New Tactical Cycling Maneuver

On 9/29/2020 10:58 PM, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 29 Sep 2020 22:12:12 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 9/29/2020 6:53 PM, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 29 Sep 2020 11:52:28 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 9/28/2020 11:58 PM, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 28 Sep 2020 22:30:22 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote:

Here are some highly rated hunting rifles:
https://www.fieldandstream.com/story...ing-big-woods/

https://squirrelhuntingjournal.com/t...rifles-budget/

I can link to more. But most "sportsmen" (the term hunters often use for
themselves) do not consider guns with combat features to be the best
tool for hunting. It thus seems inaccurate at best to consider an AR to
be a "civilian sporting arm." Unless the "sport" is armed combat.

Well, I suppose that it depends on what "sportsmen" means. After all
the AR type firearm is extensively used in target shooting. Or aren't
target shooters considered sportsmen?

Come on, John. You said you shot competitively, right? If so, you know
about target shooting competitions.

Given a free choice of gun type, you can't pretend a high level
competitor would use an AR rifle in a match. It's the wrong tool for the
job.

https://www.snipercentral.com/ruger-...t-full-review/

https://www.browning.com/products/fi...es/x-bolt.html

There's lots of target shooting with ARs only because lots of guys think
ARs are cool, so that's what they buy. It's a fashion thing, as
senseless as most other fashion things.

Well, once again you hit the target.... well except that the target is
evidence that you don't know what you are talking about.

See: https://www.pewpewtactical.com/best-precision-ar15/
https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/bu...residents-100/

They are very commonly used in matches that specify "service rifle"
and apparently have been since the 1950's and 1960's, see
https://thecmp.org/2016-cmp-rifle-an...-rule-changes/

You're talking about matches that restrict the choice of guns, so as to
disallow the really accurate match rifles. I was talking about "given a
free choice of gun type."

Frank, I shot competitively for a number of years and to the best of
my knowledge ALL matches restrict the choice of guns.

That does not change the fact that I said "Given a free choice of gun
type." Do you not understand conditional clauses?

IF you had a free choice of gun type to bring to a shooting match, you
would not bring an AR style gun. Other types are much more accurate.
Don't dance around that fact.

The AR style is chosen for other reasons, mostly tough-guy fashion.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 9/30/2020 10:51 AM, jbeattie wrote:
On Wednesday, September 30, 2020 at 6:48:47 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
On 9/29/2020 9:58 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 9/29/2020 10:12 PM, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 29 Sep 2020 22:02:35 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 9/29/2020 9:23 PM, John B. wrote:

During one of the riots in Jakarta I watched a group of
rioters
approaching an intersection where one policeman was
standing. The cop
waved his arms and shouted and the mob kept coming. He
pulled out his
pistol and fired one shot, noticeably into the air, and
the mod turned
tail and ran.

So you each gave an example where only one shot (even a
blank!) was
needed to turn away multiple bad guys. That's actually
pretty typical.

Your term "needed" a bit misleading as in other instances
of the riots
it was necessary to fire many shots.

Who fired them, please?

Did you forget that I was talking about civilian arms?

You don't need to be able to blast off a dozen rounds in
a minute.

I asked you before and you declined to reply. What sort of
firearm do
you have in mind that is impossible to fire "a dozen
rounds a minute".

There already are examples. Modern break action shotguns are
one type. But it's certainly possible to design that
rounds-in-a-minute limit into most types of guns. It's not
rocket science.


Perhaps if we outlaw all cartridge firing weapons and go
back to
muzzle loading muskets. The British army, during the
Napoleonic wars,
was only capable of firing 3 shots a minute in sustained
volley
firing.

And of course, you're talking about the type of gun they had
in mind when they wrote the second amendment! Personally, I
think that they'd have phrased it much differently if they
knew about the choices available to today's gun nuts.



That makes no sense at all. American schoolchildren once
learned about Lexington and Paul Revere but you were
apparently out that day.

Our beloved 2d is directly drawn from that engagement, in
which the British garrison left Boston in the dead of night
to destroy the rifle works at Lexington. At the time, these
were among the longest range most accurate firearms on the
planet, significantly superior to the regular issue 'Brown
Bess' musket. Every man in Philadelphia was very much
acquainted with our recent history.

The Second Amendment was a limitation on federal power and intended to preserve the right to own and bear arms in service of a well regulated militia. It has to be viewed in the context of existing state or colonial constitutions, many of which required gun ownership as part of compulsory service in the militia, typically to fight off natives, slave rebellions, non-British Europeans, etc.

A true "originalist" would read the phrase "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" as meaning what it says, viz., that the individual right to bear arms is guaranteed against federal interference when it is in service of a state militia.

Moreover, nothing in the Bill of Rights prevented the states from regulating weapons, which they did, prohibiting ownership by free blacks, Catholics, those who didn't swear loyalty oaths, slaves, indentured servants among others. The Second Amendment was not clearly extended to the states until 2010 -- under the 14th Amendment. A true conservative would see this as federal over-reach and interference with state's rights. We need to return to the era before 1868 and the Fourteenth Amendment, back when states were free! Activist judges have extended the Second Amendment to the free states.

Well said.


--
- Frank Krygowski

On 9/30/2020 1:26 AM, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 29 Sep 2020 22:58:43 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 9/29/2020 10:12 PM, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 29 Sep 2020 22:02:35 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 9/29/2020 9:23 PM, John B. wrote:

During one of the riots in Jakarta I watched a group of rioters
approaching an intersection where one policeman was standing. The cop
waved his arms and shouted and the mob kept coming. He pulled out his
pistol and fired one shot, noticeably into the air, and the mod turned
tail and ran.

So you each gave an example where only one shot (even a blank!) was
needed to turn away multiple bad guys. That's actually pretty typical.

Your term "needed" a bit misleading as in other instances of the riots
it was necessary to fire many shots.

Who fired them, please?
The police and the army.


Did you forget that I was talking about civilian arms?

You were? I specifically mentioned a policeman , you replied, "an
example where only one shot (even a blank!) was needed to turn away
multiple bad guys." and now you tell us that you were talking about
civilians.

Frank, you just have to stop this changing the target. Your arguments
are becoming extremely reminiscent of Tom.


You don't need to be able to blast off a dozen rounds in a minute.

I asked you before and you declined to reply. What sort of firearm do
you have in mind that is impossible to fire "a dozen rounds a minute".

There already are examples. Modern break action shotguns are one type.
But it's certainly possible to design that rounds-in-a-minute limit into
most types of guns. It's not rocket science.

I thought I posted a reference to a bloke with a break action shotgun
firing something like 30 rounds in one minute?

But further to your scheme, you plan to outlaw essentially all of the
existing cartridge using firearms in the world and substitute some
sort of gun that incorporated a clock to prevent the firing of more
then X shots in one minute?"

And the justification is that you don't think that an AR-15 is a
proper firearm?

I read that "According to BATF data there have been 17.7 million
modern sporting rifles (MSR) made or imported into the US since 1990.
That would include other rifles like AK clones, but the majority would
be ARs. 54% of all rifles sold in 2017 were MSRs. That number comes
from the BATF’s annual reports of firearms manufactured and
imported..."
https://www.quora.com/How-many-AR-15...merica?share=1

In this corner we have Frank and in the other some 17.7 million owners
of a "modern sporting rifle".... and the vote is?

I'm not denying the popularity of the AR style. I'm explaining it, and
how silly it is, and how detrimental to society.

In a similar way, I don't deny that there are many other stupid
fashions, everything from "rolling coal" to Kardashians. "It's popular,
so it must be good!" is an intellectually empty, vapid argument.

Perhaps if we outlaw all cartridge firing weapons and go back to
muzzle loading muskets. The British army, during the Napoleonic wars,
was only capable of firing 3 shots a minute in sustained volley
firing.

And of course, you're talking about the type of gun they had in mind
when they wrote the second amendment! Personally, I think that they'd
have phrased it much differently if they knew about the choices
available to today's gun nuts.

There you go again. The 2nd Amendment is quite specific that the
intent is for the state to have a "A well regulated Militia" and I'm
fairly sure that had automatic forearms been available in 1791 they
would have been welcomed by the embryo U.S.

:-) You're fairly sure?

I'm fairly sure that the reason the 2nd amendment mentions "well
regulated militia" is because they intended weapons to be used by a well
regulated militia. There can be no other reason for inclusion of that
phrase.

It took the likes of the grifter LaPierre to con gun nuts into demanding
our current state of gun chaos. But even rational gun users are calling
for more controls. https://time.com/5197807/stricter-gun-laws-nra/


--
- Frank Krygowski

On 9/29/2020 11:35 PM, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 29 Sep 2020 22:46:39 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 9/29/2020 9:18 PM, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 29 Sep 2020 12:01:30 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote:


No, sorry, you're remembering wrong. Or perhaps still confused.

You were fixating on instantaneous firing rate - like a guy with a six
shot revolver who can pull the trigger six times in three seconds. You
were saying "See? That would be 120 rounds per minute!" My response was
that it would NOT be 120 rounds _in_ one minute. For anyone who hadn't
practiced like crazy, reloading would consume most of the minute.

So who _does_ really need to fire more than a couple shots within a
minute? Who _does_ really need to fire more than five to ten shots in a
minute?


By the way, you might want to look at:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SJMbxZ1k9NQ
it shows a chap with a flintlock Brown Bess musket that went into
service in the English army in 1722 firing 3 shots in 46 seconds.

I've seen that sort of demonstration live. So is that your answer? "The
person who needs to shoot lots of shots in one minute is a soldier
trying to kill other soldiers."

If so, I agree! But Walter "Rambo" Mitty who plays combat games on his
mom's computer doesn't need that capability in real life. And providing
it is detrimental to society.

Frank, you really should stop replying as time after time your
responses demonstrate that you know nothing about the subject.

Most, I'd almost say all, modern firearms today will fire more then
your mythical 10 - 15 rounds in one minute and I've posted references
to them. some even with moving pictures.

And I've said _repeatedly_ that I know that! Read upthread and see.

But to add to the pot here is an example of a bloke firing a revolver:
https://www.personaldefenseworld.com...-record-video/
Using the Smith and Wesson 929 Miculek Series Revolver, he fired off
16 rounds with a reload in 4.01 seconds.

And I already knew that similar things have long been done. You're not
adding information, John. You're harping on that point indicates you're
not grasping what I'm saying.

Now, of course, you move the goal posts again and say "need to..." and
I can assure you that shooting "doubles" at trap or skeet you need to
be able to fire as fast as you can pull the trigger.

Sorry, that's not what I've seen. You need to shoot one clay then shoot
another maybe a second later. Then there's a pause, because the next
competitor gets to shoot. I mean, come on John! Those guns don't come
with drum magazines!

Quite obviously you don't know what you are talking about as at
"doubles" they throw two birds at the same time, see:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dvrdd3rwgGk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=13BoNq9LM1g
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KBH8wFfjbn4

Thanks, John! Your videos confirmed what I said. Shoot twice, then wait.
The only difference is that the world record holders shoot twice more
quickly. But nobody shoots more than about four rounds in a minute. And
hey, look at those guns! No AR style, and the shooters break them open
and load the shells by hand!

Golly, if you say ARs are so wonderful, why aren't those guys using them?

And, while I've
not experienced it personally, I have read instances where it was
vitally necessary for an individual hunting dangerious game to be able
to empty his gun-in seconds. A lion can run ~74 feet, say 25 yards in
one second.

OK, and what size magazine is used for lion hunting? How often is it
"emptied"? Whatever those answers, it has nothing to do with typical
American civilian gun owners.

What's this? A new rule? No Big magazines?

What's this? A new situation? Everyone needs a gun that can fend off an
attacking lion?

Big magazines are very useful if you're going to spray bullets at a
music concert in Nevada. Or into a southern church. Or around a school
building. Or into a night club. Or (as nearby me) when some crazy blasts
his way into a living room, or rival gangs of punks blast at each other
over drug territory disputes.

Aside from that, anything more than ten rounds is a mere convenience.
Balance that against the lives lost and the difficulties for law
enforcement.

What about chipmunks? I know a guy that was attacked and bitten by a
chipmunk once. Created a hell of a problem as there was some thought
that the chipmunk might be rabid and they couldn't catch the chipmunk
to teat it so the guy had to get all those shots in the belly.

You're claiming that high capacity magazines and AR style guns are
needed against chipmunks?? Hah!! :-)



--
- Frank Krygowski

On Wednesday, September 30, 2020 at 7:51:05 AM UTC-7, jbeattie wrote:
On Wednesday, September 30, 2020 at 6:48:47 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
On 9/29/2020 9:58 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 9/29/2020 10:12 PM, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 29 Sep 2020 22:02:35 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 9/29/2020 9:23 PM, John B. wrote:

During one of the riots in Jakarta I watched a group of
rioters
approaching an intersection where one policeman was
standing. The cop
waved his arms and shouted and the mob kept coming. He
pulled out his
pistol and fired one shot, noticeably into the air, and
the mod turned
tail and ran.

So you each gave an example where only one shot (even a
blank!) was
needed to turn away multiple bad guys. That's actually
pretty typical.

Your term "needed" a bit misleading as in other instances
of the riots
it was necessary to fire many shots.

Who fired them, please?

Did you forget that I was talking about civilian arms?

You don't need to be able to blast off a dozen rounds in
a minute.

I asked you before and you declined to reply. What sort of
firearm do
you have in mind that is impossible to fire "a dozen
rounds a minute".

There already are examples. Modern break action shotguns are
one type. But it's certainly possible to design that
rounds-in-a-minute limit into most types of guns. It's not
rocket science.


Perhaps if we outlaw all cartridge firing weapons and go
back to
muzzle loading muskets. The British army, during the
Napoleonic wars,
was only capable of firing 3 shots a minute in sustained
volley
firing.

And of course, you're talking about the type of gun they had
in mind when they wrote the second amendment! Personally, I
think that they'd have phrased it much differently if they
knew about the choices available to today's gun nuts.



That makes no sense at all. American schoolchildren once
learned about Lexington and Paul Revere but you were
apparently out that day.

Our beloved 2d is directly drawn from that engagement, in
which the British garrison left Boston in the dead of night
to destroy the rifle works at Lexington. At the time, these
were among the longest range most accurate firearms on the
planet, significantly superior to the regular issue 'Brown
Bess' musket. Every man in Philadelphia was very much
acquainted with our recent history.
The Second Amendment was a limitation on federal power and intended to preserve the right to own and bear arms in service of a well regulated militia. It has to be viewed in the context of existing state or colonial constitutions, many of which required gun ownership as part of compulsory service in the militia, typically to fight off natives, slave rebellions, non-British Europeans, etc.

A true "originalist" would read the phrase "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" as meaning what it says, viz., that the individual right to bear arms is guaranteed against federal interference when it is in service of a state militia.

Moreover, nothing in the Bill of Rights prevented the states from regulating weapons, which they did, prohibiting ownership by free blacks, Catholics, those who didn't swear loyalty oaths, slaves, indentured servants among others. The Second Amendment was not clearly extended to the states until 2010 -- under the 14th Amendment. A true conservative would see this as federal over-reach and interference with state's rights. We need to return to the era before 1868 and the Fourteenth Amendment, back when states were free! Activist judges have extended the Second Amendment to the free states.

Is there some reason that you decided to put in your own definition rather than that of the Supreme Court?

On Wednesday, September 30, 2020 at 10:06:36 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 9/29/2020 11:35 PM, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 29 Sep 2020 22:46:39 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 9/29/2020 9:18 PM, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 29 Sep 2020 12:01:30 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote:


No, sorry, you're remembering wrong. Or perhaps still confused.

You were fixating on instantaneous firing rate - like a guy with a six
shot revolver who can pull the trigger six times in three seconds. You
were saying "See? That would be 120 rounds per minute!" My response was
that it would NOT be 120 rounds _in_ one minute. For anyone who hadn't
practiced like crazy, reloading would consume most of the minute.

So who _does_ really need to fire more than a couple shots within a
minute? Who _does_ really need to fire more than five to ten shots in a
minute?


By the way, you might want to look at:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SJMbxZ1k9NQ
it shows a chap with a flintlock Brown Bess musket that went into
service in the English army in 1722 firing 3 shots in 46 seconds.

I've seen that sort of demonstration live. So is that your answer? "The
person who needs to shoot lots of shots in one minute is a soldier
trying to kill other soldiers."

If so, I agree! But Walter "Rambo" Mitty who plays combat games on his
mom's computer doesn't need that capability in real life. And providing
it is detrimental to society.

Frank, you really should stop replying as time after time your
responses demonstrate that you know nothing about the subject.

Most, I'd almost say all, modern firearms today will fire more then
your mythical 10 - 15 rounds in one minute and I've posted references
to them. some even with moving pictures.

And I've said _repeatedly_ that I know that! Read upthread and see.

But to add to the pot here is an example of a bloke firing a revolver:
https://www.personaldefenseworld.com...-record-video/
Using the Smith and Wesson 929 Miculek Series Revolver, he fired off
16 rounds with a reload in 4.01 seconds.

And I already knew that similar things have long been done. You're not
adding information, John. You're harping on that point indicates you're
not grasping what I'm saying.

Now, of course, you move the goal posts again and say "need to..." and
I can assure you that shooting "doubles" at trap or skeet you need to
be able to fire as fast as you can pull the trigger.

Sorry, that's not what I've seen. You need to shoot one clay then shoot
another maybe a second later. Then there's a pause, because the next
competitor gets to shoot. I mean, come on John! Those guns don't come
with drum magazines!

Quite obviously you don't know what you are talking about as at
"doubles" they throw two birds at the same time, see:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dvrdd3rwgGk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=13BoNq9LM1g
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KBH8wFfjbn4
Thanks, John! Your videos confirmed what I said. Shoot twice, then wait.
The only difference is that the world record holders shoot twice more
quickly. But nobody shoots more than about four rounds in a minute. And
hey, look at those guns! No AR style, and the shooters break them open
and load the shells by hand!

Golly, if you say ARs are so wonderful, why aren't those guys using them?
And, while I've
not experienced it personally, I have read instances where it was
vitally necessary for an individual hunting dangerious game to be able
to empty his gun-in seconds. A lion can run ~74 feet, say 25 yards in
one second.

OK, and what size magazine is used for lion hunting? How often is it
"emptied"? Whatever those answers, it has nothing to do with typical
American civilian gun owners.

What's this? A new rule? No Big magazines?
What's this? A new situation? Everyone needs a gun that can fend off an
attacking lion?

Big magazines are very useful if you're going to spray bullets at a
music concert in Nevada. Or into a southern church. Or around a school
building. Or into a night club. Or (as nearby me) when some crazy blasts
his way into a living room, or rival gangs of punks blast at each other
over drug territory disputes.

Aside from that, anything more than ten rounds is a mere convenience.
Balance that against the lives lost and the difficulties for law
enforcement.
What about chipmunks? I know a guy that was attacked and bitten by a
chipmunk once. Created a hell of a problem as there was some thought
that the chipmunk might be rabid and they couldn't catch the chipmunk
to teat it so the guy had to get all those shots in the belly.
You're claiming that high capacity magazines and AR style guns are
needed against chipmunks?? Hah!! :-)

What people which to do with their Constitutional right to own a gun is none of your business. It certainly seems to kill you that people other than yourself have the right to do what they want. Sorry stupid, you cannot step upon the rights of others without serious consequences and I'm sure you've discovered that already and that is why your great fear of guns.

On Wednesday, September 30, 2020 at 9:49:31 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 9/30/2020 1:26 AM, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 29 Sep 2020 22:58:43 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 9/29/2020 10:12 PM, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 29 Sep 2020 22:02:35 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 9/29/2020 9:23 PM, John B. wrote:

During one of the riots in Jakarta I watched a group of rioters
approaching an intersection where one policeman was standing. The cop
waved his arms and shouted and the mob kept coming. He pulled out his
pistol and fired one shot, noticeably into the air, and the mod turned
tail and ran.

So you each gave an example where only one shot (even a blank!) was
needed to turn away multiple bad guys. That's actually pretty typical.

Your term "needed" a bit misleading as in other instances of the riots
it was necessary to fire many shots.

Who fired them, please?
The police and the army.


Did you forget that I was talking about civilian arms?

You were? I specifically mentioned a policeman , you replied, "an
example where only one shot (even a blank!) was needed to turn away
multiple bad guys." and now you tell us that you were talking about
civilians.

Frank, you just have to stop this changing the target. Your arguments
are becoming extremely reminiscent of Tom.


You don't need to be able to blast off a dozen rounds in a minute.

I asked you before and you declined to reply. What sort of firearm do
you have in mind that is impossible to fire "a dozen rounds a minute"..

There already are examples. Modern break action shotguns are one type.
But it's certainly possible to design that rounds-in-a-minute limit into
most types of guns. It's not rocket science.

I thought I posted a reference to a bloke with a break action shotgun
firing something like 30 rounds in one minute?

But further to your scheme, you plan to outlaw essentially all of the
existing cartridge using firearms in the world and substitute some
sort of gun that incorporated a clock to prevent the firing of more
then X shots in one minute?"

And the justification is that you don't think that an AR-15 is a
proper firearm?

I read that "According to BATF data there have been 17.7 million
modern sporting rifles (MSR) made or imported into the US since 1990.
That would include other rifles like AK clones, but the majority would
be ARs. 54% of all rifles sold in 2017 were MSRs. That number comes
from the BATF’s annual reports of firearms manufactured and
imported..."
https://www.quora.com/How-many-AR-15...merica?share=1

In this corner we have Frank and in the other some 17.7 million owners
of a "modern sporting rifle".... and the vote is?
I'm not denying the popularity of the AR style. I'm explaining it, and
how silly it is, and how detrimental to society.

In a similar way, I don't deny that there are many other stupid
fashions, everything from "rolling coal" to Kardashians. "It's popular,
so it must be good!" is an intellectually empty, vapid argument.
Perhaps if we outlaw all cartridge firing weapons and go back to
muzzle loading muskets. The British army, during the Napoleonic wars,
was only capable of firing 3 shots a minute in sustained volley
firing.

And of course, you're talking about the type of gun they had in mind
when they wrote the second amendment! Personally, I think that they'd
have phrased it much differently if they knew about the choices
available to today's gun nuts.

There you go again. The 2nd Amendment is quite specific that the
intent is for the state to have a "A well regulated Militia" and I'm
fairly sure that had automatic forearms been available in 1791 they
would have been welcomed by the embryo U.S.
:-) You're fairly sure?

I'm fairly sure that the reason the 2nd amendment mentions "well
regulated militia" is because they intended weapons to be used by a well
regulated militia. There can be no other reason for inclusion of that
phrase.

It took the likes of the grifter LaPierre to con gun nuts into demanding
our current state of gun chaos. But even rational gun users are calling
for more controls. https://time.com/5197807/stricter-gun-laws-nra/

What you're pretty sure of is meaningless since you have never bothered to read the Federalist Papers nor to actually read the Constitution.

“A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined…� – George Washington, First Annual Address, to both House of Congress, January 8, 1790

“No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.� – Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776

“I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery.� – Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, January 30, 1787

“What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms.� – Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, December 20, 1787

The 2nd Amendment reads, “A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.�

We realize that like most teachers you are very close to illiterate, there is a comma between the recognition that militias should be well regulated and the fact that we shall never have the right to keep and bear arms defiled by the crawling snakes of this land like you.

On Wednesday, September 30, 2020 at 9:39:09 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 9/30/2020 10:51 AM, jbeattie wrote:
On Wednesday, September 30, 2020 at 6:48:47 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
On 9/29/2020 9:58 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 9/29/2020 10:12 PM, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 29 Sep 2020 22:02:35 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 9/29/2020 9:23 PM, John B. wrote:

During one of the riots in Jakarta I watched a group of
rioters
approaching an intersection where one policeman was
standing. The cop
waved his arms and shouted and the mob kept coming. He
pulled out his
pistol and fired one shot, noticeably into the air, and
the mod turned
tail and ran.

So you each gave an example where only one shot (even a
blank!) was
needed to turn away multiple bad guys. That's actually
pretty typical.

Your term "needed" a bit misleading as in other instances
of the riots
it was necessary to fire many shots.

Who fired them, please?

Did you forget that I was talking about civilian arms?

You don't need to be able to blast off a dozen rounds in
a minute.

I asked you before and you declined to reply. What sort of
firearm do
you have in mind that is impossible to fire "a dozen
rounds a minute".

There already are examples. Modern break action shotguns are
one type. But it's certainly possible to design that
rounds-in-a-minute limit into most types of guns. It's not
rocket science.


Perhaps if we outlaw all cartridge firing weapons and go
back to
muzzle loading muskets. The British army, during the
Napoleonic wars,
was only capable of firing 3 shots a minute in sustained
volley
firing.

And of course, you're talking about the type of gun they had
in mind when they wrote the second amendment! Personally, I
think that they'd have phrased it much differently if they
knew about the choices available to today's gun nuts.



That makes no sense at all. American schoolchildren once
learned about Lexington and Paul Revere but you were
apparently out that day.

Our beloved 2d is directly drawn from that engagement, in
which the British garrison left Boston in the dead of night
to destroy the rifle works at Lexington. At the time, these
were among the longest range most accurate firearms on the
planet, significantly superior to the regular issue 'Brown
Bess' musket. Every man in Philadelphia was very much
acquainted with our recent history.

The Second Amendment was a limitation on federal power and intended to preserve the right to own and bear arms in service of a well regulated militia. It has to be viewed in the context of existing state or colonial constitutions, many of which required gun ownership as part of compulsory service in the militia, typically to fight off natives, slave rebellions, non-British Europeans, etc.

A true "originalist" would read the phrase "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" as meaning what it says, viz., that the individual right to bear arms is guaranteed against federal interference when it is in service of a state militia.

Moreover, nothing in the Bill of Rights prevented the states from regulating weapons, which they did, prohibiting ownership by free blacks, Catholics, those who didn't swear loyalty oaths, slaves, indentured servants among others. The Second Amendment was not clearly extended to the states until 2010 -- under the 14th Amendment. A true conservative would see this as federal over-reach and interference with state's rights. We need to return to the era before 1868 and the Fourteenth Amendment, back when states were free! Activist judges have extended the Second Amendment to the free states.

Well said.


--
- Frank Krygowski

Well, said somewhat sarcastically, too, since the conservatives are fine if SCOTUS makes sh** up that they like.

I just got four shooting cases at work -- all in strip clubs or strip club parking lots and all with handguns. Three deaths and one critical. This is not typical Portland.

I represent an insurer that insures strip clubs. The clubs are open now, but no lap dancing due to social distancing. I think the frustration may be causing violence. I'm waiting for Trump to issue an executive order requiring the states to allow lap dancing to reduce homicides and suicides.

-- Jay Beattie.

On Wednesday, September 30, 2020 at 11:50:21 AM UTC-7, jbeattie wrote:
On Wednesday, September 30, 2020 at 9:39:09 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 9/30/2020 10:51 AM, jbeattie wrote:
On Wednesday, September 30, 2020 at 6:48:47 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
On 9/29/2020 9:58 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 9/29/2020 10:12 PM, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 29 Sep 2020 22:02:35 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 9/29/2020 9:23 PM, John B. wrote:

During one of the riots in Jakarta I watched a group of
rioters
approaching an intersection where one policeman was
standing. The cop
waved his arms and shouted and the mob kept coming. He
pulled out his
pistol and fired one shot, noticeably into the air, and
the mod turned
tail and ran.

So you each gave an example where only one shot (even a
blank!) was
needed to turn away multiple bad guys. That's actually
pretty typical.

Your term "needed" a bit misleading as in other instances
of the riots
it was necessary to fire many shots.

Who fired them, please?

Did you forget that I was talking about civilian arms?

You don't need to be able to blast off a dozen rounds in
a minute.

I asked you before and you declined to reply. What sort of
firearm do
you have in mind that is impossible to fire "a dozen
rounds a minute".

There already are examples. Modern break action shotguns are
one type. But it's certainly possible to design that
rounds-in-a-minute limit into most types of guns. It's not
rocket science.


Perhaps if we outlaw all cartridge firing weapons and go
back to
muzzle loading muskets. The British army, during the
Napoleonic wars,
was only capable of firing 3 shots a minute in sustained
volley
firing.

And of course, you're talking about the type of gun they had
in mind when they wrote the second amendment! Personally, I
think that they'd have phrased it much differently if they
knew about the choices available to today's gun nuts.



That makes no sense at all. American schoolchildren once
learned about Lexington and Paul Revere but you were
apparently out that day.

Our beloved 2d is directly drawn from that engagement, in
which the British garrison left Boston in the dead of night
to destroy the rifle works at Lexington. At the time, these
were among the longest range most accurate firearms on the
planet, significantly superior to the regular issue 'Brown
Bess' musket. Every man in Philadelphia was very much
acquainted with our recent history.

The Second Amendment was a limitation on federal power and intended to preserve the right to own and bear arms in service of a well regulated militia. It has to be viewed in the context of existing state or colonial constitutions, many of which required gun ownership as part of compulsory service in the militia, typically to fight off natives, slave rebellions, non-British Europeans, etc.

A true "originalist" would read the phrase "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" as meaning what it says, viz., that the individual right to bear arms is guaranteed against federal interference when it is in service of a state militia.

Moreover, nothing in the Bill of Rights prevented the states from regulating weapons, which they did, prohibiting ownership by free blacks, Catholics, those who didn't swear loyalty oaths, slaves, indentured servants among others. The Second Amendment was not clearly extended to the states until 2010 -- under the 14th Amendment. A true conservative would see this as federal over-reach and interference with state's rights. We need to return to the era before 1868 and the Fourteenth Amendment, back when states were free! Activist judges have extended the Second Amendment to the free states..

Well said.


--
- Frank Krygowski
Well, said somewhat sarcastically, too, since the conservatives are fine if SCOTUS makes sh** up that they like.

I just got four shooting cases at work -- all in strip clubs or strip club parking lots and all with handguns. Three deaths and one critical. This is not typical Portland.

I represent an insurer that insures strip clubs. The clubs are open now, but no lap dancing due to social distancing. I think the frustration may be causing violence. I'm waiting for Trump to issue an executive order requiring the states to allow lap dancing to reduce homicides and suicides.

I quoted the Federalist Papers to Stupid Frank since they actually describe by the founders themselves what they were thinking when they wrote the Constitution. So why are you pretending that anyone is making up anything?

“The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes…. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.� – Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776

This is why you are a lawyer and Supreme Court Justices are Justices.

jbeattie wrote:
On Wednesday, September 30, 2020 at 9:39:09 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 9/30/2020 10:51 AM, jbeattie wrote:
On Wednesday, September 30, 2020 at 6:48:47 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
On 9/29/2020 9:58 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 9/29/2020 10:12 PM, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 29 Sep 2020 22:02:35 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 9/29/2020 9:23 PM, John B. wrote:

During one of the riots in Jakarta I watched a group of
rioters
approaching an intersection where one policeman was
standing. The cop
waved his arms and shouted and the mob kept coming. He
pulled out his
pistol and fired one shot, noticeably into the air, and
the mod turned
tail and ran.

So you each gave an example where only one shot (even a
blank!) was
needed to turn away multiple bad guys. That's actually
pretty typical.

Your term "needed" a bit misleading as in other instances
of the riots
it was necessary to fire many shots.

Who fired them, please?

Did you forget that I was talking about civilian arms?

You don't need to be able to blast off a dozen rounds in
a minute.

I asked you before and you declined to reply. What sort of
firearm do
you have in mind that is impossible to fire "a dozen
rounds a minute".

There already are examples. Modern break action shotguns are
one type. But it's certainly possible to design that
rounds-in-a-minute limit into most types of guns. It's not
rocket science.


Perhaps if we outlaw all cartridge firing weapons and go
back to
muzzle loading muskets. The British army, during the
Napoleonic wars,
was only capable of firing 3 shots a minute in sustained
volley
firing.

And of course, you're talking about the type of gun they had
in mind when they wrote the second amendment! Personally, I
think that they'd have phrased it much differently if they
knew about the choices available to today's gun nuts.



That makes no sense at all. American schoolchildren once
learned about Lexington and Paul Revere but you were
apparently out that day.

Our beloved 2d is directly drawn from that engagement, in
which the British garrison left Boston in the dead of night
to destroy the rifle works at Lexington. At the time, these
were among the longest range most accurate firearms on the
planet, significantly superior to the regular issue 'Brown
Bess' musket. Every man in Philadelphia was very much
acquainted with our recent history.

The Second Amendment was a limitation on federal power and intended to
preserve the right to own and bear arms in service of a well regulated
militia. It has to be viewed in the context of existing state or
colonial constitutions, many of which required gun ownership as part of
compulsory service in the militia, typically to fight off natives,
slave rebellions, non-British Europeans, etc.

A true "originalist" would read the phrase "A well regulated Militia,
being necessary to the security of a free State" as meaning what it
says, viz., that the individual right to bear arms is guaranteed
against federal interference when it is in service of a state militia.

Moreover, nothing in the Bill of Rights prevented the states from
regulating weapons, which they did, prohibiting ownership by free
blacks, Catholics, those who didn't swear loyalty oaths, slaves,
indentured servants among others. The Second Amendment was not clearly
extended to the states until 2010 -- under the 14th Amendment. A true
conservative would see this as federal over-reach and interference with
state's rights. We need to return to the era before 1868 and the
Fourteenth Amendment, back when states were free! Activist judges have
extended the Second Amendment to the free states.

Well said.


--
- Frank Krygowski

Well, said somewhat sarcastically, too, since the conservatives are fine
if SCOTUS makes sh** up that they like.

I just got four shooting cases at work -- all in strip clubs or strip
club parking lots and all with handguns. Three deaths and one critical.
This is not typical Portland.

I represent an insurer that insures strip clubs. The clubs are open now,
but no lap dancing due to social distancing. I think the frustration may
be causing violence. I'm waiting for Trump to issue an executive order
requiring the states to allow lap dancing to reduce homicides and suicides.

-- Jay Beattie.



Boy, is that ever an unintended consequence. You should be talking to the
guys who wrote Freakonomics.