On 2/19/2022 4:59 PM, John B. wrote:
> On Sat, 19 Feb 2022 00:31:54 -0800 (PST), "russellseaton1@yahoo.com"
> <ritzannaseaton@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Friday, February 18, 2022 at 8:53:46 PM UTC-6, John B. wrote:
>>> On Fri, 18 Feb 2022 16:20:44 -0800 (PST), "russell...@yahoo.com"
>>> <ritzann...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Friday, February 18, 2022 at 5:00:58 PM UTC-6, John B. wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 18 Feb 2022 11:00:32 -0500, Frank Krygowski
>>>>> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2/18/2022 4:27 AM, John B. wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I've always wondered about the "homeless" I read about in U.S. news
>>>>>>> reports.. In fact I even asked on this site about them. Are they penny
>>>>>>> less and can't afford a roof over their heads and if so how do they
>>>>>>> eat? and so on, and I never got a really cognizant reply. I got
>>>>>>> replies saying that housing in California is costly but does this mean
>>>>>>> that they are gainfully employed and can't afford to rent a house? Or
>>>>>>> does it mean that they are unemployed and living on the sidewalk? Or??
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It varies.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://www.homelesshub.ca/about-homelessness/homelessness-101/causes-homelessness
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://endhomelessness.org/homelessness-in-america/what-causes-homelessness/
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://atlantamission.org/7-major-causes-homelessness/
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You can look this stuff up.
>>>>> Well, yes, I can look it up. The first reference you give about, the
>>>>> first cause,
>>>>> "Poverty
>>>>> Homelessness and poverty are inextricably linked. People who are
>>>>> impoverished are frequently unable to pay for necessities such as
>>>>> housing, food, childcare, health care, and education. Poverty can mean
>>>>> a person is one illness, one accident, or one paycheque away from
>>>>> living on the streets."
>>>>>
>>>>> If People who are impoverished are frequently unable to pay for
>>>>> necessities such as housing, food..." why aren't they starving to
>>>>> death?
>>>>
>>>> I think you are playing with us John. I am sure you have seen the pictures of German Nazi death camps such as Auschwitz. People who were skin and bones. Literally skin and bones. They were starving to death. But they were not dead. So apparently it takes a long time and a lot of suffering to officially starve to death. Dead. In the USA, there are methods to get food. Enough food to postpone and prevent starving to death. A homeless shelter, soup kitchen, public festival with free food, etc. Enough to keep alive for another week or two. And then repeat. Not a pleasant way to live. But life is sustained.
>>>>
>>> Well, I'm not sure what German Death Camps have to do with U.S.
>>> homeless. But is you say so I'm sure that it must be true. But, tell
>>> me, don't they have to wear the uniform?
>>> https://tinyurl.com/4affpej2
>>> --
>>> Cheers,
>>>
>>> John B.
>>
>>
>> ???? You asked why the homeless are not starving to death. And I brought up the fact that the Nazi concentration camp had people who were deliberately starved. And it took a whole lot of starving to kill them. Based on the pictures of skin and bone people from the prisons. So its very likely someone could be homeless and poor in the USA for a very long time and not die of starvation.
>
> Well, lets see... Apparently it depends, but total starvation seems to
> cause death in various lengths of time. Mahatma Gandhi, survived 21
> days of total starvation while only allowing himself sips of water,
> and Reports of the 1981 hunger strike by political prisoners against
> the British presence in Northeast Ireland indicate that 10 individuals
> died after periods of between 46 and 73 days without food.
>
> And, while I'm certainly not an expert on German
> Deaths Camps" I have read of people that survived for more then a
> year. Tadeusz Sobolewicz , for example was confined to German Camps
> from 1941 until 1945.
>

Avoiding the risk of Godwin here, peruse photos of Dutch,
British and American POWs liberated in Japan 1945.
Starvation/malnutrition is horrific to behold and not seen
in USA street bums.

Australians:
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-CkLNDVAtQWE/VQPK5Ncfl3I/AAAAAAAAJ4E/V8LU45GknuQ/s1600/Australian%2Bsoldiers%2Bafter%2Btheir%2Brelease%2Bfrom%2BJapanese%2Bcaptivity%2Bin%2BSingapore%2C%2B1945.jpg

Other side, shorter duration, same effect:
https://49fe30bb3aa7406c16dc-5c968119d095dc32d807923c59347cc2.ssl.cf1.rackcdn.com/2008.354.287_1.jpg

--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On 2/19/2022 5:12 PM, John B. wrote:
> On Sat, 19 Feb 2022 11:27:25 -0500, Frank Krygowski
> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>> On 2/19/2022 10:01 AM, AMuzi wrote:
>>> On 2/18/2022 10:15 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>> Do people habitually
>>>> push people in front of subway trains, etc. (:?)
>>>>
>>>
>>> Yes, she was not the first this year.
>>>
>>> And not only:
>>> https://nypost.com/2022/02/19/nyc-subway-slashings-spike-35-this-year-nypd-data/
>>
>> Wait, please! The question was "Do people habitually push people in
>> front of subway trains, etc."
>>
>> I've been able to find exactly ONE such incident on line, plus another a
>> few days later where a copycat pushed another guy when there was no
>> train around. Of course such random attacks (including with razors) are
>> terrible; but they are far from "habitual."
>>
>> I'll note that Andrew and John have both said AR rifles are no problem
>> because killing only a couple dozen kids at a time pales compared with
>> traffic deaths or medical mistakes. Please try for consistency in your
>> arguments.
>
> Frank, you do go on. In fact your are really developing into a
> crotchety Old Man.
>
> No Andrew nor I have said that AR rifles are no problem. In fact I
> went on at some length about the modern USian attempting to
> rationalize mass killings by blaming it on AR type firearms. And that
> semi-automatic rifles and large - 30 round - magazines have been
> available for a hundred years of so.
>
> When are you going to face the reality that mass shootings are
> perpetrated by bad people. Not by an inert mechanical device.
>
>
The Saudis on 11 September 2001 used 79c box cutters.

--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On 2/20/2022 1:35 AM, John B. wrote:
> On Sat, 19 Feb 2022 20:33:16 -0800 (PST), Frank Krygowski
> <frkrygow@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Saturday, February 19, 2022 at 6:06:30 PM UTC-8, John B. wrote:
>>> On Sat, 19 Feb 2022 20:01:41 -0500, Frank Krygowski
>>> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2/19/2022 6:12 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> No Andrew nor I have said that AR rifles are no problem. In fact I
>>>>> went on at some length about the modern USian attempting to
>>>>> rationalize mass killings by blaming it on AR type firearms. And that
>>>>> semi-automatic rifles and large - 30 round - magazines have been
>>>>> available for a hundred years of so.
>>>>
>>>> Your sentence structure above is a bit chaotic, not to mention your
>>>> logic. Are you now claiming you and Andrew did not defend AR rifles?
>>
>> Hmm. No answer!
>>
>>>>> When are you going to face the reality that mass shootings are
>>>>> perpetrated by bad people. Not by an inert mechanical device.
>>>>
>>>> Of course mass shootings are perpetrated by bad people! The question is,
>>>> why do we in America allow bad people to buy mass shooting tools?
>>>>
>>> Because your Basic Law allows it.
>>> And, whether or not you agree with the Constitution and it's
>>> amendments, it is the law of the land.
>>>
>> You're greatly over-simplifying that, John. The constitution does not guarantee
>> that any and all guns are allowed. Since the very beginning, there have been laws
>> restricting certain types of guns. The ones we're discussing have been among them.
>
> Nope. The 2nd amendment states that " the right of the people to keep
> and bear Arms, shall not be infringed". No mention of any type what so
> ever.
>
> And, your statement "Since the very beginning, there have been laws
> restricting certain types of guns."??
>
> What exactly do you mean? What is the "very beginning"? If you mean
> from the "very beginning" of the American Colonies then you are wrong.
> From the "very beginning" of the U.S.? 1775? I believe that you are
> wrong again.
>
>
>>> And, I might add, unfortunately you live in a quasi democracy and,
>>> unfortunately in a democracy the individual's opinion is essentially
>>> meaningless. It is the majority's opinion that counts. And, if
>>> Andrew's figures are correct then the 20,000,000 AR owners opinion
>>> outweigh your's by a about 10,000 tons.
>>
>> Again, you're greatly oversimplifying. Or just mistaken.
>>From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_opinion_on_gun_control_in_the_United_States
>> "An August 2019 Fox News poll of registered voters found 90% of respondents favored universal background checks, 81% supported taking guns from at-risk individuals, and 67% favored banning assault weapons.[31]
>
> Yup a "pole showed"
>
> But reality is that some 81 million USians own guns and about firearms
> are available in ~44% of all U.S. households.
> https://americangunfacts.com/gun-ownership-statistics/
> and
> Of the two-thirds that don’t own a gun, 11% live in a household with a
> gun. Among that same group of Americans that don’t own a gun, half say
> they might personally own a gun in the future, and a third say they
> would never own a gun.
>
>
>> Or there's Gallup:
>> https://news.gallup.com/poll/1645/guns.aspx
>>
>> I think the reason these things are so easily available is because of the outsized
>> influence of the corrupt NRA, through the outsized influence of big money on U.S. politics.
>> All that can be changed, and hopefully will. Even with opposition from people like Tom.
>>
>>>> How easy is it to buy a similar gun where you live? Do you own one? If
>>>> not, how are you getting by?
>>> In reality? Very easy. Just bring money.
>>
>> OK, interesting. I poked around a bit and found this:
>> https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-gun-laws-in-Thailand-like
>> which claims
>> "11. Prohibited Gun And Device ban from Civilian use in Thailand:
>> Semi-Auto Rifle Center-Fire."
>>
>> Also, this source
>> https://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/thailand
>> says "In Thailand, civilians are not allowed to possess automatic and semi-automatic rifles [74]
>>
>>> But what, other being a red herring, does my ownership, or lack there
>>> of, have to do with U.S. ownership AR type of rifles?
>
> Errr... Frank, your question was (above) "How easy is it to buy a
> similar gun where you live" and I told you. And I didn't exaggerate
> even a tiny bit. Unlicensed forearms are as common as dirt here.

Oh. You should have completed the sentence in your reply. It should have
said "Easy, just bring money and be willing to violate the firearms laws."

>
> Every few days you read a news article about someone holding up a Gold
> Store and you can't possibly believe that it was done with a legal,
> registered, gun.
>
> Today's news:
> Man arrested for Phuket currency exchange booth robbery\
> "The Yes Exchange 6 Co’s currency booth in front of Big C Jungceylon
> branch on Phang Muang Sai Ko Road in Kathu district was held up by a
> tall man with a gun..."
>
> I even posted an example of two Canadian "Hit men" flying in,
> acquiring pistols, shooting a guy and then flying out a day or so
> later.
>
>> Here's the relevance: I keep trying to discuss advantages vs. disadvantages. Abetting mass
>> shootings _should_ be counted as a disadvantage of guns with the features we're discussing.
>> Whatever the advantages may be - if any - they must be minor. I certainly do perfectly well
>> without them. You apparently do perfectly fine without them too!
>>
>> - Frank Krygowski
>
> Yes, you keep talking about advantages and disadvantages. And that you
> can do perfectly well without a gun.
> And I agree with you.
>
> But so what?
>
> But Frank, in the area in which I do my morning exercise walk there
> are about 20, maybe 25 families... and I see one guy that rides a
> bicycle several mornings so quite obviously a bicycle isn't necessary
> for life to exist so what is the advantage? Cheap transportation? Well
> yes, but this is a neighborhood where I see almost everyone going off
> work in the morning in their auto- the guy that rides the bike is
> retired and owns, in addition to his bicycle (cheap 7 speed) a full
> sized sedan and a motorcycle
>
> So tell me the advantage of bicycles?

The advantages GREATLY outweigh the disadvantages, both for the rider
and for society as a whole.

Advantages: Beneficial exercise. As a result, increased health; and as a
result, lower medical costs. Much greater range than walking. Much
greater carrying capacity than walking. Far less expense than motorized
vehicles. Far less resource consumption in a bicycle's construction,
compared to motorized vehicles. Negligible air pollution when operating.
Negligible noise pollution. Far less danger to other road users. Useful
for a much wider range of ages. Fosters appreciation of nature. Fosters
much more pleasant social interactions compared to car use. Far less
operating expense than motorized vehicles. For many, requires only
maintenance by owner, not requiring professional services; and as a
result, teaches mechanical skills and self reliance. And health and
safety benefits, as already mentioned, GREATLY outweigh the minor health
and safety risks.

Also: Bicycles are never used in mass killings. In fact, murders using
bicycles are essentially unheard of.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 2/19/2022 10:33 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On Saturday, February 19, 2022 at 6:06:30 PM UTC-8, John B. wrote:
>> On Sat, 19 Feb 2022 20:01:41 -0500, Frank Krygowski
>> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2/19/2022 6:12 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>>
>>>> No Andrew nor I have said that AR rifles are no problem. In fact I
>>>> went on at some length about the modern USian attempting to
>>>> rationalize mass killings by blaming it on AR type firearms. And that
>>>> semi-automatic rifles and large - 30 round - magazines have been
>>>> available for a hundred years of so.
>>>
>>> Your sentence structure above is a bit chaotic, not to mention your
>>> logic. Are you now claiming you and Andrew did not defend AR rifles?
>
> Hmm. No answer!
>
>>>> When are you going to face the reality that mass shootings are
>>>> perpetrated by bad people. Not by an inert mechanical device.
>>>
>>> Of course mass shootings are perpetrated by bad people! The question is,
>>> why do we in America allow bad people to buy mass shooting tools?
>>>
>> Because your Basic Law allows it.
>> And, whether or not you agree with the Constitution and it's
>> amendments, it is the law of the land.
>>
> You're greatly over-simplifying that, John. The constitution does not guarantee
> that any and all guns are allowed. Since the very beginning, there have been laws
> restricting certain types of guns. The ones we're discussing have been among them.
>
>> And, I might add, unfortunately you live in a quasi democracy and,
>> unfortunately in a democracy the individual's opinion is essentially
>> meaningless. It is the majority's opinion that counts. And, if
>> Andrew's figures are correct then the 20,000,000 AR owners opinion
>> outweigh your's by a about 10,000 tons.
>
> Again, you're greatly oversimplifying. Or just mistaken.
> From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_opinion_on_gun_control_in_the_United_States
> "An August 2019 Fox News poll of registered voters found 90% of respondents favored universal background checks, 81% supported taking guns from at-risk individuals, and 67% favored banning assault weapons.[31]
>
> Or there's Gallup:
> https://news.gallup.com/poll/1645/guns.aspx
>
> I think the reason these things are so easily available is because of the outsized
> influence of the corrupt NRA, through the outsized influence of big money on U.S. politics.
> All that can be changed, and hopefully will. Even with opposition from people like Tom.
>
>>> How easy is it to buy a similar gun where you live? Do you own one? If
>>> not, how are you getting by?
>> In reality? Very easy. Just bring money.
>
> OK, interesting. I poked around a bit and found this:
> https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-gun-laws-in-Thailand-like
> which claims
> "11. Prohibited Gun And Device ban from Civilian use in Thailand:
> Semi-Auto Rifle Center-Fire."
>
> Also, this source
> https://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/thailand
> says "In Thailand, civilians are not allowed to possess automatic and semi-automatic rifles [74]
>
>> But what, other being a red herring, does my ownership, or lack there
>> of, have to do with U.S. ownership AR type of rifles?
>
> Here's the relevance: I keep trying to discuss advantages vs. disadvantages. Abetting mass
> shootings _should_ be counted as a disadvantage of guns with the features we're discussing.
> Whatever the advantages may be - if any - they must be minor. I certainly do perfectly well
> without them. You apparently do perfectly fine without them too!
>
> - Frank Krygowski
>

Well then, that's settled.

Now you need only get 38 States to repeal the 2d Amendment:
https://constitutionus.com/constitution/amendments/ratifying-constitutional-amendments/

If you're correct on 'groundswell support', should be easy.

--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On 2/20/2022 11:51 AM, AMuzi wrote:
> On 2/19/2022 10:33 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> On Saturday, February 19, 2022 at 6:06:30 PM UTC-8, John B. wrote:
>>> On Sat, 19 Feb 2022 20:01:41 -0500, Frank Krygowski
>>> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2/19/2022 6:12 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> No Andrew nor I have said that AR rifles are no problem. In fact I
>>>>> went on at some length about the modern USian attempting to
>>>>> rationalize mass killings by blaming it on AR type firearms. And that
>>>>> semi-automatic rifles and large - 30 round - magazines have been
>>>>> available for a hundred years of so.
>>>>
>>>> Your sentence structure above is a bit chaotic, not to mention your
>>>> logic. Are you now claiming you and Andrew did not defend AR rifles?
>>
>> Hmm. No answer!
>>
>>>>> When are you going to face the reality that mass shootings are
>>>>> perpetrated by bad people. Not by an inert mechanical device.
>>>>
>>>> Of course mass shootings are perpetrated by bad people! The question
>>>> is,
>>>> why do we in America allow bad people to buy mass shooting tools?
>>>>
>>> Because your Basic Law allows it.
>>> And, whether or not you agree with the Constitution and it's
>>> amendments, it is the law of the land.
>>>
>> You're greatly over-simplifying that, John. The constitution does not
>> guarantee
>> that any and all guns are allowed. Since the very beginning, there
>> have been laws
>> restricting certain types of guns. The ones we're discussing have been
>> among them.
>>
>>> And, I might add, unfortunately you live in a quasi democracy and,
>>> unfortunately in a democracy the individual's opinion is essentially
>>> meaningless. It is the majority's opinion that counts. And, if
>>> Andrew's figures are correct then the 20,000,000 AR owners opinion
>>> outweigh your's by a about 10,000 tons.
>>
>> Again, you're greatly oversimplifying. Or just mistaken.
>>  From
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_opinion_on_gun_control_in_the_United_States
>>
>> "An August 2019 Fox News poll of registered voters found 90% of
>> respondents favored universal background checks, 81% supported taking
>> guns from at-risk individuals, and 67% favored banning assault
>> weapons.[31]
>>
>> Or there's Gallup:
>> https://news.gallup.com/poll/1645/guns.aspx
>>
>> I think the reason these things are so easily available is because of
>> the outsized
>> influence of the corrupt NRA, through the outsized influence of big
>> money on U.S. politics.
>> All that can be changed, and hopefully will. Even with opposition from
>> people like Tom.
>>
>>>> How easy is it to buy a similar gun where you live? Do you own one? If
>>>> not, how are you getting by?
>>> In reality? Very easy. Just bring money.
>>
>> OK, interesting. I poked around a bit and found this:
>> https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-gun-laws-in-Thailand-like
>> which claims
>> "11. Prohibited Gun And Device ban from Civilian use in Thailand:
>>      Semi-Auto Rifle Center-Fire."
>>
>> Also, this source
>> https://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/thailand
>> says "In Thailand, civilians are not allowed to possess automatic and
>> semi-automatic rifles [74]
>>
>>> But what, other being a red herring, does my ownership, or lack there
>>> of, have to do with U.S. ownership AR type of rifles?
>>
>> Here's the relevance: I keep trying to discuss advantages vs.
>> disadvantages. Abetting mass
>> shootings _should_ be counted as a disadvantage of guns with the
>> features we're discussing.
>> Whatever the advantages may be - if any - they must be minor. I
>> certainly do perfectly well
>> without them. You apparently do perfectly fine without them too!
>>
>> - Frank Krygowski
>>
>
> Well then, that's settled.
>
> Now you need only get 38 States to repeal the 2d Amendment:
> https://constitutionus.com/constitution/amendments/ratifying-constitutional-amendments/
>
>
> If you're correct on 'groundswell support', should be easy.

200+ years of history and dozens of court cases indicate that the
amendment doesn't need to be repealed to enable more rational gun policies.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 2/20/2022 10:33 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On 2/20/2022 1:35 AM, John B. wrote:
>> On Sat, 19 Feb 2022 20:33:16 -0800 (PST), Frank Krygowski
>> <frkrygow@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Saturday, February 19, 2022 at 6:06:30 PM UTC-8, John
>>> B. wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 19 Feb 2022 20:01:41 -0500, Frank Krygowski
>>>> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 2/19/2022 6:12 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No Andrew nor I have said that AR rifles are no
>>>>>> problem. In fact I
>>>>>> went on at some length about the modern USian
>>>>>> attempting to
>>>>>> rationalize mass killings by blaming it on AR type
>>>>>> firearms. And that
>>>>>> semi-automatic rifles and large - 30 round - magazines
>>>>>> have been
>>>>>> available for a hundred years of so.
>>>>>
>>>>> Your sentence structure above is a bit chaotic, not to
>>>>> mention your
>>>>> logic. Are you now claiming you and Andrew did not
>>>>> defend AR rifles?
>>>
>>> Hmm. No answer!
>>>
>>>>>> When are you going to face the reality that mass
>>>>>> shootings are
>>>>>> perpetrated by bad people. Not by an inert mechanical
>>>>>> device.
>>>>>
>>>>> Of course mass shootings are perpetrated by bad people!
>>>>> The question is,
>>>>> why do we in America allow bad people to buy mass
>>>>> shooting tools?
>>>>>
>>>> Because your Basic Law allows it.
>>>> And, whether or not you agree with the Constitution and
>>>> it's
>>>> amendments, it is the law of the land.
>>>>
>>> You're greatly over-simplifying that, John. The
>>> constitution does not guarantee
>>> that any and all guns are allowed. Since the very
>>> beginning, there have been laws
>>> restricting certain types of guns. The ones we're
>>> discussing have been among them.
>>
>> Nope. The 2nd amendment states that " the right of the
>> people to keep
>> and bear Arms, shall not be infringed". No mention of any
>> type what so
>> ever.
>>
>> And, your statement "Since the very beginning, there have
>> been laws
>> restricting certain types of guns."??
>>
>> What exactly do you mean? What is the "very beginning"? If
>> you mean
>> from the "very beginning" of the American Colonies then
>> you are wrong.
>> From the "very beginning" of the U.S.? 1775? I believe
>> that you are
>> wrong again.
>>
>>
>>>> And, I might add, unfortunately you live in a quasi
>>>> democracy and,
>>>> unfortunately in a democracy the individual's opinion is
>>>> essentially
>>>> meaningless. It is the majority's opinion that counts.
>>>> And, if
>>>> Andrew's figures are correct then the 20,000,000 AR
>>>> owners opinion
>>>> outweigh your's by a about 10,000 tons.
>>>
>>> Again, you're greatly oversimplifying. Or just mistaken.
>>> From
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_opinion_on_gun_control_in_the_United_States
>>>
>>> "An August 2019 Fox News poll of registered voters found
>>> 90% of respondents favored universal background checks,
>>> 81% supported taking guns from at-risk individuals, and
>>> 67% favored banning assault weapons.[31]
>>
>> Yup a "pole showed"
>>
>> But reality is that some 81 million USians own guns and
>> about firearms
>> are available in ~44% of all U.S. households.
>> https://americangunfacts.com/gun-ownership-statistics/
>> and
>> Of the two-thirds that don’t own a gun, 11% live in a
>> household with a
>> gun. Among that same group of Americans that don’t own a
>> gun, half say
>> they might personally own a gun in the future, and a third
>> say they
>> would never own a gun.
>>
>>
>>> Or there's Gallup:
>>> https://news.gallup.com/poll/1645/guns.aspx
>>>
>>> I think the reason these things are so easily available
>>> is because of the outsized
>>> influence of the corrupt NRA, through the outsized
>>> influence of big money on U.S. politics.
>>> All that can be changed, and hopefully will. Even with
>>> opposition from people like Tom.
>>>
>>>>> How easy is it to buy a similar gun where you live? Do
>>>>> you own one? If
>>>>> not, how are you getting by?
>>>> In reality? Very easy. Just bring money.
>>>
>>> OK, interesting. I poked around a bit and found this:
>>> https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-gun-laws-in-Thailand-like
>>> which claims
>>> "11. Prohibited Gun And Device ban from Civilian use in
>>> Thailand:
>>> Semi-Auto Rifle Center-Fire."
>>>
>>> Also, this source
>>> https://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/thailand
>>> says "In Thailand, civilians are not allowed to possess
>>> automatic and semi-automatic rifles [74]
>>>
>>>> But what, other being a red herring, does my ownership,
>>>> or lack there
>>>> of, have to do with U.S. ownership AR type of rifles?
>>
>> Errr... Frank, your question was (above) "How easy is it
>> to buy a
>> similar gun where you live" and I told you. And I didn't
>> exaggerate
>> even a tiny bit. Unlicensed forearms are as common as dirt
>> here.
>
> Oh. You should have completed the sentence in your reply. It
> should have said "Easy, just bring money and be willing to
> violate the firearms laws."
>
>
>>
>> Every few days you read a news article about someone
>> holding up a Gold
>> Store and you can't possibly believe that it was done with
>> a legal,
>> registered, gun.
>>
>> Today's news:
>> Man arrested for Phuket currency exchange booth robbery\
>> "The Yes Exchange 6 Co’s currency booth in front of Big
>> C Jungceylon
>> branch on Phang Muang Sai Ko Road in Kathu district was
>> held up by a
>> tall man with a gun..."
>>
>> I even posted an example of two Canadian "Hit men" flying in,
>> acquiring pistols, shooting a guy and then flying out a
>> day or so
>> later.
>>
>>> Here's the relevance: I keep trying to discuss advantages
>>> vs. disadvantages. Abetting mass
>>> shootings _should_ be counted as a disadvantage of guns
>>> with the features we're discussing.
>>> Whatever the advantages may be - if any - they must be
>>> minor. I certainly do perfectly well
>>> without them. You apparently do perfectly fine without
>>> them too!
>>>
>>> - Frank Krygowski
>>
>> Yes, you keep talking about advantages and disadvantages.
>> And that you
>> can do perfectly well without a gun.
>> And I agree with you.
>>
>> But so what?
>>
>> But Frank, in the area in which I do my morning exercise
>> walk there
>> are about 20, maybe 25 families... and I see one guy that
>> rides a
>> bicycle several mornings so quite obviously a bicycle
>> isn't necessary
>> for life to exist so what is the advantage? Cheap
>> transportation? Well
>> yes, but this is a neighborhood where I see almost
>> everyone going off
>> work in the morning in their auto- the guy that rides the
>> bike is
>> retired and owns, in addition to his bicycle (cheap 7
>> speed) a full
>> sized sedan and a motorcycle
>>
>> So tell me the advantage of bicycles?
>
> The advantages GREATLY outweigh the disadvantages, both for
> the rider and for society as a whole.
>
> Advantages: Beneficial exercise. As a result, increased
> health; and as a result, lower medical costs. Much greater
> range than walking. Much greater carrying capacity than
> walking. Far less expense than motorized vehicles. Far less
> resource consumption in a bicycle's construction, compared
> to motorized vehicles. Negligible air pollution when
> operating. Negligible noise pollution. Far less danger to
> other road users. Useful for a much wider range of ages.
> Fosters appreciation of nature. Fosters much more pleasant
> social interactions compared to car use. Far less operating
> expense than motorized vehicles. For many, requires only
> maintenance by owner, not requiring professional services;
> and as a result, teaches mechanical skills and self
> reliance. And health and safety benefits, as already
> mentioned, GREATLY outweigh the minor health and safety risks.
>
> Also: Bicycles are never used in mass killings. In fact,
> murders using bicycles are essentially unheard of.
>

On Sunday, February 20, 2022 at 11:24:36 AM UTC-6, AMuzi wrote:
> On 2/20/2022 10:33 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> > On 2/20/2022 1:35 AM, John B. wrote:
> >> On Sat, 19 Feb 2022 20:33:16 -0800 (PST), Frank Krygowski
> >> <frkr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Saturday, February 19, 2022 at 6:06:30 PM UTC-8, John
> >>> B. wrote:
> >>>> On Sat, 19 Feb 2022 20:01:41 -0500, Frank Krygowski
> >>>> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> On 2/19/2022 6:12 PM, John B. wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> No Andrew nor I have said that AR rifles are no
> >>>>>> problem. In fact I
> >>>>>> went on at some length about the modern USian
> >>>>>> attempting to
> >>>>>> rationalize mass killings by blaming it on AR type
> >>>>>> firearms. And that
> >>>>>> semi-automatic rifles and large - 30 round - magazines
> >>>>>> have been
> >>>>>> available for a hundred years of so.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Your sentence structure above is a bit chaotic, not to
> >>>>> mention your
> >>>>> logic. Are you now claiming you and Andrew did not
> >>>>> defend AR rifles?
> >>>
> >>> Hmm. No answer!
> >>>
> >>>>>> When are you going to face the reality that mass
> >>>>>> shootings are
> >>>>>> perpetrated by bad people. Not by an inert mechanical
> >>>>>> device.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Of course mass shootings are perpetrated by bad people!
> >>>>> The question is,
> >>>>> why do we in America allow bad people to buy mass
> >>>>> shooting tools?
> >>>>>
> >>>> Because your Basic Law allows it.
> >>>> And, whether or not you agree with the Constitution and
> >>>> it's
> >>>> amendments, it is the law of the land.
> >>>>
> >>> You're greatly over-simplifying that, John. The
> >>> constitution does not guarantee
> >>> that any and all guns are allowed. Since the very
> >>> beginning, there have been laws
> >>> restricting certain types of guns. The ones we're
> >>> discussing have been among them.
> >>
> >> Nope. The 2nd amendment states that " the right of the
> >> people to keep
> >> and bear Arms, shall not be infringed". No mention of any
> >> type what so
> >> ever.
> >>
> >> And, your statement "Since the very beginning, there have
> >> been laws
> >> restricting certain types of guns."??
> >>
> >> What exactly do you mean? What is the "very beginning"? If
> >> you mean
> >> from the "very beginning" of the American Colonies then
> >> you are wrong.
> >> From the "very beginning" of the U.S.? 1775? I believe
> >> that you are
> >> wrong again.
> >>
> >>
> >>>> And, I might add, unfortunately you live in a quasi
> >>>> democracy and,
> >>>> unfortunately in a democracy the individual's opinion is
> >>>> essentially
> >>>> meaningless. It is the majority's opinion that counts.
> >>>> And, if
> >>>> Andrew's figures are correct then the 20,000,000 AR
> >>>> owners opinion
> >>>> outweigh your's by a about 10,000 tons.
> >>>
> >>> Again, you're greatly oversimplifying. Or just mistaken.
> >>> From
> >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_opinion_on_gun_control_in_the_United_States
> >>>
> >>> "An August 2019 Fox News poll of registered voters found
> >>> 90% of respondents favored universal background checks,
> >>> 81% supported taking guns from at-risk individuals, and
> >>> 67% favored banning assault weapons.[31]
> >>
> >> Yup a "pole showed"
> >>
> >> But reality is that some 81 million USians own guns and
> >> about firearms
> >> are available in ~44% of all U.S. households.
> >> https://americangunfacts.com/gun-ownership-statistics/
> >> and
> >> Of the two-thirds that don’t own a gun, 11% live in a
> >> household with a
> >> gun. Among that same group of Americans that don’t own a
> >> gun, half say
> >> they might personally own a gun in the future, and a third
> >> say they
> >> would never own a gun.
> >>
> >>
> >>> Or there's Gallup:
> >>> https://news.gallup.com/poll/1645/guns.aspx
> >>>
> >>> I think the reason these things are so easily available
> >>> is because of the outsized
> >>> influence of the corrupt NRA, through the outsized
> >>> influence of big money on U.S. politics.
> >>> All that can be changed, and hopefully will. Even with
> >>> opposition from people like Tom.
> >>>
> >>>>> How easy is it to buy a similar gun where you live? Do
> >>>>> you own one? If
> >>>>> not, how are you getting by?
> >>>> In reality? Very easy. Just bring money.
> >>>
> >>> OK, interesting. I poked around a bit and found this:
> >>> https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-gun-laws-in-Thailand-like
> >>> which claims
> >>> "11. Prohibited Gun And Device ban from Civilian use in
> >>> Thailand:
> >>> Semi-Auto Rifle Center-Fire."
> >>>
> >>> Also, this source
> >>> https://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/thailand
> >>> says "In Thailand, civilians are not allowed to possess
> >>> automatic and semi-automatic rifles [74]
> >>>
> >>>> But what, other being a red herring, does my ownership,
> >>>> or lack there
> >>>> of, have to do with U.S. ownership AR type of rifles?
> >>
> >> Errr... Frank, your question was (above) "How easy is it
> >> to buy a
> >> similar gun where you live" and I told you. And I didn't
> >> exaggerate
> >> even a tiny bit. Unlicensed forearms are as common as dirt
> >> here.
> >
> > Oh. You should have completed the sentence in your reply. It
> > should have said "Easy, just bring money and be willing to
> > violate the firearms laws."
> >
> >
> >>
> >> Every few days you read a news article about someone
> >> holding up a Gold
> >> Store and you can't possibly believe that it was done with
> >> a legal,
> >> registered, gun.
> >>
> >> Today's news:
> >> Man arrested for Phuket currency exchange booth robbery\
> >> "The Yes Exchange 6 Co’s currency booth in front of Big
> >> C Jungceylon
> >> branch on Phang Muang Sai Ko Road in Kathu district was
> >> held up by a
> >> tall man with a gun..."
> >>
> >> I even posted an example of two Canadian "Hit men" flying in,
> >> acquiring pistols, shooting a guy and then flying out a
> >> day or so
> >> later.
> >>
> >>> Here's the relevance: I keep trying to discuss advantages
> >>> vs. disadvantages. Abetting mass
> >>> shootings _should_ be counted as a disadvantage of guns
> >>> with the features we're discussing.
> >>> Whatever the advantages may be - if any - they must be
> >>> minor. I certainly do perfectly well
> >>> without them. You apparently do perfectly fine without
> >>> them too!
> >>>
> >>> - Frank Krygowski
> >>
> >> Yes, you keep talking about advantages and disadvantages.
> >> And that you
> >> can do perfectly well without a gun.
> >> And I agree with you.
> >>
> >> But so what?
> >>
> >> But Frank, in the area in which I do my morning exercise
> >> walk there
> >> are about 20, maybe 25 families... and I see one guy that
> >> rides a
> >> bicycle several mornings so quite obviously a bicycle
> >> isn't necessary
> >> for life to exist so what is the advantage? Cheap
> >> transportation? Well
> >> yes, but this is a neighborhood where I see almost
> >> everyone going off
> >> work in the morning in their auto- the guy that rides the
> >> bike is
> >> retired and owns, in addition to his bicycle (cheap 7
> >> speed) a full
> >> sized sedan and a motorcycle
> >>
> >> So tell me the advantage of bicycles?
> >
> > The advantages GREATLY outweigh the disadvantages, both for
> > the rider and for society as a whole.
> >
> > Advantages: Beneficial exercise. As a result, increased
> > health; and as a result, lower medical costs. Much greater
> > range than walking. Much greater carrying capacity than
> > walking. Far less expense than motorized vehicles. Far less
> > resource consumption in a bicycle's construction, compared
> > to motorized vehicles. Negligible air pollution when
> > operating. Negligible noise pollution. Far less danger to
> > other road users. Useful for a much wider range of ages.
> > Fosters appreciation of nature. Fosters much more pleasant
> > social interactions compared to car use. Far less operating
> > expense than motorized vehicles. For many, requires only
> > maintenance by owner, not requiring professional services;
> > and as a result, teaches mechanical skills and self
> > reliance. And health and safety benefits, as already
> > mentioned, GREATLY outweigh the minor health and safety risks.
> >
> > Also: Bicycles are never used in mass killings. In fact,
> > murders using bicycles are essentially unheard of.
> >
> Yes, rare since carjacking is so simple and popular for
> criminals. That said, not unknown. I've linked here over the
> years drive-by shootings by cyclists.
> --
> Andrew Muzi
> <www.yellowjersey.org/>
> Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On Sunday, February 20, 2022 at 12:18:09 AM UTC-8, russellseaton1@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Saturday, February 19, 2022 at 3:57:19 PM UTC-6, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Friday, February 18, 2022 at 2:42:30 PM UTC-8, russell...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > > On Friday, February 18, 2022 at 10:16:21 AM UTC-6, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > On Friday, February 18, 2022 at 7:52:23 AM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> > > > > On 2/17/2022 7:48 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
> > > > > > On Thursday, February 17, 2022 at 4:21:07 PM UTC-8, frkr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > >> On Thursday, February 17, 2022 at 2:32:52 PM UTC-8, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> So if you wish to believe that there is a real reason that covid-19 is only reported with pneumonia patients who just happened to test positive using PCR, that the inventor of the chemistry (Nobel Prize winner Dr. Kary Mullis) said could not be used in this manner (Dr. Mullis termed it "abusing" the chemistry) you can, but there is no standing for it.
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> I've taken great care to use nothing but documented evidence and have not insulted you. So if you are going to debate this back remember that.
> > > > > >> Why are you wasting time trying to convince us on r.b.tech??? Why aren't you making yourself rich and famous by
> > > > > >> educating the rest of the world?
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Can it be that nobody else will even listen to your nonsense?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Frank, unlike you, I don't feel that my life is a loss because I'm not famous. I am rich enough for me. ...
> > > > >
> > > > > That and the rest of Tom's post were the trademarked Kunich deflection
> > > > > tactic: when Tom can't answer a question he switches to yet another
> > > > > off-topic rant.
> > > > >
> > > > > Tom, your nattering nonsense on COVID convinces nobody here and ruins
> > > > > this discussion group. You are destructive and ineffective.
> > > > >
> > > > > And even _IF_ you convinced absolutely everybody here that you know more
> > > > > than the public health officials of every country in the world, it would
> > > > > STILL make no difference.
> > > > >
> > > > > You're an impotent, effete old man who pollutes this group to pretend to
> > > > > have some tiny influence. But all you're achieving is to disgust people
> > > > > and drive them away.
> > > > >
> > > > > Grow some balls! Take your brilliance out into the rest of the world.
> > > > > Write articles that people will actually read. Get on TV. Get on radio.
> > > > >
> > > > > Or just get a robe and sandals and walk around with a big "COVID IS
> > > > > FAKE" sign. Show the world who you really are!
> > > > Frank, I couldn't care less if you would rather believe Fauci than me. That simply makes you a target for the people you have stolen everything from. That makes you a target for Fauci's vaccines.
> > > You have confused me again Tommy. Above you write that the people Frank STOLE from, everything they own, are going to make Frank their target because Dr. Anthony Fauci tells them to hate Frank. A logical person would think the people Frank STOLE from would hate Frank because he STOLE everything they own. These victims would not need Dr. Fauci telling them to hate, target, Frank. Theft victims always hate the thiefs. Without any encouragement from anyone else. Apparently you have a different understanding of the ways of the world.
> > > >
> > > > You don't want to heed my warnings? All the better for me.
> > > >
> > > > You continue to believe that unless you're famous your opinions aren't important. Am I supposed to believe someone that has never actually worked in medical science? Certainly other people are now saying what I've been saying for 2 years. Don't listen to them either. Or take Russell's route and try to blacken their reputations because they are saying what you don't like.
> > > I'm not trying to blacken anyone's reputation. Most people who need a blackened reputation do very well at that by simply speaking. I merely educate, elucidate, people's reputation. By showing what others have written and proven about someone.
> > Russell, every time you post you educate people in just how little education you have yourself. Your English is so bad that you do not know the difference between "stolen" (past tense of the verb "steal") and "stole" (noun for an ecclesiastical vestment or a woman's scarf.) You make up meanings of things as you go along and then are insulted when people have no idea what you're talking about.
> >
> > You claim to be an accountant but like your English, you do not have the use of simple mathematics. Perhaps you should think about what you appear to others as.
> Simple mathematics? You mean like the numerous times I posted the S&P 500 and Dow Jones indices at the beginning and ands of the years for Bush 2, Obama, Trump, and Biden? And calculated the annual returns. And showed very easily that people made lots of money under Obama. But not you apparently. And showed that the markets did go up for three of the four years under Trump. But Trump LOST money in 2018. Simple mathematics like that? Even someone without a high school education should be able to do simple mathematics like that. You learn how to calculate percentages in elementary school. Yet you cannot do it?

I am quite sure that you're going to defend the Biden Recession any second. Since you won't be forced to serve, you'll also support Biden's war as well. The Ukraine? No, Biden's first order after being sworn in was to reinvade Syria as Obama did. Trump had pulled us out of that illegal war that you find so appealing.

On Sunday, February 20, 2022 at 9:13:03 AM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On 2/20/2022 11:51 AM, AMuzi wrote:
> > On 2/19/2022 10:33 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> >> On Saturday, February 19, 2022 at 6:06:30 PM UTC-8, John B. wrote:
> >>> On Sat, 19 Feb 2022 20:01:41 -0500, Frank Krygowski
> >>> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On 2/19/2022 6:12 PM, John B. wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> No Andrew nor I have said that AR rifles are no problem. In fact I
> >>>>> went on at some length about the modern USian attempting to
> >>>>> rationalize mass killings by blaming it on AR type firearms. And that
> >>>>> semi-automatic rifles and large - 30 round - magazines have been
> >>>>> available for a hundred years of so.
> >>>>
> >>>> Your sentence structure above is a bit chaotic, not to mention your
> >>>> logic. Are you now claiming you and Andrew did not defend AR rifles?
> >>
> >> Hmm. No answer!
> >>
> >>>>> When are you going to face the reality that mass shootings are
> >>>>> perpetrated by bad people. Not by an inert mechanical device.
> >>>>
> >>>> Of course mass shootings are perpetrated by bad people! The question
> >>>> is,
> >>>> why do we in America allow bad people to buy mass shooting tools?
> >>>>
> >>> Because your Basic Law allows it.
> >>> And, whether or not you agree with the Constitution and it's
> >>> amendments, it is the law of the land.
> >>>
> >> You're greatly over-simplifying that, John. The constitution does not
> >> guarantee
> >> that any and all guns are allowed. Since the very beginning, there
> >> have been laws
> >> restricting certain types of guns. The ones we're discussing have been
> >> among them.
> >>
> >>> And, I might add, unfortunately you live in a quasi democracy and,
> >>> unfortunately in a democracy the individual's opinion is essentially
> >>> meaningless. It is the majority's opinion that counts. And, if
> >>> Andrew's figures are correct then the 20,000,000 AR owners opinion
> >>> outweigh your's by a about 10,000 tons.
> >>
> >> Again, you're greatly oversimplifying. Or just mistaken.
> >> From
> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_opinion_on_gun_control_in_the_United_States
> >>
> >> "An August 2019 Fox News poll of registered voters found 90% of
> >> respondents favored universal background checks, 81% supported taking
> >> guns from at-risk individuals, and 67% favored banning assault
> >> weapons.[31]
> >>
> >> Or there's Gallup:
> >> https://news.gallup.com/poll/1645/guns.aspx
> >>
> >> I think the reason these things are so easily available is because of
> >> the outsized
> >> influence of the corrupt NRA, through the outsized influence of big
> >> money on U.S. politics.
> >> All that can be changed, and hopefully will. Even with opposition from
> >> people like Tom.
> >>
> >>>> How easy is it to buy a similar gun where you live? Do you own one? If
> >>>> not, how are you getting by?
> >>> In reality? Very easy. Just bring money.
> >>
> >> OK, interesting. I poked around a bit and found this:
> >> https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-gun-laws-in-Thailand-like
> >> which claims
> >> "11. Prohibited Gun And Device ban from Civilian use in Thailand:
> >> Semi-Auto Rifle Center-Fire."
> >>
> >> Also, this source
> >> https://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/thailand
> >> says "In Thailand, civilians are not allowed to possess automatic and
> >> semi-automatic rifles [74]
> >>
> >>> But what, other being a red herring, does my ownership, or lack there
> >>> of, have to do with U.S. ownership AR type of rifles?
> >>
> >> Here's the relevance: I keep trying to discuss advantages vs.
> >> disadvantages. Abetting mass
> >> shootings _should_ be counted as a disadvantage of guns with the
> >> features we're discussing.
> >> Whatever the advantages may be - if any - they must be minor. I
> >> certainly do perfectly well
> >> without them. You apparently do perfectly fine without them too!
> >>
> >> - Frank Krygowski
> >>
> >
> > Well then, that's settled.
> >
> > Now you need only get 38 States to repeal the 2d Amendment:
> > https://constitutionus.com/constitution/amendments/ratifying-constitutional-amendments/
> >
> >
> > If you're correct on 'groundswell support', should be easy.
> 200+ years of history and dozens of court cases indicate that the
> amendment doesn't need to be repealed to enable more rational gun policies.

The most rational approach to gun law is to allow some homeless drug addict to throw you in front of a bus since he would be released within the hour.

On Sunday, February 20, 2022 at 9:39:30 AM UTC-8, TCL wrote:
> On Sunday, February 20, 2022 at 11:24:36 AM UTC-6, AMuzi wrote:
> > On 2/20/2022 10:33 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> > > On 2/20/2022 1:35 AM, John B. wrote:
> > >> On Sat, 19 Feb 2022 20:33:16 -0800 (PST), Frank Krygowski
> > >> <frkr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> On Saturday, February 19, 2022 at 6:06:30 PM UTC-8, John
> > >>> B. wrote:
> > >>>> On Sat, 19 Feb 2022 20:01:41 -0500, Frank Krygowski
> > >>>> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > >>>>
> > >>>>> On 2/19/2022 6:12 PM, John B. wrote:
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> No Andrew nor I have said that AR rifles are no
> > >>>>>> problem. In fact I
> > >>>>>> went on at some length about the modern USian
> > >>>>>> attempting to
> > >>>>>> rationalize mass killings by blaming it on AR type
> > >>>>>> firearms. And that
> > >>>>>> semi-automatic rifles and large - 30 round - magazines
> > >>>>>> have been
> > >>>>>> available for a hundred years of so.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Your sentence structure above is a bit chaotic, not to
> > >>>>> mention your
> > >>>>> logic. Are you now claiming you and Andrew did not
> > >>>>> defend AR rifles?
> > >>>
> > >>> Hmm. No answer!
> > >>>
> > >>>>>> When are you going to face the reality that mass
> > >>>>>> shootings are
> > >>>>>> perpetrated by bad people. Not by an inert mechanical
> > >>>>>> device.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Of course mass shootings are perpetrated by bad people!
> > >>>>> The question is,
> > >>>>> why do we in America allow bad people to buy mass
> > >>>>> shooting tools?
> > >>>>>
> > >>>> Because your Basic Law allows it.
> > >>>> And, whether or not you agree with the Constitution and
> > >>>> it's
> > >>>> amendments, it is the law of the land.
> > >>>>
> > >>> You're greatly over-simplifying that, John. The
> > >>> constitution does not guarantee
> > >>> that any and all guns are allowed. Since the very
> > >>> beginning, there have been laws
> > >>> restricting certain types of guns. The ones we're
> > >>> discussing have been among them.
> > >>
> > >> Nope. The 2nd amendment states that " the right of the
> > >> people to keep
> > >> and bear Arms, shall not be infringed". No mention of any
> > >> type what so
> > >> ever.
> > >>
> > >> And, your statement "Since the very beginning, there have
> > >> been laws
> > >> restricting certain types of guns."??
> > >>
> > >> What exactly do you mean? What is the "very beginning"? If
> > >> you mean
> > >> from the "very beginning" of the American Colonies then
> > >> you are wrong.
> > >> From the "very beginning" of the U.S.? 1775? I believe
> > >> that you are
> > >> wrong again.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>>> And, I might add, unfortunately you live in a quasi
> > >>>> democracy and,
> > >>>> unfortunately in a democracy the individual's opinion is
> > >>>> essentially
> > >>>> meaningless. It is the majority's opinion that counts.
> > >>>> And, if
> > >>>> Andrew's figures are correct then the 20,000,000 AR
> > >>>> owners opinion
> > >>>> outweigh your's by a about 10,000 tons.
> > >>>
> > >>> Again, you're greatly oversimplifying. Or just mistaken.
> > >>> From
> > >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_opinion_on_gun_control_in_the_United_States
> > >>>
> > >>> "An August 2019 Fox News poll of registered voters found
> > >>> 90% of respondents favored universal background checks,
> > >>> 81% supported taking guns from at-risk individuals, and
> > >>> 67% favored banning assault weapons.[31]
> > >>
> > >> Yup a "pole showed"
> > >>
> > >> But reality is that some 81 million USians own guns and
> > >> about firearms
> > >> are available in ~44% of all U.S. households.
> > >> https://americangunfacts.com/gun-ownership-statistics/
> > >> and
> > >> Of the two-thirds that don’t own a gun, 11% live in a
> > >> household with a
> > >> gun. Among that same group of Americans that don’t own a
> > >> gun, half say
> > >> they might personally own a gun in the future, and a third
> > >> say they
> > >> would never own a gun.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>> Or there's Gallup:
> > >>> https://news.gallup.com/poll/1645/guns.aspx
> > >>>
> > >>> I think the reason these things are so easily available
> > >>> is because of the outsized
> > >>> influence of the corrupt NRA, through the outsized
> > >>> influence of big money on U.S. politics.
> > >>> All that can be changed, and hopefully will. Even with
> > >>> opposition from people like Tom.
> > >>>
> > >>>>> How easy is it to buy a similar gun where you live? Do
> > >>>>> you own one? If
> > >>>>> not, how are you getting by?
> > >>>> In reality? Very easy. Just bring money.
> > >>>
> > >>> OK, interesting. I poked around a bit and found this:
> > >>> https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-gun-laws-in-Thailand-like
> > >>> which claims
> > >>> "11. Prohibited Gun And Device ban from Civilian use in
> > >>> Thailand:
> > >>> Semi-Auto Rifle Center-Fire."
> > >>>
> > >>> Also, this source
> > >>> https://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/thailand
> > >>> says "In Thailand, civilians are not allowed to possess
> > >>> automatic and semi-automatic rifles [74]
> > >>>
> > >>>> But what, other being a red herring, does my ownership,
> > >>>> or lack there
> > >>>> of, have to do with U.S. ownership AR type of rifles?
> > >>
> > >> Errr... Frank, your question was (above) "How easy is it
> > >> to buy a
> > >> similar gun where you live" and I told you. And I didn't
> > >> exaggerate
> > >> even a tiny bit. Unlicensed forearms are as common as dirt
> > >> here.
> > >
> > > Oh. You should have completed the sentence in your reply. It
> > > should have said "Easy, just bring money and be willing to
> > > violate the firearms laws."
> > >
> > >
> > >>
> > >> Every few days you read a news article about someone
> > >> holding up a Gold
> > >> Store and you can't possibly believe that it was done with
> > >> a legal,
> > >> registered, gun.
> > >>
> > >> Today's news:
> > >> Man arrested for Phuket currency exchange booth robbery\
> > >> "The Yes Exchange 6 Co’s currency booth in front of Big
> > >> C Jungceylon
> > >> branch on Phang Muang Sai Ko Road in Kathu district was
> > >> held up by a
> > >> tall man with a gun..."
> > >>
> > >> I even posted an example of two Canadian "Hit men" flying in,
> > >> acquiring pistols, shooting a guy and then flying out a
> > >> day or so
> > >> later.
> > >>
> > >>> Here's the relevance: I keep trying to discuss advantages
> > >>> vs. disadvantages. Abetting mass
> > >>> shootings _should_ be counted as a disadvantage of guns
> > >>> with the features we're discussing.
> > >>> Whatever the advantages may be - if any - they must be
> > >>> minor. I certainly do perfectly well
> > >>> without them. You apparently do perfectly fine without
> > >>> them too!
> > >>>
> > >>> - Frank Krygowski
> > >>
> > >> Yes, you keep talking about advantages and disadvantages.
> > >> And that you
> > >> can do perfectly well without a gun.
> > >> And I agree with you.
> > >>
> > >> But so what?
> > >>
> > >> But Frank, in the area in which I do my morning exercise
> > >> walk there
> > >> are about 20, maybe 25 families... and I see one guy that
> > >> rides a
> > >> bicycle several mornings so quite obviously a bicycle
> > >> isn't necessary
> > >> for life to exist so what is the advantage? Cheap
> > >> transportation? Well
> > >> yes, but this is a neighborhood where I see almost
> > >> everyone going off
> > >> work in the morning in their auto- the guy that rides the
> > >> bike is
> > >> retired and owns, in addition to his bicycle (cheap 7
> > >> speed) a full
> > >> sized sedan and a motorcycle
> > >>
> > >> So tell me the advantage of bicycles?
> > >
> > > The advantages GREATLY outweigh the disadvantages, both for
> > > the rider and for society as a whole.
> > >
> > > Advantages: Beneficial exercise. As a result, increased
> > > health; and as a result, lower medical costs. Much greater
> > > range than walking. Much greater carrying capacity than
> > > walking. Far less expense than motorized vehicles. Far less
> > > resource consumption in a bicycle's construction, compared
> > > to motorized vehicles. Negligible air pollution when
> > > operating. Negligible noise pollution. Far less danger to
> > > other road users. Useful for a much wider range of ages.
> > > Fosters appreciation of nature. Fosters much more pleasant
> > > social interactions compared to car use. Far less operating
> > > expense than motorized vehicles. For many, requires only
> > > maintenance by owner, not requiring professional services;
> > > and as a result, teaches mechanical skills and self
> > > reliance. And health and safety benefits, as already
> > > mentioned, GREATLY outweigh the minor health and safety risks.
> > >
> > > Also: Bicycles are never used in mass killings. In fact,
> > > murders using bicycles are essentially unheard of.
> > >
> > Yes, rare since carjacking is so simple and popular for
> > criminals. That said, not unknown. I've linked here over the
> > years drive-by shootings by cyclists.
> > --
> > Andrew Muzi
> > <www.yellowjersey.org/>
> > Open every day since 1 April, 1971
> "Rational" and "Common Sense" gun laws, the Left's favorite words when trying to take away our 2nd amendment rights. That's the way they got the Canadians to first agree to some gun restrictions; now it's almost impossible to own a gun in Canada. As a Canadian friend once told me, never let the anti-gun group get a toe-hold in restricting our 2nd amendment rights or they will continue to chip away at those rights until they are gone.

On 2/20/2022 11:13 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On 2/20/2022 11:51 AM, AMuzi wrote:
>> On 2/19/2022 10:33 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>> On Saturday, February 19, 2022 at 6:06:30 PM UTC-8, John
>>> B. wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 19 Feb 2022 20:01:41 -0500, Frank Krygowski
>>>> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 2/19/2022 6:12 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No Andrew nor I have said that AR rifles are no
>>>>>> problem. In fact I
>>>>>> went on at some length about the modern USian
>>>>>> attempting to
>>>>>> rationalize mass killings by blaming it on AR type
>>>>>> firearms. And that
>>>>>> semi-automatic rifles and large - 30 round - magazines
>>>>>> have been
>>>>>> available for a hundred years of so.
>>>>>
>>>>> Your sentence structure above is a bit chaotic, not to
>>>>> mention your
>>>>> logic. Are you now claiming you and Andrew did not
>>>>> defend AR rifles?
>>>
>>> Hmm. No answer!
>>>
>>>>>> When are you going to face the reality that mass
>>>>>> shootings are
>>>>>> perpetrated by bad people. Not by an inert mechanical
>>>>>> device.
>>>>>
>>>>> Of course mass shootings are perpetrated by bad people!
>>>>> The question is,
>>>>> why do we in America allow bad people to buy mass
>>>>> shooting tools?
>>>>>
>>>> Because your Basic Law allows it.
>>>> And, whether or not you agree with the Constitution and
>>>> it's
>>>> amendments, it is the law of the land.
>>>>
>>> You're greatly over-simplifying that, John. The
>>> constitution does not guarantee
>>> that any and all guns are allowed. Since the very
>>> beginning, there have been laws
>>> restricting certain types of guns. The ones we're
>>> discussing have been among them.
>>>
>>>> And, I might add, unfortunately you live in a quasi
>>>> democracy and,
>>>> unfortunately in a democracy the individual's opinion is
>>>> essentially
>>>> meaningless. It is the majority's opinion that counts.
>>>> And, if
>>>> Andrew's figures are correct then the 20,000,000 AR
>>>> owners opinion
>>>> outweigh your's by a about 10,000 tons.
>>>
>>> Again, you're greatly oversimplifying. Or just mistaken.
>>> Â From
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_opinion_on_gun_control_in_the_United_States
>>>
>>> "An August 2019 Fox News poll of registered voters found
>>> 90% of respondents favored universal background checks,
>>> 81% supported taking guns from at-risk individuals, and
>>> 67% favored banning assault weapons.[31]
>>>
>>> Or there's Gallup:
>>> https://news.gallup.com/poll/1645/guns.aspx
>>>
>>> I think the reason these things are so easily available
>>> is because of the outsized
>>> influence of the corrupt NRA, through the outsized
>>> influence of big money on U.S. politics.
>>> All that can be changed, and hopefully will. Even with
>>> opposition from people like Tom.
>>>
>>>>> How easy is it to buy a similar gun where you live? Do
>>>>> you own one? If
>>>>> not, how are you getting by?
>>>> In reality? Very easy. Just bring money.
>>>
>>> OK, interesting. I poked around a bit and found this:
>>> https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-gun-laws-in-Thailand-like
>>> which claims
>>> "11. Prohibited Gun And Device ban from Civilian use in
>>> Thailand:
>>> Â Â Â Â Semi-Auto Rifle Center-Fire."
>>>
>>> Also, this source
>>> https://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/thailand
>>> says "In Thailand, civilians are not allowed to possess
>>> automatic and semi-automatic rifles [74]
>>>
>>>> But what, other being a red herring, does my ownership,
>>>> or lack there
>>>> of, have to do with U.S. ownership AR type of rifles?
>>>
>>> Here's the relevance: I keep trying to discuss advantages
>>> vs. disadvantages. Abetting mass
>>> shootings _should_ be counted as a disadvantage of guns
>>> with the features we're discussing.
>>> Whatever the advantages may be - if any - they must be
>>> minor. I certainly do perfectly well
>>> without them. You apparently do perfectly fine without
>>> them too!
>>>
>>> - Frank Krygowski
>>>
>>
>> Well then, that's settled.
>>
>> Now you need only get 38 States to repeal the 2d Amendment:
>> https://constitutionus.com/constitution/amendments/ratifying-constitutional-amendments/
>>
>>
>> If you're correct on 'groundswell support', should be easy.
>
> 200+ years of history and dozens of court cases indicate
> that the amendment doesn't need to be repealed to enable
> more rational gun policies.
>
>

"Shall not be infringed" is rational. And clear.

--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On Sun, 20 Feb 2022 11:33:43 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>On 2/20/2022 1:35 AM, John B. wrote:
>> On Sat, 19 Feb 2022 20:33:16 -0800 (PST), Frank Krygowski
>> <frkrygow@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Saturday, February 19, 2022 at 6:06:30 PM UTC-8, John B. wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 19 Feb 2022 20:01:41 -0500, Frank Krygowski
>>>> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 2/19/2022 6:12 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No Andrew nor I have said that AR rifles are no problem. In fact I
>>>>>> went on at some length about the modern USian attempting to
>>>>>> rationalize mass killings by blaming it on AR type firearms. And that
>>>>>> semi-automatic rifles and large - 30 round - magazines have been
>>>>>> available for a hundred years of so.
>>>>>
>>>>> Your sentence structure above is a bit chaotic, not to mention your
>>>>> logic. Are you now claiming you and Andrew did not defend AR rifles?
>>>
>>> Hmm. No answer!
>>>
>>>>>> When are you going to face the reality that mass shootings are
>>>>>> perpetrated by bad people. Not by an inert mechanical device.
>>>>>
>>>>> Of course mass shootings are perpetrated by bad people! The question is,
>>>>> why do we in America allow bad people to buy mass shooting tools?
>>>>>
>>>> Because your Basic Law allows it.
>>>> And, whether or not you agree with the Constitution and it's
>>>> amendments, it is the law of the land.
>>>>
>>> You're greatly over-simplifying that, John. The constitution does not guarantee
>>> that any and all guns are allowed. Since the very beginning, there have been laws
>>> restricting certain types of guns. The ones we're discussing have been among them.
>>
>> Nope. The 2nd amendment states that " the right of the people to keep
>> and bear Arms, shall not be infringed". No mention of any type what so
>> ever.
>>
>> And, your statement "Since the very beginning, there have been laws
>> restricting certain types of guns."??
>>
>> What exactly do you mean? What is the "very beginning"? If you mean
>> from the "very beginning" of the American Colonies then you are wrong.
>> From the "very beginning" of the U.S.? 1775? I believe that you are
>> wrong again.
>>
>>
>>>> And, I might add, unfortunately you live in a quasi democracy and,
>>>> unfortunately in a democracy the individual's opinion is essentially
>>>> meaningless. It is the majority's opinion that counts. And, if
>>>> Andrew's figures are correct then the 20,000,000 AR owners opinion
>>>> outweigh your's by a about 10,000 tons.
>>>
>>> Again, you're greatly oversimplifying. Or just mistaken.
>>>From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_opinion_on_gun_control_in_the_United_States
>>> "An August 2019 Fox News poll of registered voters found 90% of respondents favored universal background checks, 81% supported taking guns from at-risk individuals, and 67% favored banning assault weapons.[31]
>>
>> Yup a "pole showed"
>>
>> But reality is that some 81 million USians own guns and about firearms
>> are available in ~44% of all U.S. households.
>> https://americangunfacts.com/gun-ownership-statistics/
>> and
>> Of the two-thirds that don’t own a gun, 11% live in a household with a
>> gun. Among that same group of Americans that don’t own a gun, half say
>> they might personally own a gun in the future, and a third say they
>> would never own a gun.
>>
>>
>>> Or there's Gallup:
>>> https://news.gallup.com/poll/1645/guns.aspx
>>>
>>> I think the reason these things are so easily available is because of the outsized
>>> influence of the corrupt NRA, through the outsized influence of big money on U.S. politics.
>>> All that can be changed, and hopefully will. Even with opposition from people like Tom.
>>>
>>>>> How easy is it to buy a similar gun where you live? Do you own one? If
>>>>> not, how are you getting by?
>>>> In reality? Very easy. Just bring money.
>>>
>>> OK, interesting. I poked around a bit and found this:
>>> https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-gun-laws-in-Thailand-like
>>> which claims
>>> "11. Prohibited Gun And Device ban from Civilian use in Thailand:
>>> Semi-Auto Rifle Center-Fire."
>>>
>>> Also, this source
>>> https://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/thailand
>>> says "In Thailand, civilians are not allowed to possess automatic and semi-automatic rifles [74]
>>>
>>>> But what, other being a red herring, does my ownership, or lack there
>>>> of, have to do with U.S. ownership AR type of rifles?
>>
>> Errr... Frank, your question was (above) "How easy is it to buy a
>> similar gun where you live" and I told you. And I didn't exaggerate
>> even a tiny bit. Unlicensed forearms are as common as dirt here.
>
>Oh. You should have completed the sentence in your reply. It should have
>said "Easy, just bring money and be willing to violate the firearms laws."

Frank, people, in all countries, violate laws, on a daily basis, and
Thailand is no different.

>
>>
>> Every few days you read a news article about someone holding up a Gold
>> Store and you can't possibly believe that it was done with a legal,
>> registered, gun.
>>
>> Today's news:
>> Man arrested for Phuket currency exchange booth robbery\
>> "The Yes Exchange 6 Co’s currency booth in front of Big C Jungceylon
>> branch on Phang Muang Sai Ko Road in Kathu district was held up by a
>> tall man with a gun..."
>>
>> I even posted an example of two Canadian "Hit men" flying in,
>> acquiring pistols, shooting a guy and then flying out a day or so
>> later.
>>
>>> Here's the relevance: I keep trying to discuss advantages vs. disadvantages. Abetting mass
>>> shootings _should_ be counted as a disadvantage of guns with the features we're discussing.
>>> Whatever the advantages may be - if any - they must be minor. I certainly do perfectly well
>>> without them. You apparently do perfectly fine without them too!
>>>
>>> - Frank Krygowski
>>
>> Yes, you keep talking about advantages and disadvantages. And that you
>> can do perfectly well without a gun.
>> And I agree with you.
>>
>> But so what?
>>
>> But Frank, in the area in which I do my morning exercise walk there
>> are about 20, maybe 25 families... and I see one guy that rides a
>> bicycle several mornings so quite obviously a bicycle isn't necessary
>> for life to exist so what is the advantage? Cheap transportation? Well
>> yes, but this is a neighborhood where I see almost everyone going off
>> work in the morning in their auto- the guy that rides the bike is
>> retired and owns, in addition to his bicycle (cheap 7 speed) a full
>> sized sedan and a motorcycle
>>
>> So tell me the advantage of bicycles?
>
>The advantages GREATLY outweigh the disadvantages, both for the rider
>and for society as a whole.
>
>Advantages: Beneficial exercise. As a result, increased health; and as a
>result, lower medical costs. Much greater range than walking. Much
>greater carrying capacity than walking. Far less expense than motorized
>vehicles. Far less resource consumption in a bicycle's construction,
>compared to motorized vehicles. Negligible air pollution when operating.
>Negligible noise pollution. Far less danger to other road users. Useful
>for a much wider range of ages. Fosters appreciation of nature. Fosters
>much more pleasant social interactions compared to car use. Far less
>operating expense than motorized vehicles. For many, requires only
>maintenance by owner, not requiring professional services; and as a
>result, teaches mechanical skills and self reliance. And health and
>safety benefits, as already mentioned, GREATLY outweigh the minor health
>and safety risks.
>
>Also: Bicycles are never used in mass killings. In fact, murders using
>bicycles are essentially unheard of.

On Sun, 20 Feb 2022 13:04:57 -0600, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:

>On 2/20/2022 11:13 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> On 2/20/2022 11:51 AM, AMuzi wrote:
>>> On 2/19/2022 10:33 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>> On Saturday, February 19, 2022 at 6:06:30 PM UTC-8, John
>>>> B. wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, 19 Feb 2022 20:01:41 -0500, Frank Krygowski
>>>>> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2/19/2022 6:12 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No Andrew nor I have said that AR rifles are no
>>>>>>> problem. In fact I
>>>>>>> went on at some length about the modern USian
>>>>>>> attempting to
>>>>>>> rationalize mass killings by blaming it on AR type
>>>>>>> firearms. And that
>>>>>>> semi-automatic rifles and large - 30 round - magazines
>>>>>>> have been
>>>>>>> available for a hundred years of so.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Your sentence structure above is a bit chaotic, not to
>>>>>> mention your
>>>>>> logic. Are you now claiming you and Andrew did not
>>>>>> defend AR rifles?
>>>>
>>>> Hmm. No answer!
>>>>
>>>>>>> When are you going to face the reality that mass
>>>>>>> shootings are
>>>>>>> perpetrated by bad people. Not by an inert mechanical
>>>>>>> device.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Of course mass shootings are perpetrated by bad people!
>>>>>> The question is,
>>>>>> why do we in America allow bad people to buy mass
>>>>>> shooting tools?
>>>>>>
>>>>> Because your Basic Law allows it.
>>>>> And, whether or not you agree with the Constitution and
>>>>> it's
>>>>> amendments, it is the law of the land.
>>>>>
>>>> You're greatly over-simplifying that, John. The
>>>> constitution does not guarantee
>>>> that any and all guns are allowed. Since the very
>>>> beginning, there have been laws
>>>> restricting certain types of guns. The ones we're
>>>> discussing have been among them.
>>>>
>>>>> And, I might add, unfortunately you live in a quasi
>>>>> democracy and,
>>>>> unfortunately in a democracy the individual's opinion is
>>>>> essentially
>>>>> meaningless. It is the majority's opinion that counts.
>>>>> And, if
>>>>> Andrew's figures are correct then the 20,000,000 AR
>>>>> owners opinion
>>>>> outweigh your's by a about 10,000 tons.
>>>>
>>>> Again, you're greatly oversimplifying. Or just mistaken.
>>>> Â From
>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_opinion_on_gun_control_in_the_United_States
>>>>
>>>> "An August 2019 Fox News poll of registered voters found
>>>> 90% of respondents favored universal background checks,
>>>> 81% supported taking guns from at-risk individuals, and
>>>> 67% favored banning assault weapons.[31]
>>>>
>>>> Or there's Gallup:
>>>> https://news.gallup.com/poll/1645/guns.aspx
>>>>
>>>> I think the reason these things are so easily available
>>>> is because of the outsized
>>>> influence of the corrupt NRA, through the outsized
>>>> influence of big money on U.S. politics.
>>>> All that can be changed, and hopefully will. Even with
>>>> opposition from people like Tom.
>>>>
>>>>>> How easy is it to buy a similar gun where you live? Do
>>>>>> you own one? If
>>>>>> not, how are you getting by?
>>>>> In reality? Very easy. Just bring money.
>>>>
>>>> OK, interesting. I poked around a bit and found this:
>>>> https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-gun-laws-in-Thailand-like
>>>> which claims
>>>> "11. Prohibited Gun And Device ban from Civilian use in
>>>> Thailand:
>>>> Â Â Â Â Semi-Auto Rifle Center-Fire."
>>>>
>>>> Also, this source
>>>> https://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/thailand
>>>> says "In Thailand, civilians are not allowed to possess
>>>> automatic and semi-automatic rifles [74]
>>>>
>>>>> But what, other being a red herring, does my ownership,
>>>>> or lack there
>>>>> of, have to do with U.S. ownership AR type of rifles?
>>>>
>>>> Here's the relevance: I keep trying to discuss advantages
>>>> vs. disadvantages. Abetting mass
>>>> shootings _should_ be counted as a disadvantage of guns
>>>> with the features we're discussing.
>>>> Whatever the advantages may be - if any - they must be
>>>> minor. I certainly do perfectly well
>>>> without them. You apparently do perfectly fine without
>>>> them too!
>>>>
>>>> - Frank Krygowski
>>>>
>>>
>>> Well then, that's settled.
>>>
>>> Now you need only get 38 States to repeal the 2d Amendment:
>>> https://constitutionus.com/constitution/amendments/ratifying-constitutional-amendments/
>>>
>>>
>>> If you're correct on 'groundswell support', should be easy.
>>
>> 200+ years of history and dozens of court cases indicate
>> that the amendment doesn't need to be repealed to enable
>> more rational gun policies.
>>
>>
>
>"Shall not be infringed" is rational. And clear.

I believe that the point that Frank, and probably a lot of other
"anti-gunners" either miss, or disregard, is that the U.S., is, to put
it in simple terms, a far less law abiding land then other so called
"civilized" countries.

Frank often compares Canada with the U.S. in his arguments against gun
owners so, out of curiosity, I did a bit of research and:

Incarceration rate, i.e. people in prison
Canada - 104/100,000
U.S. - 629

Rape
Canada - 1.69
U.S. - 27.31

Assault
Canada - 150.61
U.S. - 246.84

Homicide
Canada – 1.76
U.S. - 4.96

Auto Theft
Canada – 268.3
U.S. - 390.2
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Sunday, February 20, 2022 at 5:07:56 PM UTC-6, John B. wrote:
> On Sun, 20 Feb 2022 11:33:43 -0500, Frank Krygowski
> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> >On 2/20/2022 1:35 AM, John B. wrote:
> >> On Sat, 19 Feb 2022 20:33:16 -0800 (PST), Frank Krygowski
> >> <frkr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Saturday, February 19, 2022 at 6:06:30 PM UTC-8, John B. wrote:
> >>>> On Sat, 19 Feb 2022 20:01:41 -0500, Frank Krygowski
> >>>> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> On 2/19/2022 6:12 PM, John B. wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> No Andrew nor I have said that AR rifles are no problem. In fact I
> >>>>>> went on at some length about the modern USian attempting to
> >>>>>> rationalize mass killings by blaming it on AR type firearms. And that
> >>>>>> semi-automatic rifles and large - 30 round - magazines have been
> >>>>>> available for a hundred years of so.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Your sentence structure above is a bit chaotic, not to mention your
> >>>>> logic. Are you now claiming you and Andrew did not defend AR rifles?
> >>>
> >>> Hmm. No answer!
> >>>
> >>>>>> When are you going to face the reality that mass shootings are
> >>>>>> perpetrated by bad people. Not by an inert mechanical device.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Of course mass shootings are perpetrated by bad people! The question is,
> >>>>> why do we in America allow bad people to buy mass shooting tools?
> >>>>>
> >>>> Because your Basic Law allows it.
> >>>> And, whether or not you agree with the Constitution and it's
> >>>> amendments, it is the law of the land.
> >>>>
> >>> You're greatly over-simplifying that, John. The constitution does not guarantee
> >>> that any and all guns are allowed. Since the very beginning, there have been laws
> >>> restricting certain types of guns. The ones we're discussing have been among them.
> >>
> >> Nope. The 2nd amendment states that " the right of the people to keep
> >> and bear Arms, shall not be infringed". No mention of any type what so
> >> ever.
> >>
> >> And, your statement "Since the very beginning, there have been laws
> >> restricting certain types of guns."??
> >>
> >> What exactly do you mean? What is the "very beginning"? If you mean
> >> from the "very beginning" of the American Colonies then you are wrong.
> >> From the "very beginning" of the U.S.? 1775? I believe that you are
> >> wrong again.
> >>
> >>
> >>>> And, I might add, unfortunately you live in a quasi democracy and,
> >>>> unfortunately in a democracy the individual's opinion is essentially
> >>>> meaningless. It is the majority's opinion that counts. And, if
> >>>> Andrew's figures are correct then the 20,000,000 AR owners opinion
> >>>> outweigh your's by a about 10,000 tons.
> >>>
> >>> Again, you're greatly oversimplifying. Or just mistaken.
> >>>From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_opinion_on_gun_control_in_the_United_States
> >>> "An August 2019 Fox News poll of registered voters found 90% of respondents favored universal background checks, 81% supported taking guns from at-risk individuals, and 67% favored banning assault weapons.[31]
> >>
> >> Yup a "pole showed"
> >>
> >> But reality is that some 81 million USians own guns and about firearms
> >> are available in ~44% of all U.S. households.
> >> https://americangunfacts.com/gun-ownership-statistics/
> >> and
> >> Of the two-thirds that don’t own a gun, 11% live in a household with a
> >> gun. Among that same group of Americans that don’t own a gun, half say
> >> they might personally own a gun in the future, and a third say they
> >> would never own a gun.
> >>
> >>
> >>> Or there's Gallup:
> >>> https://news.gallup.com/poll/1645/guns.aspx
> >>>
> >>> I think the reason these things are so easily available is because of the outsized
> >>> influence of the corrupt NRA, through the outsized influence of big money on U.S. politics.
> >>> All that can be changed, and hopefully will. Even with opposition from people like Tom.
> >>>
> >>>>> How easy is it to buy a similar gun where you live? Do you own one? If
> >>>>> not, how are you getting by?
> >>>> In reality? Very easy. Just bring money.
> >>>
> >>> OK, interesting. I poked around a bit and found this:
> >>> https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-gun-laws-in-Thailand-like
> >>> which claims
> >>> "11. Prohibited Gun And Device ban from Civilian use in Thailand:
> >>> Semi-Auto Rifle Center-Fire."
> >>>
> >>> Also, this source
> >>> https://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/thailand
> >>> says "In Thailand, civilians are not allowed to possess automatic and semi-automatic rifles [74]
> >>>
> >>>> But what, other being a red herring, does my ownership, or lack there
> >>>> of, have to do with U.S. ownership AR type of rifles?
> >>
> >> Errr... Frank, your question was (above) "How easy is it to buy a
> >> similar gun where you live" and I told you. And I didn't exaggerate
> >> even a tiny bit. Unlicensed forearms are as common as dirt here.
> >
> >Oh. You should have completed the sentence in your reply. It should have
> >said "Easy, just bring money and be willing to violate the firearms laws.."
> Frank, people, in all countries, violate laws, on a daily basis, and
> Thailand is no different.
> >
> >>
> >> Every few days you read a news article about someone holding up a Gold
> >> Store and you can't possibly believe that it was done with a legal,
> >> registered, gun.
> >>
> >> Today's news:
> >> Man arrested for Phuket currency exchange booth robbery\
> >> "The Yes Exchange 6 Co’s currency booth in front of Big C Jungceylon
> >> branch on Phang Muang Sai Ko Road in Kathu district was held up by a
> >> tall man with a gun..."
> >>
> >> I even posted an example of two Canadian "Hit men" flying in,
> >> acquiring pistols, shooting a guy and then flying out a day or so
> >> later.
> >>
> >>> Here's the relevance: I keep trying to discuss advantages vs. disadvantages. Abetting mass
> >>> shootings _should_ be counted as a disadvantage of guns with the features we're discussing.
> >>> Whatever the advantages may be - if any - they must be minor. I certainly do perfectly well
> >>> without them. You apparently do perfectly fine without them too!
> >>>
> >>> - Frank Krygowski
> >>
> >> Yes, you keep talking about advantages and disadvantages. And that you
> >> can do perfectly well without a gun.
> >> And I agree with you.
> >>
> >> But so what?
> >>
> >> But Frank, in the area in which I do my morning exercise walk there
> >> are about 20, maybe 25 families... and I see one guy that rides a
> >> bicycle several mornings so quite obviously a bicycle isn't necessary
> >> for life to exist so what is the advantage? Cheap transportation? Well
> >> yes, but this is a neighborhood where I see almost everyone going off
> >> work in the morning in their auto- the guy that rides the bike is
> >> retired and owns, in addition to his bicycle (cheap 7 speed) a full
> >> sized sedan and a motorcycle
> >>
> >> So tell me the advantage of bicycles?
> >
> >The advantages GREATLY outweigh the disadvantages, both for the rider
> >and for society as a whole.
> >
> >Advantages: Beneficial exercise. As a result, increased health; and as a
> >result, lower medical costs. Much greater range than walking. Much
> >greater carrying capacity than walking. Far less expense than motorized
> >vehicles. Far less resource consumption in a bicycle's construction,
> >compared to motorized vehicles. Negligible air pollution when operating.
> >Negligible noise pollution. Far less danger to other road users. Useful
> >for a much wider range of ages. Fosters appreciation of nature. Fosters
> >much more pleasant social interactions compared to car use. Far less
> >operating expense than motorized vehicles. For many, requires only
> >maintenance by owner, not requiring professional services; and as a
> >result, teaches mechanical skills and self reliance. And health and
> >safety benefits, as already mentioned, GREATLY outweigh the minor health
> >and safety risks.
> >
> >Also: Bicycles are never used in mass killings. In fact, murders using
> >bicycles are essentially unheard of.
> Frank, your arguments have reached the level of idiocy. Tell me again
> about the advantages outweighing the disadvantages? Certainly not in
> the area of exercise as walking or jogging provide more exercising in
> a shorter period of time and at a far lower cost then bicycles.
>
> Of course people like you tell lies about the wonders of the bicycle
> but (I hate to keep repeating the word) reality is that relatively
> very few people in the U.S. actually use a bicycle for anything other
> then play.
> --
> Cheers,
>
> John B.

On Sunday, February 20, 2022 at 5:45:18 PM UTC-8, russellseaton1@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Sunday, February 20, 2022 at 5:07:56 PM UTC-6, John B. wrote:
> > On Sun, 20 Feb 2022 11:33:43 -0500, Frank Krygowski
> > <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >
> > >On 2/20/2022 1:35 AM, John B. wrote:
> > >> On Sat, 19 Feb 2022 20:33:16 -0800 (PST), Frank Krygowski
> > >> <frkr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> On Saturday, February 19, 2022 at 6:06:30 PM UTC-8, John B. wrote:
> > >>>> On Sat, 19 Feb 2022 20:01:41 -0500, Frank Krygowski
> > >>>> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > >>>>
> > >>>>> On 2/19/2022 6:12 PM, John B. wrote:
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> No Andrew nor I have said that AR rifles are no problem. In fact I
> > >>>>>> went on at some length about the modern USian attempting to
> > >>>>>> rationalize mass killings by blaming it on AR type firearms. And that
> > >>>>>> semi-automatic rifles and large - 30 round - magazines have been
> > >>>>>> available for a hundred years of so.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Your sentence structure above is a bit chaotic, not to mention your
> > >>>>> logic. Are you now claiming you and Andrew did not defend AR rifles?
> > >>>
> > >>> Hmm. No answer!
> > >>>
> > >>>>>> When are you going to face the reality that mass shootings are
> > >>>>>> perpetrated by bad people. Not by an inert mechanical device.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Of course mass shootings are perpetrated by bad people! The question is,
> > >>>>> why do we in America allow bad people to buy mass shooting tools?
> > >>>>>
> > >>>> Because your Basic Law allows it.
> > >>>> And, whether or not you agree with the Constitution and it's
> > >>>> amendments, it is the law of the land.
> > >>>>
> > >>> You're greatly over-simplifying that, John. The constitution does not guarantee
> > >>> that any and all guns are allowed. Since the very beginning, there have been laws
> > >>> restricting certain types of guns. The ones we're discussing have been among them.
> > >>
> > >> Nope. The 2nd amendment states that " the right of the people to keep
> > >> and bear Arms, shall not be infringed". No mention of any type what so
> > >> ever.
> > >>
> > >> And, your statement "Since the very beginning, there have been laws
> > >> restricting certain types of guns."??
> > >>
> > >> What exactly do you mean? What is the "very beginning"? If you mean
> > >> from the "very beginning" of the American Colonies then you are wrong.
> > >> From the "very beginning" of the U.S.? 1775? I believe that you are
> > >> wrong again.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>>> And, I might add, unfortunately you live in a quasi democracy and,
> > >>>> unfortunately in a democracy the individual's opinion is essentially
> > >>>> meaningless. It is the majority's opinion that counts. And, if
> > >>>> Andrew's figures are correct then the 20,000,000 AR owners opinion
> > >>>> outweigh your's by a about 10,000 tons.
> > >>>
> > >>> Again, you're greatly oversimplifying. Or just mistaken.
> > >>>From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_opinion_on_gun_control_in_the_United_States
> > >>> "An August 2019 Fox News poll of registered voters found 90% of respondents favored universal background checks, 81% supported taking guns from at-risk individuals, and 67% favored banning assault weapons.[31]
> > >>
> > >> Yup a "pole showed"
> > >>
> > >> But reality is that some 81 million USians own guns and about firearms
> > >> are available in ~44% of all U.S. households.
> > >> https://americangunfacts.com/gun-ownership-statistics/
> > >> and
> > >> Of the two-thirds that don’t own a gun, 11% live in a household with a
> > >> gun. Among that same group of Americans that don’t own a gun, half say
> > >> they might personally own a gun in the future, and a third say they
> > >> would never own a gun.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>> Or there's Gallup:
> > >>> https://news.gallup.com/poll/1645/guns.aspx
> > >>>
> > >>> I think the reason these things are so easily available is because of the outsized
> > >>> influence of the corrupt NRA, through the outsized influence of big money on U.S. politics.
> > >>> All that can be changed, and hopefully will. Even with opposition from people like Tom.
> > >>>
> > >>>>> How easy is it to buy a similar gun where you live? Do you own one? If
> > >>>>> not, how are you getting by?
> > >>>> In reality? Very easy. Just bring money.
> > >>>
> > >>> OK, interesting. I poked around a bit and found this:
> > >>> https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-gun-laws-in-Thailand-like
> > >>> which claims
> > >>> "11. Prohibited Gun And Device ban from Civilian use in Thailand:
> > >>> Semi-Auto Rifle Center-Fire."
> > >>>
> > >>> Also, this source
> > >>> https://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/thailand
> > >>> says "In Thailand, civilians are not allowed to possess automatic and semi-automatic rifles [74]
> > >>>
> > >>>> But what, other being a red herring, does my ownership, or lack there
> > >>>> of, have to do with U.S. ownership AR type of rifles?
> > >>
> > >> Errr... Frank, your question was (above) "How easy is it to buy a
> > >> similar gun where you live" and I told you. And I didn't exaggerate
> > >> even a tiny bit. Unlicensed forearms are as common as dirt here.
> > >
> > >Oh. You should have completed the sentence in your reply. It should have
> > >said "Easy, just bring money and be willing to violate the firearms laws."
> > Frank, people, in all countries, violate laws, on a daily basis, and
> > Thailand is no different.
> > >
> > >>
> > >> Every few days you read a news article about someone holding up a Gold
> > >> Store and you can't possibly believe that it was done with a legal,
> > >> registered, gun.
> > >>
> > >> Today's news:
> > >> Man arrested for Phuket currency exchange booth robbery\
> > >> "The Yes Exchange 6 Co’s currency booth in front of Big C Jungceylon
> > >> branch on Phang Muang Sai Ko Road in Kathu district was held up by a
> > >> tall man with a gun..."
> > >>
> > >> I even posted an example of two Canadian "Hit men" flying in,
> > >> acquiring pistols, shooting a guy and then flying out a day or so
> > >> later.
> > >>
> > >>> Here's the relevance: I keep trying to discuss advantages vs. disadvantages. Abetting mass
> > >>> shootings _should_ be counted as a disadvantage of guns with the features we're discussing.
> > >>> Whatever the advantages may be - if any - they must be minor. I certainly do perfectly well
> > >>> without them. You apparently do perfectly fine without them too!
> > >>>
> > >>> - Frank Krygowski
> > >>
> > >> Yes, you keep talking about advantages and disadvantages. And that you
> > >> can do perfectly well without a gun.
> > >> And I agree with you.
> > >>
> > >> But so what?
> > >>
> > >> But Frank, in the area in which I do my morning exercise walk there
> > >> are about 20, maybe 25 families... and I see one guy that rides a
> > >> bicycle several mornings so quite obviously a bicycle isn't necessary
> > >> for life to exist so what is the advantage? Cheap transportation? Well
> > >> yes, but this is a neighborhood where I see almost everyone going off
> > >> work in the morning in their auto- the guy that rides the bike is
> > >> retired and owns, in addition to his bicycle (cheap 7 speed) a full
> > >> sized sedan and a motorcycle
> > >>
> > >> So tell me the advantage of bicycles?
> > >
> > >The advantages GREATLY outweigh the disadvantages, both for the rider
> > >and for society as a whole.
> > >
> > >Advantages: Beneficial exercise. As a result, increased health; and as a
> > >result, lower medical costs. Much greater range than walking. Much
> > >greater carrying capacity than walking. Far less expense than motorized
> > >vehicles. Far less resource consumption in a bicycle's construction,
> > >compared to motorized vehicles. Negligible air pollution when operating.
> > >Negligible noise pollution. Far less danger to other road users. Useful
> > >for a much wider range of ages. Fosters appreciation of nature. Fosters
> > >much more pleasant social interactions compared to car use. Far less
> > >operating expense than motorized vehicles. For many, requires only
> > >maintenance by owner, not requiring professional services; and as a
> > >result, teaches mechanical skills and self reliance. And health and
> > >safety benefits, as already mentioned, GREATLY outweigh the minor health
> > >and safety risks.
> > >
> > >Also: Bicycles are never used in mass killings. In fact, murders using
> > >bicycles are essentially unheard of.
> > Frank, your arguments have reached the level of idiocy. Tell me again
> > about the advantages outweighing the disadvantages? Certainly not in
> > the area of exercise as walking or jogging provide more exercising in
> > a shorter period of time and at a far lower cost then bicycles.
> >
> > Of course people like you tell lies about the wonders of the bicycle
> > but (I hate to keep repeating the word) reality is that relatively
> > very few people in the U.S. actually use a bicycle for anything other
> > then play.
> > --
> > Cheers,
> >
> > John B.
> Relatively very few guns in the USA are used to kill. People or animals. Do people just want to play with their guns?

On Monday, February 21, 2022 at 10:19:41 AM UTC-6, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, February 20, 2022 at 5:45:18 PM UTC-8, russell...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > On Sunday, February 20, 2022 at 5:07:56 PM UTC-6, John B. wrote:
> > > On Sun, 20 Feb 2022 11:33:43 -0500, Frank Krygowski
> > > <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > >On 2/20/2022 1:35 AM, John B. wrote:
> > > >> On Sat, 19 Feb 2022 20:33:16 -0800 (PST), Frank Krygowski
> > > >> <frkr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >>> On Saturday, February 19, 2022 at 6:06:30 PM UTC-8, John B. wrote:
> > > >>>> On Sat, 19 Feb 2022 20:01:41 -0500, Frank Krygowski
> > > >>>> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>> On 2/19/2022 6:12 PM, John B. wrote:
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> No Andrew nor I have said that AR rifles are no problem. In fact I
> > > >>>>>> went on at some length about the modern USian attempting to
> > > >>>>>> rationalize mass killings by blaming it on AR type firearms. And that
> > > >>>>>> semi-automatic rifles and large - 30 round - magazines have been
> > > >>>>>> available for a hundred years of so.
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> Your sentence structure above is a bit chaotic, not to mention your
> > > >>>>> logic. Are you now claiming you and Andrew did not defend AR rifles?
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Hmm. No answer!
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>>> When are you going to face the reality that mass shootings are
> > > >>>>>> perpetrated by bad people. Not by an inert mechanical device.
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> Of course mass shootings are perpetrated by bad people! The question is,
> > > >>>>> why do we in America allow bad people to buy mass shooting tools?
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>> Because your Basic Law allows it.
> > > >>>> And, whether or not you agree with the Constitution and it's
> > > >>>> amendments, it is the law of the land.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>> You're greatly over-simplifying that, John. The constitution does not guarantee
> > > >>> that any and all guns are allowed. Since the very beginning, there have been laws
> > > >>> restricting certain types of guns. The ones we're discussing have been among them.
> > > >>
> > > >> Nope. The 2nd amendment states that " the right of the people to keep
> > > >> and bear Arms, shall not be infringed". No mention of any type what so
> > > >> ever.
> > > >>
> > > >> And, your statement "Since the very beginning, there have been laws
> > > >> restricting certain types of guns."??
> > > >>
> > > >> What exactly do you mean? What is the "very beginning"? If you mean
> > > >> from the "very beginning" of the American Colonies then you are wrong.
> > > >> From the "very beginning" of the U.S.? 1775? I believe that you are
> > > >> wrong again.
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>>> And, I might add, unfortunately you live in a quasi democracy and,
> > > >>>> unfortunately in a democracy the individual's opinion is essentially
> > > >>>> meaningless. It is the majority's opinion that counts. And, if
> > > >>>> Andrew's figures are correct then the 20,000,000 AR owners opinion
> > > >>>> outweigh your's by a about 10,000 tons.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Again, you're greatly oversimplifying. Or just mistaken.
> > > >>>From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_opinion_on_gun_control_in_the_United_States
> > > >>> "An August 2019 Fox News poll of registered voters found 90% of respondents favored universal background checks, 81% supported taking guns from at-risk individuals, and 67% favored banning assault weapons.[31]
> > > >>
> > > >> Yup a "pole showed"
> > > >>
> > > >> But reality is that some 81 million USians own guns and about firearms
> > > >> are available in ~44% of all U.S. households.
> > > >> https://americangunfacts.com/gun-ownership-statistics/
> > > >> and
> > > >> Of the two-thirds that don’t own a gun, 11% live in a household with a
> > > >> gun. Among that same group of Americans that don’t own a gun, half say
> > > >> they might personally own a gun in the future, and a third say they
> > > >> would never own a gun.
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>> Or there's Gallup:
> > > >>> https://news.gallup.com/poll/1645/guns.aspx
> > > >>>
> > > >>> I think the reason these things are so easily available is because of the outsized
> > > >>> influence of the corrupt NRA, through the outsized influence of big money on U.S. politics.
> > > >>> All that can be changed, and hopefully will. Even with opposition from people like Tom.
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>> How easy is it to buy a similar gun where you live? Do you own one? If
> > > >>>>> not, how are you getting by?
> > > >>>> In reality? Very easy. Just bring money.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> OK, interesting. I poked around a bit and found this:
> > > >>> https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-gun-laws-in-Thailand-like
> > > >>> which claims
> > > >>> "11. Prohibited Gun And Device ban from Civilian use in Thailand:
> > > >>> Semi-Auto Rifle Center-Fire."
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Also, this source
> > > >>> https://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/thailand
> > > >>> says "In Thailand, civilians are not allowed to possess automatic and semi-automatic rifles [74]
> > > >>>
> > > >>>> But what, other being a red herring, does my ownership, or lack there
> > > >>>> of, have to do with U.S. ownership AR type of rifles?
> > > >>
> > > >> Errr... Frank, your question was (above) "How easy is it to buy a
> > > >> similar gun where you live" and I told you. And I didn't exaggerate
> > > >> even a tiny bit. Unlicensed forearms are as common as dirt here.
> > > >
> > > >Oh. You should have completed the sentence in your reply. It should have
> > > >said "Easy, just bring money and be willing to violate the firearms laws."
> > > Frank, people, in all countries, violate laws, on a daily basis, and
> > > Thailand is no different.
> > > >
> > > >>
> > > >> Every few days you read a news article about someone holding up a Gold
> > > >> Store and you can't possibly believe that it was done with a legal,
> > > >> registered, gun.
> > > >>
> > > >> Today's news:
> > > >> Man arrested for Phuket currency exchange booth robbery\
> > > >> "The Yes Exchange 6 Co’s currency booth in front of Big C Jungceylon
> > > >> branch on Phang Muang Sai Ko Road in Kathu district was held up by a
> > > >> tall man with a gun..."
> > > >>
> > > >> I even posted an example of two Canadian "Hit men" flying in,
> > > >> acquiring pistols, shooting a guy and then flying out a day or so
> > > >> later.
> > > >>
> > > >>> Here's the relevance: I keep trying to discuss advantages vs. disadvantages. Abetting mass
> > > >>> shootings _should_ be counted as a disadvantage of guns with the features we're discussing.
> > > >>> Whatever the advantages may be - if any - they must be minor. I certainly do perfectly well
> > > >>> without them. You apparently do perfectly fine without them too!
> > > >>>
> > > >>> - Frank Krygowski
> > > >>
> > > >> Yes, you keep talking about advantages and disadvantages. And that you
> > > >> can do perfectly well without a gun.
> > > >> And I agree with you.
> > > >>
> > > >> But so what?
> > > >>
> > > >> But Frank, in the area in which I do my morning exercise walk there
> > > >> are about 20, maybe 25 families... and I see one guy that rides a
> > > >> bicycle several mornings so quite obviously a bicycle isn't necessary
> > > >> for life to exist so what is the advantage? Cheap transportation? Well
> > > >> yes, but this is a neighborhood where I see almost everyone going off
> > > >> work in the morning in their auto- the guy that rides the bike is
> > > >> retired and owns, in addition to his bicycle (cheap 7 speed) a full
> > > >> sized sedan and a motorcycle
> > > >>
> > > >> So tell me the advantage of bicycles?
> > > >
> > > >The advantages GREATLY outweigh the disadvantages, both for the rider
> > > >and for society as a whole.
> > > >
> > > >Advantages: Beneficial exercise. As a result, increased health; and as a
> > > >result, lower medical costs. Much greater range than walking. Much
> > > >greater carrying capacity than walking. Far less expense than motorized
> > > >vehicles. Far less resource consumption in a bicycle's construction,
> > > >compared to motorized vehicles. Negligible air pollution when operating.
> > > >Negligible noise pollution. Far less danger to other road users. Useful
> > > >for a much wider range of ages. Fosters appreciation of nature. Fosters
> > > >much more pleasant social interactions compared to car use. Far less
> > > >operating expense than motorized vehicles. For many, requires only
> > > >maintenance by owner, not requiring professional services; and as a
> > > >result, teaches mechanical skills and self reliance. And health and
> > > >safety benefits, as already mentioned, GREATLY outweigh the minor health
> > > >and safety risks.
> > > >
> > > >Also: Bicycles are never used in mass killings. In fact, murders using
> > > >bicycles are essentially unheard of.
> > > Frank, your arguments have reached the level of idiocy. Tell me again
> > > about the advantages outweighing the disadvantages? Certainly not in
> > > the area of exercise as walking or jogging provide more exercising in
> > > a shorter period of time and at a far lower cost then bicycles.
> > >
> > > Of course people like you tell lies about the wonders of the bicycle
> > > but (I hate to keep repeating the word) reality is that relatively
> > > very few people in the U.S. actually use a bicycle for anything other
> > > then play.
> > > --
> > > Cheers,
> > >
> > > John B.
> > Relatively very few guns in the USA are used to kill. People or animals.. Do people just want to play with their guns?
> Can you tell us what business it is of yours what they want or use their guns for as long as it is legal?

On Monday, February 21, 2022 at 2:51:35 PM UTC-8, russellseaton1@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Monday, February 21, 2022 at 10:19:41 AM UTC-6, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Sunday, February 20, 2022 at 5:45:18 PM UTC-8, russell...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > > On Sunday, February 20, 2022 at 5:07:56 PM UTC-6, John B. wrote:
> > > > On Sun, 20 Feb 2022 11:33:43 -0500, Frank Krygowski
> > > > <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >On 2/20/2022 1:35 AM, John B. wrote:
> > > > >> On Sat, 19 Feb 2022 20:33:16 -0800 (PST), Frank Krygowski
> > > > >> <frkr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >>
> > > > >>> On Saturday, February 19, 2022 at 6:06:30 PM UTC-8, John B. wrote:
> > > > >>>> On Sat, 19 Feb 2022 20:01:41 -0500, Frank Krygowski
> > > > >>>> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>> On 2/19/2022 6:12 PM, John B. wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> No Andrew nor I have said that AR rifles are no problem. In fact I
> > > > >>>>>> went on at some length about the modern USian attempting to
> > > > >>>>>> rationalize mass killings by blaming it on AR type firearms. And that
> > > > >>>>>> semi-automatic rifles and large - 30 round - magazines have been
> > > > >>>>>> available for a hundred years of so.
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>> Your sentence structure above is a bit chaotic, not to mention your
> > > > >>>>> logic. Are you now claiming you and Andrew did not defend AR rifles?
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> Hmm. No answer!
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>>>> When are you going to face the reality that mass shootings are
> > > > >>>>>> perpetrated by bad people. Not by an inert mechanical device..
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>> Of course mass shootings are perpetrated by bad people! The question is,
> > > > >>>>> why do we in America allow bad people to buy mass shooting tools?
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>> Because your Basic Law allows it.
> > > > >>>> And, whether or not you agree with the Constitution and it's
> > > > >>>> amendments, it is the law of the land.
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>> You're greatly over-simplifying that, John. The constitution does not guarantee
> > > > >>> that any and all guns are allowed. Since the very beginning, there have been laws
> > > > >>> restricting certain types of guns. The ones we're discussing have been among them.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Nope. The 2nd amendment states that " the right of the people to keep
> > > > >> and bear Arms, shall not be infringed". No mention of any type what so
> > > > >> ever.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> And, your statement "Since the very beginning, there have been laws
> > > > >> restricting certain types of guns."??
> > > > >>
> > > > >> What exactly do you mean? What is the "very beginning"? If you mean
> > > > >> from the "very beginning" of the American Colonies then you are wrong.
> > > > >> From the "very beginning" of the U.S.? 1775? I believe that you are
> > > > >> wrong again.
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>>> And, I might add, unfortunately you live in a quasi democracy and,
> > > > >>>> unfortunately in a democracy the individual's opinion is essentially
> > > > >>>> meaningless. It is the majority's opinion that counts. And, if
> > > > >>>> Andrew's figures are correct then the 20,000,000 AR owners opinion
> > > > >>>> outweigh your's by a about 10,000 tons.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> Again, you're greatly oversimplifying. Or just mistaken.
> > > > >>>From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_opinion_on_gun_control_in_the_United_States
> > > > >>> "An August 2019 Fox News poll of registered voters found 90% of respondents favored universal background checks, 81% supported taking guns from at-risk individuals, and 67% favored banning assault weapons.[31]
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Yup a "pole showed"
> > > > >>
> > > > >> But reality is that some 81 million USians own guns and about firearms
> > > > >> are available in ~44% of all U.S. households.
> > > > >> https://americangunfacts.com/gun-ownership-statistics/
> > > > >> and
> > > > >> Of the two-thirds that don’t own a gun, 11% live in a household with a
> > > > >> gun. Among that same group of Americans that don’t own a gun, half say
> > > > >> they might personally own a gun in the future, and a third say they
> > > > >> would never own a gun.
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>> Or there's Gallup:
> > > > >>> https://news.gallup.com/poll/1645/guns.aspx
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> I think the reason these things are so easily available is because of the outsized
> > > > >>> influence of the corrupt NRA, through the outsized influence of big money on U.S. politics.
> > > > >>> All that can be changed, and hopefully will. Even with opposition from people like Tom.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>>> How easy is it to buy a similar gun where you live? Do you own one? If
> > > > >>>>> not, how are you getting by?
> > > > >>>> In reality? Very easy. Just bring money.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> OK, interesting. I poked around a bit and found this:
> > > > >>> https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-gun-laws-in-Thailand-like
> > > > >>> which claims
> > > > >>> "11. Prohibited Gun And Device ban from Civilian use in Thailand:
> > > > >>> Semi-Auto Rifle Center-Fire."
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> Also, this source
> > > > >>> https://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/thailand
> > > > >>> says "In Thailand, civilians are not allowed to possess automatic and semi-automatic rifles [74]
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>> But what, other being a red herring, does my ownership, or lack there
> > > > >>>> of, have to do with U.S. ownership AR type of rifles?
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Errr... Frank, your question was (above) "How easy is it to buy a
> > > > >> similar gun where you live" and I told you. And I didn't exaggerate
> > > > >> even a tiny bit. Unlicensed forearms are as common as dirt here.
> > > > >
> > > > >Oh. You should have completed the sentence in your reply. It should have
> > > > >said "Easy, just bring money and be willing to violate the firearms laws."
> > > > Frank, people, in all countries, violate laws, on a daily basis, and
> > > > Thailand is no different.
> > > > >
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Every few days you read a news article about someone holding up a Gold
> > > > >> Store and you can't possibly believe that it was done with a legal,
> > > > >> registered, gun.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Today's news:
> > > > >> Man arrested for Phuket currency exchange booth robbery\
> > > > >> "The Yes Exchange 6 Co’s currency booth in front of Big C Jungceylon
> > > > >> branch on Phang Muang Sai Ko Road in Kathu district was held up by a
> > > > >> tall man with a gun..."
> > > > >>
> > > > >> I even posted an example of two Canadian "Hit men" flying in,
> > > > >> acquiring pistols, shooting a guy and then flying out a day or so
> > > > >> later.
> > > > >>
> > > > >>> Here's the relevance: I keep trying to discuss advantages vs. disadvantages. Abetting mass
> > > > >>> shootings _should_ be counted as a disadvantage of guns with the features we're discussing.
> > > > >>> Whatever the advantages may be - if any - they must be minor. I certainly do perfectly well
> > > > >>> without them. You apparently do perfectly fine without them too!
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> - Frank Krygowski
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Yes, you keep talking about advantages and disadvantages. And that you
> > > > >> can do perfectly well without a gun.
> > > > >> And I agree with you.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> But so what?
> > > > >>
> > > > >> But Frank, in the area in which I do my morning exercise walk there
> > > > >> are about 20, maybe 25 families... and I see one guy that rides a
> > > > >> bicycle several mornings so quite obviously a bicycle isn't necessary
> > > > >> for life to exist so what is the advantage? Cheap transportation? Well
> > > > >> yes, but this is a neighborhood where I see almost everyone going off
> > > > >> work in the morning in their auto- the guy that rides the bike is
> > > > >> retired and owns, in addition to his bicycle (cheap 7 speed) a full
> > > > >> sized sedan and a motorcycle
> > > > >>
> > > > >> So tell me the advantage of bicycles?
> > > > >
> > > > >The advantages GREATLY outweigh the disadvantages, both for the rider
> > > > >and for society as a whole.
> > > > >
> > > > >Advantages: Beneficial exercise. As a result, increased health; and as a
> > > > >result, lower medical costs. Much greater range than walking. Much
> > > > >greater carrying capacity than walking. Far less expense than motorized
> > > > >vehicles. Far less resource consumption in a bicycle's construction,
> > > > >compared to motorized vehicles. Negligible air pollution when operating.
> > > > >Negligible noise pollution. Far less danger to other road users. Useful
> > > > >for a much wider range of ages. Fosters appreciation of nature. Fosters
> > > > >much more pleasant social interactions compared to car use. Far less
> > > > >operating expense than motorized vehicles. For many, requires only
> > > > >maintenance by owner, not requiring professional services; and as a
> > > > >result, teaches mechanical skills and self reliance. And health and
> > > > >safety benefits, as already mentioned, GREATLY outweigh the minor health
> > > > >and safety risks.
> > > > >
> > > > >Also: Bicycles are never used in mass killings. In fact, murders using
> > > > >bicycles are essentially unheard of.
> > > > Frank, your arguments have reached the level of idiocy. Tell me again
> > > > about the advantages outweighing the disadvantages? Certainly not in
> > > > the area of exercise as walking or jogging provide more exercising in
> > > > a shorter period of time and at a far lower cost then bicycles.
> > > >
> > > > Of course people like you tell lies about the wonders of the bicycle
> > > > but (I hate to keep repeating the word) reality is that relatively
> > > > very few people in the U.S. actually use a bicycle for anything other
> > > > then play.
> > > > --
> > > > Cheers,
> > > >
> > > > John B.
> > > Relatively very few guns in the USA are used to kill. People or animals. Do people just want to play with their guns?
> > Can you tell us what business it is of yours what they want or use their guns for as long as it is legal?
> For the exact same reason we highly regulate and license explosives and poisons and drugs and radioactive materials. It is very easy to misuse these materials and do great harm. IF IF IF IF IF IF IF the official regulated licensed person is the only one to use the materials only for the official regulated use, then no problem. But does this always occur? No. So we have to be very aware of nonauthorized use.

On Tuesday, February 22, 2022 at 11:01:12 AM UTC-6, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, February 21, 2022 at 2:51:35 PM UTC-8, russell...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > On Monday, February 21, 2022 at 10:19:41 AM UTC-6, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Sunday, February 20, 2022 at 5:45:18 PM UTC-8, russell...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > > > On Sunday, February 20, 2022 at 5:07:56 PM UTC-6, John B. wrote:
> > > > > On Sun, 20 Feb 2022 11:33:43 -0500, Frank Krygowski
> > > > > <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > >On 2/20/2022 1:35 AM, John B. wrote:
> > > > > >> On Sat, 19 Feb 2022 20:33:16 -0800 (PST), Frank Krygowski
> > > > > >> <frkr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>> On Saturday, February 19, 2022 at 6:06:30 PM UTC-8, John B. wrote:
> > > > > >>>> On Sat, 19 Feb 2022 20:01:41 -0500, Frank Krygowski
> > > > > >>>> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>>> On 2/19/2022 6:12 PM, John B. wrote:
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>> No Andrew nor I have said that AR rifles are no problem. In fact I
> > > > > >>>>>> went on at some length about the modern USian attempting to
> > > > > >>>>>> rationalize mass killings by blaming it on AR type firearms. And that
> > > > > >>>>>> semi-automatic rifles and large - 30 round - magazines have been
> > > > > >>>>>> available for a hundred years of so.
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>> Your sentence structure above is a bit chaotic, not to mention your
> > > > > >>>>> logic. Are you now claiming you and Andrew did not defend AR rifles?
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> Hmm. No answer!
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>>>> When are you going to face the reality that mass shootings are
> > > > > >>>>>> perpetrated by bad people. Not by an inert mechanical device.
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>> Of course mass shootings are perpetrated by bad people! The question is,
> > > > > >>>>> why do we in America allow bad people to buy mass shooting tools?
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>> Because your Basic Law allows it.
> > > > > >>>> And, whether or not you agree with the Constitution and it's
> > > > > >>>> amendments, it is the law of the land.
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>> You're greatly over-simplifying that, John. The constitution does not guarantee
> > > > > >>> that any and all guns are allowed. Since the very beginning, there have been laws
> > > > > >>> restricting certain types of guns. The ones we're discussing have been among them.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Nope. The 2nd amendment states that " the right of the people to keep
> > > > > >> and bear Arms, shall not be infringed". No mention of any type what so
> > > > > >> ever.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> And, your statement "Since the very beginning, there have been laws
> > > > > >> restricting certain types of guns."??
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> What exactly do you mean? What is the "very beginning"? If you mean
> > > > > >> from the "very beginning" of the American Colonies then you are wrong.
> > > > > >> From the "very beginning" of the U.S.? 1775? I believe that you are
> > > > > >> wrong again.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>>> And, I might add, unfortunately you live in a quasi democracy and,
> > > > > >>>> unfortunately in a democracy the individual's opinion is essentially
> > > > > >>>> meaningless. It is the majority's opinion that counts. And, if
> > > > > >>>> Andrew's figures are correct then the 20,000,000 AR owners opinion
> > > > > >>>> outweigh your's by a about 10,000 tons.
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> Again, you're greatly oversimplifying. Or just mistaken.
> > > > > >>>From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_opinion_on_gun_control_in_the_United_States
> > > > > >>> "An August 2019 Fox News poll of registered voters found 90% of respondents favored universal background checks, 81% supported taking guns from at-risk individuals, and 67% favored banning assault weapons.[31]
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Yup a "pole showed"
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> But reality is that some 81 million USians own guns and about firearms
> > > > > >> are available in ~44% of all U.S. households.
> > > > > >> https://americangunfacts.com/gun-ownership-statistics/
> > > > > >> and
> > > > > >> Of the two-thirds that don’t own a gun, 11% live in a household with a
> > > > > >> gun. Among that same group of Americans that don’t own a gun, half say
> > > > > >> they might personally own a gun in the future, and a third say they
> > > > > >> would never own a gun.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>> Or there's Gallup:
> > > > > >>> https://news.gallup.com/poll/1645/guns.aspx
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> I think the reason these things are so easily available is because of the outsized
> > > > > >>> influence of the corrupt NRA, through the outsized influence of big money on U.S. politics.
> > > > > >>> All that can be changed, and hopefully will. Even with opposition from people like Tom.
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>>> How easy is it to buy a similar gun where you live? Do you own one? If
> > > > > >>>>> not, how are you getting by?
> > > > > >>>> In reality? Very easy. Just bring money.
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> OK, interesting. I poked around a bit and found this:
> > > > > >>> https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-gun-laws-in-Thailand-like
> > > > > >>> which claims
> > > > > >>> "11. Prohibited Gun And Device ban from Civilian use in Thailand:
> > > > > >>> Semi-Auto Rifle Center-Fire."
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> Also, this source
> > > > > >>> https://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/thailand
> > > > > >>> says "In Thailand, civilians are not allowed to possess automatic and semi-automatic rifles [74]
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>> But what, other being a red herring, does my ownership, or lack there
> > > > > >>>> of, have to do with U.S. ownership AR type of rifles?
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Errr... Frank, your question was (above) "How easy is it to buy a
> > > > > >> similar gun where you live" and I told you. And I didn't exaggerate
> > > > > >> even a tiny bit. Unlicensed forearms are as common as dirt here.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >Oh. You should have completed the sentence in your reply. It should have
> > > > > >said "Easy, just bring money and be willing to violate the firearms laws."
> > > > > Frank, people, in all countries, violate laws, on a daily basis, and
> > > > > Thailand is no different.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Every few days you read a news article about someone holding up a Gold
> > > > > >> Store and you can't possibly believe that it was done with a legal,
> > > > > >> registered, gun.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Today's news:
> > > > > >> Man arrested for Phuket currency exchange booth robbery\
> > > > > >> "The Yes Exchange 6 Co’s currency booth in front of Big C Jungceylon
> > > > > >> branch on Phang Muang Sai Ko Road in Kathu district was held up by a
> > > > > >> tall man with a gun..."
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> I even posted an example of two Canadian "Hit men" flying in,
> > > > > >> acquiring pistols, shooting a guy and then flying out a day or so
> > > > > >> later.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>> Here's the relevance: I keep trying to discuss advantages vs. disadvantages. Abetting mass
> > > > > >>> shootings _should_ be counted as a disadvantage of guns with the features we're discussing.
> > > > > >>> Whatever the advantages may be - if any - they must be minor. I certainly do perfectly well
> > > > > >>> without them. You apparently do perfectly fine without them too!
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> - Frank Krygowski
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Yes, you keep talking about advantages and disadvantages. And that you
> > > > > >> can do perfectly well without a gun.
> > > > > >> And I agree with you.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> But so what?
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> But Frank, in the area in which I do my morning exercise walk there
> > > > > >> are about 20, maybe 25 families... and I see one guy that rides a
> > > > > >> bicycle several mornings so quite obviously a bicycle isn't necessary
> > > > > >> for life to exist so what is the advantage? Cheap transportation? Well
> > > > > >> yes, but this is a neighborhood where I see almost everyone going off
> > > > > >> work in the morning in their auto- the guy that rides the bike is
> > > > > >> retired and owns, in addition to his bicycle (cheap 7 speed) a full
> > > > > >> sized sedan and a motorcycle
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> So tell me the advantage of bicycles?
> > > > > >
> > > > > >The advantages GREATLY outweigh the disadvantages, both for the rider
> > > > > >and for society as a whole.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >Advantages: Beneficial exercise. As a result, increased health; and as a
> > > > > >result, lower medical costs. Much greater range than walking. Much
> > > > > >greater carrying capacity than walking. Far less expense than motorized
> > > > > >vehicles. Far less resource consumption in a bicycle's construction,
> > > > > >compared to motorized vehicles. Negligible air pollution when operating.
> > > > > >Negligible noise pollution. Far less danger to other road users. Useful
> > > > > >for a much wider range of ages. Fosters appreciation of nature. Fosters
> > > > > >much more pleasant social interactions compared to car use. Far less
> > > > > >operating expense than motorized vehicles. For many, requires only
> > > > > >maintenance by owner, not requiring professional services; and as a
> > > > > >result, teaches mechanical skills and self reliance. And health and
> > > > > >safety benefits, as already mentioned, GREATLY outweigh the minor health
> > > > > >and safety risks.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >Also: Bicycles are never used in mass killings. In fact, murders using
> > > > > >bicycles are essentially unheard of.
> > > > > Frank, your arguments have reached the level of idiocy. Tell me again
> > > > > about the advantages outweighing the disadvantages? Certainly not in
> > > > > the area of exercise as walking or jogging provide more exercising in
> > > > > a shorter period of time and at a far lower cost then bicycles.
> > > > >
> > > > > Of course people like you tell lies about the wonders of the bicycle
> > > > > but (I hate to keep repeating the word) reality is that relatively
> > > > > very few people in the U.S. actually use a bicycle for anything other
> > > > > then play.
> > > > > --
> > > > > Cheers,
> > > > >
> > > > > John B.
> > > > Relatively very few guns in the USA are used to kill. People or animals. Do people just want to play with their guns?
> > > Can you tell us what business it is of yours what they want or use their guns for as long as it is legal?
> > For the exact same reason we highly regulate and license explosives and poisons and drugs and radioactive materials. It is very easy to misuse these materials and do great harm. IF IF IF IF IF IF IF the official regulated licensed person is the only one to use the materials only for the official regulated use, then no problem. But does this always occur? No. So we have to be very aware of nonauthorized use.
> Well, like Frank, it must really kill you to know that you have absolutely no control over the 2nd Amendment. Too bad.

On Tuesday, February 22, 2022 at 12:54:43 PM UTC-8, russellseaton1@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 22, 2022 at 11:01:12 AM UTC-6, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Monday, February 21, 2022 at 2:51:35 PM UTC-8, russell...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > > On Monday, February 21, 2022 at 10:19:41 AM UTC-6, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > On Sunday, February 20, 2022 at 5:45:18 PM UTC-8, russell...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > > > > On Sunday, February 20, 2022 at 5:07:56 PM UTC-6, John B. wrote:
> > > > > > On Sun, 20 Feb 2022 11:33:43 -0500, Frank Krygowski
> > > > > > <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >On 2/20/2022 1:35 AM, John B. wrote:
> > > > > > >> On Sat, 19 Feb 2022 20:33:16 -0800 (PST), Frank Krygowski
> > > > > > >> <frkr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>> On Saturday, February 19, 2022 at 6:06:30 PM UTC-8, John B. wrote:
> > > > > > >>>> On Sat, 19 Feb 2022 20:01:41 -0500, Frank Krygowski
> > > > > > >>>> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>>> On 2/19/2022 6:12 PM, John B. wrote:
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>> No Andrew nor I have said that AR rifles are no problem. In fact I
> > > > > > >>>>>> went on at some length about the modern USian attempting to
> > > > > > >>>>>> rationalize mass killings by blaming it on AR type firearms. And that
> > > > > > >>>>>> semi-automatic rifles and large - 30 round - magazines have been
> > > > > > >>>>>> available for a hundred years of so.
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>> Your sentence structure above is a bit chaotic, not to mention your
> > > > > > >>>>> logic. Are you now claiming you and Andrew did not defend AR rifles?
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>> Hmm. No answer!
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>>>>> When are you going to face the reality that mass shootings are
> > > > > > >>>>>> perpetrated by bad people. Not by an inert mechanical device.
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>> Of course mass shootings are perpetrated by bad people! The question is,
> > > > > > >>>>> why do we in America allow bad people to buy mass shooting tools?
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>> Because your Basic Law allows it.
> > > > > > >>>> And, whether or not you agree with the Constitution and it's
> > > > > > >>>> amendments, it is the law of the land.
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>> You're greatly over-simplifying that, John. The constitution does not guarantee
> > > > > > >>> that any and all guns are allowed. Since the very beginning, there have been laws
> > > > > > >>> restricting certain types of guns. The ones we're discussing have been among them.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> Nope. The 2nd amendment states that " the right of the people to keep
> > > > > > >> and bear Arms, shall not be infringed". No mention of any type what so
> > > > > > >> ever.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> And, your statement "Since the very beginning, there have been laws
> > > > > > >> restricting certain types of guns."??
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> What exactly do you mean? What is the "very beginning"? If you mean
> > > > > > >> from the "very beginning" of the American Colonies then you are wrong.
> > > > > > >> From the "very beginning" of the U.S.? 1775? I believe that you are
> > > > > > >> wrong again.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>>> And, I might add, unfortunately you live in a quasi democracy and,
> > > > > > >>>> unfortunately in a democracy the individual's opinion is essentially
> > > > > > >>>> meaningless. It is the majority's opinion that counts. And, if
> > > > > > >>>> Andrew's figures are correct then the 20,000,000 AR owners opinion
> > > > > > >>>> outweigh your's by a about 10,000 tons.
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>> Again, you're greatly oversimplifying. Or just mistaken.
> > > > > > >>>From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_opinion_on_gun_control_in_the_United_States
> > > > > > >>> "An August 2019 Fox News poll of registered voters found 90% of respondents favored universal background checks, 81% supported taking guns from at-risk individuals, and 67% favored banning assault weapons.[31]
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> Yup a "pole showed"
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> But reality is that some 81 million USians own guns and about firearms
> > > > > > >> are available in ~44% of all U.S. households.
> > > > > > >> https://americangunfacts.com/gun-ownership-statistics/
> > > > > > >> and
> > > > > > >> Of the two-thirds that don’t own a gun, 11% live in a household with a
> > > > > > >> gun. Among that same group of Americans that don’t own a gun, half say
> > > > > > >> they might personally own a gun in the future, and a third say they
> > > > > > >> would never own a gun.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>> Or there's Gallup:
> > > > > > >>> https://news.gallup.com/poll/1645/guns.aspx
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>> I think the reason these things are so easily available is because of the outsized
> > > > > > >>> influence of the corrupt NRA, through the outsized influence of big money on U.S. politics.
> > > > > > >>> All that can be changed, and hopefully will. Even with opposition from people like Tom.
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>>>> How easy is it to buy a similar gun where you live? Do you own one? If
> > > > > > >>>>> not, how are you getting by?
> > > > > > >>>> In reality? Very easy. Just bring money.
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>> OK, interesting. I poked around a bit and found this:
> > > > > > >>> https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-gun-laws-in-Thailand-like
> > > > > > >>> which claims
> > > > > > >>> "11. Prohibited Gun And Device ban from Civilian use in Thailand:
> > > > > > >>> Semi-Auto Rifle Center-Fire."
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>> Also, this source
> > > > > > >>> https://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/thailand
> > > > > > >>> says "In Thailand, civilians are not allowed to possess automatic and semi-automatic rifles [74]
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>>> But what, other being a red herring, does my ownership, or lack there
> > > > > > >>>> of, have to do with U.S. ownership AR type of rifles?
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> Errr... Frank, your question was (above) "How easy is it to buy a
> > > > > > >> similar gun where you live" and I told you. And I didn't exaggerate
> > > > > > >> even a tiny bit. Unlicensed forearms are as common as dirt here.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >Oh. You should have completed the sentence in your reply. It should have
> > > > > > >said "Easy, just bring money and be willing to violate the firearms laws."
> > > > > > Frank, people, in all countries, violate laws, on a daily basis, and
> > > > > > Thailand is no different.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> Every few days you read a news article about someone holding up a Gold
> > > > > > >> Store and you can't possibly believe that it was done with a legal,
> > > > > > >> registered, gun.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> Today's news:
> > > > > > >> Man arrested for Phuket currency exchange booth robbery\
> > > > > > >> "The Yes Exchange 6 Co’s currency booth in front of Big C Jungceylon
> > > > > > >> branch on Phang Muang Sai Ko Road in Kathu district was held up by a
> > > > > > >> tall man with a gun..."
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> I even posted an example of two Canadian "Hit men" flying in,
> > > > > > >> acquiring pistols, shooting a guy and then flying out a day or so
> > > > > > >> later.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>> Here's the relevance: I keep trying to discuss advantages vs. disadvantages. Abetting mass
> > > > > > >>> shootings _should_ be counted as a disadvantage of guns with the features we're discussing.
> > > > > > >>> Whatever the advantages may be - if any - they must be minor. I certainly do perfectly well
> > > > > > >>> without them. You apparently do perfectly fine without them too!
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>> - Frank Krygowski
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> Yes, you keep talking about advantages and disadvantages. And that you
> > > > > > >> can do perfectly well without a gun.
> > > > > > >> And I agree with you.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> But so what?
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> But Frank, in the area in which I do my morning exercise walk there
> > > > > > >> are about 20, maybe 25 families... and I see one guy that rides a
> > > > > > >> bicycle several mornings so quite obviously a bicycle isn't necessary
> > > > > > >> for life to exist so what is the advantage? Cheap transportation? Well
> > > > > > >> yes, but this is a neighborhood where I see almost everyone going off
> > > > > > >> work in the morning in their auto- the guy that rides the bike is
> > > > > > >> retired and owns, in addition to his bicycle (cheap 7 speed) a full
> > > > > > >> sized sedan and a motorcycle
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> So tell me the advantage of bicycles?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >The advantages GREATLY outweigh the disadvantages, both for the rider
> > > > > > >and for society as a whole.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >Advantages: Beneficial exercise. As a result, increased health; and as a
> > > > > > >result, lower medical costs. Much greater range than walking. Much
> > > > > > >greater carrying capacity than walking. Far less expense than motorized
> > > > > > >vehicles. Far less resource consumption in a bicycle's construction,
> > > > > > >compared to motorized vehicles. Negligible air pollution when operating.
> > > > > > >Negligible noise pollution. Far less danger to other road users. Useful
> > > > > > >for a much wider range of ages. Fosters appreciation of nature.. Fosters
> > > > > > >much more pleasant social interactions compared to car use. Far less
> > > > > > >operating expense than motorized vehicles. For many, requires only
> > > > > > >maintenance by owner, not requiring professional services; and as a
> > > > > > >result, teaches mechanical skills and self reliance. And health and
> > > > > > >safety benefits, as already mentioned, GREATLY outweigh the minor health
> > > > > > >and safety risks.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >Also: Bicycles are never used in mass killings. In fact, murders using
> > > > > > >bicycles are essentially unheard of.
> > > > > > Frank, your arguments have reached the level of idiocy. Tell me again
> > > > > > about the advantages outweighing the disadvantages? Certainly not in
> > > > > > the area of exercise as walking or jogging provide more exercising in
> > > > > > a shorter period of time and at a far lower cost then bicycles.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Of course people like you tell lies about the wonders of the bicycle
> > > > > > but (I hate to keep repeating the word) reality is that relatively
> > > > > > very few people in the U.S. actually use a bicycle for anything other
> > > > > > then play.
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > Cheers,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > John B.
> > > > > Relatively very few guns in the USA are used to kill. People or animals. Do people just want to play with their guns?
> > > > Can you tell us what business it is of yours what they want or use their guns for as long as it is legal?
> > > For the exact same reason we highly regulate and license explosives and poisons and drugs and radioactive materials. It is very easy to misuse these materials and do great harm. IF IF IF IF IF IF IF the official regulated licensed person is the only one to use the materials only for the official regulated use, then no problem. But does this always occur? No. So we have to be very aware of nonauthorized use.
> > Well, like Frank, it must really kill you to know that you have absolutely no control over the 2nd Amendment. Too bad.
> ????????????
> Tommy, not many individuals have any control over the Constitution or Amendments to the Constitution. Only the original writers had much control. And those who passed it into law. As for Amendments added later over the centuries, that requires votes by the Congree and votes in each, or 3/4, of the state legislatures. I suppose one can say the Supreme Court members have control over how they vote on cases and interpret the Amendments and Constitution. But that also changes as Supreme Court members change over time.
Russell, I know that Amendment procedures but that has nothing whatsoever to do with the 2nd Amendment. That is INTERPRETTED by the Supreme Court. It is now virtually impossible to change present day gun laws since the government themselves cannot have any say in the matter.

On Tue, 22 Feb 2022 09:01:08 -0800 (PST), Tom Kunich
<cyclintom@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Monday, February 21, 2022 at 2:51:35 PM UTC-8, russellseaton1@yahoo.com wrote:
>> On Monday, February 21, 2022 at 10:19:41 AM UTC-6, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
>> > On Sunday, February 20, 2022 at 5:45:18 PM UTC-8, russell...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> > > On Sunday, February 20, 2022 at 5:07:56 PM UTC-6, John B. wrote:
>> > > > On Sun, 20 Feb 2022 11:33:43 -0500, Frank Krygowski
>> > > > <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > >On 2/20/2022 1:35 AM, John B. wrote:
>> > > > >> On Sat, 19 Feb 2022 20:33:16 -0800 (PST), Frank Krygowski
>> > > > >> <frkr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >>> On Saturday, February 19, 2022 at 6:06:30 PM UTC-8, John B. wrote:
>> > > > >>>> On Sat, 19 Feb 2022 20:01:41 -0500, Frank Krygowski
>> > > > >>>> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> > > > >>>>
>> > > > >>>>> On 2/19/2022 6:12 PM, John B. wrote:
>> > > > >>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>> No Andrew nor I have said that AR rifles are no problem. In fact I
>> > > > >>>>>> went on at some length about the modern USian attempting to
>> > > > >>>>>> rationalize mass killings by blaming it on AR type firearms. And that
>> > > > >>>>>> semi-automatic rifles and large - 30 round - magazines have been
>> > > > >>>>>> available for a hundred years of so.
>> > > > >>>>>
>> > > > >>>>> Your sentence structure above is a bit chaotic, not to mention your
>> > > > >>>>> logic. Are you now claiming you and Andrew did not defend AR rifles?
>> > > > >>>
>> > > > >>> Hmm. No answer!
>> > > > >>>
>> > > > >>>>>> When are you going to face the reality that mass shootings are
>> > > > >>>>>> perpetrated by bad people. Not by an inert mechanical device.
>> > > > >>>>>
>> > > > >>>>> Of course mass shootings are perpetrated by bad people! The question is,
>> > > > >>>>> why do we in America allow bad people to buy mass shooting tools?
>> > > > >>>>>
>> > > > >>>> Because your Basic Law allows it.
>> > > > >>>> And, whether or not you agree with the Constitution and it's
>> > > > >>>> amendments, it is the law of the land.
>> > > > >>>>
>> > > > >>> You're greatly over-simplifying that, John. The constitution does not guarantee
>> > > > >>> that any and all guns are allowed. Since the very beginning, there have been laws
>> > > > >>> restricting certain types of guns. The ones we're discussing have been among them.
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >> Nope. The 2nd amendment states that " the right of the people to keep
>> > > > >> and bear Arms, shall not be infringed". No mention of any type what so
>> > > > >> ever.
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >> And, your statement "Since the very beginning, there have been laws
>> > > > >> restricting certain types of guns."??
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >> What exactly do you mean? What is the "very beginning"? If you mean
>> > > > >> from the "very beginning" of the American Colonies then you are wrong.
>> > > > >> From the "very beginning" of the U.S.? 1775? I believe that you are
>> > > > >> wrong again.
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >>>> And, I might add, unfortunately you live in a quasi democracy and,
>> > > > >>>> unfortunately in a democracy the individual's opinion is essentially
>> > > > >>>> meaningless. It is the majority's opinion that counts. And, if
>> > > > >>>> Andrew's figures are correct then the 20,000,000 AR owners opinion
>> > > > >>>> outweigh your's by a about 10,000 tons.
>> > > > >>>
>> > > > >>> Again, you're greatly oversimplifying. Or just mistaken.
>> > > > >>>From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_opinion_on_gun_control_in_the_United_States
>> > > > >>> "An August 2019 Fox News poll of registered voters found 90% of respondents favored universal background checks, 81% supported taking guns from at-risk individuals, and 67% favored banning assault weapons.[31]
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >> Yup a "pole showed"
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >> But reality is that some 81 million USians own guns and about firearms
>> > > > >> are available in ~44% of all U.S. households.
>> > > > >> https://americangunfacts.com/gun-ownership-statistics/
>> > > > >> and
>> > > > >> Of the two-thirds that don’t own a gun, 11% live in a household with a
>> > > > >> gun. Among that same group of Americans that don’t own a gun, half say
>> > > > >> they might personally own a gun in the future, and a third say they
>> > > > >> would never own a gun.
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >>> Or there's Gallup:
>> > > > >>> https://news.gallup.com/poll/1645/guns.aspx
>> > > > >>>
>> > > > >>> I think the reason these things are so easily available is because of the outsized
>> > > > >>> influence of the corrupt NRA, through the outsized influence of big money on U.S. politics.
>> > > > >>> All that can be changed, and hopefully will. Even with opposition from people like Tom.
>> > > > >>>
>> > > > >>>>> How easy is it to buy a similar gun where you live? Do you own one? If
>> > > > >>>>> not, how are you getting by?
>> > > > >>>> In reality? Very easy. Just bring money.
>> > > > >>>
>> > > > >>> OK, interesting. I poked around a bit and found this:
>> > > > >>> https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-gun-laws-in-Thailand-like
>> > > > >>> which claims
>> > > > >>> "11. Prohibited Gun And Device ban from Civilian use in Thailand:
>> > > > >>> Semi-Auto Rifle Center-Fire."
>> > > > >>>
>> > > > >>> Also, this source
>> > > > >>> https://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/thailand
>> > > > >>> says "In Thailand, civilians are not allowed to possess automatic and semi-automatic rifles [74]
>> > > > >>>
>> > > > >>>> But what, other being a red herring, does my ownership, or lack there
>> > > > >>>> of, have to do with U.S. ownership AR type of rifles?
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >> Errr... Frank, your question was (above) "How easy is it to buy a
>> > > > >> similar gun where you live" and I told you. And I didn't exaggerate
>> > > > >> even a tiny bit. Unlicensed forearms are as common as dirt here.
>> > > > >
>> > > > >Oh. You should have completed the sentence in your reply. It should have
>> > > > >said "Easy, just bring money and be willing to violate the firearms laws."
>> > > > Frank, people, in all countries, violate laws, on a daily basis, and
>> > > > Thailand is no different.
>> > > > >
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >> Every few days you read a news article about someone holding up a Gold
>> > > > >> Store and you can't possibly believe that it was done with a legal,
>> > > > >> registered, gun.
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >> Today's news:
>> > > > >> Man arrested for Phuket currency exchange booth robbery\
>> > > > >> "The Yes Exchange 6 Co’s currency booth in front of Big C Jungceylon
>> > > > >> branch on Phang Muang Sai Ko Road in Kathu district was held up by a
>> > > > >> tall man with a gun..."
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >> I even posted an example of two Canadian "Hit men" flying in,
>> > > > >> acquiring pistols, shooting a guy and then flying out a day or so
>> > > > >> later.
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >>> Here's the relevance: I keep trying to discuss advantages vs. disadvantages. Abetting mass
>> > > > >>> shootings _should_ be counted as a disadvantage of guns with the features we're discussing.
>> > > > >>> Whatever the advantages may be - if any - they must be minor. I certainly do perfectly well
>> > > > >>> without them. You apparently do perfectly fine without them too!
>> > > > >>>
>> > > > >>> - Frank Krygowski
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >> Yes, you keep talking about advantages and disadvantages. And that you
>> > > > >> can do perfectly well without a gun.
>> > > > >> And I agree with you.
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >> But so what?
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >> But Frank, in the area in which I do my morning exercise walk there
>> > > > >> are about 20, maybe 25 families... and I see one guy that rides a
>> > > > >> bicycle several mornings so quite obviously a bicycle isn't necessary
>> > > > >> for life to exist so what is the advantage? Cheap transportation? Well
>> > > > >> yes, but this is a neighborhood where I see almost everyone going off
>> > > > >> work in the morning in their auto- the guy that rides the bike is
>> > > > >> retired and owns, in addition to his bicycle (cheap 7 speed) a full
>> > > > >> sized sedan and a motorcycle
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >> So tell me the advantage of bicycles?
>> > > > >
>> > > > >The advantages GREATLY outweigh the disadvantages, both for the rider
>> > > > >and for society as a whole.
>> > > > >
>> > > > >Advantages: Beneficial exercise. As a result, increased health; and as a
>> > > > >result, lower medical costs. Much greater range than walking. Much
>> > > > >greater carrying capacity than walking. Far less expense than motorized
>> > > > >vehicles. Far less resource consumption in a bicycle's construction,
>> > > > >compared to motorized vehicles. Negligible air pollution when operating.
>> > > > >Negligible noise pollution. Far less danger to other road users. Useful
>> > > > >for a much wider range of ages. Fosters appreciation of nature. Fosters
>> > > > >much more pleasant social interactions compared to car use. Far less
>> > > > >operating expense than motorized vehicles. For many, requires only
>> > > > >maintenance by owner, not requiring professional services; and as a
>> > > > >result, teaches mechanical skills and self reliance. And health and
>> > > > >safety benefits, as already mentioned, GREATLY outweigh the minor health
>> > > > >and safety risks.
>> > > > >
>> > > > >Also: Bicycles are never used in mass killings. In fact, murders using
>> > > > >bicycles are essentially unheard of.
>> > > > Frank, your arguments have reached the level of idiocy. Tell me again
>> > > > about the advantages outweighing the disadvantages? Certainly not in
>> > > > the area of exercise as walking or jogging provide more exercising in
>> > > > a shorter period of time and at a far lower cost then bicycles.
>> > > >
>> > > > Of course people like you tell lies about the wonders of the bicycle
>> > > > but (I hate to keep repeating the word) reality is that relatively
>> > > > very few people in the U.S. actually use a bicycle for anything other
>> > > > then play.
>> > > > --
>> > > > Cheers,
>> > > >
>> > > > John B.
>> > > Relatively very few guns in the USA are used to kill. People or animals. Do people just want to play with their guns?
>> > Can you tell us what business it is of yours what they want or use their guns for as long as it is legal?
>> For the exact same reason we highly regulate and license explosives and poisons and drugs and radioactive materials. It is very easy to misuse these materials and do great harm. IF IF IF IF IF IF IF the official regulated licensed person is the only one to use the materials only for the official regulated use, then no problem. But does this always occur? No. So we have to be very aware of nonauthorized use.
>
>Well, like Frank, it must really kill you to know that you have absolutely no control over the 2nd Amendment. Too bad.

On 2/22/2022 4:05 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
> It is now virtually impossible to change present day gun laws since the government themselves cannot have any say in the matter.

Wow. SMH.

Apparently you dropped out of high school before taking the Elementary
Civics class.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On Tuesday, February 22, 2022 at 3:16:12 PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On 2/22/2022 4:05 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
> > It is now virtually impossible to change present day gun laws since the government themselves cannot have any say in the matter.
> Wow. SMH.
>
> Apparently you dropped out of high school before taking the Elementary
> Civics class.

Frank, you continue to look like Slow Johnny with the inability to comprehend. The Supreme Court has ruled on the subject of the 2nd Amendment. So the ONLY way for the Congress to alter this is to pass another Amendment nullifying the 2nd Amendment.

Tell us what you think that chances of that happening are? Your sheer ignorance of the world around you is stupefying.

On 2/23/2022 11:09 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 22, 2022 at 3:16:12 PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> On 2/22/2022 4:05 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
>>> It is now virtually impossible to change present day gun laws since the government themselves cannot have any say in the matter.
>> Wow. SMH.
>>
>> Apparently you dropped out of high school before taking the Elementary
>> Civics class.
>
> Frank, you continue to look like Slow Johnny with the inability to comprehend. The Supreme Court has ruled on the subject of the 2nd Amendment. So the ONLY way for the Congress to alter this is to pass another Amendment nullifying the 2nd Amendment.
>

Wow.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On Wed, 23 Feb 2022 08:09:54 -0800 (PST), Tom Kunich
<cyclintom@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Tuesday, February 22, 2022 at 3:16:12 PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> On 2/22/2022 4:05 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
>> > It is now virtually impossible to change present day gun laws since the government themselves cannot have any say in the matter.
>> Wow. SMH.
>>
>> Apparently you dropped out of high school before taking the Elementary
>> Civics class.
>
>Frank, you continue to look like Slow Johnny with the inability to comprehend. The Supreme Court has ruled on the subject of the 2nd Amendment. So the ONLY way for the Congress to alter this is to pass another Amendment nullifying the 2nd Amendment.
>

Tommy, the Supreme Court of the U.S. has made a number of decisions
regarding the 2nd amendment to the Constitution. the first one seems
to be "U S v. CRUIKSHANK in 1875.

And the method of nullififying the constitution and/or an amendment to
the Constitution is accomplished by ratified the proposed change by
three fourths of the States. There have been 27 Amendments to the
Constitution.
And yes, "Your sheer ignorance of the world around you is stupefying."
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Wednesday, February 23, 2022 at 4:44:57 PM UTC-6, John B. wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Feb 2022 08:09:54 -0800 (PST), Tom Kunich
> <cycl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Tuesday, February 22, 2022 at 3:16:12 PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> >> On 2/22/2022 4:05 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
> >> > It is now virtually impossible to change present day gun laws since the government themselves cannot have any say in the matter.
> >> Wow. SMH.
> >>
> >> Apparently you dropped out of high school before taking the Elementary
> >> Civics class.
> >
> >Frank, you continue to look like Slow Johnny with the inability to comprehend. The Supreme Court has ruled on the subject of the 2nd Amendment. So the ONLY way for the Congress to alter this is to pass another Amendment nullifying the 2nd Amendment.
> >
> Tommy, the Supreme Court of the U.S. has made a number of decisions
> regarding the 2nd amendment to the Constitution. the first one seems
> to be "U S v. CRUIKSHANK in 1875.

It is also possible, though maybe not likely, for the Supreme Court to reverse its position. Usually the court relies on precedent from other cases and only decides something once and lets it stand forever and ever. But there have been infamous precedent changing cases. For instance, Plessy vs Ferguson. Back in 1896 they ruled segregation was perfectly fine and legal. Separate but equal. But then 1954 came along and the court had Brown vs Borad of Education and ruled that separate but equal is not as good as we thought 58 years ago. And reversed it.

Not sure if its easier to reverse precedence by the court or to add an amendment.

>
> And the method of nullififying the constitution and/or an amendment to
> the Constitution is accomplished by ratified the proposed change by
> three fourths of the States. There have been 27 Amendments to the
> Constitution.
>
> And yes, "Your sheer ignorance of the world around you is stupefying."
> --
> Cheers,
>
> John B.