Texas Bans Remote Hunting

"JOF" <johnfrancis@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:9mto519e85am4c9umk1m0ghu5lgl00msca@4ax.com...

> But why would I want to ban guns?

You tell us.

That's the platform you are always trying to indirectly support.

On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 15:08:58 -0400, Galen Hekhuis
<ghekhuis@earthlink.net> wrote:

>On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 23:32:43 -0400, JOF <johnfrancis@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
>>But what if I was right, would I be horribly right?
>
>Not even close. Even if you got legislation passed right now that would
>effectively ban all guns, there are still millions out there and even the
>most optimistic estimates allow for decades to pass before the gun free
>utopia some imagine could be realized. During that time you are going to
>have to support at least some segment of society being unable to defend
>themselves against those who don't obey the law. Maybe you can do that,
>but I can't demand that others do so. No matter what the "rightness" or
>the goodness of your outcome you still have to deal with a downside. It
>would be like trying to raise the world IQ. Surely a noble cause, and a
>desirable outcome. But if done by killing off those below a certain IQ,
>hey, the results would be good but the getting there kinda sucks.

But why would I want to ban guns?

>>Who does know the answer, but at least you have an open mind. Tonight
>>at the funeral home I spoke with my cousin. He reminded me that his
>>Dad (the Great White Hunter) wanted him to provide me with a target
>>pistol so I could join the club and start shooting. I'm going to do
>>it, once we get the red tape cleared so I can carry the piece to and
>>from the range.
>
>How much red tape do you think the average crook puts up with? It's only a
>hassle for those who follow the rules.

I was only going to shoot targets, not crooks.

>>I did in fact have a double, and now I'm off to bed to rest up for for
>>the ordeal tomorrow. I hate funerals. Fortunately my wife is made of
>>good stuff. It makes my job easier.
>
>Bummer. I keep being torn between just not going to funerals because I
>dislike them so much and the thought that a funeral isn't for the dead at
>all, it is for those who have to deal with the death, and therefore my
>presence might help a little. I just wish people would quit dying. But
>they never listen to me, they go right ahead. Sigh.

I go through that same turmoil with funerals. This one was a must
though.

JF

On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 19:04:09 -0700, "Scott"
<pugetsounddiver@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>"JOF" <johnfrancis@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
>news:9mto519e85am4c9umk1m0ghu5lgl00msca@4ax.com.. .
>
>> But why would I want to ban guns?
>
>You tell us.
>
>That's the platform you are always trying to indirectly support.
>
Not at all. I've never advocated a gun ban.

JF

"JOF" <johnfrancis@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:qhuo511nph2u1qt6cee09ob2vacf6bn49f@4ax.com...

> I gotta do that too???? Just to kill targets?

Targets are not alive, John.

They are simple pieces of paper.

Now;

When we boil it all down to gravy, I'll give you six months of diligent
practice at the range, and bet you a bottle of Patron that you cant better
me at any range, with any weapon.

And if you come down here, you wont have all the worthless paper work to
wade through just to lose a bottle of good tequila.

JOF wrote:
>
> On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 00:41:19 -0400, "Douglas W. \"Popeye\" Frederick"
> <Buzcutt454@aol.com> wrote:
> > Welcome to the club. <weg>
>
> We'll see. He explained the rules for carrying the gun to and from the
> range, and getting it registered in my name, etc. I didn't know it was
> so damned complicated just to kill paper.

it should not be...


>
> JF

"chilly" <slarson@shaw.canada> wrote in message
news:IRr6e.960604$8l.159437@pd7tw1no...

> My recommendation is that you head to SE Asia and get to Mabul and there
> enjoy diving at Mabul, Sipadan and Kapalai. You could stay on Mabul or
> Kapalai and with a few extra days inland on Borneo for some excellent
> sightseeing. This trip could even encompass a day or two in either
> Bangkok
> or Singapore.

Very interesting dives in Bangkok.

But an 11-day Komodo Island liveaboard next July is probably the very best
idea of all. The boat even has a masseuse.

"JOF" <johnfrancis@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:mdvo511q95meg0ln7uj4g79ulnv42tnvi6@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 19:04:09 -0700, "Scott"
> <pugetsounddiver@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >"JOF" <johnfrancis@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> >news:9mto519e85am4c9umk1m0ghu5lgl00msca@4ax.com.. .
> >
> >> But why would I want to ban guns?
> >
> >You tell us.
> >
> >That's the platform you are always trying to indirectly support.
> >
> Not at all. I've never advocated a gun ban.

Oh please.

You have slandered, in the most subtle (you think) wording, every person,
mostly Americans, who reject your thinly veiled accusations of
non-reasonability as the purveyors of mayhem.

Just stop it.

Scott wrote:
>
> "JOF" <johnfrancis@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> news:rmuo51pauv2rjk7j1h0n7fo1vjk6u67v2n@4ax.com...
>
> > I suppose the idea is to impose some kind of order and an expectation
> > of a certain level of responsible behaviour. It won't do much about
> > the criminals but it might do something to make law abiding gun
> > ownership a little bit safer. I know it sounds like preaching to the
> > choir but what's the alternative?
>
> Gawd.

boggles the mind, does it not?

> > It won't do much about the criminals


> > it might do something to make law abiding gun
> > ownership a little bit safer

thinking is really becoming a lost art.


let me see if I got this right?

make laws that the problem people / criminals disregard,
and which restrict and penalize and harrass only the honest citizen?

is it deliberate or an accident
that anyone could support such an idiotic concept?

it will make law abiding citizens safer how?
it will make criminals safer how?

it will cost how much to execute?

and the effectiveness per dollar is what? 00.00?


>
> The simple alternative is to make criminals pay for their crimes, and to
> leave decent, law abiding people to live their lives as they see fit.

"Greg Mossman" <mossman@qnet.com> wrote in message
news:425c368c$0$21990$6c56adcd@news.qnet.com...
> "Dennis (Icarus)" <nojunkmail@ever.invalid> wrote in message
> news:953ae$42593193$45010e17$21705@KNOLOGY.NET...
>
> > Because you don't get a nice trophy, or meat, from a game boy.
>
> tro·phy
> n. pl. tro·phies
>
> 1. A prize or memento, such as a cup or plaque, received as a symbol of
> victory, especially in sports.
> 2. A specimen or part, such as a lion's head, preserved as a token of a
> successful hunt.
> 3. A memento, as of one's personal achievements.
> 4. The spoils of war, dedicated in classical antiquity with an inscription
> to a deity and set up as a temporary monument on or near a battlefield,
> placed in an existing temple, or housed in a permanent, new structure.
>
> It's not a victory, not an achievement, not a war. So is it a hunt?
>
> hunt
> v. hunt·ed, hunt·ing, hunts
> v. tr.
> 1. To pursue (game) for food or sport.
> 2. To search through (an area) for prey: hunted the ridges.
> 3. To make use of (hounds, for example) in pursuing game.
> 4. To pursue intensively so as to capture or kill: hunted down the escaped
> convict.
> 5. To seek out; search for.
>
> Clearly there's no hunt without pursuit or search, so how can there be a
> trophy?
>
>

Check definition #2 of hunt.
Think of waiting by a place where the animals being hunted frequent.
Wait for them them to come through that area. Yeah, its a fairly small area,
but I believe it would apply.

Dennis

On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 20:37:47 -0700, Crownfield <Crownfield@cox.net>
wrote:

>Scott wrote:
>>
>> "JOF" <johnfrancis@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
>> news:rmuo51pauv2rjk7j1h0n7fo1vjk6u67v2n@4ax.com...
>>
>> > I suppose the idea is to impose some kind of order and an expectation
>> > of a certain level of responsible behaviour. It won't do much about
>> > the criminals but it might do something to make law abiding gun
>> > ownership a little bit safer. I know it sounds like preaching to the
>> > choir but what's the alternative?
>>
>> Gawd.
>
>boggles the mind, does it not?

It's a simple enough concept.

>> > It won't do much about the criminals

We'd already established that criminals are outside any rules anyway
so they're not part of the equation.

>> > it might do something to make law abiding gun
>> > ownership a little bit safer
>
>thinking is really becoming a lost art.

You're not trying.

>let me see if I got this right?
>
>make laws that the problem people / criminals disregard,
>and which restrict and penalize and harrass only the honest citizen?

Think of what you're saying, but take it to the extreme. Make no laws.
If there are no laws, then there are no criminals. That's a dandy
solution to the crime problem, if you think you can live with the
consequences.

>is it deliberate or an accident
>that anyone could support such an idiotic concept?

If I said I believe in making my own choices when I come to a fork in
the road, I'm sure you'd say I was being obtuse, that I should always
turn left.

>it will make law abiding citizens safer how?

How will laws make law-abiding citizens safer? Golly. I'll have to
think about that one for a while.

>it will make criminals safer how?

Personally I'm not concerned about the safety of criminals.

>> The simple alternative is to make criminals pay for their crimes, and to
>> leave decent, law abiding people to live their lives as they see fit.

Okay. So were assuming that a few laws will be allowed? The lawyers
will thank you for that. After all, we need those laws and lawyers to
create criminals, so we have someone to be the bad guys, to act as
foils to our virtue.

I was starting to think we might be getting around to talking about
the slippery slope to anarchy now?

JF