On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 08:33:54 -0600, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:

>On 1/18/2024 8:24 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
>> On 1/18/2024 9:06 AM, AMuzi wrote:
>>> On 1/17/2024 7:37 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>> On 1/17/2024 8:24 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>>>>> On 1/17/2024 2:55 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>>>> On 1/17/2024 3:32 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Well right now today:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://chicago.suntimes.com/politics/2024/1/5/24023878/assault-weapons-ban-illinois-registered-legal
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> there are purported English speakers who yet cannot
>>>>>>> define the word 'infringe'.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Right! I'm really peeved that I can't own hand grenades
>>>>>> and practice using them in my backyard! And what's with
>>>>>> the stupid difficulty buying fully automatic large bore
>>>>>> machine guns? Then there are the disgusting vehicle
>>>>>> regulations that make it so hard to drive an Abrams
>>>>>> tank on the road! I want one for my _safety_!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> All that stuff is infringement! But are people
>>>>>> protesting? NO!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Here's the real problem: The NRA is all upset about
>>>>>> little "pew pew pew" small caliber guns. We need a Bomb
>>>>>> Owners of America to _finally_ guarantee our rights to
>>>>>> _real_ arms! Then men can finally feel manly!
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The relevant document says 'right to bear arms shall not
>>>>> be infringed'. A perusal of period military reports,
>>>>> especially quartermaster reports after captured sites,
>>>>> distinguishes between 'guns' (artillery, field pieces,
>>>>> mountain guns etc) and borne or small arms (rifles
>>>>> mostly but pistols as well, if rarely).  Good luck with
>>>>> an argument for hand grenades or mobile artillery.
>>>>
>>>> Hmm. So you're saying the second amendment applies to the
>>>> arms that a "perusal of the period military reports" show
>>>> could be "borne"?
>>>>
>>>> I'm all for that interpretation. So is Jim Jeffries:
>>>> https://youtu.be/a9UFyNy-rw4?t=421
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Yes, I am. Generally we look to common usage of the
>>> Framers' era to understand their text.
>>>
>>> Others seem to think that words have no meaning and all
>>> definitions are fluid, depending on one man's whim:
>>>
>>> https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/washington-secrets/1676898/biden-aims-to-sign-on-to-uns-global-gun-registration-treaty/
>>
>> Of course he is!....or not:
>>
>> https://apnews.com/article/fact-check-biden-arms-trade-treaty-registry-551206015533
>>
>> "There is no “U.N. Small Arms Treaty.” A separate U.N.
>> agreement, the Arms Trade Treaty, regulates the
>> international trade of a range of weapons. It does not track
>> domestic gun sales. While former President Donald Trump
>> symbolically withdrew from that treaty in 2019, the U.S.
>> technically remains a signatory. The agreement was never
>> ratified by the Senate, and Biden hasn’t taken any further
>> action on it."
>>
>> https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2022/10/26/fact-check-false-claim-us-joining-international-gun-registry/10530099002/
>>
>> "The U.S. is not set to join any such treaty, according to a
>> State Department spokesperson. Experts said the Arms Trade
>> Treaty, which appears to be the treaty referenced in the
>> post, would not establish an international gun registry."
>>
>> (Any washington examiner claim is immediately as suspect as
>> any claim from kunich or shitstain)
>>
>
>And you can believe them! After all, this administration
>repeats daily that 'the border is secure'.

But why worry about the borders? After all the Illegal's are already
here... and working :-)
--
Cheers,

John B.

On 1/18/2024 4:46 PM, John B. wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 08:33:54 -0600, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>
>> On 1/18/2024 8:24 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
>>> On 1/18/2024 9:06 AM, AMuzi wrote:
>>>> On 1/17/2024 7:37 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>>> On 1/17/2024 8:24 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>>>>>> On 1/17/2024 2:55 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>>>>> On 1/17/2024 3:32 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Well right now today:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> https://chicago.suntimes.com/politics/2024/1/5/24023878/assault-weapons-ban-illinois-registered-legal
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> there are purported English speakers who yet cannot
>>>>>>>> define the word 'infringe'.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Right! I'm really peeved that I can't own hand grenades
>>>>>>> and practice using them in my backyard! And what's with
>>>>>>> the stupid difficulty buying fully automatic large bore
>>>>>>> machine guns? Then there are the disgusting vehicle
>>>>>>> regulations that make it so hard to drive an Abrams
>>>>>>> tank on the road! I want one for my _safety_!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> All that stuff is infringement! But are people
>>>>>>> protesting? NO!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Here's the real problem: The NRA is all upset about
>>>>>>> little "pew pew pew" small caliber guns. We need a Bomb
>>>>>>> Owners of America to _finally_ guarantee our rights to
>>>>>>> _real_ arms! Then men can finally feel manly!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The relevant document says 'right to bear arms shall not
>>>>>> be infringed'. A perusal of period military reports,
>>>>>> especially quartermaster reports after captured sites,
>>>>>> distinguishes between 'guns' (artillery, field pieces,
>>>>>> mountain guns etc) and borne or small arms (rifles
>>>>>> mostly but pistols as well, if rarely).  Good luck with
>>>>>> an argument for hand grenades or mobile artillery.
>>>>>
>>>>> Hmm. So you're saying the second amendment applies to the
>>>>> arms that a "perusal of the period military reports" show
>>>>> could be "borne"?
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm all for that interpretation. So is Jim Jeffries:
>>>>> https://youtu.be/a9UFyNy-rw4?t=421
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yes, I am. Generally we look to common usage of the
>>>> Framers' era to understand their text.
>>>>
>>>> Others seem to think that words have no meaning and all
>>>> definitions are fluid, depending on one man's whim:
>>>>
>>>> https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/washington-secrets/1676898/biden-aims-to-sign-on-to-uns-global-gun-registration-treaty/
>>>
>>> Of course he is!....or not:
>>>
>>> https://apnews.com/article/fact-check-biden-arms-trade-treaty-registry-551206015533
>>>
>>> "There is no “U.N. Small Arms Treaty.” A separate U.N.
>>> agreement, the Arms Trade Treaty, regulates the
>>> international trade of a range of weapons. It does not track
>>> domestic gun sales. While former President Donald Trump
>>> symbolically withdrew from that treaty in 2019, the U.S.
>>> technically remains a signatory. The agreement was never
>>> ratified by the Senate, and Biden hasn’t taken any further
>>> action on it."
>>>
>>> https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2022/10/26/fact-check-false-claim-us-joining-international-gun-registry/10530099002/
>>>
>>> "The U.S. is not set to join any such treaty, according to a
>>> State Department spokesperson. Experts said the Arms Trade
>>> Treaty, which appears to be the treaty referenced in the
>>> post, would not establish an international gun registry."
>>>
>>> (Any washington examiner claim is immediately as suspect as
>>> any claim from kunich or shitstain)
>>>
>>
>> And you can believe them! After all, this administration
>> repeats daily that 'the border is secure'.
>
> But why worry about the borders? After all the Illegal's are already
> here... and working :-)

paying taxes, doing the shitty jobs americans won't do for triple the pay...
--
Add xx to reply

On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 17:20:09 -0500, Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>On 1/18/2024 4:46 PM, John B. wrote:
>> On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 08:33:54 -0600, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>
>>> On 1/18/2024 8:24 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
>>>> On 1/18/2024 9:06 AM, AMuzi wrote:
>>>>> On 1/17/2024 7:37 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>>>> On 1/17/2024 8:24 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>>>>>>> On 1/17/2024 2:55 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 1/17/2024 3:32 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Well right now today:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> https://chicago.suntimes.com/politics/2024/1/5/24023878/assault-weapons-ban-illinois-registered-legal
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> there are purported English speakers who yet cannot
>>>>>>>>> define the word 'infringe'.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Right! I'm really peeved that I can't own hand grenades
>>>>>>>> and practice using them in my backyard! And what's with
>>>>>>>> the stupid difficulty buying fully automatic large bore
>>>>>>>> machine guns? Then there are the disgusting vehicle
>>>>>>>> regulations that make it so hard to drive an Abrams
>>>>>>>> tank on the road! I want one for my _safety_!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> All that stuff is infringement! But are people
>>>>>>>> protesting? NO!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Here's the real problem: The NRA is all upset about
>>>>>>>> little "pew pew pew" small caliber guns. We need a Bomb
>>>>>>>> Owners of America to _finally_ guarantee our rights to
>>>>>>>> _real_ arms! Then men can finally feel manly!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The relevant document says 'right to bear arms shall not
>>>>>>> be infringed'. A perusal of period military reports,
>>>>>>> especially quartermaster reports after captured sites,
>>>>>>> distinguishes between 'guns' (artillery, field pieces,
>>>>>>> mountain guns etc) and borne or small arms (rifles
>>>>>>> mostly but pistols as well, if rarely).  Good luck with
>>>>>>> an argument for hand grenades or mobile artillery.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hmm. So you're saying the second amendment applies to the
>>>>>> arms that a "perusal of the period military reports" show
>>>>>> could be "borne"?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm all for that interpretation. So is Jim Jeffries:
>>>>>> https://youtu.be/a9UFyNy-rw4?t=421
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, I am. Generally we look to common usage of the
>>>>> Framers' era to understand their text.
>>>>>
>>>>> Others seem to think that words have no meaning and all
>>>>> definitions are fluid, depending on one man's whim:
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/washington-secrets/1676898/biden-aims-to-sign-on-to-uns-global-gun-registration-treaty/
>>>>
>>>> Of course he is!....or not:
>>>>
>>>> https://apnews.com/article/fact-check-biden-arms-trade-treaty-registry-551206015533
>>>>
>>>> "There is no “U.N. Small Arms Treaty.” A separate U.N.
>>>> agreement, the Arms Trade Treaty, regulates the
>>>> international trade of a range of weapons. It does not track
>>>> domestic gun sales. While former President Donald Trump
>>>> symbolically withdrew from that treaty in 2019, the U.S.
>>>> technically remains a signatory. The agreement was never
>>>> ratified by the Senate, and Biden hasn’t taken any further
>>>> action on it."
>>>>
>>>> https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2022/10/26/fact-check-false-claim-us-joining-international-gun-registry/10530099002/
>>>>
>>>> "The U.S. is not set to join any such treaty, according to a
>>>> State Department spokesperson. Experts said the Arms Trade
>>>> Treaty, which appears to be the treaty referenced in the
>>>> post, would not establish an international gun registry."
>>>>
>>>> (Any washington examiner claim is immediately as suspect as
>>>> any claim from kunich or shitstain)
>>>>
>>>
>>> And you can believe them! After all, this administration
>>> repeats daily that 'the border is secure'.
>>
>> But why worry about the borders? After all the Illegal's are already
>> here... and working :-)
>
>paying taxes, doing the shitty jobs americans won't do for triple the pay...

Well why should one work? After all you got the unemployment, the
girlfriend is getting the pay for an unwed mother. No sense at all in
getting up in the morning and going to work.
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 12:27:09 -0600, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:

>On 1/18/2024 11:54 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
>> On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 12:04:31 -0500, Frank Krygowski
>> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On 1/18/2024 9:06 AM, AMuzi wrote:
>>>> On 1/17/2024 7:37 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>>> On 1/17/2024 8:24 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>>>>>> On 1/17/2024 2:55 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>>>>> On 1/17/2024 3:32 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Well right now today:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> https://chicago.suntimes.com/politics/2024/1/5/24023878/assault-weapons-ban-illinois-registered-legal
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> there are purported English speakers who yet cannot define the word
>>>>>>>> 'infringe'.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Right! I'm really peeved that I can't own hand grenades and practice
>>>>>>> using them in my backyard! And what's with the stupid difficulty
>>>>>>> buying fully automatic large bore machine guns? Then there are the
>>>>>>> disgusting vehicle regulations that make it so hard to drive an
>>>>>>> Abrams tank on the road! I want one for my _safety_!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> All that stuff is infringement! But are people protesting? NO!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Here's the real problem: The NRA is all upset about little "pew pew
>>>>>>> pew" small caliber guns. We need a Bomb Owners of America to
>>>>>>> _finally_ guarantee our rights to _real_ arms! Then men can finally
>>>>>>> feel manly!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The relevant document says 'right to bear arms shall not be
>>>>>> infringed'. A perusal of period military reports, especially
>>>>>> quartermaster reports after captured sites, distinguishes between
>>>>>> 'guns' (artillery, field pieces, mountain guns etc) and borne or
>>>>>> small arms (rifles mostly but pistols as well, if rarely).  Good luck
>>>>>> with an argument for hand grenades or mobile artillery.
>>>>>
>>>>> Hmm. So you're saying the second amendment applies to the arms that a
>>>>> "perusal of the period military reports" show could be "borne"?
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm all for that interpretation. So is Jim Jeffries:
>>>>> https://youtu.be/a9UFyNy-rw4?t=421
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yes, I am. Generally we look to common usage of the Framers' era to
>>>> understand their text.
>>>
>>> Good! Since the common usage in the framers era had no concept of 30
>>> round magazines that can be emptied in a few seconds into rooms full of
>>> innocents, perhaps we can use that to move toward rational gun policies.
>>
>> Banning "assault weapons" was tried. It didn't accomplish what it was
>> supposed to do.
>
>For some odd reason, assaults and murders with stolen
>pistols by repeat felons were not affected by that. Who
>could have guessed that?

If a single shooting is done with an Assault type rifle the goes up,
"BAN the deadly AR!"

But when an official law enforcement agency announces that 7,937
homicides were committed with "hand guns", i.e., "pistols", not a
sound is heard.

--
Cheers,

John B.

On 1/18/2024 6:31 PM, John B. wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 12:27:09 -0600, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>
>> On 1/18/2024 11:54 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
>>> On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 12:04:31 -0500, Frank Krygowski
>>> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 1/18/2024 9:06 AM, AMuzi wrote:
>>>>> On 1/17/2024 7:37 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>>>> On 1/17/2024 8:24 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>>>>>>> On 1/17/2024 2:55 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 1/17/2024 3:32 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Well right now today:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> https://chicago.suntimes.com/politics/2024/1/5/24023878/assault-weapons-ban-illinois-registered-legal
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> there are purported English speakers who yet cannot define the word
>>>>>>>>> 'infringe'.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Right! I'm really peeved that I can't own hand grenades and practice
>>>>>>>> using them in my backyard! And what's with the stupid difficulty
>>>>>>>> buying fully automatic large bore machine guns? Then there are the
>>>>>>>> disgusting vehicle regulations that make it so hard to drive an
>>>>>>>> Abrams tank on the road! I want one for my _safety_!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> All that stuff is infringement! But are people protesting? NO!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Here's the real problem: The NRA is all upset about little "pew pew
>>>>>>>> pew" small caliber guns. We need a Bomb Owners of America to
>>>>>>>> _finally_ guarantee our rights to _real_ arms! Then men can finally
>>>>>>>> feel manly!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The relevant document says 'right to bear arms shall not be
>>>>>>> infringed'. A perusal of period military reports, especially
>>>>>>> quartermaster reports after captured sites, distinguishes between
>>>>>>> 'guns' (artillery, field pieces, mountain guns etc) and borne or
>>>>>>> small arms (rifles mostly but pistols as well, if rarely).  Good luck
>>>>>>> with an argument for hand grenades or mobile artillery.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hmm. So you're saying the second amendment applies to the arms that a
>>>>>> "perusal of the period military reports" show could be "borne"?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm all for that interpretation. So is Jim Jeffries:
>>>>>> https://youtu.be/a9UFyNy-rw4?t=421
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, I am. Generally we look to common usage of the Framers' era to
>>>>> understand their text.
>>>>
>>>> Good! Since the common usage in the framers era had no concept of 30
>>>> round magazines that can be emptied in a few seconds into rooms full of
>>>> innocents, perhaps we can use that to move toward rational gun policies.
>>>
>>> Banning "assault weapons" was tried. It didn't accomplish what it was
>>> supposed to do.
>>
>> For some odd reason, assaults and murders with stolen
>> pistols by repeat felons were not affected by that. Who
>> could have guessed that?
>
> If a single shooting is done with an Assault type rifle the goes up,
> "BAN the deadly AR!"
>
> But when an official law enforcement agency announces that 7,937
> homicides were committed with "hand guns", i.e., "pistols", not a
> sound is heard.
>
>

There was a time, back in the Dark Ages, when we imprisoned
criminals. I miss that.

https://cwbchicago.com/2024/01/chicago-expressway-road-rage-shooting-arrest.html

https://cwbchicago.com/2024/01/chicago-puffy-coat-bandit-sentenced-probation.html

https://cwbchicago.com/2024/01/chicago-auto-theft-charges-three-cases-electronic-monitoring.html

https://cwbchicago.com/2024/01/chicago-gang-affiliated-shooting-attempted-murder-on-probation.html

Pick a day, any day. Pick a city, any Democrat run city.
Same story over and over.

--
Andrew Muzi
am@yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On 1/18/2024 3:50 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:
> On 1/18/2024 1:58 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>> On 1/18/2024 12:34 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>> On 1/18/2024 12:17 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>>>>   After all, this administration repeats
>>>>>> daily that 'the border is secure'.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Do they?
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/press-briefings/2024/01/16/press-briefing-by-press-secretary-karine-jean-pierre-and-nsc-coordinator-for-strategic-communications-john-kirby-38/
>>>>>
>>>>> Nothing there even remotely close to 'the border is secure'.
>>>>>
>>>>> Do you have a link to a Biden quote or a WH press release stating
>>>>> the border is secure, and/or there are no issues with border
>>>>> security? I'd be interested in reading that.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Start at 0:45
>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YMon6O_zSj4
>>>
>>> I gave up halfway through. Nothing I heard proved your point. Try again?
>>>
>>
>> Mayorkas has claimed that repeatedly, including in House testimony.
>> An NBC News interview video is here:
>> https://www.breitbart.com/clips/2023/05/05/mayorkas-not-worried-about-title-42-ending-the-border-is-secure-because-we-are-maximizing-our-resources-for-most-effective-results/
>>
>> Try 1:06 of the two minute video.
>> The super cute and hot Press Secretary says the same stupid stuff BTW.
>
> ooookaaaay....that was from May of 2023, Maybe it's just me, but I
> wouldn't qualify that as "this administration repeats daily that 'the
> border is secure'. "
>
> To be clear, I'm not denying some administration officials may claim the
> border is secure, I'm questioning the "this administration repeats daily
> that 'the border is secure'. " hyperbole.

Hyperbole in a political discussion?? Say it isn't so!! ;-)

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 1/18/2024 4:03 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
> The Frames [sic] of the Constitution were 100% FOR the most modern firearms available.

First, I know of no evidence that the "Frames" of the constitution
intended that every household should own, say, its own cannon.

Second, the men who wrote the constitution had to have no concept of the
damage to society that would result from letting every yahoo in the
country tote a gun that can wipe out a class of schoolkids in a minute.

Third, the Constitution, as good as it is, was a first attempt at
inventing a new country. Those who wrote it were pretty intelligent, but
they could not see the future. Other countries observed our
constitution and improved on it. And they were smart enough to allow
reasonable controls on super-deadly armaments.

> Frank believes that we should be reduced to clubs. Were that do, Frank would already be dead.

Wow. Tom's making exactly as much sense as he usually does.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 1/18/2024 8:30 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On 1/18/2024 4:03 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
>> The Frames [sic] of the Constitution were 100% FOR the
>> most modern firearms available.
>
> First, I know of no evidence that the "Frames" of the
> constitution intended that every household should own, say,
> its own cannon.
>
> Second, the men who wrote the constitution had to have no
> concept of the damage to society that would result from
> letting every yahoo in the country tote a gun that can wipe
> out a class of schoolkids in a minute.
>
> Third, the Constitution, as good as it is, was a first
> attempt at inventing a new country. Those who wrote it were
> pretty intelligent, but they could not see the future.
> Other countries observed our constitution and improved on
> it. And they were smart enough to allow reasonable controls
> on super-deadly armaments.
>
>> Frank believes that we should be reduced to clubs. Were
>> that do, Frank would already be dead.
>
> Wow. Tom's making exactly as much sense as he usually does.
>

Others view the Founding era, our beloved Constitution and
modern USA differently.

The Founders' wisdom is underappreciated IMHO especially as
regards currency (only gold or silver not electrons) and
individual rights, in small and in large.

p.s. 'guns' (artillery) and 'borne arms' (small arms)
were/are very different then and now.
--
Andrew Muzi
am@yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On 1/18/2024 7:31 PM, John B. wrote:
>
> If a single shooting is done with an Assault type rifle the goes up,
> "BAN the deadly AR!"
>
> But when an official law enforcement agency announces that 7,937
> homicides were committed with "hand guns", i.e., "pistols", not a
> sound is heard.

John, it's worrisome that you've forgotten, but:

You have complained many times about handgun deaths. I've said many,
many times that if you prefer to begin calling for serious restrictions
on handguns, do so!

--
- Frank Krygowski

On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 19:20:49 -0600, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:

>On 1/18/2024 6:31 PM, John B. wrote:
>> On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 12:27:09 -0600, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>
>>> On 1/18/2024 11:54 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 12:04:31 -0500, Frank Krygowski
>>>> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 1/18/2024 9:06 AM, AMuzi wrote:
>>>>>> On 1/17/2024 7:37 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>>>>> On 1/17/2024 8:24 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 1/17/2024 2:55 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 1/17/2024 3:32 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Well right now today:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> https://chicago.suntimes.com/politics/2024/1/5/24023878/assault-weapons-ban-illinois-registered-legal
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> there are purported English speakers who yet cannot define the word
>>>>>>>>>> 'infringe'.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Right! I'm really peeved that I can't own hand grenades and practice
>>>>>>>>> using them in my backyard! And what's with the stupid difficulty
>>>>>>>>> buying fully automatic large bore machine guns? Then there are the
>>>>>>>>> disgusting vehicle regulations that make it so hard to drive an
>>>>>>>>> Abrams tank on the road! I want one for my _safety_!
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> All that stuff is infringement! But are people protesting? NO!
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Here's the real problem: The NRA is all upset about little "pew pew
>>>>>>>>> pew" small caliber guns. We need a Bomb Owners of America to
>>>>>>>>> _finally_ guarantee our rights to _real_ arms! Then men can finally
>>>>>>>>> feel manly!
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The relevant document says 'right to bear arms shall not be
>>>>>>>> infringed'. A perusal of period military reports, especially
>>>>>>>> quartermaster reports after captured sites, distinguishes between
>>>>>>>> 'guns' (artillery, field pieces, mountain guns etc) and borne or
>>>>>>>> small arms (rifles mostly but pistols as well, if rarely).  Good luck
>>>>>>>> with an argument for hand grenades or mobile artillery.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hmm. So you're saying the second amendment applies to the arms that a
>>>>>>> "perusal of the period military reports" show could be "borne"?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm all for that interpretation. So is Jim Jeffries:
>>>>>>> https://youtu.be/a9UFyNy-rw4?t=421
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, I am. Generally we look to common usage of the Framers' era to
>>>>>> understand their text.
>>>>>
>>>>> Good! Since the common usage in the framers era had no concept of 30
>>>>> round magazines that can be emptied in a few seconds into rooms full of
>>>>> innocents, perhaps we can use that to move toward rational gun policies.
>>>>
>>>> Banning "assault weapons" was tried. It didn't accomplish what it was
>>>> supposed to do.
>>>
>>> For some odd reason, assaults and murders with stolen
>>> pistols by repeat felons were not affected by that. Who
>>> could have guessed that?
>>
>> If a single shooting is done with an Assault type rifle the goes up,
>> "BAN the deadly AR!"
>>
>> But when an official law enforcement agency announces that 7,937
>> homicides were committed with "hand guns", i.e., "pistols", not a
>> sound is heard.
>>
>>
>
>There was a time, back in the Dark Ages, when we imprisoned
>criminals. I miss that.
>
But it is so cruel and costs lot of money too.

Hanging as a penalty for murder seems to date back as far as Roman
times and was performed in public until the late 1800's in England
(and used to draw huge crowds). Today, in the U.S. it is a cruel and
unusual punishment.

As an aside I know some people who have been the victim of a criminal
act - car stolen, etc. - and it is notable that they are more in favor
of meaningful punishment then those who have never had the same
experience.
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Thursday, January 18, 2024 at 2:20:14 PM UTC-8, Zen Cycle wrote:
> On 1/18/2024 4:46 PM, John B. wrote:
> > On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 08:33:54 -0600, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
> >
> >> On 1/18/2024 8:24 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
> >>> On 1/18/2024 9:06 AM, AMuzi wrote:
> >>>> On 1/17/2024 7:37 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> >>>>> On 1/17/2024 8:24 PM, AMuzi wrote:
> >>>>>> On 1/17/2024 2:55 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> >>>>>>> On 1/17/2024 3:32 PM, AMuzi wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Well right now today:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> https://chicago.suntimes.com/politics/2024/1/5/24023878/assault-weapons-ban-illinois-registered-legal
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> there are purported English speakers who yet cannot
> >>>>>>>> define the word 'infringe'.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Right! I'm really peeved that I can't own hand grenades
> >>>>>>> and practice using them in my backyard! And what's with
> >>>>>>> the stupid difficulty buying fully automatic large bore
> >>>>>>> machine guns? Then there are the disgusting vehicle
> >>>>>>> regulations that make it so hard to drive an Abrams
> >>>>>>> tank on the road! I want one for my _safety_!
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> All that stuff is infringement! But are people
> >>>>>>> protesting? NO!
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Here's the real problem: The NRA is all upset about
> >>>>>>> little "pew pew pew" small caliber guns. We need a Bomb
> >>>>>>> Owners of America to _finally_ guarantee our rights to
> >>>>>>> _real_ arms! Then men can finally feel manly!
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> The relevant document says 'right to bear arms shall not
> >>>>>> be infringed'. A perusal of period military reports,
> >>>>>> especially quartermaster reports after captured sites,
> >>>>>> distinguishes between 'guns' (artillery, field pieces,
> >>>>>> mountain guns etc) and borne or small arms (rifles
> >>>>>> mostly but pistols as well, if rarely). Good luck with
> >>>>>> an argument for hand grenades or mobile artillery.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Hmm. So you're saying the second amendment applies to the
> >>>>> arms that a "perusal of the period military reports" show
> >>>>> could be "borne"?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I'm all for that interpretation. So is Jim Jeffries:
> >>>>> https://youtu.be/a9UFyNy-rw4?t=421
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Yes, I am. Generally we look to common usage of the
> >>>> Framers' era to understand their text.
> >>>>
> >>>> Others seem to think that words have no meaning and all
> >>>> definitions are fluid, depending on one man's whim:
> >>>>
> >>>> https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/washington-secrets/1676898/biden-aims-to-sign-on-to-uns-global-gun-registration-treaty/
> >>>
> >>> Of course he is!....or not:
> >>>
> >>> https://apnews.com/article/fact-check-biden-arms-trade-treaty-registry-551206015533
> >>>
> >>> "There is no “U.N. Small Arms Treaty.” A separate U.N..
> >>> agreement, the Arms Trade Treaty, regulates the
> >>> international trade of a range of weapons. It does not track
> >>> domestic gun sales. While former President Donald Trump
> >>> symbolically withdrew from that treaty in 2019, the U.S.
> >>> technically remains a signatory. The agreement was never
> >>> ratified by the Senate, and Biden hasn’t taken any further
> >>> action on it."
> >>>
> >>> https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2022/10/26/fact-check-false-claim-us-joining-international-gun-registry/10530099002/
> >>>
> >>> "The U.S. is not set to join any such treaty, according to a
> >>> State Department spokesperson. Experts said the Arms Trade
> >>> Treaty, which appears to be the treaty referenced in the
> >>> post, would not establish an international gun registry."
> >>>
> >>> (Any washington examiner claim is immediately as suspect as
> >>> any claim from kunich or shitstain)
> >>>
> >>
> >> And you can believe them! After all, this administration
> >> repeats daily that 'the border is secure'.
> >
> > But why worry about the borders? After all the Illegal's are already
> > here... and working :-)
> paying taxes, doing the shitty jobs americans won't do for triple the pay....
> --
> Add xx to reply

So how many illegals do you have working for your company?

On Thursday, January 18, 2024 at 6:35:27 PM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
> On 1/18/2024 8:30 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> > On 1/18/2024 4:03 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
> >> The Frames [sic] of the Constitution were 100% FOR the
> >> most modern firearms available.
> >
> > First, I know of no evidence that the "Frames" of the
> > constitution intended that every household should own, say,
> > its own cannon.
> >
> > Second, the men who wrote the constitution had to have no
> > concept of the damage to society that would result from
> > letting every yahoo in the country tote a gun that can wipe
> > out a class of schoolkids in a minute.
> >
> > Third, the Constitution, as good as it is, was a first
> > attempt at inventing a new country. Those who wrote it were
> > pretty intelligent, but they could not see the future.
> > Other countries observed our constitution and improved on
> > it. And they were smart enough to allow reasonable controls
> > on super-deadly armaments.
> >
> >> Frank believes that we should be reduced to clubs. Were
> >> that do, Frank would already be dead.
> >
> > Wow. Tom's making exactly as much sense as he usually does.
> >
> Others view the Founding era, our beloved Constitution and
> modern USA differently.
>
> The Founders' wisdom is underappreciated IMHO especially as
> regards currency (only gold or silver not electrons) and
> individual rights, in small and in large.
>
> p.s. 'guns' (artillery) and 'borne arms' (small arms)
> were/are very different then and now.
> --
> Andrew Muzi
> a...@yellowjersey.org
> Open every day since 1 April, 1971

Krygowski believes that he is superior thinker because I make typos usually due to one of my cats sitting on my desktop in front of the screen. I think him an inferior thinker because those are the only arguments he can come up with. Think of that. Out of all of the idiotic stances he makes the ONLY one he has that makes the slightest truth in it is that I make typos. Even John wouldn't stoop that low.

On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 12:54:42 -0500, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:

>On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 12:04:31 -0500, Frank Krygowski
><frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>>On 1/18/2024 9:06 AM, AMuzi wrote:
>>> On 1/17/2024 7:37 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>> On 1/17/2024 8:24 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>>>>> On 1/17/2024 2:55 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>>>> On 1/17/2024 3:32 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Well right now today:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://chicago.suntimes.com/politics/2024/1/5/24023878/assault-weapons-ban-illinois-registered-legal
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> there are purported English speakers who yet cannot define the word
>>>>>>> 'infringe'.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Right! I'm really peeved that I can't own hand grenades and practice
>>>>>> using them in my backyard! And what's with the stupid difficulty
>>>>>> buying fully automatic large bore machine guns? Then there are the
>>>>>> disgusting vehicle regulations that make it so hard to drive an
>>>>>> Abrams tank on the road! I want one for my _safety_!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> All that stuff is infringement! But are people protesting? NO!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Here's the real problem: The NRA is all upset about little "pew pew
>>>>>> pew" small caliber guns. We need a Bomb Owners of America to
>>>>>> _finally_ guarantee our rights to _real_ arms! Then men can finally
>>>>>> feel manly!
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The relevant document says 'right to bear arms shall not be
>>>>> infringed'. A perusal of period military reports, especially
>>>>> quartermaster reports after captured sites, distinguishes between
>>>>> 'guns' (artillery, field pieces, mountain guns etc) and borne or
>>>>> small arms (rifles mostly but pistols as well, if rarely).  Good luck
>>>>> with an argument for hand grenades or mobile artillery.
>>>>
>>>> Hmm. So you're saying the second amendment applies to the arms that a
>>>> "perusal of the period military reports" show could be "borne"?
>>>>
>>>> I'm all for that interpretation. So is Jim Jeffries:
>>>> https://youtu.be/a9UFyNy-rw4?t=421
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Yes, I am. Generally we look to common usage of the Framers' era to
>>> understand their text.
>>
>>Good! Since the common usage in the framers era had no concept of 30
>>round magazines that can be emptied in a few seconds into rooms full of
>>innocents, perhaps we can use that to move toward rational gun policies.
>
>Banning "assault weapons" was tried. It didn't accomplish what it was
>supposed to do.

Unfortunately Frank and his ilk don't, apparently, know much about
what they are talking about and confuse the weapon with the crime.

Their assumption seems to be that if only we could get rid of those
fiendish AR type firearms there would be no more school shootings.

But the reality is that "mass shootings", defined as "Those that occur
in public places, take four or more lives, and have no connection to
underlying criminal activity" are most commonly carried out with hand
guns and even in cases where a shoulder fired weapon was the primary
weapon the assailant also carried a pistol.

It might also be noted that current some 20 - 25 million Assault type
Rifles are in the hand of U.S. civilians, but as soon as a single one
is used in a crime the cry goes up, "Ban ARs!". Are we to assume that
the remaining 19,999,989 are also guilty by association and thus
deserve to have their firearms seized?
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 20:35:25 -0600, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:

>On 1/18/2024 8:30 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> On 1/18/2024 4:03 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
>>> The Frames [sic] of the Constitution were 100% FOR the
>>> most modern firearms available.
>>
>> First, I know of no evidence that the "Frames" of the
>> constitution intended that every household should own, say,
>> its own cannon.
>>
>> Second, the men who wrote the constitution had to have no
>> concept of the damage to society that would result from
>> letting every yahoo in the country tote a gun that can wipe
>> out a class of schoolkids in a minute.
>>
>> Third, the Constitution, as good as it is, was a first
>> attempt at inventing a new country. Those who wrote it were
>> pretty intelligent, but they could not see the future.
>> Other countries observed our constitution and improved on
>> it. And they were smart enough to allow reasonable controls
>> on super-deadly armaments.
>>
>>> Frank believes that we should be reduced to clubs. Were
>>> that do, Frank would already be dead.
>>
>> Wow. Tom's making exactly as much sense as he usually does.
>>
>
>Others view the Founding era, our beloved Constitution and
>modern USA differently.
>
>The Founders' wisdom is underappreciated IMHO especially as
>regards currency (only gold or silver not electrons) and
>individual rights, in small and in large.
>
>p.s. 'guns' (artillery) and 'borne arms' (small arms)
>were/are very different then and now.

But, remember, the "Founder's" intent was to build a confederation of
semi independent states. Not what exists today.
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 08:08:26 -0800 (PST), Tom Kunich
<cyclintom@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Wednesday, January 17, 2024 at 6:31:23?PM UTC-8, Zen Cycle wrote:
>> On 1/17/2024 2:51 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
>> > On Wednesday, January 17, 2024 at 7:08:41?AM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
>> >> On 1/17/2024 7:15 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
>> >>> On Wed, 17 Jan 2024 07:37:54 -0500, Zen Cycle <funkm...@hotmail.com>
>> >>> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>> On 1/16/2024 4:40 PM, floriduh dumbass wrote:
>> >>>>> On Tue, 16 Jan 2024 16:22:27 -0500, Zen Cycle <funkm...@hotmail.com>
>> >>>>> wrote:
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>> On 1/16/2024 4:19 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>> >>>>>>> On 1/16/2024 2:49 PM, sms wrote:
>> >>>>>>>> On 1/16/2024 9:14 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> I haven't laughed this hard in weeks. Generally speaking I won't miss
>> >>>>>>>>> tommy when he can't post here any more, but I _will_ miss gems like
>> >>>>>>>>> this.
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> That was the best!
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> FWIW, the great bicycle tube and tire shortage was during the Trump
>> >>>>>>>> administration.
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> Trump should have gotten an award from the National Bicycle Dealers
>> >>>>>>>> Association (NBDA) because it was his horrible botching of the
>> >>>>>>>> response to the Covid epidemic that led to the spectacular sales of
>> >>>>>>>> bicycles, parts, and accessories.
>> >>>>>>>> <https://www.npr.org/sections/coronavirus-live-updates/2020/05/16/857157196/bike-sales-gear-up-as-the-homebound-try-socially-distant-exercise>
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> Biden, with his competent response to Covid, ended the pandemic and
>> >>>>>>>> bicycle sales plunged as people could go back to other activities.
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> During the pandemic, there was a big shortage to tubes and tires and
>> >>>>>>>> prices skyrocketed. Now tubes and tires are readily available and
>> >>>>>>>> prices have fallen. I just bought 27.5" Kenda tubes for less than $4
>> >>>>>>>> each <https://www.ebay.com/itm/296093855956>.
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> Obama's competent handling of the economy ended the recession caused
>> >>>>>>>> by W. "The economy improved markedly under former President Barack
>> >>>>>>>> Obama, from the start of 2009 through the end of 2016. Faced with the
>> >>>>>>>> specter of another Great Depression in winter 2009, President Obama
>> >>>>>>>> enacted a series of policies that helped the economy avoid that fate.
>> >>>>>>>> The economy was growing again by the second half of 2009, and jobs
>> >>>>>>>> followed suit by early 2010. Economic growth continued apace for the
>> >>>>>>>> rest of President Obama’s time in office, and job growth logged its
>> >>>>>>>> longest expansion on record by early 2017, dating back to 1939.1
>> >>>>>>>> Employment opportunities improved, the unemployment rate fell, wages
>> >>>>>>>> eventually increased, and household debt dropped sharply."
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> Biden is reversing the failures of the Trump economy, with spectacular
>> >>>>>>>> job growth, low unemployment, and a record stock market. The inflation
>> >>>>>>>> caused by the spending during the pandemic is coming down nicely.
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> Does the Obama Team (2009~16 and 2021~present) get credit for firearms
>> >>>>>>> sales?
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> https://www.statista.com/statistics/249740/percentage-of-households-in-the-united-states-owning-a-firearm/
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> Indirectly - A large number of people bought into the lie spread by the
>> >>>>>> NRA/GOP that Obama was going to take everyone's guns.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> During his presidency, Obama called for stricter gun laws and urged
>> >>>>> Congress to reinstate the assault weapons ban
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Which wouldn't have taken anyone's guns away, it would have restricted
>> >>>> further sales.
>> >>>
>> >>> <SNIP>
>> >>>
>> >>> Yes, Dummy, you see, the original assault weapons ban had a
>> >>> grandfather clause that allowed a person to keep the weapon if he'd
>> >>> gotten it before the ban, so, a wise person who thought they might
>> >>> ever want one, went out and bought one, assuming a reinstatement of
>> >>> the ban would have the same grandfather clause.
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >> Ask our contributor Mr Ridesalot about the permanence of
>> >> such assurances.
>> >> --
>> >> Andrew Muzi
>> >> a...@yellowjersey.org
>> >> Open every day since 1 April, 1971
>> >
>> > As I said before my best childhood friend is still alive and retired from the US Marine Corp. Ask him about the Democrats belief in the Constitution since he spent the WW II years in the Manzanar Concentration Camp. Without access to what medical care there was, his father died there. Flunky will not be appreciative should we ever meet, with his belief that Obama's full intent was to get a foot in the door and take all guns away and Flunky's claim otherwise. Were the phrase "NRA" to pass his lips it would be months of plastic surgery before he would be capable of saying anything.
>> NRA NRA NRA NRA NRA NRA NRA NRA NRA NRA NRA NRA NRA NRA NRA NRA NRA NRA
>> NRA NRA NRA NRA NRA NRA NRA NRA NRA NRA NRA NRA NRA NRA NRA NRA NRA NRA
>>
>> It's going to be fun watching you _try_ to follow up on that threat (and
>> no, it has nothing to do with the fact that you live across the country.
>>
>> ..
>> All of my guns are gone because my younger brother had undue effect on
>> me while I was concussed. But now that I have the Loto and a complete 10
>> speed group for the Fondriest, I will sell off everything else which
>> will give me room in the garage. And I will rearm myself. With the
>> return of common sense cops will see the return of honest judges.
>> --
>> Add xx to reply
>Sleazy cowards are always happy to hide behind anonymity so you/ve positioned yourself right where you belong - nothing more than the laughing stock of the group who denies that because of inflation and lack of income that people are driving their tires too long and wearing them out and throwing the steel core particles on the roads. And since it is winter and you can't ride you simply lie about it because that is what you are,.

Gee, I hadn't realized how bad off you were back there in the richest
nation in the world. Can't buy auto tires.

I guess I'll stay here in this little developing country where we can
still afford auto tires,
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 21:30:26 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>On 1/18/2024 4:03 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
>> The Frames [sic] of the Constitution were 100% FOR the most modern firearms available.
>
>First, I know of no evidence that the "Frames" of the constitution
>intended that every household should own, say, its own cannon.
>
>Second, the men who wrote the constitution had to have no concept of the
>damage to society that would result from letting every yahoo in the
>country tote a gun that can wipe out a class of schoolkids in a minute.

There were no restrictions on owning a cannon that loaded with grape
shot, case shot or canister shot could do it in far less than a
minute.

>Third, the Constitution, as good as it is, was a first attempt at
>inventing a new country. Those who wrote it were pretty intelligent, but
>they could not see the future. Other countries observed our
>constitution and improved on it. And they were smart enough to allow
>reasonable controls on super-deadly armaments.
>
>> Frank believes that we should be reduced to clubs. Were that do, Frank would already be dead.
>
>Wow. Tom's making exactly as much sense as he usually does.

On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 12:15:30 +0700, John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 12:54:42 -0500, Catrike Ryder
><Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 12:04:31 -0500, Frank Krygowski
>><frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>
>>>On 1/18/2024 9:06 AM, AMuzi wrote:
>>>> On 1/17/2024 7:37 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>>> On 1/17/2024 8:24 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>>>>>> On 1/17/2024 2:55 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>>>>> On 1/17/2024 3:32 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Well right now today:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> https://chicago.suntimes.com/politics/2024/1/5/24023878/assault-weapons-ban-illinois-registered-legal
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> there are purported English speakers who yet cannot define the word
>>>>>>>> 'infringe'.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Right! I'm really peeved that I can't own hand grenades and practice
>>>>>>> using them in my backyard! And what's with the stupid difficulty
>>>>>>> buying fully automatic large bore machine guns? Then there are the
>>>>>>> disgusting vehicle regulations that make it so hard to drive an
>>>>>>> Abrams tank on the road! I want one for my _safety_!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> All that stuff is infringement! But are people protesting? NO!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Here's the real problem: The NRA is all upset about little "pew pew
>>>>>>> pew" small caliber guns. We need a Bomb Owners of America to
>>>>>>> _finally_ guarantee our rights to _real_ arms! Then men can finally
>>>>>>> feel manly!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The relevant document says 'right to bear arms shall not be
>>>>>> infringed'. A perusal of period military reports, especially
>>>>>> quartermaster reports after captured sites, distinguishes between
>>>>>> 'guns' (artillery, field pieces, mountain guns etc) and borne or
>>>>>> small arms (rifles mostly but pistols as well, if rarely).  Good luck
>>>>>> with an argument for hand grenades or mobile artillery.
>>>>>
>>>>> Hmm. So you're saying the second amendment applies to the arms that a
>>>>> "perusal of the period military reports" show could be "borne"?
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm all for that interpretation. So is Jim Jeffries:
>>>>> https://youtu.be/a9UFyNy-rw4?t=421
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yes, I am. Generally we look to common usage of the Framers' era to
>>>> understand their text.
>>>
>>>Good! Since the common usage in the framers era had no concept of 30
>>>round magazines that can be emptied in a few seconds into rooms full of
>>>innocents, perhaps we can use that to move toward rational gun policies.
>>
>>Banning "assault weapons" was tried. It didn't accomplish what it was
>>supposed to do.
>
>Unfortunately Frank and his ilk don't, apparently, know much about
>what they are talking about and confuse the weapon with the crime.
>
>Their assumption seems to be that if only we could get rid of those
>fiendish AR type firearms there would be no more school shootings.
>
>But the reality is that "mass shootings", defined as "Those that occur
>in public places, take four or more lives, and have no connection to
>underlying criminal activity" are most commonly carried out with hand
>guns and even in cases where a shoulder fired weapon was the primary
>weapon the assailant also carried a pistol.
>
>It might also be noted that current some 20 - 25 million Assault type
>Rifles are in the hand of U.S. civilians, but as soon as a single one
>is used in a crime the cry goes up, "Ban ARs!". Are we to assume that
>the remaining 19,999,989 are also guilty by association and thus
>deserve to have their firearms seized?

Let them cry....

The trend, except for some extreme far left jurisdictions is for the
relaxation of existing gun restrictions. Here in Florida there is
current legislative deliberation about allowing open carry for anyone
who can legally own a gun. That's already permitted in some states.

https://www.usconcealedcarry.com/blog/what-is-open-carry-and-which-states-allow-it/

FWIW, that's something I will never do, nor am I a proponant of the
proposed change of the law.

On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 04:59:44 -0500, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:

>On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 21:30:26 -0500, Frank Krygowski
><frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>>On 1/18/2024 4:03 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
>>> The Frames [sic] of the Constitution were 100% FOR the most modern firearms available.
>>
>>First, I know of no evidence that the "Frames" of the constitution
>>intended that every household should own, say, its own cannon.
>>
>>Second, the men who wrote the constitution had to have no concept of the
>>damage to society that would result from letting every yahoo in the
>>country tote a gun that can wipe out a class of schoolkids in a minute.
>
>There were no restrictions on owning a cannon that loaded with grape
>shot, case shot or canister shot could do it in far less than a
>minute.
>
>>Third, the Constitution, as good as it is, was a first attempt at
>>inventing a new country. Those who wrote it were pretty intelligent, but
>>they could not see the future. Other countries observed our
>>constitution and improved on it. And they were smart enough to allow
>>reasonable controls on super-deadly armaments.
>>
>>> Frank believes that we should be reduced to clubs. Were that do, Frank would already be dead.
>>
>>Wow. Tom's making exactly as much sense as he usually does.

The problem with Frank's argument is that there are, and always have
been, methods of changing, adding to and deleting from the
Consecution. If Frank is so despondent about the present Constitution
why doesn't he start a movement to modify it to fit his requirements?

--
Cheers,

John B.

On 1/18/2024 6:19 PM, John B. wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 17:20:09 -0500, Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 1/18/2024 4:46 PM, John B. wrote:
>>> On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 08:33:54 -0600, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 1/18/2024 8:24 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
>>>>> On 1/18/2024 9:06 AM, AMuzi wrote:
>>>>>> On 1/17/2024 7:37 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>>>>> On 1/17/2024 8:24 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 1/17/2024 2:55 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 1/17/2024 3:32 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Well right now today:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> https://chicago.suntimes.com/politics/2024/1/5/24023878/assault-weapons-ban-illinois-registered-legal
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> there are purported English speakers who yet cannot
>>>>>>>>>> define the word 'infringe'.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Right! I'm really peeved that I can't own hand grenades
>>>>>>>>> and practice using them in my backyard! And what's with
>>>>>>>>> the stupid difficulty buying fully automatic large bore
>>>>>>>>> machine guns? Then there are the disgusting vehicle
>>>>>>>>> regulations that make it so hard to drive an Abrams
>>>>>>>>> tank on the road! I want one for my _safety_!
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> All that stuff is infringement! But are people
>>>>>>>>> protesting? NO!
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Here's the real problem: The NRA is all upset about
>>>>>>>>> little "pew pew pew" small caliber guns. We need a Bomb
>>>>>>>>> Owners of America to _finally_ guarantee our rights to
>>>>>>>>> _real_ arms! Then men can finally feel manly!
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The relevant document says 'right to bear arms shall not
>>>>>>>> be infringed'. A perusal of period military reports,
>>>>>>>> especially quartermaster reports after captured sites,
>>>>>>>> distinguishes between 'guns' (artillery, field pieces,
>>>>>>>> mountain guns etc) and borne or small arms (rifles
>>>>>>>> mostly but pistols as well, if rarely).  Good luck with
>>>>>>>> an argument for hand grenades or mobile artillery.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hmm. So you're saying the second amendment applies to the
>>>>>>> arms that a "perusal of the period military reports" show
>>>>>>> could be "borne"?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm all for that interpretation. So is Jim Jeffries:
>>>>>>> https://youtu.be/a9UFyNy-rw4?t=421
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, I am. Generally we look to common usage of the
>>>>>> Framers' era to understand their text.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Others seem to think that words have no meaning and all
>>>>>> definitions are fluid, depending on one man's whim:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/washington-secrets/1676898/biden-aims-to-sign-on-to-uns-global-gun-registration-treaty/
>>>>>
>>>>> Of course he is!....or not:
>>>>>
>>>>> https://apnews.com/article/fact-check-biden-arms-trade-treaty-registry-551206015533
>>>>>
>>>>> "There is no “U.N. Small Arms Treaty.” A separate U.N.
>>>>> agreement, the Arms Trade Treaty, regulates the
>>>>> international trade of a range of weapons. It does not track
>>>>> domestic gun sales. While former President Donald Trump
>>>>> symbolically withdrew from that treaty in 2019, the U.S.
>>>>> technically remains a signatory. The agreement was never
>>>>> ratified by the Senate, and Biden hasn’t taken any further
>>>>> action on it."
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2022/10/26/fact-check-false-claim-us-joining-international-gun-registry/10530099002/
>>>>>
>>>>> "The U.S. is not set to join any such treaty, according to a
>>>>> State Department spokesperson. Experts said the Arms Trade
>>>>> Treaty, which appears to be the treaty referenced in the
>>>>> post, would not establish an international gun registry."
>>>>>
>>>>> (Any washington examiner claim is immediately as suspect as
>>>>> any claim from kunich or shitstain)
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> And you can believe them! After all, this administration
>>>> repeats daily that 'the border is secure'.
>>>
>>> But why worry about the borders? After all the Illegal's are already
>>> here... and working :-)
>>
>> paying taxes, doing the shitty jobs americans won't do for triple the pay...
>
> Well why should one work? After all you got the unemployment, the
> girlfriend is getting the pay for an unwed mother. No sense at all in
> getting up in the morning and going to work.

Afaik Unemployment isn't available to those who have never worked a
legitimate payroll job. There may some loopholes somewhere, but if there
are it's news to me.
--
Add xx to reply

On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 18:03:29 +0700, John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 04:59:44 -0500, Catrike Ryder
><Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 21:30:26 -0500, Frank Krygowski
>><frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>
>>>On 1/18/2024 4:03 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
>>>> The Frames [sic] of the Constitution were 100% FOR the most modern firearms available.
>>>
>>>First, I know of no evidence that the "Frames" of the constitution
>>>intended that every household should own, say, its own cannon.
>>>
>>>Second, the men who wrote the constitution had to have no concept of the
>>>damage to society that would result from letting every yahoo in the
>>>country tote a gun that can wipe out a class of schoolkids in a minute.
>>
>>There were no restrictions on owning a cannon that loaded with grape
>>shot, case shot or canister shot could do it in far less than a
>>minute.
>>
>>>Third, the Constitution, as good as it is, was a first attempt at
>>>inventing a new country. Those who wrote it were pretty intelligent, but
>>>they could not see the future. Other countries observed our
>>>constitution and improved on it. And they were smart enough to allow
>>>reasonable controls on super-deadly armaments.
>>>
>>>> Frank believes that we should be reduced to clubs. Were that do, Frank would already be dead.
>>>
>>>Wow. Tom's making exactly as much sense as he usually does.
>
>The problem with Frank's argument is that there are, and always have
>been, methods of changing, adding to and deleting from the
>Consecution. If Frank is so despondent about the present Constitution
>why doesn't he start a movement to modify it to fit his requirements?

Most of Krygowski's arguments are problematic.

For instance, he says he knows of 'no evidence that the "Frames" of
the constitution intended that every household should own, say, its
own cannon.'

Of course the Constitution doesn't address what the people can do, it
only addresses what the government can and cannot do.

Had the framers for the government wanted to restrict ownership of
cannons, they could have written that in. They didn't.

As for modifying the Constitution, it's mostly good that it's so
difficult to do. If it was easy, the laws would change back and forth
on every election cycle. The result of that would likely be less
freedom, since so many politicians believe their job is to control the
people and are striving for that end.

On 1/18/2024 11:58 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
>
> Krygowski believes that he is superior thinker because I make typos ...

Tom, your typos are your most minor problem. But their frequency is more
evidence of intellectual laziness.

That's a bigger problem you have, but it's still not your biggest problem.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 1/18/2024 8:47 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On 1/18/2024 7:31 PM, John B. wrote:
>>
>> If a single shooting is done with an Assault type rifle
>> the goes up,
>> "BAN the deadly AR!"
>>
>> But when an official law enforcement agency announces that
>> 7,937
>> homicides were committed with "hand guns", i.e.,
>> "pistols", not a
>> sound is heard.
>
> John, it's worrisome that you've forgotten, but:
>
> You have complained many times about handgun deaths. I've
> said many, many times that if you prefer to begin calling
> for serious restrictions on handguns, do so!
>

We might return to prosecuting felon in possession, armed
assault/robbery etc. There's no shortage of statutes, merely
a lack of will.

For example in many jurisdictions felon in possession or
armed robbery carry a mandatory minimum sentence but DAs
routinely reduce charges to disorderly conduct or trespass
with no time.
--
Andrew Muzi
am@yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On 1/18/2024 8:56 PM, John B. wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 19:20:49 -0600, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>
>> On 1/18/2024 6:31 PM, John B. wrote:
>>> On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 12:27:09 -0600, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 1/18/2024 11:54 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 12:04:31 -0500, Frank Krygowski
>>>>> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 1/18/2024 9:06 AM, AMuzi wrote:
>>>>>>> On 1/17/2024 7:37 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 1/17/2024 8:24 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 1/17/2024 2:55 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 1/17/2024 3:32 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Well right now today:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> https://chicago.suntimes.com/politics/2024/1/5/24023878/assault-weapons-ban-illinois-registered-legal
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> there are purported English speakers who yet cannot define the word
>>>>>>>>>>> 'infringe'.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Right! I'm really peeved that I can't own hand grenades and practice
>>>>>>>>>> using them in my backyard! And what's with the stupid difficulty
>>>>>>>>>> buying fully automatic large bore machine guns? Then there are the
>>>>>>>>>> disgusting vehicle regulations that make it so hard to drive an
>>>>>>>>>> Abrams tank on the road! I want one for my _safety_!
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> All that stuff is infringement! But are people protesting? NO!
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Here's the real problem: The NRA is all upset about little "pew pew
>>>>>>>>>> pew" small caliber guns. We need a Bomb Owners of America to
>>>>>>>>>> _finally_ guarantee our rights to _real_ arms! Then men can finally
>>>>>>>>>> feel manly!
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The relevant document says 'right to bear arms shall not be
>>>>>>>>> infringed'. A perusal of period military reports, especially
>>>>>>>>> quartermaster reports after captured sites, distinguishes between
>>>>>>>>> 'guns' (artillery, field pieces, mountain guns etc) and borne or
>>>>>>>>> small arms (rifles mostly but pistols as well, if rarely).  Good luck
>>>>>>>>> with an argument for hand grenades or mobile artillery.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hmm. So you're saying the second amendment applies to the arms that a
>>>>>>>> "perusal of the period military reports" show could be "borne"?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I'm all for that interpretation. So is Jim Jeffries:
>>>>>>>> https://youtu.be/a9UFyNy-rw4?t=421
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes, I am. Generally we look to common usage of the Framers' era to
>>>>>>> understand their text.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Good! Since the common usage in the framers era had no concept of 30
>>>>>> round magazines that can be emptied in a few seconds into rooms full of
>>>>>> innocents, perhaps we can use that to move toward rational gun policies.
>>>>>
>>>>> Banning "assault weapons" was tried. It didn't accomplish what it was
>>>>> supposed to do.
>>>>
>>>> For some odd reason, assaults and murders with stolen
>>>> pistols by repeat felons were not affected by that. Who
>>>> could have guessed that?
>>>
>>> If a single shooting is done with an Assault type rifle the goes up,
>>> "BAN the deadly AR!"
>>>
>>> But when an official law enforcement agency announces that 7,937
>>> homicides were committed with "hand guns", i.e., "pistols", not a
>>> sound is heard.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> There was a time, back in the Dark Ages, when we imprisoned
>> criminals. I miss that.
>>
> But it is so cruel and costs lot of money too.
>
> Hanging as a penalty for murder seems to date back as far as Roman
> times and was performed in public until the late 1800's in England
> (and used to draw huge crowds). Today, in the U.S. it is a cruel and
> unusual punishment.
>
> As an aside I know some people who have been the victim of a criminal
> act - car stolen, etc. - and it is notable that they are more in favor
> of meaningful punishment then those who have never had the same
> experience.

So said the quotable Honorable Mayor Frank Rizzo:
https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/frank_rizzo_125560
--
Andrew Muzi
am@yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On 1/18/2024 11:24 PM, John B. wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 20:35:25 -0600, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>
>> On 1/18/2024 8:30 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>> On 1/18/2024 4:03 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
>>>> The Frames [sic] of the Constitution were 100% FOR the
>>>> most modern firearms available.
>>>
>>> First, I know of no evidence that the "Frames" of the
>>> constitution intended that every household should own, say,
>>> its own cannon.
>>>
>>> Second, the men who wrote the constitution had to have no
>>> concept of the damage to society that would result from
>>> letting every yahoo in the country tote a gun that can wipe
>>> out a class of schoolkids in a minute.
>>>
>>> Third, the Constitution, as good as it is, was a first
>>> attempt at inventing a new country. Those who wrote it were
>>> pretty intelligent, but they could not see the future.
>>> Other countries observed our constitution and improved on
>>> it. And they were smart enough to allow reasonable controls
>>> on super-deadly armaments.
>>>
>>>> Frank believes that we should be reduced to clubs. Were
>>>> that do, Frank would already be dead.
>>>
>>> Wow. Tom's making exactly as much sense as he usually does.
>>>
>>
>> Others view the Founding era, our beloved Constitution and
>> modern USA differently.
>>
>> The Founders' wisdom is underappreciated IMHO especially as
>> regards currency (only gold or silver not electrons) and
>> individual rights, in small and in large.
>>
>> p.s. 'guns' (artillery) and 'borne arms' (small arms)
>> were/are very different then and now.
>
> But, remember, the "Founder's" intent was to build a confederation of
> semi independent states. Not what exists today.

+1
We live in the tyranny they feared.

https://thefederalist.com/2024/01/18/i-bought-a-bible-slingshot-and-sports-gear-so-im-probably-on-a-domestic-terrorist-watchlist/
--
Andrew Muzi
am@yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On 1/19/2024 9:28 AM, AMuzi wrote:
> On 1/18/2024 8:47 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> On 1/18/2024 7:31 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>
>>> If a single shooting is done with an Assault type rifle the goes up,
>>> "BAN the deadly AR!"
>>>
>>> But when an official law enforcement agency announces that 7,937
>>> homicides were committed with "hand guns", i.e., "pistols", not a
>>> sound is heard.
>>
>> John, it's worrisome that you've forgotten, but:
>>
>> You have complained many times about handgun deaths. I've said many,
>> many times that if you prefer to begin calling for serious
>> restrictions on handguns, do so!
>>
>
> We might return to prosecuting felon in possession, armed
> assault/robbery etc. There's no shortage of statutes, merely a lack of
> will.

There's also the expense. Care to raise more taxes to fund more jail
capacity? "No new taxes!!!!" And there's the realization (at least,
among some) that in many cases there are better ways to set people right.

As we've noted here repeatedly, the U.S. is a world leader in citizen
incarceration. Most other countries jail a far smaller portion of their
population, yet have far lower crime rates.

What was that one definition of insanity? "Doing the same thing over and
over and expecting different results"?

--
- Frank Krygowski