On Fri, 14 Jan 2011 23:19:14 -0500, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:

A couple generations ago, you didn't need government
permission to carry a gun. Openly, or concealed. Men and
women did what they wanted. A few were criminals, but much
fewer than today. I'd like to go back to that era. I'm sure
I never will.

You told me I'm wrong abut prior restraint. And then you
told me two examples of prior restraint, as practiced in
your area. I think you missed the point of what I wrote.

No, what you wrote was *wrong*. I corrected you.

On Jan 14, 9:34*pm, Oren wrote:
On Fri, 14 Jan 2011 14:57:22 -0600, "HeyBub"
wrote:





harry wrote:
On Jan 14, 2:20 pm, "HeyBub" wrote:
Oren wrote:

I thought in Arizona they kept offenders in tents in the desert?
The unemployed also live in tents.

Living in tents is good enough for our Fighting Warriors. I see no
reason not to have prisoners living in tents, as long as we have
barbed wire fence around them to keep the wild animals out.

You neglected to mention that the prisoners living in tents, in
110-degree weather, are volunteers. Sheriff Arapio gives most
prisoners their choice: Tents or cell blocks.

HehHeh. I see he has a guesthouse "Vacancies" sign up. Is the pink
underwear optional also?

No, the pink underwear is mandatory. Female prisoners get to wear leather.

On Jan 15, 4:19*am, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:
A couple generations ago, you didn't need government
permission to carry a gun. Openly, or concealed. Men and
women did what they wanted. A few were criminals, but much
fewer than today. I'd like to go back to that era. I'm sure
I never will.

You told me I'm wrong abut prior restraint. And then you
told me two examples of prior restraint, as practiced in
your area. I *think you missed the point of what I wrote.

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

wrote in message

...
On Fri, 14 Jan 2011 08:05:27 -0500, "Stormin Mormon"

wrote:
I'm not attorney, but I think that's called "prior
restraint". In common language, it means that you need the
government's permission before you can bring your gun home.
\

Wrong. *It means I can't carry concealed until I get a
permit. *Unloaded, in
the trunk, is not "carrying".

I think that's a big shift from the founding fathers
intent.
Where it was assumed that you don't need permission from
the
government to live your life.

No, but unfortunately you do need their permission (which
they must grant, for
a fee of $20) to carry concealed.

Mormons go to hell when they die. The US is a mere precursor. :-)

On Jan 14, 9:34*pm, Oren wrote:
On Fri, 14 Jan 2011 14:57:22 -0600, "HeyBub"
wrote:





harry wrote:
On Jan 14, 2:20 pm, "HeyBub" wrote:
Oren wrote:

I thought in Arizona they kept offenders in tents in the desert?
The unemployed also live in tents.

Living in tents is good enough for our Fighting Warriors. I see no
reason not to have prisoners living in tents, as long as we have
barbed wire fence around them to keep the wild animals out.

You neglected to mention that the prisoners living in tents, in
110-degree weather, are volunteers. Sheriff Arapio gives most
prisoners their choice: Tents or cell blocks.

HehHeh. I see he has a guesthouse "Vacancies" sign up. Is the pink
underwear optional also?

No, the pink underwear is mandatory. Female prisoners get to wear leather.

" wrote in
:

On Fri, 14 Jan 2011 08:05:27 -0500, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:

I'm not attorney, but I think that's called "prior
restraint". In common language, it means that you need the
government's permission before you can bring your gun home. \

Wrong. It means I can't carry concealed until I get a permit.
Unloaded, in the trunk, is not "carrying".

I think that's a big shift from the founding fathers intent.
Where it was assumed that you don't need permission from the
government to live your life.

No, but unfortunately you do need their permission (which they must
grant, for a fee of $20) to carry concealed.


consider Florida,where open carry is prohibited,and you need a permit to
carry concealed. IMO,violating our Second Amendment right to bear arms.

And Florida's initial permit fee is $114.
renewal was $85,it may have come down from that recently.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com

On Sat, 15 Jan 2011 13:28:03 -0600, Jim Yanik wrote:

" wrote in
:

On Fri, 14 Jan 2011 08:05:27 -0500, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:

I'm not attorney, but I think that's called "prior
restraint". In common language, it means that you need the
government's permission before you can bring your gun home. \

Wrong. It means I can't carry concealed until I get a permit.
Unloaded, in the trunk, is not "carrying".

I think that's a big shift from the founding fathers intent.
Where it was assumed that you don't need permission from the
government to live your life.

No, but unfortunately you do need their permission (which they must
grant, for a fee of $20) to carry concealed.


consider Florida,where open carry is prohibited,and you need a permit to
carry concealed. IMO,violating our Second Amendment right to bear arms.

Open carry is prohibited here, too.

And Florida's initial permit fee is $114.
renewal was $85,it may have come down from that recently.

On Jan 13, 7:30*pm, RicodJour wrote:
On Jan 13, 10:10*am, wrote:





On Jan 13, 9:27*am, RicodJour wrote:

On Jan 13, 8:31*am, wrote:

I have not heard mentioned is what the specific licensing reqts to buy a
handgun are in AZ. * I believe all they check is whether you have a criminal
record and that probably means you must have committed a felony to bar
you from being able to buy a handgun.

Here in NJ, you have to apply to the *LOCAL POLICE DEPT for a permit
for each handgun you want to buy. * Given that the police had already had
numerous encounters with the nutjob, that alone should have prevented
him from buying a gun, at least legally. * *The police have records of calls
made by addresss, name, etc that could have been easily checked.

I'm not familiar with the standard procedure, so maybe you can help me
understand the process of applying. *When someone applies for a gun do
they get interviewed face to face or can people just mail in a form
and a check and wait to see if they get the permit? *How much does
that vary from state to state?

R

The process varies widely from state to state, and can even vary from
city to city.
An example being the laws and process in NYC differ from those in
upstate NY.

Federally, gun dealers are required to do an instant background check
with the
FBI. * That check is supposed to show if the person has a felony
record, has
been convicted of a misdemeanor that involves violence, has been
committed
to a mental hospital, judged mental by a court, etc. * It's partially
effective. * The
biggest problem is that most states, because of various privacy laws
and systems,
don't feed the mental part of that into the FBI system.

I don't know the specifics of what AZ required, but from what has been
described
in the media, it appears the nutjob went into a sporting gun store and
bought the
gun there. *They were required to run the FBI check, and presumably
did. *From
what we know, there would have been nothing coming back to indicate
that the
nutjob was barred from buying the gun, ie no felonies, no domestic
violence
convictions, no committiment to a mental hospital, etc. *I don't
believe AZ requires
anything more, but I could be wrong.

Beyond that, the process varies enormously from state to state. *I
outlined the
basic process in NJ for a handgun. * You have to submit an application
to the
local police and get fingerprinted by them, so yes, a presence in
person is
required. * But there is no interview process involved.

That was my main question. *Basically it sounds like they have the
applicant show up to get fingerprinted, ask questions that don't
uncover much, have the applicant provide references (anyone ever
provide a bad reference?), and then make the applicant wait a long
time (presumably to give someone who needs a gun _now_ a chance to
cool off).

The interview is the most important thing.


In NJ there is no interview. You fill out an application and turn it
in with
the appropriate fee. The police fingerprint you, but there is no
interview.
The delay is just the processing time, not any mandated cooling off
period.
The police just don't put any priority on it and take their sweet
time. In
particular getting the fingerprint results back from the FBI seems to
be
the biggest delay. Maybe because they give priority to running
fingerprints
for criminal investigations.

As for the reference thing, I think you underestimate it's potential.
In the
AZ case, I think there is a reasonable chance the nutjob would have
given
someone as a reference that he thinks is his friend, but who may very
well have had some concerns to share with the police. I saw a
classmate
on TV saying he pretended to like the guy, just because he was worried
about him and thought he was capable of violence. But, had they had
the
system NJ has, the local police had more than enough evidence of their
own to deny him a permit.



*It's what the Israeli do
for airport security. *They don't rely on machines, they have highly
trained people interview everybody and ask a few questions and watch
the reactions.

Not a bad idea, but I doubt it's effectiveness. Lots of people that
are
whacko and have bad intentions can act reasonable for 10 mins with
the cops. I suspect regardless of what the Israeli's claim they do,
a
large part of their effectiveness is based on profiling that would not
be
tolerated here, at least by the current govt. I doubt they pay as
much
attention to a Jewish grandma as they do to a 22 year old Arab with
no luggage.


*Have you ever seen that show Lie To Me? *They're like
the guy played by Tim Roth (great actor, kinda sucks in that show),
and they read microexpressions to see if someone is lying and/or
having other emotions that are out of place. *Check out Facial Action
Coding, and Darwin's The Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals
for further reading on the matter. *Amazing stuff.

Thanks for the info.

R- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

On 1/14/2011 1:03 PM HeyBub spake thus:

David Nebenzahl wrote:

You apparently have misread or misunderstood that article (which
cannot even be assumed to be correct, being from Wikipedia, the
"encyclopedia" any pimple-faced junior-high-school kid can edit);
"your's" and "their's" are clearly *wrong* and therefore
greengrocer's apostrophes, no matter which side of the pond you're on.

Not to worry. There's the law of Conservation of Apostrophes which states
that "For every instance of an apostrophe's correct use, somewhere in the
world an apostrophe is being used wrongly."

Yes! Few people know about that.

And you must also know of the law of conservation of "R"s; for every
non-rhotic dropping of an "R" ("bothah", "empaah"), there's an equal and
opposite intrusive "R" ("lawr"). (Or to use a U.S. example, "Joisey" and
"terlet" balance perfectly.)


--
Comment on quaint Usenet customs, from Usenet:

To me, the *plonk...* reminds me of the old man at the public hearing
who stands to make his point, then removes his hearing aid as a sign
that he is not going to hear any rebuttals.

wrote:

You don't even need it to go that far. In the current debate, the
one thing
I have not heard mentioned is what the specific licensing reqts to buy
a
handgun are in AZ. I believe all they check is whether you have a
criminal
record and that probably means you must have committed a felony to bar
you from being able to buy a handgun.

Exactly. In my state, and probably Arizona, if you have a concealed handgun
license, they don't even check for criminal records. In Arizona, unlike,
say, California, a private sale is exactly that: private. Nobody from the
state is involved.


Here in NJ, you have to apply to the LOCAL POLICE DEPT for a permit
for each handgun you want to buy. Given that the police had already
had
numerous encounters with the nutjob, that alone should have prevented
him from buying a gun, at least legally. The police have records of
calls
made by addresss, name, etc that could have been easily checked.

How's that working out for you, considering Camden, N.J. has the highest
crime rate in the nation? What the state has done is to throw a road-block,
and a not insignificant expense, in front of the law-abiding members of the
community.


Part of the application also requires you to list your employer/
occupation
and to give two character references. Perhaps he could have found 2
people that would say he was A OK, but more likely he wouldn't even
realize that many of those he interracted with knew he was nuts and
would have selected someone who would have rattend him out. You
also get fingerprinted and they are run through the FBI. The
whole process takes 6 months to a year before you finally get the
permit.
I think it should be speeded up, but have no problem with the reqts.

Inasmuch as self-defense has been a right recognized as part of western
civilization since at least the Magna Carta in 1415, would you feel equally
comfortable with requiring a newspaper to wait even a month so the story
could be vetted by the government? Or an equal amount of time before a
preacher could read a sermon? Or the same requirement for a political rally
permit?


As everyone rushes to judgement, we have yet to learn exactly who
knew what and when. The biggest scum bag in this whole thing at
the momemnt is the local sheriff. He's running around shooting his
mouth off, invoking the name of Rush Limbaugh, etc, trying to blame
the whole thing on talk radio and political discussion when he should
be conducting a professional investigation. Could it be that's
because the investigation is going to show how many times the nut
came into contact with his officers and nothing was done? The most
definitive facts so far have pointed to exactly the opposite:


As it turns out, one person wounded in the melee, a dude named Fuller, has
been interviewed several times on TV. It is his assertion that Sarah Palin,
et al, and their vindicitive and violent rhetoric were the root causes for
the Tuscon tragedy. Last night, during a town hall meeting on the episode
sponsored by ABC, this Fuller character (in the audience) went about medium
berserk and had to be dragged out of the auditorium.

Within the hour he was involuntarily committed to a mental health facility.

Probably unbeknownst to him, being involuntarily committed for a mental
health evaluation forever forbids him from ever owning a gun.

In my view, though, the connection between mental health and gun ownership
paints with too broad a brush.

First, it's ineffective. We have a penchant in this country for medical
privacy - consider HIPA. This is carried past the extreme limit with regard
to mental health issues. Therefore, it will be impossible as a practical
matter to intersect gun ownership with the mental health databases.

Second, very few of the mental diseases or defects in the DSM are of the
type that would render a person a threat to themselves or others. I've never
heard of someone afflicted with agoraphobia, catatonia, anorexia, or
registering as a Democrat being a threat to others.

(Just kidding on that last)

zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
consider Florida,where open carry is prohibited,and you need a
permit to carry concealed. IMO,violating our Second Amendment right
to bear arms.

Open carry is prohibited here, too.


Likewise, open carry is prohibited in (of all places) Texas. We expect to
get that fixed in the upcoming session of our legislature, along with a few
other nonsensical anti-gun regulations like carrying on college campuses. We
can already carry concealed in the State Capitol and governor's offices.

What recently shocked me was discovering Texas did not have a State Gun! We
have a state mammal (the armadillo), a state bird (the Mocking Bird), a
state flower (the bluebonnet), a state anthem (Texas, Our Texas), state dog
(blue lacy), state cat (calico), state vegetable (sweet onion), state fruit
(Texas red grapefruit), state insect (Monarch butterfly), state epic poem
(The Legend of Old Stone Ranch), and state fool (tie: Bernice Johnson and
Shelia Jackson-Lee), but no State Gun.

I expect this grievous oversight, too, to be corrected shortly.

On Jan 16, 8:24*am, "HeyBub" wrote:
wrote:

consider Florida,where open carry is prohibited,and you need a
permit to carry concealed. IMO,violating our Second Amendment right
to bear arms.

Open carry is prohibited here, too.

Likewise, open carry is prohibited in (of all places) Texas. We expect to
get that fixed in the upcoming session of our legislature, along with a few
other nonsensical anti-gun regulations like carrying on college campuses. We
can already carry concealed in the State Capitol and governor's offices.

That surprised me about the concealed carry prohibition in TX, but why
would that matter? You guys already wear cowboy hats and boots, so
what's wrong with a holster? I'm being serious.

Are you ashamed of your gun and you feel you need to hide it? Is it a
little one and you don't like going into the gym with it because the
guys with the big guns will pick on you? Wear it with pride whatever
size it is - no one will think less of you and women really don't care
about the size (snicker).

You've got it backwards, BTW, and you shouldn't be against the
prohibition. Think about it. Gun guys love guns, the same way that
car guys love cars, why hide them? The more people wearing them, the
more people will realize how many guns are out and about. The gun
guys will all feel safer (not sure why, but they will), the anti-gun
guys will feel threatened (not sure why, but they will) and will
probably leave the state, and the people on the fence might see the
guns as Kindles or iPads and feel they have to keep up with the style.

That's my main issue with you. Some people look through rose-colored
glasses, yours are more poop-brown, but that isn't the real problem.
The problem is that your glasses are the wrong prescription and you
have a lazy eye or two.

R

On Jan 16, 8:13*am, "HeyBub" wrote:
wrote:

You don't even need it to go that far. * In the current debate, the
one thing
I have not heard mentioned is what the specific licensing reqts to buy
a
handgun are in AZ. * I believe all they check is whether you have a
criminal
record and that probably means you must have committed a felony to bar
you from being able to buy a handgun.

Exactly. In my state, and probably Arizona, if you have a concealed handgun
license, they don't even check for criminal records. In Arizona, unlike,
say, California, a private sale is exactly that: private. Nobody from the
state is involved.



Here in NJ, you have to apply to the *LOCAL POLICE DEPT for a permit
for each handgun you want to buy. * Given that the police had already
had
numerous encounters with the nutjob, that alone should have prevented
him from buying a gun, at least legally. * *The police have records of
calls
made by addresss, name, etc that could have been easily checked.

How's that working out for you, considering Camden, N.J. has the highest
crime rate in the nation? What the state has done is to throw a road-block,
and a not insignificant expense, in front of the law-abiding members of the
community.



I don't consider having to fill out a one page application form, get
fingerprinted,
and paying a small fee much of a road-block. If AZ had a law and
process
similar to NJ, there's a decent probability that the nutcase would not
have
been able to buy that gun legally. Yes, he could still probably buy
one illegally,
but for a guy like him, it would be more difficult. I can tell you
right now where
to go in NJ to buy one legally. Illegally, I don't know. Clearly
there are people
obtaining them illegally and it's not hard for some people, ie
criminals, drug
dealers, etc. But it would have presented one more obstacle for the
nutcase
and maybe he would have given up or shifted strategies, had it not
been so
easy. And just maybe he would have been caught, robbed, or killed
trying
to buy that illegal gun from some criminal.

As for Camden and similar US cities, you do realize that part of the
problem is
that reasonable gun laws here don't prevent criminals from buying guns
in other
states where they have very lax laws and anybody can walk in and buy 5
guns
with only the FED instant background check. So, you can't judge
what's going
on in NJ, without considering how guns are being obtained buy
purchases over
the counter in many other states.



Part of the application also requires you to list your employer/
occupation
and to give two character references. * Perhaps he could have found 2
people that would say he was A OK, but more likely he wouldn't even
realize that many of those he interracted with knew he was nuts and
would have selected someone who would have rattend him out. * You
also get fingerprinted and they are run through the FBI. The
whole process takes 6 months to a year before you finally get the
permit.
I think it should be speeded up, but have no problem with the reqts.

Inasmuch as self-defense has been a right recognized as part of western
civilization since at least the Magna Carta in 1415, would you feel equally
comfortable with requiring a newspaper to wait even a month so the story
could be vetted by the government? Or an equal amount of time before a
preacher could read a sermon? Or the same requirement for a political rally
permit?



The obvious differences here a

A - A gun is a deadly weapon, capable of causing a lot of carnage in a
few
seconds as has been demonstrated so many times. Newspapers, sermon
s and politcal meetings don't. Count up the number of people dead
from guns
each year and compare it to the other categories.

B - The Supreme Court has ruled that reasonable restricitions,
licensing reqts,
etc on guns are not in violation of the second ammendment.





As everyone rushes to judgement, we have yet to learn exactly who
knew what and when. * The biggest scum bag in this whole thing at
the momemnt is the local sheriff. *He's running around shooting his
mouth off, invoking the name of Rush Limbaugh, etc, trying to blame
the whole thing on talk radio and political discussion when he should
be conducting a professional investigation. * *Could it be that's
because the investigation is going to show how many times the nut
came into contact with his officers and nothing was done? *The most
definitive facts so far have pointed to exactly the opposite:

As it turns out, one person wounded in the melee, a dude named Fuller, has
been interviewed several times on TV. It is his assertion that Sarah Palin,
et al, and their vindicitive and violent rhetoric were the root causes for
the Tuscon tragedy. Last night, during a town hall meeting on the episode
sponsored by ABC, this Fuller character (in the audience) went about medium
berserk and had to be dragged out of the auditorium.

Within the hour he was involuntarily committed to a mental health facility.

Interesting. Just googled it. Another guy with a few screws loose.



Probably unbeknownst to him, being involuntarily committed for a mental
health evaluation forever forbids him from ever owning a gun.

According to which law? None that I'm aware of bars anyone from
owning a
gun for life for just being taken for a mental health evaluation.




In my view, though, the connection between mental health and gun ownership
paints with too broad a brush.

First, it's ineffective. We have a penchant in this country for medical
privacy - consider HIPA. This is carried past the extreme limit with regard
to mental health issues. Therefore, it will be impossible as a practical
matter to intersect gun ownership with the mental health databases.

Second, very few of the mental diseases or defects in the DSM are of the
type that would render a person a threat to themselves or others. I've never
heard of someone afflicted with agoraphobia, catatonia, anorexia, or
registering as a Democrat being a threat to others.

(Just kidding on that last)

You can drag in some of the most bizarre comparisons. No one that I
know of
is suggesting that someone with anorexia be denied a right to own a
gun.
On the other hand, if the person is psychotic and hears voices, I sure
don't
want him to be able to walk into any sporting goods store and buy a
gun. And
the privacy issues, eg HIPA are just laws that were passed. Other
laws can
just as easily be passed to remedy the problem and provide for
findings of
serious mental health problems to be placed in a database with access
for
background checks to buy a gun.

On Jan 16, 3:21*pm, wrote:
On Jan 16, 8:13*am, "HeyBub" wrote:





wrote:

You don't even need it to go that far. * In the current debate, the
one thing
I have not heard mentioned is what the specific licensing reqts to buy
a
handgun are in AZ. * I believe all they check is whether you have a
criminal
record and that probably means you must have committed a felony to bar
you from being able to buy a handgun.

Exactly. In my state, and probably Arizona, if you have a concealed handgun
license, they don't even check for criminal records. In Arizona, unlike,
say, California, a private sale is exactly that: private. Nobody from the
state is involved.

Here in NJ, you have to apply to the *LOCAL POLICE DEPT for a permit
for each handgun you want to buy. * Given that the police had already
had
numerous encounters with the nutjob, that alone should have prevented
him from buying a gun, at least legally. * *The police have records of
calls
made by addresss, name, etc that could have been easily checked.

How's that working out for you, considering Camden, N.J. has the highest
crime rate in the nation? What the state has done is to throw a road-block,
and a not insignificant expense, in front of the law-abiding members of the
community.

I don't consider having to fill out a one page application form, get
fingerprinted,
and paying a small fee much of a road-block. * If AZ had a law and
process
similar to NJ, there's a decent probability that the nutcase would not
have
been able to buy that gun legally. * Yes, he could still probably buy
one illegally,
but for a guy like him, it would be more difficult. * I can tell you
right now where
to go in NJ to buy one legally. *Illegally, I don't know. *Clearly
there are people
obtaining them illegally and it's not hard for some people, ie
criminals, drug
dealers, etc. * But it would have presented one more obstacle for the
nutcase
and maybe he would have given up or shifted strategies, had it not
been so
easy. * And just maybe he would have been caught, robbed, or killed
trying
to buy that illegal gun from some criminal.

As for Camden and similar US cities, you do realize that part of the
problem is
that reasonable gun laws here don't prevent criminals from buying guns
in other
states where they have very lax laws and anybody can walk in and buy 5
guns
with only the FED instant background check. *So, you can't judge
what's going
on in NJ, without considering how guns are being obtained buy
purchases over
the counter in many other states.







Part of the application also requires you to list your employer/
occupation
and to give two character references. * Perhaps he could have found 2
people that would say he was A OK, but more likely he wouldn't even
realize that many of those he interracted with knew he was nuts and
would have selected someone who would have rattend him out. * You
also get fingerprinted and they are run through the FBI. The
whole process takes 6 months to a year before you finally get the
permit.
I think it should be speeded up, but have no problem with the reqts.

Inasmuch as self-defense has been a right recognized as part of western
civilization since at least the Magna Carta in 1415, would you feel equally
comfortable with requiring a newspaper to wait even a month so the story
could be vetted by the government? Or an equal amount of time before a
preacher could read a sermon? Or the same requirement for a political rally
permit?

The obvious differences here a

A - A gun is a deadly weapon, capable of causing a lot of carnage in a
few
seconds as has been demonstrated so many times. * Newspapers, sermon
s and politcal meetings don't. *Count up the number of people dead
from guns
each year and compare it to the other categories.

B - The Supreme Court has ruled that reasonable restricitions,
licensing reqts,
etc on guns are not in violation of the second ammendment.







As everyone rushes to judgement, we have yet to learn exactly who
knew what and when. * The biggest scum bag in this whole thing at
the momemnt is the local sheriff. *He's running around shooting his
mouth off, invoking the name of Rush Limbaugh, etc, trying to blame
the whole thing on talk radio and political discussion when he should
be conducting a professional investigation. * *Could it be that's
because the investigation is going to show how many times the nut
came into contact with his officers and nothing was done? *The most
definitive facts so far have pointed to exactly the opposite:

As it turns out, one person wounded in the melee, a dude named Fuller, has
been interviewed several times on TV. It is his assertion that Sarah Palin,
et al, and their vindicitive and violent rhetoric were the root causes for
the Tuscon tragedy. Last night, during a town hall meeting on the episode
sponsored by ABC, this Fuller character (in the audience) went about medium
berserk and had to be dragged out of the auditorium.

Within the hour he was involuntarily committed to a mental health facility.

Interesting. *Just googled it. *Another guy with a few screws loose.



Probably unbeknownst to him, being involuntarily committed for a mental
health evaluation forever forbids him from ever owning a gun.

According to which law? * None that I'm aware of bars anyone from
owning a
gun for life for just being taken for a mental health evaluation.



In my view, though, the connection between mental health and gun ownership
paints with too broad a brush.

First, it's ineffective. We have a penchant in this country for medical
privacy - consider HIPA. This is carried past the extreme limit with regard
to mental health issues. Therefore, it will be impossible as a practical
matter to intersect gun ownership with the mental health databases.

Second, very few of the mental diseases or defects in the DSM are of the
type that would render a person a threat to themselves or others. I've never
heard of someone afflicted with agoraphobia, catatonia, anorexia, or
registering as a Democrat being a threat to others.

(Just kidding on that last)

You can drag in some of the most bizarre comparisons. *No one that I
know of
*is suggesting that someone with anorexia be denied a right to own a
gun.
On the other hand, if the person is psychotic and hears voices, I sure
don't
want him to be able to walk into any sporting goods store and buy a
gun. *And
the privacy issues, eg HIPA are just laws that were passed. *Other
laws can
just as easily be passed to remedy the problem and provide for
findings of
serious mental health problems to be placed in a database with access
for
background checks to buy a gun.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Your nutty Florida preacher (koran burner) had a gun. How do you
account for that? No religious nut should have a gun?

On Jan 16, 8:13*am, "HeyBub" wrote:

Inasmuch as self-defense has been a right recognized as part of western
civilization since at least the Magna Carta in 1415, would you feel equally
comfortable with requiring a newspaper to wait even a month so the story
could be vetted by the government? Or an equal amount of time before a
preacher could read a sermon? Or the same requirement for a political rally
permit?

Compare the process of getting a driver's license to getting a gun
license, Gluteus.

R

On Sun, 16 Jan 2011 07:24:21 -0600, "HeyBub" wrote:

wrote:
consider Florida,where open carry is prohibited,and you need a
permit to carry concealed. IMO,violating our Second Amendment right
to bear arms.

Open carry is prohibited here, too.


Likewise, open carry is prohibited in (of all places) Texas. We expect to
get that fixed in the upcoming session of our legislature, along with a few
other nonsensical anti-gun regulations like carrying on college campuses. We
can already carry concealed in the State Capitol and governor's offices.

What recently shocked me was discovering Texas did not have a State Gun! We
have a state mammal (the armadillo), a state bird (the Mocking Bird), a
state flower (the bluebonnet), a state anthem (Texas, Our Texas), state dog
(blue lacy), state cat (calico), state vegetable (sweet onion), state fruit
(Texas red grapefruit), state insect (Monarch butterfly), state epic poem
(The Legend of Old Stone Ranch), and state fool (tie: Bernice Johnson and
Shelia Jackson-Lee), but no State Gun.

I would have thought it would be the Colt .45 (official malt liquor, perhaps,
too).

I expect this grievous oversight, too, to be corrected shortly.

On 1/16/2011 9:27 AM, harry wrote:
On Jan 16, 3:21 pm, wrote:
On Jan 16, 8:13 am, wrote:





wrote:

You don't even need it to go that far. In the current debate, the
one thing
I have not heard mentioned is what the specific licensing reqts to buy
a
handgun are in AZ. I believe all they check is whether you have a
criminal
record and that probably means you must have committed a felony to bar
you from being able to buy a handgun.

Exactly. In my state, and probably Arizona, if you have a concealed handgun
license, they don't even check for criminal records. In Arizona, unlike,
say, California, a private sale is exactly that: private. Nobody from the
state is involved.

Here in NJ, you have to apply to the LOCAL POLICE DEPT for a permit
for each handgun you want to buy. Given that the police had already
had
numerous encounters with the nutjob, that alone should have prevented
him from buying a gun, at least legally. The police have records of
calls
made by addresss, name, etc that could have been easily checked.

How's that working out for you, considering Camden, N.J. has the highest
crime rate in the nation? What the state has done is to throw a road-block,
and a not insignificant expense, in front of the law-abiding members of the
community.

I don't consider having to fill out a one page application form, get
fingerprinted,
and paying a small fee much of a road-block. If AZ had a law and
process
similar to NJ, there's a decent probability that the nutcase would not
have
been able to buy that gun legally. Yes, he could still probably buy
one illegally,
but for a guy like him, it would be more difficult. I can tell you
right now where
to go in NJ to buy one legally. Illegally, I don't know. Clearly
there are people
obtaining them illegally and it's not hard for some people, ie
criminals, drug
dealers, etc. But it would have presented one more obstacle for the
nutcase
and maybe he would have given up or shifted strategies, had it not
been so
easy. And just maybe he would have been caught, robbed, or killed
trying
to buy that illegal gun from some criminal.

As for Camden and similar US cities, you do realize that part of the
problem is
that reasonable gun laws here don't prevent criminals from buying guns
in other
states where they have very lax laws and anybody can walk in and buy 5
guns
with only the FED instant background check. So, you can't judge
what's going
on in NJ, without considering how guns are being obtained buy
purchases over
the counter in many other states.







Part of the application also requires you to list your employer/
occupation
and to give two character references. Perhaps he could have found 2
people that would say he was A OK, but more likely he wouldn't even
realize that many of those he interracted with knew he was nuts and
would have selected someone who would have rattend him out. You
also get fingerprinted and they are run through the FBI. The
whole process takes 6 months to a year before you finally get the
permit.
I think it should be speeded up, but have no problem with the reqts.

Inasmuch as self-defense has been a right recognized as part of western
civilization since at least the Magna Carta in 1415, would you feel equally
comfortable with requiring a newspaper to wait even a month so the story
could be vetted by the government? Or an equal amount of time before a
preacher could read a sermon? Or the same requirement for a political rally
permit?

The obvious differences here a

A - A gun is a deadly weapon, capable of causing a lot of carnage in a
few
seconds as has been demonstrated so many times. Newspapers, sermon
s and politcal meetings don't. Count up the number of people dead
from guns
each year and compare it to the other categories.

B - The Supreme Court has ruled that reasonable restricitions,
licensing reqts,
etc on guns are not in violation of the second ammendment.







As everyone rushes to judgement, we have yet to learn exactly who
knew what and when. The biggest scum bag in this whole thing at
the momemnt is the local sheriff. He's running around shooting his
mouth off, invoking the name of Rush Limbaugh, etc, trying to blame
the whole thing on talk radio and political discussion when he should
be conducting a professional investigation. Could it be that's
because the investigation is going to show how many times the nut
came into contact with his officers and nothing was done? The most
definitive facts so far have pointed to exactly the opposite:

As it turns out, one person wounded in the melee, a dude named Fuller, has
been interviewed several times on TV. It is his assertion that Sarah Palin,
et al, and their vindicitive and violent rhetoric were the root causes for
the Tuscon tragedy. Last night, during a town hall meeting on the episode
sponsored by ABC, this Fuller character (in the audience) went about medium
berserk and had to be dragged out of the auditorium.

Within the hour he was involuntarily committed to a mental health facility.

Interesting. Just googled it. Another guy with a few screws loose.



Probably unbeknownst to him, being involuntarily committed for a mental
health evaluation forever forbids him from ever owning a gun.

According to which law? None that I'm aware of bars anyone from
owning a
gun for life for just being taken for a mental health evaluation.



In my view, though, the connection between mental health and gun ownership
paints with too broad a brush.

First, it's ineffective. We have a penchant in this country for medical
privacy - consider HIPA. This is carried past the extreme limit with regard
to mental health issues. Therefore, it will be impossible as a practical
matter to intersect gun ownership with the mental health databases.

Second, very few of the mental diseases or defects in the DSM are of the
type that would render a person a threat to themselves or others. I've never
heard of someone afflicted with agoraphobia, catatonia, anorexia, or
registering as a Democrat being a threat to others.

(Just kidding on that last)

You can drag in some of the most bizarre comparisons. No one that I
know of
is suggesting that someone with anorexia be denied a right to own a
gun.
On the other hand, if the person is psychotic and hears voices, I sure
don't
want him to be able to walk into any sporting goods store and buy a
gun. And
the privacy issues, eg HIPA are just laws that were passed. Other
laws can
just as easily be passed to remedy the problem and provide for
findings of
serious mental health problems to be placed in a database with access
for
background checks to buy a gun.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Your nutty Florida preacher (koran burner) had a gun. How do you
account for that? No religious nut should have a gun?

Religious nuts should always be protected by a properly fitted cup.

TDD

On 1/16/2011 9:27 AM, harry wrote:
On Jan 16, 3:21 pm, wrote:
On Jan 16, 8:13 am, wrote:





wrote:

You don't even need it to go that far. In the current debate, the
one thing
I have not heard mentioned is what the specific licensing reqts to buy
a
handgun are in AZ. I believe all they check is whether you have a
criminal
record and that probably means you must have committed a felony to bar
you from being able to buy a handgun.

Exactly. In my state, and probably Arizona, if you have a concealed handgun
license, they don't even check for criminal records. In Arizona, unlike,
say, California, a private sale is exactly that: private. Nobody from the
state is involved.

Here in NJ, you have to apply to the LOCAL POLICE DEPT for a permit
for each handgun you want to buy. Given that the police had already
had
numerous encounters with the nutjob, that alone should have prevented
him from buying a gun, at least legally. The police have records of
calls
made by addresss, name, etc that could have been easily checked.

How's that working out for you, considering Camden, N.J. has the highest
crime rate in the nation? What the state has done is to throw a road-block,
and a not insignificant expense, in front of the law-abiding members of the
community.

I don't consider having to fill out a one page application form, get
fingerprinted,
and paying a small fee much of a road-block. If AZ had a law and
process
similar to NJ, there's a decent probability that the nutcase would not
have
been able to buy that gun legally. Yes, he could still probably buy
one illegally,
but for a guy like him, it would be more difficult. I can tell you
right now where
to go in NJ to buy one legally. Illegally, I don't know. Clearly
there are people
obtaining them illegally and it's not hard for some people, ie
criminals, drug
dealers, etc. But it would have presented one more obstacle for the
nutcase
and maybe he would have given up or shifted strategies, had it not
been so
easy. And just maybe he would have been caught, robbed, or killed
trying
to buy that illegal gun from some criminal.

As for Camden and similar US cities, you do realize that part of the
problem is
that reasonable gun laws here don't prevent criminals from buying guns
in other
states where they have very lax laws and anybody can walk in and buy 5
guns
with only the FED instant background check. So, you can't judge
what's going
on in NJ, without considering how guns are being obtained buy
purchases over
the counter in many other states.







Part of the application also requires you to list your employer/
occupation
and to give two character references. Perhaps he could have found 2
people that would say he was A OK, but more likely he wouldn't even
realize that many of those he interracted with knew he was nuts and
would have selected someone who would have rattend him out. You
also get fingerprinted and they are run through the FBI. The
whole process takes 6 months to a year before you finally get the
permit.
I think it should be speeded up, but have no problem with the reqts.

Inasmuch as self-defense has been a right recognized as part of western
civilization since at least the Magna Carta in 1415, would you feel equally
comfortable with requiring a newspaper to wait even a month so the story
could be vetted by the government? Or an equal amount of time before a
preacher could read a sermon? Or the same requirement for a political rally
permit?

The obvious differences here a

A - A gun is a deadly weapon, capable of causing a lot of carnage in a
few
seconds as has been demonstrated so many times. Newspapers, sermon
s and politcal meetings don't. Count up the number of people dead
from guns
each year and compare it to the other categories.

B - The Supreme Court has ruled that reasonable restricitions,
licensing reqts,
etc on guns are not in violation of the second ammendment.







As everyone rushes to judgement, we have yet to learn exactly who
knew what and when. The biggest scum bag in this whole thing at
the momemnt is the local sheriff. He's running around shooting his
mouth off, invoking the name of Rush Limbaugh, etc, trying to blame
the whole thing on talk radio and political discussion when he should
be conducting a professional investigation. Could it be that's
because the investigation is going to show how many times the nut
came into contact with his officers and nothing was done? The most
definitive facts so far have pointed to exactly the opposite:

As it turns out, one person wounded in the melee, a dude named Fuller, has
been interviewed several times on TV. It is his assertion that Sarah Palin,
et al, and their vindicitive and violent rhetoric were the root causes for
the Tuscon tragedy. Last night, during a town hall meeting on the episode
sponsored by ABC, this Fuller character (in the audience) went about medium
berserk and had to be dragged out of the auditorium.

Within the hour he was involuntarily committed to a mental health facility.

Interesting. Just googled it. Another guy with a few screws loose.



Probably unbeknownst to him, being involuntarily committed for a mental
health evaluation forever forbids him from ever owning a gun.

According to which law? None that I'm aware of bars anyone from
owning a
gun for life for just being taken for a mental health evaluation.



In my view, though, the connection between mental health and gun ownership
paints with too broad a brush.

First, it's ineffective. We have a penchant in this country for medical
privacy - consider HIPA. This is carried past the extreme limit with regard
to mental health issues. Therefore, it will be impossible as a practical
matter to intersect gun ownership with the mental health databases.

Second, very few of the mental diseases or defects in the DSM are of the
type that would render a person a threat to themselves or others. I've never
heard of someone afflicted with agoraphobia, catatonia, anorexia, or
registering as a Democrat being a threat to others.

(Just kidding on that last)

You can drag in some of the most bizarre comparisons. No one that I
know of
is suggesting that someone with anorexia be denied a right to own a
gun.
On the other hand, if the person is psychotic and hears voices, I sure
don't
want him to be able to walk into any sporting goods store and buy a
gun. And
the privacy issues, eg HIPA are just laws that were passed. Other
laws can
just as easily be passed to remedy the problem and provide for
findings of
serious mental health problems to be placed in a database with access
for
background checks to buy a gun.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Your nutty Florida preacher (koran burner) had a gun. How do you
account for that? No religious nut should have a gun?

Are you saying that Muslim clerics should not have guns? :-)

TDD

On Jan 16, 5:01*pm, The Daring Dufas
wrote:
On 1/16/2011 9:27 AM, harry wrote:





On Jan 16, 3:21 pm, wrote:
On Jan 16, 8:13 am, *wrote:

wrote:

You don't even need it to go that far. * In the current debate, the
one thing
I have not heard mentioned is what the specific licensing reqts to buy
a
handgun are in AZ. * I believe all they check is whether you have a
criminal
record and that probably means you must have committed a felony to bar
you from being able to buy a handgun.

Exactly. In my state, and probably Arizona, if you have a concealed handgun
license, they don't even check for criminal records. In Arizona, unlike,
say, California, a private sale is exactly that: private. Nobody from the
state is involved.

Here in NJ, you have to apply to the *LOCAL POLICE DEPT for a permit
for each handgun you want to buy. * Given that the police had already
had
numerous encounters with the nutjob, that alone should have prevented
him from buying a gun, at least legally. * *The police have records of
calls
made by addresss, name, etc that could have been easily checked.

How's that working out for you, considering Camden, N.J. has the highest
crime rate in the nation? What the state has done is to throw a road-block,
and a not insignificant expense, in front of the law-abiding members of the
community.

I don't consider having to fill out a one page application form, get
fingerprinted,
and paying a small fee much of a road-block. * If AZ had a law and
process
similar to NJ, there's a decent probability that the nutcase would not
have
been able to buy that gun legally. * Yes, he could still probably buy
one illegally,
but for a guy like him, it would be more difficult. * I can tell you
right now where
to go in NJ to buy one legally. *Illegally, I don't know. *Clearly
there are people
obtaining them illegally and it's not hard for some people, ie
criminals, drug
dealers, etc. * But it would have presented one more obstacle for the
nutcase
and maybe he would have given up or shifted strategies, had it not
been so
easy. * And just maybe he would have been caught, robbed, or killed
trying
to buy that illegal gun from some criminal.

As for Camden and similar US cities, you do realize that part of the
problem is
that reasonable gun laws here don't prevent criminals from buying guns
in other
states where they have very lax laws and anybody can walk in and buy 5
guns
with only the FED instant background check. *So, you can't judge
what's going
on in NJ, without considering how guns are being obtained buy
purchases over
the counter in many other states.

Part of the application also requires you to list your employer/
occupation
and to give two character references. * Perhaps he could have found 2
people that would say he was A OK, but more likely he wouldn't even
realize that many of those he interracted with knew he was nuts and
would have selected someone who would have rattend him out. * You
also get fingerprinted and they are run through the FBI. The
whole process takes 6 months to a year before you finally get the
permit.
I think it should be speeded up, but have no problem with the reqts.

Inasmuch as self-defense has been a right recognized as part of western
civilization since at least the Magna Carta in 1415, would you feel equally
comfortable with requiring a newspaper to wait even a month so the story
could be vetted by the government? Or an equal amount of time before a
preacher could read a sermon? Or the same requirement for a political rally
permit?

The obvious differences here a

A - A gun is a deadly weapon, capable of causing a lot of carnage in a
few
seconds as has been demonstrated so many times. * Newspapers, sermon
s and politcal meetings don't. *Count up the number of people dead
from guns
each year and compare it to the other categories.

B - The Supreme Court has ruled that reasonable restricitions,
licensing reqts,
etc on guns are not in violation of the second ammendment.

As everyone rushes to judgement, we have yet to learn exactly who
knew what and when. * The biggest scum bag in this whole thing at
the momemnt is the local sheriff. *He's running around shooting his
mouth off, invoking the name of Rush Limbaugh, etc, trying to blame
the whole thing on talk radio and political discussion when he should
be conducting a professional investigation. * *Could it be that's
because the investigation is going to show how many times the nut
came into contact with his officers and nothing was done? *The most
definitive facts so far have pointed to exactly the opposite:

As it turns out, one person wounded in the melee, a dude named Fuller, has
been interviewed several times on TV. It is his assertion that Sarah Palin,
et al, and their vindicitive and violent rhetoric were the root causes for
the Tuscon tragedy. Last night, during a town hall meeting on the episode
sponsored by ABC, this Fuller character (in the audience) went about medium
berserk and had to be dragged out of the auditorium.

Within the hour he was involuntarily committed to a mental health facility.

Interesting. *Just googled it. *Another guy with a few screws loose.

Probably unbeknownst to him, being involuntarily committed for a mental
health evaluation forever forbids him from ever owning a gun.

According to which law? * None that I'm aware of bars anyone from
owning a
gun for life for just being taken for a mental health evaluation.

In my view, though, the connection between mental health and gun ownership
paints with too broad a brush.

First, it's ineffective. We have a penchant in this country for medical
privacy - consider HIPA. This is carried past the extreme limit with regard
to mental health issues. Therefore, it will be impossible as a practical
matter to intersect gun ownership with the mental health databases.

Second, very few of the mental diseases or defects in the DSM are of the
type that would render a person a threat to themselves or others. I've never
heard of someone afflicted with agoraphobia, catatonia, anorexia, or
registering as a Democrat being a threat to others.

(Just kidding on that last)

You can drag in some of the most bizarre comparisons. *No one that I
know of
* is suggesting that someone with anorexia be denied a right to own a
gun.
On the other hand, if the person is psychotic and hears voices, I sure
don't
want him to be able to walk into any sporting goods store and buy a
gun. *And
the privacy issues, eg HIPA are just laws that were passed. *Other
laws can
just as easily be passed to remedy the problem and provide for
findings of
serious mental health problems to be placed in a database with access
for
background checks to buy a gun.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Your nutty Florida preacher (koran burner) had a gun. How do you
account for that? No religious nut should have a gun?

Are you saying that Muslim clerics should not have guns? :-)

TDD- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Nobody should have guns.

On 1/17/2011 2:01 AM, harry wrote:
On Jan 16, 5:01 pm, The Daring
wrote:
On 1/16/2011 9:27 AM, harry wrote:





On Jan 16, 3:21 pm, wrote:
On Jan 16, 8:13 am, wrote:

wrote:

You don't even need it to go that far. In the current debate, the
one thing
I have not heard mentioned is what the specific licensing reqts to buy
a
handgun are in AZ. I believe all they check is whether you have a
criminal
record and that probably means you must have committed a felony to bar
you from being able to buy a handgun.

Exactly. In my state, and probably Arizona, if you have a concealed handgun
license, they don't even check for criminal records. In Arizona, unlike,
say, California, a private sale is exactly that: private. Nobody from the
state is involved.

Here in NJ, you have to apply to the LOCAL POLICE DEPT for a permit
for each handgun you want to buy. Given that the police had already
had
numerous encounters with the nutjob, that alone should have prevented
him from buying a gun, at least legally. The police have records of
calls
made by addresss, name, etc that could have been easily checked.

How's that working out for you, considering Camden, N.J. has the highest
crime rate in the nation? What the state has done is to throw a road-block,
and a not insignificant expense, in front of the law-abiding members of the
community.

I don't consider having to fill out a one page application form, get
fingerprinted,
and paying a small fee much of a road-block. If AZ had a law and
process
similar to NJ, there's a decent probability that the nutcase would not
have
been able to buy that gun legally. Yes, he could still probably buy
one illegally,
but for a guy like him, it would be more difficult. I can tell you
right now where
to go in NJ to buy one legally. Illegally, I don't know. Clearly
there are people
obtaining them illegally and it's not hard for some people, ie
criminals, drug
dealers, etc. But it would have presented one more obstacle for the
nutcase
and maybe he would have given up or shifted strategies, had it not
been so
easy. And just maybe he would have been caught, robbed, or killed
trying
to buy that illegal gun from some criminal.

As for Camden and similar US cities, you do realize that part of the
problem is
that reasonable gun laws here don't prevent criminals from buying guns
in other
states where they have very lax laws and anybody can walk in and buy 5
guns
with only the FED instant background check. So, you can't judge
what's going
on in NJ, without considering how guns are being obtained buy
purchases over
the counter in many other states.

Part of the application also requires you to list your employer/
occupation
and to give two character references. Perhaps he could have found 2
people that would say he was A OK, but more likely he wouldn't even
realize that many of those he interracted with knew he was nuts and
would have selected someone who would have rattend him out. You
also get fingerprinted and they are run through the FBI. The
whole process takes 6 months to a year before you finally get the
permit.
I think it should be speeded up, but have no problem with the reqts.

Inasmuch as self-defense has been a right recognized as part of western
civilization since at least the Magna Carta in 1415, would you feel equally
comfortable with requiring a newspaper to wait even a month so the story
could be vetted by the government? Or an equal amount of time before a
preacher could read a sermon? Or the same requirement for a political rally
permit?

The obvious differences here a

A - A gun is a deadly weapon, capable of causing a lot of carnage in a
few
seconds as has been demonstrated so many times. Newspapers, sermon
s and politcal meetings don't. Count up the number of people dead
from guns
each year and compare it to the other categories.

B - The Supreme Court has ruled that reasonable restricitions,
licensing reqts,
etc on guns are not in violation of the second ammendment.

As everyone rushes to judgement, we have yet to learn exactly who
knew what and when. The biggest scum bag in this whole thing at
the momemnt is the local sheriff. He's running around shooting his
mouth off, invoking the name of Rush Limbaugh, etc, trying to blame
the whole thing on talk radio and political discussion when he should
be conducting a professional investigation. Could it be that's
because the investigation is going to show how many times the nut
came into contact with his officers and nothing was done? The most
definitive facts so far have pointed to exactly the opposite:

As it turns out, one person wounded in the melee, a dude named Fuller, has
been interviewed several times on TV. It is his assertion that Sarah Palin,
et al, and their vindicitive and violent rhetoric were the root causes for
the Tuscon tragedy. Last night, during a town hall meeting on the episode
sponsored by ABC, this Fuller character (in the audience) went about medium
berserk and had to be dragged out of the auditorium.

Within the hour he was involuntarily committed to a mental health facility.

Interesting. Just googled it. Another guy with a few screws loose.

Probably unbeknownst to him, being involuntarily committed for a mental
health evaluation forever forbids him from ever owning a gun.

According to which law? None that I'm aware of bars anyone from
owning a
gun for life for just being taken for a mental health evaluation.

In my view, though, the connection between mental health and gun ownership
paints with too broad a brush.

First, it's ineffective. We have a penchant in this country for medical
privacy - consider HIPA. This is carried past the extreme limit with regard
to mental health issues. Therefore, it will be impossible as a practical
matter to intersect gun ownership with the mental health databases.

Second, very few of the mental diseases or defects in the DSM are of the
type that would render a person a threat to themselves or others. I've never
heard of someone afflicted with agoraphobia, catatonia, anorexia, or
registering as a Democrat being a threat to others.

(Just kidding on that last)

You can drag in some of the most bizarre comparisons. No one that I
know of
is suggesting that someone with anorexia be denied a right to own a
gun.
On the other hand, if the person is psychotic and hears voices, I sure
don't
want him to be able to walk into any sporting goods store and buy a
gun. And
the privacy issues, eg HIPA are just laws that were passed. Other
laws can
just as easily be passed to remedy the problem and provide for
findings of
serious mental health problems to be placed in a database with access
for
background checks to buy a gun.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Your nutty Florida preacher (koran burner) had a gun. How do you
account for that? No religious nut should have a gun?

Are you saying that Muslim clerics should not have guns? :-)

TDD- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Nobody should have guns.

I suppose the military, police and security personnel should revert to
swords and daggers. You know, I just had a thought, I remember hearing
or reading that the Roman short sword has killed more people than any
modern weapon. :-)

TDD

RicodJour wrote:
Likewise, open carry is prohibited in (of all places) Texas. We
expect to get that fixed in the upcoming session of our legislature,
along with a few other nonsensical anti-gun regulations like
carrying on college campuses. We can already carry concealed in the
State Capitol and governor's offices.

That surprised me about the concealed carry prohibition in TX, but why
would that matter? You guys already wear cowboy hats and boots, so
what's wrong with a holster? I'm being serious.

My thoughts exactly! Until 1995, Texas had one of the most restrictive
gun-carry laws in the nation (you couldn't - period). Our legislature
tried - twice - to correct that silliness but then-governor Ann Richards
vetoed both attempts.

Then George Bush was elected governor and he promptly signed "shall-issue"
legislation.


Are you ashamed of your gun and you feel you need to hide it? Is it a
little one and you don't like going into the gym with it because the
guys with the big guns will pick on you? Wear it with pride whatever
size it is - no one will think less of you and women really don't care
about the size (snicker).

We "hide" our guns because it's against the law to "expose" them. That's
what we want to get fixed. I suppose the original prohibition against a
visible gun was to mollify those with a sensitive nature who might twitch to
death over the sight of a mere tool.



You've got it backwards, BTW, and you shouldn't be against the
prohibition. Think about it. Gun guys love guns, the same way that
car guys love cars, why hide them? The more people wearing them, the
more people will realize how many guns are out and about. The gun
guys will all feel safer (not sure why, but they will), the anti-gun
guys will feel threatened (not sure why, but they will) and will
probably leave the state, and the people on the fence might see the
guns as Kindles or iPads and feel they have to keep up with the style.


We may be talking past each other. In sum, I am in favor of "open carry" -
the carrying of a visible weapon.

I probably would not do so myself. For one thing, I don't own a secure
holster (the kind that requires a combination be entered before the weapon
can be removed), but I don't want to get prosecuted - as is now possible -
if my "concealed" weapon becomes accidentally "un-concealed."

That's my main issue with you. Some people look through rose-colored
glasses, yours are more poop-brown, but that isn't the real problem.
The problem is that your glasses are the wrong prescription and you
have a lazy eye or two.

Doesn't matter. There is no requirement that you be able to see to get a
concealed handgun license (CHL).

There are contests at my local range where in the contestants shoot the CHL
course blindfolded. Virtually all the participants score high enough in the
contest to qualify for a license.

wrote:
On Jan 16, 8:13 am, "HeyBub" wrote:
wrote:

You don't even need it to go that far. In the current debate, the
one thing
I have not heard mentioned is what the specific licensing reqts to
buy a
handgun are in AZ. I believe all they check is whether you have a
criminal
record and that probably means you must have committed a felony to
bar you from being able to buy a handgun.

Exactly. In my state, and probably Arizona, if you have a concealed
handgun license, they don't even check for criminal records. In
Arizona, unlike, say, California, a private sale is exactly that:
private. Nobody from the state is involved.



Here in NJ, you have to apply to the LOCAL POLICE DEPT for a permit
for each handgun you want to buy. Given that the police had already
had
numerous encounters with the nutjob, that alone should have
prevented him from buying a gun, at least legally. The police have
records of calls
made by addresss, name, etc that could have been easily checked.

How's that working out for you, considering Camden, N.J. has the
highest crime rate in the nation? What the state has done is to
throw a road-block, and a not insignificant expense, in front of the
law-abiding members of the community.



I don't consider having to fill out a one page application form, get
fingerprinted,
and paying a small fee much of a road-block.

First, you must obtain a Firearm Purchaser's Card. Then you must get a
Firearm's Identification Card to purchase a particular weapon. This
application is extensive, requiring a fingerprint check, attestation by two
citizens, an in-depth questionnaire, and payment of a fee. This card expires
if not used. While it is true that state law requires this card to be issued
within 30 days, this requirement is universally ignored.

Typical waiting times are in the six-month range.

And a concealed handgun license can't be had for love or money.


As for Camden and similar US cities, you do realize that part of the
problem is
that reasonable gun laws here don't prevent criminals from buying guns
in other
states where they have very lax laws and anybody can walk in and buy 5
guns
with only the FED instant background check. So, you can't judge
what's going
on in NJ, without considering how guns are being obtained buy
purchases over
the counter in many other states.

A. Criminals CANNOT legally buy guns in other states. Federal law prohibits
the sale of firearms to anyone other than their state of residence.

GUNS are not the problem - CRIMINALS are the problem.


Inasmuch as self-defense has been a right recognized as part of
western civilization since at least the Magna Carta in 1415, would
you feel equally comfortable with requiring a newspaper to wait even
a month so the story could be vetted by the government? Or an equal
amount of time before a preacher could read a sermon? Or the same
requirement for a political rally permit?



The obvious differences here a

A - A gun is a deadly weapon, capable of causing a lot of carnage in a
few
seconds as has been demonstrated so many times. Newspapers, sermon
s and politcal meetings don't. Count up the number of people dead
from guns
each year and compare it to the other categories.

B - The Supreme Court has ruled that reasonable restricitions,
licensing reqts,
etc on guns are not in violation of the second ammendment.

I suggest that more deaths have been attributed to inflammatory sermons,
riots that started out as "political rallies," or pamphleteers than you may
imagine. If you harken to the notion that "one death is too many," then
these activities must, perforce, be curtailed.



Probably unbeknownst to him, being involuntarily committed for a
mental health evaluation forever forbids him from ever owning a gun.

According to which law? None that I'm aware of bars anyone from
owning a
gun for life for just being taken for a mental health evaluation.

18 USC 922(g)(4)

"It shall be unlawful for any person -

"(4) who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or who has been
committed to a mental institution;
....
"to ship or transport in interstate or foreign commerce, or possess in or
affecting commerce, any firearm or ammunition; or to receive any firearm or
ammunition which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign
commerce."





You can drag in some of the most bizarre comparisons. No one that I
know of
is suggesting that someone with anorexia be denied a right to own a
gun.

Check that federal law above. It says anyone "committed to a mental health
facility." That is EXISTING law. People don't have to agitate for a new
statute to lock up those afflicted with narcolepsy - that law is already on
the books!

If you don't think people have been committed by (no-doubt well-meaning)
relatives or friends for agoraphobia, OCD, depression, sleep & eating
disorders, hypochondria, or any of the hundreds of illnesses in the
psychiatric section of the DSM, you're nuts.

The only reason, the ONLY reason, these harmless people are still able to
buy a gun is because of patient privacy.

RicodJour wrote:
On Jan 16, 8:13 am, "HeyBub" wrote:

Inasmuch as self-defense has been a right recognized as part of
western civilization since at least the Magna Carta in 1415, would
you feel equally comfortable with requiring a newspaper to wait even
a month so the story could be vetted by the government? Or an equal
amount of time before a preacher could read a sermon? Or the same
requirement for a political rally permit?

Compare the process of getting a driver's license to getting a gun
license, Gluteus.



I have. And your point is well-taken.

You don't need ANY kind of license to buy a car, own a car, clean a car,
fill it with gas, buy more than one a month, put a bigger engine in it, or
even drive it around on your own property.

Even LITTLE CHILDREN can own a car!

There are, of course, restrictions if you maneuver your car in public.

I think the same kind of laws should obtain for guns.

On Jan 17, 9:11*am, The Daring Dufas
wrote:
On 1/17/2011 2:01 AM, harry wrote:





On Jan 16, 5:01 pm, The Daring
wrote:
On 1/16/2011 9:27 AM, harry wrote:

On Jan 16, 3:21 pm, wrote:
On Jan 16, 8:13 am, * *wrote:

wrote:

You don't even need it to go that far. * In the current debate, the
one thing
I have not heard mentioned is what the specific licensing reqts to buy
a
handgun are in AZ. * I believe all they check is whether you have a
criminal
record and that probably means you must have committed a felony to bar
you from being able to buy a handgun.

Exactly. In my state, and probably Arizona, if you have a concealed handgun
license, they don't even check for criminal records. In Arizona, unlike,
say, California, a private sale is exactly that: private. Nobody from the
state is involved.

Here in NJ, you have to apply to the *LOCAL POLICE DEPT for a permit
for each handgun you want to buy. * Given that the police had already
had
numerous encounters with the nutjob, that alone should have prevented
him from buying a gun, at least legally. * *The police have records of
calls
made by addresss, name, etc that could have been easily checked.

How's that working out for you, considering Camden, N.J. has the highest
crime rate in the nation? What the state has done is to throw a road-block,
and a not insignificant expense, in front of the law-abiding members of the
community.

I don't consider having to fill out a one page application form, get
fingerprinted,
and paying a small fee much of a road-block. * If AZ had a law and
process
similar to NJ, there's a decent probability that the nutcase would not
have
been able to buy that gun legally. * Yes, he could still probably buy
one illegally,
but for a guy like him, it would be more difficult. * I can tell you
right now where
to go in NJ to buy one legally. *Illegally, I don't know. *Clearly
there are people
obtaining them illegally and it's not hard for some people, ie
criminals, drug
dealers, etc. * But it would have presented one more obstacle for the
nutcase
and maybe he would have given up or shifted strategies, had it not
been so
easy. * And just maybe he would have been caught, robbed, or killed
trying
to buy that illegal gun from some criminal.

As for Camden and similar US cities, you do realize that part of the
problem is
that reasonable gun laws here don't prevent criminals from buying guns
in other
states where they have very lax laws and anybody can walk in and buy 5
guns
with only the FED instant background check. *So, you can't judge
what's going
on in NJ, without considering how guns are being obtained buy
purchases over
the counter in many other states.

Part of the application also requires you to list your employer/
occupation
and to give two character references. * Perhaps he could have found 2
people that would say he was A OK, but more likely he wouldn't even
realize that many of those he interracted with knew he was nuts and
would have selected someone who would have rattend him out. * You
also get fingerprinted and they are run through the FBI. The
whole process takes 6 months to a year before you finally get the
permit.
I think it should be speeded up, but have no problem with the reqts.

Inasmuch as self-defense has been a right recognized as part of western
civilization since at least the Magna Carta in 1415, would you feel equally
comfortable with requiring a newspaper to wait even a month so the story
could be vetted by the government? Or an equal amount of time before a
preacher could read a sermon? Or the same requirement for a political rally
permit?

The obvious differences here a

A - A gun is a deadly weapon, capable of causing a lot of carnage in a
few
seconds as has been demonstrated so many times. * Newspapers, sermon
s and politcal meetings don't. *Count up the number of people dead
from guns
each year and compare it to the other categories.

B - The Supreme Court has ruled that reasonable restricitions,
licensing reqts,
etc on guns are not in violation of the second ammendment.

As everyone rushes to judgement, we have yet to learn exactly who
knew what and when. * The biggest scum bag in this whole thing at
the momemnt is the local sheriff. *He's running around shooting his
mouth off, invoking the name of Rush Limbaugh, etc, trying to blame
the whole thing on talk radio and political discussion when he should
be conducting a professional investigation. * *Could it be that's
because the investigation is going to show how many times the nut
came into contact with his officers and nothing was done? *The most
definitive facts so far have pointed to exactly the opposite:

As it turns out, one person wounded in the melee, a dude named Fuller, has
been interviewed several times on TV. It is his assertion that Sarah Palin,
et al, and their vindicitive and violent rhetoric were the root causes for
the Tuscon tragedy. Last night, during a town hall meeting on the episode
sponsored by ABC, this Fuller character (in the audience) went about medium
berserk and had to be dragged out of the auditorium.

Within the hour he was involuntarily committed to a mental health facility.

Interesting. *Just googled it. *Another guy with a few screws loose.

Probably unbeknownst to him, being involuntarily committed for a mental
health evaluation forever forbids him from ever owning a gun.

According to which law? * None that I'm aware of bars anyone from
owning a
gun for life for just being taken for a mental health evaluation.

In my view, though, the connection between mental health and gun ownership
paints with too broad a brush.

First, it's ineffective. We have a penchant in this country for medical
privacy - consider HIPA. This is carried past the extreme limit with regard
to mental health issues. Therefore, it will be impossible as a practical
matter to intersect gun ownership with the mental health databases.

Second, very few of the mental diseases or defects in the DSM are of the
type that would render a person a threat to themselves or others. I've never
heard of someone afflicted with agoraphobia, catatonia, anorexia, or
registering as a Democrat being a threat to others.

(Just kidding on that last)

You can drag in some of the most bizarre comparisons. *No one that I
know of
* *is suggesting that someone with anorexia be denied a right to own a
gun.
On the other hand, if the person is psychotic and hears voices, I sure
don't
want him to be able to walk into any sporting goods store and buy a
gun. *And
the privacy issues, eg HIPA are just laws that were passed. *Other
laws can
just as easily be passed to remedy the problem and provide for
findings of
serious mental health problems to be placed in a database with access
for
background checks to buy a gun.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Your nutty Florida preacher (koran burner) had a gun. How do you
account for that? No religious nut should have a gun?

Are you saying that Muslim clerics should not have guns? :-)

TDD- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Nobody should have guns.

I suppose the military, police and security personnel should revert to
swords and daggers. You know, I just had a thought, I remember hearing
or reading that the Roman short sword has killed more people than any
modern weapon. :-)

TDD- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I don't think that one's likely Duf. Though tese Romans were evil
*******s.

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...

"bpuharic" wrote in message
...


irrelevant. you cant read and you bitch about grammar? you DO know
that's the LOWEST form of comment on newsgroups, right?


Since illiterates deserve to be exterminated, you should take it as the
ultimate compliment that he chose to respond to you at all. You and other
illiterates are an anchor around the neck of society at large.

It's a bit frightening to think that someone could reach adulthood (of a
sort) and not be able to type simple sentences without producing a train
wreck of spelling errors, missing punctuation and mangled syntax. It's like
reading something written by a drunk who dropped out of his ESL class.

On 1/18/2011 12:48 PM, harry wrote:
On Jan 17, 9:11 am, The Daring
wrote:
On 1/17/2011 2:01 AM, harry wrote:





On Jan 16, 5:01 pm, The Daring
wrote:
On 1/16/2011 9:27 AM, harry wrote:

On Jan 16, 3:21 pm, wrote:
On Jan 16, 8:13 am, wrote:

wrote:

You don't even need it to go that far. In the current debate, the
one thing
I have not heard mentioned is what the specific licensing reqts to buy
a
handgun are in AZ. I believe all they check is whether you have a
criminal
record and that probably means you must have committed a felony to bar
you from being able to buy a handgun.

Exactly. In my state, and probably Arizona, if you have a concealed handgun
license, they don't even check for criminal records. In Arizona, unlike,
say, California, a private sale is exactly that: private. Nobody from the
state is involved.

Here in NJ, you have to apply to the LOCAL POLICE DEPT for a permit
for each handgun you want to buy. Given that the police had already
had
numerous encounters with the nutjob, that alone should have prevented
him from buying a gun, at least legally. The police have records of
calls
made by addresss, name, etc that could have been easily checked.

How's that working out for you, considering Camden, N.J. has the highest
crime rate in the nation? What the state has done is to throw a road-block,
and a not insignificant expense, in front of the law-abiding members of the
community.

I don't consider having to fill out a one page application form, get
fingerprinted,
and paying a small fee much of a road-block. If AZ had a law and
process
similar to NJ, there's a decent probability that the nutcase would not
have
been able to buy that gun legally. Yes, he could still probably buy
one illegally,
but for a guy like him, it would be more difficult. I can tell you
right now where
to go in NJ to buy one legally. Illegally, I don't know. Clearly
there are people
obtaining them illegally and it's not hard for some people, ie
criminals, drug
dealers, etc. But it would have presented one more obstacle for the
nutcase
and maybe he would have given up or shifted strategies, had it not
been so
easy. And just maybe he would have been caught, robbed, or killed
trying
to buy that illegal gun from some criminal.

As for Camden and similar US cities, you do realize that part of the
problem is
that reasonable gun laws here don't prevent criminals from buying guns
in other
states where they have very lax laws and anybody can walk in and buy 5
guns
with only the FED instant background check. So, you can't judge
what's going
on in NJ, without considering how guns are being obtained buy
purchases over
the counter in many other states.

Part of the application also requires you to list your employer/
occupation
and to give two character references. Perhaps he could have found 2
people that would say he was A OK, but more likely he wouldn't even
realize that many of those he interracted with knew he was nuts and
would have selected someone who would have rattend him out. You
also get fingerprinted and they are run through the FBI. The
whole process takes 6 months to a year before you finally get the
permit.
I think it should be speeded up, but have no problem with the reqts.

Inasmuch as self-defense has been a right recognized as part of western
civilization since at least the Magna Carta in 1415, would you feel equally
comfortable with requiring a newspaper to wait even a month so the story
could be vetted by the government? Or an equal amount of time before a
preacher could read a sermon? Or the same requirement for a political rally
permit?

The obvious differences here a

A - A gun is a deadly weapon, capable of causing a lot of carnage in a
few
seconds as has been demonstrated so many times. Newspapers, sermon
s and politcal meetings don't. Count up the number of people dead
from guns
each year and compare it to the other categories.

B - The Supreme Court has ruled that reasonable restricitions,
licensing reqts,
etc on guns are not in violation of the second ammendment.

As everyone rushes to judgement, we have yet to learn exactly who
knew what and when. The biggest scum bag in this whole thing at
the momemnt is the local sheriff. He's running around shooting his
mouth off, invoking the name of Rush Limbaugh, etc, trying to blame
the whole thing on talk radio and political discussion when he should
be conducting a professional investigation. Could it be that's
because the investigation is going to show how many times the nut
came into contact with his officers and nothing was done? The most
definitive facts so far have pointed to exactly the opposite:

As it turns out, one person wounded in the melee, a dude named Fuller, has
been interviewed several times on TV. It is his assertion that Sarah Palin,
et al, and their vindicitive and violent rhetoric were the root causes for
the Tuscon tragedy. Last night, during a town hall meeting on the episode
sponsored by ABC, this Fuller character (in the audience) went about medium
berserk and had to be dragged out of the auditorium.

Within the hour he was involuntarily committed to a mental health facility.

Interesting. Just googled it. Another guy with a few screws loose.

Probably unbeknownst to him, being involuntarily committed for a mental
health evaluation forever forbids him from ever owning a gun.

According to which law? None that I'm aware of bars anyone from
owning a
gun for life for just being taken for a mental health evaluation.

In my view, though, the connection between mental health and gun ownership
paints with too broad a brush.

First, it's ineffective. We have a penchant in this country for medical
privacy - consider HIPA. This is carried past the extreme limit with regard
to mental health issues. Therefore, it will be impossible as a practical
matter to intersect gun ownership with the mental health databases.

Second, very few of the mental diseases or defects in the DSM are of the
type that would render a person a threat to themselves or others. I've never
heard of someone afflicted with agoraphobia, catatonia, anorexia, or
registering as a Democrat being a threat to others.

(Just kidding on that last)

You can drag in some of the most bizarre comparisons. No one that I
know of
is suggesting that someone with anorexia be denied a right to own a
gun.
On the other hand, if the person is psychotic and hears voices, I sure
don't
want him to be able to walk into any sporting goods store and buy a
gun. And
the privacy issues, eg HIPA are just laws that were passed. Other
laws can
just as easily be passed to remedy the problem and provide for
findings of
serious mental health problems to be placed in a database with access
for
background checks to buy a gun.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Your nutty Florida preacher (koran burner) had a gun. How do you
account for that? No religious nut should have a gun?

Are you saying that Muslim clerics should not have guns? :-)

TDD- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Nobody should have guns.

I suppose the military, police and security personnel should revert to
swords and daggers. You know, I just had a thought, I remember hearing
or reading that the Roman short sword has killed more people than any
modern weapon. :-)

TDD- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I don't think that one's likely Duf. Though tese Romans were evil
*******s.

Hey! Those are my distant ancestors you're complementing. :-)

TDD

On Jan 19, 1:31*am, The Daring Dufas
wrote:
On 1/18/2011 12:48 PM, harry wrote:





On Jan 17, 9:11 am, The Daring
wrote:
On 1/17/2011 2:01 AM, harry wrote:

On Jan 16, 5:01 pm, The Daring
wrote:
On 1/16/2011 9:27 AM, harry wrote:

On Jan 16, 3:21 pm, wrote:
On Jan 16, 8:13 am, * * *wrote:

wrote:

You don't even need it to go that far. * In the current debate, the
one thing
I have not heard mentioned is what the specific licensing reqts to buy
a
handgun are in AZ. * I believe all they check is whether you have a
criminal
record and that probably means you must have committed a felony to bar
you from being able to buy a handgun.

Exactly. In my state, and probably Arizona, if you have a concealed handgun
license, they don't even check for criminal records. In Arizona, unlike,
say, California, a private sale is exactly that: private. Nobody from the
state is involved.

Here in NJ, you have to apply to the *LOCAL POLICE DEPT for a permit
for each handgun you want to buy. * Given that the police had already
had
numerous encounters with the nutjob, that alone should have prevented
him from buying a gun, at least legally. * *The police have records of
calls
made by addresss, name, etc that could have been easily checked.

How's that working out for you, considering Camden, N.J. has the highest
crime rate in the nation? What the state has done is to throw a road-block,
and a not insignificant expense, in front of the law-abiding members of the
community.

I don't consider having to fill out a one page application form, get
fingerprinted,
and paying a small fee much of a road-block. * If AZ had a law and
process
similar to NJ, there's a decent probability that the nutcase would not
have
been able to buy that gun legally. * Yes, he could still probably buy
one illegally,
but for a guy like him, it would be more difficult. * I can tell you
right now where
to go in NJ to buy one legally. *Illegally, I don't know. *Clearly
there are people
obtaining them illegally and it's not hard for some people, ie
criminals, drug
dealers, etc. * But it would have presented one more obstacle for the
nutcase
and maybe he would have given up or shifted strategies, had it not
been so
easy. * And just maybe he would have been caught, robbed, or killed
trying
to buy that illegal gun from some criminal.

As for Camden and similar US cities, you do realize that part of the
problem is
that reasonable gun laws here don't prevent criminals from buying guns
in other
states where they have very lax laws and anybody can walk in and buy 5
guns
with only the FED instant background check. *So, you can't judge
what's going
on in NJ, without considering how guns are being obtained buy
purchases over
the counter in many other states.

Part of the application also requires you to list your employer/
occupation
and to give two character references. * Perhaps he could have found 2
people that would say he was A OK, but more likely he wouldn't even
realize that many of those he interracted with knew he was nuts and
would have selected someone who would have rattend him out. * You
also get fingerprinted and they are run through the FBI. The
whole process takes 6 months to a year before you finally get the
permit.
I think it should be speeded up, but have no problem with the reqts.

Inasmuch as self-defense has been a right recognized as part of western
civilization since at least the Magna Carta in 1415, would you feel equally
comfortable with requiring a newspaper to wait even a month so the story
could be vetted by the government? Or an equal amount of time before a
preacher could read a sermon? Or the same requirement for a political rally
permit?

The obvious differences here a

A - A gun is a deadly weapon, capable of causing a lot of carnage in a
few
seconds as has been demonstrated so many times. * Newspapers, sermon
s and politcal meetings don't. *Count up the number of people dead
from guns
each year and compare it to the other categories.

B - The Supreme Court has ruled that reasonable restricitions,
licensing reqts,
etc on guns are not in violation of the second ammendment.

As everyone rushes to judgement, we have yet to learn exactly who
knew what and when. * The biggest scum bag in this whole thing at
the momemnt is the local sheriff. *He's running around shooting his
mouth off, invoking the name of Rush Limbaugh, etc, trying to blame
the whole thing on talk radio and political discussion when he should
be conducting a professional investigation. * *Could it be that's
because the investigation is going to show how many times the nut
came into contact with his officers and nothing was done? *The most
definitive facts so far have pointed to exactly the opposite:

As it turns out, one person wounded in the melee, a dude named Fuller, has
been interviewed several times on TV. It is his assertion that Sarah Palin,
et al, and their vindicitive and violent rhetoric were the root causes for
the Tuscon tragedy. Last night, during a town hall meeting on the episode
sponsored by ABC, this Fuller character (in the audience) went about medium
berserk and had to be dragged out of the auditorium.

Within the hour he was involuntarily committed to a mental health facility.

Interesting. *Just googled it. *Another guy with a few screws loose.

Probably unbeknownst to him, being involuntarily committed for a mental
health evaluation forever forbids him from ever owning a gun.

According to which law? * None that I'm aware of bars anyone from
owning a
gun for life for just being taken for a mental health evaluation.

In my view, though, the connection between mental health and gun ownership
paints with too broad a brush.

First, it's ineffective. We have a penchant in this country for medical
privacy - consider HIPA. This is carried past the extreme limit with regard
to mental health issues. Therefore, it will be impossible as a practical
matter to intersect gun ownership with the mental health databases.

Second, very few of the mental diseases or defects in the DSM are of the
type that would render a person a threat to themselves or others. I've never
heard of someone afflicted with agoraphobia, catatonia, anorexia, or
registering as a Democrat being a threat to others.

(Just kidding on that last)

You can drag in some of the most bizarre comparisons. *No one that I
know of
* * is suggesting that someone with anorexia be denied a right to own a
gun.
On the other hand, if the person is psychotic and hears voices, I sure
don't
want him to be able to walk into any sporting goods store and buy a
gun. *And
the privacy issues, eg HIPA are just laws that were passed. *Other
laws can
just as easily be passed to remedy the problem and provide for
findings of
serious mental health problems to be placed in a database with access
for
background checks to buy a gun.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Your nutty Florida preacher (koran burner) had a gun. How do you
account for that? No religious nut should have a gun?

Are you saying that Muslim clerics should not have guns? :-)

TDD- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Nobody should have guns.

I suppose the military, police and security personnel should revert to
swords and daggers. You know, I just had a thought, I remember hearing
or reading that the Roman short sword has killed more people than any
modern weapon. :-)

TDD- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I don't think that one's likely Duf. * Though tese Romans were evil
*******s.

Hey! Those are my distant ancestors you're complementing. :-)

TDD- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You told me you were Irish!

On 1/19/2011 3:13 AM, harry wrote:
On Jan 19, 1:31 am, The Daring
wrote:
On 1/18/2011 12:48 PM, harry wrote:





On Jan 17, 9:11 am, The Daring
wrote:
On 1/17/2011 2:01 AM, harry wrote:

On Jan 16, 5:01 pm, The Daring
wrote:
On 1/16/2011 9:27 AM, harry wrote:

On Jan 16, 3:21 pm, wrote:
On Jan 16, 8:13 am, wrote:

wrote:

You don't even need it to go that far. In the current debate, the
one thing
I have not heard mentioned is what the specific licensing reqts to buy
a
handgun are in AZ. I believe all they check is whether you have a
criminal
record and that probably means you must have committed a felony to bar
you from being able to buy a handgun.

Exactly. In my state, and probably Arizona, if you have a concealed handgun
license, they don't even check for criminal records. In Arizona, unlike,
say, California, a private sale is exactly that: private. Nobody from the
state is involved.

Here in NJ, you have to apply to the LOCAL POLICE DEPT for a permit
for each handgun you want to buy. Given that the police had already
had
numerous encounters with the nutjob, that alone should have prevented
him from buying a gun, at least legally. The police have records of
calls
made by addresss, name, etc that could have been easily checked.

How's that working out for you, considering Camden, N.J. has the highest
crime rate in the nation? What the state has done is to throw a road-block,
and a not insignificant expense, in front of the law-abiding members of the
community.

I don't consider having to fill out a one page application form, get
fingerprinted,
and paying a small fee much of a road-block. If AZ had a law and
process
similar to NJ, there's a decent probability that the nutcase would not
have
been able to buy that gun legally. Yes, he could still probably buy
one illegally,
but for a guy like him, it would be more difficult. I can tell you
right now where
to go in NJ to buy one legally. Illegally, I don't know. Clearly
there are people
obtaining them illegally and it's not hard for some people, ie
criminals, drug
dealers, etc. But it would have presented one more obstacle for the
nutcase
and maybe he would have given up or shifted strategies, had it not
been so
easy. And just maybe he would have been caught, robbed, or killed
trying
to buy that illegal gun from some criminal.

As for Camden and similar US cities, you do realize that part of the
problem is
that reasonable gun laws here don't prevent criminals from buying guns
in other
states where they have very lax laws and anybody can walk in and buy 5
guns
with only the FED instant background check. So, you can't judge
what's going
on in NJ, without considering how guns are being obtained buy
purchases over
the counter in many other states.

Part of the application also requires you to list your employer/
occupation
and to give two character references. Perhaps he could have found 2
people that would say he was A OK, but more likely he wouldn't even
realize that many of those he interracted with knew he was nuts and
would have selected someone who would have rattend him out. You
also get fingerprinted and they are run through the FBI. The
whole process takes 6 months to a year before you finally get the
permit.
I think it should be speeded up, but have no problem with the reqts.

Inasmuch as self-defense has been a right recognized as part of western
civilization since at least the Magna Carta in 1415, would you feel equally
comfortable with requiring a newspaper to wait even a month so the story
could be vetted by the government? Or an equal amount of time before a
preacher could read a sermon? Or the same requirement for a political rally
permit?

The obvious differences here a

A - A gun is a deadly weapon, capable of causing a lot of carnage in a
few
seconds as has been demonstrated so many times. Newspapers, sermon
s and politcal meetings don't. Count up the number of people dead
from guns
each year and compare it to the other categories.

B - The Supreme Court has ruled that reasonable restricitions,
licensing reqts,
etc on guns are not in violation of the second ammendment.

As everyone rushes to judgement, we have yet to learn exactly who
knew what and when. The biggest scum bag in this whole thing at
the momemnt is the local sheriff. He's running around shooting his
mouth off, invoking the name of Rush Limbaugh, etc, trying to blame
the whole thing on talk radio and political discussion when he should
be conducting a professional investigation. Could it be that's
because the investigation is going to show how many times the nut
came into contact with his officers and nothing was done? The most
definitive facts so far have pointed to exactly the opposite:

As it turns out, one person wounded in the melee, a dude named Fuller, has
been interviewed several times on TV. It is his assertion that Sarah Palin,
et al, and their vindicitive and violent rhetoric were the root causes for
the Tuscon tragedy. Last night, during a town hall meeting on the episode
sponsored by ABC, this Fuller character (in the audience) went about medium
berserk and had to be dragged out of the auditorium.

Within the hour he was involuntarily committed to a mental health facility.

Interesting. Just googled it. Another guy with a few screws loose.

Probably unbeknownst to him, being involuntarily committed for a mental
health evaluation forever forbids him from ever owning a gun.

According to which law? None that I'm aware of bars anyone from
owning a
gun for life for just being taken for a mental health evaluation.

In my view, though, the connection between mental health and gun ownership
paints with too broad a brush.

First, it's ineffective. We have a penchant in this country for medical
privacy - consider HIPA. This is carried past the extreme limit with regard
to mental health issues. Therefore, it will be impossible as a practical
matter to intersect gun ownership with the mental health databases.

Second, very few of the mental diseases or defects in the DSM are of the
type that would render a person a threat to themselves or others. I've never
heard of someone afflicted with agoraphobia, catatonia, anorexia, or
registering as a Democrat being a threat to others.

(Just kidding on that last)

You can drag in some of the most bizarre comparisons. No one that I
know of
is suggesting that someone with anorexia be denied a right to own a
gun.
On the other hand, if the person is psychotic and hears voices, I sure
don't
want him to be able to walk into any sporting goods store and buy a
gun. And
the privacy issues, eg HIPA are just laws that were passed. Other
laws can
just as easily be passed to remedy the problem and provide for
findings of
serious mental health problems to be placed in a database with access
for
background checks to buy a gun.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Your nutty Florida preacher (koran burner) had a gun. How do you
account for that? No religious nut should have a gun?

Are you saying that Muslim clerics should not have guns? :-)

TDD- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Nobody should have guns.

I suppose the military, police and security personnel should revert to
swords and daggers. You know, I just had a thought, I remember hearing
or reading that the Roman short sword has killed more people than any
modern weapon. :-)

TDD- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I don't think that one's likely Duf. Though tese Romans were evil
*******s.

Hey! Those are my distant ancestors you're complementing. :-)

TDD- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You told me you were Irish!

My paternal ancestors are Ulster Scots, my maternal ancestors are
Italian. Have you forgotten that The Romans were all over Brittan?
My ancestry makes me everyone's cousin. :-)

TDD

On Jan 19, 12:30*pm, The Daring Dufas
wrote:
On 1/19/2011 3:13 AM, harry wrote:





On Jan 19, 1:31 am, The Daring
wrote:
On 1/18/2011 12:48 PM, harry wrote:

On Jan 17, 9:11 am, The Daring
wrote:
On 1/17/2011 2:01 AM, harry wrote:

On Jan 16, 5:01 pm, The Daring
wrote:
On 1/16/2011 9:27 AM, harry wrote:

On Jan 16, 3:21 pm, wrote:
On Jan 16, 8:13 am, * * * *wrote:

wrote:

You don't even need it to go that far. * In the current debate, the
one thing
I have not heard mentioned is what the specific licensing reqts to buy
a
handgun are in AZ. * I believe all they check is whether you have a
criminal
record and that probably means you must have committed a felony to bar
you from being able to buy a handgun.

Exactly. In my state, and probably Arizona, if you have a concealed handgun
license, they don't even check for criminal records. In Arizona, unlike,
say, California, a private sale is exactly that: private. Nobody from the
state is involved.

Here in NJ, you have to apply to the *LOCAL POLICE DEPT for a permit
for each handgun you want to buy. * Given that the police had already
had
numerous encounters with the nutjob, that alone should have prevented
him from buying a gun, at least legally. * *The police have records of
calls
made by addresss, name, etc that could have been easily checked.

How's that working out for you, considering Camden, N.J. has the highest
crime rate in the nation? What the state has done is to throw a road-block,
and a not insignificant expense, in front of the law-abiding members of the
community.

I don't consider having to fill out a one page application form, get
fingerprinted,
and paying a small fee much of a road-block. * If AZ had a law and
process
similar to NJ, there's a decent probability that the nutcase would not
have
been able to buy that gun legally. * Yes, he could still probably buy
one illegally,
but for a guy like him, it would be more difficult. * I can tell you
right now where
to go in NJ to buy one legally. *Illegally, I don't know. *Clearly
there are people
obtaining them illegally and it's not hard for some people, ie
criminals, drug
dealers, etc. * But it would have presented one more obstacle for the
nutcase
and maybe he would have given up or shifted strategies, had it not
been so
easy. * And just maybe he would have been caught, robbed, or killed
trying
to buy that illegal gun from some criminal.

As for Camden and similar US cities, you do realize that part of the
problem is
that reasonable gun laws here don't prevent criminals from buying guns
in other
states where they have very lax laws and anybody can walk in and buy 5
guns
with only the FED instant background check. *So, you can't judge
what's going
on in NJ, without considering how guns are being obtained buy
purchases over
the counter in many other states.

Part of the application also requires you to list your employer/
occupation
and to give two character references. * Perhaps he could have found 2
people that would say he was A OK, but more likely he wouldn't even
realize that many of those he interracted with knew he was nuts and
would have selected someone who would have rattend him out. * You
also get fingerprinted and they are run through the FBI. The
whole process takes 6 months to a year before you finally get the
permit.
I think it should be speeded up, but have no problem with the reqts.

Inasmuch as self-defense has been a right recognized as part of western
civilization since at least the Magna Carta in 1415, would you feel equally
comfortable with requiring a newspaper to wait even a month so the story
could be vetted by the government? Or an equal amount of time before a
preacher could read a sermon? Or the same requirement for a political rally
permit?

The obvious differences here a

A - A gun is a deadly weapon, capable of causing a lot of carnage in a
few
seconds as has been demonstrated so many times. * Newspapers, sermon
s and politcal meetings don't. *Count up the number of people dead
from guns
each year and compare it to the other categories.

B - The Supreme Court has ruled that reasonable restricitions,
licensing reqts,
etc on guns are not in violation of the second ammendment.

As everyone rushes to judgement, we have yet to learn exactly who
knew what and when. * The biggest scum bag in this whole thing at
the momemnt is the local sheriff. *He's running around shooting his
mouth off, invoking the name of Rush Limbaugh, etc, trying to blame
the whole thing on talk radio and political discussion when he should
be conducting a professional investigation. * *Could it be that's
because the investigation is going to show how many times the nut
came into contact with his officers and nothing was done? *The most
definitive facts so far have pointed to exactly the opposite:

As it turns out, one person wounded in the melee, a dude named Fuller, has
been interviewed several times on TV. It is his assertion that Sarah Palin,
et al, and their vindicitive and violent rhetoric were the root causes for
the Tuscon tragedy. Last night, during a town hall meeting on the episode
sponsored by ABC, this Fuller character (in the audience) went about medium
berserk and had to be dragged out of the auditorium.

Within the hour he was involuntarily committed to a mental health facility.

Interesting. *Just googled it. *Another guy with a few screws loose.

Probably unbeknownst to him, being involuntarily committed for a mental
health evaluation forever forbids him from ever owning a gun.

According to which law? * None that I'm aware of bars anyone from
owning a
gun for life for just being taken for a mental health evaluation..

In my view, though, the connection between mental health and gun ownership
paints with too broad a brush.

First, it's ineffective. We have a penchant in this country for medical
privacy - consider HIPA. This is carried past the extreme limit with regard
to mental health issues. Therefore, it will be impossible as a practical
matter to intersect gun ownership with the mental health databases.

Second, very few of the mental diseases or defects in the DSM are of the
type that would render a person a threat to themselves or others. I've never
heard of someone afflicted with agoraphobia, catatonia, anorexia, or
registering as a Democrat being a threat to others.

(Just kidding on that last)

You can drag in some of the most bizarre comparisons. *No one that I
know of
* * *is suggesting that someone with anorexia be denied a right to own a
gun.
On the other hand, if the person is psychotic and hears voices, I sure
don't
want him to be able to walk into any sporting goods store and buy a
gun. *And
the privacy issues, eg HIPA are just laws that were passed. *Other
laws can
just as easily be passed to remedy the problem and provide for
findings of
serious mental health problems to be placed in a database with access
for
background checks to buy a gun.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Your nutty Florida preacher (koran burner) had a gun. How do you
account for that? No religious nut should have a gun?

Are you saying that Muslim clerics should not have guns? :-)

TDD- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Nobody should have guns.

I suppose the military, police and security personnel should revert to
swords and daggers. You know, I just had a thought, I remember hearing
or reading that the Roman short sword has killed more people than any
modern weapon. :-)

TDD- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I don't think that one's likely Duf. * Though tese Romans were evil
*******s.

Hey! Those are my distant ancestors you're complementing. :-)

TDD- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You told me you were Irish!

My paternal ancestors are Ulster Scots, my maternal ancestors are
Italian. Have you forgotten that The Romans were all over Brittan?
My ancestry makes me everyone's cousin. :-)

TDD- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Sounds pretty dodgy to me! :-)

On 1/19/2011 8:28 AM, harry wrote:
On Jan 19, 12:30 pm, The Daring
wrote:
On 1/19/2011 3:13 AM, harry wrote:





On Jan 19, 1:31 am, The Daring
wrote:
On 1/18/2011 12:48 PM, harry wrote:

On Jan 17, 9:11 am, The Daring
wrote:
On 1/17/2011 2:01 AM, harry wrote:

On Jan 16, 5:01 pm, The Daring
wrote:
On 1/16/2011 9:27 AM, harry wrote:

On Jan 16, 3:21 pm, wrote:
On Jan 16, 8:13 am, wrote:

wrote:

You don't even need it to go that far. In the current debate, the
one thing
I have not heard mentioned is what the specific licensing reqts to buy
a
handgun are in AZ. I believe all they check is whether you have a
criminal
record and that probably means you must have committed a felony to bar
you from being able to buy a handgun.

Exactly. In my state, and probably Arizona, if you have a concealed handgun
license, they don't even check for criminal records. In Arizona, unlike,
say, California, a private sale is exactly that: private. Nobody from the
state is involved.

Here in NJ, you have to apply to the LOCAL POLICE DEPT for a permit
for each handgun you want to buy. Given that the police had already
had
numerous encounters with the nutjob, that alone should have prevented
him from buying a gun, at least legally. The police have records of
calls
made by addresss, name, etc that could have been easily checked.

How's that working out for you, considering Camden, N.J. has the highest
crime rate in the nation? What the state has done is to throw a road-block,
and a not insignificant expense, in front of the law-abiding members of the
community.

I don't consider having to fill out a one page application form, get
fingerprinted,
and paying a small fee much of a road-block. If AZ had a law and
process
similar to NJ, there's a decent probability that the nutcase would not
have
been able to buy that gun legally. Yes, he could still probably buy
one illegally,
but for a guy like him, it would be more difficult. I can tell you
right now where
to go in NJ to buy one legally. Illegally, I don't know. Clearly
there are people
obtaining them illegally and it's not hard for some people, ie
criminals, drug
dealers, etc. But it would have presented one more obstacle for the
nutcase
and maybe he would have given up or shifted strategies, had it not
been so
easy. And just maybe he would have been caught, robbed, or killed
trying
to buy that illegal gun from some criminal.

As for Camden and similar US cities, you do realize that part of the
problem is
that reasonable gun laws here don't prevent criminals from buying guns
in other
states where they have very lax laws and anybody can walk in and buy 5
guns
with only the FED instant background check. So, you can't judge
what's going
on in NJ, without considering how guns are being obtained buy
purchases over
the counter in many other states.

Part of the application also requires you to list your employer/
occupation
and to give two character references. Perhaps he could have found 2
people that would say he was A OK, but more likely he wouldn't even
realize that many of those he interracted with knew he was nuts and
would have selected someone who would have rattend him out. You
also get fingerprinted and they are run through the FBI. The
whole process takes 6 months to a year before you finally get the
permit.
I think it should be speeded up, but have no problem with the reqts.

Inasmuch as self-defense has been a right recognized as part of western
civilization since at least the Magna Carta in 1415, would you feel equally
comfortable with requiring a newspaper to wait even a month so the story
could be vetted by the government? Or an equal amount of time before a
preacher could read a sermon? Or the same requirement for a political rally
permit?

The obvious differences here a

A - A gun is a deadly weapon, capable of causing a lot of carnage in a
few
seconds as has been demonstrated so many times. Newspapers, sermon
s and politcal meetings don't. Count up the number of people dead
from guns
each year and compare it to the other categories.

B - The Supreme Court has ruled that reasonable restricitions,
licensing reqts,
etc on guns are not in violation of the second ammendment.

As everyone rushes to judgement, we have yet to learn exactly who
knew what and when. The biggest scum bag in this whole thing at
the momemnt is the local sheriff. He's running around shooting his
mouth off, invoking the name of Rush Limbaugh, etc, trying to blame
the whole thing on talk radio and political discussion when he should
be conducting a professional investigation. Could it be that's
because the investigation is going to show how many times the nut
came into contact with his officers and nothing was done? The most
definitive facts so far have pointed to exactly the opposite:

As it turns out, one person wounded in the melee, a dude named Fuller, has
been interviewed several times on TV. It is his assertion that Sarah Palin,
et al, and their vindicitive and violent rhetoric were the root causes for
the Tuscon tragedy. Last night, during a town hall meeting on the episode
sponsored by ABC, this Fuller character (in the audience) went about medium
berserk and had to be dragged out of the auditorium.

Within the hour he was involuntarily committed to a mental health facility.

Interesting. Just googled it. Another guy with a few screws loose.

Probably unbeknownst to him, being involuntarily committed for a mental
health evaluation forever forbids him from ever owning a gun.

According to which law? None that I'm aware of bars anyone from
owning a
gun for life for just being taken for a mental health evaluation.

In my view, though, the connection between mental health and gun ownership
paints with too broad a brush.

First, it's ineffective. We have a penchant in this country for medical
privacy - consider HIPA. This is carried past the extreme limit with regard
to mental health issues. Therefore, it will be impossible as a practical
matter to intersect gun ownership with the mental health databases.

Second, very few of the mental diseases or defects in the DSM are of the
type that would render a person a threat to themselves or others. I've never
heard of someone afflicted with agoraphobia, catatonia, anorexia, or
registering as a Democrat being a threat to others.

(Just kidding on that last)

You can drag in some of the most bizarre comparisons. No one that I
know of
is suggesting that someone with anorexia be denied a right to own a
gun.
On the other hand, if the person is psychotic and hears voices, I sure
don't
want him to be able to walk into any sporting goods store and buy a
gun. And
the privacy issues, eg HIPA are just laws that were passed. Other
laws can
just as easily be passed to remedy the problem and provide for
findings of
serious mental health problems to be placed in a database with access
for
background checks to buy a gun.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Your nutty Florida preacher (koran burner) had a gun. How do you
account for that? No religious nut should have a gun?

Are you saying that Muslim clerics should not have guns? :-)

TDD- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Nobody should have guns.

I suppose the military, police and security personnel should revert to
swords and daggers. You know, I just had a thought, I remember hearing
or reading that the Roman short sword has killed more people than any
modern weapon. :-)

TDD- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I don't think that one's likely Duf. Though tese Romans were evil
*******s.

Hey! Those are my distant ancestors you're complementing. :-)

TDD- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You told me you were Irish!

My paternal ancestors are Ulster Scots, my maternal ancestors are
Italian. Have you forgotten that The Romans were all over Brittan?
My ancestry makes me everyone's cousin. :-)

TDD- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Sounds pretty dodgy to me! :-)

Well heck, think about it, what do soldiers of any army do. Like the
crusty old sergeant told his troops "If it moves, screw it, if it
doesn't move, paint it!" :-)

TDD

On Jan 20, 1:20*am, The Daring Dufas
wrote:
On 1/19/2011 8:28 AM, harry wrote:


My paternal ancestors are Ulster Scots, my maternal ancestors are
Italian. Have you forgotten that The Romans were all over Brittan?
My ancestry makes me everyone's cousin. :-)

TDD- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Sounds pretty dodgy to me! *:-)

Well heck, think about it, what do soldiers of any army do. Like the
crusty old sergeant told his troops "If it moves, screw it, if it
doesn't move, paint it!" :-)

TDD

Heh Heh.
I just heard on the box that your koran burning bible basher from
Florida has bee refused a visa to visit us. He was going to lecture
our equivalent of the KKK on muslim issues.
How's that for free speech?
Pity that, we just love to bait Yanks, he would have been ideal. I
shall write to my MP.

On 1/20/2011 7:34 AM, harry wrote:
On Jan 20, 1:20 am, The Daring
wrote:
On 1/19/2011 8:28 AM, harry wrote:


My paternal ancestors are Ulster Scots, my maternal ancestors are
Italian. Have you forgotten that The Romans were all over Brittan?
My ancestry makes me everyone's cousin. :-)

TDD- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Sounds pretty dodgy to me! :-)

Well heck, think about it, what do soldiers of any army do. Like the
crusty old sergeant told his troops "If it moves, screw it, if it
doesn't move, paint it!" :-)

TDD

Heh Heh.
I just heard on the box that your koran burning bible basher from
Florida has bee refused a visa to visit us. He was going to lecture
our equivalent of the KKK on muslim issues.
How's that for free speech?
Pity that, we just love to bait Yanks, he would have been ideal. I
shall write to my MP.

I just heard it on the radio news. I recall John Lennon being barred
from entry to the U.S. because of drug charges and Japan doing the
same to Paris Hilton for the same reason. It was silly but at least
it involved illegal activity. The politically correct related ban
from The U.K. of the American minister has nothing to do with his
violation of any law here in the U.S.. I don't believe he has ever
been to England and violated any laws there. I wonder what would
happen if a Muslim cleric was banned from Great Brittan for anything
he said?

TDD

The Daring Dufas wrote:

I just heard it on the radio news. I recall John Lennon being barred
from entry to the U.S. because of drug charges and Japan doing the
same to Paris Hilton for the same reason. It was silly but at least
it involved illegal activity. The politically correct related ban
from The U.K. of the American minister has nothing to do with his
violation of any law here in the U.S.. I don't believe he has ever
been to England and violated any laws there. I wonder what would
happen if a Muslim cleric was banned from Great Brittan for anything
he said?


Well, if somebody from the UK applied for a visa with the stated reason of
"murdering the President of the United States, plus two nuns and a baby"
would probably be denied entry.

Likewise, somebody who's trying to get into the UK and on record as saying
"Some Muslims are wicked..." is in a similar category.

On Thu, 20 Jan 2011 08:39:22 -0600, The Daring Dufas
wrote:

On 1/20/2011 7:34 AM, harry wrote:
On Jan 20, 1:20 am, The Daring
wrote:
On 1/19/2011 8:28 AM, harry wrote:


My paternal ancestors are Ulster Scots, my maternal ancestors are
Italian. Have you forgotten that The Romans were all over Brittan?
My ancestry makes me everyone's cousin. :-)

TDD- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Sounds pretty dodgy to me! :-)

Well heck, think about it, what do soldiers of any army do. Like the
crusty old sergeant told his troops "If it moves, screw it, if it
doesn't move, paint it!" :-)

TDD

Heh Heh.
I just heard on the box that your koran burning bible basher from
Florida has bee refused a visa to visit us. He was going to lecture
our equivalent of the KKK on muslim issues.
How's that for free speech?
Pity that, we just love to bait Yanks, he would have been ideal. I
shall write to my MP.

I just heard it on the radio news. I recall John Lennon being barred
from entry to the U.S. because of drug charges and Japan doing the
same to Paris Hilton for the same reason. It was silly but at least
it involved illegal activity. The politically correct related ban
from The U.K. of the American minister has nothing to do with his
violation of any law here in the U.S.. I don't believe he has ever
been to England and violated any laws there. I wonder what would
happen if a Muslim cleric was banned from Great Brittan for anything
he said?

Michael Savage (Weiner) has been banned from entering the UK because he has a
talk radio show.

On 1/20/2011 7:09 PM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Thu, 20 Jan 2011 08:39:22 -0600, The Daring Dufas
wrote:

On 1/20/2011 7:34 AM, harry wrote:
On Jan 20, 1:20 am, The Daring
wrote:
On 1/19/2011 8:28 AM, harry wrote:


My paternal ancestors are Ulster Scots, my maternal ancestors are
Italian. Have you forgotten that The Romans were all over Brittan?
My ancestry makes me everyone's cousin. :-)

TDD- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Sounds pretty dodgy to me! :-)

Well heck, think about it, what do soldiers of any army do. Like the
crusty old sergeant told his troops "If it moves, screw it, if it
doesn't move, paint it!" :-)

TDD

Heh Heh.
I just heard on the box that your koran burning bible basher from
Florida has bee refused a visa to visit us. He was going to lecture
our equivalent of the KKK on muslim issues.
How's that for free speech?
Pity that, we just love to bait Yanks, he would have been ideal. I
shall write to my MP.

I just heard it on the radio news. I recall John Lennon being barred
from entry to the U.S. because of drug charges and Japan doing the
same to Paris Hilton for the same reason. It was silly but at least
it involved illegal activity. The politically correct related ban
from The U.K. of the American minister has nothing to do with his
violation of any law here in the U.S.. I don't believe he has ever
been to England and violated any laws there. I wonder what would
happen if a Muslim cleric was banned from Great Brittan for anything
he said?

Michael Savage (Weiner) has been banned from entering the UK because he has a
talk radio show.


Yea, he came to mind but I thought everyone knew that. It gets a bit
asinine when some bureaucrat somewhere decides "U R mean, U can't cum
to my ****ree." Savage was howling about it the last time I heard a
part of his show. :-)

TDD

"Jim Yanik" wrote in message
4...

were all or most of those committed by LAWFUL gun owners?

According to the BATF, 15% of shootings are committed by people who were in
lawful possession of the firearms discharged, and that includes lawful
shootings such as self-defense. So it would be silly for anyone to argue
that the overwhelming majority of shootings in the U.S. are not carried out
by criminals--but then we have some very silly people in this thread.

chalk it up to the "revolving door of "justice"";
lenient judges and prosecutors who plea-bargain down to lesser crimes and
shorter sentences.

Sentences in the U.S. tend to be longer than in most industrialized nations,
which is part of the reason prosecutors often bargain down cases--the jails
tend to be full.

On Jan 20, 2:39*pm, The Daring Dufas
wrote:
On 1/20/2011 7:34 AM, harry wrote:





On Jan 20, 1:20 am, The Daring
wrote:
On 1/19/2011 8:28 AM, harry wrote:

My paternal ancestors are Ulster Scots, my maternal ancestors are
Italian. Have you forgotten that The Romans were all over Brittan?
My ancestry makes me everyone's cousin. :-)

TDD- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Sounds pretty dodgy to me! *:-)

Well heck, think about it, what do soldiers of any army do. Like the
crusty old sergeant told his troops "If it moves, screw it, if it
doesn't move, paint it!" :-)

TDD

Heh Heh.
I just heard on the box that your koran burning bible basher from
Florida has bee refused a visa to visit us. He was going to lecture
our equivalent of the KKK on muslim issues.
How's that for free speech?
Pity that, we just love to bait Yanks, he would have been ideal. I
shall write to my MP.

I just heard it on the radio news. I recall John Lennon being barred
from entry to the U.S. because of drug charges and Japan doing the
same to Paris Hilton for the same reason. It was silly but at least
it involved illegal activity. The politically correct related ban
from The U.K. of the American minister has nothing to do with his
violation of any law here in the U.S.. I don't believe he has ever
been to England and violated any laws there. I wonder what would
happen if a Muslim cleric was banned from Great Brittan for anything
he said?

TDD- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

It is our PC brigade. The don't want to upset the scumbag muslims.
Our gov. is nibbling away at our freedoms all the time.

BTW, I was watching the box this fellow Hu's visit. I see you have
redcoatss over there, also bearskin hats. Among the honour guard I
mean.
Now there's always this muttering about redcoats killing indians over
there among you lot. Are these the ones that does it? Heh Heh!

On Jan 21, 3:10*am, The Daring Dufas
wrote:
On 1/20/2011 7:09 PM, wrote:





On Thu, 20 Jan 2011 08:39:22 -0600, The Daring Dufas
*wrote:

On 1/20/2011 7:34 AM, harry wrote:
On Jan 20, 1:20 am, The Daring
wrote:
On 1/19/2011 8:28 AM, harry wrote:

My paternal ancestors are Ulster Scots, my maternal ancestors are
Italian. Have you forgotten that The Romans were all over Brittan?
My ancestry makes me everyone's cousin. :-)

TDD- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Sounds pretty dodgy to me! *:-)

Well heck, think about it, what do soldiers of any army do. Like the
crusty old sergeant told his troops "If it moves, screw it, if it
doesn't move, paint it!" :-)

TDD

Heh Heh.
I just heard on the box that your koran burning bible basher from
Florida has bee refused a visa to visit us. He was going to lecture
our equivalent of the KKK on muslim issues.
How's that for free speech?
Pity that, we just love to bait Yanks, he would have been ideal. I
shall write to my MP.

I just heard it on the radio news. I recall John Lennon being barred
from entry to the U.S. because of drug charges and Japan doing the
same to Paris Hilton for the same reason. It was silly but at least
it involved illegal activity. The politically correct related ban
from The U.K. of the American minister has nothing to do with his
violation of any law here in the U.S.. I don't believe he has ever
been to England and violated any laws there. I wonder what would
happen if a Muslim cleric was banned from Great Brittan for anything
he said?

Michael Savage (Weiner) has been banned from entering the UK because he has a
talk radio show.

Yea, he came to mind but I thought everyone knew that. It gets a bit
asinine when some bureaucrat somewhere decides "U R mean, U can't cum
to my ****ree." Savage was howling about it the last time I heard a
part of his show. :-)

TDD- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I'd never heard of him. I just read up on him now a bit. I agree with
most of his views.
I can see why the PC lot wouldn't want him over here. However I think
we're getting these *******s on the run. People has had enough.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-12235237

On Jan 21, 7:30*am, "DGDevin" wrote:
"Jim Yanik" *wrote in message

4...

were all or most of those committed by LAWFUL gun owners?

According to the BATF, 15% of shootings are committed by people who were in
lawful possession of the firearms discharged, and that includes lawful
shootings such as self-defense. *So it would be silly for anyone to argue
that the overwhelming majority of shootings in the U.S. are not carried out
by criminals--but then we have some very silly people in this thread.

chalk it up to the "revolving door of "justice"";
lenient judges and prosecutors who plea-bargain down to lesser crimes and
shorter sentences.

Sentences in the U.S. tend to be longer than in most industrialized nations,
which is part of the reason prosecutors often bargain down cases--the jails
tend to be full.

Getting rid of any guns helps. Virtually all of our massacres in the
UK were carried out by legal gunowners. Nutters I mean.
http://www.gun-control-network.org/GF08.htm

On 1/21/2011 1:56 AM, harry wrote:
On Jan 20, 2:39 pm, The Daring
wrote:
On 1/20/2011 7:34 AM, harry wrote:





On Jan 20, 1:20 am, The Daring
wrote:
On 1/19/2011 8:28 AM, harry wrote:

My paternal ancestors are Ulster Scots, my maternal ancestors are
Italian. Have you forgotten that The Romans were all over Brittan?
My ancestry makes me everyone's cousin. :-)

TDD- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Sounds pretty dodgy to me! :-)

Well heck, think about it, what do soldiers of any army do. Like the
crusty old sergeant told his troops "If it moves, screw it, if it
doesn't move, paint it!" :-)

TDD

Heh Heh.
I just heard on the box that your koran burning bible basher from
Florida has bee refused a visa to visit us. He was going to lecture
our equivalent of the KKK on muslim issues.
How's that for free speech?
Pity that, we just love to bait Yanks, he would have been ideal. I
shall write to my MP.

I just heard it on the radio news. I recall John Lennon being barred
from entry to the U.S. because of drug charges and Japan doing the
same to Paris Hilton for the same reason. It was silly but at least
it involved illegal activity. The politically correct related ban
from The U.K. of the American minister has nothing to do with his
violation of any law here in the U.S.. I don't believe he has ever
been to England and violated any laws there. I wonder what would
happen if a Muslim cleric was banned from Great Brittan for anything
he said?

TDD- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

It is our PC brigade. The don't want to upset the scumbag muslims.
Our gov. is nibbling away at our freedoms all the time.

BTW, I was watching the box this fellow Hu's visit. I see you have
redcoatss over there, also bearskin hats. Among the honour guard I
mean.
Now there's always this muttering about redcoats killing indians over
there among you lot. Are these the ones that does it? Heh Heh!

Anything relating to BeHO is always going to be a bit bizarre but he's
our President so we put up with him until he's voted out. :-)

TDD

DGDevin wrote:
"Jim Yanik" wrote in message
4...

were all or most of those committed by LAWFUL gun owners?

According to the BATF, 15% of shootings are committed by people who
were in lawful possession of the firearms discharged, and that
includes lawful shootings such as self-defense. So it would be silly
for anyone to argue that the overwhelming majority of shootings in
the U.S. are not carried out by criminals--but then we have some very
silly people in this thread.
chalk it up to the "revolving door of "justice"";
lenient judges and prosecutors who plea-bargain down to lesser
crimes and shorter sentences.

Sentences in the U.S. tend to be longer than in most industrialized
nations, which is part of the reason prosecutors often bargain down
cases--the jails tend to be full.

The prison bucket is not connected to the prosecution bucket. Prosecutors
and judges are indifferent to the capacity of the jails. They are looking at
their own workload.

I was told in the police academy that 90% of those charged with a criminal
offense plead guilty (to a lesser charge?) at the first opportunity. The
courts are clogged with the remaining 10%. If every one arrested today
decided to plead "not guilty," the system would grind to a halt by this time
tomorrow.