Va Nva Analysis Template

Sunday, November 8th 2020. | Sample Templates

Va Nva Analysis Template- 그린케어여–‰ì‚¬ 그린케어여–‰ì‚¬ lean six sigma deliverables workbook templates building an integrated approach to improvement with lean six sigma2 analysis variance reduction in production time via value stream mapping in vero olfactomedin 4 inhibits cathepsin c mediated protease fate of the other redcoat remnants of colonial british basic geometry unit 1 post test answers ebook
basic geometry unit 1 post test answers ebook uona
basic geometry unit 1 post test answers ebook, source:basic-geometry-unit-1-post-test-answers-ebook.uona.us
act=board&bbs code=m sub3&bbs mode=view&bbs seq=6& ment=0& ment=1
그린케어여–‰ì‚¬, source:g-care.net
1
Engineering, source:www-engineering.blogspot.com
page 9
Excel based Tools for Lean Six Sigma Crystal Ball and QI, source:docplayer.net
page 2
Building an Integrated Approach to Improvement with Lean, source:docplayer.net
should you stop improving and start reducing waste 5s template
Should you stop improving and start reducing waste 5S, source:quality2day.com
page 1
Building an Integrated Approach to Improvement with Lean, source:docplayer.net
cost accounting foundations and evolutions z06wdkxykyqx
Cost Accounting Foundations And Evolutions [z06wdkxykyqx], source:doku.pub
LosZetasFig2
Mexican Cartel Note, source:smallwarsjournal.com

Sample Example & Format Templates Free Excel, Doc, PDF, xls excel based tools for lean six sigma crystal ball and qi bpa low energy manual datasheet by teledyne lecroy bpa low energy manual datasheet by teledyne lecroy building an integrated approach to improvement with lean building an integrated approach to improvement with lean basic geometry unit 1 post test answers ebook mexican cartel note cost accounting foundations and evolutions [z06wdkxykyqx] engineering should you stop improving and start reducing waste 5s

death retailers: NRA Board Member Barrett Manufactures, Sells Sniper Rifles to Civilians
READER feedback ON"loss of life merchants: NRA Board Member Barrett Manufactures, Sells Sniper Rifles to Civilians"(64 Responses to this point…) comment #1 [Permalink] …

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

Ah… possibly a little bit overdramatic. definitely, it reads more as OMFGLOOKATTHATBIGGUN! A 50 BMG is a deadly weapon but it surely can’t be with ease concealed, is terribly awkward in close-quarters and has a restrained magazine ability. in the variety of mass murders we have needed to contend with in real life a Barrett 50 would were far less deadly than the slim, easy weapons that can be used with high-potential magazines subsequent, I suppose, you gun-grabbers might be trying to put off our 20mm rifles… remark #2 [Permalink] …

Fred Milton Olsen
stated on 1/19/2013 @ eight:33 pm PT…

expensive Bradblog, i’m an individual who believes in all 10 of the invoice of Rights. I additionally would believe the old poster that .50 cal is not commonly concept of as a sniper rifle. be sure to basically get in conjunction with the guy over at "The Armed Liberal" site for tech data earlier than inserting foot in mouth. anyway, you’re going to want one of these guns when and if they birth flying drones against the citizenry. Armed legislation Enforcement and armed forces robots are being rolled out now. comment #three [Permalink] …

Fred Milton Olsen
talked about on 1/19/2013 @ 8:forty five pm PT…

long latitude assassin weapons and sniper rifles as used by means of soldiers are somewhat diverse. Smaller calibers corresponding to .308 or 7.sixty two×54R are just plain simpler to make use of. The .50 and different "huge" guns received their start towards the easy tanks of WWI. They pierce mild armor and could be used to face up to a totalitarian govt the usage of drones and robots against its personal people– no longer up to now-fetched in any respect. remark #four [Permalink] …

zapkitty
referred to on 1/19/2013 @ 9:11 pm PT…

… Fred Milton Olsen referred to… "They pierce gentle armor and could be used to face up to a totalitarian govt using drones and robots towards its own americans" regrettably, the elites, our true albeit absentee rulers, use some distance deadlier weapons than drones and robots… their weapons are the obscene wealth that they’ve extracted from the leisure of us and and an utterly corrupt govt that permits them to hold leeching off ofus "lesser americans." comment #5 [Permalink] …

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

I agree that wealth is a weapon. And there are applicable defenses. even if you don’t have anything but your voice, that you could nonetheless strike again. 9Go see Deek Jackson at the FKN NEWZ at YouTube or FKN NEWZ dot com. he’ll buck you up. in particular see his "we’re OFFENSIVE". remark #6 [Permalink] …

Ernest A. Canning

pointed out on 1/20/2013 @ 1:29 am PT…

Fred Milton Olsen @2 & three wrote: 1. "They pierce mild armor and could be used to withstand a totalitarian govt the use of drones and robots in opposition t its personal people– not to this point-fetched at all." neatly, no longer "some distance fetched" for a paranoid nut job like Tim McVeigh. For the relaxation of us, peculiarly those that’ve served in combat, like myself, a paranoid rant by using someone who in reality believes that they could personally take on the armed might of a government like our personal sounds nothing short of insane! 2. "Smaller calibers similar to .308 or 7.62×54R are just undeniable less demanding to use." Did you expect, Fred (and Zap @1), that on account that this text concentrated on the .50 BMG, that it changed into an endorsement for placing smaller sniper rifles (or assault rifles) in the arms of civilians? three. "i’m a person who believes in all 10 of the invoice of Rights." try studying the high charge of Willfully Misinterpreting the 2nd amendment, and, extra mainly, Justice John Paul Stevens dissenting opinion in Heller [emphasis added]: The second modification changed into adopted to give protection to the correct of the individuals of each of the a couple of States to maintain a well-regulated militia. It became a response to considerations raised all the way through the ratification of the charter that the vigour of Congress to disarm the state militias and create a country wide standing military posed an insupportable possibility to the sovereignty of the a couple of States. Neither the textual content of the modification nor the arguments advanced through its proponents evidenced the slightest pastime in limiting any legislature’s authority to modify inner most civilian makes use of try analyzing the fifth modification, which says that nobody can be disadvantaged of “life” with out due manner of legislations. each dead sufferer of gun violence within the U.S. has been deprived of life with out due system of legislation. It is no comfort for victims, just like the 20 Sandy Hook fundamental college little ones, whose little bodies had been riddled by bullets, or for his or her households, when the lack of life comes at the hands of a person, as adversarial to their govt. it’s in reality unfortunate that individuals, like Fred, have swallowed the profit making NRA fantasies hook, line and sinker. The idea of brave individuals holding off the armed could of the U.S. executive by way of being armed to the enamel is nothing short of a suicidal, paranoid delusion. guns neither insure freedom nor safety. To the contrary, a fresh study by using the Harvard school of Public fitness revealed that there is an instantaneous correlation between the variety of guns and the variety of homicides. The homicide expense in Chicago, the place gun control is very nearly nonexistent, is 19.4 per one hundred,000 inhabitants. That determine is greater than 13.eight instances stronger than the murder rate in London (1.four per one hundred,000 inhabitants) the place there is strict manage. remaining I checked, the U.okay. turned into not listed as a tyrannical, totalitarian state. The most desirable insurance towards tyranny is the accountability that includes authentic democratic governance that places the lives and well-being of individuals earlier than the gains of the dying retailers. Liberty is insured only with the software of equal justice beneath legislation. comment #7 [Permalink] …

lmk
observed on 1/20/2013 @ 5:35 am PT…

"a paranoid rant by someone who in reality believes that they can individually tackle the armed may of a government like our personal sounds nothing wanting insane!" changed into that phrasing essential to make your point? first of all, the notice "in my view" as used here’s a loaded presupposition implying that those in desire of individual gun rights additionally accept as true with in individual rebellion, instead of community resistance, against the executive. moving on, the fallacy contained in this loaded presupposition is exposed in mild of the historic checklist, displaying smartly-armed rebel businesses which have efficiently adverse tremendous governments. the usage of the "I" note is a borderline ad hominum that adds nothing to the controversy. more to the aspect, if smartly-armed insurgent companies can efficiently oppose gigantic governments (a customary reality), then one can not credibly label as "insane" others who appreciate and decide to behave upon that reality. comment #eight [Permalink] …

Doug
referred to on 1/20/2013 @ 6:32 am PT…

i would like to say that i’m a bit distrusting of getting my liberties blanketed from "tyranny", as described by using predominantly appropriate-wing gun fetishists, who are armed with .50 cal rifles, which may take a man’s head clear off from greater than a mile away. These people openly rejoice their fantasies of armed insurrection to such a degree that the above minimization of the deadly import and use of a Barret rifle reads as self-serving, disingenuous and fundamentally puerile. it be become increasingly clear that rational, dispassionate discourse is essentially past your ability and here’s evidenced via the delusional pondering expressed through gun supporters. I definitely do not need to are living in the "well mannered society" that you simply envision for us, where all are armed and enabled to react with deadly force to any of existence’s frictions. remark #9 [Permalink] …

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

I didn’t write this, and i do not know who did… however is price studying and due to the fact. motive or force? Human beings simplest have two how to cope with one another:cause and force. in case you need me to do something for you,you have a choice of both convincing me via argument, orforce me to do your bidding beneath danger of drive. Everyhuman interplay falls into a type of two categories,devoid of exception. rationale or drive, that’s it… [Ed Note: As per The BRAD BLOG’s few rules for commenting, please do not post entire articles from elsewhere here in comments. Rest of article removed. You can find the rest here and in the many other places it has been posted on the Internets. – BF] comment #10 [Permalink] …

Ernest A. Canning

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

charming that LMK @6 believes you’ll get away the cost of "madness" for people that basically trust they could tackle the armed might of the U.S. executive with the aid of doubling down on the insanity — expanding from particular person to neighborhood revolt. I have no idea no matter if LMK is historic satisfactory to remember another neighborhood who concept like that. They referred to as themselves the Symbionese Liberation military (SLA). Their progressive myth ended on may additionally sixteen, 1974 when a closely armed neighborhood of individuals have been surrounded by way of 400 LAPD SWAT officers. They unleashed a blaze of gunfire earlier than each remaining one of the crucial SLA participants internal the condominium had been consumed by using a fire that erupted when the SWAT officers fired a flurry of tear gasoline canisters into the house. the most huge armed insurrection within the U.S. changed into the Civil conflict. It charge the lives of 625,000 americans in just 4 years. The politics of folks that begun that nineteenth century conflagration were now not assorted to those of the twenty first Century wing-nuts who consider their "liberty" is threatened by way of any and all efforts to in the reduction of the wholesale slaughter wrought by using unregulated gun sales. They lost. And the nation changed into improved for their loss. So no, LMK, someday before we rejoice the birthday of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., I can not accept your option of bullets over ballots as even remotely representing a rational option. Doubling down from armed particular person to group riot reflects an insane course — one which has no location inside the rational discourse of a civilized society. P.S. MLK spoke of it as "insanity." I spoke of it as "madness." If it makes you extra at ease, i’d be satisfied to substitute the word "madness" with "madness" to describe your advocacy of either individual or community armed rebel. comment #11 [Permalink] …

Ernest A. Canning

observed on 1/20/2013 @ 8:30 am PT…

Re Fred Milton Olsen @eight: a few elements. whereas The BRAD blog welcomes a big range of public discourse in its comments, there are a couple of basic suggestions. One is that, if you want to confer with one other article, that you could provide a link to that article so readers who want to study it in its entirety can do so. it is certainly applicable to deliver selective costs from that article, as I did @5 through quoting from Justice Stephen’s opinion. nevertheless it is inappropriate to set forth the whole thing of a different article in your comment. Two: the whole lot of the article you regurgitated will also be summed up as the vision of the gun as a deterrent — the equal irrational theory that fueled the nuclear palms race right through the cold struggle and introduced the human race damned close to extinction all the way through the Cuban missile disaster. In l. a., street gangs have not been deterred by the indisputable fact that competing gangs are armed. To the opposite, their weapons have provided the capability for an by no means-ending cycle of violence and revenge killings. Oh, yes, individuals will also be clubbed or stabbed to demise. but the gun — mainly sniper rifles and assault rifles with excessive potential magazines — makes wholesale slaughter so an awful lot simpler and impersonal. BTW if you are looking to buy into the madness of deterrence theory, why stop with weapons. Why not strap a nuclear bomb on everybody and compel them to put on a T-shirt studying, "Shoot me and all of us die!" comment #12 [Permalink] …

Fred Milton Olsen
spoke of on 1/20/2013 @ 9:10 am PT…

Bullets over ballots? exceptional are attempting at framing! As for MLK day, i’m disgusted to are living in Madison, Wisconsin, where through the years we’ve doubtless spent neatly in extra of a million greenbacks on MLK day parties at the Capitol for a number of well-off black guys sitting with a bunch of neatly-off white guys giving every other awards for our country being worse off than ever. neatly dressed black infants will sing move songs for the rich people….. while more individuals than ever remain in poverty and the victims of vicious discrimination. The worst part could be the defense force contingent there "to honor Dr. King." we’re engaged in a global conflict based on lies it really is bankrupting our country. Dr. King became towards battle, notably a different warfare based on lies, Vietnam. MLK day "celebrations" are a bizarre birthday celebration for the wealthy and robust enemies of Dr. King to wrap themselves in his garments, like wolves in sheepdogs’ clothing. Would Martin EVER have sat with a person like Scott Walker? Sorry for digression however you introduced it up. comment #13 [Permalink] …

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

Oh, sure, i’m basically a bit normal with what happened to the Symbionese Liberation army, having written a short piece on it these days. It seems that your argument is "might makes correct. surrender!" it’s now not the style it really works. Please take 3 minutes and 54 seconds to monitor and hear Mr Deek Jackson’s humorously scathing assessment of the world’s strongest armed forces vs. small numbers of flippantly armed resitance opponents. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RU6uu1BE9Io i hope that everyone in everyday will delight in Mr. Jackson’s other shows to be discovered below the name of the FKN NEWZ. remark #14 [Permalink] …

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

first rate job Ernest! I absolutely believe your standpoint and use of "insane". where had been the gun advocates when the Patriot Act was signed?where were the gun advocates when the TSA was created?where had been the gun advocates when SOPA was signed?where were the gun advocates when FISA turned into signed? Gun advocates are just a bunch of scared little boys in serious need of remedy. skilled support is obtainable, go get it. remark #15 [Permalink] …

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

As neatly written as this propaganda piece is, it would not focus on the fact that all weapons of that caliber are enormous and, with recognize to different weapons, excessively heavy. they’re impassible to conceal on ones grownup and they’re large recoil and restricted capability makes them not likely to be used in a mass murder. furthermore, the charge of such weapons reduces the amount bought for the reason that no longer only are they obscenely expensive, so is the ammunition. additionally, accusations that they aren’t ideal for sporting is a pure fallacy. they’re superior weapons for lengthy range goal shooting or the daring hunter who desires to take out his goal animal at extreme latitude. There are few change weapons for this aim. at last, any deranged lunatic in quest of to drag off a mass homicide would keep away from these high caliber weapons on account that they’d be counter productive to his/her plans. they might be greater prone to buy a handgun or small caliber rifle on account of the equal cause that only a few soldiers are outfitted with this type of weapon. it’s without difficulty pointless and much too heavy to carry it and its massive ammunition. comment #16 [Permalink] …

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

Paul wrote:**the place had been the gun advocates when the Patriot Act was signed? doubtless sitting at nighttime together with the congress and the rest of the country. Now me, i was raising hell about it and giving hell to national Public Radio about their lapdog/ stenographer position post 9-eleven. What have been you doing, buddy? ****where had been the gun advocates when the TSA turned into created? raising more hell than you, i’m sure, as they have been one of the vital most directly affected individuals. ******the place were the gun advocates when SOPA become signed? doubtless the equal areas you were, Charlie Brown. You appear to believe we should still were donning big signs (or perhaps have tattooed numbers on our fingers) choosing us as 2nd change defenders. anyplace you were, have been you consistently making a choice on yourself as a gun control recommend when SOPA became signed? *****where had been the gun advocates when FISA turned into signed? well, i was in Milwaukee, which for some motive had the optimum or 2nd highest volume of FISA authorised surveillance. *******Gun advocates are just a bunch of scared little boys in critical want of therapy. skilled support is accessible, go get it. "Gun advocates", as you call us, are a big range of americans with a big range of politics and philosophies. To are attempting to unfairly cut back a group of individuals to a slogan is to are attempting to demonize them. this is your right during this country. however it does not imply that you just’re correct. You might also use all the names and insults you adore however might not alternate the numbers. decent success with that. remark #17 [Permalink] …

Ernest A. Canning

referred to on 1/20/2013 @ eleven:05 am PT…

Re Nicholas @15: aside from the points I made already @5, right here’s why I don’t locate your "or not it’s too heavy a weapon" all that reassuring. On Aug. 1, 1963, Charles Joseph Whitman, an engineering pupil and former Marine, purchased an M1 carbine, and a 12 gauge semi-computerized shotgun and a eco-friendly rifle case. He again to his garage, sawed off the barrel of the shot gun. He packed these weapons, a Remington seven hundred 6mm bolt-motion rifle, a .35 cal pump carbine, a 9mm lugar pistol, a Galesi-Brescia .25 cal pistol, a Smith & Wesson M19 .357 magnum revolver, meals, coffee, nutrients, earplugs, jugs of water, matches, lighter fluid, rope, binoculars, a machete, three knives, a transistor radio, bathroom paper, a razor and a bottle of deodorant into his footlocker. He arrived at the Univ. of Tx. at eleven:45 a.m., confirmed a security shield a pretend identification, obtained a parking enable. He advised the protect he changed into delivering machine. He introduced all of this up to the correct of the UT tower using a rented dolly, which he changed into the use of to lug it all up a flight of stairs to the observation deck when he encountered fifty one-12 months-ancient Edna Townsley. When she asked him for his tuition identification, he cut up her skull open with the butt of a rifle. He barricaded himself atop the tower and took up a sniper’s place, the place he began his killing spree. He killed 16 individuals that day and wounded 32 extra before police broke throughout the barricade and shot him useless. If Whitman might lug all those weapons atop the tower, what’s to stop a future “deranged lunatic” (your apt descriptor) from accomplishing the same assault with the .50 BMG Barrett M82A1M? If the Barrett gentle Fifty have been purchasable to Whitman that day, do you feel he would have had any qualms about the use of it? How tons worse would that tragedy were if Whitman had entry to that stage of firepower? remark #18 [Permalink] …

Ernest A. Canning

talked about on 1/20/2013 @ 11:23 am PT…

Fred Milton Olsen @13 wrote: Please take 3 minutes and 54 seconds to observe and listen to Mr Deek Jackson’s humorously scathing evaluation of the realm’s strongest military vs. small numbers of frivolously armed resitance [sic.] combatants. Is that what you’re, Fred, "a evenly armed resistance fighter"? in all probability I did not get the memo. When did this warfare of armed resistance in opposition t the duly constituted executive of the USA start? Or is it, that the right-wing, having simply had their hats exceeded to them by way of the voters, now envisions that it’s their correct to overthrow a democratically elected govt by using capability of armed resistance? P.S. As a Vietnam Vet, i am insulted that any person would suggest that i’d be unaware of the effectiveness of a lightly armed, rebel drive. while the Viet Cong and NVA ultimately prevailed over our effort at imperial conquest, that insurgency became accompanied through the loss of life of some 2 million Vietnamese civilians. Is that what you and your friends would want to see in these united states? You suppose it truly is an affordable choice to democratic elections? comment #19 [Permalink] …

zapkitty
spoke of on 1/20/2013 @ 11:29 am PT…

errrr… digressing even extra right here, but no person changed into any place when SOPA changed into signed as a result of SOPA in no way beceme legislations. SOPA become soundly defeated via activists, a reality for which all of us should still be grateful. … of direction it or whatever worse will at all times be ready in the wings from now on. comment #20 [Permalink] …

Ernest A. Canning

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

absolutely appropriate, ZAP. SOPA was defeated by using activists who signed online petitions, protested, etc. It was now not defeated by using bullets. The enhanced question is the one Brad has repeatedly requested. the place have been the NRA concerns about "liberty" when Occupy Wall road activists were being crushed, shot and pepper sprayed? comment #21 [Permalink] …

Fred Milton Olsen
said on 1/20/2013 @ eleven:43 am PT…

@@@@@@ You believe that’s a reasonable option to democratic elections? We’re no longer trying to find civil struggle. but when you come to take the guns, it really is what you can be inflicting. and are available on, now…. where do you suppose you’re? you’re at BradBlog, one of the vital cyber web’s fundamental locations that challenges the honesty of elections. If i used to be doing stand-up, i might need you as a foil. remark #22 [Permalink] …

Fred Milton Olsen
referred to on 1/20/2013 @ eleven:50 am PT…

********If Whitman could lug all these weapons atop the tower, what’s to stop a future “deranged lunatic” (your apt descriptor) from engaging in a similar assault with the .50 BMG Barrett M82A1M? What would cease him? The undeniable fact that Whitman did not have the funds for this sort of gun. He purchased historical-customary bolt-motion rifles so that it will stay prison for looking in spite of any mass numbers of internet posts via you. What would stop someone now? You don’t purchase such a gun without $7k and some serious consideration from the authorities. These aren’t sold out of the trunk of someone’s vehicle. can you point to even one case of this type of gun being used in a criminal offense, much much less a homicide, mush much less a mass homicide? You cannot. You fail. remark #23 [Permalink] …

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

"where were NRA activists when occupy protestors were being crushed?" There aren’t any "NRA" activists here. I took part in Madison’s Occupy protests. You sat at domestic and watched it on television, did not you? comment #24 [Permalink] …

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

Correction, Whitman also had a Remington semi-auto searching rifle, an M-1 Carbine and a pump shotgun. aside from the shotgun being sawed off, none have been any distinct from standard weapons typically used for searching in Texas in 1966. A ban on definite styles of guns and magazines won’t have stopped Whitman or every other deranged person. could you perhaps imply whatever thing that could work? comment #25 [Permalink] …

Ernest A. Canning

referred to on 1/20/2013 @ 12:07 pm PT…

Gee, Fred, I see that common sense is not your robust suit. The BRAD weblog is a repository for articles dealing with election integrity. The thought of election integrity entails a combination of insuring that every one citizens who are entitled to vote find a way to accomplish that and that elections are carried out in a clear depend to be able to insure that every lawfully solid vote is accurately counted. these issues have nothing to do with questions of public defense and the lawful rules of firearms, any more than they ought to do with what laws are handed on behalf of public protection as to how and the place that you may function a motor car. these concerns are correctly addressed during the political and criminal method. It appears, Fred, that, if it is the lawful will of a majority to enact cost-efficient gun regulations to give protection to the lives and safety of our citizens, that you’re unwilling to abide by using the will of the americans and the legal guidelines so enacted. considering 74% of american citizens choose a ban on assault weapons and high capability magazines, there can also be no doubt that finally there may be laws enacted to get rid of the provision of the identical. So should you say, "if you come to take the weapons," are you together with assault weapons, sniper rifles, and high capacity magazines as a part of "the guns?" Are you and your ilk organized to wage a "civil conflict" over an assault weapons ban? Or is that without difficulty hard-guy speak because you comprehend that there is not any legitimate foundation by any means to your opposition to a ban, which is so overwhelmingly supported via an American public that is repulsed with the aid of the level of the carnage? comment #26 [Permalink] …

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

********It seems, Fred, that, whether it is the lawful will of a majority to enact reasonable gun rules to protect the lives and protection of our citizens, that you’re unwilling to abide via the will of the individuals and the legal guidelines so enacted. if you can get rid of the 2nd modification from the invoice of Rights, I might agree with it. in any other case, no. ********So for those who say, "in case you come to take the weapons," are you together with assault weapons, sniper rifles, and high potential magazines as a part of "the guns?" sure. were you one way or the other doubtful on that? **********Are you and your ilk organized to wage a "civil war" over an assault weapons ban? i might be chuffed to sit at home and grow tomatoes and work on windmills, however I wager in case you demonstrate up with guns and wish to beginning a struggle, I actually have little alternative. I don’t have any concept why you are accusing me of desperate to birth a struggle. it’s you who could be starting it and displaying up with guns. comment #27 [Permalink] …

zapkitty
mentioned on 1/20/2013 @ 12:forty nine pm PT…

feelings are heated, piles of useless schoolchildren are likely to have that effect on both sides, however Ernest, you’ve overreached just a little in your descriptions. and i do not state that conditionally. as an instance. remark #18 [Permalink]… Ernest A. Canning noted on 1/20/2013 @ 11:23 am PT… "Or is it, that the appropriate-wing, having simply had their hats passed to them with the aid of the electorate" Uh-oh… why are you assigning "right-wing" motives to Fred? … now envisions that it is their correct to overthrow a democratically elected government by means of capacity of armed resistance? … that this government of the elites, by means of the equipment of the elites and for the sole advantage of the elites shall not perish from this Earth! remark #28 [Permalink] …

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

instead of a civil struggle I consider we would have whatever less extreme and more similar to prohibition, the place residents labored together to cover their activities from a repressive government. Alcohol kills much more americans than guns do…. how a success changed into that prohibition experiments? It may not work to are trying to goad me into violent statements or to embody conflict. i am in opposition t it. i might doubtless are trying to head in different places in the adventure of struggle…. but when you come after me with guns when I have achieved you no hurt, how shall I regard you? i will take care of myself. comment #29 [Permalink] …

Ernest A. Canning

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

Heated rhetoric, Zap? The removal of assault weapons, sniper rifles, and high capacity magazines is a remarkably modest inspiration when measured towards the carnage wrought no longer most effective by means of these ongoing mass murders but on a daily basis in the U.S. Between the time of the Sandy Hook bloodbath and the President’s announcement — a span of however one month — 900 american citizens grew to become the lastest victims of gun-linked murder. that is a expense that exceeds the loss of life fee amongst our armed forces in Vietnam, Iraq or Afghanistan. what number of more lives will it take before we start to weigh the advantages of gun possession against the expenses? The article I wrote did not consist of one be aware about denying dependable hunters the potential to personal single shot rifles, or as big apple generously offered, rifles with seven circular magazines. It didn’t even go as far as to mention what we should still do about the overabundance of handguns. Yet, the mere point out of the proven fact that there is no respectable civilian goal for allowing any one backyard the militia to buy the Barrett gentle Fifty or any other sniper weapon, caused an "if you dispose of our weapons, it’ll mean civil conflict" from Fred and a carry the ante, community armed resistance to the U.S. govt from LMK. These two provided crazy speak and then the, and also you, feigned outrage when I did not accept their insanity as having any place inside an goal balancing of the merits of gun ownership vs. the giant charges. Neither Fred, LMK nor you remotely counseled a sound explanation why any civilized society should still tolerate the presence of such outstanding firepower in the arms of civilians. To the contrary, Fred and LMK offered nothing greater than delusional, paranoid rantings about gearing up to do fight with an all encompassing federal government. Of direction, when pressed, Fred backed off his overblown "civil war" rhetoric by means of claiming that it changed into I who "goaded" him into "violent statements" when it reality it was he, and LMK, who raised the specter of a violent overthrow of the govt. i think that a good many gun nuts who’re espousing the "civil war" rhetoric have not ever in my view experienced the sheer terror of combat. Theirs is the bravado that incorporates never having had the experience of dealing with what may be their own coming near near demise at any moment amidst the noise, chaos and a terror that’s so thick that you can odor it. on the end of the article, I quoted Martin Luther King: "come what may this insanity should cease." it is anything i might ask you, Fred, and another gun proponent to give some thought to before dropping an additional inanity into this remark thread. comment #30 [Permalink] …

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

You retain labeling me as warlike and violent if you happen to are the one who has threatened to come after legislations-abiding people with armed drive to impose your will upon tens of millions of legislations-abiding individuals who’ve completed you no damage. This alone is a number of motive to have the optimum means of self-defense accessible to the citizen. you are threatening us with armed force to impose your will. you are making threats you are expecting others to carry out. what number of will you ship, sir? If only just a few percent of legislations-abiding criminal gun house owners come to a decision to stand, you don’t have sufficient troopers or legislations enforcement ot accomplish the assignment, assuming that they’d take the duty. Some legislation enforcement jurisdictions from cities to counties to complete states are already saying their resistance and refusal to comply with unlawful orders. what number of will you ship, sir, and why won’t you do your personal soiled work? comment #31 [Permalink] …

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

The paranoia and unhealthy logic being verified here, and somewhere else, by gun advocates makes it clear to me that mental fitness screening have to be made a requirement earlier than somebody can personal a gun. it’s unfortunate that they cannot respect it in themselves. comment #32 [Permalink] …

Fred Milton Olsen
stated on 1/20/2013 @ 4:59 pm PT…

To Paul—Insult away, sir. You haven’t any evidence that gun homeowners have to any extent further mental issues than non-gun-house owners– I simply surveyed the reports. bring some to guide your insult, may not you? You can not. I haven’t any quarrel with you and would on no account harm you until you are trying to me hurt first. =============================Mr Canning wrote: *******i think that a superb many gun nuts who are espousing the "civil warfare" rhetoric have certainly not personally skilled the sheer terror of fight. Theirs is the bravado that comes with not ever having had the journey of dealing with what may be their personal imminent dying at any moment amidst the noise, chaos and a fear this is so thick that you can scent it. ====================== I dare say quite greater of my facet of the argument have experiences with armed conflict than along with your aspect. I most effective obtained hazardous obligation pay right through my armed forces time, now not fight pay, but I have had my share of lifestyles and dying experiences and am entirely accustomed to militia ordnance and civilian lively materials. Up close. very own. Exploding. My adventures within the former Soviet Union are too many to inform. do you know the terror of getting a pal murdered? in case you knew who William Marky changed into and what he did and the way he died…. he turned into my buddy. You picked the wrong man to call out on that, dude. I haven’t even started to enter how incorrect you are. remark #33 [Permalink] …

Ernest A. Canning

talked about on 1/20/2013 @ 5:33 pm PT…

Fred Milton Olsen @30 wrote: you are the one who has threatened to return after legislation-abiding americans with armed force to impose your will upon millions of legislation-abiding people who’ve achieved you no damage. we’ve very few guidelines for comments right here at the BRAD weblog, Fred. one of the vital cornerstones is that these leaving comments are not authorised to knowingly post disinformation. You be aware of very well that I not ever threatened to come after you or any individual else. I did not say that i’d impose "armed drive" on any citizen, legislations abiding or in any other case. I even have made no effort to "impose my will" on you or any individual else. I effortlessly pointed out the fallacy of those who have fallen for the NRA/weapons business propaganda — of fantasies of vigilantes arming themselves to the teeth out of some paranoid delusion that doing so is fundamental to offer protection to themselves towards some unwell conceived perceptions of tyrannical government. I’ve also pointed to your inaccurate beliefs in regards to the scope of the 2nd amendment, and touched upon the extra basic correct that is meant to be included by way of the fifth & 14th amendments — the appropriate no longer to be disadvantaged of "existence" without due process of law. and i’ve pointed to a selection for non-violence, ballots, now not bullets. Please accept as true with this a warning now not to knowingly put up disinformation in our remark area. If it occurs again, i’ll ask Brad to take acceptable steps to first average your comments, and, if the violations proceed, to ban your future comments altogether. comment #34 [Permalink] …

Ernest A. Canning

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

Oh, and here’s an alternative choice to an outright ban on these weapons. Let’s pass legislation that establishes that any time a weapon manufactured with the aid of a corporation, like Barrett’s, cause death, damage or property damage, the company which manufactured the weapon should be held liable for all public charges, including the cost of emergency services (police, fireplace, ambulances), the charge of all clinical services, and a fee into a wrongful death fund to compensate the households of these whose lives are misplaced. If manufacturers stood to lose that type of funds, they’d either cease manufacturing the weapons or take steps to insure than none of their weapons fell into the wrong arms. Oh, and the NRA would fold up like a wet taco. remark #35 [Permalink] …

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

Go for it, Mr. Canning. Let’s carry Brad into this. No difficulty. He’ll see that you just return time after time to creating challenges of battle, using ad hominems, insult, etc. You don’t need to appear to discuss the greater possible state of affairs of a prohibition-like circumstance, or the cities, counties and states which might be refusing to head along with illegal orders. You don’t want to focus on cooperative peaceful resistance, simplest to try and goad the dialog towards that of struggle. Let Brad come and read what you will have written, please. comment #36 [Permalink] …

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

*******Let’s move legislation that establishes that any time a weapon manufactured via a company, like Barrett’s, trigger demise, damage or property harm, the business which manufactured the weapon may still be held liable for all public costs, including the cost of emergency services (police, fireplace, ambulances), the charge of all scientific services, and a charge into a wrongful dying fund to compensate the households of those whose lives are lost. first rate success with that. You wouldn’t be capable of do that with automobiles. bikes or airplanes, and your prison arguments would by no means fly even in a friendly court docket. however as an instance for the purposes of discussion that you simply be ready to move such law as you outlined above. I already requested you if you might might element to 1 crime, plenty less one murder, plenty less one mass homicide dedicated with (as you stated) "a weapon manufactured via a company, like Barrett’s,". show me the crimes committed with a .50 cal rifle, which is ostensibly what this article’s discussion thread is ready. If nobody is committing crimes with this gun, why are you upset? i’m listening politely. remark #37 [Permalink] …

Ernest A. Canning

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

Fred Milton Olsen @36: You wouldn’t be able to try this with vehicles. motorcycles or airplanes, and your criminal arguments would certainly not fly even in a pleasant courtroom. 1. The manufactures of cars, bikes and airplanes can now be liable if defects in their items trigger injury or loss of life. or not it’s referred to as strict liability. 2. The change between weapons and the other three objects you mention is that the latter aren’t designed to kill. Weapons are. 3. law isn’t whatever thing you have got passed in courts, pleasant or otherwise. The Congress and state legislatures are assigned that project. remark #38 [Permalink] …

Fred Milton Olsen
pointed out on 1/20/2013 @ 6:49 pm PT…

display me the crimes. show me the problem. You do not need any crimes to aspect to, so how will you grasp any .50 cal proprietor or company liable together with your "strict liabilty"? On strict liability: Strict legal responsibility for hurt as a consequence of abnormally dangerous conditions and activities developed in the late nineteenth century. It will be imposed if the damage outcomes from the miscarriage of an pastime that, although lawful, is bizarre, astonishing, super, or inappropriate in light of the vicinity and method during which the endeavor is performed. common hazardous actions that may result in strict liability include storing explosives or flammable drinks, blasting, amassing sewage, and emitting toxic fumes. youngsters these actions can be hazardous, they may well be appropriate or general in a single location but not a further. as an instance, storing explosives in volume will create an bizarre and unacceptable risk in the course of a huge city however now not in a far flung rural enviornment. If an explosion occurs within the far off area, strict liability should be imposed handiest if the explosives had been saved in an bizarre or irregular means. http://legal-dictionary….ary.com/Strict+legal responsibility The courts at all times have closing say over any legislation, withe the Supreme courtroom batting remaining, specially on constitutional concerns. remark #39 [Permalink] …

Ernest A. Canning

talked about on 1/20/2013 @ eight:07 pm PT…

adequate, Fred. I haven’t any intention of getting into a discussion about how our criminal gadget works with a lay individual who doesn’t have a clue. We’re completed discussing this! remark #40 [Permalink] …

Paul
pointed out on 1/20/2013 @ eight:10 pm PT…

Why are intellectual health issues regarded an insult? every person has them. no person is "general". This comprises myself. The healthy thing is to admire your issues and do anything about them. This includes myself. Self consciousness is an outstanding thing. comment #forty one [Permalink] …

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

Take your ball and go home, eh? That works. and don’t consult with me about being a layman. I tremendously doubt you’ve ever worked in a law company. comment #forty two [Permalink] …

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

remark #43 [Permalink] …

lmk
pointed out on 1/21/2013 @ 5:14 am PT…

I cannot pretend to be in an actual dialogue here when Ernie writes "I can not settle for your alternative of bullets over ballots as even remotely representing a rational choice." The truth is I in no way spoke of anything else remotely like that, nor are there best two choices, as Ernie falsely portrays here. Fred additionally cited Ernie misstating Fred’s phrases and the icing on the cake is when Ernie claims others are doing the same together with his words. This item is a case analyze on how emotionalism and erroneous arguments can derail a dialogue seeing as how this item is already off the rails. comment #44 [Permalink] …

Ernest A. Canning

spoke of on 1/21/2013 @ 11:sixteen am PT…

Some difficult facts: extra guns = extra demise. The Harvard faculty of Public fitness, whose Harvard damage handle research core suggested: Case-handle reviews, ecological time-sequence and go-sectional stories point out that in buildings, cities, states and areas within the US, the place there are extra guns, each men and women are at bigger possibility for homicide, peculiarly firearm murder. Their look at discloses an immediate correlation between the supply of guns and deaths, including: "We discovered that states with bigger stages of family gun ownership had higher prices of firearm murder and overall murder." remark #45 [Permalink] …

Ernest A. Canning

pointed out on 1/21/2013 @ eleven:20 am PT…

Oh, lmk, can you truly aspect to a single instance of my alleged "misstating Fred’s words"? comment #forty six [Permalink] …

Brad Friedman

stated on 1/21/2013 @ 6:07 pm PT…

Fred Milton Olsen talked about @ 35: Let’s bring Brad into this. No, thanks. This remark thread blew up out of manage while i was in any other case engaged, so beyond a cursory assessment and a brief notion or two, i could live out of this particular muck. however here’s my short idea or two. Your very first idea for your very first comment right here — "expensive Bradblog, i’m someone who believes in all 10 of the invoice of Rights" — earned you no facets. We also assist "all 10 of the bill of Rights"…along with the rest of the constitution and even its preamble here. Your recommendation that Ernie doesn’t is unsupported through anything that he has ever argued or written here. that you trust your interpretation of the 2nd modification is the best interpretation is each laughable and historically inaccurate. Firearms were "smartly regulated" considering the beginning of our Republic, and are nevertheless nowadays. (if you do not agree with me, by way of only one illustration, of many, try to legally purchase a computer gun, which is a weapon that has been banned from civilian use on the grounds that 1934.) you are the one who has threatened to return after legislation-abiding individuals with armed force to impose your will upon millions of legislations-abiding americans who’ve performed you no hurt. … you’re threatening us with armed drive to impose your will. Ernie has accomplished no such component. Please do your most excellent to persist with countering arguments that have in reality been made right here. You needn’t consider the rest Ernie, myself or anybody has to assert right here, but you can also not make up false positions for them. And thanks! remark #47 [Permalink] …

Fred Milton Olsen
observed on 1/21/2013 @ 6:44 pm PT…

Mr Canning once again tries to show the subject matter far from the article. Do you have got a Harvard clinical article that suggests any crimes, deaths, property damage and so on. from the guns within the article we’re discussing, Mr. Canning? No, you can not, so you trade the area. You cannot even deliver us any numbers from the look at you are attempting to trade the area to. where I live in Wisconsin, hid carry permits were issued for a year now with none leap in violent crime or murder. The respectable stats don’t seem to be out yet to be linked to, but any start would were seized on by means of local individuals like you. I’ve spoken with the native anti-gunners and once I ask if there’s blood within the streets yet from legal hid carry, they appear away and say nothing. You have not defined the problem you desire fixed with any numbers, most effective feelings and phrases like bloodbath, and mass shootings. you’ve brought nothing to the table on .50 cal rifles, the subject matter of this thread. No crimes, no murders, no mass shootings. remark #forty eight [Permalink] …

Fred Milton Olsen
observed on 1/21/2013 @ 6:fifty two pm PT…

Brad wrote: "try to legally buy a computer gun, which is a weapon that has been banned from civilian use on the grounds that 1934." Sorry, Brad. There are thousands of prison computer guns in the palms of civilians. paperwork and a tax stamp. except 1984 you may even make new ones to promote to civilians, but after 1984, no new desktop guns may well be purchased by civilians. This has made the rate go up however for say $7K and up that you would be able to have a laptop gun, no issue. like the .50 cal rifles, you’ll no longer be able to point to any crime difficulty with the thousands of legally owned laptop weapons. if you really study this whole thread, did Mr Canning’s repeated ad hominems hassle you, or are these ok if you help such individuals’s position? remark #49 [Permalink] …

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

Please relevant "1984" to "1986" above. With the proper type III bureaucracy, you can make and possess new computing device guns, however no longer sell them to any individual apart from the military and legislations enforcement. These are known as "post-ban samples". deal with me satisfactory. i’m teaching you some thing. remark #50 [Permalink] …

Brad Friedman

mentioned on 1/21/2013 @ 7:33 pm PT…

Fred Milton Olsen said @ 48: Sorry, Brad. There are lots of legal computing device guns within the arms of civilians. As you recognize, since you quoted me saying it, i used to be regarding the "buy" of laptop guns which was without problems made inconceivable by means of the national Firearms Act of 1934. sure, there may well be some available, however decent luck trying to legally buy one. The factor, of path, and also you support make it for me extra with the rest of your feedback above, is that it’s perfectly Constitutional to adjust the manufacture, purchase and/or use of hearth arms, despite your inaccurate and obnoxious assertion that people who trust that factor, corresponding to Ernie or myself or nearly all of the Supreme court for fairly tons the whole background of the nation, don’t "accept as true with in all 10 of the bill of Rights". As to Ernie’s "advert hominems", perhaps I ignored them. both manner, as per our very few suggestions for commenting on the BRAD blog, very own attacks on different commenters aren’t allowed here, although such assaults on public figures (through which I generously include these of us with the bully pulpit as posters of articles right here) are excellent. In flip, of course, we get to "fire" back. Hope that you would be able to deal with it. remark #51 [Permalink] …

Ernest A. Canning

spoke of on 1/21/2013 @ 7:forty five pm PT…

Fred and his fallacies are laborious, Brad. Take his declare that if I cannot aspect to a criminal offense having already been dedicated by using a person with the Barrett .50 BMG sniper rifle, there is no explanation why we should still now not permit civilians to own them — this, despite his lack of ability to element to a single, professional characteristic this type of weapon would serve. however, why cease there? i’m not aware of any American ever having blown up a metropolis with a nuclear bomb. Does that mean that we should still enable citizens to purchase them until a person does the unthinkable and units one off? Or, if we need to be less dramatic, how about floor-to-air missiles capable of taking down civilian air liners. do not do not forget any U.S. citizen having used a surface-to-air missile on an airliner — yet! What a myopic view of the realm and the feature of executive. Fred appears to suppose that governments don’t have any power to enact legal guidelines to offer protection to residents from activities or items that could cause damage or death until somebody definitely factors damage or demise. below that view, the government could not prevent cancer agents from being dumped into our drinking water except someone suffers melanoma from that specific chemical. Fred is in part proper on laptop guns. The Federal owners coverage Act of 1986 banned income of machine weapons manufactured on or after may additionally 19, 1986. It does contain a grandfather clause that allows those in circulation previous to that date to be resold. comment #fifty two [Permalink] …

Phil
observed on 1/21/2013 @ 7:fifty eight pm PT…

I read the Sam Harris put up "The Riddle of the Gun" at his blog. exciting. It modified my thinking on the gun debate, I must admit. link here: comment #fifty three [Permalink] …

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

Mr Canning makes use of advert hominems in feedback #6.10,11,18, 29, and 34. I might have overlooked a couple. In Brad’s comment #46 he says I even have certain place and that it it laughable. He does not quote me, and then he goes on to supply wrong assistance about laptop weapons. You go forward and snigger, Brad. Laughter is in shape. The Dao says that you and your ridicule are a part of it. Mr Canning evidently threatens to come back after legislation-abiding gun house owners with force through advocating bans and confiscation. In remark #26 he asks me to make clear my position "in the event that they come to get the weapons." Would Mr. Canny come with the intention of consfiscating any "banned" guns or magazines with out force? I think no longer. i tried twice to get Mr Canning to focus on a extra seemingly scenario, anything comparable to prohibition, however he returns to his "civil battle" comments again and again…. telling me how government may makes right, or at least for multiplied casualties (SLA, US Civil battle and Vietnam) and for this reason "resistance is futile". Mr. Canning become evidently incorrect in Vietnam. It become Mr. Canning and the American forces that inflicted the huge majority of causalties attempting to impose their will on individuals who desired to be left by myself to rule themselves. He actively labored with bullets no longer ballots. He asked will you battle if we come after you? He dressed up his probability with excessive-sounding words about elections he can’t convey. He tries to make me out to be a criminal of legal guidelines not passed and never likely to. He tries to claim that Obama’s government movements will in some way translate into " the lawful will of a majority to enact reasonable gun laws to offer protection to the lives and defense of our citizens" and then faults me as a result of i’m unwilling to observe these imaginary and undefined legal guidelines. In remark #33, Canning accuses me of somehow taking away or acting against "the appropriate not to be disadvantaged of "life" with out due procedure of law." in brief he accuses me in a left surpassed manner of homicide to justify his desire to take my legally owned firearms which have harmed nobody. You can’t have your bans and confiscations with out using drive on residents who’ve by no means harmed you, so please do not say you have not threatened me. Now where’s your crime stats on .50 cal weapons, and considering that you introduced it up, legally owned laptop weapons? it is the thread, and if the owner of the blog won’t follow the theme however comes round one sidedly enforcing rules, it be sort of hard to have a dialog is never it? comment #54 [Permalink] …

Fred Milton Olsen
spoke of on 1/21/2013 @ 9:16 pm PT…

Why should still I not be troubled about Mr. Canning’s threats? He informs us of his historical past of going halfway worldwide with a gun to impose drive upon blameless individuals who on no account harmed or threatened him, and that 2 million people died. For all my many sins, I even have under no circumstances performed that. I actually have never threatened or harmed any individual with my firearms or other weapons. Can Mr Canning say the same? He has no longer referred to he became pressured into these movements or that they had been in any way wrong, and even unsuitable. comment #55 [Permalink] …

Brad Friedman

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

FMO noted @ 53: Mr Canning makes use of advert hominems in feedback #6.10,eleven,18, 29, and 34. I may have ignored a pair. anything credibility I grant to individuals like yourself as a starting point is straight away disappearing. I find nothing advert hominem within the comments from Ernie you site, with the viable exception of the one @ 29 which says you "offered crazy talk" and "madness" for your arguments, which he describes as "delusional, paranoid rantings about gearing up to do combat with an all encompassing federal executive." it’s fairly tame and focuses in your argument, as adversarial to you. So i am pretty sure you could deal with it. not to point out, the restriction on "own attacks" on other commenters does not apply to folks that put up articles right here (as hostile to comments best). you’d probably be more desirable to make your argument, rather than crying about being ad hominem assaults during this case, but this is simply my opinion. Mr Canning certainly threatens to return after legislations-abiding gun house owners with drive by way of advocating bans and confiscation. it really is an idiotic, and inaccurate argument. (Does that mean I simply used an ad hominem against you?!) He made no chance of the form, and if you continue to submit that kind of tips, you may not be writing right here a great deal longer. Ernie also offered you a mild warning. Now I even have accomplished identical. Knock it off. There was a federal Assault Weapons Ban in force from 1994 to 2004 and guns had been not confiscated, except they had been illegally purchased after the ban went into effect. Ernie didn’t demand your guns to be "confiscated" during this thread. in case you consider he did, then he become suitable to explain your rantings as "delusional" and "paranoid". He asked will you fight if we come after you? No. He failed to. Please stop making shit up. Thanks. You may additionally continue your twisted assaults for his carrier to this nation, if you wish to continue making yourself appear sillier than you’ve got already, but you’re no longer successful any converts over here via doing it. in the meantime, this conversation and, in selected, your comments, have become even more tiresome than they had been prior to now. Little wonder Ernie gave up even trying to bother. Smaller ask yourself nevertheless that you have convinced yourself you need a gun to are living safely during this world. after all, knock off the shit that violates our very few guidelines for commenting here. k? I definitely wouldn’t have time to baby take a seat. Thanks again. remark #fifty six [Permalink] …

Ernest A. Canning

mentioned on 1/22/2013 @ 2:29 am PT…

The most effective element i would add to Brad @55 is that this: A reductio advert absurdum doesn’t equal ad hominem. comment #fifty seven [Permalink] …

Fred Milton Olsen
observed on 1/22/2013 @ 3:49 am PT…

loopy talk comes from a loopy person. Arguments can’t be insane, handiest individuals. you employ advert hominems pure and easy. and you use them for the same reason any one makes use of ad hominems. You don’t wish to argue the features. Neither Brad nor Mr Canning desires to follow the thread subject since you cannot display any crimes from .50 cal rifles. you’ve got had quite a lot of time to achieve this and you have got no longer. Brad is still clinging to "As you understand, because you quoted me asserting it, i used to be referring to the "purchase" of computer guns which was without difficulty made inconceivable by way of the national Firearms Act of 1934. sure, there may be some accessible, however respectable luck attempting to legally purchase one." certain Brad. we are talking about purchase and possession right here. You, Brad Friedman, can go and purchase a desktop gun when you have the cash and are willing to do the paperwork and pay the tax stamp payment. You maintain denying this. Shall I walk you in the course of the system and supply you with a legal vendor and the varieties numbers? that might be all I could do in need of in my view escorting you through the manner, wherever it’s you are living. rules is not a ban and not confiscation. Your suggestions cannot work without wholesale bans and confiscations. the rest much less will now not radically reduce the number of weapons in crook fingers, and even then it’ll no longer produce the favored effect as you’ll still be leaving tens of millions of weapons in the palms of government the place they may well be effectively bought through executive or civilian crook facets. You need handiest to appear south of the border in Mexico to look that here’s authentic. extreme gun control, severe violence. Say straight out, "No bans, no confiscations." in any other case, it really is what you are asserting, no count number the way you gown it up. remark #58 [Permalink] …

Fred Milton Olsen
spoke of on 1/22/2013 @ four:39 am PT…

As Brad would not wish to live on subject matter, let me adress his statement: "that you believe your interpretation of the 2nd amendment is the handiest interpretation is both laughable and historically inaccurate." where is you interpretation, Sir? The constitution units forth the powers and obligations of executive. The Framers, of their wisdom, recognized that the individuals crucial insurance plan from their executive, in order that they went lower back and wrote 10 Amendments, familiar as the bill of Rights. These 10 Amendments are about limiting govt energy and guaranteeing citizen energy. Do you agree with that any of the 10 Amendments in the bill of Rights is there to supply vigor to executive and restrict the rights of citizens? Kings Bush, Cheney, and Obama and their minions have argued that "things are different now. The founders didn’t know about muslim extremists, telephones, electronic mail and machine weapons and bombs, that will trash your guarantees of privacy from the invoice of rights. we are able to put gag orders on you. we are able to let you know your religion is illegal. we can search you on every occasion we desire for anything cause, and not let you know this purpose. we are able to restrict or forbid your trip. we will delay or deny you trial. we will grasp you incommunicado. we will use secret proof. we are able to deny you bail, or set it excessively." that’s how our rights had been taken away, Brad. The second modification is about people vigour, no longer government vigour. since the executive fails to preserve their end of the discount by way of organizing the militia, "every man" as the Framers put it, you can also not dispose of my rights. The militia clause is subordinate to the certainly cited "hold and endure hands" clause. The "the correct of the americans to maintain and bear fingers," is the aim of the bill of Rights…. to guarantee rights to individuals, not executive. The founders had been very clear in may additionally other writings about what "hold and bear fingers" intended. I difficulty a friendly challenge so that you can produce one quote from the Framers that says otherwise. if you need to say that "maintain and undergo arms" skill anything distinctive at the moment, i am certain you could get some assist with that from John Yoo and different Bush, Cheney and Obama felony students who will gladly argue for you that the entire other materials of the bill of Rights may also be set aside "to your security and insurance policy." have you ever quoted Ben Franklin in your website, Brad? "folks that would quit fundamental Liberty, to buy a little transient defense, deserve neither Liberty nor protection." The troopers who disarmed the Native americans at Wounded Knee in 1890 informed them that they had been doing it "for his or her safeguard". Then they turned round an massacred them. i’m much more concerned about governments killing us wholesale than with what a relative few crazies can do. The numbers of unarmed individuals killed through governments is not similar to civilian homicide victims. Many murder deaths are regrettable…. how much more so when they’re the deaths of individuals who could not protect themselves after being by using disarmed with the aid of their governments. If Mr. Canning in reality noticed fight as he says, it is likely that one in every of his missions was to head to villages and hamlets, tear them aside, and seek weapons held by the people. Then, if any are discovered, individuals are turned over to the governmrnt for internment, torture, or abstract execution. I have handled Mr. Canning remarkably with courtesy, since his background of direct help for such actions. He nonetheless has not pointed out he changed into pressured into these actions or that they have been wrong or fallacious. comment #fifty nine [Permalink] …

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

Upon re-studying, lest you misconstrue: From my put up, #57 "Your recommendations cannot work devoid of wholesale bans and confiscations. anything less will not noticeably in the reduction of the number of guns in criminal fingers," Please clarify that by using reading this: "Your innovations can not work with out wholesale bans and confiscations. (text added) You basically believe that the rest less will no longer extensively cut back the number of weapons in crook arms," conclusion==============================================new The NFA or countrywide Firearms Act of 1934 regulated the civilian possession of desktop guns. It did not take a single computer gun out of the fingers of criminals. besides the fact that you might get a law that banned all laptop gun manufacture, after which rounded up each last computing device gun…. you are too late, my pal, too late. desktop guns are unluckily convenient and low-priced to make, correct in your personal domestic or storage. I refer you to the design of the British Sten Gun, or a number of others which have very few materials and do not require a very good deal of tooling or tolerances. I confer with the Sten Gun in specific as a result of on the top of its UK creation, it changed into made for approximately $12 USD. A high potential magazine is even simpler to make and can be made with the aid of anyone who remembers what they discovered in eighth or 9th grade metallic shop type. Your handiest answer to the problem will also be more and more draconian penalties on people who have not harmed any person. If americans don’t go along with new boundaries/bans/confiscations, what will you do? If individuals continue to provide banned firearms and magazines, what is going to you do? What may be the penalties, and how instantly will you enhance them, and the way draconian will they at last become to are attempting to achieve your ends? You can not have new laws without punishments can you? do not back far from this. individuals will weigh the risk of being caught with the punishment. This may also have an impact on their reaction and the eventual circumstance– will it be like prohibition, or will whatever worse be compelled on the citizenry? Why don’t you are looking to speak a couple of prohibition-like scenario? I’ve said that it be more likely. You say you do not want bans and consfiscation, so why can not we talk about the prohibition scenario? You individuals are always speakme about how we should be like "all these different civilized countries"– smartly, all those other "civilized international locations" (and the "uncivilized" ones too) had outright bans and confiscations. You can’t say you you desire us to "be like them" devoid of wholesale bans and confiscations, so give up pretending that is never your goal, now or a bit down the road. And before you start in on your "civilized countries" rap and labeling me as "right wing", I trust in proportional representation and changing the constitution to enable it if critical. I trust in single payer health care. I accept as true with in free and reasonable elections, which is why i’m going to BradBlog and Bev Harris blackboxvoting.org. i am likely more left-wing than you are, but I do not agree with those historic terms any more– they are so abused. right here’s one for you: do not like abortions? do not have one. frightened of guns? do not purchase one. i’m hoping i will come returned and discuss issues with you these days, but when or not it’s ’til tomorrow, i’m working on a grievance towards a state agency for violating discrimination laws in the enviornment of race, faith, incapacity. notwithstanding now not a included classification i will be able to additionally encompass financial discrimination towards my state’s citizens by way of this agency. This agency has a history of secrecy and violations of the Open data Act and Open meetings legislation. first rate success together with your first rate works today, notwithstanding we disagree some on a way to get there. comment #60 [Permalink] …

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

Re Harvard clinical "in the domestic" no longer that you simply produced any numbers or analysis for even cursory review— Why do not you help us all make certain that gun-possessing households recognize the hazards of having a gun in the condo, so that it will weigh those hazards and choose in the event that they need one? Or to assist them make a decision that definite behaviors can reduce risk devoid of any one giving up the rest? This sounds like a good idea to me, but then, I’ve received a while invested in teaching safety instead of taking issues away from americans. They still have possibility, however they make a decision. What kind of safety decisions do you’re making for your family? Do you burn candles? big hearth hazard. Are their seat belts buckled? Do you allow them to have skateboards or violent video video games? Do you need the govt worried in these decisions for your family unit or do you want to weigh the risks and make your own choices? I remind you that we’re speakme the Harvard "within the home" fabric said earlier. weapons and suicide? due to the fact that when did you become a born-once again "You won’t have a correct to end of life selections" person?" people decide to kill themselves and or not it’s their determination. recover from it. word: i will never kill myself. I might have to die defending myself, however it is a distinct decision. comment #61 [Permalink] …

Ernest A. Canning

said on 1/22/2013 @ 8:08 am PT…

feedback fifty seven-fifty nine are each redundant and mistaken. Redundancies: E.g., "Neither Brad nor Mr Canning desires to stick to the thread subject matter since you can not display any crimes from .50 cal rifles." See remark #fifty one. "the place is you [sic.] interpretation, Sir?" See comment #6. unsuitable: "don’t like abortions? wouldn’t have one. petrified of weapons? do not buy one." the previous entails someone’s correct to select — a lady’s very own choice relating her own physique. The latter entails the possibility of being murdered by means of somebody else! listed below are three questions derived from my comment @fifty one which will also be answered with a simple "yes" or "no" with out your resort to verbosity. 1. should federal and state governments anticipate the occurrence of either dying or critical damage before they could enact laws designed to protect the health and safeguard of their residents? 2. Do you agree with that individuals have a constitutional correct to possess surface-to-air missiles? 3. Do you agree with that people have the constitutional appropriate to own nuclear bombs? comment #sixty two [Permalink] …

luagha
referred to on 1/22/2013 @ 2:08 pm PT…

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

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

"Who wants a silencer?"back within the day, many city dwellers would have firearms traps of their lower back yards to follow their marksmanship. The silencer turned into at the beginning marketed to these people as a means for them to be quiet and considerate to their neighbors who might not wish to hear weapons going off in any respect hours. So the answer to that query is, "anybody who wants to be considerate of their neighbors." Noise toxins is pretty serious and whereas many cities may not permit such private degrees, there may be loads of the country where it be just satisfactory to observe your capturing on your property, and simply polite no longer to make a racket doing it. comment #sixty four [Permalink] …

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

The murder fee in Chicago, where gun control is basically nonexistent, is nineteen.four per one hundred,000 inhabitants. That figure is greater than 13.eight instances improved than the murder rate in London (1.4 per a hundred,000 inhabitants) where there’s strict control. Wow…You truly are misinformed. Chicago has probably the most strick gun control systems in the country. With a flat out ban on most handguns and many rifles within the city. Most Minicipalities have taken it a step further with a flatout ban on all handguns. Yet they still have the maximum price of gun violance per capita. here is a hyperlink to the history of gun control in Chicago for you reading pleasure. http://www.encyclopedia….story.org/pages/557.html.