Best Coolpix for HD and low light too?
in [Digital Cameras]
|
From: Dudley Hanks on 21 Jun 2010 01:09 "Jane Galt" <Jane_G(a)gulch.xyz> wrote in message news:Xns9D9DE80252B19JaneGgulchxyz(a)216.196.97.142... > "Dudley Hanks" <dhanks(a)blind-apertures.ca> wrote : > >> >> "Jane Galt" <Jane_G(a)gulch.xyz> wrote in message >> news:Xns9D9DDEE835DB7JaneGgulchxyz(a)216.196.97.142... >>> "Dudley Hanks" <dhanks(a)blind-apertures.ca> wrote : >>> >>>> >>>> I've nothing against self-defence, have gotten into more than a few >>>> scraps myself takin' care of business... Even had to go one on three >>>> with a few cops one night when they "exceeded their authority." >>>> >>>> But, my concern with the general public carrying weapons is that it >>>> merely escalates the likelihood of innocents getting hurt. >>> >>> Actually quite the opposite. More guns, less crime. >>> >>> http://www.gunownersalliance.com/hupp-10.htm >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> - Jane Galt >> >> Not really, current stats are based on a low percentage of gun owners to >> general population. >> >> As guns become more prevalent, criminals become more cautious, up until >> they reach a point where the criminal element knows there's going to be >> armed resistance, so they take precautions and get more organized. >> >> Statistics from the old "wild west" would be more appropriate to a >> modern civilization where concealed carry weapons are common place. > > The old wild west was safer than modern day London. All that you posted > above is thoroughly debunked marxist propaganda, aimed at disarming and > dissolving the United States. > > "All political power comes from the barrel of a gun. The communist party > must command all guns, that way no guns can ever be used to command the > party." -- Mao Tse Tung "Selected Works of Mao Zedong," 1965 > > yet: > > Only an armed people can be the real bulwark of popular liberty. - > Vladimir > Lenin > > > -- > - Jane Galt I thought you'd come back with the populist babble of the NRA as your ideological doctrine, but am rather surprised that, as a republican American, you quote instead from communist doctrine, a Doctrine which was the basis of the Russian Federation. Do you remember how the USSR came to an end? It was overthrown, not by guns, but by peaceful democratic ideals. Where was the necessity for an armed citizenry, even in one of the most totalitarian regimes? Also, the Chinese communist doctrine you so freely quote is also slowly being undermined, not by an armed citizenry, but by peaceful democratic ideals... Your country chose the armed revolution to free itself from British tyranny, Canada chose peaceful diplomacy. We both ended up in the same place, but with a fair bit less bloodshed.. north of the border. BTW, I can't help but notice you don't have any links to statistics on how peaceful Dodge City was in comparison to modern day London... Take Care, Dudley
From: Die Wahrheit on 21 Jun 2010 01:14 On Mon, 21 Jun 2010 04:56:27 GMT, "Dudley Hanks" <dhanks(a)blind-apertures.ca> wrote: > >Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of >God and the rule of law: Which god? I have a book titled "Encyclopedia of 1500 Gods & Goddesses". All of them valid in their cultures that believe in them. Most all of them much older and wiser than any immature god that was recently invented in the middle-east. Do you respect others' gods as much as you do your own? Or are you saying that your god doesn't know anything about respect. And if that god of yours knows nothing about respect, it knows nothing about love either. Because love is a false love without respect. You cannot love unless it is first based on respect. Respect is more important and more powerful than love. Unfortunately that little tidbit has been conveniently left out of all of the middle-east's versions of god, otherwise they wouldn't have spanned the globe trying to kill all others in the name of their god. Which "laws"? Laws are only someone's opinion put on paper. It doesn't matter how many people might agree, the majority has never been right. As the old saying goes: "If even 5 billion people say and believe a foolish thing, it remains a foolish thing." The number of people agreeing is never an affirmation of them being right.
From: Gilford Brimly on 21 Jun 2010 01:18 On Mon, 21 Jun 2010 04:50:47 GMT, "Dudley Hanks" <dhanks(a)blind-apertures.ca> wrote: > >And, you actually think you can open your purse, drag it out and get into >firing position before a well-prepared thug rips your bag from your shoulder >and renders you immobile? You certainly don't know much about purse designs for holding guns. There is generally a freely opened pocket at one end where the gun can be reached even as the "perp" is trying to wrest it from one's grasp. They grab the purse and pull it off the gun in your hand. Quick and easy, the perp actually helps to unholster the gun.
From: Dudley Hanks on 21 Jun 2010 01:21 "Die Wahrheit" <diewahrheit(a)somewherehonest.net> wrote in message news:lqst169hljb8guvh1anmmv9v98o38e85kc(a)4ax.com... > On Mon, 21 Jun 2010 04:56:27 GMT, "Dudley Hanks" > <dhanks(a)blind-apertures.ca> wrote: > >> >>Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of >>God and the rule of law: > > Which god? I have a book titled "Encyclopedia of 1500 Gods & Goddesses". > All of them valid in their cultures that believe in them. Most all of them > much older and wiser than any immature god that was recently invented in > the middle-east. Do you respect others' gods as much as you do your own? > Or > are you saying that your god doesn't know anything about respect. And if > that god of yours knows nothing about respect, it knows nothing about love > either. Because love is a false love without respect. You cannot love > unless it is first based on respect. Respect is more important and more > powerful than love. Unfortunately that little tidbit has been conveniently > left out of all of the middle-east's versions of god, otherwise they > wouldn't have spanned the globe trying to kill all others in the name of > their god. > > Which "laws"? Laws are only someone's opinion put on paper. It doesn't > matter how many people might agree, the majority has never been right. As > the old saying goes: "If even 5 billion people say and believe a foolish > thing, it remains a foolish thing." The number of people agreeing is never > an affirmation of them being right. > Hey, I didn't write it... The term was intentionally left generic so it would apply to most religions... Maybe in a few hundred years, a more secular term will be substituted... Take Care, Dudley
From: Jane Galt on 21 Jun 2010 01:22
"Dudley Hanks" <dhanks(a)blind-apertures.ca> wrote : > > "Jane Galt" <Jane_G(a)gulch.xyz> wrote in message > news:Xns9D9DE769DD65BJaneGgulchxyz(a)216.196.97.142... >> "Dudley Hanks" <dhanks(a)blind-apertures.ca> wrote : >> >>> >>> "Jane Galt" <Jane_G(a)gulch.xyz> wrote in message >>> news:Xns9D9DDE18D3661JaneGgulchxyz(a)216.196.97.142... >>>> Gilford Brimly <gilfordbrimly(a)spamless.com> wrote : >>>> >>>> >>>>> So let's see... you are so insecure and afraid that you wish everyone >>>>> had their own personal cop to protect them 24 hours a day. >>>> >>>> Isnt that called a police state? >>>> >>>> In a free society, we can all be armed for our own defense. >>>> >>>> I didn't realize he was in Canada though, a country that can arrest and >>>> try >>>> you if you say something that someone else "feels hurt" by. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> - Jane Galt >>> >>> With freedom goes responsibility... >>> Take Care, >>> Dudley >> >> Sounds like your country allows neither. >> >> >> >> -- >> - Jane Galt > > Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of > God and > the rule of law: > > Rights and freedoms in Canada > 1. > The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms > guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such > reasonable > limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and > democratic society. > Free and democratic are oxymoronic. Democracy is forming a mob and forcing everyone else to provide your needs and whims, and voting on how to oppress people in your favorite ways. It's essentially akin to two sheep and a wolf voting on what's for dinner. While with true libertarianism and/or Objectivism, the sheep is armed. -- - Jane Galt |