Best Coolpix for HD and low light too?
in [Digital Cameras]
|
From: Jane Galt on 21 Jun 2010 19:21 "Dudley Hanks" <dhanks(a)blind-apertures.ca> wrote : > > "Jane Galt" <Jane_G(a)gulch.xyz> wrote in message > news:Xns9D9E79DC1A483JaneGgulchxyz(a)216.196.97.142... >> Well I guess the camera thread here is officially over, co-opted by smears >> from the far left loons. >> >> >> -- >> - Jane Galt > > Well, I guess I was wrong. I thought there was at least one member on the > group who wouldn't resort to name calling when the going got tough... > > Too bad... > > I guess, if you can't baffle 'em with bullshit, run and hide, and pick 'em > off with a sniper scope... > > Take Care, > Dudley > > > PLONK -- - Jane Galt
From: Jane Galt on 21 Jun 2010 19:25 "Dudley Hanks" <dhanks(a)blind-apertures.ca> wrote : > I have no problem with a bill of rights, but I do care what rights are > contained in it, how they are interpreted, and the ramifications of bad > judgement... IOW you're contradicting yoourself yet again. I do but, except...I dont. Our Bill of Rights is written in very plain english, it needs no "interpreting", in fact that very notion came with the start of the "Progressive" movement about 110 years ago, of a flexible "living" Constitution that could be molded to the socialist agenda. Before that, the purpose of the Supreme Court was to test laws to see if they met Constitutional muster. > The funny thing is that you don't realize one of your Libertarian buddies > might just be YOUR worst enemy, much more likely than a proponent of > democracy... Oh? How are people who are against the initiation of force, my enemies? "Who is a libertarian? A libertarian is a person who believes that no one has the right, under any circumstances, to ***initiate*** force against another human being, or to advocate or delegate its initiation. Those who act consistently with this principle are libertarians, whether they realize it or not. Those who fail to act consistently with it are not libertarians, regardless of what they may claim." -- L. Neil Smith No, I'll stick with seeing my enemies as those who are fine with initiating force against me, and/or delegating its initiation. -- - Jane Galt
From: Jane Galt on 21 Jun 2010 19:30 Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote : > On 2010-06-21 10:54:48 -0700, Jane Galt <Jane_G(a)gulch.xyz> said: > >> Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote : >> >>> I have been a participant in Use of Force investigations, and have >>> been on Use of Force Committees and Shooting Boards. I have also >>> worked with DA investigators in civilian shootings where there are >>> claims of self defense. My sincere advice to any gun owner is to >>> familiarize your self with Laws regarding Use of (deadly) Force before >>> you take it upon yourself to become a vigilante. >>> >> >> Oh yes, why we all know that cops are the only ones trained, qualified >> and stable enough to be allowed to have guns. They're above everyone >> else in knowing when an attack is legitimate enough to defend >> themselves to. > > I didn't say that. I said it is advisable to know and understand the > Law as it applies to Use of Deadly Force, especially in self defense > situations. That's why they teach it at concealed carry classes. I had a whole 5 hours of classroom training, plus 3 hours at the range doing an IDPA range course. > I am a life long gun owner and shooter, very pro-gun and shot thousands > of rounds from handguns and rifles long before the Selective Service > informed me my draft number was 54, and long before I became a peace > officer. Good for you. > I fully believe in the armed citizen, with the caveat they should also > be able to defend themselves with the law, by being aware of their > responsibility and maintaining proficiency. We agree on that. >> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp- >> dyn/content/article/2010/06/15/AR2010061505416.html > > What does Londonderry in 1972 have to do with the armed citizen in the > US? ...unless you are making an analogy to the Boston Massacre. For the people who think that government can be trusted but individuals cant. > I am sure you are a regular on the range, and that is a good thing. I > hope beyond this discussion you also knowledgeable of all the issues > relating to the Law and the use of deadly force. Yep, and I've owned guns since moving out of my pacifist anti-gun jewish parents' home around 1970. People like that are also the reason I renounced judaism at around age 25, out of shame and disgust that people who could say "never again!" could possibly trust ANY government to protect them, and go unarmed. I see any and all unarmed jews as abject cowards, and deserving of having another Holocaust inflicted on them. -- - Jane Galt
From: Jane Galt on 21 Jun 2010 19:32 tony cooper <tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> wrote : > On Mon, 21 Jun 2010 13:00:42 -0500, Jane Galt <Jane_G(a)gulch.xyz> > wrote: > >>tony cooper <tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> wrote : >> >> >>>>The marxist snobs, who smear anyone as "stupid" who doesnt agree with >>>>their tyrannical politiks. >>> >>> The nutters who smear anyone as "marxist" who doesn't agree with their >>> extremist positions, Beck manufactured conspiracies, Limbaugh lunacy, >>> and Hannity hysteria. >> >>If the shoe fits, comrade. What exactly do you think grandiose >>redistribution of wealth schemes are? >> > Excessive quoting indicates a person who is unable to form their own > opinions. They rely on copy/pasting the thoughts of others because > they don't have the capacity to form and elucidate their own thoughts. I have both, but why reinvent the wheel when I've found others who said it much more eloquently than I? Am I expected to be as eloquent as the founding fathers, for example, to make the case as to why I should have the inalienable right to defend myself? > They are easily-led shallow thinkers because having a base of macros > allows them to present themselves as informed, but - in reality - rely > on other people to lead them to a quote base to provide what they > can't articulate themselves. Yada yada BS. -- - Jane Galt
From: Jane Galt on 21 Jun 2010 19:33
"David Ruether" <d_ruether(a)thotmail.com> wrote : > > "Jane Galt" <Jane_G(a)gulch.xyz> wrote in message > >> 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 > > DING!, DING!, DING!, DING! (That's my "absurdity alert" > going off...) Hey, I think you might enjoy residing in Somalia > more than here, perhaps? No comrade, I've already explained that I favor small government, not anarchy. But the likes of you might enjoy it more in Cuba or North Korea.. if you survived it. No effective government, thus social > chaos - yum, yum, huh?. Or perhaps in the time of the rapacious > robber barons (with the "wolves" who owned everything who > fed off everyone else). Enough nonsense, so BYE! <PLONK!> Kiss my PLONK! -- - Jane Galt |