Hello "Ding Dongs", AKA: Recently elected governors of Ohio (Kasich),
Wisconsin(Walker) and Florida(Scott).
You don't want high speed rail research projects in your states, no
problem.
The money you are rejecting has been committed, so the Feds are simply
redirecting your funds to us here in California.
We'll take it
Maybe there are some more governors who don't want high speed rail in
their states.
If so, mind telling them we like high speed rail here in California?
We'll accept their money.
Wonder how your decisions will play when you stand for reelection?
Welcome To The World Of Big Time Politics "Ding Dongs".
Lew
On Feb 17, 4:22=A0pm, "DGDevin" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Doug Miller" =A0wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
>
> > If high-speed rail were commercially viable in the United States, it wo=
uld
> > already exist.
>
> Urban rail systems in America disappeared in large part because after WWI=
I
> the automobile and petroleum industries saw far greater profits to be mad=
e
> selling cars and buses and the fuel to run them, not because streetcars
> weren't a good form of public transport.
>
> And looking at how air travel is going these days, the idea of high speed
> rail is starting to look pretty good. =A0In recent years my wife and I ha=
ve
> elected to make 1,500 mile road trips rather than set foot in an airport,
> and that was before air travellers had to choose between being groped or
> x-rayed.
But WHO is going to pay for it? HOW are we going to pay for it?
Right after WWII, the United States had the only real, working economy
in the world. We built everything for everybody. We rebuilt other
nations so they could fend for themselves. We were bringing money
INTO this country hand over fist.
What is happening now? The money is pouring out of this country. How
does China pay for its high speed rail? By the money you and I pay
for all the freaking goods they produce and sell in places like Wal-
Mart, Home Depot, Best Buy and all those other stores. Because we, as
consumers, have demanded "the Chine Price" for so freaking long that
we have almost pushed manufacturing and other businesses that used to
bring money into this country out to places like China (especially
China).
Another way China is getting money to build those things is from all
the freaking interest this country is paying them on the Federal bonds
they are buying from us. So to answer your question, it is really the
NEXT GENERATION of Americans who will be funding just about *every*
publicly funded project in China.
>
> Fuel prices are going to have the final say on this issue. =A0When gas
> eventually gets back to five (or ten) bucks a gallon the train is going t=
o
> be a lot more attractive at any speed. =A0A lot of things happened becaus=
e gas
> was cheap, but the clock is ticking on that situation.
On 20 Feb 2011 12:38:22 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>"[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote in
>news:[email protected]:
>
>> On 20 Feb 2011 00:02:45 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>knuttle <[email protected]> wrote in news:ijpld0$g1p$1
>>>@news.eternal-september.org:
>>>
>>>> Up about 40% from two years ago.
>>>
>>>So what? Reducing taxes
>>
>> Exactly what taxes have been reduced?
>>
>>>and expending money to fight two wars
>>
>> They have been going on *far* longer than two years.
>>
>>>doesn't put money into the piggybank.
>>
>> Neither does spending 65% more than you make.
>
>Yes, indeed, it does date from more than 2 years ago. Remember that at
>one time (I believe it was the Clinton era) that there was a surplus?
Both wrong and irrelevant.
>Tax cuts (to the rich especially) and a war in Iraq based on intended or
>unintended deception plus a mismanaged war in Afganistan caused the
>current deficit.
Both wrong and irrelevant.
>This was of course compounded by mismanagement of
>several branches of governmemt (Bureau of mining etc, and oversight of
>banking are only 2 of them) caused the housing bubble.
The 4T spent in the last two years wasn't all the "housing bubble", rather a
"government bubble".
>Now everyone wants to keep their benefits that they are "entitled" to,
>and wants someone else to pay. I guess that is human nature, but what
>about the common good?
How about everyone keeping their "entitlements" that they had in, say, 2006,
for a start?
On Feb 18, 9:19=A0am, "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]>
wrote:
> DGDevin wrote:
>
> > Sure, and because General Motors and other companies made a point of
> > putting streetcars out of business, even if they had to buy the
> > companies running them (using front companies) and replace streetcars
> > with buses. =A0At one time America had over 1,200 electric light rail
> > operations.
>
> And all of these got you exactly where they went - not necessarily where =
you
> were going. =A0They were problematic in their own rite. =A0Cities were a =
tangle
> of overhead wires, the street cars could not alter course for any reason,
> they were not easy to swap out if one required maintenance.
>
> > GM alone converted 900 of these to buses. =A0Of course the
> > American fascination with the automobile was part of the process, but
> > it got a big push from companies that wanted to sell cars and buses.
>
> "The American facination with the automobile" is a really tired cliche.
> Sure, it's true to a point, but the automobile has stirred facination all
> around the world. =A0Nothing so uniquely American about it. =A0The fact t=
hat it
> took hold so well in America, and has resisted such alternatives as rail
> over the years has been discussed to death as well. =A0Rail just did not =
work
> to mobilize the American society. =A0That's not even unique to America.
>
>
>
> > We can afford to build damn near anything the Pentagon says it needs,
> > but we can't afford to refurb the national rail system? =A0We can give
> > tax breaks to the oil companies, but we can't afford high speed rail?
> > We're still sending foreign aid to *China* of all places, but we
> > can't upgrade our own transport systems? =A0Something doesn't add up
> > here.
>
> I do agree with those statements. =A0There is a lot of spending done by
> Washington that is just plain upside down. =A0So - you're supporting the =
idea
> of Washington spending more money on a national rail system? =A0Scarey
> thought...
>
> --
>
> -Mike-
> [email protected]
If a railway system focuses on freight alone and get those damned
trucks off the major arteries, we'd be ahead by quite a bit.
An intelligent hub & spoke system.
The math is simple. Fuel to move a given quantity of freight X
miles...train vs truck.
Nothing to talk about.
Fast too.
ANY kind of government will turn this into a political pork-barrel
football.
Private industry vs a much BIGGER private industry (oil) is what we're
up against.
DGDevin wrote:
>
> First, commercial viability is not necessary or even desirable for
> everything. Privatized law enforcement would result in the wealthy
> side of town getting a cop on every corner while the poor side of
> town would be on its own. The original national motto was not Dog
> Eat Dog.
In my town (and probably yours), there are FAR more private security guards
than cops.
> Second, left up to some folks what is of vital interest would be
> whatever benefits them and to hell with everyone else. It's
> refreshing when occasionally a law is passed based on what is good
> for the whole nation rather than some segment that can afford
> lobbyists and fat campaign fund donations.
Adam Smith settled this hash over 200 years ago when he postulated the
theory of "The Invisible Hand." It's essence is that when every person does
what's best for himself, the entire community prospers.
>
> Third, the Constitution says whatever the Supreme Court says it does,
> that's why a couple of recent cases have recognized that the 2nd
> Amendment protects an individual right to own firearms to the dismay
> of all those folks who disagree. So until the court rules there
> shouldn't be a federal Dept. of Education, there will be one, and
> anyone who disagrees is welcome to vote for the party that is
> currently trying to strip funding from any government agency that has
> inconvenienced the corporate sponsors of that party.
Exactly right. The Constitution, like the Bible, often doesn't mean what it
says or doesn't say what it means. It's up to the Court (or Biblical
scholars), to tell us the straight skinny.
On 27 Feb 2011 22:13:45 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>Larry <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
>
>> Sure there is, if for no other reason, because I *want* one.
>> You can't seem to get a grasp of it, the problem is the
>> criminals. If you feel otherwise there are plently of places
>> in the world for you to live that have strict gun control if
>> that makes you more comfortable. Stop trying to change one of
>> the fundamental principles the country was founded on.
>
>Larry, I don't accept wanting to have such a magazine as a valid reason.
>In my really seriously considered opinion it is irresponsible to even think
>that, let alone state it. To me it is the same as saying I want to have
>the recipe and the ingredients for making a nuclear device.
You call it overkill, I call it insurance. Chances are good that it
will never get used, but if...
BTW, a semi-automatic pistol is NOT a serious machine gun, as you just
put it.
Do you also want to outlaw extra gas tanks on pickup trucks? That's
all the magazines are: extra fuel.
--
You can't wait for inspiration. You have to go after it with a club.
--Jack London
On Sun, 27 Feb 2011 09:16:59 -0600, Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:
>On 2/27/2011 8:52 AM, Doug Miller wrote:
>> In article<[email protected]>, Swingman<[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> In Texas for 2009 (according to taxfoundation.org) the total federal,
>>> state and local tax rate paid on a per capita income of $40,498 was
>>> 22.9%. (15% federal, 7.9% state and local)
>>
>> And I'll bet that takes into account *only* direct taxes on income, and leaves
>> out...
>
>You would be right ... AFAICT the figures were limited to state, local,
>federal tax rates.
>
>Of course, some of the local and state can possibly be deducted from
>federal, but they still must first be paid, in almost all cases, out of
>"after federal tax income".
>
>Personally, I could give a rat's ass what other countries do with regard
>to taxes. Anything more than 10% of my hard earned income to any
>government entity is too damn much, regardless.
Like it or not, we are in a global economy. What other countries do matters a
lot. Making business more expensive here makes the business go there.
On 2/27/2011 10:56 AM, [email protected] wrote:
> On Sun, 27 Feb 2011 09:16:59 -0600, Swingman<[email protected]> wrote:
>> Personally, I could give a rat's ass what other countries do with regard
>> to taxes. Anything more than 10% of my hard earned income to any
>> government entity is too damn much, regardless.
>
> Like it or not, we are in a global economy. What other countries do matters a
> lot. Making business more expensive here makes the business go there.
Let me rephrase my original: "Like it or not", anything more than 10% of
my hard earned income to ALL government entities, in toto, is too damn
much, regardless.
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlC@ (the obvious)
On 20 Feb 2011 00:02:45 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>knuttle <[email protected]> wrote in news:ijpld0$g1p$1
>@news.eternal-september.org:
>
>> Up about 40% from two years ago.
>
>So what? Reducing taxes
Exactly what taxes have been reduced?
>and expending money to fight two wars
They have been going on *far* longer than two years.
>doesn't put money into the piggybank.
Neither does spending 65% more than you make.
?
"Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Leon" wrote:
>
>> If it is from the government, it must be FREE! Gullible and California
>> go together well.
> -----------------------------------
> Where did that come from?
>
> What does FREE! have to do with anything?
>
> Lew
>
>
From what a lot of people seem to think. Like in our state, many town
wanted to build new schools. They were promoted as being a bargain because
"the state pays 85% and we only have to pay 15% of the cost. Like FREE
money from the state.
"Steve" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 2011-02-17 19:05:49 -0500, "Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> said:
>
>> What is your game plan for the operating revenues derived from high speed
>> rail (HSR) once it's built and operating?
>
> Governor Mitch will sell the public asset to private industry, preferably
> one with foreign ownership.
privatization (pri-vah-ti-za-shun) (n): meaning to profiteer at the
expense of the public.
Dave in Houston
"Doug Miller" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>>Or you could consider that I meant not wasting money on foreign aid to
>>China, gold-plated weapons that don't always work, and tax breaks for the
>>oil companies and *instead* spending that money on transportation
>>infrastructure in America that will benefit the whole nation for
>>generations, rather than adding to the existing budget.
> Or you could consider that this should not be regarded as an either-or
> choice,
> and that the options should include "none of the above" -- which, not
> coincidentally, describes exactly which of these things we have the money
> available to do.
So what is America supposed to do, retire as a nation? Sure, that $14
trillion debt has to be paid down, but that doesn't mean every dime possible
has to be dedicated solely to that cause. Potholes still have to be filled,
somebody still needs to show up when we call 911, and private industry can't
be counted on to build everything the nation needs built.
Failing to invest in the future is a good way to ensure there won't be one.
Larry Jaques <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> On 27 Feb 2011 12:36:43 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Larry Jaques <[email protected]> wrote in
>>news:[email protected]:
>>
>>> On 27 Feb 2011 00:37:50 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Larry, I said:
>>>>
>>>>>>Now personally, I'm really in favor of limiting guns and ammo ...
>>>>
>>>>The fact that people get killed because unstable persons can get
>>>>hold of guns and VAST supplies of ammo this easily is proof that
>>>>LIMITING should work.
>>>
>>> Han, limiting legal guns has no effect on the number of guns in
>>> criminal hands. You can buy a black market gun on many
>>> streetcorners in any large city, and in most small ones. Your gun
>>> bans would only limit the number of _defensive_ weapons in
>>> law-abiding citizens' hands. It would encourage the criminals to
>>> commit more crime. Christ, look at Great Britain for a perfect
>>> example. With no guns, their crime rate is far higher than ours now.
>>
>>False logic, Larry. If that idiot had been unable to buy a gun, or
>>even unable to buy a 33-round magazine, there would have been far less
>
> False logic, Han. Illegal guns -are- available on the streets, period.
> Laws or no laws. Accept it. It is _fact_, whether any of us likes it
> or not. Gun control laws don't have any affect on their presence on
> the street.
>
> BTW, Loughner was using a semi-auto pistol. Even without the large
> magazine, he could have swapped another one into it within a second
> and a half. The size of magazine in his gun doesn't matter to a perp
> when nobody is trying to stop him. And he probably could have killed
> at least half those people if he came into the scene with a tire iron
> or machete, not a gun. Shock and awe cause people to either freeze
> and/or run away, not wanting to be struck.
>
>
>>slaughter. Can't you see that? If someone has a legitimate reason
>>for buying a weapon, I'll let him or her. I just would like to make
>>it more difficult for idiots to buy lethality. Seems to me you have
>>to agree if you ever want to look an innocent vistim in the eye.
>
> Your goal is laudable, but your actions would, without any doubt,
> allow for -more- death and destruction than is currently happening.
>
>
>>>>The vast majority of people may be sane and careful etc, etc, the
>>>>few fools should NOT get hold of guns. It was a really good thing
>>>>that the people who came to the rescue in Tucson didn't start
>>>>shooting, because that would have been true slaughter then. It's
>>>>great that it then ended because the potential was just terrible.
>>>
>>> If an armed person could have gotten a shot off into the killer
>>> before he killed all those people, it would have been LESS of a
>>> slaughter.
>>
>>See above, If that idiot had been unable to buy a gun, or even unable
>>to buy a 33-round magazine, there would have been far less slaughter.
>>Can't you see that?
>
> Bad people get guns, bad people borrow guns, bad people steal guns,
> and bad people make guns. You will never stop that with your law.
>
>
>>> People who come unhinged and want to kill someone will use whatever
>>> is in front of them, including pocket knives, guns, rocks, clubs,
>>> baseball bats, golf clubs, pieces of glass, bottles, pencils, etc.
>>> to get their evil deed done. If you limit guns, the victim won't be
>>> able to defend himself from the perps. If you want to be an unarmed
>>> victim, fine. I sure as hell don't.
>>
>>Your statement here again is nonsense in the context of that idiot's
>>unhingedness.
>
> You're totally blinded by your hate for guns, sir. It's too bad that
> you can't see the logic of slowing/stopping criminals with more guns.
>
> Well, sadly, there is no sense talking to a closed mind. Ta!
>
> (P.S: I still dare you to research this subject.)
>
> --
> You can't wait for inspiration. You have to go after it with a club.
> --Jack London
>
I don't hate guns, Larry, although I am a bit afraid of them, as a person
who sometimes reacts too fast. And you forgot that I said to really
punish the bad guys. That ought to be part of the whole thing.
Afraid we'll never agree, but respect is there, from me!!
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
On Wed, 02 Mar 2011 10:35:33 -0700, Just Wondering <[email protected]> wrote:
>On 3/2/2011 7:33 AM, Mike Marlow wrote:
>> Han wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> You mean that imprisoned criminals (who are nonetheless people)
>>> should have access to automatic weapons? What about nuclear weapons?
>>
>> Great idea Han! Green too. Give a 1 lb cube of plutonium to imprisioned
>> criminals to play with in their cells...Solves the criminal element problem,
>> eases the overburdening of prisons, and reduces the cost of incarcerting bad
>> guys for long periods of time.
>>
>Plutonium costs nearly $2 million a pound. YOu don't need anywhere near
>that much. Letting them play with 1/100 of a gram would be fatal.
But it's recyclable. One pound goes a *long* way. Think how "green" that is.
In article <[email protected]>, Larry Jaques <[email protected]> wrote:
>I hear that. But most states require at least a basic handgun safety
>course before they'll issue licenses.
FWIW, not here in Indiana, and I imagine that any attempt to require it might
be found in violation of the state constitution: "The people shall have the
right to keep and bear arms, for the defense of themselves and of the state."
On 27 Feb 2011 12:36:43 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>Larry Jaques <[email protected]> wrote in
>news:[email protected]:
>
>> On 27 Feb 2011 00:37:50 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>Larry, I said:
>>>
>>>>>Now personally, I'm really in favor of limiting guns and ammo ...
>>>
>>>The fact that people get killed because unstable persons can get hold
>>>of guns and VAST supplies of ammo this easily is proof that LIMITING
>>>should work.
>>
>> Han, limiting legal guns has no effect on the number of guns in
>> criminal hands. You can buy a black market gun on many streetcorners
>> in any large city, and in most small ones. Your gun bans would only
>> limit the number of _defensive_ weapons in law-abiding citizens'
>> hands. It would encourage the criminals to commit more crime. Christ,
>> look at Great Britain for a perfect example. With no guns, their crime
>> rate is far higher than ours now.
>
>False logic, Larry. If that idiot had been unable to buy a gun, or even
>unable to buy a 33-round magazine, there would have been far less
False logic, Han. Illegal guns -are- available on the streets, period.
Laws or no laws. Accept it. It is _fact_, whether any of us likes it
or not. Gun control laws don't have any affect on their presence on
the street.
BTW, Loughner was using a semi-auto pistol. Even without the large
magazine, he could have swapped another one into it within a second
and a half. The size of magazine in his gun doesn't matter to a perp
when nobody is trying to stop him. And he probably could have killed
at least half those people if he came into the scene with a tire iron
or machete, not a gun. Shock and awe cause people to either freeze
and/or run away, not wanting to be struck.
>slaughter. Can't you see that? If someone has a legitimate reason for
>buying a weapon, I'll let him or her. I just would like to make it more
>difficult for idiots to buy lethality. Seems to me you have to agree if
>you ever want to look an innocent vistim in the eye.
Your goal is laudable, but your actions would, without any doubt,
allow for -more- death and destruction than is currently happening.
>>>The vast majority of people may be sane and careful etc, etc, the few
>>>fools should NOT get hold of guns. It was a really good thing that
>>>the people who came to the rescue in Tucson didn't start shooting,
>>>because that would have been true slaughter then. It's great that it
>>>then ended because the potential was just terrible.
>>
>> If an armed person could have gotten a shot off into the killer before
>> he killed all those people, it would have been LESS of a slaughter.
>
>See above, If that idiot had been unable to buy a gun, or even unable to
>buy a 33-round magazine, there would have been far less slaughter. Can't
>you see that?
Bad people get guns, bad people borrow guns, bad people steal guns,
and bad people make guns. You will never stop that with your law.
>> People who come unhinged and want to kill someone will use whatever is
>> in front of them, including pocket knives, guns, rocks, clubs,
>> baseball bats, golf clubs, pieces of glass, bottles, pencils, etc. to
>> get their evil deed done. If you limit guns, the victim won't be able
>> to defend himself from the perps. If you want to be an unarmed
>> victim, fine. I sure as hell don't.
>
>Your statement here again is nonsense in the context of that idiot's
>unhingedness.
You're totally blinded by your hate for guns, sir. It's too bad that
you can't see the logic of slowing/stopping criminals with more guns.
Well, sadly, there is no sense talking to a closed mind. Ta!
(P.S: I still dare you to research this subject.)
--
You can't wait for inspiration. You have to go after it with a club.
--Jack London
On Wed, 02 Mar 2011 15:34:02 -0600, Markem <[email protected]>
wrote:
>On Wed, 02 Mar 2011 07:42:25 -0800, Larry Jaques
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Try a rational ploy next time...or do the research and come up with
>>the same data I did. I gave up hating handguns after finding the
>>truth. Give it a try. Loving is much better than hating.
>
>Yeah but my biggest problem with legal guns is the owners who buy one
>to have protection and do not get the proper training. Shooting in a
>combat situation requires practice.
I hear that. But most states require at least a basic handgun safety
course before they'll issue licenses.
>I have no problem with concealed carry, but if you are going to carry
>you damn well better practice.
>
>Now a good way to show someone what is required is to give them a
>paintball gun and play a bit. After a few welts it might occur to them
>you could end up dead in a shoot out.
Sounds like good training. My carry course wasn't as detailed as I've
heard some states require. 5 or 6 hours of class plus proof that we
can hit a torso-sized piece of cardboard at 15 yards.
A postcard just came from www.frontsight.com/liberty-tree2.asp which
sells nice training package memberships for $300. $5k-$20k+ worth for
that price. I'm really tempted this time, but getting to LV is a PITA.
You can take any or all of these courses as many times as you like for
life: 2 Day Defensive Handgun, 4 Day Defensive Handgun, Two Day
Tactical Shotgun; Two Day Practical Rifle. Sucha deal!
--
The art of life lies in a constant readjustment to our surroundings.
-- Okakura Kakuzo
"Doug Miller" wrote:
>
> Apparently you folks in California haven't figured out what was
> pretty obvious
> to us here in the Midwest: those rail projects might be *built*
> mostly with
> federal funds -- but the states would have to pay to *maintain*
> them, and the
> states decided they couldn't afford that. It's also apparent that
> you haven't
> realized yet that California is broke. News flash: if Wisconsin and
> Ohio --
> which are solvent -- can't afford the maintenance, then
> California -- which
> isn't -- can't afford it either.
>
> Let's see how well those decisions play out in a few years when
> California has
> to start paying even more money that it doesn't have to maintain
> these
> "high-speed" rail lines that really aren't. There is *no* true
> high-speed rail
> anywhere in the U.S., and, given the condition of our tracks, there
> isn't
> likely to be in my lifetime, either.
-----------------------------------------
Spoken like a true Hoosier.
What is your game plan for the operating revenues derived from high
speed rail (HSR) once it's built and operating?
What is your game plan for the increased revenues generated by
businesses that take advantage of HSR to improve their bottom line?
If they aren't misappropriated, they are the normal source of
maintenance funds.
HSR requires a dedicated line to be effective.
Probably will be able to use a some of the existing rights
of way in urban areas for new track, but that is about it.
BUilding new rail lines is just part of the capital investment
process. (Think bonds).
As far as the USA's including California's current economic condition,
consider it a minor inconvenience, especially for those that get up
off
their dead and dying and get involved in the future.
Energy costs will determine are future.
Those who control energy will control the world.
Yes, $10/gallon gasoline is on the horizon, unless we as a country
invest in developing alternatives today.
HSR, high efficiency energy devices, alternate energy forms, increased
availability
of higher education, improved medical care delivered more efficiently
and
effectively are all items that will get us back on track as well as
address the
world's carbon foot print problem in the process.
Failure to grab the moment is analogous to eating one's seed corn,
IMHO.
Lew
On 2011-02-17 19:05:49 -0500, "Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> said:
> What is your game plan for the operating revenues derived from high
> speed rail (HSR) once it's built and operating?
Governor Mitch will sell the public asset to private industry,
preferably one with foreign ownership.
Hoosiers voted this *&^(&* into office -- twice! Now he's being touted
for Presidential candidacy, because he's so "well-connected and
best-funded" of the potential candidates. Small wonder.
Some of us weren't fooled the first time, let alone the second.
On 2011-02-17 17:30:09 -0500, [email protected] (Doug Miller) said:
>> Urban rail systems in America disappeared in large part because after
>> WWII the automobile and petroleum industries saw far greater profits to
>> be made selling cars and buses and the fuel to run them, not because
>> streetcars weren't a good form of public transport.
>
> .. and in even greater part because a booming economy made cars both
> plentiful and affordable, and people decided they preferred the freedom
> and convenience of private transport to public transport.
In part, sure. Now, throw in good highway systems (think Interstate, et
al), Levittown(s), the GI bill, and pent-up consumer demand unleashed
after WWII. Result: the cities emptied, and work, school, and shopping
all became more remote from the home. The car became a necessity
because public ransportation either did not expand to meet new
realities, or was actively dismantled (a la Los Angeles).
Indiana at one time had an Interurban system that spanned the state,
meaning that a salesman could live in Columbus (an hour southest of
Indianapolis) and still easily call on customers in Lafayette (an hour
norhtwest of Indy). Or you could work in Indianapolis and live in Terre
Haute. (God knows why you'd want to do that!) Try either today without
a car...
Some predict a "new urbanism" with suburbanites fleeing back to the
city -- you can see it in Indianapolis, with luxury apartments and
condos being built along Indiana Avenue* in what was until not terribly
long ago a stable and historic Black community.
*Immortalized as Leroy Carr's "Shady Avenue," and home to music halls
featuring such luminaries as Wes Montgomery, Lionel Hampton, and yes,
James Hendrix as a backing musician -- his only Indianapolis appearance.
On 2011-02-17 22:04:23 -0500, [email protected] (Doug Miller) said:
>> We can afford to build damn near anything the Pentagon says it needs,
>> but we can't afford to refurb the national rail system? We can give
>> tax breaks to the oil companies, but we can't afford high speed rail?
>> We're still sending foreign aid to *China* of all places, but we can't
>> upgrade our own transport systems? Something doesn't add up here.
> We can't really afford *any* of those things...
True, Doug, but we fund the military because those vendors "own" the
pols, who in turn buy votes with jobs propped up by military spending.
As long as we can't afford bombs, wouldn't it make more sense to
instead build high-speed rail we can't afford, but which would become
an infrastructure asset remaining in our country, and which would
benefit us not only from the jobs provided, but from enhanced
transportation capability?
Further, we've managed to piss off an awful lot of the world's
population by trying to blow 'em up or shoot 'em. Doubt high-speed rail
would anger many outside the US.
On 2011-02-17 17:55:41 -0500, busbus <[email protected]> said:
> What is happening now? The money is pouring out of this country. How
> does China pay for its high speed rail? By the money you and I pay
> for all the freaking goods they produce and sell in places like Wal-
> Mart, Home Depot, Best Buy and all those other stores. Because we, as
> consumers, have demanded "the Chine Price" for so freaking long that
> we have almost pushed manufacturing and other businesses that used to
> bring money into this country out to places like China (especially
> China).
We could have "the China price" for US-made goods, except that business
has forgotten its intitial impetus. Used to be that a company was
started to provide a needed good or service. Not so today -- a
company's main purpose, at least for publicly-held companies, is the
"enhancement of shareholder value."
The economy -- buying and selling real goods adn services for real mony
-- has been replaced with the "financial economy", generating inflated
"value" for an asset. (How much air can you beat into a gallon of ice
cream before it becomes just air? Oh, sorry, you don't get a gallon
anymore -- the half-gallon has become something like 1.56 quarts,
before you even consider the added air.)
The final factor operating against a decent price for a US-made good is
executive compensation. The CEO makes 300, or 3,000 times the salary of
the working stiff? Till me how THAT makes us competitive, or,
ultimately, how we'll even be able to buy China's "China-priced" goods.
"Michael Kenefick" wrote:
> This is the only thing I agree with that Idiot Kasich about. Rail
> service would get very little use here. And it was not high speed.
> 35 MPH with all the stops they planned. You can drive from Columbus
> to Cincinnati or Cleveland faster.
------------------------------
Is that based on driving St Route 3 (Triple "C"), US 42 or I-71?
Rt 3 and US 42 are no winners.
Lew
I wrote:
>>What is your game plan for the operating revenues derived from high
>>speed rail (HSR) once it's built and operating?
------------------------------
"Doug Miller" responds:
> Why are you asking me what *my* game plan is?
----------------------------
Since you are indicating there is not money available to the states to
maintain the system, thought you might know where that income was
spent?
> Compare them to Indiana's:
> S&P triple-A.
-------------------------------
Doesn't make any difference what Indiana's bond rating is, the state
is too damn cheap to spend any bond money in the first place.
As my mother and father, both native Hoosiers, would say when driving
back to Indiana for a family visit from Ohio, "You know when you hit
the Ohio/Indiana line, the roads in Indiana are sub standard.
During the thirties when CCC projects were being built, Ohio built
roadside rest areas which had well water, a privy, at least one picnic
table and refuse containers.
Indiana's roadside rest area consisted of a table, period end of
report.
The above references the post WWII era up to about 1955.
By the mid 80's, which is the next time back, nothing had changed if
you don't include the interstate construction.
The state highway system still sucked.
That seems to make you happy, so more power to you.
As for me, I expect a little more out of this one way trip called
life.
Lew
On 02/20/2011 05:38 AM, Han wrote:
> "[email protected]"<[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>> On 20 Feb 2011 00:02:45 GMT, Han<[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> knuttle<[email protected]> wrote in news:ijpld0$g1p$1
>>> @news.eternal-september.org:
>>>
>>>> Up about 40% from two years ago.
>>>
>>> So what? Reducing taxes
>>
>> Exactly what taxes have been reduced?
>>
>>> and expending money to fight two wars
>>
>> They have been going on *far* longer than two years.
>>
>>> doesn't put money into the piggybank.
>>
>> Neither does spending 65% more than you make.
>
> Yes, indeed, it does date from more than 2 years ago. Remember that at
> one time (I believe it was the Clinton era) that there was a surplus?
If you believe there was a surplus, check out the national debt history.
You'll find the last time the debt was reduced was in the last year of
the Eisenhower administration. The debt has increased every year since.
> Tax cuts (to the rich especially) and a war in Iraq based on intended or
> unintended deception plus a mismanaged war in Afganistan caused the
> current deficit.
The deficit has quadrupled in the last two years.
> This was of course compounded by mismanagement of
> several branches of governmemt (Bureau of mining etc, and oversight of
> banking are only 2 of them) caused the housing bubble.
>
> Now everyone wants to keep their benefits that they are "entitled" to,
> and wants someone else to pay. I guess that is human nature, but what
> about the common good?
>
"Doug Winterburn" wrote:
>
> The deficit has quadrupled in the last two years.
---------------------------------
Once the "creative accounting" procedures used between 2001 thru 2008
were corrected and the total real debt published, Obama was handed a
1.2 trillion debt when he was handed the keys to the office in 2009.
As of this writing two years later, don't think the debt has quite
reached 4.4 trillion required to quadruple the debt, but it is just
another smoke and mirrors job by the lobbyists of the rich and famous
to protect their client's piggy banks.
Lew
"Han" wrote:
> Yes, indeed, it does date from more than 2 years ago. Remember that
> at
> one time (I believe it was the Clinton era) that there was a
> surplus?
> Tax cuts (to the rich especially) and a war in Iraq based on
> intended or
> unintended deception plus a mismanaged war in Afganistan caused the
> current deficit. This was of course compounded by mismanagement of
> several branches of governmemt (Bureau of mining etc, and oversight
> of
> banking are only 2 of them) caused the housing bubble.
>
> Now everyone wants to keep their benefits that they are "entitled"
> to,
> and wants someone else to pay. I guess that is human nature, but
> what
> about the common good?
-------------------------------------------
Remember the farce of "trickle down economics" courtesy of Reagan?
If you bother to check the records, the "rich and famous"(top 5% of
income earners) high income portion of the population has seen it's
taxes continue to be reduced since 1986.
Those businesses who could afford the "K" street lobbyists have also
seen their investment richly rewarded in the form of reduced taxes.
As long as the little guy believes the dream he is fed that when he
gets to be a big guy, (top 5% of income earners), he will be part of
the "club", nobody is going to get his newly generated assets, the
easier it becomes to control the little guy.
Most of those dreamers have a better shot at winning the lottery.
The idea that a business will not be competitive if it has to pay
taxes but rather that tax burden should be transferred to it's
employees, suggests a business that probably shouldn't stay in
business.
Businesses that provide goods and services the market needs and wants,
don't have a problem paying taxes.
Like it or not, government is necessary and has a cost in our society.
Since the end of WWII, the total cost of government, which includes
everything from the local dog catcher to the president, has remained
constant at about 35% plus or minus a point.
Now who gets the honor of paying that 35% is what this discussion is
all about.
So far, the top 5% of income earners appear to be doing a pretty good
job avoiding them.
Lew
On 02/20/2011 02:48 PM, Lew Hodgett wrote:
> "Doug Winterburn" wrote:
>>
>> The deficit has quadrupled in the last two years.
> ---------------------------------
> Once the "creative accounting" procedures used between 2001 thru 2008
> were corrected and the total real debt published, Obama was handed a
> 1.2 trillion debt when he was handed the keys to the office in 2009.
>
> As of this writing two years later, don't think the debt has quite
> reached 4.4 trillion required to quadruple the debt, but it is just
> another smoke and mirrors job by the lobbyists of the rich and famous
> to protect their client's piggy banks.
>
> Lew
>
>
First, what the "one" was handed was the "deficit" of about $400 billion
and a "debt" of about $10 trillion. You are aware of the relationship
of debt/deficit/surplus? The deficit is now about $1.6 trillion and the
debt is now over $14 trillion.
If you don't believe me, check out the US gov debt web site:
<http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt.htm>
The "one" has control of the government debt web site, so why would he
allow these numbers to be made public if he disagreed with them?
"Rich" wrote:
> Oh thats great, no one in California will use it. So it will end up
> like
> Metro Rail, Crime ridden and how to get out of the area for
> criminals Rail
> and subsidized by the tax payer. Another money pit which will be
> millions or
> billions over budget. Sounds Great!
----------------------------------
Guess you haven't seen the stats just released for 2011 YTD.
Ridership on all forms of public transit (Y)ear (T)o (D)ate is up over
last year in CA as a total and SoCal in particular.
$4/gal probably has something to do with it.
Lew
On Sun, 20 Feb 2011 14:25:31 -0800, "Lew Hodgett"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>Like it or not, government is necessary and has a cost in our society.
We will probably all agree there, Lew.
But, like it or not, BIG government is UNnecessary and adds a
devastating cost to (and effect upon) our society.
--
The more passions and desires one has,
the more ways one has of being happy.
-- Charlotte-Catherine
?
"HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Doug Miller wrote:
>>
>> Amen to that. I once had a company that wanted to fly me from
>> Indianapolis to
>> Dayton for a job interview. They were surprised, to say the least,
>> when I said
>> I'd rather drive. That is, until I explained that I lived nearly an
>> hour's
>> drive from the Indy airport, and less than two hours' drive from
>> their site
>> northwest of Dayton. Driving saved them several hundred dollars, and
>> saved me
>> several hours and a lot of hassle.
>
> I'll wager you didn't get the job; too "nonconformist" and too much of a
> "trouble-maker" for their tastes.
>
I figure the break even point is five hours driving time. In some cases,
even 8 hours driving can be faster than flying.
On Fri, 18 Feb 2011 17:38:52 -0500, "Ed Pawlowski" <[email protected]> wrote:
>?
>"HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> Doug Miller wrote:
>>>
>>> Amen to that. I once had a company that wanted to fly me from
>>> Indianapolis to
>>> Dayton for a job interview. They were surprised, to say the least,
>>> when I said
>>> I'd rather drive. That is, until I explained that I lived nearly an
>>> hour's
>>> drive from the Indy airport, and less than two hours' drive from
>>> their site
>>> northwest of Dayton. Driving saved them several hundred dollars, and
>>> saved me
>>> several hours and a lot of hassle.
>>
>> I'll wager you didn't get the job; too "nonconformist" and too much of a
>> "trouble-maker" for their tastes.
>>
>
>I figure the break even point is five hours driving time. In some cases,
>even 8 hours driving can be faster than flying.
Thirty years ago six hours was my "break even" point (at the time, anywhere NE
of a line from Washington to Buffalo). The hassle factor at least doubles
that, now.
On Sat, 19 Feb 2011 07:16:39 -0600, "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>"DGDevin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>>
>>
>> "Lew Hodgett" wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>
>>> Hello "Ding Dongs", AKA: Recently elected governors of Ohio (Kasich),
>>> Wisconsin(Walker) and Florida(Scott).
>>>
>>> You don't want high speed rail research projects in your states, no
>>> problem.
>>>
>>> The money you are rejecting has been committed, so the Feds are simply
>>> redirecting your funds to us here in California.
>>
>>> We'll take it
>>
>> China has 19,000 miles of high speed rail lines, and by high speed I mean
>> faster than anything in Japan or France. More than 50 cities in China are
>> now linked by high speed rail. And guess whose money paid for it all?
>>
>> So America's infrastructure rots away because according to some folks we
>> can't afford to repair it or upgrade it, not if it means their taxes might
>> go up. Good thing they weren't around when Eisenhower was building the
>> interstate system, or we'd still be driving on two-lane gravel roads.
>>
>
>Its a good thing that when Eisenhower was president the governmant was not
>$11,000,000,000,000.00 in debt. Yup that is 12 zeros to the left of the
>decimel point.
You're debt estimate is over 25% low (>$14B). Barry has been busy.
http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/
[email protected] wrote:
>>>
>>
>> Its a good thing that when Eisenhower was president the governmant
>> was not $11,000,000,000,000.00 in debt. Yup that is 12 zeros to the
>> left of the decimel point.
>
> You're debt estimate is over 25% low (>$14B). Barry has been busy.
>
Well, he DID post his information yesterday....
"Mike Marlow" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>> Sure, and because General Motors and other companies made a point of
>> putting streetcars out of business, even if they had to buy the
>> companies running them (using front companies) and replace streetcars
>> with buses. At one time America had over 1,200 electric light rail
>> operations.
> And all of these got you exactly where they went - not necessarily where
> you were going.
Well, there was a time when Americans weren't terrified of walking a few
blocks to get to their final destination, back when they didn't look they
were on their way to audition for The Biggest Loser.
>> GM alone converted 900 of these to buses. Of course the
>> American fascination with the automobile was part of the process, but
>> it got a big push from companies that wanted to sell cars and buses.
> "The American facination with the automobile" is a really tired cliche.
Which doesn't make it any less appropriate.
>> We can afford to build damn near anything the Pentagon says it needs,
>> but we can't afford to refurb the national rail system? We can give
>> tax breaks to the oil companies, but we can't afford high speed rail?
>> We're still sending foreign aid to *China* of all places, but we
>> can't upgrade our own transport systems? Something doesn't add up
>> here.
> I do agree with those statements. There is a lot of spending done by
> Washington that is just plain upside down. So - you're supporting the
> idea of Washington spending more money on a national rail system? Scarey
> thought...
Or you could consider that I meant not wasting money on foreign aid to
China, gold-plated weapons that don't always work, and tax breaks for the
oil companies and *instead* spending that money on transportation
infrastructure in America that will benefit the whole nation for
generations, rather than adding to the existing budget.
"Larry Jaques" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> Han, limiting legal guns has no effect on the number of guns in
> criminal hands. You can buy a black market gun on many streetcorners
> in any large city, and in most small ones. Your gun bans would only
> limit the number of _defensive_ weapons in law-abiding citizens'
> hands.
A significant number of firearms are stolen during break ins from legal
owners. While that certainly does not account for the totality of firearms
available in the US, it does count for many of them when examined a little
more closely. Your "no effect on the number of guns" is a false statement.
As usual, like many others, you adopt the mentality that there's so many
guns available that it's a waste of time trying to regulate them. Exactly
the same mentality is adopted with drugs. Legalizing everything is
tantamount to turning your entire country into the wild west where might
makes right.
On 02/27/2011 03:05 PM, Han wrote:
> [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>> In article<[email protected]>, Han
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote in
>>> news:[email protected] september.org:
>>>
>>>> And how do you propose to do that?
>>>
>>> Real penalties for offenders.
>>
>> In other words, enforcement of existing laws?
>>
>>> Re-instatement of rules that (IMNSHO) were
>>> imprudently canceled, and enforcement of existing rules. Those rules
>>> should also govern gun shows, and private transactions.
>>
>> And how do you propose to guarantee that the rules are followed in
>> private transactions? Remember that -- by definition -- criminals are
>> people who don't obey the law. So what mechanism do you propose that
>> would ensure that criminals would abide by whatever new laws you might
>> instate?
>
> The law says that you have to obey. As far as I know, even the excuse
> "I didn't know that was the law" isn't a valid excuse. Don't you get a
> ticket when going 75 mph in a 55 mph zone even if you didn't see the
> sign?
>
> Just make the penalty good enough for people to start paying attention.
> Sheesh.
>
The "law" also says it is illegal to enter the country without permission.
Sheesh indeed!
On 02/27/2011 06:20 PM, Han wrote:
> Doug Winterburn<[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>> The "law" also says it is illegal to enter the country without
>> permission.
>>
>> Sheesh indeed!
>
> Yes indeed. It's so easy to overstay a visitor visa, and so it's done.
> There is a great deal of collusion between people/companies needing cheap
> labor and people desperate for work.
>
> Btw, I did legally enter and then I naturalized. I also pay taxes<grin>.
>
I'm referring to the 15% of the citizens of Mexico sneaking across our
border.
On 02/28/2011 03:49 AM, Han wrote:
> Doug Winterburn<[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>> On 02/27/2011 06:20 PM, Han wrote:
>>> Doug Winterburn<[email protected]> wrote in
>>> news:[email protected]:
>>>
>>>> The "law" also says it is illegal to enter the country without
>>>> permission.
>>>>
>>>> Sheesh indeed!
>>>
>>> Yes indeed. It's so easy to overstay a visitor visa, and so it's
>>> done. There is a great deal of collusion between people/companies
>>> needing cheap labor and people desperate for work.
>>>
>>> Btw, I did legally enter and then I naturalized. I also pay
>>> taxes<grin>.
>>>
>>
>> I'm referring to the 15% of the citizens of Mexico sneaking across our
>> border.
>
> Didn't I say
> "There is a great deal of collusion between people/companies needing
> cheap labor and people desperate for work."?
>
> Personally I think those people (who will have difficulty collecting SS
> or other benefits) contribute to the wealth of some of our citizens, and
> pay some of our taxes. It is the people who hire them who should be
> fined or otherwise punished.
We have a sheriff here in Arizona who does go after them as well as the
people who hire them. He gets thoroughly trashed by all the libs, but
keeps getting elected. The problem in Arizona is the flood is so great
that law enforcement is unable to keep up. When you have the equivalent
of the entire US military in numbers getting caught each year and that
is only 25% of the total, it can only be described as an invasion.
On 2/27/2011 12:56 AM, Upscale wrote:
> "Larry Jaques"<[email protected]> wrote in message
>> Han, limiting legal guns has no effect on the number of guns in
>> criminal hands. You can buy a black market gun on many streetcorners
>> in any large city, and in most small ones. Your gun bans would only
>> limit the number of _defensive_ weapons in law-abiding citizens'
>> hands.
>
> A significant number of firearms are stolen during break ins from legal
> owners.
Oh? Do you have any verifiable citations to back up that statement?
> While that certainly does not account for the totality of firearms
> available in the US, it does count for many of them when examined a little
> more closely.
So how about examining it a little more closely?
How many firearms are in the US?
Of that number, how many are privately owned?
Of that number, how many are owned legally?
How many are owned illegally?
Of that number, how many were obtained through thefts from break-ins?
> <Clipped> Legalizing everything is tantamount to turning your entire
> country into the wild west where might makes right.
Leaving movies and dime-store numbers out of the picture, do you have
any evidence to show that the so-called "wild west" was any more lawless
than present-day society?
On 02 Mar 2011 11:33:01 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>Just Wondering <[email protected]> wrote in news:4d6d5943$0$8150$882e7ee2
>@usenet-news.net:
>
>> On 2/26/2011 2:27 PM, Han wrote:
>>>>
>>> I believe the Constitution is the supreme law. <clipped>
>>> Now personally, I'm really in favor of limiting guns and ammo ...
>>>
>> Since the Constitution says, "the right of the people to keep and bear
>> arms shall not be infringed," how do you explain the apparent
>> inconsistency between your two statements?
>
>You mean that imprisoned criminals (who are nonetheless people) should have
>access to automatic weapons? What about nuclear weapons?
Come now. People convicted of felonies can't own weapons, and
everything as big as a bazooka or larger is also deemed unsuitable for
gentlemanly carry, nukes included.
Try a rational ploy next time...or do the research and come up with
the same data I did. I gave up hating handguns after finding the
truth. Give it a try. Loving is much better than hating.
--
That is what learning is. You suddenly understand something
you've understood all your life, but in a new way.
-- Doris Lessing
On Sun, 27 Feb 2011 23:01:05 -0800, "DGDevin"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>"dhall987" wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>
>
>> I guess to me the "best form" would be to expect the Supreme Court to
>> apply the Constitution appropriately and not accept that "the
>> Constitution says whatever the Supreme Court says it does".
>
>Think about that, exactly who gets to tell the Supreme Court which
>interpretation is "appropriate"? Other than a Constitutional Amendment, the
>SCOTUS is the end of the road. So the realistic view is that the
>Constitution says what the court says it does.
Didn't say that I had the answer, just that accepting without argument
(or actually celebrating) that the Supreme Court isn't bound to
actually "interprete" the Constitution is not the answer. Saying that
it is a "living document" from the perspective that these 9 can change
it at will is not the answer.
>> The whole
>> concept of the Constitution being a "living document" just seems
>> bizarre to me.
>
>At least some of the men who wrote the Constitution disagreed, Jefferson
>among them (although of course he also distrusted the judiciary having the
>final say over constitutional issues). But Jefferson made it clear that the
>Constitution was not a perfected document, that at times improvements would
>only be possible "by inches" and thus had to be ongoing.
As I have read Jefferson, he did believe that the Constitution would
change over time, but he seems to me to have said that it would be
changed via the amendment process until it could no longer be and then
it would be done via violence. "The tree of liberty must be refreshed
from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants". He certainly
did not appear to assume that it would be changed passively at the
whim of a majority of the Supreme Court.
>> Unfortunately I still want to believe in a government
>> of laws, not men - but if we accept that the 9 can simply ignore the
>> law and make up whatever they want then that old saw doesn't quite
>> work.
>
>What is the alternative? Many people believe the Constitution is
>intentionally vague because the Framers knew they couldn't possibly go into
>detail on every issue. So the law had to be left up to the various branches
>of government (which includes the courts) with broad guidance from the
>Constitution. But interpretation was inevitable, and sooner or later that
>buck has to stop somewhere.
Of course "interpretation" is needed. To try to codify in detail gets
you the EU's new "constitution" which if I recall correctly is several
hundred pages long or longer. However, there is a distinct difference
between interpreting the constitution and simply making it up. If you
hire someone to "interprete" spanish and he states that "si" means
buffalo or "uno" means green then he really isn't "interpreting" is
he?
>> Now the 2nd amendment and our court's failure, currently and
>> historically, to uphold it is a prime example to me. I truly believe
>> and wish that the government could control private ownership of arms.
>> However, even a simpleton reading the 2nd amendment and the history of
>> its enactment know that such controls are illegal. If our courts had
>> held that way historically, we would have replaced the 2nd amendment
>> decades ago. The amendment does not talk about handguns or rifles or
>> muskets or bows & arrows ~ it talks about "arms". This clearly meant
>> all forms of arms because it clearly meant the arms necessary to
>> protect ourselves against an over-reaching central (federal)
>> government.
>
>Not really, if you look for it you can find exactly what the Framers meant
>because they spelled it out, e.g. Virginia's state constitution which
>detailed what sort of arms citizens were required to bring when summoned to
>militia duty--personal arms such as muskets or pikes--no artillery. It is
>reasonable to think the Framers meant for the arms citizens commonly owned
>at the time to be protected--muskets/rifles, shotguns, handguns--not forms
>of weaponry which few private citizens possessed.
...and yet most of the artillary used in the Revolution (other than
that which we took from the British Fort of West Point) came from
private owners. Hmmmmm...
>> Yet courts a long time ago allowed the government to
>> strictly govern and restrict our rights to keep and bear arms such as
>> 155MM howitzers, 50 cal machine guns, mortars, etc. Believe me, if the
>> 2nd amendment were interpreted as meant, we would have scared
>> ourselves enough to overturn it a very long time ago.
>
>Amusing, but not historically accurate.
What isn't accurate? Didn't government long ago outlaw (or restrict to
the point or virtually outlawing) private ownership of large weaponry?
Try to "bear" a bazooka some day...
>> So, to kind of summarize, I am that odd person who is a strict
>> constructionist that wants to have gun control. I just believe that we
>> must (and should) change the constitution first. I do not think that
>> the Supreme Court should be able to decide that society has "reached a
>> new concensus" and dictate it. If we reach such a concensus then we
>> should express it in one of the 2 ways set out in the Constitution for
>> making that change.
>
>Again, if you read what they wrote outside the Constitution you can find
>*why* the Framers thought the 2nd Amendment was necessary, namely that they
>thought the 2nd was the amendment that made all the rest of the Bill of
>Rights possible, a concept they actually inherited from English law. As you
>say, if that is now an obsolete concept then the Constitution provides the
>means for itself to be amended. But if no government is willing to
>undertake that process, then it is inevitable that the courts will have deal
>with it.
Only if you want to live in a dictatorship of the judiciary. And thus
we return to the beginning...
On Sat, 26 Feb 2011 16:13:46 -0800 (PST), Robatoy
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On Feb 26, 7:05Â pm, Larry Jaques <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>> Defensive gun use (most weapons not even fired) account for around 1.5
>> million crimes NOT being committed each year.
--snip--
>> I used to be against handguns until I saw the truth. I truly hope that
>> you find it, too, before some perp in Manhattan mugs ya.
>>
>
>Car jackings slowed down significantly after a few perps were drilled
>right through the car door as they attempted the crime.
>In Detroit, Uncle Ted (Nugent) told people to put a gun on their lap
>as they drove through bad areas of the city.
>Perp says: "get out, gimme your car" and next thing he knows, he's
>clutching what once was his junk.
>The word got out quickly.
>Problem solved.
I don't understand your reference to "junk". Would this have been his
package (AKA: Big Jim and the Boys) which had just been blown off by
the car owner's gun?
--
You can't wait for inspiration. You have to go after it with a club.
--Jack London
Pretty nasty to paint a whole nation of people that are that insecure and
feel so much better owning a gun..
Guns instead of psychiatry?
-------------------
"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
Try a rational ploy next time...or do the research and come up with
the same data I did. I gave up hating handguns after finding the
truth. Give it a try. Loving is much better than hating.
Larry Jaques <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> On 27 Feb 2011 00:37:50 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Larry, I said:
>>
>>>>Now personally, I'm really in favor of limiting guns and ammo ...
>>
>>The fact that people get killed because unstable persons can get hold
>>of guns and VAST supplies of ammo this easily is proof that LIMITING
>>should work.
>
> Han, limiting legal guns has no effect on the number of guns in
> criminal hands. You can buy a black market gun on many streetcorners
> in any large city, and in most small ones. Your gun bans would only
> limit the number of _defensive_ weapons in law-abiding citizens'
> hands. It would encourage the criminals to commit more crime. Christ,
> look at Great Britain for a perfect example. With no guns, their crime
> rate is far higher than ours now.
False logic, Larry. If that idiot had been unable to buy a gun, or even
unable to buy a 33-round magazine, there would have been far less
slaughter. Can't you see that? If someone has a legitimate reason for
buying a weapon, I'll let him or her. I just would like to make it more
difficult for idiots to buy lethality. Seems to me you have to agree if
you ever want to look an innocent vistim in the eye.
>>The vast majority of people may be sane and careful etc, etc, the few
>>fools should NOT get hold of guns. It was a really good thing that
>>the people who came to the rescue in Tucson didn't start shooting,
>>because that would have been true slaughter then. It's great that it
>>then ended because the potential was just terrible.
>
> If an armed person could have gotten a shot off into the killer before
> he killed all those people, it would have been LESS of a slaughter.
See above, If that idiot had been unable to buy a gun, or even unable to
buy a 33-round magazine, there would have been far less slaughter. Can't
you see that?
> People who come unhinged and want to kill someone will use whatever is
> in front of them, including pocket knives, guns, rocks, clubs,
> baseball bats, golf clubs, pieces of glass, bottles, pencils, etc. to
> get their evil deed done. If you limit guns, the victim won't be able
> to defend himself from the perps. If you want to be an unarmed
> victim, fine. I sure as hell don't.
Your statement here again is nonsense in the context of that idiot's
unhingedness.
>>I have walked and used buses and subways, as well as cabs across
>>Manhattan for 34 years, and nothing of note has happened to me.
>>Admittedly I frequented relatively good areas (Midtown between 8th &
>>1st Ave and 14th to 70th streets).
>
> I won't say it.I won't say it.I won't say it.I won't say it...
So what is it you won't say? Apparently it is safe for me to walk in
Manhattan. Or Atlanta, or Orlando, or San Diego, or San Francisco, or
even Washington DC.
> --
> You can't wait for inspiration. You have to go after it with a club.
> --Jack London
>
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
On Mon, 28 Feb 2011 09:19:22 -0800, Larry Jaques
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On 28 Feb 2011 10:49:38 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Doug Winterburn <[email protected]> wrote in
>>news:[email protected]:
>>
>>> On 02/27/2011 06:20 PM, Han wrote:
>>>> Doug Winterburn<[email protected]> wrote in
>>>> news:[email protected]:
>>>>
>>>>> The "law" also says it is illegal to enter the country without
>>>>> permission.
>>>>>
>>>>> Sheesh indeed!
>>>>
>>>> Yes indeed. It's so easy to overstay a visitor visa, and so it's
>>>> done. There is a great deal of collusion between people/companies
>>>> needing cheap labor and people desperate for work.
>>>>
>>>> Btw, I did legally enter and then I naturalized. I also pay
>>>> taxes<grin>.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I'm referring to the 15% of the citizens of Mexico sneaking across our
>>> border.
>>
>>Didn't I say
>>"There is a great deal of collusion between people/companies needing
>>cheap labor and people desperate for work."?
>
>If we stopped the illegals at the borders, all those out of work
>Americans could start working and save (or attempt to save) their
>mortgages and livelihood. And companies wouldn't be tempted to hire
>cheaper illegal workers.
>
>
>>Personally I think those people (who will have difficulty collecting SS
>>or other benefits) contribute to the wealth of some of our citizens, and
>>pay some of our taxes.
>
>Research that a bit, Han. You'll find lots of cases where the illegal
>grabbed someone else's SSN and used it to collect benefits.
>
>
>>It is the people who hire them who should be
>>fined or otherwise punished.
>
>True, both fined and punished! Make the CEOs pick up litter on the
>freeways and city streets.
Bullshit, put them in prision for a couple years. I virtually
guarantee that after that law is passed and that punishment imposed a
few times, illegal immigrants would no longer be able to get work.
Then when we imprision any public employee who gives welfare to an
illegal and we open the roads back into Mexico, there would be a
backwards flow really quickly.
How much of your income are you willing to spend on your taxes to feed these
bums in prison?
Is there any empty lots in your neighborhood for a prison?
----
"dhall987" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
Bullshit, put them in prision for a couple years. I virtually
guarantee that after that law is passed and that punishment imposed a
few times, illegal immigrants would no longer be able to get work.
Then when we imprision any public employee who gives welfare to an
illegal and we open the roads back into Mexico, there would be a
backwards flow really quickly.
[email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote in news:[email protected]
september.org:
> And how do you propose to do that?
Real penalties for offenders. Re-instatement of rules that (IMNSHO) were
imprudently canceled, and enforcement of existing rules. Those rules
should also govern gun shows, and private transactions.
Just MY opinion.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
[email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> In article <[email protected]>, Han
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>[email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote in
>>news:[email protected] september.org:
>>
>>> And how do you propose to do that?
>>
>>Real penalties for offenders.
>
> In other words, enforcement of existing laws?
>
>> Re-instatement of rules that (IMNSHO) were
>>imprudently canceled, and enforcement of existing rules. Those rules
>>should also govern gun shows, and private transactions.
>
> And how do you propose to guarantee that the rules are followed in
> private transactions? Remember that -- by definition -- criminals are
> people who don't obey the law. So what mechanism do you propose that
> would ensure that criminals would abide by whatever new laws you might
> instate?
The law says that you have to obey. As far as I know, even the excuse
"I didn't know that was the law" isn't a valid excuse. Don't you get a
ticket when going 75 mph in a 55 mph zone even if you didn't see the
sign?
Just make the penalty good enough for people to start paying attention.
Sheesh.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
Doug Winterburn <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> The "law" also says it is illegal to enter the country without
> permission.
>
> Sheesh indeed!
Yes indeed. It's so easy to overstay a visitor visa, and so it's done.
There is a great deal of collusion between people/companies needing cheap
labor and people desperate for work.
Btw, I did legally enter and then I naturalized. I also pay taxes <grin>.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
Doug Winterburn <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> On 02/27/2011 06:20 PM, Han wrote:
>> Doug Winterburn<[email protected]> wrote in
>> news:[email protected]:
>>
>>> The "law" also says it is illegal to enter the country without
>>> permission.
>>>
>>> Sheesh indeed!
>>
>> Yes indeed. It's so easy to overstay a visitor visa, and so it's
>> done. There is a great deal of collusion between people/companies
>> needing cheap labor and people desperate for work.
>>
>> Btw, I did legally enter and then I naturalized. I also pay
>> taxes<grin>.
>>
>
> I'm referring to the 15% of the citizens of Mexico sneaking across our
> border.
Didn't I say
"There is a great deal of collusion between people/companies needing
cheap labor and people desperate for work."?
Personally I think those people (who will have difficulty collecting SS
or other benefits) contribute to the wealth of some of our citizens, and
pay some of our taxes. It is the people who hire them who should be
fined or otherwise punished.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
[email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> In article <[email protected]>, Han
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>[email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote in
>>news:[email protected]:
>>
>>> In article <[email protected]>, Han
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>[email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote in
>>>>news:[email protected] september.org:
>>>>
>>>>> And how do you propose to do that?
>>>>
>>>>Real penalties for offenders.
>>>
>>> In other words, enforcement of existing laws?
>>>
>>>> Re-instatement of rules that (IMNSHO) were
>>>>imprudently canceled, and enforcement of existing rules. Those
>>>>rules should also govern gun shows, and private transactions.
>>>
>>> And how do you propose to guarantee that the rules are followed in
>>> private transactions? Remember that -- by definition -- criminals
>>> are people who don't obey the law. So what mechanism do you propose
>>> that would ensure that criminals would abide by whatever new laws
>>> you might instate?
>>
>>The law says that you have to obey. As far as I know, even the excuse
>>"I didn't know that was the law" isn't a valid excuse. Don't you get
>>a ticket when going 75 mph in a 55 mph zone even if you didn't see the
>>sign?
>>
>>Just make the penalty good enough for people to start paying
>>attention.
>
> In most U.S. states, the crime of murder is punishable by death. Even
> that penalty hasn't proven "good enough for people to start paying
> attention" to the fact that murder is against the law.
>
> Again, I ask: Since criminals are, by definition, people who don't
> obey laws, how do you propose that *any* law is going to modify their
> behavior?
It seems that you are now saying that laws have no use, since criminals
pay no attention anyway.
Are you advocating a free for all as the alternative? An eye for an eye?
Or sharia? Or what?
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
"HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> Han wrote:
>>>
>>> In most U.S. states, the crime of murder is punishable by death.
>>> Even that penalty hasn't proven "good enough for people to start
>>> paying attention" to the fact that murder is against the law.
>>>
>>> Again, I ask: Since criminals are, by definition, people who don't
>>> obey laws, how do you propose that *any* law is going to modify
>>> their behavior?
>>
>> It seems that you are now saying that laws have no use, since
>> criminals pay no attention anyway.
>> Are you advocating a free for all as the alternative? An eye for an
>> eye? Or sharia? Or what?
>
> No, he said that laws do not deter CRIMINALS.
>
> What laws are supposed to do is to deter a righteous citizen from
> BECOMING a criminal.
Then there is no problem. Criminals are supposed to be punished,
rehabilitated or locked up.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
[email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> I advocate strict enforcement of existing laws. I also believe that
> legislatures should not pass laws that cannot be enforced, on the
> grounds that doing so wastes time and promotes disrespect for the
> legislature and the law.
>
I do too.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
On 27 Feb 2011 00:37:50 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>Larry, I said:
>
>>>Now personally, I'm really in favor of limiting guns and ammo ...
>
>The fact that people get killed because unstable persons can get hold of
>guns and VAST supplies of ammo this easily is proof that LIMITING should
>work.
Han, limiting legal guns has no effect on the number of guns in
criminal hands. You can buy a black market gun on many streetcorners
in any large city, and in most small ones. Your gun bans would only
limit the number of _defensive_ weapons in law-abiding citizens'
hands. It would encourage the criminals to commit more crime. Christ,
look at Great Britain for a perfect example. With no guns, their crime
rate is far higher than ours now.
>The vast majority of people may be sane and careful etc, etc, the few fools
>should NOT get hold of guns. It was a really good thing that the people
>who came to the rescue in Tucson didn't start shooting, because that would
>have been true slaughter then. It's great that it then ended because the
>potential was just terrible.
If an armed person could have gotten a shot off into the killer before
he killed all those people, it would have been LESS of a slaughter.
People who come unhinged and want to kill someone will use whatever is
in front of them, including pocket knives, guns, rocks, clubs,
baseball bats, golf clubs, pieces of glass, bottles, pencils, etc. to
get their evil deed done. If you limit guns, the victim won't be able
to defend himself from the perps. If you want to be an unarmed
victim, fine. I sure as hell don't.
>I have walked and used buses and subways, as well as cabs across Manhattan
>for 34 years, and nothing of note has happened to me. Admittedly I
>frequented relatively good areas (Midtown between 8th & 1st Ave and 14th to
>70th streets).
I won't say it.I won't say it.I won't say it.I won't say it...
--
You can't wait for inspiration. You have to go after it with a club.
--Jack London
On 28 Feb 2011 10:49:38 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>Doug Winterburn <[email protected]> wrote in
>news:[email protected]:
>
>> On 02/27/2011 06:20 PM, Han wrote:
>>> Doug Winterburn<[email protected]> wrote in
>>> news:[email protected]:
>>>
>>>> The "law" also says it is illegal to enter the country without
>>>> permission.
>>>>
>>>> Sheesh indeed!
>>>
>>> Yes indeed. It's so easy to overstay a visitor visa, and so it's
>>> done. There is a great deal of collusion between people/companies
>>> needing cheap labor and people desperate for work.
>>>
>>> Btw, I did legally enter and then I naturalized. I also pay
>>> taxes<grin>.
>>>
>>
>> I'm referring to the 15% of the citizens of Mexico sneaking across our
>> border.
>
>Didn't I say
>"There is a great deal of collusion between people/companies needing
>cheap labor and people desperate for work."?
If we stopped the illegals at the borders, all those out of work
Americans could start working and save (or attempt to save) their
mortgages and livelihood. And companies wouldn't be tempted to hire
cheaper illegal workers.
>Personally I think those people (who will have difficulty collecting SS
>or other benefits) contribute to the wealth of some of our citizens, and
>pay some of our taxes.
Research that a bit, Han. You'll find lots of cases where the illegal
grabbed someone else's SSN and used it to collect benefits.
>It is the people who hire them who should be
>fined or otherwise punished.
True, both fined and punished! Make the CEOs pick up litter on the
freeways and city streets.
--
Invest in America: Buy a CONgresscritter today!
Han wrote:
>>
>> In most U.S. states, the crime of murder is punishable by death. Even
>> that penalty hasn't proven "good enough for people to start paying
>> attention" to the fact that murder is against the law.
>>
>> Again, I ask: Since criminals are, by definition, people who don't
>> obey laws, how do you propose that *any* law is going to modify their
>> behavior?
>
> It seems that you are now saying that laws have no use, since
> criminals pay no attention anyway.
> Are you advocating a free for all as the alternative? An eye for an
> eye? Or sharia? Or what?
No, he said that laws do not deter CRIMINALS.
What laws are supposed to do is to deter a righteous citizen from BECOMING a
criminal.
Larry Jaques <[email protected]> wrote:
: If an armed person could have gotten a shot off into the killer before
: he killed all those people, it would have been LESS of a slaughter.
That's undoubtedly true (as true as "If a meteorite had hit the killer before
he killed all those people, it would have been LESS of a slaughter"), but
of course thinking that an armed bystander would have actually done this
well is a fantasy.
Here's a quite good piece published in the Tucson Citizen:
http://tucsoncitizen.com/mark-evans/archives/409
Bottom line: even well-trained police officers don't have a very
good hit rate, and it gets worse with multiple participants.
-- Andy Barss
In article <[email protected]>, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>Larry Jaques <[email protected]> wrote in
>news:[email protected]:
>
>> On 27 Feb 2011 00:37:50 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>Larry, I said:
>>>
>>>>>Now personally, I'm really in favor of limiting guns and ammo ...
>>>
>>>The fact that people get killed because unstable persons can get hold
>>>of guns and VAST supplies of ammo this easily is proof that LIMITING
>>>should work.
>>
>> Han, limiting legal guns has no effect on the number of guns in
>> criminal hands. You can buy a black market gun on many streetcorners
>> in any large city, and in most small ones. Your gun bans would only
>> limit the number of _defensive_ weapons in law-abiding citizens'
>> hands. It would encourage the criminals to commit more crime. Christ,
>> look at Great Britain for a perfect example. With no guns, their crime
>> rate is far higher than ours now.
>
>False logic, Larry. If that idiot had been unable to buy a gun, or even
>unable to buy a 33-round magazine, there would have been far less
>slaughter. Can't you see that? If someone has a legitimate reason for
>buying a weapon, I'll let him or her. I just would like to make it more
>difficult for idiots to buy lethality.
And how do you propose to do that?
In article <[email protected]>, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>[email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote in news:[email protected]
>september.org:
>
>> And how do you propose to do that?
>
>Real penalties for offenders.
In other words, enforcement of existing laws?
> Re-instatement of rules that (IMNSHO) were
>imprudently canceled, and enforcement of existing rules. Those rules
>should also govern gun shows, and private transactions.
And how do you propose to guarantee that the rules are followed in private
transactions? Remember that -- by definition -- criminals are people who don't
obey the law. So what mechanism do you propose that would ensure that
criminals would abide by whatever new laws you might instate?
In article <[email protected]>, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>[email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote in
>news:[email protected]:
>
>> In article <[email protected]>, Han
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>[email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote in
>>>news:[email protected] september.org:
>>>
>>>> And how do you propose to do that?
>>>
>>>Real penalties for offenders.
>>
>> In other words, enforcement of existing laws?
>>
>>> Re-instatement of rules that (IMNSHO) were
>>>imprudently canceled, and enforcement of existing rules. Those rules
>>>should also govern gun shows, and private transactions.
>>
>> And how do you propose to guarantee that the rules are followed in
>> private transactions? Remember that -- by definition -- criminals are
>> people who don't obey the law. So what mechanism do you propose that
>> would ensure that criminals would abide by whatever new laws you might
>> instate?
>
>The law says that you have to obey. As far as I know, even the excuse
>"I didn't know that was the law" isn't a valid excuse. Don't you get a
>ticket when going 75 mph in a 55 mph zone even if you didn't see the
>sign?
>
>Just make the penalty good enough for people to start paying attention.
In most U.S. states, the crime of murder is punishable by death. Even that
penalty hasn't proven "good enough for people to start paying attention" to
the fact that murder is against the law.
Again, I ask: Since criminals are, by definition, people who don't obey laws,
how do you propose that *any* law is going to modify their behavior?
In article <[email protected]>, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>[email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote in
>news:[email protected]:
>> In most U.S. states, the crime of murder is punishable by death. Even
>> that penalty hasn't proven "good enough for people to start paying
>> attention" to the fact that murder is against the law.
>>
>> Again, I ask: Since criminals are, by definition, people who don't
>> obey laws, how do you propose that *any* law is going to modify their
>> behavior?
>
>It seems that you are now saying that laws have no use, since criminals
>pay no attention anyway.
I didn't say that.
>Are you advocating a free for all as the alternative? An eye for an eye?
>Or sharia? Or what?
I advocate strict enforcement of existing laws. I also believe that
legislatures should not pass laws that cannot be enforced, on the grounds that
doing so wastes time and promotes disrespect for the legislature and the law.
On Mon, 28 Feb 2011 07:34:38 -0600, HeyBub wrote:
>> Are you advocating a free for all as the alternative? An eye for an
>> eye? Or sharia? Or what?
>
> No, he said that laws do not deter CRIMINALS.
>
> What laws are supposed to do is to deter a righteous citizen from
> BECOMING a criminal.
And specify the punishment for those who break the laws.
--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw
"dhall987" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> As I have read Jefferson, he did believe that the Constitution would
> change over time, but he seems to me to have said that it would be
> changed via the amendment process until it could no longer be and then
> it would be done via violence. "The tree of liberty must be refreshed
> from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants". He certainly
> did not appear to assume that it would be changed passively at the
> whim of a majority of the Supreme Court.
As I said, Jefferson was not a fan of judicial review having the final say.
But considering that the Framers made amendment so difficult
it's hard to imagine how else they thought it would work. Since 1789 over
10,000 amendments to the Constitution have been proposed in Congress, that
only a couple of dozen made it all the way to becoming law suggests judicial
review as the primary means of fine-tuning constitutional law was
inevitable.
> Of course "interpretation" is needed. To try to codify in detail gets
> you the EU's new "constitution" which if I recall correctly is several
> hundred pages long or longer. However, there is a distinct difference
> between interpreting the constitution and simply making it up. If you
> hire someone to "interprete" spanish and he states that "si" means
> buffalo or "uno" means green then he really isn't "interpreting" is
> he?
The problem with your analogy is that if we want to know how good a job a
linguistic interpreter is doing we can open a dictionary and find out.
Where is the dictionary that tells us what the Framers *really* meant?
Their letters and speeches and so on are helpful, but they don't amount to
an instruction manual for the Constitution.
>>Not really, if you look for it you can find exactly what the Framers meant
>>because they spelled it out, e.g. Virginia's state constitution which
>>detailed what sort of arms citizens were required to bring when summoned
>>to
>>militia duty--personal arms such as muskets or pikes--no artillery. It is
>>reasonable to think the Framers meant for the arms citizens commonly owned
>>at the time to be protected--muskets/rifles, shotguns, handguns--not forms
>>of weaponry which few private citizens possessed.
> ...and yet most of the artillary used in the Revolution (other than
> that which we took from the British Fort of West Point) came from
> private owners. Hmmmmm...
Sure, private ocean-going vessels being a good example. But it remains that
Virginia didn't insist that the owners of artillery bring it along when the
militia was called to duty, they specified the arms that most citizens did
or easily could posses. So it seems reasonable those are the arms the
Framers had in mind when they wrote the 2nd Amendment.
>>> Yet courts a long time ago allowed the government to
>>> strictly govern and restrict our rights to keep and bear arms such as
>>> 155MM howitzers, 50 cal machine guns, mortars, etc. Believe me, if the
>>> 2nd amendment were interpreted as meant, we would have scared
>>> ourselves enough to overturn it a very long time ago.
>
>>Amusing, but not historically accurate.
> What isn't accurate?
I meant the claim that the ownership of heavy crew-served weapons was
protected by the 2nd Amendment is inaccurate based on the courts not
recognizing such a right and indeed stating that regulations and
restrictions are legal so long as they do not deny the basic right to
ownership of firearms. Anyone is free to believe the constitution says
whatever they please, but if that "right" will never be recognized by the
courts then they're indulging in fantasy. These folks who figure they don't
need a state drivers license--that they are sovereign entities and can issue
one to themselves--might actually believe that, but their belief has no
legal force.
> Didn't government long ago outlaw (or restrict to
> the point or virtually outlawing) private ownership of large weaponry?
> Try to "bear" a bazooka some day...
That is my point, there is no right just because someone believes it exists
in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Even rights which do
exist are subject to limitations, freedom of speech doesn't mean laws
against defamation are unconstitutional and have no validity.
>>Again, if you read what they wrote outside the Constitution you can find
>>*why* the Framers thought the 2nd Amendment was necessary, namely that
>>they
>>thought the 2nd was the amendment that made all the rest of the Bill of
>>Rights possible, a concept they actually inherited from English law. As
>>you
>>say, if that is now an obsolete concept then the Constitution provides the
>>means for itself to be amended. But if no government is willing to
>>undertake that process, then it is inevitable that the courts will have
>>deal
>>with it.
> Only if you want to live in a dictatorship of the judiciary. And thus
> we return to the beginning...
Exactly, and thus I repeat my question, what is the alternative? Questions
of constitutional law will come up, and it is impractical to have a
constitutional convention every time that happens, so what else do we do?
"Leon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Its a good thing that when Eisenhower was president the governmant was not
> $11,000,000,000,000.00 in debt. Yup that is 12 zeros to the left of the
> decimel point.
I think Leon is forgetting what the marginal tax rates were in the
Eisenhower administration.
Dave in Houston
"Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "busbus" wrote:
>
>> What is happening now? The money is pouring out of this country.
> -----------------------------
> Pays for all that Middle East oil we burn up driving ourselves around.
>
> Lew
>
>
Even you are smarter than that.
"DGDevin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
>
> "Lew Hodgett" wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>> Hello "Ding Dongs", AKA: Recently elected governors of Ohio (Kasich),
>> Wisconsin(Walker) and Florida(Scott).
>>
>> You don't want high speed rail research projects in your states, no
>> problem.
>>
>> The money you are rejecting has been committed, so the Feds are simply
>> redirecting your funds to us here in California.
>
>> We'll take it
>
> China has 19,000 miles of high speed rail lines, and by high speed I mean
> faster than anything in Japan or France. More than 50 cities in China are
> now linked by high speed rail. And guess whose money paid for it all?
>
> So America's infrastructure rots away because according to some folks we
> can't afford to repair it or upgrade it, not if it means their taxes might
> go up. Good thing they weren't around when Eisenhower was building the
> interstate system, or we'd still be driving on two-lane gravel roads.
>
Its a good thing that when Eisenhower was president the governmant was not
$11,000,000,000,000.00 in debt. Yup that is 12 zeros to the left of the
decimel point.
Doug Miller wrote:
>
> Amen to that. I once had a company that wanted to fly me from
> Indianapolis to
> Dayton for a job interview. They were surprised, to say the least,
> when I said
> I'd rather drive. That is, until I explained that I lived nearly an
> hour's
> drive from the Indy airport, and less than two hours' drive from
> their site
> northwest of Dayton. Driving saved them several hundred dollars, and
> saved me
> several hours and a lot of hassle.
I'll wager you didn't get the job; too "nonconformist" and too much of a
"trouble-maker" for their tastes.
"HeyBub" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>> First, commercial viability is not necessary or even desirable for
>> everything. Privatized law enforcement would result in the wealthy
>> side of town getting a cop on every corner while the poor side of
>> town would be on its own. The original national motto was not Dog
>> Eat Dog.
> In my town (and probably yours), there are FAR more private security
> guards than cops.
I'm sure you're right, but so what? They aren't there to enforce the law,
they're there to protect the property they're paid to protect. Did Home
Depot send out private security to try to track down the would-be muggers
you chased off? Of course not, HD couldn't care less if those same guys
went over to Piggly Wiggly's parking lot and mugged somebody, that's not
their problem.
>> Second, left up to some folks what is of vital interest would be
>> whatever benefits them and to hell with everyone else. It's
>> refreshing when occasionally a law is passed based on what is good
>> for the whole nation rather than some segment that can afford
>> lobbyists and fat campaign fund donations.
> Adam Smith settled this hash over 200 years ago when he postulated the
> theory of "The Invisible Hand." It's essence is that when every person
> does what's best for himself, the entire community prospers.
See, just because somebody writes something down and gets some other folks
to agree with him doesnt mean an issue is "settled". Alan Greenspan
believed in that invisible hand for most of his life, but not too long ago
he was forced to admit there were some serious flaws in the theory. It
turned out that bonus-chasing employees of big Wall St. firms pursued
policies which ended up wounding or even destroying the companies they
worked for *and* caused massive damage to the entire economy. It turns out
that when the financial sector resembles a casino run by lunatics that the
old invisible hand falls down on the job. Ditto with when a company dumps
toxic waste in the river to save money, or when a drug company suppresses
studies showing its drugs have some nasty side effects, or when privatized
prisons give kickbacks to judges to send offenders to their facilities, or
when a labor union gets pay and benefits for its members then end up
dragging down the company that foolishly agreed to them during a period of
prosperity. Just because it's good for *somebody* doesnt mean its good for
the entire community.
All theories work in an academic setting, but in the real world the end
result is not so simple or so nice, it can often be quite nasty.
>> Third, the Constitution says whatever the Supreme Court says it does,
>> that's why a couple of recent cases have recognized that the 2nd
>> Amendment protects an individual right to own firearms to the dismay
>> of all those folks who disagree. So until the court rules there
>> shouldn't be a federal Dept. of Education, there will be one, and
>> anyone who disagrees is welcome to vote for the party that is
>> currently trying to strip funding from any government agency that has
>> inconvenienced the corporate sponsors of that party.
> Exactly right. The Constitution, like the Bible, often doesn't mean what
> it says or doesn't say what it means. It's up to the Court (or Biblical
> scholars), to tell us the straight skinny.
Ironically you managed to get it right despite the attempted sarcasm. Only
in a libertarian la la land would it be otherwise, would it be the case that
we would never need a court to decide a Constitutional issue. As for the
Bible, if you want to believe that Methuselah lived to the age of 969, you
go right ahead. Happily the Constitution means the rest of us don't have to
order our lives on the basis of such beliefs.
"Steve" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 2011-02-17 17:55:41 -0500, busbus <[email protected]> said:
>
>> What is happening now? The money is pouring out of this country. How
>> does China pay for its high speed rail? By the money you and I pay
>> for all the freaking goods they produce and sell in places like Wal-
>> Mart, Home Depot, Best Buy and all those other stores. Because we, as
>> consumers, have demanded "the Chine Price" for so freaking long that
>> we have almost pushed manufacturing and other businesses that used to
>> bring money into this country out to places like China (especially
>> China).
>
> We could have "the China price" for US-made goods, except that business
> has forgotten its intitial impetus.
From time to time I hear someone say this. It is total BS.
I've been in manufacturing for 25 years. Working for businesses with
employee counts from 2 to thousands. Never a union shop though. I have
worked it from the shop floor to the engineering department. I think I'm
qualified to say what it would take to compete with China. If everyone in a
manufacturing facility were to work for free, the Chinese would still under
cut our prices. Operating costs alone, without adding in labor, is higher in
the US than the entire process, including labor, is in China.
BTW, anytime someone brings up the subject of manufacturing, people always
point to the auto or aircraft industries. Fact is, 90% of all manufacturing
done in the US is done in shops with 25 or less employees. No mufti million
dollar CEOs in these places. I have worked for shops where I made more than
the owner and I'm damn sure a long way from being rich.
"Doug Miller" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>>Failing to invest in the future is a good way to ensure there won't be
>>one.
>
> So is squandering money on projects that are not (a) commercially viable,
> (b)
> of vital interest to the nation, or (c) authorized by the Constitution.
First, commercial viability is not necessary or even desirable for
everything. Privatized law enforcement would result in the wealthy side of
town getting a cop on every corner while the poor side of town would be on
its own. The original national motto was not Dog Eat Dog.
Second, left up to some folks what is of vital interest would be whatever
benefits them and to hell with everyone else. It's refreshing when
occasionally a law is passed based on what is good for the whole nation
rather than some segment that can afford lobbyists and fat campaign fund
donations.
Third, the Constitution says whatever the Supreme Court says it does, that's
why a couple of recent cases have recognized that the 2nd Amendment protects
an individual right to own firearms to the dismay of all those folks who
disagree. So until the court rules there shouldn't be a federal Dept. of
Education, there will be one, and anyone who disagrees is welcome to vote
for the party that is currently trying to strip funding from any government
agency that has inconvenienced the corporate sponsors of that party.
On Wed, 02 Mar 2011 22:32:27 -0600, [email protected] wrote:
> On Thu, 03 Mar 2011 02:43:09 GMT, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
>
>>In article <[email protected]>, Larry Jaques <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>I hear that. But most states require at least a basic handgun safety
>>>course before they'll issue licenses.
>>
>>FWIW, not here in Indiana, and I imagine that any attempt to require it might
>>be found in violation of the state constitution: "The people shall have the
>>right to keep and bear arms, for the defense of themselves and of the state."
>
> Not in Vermont (there is no "license"), nor in Alabama (CCW permit required
> for CCW only). What is this "license" thing?
Yep, AL is open carry with no permit or license,
one point I"ll add is that open or concealed, you
have to have a permit if it is in a vehicle.
basilisk
On 27 Feb 2011 16:23:20 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>Larry Jaques <[email protected]> wrote in
>news:[email protected]:
>
>> On 27 Feb 2011 12:36:43 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>> You're totally blinded by your hate for guns, sir. It's too bad that
>> you can't see the logic of slowing/stopping criminals with more guns.
>>
>> Well, sadly, there is no sense talking to a closed mind. Ta!
>>
>> (P.S: I still dare you to research this subject.)
>>
>I don't hate guns, Larry, although I am a bit afraid of them, as a person
>who sometimes reacts too fast. And you forgot that I said to really
>punish the bad guys. That ought to be part of the whole thing.
>
>Afraid we'll never agree, but respect is there, from me!!
Right, I doubt we'll agree, but I respect your _other_ opinions.
--
You can't wait for inspiration. You have to go after it with a club.
--Jack London
On Thu, 03 Mar 2011 02:43:09 GMT, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
>In article <[email protected]>, Larry Jaques <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>I hear that. But most states require at least a basic handgun safety
>>course before they'll issue licenses.
>
>FWIW, not here in Indiana, and I imagine that any attempt to require it might
>be found in violation of the state constitution: "The people shall have the
>right to keep and bear arms, for the defense of themselves and of the state."
Not in Vermont (there is no "license"), nor in Alabama (CCW permit required
for CCW only). What is this "license" thing?
On 27 Feb 2011 13:53:59 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>"Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in
>news:[email protected]:
>
>> I think this is the third or fourth time I've seen you make reference
>> to 33 round magazines. Why the continued reference to them? Most gun
>> owners - legal and illegal, do not own or use such things. It may not
>> be your attempt, but when I see that kind of reference repeatedly, as
>> I've seen in your recent comments, it strikes me that you are trying
>> to rely more on sensationalism than on a factual position. Or - more
>> than on a simple opinion, even.
>
>I can't imagine you didn't know that the Tucson shooter had 33-round (or
>was it 31-round?) magazines. There is absolutely no reason for a
>"regular" citizen to have such things.
Sure there is. But regular citizens would be using it for defensive
purposes only. Why is that so hard for you to accept? It's a tool,
and 99% of people (the good guys) use it as such.
--
You can't wait for inspiration. You have to go after it with a club.
--Jack London
I-71 mostly.
On 02/18/2011 10:24 PM, Lew Hodgett wrote:
> "Michael Kenefick" wrote:
>
>> This is the only thing I agree with that Idiot Kasich about. Rail
>> service would get very little use here. And it was not high speed.
>> 35 MPH with all the stops they planned. You can drive from Columbus
>> to Cincinnati or Cleveland faster.
> ------------------------------
> Is that based on driving St Route 3 (Triple "C"), US 42 or I-71?
>
> Rt 3 and US 42 are no winners.
>
> Lew
>
>
"Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Leon" wrote:
>
>> If it is from the government, it must be FREE! Gullible and California
>> go together well.
> -----------------------------------
> Where did that come from?
>
> What does FREE! have to do with anything?
>
> Lew
>
>
It seems that the California government officials have sold the citizens al
lot of goods that they cannot pay for. It seems that the citizens are
likely to buy into anything.
"Doug Miller" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> If high-speed rail were commercially viable in the United States, it would
> already exist.
Urban rail systems in America disappeared in large part because after WWII
the automobile and petroleum industries saw far greater profits to be made
selling cars and buses and the fuel to run them, not because streetcars
weren't a good form of public transport.
And looking at how air travel is going these days, the idea of high speed
rail is starting to look pretty good. In recent years my wife and I have
elected to make 1,500 mile road trips rather than set foot in an airport,
and that was before air travellers had to choose between being groped or
x-rayed.
Fuel prices are going to have the final say on this issue. When gas
eventually gets back to five (or ten) bucks a gallon the train is going to
be a lot more attractive at any speed. A lot of things happened because gas
was cheap, but the clock is ticking on that situation.
"dhall987" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> So I take it from this that you actually WANT to be ruled by a
> dictatorship of 9 old people appointed for life?
If you have a better idea than a division of powers between the executive,
the legislature and the judiciary, by all means describe it for us.
"Andrew Barss" wrote:
> Eh? The US has the second lowest taxes of all developed
> nations in the world. And our taxes right now are lower that
> they've been since the late 1940s-early 1950s.
-----------------------------------------
Heaven help us if a "war tax" was imposed to cover the cost of Iraq &
Afghanistan.
It would truly change the dynamic of what is going on in the country
right now.
Lew
On 2/26/2011 9:03 PM, Andrew Barss wrote:
> J. Clarke<[email protected]> wrote:
>
> : A despot wouldn't _dare_ try to get away with the taxes we pay.
>
> Eh? The US has the second lowest taxes of all developed
> nations in the world. And our taxes right now are lower that
> they've been since the late 1940s-early 1950s.
>
> -- Andy Barss
But they're much higher than they were when the American colonies threw
a tea party in the 1770's ...
On 2/26/2011 2:27 PM, Han wrote:
>>
> I believe the Constitution is the supreme law. <clipped>
> Now personally, I'm really in favor of limiting guns and ammo ...
>
Since the Constitution says, "the right of the people to keep and bear
arms shall not be infringed," how do you explain the apparent
inconsistency between your two statements?
On Fri, 4 Mar 2011 07:36:27 -0600, basilisk <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Thu, 03 Mar 2011 17:43:05 -0600, [email protected] wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 3 Mar 2011 06:29:11 -0600, basilisk <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 02 Mar 2011 22:32:27 -0600, [email protected] wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, 03 Mar 2011 02:43:09 GMT, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>In article <[email protected]>, Larry Jaques <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>I hear that. But most states require at least a basic handgun safety
>>>>>>course before they'll issue licenses.
>>>>>
>>>>>FWIW, not here in Indiana, and I imagine that any attempt to require it might
>>>>>be found in violation of the state constitution: "The people shall have the
>>>>>right to keep and bear arms, for the defense of themselves and of the state."
>>>>
>>>> Not in Vermont (there is no "license"), nor in Alabama (CCW permit required
>>>> for CCW only). What is this "license" thing?
>>>
>>>Yep, AL is open carry with no permit or license,
>>>one point I"ll add is that open or concealed, you
>>>have to have a permit if it is in a vehicle.
>>>
>>>basilisk
>>
>> Loaded where the operator can access it. Otherwise, weapons can be
>> transported. My understanding is that open carry is never allowed
>> (brandishing).
>
>You may be right about the unloaded transport part, I never leave a gun
>unloaded, so I hadn't considered it.
Would be tough to get it home from the store otherwise. ;-)
>Al is "open carry" meaning if you want to wear a gun belt and holster
>and pistol you can, but don't expect a bunch of city cops to be familiar
>with the law and most businesses and govt buildings would be off limits,
You're right. I was thinking that open carry was forbidden, but it's not. The
reason I got a permit (I gotta get it renewed!) was to resolve any
difficulties having it in the car (to and from the range).
>it would seriously limit where you could go.
Employers can currently ban weapons from their property. FWIG most employers
do ban firearms for insurance reasons. There is a bill in the works to allow
guns to be stored in (locked) cars parked in parking lots.
On 3/2/2011 4:33 AM, Han wrote:
> Just Wondering<[email protected]> wrote in news:4d6d5943$0$8150$882e7ee2
> @usenet-news.net:
>
>> On 2/26/2011 2:27 PM, Han wrote:
>>>>
>>> I believe the Constitution is the supreme law.<clipped>
>>> Now personally, I'm really in favor of limiting guns and ammo ...
>>>
>> Since the Constitution says, "the right of the people to keep and bear
>> arms shall not be infringed," how do you explain the apparent
>> inconsistency between your two statements?
>
> You mean that imprisoned criminals (who are nonetheless people) should have
> access to automatic weapons? What about nuclear weapons?
>
I thought what I mean is apparent. I mean to ask you, since the
Constitution says, "the right of the people to keep and bear
>> arms shall not be infringed," how do you explain the apparent
>> inconsistency between your statement that "I believe the
Constitution is the supreme law" and your statement that "I'm really in
favor of limiting guns and ammo."
On 3/2/2011 7:33 AM, Mike Marlow wrote:
> Han wrote:
>
>>
>> You mean that imprisoned criminals (who are nonetheless people)
>> should have access to automatic weapons? What about nuclear weapons?
>
> Great idea Han! Green too. Give a 1 lb cube of plutonium to imprisioned
> criminals to play with in their cells...Solves the criminal element problem,
> eases the overburdening of prisons, and reduces the cost of incarcerting bad
> guys for long periods of time.
>
Plutonium costs nearly $2 million a pound. YOu don't need anywhere near
that much. Letting them play with 1/100 of a gram would be fatal.
On Mar 2, 1:13=A0pm, "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Just Wondering wrote:
> > On 3/2/2011 7:33 AM, Mike Marlow wrote:
> >> Han wrote:
>
> >>> You mean that imprisoned criminals (who are nonetheless people)
> >>> should have access to automatic weapons? =A0What about nuclear
> >>> weapons?
>
> >> Great idea Han! =A0Green too. =A0Give a 1 lb cube of plutonium to
> >> imprisioned criminals to play with in their cells...Solves the
> >> criminal element problem, eases the overburdening of prisons, and
> >> reduces the cost of incarcerting bad guys for long periods of time.
>
> > Plutonium costs nearly $2 million a pound. =A0YOu don't need anywhere
> > near that much. =A0Letting them play with 1/100 of a gram would be
> > fatal.
>
> Always an Accountant in the group...
>
> Ok - 1/100 of a gram will do.
>
> --
>
> -Mike-
> [email protected]
Hey, at those prices? Every milligram counts. :-)
"HeyBub" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Still, the best form of government is a benevolent despot.
Alas, Santa Claus turned down the job.
"J. Clarke" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> A despot wouldn't _dare_ try to get away with the taxes we pay.
Too bad the middle class has to carry the load while the rich laugh all the
way to the bank.
As Warren Buffet pointed out in 2007 when he paid taxes at the rate of 19%
while his employees were paying 33%:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/26/business/yourmoney/26every.html?_r=1
It turned out that Mr. Buffett, with immense income from dividends and
capital gains, paid far, far less as a fraction of his income than the
secretaries or the clerks or anyone else in his office. Further, in
conversation it came up that Mr. Buffett doesnât use any tax planning at
all. He just pays as the Internal Revenue Code requires. âHow can this be
fair?â he asked of how little he pays relative to his employees. âHow can
this be right?â
âThereâs class warfare, all right,â Mr. Buffett said, âbut itâs my class,
the rich class, thatâs making war, and weâre winning.â
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
says...
>
> On Mon, 21 Feb 2011 08:27:59 -0600, "HeyBub" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>
> >
> >>
> >> Third, the Constitution says whatever the Supreme Court says it does,
> >> that's why a couple of recent cases have recognized that the 2nd
> >> Amendment protects an individual right to own firearms to the dismay
> >> of all those folks who disagree. So until the court rules there
> >> shouldn't be a federal Dept. of Education, there will be one, and
> >> anyone who disagrees is welcome to vote for the party that is
> >> currently trying to strip funding from any government agency that has
> >> inconvenienced the corporate sponsors of that party.
> >
> So I take it from this that you actually WANT to be ruled by a
> dictatorship of 9 old people appointed for life.
The Congress can overrule the "dictator" any time it can get enough of
the state legislaturs to concur.
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
>
> dhall987 wrote:
> > On Mon, 21 Feb 2011 08:27:59 -0600, "HeyBub" <[email protected]>
> > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>
> >>>
> >>> Third, the Constitution says whatever the Supreme Court says it
> >>> does, that's why a couple of recent cases have recognized that the
> >>> 2nd Amendment protects an individual right to own firearms to the
> >>> dismay of all those folks who disagree. So until the court rules
> >>> there shouldn't be a federal Dept. of Education, there will be one,
> >>> and anyone who disagrees is welcome to vote for the party that is
> >>> currently trying to strip funding from any government agency that
> >>> has inconvenienced the corporate sponsors of that party.
> >>
> > So I take it from this that you actually WANT to be ruled by a
> > dictatorship of 9 old people appointed for life?
>
> Um, yeah, I guess. What's the alternative? Nine young people appointed for
> life? Nine old people appointed for two years? Six old people appointed for
> life?
>
> Still, the best form of government is a benevolent despot.
>
> Second best is probably what we've got.
A despot wouldn't _dare_ try to get away with the taxes we pay.
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
>
> J. Clarke <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> : A despot wouldn't _dare_ try to get away with the taxes we pay.
>
> Eh? The US has the second lowest taxes of all developed
> nations in the world. And our taxes right now are lower that
> they've been since the late 1940s-early 1950s.
And how do they compare to the highest tax that a despot can get away
with charging without being lynched?
On 2/27/2011 8:52 AM, Doug Miller wrote:
> In article<[email protected]>, Swingman<[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> In Texas for 2009 (according to taxfoundation.org) the total federal,
>> state and local tax rate paid on a per capita income of $40,498 was
>> 22.9%. (15% federal, 7.9% state and local)
>
> And I'll bet that takes into account *only* direct taxes on income, and leaves
> out...
You would be right ... AFAICT the figures were limited to state, local,
federal tax rates.
Of course, some of the local and state can possibly be deducted from
federal, but they still must first be paid, in almost all cases, out of
"after federal tax income".
Personally, I could give a rat's ass what other countries do with regard
to taxes. Anything more than 10% of my hard earned income to any
government entity is too damn much, regardless.
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlC@ (the obvious)
dhall987 <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> On Mon, 21 Feb 2011 08:27:59 -0600, "HeyBub" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>>> Third, the Constitution says whatever the Supreme Court says it does,
>>> that's why a couple of recent cases have recognized that the 2nd
>>> Amendment protects an individual right to own firearms to the dismay
>>> of all those folks who disagree. So until the court rules there
>>> shouldn't be a federal Dept. of Education, there will be one, and
>>> anyone who disagrees is welcome to vote for the party that is
>>> currently trying to strip funding from any government agency that has
>>> inconvenienced the corporate sponsors of that party.
>>
> So I take it from this that you actually WANT to be ruled by a
> dictatorship of 9 old people appointed for life?
>
I believe the Constitution is the supreme law. Whatever Congress enacts
is the law as long as it doesn't conflict with the Constitution.
President appoints Supremes with the consent of the Senate, so all in all
pretty balanced, but still subject to new laws and especially laws'
interpretation. And in my not so humble opinion, that's as it should be.
Now personally, I'm really in favor of limiting guns and ammo ...
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
"HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> Still, the best form of government is a benevolent despot.
Benevolent to you or to me?
> Second best is probably what we've got.
Agree.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
"DGDevin" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
>
>
> "Andrew Barss" wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
> J. Clarke <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>: A despot wouldn't _dare_ try to get away with the taxes
>>: we pay.
>
>> Eh? The US has the second lowest taxes of all developed
>> nations in the world. And our taxes right now are lower
>> that they've been since the late 1940s-early 1950s.
>
> Sure, but they're convinced they're being taxed at
> breathtaking rates because the politicians in a certain
> party tell them that every chance they get.
If you think we're not paying enough you're free to donate
more to the system if you like. Myself, I'm confident that I'm
paying my fair share when nearly 1/2 of my wages go to some
form of tax. And I don't need a politician to tell me
either...
Larry
On 2/27/2011 6:07 PM, [email protected] wrote:
> On Sun, 27 Feb 2011 14:26:50 -0700, Matt<[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On 2/27/2011 1:48 PM, Robatoy wrote:
>>> On Feb 27, 1:35 pm, Swingman<[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> On 2/27/2011 12:18 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> If 10% is good enough for Jesus, it's good enough for Uncle Sam? ;-)
>>>>
>>>> You got it, Bubba! :)
>>>>
>>>> --www.e-woodshop.net
>>>> Last update: 4/15/2010
>>>> KarlC@ (the obvious)
>>>
>>> I'm there... sign me up.
>>
>> I'm also fine with the idea - as long as it's NOT 10% for Uncle Sam,
>> another 10% for the state, another 10% for the county, another 10% for
>> the city, another 10% for the local school district...
>
> You'd *still* come out ahead.
>
Not on my retirement income! :-)
On Sun, 27 Feb 2011 14:26:50 -0700, Matt <[email protected]> wrote:
>On 2/27/2011 1:48 PM, Robatoy wrote:
>> On Feb 27, 1:35 pm, Swingman<[email protected]> wrote:
>>> On 2/27/2011 12:18 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>>>
>>>> If 10% is good enough for Jesus, it's good enough for Uncle Sam? ;-)
>>>
>>> You got it, Bubba! :)
>>>
>>> --www.e-woodshop.net
>>> Last update: 4/15/2010
>>> KarlC@ (the obvious)
>>
>> I'm there... sign me up.
>
>I'm also fine with the idea - as long as it's NOT 10% for Uncle Sam,
>another 10% for the state, another 10% for the county, another 10% for
>the city, another 10% for the local school district...
You'd *still* come out ahead.
Just Wondering <[email protected]> wrote in news:4d6d5943$0$8150$882e7ee2
@usenet-news.net:
> On 2/26/2011 2:27 PM, Han wrote:
>>>
>> I believe the Constitution is the supreme law. <clipped>
>> Now personally, I'm really in favor of limiting guns and ammo ...
>>
> Since the Constitution says, "the right of the people to keep and bear
> arms shall not be infringed," how do you explain the apparent
> inconsistency between your two statements?
You mean that imprisoned criminals (who are nonetheless people) should have
access to automatic weapons? What about nuclear weapons?
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
"Andrew Barss" wrote in message news:[email protected]...
J. Clarke <[email protected]> wrote:
>: A despot wouldn't _dare_ try to get away with the taxes we pay.
> Eh? The US has the second lowest taxes of all developed
> nations in the world. And our taxes right now are lower that
> they've been since the late 1940s-early 1950s.
Sure, but they're convinced they're being taxed at breathtaking rates
because the politicians in a certain party tell them that every chance they
get. That same party claims the other party is the one that spends taxpayer
dollars like crazy, yet the last time they were in power they doubled the
national debt, an odd thing for the supposed party of fiscal responsibility
to have done.
Just Wondering wrote:
> On 3/2/2011 7:33 AM, Mike Marlow wrote:
>> Han wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> You mean that imprisoned criminals (who are nonetheless people)
>>> should have access to automatic weapons? What about nuclear
>>> weapons?
>>
>> Great idea Han! Green too. Give a 1 lb cube of plutonium to
>> imprisioned criminals to play with in their cells...Solves the
>> criminal element problem, eases the overburdening of prisons, and
>> reduces the cost of incarcerting bad guys for long periods of time.
>>
> Plutonium costs nearly $2 million a pound. YOu don't need anywhere
> near that much. Letting them play with 1/100 of a gram would be
> fatal.
Always an Accountant in the group...
Ok - 1/100 of a gram will do.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
Robatoy wrote:
> On Mar 2, 1:13 pm, "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Just Wondering wrote:
>>> On 3/2/2011 7:33 AM, Mike Marlow wrote:
>>>> Han wrote:
>>
>>>>> You mean that imprisoned criminals (who are nonetheless people)
>>>>> should have access to automatic weapons? What about nuclear
>>>>> weapons?
>>
>>>> Great idea Han! Green too. Give a 1 lb cube of plutonium to
>>>> imprisioned criminals to play with in their cells...Solves the
>>>> criminal element problem, eases the overburdening of prisons, and
>>>> reduces the cost of incarcerting bad guys for long periods of time.
>>
>>> Plutonium costs nearly $2 million a pound. YOu don't need anywhere
>>> near that much. Letting them play with 1/100 of a gram would be
>>> fatal.
>>
>> Always an Accountant in the group...
>>
>> Ok - 1/100 of a gram will do.
>>
>> --
>>
>> -Mike-
>> [email protected]
>
> Hey, at those prices? Every milligram counts. :-)
Yeahbut, in the words of that famous philosopher - Mick Jagger... "Too much
is never enough..."
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
dhall987 wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Feb 2011 08:27:59 -0600, "HeyBub" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>
>>
>>>
>>> Third, the Constitution says whatever the Supreme Court says it
>>> does, that's why a couple of recent cases have recognized that the
>>> 2nd Amendment protects an individual right to own firearms to the
>>> dismay of all those folks who disagree. So until the court rules
>>> there shouldn't be a federal Dept. of Education, there will be one,
>>> and anyone who disagrees is welcome to vote for the party that is
>>> currently trying to strip funding from any government agency that
>>> has inconvenienced the corporate sponsors of that party.
>>
> So I take it from this that you actually WANT to be ruled by a
> dictatorship of 9 old people appointed for life?
Um, yeah, I guess. What's the alternative? Nine young people appointed for
life? Nine old people appointed for two years? Six old people appointed for
life?
Still, the best form of government is a benevolent despot.
Second best is probably what we've got.
On 2/27/2011 1:48 PM, Robatoy wrote:
> On Feb 27, 1:35 pm, Swingman<[email protected]> wrote:
>> On 2/27/2011 12:18 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>>
>>> If 10% is good enough for Jesus, it's good enough for Uncle Sam? ;-)
>>
>> You got it, Bubba! :)
>>
>> --www.e-woodshop.net
>> Last update: 4/15/2010
>> KarlC@ (the obvious)
>
> I'm there... sign me up.
I'm also fine with the idea - as long as it's NOT 10% for Uncle Sam,
another 10% for the state, another 10% for the county, another 10% for
the city, another 10% for the local school district...
Matt
On 2/27/2011 12:18 PM, [email protected] wrote:
> If 10% is good enough for Jesus, it's good enough for Uncle Sam? ;-)
You got it, Bubba! :)
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlC@ (the obvious)
On Feb 27, 1:35=A0pm, Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 2/27/2011 12:18 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>
> > If 10% is good enough for Jesus, it's good enough for Uncle Sam? =A0;-)
>
> You got it, Bubba! =A0:)
>
> --www.e-woodshop.net
> Last update: 4/15/2010
> KarlC@ (the obvious)
I'm there... sign me up.
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sun, 27 Feb 2011 12:04:56 -0600, Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>On 2/27/2011 10:56 AM, [email protected] wrote:
>>> On Sun, 27 Feb 2011 09:16:59 -0600, Swingman<[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>> Personally, I could give a rat's ass what other countries do with
>>>> regard
>>>> to taxes. Anything more than 10% of my hard earned income to any
>>>> government entity is too damn much, regardless.
>>>
>>> Like it or not, we are in a global economy. What other countries do
>>> matters a
>>> lot. Making business more expensive here makes the business go there.
>>
>>Let me rephrase my original: "Like it or not", anything more than 10% of
>>my hard earned income to ALL government entities, in toto, is too damn
>>much, regardless.
>
> If 10% is good enough for Jesus, it's good enough for Uncle Sam? ;-)
You may be on to sometheing there however the devil is never satisfied.
On Sun, 27 Feb 2011 12:04:56 -0600, Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:
>On 2/27/2011 10:56 AM, [email protected] wrote:
>> On Sun, 27 Feb 2011 09:16:59 -0600, Swingman<[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>> Personally, I could give a rat's ass what other countries do with regard
>>> to taxes. Anything more than 10% of my hard earned income to any
>>> government entity is too damn much, regardless.
>>
>> Like it or not, we are in a global economy. What other countries do matters a
>> lot. Making business more expensive here makes the business go there.
>
>Let me rephrase my original: "Like it or not", anything more than 10% of
>my hard earned income to ALL government entities, in toto, is too damn
>much, regardless.
If 10% is good enough for Jesus, it's good enough for Uncle Sam? ;-)
"Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Andrew Barss" wrote:
>
>> Eh? The US has the second lowest taxes of all developed
>> nations in the world. And our taxes right now are lower that
>> they've been since the late 1940s-early 1950s.
> -----------------------------------------
> Heaven help us if a "war tax" was imposed to cover the cost of Iraq &
> Afghanistan.
>
> It would truly change the dynamic of what is going on in the country right
> now.
By far the bulk of the deficit. But who's counting?
Dave in Houston
Han wrote:
>
> You mean that imprisoned criminals (who are nonetheless people)
> should have access to automatic weapons? What about nuclear weapons?
Great idea Han! Green too. Give a 1 lb cube of plutonium to imprisioned
criminals to play with in their cells...Solves the criminal element problem,
eases the overburdening of prisons, and reduces the cost of incarcerting bad
guys for long periods of time.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> The Congress can overrule the "dictator" any time it can get enough of
> the state legislaturs to concur.
Terrible logic. If he was a "dictator", the there wouldn't be anyone around
to overrule him.
J. Clarke <[email protected]> wrote:
: A despot wouldn't _dare_ try to get away with the taxes we pay.
Eh? The US has the second lowest taxes of all developed
nations in the world. And our taxes right now are lower that
they've been since the late 1940s-early 1950s.
-- Andy Barss
In article <[email protected]>, Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:
>In Texas for 2009 (according to taxfoundation.org) the total federal,
>state and local tax rate paid on a per capita income of $40,498 was
>22.9%. (15% federal, 7.9% state and local)
And I'll bet that takes into account *only* direct taxes on income, and leaves
out...
- Federal excise tax on tires, motor vehicle fuel, tobacco, alcoholic
beverages, etc.
- state excise taxes on same
- Federal excise tax on telephone service
- state and local sales taxes
- state and local property taxes
- state and Federal corporate income taxes. Yes, that's right, business taxes.
Corporations don't pay taxes. Their *customers* do. Whatever percentage of its
gross revenue WalMart pays in corporate income tax, that's how many pennies of
every dollar you spend there constitute an additional, hidden, tax payment.
- the "employer's share" of the FICA tax. See above; the employer doesn't pay
that, the employees and/or the customers do.
- other business taxes such as workmen's compensation and unemployment. Again,
businesses don't pay those either, their customers do.
In article <[email protected]>, Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:
>On 2/27/2011 8:52 AM, Doug Miller wrote:
>> In article<[email protected]>,
> Swingman<[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> In Texas for 2009 (according to taxfoundation.org) the total federal,
>>> state and local tax rate paid on a per capita income of $40,498 was
>>> 22.9%. (15% federal, 7.9% state and local)
>>
>> And I'll bet that takes into account *only* direct taxes on income, and
> leaves
>> out...
>
>You would be right ... AFAICT the figures were limited to state, local,
>federal tax rates.
>
>Of course, some of the local and state can possibly be deducted from
>federal, but they still must first be paid, in almost all cases, out of
>"after federal tax income".
>
>Personally, I could give a rat's ass what other countries do with regard
>to taxes. Anything more than 10% of my hard earned income to any
>government entity is too damn much, regardless.
>
That's pretty much the way I feel about it too, Karl -- if ten percent is
enough for God, it oughta be enough for Caesar too.
Just Wondering wrote:
> On 3/2/2011 7:33 AM, Mike Marlow wrote:
>> Han wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> You mean that imprisoned criminals (who are nonetheless people)
>>> should have access to automatic weapons? What about nuclear
>>> weapons?
>>
>> Great idea Han! Green too. Give a 1 lb cube of plutonium to
>> imprisioned criminals to play with in their cells...Solves the
>> criminal element problem, eases the overburdening of prisons, and
>> reduces the cost of incarcerting bad guys for long periods of time.
>>
> Plutonium costs nearly $2 million a pound. YOu don't need anywhere
> near that much. Letting them play with 1/100 of a gram would be
> fatal.
you also have to make sure they all don't congregate in the yard at the same
time, or you'd have to build another prison.
"DGDevin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
>
> "Andrew Barss" wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
> J. Clarke <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>: A despot wouldn't _dare_ try to get away with the taxes we pay.
>
>> Eh? The US has the second lowest taxes of all developed
>> nations in the world. And our taxes right now are lower that
>> they've been since the late 1940s-early 1950s.
>
> Sure, but they're convinced they're being taxed at breathtaking rates
> because the politicians in a certain party tell them that every chance
> they get. That same party claims the other party is the one that spends
> taxpayer dollars like crazy, yet the last time they were in power they
> doubled the national debt, an odd thing for the supposed party of fiscal
> responsibility to have done.
But they've CHANGED! PROMISE!
Dave in Houston
Probably cut way down on the heating bills in prisons too, or do they only
put them in warmer US climates?
------------------
"Mike Marlow" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
Great idea Han! Green too. Give a 1 lb cube of plutonium to imprisioned
criminals to play with in their cells...Solves the criminal element problem,
eases the overburdening of prisons, and reduces the cost of incarcerting bad
guys for long periods of time.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
On Mon, 21 Feb 2011 08:27:59 -0600, "HeyBub" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>
>>
>> Third, the Constitution says whatever the Supreme Court says it does,
>> that's why a couple of recent cases have recognized that the 2nd
>> Amendment protects an individual right to own firearms to the dismay
>> of all those folks who disagree. So until the court rules there
>> shouldn't be a federal Dept. of Education, there will be one, and
>> anyone who disagrees is welcome to vote for the party that is
>> currently trying to strip funding from any government agency that has
>> inconvenienced the corporate sponsors of that party.
>
So I take it from this that you actually WANT to be ruled by a
dictatorship of 9 old people appointed for life?
On Thu, 3 Mar 2011 06:29:11 -0600, basilisk <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Wed, 02 Mar 2011 22:32:27 -0600, [email protected] wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 03 Mar 2011 02:43:09 GMT, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
>>
>>>In article <[email protected]>, Larry Jaques <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>I hear that. But most states require at least a basic handgun safety
>>>>course before they'll issue licenses.
>>>
>>>FWIW, not here in Indiana, and I imagine that any attempt to require it might
>>>be found in violation of the state constitution: "The people shall have the
>>>right to keep and bear arms, for the defense of themselves and of the state."
>>
>> Not in Vermont (there is no "license"), nor in Alabama (CCW permit required
>> for CCW only). What is this "license" thing?
>
>Yep, AL is open carry with no permit or license,
>one point I"ll add is that open or concealed, you
>have to have a permit if it is in a vehicle.
>
>basilisk
Loaded where the operator can access it. Otherwise, weapons can be
transported. My understanding is that open carry is never allowed
(brandishing).
On Thu, 03 Mar 2011 17:43:05 -0600, [email protected] wrote:
> On Thu, 3 Mar 2011 06:29:11 -0600, basilisk <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 02 Mar 2011 22:32:27 -0600, [email protected] wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 03 Mar 2011 02:43:09 GMT, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
>>>
>>>>In article <[email protected]>, Larry Jaques <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>I hear that. But most states require at least a basic handgun safety
>>>>>course before they'll issue licenses.
>>>>
>>>>FWIW, not here in Indiana, and I imagine that any attempt to require it might
>>>>be found in violation of the state constitution: "The people shall have the
>>>>right to keep and bear arms, for the defense of themselves and of the state."
>>>
>>> Not in Vermont (there is no "license"), nor in Alabama (CCW permit required
>>> for CCW only). What is this "license" thing?
>>
>>Yep, AL is open carry with no permit or license,
>>one point I"ll add is that open or concealed, you
>>have to have a permit if it is in a vehicle.
>>
>>basilisk
>
> Loaded where the operator can access it. Otherwise, weapons can be
> transported. My understanding is that open carry is never allowed
> (brandishing).
You may be right about the unloaded transport part, I never leave a gun
unloaded, so I hadn't considered it.
Al is "open carry" meaning if you want to wear a gun belt and holster
and pistol you can, but don't expect a bunch of city cops to be familiar
with the law and most businesses and govt buildings would be off limits,
it would seriously limit where you could go.
basilisk
On Sun, 27 Feb 2011 12:34:15 -0800 (PST), Robatoy
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On Feb 27, 2:41Â pm, "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>
>>
>> I realize that - but you kept repeating that as if the size of the magazine
>> really means anything. Â Take it out of the picture and any shooter could
>> just as easily stick 3 ten round magazines in his pocket. Â It takes a second
>> or two to pop one and insert the new one. Â Though it sounds like a 30 round
>> magazine actually means something, it really doesn't.
>>
>
>What justification could there ever be for a 30 round mag?
Biker gang (or herd of looters, or even a swarm of Alaskan mosquitoes)
pulls into your driveway. Whaddya do?
>a) Lousy shot?
Muslim Spray and Pray?
>b) "Necessary" because the threat is _that_ ominous? (Which would
>make me think that another choice of weapon might be better?)
Verily, but who are you guys to tell me how to face my situations?
Maybe the guy burst into my home and the 33 Glock was the first thing
into my hand. What if Barry sent our troops into Sarnia?
>c) Some guy decided to manufacture those 30 round mags because he knew
>some idiot would feel the need to buy one?
>
>Seriously... why? Wouldn't it be better to pack TWO Glocks and hold
Oh, no. You'll need the other hand to dial 911. Let the cops save you
in a couple hours.
>them sideways when firing after you've turned your ballcap around 90°?
>Maybe a 30-round mag is a fashion statement to the romanticized
>gangbangers?
Yeah, isn't Hollywood realistic?
>Personally, if I can't eliminate a threat in 10 rounds, why would I
>even bother to carry a gun?
Peace of mind for the other 99.999 possible threats?
--
You can't wait for inspiration. You have to go after it with a club.
--Jack London
Why?
Aren't all USanians aware of their constitutional rights and how carrying a
weapon benefits everybody, including lowering crime figures while they
brandish their weapon in the open proudly?
Seems we have some contradiction about this myth.
--
"basilisk" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
Al is "open carry" meaning if you want to wear a gun belt and holster
and pistol you can, but don't expect a bunch of city cops to be familiar
with the law and most businesses and govt buildings would be off limits,
it would seriously limit where you could go.
basilisk
On 2/27/2011 7:38 AM, Larry wrote:
> "DGDevin"<[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>>
>>
>> "Andrew Barss" wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> J. Clarke<[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> : A despot wouldn't _dare_ try to get away with the taxes
>>> : we pay.
>>
>>> Eh? The US has the second lowest taxes of all developed
>>> nations in the world. And our taxes right now are lower
>>> that they've been since the late 1940s-early 1950s.
>>
>> Sure, but they're convinced they're being taxed at
>> breathtaking rates because the politicians in a certain
>> party tell them that every chance they get.
>
> If you think we're not paying enough you're free to donate
> more to the system if you like. Myself, I'm confident that I'm
> paying my fair share when nearly 1/2 of my wages go to some
> form of tax. And I don't need a politician to tell me
> either...
In Texas for 2009 (according to taxfoundation.org) the total federal,
state and local tax rate paid on a per capita income of $40,498 was
22.9%. (15% federal, 7.9% state and local)
While Texas ranked about 43 in states, in my book, that is still more
than enough tax burden to be pissed about.
What's even more aggravating is the condescending attitude/use of the
third-person, personal pronoun (as if themselves are somehow above
"they") of those on the public tit (notice your respondents .edu email
address).
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlC@ (the obvious)
On 2/17/2011 10:54 PM, Steve wrote:
> The economy -- buying and selling real goods adn services for real mony
> -- has been replaced with the "financial economy", generating inflated
> "value" for an asset. (How much air can you beat into a gallon of ice
> cream before it becomes just air? Oh, sorry, you don't get a gallon
> anymore -- the half-gallon has become something like 1.56 quarts, before
> you even consider the added air.)
>
> The final factor operating against a decent price for a US-made good is
> executive compensation. The CEO makes 300, or 3,000 times the salary of
> the working stiff? Till me how THAT makes us competitive, or,
> ultimately, how we'll even be able to buy China's "China-priced" goods.
During WWII there was a secret government project to develop methods to
train "managers" to facilitate the ramping up of manufacturing for the
(still thriving) "war industry". Prior to that, company "management"
generally came up through the ranks, gaining a thorough knowledge and
understanding of the product, and the business, in the process.
Subsequently, and with the resultant advent of MBA programs (the basis
of which is that you really don't need to know much about a product to
"manage" the company that produces it), successful "management" has now
been subverted to little more than wielding tools like 'price point
engineering', "acquisition', and 'marketing strategy' to foist an
inferior product onto an increasingly stupid, easily manipulated
consumer (hint: does the picture of that hamburger really need to look
anything like what the consumer ultimately pays for/consumes, or even
has to contain the expected ingredients? ... not in the least!)
A true "manager" has the power to make an exception to policy to solve a
problem. Just try to find one with that power on the floor of a
corporate chain grocery store or retail outlet these days ... or even on
the phone for that matter.
Today's corporate management culture, focusing on bottom line first and
foremost (and ultimately, 'executive compensation'), has also arguably
(and successfully) insulated themselves from both the product and the
consumer, _by design_.
A neat trick, especially since you can get away with it ... but only for
a while.
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlC@ (the obvious)
"Lew Hodgett" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Hello "Ding Dongs", AKA: Recently elected governors of Ohio (Kasich),
> Wisconsin(Walker) and Florida(Scott).
>
> You don't want high speed rail research projects in your states, no
> problem.
>
> The money you are rejecting has been committed, so the Feds are simply
> redirecting your funds to us here in California.
> We'll take it
China has 19,000 miles of high speed rail lines, and by high speed I mean
faster than anything in Japan or France. More than 50 cities in China are
now linked by high speed rail. And guess whose money paid for it all?
So America's infrastructure rots away because according to some folks we
can't afford to repair it or upgrade it, not if it means their taxes might
go up. Good thing they weren't around when Eisenhower was building the
interstate system, or we'd still be driving on two-lane gravel roads.
On 20 Feb 2011 23:45:03 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>"[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote in
>news:[email protected]:
>
>> On 20 Feb 2011 17:14:05 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>"[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote in
>>>news:[email protected]:
>>>
>>>> How about everyone keeping their "entitlements" that they had in,
>>>> say, 2006, for a start?
>>>>
>>>
>>>Since you like to go back, ewwhy not go back to the tax rates of
>>>yesteryear too?
>>
>> 2006? Sure, no problem.
>
>Why not 2000, or 1950?
Because I thought we were actually trying to be realistic. I guess I should
have known better.
>Oh, wait, you rather cut benefits than pay taxes. Well, you'll have your
>wish. All of us will have benefits cut. I just hope my savings will be
>inflation proof. I am retired, and loving it!!
To 2006 levels? That's a good start.
Just wait until the stagflation hits. We'll see if you love that.
[email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] (Larry W) wrote:
>>OT? You mean high speed rail doesn't use wooden ties?
>
> Actually, it doesn't. Concrete or steel are the materials of choice.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railroad_tie
Indeed, no wood.
Comparing Europe rail travel with rail travel in the NE Corridor. In
crowded western Europe, there is still relatively more open space than in
the Washington-Boston megalopolis. Therefore, it was fairly easy to take
rights of way for straight routes that don't have level crossings with
roads etc. I have traveled the Thalys between Holland and Paris, and
south of Brussels the speed of the train is astonishing. Large stretches
north of Brussels are fast, but not all are real TGV speed.
Generating routes like that in the megalopolis will involve long fights
with eminent domain expropriations. Moreover, we live more dispersed, so
getting to and from the "central" station will take more time, just like
the aggravating travel to and from airports.
Nevertheless, if travel by train were faster and cheaper, I'd use the
train more, especially since I'm retired now. I can walk to the station
here in Jersey, and use the T in Boston, so getting back and forth to my
son and family in Boston will be a cinch. But as of now, car travel is
cheaper and faster ... And then I have a car over there.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
knuttle <[email protected]> wrote in news:ijpld0$g1p$1
@news.eternal-september.org:
> Up about 40% from two years ago.
So what? Reducing taxes and expending money to fight two wars doesn't put
money into the piggybank.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
"[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> On 20 Feb 2011 00:02:45 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>knuttle <[email protected]> wrote in news:ijpld0$g1p$1
>>@news.eternal-september.org:
>>
>>> Up about 40% from two years ago.
>>
>>So what? Reducing taxes
>
> Exactly what taxes have been reduced?
>
>>and expending money to fight two wars
>
> They have been going on *far* longer than two years.
>
>>doesn't put money into the piggybank.
>
> Neither does spending 65% more than you make.
Yes, indeed, it does date from more than 2 years ago. Remember that at
one time (I believe it was the Clinton era) that there was a surplus?
Tax cuts (to the rich especially) and a war in Iraq based on intended or
unintended deception plus a mismanaged war in Afganistan caused the
current deficit. This was of course compounded by mismanagement of
several branches of governmemt (Bureau of mining etc, and oversight of
banking are only 2 of them) caused the housing bubble.
Now everyone wants to keep their benefits that they are "entitled" to,
and wants someone else to pay. I guess that is human nature, but what
about the common good?
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
"[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> How about everyone keeping their "entitlements" that they had in, say,
> 2006, for a start?
>
Since you like to go back, ewwhy not go back to the tax rates of yesteryear
too?
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
"[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> On 20 Feb 2011 17:14:05 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>"[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote in
>>news:[email protected]:
>>
>>> How about everyone keeping their "entitlements" that they had in,
>>> say, 2006, for a start?
>>>
>>
>>Since you like to go back, ewwhy not go back to the tax rates of
>>yesteryear too?
>
> 2006? Sure, no problem.
Why not 2000, or 1950?
Oh, wait, you rather cut benefits than pay taxes. Well, you'll have your
wish. All of us will have benefits cut. I just hope my savings will be
inflation proof. I am retired, and loving it!!
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
"Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "busbus" wrote:
>
>> What is happening now? The money is pouring out of this country.
> -----------------------------
> Pays for all that Middle East oil we burn up driving ourselves around.
>
> Lew
>
>
At least we are getting something for that money, take a look at the
interest that the US government is paying to China for loans from China so
the the US government can stay in their vision, solvent.
Lew Hodgett wrote:
> Hello "Ding Dongs", AKA: Recently elected governors of Ohio (Kasich),
> Wisconsin(Walker) and Florida(Scott).
>
> You don't want high speed rail research projects in your states, no
> problem.
>
> The money you are rejecting has been committed, so the Feds are simply
> redirecting your funds to us here in California.
>
> We'll take it
>
> Maybe there are some more governors who don't want high speed rail in
> their states.
>
> If so, mind telling them we like high speed rail here in California?
>
> We'll accept their money.
>
> Wonder how your decisions will play when you stand for reelection?
>
> Welcome To The World Of Big Time Politics "Ding Dongs".
>
You might want to read the Florida governor's letter rejecting the
Tampa-Orlando rail project. In it he pointed out:
* Cost overruns, as much as $3 billion, would be borne by Florida
* Ridership and revenue have been overestimated for EVERY rail project in
the country since time immemorial. For example, proponents claim ridership
to be over 3 million annually. The Acela train linking Boston to D.C., and
points in between, had 3.2 million passengers in 2010 despite a population
eight times larger than the Tampa-Orlano run.
* There are more worthy projects. For example, enlarging Florida's ports to
be ready for the enhanced Panama Canal shipping.
* If, for any reason, (think too expensive) the project has to be shut down,
Florida would have to return $2.4 billion to the feds.
You can read his letter at:
http://www.flgov.com/2011/02/16/florida-governor-rick-scott-rejects-federal-high-speed-rail/
I'd welcome your comments after you do.
DGDevin wrote:
>
> And looking at how air travel is going these days, the idea of high
> speed rail is starting to look pretty good. In recent years my wife
> and I have elected to make 1,500 mile road trips rather than set foot
> in an airport, and that was before air travellers had to choose
> between being groped or x-rayed.
Ugh... at 1500 miles, I'll still fly. We've done plenty of those long trips
by car, and despite the opportunity to see the country, stop where we want,
etc. I'll still fly over drive. I just hate driving anywhere these days.
>
> Fuel prices are going to have the final say on this issue. When gas
> eventually gets back to five (or ten) bucks a gallon the train is
> going to be a lot more attractive at any speed. A lot of things
> happened because gas was cheap, but the clock is ticking on that
> situation.
Not in the good old USA. As fuel prices rise, so will rail fares. As fuel
prices drop, rail fare will stay where they climbed to.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
On Feb 20, 5:25=A0pm, "Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Han" wrote:
> > Yes, indeed, it does date from more than 2 years ago. =A0Remember that
> > at
> > one time (I believe it was the Clinton era) that there was a
> > surplus?
> > Tax cuts (to the rich especially) and a war in Iraq based on
> > intended or
> > unintended deception plus a mismanaged war in Afganistan caused the
> > current deficit. =A0This was of course compounded by mismanagement of
> > several branches of governmemt (Bureau of mining etc, and oversight
> > of
> > banking are only 2 of them) caused the housing bubble.
>
> > Now everyone wants to keep their benefits that they are "entitled"
> > to,
> > and wants someone else to pay. =A0I guess that is human nature, but
> > what
> > about the common good?
>
> -------------------------------------------
> Remember the farce of "trickle down economics" courtesy of Reagan?
>
> If you bother to check the records, the "rich and famous"(top 5% of
> income earners) high income portion of the population has seen it's
> taxes continue to be reduced since 1986.
>
> Those businesses who could afford the "K" street lobbyists have also
> seen their investment richly rewarded in the form of reduced taxes.
>
> As long as the little guy believes the dream he is fed that when he
> gets to be a big guy, (top 5% of income earners), he will be part of
> the "club", nobody is going to get his newly generated assets, the
> easier it becomes to control the little guy.
>
> Most of those dreamers have a better shot at winning the lottery.
>
> The idea that a business will not be competitive if it has to pay
> taxes but rather that tax burden should be transferred to it's
> employees, suggests a business that probably shouldn't stay in
> business.
>
> Businesses that provide goods and services the market needs and wants,
> don't have a problem paying taxes.
>
> Like it or not, government is necessary and has a cost in our society.
>
> Since the end of WWII, the total cost of government, which includes
> everything from the local dog catcher to the president, has remained
> constant at about 35% plus or minus a point.
>
> Now who gets the honor of paying that 35% is what this discussion is
> all about.
>
> So far, the top 5% of income earners appear to be doing a pretty good
> job avoiding them.
>
> Lew- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
A good accountant will work miracles.
A good accountant
A good lawyer
A good doctor.
Ya needs them.
On Feb 17, 11:54=A0pm, Steve <[email protected]> wrote:
> The final factor operating against a decent price for a US-made good is
> executive compensation. The CEO makes 300, or 3,000 times the salary of
> the working stiff? =A0Till me how THAT makes us competitive, or,
> ultimately, how we'll even be able to buy China's "China-priced" goods.
I could go on and on and on about a number of factors OTHER than
corporate executive pay. That is not the only reason our goods cost
more. Far, far from it. The average American worker gets paid a hell
of a lot more than the average Chinese worker. But that still doesn't
cover everything. Corporations get taxed out the wahzoo here and you
know what? They pass that cost along to the consumers in terms of how
much a product costs. Corporations also need to make sure everything
is so freaking environmentally clean and such and it plain costs more
to produce a widget with environmental and other governmental
restrictions that do not exist on other countries.
Don't get me wrong, it is not like I want the fish to all die or the
birds to fall out of the sky or forcing seven-year-olds to work The
fact of the matter is that we are competing against societies that
allow this and the final result is that the products are just plain
cheaper coming out of those countries than they are coming out of
ours.
And there is more: we sort of need to have higher salaries because we
have more to maintain here in terms of existing infrastructure likes
roads and schools and utilities and whatnot.
I think we are veering off-topic of the original off-topic subject:
implementing high-speed rail through government subsidies. There have
been arguments, and good ones at that, saying we don't really need it
and, if we did, it would have been done already by some private firm
because there would be money to be made. There obviously is not the
wanton need nor desire for such a thing. The bottom line is that
there is no money in the till to do this thru government. If a State
is billions of dollars in the hole, how is throwing more money at
something that will produce lukewarm results (at best) help the
State? It will be even further in debt. It will be forced to
maintain another piece of infrastructure. And, in the long run,
certainly be worse off.
Swingman makes a number of good points about how accountants and the
MBA program has all but crippled American corporations because they
are being run by people who look at the bottom line and only as far
out as the next quarter. The people who really understand the
business aren't running them. As a result, you get what you got.
Before we invest in more things that aren't really going to help us
but are, rather, a luxury in this day and age, we need to get us out
of the hole we are in. We need to understand that 8-, 10-, 12-percent
and more returns are not everlasting. I firmly believe we have gotten
to this point because of this mentality that set in whenever we had
years of such returns throughout the 90s. T'ain't that way no more,
McGee. Both the private and public sectors will be better off once we
realize that.
"Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Hello "Ding Dongs", AKA: Recently elected governors of Ohio (Kasich),
> Wisconsin(Walker) and Florida(Scott).
>
> You don't want high speed rail research projects in your states, no
> problem.
>
> The money you are rejecting has been committed, so the Feds are simply
> redirecting your funds to us here in California.
>
> We'll take it
>
> Maybe there are some more governors who don't want high speed rail in
> their states.
>
> If so, mind telling them we like high speed rail here in California?
>
> We'll accept their money.
>
> Wonder how your decisions will play when you stand for reelection?
>
> Welcome To The World Of Big Time Politics "Ding Dongs".
>
> Lew
If it is from the government, it must be FREE! Gullible and California go
together well.
DGDevin wrote:
>
> Sure, and because General Motors and other companies made a point of
> putting streetcars out of business, even if they had to buy the
> companies running them (using front companies) and replace streetcars
> with buses. At one time America had over 1,200 electric light rail
> operations.
And all of these got you exactly where they went - not necessarily where you
were going. They were problematic in their own rite. Cities were a tangle
of overhead wires, the street cars could not alter course for any reason,
they were not easy to swap out if one required maintenance.
> GM alone converted 900 of these to buses. Of course the
> American fascination with the automobile was part of the process, but
> it got a big push from companies that wanted to sell cars and buses.
"The American facination with the automobile" is a really tired cliche.
Sure, it's true to a point, but the automobile has stirred facination all
around the world. Nothing so uniquely American about it. The fact that it
took hold so well in America, and has resisted such alternatives as rail
over the years has been discussed to death as well. Rail just did not work
to mobilize the American society. That's not even unique to America.
>
> We can afford to build damn near anything the Pentagon says it needs,
> but we can't afford to refurb the national rail system? We can give
> tax breaks to the oil companies, but we can't afford high speed rail?
> We're still sending foreign aid to *China* of all places, but we
> can't upgrade our own transport systems? Something doesn't add up
> here.
I do agree with those statements. There is a lot of spending done by
Washington that is just plain upside down. So - you're supporting the idea
of Washington spending more money on a national rail system? Scarey
thought...
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
On 20 Feb 2011 17:14:05 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>"[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote in
>news:[email protected]:
>
>> How about everyone keeping their "entitlements" that they had in, say,
>> 2006, for a start?
>>
>
>Since you like to go back, ewwhy not go back to the tax rates of yesteryear
>too?
2006? Sure, no problem.
In article <[email protected]>, "Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote:
>Hello "Ding Dongs", AKA: Recently elected governors of Ohio (Kasich),
>Wisconsin(Walker) and Florida(Scott).
>
>You don't want high speed rail research projects in your states, no
>problem.
>
>The money you are rejecting has been committed, so the Feds are simply
>redirecting your funds to us here in California.
>
>We'll take it
>
>Maybe there are some more governors who don't want high speed rail in
>their states.
>
>If so, mind telling them we like high speed rail here in California?
>
>We'll accept their money.
>
>Wonder how your decisions will play when you stand for reelection?
>
>Welcome To The World Of Big Time Politics "Ding Dongs".
>
>Lew
Apparently you folks in California haven't figured out what was pretty obvious
to us here in the Midwest: those rail projects might be *built* mostly with
federal funds -- but the states would have to pay to *maintain* them, and the
states decided they couldn't afford that. It's also apparent that you haven't
realized yet that California is broke. News flash: if Wisconsin and Ohio --
which are solvent -- can't afford the maintenance, then California -- which
isn't -- can't afford it either.
Let's see how well those decisions play out in a few years when California has
to start paying even more money that it doesn't have to maintain these
"high-speed" rail lines that really aren't. There is *no* true high-speed rail
anywhere in the U.S., and, given the condition of our tracks, there isn't
likely to be in my lifetime, either.
On 2/17/2011 9:15 AM, Michael Kenefick wrote:
> This is the only thing I agree with that Idiot Kasich about. Rail
> service would get very little use here. And it was not high speed. 35
> MPH with all the stops they planned. You can drive from Columbus to
> Cincinnati or Cleveland faster.
>
> Mike in Ohio
>
> On 02/16/2011 10:28 PM, Lew Hodgett wrote:
>> Hello "Ding Dongs", AKA: Recently elected governors of Ohio (Kasich),
>> Wisconsin(Walker) and Florida(Scott).
>>
>> You don't want high speed rail research projects in your states, no
>> problem.
>>
>> The money you are rejecting has been committed, so the Feds are simply
>> redirecting your funds to us here in California.
>>
>> We'll take it
>>
>> Maybe there are some more governors who don't want high speed rail in
>> their states.
>>
>> If so, mind telling them we like high speed rail here in California?
>>
>> We'll accept their money.
>>
>> Wonder how your decisions will play when you stand for reelection?
>>
>> Welcome To The World Of Big Time Politics "Ding Dongs".
>>
>> Lew
>>
>>
That is like high speed air. There is a distance at which it is faster
to drive that it is to take an airplane. I have children that live
about 600 miles from us. By the time you drive to the airport, get
there two hours before flight time to get your tummy rubbed by security,
flight a couple of stretches with the waits in between, find
transportation and final get where you are going; You can make the same
trip in your car in the same amount of time, FOR LESS MONEY AND HARASSMENT.
In article <[email protected]>, knuttle <[email protected]> wrote:
>That is like high speed air. There is a distance at which it is faster
>to drive that it is to take an airplane. I have children that live
>about 600 miles from us. By the time you drive to the airport, get
>there two hours before flight time to get your tummy rubbed by security,
>flight a couple of stretches with the waits in between, find
>transportation and final get where you are going; You can make the same
>trip in your car in the same amount of time, FOR LESS MONEY AND HARASSMENT.
Amen to that. I once had a company that wanted to fly me from Indianapolis to
Dayton for a job interview. They were surprised, to say the least, when I said
I'd rather drive. That is, until I explained that I lived nearly an hour's
drive from the Indy airport, and less than two hours' drive from their site
northwest of Dayton. Driving saved them several hundred dollars, and saved me
several hours and a lot of hassle.
In article <[email protected]>, "DGDevin" <[email protected]> wrote:
>China has 19,000 miles of high speed rail lines, and by high speed I mean
>faster than anything in Japan or France. More than 50 cities in China are
>now linked by high speed rail. And guess whose money paid for it all?
WalMart customers.
>So America's infrastructure rots away because according to some folks we
>can't afford to repair it or upgrade it, not if it means their taxes might
>go up. Good thing they weren't around when Eisenhower was building the
>interstate system, or we'd still be driving on two-lane gravel roads.
If high-speed rail were commercially viable in the United States, it would
already exist.
In article <[email protected]>, "DGDevin" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>"Doug Miller" wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>
>> If high-speed rail were commercially viable in the United States, it would
>> already exist.
>
>Urban rail systems in America disappeared in large part because after WWII
>the automobile and petroleum industries saw far greater profits to be made
>selling cars and buses and the fuel to run them, not because streetcars
>weren't a good form of public transport.
.. and in even greater part because a booming economy made cars both
plentiful and affordable, and people decided they preferred the freedom and
convenience of private transport to public transport.
>
>And looking at how air travel is going these days, the idea of high speed
>rail is starting to look pretty good.
Except for the hundreds of gigabucks -- that we don't have -- required to
build the infrastructure.
> In recent years my wife and I have
>elected to make 1,500 mile road trips rather than set foot in an airport,
>and that was before air travellers had to choose between being groped or
>x-rayed.
>
>Fuel prices are going to have the final say on this issue. When gas
>eventually gets back to five (or ten) bucks a gallon the train is going to
>be a lot more attractive at any speed. A lot of things happened because gas
>was cheap, but the clock is ticking on that situation.
If gasoline becomes that expensive, high speed rail may become commercially
viable; if so, someone will see that there's money to be made, and build it.
The more likely outcome of $10/gallon gasoline, IMHO, is explosive growth in
electric cars and new technology for powering them (e.g. ultracapacitors
instead of batteries), with an accompanying increase in the construction of
nuclear power plants.
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] (Larry W) wrote:
>OT? You mean high speed rail doesn't use wooden ties?
Actually, it doesn't. Concrete or steel are the materials of choice.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railroad_tie
In article <[email protected]>, "DGDevin" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>"Doug Miller" wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>
>
>> .. and in even greater part because a booming economy made cars both
>> plentiful and affordable, and people decided they preferred the freedom
>> and
>> convenience of private transport to public transport.
>
>Sure, and because General Motors and other companies made a point of putting
>streetcars out of business, even if they had to buy the companies running
>them (using front companies) and replace streetcars with buses. At one time
>America had over 1,200 electric light rail operations. GM alone converted
>900 of these to buses. Of course the American fascination with the
>automobile was part of the process, but it got a big push from companies
>that wanted to sell cars and buses.
>
>>>And looking at how air travel is going these days, the idea of high speed
>>>rail is starting to look pretty good.
>
>> Except for the hundreds of gigabucks -- that we don't have -- required to
>> build the infrastructure.
>
>We can afford to build damn near anything the Pentagon says it needs, but we
>can't afford to refurb the national rail system? We can give tax breaks to
>the oil companies, but we can't afford high speed rail? We're still sending
>foreign aid to *China* of all places, but we can't upgrade our own transport
>systems? Something doesn't add up here.
>
We can't really afford *any* of those things...
In article <[email protected]>, "Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>"Doug Miller" wrote:
>>
>> Apparently you folks in California haven't figured out what was
>> pretty obvious
>> to us here in the Midwest: those rail projects might be *built*
>> mostly with
>> federal funds -- but the states would have to pay to *maintain*
>> them, and the
>> states decided they couldn't afford that. It's also apparent that
>> you haven't
>> realized yet that California is broke. News flash: if Wisconsin and
>> Ohio --
>> which are solvent -- can't afford the maintenance, then
>> California -- which
>> isn't -- can't afford it either.
>>
>> Let's see how well those decisions play out in a few years when
>> California has
>> to start paying even more money that it doesn't have to maintain
>> these
>> "high-speed" rail lines that really aren't. There is *no* true
>> high-speed rail
>> anywhere in the U.S., and, given the condition of our tracks, there
>> isn't
>> likely to be in my lifetime, either.
>-----------------------------------------
>Spoken like a true Hoosier.
Ad hominem noted.
>
>What is your game plan for the operating revenues derived from high
>speed rail (HSR) once it's built and operating?
Why are you asking me what *my* game plan is? I'm not the one advocating
building it. Direct that question to your governor and legislature. *They* are
the ones you should be asking where the money is going to come from to
maintain it.
>
>What is your game plan for the increased revenues generated by
>businesses that take advantage of HSR to improve their bottom line?
See above.
>
>If they aren't misappropriated, they are the normal source of
>maintenance funds.
Assuming that the revenue projections haven't been overstated to sell the
project, sure. That's a pretty big assumption, though. And that's another
question you should be directing to your legislators. Not to me.
>
>HSR requires a dedicated line to be effective.
One *more* reason that it's not going to be cost-effective.
>
>Probably will be able to use a some of the existing rights
>of way in urban areas for new track, but that is about it.
Yet another reason it's not going to be cost-effective.
>
>BUilding new rail lines is just part of the capital investment
>process. (Think bonds).
Yeah, now *there's* a good idea: an insolvent state going *deeper* into debt
to build a project that, on its face, is not commercially viable -- if it were
viable, some corporation would have built it already.
Taken a look at California's bond ratings lately? Compare them to Indiana's:
S&P triple-A.
Mike Marlow wrote:
> DGDevin wrote:
>
>>
>> Sure, and because General Motors and other companies made a point of
>> putting streetcars out of business, even if they had to buy the
>> companies running them (using front companies) and replace streetcars
>> with buses. At one time America had over 1,200 electric light rail
>> operations.
>
> And all of these got you exactly where they went - not necessarily
> where you were going. They were problematic in their own rite. Cities
> were a tangle of overhead wires, the street cars could not
> alter course for any reason, they were not easy to swap out if one
> required maintenance.
>
>> GM alone converted 900 of these to buses. Of course the
>> American fascination with the automobile was part of the process, but
>> it got a big push from companies that wanted to sell cars and buses.
>
> "The American facination with the automobile" is a really tired
> cliche. Sure, it's true to a point, but the automobile has stirred
> facination all around the world. Nothing so uniquely American about
> it. The fact that it took hold so well in America, and has resisted
> such alternatives as rail over the years has been discussed to death
> as well. Rail just did not work to mobilize the American society. That's
> not even unique to America.
note also that the introduction of cheap cars to countries without a 'car
fixation' or a car infrastructure is causing those countries to change their
ideas also.
to wit: india and china, which are growing their car population by leaps and
bounds.
>
>>
>> We can afford to build damn near anything the Pentagon says it needs,
>> but we can't afford to refurb the national rail system? We can give
>> tax breaks to the oil companies, but we can't afford high speed rail?
>> We're still sending foreign aid to *China* of all places, but we
>> can't upgrade our own transport systems? Something doesn't add up
>> here.
>
> I do agree with those statements. There is a lot of spending done by
> Washington that is just plain upside down. So - you're supporting
> the idea of Washington spending more money on a national rail system?
> Scarey thought...
In article <[email protected]>, "DGDevin" <[email protected]> wrote:
>Or you could consider that I meant not wasting money on foreign aid to
>China, gold-plated weapons that don't always work, and tax breaks for the
>oil companies and *instead* spending that money on transportation
>infrastructure in America that will benefit the whole nation for
>generations, rather than adding to the existing budget.
Or you could consider that this should not be regarded as an either-or choice,
and that the options should include "none of the above" -- which, not
coincidentally, describes exactly which of these things we have the money
available to do.
On Wed, 2 Mar 2011 09:33:05 -0500, "Mike Marlow"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>Han wrote:
>
>>
>> You mean that imprisoned criminals (who are nonetheless people)
>> should have access to automatic weapons? What about nuclear weapons?
>
>Great idea Han! Green too. Give a 1 lb cube of plutonium to imprisioned
>criminals to play with in their cells...Solves the criminal element problem,
>eases the overburdening of prisons, and reduces the cost of incarcerting bad
>guys for long periods of time.
Excellent ideas, guys. Remove the guards, brick up entrances to the
prisons, and dump our nuke waste there, in the previously built
vaults. Add more lifers and they evaporate in the rad heat!
This is a perfect way to lower costs of both human waste storage
(lifer felons) and nuke waste. Win/Win/Win!
;^)
--
The art of life lies in a constant readjustment to our surroundings.
-- Okakura Kakuzo
On Wed, 02 Mar 2011 07:42:25 -0800, Larry Jaques
<[email protected]> wrote:
>Try a rational ploy next time...or do the research and come up with
>the same data I did. I gave up hating handguns after finding the
>truth. Give it a try. Loving is much better than hating.
Yeah but my biggest problem with legal guns is the owners who buy one
to have protection and do not get the proper training. Shooting in a
combat situation requires practice.
I have no problem with concealed carry, but if you are going to carry
you damn well better practice.
Now a good way to show someone what is required is to give them a
paintball gun and play a bit. After a few welts it might occur to them
you could end up dead in a shoot out.
Mark
Yeah, MS idea
2K, XP, 7
--------------------
"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
Win/Win/Win!
In article <[email protected]>, "DGDevin" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>"Doug Miller" wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>
>>>Or you could consider that I meant not wasting money on foreign aid to
>>>China, gold-plated weapons that don't always work, and tax breaks for the
>>>oil companies and *instead* spending that money on transportation
>>>infrastructure in America that will benefit the whole nation for
>>>generations, rather than adding to the existing budget.
>
>> Or you could consider that this should not be regarded as an either-or
>> choice,
>> and that the options should include "none of the above" -- which, not
>> coincidentally, describes exactly which of these things we have the money
>> available to do.
>
>So what is America supposed to do, retire as a nation? Sure, that $14
>trillion debt has to be paid down, but that doesn't mean every dime possible
>has to be dedicated solely to that cause. Potholes still have to be filled,
>somebody still needs to show up when we call 911, and private industry can't
>be counted on to build everything the nation needs built.
>
>Failing to invest in the future is a good way to ensure there won't be one.
>
So is squandering money on projects that are not (a) commercially viable, (b)
of vital interest to the nation, or (c) authorized by the Constitution.
On 2/19/2011 8:16 AM, Leon wrote:
> "DGDevin"<[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>>
>> "Lew Hodgett" wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>
>>> Hello "Ding Dongs", AKA: Recently elected governors of Ohio (Kasich),
>>> Wisconsin(Walker) and Florida(Scott).
>>>
>>> You don't want high speed rail research projects in your states, no
>>> problem.
>>>
>>> The money you are rejecting has been committed, so the Feds are simply
>>> redirecting your funds to us here in California.
>>
>>> We'll take it
>>
>> China has 19,000 miles of high speed rail lines, and by high speed I mean
>> faster than anything in Japan or France. More than 50 cities in China are
>> now linked by high speed rail. And guess whose money paid for it all?
>>
>> So America's infrastructure rots away because according to some folks we
>> can't afford to repair it or upgrade it, not if it means their taxes might
>> go up. Good thing they weren't around when Eisenhower was building the
>> interstate system, or we'd still be driving on two-lane gravel roads.
>>
>
> Its a good thing that when Eisenhower was president the governmant was not
> $11,000,000,000,000.00 in debt. Yup that is 12 zeros to the left of the
> decimel point.
>
>
Up about 40% from two years ago.
On 2/19/2011 8:16 AM, Leon wrote:
> "DGDevin"<[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>>
>> "Lew Hodgett" wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>
>>> Hello "Ding Dongs", AKA: Recently elected governors of Ohio (Kasich),
>>> Wisconsin(Walker) and Florida(Scott).
>>>
>>> You don't want high speed rail research projects in your states, no
>>> problem.
>>>
>>> The money you are rejecting has been committed, so the Feds are simply
>>> redirecting your funds to us here in California.
>>
>>> We'll take it
>>
>> China has 19,000 miles of high speed rail lines, and by high speed I mean
>> faster than anything in Japan or France. More than 50 cities in China are
>> now linked by high speed rail. And guess whose money paid for it all?
>>
>> So America's infrastructure rots away because according to some folks we
>> can't afford to repair it or upgrade it, not if it means their taxes might
>> go up. Good thing they weren't around when Eisenhower was building the
>> interstate system, or we'd still be driving on two-lane gravel roads.
>>
>
> Its a good thing that when Eisenhower was president the governmant was not
> $11,000,000,000,000.00 in debt. Yup that is 12 zeros to the left of the
> decimel point.
>
Actually I believe it is up to about 14,000,000,000,000,000 else why
would we have to be raising the debt ceiling which is about 14.3T.
I believe is was about 10,000,000,000,000,000 when pelosi pulled the
plug on the financial industries in Sept 28, 2008, as obama has been
adding about 1.5T every year since he took office.
In article <[email protected]>, "Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote:
>Since the end of WWII, the total cost of government, which includes
>everything from the local dog catcher to the president, has remained
>constant at about 35% plus or minus a point.
False. In actuality, it's risen from 20% at the end of WWII to over 40% today.
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/us_20th_century_chart.html
Lew Hodgett wrote:
> Hello "Ding Dongs", AKA: Recently elected governors of Ohio (Kasich),
> Wisconsin(Walker) and Florida(Scott).
>
> You don't want high speed rail research projects in your states, no
> problem.
>
> The money you are rejecting has been committed, so the Feds are simply
> redirecting your funds to us here in California.
>
> We'll take it
>
> Maybe there are some more governors who don't want high speed rail in
> their states.
>
> If so, mind telling them we like high speed rail here in California?
>
> We'll accept their money.
>
> Wonder how your decisions will play when you stand for reelection?
>
> Welcome To The World Of Big Time Politics "Ding Dongs".
>
> Lew
Oh thats great, no one in California will use it. So it will end up like
Metro Rail, Crime ridden and how to get out of the area for criminals Rail
and subsidized by the tax payer. Another money pit which will be millions or
billions over budget. Sounds Great!
--
"You can lead them to LINUX
but you can't make them THINK"
http://rentmyhusband.biz/
"Doug Miller" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> .. and in even greater part because a booming economy made cars both
> plentiful and affordable, and people decided they preferred the freedom
> and
> convenience of private transport to public transport.
Sure, and because General Motors and other companies made a point of putting
streetcars out of business, even if they had to buy the companies running
them (using front companies) and replace streetcars with buses. At one time
America had over 1,200 electric light rail operations. GM alone converted
900 of these to buses. Of course the American fascination with the
automobile was part of the process, but it got a big push from companies
that wanted to sell cars and buses.
>>And looking at how air travel is going these days, the idea of high speed
>>rail is starting to look pretty good.
> Except for the hundreds of gigabucks -- that we don't have -- required to
> build the infrastructure.
We can afford to build damn near anything the Pentagon says it needs, but we
can't afford to refurb the national rail system? We can give tax breaks to
the oil companies, but we can't afford high speed rail? We're still sending
foreign aid to *China* of all places, but we can't upgrade our own transport
systems? Something doesn't add up here.
In news:[email protected],
Josepi <[email protected]> spewed forth:
> Good that would many less firearms for the kids to shoot themselves
> with.
Ah yes, the children,when all else fails, do it for the children
"Han" wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> It may take only a second or to exchange a magazine, but a Glock is
> reported to be able to shoot more than one round per second, so there is
> a pause in the shooting when exchanging magazines. Moreover the
> apparently easy availability of these huge magazines to persons who
> should not even have a firearm of any kind is proof enough for me that it
> is irresponsible to have them available.
If we could keep firearms out of the hands of lunatics and criminals then
they could have all the high-capacity magazines they wanted and it wouldn't
matter. It's *guns* in the hands of violent people that are the problem,
solve that and the rest is easy.
"Just Wondering" wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>> What's wrong with paying people for honest work?
> Nothing. But there is something wrong about paying public service workers
> $80,000 a year for work that the private sector only pays $50,000 for.
Sure, and around the corner are public service employees getting paid the
same or getting paid less. The usual story is people go to work for the
govt. for job security and benefits and accept lower pay in return. Yes,
there are exceptions, but suggesting govt. workers routinely get paid more
than in the private sector for the same work is a dubious claim.
There is also the issue of comparing apples to oranges, i.e. the private
sector employs a lot of people making minimum wage or not much better which
skews the averages considerably. The private sector also has an upper crust
of management paid so well (like millions or tens of millions a year) that
the average wage is unrealistically distorted. So depending on which study
you choose to believe the "average" govt. worker makes 30% more than a
private industry worker, or 11% less--one can pick whichever study fits
one's political inclinations. There is also evidence that govt. workers
tend to be better educated and have more job experience which would normally
result in higher pay, would it not?
We should also ask if govt. should necessarily imitate private industry.
Corporations improve their profits by moving jobs to China or other low-wage
nations--should govt. do the same? Should we get our street signs made by
kids in a sweat shop in Bangladesh to save the taxpayer some bucks?
IMO it isn't the pay of public sector workers that is sinking local and
state budgets across the country, it's the benefits, especially health
coverage and retirement. Of course the same thing can happen in private
industry, look at the auto industry which agreed to generous benefits
packages when times were good.
This article is interesting. Coming from a source often described as
libertarian it's notable that it does not accept unquestioned the view that
govt. workers are routinely overpaid.
http://reason.org/news/show/public-sector-private-sector-salary
"HeyBub" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> And just why are they "entitled" to a fair hearing?
If an employer agrees to a contract in which employees can only be dismissed
with cause, by what legal mechanism would you propose to ignore that?
Should people or organizations you sign contracts with be able to violate
those agreements at will?
IMO it should be easier and faster to get rid of teachers who just aren't
suitable for the job. But a school administrator should not be able to pay
off a grudge by firing a teacher for no good reason. This is a public
institution, not a 19th century sweatshop, we should at least strive for
fairness.
> My state is an "employment at will" state which means a private employer
> may dismiss any employee for any (or no) reason.
And this applies to public schools exactly how?
> In the case of teachers, if they can quit without a "fair hearing" why
> should the school district not be entitled to the same discretion?
Let me get this straight, you figure an employee should need the employer's
permission to quit?
>> Or do you think teachers who discipline disruptive
>> students should just be fired if the parents file a complaint?
> That's a tough call.
> On the one hand, "It's my school and if I want to whip a student, it's my
> right to do so!"
Nobody said anything about whipping, try to keep both feet on this planet.
> On the other hand, parents generally have no choice as to which school
> they can send their kids - the government school is the only one
> available. Further, the law mandates school attendance.
So let's apply Texas logic: i.e. if you don't like labor law in Texas, move
to another state where workers have rights. Or in this case, if you don't
like the way the local public school is run, move someplace else. Seems
fair.
On 3/2/2011 7:00 PM, [email protected] wrote:
> On Wed, 2 Mar 2011 17:57:35 -0800, "DGDevin"<[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> "Just Wondering" wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>
>>
>>> (a) Money gets collected.
>>> (b) Money is put into general fund.
>>> (c) Money from general fund is sent to state education programs.
>>> (d) State education programs put money in teachers' pockets.
>>> (e) Teachers pay dues to their labor unions.
>>
>> Okay, then by that logic since the same fund pays the salaries of
>> politicians the money could end up in the hands of strip club owners and
>> hookers.
>
> What's wrong with paying people for honest work?
Nothing. But there is something wrong about paying public service
workers $80,000 a year for work that the private sector only pays
$50,000 for.
On 3/2/2011 7:00 PM, [email protected] wrote:
> On Wed, 2 Mar 2011 17:57:35 -0800, "DGDevin"<[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> "Just Wondering" wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>
>>
>>> (a) Money gets collected.
>>> (b) Money is put into general fund.
>>> (c) Money from general fund is sent to state education programs.
>>> (d) State education programs put money in teachers' pockets.
>>> (e) Teachers pay dues to their labor unions.
>>
>> Okay, then by that logic since the same fund pays the salaries of
>> politicians the money could end up in the hands of strip club owners and
>> hookers.
>
> What's wrong with paying people for honest work?
Nothing. But there is something wrong about paying public service
workers $80,000 a year for work that the private sector only pays
$50,000 for.
On 3/3/2011 3:30 PM, Larry W wrote:
> In article<[email protected]>,
> Just Wondering<[email protected]> wrote:
> <...snipped...>
>> Nothing. But there is something wrong about paying public service
>> workers $80,000 a year for work that the private sector only pays
>> $50,000 for.
>>
>
> I can cite many examples that go the opposite way. Would you say that there
> is something wrong in those cases also?
>
>
It depends on the particular facts. The officers of private
corporations owe a duty to their shareholders. If the shareholders are
good with the job that management is doing, I don't have standing to
complain. But public sector jobs are funded by taxes. I don't think it
is right for elected officials to tell us taxpayers that we have to give
up more of our wages (in the form of taxes) to fund unnecessary
expenses. If government could get a job done for $50,000, I think it is
irresponsible for government to pay $80,000 for that job.
Somebody wrote:
>> What's wrong with paying people for honest work?
---------------------------
"Just Wondering" wrote:
> Nothing. But there is something wrong about paying public service
> workers $80,000 a year for work that the private sector only pays
> $50,000 for.
--------------------------------
The only thing wrong was not hiring better negotiators.
Lew
On 03/04/2011 12:05 PM, DGDevin wrote:
>
>
> "Just Wondering" wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>
>> It depends on the particular facts. The officers of private
>> corporations owe a duty to their shareholders. If the shareholders are
>> good with the job that management is doing, I don't have standing to
>> complain. But public sector jobs are funded by taxes. I don't think it
>> is right for elected officials to tell us taxpayers that we have to
>> give up more of our wages (in the form of taxes) to fund unnecessary
>> expenses. If government could get a job done for $50,000, I think it
>> is irresponsible for government to pay $80,000 for that job.
>
> Why stop at $50k? My company will submit the lowest bid because we only
> pay our employees an average of $30,000 a year. Of course we offer no
> benefits so when those folks get sick they end up in the ER and both
> your taxes and your health insurance premiums pay for that. But my
> company sure does well, the top executives get seven-figure bonuses
> every year. What's really funny is that thanks to our tax lawyers and
> lobbyists the execs pay lower tax rates than our employees, I always get
> a laugh out of that.
How did you get access to their tax returns?
On 03/04/2011 12:18 PM, DGDevin wrote:
>
>
> "HeyBub" wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>> The "negotiation" is pretty-much one-sided. It's like my girlfriend
>> said: "Not fair! It's you and me against me!"
>
> Geez, she's been promoted from, "my current squeeze"? What a hopeless
> romantic you are.
>
>> If an impasse is reached, and the teachers strike, the school district
>> can't replace them, fire them, hire goons to beat them up, or move the
>> workplace to another state.
>
> Yeah, they have no choice but to go to court and get an order forcing
> the union members back to work and the union into binding arbitration
> and if the union refuses it is decertified and the govt. gets to hire
> whoever it wants. You know, like those air traffic controllers who voted
> for Carter after Reagan fired them.
Did they do a write in for Carter? He had the office before Reagen.
DGDevin wrote:
>
> Or because there are complaints against them which might or might not
> mean they are incompetent to teach and they are benched while their
> case crawls through the system. The ones who are incompetent should
> be dismissed IMO, the unions need to be backed off of their position
> on that issue one way or another. But even union members are
> entitled to a fair hearing to determine if they really did something
> wrong or just pissed off some kids and their parents say by enforcing
> discipline.
And just why are they "entitled" to a fair hearing? My state is an
"employment at will" state which means a private employer may dismiss any
employee for any (or no) reason. In the case of teachers, if they can quit
without a "fair hearing" why should the school district not be entitled to
the same discretion?
> Or do you think teachers who discipline disruptive
> students should just be fired if the parents file a complaint?
That's a tough call.
On the one hand, "It's my school and if I want to whip a student, it's my
right to do so!"
On the other hand, parents generally have no choice as to which school they
can send their kids - the government school is the only one available.
Further, the law mandates school attendance.
"Doug Winterburn" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>> Yeah, they have no choice but to go to court and get an order forcing
>> the union members back to work and the union into binding arbitration
>> and if the union refuses it is decertified and the govt. gets to hire
>> whoever it wants. You know, like those air traffic controllers who voted
>> for Carter after Reagan fired them.
> Did they do a write in for Carter? He had the office before Reagen.
Yeah, I know, it was Heybub who got the order of Presidents confused in
another thread and I've been snotty enough to tease him about it a couple of
times since.
Lew Hodgett wrote:
> Somebody wrote:
>
>>> What's wrong with paying people for honest work?
> ---------------------------
> "Just Wondering" wrote:
>
>> Nothing. But there is something wrong about paying public service
>> workers $80,000 a year for work that the private sector only pays
>> $50,000 for.
> --------------------------------
> The only thing wrong was not hiring better negotiators.
>
The "negotiation" is pretty-much one-sided. It's like my girlfriend said:
"Not fair! It's you and me against me!"
If an impasse is reached, and the teachers strike, the school district can't
replace them, fire them, hire goons to beat them up, or move the workplace
to another state.
One of the "work rules" that is part of most (all?) teacher union contracts
is that layoffs, where necessary, will be in order of seniority, not
competence. New York City has 8,000 teachers that report to work each day to
sit in a "rubber room" because they are incompetent to teach. These eight
thousand have sufficient senority to essentially NEVER get fired.
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
>
> DGDevin wrote:
> >
> > Or because there are complaints against them which might or might not
> > mean they are incompetent to teach and they are benched while their
> > case crawls through the system. The ones who are incompetent should
> > be dismissed IMO, the unions need to be backed off of their position
> > on that issue one way or another. But even union members are
> > entitled to a fair hearing to determine if they really did something
> > wrong or just pissed off some kids and their parents say by enforcing
> > discipline.
>
> And just why are they "entitled" to a fair hearing? My state is an
> "employment at will" state which means a private employer may dismiss any
> employee for any (or no) reason. In the case of teachers, if they can quit
> without a "fair hearing" why should the school district not be entitled to
> the same discretion?
While an employer may dismiss any employee for any reason by _law_ that
does not mean that he can dismiss a union employee "for any reason" by
_contract_. Understand, there are four parties in a union firing--the
employee, the employer, the union, and the state. And the union can
ruin an employer's day just as thoroughly as the state can, in some
cases more so.
> > Or do you think teachers who discipline disruptive
> > students should just be fired if the parents file a complaint?
>
> That's a tough call.
>
> On the one hand, "It's my school and if I want to whip a student, it's my
> right to do so!"
>
> On the other hand, parents generally have no choice as to which school they
> can send their kids - the government school is the only one available.
> Further, the law mandates school attendance.
The call is really "did the teacher act according to the disciplinary
rules that he or she has been provided by her employer". If so and if
the rules do not require an unlawful act or one that might constitutie
"cruel and unusual punishment", then the teacher shouldn't be fired for
following the rules no matter how much the parent objects.
"It's my school and I can do what I want to" would apply only to a
private school that is actually owned by the teacher, in which case
firing is not an option--you can't make someone fire themselves as far
as I know, however litigation or criminal charges might be depending on
the specific act.
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
>
> J. Clarke wrote:
> >>
> >> On the one hand, "It's my school and if I want to whip a student,
> >> it's my right to do so!"
> >>
> >> On the other hand, parents generally have no choice as to which
> >> school they can send their kids - the government school is the only
> >> one available. Further, the law mandates school attendance.
> >
> > The call is really "did the teacher act according to the disciplinary
> > rules that he or she has been provided by her employer". If so and if
> > the rules do not require an unlawful act or one that might constitutie
> > "cruel and unusual punishment", then the teacher shouldn't be fired
> > for following the rules no matter how much the parent objects.
> >
>
> The discipline may very well be "cruel" and be legal.
Please show where in the post to which you were responding any statement
to the contrary.
> The Constitution says
> "cruel AND unusual", not "cruel OR unusual." The courts have held that where
> a particular punishment is codified into law or rule, such as public
> whipping in Maryland, the punishment is not "unusual" and, hence, legal.
Another one of your ancient rulings? I can't find anything that
suggests that such a case has ever been before the Supreme Court.
Further Justice Blackmun for one does not make your fine distinction
that the punshment must be both cruel and unusual. The law does not
apply Boolean algebra.
And the Federal courts _have_ ruled that a convicted felon cannot be
whipped however it was an eighth circuit ruling which was not appealed.
There appears to be a multipart test--codification is one part but it is
not the whole.
"Doug Winterburn" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> How did you get access to their tax returns?
Well of course the scenario was an illustration, not meant to be taken quite
that seriously. But surely it wouldn't be hard to figure out with fair
accuracy how much employees are paying in taxes based on their salaries.
J. Clarke wrote:
>>
>> On the one hand, "It's my school and if I want to whip a student,
>> it's my right to do so!"
>>
>> On the other hand, parents generally have no choice as to which
>> school they can send their kids - the government school is the only
>> one available. Further, the law mandates school attendance.
>
> The call is really "did the teacher act according to the disciplinary
> rules that he or she has been provided by her employer". If so and if
> the rules do not require an unlawful act or one that might constitutie
> "cruel and unusual punishment", then the teacher shouldn't be fired
> for following the rules no matter how much the parent objects.
>
The discipline may very well be "cruel" and be legal. The Constitution says
"cruel AND unusual", not "cruel OR unusual." The courts have held that where
a particular punishment is codified into law or rule, such as public
whipping in Maryland, the punishment is not "unusual" and, hence, legal.
"HeyBub" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> The "negotiation" is pretty-much one-sided. It's like my girlfriend said:
> "Not fair! It's you and me against me!"
Geez, she's been promoted from, "my current squeeze"? What a hopeless
romantic you are.
> If an impasse is reached, and the teachers strike, the school district
> can't replace them, fire them, hire goons to beat them up, or move the
> workplace to another state.
Yeah, they have no choice but to go to court and get an order forcing the
union members back to work and the union into binding arbitration and if the
union refuses it is decertified and the govt. gets to hire whoever it wants.
You know, like those air traffic controllers who voted for Carter after
Reagan fired them.
> One of the "work rules" that is part of most (all?) teacher union
> contracts is that layoffs, where necessary, will be in order of seniority,
> not competence. New York City has 8,000 teachers that report to work each
> day to sit in a "rubber room" because they are incompetent to teach. These
> eight thousand have sufficient senority to essentially NEVER get fired.
Or because there are complaints against them which might or might not mean
they are incompetent to teach and they are benched while their case crawls
through the system. The ones who are incompetent should be dismissed IMO,
the unions need to be backed off of their position on that issue one way or
another. But even union members are entitled to a fair hearing to determine
if they really did something wrong or just pissed off some kids and their
parents say by enforcing discipline. Or do you think teachers who
discipline disruptive students should just be fired if the parents file a
complaint?
On Wed, 2 Mar 2011 17:57:35 -0800, "DGDevin" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>"Just Wondering" wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>
>
>> (a) Money gets collected.
>> (b) Money is put into general fund.
>> (c) Money from general fund is sent to state education programs.
>> (d) State education programs put money in teachers' pockets.
>> (e) Teachers pay dues to their labor unions.
>
>Okay, then by that logic since the same fund pays the salaries of
>politicians the money could end up in the hands of strip club owners and
>hookers.
What's wrong with paying people for honest work?
On Thu, 03 Mar 2011 22:19:53 -0800, Larry Jaques
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On Thu, 03 Mar 2011 21:00:07 -0600, Markem <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 03 Mar 2011 15:01:34 -0800, Larry Jaques
>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 3 Mar 2011 22:30:24 +0000 (UTC),
>>>[email protected] (Larry W) wrote:
>>>
>>>>In article <[email protected]>,
>>>>Just Wondering <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>><...snipped...>
>>>>>Nothing. But there is something wrong about paying public service
>>>>>workers $80,000 a year for work that the private sector only pays
>>>>>$50,000 for.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>I can cite many examples that go the opposite way. Would you say that there
>>>>is something wrong in those cases also?
>>>
>>>Not necessarily. Where's your patriotism, man? Public service isn't
>>>supposed to be a way to get rich. It's a way to serve your country,
>>>damnit.
>>
>>Think about the fact that public employee unions contribute heavily to
>>democratic candidates, now if they are fighting in the courts less
>>money is available to spend in the political arena.
>>
>>Now why would a republican want to get rid of the unions?
>
>BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZT! Oops, you jumped from patriotism to bile without
>answering the question, Mark. Which union are you in? <tsk, tsk, tsk>
>
>To answer your question, see the paragraph above beginning with "Not
>necessarily."
No bile at all just an observation, as far patriotism I think four
years being willing to be part of the butchers bill fits.
No union affiliation here, my father was in the Pattern Makers League
though.
Look beyond the BS.
Not a registered for any politcal party either.
Mark
In article <[email protected]>,
Just Wondering <[email protected]> wrote:
<...snipped...>
>Nothing. But there is something wrong about paying public service
>workers $80,000 a year for work that the private sector only pays
>$50,000 for.
>
I can cite many examples that go the opposite way. Would you say that there
is something wrong in those cases also?
--
The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation
with the average voter. (Winston Churchill)
Larry Wasserman - Baltimore Maryland - lwasserm(a)sdf. lonestar. org
On Thu, 03 Mar 2011 15:01:34 -0800, Larry Jaques
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On Thu, 3 Mar 2011 22:30:24 +0000 (UTC),
>[email protected] (Larry W) wrote:
>
>>In article <[email protected]>,
>>Just Wondering <[email protected]> wrote:
>><...snipped...>
>>>Nothing. But there is something wrong about paying public service
>>>workers $80,000 a year for work that the private sector only pays
>>>$50,000 for.
>>>
>>
>>I can cite many examples that go the opposite way. Would you say that there
>>is something wrong in those cases also?
>
>Not necessarily. Where's your patriotism, man? Public service isn't
>supposed to be a way to get rich. It's a way to serve your country,
>damnit.
Think about the fact that public employee unions contribute heavily to
democratic candidates, now if they are fighting in the courts less
money is available to spend in the political arena.
Now why would a republican want to get rid of the unions?
Mark
On Thu, 3 Mar 2011 22:30:24 +0000 (UTC),
[email protected] (Larry W) wrote:
>In article <[email protected]>,
>Just Wondering <[email protected]> wrote:
><...snipped...>
>>Nothing. But there is something wrong about paying public service
>>workers $80,000 a year for work that the private sector only pays
>>$50,000 for.
>>
>
>I can cite many examples that go the opposite way. Would you say that there
>is something wrong in those cases also?
Not necessarily. Where's your patriotism, man? Public service isn't
supposed to be a way to get rich. It's a way to serve your country,
damnit.
--
The art of life lies in a constant readjustment to our surroundings.
-- Okakura Kakuzo
On Thu, 03 Mar 2011 21:00:07 -0600, Markem <[email protected]>
wrote:
>On Thu, 03 Mar 2011 15:01:34 -0800, Larry Jaques
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 3 Mar 2011 22:30:24 +0000 (UTC),
>>[email protected] (Larry W) wrote:
>>
>>>In article <[email protected]>,
>>>Just Wondering <[email protected]> wrote:
>>><...snipped...>
>>>>Nothing. But there is something wrong about paying public service
>>>>workers $80,000 a year for work that the private sector only pays
>>>>$50,000 for.
>>>>
>>>
>>>I can cite many examples that go the opposite way. Would you say that there
>>>is something wrong in those cases also?
>>
>>Not necessarily. Where's your patriotism, man? Public service isn't
>>supposed to be a way to get rich. It's a way to serve your country,
>>damnit.
>
>Think about the fact that public employee unions contribute heavily to
>democratic candidates, now if they are fighting in the courts less
>money is available to spend in the political arena.
>
>Now why would a republican want to get rid of the unions?
BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZT! Oops, you jumped from patriotism to bile without
answering the question, Mark. Which union are you in? <tsk, tsk, tsk>
To answer your question, see the paragraph above beginning with "Not
necessarily."
--
The art of life lies in a constant readjustment to our surroundings.
-- Okakura Kakuzo
"Just Wondering" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> It depends on the particular facts. The officers of private corporations
> owe a duty to their shareholders. If the shareholders are good with the
> job that management is doing, I don't have standing to complain. But
> public sector jobs are funded by taxes. I don't think it is right for
> elected officials to tell us taxpayers that we have to give up more of our
> wages (in the form of taxes) to fund unnecessary expenses. If government
> could get a job done for $50,000, I think it is irresponsible for
> government to pay $80,000 for that job.
Why stop at $50k? My company will submit the lowest bid because we only pay
our employees an average of $30,000 a year. Of course we offer no benefits
so when those folks get sick they end up in the ER and both your taxes and
your health insurance premiums pay for that. But my company sure does well,
the top executives get seven-figure bonuses every year. What's really funny
is that thanks to our tax lawyers and lobbyists the execs pay lower tax
rates than our employees, I always get a laugh out of that.
Once we have the USA under control by removing all their weapons then we can
say what we really mean on Usenet. without being called up in the middle of
the night and told about how to clean a rifle.
"Just Wondering" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
Once it's done (it would require, not just a repeal of the Second
Amendment, but also a hew constitutional amendment explicitly denying
the right to bear arms), you can go ahead and remove the eliminate the
right to free speech too. That'll let you get Usenet under control.
That'll show those ignorant hillbillys. And with the right to bear arms
gone, it'll be all the easier to eliminate all the other rights the U.S.
Constitution recognizes in those durn hillbillys.
In news:[email protected],
Han <[email protected]> spewed forth:
> "ChairMan" <[email protected]> wrote in news:XF_ap.2$6A6.0
> @unlimited.newshosting.com:
>
>> In news:[email protected],
>> Josepi <[email protected]> spewed forth:
>>> Real easy!
>>>
>>> Just remove ALL the guns from society at large.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> No, the criminals will still have them, because they are "criminals"
>
> please take a course in logic. Once all guns are removed, there are
> no more guns. I'm not saying it would be easy, but ...
Reality trumps logic.
Maybe in a land of unicorns and fairies, this would be possible, but in a
land with a Constitution, it ain't going to happen
Lew Hodgett wrote:
> "Mike Marlow" wrote:
>
>> But Lew - you state above that a fee is both a solution and a
>> revenue generator. I'll agree that it's a revenue generator, but
>> then why single out gun ownership?
> ----------------------------
> Why not since they create excessive law enforcement expenses
> associated with
> crimes committed with firearms by criminals simply by being part of an
> unidentified
> gene pool of firearms owners.
Well, then there should be a much larger fee for cell phones, alcohol, and a
host of other things that weigh far more heavily on the cost of law
enforcement. Law enforcement is funded because it is needed. Once funded,
it is just part of the job to deal with the things of that job. Your
suggestion seeks to take a small aspect of that job - which does not add as
much load as many other things, and attach a fee to the mere performance of
that job. A job that is already funded to perform that task.
> ---------------------------------
>> Let's tax everything that we all chose to own.
> --------------------------------
> One way or another most everything is already getting taxed already.
>
Sigh... Unfortunately, I can't argue with that statement...
> For funzies, ask yourself this question.
>
> If you had to pay a $25 annual renewal permit for every firearm you
> presently own, how long would it be before you reduced the number of
> firearms you possess?
See - that is the aspect of your idea that is just wrong. What is wrong
with me owning the firearms that I own? Your suggestion is that since you
don't like them, it is all right to use any pressure or force to force me to
do as you wish. See anything wrong with that approach?
> ----------------------------
>> As for the solution aspect of your statement - how does that solve
>> anything?
> -------------------------------
> It establishes a revenue stream to establish a data base of law
> abiding folks as well as provide firearms training similar to
> driver's Ed.
Which has served absolutely no useful purpose since similar well intended
initiatives were instituted. The problem in your approach is that it's not
the law abiding people that cause the problems. And the lawless, well...
>
> Of course the criminal element won't comply.
>
> Matter of fact the idea is they won't comply which gives law
> enforcement another tool to get the criminals and
> THEIR FIREARMS OFF THE STREET.
No - in fact it does not. That's the problem with ideas that are not
thought through beyond how good they feel. Law enforcement can't get those
very same people and illegal firearms off the street now, but you suggest
that further burdening law abiding citizens will add a tool to their tool
kit? Not even approaching logic.
>
> Law enforcement stops somebody who is carrying a non licensed firearm,
> they confiscate the weapon, place person in pokey, fine $5K,
> and hear the judge impose a visit to the Graybar hotel for a year.
>
You are not interested in illegal guns, crime or criminals Lew. You're just
interested in getting guns out of everybody's hands.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
Geez I wish I'd put down a cash bet on this. One cast, three bites, and it
is exactly the three whiners I would have predicted too--Josepi, Upscale and
Robotboy--1, 2, 3 like they were standing in line waiting. Of course
they're suitable only for use as bait, nobody would cook these
bottom-dwellers. Too easy.
On Mar 7, 2:31=A0pm, "DGDevin" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Robatoy" =A0wrote in message
>
> news:40a5c3ae-4a2c-4e71-b73d-d9546eb52bcf@u14g2000vbg.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> You still carry grudges against kids who picked on you in grade school=
,
> >> don't you. =A0Poor little fella, pixels on a screen and he still can't=
get
> >> over it.
> > Whatever. You just keep putting your spin on it to suit yourself,
> > mmmk?
>
> LOL, no spin required. =A0I said some dumbass joke you told wasn't funny,=
and
> you've been hissing and spitting at me ever since. =A0What's really funny=
is
> that I don't have to lift a finger, your own actions show you're carrying=
a
> grudge--how many times is it now you've jumped into a thread just to bitc=
h
> at me?
>
> > Even if I don't participate in a thread, you're still getting into all
> > kinds of confrontations with other people here.
>
> This is Usenet, sunshine, arguments and flaming have sustained the system
> for a couple of decades. =A0Oh, another hint, it isn't about you--sorry a=
bout
> that.
>
> > I don't carry grudges because assholes just aren't worth the effort.
>
> Riiiiight, I'll try to remember that every time you pop up in a thread to
> tell me what an asshole I am. =A0At some level even you should be able to
> understand that claiming you don't care and then following someone around=
to
> whine and snivel at him are mutually exclusive positions.
>
> > When I log off, I forget about you and your ilk.
> > I pop up to say hello to guys like you... just to piss you off.. and
> > pissed off you are... I can tell when you're losing it....
>
> Following the script line by line. =A0Clowns like you invariably claim th=
ey
> can cause other posters to pound their fist on the desk in anger. =A0That
> delusion seems to be important to you guys for some reason.
>
> > Have a nice day. And if you start behaving around here, I will stop
> > getting you all into a lather. *S*
>
> Knock yourself out sonny, contrary to your self-image you're about as
> threatening as a one-eyed, three-legged hamster, so your childish vendett=
a
> is no problem at all. =A0Flame me or killfile me, all the same to me,
> tinkerbell. =A0But like I said, it's kind of amusing watching you carryin=
g on
> while claiming not to be. =A0My goodness, what an easily bruised ego you =
have.
No vendetta. I just like jerking your chain. Why? Because you insist
it doesn't bother you and I, like most here, know it does.
And I only jump in when it becomes obvious you are trying to sustain
your bullshit with somebody else.... screaming for some kind of
acknowledgement. Big long dissertations, lofty brags about how many
books you have... I have found your soft underbelly, and it pisses you
off... and I chuckle every time you reply. I will let you stew in your
illusions of grandeur... until I feel like jerking your chain some
more.
On Mar 6, 8:19=A0pm, "DGDevin" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Robatoy" =A0wrote in message
>
> news:d5a5daf6-8a18-4428-ba2a-ce0f827cf11b@k15g2000prk.googlegroups.com...
>
> > I think you and Clarke should move in together. You two are so...
>
> [snip]
>
> You still carry grudges against kids who picked on you in grade school,
> don't you. =A0Poor little fella, pixels on a screen and he still can't ge=
t
> over it.
Whatever. You just keep putting your spin on it to suit yourself,
mmmk?
Even if I don't participate in a thread, you're still getting into all
kinds of confrontations with other people here.
Just like Clarke. Always looking for trouble.
You see Devvy, I don't give a fuck who you are, I just don't care for
assholes and you're just one of them. With a weak underbelly.
I don't carry grudges because assholes just aren't worth the effort.
When I log off, I forget about you and your ilk.
I pop up to say hello to guys like you... just to piss you off.. and
pissed off you are... I can tell when you're losing it....
Have a nice day. And if you start behaving around here, I will stop
getting you all into a lather. *S*
Mmmmk?
Markem wrote:
> On Fri, 4 Mar 2011 18:53:13 -0800 (PST), Robatoy
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> The negative influence of violence on TV... even in cartoons. And
>> puhleeze don't tell me that shit kids watch on TV doesn't influence
>> them....that would collapse the advertisers who sell Count Obesula
>> Cerial!
>
> My nephew wanted his Aunt B to run him over with the car after a
> little league game, after all you just get blown back up with a tire
> pump. He was eight.
>
Your nephew needs better parenting. Not social controls.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
In article <[email protected]>, markem618
@hotmail.com says...
>
> On Sat, 5 Mar 2011 13:33:07 -0800, "DGDevin" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >"Markem" wrote in message
> >news:[email protected]...
> >
> >
> >> I am not
> >> going to define this anymore it is really just a fact.
> >
> >You seem to have trouble telling the difference between something that is
> >fact and something that is just your opinion--they are not interchangeable.
> >However many millions of people have the same problem.
> >
> >You also haven't addressed the issue of why someone who in your opinion
> >doesn't "need" to own a gun is therefore "nuts".
> >
> >Of course you have the right to express whatever opinion you please, but in
> >future it might be worth thinking it through a bit before posting.
>
> So everyone who owns a gun legally should?
If they should not what do you propose to do about it?
> If your answer is yes you are blinded by having to be right.
And you are blinded by having no real point to make.
But who won the argument?
People are waiting to see which method is the right one.
------------------------------
"Upscale" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
Is that anything like your juvenile need to have the last word at any cost?
Your life revolves around how may trolling replies you can place. Obviously,
you're incapable of making a woodworking contribution, so you make a fool of
yourself instead.
"DGDevin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> while claiming not to be. My goodness, what an easily bruised ego you
> have.
"Markem" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> So everyone who owns a gun legally should?
Is that what I wrote? No? Then why are you responding to a point I did not
make?
On Mon, 7 Mar 2011 16:27:59 -0800 (PST), Robatoy
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On Mar 7, 4:31Â pm, "DGDevin" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Geez I wish I'd put down a cash bet on this. Â One cast, three bites, and it
>> is exactly the three whiners I would have predicted too--Josepi, Upscale and
>> Robotboy--1, 2, 3 like they were standing in line waiting. Â Of course
>> they're suitable only for use as bait, nobody would cook these
>> bottom-dwellers. Â Too easy.
>
>Nice try, but weak.
>We all know better than to give you credit for being the better troll.
>You've lost this one, Devvy. Victory is mine.
When you continue to fall prey to trolls, every post is a win for
them, you fidiot. <sigh>
--
Life is full of obstacle illusions.
-- Grant Frazier
This is the guy that loaded in Doug Miller's troll filter but now he only
sees Doug's posts.
"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
When you continue to fall prey to trolls, every post is a win for
them, you fidiot. <sigh>
--
Some philosophical statement that makes the nastiness seem right.
On Mar 7, 7:47=A0pm, Larry Jaques <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mon, 7 Mar 2011 16:27:59 -0800 (PST), Robatoy
>
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >On Mar 7, 4:31=A0pm, "DGDevin" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> Geez I wish I'd put down a cash bet on this. =A0One cast, three bites,=
and it
> >> is exactly the three whiners I would have predicted too--Josepi, Upsca=
le and
> >> Robotboy--1, 2, 3 like they were standing in line waiting. =A0Of cours=
e
> >> they're suitable only for use as bait, nobody would cook these
> >> bottom-dwellers. =A0Too easy.
>
> >Nice try, but weak.
> >We all know better than to give you credit for being the better troll.
> >You've lost this one, Devvy. Victory is mine.
>
> When you continue to fall prey to trolls, every post is a win for
> them, you fidiot. =A0<sigh>
>
> --
> Life is full of obstacle illusions.
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 -- Grant Frazier
THAT is why I won. Devvy is putty in my hands...a bit smelly, but
"Robatoy" wrote in message
news:40a5c3ae-4a2c-4e71-b73d-d9546eb52bcf@u14g2000vbg.googlegroups.com...
>> You still carry grudges against kids who picked on you in grade school,
>> don't you. Poor little fella, pixels on a screen and he still can't get
>> over it.
> Whatever. You just keep putting your spin on it to suit yourself,
> mmmk?
LOL, no spin required. I said some dumbass joke you told wasn't funny, and
you've been hissing and spitting at me ever since. What's really funny is
that I don't have to lift a finger, your own actions show you're carrying a
grudge--how many times is it now you've jumped into a thread just to bitch
at me?
> Even if I don't participate in a thread, you're still getting into all
> kinds of confrontations with other people here.
This is Usenet, sunshine, arguments and flaming have sustained the system
for a couple of decades. Oh, another hint, it isn't about you--sorry about
that.
> I don't carry grudges because assholes just aren't worth the effort.
Riiiiight, I'll try to remember that every time you pop up in a thread to
tell me what an asshole I am. At some level even you should be able to
understand that claiming you don't care and then following someone around to
whine and snivel at him are mutually exclusive positions.
> When I log off, I forget about you and your ilk.
> I pop up to say hello to guys like you... just to piss you off.. and
> pissed off you are... I can tell when you're losing it....
Following the script line by line. Clowns like you invariably claim they
can cause other posters to pound their fist on the desk in anger. That
delusion seems to be important to you guys for some reason.
> Have a nice day. And if you start behaving around here, I will stop
> getting you all into a lather. *S*
Knock yourself out sonny, contrary to your self-image you're about as
threatening as a one-eyed, three-legged hamster, so your childish vendetta
is no problem at all. Flame me or killfile me, all the same to me,
tinkerbell. But like I said, it's kind of amusing watching you carrying on
while claiming not to be. My goodness, what an easily bruised ego you have.
On Mar 6, 3:37=A0pm, "DGDevin" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Is that what I wrote? =A0No?
I think you and Clarke should move in together. You two are so...
alike?
Unfortunately, it would not be long before the two of you would be
slapping each other with your undies...then involuntary admission to
the Funny Farm? Mmm?
Funny how you're both always getting tangled up in bullshit minutiae,
clambering for even the slightest hope for that day that somebody
tells you you might be right about something.
How insecure is that?
On Sat, 5 Mar 2011 13:33:07 -0800, "DGDevin" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>
>
>"Markem" wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>
>
>> I am not
>> going to define this anymore it is really just a fact.
>
>You seem to have trouble telling the difference between something that is
>fact and something that is just your opinion--they are not interchangeable.
>However many millions of people have the same problem.
>
>You also haven't addressed the issue of why someone who in your opinion
>doesn't "need" to own a gun is therefore "nuts".
>
>Of course you have the right to express whatever opinion you please, but in
>future it might be worth thinking it through a bit before posting.
So everyone who owns a gun legally should?
If your answer is yes you are blinded by having to be right.
Mark
On Mar 7, 4:31=A0pm, "DGDevin" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Geez I wish I'd put down a cash bet on this. =A0One cast, three bites, an=
d it
> is exactly the three whiners I would have predicted too--Josepi, Upscale =
and
> Robotboy--1, 2, 3 like they were standing in line waiting. =A0Of course
> they're suitable only for use as bait, nobody would cook these
> bottom-dwellers. =A0Too easy.
Nice try, but weak.
We all know better than to give you credit for being the better troll.
You've lost this one, Devvy. Victory is mine.
"DGDevin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> while claiming not to be. My goodness, what an easily bruised ego you
> have.
Is that anything like your juvenile need to have the last word at any cost?
Your life revolves around how may trolling replies you can place. Obviously,
you're incapable of making a woodworking contribution, so you make a fool of
yourself instead.
"Robatoy" wrote in message
news:d5a5daf6-8a18-4428-ba2a-ce0f827cf11b@k15g2000prk.googlegroups.com...
> I think you and Clarke should move in together. You two are so...
[snip]
You still carry grudges against kids who picked on you in grade school,
don't you. Poor little fella, pixels on a screen and he still can't get
over it.
On Fri, 4 Mar 2011 18:53:13 -0800 (PST), Robatoy
<[email protected]> wrote:
>The negative influence of violence on TV... even in cartoons. And
>puhleeze don't tell me that shit kids watch on TV doesn't influence
>them....that would collapse the advertisers who sell Count Obesula
>Cerial!
My nephew wanted his Aunt B to run him over with the car after a
little league game, after all you just get blown back up with a tire
pump. He was eight.
Mark
Don't lump me in with those... those....those...
Well anyway, time for your internal heat be reabsorbed. Wood workers are hot
blooded. I can see that...LOL
Welcome back
Now for some religious discussions?
LOL
---------------------------
"DGDevin" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
Geez I wish I'd put down a cash bet on this. One cast, three bites, and it
is exactly the three whiners I would have predicted too--Josepi, Upscale and
Robotboy--1, 2, 3 like they were standing in line waiting. Of course
they're suitable only for use as bait, nobody would cook these
bottom-dwellers. Too easy.
On Feb 26, 8:44=A0pm, "DGDevin" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Lew Hodgett" =A0wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
>
> "Robatoy" wrote:
> >> In Detroit, Uncle Ted =A0(Nugent) told people to put a gun on their la=
p
> >> as they drove through bad areas of the city.
> >> Perp says: "get out, gimme your car" and next thing he knows, he's
> >> clutching what once was his junk.
> >> The word got out quickly.
> >> Problem solved.
>
> ----------------------------
>
> > You want to define what's going on in Detroit as "Problem solved"?
> > Strange.
>
> Indeed. =A0Bumper sticker responses are so easy, and so useless. =A0We ha=
ve
> relations in Detroit, if they're going "downtown" they call around and ge=
t a
> few neighbors to go together, or they don't go at all. =A0Detroit is less
> violent than it once was, but it still tops the annual lists of American
> cities with the most violent crime. =A0"Problem solved"? =A0Good grief.
"problem" refers to "car jackings" not to all violent crime.... but
you might have overlooked that obvious connection when you were
overwhelmed with the prospect that you could straighten out the big
bad Robatoy.
*smirk*
Lew Hodgett wrote:
> "Lew Hodgett" wrote:
>
>>> A solution that also generates a revenue stream is obvious.
>>
>>> License all fire arms that get renewed annualy, much like hunting
>>> licenses.
>>
>>> License renewal could be as low as $25/yr/weapon; however, failure
>>> to renew would be a $5K fine and 6 months in jail.
>>
>>> Every body gets to keep their pacifiers and a few $ get generated
>>> to pay for weapons investigation related issues.
> -------------------------------
>
> "DGDevin" wrote:
>
>> Great plan, just have to get that pesky Constitution out of the way
>> first.
> ----------------------------
> Ah yes, more of the old Intellectual Bull Shit game.
>
> The constitution has absolutely nothing to do with it.
>
> Lew
But Lew - you state above that a fee is both a solution and a revenue
generator. I'll agree that it's a revenue generator, but then why single
out gun ownership? Let's tax everything that we all chose to own.
As for the solution aspect of your statement - how does that solve anything?
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> The thing is that anything you do with a gun, to a person such as
> Upscale, is some kind of symbolic killing. Even using it for a
> paperweight would be symbolic killing of papers to such people.
Really feeble troll. Is that the best you can do? The only thing symbolic
would be if you tripped and accidentally shot yourself in the foot during
your rush to post one of your assinine comments.
"HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> Sorry, but we'll never agree. With regard to self-protection, the fervent
> advocates are of two camps: Those who alarmed by the possibility of
> criminals more than guns and those who fear guns more than criminals.
I don't fear guns and never have. What I don't like is that it's too damned
easy for most anyone to get a gun. And, that's where my preference for
registration and licensing comes in. Buy as many guns as you want, just make
sure they're registered, licensed and safely stored.
What your camp fears is that the act of registration will somewhere and at
sometime, permit the authorities to find you and remove your guns. Tell me
that's not true.
"HeyBub" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
Upscale wrote:
>
>> We keep getting back to the same argument and I keep saying the same
>> thing without you acknowledging my view. A gun has one purpose only.
>> You can't realistically compare it to anything else. I know that many
>> Americans see a gun as just another simple possession. I do
>> understand that, but you have to see I don't. I accord it a different
>> perspective and I always will. And, that's where our opinions will
>> always clash. The only thing to do is agree to disagree. Can't offer
>> you anything else.
> And just what is that one, single, purpose? Investment? Historical
> artifact? Collecting? Psychological comfort?
The first firearm I ever owned was designed specifically for one
purpose--making little holes in paper targets with a high degree of
repeatability. Like a framing hammer, or a carving knife, or a baseball bat
it could have been used as a weapon, but that wasn't what it was designed or
made for. My dad owned a couple of firearms too, designed to kill ducks and
deer. Again, they could have been used as weapons against people, but that
wasn't what the companies that made them intended. And yet once again we
hear that all guns have only one purpose--killing people. Do you suppose
that the folks who beat that drum ever stop to think that the guy who owns a
deer rifle and a couple of shotguns is unlikely to be persuaded by a claim
he knows on its face is simply not true?
On 3/5/2011 6:38 AM, Mike Marlow wrote:
> Upscale wrote:
>
>> And "yes" even though I
>> never met them, it's a safe bet for me to call them mentally
>> deranged. Not enough? Would the names of two dozen serial killers do
>> it for you?
>
> Most serial killers don't use guns. We better start registering peckers
> then...
Would that also require a pole tax?
"Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> should not own a gun. You might have a good explanation for why you feel
> this way, but the problem is that you have not stated anything more
> substanative to articulate your point.
You want examples of people who shouldn't have owned or had access to guns?
Perhaps a list of the last dozen or so mentally deranged people who went on
a killing spree would suffice? And "yes" even though I never met them, it's
a safe bet for me to call them mentally deranged. Not enough? Would the
names of two dozen serial killers do it for you? I know, how about a list of
parents who didn't secure their weapons properly and their children found a
firearm and accidently shot themselves. Occurrences that might have been
prevented if proper training and licensing had been enabled. Any and all
information on examples ofnthe above can be found online.
What exact kind of substantiation are you looking for?
On Thu, 10 Mar 2011 22:55:48 -0600, "HeyBub" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>Just last week, the Illinois AG ordered the list of registered gun owners in
>the state to be released to the media. Some fear that release could make gun
>owners a specific target for burglars. Obvously, if the state doesn't HAVE
>such a list, it can't make it public.
Wrong, the AG ordered the State Police to release the list of those
having an FOID card, per an Associated Press freedom of information
act request. It will now be contested within the courts as to privacy
concerns.
I have a FOID card and nary a firearm in the house. The reason to have
a FOID card, relative whom I am on the will has firearms, you can not
sell them if you do not have a card.
Mark
Upscale wrote:
>
> I'll answer your question and then I'm done. Obviously, nobody is
> going to change their minds at this point.
And that's ok - different opinions is part of what makes the world go round,
and it's also what keeps any one opinion from developing disproportionate
weight.
>
> There's three kinds of people, not two in your scenario - the law
> abiding, the criminals and all those in between. How many times have
> you read about someone who gets into a fight, goes home and gets his
> gun, comes back and shoots the original opponent dead? They aren't
> criminals until the gun is used. What might have happened if a gun
> hadn't been easily available? People don't have to be criminals to
> shoot someone. All they need do is to really lose their temper at
> some point, (something we've ALL done, likely more than once) and in
> the wrong circumstance a gun is used. This is more common than some
> may think. And before you suggest it, a gun does not really compare
> to a knife. A gun can easily kill from a distance, is viewed much
> more seriously than a knife and is handled and considered
> differently.
I don't have the statistics, but I have looked at them in the past.
According to FBI (I think...) records keeping, this is a statistically low
number. I think it is an easy enough thing to think about, but using the US
as an example, it does not prove out that these things happen with any
regularity enough, to make them a real concern. There are plenty of states
in the US that have very lax gun laws which result large percentages of the
population being gun owners. These states just don't exhibit your fear
being born out.
> How many bars or pubs are there in the US? How many experience fights
> between patrons on a regular basis? In the heat of a fight, it's
> pretty damned easy to pull your gun and shoot someone. It's just as
> easy to miss and shoot a bystander. When you're fighting and your
> adrenalin is pumping, logical, reasoned thought generally goes out
> the window.
Correct, but you just don't see this thing happening.
> Forty years ago, people would get into a fight and usually go home
> afterwards. There were no guns pulled, no knives used and only once
> did I see someone grab a bottle at which point the bystanders started
> to advance on the bottle holder. He then dropped the bottle. Now,
> it's different and public attitudes have changed. That change in
> attitude is intensified and easy access to a gun only intensifies it
> futher.
Fair concern, but again - not statistically supported.
> Those people who get a gun "just because they can" and put it aside
> are at real risk of using it at the wrong moment.
I can understand that as a concern, but I don't think you can make that as
an outright statement.
> My suggestion of
> licensing and registration, includes training. These three things (at
> least in my Canadian society and in my perspective) imbed additional
> respect for a gun and the privilege of ownership. It also means that
> more consideration goes into the act of grabbing a gun on the spur of
> the moment.
In the case of the emotionally charged individual you mention above, I don't
believe the fact that a gun is registered (or the owner trained in proper
gun handling) is going to be affected by those things. It's more a matter
that most people just do not behave that way for other reasons than gun
registration - they simply do not resort to extremes like grabbing a gun,
because life just does not operate that way.
> If it's more costly, time consuming or requires more
> effort to get the gun in the first place, people aren't going to so
> easily risk that gun ownership. Just being able to walk into some
> store, plunk your money down and get a gun does not do those things.
>
You are right in the second half of your point - it is a moral standing that
prevents people from behaving in certain ways. That has nothing to do with
registrations, etc.
> But, whether it's
> liked or not, it's gradually happening. More and more states are
> legislating gun control.
You are correct, and for gun owners, that presents some concerns. In the
US, anti-gun owners are openly stating that their agenda is to remove all
guns. They make no bones that increasing legislation, etc. is part of how
they hope to circumvent the 2nd Ammendment. Why would gun owners not be
concerned about this approach?
> And as long as the US has a functioning
> society, that gun control will increase. Attrition does work, as long
> as it doesn't back off. And yes, I most certainly undertand that's a
> big concern to many Americans, because gun culture has been an
> important part of your society for many, many years.
> Post a response if you want. I'll read it, but I probably won't reply.
Your choice. For me, this is a dialog and if you care to reply, that's
fine... we'll continue the dialog. If you don't - equally fine. We have
our different opinions and like I said in the beginning - having those
different opinions is important.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
Upscale wrote:
> We keep getting back to the same argument and I keep saying the same
> thing without you acknowledging my view. A gun has one purpose only.
> You can't realistically compare it to anything else. I know that many
> Americans see a gun as just another simple possession. I do
> understand that, but you have to see I don't. I accord it a different
> perspective and I always will. And, that's where our opinions will
> always clash. The only thing to do is agree to disagree. Can't offer
> you anything else.
Actually, I believe I did acknowledge your point in a previous post. Maybe
our posts got crossed in the mail. Despite the fact that a guns purpose is
to kill, that is not a reason for the legislation that has been proposed
here. If responsible people are not running out killing people just because
they have a gun that was designed to kill, then you are protecting nothing
by increasing legislation. That purpose (which I do acknoledge) has nothing
to do with how law abiding citizens behave with them. I do accept your
position and tried to state that in a different post - it's not so much you
that I'm debating as it is the collective thoughts suggesting more controls
for no good reason.
>
>> Oh for Pete's sake... How about the parent that didn't lock the
>> front door and the kid got out? Or the parent that didn't secure
>> the pool gate and the kid fell into the pool? How about...
>
> Same reason as above. The pool gate had the purpose of prevention and
> unfortunately it didn't fulfill its purpose. The gun has only one
> use. I know someone is going to pop up and state that the gun could
> be used to prevent robbery, rape, whatever. But, it still comes back
> to the same thing. The gun is not a benign object like your gate, it
> has only one purpose and many many times, that purpose is put to the
> use of injuring and killing. You can't say the same thing about your
> gate.
You are right about the purpose of a gun. But what has that got to do with
increasing regulations on people who have demonstrated they know how to
behave with them?
>
>> How about those guns that killed kids in their own home - for the
>> most part, all legally owned, guns. Safety and licensing have
>> nothing to do with one another.
>
> Do you actually believe that? Safety and licensing instill a level of
> respect, the importance of proper handling and use.
Sure. I grew up with guns. So did my kids. We did not need licensing to
teach us how to respect a gun. Licensing does nothing to instill this. If
you belive that, then I wonder if you've ever been licensed to carry a gun.
Your argument is like saying that the only safe way to learn to drive is by
taking a paid training course - yet a large percentage of us learned from
our parents without taking a Driver's Ed course. There is no evidence that
Driver's Ed benefits anyone except for those who's parents would not teach
them to drive, and there is no more evidence that licensing would instill
any better safety than one's parents, gun clubs, or any other alternative.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
Upscale wrote:
> "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> should not own a gun. You might have a good explanation for why you
>> feel this way, but the problem is that you have not stated anything
>> more substanative to articulate your point.
>
> You want examples of people who shouldn't have owned or had access to
> guns? Perhaps a list of the last dozen or so mentally deranged people
> who went on a killing spree would suffice?
Actually, I had thought you'd stay away from this argument, since it's not a
very substanative argument, and even when you express a point as nothing
more than a personal opinion, you usually don't rely on an emotional
platform. So - how would registration, taxes, and the other type of "more
control" that has been suggested in this thread have helped those
situations? Life is not perfect and it is not perfectly safe. If you try
to control every absolute aspect of life based upon the actions of a very
few, you're going to have a lot of laws, registrations and fees to manage.
> And "yes" even though I
> never met them, it's a safe bet for me to call them mentally
> deranged. Not enough? Would the names of two dozen serial killers do
> it for you?
Most serial killers don't use guns. We better start registering peckers
then, because most of them are sexual deviants as well, who raped their
victims before killing them.
> I know, how about a list of parents who didn't secure
> their weapons properly and their children found a firearm and
> accidently shot themselves.
Oh for Pete's sake... How about the parent that didn't lock the front door
and the kid got out? Or the parent that didn't secure the pool gate and the
kid fell into the pool? How about...
> Occurrences that might have been
> prevented if proper training and licensing had been enabled. Any and
> all information on examples ofnthe above can be found online.
At what point has anyone in this thread even come close to suggesting that
good training, and good gun handling practices were not appropriate?
Licensing would have nothing to do with practices and we both know that.
How about those guns that killed kids in their own home - for the most part,
all legally owned, guns. Safety and licensing have nothing to do with one
another.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
Upscale wrote:
> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> The thing is that anything you do with a gun, to a person such as
>> Upscale, is some kind of symbolic killing. Even using it for a
>> paperweight would be symbolic killing of papers to such people.
>
> Really feeble troll. Is that the best you can do? The only thing
> symbolic would be if you tripped and accidentally shot yourself in
> the foot during your rush to post one of your assinine comments.
Sorry, but we'll never agree. With regard to self-protection, the fervent
advocates are of two camps: Those who alarmed by the possibility of
criminals more than guns and those who fear guns more than criminals.
The fear of guns per se is irrational - like fear of heights or spiders -
but it exists and cannot be dismissed. I'm not even sure it can be treated.
They have to live with that fear, and I have no problem with their burden.
But for them to agitate against MY endeavors to allay their consternation is
equivalent to them wanting to prohibit tall buildings or exterminate all the
spiders in the country.
They own the problem and it's up to them to deal with it on their own terms.
It is unconsciousable for them to impose a solution on the rest of us just
so they can sleep easier at night.
"HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> Ah, okay. You fear PEOPLE with guns. The fix for that is to get plenty of
> guns for yourself. Then you need not fear anyone.
You're putting words in my mouth. What I object to is truly screwed up ideas
like the one above. There's always somone bigger and stronger than you, more
well prepared or a bigger fish so to speak. Thought you were intelligent,
but if you truly believe what you've said above, then you're something else
entirely.
> Just last week, the Illinois AG ordered the list of registered gun owners
> in the state to be released to the media. Some fear that release could
> make gun owners a specific target for burglars. Obvously, if the state
> doesn't HAVE such a list, it can't make it public.
And your proposed "get plenty of guns for yourself" is going to dissuade
anyone from attacking you? The only reason to have more guns for yourself is
if a potential enemy KNOWS you are so protected. In which case, you're
already a target. And if you're already a target, then you will come to the
attention of someone more determined and more powerful than you're able to
make yourself. Quite the messed up world you propose.
At this point, I can only guess that you're pulling my chain. Bye.
"Mike Marlow" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Sorry Mark, but I really have to call you on that last statement. Just
> what is your basis for stating anyone (who ever that may be) in your
> definition, should not own a gun. You might have a good explanation for
> why you feel this way, but the problem is that you have not stated
> anything more substanative to articulate your point.
My wife has a formula similar to Mark's: if she doesn't think I *need* to
own a motorcycle, then I am a person who *should not* own a motorcycle. And
I won't.
I'll put up with her arbitrary ruling, but Mark's is less persuasive.
I don't think you need one, therefore you shouldnt have one--on that basis
none of you gets anything from Festool before I do.
"Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> situations? Life is not perfect and it is not perfectly safe. If you try
> to control every absolute aspect of life based upon the actions of a very
> few, you're going to have a lot of laws, registrations and fees to manage.
We keep getting back to the same argument and I keep saying the same thing
without you acknowledging my view. A gun has one purpose only. You can't
realistically compare it to anything else. I know that many Americans see a
gun as just another simple possession. I do understand that, but you have to
see I don't. I accord it a different perspective and I always will. And,
that's where our opinions will always clash. The only thing to do is agree
to disagree. Can't offer you anything else.
> Oh for Pete's sake... How about the parent that didn't lock the front door
> and the kid got out? Or the parent that didn't secure the pool gate and
> the kid fell into the pool? How about...
Same reason as above. The pool gate had the purpose of prevention and
unfortunately it didn't fulfill its purpose. The gun has only one use. I
know someone is going to pop up and state that the gun could be used to
prevent robbery, rape, whatever. But, it still comes back to the same thing.
The gun is not a benign object like your gate, it has only one purpose and
many many times, that purpose is put to the use of injuring and killing. You
can't say the same thing about your gate.
> How about those guns that killed kids in their own home - for the most
> part, all legally owned, guns. Safety and licensing have nothing to do
> with one another.
Do you actually believe that? Safety and licensing instill a level of
respect, the importance of proper handling and use. It's a very small step
from there to properly secure a gun with a lock, put it in a safe or some
other equally preventative measure. Sure, kids are pretty clever and can
often get around the most prudent protective measures, but for a number of
kids, those protective measures are adequate.
"Markem" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I am not
> going to define this anymore it is really just a fact.
You seem to have trouble telling the difference between something that is
fact and something that is just your opinion--they are not interchangeable.
However many millions of people have the same problem.
You also haven't addressed the issue of why someone who in your opinion
doesn't "need" to own a gun is therefore "nuts".
Of course you have the right to express whatever opinion you please, but in
future it might be worth thinking it through a bit before posting.
On Sun, 6 Mar 2011 10:46:23 -0800 (PST), Robatoy
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On Mar 6, 1:20Â pm, Markem <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Sun, 6 Mar 2011 12:48:59 -0500, "J. Clarke" <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>> >> >> >> On Sat, 5 Mar 2011 13:33:07 -0800, "DGDevin" <[email protected]>
>> >> >> >> wrote:
>
>DNFTFT
I've plonked every one of those names. I suggest to everyone to do
that, as well. Peace Through Plonking. Filter on, Brother!
--
Life is full of little surprises.
--Pandora
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
>
> Upscale wrote:
> >
> > We keep getting back to the same argument and I keep saying the same
> > thing without you acknowledging my view. A gun has one purpose only.
> > You can't realistically compare it to anything else. I know that many
> > Americans see a gun as just another simple possession. I do
> > understand that, but you have to see I don't. I accord it a different
> > perspective and I always will. And, that's where our opinions will
> > always clash. The only thing to do is agree to disagree. Can't offer
> > you anything else.
>
> And just what is that one, single, purpose? Investment? Historical artifact?
> Collecting? Psychological comfort?
>
> I know! It's to KILL people!
>
> So what is the alternative when you run across someone that needs killin'?
>
> Hit 'em with a rolling pin?
>
> Gouge out their lungs with an ice cream scoop?
>
> I've run into very few people in my life that needed killin'...
The thing is that anything you do with a gun, to a person such as
Upscale, is some kind of symbolic killing. Even using it for a
paperweight would be symbolic killing of papers to such people.
They are as irrational as the radical feminist who lit into a friend of
mine at an S&M club for allowing herself to be "raped" by the guy who
she had bound, gagged, and on the recieving end of a bullwhip at the
time.
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
>
> Upscale wrote:
> > "HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >> Sorry, but we'll never agree. With regard to self-protection, the
> >> fervent advocates are of two camps: Those who alarmed by the
> >> possibility of criminals more than guns and those who fear guns more
> >> than criminals.
> >
> > I don't fear guns and never have. What I don't like is that it's too
> > damned easy for most anyone to get a gun. And, that's where my
> > preference for registration and licensing comes in. Buy as many guns
> > as you want, just make sure they're registered, licensed and safely
> > stored.
>
> Ah, okay. You fear PEOPLE with guns. The fix for that is to get plenty of
> guns for yourself. Then you need not fear anyone.
What I've never gotten is what good all this "registration and
licensing" are supposed to do. There are two kinds of people in the
world, the law abiding and criminals. The law abiding will dutifully
license and register, but they aren't the ones who would cause a problem
in the first place. The criminals will ignore the law and go on doing
whatever it is that they are doing. So all that is really accomplished
is that people who wouldn't cause a problem in the first place are
required to jump through a hoop.
People who think that such laws will ever disarm criminals live in a
dream world. We can't keep drugs out, what makes them think we can keep
anything else out?
> > What your camp fears is that the act of registration will somewhere
> > and at sometime, permit the authorities to find you and remove your
> > guns. Tell me that's not true.
>
> It's sorta true. Many countries have done exactly that. Here at home, both
> New York and California used their list of registered guns and gun owners to
> confiscate and prosecute gun owners when they changed the laws on gun
> ownership.
>
> It could happen again.
>
> Just last week, the Illinois AG ordered the list of registered gun owners in
> the state to be released to the media. Some fear that release could make gun
> owners a specific target for burglars. Obvously, if the state doesn't HAVE
> such a list, it can't make it public.
Yep. Sometimes gun control advocates are their own worst enemy. One
bunch of 'em says "Oh, registration could never lead to confiscation
_here_". Meanwhile another bunch is making liars out of 'em.
Bingo.
-----
"Upscale" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
I don't fear guns and never have. What I don't like is that it's too damned
easy for most anyone to get a gun. And, that's where my preference for
registration and licensing comes in. Buy as many guns as you want, just make
sure they're registered, licensed and safely stored.
What your camp fears is that the act of registration will somewhere and at
sometime, permit the authorities to find you and remove your guns. Tell me
that's not true.
Sorry guys. Not my post Not my work.
I must have pissed somebody off about seven years ago and he is
still stalking me???
-----
"Josepi" did not wroted in message
news:[email protected]...
Bingo.
-----
"Upscale" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
I don't fear guns and never have. What I don't like is that it's too damned
easy for most anyone to get a gun. And, that's where my preference for
registration and licensing comes in. Buy as many guns as you want, just make
sure they're registered, licensed and safely stored.
What your camp fears is that the act of registration will somewhere and at
sometime, permit the authorities to find you and remove your guns. Tell me
that's not true.
"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> What I've never gotten is what good all this "registration and
> licensing" are supposed to do. There are two kinds of people in the
> world, the law abiding and criminals.
I'll answer your question and then I'm done. Obviously, nobody is going to
change their minds at this point.
There's three kinds of people, not two in your scenario - the law abiding,
the criminals and all those in between. How many times have you read about
someone who gets into a fight, goes home and gets his gun, comes back and
shoots the original opponent dead? They aren't criminals until the gun is
used. What might have happened if a gun hadn't been easily available? People
don't have to be criminals to shoot someone. All they need do is to really
lose their temper at some point, (something we've ALL done, likely more than
once) and in the wrong circumstance a gun is used. This is more common than
some may think. And before you suggest it, a gun does not really compare to
a knife. A gun can easily kill from a distance, is viewed much more
seriously than a knife and is handled and considered differently.
How many bars or pubs are there in the US? How many experience fights
between patrons on a regular basis? In the heat of a fight, it's pretty
damned easy to pull your gun and shoot someone. It's just as easy to miss
and shoot a bystander. When you're fighting and your adrenalin is pumping,
logical, reasoned thought generally goes out the window.
Forty years ago, people would get into a fight and usually go home
afterwards. There were no guns pulled, no knives used and only once did I
see someone grab a bottle at which point the bystanders started to advance
on the bottle holder. He then dropped the bottle. Now, it's different and
public attitudes have changed. That change in attitude is intensified and
easy access to a gun only intensifies it futher.
Those people who get a gun "just because they can" and put it aside are at
real risk of using it at the wrong moment. My suggestion of licensing and
registration, includes training. These three things (at least in my Canadian
society and in my perspective) imbed additional respect for a gun and the
privilege of ownership. It also means that more consideration goes into the
act of grabbing a gun on the spur of the moment. If it's more costly, time
consuming or requires more effort to get the gun in the first place, people
aren't going to so easily risk that gun ownership. Just being able to walk
into some store, plunk your money down and get a gun does not do those
things.
Yup, most certainly I get upset when some new regulation comes into effect
and it affects me personally in some way. I objected when the Canadian
F.A.C. process came into effect. Then I eventually accept it. Considering
the amount of gun owners in the US and the power they yield, it may well be
impossible for any authority to affect gun ownership much. Or at the very
least, they'd be afraid to seriously legislate gun ownership because of the
backlash. But, whether it's liked or not, it's gradually happening. More and
more states are legislating gun control. And as long as the US has a
functioning society, that gun control will increase. Attrition does work, as
long as it doesn't back off. And yes, I most certainly undertand that's a
big concern to many Americans, because gun culture has been an important
part of your society for many, many years.
Post a response if you want. I'll read it, but I probably won't reply.
Markem wrote:
> On Fri, 4 Mar 2011 17:24:39 -0800, "DGDevin" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> "Markem" wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>
>>
>>> I have no problems with guns ownership as you seem to think. What
>>> you have said is totally of your own invention as to my opinions.
>>> There are idiots out there who own guns who should not, hopefully
>>> the only one that get hurt is them.
>>
>> Oh I agree, there are people who shouldn't own guns--criminals,
>> chronic alcohol/drug abusers, wife-beaters, people suffering from
>> violent mental illnesses.
>>
>> But you seem to have forgotten that your criterion for deciding who
>> should have guns was (quote): "Perhaps the "nuts" that think it is
>> cool to have a gun and have no real need other than it fits they're
>> ego".
>>
>> If you can demonstrate a meaning in that sentence other than you
>> disapprove of people who want a gun even though in your opinion they
>> don't need one, cool, please parse that sentence so as to reveal
>> what you really meant as opposed to what you wrote.
>
> It is very clear, you buy a gun to be a big shot. Now I have no desire
> to deprive them of this good feeling. But my opinion stands that some
> "sane" people who own guns should not. Does not fit the gun collector,
> nor the hunter ect. Nowhere have I said they cannot own guns just that
> there are everyday people who do that should not own them. I am not
> going to define this anymore it is really just a fact.
>
> Mark
Sorry Mark, but I really have to call you on that last statement. Just what
is your basis for stating anyone (who ever that may be) in your definition,
should not own a gun. You might have a good explanation for why you feel
this way, but the problem is that you have not stated anything more
substanative to articulate your point.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
"Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> Sure. grew up with guns. So did my kids. We did not need licensing to
> teach us how to respect a gun. Licensing does nothing to instill this.
Maybe I haven't explained my reasoning properly. Licensing and registration
to me means that if you want to keep your gun, then you're not likely to do
anything to risk its removal. Does that make any sense? As I've stated
previously, I have only my own experience with safe ownership of a gun to go
by. I'm going to adhere to the safe storage procedures laid out to me
because I don't want to risk its removal.
How about an example? Most break ins are done when nobody is at home. A gun
left on a hall table is an easy theft. If it's locked up in a safe, it's an
additional barrier to the gun finding its way into criminal possession. Is
that a safe example? Guns and ammunition are supposed to be locked up
seperately and not kept together. Another small barrier, but a barrier
nevertheless.
The truth is that the vast amount of guns used in Canadian criminal activity
are guns that are smuggled up from the USA or stolen from their legal
owners. As far as as the legal owners go, if they mostly didn't adhere to
proper safe storage, there would be more guns on the street. Belittle it as
much as you want, but the fewer guns there are on the street, the safer it
is.
Upscale wrote:
> "HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> Sorry, but we'll never agree. With regard to self-protection, the
>> fervent advocates are of two camps: Those who alarmed by the
>> possibility of criminals more than guns and those who fear guns more
>> than criminals.
>
> I don't fear guns and never have. What I don't like is that it's too
> damned easy for most anyone to get a gun. And, that's where my
> preference for registration and licensing comes in. Buy as many guns
> as you want, just make sure they're registered, licensed and safely
> stored.
Ah, okay. You fear PEOPLE with guns. The fix for that is to get plenty of
guns for yourself. Then you need not fear anyone.
>
> What your camp fears is that the act of registration will somewhere
> and at sometime, permit the authorities to find you and remove your
> guns. Tell me that's not true.
It's sorta true. Many countries have done exactly that. Here at home, both
New York and California used their list of registered guns and gun owners to
confiscate and prosecute gun owners when they changed the laws on gun
ownership.
It could happen again.
Just last week, the Illinois AG ordered the list of registered gun owners in
the state to be released to the media. Some fear that release could make gun
owners a specific target for burglars. Obvously, if the state doesn't HAVE
such a list, it can't make it public.
``Honest officer, I was in the bar minding my own business and this guy
started beating me up. I went to my car, opened the trunk and got a tire
iron to defend myself, when I went back into the bar.``
A cop told me that from a real occurrence.
ROFLMAO.
----------------
"Mike Marlow" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
I don't have the statistics, but I have looked at them in the past.
According to FBI (I think...) records keeping, this is a statistically low
number. I think it is an easy enough thing to think about, but using the US
as an example, it does not prove out that these things happen with any
regularity enough, to make them a real concern. There are plenty of states
in the US that have very lax gun laws which result large percentages of the
population being gun owners. These states just don't exhibit your fear
being born out.
> How many bars or pubs are there in the US? How many experience fights
> between patrons on a regular basis? In the heat of a fight, it's
> pretty damned easy to pull your gun and shoot someone. It's just as
> easy to miss and shoot a bystander. When you're fighting and your
> adrenalin is pumping, logical, reasoned thought generally goes out
> the window.
Correct, but you just don't see this thing happening.
> Forty years ago, people would get into a fight and usually go home
> afterwards. There were no guns pulled, no knives used and only once
> did I see someone grab a bottle at which point the bystanders started
> to advance on the bottle holder. He then dropped the bottle. Now,
> it's different and public attitudes have changed. That change in
> attitude is intensified and easy access to a gun only intensifies it
> futher.
Fair concern, but again - not statistically supported.
> Those people who get a gun "just because they can" and put it aside
> are at real risk of using it at the wrong moment.
I can understand that as a concern, but I don't think you can make that as
an outright statement.
> My suggestion of
> licensing and registration, includes training. These three things (at
> least in my Canadian society and in my perspective) imbed additional
> respect for a gun and the privilege of ownership. It also means that
> more consideration goes into the act of grabbing a gun on the spur of
> the moment.
In the case of the emotionally charged individual you mention above, I don't
believe the fact that a gun is registered (or the owner trained in proper
gun handling) is going to be affected by those things. It's more a matter
that most people just do not behave that way for other reasons than gun
registration - they simply do not resort to extremes like grabbing a gun,
because life just does not operate that way.
> If it's more costly, time consuming or requires more
> effort to get the gun in the first place, people aren't going to so
> easily risk that gun ownership. Just being able to walk into some
> store, plunk your money down and get a gun does not do those things.
>
You are right in the second half of your point - it is a moral standing that
prevents people from behaving in certain ways. That has nothing to do with
registrations, etc.
> But, whether it's
> liked or not, it's gradually happening. More and more states are
> legislating gun control.
You are correct, and for gun owners, that presents some concerns. In the
US, anti-gun owners are openly stating that their agenda is to remove all
guns. They make no bones that increasing legislation, etc. is part of how
they hope to circumvent the 2nd Ammendment. Why would gun owners not be
concerned about this approach?
> And as long as the US has a functioning
> society, that gun control will increase. Attrition does work, as long
> as it doesn't back off. And yes, I most certainly undertand that's a
> big concern to many Americans, because gun culture has been an
> important part of your society for many, many years.
> Post a response if you want. I'll read it, but I probably won't reply.
Your choice. For me, this is a dialog and if you care to reply, that's
fine... we'll continue the dialog. If you don't - equally fine. We have
our different opinions and like I said in the beginning - having those
different opinions is important.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
Upscale wrote:
>
> We keep getting back to the same argument and I keep saying the same
> thing without you acknowledging my view. A gun has one purpose only.
> You can't realistically compare it to anything else. I know that many
> Americans see a gun as just another simple possession. I do
> understand that, but you have to see I don't. I accord it a different
> perspective and I always will. And, that's where our opinions will
> always clash. The only thing to do is agree to disagree. Can't offer
> you anything else.
And just what is that one, single, purpose? Investment? Historical artifact?
Collecting? Psychological comfort?
I know! It's to KILL people!
So what is the alternative when you run across someone that needs killin'?
Hit 'em with a rolling pin?
Gouge out their lungs with an ice cream scoop?
I've run into very few people in my life that needed killin'...
On Fri, 4 Mar 2011 17:24:39 -0800, "DGDevin" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>
>
>"Markem" wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>
>
>> I have no problems with guns ownership as you seem to think. What you
>> have said is totally of your own invention as to my opinions. There
>> are idiots out there who own guns who should not, hopefully the only
>> one that get hurt is them.
>
>Oh I agree, there are people who shouldn't own guns--criminals, chronic
>alcohol/drug abusers, wife-beaters, people suffering from violent mental
>illnesses.
>
>But you seem to have forgotten that your criterion for deciding who should
>have guns was (quote): "Perhaps the "nuts" that think it is cool to have a
>gun and have no real need other than it fits they're ego".
>
>If you can demonstrate a meaning in that sentence other than you disapprove
>of people who want a gun even though in your opinion they don't need one,
>cool, please parse that sentence so as to reveal what you really meant as
>opposed to what you wrote.
It is very clear, you buy a gun to be a big shot. Now I have no desire
to deprive them of this good feeling. But my opinion stands that some
"sane" people who own guns should not. Does not fit the gun collector,
nor the hunter ect. Nowhere have I said they cannot own guns just that
there are everyday people who do that should not own them. I am not
going to define this anymore it is really just a fact.
Mark
"Han" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> No, the criminals will still have them, because they are "criminals"
> please take a course in logic. Once all guns are removed, there are no
> more guns. I'm not saying it would be easy, but ...
That course of action, at least as it appears to many in the US, is too
difficult for them to even consider trying. Instead, they're only prepared
to take the easy way out of just legalizing everything, despite the fact
that it could be fraught with very serious consequenses. Status quo for the
illegal drug problem. *That* is the biggest problem, the apathetic nature of
too many. Any act really worth doing isn't done without considerable effort.
Han wrote:
>
> It may take only a second or to exchange a magazine, but a Glock is
> reported to be able to shoot more than one round per second, so there
> is a pause in the shooting when exchanging magazines. Moreover the
> apparently easy availability of these huge magazines to persons who
> should not even have a firearm of any kind is proof enough for me
> that it is irresponsible to have them available. Just like it is
> irresponsible for a gun dealer to state that it is illela but this is
> how you make a semiautomatic gun/rifle into a fully automatic one.
Well Han - I'm going to have to join those who have said that they'll just
have to disagree with you on this point.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
Maybe both. I have been there and got the tee-shirt
...and "No!" I wasn't banging his wife.
Trouble is in the middle of the night your wife is beside you, in bed,
asking, "WTF did he want?"
----------------------
"Just Wondering" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
Is there something you want to post on Usenet that you can't because
someone out there is stopping you with the use of a firearm? Or is it
that you want to be free to say what you want, but don't want people who
disagree with you to reply?
"Robatoy" wrote:
>In Detroit, Uncle Ted (Nugent) told people to put a gun on their lap
as they drove through bad areas of the city.
Perp says: "get out, gimme your car" and next thing he knows, he's
clutching what once was his junk.
The word got out quickly.
Problem solved.
----------------------------
You want to define what's going on in Detroit as "Problem solved"?
Strange.
Lew
"Larry Jaques" wrote:
> Crikey, not again. CARS kill more people each year than guns do.
>
> I truly wish you would do some research along that line, Han. Paper
> after paper comes out with NO evidence that fewer guns make us safer
> and paper after paper comes out with evidence that gun control
> increases crime.
-------------------------------
Poor baby has truly bought the farm.
As long as the knee jerk NRA remains, unfortunately your pacifier(s)
remain "safe".
Can't say that for the rest of us though.
Lew
On 02/28/2011 06:41 AM, Han wrote:
> "HeyBub"<[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>> Han wrote:
>>>
>>> It may take only a second or to exchange a magazine, but a Glock is
>>> reported to be able to shoot more than one round per second, so there
>>> is a pause in the shooting when exchanging magazines. Moreover the
>>> apparently easy availability of these huge magazines to persons who
>>> should not even have a firearm of any kind is proof enough for me
>>> that it is irresponsible to have them available. Just like it is
>>> irresponsible for a gun dealer to state that it is illela but this is
>>> how you make a semiautomatic gun/rifle into a fully automatic one.
>>
>> There IS a line to be drawn somewhere.
>>
>> Here we have a case of carnage involving a large-capacity magazine.
>> You would outlaw these devices because there was ONE event in recorded
>> history of their misuse. In essence, you would penalize thousands to
>> prevent a VERY rare event.
>>
>> A pitiful mindset indeed.
>
> Indeed a line to be drawn. Ther is no real use for the large capacity
> magazines other than to spray many rounds real fast. Ergo, either
> prohibit or limit their sale. Indiscriminate distribution is wrong. It
> really is that simple.
>
Here was one good reason:
<http://www.network54.com/Forum/451309/thread/1296928404/This+is+just+to+cool+not+to+spread+around>
On 3/1/2011 3:39 AM, Han wrote:
> "ChairMan"<[email protected]> wrote in news:XF_ap.2$6A6.0
> @unlimited.newshosting.com:
>
>> In news:[email protected],
>> Josepi<[email protected]> spewed forth:
>>> Real easy!
>>>
>>> Just remove ALL the guns from society at large.
>>>
>> No, the criminals will still have them, because they are "criminals"
>
> please take a course in logic. Once all guns are removed, there are no
> more guns. I'm not saying it would be easy, but ...
Do you propose disarming all of society, including the police and
military?
"Markem" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Perhaps the "nuts" that think it is cool to have a gun and have no
> real need other than it fits they're ego.
A feature of freedom is an absence of arbitrary and senseless restrictions
on what people can and cannot do. You probably own a bunch of stuff you
don't "need"--shall we make it illegal for you to own those items because
you can't prove a need to do so?
> So there are ones who own guns legally that should never be allowed
> near a gun, but my best hope for them is that they appear upon the
> Darwin Awards.
Laws already exist to disarm people who demonstrate they are a danger to
others. But you should probably brace yourself for the cruel reality that
no court would consider your personal disapproval of firearms ownership to
be a compelling argument.
On Sun, 6 Mar 2011 09:49:56 -0500, "J. Clarke" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>In article <[email protected]>, markem618
>@hotmail.com says...
>>
>> On Sat, 5 Mar 2011 22:48:05 -0500, "J. Clarke" <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <[email protected]>, markem618
>> >@hotmail.com says...
>> >>
>> >> On Sat, 5 Mar 2011 13:33:07 -0800, "DGDevin" <[email protected]>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >"Markem" wrote in message
>> >> >news:[email protected]...
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >> I am not
>> >> >> going to define this anymore it is really just a fact.
>> >> >
>> >> >You seem to have trouble telling the difference between something that is
>> >> >fact and something that is just your opinion--they are not interchangeable.
>> >> >However many millions of people have the same problem.
>> >> >
>> >> >You also haven't addressed the issue of why someone who in your opinion
>> >> >doesn't "need" to own a gun is therefore "nuts".
>> >> >
>> >> >Of course you have the right to express whatever opinion you please, but in
>> >> >future it might be worth thinking it through a bit before posting.
>> >>
>> >> So everyone who owns a gun legally should?
>> >
>> >If they should not what do you propose to do about it?
>> >
>> >> If your answer is yes you are blinded by having to be right.
>> >
>> >And you are blinded by having no real point to make.
>>
>> No but you are blinded just to be arguing, whats a matter your wife
>> always wins?
>
>I'm sorry, but asking you what action you propose with regard to your
>hypothesis is not "arguing". And there is nothing to "win". Either you
>have some action in mind or you don't. If you don't have any action in
>mind then why should anyone care whether your hypothesis is correct? If
>you do have action in mind what action is it?
Sorry I do not have to fit within any of what you seem to think.
Mark
In article <[email protected]>, markem618
@hotmail.com says...
>
> On Sun, 6 Mar 2011 09:49:56 -0500, "J. Clarke" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >In article <[email protected]>, markem618
> >@hotmail.com says...
> >>
> >> On Sat, 5 Mar 2011 22:48:05 -0500, "J. Clarke" <[email protected]>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >In article <[email protected]>, markem618
> >> >@hotmail.com says...
> >> >>
> >> >> On Sat, 5 Mar 2011 13:33:07 -0800, "DGDevin" <[email protected]>
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >"Markem" wrote in message
> >> >> >news:[email protected]...
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> I am not
> >> >> >> going to define this anymore it is really just a fact.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >You seem to have trouble telling the difference between something that is
> >> >> >fact and something that is just your opinion--they are not interchangeable.
> >> >> >However many millions of people have the same problem.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >You also haven't addressed the issue of why someone who in your opinion
> >> >> >doesn't "need" to own a gun is therefore "nuts".
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Of course you have the right to express whatever opinion you please, but in
> >> >> >future it might be worth thinking it through a bit before posting.
> >> >>
> >> >> So everyone who owns a gun legally should?
> >> >
> >> >If they should not what do you propose to do about it?
> >> >
> >> >> If your answer is yes you are blinded by having to be right.
> >> >
> >> >And you are blinded by having no real point to make.
> >>
> >> No but you are blinded just to be arguing, whats a matter your wife
> >> always wins?
> >
> >I'm sorry, but asking you what action you propose with regard to your
> >hypothesis is not "arguing". And there is nothing to "win". Either you
> >have some action in mind or you don't. If you don't have any action in
> >mind then why should anyone care whether your hypothesis is correct? If
> >you do have action in mind what action is it?
>
> Sorry I do not have to fit within any of what you seem to think.
So you are saying that there is a third alternative? That you neither
have an action in mind nor do you not have an action in mind? If so
then what do you have in mind?
"Markem" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Sorry I do not have to fit within any of what you seem to think.
It would be refreshing if you could express what you think in terms that
suggest at least you understand it. Nobody is asking for your agreement, it
would just be nice to see you explain your views in a rational fashion.
On Fri, 4 Mar 2011 10:40:22 -0600, "HeyBub" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>Upscale wrote:
>> "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> What is wrong with me owning the firearms that I own?
>>
>> And if you happen to be a nutcase who has yet to come to the
>> attention of authorities? What then?
>>
>> I happen to like firearms. I always have, but for target shooting
>> purposes, not a perceived need for protection. Having owned a number
>> of guns in the past, I now have one left. The ownship of firearms in
>> the US is not and never has been my objection. What I don't like is
>> that it's too easy for most anybody to buy a firearm. There's too
>> many nuts out there that have easy access to firearms. The process of
>> registration, licensing and mandatory education courses would
>> dissuade a great many people from buying. That's what I'd like to see.
>
>So "nuts" should not have a right to self-protection, enjoy target shooting
>or hunting, buy guns for investment purposes, collect firearms just for the
>sake of collecting them (like numismatists), own firearms for historical or
>genealogical purposes, put great-great-grandpa's muzzle-loader over the
>fireplace for sentimental value?
>
>"Nuts" is just too encompassing. There are VERY few mental disorders wherein
>the person presents a danger to himself or others. I doubt anyone can find a
>case where an agoraphobic or someone afraid of star-faced moles ever harmed
>anyone with a gun (except, maybe, a star-faced mole). But current and
>proposed laws may very well paint with too broad a brush on these mental
>diseases or defects and thereby prohibit these harmless eccentrics from any
>of the firearm uses mentioned above.
>
Perhaps the "nuts" that think it is cool to have a gun and have no
real need other than it fits they're ego.
So there are ones who own guns legally that should never be allowed
near a gun, but my best hope for them is that they appear upon the
Darwin Awards.
Mark
On Sun, 6 Mar 2011 12:32:25 -0800, "DGDevin" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>I would be opposed to public release of such information just as I would
>with any other government information on individuals without a compelling
>public purpose in so doing. One has to wonder if this a way to discourage
>firearms ownership without being slapped down by the Supreme Court again--of
>course it would only impact law-abiding citizens.
It is happening now!
Mark
In article <[email protected]>, markem618
@hotmail.com says...
>
> On Sat, 5 Mar 2011 17:14:32 -0500, "J. Clarke" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >In article <[email protected]>, markem618
> >@hotmail.com says...
> >>
> >> On Sat, 5 Mar 2011 14:17:02 -0500, "J. Clarke" <[email protected]>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >The problem is that you can't just say "some people should not own
> >> >firearms" without defining which people in a manner that is legally
> >> >enforcable. So how would you define this prohibited class?
> >>
> >> I am not prohibiting anyone, just say some people should not have
> >> them.
> >
> >If you're not in favor of preventing such persons from having them then
> >to what purpose are you saying this?
>
> Why not?
I'm sorry but "why not" is not a statement of purpose.
On Sat, 5 Mar 2011 17:14:32 -0500, "J. Clarke" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>In article <[email protected]>, markem618
>@hotmail.com says...
>>
>> On Sat, 5 Mar 2011 14:17:02 -0500, "J. Clarke" <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >The problem is that you can't just say "some people should not own
>> >firearms" without defining which people in a manner that is legally
>> >enforcable. So how would you define this prohibited class?
>>
>> I am not prohibiting anyone, just say some people should not have
>> them.
>
>If you're not in favor of preventing such persons from having them then
>to what purpose are you saying this?
Why not?
Mark
"DGDevin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> A feature of freedom is an absence of arbitrary and senseless restrictions
> on what people can and cannot do. You probably own a bunch of stuff you
> don't "need"--shall we make it illegal for you to own those items because
> you can't prove a need to do so?
There you go again, offering up some senseless argument comparing some
everyday item to a firearm. A firearm is in a completely different category
than any of your "bunch of stuff" examples. Whatever object or "bunch of
stuff" as you choose to phrase it, is in no way comparable to a firearm what
originally had one original purpose and one purpose only ~ to injure or
kill. Sure at one time they were also used to put food on the table, but
that purpose is not a true facet of society anymore. Want to collect
firearms or take up target shooting, fine, registration in no way impedes
those pursuits.
And lastly, whatever rights were originally given as to the right to bear
arms, have absolutely no relationship to our present day society. They might
well have been pertinent when those rights were drawn up, but society has
changed dramatically in all those years and there's no logic you can present
that mandates the need for them now, law enforcement and armed forces aside.
On 3/1/2011 2:20 PM, Josepi wrote:
> Once we get Usenet under control anything would be possible just like
> the other countries of the world that have done it.
>
> USA is an out of control second world country. It would take 1000 years
> to get the hillbilly's weapons from them.
>
> --------------------------
>
> "Just Wondering" wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> Or constitutional. Or even possible.
>
>
> On 3/1/2011 12:58 PM, Upscale wrote:
>
> No one ever said that removing all guns would be easy or fast.
>
Once it's done (it would require, not just a repeal of the Second
Amendment, but also a hew constitutional amendment explicitly denying
the right to bear arms), you can go ahead and remove the eliminate the
right to free speech too. That'll let you get Usenet under control.
That'll show those ignorant hillbillys. And with the right to bear arms
gone, it'll be all the easier to eliminate all the other rights the U.S.
Constitution recognizes in those durn hillbillys.
On 3/1/2011 3:18 PM, Josepi wrote:
>
>> "Just Wondering" wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>> Once it's done (it would require, not just a repeal of the Second
>> Amendment, but also a hew constitutional amendment explicitly denying
>> the right to bear arms), you can go ahead and remove the eliminate the
>> right to free speech too. That'll let you get Usenet under control.
>> That'll show those ignorant hillbillys. And with the right to bear arms
>> gone, it'll be all the easier to eliminate all the other rights the U.S.
>> Constitution recognizes in those durn hillbillys.
> Once we have the USA under control by removing all their weapons then
> we can say what we really mean on Usenet. without being called up in
> the middle of the night and told about how to clean a rifle.
Is there something you want to post on Usenet that you can't because
someone out there is stopping you with the use of a firearm? Or is it
that you want to be free to say what you want, but don't want people who
disagree with you to reply?
Somebody wrote:
> Just remove ALL the guns from society at large.
Somebody else wrote:
>> No, the criminals will still have them, because they are
>> "criminals"
--------------------------------------
A solution that also generates a revenue stream is obvious.
License all fire arms that get renewed annualy, much like hunting
licenses.
License renewal could be as low as $25/yr/weapon; however, failure to
renew would be a $5K fine and 6 months in jail.
Every body gets to keep their pacifiers and a few $ get generated to
pay for weapons investigation related issues.
Lew
On Fri, 4 Mar 2011 11:18:46 -0800, "DGDevin" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>
>
>"HeyBub" wrote in message
<snip>
>> One of the "work rules" that is part of most (all?) teacher union
>> contracts is that layoffs, where necessary, will be in order of seniority,
>> not competence. New York City has 8,000 teachers that report to work each
>> day to sit in a "rubber room" because they are incompetent to teach. These
>> eight thousand have sufficient senority to essentially NEVER get fired.
>
>Or because there are complaints against them which might or might not mean
>they are incompetent to teach and they are benched while their case crawls
>through the system. The ones who are incompetent should be dismissed IMO,
>the unions need to be backed off of their position on that issue one way or
>another. But even union members are entitled to a fair hearing to determine
>if they really did something wrong or just pissed off some kids and their
>parents say by enforcing discipline. Or do you think teachers who
>discipline disruptive students should just be fired if the parents file a
>complaint?
I wonder how the 8000 got to be senior if they're incompetent? In NY
state there's a three year probationary period for new teachers.
--
Jack Novak
Buffalo, NY - USA
"Nova" wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> I wonder how the 8000 got to be senior if they're incompetent? In NY
> state there's a three year probationary period for new teachers.
When I was in high school there was a teacher close to retirement who was
getting quite senile, her classes were a waste of time but the other
teachers and administration covered for her because she only had a year to
go or whatever it was. The students considered her class free time but they
were smart enough not to make a lot of noise and attract attention. There
is also such a thing as ROD--Retired On Duty--and you can see it all over
including in law enforcement where some folks do the minimum required and
not one bit more. I can think of teachers who should have received bonus
pay, and others who should have been in another line of work. IMO it should
be easier to get rid of substandard teachers, but the superior ones should
also be rewarded for doing a better job.
On 3/1/2011 4:02 PM, Lew Hodgett wrote:
> Somebody wrote:
>
>> Just remove ALL the guns from society at large.
>
> Somebody else wrote:
>
>>> No, the criminals will still have them, because they are
>>> "criminals"
> --------------------------------------
> A solution that also generates a revenue stream is obvious.
>
> License all fire arms that get renewed annualy, much like hunting
> licenses.
>
> License renewal could be as low as $25/yr/weapon; however, failure to
> renew would be a $5K fine and 6 months in jail.
>
> Every body gets to keep their pacifiers and a few $ get generated to
> pay for weapons investigation related issues.
Do you really believe that if there was such a licensing scheme, the
revenue would actually be used "to pay for weapons investigation related
issues"? More likely it would wind up in the hands of the teachers'
labor union.
"Just Wondering" wrote:
> Do you really believe that if there was such a licensing scheme, the
> revenue would actually be used "to pay for weapons investigation
> related issues"? More likely it would wind up in the hands of the
> teachers' labor union.
--------------------------------
Jealousy, night and day you torture me......
Lew
"Lew Hodgett" wrote:
>> A solution that also generates a revenue stream is obvious.
>
>> License all fire arms that get renewed annualy, much like hunting
>> licenses.
>
>> License renewal could be as low as $25/yr/weapon; however, failure
>> to renew would be a $5K fine and 6 months in jail.
>
>> Every body gets to keep their pacifiers and a few $ get generated
>> to pay for weapons investigation related issues.
-------------------------------
"DGDevin" wrote:
> Great plan, just have to get that pesky Constitution out of the way
> first.
----------------------------
Ah yes, more of the old Intellectual Bull Shit game.
The constitution has absolutely nothing to do with it.
Lew
Markem wrote:
>
> Mike I have no problem with them having a gun, but there are people
> who own guns who should not.
Within the realm of my personal opinion, I agree with that...
> Now that is a fact in our society.
That's where we differ. You and I may agree that a particular person should
not own a gun - based on our personal opinions, but that does not make it a
fact. We might even be able to point to statistics that we believe support
our case, but again - it is not substantial. That's the problem with basing
decisions on opinions, or perceived facts - they aren't fact. Fact is a
really hard thing to come by.
> So
> does that make me a gun seizing nutcase?
No - I really did not see you that way. I did see you as leaning more
toward defining what constitutes a save gun owner than I was comforatble
with. But again - opinions. It was just my opinion.
> Firearms need to be treated
> with respect some idiots who own them do stupid things with them.
Uncontested - but... that does not make them a danger or a threat. It does
not even make them a danger to society in the loosest of terms. It may, I
agree - but it does not define them as that. They may really even irrate us
in the way they take liberties (by our definitions), but again - our
definitions. Are they killing people? On purpose? Even, accidentally?
Sure we may agree that they "could", but the fact of the matter is that
those guys (if we're talking about the same class of shooter), just simply
don't end up hurting anybody. So in the end, our own preferrence for what
gun safety, or shooter character should be, is really irrelevant.
> The
> NRA is not going to change human stupidity nor will banning guns. My
> opinion stands.
>
Thanks for the considerate reply Mark. I don't think you and I are as far
apart as this point of discussion may make it appear, and I'm happy to
participate in civil discourse - even if we do widely disagree. So -
Thanks.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
On Mar 4, 9:28=A0pm, Markem <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Fri, 4 Mar 2011 20:05:14 -0500, "Mike Marlow"
>
>
>
>
>
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >Markem wrote:
> >> On Fri, 4 Mar 2011 12:46:15 -0800, "DGDevin" <[email protected]>
> >> wrote:
>
> >>> A feature of freedom is an absence of arbitrary and senseless
> >>> restrictions on what people can and cannot do. =A0You probably own a
> >>> bunch of stuff you don't "need"--shall we make it illegal for you to
> >>> own those items because you can't prove a need to do so?
>
> >>> Laws already exist to disarm people who demonstrate they are a
> >>> danger to others. =A0But you should probably brace yourself for the
> >>> cruel reality that no court would consider your personal disapproval
> >>> of firearms ownership to be a compelling argument.
>
> >> I have no problems with guns ownership as you seem to think. What you
> >> have said is totally of your own invention as to my opinions. There
> >> are idiots out there who own guns who should not, hopefully the only
> >> one that get hurt is them.
>
> >> Know if you need to rail on about guns and how I am opposed to them
> >> continue on in your fantasy world. We all need something to make us
> >> feel good.
>
> >These words by you... >>> Perhaps the "nuts" that think it is cool to ha=
ve a
> >gun and have no real need other than it fits they're ego... make his rep=
ly
> >to you seem on the spot.
>
> Mike I have no problem with them having a gun, but there are people
> who own guns who should not. Now that is a fact in our society. So
> does that make me a gun seizing nutcase? Firearms need to be treated
> with respect some idiots who own them do stupid things with them. The
> NRA is not going to change human stupidity nor will banning guns. My
> opinion stands.
>
> Mark
In this part of Canada, it is hard to buy a handgun, but possible.
It is hard for under-age kids (19) to buy booze, but possible.
A 16-year old can walk in a dealership and buy a 155 MPH crotch-
rocket.. or a zillion ton Hummer. No problem.
...and an 8-year old can score drugs... difficult, but possible.
10-year old kids can drop cement blocks from an overpass into the
windshield of a fully loaded propane truck.
Add to that the insane violence, which is portrayed as sport, in video
games.
The negative influence of violence on TV... even in cartoons. And
puhleeze don't tell me that shit kids watch on TV doesn't influence
them....that would collapse the advertisers who sell Count Obesula
Cerial!
On Fri, 4 Mar 2011 20:05:14 -0500, "Mike Marlow"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>Markem wrote:
>> On Fri, 4 Mar 2011 12:46:15 -0800, "DGDevin" <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>
>>>
>>> A feature of freedom is an absence of arbitrary and senseless
>>> restrictions on what people can and cannot do. You probably own a
>>> bunch of stuff you don't "need"--shall we make it illegal for you to
>>> own those items because you can't prove a need to do so?
>>>
>>> Laws already exist to disarm people who demonstrate they are a
>>> danger to others. But you should probably brace yourself for the
>>> cruel reality that no court would consider your personal disapproval
>>> of firearms ownership to be a compelling argument.
>>
>> I have no problems with guns ownership as you seem to think. What you
>> have said is totally of your own invention as to my opinions. There
>> are idiots out there who own guns who should not, hopefully the only
>> one that get hurt is them.
>>
>> Know if you need to rail on about guns and how I am opposed to them
>> continue on in your fantasy world. We all need something to make us
>> feel good.
>>
>
>These words by you... >>> Perhaps the "nuts" that think it is cool to have a
>gun and have no real need other than it fits they're ego... make his reply
>to you seem on the spot.
Mike I have no problem with them having a gun, but there are people
who own guns who should not. Now that is a fact in our society. So
does that make me a gun seizing nutcase? Firearms need to be treated
with respect some idiots who own them do stupid things with them. The
NRA is not going to change human stupidity nor will banning guns. My
opinion stands.
Mark
On 3/2/2011 11:49 AM, DGDevin wrote:
>
>
> "Just Wondering" wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>> Do you really believe that if there was such a licensing scheme, the
>> revenue would actually be used "to pay for weapons investigation
>> related issues"? More likely it would wind up in the hands of the
>> teachers' labor union.
>
> First, based on what happened in Canada the revenue from fees wouldn't
> even cover the cost of the program, it would pay for only a small
> fraction. Second, although I'm not a fan of the teachers unions, it's
> kind of foolish to suggest that money from firearms licensing fees would
> end up in the hands of the unions. In other words, one silly statement
> does not justify another.
>
(a) Money gets collected.
(b) Money is put into general fund.
(c) Money from general fund is sent to state education programs.
(d) State education programs put money in teachers' pockets.
(e) Teachers pay dues to their labor unions.
"DGDevin" wrote:
> The governments of Washington DC and Chicago could probably offer
> some useful comments on that, as their regulations which effectively
> denied a protected right didn't do so well in court.
----------------------------------
When clueless, reach for more of the old Intellectual Bull Shit game.
------------------------------------
> Here's a hint: poll taxes are illegal because they infringe on the
> Constitutional right to vote.
-----------------------------------
WTF does that have to do with the subject strawman?
Voting is not the issue, period end of report.
Lew
"Mike Marlow" wrote:
> But Lew - you state above that a fee is both a solution and a
> revenue generator. I'll agree that it's a revenue generator, but
> then why single out gun ownership?
----------------------------
Why not since they create excessive law enforcement expenses
associated with
crimes committed with firearms by criminals simply by being part of an
unidentified
gene pool of firearms owners.
---------------------------------
> Let's tax everything that we all chose to own.
--------------------------------
One way or another most everything is already getting taxed already.
For funzies, ask yourself this question.
If you had to pay a $25 annual renewal permit for every firearm you
presently own, how long would it be before you reduced the number of
firearms you possess?
----------------------------
> As for the solution aspect of your statement - how does that solve
> anything?
-------------------------------
It establishes a revenue stream to establish a data base of law
abiding folks as well as provide firearms training similar to
driver's Ed.
Of course the criminal element won't comply.
Matter of fact the idea is they won't comply which gives law
enforcement another tool to get the criminals and
THEIR FIREARMS OFF THE STREET.
Law enforcement stops somebody who is carrying a non licensed firearm,
they confiscate the weapon, place person in pokey, fine $5K,
and hear the judge impose a visit to the Graybar hotel for a year.
Lew
Lew
On Mar 5, 2:17=A0pm, "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> The problem is that you can't just say "some people should not own
> firearms" without defining which people in a manner that is legally
> enforcable. =A0So how would you define this prohibited class?
"Objection! Leading the witness"
In article <[email protected]>, markem618
@hotmail.com says...
>
> On Sat, 5 Mar 2011 00:01:30 -0500, "Mike Marlow"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >Markem wrote:
> >> On Fri, 4 Mar 2011 17:24:39 -0800, "DGDevin" <[email protected]>
> >> wrote:
>
> >Sorry Mark, but I really have to call you on that last statement. Just what
> >is your basis for stating anyone (who ever that may be) in your definition,
> >should not own a gun. You might have a good explanation for why you feel
> >this way, but the problem is that you have not stated anything more
> >substanative to articulate your point.
>
> If they just buy a gun have no experience or training and do not seek
> out training, put the loaded gun in the night stand.
Why should such a person be prohibited from owning a firearm? Do you
have evidence that such people create a signficant social problem?
> That would be an
> example, the kids who were shooting a birds on the telephone line with
> a couple twelve gauges, putting bird shot into Qwests fiber optic (the
> judge took they're toys away and sold them to pay Qwest for the
> damages, civil court).
Kids make mistakes. Would you prohibit them from ever owning a firearm
again because they made a mistake that didn't harm anyone?
> Actually no I do not have to articulate any more, some people should
> not own firearms. Most of the time it is after the fact that this
> become apparent.
The problem is that you can't just say "some people should not own
firearms" without defining which people in a manner that is legally
enforcable. So how would you define this prohibited class?
"Markem" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Actually no I do not have to articulate any more, some people should
> not own firearms.
Nobody has disputed that. The problem is your definition of who that should
be is arbitrary and nonsensical.
BTW, "they're toys" means "they are toys". You seem to routinely substitute
"they're" for "their".
On Sat, 5 Mar 2011 00:01:30 -0500, "Mike Marlow"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>Markem wrote:
>> On Fri, 4 Mar 2011 17:24:39 -0800, "DGDevin" <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>Sorry Mark, but I really have to call you on that last statement. Just what
>is your basis for stating anyone (who ever that may be) in your definition,
>should not own a gun. You might have a good explanation for why you feel
>this way, but the problem is that you have not stated anything more
>substanative to articulate your point.
If they just buy a gun have no experience or training and do not seek
out training, put the loaded gun in the night stand. That would be an
example, the kids who were shooting a birds on the telephone line with
a couple twelve gauges, putting bird shot into Qwests fiber optic (the
judge took they're toys away and sold them to pay Qwest for the
damages, civil court).
Actually no I do not have to articulate any more, some people should
not own firearms. Most of the time it is after the fact that this
become apparent.
Mark
On Sun, 6 Mar 2011 03:30:32 -0700, Upscale wrote
(in article <[email protected]>):
>
> "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> How does registering anything make its use more safe? That's the crux of
>> one of the points in this discourse Upscale. Registering does absolutely
>> nothing to increase safety.
>
<snip>
>
> Whatever I have to say isn't going to change a shred of American views. I
> realize that. But, I still have the right to state what I believe to be
> true. Of all the rights people have in the USA, one of if not the most
> important right is free speech. Are you going to argue or refute my right to
> free speech?
>
>
But by that argument, all rights are subject to some form of registration.
Would it not be prudent to gag all movie goers so they don't shout 'fire!' in
the theater?
On Feb 26, 9:13=A0pm, Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Feb 26, 8:44=A0pm, "DGDevin" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Lew Hodgett" =A0wrote in message
>
> >news:[email protected]...
>
> > "Robatoy" wrote:
> > >> In Detroit, Uncle Ted =A0(Nugent) told people to put a gun on their =
lap
> > >> as they drove through bad areas of the city.
> > >> Perp says: "get out, gimme your car" and next thing he knows, he's
> > >> clutching what once was his junk.
> > >> The word got out quickly.
> > >> Problem solved.
>
> > ----------------------------
>
> > > You want to define what's going on in Detroit as "Problem solved"?
> > > Strange.
>
> > Indeed. =A0Bumper sticker responses are so easy, and so useless. =A0We =
have
> > relations in Detroit, if they're going "downtown" they call around and =
get a
> > few neighbors to go together, or they don't go at all. =A0Detroit is le=
ss
> > violent than it once was, but it still tops the annual lists of America=
n
> > cities with the most violent crime. =A0"Problem solved"? =A0Good grief.
>
> "problem" refers to "car jackings" not to all violent crime.... but
> you might have overlooked that obvious connection when you were
> overwhelmed with the prospect that you could straighten out the big
> bad Robatoy.
>
> *smirk*
...btw.. I can be at 8mile &94 in about 45 mins. I know this area.
Han wrote:
>
> Larry, I don't accept wanting to have such a magazine as a valid
> reason. In my really seriously considered opinion it is irresponsible
> to even think that, let alone state it. To me it is the same as
> saying I want to have the recipe and the ingredients for making a
> nuclear device.
How do you consider it in any way irresponsible for a "normal" person to
want or to own a magazine like that? You do understand that it in and of
itself is not dangerous... Lots of people seek things like this just for
the mechanical aspect of it, the uniqueness of it, etc. It strikes me as
odd that you come down so strongly on something like this. It does not make
sense - as has been pointed out, a pocket full of 10 round magazines are
equally as threatening.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
Han wrote:
>>
>> There IS a line to be drawn somewhere.
>>
>> Here we have a case of carnage involving a large-capacity magazine.
>> You would outlaw these devices because there was ONE event in
>> recorded history of their misuse. In essence, you would penalize
>> thousands to prevent a VERY rare event.
>>
>> A pitiful mindset indeed.
>
> Indeed a line to be drawn. Ther is no real use for the large capacity
> magazines other than to spray many rounds real fast. Ergo, either
> prohibit or limit their sale. Indiscriminate distribution is wrong.
> It really is that simple.
What use is a baby?
It may be difficult, but wrap your mind around this concept: When it comes
to guns, "need" or "real use" or "hunting" has no traction with the gun
community.
The only thing that counts is "want."
On Mar 1, 5:39=A0am, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
> "ChairMan" <[email protected]> wrote in news:XF_ap.2$6A6.0
> @unlimited.newshosting.com:
>
> > Innews:[email protected],
> > Josepi <[email protected]> spewed forth:
> >> Real easy!
>
> >> Just remove ALL the guns from society at large.
>
> > No, the criminals will still have them, because they are "criminals"
>
> please take a course in logic. =A0Once all guns are removed, there are no
> more guns. =A0I'm not saying it would be easy, but ...
>
I do see what you're trying to get across. I see a problem though, and
that (aside from sheer logistic impossibility) is that the only way to
get the criminals to hand over their guns, or to forcibly take away
those guns....would be at 'gun point'. The cops would have the only
guns left and with it, absolute power...and we all know where _that_
leads us.
Guns, like knives, like clubs, like bows/arrows are a fact of life.
Weapons are a fact of life. To wish them away is not an option.. it
would be awesome if that could be made to happen, but it would be
easier to reverse the rotation of planet.
Having said that, as long as there is some schmuck with ill intent,
wandering the streets of my town, it is my DUTY to protect myself and
my family. The cops won't, so I will.
I reserve the right to be 'equal' to those who wish me and mine, harm.
If you're looking for a model, look no further that Switzerland....
even though the place is full of Switzers.
Relax! It was an exaggerated statement for humor to exemplify a point.
"DGDevin" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
First, based on what happened in Canada the revenue from fees wouldn't even
cover the cost of the program, it would pay for only a small fraction.
Second, although I'm not a fan of the teachers unions, it's kind of foolish
to suggest that money from firearms licensing fees would end up in the hands
of the unions. In other words, one silly statement does not justify
another.
"Just Wondering" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Do you really believe that if there was such a licensing scheme, the
> revenue would actually be used "to pay for weapons investigation related
> issues"? More likely it would wind up in the hands of the teachers' labor
> union.
On Mar 1, 7:42=A0am, "Josepi" <[email protected]> wrote:
> At least it is an admission that the country of the USA, in general, has =
an
> uncontrollable criminal element and their government is not willing to do
> their job to enforce the laws they have.
>
> It is too late for the USA anyway. They have supplied the criminals with
> "all the weapons they can eat" and cannot go back. With very =A0ineffecti=
ve
> criminal controls they supply the rest of the people with weapons in an
> attempt to do their job. They sheeple accept that logic as they haven't b=
een
> educated out of the 1800s mentality yet.
>
> I just find it very ironic that it that the "Weapons of mass destruction =
do
> not kill people. People kill people" slogan doesn't apply to other races =
of
> people.
>
It is sortakinda like driving by an accident... sometimes you just
have to look.
I saw Hose-pie's name on a header as lofty as "Welcome To Big Time
Politics" and thought: "this ought to be good."
It was. Complete and total laughable bullshit. What a fucking idiot.
.
.
.
.
....oops. did I say that?
"Upscale" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Tell me, why aren't you [snip]
Given that your previously demonstrated response to the discussion not going
your way is to have a hissy fit and stomp off to sulk, there wouldn't seem
to be much point in answering you, would there.
Biodegradable firearms are the thing of the future. In about 1000 years the
streets could be clean in the USA. Drug dealers would have to learn to fight
the old way and kids would have to kill their parents with rocks again.
School students could walk to safety when a rock thrower is on a tall
building with a scope mounted to his arm.
"Upscale" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
I'm pretty sure his suggestion to remove all guns would start addressing the
problem by eliminating guns supplied by gun dealers including their ability
to transfer the business to someone else.
No one ever said that removing all guns would be easy or fast. And most
certainly, if it was attempted, attrition over time, a long time, would be
part of the process. You've expressed your views on handling guns and drugs,
a view that's sometimes shared by others. My only comment there is that like
Han and those that feel the opposite, I'm not a believer that legalizing
something that appears uninforceable by any other means is the only viable
solution. In the short term it may cause so much havoc that society might
not recover. We each have our own beliefs and have discussed these subjects
many times, before. I doubt anybody is likely to change their opinions now.
Pax.
On Feb 27, 2:41=A0pm, "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>
> I realize that - but you kept repeating that as if the size of the magazi=
ne
> really means anything. =A0Take it out of the picture and any shooter coul=
d
> just as easily stick 3 ten round magazines in his pocket. =A0It takes a s=
econd
> or two to pop one and insert the new one. =A0Though it sounds like a 30 r=
ound
> magazine actually means something, it really doesn't.
>
What justification could there ever be for a 30 round mag?
a) Lousy shot?
b) "Necessary" because the threat is _that_ ominous? (Which would
make me think that another choice of weapon might be better?)
c) Some guy decided to manufacture those 30 round mags because he knew
some idiot would feel the need to buy one?
Seriously... why? Wouldn't it be better to pack TWO Glocks and hold
them sideways when firing after you've turned your ballcap around 90=B0?
Maybe a 30-round mag is a fashion statement to the romanticized
gangbangers?
Personally, if I can't eliminate a threat in 10 rounds, why would I
even bother to carry a gun?
Upscale wrote:
> "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> What is wrong with me owning the firearms that I own?
>
> And if you happen to be a nutcase who has yet to come to the
> attention of authorities? What then?
And... charging me an annual fee to register my firearms does exactly
"what", to address that unfounded concern? What about nutcases that have
not come to the attention of the authorities, and who will at some point in
the future do something awful - but not using a gun? You might be a nutcase
that will drive a car into a crowd of people tomorrow for that matter.
>
> I happen to like firearms. I always have, but for target shooting
> purposes, not a perceived need for protection.
That's fine. Some people want them for protection, some for hunting, some
for shooting sports. Their desire to have them for protection should be
none of your business, or at least not a concern to you.
> Having owned a number
> of guns in the past, I now have one left. The ownship of firearms in
> the US is not and never has been my objection. What I don't like is
> that it's too easy for most anybody to buy a firearm.
It's easy for anyone to buy a firearm in more places around the world than
just the US.
> There's too
> many nuts out there that have easy access to firearms. The process of
> registration, licensing and mandatory education courses would
> dissuade a great many people from buying. That's what I'd like to see.
Why should you feel it is your priviledge to disuade people from buying
guns? You had several in the past, and own one now. What would your
opinion be if someone arbitrarily decided you were one of the too many
people who own a gun and took whatever measures they preferred to ensure
that you didn't have one? Just because they decided you shouldn't have one.
That's exactly what you are promoting with your idea.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
"HeyBub" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> So "nuts" should not have a right to self-protection, enjoy target
> shooting or hunting, buy guns for investment purposes, collect firearms
> just for the sake of collecting them (like numismatists), own firearms for
> historical or genealogical purposes, put great-great-grandpa's
> muzzle-loader over the fireplace for sentimental value?
Exactly. Society is a complex web of competing rights. At the point where
you have been ruled a paranoid schizophrenic likely to inflict harm on
others, your right to self-defense takes second place to the right of your
neighbors to be safe from you.
> "Nuts" is just too encompassing. There are VERY few mental disorders
> wherein the person presents a danger to himself or others. I doubt anyone
> can find a case where an agoraphobic or someone afraid of star-faced moles
> ever harmed anyone with a gun (except, maybe, a star-faced mole). But
> current and proposed laws may very well paint with too broad a brush on
> these mental diseases or defects and thereby prohibit these harmless
> eccentrics from any of the firearm uses mentioned above.
For the purposes of useful discussion, let's confine "nuts" to persons
adjudicated as being a danger to themselves and/or others. Nobody is
suggesting those with eating disorders or a fear of flying should be unable
to possess firearms. And if someone finds themselves barred from owning
firearms due to being involuntarily committed, for example, there are legal
mechanisms available to them to have that ban lifted if they can demonstrate
to a court that they are not dangerous.
On Feb 26, 7:05=A0pm, Larry Jaques <[email protected]>
wrote:
> On 26 Feb 2011 21:27:30 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >dhall987 <[email protected]> wrote in
> >news:[email protected]:
>
> >> On Mon, 21 Feb 2011 08:27:59 -0600, "HeyBub" <[email protected]>
> >> wrote:
> >>>> Third, the Constitution says whatever the Supreme Court says it does=
,
> >>>> that's why a couple of recent cases have recognized that the 2nd
> >>>> Amendment protects an individual right to own firearms to the dismay
> >>>> of all those folks who disagree. =A0So until the court rules there
> >>>> shouldn't be a federal Dept. of Education, there will be one, and
> >>>> anyone who disagrees is welcome to vote for the party that is
> >>>> currently trying to strip funding from any government agency that ha=
s
> >>>> inconvenienced the corporate sponsors of that party.
>
> >> So I take it from this that you actually WANT to be ruled by a
> >> dictatorship of 9 old people appointed for life?
>
> >I believe the Constitution is the supreme law. =A0Whatever Congress enac=
ts
> >is the law as long as it doesn't conflict with the Constitution. =A0
> >President appoints Supremes with the consent of the Senate, so all in al=
l
> >pretty balanced, but still subject to new laws and especially laws'
> >interpretation. =A0And in my not so humble opinion, that's as it should =
be. =A0
>
> I prefer 9 very smart old guys over one dictator, any day.
>
> >Now personally, I'm really in favor of limiting guns and ammo ...
>
> Crikey, not again. CARS kill more people each year than guns do.
>
> I truly wish you would do some research along that line, Han. Paper
> after paper comes out with NO evidence that fewer guns make us safer
> and paper after paper comes out with evidence that gun control
> increases crime. =A0
>
> Defensive gun use (most weapons not even fired) account for around 1.5
> million crimes NOT being committed each year.
>
> The CDC did a comprehensive study on gun control studies and came to
> the conclusion that all fifty or so papers were inconclusive because
> not one of them had all the parameters of the other 49. =A0IOW, they
> couldn't prove their theory for advancing gun control, couldn't prove
> its effectiveness.http://www.vdare.com/francis/gun_control.htm(pro-gun bi=
as, but a good
> starting point)
>
> One statistic which should be a dead giveaway to all you wishful gun
> controllers is that while the number of guns in American hands has
> increased by hundreds of millions, the actual crime rate has gone
> down, year after year. =A0PLEASE look into it.
>
> I used to be against handguns until I saw the truth. I truly hope that
> you find it, too, before some perp in Manhattan mugs ya.
>
> --
> You can't wait for inspiration. You have to go after it with a club.
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 --Jack London
Car jackings slowed down significantly after a few perps were drilled
right through the car door as they attempted the crime.
In Detroit, Uncle Ted (Nugent) told people to put a gun on their lap
as they drove through bad areas of the city.
Perp says: "get out, gimme your car" and next thing he knows, he's
clutching what once was his junk.
The word got out quickly.
Problem solved.
On Feb 27, 3:41=A0pm, Bill <[email protected]> wrote:
> Robatoy wrote:
> > On Feb 27, 2:41 pm, "Mike Marlow"<[email protected]>
> > wrote:
>
> >> I realize that - but you kept repeating that as if the size of the mag=
azine
> >> really means anything. =A0Take it out of the picture and any shooter c=
ould
> >> just as easily stick 3 ten round magazines in his pocket. =A0It takes =
a second
> >> or two to pop one and insert the new one. =A0Though it sounds like a 3=
0 round
> >> magazine actually means something, it really doesn't.
>
> > What justification could there ever be for a 30 round mag?
>
> > a) Lousy shot?
>
> > b) "Necessary" because the threat is _that_ =A0ominous? (Which would
> > make me think that another choice of weapon might be better?)
>
> > c) Some guy decided to manufacture those 30 round mags because he knew
> > some idiot would feel the need to buy one?
>
> > Seriously... why? Wouldn't it be better to pack TWO Glocks and hold
> > them sideways when firing after you've turned your ballcap around 90 ?
> > Maybe a 30-round mag is a fashion statement to the romanticized
> > gangbangers?
>
> > Personally, if I can't eliminate a threat in 10 rounds, why would I
> > even bother to carry a gun?
>
> Multiple threats? =A0That click and the time to reload could cost ya...
Perhaps selecting a weapon more capable?.
Han wrote:
> "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>> I think this is the third or fourth time I've seen you make reference
>> to 33 round magazines. Why the continued reference to them? Most
>> gun owners - legal and illegal, do not own or use such things. It
>> may not be your attempt, but when I see that kind of reference
>> repeatedly, as I've seen in your recent comments, it strikes me that
>> you are trying to rely more on sensationalism than on a factual
>> position. Or - more than on a simple opinion, even.
>
> I can't imagine you didn't know that the Tucson shooter had 33-round
> (or was it 31-round?) magazines. There is absolutely no reason for a
> "regular" citizen to have such things.
I realize that - but you kept repeating that as if the size of the magazine
really means anything. Take it out of the picture and any shooter could
just as easily stick 3 ten round magazines in his pocket. It takes a second
or two to pop one and insert the new one. Though it sounds like a 30 round
magazine actually means something, it really doesn't.
As for the reasons - that's your opinion, and you are certainly entitled to
that opinion. There are however, all sorts of legitimate reasons why a
private citizen might want to own one. None of those reasons need to have
anything to do with killing people.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
Upscale wrote:
> "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> What is wrong with me owning the firearms that I own?
>
> And if you happen to be a nutcase who has yet to come to the
> attention of authorities? What then?
>
> I happen to like firearms. I always have, but for target shooting
> purposes, not a perceived need for protection. Having owned a number
> of guns in the past, I now have one left. The ownship of firearms in
> the US is not and never has been my objection. What I don't like is
> that it's too easy for most anybody to buy a firearm. There's too
> many nuts out there that have easy access to firearms. The process of
> registration, licensing and mandatory education courses would
> dissuade a great many people from buying. That's what I'd like to see.
So "nuts" should not have a right to self-protection, enjoy target shooting
or hunting, buy guns for investment purposes, collect firearms just for the
sake of collecting them (like numismatists), own firearms for historical or
genealogical purposes, put great-great-grandpa's muzzle-loader over the
fireplace for sentimental value?
"Nuts" is just too encompassing. There are VERY few mental disorders wherein
the person presents a danger to himself or others. I doubt anyone can find a
case where an agoraphobic or someone afraid of star-faced moles ever harmed
anyone with a gun (except, maybe, a star-faced mole). But current and
proposed laws may very well paint with too broad a brush on these mental
diseases or defects and thereby prohibit these harmless eccentrics from any
of the firearm uses mentioned above.
On Mar 6, 9:49=A0am, "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, markem618
> @hotmail.com says...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sat, 5 Mar 2011 22:48:05 -0500, "J. Clarke" <[email protected]>
> > wrote:
>
> > >In article <[email protected]>, markem618
> > >@hotmail.com says...
>
> > >> On Sat, 5 Mar 2011 13:33:07 -0800, "DGDevin" <[email protected]=
d>
> > >> wrote:
>
> > >> >"Markem" =A0wrote in message
> > >> >news:[email protected]...
>
> > >> >> I am not
> > >> >> going to define this anymore it is really just a fact.
>
> > >> >You seem to have trouble telling the difference between something t=
hat is
> > >> >fact and something that is just your opinion--they are not intercha=
ngeable.
> > >> >However many millions of people have the same problem.
>
> > >> >You also haven't addressed the issue of why someone who in your opi=
nion
> > >> >doesn't "need" to own a gun is therefore "nuts".
>
> > >> >Of course you have the right to express whatever opinion you please=
, but in
> > >> >future it might be worth thinking it through a bit before posting.
>
> > >> So everyone who owns a gun legally should?
>
> > >If they should not what do you propose to do about it?
>
> > >> If your answer is yes you are blinded by having to be right.
>
> > >And you are blinded by having no real point to make.
>
> > No but you are blinded just to be arguing, whats a matter your wife
> > always wins?
>
> I'm sorry, but asking you what action you propose with regard to your
> hypothesis is not "arguing". =A0And there is nothing to "win". =A0Either =
you
> have some action in mind or you don't. =A0If you don't have any action in
> mind then why should anyone care whether your hypothesis is correct? =A0I=
f
> you do have action in mind what action is it?
ROTFLMAO
Markem wrote:
> On Sat, 5 Mar 2011 00:03:33 -0500, "Mike Marlow"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Markem wrote:
>>> On Fri, 4 Mar 2011 18:53:13 -0800 (PST), Robatoy
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> The negative influence of violence on TV... even in cartoons. And
>>>> puhleeze don't tell me that shit kids watch on TV doesn't influence
>>>> them....that would collapse the advertisers who sell Count Obesula
>>>> Cerial!
>>>
>>> My nephew wanted his Aunt B to run him over with the car after a
>>> little league game, after all you just get blown back up with a tire
>>> pump. He was eight.
>>>
>>
>> Your nephew needs better parenting. Not social controls.
>
> I will be sure to tell his parents what a lousy job they are doing. He
> is now eighteen, is getting top grades in high school. Other than
> pushing his mothers buttons, a very good kid.
>
Well - if that floats your boat. You told a story. I responded to it in
the context you told it. Now you add new details. Oh well...
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
On Mar 5, 10:10=A0am, Markem <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> I will be sure to tell his parents what a lousy job they are doing. He
> is now eighteen, is getting top grades in high school.
>Other than pushing his mothers buttons, a very good kid.
>
That is age-appropriate. :-)
In article <[email protected]>, markem618
@hotmail.com says...
>
> On Sat, 5 Mar 2011 22:48:05 -0500, "J. Clarke" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >In article <[email protected]>, markem618
> >@hotmail.com says...
> >>
> >> On Sat, 5 Mar 2011 13:33:07 -0800, "DGDevin" <[email protected]>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >"Markem" wrote in message
> >> >news:[email protected]...
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >> I am not
> >> >> going to define this anymore it is really just a fact.
> >> >
> >> >You seem to have trouble telling the difference between something that is
> >> >fact and something that is just your opinion--they are not interchangeable.
> >> >However many millions of people have the same problem.
> >> >
> >> >You also haven't addressed the issue of why someone who in your opinion
> >> >doesn't "need" to own a gun is therefore "nuts".
> >> >
> >> >Of course you have the right to express whatever opinion you please, but in
> >> >future it might be worth thinking it through a bit before posting.
> >>
> >> So everyone who owns a gun legally should?
> >
> >If they should not what do you propose to do about it?
> >
> >> If your answer is yes you are blinded by having to be right.
> >
> >And you are blinded by having no real point to make.
>
> No but you are blinded just to be arguing, whats a matter your wife
> always wins?
I'm sorry, but asking you what action you propose with regard to your
hypothesis is not "arguing". And there is nothing to "win". Either you
have some action in mind or you don't. If you don't have any action in
mind then why should anyone care whether your hypothesis is correct? If
you do have action in mind what action is it?
On Sat, 5 Mar 2011 22:48:05 -0500, "J. Clarke" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>In article <[email protected]>, markem618
>@hotmail.com says...
>>
>> On Sat, 5 Mar 2011 13:33:07 -0800, "DGDevin" <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >"Markem" wrote in message
>> >news:[email protected]...
>> >
>> >
>> >> I am not
>> >> going to define this anymore it is really just a fact.
>> >
>> >You seem to have trouble telling the difference between something that is
>> >fact and something that is just your opinion--they are not interchangeable.
>> >However many millions of people have the same problem.
>> >
>> >You also haven't addressed the issue of why someone who in your opinion
>> >doesn't "need" to own a gun is therefore "nuts".
>> >
>> >Of course you have the right to express whatever opinion you please, but in
>> >future it might be worth thinking it through a bit before posting.
>>
>> So everyone who owns a gun legally should?
>
>If they should not what do you propose to do about it?
>
>> If your answer is yes you are blinded by having to be right.
>
>And you are blinded by having no real point to make.
No but you are blinded just to be arguing, whats a matter your wife
always wins?
On Sat, 5 Mar 2011 00:03:33 -0500, "Mike Marlow"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>Markem wrote:
>> On Fri, 4 Mar 2011 18:53:13 -0800 (PST), Robatoy
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> The negative influence of violence on TV... even in cartoons. And
>>> puhleeze don't tell me that shit kids watch on TV doesn't influence
>>> them....that would collapse the advertisers who sell Count Obesula
>>> Cerial!
>>
>> My nephew wanted his Aunt B to run him over with the car after a
>> little league game, after all you just get blown back up with a tire
>> pump. He was eight.
>>
>
>Your nephew needs better parenting. Not social controls.
I will be sure to tell his parents what a lousy job they are doing. He
is now eighteen, is getting top grades in high school. Other than
pushing his mothers buttons, a very good kid.
Mark
"DGDevin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> of firearms dealers are responsible for a hugely disproportionate number
> of guns used in crimes--why aren't we paying closer attention to those
> dealers? Why are such dealers who are occasionally shut down able to sign
> over the business to a family member or business partner and go on selling
> guns?
I'm pretty sure his suggestion to remove all guns would start addressing the
problem by eliminating guns supplied by gun dealers including their ability
to transfer the business to someone else.
No one ever said that removing all guns would be easy or fast. And most
certainly, if it was attempted, attrition over time, a long time, would be
part of the process. You've expressed your views on handling guns and drugs,
a view that's sometimes shared by others. My only comment there is that like
Han and those that feel the opposite, I'm not a believer that legalizing
something that appears uninforceable by any other means is the only viable
solution. In the short term it may cause so much havoc that society might
not recover. We each have our own beliefs and have discussed these subjects
many times, before. I doubt anybody is likely to change their opinions now.
Pax.
Now there is a complete surprise....LOL
"Mike Marlow" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
Well Han - I'm going to have to join those who have said that they'll just
have to disagree with you on this point.
Forget it Han. You will not alter the closed minds of people on this
subject. It is cultural and impressed upon them like it was some basic human
need to have these as a distraction for real issues.
Just remember these concepts only apply to them. When other countries have
bigger weapons the same rules suddenly do not apply.
---------------------------
"Han" wrote in message news:[email protected]...
Indeed a line to be drawn. Ther is no real use for the large capacity
magazines other than to spray many rounds real fast. Ergo, either
prohibit or limit their sale. Indiscriminate distribution is wrong. It
really is that simple.
At least it is an admission that the country of the USA, in general, has an
uncontrollable criminal element and their government is not willing to do
their job to enforce the laws they have.
It is too late for the USA anyway. They have supplied the criminals with
"all the weapons they can eat" and cannot go back. With very ineffective
criminal controls they supply the rest of the people with weapons in an
attempt to do their job. They sheeple accept that logic as they haven't been
educated out of the 1800s mentality yet.
I just find it very ironic that it that the "Weapons of mass destruction do
not kill people. People kill people" slogan doesn't apply to other races of
people.
----------------------------------------
"Upscale" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
That course of action, at least as it appears to many in the US, is too
difficult for them to even consider trying. Instead, they're only prepared
to take the easy way out of just legalizing everything, despite the fact
that it could be fraught with very serious consequenses. Status quo for the
illegal drug problem. *That* is the biggest problem, the apathetic nature of
too many. Any act really worth doing isn't done without considerable effort.
"Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> the future do something awful - but not using a gun? You might be a
> nutcase that will drive a car into a crowd of people tomorrow for that
> matter.
Bad choice for an example Mike since drivers are licensed, insured and have
had to pass a driving test to qualify for their license. I'm asking no more
or less for guns.
> That's fine. Some people want them for protection, some for hunting, some
> for shooting sports. Their desire to have them for protection should be
> none of your business, or at least not a concern to you.
My opinion on guns is fostered by the fact that they have one purpose only,
and that is to injure or kill. If a gun has some other purpose, the please
let me know what it is. Why shouldn't I expect that guns be licensed?
Hunting and target shooting are simple recreations and don't change the
primary purpose of a gun.
> Why should you feel it is your priviledge to disuade people from buying
> guns? You had several in the past, and own one now. What would your
> opinion be if someone arbitrarily decided you were one of the too many
> people who own a gun and took whatever measures they preferred to ensure
> that you didn't have one?
I already subscribe to control by registration, licensing and training.
Failure to do those things would result in the seizing of any guns I might
own ~ and these are things I approve of by the way. I argue for no more or
less for anyone else.
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
says...
>
> On Sat, 26 Feb 2011 16:15:23 -0600, "HeyBub" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >dhall987 wrote:
> >> On Mon, 21 Feb 2011 08:27:59 -0600, "HeyBub" <[email protected]>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Third, the Constitution says whatever the Supreme Court says it
> >>>> does, that's why a couple of recent cases have recognized that the
> >>>> 2nd Amendment protects an individual right to own firearms to the
> >>>> dismay of all those folks who disagree. So until the court rules
> >>>> there shouldn't be a federal Dept. of Education, there will be one,
> >>>> and anyone who disagrees is welcome to vote for the party that is
> >>>> currently trying to strip funding from any government agency that
> >>>> has inconvenienced the corporate sponsors of that party.
> >>>
> >> So I take it from this that you actually WANT to be ruled by a
> >> dictatorship of 9 old people appointed for life?
> >
> >Um, yeah, I guess. What's the alternative? Nine young people appointed for
> >life? Nine old people appointed for two years? Six old people appointed for
> >life?
> >
> >Still, the best form of government is a benevolent despot.
> >
> >Second best is probably what we've got.
> >
> I guess to me the "best form" would be to expect the Supreme Court to
> apply the Constitution appropriately and not accept that "the
> Constitution says whatever the Supreme Court says it does". The whole
> concept of the Constitution being a "living document" just seems
> bizarre to me. Unfortunately I still want to believe in a government
> of laws, not men - but if we accept that the 9 can simply ignore the
> law and make up whatever they want then that old saw doesn't quite
> work.
>
> Now the 2nd amendment and our court's failure, currently and
> historically, to uphold it is a prime example to me. I truly believe
> and wish that the government could control private ownership of arms.
> However, even a simpleton reading the 2nd amendment and the history of
> its enactment know that such controls are illegal. If our courts had
> held that way historically, we would have replaced the 2nd amendment
> decades ago. The amendment does not talk about handguns or rifles or
> muskets or bows & arrows ~ it talks about "arms". This clearly meant
> all forms of arms because it clearly meant the arms necessary to
> protect ourselves against an over-reaching central (federal)
> government. Yet courts a long time ago allowed the government to
> strictly govern and restrict our rights to keep and bear arms such as
> 155MM howitzers, 50 cal machine guns, mortars, etc. Believe me, if the
> 2nd amendment were interpreted as meant, we would have scared
> ourselves enough to overturn it a very long time ago.
If you research the case law, in the case that upheld the NFA, I believe
that you will find that the defendant was dead and the defense counsel
did not present arguments, so the court ruled based on the evidence and
arguments before it. They didn't make up any law there however with a
defense presented they might very well have ruled differently.
As for "failure currently", what "failure" is that? They have ruled
that it's an individual right, they've incorporated it under the 14th,
so future cases will determine where the limits of the government's
authority lie.
And I think that an attempt to "replace the Second Amendment" is going
to be an uphill battle. Amending the Constitution is deliberately not
easy.
>
> So, to kind of summarize, I am that odd person who is a strict
> constructionist that wants to have gun control. I just believe that we
> must (and should) change the constitution first. I do not think that
> the Supreme Court should be able to decide that society has "reached a
> new concensus" and dictate it. If we reach such a concensus then we
> should express it in one of the 2 ways set out in the Constitution for
> making that change.
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
>
> Han wrote:
> >
> > It may take only a second or to exchange a magazine, but a Glock is
> > reported to be able to shoot more than one round per second, so there
> > is a pause in the shooting when exchanging magazines. Moreover the
> > apparently easy availability of these huge magazines to persons who
> > should not even have a firearm of any kind is proof enough for me
> > that it is irresponsible to have them available. Just like it is
> > irresponsible for a gun dealer to state that it is illela but this is
> > how you make a semiautomatic gun/rifle into a fully automatic one.
>
> There IS a line to be drawn somewhere.
And the reasonable one is where the founders drew it--"A well regulated
militia . . ." That means an M-16 with multiple 30 round magazines.
>
> Here we have a case of carnage involving a large-capacity magazine. You
> would outlaw these devices because there was ONE event in recorded history
> of their misuse. In essence, you would penalize thousands to prevent a VERY
> rare event.
>
> A pitiful mindset indeed.
When a politician says "if it only helps one . . ." get out the
Preparation H because you're about to take it up the butt.
"dhall987" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>>If you have a better idea than a division of powers between the executive,
>>the legislature and the judiciary, by all means describe it for us.
> My point was that people seem to accept (and even celebrate) that the
> Supreme Court does not "interprete" or even "apply" the Constitution.
But it clearly does exactly that, and has for a long time.
> The poster that I replied to seemed to like the idea that the
> Constitution says whatever the Court says it does.
It isn't a question of liking it, but of recognizing that is what
happens--in the end the court makes the call, there is no appeal to a league
commissioner after the game. So if Washington DC passes a law saying you
can't own a handgun there, and you think that is unconstitutional, who else
do you appeal to? Some folks say the 2nd Amendment protects an individual
right, others say it's a collective right only in the context of service in
a militia, in the end we need someone to make a call, and the court has now
done that--it's an individual right, subject to regulation.
> Other celebrate the
> concept of the Constitution as a "living document", which simply
> meqans that the Court can change its meaning on a whim.
Not really, the court doesn't exist in a vacuum, it responds to shifts in
what American society broadly believes and will accept. Individual justices
and groups of justices bring their own beliefs to bear of course, but it
isn't like the court is going to announce it has changed its mind and the
19th Amendment wasn't enacted properly and thus women no longer have the
vote.
> The document
> clearly describes 2 methods by which we as a federal union can rwach a
> "new concensus" and neither of those is by simply a majority vote of 9
> old people.
Constitutional amendments are impractical for deciding the volume of
questions we ask of the courts. We're not living in an 18th century largely
agrarian society with a population of five million. These issues are going
to come up, they do in every society which practices the rule of law, none
of them has been able to do away with the courts, and so long as there are
both courts and a constitution then the former is going to be called on to
interpret the latter.
"Lew Hodgett" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> A solution that also generates a revenue stream is obvious.
> License all fire arms that get renewed annualy, much like hunting
> licenses.
> License renewal could be as low as $25/yr/weapon; however, failure to
> renew would be a $5K fine and 6 months in jail.
> Every body gets to keep their pacifiers and a few $ get generated to pay
> for weapons investigation related issues.
Great plan, just have to get that pesky Constitution out of the way first.
Oh sure, people will raise the example of New Zealand where a law requiring
periodic license renewals (with fees) resulted in what the authorities there
dryly described as "poor compliance". They even admitted that the majority
of guns used by criminals were illegally owned and that the pool of weapons
available to the criminal community was refreshed by illegally imported
weapons--gosh, who could have foreseen that? And then there is Canada,
where license and registration fees would make the system
self-financing--well, unless you count the umpteen million taxpayer dollars
poured in trying to make a badly broken system function. The govt. said it
would cost $119 million to set up a registration system, almost all paid by
fees. The actual cost has topped a billion dollars only a tenth of which
was covered by fees, and the system is still a mess. And then it came out
that the govt. hired a lobbyist to lobby the govt. for more money for the
registration system--it's like Alice In Wonderland....
Markem wrote:
> On Fri, 4 Mar 2011 12:46:15 -0800, "DGDevin" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>>
>> A feature of freedom is an absence of arbitrary and senseless
>> restrictions on what people can and cannot do. You probably own a
>> bunch of stuff you don't "need"--shall we make it illegal for you to
>> own those items because you can't prove a need to do so?
>>
>> Laws already exist to disarm people who demonstrate they are a
>> danger to others. But you should probably brace yourself for the
>> cruel reality that no court would consider your personal disapproval
>> of firearms ownership to be a compelling argument.
>
> I have no problems with guns ownership as you seem to think. What you
> have said is totally of your own invention as to my opinions. There
> are idiots out there who own guns who should not, hopefully the only
> one that get hurt is them.
>
> Know if you need to rail on about guns and how I am opposed to them
> continue on in your fantasy world. We all need something to make us
> feel good.
>
These words by you... >>> Perhaps the "nuts" that think it is cool to have a
gun and have no real need other than it fits they're ego... make his reply
to you seem on the spot.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
"Markem" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I have no problems with guns ownership as you seem to think. What you
> have said is totally of your own invention as to my opinions. There
> are idiots out there who own guns who should not, hopefully the only
> one that get hurt is them.
Oh I agree, there are people who shouldn't own guns--criminals, chronic
alcohol/drug abusers, wife-beaters, people suffering from violent mental
illnesses.
But you seem to have forgotten that your criterion for deciding who should
have guns was (quote): "Perhaps the "nuts" that think it is cool to have a
gun and have no real need other than it fits they're ego".
If you can demonstrate a meaning in that sentence other than you disapprove
of people who want a gun even though in your opinion they don't need one,
cool, please parse that sentence so as to reveal what you really meant as
opposed to what you wrote.
On Mar 6, 1:20=A0pm, Markem <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sun, 6 Mar 2011 12:48:59 -0500, "J. Clarke" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >In article <[email protected]>, markem618
> >@hotmail.com says...
>
> >> On Sun, 6 Mar 2011 09:49:56 -0500, "J. Clarke" <[email protected]>
> >> wrote:
>
> >> >In article <[email protected]>, markem618
> >> >@hotmail.com says...
>
> >> >> On Sat, 5 Mar 2011 22:48:05 -0500, "J. Clarke" <[email protected]=
et>
> >> >> wrote:
>
> >> >> >In article <[email protected]>, markem618
> >> >> >@hotmail.com says...
>
> >> >> >> On Sat, 5 Mar 2011 13:33:07 -0800, "DGDevin" <[email protected]=
valid>
> >> >> >> wrote:
>
> >> >> >> >"Markem" =A0wrote in message
> >> >> >> >news:[email protected]...
>
> >> >> >> >> I am not
> >> >> >> >> going to define this anymore it is really just a fact.
>
> >> >> >> >You seem to have trouble telling the difference between somethi=
ng that is
> >> >> >> >fact and something that is just your opinion--they are not inte=
rchangeable.
> >> >> >> >However many millions of people have the same problem.
>
> >> >> >> >You also haven't addressed the issue of why someone who in your=
opinion
> >> >> >> >doesn't "need" to own a gun is therefore "nuts".
>
> >> >> >> >Of course you have the right to express whatever opinion you pl=
ease, but in
> >> >> >> >future it might be worth thinking it through a bit before posti=
ng.
>
> >> >> >> So everyone who owns a gun legally should?
>
> >> >> >If they should not what do you propose to do about it?
>
> >> >> >> If your answer is yes you are blinded by having to be right.
>
> >> >> >And you are blinded by having no real point to make.
>
> >> >> No but you are blinded just to be arguing, whats a matter your wife
> >> >> always wins?
>
> >> >I'm sorry, but asking you what action you propose with regard to your
> >> >hypothesis is not "arguing". =A0And there is nothing to "win". =A0Eit=
her you
> >> >have some action in mind or you don't. =A0If you don't have any actio=
n in
> >> >mind then why should anyone care whether your hypothesis is correct? =
=A0If
> >> >you do have action in mind what action is it?
>
> >> Sorry I do not have to fit within any of what you seem to think.
>
> >So you are saying that there is a third alternative? =A0That you neither
> >have an action in mind nor do you not have an action in mind? =A0If so
> >then what do you have in mind?
>
> Yes no where in my TOS or AUP of my ISP does it say that I have to
> conform to what you want.
>
> Mark
DNFTFT
In article <[email protected]>, markem618
@hotmail.com says...
>
> On Sat, 5 Mar 2011 22:59:02 -0500, "J. Clarke" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >In article <[email protected]>, markem618
> >@hotmail.com says...
> >>
> >> On Sat, 5 Mar 2011 17:14:32 -0500, "J. Clarke" <[email protected]>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >In article <[email protected]>, markem618
> >> >@hotmail.com says...
> >> >>
> >> >> On Sat, 5 Mar 2011 14:17:02 -0500, "J. Clarke" <[email protected]>
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >The problem is that you can't just say "some people should not own
> >> >> >firearms" without defining which people in a manner that is legally
> >> >> >enforcable. So how would you define this prohibited class?
> >> >>
> >> >> I am not prohibiting anyone, just say some people should not have
> >> >> them.
> >> >
> >> >If you're not in favor of preventing such persons from having them then
> >> >to what purpose are you saying this?
> >>
> >> Why not?
> >
> >I'm sorry but "why not" is not a statement of purpose.
> >
>
> This from someone who jumps in just to be arguing.
Why are you getting defensive?
On Sat, 5 Mar 2011 22:59:02 -0500, "J. Clarke" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>In article <[email protected]>, markem618
>@hotmail.com says...
>>
>> On Sat, 5 Mar 2011 17:14:32 -0500, "J. Clarke" <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <[email protected]>, markem618
>> >@hotmail.com says...
>> >>
>> >> On Sat, 5 Mar 2011 14:17:02 -0500, "J. Clarke" <[email protected]>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >The problem is that you can't just say "some people should not own
>> >> >firearms" without defining which people in a manner that is legally
>> >> >enforcable. So how would you define this prohibited class?
>> >>
>> >> I am not prohibiting anyone, just say some people should not have
>> >> them.
>> >
>> >If you're not in favor of preventing such persons from having them then
>> >to what purpose are you saying this?
>>
>> Why not?
>
>I'm sorry but "why not" is not a statement of purpose.
>
This from someone who jumps in just to be arguing.
Mark
On Sun, 6 Mar 2011 12:48:59 -0500, "J. Clarke" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>In article <[email protected]>, markem618
>@hotmail.com says...
>>
>> On Sun, 6 Mar 2011 09:49:56 -0500, "J. Clarke" <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <[email protected]>, markem618
>> >@hotmail.com says...
>> >>
>> >> On Sat, 5 Mar 2011 22:48:05 -0500, "J. Clarke" <[email protected]>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >In article <[email protected]>, markem618
>> >> >@hotmail.com says...
>> >> >>
>> >> >> On Sat, 5 Mar 2011 13:33:07 -0800, "DGDevin" <[email protected]>
>> >> >> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >"Markem" wrote in message
>> >> >> >news:[email protected]...
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> I am not
>> >> >> >> going to define this anymore it is really just a fact.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >You seem to have trouble telling the difference between something that is
>> >> >> >fact and something that is just your opinion--they are not interchangeable.
>> >> >> >However many millions of people have the same problem.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >You also haven't addressed the issue of why someone who in your opinion
>> >> >> >doesn't "need" to own a gun is therefore "nuts".
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >Of course you have the right to express whatever opinion you please, but in
>> >> >> >future it might be worth thinking it through a bit before posting.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> So everyone who owns a gun legally should?
>> >> >
>> >> >If they should not what do you propose to do about it?
>> >> >
>> >> >> If your answer is yes you are blinded by having to be right.
>> >> >
>> >> >And you are blinded by having no real point to make.
>> >>
>> >> No but you are blinded just to be arguing, whats a matter your wife
>> >> always wins?
>> >
>> >I'm sorry, but asking you what action you propose with regard to your
>> >hypothesis is not "arguing". And there is nothing to "win". Either you
>> >have some action in mind or you don't. If you don't have any action in
>> >mind then why should anyone care whether your hypothesis is correct? If
>> >you do have action in mind what action is it?
>>
>> Sorry I do not have to fit within any of what you seem to think.
>
>So you are saying that there is a third alternative? That you neither
>have an action in mind nor do you not have an action in mind? If so
>then what do you have in mind?
Yes no where in my TOS or AUP of my ISP does it say that I have to
conform to what you want.
Mark
On Fri, 4 Mar 2011 12:46:15 -0800, "DGDevin" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>
>
>"Markem" wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>
>
>> Perhaps the "nuts" that think it is cool to have a gun and have no
>> real need other than it fits they're ego.
>
>A feature of freedom is an absence of arbitrary and senseless restrictions
>on what people can and cannot do. You probably own a bunch of stuff you
>don't "need"--shall we make it illegal for you to own those items because
>you can't prove a need to do so?
>
>> So there are ones who own guns legally that should never be allowed
>> near a gun, but my best hope for them is that they appear upon the
>> Darwin Awards.
>
>Laws already exist to disarm people who demonstrate they are a danger to
>others. But you should probably brace yourself for the cruel reality that
>no court would consider your personal disapproval of firearms ownership to
>be a compelling argument.
I have no problems with guns ownership as you seem to think. What you
have said is totally of your own invention as to my opinions. There
are idiots out there who own guns who should not, hopefully the only
one that get hurt is them.
Know if you need to rail on about guns and how I am opposed to them
continue on in your fantasy world. We all need something to make us
feel good.
Mark
In news:[email protected],
Josepi <[email protected]> spewed forth:
> Real easy!
>
> Just remove ALL the guns from society at large.
>
>
No, the criminals will still have them, because they are "criminals"
On Thu, 03 Mar 2011 13:25:44 -0700, Just Wondering <[email protected]> wrote:
>On 3/2/2011 7:00 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>> On Wed, 2 Mar 2011 17:57:35 -0800, "DGDevin"<[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> "Just Wondering" wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>
>>>
>>>> (a) Money gets collected.
>>>> (b) Money is put into general fund.
>>>> (c) Money from general fund is sent to state education programs.
>>>> (d) State education programs put money in teachers' pockets.
>>>> (e) Teachers pay dues to their labor unions.
>>>
>>> Okay, then by that logic since the same fund pays the salaries of
>>> politicians the money could end up in the hands of strip club owners and
>>> hookers.
>>
>> What's wrong with paying people for honest work?
>
>Nothing. But there is something wrong about paying public service
>workers $80,000 a year for work that the private sector only pays
>$50,000 for.
Woooossshhhh!
Larry, I said:
>>Now personally, I'm really in favor of limiting guns and ammo ...
The fact that people get killed because unstable persons can get hold of
guns and VAST supplies of ammo this easily is proof that LIMITING should
work.
The vast majority of people may be sane and careful etc, etc, the few fools
should NOT get hold of guns. It was a really good thing that the people
who came to the rescue in Tucson didn't start shooting, because that would
have been true slaughter then. It's great that it then ended because the
potential was just terrible.
I have walked and used buses and subways, as well as cabs across Manhattan
for 34 years, and nothing of note has happened to me. Admittedly I
frequented relatively good areas (Midtown between 8th & 1st Ave and 14th to
70th streets).
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
On 28 Feb 2011 18:42:25 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>[email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote in
>news:[email protected]:
>
>> I advocate strict enforcement of existing laws. I also believe that
>> legislatures should not pass laws that cannot be enforced, on the
>> grounds that doing so wastes time and promotes disrespect for the
>> legislature and the law.
>>
>
>I do too.
Thirded.
--
Invest in America: Buy a CONgresscritter today!
[email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> If you disagree with the statements, an explanation of why you think
> they are incorrect would be far more persuasive than raising ad
> hominem attacks against the person who made them.
Do you think that Glock pistols and 33-round magazines should be available
to everyone?
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
Josepi wrote:
> Take the logic to ridiculous heights anf then point out it's
> weaknesses that do not even apply.
>
> Why would a mugger shoot you if you don't have a weapon? Totally
> stupid logic.
I used to doubt that you even had a head, based on past posts by you. I now
am convinced that you do, indeed have a head as made obvious by where you
have it...
>
> "Let's see! If I get caught I can spend two years or a suspended
> sentence for robbing this old guy or I can just shoot him right away
> and risk life or the death penalty??? Now if he has a gun I could
> claim it as self defense and get away with it, so let's just shoot
> the old guy right away and be done with all the hard thinking!"
Don't leave - reality is coming your way.
>
> The USA people need guns to protect themselves against all the other
> guns that were bought to protect themselves from all the other guns
> that were bought to protect themselves..... We save our money to sit
> on beaches in Mexico and Spain and laugh about it.
>
That's good. You sit there - but why don't you just sit there quietly
instead of making such a fool of yourself? You really don't believe that
the US is the only country with guns in the hands of private citizens, do
you?
> You (the USAnians) have themselves a problem and just can't get out
> of it. The government has the people tied up in logic over "their
> basic rights" while they screw them from the back with wars and
> donating their children to them.
Sigh... would you consent to coming over here and showing us the right way?
Oh wonderful, knowledgeable one? On second thought - don't bother...
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
On 01 Mar 2011 10:39:21 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>"ChairMan" <[email protected]> wrote in news:XF_ap.2$6A6.0
>@unlimited.newshosting.com:
>
>> In news:[email protected],
>> Josepi <[email protected]> spewed forth:
>>> Real easy!
>>>
>>> Just remove ALL the guns from society at large.
>>
>> No, the criminals will still have them, because they are "criminals"
>
>please take a course in logic. Once all guns are removed, there are no
>more guns. I'm not saying it would be easy, but ...
Taking the guns away from society is like taking all the bars down
from the zoo. Wild animals would be everywhere, with no constraint.
Please take some logic courses yourself, and think it through!
If you think a criminal is no longer a criminal or a threat just
because he doesn't have a gun, you're _sorely_ mistaken.
When a criminal sees that their victim is totally unarmed, it
emboldens them to do more and worse. How can you sleep at night with
those thoughts?
--
That is what learning is. You suddenly understand something
you've understood all your life, but in a new way.
-- Doris Lessing
Take the logic to ridiculous heights anf then point out it's weaknesses that
do not even apply.
Why would a mugger shoot you if you don't have a weapon? Totally stupid
logic.
"Let's see! If I get caught I can spend two years or a suspended sentence
for robbing this old guy or I can just shoot him right away and risk life or
the death penalty??? Now if he has a gun I could claim it as self defense
and get away with it, so let's just shoot the old guy right away and be done
with all the hard thinking!"
"Damn! He's on the ground dead! Now **I*** have to do all the hard work
looking for his wallet!.....duh!"
The USA people need guns to protect themselves against all the other guns
that were bought to protect themselves from all the other guns that were
bought to protect themselves..... We save our money to sit on beaches in
Mexico and Spain and laugh about it.
You (the USAnians) have themselves a problem and just can't get out of it.
The government has the people tied up in logic over "their basic rights"
while they screw them from the back with wars and donating their children to
them.
---------------------
"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
Taking the guns away from society is like taking all the bars down
from the zoo. Wild animals would be everywhere, with no constraint.
Please take some logic courses yourself, and think it through!
If you think a criminal is no longer a criminal or a threat just
because he doesn't have a gun, you're _sorely_ mistaken.
When a criminal sees that their victim is totally unarmed, it
emboldens them to do more and worse. How can you sleep at night with
those thoughts?
--
That is what learning is. You suddenly understand something
you've understood all your life, but in a new way.
-- Doris Lessing
"Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> I think this is the third or fourth time I've seen you make reference
> to 33 round magazines. Why the continued reference to them? Most gun
> owners - legal and illegal, do not own or use such things. It may not
> be your attempt, but when I see that kind of reference repeatedly, as
> I've seen in your recent comments, it strikes me that you are trying
> to rely more on sensationalism than on a factual position. Or - more
> than on a simple opinion, even.
I can't imagine you didn't know that the Tucson shooter had 33-round (or
was it 31-round?) magazines. There is absolutely no reason for a
"regular" citizen to have such things.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
"Larry Jaques" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> Shall we license epoxy by the gram? What do you think of $25/yr for
> the license to allow you to obtain it, then ten cents a gram? I think
> we need to license epoxy stir sticks, too.
Feeble, brain dead comparisons. Over and over you come up with the dumbest
examples in some inane attempt to argue your need for a gun. Licensing a
firearm is not a ridiculous idea (except in your feeble mind) as compared to
your epoxy example. On no level are they comparable (except in your feeble
mind). On what exact level of reasoning does one compare a glue product to a
weapon? I know. The next time I visit Home Depot, I'm going to go armed
because some mad shopper might use a bottle of epoxy to attack me. Better I
go armed so I can protect myself because the police won't do it.
How about your other argument. "When someone breaks into my home and they
have a gun, I can protect myself". Has it ever happened to you? Has it ever
happened to others you know? Next you'll be telling everybody how it's
happened to dozens of your neighbours. BULLSHIT!
I've never been robbed at gunpoint, knifepoint or even at epoxy bottle
point, yet I live in Canada's largest city. Neither has anybody I know and I
know quite a few people. While taking reasonable precautions is certainly a
good idea, the fact is that the vast majority of people don't live in your
conjured, horrific little world. At least they don't in Canada. Maybe, your
vaunted USA is different? ~ It was a perfectly fine and generally safe place
to visit the times I've travelled down to the US.
If that's the type of society you live in, then you can have it. No one I
know would live in a place where they were so terrified that they had to be
armed at all times. Why don't you admit it? You want to have a gun only
because it's a right given you and for no other reason. That I can
understand. All your fear mongering about your need to be protected does is
tell people that your country is a dangerous hell hole that no sane person
would want to live in. Is that how you'd like potential visitors to think
about the USA?
Josepi wrote:
> Looks like the "mini" gun controls are quite frequently found in USA
> despite any constitutional statements or laws based on them.
>
> What does a gun carrier do then? Leave the loaded gun in his/her car
> for the criminal to have easy access?
>
> Interesting.
>
Sure. Constitutional "rights" are limits on what GOVERNMENT can do, not what
a private person can do.
For example, the 1st Amendment starts "CONGRESS shall make no law..." This
says that the FEDERAL government cannot prohibit freedom of the press. An
individual employer can, for example, limit the hell out of what you
publish, even on your own time. A school cannot sanction a student for what
a student writes on a facebook page, but your boss can sure fire you for
saying the same thing.
For the first 150 years, or so, the Bill of Rights applied ONLY to the
federal government. States were free to have a state-sponsored church or
whatever. In 1925, the Supreme Court began "incorporating" these rights
against the states. The latest to be incorporated (2010) was the 2nd
Amendment in that it is now binding on the states.
There are still a few items in the BOR that are still NOT binding on the
states. States can still impose excessive bail, dispense with indictment by
a grand jury or a jury trial in civil cases, and can quarter troops in
private homes during peacetime.
Upscale wrote:
> Feeble, brain dead comparisons. Over and over you come up with the
> dumbest examples in some inane attempt to argue your need for a gun.
> Licensing a firearm is not a ridiculous idea (except in your feeble
> mind) as compared to your epoxy example. On no level are they
> comparable (except in your feeble mind). On what exact level of
> reasoning does one compare a glue product to a weapon? I know. The
> next time I visit Home Depot, I'm going to go armed because some mad
> shopper might use a bottle of epoxy to attack me. Better I go armed
> so I can protect myself because the police won't do it.
Nope - can't do that. Home Depot has a "No Firearms" policy in their
stores...
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
On 3/2/2011 7:20 PM, Josepi wrote:
> Looks like the "mini" gun controls are quite frequently found in USA
> despite any constitutional statements or laws based on them.
>
> What does a gun carrier do then? Leave the loaded gun in his/her car for
> the criminal to have easy access?
>
> Interesting.
>
> -----------------------------------
>
> "Just Wondering" wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> It's private property. A property owner has a right to control how his
> property is used.
>
>
> On 3/2/2011 9:27 AM, Josepi wrote:
> Can that actually be true in The USA?
>
> Can a store violate the constitution, on their private property, telling
> people they have a right to bear arms?
>
>
What you have is a conflict between two constitutional rights. Either
you tell the gun owner that there is a limit to where he can carry a
gun, or you tell the gunowner he has no right to say what can happen on
his property. It's no different then telling someone he can't
demonstrate in your living room. Sure, there is a right to free speech,
but as a homeowner you have a right to keep others from exercising their
free speech in your home.
On 3/3/2011 1:36 PM, CW wrote:
> "Just Wondering"<[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> On 3/2/2011 9:27 AM, Josepi wrote:
>>> Can that actually be true in The USA?
>>>
>>> Can a store violate the constitution, on their private property, telling
>>> people they have a right to bear arms?
>>>
>>
>> It's private property. A property owner has a right to control how his
>> property is used.
>
> Not around here. If it is open for business, it is no longer private
> property. That is the justification they used when they told businesses they
> could no long allow people to smoke on their premises. Now that they have
> established that your private business is not private, it is subject to the
> wishes of the state, what's next?
>
It's more complicated than that. It's not that the property is no
longer private, it is still private property. It's not that the
property owner has no rights, it is the balancing of his rights against
the rights of other people to be free from exposure to carcinogens (in
the form of second-hand smoke). Personally I like being protected from
exposure to cancer risks. But as a purely constitutional matter, has
SCOTUS ruled on the states' power to impose those kind of restrictions?
"Just Wondering" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 3/3/2011 1:36 PM, CW wrote:
>> "Just Wondering"<[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> On 3/2/2011 9:27 AM, Josepi wrote:
>>>> Can that actually be true in The USA?
>>>>
>>>> Can a store violate the constitution, on their private property,
>>>> telling
>>>> people they have a right to bear arms?
>>>>
>>>
>>> It's private property. A property owner has a right to control how his
>>> property is used.
>>
>> Not around here. If it is open for business, it is no longer private
>> property. That is the justification they used when they told businesses
>> they
>> could no long allow people to smoke on their premises. Now that they have
>> established that your private business is not private, it is subject to
>> the
>> wishes of the state, what's next?
>>
>
> It's more complicated than that.
No, it isn't.
>It's not that the
> property owner has no rights,
True. He still has the rights that the state lets him keep.
> it is the balancing of his rights against
> the rights of other people to be free from exposure to carcinogens (in the
> form of second-hand smoke).
Why don't they simply pass a law against having someone stand outside
business establishments forcing people at gun point to enter.
>Personally I like being protected from
> exposure to cancer risks.
Can't take care of yourself so need the government to do it for you. Got it.
"Just Wondering" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 3/2/2011 9:27 AM, Josepi wrote:
>> Can that actually be true in The USA?
>>
>> Can a store violate the constitution, on their private property, telling
>> people they have a right to bear arms?
>>
>
> It's private property. A property owner has a right to control how his
> property is used.
Not around here. If it is open for business, it is no longer private
property. That is the justification they used when they told businesses they
could no long allow people to smoke on their premises. Now that they have
established that your private business is not private, it is subject to the
wishes of the state, what's next?
Can that actually be true in The USA?
Can a store violate the constitution, on their private property, telling
people they have a right to bear arms?
--
"Mike Marlow" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
Nope - can't do that. Home Depot has a "No Firearms" policy in their
stores...
Woodn't surprise me one bit after seeing the temperaments of some of the
self-professed better woodworkers here...LOL
Not a problem. Nailguns only drive nails out very slowly and and cannot
shoot them any distance...LOL
Fertilizer makes a better attack weapon anyway. "Excuse me? Where is your
diesel fuel?"
Fertilizer doesn't kill people. People kill people.
--------------
"Upscale" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
Afraid some irate woodworker is going to have a meltdown while waiting in
line and attack you with a cordless nail gun?
"Larry" <[email protected]> wrote in message
Maybe where you live but not in Texas. I don't patronize stores
that have a no gun policy. HD is a last resort but I do shop
there on occasion.
"Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> Upscale wrote:
>
>> Feeble, brain dead comparisons. Over and over you come up
>> with the dumbest examples in some inane attempt to argue
>> your need for a gun. Licensing a firearm is not a
>> ridiculous idea (except in your feeble mind) as compared
>> to your epoxy example. On no level are they comparable
>> (except in your feeble mind). On what exact level of
>> reasoning does one compare a glue product to a weapon? I
>> know. The next time I visit Home Depot, I'm going to go
>> armed because some mad shopper might use a bottle of epoxy
>> to attack me. Better I go armed so I can protect myself
>> because the police won't do it.
>
> Nope - can't do that. Home Depot has a "No Firearms"
> policy in their stores...
>
Maybe where you live but not in Texas. I don't patronize stores
that have a no gun policy. HD is a last resort but I do shop
there on occasion.
Larry wrote:
> "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>>
>> Nope - can't do that. Home Depot has a "No Firearms"
>> policy in their stores...
>>
>
> Maybe where you live but not in Texas. I don't patronize stores
> that have a no gun policy. HD is a last resort but I do shop
> there on occasion.
Didn't know that. I thought it was a corporate policy.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
On Tue, 1 Mar 2011 15:02:11 -0800, "Lew Hodgett"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>Somebody wrote:
>
>> Just remove ALL the guns from society at large.
>
>Somebody else wrote:
>
>>> No, the criminals will still have them, because they are
>>> "criminals"
>--------------------------------------
>A solution that also generates a revenue stream is obvious.
>
>License all fire arms that get renewed annualy, much like hunting
>licenses.
Criminals don't pay fees or license their guns, only the law-abiding
citizenry does.
>License renewal could be as low as $25/yr/weapon; however, failure to
>renew would be a $5K fine and 6 months in jail.
>Every body gets to keep their pacifiers and a few $ get generated to
>pay for weapons investigation related issues.
Shall we license epoxy by the gram? What do you think of $25/yr for
the license to allow you to obtain it, then ten cents a gram? I think
we need to license epoxy stir sticks, too.
Fees to be used to pay for allergic reactions to BisphenolA.
--
That is what learning is. You suddenly understand something
you've understood all your life, but in a new way.
-- Doris Lessing
Looks like the "mini" gun controls are quite frequently found in USA despite
any constitutional statements or laws based on them.
What does a gun carrier do then? Leave the loaded gun in his/her car for
the criminal to have easy access?
Interesting.
-----------------------------------
"Just Wondering" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
It's private property. A property owner has a right to control how his
property is used.
On 3/2/2011 9:27 AM, Josepi wrote:
Can that actually be true in The USA?
Can a store violate the constitution, on their private property, telling
people they have a right to bear arms?
In article <[email protected]>, Just Wondering <[email protected]> wrote:
>On 3/2/2011 9:27 AM, Josepi wrote:
>> Can that actually be true in The USA?
>>
>> Can a store violate the constitution, on their private property, telling
>> people they have a right to bear arms?
>>
>
>It's private property. A property owner has a right to control how his
>property is used.
PDFTFT
Doug couldn't think of anything relevant to say again.
http://groups.google.com/groups/search?as_q=&as_epq=PDFTFT&as_oq=&as_eq=&num=100&scoring=&lr=&as_sitesearch=&as_qdr=&as_drrb=b&as_mind=1&as_minm=1&as_miny=2001&as_maxd=1&as_maxm=1&as_maxy=2011&as_ugroup=&as_usubject=&as_uauthors=Doug+Miller&safe=off
------------------
"Doug Miller" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
PDFTFT
"Larry" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> Maybe where you live but not in Texas. I don't patronize stores
> that have a no gun policy. HD is a last resort but I do shop
> there on occasion.
Afraid some irate woodworker is going to have a meltdown while waiting in
line and attack you with a cordless nail gun?
Han <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>> I think this is the third or fourth time I've seen you
>> make reference to 33 round magazines. Why the continued
>> reference to them? Most gun owners - legal and illegal,
>> do not own or use such things. It may not be your
>> attempt, but when I see that kind of reference repeatedly,
>> as I've seen in your recent comments, it strikes me that
>> you are trying to rely more on sensationalism than on a
>> factual position. Or - more than on a simple opinion,
>> even.
>
> I can't imagine you didn't know that the Tucson shooter had
> 33-round (or was it 31-round?) magazines. There is
> absolutely no reason for a "regular" citizen to have such
> things.
>
Sure there is, if for no other reason, because I *want* one.
You can't seem to get a grasp of it, the problem is the
criminals. If you feel otherwise there are plently of places
in the world for you to live that have strict gun control if
that makes you more comfortable. Stop trying to change one of
the fundamental principles the country was founded on.
Larry
Bill <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
> Robatoy wrote:
>> On Feb 27, 2:41 pm, "Mike Marlow"<[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> I realize that - but you kept repeating that as if the size of the
>>> magazine really means anything. Take it out of the picture and any
>>> shooter could just as easily stick 3 ten round magazines in his
>>> pocket. It takes a second or two to pop one and insert the new one.
>>> Though it sounds like a 30 round magazine actually means something,
>>> it really doesn't.
>>>
>>
>> What justification could there ever be for a 30 round mag?
>>
>> a) Lousy shot?
>>
>> b) "Necessary" because the threat is _that_ ominous? (Which would
>> make me think that another choice of weapon might be better?)
>>
>> c) Some guy decided to manufacture those 30 round mags because he
>> knew some idiot would feel the need to buy one?
>>
>> Seriously... why? Wouldn't it be better to pack TWO Glocks and hold
>> them sideways when firing after you've turned your ballcap around
>> 90°? Maybe a 30-round mag is a fashion statement to the romanticized
>> gangbangers?
>>
>> Personally, if I can't eliminate a threat in 10 rounds, why would I
>> even bother to carry a gun?
>
> Multiple threats? That click and the time to reload could cost ya...
I walk across Manhattan unarmed. Some of you might think I'm crazy. I
think you are crazy if you let yourself get in a situation where you
would have needed a serious machine gun to get out of it. It's all
situational, and your opinionis just as valid as mine. Just YOU make
sure I never have to confront a loony with serious armaments.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
Larry <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
> Sure there is, if for no other reason, because I *want* one.
> You can't seem to get a grasp of it, the problem is the
> criminals. If you feel otherwise there are plently of places
> in the world for you to live that have strict gun control if
> that makes you more comfortable. Stop trying to change one of
> the fundamental principles the country was founded on.
Larry, I don't accept wanting to have such a magazine as a valid reason.
In my really seriously considered opinion it is irresponsible to even think
that, let alone state it. To me it is the same as saying I want to have
the recipe and the ingredients for making a nuclear device.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
Han <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> Larry <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>> Sure there is, if for no other reason, because I *want*
>> one. You can't seem to get a grasp of it, the problem is
>> the criminals. If you feel otherwise there are plently of
>> places in the world for you to live that have strict gun
>> control if that makes you more comfortable. Stop trying to
>> change one of the fundamental principles the country was
>> founded on.
>
> Larry, I don't accept wanting to have such a magazine as a
> valid reason. In my really seriously considered opinion it
> is irresponsible to even think that, let alone state it.
> To me it is the same as saying I want to have the recipe
> and the ingredients for making a nuclear device.
>
There is nothing irresponsible about it. I'm a law obeying,
mentally stable person, with no criminal record. There's no
good reason why I shouldn't be able to own one. Where do you
draw the line? We've already established that you think 33 is
too many rounds. Is 20, 10, or maybe even 5 too many? Who gets
to judge that? Maybe you even think 1 is enough.
What happens in the middle of the night if 2 armed intruders
are attempting to illegally enter my residence. You're then
telling me that my most basic right, the right to defend
myself and family, is null and void because *you* think there
is no reason I should own a high capacity magazine.
I can understand a person not wanting to own a firearm. That
is their right and I respect that. But as long as I'm a law
obeying citizen I don't see many limits I would want to
enforce.
The supreme court has ruled in several cases that law
enforcement has no responsibility to protect a citizen. That
leaves the responsibility squarely in your lap. If you choose
not to exercise your rights as a citizen, you do so willingly.
Me, I'm not up for a fight. I'm going to give myself every
chance I can to survive if the need ever arises.
Just like the other thread, we'll never agree and I don't
expect us to.
Larry
"Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> Han wrote:
>
>>
>> Larry, I don't accept wanting to have such a magazine as a valid
>> reason. In my really seriously considered opinion it is irresponsible
>> to even think that, let alone state it. To me it is the same as
>> saying I want to have the recipe and the ingredients for making a
>> nuclear device.
>
> How do you consider it in any way irresponsible for a "normal" person
> to want or to own a magazine like that? You do understand that it in
> and of itself is not dangerous... Lots of people seek things like
> this just for the mechanical aspect of it, the uniqueness of it, etc.
> It strikes me as odd that you come down so strongly on something like
> this. It does not make sense - as has been pointed out, a pocket full
> of 10 round magazines are equally as threatening.
It may take only a second or to exchange a magazine, but a Glock is
reported to be able to shoot more than one round per second, so there is
a pause in the shooting when exchanging magazines. Moreover the
apparently easy availability of these huge magazines to persons who
should not even have a firearm of any kind is proof enough for me that it
is irresponsible to have them available. Just like it is irresponsible
for a gun dealer to state that it is illela but this is how you make a
semiautomatic gun/rifle into a fully automatic one.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
"HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> Han wrote:
>>
>> It may take only a second or to exchange a magazine, but a Glock is
>> reported to be able to shoot more than one round per second, so there
>> is a pause in the shooting when exchanging magazines. Moreover the
>> apparently easy availability of these huge magazines to persons who
>> should not even have a firearm of any kind is proof enough for me
>> that it is irresponsible to have them available. Just like it is
>> irresponsible for a gun dealer to state that it is illela but this is
>> how you make a semiautomatic gun/rifle into a fully automatic one.
>
> There IS a line to be drawn somewhere.
>
> Here we have a case of carnage involving a large-capacity magazine.
> You would outlaw these devices because there was ONE event in recorded
> history of their misuse. In essence, you would penalize thousands to
> prevent a VERY rare event.
>
> A pitiful mindset indeed.
Indeed a line to be drawn. Ther is no real use for the large capacity
magazines other than to spray many rounds real fast. Ergo, either
prohibit or limit their sale. Indiscriminate distribution is wrong. It
really is that simple.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
Doug Winterburn <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> On 02/28/2011 06:41 AM, Han wrote:
>> "HeyBub"<[email protected]> wrote in
>> news:[email protected]:
>>
>>> Han wrote:
>>>>
>>>> It may take only a second or to exchange a magazine, but a Glock
>>>> is reported to be able to shoot more than one round per second, so
>>>> there is a pause in the shooting when exchanging magazines.
>>>> Moreover the apparently easy availability of these huge magazines
>>>> to persons who should not even have a firearm of any kind is proof
>>>> enough for me that it is irresponsible to have them available.
>>>> Just like it is irresponsible for a gun dealer to state that it is
>>>> illela but this is how you make a semiautomatic gun/rifle into a
>>>> fully automatic one.
>>>
>>> There IS a line to be drawn somewhere.
>>>
>>> Here we have a case of carnage involving a large-capacity magazine.
>>> You would outlaw these devices because there was ONE event in
>>> recorded history of their misuse. In essence, you would penalize
>>> thousands to prevent a VERY rare event.
>>>
>>> A pitiful mindset indeed.
>>
>> Indeed a line to be drawn. There is no real use for the large
>> capacity magazines other than to spray many rounds real fast. Ergo,
>> either prohibit or limit their sale. Indiscriminate distribution is
>> wrong. It really is that simple.
>>
> Here was one good reason:
>
> <http://www.network54.com/Forum/451309/thread/1296928404/This+is+just+t
> o+cool+not+to+spread+around>
Yes that was (past tense) a good reason. Nowadays in my daily routines
and on vacation, I do not go anywhere where such an attitude (which I
think was a very good one) is still necessary.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
"HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> Han wrote:
>>>
>>> There IS a line to be drawn somewhere.
>>>
>>> Here we have a case of carnage involving a large-capacity magazine.
>>> You would outlaw these devices because there was ONE event in
>>> recorded history of their misuse. In essence, you would penalize
>>> thousands to prevent a VERY rare event.
>>>
>>> A pitiful mindset indeed.
>>
>> Indeed a line to be drawn. Ther is no real use for the large
>> capacity magazines other than to spray many rounds real fast. Ergo,
>> either prohibit or limit their sale. Indiscriminate distribution is
>> wrong. It really is that simple.
>
> What use is a baby?
Huh? I find babies fascinating. 4 grandchildren and real good
relationships with our kids and their families.
> It may be difficult, but wrap your mind around this concept: When it
> comes to guns, "need" or "real use" or "hunting" has no traction with
> the gun community.
>
> The only thing that counts is "want."
Sorry, bud, doesn't count. See the rules on sex.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
"DGDevin" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
>
>
> "Han" wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>
>> It may take only a second or to exchange a magazine, but a Glock is
>> reported to be able to shoot more than one round per second, so there
>> is a pause in the shooting when exchanging magazines. Moreover the
>> apparently easy availability of these huge magazines to persons who
>> should not even have a firearm of any kind is proof enough for me
>> that it is irresponsible to have them available.
>
> If we could keep firearms out of the hands of lunatics and criminals
> then they could have all the high-capacity magazines they wanted and
> it wouldn't matter. It's *guns* in the hands of violent people that
> are the problem, solve that and the rest is easy.
Fine by me. You have my vote. Go ahead.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
"ChairMan" <[email protected]> wrote in news:XF_ap.2$6A6.0
@unlimited.newshosting.com:
> In news:[email protected],
> Josepi <[email protected]> spewed forth:
>> Real easy!
>>
>> Just remove ALL the guns from society at large.
>>
>>
>
>
> No, the criminals will still have them, because they are "criminals"
please take a course in logic. Once all guns are removed, there are no
more guns. I'm not saying it would be easy, but ...
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
On Fri, 4 Mar 2011 10:18:16 -0600, "HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote:
>Josepi wrote:
>> Looks like the "mini" gun controls are quite frequently found in USA
>> despite any constitutional statements or laws based on them.
>>
>> What does a gun carrier do then? Leave the loaded gun in his/her car
>> for the criminal to have easy access?
>>
>> Interesting.
>>
>
>
>Sure. Constitutional "rights" are limits on what GOVERNMENT can do, not what
>a private person can do.
Mostly, but there is at least one glaring exception.
>For example, the 1st Amendment starts "CONGRESS shall make no law..." This
>says that the FEDERAL government cannot prohibit freedom of the press. An
>individual employer can, for example, limit the hell out of what you
>publish, even on your own time. A school cannot sanction a student for what
>a student writes on a facebook page, but your boss can sure fire you for
>saying the same thing.
For example, the 13th amendment:
Section 1.
Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime
whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the
United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Section 2.
Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
>For the first 150 years, or so, the Bill of Rights applied ONLY to the
>federal government. States were free to have a state-sponsored church or
>whatever. In 1925, the Supreme Court began "incorporating" these rights
>against the states. The latest to be incorporated (2010) was the 2nd
>Amendment in that it is now binding on the states.
>
>There are still a few items in the BOR that are still NOT binding on the
>states. States can still impose excessive bail, dispense with indictment by
>a grand jury or a jury trial in civil cases, and can quarter troops in
>private homes during peacetime.
>
"DGDevin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> You could at least make up your mind and stick to it. You theatrically
> stomp off in indignation, then you trail along like a lost puppy whining
> for attention. If you don't like being checked then stay off the rink,
> just stop sniveling about getting jammed into the boards, wimp.
Very good. As usual, your lack of confidence combined with your
Last-Word-Itis affliction account for your regular outbursts. You feel safe
writing things here you'd never have the guts to say to someone in person.
Quite the sorry life you lead. I'd say I felt sorry for you, but I don't
want to further damage your confidence problem.
"Lew Hodgett" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> When clueless, reach for more of the old Intellectual Bull Shit game.
Interesting technique, you just dismiss anything the other guy says as
bullshit without ever explaining why. Well, maybe "interesting" isn't the
right word, "lame" is probably better.
"Larry" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Han <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>> Larry <[email protected]> wrote in
>> news:[email protected]:
>>
>>> Sure there is, if for no other reason, because I *want*
>>> one. You can't seem to get a grasp of it, the problem is
>>> the criminals. If you feel otherwise there are plently of
>>> places in the world for you to live that have strict gun
>>> control if that makes you more comfortable. Stop trying to
>>> change one of the fundamental principles the country was
>>> founded on.
>>
>> Larry, I don't accept wanting to have such a magazine as a
>> valid reason. In my really seriously considered opinion it
>> is irresponsible to even think that, let alone state it.
>> To me it is the same as saying I want to have the recipe
>> and the ingredients for making a nuclear device.
>>
>
> There is nothing irresponsible about it. I'm a law obeying,
> mentally stable person, with no criminal record. There's no
> good reason why I shouldn't be able to own one. Where do you
> draw the line? We've already established that you think 33 is
> too many rounds. Is 20, 10, or maybe even 5 too many? Who gets
> to judge that? Maybe you even think 1 is enough.
>
> What happens in the middle of the night if 2 armed intruders
> are attempting to illegally enter my residence. You're then
> telling me that my most basic right, the right to defend
> myself and family, is null and void because *you* think there
> is no reason I should own a high capacity magazine.
>
> I can understand a person not wanting to own a firearm. That
> is their right and I respect that. But as long as I'm a law
> obeying citizen I don't see many limits I would want to
> enforce.
>
> The supreme court has ruled in several cases that law
> enforcement has no responsibility to protect a citizen. That
> leaves the responsibility squarely in your lap. If you choose
> not to exercise your rights as a citizen, you do so willingly.
> Me, I'm not up for a fight. I'm going to give myself every
> chance I can to survive if the need ever arises.
>
> Just like the other thread, we'll never agree and I don't
> expect us to.
Problem solved! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OuX-nFmL0II
Dave in Houston
"DGDevin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> Given that your previously demonstrated response to the discussion not
> going your way is to have a hissy fit and stomp off to sulk, there
> wouldn't seem to be much point in answering you, would there.
Fine, I have hissy fits and you're still an ass. I'll take the hissy fits
thanks.
"Just Wondering" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Do you really believe that if there was such a licensing scheme, the
> revenue would actually be used "to pay for weapons investigation related
> issues"? More likely it would wind up in the hands of the teachers' labor
> union.
First, based on what happened in Canada the revenue from fees wouldn't even
cover the cost of the program, it would pay for only a small fraction.
Second, although I'm not a fan of the teachers unions, it's kind of foolish
to suggest that money from firearms licensing fees would end up in the hands
of the unions. In other words, one silly statement does not justify
another.
Upscale wrote:
> "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> the future do something awful - but not using a gun? You might be a
>> nutcase that will drive a car into a crowd of people tomorrow for
>> that matter.
>
> Bad choice for an example Mike since drivers are licensed, insured
> and have had to pass a driving test to qualify for their license. I'm
> asking no more or less for guns.
That is the point. Where those things have happened, the drivers have been
licensed. Licensing does absolutely nothing to prevent that nutcase you
referenced.
>
>> That's fine. Some people want them for protection, some for
>> hunting, some for shooting sports. Their desire to have them for
>> protection should be none of your business, or at least not a
>> concern to you.
>
> My opinion on guns is fostered by the fact that they have one purpose
> only, and that is to injure or kill. If a gun has some other purpose,
> the please let me know what it is. Why shouldn't I expect that guns
> be licensed? Hunting and target shooting are simple recreations and
> don't change the primary purpose of a gun.
>
Why does its purpose really matter? At the level of opinion or personal
feeling - fine, what you feel about guns matters to you. But at the level
of deciding if another person's desire to own a gun is valid - based on your
own thoughts about guns is not so valid.
>> Why should you feel it is your priviledge to disuade people from
>> buying guns? You had several in the past, and own one now. What
>> would your opinion be if someone arbitrarily decided you were one of
>> the too many people who own a gun and took whatever measures they
>> preferred to ensure that you didn't have one?
>
> I already subscribe to control by registration, licensing and
> training. Failure to do those things would result in the seizing of
> any guns I might own ~ and these are things I approve of by the way.
> I argue for no more or less for anyone else.
But... those do not answer the question I asked.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
Han wrote:
>
> It may take only a second or to exchange a magazine, but a Glock is
> reported to be able to shoot more than one round per second, so there
> is a pause in the shooting when exchanging magazines. Moreover the
> apparently easy availability of these huge magazines to persons who
> should not even have a firearm of any kind is proof enough for me
> that it is irresponsible to have them available. Just like it is
> irresponsible for a gun dealer to state that it is illela but this is
> how you make a semiautomatic gun/rifle into a fully automatic one.
There IS a line to be drawn somewhere.
Here we have a case of carnage involving a large-capacity magazine. You
would outlaw these devices because there was ONE event in recorded history
of their misuse. In essence, you would penalize thousands to prevent a VERY
rare event.
A pitiful mindset indeed.
Han wrote:
> [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>> If you disagree with the statements, an explanation of why you think
>> they are incorrect would be far more persuasive than raising ad
>> hominem attacks against the person who made them.
>
> Do you think that Glock pistols and 33-round magazines should be
> available to everyone?
I think this is the third or fourth time I've seen you make reference to 33
round magazines. Why the continued reference to them? Most gun owners -
legal and illegal, do not own or use such things. It may not be your
attempt, but when I see that kind of reference repeatedly, as I've seen in
your recent comments, it strikes me that you are trying to rely more on
sensationalism than on a factual position. Or - more than on a simple
opinion, even.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
On 28 Feb 2011 10:52:12 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>Larry Jaques <[email protected]> wrote in
>news:[email protected]:
>
>> I knew there was a minigun version.
>> Han, THIS is a serious machine gun. <vbg>
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YAZ2qvhJGgU
>>
>> --
>> Invest in America: Buy a CONgresscritter today!
>
>Larry, I haven't knowingly seen any vehicle equipped like that on the road
>in the NE.
>
>Is there a connection between the gun you show and your statement
>"Invest in America: Buy a CONgresscritter today!" ??
No, the switch to that sig happened without regard to the posting.
And I resent the implication that I'm targeting Congress.
--
Invest in America: Buy a CONgresscritter today!
On Tue, 01 Mar 2011 14:15:56 -0700, Just Wondering
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On 3/1/2011 12:58 PM, Upscale wrote:
>>
>> No one ever said that removing all guns would be easy or fast.
>
>Or constitutional. Or even possible.
How would the gun grabbers feel if their neighbors put up signs like
this? <titter>
http://rense.com/1.imagesH/houseguns.jpg
Also from that page: --snip--
Great pro-gun quotes!
âGun control: The theory that a woman found dead in an alley, raped
and strangled with her panty hose, is somehow morally superior to a
woman explaining to police how her attacker got that fatal bullet
wound.â - L. Neil Smith
âGun control? It's the best thing you can do for crooks and gangsters.
I want you to have nothing. I'm a bad guy; I'm always gonna have a
gun. Safety locks? You will pull the trigger with a lock on, and I'll
pull the trigger. We'll see who wins.â - Sammy "The Bull" Gravano,
whose testimony convicted John Gotti
"Gun control has not worked in D.C. The only people who have guns are
criminals. We have the strictest gun laws in the nation and one of the
highest murder rates. Itâs quicker to pull your Smith and Wesson than
to dial 911 if youâre being robbed." - Lieutenant Lowell Duckett,
President of Black Police Caucus, Special Assistant to Washington,
D.C. Police Chief
âI am convinced that we can do to guns what we've done to drugs:
create a multi-billion dollar underground market over which we have
absolutely no control.â - George L. Roman
âThey have gun control in Cuba. They have universal health care in
Cuba. So why do they want to come here?â - Paul Harvey, 1994
âThis year will go down in history. For the first time, a civilized
nation has full gun registration. Our streets will be safer, our
police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the
future!â - Adolph Hitler, 1935, on The Weapons Act of Nazi Germany
âGun registration is a gateway drug.â - Mark Gilmore
âThose now possessing weapons and ammunition are at once to turn them
over to the local police authority. Firearms and ammunition found in a
Jew's possession will be forfeited to the government without
compensation. Whoever willfully or negligently violates the provisions
will be punished with imprisonment and a fine.â - Nazi Law
(Regulations Against Jews' Possession of Weapons), 1938
âAmong the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will
look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the
blackest.â - Mahatma Gandhi, in Gandhi, An Autobiography, p. 446
âHe that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.â - Luke
22:36 (King James Version)
âSuppose the Second amendment said "A well-educated electorate being
necessary for self-governance in a free state, the right of the people
to keep and read books shall not be infringed." Is there anyone who
would suggest that means only registered voters have a right to read?â
- Robert Levy, Georgetown University Professor
â[We] should not blame a gun itself for any crime or any acts of
violence, any more than we can blame a pen for misspelling a word.â -
Senator Wallace F. Bennett (R-UT), Congressional Record, 5/16/68
âIt is the duty of the patriot to protect his country from its
government.â - Thomas Paine (1737-1809), American Revolutionary,
Founding Father and Author
--snip--
--
That is what learning is. You suddenly understand something
you've understood all your life, but in a new way.
-- Doris Lessing
Could this have been your family?
http://www.asylum.co.uk/2011/03/01/boy-accidentally-shoots-his-mother-after-dad--shoots-himself/
or one of these?
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/fl-deputy-son-shoots-brother-20110301,0,3490786.story
http://www.channel4.com/news/cumbria-shootings-inquest-derrick-birds-shooting-spree
or perhaps this was your gun and your neighbor's kid you supplied it to
http://www.commercialappeal.com/news/2011/feb/25/son-shoots-gunman-during-attempted-robbery-his-par/
or maybe you got drunk and into a fight with your own son
http://kezi.com/news/local/204986
http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local_news/article/Father-apparently-shoots-son-kills-himself-1011332.php
http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking-news/ci_17417874?nclick_check=1
http://www2.hickoryrecord.com/news/2011/mar/01/woman-shoots-daughters-boyfriend-ar-824708/
or maybe they shot themselves by accident with YOUR gun
http://www.theindependent.com/articles/2011/02/03/news/state/12929838.txt
If that isn't vivid enough, here is a video of a woman killing her son for
something to do.
http://www.solveamericasproblems.com/read.php?8,21769,21788
look...he defended himself against his own son.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2658187/posts
"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
How would the gun grabbers feel if their neighbors put up signs like
this? <titter>
http://rense.com/1.imagesH/houseguns.jpg
One thing becomes apparent. All the wonderful gun support quotes are eons
old when guns actually meant something other than a way to have an accident.
---
"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
How would the gun grabbers feel if their neighbors put up signs like
this? <titter>
http://rense.com/1.imagesH/houseguns.jpg
Also from that page: --snip--
Great pro-gun quotes!
âGun control: The theory that a woman found dead in an alley, raped
and strangled with her panty hose, is somehow morally superior to a
woman explaining to police how her attacker got that fatal bullet
wound.â - L. Neil Smith
âGun control? It's the best thing you can do for crooks and gangsters.
I want you to have nothing. I'm a bad guy; I'm always gonna have a
gun. Safety locks? You will pull the trigger with a lock on, and I'll
pull the trigger. We'll see who wins.â - Sammy "The Bull" Gravano,
whose testimony convicted John Gotti
"Gun control has not worked in D.C. The only people who have guns are
criminals. We have the strictest gun laws in the nation and one of the
highest murder rates. Itâs quicker to pull your Smith and Wesson than
to dial 911 if youâre being robbed." - Lieutenant Lowell Duckett,
President of Black Police Caucus, Special Assistant to Washington,
D.C. Police Chief
âI am convinced that we can do to guns what we've done to drugs:
create a multi-billion dollar underground market over which we have
absolutely no control.â - George L. Roman
âThey have gun control in Cuba. They have universal health care in
Cuba. So why do they want to come here?â - Paul Harvey, 1994
âThis year will go down in history. For the first time, a civilized
nation has full gun registration. Our streets will be safer, our
police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the
future!â - Adolph Hitler, 1935, on The Weapons Act of Nazi Germany
âGun registration is a gateway drug.â - Mark Gilmore
âThose now possessing weapons and ammunition are at once to turn them
over to the local police authority. Firearms and ammunition found in a
Jew's possession will be forfeited to the government without
compensation. Whoever willfully or negligently violates the provisions
will be punished with imprisonment and a fine.â - Nazi Law
(Regulations Against Jews' Possession of Weapons), 1938
âAmong the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will
look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the
blackest.â - Mahatma Gandhi, in Gandhi, An Autobiography, p. 446
âHe that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.â - Luke
22:36 (King James Version)
âSuppose the Second amendment said "A well-educated electorate being
necessary for self-governance in a free state, the right of the people
to keep and read books shall not be infringed." Is there anyone who
would suggest that means only registered voters have a right to read?â
- Robert Levy, Georgetown University Professor
â[We] should not blame a gun itself for any crime or any acts of
violence, any more than we can blame a pen for misspelling a word.â -
Senator Wallace F. Bennett (R-UT), Congressional Record, 5/16/68
âIt is the duty of the patriot to protect his country from its
government.â - Thomas Paine (1737-1809), American Revolutionary,
Founding Father and Author
--snip--
--
That is what learning is. You suddenly understand something
you've understood all your life, but in a new way.
-- Doris Lessing
Robatoy wrote:
>
> What justification could there ever be for a 30 round mag?
As a shooter - in my opinion, there really isn't a reason for a 30 round mag
for a handgun. That said, once one is created, you can bet there will be
collectors, and the like that will want to have one, just because they
exist.
>
> a) Lousy shot?
>
> b) "Necessary" because the threat is _that_ ominous? (Which would
> make me think that another choice of weapon might be better?)
That would be my thought.
>
> c) Some guy decided to manufacture those 30 round mags because he knew
> some idiot would feel the need to buy one?
>
> Seriously... why? Wouldn't it be better to pack TWO Glocks and hold
> them sideways when firing after you've turned your ballcap around 90°?
> Maybe a 30-round mag is a fashion statement to the romanticized
> gangbangers?
>
> Personally, if I can't eliminate a threat in 10 rounds, why would I
> even bother to carry a gun?
Agreed.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
"Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> How does registering anything make its use more safe? That's the crux of
> one of the points in this discourse Upscale. Registering does absolutely
> nothing to increase safety.
And that is something I refuse to believe. You might have put a little more
thought into it before you replied Mike. Since I'm Canadian, I'll use my
local gun experience as an example to show you why I feel registration makes
it safer. I had to go through training, licensing and registration to own my
pistol. That cost me time, effort and a not exorbitant amount of money.
Because I don't want my time, effort and money to be wasted and my pistol
confisgated, I adhere to the safety procedures laid out. These requirements
include proper safe storage, maintaining of my licensing and safe
transportation should I want to go target shooting. Does any of this answer
your question? Do these actions tell you that I take my gun ownershop
seriously and want to protect the effort I put into owning a gun? Obviously,
many Americans might find our gun laws draconian in nature. I earned the
right to own a gun and take pride in that right. Am I wrong to think this
way?
Whatever I have to say isn't going to change a shred of American views. I
realize that. But, I still have the right to state what I believe to be
true. Of all the rights people have in the USA, one of if not the most
important right is free speech. Are you going to argue or refute my right to
free speech?
On Sat, 26 Feb 2011 17:30:39 -0800, "DGDevin"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>"dhall987" wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>
>
>> So I take it from this that you actually WANT to be ruled by a
>> dictatorship of 9 old people appointed for life?
>
>If you have a better idea than a division of powers between the executive,
>the legislature and the judiciary, by all means describe it for us.
My point was that people seem to accept (and even celebrate) that the
Supreme Court does not "interprete" or even "apply" the Constitution.
The poster that I replied to seemed to like the idea that the
Constitution says whatever the Court says it does. Other celebrate the
concept of the Constitution as a "living document", which simply
meqans that the Court can change its meaning on a whim. The document
clearly describes 2 methods by which we as a federal union can rwach a
"new concensus" and neither of those is by simply a majority vote of 9
old people.
The separation of powers is clearly one of the better things that the
constitutional convention came up with along with the "Great
Compromise" for representation.
Han wrote:
>
> I walk across Manhattan unarmed. Some of you might think I'm crazy.
> I think you are crazy if you let yourself get in a situation where you
> would have needed a serious machine gun to get out of it. It's all
> situational, and your opinionis just as valid as mine. Just YOU make
> sure I never have to confront a loony with serious armaments.
I walk across and all over certain areas of Manhattan with no gun as well -
have for decades. Of course, you and I don't walk in those other areas of
Manhattan - ever.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
Upscale wrote:
> "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> How does registering anything make its use more safe? That's the
>> crux of one of the points in this discourse Upscale. Registering
>> does absolutely nothing to increase safety.
>
> And that is something I refuse to believe. You might have put a
> little more thought into it before you replied Mike. Since I'm
> Canadian, I'll use my local gun experience as an example to show you
> why I feel registration makes it safer. I had to go through training,
> licensing and registration to own my pistol. That cost me time,
> effort and a not exorbitant amount of money. Because I don't want my
> time, effort and money to be wasted and my pistol confisgated, I
> adhere to the safety procedures laid out. These requirements include
> proper safe storage, maintaining of my licensing and safe
> transportation should I want to go target shooting. Does any of this
> answer your question? Do these actions tell you that I take my gun
> ownershop seriously and want to protect the effort I put into owning
> a gun? Obviously, many Americans might find our gun laws draconian in
> nature. I earned the right to own a gun and take pride in that right.
> Am I wrong to think this way?
I appreciate your experience. The gun laws the continue to be propogated on
us though, are not focused on that. Nor are the suggestions from some that
have risen in this thread. They are propogaed on the idea of making it more
and more difficult to get and keep guns, so as to discourage people from
wanting to do so. I grew up with guns so gun safety, and responsible
ownership/use of guns was drilled into me from I don't know how far back -
forever, it seems. For those who did not come from that kind of a
background then some form of training is necessary - gun safety does not
just happen, we agree on that. I don't think you are wrong to think the way
you do, in any respect. I want to emphasize that the only reason I get into
this kind of conversation, is not to convince a guy like yourself that he's
wrong, but to bring into discussion, some of the things that seem to serve
noble purposes, but are really an attempt to institute more gun control, and
limiting the rights of legal gun owners. I'm not accusing you of those
motives - but those motives have been expressed by some who have posted in
this thread.
> Whatever I have to say isn't going to change a shred of American
> views. I realize that. But, I still have the right to state what I
> believe to be true. Of all the rights people have in the USA, one of
> if not the most important right is free speech. Are you going to
> argue or refute my right to free speech?
Nope. And, I'd hope you've not seen anything in what I have contributed to
this thread that would suggest I would do such a thing.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
Upscale wrote:
> "DGDevin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> Well said. If licensing, registration and insurance could make the
>> roads safe, surely that would have happened many decades ago.
>
> Same blunt reasoning on your part. It's not that licensing,
> registration and insurance makes things safe. Nothing is or ever will
> be completely safe. It just makes them "safer" and that should always
> be a goal worth pursuing.
> Try to refute that with at least a little logic will you?
How does registering anything make its use more safe? That's the crux of
one of the points in this discourse Upscale. Registering does absolutely
nothing to increase safety. Likewise insurance. If insurance made things
safer, we wouldn't need insurance. But again - before rushing off to
license, register and insure, you first have to establish that those you
wish to affect even need those processes. You have not done that yet.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
On Sat, 26 Feb 2011 16:15:23 -0600, "HeyBub" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>dhall987 wrote:
>> On Mon, 21 Feb 2011 08:27:59 -0600, "HeyBub" <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Third, the Constitution says whatever the Supreme Court says it
>>>> does, that's why a couple of recent cases have recognized that the
>>>> 2nd Amendment protects an individual right to own firearms to the
>>>> dismay of all those folks who disagree. So until the court rules
>>>> there shouldn't be a federal Dept. of Education, there will be one,
>>>> and anyone who disagrees is welcome to vote for the party that is
>>>> currently trying to strip funding from any government agency that
>>>> has inconvenienced the corporate sponsors of that party.
>>>
>> So I take it from this that you actually WANT to be ruled by a
>> dictatorship of 9 old people appointed for life?
>
>Um, yeah, I guess. What's the alternative? Nine young people appointed for
>life? Nine old people appointed for two years? Six old people appointed for
>life?
>
>Still, the best form of government is a benevolent despot.
>
>Second best is probably what we've got.
>
I guess to me the "best form" would be to expect the Supreme Court to
apply the Constitution appropriately and not accept that "the
Constitution says whatever the Supreme Court says it does". The whole
concept of the Constitution being a "living document" just seems
bizarre to me. Unfortunately I still want to believe in a government
of laws, not men - but if we accept that the 9 can simply ignore the
law and make up whatever they want then that old saw doesn't quite
work.
Now the 2nd amendment and our court's failure, currently and
historically, to uphold it is a prime example to me. I truly believe
and wish that the government could control private ownership of arms.
However, even a simpleton reading the 2nd amendment and the history of
its enactment know that such controls are illegal. If our courts had
held that way historically, we would have replaced the 2nd amendment
decades ago. The amendment does not talk about handguns or rifles or
muskets or bows & arrows ~ it talks about "arms". This clearly meant
all forms of arms because it clearly meant the arms necessary to
protect ourselves against an over-reaching central (federal)
government. Yet courts a long time ago allowed the government to
strictly govern and restrict our rights to keep and bear arms such as
155MM howitzers, 50 cal machine guns, mortars, etc. Believe me, if the
2nd amendment were interpreted as meant, we would have scared
ourselves enough to overturn it a very long time ago.
So, to kind of summarize, I am that odd person who is a strict
constructionist that wants to have gun control. I just believe that we
must (and should) change the constitution first. I do not think that
the Supreme Court should be able to decide that society has "reached a
new concensus" and dictate it. If we reach such a concensus then we
should express it in one of the 2 ways set out in the Constitution for
making that change.
"Lew Hodgett" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>> Great plan, just have to get that pesky Constitution out of the way
>> first.
----------------------------
> Ah yes, more of the old Intellectual Bull Shit game.
> The constitution has absolutely nothing to do with it.
The governments of Washington DC and Chicago could probably offer some
useful comments on that, as their regulations which effectively denied a
protected right didn't do so well in court.
Here's a hint: poll taxes are illegal because they infringe on the
Constitutional right to vote. So fees on firearms ownership could be struck
down on the same grounds, that their real purpose is to place a burden on
firearms ownership which according to the Supreme Court is an individual
right.
Of course you have the right to call bullshit whenever you please, but if
you then fail to offer any reason for that call, well, that says a lot.
"Lew Hodgett" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
"Robatoy" wrote:
>> In Detroit, Uncle Ted (Nugent) told people to put a gun on their lap
>> as they drove through bad areas of the city.
>> Perp says: "get out, gimme your car" and next thing he knows, he's
>> clutching what once was his junk.
>> The word got out quickly.
>> Problem solved.
----------------------------
> You want to define what's going on in Detroit as "Problem solved"?
> Strange.
Indeed. Bumper sticker responses are so easy, and so useless. We have
relations in Detroit, if they're going "downtown" they call around and get a
few neighbors to go together, or they don't go at all. Detroit is less
violent than it once was, but it still tops the annual lists of American
cities with the most violent crime. "Problem solved"? Good grief.
"Just Wondering" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> (a) Money gets collected.
> (b) Money is put into general fund.
> (c) Money from general fund is sent to state education programs.
> (d) State education programs put money in teachers' pockets.
> (e) Teachers pay dues to their labor unions.
Okay, then by that logic since the same fund pays the salaries of
politicians the money could end up in the hands of strip club owners and
hookers.
In article <[email protected]>, "Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>"Larry Jaques" wrote:
>
>
>> Crikey, not again. CARS kill more people each year than guns do.
>>
>> I truly wish you would do some research along that line, Han. Paper
>> after paper comes out with NO evidence that fewer guns make us safer
>> and paper after paper comes out with evidence that gun control
>> increases crime.
>-------------------------------
>Poor baby has truly bought the farm.
>
>As long as the knee jerk NRA remains, unfortunately your pacifier(s)
>remain "safe".
If you disagree with the statements, an explanation of why you think they are
incorrect would be far more persuasive than raising ad hominem attacks against
the person who made them.
Larry Jaques <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> I knew there was a minigun version.
> Han, THIS is a serious machine gun. <vbg>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YAZ2qvhJGgU
>
> --
> Invest in America: Buy a CONgresscritter today!
Larry, I haven't knowingly seen any vehicle equipped like that on the road
in the NE.
Is there a connection between the gun you show and your statement
"Invest in America: Buy a CONgresscritter today!" ??
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
On Sun, 27 Feb 2011 19:04:26 -0500, Nova <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Sun, 27 Feb 2011 13:04:10 -0800, "Lew Hodgett"
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Robatoy" wrote:
>>
>>> Perhaps selecting a weapon more capable?
>>-------------------------------
>>Like a sawed off double barreled 10 ga loaded with 00 buckshot.
>>
>>Provides castration via 10 ga.
>>
>>Illegal and messy, but what the hell, dead men don't testify.
>>
>>Lew
>>
>
>I'd like one of these:
>
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eo0IAWR4PMY
I knew there was a minigun version.
Han, THIS is a serious machine gun. <vbg>
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YAZ2qvhJGgU
--
Invest in America: Buy a CONgresscritter today!
On Sun, 27 Feb 2011 13:04:10 -0800, "Lew Hodgett"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
>"Robatoy" wrote:
>
>> Perhaps selecting a weapon more capable?
>-------------------------------
>Like a sawed off double barreled 10 ga loaded with 00 buckshot.
>
>Provides castration via 10 ga.
>
>Illegal and messy, but what the hell, dead men don't testify.
>
>Lew
>
I'd like one of these:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eo0IAWR4PMY
--
Jack Novak
Buffalo, NY - USA
On Sun, 27 Feb 2011 19:04:26 -0500, Nova <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Sun, 27 Feb 2011 13:04:10 -0800, "Lew Hodgett"
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Robatoy" wrote:
>>
>>> Perhaps selecting a weapon more capable?
>>-------------------------------
>>Like a sawed off double barreled 10 ga loaded with 00 buckshot.
>>
>>Provides castration via 10 ga.
>>
>>Illegal and messy, but what the hell, dead men don't testify.
>>
>>Lew
>>
>
>I'd like one of these:
>
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eo0IAWR4PMY
Hooah! Money to keep feeding the little beastie would take a
full-time job.
--
You can't wait for inspiration. You have to go after it with a club.
--Jack London
In article <[email protected]>, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>[email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote in
>news:[email protected]:
>
>> If you disagree with the statements, an explanation of why you think
>> they are incorrect would be far more persuasive than raising ad
>> hominem attacks against the person who made them.
>
>Do you think that Glock pistols and 33-round magazines should be available
>to everyone?
>
Non sequitur; the context, which you removed (why?) was Larry's statement that
increasing the availability of guns has been shown to reduce crime. I made no
claims one way or the other about any gun issues; I simply pointed out that,
rather than dispute the statement, Lew chose to mock and abuse Larry.
Robatoy wrote:
> On Feb 27, 2:41 pm, "Mike Marlow"<[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>>
>> I realize that - but you kept repeating that as if the size of the magazine
>> really means anything. Take it out of the picture and any shooter could
>> just as easily stick 3 ten round magazines in his pocket. It takes a second
>> or two to pop one and insert the new one. Though it sounds like a 30 round
>> magazine actually means something, it really doesn't.
>>
>
> What justification could there ever be for a 30 round mag?
>
> a) Lousy shot?
>
> b) "Necessary" because the threat is _that_ ominous? (Which would
> make me think that another choice of weapon might be better?)
>
> c) Some guy decided to manufacture those 30 round mags because he knew
> some idiot would feel the need to buy one?
>
> Seriously... why? Wouldn't it be better to pack TWO Glocks and hold
> them sideways when firing after you've turned your ballcap around 90°?
> Maybe a 30-round mag is a fashion statement to the romanticized
> gangbangers?
>
> Personally, if I can't eliminate a threat in 10 rounds, why would I
> even bother to carry a gun?
Multiple threats? That click and the time to reload could cost ya...
On Mon, 28 Feb 2011 20:13:01 -0600, HeyBub wrote:
> It may be difficult, but wrap your mind around this concept: When it
> comes to guns, "need" or "real use" or "hunting" has no traction with
> the gun community.
One more time: the 2nd amendment has nothing to do with either hunting or
need. It's an insurance policy against tyrants.
--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw
Real easy!
Just remove ALL the guns from society at large.
"DGDevin" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
If we could keep firearms out of the hands of lunatics and criminals then
they could have all the high-capacity magazines they wanted and it wouldn't
matter. It's *guns* in the hands of violent people that are the problem,
solve that and the rest is easy.
"DGDevin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> Bingo. But as some of our resident hoplophobes have indicated, they're
> perfectly okay with unreasonably burdening law-abiding gun owners, they
> approve of exactly that.
Tell me, why aren't you using the same logic for people who drive? They're
licensed, insured and have to pass a test to qualify for licensing. You make
it sound like some terrible travesty when anyone suggests some type of
similar licensing and testing for gun owners. Why aren't you complaining
about the cost to those people wanting to drive?
Han wrote:
>>
>> What use is a baby?
>
> Huh? I find babies fascinating. 4 grandchildren and real good
> relationships with our kids and their families.
## Same thing with guns, then. Entertainment value.
>
>> It may be difficult, but wrap your mind around this concept: When it
>> comes to guns, "need" or "real use" or "hunting" has no traction with
>> the gun community.
>>
>> The only thing that counts is "want."
>
> Sorry, bud, doesn't count. See the rules on sex.
## Same thing as with sex. Sometimes I can't afford the sex I want.
"Han" wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>> If we could keep firearms out of the hands of lunatics and criminals
>> then they could have all the high-capacity magazines they wanted and
>> it wouldn't matter. It's *guns* in the hands of violent people that
> > are the problem, solve that and the rest is easy.
> Fine by me. You have my vote. Go ahead.
Let's start by enforcing the thousands of laws concerning firearms already
on the books in America at local, state and federal levels. A tiny fraction
of firearms dealers are responsible for a hugely disproportionate number of
guns used in crimes--why aren't we paying closer attention to those dealers?
Why are such dealers who are occasionally shut down able to sign over the
business to a family member or business partner and go on selling guns?
Wouldn't making it more difficult for criminals to get guns make more sense
than taking guns away from sane, sober, law-abiding citizens who are
extremely unlikely to ever get in trouble with the law?
If criminals are ignoring existing laws, how is passing more laws going to
reduce crime if enforcement of the news laws is no better than enforcement
of the old laws? If too many people are breaking he speed limit, which
response makes more sense--improving enforcement, or lowering the speed
limit?
"Han" wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>>> Just remove ALL the guns from society at large.
>> No, the criminals will still have them, because they are "criminals"
> please take a course in logic. Once all guns are removed, there are no
> more guns. I'm not saying it would be easy, but ...
Criminals can bring illegal drugs into the country at times by the truckload
or shipload, not to mention illegal immigrants in similar fashion, but we're
supposed to think they wouldn't meet a criminal demand for guns by smuggling
them too? Perhaps you should sign up for that course in logic you're
recommending.
A former head of Scotland Yard testified to a parliamentary committee in
Britain that any criminal in the UK who wanted a gun could get one within a
day despite Britain's harsh gun law, he even described the prices various
sorts of weapons brought. You can ban anything you please, but so long as
there is a demand for it then someone will supply that demand for profit.
By pushing firearms underground a policy such as you endorse would ensure
that only criminals would be armed.
"DGDevin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> Well said. If licensing, registration and insurance could make the roads
> safe, surely that would have happened many decades ago.
Same blunt reasoning on your part. It's not that licensing, registration and
insurance makes things safe. Nothing is or ever will be completely safe. It
just makes them "safer" and that should always be a goal worth pursuing.
Try to refute that with at least a little logic will you?
Good that would many less firearms for the kids to shoot themselves with.
"DGDevin" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
A former head of Scotland Yard testified to a parliamentary committee in
Britain that any criminal in the UK who wanted a gun could get one within a
day despite Britain's harsh gun law, he even described the prices various
sorts of weapons brought. You can ban anything you please, but so long as
there is a demand for it then someone will supply that demand for profit.
By pushing firearms underground a policy such as you endorse would ensure
that only criminals would be armed.
"Mike Marlow" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>> It establishes a revenue stream to establish a data base of law
>> abiding folks as well as provide firearms training similar to
>> driver's Ed.
> Which has served absolutely no useful purpose since similar well intended
> initiatives were instituted. The problem in your approach is that it's
> not the law abiding people that cause the problems. And the lawless,
> well...
I could live with firearms safety training as a requirement provided it
wasn't set up to be an unreasonable hurdle. A basic course in safe handling
and local firearms law is IMO a good idea. If my neighbor isn't too sure of
how to unload his gun without firing it or how the safety catch works or
whether or not he's allowed to carry it when he walks down to the store for
milk and bread, well maybe he needs some help. The problem becomes who
designs and administers the course, and who pays for it.
>> Matter of fact the idea is they won't comply which gives law
>> enforcement another tool to get the criminals and
>> THEIR FIREARMS OFF THE STREET.
> No - in fact it does not. That's the problem with ideas that are not
> thought through beyond how good they feel. Law enforcement can't get
> those very same people and illegal firearms off the street now, but you
> suggest that further burdening law abiding citizens will add a tool to
> their tool kit? Not even approaching logic.
Bingo. But as some of our resident hoplophobes have indicated, they're
perfectly okay with unreasonably burdening law-abiding gun owners, they
approve of exactly that.
On 26 Feb 2011 21:27:30 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>dhall987 <[email protected]> wrote in
>news:[email protected]:
>
>> On Mon, 21 Feb 2011 08:27:59 -0600, "HeyBub" <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>>> Third, the Constitution says whatever the Supreme Court says it does,
>>>> that's why a couple of recent cases have recognized that the 2nd
>>>> Amendment protects an individual right to own firearms to the dismay
>>>> of all those folks who disagree. So until the court rules there
>>>> shouldn't be a federal Dept. of Education, there will be one, and
>>>> anyone who disagrees is welcome to vote for the party that is
>>>> currently trying to strip funding from any government agency that has
>>>> inconvenienced the corporate sponsors of that party.
>>>
>> So I take it from this that you actually WANT to be ruled by a
>> dictatorship of 9 old people appointed for life?
>>
>I believe the Constitution is the supreme law. Whatever Congress enacts
>is the law as long as it doesn't conflict with the Constitution.
>President appoints Supremes with the consent of the Senate, so all in all
>pretty balanced, but still subject to new laws and especially laws'
>interpretation. And in my not so humble opinion, that's as it should be.
I prefer 9 very smart old guys over one dictator, any day.
>Now personally, I'm really in favor of limiting guns and ammo ...
Crikey, not again. CARS kill more people each year than guns do.
I truly wish you would do some research along that line, Han. Paper
after paper comes out with NO evidence that fewer guns make us safer
and paper after paper comes out with evidence that gun control
increases crime.
Defensive gun use (most weapons not even fired) account for around 1.5
million crimes NOT being committed each year.
The CDC did a comprehensive study on gun control studies and came to
the conclusion that all fifty or so papers were inconclusive because
not one of them had all the parameters of the other 49. IOW, they
couldn't prove their theory for advancing gun control, couldn't prove
its effectiveness.
http://www.vdare.com/francis/gun_control.htm (pro-gun bias, but a good
starting point)
One statistic which should be a dead giveaway to all you wishful gun
controllers is that while the number of guns in American hands has
increased by hundreds of millions, the actual crime rate has gone
down, year after year. PLEASE look into it.
I used to be against handguns until I saw the truth. I truly hope that
you find it, too, before some perp in Manhattan mugs ya.
--
You can't wait for inspiration. You have to go after it with a club.
--Jack London
How is it put so often by the likes of you here?
Do you have any cites to point to or did you just imagine all these stats?
Have you considered the continual tightening of the gun laws they do every
few years?
"DGDevin" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
Great plan, just have to get that pesky Constitution out of the way first.
Oh sure, people will raise the example of New Zealand where a law requiring
periodic license renewals (with fees) resulted in what the authorities there
dryly described as "poor compliance". They even admitted that the majority
of guns used by criminals were illegally owned and that the pool of weapons
available to the criminal community was refreshed by illegally imported
weapons--gosh, who could have foreseen that? And then there is Canada,
where license and registration fees would make the system
self-financing--well, unless you count the umpteen million taxpayer dollars
poured in trying to make a badly broken system function. The govt. said it
would cost $119 million to set up a registration system, almost all paid by
fees. The actual cost has topped a billion dollars only a tenth of which
was covered by fees, and the system is still a mess. And then it came out
that the govt. hired a lobbyist to lobby the govt. for more money for the
registration system--it's like Alice In Wonderland....
"Mike Marlow" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>> Bad choice for an example Mike since drivers are licensed, insured
>> and have had to pass a driving test to qualify for their license. I'm
>> asking no more or less for guns.
> That is the point. Where those things have happened, the drivers have
> been licensed. Licensing does absolutely nothing to prevent that nutcase
> you referenced.
Well said. If licensing, registration and insurance could make the roads
safe, surely that would have happened many decades ago. Want to bet the guy
in this clip had a license?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5XJULxJvbzM
There is also the issue that in the U.S. a driver's license is not a
constitutionally protected right, whereas being able to own a firearm is.
Anyone is free to disagree with that, but it's the law of the land.
"dhall987" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I guess to me the "best form" would be to expect the Supreme Court to
> apply the Constitution appropriately and not accept that "the
> Constitution says whatever the Supreme Court says it does".
Think about that, exactly who gets to tell the Supreme Court which
interpretation is "appropriate"? Other than a Constitutional Amendment, the
SCOTUS is the end of the road. So the realistic view is that the
Constitution says what the court says it does.
> The whole
> concept of the Constitution being a "living document" just seems
> bizarre to me.
At least some of the men who wrote the Constitution disagreed, Jefferson
among them (although of course he also distrusted the judiciary having the
final say over constitutional issues). But Jefferson made it clear that the
Constitution was not a perfected document, that at times improvements would
only be possible "by inches" and thus had to be ongoing.
> Unfortunately I still want to believe in a government
> of laws, not men - but if we accept that the 9 can simply ignore the
> law and make up whatever they want then that old saw doesn't quite
> work.
What is the alternative? Many people believe the Constitution is
intentionally vague because the Framers knew they couldn't possibly go into
detail on every issue. So the law had to be left up to the various branches
of government (which includes the courts) with broad guidance from the
Constitution. But interpretation was inevitable, and sooner or later that
buck has to stop somewhere.
> Now the 2nd amendment and our court's failure, currently and
> historically, to uphold it is a prime example to me. I truly believe
> and wish that the government could control private ownership of arms.
> However, even a simpleton reading the 2nd amendment and the history of
> its enactment know that such controls are illegal. If our courts had
> held that way historically, we would have replaced the 2nd amendment
> decades ago. The amendment does not talk about handguns or rifles or
> muskets or bows & arrows ~ it talks about "arms". This clearly meant
> all forms of arms because it clearly meant the arms necessary to
> protect ourselves against an over-reaching central (federal)
> government.
Not really, if you look for it you can find exactly what the Framers meant
because they spelled it out, e.g. Virginia's state constitution which
detailed what sort of arms citizens were required to bring when summoned to
militia duty--personal arms such as muskets or pikes--no artillery. It is
reasonable to think the Framers meant for the arms citizens commonly owned
at the time to be protected--muskets/rifles, shotguns, handguns--not forms
of weaponry which few private citizens possessed.
> Yet courts a long time ago allowed the government to
> strictly govern and restrict our rights to keep and bear arms such as
> 155MM howitzers, 50 cal machine guns, mortars, etc. Believe me, if the
> 2nd amendment were interpreted as meant, we would have scared
> ourselves enough to overturn it a very long time ago.
Amusing, but not historically accurate.
> So, to kind of summarize, I am that odd person who is a strict
> constructionist that wants to have gun control. I just believe that we
> must (and should) change the constitution first. I do not think that
> the Supreme Court should be able to decide that society has "reached a
> new concensus" and dictate it. If we reach such a concensus then we
> should express it in one of the 2 ways set out in the Constitution for
> making that change.
Again, if you read what they wrote outside the Constitution you can find
*why* the Framers thought the 2nd Amendment was necessary, namely that they
thought the 2nd was the amendment that made all the rest of the Bill of
Rights possible, a concept they actually inherited from English law. As you
say, if that is now an obsolete concept then the Constitution provides the
means for itself to be amended. But if no government is willing to
undertake that process, then it is inevitable that the courts will have deal
with it.
"Upscale" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Fine, I have hissy fits and you're still an ass. I'll take the hissy fits
> thanks.
You could at least make up your mind and stick to it. You theatrically
stomp off in indignation, then you trail along like a lost puppy whining for
attention. If you don't like being checked then stay off the rink, just
stop sniveling about getting jammed into the boards, wimp.
Once we get Usenet under control anything would be possible just like the
other countries of the world that have done it.
USA is an out of control second world country. It would take 1000 years to
get the hillbilly's weapons from them.
--------------------------
"Just Wondering" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
Or constitutional. Or even possible.
On 3/1/2011 12:58 PM, Upscale wrote:
No one ever said that removing all guns would be easy or fast.
"Mike Marlow" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> How does registering anything make its use more safe?
Automobile registration has a primary purpose of enabling the state to tax
automobile ownership. As a secondary purpose it aids the recovery of stolen
automobiles. Safety? Not so much.
"Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> noble purposes, but are really an attempt to institute more gun control,
> and limiting the rights of legal gun owners. I'm not accusing you of
> those motives - but those motives have been expressed by some who have
> posted in this thread.
In all honesty then, maybe you should be accusing me of those motives.
Because, my view of Canadian firearm registration would if applied in the
US, be very likely viewed as severe gun control. Please understand, my view
on guns is not out of fear or other similar mitigating factors, it's just a
healthy respect for what guns represent to me. If I'd grown up in Texas for
example, I'm sure I'd view guns a little differently. Hell, I've even
considered moving down to Texas. Should it ever happen, I'll probably want
more guns too, just because I can.
Actually, I was thinking of moving beside Leon or Carl so I can borrow some
of their Festools. <GRIN>
That is basically what we have in Canada. Then they offer "free time" where
all the illegal guns can be handed in without questions.
It's not a case of banning them. It's a case of controlling them so when a
crime occurs the police know where the gun came from and somebody is in
shit. The end result is "do I really need this many guns" and "I better get
those locks and lockers for my guns and keep them under control". Of course
pistols and sidearm weapons are not allowed without a good reason. It will
still take 100 years to get the gun population down to a better number,
though. Since they are so popular that figure may increase to about 500
years for the USA.
-----------------------
"Lew Hodgett" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
A solution that also generates a revenue stream is obvious.
License all fire arms that get renewed annualy, much like hunting
licenses.
License renewal could be as low as $25/yr/weapon; however, failure to
renew would be a $5K fine and 6 months in jail.
Every body gets to keep their pacifiers and a few $ get generated to
pay for weapons investigation related issues.
Lew
"Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> What is wrong with me owning the firearms that I own?
And if you happen to be a nutcase who has yet to come to the attention of
authorities? What then?
I happen to like firearms. I always have, but for target shooting purposes,
not a perceived need for protection. Having owned a number of guns in the
past, I now have one left. The ownship of firearms in the US is not and
never has been my objection. What I don't like is that it's too easy for
most anybody to buy a firearm. There's too many nuts out there that have
easy access to firearms. The process of registration, licensing and
mandatory education courses would dissuade a great many people from buying.
That's what I'd like to see.
On Sat, 5 Mar 2011 13:53:02 -0800, "DGDevin" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>
>
>"Markem" wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>
>
>> Actually no I do not have to articulate any more, some people should
>> not own firearms.
>
>Nobody has disputed that. The problem is your definition of who that should
>be is arbitrary and nonsensical.
>
>BTW, "they're toys" means "they are toys". You seem to routinely substitute
>"they're" for "their".
Aw gee now you have fallen low, I have not defined anything. It was
you how sought to define what and whom.
Now that we have established that some who own firearms should not.
By the way I have an FIOD card, now the fight over releasing that
information per a FOI request for all statewide is a more pressing
issue.
Mark
"Markem" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>>> Actually no I do not have to articulate any more, some people should
>>> not own firearms.
>
>>Nobody has disputed that. The problem is your definition of who that
>>should
>>be is arbitrary and nonsensical.
>
>>BTW, "they're toys" means "they are toys". You seem to routinely
>>substitute
>>"they're" for "their".
> Aw gee now you have fallen low
Think of it as a public service announcement, like don't shake your baby or
fasten your seatbelt. Everybody makes typos or spells a word wrong now and
then, but this appeared to be a regular habit I thought you might like to
know about.
>, I have not defined anything. It was
> you how sought to define what and whom.
Ummm, no, actually. You offered the example of people who want a gun
without (in your opinion) needing one being people who shouldn't own guns.
People keep quoting your own words to you, it's odd that they keep slipping
your memory.
> Now that we have established that some who own firearms should not.
Again, nobody ever denied that. The issue has always been that arbitrary
rules on who "needs" to own a firearm are unacceptable. The Constitution
does not say only people who hunt or are target shooters or live in
dangerous areas have a right to be armed, does it.
> By the way I have an FIOD card, now the fight over releasing that
> information per a FOI request for all statewide is a more pressing
> issue.
I would be opposed to public release of such information just as I would
with any other government information on individuals without a compelling
public purpose in so doing. One has to wonder if this a way to discourage
firearms ownership without being slapped down by the Supreme Court again--of
course it would only impact law-abiding citizens.
In article <[email protected]>, markem618
@hotmail.com says...
>
> On Sat, 5 Mar 2011 14:17:02 -0500, "J. Clarke" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >The problem is that you can't just say "some people should not own
> >firearms" without defining which people in a manner that is legally
> >enforcable. So how would you define this prohibited class?
>
> I am not prohibiting anyone, just say some people should not have
> them.
If you're not in favor of preventing such persons from having them then
to what purpose are you saying this?
In article <[email protected]>, markem618
@hotmail.com says...
>
> On Sat, 5 Mar 2011 13:53:02 -0800, "DGDevin" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >"Markem" wrote in message
> >news:[email protected]...
> >
> >
> >> Actually no I do not have to articulate any more, some people should
> >> not own firearms.
> >
> >Nobody has disputed that. The problem is your definition of who that should
> >be is arbitrary and nonsensical.
> >
> >BTW, "they're toys" means "they are toys". You seem to routinely substitute
> >"they're" for "their".
>
> Aw gee now you have fallen low, I have not defined anything. It was
> you how sought to define what and whom.
>
> Now that we have established that some who own firearms should not.
No, "we" have established no such thing.
> By the way I have an FIOD card, now the fight over releasing that
> information per a FOI request for all statewide is a more pressing
> issue.
>
> Mark
On Sat, 5 Mar 2011 14:17:02 -0500, "J. Clarke" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>The problem is that you can't just say "some people should not own
>firearms" without defining which people in a manner that is legally
>enforcable. So how would you define this prohibited class?
I am not prohibiting anyone, just say some people should not have
them.
Mark
"Lew Hodgett" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Why not since they create excessive law enforcement expenses associated
> with
> crimes committed with firearms by criminals simply by being part of an
> unidentified
> gene pool of firearms owners.
In your expert opinion, what percentage of legal firearms owners ever come
to the attention of the criminal justice system for firearms related crimes?
Because if it's only a tiny fraction, by what legal principle would you
penalize the vast majority for the crimes of a tiny minority? Let's say
that Florida has issued almost two million concealed carry permits and only
revoked 168 of them for crimes involving guns by permit holders--would that
rate of gun crime by legal owners of firearms justify a scheme such as you
propose, is that "gene pool" really a significant threat to public safety?
http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/stats/cw_monthly.html
> If you had to pay a $25 annual renewal permit for every firearm you
> presently own, how long would it be before you reduced the number of
> firearms you possess?
If your neighbor is a sane, sober, law-abiding taxpayer with no criminal
record, the sort of person you would toss your house keys too without a
second thought if you needed somebody to take care of the place in your
absence, why would you care if he owns three guns or seven?
> It establishes a revenue stream to establish a data base of law
> abiding folks as well as provide firearms training similar to
> driver's Ed.
What legal principle would you use to justify infringing on a
constitutionally protected right exercised by citizens with no criminal
record?
And based on what happened in Canada, where a supposedly self-financing
registration and licensing system actually produced massive cost overruns
that had to be paid by the taxpayer, how seriously should we treat this
"revenue stream" of which you speak?
http://canadaonline.about.com/od/guncontrol/i/gunregistry.htm
"1995 estimates of the cost of the Canadian Firearms Program were that it
would cost $119 million, but registration fees would bring in $117 million,
leaving the total cost to the taxpayers of $2 million.
A preliminary audit released in the Auditor General Report 2002 revealed
that the Department of Justice was estimating the gun registry program would
cost more than $1 billion by 2004-05, and collect about $140 million in
fees. This estimate did not include all financial impacts on the
government."
> Of course the criminal element won't comply.
> Matter of fact the idea is they won't comply which gives law
> enforcement another tool to get the criminals and
> THEIR FIREARMS OFF THE STREET.
Felons are already prohibited from possessing firearms, and anyone using a
gun in the commission of a crime is asking for extra jail time. So if laws
to get armed criminals off the street are already in place, why would we
need a new law?
> Law enforcement stops somebody who is carrying a non licensed firearm,
> they confiscate the weapon, place person in pokey, fine $5K,
> and hear the judge impose a visit to the Graybar hotel for a year.
Why did they stop them? Because they committed a crime, or should the cops
be able to stop and search anyone they please just in case they're packing a
gun? And at a cost of up to $50,000 a year to imprison a person, do we
really need to add more bodies to the two million already locked up?
Your "solution" seems to have a few little problems, doesn't it.
On Fri, 18 Feb 2011 19:29:17 -0800, "Lew Hodgett"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
>"busbus" wrote:
>
>> What is happening now? The money is pouring out of this country.
>-----------------------------
>Pays for all that Middle East oil we burn up driving ourselves around.
If Barry put away Air Force One for a week, we wouldn't have the need
for -any- imported oil.
--
Happiness comes of the capacity to feel deeply, to enjoy
simply, to think freely, to risk life, to be needed.
-- Storm Jameson
On Thu, 17 Feb 2011 04:17:47 GMT, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
>In article <[email protected]>, "Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>Hello "Ding Dongs", AKA: Recently elected governors of Ohio (Kasich),
>>Wisconsin(Walker) and Florida(Scott).
>>
>>You don't want high speed rail research projects in your states, no
>>problem.
>>
>>The money you are rejecting has been committed, so the Feds are simply
>>redirecting your funds to us here in California.
>>
>>We'll take it
>>
>>Maybe there are some more governors who don't want high speed rail in
>>their states.
>>
>>If so, mind telling them we like high speed rail here in California?
>>
>>We'll accept their money.
>>
>>Wonder how your decisions will play when you stand for reelection?
>>
>>Welcome To The World Of Big Time Politics "Ding Dongs".
>>
>>Lew
>
>Apparently you folks in California haven't figured out what was pretty obvious
>to us here in the Midwest: those rail projects might be *built* mostly with
>federal funds -- but the states would have to pay to *maintain* them, and the
>states decided they couldn't afford that. It's also apparent that you haven't
>realized yet that California is broke. News flash: if Wisconsin and Ohio --
>which are solvent -- can't afford the maintenance, then California -- which
>isn't -- can't afford it either.
According to Scott, the state might be on the hook for as much as $3B in
construction costs, as well.
>Let's see how well those decisions play out in a few years when California has
>to start paying even more money that it doesn't have to maintain these
>"high-speed" rail lines that really aren't. There is *no* true high-speed rail
>anywhere in the U.S., and, given the condition of our tracks, there isn't
>likely to be in my lifetime, either.
They'll come whining to the rest of us to bail them out.
This is the only thing I agree with that Idiot Kasich about. Rail
service would get very little use here. And it was not high speed. 35
MPH with all the stops they planned. You can drive from Columbus to
Cincinnati or Cleveland faster.
Mike in Ohio
On 02/16/2011 10:28 PM, Lew Hodgett wrote:
> Hello "Ding Dongs", AKA: Recently elected governors of Ohio (Kasich),
> Wisconsin(Walker) and Florida(Scott).
>
> You don't want high speed rail research projects in your states, no
> problem.
>
> The money you are rejecting has been committed, so the Feds are simply
> redirecting your funds to us here in California.
>
> We'll take it
>
> Maybe there are some more governors who don't want high speed rail in
> their states.
>
> If so, mind telling them we like high speed rail here in California?
>
> We'll accept their money.
>
> Wonder how your decisions will play when you stand for reelection?
>
> Welcome To The World Of Big Time Politics "Ding Dongs".
>
> Lew
>
>
On Thu, 17 Feb 2011 23:54:27 -0500, Steve
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On 2011-02-17 17:55:41 -0500, busbus <[email protected]> said:
>
>> What is happening now? The money is pouring out of this country. How
>> does China pay for its high speed rail? By the money you and I pay
>> for all the freaking goods they produce and sell in places like Wal-
>> Mart, Home Depot, Best Buy and all those other stores. Because we, as
>> consumers, have demanded "the Chine Price" for so freaking long that
>> we have almost pushed manufacturing and other businesses that used to
>> bring money into this country out to places like China (especially
>> China).
>
>We could have "the China price" for US-made goods, except that business
>has forgotten its intitial impetus. Used to be that a company was
>started to provide a needed good or service. Not so today -- a
>company's main purpose, at least for publicly-held companies, is the
>"enhancement of shareholder value."
Sickening, isn't it? There was always a profit motive, but now it's
the ONLY motive.
>The economy -- buying and selling real goods adn services for real mony
>-- has been replaced with the "financial economy", generating inflated
>"value" for an asset. (How much air can you beat into a gallon of ice
>cream before it becomes just air? Oh, sorry, you don't get a gallon
>anymore -- the half-gallon has become something like 1.56 quarts,
>before you even consider the added air.)
>
>The final factor operating against a decent price for a US-made good is
>executive compensation. The CEO makes 300, or 3,000 times the salary of
>the working stiff? Till me how THAT makes us competitive, or,
>ultimately, how we'll even be able to buy China's "China-priced" goods.
Don't forget union wages and added perks, such as health insurance,
which quintuple paid-wage figures.
--
Happiness comes of the capacity to feel deeply, to enjoy
simply, to think freely, to risk life, to be needed.
-- Storm Jameson