Interesting Thought

On Tuesday, March 19, 2013 9:01:59 AM UTC-6, twobuddha wrote:
On Tuesday, March 19, 2013 4:33:02 AM UTC-7, Goober Jones wrote:

What lies. SpongeBob Pussypants? or is it Runaway Bob?



Good news. I saw a pamphlet about the long term effects of



Alcoholism and guess what, it does cause permanent brain



damage including Parkinson's and permanently damages



the pancreas causing diabetes which leads to irreversible



neuropathy. You're getting what you earned and deserve and



no amount of screaming, threatening or slobbering is going to



stop it. You're toast and you did it all to yourself. LOL.



Holy ****. Screaming, threatening, and slobbering?

You are truly insane. Get help.



BTW, you might want your friend Brain Fried Bob to have this information. Moot point for me, I quit drinking over 24 years ago.

Liar!

On Mon, 18 Mar 2013 18:12:31 -0700 (PDT), Goober Jones
wrote this crap:

Do you think it's really that simple? Who makes the determination?
Does everyone have to be evaluated prior to acquiring a firearm? If so, since far
more people die from traffic accidents, shouldn't people have psych
Evaluations before getting a driver's license or buying a car. Where are you
Going to find all the psychiatrists to do the work.

Trunky says he's a health professional. He could help find whackos.
Especially if he sat in a room by himself and a mirror.


This signature is now the ultimate
power in the universe

On Tue, 19 Mar 2013 08:37:51 -0700 (PDT), pigo
wrote this crap:

On Monday, March 18, 2013 12:15:22 PM UTC-6, VtSkier wrote:

When they wrote the Constitution, guns only fired one shot at a time
before a lengthy reload too.

Actually, there was an inventor hundreds of years before who invented
a weapon that would fire multiple rounds. You may have heard of him.
His name was, "Leonardo DaVinci." I'm sure Ben Franklin and other
inventors knew of this. The founding fathers saw guns go from the
matchlock to the flintlock and to the percussion cap. There was no
doubt that they knew more powerful and faster guns would be invented.

So, it meant that if one wanted/needed many shots to be fired in a
short period of time it took many people (a militia, it the words
of the Constitution). Common sense works better for a group than it
does for an individual.

So yes, common sense was definitely in play at that time, but the
actions of an individual were of less importance too. The reason for
keeping guns out of the hands of a mentally ill person is that the
mentally ill person can do ever so much more damage that he could
back then.

Intersting. Things took a long time to print then too. There was
no broadcast TV or radio. You must be in favor of restricting
the 1st Ammendment too? Which other rights would you "edit"
to pursue your own idea of "freedom"?

I would be in favor of banning facebook and youtube. Two things I
hate. Don't ever send me an e-mail of a link to a youtube video and
say "Dude, check this out, it's so cool." I will put you in my e-mail
filter.


Merry Christmas everyone. God bless us all.

On 3/19/2013 4:54 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 19 Mar 2013 08:37:51 -0700 (PDT), pigo
wrote this crap:

On Monday, March 18, 2013 12:15:22 PM UTC-6, VtSkier wrote:

When they wrote the Constitution, guns only fired one shot at a time
before a lengthy reload too.

Actually, there was an inventor hundreds of years before who invented
a weapon that would fire multiple rounds. You may have heard of him.
His name was, "Leonardo DaVinci." I'm sure Ben Franklin and other
inventors knew of this. The founding fathers saw guns go from the
matchlock to the flintlock and to the percussion cap. There was no
doubt that they knew more powerful and faster guns would be invented.

Flintlock came about 1600 and was used for more than 200 years. I don't
think our founding fathers saw much use of the matchlock and the
percussion cap didn't come along until about 1820 so IT WAS NOT IN USE
WHEN THE CONSTITUTION WAS BEING WRITTEN. As for Leonardo, he was so far
ahead of his time that most of his designs can't really be called
"inventions" since the technology to build them hadn't been developed
yet. See also his "designs" for flying machines.

Also the percussion cap didn't really increase the rate of fire, it did,
however, reduce the incidence of misfires. Also, it was critical in the
development of metal cartridges which DID increase the rate of fire in
the latter part of the 19th century. Also the metal cartridge made Mr.
Gatling's invention practical. But it still wasn't something you could
carry around very easily. We need the advances of the 20th century for that.

So, it meant that if one wanted/needed many shots to be fired in a
short period of time it took many people (a militia, it the words
of the Constitution). Common sense works better for a group than it
does for an individual.

So yes, common sense was definitely in play at that time, but the
actions of an individual were of less importance too. The reason for
keeping guns out of the hands of a mentally ill person is that the
mentally ill person can do ever so much more damage that he could
back then.

Intersting. Things took a long time to print then too. There was
no broadcast TV or radio. You must be in favor of restricting
the 1st Ammendment too? Which other rights would you "edit"
to pursue your own idea of "freedom"?

I would be in favor of banning facebook and youtube. Two things I
hate. Don't ever send me an e-mail of a link to a youtube video and
say "Dude, check this out, it's so cool." I will put you in my e-mail
filter.


Merry Christmas everyone. God bless us all.

In article ,
VtSkier wrote:

On 3/19/2013 4:54 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 19 Mar 2013 08:37:51 -0700 (PDT), pigo
wrote this crap:

On Monday, March 18, 2013 12:15:22 PM UTC-6, VtSkier wrote:

When they wrote the Constitution, guns only fired one shot at a time
before a lengthy reload too.

Actually, there was an inventor hundreds of years before who invented
a weapon that would fire multiple rounds. You may have heard of him.
His name was, "Leonardo DaVinci." I'm sure Ben Franklin and other
inventors knew of this. The founding fathers saw guns go from the
matchlock to the flintlock and to the percussion cap. There was no
doubt that they knew more powerful and faster guns would be invented.

Flintlock came about 1600 and was used for more than 200 years. I don't
think our founding fathers saw much use of the matchlock and the
percussion cap didn't come along until about 1820 so IT WAS NOT IN USE
WHEN THE CONSTITUTION WAS BEING WRITTEN. As for Leonardo, he was so far
ahead of his time that most of his designs can't really be called
"inventions" since the technology to build them hadn't been developed
yet. See also his "designs" for flying machines.

Also the percussion cap didn't really increase the rate of fire, it did,
however, reduce the incidence of misfires. Also, it was critical in the
development of metal cartridges which DID increase the rate of fire in
the latter part of the 19th century. Also the metal cartridge made Mr.
Gatling's invention practical. But it still wasn't something you could
carry around very easily. We need the advances of the 20th century for that.

Imagine that: Horvath utterly wrong...

--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling four feet, move the fireplace from that wall
to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect if you
sit in the bottom of that cupboard."

pigo wrote:
Someone has the idea to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill.
What's wrong with a country that has to make a law for that? When they
wrote the Constitution, common sense was still in play wasn't it?

A couple of things about the Second Amendment of the US Constitution when
it was ratified in the 1788-1798, and how it applies today. First, the US
was mainly an agrarian economy when the Constitution was ratified. The US
besides many other countries didn't have the money, nor the resources to
finance a standing army. Before the age of the French Revolution and
Napoleon, armies were pretty small. One reason they were small, before the
Industrial Revolution, firearms were hand made, and could not be mass
produced. The Gunsmith was the gun maker back then, and it was a skilled
craftsman, much like gun maker of today are skilled craftsmen in repairing
firearms.

As mainly an agrarian economy. Guns had a dual purpose, as a stand by
for an organized militia, and mainly for hunting. One reason that the main
firearm in the US during the time of ratification of the Second Amendment
was the Kentucky Rifle.

The Second Amendment was written as a compromise between those like
Alexander Hamilton who wanted a strong Federal Government and those, like
Thomas Jefferson and James Madison (the author of the Second Amendment) for
state rights power, such as the organization of a National Army when it was
needed, basically an army set up in structure via state militias, or
organization with that blurred state militias into an Army of the Republic.

What has changed the interpretation of the Second Amendment as a
compromise between Federalist and State Right advocates, has been a
dramatic change in the economic make of the United States of America. The
Industrial Revolution brought mass production and mass wealth to the US.
The US has the GDP to maintain large standing Armed Forces. Firearms can
be mass produced in the millions in factories, not by the hundreds by
craftsmen in a shop. Guns are no longer rare or just a few types of
firearms and muskets with a single shot.

The current high rate of crime in the US didn't start in the 1960s. It
started after the US Civil War, when the mass production of guns flooded
the consumer market when hostilities ended, and crime skyrocketed
throughout the US. There was also a competitive market, with the UK and
Germany making big advances in gun technology, (like the Mauser 98 rifle)
etc.

The Constitution is a living document, but things about the Bill of
Rights are so outdated, like the 3rd Amendment and the twenty dollars to
get a civil jury trial in the Seventh Amendment, that it is hardly written
in stone.

So for all those "original intent" people of the US Constitution, perhaps
we should have the unlimited and unrestricted use of single shot Kentucky
Rifles for the rights to bear arms, instead of a Barrett .50 Semi Automatic
rifle/anti tank weapon.

On 3/19/2013 11:37 AM, pigo wrote:
On Monday, March 18, 2013 12:15:22 PM UTC-6, VtSkier wrote:

When they wrote the Constitution, guns only fired one shot at a time
before a lengthy reload too.

So, it meant that if one wanted/needed many shots to be fired in a
short period of time it took many people (a militia, it the words
of the Constitution). Common sense works better for a group than it
does for an individual.

So yes, common sense was definitely in play at that time, but the
actions of an individual were of less importance too. The reason for
keeping guns out of the hands of a mentally ill person is that the
mentally ill person can do ever so much more damage that he could
back then.

Intersting. Things took a long time to print then too. There was no
broadcast TV or radio. You must be in favor of restricting the 1st
Ammendment
too? Which other rights would you "edit" to pursue your own idea of
"freedom"?

I wouldn't abridge anyone's right to free speech AND free publication,
However:

1. I don't have to listen or read if I don't want to.

2. I wouldn't accept anyone's right to yell "FIRE" in a crowded
auditorium (unless of course there IS a fire).

I am a gun owner (Model 94 Winchester), yet I believe it is not an
infringement of my rights to insist that if it's at all possible, and I
understand it's not always, that someone with mental problems,
especially associated with anger, be limited in their ownership of
firearms. AND I don't think it's necessary to have a gun that holds 30
rounds of ammo to hunt deer. The other stuff, like stock design I agree
is bull****. If a 12 ga. pump has a standard stock or a skeleton stock
and a pistol grip, it's the same gun. Period.

While it's terrible and so forth, that a bunch of kids get shot up in
their school, it's just as terrible that inner city kids get shot dead
on the street every single day somewhere. That's as big a crime as any
mass shooting by a deranged whacko in a school and the perps aren't
particularly deranged who do the street shooting. What do we do about
that? Or do we just let it slip between the cracks? They're mostly black
kids you know.


Nice to see some chatting though. With trunky, via any posts with it's
emails in them wiped off of my computer, this group is really quiet! Looks
like it's still standing on the street corner yelling at all the invisible
(to everyone else) demons that walk past.

On 3/19/2013 6:25 PM, wrote:
pigo wrote:
Someone has the idea to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill.
What's wrong with a country that has to make a law for that? When they
wrote the Constitution, common sense was still in play wasn't it?

A couple of things about the Second Amendment of the US Constitution when
it was ratified in the 1788-1798, and how it applies today. First, the US
was mainly an agrarian economy when the Constitution was ratified. The US
besides many other countries didn't have the money, nor the resources to
finance a standing army. Before the age of the French Revolution and
Napoleon, armies were pretty small. One reason they were small, before the
Industrial Revolution, firearms were hand made, and could not be mass
produced. The Gunsmith was the gun maker back then, and it was a skilled
craftsman, much like gun maker of today are skilled craftsmen in repairing
firearms.

As mainly an agrarian economy. Guns had a dual purpose, as a stand by
for an organized militia, and mainly for hunting. One reason that the main
firearm in the US during the time of ratification of the Second Amendment
was the Kentucky Rifle.

The Second Amendment was written as a compromise between those like
Alexander Hamilton who wanted a strong Federal Government and those, like
Thomas Jefferson and James Madison (the author of the Second Amendment) for
state rights power, such as the organization of a National Army when it was
needed, basically an army set up in structure via state militias, or
organization with that blurred state militias into an Army of the Republic.

What has changed the interpretation of the Second Amendment as a
compromise between Federalist and State Right advocates, has been a
dramatic change in the economic make of the United States of America. The
Industrial Revolution brought mass production and mass wealth to the US.
The US has the GDP to maintain large standing Armed Forces. Firearms can
be mass produced in the millions in factories, not by the hundreds by
craftsmen in a shop. Guns are no longer rare or just a few types of
firearms and muskets with a single shot.

The current high rate of crime in the US didn't start in the 1960s. It
started after the US Civil War, when the mass production of guns flooded
the consumer market when hostilities ended, and crime skyrocketed
throughout the US. There was also a competitive market, with the UK and
Germany making big advances in gun technology, (like the Mauser 98 rifle)
etc.

The Constitution is a living document, but things about the Bill of
Rights are so outdated, like the 3rd Amendment and the twenty dollars to
get a civil jury trial in the Seventh Amendment, that it is hardly written
in stone.

So for all those "original intent" people of the US Constitution, perhaps
we should have the unlimited and unrestricted use of single shot Kentucky
Rifles for the rights to bear arms, instead of a Barrett .50 Semi Automatic
rifle/anti tank weapon.

Hear here!

On Tue, 19 Mar 2013 19:14:57 -0400, VtSkier
wrote this crap:


So for all those "original intent" people of the US Constitution, perhaps
we should have the unlimited and unrestricted use of single shot Kentucky
Rifles for the rights to bear arms, instead of a Barrett .50 Semi Automatic
rifle/anti tank weapon.

Hear here!

Then we don't have phones and computers? No radio, no TV? No movies?
No DVDs? Only newspapers, the press?


Don't drink and drive. Unless you have a good cup holder.

On Tuesday, March 19, 2013 4:25:30 PM UTC-6, comadrejo wrote:

I want my 30 round clips to shoot the Adam Lanza's of the world when they appear within range.

I want it for when civility breaks down as the current regime seems to be attempting to facilitate by pitting people against each other.

I want it because there are people out there that don't want me to have it. But those people don't know what it is to take care of themselves anyway.