Texas Bans Remote Hunting

"JOF" <johnfrancis@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:3k3q51dm22mm69e03ggc24csdrmi99r8j6@4ax.com...

<snip some of the most idiotic shit I have ever seen you put forth>

Laws exist for the punishment of criminal use of firearms, or any weapon for
that matter, in kidnap, robbery, rape, murder, etc. There is no difference
between a murder committed with a gun, knife or baseball bat.

Laws exist that make it a felony to falsify 4473 (the form used here in the
states to purchase a firearm), or to possess a firearm if you are a
convicted felon, mental case, drug addict, fugitive or other disqualified
individual. In this state, if you are a convicted felon or on probation or
parole, you may not be in the same room with an unsecured weapon, whether
you physically control it or not.

Creating more laws designed only to restrict possession of firearms by law
abiding people is simply stupid. Which is why the left and the Brady Bunch,
VPC, etc. keep trying (what your problem is I can only guess, because you
seem to be kinda smart at times). They aren't trying to make the world
safer, they are trying to disarm law abiding people, and leave them to the
generosity of the criminals. The courts have established quite clearly that
the police (government) have no legal obligation to protect anyone against
anything. So, if you disarm me and mine, and my SO gets raped and murdered
by an armed criminal, you are his accomplice before the fact.

You don't like guns, don't want to own any guns or have them in your house
or life, don't.

You don't have the right, privilege or ability to make that decision for me,
and I really wish you would stop trying.

Scott wrote:
>
> "JOF" <johnfrancis@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> news:3k3q51dm22mm69e03ggc24csdrmi99r8j6@4ax.com...
>
> <snip some of the most idiotic shit I have ever seen you put forth>

and thus you win "the Laugh of the Day Award" !!

>
> Laws exist for the punishment of criminal use of firearms, or any weapon for
> that matter, in kidnap, robbery, rape, murder, etc. There is no difference
> between a murder committed with a gun, knife or baseball bat.
>
> Laws exist that make it a felony to falsify 4473 (the form used here in the
> states to purchase a firearm), or to possess a firearm if you are a
> convicted felon, mental case, drug addict, fugitive or other disqualified
> individual. In this state, if you are a convicted felon or on probation or
> parole, you may not be in the same room with an unsecured weapon, whether
> you physically control it or not.
>
> Creating more laws designed only to restrict possession of firearms by law
> abiding people is simply stupid. Which is why the left and the Brady Bunch,
> VPC, etc. keep trying (what your problem is I can only guess, because you
> seem to be kinda smart at times). They aren't trying to make the world
> safer, they are trying to disarm law abiding people, and leave them to the
> generosity of the criminals. The courts have established quite clearly that
> the police (government) have no legal obligation to protect anyone against
> anything. So, if you disarm me and mine, and my SO gets raped and murdered
> by an armed criminal, you are his accomplice before the fact.
>
> You don't like guns, don't want to own any guns or have them in your house
> or life, don't.
>
> You don't have the right, privilege or ability to make that decision for me,
> and I really wish you would stop trying.

"JOF" <johnfrancis@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:qhuo511nph2u1qt6cee09ob2vacf6bn49f@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 14:17:43 -0400, "Douglas W. \"Popeye\" Frederick"
> <Buzcutt454@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >"Scott" <pugetsounddiver@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:tcU6e.55$vj4.921@news.uswest.net...
> >> "Douglas W. "Popeye" Frederick" <Buzcutt454@aol.com> wrote in message
> >> news:115nunfk9r8kl0f@news.supernews.com...
> >>
> >> > Welcome to our world.
> >>
> >> Savor it.
> >
> > NRA Membership.
>
> I gotta do that too???? Just to kill targets?

You're one of us now...



--
One million Marines cannot seize Tarawa in a thousand years.
Admiral Keiji Shibasaki, 4 days before his death.

On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 13:18:41 -0400, "Douglas W. \"Popeye\" Frederick"
<Buzcutt454@aol.com> wrote:

>
>"JOF" <johnfrancis@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
>news:qhuo511nph2u1qt6cee09ob2vacf6bn49f@4ax.com.. .
>> On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 14:17:43 -0400, "Douglas W. \"Popeye\" Frederick"
>> <Buzcutt454@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >"Scott" <pugetsounddiver@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> >news:tcU6e.55$vj4.921@news.uswest.net...
>> >> "Douglas W. "Popeye" Frederick" <Buzcutt454@aol.com> wrote in message
>> >> news:115nunfk9r8kl0f@news.supernews.com...
>> >>
>> >> > Welcome to our world.
>> >>
>> >> Savor it.
>> >
>> > NRA Membership.
>>
>> I gotta do that too???? Just to kill targets?
>
> You're one of us now...

Accckkk!

JF

"JOF" <johnfrancis@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:3q0r511ure1kv6ikqmaut4ugba6uthdmg7@4ax.com...

> > You're one of us now...
>
> Accckkk!

We need to get you a "Quit honking, I'm reloading" bumper sticker for your
car.

Or "Notice: Driver only carries $20.00 in ammunition".

Available here at every corner store in the state, I just don't perceive
widespread availability in Ontario.

On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 08:22:23 -0700, Crownfield <Crownfield@cox.net>
wrote:


>or, strange concept to you, responsible freedom.

I trust my own judgement implicitly ... well, almost. Most of us are
inherently law abiding, but sometimes, in the absence of a good law or
even a bad law, we get too emotionally involved to rely on good
judgement alone. That's when it becomes important to have within our
society a framework of good law to take over when good judgement
falters.

Our world is far too complicated to rely on discretion and good
judgement in all matters. There will always be disagreement, and in
the absence of any law the disagreements will too often invalidate
responsible freedom. You and I could likely always come to an
understanding and avoid physical violence, no matter how much we
disagreed, but do you really trust everyone to know when to draw the
line, to know when they've gone from civilized to the alternative.

It's like the lines on the highway. We take them for granted and we
know that on this continent we are supposed to keep to the right
except when passing, and that if something goes wrong we don't want to
be the driver on the left side of that line. What if we had roads and
cars but had never introduced the concept of lines or keeping to the
right? Would good responsible judgement automatically have every
driver thinking "keep right"?

JF

On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 17:00:03 -0400, "Douglas W. \"Popeye\" Frederick"
<Buzcutt454@aol.com> wrote:

>
>"JOF" <johnfrancis@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
>news:3q0r511ure1kv6ikqmaut4ugba6uthdmg7@4ax.com.. .
>
>> > You're one of us now...
>>
>> Accckkk!
>
> We need to get you a "Quit honking, I'm reloading" bumper sticker for your
>car.

That would be a hoot. I can imagine the phone calls I'd get. Mebbe I
should put it on Wendy's CTS. She looks tougher than me.

> Or "Notice: Driver only carries $20.00 in ammunition".
>
> Available here at every corner store in the state, I just don't perceive
>widespread availability in Ontario.

Can't honestly say I've ever seen 'em up here.

JF

JOF wrote:
>
> On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 08:22:23 -0700, Crownfield <Crownfield@cox.net>
> wrote:
>
> >or, strange concept to you, responsible freedom.
>
> I trust my own judgement implicitly ... well, almost. Most of us are
> inherently law abiding, but sometimes, in the absence of a good law

be careful here.

> or even a bad law,

stop.
you blew it right there.
bad laws are dumb laws,
and simply hassle honest people
with no benefit to anyone.

obviously they are dumb, and without merit,
and to be honest, you know it too.

> That's when it becomes important to have within our
> society a framework of good law to take over when good judgement
> falters.

now you start to make sense. you did say "GOOD LAWS".

<non responsive lines snipped>

great people make great laws, like:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;
or the right of the people peaceably to assemble,
and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

look at that.

45 words.

freedom of religion.
freedom of speech.
freedom of the press.
freedom of assembly.
freedom of protest.

all in 45 words.

all in just one tiny little group of words.
good law.
the law protects the honest citizen.
instead of taking away rights, the law protects them.

and:

"Section. 8.

The Congress shall have Power:
....
To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and
current Coin of the United States;"

this law sensibly defines making your own money as a crime,
and allows the government to take action.

it protects everyone
against an unreasonable action against the country.



> JF

On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 15:20:15 -0700, Crownfield <Crownfield@cox.net>
wrote:

>stop.
>you blew it right there.
>bad laws are dumb laws,
>and simply hassle honest people
>with no benefit to anyone.
>
>obviously they are dumb, and without merit,
>and to be honest, you know it too.

Not necessarily so. I still contend that even a bad law is better than
no law at all in some situations. People respond to order. Laws are a
form of order or structure, and often a law, flawed or otherwise,
provides some indication that there is an underlying structure and
offers at least some clue as to what is expected of law-abiding
people. An absence of any kind of law leaves us each to our own
devices and that's when our selfish interests prevail, not necessarily
those most consistent with an orderly society.

JF

JOF wrote:
> Not necessarily so. I still contend that even a bad law is better
than
> no law at all in some situations. People respond to order. Laws are a
> form of order or structure, and often a law, flawed or otherwise,
> provides some indication that there is an underlying structure and
> offers at least some clue as to what is expected of law-abiding
> people. An absence of any kind of law leaves us each to our own
> devices and that's when our selfish interests prevail, not
necessarily
> those most consistent with an orderly society.


Can't find the reference to cite it, but read something the other day
that really made me think.

It was a statement that generally laws made today are not crafted
nearly as well as those of yesteryear. Huge implications if true, you
just need to think about the repercussions for a couple of minutes.

As a result, the courts are being asked to interpret fuzzy laws and
consequently have *by definition* much more room, indeed are actually
required to come up with creative interpretations. Immediately leads to
accusations of "creative, or radical, or out of control" being levied
by the side that lost of course.

In addition, the article stated that courts are having to take on a
role never envisaged by the founding fathers, where courts are in
effect **making** law, which is clearly contrary to the separation of
powers doctrine.

Further, the article stated that some of the "fuzzy lawmaking" was a
deliberate attempt by legislatures and legislators to sidestep
accountability to their consituents. Make the law fuzzy enough and no
one is going to get mad at you because you can interpret the law any
way you want.

Interesting. And everyone is pissed at activist judges.

Further, major issues facing US society tend to be decided in court
rather than the legislature, much more so than either Canada or Europe.

For example, look no further than the abortion controversy and Roe v
Wade. An entire societal position determined by a court rather than by
a general election or a referendum. Gay marriage has gone much the same
way.

The article also suggested that deciding such major issues in court
leaves the losing party feeling cheated, while fighting for a decsion
in a referendum or election tends to leave the losers with a more
resigned sense of acceptance. Looking at how some of these questions
were decided in Europe lends weight to the argument. Re-examination of
the original decision seems neither as frequent or as heated as
court-ordered decisions.

So, that leaves the question as to whether a bad law is a good law.

George



George