"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message
...
Actually, that's not true. NYC is a great example. They've got extremely
strick
gun laws and violent crime is way down. ....

Yes, down from once being the crime capital of the country, but it is still
far more dangerous than, say, Fredricksburg Va where nearly half the
residents have permits to carry or that good old southern town that requires
residents to own guns.

In article ,
Dave wrote:
On 10 Sep 2004 11:28:03 -0700, (Jonathan Ganz)
said:

Does this make any sense to anyone besides Max?

Of course. It's called metaphor. He's suggesting that correlation is not
causation. You do understand that concept, don't you?

So, you're saying that Pat Robertson has nothing to do with diverting
the path of hurricanes??

I'm suggesting that perhaps you have a bit of a problem understanding some
of the finer points of the English language.

I'm suggesting that your preferred language is only understood by
other canines.




--
Jonathan Ganz (j gan z @ $ail no w.c=o=m)
http://www.sailnow.com
"If there's no wind, row."

In article ,
DSK wrote:
"Jonathan Ganz" wrote
The long guns you're talking about have folding stocks and flash
suppressors.
There is no good reason for "honest citizens" to own these things without
a permit.

A "permit" to own a paramilitary weapon? WTF? First you say there is no
good reason for them, then you want to issue permits for people to do so?

Frankly, I think you've got it exactly backwards... there is no reason
for the gov't to restrict their ownership. A citizen should be allowed
to buy & own whatever he wants & can afford... from motorcycles to
electric guitars. It is the misuse of these items that is a problem for
the community and thus becomes an issue for the gov't to address.

I have no problem with banning convicted felons, or ex-wife stalkers,
from owning firearms. Makes good sense to me. However, I have a big
problem with the gov't telling me what I can and can't do, when I have a
lifelong record of good citizenship.

Considering the number of fatalities & severe injuries around the home,
perhaps you'd advocate banning, or requiring permits, to own such things
as lawn mowers & certain types of cleaning supplies?

Cars kill far more people than guns, and yet we make little or no effort
to restrict their use.

I don't think there is any good reason to own them, but since I'm not
in charge, I think people have a right to believe what they want. If
they think they have a legitimate reason, then apply for a permit. If
the authorities agree, then fine.

The public good outweighs any individual's supposed rights to keep a
paramilitary weapon. It might be a priviledge, but no such right
exists.
--
Jonathan Ganz (j gan z @ $ail no w.c=o=m)
http://www.sailnow.com
"If there's no wind, row."

In article ,
Dave wrote:
On 10 Sep 2004 11:27:06 -0700, (Jonathan Ganz)
said:

So, what you're saying is that either Fox is right all the time or that
ABC (Rather is on another network) are dishonest and biases. I
think I'll go with ABC over Fox.

I don't think I said anything at all about Fox, but you're welcome to try to
show otherwise.

I may be welcome, but I'm not interested in your TV watching
habits.

Seems to me that your comment reflects considerable interest in those
habits. Why else invent a fairy tale about them when I said nothing whatever
about Fox?

You're the one who believes Fox is fair and balanced. So, what's your
problem? (I mean besides the obvious ones.)



--
Jonathan Ganz (j gan z @ $ail no w.c=o=m)
http://www.sailnow.com
"If there's no wind, row."

"DSK" wrote in message
. ..
Cars kill far more people than guns, and yet we make little or no effort
to restrict their use.

DSK

Huh? Care to elaborate on that statement?
John Cairns

In article ,
Dave wrote:
On 10 Sep 2004 14:14:48 -0700, (Jonathan Ganz)
said:

You're the one who believes Fox is fair and balanced. So, what's your
problem? (I mean besides the obvious ones.)

Repeating your error won't make it true. I welcome you to find any post in
which I even hinted that Fox is fair and balanced. You're dreaming. Of
course I know you won't try to find such a post, because you know you'll
fail.

So, you're now claiming that Fox is not fair and balanced?

I would never stoop so low as to fail.




--
Jonathan Ganz (j gan z @ $ail no w.c=o=m)
http://www.sailnow.com
"If there's no wind, row."

In article ,
John Cairns wrote:

"DSK" wrote in message
...
Cars kill far more people than guns, and yet we make little or no effort
to restrict their use.

DSK

Huh? Care to elaborate on that statement?
John Cairns

It's an odd statement, since there are lots and lots of regulations
restricting their use and manufacture at the state and federal level.


--
Jonathan Ganz (j gan z @ $ail no w.c=o=m)
http://www.sailnow.com
"If there's no wind, row."

In article ,
Dave wrote:
On 10 Sep 2004 14:13:29 -0700, (Jonathan Ganz)
said:

If
they think they have a legitimate reason, then apply for a permit. If
the authorities agree, then fine.

There used to be a game like that. I think it was called "Captain may I."

So you think it's ok for an individual to own whatever they want, no
matter what that is, without restriction?




--
Jonathan Ganz (j gan z @ $ail no w.c=o=m)
http://www.sailnow.com
"If there's no wind, row."

In article ,
Dave wrote:
On 10 Sep 2004 15:10:48 -0700, (Jonathan Ganz)
said:

Repeating your error won't make it true. I welcome you to find any post in
which I even hinted that Fox is fair and balanced. You're dreaming. Of
course I know you won't try to find such a post, because you know you'll
fail.

So, you're now claiming that Fox is not fair and balanced?

Ah, more of you sophomoric nonsense.

It was a legitimate question. You refuse to answer, so one can only
conclude that you do believe they're fair and balanced.




--
Jonathan Ganz (j gan z @ $ail no w.c=o=m)
http://www.sailnow.com
"If there's no wind, row."

On Fri, 10 Sep 2004 09:52:51 -0700, "Jonathan Ganz"
wrote this crap:

The long guns you're talking about have folding stocks and flash
suppressors.
There is no good reason for "honest citizens" to own these things without a
permit.


That's bull****. The second amendment allows me to belong to a
militia. In my militia, we have assault weapons so that we can better
defend the United States of America.





Pathetic Earthlings! No one can save you now!

"Dave" wrote in message

| Ah, more of you sophomoric nonsense.

Good Grief Dave... you keep shooting over his head and wondering why he
won't die?

You don't stand a chance unless you use a shotgun.. ....keep the sights low
and keep squeezing the trigger.

CM

"Horvath" wrote in message
| That's bull****. The second amendment allows me to belong to a
| militia. In my militia, we have assault weapons so that we can better
| defend the United States of America.

Fortunately most Yanks couldn't hit the broad side of a barn... even if they
were locked inside.

By the end of your first clip....... I'd still be standing
untouched...... and you'd be answering to my Whiffle Bat!

CM

"Dave" wrote in message
...
| On Fri, 10 Sep 2004 20:08:58 -0300, "Capt. Mooron"
| said:
|
| Good Grief Dave... you keep shooting over his head and wondering why he
| won't die?
|
| Yea. Seems that no matter how low I aim, it goes right over his head.

Adjust your sights Man!!!

CM

In article ,
Horvath wrote:
On Fri, 10 Sep 2004 09:52:51 -0700, "Jonathan Ganz"
wrote this crap:

The long guns you're talking about have folding stocks and flash
suppressors.
There is no good reason for "honest citizens" to own these things without a
permit.


That's bull****. The second amendment allows me to belong to a
militia. In my militia, we have assault weapons so that we can better
defend the United States of America.

That's right, but that has nothing to do with individuals unless
they're part of a well-regulated militia. You, your boyfriend, and
your garbage boat don't count as a militia.

--
Jonathan Ganz (j gan z @ $ail no w.c=o=m)
http://www.sailnow.com
"If there's no wind, row."

In article ,
Capt. Mooron wrote:

"Horvath" wrote in message
| That's bull****. The second amendment allows me to belong to a
| militia. In my militia, we have assault weapons so that we can better
| defend the United States of America.

Fortunately most Yanks couldn't hit the broad side of a barn... even if they
were locked inside.

By the end of your first clip....... I'd still be standing
untouched...... and you'd be answering to my Whiffle Bat!

True, but did it start out as a whiffle bat?


--
Jonathan Ganz (j gan z @ $ail no w.c=o=m)
http://www.sailnow.com
"If there's no wind, row."

In article ,
Dave wrote:
On Fri, 10 Sep 2004 18:59:18 -0400, Horvath said:

In my militia, we have assault weapons so that we can better
defend the United States of America.

You may be conceding too much here. Seems that even Larry Tribe has backed
off on his earlier view that the "right to keep and bear arms" is limited by
the "militia" clause.

Larry Tribe thinks chimpanzees should have the same legal rights as humans.
I think dogs should. Then, you'll be equal.



--
Jonathan Ganz (j gan z @ $ail no w.c=o=m)
http://www.sailnow.com
"If there's no wind, row."

In article ,
Dave wrote:
On 10 Sep 2004 15:57:02 -0700, (Jonathan Ganz)
said:

Repeating your error won't make it true. I welcome you to find any post in
which I even hinted that Fox is fair and balanced. You're dreaming. Of
course I know you won't try to find such a post, because you know you'll
fail.

So, you're now claiming that Fox is not fair and balanced?

Ah, more of you sophomoric nonsense.

It was a legitimate question. You refuse to answer, so one can only
conclude that you do believe they're fair and balanced.

I don't think so. It was more of your silly games. You cited ABC as your
source. Whether ABC is fair and balanced would be a legitimate question to
follow on with. Whether Fox news is fair and balanced has nothing to do with
that or any other part of the discussion. And despite your pitiful efforts
to pretend otherwise it isn't a subject I've addressed.

Well, is ABC fair and balanced? If you have an opinion on that then
surely you have one on Fox. Or, do you believe that it's off-topic and
off-topic issues should never be discussed?

Reminds me of a high school debater--if he doesn't like the answer to the
question under discussion he pretends it was some other question he does
like the answer to.

Reminds me of poodle I once stepped on. I felt really bad.

--
Jonathan Ganz (j gan z @ $ail no w.c=o=m)
http://www.sailnow.com
"If there's no wind, row."

On Fri, 10 Sep 2004 20:12:15 -0300, "Capt. Mooron"
wrote this crap:


"Horvath" wrote in message
| That's bull****. The second amendment allows me to belong to a
| militia. In my militia, we have assault weapons so that we can better
| defend the United States of America.

Fortunately most Yanks couldn't hit the broad side of a barn... even if they
were locked inside.

By the end of your first clip....... I'd still be standing
untouched...... and you'd be answering to my Whiffle Bat!

Guess again, dumbass. I can hit a human target 95% of the time, at
400 meters, with factory sights with an M-16. I've done it many times
at the Camp Perry rifle range.




Pathetic Earthlings! No one can save you now!

On 10 Sep 2004 17:24:41 -0700, (Jonathan
Ganz) wrote this crap:

That's bull****. The second amendment allows me to belong to a
militia. In my militia, we have assault weapons so that we can better
defend the United States of America.

That's right, but that has nothing to do with individuals unless
they're part of a well-regulated militia. You, your boyfriend, and
your garbage boat don't count as a militia.


Somebody should teach you some comprehension, preferably with a two by
four across your head.





Pathetic Earthlings! No one can save you now!

"Horvath" wrote in message
...
On 10 Sep 2004 17:24:41 -0700, (Jonathan
Ganz) wrote this crap:

bull****.


Somebody should teach you some comprehension, preferably with a two
by
four across your head.

Then he'll lobby to ban 2x4s.

Scotty

"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message

Does this make any sense to anyone besides Max?

Nope. Makes about as much sense as blaming Bush for the increased crime
rate. You've blamed him for just about everything from Aardvarks running
amok to Zen Buddhists burning themselves sacrificially. Just thought I'd
beat you to the punch, w/r/t hurricanes.

Max

"Capt. Mooron" wrote in message

"Maxprop" wrote in message
|
| "Capt. Mooron" wrote in message
|
| Good Advice Gilligan..... but no armory is complete without a .Barnet
.50
| cal.
|
| Jesus, Mooron--what are you anticipating?? Or is that a "hunting gun?"
:-)

Long Distance, Calling...... :-)

No kidding. I'll bet that ammo ain't cheap.

Max

"Scout" wrote in message

I'd have to go with Jon on that one, at least if you can believe the
History
Channel's "Mail Call" - they did a special on silencers and flash
suppressors a few weeks ago. The army claims flash suppressors greatly
reduce the likelihood of the shooter being spotted.

I'd still have to inqui what possible impact would this have made at
Columbine or any similar event? I'm unaware of any night time sniper
killings, beyond the John Muhammad murders, and he had the ultimate flash
suppressor--a car trunk.

Max

I agree... just forget giving the authorities yet another tool to catch a
criminal.


--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Maxprop" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Scout" wrote in message

I'd have to go with Jon on that one, at least if you can believe the
History
Channel's "Mail Call" - they did a special on silencers and flash
suppressors a few weeks ago. The army claims flash suppressors greatly
reduce the likelihood of the shooter being spotted.

I'd still have to inqui what possible impact would this have made at
Columbine or any similar event? I'm unaware of any night time sniper
killings, beyond the John Muhammad murders, and he had the ultimate flash
suppressor--a car trunk.

Max

Sounds like you've been taught by that method plenty.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Horvath" wrote in message
...
On 10 Sep 2004 17:24:41 -0700, (Jonathan
Ganz) wrote this crap:

That's bull****. The second amendment allows me to belong to a
militia. In my militia, we have assault weapons so that we can better
defend the United States of America.

That's right, but that has nothing to do with individuals unless
they're part of a well-regulated militia. You, your boyfriend, and
your garbage boat don't count as a militia.


Somebody should teach you some comprehension, preferably with a two by
four across your head.





Pathetic Earthlings! No one can save you now!

They're not already banned???

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Scott Vernon" wrote in message
...

"Horvath" wrote in message
...
On 10 Sep 2004 17:24:41 -0700, (Jonathan
Ganz) wrote this crap:

bull****.


Somebody should teach you some comprehension, preferably with a two
by
four across your head.

Then he'll lobby to ban 2x4s.

Scotty

beats me, I never saw the beginnings of this post.
Scout

"Maxprop" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Scout" wrote in message

I'd have to go with Jon on that one, at least if you can believe the
History
Channel's "Mail Call" - they did a special on silencers and flash
suppressors a few weeks ago. The army claims flash suppressors greatly
reduce the likelihood of the shooter being spotted.

I'd still have to inqui what possible impact would this have made at
Columbine or any similar event? I'm unaware of any night time sniper
killings, beyond the John Muhammad murders, and he had the ultimate flash
suppressor--a car trunk.

Max

So, ABC tilts slightly to the left. How about Fox news?

Why are you turned off by their efforts to appeal to more
than 1/2 of the population?

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On 10 Sep 2004 17:28:43 -0700, (Jonathan Ganz)
said:

Well, is ABC fair and balanced?

Generally its news coverage tilts slightly to the left. And of late its
efforts to increase its appeal to women has tended to turn me off.

Slightly?? Talk about a screwed up view of the real world... they're far
to the right. Don't you even bother to check your facts?

Pandering? How's that? Seems to me they're just appealing to the majority
of the population, which I can understand is a bummer for someone so
isolated as you.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 12 Sep 2004 18:10:05 -0700, "Jonathan Ganz"
said:

So, ABC tilts slightly to the left. How about Fox news?

Slightly to the right.

Why are you turned off by their efforts to appeal to more
than 1/2 of the population?

Prolly a matter how blatant their pandering is.

So, you're equating Al Gore to a chimp? Sounds like you're sore he won
the popular vote in 2000 by 500K votes.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On 10 Sep 2004 17:27:00 -0700, (Jonathan Ganz)
said:

Larry Tribe thinks chimpanzees should have the same legal rights as
humans.

Hmm. Think that's why he took Al Gore's case?

Cars kill far more people than guns, and yet we make little or no effort
to restrict their use.


John Cairns wrote:
Huh? Care to elaborate on that statement?

Any moron can get a drivers license, buy any car they can afford (or
connive somehow), and drive as fast as they want on any road. You can
have bad vision, a criminal record, you don't even have to be literate
or speak English.

The way many people drive "accidents" are not accidental, they're a
foregone conclusion. Cars kill a LOT of people, far more than guns, or
most diseases. The cost in serious injury & long-term disability is far
higher yet. 99% of fatal car wrecks could easily be avoided... all that
needs to happen is for people to get some common sense & drive accordingly.

Our society has blinders on.

DSK

Jonathan Ganz wrote:
I don't think there is any good reason to own them, but since I'm not
in charge, I think people have a right to believe what they want.

Now you're being really stupid.

People *will* believe what they want, there is no way to regulate thought.

.... If
they think they have a legitimate reason, then apply for a permit. If
the authorities agree, then fine.

There is a "permit" and the authorities *have* agreed. It's called the
Constitution of the United States.


The public good outweighs any individual's supposed rights to keep a
paramilitary weapon. It might be a priviledge, but no such right
exists.

Yes it does.

Besides, there is no way to show that a responsible citizen owning any
type of firearms is contrary to the "public good." In fact, quite the
opposite.

Just because you're scared of guns, or dogs, or whatever, is no reason
to ban them for sensible people.

I kind of always wanted a 155mm howitzer... maybe a Sherman tank...

DSK

"DSK" wrote

Just because you're scared of guns, or dogs, or whatever, is no
reason
to ban them for sensible people.

In Philly a few years back, there was a push to ban the sale of large
water pump pliers within city limits. Seems a few burglars were using
them to force open locked doors. Rediculis? People like Ganz scare
me.




I kind of always wanted a 155mm howitzer... maybe a Sherman tank...


Hey, call me if you find one, I've hauled a few Abrams MA1As.

Scotty

"Jonathan Ganz" wrote
1) Nope. You're wrong...
A flash suppressor is a device attached to a rifle to reduce the brilliant
muzzle flash which occurs upon firing. Muzzle flash is especially visible
at
night, and makes it easy to see the location of the shooter. It is caused
by
incandescence of the expanding gases produced by burning gunpowder.

The short "supressors" on my pre-ban AR-15s did nothing to hide flash,
especially at night. They did however keep that flash out of the shooters
eyes, allowing quicker recovery of sight picture in rapid fire events. I
don't doubt that the larger ones on sniper rifles hid flash but guess what -
those guns weren't banned cuz the don't have bayonet lugs.

2) Read the 9/11 report. They were trained to deal with overcoming people
with guns, knives, etc.

How do you train to overcome equally well trained plainclosed LEOs you
cannot ID using a box cutter?

"Jonathan Ganz" wrote

I agree... just forget giving the authorities yet another tool to catch a
criminal.

Catch a criminal? Bwahahahaha! These laws do zip except turn honest citizens
into law breakers. The authorities at Columbine Hi bragged about how they'd
successfully contained the killers INSIDE the school with their victims!!
This after BATF had murdered a boy and his mother in Idaho and about 100
harmless religious kooks in Texas over silly gun laws. If the authorities
caught criminals half of congress would be in jail.

Vito wrote:
How do you train to overcome equally well trained plainclosed LEOs you
cannot ID using a box cutter?

More to the point, how do you "overcome" somebody who instantly plugs
you with a couple of .44SP rounds?

One way to defeat suicide attacks is to increase the odds that it will
not be an attack but just plain suicide.

Right now, it seems like our strategy is to increase recruiting &
motivation of suicide bombers. Anybody here want to see the figures for
the Bush Administration's funding of Port Security?

DSK

In article ,
Dave wrote:
On Sun, 12 Sep 2004 20:30:29 -0700, "Jonathan Ganz"
said:

Slightly?? Talk about a screwed up view of the real world... they're far
to the right. Don't you even bother to check your facts?

That is a matter on which reasonable men may differ. I'd say they're about
as far to the right as the NY Times is to the left. Fortunately, I read both
regularly instead of confining my sources to those I know will confirm my
views.

Dave, the Fox news network is far to the right. It's their stated
agenda. While I don't mind discussing issues with those who are
moderately on the right or left, it's impossible to have a civilized
conversation with extremists. The NY Times is no far left, as you well
know. Fox, also as you know, is definitely an organ for the right
wing. Their owner is on the radical right, and he frequently
"encourages" like views from the "reporters." Dissenting views are
discouraged to the point of putting their jobs on the line.


--
Jonathan Ganz (j gan z @ $ail no w.c=o=m)
http://www.sailnow.com
"If there's no wind, row."

In article ,
Dave wrote:
On Sun, 12 Sep 2004 20:31:23 -0700, "Jonathan Ganz"
said:

So, you're equating Al Gore to a chimp? Sounds like you're sore he won
the popular vote in 2000 by 500K votes.

Nope. I'm calling your absurd smear of Larry Tribe for what it is. I've
known Larry (though not well) since he was a USSC clerk. Though I disagree
with him in many respects, I don't think there's any doubt but that he's a
respected Constitutional scholar as well as a talented lawyer.

You claimed that Gore is the equivalent of a chimp. Are you changing
your story?



--
Jonathan Ganz (j gan z @ $ail no w.c=o=m)
http://www.sailnow.com
"If there's no wind, row."

"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message

Dave, the Fox news network is far to the right. It's their stated
agenda.

Hmmm. Is that why their tag line is "fair and balanced?" Is that why Alan
Colms is on with Sean Hannity? Is that why they play as much Kerry campaign
footage as Bush?

While I don't mind discussing issues with those who are
moderately on the right or left, it's impossible to have a civilized
conversation with extremists.

Ah, well then you'll want to avoid the NY TIMES, as it's about as extremist
a media outlet as there is in existence.

The NY Times is no far left, as you well
know. Fox, also as you know, is definitely an organ for the right
wing. Their owner is on the radical right, and he frequently
"encourages" like views from the "reporters." Dissenting views are
discouraged to the point of putting their jobs on the line.

LOL. I just love your assessments from the far left, Jon.

Max

In article . net,
Maxprop wrote:

"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message

Dave, the Fox news network is far to the right. It's their stated
agenda.

Hmmm. Is that why their tag line is "fair and balanced?" Is that why Alan
Colms is on with Sean Hannity? Is that why they play as much Kerry campaign
footage as Bush?

Yes, it's called fair and balanced to hoodwink the unthinking or
uninformed. Alan Colms? Have you taken a look at that program? Hannity
has the last word, Colms barly holds his own. Also, look at the two
people. Hannity is a sharp dresser, young, and very articulate. Colms
is a squirrelly looking geekazoid. Also, he's pretty timid and rarely
contradics Hannity.

While I don't mind discussing issues with those who are
moderately on the right or left, it's impossible to have a civilized
conversation with extremists.

Ah, well then you'll want to avoid the NY TIMES, as it's about as extremist
a media outlet as there is in existence.

Well, give us some examples? Have they been that way thoughout their
publishing history or just during the last few years? I suppose you
think the Wash. Post was left-leaning because they broke the Watergate
story?

The NY Times is no far left, as you well
know. Fox, also as you know, is definitely an organ for the right
wing. Their owner is on the radical right, and he frequently
"encourages" like views from the "reporters." Dissenting views are
discouraged to the point of putting their jobs on the line.

LOL. I just love your assessments from the far left, Jon.

Which far left assessment is that? There are plenty of far left
publishing entities. The NY Times isn't one of them.

LOL. You're a right-wing wacko, so I guess you aren't interested in
any kind of intelligent discussion.

If find it interesting that the right-wing wackos are only interested
in the politics of person destruction (a Clinton description), rather
than an objective examination of the issues. It's really easy to bash
Kerry and Bush, but to actually discuss the issues is beyond you.


--
Jonathan Ganz (j gan z @ $ail no w.c=o=m)
http://www.sailnow.com
"If there's no wind, row."