J
John B.
Guest
On Feb 11, 7:52
Navigation
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
More options
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
R
robw
Guest
Did you go anywhere but Arlington?
"Patriot Games" <Patriot@America.com> wrote in message
news:47b2fe57$0$17364$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
> "robw" <noddy093@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:aaednXbudeAPri_anZ2dnUVZ_qSdnZ2d@comcast.com...
> > Have you ever been in D.C.?
>
> Yep.
>
> The last time was a couple of years ago to officially relinquish my
> previously awarded (future) spot at Arlington. It was not that meaningful
> to me and the families of today's heroes most certainly deserve it.
>
> You do realize, I hope, that to me you barely even register as a life
form.
>
"Patriot Games" <Patriot@America.com> wrote in message
news:47b2fe57$0$17364$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
> "robw" <noddy093@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:aaednXbudeAPri_anZ2dnUVZ_qSdnZ2d@comcast.com...
> > Have you ever been in D.C.?
>
> Yep.
>
> The last time was a couple of years ago to officially relinquish my
> previously awarded (future) spot at Arlington. It was not that meaningful
> to me and the families of today's heroes most certainly deserve it.
>
> You do realize, I hope, that to me you barely even register as a life
form.
>
S
Steven L.
Guest
parsifal222@gmail.com wrote:
> On 13 f
> On 13 f
P
PolicySpy
Guest
>> The Constitution associates militia with The People and gives the people
>> the right to bear arms and furthermore says that the right to bear arms
>> should not be infringed...
>>
>> Now who would it be that would infringe on the People's right to bear
>> arms ?
>>
>> Well see...in the Constitution the militia (or a militia) is associated
>> with the People while the Army is associated with the Commander-in-Chief.
>>
>> So a militia is a supporting unit and the People have the right to be a
>> supporting unit. Now words like "militia" and "army" have definition and
>> practice and had definition and practice at the time of the
>> Consititution.
>>
>> So a militia is a supporting unit and does not have artillery while an
>> army is a primary unit and does have artillery. So the People do not have
>> the right to keep and bear artillery but only the right to keep and bear
>> arms.
>
> That's absolutely wrong. Privately owned crew-served weapons were common
> throughout the 1800's, up to and including ships of war. Even today,
> private owners can own such. But buying an F-22 Raptor and then trying to
> keep it flying is a terribly expensive proposition, even for billionaires.
>
It has been a big deal throughout history as to how well a supporting unit
is armed...and this is fundamental.
In the movie 'Lawrence of Arabia' the Arabs helping the British are not
given artillery and their machine gun is run by a British officer.
During WWII the OSS armed and supplied Ho Chin Min and his followers for
them to fight the Japanese in Vietnam...but they werem't given artillery.
Currently in the U.S. a fully automatic weapon requires a special
permit...but a permit for artillery is not generally available.
Militias in general practice are not allowed to have artillery...or are only
allowed to have artillery in extraordinary circumstances.
>> the right to bear arms and furthermore says that the right to bear arms
>> should not be infringed...
>>
>> Now who would it be that would infringe on the People's right to bear
>> arms ?
>>
>> Well see...in the Constitution the militia (or a militia) is associated
>> with the People while the Army is associated with the Commander-in-Chief.
>>
>> So a militia is a supporting unit and the People have the right to be a
>> supporting unit. Now words like "militia" and "army" have definition and
>> practice and had definition and practice at the time of the
>> Consititution.
>>
>> So a militia is a supporting unit and does not have artillery while an
>> army is a primary unit and does have artillery. So the People do not have
>> the right to keep and bear artillery but only the right to keep and bear
>> arms.
>
> That's absolutely wrong. Privately owned crew-served weapons were common
> throughout the 1800's, up to and including ships of war. Even today,
> private owners can own such. But buying an F-22 Raptor and then trying to
> keep it flying is a terribly expensive proposition, even for billionaires.
>
It has been a big deal throughout history as to how well a supporting unit
is armed...and this is fundamental.
In the movie 'Lawrence of Arabia' the Arabs helping the British are not
given artillery and their machine gun is run by a British officer.
During WWII the OSS armed and supplied Ho Chin Min and his followers for
them to fight the Japanese in Vietnam...but they werem't given artillery.
Currently in the U.S. a fully automatic weapon requires a special
permit...but a permit for artillery is not generally available.
Militias in general practice are not allowed to have artillery...or are only
allowed to have artillery in extraordinary circumstances.
P
PolicySpy
Guest
As a homeowner, I can defend myself and my family just as easily with
a rifle or a shotgun (I own several) as a handgun.
If handguns are available for purchase in DC, I guaran****ingtee you
the rates of murder and violent crime will go up.
------------------------------------------------------
No it is very difficult and even silly to answer the door at 10 PM with a
rifle or shotgun in hand...but very easy and even reasonable to answer the
door with a handgun in pocket or held back in one hand. See the homeowner
wants to be confident and facilitated...
And to disfavor handguns just puts rifles into the hands of the careless
element than can exist in society. And a rifle is something like ten-times
more powerful and ten-times more accurate than a handgun. (But that takes us
to the assault gun ban...in other words ban anything that can be
rationalized at extraordinary. But the best assault gun ban would be a
minimum price equal to the more expensive guns.)
It's actually better that a modern city is armed with handguns than with
rifles. A shot with a small blow-back automatic pistol or with a snub
revolver is often a miss...but someone defending themselves from someone
approaching them will find that the range improves as the danger increases.
(And this is how the snub revolver was designed and is fundamental.)
a rifle or a shotgun (I own several) as a handgun.
If handguns are available for purchase in DC, I guaran****ingtee you
the rates of murder and violent crime will go up.
------------------------------------------------------
No it is very difficult and even silly to answer the door at 10 PM with a
rifle or shotgun in hand...but very easy and even reasonable to answer the
door with a handgun in pocket or held back in one hand. See the homeowner
wants to be confident and facilitated...
And to disfavor handguns just puts rifles into the hands of the careless
element than can exist in society. And a rifle is something like ten-times
more powerful and ten-times more accurate than a handgun. (But that takes us
to the assault gun ban...in other words ban anything that can be
rationalized at extraordinary. But the best assault gun ban would be a
minimum price equal to the more expensive guns.)
It's actually better that a modern city is armed with handguns than with
rifles. A shot with a small blow-back automatic pistol or with a snub
revolver is often a miss...but someone defending themselves from someone
approaching them will find that the range improves as the danger increases.
(And this is how the snub revolver was designed and is fundamental.)
P
parsifal222@gmail.com
Guest
On 13 Feb., 15:20, Bert Hyman <b...@iphouse.com> wrote:
> parsifal...@gmail.com () wrote innews:ea102b71-2cd5-4ee0-94a3-bc9ab0e6ead1@s13g2000prd.googlegroups.com:
>
> > When someone knock at my door after 10PM, I know it's for a reason -
> > and a good one
>
> How's that work?
One example. It happens a few years ago.
I live in an apartment building. You can't get in the back yard unless
you came in the building in the first place. It's 2 AM. Someone knocks
at our back door (we were living at the ground level). My wife went to
see (I didn't hear anything): it was a teenager living in the building
who went to put the trash out and the door closed behind her and she
was locked outside. Not ONE SECOND, has it crossed my wife's mind -and
mine a few seconds later- that someone knocking at our back door at 2
AM could be dangerous.
That's the advantage of living in a civilized place.
And the teenager was really thankful. End of the story.
> parsifal...@gmail.com () wrote innews:ea102b71-2cd5-4ee0-94a3-bc9ab0e6ead1@s13g2000prd.googlegroups.com:
>
> > When someone knock at my door after 10PM, I know it's for a reason -
> > and a good one
>
> How's that work?
One example. It happens a few years ago.
I live in an apartment building. You can't get in the back yard unless
you came in the building in the first place. It's 2 AM. Someone knocks
at our back door (we were living at the ground level). My wife went to
see (I didn't hear anything): it was a teenager living in the building
who went to put the trash out and the door closed behind her and she
was locked outside. Not ONE SECOND, has it crossed my wife's mind -and
mine a few seconds later- that someone knocking at our back door at 2
AM could be dangerous.
That's the advantage of living in a civilized place.
And the teenager was really thankful. End of the story.
P
parsifal222@gmail.com
Guest
On 13 Feb., 17:32, "Steven L." <sdlit...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> parsifal...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On 13 f
> parsifal...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On 13 f
J
John B.
Guest
On Feb 13, 2:20
P
PolicySpy
Guest
>
> No it is very difficult and even silly to answer the door at 10 PM with a
> rifle or shotgun in hand...but very easy and even reasonable to answer the
> door with a handgun in pocket or held back in one hand. See the homeowner
> wants to be confident and facilitated...
----------------------------------------------------
It's actually pretty easy not to answer the door at all.
-----------------------------------------------------
But a homeowner that does not assist someone in trouble is often
criticized...You have to answer the door to know what the situation is. And
911 in a major city will put you at the bottom of the list unless you are
reporting break-in...
> And to disfavor handguns just puts rifles into the hands of the careless
> element than can exist in society.
---------------------------------------------------
You can't stick a rifle in your pocket.
---------------------------------------------------
Any car can have a rifle...and that's the AK-47.
Now the push against handguns began with the Saturday-Night-Special...The
Saturday-Night-Special was not an expensive .38 Special but was a small .22
revolver that cost about $12 in the 1960's and was manufactured by companies
not well known.
Then the push against assault weapons began after the AK-47 became available
for $200 or less...The AK-47 is now about $400...
So the cost of the gun is a major factor in problems developing within
society concerning gun use...
> No it is very difficult and even silly to answer the door at 10 PM with a
> rifle or shotgun in hand...but very easy and even reasonable to answer the
> door with a handgun in pocket or held back in one hand. See the homeowner
> wants to be confident and facilitated...
----------------------------------------------------
It's actually pretty easy not to answer the door at all.
-----------------------------------------------------
But a homeowner that does not assist someone in trouble is often
criticized...You have to answer the door to know what the situation is. And
911 in a major city will put you at the bottom of the list unless you are
reporting break-in...
> And to disfavor handguns just puts rifles into the hands of the careless
> element than can exist in society.
---------------------------------------------------
You can't stick a rifle in your pocket.
---------------------------------------------------
Any car can have a rifle...and that's the AK-47.
Now the push against handguns began with the Saturday-Night-Special...The
Saturday-Night-Special was not an expensive .38 Special but was a small .22
revolver that cost about $12 in the 1960's and was manufactured by companies
not well known.
Then the push against assault weapons began after the AK-47 became available
for $200 or less...The AK-47 is now about $400...
So the cost of the gun is a major factor in problems developing within
society concerning gun use...
P
PolicySpy
Guest
>> How's that work?
>
> One example. It happens a few years ago.
> I live in an apartment building. You can't get in the back yard unless
> you came in the building in the first place. It's 2 AM. Someone knocks
> at our back door (we were living at the ground level). My wife went to
> see (I didn't hear anything): it was a teenager living in the building
> who went to put the trash out and the door closed behind her and she
> was locked outside. Not ONE SECOND, has it crossed my wife's mind -and
> mine a few seconds later- that someone knocking at our back door at 2
> AM could be dangerous.
> That's the advantage of living in a civilized place.
> And the teenager was really thankful. End of the story.
But see a homeowner that lives in a secure area might not understand a
homeowner that lives in an area that is in transition...
>
> One example. It happens a few years ago.
> I live in an apartment building. You can't get in the back yard unless
> you came in the building in the first place. It's 2 AM. Someone knocks
> at our back door (we were living at the ground level). My wife went to
> see (I didn't hear anything): it was a teenager living in the building
> who went to put the trash out and the door closed behind her and she
> was locked outside. Not ONE SECOND, has it crossed my wife's mind -and
> mine a few seconds later- that someone knocking at our back door at 2
> AM could be dangerous.
> That's the advantage of living in a civilized place.
> And the teenager was really thankful. End of the story.
But see a homeowner that lives in a secure area might not understand a
homeowner that lives in an area that is in transition...
G
Galen Hekhuis
Guest
On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 17:23:38 -0500, "PolicySpy" <Pintell@notmail.com>
wrote:
>>
>> No it is very difficult and even silly to answer the door at 10 PM with a
>> rifle or shotgun in hand...but very easy and even reasonable to answer the
>> door with a handgun in pocket or held back in one hand. See the homeowner
>> wants to be confident and facilitated...
>
>----------------------------------------------------
>
>It's actually pretty easy not to answer the door at all.
>
>-----------------------------------------------------
>
>But a homeowner that does not assist someone in trouble is often
>criticized...You have to answer the door to know what the situation is. And
>911 in a major city will put you at the bottom of the list unless you are
>reporting break-in...
You can stick a color TV camera outside and see what the story is even
before you open the door. This can be done very easily and without
any wires (except power) for well under $100 (far less than any kind
of gun). X10.com sends me emails about these cameras all the time,
and they work with just about any TV.
>...
Galen Hekhuis ghekhuis@earthlink.net
wrote:
>>
>> No it is very difficult and even silly to answer the door at 10 PM with a
>> rifle or shotgun in hand...but very easy and even reasonable to answer the
>> door with a handgun in pocket or held back in one hand. See the homeowner
>> wants to be confident and facilitated...
>
>----------------------------------------------------
>
>It's actually pretty easy not to answer the door at all.
>
>-----------------------------------------------------
>
>But a homeowner that does not assist someone in trouble is often
>criticized...You have to answer the door to know what the situation is. And
>911 in a major city will put you at the bottom of the list unless you are
>reporting break-in...
You can stick a color TV camera outside and see what the story is even
before you open the door. This can be done very easily and without
any wires (except power) for well under $100 (far less than any kind
of gun). X10.com sends me emails about these cameras all the time,
and they work with just about any TV.
>...
Galen Hekhuis ghekhuis@earthlink.net
J
John B.
Guest
On Feb 13, 5:23
P
PolicySpy
Guest
> But a homeowner that does not assist someone in trouble is often
> criticized...You have to answer the door to know what the situation is.
> And
> 911 in a major city will put you at the bottom of the list unless you are
> reporting break-in...
-------------------------------------------------------
And this is a reason to overturn DC's handgun ban?
-------------------------------------------------------
Yes, there is a segment of our society that wants to be facilitated. The
homeowner wants to be confident. And many individuals do just naturally
accept involvement when there is a problem around them. In other words they
answer the door...
But ban the gun ban ? Yes, the gun ban was unconstitutional. See...purchase
of a gun requires ID and national background check and that is effective
regulation. To seek more is an attempt to build a clincial society...
>
> > And to disfavor handguns just puts rifles into the hands of the careless
> > element than can exist in society.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------
>
> You can't stick a rifle in your pocket.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------
>
> Any car can have a rifle...and that's the AK-47.
------------------------------------------------------
You can't carry a rifle into a bar or a nightclub. You can't carry one
onto a high school playground. You can't walk down the street carrying
a rifle. These are the venues where murders occur in Washington DC.
Putting more handguns on the street in DC = more violent crime and
murders in DC. It means more angry young punks shooting each other in
the street. How can anybody not see that?
-------------------------------------------------------
I was in jail for a weekend on a gun charge that a court refused to hear.
Everyone in jail thought it was funny because they all said that they
carried AK47's in their car or that a car that they rode in had a AK47...
And the AK47 in the car is close enough...
Really it's better to deal with handguns in the city than with AK47's...
Also those AK47's can have a folding stock and be carried under a coat. The
new AR type rifles all have sliding stocks. A lever action saddle gun rifle
is less then 36" long...
> Now the push against handguns began with the Saturday-Night-Special...The
> Saturday-Night-Special was not an expensive .38 Special but was a small
> .22
> revolver that cost about $12 in the 1960's and was manufactured by
> companies
> not well known.
>
> Then the push against assault weapons began after the AK-47 became
> available
> for $200 or less...The AK-47 is now about $400...
>
> So the cost of the gun is a major factor in problems developing within
> society concerning gun use...
> criticized...You have to answer the door to know what the situation is.
> And
> 911 in a major city will put you at the bottom of the list unless you are
> reporting break-in...
-------------------------------------------------------
And this is a reason to overturn DC's handgun ban?
-------------------------------------------------------
Yes, there is a segment of our society that wants to be facilitated. The
homeowner wants to be confident. And many individuals do just naturally
accept involvement when there is a problem around them. In other words they
answer the door...
But ban the gun ban ? Yes, the gun ban was unconstitutional. See...purchase
of a gun requires ID and national background check and that is effective
regulation. To seek more is an attempt to build a clincial society...
>
> > And to disfavor handguns just puts rifles into the hands of the careless
> > element than can exist in society.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------
>
> You can't stick a rifle in your pocket.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------
>
> Any car can have a rifle...and that's the AK-47.
------------------------------------------------------
You can't carry a rifle into a bar or a nightclub. You can't carry one
onto a high school playground. You can't walk down the street carrying
a rifle. These are the venues where murders occur in Washington DC.
Putting more handguns on the street in DC = more violent crime and
murders in DC. It means more angry young punks shooting each other in
the street. How can anybody not see that?
-------------------------------------------------------
I was in jail for a weekend on a gun charge that a court refused to hear.
Everyone in jail thought it was funny because they all said that they
carried AK47's in their car or that a car that they rode in had a AK47...
And the AK47 in the car is close enough...
Really it's better to deal with handguns in the city than with AK47's...
Also those AK47's can have a folding stock and be carried under a coat. The
new AR type rifles all have sliding stocks. A lever action saddle gun rifle
is less then 36" long...
> Now the push against handguns began with the Saturday-Night-Special...The
> Saturday-Night-Special was not an expensive .38 Special but was a small
> .22
> revolver that cost about $12 in the 1960's and was manufactured by
> companies
> not well known.
>
> Then the push against assault weapons began after the AK-47 became
> available
> for $200 or less...The AK-47 is now about $400...
>
> So the cost of the gun is a major factor in problems developing within
> society concerning gun use...
B
Bert Hyman
Guest
parsifal222@gmail.com () wrote in
news:55f834fc-3412-4f96-8af1-eeb579714d9f@f10g2000hsf.googlegroups.com:
> On 13 Feb., 15:20, Bert Hyman <b...@iphouse.com> wrote:
>> parsifal...@gmail.com () wrote
>> innews:ea102b71-2cd5-4ee0-94a3-bc9ab0e6ead1@s13g2000prd.googlegroups
>> .com:
>>
>> > When someone knock at my door after 10PM, I know it's for a
>> > reason - and a good one
>>
>> How's that work?
>
> One example. It happens a few years ago.
> I live in an apartment building. You can't get in the back yard
> unless you came in the building in the first place.
> ...
> That's the advantage of living in a civilized place.
So, you're equating a locked building with a civilized place? Sort of
like a prison, I guess.
Interesting.
I used to live in a so-called "security building". Residents could get
in by using their apartment key to open the door, and visitors would
use the intercom to have a resident unlock the door remotely.
However, residents would often allow strangers to follow them through
the door when they entered. Some would even unlock the door remotely
when strangers buzzed them on the intercom.
There are no guarantees of safety in life.
--
Bert Hyman | St. Paul, MN | bert@iphouse.com
news:55f834fc-3412-4f96-8af1-eeb579714d9f@f10g2000hsf.googlegroups.com:
> On 13 Feb., 15:20, Bert Hyman <b...@iphouse.com> wrote:
>> parsifal...@gmail.com () wrote
>> innews:ea102b71-2cd5-4ee0-94a3-bc9ab0e6ead1@s13g2000prd.googlegroups
>> .com:
>>
>> > When someone knock at my door after 10PM, I know it's for a
>> > reason - and a good one
>>
>> How's that work?
>
> One example. It happens a few years ago.
> I live in an apartment building. You can't get in the back yard
> unless you came in the building in the first place.
> ...
> That's the advantage of living in a civilized place.
So, you're equating a locked building with a civilized place? Sort of
like a prison, I guess.
Interesting.
I used to live in a so-called "security building". Residents could get
in by using their apartment key to open the door, and visitors would
use the intercom to have a resident unlock the door remotely.
However, residents would often allow strangers to follow them through
the door when they entered. Some would even unlock the door remotely
when strangers buzzed them on the intercom.
There are no guarantees of safety in life.
--
Bert Hyman | St. Paul, MN | bert@iphouse.com
P
Patriot Games
Guest
<parsifal222@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:f3830142-4b48-43aa-b7a1-f77fe63be581@s12g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
On 13 f
news:f3830142-4b48-43aa-b7a1-f77fe63be581@s12g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
On 13 f
P
Patriot Games
Guest
<parsifal222@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:541546ae-219b-4084-b892-fd954aeb0fb5@i12g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>What's the purpose of cars? What's the purpose of guns?
Hahahahahhaha!!!
Why do loser always try to change the subject?
HAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!
news:541546ae-219b-4084-b892-fd954aeb0fb5@i12g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>What's the purpose of cars? What's the purpose of guns?
Hahahahahhaha!!!
Why do loser always try to change the subject?
HAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!
P
Patriot Games
Guest
"John B." <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:81ee10b9-3452-4242-9180-04a6c0c7a7ba@e25g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
On Feb 12, 7:02 pm, "robw" <noddy...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> Have you ever been in D.C.?
>Since the early 90s, the rate of murder and violent crime in DC have
>been going down, not up, as some people here have claimed.
The FBI says you're wrong.
Washington DC 2005-2006 Crime:
Crime DOWN:
2005 Murder 195
2006 Murder 169
2005 Arson 61
2006 Arson 34
2005 Motor Vehicle Theft 7,467
2006 Motor Vehicle Theft 7,057
Crime UP:
2005 Violent Crimes 7,716
2006 Violent Crimes 8,408
2005 Property Crimes 25,200
2006 Property Crimes 26,015
2005 Forcible Rape 165
2006 Forcible Rape 182
2005 Robbery 3,502
2006 Robbery 3,604
2005 Aggravated Assault 3,854
2006 Aggravated Assault 4,453
2005 Burglary 3,571
2006 Burglary 3,826
2005 Larceny Theft 14,162
2006 Larceny Theft 15,132
http://www.fbi.gov/
>If the Supreme Court overturns the handgun ban, DC will NOT have to
>pass a law allowing concealed-carry, and I guarantee you they won't.
Of course they won't HAVE to. But they WILL HAVE to provide SOME legal
method to allow concealed carry.
>If you live in DC... handgun... you can drive to Virginia, buy one and take
>it home.
> It's not legal... What's the big deal w/that?
>It is absolutely apparent that allowing handguns in DC will do more
>harm than good.
Lemme see if I understand. You are encouraging people to be criminals, you
see nothing wrong with being a criminal, but LEGAL gun ownership would be a
problem?
You must be a Democrat.
news:81ee10b9-3452-4242-9180-04a6c0c7a7ba@e25g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
On Feb 12, 7:02 pm, "robw" <noddy...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> Have you ever been in D.C.?
>Since the early 90s, the rate of murder and violent crime in DC have
>been going down, not up, as some people here have claimed.
The FBI says you're wrong.
Washington DC 2005-2006 Crime:
Crime DOWN:
2005 Murder 195
2006 Murder 169
2005 Arson 61
2006 Arson 34
2005 Motor Vehicle Theft 7,467
2006 Motor Vehicle Theft 7,057
Crime UP:
2005 Violent Crimes 7,716
2006 Violent Crimes 8,408
2005 Property Crimes 25,200
2006 Property Crimes 26,015
2005 Forcible Rape 165
2006 Forcible Rape 182
2005 Robbery 3,502
2006 Robbery 3,604
2005 Aggravated Assault 3,854
2006 Aggravated Assault 4,453
2005 Burglary 3,571
2006 Burglary 3,826
2005 Larceny Theft 14,162
2006 Larceny Theft 15,132
http://www.fbi.gov/
>If the Supreme Court overturns the handgun ban, DC will NOT have to
>pass a law allowing concealed-carry, and I guarantee you they won't.
Of course they won't HAVE to. But they WILL HAVE to provide SOME legal
method to allow concealed carry.
>If you live in DC... handgun... you can drive to Virginia, buy one and take
>it home.
> It's not legal... What's the big deal w/that?
>It is absolutely apparent that allowing handguns in DC will do more
>harm than good.
Lemme see if I understand. You are encouraging people to be criminals, you
see nothing wrong with being a criminal, but LEGAL gun ownership would be a
problem?
You must be a Democrat.
J
John B.
Guest
On Feb 14, 12:26
P
Patriot Games
Guest
"John B." <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:fb51c5a1-84b6-43e8-be96-0cc632955979@d70g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
On Feb 14, 12:26 pm, "Patriot Games" <Patr...@America.com> wrote:
>> "John B." <johnb...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:81ee10b9-3452-4242-9180-04a6c0c7a7ba@e25g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
>> On Feb 12, 7:02 pm, "robw" <noddy...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> >> Have you ever been in D.C.?
>> >Since the early 90s, the rate of murder and violent crime in DC have
>> >been going down, not up, as some people here have claimed.
>> The FBI says you're wrong.
>> Washington DC 2005-2006 Crime:
>> Crime DOWN:
>> 2005 Murder 195
>> 2006 Murder 169
>> 2005 Arson 61
>> 2006 Arson 34
>> 2005 Motor Vehicle Theft 7,467
>> 2006 Motor Vehicle Theft 7,057
>> Crime UP:
>> 2005 Violent Crimes 7,716
>> 2006 Violent Crimes 8,408
>> 2005 Property Crimes 25,200
>> 2006 Property Crimes 26,015
>> 2005 Forcible Rape 165
>> 2006 Forcible Rape 182
>> 2005 Robbery 3,502
>> 2006 Robbery 3,604
>> 2005 Aggravated Assault 3,854
>> 2006 Aggravated Assault 4,453
>> 2005 Burglary 3,571
>> 2006 Burglary 3,826
>> 2005 Larceny Theft 14,162
>> 2006 Larceny Theft 15,132http://www.fbi.gov/
>I said from they early 90s to the present, not 2005-06/
You don't think 2006, the LATEST YEAR ON RECORD AT THE FBI, is "the
present?"
>> >If the Supreme Court overturns the handgun ban, DC will NOT have to
>> >pass a law allowing concealed-carry, and I guarantee you they won't.
>> Of course they won't HAVE to. But they WILL HAVE to provide SOME legal
>> method to allow concealed carry.
>Why?
The DC gun ban is ALREADY overturned. Twice. Its merely appealed to the
Supreme Court.
If the Supreme Court agrees with BOTH lower courts then the DC gun ban will
be BANNED.
Get it? Banned. Meaning you can't do it.
So, naturally, one would assume they would then come up with some various
restrictions.
>> >If you live in DC... handgun... you can drive to Virginia, buy one and
>> >take
>> >it home.
>> > It's not legal... What's the big deal w/that?
>> >It is absolutely apparent that allowing handguns in DC will do more
>> >harm than good.
>> Lemme see if I understand. You are encouraging people to be criminals,
>> you
>> see nothing wrong with being a criminal, but LEGAL gun ownership would be
>> a
>> problem?
>> You must be a Democrat.
>I'm not encouraging anybody to do anything. I'm saying a lot more
>innocent people will be killed than criminals shot in self-defense.
The problem with your OPINION is that it has NEVER ONCE happenned in ANY
State or even ANY COUNTRY where they went from non-carry to concealed carry.
Not ONCE, not ANYWHERE, not EVER.
When normal people find that their personal opinion is contrary to every
single piece of evidence they usually step back and try to discover how in
the heck they came to have such a strange and unsupportable opinion.
news:fb51c5a1-84b6-43e8-be96-0cc632955979@d70g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
On Feb 14, 12:26 pm, "Patriot Games" <Patr...@America.com> wrote:
>> "John B." <johnb...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:81ee10b9-3452-4242-9180-04a6c0c7a7ba@e25g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
>> On Feb 12, 7:02 pm, "robw" <noddy...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> >> Have you ever been in D.C.?
>> >Since the early 90s, the rate of murder and violent crime in DC have
>> >been going down, not up, as some people here have claimed.
>> The FBI says you're wrong.
>> Washington DC 2005-2006 Crime:
>> Crime DOWN:
>> 2005 Murder 195
>> 2006 Murder 169
>> 2005 Arson 61
>> 2006 Arson 34
>> 2005 Motor Vehicle Theft 7,467
>> 2006 Motor Vehicle Theft 7,057
>> Crime UP:
>> 2005 Violent Crimes 7,716
>> 2006 Violent Crimes 8,408
>> 2005 Property Crimes 25,200
>> 2006 Property Crimes 26,015
>> 2005 Forcible Rape 165
>> 2006 Forcible Rape 182
>> 2005 Robbery 3,502
>> 2006 Robbery 3,604
>> 2005 Aggravated Assault 3,854
>> 2006 Aggravated Assault 4,453
>> 2005 Burglary 3,571
>> 2006 Burglary 3,826
>> 2005 Larceny Theft 14,162
>> 2006 Larceny Theft 15,132http://www.fbi.gov/
>I said from they early 90s to the present, not 2005-06/
You don't think 2006, the LATEST YEAR ON RECORD AT THE FBI, is "the
present?"
>> >If the Supreme Court overturns the handgun ban, DC will NOT have to
>> >pass a law allowing concealed-carry, and I guarantee you they won't.
>> Of course they won't HAVE to. But they WILL HAVE to provide SOME legal
>> method to allow concealed carry.
>Why?
The DC gun ban is ALREADY overturned. Twice. Its merely appealed to the
Supreme Court.
If the Supreme Court agrees with BOTH lower courts then the DC gun ban will
be BANNED.
Get it? Banned. Meaning you can't do it.
So, naturally, one would assume they would then come up with some various
restrictions.
>> >If you live in DC... handgun... you can drive to Virginia, buy one and
>> >take
>> >it home.
>> > It's not legal... What's the big deal w/that?
>> >It is absolutely apparent that allowing handguns in DC will do more
>> >harm than good.
>> Lemme see if I understand. You are encouraging people to be criminals,
>> you
>> see nothing wrong with being a criminal, but LEGAL gun ownership would be
>> a
>> problem?
>> You must be a Democrat.
>I'm not encouraging anybody to do anything. I'm saying a lot more
>innocent people will be killed than criminals shot in self-defense.
The problem with your OPINION is that it has NEVER ONCE happenned in ANY
State or even ANY COUNTRY where they went from non-carry to concealed carry.
Not ONCE, not ANYWHERE, not EVER.
When normal people find that their personal opinion is contrary to every
single piece of evidence they usually step back and try to discover how in
the heck they came to have such a strange and unsupportable opinion.
Similar threads
Y
- Replies
- 0
- Views
- 19
Y
