Bad outcome
 

On 1/18/2014 2:39 PM, Poco Loco wrote:

On Sat, 18 Jan 2014 13:45:09 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:



And, of course, I'm not nearly as interested in the ages and races as
you are. Not nearly as interested, as in, I don't mention age or race
(even obliquely) nearly as often as you do. Everyone understands what
you really are referring to when you keep bringing up Chicago. Wink.
wink. wink.

I don't believe I've mentioned race one time. And, (wink, wink) I'm not the one compiling the
statistics (wink, wink). Nor am I one focusing on exceptions and then generalizing to include all
'Merikans' (wink, wink).



Do both of you have something in your eye?

Bad outcome
 

On Sat, 18 Jan 2014 18:04:14 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:

On 1/18/2014 2:39 PM, Poco Loco wrote:

On Sat, 18 Jan 2014 13:45:09 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:



And, of course, I'm not nearly as interested in the ages and races as
you are. Not nearly as interested, as in, I don't mention age or race
(even obliquely) nearly as often as you do. Everyone understands what
you really are referring to when you keep bringing up Chicago. Wink.
wink. wink.

I don't believe I've mentioned race one time. And, (wink, wink) I'm not the one compiling the
statistics (wink, wink). Nor am I one focusing on exceptions and then generalizing to include all
'Merikans' (wink, wink).



Do both of you have something in your eye?


It's catchy!

Bad outcome
 

In article ,
says...

On 1/18/2014 4:38 PM, Boating All Out wrote:
In article ,
says...

On Sat, 18 Jan 2014 10:20:37 -0600, Boating All Out wrote:

In article ,
says...


I wonder...could that be due to the population increase over the past 40 years coupled with the
source of the increase? The number of small arms either manufactured or imported during the past 25
years has gone from about 3.7 million to 8.7 million. I suppose DHS accounts for a bunch, but it has
only about 230,000 employees. Even giving each of them a couple guns doesn't account for the growth.

The handgun chart is really weird, showing 5% gains and drops in household possession in two year
periods.

http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/co..._with_handguns

You can't get accurate stats on guns. Violates the 2nd.

In what way?

Unless guns are universally registered, it's just guessing.
Do you think universal registration violates the 2nd?
I have no opinion on that. You might have an opinion.
But the reason for lack of registration is the 2nd.
In any case, statistics on ownership are garbage.


Unless you interpret the "shall not be infringed" part as meaning
registration is unlawful, I don't see anything in the 2nd that would
otherwise prohibit registration. My opinion is they *should* be
registered.

Well, they aren't. For obvious reasons.

Bad outcome
 

On 1/18/2014 6:10 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Sat, 18 Jan 2014 18:04:14 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:

On 1/18/2014 2:39 PM, Poco Loco wrote:

On Sat, 18 Jan 2014 13:45:09 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:



And, of course, I'm not nearly as interested in the ages and races as
you are. Not nearly as interested, as in, I don't mention age or race
(even obliquely) nearly as often as you do. Everyone understands what
you really are referring to when you keep bringing up Chicago. Wink.
wink. wink.

I don't believe I've mentioned race one time. And, (wink, wink) I'm not the one compiling the
statistics (wink, wink). Nor am I one focusing on exceptions and then generalizing to include all
'Merikans' (wink, wink).



Do both of you have something in your eye?


It's catchy!


I was starting to think there was some sort of mutual attraction going on.

Bad outcome
 

On 1/18/14, 7:02 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 1/18/2014 6:10 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Sat, 18 Jan 2014 18:04:14 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 1/18/2014 2:39 PM, Poco Loco wrote:

On Sat, 18 Jan 2014 13:45:09 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:



And, of course, I'm not nearly as interested in the ages and races as
you are. Not nearly as interested, as in, I don't mention age or race
(even obliquely) nearly as often as you do. Everyone understands what
you really are referring to when you keep bringing up Chicago. Wink.
wink. wink.

I don't believe I've mentioned race one time. And, (wink, wink) I'm
not the one compiling the
statistics (wink, wink). Nor am I one focusing on exceptions and
then generalizing to include all
'Merikans' (wink, wink).



Do both of you have something in your eye?


It's catchy!


I was starting to think there was some sort of mutual attraction going on.



Nothing more than my winking at Herring because I think his real
motivation for repeatedly posting homicide numbers from these urban
areas has nothing to do with his being upset about the deaths, and
everything to do with his desire to be more subtle about his disdain for
black people.

Bad outcome
 

On Sat, 18 Jan 2014 19:02:59 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:

On 1/18/2014 6:10 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Sat, 18 Jan 2014 18:04:14 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:

On 1/18/2014 2:39 PM, Poco Loco wrote:

On Sat, 18 Jan 2014 13:45:09 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:



And, of course, I'm not nearly as interested in the ages and races as
you are. Not nearly as interested, as in, I don't mention age or race
(even obliquely) nearly as often as you do. Everyone understands what
you really are referring to when you keep bringing up Chicago. Wink.
wink. wink.

I don't believe I've mentioned race one time. And, (wink, wink) I'm not the one compiling the
statistics (wink, wink). Nor am I one focusing on exceptions and then generalizing to include all
'Merikans' (wink, wink).



Do both of you have something in your eye?


It's catchy!


I was starting to think there was some sort of mutual attraction going on.


It's Harry's way of calling me a racist without calling me a racist.

Bad outcome
 

On Sat, 18 Jan 2014 19:09:03 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 1/18/14, 7:02 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 1/18/2014 6:10 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Sat, 18 Jan 2014 18:04:14 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 1/18/2014 2:39 PM, Poco Loco wrote:

On Sat, 18 Jan 2014 13:45:09 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:



And, of course, I'm not nearly as interested in the ages and races as
you are. Not nearly as interested, as in, I don't mention age or race
(even obliquely) nearly as often as you do. Everyone understands what
you really are referring to when you keep bringing up Chicago. Wink.
wink. wink.

I don't believe I've mentioned race one time. And, (wink, wink) I'm
not the one compiling the
statistics (wink, wink). Nor am I one focusing on exceptions and
then generalizing to include all
'Merikans' (wink, wink).



Do both of you have something in your eye?


It's catchy!


I was starting to think there was some sort of mutual attraction going on.



Nothing more than my winking at Herring because I think his real
motivation for repeatedly posting homicide numbers from these urban
areas has nothing to do with his being upset about the deaths, and
everything to do with his desire to be more subtle about his disdain for
black people.

Gosh, I should have read this first!

I guess I'm as racist as those assholes collecting and posting the data, eh?

Why do you focus on the extremes and leave the hundreds go without comment, and then talk about how
bad 'Merika' is?

Bad outcome
 

On 1/18/2014 3:36 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 1/18/14, 2:41 PM, Hank wrote:
On 1/18/2014 10:01 AM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 1/18/14, 9:54 AM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Sat, 18 Jan 2014 08:00:14 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:



Look at the ages of your typical young men who are shooting up
suburban
schools. "Very young, most of them." Is there a statistically
significant difference between the ages of urban and suburban
shooters?
What was wrong with the parents of the Columbine shooters or Adam
Lanza's mother?

The point is, I think, is that there have been a great number of
drastic
societal changes since the 1950s, and those changes, *including*
parenting and many, many other factors, have brought us the "shoot 'em
up" society we have today.

Sociology and other "people" sciences reveal many of the questions and
answers.



Here, these are the top 25 most dangerous neighborhoods in the
country. Note how often Chicago and
Detroit are listed. Suburban school shootings, although horrific,
account for a very, very, small
percent of the total.

http://www.neighborhoodscout.com/nei...neighborhoods/





John, I know you have an agenda with your never ending repeating posts
about urban crime, but that's NOT what I was asking.

My question was, "Is there a statistically significant difference
between the ages of urban and suburban shooters?"

You and others were trying to make a point about the young age of
shooters, and you once again dropped in your urban slam, on the
assumption, I suppose, that it is only young urban kids who engage in
such behavior.

That would be an incorrect conclusion.

Further, the URL you just posted on dangerous neighborhoods doesn't
address the original point on "age," either.

Hey, I'm just the liberal arts graduate here, eh? I'm not the
math/science major some of you guys are. But I did pay attention in the
two college level statistics courses I took.



You obviously know what you would accept as correct answers to the Qs
you posed. How about you let us in on what you think you know.


Actually, I don't know, since I am not obsessed with the violent
criminal happenings in either urban or suburban area. My suspicion is
that the violent teens in most places are pretty much in the same age
group.

I've heard enough. Thanks.

Bad outcome
 

On Sat, 18 Jan 2014 20:49:48 -0500, Hank wrote:

On 1/18/2014 3:36 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 1/18/14, 2:41 PM, Hank wrote:
On 1/18/2014 10:01 AM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 1/18/14, 9:54 AM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Sat, 18 Jan 2014 08:00:14 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:



Look at the ages of your typical young men who are shooting up
suburban
schools. "Very young, most of them." Is there a statistically
significant difference between the ages of urban and suburban
shooters?
What was wrong with the parents of the Columbine shooters or Adam
Lanza's mother?

The point is, I think, is that there have been a great number of
drastic
societal changes since the 1950s, and those changes, *including*
parenting and many, many other factors, have brought us the "shoot 'em
up" society we have today.

Sociology and other "people" sciences reveal many of the questions and
answers.



Here, these are the top 25 most dangerous neighborhoods in the
country. Note how often Chicago and
Detroit are listed. Suburban school shootings, although horrific,
account for a very, very, small
percent of the total.

http://www.neighborhoodscout.com/nei...neighborhoods/





John, I know you have an agenda with your never ending repeating posts
about urban crime, but that's NOT what I was asking.

My question was, "Is there a statistically significant difference
between the ages of urban and suburban shooters?"

You and others were trying to make a point about the young age of
shooters, and you once again dropped in your urban slam, on the
assumption, I suppose, that it is only young urban kids who engage in
such behavior.

That would be an incorrect conclusion.

Further, the URL you just posted on dangerous neighborhoods doesn't
address the original point on "age," either.

Hey, I'm just the liberal arts graduate here, eh? I'm not the
math/science major some of you guys are. But I did pay attention in the
two college level statistics courses I took.



You obviously know what you would accept as correct answers to the Qs
you posed. How about you let us in on what you think you know.


Actually, I don't know, since I am not obsessed with the violent
criminal happenings in either urban or suburban area. My suspicion is
that the violent teens in most places are pretty much in the same age
group.

I've heard enough. Thanks.

BTW, if you sent something to the salmonbaitatgmail.com address, it didn't get here. Try the
jherringatcoxdotnet. They should both work.

Bad outcome
 

On 1/18/2014 8:43 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Sat, 18 Jan 2014 19:02:59 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:

On 1/18/2014 6:10 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Sat, 18 Jan 2014 18:04:14 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:

On 1/18/2014 2:39 PM, Poco Loco wrote:

On Sat, 18 Jan 2014 13:45:09 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:



And, of course, I'm not nearly as interested in the ages and races as
you are. Not nearly as interested, as in, I don't mention age or race
(even obliquely) nearly as often as you do. Everyone understands what
you really are referring to when you keep bringing up Chicago. Wink.
wink. wink.

I don't believe I've mentioned race one time. And, (wink, wink) I'm not the one compiling the
statistics (wink, wink). Nor am I one focusing on exceptions and then generalizing to include all
'Merikans' (wink, wink).



Do both of you have something in your eye?


It's catchy!


I was starting to think there was some sort of mutual attraction going on.


It's Harry's way of calling me a racist without calling me a racist.

Why is he bashful about it all of a sudden?

Bad outcome
 

On 1/18/2014 8:45 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Sat, 18 Jan 2014 19:09:03 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 1/18/14, 7:02 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 1/18/2014 6:10 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Sat, 18 Jan 2014 18:04:14 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 1/18/2014 2:39 PM, Poco Loco wrote:

On Sat, 18 Jan 2014 13:45:09 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:



And, of course, I'm not nearly as interested in the ages and races as
you are. Not nearly as interested, as in, I don't mention age or race
(even obliquely) nearly as often as you do. Everyone understands what
you really are referring to when you keep bringing up Chicago. Wink.
wink. wink.

I don't believe I've mentioned race one time. And, (wink, wink) I'm
not the one compiling the
statistics (wink, wink). Nor am I one focusing on exceptions and
then generalizing to include all
'Merikans' (wink, wink).



Do both of you have something in your eye?


It's catchy!


I was starting to think there was some sort of mutual attraction going on.



Nothing more than my winking at Herring because I think his real
motivation for repeatedly posting homicide numbers from these urban
areas has nothing to do with his being upset about the deaths, and
everything to do with his desire to be more subtle about his disdain for
black people.

Gosh, I should have read this first!

I guess I'm as racist as those assholes collecting and posting the data, eh?

Why do you focus on the extremes and leave the hundreds go without comment, and then talk about how
bad 'Merika' is?


I think it's pretty clear John is posting in response to JPS and his
constant pointing out the shootings in Colorado and Oregon. Nothing to
do with any racism...

Bad outcome
 

On 1/18/2014 3:36 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote:

Actually, I don't know, since I am not obsessed with the violent
criminal happenings in either urban or suburban area. My suspicion is
that the violent teens in most places are pretty much in the same age
group.


Teens usually *are* in the same age group Harry.

The violence witnessed today is far more complex than simple ethnic,
racial or urban vs suburban statistics can define, IMO.

It's more related to declining values/morals, drugs, economics and for
the biggest reason (I still believe), lack of active and motivated
parenting.

Then, of course, even that has changed. If teens don't like what their
parents prescribe, they can sue them ... and win.

Bad outcome
 

"Mr. Luddite" wrote:
On 1/18/2014 4:38 PM, Boating All Out wrote:
In article ,
says...

On Sat, 18 Jan 2014 10:20:37 -0600, Boating All Out wrote:

In article ,
says...


I wonder...could that be due to the population increase over the past
40 years coupled with the
source of the increase? The number of small arms either manufactured
or imported during the past 25
years has gone from about 3.7 million to 8.7 million. I suppose DHS
accounts for a bunch, but it has
only about 230,000 employees. Even giving each of them a couple guns
doesn't account for the growth.

The handgun chart is really weird, showing 5% gains and drops in
household possession in two year
periods.

http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/co..._with_handguns

You can't get accurate stats on guns. Violates the 2nd.

In what way?

Unless guns are universally registered, it's just guessing.
Do you think universal registration violates the 2nd?
I have no opinion on that. You might have an opinion.
But the reason for lack of registration is the 2nd.
In any case, statistics on ownership are garbage.


Unless you interpret the "shall not be infringed" part as meaning
registration is unlawful, I don't see anything in the 2nd that would
otherwise prohibit registration. My opinion is they *should* be registered.

I am very much against registration. The people killed at Concord Bridge
were objecting to gun confiscation. Why make it easier for the government?
The 2nd is not there for hunting, or sport shooting! It was put in by
people who had just used personal guns to toss a government they did not
like.

Bad outcome
 

On 1/18/2014 4:20 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Sat, 18 Jan 2014 15:38:19 -0600, Boating All Out wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Sat, 18 Jan 2014 10:20:37 -0600, Boating All Out wrote:

In article ,
says...


I wonder...could that be due to the population increase over the past 40 years coupled with the
source of the increase? The number of small arms either manufactured or imported during the past 25
years has gone from about 3.7 million to 8.7 million. I suppose DHS accounts for a bunch, but it has
only about 230,000 employees. Even giving each of them a couple guns doesn't account for the growth.

The handgun chart is really weird, showing 5% gains and drops in household possession in two year
periods.

http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/co..._with_handguns

You can't get accurate stats on guns. Violates the 2nd.

In what way?

Unless guns are universally registered, it's just guessing.
Do you think universal registration violates the 2nd?
I have no opinion on that. You might have an opinion.
But the reason for lack of registration is the 2nd.
In any case, statistics on ownership are garbage.

I don't think universal registration, in and of itself, violates the 2nd.


I do think that universal registration makes universal confiscation much more feasible.

I think that's what make it violate the 2nd .
The founders gave us the right to gun ownership so we would be able to
fight oppressive government. If you give THAT government the ability to
confiscate those guns, the 2nd is not in effect.
Mikek

My thread has drifted!

Bad outcome
 

On 1/19/14, 9:31 AM, amdx wrote:
On 1/18/2014 4:20 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Sat, 18 Jan 2014 15:38:19 -0600, Boating All Out
wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Sat, 18 Jan 2014 10:20:37 -0600, Boating All Out
wrote:

In article ,
says...


I wonder...could that be due to the population increase over the
past 40 years coupled with the
source of the increase? The number of small arms either
manufactured or imported during the past 25
years has gone from about 3.7 million to 8.7 million. I suppose
DHS accounts for a bunch, but it has
only about 230,000 employees. Even giving each of them a couple
guns doesn't account for the growth.

The handgun chart is really weird, showing 5% gains and drops in
household possession in two year
periods.

http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/co..._with_handguns


You can't get accurate stats on guns. Violates the 2nd.

In what way?

Unless guns are universally registered, it's just guessing.
Do you think universal registration violates the 2nd?
I have no opinion on that. You might have an opinion.
But the reason for lack of registration is the 2nd.
In any case, statistics on ownership are garbage.

I don't think universal registration, in and of itself, violates the 2nd.


I do think that universal registration makes universal confiscation
much more feasible.

I think that's what make it violate the 2nd .
The founders gave us the right to gun ownership so we would be able to
fight oppressive government. If you give THAT government the ability to
confiscate those guns, the 2nd is not in effect.
Mikek

My thread has drifted!





What the founders did with the Second Amendment was express their
disdain for a standing army, and it was an outgrowth of the Brits
housing uniformed troops in the homes of the colonists. What they
created was a mechanism for a trained and armed citizen militia that
could easily be organized when necessary. That trained and armed militia
these days might be the National Guard. It certainly isn't the
untrained, undisciplined rabble of firearms owners.

The concept of individuals here successfully pursuing a military action
against local, state, or national government is laughable, at best.

Bad outcome
 

On Sun, 19 Jan 2014 09:42:51 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 1/19/14, 9:31 AM, amdx wrote:
On 1/18/2014 4:20 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Sat, 18 Jan 2014 15:38:19 -0600, Boating All Out
wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Sat, 18 Jan 2014 10:20:37 -0600, Boating All Out
wrote:

In article ,
says...


I wonder...could that be due to the population increase over the
past 40 years coupled with the
source of the increase? The number of small arms either
manufactured or imported during the past 25
years has gone from about 3.7 million to 8.7 million. I suppose
DHS accounts for a bunch, but it has
only about 230,000 employees. Even giving each of them a couple
guns doesn't account for the growth.

The handgun chart is really weird, showing 5% gains and drops in
household possession in two year
periods.

http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/co..._with_handguns


You can't get accurate stats on guns. Violates the 2nd.

In what way?

Unless guns are universally registered, it's just guessing.
Do you think universal registration violates the 2nd?
I have no opinion on that. You might have an opinion.
But the reason for lack of registration is the 2nd.
In any case, statistics on ownership are garbage.

I don't think universal registration, in and of itself, violates the 2nd.


I do think that universal registration makes universal confiscation
much more feasible.

I think that's what make it violate the 2nd .
The founders gave us the right to gun ownership so we would be able to
fight oppressive government. If you give THAT government the ability to
confiscate those guns, the 2nd is not in effect.
Mikek

My thread has drifted!





What the founders did with the Second Amendment was express their
disdain for a standing army, and it was an outgrowth of the Brits
housing uniformed troops in the homes of the colonists. What they
created was a mechanism for a trained and armed citizen militia that
could easily be organized when necessary. That trained and armed militia
these days might be the National Guard. It certainly isn't the
untrained, undisciplined rabble of firearms owners.

The concept of individuals here successfully pursuing a military action
against local, state, or national government is laughable, at best.


That last is undoubtedly true in some cases.

How about the concept of individuals joining with the National Guard or local or national forces?
Does that sound as laughable?

Bad outcome
 

On 1/19/14, 10:02 AM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Sun, 19 Jan 2014 09:42:51 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 1/19/14, 9:31 AM, amdx wrote:
On 1/18/2014 4:20 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Sat, 18 Jan 2014 15:38:19 -0600, Boating All Out
wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Sat, 18 Jan 2014 10:20:37 -0600, Boating All Out
wrote:

In article ,
says...


I wonder...could that be due to the population increase over the
past 40 years coupled with the
source of the increase? The number of small arms either
manufactured or imported during the past 25
years has gone from about 3.7 million to 8.7 million. I suppose
DHS accounts for a bunch, but it has
only about 230,000 employees. Even giving each of them a couple
guns doesn't account for the growth.

The handgun chart is really weird, showing 5% gains and drops in
household possession in two year
periods.

http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/co..._with_handguns


You can't get accurate stats on guns. Violates the 2nd.

In what way?

Unless guns are universally registered, it's just guessing.
Do you think universal registration violates the 2nd?
I have no opinion on that. You might have an opinion.
But the reason for lack of registration is the 2nd.
In any case, statistics on ownership are garbage.

I don't think universal registration, in and of itself, violates the 2nd.


I do think that universal registration makes universal confiscation
much more feasible.

I think that's what make it violate the 2nd .
The founders gave us the right to gun ownership so we would be able to
fight oppressive government. If you give THAT government the ability to
confiscate those guns, the 2nd is not in effect.
Mikek

My thread has drifted!





What the founders did with the Second Amendment was express their
disdain for a standing army, and it was an outgrowth of the Brits
housing uniformed troops in the homes of the colonists. What they
created was a mechanism for a trained and armed citizen militia that
could easily be organized when necessary. That trained and armed militia
these days might be the National Guard. It certainly isn't the
untrained, undisciplined rabble of firearms owners.

The concept of individuals here successfully pursuing a military action
against local, state, or national government is laughable, at best.


That last is undoubtedly true in some cases.

How about the concept of individuals joining with the National Guard or local or national forces?
Does that sound as laughable?


For what purpose? The National Guard is a government-sponsored force,
and the commander in chief is the POTUS. Why would one expect a
government-sponsored force these days to take on the government, be it
local, state, or national, in a military action, a la Faubus using the
Guard to temporarily halt integration of schools in Arkansas? Eisenhower
trumped Faubus in that incident by ordering the National Guard to stand
down and ordering in the U.S. Army.

The concept of citizens in this country taking on armed governmental
forces is absurd. All the armed citizenry in this county, and there are
lots of citizens with guns in this county, couldn't take on the county
sheriff.

Bad outcome
 

On 1/19/2014 10:02 AM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Sun, 19 Jan 2014 09:42:51 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 1/19/14, 9:31 AM, amdx wrote:
On 1/18/2014 4:20 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Sat, 18 Jan 2014 15:38:19 -0600, Boating All Out
wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Sat, 18 Jan 2014 10:20:37 -0600, Boating All Out
wrote:

In article ,
says...


I wonder...could that be due to the population increase over the
past 40 years coupled with the
source of the increase? The number of small arms either
manufactured or imported during the past 25
years has gone from about 3.7 million to 8.7 million. I suppose
DHS accounts for a bunch, but it has
only about 230,000 employees. Even giving each of them a couple
guns doesn't account for the growth.

The handgun chart is really weird, showing 5% gains and drops in
household possession in two year
periods.

http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/co..._with_handguns


You can't get accurate stats on guns. Violates the 2nd.

In what way?

Unless guns are universally registered, it's just guessing.
Do you think universal registration violates the 2nd?
I have no opinion on that. You might have an opinion.
But the reason for lack of registration is the 2nd.
In any case, statistics on ownership are garbage.

I don't think universal registration, in and of itself, violates the 2nd.


I do think that universal registration makes universal confiscation
much more feasible.

I think that's what make it violate the 2nd .
The founders gave us the right to gun ownership so we would be able to
fight oppressive government. If you give THAT government the ability to
confiscate those guns, the 2nd is not in effect.
Mikek

My thread has drifted!





What the founders did with the Second Amendment was express their
disdain for a standing army, and it was an outgrowth of the Brits
housing uniformed troops in the homes of the colonists. What they
created was a mechanism for a trained and armed citizen militia that
could easily be organized when necessary. That trained and armed militia
these days might be the National Guard. It certainly isn't the
untrained, undisciplined rabble of firearms owners.

The concept of individuals here successfully pursuing a military action
against local, state, or national government is laughable, at best.


That last is undoubtedly true in some cases.

How about the concept of individuals joining with the National Guard or local or national forces?
Does that sound as laughable?

Here, as well as everywhere else, you have to separate the wheat from
the chaff.

Bad outcome
 

On Sun, 19 Jan 2014 10:12:02 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 1/19/14, 10:02 AM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Sun, 19 Jan 2014 09:42:51 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 1/19/14, 9:31 AM, amdx wrote:
On 1/18/2014 4:20 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Sat, 18 Jan 2014 15:38:19 -0600, Boating All Out
wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Sat, 18 Jan 2014 10:20:37 -0600, Boating All Out
wrote:

In article ,
says...


I wonder...could that be due to the population increase over the
past 40 years coupled with the
source of the increase? The number of small arms either
manufactured or imported during the past 25
years has gone from about 3.7 million to 8.7 million. I suppose
DHS accounts for a bunch, but it has
only about 230,000 employees. Even giving each of them a couple
guns doesn't account for the growth.

The handgun chart is really weird, showing 5% gains and drops in
household possession in two year
periods.

http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/co..._with_handguns


You can't get accurate stats on guns. Violates the 2nd.

In what way?

Unless guns are universally registered, it's just guessing.
Do you think universal registration violates the 2nd?
I have no opinion on that. You might have an opinion.
But the reason for lack of registration is the 2nd.
In any case, statistics on ownership are garbage.

I don't think universal registration, in and of itself, violates the 2nd.


I do think that universal registration makes universal confiscation
much more feasible.

I think that's what make it violate the 2nd .
The founders gave us the right to gun ownership so we would be able to
fight oppressive government. If you give THAT government the ability to
confiscate those guns, the 2nd is not in effect.
Mikek

My thread has drifted!





What the founders did with the Second Amendment was express their
disdain for a standing army, and it was an outgrowth of the Brits
housing uniformed troops in the homes of the colonists. What they
created was a mechanism for a trained and armed citizen militia that
could easily be organized when necessary. That trained and armed militia
these days might be the National Guard. It certainly isn't the
untrained, undisciplined rabble of firearms owners.

The concept of individuals here successfully pursuing a military action
against local, state, or national government is laughable, at best.


That last is undoubtedly true in some cases.

How about the concept of individuals joining with the National Guard or local or national forces?
Does that sound as laughable?


For what purpose? The National Guard is a government-sponsored force,
and the commander in chief is the POTUS. Why would one expect a
government-sponsored force these days to take on the government, be it
local, state, or national, in a military action, a la Faubus using the
Guard to temporarily halt integration of schools in Arkansas? Eisenhower
trumped Faubus in that incident by ordering the National Guard to stand
down and ordering in the U.S. Army.

The concept of citizens in this country taking on armed governmental
forces is absurd. All the armed citizenry in this county, and there are
lots of citizens with guns in this county, couldn't take on the county
sheriff.


The National Guard belongs to the state until federalized.

And that last would be especially true, except in a county in Maryland where the law enforcement
officials can't hit a target. Right?

Bad outcome
 

On 1/19/2014 11:10 AM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Sun, 19 Jan 2014 10:12:02 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 1/19/14, 10:02 AM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Sun, 19 Jan 2014 09:42:51 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 1/19/14, 9:31 AM, amdx wrote:
On 1/18/2014 4:20 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Sat, 18 Jan 2014 15:38:19 -0600, Boating All Out
wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Sat, 18 Jan 2014 10:20:37 -0600, Boating All Out
wrote:

In article ,
says...


I wonder...could that be due to the population increase over the
past 40 years coupled with the
source of the increase? The number of small arms either
manufactured or imported during the past 25
years has gone from about 3.7 million to 8.7 million. I suppose
DHS accounts for a bunch, but it has
only about 230,000 employees. Even giving each of them a couple
guns doesn't account for the growth.

The handgun chart is really weird, showing 5% gains and drops in
household possession in two year
periods.

http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/co..._with_handguns


You can't get accurate stats on guns. Violates the 2nd.

In what way?

Unless guns are universally registered, it's just guessing.
Do you think universal registration violates the 2nd?
I have no opinion on that. You might have an opinion.
But the reason for lack of registration is the 2nd.
In any case, statistics on ownership are garbage.

I don't think universal registration, in and of itself, violates the 2nd.


I do think that universal registration makes universal confiscation
much more feasible.

I think that's what make it violate the 2nd .
The founders gave us the right to gun ownership so we would be able to
fight oppressive government. If you give THAT government the ability to
confiscate those guns, the 2nd is not in effect.
Mikek

My thread has drifted!





What the founders did with the Second Amendment was express their
disdain for a standing army, and it was an outgrowth of the Brits
housing uniformed troops in the homes of the colonists. What they
created was a mechanism for a trained and armed citizen militia that
could easily be organized when necessary. That trained and armed militia
these days might be the National Guard. It certainly isn't the
untrained, undisciplined rabble of firearms owners.

The concept of individuals here successfully pursuing a military action
against local, state, or national government is laughable, at best.


That last is undoubtedly true in some cases.

How about the concept of individuals joining with the National Guard or local or national forces?
Does that sound as laughable?


For what purpose? The National Guard is a government-sponsored force,
and the commander in chief is the POTUS. Why would one expect a
government-sponsored force these days to take on the government, be it
local, state, or national, in a military action, a la Faubus using the
Guard to temporarily halt integration of schools in Arkansas? Eisenhower
trumped Faubus in that incident by ordering the National Guard to stand
down and ordering in the U.S. Army.

The concept of citizens in this country taking on armed governmental
forces is absurd. All the armed citizenry in this county, and there are
lots of citizens with guns in this county, couldn't take on the county
sheriff.


The National Guard belongs to the state until federalized.

And that last would be especially true, except in a county in Maryland where the law enforcement
officials can't hit a target. Right?

Lots of chaff here today. why bother trying to make something of it?

Bad outcome
 

On 1/19/14, 11:01 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 19 Jan 2014 09:42:51 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

What the founders did with the Second Amendment was express their
disdain for a standing army, and it was an outgrowth of the Brits
housing uniformed troops in the homes of the colonists. What they
created was a mechanism for a trained and armed citizen militia that
could easily be organized when necessary. That trained and armed militia
these days might be the National Guard. It certainly isn't the
untrained, undisciplined rabble of firearms owners.

The concept of individuals here successfully pursuing a military action
against local, state, or national government is laughable, at best.


The SCOTUS disagreed with that in Heller and ruled that the right to
bear arms was an individual right.
In the end, the Constitution says what the SCOTUS most recently said
it says..


That's correct. I don't like the Heller decision, but the Supremes are
the final authority, subject to their changing their minds. :)

Bad outcome
 

On 1/19/14, 11:12 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 19 Jan 2014 10:12:02 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

The concept of citizens in this country taking on armed governmental
forces is absurd. All the armed citizenry in this county, and there are
lots of citizens with guns in this county, couldn't take on the county
sheriff.

That is absurd if you are talking about more than a few people hiding
out in a cabin.
Our military has not been very successful in stopping asymmetrical
warriors whether it is Vietnam, The Middle East, Africa or South Asia.
They kill a lot of people and win most of the battles but they lose
the war. (much like the Brits in the latter 18th century American
war)..


Hey, there's always hope a large number of righties will start an
insurrection in the United States and get wiped out...it'll definitely
improve the gene pool. :)

Bad outcome
 

In article ,
says...

On Sun, 19 Jan 2014 10:12:02 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

The concept of citizens in this country taking on armed governmental
forces is absurd. All the armed citizenry in this county, and there are
lots of citizens with guns in this county, couldn't take on the county
sheriff.

That is absurd if you are talking about more than a few people hiding
out in a cabin.
Our military has not been very successful in stopping asymmetrical
warriors whether it is Vietnam, The Middle East, Africa or South Asia.
They kill a lot of people and win most of the battles but they lose
the war. (much like the Brits in the latter 18th century American
war)..

What are you smoking?
When America undergoes "asymmetrical" warfare it'll be a zombie
apocalypse.
He said "this country."
The Branch Davidians and Weather Underground didn't have much success.
Anybody is welcome to start an insurrection.
See how far you get.

Bad outcome
 

In article ,
says...

On Sat, 18 Jan 2014 17:20:16 -0500, Poco Loco
wrote:


I don't think universal registration, in and of itself, violates the 2nd.

The only constitutional way they can do that is to make it a tax.

That is what the AKA "ban" on machine guns is. NFA34 imposes a $200
tax on a machine gun (more than a Thompson cost in 1934). The fly in
that ointment is you need to pass a background check and get the local
cops to sign off before they will let you buy that tax stamp ... and
it is a lick it and stick it stamp on a BATF form 4.,

Be careful what you are agreeing to.
Do you really want the IRS collecting a tax on every gun you own every
year?

Talk about law breakers!
At the very least, a whole lot more guns would flood the underground
market.

There you go.
gfretwell has spoken on the Constitution.
And "predicted."

Bad outcome
 

On 1/19/14, 12:37 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 19 Jan 2014 11:45:03 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 1/19/14, 11:12 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 19 Jan 2014 10:12:02 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

The concept of citizens in this country taking on armed governmental
forces is absurd. All the armed citizenry in this county, and there are
lots of citizens with guns in this county, couldn't take on the county
sheriff.

That is absurd if you are talking about more than a few people hiding
out in a cabin.
Our military has not been very successful in stopping asymmetrical
warriors whether it is Vietnam, The Middle East, Africa or South Asia.
They kill a lot of people and win most of the battles but they lose
the war. (much like the Brits in the latter 18th century American
war)..


Hey, there's always hope a large number of righties will start an
insurrection in the United States and get wiped out...it'll definitely
improve the gene pool. :)

I do not actually believe that we would ever allow a government to get
that oppressive before we enacted a political solution but it would be
the left who ended up organizing the revolution if it did.
I do believe it would come out of a massive financial collapse and the
well intentioned desire to find a strong leader with an agenda that
sounded good in the beginning and then descended into a dictatorship.
Bear in mind every dictator of the last 100 years started with a
socialist agenda. Most have the word "socialist" in the title of their
government.
The only way socialism can exist as a governmental policy is if you
have an overbearing government. (be it the Cubans, Venezuela, the
Soviets or the Nazis)



My Northern European buddies in socialist countries report no problems
with overbearing government. My Norwegian friend who was seriously
injured in an offshore drilling platform accident was financially
supported and retrained as a teacher and is quite happy with how things
turned out. He didn't lose his house or his healthcare or his pension,
and his kids went to college. In the USA, he'd be out on the street.

Bad outcome
 

On Sunday, January 19, 2014 11:43:01 AM UTC-6, F.O.A.D. wrote:
My Norwegian friend who was seriously

injured in an offshore drilling platform accident was financially

supported and retrained as a teacher and is quite happy with how things

turned out. He didn't lose his house or his healthcare or his pension,

and his kids went to college. In the USA, he'd be out on the street.

No, in the USA he'd have lawyers sue the tar out of the company he worked for, AND companies associated with the company he worked for.. probably be awarded millions, and not have to do much of anything.

Bad outcome
 

On Sun, 19 Jan 2014 13:03:37 -0500, wrote:

On Sun, 19 Jan 2014 11:39:51 -0600, Boating All Out
wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Sat, 18 Jan 2014 17:20:16 -0500, Poco Loco
wrote:


I don't think universal registration, in and of itself, violates the 2nd.

The only constitutional way they can do that is to make it a tax.

That is what the AKA "ban" on machine guns is. NFA34 imposes a $200
tax on a machine gun (more than a Thompson cost in 1934). The fly in
that ointment is you need to pass a background check and get the local
cops to sign off before they will let you buy that tax stamp ... and
it is a lick it and stick it stamp on a BATF form 4.,

Be careful what you are agreeing to.
Do you really want the IRS collecting a tax on every gun you own every
year?

Talk about law breakers!
At the very least, a whole lot more guns would flood the underground
market.

There you go.
gfretwell has spoken on the Constitution.
And "predicted."

I did not speak for the Constitution, the SCOTUS did and that was how
they determined that NFA34 was legal.
GCA68 was simply an extension of NFA34

Many laws that were not structured that way were struck down by
Heller.

As for the underground gun economy, it flourishes the most in places
where the laws are strictest. When will we ever learn the lesson of
prohibition?
Name one law against things people want that has not caused a massive
underground enterprise to supply that item and short circuit any
effort to regulate it..


The federal anti-marijuana laws!

:)

Bad outcome
 

On Sun, 19 Jan 2014 12:43:01 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 1/19/14, 12:37 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 19 Jan 2014 11:45:03 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 1/19/14, 11:12 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 19 Jan 2014 10:12:02 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

The concept of citizens in this country taking on armed governmental
forces is absurd. All the armed citizenry in this county, and there are
lots of citizens with guns in this county, couldn't take on the county
sheriff.

That is absurd if you are talking about more than a few people hiding
out in a cabin.
Our military has not been very successful in stopping asymmetrical
warriors whether it is Vietnam, The Middle East, Africa or South Asia.
They kill a lot of people and win most of the battles but they lose
the war. (much like the Brits in the latter 18th century American
war)..


Hey, there's always hope a large number of righties will start an
insurrection in the United States and get wiped out...it'll definitely
improve the gene pool. :)

I do not actually believe that we would ever allow a government to get
that oppressive before we enacted a political solution but it would be
the left who ended up organizing the revolution if it did.
I do believe it would come out of a massive financial collapse and the
well intentioned desire to find a strong leader with an agenda that
sounded good in the beginning and then descended into a dictatorship.
Bear in mind every dictator of the last 100 years started with a
socialist agenda. Most have the word "socialist" in the title of their
government.
The only way socialism can exist as a governmental policy is if you
have an overbearing government. (be it the Cubans, Venezuela, the
Soviets or the Nazis)



My Northern European buddies in socialist countries report no problems
with overbearing government.

Your buddies don't even complain of the overbearing taxes? Wow, mine has started doing that big
time. He's also not very happy with providing housing to all the Moroccan and Turkish folks that
have been flooding Holland since the borders went away.

Funny, fifteen-twenty years ago he was very happy with his 'socialist' country. Times have changed.
Good to know your buddies don't mind oppressive taxes.

My Norwegian friend who was seriously
injured in an offshore drilling platform accident was financially
supported and retrained as a teacher and is quite happy with how things
turned out. He didn't lose his house or his healthcare or his pension,
and his kids went to college. In the USA, he'd be out on the street.

Norway would be a great place for you to live. You could get herring prepared in a tremendous
variety of ways - including raw.

Bad outcome
 

In article ,
says...

On Sun, 19 Jan 2014 11:39:51 -0600, Boating All Out
wrote:

There you go.
gfretwell has spoken on the Constitution.
And "predicted."

I did not speak for the Constitution, the SCOTUS did and that was how
they determined that NFA34 was legal.
GCA68 was simply an extension of NFA34

Many laws that were not structured that way were struck down by
Heller.


And a new court may say otherhwise.

As for the underground gun economy, it flourishes the most in places
where the laws are strictest. When will we ever learn the lesson of
prohibition?
Name one law against things people want that has not caused a massive
underground enterprise to supply that item and short circuit any
effort to regulate it..

Incandescent light bulbs. I think "people want" is variable.
People in Mass wanted gun registration. They got it.
It'll happen federally, when the times comes.
Guns don't care about state borders.

Bad outcome
 

On Sun, 19 Jan 2014 13:05:28 -0600, Boating All Out wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Sun, 19 Jan 2014 11:39:51 -0600, Boating All Out
wrote:

There you go.
gfretwell has spoken on the Constitution.
And "predicted."

I did not speak for the Constitution, the SCOTUS did and that was how
they determined that NFA34 was legal.
GCA68 was simply an extension of NFA34

Many laws that were not structured that way were struck down by
Heller.


And a new court may say otherhwise.

As for the underground gun economy, it flourishes the most in places
where the laws are strictest. When will we ever learn the lesson of
prohibition?
Name one law against things people want that has not caused a massive
underground enterprise to supply that item and short circuit any
effort to regulate it..

Incandescent light bulbs. I think "people want" is variable.
People in Mass wanted gun registration. They got it.
It'll happen federally, when the times comes.
Guns don't care about state borders.

Passing a law doesn't get guns registered, except for those guns whose owners want to register them.
The people in Mass may have wanted gun registration, but all the guns didn't come in and register
themselves.

Homicides have been dropping in Boston, but...

"Despite that encouraging news, the almost-year-end statistics reveal a troubling reality: Although
police continue to confiscate guns, the street supply remains steady enough for overall gun violence
to continue unabated. The number of 2013 shootings by Dec. 22 is almost exactly what it was last
year: 246."

http://tinyurl.com/lr88lbk

Bad outcome
 

"F.O.A.D." wrote:
On 1/19/14, 9:31 AM, amdx wrote:
On 1/18/2014 4:20 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Sat, 18 Jan 2014 15:38:19 -0600, Boating All Out
wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Sat, 18 Jan 2014 10:20:37 -0600, Boating All Out
wrote:

In article ,
says...


I wonder...could that be due to the population increase over the
past 40 years coupled with the
source of the increase? The number of small arms either
manufactured or imported during the past 25
years has gone from about 3.7 million to 8.7 million. I suppose
DHS accounts for a bunch, but it has
only about 230,000 employees. Even giving each of them a couple
guns doesn't account for the growth.

The handgun chart is really weird, showing 5% gains and drops in
household possession in two year
periods.

http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/co..._with_handguns


You can't get accurate stats on guns. Violates the 2nd.

In what way?

Unless guns are universally registered, it's just guessing.
Do you think universal registration violates the 2nd?
I have no opinion on that. You might have an opinion.
But the reason for lack of registration is the 2nd.
In any case, statistics on ownership are garbage.

I don't think universal registration, in and of itself, violates the 2nd.


I do think that universal registration makes universal confiscation
much more feasible.

I think that's what make it violate the 2nd .
The founders gave us the right to gun ownership so we would be able to
fight oppressive government. If you give THAT government the ability to
confiscate those guns, the 2nd is not in effect.
Mikek

My thread has drifted!





What the founders did with the Second Amendment was express their disdain
for a standing army, and it was an outgrowth of the Brits housing
uniformed troops in the homes of the colonists. What they created was a
mechanism for a trained and armed citizen militia that could easily be
organized when necessary. That trained and armed militia these days might
be the National Guard. It certainly isn't the untrained, undisciplined
rabble of firearms owners.

The concept of individuals here successfully pursuing a military action
against local, state, or national government is laughable, at best.

The Founding Fathers had everyone in the militia until the ripe old age of
40. Senior citizens of that time. Had nada to do with housing troops.
They used their personal firearms until they could get more. And if you do
not think the gun possessors of the USA could not win a war against the
armed forces you are drastically mistaken! WW1 was kicked off by a lone
gunman. How many of the US military will support the government against
the people? Look at what is happening and has happened in countries where
we do not have a will to win. Viet Nam, Iraq, Somalia, Afghanistan.

Bad outcome
 

On 1/19/2014 1:37 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 19 Jan 2014 13:05:28 -0600, Boating All Out
wrote:

Name one law against things people want that has not caused a massive
underground enterprise to supply that item and short circuit any
effort to regulate it..

Incandescent light bulbs.

There does not seem to be any shortage of 100w incandescent bulbs
If it really became something people wanted in any quantity, they
would be coming in by the truck load.

http://www.elightbulbs.com/Halco-063...UOOg odHSYAtg


But, it's not a standard 100 Watt light bulb.
You not seeing them at Walmart, Kmart etc.
Mikek

Bad outcome
 

Poco Loco wrote:
On Sun, 19 Jan 2014 13:05:28 -0600, Boating All Out wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Sun, 19 Jan 2014 11:39:51 -0600, Boating All Out
wrote:

There you go.
gfretwell has spoken on the Constitution.
And "predicted."

I did not speak for the Constitution, the SCOTUS did and that was how
they determined that NFA34 was legal.
GCA68 was simply an extension of NFA34

Many laws that were not structured that way were struck down by
Heller.


And a new court may say otherhwise.

As for the underground gun economy, it flourishes the most in places
where the laws are strictest. When will we ever learn the lesson of
prohibition?
Name one law against things people want that has not caused a massive
underground enterprise to supply that item and short circuit any
effort to regulate it..

Incandescent light bulbs. I think "people want" is variable.
People in Mass wanted gun registration. They got it.
It'll happen federally, when the times comes.
Guns don't care about state borders.

Passing a law doesn't get guns registered, except for those guns whose
owners want to register them.
The people in Mass may have wanted gun registration, but all the guns
didn't come in and register
themselves.

Homicides have been dropping in Boston, but...

"Despite that encouraging news, the almost-year-end statistics reveal a
troubling reality: Although
police continue to confiscate guns, the street supply remains steady
enough for overall gun violence
to continue unabated. The number of 2013 shootings by Dec. 22 is almost
exactly what it was last
year: 246."

http://tinyurl.com/lr88lbk

How the hell are you going to keep people from having guns. Does not work
in England, does not really work in Canada. And when you figure some 3rd
world country is making AK47's in home shops with little electricity, how
you going to stop manufacturing here? Lots of older milling machines, for
sale cheap! Going to register every lathe?

Bad outcome
 

In article ,
says...

On Sun, 19 Jan 2014 13:05:28 -0600, Boating All Out
wrote:

Name one law against things people want that has not caused a massive
underground enterprise to supply that item and short circuit any
effort to regulate it..

Incandescent light bulbs.

There does not seem to be any shortage of 100w incandescent bulbs
If it really became something people wanted in any quantity, they
would be coming in by the truck load.

http://www.elightbulbs.com/Halco-063...UOOg odHSYAtg


There's no shortage because virtually nobody wants them.

I think "people want" is variable.
People in Mass wanted gun registration. They got it.
It'll happen federally, when the times comes.
Guns don't care about state borders.

Again, how relevant is gun registration if more than half of the guns
never get registered and nobody who plans to use them criminally ever
registers one.

We've been through this. It's simple mechanisms that get it done.
The gun owning population is much less than that of car owners.
How many cars are unregistered?
If it's decided to register guns, it will be done.
You will be dead before it happens, so you won't hve a say.
That's part of getting it done. Old farts dying off.

Bad outcome
 

On Sun, 19 Jan 2014 15:16:43 -0600, Boating All Out wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Sun, 19 Jan 2014 13:05:28 -0600, Boating All Out
wrote:

Name one law against things people want that has not caused a massive
underground enterprise to supply that item and short circuit any
effort to regulate it..

Incandescent light bulbs.

There does not seem to be any shortage of 100w incandescent bulbs
If it really became something people wanted in any quantity, they
would be coming in by the truck load.

http://www.elightbulbs.com/Halco-063...UOOg odHSYAtg


There's no shortage because virtually nobody wants them.

I think "people want" is variable.
People in Mass wanted gun registration. They got it.
It'll happen federally, when the times comes.
Guns don't care about state borders.

Again, how relevant is gun registration if more than half of the guns
never get registered and nobody who plans to use them criminally ever
registers one.

We've been through this. It's simple mechanisms that get it done.
The gun owning population is much less than that of car owners.
How many cars are unregistered?
If it's decided to register guns, it will be done.
You will be dead before it happens, so you won't hve a say.
That's part of getting it done. Old farts dying off.

Uh, I'd venture to say that an unregistered car is much easier to spot than an unregistered gun. No?

I've got a small .38 Chief's Special, unregistered anywhere. How would it get 'done' unless I did
it, or someone searched my house and found it?

Bad outcome
 

On 1/19/2014 3:07 PM, amdx wrote:
On 1/19/2014 1:37 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 19 Jan 2014 13:05:28 -0600, Boating All Out
wrote:

Name one law against things people want that has not caused a massive
underground enterprise to supply that item and short circuit any
effort to regulate it..

Incandescent light bulbs.

There does not seem to be any shortage of 100w incandescent bulbs
If it really became something people wanted in any quantity, they
would be coming in by the truck load.

http://www.elightbulbs.com/Halco-063...UOOg odHSYAtg



But, it's not a standard 100 Watt light bulb.
You not seeing them at Walmart, Kmart etc.
Mikek



I installed two, 60 watt LED bulbs in my loft studio ceiling. They are
shaped like regular old light bulbs and illuminate in the same,
non-directional pattern. I like them. Plenty of light, doesn't have any
funny color and I have them controlled by a regular dimmer designed for
incandescents. No problems dimming them although it doesn't like
controlling only one. Not enough load.

Bad outcome
 

In article ,
says...

On Sun, 19 Jan 2014 15:16:43 -0600, Boating All Out wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Sun, 19 Jan 2014 13:05:28 -0600, Boating All Out
wrote:

Name one law against things people want that has not caused a massive
underground enterprise to supply that item and short circuit any
effort to regulate it..

Incandescent light bulbs.

There does not seem to be any shortage of 100w incandescent bulbs
If it really became something people wanted in any quantity, they
would be coming in by the truck load.

http://www.elightbulbs.com/Halco-063...UOOg odHSYAtg


There's no shortage because virtually nobody wants them.

I think "people want" is variable.
People in Mass wanted gun registration. They got it.
It'll happen federally, when the times comes.
Guns don't care about state borders.

Again, how relevant is gun registration if more than half of the guns
never get registered and nobody who plans to use them criminally ever
registers one.

We've been through this. It's simple mechanisms that get it done.
The gun owning population is much less than that of car owners.
How many cars are unregistered?
If it's decided to register guns, it will be done.
You will be dead before it happens, so you won't hve a say.
That's part of getting it done. Old farts dying off.

Uh, I'd venture to say that an unregistered car is much easier to spot than an unregistered gun. No?


Registration begins upon sale. Nothing to do with size.

I've got a small .38 Chief's Special, unregistered anywhere. How would it get 'done' unless I did
it, or someone searched my house and found it?

Up to you. If it's the law, it's your choice to break it.

Bad outcome
 

On Sun, 19 Jan 2014 16:24:47 -0600, Boating All Out wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Sun, 19 Jan 2014 15:16:43 -0600, Boating All Out wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Sun, 19 Jan 2014 13:05:28 -0600, Boating All Out
wrote:

Name one law against things people want that has not caused a massive
underground enterprise to supply that item and short circuit any
effort to regulate it..

Incandescent light bulbs.

There does not seem to be any shortage of 100w incandescent bulbs
If it really became something people wanted in any quantity, they
would be coming in by the truck load.

http://www.elightbulbs.com/Halco-063...UOOg odHSYAtg


There's no shortage because virtually nobody wants them.

I think "people want" is variable.
People in Mass wanted gun registration. They got it.
It'll happen federally, when the times comes.
Guns don't care about state borders.

Again, how relevant is gun registration if more than half of the guns
never get registered and nobody who plans to use them criminally ever
registers one.

We've been through this. It's simple mechanisms that get it done.
The gun owning population is much less than that of car owners.
How many cars are unregistered?
If it's decided to register guns, it will be done.
You will be dead before it happens, so you won't hve a say.
That's part of getting it done. Old farts dying off.

Uh, I'd venture to say that an unregistered car is much easier to spot than an unregistered gun. No?


Registration begins upon sale. Nothing to do with size.

Only if the buyer and seller are obeying the law.

I've got a small .38 Chief's Special, unregistered anywhere. How would it get 'done' unless I did
it, or someone searched my house and found it?

Up to you. If it's the law, it's your choice to break it.

You just hit the nail on the head.

Bad outcome
 

On 1/19/14, 1:46 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Sun, 19 Jan 2014 12:43:01 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 1/19/14, 12:37 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 19 Jan 2014 11:45:03 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 1/19/14, 11:12 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 19 Jan 2014 10:12:02 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

The concept of citizens in this country taking on armed governmental
forces is absurd. All the armed citizenry in this county, and there are
lots of citizens with guns in this county, couldn't take on the county
sheriff.

That is absurd if you are talking about more than a few people hiding
out in a cabin.
Our military has not been very successful in stopping asymmetrical
warriors whether it is Vietnam, The Middle East, Africa or South Asia.
They kill a lot of people and win most of the battles but they lose
the war. (much like the Brits in the latter 18th century American
war)..


Hey, there's always hope a large number of righties will start an
insurrection in the United States and get wiped out...it'll definitely
improve the gene pool. :)

I do not actually believe that we would ever allow a government to get
that oppressive before we enacted a political solution but it would be
the left who ended up organizing the revolution if it did.
I do believe it would come out of a massive financial collapse and the
well intentioned desire to find a strong leader with an agenda that
sounded good in the beginning and then descended into a dictatorship.
Bear in mind every dictator of the last 100 years started with a
socialist agenda. Most have the word "socialist" in the title of their
government.
The only way socialism can exist as a governmental policy is if you
have an overbearing government. (be it the Cubans, Venezuela, the
Soviets or the Nazis)



My Northern European buddies in socialist countries report no problems
with overbearing government.

Your buddies don't even complain of the overbearing taxes? Wow, mine has started doing that big
time. He's also not very happy with providing housing to all the Moroccan and Turkish folks that
have been flooding Holland since the borders went away.

Funny, fifteen-twenty years ago he was very happy with his 'socialist' country. Times have changed.
Good to know your buddies don't mind oppressive taxes.

My Norwegian friend who was seriously
injured in an offshore drilling platform accident was financially
supported and retrained as a teacher and is quite happy with how things
turned out. He didn't lose his house or his healthcare or his pension,
and his kids went to college. In the USA, he'd be out on the street.

Norway would be a great place for you to live. You could get herring prepared in a tremendous
variety of ways - including raw.


Been there, done that.

Bad outcome
 

On Sun, 19 Jan 2014 17:41:26 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 1/19/14, 1:46 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Sun, 19 Jan 2014 12:43:01 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 1/19/14, 12:37 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 19 Jan 2014 11:45:03 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 1/19/14, 11:12 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 19 Jan 2014 10:12:02 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

The concept of citizens in this country taking on armed governmental
forces is absurd. All the armed citizenry in this county, and there are
lots of citizens with guns in this county, couldn't take on the county
sheriff.

That is absurd if you are talking about more than a few people hiding
out in a cabin.
Our military has not been very successful in stopping asymmetrical
warriors whether it is Vietnam, The Middle East, Africa or South Asia.
They kill a lot of people and win most of the battles but they lose
the war. (much like the Brits in the latter 18th century American
war)..


Hey, there's always hope a large number of righties will start an
insurrection in the United States and get wiped out...it'll definitely
improve the gene pool. :)

I do not actually believe that we would ever allow a government to get
that oppressive before we enacted a political solution but it would be
the left who ended up organizing the revolution if it did.
I do believe it would come out of a massive financial collapse and the
well intentioned desire to find a strong leader with an agenda that
sounded good in the beginning and then descended into a dictatorship.
Bear in mind every dictator of the last 100 years started with a
socialist agenda. Most have the word "socialist" in the title of their
government.
The only way socialism can exist as a governmental policy is if you
have an overbearing government. (be it the Cubans, Venezuela, the
Soviets or the Nazis)



My Northern European buddies in socialist countries report no problems
with overbearing government.

Your buddies don't even complain of the overbearing taxes? Wow, mine has started doing that big
time. He's also not very happy with providing housing to all the Moroccan and Turkish folks that
have been flooding Holland since the borders went away.

Funny, fifteen-twenty years ago he was very happy with his 'socialist' country. Times have changed.
Good to know your buddies don't mind oppressive taxes.

My Norwegian friend who was seriously
injured in an offshore drilling platform accident was financially
supported and retrained as a teacher and is quite happy with how things
turned out. He didn't lose his house or his healthcare or his pension,
and his kids went to college. In the USA, he'd be out on the street.

Norway would be a great place for you to live. You could get herring prepared in a tremendous
variety of ways - including raw.


Been there, done that.

On a motorcycle trip to Stockholm, we took a ferry from Kiel, Germany to Gotenberg, Sweden. For an
extra 25 Deutsche Marks, we got the buffet on the ferry. One whole counter, about 15 feet long was
devoted solely to herring in its many forms = fried, pickled in various sauces, raw with various
sauces, and so on. What a pig out!

One of our group didn't want to spend the money. The next day, about halfway across Swededn, he got
hungry. We stopped at a little highway diner where he paid about the same amount of money for a
hamburger, fries, and soft drink. Sweden may be a socialist heaven, but it cost me almost $50 to
fill my motorcycle tank and about $5 for a wrapped (the cheap kind) loaf of bread at a supermarket.

But they put on a pretty good motorcycle rally.