Re: Todays rant

Liste des GroupesRevenir à rb tech 
Sujet : Re: Todays rant
De : slocombjb (at) *nospam* gmail.com (John B.)
Groupes : rec.bicycles.tech
Date : 13. Dec 2024, 01:43:57
Autres entêtes
Organisation : A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID : <7k0nljt70l9cur697j786ti4oh12ikmhju@4ax.com>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
User-Agent : ForteAgent/7.10.32.1212
On Thu, 12 Dec 2024 13:49:54 -0600, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:

On 12/12/2024 11:51 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 12/12/2024 8:48 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 12/12/2024 7:19 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 12/11/2024 4:59 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 12/11/2024 3:06 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 12/11/2024 3:00 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 12/11/2024 12:10 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 12/11/2024 12:36 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 12/11/2024 11:07 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 12/11/2024 6:06 AM, John B. wrote:
>
>
Reality is that ALL firearms are dangerious. [sic]
>
John, are ALL firearms equally dangerous? Really?
>
Of course not!
>
The AR was specifically designed to be more
dangerous to the enemy than its predecessor. If
that were not the objective, there would have been
no need for a new design.
>
>
>
That was 65 years ago. Designs have progressed.
>
Also, although I haven't looked recently, for many
years the #1 fatal round in USA was .22LR
overwhelmingly.
>
Without editing or rephrasing Mr Slocumb's comment,
"all firearms are dangerous" in in fact obviously true.
>
John was using "All firearms are dangerous"
specifically as a defense of wide proliferation of
AR- style rifles. Check the thread. By ignoring that
fact, his buddies are pretending that all levels of
danger are equally bad.
>
Ignoring levels of danger is beyond absurd. If you
accept that, you may as well extend the concept to
straight pins, stairways, sunburn and hell,
everything else in the world. And you may as well
advocate for private ownership of nuclear weapons.
>
(And I'll note that the gun fetishists here actually
_have_ tried to do that with other everyday items! I
won't remind people of their other chosen items,
because that will just set them off on other
illogical chases.)
>
>
>
Every farmer in my are has plenty of ammonia rich
fertilizer and a few hundred gallons of diesel. Not
one of them has emulated Timothy McVeigh. Not once.
>
Materiel is not volition.
>
>
Ammonia-rich fertilizer and diesel fuel were not
designed with the intent to kill humans.
>
>
>
Oh, for all the difference it made to 19 children; 168
people altogether.
>
Perhaps the difference is in the act and the actor not
the tool.
>
Still a bad analogy, the same used to compare deaths from
car crashes, kitchen knives (any manner of pointy
objects) - all lethal when used with the intent to
murder, but none designed with the intent to murder.
>
The AR-15 when used for the intended design is
specifically lethal to humans. That cannot be said for
fertilizer, ammonia, cars, ball-point pens......
>
>
>
So you agree with me that the crucial aspects are the
actor and the act, not the hardware.
>
 
To a certain extent.
 
If every human being could be trusted to act responsibly,
allowing a device that was developed expressly to kill other
human beings to be possessed without any restrictions
wouldn't be a problem.
 
But Humans can't be trusted.
 
Following your posit to the extreme, there should be no
reason therefore to prevent me from mounting a fully-
operational m134 minigun on the roof of my car. Hey, I'm a
responsible adult, never been arrested, I've never committed
any acts of violence, even had a security clearance for a
time. If the criteria is _solely_ 'the actor and the act',
why shouldn't I be able to do that?
 
Why shouldn't _any_ one who has never had any history of
violent behavior _not_ be allowed to own weapons of war?
It's not like people with no history of violence have _ever_
engaged in a mass shooting....
 
 
 
>
Well, you could.
>
Tedious lengthy process plus $200 will get you your very own
 NFA tax stamp, as about a half a million* of your friends
and neighbors have now. Legal since the 1930s (unregulated
before that).  While an actual problem pre-WWII, modern
examples of licensed automatic weapons used in crime of any
sort is unknown.
>
By applying, you agree to allow ATF inspectors to view your
NFA weapon and any other weapons at any time and they
actually do engage in 'pop' inspections without notice. You
also agree to not transfer to anyone who does not show the
correct forms and paid tax stamp.
>
Get started now!
https://www.atf.gov/firearms/docs/form/form-4-application-tax-paid-transfer-and-registration-firearm-atf-form-53204/download
>
>
*
https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/atf-reveals-the-number-of-registered-machine-guns/
>
p.s. Aside from you and I, responsible citizens both,
prohibited persons including criminal illegal aliens besides
our own felons, have been increasingly drawn to china made
auto sears for popular pistols. They are distributed through
the china to Mexico drug chain very effectively. This is an
actual problem now, and taking uncle Bob's AR from his
closet will not change that criminal behavior.

Didn't Frankie, way back when, complain about a  neighbor who had a
machine gun in his jeep?
--
Cheers,

John B.


Date Sujet#  Auteur
14 Jun 25 o 

Haut de la page

Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.

NewsPortal