OT: Two parties

CW wrote:
> "HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Lee Michaels wrote:
>>
>> The "independent" voter is actually the most dependent of all.
>>
>> He has no say in who the candidates will be, no input into the
>> policies, platforms, or promises of the candidates, and, after the
>> election, no influence with the office holder.
>>
>> If you've worked for the winning candidate for, say, city council or
>> if you've donated to his campaign, and there's a pothole in front of
>> your house, you have POWER.
>>
>> Further, when the candidate gets to Washington, it matters little
>> whether he's a conservative, moderate, or liberal. What counts is
>> which side of the aisle he sits on! Consider the poor "moderate
>> (conservative)" Democrat. His VERY FIRST vote in the House of
>> Representatives will be for Nancy Pelosi as Speaker of the House.
>> The Speaker controls all committee assignments and chairmen and
>> they, in turn, control what bills even come up for consideration.
>>
>> In my view, one should pick a party closest to one's philosophy and
>> get involved with that party or its candidates. Donate money, time,
>> networking. Whatever.
>>
>
> Question: Are your really an idiot or do you just play one on the
> internet?

Good rejoinder! At the risk of seeming even more idiotic, can we converge on
whatever it was that gave you pause?

In the above post, there were two paragraphs of beliefs (the 1st and the
last) and three paragraphs of facts. Do you dispute my facts or disagree
with my beliefs? Hundreds of us would like to know...

Unless you have something particular in mind, it would seem you're just into
name-calling. Trust me on this: you do not want to get into a name-calling
confrontation with your betters.

"Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>, Han
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>I am not against legal sales of weapons, but against illegal sales. I
>>would like investigations and laws to prevent those. Fairly simple,
>>isn't it?
>
> You're overlooking something: criminals are, by definition, people who
> don't
> obey laws. So why do you expect that passing laws will modify their
> behavior?
===
He doesn't.

Like all gun grabbers,he wants to hold us law abiding citizens responsible
for the criminals. Apparently if they pass more laws, they think criminals
will magically begin to behave themselves.

"Han" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>> Would be nice if "freedom of the press" did not automatically equate to
>> "freedom of the junk mailers and spammers" though. I do wonder if the
>> founders, having been deluged with junk mail, would have phrased things
>> differently.
>
> So, what do you think of the SC decision to let companies fund reelction
> campaigns more fully (=free "peech" for corporations). I do value your
> opinion!
>
> --
> Best regards
> Han
> email address is invalid


You didn't ask me but I feel compelled to comment. Disregarding the
intention of the framers and, in fact, disregarding the interpretations of
the Supreme Court, the effect of the ruling is to disenfranchise the average
voter.
I wouldn't disagree with the ruling if it could be demonstrated that the
money we're talking about came from individuals in the corporations
involved, whether it's the members of the board of directors, the
executives, or the rest of the employees, but the funds will most certainly
come from the bottom line of the corporation.
Some have pointed out that the media are allowed the same latitude but I
think they overlook a couple of salient points. In the case of a book, for
example, the opinion expressed in the book is that of the author and not
necessarily that of the publisher. That the publisher may agree with the
author is coincidental. The same logic applies to news media. An editorial
is the opinion of the editor and/or his staff. The "news" should be
required to be factual or subject to retraction. (or legal action).
The same reasoning should be applied to unions. They should be disallowed
to spend money for political purposes unless the funds come directly from
the individual members *and* the *individual* members agree with the
expenditure.
Addressing the issue of PACS and organizations with a common cause, (NRA for
example) the fact that *all* the members agree as to the purpose of the PAC
or particular organization, I'm OK with that.
But YMMV.

Max

Doug Miller" wrote:

> This may come as a surprise to you... but most criminals don't buy
> their guns
> from gun dealers. What effect do you suppose laws restricting
> possession or
> sale of firearms will have on the ability of criminals to obtain
> them, or the
> means by which they do so?
------------------------------------
Why don't you come out here to L/A and ask the street gangs or the
drug cartels about their ability to obtain AK47s?

Follow the money.

Lew

"Mike Marlow" wrote:
>
> I have mixed feelings on the NRA myself. In what ways do you feel
> they have gutted any good laws?
--------------------------------
The background check laws might as well not exist.

The lack of an on going database hampers any meaningful use of
whatever data is collected.

The laws in Virginia seem to be especially lax for example.

If you want to weaken legislation, remove it from federal control and
transfer it to state control.

The "States Rights" folks have been using this approach since the
Civil War to try to weaken the federal gov't.

Personally, in this day of digital technology, would like to see all
firearms registered just like motor vehicles.

A serial number and a test slug is all it would take.

It certainly would not restrict the legitimate use of firearms.

Now is the time for the NRA circle jerk to activate.


Lew

"Dave In Texas" wrote:

> Or the Three Commandments . . .
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pkRYaMiP4K8

He always did have a humorous way of cutting thru the crap.

Lew

Somebody wrote:

>>Obviously you don't, since you believe it's up for such
>>"interpretation". It really is clear in its meaning and there is
>>ample documentation to go along with it in case its meaning isn't
>>clear.
--------------------------

Could also pass as a mission statement for the flat earth society.

Lew

"Larry Jaques" wrote:

> Why does everyone always get the number wrong?
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L940yIeVZzE

=========================
Probably because it ain't funny Magee.

Lew

"Larry Blanchard" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> One of the letters to the editor in our newspaper yesterday brought up an
> interesting point.
>
> We currently have a 2 party system where the sole job of the Outs seems
> to be to oppose anything and everything that the Ins propose. Doesn't
> matter who's in and who's out.
>
> The letter pointed out that a multi-party system with 3 or more parties
> is the norm in most of Europe. There has to be cross-party cooperation
> because one party seldom has a majority by itself.
>
> He has a point. I can think of both advantages and disadvantages, but we
> sure have a problem now. I'd be interested in hearing opinions from all
> here.
>
> In order to have a viable 3rd party, it'd have to something between the
> other two. We could call it the Festivus party :-).
>
> --
Aren't the Independemts a third party of sorts?

They elected Obama and more recently Brown for Teddy's old senate seat.

Both parties argue that the independents are fickle and unreliable. Which
just shows that they are totally out of touch. The number of independents
are growing each year. This "nonparty" is the fastest growing party of all.

"Doug Miller" wrote:

> You're overlooking something: criminals are, by definition, people
> who don't
> obey laws. So why do you expect that passing laws will modify their
> behavior?
-----------------------------------
So who wants to modify the behavior of the criminal, only want to
modify the behavior of those who do business with them.

Lew

"Han" <[email protected]> wrote

> Top-posted for brevity (contrary to my instincts).
>
> I LIKE your reasoning Max!! Can we make that a law? Please?
>
> Han
>
> "Max" wrote
( a bit of opinionated babble)

I'm working on it, Han. {:-)

Max

"Doug Miller" wrote:

> I think you're missing the point. I have no doubt that the street
> gangs and
> the drug cartels are able to obtain weapons. I'm asking what you
> think passing
> laws can do to change that.
--------------------------------------
Same logic that prohibited the purchase of tanks by vet groups after
WWII.

Sooner or later the cops and robbers fantasy of those who wish to
relive when they were 10 years old must come to an end.

Lew

"Mike Marlow" wrote:

> To be fair Lew - most of those AK's don't come from legitimate
> purchase channels. That's why these feel good laws don't work.
> Ever wonder why these laws don't result in any impact on the issue
> at hand?
--------------------
The NRA flexes it's muscle and any meaningful gun law is guttted to
the point of being useless.

Lew

"Mike Marlow" wrote:

> You're losing me with this reasoning Lew. The vets groups were not
> a criminal element.
------------------------
Precisely, but before even a vets organization could get their hands
on a tank it had to be completely decomissioned including welding a
piece of plate across the muzzle of the cannon (Not sure what that
accomplished).

The military wasn't taking any chances that the tank in your local
park could be stolen and used for criminal purposes.
-------------------------------
That whole cops and robbers thing you mention is... well,
> hard to understand. You do realize don't you, that gangs are not
> adolescents with a cops and robbers fixation?
-----------------------------------------
Simply put a bunch of people who are no longer full of the piss and
vinegar they had at 18, want to think they can still do what an 18
year old did when they are well past prime time.

Ain't ever going to happen.

If the bad guys try to take over the world, they won't be stopped by a
bunch of old farts armed with a pea shooters.

Think 911 type attack.

There are many others but will not list on an open forum.


Lew

On Jan 29, 10:28=A0am, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
> dhall987 <[email protected]> wrote innews:sd64m5hvnp430mm5tv58q3dm9h48qsug5=
[email protected]:
>
>
>
> >On 28 Jan 2010 19:48:41 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>There is a big problem with coalition governments. =A0It takes a lot of
> >>negotiating between parties to form a viable coalition, and when one
> >>of the parties starts to feel slighted, they can pull out at a
> >>moment's notice. =A0Poof goes the coalition, and another few months are
> >>needed to form a new one. =A0But then, Churchill already said that
> >>democracy is the worst form of government except there is nothing
> >>better. =A0Or something in that vein.
>
> >>One thing that keeps being forgotten is that the US is a republic, and
> >>not a direct democracy. =A0Whether that is good or bad is unknown (to
> >>me). =A0The real problem nowadays (IMNSHO) is that greed and
> >>selfpromotion is the basis for the structure of our elected
> >>representation, and that whoever can buy the most Congresscritters
> >>will win. =A0How the recent Supreme Court decision on free speech by
> >>corporations is going to "help" anyone is going to be interesting to
> >>find out, especially in the context of Facebook etc. =A0
>
> >>May you live in interesting times <haha>.
>
> > Not only is it a republic, but it is a republic with the purpose of
> > governing a union of otherwise self-governing states. The federal
> > government was not really originally meant to govern people, it was
> > more meant to govern the relationships among states and manage some
> > functions outside of individual state's interests (i.e. relationships
> > with foreign governments).
>
> Yes. =A0Everything is in flux. =A0But the origin of the US was in times
> before iPods, iPhones, and iPads. =A0We do have to go with the flow. =A0
> IMNSHO we all live on Earth, and the welfare of the whole may sometimes
> be detrimental to a few. =A0
>
> Opinions, opinions ...


There is this little thing called the Constitution. I know you don't
believe in it, but some of us do (and all should).

Robatoy wrote:
>>
>> That was my point. Bush was *not* a conservative, in any way.
>>
>>
> Indeed he was not. He was/is completely devoid of any principles or
> morals.

Uh, that's (generally) the mark of liberals. Interestingly, our current
president hasn't been to church - so far as I know - in the year that he's
been in office. Surely there are churches in D.C. run by loons.

"Han" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> I agree, good for you, CW!
> But I hesitate to think what would have happened if the slimebag had had
> a gun.
>
Then I would have had to shoot him, something I really rather avoid.

"Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Mike Marlow" wrote:
>>
>> I have mixed feelings on the NRA myself. In what ways do you feel they
>> have gutted any good laws?
> --------------------------------
> The background check laws might as well not exist.

I don't know why you say that. At least here in NY, the background check is
very effective.

>
> The lack of an on going database hampers any meaningful use of whatever
> data is collected.
>
> The laws in Virginia seem to be especially lax for example.
>
> If you want to weaken legislation, remove it from federal control and
> transfer it to state control.

Well - I'm not so sure it's a bad thing to curtail the power of a Federal
government.

>
> The "States Rights" folks have been using this approach since the Civil
> War to try to weaken the federal gov't.
>

Thank goodness, in my opinion. That does after all, exist within our
Constitution as a precaution against a federal government that grows too
powerful.

> Personally, in this day of digital technology, would like to see all
> firearms registered just like motor vehicles.

Why? Again - back to the original question... what would that establish?
You'd have a registration of all of the legally owned guns. How would that
affect the criminal element in any way? This is one of what I call the feel
good ideas. Not meant to be an insulting term to you, but it serves the
purpose of making people feel they are accomplishing something, when in fact
it really does nothing of the kind.

>
> A serial number and a test slug is all it would take.

And that would help in what way?

>
> It certainly would not restrict the legitimate use of firearms.

Nor would it restrict the illigitimate use of firearms.


--

-Mike-
[email protected]

"Han" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> I respect your view. Nevertheless, the opposing view is that lax laws
> and/or enforcement allows gun sales "down south" to get guns shipped
> illegally to NE metropolitan areas. Whether the actual sellers and/or
> gun manufacturers are indeed complicit in the operation(s) or just ignore
> the possibility is not irrelevant.
>
> Guns should not be in the hands of irresponsible/criminal people in urban
> areas. period. I believe you all would agree. How to prevent this is
> the problem. In my honest opinion, sales by dealers/distributors to
> dubious characters should be punishable. Bloomberg et al indeed try to
> move the "culprit" label further up the supply chain, but then, there is
> no evidence of gun manufacturers or distributors to help prevent the guns
> from ending up in the wrong hands. Until gun
> manufacturers/distributors/dealers make real honest efforts to prevent
> guns from ending up in the wrong hands, I am in favor of trying to
> prevent the initial gun sales. AND OF COURSE, real good penalties for
> the miscreants who buy and use them illegally.
>
What do you mean by down south? Mexico? South America? You'll have to talk
to them as our government has no jurisdiction in those countries. Are you
advocating the US takeover of these countries so we can pass the laws we
like? You have implied a few times that other states are trying to screw the
northeast. I am originally from Maine. I have lived in seven states across
the country and now reside in Washington. Let me assure you that there is no
conspiracy. As for "lax laws", many states have laws that are more
restrictive than federal laws (this state is one) but none have laws less
restrictive than federal law, nor can they do so. You really do need to
educate yourself. I would think that you would want to know what you are
talking about. As a firearms owner and licensed to carry, I have been
subject to FBI background checks and my finger prints are on file. In
addition, there is a mandatory waiting period before a handgun purchase and
an age requirement (wish I was young enough to have to worry about that).
This is nothing compared to what a dealer has to go through to get a
license. He is also subject to FBI and ATF checks on himself, his records
and his inventory, at will, for as long as he is licensed.


This from the FBI website:

The National Instant Criminal Background Check System, or NICS, is all about
saving lives and protecting people from harm-by not letting guns and
explosives fall into the wrong hands. It also ensures the timely transfer of
firearms to eligible gun buyers.

Mandated by the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993 and launched
by the FBI on November 30, 1998, NICS is used by Federal Firearms Licensees
(FFLs) to instantly determine whether a prospective buyer is eligible to buy
firearms or explosives. Before ringing up the sale, cashiers call in a check
to the FBI or to other designated agencies to ensure that each customer does
not have a criminal record or isn't otherwise ineligible to make a purchase.
More than 100 million such checks have been made in the last decade, leading
to more than 700,000 denials.

On Feb 17, 5:41=A0pm, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, "HeyBub" <he=
[email protected]> wrote:
> >krw wrote:
>
> >> That was my point. =A0Bush was *not* a conservative, in any way.
>
> >Hmm. One of his first acts was to curtail fetal stem cell research, a be=
te
> >noir among social conservatives.
>
> >During his tenure, he managed five (I think) tax cuts, the darlings of
> >economic conservatives.

...and that great conservative cause - senior prescription care

> >No conservative, social or economic, will fault with the Alito and Rober=
ts
> >appointments to the Supreme Court.
>
> >Then there were other initiatives which conservatives generally supporte=
d,
> >such as the Patriot Act, No Child Left Behind, Office of Faith-based
> >Initiatives, and of course the darling of the neo-conservatives, preempt=
ion
> >in Iraq and Afghanistan.
>
> >Of course MY favorite conservative didn't get elected (I wasn't running)=
,
> >but an honest appraisal of Bush would be that he was more conservative t=
han
> >not.
>
> I disagree. Every step of the way, Bush supported a larger and more power=
ful
> Federal government.

Prexacty.

On Feb 9, 8:34=A0am, Phisherman <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mon, 8 Feb 2010 20:35:57 -0600, "HeyBub" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >Larry Blanchard wrote:
> >> On Sun, 07 Feb 2010 22:08:27 -0600, Steve Turner wrote:
>
> >>> FOR CRYING OUT LOUD, WHEN IS THIS THREAD GOING TO DIE?!
>
> >>> I'm getting sick of ignoring the stupid thing already. (*)
>
> >>> Now GET A LIFE and go talk about something else, will ya?
>
> >> Hey, how do you think I feel? =A0I started it with a simple request fo=
r
> >> opinions on an article I read that suggested we needed more than 2
> >> viable political parties.
>
> >> IIRC, about the first 5 responses addressed that issue :-).
>
> >Okay, okay. Having more than two major parties is like putting steel tre=
ads
> >on a Prius. We don't HAVE a parliamentary system where multiple parties =
can
> >wheel and deal. We have a unitary executive and our form of government
> >really doesn't lend itself to multiple parties.
>
> >The last third party with any real traction was Teddy Roosevelt's "Bull
> >Moose" party that broke away from the Republicans. Teddy got enough vote=
s to
> >deny the presidency to Taft and we got Woodrow Wilson. To a lesser degre=
e,
> >Ross Perot was still able to deny the election to Bush(41) and we ended =
up
> >with Clinton.
>
> Which was a very good thing for our economy, we had jobs, spending
> money, low inflation. =A0The Bushes were too far right, and now we have
> some kind of wacko leader who knows more more about how to hurt the
> economy than anyone else. =A0Hopefully the public will come to realize
> before it's too late. =A0Let's raise the debt limit--yeah, like that's
> going to help... again! =A0I don't side with any party, other than
> Libertarian, but doubt that party will ever make it. =A0 =A0Too bad McCai=
n
> said "if it takes a 100 years of war so be it" else he may have won. I
> won't vote for a "war" president if I know he/she is one.

Bush was "right"? <boggle> NCLB and prescription drugs were *not*
conservative issues.

BTW, presidents don't raise debt limits.

On Jan 29, 11:42=A0am, Larry Blanchard <[email protected]> wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
>
> > There is this little thing called the Constitution. =A0I know you don't
> > believe in it, but some of us do (and all should).
>
> Belief: An opinion with nothing to back it up. =A0GB Shaw

Nonsense.

> The existence of the Constitution is a fact. =A0Perhaps you meant "I
> believe in a strict interpretation of the Constitution."?

Believe it is the highest law of the land. To be obeyed. Important.
Means something.

> Pedantry out of the way, times do change. =A0A document designed for a
> sparsely populated agrarian society may need some adjustments for an
> overpopulated post industrial society.

...and the FF fully appreciated this and left a means of change. It's
in there.

> Or do you also obey all of rules in the Old Testament? =A0

I haven't killed anyone, if that's what you mean. Note that the
country does not state the Old Testament as law.

>Which, BTW, *is* a proper subject for "belief".

I thought you had all you pedantry out of the way?

In article <[email protected]>, Han
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
> But, but, there are 3 things in electioneering, facts, well-founded
> opinions (on all sides of the issues), and falsehoods. To me it is getting
> more and more difficult to separate them.

I call bullshit. When have you ever seen facts enter an election
campaign?

In article <[email protected]>, Han
<[email protected]> wrote:

> Dave Balderstone <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca> wrote in
> news:310120101855286085%dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca:
>
> > In article <[email protected]>, Han
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> But, but, there are 3 things in electioneering, facts, well-founded
> >> opinions (on all sides of the issues), and falsehoods. To me it is
> >> getting more and more difficult to separate them.
> >
> > I call bullshit. When have you ever seen facts enter an election
> > campaign?
>
> You think that is wishful thin king on my part? Maybe democracy isn't such
> a good idea after all??

Are you an American? If so, why do you think you live in a democracy?
You don't.

> Just feeding the righteous ... (snickering sarcastically) -
> nothing personal REALLY!

Well, it's not like you're strong on facts...

In article <[email protected]>, Swingman
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
> There is absolutely nothing morally wrong with being in either category.
>
> But, for the first aforementioned, it is a trait upon which our society
> has been built ... the value of which can only be denied to the
> detriment of all.

"It is the soldier, not the reporter, who has given us the freedom of
the press. It is the soldier, not the poet, who has given us the
freedom of speech. It is the soldier, not the campus organizer, who
gives us the freedom to demonstrate. It is the soldier who salutes the
flag, who serves beneath the flag, and whose coffin is draped by the
flag, who allows the protester to burn the flag." -- Father Dennis
Edward O'Brien, Sergeant, USMC

True on both sides of the US/Canada border...

In article <[email protected]>, Swingman
<[email protected]> wrote:

> On 1/31/2010 9:11 PM, Dave Balderstone wrote:
>
> > Well, it's not like you're strong on facts...
>
> Be gentle now, you old fart curmudgeon, he's one of the good guys! <g,d&r>

Don't get me started on what Canada did for the Dutch... My great uncle
came home a serious mess after WWII and liberating Holland.

And now they kowtow to the islamists and prosecute free speech...

"Steve Turner" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

>>
>> Feel better? It does feel good to vent the spleen from time to time.
>
> Why yes I do, thank you for asking. :-)
>

I know how it goes Steve. I can participate in threads for a long time,
when they are of some interest to me, and at the same time I can wonder how
other threads can persist as long as they do - when they are of no interest
to me. Of course, I always take the high road, and exhibit a noble presence
here in the group...

--

-Mike-
[email protected]

"Larry Blanchard" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

>
> Hey, how do you think I feel? I started it with a simple request for
> opinions on an article I read that suggested we needed more than 2 viable
> political parties.
>
> IIRC, about the first 5 responses addressed that issue :-).
>

Heh! That'll teach ya...

--

-Mike-
[email protected]

CW wrote:
> BTW, if you are wondering
> if I have ever needed the gun, the answer is yes. About two weeks
> ago, a knife wielding slimebag tried to rob me, late at night at an
> ATM. The sight of my 38 was enough to make him think that that was a
> bad idea.

Me too. I've been accosted three times by what I thought were would-be
muggers - twice in a Home Depot parking lot. I reached the probability that
they were muggers because: a) They were carrying makeshift weapons, in one
case a tire-iron, b) The ignored my command to "Stop! Come no closer!"

All three did, however, stop when I exposed my weapon (pointed at the
ground).

All were reported to the store managers. One store manager called the cops.
The cop took notes, said I did the right thing, and left.

What you and I did is called a "defensive use of a firearm." Best estimates
range from two to eight million defensive uses per year.

Whatever the number, that's at least a million crimes that were never
committed.

On 2010-01-30 00:53:40 -0500, "Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> said:

> Probably because it ain't funny Magee.

Eh, you had to be there!

"Han" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

>
> I think you are addressing me, Han (short for Johan, a fairly common
> Dutch name).

I am so sorry. That was a mistake on my part, based on just not paying
attention.


> I am very glad that my fears are unfounded. Like many
> unrealistic fears, to me they are real. Luckily, they have not held me
> back from walking wherever I choose to, but it does limit me to areas I
> consider safe.

Oh heck Han - buy a gun, and then you can walk in those areas where you
don't feel safe...

>
> It appears to me (from press reports) that there is a fairly well
> established criminal enterprise(s) smuggling weapons, perhaps legally,
> perhaps illegally purchased outside the Northeast that are sold on te
> streets of Newark, New York and likely elsewhere.

Criminal...smuggling. Sorta tells you something there. Smuggling = nothing
legal about it. Back to the criminal element part of this conversation.
Nothing that is legislated to affect legal gun owners is going to have one
small effect on this element. Barking up the wrong tree.

>
> I am not against legal sales of weapons, but against illegal sales. I
> would like investigations and laws to prevent those. Fairly simple,
> isn't it?
>

You can't prevent illegal sales of anything. You have to deal with the
illegal element - the criminal. You simply cannot legislate the behavior of
the criminal element - especially when the only people that legislation
affects are the law abiding citizens. Think about it...

--

-Mike-
[email protected]

"Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Mike Marlow" wrote:
>
>> To be fair Lew - most of those AK's don't come from legitimate purchase
>> channels. That's why these feel good laws don't work. Ever wonder why
>> these laws don't result in any impact on the issue at hand?
> --------------------
> The NRA flexes it's muscle and any meaningful gun law is guttted to the
> point of being useless.
>

I have mixed feelings on the NRA myself. In what ways do you feel they have
gutted any good laws?

--

-Mike-
[email protected]

Han wrote:
> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>> Would be nice if "freedom of the press" did not automatically equate
>> to "freedom of the junk mailers and spammers" though. I do wonder
>> if the founders, having been deluged with junk mail, would have
>> phrased things differently.
>
> So, what do you think of the SC decision to let companies fund
> reelction campaigns more fully (=free "peech" for corporations). I
> do value your opinion!

I'm for it! But the SC decision does not allow corporations to fund
campaigns - the change merely allows corporations to speak out for or
against a candidate. They are still prohibited from contributing directly to
a candidate or coordinating their expenditures.

Allowing a corporation to spend money on behalf of a candidate does not mean
the corporation can use the money to buy votes! It means the corporation can
expend funds to get more information - true or false - in the hands of the
voters. More information is usually good.

We spend more in this country on potato chips than campaigning. I say the
more money spent, the better.

"Han" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in news:a15a0$4b67b4a9
> [email protected]:
>
> (I snipped the excellent summary)
>
> You're right, Mike. Nevertheless, the stories of violence abound. I
> recall that when a New Brunswick, Canada, 4H group was visiting my wife's
> 4H group and they visited NYC, they witnessed a stabbing on a subway
> platform. In the 80's.
>
> Not normal, but it happened.
>

And that's evidence of my point to some degree. Large amounts of NYC were
indeed much more dangerous in the '80's. People may not like Rudy Gulianni
much, but he did clean up NYC a lot. Things are much different now, but
many people hang on to the stories of years ago.

--

-Mike-
[email protected]

"Han" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> Guns should not be in the hands of irresponsible/criminal people in urban
> areas. period. I believe you all would agree. How to prevent this is
> the problem. In my honest opinion, sales by dealers/distributors to
> dubious characters should be punishable. Bloomberg et al indeed try to
> move the "culprit" label further up the supply chain, but then, there is
> no evidence of gun manufacturers or distributors to help prevent the guns
> from ending up in the wrong hands. Until gun
> manufacturers/distributors/dealers make real honest efforts to prevent
> guns from ending up in the wrong hands, I am in favor of trying to
> prevent the initial gun sales. AND OF COURSE, real good penalties for
> the miscreants who buy and use them illegally.
>

Assigning the blame on those not responsible will continue to do nothing to
fix the problem. This country did not have the problems it has with gangs
today, throughout its history. What things were different then? What
really needs to change? Looking for easy ways out of hard problems by
trying to push them on the shoulders of unrelated parties will do one
thing - it will perpetuate the problem.

--

-Mike-
[email protected]

"Mark & Juanita" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Doug Miller wrote:
>
>> In article <[email protected]>, "Mike Marlow"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>Assigning the blame on those not responsible will continue to do nothing
>>>to
>>>fix the problem. This country did not have the problems it has with
>>>gangs
>>>today, throughout its history. What things were different then? What
>>>really needs to change? Looking for easy ways out of hard problems by
>>>trying to push them on the shoulders of unrelated parties will do one
>>>thing - it will perpetuate the problem.
>>
>> A small correction: there *was* a period in the early 20th century when
>> there was a significant problem with gang violence -- directly related to
>> the illegal drug trade, then, just as now. The only difference is that
>> the
>> drug then was alcohol, vs. cocaine, methamphetamine, and marijuana now.
>> When the possession, sale, use, etc. of alcohol was decriminalized and
>> regulated, the gun violence associated with the illegal trade in it
>> nearly
>> vanished.
>>
>> Coincidence, no doubt, and of no bearing on the present situation...
>
> Interesting other, again merely coincidental item. The confiscatory
> taxes
> on tobacco are giving rise to smuggling between jurisdictions with low
> taxes
> to those with very high taxes. Right now (as in the beginning of the time
> period you mention), this is just small-time criminals. As the taxes get
> higher and the rewards for skirting the laws get bigger, look for more
> gang
> involvement and similar issues with this "legal but heavily taxed"
> product.
>
>
I've seen that coming for some time.

"HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

>
> Then there were other initiatives which conservatives generally supported,
> such as the Patriot Act, No Child Left Behind, Office of Faith-based
> Initiatives, and of course the darling of the neo-conservatives,
> preemption in Iraq and Afghanistan.
>

The Patriot Act was almost universally supported by both bends, as was No
Child Left Behind and of course, preemption in Iraq and Afghanistan.

--

-Mike-
[email protected]

Han wrote:
>
> It appears to me (from press reports) that there is a fairly well
> established criminal enterprise(s) smuggling weapons, perhaps legally,
> perhaps illegally purchased outside the Northeast that are sold on te
> streets of Newark, New York and likely elsewhere.
>
> I am not against legal sales of weapons, but against illegal sales. I
> would like investigations and laws to prevent those. Fairly simple,
> isn't it?

The easier fix is to legalize gun sales.

Lew Hodgett wrote:
> "Mike Marlow" wrote:
>>
>> I have mixed feelings on the NRA myself. In what ways do you feel
>> they have gutted any good laws?
> --------------------------------
> The background check laws might as well not exist.
>
> The lack of an on going database hampers any meaningful use of
> whatever data is collected.

By law, data are NOT collected. The insta-check system, run by the FBI, is
prohibited from accumulating any data on potential firearm purchasers.
Remember, the NCIS does not record whether someone acutally BOUGHT a gun,
only whether they are PERMITTED to buy a gun.

>
> The laws in Virginia seem to be especially lax for example.

They seem overly restrictive to me. For example, one-gun-a-month is the
rule. You can't carry a pistol in your car. All sorts of other Draconian
laws.


>
> Personally, in this day of digital technology, would like to see all
> firearms registered just like motor vehicles.
>
> A serial number and a test slug is all it would take.
>
> It certainly would not restrict the legitimate use of firearms.

And registration of firearms would accomplish exactly what?

The ONLY purpose in automobile registration is to facilitate taxation.
Surely you don't envision that for firearms? There are 200 million firearms
in this country. Imagine the bureacracy necessary to gather, catalog,
examine, and store 200 million fired bullets! And for what purpose?

Ballistic examination of these comparison bullets can be easily defeated,
rendering the whole project useless - except for the number of government
employees engaged in a futile pursuit.

>
> Now is the time for the NRA circle jerk to activate.
>
>
> Lew

On Feb 16, 6:22=A0pm, krw <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 10:03:49 -0800, Larry Jaques
>
>
>
>
>
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >On Fri, 12 Feb 2010 05:47:48 -0800 (PST), the infamous
> >"[email protected]" <[email protected]> scrawled the following:
>
> >>On Feb 11, 7:18=A0pm, Larry Jaques <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>> On Tue, 9 Feb 2010 07:43:01 -0800 (PST), the infamous
> >>> "[email protected]" <[email protected]> scrawled the following:
>
> >>> >On Feb 9, 8:34=A0am, Phisherman <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>> >> On Mon, 8 Feb 2010 20:35:57 -0600, "HeyBub" <[email protected]=
m>
> >>> >> wrote:
> >>> >Bush was "right"? =A0<boggle> =A0NCLB and prescription drugs were *n=
ot*
> >>> >conservative issues.
>
> >>> Whassat? =A0National Coalition of Liberal Bozos?
>
> >>"No Child Left Behind"
>
> >Equally bad on the Conservative side. =A0<sigh>
>
> That was my point. =A0Bush was *not* a conservative, in any way.
>
>
Indeed he was not. He was/is completely devoid of any principles or
morals.

On Jan 29, 2:02=A0pm, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote innews:[email protected]=
y.com:
>
>
>
> > Larry Blanchard wrote:
> >> [email protected] wrote:
>
> >>> There is this little thing called the Constitution. =A0I know you
> >>> don't believe in it, but some of us do (and all should).
>
> >> Belief: An opinion with nothing to back it up. =A0GB Shaw
>
> >> The existence of the Constitution is a fact. =A0Perhaps you meant "I
> >> believe in a strict interpretation of the Constitution."?
>
> >> Pedantry out of the way, times do change. =A0A document designed for a
> >> sparsely populated agrarian society may need some adjustments for an
> >> overpopulated post industrial society.
>
> > It may. =A0If that is the case the correct solution is to amend it, not
> > ignore it. =A0It contains a clearly defined procedure for such
> > amendment, which procedure has been applied a number of times.
>
> >> Or do you also obey all of rules in the Old Testament? =A0Which, BTW,
> >> *is* a proper subject for "belief".
>
> > There is no amendment procedure in the Old Testament.
>
> If the Constitution is so clear and immutable (excepting for a moment the
> amendment route), why do we need a USSC?

To interpret laws. You and congress are quite alike. They want the
Constitution to mean what *they* want it to mean. SCotUS is
*supposed* to be a check on such nonsense.

"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Lew Hodgett wrote:

>
>> A serial number and a test slug is all it would take.
>
> And what good would the "test slug" do other than take up space in a
> taxpayer funded drawer somewhere? If you're thinking of using striations
> from a projectile found at a crime scene to identify the firearm, this
> would
> only work if the firearm was never actually fired subsequent to the
> collection of the "test slug"--putting just a few shots through one
> changes
> the striations enough that they become useless for identification. But if
> you bothered to even try to do your homework before spouting off you would
> have known this.
>

New York is a CoBIS state which requires any new handgun be accompanied by a
spent casing. A spent casing from the gun is also sent to the NYSP to be
kept on file. DAGS on CoBIS, and see just how ineffective yet another feel
good law has really proven to be. I just cannot understand why good minds
seem to be so focused on chasing things that proven to be ineffective, or
that are flat out unconstitutional. I don't disagree that there are
problems to be dealt with, but I just don't understand this continued trek
down the path of legitimately owned gun control. The biggest problem with
feel good laws is that they don't even feel good.

--

-Mike-
[email protected]

On 30 Jan 2010 11:45:47 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:

>"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in
>news:[email protected]:
>
>> dhall987 wrote:
>>> On 30 Jan 2010 02:01:27 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> dhall987 <[email protected]> wrote in
>>>> news:[email protected]:
>>>>
>>>>> On 29 Jan 2010 16:28:55 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> dhall987 <[email protected]> wrote in
>>>>>> news:[email protected]:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 28 Jan 2010 19:48:41 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> There is a big problem with coalition governments. It takes a
>>>>>>>> lot of negotiating between parties to form a viable coalition,
>>>>>>>> and when one of the parties starts to feel slighted, they can
>>>>>>>> pull out at a moment's notice. Poof goes the coalition, and
>>>>>>>> another few months are needed to form a new one. But then,
>>>>>>>> Churchill already said that democracy is the worst form of
>>>>>>>> government except there is nothing better. Or something in that
>>>>>>>> vein.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> One thing that keeps being forgotten is that the US is a
>>>>>>>> republic, and not a direct democracy. Whether that is good or
>>>>>>>> bad is unknown (to me). The real problem nowadays (IMNSHO) is
>>>>>>>> that greed and selfpromotion is the basis for the structure of
>>>>>>>> our elected representation, and that whoever can buy the most
>>>>>>>> Congresscritters will win. How the recent Supreme Court
>>>>>>>> decision on free speech by corporations is going to "help"
>>>>>>>> anyone is going to be interesting to find out, especially in the
>>>>>>>> context of Facebook etc.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> May you live in interesting times <haha>.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Not only is it a republic, but it is a republic with the purpose
>>>>>>> of governing a union of otherwise self-governing states. The
>>>>>>> federal government was not really originally meant to govern
>>>>>>> people, it was more meant to govern the relationships among
>>>>>>> states and manage some functions outside of individual state's
>>>>>>> interests (i.e. relationships with foreign governments).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes. Everything is in flux. But the origin of the US was in
>>>>>> times before iPods, iPhones, and iPads. We do have to go with the
>>>>>> flow. IMNSHO we all live on Earth, and the welfare of the whole
>>>>>> may sometimes be detrimental to a few.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Opinions, opinions ...
>>>>>
>>>>> ...and for those that agree with you the Constitution provides not
>>>>> one, but two methods by which it can be changed by the will of the
>>>>> people and the states. NOT by the whims of a few or even by the
>>>>> majority vote of 9 appointed judges. There are a number of changes
>>>>> that I would like to see, but somehow I just don't want them bad
>>>>> enough to get the ball rolling...
>>>>>
>>>>> Dave Hall
>>>>
>>>> Maybe it's my medications, but I don't see what you mean, Dave. The
>>>> People have made amendments to the Constitution, sometimes revoking
>>>> previous amendments. The Supreme Court has used English, logic and
>>>> opinion to interpret those in the context of laws, however poorly
>>>> written. So, IMNSHO, it is all interpretation, and it isn't
>>>> surprising that that might change over time.
>>>
>>> I guess that it is a mindset.
>>>
>>> If I hired an interpreter (say a french one) to assist in
>>> understanding some document written in a foreign language (in this
>>> case french), I would expect that they would actually interprete,
>>> not just make stuff up. I would expect that the meaning that they
>>> ascribe to the document would, to the best of their ability, be based
>>> on what the writers of that document intended, not what my employee
>>> wanted them to say. Even if the words changed a bit in meaning over
>>> time, I would expect them to do their best to tell me what it meant
>>> when written (again not what he or she wants it to mean). When they
>>> tell we that a sentence means something other than what the writers
>>> actually wrote, then they are simple frauds. When (or if) the Supreme
>>> Court says that the Constitution or any amendment thereto says
>>> something other than what it clearly actually says or what the
>>> writers (and approvers) of that document or any amendment thereto
>>> clearly intended, then they go from being "justices" to being
>>> dictators.
>>
>> The problem is that others may disagree with you on "what it clearly
>> says" and the Founders did not write a users' manual explaining what
>> they "clearly intended".
>>
>>> Again, there are many changes that I would like to see to the
>>> Constitution (such as rational controls on ownership and use of
>>> certain arms), but I truly believe that until it is changed in the
>>> manners set forth then it should stand as written and intended (like
>>> when the 2nd amendment pretty clearly says that we can keep and bear
>>> such arms).
>>
>> You are aware are you not that the Supreme Court, which for most of
>> the 20th century managed to avoid taking a position on the second
>> amendment, when finally backed into a corner and forced to rule,
>> pretty much agreed with you on that point?
>>
>>> Folks like to say that there is a "consensus" that certain parts of
>>> the Constitution means something different today than it did 200
>>> years ago, but if that were true then the consensus would be
>>> expressed in the manners set up for amending the document.
>>
>> I've never seen an assertion of such "consensus". But the law does
>> have to deal with situations that the founders could not possibly have
>> envisioned (like "is cable television interstate commerce").
>>
>>> The writers simply put
>>> together a process to ensure that a reasonable consensus was actually
>>> reached before changes were made. Otherwise it is simple abuse by any
>>> transient majority that comes along (ask any african-american or
>>> hispanic-american that you know just how well that concept works).
>>>
>>> I hope that the meds wear off and that all is well with you.
>>>
>>> Dave Hall
>
>
>J. Clarke "got it".
See my response to J. Clarke.

>Thanks Dave for the wishes. Yes, the meds are being reduced, and they
>will wear off.
I hope it isn't related to anything serious.
>
>Interpretation/explanation are alwys good. Language evolves as do
>customs. Which reminds me of the story of the Allied Generals planning
>D-Day. In my words: There was a proposal and the Brits wanted to table
>it, which the Americans furiously (my word) opposed. Turns out that to
>table a proposal in British English means to put it on the table and
>discuss it, while in American English it means to put it on the table and
>shove it aside for later. I am really glad they figured it out since I
>was to be born in the fall of 1944 in German-occupied Holland.

As stated in the response to J. Clarke, the meaning behind the various
parts of the Constitution were extremely well documented in the
various debates in each of the 13 states during the approval process.
Each Amendment was similarly extensively debated by each of the states
voting on their ratifications.

Dave Hall

On Mon, 8 Feb 2010 20:35:57 -0600, "HeyBub" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Larry Blanchard wrote:
>> On Sun, 07 Feb 2010 22:08:27 -0600, Steve Turner wrote:
>>
>>> FOR CRYING OUT LOUD, WHEN IS THIS THREAD GOING TO DIE?!
>>>
>>> I'm getting sick of ignoring the stupid thing already. (*)
>>>
>>> Now GET A LIFE and go talk about something else, will ya?
>>
>> Hey, how do you think I feel? I started it with a simple request for
>> opinions on an article I read that suggested we needed more than 2
>> viable political parties.
>>
>> IIRC, about the first 5 responses addressed that issue :-).
>
>Okay, okay. Having more than two major parties is like putting steel treads
>on a Prius. We don't HAVE a parliamentary system where multiple parties can
>wheel and deal. We have a unitary executive and our form of government
>really doesn't lend itself to multiple parties.
>
>The last third party with any real traction was Teddy Roosevelt's "Bull
>Moose" party that broke away from the Republicans. Teddy got enough votes to
>deny the presidency to Taft and we got Woodrow Wilson. To a lesser degree,
>Ross Perot was still able to deny the election to Bush(41) and we ended up
>with Clinton.
>

Which was a very good thing for our economy, we had jobs, spending
money, low inflation. The Bushes were too far right, and now we have
some kind of wacko leader who knows more more about how to hurt the
economy than anyone else. Hopefully the public will come to realize
before it's too late. Let's raise the debt limit--yeah, like that's
going to help... again! I don't side with any party, other than
Libertarian, but doubt that party will ever make it. Too bad McCain
said "if it takes a 100 years of war so be it" else he may have won. I
won't vote for a "war" president if I know he/she is one.

On Feb 2, 9:00=A0am, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
> Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote innews:D4OdneGiDOI4JvrWnZ2dnU=
[email protected]:
>
> > =A0 Good heavens! If you live in NJ or any part of the Northeast, you'v=
e
> > =A0 got
> > more gun laws than you can shake a stick at! =A0There are already laws
> > on the books that prohibit felons, people judged mentally incompetent,
> > or people who have been convicted of even misdemeanor domestic abuse
> > from buying or owning firearms. =A0All of the cities with the strictest
> > gun laws (enacted ostensibly for the objectives you state) have the
> > highest crime rates. =A0In Detroit, the odds of a murder being solved
> > are below 50%. =A0Lack of laws is not the problem. =A0
>
> If you have any good =A0ideas as to how to modify kids' behavior, let me
> know. =A0My son-in-law teaches math in a Paterson high school. =A0It is
> absolutely scary to realize how dysfunctional and dependent on outside he=
lp
> or drug trades those kids are (in general, there are a lot of good kids
> too).
> --
> Best regards
> Han
> email address is invalid

When trying to communicate, it helps to speak the same language.
When trying to communicate with a gangbanger, stick a Glock up his
nose.
We all dream of a land without violence, but as long as law
enforcement remains incapable of stamping out criminals, I will feel
obligated to keep a device handy that helps me translate my position
to the criminals.
Stoop to their level? Yup, be happy to. Speaking to them in legalese
doesn't seem to have much of an effect.

On 30 Jan 2010 02:01:27 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:

>dhall987 <[email protected]> wrote in
>news:[email protected]:
>
>> On 29 Jan 2010 16:28:55 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>dhall987 <[email protected]> wrote in
>>>news:[email protected]:
>>>
>>>>On 28 Jan 2010 19:48:41 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>There is a big problem with coalition governments. It takes a lot
>>>>>of negotiating between parties to form a viable coalition, and when
>>>>>one of the parties starts to feel slighted, they can pull out at a
>>>>>moment's notice. Poof goes the coalition, and another few months
>>>>>are needed to form a new one. But then, Churchill already said that
>>>>>democracy is the worst form of government except there is nothing
>>>>>better. Or something in that vein.
>>>>>
>>>>>One thing that keeps being forgotten is that the US is a republic,
>>>>>and not a direct democracy. Whether that is good or bad is unknown
>>>>>(to me). The real problem nowadays (IMNSHO) is that greed and
>>>>>selfpromotion is the basis for the structure of our elected
>>>>>representation, and that whoever can buy the most Congresscritters
>>>>>will win. How the recent Supreme Court decision on free speech by
>>>>>corporations is going to "help" anyone is going to be interesting to
>>>>>find out, especially in the context of Facebook etc.
>>>>>
>>>>>May you live in interesting times <haha>.
>>>>
>>>> Not only is it a republic, but it is a republic with the purpose of
>>>> governing a union of otherwise self-governing states. The federal
>>>> government was not really originally meant to govern people, it was
>>>> more meant to govern the relationships among states and manage some
>>>> functions outside of individual state's interests (i.e.
>>>> relationships with foreign governments).
>>>
>>>Yes. Everything is in flux. But the origin of the US was in times
>>>before iPods, iPhones, and iPads. We do have to go with the flow.
>>>IMNSHO we all live on Earth, and the welfare of the whole may
>>>sometimes be detrimental to a few.
>>>
>>>Opinions, opinions ...
>>
>> ...and for those that agree with you the Constitution provides not
>> one, but two methods by which it can be changed by the will of the
>> people and the states. NOT by the whims of a few or even by the
>> majority vote of 9 appointed judges. There are a number of changes
>> that I would like to see, but somehow I just don't want them bad
>> enough to get the ball rolling...
>>
>> Dave Hall
>
>Maybe it's my medications, but I don't see what you mean, Dave. The
>People have made amendments to the Constitution, sometimes revoking
>previous amendments. The Supreme Court has used English, logic and
>opinion to interpret those in the context of laws, however poorly
>written. So, IMNSHO, it is all interpretation, and it isn't surprising
>that that might change over time.

I guess that it is a mindset.

If I hired an interpreter (say a french one) to assist in
understanding some document written in a foreign language (in this
case french), I would expect that they would actually interprete, not
just make stuff up. I would expect that the meaning that they ascribe
to the document would, to the best of their ability, be based on what
the writers of that document intended, not what my employee wanted
them to say. Even if the words changed a bit in meaning over time, I
would expect them to do their best to tell me what it meant when
written (again not what he or she wants it to mean). When they tell we
that a sentence means something other than what the writers actually
wrote, then they are simple frauds. When (or if) the Supreme Court
says that the Constitution or any amendment thereto says something
other than what it clearly actually says or what the writers (and
approvers) of that document or any amendment thereto clearly intended,
then they go from being "justices" to being dictators.

Again, there are many changes that I would like to see to the
Constitution (such as rational controls on ownership and use of
certain arms), but I truly believe that until it is changed in the
manners set forth then it should stand as written and intended (like
when the 2nd amendment pretty clearly says that we can keep and bear
such arms).

Folks like to say that there is a "consensus" that certain parts of
the Constitution means something different today than it did 200 years
ago, but if that were true then the consensus would be expressed in
the manners set up for amending the document. The writers simply put
together a process to ensure that a reasonable consensus was actually
reached before changes were made. Otherwise it is simple abuse by any
transient majority that comes along (ask any african-american or
hispanic-american that you know just how well that concept works).

I hope that the meds wear off and that all is well with you.

Dave Hall

On 1/31/2010 8:26 PM, CW wrote:
>
> "Han" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> :
>> I don't know anymore what is good. If everyone is running around with
>> concealed weapons, what prevents large scale shootouts?
>>
> Morals (you'd be amazed how many people still have those) and the
> knowledge that murder is illegal and carries heavy penalties. I have had
> a carry permit for the last 28 years. It's amazing how many people seem
> to think a carry permit gives one the right to shoot people at will. I
> have no more right to do that than you do. There do seem to be plenty of
> people that think that criminals should have the right to kill or injure
> someone without having to worry that they may be the one being fitted
> for a body bag. BTW, if you are wondering if I have ever needed the gun,
> the answer is yes. About two weeks ago, a knife wielding slimebag tried
> to rob me, late at night at an ATM. The sight of my 38 was enough to
> make him think that that was a bad idea.

Good on you! You were obviously raised with a sense of right and wrong,
and the fortitude to insure that you will not be a victim of those who
weren't.

In short, the more we have like you, the better for everyone ... this
very country's history is full of examples of the necessity to protect
yourself and your family from bullies and thieves, mostly by arming
yourself with the necessary tools.

The sheeple would forego that option in the warm and fuzzy hope that
government will ultimately protect them.

Ha!

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)

On 1/31/2010 9:11 PM, Dave Balderstone wrote:

> Well, it's not like you're strong on facts...

Be gentle now, you old fart curmudgeon, he's one of the good guys! <g,d&r>

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)

Han wrote:
>
> I don't know anymore what is good. If everyone is running around with
> concealed weapons, what prevents large scale shootouts?
>
> Here in the NY area an off-duty cop was killed by uniformed cops
> because he ran after a guy who had robbed someone (I believe), and
> met uniformed cops who were coming to a report of a man with a gun.
> The uniformed cops didn't hear him (or something like that) when he
> identified himself (or not, I don't remember). Of course skin color
> may have played a role ...

Well, there you are: cops shooting cops. Cops, in fact, shoot far more
innocent people per person than those licensed to carry a handgun. This is
because, probably, the armed citizen, on the scene, KNOWS who the bad guy
is; when the cops arrive, they often have to guess.

The point you raise comes up during the concealed handgun debate. Sometimes
it's framed as "What is a cop to do when he comes on a shootout where
several people are armed?" In reality, that almost never happens. Most of
the time when the cops arrive the original bad guy is dead or wounded.

As for knowing what's good, it's tough. But whether good or bad, weapons are
what the people want. Only two states (Wisconsin & Illinois), plus D.C.,
absolutely prohibit concealed handguns. Thirty-eight states are "shall
issue" states. "Shall issue" means that if you meet the statutory
requirements for a license, you get it. Ten states are "discretionary"; that
is, some official - like the country sheriff - can deny the application.

In my state, a license holder may carry is weapon just about anywhere. The
only places specifically off-limits are courtrooms, jails, schools, and beer
joints. A license holder can carry in a restaurant, a church, a hospital,
the non-secure portions of an airport, on any bit of property owned or
controlled by any agency of government (parks, libraries, sewage treatment
plants). He can carry his weapon in the state capitol or governor's office.

Han wrote:

> "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>> The more bothersome aspect of Hal's sentiment is that it is completely
>> unfounded, and expressed by one who knows (apparently) little or
>> nothing about guns, gun ownership, gun use. It sounds good on the
>> surface, but that's where it ends. Most guns in the US are owned by
>> hunters and sportsmen. They well know how to use their guns, and
>> seldom show up as a problem. So - what is the population that Hal's
>> suggestion would seek to address? The criminal population?...
>
> I think you are addressing me, Han (short for Johan, a fairly common
> Dutch name). I am very glad that my fears are unfounded. Like many
> unrealistic fears, to me they are real. Luckily, they have not held me
> back from walking wherever I choose to, but it does limit me to areas I
> consider safe.
>
> It appears to me (from press reports) that there is a fairly well
> established criminal enterprise(s) smuggling weapons, perhaps legally,
> perhaps illegally purchased outside the Northeast that are sold on te
> streets of Newark, New York and likely elsewhere.
>
> I am not against legal sales of weapons, but against illegal sales. I
> would like investigations and laws to prevent those. Fairly simple,
> isn't it?

Good heavens! If you live in NJ or any part of the Northeast, you've got
more gun laws than you can shake a stick at! There are already laws on the
books that prohibit felons, people judged mentally incompetent, or people
who have been convicted of even misdemeanor domestic abuse from buying or
owning firearms. All of the cities with the strictest gun laws (enacted
ostensibly for the objectives you state) have the highest crime rates. In
Detroit, the odds of a murder being solved are below 50%. Lack of laws is
not the problem.

>

--

There is never a situation where having more rounds is a disadvantage

Rob Leatham

Robatoy wrote:
> On Feb 17, 5:50 pm, "HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Robatoy wrote:
>>
>>>> That was my point. Bush was *not* a conservative, in any way.
>>
>>> Indeed he was not. He was/is completely devoid of any principles or
>>> morals.
>>
>> Uh, that's (generally) the mark of liberals. Interestingly, our
>> current president hasn't been to church - so far as I know - in the
>> year that he's been in office. Surely there are churches in D.C. run
>> by loons.
>
> What the hell does that have to do with anything?
>
> Bill Clinton attended church and could not keep his dick in his pants,
> so conservatives don't have an exclusive on hypocrisy.
>
> Church attendance makes one moral? How long a list do you want which
> proves that many conservative right-wingers can also be hypocrites?
> How many church attendees (of political ilk) see it as a photo-op?
> They attend because it gets them votes?

I agree that going to church doesn't make one moral - I never said it did.
Most would agree that a moral person - one who holds that morality is
absolute - attends organized worship services. Obama does not attend church.
The odds of him being devoted to the concept are greatly diminished,
although certainly not zero.

Moreover, after a mere scratching of the surface, you'll find that
progressives hold morality to be situational, not absolute - that is, often
the end justifies the means. And Mr. Obama is certainly of the progressive
inclination.

Heck, if simply going to church imbued one with the teachings of the faith,
then Obama's 23 years in Reverend Wright's church would surely have inclined
Obama toward immutable precepts of humility, charity, love, justice, ....

Wait...

Never mind.

-----

As an aside, hypocrisy gets a bad rap. Ninety percent of gynecologists are
men.

>
> Isn't there some room at The Family Centre, the one John Ensign
> attends?... (speaking of loons)
>
> Oh.. and HOW are Ted Haggard and Jimmy Swaggart doing these days?
>
> Does Cheney attend church? Did he find one that doesn't enforce the
> False Witness clause?
>
> You, Bub, come off as too intelligent not to be baiting. You're not
> that blind.


Oh I agree with you that church attendance is not dispositive one way or the
other. Ronald Reagan almost never went to church and today, well, he surely
sits at the right-hand of God.

On 1/31/2010 8:50 PM, Mark & Juanita wrote:

> If a person recognizes that within themselves, then that is fine and I
> don't see a problem with that. It is when those people then project that
> same temperament onto others and want to demand by force of law that those
> other people should not be allowed to choose to arm themselves for their
> self-protection either. Just because one is armed doesn't mean that person
> feels that they are invincible or not to be trifled with, it just means they
> have chosen to utilize a tool that permits them to keep themselves safe in
> the times when seconds count and the police are only minutes away.

In short, there are those who will put themselves in harms way, out of a
sense of duty, and to protect those whom, for whatever reason, do not
have the temperament, will, opportunity, or means, to protect themselves.

There is absolutely nothing morally wrong with being in either category.

But, for the first aforementioned, it is a trait upon which our society
has been built ... the value of which can only be denied to the
detriment of all.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)

Robatoy wrote:

> IIRC, there were 33 parties in The Netherlands back in the 1960's and
> the 5 biggest could not form a government. You had your Farmer Party,
> your Christian Farmers Party, your NOT-so-christian Farmers Party, The
> Left, the Not-far-to-the-Left I don't recall all the names and numbers
> but it was a mess. I have no clue what it is like these days, but you
> have to be careful that a minority-fringe party suddenly doesn't hold
> the balance of power. That tie-breaker vote can be mighty powerful.

The Shas (ultra-orthodox) party in Israel has never garnered more than six
seats in the 60-member parliament. Yet the party has always held at least
one ministerial portfolio.

The two party system works. It's easy. When a member of the opposition
speaks, you need only cry: "Shame, shame!" (or "you lie" or "not true").
Whereas when a member of your party speaks, you cry "Hear! Hear!"

Nothing to it.

Han wrote:

> Swingman <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>> On 1/31/2010 7:04 PM, Han wrote:
>>
>>> I don't know anymore what is good. If everyone is running around
>>> with concealed weapons, what prevents large scale shootouts?
>>
>> Perhaps carrying them in plain view would be better? Remember, "an
>> armed society tends to be a polite society". ;)
>>
... snip
>
> As you know, Karl, I come from a rather unarmed society (Holland), and,
> moreover, I don't want a firearm near me, because I am probably not
> eventempered enough.

If a person recognizes that within themselves, then that is fine and I
don't see a problem with that. It is when those people then project that
same temperament onto others and want to demand by force of law that those
other people should not be allowed to choose to arm themselves for their
self-protection either. Just because one is armed doesn't mean that person
feels that they are invincible or not to be trifled with, it just means they
have chosen to utilize a tool that permits them to keep themselves safe in
the times when seconds count and the police are only minutes away.


>
> BTW, what should I look for on iTunes to see/get your music?
>

--

There is never a situation where having more rounds is a disadvantage

Rob Leatham

[email protected] wrote:
> On Jan 29, 11:42 am, Larry Blanchard <[email protected]> wrote:
>> [email protected] wrote:
>>
>>> There is this little thing called the Constitution. I know you don't
>>> believe in it, but some of us do (and all should).
>>
>> Belief: An opinion with nothing to back it up. GB Shaw
>
> Nonsense.

Correct. An "opinion" is a belief with nothing to back it up, not the
reverse.

>
>> Or do you also obey all of rules in the Old Testament?
>
> I haven't killed anyone, if that's what you mean. Note that the
> country does not state the Old Testament as law.

"Killing" is not, per se, a sin. In fact killing is mandated in the Old
Testament. For example: "If a man lie with a man as he would with a woman,
he shall be put to death." It's "murder" that's prohibited. The presence of
"kill" in the Decalogue is another of Martin Luther's mistakes when he
translated the Bible from Hebrew and Greek into German.

Doesn't matter anyway. The 613 commandments in the Hebrew Scriptures are
only binding on the Jews. Gentiles are free to do pretty much as they please
(except for the Noachite laws of course).

chaniarts wrote:

> chaniarts wrote:
>> Han wrote:
>>> "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in
>>> news:[email protected]:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Han" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>
>>>>> Guns should not be in the hands of irresponsible/criminal people in
>>>>> urban areas. period. I believe you all would agree. How to
>>>>> prevent this is the problem. In my honest opinion, sales by
>>>>> dealers/distributors to dubious characters should be punishable.
>>>>> Bloomberg et al indeed try to move the "culprit" label further up
>>>>> the supply chain, but then, there is no evidence of gun
>>>>> manufacturers or distributors to help prevent the guns from ending
>>>>> up in the wrong hands. Until gun
>>>>> manufacturers/distributors/dealers make real honest efforts to
>>>>> prevent guns from ending up in the wrong hands, I am in favor of
>>>>> trying to prevent the initial gun sales. AND OF COURSE, real good
>>>>> penalties for the miscreants who buy and use them illegally.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Assigning the blame on those not responsible will continue to do
>>>> nothing to fix the problem. This country did not have the problems
>>>> it has with gangs today, throughout its history. What things were
>>>> different then? What really needs to change? Looking for easy ways
>>>> out of hard problems by trying to push them on the shoulders of
>>>> unrelated parties will do one thing - it will perpetuate the
>>>> problem.
>>>
>>> In our country product liability is taken to an extreme that neither
>>> you nor I condone. However, if a company knows (since it is well
>>> known this is so) that sales to Joe Shmoe in East Overshoes wold
>>> result in Joe selling the merchandise to criminals, then some
>>> liability should rest with that company. In other words, if I am
>>> selling "stuff" that is easily used in a manner with deadly results
>>> to innocent people, then I should make reasonably sure that my
>>> customers are responsible people.
>>
>> so you're proposing mind reading?
>>
>> are you also proposing that a car dealership not sell cars to bank
>> robbers as that is the most likely way they get away? are they also
>> supposed to be mind readers?
>
> then again, if you ban guns, knives, crossbows, etc, you'd eventually get
> down to bar glasses
>
>
http://content.usatoday.net/dist/custom/gci/InsidePage.aspx?cId=azcentral&sParam=32719147.story

Oh good grief. Just when you think things can't get much more silly,
somebody has to go out and prove you wrong. This is the country that use to
rule the "boundless waves" and had an empire upon which the sun never set?
Wha' happened?






--

There is never a situation where having more rounds is a disadvantage

Rob Leatham

On 1/31/2010 7:42 PM, Han wrote:

> here too, at least among many people, though not all. I was told that
> some people out there went off their rocker and did something called
> fragging. Didn't sound nice.

A not uncommon occurrence ... My First Sergeant (one of the finest men
I've ever known, with whom I entrusted our perimeter defense on a
nightly basis, and thus our very lives, and a black man himself), was
fragged with a thermite grenade by that very same bunch during that six
month stint. (My gun (M-79 grenade launcher with buckshot round) was
bigger than his, and I slept with it under my arm and with one eye open). :(

> As you know, Karl, I come from a rather unarmed society (Holland), and,
> moreover, I don't want a firearm near me, because I am probably not
> eventempered enough.
>
> BTW, what should I look for on iTunes to see/get your music?

For starters, do a power search from iTunes: "Wild River Band"

"Vol II" is my favorite of the two albums with WRB. Depending upon your
taste in music, and if you want just two songs: "Don't Cry Baby", and
"Sugar Moon" both which got a lot of regional airplay a few years back.
(I kick off the first, a rarity for a bassist, as you'll hear), but
listen to them all and take your choice. :)

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)

On 1/31/2010 7:04 PM, Han wrote:

> I don't know anymore what is good. If everyone is running around with
> concealed weapons, what prevents large scale shootouts?

Perhaps carrying them in plain view would be better? Remember, "an
armed society tends to be a polite society". ;)

Don't laugh ... RVN, circa 1969, somewhere in the jungle on a temporary
artillery firebase, miles from nowhere and no way off, 160 +/- enlisted
men and 5 officers, all armed/ammoed to the teeth with rifles and hand
grenades, none of whom wanted to be there, and a good many drafee
activists from urban jungles back home who had a hardon for "da man" ...
in short, a microcosm of ALL the socials ills of the country, armed, on
barely an acre of land.

...go ahead, try to tell me something I don't understand about "armed
societies". :)

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)

Doug Miller wrote:

> In article <[email protected]>, "Mike Marlow"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>Assigning the blame on those not responsible will continue to do nothing
>>to
>>fix the problem. This country did not have the problems it has with gangs
>>today, throughout its history. What things were different then? What
>>really needs to change? Looking for easy ways out of hard problems by
>>trying to push them on the shoulders of unrelated parties will do one
>>thing - it will perpetuate the problem.
>
> A small correction: there *was* a period in the early 20th century when
> there was a significant problem with gang violence -- directly related to
> the illegal drug trade, then, just as now. The only difference is that the
> drug then was alcohol, vs. cocaine, methamphetamine, and marijuana now.
> When the possession, sale, use, etc. of alcohol was decriminalized and
> regulated, the gun violence associated with the illegal trade in it nearly
> vanished.
>
> Coincidence, no doubt, and of no bearing on the present situation...

Interesting other, again merely coincidental item. The confiscatory taxes
on tobacco are giving rise to smuggling between jurisdictions with low taxes
to those with very high taxes. Right now (as in the beginning of the time
period you mention), this is just small-time criminals. As the taxes get
higher and the rewards for skirting the laws get bigger, look for more gang
involvement and similar issues with this "legal but heavily taxed" product.


--

There is never a situation where having more rounds is a disadvantage

Rob Leatham

J. Clarke wrote:

> Lew Hodgett wrote:
... snip
>> Now is the time for the NRA circle jerk to activate.
>
> Yeah, anybody who disagrees with you is engaging in a circle-jerk.
>
> You really should move to some Nanny state like Holland where the laws are
> like you want them to be.

Actually, he already does -- he lives in California.

--

There is never a situation where having more rounds is a disadvantage

Rob Leatham

"Han" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> if I am selling "stuff" that is
> easily used in a manner with deadly results to innocent people, then I
> should make reasonably sure that my customers are responsible people.
>
> --
And they do. It is very obvious by what you are saying that you have no
idea. I would suggest you look up the laws. If a manufacturer sell guns to
someone other than a federally licensed dealer (look up what it takes to
get, and maintain, a dealers license), they are guilty of a felony. If that
dealer sells a gun to an unauthorized person, he is guilty of a felony. If
that unauthorized person is cought with that gun, he is guilty of a felony.

"Lee Michaels" <leemichaels*nadaspam*@comcast.net> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

>
> "Larry Blanchard" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> One of the letters to the editor in our newspaper yesterday brought
>> up an interesting point.
>>
>> We currently have a 2 party system where the sole job of the Outs
>> seems to be to oppose anything and everything that the Ins propose.
>> Doesn't matter who's in and who's out.
>>
>> The letter pointed out that a multi-party system with 3 or more
>> parties is the norm in most of Europe. There has to be cross-party
>> cooperation because one party seldom has a majority by itself.
>>
>> He has a point. I can think of both advantages and disadvantages,
>> but we sure have a problem now. I'd be interested in hearing
>> opinions from all here.
>>
>> In order to have a viable 3rd party, it'd have to something between
>> the other two. We could call it the Festivus party :-).
>>
>> --
> Aren't the Independemts a third party of sorts?
>
> They elected Obama and more recently Brown for Teddy's old senate
> seat.
>
> Both parties argue that the independents are fickle and unreliable.
> Which just shows that they are totally out of touch. The number of
> independents are growing each year. This "nonparty" is the fastest
> growing party of all.

There is a big problem with coalition governments. It takes a lot of
negotiating between parties to form a viable coalition, and when one of
the parties starts to feel slighted, they can pull out at a moment's
notice. Poof goes the coalition, and another few months are needed to
form a new one. But then, Churchill already said that democracy is the
worst form of government except there is nothing better. Or something in
that vein.

One thing that keeps being forgotten is that the US is a republic, and
not a direct democracy. Whether that is good or bad is unknown (to me).
The real problem nowadays (IMNSHO) is that greed and selfpromotion is the
basis for the structure of our elected representation, and that whoever
can buy the most Congresscritters will win. How the recent Supreme Court
decision on free speech by corporations is going to "help" anyone is
going to be interesting to find out, especially in the context of
Facebook etc.

May you live in interesting times <haha>.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

dhall987 <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

>On 28 Jan 2010 19:48:41 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:

>>There is a big problem with coalition governments. It takes a lot of
>>negotiating between parties to form a viable coalition, and when one
>>of the parties starts to feel slighted, they can pull out at a
>>moment's notice. Poof goes the coalition, and another few months are
>>needed to form a new one. But then, Churchill already said that
>>democracy is the worst form of government except there is nothing
>>better. Or something in that vein.
>>
>>One thing that keeps being forgotten is that the US is a republic, and
>>not a direct democracy. Whether that is good or bad is unknown (to
>>me). The real problem nowadays (IMNSHO) is that greed and
>>selfpromotion is the basis for the structure of our elected
>>representation, and that whoever can buy the most Congresscritters
>>will win. How the recent Supreme Court decision on free speech by
>>corporations is going to "help" anyone is going to be interesting to
>>find out, especially in the context of Facebook etc.
>>
>>May you live in interesting times <haha>.
>
> Not only is it a republic, but it is a republic with the purpose of
> governing a union of otherwise self-governing states. The federal
> government was not really originally meant to govern people, it was
> more meant to govern the relationships among states and manage some
> functions outside of individual state's interests (i.e. relationships
> with foreign governments).

Yes. Everything is in flux. But the origin of the US was in times
before iPods, iPhones, and iPads. We do have to go with the flow.
IMNSHO we all live on Earth, and the welfare of the whole may sometimes
be detrimental to a few.

Opinions, opinions ...

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid