On 7/19/2011 10:47 AM, sf wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Jul 2011 06:57:49 -0500, George Leppla
> > wrote:
>
>> Living in fear must be terrible.
>
> Fear is the only excuse for ordinary people these days.
>

You could say that without applying any thought or you could simply
think it through and apply common sense such as:

It is forecast to be 100 F today here. I just put an insulated jug
filled with water and ice in the car because I will be outside this
afternoon. Is that fear or common sense?

I know with certainty (and confirmation from the relative who is a
police chief) that if someone were to invade our house the only thing
police will be able to do is try to determine what happened because the
police aren't living in the spare bedroom. So just like bringing the
water along on a hot day I prepare accordingly. Is that fear or common
sense?

On Jul 19, 4:57*am, George Leppla > wrote:
> On 7/18/2011 10:31 PM, Pete C. wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > George Leppla wrote:
>
> >> On 7/18/2011 3:41 PM, Pete C. wrote:
> >>> "Illegal to possess, import, or purchase assault weapons and .50 BMG
> >>> rifles, unless such weapons were acquired by the owner prior to June 1,
> >>> 1989. Legally defined assault weapons and .50 BMG rifles listed by make
> >>> and model by the DOJ must be registered. Their sale and transfer is
> >>> prohibited. Military look-alike rifles that are not chambered for .50
> >>> BMG and are not on the DOJ roster are legal to purchase or possess, with
> >>> some restrictions in configuration—known as "banned features." "
>
> >> This is what got your panties in a twist? *You are miffed that you can't
> >> by a 50 caliber MACHINE GUN?
>
> > Where exactly do you come up with "machine gun", there is no such
> > reference in the cite. Again you show your ignorance.
>
> The .50 caliber cartridge was developed for the BROWNING MACHINE GUN
> (That's what the BMG stands for).
>
> Take a look athttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.50_BMG* *Since you don't
> understand words real well, look at the picture and tell everyone why
> you need a cartridge so powerful that it can kill a man a mile away.

George sounds like a perfect candidate to help me get the BMW M3
banned. Take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BMW_M3 Everyone
who is literacy challenged, please look at the picture and tell
everyone why you need an automobile so powerful that it can reach 155
miles an hour, considering that nowhere in the US is it legal to drive
even 100 mph.

>
> I know... you need it to protect yourself. *Some guy a mile down the
> road MIGHT be going to attack you.

I know, you need an M3 to protect yourself. Some guy a mile behind you
on the Interstate MIGHT be trying to run you off the road.

>
> Living in fear must be terrible.

Driving in fear must be terrible.

On Jul 19, 9:25*am, Janet > wrote:
> In article >, says...
>
>
>
> > On 7/19/2011 8:22 AM, Janet wrote:
> > > Isle of Arran
>
> > Hope it never happens to you but one of the things riff-raff have
> > learned is there are easy pickings in places where people think they are
> > safe
> > We live in such an area and crimes tend to be done by "visitors" who
> > know most folks have their guard down.
>
> * *That doesn't happen here for the simple reason its too risky; there's
> no immediate private escape route. All departures are via ferry in full
> view of the local police.
>

Ah, but what about miscreants who travel by hovercraft? Don't neglect
that possibility.

On Tue, 19 Jul 2011 11:36:27 -0400, George >
wrote:

> I know with certainty (and confirmation from the relative who is a
> police chief) that if someone were to invade our house the only thing
> police will be able to do is try to determine what happened because the
> police aren't living in the spare bedroom. So just like bringing the
> water along on a hot day I prepare accordingly. Is that fear or common
> sense?

And what are you doing to merit a home invasion? Do you keep large
stashes of illegal drugs or large amounts of cash on hand? Live next
door to someone who does? If not, then obviously you are easily
influenced by the scare mongers on television. Home invasion is
another phony excuse used to excuse gun ownership.

--
I love cooking with wine.
Sometimes I even put it in the food.

sf wrote:
>
> On Tue, 19 Jul 2011 11:36:27 -0400, George >
> wrote:
>
> > I know with certainty (and confirmation from the relative who is a
> > police chief) that if someone were to invade our house the only thing
> > police will be able to do is try to determine what happened because the
> > police aren't living in the spare bedroom. So just like bringing the
> > water along on a hot day I prepare accordingly. Is that fear or common
> > sense?
>
> And what are you doing to merit a home invasion?

Most victims of home invasions don't do anything to merit such, other
than living in a decent location where the perp expects there will be
items of value.

> Do you keep large
> stashes of illegal drugs or large amounts of cash on hand?

Ridiculous nonsense.

> Live next
> door to someone who does?

You can't generally control who lives near you unless you are able to
pickup and move on a moments notice.

> If not, then obviously you are easily
> influenced by the scare mongers on television.

You can keep deluding yourself thinking that home invasions rarely
happen, only happen in bad neighborhoods, the people invaded did
something to attract the invaders, etc. but the facts don't support your
fantasy.

Consider the well publicized home invasion and murder case in CT
recently. It happened in a good neighborhood, to people who did nothing
to attract it, and three people were killed.

> Home invasion is
> another phony excuse used to excuse gun ownership.

I don't need an excuse to exercise my second amendment rights. What's
your excuse for using your first amendment rights?

Janet wrote:
>
> In article >, lid says...
> >
> > On 7/19/2011 8:22 AM, Janet wrote:
> > > Isle of Arran
> >
> >
> > Hope it never happens to you but one of the things riff-raff have
> > learned is there are easy pickings in places where people think they are
> > safe
> > We live in such an area and crimes tend to be done by "visitors" who
> > know most folks have their guard down.
>
> That doesn't happen here for the simple reason its too risky; there's
> no immediate private escape route. All departures are via ferry in full
> view of the local police.

Most people don't live on isolated islands with no road access. I'd bet
that the percentage in the US is far to the right of the decimal point.
Therefore your very unique situation is in no way representative of the
situation in the bulk of the US.

Pete C. wrote:
>
> You referred to "weird militias", and as I note there are very few of
> them. If you are trying to claim that every sort of group that someone
> labels a "militia" is a bunch of kooks you are quite incorrect, and
> indeed many of those groups don't even call themselves that.

When the US Constitution was new people still knew that the militia
meant every citizen. At the time that was land owning males not
everyone so it was a subset of the population, but it was a large
subset. Read about the Lewis and Clark expedition. Some members were
current military with current rank. Every member was a citizen and thus
a member of the militia. They all knew their militia ranks. Clark was
a Captain in the regular Army and a Major General in the militia. Each
summer all citizens in a county would get together for a week or two and
drill together.

That system evolved into the National Guard. By the time the Guard was
formed it was no longer taught in the schools that the militia was every
citizen. Read The Federalist Papers or other books about historic
events in the few generations after the US Revolution and it's mentioned
in many of them.

It's a bit sad that it's no longer taught in schools so now the folks
who organize like that get called weird. The sad part isn't calling
traditionalists weird. The sad part is the lack of civic activities of
that traditional sort. I suggest it would be beneficial to a lot of
young folks to have a task like that to undertake.

On Jul 19, 12:41*pm, Janet > wrote:
> In article <c9878fcf-f7c0-45e6-93cf-
> >, says....
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jul 19, 9:25*am, Janet > wrote:
> > > In article >, says....
>
> > > > On 7/19/2011 8:22 AM, Janet wrote:
> > > > > Isle of Arran
>
> > > > Hope it never happens to you but one of the things riff-raff have
> > > > learned is there are easy pickings in places where people think they are
> > > > safe
> > > > We live in such an area and crimes tend to be done by "visitors" who
> > > > know most folks have their guard down.
>
> > > * *That doesn't happen here for the simple reason its too risky; there's
> > > no immediate private escape route. All departures are via ferry in full
> > > view of the local police.
>
> > Ah, but what about miscreants who travel by hovercraft? Don't neglect
> > that possibility.
>
> * They won't be travelling here because there are no marine hovercraft *
> here.
>

Sure. Keep telling yourself that.

You're all lured into a false sense of security, when, WHAM:
hovercraft everywhere.

On 7/19/2011 3:06 PM, Doug Freyburger wrote:

>
> It's a bit sad that it's no longer taught in schools so now the folks
> who organize like that get called weird. The sad part isn't calling
> traditionalists weird. The sad part is the lack of civic activities of
> that traditional sort. I suggest it would be beneficial to a lot of
> young folks to have a task like that to undertake.

But I thought those smart people in the government were taking care of
everything? They told us they were and that we didn't need to concern
ourselves with anything.

And besides I have important stuff to do like going to the lady gaga
concert and checking facebook every minute.

On Mon, 18 Jul 2011 15:41:07 -0500, Pete C. wrote:

> blake murphy wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, 17 Jul 2011 17:25:00 -0500, Pete C. wrote:
>>
>>> George Leppla wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 7/17/2011 2:42 PM, Pete C. wrote:
>>>>>> I suppose you're talking about gun nuts "rights".
>>>>> No, I'm talking about gun owners constitutional rights as well as the
>>>>> inaliable human right of self defense.
>>>>
>>>> So who is denying you your rights to own a gun?
>>>
>>> Ask the folks in CA, IL, NY, CT, NJ and a few other states where peoples
>>> constitutional rights are indeed being trampled.
>>
>> what the **** are you talking about?
>>
>> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_the_United_States_%28by_state%29#Calif ornia>
>>
>> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_the_United_States_%28by_state%29#Illin ois>
>>
>> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_the_United_States_%28by_state%29#New_Y ork>
>>
>> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_the_United_States_%28by_state%29#Conne cticut>
>>
>> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_the_United_States_%28by_state%29#New_J ersey>
>>
>> i see no bans on guns. once again, you are full of shit.
>
> Clearly you haven't read your own cite. Try searching that page for
> "ban" and you will find plenty of references such as:
>
> "Illegal to possess, import, or purchase assault weapons and .50 BMG
> rifles, unless such weapons were acquired by the owner prior to June 1,
> 1989. Legally defined assault weapons and .50 BMG rifles listed by make
> and model by the DOJ must be registered. Their sale and transfer is
> prohibited. Military look-alike rifles that are not chambered for .50
> BMG and are not on the DOJ roster are legal to purchase or possess, with
> some restrictions in configuration€”known as "banned features." "

not being able to own an 'assault weapon' does not equal 'taking away your
guns.'

blake

On Mon, 18 Jul 2011 15:28:38 -0500, Pete C. wrote:

> blake murphy wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, 17 Jul 2011 17:53:28 -0500, Pete C. wrote:
>>
>>> Armed law
>>> abiding citizens have however successfully defended themselves against
>>> criminals many millions of times.
>>
>> bullshit. i would like to see a cite for 'many millions of times.'
>>
>> oh, right - you don't provide cites for your bullshit claims.
>>
>> blake
>
> The FBI stats have it, some have even been reported in "mainstream"
> media.

*then provide a ****ing cite*. put up or shut up.

blake

On Mon, 18 Jul 2011 20:50:25 +0000 (UTC), Nad R wrote:

> blake murphy > wrote:
>> On Mon, 18 Jul 2011 13:10:24 +0000 (UTC), Nad R wrote:
>>
>>> sf > wrote:
>>>
>>>> You reap what you sow. It sounds like your friend is living in an
>>>> area where services are being cut back and that's what happens when
>>>> there are no taxes to pay for them. Soon no one will be filling
>>>> potholes in the streets either and then you can slowly regress back to
>>>> the dirt roads of old, while the rest of us have to listen to how bad
>>>> it is in your poverty stricken part of the country.
>>>
>>> Regress... I will take a dirt road over a paved road any day. I complain
>>> when the township runs a grater through. The rougher the road the slower
>>> they have to drive. One however cannot own a fuel loving vehicle when
>>> living in the boondocks. A truck is a must have with over sized tires, but
>>> not too over sized to be gaudy.
>>> But then I only leave the compound once a week for a little shopping.
>>
>> 'the compound'? what are you, militia or something?
>>
>> your pal,
>> blake
>
> I have a hobby farm, my home, barns, animals, hens houses my own gardens,
> well system and septic field on twenty acres. I find it hard to call it
> just a home, a single structure. It is a place where I could stay for
> months without leaving for anything.

i guess i'd just say 'the place,' but i'm one of those vague liberals.

your pal,
blake

On Mon, 18 Jul 2011 20:05:03 -0400, George wrote:

> On 7/18/2011 2:40 PM, blake murphy wrote:
>> On Mon, 18 Jul 2011 13:10:24 +0000 (UTC), Nad R wrote:
>>
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>> You reap what you sow. It sounds like your friend is living in an
>>>> area where services are being cut back and that's what happens when
>>>> there are no taxes to pay for them. Soon no one will be filling
>>>> potholes in the streets either and then you can slowly regress back to
>>>> the dirt roads of old, while the rest of us have to listen to how bad
>>>> it is in your poverty stricken part of the country.
>>>
>>> Regress... I will take a dirt road over a paved road any day. I complain
>>> when the township runs a grater through. The rougher the road the slower
>>> they have to drive. One however cannot own a fuel loving vehicle when
>>> living in the boondocks. A truck is a must have with over sized tires, but
>>> not too over sized to be gaudy.
>>> But then I only leave the compound once a week for a little shopping.
>>
>> 'the compound'? what are you, militia or something?
>>
>> your pal,
>> blake
>
> Maybe he imagines he is part of the liberal elite?
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kennedy_Compound

yeah, there's a compound at hyannis port, but there's also one at
kennebunkport:

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_compound>

must be nice to have all that dough and not have to **** with riff-raff
like you and me. (well, assuming you don't have a compound.)

your pal,
blake

On Tue, 19 Jul 2011 00:58:36 +0000 (UTC), Nad R wrote:

> George > wrote:
>> On 7/18/2011 2:40 PM, blake murphy wrote:
>>> On Mon, 18 Jul 2011 13:10:24 +0000 (UTC), Nad R wrote:
>>>
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> You reap what you sow. It sounds like your friend is living in an
>>>>> area where services are being cut back and that's what happens when
>>>>> there are no taxes to pay for them. Soon no one will be filling
>>>>> potholes in the streets either and then you can slowly regress back to
>>>>> the dirt roads of old, while the rest of us have to listen to how bad
>>>>> it is in your poverty stricken part of the country.
>>>>
>>>> Regress... I will take a dirt road over a paved road any day. I complain
>>>> when the township runs a grater through. The rougher the road the slower
>>>> they have to drive. One however cannot own a fuel loving vehicle when
>>>> living in the boondocks. A truck is a must have with over sized tires, but
>>>> not too over sized to be gaudy.
>>>> But then I only leave the compound once a week for a little shopping.
>>>
>>> 'the compound'? what are you, militia or something?
>>>
>>> your pal,
>>> blake
>>
>> Maybe he imagines he is part of the liberal elite?
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kennedy_Compound
>
> Yes!!! Back to the compound!!!
> All conservative types are inferior to my great intellect!!!
> I love boating on the Great Lakes
>
> Now if only I can afford a professional chef as a servant

that would be, for me, the best thing about being fabulously wealthy:

'oh pierre, rustle me up a BLT. there's a good chap.'

your pal,
blake

On Jul 20, 9:40*am, blake murphy > wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Jul 2011 15:41:07 -0500, Pete C. wrote:
> > blake murphy wrote:
>
> >> On Sun, 17 Jul 2011 17:25:00 -0500, Pete C. wrote:
>
> >>> George Leppla wrote:
>
> >>>> On 7/17/2011 2:42 PM, Pete C. wrote:
> >>>>>> I suppose you're talking about gun nuts "rights".
> >>>>> No, I'm talking about gun owners constitutional rights as well as the
> >>>>> inaliable human right of self defense.
>
> >>>> So who is denying you your rights to own a gun?
>
> >>> Ask the folks in CA, IL, NY, CT, NJ and a few other states where peoples
> >>> constitutional rights are indeed being trampled.
>
> >> what the **** are you talking about?
>
> >> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_the_United_States_%28by_stat....>
>
> >> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_the_United_States_%28by_stat....>
>
> >> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_the_United_States_%28by_stat....>
>
> >> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_the_United_States_%28by_stat....>
>
> >> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_the_United_States_%28by_stat....>
>
> >> i see no bans on guns. *once again, you are full of shit.
>
> > Clearly you haven't read your own cite. Try searching that page for
> > "ban" and you will find plenty of references such as:
>
> > "Illegal to possess, import, or purchase assault weapons and .50 BMG
> > rifles, unless such weapons were acquired by the owner prior to June 1,
> > 1989. Legally defined assault weapons and .50 BMG rifles listed by make
> > and model by the DOJ must be registered. Their sale and transfer is
> > prohibited. Military look-alike rifles that are not chambered for .50
> > BMG and are not on the DOJ roster are legal to purchase or possess, with
> > some restrictions in configuration—known as "banned features." "
>
> not being able to own an 'assault weapon' does not equal 'taking away your
> guns.'
>

The assault weapons ban was part of the Goldilocks' approach to gun
control:

Assault weapons (autoloading rifles that physically resemble the
machine guns that soldiers carry) are TOO BIG
Saturday night specials (affordable handguns) are TOO SMALL.

But gun controllers won't come out and say what guns they think are
JUST RIGHT.

On Mon, 18 Jul 2011 15:30:28 -0500, Pete C. wrote:

> blake murphy wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, 17 Jul 2011 20:48:17 -0500, Pete C. wrote:
>>
>>> sf wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Sun, 17 Jul 2011 17:25:00 -0500, "Pete C." >
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Ask the folks in CA, IL, NY, CT, NJ and a few other states where peoples
>>>>> constitutional rights are indeed being trampled. Ask folks who's rights
>>>>> were trampled by the now expired ugly gun ban. When the second amendment
>>>>> was written it wasn't about "sporting" guns, or antique guns, it was
>>>>> about guns that were the then state of the art and defensive use was
>>>>> very much what was being considered.
>>>>
>>>> The gun laws in California are the way voters want them, and we're
>>>> working on making them even more restrictive.
>>>
>>> The courts may have something to say about your attempts to infringe on
>>> peoples constitutional rights. Indeed, I recently read that there have
>>> been significant increases in issuing CHLs in parts of CA this year.
>>
>> ooh, sounds like their rights are being trampled, all right. or would you
>> prefer 'must carry' laws?
>
> "Must issue" (with clean background check) is just fine thank you.

sissy.

blake

On Mon, 18 Jul 2011 15:49:47 -0500, Pete C. wrote:

> Steve Pope wrote:
>>
>> blake murphy > wrote:
>>>On Sun, 17 Jul 2011 21:41:19 -0500, Pete C. wrote:
>>>
>>>> sf wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sun, 17 Jul 2011 20:38:27 -0500, "Pete C." >
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> sf wrote:
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > On Sun, 17 Jul 2011 17:34:46 -0500, "Pete C." >
>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > >
>>>>>> > > There are a lot of loopholes, because the rich are already over taxed.
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > You bought into the right wing ideology hook, line and sinker.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So what is your reasoned argument that give justification to taxing one
>>>>>> person 15% of their income and another 35% of their income, in direct
>>>>>> violation of equal protection.
>>>>>
>>>>> The rich are NOT over taxed, so get it right. Why do the rich pay
>>>>> only 15% on their income, which is mainly capital gains,
>>>>
>>>> From irs.gov, it appears that the capital gains tax rate is 28%, so your
>>>> claim of the rich paying 15% is way off.
>>>
>>>what the **** are you talking about? from the IRS site:
>>>
>>>
>>>7. The tax rates that apply to net capital gain are generally lower than
>>>the tax rates that apply to other income. For 2010, the maximum capital
>>>gains rate for most people is 15%. For lower-income individuals, the rate
>>>may be 0% on some or all of the net capital gain. Special types of net
>>>capital gain can be taxed at 25% or 28%.
>>>
>>><http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/0,,id=106799,00.html>
>>>
>>>the one time you provide a cite, it disproves your assertion.
>>>congratulations.
>>
>> Possibly Pete was looking at the short-term capital gain rate.
>> In casual conversation, "capital gain rate" means the long term
>> rate, the rate that is preferentially lower than other tax rates.
>
> Perhaps, however the "most people" and the special types with 25% or 28%
> tax in the above quote means it does not disprove anything.

you're kidding, right? i'd say it handily disproves 'that the capital
gains tax rate is 28%.' in plain english.

blake

On 20/07/2011 12:44 PM, blake murphy wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Jul 2011 15:28:38 -0500, Pete C. wrote:
>
>> blake murphy wrote:
>>>
>>> On Sun, 17 Jul 2011 17:53:28 -0500, Pete C. wrote:
>>>
>>>> Armed law
>>>> abiding citizens have however successfully defended themselves against
>>>> criminals many millions of times.
>>>
>>> bullshit. i would like to see a cite for 'many millions of times.'
>>>
>>> oh, right - you don't provide cites for your bullshit claims.
>>>
>>> blake
>>
>> The FBI stats have it, some have even been reported in "mainstream"
>> media.
>
> *then provide a ****ing cite*. put up or shut up.



I remember a number of years ago first hearing about a study about the
number of times Americans had used to guns to defend themselves. I
thought the number seemed a little high when I first heard it, but then
the number started to mushroom.

I have to wonder what qualifies as self defense If I hear a noise in my
yard and grab a gun and rush out there and find that it was just a
raccoon in the garbage I can say that I used the gun to defend myself. I
am not in the habit of grabbing a gun every time I hear a critter in the
garbage. I turn on the porch light. Maybe we could commission a study on
the number of times people's lives have been saved from marauding
critters and potential burglars by turning on a porch light.

On Mon, 18 Jul 2011 19:57:24 +0000 (UTC), Doug Freyburger wrote:

> George Leppla wrote:
>>
>> Translation: Under the Obama administration, I now have more freedom to
>> own a gun than I did before.
>
> Correct.
>
>> Dury says people are buying guns as well as ammunition, creating a
>> shortage of both. He says people are buying the guns to protect
>> themselves because they perceive Obama's policies as socialist and
>> rewarding those "people who are not working hard." They are also afraid,
>> he says, of more restrictive gun laws.
>
> He came out of Illinois so people did expect him to pass Illinois style
> restrictive gun laws. Illinois gun laws keep getting overturned by the
> Supreme Court. Chicago based Illinois state, county and city
> politicians don't like that so they keep passing variations that stay in
> effect while the battle reuns up the the Supreme Court.
>
> What people don't seem to get is the President doesn't have all that
> much ability to push laws through nor does he have all that much
> influence on the Supreme Court. Whether he wanted to or not Obama could
> not push such laws through. He hasn't tried.

all true. yet it's an article of faith among 'winger gun nuts that obama's
fondest wish is to take their guns and ammo. they just *know* it.

your pal,
blake

On Mon, 18 Jul 2011 22:29:18 -0500, Pete C. wrote:

> George Leppla wrote:
>>
>> Rational? You really thing buying a lifetime supply of guns and ammo
>> are the acts of rational people? Were these rational people?
>
> Certainly they are. People who enjoy shooting sports always need guns
> and ammo for those sports just as surely as golfers need clubs and
> balls. Buying in a big lot or buying smaller amounts every few months
> don't make much difference.

i believe we were talking about the run on guns and ammo after obama's
election, when he is not in any way going to take your guns and ammo.
that's not rational, it's nutty.

blake

On Tue, 19 Jul 2011 09:55:23 -0700 (PDT), spamtrap1888 wrote:

> On Jul 19, 9:25*am, Janet > wrote:
>> In article >, says...
>>
>>
>>
>>> On 7/19/2011 8:22 AM, Janet wrote:
>>> > Isle of Arran
>>
>>> Hope it never happens to you but one of the things riff-raff have
>>> learned is there are easy pickings in places where people think they are
>>> safe
>>> We live in such an area and crimes tend to be done by "visitors" who
>>> know most folks have their guard down.
>>
>> * *That doesn't happen here for the simple reason its too risky; there's
>> no immediate private escape route. All departures are via ferry in full
>> view of the local police.
>>
>
> Ah, but what about miscreants who travel by hovercraft? Don't neglect
> that possibility.

or teleportation!

your pal,
blake

George wrote:
> Doug Freyburger wrote:
>
>> It's a bit sad that it's no longer taught in schools so now the folks
>> who organize like that get called weird. The sad part isn't calling
>> traditionalists weird. The sad part is the lack of civic activities of
>> that traditional sort. I suggest it would be beneficial to a lot of
>> young folks to have a task like that to undertake.
>
> But I thought those smart people in the government were taking care of
> everything? They told us they were and that we didn't need to concern
> ourselves with anything.

Edward Gibbon in The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire reports that
in the Roman Republic every member of the senatorial class was required
to cycle in and out of military service. When the republic gave way to
the Roman Empire the emperors waived that requirement and the Senate
became a body of politicians who were not concerned with the military.
Plus sa change, plus sa meme chose.

> And besides I have important stuff to do like going to the lady gaga
> concert and checking facebook every minute.

blake murphy wrote:
> Pete C. wrote:
>> blake murphy wrote:
>
>>> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_the_United_States_%28by_state%29#Illin ois>
>
>>> i see no bans on guns. once again, you are full of shit.
>>
>> Clearly you haven't read your own cite.
>
> not being able to own an 'assault weapon' does not equal 'taking away your
> guns.'

Not being able to own or carry a pistol does equal "taking away for
guns". Chicago and some of the other cities in its county keep passing
laws that ban the ownership of pistols. They keep getting overthrown by
the Supreme Court and they keep passing variations.

The entire state of Illinois disallows carrying a pistol concealed. The
more armed citizens the lower the crime rate - Consider when Florida
switched to shall-issue and a ton of the locals started packing almost
all robberies switched to tourists and illegals.

Nearly the entire state disallows carrying a pistol openly with the
exceptions being the obvious ones like way out in the country hunting
ferral pigs or being inside a "business that allows it" which is to
say working at a pawn shop.

On Jul 20, 10:55*am, blake murphy > wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Jul 2011 22:29:18 -0500, Pete C. wrote:
> > George Leppla wrote:
>
> >> Rational? *You really thing buying a lifetime supply of guns and ammo
> >> are the acts of rational people? *Were these rational people?
>
> > Certainly they are. People who enjoy shooting sports always need guns
> > and ammo for those sports just as surely as golfers need clubs and
> > balls. Buying in a big lot or buying smaller amounts every few months
> > don't make much difference.
>
> i believe we were talking about the run on guns and ammo after obama's
> election, when he is not in any way going to take your guns and ammo.
> that's not rational, it's nutty.

People did not realize Obama was a centrist, because he had been on
the board of directors of the anti-gun Joyce Foundation. (On his watch
the Joyce Foundation sponsored a law symposium at Chicago-Kent School
of Law, in which every paper was anti-gun ownership.) They figured he
was another Gore, who in the wake of Columbine as VP voted to break a
tie in favor of more restrictions on gun ownership for non-sociopaths/
non-teenagers.

On 20/07/2011 6:41 PM, spamtrap1888 wrote:

> If one out of every two householders is armed, then miscreants will
> think twice about breaking into your home. Isolated incidents to the
> contrary.

And if they are really worried about the homeowners being armed they
will make sure they too are armed and may fire pre-emptively.

NRA types like to point to a "study" of convicts who responded in
interviews that they would not have robbed a place if they knew that the
home owner was armed. Only two problems there.... they interviewed the
guys that were dumb enough to get caught, and convicts tend not to be
credible.

On 20/07/2011 4:36 PM, Doug Freyburger wrote:
> Dave Smith wrote:
>>
>> I remember a number of years ago first hearing about a study about the
>> number of times Americans had used to guns to defend themselves. I
>> thought the number seemed a little high when I first heard it, but then
>> the number started to mushroom.
>>
>> I have to wonder what qualifies as self defense If I hear a noise in my
>> yard and grab a gun and rush out there and find that it was just a
>> raccoon in the garbage I can say that I used the gun to defend myself.
>
> It has to be a human to count but only a tiny percentage include firing.
> Just showing it in its holster without pulling it is enough to cause any
> sane robber to leave. So is putting your hand where the holster is
> demonstrating that you are able to pull it. Pulling it out of its
> holster is enough to cause more than one robber to leave. Even a
> robber who is already holding a pistol sees the risk level go so high
> they flee.
>
> I can't tell if these are the incidents that you refer to as
> mushrooming, or if it is people exaggerating with the word millions
> when it's a much smaller number. Likely both given your example of
> raccoons.



2,5 million times per year and 400,000 of them believed their use of a
gun almost certainly saved a life.
http://www.libraryindex.com/pages/17...F-DEFENSE.html

"Dave Smith" > wrote in message
. com...
> On 20/07/2011 4:36 PM, Doug Freyburger wrote:
>> Dave Smith wrote:
>>>
>>> I remember a number of years ago first hearing about a study about the
>>> number of times Americans had used to guns to defend themselves. I
>>> thought the number seemed a little high when I first heard it, but then
>>> the number started to mushroom.
>>>
>>> I have to wonder what qualifies as self defense If I hear a noise in my
>>> yard and grab a gun and rush out there and find that it was just a
>>> raccoon in the garbage I can say that I used the gun to defend myself.
>>
>> It has to be a human to count but only a tiny percentage include firing.
>> Just showing it in its holster without pulling it is enough to cause any
>> sane robber to leave. So is putting your hand where the holster is
>> demonstrating that you are able to pull it. Pulling it out of its
>> holster is enough to cause more than one robber to leave. Even a
>> robber who is already holding a pistol sees the risk level go so high
>> they flee.
>>
>> I can't tell if these are the incidents that you refer to as
>> mushrooming, or if it is people exaggerating with the word millions
>> when it's a much smaller number. Likely both given your example of
>> raccoons.
>
>
>
> 2,5 million times per year and 400,000 of them believed their use of a gun
> almost certainly saved a life.
> http://www.libraryindex.com/pages/17...F-DEFENSE.html

This liberal supports the right to bear arms.

On 20/07/2011 6:52 PM, spamtrap1888 wrote:
>
>
> Going back to my cousin, who carried a gun all day long every work
> day, while never having to shoot anyone: guns are deterrents. The
> likelihood of citizens packing heat makes people think twice about
> assaulting them.

Yep. We learned that back in the days of the old west and arguments were
settled with guns.


> Compare the US's fabulous supply of nuclear weapons. None have been
> used for sixty some years. Does that mean that they were useless?

There have been no wars?
Hell. The US invaded Iraq to disarm Saddam. Heaven forbid that he and
his country should have the right to have nukes. Son of a gun if, after
after all the spin and the lies, it turned out that he did not have any.

On Jul 20, 5:50*pm, Janet > wrote:
> In article <be66d1df-6821-4f54-bf2d-
> >, says....
>
> > Going back to my cousin, who carried a gun all day long every work
> > day, while never having to shoot anyone: guns are deterrents. The
> > likelihood of citizens packing heat makes people think twice about
> > assaulting them.
>
> * My cousin never carried a gun and has never been assaulted. By your
> logic this proves that criminals avoid assaulting unarmed people.

Why did you snip Steve Pope's cost-benefit analysis, to which this was
a response? My point was that carrying a gun deterred crime without
leading to carnage. What is your point?

On 20/07/2011 9:04 PM, spamtrap1888 wrote:

>> My cousin never carried a gun and has never been assaulted. By your
>> logic this proves that criminals avoid assaulting unarmed people.
>
> Why did you snip Steve Pope's cost-benefit analysis, to which this was
> a response? My point was that carrying a gun deterred crime without
> leading to carnage. What is your point?


Her point was that her cousin was never assaulted either. If a person
can live their live without ever being assaulted, then someone else
carrying a gun and never being assaulted is more likely to prove that
there was no danger of assault, not that the gun deterred it.

On 7/20/2011 8:50 PM, Janet wrote:
> In article<be66d1df-6821-4f54-bf2d-
> >, says...
>
>> Going back to my cousin, who carried a gun all day long every work
>> day, while never having to shoot anyone: guns are deterrents. The
>> likelihood of citizens packing heat makes people think twice about
>> assaulting them.
>
> My cousin never carried a gun and has never been assaulted. By your
> logic this proves that criminals avoid assaulting unarmed people.
>
>
> Janet
>
>
No, his logic is that if riff-raff are aware that there is a possibility
that folks may be armed they will go off and do something else. So if
you are unarmed you benefit because of the probability that you could be.

On Wed, 20 Jul 2011 18:59:49 -0400, Dave Smith wrote:

> On 20/07/2011 4:36 PM, Doug Freyburger wrote:
>> Dave Smith wrote:
>>>
>>> I remember a number of years ago first hearing about a study about the
>>> number of times Americans had used to guns to defend themselves. I
>>> thought the number seemed a little high when I first heard it, but then
>>> the number started to mushroom.
>>>
>>> I have to wonder what qualifies as self defense If I hear a noise in my
>>> yard and grab a gun and rush out there and find that it was just a
>>> raccoon in the garbage I can say that I used the gun to defend myself.
>>
>> It has to be a human to count but only a tiny percentage include firing.
>> Just showing it in its holster without pulling it is enough to cause any
>> sane robber to leave. So is putting your hand where the holster is
>> demonstrating that you are able to pull it. Pulling it out of its
>> holster is enough to cause more than one robber to leave. Even a
>> robber who is already holding a pistol sees the risk level go so high
>> they flee.
>>
>> I can't tell if these are the incidents that you refer to as
>> mushrooming, or if it is people exaggerating with the word millions
>> when it's a much smaller number. Likely both given your example of
>> raccoons.
>
> 2,5 million times per year and 400,000 of them believed their use of a
> gun almost certainly saved a life.
> http://www.libraryindex.com/pages/17...F-DEFENSE.html

um, maybe. from the site:

Criticism of Lott's Conclusions

Several reviewers of "Crime, Deterrence, and Right-to-Carry Concealed
Handguns" could not substantiate Lott and Mustard's claims. Researchers
from the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research, for example,
found the following problems with the study:

* The methods used in the study were incorrect and have been
discredited. For example, using arrest rates to predict crime rates is
problematic. Furthermore, "shall issue" laws (allowing people to carry
concealed weapons) tend to be approved when violent crime has recently
increased. Assuming the laws caused a decrease in crime, rather than that
being simply a natural trend back toward an average level after such
increases, may be mistaken.
* Lott and Mustard found the strongest deterrent effects of carrying
weapons were related to the crimes of rape, aggravated assault, and murder.
Many such crimes, however, are committed by intimates or acquaintances,
situations "in which carrying a concealed gun in public is less relevant."
Predatory street crime, conversely, which is often committed by strangers,
has been affected little or not at all by "shall issue" laws.

your pal,
blake

On Wed, 20 Jul 2011 15:14:17 -0700 (PDT), spamtrap1888 wrote:

> On Jul 20, 10:55*am, blake murphy > wrote:
>> On Mon, 18 Jul 2011 22:29:18 -0500, Pete C. wrote:
>>> George Leppla wrote:
>>
>>>> Rational? *You really thing buying a lifetime supply of guns and ammo
>>>> are the acts of rational people? *Were these rational people?
>>
>>> Certainly they are. People who enjoy shooting sports always need guns
>>> and ammo for those sports just as surely as golfers need clubs and
>>> balls. Buying in a big lot or buying smaller amounts every few months
>>> don't make much difference.
>>
>> i believe we were talking about the run on guns and ammo after obama's
>> election, when he is not in any way going to take your guns and ammo.
>> that's not rational, it's nutty.
>
> People did not realize Obama was a centrist, because he had been on
> the board of directors of the anti-gun Joyce Foundation. (On his watch
> the Joyce Foundation sponsored a law symposium at Chicago-Kent School
> of Law, in which every paper was anti-gun ownership.) They figured he
> was another Gore, who in the wake of Columbine as VP voted to break a
> tie in favor of more restrictions on gun ownership for non-sociopaths/
> non-teenagers.

it really doesn't matter if he *did* want to take people's guns. he's not
a ****ing emperor - the senate and house would have to agree. given that
there has been *zero* interest in gun control in twenty or thirty years,
unlikely.

your pal,
blake

On Thu, 21 Jul 2011 10:00:58 -0400, George wrote:

> On 7/20/2011 8:50 PM, Janet wrote:
>> In article<be66d1df-6821-4f54-bf2d-
>> >, says...
>>
>>> Going back to my cousin, who carried a gun all day long every work
>>> day, while never having to shoot anyone: guns are deterrents. The
>>> likelihood of citizens packing heat makes people think twice about
>>> assaulting them.
>>
>> My cousin never carried a gun and has never been assaulted. By your
>> logic this proves that criminals avoid assaulting unarmed people.
>>
>>
>> Janet
>>
>>
> No, his logic is that if riff-raff are aware that there is a possibility
> that folks may be armed they will go off and do something else. So if
> you are unarmed you benefit because of the probability that you could be.

that must be why violent crime is rampant in the u.k. and practically
unknown in well-armed regions of the u.s.

blake

On Wed, 20 Jul 2011 20:59:56 +0000 (UTC), Doug Freyburger wrote:

> blake murphy wrote:
>> Pete C. wrote:
>>> blake murphy wrote:
>>
>>>> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_the_United_States_%28by_state%29#Illin ois>
>>
>>>> i see no bans on guns. once again, you are full of shit.
>>>
>>> Clearly you haven't read your own cite.
>>
>> not being able to own an 'assault weapon' does not equal 'taking away your
>> guns.'
>
> Not being able to own or carry a pistol does equal "taking away for
> guns". Chicago and some of the other cities in its county keep passing
> laws that ban the ownership of pistols. They keep getting overthrown by
> the Supreme Court and they keep passing variations.
>

there are few jurisdictions (in the u.s.) where handguns are totally
banned.

> The entire state of Illinois disallows carrying a pistol concealed. The
> more armed citizens the lower the crime rate - Consider when Florida
> switched to shall-issue and a ton of the locals started packing almost
> all robberies switched to tourists and illegals.
>
> Nearly the entire state disallows carrying a pistol openly with the
> exceptions being the obvious ones like way out in the country hunting
> ferral pigs or being inside a "business that allows it" which is to
> say working at a pawn shop.

not being allowing to open carry or concealed carry does not equal 'taking
your guns away.'

blake

On 21/07/2011 3:17 PM, blake murphy wrote:
switched to tourists and illegals.
>>
>> Nearly the entire state disallows carrying a pistol openly with the
>> exceptions being the obvious ones like way out in the country hunting
>> ferral pigs or being inside a "business that allows it" which is to
>> say working at a pawn shop.
>
> not being allowing to open carry or concealed carry does not equal 'taking
> your guns away.'

Just paranoid, in which case they are too nuts to be trusted with firearms.

On Jul 21, 12:06*pm, blake murphy > wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Jul 2011 10:00:58 -0400, George wrote:
> > On 7/20/2011 8:50 PM, Janet wrote:
> >> In article<be66d1df-6821-4f54-bf2d-
> >> >, says...
>
> >>> Going back to my cousin, who carried a gun all day long every work
> >>> day, while never having to shoot anyone: guns are deterrents. The
> >>> likelihood of citizens packing heat makes people think twice about
> >>> assaulting them.
>
> >> * *My cousin never carried a gun and has never been assaulted. By your
> >> logic this proves that criminals avoid assaulting unarmed people.
>
> >> * * Janet
>
> > No, his logic is that if riff-raff are aware that there is a possibility
> > that folks may be armed they will go off and do something else. So if
> > you are unarmed you benefit because of the probability that you could be.
>
> that must be why violent crime is rampant in the u.k. and practically
> unknown in well-armed regions of the u.s.
>

The rate of homicides committed by fists and feet in the US exceeds
the total rate for most industrialized countries. The US is an
exceptionally violent country.

On 2011-07-22, George Leppla > wrote:

> Funny how people need a license to fix a leaky pipe, go fishing, cut
> someone's hair, own a dog or sell pretzels on the street......

Thank you, NRA.

nb

blake murphy wrote:
>
> On Thu, 21 Jul 2011 10:00:58 -0400, George wrote:
>
> > On 7/20/2011 8:50 PM, Janet wrote:
> >> In article<be66d1df-6821-4f54-bf2d-
> >> >, says...
> >>
> >>> Going back to my cousin, who carried a gun all day long every work
> >>> day, while never having to shoot anyone: guns are deterrents. The
> >>> likelihood of citizens packing heat makes people think twice about
> >>> assaulting them.
> >>
> >> My cousin never carried a gun and has never been assaulted. By your
> >> logic this proves that criminals avoid assaulting unarmed people.
> >>
> >>
> >> Janet
> >>
> >>
> > No, his logic is that if riff-raff are aware that there is a possibility
> > that folks may be armed they will go off and do something else. So if
> > you are unarmed you benefit because of the probability that you could be.
>
> that must be why violent crime is rampant in the u.k. and practically
> unknown in well-armed regions of the u.s.
>
> blake

Except that violent crime is indeed rampant in the U.K., and in the US,
it is lower in states that respect peoples second amendment rights than
those that do not.

Dave Smith wrote:
>
> On 20/07/2011 6:41 PM, spamtrap1888 wrote:
>
> > If one out of every two householders is armed, then miscreants will
> > think twice about breaking into your home. Isolated incidents to the
> > contrary.
>
> And if they are really worried about the homeowners being armed they
> will make sure they too are armed and may fire pre-emptively.

There was a home invasion reported on the local media here not too long
ago which happened not too far away in the next state. Said home invader
broke in armed with a dreaded AK47 and was promptly shot dead by the
homeowners. One homeowner suffered a superficial wound to their arm
which was treated at the scene by EMTs.