NOTICE TO THE Supreme Court

In article , tankfixer
says...

In article , luv2^fly99@live.
^com says...
In article , gregvk says...

Max Isn't Well luv2^fly99@live.^com wrote in
:

In article , tankfixer
says...

In article , a6ahlyv02
@sneakemail.com says...
On Sat, 7 Jun 2008 14:36:16 -0700, in the land of alt.usenet.kooks,
tankfixer got double secret probation for
writing:

In article , a6ahlyv02
says...
On Fri, 6 Jun 2008 22:36:05 -0700, in the land of
alt.usenet.kooks, tankfixer got double
secret probation for writing:

In article ,
a6ahlyv02 @sneakemail.com says...
On Fri, 6 Jun 2008 20:18:23 -0700, in the land of
alt.usenet.kooks, tankfixer got
double secret probation for writing:

In article ,
a6ahlyv02 @sneakemail.com says...
On Fri, 6 Jun 2008 16:22:35 -0700, in the land of
alt.usenet.kooks, tankfixer got
double secret probation for writing:

In article -
sjc.supernews.net, says...
In article ,
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

But there is another side to this, and, to me, it's
the valid one: self-defense. You can argue that the
statistics for your county suggest that
you're safer with fewer guns. That's not as strong an
argument as you may think (safe places tend to be
places where people *choose* not to have guns,

Forget the statistics that show you're "safer"
without a gun. Most of those are cooked up in the
Twainsian sense ("lies, damned lies, and
statistics"). Even those that are not do not address
the fact that a criminal assaulting

I'm not arguing that you should carry a gun, but I am
arguing that you have no fair basis to deny that
right to some other law-abiding citizen. No
basis, that is, except for your perceived safety,
versus his. For a percentage gain in statistics
you're denying another individual a reasonable

without a method to verify that people are stable
enough to trust with guns and a method to verify they
are trained and profiencent enough to shoot in the
correct general direction

then what you have are guns distributed among people
in this county i believe to be more likely used in
crime than defense


establish some kind of militia or civillian police
auxillary make people prove their stability
mkae people prove they can shoot straight
train them to shoot under the right circumstances
and then you would undermine my objection

but just randomly distributing deadly technology
and just hoping it gets used correctly
thats just stupid


The same arguments can be made concrning allowing the
public to own cars or computers.

1. Cars are required to be driven by someone that has
taken a proficiency test, usualy a live driven test,
however rudimentary, at least once.

Persons carrying conceled legally have tests they must pass
before the license is issued.

What part of your statement, to which I responded, concerned
concealed carry?

Concealed carry is the equivilent of your drivign a car.
The gun or car parked safely away is no danger to anyone.

So your answer is nothing.And you repeated what I wrote two
posts ago.

There is no test required to purchase or own a car, only one to
operate it on public roads.

So as long as you buy your gun and bury it in your yard, I am good.

Once again you exhibit an irrational fear of an inanimate object.



In that same vein why should there be a test to purchase or own a
firearm if it is not going to be carried in public in a condition
to allow it's ready use ?

Define public (in this case):

Off my property.
If I am merely transporting it to a range to shoot it would be
unloaded and locked away the trunk.
If I intend to carry it in a ready condition, i.e. round in the
chamber and safety on(depending o weapon of course) then I would have
the required training and permit to carry it concealed as my state's
laws require.

In your home, with just you in this case would be private (and
disturbing)

Why is it disturbing ?
The guns sit quietly in their storage spot, hurting no one.


If anyone else is in the same place when the weapon is not in the
gun safe, then that would be public.

No, if they are on my property it is not a public place.


The other issue is where does the bullet go?

In the chamber.


The idea of privacy with firearms is at best nebulous simply
because of the potentially fired bullet.

How would you know the size of my property ?
There may be sufficient space to safely fire in any direction.
Conversely if there is not then the weapon and ammunition I chose to
keep ready for self defense will take those limits in account.

Not to mention the fact the weapon won't be fired unless there is
sufficient cause.
The criminal will be given a chance to cease his activities and
surrender.

The criminal should never even know that you have a weapon.

Unless you're firing subsonic rounds.

Criminals?

Four words: High voltage electrified fence.

(Two more words: Problem solved.)

A 308 round every few years as needed generates a far smaller carbon
dioxide footprint than does burning 20Kv 7/24/365. Not to mention its
a lot more affordable.

But I guess we could discuss using a minefield. There all you really
have is the initial investment in equipment and deployment to worry
about.

Minefields have issues in any region that suffers from severe cold
weather...

Severe (enough) cold weather will impact any type of equipment.

That's not an issue here.

--

"Tis an ill wind that blows no minds"