Han wrote:
" wrote in
:

On 27 Mar 2012 12:16:01 GMT, Han wrote:
snip
I don't think you understand. It would be insane to allow people
with weapons entrance into the VA hospital in Manhattan.

Because you say so? You keep repeating the same nonsense, but have
nothing to back it up.

If you don't feel safe walking about in Manhattan without a weapon,
you should stay away. As for me, I did it for 34 years, and I'm
still here. If you get caught carrying a firearm in NYC without a
local license, you're arrested, whether or not you have a legal
right elsewhere.

Which *IS* insane!

If some people manage to live their lives in peace without the need
for firearms, that isn't insane. Your perceived need for firearms is,
perhaps. But that is my opinion, and I'm sure you'd disagree.

I had been planning on perhaps vacationing in some other states in the
US, such as Arizona, Utah, New Mexico. Just a simple question: Will
I be in any more danger without a firearm than in Washington State?
I know I'll be safe anywhere here in the North-East, and I haven't
had any problems in Florida either.

You don't have to rely on anecdotal information; check the FBI statistics by
state or locality. Of course those figures will be in the aggregate - you
still should stay away from known clusters of crazies, e.g., VA hospitals.

Interestingly, El Paso is, by far, the safest city in the country. For a
city in excess of 500,000, I think they had fifteen homicides last year.

Less than 100 yards from the El Paso city limits is Juarez (where guns are
absolutely prohibited). Almost 3,000 murders last year, none of which were
committed with a garden rake.

"HeyBub" wrote in
m:

Han wrote:

It would be insane (yes, really insane) to allow everyone, who wanted
to do so, to enter a VA hospital with a firearm or even a pocket
knife. There are many veterans who (wrongly) are under the impression
that they weren't treated properly, or could have been treated
better. And most likely, some of them are correct. One cannot
determine whether a person has the potential to do harm to an
employee just by looking at them.

Can you think of a better way to insure that veterans are treated
properly in the first place?

I don't agree that it's impossible to tell whether someone has the
potential to do harm in advance. Further, looks can be deceiving.

Take me, for example. I am the prototype of the mild-mannered, even
meek, average citizen. Those who meet me for the first time just want
to hug me like an adorable puppy.

If you treat me shabbily, however, I will visit such retribution on
your sorry ass that you will pray for the comfort of the grave and
still be denied.


If you believe that it would be proper to allow everyone, who wanted
to do so, to enter a VA hospital with a firearm, then you are indeed
insane.

There are far, far more non-VA hospitals in my state than VA ones -
like hundreds to one*. In all of those thousands of hospitals, weapons
are permitted. There has never been a publicized case of nastiness
committed by a firearm in any hospital. Including psychiatric
hospitals (my wife is an intake clinician at a psych hospital).

It is clear that the VA policy on weapons is the extreme one.

---------
* There are 86 VA Health Care System facilities, VA medical facilities
(hospitals), Domiciliaries, Outpatient Clinics, Community Based
Outpatient Clinics, Vet Centers, and VISNs(?), in my state. While we
have about 600 full-service hospitals, an equal number of specialty
hospitals (cancer, cardiac, pediatric, psychiatric, rehabilitation,
etc.), and uncountably many clinics and doc-in-the-box shops.

To be sure, I have no idea whether the policies and police at the
Manhattan VA are the norm or the exception. Having worked at that VA for
34 years, I truly believe that the policies are indeed correct as they
were when I was last there.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

"HeyBub" wrote:

Han wrote:

You're absolutely crazy if you say that people should be allowed to
enter the VA Hospital in Manhattan with weapons. I just explained it.

You may be right.

But there's only one VA hospital in Manhattan. You can remove the problem
you mention by moving the hospital to Long Island, thereby eliminating the
crazy-making contamination that comes from the drinking water in Manhattan,
or the air, or the cab drivers, or whatever.

By suggesting that moving to LI would lower the 'crazy-quotient' for
whatever reason, you exhibit a complete lack of understanding of the
area.g [not to mention the point that there is a whole lot of
crazy *inside* the hospital]

Jim

"HeyBub" wrote in
:

Han wrote:

You're absolutely crazy if you say that people should be allowed to
enter the VA Hospital in Manhattan with weapons. I just explained
it.

You may be right.

But there's only one VA hospital in Manhattan. You can remove the
problem you mention by moving the hospital to Long Island, thereby
eliminating the crazy-making contamination that comes from the
drinking water in Manhattan, or the air, or the cab drivers, or
whatever.

There was a plan to kill off that VA. Unfortunately, that was one of the
places that was relatively easily to get to, especially with public
transportation. And apparently there are a lot of patients. You wouldn't
believe how out of the way the Brooklyn and Bronx VAs are.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

"HeyBub" wrote in
m:

Han wrote:
" wrote in
:

On 27 Mar 2012 12:16:01 GMT, Han wrote:
snip
I don't think you understand. It would be insane to allow people
with weapons entrance into the VA hospital in Manhattan.

Because you say so? You keep repeating the same nonsense, but have
nothing to back it up.

If you don't feel safe walking about in Manhattan without a weapon,
you should stay away. As for me, I did it for 34 years, and I'm
still here. If you get caught carrying a firearm in NYC without a
local license, you're arrested, whether or not you have a legal
right elsewhere.

Which *IS* insane!

If some people manage to live their lives in peace without the need
for firearms, that isn't insane. Your perceived need for firearms
is, perhaps. But that is my opinion, and I'm sure you'd disagree.

I had been planning on perhaps vacationing in some other states in
the US, such as Arizona, Utah, New Mexico. Just a simple question:
Will I be in any more danger without a firearm than in Washington
State? I know I'll be safe anywhere here in the North-East, and I
haven't had any problems in Florida either.

You don't have to rely on anecdotal information; check the FBI
statistics by state or locality. Of course those figures will be in
the aggregate - you still should stay away from known clusters of
crazies, e.g., VA hospitals.

Interestingly, El Paso is, by far, the safest city in the country. For
a city in excess of 500,000, I think they had fifteen homicides last
year.

Less than 100 yards from the El Paso city limits is Juarez (where guns
are absolutely prohibited). Almost 3,000 murders last year, none of
which were committed with a garden rake.

I wasn't really thinking of visiting Mexico. But (if I read between the
lines correctly) it is reassuring that you think it is safe to visit
those states even if unarmed. I don't think I can just go into an
Arizona gunshop and buy a firearm, even with a 3-day waiting period,
since I'm not a resident of the state.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Kurt Ullman wrote in
m:

You still work at the VA? I have a question about Fed Health
Insurance. The last time I was interested, Fed employees had at least a
couple different plans to choose from. One was from the local Blues and
the other was from United Healthcare (at least the region I was in). Do
you still have more than a single company to choose from? Anybody else
on Fed payroll, feel free to chime in.

I'm sorry, even if I did still work at the VA, I can't answer the question
without asking someone who is a VA employee. I've always been WOC -
without compensation. It's a long story, but comes down to me being an
employee of Weill Cornell Medical College, and with their compensation and
benefits, while being stationed most of the time in the VA.

I probably could ask someone, but it may be better for you to inform
yourself at the institution you are interested in.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

On Tue, 27 Mar 2012 10:46:10 -0400, Kurt Ullman
wrote:



Or incitement to open up check books or get in front of the cameras
(grin).



Trayvon's mother is already trademarking a couple of slogans being
used by the protestors.

On 27 Mar 2012 19:00:17 GMT, Han wrote:

Oren wrote in newsku3n7pe71imc90mmpk1ql0i6s6gii892t@
4ax.com:

On 27 Mar 2012 12:20:40 GMT, Han wrote:

I'm with you here, krw. Sharpton certainly at that time was a
racebaiter obnoxious piece of ****.

He's just a more polished turd, now.

Yes, but he does have a following that needs to be taken into account,
politically. It's unfotunate, but true.

Al Charlatan' or 'Rev. Soundbite... isn't he a show host at MSNBC?
Starts his routine in Sanford and then reports on himself on his show?

I can't stand the guy, but you knew that :-\

I hate his guts too. But you have to admit he's a smart cookie. No
possessions that could be taken away by any court action, not even his
suits.

"...admit he's a smart cookie."?! Not in your life time. I promise.

On Tue, 27 Mar 2012 05:28:01 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:







Man, I'm having a tough time here. On the one hand we have an
eyewitness that says Martin was on top, Z was on his back getting
pummeled, yelling for help. We have Z with a broken nose,
gashes to the face. We have physical evidence, eg grass
stains, the condition of Z, etc that is consistent with the above.
Yet, we have folks telling us that Z wasn't reasonably in fear for
his life and hence justified in shooting Martin, with or without
any SYG law.

Then these same people believe that walking up to someone
and asking them what they are doing in the neighborhood is
so aggressive that it justifiles punching them.

Go figure.


Yes, it is very murky. No doubt the kid was on tip. At that point,
no doubt that Z was fearful. Perhaps shooting was his only recourse.

What we don't know though, is why. Maybe the kid was the aggressor,
but maybe, just maybe, Z did something that we don't know about.
Maybe, if we knew, we'd say, yes, he should have the crap beat out of
him.

Anyone that says this is a simple self defense case is not using facts
to make that decision. We still have a lot to hear about, to learn
about. We should really keep an open mind until the facts are in.

No one though, said that asking a question justifies punching. That
is one of those murky spots where we don't know what was said or done.
I can see two opposite scenarios leading to an altercation. Could
have been started by either party.

On Tue, 27 Mar 2012 15:00:27 -0500, "HeyBub"
wrote:

Han wrote:
" wrote in
:

On 27 Mar 2012 12:16:01 GMT, Han wrote:
snip
I don't think you understand. It would be insane to allow people
with weapons entrance into the VA hospital in Manhattan.

Because you say so? You keep repeating the same nonsense, but have
nothing to back it up.

If you don't feel safe walking about in Manhattan without a weapon,
you should stay away. As for me, I did it for 34 years, and I'm
still here. If you get caught carrying a firearm in NYC without a
local license, you're arrested, whether or not you have a legal
right elsewhere.

Which *IS* insane!

If some people manage to live their lives in peace without the need
for firearms, that isn't insane. Your perceived need for firearms is,
perhaps. But that is my opinion, and I'm sure you'd disagree.

I had been planning on perhaps vacationing in some other states in the
US, such as Arizona, Utah, New Mexico. Just a simple question: Will
I be in any more danger without a firearm than in Washington State?
I know I'll be safe anywhere here in the North-East, and I haven't
had any problems in Florida either.

You don't have to rely on anecdotal information; check the FBI statistics by
state or locality. Of course those figures will be in the aggregate - you
still should stay away from known clusters of crazies, e.g., VA hospitals.

Interestingly, El Paso is, by far, the safest city in the country. For a
city in excess of 500,000, I think they had fifteen homicides last year.

Less than 100 yards from the El Paso city limits is Juarez (where guns are
absolutely prohibited). Almost 3,000 murders last year, none of which were
committed with a garden rake.


They have better accountability of garden rakes?

On Tue, 27 Mar 2012 16:14:40 -0400, Jim Elbrecht
wrote:

crazy *inside* the hospital

And some are inmates...

On 27 Mar 2012 20:18:23 GMT, Han wrote:

I wasn't really thinking of visiting Mexico. But (if I read between the
lines correctly) it is reassuring that you think it is safe to visit
those states even if unarmed. I don't think I can just go into an
Arizona gunshop and buy a firearm, even with a 3-day waiting period,
since I'm not a resident of the state.

Buy a hand gun in Nevada. Only in two counties it has to be registered
within 72 hours.

In Nevada and Arizona, strap on a hawg-leg pistol and walk about.

On 27 Mar 2012 19:05:58 GMT, Han wrote:

I don't hate the Constitution. I really like it, most of it.

You just showed your tell.

The Constitution is not a living, breathing document; contrary to the
belief of practitioners of French or Brit lingo.

Ed Pawlowski wrote in
:

On Tue, 27 Mar 2012 10:46:10 -0400, Kurt Ullman
wrote:



Or incitement to open up check books or get in front of the cameras
(grin).



Trayvon's mother is already trademarking a couple of slogans being
used by the protestors.


note how they are showing a pic of Tray when he was like 12,and not the
gold-tooh "grill" thug-style pics that were on his Facebook page,that were
I believe deleted. It's whitewashing his image.

did you read the Miami Herald revelations about Tray?

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com

Ed Pawlowski wrote in
:

On Tue, 27 Mar 2012 05:28:01 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:







Man, I'm having a tough time here. On the one hand we have an
eyewitness that says Martin was on top, Z was on his back getting
pummeled, yelling for help. We have Z with a broken nose,
gashes to the face. We have physical evidence, eg grass
stains, the condition of Z, etc that is consistent with the above.
Yet, we have folks telling us that Z wasn't reasonably in fear for
his life and hence justified in shooting Martin, with or without
any SYG law.

Then these same people believe that walking up to someone
and asking them what they are doing in the neighborhood is
so aggressive that it justifiles punching them.

Go figure.


Yes, it is very murky. No doubt the kid was on tip. At that point,
no doubt that Z was fearful. Perhaps shooting was his only recourse.

What we don't know though, is why. Maybe the kid was the aggressor,
but maybe, just maybe, Z did something that we don't know about.
Maybe, if we knew, we'd say, yes, he should have the crap beat out of
him.

Anyone that says this is a simple self defense case is not using facts
to make that decision. We still have a lot to hear about, to learn
about. We should really keep an open mind until the facts are in.

No one though, said that asking a question justifies punching. That
is one of those murky spots where we don't know what was said or done.
I can see two opposite scenarios leading to an altercation. Could
have been started by either party.


the Miami Herald ran an article yesterday about Tray having multiple
suspensions,and his being found with 12 pieces of women's jewelry and a
flat-blade screwdriver in his backpack,that the security officer described
as a "burglary tool". He claimed a "friend gave them to him to hold".
Maybe he was looking for houses to burgle when Zimmerman saw him "acting
suspiciously".
Also,HOW does a 17 yr old get the money for a gold "grill"? maybe stealing
jewelry?

it DOES establish that Tray was a vandal(graffiti),burgler-thief,and an
illegal drug user. NOT the "innocent kid" he's being portrayed as.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com

"Ed Pawlowski" wrote in message
news
On Mon, 26 Mar 2012 10:44:41 -0500, Jim Yanik
wrote:






Sorry,but fact is,blacks,particularly younger black males,commit crimes
far
out our proportion to their percentage of the population.

But rational people don't presume guilt just because someone is black.

It 's not a presumption
It's a rational and logical derivation. that young black males are apt to be
more dangerous to you than any other member of society by a LARGE factor


sure,the young man had every right to be there,etc,but the watch man had
every right to keep an eye on an unknown wandering their neighborhood,even
to ask him what he's doing there.

He has the right to watch, but unless he has police authority, I don't
think he has the right to question. That can be confrontational and
start a problem.


And you were making comments about others making assumptions and conjecture
And then you do it yourself.




All the teen needed to do was ask why he was being followed,or call 911,or
knock on a door and yell for help.
Instead,he chose confrontation and attack,and it happened to be a guy who
was lawfully armed and who defended himself.

We don't know for sure who was confrontational yet. Could have been
either one.

It appears that Martin first slowed down to get Zimmerman closer then turned
and confronted him with the statement:
"Why were you following me.."
After which a scuffle was heard..

"Ed Pawlowski" wrote in message
...
"Attila.Iskander" wrote in message
Tasers don't often work

There are multiple incidents where an individual was fired on by more
than

one Taser, and wasn't stopped.

Guns misfire too, or are carelessly amed in a fast moving situation.

?





Apparently with the new data out, the only "vigilantes" around here are
the

idiots, like you, spouting ignorant cant

There is some new data, but not a full investigation yet. There is nothing
out there that yet allows for a conclusion. Fragments are net telling the
entire story yet.



Here's a clue

6'2" High School football player

How would you like being on the ground being pounded by such ??

Maybe Z deserved itm maybe not.

Deserved it ??
What kind of crappy argument is that ?
And you were babbling about assumptions and conjecture somewhere else...


That is the main probllem here, we don't know what led up to that. Was the
kid defending himself?

Not if he was on top


Was he provoked?

Not a justifiable reason for assault

Pushed and shoved? Called names? Threatened? Was the controntation started
by Trayvon or Zimmerman? Once we have those answers, we can draw a
conclusion. Until then, it is conjecture and opinion. That is why we have
investigations done. We need ALL the facts.



Doesn't stop you from spouting even the most inane conjecture in the face of
the evidence that we already have

"Han" wrote in message
...
"Attila.Iskander" wrote in
:


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

Han wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote in
m:

Did you know one cannot carry a concealed weapon in a post office
or Social Security branch? We hope to adjust this federal
silliness in the next administration.

You also cannot carry anything like a weapon into a VA hospital.
ANd for good reason. There were too many incidents of hospital
employees assaulted and sometimes killed. For the benefit of the
good people working in VA hospitals, I sure hope they won't relax
those prohibitions.


Yep. That's another rule that must yield, because, as you point out,
people are assaulted and killed in VA hospitals. This mayhem means
that visitors, staff, and even patients should be armed; for their
protection and the protection of others.

I sure hope you're kidding, if only for the memory of the doctor who
got shot and killed by a disgruntled vet in a wheelchair. By all
accounts he was the nicest, most caring doctor you could wish for.


Is that justification for everyone being defenseless against the next
criminal ?
That's just stupid

I don't think you understand. It would be insane to allow people with
weapons entrance into the VA hospital in Manhattan.


Feel free to justify such a declaration


If you don't feel safe walking about in Manhattan without a weapon, you
should stay away. As for me, I did it for 34 years, and I'm still here.
If you get caught carrying a firearm in NYC without a local license,
you're arrested, whether or not you have a legal right elsewhere.


yawn
That's just a variant of the hasn't happened to me, so why worry.

"Han" wrote in message
...
" wrote in
:

On 27 Mar 2012 12:16:01 GMT, Han wrote:
snip
I don't think you understand. It would be insane to allow people with
weapons entrance into the VA hospital in Manhattan.

Because you say so? You keep repeating the same nonsense, but have
nothing to back it up.

If you don't feel safe walking about in Manhattan without a weapon,
you should stay away. As for me, I did it for 34 years, and I'm still
here. If you get caught carrying a firearm in NYC without a local
license, you're arrested, whether or not you have a legal right
elsewhere.

Which *IS* insane!

If some people manage to live their lives in peace without the need for
firearms, that isn't insane. Your perceived need for firearms is,
perhaps. But that is my opinion, and I'm sure you'd disagree.



Ostrich "Can't happen to me since it hasn't happened yet "attitude


I had been planning on perhaps vacationing in some other states in the
US, such as Arizona, Utah, New Mexico. Just a simple question: Will I
be in any more danger without a firearm than in Washington State? I know
I'll be safe anywhere here in the North-East, and I haven't had any
problems in Florida either.


You haven't looked at crime statistics recently, have you
We ARE ALL exposed to some risk of being the victim of a crime.

You can choose to believe that the Odds are against the fickle finger of
fate pointing at you. Or you can improve your odds if it ever does.

My approach and attitude is to improve my odds.
I may be at equal risk
But my possible outcomes are skewed in my favor.

"Han" wrote in message
...
"Attila.Iskander" wrote in
:


"Han" wrote in message
...
" wrote in
:

On 26 Mar 2012 11:01:44 GMT, Han wrote:

Nothing really serious that I know about. Plenty of scuffles.
Around that time they also changed the label of the outfit to
"police" from security guard. If you ever get to First Ave & 23rd
Str, NYC, make a visit and ask to see the confiscated weapons.

Oh, good grief. A law makes the criminals play nice. You are a
dreamer.

It's called self-defense. Or don't you agree that preventing is
better than resurrecting?


Disarming the law-abiding is NOT "self-defense" by even the most
twisted definition

It would be insane (yes, really insane) to allow everyone, who wanted to
do so, to enter a VA hospital with a firearm or even a pocket knife.

At least that's what YOU believe.



There are many veterans who (wrongly) are under the impression that they
weren't treated properly, or could have been treated better.
And most likely, some of them are correct. One cannot determine whether a
person
has the potential to do harm to an employee just by looking at them.


So basically you imagine that it's right to limit the rights of EVERYONE
because of a few possible problems

While you're at it, limit the right to free speech, because you have a few
who abuse it
And while you're at it, limit freedom of religion, after al, there were a
few who flew some planes into towers, and cut off peoples heads because of
their religion
And don't' forget the right to be free of unwarranted searches, because of a
few people who hid their criminals activities behind it...




If you believe that it would be proper to allow everyone, who wanted to
do so, to enter a VA hospital with a firearm, then you are indeed insane.


I'm not insane
But you are a VERY POOR understanding of what a free country with RIGHTS is
actually supposed to mean.
Apparently you didn't pay attention in civics class.

But at least now I understand VERY CLEARLY that in your world, anyone who is
on the side of respecting constitutional Rights qualifies as "insane" in
your world.
And why, because according to you, it's much smarter to abrogate the rights
of EVERYONE, instead of making the effort to solve the problems caused by a
VERY few...

On 27 Mar 2012 19:05:58 GMT, Han wrote:

" wrote in
:

On 27 Mar 2012 12:37:27 GMT, Han wrote:

" wrote in
:

Fortunately, it's not up to an immigrant from socialist Europe to
decide what the Constitution *clearly* says. If you like Europe's
laws so much better, why are you here? You've never answered that
question.

Just like you, I can read. And just like you, I'll have to abide by
what SCOTUS says. And as both you and I know, SCOTUS (just like
Congress) has turned 180° at times.

Howeve, unlike you, I was BORN here. You CHOSE to move here. Don't
turn this country into the swamp you came from.

Ther are laws and customs in Europe that I think are better than they
are here.

So GO BACK!

And vice versa. Fortunately, I don't have to justify why I am here
to you or anyone else. I naturalized without any problem, and the VA
has done several background checks on me over the years (for whatever
those checks mean anything). One of the many reasons I am still here
is that my kids and grandkids live here. OK now?

No. You want the socialist cess pool you came from, go back to it.
If you want the US, with its Constituiton that you hate so much, do
stay. It really is that simple.

I don't hate the Constitution. I really like it, most of it.

The rest you'd prefer the government ignored. Sorry, it doesn't (shouldn't)
work that way. As long as you support subverting the Constitution, you
clearly don't support and defend it.

It was a
very good extension of the Magna Charta, and most of Western
Constitutions are similar. As for me going back, you certainly can't
make me.

Unfortunately, no. Your immigration should be revoked because of your lie,
though.

"Han" wrote in message
...
" wrote in
:

On 26 Mar 2012 13:19:01 GMT, Han wrote:

" wrote in
:

On 26 Mar 2012 11:01:44 GMT, Han wrote:

" wrote in
om:

On 26 Mar 2012 01:02:14 GMT, Han wrote:

" wrote in
news:dh8vm75nhg38jbpgueptd53g0d4kogmft3@4ax .com:

On 25 Mar 2012 21:14:42 GMT, Han wrote:

"HeyBub" wrote in
news:3uidndaAX8U14vLSnZ2dnUVZ_rqdnZ2d@ear thlink.com:

Han wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote in
m:

Did you know one cannot carry a concealed weapon in a post
office or Social Security branch? We hope to adjust this
federal silliness in the next administration.

You also cannot carry anything like a weapon into a VA
hospital. ANd for good reason. There were too many incidents
of hospital employees assaulted and sometimes killed. For
the benefit of the good people working in VA hospitals, I
sure hope they won't relax those prohibitions.


Yep. That's another rule that must yield, because, as you
point
out,
people are assaulted and killed in VA hospitals. This mayhem
means that visitors, staff, and even patients should be armed;
for their protection and the protection of others.

I sure hope you're kidding, if only for the memory of the doctor
who got shot and killed by a disgruntled vet in a wheelchair.
By all accounts he was the nicest, most caring doctor you could
wish for.

The current laws sure helped him! rolls eyes

That happened BEFORE there was this type of security.

...and noting has ever happened again, since that security?

Nothing really serious that I know about. Plenty of scuffles.
Around that time they also changed the label of the outfit to
"police" from security guard. If you ever get to First Ave & 23rd
Str, NYC, make a visit and ask to see the confiscated weapons.

Oh, good grief. A law makes the criminals play nice. You are a
dreamer.

It's called self-defense. Or don't you agree that preventing is
better than resurrecting?

Your idea of "prevention" does exactly the opposite. ...but you
lefties don't care about outcomes, only ideology.

You're absolutely crazy if you say that people should be allowed to enter
the VA Hospital in Manhattan with weapons. I just explained it.


Sure you did
It's the old
"Lets' curtail EVERYBODY's rights because of a few possible problems.
And if you disagree, YOU are insane"
argument.

On Tue, 27 Mar 2012 00:07:12 -0700, Oren wrote:

On Mon, 26 Mar 2012 20:11:24 -0400, "
wrote:

On Mon, 26 Mar 2012 14:55:41 -0700, Oren wrote:

On Sun, 25 Mar 2012 23:01:29 -0500, gonjah gonjah.net wrote:

I won't leave but I won't see your post anymore. Thanks for your comments.

Jim T

You signed Jim T. Are you the same Jim T from Texas, the guy with a
10K gallon pool and clay soil? That Jim T?

Why are you trolling?

Good catch. It all makes sense.

Jim T stepped on his dick and I caught him -- neener neener

Yeah, he's sure showed what a scumbag he is. Again.

On 27 Mar 2012 18:51:36 GMT, Han wrote:

" wrote in
:

On 27 Mar 2012 12:10:22 GMT, Han wrote:

"Attila.Iskander" wrote in
:


"Han" wrote in message
...
" wrote in
:

On 26 Mar 2012 11:01:44 GMT, Han wrote:

" wrote in
news:nigvm7d3g34eceb9ioi6la211v6ets88s7@4ax .com:

On 26 Mar 2012 01:02:14 GMT, Han wrote:

" wrote in
news:dh8vm75nhg38jbpgueptd53g0d4kogmft3@4 ax.com:

On 25 Mar 2012 21:14:42 GMT, Han wrote:

"HeyBub" wrote in
news:3uidndaAX8U14vLSnZ2dnUVZ_rqdnZ2d@e arthlink.com:

Han wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote in
m:

Did you know one cannot carry a concealed weapon in a post
office or Social Security branch? We hope to adjust this
federal silliness in the next administration.

You also cannot carry anything like a weapon into a VA
hospital. ANd for good reason. There were too many
incidents of hospital employees assaulted and sometimes
killed. For the benefit of the good people working in VA
hospitals, I sure hope they won't relax those prohibitions.


Yep. That's another rule that must yield, because, as you
point
out,
people are assaulted and killed in VA hospitals. This mayhem
means that visitors, staff, and even patients should be
armed; for their protection and the protection of others.

I sure hope you're kidding, if only for the memory of the
doctor who got shot and killed by a disgruntled vet in a
wheelchair. By all accounts he was the nicest, most caring
doctor you could wish for.

The current laws sure helped him! rolls eyes

That happened BEFORE there was this type of security.

...and noting has ever happened again, since that security?

Nothing really serious that I know about. Plenty of scuffles.
Around that time they also changed the label of the outfit to
"police" from security guard. If you ever get to First Ave & 23rd
Str, NYC, make a visit and ask to see the confiscated weapons.

Oh, good grief. A law makes the criminals play nice. You are a
dreamer.

It's called self-defense. Or don't you agree that preventing is
better than resurrecting?


Disarming the law-abiding is NOT "self-defense" by even the most
twisted definition

It would be insane (yes, really insane) to allow everyone, who wanted
to do so, to enter a VA hospital with a firearm or even a pocket
knife. There are many veterans who (wrongly) are under the impression
that they weren't treated properly, or could have been treated better.
And most likely, some of them are correct. One cannot determine
whether a person has the potential to do harm to an employee just by
looking at them.

Just why is a VA hospital different than, say, a grocery store?

If you believe that it would be proper to allow everyone, who wanted
to do so, to enter a VA hospital with a firearm, then you are indeed
insane.

Believe it or not, the VA hospitals serve a lot of people with minor and
major mental problems, and some of them have had an education in harming
other people.

So do grocery stores. You've certainly seen "The People of Wallmart".

Also, if you do not really know why Joe is getting better
in contrast to you, it may seem logical to some that the treating doctors
and other personnel at the local VA are at fault. Don't ask me how their
minds work - I don't know.

....or the grocer.

This type of "resentment" isn't often seen in grocery stores or even big
supermarkets (AFAIK).

....and you've just made the workers defenseless. Nice.

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

Han wrote:

It would be insane (yes, really insane) to allow everyone, who wanted
to do so, to enter a VA hospital with a firearm or even a pocket
knife. There are many veterans who (wrongly) are under the impression
that they weren't treated properly, or could have been treated
better. And most likely, some of them are correct. One cannot
determine whether a person has the potential to do harm to an
employee just by looking at them.

Can you think of a better way to insure that veterans are treated
properly in the first place?

I don't agree that it's impossible to tell whether someone has the
potential to do harm in advance. Further, looks can be deceiving.

Take me, for example. I am the prototype of the mild-mannered, even
meek, average citizen. Those who meet me for the first time just want
to hug me like an adorable puppy.

If you treat me shabbily, however, I will visit such retribution on
your sorry ass that you will pray for the comfort of the grave and
still be denied.


If you believe that it would be proper to allow everyone, who wanted
to do so, to enter a VA hospital with a firearm, then you are indeed
insane.

There are far, far more non-VA hospitals in my state than VA ones -
like hundreds to one*. In all of those thousands of hospitals, weapons
are permitted. There has never been a publicized case of nastiness
committed by a firearm in any hospital. Including psychiatric
hospitals (my wife is an intake clinician at a psych hospital).

It is clear that the VA policy on weapons is the extreme one.

---------
* There are 86 VA Health Care System facilities, VA medical facilities
(hospitals), Domiciliaries, Outpatient Clinics, Community Based
Outpatient Clinics, Vet Centers, and VISNs(?), in my state. While we
have about 600 full-service hospitals, an equal number of specialty
hospitals (cancer, cardiac, pediatric, psychiatric, rehabilitation,
etc.), and uncountably many clinics and doc-in-the-box shops.

To be sure, I have no idea whether the policies and police at the
Manhattan VA are the norm or the exception. Having worked at that VA for
34 years, I truly believe that the policies are indeed correct as they
were when I was last there.


Well if anyone who happens to question your belief is automatically insane,
one has to wonder why they let you out.

On 27 Mar 2012 18:52:58 GMT, Han wrote:

" wrote in
:

On 27 Mar 2012 12:11:53 GMT, Han wrote:
snip
You're absolutely crazy if you say that people should be allowed to
enter the VA Hospital in Manhattan with weapons. I just explained it.

Why?

I explained it in the other part of our discussions.

No, you certainly didn't.

On Tue, 27 Mar 2012 17:31:42 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

Anyone that says this is a simple self defense case is not using facts
to make that decision.

I'll say it. The state allowed this reasonable and prudent; justified
shooting. His lawyer (s) would agree with me. The facts will pour
forth.

On 27 Mar 2012 18:58:24 GMT, Han wrote:

" wrote in
:

On 27 Mar 2012 12:16:01 GMT, Han wrote:
snip
I don't think you understand. It would be insane to allow people with
weapons entrance into the VA hospital in Manhattan.

Because you say so? You keep repeating the same nonsense, but have
nothing to back it up.

If you don't feel safe walking about in Manhattan without a weapon,
you should stay away. As for me, I did it for 34 years, and I'm still
here. If you get caught carrying a firearm in NYC without a local
license, you're arrested, whether or not you have a legal right
elsewhere.

Which *IS* insane!

If some people manage to live their lives in peace without the need for
firearms, that isn't insane. Your perceived need for firearms is,
perhaps. But that is my opinion, and I'm sure you'd disagree.

Yeah, a lot of dead people couldn't/wouldn't protect themselves. Government
makes sure others can't.

I had been planning on perhaps vacationing in some other states in the
US, such as Arizona, Utah, New Mexico. Just a simple question: Will I
be in any more danger without a firearm than in Washington State? I know
I'll be safe anywhere here in the North-East, and I haven't had any
problems in Florida either.

No, you must go back to The Netherlands. It's far too dangerous for you here.

On Tue, 27 Mar 2012 14:54:33 -0700, Oren wrote:

On 27 Mar 2012 20:18:23 GMT, Han wrote:

I wasn't really thinking of visiting Mexico. But (if I read between the
lines correctly) it is reassuring that you think it is safe to visit
those states even if unarmed. I don't think I can just go into an
Arizona gunshop and buy a firearm, even with a 3-day waiting period,
since I'm not a resident of the state.

Buy a hand gun in Nevada. Only in two counties it has to be registered
within 72 hours.

Still have to be a resident, at least to buy from an FFL holder.

In Nevada and Arizona, strap on a hawg-leg pistol and walk about.

Vermont, too.

wrote in message
...
On Mar 26, 1:16 pm, "Ed Pawlowski" wrote:
"Jim Yanik" wrote in message

except that Zimmerman also had a bloody nose,he was punched.
and Trayvon was not on top of him to see if he was OK or to give aid.
Not with Z yelling for help.

I suspect Trayvon's knuckles showed who was doing the punching,and that
Zimmerman's showed nothing. the witness also knew who was doing the
violence.

I don't doubt the kid was pummeling him. What matters is why. Was the
kid
violent or was he provoked by Z. What would it take for you to start
beating the crap out of a stranger that was following you?


It doesn't matter much why. And in the case of anyone beating the
crap
out of someone for following them they are guilty of the crime of
aggravated assault, because THEY ASSAULTED the person following
them. Just because
someone follows you or some drunk calls you an AH, does NOT give
you the right to hit them. Now, if they come up and punch you, that
does give you the right to DEFEND YOURSELF. It does not give
you the right to continue to pummel them when they are on the ground,
on their back, calling for help.





I don't know who deserved what. Maybe once the investigations is
complete,
we can come to a conclusion. At this point, I think both had some
negative
involvement or it never would have reached that type of scene.

So, you've never seen a situation where a 17 year old assaulted
someone for no reason? Geez, I can show you plenty that occur
frequently where they have killed folks for just looking at them the
wrong way.

There's a great video of a guy Working himself into a rage and then using a
crowbar on a car trying to exit a parking lot
Happened in Vegas
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0BJ5cRT6ISY

There's a prime candidate for a couple of shots.

On Tue, 27 Mar 2012 14:42:51 -0700, Oren wrote:

On Tue, 27 Mar 2012 15:00:27 -0500, "HeyBub"
wrote:

Han wrote:
" wrote in
:

On 27 Mar 2012 12:16:01 GMT, Han wrote:
snip
I don't think you understand. It would be insane to allow people
with weapons entrance into the VA hospital in Manhattan.

Because you say so? You keep repeating the same nonsense, but have
nothing to back it up.

If you don't feel safe walking about in Manhattan without a weapon,
you should stay away. As for me, I did it for 34 years, and I'm
still here. If you get caught carrying a firearm in NYC without a
local license, you're arrested, whether or not you have a legal
right elsewhere.

Which *IS* insane!

If some people manage to live their lives in peace without the need
for firearms, that isn't insane. Your perceived need for firearms is,
perhaps. But that is my opinion, and I'm sure you'd disagree.

I had been planning on perhaps vacationing in some other states in the
US, such as Arizona, Utah, New Mexico. Just a simple question: Will
I be in any more danger without a firearm than in Washington State?
I know I'll be safe anywhere here in the North-East, and I haven't
had any problems in Florida either.

You don't have to rely on anecdotal information; check the FBI statistics by
state or locality. Of course those figures will be in the aggregate - you
still should stay away from known clusters of crazies, e.g., VA hospitals.

Interestingly, El Paso is, by far, the safest city in the country. For a
city in excess of 500,000, I think they had fifteen homicides last year.

Less than 100 yards from the El Paso city limits is Juarez (where guns are
absolutely prohibited). Almost 3,000 murders last year, none of which were
committed with a garden rake.


They have better accountability of garden rakes?

Only some tines.

On Tue, 27 Mar 2012 17:21:54 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

On Tue, 27 Mar 2012 10:46:10 -0400, Kurt Ullman
wrote:



Or incitement to open up check books or get in front of the cameras
(grin).



Trayvon's mother is already trademarking a couple of slogans being
used by the protestors.

For use in marketing videos.

"Han" wrote in message
...
"Attila.Iskander" wrote in
:

Please explain to us how a State can "permit" the exercise of a right
?? DO you need a "permit" from the state to exercise your right to
free speech or religion ?
And this while the ONLY RIGHT CLEARLY STATED in it's OWN Amendment
is the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

That is certainly one view of the problem. One I do not wholeheartedly
endorse. It is in my opinion (and I believe that of some of the states I
have been in) that it is a privilege or right that needs to be requested
and is subject to some kinds of oversight.


YOU really are CLUELESS about the difference between a right and a privilege


You may remember that a lady was arrested when she pulled out a pistol (I
believe) when she wanted to enter the 9/11 memorial in NYC. Her weapon
was confiscated, since she didn't have a New York State license to carry.
She probably got off lightly but here is the first google result I found.
Don't get insulted by the "pistol_whipped". The rightwing Post can't help
sensationalizing things:
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/m...hipped_at_wtc_
1x32hgT52UNhxkP36ZYAgJ


Those laws are next in line to be challenged.
The Sullivan act is a particularly egregious infringement of the 2nd
Amendment RBKA

Maybe you should read both the Heller and MacDonald decisions of the US
Supreme Court, to get straight on what the 2nd Amendment is supposed to be.

On Mon, 26 Mar 2012 22:26:53 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

On Mon, 26 Mar 2012 21:30:22 -0400, "
wrote:





Exactly. All speculation. Let's wait for the investigation.

Then why are *you* speculating? Rather hypocritical, no?

But I drew no conclusions.

So you're just stirring ****. Got it, but you do understand that people's
lives are on the line here.

"Han" wrote in message
...
Oren wrote in news:4n02n7p7gu1osqb5voou2a8qdo2hi2t6n8@
4ax.com:

On 26 Mar 2012 18:04:18 GMT, Han wrote:

the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

That is certainly one view of the problem. One I do not wholeheartedly
endorse.

When you came to America, was there an Oath you took? Something to do
with protect and defend the Constitution.
snip

Yes. It didn't come with the specification that it was your
interpretation
of the Constitution.


It isn't
It's an interpretation that was recently re-affirmed by the US Supreme Court
in 2 decisions
Heller and MacDonald
They are BOTH worth the read, if for nothing else but the very clear writing
of Justice Scalia on the subject.

"Han" wrote in message
...
" wrote in
:

On 27 Mar 2012 12:37:27 GMT, Han wrote:

" wrote in
:

Fortunately, it's not up to an immigrant from socialist Europe to
decide what the Constitution *clearly* says. If you like Europe's
laws so much better, why are you here? You've never answered that
question.

Just like you, I can read. And just like you, I'll have to abide by
what SCOTUS says. And as both you and I know, SCOTUS (just like
Congress) has turned 180° at times.

However, unlike you, I was BORN here. You CHOSE to move here. Don't
turn this country into the swamp you came from.

There are laws and customs in Europe that I think are better than they
are here.

So GO BACK!

And vice versa. Fortunately, I don't have to justify why I am here
to you or anyone else. I naturalized without any problem, and the VA
has done several background checks on me over the years (for whatever
those checks mean anything). One of the many reasons I am still here
is that my kids and grandkids live here. OK now?

No. You want the socialist cess pool you came from, go back to it.
If you want the US, with its Constitution that you hate so much, do
stay. It really is that simple.

I don't hate the Constitution.


I agree that you don't hate it
You are just completely ignorant of it.
Hard to live up to an oath to respect and protect something when you don't
even know what it is.



I really like it, most of it.

"most of it " ??
You made an oath about the WHOLE package, not just the parts you like..


It was a very good extension of the Magna Charta, and most of Western
Constitutions are similar.

It was ???
The US Constitution STILL IS in effect, last time I checked

AND NO !
Most "western constitutions" may be similar but they are not even close to
being an effective protector of the citizens of those countries.




As for me going back, you certainly can't make me.


Nobody tried

"Oren" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 26 Mar 2012 12:50:40 -0500, "Attila.Iskander"
wrote:

It's up to the SCOTUS to interpret the Constitution, not you.

But it has CLEARLY DONE SO on this issue
Read Heller and MacDonald to get up to speed on this

'08 and '10 respectively.

... then read the 2nd Amendment of the Nevada State Constitution.

spit bunch of gun gabbers :-\

I'm not sure he's a "gun grabber"
It's more like he didn't pay attention during his citizenship classes. Which
30+ years ago were supposed to be much more thourough about such things,
than they are these days.

But you can tell, he has that New York attitude, that has festered after
over 100 years under the Sullivan Act

On Tue, 27 Mar 2012 14:48:54 -0500, "HeyBub"
wrote:


If you treat me shabbily, however, I will visit such retribution on your
sorry ass that you will pray for the comfort of the grave and still be
denied.

You betcha. Then bring in the ice cream scoop squad.

" wrote in
:

...and you've just made the workers defenseless. Nice.

Not really. The VA police are pretty good in subduing people. And bruises
are better than gunshot wounds.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

"Attila.Iskander" wrote in
:


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

Han wrote:

It would be insane (yes, really insane) to allow everyone, who
wanted to do so, to enter a VA hospital with a firearm or even a
pocket knife. There are many veterans who (wrongly) are under the
impression that they weren't treated properly, or could have been
treated better. And most likely, some of them are correct. One
cannot determine whether a person has the potential to do harm to
an employee just by looking at them.

Can you think of a better way to insure that veterans are treated
properly in the first place?

I don't agree that it's impossible to tell whether someone has the
potential to do harm in advance. Further, looks can be deceiving.

Take me, for example. I am the prototype of the mild-mannered, even
meek, average citizen. Those who meet me for the first time just
want to hug me like an adorable puppy.

If you treat me shabbily, however, I will visit such retribution on
your sorry ass that you will pray for the comfort of the grave and
still be denied.


If you believe that it would be proper to allow everyone, who
wanted to do so, to enter a VA hospital with a firearm, then you
are indeed insane.

There are far, far more non-VA hospitals in my state than VA ones -
like hundreds to one*. In all of those thousands of hospitals,
weapons are permitted. There has never been a publicized case of
nastiness committed by a firearm in any hospital. Including
psychiatric hospitals (my wife is an intake clinician at a psych
hospital).

It is clear that the VA policy on weapons is the extreme one.

---------
* There are 86 VA Health Care System facilities, VA medical
facilities (hospitals), Domiciliaries, Outpatient Clinics, Community
Based Outpatient Clinics, Vet Centers, and VISNs(?), in my state.
While we have about 600 full-service hospitals, an equal number of
specialty hospitals (cancer, cardiac, pediatric, psychiatric,
rehabilitation, etc.), and uncountably many clinics and
doc-in-the-box shops.

To be sure, I have no idea whether the policies and police at the
Manhattan VA are the norm or the exception. Having worked at that VA
for 34 years, I truly believe that the policies are indeed correct as
they were when I was last there.


Well if anyone who happens to question your belief is automatically
insane, one has to wonder why they let you out.

There was never a problem letting me in or out. Most people recognize my
opinions for what they are, opinions. I know yours are different. While
you are entitled to them, I don't have to subscribe to your opinions, or
beliefs. It's a free country, you know.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid