Snickering Snotty
 

"GuzzisRule" wrote in message
...

On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 10:43:39 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:


But statistics indicate that this is *not* a growing epidemic or
upward trend. There were unfortunately more that occurred in the
1980's and 1990's. We just didn't hear as much about them as we hear
today.



I've also heard similar statistics presented on one of our local radio
stations. The statistics make
us look better.

However, I'd have no problem with the banning of assault weapons.
Target practice and hunting can
both be done with other types of rifles. The question will then be,
"What constitutes an assault
weapon?"

------------------------------------------

"Justwait" made a comment that caused me to think about this. I
think his definitions of guns could be developed into a reasonably
simple category system of what is available for purchase and ownership
by private citizens and what is reserved for military and police use.

For private citizens:

Firearms (handguns and rifles/shotguns) specifically designed for
target practice and competition. No more than 7-10 round capacity.
Firearms (rifles and shotguns) designed specifically for hunting.
No more than 5-10 rounds.
Firearms designed for personal/home defense. Includes handguns with
no more than 7-10 round capacity. Concealed carry permits allowed
based on background check.
Non-functioning firearms as collectibles/display pieces. These can
include military type weapons but must be permanently disabled.

For Law Enforcement and Military:

Firearms and weapons designed for both defensive and offensive use.
Automatic and semi-automatic with unlimited round capacity.

The days of private citizens being concerned about arming to the teeth
to protect themselves from their own government are long over.
That interpretation of the 2nd Ammendent is obsolete. Private
citizens don't need high capacity, offensive weapons.

Snickering Snotty
 

On Tuesday, December 18, 2012 3:50:18 PM UTC-5, Eisboch wrote:
"GuzzisRule" wrote in message

...



On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 10:43:39 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:
------------------------------------------



"Justwait" made a comment that caused me to think about this. I
think his definitions of guns could be developed into a reasonably
simple category system of what is available for purchase and ownership
by private citizens and what is reserved for military and police use.

For private citizens:

Firearms (handguns and rifles/shotguns) specifically designed for
target practice and competition. No more than 7-10 round capacity.
Firearms (rifles and shotguns) designed specifically for hunting.
No more than 5-10 rounds.
Firearms designed for personal/home defense. Includes handguns with
no more than 7-10 round capacity. Concealed carry permits allowed
based on background check.
Non-functioning firearms as collectibles/display pieces. These can
include military type weapons but must be permanently disabled.


For Law Enforcement and Military:

Firearms and weapons designed for both defensive and offensive use.
Automatic and semi-automatic with unlimited round capacity.

The days of private citizens being concerned about arming to the teeth
to protect themselves from their own government are long over.
That interpretation of the 2nd Ammendent is obsolete. Private
citizens don't need high capacity, offensive weapons.

Problem is... ANY firearm can be used both offensively and defensively. Take an M15 and a .45 ACP. Generally, the first fits the offensive weapon category, the second the home defensive one. But in the right situation, the M16 would be the better defense, and the ACP the better offense.

In the end, it's the person pulling the trigger. It always comes down to that.

Snickering Snotty
 

On 12/18/12 2:23 PM, GuzzisRule wrote:
On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 11:42:02 -0500, ESAD wrote:

On 12/17/12 8:52 AM, Tim wrote:
On Dec 17, 7:47 am, iBoaterer wrote:
In article ,
says...











On Sat, 15 Dec 2012 21:39:01 -0800 (PST), Tim
wrote:

On Dec 15, 1:26 pm, jps wrote:

And just what does that tell you about the difference between our two
societies and American's ability to handle weapons responsibly?

Not much. Nothing is a 'weapon' until it's turned into one, regardless
of if it's a gun, knife, claw hammer, axe, box opener...

We are a nation of desperate people,

And why is that?

Think making guns real available is a good idea?

No. I obtained mine legally and maintain and use them in accordance
with State and Federal laws. If that's not suitable for you then by
all means get out of the dump and run for high office. Then do what
you can to change the law.

Every one of the weapons used in high casualty incidents were obtained
legally.

That's the problem, someone obtains them legally, then someone either
"borrows" them or steals them to commit crimes and kill innocent people
and children.

Yep!

"Every one of the weapons used in high casualty incidents were
obtained legally."

Then used by criminal[s] in a highly illegal manner.



I don't know what may happen because of the latest massacre.

I hope the following happens:

1. Long-term, strong efforts to amend the 2nd Amendment to the
Constitution to make it as "difficult" to obtain a firearm as it is to
obtain and register a motor vehicle: no purchases, sales or transfers
without a paper trail and a background check. Include absolute, defined
restrictions on certain types of weapons and ancillary products that
typically are not used for hunting, target shooting or home defense.
These would make it illegal to possess certain types of firearms and
ancillary equipment. Illegal to possess would mean these firearms would
have to be turned in and destroyed, and the owner would receive a fee
for the turn-in.

Gosh, maybe they should do the same thing for voting. I believe any illegal alien can buy a car and
register it. Or, he can pay a 'legal' alien to do it for him.


2. Short-term, an end to the gun show loophole, and no purchases, sales
or transfers of any firearms without a paper trail and background check.
No sales of firearms that can or can be modified to handle a magazine or
clip that holds more than 10 rounds. No sales of such magazines or
clips. Turn-ins of such magazines or clips. No purchases, transfers or
sales of firearms without a waiting period.


So, if you want to kill twenty kids, you must know how to change magazines or clips. Really smart
idea, krause.


3. An immediate increase in the amount of funding available for
psychological screening and testing in all schools, and in the
availability of psychological counseling to all who need it, whether
they know it or not.


**** a bunch of privacy! If a kid looks at you with 'that tone of voice' he/she is sent to a shrink
(like the Dr. Dr. Dr.??) for immediate screening, testing, and incarceration if the 'shrink' deems
it warranted.


Another display of your ignorance and on several levels. It is good for
this country that right-wing assholes like you are aging and dying.

Snickering Snotty
 

On 12/18/2012 3:50 PM, Eisboch wrote:


"GuzzisRule" wrote in message
...

On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 10:43:39 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:


But statistics indicate that this is *not* a growing epidemic or
upward trend. There were unfortunately more that occurred in the
1980's and 1990's. We just didn't hear as much about them as we hear
today.



I've also heard similar statistics presented on one of our local radio
stations. The statistics make
us look better.

However, I'd have no problem with the banning of assault weapons. Target
practice and hunting can
both be done with other types of rifles. The question will then be,
"What constitutes an assault
weapon?"

------------------------------------------

"Justwait" made a comment that caused me to think about this. I think
his definitions of guns could be developed into a reasonably simple
category system of what is available for purchase and ownership by
private citizens and what is reserved for military and police use.

For private citizens:

Firearms (handguns and rifles/shotguns) specifically designed for
target practice and competition. No more than 7-10 round capacity.
Firearms (rifles and shotguns) designed specifically for hunting. No
more than 5-10 rounds.
Firearms designed for personal/home defense. Includes handguns with no
more than 7-10 round capacity. Concealed carry permits allowed based on
background check.
Non-functioning firearms as collectibles/display pieces. These can
include military type weapons but must be permanently disabled.

For Law Enforcement and Military:

Firearms and weapons designed for both defensive and offensive use.
Automatic and semi-automatic with unlimited round capacity.

The days of private citizens being concerned about arming to the teeth
to protect themselves from their own government are long over.
That interpretation of the 2nd Ammendent is obsolete. Private citizens
don't need high capacity, offensive weapons.


There you go... Now let's get on my idea of hiring retired PoPo as
administrators, janitors, coaches, teachers aids, cafeteria workers, etc
in schools and let them carry.

Like I said, a uniformed security guard or even police officer is a
sitting duck if he doesn't know an attack is being planned, he would
just be fodder. Now imagine in CT, if there were two or three armed
teachers or staff, even a janitor who heard the shots come over the loud
speaker and made their way to the office, even if just to lay down cover
fire until the cops got there minutes later. There is a good possibility
the kid would have never made it out of the office and to the classroom.
We might be talking about less than 5 dead... The key though is the
unions would have to allow these retired PoPo to come into the system...

Snickering Snotty
 

On Tue, 18 Dec 2012 15:50:18 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:



"GuzzisRule" wrote in message
.. .

On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 10:43:39 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:


But statistics indicate that this is *not* a growing epidemic or
upward trend. There were unfortunately more that occurred in the
1980's and 1990's. We just didn't hear as much about them as we hear
today.



I've also heard similar statistics presented on one of our local radio
stations. The statistics make
us look better.

However, I'd have no problem with the banning of assault weapons.
Target practice and hunting can
both be done with other types of rifles. The question will then be,
"What constitutes an assault
weapon?"

------------------------------------------

"Justwait" made a comment that caused me to think about this. I
think his definitions of guns could be developed into a reasonably
simple category system of what is available for purchase and ownership
by private citizens and what is reserved for military and police use.

For private citizens:

Firearms (handguns and rifles/shotguns) specifically designed for
target practice and competition. No more than 7-10 round capacity.
Firearms (rifles and shotguns) designed specifically for hunting.
No more than 5-10 rounds.
Firearms designed for personal/home defense. Includes handguns with
no more than 7-10 round capacity. Concealed carry permits allowed
based on background check.
Non-functioning firearms as collectibles/display pieces. These can
include military type weapons but must be permanently disabled.

For Law Enforcement and Military:

Firearms and weapons designed for both defensive and offensive use.
Automatic and semi-automatic with unlimited round capacity.

The days of private citizens being concerned about arming to the teeth
to protect themselves from their own government are long over.
That interpretation of the 2nd Ammendent is obsolete. Private
citizens don't need high capacity, offensive weapons.

I've given my take on 10-round magazines. It would make the killer waste a few seconds changing
magazines - that's it.

But, I have no problem with laws banning the 'assault style weapon' - providing they can be defined.
You didn't address the questions I posted with the pictures.

Snickering Snotty
 

On Tue, 18 Dec 2012 16:30:49 -0500, ESAD wrote:

On 12/18/12 2:23 PM, GuzzisRule wrote:
On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 11:42:02 -0500, ESAD wrote:

On 12/17/12 8:52 AM, Tim wrote:
On Dec 17, 7:47 am, iBoaterer wrote:
In article ,
says...











On Sat, 15 Dec 2012 21:39:01 -0800 (PST), Tim
wrote:

On Dec 15, 1:26 pm, jps wrote:

And just what does that tell you about the difference between our two
societies and American's ability to handle weapons responsibly?

Not much. Nothing is a 'weapon' until it's turned into one, regardless
of if it's a gun, knife, claw hammer, axe, box opener...

We are a nation of desperate people,

And why is that?

Think making guns real available is a good idea?

No. I obtained mine legally and maintain and use them in accordance
with State and Federal laws. If that's not suitable for you then by
all means get out of the dump and run for high office. Then do what
you can to change the law.

Every one of the weapons used in high casualty incidents were obtained
legally.

That's the problem, someone obtains them legally, then someone either
"borrows" them or steals them to commit crimes and kill innocent people
and children.

Yep!

"Every one of the weapons used in high casualty incidents were
obtained legally."

Then used by criminal[s] in a highly illegal manner.



I don't know what may happen because of the latest massacre.

I hope the following happens:

1. Long-term, strong efforts to amend the 2nd Amendment to the
Constitution to make it as "difficult" to obtain a firearm as it is to
obtain and register a motor vehicle: no purchases, sales or transfers
without a paper trail and a background check. Include absolute, defined
restrictions on certain types of weapons and ancillary products that
typically are not used for hunting, target shooting or home defense.
These would make it illegal to possess certain types of firearms and
ancillary equipment. Illegal to possess would mean these firearms would
have to be turned in and destroyed, and the owner would receive a fee
for the turn-in.

Gosh, maybe they should do the same thing for voting. I believe any illegal alien can buy a car and
register it. Or, he can pay a 'legal' alien to do it for him.


2. Short-term, an end to the gun show loophole, and no purchases, sales
or transfers of any firearms without a paper trail and background check.
No sales of firearms that can or can be modified to handle a magazine or
clip that holds more than 10 rounds. No sales of such magazines or
clips. Turn-ins of such magazines or clips. No purchases, transfers or
sales of firearms without a waiting period.


So, if you want to kill twenty kids, you must know how to change magazines or clips. Really smart
idea, krause.


3. An immediate increase in the amount of funding available for
psychological screening and testing in all schools, and in the
availability of psychological counseling to all who need it, whether
they know it or not.


**** a bunch of privacy! If a kid looks at you with 'that tone of voice' he/she is sent to a shrink
(like the Dr. Dr. Dr.??) for immediate screening, testing, and incarceration if the 'shrink' deems
it warranted.


Another display of your ignorance and on several levels. It is good for
this country that right-wing assholes like you are aging and dying.

That's the best you can do? As stated earlier - you've reached your limit, now you must resort to
name-calling.

-
Another truism from 'Racist John'

Snickering Snotty
 

On 12/18/2012 4:43 PM, JustWait wrote:
On 12/18/2012 3:50 PM, Eisboch wrote:


"GuzzisRule" wrote in message
...

On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 10:43:39 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:


But statistics indicate that this is *not* a growing epidemic or
upward trend. There were unfortunately more that occurred in the
1980's and 1990's. We just didn't hear as much about them as we hear
today.



I've also heard similar statistics presented on one of our local radio
stations. The statistics make
us look better.

However, I'd have no problem with the banning of assault weapons. Target
practice and hunting can
both be done with other types of rifles. The question will then be,
"What constitutes an assault
weapon?"

------------------------------------------

"Justwait" made a comment that caused me to think about this. I think
his definitions of guns could be developed into a reasonably simple
category system of what is available for purchase and ownership by
private citizens and what is reserved for military and police use.

For private citizens:

Firearms (handguns and rifles/shotguns) specifically designed for
target practice and competition. No more than 7-10 round capacity.
Firearms (rifles and shotguns) designed specifically for hunting. No
more than 5-10 rounds.
Firearms designed for personal/home defense. Includes handguns with no
more than 7-10 round capacity. Concealed carry permits allowed based on
background check.
Non-functioning firearms as collectibles/display pieces. These can
include military type weapons but must be permanently disabled.

For Law Enforcement and Military:

Firearms and weapons designed for both defensive and offensive use.
Automatic and semi-automatic with unlimited round capacity.

The days of private citizens being concerned about arming to the teeth
to protect themselves from their own government are long over.
That interpretation of the 2nd Ammendent is obsolete. Private citizens
don't need high capacity, offensive weapons.


There you go... Now let's get on my idea of hiring retired PoPo as
administrators, janitors, coaches, teachers aids, cafeteria workers, etc
in schools and let them carry.

Like I said, a uniformed security guard or even police officer is a
sitting duck if he doesn't know an attack is being planned, he would
just be fodder. Now imagine in CT, if there were two or three armed
teachers or staff, even a janitor who heard the shots come over the loud
speaker and made their way to the office, even if just to lay down cover
fire until the cops got there minutes later. There is a good possibility
the kid would have never made it out of the office and to the classroom.
We might be talking about less than 5 dead... The key though is the
unions would have to allow these retired PoPo to come into the system...

And to be clear... These folks are not hired to be security, or to sit
around collecting a check for nothing. They are hired for already
existing jobs within the facility, to push pencils in the office, coach
gym, janitorial, cook food... It would be a second career for them, just
that retired PoPo might be enticed by the town to fill some of those
every day jobs involved in the running of a school...

Snickering Snotty
 

On 12/18/12 4:59 PM, GuzzisRule wrote:
On Tue, 18 Dec 2012 16:30:49 -0500, ESAD wrote:

On 12/18/12 2:23 PM, GuzzisRule wrote:
On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 11:42:02 -0500, ESAD wrote:

On 12/17/12 8:52 AM, Tim wrote:
On Dec 17, 7:47 am, iBoaterer wrote:
In article ,
says...











On Sat, 15 Dec 2012 21:39:01 -0800 (PST), Tim
wrote:

On Dec 15, 1:26 pm, jps wrote:

And just what does that tell you about the difference between our two
societies and American's ability to handle weapons responsibly?

Not much. Nothing is a 'weapon' until it's turned into one, regardless
of if it's a gun, knife, claw hammer, axe, box opener...

We are a nation of desperate people,

And why is that?

Think making guns real available is a good idea?

No. I obtained mine legally and maintain and use them in accordance
with State and Federal laws. If that's not suitable for you then by
all means get out of the dump and run for high office. Then do what
you can to change the law.

Every one of the weapons used in high casualty incidents were obtained
legally.

That's the problem, someone obtains them legally, then someone either
"borrows" them or steals them to commit crimes and kill innocent people
and children.

Yep!

"Every one of the weapons used in high casualty incidents were
obtained legally."

Then used by criminal[s] in a highly illegal manner.



I don't know what may happen because of the latest massacre.

I hope the following happens:

1. Long-term, strong efforts to amend the 2nd Amendment to the
Constitution to make it as "difficult" to obtain a firearm as it is to
obtain and register a motor vehicle: no purchases, sales or transfers
without a paper trail and a background check. Include absolute, defined
restrictions on certain types of weapons and ancillary products that
typically are not used for hunting, target shooting or home defense.
These would make it illegal to possess certain types of firearms and
ancillary equipment. Illegal to possess would mean these firearms would
have to be turned in and destroyed, and the owner would receive a fee
for the turn-in.

Gosh, maybe they should do the same thing for voting. I believe any illegal alien can buy a car and
register it. Or, he can pay a 'legal' alien to do it for him.


2. Short-term, an end to the gun show loophole, and no purchases, sales
or transfers of any firearms without a paper trail and background check.
No sales of firearms that can or can be modified to handle a magazine or
clip that holds more than 10 rounds. No sales of such magazines or
clips. Turn-ins of such magazines or clips. No purchases, transfers or
sales of firearms without a waiting period.


So, if you want to kill twenty kids, you must know how to change magazines or clips. Really smart
idea, krause.


3. An immediate increase in the amount of funding available for
psychological screening and testing in all schools, and in the
availability of psychological counseling to all who need it, whether
they know it or not.


**** a bunch of privacy! If a kid looks at you with 'that tone of voice' he/she is sent to a shrink
(like the Dr. Dr. Dr.??) for immediate screening, testing, and incarceration if the 'shrink' deems
it warranted.


Another display of your ignorance and on several levels. It is good for
this country that right-wing assholes like you are aging and dying.

That's the best you can do? As stated earlier - you've reached your limit, now you must resort to
name-calling.

-
Another truism from 'Racist John'


There's no need to respond tit for tat to your idiotic opinions. Certain
licensed mental health professionals can have a person hospitalized for
72 hours for evaluations, but as soon as those hours are over, there's a
hearing before a judge, and judges typically are reluctant to
hospitalize someone beyond that without substantial evidence the person
is about to hurt others or him/her self. On the other hand, too many
individuals with mental illnesses are arrested, tried, convicted and
sent to prisons because there is a tremendous shortage of beds at
psychiatric hospitals.

Which member(s) of your family have been judged mentally incompetent and
needed long-term hospitalization?

Snickering Snotty
 

On 12/18/2012 4:57 PM, GuzzisRule wrote:
On Tue, 18 Dec 2012 15:50:18 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:



"GuzzisRule" wrote in message
...

On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 10:43:39 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:


But statistics indicate that this is *not* a growing epidemic or
upward trend. There were unfortunately more that occurred in the
1980's and 1990's. We just didn't hear as much about them as we hear
today.



I've also heard similar statistics presented on one of our local radio
stations. The statistics make
us look better.

However, I'd have no problem with the banning of assault weapons.
Target practice and hunting can
both be done with other types of rifles. The question will then be,
"What constitutes an assault
weapon?"

------------------------------------------

"Justwait" made a comment that caused me to think about this. I
think his definitions of guns could be developed into a reasonably
simple category system of what is available for purchase and ownership
by private citizens and what is reserved for military and police use.

For private citizens:

Firearms (handguns and rifles/shotguns) specifically designed for
target practice and competition. No more than 7-10 round capacity.
Firearms (rifles and shotguns) designed specifically for hunting.
No more than 5-10 rounds.
Firearms designed for personal/home defense. Includes handguns with
no more than 7-10 round capacity. Concealed carry permits allowed
based on background check.
Non-functioning firearms as collectibles/display pieces. These can
include military type weapons but must be permanently disabled.

For Law Enforcement and Military:

Firearms and weapons designed for both defensive and offensive use.
Automatic and semi-automatic with unlimited round capacity.

The days of private citizens being concerned about arming to the teeth
to protect themselves from their own government are long over.
That interpretation of the 2nd Ammendent is obsolete. Private
citizens don't need high capacity, offensive weapons.

I've given my take on 10-round magazines. It would make the killer waste a few seconds changing
magazines - that's it.

But, I have no problem with laws banning the 'assault style weapon' - providing they can be defined.
You didn't address the questions I posted with the pictures.


I have no answers, that's why I am asking questions...

Snickering Snotty
 

wrote in message
...

On Tuesday, December 18, 2012 3:50:18 PM UTC-5, Eisboch wrote:
"GuzzisRule" wrote in message

...



On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 10:43:39 -0500, "Eisboch"
wrote:
------------------------------------------



"Justwait" made a comment that caused me to think about this. I
think his definitions of guns could be developed into a reasonably
simple category system of what is available for purchase and
ownership
by private citizens and what is reserved for military and police
use.

For private citizens:

Firearms (handguns and rifles/shotguns) specifically designed for
target practice and competition. No more than 7-10 round capacity.
Firearms (rifles and shotguns) designed specifically for hunting.
No more than 5-10 rounds.
Firearms designed for personal/home defense. Includes handguns with
no more than 7-10 round capacity. Concealed carry permits allowed
based on background check.
Non-functioning firearms as collectibles/display pieces. These can
include military type weapons but must be permanently disabled.


For Law Enforcement and Military:

Firearms and weapons designed for both defensive and offensive use.
Automatic and semi-automatic with unlimited round capacity.

The days of private citizens being concerned about arming to the
teeth
to protect themselves from their own government are long over.
That interpretation of the 2nd Ammendent is obsolete. Private
citizens don't need high capacity, offensive weapons.

Problem is... ANY firearm can be used both offensively and
defensively. Take an M15 and a .45 ACP. Generally, the first fits
the offensive weapon category, the second the home defensive one. But
in the right situation, the M16 would be the better defense, and the
ACP the better offense.

In the end, it's the person pulling the trigger. It always comes down
to that.

--------------------------------------------------------------

I know, but it seems we have to draw some kind of distinction, which
is why I used the terminology, "specifically designed for".

Have to start somewhere.