What the 'ell??
 

On 1/2/2013 9:19 AM, ESAD wrote:
On 1/2/13 8:54 AM, iBoaterer wrote:
In article ,
says...

On 1/1/13 7:49 PM, JustWait wrote:
On 1/1/2013 7:15 PM, BAR wrote:
In article ,
says...

On 1/1/13 12:59 PM, JustWait wrote:
On 1/1/2013 12:32 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 31 Dec 2012 11:37:17 -0500, JustWait
wrote:

On 12/31/2012 11:12 AM, JustWait wrote:


Quite frankly I think the training should be based on the
training a
rookie Police Officer comes in with... This might mean a couple
years of
night school, but if you are going to have armed anybody in the
schools
I think they need all the tools of conflict resolution, physical
ability, tactical awareness, etc that a fully trained Police
Officer
has.


Why do we think there is something wonderful about the training
cops
have?

Because a lot of their training is directed at exactly the type of
incursion we are talking about here...

Remember last summer the cops in New York shot 11 innocent
bystanders,
taking down one suspect. They weren't even rookies.


It called "the fog of war"... it was terrible, but it happened.
Hey, I
hear a plane crashed once, maybe we just shouldn't fly either...

Do you think a bunch of untrained civilians would do any better? In
fact, can you give me one identifiable group that you think would be
better suited for such duty?


I think it would be better if we kept armed people of every kind away
from our public schools.

I'd rather we spend that sort of money, or a good portion of it on:

1. Licensing gun owners and guns, and that includes all current gun
owners and their firearms. Licensing to include a mandatory safety
course and demonstration of knowledge at a licensed firing range.

2. No private sales of firearms without a legal paper trail.

3. Drastically increased funding for community mental health
screening
and services.

4. Outlawing of firearms that can accommodate more than 10 rounds
in a
magazine, and required turning in or permanent modification of
existing
firearms.

5. Educational programs in the public schools that teach children
how to
resolve conflict without "going Scotty."

Is that why you live so far away from a school?



He lives that far because Harry Krause is a convicted sexual
predator...
back in Florida where he used to live...

Still projecting, hey, little boy-man? Oh, there are two public schools
and one church school in our immediate area, within walking distance if
there were sidewalks.

You can't walk anywhere unless there is sidewalks? Figures.


Do you have to work extra hard at being stupid or does it come naturally?

To walk to the three schools in our immediate area, you'd have to walk
on the side of several state roads, one of which is a very narrow
two-laner with lots of blind spots and the other with heavy traffic
during rush hour. For different reasons, both roads are dangerous for
pedestrians.

That's why the county runs school buses to pick up the kids, even though
their schools are within easy walking distance.



How do you manage to ride your bicycle and Duc. motorbike on those
dangerous roads?

What the 'ell??
 

In article om,
says...

On 1/2/2013 9:19 AM, ESAD wrote:
On 1/2/13 8:54 AM, iBoaterer wrote:
In article ,
says...

On 1/1/13 7:49 PM, JustWait wrote:
On 1/1/2013 7:15 PM, BAR wrote:
In article ,
says...

On 1/1/13 12:59 PM, JustWait wrote:
On 1/1/2013 12:32 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 31 Dec 2012 11:37:17 -0500, JustWait
wrote:

On 12/31/2012 11:12 AM, JustWait wrote:


Quite frankly I think the training should be based on the
training a
rookie Police Officer comes in with... This might mean a couple
years of
night school, but if you are going to have armed anybody in the
schools
I think they need all the tools of conflict resolution, physical
ability, tactical awareness, etc that a fully trained Police
Officer
has.


Why do we think there is something wonderful about the training
cops
have?

Because a lot of their training is directed at exactly the type of
incursion we are talking about here...

Remember last summer the cops in New York shot 11 innocent
bystanders,
taking down one suspect. They weren't even rookies.


It called "the fog of war"... it was terrible, but it happened.
Hey, I
hear a plane crashed once, maybe we just shouldn't fly either...

Do you think a bunch of untrained civilians would do any better? In
fact, can you give me one identifiable group that you think would be
better suited for such duty?


I think it would be better if we kept armed people of every kind away
from our public schools.

I'd rather we spend that sort of money, or a good portion of it on:

1. Licensing gun owners and guns, and that includes all current gun
owners and their firearms. Licensing to include a mandatory safety
course and demonstration of knowledge at a licensed firing range.

2. No private sales of firearms without a legal paper trail.

3. Drastically increased funding for community mental health
screening
and services.

4. Outlawing of firearms that can accommodate more than 10 rounds
in a
magazine, and required turning in or permanent modification of
existing
firearms.

5. Educational programs in the public schools that teach children
how to
resolve conflict without "going Scotty."

Is that why you live so far away from a school?



He lives that far because Harry Krause is a convicted sexual
predator...
back in Florida where he used to live...

Still projecting, hey, little boy-man? Oh, there are two public schools
and one church school in our immediate area, within walking distance if
there were sidewalks.

You can't walk anywhere unless there is sidewalks? Figures.


Do you have to work extra hard at being stupid or does it come naturally?

To walk to the three schools in our immediate area, you'd have to walk
on the side of several state roads, one of which is a very narrow
two-laner with lots of blind spots and the other with heavy traffic
during rush hour. For different reasons, both roads are dangerous for
pedestrians.

That's why the county runs school buses to pick up the kids, even though
their schools are within easy walking distance.



How do you manage to ride your bicycle and Duc. motorbike on those
dangerous roads?

Those are another of his fairy tales.

What the 'ell??
 

On Mon, 31 Dec 2012 18:31:38 -0500, wrote:

On Mon, 31 Dec 2012 14:51:45 -0500, iBoaterer wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Mon, 31 Dec 2012 12:02:02 -0500, iBoaterer wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Mon, 31 Dec 2012 09:49:48 -0500, iBoaterer wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Mon, 31 Dec 2012 08:05:31 -0500, iBoaterer wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Sun, 30 Dec 2012 19:56:46 -0500, wrote:

On Sun, 30 Dec 2012 19:36:43 -0500, ESAD wrote:

On 12/30/12 6:52 PM, wrote:
Looks like things are getting crazier by the minute down there...
http://www.cbc.ca/news/yourcommunity...-shooting.html

It'll be interesting to see what happens when the first sort of trained
teacher ends up shooting a kid "by sccident."

Hey, this is the United States. Rather than deal with the issues, we arm
teacher.

We arm everybody that is truly expected to protect and defend. Now,
that responsibility falls to those people acting in loco parentis.

Deal with the issues? There is no squishy idealism debate of issues.
This is about crazy armed people looking for a soft underbelly and
finding it among unprotected children. This isn't necessarily about
guns, either. Other countries are having the same problem with crazies
employing knives, machetes, and hatchets to eviscerate and hack off
school children's body parts.

It is already legal for teachers in Utah to carry. I applaud them for
seeking further training in pursuit of protect the children and fellow
employees.

An interesting thing is I have not heard about any shootings in Utah.
I googled Utah Shooting and I got this story, one story about a drug
raid and a ****load of stories and ads for places to shoot.

Maybe those Mormons are too scary to start up any **** with.

So are you ASSuming that the teachers toting guns to school will be any
more mentally stable than the general population of the U.S. where the
shooters have come from?

So, you think the shooters are representative of the general
population? Interesting logic, that.

Who else comes from the general population?

Yes, the shooters came from the general population of the U.S. That's
where everyone else comes from, INCLUDING teachers.

So, you are drawing specifics from the widest possible generality?

You don't think that a teacher can go off like anyone else might be
capable of?

What if this teacher, who until this time was just fine, was allowed to
carry a gun??

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ODbAHqn_qmo

Or this one:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_NLQkTfKosY

Or this one:

http://sitchnews.com/3774/teachers-g...s-during-math-
class

What if schools sent students that were making the teachers go crazy
to reform schools instead?

Oh, so all mental health problems of teachers comes from the students,
eh?

No. Mental health problems of teachers come from students, sorry-ass
parents that won't parent, and impotent administrators trying to be
politicians.

Yup. What he said.Been there, done that 'til I got sick of it.

What the 'ell??
 

On 1/2/13 1:16 PM, GuzzisRule wrote:
On Mon, 31 Dec 2012 18:31:38 -0500, wrote:

On Mon, 31 Dec 2012 14:51:45 -0500, iBoaterer wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Mon, 31 Dec 2012 12:02:02 -0500, iBoaterer wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Mon, 31 Dec 2012 09:49:48 -0500, iBoaterer wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Mon, 31 Dec 2012 08:05:31 -0500, iBoaterer wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Sun, 30 Dec 2012 19:56:46 -0500, wrote:

On Sun, 30 Dec 2012 19:36:43 -0500, ESAD wrote:

On 12/30/12 6:52 PM, wrote:
Looks like things are getting crazier by the minute down there...
http://www.cbc.ca/news/yourcommunity...-shooting.html

It'll be interesting to see what happens when the first sort of trained
teacher ends up shooting a kid "by sccident."

Hey, this is the United States. Rather than deal with the issues, we arm
teacher.

We arm everybody that is truly expected to protect and defend. Now,
that responsibility falls to those people acting in loco parentis.

Deal with the issues? There is no squishy idealism debate of issues.
This is about crazy armed people looking for a soft underbelly and
finding it among unprotected children. This isn't necessarily about
guns, either. Other countries are having the same problem with crazies
employing knives, machetes, and hatchets to eviscerate and hack off
school children's body parts.

It is already legal for teachers in Utah to carry. I applaud them for
seeking further training in pursuit of protect the children and fellow
employees.

An interesting thing is I have not heard about any shootings in Utah.
I googled Utah Shooting and I got this story, one story about a drug
raid and a ****load of stories and ads for places to shoot.

Maybe those Mormons are too scary to start up any **** with.

So are you ASSuming that the teachers toting guns to school will be any
more mentally stable than the general population of the U.S. where the
shooters have come from?

So, you think the shooters are representative of the general
population? Interesting logic, that.

Who else comes from the general population?

Yes, the shooters came from the general population of the U.S. That's
where everyone else comes from, INCLUDING teachers.

So, you are drawing specifics from the widest possible generality?

You don't think that a teacher can go off like anyone else might be
capable of?

What if this teacher, who until this time was just fine, was allowed to
carry a gun??

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ODbAHqn_qmo

Or this one:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_NLQkTfKosY

Or this one:

http://sitchnews.com/3774/teachers-g...s-during-math-
class

What if schools sent students that were making the teachers go crazy
to reform schools instead?

Oh, so all mental health problems of teachers comes from the students,
eh?

No. Mental health problems of teachers come from students, sorry-ass
parents that won't parent, and impotent administrators trying to be
politicians.

Yup. What he said.Been there, done that 'til I got sick of it.


Not nearly as sick as your non-white students got of you, I'd bet.

What the 'ell??
 

On Mon, 31 Dec 2012 15:43:18 -0500, ESAD wrote:

On 12/31/12 2:33 PM, GuzzisRule wrote:
On Mon, 31 Dec 2012 10:02:40 -0500, ESAD wrote:

On 12/31/12 8:32 AM, wrote:
On Monday, December 31, 2012 8:58:58 AM UTC-4, iBoaterer wrote:
In article ,

says...



Looks like things are getting crazier by the minute down there...

http://www.cbc.ca/news/yourcommunity...-shooting.html



What is YOUR solution?

Disarm the population...with an exception for shotguns and legitimate hunting rifles.



Too rational for the lunatics in this country.

How would you 'disarm the population' in DC and Anacostia, ESAD?


I'd send all the useless, militaristic, racist old farts like you into
the neighborhoods and order you to go door to door on a weapons seizure
mission.

That would probably be your best shot at success.

What the 'ell??
 

On Tue, 01 Jan 2013 12:44:17 -0500, ESAD wrote:

On 1/1/13 12:37 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 31 Dec 2012 14:33:45 -0500, GuzzisRule
wrote:

On Mon, 31 Dec 2012 10:02:40 -0500, ESAD wrote:

On 12/31/12 8:32 AM, wrote:

Disarm the population...with an exception for shotguns and legitimate hunting rifles.



Too rational for the lunatics in this country.

How would you 'disarm the population' in DC and Anacostia, ESAD?

They must have already been disarmed. Owning a handgun has been
illegal in DC since 1968 (unless it was registered at that time) and
long guns are heavily regulated. This should be the safest city in the
country.


I proposed a plan. The plan was to round up all the useless old racist
right-wing farts like Herring and send them into the tough neighborhoods
in DC to knock on doors and insist on having the occupants turn over
their firearms.

My plan:

1. Provides honest work for the old-fart right wingers.
2. Might result in some of the old farts being terminated, an event that
would cut down on the number of racists *and* the CO2 they emit.
3. Might get some firearms out of the hands of those who might not be
legally entitled to have them.

Such duties might help people like Herring atone for the horrors they
visited upon SE Asia.


And it's about the only thing that would work.

What the 'ell??
 

On 1/2/13 1:22 PM, GuzzisRule wrote:
On Tue, 01 Jan 2013 12:44:17 -0500, ESAD wrote:

On 1/1/13 12:37 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 31 Dec 2012 14:33:45 -0500, GuzzisRule
wrote:

On Mon, 31 Dec 2012 10:02:40 -0500, ESAD wrote:

On 12/31/12 8:32 AM, wrote:

Disarm the population...with an exception for shotguns and legitimate hunting rifles.



Too rational for the lunatics in this country.

How would you 'disarm the population' in DC and Anacostia, ESAD?

They must have already been disarmed. Owning a handgun has been
illegal in DC since 1968 (unless it was registered at that time) and
long guns are heavily regulated. This should be the safest city in the
country.


I proposed a plan. The plan was to round up all the useless old racist
right-wing farts like Herring and send them into the tough neighborhoods
in DC to knock on doors and insist on having the occupants turn over
their firearms.

My plan:

1. Provides honest work for the old-fart right wingers.
2. Might result in some of the old farts being terminated, an event that
would cut down on the number of racists *and* the CO2 they emit.
3. Might get some firearms out of the hands of those who might not be
legally entitled to have them.

Such duties might help people like Herring atone for the horrors they
visited upon SE Asia.


And it's about the only thing that would work.


There's gotta be a sign-up sheet somewhere for you.

On a serious note, I support:

Federal licensing of all firearms owners, federal registration of all
firearms. No licensing without proof of passage of a serious firearms
training course.

No sales or trades of firearms without filing of a simple federal document.

No sales of mags or clips that can hold more than 10 rounds, no
possession of mags or clips that can hold more than 10 rounds, with a
180 day turn in period for such items.

What the 'ell??
 

In article ,
says...

On Mon, 31 Dec 2012 18:31:38 -0500, wrote:

On Mon, 31 Dec 2012 14:51:45 -0500, iBoaterer wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Mon, 31 Dec 2012 12:02:02 -0500, iBoaterer wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Mon, 31 Dec 2012 09:49:48 -0500, iBoaterer wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Mon, 31 Dec 2012 08:05:31 -0500, iBoaterer wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Sun, 30 Dec 2012 19:56:46 -0500, wrote:

On Sun, 30 Dec 2012 19:36:43 -0500, ESAD wrote:

On 12/30/12 6:52 PM, wrote:
Looks like things are getting crazier by the minute down there...
http://www.cbc.ca/news/yourcommunity...-shooting.html

It'll be interesting to see what happens when the first sort of trained
teacher ends up shooting a kid "by sccident."

Hey, this is the United States. Rather than deal with the issues, we arm
teacher.

We arm everybody that is truly expected to protect and defend. Now,
that responsibility falls to those people acting in loco parentis.

Deal with the issues? There is no squishy idealism debate of issues.
This is about crazy armed people looking for a soft underbelly and
finding it among unprotected children. This isn't necessarily about
guns, either. Other countries are having the same problem with crazies
employing knives, machetes, and hatchets to eviscerate and hack off
school children's body parts.

It is already legal for teachers in Utah to carry. I applaud them for
seeking further training in pursuit of protect the children and fellow
employees.

An interesting thing is I have not heard about any shootings in Utah.
I googled Utah Shooting and I got this story, one story about a drug
raid and a ****load of stories and ads for places to shoot.

Maybe those Mormons are too scary to start up any **** with.

So are you ASSuming that the teachers toting guns to school will be any
more mentally stable than the general population of the U.S. where the
shooters have come from?

So, you think the shooters are representative of the general
population? Interesting logic, that.

Who else comes from the general population?

Yes, the shooters came from the general population of the U.S. That's
where everyone else comes from, INCLUDING teachers.

So, you are drawing specifics from the widest possible generality?

You don't think that a teacher can go off like anyone else might be
capable of?

What if this teacher, who until this time was just fine, was allowed to
carry a gun??

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ODbAHqn_qmo

Or this one:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_NLQkTfKosY

Or this one:

http://sitchnews.com/3774/teachers-g...s-during-math-
class

What if schools sent students that were making the teachers go crazy
to reform schools instead?

Oh, so all mental health problems of teachers comes from the students,
eh?

No. Mental health problems of teachers come from students, sorry-ass
parents that won't parent, and impotent administrators trying to be
politicians.

Yup. What he said.Been there, done that 'til I got sick of it.

So, those are the ONLY reasons that a teacher would have a mental health
problem huh?

What the 'ell??
 

On 1/2/13 3:10 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 02 Jan 2013 13:32:30 -0500, ESAD wrote:

no
possession of mags or clips that can hold more than 10 rounds, with a
180 day turn in period for such items.

How much "just compensation" will the government be offering ... or
are we tossing out the 5th amendment too?


Something fair could be worked out. CDNN is selling hi-cap mags for
rifle for around $20 to $30.

What the 'ell??
 

On 1/2/13 4:51 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 02 Jan 2013 15:15:35 -0500, ESAD wrote:

On 1/2/13 3:10 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 02 Jan 2013 13:32:30 -0500, ESAD wrote:

no
possession of mags or clips that can hold more than 10 rounds, with a
180 day turn in period for such items.

How much "just compensation" will the government be offering ... or
are we tossing out the 5th amendment too?


Something fair could be worked out. CDNN is selling hi-cap mags for
rifle for around $20 to $30.

That might be a reasonable idea. How many do you think would get
turned in? If the street price was closer to $50 or $100, guess where
most would end up?

If you did have the feds registering all of the guns and certifying
all of the shooters, do you think the anti gun people would get off
our backs or would it just be a prelude to confiscation?

For me it is not that big a deal. I own an NFA firearm so I have been
vetted by BATF and I have a CCW so state knows I have had education
and I carry a card.


If possession after a date certain were a felony with serious
consequences, such as, for example, a substantial fine and loss of one's
legal ability to own a firearm, then I suspect a lot will be turned in.

What the 'ell??
 

On 1/2/13 8:15 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 02 Jan 2013 17:15:03 -0500, ESAD wrote:

On 1/2/13 4:51 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 02 Jan 2013 15:15:35 -0500, ESAD wrote:

On 1/2/13 3:10 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 02 Jan 2013 13:32:30 -0500, ESAD wrote:

no
possession of mags or clips that can hold more than 10 rounds, with a
180 day turn in period for such items.

How much "just compensation" will the government be offering ... or
are we tossing out the 5th amendment too?


Something fair could be worked out. CDNN is selling hi-cap mags for
rifle for around $20 to $30.

That might be a reasonable idea. How many do you think would get
turned in? If the street price was closer to $50 or $100, guess where
most would end up?

If you did have the feds registering all of the guns and certifying
all of the shooters, do you think the anti gun people would get off
our backs or would it just be a prelude to confiscation?

For me it is not that big a deal. I own an NFA firearm so I have been
vetted by BATF and I have a CCW so state knows I have had education
and I carry a card.


If possession after a date certain were a felony with serious
consequences, such as, for example, a substantial fine and loss of one's
legal ability to own a firearm, then I suspect a lot will be turned in.


The law abiding people might turn them in but that is not who poses
the problem. I think you night even find a number of otherwise law
abiding people who would stuff a few under the insulation in the attic
or something, assuming the law would be repealed or simply ruled
against in court.



I think the public is tiring of the "Nothing will work, so let's do
nothing" response.

What the 'ell??
 

On 1/2/13 8:45 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 02 Jan 2013 20:19:41 -0500, ESAD wrote:

For me it is not that big a deal. I own an NFA firearm so I have been
vetted by BATF and I have a CCW so state knows I have had education
and I carry a card.


If possession after a date certain were a felony with serious
consequences, such as, for example, a substantial fine and loss of one's
legal ability to own a firearm, then I suspect a lot will be turned in.


The law abiding people might turn them in but that is not who poses
the problem. I think you night even find a number of otherwise law
abiding people who would stuff a few under the insulation in the attic
or something, assuming the law would be repealed or simply ruled
against in court.



I think the public is tiring of the "Nothing will work, so let's do
nothing" response.

It makes as much sense as "let's do something, even if it is a
meaningless knee jerk reaction".


I'm not aware of any of those, other than the make schools into armed
camps proposals of the NRA.

What the 'ell??
 

On Wed, 2 Jan 2013 19:47:36 -0800 (PST),
wrote:

I highly doubt you know many "good law abiding folks".....

===

Don, just as a point of curiosity, why go out of your way to start yet
another ****ing contest?

What the 'ell??
 

On 1/3/2013 12:15 AM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Wed, 2 Jan 2013 19:47:36 -0800 (PST),
wrote:

I highly doubt you know many "good law abiding folks".....

===

Don, just as a point of curiosity, why go out of your way to start yet
another ****ing contest?


Cause the miserable old **** has as little to look forward to in life as
his butt buddy... He comes here every day for attention.

What the 'ell??
 

On 1/3/2013 12:15 AM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Wed, 2 Jan 2013 19:47:36 -0800 (PST),
wrote:

I highly doubt you know many "good law abiding folks".....

===

Don, just as a point of curiosity, why go out of your way to start yet
another ****ing contest?

Because that's what he does. It's his way of polishing Harry's apple.

What the 'ell??
 

On Thursday, January 3, 2013 1:15:28 AM UTC-4, Wayne. B wrote:
On Wed, 2 Jan 2013 19:47:36 -0800 (PST),

wrote:



I highly doubt you know many "good law abiding folks".....



===



Don, just as a point of curiosity, why go out of your way to start yet

another ****ing contest?

It's winter, minus 13 C , the boat is undercover in the driveway another 4 or 5 months so I'd like to do something that might be considered a public service.

What the 'ell??
 

On Thursday, January 3, 2013 2:40:32 AM UTC-4, JustWait wrote:
On 1/3/2013 12:15 AM, Wayne.B wrote:

On Wed, 2 Jan 2013 19:47:36 -0800 (PST),

wrote:



I highly doubt you know many "good law abiding folks".....



===



Don, just as a point of curiosity, why go out of your way to start yet

another ****ing contest?





Cause the miserable old **** has as little to look forward to in life as

his butt buddy... He comes here every day for attention.

On a national news program this am, I saw a flying superman figure that was remotely controlled. The thing seemed lifesized. Maybe you can order a Peter Pan or Tinkerbell version.

What the 'ell??
 

In article ,
says...

On Wed, 02 Jan 2013 17:15:03 -0500, ESAD wrote:

On 1/2/13 4:51 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 02 Jan 2013 15:15:35 -0500, ESAD wrote:

On 1/2/13 3:10 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 02 Jan 2013 13:32:30 -0500, ESAD wrote:

no
possession of mags or clips that can hold more than 10 rounds, with a
180 day turn in period for such items.

How much "just compensation" will the government be offering ... or
are we tossing out the 5th amendment too?


Something fair could be worked out. CDNN is selling hi-cap mags for
rifle for around $20 to $30.

That might be a reasonable idea. How many do you think would get
turned in? If the street price was closer to $50 or $100, guess where
most would end up?

If you did have the feds registering all of the guns and certifying
all of the shooters, do you think the anti gun people would get off
our backs or would it just be a prelude to confiscation?

For me it is not that big a deal. I own an NFA firearm so I have been
vetted by BATF and I have a CCW so state knows I have had education
and I carry a card.


If possession after a date certain were a felony with serious
consequences, such as, for example, a substantial fine and loss of one's
legal ability to own a firearm, then I suspect a lot will be turned in.


The law abiding people might turn them in but that is not who poses
the problem. I think you night even find a number of otherwise law
abiding people who would stuff a few under the insulation in the attic
or something, assuming the law would be repealed or simply ruled
against in court.

They would get the illegal ones off of the street after a fashion by
attrition.

What the 'ell??
 

In article ,
says...

On Wed, 2 Jan 2013 19:47:36 -0800 (PST),
wrote:

I highly doubt you know many "good law abiding folks".....

===

Don, just as a point of curiosity, why go out of your way to start yet
another ****ing contest?

It's all he and Harry have, what with the new found tax evasion, etc.

What the 'ell??
 

On Thu, 3 Jan 2013 04:29:12 -0800 (PST),
wrote:

It's winter, minus 13 C , the boat is undercover in the driveway another 4 or 5 months so I'd like to do something that might be considered a public service.

======

How about posting some pictures of the winter scenery or some big surf
along the coast?

What the 'ell??
 

On Thursday, January 3, 2013 11:54:53 AM UTC-4, Wayne. B wrote:
On Thu, 3 Jan 2013 04:29:12 -0800 (PST),

wrote:



It's winter, minus 13 C , the boat is undercover in the driveway another 4 or 5 months so I'd like to do something that might be considered a public service.



======



How about posting some pictures of the winter scenery or some big surf

along the coast?

Funny you mention pictures...
I've been struggling trying to decide what camera to buy to replace my Canon G10which is 3 or 4 years old and never did impress me. I fell for Canon's claim that it was their flagship of the point & shoot lineup.
Although it works perfectly..having just under 1k pictures taken on it, I found the 14.1mp sensor was too small and the pictures can seem a bit noisy if blown up to tv size. Also the video option isn't HD.
I was really looking forward to the newly released Canon EOS M mirrorless model with the big APS C sensor. The reviews so far have been a bit underwhelming for an $800.00 camera. I could get as good results, and in some cases better, with the Canon Rebel T4i DSLR...but am trying to avoid a bigger bulkier camera.
Anyway, if I decide this winter, you'll see more pictures of this area than you might want.

What the 'ell??
 

On 1/3/13 11:11 AM, wrote:
On Thursday, January 3, 2013 11:54:53 AM UTC-4, Wayne. B wrote:
On Thu, 3 Jan 2013 04:29:12 -0800 (PST),

wrote:



It's winter, minus 13 C , the boat is undercover in the driveway another 4 or 5 months so I'd like to do something that might be considered a public service.



======



How about posting some pictures of the winter scenery or some big surf

along the coast?

Funny you mention pictures...
I've been struggling trying to decide what camera to buy to replace my Canon G10which is 3 or 4 years old and never did impress me. I fell for Canon's claim that it was their flagship of the point & shoot lineup.
Although it works perfectly..having just under 1k pictures taken on it, I found the 14.1mp sensor was too small and the pictures can seem a bit noisy if blown up to tv size. Also the video option isn't HD.
I was really looking forward to the newly released Canon EOS M mirrorless model with the big APS C sensor. The reviews so far have been a bit underwhelming for an $800.00 camera. I could get as good results, and in some cases better, with the Canon Rebel T4i DSLR...but am trying to avoid a bigger bulkier camera.
Anyway, if I decide this winter, you'll see more pictures of this area than you might want.


Have you tried the "mirrorless" cameras? Unless you get one with an
electronic viewfinder option, you might find it hard to use outdoors,
because under many conditions, what you can see through the "big"
viewfinder on the back of the camera is limited by glare and by being
washed out in strong sunlight. Also, if you are trying to fill the
screen of a large TV set with photos taken on almost any size reasonably
priced digital camera sensor, and you want "almost noiseless" photos on
that big screen, it ain't gonna happen for several reasons, some of
which have to do with the camera and some with the TV.

I have an older "Rebel" similar to the one you mentioned, and it is
bulky and heavy.

What the 'ell??
 

On Thursday, January 3, 2013 12:31:42 PM UTC-4, ESAD wrote:
On 1/3/13 11:11 AM, wrote:

On Thursday, January 3, 2013 11:54:53 AM UTC-4, Wayne. B wrote:

On Thu, 3 Jan 2013 04:29:12 -0800 (PST),



wrote:







It's winter, minus 13 C , the boat is undercover in the driveway another 4 or 5 months so I'd like to do something that might be considered a public service.







======







How about posting some pictures of the winter scenery or some big surf



along the coast?



Funny you mention pictures...

I've been struggling trying to decide what camera to buy to replace my Canon G10which is 3 or 4 years old and never did impress me. I fell for Canon's claim that it was their flagship of the point & shoot lineup.

Although it works perfectly..having just under 1k pictures taken on it, I found the 14.1mp sensor was too small and the pictures can seem a bit noisy if blown up to tv size. Also the video option isn't HD.

I was really looking forward to the newly released Canon EOS M mirrorless model with the big APS C sensor. The reviews so far have been a bit underwhelming for an $800.00 camera. I could get as good results, and in some cases better, with the Canon Rebel T4i DSLR...but am trying to avoid a bigger bulkier camera.

Anyway, if I decide this winter, you'll see more pictures of this area than you might want.





Have you tried the "mirrorless" cameras? Unless you get one with an

electronic viewfinder option, you might find it hard to use outdoors,

because under many conditions, what you can see through the "big"

viewfinder on the back of the camera is limited by glare and by being

washed out in strong sunlight. Also, if you are trying to fill the

screen of a large TV set with photos taken on almost any size reasonably

priced digital camera sensor, and you want "almost noiseless" photos on

that big screen, it ain't gonna happen for several reasons, some of

which have to do with the camera and some with the TV.



I have an older "Rebel" similar to the one you mentioned, and it is

bulky and heavy.

Haven't actually tried shooting pictures but have handled some models like three Sony Nex family. I was looking atvthe Canon G1 X also...big sensor but with a fixed telephoto lens.
A number of times I've looked at the Canon DSLRs such as the Top series, the D60 and then up to the D7. I really don't want to drag around a DSLRS with numerous lens etc.
Maybe next year's version of the EOS M will be improved for 'action photography'

What the 'ell??
 

On 1/3/13 12:00 PM, wrote:
On Thursday, January 3, 2013 12:31:42 PM UTC-4, ESAD wrote:
On 1/3/13 11:11 AM, wrote:

On Thursday, January 3, 2013 11:54:53 AM UTC-4, Wayne. B wrote:

On Thu, 3 Jan 2013 04:29:12 -0800 (PST),



wrote:







It's winter, minus 13 C , the boat is undercover in the driveway another 4 or 5 months so I'd like to do something that might be considered a public service.







======







How about posting some pictures of the winter scenery or some big surf



along the coast?



Funny you mention pictures...

I've been struggling trying to decide what camera to buy to replace my Canon G10which is 3 or 4 years old and never did impress me. I fell for Canon's claim that it was their flagship of the point & shoot lineup.

Although it works perfectly..having just under 1k pictures taken on it, I found the 14.1mp sensor was too small and the pictures can seem a bit noisy if blown up to tv size. Also the video option isn't HD.

I was really looking forward to the newly released Canon EOS M mirrorless model with the big APS C sensor. The reviews so far have been a bit underwhelming for an $800.00 camera. I could get as good results, and in some cases better, with the Canon Rebel T4i DSLR...but am trying to avoid a bigger bulkier camera.

Anyway, if I decide this winter, you'll see more pictures of this area than you might want.





Have you tried the "mirrorless" cameras? Unless you get one with an

electronic viewfinder option, you might find it hard to use outdoors,

because under many conditions, what you can see through the "big"

viewfinder on the back of the camera is limited by glare and by being

washed out in strong sunlight. Also, if you are trying to fill the

screen of a large TV set with photos taken on almost any size reasonably

priced digital camera sensor, and you want "almost noiseless" photos on

that big screen, it ain't gonna happen for several reasons, some of

which have to do with the camera and some with the TV.



I have an older "Rebel" similar to the one you mentioned, and it is

bulky and heavy.

Haven't actually tried shooting pictures but have handled some models like three Sony Nex family. I was looking atvthe Canon G1 X also...big sensor but with a fixed telephoto lens.
A number of times I've looked at the Canon DSLRs such as the Top series, the D60 and then up to the D7. I really don't want to drag around a DSLRS with numerous lens etc.
Maybe next year's version of the EOS M will be improved for 'action photography'



Well, you could get that Canon DSLR with the zoom kit lens...pretty good
results, but still bulky. Lighter though than the big D models and a lot
less $$$.

What the 'ell??
 

On 1/3/13 12:18 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 3 Jan 2013 08:31:39 -0500, iBoaterer wrote:

In article ,
says...

The law abiding people might turn them in but that is not who poses
the problem. I think you night even find a number of otherwise law
abiding people who would stuff a few under the insulation in the attic
or something, assuming the law would be repealed or simply ruled
against in court.

They would get the illegal ones off of the street after a fashion by
attrition.

That assumes nobody ever smuggled any more in. Bear in mind drug gangs
make their money on a smuggled product.


Another in your never-ending barrage of "we can't do anything, so let's
do nothing" posts.

What the 'ell??
 

On 1/3/2013 12:21 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 3 Jan 2013 08:11:29 -0800 (PST),
wrote:

I've been struggling trying to decide what camera to buy to replace my Canon G10which is 3 or 4 years old and never did impress me. I fell for Canon's claim that it was their flagship of the point & shoot lineup.
Although it works perfectly..having just under 1k pictures taken on it, I found the 14.1mp sensor was too small and the pictures can seem a bit noisy if blown up to tv size. Also the video option isn't HD.
I was really looking forward to the newly released Canon EOS M mirrorless model with the big APS C sensor. The reviews so far have been a bit underwhelming for an $800.00 camera. I could get as good results, and in some cases better, with the Canon Rebel T4i DSLR...but am trying to avoid a bigger bulkier camera.
Anyway, if I decide this winter, you'll see more pictures of this area than you might want.

I still like my Canon A400 although I have a more capable camera. It
is truly point and shoot and for most things takes as good a picture
as you can see on a 20" monitor. (or even my big screen TV)


I have an old Kodak D40 and it's the same way. Still giving me all the
photo capability I need for now...

What the 'ell??
 

On 1/3/2013 12:18 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 3 Jan 2013 08:31:39 -0500, iBoaterer wrote:

In article ,
says...

The law abiding people might turn them in but that is not who poses
the problem. I think you night even find a number of otherwise law
abiding people who would stuff a few under the insulation in the attic
or something, assuming the law would be repealed or simply ruled
against in court.

They would get the illegal ones off of the street after a fashion by
attrition.

That would take generations.

That assumes nobody ever smuggled any more in. Bear in mind drug gangs
make their money on a smuggled product.

What the 'ell??
 

In article , says...

On 1/3/2013 12:21 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 3 Jan 2013 08:11:29 -0800 (PST),
wrote:

I've been struggling trying to decide what camera to buy to replace my Canon G10which is 3 or 4 years old and never did impress me. I fell for Canon's claim that it was their flagship of the point & shoot lineup.
Although it works perfectly..having just under 1k pictures taken on it, I found the 14.1mp sensor was too small and the pictures can seem a bit noisy if blown up to tv size. Also the video option isn't HD.
I was really looking forward to the newly released Canon EOS M mirrorless model with the big APS C sensor. The reviews so far have been a bit underwhelming for an $800.00 camera. I could get as good results, and in some cases better, with the Canon Rebel T4i DSLR...but am trying to avoid a bigger bulkier camera.
Anyway, if I decide this winter, you'll see more pictures of this area than you might want.

I still like my Canon A400 although I have a more capable camera. It
is truly point and shoot and for most things takes as good a picture
as you can see on a 20" monitor. (or even my big screen TV)


I have an old Kodak D40 and it's the same way. Still giving me all the
photo capability I need for now...

Never seen one, could you show us a picture or tech sheet for this Kodak
D40?

What the 'ell??
 

In article , says...

On 1/3/2013 12:18 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 3 Jan 2013 08:31:39 -0500, iBoaterer wrote:

In article ,
says...

The law abiding people might turn them in but that is not who poses
the problem. I think you night even find a number of otherwise law
abiding people who would stuff a few under the insulation in the attic
or something, assuming the law would be repealed or simply ruled
against in court.

They would get the illegal ones off of the street after a fashion by
attrition.

That would take generations.

How so? Any data to back that up? Didn't think so.

What the 'ell??
 

In article ,
says...

On Thu, 03 Jan 2013 12:24:49 -0500, ESAD wrote:

On 1/3/13 12:18 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 3 Jan 2013 08:31:39 -0500, iBoaterer wrote:

In article ,
says...

The law abiding people might turn them in but that is not who poses
the problem. I think you night even find a number of otherwise law
abiding people who would stuff a few under the insulation in the attic
or something, assuming the law would be repealed or simply ruled
against in court.

They would get the illegal ones off of the street after a fashion by
attrition.

That assumes nobody ever smuggled any more in. Bear in mind drug gangs
make their money on a smuggled product.


Another in your never-ending barrage of "we can't do anything, so let's
do nothing" posts.

I started a thread suggesting that all of the Hi-caps and assault
weapons be put into a modified NFA style registry ... and then leave
the owners alone.

I got nothing.

And this is going to solve WHAT?

What the 'ell??
 

On Jan 3, 6:40*pm, wrote:
On Thu, 3 Jan 2013 15:19:29 -0500, iBoaterer wrote:
In article , says...

On 1/3/2013 12:18 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 3 Jan 2013 08:31:39 -0500, iBoaterer wrote:

In article ,
says...

The law abiding people might turn them in but that is not who poses
the problem. I think you night even find a number of otherwise law
abiding people who would stuff a few under the insulation in the attic
or something, assuming the law would be repealed or simply ruled
against in court.

They would get the illegal ones off of the street after a fashion by
attrition.

That would take generations.

How so? Any data to back that up? Didn't think so.

All you have to do is look at the illegal machine guns that people
have been hiding in their attic since WWII and that turned up in the
last LA amnesty buy back.
How many generations was WWII ago?

You used to be able to buy a full -auto Thompson 45 "Tommy gun"
through Sears and Roebuck. complete with 50 round drum too!

What the 'ell??
 

On 1/3/2013 7:40 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 3 Jan 2013 15:19:29 -0500, iBoaterer wrote:

In article , says...

On 1/3/2013 12:18 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 3 Jan 2013 08:31:39 -0500, iBoaterer wrote:

In article ,
says...

The law abiding people might turn them in but that is not who poses
the problem. I think you night even find a number of otherwise law
abiding people who would stuff a few under the insulation in the attic
or something, assuming the law would be repealed or simply ruled
against in court.

They would get the illegal ones off of the street after a fashion by
attrition.

That would take generations.

How so? Any data to back that up? Didn't think so.

Hey bitch... you didn't wait for an answer.

All you have to do is look at the illegal machine guns that people
have been hiding in their attic since WWII and that turned up in the
last LA amnesty buy back.
How many generations was WWII ago?

What the 'ell??
 

On 1/3/2013 9:55 PM, JustWait wrote:
On 1/3/2013 7:40 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 3 Jan 2013 15:19:29 -0500, iBoaterer wrote:

In article , says...

On 1/3/2013 12:18 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 3 Jan 2013 08:31:39 -0500, iBoaterer wrote:

In article ,
says...

The law abiding people might turn them in but that is not who poses
the problem. I think you night even find a number of otherwise law
abiding people who would stuff a few under the insulation in the
attic
or something, assuming the law would be repealed or simply ruled
against in court.

They would get the illegal ones off of the street after a fashion by
attrition.

That would take generations.

How so? Any data to back that up? Didn't think so.

Hey bitch... you didn't wait for an answer.

All you have to do is look at the illegal machine guns that people
have been hiding in their attic since WWII and that turned up in the
last LA amnesty buy back.
How many generations was WWII ago?




So far when it comes to fact checking today, it's loogie and harry,
zero, scotty ten... LOL!

What the 'ell??
 

On Jan 3, 8:29*pm, wrote:
On Thu, 3 Jan 2013 17:14:47 -0800 (PST), Tim
wrote:

On Jan 3, 6:40*pm, wrote:
All you have to do is look at the illegal machine guns that people
have been hiding in their attic since WWII and that turned up in the
last LA amnesty buy back.
How many generations was WWII ago?

You used to be able to buy a full -auto Thompson 45 "Tommy gun"
through Sears and Roebuck. * complete with 50 round drum too!

Yup, until 1934.
I have seen magazine ads where they said a Thompson was the perfect
thing to protect your farm.
Of course that was when Auto Ordinance was not selling as many to the
army and the cops as they would like.


I would have thought that Capone and the underworld would have been
stock piling them....

What the 'ell??
 

On Thursday, January 3, 2013 7:29:12 AM UTC-5, wrote:
On Thursday, January 3, 2013 1:15:28 AM UTC-4, Wayne. B wrote:

On Wed, 2 Jan 2013 19:47:36 -0800 (PST),



wrote:







I highly doubt you know many "good law abiding folks".....







===







Don, just as a point of curiosity, why go out of your way to start yet



another ****ing contest?



It's winter, minus 13 C , the boat is undercover in the driveway another 4 or 5 months so I'd like to do something that might be considered a public service.

So when do you start?

What the 'ell??
 

In article ,
says...

On 1/3/13 12:18 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 3 Jan 2013 08:31:39 -0500, iBoaterer wrote:

In article ,
says...

The law abiding people might turn them in but that is not who poses
the problem. I think you night even find a number of otherwise law
abiding people who would stuff a few under the insulation in the attic
or something, assuming the law would be repealed or simply ruled
against in court.

They would get the illegal ones off of the street after a fashion by
attrition.

That assumes nobody ever smuggled any more in. Bear in mind drug gangs
make their money on a smuggled product.


Another in your never-ending barrage of "we can't do anything, so let's
do nothing" posts.

Banning things only increases their value which means a bigger payday
for the smugglers. It is not a hard concept to understand unless you
only look at it from a political points perspective.

What the 'ell??
 

In article ,
says...

On Thu, 3 Jan 2013 15:19:29 -0500, iBoaterer wrote:

In article , says...

On 1/3/2013 12:18 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 3 Jan 2013 08:31:39 -0500, iBoaterer wrote:

In article ,
says...

The law abiding people might turn them in but that is not who poses
the problem. I think you night even find a number of otherwise law
abiding people who would stuff a few under the insulation in the attic
or something, assuming the law would be repealed or simply ruled
against in court.

They would get the illegal ones off of the street after a fashion by
attrition.

That would take generations.

How so? Any data to back that up? Didn't think so.

All you have to do is look at the illegal machine guns that people
have been hiding in their attic since WWII and that turned up in the
last LA amnesty buy back.
How many generations was WWII ago?

Again, any data to back that up?

What the 'ell??
 

In article , says...

On 1/3/2013 7:40 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 3 Jan 2013 15:19:29 -0500, iBoaterer wrote:

In article , says...

On 1/3/2013 12:18 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 3 Jan 2013 08:31:39 -0500, iBoaterer wrote:

In article ,
says...

The law abiding people might turn them in but that is not who poses
the problem. I think you night even find a number of otherwise law
abiding people who would stuff a few under the insulation in the attic
or something, assuming the law would be repealed or simply ruled
against in court.

They would get the illegal ones off of the street after a fashion by
attrition.

That would take generations.

How so? Any data to back that up? Didn't think so.

Hey bitch... you didn't wait for an answer.

All you have to do is look at the illegal machine guns that people
have been hiding in their attic since WWII and that turned up in the
last LA amnesty buy back.
How many generations was WWII ago?


Hey, bitch, where's the data?

What the 'ell??
 

In article , says...

On 1/3/2013 9:55 PM, JustWait wrote:
On 1/3/2013 7:40 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 3 Jan 2013 15:19:29 -0500, iBoaterer wrote:

In article , says...

On 1/3/2013 12:18 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 3 Jan 2013 08:31:39 -0500, iBoaterer wrote:

In article ,
says...

The law abiding people might turn them in but that is not who poses
the problem. I think you night even find a number of otherwise law
abiding people who would stuff a few under the insulation in the
attic
or something, assuming the law would be repealed or simply ruled
against in court.

They would get the illegal ones off of the street after a fashion by
attrition.

That would take generations.

How so? Any data to back that up? Didn't think so.

Hey bitch... you didn't wait for an answer.

All you have to do is look at the illegal machine guns that people
have been hiding in their attic since WWII and that turned up in the
last LA amnesty buy back.
How many generations was WWII ago?




So far when it comes to fact checking today, it's loogie and harry,
zero, scotty ten... LOL!

Fact checking? I asked for data to back up Greg's assertion that is
would "take generations". Do you have any? Wait, there's a fact, it's
bull**** and speculation!!

What the 'ell??
 

In article ,
says...

On Thursday, January 3, 2013 7:29:12 AM UTC-5, wrote:
On Thursday, January 3, 2013 1:15:28 AM UTC-4, Wayne. B wrote:

On Wed, 2 Jan 2013 19:47:36 -0800 (PST),



wrote:







I highly doubt you know many "good law abiding folks".....







===







Don, just as a point of curiosity, why go out of your way to start yet



another ****ing contest?



It's winter, minus 13 C , the boat is undercover in the driveway another 4 or 5 months so I'd like to do something that might be considered a public service.

So when do you start?

Picking up the garbage strewn around his house would be a start...