Va Nva Analysis Template

Sunday, August 23rd 2020. | Sample Templates

dilo template [1430o8pwzo4j] 그린케어여–‰ì‚¬ cost accounting outsourcing overtime 그린케어여–‰ì‚¬ 210 lss gbo improvement techniques six sigma improve phase lean six sigma tollgate template reduction in production time via value stream mapping in effects of bifocals on visual acuity in children with down run issue 35 1986 nov floppy disk how to use this book introduction
touchstone exploration results 796x1024 tpkia
Touchstone Exploration No operational impacts from COVID 19 Va Nva Analysis Template, source:directorstalkinterviews.com
journal pone eupiy
Properties of face localizer activations and their Va Nva Analysis Template, source:journals.plos.org
Sample Example & Format Templates Free Excel, Doc, PDF, xls van badham van van motorcycle for sale vans australia careers dilo template [1430o8pwzo4j] 그린케어여–‰ì‚¬ cost accounting outsourcing overtime 그린케어여–‰ì‚¬ 210 lss gbo improvement techniques six sigma improve phase lean six sigma tollgate template reduction in production time via value stream mapping in effects of bifocals on visual acuity in children with down run issue 35 1986 nov floppy disk how to use this book introduction Battle of Ia Drang wwoac
Battle of Ia Drang Wikiwand Va Nva Analysis Template, source:wikiwand.com
e ac a771 4d81 a09a c db5f xml riyae
daily Va Nva Analysis Template, source:imgur.com
lean six sigma deliverables workbook templates 22 638 upwya
Lean Six Sigma Deliverables Workbook Templates Va Nva Analysis Template, source:slideshare.net
global warming timeline 17h35p2 pzraa
Repercussions & Reflections Va Nva Analysis Template, source:blogs.umb.edu

touchstone exploration no operational impacts from covid 19 properties of face localizer activations and their battle of ia drang wikiwand daily lean six sigma deliverables workbook templates repercussions & reflections starting with kanban a practical workshop on value stream 10 steps to a lean six sigma project that will get amazing what is business process reengineering a guide for any size effects of bifocals on visual acuity in children with down

demise merchants: NRA Board Member Barrett Manufactures, Sells Sniper Rifles to Civilians
READER feedback ON"demise retailers: NRA Board Member Barrett Manufactures, Sells Sniper Rifles to Civilians"(sixty four Responses so far…) comment #1 [Permalink] …

zapkitty
said on 1/19/2013 @ 7:forty pm PT…

Ah… most likely just a little overdramatic. basically, it reads more as OMFGLOOKATTHATBIGGUN! A 50 BMG is a deadly weapon but it cannot be effortlessly hid, is awfully awkward in shut-quarters and has a confined magazine potential. within the sort of mass murders we have had to take care of in actual life a Barrett 50 would have been a long way much less deadly than the slim, mild weapons that can be used with excessive-ability magazines next, I suppose, you gun-grabbers will be making an attempt to remove our 20mm rifles… remark #2 [Permalink] …

Fred Milton Olsen
observed on 1/19/2013 @ 8:33 pm PT…

dear Bradblog, i am a person who believes in all 10 of the bill of Rights. I additionally would consider the outdated poster that .50 cal isn’t often idea of as a sniper rifle. make sure you in reality get together with the man over at "The Armed Liberal" web page for tech info before inserting foot in mouth. besides, you will want one of those guns when and in the event that they beginning flying drones against the citizenry. Armed law Enforcement and armed forces robots are being rolled out now. comment #3 [Permalink] …

Fred Milton Olsen
stated on 1/19/2013 @ 8:45 pm PT…

long range murderer weapons and sniper rifles as used by troopers are a little distinct. Smaller calibers similar to .308 or 7.sixty two×54R are only simple easier to use. The .50 and different "large" weapons obtained their beginning in opposition t the mild tanks of WWI. They pierce easy armor and will be used to face up to a totalitarian executive the use of drones and robots in opposition t its personal individuals– no longer up to now-fetched in any respect. remark #4 [Permalink] …

zapkitty
noted on 1/19/2013 @ 9:eleven pm PT…

… Fred Milton Olsen spoke of… "They pierce gentle armor and could be used to face up to a totalitarian govt the usage of drones and robots against its own americans" lamentably, the elites, our actual albeit absentee rulers, use a long way deadlier weapons than drones and robots… their weapons are the obscene wealth that they’ve extracted from the rest of us and and an fully corrupt executive that allows for them to hold leeching off ofus "lesser americans." comment #5 [Permalink] …

Fred Milton Olsen
referred to on 1/19/2013 @ 9:55 pm PT…

I agree that wealth is a weapon. And there are acceptable defenses. even though you have nothing however your voice, that you would be able to nevertheless strike back. 9Go see Deek Jackson at the FKN NEWZ at YouTube or FKN NEWZ dot com. he will buck you up. mainly see his "we’re OFFENSIVE". comment #6 [Permalink] …

Ernest A. Canning

stated on 1/20/2013 @ 1:29 am PT…

Fred Milton Olsen @2 & three wrote: 1. "They pierce easy armor and will be used to face up to a totalitarian executive the usage of drones and robots in opposition t its personal americans– now not up to now-fetched in any respect." neatly, now not "far fetched" for a paranoid nut job like Tim McVeigh. For the relaxation of us, certainly those that’ve served in combat, like myself, a paranoid rant via somebody who in fact believes that they can for my part tackle the armed could of a government like our personal sounds nothing wanting insane! 2. "Smaller calibers reminiscent of .308 or 7.sixty two×54R are just plain more convenient to make use of." Did you assume, Fred (and Zap @1), that given that this article concentrated on the .50 BMG, that it turned into an endorsement for placing smaller sniper rifles (or assault rifles) within the hands of civilians? 3. "i’m someone who believes in all 10 of the bill of Rights." are attempting reading the excessive cost of Willfully Misinterpreting the 2nd modification, and, greater peculiarly, Justice John Paul Stevens dissenting opinion in Heller [emphasis added]: The 2nd change was adopted to give protection to the right of the individuals of each and every of the a few States to retain a well-regulated militia. It was a response to concerns raised throughout the ratification of the constitution that the vigor of Congress to disarm the state militias and create a national standing army posed an insupportable danger to the sovereignty of the a few States. Neither the textual content of the amendment nor the arguments superior by using its proponents evidenced the slightest activity in limiting any legislature’s authority to alter deepest civilian makes use of try studying the 5th change, which says that no one may be disadvantaged of “life” without due system of legislations. every useless victim of gun violence within the U.S. has been deprived of life with out due method of law. It is no comfort for victims, just like the 20 Sandy Hook elementary faculty toddlers, whose little bodies were riddled with the aid of bullets, or for his or her families, when the lack of lifestyles comes at the hands of a person, as antagonistic to their government. it’s in fact unfortunate that people, like Fred, have swallowed the income making NRA fantasies hook, line and sinker. The proposal of courageous people holding off the armed might of the U.S. govt by way of being armed to the tooth is nothing short of a suicidal, paranoid delusion. weapons neither insure freedom nor protection. To the opposite, a contemporary examine by using the Harvard school of Public health revealed that there’s an instantaneous correlation between the number of guns and the number of homicides. The homicide expense in Chicago, the place gun manage is nearly nonexistent, is nineteen.4 per a hundred,000 inhabitants. That determine is more than 13.8 times greater than the homicide cost in London (1.four per 100,000 inhabitants) the place there’s strict handle. final I checked, the U.k. turned into no longer listed as a tyrannical, totalitarian state. The premiere assurance in opposition t tyranny is the accountability that incorporates real democratic governance that puts the lives and smartly-being of americans before the earnings of the dying merchants. Liberty is insured best with the software of equal justice under law. remark #7 [Permalink] …

lmk
stated on 1/20/2013 @ 5:35 am PT…

"a paranoid rant by means of a person who in fact believes that they can in my opinion take on the armed may of a government like our personal sounds nothing wanting insane!" became that phrasing quintessential to make your aspect? first of all, the note "in my opinion" as used here is a loaded presupposition implying that these in favor of individual gun rights also believe in particular person insurrection, as opposed to neighborhood resistance, towards the executive. moving on, the fallacy contained in this loaded presupposition is exposed in gentle of the historical listing, showing well-armed insurgent groups that have effectively antagonistic tremendous governments. the use of the "I" note is a borderline ad hominum that provides nothing to the talk. extra to the point, if well-armed rebel businesses can efficiently oppose giant governments (a common fact), then one can’t credibly label as "insane" others who appreciate and choose to behave upon that reality. remark #eight [Permalink] …

Doug
said on 1/20/2013 @ 6:32 am PT…

i want to assert that i am a little distrusting of getting my liberties covered from "tyranny", as described by using predominantly appropriate-wing gun fetishists, who are armed with .50 cal rifles, which may take a person’s head clear off from more than a mile away. These americans brazenly have fun their fantasies of armed rebel to such a degree that the above minimization of the lethal import and use of a Barret rifle reads as self-serving, disingenuous and basically puerile. it be develop into more and more clear that rational, dispassionate discourse is basically past your means and here is evidenced through the delusional thinking expressed by means of gun supporters. I in reality do not want to reside in the "well mannered society" that you simply envision for us, where all are armed and enabled to react with lethal drive to any of existence’s frictions. remark #9 [Permalink] …

Fred Milton Olsen
referred to on 1/20/2013 @ 7:18 am PT…

I didn’t write this, and i have no idea who did… nevertheless it is value analyzing and due to the fact. rationale or force? Human beings best have two tips on how to cope with one another:motive and force. if you need me to do some thing for you,you’ve got a decision of both convincing me by the use of argument, orforce me to do your bidding below probability of drive. Everyhuman interplay falls into a type of two categories,devoid of exception. rationale or drive, that’s it… [Ed Note: As per The BRAD BLOG’s few rules for commenting, please do not post entire articles from elsewhere here in comments. Rest of article removed. You can find the rest here and in the many other places it has been posted on the Internets. – BF] remark #10 [Permalink] …

Ernest A. Canning

observed on 1/20/2013 @ eight:08 am PT…

captivating that LMK @6 believes you will break out the cost of "madness" for people that in reality agree with they can take on the armed may of the U.S. government through doubling down on the insanity — increasing from individual to neighborhood insurrection. I do not know even if LMK is historical satisfactory to do not forget a different neighborhood who thought like that. They referred to as themselves the Symbionese Liberation military (SLA). Their revolutionary delusion ended on may additionally sixteen, 1974 when a closely armed community of individuals have been surrounded with the aid of 400 LAPD SWAT officers. They unleashed a blaze of gunfire earlier than each ultimate one of the crucial SLA individuals inner the condo had been consumed by means of a fireplace that erupted when the SWAT officers fired a flurry of tear gasoline canisters into the residence. the most colossal armed riot in the U.S. turned into the Civil battle. It can charge the lives of 625,000 americans in precisely 4 years. The politics of people that began that nineteenth century conflagration have been not numerous to those of the 21st Century wing-nuts who believe their "liberty" is threatened with the aid of any and all efforts to reduce the wholesale slaughter wrought by means of unregulated gun earnings. They misplaced. And the nation was more desirable for his or her loss. So no, LMK, in the future before we have a good time the birthday of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., I can’t accept your choice of bullets over ballots as even remotely representing a rational option. Doubling down from armed individual to community insurrection displays an insane path — one which has no place in the rational discourse of a civilized society. P.S. MLK said it as "madness." I stated it as "madness." If it makes you greater relaxed, i’d be chuffed to change the be aware "insanity" with "madness" to explain your advocacy of both individual or neighborhood armed insurrection. comment #eleven [Permalink] …

Ernest A. Canning

observed on 1/20/2013 @ eight:30 am PT…

Re Fred Milton Olsen @8: a couple of points. whereas The BRAD weblog welcomes a wide array of public discourse in its comments, there are a few basic guidelines. One is that, if you are looking to refer to another article, that you may provide a hyperlink to that article so readers who are looking to study it in its entirety can achieve this. it’s definitely applicable to provide selective quotes from that article, as I did @5 through quoting from Justice Stephen’s opinion. nevertheless it is inappropriate to set forth the whole lot of a further article to your comment. Two: the whole lot of the article you regurgitated can be summed up because the vision of the gun as a deterrent — the equal irrational theory that fueled the nuclear arms race right through the cold struggle and brought the human race damned near extinction throughout the Cuban missile disaster. In la, highway gangs have not been deterred with the aid of the fact that competing gangs are armed. To the contrary, their weapons have offered the capability for an never-ending cycle of violence and revenge killings. Oh, sure, americans can also be clubbed or stabbed to loss of life. but the gun — peculiarly sniper rifles and assault rifles with excessive potential magazines — makes wholesale slaughter so much more straightforward and impersonal. BTW if you are looking to buy into the madness of deterrence conception, why stop with weapons. Why no longer strap a nuclear bomb on each person and compel them to wear a T-shirt studying, "Shoot me and we all die!" remark #12 [Permalink] …

Fred Milton Olsen
referred to on 1/20/2013 @ 9:10 am PT…

Bullets over ballots? first-rate try at framing! As for MLK day, i’m disgusted to are living in Madison, Wisconsin, the place through the years we now have probably spent smartly in extra of a million bucks on MLK day events at the Capitol for a couple of well-off black men sitting with a bunch of well-off white guys giving every other awards for our nation being worse off than ever. smartly dressed black toddlers will sing stream songs for the wealthy americans….. whereas extra individuals than ever continue to be in poverty and the victims of vicious discrimination. The worst part may be the armed forces contingent there "to honor Dr. King." we are engaged in a worldwide conflict in keeping with lies it’s bankrupting our country. Dr. King become against struggle, in particular an extra struggle in response to lies, Vietnam. MLK day "celebrations" are a bizarre party for the prosperous and strong enemies of Dr. King to wrap themselves in his clothes, like wolves in sheepdogs’ garb. Would Martin EVER have sat with a person like Scott Walker? Sorry for digression but you introduced it up. remark #13 [Permalink] …

Fred Milton Olsen
mentioned on 1/20/2013 @ 9:27 am PT…

Oh, sure, i am definitely a bit frequent with what took place to the Symbionese Liberation army, having written a brief piece on it these days. It seems that your argument is "may makes correct. quit!" this is no longer the manner it works. Please take 3 minutes and 54 seconds to monitor and listen to Mr Deek Jackson’s humorously scathing evaluation of the world’s most powerful armed forces vs. small numbers of lightly armed resitance warring parties. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RU6uu1BE9Io i am hoping that each person in familiar will appreciate Mr. Jackson’s different shows to be found under the name of the FKN NEWZ. remark #14 [Permalink] …

Paul
stated on 1/20/2013 @ 9:34 am PT…

superb job Ernest! I totally believe your standpoint and use of "insane". the place had been the gun advocates when the Patriot Act changed into signed?the place had been the gun advocates when the TSA become created?the place were the gun advocates when SOPA was signed?where had been the gun advocates when FISA became signed? Gun advocates are just a bunch of scared little boys in serious need of therapy. knowledgeable assist is accessible, go get it. comment #15 [Permalink] …

Nicholas
stated on 1/20/2013 @ 10:06 am PT…

As neatly written as this propaganda piece is, it would not focus on the indisputable fact that all weapons of that caliber are giant and, with appreciate to different weapons, excessively heavy. they’re impassible to conceal on ones person and that they’re large recoil and confined ability makes them not going to be used in a mass murder. additionally, the charge of such weapons reduces the volume bought due to the fact no longer handiest are they obscenely costly, so is the ammunition. furthermore, accusations that they aren’t suited for carrying is a pure fallacy. they’re most desirable weapons for long latitude target shooting or the daring hunter who desires to take out his goal animal at severe latitude. There are few replace weapons for this aim. at last, any deranged lunatic in search of to tug off a mass homicide would prevent these excessive caliber weapons when you consider that they’d be counter productive to his/her plans. they might be more more likely to purchase a handgun or small caliber rifle on account of the identical cause that very few soldiers are outfitted with this sort of weapon. it is comfortably unnecessary and far too heavy to carry it and its large ammunition. comment #sixteen [Permalink] …

Fred Milton Olsen
said on 1/20/2013 @ 11:01 am PT…

Paul wrote:**where were the gun advocates when the Patriot Act became signed? likely sitting in the dark along with the congress and the relaxation of the nation. Now me, i used to be raising hell about it and giving hell to countrywide Public Radio about their lapdog/ stenographer function post 9-eleven. What have been you doing, friend? ****the place were the gun advocates when the TSA was created? elevating extra hell than you, i’m bound, as they have been some of the most directly affected americans. ******the place have been the gun advocates when SOPA was signed? likely the equal areas you have been, Charlie Brown. You seem to consider we may still had been wearing big signals (or perhaps have tattooed numbers on our palms) deciding on us as 2nd amendment defenders. at any place you have been, had been you at all times choosing your self as a gun handle recommend when SOPA became signed? *****where have been the gun advocates when FISA became signed? well, i was in Milwaukee, which for some rationale had the optimum or 2nd highest amount of FISA permitted surveillance. *******Gun advocates are just a bunch of scared little boys in critical need of therapy. skilled support is obtainable, go get it. "Gun advocates", as you name us, are a big range of americans with a wide array of politics and philosophies. To try to unfairly cut back a gaggle of americans to a slogan is to try to demonize them. that’s your appropriate during this nation. but it surely doesn’t mean that you’re correct. You may also use the entire names and insults you adore however may not trade the numbers. first rate luck with that. comment #17 [Permalink] …

Ernest A. Canning

observed on 1/20/2013 @ 11:05 am PT…

Re Nicholas @15: other than the elements I made already @5, here’s why I do not discover your "it’s too heavy a weapon" all that reassuring. On Aug. 1, 1963, Charles Joseph Whitman, an engineering pupil and former Marine, purchased an M1 carbine, and a 12 gauge semi-automated shotgun and a eco-friendly rifle case. He again to his garage, sawed off the barrel of the shot gun. He packed these weapons, a Remington 700 6mm bolt-motion rifle, a .35 cal pump carbine, a 9mm lugar pistol, a Galesi-Brescia .25 cal pistol, a Smith & Wesson M19 .357 magnum revolver, meals, coffee, nutrition, earplugs, jugs of water, matches, lighter fluid, rope, binoculars, a machete, three knives, a transistor radio, bathroom paper, a razor and a bottle of deodorant into his footlocker. He arrived on the Univ. of Tx. at 11:45 a.m., confirmed a protection protect a fake id, got a parking permit. He informed the take care of he become delivering equipment. He introduced all of this up to the correct of the UT tower the usage of a rented dolly, which he became using to lug it all up a flight of stairs to the statement deck when he encountered 51-year-historic Edna Townsley. When she requested him for his school identity, he cut up her skull open with the butt of a rifle. He barricaded himself atop the tower and took up a sniper’s position, the place he began his killing spree. He killed sixteen americans that day and wounded 32 greater earlier than police broke through the barricade and shot him dead. If Whitman could lug all these weapons atop the tower, what’s to cease a future “deranged lunatic” (your apt descriptor) from engaging in an analogous assault with the .50 BMG Barrett M82A1M? If the Barrett easy Fifty were available to Whitman that day, do you believe he would have had any qualms about the use of it? How a great deal worse would that tragedy had been if Whitman had entry to that level of firepower? remark #18 [Permalink] …

Ernest A. Canning

noted on 1/20/2013 @ 11:23 am PT…

Fred Milton Olsen @13 wrote: Please take three minutes and fifty four seconds to monitor and listen to Mr Deek Jackson’s humorously scathing assessment of the world’s most powerful defense force vs. small numbers of flippantly armed resitance [sic.] combatants. Is that what you are, Fred, "a lightly armed resistance fighter"? possibly I didn’t get the memo. When did this conflict of armed resistance in opposition t the duly constituted govt of the united states start? Or is it, that the correct-wing, having simply had their hats passed to them by the citizens, now envisions that it’s their appropriate to overthrow a democratically elected government through potential of armed resistance? P.S. As a Vietnam Vet, i’m insulted that any individual would suggest that i would be blind to the effectiveness of a lightly armed, rebel force. whereas the Viet Cong and NVA finally prevailed over our effort at imperial conquest, that insurgency became accompanied with the aid of the loss of life of some 2 million Vietnamese civilians. Is that what you and your pals would want to see in these united states? You feel that’s an affordable alternative to democratic elections? comment #19 [Permalink] …

zapkitty
noted on 1/20/2013 @ eleven:29 am PT…

errrr… digressing even further here, however no one become anyplace when SOPA became signed because SOPA never beceme law. SOPA became soundly defeated through activists, a fact for which we all should still be grateful. … of direction it or some thing worse will always be waiting in the wings any more. remark #20 [Permalink] …

Ernest A. Canning

mentioned on 1/20/2013 @ eleven:32 am PT…

fully appropriate, ZAP. SOPA turned into defeated by activists who signed online petitions, protested, etc. It turned into no longer defeated by bullets. The more suitable question is the one Brad has repeatedly requested. where had been the NRA considerations about "liberty" when Occupy Wall highway activists had been being crushed, shot and pepper sprayed? comment #21 [Permalink] …

Fred Milton Olsen
noted on 1/20/2013 @ eleven:forty three am PT…

@@@@@@ You consider it truly is an inexpensive option to democratic elections? We’re not trying to find civil struggle. but when you come to take the guns, that’s what you should be causing. and come on, now…. the place do you think you are? you are at BradBlog, one of the internet’s fundamental locations that challenges the honesty of elections. If i used to be doing stand-up, i might need you as a foil. comment #22 [Permalink] …

Fred Milton Olsen
talked about on 1/20/2013 @ 11:50 am PT…

********If Whitman could lug all these weapons atop the tower, what’s to cease a future “deranged lunatic” (your apt descriptor) from carrying out an identical assault with the .50 BMG Barrett M82A1M? What would stop him? The undeniable fact that Whitman did not have the money for this sort of gun. He purchased ancient-original bolt-motion rifles which will stay prison for looking even with any mass numbers of internet posts by means of you. What would cease someone now? You do not buy this kind of gun without $7k and some critical attention from the authorities. These are not sold out of the trunk of somebody’s automobile. can you aspect to even one case of this type of gun being used in a criminal offense, lots much less a homicide, mush less a mass murder? You can not. You fail. remark #23 [Permalink] …

Fred Milton Olsen
observed on 1/20/2013 @ 11:54 am PT…

"the place had been NRA activists when occupy protestors had been being overwhelmed?" There are not any "NRA" activists here. I took half in Madison’s Occupy protests. You sat at home and watched it on tv, did not you? remark #24 [Permalink] …

Fred Milton Olsen
referred to on 1/20/2013 @ 12:06 pm PT…

Correction, Whitman additionally had a Remington semi-auto hunting rifle, an M-1 Carbine and a pump shotgun. aside from the shotgun being sawed off, none were any diverse from regular weapons customarily used for looking in Texas in 1966. A ban on certain styles of guns and magazines wouldn’t have stopped Whitman or any other deranged grownup. could you might be suggest whatever that could work? remark #25 [Permalink] …

Ernest A. Canning

pointed out on 1/20/2013 @ 12:07 pm PT…

Gee, Fred, I see that good judgment isn’t your potent go well with. The BRAD weblog is a repository for articles dealing with election integrity. The concept of election integrity entails a mix of insuring that every one citizens who are entitled to vote have the opportunity to accomplish that and that elections are conducted in a clear depend as a way to insure that every lawfully solid vote is accurately counted. these concerns don’t have anything to do with questions of public protection and the lawful rules of firearms, from now on than they must do with what laws are handed on behalf of public defense as to how and where that you may function a motor automobile. these concerns are as it should be addressed throughout the political and prison system. It looks, Fred, that, whether it is the lawful will of a majority to enact most economical gun rules to give protection to the lives and safeguard of our citizens, that you’re unwilling to abide by the need of the individuals and the legal guidelines so enacted. considering 74% of americans desire a ban on assault weapons and excessive capability magazines, there can also be little doubt that ultimately there will be legal guidelines enacted to get rid of the availability of the equal. So if you say, "if you come to take the weapons," are you together with assault weapons, sniper rifles, and excessive capacity magazines as a part of "the weapons?" Are you and your ilk prepared to wage a "civil battle" over an assault weapons ban? Or is that effortlessly complicated-man talk since you be aware of that there is no valid foundation in any way on your opposition to a ban, which is so overwhelmingly supported by means of an American public it is repulsed by way of the level of the carnage? comment #26 [Permalink] …

Fred Milton Olsen
pointed out on 1/20/2013 @ 12:27 pm PT…

********It appears, Fred, that, whether it is the lawful will of a majority to enact low-priced gun laws to protect the lives and safeguard of our residents, that you’re unwilling to abide via the will of the individuals and the legal guidelines so enacted. in case you can eliminate the 2nd change from the bill of Rights, I could agree with it. otherwise, no. ********So should you say, "if you come to take the guns," are you together with assault weapons, sniper rifles, and high potential magazines as a part of "the weapons?" sure. have been you one way or the other unclear on that? **********Are you and your ilk organized to wage a "civil struggle" over an assault weapons ban? i would be satisfied to take a seat at home and develop tomatoes and work on windmills, however I bet in case you display up with weapons and need to beginning a warfare, I even have little alternative. I haven’t any theory why you are accusing me of eager to start a battle. it is you who will be starting it and displaying up with weapons. comment #27 [Permalink] …

zapkitty
said on 1/20/2013 @ 12:49 pm PT…

feelings are heated, piles of useless schoolchildren are inclined to have that impact on both sides, however Ernest, you have overreached slightly in your descriptions. and i do not state that conditionally. for example. comment #18 [Permalink]… Ernest A. Canning spoke of on 1/20/2013 @ eleven:23 am PT… "Or is it, that the right-wing, having simply had their hats handed to them by way of the electorate" Uh-oh… why are you assigning "correct-wing" factors to Fred? … now envisions that it’s their appropriate to overthrow a democratically elected government by using means of armed resistance? … that this govt of the elites, with the aid of the equipment of the elites and for the sole improvement of the elites shall not perish from this Earth! comment #28 [Permalink] …

Fred Milton Olsen
observed on 1/20/2013 @ 1:27 pm PT…

in preference to a civil war I believe we might have something much less intense and extra akin to prohibition, where residents worked together to hide their activities from a repressive government. Alcohol kills way more americans than weapons do…. how a hit was that prohibition experiments? It may not work to are attempting to goad me into violent statements or to embrace warfare. i am in opposition t it. i would doubtless are attempting to go somewhere else within the event of battle…. but if you come after me with weapons when I actually have accomplished you no harm, how shall I regard you? i’ll safeguard myself. comment #29 [Permalink] …

Ernest A. Canning

noted on 1/20/2013 @ 2:forty seven pm PT…

Heated rhetoric, Zap? The removing of assault weapons, sniper rifles, and high ability magazines is a remarkably modest idea when measured in opposition t the carnage wrought not only via these ongoing mass murders however on a regular basis within the U.S. Between the time of the Sandy Hook bloodbath and the President’s announcement — a span of however one month — 900 americans grew to become the lastest victims of gun-linked murder. that is a fee that exceeds the loss of lifestyles price amongst our defense force in Vietnam, Iraq or Afghanistan. what number of extra lives will it take before we start to weigh the merits of gun ownership against the charges? The article I wrote did not encompass one note about denying responsible hunters the means to own single shot rifles, or as the big apple generously supplied, rifles with seven round magazines. It didn’t even go as far as to point out what we should still do in regards to the overabundance of handguns. Yet, the mere point out of the undeniable fact that there is no reputable civilian intention for enabling any person backyard the militia to purchase the Barrett gentle Fifty or any other sniper weapon, brought on an "in case you remove our guns, it will mean civil struggle" from Fred and a elevate the ante, group armed resistance to the U.S. govt from LMK. These two offered crazy speak and then the, and you, feigned outrage once I did not accept their madness as having anyplace inside an goal balancing of the advantages of gun ownership vs. the huge fees. Neither Fred, LMK nor you remotely counseled a valid reason why any civilized society should still tolerate the presence of such extraordinary firepower within the arms of civilians. To the contrary, Fred and LMK offered nothing greater than delusional, paranoid rantings about gearing as much as do combat with an all encompassing federal government. Of course, when pressed, Fred backed off his overblown "civil battle" rhetoric by way of claiming that it turned into I who "goaded" him into "violent statements" when it truth it changed into he, and LMK, who raised the specter of a violent overthrow of the govt. i suspect that a fine many gun nuts who are espousing the "civil warfare" rhetoric have not ever for my part experienced the sheer terror of combat. Theirs is the bravado that comes with under no circumstances having had the event of facing what may be their own forthcoming loss of life at any moment amidst the noise, chaos and an apprehension it really is so thick that you would be able to scent it. on the end of the article, I quoted Martin Luther King: "by some means this insanity have to cease." it truly is something i might ask you, Fred, and any other gun proponent to consider earlier than dropping yet another inanity into this comment thread. remark #30 [Permalink] …

Fred Milton Olsen
referred to on 1/20/2013 @ three:forty seven pm PT…

You preserve labeling me as warlike and violent in the event you are the one who has threatened to return after legislation-abiding people with armed force to impose your will upon millions of law-abiding americans who’ve achieved you no harm. This by myself is plenty of intent to have the top-rated capacity of self-defense obtainable to the citizen. you are threatening us with armed force to impose your will. you’re making threats you predict others to perform. what number of will you send, sir? If most effective a couple of % of legislation-abiding criminal gun homeowners come to a decision to face, you shouldn’t have satisfactory soldiers or legislation enforcement ot accomplish the assignment, assuming that they’d take the obligation. Some legislation enforcement jurisdictions from cities to counties to complete states are already saying their resistance and refusal to comply with illegal orders. how many will you ship, sir, and why may not you do your personal dirty work? remark #31 [Permalink] …

Paul
spoke of on 1/20/2013 @ four:22 pm PT…

The paranoia and unhealthy common sense being verified here, and in other places, by gun advocates makes it clear to me that intellectual fitness screening need to be made a requirement earlier than someone can personal a gun. it is unlucky that they cannot appreciate it in themselves. remark #32 [Permalink] …

Fred Milton Olsen
said on 1/20/2013 @ four:fifty nine pm PT…

To Paul—Insult away, sir. You have no proof that gun homeowners have to any extent further mental complications than non-gun-house owners– I simply surveyed the stories. deliver some to assist your insult, may not you? You can’t. I don’t have any quarrel with you and would certainly not harm you unless you are attempting to me hurt first. =============================Mr Canning wrote: *******i believe that a good many gun nuts who are espousing the "civil war" rhetoric have not ever in my view skilled the sheer terror of fight. Theirs is the bravado that comes with in no way having had the journey of facing what may be their personal forthcoming demise at any moment amidst the noise, chaos and a fear it’s so thick which you could scent it. ====================== I dare say somewhat more of my side of the argument have experiences with armed conflict than with your side. I simplest acquired hazardous obligation pay all the way through my militia time, now not combat pay, but I actually have had my share of lifestyles and dying experiences and am fully acquainted with armed forces ordnance and civilian energetic materials. Up shut. personal. Exploding. My adventures in the former Soviet Union are too many to tell. were you aware the terror of having a pal murdered? in case you knew who William Marky changed into and what he did and how he died…. he was my chum. You picked the wrong man to name out on that, dude. I haven’t even all started to go into how wrong you’re. remark #33 [Permalink] …

Ernest A. Canning

referred to on 1/20/2013 @ 5:33 pm PT…

Fred Milton Olsen @30 wrote: you are the one who has threatened to come after law-abiding people with armed drive to impose your will upon thousands and thousands of legislation-abiding americans who’ve achieved you no damage. we now have only a few guidelines for comments here at the BRAD blog, Fred. probably the most cornerstones is that these leaving feedback are not accepted to knowingly publish disinformation. You be aware of very smartly that I on no account threatened to return after you or anybody else. I didn’t say that i’d impose "armed drive" on any citizen, legislation abiding or otherwise. I actually have made no effort to "impose my will" on you or anyone else. I effortlessly mentioned the fallacy of those that have fallen for the NRA/weapons business propaganda — of fantasies of vigilantes arming themselves to the enamel out of some paranoid delusion that doing so is critical to offer protection to themselves in opposition t some sick conceived perceptions of tyrannical executive. I’ve also pointed to your misguided beliefs concerning the scope of the 2d change, and touched upon the more primary correct that is supposed to be covered by using the fifth & 14th amendments — the right now not to be deprived of "lifestyles" without due system of legislation. and that i’ve pointed to a selection for non-violence, ballots, now not bullets. Please consider this a warning now not to knowingly publish disinformation in our remark area. If it happens again, i’ll ask Brad to take applicable steps to first average your comments, and, if the violations continue, to ban your future comments altogether. comment #34 [Permalink] …

Ernest A. Canning

referred to on 1/20/2013 @ 5:43 pm PT…

Oh, and right here’s an alternative choice to an outright ban on these weapons. Let’s move legislations that establishes that any time a weapon manufactured with the aid of a corporation, like Barrett’s, trigger loss of life, damage or property hurt, the company which manufactured the weapon may still be held answerable for all public prices, together with the charge of emergency capabilities (police, fire, ambulances), the cost of all scientific functions, and a charge into a wrongful death fund to compensate the households of these whose lives are misplaced. If producers stood to lose that variety of funds, they’d both stop manufacturing the weapons or take steps to insure than none of their weapons fell into the incorrect fingers. Oh, and the NRA would fold up like a wet taco. comment #35 [Permalink] …

Fred Milton Olsen
said on 1/20/2013 @ 6:03 pm PT…

Go for it, Mr. Canning. Let’s convey Brad into this. No issue. He’ll see that you simply return time after time to creating challenges of warfare, using ad hominems, insult, and many others. You do not wish to appear to focus on the more probably state of affairs of a prohibition-like circumstance, or the cities, counties and states which can be refusing to go along with illegal orders. You do not want to discuss cooperative peaceful resistance, simplest to are trying and goad the dialog towards that of conflict. Let Brad come and read what you may have written, please. remark #36 [Permalink] …

Fred Milton Olsen
referred to on 1/20/2013 @ 6:13 pm PT…

*******Let’s circulate law that establishes that any time a weapon manufactured by a company, like Barrett’s, trigger loss of life, harm or property hurt, the business which manufactured the weapon should be held chargeable for all public fees, together with the cost of emergency services (police, hearth, ambulances), the cost of all clinical capabilities, and a payment into a wrongful death fund to compensate the families of these whose lives are lost. first rate luck with that. You would not be able to try this with automobiles. bikes or airplanes, and your prison arguments would not ever fly even in a pleasant courtroom. but let’s say for the functions of dialogue that you have the capacity to flow such law as you outlined above. I already asked you in case you could might factor to at least one crime, lots less one homicide, a lot less one mass homicide dedicated with (as you noted) "a weapon manufactured through an organization, like Barrett’s,". demonstrate me the crimes committed with a .50 cal rifle, which is ostensibly what this article’s dialogue thread is set. If no person is committing crimes with this gun, why are you upset? i am listening in a well mannered way. comment #37 [Permalink] …

Ernest A. Canning

talked about on 1/20/2013 @ 6:19 pm PT…

Fred Milton Olsen @36: You wouldn’t be in a position to try this with automobiles. motorcycles or airplanes, and your prison arguments would under no circumstances fly even in a pleasant court. 1. The manufactures of automobiles, bikes and airplanes can now be dependable if defects in their items cause injury or dying. it be referred to as strict legal responsibility. 2. The difference between guns and the other three items you point out is that the latter don’t seem to be designed to kill. Weapons are. 3. legislations isn’t whatever you have passed in courts, pleasant or in any other case. The Congress and state legislatures are assigned that project. comment #38 [Permalink] …

Fred Milton Olsen
said on 1/20/2013 @ 6:forty nine pm PT…

show me the crimes. exhibit me the issue. You will not have any crimes to aspect to, so how will you hang any .50 cal proprietor or manufacturer responsible with your "strict liabilty"? On strict legal responsibility: Strict legal responsibility for damage as a result of abnormally unhealthy situations and actions developed within the late nineteenth century. It may be imposed if the hurt results from the miscarriage of an undertaking that, even though lawful, is bizarre, miraculous, top notch, or inappropriate in mild of the place and method by which the recreation is conducted. average hazardous actions that might result in strict liability encompass storing explosives or flammable beverages, blasting, accumulating sewage, and emitting toxic fumes. besides the fact that children these activities may well be hazardous, they may be applicable or standard in a single vicinity but no longer yet another. for example, storing explosives in amount will create an bizarre and unacceptable possibility in the midst of a large metropolis but no longer in a far off rural enviornment. If an explosion happens in the faraway enviornment, strict legal responsibility may be imposed simplest if the explosives were stored in an bizarre or abnormal method. http://legal-dictionary….ary.com/Strict+legal responsibility The courts at all times have remaining say over any law, withe the Supreme court docket batting final, peculiarly on constitutional concerns. comment #39 [Permalink] …

Ernest A. Canning

referred to on 1/20/2013 @ eight:07 pm PT…

satisfactory, Fred. I don’t have any intention of moving into a dialogue about how our prison system works with a lay individual who does not have a clue. We’re accomplished discussing this! remark #40 [Permalink] …

Paul
noted on 1/20/2013 @ 8:10 pm PT…

Why are intellectual health issues regarded an insult? everybody has them. nobody is "ordinary". This includes myself. The healthy component is to admire your concerns and do whatever about them. This contains myself. Self consciousness is an outstanding factor. comment #forty one [Permalink] …

Fred Milton Olsen
noted on 1/20/2013 @ 8:25 pm PT…

Take your ball and go domestic, eh? That works. and don’t confer with me about being a layman. I particularly doubt you will have ever labored in a legislation firm. remark #42 [Permalink] …

Fred Milton Olsen
talked about on 1/20/2013 @ eight:34 pm PT…

comment #forty three [Permalink] …

lmk
noted on 1/21/2013 @ 5:14 am PT…

I cannot fake to be in an actual discussion here when Ernie writes "I can not settle for your choice of bullets over ballots as even remotely representing a rational alternative." The reality is I under no circumstances pointed out anything else remotely like that, nor are there simplest two selections, as Ernie falsely portrays right here. Fred also cited Ernie misstating Fred’s phrases and the icing on the cake is when Ernie claims others are doing the equal with his words. This merchandise is a case examine on how emotionalism and faulty arguments can derail a dialogue seeing as how this item is already off the rails. remark #44 [Permalink] …

Ernest A. Canning

stated on 1/21/2013 @ 11:16 am PT…

Some tough records: greater guns = more dying. The Harvard school of Public fitness, whose Harvard damage manage research middle said: Case-handle reports, ecological time-sequence and pass-sectional reports point out that in homes, cities, states and areas in the US, where there are greater weapons, each guys and ladies are at larger chance for homicide, especially firearm homicide. Their analyze discloses an instantaneous correlation between the supply of guns and deaths, including: "We discovered that states with greater ranges of family gun possession had greater prices of firearm murder and average murder." comment #forty five [Permalink] …

Ernest A. Canning

talked about on 1/21/2013 @ 11:20 am PT…

Oh, lmk, are you able to in fact aspect to a single example of my alleged "misstating Fred’s words"? comment #forty six [Permalink] …

Brad Friedman

pointed out on 1/21/2013 @ 6:07 pm PT…

Fred Milton Olsen mentioned @ 35: Let’s deliver Brad into this. No, thanks. This remark thread blew up out of handle while i was otherwise engaged, so beyond a cursory overview and a brief idea or two, i could live out of this particular muck. but here’s my brief thought or two. Your very first concept to your very first comment here — "expensive Bradblog, i’m a person who believes in all 10 of the invoice of Rights" — earned you no elements. We also aid "all 10 of the invoice of Rights"…along with the leisure of the constitution and even its preamble here. Your suggestion that Ernie does not is unsupported by way of anything that he has ever argued or written here. that you accept as true with your interpretation of the 2nd modification is the only interpretation is each laughable and historically inaccurate. Firearms were "neatly regulated" in view that the starting of our Republic, and are still these days. (if you do not trust me, by way of just one instance, of many, are trying to legally purchase a computer gun, which is a weapon that has been banned from civilian use for the reason that 1934.) you’re the one who has threatened to come after legislation-abiding individuals with armed drive to impose your will upon hundreds of thousands of law-abiding individuals who have accomplished you no hurt. … you’re threatening us with armed drive to impose your will. Ernie has performed no such thing. Please do your finest to keep on with countering arguments which have in reality been made right here. You needn’t consider the rest Ernie, myself or any one has to claim right here, however you might also now not make up false positions for them. And thanks! remark #47 [Permalink] …

Fred Milton Olsen
stated on 1/21/2013 @ 6:forty four pm PT…

Mr Canning once more tries to show the subject far from the article. Do you have got a Harvard scientific article that suggests any crimes, deaths, property damage and many others. from the guns within the article we’re discussing, Mr. Canning? No, you cannot, so that you change the area. You cannot even carry us any numbers from the analyze you try to alternate the discipline to. where I are living in Wisconsin, hid raise permits have been issued for a year now with none soar in violent crime or homicide. The legitimate stats are not out yet to be linked to, however any bounce would were seized on by means of local folks such as you. I’ve spoken with the local anti-gunners and when I ask if there is blood within the streets yet from legal hid lift, they appear away and say nothing. You have not defined the difficulty you desire fixed with any numbers, simplest emotions and phrases like massacre, and mass shootings. you may have brought nothing to the desk on .50 cal rifles, the topic of this thread. No crimes, no murders, no mass shootings. comment #48 [Permalink] …

Fred Milton Olsen
referred to on 1/21/2013 @ 6:52 pm PT…

Brad wrote: "are attempting to legally purchase a computer gun, which is a weapon that has been banned from civilian use considering that 1934." Sorry, Brad. There are hundreds of felony laptop weapons in the hands of civilians. bureaucracy and a tax stamp. until 1984 you might even make new ones to promote to civilians, but after 1984, no new computing device guns can be purchased through civilians. This has made the cost go up but for say $7K and up that you may have a machine gun, no problem. just like the .50 cal rifles, you’re going to now not be capable of aspect to any crime problem with the lots of legally owned computing device guns. in case you basically examine this total thread, did Mr Canning’s repeated advert hominems hassle you, or are these adequate if you guide such americans’s place? remark #49 [Permalink] …

Fred Milton Olsen
stated on 1/21/2013 @ 7:08 pm PT…

Please suitable "1984" to "1986" above. With the relevant class III paperwork, you can make and possess new computer guns, but not promote them to any one except the militia and legislation enforcement. These are called "submit-ban samples". deal with me fine. i am instructing you some thing. comment #50 [Permalink] …

Brad Friedman

said on 1/21/2013 @ 7:33 pm PT…

Fred Milton Olsen referred to @ forty eight: Sorry, Brad. There are hundreds of legal computer weapons in the fingers of civilians. As you know, because you quoted me asserting it, i was referring to the "buy" of desktop weapons which was quite simply made inconceivable by way of the country wide Firearms Act of 1934. yes, there can be some out there, but first rate success attempting to legally buy one. The element, of path, and also you aid make it for me extra with the relaxation of your feedback above, is that it is completely Constitutional to modify the manufacture, buy and/or use of hearth fingers, regardless of your inaccurate and obnoxious assertion that those who believe that point, similar to Ernie or myself or the vast majority of the Supreme court docket for relatively an awful lot the complete history of the nation, don’t "trust in all 10 of the invoice of Rights". As to Ernie’s "ad hominems", perhaps I overlooked them. either approach, as per our very few suggestions for commenting at the BRAD weblog, very own attacks on different commenters are not allowed right here, notwithstanding such assaults on public figures (in which I generously consist of those of us with the bully pulpit as posters of articles here) are pleasant. In turn, of route, we get to "hearth" lower back. Hope you could deal with it. comment #fifty one [Permalink] …

Ernest A. Canning

talked about on 1/21/2013 @ 7:forty five pm PT…

Fred and his fallacies are laborious, Brad. Take his claim that if I can not aspect to a criminal offense having already been committed by somebody with the Barrett .50 BMG sniper rifle, there isn’t any reason we may still no longer let civilians to own them — this, regardless of his inability to element to a single, reliable characteristic this type of weapon would serve. but, why cease there? i’m now not aware of any American ever having blown up a metropolis with a nuclear bomb. Does that suggest that we may still permit residents to purchase them unless someone does the unthinkable and sets one off? Or, if we need to be less dramatic, how about surface-to-air missiles able to taking down civilian air liners. do not consider any U.S. citizen having used a floor-to-air missile on an airliner — yet! What a myopic view of the realm and the characteristic of government. Fred looks to think that governments haven’t any vigor to enact legal guidelines to offer protection to residents from actions or items that may trigger damage or dying except a person in reality motives hurt or demise. beneath that view, the govt couldn’t avoid cancer causing agents from being dumped into our consuming water unless a person suffers cancer from that certain chemical. Fred is partially relevant on machine guns. The Federal owners coverage Act of 1986 banned earnings of machine guns manufactured on or after may also 19, 1986. It does contain a grandfather clause that allows those in circulation ahead of that date to be resold. comment #fifty two [Permalink] …

Phil
referred to on 1/21/2013 @ 7:58 pm PT…

I read the Sam Harris publish "The Riddle of the Gun" at his weblog. unique. It changed my considering on the gun debate, I must admit. link here: remark #fifty three [Permalink] …

Fred Milton Olsen
referred to on 1/21/2013 @ 8:18 pm PT…

Mr Canning uses advert hominems in feedback #6.10,eleven,18, 29, and 34. I might have ignored a couple. In Brad’s remark #forty six he says I have definite place and that it it laughable. He does not quote me, and then he goes on to supply incorrect advice about laptop guns. You go ahead and snigger, Brad. Laughter is healthy. The Dao says that you and your ridicule are part of it. Mr Canning obviously threatens to return after legislation-abiding gun owners with force by means of advocating bans and confiscation. In remark #26 he asks me to make clear my position "in the event that they come to get the guns." Would Mr. Canny include the intention of consfiscating any "banned" guns or magazines with out drive? I consider now not. i tried twice to get Mr Canning to focus on a extra likely situation, something comparable to prohibition, but he returns to his "civil conflict" feedback many times…. telling me how govt could makes right, or at least for accelerated casualties (SLA, US Civil battle and Vietnam) and for this reason "resistance is futile". Mr. Canning became clearly wrong in Vietnam. It become Mr. Canning and the American forces that inflicted the great majority of causalties trying to impose their will on people who desired to be left on my own to rule themselves. He actively labored with bullets now not ballots. He asked will you battle if we come after you? He dressed up his hazard with high-sounding words about elections he can not carry. He tries to make me out to be a criminal of legal guidelines no longer passed and not prone to. He tries to assert that Obama’s government movements will in some way translate into " the lawful will of a majority to enact competitively priced gun laws to give protection to the lives and protection of our residents" after which faults me because i am unwilling to comply with these imaginary and undefined laws. In remark #33, Canning accuses me of one way or the other taking out or appearing in opposition t "the appropriate now not to be disadvantaged of "life" without due manner of legislation." in short he accuses me in a left handed means of homicide to justify his want to take my legally owned firearms which have harmed no one. You cannot have your bans and confiscations without using force on residents who have under no circumstances harmed you, so please don’t say you haven’t threatened me. Now the place’s your crime stats on .50 cal weapons, and for the reason that you introduced it up, legally owned desktop weapons? it really is the thread, and if the owner of the weblog won’t keep on with the subject however comes around one sidedly imposing suggestions, or not it’s variety of hard to have a conversation isn’t it? comment #54 [Permalink] …

Fred Milton Olsen
pointed out on 1/21/2013 @ 9:sixteen pm PT…

Why should still I not be anxious about Mr. Canning’s threats? He informs us of his historical past of going halfway all over the world with a gun to impose drive upon blameless people who not ever harmed or threatened him, and that 2 million individuals died. For all my many sins, I have certainly not done that. I even have never threatened or harmed any person with my firearms or different weapons. Can Mr Canning say the same? He has not stated he become pressured into these movements or that they were in any manner incorrect, and even flawed. comment #fifty five [Permalink] …

Brad Friedman

pointed out on 1/21/2013 @ 10:21 pm PT…

FMO referred to @ fifty three: Mr Canning uses ad hominems in feedback #6.10,11,18, 29, and 34. I could have ignored a couple. something credibility I furnish to individuals like yourself as a place to begin is at once disappearing. I discover nothing advert hominem in the comments from Ernie you web page, with the viable exception of the one @ 29 which says you "offered crazy talk" and "madness" on your arguments, which he describes as "delusional, paranoid rantings about gearing up to do combat with an all encompassing federal govt." that is relatively tame and focuses to your argument, as hostile to you. So i’m relatively bound you could deal with it. not to mention, the restriction on "own attacks" on other commenters does not practice to those who put up articles right here (as hostile to comments most effective). you’d probably be superior to make your argument, in place of crying about being ad hominem assaults in this case, however it is just my opinion. Mr Canning clearly threatens to come back after legislation-abiding gun owners with force through advocating bans and confiscation. it truly is an idiotic, and inaccurate argument. (Does that imply I simply used an advert hominem against you?!) He made no risk of the variety, and in case you continue to post that form of tips, you might not be writing right here a lot longer. Ernie additionally provided you a delicate warning. Now I even have achieved equal. Knock it off. There turned into a federal Assault Weapons Ban in drive from 1994 to 2004 and guns had been now not confiscated, unless they had been illegally bought after the ban went into effect. Ernie didn’t demand your weapons to be "confiscated" in this thread. in case you accept as true with he did, then he was correct to explain your rantings as "delusional" and "paranoid". He requested will you battle if we come after you? No. He failed to. Please stop making shit up. Thanks. You may also proceed your twisted attacks for his provider to this nation, if you need to proceed making yourself look sillier than you have got already, but you’re no longer profitable any converts over here by means of doing it. meanwhile, this dialog and, in particular, your comments, have become even more tiresome than they had been previously. Little ask yourself Ernie gave up even making an attempt to bother. Smaller wonder nevertheless that you’ve got convinced yourself you want a gun to are living safely in this world. in spite of everything, knock off the shit that violates our only a few guidelines for commenting right here. ok? I really do not need time to baby take a seat. Thanks again. comment #56 [Permalink] …

Ernest A. Canning

referred to on 1/22/2013 @ 2:29 am PT…

The simplest aspect i would add to Brad @55 is this: A reductio ad absurdum doesn’t equal ad hominem. comment #57 [Permalink] …

Fred Milton Olsen
spoke of on 1/22/2013 @ three:forty nine am PT…

loopy talk comes from a crazy person. Arguments can’t be insane, only americans. you utilize advert hominems pure and simple. and also you use them for a similar intent anyone makes use of ad hominems. You do not need to argue the facets. Neither Brad nor Mr Canning desires to follow the thread theme because you can not reveal any crimes from .50 cal rifles. you have had quite a lot of time to achieve this and you have no longer. Brad is still clinging to "As you know, since you quoted me asserting it, i was regarding the "buy" of laptop guns which changed into quite simply made inconceivable by means of the countrywide Firearms Act of 1934. sure, there may be some out there, however decent success attempting to legally buy one." certain Brad. we are speaking about buy and possession here. You, Brad Friedman, can go and buy a machine gun when you’ve got the cash and are willing to do the bureaucracy and pay the tax stamp charge. You preserve denying this. Shall I walk you through the procedure and provide you with a criminal seller and the forms numbers? that would be all I might do in need of in my view escorting you through the process, wherever it’s you are living. regulation isn’t a ban and not confiscation. Your recommendations can’t work without wholesale bans and confiscations. anything else much less will now not extensively reduce the number of weapons in criminal fingers, and even then it’ll not produce the preferred effect as you will nevertheless be leaving millions of guns within the hands of executive the place they could be simply received with the aid of government or civilian crook facets. You need handiest to look south of the border in Mexico to see that here is genuine. severe gun handle, excessive violence. Say straight out, "No bans, no confiscations." in any other case, it is what you’re saying, no matter how you gown it up. remark #58 [Permalink] …

Fred Milton Olsen
referred to on 1/22/2013 @ 4:39 am PT…

As Brad does not wish to live on topic, let me adress his observation: "that you simply believe your interpretation of the 2nd amendment is the best interpretation is both laughable and traditionally inaccurate." where is you interpretation, Sir? The charter sets forth the powers and responsibilities of government. The Framers, of their wisdom, diagnosed that the americans essential insurance policy from their executive, so they went again and wrote 10 Amendments, time-honored as the invoice of Rights. These 10 Amendments are about limiting government power and guaranteeing citizen energy. Do you agree with that any of the 10 Amendments in the bill of Rights is there to provide vigour to executive and limit the rights of citizens? Kings Bush, Cheney, and Obama and their minions have argued that "things are different now. The founders didn’t learn about muslim extremists, telephones, electronic mail and desktop weapons and bombs, a good way to trash your ensures of privacy from the invoice of rights. we will put gag orders on you. we are able to tell you your faith is illegal. we can search you every time we desire for some thing cause, and not inform you this purpose. we are able to restrict or forbid your commute. we can extend or deny you trial. we can dangle you incommunicado. we will use secret evidence. we can deny you bail, or set it excessively." that is how our rights had been taken away, Brad. The second change is set individuals vigor, not government vigour. because the executive fails to hold their end of the discount by way of organizing the militia, "every man" as the Framers put it, you might also now not remove my rights. The militia clause is subordinate to the naturally mentioned "preserve and endure arms" clause. The "the correct of the individuals to keep and undergo arms," is the aim of the bill of Rights…. to assure rights to individuals, not government. The founders have been very clear in may additionally other writings about what "maintain and endure fingers" supposed. I issue a friendly challenge so you might produce one quote from the Framers that says otherwise. in case you are looking to say that "preserve and bear fingers" skill whatever distinct at the present time, i’m bound you could get some help with that from John Yoo and other Bush, Cheney and Obama criminal scholars who will gladly argue for you that all of the different parts of the bill of Rights can also be set apart "on your safety and insurance plan." have you ever ever quoted Ben Franklin for your website, Brad? "people that would surrender primary Liberty, to purchase a little brief safeguard, deserve neither Liberty nor defense." The soldiers who disarmed the Native americans at Wounded Knee in 1890 advised them that they had been doing it "for their safety". Then they grew to become round an massacred them. i am much more worried about governments killing us wholesale than with what a relative few crazies can do. The numbers of unarmed people killed by means of governments isn’t corresponding to civilian murder victims. Many murder deaths are regrettable…. how plenty greater so when they’re the deaths of individuals who could not defend themselves after being through disarmed by their governments. If Mr. Canning really saw combat as he says, it is probably going that one among his missions was to head to villages and hamlets, tear them apart, and look for weapons held by using the individuals. Then, if any are discovered, individuals are grew to become over to the governmrnt for internment, torture, or abstract execution. I even have handled Mr. Canning remarkably politely, due to the fact that his heritage of direct help for such movements. He nevertheless has now not observed he was forced into these movements or that they had been incorrect or unsuitable. comment #fifty nine [Permalink] …

Fred Milton Olsen
pointed out on 1/22/2013 @ 7:28 am PT…

Upon re-reading, lest you misconstrue: From my put up, #57 "Your concepts cannot work without wholesale bans and confiscations. the rest much less will now not extensively in the reduction of the variety of guns in crook arms," Please clarify that by using studying this: "Your recommendations cannot work without wholesale bans and confiscations. (text delivered) You really agree with that the rest less will no longer appreciably reduce the variety of guns in crook fingers," conclusion==============================================new The NFA or countrywide Firearms Act of 1934 regulated the civilian ownership of computing device guns. It did not take a single computer gun out of the hands of criminals. besides the fact that you could get a legislation that banned all computing device gun manufacture, and then rounded up every remaining desktop gun…. you are too late, my friend, too late. desktop guns are unluckily easy and cheap to make, correct to your own home or garage. I refer you to the design of the British Sten Gun, or a couple of others which have only a few parts and don’t require an excellent deal of tooling or tolerances. I confer with the Sten Gun in certain as a result of at the height of its UK creation, it turned into made for about $12 USD. A excessive capability magazine is even less complicated to make and can be made through anyone who remembers what they learned in eighth or 9th grade metallic store category. Your most effective reply to the issue will also be further and further draconian penalties on americans who have not harmed any individual. If individuals don’t go together with new barriers/bans/confiscations, what will you do? If americans continue to supply banned firearms and magazines, what is going to you do? What can be the penalties, and the way immediately will you raise them, and the way draconian will they at last turn into to try to obtain your ends? You can not have new laws without punishments are you able to? don’t back far from this. people will weigh the chance of being caught with the punishment. This may have an impact on their reaction and the eventual circumstance– will it’s like prohibition, or will whatever worse be forced on the citizenry? Why do not you are looking to talk about a prohibition-like situation? I’ve stated that it be more possible. You say you do not want bans and consfiscation, so why can not we focus on the prohibition scenario? You individuals are at all times talking about how we should be like "all these other civilized international locations"– neatly, all those different "civilized nations" (and the "uncivilized" ones too) had outright bans and confiscations. You cannot say you you need us to "be like them" without wholesale bans and confiscations, so give up pretending that isn’t your aim, now or a bit down the road. And before you delivery in to your "civilized international locations" rap and labeling me as "right wing", I consider in proportional illustration and altering the charter to permit it if vital. I accept as true with in single payer fitness care. I consider in free and reasonable elections, which is why i am going to BradBlog and Bev Harris blackboxvoting.org. i’m doubtless extra left-wing than you’re, however I do not agree with those historical terms any longer– they are so abused. here’s one for you: don’t like abortions? don’t have one. scared of weapons? do not buy one. i’m hoping i can come back and discuss issues with you these days, but when or not it’s ’til tomorrow, i am working on a criticism towards a state agency for violating discrimination laws within the area of race, religion, disability. notwithstanding not a protected class i will be able to additionally consist of economic discrimination in opposition t my state’s residents by way of this agency. This agency has a heritage of secrecy and violations of the Open statistics Act and Open conferences law. first rate success along with your good works these days, however we disagree some on a way to get there. comment #60 [Permalink] …

Fred Milton Olsen
referred to on 1/22/2013 @ 7:49 am PT…

Re Harvard clinical "within the domestic" now not that you just produced any numbers or evaluation for even cursory review— Why do not you support us all be certain that gun-owning households comprehend the dangers of having a gun in the house, so that you can weigh those dangers and judge if they need one? Or to aid them make a decision that certain behaviors can in the reduction of risk devoid of anyone giving up anything else? This seems like a good idea to me, however then, I’ve bought some time invested in teaching safety in its place of taking things away from individuals. They still have risk, however they make a decision. What sort of safeguard choices do you are making for your family unit? Do you burn candles? big fireplace hazard. Are their seat belts buckled? Do you let them have skateboards or violent video games? Do you want the executive worried in these choices for your family or do you are looking to weigh the risks and make your own choices? I remind you that we’re speaking the Harvard "in the home" cloth noted earlier. weapons and suicide? considering that when did you turn into a born-once again "You would not have a right to conclusion of existence choices" adult?" people make a decision to kill themselves and or not it’s their determination. get over it. observe: i’ll under no circumstances kill myself. I could need to die defending myself, however that’s a unique choice. remark #61 [Permalink] …

Ernest A. Canning

mentioned on 1/22/2013 @ 8:08 am PT…

comments fifty seven-fifty nine are each redundant and mistaken. Redundancies: E.g., "Neither Brad nor Mr Canning desires to persist with the thread subject matter because you cannot demonstrate any crimes from .50 cal rifles." See comment #51. "the place is you [sic.] interpretation, Sir?" See remark #6. incorrect: "do not like abortions? shouldn’t have one. afraid of guns? do not purchase one." the former entails a person’s appropriate to select — a woman’s very very own decision concerning her personal body. The latter entails the possibility of being murdered by means of somebody else! listed here are three questions derived from my comment @fifty one which can be answered with an easy "sure" or "no" without your lodge to verbosity. 1. must federal and state governments watch for the prevalence of both demise or severe injury earlier than they can enact laws designed to give protection to the health and protection of their residents? 2. Do you accept as true with that people have a constitutional right to possess surface-to-air missiles? 3. Do you agree with that individuals have the constitutional correct to possess nuclear bombs? remark #62 [Permalink] …

luagha
pointed out on 1/22/2013 @ 2:08 pm PT…

Charles Joseph Whitman, via the with the aid of, turned into first stopped by a civilian who came about to have his rifle in his trunk. He offered protecting fireplace for the fastest-responding police who did not have longarms purchasable, and allowed them to get into the tower devoid of being shot. comment #63 [Permalink] …

luagha
referred to on 1/22/2013 @ 2:12 pm PT…

"Who needs a silencer?"returned within the day, many metropolis dwellers would have firearms traps in their again yards to practice their marksmanship. The silencer become at first marketed to these individuals as a way for them to be quiet and considerate to their neighbors who may not wish to hear weapons going off in any respect hours. So the answer to that query is, "anyone who wants to be thoughtful of their neighbors." Noise toxins is relatively critical and whereas many cities may not enable such inner most ranges, there is lots of the nation where it be simply excellent to observe your shooting in your property, and simply well mannered no longer to make a racket doing it. comment #64 [Permalink] …

MJ
spoke of on 1/24/2013 @ 2:fifty eight pm PT…

The murder fee in Chicago, the place gun control is just about nonexistent, is nineteen.4 per a hundred,000 inhabitants. That determine is more than 13.eight instances improved than the homicide cost in London (1.four per one hundred,000 inhabitants) where there’s strict manage. Wow…You definitely are misinformed. Chicago has one of the most strick gun control programs in the country. With a flat out ban on most handguns and many rifles within the city. Most Minicipalities have taken it a step additional with a flatout ban on all handguns. Yet they still have the highest rate of gun violance per capita. here’s a hyperlink to the heritage of gun manage in Chicago for you reading pleasure. http://www.encyclopedia….story.org/pages/557.html.

tags: , , , ,