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...

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.

"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.

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!

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.

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?

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.

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.

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?

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?