it, personally, and worked rather hard to avoid it.
Good, but why deny them access to some of the same things you have access
to if their is a cheaper version of it? You haven't really given any
reason for your ban other than the guns may be cheaply made.
Apparently you haven't read what I stated, but prefer to make up your
own arguments. Have at it.
Post by RD (The Sandman)
Post by Don Homuth
Post by RD (The Sandman)
Post by Don Homuth
Post by RD (The Sandman)
Is someone somehow deader if shot with the 11th round from a
magazine instead of the 10th?
No -- but those who are Not good shots have more chances to shoot
more rounds faster with a larger magazine.
Nope. More rounds, maybe, but adding a large capacity magazine does
not make the gun shoot any faster. All of them can be shot at about
the same speed as my 5 shot revolver. The only difference is
capacity.
Nonsense!
Actually, that is the only difference. Now, as you posted below one can
shoot 30 rounds in less time from a 30 round mag than one can from 3 10
round mags. No argument. But the fact remains that you cannot fire the
gun any faster.
The gun is altogether less important than the rounds downrange. After
all, as we all know, Guns don't kill people -- Bullets kill people.
Restricting the # of bullets works just fine.
Post by RD (The Sandman)
Post by Don Homuth
And the answer is to be found not in specific cases, but in the total
rounds fired. Fewer rounds = statistically less danger.
Yep. But if I only fire five rounds, it makes no difference if they were
from my 5 shot revolver or a 100 round magazine in some 9mm.
But you Cannot fire 100 rounds from your 5-shot revolver without
reloading. Does that make a difference? I suspect you know the
answer.
Post by RD (The Sandman)
Post by Don Homuth
Unless it's
me or some other competent shooter using the weapon, that is. But
that is seldom the case, viz the armored bank robbers that was shown
on the teevee a while back.
You mean the Hollywood bank shoot out? They were using *illegally*
modified AK clones not legal firearms. How many robberies or crimes do
you think have been committed by folks with *legal* full auto weaponry?
None that I can think of offhand, which is a perfectly good reason to
keep the limitations on their purchase and possession just as they
are. I'm not advocating taking that away -- just leaving it where it
is. Nothing more; nothing less.
Post by RD (The Sandman)
Post by Don Homuth
Post by RD (The Sandman)
Is there some kind of magic that makes 10 OK and 11 not? Why not make
it 13 and 14? Or 7 and 8?
From my frame of reference, the question is content-free altogether.
No, it isn't. You are just refusing to answer it. Where would you set
the limit and why?
Ten works just fine for me.
Post by RD (The Sandman)
Post by Don Homuth
Post by RD (The Sandman)
Do you approve of concealed carry? If not, why not?
Sure, providing there's a good reason for it, and can be justified.
How do you define 'justification'? I have fire extinguishers in my home
(and carry fire insurance) but it would he hard to justify them since I
have never had a fire. What would you consider justification?
Whatever the permit issuing agency reviews and finds justifiable. But
I'm also not advocating your having to justify your fire
extinguishers.
Post by RD (The Sandman)
Post by Don Homuth
But do I approve of it for just everyone out there? Not particularly.
It's not given to just anyone out here. In the majority of states, it
requires a background, testing of knowledge on firearms safety and, in my
state at least, some demonstration of proficiency on the range.
The usual discussion is the Shall Issue upon application approach. I
object to that on its face. But I do rather like the background
check, test and range proficiency requirement. I would add one more,
though -- some number of hours working on a combat simulation and
Situation Awareness course. A video simulation would do just fine for
that purpose.
Post by RD (The Sandman)
Post by Don Homuth
I always liked the previous application process, found it to be
worthwhile, and supported it across the board.
You mean the one where unless I personally knew someone or had pictures
of them or their wife going down on somebody, I couldn't get one? That
system?
Ya know, you don't Have to work that hard to sound really stupid and
off the wall, do you? Even if that did happen, it's extraordinary and
culpable on its face. Just the normal sort of application process, as
explicated above, will do just fine.

Your observation is overheated, even for the amUsenet.
Post by RD (The Sandman)
Post by Don Homuth
Dealers could still sell AWs with All of the features. And did. They
were advertised as "pre-ban" models. They were sold by dealers and at
gun shows and by individuals. They were never "banned" as the term is
properly used.
They could only sell them as long as they had them in stock.
Precisely. They were not Banned for sale -- just as I said.
Post by RD (The Sandman)
After stock ran out, they couldn't get new ones.
That's not a gun ban, however. It's a limitation on manufacture for
sale or importation for sale, but it didn't Ban anything. If you
wanted one, you could get one. You could get ammunition, parts and
service.

Nothing was ever Banned under the AWB.
Post by RD (The Sandman)
They were stuck with either used ones (just like everyone else)
The used ones were seldom all That "used" and could be reconditioned
to as new condition with essentially no really hard work -- unless
they'd been abused.

But if you look at what Really happened, the gun dealers bought up a
bunch of stock in anticipation of the "ban" and then sold them at
greatly inflated prices later on. Which is good bidniss, and I never
had a problem with their doing that, nor was I interested in
preventing them from doing that.

But they were never Banned from sale. Anyone could always sell them
-- privately, at gun shows, or over the retail counter. And did.

The end result was an immediate price bubble, but over time and
adjusted for inflation, the prices dropped within 12-18 months.

It was just Never a problem since nothing was ever Banned.
Post by RD (The Sandman)
or had to sell guns that did not meet the AWB criteria.
They didn't Have to do any such thing at all. They may have Chosen to
do so, but they were never forced to do so.
Post by RD (The Sandman)
The only thing in that ban that wasn't cosmetic was the 10
round limit on capacity.
That was the only real limitation on the new guns, but the magazines
were readily available for years thereafter. They were likewise never
Banned.
Post by RD (The Sandman)
Of course, I like what resulted because of that capacity ban although I
am sure that the antis don't. We now have guns available to us in
smaller more concealble packages that have that same capacity as the full
size guns did prior to the ban. There is a lot of neat hardware out
there now that didn't exist prior to the ban. ;)
Not so's you'd notice with the AWs, anyway. The pre-"ban" guns
weren't noticeable larger than the post-"ban" types.

If firearm technology changed some in the meantime, though, it did not
do so in response to the alleged "ban" regardless. It's just the
normal course of technological improvement expected in such things.
Post by RD (The Sandman)
Post by Don Homuth
Post by RD (The Sandman)
Bingo. It really had nothing to recommend it. It was purely a
statute based on cosmetics except for the magazine limit which you
seem to be in favor of. However, it was an attempt to limit sales of
firearms to honest citizens.
Nope.
Yep. It just didn't work like they thought it would.
There was Never an attempt to limit sales of firearms to honest
citizens. Or dishonest ones, ftm. Nothing was ever really Banned.
Anything and Everything available prior to the "ban" was legally
available afterwards. Right across the board, everywhere in the
nation.

If you could own it before the Ban, the Ban didn't prevent you from
owning or buying it afterwards.

Whatever else that might be, it's not a Ban as the term is properly
used. Which is why I objected to its passage. It didn't actually Do
anything.
Post by RD (The Sandman)
Post by Don Homuth
Any honest citizen could Still get the AWs with all the
features intact even after the "ban." I objected to it because a Ban
that doesn't actually Ban anything is an exercise in futility and
breeds disrespect for the law.
Not the law so much as some of our lawmakers. ;)
Or both -- doesn't matter either way.

It was an exercise in futility and a total waste of time and energy.

But whatever else it was, it wasn't a Ban of Anything.
RD (The Sandman)
2007-01-14 21:24:59 UTC
Permalink
Don Homuth <***@comcast.net> wrote in news:***@4ax.com:


SNIP.............
Post by Don Homuth
Post by RD (The Sandman)
Actually, that is the only difference. Now, as you posted below one
can shoot 30 rounds in less time from a 30 round mag than one can from
3 10 round mags. No argument. But the fact remains that you cannot
fire the gun any faster.
The gun is altogether less important than the rounds downrange. After
all, as we all know, Guns don't kill people -- Bullets kill people.
Restricting the # of bullets works just fine.
I see your point. Don't agree with it, but I do see it.
Post by Don Homuth
Post by RD (The Sandman)
Post by Don Homuth
And the answer is to be found not in specific cases, but in the
total rounds fired. Fewer rounds = statistically less danger.
Yep. But if I only fire five rounds, it makes no difference if they
were from my 5 shot revolver or a 100 round magazine in some 9mm.
But you Cannot fire 100 rounds from your 5-shot revolver without
reloading. Does that make a difference? I suspect you know the
answer.
Not to me. If I can't hit what I need to in 5 shots, I shouldn't be
shooting at it.
Post by Don Homuth
Post by RD (The Sandman)
Post by Don Homuth
Unless it's
me or some other competent shooter using the weapon, that is. But
that is seldom the case, viz the armored bank robbers that was shown
on the teevee a while back.
You mean the Hollywood bank shoot out? They were using *illegally*
modified AK clones not legal firearms. How many robberies or crimes
do you think have been committed by folks with *legal* full auto
weaponry?
None that I can think of offhand, which is a perfectly good reason to
keep the limitations on their purchase and possession just as they
are. I'm not advocating taking that away -- just leaving it where it
is. Nothing more; nothing less.
IOW, you do agree with full auto being legal as it is today? We could
have saved a lot of bandwidth if you had stated that up front instead of
placing full auto in your list of banned weaponry.
Post by Don Homuth
Post by RD (The Sandman)
Post by Don Homuth
Post by RD (The Sandman)
Is there some kind of magic that makes 10 OK and 11 not? Why not
make it 13 and 14? Or 7 and 8?
From my frame of reference, the question is content-free altogether.
No, it isn't. You are just refusing to answer it. Where would you
set the limit and why?
Ten works just fine for me.
OK. Obviously with a 5 shot revolver, I don't have a dog in that fight.
I simply don't like restrictions just for the restriction. I like to see
good, valid reasons for them.
Post by Don Homuth
Post by RD (The Sandman)
Post by Don Homuth
Post by RD (The Sandman)
Do you approve of concealed carry? If not, why not?
Sure, providing there's a good reason for it, and can be justified.
How do you define 'justification'? I have fire extinguishers in my
home (and carry fire insurance) but it would he hard to justify them
since I have never had a fire. What would you consider justification?
Whatever the permit issuing agency reviews and finds justifiable.
IOW, if I personally know the mayor and the chief of police it is OK for
them to issue me a CCW.. If I don't, then them refusing me a CCW, if
everything else is the same, is all right with you?

That's the way it was in many places before the passage of "shall issue"
laws. Do you disagree with "shall issue"?
Post by Don Homuth
But
I'm also not advocating your having to justify your fire
extinguishers.
That's good. It saves some bandwidth here. ;)
Post by Don Homuth
Post by RD (The Sandman)
Post by Don Homuth
But do I approve of it for just everyone out there? Not
particularly.
It's not given to just anyone out here. In the majority of states, it
requires a background, testing of knowledge on firearms safety and, in
my state at least, some demonstration of proficiency on the range.
The usual discussion is the Shall Issue upon application approach. I
object to that on its face.
What part of "shall issue"? It doesn't mean that the state will issue a
CCW no matter what. It simply means that the state will issue the permit
unless the state finds a valid reason not to. The applicant need not
present a justification.
Post by Don Homuth
But I do rather like the background
check, test and range proficiency requirement.
As do I.
Post by Don Homuth
I would add one more,
though -- some number of hours working on a combat simulation and
Situation Awareness course. A video simulation would do just fine for
that purpose.
I have been through several sessions of police "shoot, don't shoot"
scenarios although that is not available, or presented, in all classes.
In mine, the instructors have been able to get a hold of them. Of
course, most of my instructors have been ex-law enforcement. LAPD, LASD,
DEA and all were certified by the state.

Situational awareness is touched upon by all classes as it is a
requirement, but it is not deeply involved.

FWIW, incidents involving CCW holders occur at a much lesser rate than
the general populace.
Post by Don Homuth
Post by RD (The Sandman)
Post by Don Homuth
I always liked the previous application process, found it to be
worthwhile, and supported it across the board.
You mean the one where unless I personally knew someone or had
pictures of them or their wife going down on somebody, I couldn't get
one? That system?
Ya know, you don't Have to work that hard to sound really stupid and
off the wall, do you? Even if that did happen, it's extraordinary and
culpable on its face. Just the normal sort of application process, as
explicated above, will do just fine.
That *was* the normal process in many areas. Still just about is in some
areas. CCW are still difficult to get in New York and California and
other "may issue" states. Of course, if you are connected it is much
easier. My state has been "shall issue" since it passed CCW so we
havenot seen that problem here. That has been a problem with "may issue"
states. Or even try to get a CCW in Wisconsin or Illinois.

Here is map for your viewing pleasure:

http://www.moccw.org/map.html
Post by Don Homuth
Your observation is overheated, even for the amUsenet.
Not really.
Post by Don Homuth
Post by RD (The Sandman)
Post by Don Homuth
Dealers could still sell AWs with All of the features. And did.
They were advertised as "pre-ban" models. They were sold by dealers
and at gun shows and by individuals. They were never "banned" as
the term is properly used.
They could only sell them as long as they had them in stock.
Precisely. They were not Banned for sale -- just as I said.
New ones were.
Post by Don Homuth
Post by RD (The Sandman)
After stock ran out, they couldn't get new ones.
That's not a gun ban, however. It's a limitation on manufacture for
sale or importation for sale, but it didn't Ban anything. If you
wanted one, you could get one. You could get ammunition, parts and
service.
Nothing was ever Banned under the AWB.
I haven't claimed that the weapons themselves were nor did I name the
law. I have stated that the law banned dealer *sales* of weapons with
certain cosmetic features.
Post by Don Homuth
Post by RD (The Sandman)
They were stuck with either used ones (just like everyone else)
The used ones were seldom all That "used" and could be reconditioned
to as new condition with essentially no really hard work -- unless
they'd been abused.
Used simply means not new.
Post by Don Homuth
But if you look at what Really happened, the gun dealers bought up a
bunch of stock in anticipation of the "ban" and then sold them at
greatly inflated prices later on. Which is good bidniss, and I never
had a problem with their doing that, nor was I interested in
preventing them from doing that.
Good.
Post by Don Homuth
But they were never Banned from sale. Anyone could always sell them
-- privately, at gun shows, or over the retail counter. And did.
If they had them. They could not order them.
Post by Don Homuth
The end result was an immediate price bubble, but over time and
adjusted for inflation, the prices dropped within 12-18 months.
Yep.
Post by Don Homuth
It was just Never a problem since nothing was ever Banned.
Post by RD (The Sandman)
or had to sell guns that did not meet the AWB criteria.
They didn't Have to do any such thing at all. They may have Chosen to
do so, but they were never forced to do so.
They were if they wished to sell firearms of new manufacture. All the
ones they could sell were either in hand prior to the 'ban' (see I will
even put the word in quotes just for you) or were used.
Post by Don Homuth
Post by RD (The Sandman)
The only thing in that ban that wasn't cosmetic was the 10
round limit on capacity.
That was the only real limitation on the new guns, but the magazines
were readily available for years thereafter. They were likewise never
Banned.
Available, yes....readily? Only for a price.
Post by Don Homuth
Post by RD (The Sandman)
Of course, I like what resulted because of that capacity ban although
I am sure that the antis don't. We now have guns available to us in
smaller more concealble packages that have that same capacity as the
full size guns did prior to the ban. There is a lot of neat hardware
out there now that didn't exist prior to the ban. ;)
Not so's you'd notice with the AWs, anyway. The pre-"ban" guns
weren't noticeable larger than the post-"ban" types.
I was talking about handguns.....you know that they were affected by the
10 round magazine limit.
Post by Don Homuth
If firearm technology changed some in the meantime, though, it did not
do so in response to the alleged "ban" regardless. It's just the
normal course of technological improvement expected in such things.
Nope. Many of the manufacturers will tell you that the development of
many of the smaller handguns with a 10 round mag were the direct result
of the limitation placed on the guns by Congress. If one was going to be
limited to 10 rounds, why did the size of a weapon that was needed for 17
or 18 rounds have to remain? It could be shrunk and make it more
concealable.
Post by Don Homuth
Post by RD (The Sandman)
Post by Don Homuth
Post by RD (The Sandman)
Bingo. It really had nothing to recommend it. It was purely a
statute based on cosmetics except for the magazine limit which you
seem to be in favor of. However, it was an attempt to limit sales
of firearms to honest citizens.
Nope.
Yep. It just didn't work like they thought it would.
There was Never an attempt to limit sales of firearms to honest
citizens. Or dishonest ones, ftm. Nothing was ever really Banned.
Anything and Everything available prior to the "ban" was legally
available afterwards. Right across the board, everywhere in the
nation.
If you could own it before the Ban, the Ban didn't prevent you from
owning or buying it afterwards.
No one claimed you were prevented from ownership of them. Your strawman,
you feed him.
Post by Don Homuth
Whatever else that might be, it's not a Ban as the term is properly
used. Which is why I objected to its passage. It didn't actually Do
anything.
Post by RD (The Sandman)
Post by Don Homuth
Any honest citizen could Still get the AWs with all the
features intact even after the "ban." I objected to it because a
Ban that doesn't actually Ban anything is an exercise in futility
and breeds disrespect for the law.
Not the law so much as some of our lawmakers. ;)
Or both -- doesn't matter either way.
It was an exercise in futility and a total waste of time and energy.
But whatever else it was, it wasn't a Ban of Anything.
Whatever.....
--
Sleep well tonight.........RD (The Sandman)
http://home.comcast.net/~rdsandman

"Tis far better to burn the flag while wrapped in the Constitution than
to burn the Constitution while wrapped in the flag."

".357Mag...my personal version of Homeland Security"

"We'll fill landfills with tons and tons of garbage, but when our trash
is shaped like a human, we [somehow] feel the need to keep it around."
John P...2006
Don Homuth
2007-01-14 22:06:39 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 14 Jan 2007 15:24:59 -0600, "RD (The Sandman)"
Post by RD (The Sandman)
SNIP.............
Post by Don Homuth
Post by RD (The Sandman)
Actually, that is the only difference. Now, as you posted below one
can shoot 30 rounds in less time from a 30 round mag than one can from
3 10 round mags. No argument. But the fact remains that you cannot
fire the gun any faster.
The gun is altogether less important than the rounds downrange. After
all, as we all know, Guns don't kill people -- Bullets kill people.
Restricting the # of bullets works just fine.
I see your point. Don't agree with it, but I do see it.
In the military, it's called Fire Density, iirc. A critical component
of any armed conflict.
Post by RD (The Sandman)
Post by Don Homuth
But you Cannot fire 100 rounds from your 5-shot revolver without
reloading. Does that make a difference? I suspect you know the
answer.
Not to me. If I can't hit what I need to in 5 shots, I shouldn't be
shooting at it.
Nor should anyone, ftm, and I quite agree. That's why my personal
preference in shootin' arns is for match-grade stuff, and not these
silly-assed high capacity weapons.

But again, hardly the point. By inspection, most folks aren't going
to be Real Shooters. They're going to be bullet-flangers. That being
the case, some practical means of limiting their rate of fire across
Many Rounds seems quite reasonable to me.
Post by RD (The Sandman)
IOW, you do agree with full auto being legal as it is today? We could
have saved a lot of bandwidth if you had stated that up front instead of
placing full auto in your list of banned weaponry.
It remains banned for over-the-counter retail sales, however. Getting
a FAW is a time-consuming and expensive proposition, and continuing
ownership remains so. I quite approve.
Post by RD (The Sandman)
Post by Don Homuth
Where would you
Post by RD (The Sandman)
set the limit and why?
Ten works just fine for me.
OK. Obviously with a 5 shot revolver, I don't have a dog in that fight.
My target pistols can handle 8.
Post by RD (The Sandman)
I simply don't like restrictions just for the restriction. I like to see
good, valid reasons for them.
To limit the fire density from any one weapon. Especially in urban
environments, I find it a useful public safety approach. We have
folks hereabouts who've been killed blocks away when some twit with a
large-capacity pistol emptied it at his victim. He missed the victim
(it's that Shooter thing again) but had enough rounds going downrange
that inevitably Someone would get hit.

Minimizing such chances seems altogether reasonable to me.

There are too many Action Adventure movies and games that have Our
Heero holding a 17-round handgun in each hand, and emptying them as
fast as s/he can pull the trigger.

Always some twit who'll believe That's How It's Done. I'd as lief
make that a Lot more difficult to do. Even if imperfectly.
Post by RD (The Sandman)
Post by Don Homuth
Post by RD (The Sandman)
Post by Don Homuth
Post by RD (The Sandman)
Do you approve of concealed carry? If not, why not?
Sure, providing there's a good reason for it, and can be justified.
How do you define 'justification'? I have fire extinguishers in my
home (and carry fire insurance) but it would he hard to justify them
since I have never had a fire. What would you consider justification?
Whatever the permit issuing agency reviews and finds justifiable.
IOW, if I personally know the mayor and the chief of police it is OK for
them to issue me a CCW.. If I don't, then them refusing me a CCW, if
everything else is the same, is all right with you?
I've laid out the process as I prefer it to be. You had some pieces
of it and I have an additional piece of it.

Your demanding that I defend something Entirely Different seems, well,
odd, somehow.
Post by RD (The Sandman)
That's the way it was in many places before the passage of "shall issue"
laws. Do you disagree with "shall issue"?
Yes, unless it involves the training and licensing procedures we've
discussed hereon. There are too damned many folks wandering around
without adult supervision who think that if they can hit a target on
the 7 meter range, they Know something about how and when to use a
firearm.

They don't.
Post by RD (The Sandman)
Post by Don Homuth
The usual discussion is the Shall Issue upon application approach. I
object to that on its face.
What part of "shall issue"? It doesn't mean that the state will issue a
CCW no matter what. It simply means that the state will issue the permit
unless the state finds a valid reason not to. The applicant need not
present a justification.
I think they ought to present a justification. "Just because I think
it would be cool!" doesn't work for me.
Post by RD (The Sandman)
Post by Don Homuth
But I do rather like the background
check, test and range proficiency requirement.
As do I.
There are some of the rabid gun fondlers who find that to be a (dread)
Infringement of their rights.
Post by RD (The Sandman)
Post by Don Homuth
I would add one more,
though -- some number of hours working on a combat simulation and
Situation Awareness course. A video simulation would do just fine for
that purpose.
I have been through several sessions of police "shoot, don't shoot"
scenarios although that is not available, or presented, in all classes.
The lecture is interesting. The practice is the critical piece.
Situation Awareness is what really matters -- even more than mere
marksmanship. If you have No Idea who the Good Guys are, you present
a CAPD in any tactical situation. If you don't know when Not to open
fire, you're fair game.
Post by RD (The Sandman)
In mine, the instructors have been able to get a hold of them. Of
course, most of my instructors have been ex-law enforcement. LAPD, LASD,
DEA and all were certified by the state.
I did mine as part of special training for a local Sharf's Posse some
years back. I've since left the county and state, but the training
continues to be worth the investment of time and money put into it.\

Yet I know, and I suspect you do as well, that the gun fondlers would
Howl if they were required to take it as a condition of a CCW permit.

Tough! sez I. That's what it takes to be Competent with firearms, and
folks ought to be More competent, not less. If it's inconvenient,
expensive or even time-consuming, I don't much care.
Post by RD (The Sandman)
Situational awareness is touched upon by all classes as it is a
requirement, but it is not deeply involved.
And yet it is the Main thing that will (a) keep you alive and/or (b)
keep you from shooting at the wrong folks, and/or (c) keep the wrong
folks from shooting at you.

I think it's the Most critical portion of any training. And you don't
qualify to get into it unless and until you pass marksmanship
qualifying on the static range at 7, 15 and 25 meters -- which are the
usual ranges in which folks are likely to open fire, if/when the
opportunity arises.
Post by RD (The Sandman)
FWIW, incidents involving CCW holders occur at a much lesser rate than
the general populace.
Doesn't matter to me what the rate is. It does suggest that the
General Populace ought not to be having "incidents" in the first
place.

This does not, please not, apply to in-home defense situations, for
which no CCW is required.
Post by RD (The Sandman)
Post by Don Homuth
Post by RD (The Sandman)
Post by Don Homuth
I always liked the previous application process, found it to be
worthwhile, and supported it across the board.
You mean the one where unless I personally knew someone or had
pictures of them or their wife going down on somebody, I couldn't get
one? That system?
Ya know, you don't Have to work that hard to sound really stupid and
off the wall, do you? Even if that did happen, it's extraordinary and
culpable on its face. Just the normal sort of application process, as
explicated above, will do just fine.
That *was* the normal process in many areas. Still just about is in some
areas.
Sorry -- I just don't buy off on that. It's excessive even for
amUsnet standards.
Post by RD (The Sandman)
CCW are still difficult to get in New York and California and
other "may issue" states.
Their states, and they may run them as they will. If their citizens
wish to change it, they are welcome to have at it. If they choose not
to change it, I don't much care. Really.

It doesn't bother me at all that different states and different
municipalities have different takes on how to handle such things.
That's why we have different states and municipalities in the first
place, under our Federalist system.

I approve of that too.
Post by RD (The Sandman)
Post by Don Homuth
Post by RD (The Sandman)
Post by Don Homuth
Dealers could still sell AWs with All of the features. And did.
They were advertised as "pre-ban" models. They were sold by dealers
and at gun shows and by individuals. They were never "banned" as
the term is properly used.
They could only sell them as long as they had them in stock.
Precisely. They were not Banned for sale -- just as I said.
New ones were.
That's not a Ban, however. Nothing gives you the Right to buy any
weapon you might like brand new across the counter. So if the feds
wanted to restrict certain imports from sale, that's not a Ban. It's
an import restriction, and not gun control. If the feds wish to place
a restriction on domestic manufacture for domestic sale, that is a
trade restriction, but not a Ban.
Post by RD (The Sandman)
Post by Don Homuth
Nothing was ever Banned under the AWB.
I haven't claimed that the weapons themselves were nor did I name the
law. I have stated that the law banned dealer *sales* of weapons with
certain cosmetic features.
And I repeat -- it did Not do that. It banned manufacture for
domestic retail sale, and it banned imports.

But the "certain cosmetic features" were Always available during the
AWB -- everywhere, right across the board where the states or
localities hadn't previously restricted their sale.

You Can get anything you Want
At Honest Ole's Gun Shop...
Post by RD (The Sandman)
Post by Don Homuth
But if you look at what Really happened, the gun dealers bought up a
bunch of stock in anticipation of the "ban" and then sold them at
greatly inflated prices later on. Which is good bidniss, and I never
had a problem with their doing that, nor was I interested in
preventing them from doing that.
Good.
Hey -- if you friendly local gun dealer wanted to take a few extra
bucks from the clueless out there, I never had any objection.

What the TFC types who bought at the upswing of the market was mostly
an expensive noisemaker. My local gun dealers chuckled when they
started to bring them back in for trade or resale, noting that they
were Really Expensive if you wanted to use all that bullet-flanging
capacity.
Post by RD (The Sandman)
Post by Don Homuth
But they were never Banned from sale. Anyone could always sell them
-- privately, at gun shows, or over the retail counter. And did.
If they had them. They could not order them.
Sure they could! Just not from a manufacturer. They could and did
order them from warehouses and other dealers all the time. It all
pretty much depended on local demand.
Post by RD (The Sandman)
Post by Don Homuth
The end result was an immediate price bubble, but over time and
adjusted for inflation, the prices dropped within 12-18 months.
Yep.
For a while there, there was More than one born every minute, I
suspect. Their money -- not mine.
Post by RD (The Sandman)
Post by Don Homuth
It was just Never a problem since nothing was ever Banned.
Post by RD (The Sandman)
or had to sell guns that did not meet the AWB criteria.
They didn't Have to do any such thing at all. They may have Chosen to
do so, but they were never forced to do so.
They were if they wished to sell firearms of new manufacture.
You could buy then NIB for nearly two years thereafter on the Left
Coast. Intitially prices went up about 200%, then came down to normal
levels thereafter.

It was just no big deal.

I saw three "pre-ban" NIB at the local gun show about three weeks ago.
The dealer would happily have sold them for pretty much anything above
his initial cost, and taken the loss on the cost of keeping them in
inventory.

Useless weapons ftmp, and never worth what the gun fondlers paid for
them during the bubble.
Post by RD (The Sandman)
All the
ones they could sell were either in hand prior to the 'ban' (see I will
even put the word in quotes just for you) or were used.
Sorry -- but just Not the case. They may have been manufactured and
stored, but they did not have to be in the store itself. FIFO
inventory controls generally worked rather well.
Post by RD (The Sandman)
Post by Don Homuth
Post by RD (The Sandman)
The only thing in that ban that wasn't cosmetic was the 10
round limit on capacity.
That was the only real limitation on the new guns, but the magazines
were readily available for years thereafter. They were likewise never
Banned.
Available, yes....readily? Only for a price.
Not a problem. Your friendly local gun dealer operating within the
(hallowed) Private Sector on Truly Capitalistic Principles of S&D was
free to sell at whatever price s/he wanted.

Gun fondlers paid the price, the gun dealer got the money and chuckled
all the way to the bank, after selling a whole bunch More ammunition
than was necessary for any reasonable purpose besides.

It was quite humorous to watch, even as it went down.

But there is no legal or constitutional guarantee that you have any
Right to an inexpensive magazine, so no harm done. It is not an
infringement of anything for it to be expensive.
Post by RD (The Sandman)
Post by Don Homuth
Post by RD (The Sandman)
Of course, I like what resulted because of that capacity ban although
I am sure that the antis don't. We now have guns available to us in
smaller more concealble packages that have that same capacity as the
full size guns did prior to the ban. There is a lot of neat hardware
out there now that didn't exist prior to the ban. ;)
Not so's you'd notice with the AWs, anyway. The pre-"ban" guns
weren't noticeable larger than the post-"ban" types.
I was talking about handguns.....you know that they were affected by the
10 round magazine limit.
I do. Didn't bother me one bit. I still think 10 is a reasonble
limit for a Shooter. We have 12 and 15 round magazines out there that
encourage wanton bullet-flanging, but little in actual marksmanship.
LEAs are not free from that sort of thing either. Many Rounds get
fired when fewer should be even from supposedly "trained" folks.

We have a case hereabouts where some depity sharf (iirc) fired some
fourty times at a Fleeing Suspect. He was duly fired -- but for the
wrong reason. The reason given was that he was out of control for
doing so. I'd have fired him for being such a Lousy Shot!

But the adrenaline blast of a tactical situation can override even
minimal training. The only real solution for it is More and More
Difficult training.
Post by RD (The Sandman)
Post by Don Homuth
If firearm technology changed some in the meantime, though, it did not
do so in response to the alleged "ban" regardless. It's just the
normal course of technological improvement expected in such things.
Nope. Many of the manufacturers will tell you that the development of
many of the smaller handguns with a 10 round mag were the direct result
of the limitation placed on the guns by Congress. If one was going to be
limited to 10 rounds, why did the size of a weapon that was needed for 17
or 18 rounds have to remain? It could be shrunk and make it more
concealable.
I'm rather fond of the 1911 small-frame clones, though the latest
being manufactured have some odd quality problems that will probably
mitigate toward my purchasing an Argentine model, made under license
from Colt.

But small-frame weapons had been around for a Very long time, even in
the larger calibers. There are lots of rationales for technical
improvements, but I don't buy off on that one. They found a market
and filled it. Now they're filling a different market for
large-capacity magazines. These things come and go.
Post by RD (The Sandman)
Post by Don Homuth
If you could own it before the Ban, the Ban didn't prevent you from
owning or buying it afterwards.
No one claimed you were prevented from ownership of them. Your strawman,
you feed him.
Owning "or buying" it afterwards.

Read the entire sentence. It's important.
RD (The Sandman)
2007-01-15 19:38:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Don Homuth
On Sun, 14 Jan 2007 15:24:59 -0600, "RD (The Sandman)"
Post by RD (The Sandman)
SNIP.............
Post by Don Homuth
Post by RD (The Sandman)
Actually, that is the only difference. Now, as you posted below one
can shoot 30 rounds in less time from a 30 round mag than one can
from 3 10 round mags. No argument. But the fact remains that you
cannot fire the gun any faster.
The gun is altogether less important than the rounds downrange.
After all, as we all know, Guns don't kill people -- Bullets kill
people. Restricting the # of bullets works just fine.
I see your point. Don't agree with it, but I do see it.
In the military, it's called Fire Density, iirc. A critical component
of any armed conflict.
I know what it's called. I was in. We aren't discussing military
tactics, however, we are simply discussing full auto being available to
the public. I have no problem with it just like it is.
Post by Don Homuth
Post by RD (The Sandman)
Post by Don Homuth
But you Cannot fire 100 rounds from your 5-shot revolver without
reloading. Does that make a difference? I suspect you know the
answer.
Not to me. If I can't hit what I need to in 5 shots, I shouldn't be
shooting at it.
Nor should anyone, ftm, and I quite agree. That's why my personal
preference in shootin' arns is for match-grade stuff, and not these
silly-assed high capacity weapons.
But again, hardly the point. By inspection, most folks aren't going
to be Real Shooters. They're going to be bullet-flangers.
So are most police officers and too much of the military.
Post by Don Homuth
That being
the case, some practical means of limiting their rate of fire across
Many Rounds seems quite reasonable to me.
My point is simply that if the person is going to accidently kill
someone, it is just as likely to occur within the first few shots as it
is the last few.
Post by Don Homuth
Post by RD (The Sandman)
IOW, you do agree with full auto being legal as it is today? We could
have saved a lot of bandwidth if you had stated that up front instead
of placing full auto in your list of banned weaponry.
It remains banned for over-the-counter retail sales, however.
Depends on how you define ban. All that is required is a dealer with a
Class III, a background check and a $200 tax stamp. Oh, and a full auto
weapon older thanh 1986.
Post by Don Homuth
Getting
a FAW is a time-consuming and expensive proposition,
Expensive for the weapon itself, since the inventory is limited.

and continuing
Post by Don Homuth
ownership remains so.
Yep, ammo to feed it properly is expensive. One reason I don't have much
interest in them myself.

I quite approve.
Post by Don Homuth
Post by RD (The Sandman)
Post by Don Homuth
Where would you
Post by RD (The Sandman)
set the limit and why?
Ten works just fine for me.
OK. Obviously with a 5 shot revolver, I don't have a dog in that fight.
My target pistols can handle 8.
I bet they won't fit in my IWBs.
Post by Don Homuth
Post by RD (The Sandman)
I simply don't like restrictions just for the restriction. I like to
see good, valid reasons for them.
To limit the fire density from any one weapon. Especially in urban
environments, I find it a useful public safety approach. We have
folks hereabouts who've been killed blocks away when some twit with a
large-capacity pistol emptied it at his victim. He missed the victim
(it's that Shooter thing again) but had enough rounds going downrange
that inevitably Someone would get hit.
Why don't you blame the twit? The pistol didn't irresponsibly discharge
itself.
Post by Don Homuth
Minimizing such chances seems altogether reasonable to me.
Damn, some woman may turn into prostitute....shall we sew her vagina
shut? How about a man's penis to prevent rape?
Post by Don Homuth
There are too many Action Adventure movies and games that have Our
Heero holding a 17-round handgun in each hand, and emptying them as
fast as s/he can pull the trigger.
Always some twit who'll believe That's How It's Done. I'd as lief
make that a Lot more difficult to do. Even if imperfectly.
I can understand your point. Don't agree with it, but I understand it.
Post by Don Homuth
Post by RD (The Sandman)
Post by Don Homuth
Post by RD (The Sandman)
Post by Don Homuth
Post by RD (The Sandman)
Do you approve of concealed carry? If not, why not?
Sure, providing there's a good reason for it, and can be
justified.
How do you define 'justification'? I have fire extinguishers in my
home (and carry fire insurance) but it would he hard to justify them
since I have never had a fire. What would you consider
justification?
Whatever the permit issuing agency reviews and finds justifiable.
IOW, if I personally know the mayor and the chief of police it is OK
for them to issue me a CCW.. If I don't, then them refusing me a CCW,
if everything else is the same, is all right with you?
I've laid out the process as I prefer it to be. You had some pieces
of it and I have an additional piece of it.
Your demanding that I defend something Entirely Different seems, well,
odd, somehow.
You didn't answer the question above. I am interested in your answer.
Post by Don Homuth
Post by RD (The Sandman)
That's the way it was in many places before the passage of "shall
issue" laws. Do you disagree with "shall issue"?
Yes, unless it involves the training and licensing procedures we've
discussed hereon.
Most states do require some version of that.
Post by Don Homuth
There are too damned many folks wandering around
without adult supervision who think that if they can hit a target on
the 7 meter range, they Know something about how and when to use a
firearm.
They don't.
Most hobbyists or those who have CCWs probably practice the same or more
often than your average policeman......or your average military. Yet you
seem to have no problem with them.
Post by Don Homuth
Post by RD (The Sandman)
Post by Don Homuth
The usual discussion is the Shall Issue upon application approach.
I object to that on its face.
What part of "shall issue"? It doesn't mean that the state will issue
a CCW no matter what. It simply means that the state will issue the
permit unless the state finds a valid reason not to. The applicant
need not present a justification.
I think they ought to present a justification. "Just because I think
it would be cool!" doesn't work for me.
Doesn't work for most instructors either, but having to justify because I
have to sometimes cvarry lots of money shouldn't be required either.
Post by Don Homuth
Post by RD (The Sandman)
Post by Don Homuth
But I do rather like the background
check, test and range proficiency requirement.
As do I.
There are some of the rabid gun fondlers who find that to be a (dread)
Infringement of their rights.
None that I know. I see much more concern over who determines that
proficiency.
Post by Don Homuth
Post by RD (The Sandman)
Post by Don Homuth
I would add one more,
though -- some number of hours working on a combat simulation and
Situation Awareness course. A video simulation would do just fine
for that purpose.
I have been through several sessions of police "shoot, don't shoot"
scenarios although that is not available, or presented, in all
classes.
The lecture is interesting. The practice is the critical piece.
Both are interesting. We did not usually get the lecture since we are
not practicing police officers. Therefore, our rules are different.
Post by Don Homuth
Situation Awareness is what really matters -- even more than mere
marksmanship.
Yep.

If you have No Idea who the Good Guys are, you present
Post by Don Homuth
a CAPD in any tactical situation. If you don't know when Not to open
fire, you're fair game.
Post by RD (The Sandman)
In mine, the instructors have been able to get a hold of them. Of
course, most of my instructors have been ex-law enforcement. LAPD,
LASD, DEA and all were certified by the state.
I did mine as part of special training for a local Sharf's Posse some
years back. I've since left the county and state, but the training
continues to be worth the investment of time and money put into it.\
Yes. it does.
Post by Don Homuth
Yet I know, and I suspect you do as well, that the gun fondlers would
Howl if they were required to take it as a condition of a CCW permit.
Most of them that I know would enjoy it.
--
Sleep well tonight.........RD (The Sandman)
http://home.comcast.net/~rdsandman

"Tis far better to burn the flag while wrapped in the Constitution than
to burn the Constitution while wrapped in the flag."

".357Mag...my personal version of Homeland Security"

"We'll fill landfills with tons and tons of garbage, but when our trash
is shaped like a human, we [somehow] feel the need to keep it around."
John P...2006
RD (The Sandman)
2007-01-17 17:08:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Don Homuth
On Sun, 14 Jan 2007 15:24:59 -0600, "RD (The Sandman)"
SNIP................
Post by Don Homuth
Post by RD (The Sandman)
FWIW, incidents involving CCW holders occur at a much lesser rate than
the general populace.
Doesn't matter to me what the rate is. It does suggest that the
General Populace ought not to be having "incidents" in the first
place.
But they do.
Post by Don Homuth
This does not, please not, apply to in-home defense situations, for
which no CCW is required.
It applies overall. The incidents, are incidents of all types. They
include all crimes and accidents. CCW holders, as a rule, are more law
abiding than the general popl.
Post by Don Homuth
Post by RD (The Sandman)
Post by Don Homuth
Post by RD (The Sandman)
Post by Don Homuth
I always liked the previous application process, found it to be
worthwhile, and supported it across the board.
You mean the one where unless I personally knew someone or had
pictures of them or their wife going down on somebody, I couldn't
get one? That system?
Ya know, you don't Have to work that hard to sound really stupid and
off the wall, do you? Even if that did happen, it's extraordinary
and culpable on its face. Just the normal sort of application
process, as explicated above, will do just fine.
That *was* the normal process in many areas. Still just about is in
some areas.
Sorry -- I just don't buy off on that. It's excessive even for
amUsnet standards.
I, quite frankly, don't give a damn if you buy off on it or not. It has
been a historical truth. You acceptance or non acceptance of it won't
change it.
Post by Don Homuth
Post by RD (The Sandman)
CCW are still difficult to get in New York and California and
other "may issue" states.
Their states, and they may run them as they will. If their citizens
wish to change it, they are welcome to have at it. If they choose not
to change it, I don't much care. Really.
I agree, I am just pointing out how it is.
Post by Don Homuth
It doesn't bother me at all that different states and different
municipalities have different takes on how to handle such things.
That's why we have different states and municipalities in the first
place, under our Federalist system.
I approve of that too.
So do I....mostly.
Post by Don Homuth
Post by RD (The Sandman)
Post by Don Homuth
Post by RD (The Sandman)
Post by Don Homuth
Dealers could still sell AWs with All of the features. And did.
They were advertised as "pre-ban" models. They were sold by
dealers and at gun shows and by individuals. They were never
"banned" as the term is properly used.
They could only sell them as long as they had them in stock.
Precisely. They were not Banned for sale -- just as I said.
New ones were.
That's not a Ban, however. Nothing gives you the Right to buy any
weapon you might like brand new across the counter. So if the feds
wanted to restrict certain imports from sale, that's not a Ban.
It was more than imports, Don.
Post by Don Homuth
It's
an import restriction, and not gun control.
It was also gun control.
Post by Don Homuth
If the feds wish to place
a restriction on domestic manufacture for domestic sale, that is a
trade restriction, but not a Ban.
It is a ban on sales if they ban the sale of it.
Post by Don Homuth
Post by RD (The Sandman)
Post by Don Homuth
Nothing was ever Banned under the AWB.
I haven't claimed that the weapons themselves were nor did I name the
law. I have stated that the law banned dealer *sales* of weapons with
certain cosmetic features.
And I repeat -- it did Not do that. It banned manufacture for
domestic retail sale, and it banned imports.
But the "certain cosmetic features" were Always available during the
AWB -- everywhere, right across the board where the states or
localities hadn't previously restricted their sale.
Depending on the combination.
Post by Don Homuth
You Can get anything you Want
At Honest Ole's Gun Shop...
If you are claiming that there were illegal sales, you are probably
right. If you know of them and did nothing....you are part of the
problem.

SNIP........
Post by Don Homuth
Post by RD (The Sandman)
I was talking about handguns.....you know that they were affected by
the 10 round magazine limit.
I do. Didn't bother me one bit. I still think 10 is a reasonble
limit for a Shooter. We have 12 and 15 round magazines out there that
encourage wanton bullet-flanging, but little in actual marksmanship.
LEAs are not free from that sort of thing either. Many Rounds get
fired when fewer should be even from supposedly "trained" folks.
Absolutely. I just don't see any justification for the limit. As noted,
with a 5 shot revolver, I don't have a dog in that hunt. I don't see any
more restrictions than we already have on full auto...I( don't have one
of those either. I don't see any reason for a restriction on a .50 cal
and, no, I don't have one of those either, nor am I interested in getting
one. I would enjoy shooting one, but am not interested in buying one.
Post by Don Homuth
We have a case hereabouts where some depity sharf (iirc) fired some
fourty times at a Fleeing Suspect. He was duly fired -- but for the
wrong reason. The reason given was that he was out of control for
doing so. I'd have fired him for being such a Lousy Shot!
Whatever.....
Post by Don Homuth
But the adrenaline blast of a tactical situation can override even
minimal training. The only real solution for it is More and More
Difficult training.
Even that won't do much good if the person themselves shit their pants
every time.
Post by Don Homuth
Post by RD (The Sandman)
Post by Don Homuth
If firearm technology changed some in the meantime, though, it did
not do so in response to the alleged "ban" regardless. It's just
the normal course of technological improvement expected in such
things.
Nope. Many of the manufacturers will tell you that the development of
many of the smaller handguns with a 10 round mag were the direct
result of the limitation placed on the guns by Congress. If one was
going to be limited to 10 rounds, why did the size of a weapon that
was needed for 17 or 18 rounds have to remain? It could be shrunk and
make it more concealable.
I'm rather fond of the 1911 small-frame clones, though the latest
being manufactured have some odd quality problems that will probably
mitigate toward my purchasing an Argentine model, made under license
from Colt.
But small-frame weapons had been around for a Very long time, even in
the larger calibers.
Not like they are today.
Post by Don Homuth
There are lots of rationales for technical
improvements, but I don't buy off on that one. They found a market
and filled it.
Yep, and that market was for small, more concealble firearms with the
same capacity as allowed in the big full size models.
Post by Don Homuth
Now they're filling a different market for
large-capacity magazines. These things come and go.
Post by RD (The Sandman)
Post by Don Homuth
If you could own it before the Ban, the Ban didn't prevent you from
owning or buying it afterwards.
No one claimed you were prevented from ownership of them. Your
strawman, you feed him.
Owning "or buying" it afterwards.
Read the entire sentence. It's important.
After reading some of your stuff, I am starting to feel that it is less
and less important. ;)
--
Sleep well tonight.........RD (The Sandman)
http://home.comcast.net/~rdsandman

"Tis far better to burn the flag while wrapped in the Constitution than
to burn the Constitution while wrapped in the flag."

".357Mag...my personal version of Homeland Security"

"We'll fill landfills with tons and tons of garbage, but when our trash
is shaped like a human, we [somehow] feel the need to keep it around."
John P...2006
Felix D.
2007-01-18 02:15:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by RD (The Sandman)
Post by Don Homuth
This does not, please not, apply to in-home defense situations, for
which no CCW is required.
It applies overall. The incidents, are incidents of all types. They
include all crimes and accidents. CCW holders, as a rule, are more law
abiding than the general popl.
Not to mention they're involved in far fewer questionable shootings than
uniformed police.
RD (The Sandman)
2007-01-18 16:48:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Felix D.
Post by RD (The Sandman)
Post by Don Homuth
This does not, please not, apply to in-home defense situations, for
which no CCW is required.
It applies overall. The incidents, are incidents of all types. They
include all crimes and accidents. CCW holders, as a rule, are more law
abiding than the general popl.
Not to mention they're involved in far fewer questionable shootings than
uniformed police.
There is an actual reasonable explanation for that. They are on the
scene to begin with. They already know who is the bad guy and who is the
good guy. The cop, just arrving on the scene, has to sort that all out
within a second or two. Sometimes, they get it wrong.
--
Sleep well tonight.........RD (The Sandman)
http://home.comcast.net/~rdsandman

"Tis far better to burn the flag while wrapped in the Constitution than
to burn the Constitution while wrapped in the flag."

".357Mag...my personal version of Homeland Security"

"We'll fill landfills with tons and tons of garbage, but when our trash
is shaped like a human, we [somehow] feel the need to keep it around."
John P...2006
Carl Nisarel
2007-01-18 18:52:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by RD (The Sandman)
Post by Felix D.
Not to mention they're involved in far fewer questionable
shootings than uniformed police.
There is an actual reasonable explanation for that.
But no actual published data to support it.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Felix D.
2007-01-19 03:34:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by RD (The Sandman)
Post by Felix D.
Post by RD (The Sandman)
It applies overall. The incidents, are incidents of all types. They
include all crimes and accidents. CCW holders, as a rule, are more
law
Post by Felix D.
Post by RD (The Sandman)
abiding than the general popl.
Not to mention they're involved in far fewer questionable shootings
than
Post by Felix D.
uniformed police.
There is an actual reasonable explanation for that. They are on the
scene to begin with. They already know who is the bad guy and who is the
good guy. The cop, just arrving on the scene, has to sort that all out
within a second or two. Sometimes, they get it wrong.
A very good point, and quite reasonable.

Carl Nisarel
2007-01-18 18:50:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Felix D.
Post by RD (The Sandman)
It applies overall. The incidents, are incidents of all types.
They include all crimes and accidents. CCW holders, as a
rule, are more law abiding than the general popl.
Not to mention they're involved in far fewer questionable
shootings than uniformed police.
Nope. That claim is also unsupported BS.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Mickey Curry
2007-01-18 20:48:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Carl Nisarel
Post by Felix D.
Post by RD (The Sandman)
It applies overall. The incidents, are incidents of all types.
They include all crimes and accidents. CCW holders, as a
rule, are more law abiding than the general popl.
Not to mention they're involved in far fewer questionable
shootings than uniformed police.
Nope. That claim is also unsupported BS.
Wrong again, you girly boy.

Provide ANYTHING that supports _your_ claim.

Everybody else has.
Carl Nisarel
2007-01-17 17:41:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by RD (The Sandman)
FWIW, incidents involving CCW holders occur at a much lesser
rate than the general populace.
Ipse dixit and unsupported BS wishful thinking.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Mickey Curry
2007-01-17 19:05:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Carl Nisarel
Post by RD (The Sandman)
FWIW, incidents involving CCW holders occur at a much lesser
rate than the general populace.
Ipse dixit and unsupported BS wishful thinking.
Care to show a "supported" anything that can prove him wrong, Catl?
RD (The Sandman)
2007-01-18 16:49:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mickey Curry
Post by Carl Nisarel
Post by RD (The Sandman)
FWIW, incidents involving CCW holders occur at a much lesser
rate than the general populace.
Ipse dixit and unsupported BS wishful thinking.
Care to show a "supported" anything that can prove him wrong, Catl?
He won't produce any. The statistics that are available show that my
statement is correct.
--
Sleep well tonight.........RD (The Sandman)
http://home.comcast.net/~rdsandman

"Tis far better to burn the flag while wrapped in the Constitution than
to burn the Constitution while wrapped in the flag."

".357Mag...my personal version of Homeland Security"

"We'll fill landfills with tons and tons of garbage, but when our trash
is shaped like a human, we [somehow] feel the need to keep it around."
John P...2006
Mickey Curry
2007-01-18 17:12:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by RD (The Sandman)
Post by Mickey Curry
Post by Carl Nisarel
Post by RD (The Sandman)
FWIW, incidents involving CCW holders occur at a much lesser
rate than the general populace.
Ipse dixit and unsupported BS wishful thinking.
Care to show a "supported" anything that can prove him wrong, Catl?
He won't produce any. The statistics that are available show that my
statement is correct.
I know.
He still doesn't know what a supermarket is. :)
Carl Nisarel
2007-01-18 18:49:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by RD (The Sandman)
Post by Mickey Curry
Post by Carl Nisarel
Post by RD (The Sandman)
FWIW, incidents involving CCW holders occur at a much lesser
rate than the general populace.
Ipse dixit and unsupported BS wishful thinking.
Care to show a "supported" anything that can prove him wrong,
Catl?
He won't produce any.
I don't have to, RD. It's your claim. It's up to you to produce
the supporting data.

Pinhead is just being a fuckwit like always by demanding proof for
a negative.

He's one of the morons who thinks that god exists because people
can't prove that it doesn't.
Post by RD (The Sandman)
The statistics that are available show
that my statement is correct.
No legitimate statistics exist to show that your statement is
correct.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Mickey Curry
2007-01-18 20:46:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Carl Nisarel
Post by RD (The Sandman)
Post by Mickey Curry
Post by Carl Nisarel
Post by RD (The Sandman)
FWIW, incidents involving CCW holders occur at a much lesser
rate than the general populace.
Ipse dixit and unsupported BS wishful thinking.
Care to show a "supported" anything that can prove him wrong,
Catl?
He won't produce any.
I don't have to, RD. It's your claim.
Uh, YOU made the claim that he was wrong, you half wit.
He proved you were wrong, time and time again.
In fact EVERYBODY has proved YOU wrong, time and time again.

That's why YOU refuse to provide any evidence regarding ANY issuses...
time and time again.

Care to address -me- on ANY SUBJECT, or will you just continue to run
away like the fucking coward you are?
D. A. Tsenuf
2007-01-13 02:39:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Felix D.
Post by Don Homuth
But there's no Actual Threat out there. No one is attempting to
Disarm The People.
LOL! Have you got your head in a bag, or what?
Well that's a polite way of describing where he keeps his head.
The only difference being that it's a tube that can open at either end,
instead of one closed at one end.
Don Homuth
2007-01-11 22:36:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by j***@ix.netcom.com
Initiative 676 Gun Control
7,419 of 7,420 precincts - 99 percent
Yes, 409,515 - 29.6 percent
No, 973,974 - 70.4 percent
But not a Ban, and not an attempt to Disarm the Populace.

Do make the attempt, even though it's difficult, to keep your
discussions straight.
e***@netpath.net
2007-01-11 05:38:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Felix D.
The problem you libbies have is not everyone buys your crap. You can turn
NYC and LA into an urban nightmare if you want, just leave the rest of us
the fuck alone.
That's the whole problem - as I think it was Pat Buchanan who put
it. Wyoming is willing to let Greenwich Village be Greenwich Village -
but Greenwich Village isn't willing to let Wyoming be Wyoming. And
that's why it's the BLUE states that are fascist.

No $4 to park! No $6 admission! http://www.INTERNET-GUN-SHOW.com
Guerite.
2007-01-11 16:30:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scott Smith
Post by e***@netpath.net
Post by Fooled By Folksy Republicans
"The American right today has managed to be solidly anti-leftist while
adopting an ideology - even without knowing it or being entirely conscious
of the change - that is also frighteningly anti-liberty.
Bullshit. It's core urban Blue Nation that is the most
anti-freedom; try LEGALLY owning a handgun in New York City,
Washington, or Chicago if you doubt that.
What you fail to understand is that the *majority* of us who
live in "core urban Blue Nation" don't want just any yahoo
who wants a gun to be able to have one (or at least to carry
it around on the streets with them). That's why we write and
talk to our legislators, and tell them to vote for the wishes of
their constituents. We asked for it to be that way, and generally
we like it that way.
Post by e***@netpath.net
It's core urban Blue Nation where local taxes are so high as to make
"liberty" meaningless - as residents there have so much of their earnings
sucked away by city and county politicians and bureaucrats.
Again, you fail to realize that the *majority* of us who live in
"core urban Blue Nation" utilize the various services provided
by those taxes, and aren't afraid to pay a little more if it means
better transportation services, better public education, better
health care and hospitals, etc. That is part of our "liberty".
Is it a perfect system? No. Is it better than what the "survival of
the fittest" conservatives and libertarians suggest? You bet.
Every Socialist System (which you have described) in all of history has
ALWAYS failed.

Every Socialist in all of history has always claimed it as part of their
"liberty".

Your ignorance is astounding.
RD (The Sandman)
2007-01-11 17:33:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scott Smith
Post by e***@netpath.net
Post by Fooled By Folksy Republicans
"The American right today has managed to be solidly anti-leftist
while adopting an ideology - even without knowing it or being
entirely conscious of the change - that is also frighteningly
anti-liberty.
Bullshit. It's core urban Blue Nation that is the most
anti-freedom; try LEGALLY owning a handgun in New York City,
Washington, or Chicago if you doubt that.
What you fail to understand is that the *majority* of us who
live in "core urban Blue Nation" don't want just any yahoo
who wants a gun to be able to have one (or at least to carry
it around on the streets with them).
Neither do we.
Post by Scott Smith
That's why we write and
talk to our legislators, and tell them to vote for the wishes of
their constituents. We asked for it to be that way, and generally
we like it that way.
That's why we have background checks, etc.. If your state doesn't require
it, then push for it if that is what you want. Just don't try to do it
at the federal level as the feds don't have any Constitutional authority
for monitoring private property sales between individuals within a state.
Post by Scott Smith
Post by e***@netpath.net
It's core urban Blue Nation where local taxes are so high as to make
"liberty" meaningless - as residents there have so much of their earnings
sucked away by city and county politicians and bureaucrats.
Again, you fail to realize that the *majority* of us who live in
"core urban Blue Nation" utilize the various services provided
by those taxes, and aren't afraid to pay a little more if it means
better transportation services, better public education, better
health care and hospitals, etc. That is part of our "liberty".
And your choice. However, your taxes and your take on individual rights
are reasons why I don't live in one of them.
Post by Scott Smith
Is it a perfect system? No. Is it better than what the "survival of
the fittest" conservatives and libertarians suggest? You bet.
What conservatives are suggesting survival of the fittest? True
conservatives wish for smaller, limited government, yes, but that mostly
means that they don't wish to suck at the teat of society.
--
Sleep well tonight.........RD (The Sandman)
http://home.comcast.net/~rdsandman

"Tis far better to burn the flag while wrapped in the Constitution than
to burn the Constitution while wrapped in the flag."

".357Mag...my personal version of Homeland Security"

"We'll fill landfills with tons and tons of garbage, but when our trash
is shaped like a human, we [somehow] feel the need to keep it around."
John P...2006
RD (The Sandman)
2007-01-11 17:29:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by e***@netpath.net
Post by Fooled By Folksy Republicans
"The American right today has managed to be solidly anti-leftist
while adopting an ideology - even without knowing it or being
entirely conscious of the change - that is also frighteningly
anti-liberty.
Bullshit. It's core urban Blue Nation that is the most
anti-freedom; try LEGALLY owning a handgun in New York City,
Washington, or Chicago if you doubt that. It's core urban Blue Nation
where local taxes are so high as to make "liberty" meaningless - as
residents there have so much of their earnings sucked away by city and
county politicians and bureaucrats.
Which color of state is the most antifreezes depends entirely on what
horse you choose to ride. That is why opinions vary. I doubt that gays
feel that Mississippi would be their abode of choice and folks who love
guns would hate Massachusetts.
--
Sleep well tonight.........RD (The Sandman)
http://home.comcast.net/~rdsandman

"Tis far better to burn the flag while wrapped in the Constitution than
to burn the Constitution while wrapped in the flag."

".357Mag...my personal version of Homeland Security"

"We'll fill landfills with tons and tons of garbage, but when our trash
is shaped like a human, we [somehow] feel the need to keep it around."
John P...2006
Loading...