On 2/25/2022 9:41 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:
> On Friday, February 25, 2022 at 5:39:26 AM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
>> On 2/25/2022 12:27 AM, John B. wrote:
>>> On Fri, 25 Feb 2022 04:16:03 -0000 (UTC), Ralph Barone
>>> <ra...@invalid.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> John B. <sloc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 24 Feb 2022 12:02:17 -0500, Frank Krygowski
>>>>> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2/24/2022 11:19 AM, AMuzi wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2/23/2022 10:49 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, February 23, 2022 at 5:49:51 PM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2/23/2022 6:44 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 23 Feb 2022 12:27:31 -0500, Frank Krygowski
>>>>>>>>>> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/22/2022 9:16 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/22/2022 7:57 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/22/2022 8:31 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Well, of course I was ridiculing Franks assertion, at
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> least as I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> understood him, that somehow one would be more, or less,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stricken by
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> grief depending on the cause of death.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> You're being totally unrealistic, in a foolish attempt to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> pursue a nonsense argument.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Neither individuals nor society treat all deaths as equal,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> nor have identical feelings about all deaths.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The death of an elderly person who has lived a full life is
>>>>>>>>>>>>> one thing. Perhaps it is regrettable depending on
>>>>>>>>>>>>> conditions, but often people remark "Well, it was time" or
>>>>>>>>>>>>> something similar.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The death from natural causes of a middle aged or younger
>>>>>>>>>>>>> person is generally treated as a bit more regrettable. A
>>>>>>>>>>>>> similar death of a child even more so.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> An accidental death of those people triggers yet more
>>>>>>>>>>>>> regret, and may lead to anger at how such a thing could be
>>>>>>>>>>>>> allowed to happen.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The murder of a person rightfully triggers outrage and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> criminal prosecution.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The murder of a child, even more outrage.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The killing of 20 children sitting in school is considered
>>>>>>>>>>>>> truly heinous. At least, by people who are not avid fans of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the weapon used.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes I understand you and you're not wrong in principle but policy
>>>>>>>>>>>> based
>>>>>>>>>>>> on anomalies doesn't always work out well.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/1927-bombing-remains-americas-deadliest-school-massacre-180963355/
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> A British-born engineer and colleague of mine in the 1970s used to
>>>>>>>>>>> mock
>>>>>>>>>>> a slogan the NRA promoted in those days. He said "And when bombs are
>>>>>>>>>>> outlawed, only outlaws will have bombs."
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I wonder if today's pretend soldiers will use the Second Amendment to
>>>>>>>>>>> call for free use and possession of bombs?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You are slipping right down into the throes of silly ness.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Your colleague's mocking comment is pretty silly as today, in the
>>>>>>>>>> U.S., several states with rather severe hand gun control laws are
>>>>>>>>>> finding more and more being smuggled into the state. So it is a truism
>>>>>>>>>> that when guns are outlawed only criminals will have guns.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You might try a google search on "gun+smuggle". I get 15,600,000
>>>>>>>>>> "hits".
>>>>>>>>>> https://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/local/gun-trafficking-ring-ohio-camden-new-jersey-weapons-arrests/205248/
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> +1
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Out here in the actual world it's the same market phenomenon
>>>>>>>>> as dope. Prohibition or hyper regulatory tax schemes
>>>>>>>>> guarantee a higher profit to contraband.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> OK, you guys have convinced me! Laws never work, so we should outlaw
>>>>>>>> all laws. Got it!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> (Since this is Usenet, I may have to say that was sarcasm.)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> - Frank Krygowski
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Suggestions welcome.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> OK:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Canadian laws.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> British laws.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> French laws.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Heck, Swiss laws. Lots of guns, but in "well regulated militias." And
>>>>>> far, far less gun crime than the U.S.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Very few developed nations emulate the U.S.
>>>>>
>>>>> Re Canadian laws...
>>>>>
>>>>> I did a bit of research and Canada has a far lower incident of violent
>>>>> crime, i.e. law breaking, then the U.S.
>>>>>
>>>>> Do you suppose that this is a matter of better laws or is it a matter
>>>>> of a more law abiding people?
>>>>> And, I suspect the same applies to The British, and the Swiss.
>>>>
>>>> While the US Constitution talks about “life, liberty and the pursuit of
>>>> happiness”, the original Canadian Constitution mentioned “peace, order and
>>>> good government”.
>>>>
>>>> One is decidedly every man for himself, while the other is much more
>>>> focused on the country as an interdependent community, and I think those
>>>> two phrases have defined both countries.
>>>
>>>
>>> Errr... Not exactly. the life, limb, etc. quote is from the
>>> Declaration of Independence (1776), which says in part,
>>>
>>> We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created
>>> equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable
>>> Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of
>>> Happiness.
>>>
>>> The Constitution itself provides guarantees, for, basically:
>>> Freedom of speech
>>> Freedom of the press
>>> Freedom of religion
>>> Freedom of assembly
>>> Right to petition the government
>>>
>>> There are other rights such as right to own firearms, right to a
>>> speedy trial, etc., but for comparison to Canada the above are
>>> probably the critical ones.
>>>
>>> The Canadian Constitution consists of the Canada Act 1982 (which
>>> includes the Constitution Act, 1982), Section 2 provides for,
>>> Under the heading of "Fundamental Freedoms" the section states:
>>>
>>> 2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
>>> (a) freedom of conscience and religion;
>>> (b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including
>>> freedom of the press and other media of communication;
>>> (c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
>>> (d) freedom of association.
>>>
>> Bah, 1982. pffft.
>> Not now:
>>
>> https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2022/02/14/full-text-of-chrystia-freelands-remarks-during-emergencies-act-announcement.html
>
> That was a criminal act by Trudeau and Freelands and both should be tried for it.
>
by whom?

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