On Jan 7, 10:38*pm, The Daring Dufas
wrote:
On 1/7/2012 11:55 AM, Kurt Ullman wrote:





In . net,
* "Mr. Austerity""PrintMo.Money" *wrote:

* * * * *With this latest Shotgun Sarah news don't be surprised if can
get a law requiring single mom's to have a double barrel 12 gauge in
their trailer home.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/01/04...lls-intruder-w....
spatcher-on-phone/

Actually it had been tried as a city in the 80s tried pass an ordinance
that everybody had to buy a firearm (don't recall right off which kind)
or pay a fine. That was tossed (quite rightly) because you also have a
right to not own a firearm under the second amendment. Another reason I
don't like the laws that say private property owners like malls must let
people carry whether they want them to or not.

Kennesaw, Georgia in 1982, not "everyone" was required to own a gun. You
can read a bit about it he

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kennesaw,_Georgia#Gun_law


Copied from your link about compulsary gun owning.Duf

Statistical analysis of [the] data over a longer period of time did
not show any evidence that [the law] reduced the rate of home
burglaries [in Kennesaw.

Which is what I've always contended.
Absolute proof.

On Jan 8, 1:17*am, "HeyBub" wrote:
Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article ,
"Mr. Austerity" "PrintMo.Money " wrote:

* * * * With this latest Shotgun Sarah news don't be surprised if can
get a law requiring single mom's to have a double barrel 12 gauge in
their trailer home.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/01/04...lls-intruder-w....
spatcher-on-phone/

Actually it had been tried as a city in the 80s tried pass an
ordinance that everybody had to buy a firearm (don't recall right off
which kind) or pay a fine. That was tossed (quite rightly) because
you also have a right to not own a firearm under the second
amendment.

Kennesaw, Georgia. It wasn't tossed, it's still the law. You didn't have to
BUY a particular firearm, but each head of household was required to have
one handy. There were exceptions for religious reasons. The law went into
effect in 1982 and, since then, Kennesaw has not recorded a murder, forcible
rape, or felonious mopery. Kennesaw has the lowest crime rate in Cobb
county.

Another reason I don't like the laws that say private
property owners like malls must let people carry whether they want
them to or not.

There are compelling arguments on both sides. Inasmuch as a firearm is
constitutionally protected, property rights must yield in the same way a
mall cannot prohibit colored people, women, athiests, or those who merely
smell funny. (Not sure about the last.)- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

More lies. You never read Dufs link did you?

Quote
"Statistical analysis of [the] data over a longer period of time did
not show any evidence that [the law] reduced the rate of home
burglaries[in Kennesaw."

You're really great at inventing "facts".

On 1/8/2012 2:29 AM, harry wrote:
On Jan 7, 10:38 pm, The Daring
wrote:
On 1/7/2012 11:55 AM, Kurt Ullman wrote:





In . net,
"Mr. Austerity""PrintMo.Money" wrote:

With this latest Shotgun Sarah news don't be surprised if can
get a law requiring single mom's to have a double barrel 12 gauge in
their trailer home.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/01/04...lls-intruder-w...
spatcher-on-phone/

Actually it had been tried as a city in the 80s tried pass an ordinance
that everybody had to buy a firearm (don't recall right off which kind)
or pay a fine. That was tossed (quite rightly) because you also have a
right to not own a firearm under the second amendment. Another reason I
don't like the laws that say private property owners like malls must let
people carry whether they want them to or not.

Kennesaw, Georgia in 1982, not "everyone" was required to own a gun. You
can read a bit about it he

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kennesaw,_Georgia#Gun_law


Copied from your link about compulsary gun owning.Duf

Statistical analysis of [the] data over a longer period of time did
not show any evidence that [the law] reduced the rate of home
burglaries [in Kennesaw.

Which is what I've always contended.
Absolute proof.

It was WiKi and the articles are often slanted one way or another so
when I seriously want accurate information, I read more than one source.
There are official government sites that have the actual statistics on
crime in the area. I simply posted about the city that passed the law,
not the merits of the law. ^_^

TDD

On 1/8/2012 12:13 AM, Stormin Mormon wrote:
Teddy Kennedy's car has molested more women than my drain.


Old Ted drowned more women than either of us. ^_^

TDD

On 1/7/2012 5:21 PM, The Daring Dufas wrote:


I's say just wait a bit. Looks like just another
example of a kook politician and other politicians
who didn't know what they were even voting for.
I predict it will soon be repealed. It apparently is
very broad and applies to more than just drain
cleaner. But it's a good example of the many
loon politicians out there today. Anytime anything
bad happens, they assume just one more half-baked
law is the solution.

Like The TSA? o_O

TDD


Or the "patriot act" which has been renewed a number of times with both
"teams" holding hands.

Things aren't going to change unless folks wake up and realize the red
vs blue team circus is just to keep everyone distracted.

On 1/7/2012 3:50 PM, Oren wrote:
On Sat, 07 Jan 2012 18:02:03 GMT, Red
wrote:

And we don't provide fingerprints to get drivers licenses.

If all the low-lifes here find that out they'll be heading up!

If they have vehicle tags from "gun friendly" states, the may well be
accosted at the border.

You need a tag from Chicago to get into Canada.


I good friend of mine and his wife and daughter spent the entire day at
the Canadian border one time. When they checked his vehicle they found
he had an old ammo can in the trunk that he used to store some small
tools. Apparently it violated some Canadian munitions act because it
once held ammunition...

On Jan 7, 8:27*am, Home Guy wrote:
This is how you're loosing your liberty in the USA.

One piece of ID at a time.

====================================

New Law Requires Photo ID To Buy Drain Cleaner
January 5, 2012 6:34 PM

CHICAGO (CBS) – A new state law requires those who buy drain cleaners
and other caustic substances to provide photo identification and sign a
log.

It’s getting a rough reception from customers and merchants alike
although perhaps none more than a cashier at Schroeder’s True Value
Hardware in Lombard.

“They’re not very happy about it at all,” said Don Schroeder, one of the
store’s owners. “One of the customers actually threatened the (cashier)
and threatened to throw the acid on her.”

LISTEN: WBBM Newsradio’s Bob Roberts reportshttp://cbschicago.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/cleaners-w2-thu_mixdown...

Although the customer did not make good on the threat, and no one called
police, other employees of Schroeder’s said they would call police
immediately if any similar threat is made.

The law, which took effect Sunday, requires those who seek to buy
caustic or noxious substances, except for batteries, to provide
government-issued photo identification that shows their name and date of
birth. The cashier then must log the name and address, the date and time
of the purchase, the type of product, the brand and even the net weight.

State Rep. Jack Franks (D-Woodstock) obtained passage of the new law
following attacks in which drain cleaner was poured on two Chicago
women, badly scarring them.

“So that’s who I have to call,” Schroeder said.

He said that when he called his local legislator, the legislator claimed
not to know about the new law. Neither, he said, did other retailers in
the area. He said he and other store personnel had to call to a number
of stores before they could get details.

Non-compliance results in fines: $150 for the first offense, $500 for
the second and up to $1,500 for the third and subsequent violations.

Schroeder estimated that there are “easily” 30 or more products in the
store that must be reported when sold.

Jewel-Osco has removed the few items it carried from its shelves, but
Schroeder said he does not have that option as a hardware store. He said
he does not believe that the precautions written into the bill will
prevent such crimes from occurring.

“How are they going to find out, by asking every customer, what kid
might have done that? It’s not going to solve any problems,” Schroeder
said. “It’s not going to cure anything.”

Link to story:http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2012/01/...-photo-id-to-b...

Pretty soon the government will make it a felony to plug up your
drains.

They are trying to control everthing else.

RonB

On 1/7/2012 1:02 PM, Red Green wrote:
Home wrote in :

George wrote:

This is how you're losing your liberty in the USA.

We are trying to catch up to to say Canada's numerous and extensive
gun control restrictions.

You know, we probably don't have that many restrictions on long guns
(firearms mainly used for hunting that is).

But at least we don't have to show ID to buy Sudafed (pseudoephedrine).

And our highways, railway, bus and subway stations don't have federal
agents who compel you to submit to their searches or else you don't
travel.

And we don't provide fingerprints to get drivers licenses.

If all the low-lifes here find that out they'll be heading up!

What state requires fingerprints for DL?

--
aem sends...

aemeijers wrote:

But at least we don't have to show ID to buy Sudafed.

And our highways, railway, bus and subway stations don't have
federal agents who compel you to submit to their searches or
else you don't travel.

And we don't provide fingerprints to get drivers licenses.

What state requires fingerprints for DL?

According to these:

http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=360357
http://groups.google.com/group/misc....5d0b4be373171d

As of 2003/2004:

California, Colorado, Georgia, Hawaii, Texas.

West Virginia asks for a fingerprint, but you can decline.

Seems that Kentucky also requires it.

According to this:

http://clpex.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=1082&p=8454

Oklahoma also requires (or did require?) finger prints. Colorado also
requires them.

I took a bit of an interest in this idea that in the US, that some
levels of gov't was requiring fingerprints of it's otherwise law-abiding
citizens back when an Oregon lawyer was charged by the FBI for the
Madrid train bombings in 2004:

http://community.seattletimes.nwsour...ug=mayfield25m

-------------
A federal judge yesterday cleared Portland attorney Brandon Mayfield of
ties to the Madrid train bombings after the FBI made the stunning
admission that it erred when analyzing a copy of fingerprints.

The flawed case against Mayfield raises new concerns about the
reliability of FBI procedures used in fingerprint forensic science. In
making the link between Mayfield and a blue plastic bag containing
detonators found near a Madrid train station, FBI officials relied on a
digital copy of prints that Jordan said was of "substandard quality."

Mayfield said he suspected authorities had him under surveillance and
entered his home in the days before his arrest under the "sneak and
peek" search warrants allowed by the Patriot Act. Mayfield said he and
his wife noticed that a deadbolt lock they don't use had been locked and
found other signs that someone had been in their home.
-------------

I found it strange that the FBI would have on record the fingerprints of
an Oregon lawyer, and that his prints were (mis)identified as being a
match for the ones found on the Madrid bomb evidence.

At the time I asked in a few forums how the FBI would have someone's
fingerprints - and was told that some US states require fingerprints
when you obtain driver's licenses.

harry wrote:
On Jan 8, 1:17 am, "HeyBub" wrote:
Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article ,
"Mr. Austerity" "PrintMo.Money " wrote:

With this latest Shotgun Sarah news don't be surprised if can
get a law requiring single mom's to have a double barrel 12 gauge
in their trailer home.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/01/04...lls-intruder-w...
spatcher-on-phone/

Actually it had been tried as a city in the 80s tried pass an
ordinance that everybody had to buy a firearm (don't recall right
off which kind) or pay a fine. That was tossed (quite rightly)
because you also have a right to not own a firearm under the second
amendment.

Kennesaw, Georgia. It wasn't tossed, it's still the law. You didn't
have to BUY a particular firearm, but each head of household was
required to have one handy. There were exceptions for religious
reasons. The law went into effect in 1982 and, since then, Kennesaw
has not recorded a murder, forcible rape, or felonious mopery.
Kennesaw has the lowest crime rate in Cobb county.

Another reason I don't like the laws that say private
property owners like malls must let people carry whether they want
them to or not.

There are compelling arguments on both sides. Inasmuch as a firearm
is constitutionally protected, property rights must yield in the
same way a mall cannot prohibit colored people, women, athiests, or
those who merely smell funny. (Not sure about the last.)- Hide
quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

More lies. You never read Dufs link did you?

I don't know who "Dufs" is or what his or her's link might be.


Quote
"Statistical analysis of [the] data over a longer period of time did
not show any evidence that [the law] reduced the rate of home
burglaries[in Kennesaw."

You're really great at inventing "facts".

Pay attention, fool. I did NOT say the RATE of burglaries was reduced. In
fact I said nothing at all about burglaries. Your quote is specious indeed.
Had you read further in the article you quoted, you would have seen that
which I DID reference:

"After passage of the law, the burglary rate in Kennesaw declined and even
today, the City has the lowest crime rate in Cobb County."

Home Guy wrote in :

aemeijers wrote:

But at least we don't have to show ID to buy Sudafed.

And our highways, railway, bus and subway stations don't have
federal agents who compel you to submit to their searches or
else you don't travel.

And we don't provide fingerprints to get drivers licenses.

What state requires fingerprints for DL?

According to these:

http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=360357
http://groups.google.com/group/misc...._thread/thread
/2c865246911f377a/ce5d0b4be373171d

As of 2003/2004:

California, Colorado, Georgia, Hawaii, Texas.

West Virginia asks for a fingerprint, but you can decline.

Seems that Kentucky also requires it.

For KY, more like a child ID finder thing for adults? Just curious....


According to this:

http://clpex.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=1082&p=8454

Oklahoma also requires (or did require?) finger prints. Colorado also
requires them.

I took a bit of an interest in this idea that in the US, that some
levels of gov't was requiring fingerprints of it's otherwise
law-abiding citizens back when an Oregon lawyer was charged by the FBI
for the Madrid train bombings in 2004:

http://community.seattletimes.nwsour...20040525&slug=
mayfield25m

-------------
A federal judge yesterday cleared Portland attorney Brandon Mayfield
of ties to the Madrid train bombings after the FBI made the stunning
admission that it erred when analyzing a copy of fingerprints.

The flawed case against Mayfield raises new concerns about the
reliability of FBI procedures used in fingerprint forensic science. In
making the link between Mayfield and a blue plastic bag containing
detonators found near a Madrid train station, FBI officials relied on
a digital copy of prints that Jordan said was of "substandard
quality."

Mayfield said he suspected authorities had him under surveillance and
entered his home in the days before his arrest under the "sneak and
peek" search warrants allowed by the Patriot Act. Mayfield said he and
his wife noticed that a deadbolt lock they don't use had been locked
and found other signs that someone had been in their home.
-------------

I found it strange that the FBI would have on record the fingerprints
of an Oregon lawyer, and that his prints were (mis)identified as being
a match for the ones found on the Madrid bomb evidence.

At the time I asked in a few forums how the FBI would have someone's
fingerprints - and was told that some US states require fingerprints
when you obtain driver's licenses.

Red Green wrote:

Seems that Kentucky also requires it.

For KY, more like a child ID finder thing for adults? Just curious..

I've seen mention of any form of driver's license in Kentucky requiring
fingerprinting, as well as only commercial driver's licence, and
sometimes only for "Hazardous Materials" driver's license.

Regarding the last one, apparently it's the case nation-wide that you
need to be finger-printed to have a Hazardous Materials Driver's
license:

==================
http://www.dhs.gov/files/programs/gc_1237555986018.shtm

March 11, 2009

The USA Patriot Act requires fingerprinting for all Hazardous
Materials Driver’s Licenses, and many states are currently
passing laws to require fingerprinting for everyone applying
for a driver’s license.
==================

Note the last part of that paragraph.

Gota love that "patriot" act.

On Jan 8, 10:12*am, wrote:
On Sat, 07 Jan 2012 10:23:12 -0500, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
Eggs have been used to harm people and property too. *People buying
eggs should have to sign for them. *When I was in school a century
ago, a kid was savagely attacked with a pencil and it broke the skin.
Pencils are dangerous weapons and should only be sold to licensed
people with a real need to use them..

This is pathetic and sets a dangerous precedent to our freedom being
taken away.

There is something even more deadly. *A man's penis. *Just think how
dangerous that thing is. *It can be used to poke out someones eyes,
stabbed into their chest to puncture their heart, used to smother
someone by shoving it down their throat, rip open someones rectum,
deafen someone by forcing it in their ears, and worst of all, it can
be used to make a woman get really fat around 9 months later.


Hmm. Give a whole new meaning to the term having a hard on?

On Jan 8, 5:11*pm, "HeyBub" wrote:
harry wrote:
On Jan 8, 1:17 am, "HeyBub" wrote:
Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article ,
"Mr. Austerity" "PrintMo.Money " wrote:

With this latest Shotgun Sarah news don't be surprised if can
get a law requiring single mom's to have a double barrel 12 gauge
in their trailer home.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/01/04...lls-intruder-w....
spatcher-on-phone/

Actually it had been tried as a city in the 80s tried pass an
ordinance that everybody had to buy a firearm (don't recall right
off which kind) or pay a fine. That was tossed (quite rightly)
because you also have a right to not own a firearm under the second
amendment.

Kennesaw, Georgia. It wasn't tossed, it's still the law. You didn't
have to BUY a particular firearm, but each head of household was
required to have one handy. There were exceptions for religious
reasons. The law went into effect in 1982 and, since then, Kennesaw
has not recorded a murder, forcible rape, or felonious mopery.
Kennesaw has the lowest crime rate in Cobb county.

Another reason I don't like the laws that say private
property owners like malls must let people carry whether they want
them to or not.

There are compelling arguments on both sides. Inasmuch as a firearm
is constitutionally protected, property rights must yield in the
same way a mall cannot prohibit colored people, women, athiests, or
those who merely smell funny. (Not sure about the last.)- Hide
quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

More lies. *You never read Dufs link did you?

I don't know who "Dufs" is or what his or her's link might be.



Quote
"Statistical analysis of [the] data over a longer period of time did
not show any evidence that [the law] reduced the rate of home
burglaries[in Kennesaw."

You're really great at inventing "facts".

Pay attention, fool. I did NOT say the RATE of burglaries was reduced. In
fact I said nothing at all about burglaries. Your quote is specious indeed.
Had you read further in the article you quoted, you would have seen that
which I DID reference:

"After passage of the law, the burglary rate in Kennesaw declined and even
today, the City has the lowest crime rate in Cobb County."- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You never read it did you? All crime is once again rising in Kennesaw.
There was just a short glitch.

On Jan 8, 9:48*am, The Daring Dufas
wrote:
On 1/8/2012 2:29 AM, harry wrote:





On Jan 7, 10:38 pm, The Daring
wrote:
On 1/7/2012 11:55 AM, Kurt Ullman wrote:

In . net,
* *"Mr. Austerity""PrintMo.Money" * *wrote:

* * * * * With this latest Shotgun Sarah news don't be surprised if can
get a law requiring single mom's to have a double barrel 12 gauge in
their trailer home.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/01/04...lls-intruder-w....
spatcher-on-phone/

Actually it had been tried as a city in the 80s tried pass an ordinance
that everybody had to buy a firearm (don't recall right off which kind)
or pay a fine. That was tossed (quite rightly) because you also have a
right to not own a firearm under the second amendment. Another reason I
don't like the laws that say private property owners like malls must let
people carry whether they want them to or not.

Kennesaw, Georgia in 1982, not "everyone" was required to own a gun. You
can read a bit about it he

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kennesaw,_Georgia#Gun_law

Copied from your link about compulsary gun owning.Duf

Statistical analysis of [the] data over a longer period of time did
not show any evidence that [the law] reduced the rate of home
burglaries [in Kennesaw.

Which is what I've always contended.
Absolute proof.

It was WiKi and the articles are often slanted one way or another so
when I seriously want accurate information, I read more than one source.
There are official government sites that have the actual statistics on
crime in the area. I simply posted about the city that passed the law,
not the merits of the law. ^_^

So you only believe it when it suits you? :-)

On 1/8/2012 7:19 AM, George wrote:
On 1/7/2012 5:21 PM, The Daring Dufas wrote:


I's say just wait a bit. Looks like just another
example of a kook politician and other politicians
who didn't know what they were even voting for.
I predict it will soon be repealed. It apparently is
very broad and applies to more than just drain
cleaner. But it's a good example of the many
loon politicians out there today. Anytime anything
bad happens, they assume just one more half-baked
law is the solution.

Like The TSA? o_O

TDD


Or the "patriot act" which has been renewed a number of times with both
"teams" holding hands.

Things aren't going to change unless folks wake up and realize the red
vs blue team circus is just to keep everyone distracted.

I always thought The Patriot Act was Republicans giving Democrats
another tool to use to destroy the country whenever they got into
power. o_O

TDD

On 1/8/2012 4:12 AM, wrote:
On Sat, 07 Jan 2012 10:23:12 -0500, Ed wrote:

Eggs have been used to harm people and property too. People buying
eggs should have to sign for them. When I was in school a century
ago, a kid was savagely attacked with a pencil and it broke the skin.
Pencils are dangerous weapons and should only be sold to licensed
people with a real need to use them..

This is pathetic and sets a dangerous precedent to our freedom being
taken away.

There is something even more deadly. A man's penis. Just think how
dangerous that thing is. It can be used to poke out someones eyes,
stabbed into their chest to puncture their heart, used to smother
someone by shoving it down their throat, rip open someones rectum,
deafen someone by forcing it in their ears, and worst of all, it can
be used to make a woman get really fat around 9 months later.

I say the government should ban all penises, and require they be
removed from all babies at birth, as well as mandatory removal from
all adults. We cant allow these deadly weapons to remain in society
any longer.


But that's where most of a man's brains reside! o_O

TDD

On 1/8/2012 1:03 PM, harry wrote:
On Jan 8, 9:48 am, The Daring
wrote:
On 1/8/2012 2:29 AM, harry wrote:





On Jan 7, 10:38 pm, The Daring
wrote:
On 1/7/2012 11:55 AM, Kurt Ullman wrote:

In . net,
"Mr. Austerity""PrintMo.Money" wrote:

With this latest Shotgun Sarah news don't be surprised if can
get a law requiring single mom's to have a double barrel 12 gauge in
their trailer home.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/01/04...lls-intruder-w...
spatcher-on-phone/

Actually it had been tried as a city in the 80s tried pass an ordinance
that everybody had to buy a firearm (don't recall right off which kind)
or pay a fine. That was tossed (quite rightly) because you also have a
right to not own a firearm under the second amendment. Another reason I
don't like the laws that say private property owners like malls must let
people carry whether they want them to or not.

Kennesaw, Georgia in 1982, not "everyone" was required to own a gun. You
can read a bit about it he

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kennesaw,_Georgia#Gun_law

Copied from your link about compulsary gun owning.Duf

Statistical analysis of [the] data over a longer period of time did
not show any evidence that [the law] reduced the rate of home
burglaries [in Kennesaw.

Which is what I've always contended.
Absolute proof.

It was WiKi and the articles are often slanted one way or another so
when I seriously want accurate information, I read more than one source.
There are official government sites that have the actual statistics on
crime in the area. I simply posted about the city that passed the law,
not the merits of the law. ^_^

So you only believe it when it suits you? :-)

Not so, it's like a conservative talk show host out of Atlanta who
always says "Don't believe anything I say unless you can verify it
on your own." I like him, he's hysterically funny. ^_^

I try to look at several sources and am always willing to stand
corrected. I've never claimed to be omniscient but I'm not quite
gullible because I know everyone has an agenda. ^_^

TDD

SNIP

I found it strange that the FBI would have on record the fingerprints of
an Oregon lawyer, and that his prints were (mis)identified as being a
match for the ones found on the Madrid bomb evidence.

At the time I asked in a few forums how the FBI would have someone's
fingerprints - and was told that some US states require fingerprints
when you obtain driver's licenses.

If the lawyer ever served in the US military, his prints would be on
file, as are mine :-(

also prints may be required for such things as:
Lawyers bar exam and license
Concealed Weapon permit
various other occupational licenses & permits

harry wrote:
On Jan 8, 5:11 pm, "HeyBub" wrote:
harry wrote:
On Jan 8, 1:17 am, "HeyBub" wrote:
Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article ,
"Mr. Austerity" "PrintMo.Money " wrote:

With this latest Shotgun Sarah news don't be surprised if can
get a law requiring single mom's to have a double barrel 12 gauge
in their trailer home.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/01/04...lls-intruder-w...
spatcher-on-phone/

Actually it had been tried as a city in the 80s tried pass an
ordinance that everybody had to buy a firearm (don't recall right
off which kind) or pay a fine. That was tossed (quite rightly)
because you also have a right to not own a firearm under the
second amendment.

Kennesaw, Georgia. It wasn't tossed, it's still the law. You didn't
have to BUY a particular firearm, but each head of household was
required to have one handy. There were exceptions for religious
reasons. The law went into effect in 1982 and, since then, Kennesaw
has not recorded a murder, forcible rape, or felonious mopery.
Kennesaw has the lowest crime rate in Cobb county.

Another reason I don't like the laws that say private
property owners like malls must let people carry whether they want
them to or not.

There are compelling arguments on both sides. Inasmuch as a firearm
is constitutionally protected, property rights must yield in the
same way a mall cannot prohibit colored people, women, athiests, or
those who merely smell funny. (Not sure about the last.)- Hide
quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

More lies. You never read Dufs link did you?

I don't know who "Dufs" is or what his or her's link might be.



Quote
"Statistical analysis of [the] data over a longer period of time did
not show any evidence that [the law] reduced the rate of home
burglaries[in Kennesaw."

You're really great at inventing "facts".

Pay attention, fool. I did NOT say the RATE of burglaries was
reduced. In fact I said nothing at all about burglaries. Your quote
is specious indeed. Had you read further in the article you quoted,
you would have seen that which I DID reference:

"After passage of the law, the burglary rate in Kennesaw declined
and even today, the City has the lowest crime rate in Cobb County."-
Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You never read it did you? All crime is once again rising in Kennesaw.
There was just a short glitch.

You said I was great at "inventing facts." What facts did I invent? Come on,
that should be easy.

You went even further by calling me a liar ("...More lies. You never...").
What lies did I assert?

What facts did I invent? What lies?

The crowd holds its breath.

On Sun, 08 Jan 2012 17:15:51 -0500, Reed wrote:

If the lawyer ever served in the US military, his prints would be on
file, as are mine :-(

also prints may be required for such things as:
Lawyers bar exam and license
Concealed Weapon permit
various other occupational licenses & permits

My _Birth Certificate_ has two foot prints on it. Do they count?

In article ,
Oren wrote:

On Sun, 08 Jan 2012 17:15:51 -0500, Reed wrote:

If the lawyer ever served in the US military, his prints would be on
file, as are mine :-(

also prints may be required for such things as:
Lawyers bar exam and license
Concealed Weapon permit
various other occupational licenses & permits

My _Birth Certificate_ has two foot prints on it. Do they count?

Was that the real one or the one the hospital gave your Mom and Dad as a
PR gimick? The one sent to the state, at least in Indiana in the mid-50s
doesn't have the prints on it. But the one in my baby book does.

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

On Jan 9, 12:26*am, "HeyBub" wrote:
harry wrote:
On Jan 8, 5:11 pm, "HeyBub" wrote:
harry wrote:
On Jan 8, 1:17 am, "HeyBub" wrote:
Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article ,
"Mr. Austerity" "PrintMo.Money " wrote:

With this latest Shotgun Sarah news don't be surprised if can
get a law requiring single mom's to have a double barrel 12 gauge
in their trailer home.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/01/04...lls-intruder-w...
spatcher-on-phone/

Actually it had been tried as a city in the 80s tried pass an
ordinance that everybody had to buy a firearm (don't recall right
off which kind) or pay a fine. That was tossed (quite rightly)
because you also have a right to not own a firearm under the
second amendment.

Kennesaw, Georgia. It wasn't tossed, it's still the law. You didn't
have to BUY a particular firearm, but each head of household was
required to have one handy. There were exceptions for religious
reasons. The law went into effect in 1982 and, since then, Kennesaw
has not recorded a murder, forcible rape, or felonious mopery.
Kennesaw has the lowest crime rate in Cobb county.

Another reason I don't like the laws that say private
property owners like malls must let people carry whether they want
them to or not.

There are compelling arguments on both sides. Inasmuch as a firearm
is constitutionally protected, property rights must yield in the
same way a mall cannot prohibit colored people, women, athiests, or
those who merely smell funny. (Not sure about the last.)- Hide
quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

More lies. You never read Dufs link did you?

I don't know who "Dufs" is or what his or her's link might be.

Quote
"Statistical analysis of [the] data over a longer period of time did
not show any evidence that [the law] reduced the rate of home
burglaries[in Kennesaw."

You're really great at inventing "facts".

Pay attention, fool. I did NOT say the RATE of burglaries was
reduced. In fact I said nothing at all about burglaries. Your quote
is specious indeed. Had you read further in the article you quoted,
you would have seen that which I DID reference:

"After passage of the law, the burglary rate in Kennesaw declined
and even today, the City has the lowest crime rate in Cobb County."-
Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You never read it did you? All crime is once again rising in Kennesaw.
There was just a short glitch.

You said I was great at "inventing facts." What facts did I invent? Come on,
that should be easy.

You went even further by calling me a liar ("...More lies. You never...")..
What lies did I assert?

What facts did I invent? What lies?

The crowd holds its breath.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You have repeatedly held forth that gunownership prevents crime.
Here we have evidence that it does not.
Here we have a place where nearly everyone has a gun and crime is
rising.
Which once again shows what drivel you talk.

harry wrote:
- Show quoted text -

You never read it did you? All crime is once again rising in
Kennesaw. There was just a short glitch.

You said I was great at "inventing facts." What facts did I invent?
Come on, that should be easy.

You went even further by calling me a liar ("...More lies. You
never..."). What lies did I assert?

What facts did I invent? What lies?

The crowd holds its breath.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You have repeatedly held forth that gunownership prevents crime

Here we have evidence that it does not.
Here we have a place where nearly everyone has a gun and crime is
rising.

I said NOTHING about rising or falling crime rate. That is entirely your
fabrication.

So what? How much greater would crime be rising if gun ownership was NOT
mandatory? I tried to make the point that Kennesaw STILL has the lowest
crime rate in the county - and that's irrespective of the rise or fall of
the crime rate.

Which once again shows what drivel you talk.

Fool. Show me a lie or an invented fact in my post. Come on, dipswitch,
validate your claim.

On Jan 8, 2:31*pm, The Daring Dufas
wrote:
I always thought The Patriot Act was Republicans giving Democrats
another tool to use to destroy the country whenever they got into
power. o_O

Both sides appear equally handy with that tool.

On Jan 7, 12:59*pm, Red Green wrote:
Ed Pawlowski wrote innews




On Sat, 07 Jan 2012 09:27:43 -0500, Home Guy wrote:

This is how you're loosing your liberty in the USA.

One piece of ID at a time.

State Rep. Jack Franks (D-Woodstock) obtained passage of the new law
following attacks in which drain cleaner was poured on two Chicago
women, badly scarring them.

Eggs have been used to harm people and property too. *People buying
eggs should have to sign for them. *When I was in school a century
ago, a kid was savagely attacked with a pencil and it broke the skin.
Pencils are dangerous weapons and should only be sold to licensed
people with a real need to use them..

This is pathetic and sets a dangerous precedent to our freedom being
taken away.

Socks & bagged ice Ed. Now THERE'S two things that needs to be controlled..
Do you know what kind of damage you can do with a sock full of ice cubes?!- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I know what kind of damage we used to do with socks full of sidewalk
chalk.

Halloween was a bit more, shall we say, "aggressive", when I was a kid.

On 1/9/2012 10:22 AM, wrote:
On Jan 8, 2:31 pm, The Daring
wrote:
I always thought The Patriot Act was Republicans giving Democrats
another tool to use to destroy the country whenever they got into
power. o_O

Both sides appear equally handy with that tool.

But Democrats seem to want to use it to go after their political
enemas [sic]. ^_^

TDD

The Daring Dufas wrote:

I always thought The Patriot Act was Republicans giving Democrats
another tool to use to destroy the country whenever they got into
power. o_O


The Patriot Act was a collection of some 30-odd amendments to existing law
(i.e., nothing new). What provision(s) of the Act do you find troubling?

On 1/9/2012 1:50 PM, HeyBub wrote:
The Daring Dufas wrote:

I always thought The Patriot Act was Republicans giving Democrats
another tool to use to destroy the country whenever they got into
power. o_O


The Patriot Act was a collection of some 30-odd amendments to existing law
(i.e., nothing new). What provision(s) of the Act do you find troubling?


For one thing, the silly hoops one has to jump through to get something
as simple as a prepaid debit card. The card company told me the asinine
hoops were required by The Patriot Act. Another is the existence of The
TSA, I admit I'm not sure if The Patriot Act itself spawned them or if
it was a similar piece of legislation. Having to jump through all sorts
of government hoops to prove I'm an American citizen to go about my
lawful business ****es me off because the federal government won't
enforce immigration law or take action against protected minority
species when they commit crimes. o_O

TDD

On 1/7/2012 11:50 AM, Kurt Ullman wrote:
In articleB4CdnQTXPcb9w5XSnZ2dnUVZ_qqdnZ2d@giganews. com,
Jack wrote:

On 1/7/2012 9:27 AM, Home Guy wrote:
This is how you're loosing your liberty in the USA.

One piece of ID at a time.

====================================

New Law Requires Photo ID To Buy Drain Cleaner
January 5, 2012 6:34 PM

CHICAGO (CBS) * A new state law requires those who buy drain cleaners
and other caustic substances to provide photo identification and sign a
log.


Last fall I had to show ID to buy a bottle of Marine Formula STA-BIL at
a Walmart here in Michigan.

Ironically, I have to buy the STA-BIL to try and counteract the ****ing
ethanol the government forces refiners to put in gasoline.

Government stupidity is out of control here.
Yeha and it always works so well. I mean having to show ID to buy
Sudafed has solved that meth problem.


I initially assumed the meth problem was the reason for this
restriction on drain cleaner, since that is another chemical that is
commonly used to make meth.

Back when I worked for a seed company, we used to sell 50 lb and 100
lb sacks of ammonium nitrate to whoever came in and asked for it. We'd
joke about how it could be used to make bombs. Thanks to Tim McVeigh
and his fellow terrorists, several states imposed restrictions on its
sale, and the feds have been moving to do the same.

OTOH, it's perfectly legal in my state to purchase syringes without a
prescription, but that hasn't stopped Walgreens and a couple other
chains from arbitrarily setting their own rules requiring a
prescription before they'll sell them. When they pulled that on me, I
asked why their company decided to regulate syringe sales when the
gov't said they didn't have to. They just shrugged, I just took my
business to the competition across the street, who had no issues about
selling me a legal product.

In article ,
Hell Toupee wrote:

OTOH, it's perfectly legal in my state to purchase syringes without a
prescription, but that hasn't stopped Walgreens and a couple other
chains from arbitrarily setting their own rules requiring a
prescription before they'll sell them. When they pulled that on me, I
asked why their company decided to regulate syringe sales when the
gov't said they didn't have to. They just shrugged, I just took my
business to the competition across the street, who had no issues about
selling me a legal product.

This may be related to it being regulated in some areas and not others.
Generally it is easier to do something nationwide than it is to try and
figure out which place it is legal and which it isn't.

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

Hell Toupee wrote in
:


Back when I worked for a seed company, we used to sell 50 lb and 100
lb sacks of ammonium nitrate to whoever came in and asked for it. We'd
joke about how it could be used to make bombs. Thanks to Tim McVeigh
and his fellow terrorists, several states imposed restrictions on its
sale, and the feds have been moving to do the same.


incidentally,ammonium nitrate fertilizer has been changed to make it
useless for bombmaking.IIRC,they added sulfur and coated the prills.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com

DerbyDad03 wrote in
:

On Jan 7, 12:59*pm, Red Green wrote:
Ed Pawlowski wrote
innewsiogg75iugibk67dl9ko8rd2ccna51v
:





On Sat, 07 Jan 2012 09:27:43 -0500, Home Guy wrote:

This is how you're loosing your liberty in the USA.

One piece of ID at a time.

State Rep. Jack Franks (D-Woodstock) obtained passage of the new
law following attacks in which drain cleaner was poured on two
Chicago women, badly scarring them.

Eggs have been used to harm people and property too. *People buying
eggs should have to sign for them. *When I was in school a century
ago, a kid was savagely attacked with a pencil and it broke the
skin. Pencils are dangerous weapons and should only be sold to
licensed people with a real need to use them..

This is pathetic and sets a dangerous precedent to our freedom
being taken away.

Socks & bagged ice Ed. Now THERE'S two things that needs to be
controlled
.
Do you know what kind of damage you can do with a sock full of ice
cubes?
!- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I know what kind of damage we used to do with socks full of sidewalk
chalk.

Halloween was a bit more, shall we say, "aggressive", when I was a
kid.

When kids had balls vs bawling about being Ohfeeeeeeeeended.

Kurt Ullman wrote:

This may be related to it being regulated in some areas and not
others. Generally it is easier to do something nationwide than it is
to try and figure out which place it is legal and which it isn't.

For example, phosphates in detergents.

On Jan 8, 11:12*am, Home Guy wrote:
aemeijers wrote:
But at least we don't have to show ID to buy Sudafed.

And our highways, railway, bus and subway stations don't have
federal agents who compel you to submit to their searches or
else you don't travel.

And we don't provide fingerprints to get drivers licenses.

What state requires fingerprints for DL?

According to these:

http://answers.google.com/answers/th...se_thread/thre...

As of 2003/2004:

California, Colorado, Georgia, Hawaii, Texas.

West Virginia asks for a fingerprint, but you can decline.

Seems that Kentucky also requires it.

According to this:

http://clpex.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=1082&p=8454

Oklahoma also requires (or did require?) finger prints. *Colorado also
requires them.

I took a bit of an interest in this idea that in the US, that some
levels of gov't was requiring fingerprints of it's otherwise law-abiding
citizens back when an Oregon lawyer was charged by the FBI for the
Madrid train bombings in 2004:

http://community.seattletimes.nwsour...e=20040525&slu....

-------------
A federal judge yesterday cleared Portland attorney Brandon Mayfield of
ties to the Madrid train bombings after the FBI made the stunning
admission that it erred when analyzing a copy of fingerprints.

The flawed case against Mayfield raises new concerns about the
reliability of FBI procedures used in fingerprint forensic science. In
making the link between Mayfield and a blue plastic bag containing
detonators found near a Madrid train station, FBI officials relied on a
digital copy of prints that Jordan said was of "substandard quality."

Mayfield said he suspected authorities had him under surveillance and
entered his home in the days before his arrest under the "sneak and
peek" search warrants allowed by the Patriot Act. Mayfield said he and
his wife noticed that a deadbolt lock they don't use had been locked and
found other signs that someone had been in their home.
-------------

I found it strange that the FBI would have on record the fingerprints of
an Oregon lawyer, and that his prints were (mis)identified as being a
match for the ones found on the Madrid bomb evidence.

At the time I asked in a few forums how the FBI would have someone's
fingerprints - and was told that some US states require fingerprints
when you obtain driver's licenses.

It is way more likely that an Oregon lawyer's fingerprints would be on
file
because that lawyer had a security clearance to enter the court house
through the non-public entrance...

~~ Evan

George wrote:

Perhaps you should elaborate on why a law that contradicts the very
core values of our nation is a good thing. Expand on why one provision
enables warrantless searchesby the so called "National Security
Letter" which authorizes the FBI to search US citizens without the
signature of a judge with the only limitation being the search be
related to a "tangible thing" is a good thing.

Good point that illustrates your misunderstanding.

First, there is no constitutional right to decline a valid search of a
document in the possession of a third party. It's the declining of the third
party that national security letters (NSLs) are meant to correct. Second,
the equivalent of NSLs have been part of the law since the early 1970s.
Originally meant to deal with the narcotics money-laundering trade, the law
specified what places could be served. These places included banks and all
financial institutions, car rental agencies, storage sheds(!), and a few
other, specific, places. The amendment in the Patriot Act expanded the list
of places subject to a NSL to ALL commercial entities. The forerunner to
NSLs has been tested many times by the courts and always found to be kosher.
Nothing new here.

During the morning of 9-11, FBI agents spread out over Boston canvassing the
major hotels. Their theory was that a list of guests who checked out that
morning could be compared with passenger manifests of planes still in the
air, thereby possibly preventing another tragedy. Every single one of these
FBI requests was denied by the hotels canvassed. The hotels uniformly
offered as an excuse the "privacy concerns" of their guests.

The first point is, if you give a piece of information about yourself to
someone else, you have lost control over the dissemination of that
information. You no longer have a right to keep it private. The second point
is that a NSL can only disgorge that which would be available via a search
warrant. Since time immemorial, there has never been a right of privacy on
records kept in the normal course of business (with a couple of exceptions
such as legal or medical work papers). The third point is that it is not
YOUR rights being compromised, it is the assumed "right" of the hotel or
other commercial enterprise.

You may not LIKE the law, but virtually all courts that have studied the
issue have found that it comports EXACTLY with the 4th Amendment. All that
said, what, in your view, is the problem?

In article ,
"HeyBub" wrote:




The first point is, if you give a piece of information about yourself to
someone else, you have lost control over the dissemination of that
information. You no longer have a right to keep it private.

One small nit to pick for clarification purposes: Unless the piece of
information you give up is under one of the very specific legal areas
such as doc, lawyer, or pastor. Even then, there are well known
exceptions. If you disclose something to a lawyer and there is another
person hanging around, it may not covered by priveledge. The PATRIOT Act
did nothing to over turn these.

T

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

On Mon, 9 Jan 2012 13:50:35 -0600, "HeyBub" wrote:

The Daring Dufas wrote:

I always thought The Patriot Act was Republicans giving Democrats
another tool to use to destroy the country whenever they got into
power. o_O


The Patriot Act was a collection of some 30-odd amendments to existing law
(i.e., nothing new). What provision(s) of the Act do you find troubling?

....that it was passed under the Bush administration, of course.

Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article ,
"HeyBub" wrote:




The first point is, if you give a piece of information about
yourself to someone else, you have lost control over the
dissemination of that information. You no longer have a right to
keep it private.

One small nit to pick for clarification purposes: Unless the piece of
information you give up is under one of the very specific legal areas
such as doc, lawyer, or pastor. Even then, there are well known
exceptions. If you disclose something to a lawyer and there is another
person hanging around, it may not covered by priveledge. The PATRIOT
Act did nothing to over turn these.

Correct.

zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Mon, 9 Jan 2012 13:50:35 -0600, "HeyBub"
wrote:

The Daring Dufas wrote:

I always thought The Patriot Act was Republicans giving Democrats
another tool to use to destroy the country whenever they got into
power. o_O


The Patriot Act was a collection of some 30-odd amendments to
existing law (i.e., nothing new). What provision(s) of the Act do
you find troubling?

...that it was passed under the Bush administration, of course.

As was the attack on WTC and Pentagon. One led to the other and I don't
think it would have mattered very much who was in the Oval Office.