"Oren" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 06 Oct 2014 17:35:57 -0700, Todd wrote:

My credit union has a no guns sign out the door. Give
me the creeps. Tells the bad guys it is a free shooting
zone.

There's an App for that

See: http://www.gunfreezoneapp.com/index.html

"Join other citizens as you report and find which stores are gun free
zones and which are firearm friendly throughout the United States. If
you feel strongly about guns and the 2nd Amendment, you need to let
stores know where you stand. By sharing a store's preference on guns,
you can take part in keeping people safe, avoid unintentional crime,
and educate the public on the real impact firearms have on their
lives."


Unless it has changed, in NC you can not carry concealed in a bank or credit
union as per state law.

Not long ago you could not carry in a funeral procession, but this has been
changed.




---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com

On Mon, 06 Oct 2014 18:29:41 -0500, Unquestionably Confused
wrote:

Look up or DAGS on LEOSA (Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act) signed by
Bush II in, IIRC 2006. Also known as HR218. Any honorably retired LEO
either pensioned or off on physical disablity (not mental) can qualify
annually and carry in any of the 50 dates and the District. LEOSA
trumps state law (even PRNY and PRC/PRK) The only limitation I have on
carrying is government buildings and airports/airplanes. Also on
private property where the OWNER decides he doesn't want firearms.
Anywhere else? I don't need no stinking permit!g

LEOSA should have, IMO, went further to provide for open carry in
_every_ state.

"Congress declared LEOSA's purpose was to implement "national measures
of uniformity and consistency" and allow officers to carry a concealed
firearm "anywhere within the United States."

Wiki:

https://tinyurl.com/pqv2eh7

On Tuesday, October 7, 2014 10:17:25 AM UTC-6, Oren wrote:
On Mon, 06 Oct 2014 18:29:41 -0500, Unquestionably Confused

wrote:



Look up or DAGS on LEOSA (Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act) signed by

Bush II in, IIRC 2006. Also known as HR218. Any honorably retired LEO

either pensioned or off on physical disablity (not mental) can qualify

annually and carry in any of the 50 dates and the District. LEOSA

trumps state law (even PRNY and PRC/PRK) The only limitation I have on

carrying is government buildings and airports/airplanes. Also on

private property where the OWNER decides he doesn't want firearms.

Anywhere else? I don't need no stinking permit!g



LEOSA should have, IMO, went further to provide for open carry in

_every_ state.



"Congress declared LEOSA's purpose was to implement "national measures

of uniformity and consistency" and allow officers to carry a concealed

firearm "anywhere within the United States."



Wiki:



https://tinyurl.com/pqv2eh7

Why would any civilized society need to have carry weapons laws which ALLOWED such activity? If this was the old "Wild West", I could see the value in such laws.

On 10/07/2014 07:03 AM, rbowman wrote:
Todd wrote:

Whenever I am around someone packing, I feel safer.

Why? Like automobile drivers I am wary of armed people until proven
competent.


Because no one is likely to act out when they know others can
defend themselves. Look where all the mass shootings
happen. They are always free shooting (gun free) zones.
More guns, less crime. Exception: burglary when the
premises are unattended.

On Tue, 7 Oct 2014 10:48:46 -0700 (PDT), Roy
wrote:

[some redundant empty lines removed]

LEOSA should have, IMO, went further to provide for open carry in
_every_ state.

"Congress declared LEOSA's purpose was to implement "national measures

of uniformity and consistency" and allow officers to carry a concealed

firearm "anywhere within the United States."

Wiki:

https://tinyurl.com/pqv2eh7

Why would any civilized society need to have carry weapons laws which ALLOWED such activity? If this was the old "Wild West", I could see the value in such laws.

Perhaps I can give you the simple answer, Roy. A well armed society is
a polite society. Do you not feel a moral responsibility to protect
yourself, your family, others, and to stop tyranny of government
tyrants?

On 10/7/2014 1:48 PM, Roy wrote:
On Tuesday, October 7, 2014 10:17:25 AM UTC-6, Oren wrote:

and allow officers to carry a concealed
firearm "anywhere within the United States."

Why would any civilized society need to have
carry weapons laws which ALLOWED such activity?
If this was the old "Wild West", I could see the
value in such laws.


You are so right. Since our right to keep and
bear arms is endowed by our creator, and since
the RKBA "shall not be infringed", no law is
needed. It's actually a bit insulting, that
such a law was considered, since we don't need
permission from government to exercise our
Creator endowed rights.

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

On 10/7/2014 2:22 PM, Oren wrote:
On Tue, 7 Oct 2014 10:48:46 -0700 (PDT), Roy
wrote:
Why would any civilized society need to have carry weapons laws which ALLOWED such activity? If this was the old "Wild West", I could see the value in such laws.

Perhaps I can give you the simple answer, Roy. A well armed society is
a polite society. Do you not feel a moral responsibility to protect
yourself, your family, others, and to stop tyranny of government
tyrants?


Do you feel the need to ask or beg government
for permission to exercise your Creator endowed
(God given) rights?

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

On Tue, 07 Oct 2014 14:33:28 -0400, Stormin Mormon
wrote:

On 10/7/2014 2:22 PM, Oren wrote:
On Tue, 7 Oct 2014 10:48:46 -0700 (PDT), Roy
wrote:
Why would any civilized society need to have carry weapons laws which ALLOWED such activity? If this was the old "Wild West", I could see the value in such laws.

Perhaps I can give you the simple answer, Roy. A well armed society is
a polite society. Do you not feel a moral responsibility to protect
yourself, your family, others, and to stop tyranny of government
tyrants?


Do you feel the need to ask or beg government
for permission to exercise your Creator endowed
(God given) rights?


Hell NO! I was born naked with my natural born rights. I'm not bound
by what politicians say. I have guns not registered. "Registration"
is for sex offenders.

Roy is from Canada, I think

On 10/07/2014 03:57 AM, Taxpayer wrote:
On 10/06/2014 09:49 PM, Julie Bove wrote:
You came back spreading lies on the diabetes food group and told those
of us who use the diabetes drug Metformin, Met Heads. And you said
that insulin was nasty. I am afraid of you Todd Afraid that you
might kill a diabetic by telling them not to use insulin.

Hi Taxpayer,

She is a physiologically unbalanced drama queen possessed of a deamon.

Warming people about side effects is not telling them not to use
the stuff. The side effect from all Diabetes drugs are legendary.
And mostly withheld from their users.

The reference to Met (Metformin) Heads is one of the side effect of
Met is depression, often manifested as delusional paranoia. Yep,
everyone is picking on you. Other sides are memory loss, cognitive
decline, hair loss, asthma, skin spots, spewing diarrhea, rebound
effect (your blood sugar goes higher). I had the Paranoia thing
real bad when I was taking the s***. Had to do a lot of apologizing
when I came off it.

Julie, in her fog of a brain, got ****ed at my warning of the
problems of Metformin (mainly describing myself). She lives off
of fights and drama. I was taking a hit on myself to help
others, which, of course, annoyed Julie's daemon.

Virtually all factory food has wheat and sugar added to it. Wheat and
sugar are extremely damaging to your health.
Most people that eliminate wheat and sugar from their diet can throw
away their Metformin and other pharmaceuticals.

Carbs are powerfully addictive. I would add to your list all
food like substances that have been hybridized for low nutrition,
high energy carbohydrate levels not found in nature. Some
of those would be corn, rice, potatoes, beans, every grain.
(Julie would refer to this a spreading lies.)

And add to that ALL "Healthy Carbs". Brown or white, they
are all a bag of sugar to your body. "Healthy Carbs"
are what caused my Diabetes injury. I can't believe I ever
believed that special interest nonsense.

But don't take my word for it.
Meet Dr William Davis and Dr Robert Lustig. Both are very rare
physicians in that they are honest.

I can attest to the honesty thing. The information I needed
and requested was with held from me. I had find it out on my
own.

I refer to Diabetes as "Cash Cow" disease. First Big Ag and Big
Gov get rich getting you to eat their high carbs, then after they
blow out your pancreas, they hand you over to Big Med, Big
Pharma, and Big Gov who get rich pushing drugs and cutting your
legs off. It is all about the following the money.

What really angers me off is that Big Med, Big Pharma, and Gig Gov
(who makes it all possible) tell you all about the hazards
of high blood sugar (which are correct), but they refuse
to tell you there is anything wrong with the addictive s*** Big
Ag and Big Gov push. Then they refuses to tell you the hazards of
taking Allopathic drugs (controlled dosages of poisons) to
treat the injury they helped cause.

"Lets see now, add a poison to control a problem. Wonder if
my body will eventually react to the poison? I wonder why it
is I am afraid to go to work from s***ing all over my self
and why is everyone picking on me? And why am I having
trouble thinking?"

"I have an idea! How about I just remove the carbs! Then
I won't have blood sugar problems, won't have to take
controlled dosages of poisons, people will stop picking
on me, and I will stop s***ing all over myself! And,
look-e-here, I can think again!"

No. Can't have that. Big Gov got its palmed waxed too much
for that! EAT THOSE HEALTHY CARBS! (I only sound ****ed.
You should see what I really think.)

Instead of pushing drugs, they push science facts that will restore your
health.

http://youtu.be/qeyKvCkxp2o

http://uctv.tv/shows/Sugar-The-Bitter-Truth-16717

Haven't read the above, but I already know what they are
going to say. I am now drug free for over a year and
completely under control.

If anyone is curious, here is how:
http://www.diabetes-warrior.net/

By the way, once you learn to cook for it, the food
is really, really good. The lifestyle is healing too.

I know of one guy who committed suicide because he refused
to kick the carbs. His wife describe his last days to me bed ridden
with her having to give him his insulin injection. I know of
another guy who won't give up the carbs and has so far lost both
feet, had a huge heart attack, blew out both his kidney's,
is on dialysis, and is on the kidney transplant list. By
the way, when he found out I had diabetes, told me how I could
regulate insulin so I could eat pie. Such is the nature of
addiction.

-T

On 10/07/2014 12:03 PM, Todd wrote:
The reference to Met (Metformin) Heads is one of the side effect of
Met is depression, often manifested as delusional paranoia. Yep,
everyone is picking on you. Other sides are memory loss, cognitive
decline, hair loss, asthma, skin spots, spewing diarrhea, rebound
effect (your blood sugar goes higher).

Missed one: another one of the side effect of Metformin is
permanent insomnia

On Tue, 07 Oct 2014 08:03:25 -0600, rbowman
wrote:

Todd wrote:

Whenever I am around someone packing, I feel safer.

Why? Like automobile drivers I am wary of armed people until proven
competent.

Realize, please, armed police often kill more innocent people than an
armed citizen in a gun fire fight.

IOW's - armed citizens kill fewer innocent people.

On 10/07/2014 12:29 PM, Oren wrote:
On Tue, 07 Oct 2014 08:03:25 -0600, rbowman
wrote:

Todd wrote:

Whenever I am around someone packing, I feel safer.

Why? Like automobile drivers I am wary of armed people until proven
competent.

Realize, please, armed police often kill more innocent people than an
armed citizen in a gun fire fight.

IOW's - armed citizens kill fewer innocent people.


Oren is correct. The statistics I have seen, the police
kill 10 times more innocents and armed citizen use
guns for protection over 100 times more.

On Mon, 06 Oct 2014 23:18:21 -0700, Todd wrote:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Talon


Nasty looking stuff.

Somewhere I heard that a plain old wad cutter was
really effective when used on an ass hole.

Best practice is to use what police use on duty. Wad cutters are not
that best practice. Using what police use is easily defended in court,
though a caliber is debatable.

I like the idea of a wad cutter, because if that is
what I practice with, I won't be caught off
guard by a different feel.


I'd not use wad cutters for self defense. My former state agency would
not allow wad cutters for stopping felons.

Have a bunch of 230 grain round lead (no jacket) a
customer who hunts bear told me to get. He said
to aim for the neck. Plain old lead so it would
expand slowly and not lose it perpetration in the
Bear's fat layer.


Shoot him in the ear. Blow the top of the skull off. Same when killing
a gator. A .22 JHP magnum will kill a gator through the eye. I know

Taste like chicken.

On 10/07/2014 11:22 AM, Oren wrote:
On Tue, 7 Oct 2014 10:48:46 -0700 (PDT), Roy
wrote:

[some redundant empty lines removed]

LEOSA should have, IMO, went further to provide for open carry in
_every_ state.

"Congress declared LEOSA's purpose was to implement "national measures

of uniformity and consistency" and allow officers to carry a concealed

firearm "anywhere within the United States."

Wiki:

https://tinyurl.com/pqv2eh7

Why would any civilized society need to have carry weapons laws which ALLOWED such activity? If this was the old "Wild West", I could see the value in such laws.

Perhaps I can give you the simple answer, Roy. A well armed society is
a polite society. Do you not feel a moral responsibility to protect
yourself, your family, others, and to stop tyranny of government
tyrants?



Hi Oren,

Well stated.

One of the problems here is that left wingers follow a
philosophy called "social movement theory". In that
theory there is no right or wrong.

In reality, humanity will always have bad people,
whether they be individuals or the government class.
We Will Never Be Rid Of Them.

An armed society vastly reduces the temptations
presented to bad people. And when bad people act out,
an armed society reduces the damage they can create.

Does it strike you odd that the leftists use the
"Wild West" analogy when

1) the east had far more crime that the west

2) there has not been a single incident of a
concealed carry permit holder going nuts
and shooting the place up.

And bad guys have no trouble whatsoever getting guns.
I had a sincere leftist ask me one day how they got them.
I told her the same way they get drugs. They certainly
don't go through legitimate gun stores.

-T

On 10/07/2014 11:32 AM, Stormin Mormon wrote:
On 10/7/2014 1:48 PM, Roy wrote:
On Tuesday, October 7, 2014 10:17:25 AM UTC-6, Oren wrote:

and allow officers to carry a concealed
firearm "anywhere within the United States."

Why would any civilized society need to have
carry weapons laws which ALLOWED such activity?
If this was the old "Wild West", I could see the
value in such laws.


You are so right. Since our right to keep and
bear arms is endowed by our creator, and since
the RKBA "shall not be infringed", no law is
needed. It's actually a bit insulting, that
such a law was considered, since we don't need
permission from government to exercise our
Creator endowed rights.


Hi Normin',

Absolutely correct.

For a people to have their government respect their
rights, the people must have the capability of enforcing
their rights. A society without weapons is not a
free society or not free society for very long.

-T

Roy wrote:
On Tuesday, October 7, 2014 10:17:25 AM UTC-6, Oren wrote:
On Mon, 06 Oct 2014 18:29:41 -0500, Unquestionably
Confused

wrote:



Look up or DAGS on LEOSA (Law Enforcement Officers
Safety Act)
signed by

Bush II in, IIRC 2006. Also known as HR218. Any
honorably retired
LEO

either pensioned or off on physical disablity (not
mental) can
qualify

annually and carry in any of the 50 dates and the
District. LEOSA

trumps state law (even PRNY and PRC/PRK) The only
limitation I
have on

carrying is government buildings and airports/airplanes.
Also on

private property where the OWNER decides he doesn't want
firearms.

Anywhere else? I don't need no stinking permit!g



LEOSA should have, IMO, went further to provide for open
carry in

_every_ state.



"Congress declared LEOSA's purpose was to implement
"national
measures

of uniformity and consistency" and allow officers to
carry a
concealed

firearm "anywhere within the United States."



Wiki:



https://tinyurl.com/pqv2eh7

Why would any civilized society need to have carry weapons
laws which
ALLOWED such activity? If this was the old "Wild West", I
could see
the value in such laws.

civilized? really? laws? How about the fact that it's our
Constitutional *RIGHT*
have you missed the beheadings, home invasions, carjackings,
muggings, murders, assaults, road rage, rapes?
let me guess, you're a cast member of that show Utopia,
aren't ya?

Yes, your constitution ensures that an adult American citizen without a criminal record has the right to own a firearm.

But, don't you see that it's the handguns that cause all the problems because they lend themselves to concealment, and that suits the purposes of criminals so much better than rifles and shot guns.

A person can just as effectively protect their house and home with a shotgun than with a hand gun. Most criminals that break into houses are drug addicts who are just after valuables they can sell for money to get high. If they had a gun, they'd sell it to get money to get high sooner than get into a gun fight with some homeowner. If they have a gun, they probably don't have any bullets in it. In the USA, drug addicts will break into homes HOPING the homeowner doesn't have a gun, but it's a risk they take because they know that there's a good chance they're gonna live a short pointless life and die from an overdose anyhow, so why not take the risk? They are pathetic people that need clean injection sites and help to wean them off of hard drugs like heroin rather than people who need to be shot and killed. ANY firearm in the hands of the homeowner is gonna trump the nothing the burglar has on him, and generally the homeowner is sane, clean and sober, and that's a tremendous advantage over the burglar too.

Much of what I know about firearms comes from listening to Americans talk about them in forums like this. And, from what I've heard, I can see that there can be peace in your great nation between the pro and anti gun activists if only people would recognize that it's the hand guns that cause most of the problems. By allowing long guns, but not hand guns, there may be the opportunity for meaninful dialogue between the NRA and the so called bleeding heart liberals who've lost a loved one to a senseless shooting.

Your country could still muster a "well armed militia" if everyone who wanted a gun had a long gun, but you wouldn't be catering to the criminal element by providing them with easily concealed weapons in the form of hand guns.

And, no one needs an assault rifle to protect themselves, especially assault rifles that can easily be converted to work like machine guns.

It shouldn't be a pro-gun or anti-gun debate. It should be a pro or anti hand gun debate. Long guns aren't the problem (except in Sandy Hook, but that was, for all intents and purposes, an assault rifle).

On 10/07/2014 03:03 PM, Todd wrote:
Hi Taxpayer,

She is a physiologically unbalanced drama queen possessed of a deamon.

Warming people about side effects is not telling them not to use
the stuff. The side effect from all Diabetes drugs are legendary.
And mostly withheld from their users.

Yah, approximately 90% of the people I work with are addicted to factory foods and prescription drugs.

What angers me is that the majority of our health insurance premiums is used to pay for battling disease resulting from factory foods...and we taxpayers have to pay for it all,

The deterioration of health is not a one sided coin.

People nowadays are eating pork and beef raised with growth hormones in their feed. The result is that the livestock grows faster, but I believe that eating the meat of a cow raised on growth hormones causes accelerated growth in people as well. If you compare the average heights of children today, you'll find they grow to be considerably taller than their parents were, and that just doesn't make sense from a genetics point of view.

Also, our parents lived in a time when anyone with strong muscles could get a menial job loading trucks or moving furniture or what have you. Nowadays, most of those jobs are gone, having been replaced by machinery. People nowadays simply don't get enough exercise. We evolved from apes that spent much of their time gathering food to eat, and we don't do that any more. No where is the lack of exercise more obvious than in the children today. When I was a kid, we'd ride our bikes everywhere, play baseball and do everything that keeps young kids happy and healthy outdoors. Nowadays, kids are as likely to spend their entire Saturday afternoon in the basement playing a video game.

And, our food is provided by companies that compete with each other, and those companies know that sugar tastes good. So, we find carbohydrates of various kinds making their way into every processed food we eat. Why? Because adding sugar to ANYTHING (with the sole exception of sugar itself) makes it taste better. So, our pancreases are continuously working overtime to process that sugar we're consuming all day long, and storing it as fat. If all the companies, like General Mills, Heinz, Kraft and Kellog would stop adding sugar and salt to their foods, we'd all be healthier. The problem is that Washington lawmakers are heavily influenced by lobby groups that convince the senators and congressmen to do what they want them to, and the lobby of the food processors is just as influential as any other lobby group in Washington.

What bugs me about shows where that retard, Gordon Ramsay, is telling chefs to prepart all their meals from scratch is that it totally ignores the fact that in a restaurant, 100 people come in to eat within a half hour period between 11:30 AM and noon and they all want something different to eat. Chefs simply don't have the time to be preparing each of those meals from scratch.

I know that food prepared from scratch tastes better. Nothing smells or tastes better than home made bread. But, the only people that have time to make their own bread nowadays are bakers and the unemployed.

nestork wrote:
'ChairMan[_6_ Wrote:
;3293393']
How about the fact that it's our Constitutional *RIGHT*
have you missed the beheadings, home invasions,
carjackings,
muggings, murders, assaults, road rage, rapes?
let me guess, you're a cast member of that show Utopia,
aren't ya?

Yes, your constitution ensure that an American citizen
without a
criminal record has the right to own a firearm.

But, don't you see that it's the handguns that cause all
the problems

you're wrong, it's not the handgun, it's the
person(criminal)that is in possession of it.
I'm not going to rehash this subject again, but you are
entitled to your opinion, even if it is wrong
You really should spend some time reading the link that our
good friend Oren provided for us.
you will see just how many myths you continue to repeat.

http://www.gunfacts.info/pdfs/gun-fa...6-2-screen.pdf

On Wed, 08 Oct 2014 14:18:10 -0400, wrote:

On Wed, 08 Oct 2014 10:21:45 -0700, Oren wrote:

On Wed, 08 Oct 2014 10:23:20 -0400, wrote:

On Wed, 08 Oct 2014 08:20:05 -0400, Stormin Mormon
wrote:

On 10/7/2014 8:09 PM, nestork wrote:

Yes, your constitution ensure that an American citizen without a
criminal record has the right to own a firearm.
CY: Where's that part about "without a criminal
record" exactly? I've never seen it.

Read the Heller decision

Chris meant, I think, the Constitution specifically. Local, state and
federal laws prohibit gun possession of guns by felons. Heller
affirmed the 2nd Amendment, while also affirming state's right to
restrict. That was my take

Heller and them McDonald both reference the 14th amendment that
exempts protections from people who have gone through due process.
(AKA convicted of a crime)
The federal GCA 68 and NFA 34 also have restrictions on convicted
felons.

Okay, but Nestor suggests the limitation is in the Constitution. That
was my point. Federal, state, and local laws prevent felons from
having guns - not the Constitution as stated in the Second Amendment.

On 10/07/2014 05:09 PM, nestork wrote:
Yes, your constitution ensure that an American citizen without a
criminal record has the right to own a firearm.

Guy! In Nevada's recent past, when I guy got out
of prison, he was given a bit of cash and firearm
to protect himself. (Probably not a good idea
these days.)

On 10/8/2014 1:21 PM, Oren wrote:
On Wed, 08 Oct 2014 10:23:20 -0400, wrote:

On Wed, 08 Oct 2014 08:20:05 -0400, Stormin Mormon
wrote:

On 10/7/2014 8:09 PM, nestork wrote:

Yes, your constitution ensure that an American citizen without a
criminal record has the right to own a firearm.
CY: Where's that part about "without a criminal
record" exactly? I've never seen it.

Read the Heller decision

Chris meant, I think, the Constitution specifically. Local, state and
federal laws prohibit gun possession of guns by felons. Heller
affirmed the 2nd Amendment, while also affirming state's right to
restrict. That was my take

I meant Constitution and Declaration of
Independence. That said, I'm not all sure
if local restrictions of Creator endowed
rights are legal.

What happens if California wants to outlaw
free speech?

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

You guys will love this. This from the Dread Scott ruling.
Go down to the fifth lien from the bottom:

Reference:
http://www.niagarafallsreporter.com/...unControl.html

"[If black people were] entitled to the privileges and
immunities of citizens, it would exempt them from the
operation of the special laws and from the police regulations
which [Southern states] considered to be necessary for their
own safety. It would give the persons of the negro race,
who were recognized as citizens in any one State of
the Union...the full liberty of speech in public and in
private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might
speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and
to keep and carry arms wherever they went. And all of this
would be done in the face of the subject race of the
same color, both free and slaves, inevitably producing
discontent and insubordination among them, and endangering
the peace and safety of the State."

I love the "wherever they want" part.

Well, what you're saying is obviously correct. The handguns themselves don't pull their own triggers. It's the mind of the person holding the gun that is ultimately responsible for what the gun does and what it is used for.

The same argument can be made for knives, ice picks, baseball bats, chain saws and hammers and virtually anything that can be used as a weapon.

What I'm saying is that as long as hand guns are available to the general population, they'll be available to criminals, and the bikers and the gangstas, and the crazies that decide they're gonna shoot up a school before they kill themselves.

I see that as really the only major difference between Canadian and American gun laws. Any Canadian adult with a clean criminal record can purchase a rifle or shot gun suitable for sport shooting or hunting. But, hand guns are much more strictly regulated and generally only available to the police. That's because they lend themselves well to concealment, and that lends itself well to criminal activities.

But, I also recognize that neither of us are going to change each other's minds about the subject. Better we just agree to disagree than to argue until the discussion deteriorates into an insult hurling contest, which would do more harm than good.

On 10/08/2014 07:23 AM, nestork wrote:
Taxpayer;3293464 Wrote:

What angers me is that the majority of our health insurance premiums is
used to pay for battling disease resulting from factory foods...and we
taxpayers have to pay for it all,

The deterioration of health is not a one sided coin.

People nowadays are eating pork and beef raised with growth hormones in
their feed. The result is that the livestock grows faster, but I
believe that eating the meat of a cow raised on growth hormones causes
accelerated growth in people as well. If you compare the average
heights of children today, you'll find they grow to be considerably
taller than their parents were, and that just doesn't make sense from a
genetics point of view.


Hi Netstork,

1+

That is why we Primal are not suppose to eat that kind of meat.
Natural, Organic, and better yet, wild are the way to go. Also
look for a community farm. Their meat tastes so much better,
you will think the store bought stuff is carrion (may be
pretty close).


And, our food is provided by companies that compete with each other, and
those companies know that sugar tastes good. So, we find carbohydrates
of various kinds making their way into every processed food we eat.


Very true. Carbs are addictive. Keeps you coming back. They
also add chemicals, such as free glutamic acid (msg by 99 other names),
which are also addictive. Now they could always use wholesome
ingredients that taste better, but that would raise the price.


What bugs me about shows where that retard, Gordon Ramsay, is telling
chefs to prepart all their meals from scratch is that it totally ignores
the fact that in a restaurant, 100 people come in to eat within a half
hour period between 11:30 AM and noon and they all want something
different to eat. Chefs simply don't have the time to be preparing each
of those meals from scratch.

Maybe some do, but the ones I work for don't. They arrive at the early
hours of the morning and cook all day. Got tons of stuff ready to
go. Then they have like a 1-1/2 hour of violence at noon and
another 3 hours in the evening. The trick is to properly prepare.
If you have ever watched it happen, it is grueling physical work.
And they don't get paid squat for it. I couldn't do it.

If you meant a lot is reheated, then you are correct. It is
about half and half from what I saw.


I know that food prepared from scratch tastes better. Nothing smells or
tastes better than home made bread. But, the only people that have time
to make their own bread nowadays are bakers and the unemployed.


Oh please don't use bread (Dibetes bait) as an example. Use
meat and vegis on the bar-b-que instead. Fresh organic
fired chicken with rosemary. (I better stop or I will get
too hungry.)

Oh, be careful on the exercise front. Hunter Gathers don't do
all that much more exercise than we do:

Hunter-Gatherer Energetics and Human Obesity
http://www.plosone.org/article/info%...l.pone.0040503

It is the low nutrition, high carbohydrate junk not
found in nature that is the problem.

But, not an excuse not to move around every hour for 5 minutes
when doing sit down work. And you must go fishing at least
twice a week!

Do you remember when "exercise" use to be called "work"?

-T

On 10/8/2014 4:25 PM, nestork wrote:
I see that as really the only major difference between Canadian and
American gun laws. Any Canadian adult with a clean criminal record can
purchase a rifle or shot gun suitable for sport shooting or hunting.
But, hand guns are much more strictly regulated and generally only
available to the police. That's because they lend themselves well to
concealment, and that lends itself well to criminal activities.

But, I also recognize that neither of us are going to change each
other's minds about the subject. Better we just agree to disagree than
to argue until the discussion deteriorates into an insult hurling
contest, which would do more harm than good.


It's been shown in the USA, that areas with more
permissive gun laws have lower crime. Is that
laws less, due to lower crime, or lower crime
due to less laws? I remember from years ago,
one of the sates, perhaps Florida, relaxed the
laws and saw crime go down. I know that places
like Washington DC and New York City have
increased laws and increased crime.


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

Oren posted for all of us...

I may not have read all messages.


On Mon, 06 Oct 2014 18:29:41 -0500, Unquestionably Confused
wrote:

Look up or DAGS on LEOSA (Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act) signed by
Bush II in, IIRC 2006. Also known as HR218. Any honorably retired LEO
either pensioned or off on physical disablity (not mental) can qualify
annually and carry in any of the 50 dates and the District. LEOSA
trumps state law (even PRNY and PRC/PRK) The only limitation I have on
carrying is government buildings and airports/airplanes. Also on
private property where the OWNER decides he doesn't want firearms.
Anywhere else? I don't need no stinking permit!g

LEOSA should have, IMO, went further to provide for open carry in
_every_ state.

"Congress declared LEOSA's purpose was to implement "national measures
of uniformity and consistency" and allow officers to carry a concealed
firearm "anywhere within the United States."

Wiki:

https://tinyurl.com/pqv2eh7

YES! +50 Also a CCW license should be valid in all 50.

--
Tekkie

On 10/08/2014 01:25 PM, nestork wrote:
What I'm saying is that as long as hand guns are available to the
general population, they'll be available to criminals, and the bikers
and the gangstas, and the crazies that decide they're gonna shoot up a
school before they kill themselves.

Actually, that is not how is it done. It doesn't
matter what is available to the general population.

Criminals get guns through the same black market channels as they
do drugs. If you remove legal channels of purchase, the
black market will not be affected. Drugs are outlawed
and no one has any trouble whatsoever getting them.
Same with guns. Criminals don't even have a background check
or a waiting period to purchase one.

The fallacy to the general availability argument is
that its proponents think criminals will obey the law.
They are called criminals for a reason.

Then only criminals, individual and the government
class, will have guns. And it will be open season
on the rest of us. Sort of like a gun free school
or theater.

On 10/08/2014 02:31 PM, Stormin Mormon wrote:
On 10/8/2014 4:25 PM, nestork wrote:
I see that as really the only major difference between Canadian and
American gun laws. Any Canadian adult with a clean criminal record can
purchase a rifle or shot gun suitable for sport shooting or hunting.
But, hand guns are much more strictly regulated and generally only
available to the police. That's because they lend themselves well to
concealment, and that lends itself well to criminal activities.

But, I also recognize that neither of us are going to change each
other's minds about the subject. Better we just agree to disagree than
to argue until the discussion deteriorates into an insult hurling
contest, which would do more harm than good.


It's been shown in the USA, that areas with more
permissive gun laws have lower crime. Is that
laws less, due to lower crime, or lower crime
due to less laws? I remember from years ago,
one of the sates, perhaps Florida, relaxed the
laws and saw crime go down. I know that places
like Washington DC and New York City have
increased laws and increased crime.


Stormin is correct. Crime goes down.
The only exception is burglary, where the home
is unattended. Hot burglary goes was down.

Criminals don't obey gun laws.

On 10/08/2014 02:38 PM, Tekkie® wrote:
Oren posted for all of us...

I may not have read all messages.


On Mon, 06 Oct 2014 18:29:41 -0500, Unquestionably Confused
wrote:

Look up or DAGS on LEOSA (Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act) signed by
Bush II in, IIRC 2006. Also known as HR218. Any honorably retired LEO
either pensioned or off on physical disablity (not mental) can qualify
annually and carry in any of the 50 dates and the District. LEOSA
trumps state law (even PRNY and PRC/PRK) The only limitation I have on
carrying is government buildings and airports/airplanes. Also on
private property where the OWNER decides he doesn't want firearms.
Anywhere else? I don't need no stinking permit!g

LEOSA should have, IMO, went further to provide for open carry in
_every_ state.

"Congress declared LEOSA's purpose was to implement "national measures
of uniformity and consistency" and allow officers to carry a concealed
firearm "anywhere within the United States."

Wiki:

https://tinyurl.com/pqv2eh7

YES! +50 Also a CCW license should be valid in all 50.



And I would add, remove all "reason to have" laws. If
they can not prove you are a danger, then they must
be given a time limit to issue.

On 10/8/2014 5:38 PM, Tekkie® wrote:
Wiki:

https://tinyurl.com/pqv2eh7

YES! +50 Also a CCW license should be valid in all 50.


Is a vehicle driver license valid in all 50?

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

On 10/8/2014 10:23 AM, nestork wrote:

The deterioration of health is not a one sided coin.

People nowadays are eating pork and beef raised with growth hormones in
their feed.

People nowadays simply don't get enough exercise. We
evolved from apes that spent much of their time gathering food to eat,
and we don't do that any more. No where is the lack of exercise more
obvious than in the children today.

Agree with everything you said. Don't forget we no longer get good
vegetables and fruits in the supermarket. It is usually picked before
maturity so it can be shipped thousands of miles.

On 10/08/2014 05:18 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 10/8/2014 10:23 AM, nestork wrote:

The deterioration of health is not a one sided coin.

People nowadays are eating pork and beef raised with growth hormones in
their feed.

People nowadays simply don't get enough exercise. We
evolved from apes that spent much of their time gathering food to eat,
and we don't do that any more. No where is the lack of exercise more
obvious than in the children today.

Agree with everything you said. Don't forget we no longer get good
vegetables and fruits in the supermarket. It is usually picked before
maturity so it can be shipped thousands of miles.


Hi Ed,

Especially production organic. They are picked so green
they are disgusting.

Do you have a community supported farm anywhere around?

-T

"Ed Pawlowski" wrote in message
...
Agree with everything you said. Don't forget we no longer get good
vegetables and fruits in the supermarket. It is usually picked before
maturity so it can be shipped thousands of miles.

Or it has been changed so the skin is tough and there is no taste. Like the
tomatoes we get around here. Even many of the local ones are tough and not
much taste the farmers sell in the local stores.






---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com

On 10/08/2014 07:19 PM, Ralph Mowery wrote:
"Ed Pawlowski" wrote in message
...
Agree with everything you said. Don't forget we no longer get good
vegetables and fruits in the supermarket. It is usually picked before
maturity so it can be shipped thousands of miles.

Or it has been changed so the skin is tough and there is no taste. Like the
tomatoes we get around here. Even many of the local ones are tough and not
much taste the farmers sell in the local stores.


Hi Ralph,

1+
A lot of the stuff has been hybridized to lay flat and
to withstand being picked green. YUK!!!

I have a theory. People don't buy produce because
it tastes like crap.

When I grow it myself or buy local, the stuff is
very tasty. First batch on local organic carrots
I bought stunk my car up so bad it was everything I
could do to not stop the car and devour them! (Farmer
told me later he preferred the term "aroma". Huh?)
Since when did carrots have a (pleasant) smell!

-T

On 10/8/2014 4:41 PM, Todd wrote:
On 10/08/2014 02:31 PM, Stormin Mormon wrote:



It's been shown in the USA, that areas with more permissive gun
laws have lower crime. Is that laws less, due to lower crime, or
lower crime due to less laws? I remember from years ago, one of the
sates, perhaps Florida, relaxed the laws and saw crime go down. I
know that places like Washington DC and New York City have
increased laws and increased crime.


Stormin is correct. Crime goes down. The only exception is burglary,
where the home is unattended. Hot burglary goes was down.

Criminals don't obey gun laws.

True... When Florida became a SHALL Issue state, crime dropped like a
rock. The only ones who suffered were the tourists driving rental
vehicles (easily identifiable) Since they were "foreigners" most were
presumed to be unarmed and thus easy prey.

What does that tell you about "gun-free" zones.

Again, they are not. I'm law abiding but I'll be damned if I will leave
my gun behind when I go to the mall, etc. No one will ever know I'm
armed until it's too late FOR THEM. I'll take my chances with a jury.
At least, hopefully, I'll be alive to plead my case.

On 10/8/2014 4:43 PM, Todd wrote:
On 10/08/2014 02:38 PM, Tekkie® wrote:
Oren posted for all of us...

I may not have read all messages.


On Mon, 06 Oct 2014 18:29:41 -0500, Unquestionably Confused
wrote:

Look up or DAGS on LEOSA (Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act)
signed by
Bush II in, IIRC 2006. Also known as HR218. Any honorably retired LEO
either pensioned or off on physical disablity (not mental) can qualify
annually and carry in any of the 50 dates and the District. LEOSA
trumps state law (even PRNY and PRC/PRK) The only limitation I have on



And I would add, remove all "reason to have" laws. If
they can not prove you are a danger, then they must
be given a time limit to issue.


Agreed, "Shall Issue" should be the rule of law. If one is unfit, prove
it and deny. If you (government) can't articulate just cause to deny.
Back off.

Todd:

I will concede that what you say makes sense. Outlawing hand guns will predominantly prevent law abiding and responsible gun owners from acquiring hand guns. That's because these are the people that want to stay on the right side of the law and will abide by the law, even though they may not agree with it. But, those same laws will have little effect on those that get their guns illegally anyway. You'd have to work for the government not to see the logic there.

My feeling is that for all of the citizens in the USA that have handguns, an extremely small percentage of them are ever used. Here in Canada, I've watched TV shows where retired police officers admit that they can count on the fingers of one hand how many times during their long careers that they actually pulled their service revolver out of it's holster, and fewer still the number of times they actually fired a shot at someone.

If the police that deal with the criminal element in our society rarely use their hand guns, how much more rare is it for John Q. Public to need to pull his concealed weapon out? I'd be willing to bet that the vast majority of people with concealed weapons permits in the USA have never had to even reach for their gun.

And, therein lies a danger. If the average person rarely, if ever, needs to actually have a gun available to them, then the fact that there is a gun available to them creates a liability. If they hear someone downstairs late at night, they may reach for their weapon only to find out that their teenage daughter stayed out too late and didn't get home until very late. Or they may take their gun with them when answering their doorbell late at night only to find it's a lost traveller asking for directions. My point is that if the average person rarely, if ever, needs to have a gun around, then having a gun available to them 24/7 increases the liklihood of people being shot by mistake.

Ralph Mowery wrote:
"Ed Pawlowski" wrote in message
...
Agree with everything you said. Don't forget we no longer get good
vegetables and fruits in the supermarket. It is usually picked before
maturity so it can be shipped thousands of miles.

Or it has been changed so the skin is tough and there is no taste. Like the
tomatoes we get around here. Even many of the local ones are tough and not
much taste the farmers sell in the local stores.

Hi,
Not what we are growing and eating in season. Melts in the mouth, LOL!




---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com