Really, really dumb

On Tuesday, January 14, 2020 at 12:44:48 PM UTC-8, jbeattie wrote:
On Tuesday, January 14, 2020 at 11:15:56 AM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
On 1/14/2020 6:37 AM, Eric Pozharski wrote:
with Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/12/2020 10:47 PM, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 12 Jan 2020 21:46:37 -0500, Frank Krygowski wrote:

I'm not panicking. But unlike the NRA and its current (as opposed to
historic) members, I don't think it's a good thing to arm millions
of citizens with guns designed specifically for killing other
people. Most of the developed world agrees.
But Frank, every type of firearm invented in the history of the
weapon can be said to be designed for killing people. The modern bolt
action rifle is a descendent of the so called "Needle Rifle"
developed in 1836, and adopted by the Prussian Army in 1841. The
first "lever action" rifle, an American classic, was developed by
Benjamin Tyler Henry. Patented in 1960 it was in the hand of Union
Soldiers by mid 1862.
*SKIP*
You mentioned bows and arrows. But the bows sold in sporting goods
stores near me were never designed with homicide or armed combat in
mind. The AR-15 absolutely was.

Speaking of. Just a week ago a clerk (she wasn't even kind of chief or
somehting) had been nailed to her car with an arrow (crossbow I believe,
I've never seen a bow being sold). Getting permit for firearms is quite
cumbersome here however possible. Go figure -- crossbows don't kill
people.

*CUT*


hmmm.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world...naged-survive/

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/boy-thr...t-by-crossbow/

https://kfor.com/2017/10/23/official...r-old-injured/

https://abcnews.go.com/International...ry?id=62448191

https://www.freep.com/story/news/loc...es/2449871002/

UK has more restrictive firearms regulation:
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...rth-wales-dies

Couldn't find 'pinned to car with crossbow bolt'.

p.s. in a random sample of weapons seized with some stone
cold killers, not one crossbow and not one AR-15/ M16. Nice
detailed image he

https://thenypost.files.wordpress.co...catrina-18.jpg

further:
https://nypost.com/2020/01/14/cartel...ops-in-mexico/

Well, there is this: https://nypost.com/2017/10/03/the-tr...d-in-massacre/ Pretty trick-out AR-15s.

AR-15 variants are popular with mass-shooters. https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/we...ooting-aurora/

I don't see the need for a 100 round mag. Limit size and give people a chance to run while the lunatic re-loads. If you can't hit a deer or a target with ten rounds, you've got other problems.

-- Jay Beattie.

So you don't want someone protecting their home or business against multiple invaders with sufficient ammunition huh?

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q...C9DC&FORM=VIRE

On Tuesday, January 14, 2020 at 12:53:08 PM UTC-8, Radey Shouman wrote:
John B. writes:

On Mon, 13 Jan 2020 11:50:31 -0800 (PST), wrote:

On Sunday, January 12, 2020 at 2:35:24 PM UTC-8, John B. wrote:
In case you've missed this boat as well - the US doesn't conquer territory.



I guess it depends on what you call "conquer", doesn't? Lets see...

In 1776 the embryo U.S. seized the territory of a foreign government
and established an illegal government on said territory and in 1812
they successfully defended this theft.

I think you forgot the largest acquisition by force. Texas was annexed
in 1845 after a group of settlers from the US rebelled against Mexico in
1836. Texas annexation probably would have happened sooner, but, being
a significant victory for the slave states it was politically
complicated.

This kicked off the Mexican war in 1846, resulting in the conquest of
much of what is today California, Arizona, New Mexico, Colorado, and
Utah. Finally, in order to secure a southern railroad route the Gadsden
purchase was negotiated under duress in 1853-1854, resulting in the
addition of southern Arizona and the bootheel of New Mexico.


Then in 1861 the northern half of said country did invade and conquer
the southern half, replacing the existing government and destroying
the existing economy.

In 1898 the U.S. attacked Spain and seized Spanish territories in the
Pacific Region a portion of which they retain to this day.

In 1917 the U.S. unilaterally declared war on Germany, a country that
had never conducted military actions against the U.S. and lost 100,000
men. Then, with the other conquering nations, imposed such extremely
punitive economic sanctions on Germany that they may be said to have
caused, or been the underlying cause, of WW II.

In 1945 they defeated their enemy Japan and established a military
government headed by an army general to govern the country.

After the U.S. - Japan war the U.S. seized control of the southern
portion of Korea and established a military government there.

In 1955 the U.S. refusing to agree to the U.N. mandated agreement to
allow Vietnam to determine their own form of government by plebiscite
and installed a puppet governor and seized effective control of the
southern portion of the country. It might be mentioned that this
resulted in what was, undoubtedly the most politically damaging war
that the U.S. ever engaged in.

I can go on, if you wish....
--
cheers,

John B.

People FROM the United States. Not Representing the United States. California was not taken by the US but by people FROM the US.

You don't appear to have a tight grasp on this sort of thing. Did Vikings invading northern England represent Norway? Did Moors invading central Africa represent the lands of the Moors in northern Africa? Did the Slavic invasion of eastern Europe represent south eastern Asia.

On 1/14/2020 4:24 PM, wrote:
So you don't want someone protecting their home or business against multiple invaders with sufficient ammunition huh?

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q...C9DC&FORM=VIRE

Apparently Tom has "good guy with a gun" fantasies. He envisions himself
whipping out an AR-15 from under his trench coat and blowing away those
bad guys. In his fantasy, medals for heroism would follow.

There are many millions of those guns in the U.S. Why wasn't one used to
stop that theft, Tom? How does "good guy with a gun" go wrong so frequently?

And how does Canada get by without far fewer of these things in
circulation? Canada doesn't seem to be at the mercy of armed robbers.
Quite the opposite, in fact.

https://theconversation.com/a-short-...-canada-123959

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 1/14/2020 2:53 PM, wrote:
No gun originated to hunt with. they were ALL designed from the beginning to be used to kill people in military actions.

I let so, so much of Tom's nonsense go by without comment. But his
statement above is ignorant beyond belief.


--
- Frank Krygowski

On 1/14/2020 4:06 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:


Proficiency in using the long bow required a lot of target practice.
This took time, and required that low born yeomen have the weapons ready
at home.

Agreed.

Frank would have us believe that shooting at targets is just a game, but
of course it has been promoted for military readiness throughout
history.

Note that the two propositions are not mutually exclusive. Yes, target
shooting has historically been promoted for military readiness. But (for
example) Boy Scouts earning their Rifle merit badge are never told "This
is in case there's a war." Almost all American target shooting is for
fun, for competition (i.e. a game) or training for hunting. (I've done
it just for fun.)

The most common counterexample is police training. But that wouldn't be
nearly as necessary if we had rational gun control in this country.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/w...terror-n737551


--
- Frank Krygowski

On Tuesday, January 14, 2020 at 1:53:47 PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/14/2020 4:24 PM, wrote:
So you don't want someone protecting their home or business against multiple invaders with sufficient ammunition huh?

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q...C9DC&FORM=VIRE

Apparently Tom has "good guy with a gun" fantasies. He envisions himself
whipping out an AR-15 from under his trench coat and blowing away those
bad guys. In his fantasy, medals for heroism would follow.

There are many millions of those guns in the U.S. Why wasn't one used to
stop that theft, Tom? How does "good guy with a gun" go wrong so frequently?

And how does Canada get by without far fewer of these things in
circulation? Canada doesn't seem to be at the mercy of armed robbers.
Quite the opposite, in fact.

https://theconversation.com/a-short-...-canada-123959

Tom is a war lord in Somalifornia. He needs large capacity mag, full auto and the optional grenade launcher.

In fact, he needs a minigun and a move to Texas. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RH-2breIx-g I wish my dad had taken me out to shoot the minigun! That is a truly Amerycun father-son bonding experience.

-- Jay Beattie.

-- Jay Beattie.

On Tue, 14 Jan 2020 17:09:07 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 1/14/2020 4:06 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:


Proficiency in using the long bow required a lot of target practice.
This took time, and required that low born yeomen have the weapons ready
at home.

Agreed.

Frank would have us believe that shooting at targets is just a game, but
of course it has been promoted for military readiness throughout
history.

Note that the two propositions are not mutually exclusive. Yes, target
shooting has historically been promoted for military readiness. But (for
example) Boy Scouts earning their Rifle merit badge are never told "This
is in case there's a war." Almost all American target shooting is for
fun, for competition (i.e. a game) or training for hunting. (I've done
it just for fun.)

The most common counterexample is police training. But that wouldn't be
nearly as necessary if we had rational gun control in this country.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/w...terror-n737551

Your reference article is just a tad misleading as it refers to the
"U.K." police and states that a large percent are not armed which is a
nice end run around the fact that in Northern Ireland, a part of the
U.K., all police are armed.

But Yes, make a law and everything will be O.K. Right?

Do you know about the so called Sullivan Act ?

" The Sullivan Act is a gun control law in New York State that took
effect in 1911. The law required licenses for New Yorkers to possess
firearms small enough to be concealed. Private possession of such
firearms without a license was a misdemeanor, and carrying them in
public was a felony."

So every is hunky-dory and there has been no gun crime in the state of
New York since 1911?
--
cheers,

John B.

On 1/14/2020 2:59 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
Frank Krygowski writes:

On 1/13/2020 7:53 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 1/13/2020 6:32 PM, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 13 Jan 2020 11:50:31 -0800 (PST), wrote:

On Sunday, January 12, 2020 at 2:35:24 PM UTC-8, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 12 Jan 2020 15:14:50 -0600, AMuzi wrote:

On 1/12/2020 2:06 PM, wrote:
On Sunday, January 12, 2020 at 9:53:24 AM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
On 1/11/2020 7:51 PM, pH wrote:
On Saturday, January 11, 2020 at 4:36:19 PM UTC-8, jbeattie wrote:
On Saturday, January 11, 2020 at 2:48:05 PM UTC-8,
wrote:
On Saturday, January 11, 2020 at 9:07:07 AM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
On 1/11/2020 12:38 AM, John B. wrote:
On Fri, 10 Jan 2020 21:43:59 -0800 (PST), pHÂ wrote:

snip

There is no right to own a gun in the Constitution. The
Second Amendment simply prohibits the federal
government from infringing on the right to keep and
bear arms for use in a well-regulated state
militia. Nothing in the Constitution prohibited the
states from taking away your gun, cutting off your
testicles or doing basically anything it wanted.

The only reasons the states can't rip your gun out of
your cold dead hands is because of the Fourteenth
Amendment and the conclusion by some farting old white
judges that gun ownership is a "fundamental right." The
word "gun" or "arms" does not appear in the Fourteenth
Amendment. Activist judges! AOC is right and a leading
olde-tyme conservative strict constructionist!

-- Jay Beattie

I always wondered where Constitutional authority for the
draft comes from.
Isn't it sort of like forced servitude, ie: slavery?

Not trying to be incendiary, just curious.

pH in Aptos

If I am not mistaken the constitution provides the
authorization for
the Congress to "raise and support Armies" and I believe
that the
Supreme court ruled ( in 1918 I believe) that "the power
of Congress
to classify and conscript manpower for military service
is beyond
question".



It was 'questioned' by some chunk of the citizenry who
turned out for the draft riots in 1863.

--
Andrew Muzi
    www.yellowjersey.org/
    Open every day since 1 April, 1971


In times of national emergencies many of the rights in the
Constitution can be temporarily suspended. The draft was
instituted four times in the history of the US starting in
the War of 1812. The latest ran from 1940 to 1973. This
means that it was a year and a half before Pearl Harbor so
Churchill managed to convince Roosevelt that it was coming.

That it was extended through Korea and Vietnam is curious.

Well, the question is really one of federal power versus
individual liberty. You don't have a right not to be
drafted. You have a right not to be a slave, and you have
the right to due process before being deprived of your
liberty, but you don't have a right not to be drafted. Why,
because some old white farts said so. I love the 13th
Amendment ipse dixit analysis:

"Finally, as we are unable to conceive upon what theory the
exaction by government from the citizen of the performance
of his supreme and noble duty of contributing to the defense
of the rights and honor of the nation, as the result of a
war declared by the great representative body of the people,
can be said to be the imposition of involuntary servitude in
violation of the prohibitions of the Thirteenth Amendment,
we are constrained to the conclusion that the contention to
that effect is refuted by its mere statement."

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/245/366/

Okey-dokey! (turning head, coughing .. . lilting strains of
"Over There" rising in the background).

In the Selective Draft Law cases, the big issue was whether
there was Constitutional authority for the draft, which
there is (somewhere between the lines) -- although it is
questionable in peace time, but that's just a matter of
definition.

-- Jay Beattie.

Since "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" were
enumerated very
early on in the document as part of our UNALIENABLE
rights...that is, cannot be taken away, even if we wanted.
So I always wondered how there could be a death penalty if
the right to life
were unalienable and on to the draft question as well.

I know, very simplistic thinking on my part. And there
certainly is a death
penalty and the draft so....well, I'm way too old to be
drafted now anyway.

Thank-you to you and John B. for responding to my question
and I'll go read the 13th amendment

pH in Aptos


Sidestepping your question, the US Army finds most
_volunteer_ recruits unsuitable, physically or
intellectually. Besides no current draft, it's unlikely,
given the military's necessary standards, that it will
return any time soon.


As time goes on fewer and fewer ground troops are required and
the military already can't use what they have. So they keep
them in reserve in case they were ever to find a reason to use
them that a cruise missile would fix a lot cheaper and more
rapidly. The only reason that Seal Team 6 actually took out Ben
Laden was to positively identify him.


There's that but there are things missiles/drones/artillery
just cannot do. Fewer yes, but more highly skilled in
narrower areas.

Plus there's the ratio of tooth to tail- you need a lot of
guys moving fuel, wrenching etc (support= cute term 'beans
bullets and band-aids') to run a tank sortie for example.
The not-obvious support areas (GPS, communication, target
identification, data security and so on) are more important
every year.

I think that the theory of "modern warfare" requiring fewer troops has
been in fashion, probably since the Romans defeated Carthage, but
other than Rome's solution to the "Carthage problem" "feet on the
ground" has been required to maintain effective control of conquered
territory.
--
cheers,

John B.

In case you've missed this boat as well - the US doesn't conquer
territory.

I guess it depends on what you call "conquer", doesn't? Lets see...

In 1776 the embryo U.S. seized the territory of a foreign government
and established an illegal government on said territory and in 1812
they successfully defended this theft.

Then in 1861 the northern half of said country did invade and conquer
the southern half, replacing the existing government and destroying
the existing economy.

In 1898 the U.S. attacked Spain and seized Spanish territories in the
Pacific Region a portion of which they retain to this day.

In 1917 the U.S. unilaterally declared war on Germany, a country that
had never conducted military actions against the U.S. and lost 100,000
men. Then, with the other conquering nations, imposed such extremely
punitive economic sanctions on Germany that they may be said to have
caused, or been the underlying cause, of WW II.

In 1945 they defeated their enemy Japan and established a military
government headed by an army general to govern the country.

After the U.S. - Japan war the U.S. seized control of the southern
portion of Korea and established a military government there.

In 1955 the U.S. refusing to agree to the U.N. mandated agreement to
allow Vietnam to determine their own form of government by plebiscite
and installed a puppet governor and seized effective control of the
southern portion of the country. It might be mentioned that this
resulted in what was, undoubtedly the most politically damaging war
that the U.S. ever engaged in.

I can go on, if you wish....

nice summary of Leonard Zinn if not Chairman Xi himself.

?? This guy? https://www.velopress.com/velopress-.../lennard-zinn/

I suspect Mr Muzi intended to write "Howard Zinn".


Indeed. Thank you

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On 1/14/2020 3:53 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/14/2020 4:24 PM, wrote:
So you don't want someone protecting their home or
business against multiple invaders with sufficient
ammunition huh?

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q...C9DC&FORM=VIRE


Apparently Tom has "good guy with a gun" fantasies. He
envisions himself whipping out an AR-15 from under his
trench coat and blowing away those bad guys. In his fantasy,
medals for heroism would follow.

There are many millions of those guns in the U.S. Why wasn't
one used to stop that theft, Tom? How does "good guy with a
gun" go wrong so frequently?

And how does Canada get by without far fewer of these things
in circulation? Canada doesn't seem to be at the mercy of
armed robbers. Quite the opposite, in fact.

https://theconversation.com/a-short-...-canada-123959



Don't be silly.
There are literally millions of ARs in our very large
country with rare, literally newsworthy, incidents[1]. How
about a pregnant woman who is not dead due to her defensive
AR-15 use?

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news...ar-15-n1076026

[1]Pistol and knife crime is less newsworthy, except in
cumulative data. It's just background noise now.
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On 1/14/2020 3:57 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/14/2020 2:53 PM, wrote:
No gun originated to hunt with. they were ALL designed
from the beginning to be used to kill people in military
actions.

I let so, so much of Tom's nonsense go by without comment.
But his statement above is ignorant beyond belief.



He's basically correct.

Anomalies include the once-popular pastime of /la belle
epoche/, parlor shooting. The devices were miniature
pistols firing 2.5mm rounds at paper targets.

I'm sure you or anyone can find an exception but Tom's
generally right on that.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971