"Robert Green" wrote in message
...
"DGDevin" wrote in message
m...


"Don Klipstein" wrote in message
...

I know one libertarian who wishes to take a time machine trip back to
the late 1700's so as to remove from the US Constitition's preamble the
"public welfare" bit.

That doesn't surprise me. Many people are fierce defenders of the parts
of
the Constitution *which they agree with*. Ditto with the Supreme Court,
when they agree with a ruling the court is just fine, when they disagree
the
court is a bunch of morons.

stuff snipped

What many people conveniently forget is that today's firearms are
virtually
nothing like the muzzle loaders of the Revolutionary War period. Had
there
been AK-47's, Glocks, 30 round magazines, .44 and .50 cal handguns in
existence at the time, the Framers might have felt the need to be more
specific than they were.



Highly DOUBTFULL

I'll remind you that private ownership of cannons was quite OK.
You could get a Letter of Marque, arm and outfit your ship and happily go
sailing to meet British merchant ships.

The Framers INTENDED for people to have access to MILITARY ARMS for the
purpose of being ready to serve when called up..


Put another way, how happy would the NRA be if the SCOTUS
decided that the right to keep and bear arms applied only
to muskets and flintlocks?


Moot, since they have already decided otherwise.


A strict Constitutionalist might have to consider
not just the words, but the context of the time the document
was written.



By that INSANE logic, your free speech is ONLY protected if it was written
with quill pens and shouted on the public square
TOTALLY STUPID !


Admittedly a muzzle loader can do some damage. I recall a case where some
kid had taken his father's black powder replica and blasted a hole clean
through a car door, nearly killing the occupant. But the time to load and
fire the next shot is considerable and Columbine wouldn't have been
possible
with muzzle loaders that represented "arms" at the time the framers wrote
the Constitution.

I'm convinced that at least some gun enthusiasts would own
88mm cannons if the law allowed. Probably tactical "suitcase"
nukes, too. HeyBub would be first on the list to have
his own 88mm flak gun - just in case the squints
and mopes came from the sky.
(You KNOW you want one, HeyBub - don't deny it.
You could build a fake observatory to house it, complete with a
Palomar-style rotating turret dome.)



Always funny to read the idiots when they go wanking off on this stupid
tangent
Still makes it TOTALLY STUPID, though.


I seem to remember someone mounting big guns that couldn't aim low enough
to
hit attackers - was it US carrier weapons in WWII and wave skimming
Japanese
attack aircraft? The guns at Tobruk? Obviously another swiss cheese hole
has formed in my brain. Memory loss seems perverse in that you remember
you
can't remember something. How cruel is that?


Too bad you are clearly approaching single digit IQ points.

zzzzzzzzzz wrote:

Vermont has had "No Permit Necessary" for a very long time,and
there's not been any significant problem,even in their major cities.
Their police seem to handle it fine.

Sure, but Vermont is a "special" place. ...in the many senses of the
word.

And most of Vermont's citizens live in their own "special place."

On Wed, 29 Jun 2011 21:24:32 -0500, "HeyBub" wrote:

wrote:

Cheaper to keep 'em in a prison than a psych hospital. A bed in a
psych hospital costs upwards of $200/day. In my state, we can house
a prisoner for about $50/day (and we do it for about 157,000
prisoners).

In California, the cost is about $130/day.

We COULD take a bucket-load of Golden State prisoners, charge the
California $100/day and both states would make out like crazy.

Why haven't you? Kentucky has been doing it for some time.

I can think of three reasons: 1) The prison guard union in California
wouldn't allow it,

Quite likely. Things may be changing, though.

2) Those are not the kind of Californians we want moving
to Texas,

What, broke ones? ;-)

or 3) Kentucky is underbidding us.

Can't imagine that. Your inmates make all their stuff, plus.

On 6/29/2011 10:50 PM, HeyBub wrote:
DGDevin wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote in message
m...

A felon buying a gun is committing an actual crime, so how do we
prevent them doing that without background checks? Are you
seriously suggesting there should be no barriers to convicted
criminals from buying guns, we should only hope that the cops catch
them after they've used a gun they aren't supposed to have to
commit another crime?

We don't mandate that those who've gotten a speeding ticket install
governors on their car engines to prohibit excessive speed.

What a bizarre point, and it ignores that if one gets enough speeding
tickets we take away his driver's license and if he keeps driving
without one we put him in prison.

The prohibition against a felon purchasing a gun is NOT to prevent
him from committing another crime; it is a deterrence to discourage
others from becoming felons in the first place!

I would bet folding money that no legislator advocating a law to
prohibit felons from possessing firearms ever argued that the law's
purpose was to discourage law-abiding citizens from taking up crime. Can
you document that any such law contains language identifying that
as its purpose?

No, but I can retell a conversation:

Condemned man: "Whatcha hangin' me for, governor? Hangin' me won't bring
back Charlie!"

Lord High Mayor of London: "Oh, we're not hanging you because you killed
Charlie. We're hanging you so that others won't kill."

As for a quote, they are generally not in the individual laws, but in the
codes of criminal procedure or the preamble to the penal code for the
various 52 state and federal statutes. These reasons are imbedded in the
Model Penal Code and usually say or imply:

The purposes of the criminal law of this state are three-fold: 1) To protect
society from further predations of the criminal, 2) To rehabilitate the
offender, and 3) To serve as a deterrence to others similarily inclined.



Too bad the deterrence factor mostly doesn't work, because most
criminals are stupid, and have short time horizons. They are like two
year olds- they can't conceive of anything bad happening to them, and
'next week' is the same 'in a million years',

--
aem sends...

On Wed, 29 Jun 2011 21:54:06 -0500, "HeyBub" wrote:

wrote:

Vermont has had "No Permit Necessary" for a very long time,and
there's not been any significant problem,even in their major cities.
Their police seem to handle it fine.

Sure, but Vermont is a "special" place. ...in the many senses of the
word.

And most of Vermont's citizens live in their own "special place."

They certainly do on the first Tuesdays of November of even-numbered years!

On Wed, 29 Jun 2011 23:54:51 -0400, aemeijers wrote:

On 6/29/2011 10:50 PM, HeyBub wrote:
DGDevin wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote in message
m...

A felon buying a gun is committing an actual crime, so how do we
prevent them doing that without background checks? Are you
seriously suggesting there should be no barriers to convicted
criminals from buying guns, we should only hope that the cops catch
them after they've used a gun they aren't supposed to have to
commit another crime?

We don't mandate that those who've gotten a speeding ticket install
governors on their car engines to prohibit excessive speed.

What a bizarre point, and it ignores that if one gets enough speeding
tickets we take away his driver's license and if he keeps driving
without one we put him in prison.

The prohibition against a felon purchasing a gun is NOT to prevent
him from committing another crime; it is a deterrence to discourage
others from becoming felons in the first place!

I would bet folding money that no legislator advocating a law to
prohibit felons from possessing firearms ever argued that the law's
purpose was to discourage law-abiding citizens from taking up crime. Can
you document that any such law contains language identifying that
as its purpose?

No, but I can retell a conversation:

Condemned man: "Whatcha hangin' me for, governor? Hangin' me won't bring
back Charlie!"

Lord High Mayor of London: "Oh, we're not hanging you because you killed
Charlie. We're hanging you so that others won't kill."

As for a quote, they are generally not in the individual laws, but in the
codes of criminal procedure or the preamble to the penal code for the
various 52 state and federal statutes. These reasons are imbedded in the
Model Penal Code and usually say or imply:

The purposes of the criminal law of this state are three-fold: 1) To protect
society from further predations of the criminal, 2) To rehabilitate the
offender, and 3) To serve as a deterrence to others similarily inclined.



Too bad the deterrence factor mostly doesn't work, because most
criminals are stupid, and have short time horizons. They are like two
year olds- they can't conceive of anything bad happening to them, and
'next week' is the same 'in a million years',

Why would you expect them to be any different than 90% of the rest of the
population?

"HeyBub" wrote in message
m...

But the military does not take civilians, send them through basic
training, then off to drill instructor school.

You're missing an important point. Yes, a DI is already an experienced
soldier and thus all he needs is some instruction in how to teach. But many
teachers are in the same position, i.e. a teacher already knows how to read
and write so he is in a good position to impart those skills to his students
provided he knows how to teach.

Of course once you get to more specialized knowledge I agree it is necessary
for the teacher to know the material inside-out, you wouldn't want a shop
teacher who didn't know how to use a wrench or a math teacher who couldn't
figure out his own taxes. That's how it is done beyond grade school, a
college history professor has multiple degrees in history. I think that's
how it should be done at least at the high school level as well, a math or
science or literature or music teacher should have at least one degree in
his subject area in addition to an education degree. If he can demonstrate
he's a good teacher than I have no problem with skipping the education
degree and in some cases even the specialized degree, e.g. if Eric Clapton
is looking for work as a guitar teacher we wouldn't hold a lack of a college
education against him. But in the lower grades I don't see the same sort of
need for much specialized knowledge.

"HeyBub" wrote in message
m...

Cheaper to keep 'em in a prison than a psych hospital. A bed in a psych
hospital costs upwards of $200/day. In my state, we can house a prisoner
for about $50/day (and we do it for about 157,000 prisoners).

If all we care about is the financial cost.... But in prison the mentally
ill are not only not likely to get meaningful help with their illness,
they're likely to become worse so when they're eventually released they are
a greater problem than before.

"HeyBub" wrote in message
m...


2) Those are not the kind of Californians we want moving to Texas, or 3)
Kentucky is underbidding us.

California convicts moving to Kentucky has the added benefit of raising the
average IQ in both states.

"HeyBub" wrote in message
...

The law says banks, etc., must meet these goals. How the banks do it is up
to them.

Riiiight, the law provides exemptions for businesses committing fraud so
long as they aren't redlining, sure it does.

"HeyBub" wrote in message
m...


I would bet folding money that no legislator advocating a law to
prohibit felons from possessing firearms ever argued that the law's
purpose was to discourage law-abiding citizens from taking up crime. Can
you document that any such law contains language identifying that
as its purpose?

No, but I can retell a conversation:

Thanks, case closed.

The purposes of the criminal law of this state are three-fold: 1) To
protect society from further predations of the criminal, 2) To
rehabilitate the offender, and 3) To serve as a deterrence to others
similarily inclined.

Deterrence only seems to work in the criminal community in a narrow fashion,
if burglars carrying weapons receive far harsher sentences upon conviction
fewer burglars will carry weapons. But armed robbers will continue carrying
weapons because their trade relies on them. And it is beyond incredible
that any significant number of law-abiding citizens decided not to take up
armed robbery for fear that if caught and convicted they would lose the
right to own firearms.

"Oren" wrote in message ...


Which is why they heard Heller first, they wanted to deal with the federal
aspect first.

Are you sure about that?! Heller was in 2008 and McDonald wasn't on
the court docket or the radar screen, iirc... McDonald was in 2010.

SCOTUS agreed the take the McDonald case in late 2009, after the
Heller decision was already handed down.

The court wanted a case from purely federal jurisdiction first, thus they
took one from DC because of its peculiar legal status as a federal city, the
issue of whether the 2nd applied to the states was sidestepped (that's what
I meant by "federal aspect"). Once they had cleared up whether the 2nd
grants an individual right they could move onto whether the 2nd applies to
the states and lower entities.

"D.A. Tsenuf" wrote in message
.. .


Always funny to read the idiots when they go wanking off on this stupid
tangent
Still makes it TOTALLY STUPID, though.

It's possible to make the same points you did without being pointlessly
insulting, at least when dealing with someone like Mr. Green who while not
always right is always thought-provoking.

"HeyBub" wrote in message
m...


These, and other, techniques were employed to suppress the opposition
vote. All legally. I have no significant problem with any of these
methods.

I have little doubt that if some of those methods had resulted in a court
case you would not be able to use the word "legally". But that's the
advantage of picking on the disadvantaged, they generally don't have lawyers
on retainer.

As for you not having a significant problem with such methods, that speaks
volumes.

"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message
news

Not so long as corporate America can buy all the Congressional votes it
needs.

And the Dems are trying to get the Hispanics to vote for them...

The Repubs are trying too, they're just not doing a very good job of it.

Of course they want to be exploited. So it must be right to do so.

??? I didn't address whether it was right or wrong, I merely referred to a
law of economics--people go where there is gainful employment. Repubs are
always telling us about economic forces that can't be overcome by
governments, yet for some reason they don’t think that applies to
corporations looking for cheap labor and labor looking for work.

Americans won't pick fruit and vegetables for minimum wage or not much
more
than that. So how precisely do you plan to get those crops from the
fields
to your grocery store?

Pay people a wage, automate, import, go without.

Good luck convincing most Americans of that, they're happy to shop at
Wal-Mart even if that means the jobs of other Americans end up in
China--they want it cheap, end of story. And try telling America's farmers
and/or agribusiness that we should import food rather than grow it here,
you'll be lucky not to be run out of town on a rail.

In article ,
"DGDevin" wrote:

??? I didn't address whether it was right or wrong, I merely referred to a
law of economics--people go where there is gainful employment. Repubs are
always telling us about economic forces that can't be overcome by
governments, yet for some reason they don¹t think that applies to
corporations looking for cheap labor and labor looking for work.

Because it isn't about that, except when people try to obscure the
facts. It is about people coming in here ILLEGALLY.

--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz

DGDevin wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote in message
m...

But the military does not take civilians, send them through basic
training, then off to drill instructor school.

You're missing an important point. Yes, a DI is already an
experienced soldier and thus all he needs is some instruction in how
to teach. But many teachers are in the same position, i.e. a teacher
already knows how to read and write so he is in a good position to
impart those skills to his students provided he knows how to teach.

Of course once you get to more specialized knowledge I agree it is
necessary for the teacher to know the material inside-out, you
wouldn't want a shop teacher who didn't know how to use a wrench or a
math teacher who couldn't figure out his own taxes. That's how it is
done beyond grade school, a college history professor has multiple
degrees in history. I think that's how it should be done at least at
the high school level as well, a math or science or literature or
music teacher should have at least one degree in his subject area in
addition to an education degree. If he can demonstrate he's a good
teacher than I have no problem with skipping the education degree and
in some cases even the specialized degree, e.g. if Eric Clapton is
looking for work as a guitar teacher we wouldn't hold a lack of a
college education against him. But in the lower grades I don't see
the same sort of need for much specialized knowledge.

Ah, good point. I was skipping elementary school and thinking of more
specialized courses at the High School level, such as Gay History or
Ebonics.

Thanks for the nudge.

Who is Eric Clapton?

"HeyBub" wrote in message
m...

Ah, good point. I was skipping elementary school and thinking of more
specialized courses at the High School level, such as Gay History or
Ebonics.

That wouldn't be nearly as funny if you didn't really believe it.

Who is Eric Clapton?

He's a musician, known for his brilliant interpretations of the compositions
of P.D.Q. Bach.

"Don Klipstein" wrote in message ...


However, there is still the matter of how much warming this has caused
and will cause. It appears to me that the advocates of existence of
man-made global warming are overestimating degree of its existence, and
degree of existence of "positive feedbacks" necessary for this to be an
actual problem.

Even if you're correct, taking the possibility of manmade climate change
seriously (and thus reducing the use of fossil fuels) has some significant
benefits such as not sending countless billions of dollars to nations which
don't seem to like us much, reducing reliance on a strategic resource which
could be cut off at an inconvenient time, reducing air pollution in general
(which is desirable on its own merits), and promoting the development of
clean energy technology which will be a highly valuable commodity in the
future. Wouldn't it be lovely one day to be able to tell OPEC to get
stuffed?

DGDevin wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote in message
...

The law says banks, etc., must meet these goals. How the banks do it
is up to them.

Riiiight, the law provides exemptions for businesses committing fraud
so long as they aren't redlining, sure it does.

When we were getting instructions on running a small jail, a question came
up:

"Lt, what about women? Do we search them or do we not?"

"Goddamn it men, I've told you a hundred times that common sense would get
you through 99% of your police work. Let's take an example: Suppose a
trooper brings in a woman for speeding and lays the warrant on the desk.
You've got to take her.

"Now you know the rules: We've got a rule that says ALL prisoners will be
searched for your protection, their protection, and the protection of other
inmates. There's another rule that says females are searched only by
physicians or matrons. We don't have a matron or a physician, so you've got
to break one of the rules, and that's where your common sense comes into
play.

"If she's a hottie, I'd spend a half-hour strip searching her. If she's some
smelly skank, just throw her in the hole.

"Common sense, men. Common sense."

DGDevin wrote:
"Don Klipstein" wrote in message
...

However, there is still the matter of how much warming this has
caused and will cause. It appears to me that the advocates of
existence of man-made global warming are overestimating degree of
its existence, and degree of existence of "positive feedbacks"
necessary for this to be an actual problem.

Even if you're correct, taking the possibility of manmade climate
change seriously (and thus reducing the use of fossil fuels) has some
significant benefits such as not sending countless billions of
dollars to nations which don't seem to like us much, reducing
reliance on a strategic resource which could be cut off at an
inconvenient time, reducing air pollution in general (which is
desirable on its own merits), and promoting the development of clean
energy technology which will be a highly valuable commodity in the
future. Wouldn't it be lovely one day to be able to tell OPEC to get
stuffed?

These benefits are insignificant when compared to the consequences of
turning the clock back several hundred years. You would have us light the
night with whale oil (a renewable resource), confine transportation to five
miles per hour, and communication at the speed of the pony express. We'd
even have to give up Velcro.

There are new problems with your scheme. Had you asked a New Yorker in 1900
what traffic would look like in a 100 years when the population exceeded
five million, he'd ask where would we get enough horses and what would we do
with all the horse ****?

As for OPEC, I'm pretty sure they don't ship any oil to Somalia, Sudan,
Burma, or the Arctic. Those are the kinds of communities we'd have without
fossil fuels.

DGDevin wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote in message
m...


These, and other, techniques were employed to suppress the opposition
vote. All legally. I have no significant problem with any of these
methods.

I have little doubt that if some of those methods had resulted in a
court case you would not be able to use the word "legally". But
that's the advantage of picking on the disadvantaged, they generally
don't have lawyers on retainer.

As for you not having a significant problem with such methods, that
speaks volumes.

Hey, I didn't make the rules. It's not fair to criticize me for playing by
them.

DGDevin wrote:

Pay people a wage, automate, import, go without.

Good luck convincing most Americans of that, they're happy to shop at
Wal-Mart even if that means the jobs of other Americans end up in
China--they want it cheap, end of story. And try telling America's
farmers and/or agribusiness that we should import food rather than
grow it here, you'll be lucky not to be run out of town on a rail.

Several years ago I ran into an old high-school sweetheart. We had coffee to
get caught up.

After college, she became an airline stewardess and for twenty years plied
the US - Australia/New Zealand routes.

After retiring, she happened to be in the grocery store, one February,
looking for strawberries.

"No strawberries in February, ma'am. No siree, not any. Nope." said the
produce manager.

Now she learned two things flying to Australia: Passengers fly on top,
freight underneath and the seasons are reversed in the southern hemisphere.

She called one of her old frequent-flyer passengers in New Zealand. "Sure, I
can ship you as many strawberries as you want, ten cents a pint, FOB." She
ordered a small container full.

It arrived at the USDA station in Dallas where it was cleared for entry. The
container, containing about 5,000 pints of stawberries in shrink-wrapped
little baskets, was loaded on a trailer and she hauled it to Houston.

The buyer at the local wholesale produce company looked at her stuff and her
USDA documentation and offered her $0.85 a pint (her total cost was
twenty-two cents) and told her he would take as much as she could deliver.

After the coffee, we went to her (palatial) town house and spent several
hours eating strawberries and kiwi fruit while she told me about her next
venture (100% wool carpet from Australian sheep).

Then we had sex.

Point is, because of imports, we can enjoy virtually all food year 'round.
And sometimes sex.

"HeyBub" wrote in message
m...


These benefits are insignificant when compared to the consequences of
turning the clock back several hundred years.

Since I didn't propose doing that, what are you talking about?

You would have us light the night with whale oil (a renewable resource),
confine transportation to five miles per hour, and communication at the
speed of the pony express. We'd even have to give up Velcro.

I never suggested any of those things, are you hearing voices while reading
Usenet again?

There are new problems with your scheme. Had you asked a New Yorker in
1900 what traffic would look like in a 100 years when the population
exceeded five million, he'd ask where would we get enough horses and what
would we do with all the horse ****?

Ship it to Texas of course, where they have a whole different attitude
towards manure.

As for OPEC, I'm pretty sure they don't ship any oil to Somalia, Sudan,
Burma, or the Arctic. Those are the kinds of communities we'd have without
fossil fuels.

Seriously, what part of "reducing" the use of fossil fuels is escaping you?
My next car is going to get at least ten miles a gallon more than the
current one because only a fool doesn't expect the price of gas to increase
over time. But I'm not suggesting I won't have a car, and I'm not
suggesting you ride a bike everywhere either (although that would probably
do both of us considerable good).

Again, won't the day we can tell OPEC to go pound sand be a fine day?

"HeyBub" wrote in message
m...

Hey, I didn't make the rules. It's not fair to criticize me for playing by
them.

If you discovered a legal loophole that allowed you to shoplift with
impunity, would you do it?

Integrity is when you do the right thing even if you don't have to. Some
people have it, some don't.

"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message
...

Because it isn't about that, except when people try to obscure the
facts. It is about people coming in here ILLEGALLY.

Of course it's about that. American companies want those workers here,
that's why they govt. doesn't do more to crack down on illegal workers. Why
do you think the American Chamber of Commerce opposed Arizona's recent
attempted law or why they fight businesses being compelled to check the
documents of workers? Illegal? LOL, big business doesn't give a damn about
illegal, their only concern is profits. So long as you think the law is
more important than corporate profitability you'll never figure this out.

"HeyBub" wrote in message
m...

Point is, because of imports, we can enjoy virtually all food year 'round.

Point is, once American strawberry farmers are out of business because they
can't find pickers, imports is all you will have.

DGDevin wrote:

Seriously, what part of "reducing" the use of fossil fuels is
escaping you? My next car is going to get at least ten miles a gallon
more than the current one because only a fool doesn't expect the
price of gas to increase over time. But I'm not suggesting I won't
have a car, and I'm not suggesting you ride a bike everywhere either
(although that would probably do both of us considerable good).

Admittedly, reducing our dependence on fossil fuels is a good idea for some.
Those to whom going green is a religious experience can feel some
accomplishment in their own personal lives while simultaneously despairing
over the state of Mother Earth. Recognizing their own contribution to the
goal of returning to the caves is insufficient, like any true believer,
they'll attempt to change the world. Regrettably, they'll have SOME success
and we'll have to make-do without 100-watt bulbs (unless we live in Texas).

By every measure, energy gulping societies are healthy, wealthy, and wise.
Conversely, those societies who gather sticks to ward off the nighttime cold
live short lives of despair, hunger, and tribulation.

What the environmentalists don't seem to understand is converting to
renewables is not a zero-sum game. EVERY move in that direction costs more
than it profits society.


Again, won't the day we can tell OPEC to go pound sand be a fine day?

It would be a fine day if every child had a pony. It's not going to happen
and it's not even a worthwhile goal. Already several countries can flip off
OPEC (i.e., Sudan, Somalia, Burma, and others).

Further, if it's such a good idea to divorce ourselves from OPEC, that could
be done today with legislation. Doing so, however, would not advance the
goals of the environmentalists inasmuch as oil is fungible. If we don't buy
oil from OPEC, we'll get it from Nigeria. Countries who were getting oil
from Nigeria will then get it from OPEC.

I do agree that riding a bike would be good for us. I recently took a plane
trip from Houston to Buffalo (five hours). Not only did I have to spend four
days in western New York but, equally bad, got hit with a deep vein
thrombosis which resulted in a pulmonary embolism! Five days in the hospital
and $70,000 later, I'm good as new. But I learned a valuable lesson.

Next time I'll consider a bicycle. Or a pony.

DGDevin wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote in message
m...

Point is, because of imports, we can enjoy virtually all food year
'round.

Point is, once American strawberry farmers are out of business
because they can't find pickers, imports is all you will have.

You say that like you think it's a bad thing.

First, in my example, nobody in the U.S. GREW strawberries that could come
to market in February!

That said, assume a strawberry farmer grows enough strawberries to satisfy,
oh, 1,000 strawberry consumers. The trade-off seems to be one farmer (and
perhaps his family) vs. 1,000 strawberry consumers. Where is the greater
good?

Besides, if growing strawberries is not profitable for the farmer, he can,
in most cases, grow something else. Have you checked the price of arugula
lately?

More likely, some enterprising soul will develop a strawberry-harvesting
machine.

Or artificial strawberry flavoring.

Oops! Never mind.

"Vic Smith" wrote in message
...

stuff snipped

"Can I help you?"
The punk was startled that this little lady should shout at him,
and nervously glanced over at me. I just stared at him, while I
slowly chewed a bite of my dog.
Then the punk said, in a quavering voice,
"Uh, do you have Super-absorbent Tampax?"
I stopped chewing my dog, and the room was filled with silence.
Finally, the cashier loudly said,
"Sorry, we're all out."
The punk just dropped his head, and hurried past me out of the store.
I finished my dog as I looked out the store window. The punk
jumped into a Jeep Wagoneer and hauled ass.
It didn't take too much imagination to realize that had I let the punk
get the upper hand, he would have left driving my Celebrity.

That's not much of a trade (Celebrity for Wagoneer). Alternate
explanation - he was there to buy Tampax for his squeeze but was too
embarrassed to do it in front of another man.

Today. Wednesday.
I stayed home from work, since last year there had been a daytime
burglary in my neighborhood on a Wednesday.

You waited a YEAR for a perp to strike again? Say WHAT!?

About 11:00 AM, as I sat at the kitchen table drinking coffee and
reading the True Police Stories magazine I had purchased yesterday, my
dog started barking by the front door.
I grabbed my kitchen .38 from the countertop (I keep a piece in every
room, mostly .38's), and put it in my pants pocket.
I looked out the peephole of the front door and saw a punk approaching
the house. He had disguised himself as a mailman.
Of course I know my mailman, and the usual substitutes. I had never
seen this guy before.

There had to be a day when both your regular mailman and his subs were new
to you, too.

The punk looked down at the leather bag he carried, lifted its flap,
and reached inside.
Like greased lightning, my hand came out of my pocket with the .38
and I cocked the double-action as I swung it around behind
me, concealed but at the ready.
The punk froze, having heard the unmistakable sound of a well-oiled
.38 being cocked, then slowly lifted his head to look at me.
I recognized fear in his eyes.

Pity the poor mailman who has to visit every crazy in the neighborhood.
He's way more afraid than you'll ever be. Ask any mailman of two or more
years' experience about pitbulls and they'll usually pull up their pants leg
and describe how they got those scars. My regular guy has been bitten over
10 times!!!! (Not all pits, but a respectable number. They seem to hate
smaller dogs AND mailmen.)

The street was silent. Even my dog had stopped barking, as he too
knows that sound.
Whatever hardware the punk had planned on pulling from that bag was
forgotten, and he said to me, in a shaking voice,
"Are you V-Victor Smith?"
I just nodded once.
"I'm g-going to g-g-give you your m-m-m-m-mail,", he stuttered.
"You just go ahead and do that. Punk," said I.
Very slowly then, the punk pulled from his bag a packet of "mail"
bound by a rubber band. I took it from him with my free hand,
and glanced at it, keeping my peripheral vision ready to pick up any
sudden movement from the punk.
The "mail" consisted of sale flyers from a few of the local grocers.

As mine often does.

The punk looked at me once more, then slowly turned around and
walked away, with each step growing a bit longer and quicker, so
that by the time he reached his car, a riced '98 Civic putt-putting
away at the curb, he was running like a striped-ass gazelle.
He jumped in the Civic, gunned it, and popped the clutch, stalling it.
No torque.
He cranked it over to restart as he looked at me, then finally pulled
away, shifting like mad, clashing the gears and trailing a cloud of
blue smoke.
He was one lucky burglar. If he had pulled from that bag any real
1st-class mail addressed to me, that would have told me had stolen the
U.S. Mail, and I would have plugged the SOB.

50/50 chance you might have ended up with a federal homicide beef.

He could have been one of many of the thuggish looking temp mailmen I see
every week in my neighborhood. Dude, you're getting close to the edge . . .

As it was, I just went inside to the kitchen, and poured myself a
fresh cup of coffee.
Being armed and prepared had once again stood me in good stead.
Had this punk been the only one armed, he could have tied me up
or killed me, possibly sodomized me, and ransacked my house, then set
it on fire.

Dude, why not just wait until he breaks in and then it's all nice and legal?

The only reason I'm telling you guys about this is because some of
you don't believe that armed citizens are preventing crime somewhere
in this great land of ours every minute of the day.

I've used a gun three times in 30 years to ward off a criminal act. If the
bad guys were coming at me at the rate you're experiencing, I would move.

By looking at my very real examples of what an armed law-abiding
citizen can accomplish, in just three short days, in the crusade
against crime, I hope you will see the light.
Note that I did not once fire a shot. Indeed, not one of these punks
even *saw* my weapon.

You're just funnin' us, Vic. I remember every gruesome detail of the three
times I nearly had to shoot someone because my eyes were bulging from the
adrenaline. I remember the face of the guy who cocked his head from side to
side to make sure my .380 Beretta was a real gun. I remember clearly
thinking "side to side, OK" but one millimeter towards me (he was about 5'
away) and he was dead. I remember exactly what I said, too: "Back off or
you're dead." And he did.

And believe me, this is not an exceptional week, but about average.
I am eagerly waiting to see what new challenges Thursday will bring.

I like you, Vic. We NEED people like you in AHR. Don't go getting yourself
killed by drawing down on a plainclothes cop or detective. They work hard
to make themselves look like every other skel on the street. Maybe it's
because I've seen too many of what should have been "righteous" shoots for
cops turn into disasters that I think of shooting someone as a last resort.
There are plenty of times I've walked around with my hand in my pocket
tightly gripping my Beretta but drawing down on someone who could actually
be a mailman? That's over the edge.

Did I leave my empty flatscreen TV box on the porch for a few days while I
let the mail pile up and the cars were parked elsewhere to see who would
come to get it? Yes, but that's a controlled circumstance. Even then, I
couldn't shoot the thief (only in Texas, I think, can you shoot one) because
it was a property crime. I could have made a citizen's arrest but all I
wanted to know was which of my neighbors was a thief. What happened? My
elderly neighbor came by and put a big plastic bag over it so it wouldn't
get rained on because my regular mailman asked her if I was away. Now that
I have new section 8 neighbors it might be time to haul out a valuable
looking box and keep my eye on the IR CCTV camera again.

Some day some dude's gonna ask you for directions at a gas station and make
the mistake of pulling out his wallet like Amidou Diallo did and you'll
waste him. Remember, at least two of the situations you described there
were likely to be CCTV cams recording the event. I don't know whether you
would stick around after plugging someone at a gas station. I doubt I
would. And I would then be busy boring out the barrel, breaking up the gun
and distributing the pieces off various bridges and in various swamps.
Unfortunately my Glock has been bullet "fingerprinted" as all new guns in
Maryland are, so it's only good for home defense and extremely "clean"
shoots.

I'm hoping you've earned an "A" in creative writing and not a "D" in getting
along with your fellow man. (-: My god-daughter's aunt is a Chicago vice
cop. Don't be killing her!

--
Bobby G.

Take two aspirin, and get up and walk around every hour?

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


"HeyBub" wrote in message
m...

I do agree that riding a bike would be good for us. I
recently took a plane
trip from Houston to Buffalo (five hours). Not only did I
have to spend four
days in western New York but, equally bad, got hit with a
deep vein
thrombosis which resulted in a pulmonary embolism! Five days
in the hospital
and $70,000 later, I'm good as new. But I learned a valuable
lesson.

Next time I'll consider a bicycle. Or a pony.

"HeyBub" wrote in message
m...

I do agree that riding a bike would be good for us. I recently took a
plane
trip from Houston to Buffalo (five hours). Not only did I have to spend
four
days in western New York but, equally bad, got hit with a deep vein
thrombosis which resulted in a pulmonary embolism! Five days in the
hospital
and $70,000 later, I'm good as new. But I learned a valuable lesson.

Geez, dude, I've told the story of my boss's DVT so many times I thought it
might have sunk in. You have to move around in a plane to avoid circulation
problems. It's unnatural for the human body to stay in one cramped, awful
position for so long. Had a co-worker get a DVT on a flight to Japan. Now
he's on a cocktail of meds including blood thinners that have some serious
side-effects.

Sad to say, no one I've known with a DVT is ever "good as new" but I hope
for the best for you. Who else could I spar with on AHR that knows how to
take a joke? Move a-fuc&ing-round next time. The aisle seat is actually
your friend because it almost forces you to move. A clot can also move to
your brain and kill you stone dead. You're lucky. You got "warning
ticket." sermon over

I spent two years in Buffalo (until a total of 90" of snow and seeing Niagra
Falls frozen stiff convinced me to go south). Why would you want to fly
*there*? (-:

--
Bobby G.

In article ,
"Stormin Mormon" wrote:

Take two aspirin, and get up and walk around every hour?

Actually one would help. Lots of fluids as well.

--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz

"HeyBub" wrote in message
m...
DGDevin wrote:

Pay people a wage, automate, import, go without.

Good luck convincing most Americans of that, they're happy to shop at
Wal-Mart even if that means the jobs of other Americans end up in
China--they want it cheap, end of story. And try telling America's
farmers and/or agribusiness that we should import food rather than
grow it here, you'll be lucky not to be run out of town on a rail.

Several years ago I ran into an old high-school sweetheart. We had coffee
to get caught up.

After college, she became an airline stewardess and for twenty years plied
the US - Australia/New Zealand routes.

After retiring, she happened to be in the grocery store, one February,
looking for strawberries.

"No strawberries in February, ma'am. No siree, not any. Nope." said the
produce manager.

Now she learned two things flying to Australia: Passengers fly on top,
freight underneath and the seasons are reversed in the southern
hemisphere.

She called one of her old frequent-flyer passengers in New Zealand. "Sure,
I can ship you as many strawberries as you want, ten cents a pint, FOB."
She ordered a small container full.

It arrived at the USDA station in Dallas where it was cleared for entry.
The container, containing about 5,000 pints of stawberries in
shrink-wrapped little baskets, was loaded on a trailer and she hauled it
to Houston.

The buyer at the local wholesale produce company looked at her stuff and
her USDA documentation and offered her $0.85 a pint (her total cost was
twenty-two cents) and told her he would take as much as she could deliver.

After the coffee, we went to her (palatial) town house and spent several
hours eating strawberries and kiwi fruit while she told me about her next
venture (100% wool carpet from Australian sheep).

Then we had sex.

Point is, because of imports, we can enjoy virtually all food year 'round.
And sometimes sex.


I know a guy who imports camel meat from the middle east
He already has everything sold when he puts in the order. And he can't keep
up with the demand.

On Fri, 1 Jul 2011 08:46:09 -0400, "Robert Green"
wrote:

"Vic Smith" wrote in message
.. .


It didn't take too much imagination to realize that had I let the punk
get the upper hand, he would have left driving my Celebrity.

That's not much of a trade (Celebrity for Wagoneer).

No way I would have traded my '88 Celebrity for any Jeep.
Had about 180k almost trouble-free miles on it then.
2.8L. I loved that car. My all time favorite.
I posted this about 10 years ago to R.A.D when the usual Honda vs
"American," OHC vs pushrod arguments were going on.
Just so happened one of these endless gun arguments was going on
at the same time.
Guys saying how many millions of crimes are prevented by gun ownership
every year.
Just figured I'd kill 2 birds.
It's really about pushrods.

Alternate
explanation - he was there to buy Tampax for his squeeze but was too
embarrassed to do it in front of another man.


Sure, but a paranoid doesn't see it that way.

Today. Wednesday.
I stayed home from work, since last year there had been a daytime
burglary in my neighborhood on a Wednesday.

You waited a YEAR for a perp to strike again? Say WHAT!?


I wanted to make it clear it wasn't serious. Didn't work.

He jumped in the Civic, gunned it, and popped the clutch, stalling it.
No torque.

It was all about no low end torque in OHC. Nobody got it but me.

He was one lucky burglar. If he had pulled from that bag any real
1st-class mail addressed to me, that would have told me had stolen the
U.S. Mail, and I would have plugged the SOB.

50/50 chance you might have ended up with a federal homicide beef.


100%. Insanity plea obviously.

He could have been one of many of the thuggish looking temp mailmen I see
every week in my neighborhood. Dude, you're getting close to the edge . . .

Mine are cleancut, and get a bottle of Kahlua at Christmas.

The only reason I'm telling you guys about this is because some of
you don't believe that armed citizens are preventing crime somewhere
in this great land of ours every minute of the day.

I've used a gun three times in 30 years to ward off a criminal act. If the
bad guys were coming at me at the rate you're experiencing, I would move.


Never felt I needed a piece myself except once.
Packed a borrowed .32 for a while. That blew over pretty quick.

By looking at my very real examples of what an armed law-abiding
citizen can accomplish, in just three short days, in the crusade
against crime, I hope you will see the light.
Note that I did not once fire a shot. Indeed, not one of these punks
even *saw* my weapon.

You're just funnin' us, Vic.

Yup.

I remember every gruesome detail of the three
times I nearly had to shoot someone because my eyes were bulging from the
adrenaline. I remember the face of the guy who cocked his head from side to
side to make sure my .380 Beretta was a real gun. I remember clearly
thinking "side to side, OK" but one millimeter towards me (he was about 5'
away) and he was dead. I remember exactly what I said, too: "Back off or
you're dead." And he did.


Did he give you your mail first?


And believe me, this is not an exceptional week, but about average.
I am eagerly waiting to see what new challenges Thursday will bring.


There are plenty of times I've walked around with my hand in my pocket
tightly gripping my Beretta but drawing down on someone who could actually
be a mailman? That's over the edge.


What about this guy?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=udQM_...eature=related


Did I leave my empty flatscreen TV box on the porch for a few days while I
let the mail pile up and the cars were parked elsewhere to see who would
come to get it? Yes, but that's a controlled circumstance. Even then, I
couldn't shoot the thief (only in Texas, I think, can you shoot one) because
it was a property crime. I could have made a citizen's arrest but all I
wanted to know was which of my neighbors was a thief. What happened? My
elderly neighbor came by and put a big plastic bag over it so it wouldn't
get rained on because my regular mailman asked her if I was away. Now that
I have new section 8 neighbors it might be time to haul out a valuable
looking box and keep my eye on the IR CCTV camera again.


Jesus. I'm glad I moved where I did.
Not saying any place is free of crime, but I've lived in lots of
places, and there's huge differences.
I've had the same nice patio furniture outside for years.
Had to get used to it still being there the next day.
But thieves nearly always catch you by surprise anyway.
It's their nature.
Realized that when a one of my Navy mates lost a pair of stinky socks
to a thief. He was raving for days.
"Who the **** would take those stinky socks!!??"
If it ain't nailed down......
Never saw a thief in action.
No surprise they used to hang thieves when they caught them.
Might not get another chance.

--Vic

On 7/1/2011 1:32 PM, Vic Smith wrote:
On Fri, 1 Jul 2011 08:46:09 -0400, "Robert Green"
wrote:

"Vic wrote in message
...


It didn't take too much imagination to realize that had I let the punk
get the upper hand, he would have left driving my Celebrity.

That's not much of a trade (Celebrity for Wagoneer).

No way I would have traded my '88 Celebrity for any Jeep.
Had about 180k almost trouble-free miles on it then.
2.8L. I loved that car. My all time favorite.
I posted this about 10 years ago to R.A.D when the usual Honda vs
"American," OHC vs pushrod arguments were going on.
Just so happened one of these endless gun arguments was going on
at the same time.
Guys saying how many millions of crimes are prevented by gun ownership
every year.
Just figured I'd kill 2 birds.
It's really about pushrods.

Alternate
explanation - he was there to buy Tampax for his squeeze but was too
embarrassed to do it in front of another man.


Sure, but a paranoid doesn't see it that way.

Today. Wednesday.
I stayed home from work, since last year there had been a daytime
burglary in my neighborhood on a Wednesday.

You waited a YEAR for a perp to strike again? Say WHAT!?


I wanted to make it clear it wasn't serious. Didn't work.

He jumped in the Civic, gunned it, and popped the clutch, stalling it.
No torque.

It was all about no low end torque in OHC. Nobody got it but me.

He was one lucky burglar. If he had pulled from that bag any real
1st-class mail addressed to me, that would have told me had stolen the
U.S. Mail, and I would have plugged the SOB.

50/50 chance you might have ended up with a federal homicide beef.


100%. Insanity plea obviously.

He could have been one of many of the thuggish looking temp mailmen I see
every week in my neighborhood. Dude, you're getting close to the edge . . .

Mine are cleancut, and get a bottle of Kahlua at Christmas.

The only reason I'm telling you guys about this is because some of
you don't believe that armed citizens are preventing crime somewhere
in this great land of ours every minute of the day.

I've used a gun three times in 30 years to ward off a criminal act. If the
bad guys were coming at me at the rate you're experiencing, I would move.


Never felt I needed a piece myself except once.
Packed a borrowed .32 for a while. That blew over pretty quick.

By looking at my very real examples of what an armed law-abiding
citizen can accomplish, in just three short days, in the crusade
against crime, I hope you will see the light.
Note that I did not once fire a shot. Indeed, not one of these punks
even *saw* my weapon.

You're just funnin' us, Vic.

Yup.

I remember every gruesome detail of the three
times I nearly had to shoot someone because my eyes were bulging from the
adrenaline. I remember the face of the guy who cocked his head from side to
side to make sure my .380 Beretta was a real gun. I remember clearly
thinking "side to side, OK" but one millimeter towards me (he was about 5'
away) and he was dead. I remember exactly what I said, too: "Back off or
you're dead." And he did.


Did he give you your mail first?


And believe me, this is not an exceptional week, but about average.
I am eagerly waiting to see what new challenges Thursday will bring.


There are plenty of times I've walked around with my hand in my pocket
tightly gripping my Beretta but drawing down on someone who could actually
be a mailman? That's over the edge.


What about this guy?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=udQM_...eature=related


Did I leave my empty flatscreen TV box on the porch for a few days while I
let the mail pile up and the cars were parked elsewhere to see who would
come to get it? Yes, but that's a controlled circumstance. Even then, I
couldn't shoot the thief (only in Texas, I think, can you shoot one) because
it was a property crime. I could have made a citizen's arrest but all I
wanted to know was which of my neighbors was a thief. What happened? My
elderly neighbor came by and put a big plastic bag over it so it wouldn't
get rained on because my regular mailman asked her if I was away. Now that
I have new section 8 neighbors it might be time to haul out a valuable
looking box and keep my eye on the IR CCTV camera again.


Jesus. I'm glad I moved where I did.
Not saying any place is free of crime, but I've lived in lots of
places, and there's huge differences.
I've had the same nice patio furniture outside for years.
Had to get used to it still being there the next day.
But thieves nearly always catch you by surprise anyway.
It's their nature.
Realized that when a one of my Navy mates lost a pair of stinky socks
to a thief. He was raving for days.
"Who the **** would take those stinky socks!!??"
If it ain't nailed down......
Never saw a thief in action.
No surprise they used to hang thieves when they caught them.
Might not get another chance.

--Vic

My dog would steal stinky socks. :-)

TDD

"HeyBub" wrote in message
m...

Point is, once American strawberry farmers are out of business
because they can't find pickers, imports is all you will have.

You say that like you think it's a bad thing.

O course it's a bad thing. Those ex-farmers won't be buying American goods
and services, or paying taxes to several levels of govt.

First, in my example, nobody in the U.S. GREW strawberries that could come
to market in February!

So what about the domestic strawberries you used to be able to buy in
season? Strawberry farmers have had to plow under their crops in recent
years when immigration crackdowns have led to labor shortages. If those
shortages were to become permanent, they would either go out of business or
have to raise their prices to pay higher wages *if* they could find
Americans willing to do the job. So now you'd have cheap imports vs.
expensive domestic strawberries and we all know where that leads. So
another American industry disappears and we all have to hope the imports
aren't full of chemicals not on the label since Republicans in Congress will
ensure the FDA and USDA don't have enough funding to inspect more than a
tiny fraction of imports.

That said, assume a strawberry farmer grows enough strawberries to
satisfy, oh, 1,000 strawberry consumers. The trade-off seems to be one
farmer (and perhaps his family) vs. 1,000 strawberry consumers. Where is
the greater good?

You assumption is arbitrary and thus useless. The farmer is likely to supply
one or more large wholesalers who have their own employees, so eliminating a
U.S. grower would impact a lot more than just one farmer and his family (and
his employees).

Besides, if growing strawberries is not profitable for the farmer, he can,
in most cases, grow something else. Have you checked the price of arugula
lately?

That's the story they use when a factory closes down, the workers can find
jobs elsewhere--doesn't seem to be working so well these days.

More likely, some enterprising soul will develop a strawberry-harvesting
machine.

Which will be made in China.

Or artificial strawberry flavoring.

Mmmmmm, chemicals.

The Daring Dufas", M, Vic Smith and "Robert Green" wrote:

Realized that when a one of my Navy mates lost a pair of stinky socks
to a thief. He was raving for days.
"Who the **** would take those stinky socks!!??"
If it ain't nailed down......
Never saw a thief in action.
No surprise they used to hang thieves when they caught them.
Might not get another chance.

--Vic

My dog would steal stinky socks. :-)

This reminds me of the neighborhood that was up in arms because *someone*
was stealing the yellow ribbon they had tied around an oak tree in honor of
their son serving in Iraq. They would put the ribbon up every day and by
the next day it was stolen. The neighbors got mad, the family of the
soldier was mad. The police were notified. The story made the local news.
They were convinced some anti-war peace freak was vandalizing their
honorific ribbon. Finally, determined to catch the heartless thief they set
up a video cam to film the tree for 24hrs. The next day, when they reviewed
the tape, the mystery was solved! A squirrel was climbing up the trunk,
chewing the ribbon until it fell off the tree and carrying it off to the
nest it had built in a nearby tree, now filled with yellow ribbons.

I believe there was a similar news item a while back about a newspaper thief
that was stealing an entire neighborhood's dozens of morning papers. In
that case, the villain turned out to be an overzealous Labrador retriever
that had been recently taught to fetch the morning newspaper and who had
"branched out" to fetch ALL the papers.

--
Bobby G.

"Vic Smith" wrote in message

I wanted to make it clear it wasn't serious. Didn't work.

This is Usenet where every joke is seen by at least someone as a hostile
threat.

Never felt I needed a piece myself except once.
Packed a borrowed .32 for a while. That blew over pretty quick.

Carried a .380 in a boot holster for long enough to rub the checkering off
the wooden handle and the Beretta emblem smooth. Never shot my ankle off
but never carried one in the chamber. My (eventual) Pulitzer Prize winning
editor-in-chief insisted that a good reporter should be able to talk his way
out of any trouble. My managing editor said "carry at least $1000 in cash
with you wherever you go so if talking fails, you can buy your way out of
trouble." After the first time I arrived at a robbery before the cops did,
*I* said "I need a frikkin' gun - just in case talking and cash don't work."

You're just funnin' us, Vic.

Yup.

I finally figured it out. Guess I am getting rusty. (-:

I remember every gruesome detail of the three
times I nearly had to shoot someone because my eyes were bulging from the
adrenaline. I remember the face of the guy who cocked his head from side
to
side to make sure my .380 Beretta was a real gun. I remember clearly
thinking "side to side, OK" but one millimeter towards me (he was about
5'
away) and he was dead. I remember exactly what I said, too: "Back off or
you're dead." And he did.


Did he give you your mail first?

You're a funny guy for sure. (-: A+ for creative writing.

It happened to be an Arab diplomat with full immunity that had nearly run me
over with his gold Mercedes. I slapped the trunk lid HARD to keep him from
backing over me and the dance began. I think I would have shot him anyway,
except for the handprint I might have left on his shiny car. He comes out
with something in his hand saying: "You see this? You don't hit a car like
this!" Things degraded rapidly from there until I said "You see THIS?" and
took my Beretta out of my jacket pocket. Admittedly it's a small, toyish
looking gun so his head went back and forth like a metronome, looking at the
gun, trying to see if it was a real gun, not realizing, I think, that he was
so close that I basically had to fire if he moved forward, if only to keep
control of the gun. He turned and ran away realizing his immunity might not
extend to seven shots in the chest at point blank range. I assume he either
learned some manners or bought a gun after that incident.

Jesus. I'm glad I moved where I did.
Not saying any place is free of crime, but I've lived in lots of
places, and there's huge differences.
I've had the same nice patio furniture outside for years.
Had to get used to it still being there the next day.
But thieves nearly always catch you by surprise anyway.
It's their nature.
Realized that when a one of my Navy mates lost a pair of stinky socks
to a thief. He was raving for days.
"Who the **** would take those stinky socks!!??"
If it ain't nailed down......
Never saw a thief in action.
No surprise they used to hang thieves when they caught them.
Might not get another chance.

The one thing Arabs do that I commend is cutting the hands off of repeat
offender thieves. That has a double deterrent effect. It makes you very
much want to keep your other hand and thus keep out of trouble. And it
makes it hard to be a good thief. It's win-win for the law, screaming agony
for the thief. What's not to like?

--
Bobby G.

In article ,
"Robert Green" wrote:


The one thing Arabs do that I commend is cutting the hands off of repeat
offender thieves. That has a double deterrent effect. It makes you very
much want to keep your other hand and thus keep out of trouble. And it
makes it hard to be a good thief. It's win-win for the law, screaming agony
for the thief. What's not to like?

Of course you realize, especially in this country, it wouldn't be
long before MCaid was paying for prosthetic hands.

--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz