Percival P. Cassidy wrote:

BTW, it was recently brought to my attention that the wording of the
Second Amendment is rather strange: it mentions not "citizens" but
"the people." (That is quite apart from the fact that the Amendment
specified the purpose for which the people shall be allowed to bear
arms: for the establishment of a militia -- it not being envisaged
that the USA would have a standing army.)


"Citizens" are not the same as "people;" citizens are a sub-set of people.

"People" included citizens, slaves, women, children, visitors, and witches.
That is, everybody.

HeyBub wrote:
Percival P. Cassidy wrote:

BTW, it was recently brought to my attention that the wording of the
Second Amendment is rather strange: it mentions not "citizens" but
"the people." (That is quite apart from the fact that the Amendment
specified the purpose for which the people shall be allowed to bear
arms: for the establishment of a militia -- it not being envisaged
that the USA would have a standing army.)


"Citizens" are not the same as "people;" citizens are a sub-set of
people.
"People" included citizens, slaves, women, children, visitors, and
witches. That is, everybody.

And, under the Roberts court, corporations.

On 10/9/2010 1:15 PM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Fri, 08 Oct 2010 17:54:21 -0700, wrote:

On Fri, 8 Oct 2010 17:06:05 -0400, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:

Sure! If you like corporations that oppose the human rights protected
by the US Constitution.

Human rights? Where in the Constitution?

Amendment X:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution,
nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States
respectively, or to the people."

The Constitution is (almost exclusively) a "negative" document, in that it
describes what the government cannot do. Everything not enumerated in the
Constitution as a government power is a right; a human right, protected *from*
government.

Unfortunately lots of government workers have a much different idea and
somehow think you need to be beholden to them for everything.

Small example, There is a regional airport a few miles from here that
has a bunch of loop roads where I sometimes ride my bike in the evening
for exercise. It is a good place to ride because except for the two
times when a number of flights arrive there is no traffic.

A few weeks back I am riding along maybe doing 15 MPH (in other words
moving and not tampering with or breaking in to something) and one of
the airport security guards driving the other way flagged me down and
immediately asked "what are you doing here?" .

I repied "riding my bike", he replied "you can't be here, this is
airport property!", me "I know, since the county owns the airport it
belongs to you and me, there is no signage that prohibits me from riding
here and since all things that are not prohibited are explicitly allowed
I will continue with my ride." guard " but you can't!, this is AIRPORT
property", me "I guess I missed the sign, can you show me?" , guard "you
shouldn't be here, there are airplanes and fuel and stuff", me "I can
see them there over on the other side of the fence that also has signs
telling us we can't go there, but we are on this side" guard " but you
can't be here", me "can you show me your photo ID and badge?" then I
took a picture of both and told him he may want to look for new
employment. I then asked " where is your supervisor and how do I contact
him?" , guard "the chief has an office in the terminal building", me "is
he there now?", guard says yes. I ride over to the building and politely
asked the chief to explain the actions of his officer. He immediately
backed down when he realized he was speaking to someone who wasn't going
to back down. He radioed the guy and had him come back. The guy still
thought he was right and the chief wisely asked him to wait elsewhere. I
told the chief that this reflected badly on him and I wouldn't push this
since he acknowledged the guy was wrong and he said he would address it.
I also let him know he would see me there again and if there was another
issue I would push it as far as I could.





I'm endowed with certain unalienable Rights in Declaration of
Independence.

"...unalienable rights or privileges cannot be transferred or taken
away by any man."

(More ammo Drill Sergeant!)

On Fri, 08 Oct 2010 21:28:33 -0400, aemeijers
wrote:

On 10/8/2010 7:55 PM, Oren wrote:
On Fri, 08 Oct 2010 18:31:16 -0400,
wrote:

On 10/8/2010 5:25 PM, HeyBub wrote:
Percival P. Cassidy wrote:
On 10/08/10 02:34 pm, DGDevin wrote:

It was Citi Bank - who handles the private label credit cards for
Home Depot - that didn't like guns.

Like it or not, this is how capitalism works. It's THEIR money,
City is free to use it the way they see fit.

Yup.

And if a million American gun owners write Citi Bank saying they are
closing their accounts because of this, Citi Bank will reevaluate
their policy.

So I'd better get my family members and as many friends as possible to
write CitiBank and commend them for their policy.


Absolutely. Be sure to explain why you think their policy is a good one.
Note that the article says Citi's policy is not to support any entity that
is a purveyor to the U.S. military.

I take this as an extension of the more basic underpinning that Citi wants
our warrior class to die.



Well, that is a good indication that the article is BS. I just looked in
my wallet, and the US Govt credit card (the travel version) in there
says 'CITI' on the back. At least half of those cards are held by people
that get a paycheck from DoD. So CITI themselves makes a good chunk of
change off the military.

Government employees should not be issued a US Govt credit card. I've
seen/heard abuses of them.

A guy gets cash from the machine in Boulder, while at a titty bar.
Another buys four tires and has fresh tires on his car. It alls comes
out in the latter audits.

I went to settle a Travel Voucher, with the Cashier one day. She
starting telling me I "have to have a government" credit card --
DOJ/FBOP.

Me: "No I don't."

She: "Yes you do!"

Me: "How can you make me use it? I'm not management!"

Got my cash from the window and walked away.

She wanted to say that because I traveled twice a year, a credit card
was mandatory. Wrong -- on both her counts.

At my agency, the cutoff was 3x per year, which I used to just barely
meet. I haven't traveled for work in over 2 years, but they didn't take
it back. I suppose I would have to call an 800 number, or one of our
bean counters would, if they ever do send me on the road again.

As part of the now-mandatory annual training to have one, they do
emphasize that using it at titty bars and for personal expenses, can
easily become a firing offense. Hell, using a motor pool car more than
100 yards off the route between hotel and work location can get you 30
days off. That is why everyone refuses them now.

I always made money on road trips. I don't go to fancy restaurants every
night at home- why should I when traveling? I always tried for a hotel
with a kitchenette, and/or breakfast bar. I also never used the gummint
card for anything but rental car and hotel. Possible BS paperwork for
excessive cash advances and retail purchases was simply not worth the
risk. I didn't get an 'official' card till they made it mandatory. IMHO,
'official' cards should not have our names on them, or be billed to our
home addresses. Hand it out with the orders, collect on return, and put
it at the bottom of the pile in the safe. Don't hand it out again till
the voucher is settled.

I miss the old days when I would just go down to the cashier and get a
fistful of $100 bills, and then go down to the actual travel office and
pick up an actual printed-on-cardboard airline ticket. We don't even
HAVE a cash office any more, and I have to use those damn e-tickets.

In my day it was just a one-stop shop. "Go see the Cashier!"

You got 80% cash for the initial Per Diem, then settled later.
Usually, a week to settle up. We also got the vouchers for travel
tickets.

In the late 1980's a business office manager wrote a d-Base program
and used it in his department. You could sit down, fill in the
blanks, then print the form he needed. The guy had the gummit lay
claim to his software -- he just stopped using it on the job rather
than give them ownership.

Each department, during internal audits, would do cross-department
audits. The Cashier gave me a hard time on one audit related to
security. She demanded that I not cross the threshold for the office.

Okay, "I'll make a note in my audit."

Awhile latter, in the middle of the night, there was a fire alarm in
the building. I had the Air Force fire department on scene. The alarm
was in her office.

Yep. I had her door removed, so the firemen could clear the alarm.

When she came to work at 0730 -- it was priceless. She came to my
office about the door. "Hey, don't tell me I cannot come into your
office!"

Off duty 0800

On Sat, 09 Oct 2010 15:52:37 -0400, George
wrote:

On 10/9/2010 1:15 PM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Fri, 08 Oct 2010 17:54:21 -0700, wrote:

On Fri, 8 Oct 2010 17:06:05 -0400, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:

Sure! If you like corporations that oppose the human rights protected
by the US Constitution.

Human rights? Where in the Constitution?

Amendment X:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution,
nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States
respectively, or to the people."

The Constitution is (almost exclusively) a "negative" document, in that it
describes what the government cannot do. Everything not enumerated in the
Constitution as a government power is a right; a human right, protected *from*
government.

Unfortunately lots of government workers have a much different idea and
somehow think you need to be beholden to them for everything.


Correct. Once a real Nigerian Prince tried to bite me, while trying
to kick me in the balls. I choked the ******* and ripped all his
clothing off.

Before that some fool, was on restricted land. He was approached for
a conversation. That poor guy pulled a knife on me and other staff
that were coming on scene. One good right hook and the staff caught
him falling.

Another time. Everglades National Park Rangers pulled up behind my
boat. I was 40 miles out of Ft. Lauderdale, all alone, armed with my
side arm. Just fishing...

The boat approaches -- light shining bright, "he's armed!!"

"Yes Sir I am."

"You cannot have a firearm in a national park." Yes Sir, "I know
that, but I would rather be caught with it, than be without it."

"Put the gun in your tackle box."

"Sure Boss, I'll get right on that!"

Small example, There is a regional airport a few miles from here that
has a bunch of loop roads where I sometimes ride my bike in the evening
for exercise. It is a good place to ride because except for the two
times when a number of flights arrive there is no traffic.

A few weeks back I am riding along maybe doing 15 MPH (in other words
moving and not tampering with or breaking in to something) and one of
the airport security guards driving the other way flagged me down and
immediately asked "what are you doing here?" .

I repied "riding my bike", he replied "you can't be here, this is
airport property!", me "I know, since the county owns the airport it
belongs to you and me, there is no signage that prohibits me from riding
here and since all things that are not prohibited are explicitly allowed
I will continue with my ride." guard " but you can't!, this is AIRPORT
property", me "I guess I missed the sign, can you show me?" , guard "you
shouldn't be here, there are airplanes and fuel and stuff", me "I can
see them there over on the other side of the fence that also has signs
telling us we can't go there, but we are on this side" guard " but you
can't be here", me "can you show me your photo ID and badge?" then I
took a picture of both and told him he may want to look for new
employment. I then asked " where is your supervisor and how do I contact
him?" , guard "the chief has an office in the terminal building", me "is
he there now?", guard says yes. I ride over to the building and politely
asked the chief to explain the actions of his officer. He immediately
backed down when he realized he was speaking to someone who wasn't going
to back down. He radioed the guy and had him come back. The guy still
thought he was right and the chief wisely asked him to wait elsewhere. I
told the chief that this reflected badly on him and I wouldn't push this
since he acknowledged the guy was wrong and he said he would address it.
I also let him know he would see me there again and if there was another
issue I would push it as far as I could.





I'm endowed with certain unalienable Rights in Declaration of
Independence.

"...unalienable rights or privileges cannot be transferred or taken
away by any man."

(More ammo Drill Sergeant!)

On Sat, 9 Oct 2010 14:09:23 -0500, "HeyBub" wrote:

wrote:

Human rights? Where in the Constitution?

Amendment X:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution,
nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States
respectively, or to the people."


Yeah, but the Tenth Amendment (and the Ninth) are moribund. In the history
of the Supreme Court, there have been, like, only three decisions that even
reference the Tenth Amendment.

Well, he asked where the Constitution addressed human rights, not whether it
did anyone any good being there.

The Tenth and Ninth have about as much effect as the Third.

On Sat, 09 Oct 2010 15:07:13 -0400, aemeijers wrote:

On 10/9/2010 9:02 AM, HeyBub wrote:
Larry W wrote:
In ,
Percival P. wrote:
...snipped...
BTW, it was recently brought to my attention that the wording of the
Second Amendment is rather strange: it mentions not "citizens" but
"the people." (That is quite apart from the fact that the Amendment
specified the purpose for which the people shall be allowed to bear
arms: for the establishment of a militia -- it not being envisaged
that the USA would have a standing army.)

Perce

That is not correct. Here's the 2nd Amendment:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a
free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall
not be infringed."

In the context of the time it was written, after the succesful
revolution against the British, standing armies were considered a
necessary evil; needed for the security of a state, but dangerous
because under the command of a less than benign goverment, they could
be used to oppress the people. The 2nd amendment guarantees the
rights of the people to keep arms, so that if necessary, the people
could RESIST the standing army. In other words, because a militia was
necessary for the security of
the state, it was also necessary for the people to be allowed to arm
themselves, if the militia, under an oppressive regime should be used
against them.

It's wise, as you point out, to look to the original meaning of the
Constitution. In addition to your observation that fear of oppressive
government was the main motivation, it's also worthwhile to look at the
original meaning of a couple of words:

"Militia" - In the late 18th century, "militia" meant all able-bodied
freemen in the community. It did NOT mean an organized military body -
active or reserve. "Militia" was a subset of "people" and meant to not
include some.

People = everybody
Citizen = People minus slaves
Militia = Citizens minus women, children, and the elderly (i.e., able-bodied
men)

"Regulate" - In the same time period, "regulated" did not mean "subject to
discipline and organization" as it does today. At the time, there were
acutally NO regulations to follow! Anyway, "regulated," in the day, meant
having a functional weapon. There are vestiges of that definition in today's
language as in "well-regulated" timepiece or "The Well-Tempered (regulated)
Clavier."*

--------
* The Well-Tempered Clavier: A collection of keyboard music by Johann
Sebastian Bach, completed just 30 years before the American Revolution.



Last time I bothered to look it up in US Code, the legal definition of
'militia' was STILL all able-bodied males between X and Y ages. I
remember some other act in recent years said that all such US Code
sections, other than the ones about combat assignments and the draft,
also applied to women.

And with that, I, at least, plan to back slowly away from this
discussion. 'Guns' is one of the Usenet topics where pretty much
everyone already has a viewpoint, and the postings pretty much never
change those viewpoints, which puts in the 'life is too short' category.

There is good reason to stand one's ground on this issue. If "life is too
short" someone will be trying to take it away.

On Sat, 09 Oct 2010 14:04:40 -0500, Jim Yanik wrote:

" wrote in
:

On Fri, 08 Oct 2010 21:37:34 -0400, "Percival P. Cassidy"
wrote:

On 10/08/10 05:06 pm, Stormin Mormon wrote:

Sure! If you like corporations that oppose the human rights protected
by the US Constitution.

The Constitution as amended no more compels any person or business to
sell firearms or the materials/tools/equipment to enable the making of
firearms than the Constitution as currently interpreted compels a doctor
to perform an abortion -- or compels me to sell sound amplification
equipment to a Nazi, a Communist, or a street preacher to enhance his
exercise of his right of freedom of speech.

The Right is to keep and bear arms -in public- for lawful purposes,not to
make any person or business sell,supply,etc firearms or their
parts/materials.

IMO,any place that is -open to the public- should not be able to prohibit
lawflly armed citizens. They are not truly "private".


BTW, it was recently brought to my attention that the wording of the
Second Amendment is rather strange: it mentions not "citizens" but "the
people." (That is quite apart from the fact that the Amendment specified
the purpose for which the people shall be allowed to bear arms: for the
establishment of a militia -- it not being envisaged that the USA would
have a standing army.)

the purpose mentioned was not the SOLE reaon for the People's RKBA.
They could not list all reasons.
the "militia clause" makes NO restrictions on the People's RKBA,nor limits
it to only militias.


Article 1 Section 8:
"To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that
Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;"

"To provide and maintain a Navy;"


Article 2 Section 2:
"The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of
the United States, and of the Militia of the several States..."


the People of the Second Amendment are the same people as the People in the
First,Fourth,Ninth,or Tenth Amendments.
SCOTUS has already ruled they are the same;individuals.

I was commenting on "it not being envisaged that the USA would have a standing
army" only. I did not mean to imply that a standing army negated any right to
firearms.

On Sat, 09 Oct 2010 20:05:09 -0500, "
wrote:

On Sat, 9 Oct 2010 14:09:23 -0500, "HeyBub" wrote:

wrote:

Human rights? Where in the Constitution?

Amendment X:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution,
nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States
respectively, or to the people."


Yeah, but the Tenth Amendment (and the Ninth) are moribund. In the history
of the Supreme Court, there have been, like, only three decisions that even
reference the Tenth Amendment.

Well, he asked where the Constitution addressed human rights, not whether it
did anyone any good being there.

So I will ask again:

"...where the Constitution addressed human rights.."

You know, "human rights".

On Sat, 09 Oct 2010 18:31:42 -0700, Oren wrote:

On Sat, 09 Oct 2010 20:05:09 -0500, "
wrote:

On Sat, 9 Oct 2010 14:09:23 -0500, "HeyBub" wrote:

wrote:

Human rights? Where in the Constitution?

Amendment X:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution,
nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States
respectively, or to the people."


Yeah, but the Tenth Amendment (and the Ninth) are moribund. In the history
of the Supreme Court, there have been, like, only three decisions that even
reference the Tenth Amendment.

Well, he asked where the Constitution addressed human rights, not whether it
did anyone any good being there.

So I will ask again:

"...where the Constitution addressed human rights.."

You know, "human rights".

I told you.

On Sat, 09 Oct 2010 20:39:51 -0500, "
wrote:

On Sat, 09 Oct 2010 18:31:42 -0700, Oren wrote:

On Sat, 09 Oct 2010 20:05:09 -0500, "
wrote:

On Sat, 9 Oct 2010 14:09:23 -0500, "HeyBub" wrote:

wrote:

Human rights? Where in the Constitution?

Amendment X:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution,
nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States
respectively, or to the people."


Yeah, but the Tenth Amendment (and the Ninth) are moribund. In the history
of the Supreme Court, there have been, like, only three decisions that even
reference the Tenth Amendment.

Well, he asked where the Constitution addressed human rights, not whether it
did anyone any good being there.

So I will ask again:

"...where the Constitution addressed human rights.."

You know, "human rights".

I told you.

I just looked. Not a single word "human" mentioned. in the
Constitution. Tell me I'm wrong. (People mentioned twice)


http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/print_friendly.html?page=constitution_transcript_c ontent.html&title=The%20Constitution%20of%20the%20 United%20States%3A%20A%20Transcription

http://www.archives.gov/

On Sat, 09 Oct 2010 19:07:15 -0700, Oren wrote:

On Sat, 09 Oct 2010 20:39:51 -0500, "
wrote:

On Sat, 09 Oct 2010 18:31:42 -0700, Oren wrote:

On Sat, 09 Oct 2010 20:05:09 -0500, "
wrote:

On Sat, 9 Oct 2010 14:09:23 -0500, "HeyBub" wrote:

wrote:

Human rights? Where in the Constitution?

Amendment X:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution,
nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States
respectively, or to the people."


Yeah, but the Tenth Amendment (and the Ninth) are moribund. In the history
of the Supreme Court, there have been, like, only three decisions that even
reference the Tenth Amendment.

Well, he asked where the Constitution addressed human rights, not whether it
did anyone any good being there.

So I will ask again:

"...where the Constitution addressed human rights.."

You know, "human rights".

I told you.

I just looked. Not a single word "human" mentioned. in the
Constitution. Tell me I'm wrong. (People mentioned twice)


http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/print_friendly.html?page=constitution_transcript_c ontent.html&title=The%20Constitution%20of%20the%20 United%20States%3A%20A%20Transcription

http://www.archives.gov/

Gee, the framers thought their heirs could think. Obviosly they got that part
wrong.

On 2010-10-10, Oren wrote:

I just looked. Not a single word "human" mentioned. in the
Constitution. Tell me I'm wrong. (People mentioned twice)

Are your "people" sub/non human?

nb

The Bill of Rights is a limit on the powers of government. Limits the
power to infringe human rights such as speech, assembly, property
(search and siezure), freedom from cruel and unusual punishment, and
the list goes on. On topic for this thread, is the right to keep and
bear arms.

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..


"Oren" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 8 Oct 2010 17:06:05 -0400, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:

Sure! If you like corporations that oppose the human rights protected
by the US Constitution.

Human rights? Where in the Constitution?

I'm endowed with certain unalienable Rights in Declaration of
Independence.

"...unalienable rights or privileges cannot be transferred or taken
away by any man."

(More ammo Drill Sergeant!)

" wrote in
news
On Sat, 09 Oct 2010 18:31:42 -0700, Oren wrote:

On Sat, 09 Oct 2010 20:05:09 -0500, "
wrote:

On Sat, 9 Oct 2010 14:09:23 -0500, "HeyBub"
wrote:

wrote:

Human rights? Where in the Constitution?

Amendment X:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the
Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to
the States respectively, or to the people."


Yeah, but the Tenth Amendment (and the Ninth) are moribund. In the
history of the Supreme Court, there have been, like, only three
decisions that even reference the Tenth Amendment.

Well, he asked where the Constitution addressed human rights, not
whether it did anyone any good being there.

So I will ask again:

"...where the Constitution addressed human rights.."

You know, "human rights".

I told you.


the Right to keep and bear arms is a human right.
It's not a right for plants or animals.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com

On 10/10/2010 5:15 PM, Jim Yanik wrote:
z wrote in
news
On Sat, 09 Oct 2010 18:31:42 -0700, wrote:

On Sat, 09 Oct 2010 20:05:09 -0500, "
wrote:

On Sat, 9 Oct 2010 14:09:23 -0500,
wrote:

zzzzzzzzzz wrote:

Human rights? Where in the Constitution?

Amendment X:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the
Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to
the States respectively, or to the people."


Yeah, but the Tenth Amendment (and the Ninth) are moribund. In the
history of the Supreme Court, there have been, like, only three
decisions that even reference the Tenth Amendment.

Well, he asked where the Constitution addressed human rights, not
whether it did anyone any good being there.

So I will ask again:

"...where the Constitution addressed human rights.."

You know, "human rights".

I told you.


the Right to keep and bear arms is a human right.
It's not a right for plants or animals.

Oh, I dunno- I'd throw in a couple of bucks if they wanted to start
arming bears. Even up the odds a little, etc.

--
aem sends.....

"Stormin Mormon" wrote in message
...

Sure! If you like corporations that oppose the human rights protected
by the US Constitution.

What part of private property don’t you get? Their roof = their rules, same
as in your house.

"Oren" wrote in message
...

I just looked. Not a single word "human" mentioned. in the
Constitution. Tell me I'm wrong. (People mentioned twice)

Twice? Read it again, you missed a few.

In article ,
Oren wrote:


Sign at entrance front of the bank:

http://sleepless.blogs.com/.a/6a00d8...7d6851e970c-pi

I guess that makes C student rednecks feel all warm and fuzzy (and I'm
not lumping you into that group, Oren, unless you feel you belong there)
but it smacks of a cheap gimmick to a disinterested party applying a
modicum of logic.

1. No one with a CCP is going to leave his gun behind when he goes into
a bank, so this bank's explicit "endorsement" isn't going to change a
damn thing.

2. The sign serves two bank interests: discouraging robbers, and,
perhaps, slightly broadening their customer base in a C student,
gun-friendly community. There really isn't anything more to it than
that, IMO.

But then, most advertising, when dissected with anything at least as
sophisticated as a pointy stick, is just BS anyway.

Smitty Two wrote in newsrestwhich-
:

In article ,
Oren wrote:


Sign at entrance front of the bank:

http://sleepless.blogs.com/.a/6a00d8...7d6851e970c-pi

I guess that makes C student rednecks feel all warm and fuzzy (and I'm
not lumping you into that group, Oren, unless you feel you belong there)
but it smacks of a cheap gimmick to a disinterested party applying a
modicum of logic.

1. No one with a CCP is going to leave his gun behind when he goes into
a bank, so this bank's explicit "endorsement" isn't going to change a
damn thing.

actually,one can LOSE their carry permit if they are caught carrying where
it's prohibited,and permit holders are law-abiding citizens,so they DO
leave their guns behind if they choose to visit these places.


2. The sign serves two bank interests: discouraging robbers, and,
perhaps, slightly broadening their customer base in a C student,
gun-friendly community. There really isn't anything more to it than
that, IMO.

it's a political statement. I like it.
I dislike places that post "no guns",and generally don't give them my
business. Places like the USPS are unfortunately,unavoidable.

A "no guns" sign is telling criminals that they are SAFE in robbing that
place,that no one will be capable of opposing them.
People in those places are LESS safe.
Lawfully armed citizens are not any problem or threat to others,nor the
ones to fear.



But then, most advertising, when dissected with anything at least as
sophisticated as a pointy stick, is just BS anyway.


your use of the phrase "C student" smacks of elitism or snobbery.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com

On 10/11/2010 8:58 AM, Smitty Two wrote:
In ,
wrote:


Sign at entrance front of the bank:

http://sleepless.blogs.com/.a/6a00d8...7d6851e970c-pi

I guess that makes C student rednecks feel all warm and fuzzy (and I'm
not lumping you into that group, Oren, unless you feel you belong there)
but it smacks of a cheap gimmick to a disinterested party applying a
modicum of logic.

I am puzzled every time I hear a liberal make such claims. Do you
somehow imagine you are totally superior to folks who think differently
than you?



1. No one with a CCP is going to leave his gun behind when he goes into
a bank, so this bank's explicit "endorsement" isn't going to change a
damn thing.

2. The sign serves two bank interests: discouraging robbers, and,
perhaps, slightly broadening their customer base in a C student,
gun-friendly community. There really isn't anything more to it than
that, IMO.

But then, most advertising, when dissected with anything at least as
sophisticated as a pointy stick, is just BS anyway.

In article ,
George wrote:

Do you
somehow imagine you are totally superior to folks who think differently
than you?

Of course not. But I do imagine that I'm totally superior to stupid
people who are incapable of thought at all, and live their lives by
knee-jerk emotional reaction. I recently ordered some Buddhist
meditation tapes, though. Maybe I can learn to be more tolerant.

In article ,
Jim Yanik wrote:



actually,one can LOSE their carry permit if they are caught carrying where
it's prohibited,and permit holders are law-abiding citizens,so they DO
leave their guns behind if they choose to visit these places.

There isn't any federal law prohibiting CCP guns in banks. Maybe some
state or local laws? I've never seen a bank with a sign saying "Please
leave firearms outside."




it's a political statement. I like it.
I dislike places that post "no guns",and generally don't give them my
business. Places like the USPS are unfortunately,unavoidable.

I agree, it's a political statement. It's used to entice others with the
same view to patronize the establishment. Ergo, it's an advertising
gimmick.




your use of the phrase "C student" smacks of elitism or snobbery.

I have contempt for those unable to use logic, to deduce that this sign
is just a "feel good" advertising trick. If it makes you feel good,
that's fine. But to interpret it as more than that is a lapse of
reasoning.

Smitty Two wrote in
news
In article ,
Jim Yanik wrote:



actually,one can LOSE their carry permit if they are caught carrying
where it's prohibited,and permit holders are law-abiding citizens,so
they DO leave their guns behind if they choose to visit these places.

There isn't any federal law prohibiting CCP guns in banks. Maybe some
state or local laws? I've never seen a bank with a sign saying "Please
leave firearms outside."

most States have concealed carry laws.There is no Federal concealed carry
permit for non-gov't citizens. The laws vary widely from state to state.
Most states have some sort of provision for "private property" owners to
post signage if they don't want lawfully armed citizens on their
property.as is their right. Some states require specific signs,others
accept any reasonable sign. Banks ARE "private property",but open to the
public. Some shopping malls also post "no guns" signs.

Now,it's rare for any posted business to actually check people to see if
they are armed,either by metal detector or visual inspection.
BUT,if a place IS posted,then it's a violation of your permit to be
carrying there. You may be only asked to leave the premises,or police may
be called. it depends on the property's policies.
You can have your carry permit revoked,and it's usually a misdemeanor
crime.





it's a political statement. I like it.
I dislike places that post "no guns",and generally don't give them my
business. Places like the USPS are unfortunately,unavoidable.

I agree, it's a political statement. It's used to entice others with
the same view to patronize the establishment. Ergo, it's an
advertising gimmick.

for some,it's an "enticement",for others it's a warning to stay
away(hoplophobes and criminals).
It DOES clearly tell customers exactly what their policy is towards
lawfully armed patrons. It gives people the choice to shop elsewhere if
they don't like being around lawfully armed citizens.
It also is a CLEAR statement that the business owners support 2nd Amendment
rights,with no doubt about it. IMO,good advertising.

It's not deceptive like Costco,that has a "no guns" policy,but declines to
post it at their business entrances,so they don't lose customers.





your use of the phrase "C student" smacks of elitism or snobbery.

I have contempt for those unable to use logic, to deduce that this
sign is just a "feel good" advertising trick.

No problem there.

If it makes you feel
good, that's fine. But to interpret it as more than that is a lapse of
reasoning.

sorry,you're wrong.
Being a "C student" does not necessarily mean that they are stupid or
unable to use logic.
your use of "C student" has negative implications and IS elitist and
snooty.if you cannot see that,then perhaps you are below that "C" level.
many "C students" are fine reasoners,and have plenty of common
sense,something that many "book-smart","well-educated" people sorely lack.
Note that a grade of "C" is AVERAGE.
(or supposed to be average.with grade inflation these days....who knows?)


--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com

Smitty Two wrote in newsrestwhich-
:

In article ,
George wrote:

Do you
somehow imagine you are totally superior to folks who think differently
than you?

Of course not. But I do imagine that I'm totally superior to stupid
people who are incapable of thought at all, and live their lives by
knee-jerk emotional reaction. I recently ordered some Buddhist
meditation tapes, though. Maybe I can learn to be more tolerant.


IMO,it's stupid to ASSUME or imply that "C students" are stupid,unable to
use logic,or "incapable of thought at all".
It's not about tolerance,its about incorrect assumptions and insulting
people without justification. In today's feisty political climate,one might
consider you to be "bigoted". Or just arrogant and condescending.

Not good qualities.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com

On 2010-10-11, Jim Yanik wrote:

You can have your carry permit revoked,and it's usually a misdemeanor
crime.

A "misdemeanor" may not be all the benign, any more. I got a class D
misdemeanor for a sliding on ice and hitting a tree. I was doing
about 10mph, was perfectly sober, but my passenger had decided to take
off her seat belt, cuz she was uncomfortable and we were only a
hundred yds from home. Well, she hurt her knee (elderly) and I got
cited for endangering a person.

When the judge (yes, I had to appear) asked if I was aware of the
possible penalties before I plead, he related them to me. Possible
ten thousand dollar fine and/or 18 mos in jail!!! Are you kidding
me!? A misdemeanor?

Fortunately, I'd spoke to the ADA and since I had awesome med
insurance and the passenger was family and well provided for, I got
off with a simple $100 fine. But still.....

nb

On 10/11/2010 1:34 PM, Smitty Two wrote:
In .44,
Jim wrote:



actually,one can LOSE their carry permit if they are caught carrying where
it's prohibited,and permit holders are law-abiding citizens,so they DO
leave their guns behind if they choose to visit these places.

There isn't any federal law prohibiting CCP guns in banks. Maybe some
state or local laws? I've never seen a bank with a sign saying "Please
leave firearms outside."

(snip)
It varies from state to state. Some prohibit carry in certain types of
establishments period, others make it the property/business owner's
option. I'm sure Mr. Yanik will be along shortly with the details.

--
aem sends...

Smitty Two wrote:
In article ,
George wrote:

Do you
somehow imagine you are totally superior to folks who think
differently than you?

Of course not. But I do imagine that I'm totally superior to stupid
people who are incapable of thought at all, and live their lives by
knee-jerk emotional reaction. I recently ordered some Buddhist
meditation tapes, though. Maybe I can learn to be more tolerant.

Come on! Our last president was a "C" student!

And maybe his successor, though no one can tell for sure.

On 10/11/2010 1:20 PM, Smitty Two wrote:
In ,
wrote:

Do you
somehow imagine you are totally superior to folks who think differently
than you?

Of course not. But I do imagine that I'm totally superior to stupid
people who are incapable of thought at all, and live their lives by
knee-jerk emotional reaction. I recently ordered some Buddhist
meditation tapes, though. Maybe I can learn to be more tolerant.

Sounds like arrogant superiority to me. Seems like you have been paying
attention to the Pilosi training videos.

On Mon, 11 Oct 2010 13:18:48 -0500, Jim Yanik
wrote:

It's not deceptive like Costco,that has a "no guns" policy,but declines to
post it at their business entrances,so they don't lose customers.

Exactly! Costco posts " No Smoking Signs", deep into the web site or
membership agreement you will find the "no guns" policy. Very
deceptive....

July 10th, Las Vegas, Eirk Scott was shot seven times, just a short
time after he joined the Costco membership -- he was dead.

I was in Bass Pro Shop last night for some items. They have a signage:

_Please check your Guns and Bows at Customer Service_ (paraphrased).

On Mon, 11 Oct 2010 15:02:17 -0500, "HeyBub"
wrote:

Smitty Two wrote:
In article ,
George wrote:

Do you
somehow imagine you are totally superior to folks who think
differently than you?

Of course not. But I do imagine that I'm totally superior to stupid
people who are incapable of thought at all, and live their lives by
knee-jerk emotional reaction. I recently ordered some Buddhist
meditation tapes, though. Maybe I can learn to be more tolerant.

Come on! Our last president was a "C" student!

And maybe his successor, though no one can tell for sure.


I've never read where a president even needed a GED or HS diploma.
Nor, is it a requirement to rightfully own and carry a gun.

I qualify on both counts!

aemeijers wrote:
(snip)
It varies from state to state. Some prohibit carry in certain types of
establishments period, others make it the property/business owner's
option. I'm sure Mr. Yanik will be along shortly with the details.

Yep, it varies.

In the past six months I've followed with amusement the excitement in
several states (i.e., Tennessee, Georgia) over proposed revisions to their
concealed carry laws.

"A church is no place for a gun!" That was the law in Texas 'til the
churches said "Why can't we make our own decisions like businesses and
homes?" Our prohibition on churches was repealed several years ago with no
apparent effect.

"Alcohol and guns don't mix!" In Texas, one can carry a concealed weapon (if
licensed) into a place where alcohol is served - and even hoist a few adult
beverages. It may be that the folks in Texas are more responsible than our
comrades in Tennessee, but I doubt it. Evidently, however, the anti-gun
folks in Tennessee can scream louder.

And so on. Every claim of having to step over the bodies has been
demonstrated to be unfounded, yet the kumbaya types still insist.

That's why the laws differ from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.

On Sun, 10 Oct 2010 21:39:08 -0700, "DGDevin" wrote:



"Stormin Mormon" wrote in message
...

Sure! If you like corporations that oppose the human rights protected
by the US Constitution.

What part of private property don’t you get? Their roof = their rules, same
as in your house.

What part of "my money, my choice", don't you get? That's the point.

In article ,
George wrote:

On 10/11/2010 1:20 PM, Smitty Two wrote:
In ,
wrote:

Do you
somehow imagine you are totally superior to folks who think differently
than you?

Of course not. But I do imagine that I'm totally superior to stupid
people who are incapable of thought at all, and live their lives by
knee-jerk emotional reaction. I recently ordered some Buddhist
meditation tapes, though. Maybe I can learn to be more tolerant.

Sounds like arrogant superiority to me. Seems like you have been paying
attention to the Pilosi training videos.

Actually, I've been an intellectual snob since I was 4. I don't pay any
attention to current politics or other so-called "news."

In article ,
Jim Yanik wrote:



IMO,it's stupid to ASSUME or imply that "C students" are stupid,unable to
use logic,or "incapable of thought at all".


I disagree. Yes, C is average. Average people, as far as I'm concerned,
are stupid.

And to be explicit concerning the referenced sign, logic dictates that
every bank in that town allows CCP guns. That bank chooses to play on
the emotions of people unable to see that the sign doesn't distinguish
that bank from any other bank in town. And the gullibility
(C-studentness, if you will) of the people who get all warm and fuzzy
about the sign is what annoys me.

Smitty Two wrote:
And to be explicit concerning the referenced sign, logic dictates that
every bank in that town allows CCP guns. That bank chooses to play on
the emotions of people unable to see that the sign doesn't distinguish
that bank from any other bank in town. And the gullibility
(C-studentness, if you will) of the people who get all warm and fuzzy
about the sign is what annoys me.

You're either on our side or the side of the terrorists.

In article ,
"HeyBub" wrote:



You're either on our side or the side of the terrorists.

A man with one option is an addict. A man with two options has a
dilemma. A man with many choices is free.

In article ,
Jim Yanik wrote:

Smitty Two wrote in
news
In article ,
Jim Yanik wrote:



IMO,it's stupid to ASSUME or imply that "C students" are
stupid,unable to use logic,or "incapable of thought at all".


I disagree. Yes, C is average. Average people, as far as I'm
concerned, are stupid.

that is elitist,and incorrect.

And to be explicit concerning the referenced sign, logic dictates that
every bank in that town allows CCP guns.

No,logic does not dictate that. You ASSUME that.
I doubt you have checked every bank to see if they posted "no guns"
signage,or if they have a "Costco" style "no guns" policy.

One -could- say that every branch of THAT bank has the same policy,and have
a reasonable chance of being correct. Other banks may not have the same
policy.

That bank chooses to play on
the emotions of people unable to see that the sign doesn't distinguish
that bank from any other bank in town.

Ah,but it DOES. No other bank has seen fit to post anything similar,as far
as we know. It still is a possibility that other banks do prohibit CC
in their businesses.

And the gullibility
(C-studentness, if you will) of the people who get all warm and fuzzy
about the sign is what annoys me.


well,at least we have established that your elitist and snooty,and have
poor logic.

"play on the emotions" and "gullibility"?
that's your own projection,I suspect.

Pretty much disagree on every count. But your opinions are noted.

"Jim Yanik" wrote in message
4...

Sure! If you like corporations that oppose the human rights
protected by the US Constitution.

What part of private property don’t you get? Their roof = their
rules, same as in your house.

Such businesses simply GAMBLE that their customers will not get hurt by
criminals.

Many businesses (or rather their insurance companies) have policies against
their own employees being armed to avoid liability. That's why bank tellers
don't have guns under the counter anymore. So while you and I might
disagree, a business is entitled to have a policy of handing over the cash
rather than shooting it out with crooks.

Worse,by posting "no guns allowed" signs,they tell criminals that the
place
and it's parking lots are easy targets. It makes it safe FOR criminals!
A -Guarantee- that no one will be armed and able to oppose them.

How about a law requiring businesses which post such signs to have armed
security guards?

Actually,when a business is OPEN TO THE PUBLIC,they lose some of that
"privacy",as in workplace safety regulations,food safety,fire
regulations,anti-smoking laws,health codes....
It's NOT the "same as your house".

Those same regulations would apply if you ran a business in your home. But
apparently prohibiting people from carrying firearms is the same whether it’s
a business or a private residence, and that was the point of discussion.

Since anyone can walk in with no practical restrictions,allowing concealed
carry by LAWFUL citizens is no loss of their rights.

It is if they don’t want firearms in their place. Again, you and I can
disagree, but it's their place, not ours.

A "no guns" sign is not going to stop those intent on committing a
shooting
or an armed robbery,and in fact,makes it LESS SAFE for patrons.
Lawfully armed citizens are not any threat or problem.That's been proven
by
the data in EVERY state that allows concealed carry.

I agree, but it's a still a matter of their roof = their rules provided
they're in compliance with the law. I can see the possibilty of some
jurisdictions passing laws that prohibit banning CCW by those with permits,
but until that happens a business owner who doesn’t want people packing on
his property is within his rights.

"HeyBub" wrote in message
m...
Percival P. Cassidy wrote:

BTW, it was recently brought to my attention that the wording of the
Second Amendment is rather strange: it mentions not "citizens" but
"the people." (That is quite apart from the fact that the Amendment
specified the purpose for which the people shall be allowed to bear
arms: for the establishment of a militia -- it not being envisaged
that the USA would have a standing army.)


"Citizens" are not the same as "people;" citizens are a sub-set of people.

"People" included citizens, slaves, women, children, visitors, and
witches. That is, everybody.

That's unconvincing given how many times the Constitution specifically
refers to the rights of "people" rather than citizens.