That makes my point, very nicely. Since when did the
Founding Fathers ever want to give the US Govt "prior
restraint" over purchases in the USA? Blasphemy!

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


"Evan"
wrote in message
...


Perhaps you do not know how to read the Constitution nor how
to
interpret what is written there and how the Supreme Court of
the
United States has interpreted and clarified the document in
the
ensuing 223 years since it was written by the founding
fathers
and architects of our country...

The fact that you can *buy* anything is at the discretion of
the US Congress which has the sole authority on the
regulation
of Commerce in the United States...

Can you believe this? I think Even actually thinks Congress
has, or ought to have the power to force us all to buy
safety stuff? Must be public school student.

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


"Evan" wrote in message
...
On Jan 11, 10:26 am, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:
I don't remember reading in the Constitution. Where it
gives
any level of government power to force us to buy safety
equipment.

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


Perhaps you do not know how to read the Constitution nor how
to
interpret what is written there and how the Supreme Court of
the
United States has interpreted and clarified the document in
the
ensuing 223 years since it was written by the founding
fathers
and architects of our country...

The fact that you can *buy* anything is at the discretion of
the US Congress which has the sole authority on the
regulation
of Commerce in the United States...

Article I, § 8:

-- "To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the
several states, and with the Indian tribes;"

(Commonly referred to as the "Commerce Clause")

-- "To make rules for the government and regulation of the
land
and naval forces;"

-- "To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for
carrying
into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers
vested by
this Constitution in the government of the United States, or
in any
department or officer thereof."

(Commonly referred to as the "Necessary and Proper Clause")

So it is written there, just not in the terms which you seem
to
need it to be so that you can clearly understand it I
guess...

Unless you are building a log cabin using only locally
available
materials (meaning you chopped down the logs yourself) you
are engaging in and benefiting from interstate commerce to
procure your supplies and materials which had to move across
state lines to arrive at the local store from which you
purchased
them... THAT gives Congress the power to decide on how
those
materials should be sold and used... Or to require any
safety
laws it feels are necessary...

It is my opinion that in the next few coming generations of
the National Building Code that automatic fire sprinklers
will
soon be a nationwide requirement...

~~ Evan

I've been in one industrial fire where the sprinklers went off.

I was supervising a maintenance crew doing a repair. A welding torch
threw a spark and started some dust going. The fire watch hit it
immediately with the small hose but that seemed to make it worse. I
was standing about 20 feet back, and the main fire hose was 20 feet
behind me.

I turned and ran for the fire hose, and the fire went past me on the
way. Holy Crap! I dropped the fire hose and booked for the exit.
About then the sprinklers activated. It got dark and foggy and I
whacked my shin really good on a piece of equipment.

Anyway, the sprinklers saved the plant and 144 jobs, in a rural
Southern town where there were no other jobs and never would be. We
had some water damage and we chased shorts in the machinery for about
a year, but we were running, filling orders, and paying wages.

That made me a believer. I'm not 100% sure I would have made it out
at all if the sprinklers hadn't held the fire back.

On Jan 11, 7:05*pm, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:
Can you believe this? *I think Even actually thinks Congress
has, or ought to have the power to force us all to buy
safety stuff? Must be public school student.

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

"Evan" wrote in message

...
On Jan 11, 10:26 am, "Stormin Mormon"

wrote:
I don't remember reading in the Constitution. Where it
gives
any level of government power to force us to buy safety
equipment.

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

Perhaps you do not know how to read the Constitution nor how
to
interpret what is written there and how the Supreme Court of
the
United States has interpreted and clarified the document in
the
ensuing 223 years since it was written by the founding
fathers
and architects of our country...

The fact that you can *buy* anything is at the discretion of
the US Congress which has the sole authority on the
regulation
of Commerce in the United States...

Article I, § 8:

-- "To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the
several states, and with the Indian tribes;"

(Commonly referred to as the "Commerce Clause")

-- "To make rules for the government and regulation of the
land
and naval forces;"

-- "To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for
carrying
into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers
vested by
this Constitution in the government of the United States, or
in any
department or officer thereof."

(Commonly referred to as the "Necessary and Proper Clause")

So it is written there, just not in the terms which you seem
to
need it to be so that you can clearly understand it I
guess...

Unless you are building a log cabin using only locally
available
materials (meaning you chopped down the logs yourself) you
are engaging in and benefiting from interstate commerce to
procure your supplies and materials which had to move across
state lines to arrive at the local store from which you
purchased
them... *THAT gives Congress the power to decide on how
those
materials should be sold and used... *Or to require any
safety
laws it feels are necessary...

It is my opinion that in the next few coming generations of
the National Building Code that automatic fire sprinklers
will
soon be a nationwide requirement...

~~ Evan

Tom
You do not know it
I am a Private Industry Fire Investigator. besides being a very good
trouble shooter. and write regularly on the subject including Pa.
Assoc of Arson investigators newsletters which I was just in and Pa
Fireman's magazine and occasionally for Al at SSI to name a few
and I have served as an Driver/Engineer in a volunteer fire dept.Penn
Hills 4# and still help out Emsworth VFD as I can
That means pump operator. I know all about moving water around.
I also have an oil industry customer where I design high volume
pumping/heating equipment for oil and water the pictures are on my
Face Book wall

I know what I am talking about.So do not try bull ****ing me.
Yes insurance company do raise rates it happened to my customer here
in Pa when he put sprinklers in a million dollar home called
Graceland at Nemacolin Woodlands a very high end resort built by 84
lumber magnate in fact many states had to pass laws to stop insurance
company from jack up rates when sprinklers in homes where installed.
Would you like his phone number.Plus a couple others.
He also got disgusted and turned them off after they froze up 2
different times and he too was a volunteer firefighter.
I got news for you drum drips need emptied monthly would you care to
come here to PA. and I will take you to my customers and see all the
water that comes out of the pipes,at places I take care of. We have
wild temp swings here
it goes to 8 degrees at night and goes to 40 in day this constant up
and down expansion puts water in the pipes regardless if there is air
in them or not. Of course if you lived in a cold climate like I do
here you would know that.
Would you like to see the reports from Cranberry Twp and Penn Hills
Fire depts. for how many times they have responded to frozen drum
drips that burst at my customers.Would you like the phone numbers of
sprinkler company's and AHJ in my area who will tell you the same
thing.
Your not playing with some amateur here.

On Tue, 11 Jan 2011 07:16:11 -0500, Kurt Ullman wrote:

In article ,
" wrote:

On Mon, 10 Jan 2011 18:23:07 -0500, Tony Miklos wrote:
\
...and then there are frozen pipes.

Which of course freeze even if they aren't sprinklers. Given the
placement of the pipes in the inner parts of the house, they are
probably less likely to freeze than regular pipes that run up the
outside walls.

Wrong. It's yet another pipe to burst in the absolute *worst* place. Only a
fool runs pipes in outside walls, or ceilings.

and again, the point is not that sprinklers are "good" or "bad", they
may be helpful in some situations and harmful in others...


the point is ,,, is it correct for the gov't to MANDATE them...

Do we want a "nanny state"?

Mark

On Jan 10, 11:16*pm, Evan wrote:
On Jan 10, 11:51*pm, mleuck wrote:



The issue to me isn't if they work well but that federal, state or
local governments shouldn't be mandating them. if the builder or
customer wants them that's another story

LOL... *And why not ?


Sure, why not ban ovens or heaters

Smoke detectors = required
Carbon monoxide detectors = required

Neither should be

automatic fire sprinklers = requirement coming soon

Not just the public safety folks, but normal people are
starting to see the pattern of people dying in small home
fires as opposed to large multi-unit dwellings which have
had the requirement to be sprinkler protected for a while
now...

How many people were electrocuted in the bathroom
at home before GFCI's became a requirement ?

~~ Evan

Seems to me it would be better just to ban outlets in the bathroom,
even GFI's might still be dangerous wouldn't it?

On Jan 11, 8:03*am, wrote:
On Jan 11, 8:09*am, Smitty Two wrote:



In article
,

*Evan wrote:
On Jan 10, 11:51*pm, mleuck wrote:

The issue to me isn't if they work well but that federal, state or
local governments shouldn't be mandating them. if the builder or
customer wants them that's another story

LOL... *And why not ?

If something can save lives why not require it... *Especially
out there in the "heartland of America" where volunteer fire
protection rules the day...

Smoke detectors = required
Carbon monoxide detectors = required

automatic fire sprinklers = requirement coming soon

Not just the public safety folks, but normal people are
starting to see the pattern of people dying in small home
fires as opposed to large multi-unit dwellings which have
had the requirement to be sprinkler protected for a while
now...

How many people were electrocuted in the bathroom
at home before GFCI's became a requirement ?

~~ Evan

Thanks for your previous posts with good info about how these sprinkler
systems work. But I'm completely opposed to laws designed to protect me
from myself. I have smoke detectors because I think they're a good idea,
but I don't have CO detectors, and I sure as hell don't want anyone
telling me I need a sprinkler system.

As for GFCIs, absolute bull****. The number of electrocutions in the
home, in the U.S. is vanishingly small. I researched this a few years
ago for an a.h.r. discussion, and IIRC, about ten times as many people
die by falling down while walking on level ground. A law requiring
installation of tens of millions of devices in order to keep ~20 people
per year alive is absolutely, positively insane.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Whether you think requiring sprinklers in new homes is a good idea or
not, I think it's positively STUPID to pass this law in PA now, in the
middle of the worst housing recession since the Depression. * Sort
of like passing national health insurance, imposing all kinds of
uncertaintity and new costs on businesses during the worst recession.
They can't sell houses now, so let's make them cost even more....

That never stops bureaucracy

On Jan 11, 1:31*pm, zek wrote:
On Jan 11, 9:03*am, wrote:



On Jan 11, 8:09*am, Smitty Two wrote:

In article
,

*Evan wrote:
On Jan 10, 11:51*pm, mleuck wrote:

The issue to me isn't if they work well but that federal, state or
local governments shouldn't be mandating them. if the builder or
customer wants them that's another story

LOL... *And why not ?

If something can save lives why not require it... *Especially
out there in the "heartland of America" where volunteer fire
protection rules the day...

Smoke detectors = required
Carbon monoxide detectors = required

automatic fire sprinklers = requirement coming soon

Not just the public safety folks, but normal people are
starting to see the pattern of people dying in small home
fires as opposed to large multi-unit dwellings which have
had the requirement to be sprinkler protected for a while
now...

How many people were electrocuted in the bathroom
at home before GFCI's became a requirement ?

~~ Evan

Thanks for your previous posts with good info about how these sprinkler
systems work. But I'm completely opposed to laws designed to protect me
from myself. I have smoke detectors because I think they're a good idea,
but I don't have CO detectors, and I sure as hell don't want anyone
telling me I need a sprinkler system.

As for GFCIs, absolute bull****. The number of electrocutions in the
home, in the U.S. is vanishingly small. I researched this a few years
ago for an a.h.r. discussion, and IIRC, about ten times as many people
die by falling down while walking on level ground. A law requiring
installation of tens of millions of devices in order to keep ~20 people
per year alive is absolutely, positively insane.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Whether you think requiring sprinklers in new homes is a good idea or
not, I think it's positively STUPID to pass this law in PA now, in the
middle of the worst housing recession since the Depression. * Sort
of like passing national health insurance, imposing all kinds of
uncertaintity and new costs on businesses during the worst recession.
They can't sell houses now, so let's make them cost even more....

All the new homes I see built are for the rich. Screw them.
Contractors
don't want to build cheap houses. They make more money on the big
ones.

All the poorer people have to settle for used stuff. The people that
don't like national
health insurance, don't have many friends that need it.

greg

Perhaps you don't quite....wait.......BASS
LIVES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

On Jan 11, 1:38*pm, "Doug" wrote:
"zek" wrote in message

...

All the new homes I see built are for the rich. Screw them.
Contractors
don't want to build cheap houses. They make more money on the big
ones.
All the poorer people have to settle for used stuff. The people that
don't like national
health insurance, don't have many friends that need it.
greg

and your point is?

Doug

I "think" his point is this

Rich people buy nice houses and therefore are bad
Poor people don't buy nice houses which is also bad
Some people know many people who don't sign on to an socialist heath
care plan because they aren't sick

I could be wrong

On Jan 11, 9:35*pm, mleuck wrote:
On Jan 11, 1:38*pm, "Doug" wrote:



"zek" wrote in message

....

All the new homes I see built are for the rich. Screw them.
Contractors
don't want to build cheap houses. They make more money on the big
ones.
All the poorer people have to settle for used stuff. The people that
don't like national
health insurance, don't have many friends that need it.
greg

and your point is?

Doug

I "think" his point is this

Rich people buy nice houses and therefore are bad
Poor people don't buy nice houses which is also bad
Some people know many people who don't sign on to an socialist heath
care plan because they aren't sick

I could be wrong

My biggest worry we put all these systems in homes which will probably
not need them for 30-40 years and will they work when called on?
But the real problem is existing housing what has been done to protect
those who need it most.
How many times in fatal fires no working smoke detectors and the same
thing will happen with sprinklers
the same people who need them the most will be the ones to turn them
off and not maintain them.
I wonder how many 100% sprinkled community's over the last 10 years I
could walk into and find sprinklers turned off and smokes disabled.
how many GFCI and Arc Faults will work???

On Jan 11, 9:35*pm, mleuck wrote:
On Jan 11, 1:38*pm, "Doug" wrote:





"zek" wrote in message

....

All the new homes I see built are for the rich. Screw them.
Contractors
don't want to build cheap houses. They make more money on the big
ones.
All the poorer people have to settle for used stuff. The people that
don't like national
health insurance, don't have many friends that need it.
greg

and your point is?

Doug

I "think" his point is this

Rich people buy nice houses and therefore are bad
Poor people don't buy nice houses which is also bad
Some people know many people who don't sign on to an socialist heath
care plan because they aren't sick

I could be wrong-

Ya know ..... I think your on to something there.

That all sounds pretty reasonable to me.

That allows us to conclude that there's no difference between rich
people and poor people. And since it's ok for the government to pass
laws for our own protection .... if a law was passed that required
everyone to stay healthy, there'd be no reason for any kind of health
care plan ..... at all !

OHMYGOD! Why didn't you think of this before now?

On Jan 11, 9:44*pm, nick markowitz wrote:

My biggest worry we put all these systems in homes which will probably
not need them for 30-40 years and will they work when called on?
But the real problem is existing housing what has been done to protect
those who need it most.
How many times in fatal fires no working smoke detectors and the same
thing will happen with sprinklers
the same people who need them the most will be the ones to turn them
off and not maintain them.
I wonder how many 100% sprinkled community's over the last 10 years I
could walk into and find sprinklers turned off and smokes disabled.
how many GFCI and Arc Faults will work???


Which is why the requirement for smoke detectors has changed
over the years from requiring a smoke detector to requiring
*hardwired* smoke detectors...

Batteries seem to be something that people are unable to replace
in life safety devices even if they are still *good* twice a year to
ensure that the things will actually work when they are needed...
Hence the evolution of the requirement...

As far as having sprinkler systems disabled in any building that
requires such systems for permitting and occupancy -- well that
is a totally different matter, that was an intentional act to disable
the sprinkler system made by someone who deliberately chose
to do so... Better hope no one ever dies in a home which is
mandated to be protected by a sprinkler system... Those deaths
would no longer be classified as "Accidental: Fire" and would
be "Homicide: Criminal Negligence"... Depending on what your
state laws are you could be up for a manslaughter charge and
do 10 to 15 years or up on murder charges and do 25 to life for
turning off a required life safety device...

~~ Evan

On Jan 11, 8:44*pm, nick markowitz wrote:
On Jan 11, 9:35*pm, mleuck wrote:









On Jan 11, 1:38*pm, "Doug" wrote:

"zek" wrote in message

....

All the new homes I see built are for the rich. Screw them.
Contractors
don't want to build cheap houses. They make more money on the big
ones.
All the poorer people have to settle for used stuff. The people that
don't like national
health insurance, don't have many friends that need it.
greg

and your point is?

Doug

I "think" his point is this

Rich people buy nice houses and therefore are bad
Poor people don't buy nice houses which is also bad
Some people know many people who don't sign on to an socialist heath
care plan because they aren't sick

I could be wrong

My biggest worry we put all these systems in homes which will probably
not need them for 30-40 years and will they work when called on?
But the real problem is existing housing what has been done to protect
those who need it most.
How many times in fatal fires no working smoke detectors and the same
thing will happen with sprinklers
the same people who need them the most will be the ones to turn them
off and not maintain them.
I wonder how many 100% sprinkled community's over the last 10 years I
could walk into and find sprinklers turned off and smokes disabled.
how many GFCI and Arc Faults will work???

I recall the early 90's when Texas enacted a number of strict fire
codes which resulted in a lot of homes that could have easily had
basic fire protection but didn't because of the extra cost involved.
Mandatory sprinkler systems sounds nice to a bureaucrat, they never
have to deal with the aftermath

On Jan 11, 9:33*pm, Evan wrote:
On Jan 11, 9:44*pm, nick markowitz wrote:



My biggest worry we put all these systems in homes which will probably
not need them for 30-40 years and will they work when called on?
But the real problem is existing housing what has been done to protect
those who need it most.
How many times in fatal fires no working smoke detectors and the same
thing will happen with sprinklers
the same people who need them the most will be the ones to turn them
off and not maintain them.
I wonder how many 100% sprinkled community's over the last 10 years I
could walk into and find sprinklers turned off and smokes disabled.
how many GFCI and Arc Faults will work???

Which is why the requirement for smoke detectors has changed
over the years from requiring a smoke detector to requiring
*hardwired* smoke detectors...

Batteries seem to be something that people are unable to replace
in life safety devices even if they are still *good* twice a year to
ensure that the things will actually work when they are needed...
Hence the evolution of the requirement...

As far as having sprinkler systems disabled in any building that
requires such systems for permitting and occupancy -- well that
is a totally different matter, that was an intentional act to disable
the sprinkler system made by someone who deliberately chose
to do so... *Better hope no one ever dies in a home which is
mandated to be protected by a sprinkler system... *Those deaths
would no longer be classified as "Accidental: Fire" and would
be "Homicide: Criminal Negligence"... *Depending on what your
state laws are you could be up for a manslaughter charge and
do 10 to 15 years or up on murder charges and do 25 to life for
turning off a required life safety device...

~~ Evan

Even better, say your sprinkler system has an "accident" resulting in
flood damage and the customer sues you when it may not be your fault.
The end result of these "mandatory" safety laws is usually more
lawsuits

In article
,
Evan wrote:

Right, 20 people safe TODAY...

Want to tell me how many fatalities there were from those
electrocution
accidents 30 or 40 years ago before they became required ?

How far back did your statistical analysis go there Smitty ?

~~ Evan

I'll tell you what, Evan, you tell me how many people you *think* were
electrocuted (killed) in 1980 (30 yrs. ago) in their homes, in the
United States, by 120VAC. Then I'll see - no guarantees - whether I can
dig up the actual number. (Like I said, the number is so damn miniscule
that it's extremely hard to find.) I don't think there's one single
thing that accounts for fewer deaths. Not one.

G'head, give me your best guess.

On 11/01/2011 5:11 PM, nick markowitz wrote:
On Jan 11, 7:05 pm, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:
Can you believe this? I think Even actually thinks Congress
has, or ought to have the power to force us all to buy
safety stuff? Must be public school student.

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

wrote in message

...
On Jan 11, 10:26 am, "Stormin Mormon"

wrote:
I don't remember reading in the Constitution. Where it
gives
any level of government power to force us to buy safety
equipment.

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

Perhaps you do not know how to read the Constitution nor how
to
interpret what is written there and how the Supreme Court of
the
United States has interpreted and clarified the document in
the
ensuing 223 years since it was written by the founding
fathers
and architects of our country...

The fact that you can *buy* anything is at the discretion of
the US Congress which has the sole authority on the
regulation
of Commerce in the United States...

Article I, § 8:

-- "To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the
several states, and with the Indian tribes;"

(Commonly referred to as the "Commerce Clause")

-- "To make rules for the government and regulation of the
land
and naval forces;"

-- "To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for
carrying
into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers
vested by
this Constitution in the government of the United States, or
in any
department or officer thereof."

(Commonly referred to as the "Necessary and Proper Clause")

So it is written there, just not in the terms which you seem
to
need it to be so that you can clearly understand it I
guess...

Unless you are building a log cabin using only locally
available
materials (meaning you chopped down the logs yourself) you
are engaging in and benefiting from interstate commerce to
procure your supplies and materials which had to move across
state lines to arrive at the local store from which you
purchased
them... THAT gives Congress the power to decide on how
those
materials should be sold and used... Or to require any
safety
laws it feels are necessary...

It is my opinion that in the next few coming generations of
the National Building Code that automatic fire sprinklers
will
soon be a nationwide requirement...

~~ Evan

Tom
You do not know it
I am a Private Industry Fire Investigator. besides being a very good
trouble shooter. and write regularly on the subject including Pa.
Assoc of Arson investigators newsletters which I was just in and Pa
Fireman's magazine and occasionally for Al at SSI to name a few
and I have served as an Driver/Engineer in a volunteer fire dept.Penn
Hills 4# and still help out Emsworth VFD as I can
That means pump operator. I know all about moving water around.
I also have an oil industry customer where I design high volume
pumping/heating equipment for oil and water the pictures are on my
Face Book wall

I know what I am talking about.So do not try bull ****ing me.
Yes insurance company do raise rates it happened to my customer here
in Pa when he put sprinklers in a million dollar home called
Graceland at Nemacolin Woodlands a very high end resort built by 84
lumber magnate in fact many states had to pass laws to stop insurance
company from jack up rates when sprinklers in homes where installed.
Would you like his phone number.Plus a couple others.
He also got disgusted and turned them off after they froze up 2
different times and he too was a volunteer firefighter.
I got news for you drum drips need emptied monthly would you care to
come here to PA. and I will take you to my customers and see all the
water that comes out of the pipes,at places I take care of. We have
wild temp swings here
it goes to 8 degrees at night and goes to 40 in day this constant up
and down expansion puts water in the pipes regardless if there is air
in them or not. Of course if you lived in a cold climate like I do
here you would know that.
Would you like to see the reports from Cranberry Twp and Penn Hills
Fire depts. for how many times they have responded to frozen drum
drips that burst at my customers.Would you like the phone numbers of
sprinkler company's and AHJ in my area who will tell you the same
thing.
Your not playing with some amateur here.

Temperature swings aren't the only reason water forms in dry system
pipes. Whenever you compress air, you're also going to produce moisture
which will precipitate into the system's low points over time. In every
city across Canada, we have to "winterize" dry systems by draining the
low points or risk having them trip if the collection points freeze.

As for mandating sprinklers, there are several municipalities I work in
where you must install sprinkler systems in every new home. Maple
Ridge, Vancouver, and Richmond to name a few. I suppose our insurance
companies are a bit more "progressive" here. If your home is equipped
with a sprinkler system, you actually qualify for a discount on
home-owners insurance.

I see it as a matter of education. Typically systems that "freeze" are
either not maintained properly or have installation issues that relate
to their design. These days, people with sprinkler systems (in
Vancouver at least) are required to submit back-flow preventer
inspection reports on an annual basis. No reason why the guy doing the
testing shouldn't also check to make sure everything else is "up to snuff".

--
Frank Kurz
www.firetechs.net

The town where a friend of mine built a house 15+ years ago required
sprinklers. The pipes ran through an unheated basement. I asked about
freezing and he said that because the pipes ran through the basement
it wasn't just water in the pipes, it's water plus antifreeze.
Obviously if there's a fire and the antifreeze all gets sprayed they'd
have to refresh the system with new antifreeze.

It's a pretty small cost to add sprinklers to new construction. Fires
are rare but they're expensive as hell. And you can rebuild a house;
you can't rebuild a burned-to-death person.

I've lived through one fire, in an apartment building. Two blocks from
the firehouse and we got everyone out okay (my neighbor and I ran
around banging on doors until it got too scary to stay). I'd have
loved to have sprinklers (the building was from 1921 and didn't even
have closed-off staircases).


I asked an office building fire safety director once what maintenance
was required for the paraffin sprinkler heads and he said he couldn't
recall a case of a malfunction. It's a pretty simple device and there
are millions upon millions of them installed. I've never gotten wet
working inside an office or walking into a store.


As far as the Constitution, it does state that anything not
specifically addressed in it is relegated to the states, so there's
nothing unconstitutional about Pennsylvania passing such a law, unless
of course the state Constitution prohibits it. Rather doubtful.

Copyright 2011 by Shaun Eli. All rights reserved.
www.BrainChampagne.com

On Jan 12, 1:14*am, Smitty Two wrote:
In article
,

*Evan wrote:
Right, 20 people safe TODAY...

Want to tell me how many fatalities there were from those
electrocution
accidents 30 or 40 years ago before they became required ?

How far back did your statistical analysis go there Smitty ?

~~ Evan

I'll tell you what, Evan, you tell me how many people you *think* were
electrocuted (killed) in 1980 (30 yrs. ago) in their homes, in the
United States, by 120VAC. Then I'll see - no guarantees - whether I can
dig up the actual number. (Like I said, the number is so damn miniscule
that it's extremely hard to find.) I don't think there's one single
thing that accounts for fewer deaths. Not one.

G'head, give me your best guess.


You were the one spouting numbers... 20 per year... I am not going
to
guess, it is up to you to back your statistics and conclusion reached
from
a very shaky and recent data set to say that the requirements for
GFCI's
in bathrooms and other damp locations had NO effect at all on the
number
of fatalities... All I claimed was that such things would not be
required if
there was not a trend of accidents...

You want to use statistics you need to use them properly and have
access
to more than a few years of data to make such concrete claims...

Its all on you Smitty... Either find those numbers going back say to
the
time when homes were mostly electrified or admit you only looked up
the most recent numbers which BEST supported your statements and
move on...

~~ Evan

"Evan" wrote in message
...
On Jan 11, 10:26 am, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:
I don't remember reading in the Constitution. Where it gives
any level of government power to force us to buy safety
equipment.

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


Perhaps you do not know how to read the Constitution nor how to
interpret what is written there and how the Supreme Court of the
United States has interpreted and clarified the document in the
ensuing 223 years since it was written by the founding fathers
and architects of our country...

The fact that you can *buy* anything is at the discretion of
the US Congress which has the sole authority on the regulation
of Commerce in the United States...

Article I, § 8:

-- "To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the
several states, and with the Indian tribes;"

(Commonly referred to as the "Commerce Clause")

-- "To make rules for the government and regulation of the land
and naval forces;"

-- "To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying
into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by
this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any
department or officer thereof."

(Commonly referred to as the "Necessary and Proper Clause")

So it is written there, just not in the terms which you seem to
need it to be so that you can clearly understand it I guess...

Unless you are building a log cabin using only locally available
materials (meaning you chopped down the logs yourself) you
are engaging in and benefiting from interstate commerce to
procure your supplies and materials which had to move across
state lines to arrive at the local store from which you purchased
them... THAT gives Congress the power to decide on how those
materials should be sold and used... Or to require any safety
laws it feels are necessary...

It is my opinion that in the next few coming generations of
the National Building Code that automatic fire sprinklers will
soon be a nationwide requirement...


Commerce Clause might not work for 'intra' state commerce. see Montana gun
case. Many states have signed onto the case. States contend if your
commerce is all done in one state and purchases come from that same state
you are intra state and out of the reach of the fed. this would be one way
for the states to reign in the out of control federal govt..

On Jan 12, 1:31*am, Frank Kurz wrote:
On 11/01/2011 5:11 PM, nick markowitz wrote:



On Jan 11, 7:05 pm, "Stormin Mormon"
*wrote:
Can you believe this? *I think Even actually thinks Congress
has, or ought to have the power to force us all to buy
safety stuff? Must be public school student.

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

*wrote in message

....
On Jan 11, 10:26 am, "Stormin Mormon"

*wrote:
I don't remember reading in the Constitution. Where it
gives
any level of government power to force us to buy safety
equipment.

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

Perhaps you do not know how to read the Constitution nor how
to
interpret what is written there and how the Supreme Court of
the
United States has interpreted and clarified the document in
the
ensuing 223 years since it was written by the founding
fathers
and architects of our country...

The fact that you can *buy* anything is at the discretion of
the US Congress which has the sole authority on the
regulation
of Commerce in the United States...

Article I, § 8:

-- "To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the
several states, and with the Indian tribes;"

(Commonly referred to as the "Commerce Clause")

-- "To make rules for the government and regulation of the
land
and naval forces;"

-- "To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for
carrying
into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers
vested by
this Constitution in the government of the United States, or
in any
department or officer thereof."

(Commonly referred to as the "Necessary and Proper Clause")

So it is written there, just not in the terms which you seem
to
need it to be so that you can clearly understand it I
guess...

Unless you are building a log cabin using only locally
available
materials (meaning you chopped down the logs yourself) you
are engaging in and benefiting from interstate commerce to
procure your supplies and materials which had to move across
state lines to arrive at the local store from which you
purchased
them... *THAT gives Congress the power to decide on how
those
materials should be sold and used... *Or to require any
safety
laws it feels are necessary...

It is my opinion that in the next few coming generations of
the National Building Code that automatic fire sprinklers
will
soon be a nationwide requirement...

~~ Evan

Tom
You do not know it
I am a Private Industry Fire Investigator. besides being a very good
trouble shooter. and write regularly on the subject including Pa.
Assoc of Arson investigators newsletters which I was just in and Pa
Fireman's magazine and occasionally for Al at SSI to name a few
and I have served as an Driver/Engineer in a volunteer fire dept.Penn
Hills 4# and still help out Emsworth VFD as I can
That means pump operator. I know all about moving water around.
I also have an oil industry customer where I design high volume
pumping/heating equipment for oil and water the pictures are on my
Face Book wall

I know what I am talking about.So do not try bull ****ing me.
Yes insurance company do raise rates it happened to my customer here
in Pa when he put sprinklers in a million dollar home called
Graceland *at Nemacolin Woodlands a very high end resort built by 84
lumber magnate in fact many states had to pass laws to stop insurance
company from jack up rates when sprinklers in homes where installed.
Would you like his phone number.Plus a couple others.
He also got disgusted and turned them off after they froze up 2
different times and he too was a volunteer firefighter.
I got news for you drum drips need emptied monthly would you care to
come here to PA. and I will take you to my customers and see all the
water that comes out of the pipes,at places I take care of. We have
wild temp swings here
it goes to 8 degrees at night and goes to 40 in day this constant up
and down expansion puts water in the pipes regardless if there is air
in them or not. Of course if you lived in a *cold climate like I do
here you would know that.
Would you like to see the reports from Cranberry Twp and Penn Hills
Fire depts. for how many times they have responded to frozen drum
drips that burst at my customers.Would you like the phone numbers of
sprinkler company's *and AHJ in my area who will tell you the same
thing.
Your not playing with some amateur here.

Temperature swings aren't the only reason water forms in dry system
pipes. *Whenever you compress air, you're also going to produce moisture
which will precipitate into the system's low points over time. *In every
city across Canada, we have to "winterize" dry systems by draining the
low points or risk having them trip if the collection points freeze.

As for mandating sprinklers, there are several municipalities I work in
where you must install sprinkler systems in every new home. *Maple
Ridge, Vancouver, and Richmond to name a few. *I suppose our insurance
companies are a bit more "progressive" here. *If your home is equipped
with a sprinkler system, you actually qualify for a discount on
home-owners insurance.

I see it as a matter of education. *Typically systems that "freeze" are
either not maintained properly or have installation issues that relate
to their design. *These days, people with sprinkler systems (in
Vancouver at least) are required to submit back-flow preventer
inspection reports on an annual basis. *No reason why the guy doing the
testing shouldn't also check to make sure everything else is "up to snuff".

--
Frank Kurzwww.firetechs.net

Your right Frank it all comes down to education and choices.
Which the message is still not getting to those most vulnerable.

As far as the GFCI issue and electrocutions they have played an
important roll as more and more pools are installed but again how many
GFCI outlets I have installed in Past 30+ years if called upon right
now would still work?
I can tell you at least 50% failed if tested and many already replaced
by newer generation GFCI outlets
there has been 3 generational changes in the specs when it comes to
GFCI protection because they keep finding out they fail so many years
out particularly when mounted in outside outlets.
I put them in I show people how they work how they should be tested
and they are forgotten about till needed.
Some of my customers we do annual testing to meet OSHA and Insurance
requirments and yes there's a high failure rate as outlets age.

Thanks for your efforts to pull the conversation back to the
starting point.

I vote no, on nanny state.

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


"Mark" wrote in message
...
and again, the point is not that sprinklers are "good" or
"bad", they
may be helpful in some situations and harmful in others...


the point is ,,, is it correct for the gov't to MANDATE
them...

Do we want a "nanny state"?

Mark

On Jan 12, 9:01*am, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:
Thanks for your efforts to pull the conversation back to the
starting point.

I vote no, on nanny state.

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

"Mark" wrote in message

...
and again, the point is not that sprinklers are "good" or
"bad", they
may be helpful in some situations and harmful in others...

the point is ,,, is it correct for the gov't to MANDATE
them...

Do we want a "nanny state"?

Mark

Well Stormy let's make it a little closer to home for you. I vote no
on nanny hvac suppliers. If I want to buy a hvac system they
shouldn't refuse to sell me one just because I'm a homeowner.

?
"Shaun Eli" wrote .
It's a pretty small cost to add sprinklers to new construction. Fires
are rare but they're expensive as hell. And you can rebuild a house;
you can't rebuild a burned-to-death person.


I'd like to see if they really save lives. How many people are killed by
smoke inhalation before a sprinkler would activate? I'm thinking of a
smoldering sofa or mattress that can kill you long before a flame gets hot
enough to set off a sprinkler head. In the case of a heater fires, it may
make a difference as the fire is in another area of the house.

As for property damage, it does save fire damage, but can replace it with
water damage.

I'm not for or against, I just want to see more facts before deciding.

In article ,
"Ed Pawlowski" wrote:

?
"Shaun Eli" wrote .
It's a pretty small cost to add sprinklers to new construction. Fires
are rare but they're expensive as hell. And you can rebuild a house;
you can't rebuild a burned-to-death person.


I'd like to see if they really save lives. How many people are killed by
smoke inhalation before a sprinkler would activate? I'm thinking of a
smoldering sofa or mattress that can kill you long before a flame gets hot
enough to set off a sprinkler head. In the case of a heater fires, it may
make a difference as the fire is in another area of the house.


According to the NFPA records there has never been a multiple fatality
fire in the US. Their records go back to around 1900. Most of the
fatalities have been things like smoking in bed where the smoker was
cooked, but nobody else, which would seem to answer your question. This
includes hotels, nursing homes, hospitals, etc., in addition to
residences.


As for property damage, it does save fire damage, but can replace it with
water damage.

I'm not for or against, I just want to see more facts before deciding.

--
"Even I realized that money was to politicians what the ecalyptus tree is to koala bears: food, water, shelter and something to crap on."
---PJ O'Rourke

jamesgangnc wrote:

Well Stormy let's make it a little closer to home for you. I vote no
on nanny hvac suppliers. If I want to buy a hvac system they
shouldn't refuse to sell me one just because I'm a homeowner.

It's not the government that's refusing to sell to you... it's a private
company.

And you being a homeowner may not be the reason they're refusing.

Mark wrote:
and again, the point is not that sprinklers are "good" or "bad", they
may be helpful in some situations and harmful in others...


the point is ,,, is it correct for the gov't to MANDATE them...

Do we want a "nanny state"?
....

In many (most???) respects we already do...

--

On Jan 12, 1:37*pm, Tom Horne wrote:
On Jan 12, 11:31*am, jamesgangnc wrote:





On Jan 12, 10:25*am, Kurt Ullman wrote:

In article ,
*"Ed Pawlowski" wrote:

?
"Shaun Eli" wrote .
It's a pretty small cost to add sprinklers to new construction. Fires
are rare but they're expensive as hell. And you can rebuild a house;
you can't rebuild a burned-to-death person.

I'd like to see if they really save lives. *How many people are killed by
smoke inhalation before a sprinkler would activate? *I'm thinking of a
smoldering sofa or mattress that can kill you long before a flame gets hot
enough to set off a sprinkler head. * In the case of a heater fires, it may
make a difference as the fire is in another area of the house.

* According to the NFPA records there has never been a multiple fatality
fire in the US. Their records go back to around 1900. Most of the
fatalities have been things like smoking in bed where the smoker was
cooked, but nobody else, which would seem to answer your question. This
includes hotels, nursing homes, hospitals, etc., in addition to
residences.

As for property damage, it does save fire damage, but can replace it with
water damage.

I'm not for or against, I just want to see more facts before deciding.

--
"Even I realized that money was to politicians what the ecalyptus tree is to koala bears: food, water, shelter and something to crap on."
*---PJ O'Rourke

I've seen multiple fatality fires just here in the local news in NC so
something is wrong with your source.

James
Are you saying that you can identify a specific instance of a multiple
fatality fire in a property that is protected by a complete automatic
fire sprinkler system. *A yes or no answer would be appreciated.
--
Tom Horne- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I'm not saying that at all. I don't know one way or another. The
original post, below, says nothing about the presence or absence of a
sprinkler system. It just says there are no records of multiple
deaths. I'm guessing now the intention was to say in locations with
sprinklers but that's not in the post.

According to the NFPA records there has never been a multiple fatality
fire in the US. Their records go back to around 1900. Most of the
fatalities have been things like smoking in bed where the smoker was

On Jan 12, 5:06*pm, jamesgangnc wrote:
On Jan 12, 1:37*pm, Tom Horne wrote:



On Jan 12, 11:31*am, jamesgangnc wrote:

On Jan 12, 10:25*am, Kurt Ullman wrote:

In article ,
*"Ed Pawlowski" wrote:

?
"Shaun Eli" wrote .
It's a pretty small cost to add sprinklers to new construction. Fires
are rare but they're expensive as hell. And you can rebuild a house;
you can't rebuild a burned-to-death person.

I'd like to see if they really save lives. *How many people are killed by
smoke inhalation before a sprinkler would activate? *I'm thinking of a
smoldering sofa or mattress that can kill you long before a flame gets hot
enough to set off a sprinkler head. * In the case of a heater fires, it may
make a difference as the fire is in another area of the house.

* According to the NFPA records there has never been a multiple fatality
fire in the US. Their records go back to around 1900. Most of the
fatalities have been things like smoking in bed where the smoker was
cooked, but nobody else, which would seem to answer your question. This
includes hotels, nursing homes, hospitals, etc., in addition to
residences.

As for property damage, it does save fire damage, but can replace it with
water damage.

I'm not for or against, I just want to see more facts before deciding.

--
"Even I realized that money was to politicians what the ecalyptus tree is to koala bears: food, water, shelter and something to crap on."
*---PJ O'Rourke

I've seen multiple fatality fires just here in the local news in NC so
something is wrong with your source.

James
Are you saying that you can identify a specific instance of a multiple
fatality fire in a property that is protected by a complete automatic
fire sprinkler system. *A yes or no answer would be appreciated.
--
Tom Horne- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I'm not saying that at all. *I don't know one way or another. *The
original post, below, says nothing about the presence or absence of a
sprinkler system. *It just says there are no records of multiple
deaths. *I'm guessing now the intention was to say in locations with
sprinklers but that's not in the post.

* According to the NFPA records there has never been a multiple fatality
fire in the US. Their records go back to around 1900. Most of the
fatalities have been things like smoking in bed where the smoker was

Then some one was emptying those traps or all are in warm environment
but any dry system you open around here you will find water I have 38
systems I keep an eye on and all 38 can not be put in wrong different
installers and different years all use compressed air only one I do
not have to screw with is one that has a nitrogen tank on it.
I maintain the air system in a darkroom and get water in it as well
and it has all kinds of traps filters etc but we still have to have
desiccant units at the discharge points so air is clean and dry and
does not cause problems when blowing off negatives.
Like I said I have phone numbers of techs ,sprinkler guys and FM who
will tell you same thing all the dry systems around here need drained
at least monthly some time bi monthly or your in trouble.during the
winter.
maybe not this month maybe not 3-4 months but you will have a problem.
It is the nature of the beast here.
Where would you ,like me to send you all the FD and insurance reports.

On Jan 12, 5:23*pm, nick markowitz wrote:
On Jan 12, 5:06*pm, jamesgangnc wrote:



On Jan 12, 1:37*pm, Tom Horne wrote:

On Jan 12, 11:31*am, jamesgangnc wrote:

On Jan 12, 10:25*am, Kurt Ullman wrote:

In article ,
*"Ed Pawlowski" wrote:

?
"Shaun Eli" wrote .
It's a pretty small cost to add sprinklers to new construction. Fires
are rare but they're expensive as hell. And you can rebuild a house;
you can't rebuild a burned-to-death person.

I'd like to see if they really save lives. *How many people are killed by
smoke inhalation before a sprinkler would activate? *I'm thinking of a
smoldering sofa or mattress that can kill you long before a flame gets hot
enough to set off a sprinkler head. * In the case of a heater fires, it may
make a difference as the fire is in another area of the house.

* According to the NFPA records there has never been a multiple fatality
fire in the US. Their records go back to around 1900. Most of the
fatalities have been things like smoking in bed where the smoker was
cooked, but nobody else, which would seem to answer your question.. This
includes hotels, nursing homes, hospitals, etc., in addition to
residences.

As for property damage, it does save fire damage, but can replace it with
water damage.

I'm not for or against, I just want to see more facts before deciding.

--
"Even I realized that money was to politicians what the ecalyptus tree is to koala bears: food, water, shelter and something to crap on."
*---PJ O'Rourke

I've seen multiple fatality fires just here in the local news in NC so
something is wrong with your source.

James
Are you saying that you can identify a specific instance of a multiple
fatality fire in a property that is protected by a complete automatic
fire sprinkler system. *A yes or no answer would be appreciated.
--
Tom Horne- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I'm not saying that at all. *I don't know one way or another. *The
original post, below, says nothing about the presence or absence of a
sprinkler system. *It just says there are no records of multiple
deaths. *I'm guessing now the intention was to say in locations with
sprinklers but that's not in the post.

* According to the NFPA records there has never been a multiple fatality
fire in the US. Their records go back to around 1900. Most of the
fatalities have been things like smoking in bed where the smoker was

Then some one was emptying those traps or all are in *warm environment
but any dry system you open around here you will find water *I have 38
systems I keep an eye on and all 38 can not be put in wrong different
installers and different years all use compressed air only one I do
not have to screw with is one that has a nitrogen tank on it.
I maintain the air system in a darkroom and get water in it as well
and it has all kinds of traps filters etc but we still have to have
desiccant units at the discharge points so air is clean and dry and
does not cause problems when blowing off negatives.
Like I said I have phone numbers of techs ,sprinkler guys and FM who
will tell you same thing all the dry systems around here need drained
at least monthly some time bi monthly or your in trouble.during the
winter.
maybe not this month maybe not 3-4 months but you will have a problem.
It is the nature of the beast here.
Where would you ,like me to send you all the FD and insurance reports.

You also forget your talking a military installation to a civilian one
that's a very big difference. Military always uses highest grade of
materials etc and idiot proofs everything.
unfortunately my brother in law who was CPO and a communications
officer on a sub found out when he came back to civilian life his
skills did not easily transfer back we do things way differently in
civilian life than in the military.
I see it all the time with guys who are highly skilled military people
who skills do not transfer back It is a dam shame.
But its like apples and oranges.
Some come home and get easily employed while many do not depending
what you did for the military.

On Jan 12, 11:55*am, jamesgangnc wrote:
On Jan 12, 12:51*pm, "Ed Pawlowski" wrote:









?
"nick markowitz" wrote

The smoking in bed is one scenario where a sprinkler would not save
your life due to smoke inhalation.

Once it became a blaze though, it could save others if the smoke has not
already gotten to them.
Smoke detectors are far more important than sprinklers to warn people.

Why is there no single sprinkler head easy install kit for existing
homes where they could be easily attached to an existing water source
in a basement area where pipes are usual very accessible and where
many fires start.
and could well serve to suppress a fire. At one time a saw a small
garden hose kit with single head you attached to back of washer and
then hanged on ceiling.

Some 20 *years ago I saw a water valve that replaced the one on the feed
line to your boiler. *In the case of a fire from the boiler, it would
activate as a sprinkler. *The idea was that many fires start at residential
heaters so this would take care of one common source. * I never saw it in
production though.

A compromise might be to have sprinklers at fireplaces, kitchens,
laundry rooms and gas heat/hw. *Dryers are common fire starter. *Lint
plus hot is bad.

I'd go even farther and outlaw electricity to the house, someone here
once said "If it saves ONE life it's worth it" so......

On Jan 12, 6:42*pm, mleuck wrote:
On Jan 12, 11:55*am, jamesgangnc wrote:



On Jan 12, 12:51*pm, "Ed Pawlowski" wrote:

?
"nick markowitz" wrote

The smoking in bed is one scenario where a sprinkler would not save
your life due to smoke inhalation.

Once it became a blaze though, it could save others if the smoke has not
already gotten to them.
Smoke detectors are far more important than sprinklers to warn people..

Why is there no single sprinkler head easy install kit for existing
homes where they could be easily attached to an existing water source
in a basement area where pipes are usual very accessible and where
many fires start.
and could well serve to suppress a fire. At one time a saw a small
garden hose kit with single head you attached to back of washer and
then hanged on ceiling.

Some 20 *years ago I saw a water valve that replaced the one on the feed
line to your boiler. *In the case of a fire from the boiler, it would
activate as a sprinkler. *The idea was that many fires start at residential
heaters so this would take care of one common source. * I never saw it in
production though.

A compromise might be to have sprinklers at fireplaces, kitchens,
laundry rooms and gas heat/hw. *Dryers are common fire starter. *Lint
plus hot is bad.

I'd go even farther and outlaw electricity to the house, someone here
once said "If it saves ONE life it's worth it" so......

Tell you what I have apartment buildings I take care of which are all
concrete design and they have had fires which never where more than a
room or contents. That's the way to build if you want to keep fire
from spreading.
My 45 year old house has real concrete block walls in garage and real
plaster with steel mesh not dry wall like you have today. If we did
not build **** paper houses we would not need sprinklers mandated.

On Jan 12, 6:42*pm, mleuck wrote:
On Jan 12, 11:55*am, jamesgangnc wrote:
On Jan 12, 12:51*pm, "Ed Pawlowski" wrote:


A compromise might be to have sprinklers at fireplaces, kitchens,
laundry rooms and gas heat/hw. *Dryers are common fire starter. *Lint
plus hot is bad.

I'd go even farther and outlaw electricity to the house, someone here
once said "If it saves ONE life it's worth it" so

This whole thread is totally useless. This kind of **** is always
propagated by "safety zealots" ( If it saves OOOOOOONE life ..... )
who are quickly followed by politicians who want to get re-elected by
passing "feel good" (do nothing - unenforceable) laws.

Yeah, lets pass a law that says that everyone has to have sprinker
systems in their house. So ok ...... you can force people to install
them but you can't force them to maintain or even keep them in running
condition. Lets say a fire occurs and the sprinkler system doesn't
work because it wasn't maintained. Someone dies. Some one goes to
jail. So now what? ....Does the person who died come back to life?
No? Oh yeah, that's right. Some one gets sued and the family gets a
lot of money or the guy goes bankrupt or doesn't have the means to pay
and all of this is SUUUUUURE to make the next asshole who doesn't
want to maintain a system think twice. Yeah ..... sure that's going to
happen.
Yep ..... Uh Huh!

In the meantime, people are paying millions of dollars to install and
maintain system so that ...... what ..... a few lives a year are
saved? The safety zealots say that it's worth it? Then let them pay
for it.

This is all just as stupid as outlawing guns to law abiding people so
that the criminals wont use them to commit crimes.

I wonder if WD-40 the lubricant is used to maintain
sprinkler systems? Or, to maintain guns used by
criminals?

I have coined an expression you can use. Banning
law abiding people from owning guns is like saying
"There is a fox among the chickens. We'd better
shoot our dog." Results work out about the same,
too.

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


"Jim" wrote in message
...

This whole thread is totally useless. This kind of **** is
always
propagated by "safety zealots" ( If it saves OOOOOOONE life
...... )
who are quickly followed by politicians who want to get
re-elected by
passing "feel good" (do nothing - unenforceable) laws.

Yeah, lets pass a law that says that everyone has to have
sprinker
systems in their house. So ok ...... you can force people to
install
them but you can't force them to maintain or even keep them
in running
condition. Lets say a fire occurs and the sprinkler system
doesn't
work because it wasn't maintained. Someone dies. Some one
goes to
jail. So now what? ....Does the person who died come back to
life?
No? Oh yeah, that's right. Some one gets sued and the
family gets a
lot of money or the guy goes bankrupt or doesn't have the
means to pay
and all of this is SUUUUUURE to make the next asshole who
doesn't
want to maintain a system think twice. Yeah ..... sure
that's going to
happen.
Yep ..... Uh Huh!

In the meantime, people are paying millions of dollars to
install and
maintain system so that ...... what ..... a few lives a year
are
saved? The safety zealots say that it's worth it? Then
let them pay
for it.

This is all just as stupid as outlawing guns to law abiding
people so
that the criminals wont use them to commit crimes.

"mleuck" wrote in message
...
On Jan 11, 1:38 pm, "Doug" wrote:
"zek" wrote in message

...

All the new homes I see built are for the rich. Screw them.
Contractors
don't want to build cheap houses. They make more money on the big
ones.
All the poorer people have to settle for used stuff. The people that
don't like national
health insurance, don't have many friends that need it.
greg

and your point is?

Doug

I "think" his point is this

Rich people buy nice houses and therefore are bad
Poor people don't buy nice houses which is also bad
Some people know many people who don't sign on to an socialist heath
care plan because they aren't sick

I could be wrong

Thanks for clearing that up Mark, it all makes sense to me now.

Doug

In article
,
Evan wrote:

All I claimed was that such things would not be
required if
there was not a trend of accidents...

Bzzt. Incorrect. GFCIs became law for one reason: Someone who stood to
make tens of millions of dollars selling them lobbied for the law. There
is no trend of accidents.

On Mon, 10 Jan 2011 08:25:20 -0500, "Techvoid"
wrote:


"Dean Hoffman" wrote in message
...
are now required in new Pennsylvania homes:
http://tinyurl.com/323syvr

good idea?


See how it affects your home insurance rate and that will tell you.

On Jan 12, 11:22*pm, Smitty Two wrote:
In article
,

*Evan wrote:
All I claimed was that such things would not be
required if
there was not a trend of accidents...

Bzzt. Incorrect. GFCIs became law for one reason: Someone who stood to
make tens of millions of dollars selling them lobbied for the law. There
is no trend of accidents.

I have seen GFCI prevent many accidents over the years but I have also
seen them bypassed as well.
where back to the people who get zapped are the ones using frayed
extension cords or cords with grounds cut off and plugged in back
wards etc etc.
Every time you read an electrocution report in any of the trade
magazines the individual has done something to cause the accident.
latest article was on a farm where pressure washer was totally
corroded safety shields off and no ground and gfci bypassed wonder
why some one died.

On Jan 13, 7:46*am, nick markowitz wrote:
On Jan 12, 11:22*pm, Smitty Two wrote:

In article
,

*Evan wrote:
All I claimed was that such things would not be
required if
there was not a trend of accidents...

Bzzt. Incorrect. GFCIs became law for one reason: Someone who stood to
make tens of millions of dollars selling them lobbied for the law. There
is no trend of accidents.

I have seen GFCI prevent many accidents over the years but I have also
seen them bypassed as well.
where back to the people who get zapped are the ones using frayed
extension cords or cords with grounds cut off and plugged in back
wards etc etc.
Every time you read an electrocution report in any of the trade
magazines the individual has done something to cause the accident.
latest article was on a farm where pressure washer was totally
corroded safety shields off and *no ground and gfci bypassed wonder
why some one died.

So exactly what is the "maintenance" on a basic sprinkler system? I'm
asking because I'm installing sprinklers in the garage I'm building.
I ran water pipes off the main cold coming in and I bought some of
those sprinklers with the little expansion glass pieces in the
centers. You certainly can't test tripping one of them because then
you have to replace it.

On Jan 12, 9:39*pm, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:
I wonder if WD-40 the lubricant is used to maintain
sprinkler systems? Or, to maintain guns used by
criminals?

I have coined an expression you can use. Banning
law abiding people from owning guns is like saying
"There is a fox among the chickens. We'd better
shoot our dog." Results work out about the same,
too.

--
Christopher A. Young

I like that.

Thanks, I just may use that when the opportunity presents itself.