On Mon, 24 Aug 2009 09:43:40 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


"Michael A. Terrell" wrote in message
om...

Don Foreman wrote:

On Sat, 22 Aug 2009 12:08:27 -0700, "Bill Noble"
wrote:


Do you regard suggestions lacking force of law as meaningless? Would
you prefer your city council to have more absolute power to dictate
your behavior?

It may seem incredibly alien to y'all in Kalifornia, but out here in
flyoverland the notion of a bunch of guys (and gals) getting together
and suggesting whatever to their fellow citizens is quite acceptable.
Matter of fact, it's part of what we elected them to do. We even
understand the difference between a resolution and legislation.

yes, I regard suggestions lacking the force of law as "meaningless" in
the
context of a government body - they should not wast their time, the
dollars
to light the building while they debate it, or anything else unless
there is
an action to be taken - this is no more meaningful, per what you are
telling
me, than the "suggestion" that we get out of iraq that some city
councils
passed. Now, if they said that there would be free amunition, paid for
by
city taxes, that is a government act (we could debate its wisdom), but
otherwise, this is strum-und-drag (hope I spelled it right)

Sturm und Drang.

Perhaps a lot depends on the suggestability and even responsibility of
the populace in question. If nobody in the populace (say in
California) will do anything that's good for the greater number unless
compelled to by law, then suggestions would indeed be useless.
However, if a populace really believes in the leaders it elects and is
strongly motivated to do "the right thing", then suggestions could be
very effective. They might even be more effective than laws, which
must be enforced (cost) and violators must be punished (more cost).

Laws are obviously necessary with any real populace, but I also think
that resolutions can be useful and have beneficial effect.


Don, I live about three miles from the Belleview City Hall. A lot of
people around here are armed, and well trained. The idea is to let the
criminals know that there are less protected places that improve their
chance of survival.

I can see why. With a population of less than 4,000, Belleview has 32
registered sex offenders and a personal crime rate four times higher than my
town, which is 17 miles from Newark. My town, with three times the
population, has one registered sex offender. Violent crime runs 2.5 X higher
in Belleview.

Personal armor would be a good idea, too. Even better would be moving
somewhere else. d8-)

This data suggests that having "a lot of people armed and
well-trained"apparently has not resulted in lower crime stats for
Belleview than for Ed's town in N.J. which sounds like a nice
place to live. There may also be differences in avg income, pct of
pop near or below poverty level, population density and various other
demographics that might have some influence on incidence of violent
crime.

I don't buy the sometimes-suggested "halo effect" that allowing the
populace to be armed reduces violent crime in general. I don't care
for the NRA propaganda to that effect. The pivotal issue for me is
my liberty and right to defend myself and mine whether or not others
might care to do similarly for themselves and theirs.

I do buy the notion that a citizen who is able to effectively defend
himself or herself is less likely to become a victim of what might
otherwise become a violent crime.

I won't accept measures that would apply the same restrictions to me
that they would to criminals and lunatics since I am neither. I am a
responsible citizen. We can and should do better than that.

If body armor is indicated, it is indeed time to move.

On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 01:07:46 -0500, Don Foreman
wrote:

On Mon, 24 Aug 2009 09:43:40 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


"Michael A. Terrell" wrote in message
news:rdmdneAqLLgtsw_XnZ2dnUVZ_hNi4p2d@earthlink. com...

Don Foreman wrote:

On Sat, 22 Aug 2009 12:08:27 -0700, "Bill Noble"
wrote:


Do you regard suggestions lacking force of law as meaningless? Would
you prefer your city council to have more absolute power to dictate
your behavior?

It may seem incredibly alien to y'all in Kalifornia, but out here in
flyoverland the notion of a bunch of guys (and gals) getting together
and suggesting whatever to their fellow citizens is quite acceptable.
Matter of fact, it's part of what we elected them to do. We even
understand the difference between a resolution and legislation.

yes, I regard suggestions lacking the force of law as "meaningless" in
the
context of a government body - they should not wast their time, the
dollars
to light the building while they debate it, or anything else unless
there is
an action to be taken - this is no more meaningful, per what you are
telling
me, than the "suggestion" that we get out of iraq that some city
councils
passed. Now, if they said that there would be free amunition, paid for
by
city taxes, that is a government act (we could debate its wisdom), but
otherwise, this is strum-und-drag (hope I spelled it right)

Sturm und Drang.

Perhaps a lot depends on the suggestability and even responsibility of
the populace in question. If nobody in the populace (say in
California) will do anything that's good for the greater number unless
compelled to by law, then suggestions would indeed be useless.
However, if a populace really believes in the leaders it elects and is
strongly motivated to do "the right thing", then suggestions could be
very effective. They might even be more effective than laws, which
must be enforced (cost) and violators must be punished (more cost).

Laws are obviously necessary with any real populace, but I also think
that resolutions can be useful and have beneficial effect.


Don, I live about three miles from the Belleview City Hall. A lot of
people around here are armed, and well trained. The idea is to let the
criminals know that there are less protected places that improve their
chance of survival.

I can see why. With a population of less than 4,000, Belleview has 32
registered sex offenders and a personal crime rate four times higher than my
town, which is 17 miles from Newark. My town, with three times the
population, has one registered sex offender. Violent crime runs 2.5 X higher
in Belleview.

Personal armor would be a good idea, too. Even better would be moving
somewhere else. d8-)

This data suggests that having "a lot of people armed and
well-trained"apparently has not resulted in lower crime stats for
Belleview than for Ed's town in N.J. which sounds like a nice
place to live. There may also be differences in avg income, pct of
pop near or below poverty level, population density and various other
demographics that might have some influence on incidence of violent
crime.

Perhaps the statement was made by the City Council in an effort to pass
the word around that the crime rate needs to be reduced, and they have
now "allowed" the citizens to help in the effort of removing bad people
from the population, one way or another?

I don't buy the sometimes-suggested "halo effect" that allowing the
populace to be armed reduces violent crime in general. I don't care
for the NRA propaganda to that effect. The pivotal issue for me is
my liberty and right to defend myself and mine whether or not others
might care to do similarly for themselves and theirs.

But Don..the Halo effect DOES exist. I live in a Red County in the
middle of California. We have more CCW permit carriers than the ENTIRE
rest of the state. We do have a crime rate..but it consistes mostly of
minorities killing other minorities. Very very few whites kill each
other off, and we do have a decent stat rate where minoritiy criminals
are killed by whites in self defense. And even that homicide rate is
dropping as the minority criminals have evidently decided that attacking
a white may well get them killed.

I mention minorities and whites because while Im not a bigot..it IS a
very big fact of life in the US in some places. Shrug.
California..Southern California..the LA basin has a rapidly elevating
homicide rate this year. And the increase has ALL been between minority
victims and minority killers...ie Gang Crime.
http://www.insidesocal.com/sb/sbnow/...rising-tr.html

Since the growth of MS-13 in the major cities..there has been a
significant rise in minority homicides..committed by other minorities.

IE..Blacks are being murdered by both other blacks and by latinos in
rising rates.

White homicides, both commited by and victims of..are still falling...to
lows below those of the 1960s.

Frankly..its gang warfare between two minoritiy groups that is rising
the homicide rate. And given that MS-13 has few scruples and will kill
purely out of instinct...its going to be an interesting year or two.

Gunner

Whenever a Liberal utters the term "Common Sense approach"....grab your
wallet, your ass, and your guns because the sombitch is about to do
something damned nasty to all three of them.

Gunner Asch wrote:
On Mon, 24 Aug 2009 10:00:16 -0700, "charlie"
wrote:

"SteveB" wrote in message
...
"Ignoramus3972" wrote in message
...
On 2009-08-22, Lloyd E. Sponenburgh lloydspinsidemindspring.com wrote:
A resolution is not a law. It's more like a suggestion or call to
citizens to "let's do this". It can legally be ignored.
Iggy, "can legally be ignored" is, I think, non-sequitor, because
there is no intent on the part of the council to compel - or even urge
- anyone to do anything -- only to encourage them.

A resolution is a public declaration of intent, position, willingness
to do something, or approval of some person or action.

When city and county councils issue resolutions, 90% of the time,
they're about congratulating or recognizing a person or organization
for things they did that benefitted the citizens. But sometimes they
issue resolutions to give guidance to the populace.

This one seems to be of that sort. The council was saying, "We the
law-making body of this city will support you if you go in this
direction. We approve of it, and you won't find yourself having to
defend your ownership or use of the gun, if you need it."

It's a completely legitimate political strategy to give a movement
"legs" without the difficult and often contentious process of actually
changing laws or ordinances or writing new ones that conflict with
some people's positions. They're saying "this is where we stand on
this matter" in a very public and documented way.

LLoyd
Lloyd, thanks, I think that I get it now. I hope that the would-be
home invaders know about that resolution also.

i
Iggy, I think that bottom line, bad guys behave like the predators they
are. If they think that a homeowner may be armed, they may go to another
locale. It has been proven that gun ownership and relaxed concealed carry
laws have lessened crimes in a lot of states.

Steve
someone should tell mr frommer that, or inform him that he needs to stay out
of a bunch of other states too

http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/200...ona-over-guns/

that would explain the lack of local shooting ranges listed in my
Frommer guides. A glaring omission.

On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 00:34:55 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:


I don't buy the sometimes-suggested "halo effect" that allowing the
populace to be armed reduces violent crime in general. I don't care
for the NRA propaganda to that effect. The pivotal issue for me is
my liberty and right to defend myself and mine whether or not others
might care to do similarly for themselves and theirs.

But Don..the Halo effect DOES exist. I live in a Red County in the
middle of California. We have more CCW permit carriers than the ENTIRE
rest of the state. We do have a crime rate..but it consistes mostly of
minorities killing other minorities. Very very few whites kill each
other off, and we do have a decent stat rate where minoritiy criminals
are killed by whites in self defense. And even that homicide rate is
dropping as the minority criminals have evidently decided that attacking
a white may well get them killed.

I mention minorities and whites because while Im not a bigot..it IS a
very big fact of life in the US in some places. Shrug.
California..Southern California..the LA basin has a rapidly elevating
homicide rate this year. And the increase has ALL been between minority
victims and minority killers...ie Gang Crime.
http://www.insidesocal.com/sb/sbnow/...rising-tr.html

Since the growth of MS-13 in the major cities..there has been a
significant rise in minority homicides..committed by other minorities.

IE..Blacks are being murdered by both other blacks and by latinos in
rising rates.

White homicides, both commited by and victims of..are still falling...to
lows below those of the 1960s.

Frankly..its gang warfare between two minoritiy groups that is rising
the homicide rate. And given that MS-13 has few scruples and will kill
purely out of instinct...its going to be an interesting year or two.

Gunner

I've not seen any statistics here breaking down murders and victims
by ethnicity and/or affiliation, though it's evident from news
reports that a preponderance of violent crime here takes place in
relatively few neighborhoods.

If the preponderance of violent crime is minorities killing
minorities, then it's about irrelevant to the statistics whether or
not you or I are armed; they'll have their wars either way.
However, our abilities could be very relevant to us personally in
the rather unlikely event that we find ourselves in grave peril.
Statistically insignificant, perhaps, but still higly relevant to us.
So I don't buy the halo effect argument simply because it is
irrelevant to me. I have no duty or even right to defend others.
Others have no right to interfere with my ability to legally defend
myself whether or not my ability is of any benefit to others, as long
as it is of no detriment to others and creates no peril for them.

On Aug 24, 2:43*pm, "Ed Huntress" wrote:


I can see why. With a population of less than 4,000, Belleview has 32
registered sex offenders and a personal crime rate four times higher than my
town, which is 17 miles from Newark. My town, with three times the
population, has one registered sex offender. Violent crime runs 2.5 X higher
in Belleview.

Personal armor would be a good idea, too. Even better would be moving
somewhere else. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress

I looked up the violent crime rate for your town. Glad I live
somewhere where the violent crime rate is half of yours.

Dan

On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 11:31:01 -0500, Don Foreman
wrote:

On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 00:34:55 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:


I don't buy the sometimes-suggested "halo effect" that allowing the
populace to be armed reduces violent crime in general. I don't care
for the NRA propaganda to that effect. The pivotal issue for me is
my liberty and right to defend myself and mine whether or not others
might care to do similarly for themselves and theirs.

But Don..the Halo effect DOES exist. I live in a Red County in the
middle of California. We have more CCW permit carriers than the ENTIRE
rest of the state. We do have a crime rate..but it consistes mostly of
minorities killing other minorities. Very very few whites kill each
other off, and we do have a decent stat rate where minoritiy criminals
are killed by whites in self defense. And even that homicide rate is
dropping as the minority criminals have evidently decided that attacking
a white may well get them killed.

I mention minorities and whites because while Im not a bigot..it IS a
very big fact of life in the US in some places. Shrug.
California..Southern California..the LA basin has a rapidly elevating
homicide rate this year. And the increase has ALL been between minority
victims and minority killers...ie Gang Crime.
http://www.insidesocal.com/sb/sbnow/...rising-tr.html

Since the growth of MS-13 in the major cities..there has been a
significant rise in minority homicides..committed by other minorities.

IE..Blacks are being murdered by both other blacks and by latinos in
rising rates.

White homicides, both commited by and victims of..are still falling...to
lows below those of the 1960s.

Frankly..its gang warfare between two minoritiy groups that is rising
the homicide rate. And given that MS-13 has few scruples and will kill
purely out of instinct...its going to be an interesting year or two.

Gunner

I've not seen any statistics here breaking down murders and victims
by ethnicity and/or affiliation, though it's evident from news
reports that a preponderance of violent crime here takes place in
relatively few neighborhoods.

If the preponderance of violent crime is minorities killing
minorities, then it's about irrelevant to the statistics whether or
not you or I are armed; they'll have their wars either way.
However, our abilities could be very relevant to us personally in
the rather unlikely event that we find ourselves in grave peril.
Statistically insignificant, perhaps, but still higly relevant to us.
So I don't buy the halo effect argument simply because it is
irrelevant to me. I have no duty or even right to defend others.
Others have no right to interfere with my ability to legally defend
myself whether or not my ability is of any benefit to others, as long
as it is of no detriment to others and creates no peril for them.


It makes no difference what is YOu believe is relevant or not. What does
occur is that the minorities (for example) understand that many non
minority members are armed and willing to defend themselves with deadly
force..so they go to places and attack people who are less likely to do
exactly that.

You are of course familiar with Florida after they inacted the first
Shall Issue permit CCW system in the US some 15-20 yrs ago, right?

Crime rates went down like a rock for most people. However..crimes
against tourists with out of state tags, and rental cars rose like a
skyrocket. In fact..most rental car companies had to remove the rental
car stickers from their vehicles, before attacks on the drivers stopped.


Thats called Halo Effect.

You are confusing your personal beliefs versus Real Life, in a most
small town manner. You really need to work on that.

Between 3 Strike Laws, and the fact that 40some states now have Shall
Issue CCW laws..the end result has been a plunge in crime rates to below
1960s crime rates..and a strong rise in crime rates between minoritiy
members. They had to shift their methods of income generation and now
are killing each other off in turf wars.

Shrug

Gunner

Whenever a Liberal utters the term "Common Sense approach"....grab your
wallet, your ass, and your guns because the sombitch is about to do
something damned nasty to all three of them.

Don Foreman wrote:
On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 00:34:55 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:

I don't buy the sometimes-suggested "halo effect" that allowing the
populace to be armed reduces violent crime in general. I don't care
for the NRA propaganda to that effect. The pivotal issue for me is
my liberty and right to defend myself and mine whether or not others
might care to do similarly for themselves and theirs.
But Don..the Halo effect DOES exist. I live in a Red County in the
middle of California. We have more CCW permit carriers than the ENTIRE
rest of the state. We do have a crime rate..but it consistes mostly of
minorities killing other minorities. Very very few whites kill each
other off, and we do have a decent stat rate where minoritiy criminals
are killed by whites in self defense. And even that homicide rate is
dropping as the minority criminals have evidently decided that attacking
a white may well get them killed.

I mention minorities and whites because while Im not a bigot..it IS a
very big fact of life in the US in some places. Shrug.
California..Southern California..the LA basin has a rapidly elevating
homicide rate this year. And the increase has ALL been between minority
victims and minority killers...ie Gang Crime.
http://www.insidesocal.com/sb/sbnow/...rising-tr.html

Since the growth of MS-13 in the major cities..there has been a
significant rise in minority homicides..committed by other minorities.

IE..Blacks are being murdered by both other blacks and by latinos in
rising rates.

White homicides, both commited by and victims of..are still falling...to
lows below those of the 1960s.

Frankly..its gang warfare between two minoritiy groups that is rising
the homicide rate. And given that MS-13 has few scruples and will kill
purely out of instinct...its going to be an interesting year or two.

Gunner

I've not seen any statistics here breaking down murders and victims
by ethnicity and/or affiliation, though it's evident from news
reports that a preponderance of violent crime here takes place in
relatively few neighborhoods.

If the preponderance of violent crime is minorities killing
minorities, then it's about irrelevant to the statistics whether or
not you or I are armed; they'll have their wars either way.
However, our abilities could be very relevant to us personally in
the rather unlikely event that we find ourselves in grave peril.
Statistically insignificant, perhaps, but still higly relevant to us.
So I don't buy the halo effect argument simply because it is
irrelevant to me. I have no duty or even right to defend others.
Others have no right to interfere with my ability to legally defend
myself whether or not my ability is of any benefit to others, as long
as it is of no detriment to others and creates no peril for them.

In the big cities, most of the minority violence takes place in certain
neighborhoods. The halo effect is less in an urban area.
But in a small to medium-size town like the one in the original post,
it's very effective. It puts all those sex offenders and every other
do-bad of whatever strip on notice that anti-social behavior could
result in added ventilation, with the blessing of the authorities.

Gunner Asch wrote:
On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 11:31:01 -0500, Don Foreman
wrote:

On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 00:34:55 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:

I don't buy the sometimes-suggested "halo effect" that allowing the
populace to be armed reduces violent crime in general. I don't care
for the NRA propaganda to that effect. The pivotal issue for me is
my liberty and right to defend myself and mine whether or not others
might care to do similarly for themselves and theirs.
But Don..the Halo effect DOES exist. I live in a Red County in the
middle of California. We have more CCW permit carriers than the ENTIRE
rest of the state. We do have a crime rate..but it consistes mostly of
minorities killing other minorities. Very very few whites kill each
other off, and we do have a decent stat rate where minoritiy criminals
are killed by whites in self defense. And even that homicide rate is
dropping as the minority criminals have evidently decided that attacking
a white may well get them killed.

I mention minorities and whites because while Im not a bigot..it IS a
very big fact of life in the US in some places. Shrug.
California..Southern California..the LA basin has a rapidly elevating
homicide rate this year. And the increase has ALL been between minority
victims and minority killers...ie Gang Crime.
http://www.insidesocal.com/sb/sbnow/...rising-tr.html

Since the growth of MS-13 in the major cities..there has been a
significant rise in minority homicides..committed by other minorities.

IE..Blacks are being murdered by both other blacks and by latinos in
rising rates.

White homicides, both commited by and victims of..are still falling...to
lows below those of the 1960s.

Frankly..its gang warfare between two minoritiy groups that is rising
the homicide rate. And given that MS-13 has few scruples and will kill
purely out of instinct...its going to be an interesting year or two.

Gunner
I've not seen any statistics here breaking down murders and victims
by ethnicity and/or affiliation, though it's evident from news
reports that a preponderance of violent crime here takes place in
relatively few neighborhoods.

If the preponderance of violent crime is minorities killing
minorities, then it's about irrelevant to the statistics whether or
not you or I are armed; they'll have their wars either way.
However, our abilities could be very relevant to us personally in
the rather unlikely event that we find ourselves in grave peril.
Statistically insignificant, perhaps, but still higly relevant to us.
So I don't buy the halo effect argument simply because it is
irrelevant to me. I have no duty or even right to defend others.
Others have no right to interfere with my ability to legally defend
myself whether or not my ability is of any benefit to others, as long
as it is of no detriment to others and creates no peril for them.


It makes no difference what is YOu believe is relevant or not. What does
occur is that the minorities (for example) understand that many non
minority members are armed and willing to defend themselves with deadly
force..so they go to places and attack people who are less likely to do
exactly that.

You are of course familiar with Florida after they inacted the first
Shall Issue permit CCW system in the US some 15-20 yrs ago, right?

Crime rates went down like a rock for most people. However..crimes
against tourists with out of state tags, and rental cars rose like a
skyrocket. In fact..most rental car companies had to remove the rental
car stickers from their vehicles, before attacks on the drivers stopped.


Thats called Halo Effect.

You are confusing your personal beliefs versus Real Life, in a most
small town manner. You really need to work on that.

Between 3 Strike Laws, and the fact that 40some states now have Shall
Issue CCW laws..the end result has been a plunge in crime rates to below
1960s crime rates..and a strong rise in crime rates between minoritiy
members. They had to shift their methods of income generation and now
are killing each other off in turf wars.

So they have gone from income generation to wealth redistribution?

That makes at least one segment of American society that is on-board
with the Obama agenda!

On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 15:42:14 -0500, RBnDFW wrote:

Gunner Asch wrote:
On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 11:31:01 -0500, Don Foreman
wrote:

On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 00:34:55 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:

I don't buy the sometimes-suggested "halo effect" that allowing the
populace to be armed reduces violent crime in general. I don't care
for the NRA propaganda to that effect. The pivotal issue for me is
my liberty and right to defend myself and mine whether or not others
might care to do similarly for themselves and theirs.
But Don..the Halo effect DOES exist. I live in a Red County in the
middle of California. We have more CCW permit carriers than the ENTIRE
rest of the state. We do have a crime rate..but it consistes mostly of
minorities killing other minorities. Very very few whites kill each
other off, and we do have a decent stat rate where minoritiy criminals
are killed by whites in self defense. And even that homicide rate is
dropping as the minority criminals have evidently decided that attacking
a white may well get them killed.

I mention minorities and whites because while Im not a bigot..it IS a
very big fact of life in the US in some places. Shrug.
California..Southern California..the LA basin has a rapidly elevating
homicide rate this year. And the increase has ALL been between minority
victims and minority killers...ie Gang Crime.
http://www.insidesocal.com/sb/sbnow/...rising-tr.html

Since the growth of MS-13 in the major cities..there has been a
significant rise in minority homicides..committed by other minorities.

IE..Blacks are being murdered by both other blacks and by latinos in
rising rates.

White homicides, both commited by and victims of..are still falling...to
lows below those of the 1960s.

Frankly..its gang warfare between two minoritiy groups that is rising
the homicide rate. And given that MS-13 has few scruples and will kill
purely out of instinct...its going to be an interesting year or two.

Gunner
I've not seen any statistics here breaking down murders and victims
by ethnicity and/or affiliation, though it's evident from news
reports that a preponderance of violent crime here takes place in
relatively few neighborhoods.

If the preponderance of violent crime is minorities killing
minorities, then it's about irrelevant to the statistics whether or
not you or I are armed; they'll have their wars either way.
However, our abilities could be very relevant to us personally in
the rather unlikely event that we find ourselves in grave peril.
Statistically insignificant, perhaps, but still higly relevant to us.
So I don't buy the halo effect argument simply because it is
irrelevant to me. I have no duty or even right to defend others.
Others have no right to interfere with my ability to legally defend
myself whether or not my ability is of any benefit to others, as long
as it is of no detriment to others and creates no peril for them.


It makes no difference what is YOu believe is relevant or not. What does
occur is that the minorities (for example) understand that many non
minority members are armed and willing to defend themselves with deadly
force..so they go to places and attack people who are less likely to do
exactly that.

You are of course familiar with Florida after they inacted the first
Shall Issue permit CCW system in the US some 15-20 yrs ago, right?

Crime rates went down like a rock for most people. However..crimes
against tourists with out of state tags, and rental cars rose like a
skyrocket. In fact..most rental car companies had to remove the rental
car stickers from their vehicles, before attacks on the drivers stopped.


Thats called Halo Effect.

You are confusing your personal beliefs versus Real Life, in a most
small town manner. You really need to work on that.

Between 3 Strike Laws, and the fact that 40some states now have Shall
Issue CCW laws..the end result has been a plunge in crime rates to below
1960s crime rates..and a strong rise in crime rates between minoritiy
members. They had to shift their methods of income generation and now
are killing each other off in turf wars.

So they have gone from income generation to wealth redistribution?

No..they are still in the Income generation business. Lasse'faire
capitalists everyone of them. However a sense of fair play and community
service isnt in their playbooks. Neither is mercy. Family is
everything...family being whatever particular gang they swore their
oaths to.

That makes at least one segment of American society that is on-board
with the Obama agenda!

Of course it does. Minorities always do when it comes to Barry Soretos

Gunner

Whenever a Liberal utters the term "Common Sense approach"....grab your
wallet, your ass, and your guns because the sombitch is about to do
something damned nasty to all three of them.

Ed Huntress wrote:

One thing about Belleview, though, based on the sex-offender data: It's one
town in which you want to look over your shoulder before you bend over to
pick up a bar of soap.


Bar of soap? I didn't realize NJ didn't have liquid soap. I buy
shampoo at the dollar store to wash my hands and shower with. You have
to be a fool to use bar soap in a shower when you're disabled.


--
You can't have a sense of humor, if you have no sense!

Ed Huntress wrote:

"Michael A. Terrell" wrote in message
m...

Don, I live about three miles from the Belleview City Hall. A lot of
people around here are armed, and well trained. The idea is to let the
criminals know that there are less protected places that improve their
chance of survival.

I can see why. With a population of less than 4,000, Belleview has 32
registered sex offenders and a personal crime rate four times higher than my
town, which is 17 miles from Newark. My town, with three times the
population, has one registered sex offender. Violent crime runs 2.5 X higher
in Belleview.


A lot of that crime is committed by 'Tourists' from other parts of
Florida, or from other states. The main road is US Hwy. 27/State Rte
441. At one time it was the main road from the north into Central
Florida. Parts of 441 are the old 'Orange Blossom Trail'.

A lot of the cars that pass through have out of state tags.




Personal armor would be a good idea, too. Even better would be moving
somewhere else. d8-)


If you need body armor, you must have ****ed off a lot of people.



--
You can't have a sense of humor, if you have no sense!

On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 11:10:46 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:

On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 11:31:01 -0500, Don Foreman
wrote:

On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 00:34:55 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:


I don't buy the sometimes-suggested "halo effect" that allowing the
populace to be armed reduces violent crime in general. I don't care
for the NRA propaganda to that effect. The pivotal issue for me is
my liberty and right to defend myself and mine whether or not others
might care to do similarly for themselves and theirs.

But Don..the Halo effect DOES exist. I live in a Red County in the
middle of California. We have more CCW permit carriers than the ENTIRE
rest of the state. We do have a crime rate..but it consistes mostly of
minorities killing other minorities. Very very few whites kill each
other off, and we do have a decent stat rate where minoritiy criminals
are killed by whites in self defense. And even that homicide rate is
dropping as the minority criminals have evidently decided that attacking
a white may well get them killed.

I mention minorities and whites because while Im not a bigot..it IS a
very big fact of life in the US in some places. Shrug.
California..Southern California..the LA basin has a rapidly elevating
homicide rate this year. And the increase has ALL been between minority
victims and minority killers...ie Gang Crime.
http://www.insidesocal.com/sb/sbnow/...rising-tr.html

Since the growth of MS-13 in the major cities..there has been a
significant rise in minority homicides..committed by other minorities.

IE..Blacks are being murdered by both other blacks and by latinos in
rising rates.

White homicides, both commited by and victims of..are still falling...to
lows below those of the 1960s.

Frankly..its gang warfare between two minoritiy groups that is rising
the homicide rate. And given that MS-13 has few scruples and will kill
purely out of instinct...its going to be an interesting year or two.

Gunner

I've not seen any statistics here breaking down murders and victims
by ethnicity and/or affiliation, though it's evident from news
reports that a preponderance of violent crime here takes place in
relatively few neighborhoods.

If the preponderance of violent crime is minorities killing
minorities, then it's about irrelevant to the statistics whether or
not you or I are armed; they'll have their wars either way.
However, our abilities could be very relevant to us personally in
the rather unlikely event that we find ourselves in grave peril.
Statistically insignificant, perhaps, but still higly relevant to us.
So I don't buy the halo effect argument simply because it is
irrelevant to me. I have no duty or even right to defend others.
Others have no right to interfere with my ability to legally defend
myself whether or not my ability is of any benefit to others, as long
as it is of no detriment to others and creates no peril for them.

It makes no difference what is YOu believe is relevant or not. What does
occur is that the minorities (for example) understand that many non
minority members are armed and willing to defend themselves with deadly
force..so they go to places and attack people who are less likely to do
exactly that.

That seems inconsistent with your previous statements like:
"Frankly..its gang warfare between two minority groups that is rising
the homicide rate. And given that MS-13 has few scruples and will kill
purely out of instinct...its going to be an interesting year or two."
I see no evidence that this has any dependency upon whether or not
non-minorities are armed. It may well have far more to do with
increasing population density of minorities that join gangs.

You are of course familiar with Florida after they inacted the first
Shall Issue permit CCW system in the US some 15-20 yrs ago, right?

Wrong. 15-20 years ago I had absolutely no interest in CCW. I've
carried a blade or blades every day of my adult life and was once
somewhat proficient with same, never felt any need for more as a
civilian until I realized after Katrina that I'd become older, slower
and weaker than I was in my salad days. Life lurches on.

Crime rates went down like a rock for most people. However..crimes
against tourists with out of state tags, and rental cars rose like a
skyrocket. In fact..most rental car companies had to remove the rental
car stickers from their vehicles, before attacks on the drivers stopped.

Thats called Halo Effect.

Good example. I'd call it a plausible but quite possibly wrong
hypothesis without supporting evidence.

You are confusing your personal beliefs versus Real Life
small town manner. You really need to work on that.

Whoa! I constantly review my personal beliefs against the realities
of my life. Change is constant as life goes on. My life is
clearly different from yours. Matter of fact, your life may be
different from how it was when you formed many of your beliefs and
convictions decades ago. Don't presume to tell me about real life,
not my real life anyway. YRLMV (your real life may vary)

Between 3 Strike Laws, and the fact that 40some states now have Shall
Issue CCW laws..the end result has been a plunge in crime rates to below
1960s crime rates..and a strong rise in crime rates between minoritiy
members. They had to shift their methods of income generation and now
are killing each other off in turf wars.

3 strike laws have made what once would have been a simple mugging
assault into a may-as-well-murder sit for a 2-time loser. Not
speaking against 3-strike but that's the reality and it's a strong
reason to carry where mugging is more than a remote possibility.

You know damned well that I strongly value my 2d amendment rights as
a responsible citizen. If you don't know that you haven't been
paying attention. Flawed-logic arguments like your preceding
paragraph can easily be repellent to thoughtful people so I think
they could aid and abet those intent on infringing or curtailing my
2d amendment rights. I do NOT appreciate that.

Ditto for the damned fool who showed up at a political ralley in
Phoenix with a rifle clearly of tactical intent (vs hunting or target)
slung on his shoulder. That is clear intent to intimidate because
there was no need for defense. I regard that as flagrant abuse of 2d
amendent rights. There's no excuse for that sort of behavior. Many or
most reasonable gentle citizens would find that offensive and even
frightening, which could easily make them less reasonable and more
amenable to suggestions for draconian gun control.






Shrug

Gunner

Whenever a Liberal utters the term "Common Sense approach"....grab your
wallet, your ass, and your guns because the sombitch is about to do
something damned nasty to all three of them.

On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 23:50:41 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:


Ed Huntress wrote:

One thing about Belleview, though, based on the sex-offender data: It's one
town in which you want to look over your shoulder before you bend over to
pick up a bar of soap.


Bar of soap? I didn't realize NJ didn't have liquid soap. I buy
shampoo at the dollar store to wash my hands and shower with. You have
to be a fool to use bar soap in a shower when you're disabled.

Ed has led a rather sheltered life. Much of New Jersey is pleasant to
opulent, a Garden State to be sure. Lots of bluewater salt sea shore
beyond the refineries and garbage dumps, what's not to like?

They don't have the giant insects like palmetto bugs that y'all have
in Florida. No gators in the pine barrens.

On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 11:10:46 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:



If the preponderance of violent crime is minorities killing
minorities, then it's about irrelevant to the statistics whether or
not you or I are armed; they'll have their wars either way.
However, our abilities could be very relevant to us personally in
the rather unlikely event that we find ourselves in grave peril.
Statistically insignificant, perhaps, but still higly relevant to us.
So I don't buy the halo effect argument simply because it is
irrelevant to me. I have no duty or even right to defend others.
Others have no right to interfere with my ability to legally defend
myself whether or not my ability is of any benefit to others, as long
as it is of no detriment to others and creates no peril for them.


It makes no difference what is YOu believe is relevant or not.

It may well make no difference to you or anyone else what I believe is
relevant. That was and is, in a way, my point. I neither refute
nor support the halo effect argument that you present and presumably
believe. It is not a factor in any decisions I make so it is
irrelevant to me. YMMV.

Don Foreman wrote:

On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 23:50:41 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:


Ed Huntress wrote:

One thing about Belleview, though, based on the sex-offender data: It's one
town in which you want to look over your shoulder before you bend over to
pick up a bar of soap.


Bar of soap? I didn't realize NJ didn't have liquid soap. I buy
shampoo at the dollar store to wash my hands and shower with. You have
to be a fool to use bar soap in a shower when you're disabled.

Ed has led a rather sheltered life. Much of New Jersey is pleasant to
opulent, a Garden State to be sure. Lots of bluewater salt sea shore
beyond the refineries and garbage dumps, what's not to like?


I've never been there, so i wouldn't know. I tested out of a three
year engineering course at Ft. Monmoth while in Basic Training, and that
was the closest I ever got.

I just think its funny that so many people from New Jersey move to
Florida and constantly brag about where they came from. They get really
upset when you ask why they left 'paradise'


They don't have the giant insects like palmetto bugs that y'all have
in Florida. No gators in the pine barrens.


Don't badmouth the gators. They help keep the sheltered snowbird
population in check. ;-)


--
You can't have a sense of humor, if you have no sense!

"Gunner Asch" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 01:07:46 -0500, Don Foreman
wrote:

On Mon, 24 Aug 2009 09:43:40 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


"Michael A. Terrell" wrote in message
news:rdmdneAqLLgtsw_XnZ2dnUVZ_hNi4p2d@earthlink .com...

Don Foreman wrote:

On Sat, 22 Aug 2009 12:08:27 -0700, "Bill Noble"
wrote:


Do you regard suggestions lacking force of law as meaningless?
Would
you prefer your city council to have more absolute power to dictate
your behavior?

It may seem incredibly alien to y'all in Kalifornia, but out here
in
flyoverland the notion of a bunch of guys (and gals) getting
together
and suggesting whatever to their fellow citizens is quite
acceptable.
Matter of fact, it's part of what we elected them to do. We even
understand the difference between a resolution and legislation.

yes, I regard suggestions lacking the force of law as "meaningless"
in
the
context of a government body - they should not wast their time, the
dollars
to light the building while they debate it, or anything else unless
there is
an action to be taken - this is no more meaningful, per what you are
telling
me, than the "suggestion" that we get out of iraq that some city
councils
passed. Now, if they said that there would be free amunition, paid
for
by
city taxes, that is a government act (we could debate its wisdom),
but
otherwise, this is strum-und-drag (hope I spelled it right)

Sturm und Drang.

Perhaps a lot depends on the suggestability and even responsibility of
the populace in question. If nobody in the populace (say in
California) will do anything that's good for the greater number unless
compelled to by law, then suggestions would indeed be useless.
However, if a populace really believes in the leaders it elects and is
strongly motivated to do "the right thing", then suggestions could be
very effective. They might even be more effective than laws, which
must be enforced (cost) and violators must be punished (more cost).

Laws are obviously necessary with any real populace, but I also think
that resolutions can be useful and have beneficial effect.


Don, I live about three miles from the Belleview City Hall. A lot of
people around here are armed, and well trained. The idea is to let the
criminals know that there are less protected places that improve their
chance of survival.

I can see why. With a population of less than 4,000, Belleview has 32
registered sex offenders and a personal crime rate four times higher than
my
town, which is 17 miles from Newark. My town, with three times the
population, has one registered sex offender. Violent crime runs 2.5 X
higher
in Belleview.

Personal armor would be a good idea, too. Even better would be moving
somewhere else. d8-)

This data suggests that having "a lot of people armed and
well-trained"apparently has not resulted in lower crime stats for
Belleview than for Ed's town in N.J. which sounds like a nice
place to live. There may also be differences in avg income, pct of
pop near or below poverty level, population density and various other
demographics that might have some influence on incidence of violent
crime.

Perhaps the statement was made by the City Council in an effort to pass
the word around that the crime rate needs to be reduced, and they have
now "allowed" the citizens to help in the effort of removing bad people
from the population, one way or another?

I don't buy the sometimes-suggested "halo effect" that allowing the
populace to be armed reduces violent crime in general. I don't care
for the NRA propaganda to that effect. The pivotal issue for me is
my liberty and right to defend myself and mine whether or not others
might care to do similarly for themselves and theirs.

But Don..the Halo effect DOES exist. I live in a Red County in the
middle of California. We have more CCW permit carriers than the ENTIRE
rest of the state. We do have a crime rate..but it consistes mostly of
minorities killing other minorities. Very very few whites kill each
other off, and we do have a decent stat rate where minoritiy criminals
are killed by whites in self defense. And even that homicide rate is
dropping as the minority criminals have evidently decided that attacking
a white may well get them killed.

I mention minorities and whites because while Im not a bigot..it IS a
very big fact of life in the US in some places. Shrug.
California..Southern California..the LA basin has a rapidly elevating
homicide rate this year. And the increase has ALL been between minority
victims and minority killers...ie Gang Crime.
http://www.insidesocal.com/sb/sbnow/...rising-tr.html

Since the growth of MS-13 in the major cities..there has been a
significant rise in minority homicides..committed by other minorities.

IE..Blacks are being murdered by both other blacks and by latinos in
rising rates.

White homicides, both commited by and victims of..are still falling...to
lows below those of the 1960s.

Frankly..its gang warfare between two minoritiy groups that is rising
the homicide rate. And given that MS-13 has few scruples and will kill
purely out of instinct...its going to be an interesting year or two.

Gunner

Partly true. Kern County's white non-hispanic murder rate runs around
3.8/100k white population. Nothing to shout about, but only 10 murders out
of 60, with a population that's around 47% white non-hisp.

http://stats.doj.ca.gov/cjsc_stats/prof07/15/22.htm

(Those are arrest records; divide by 0.79 for typical offense numbers.)

Interestingly, Kern county's white non-hisp. murder rate is about the same
as my county's *total* murder rate, and we're only 52% white non-hispanic
and we have a few really nasty towns in this county, including some where
hardly anyone speaks English. Not enough guns around here, I guess. g

--
Ed Huntress

"Gunner Asch" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 01:07:46 -0500, Don Foreman
wrote:

On Mon, 24 Aug 2009 09:43:40 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


"Michael A. Terrell" wrote in message
news:rdmdneAqLLgtsw_XnZ2dnUVZ_hNi4p2d@earthlink .com...

Don Foreman wrote:

On Sat, 22 Aug 2009 12:08:27 -0700, "Bill Noble"
wrote:


Do you regard suggestions lacking force of law as meaningless?
Would
you prefer your city council to have more absolute power to dictate
your behavior?

It may seem incredibly alien to y'all in Kalifornia, but out here
in
flyoverland the notion of a bunch of guys (and gals) getting
together
and suggesting whatever to their fellow citizens is quite
acceptable.
Matter of fact, it's part of what we elected them to do. We even
understand the difference between a resolution and legislation.

yes, I regard suggestions lacking the force of law as "meaningless"
in
the
context of a government body - they should not wast their time, the
dollars
to light the building while they debate it, or anything else unless
there is
an action to be taken - this is no more meaningful, per what you are
telling
me, than the "suggestion" that we get out of iraq that some city
councils
passed. Now, if they said that there would be free amunition, paid
for
by
city taxes, that is a government act (we could debate its wisdom),
but
otherwise, this is strum-und-drag (hope I spelled it right)

Sturm und Drang.

Perhaps a lot depends on the suggestability and even responsibility of
the populace in question. If nobody in the populace (say in
California) will do anything that's good for the greater number unless
compelled to by law, then suggestions would indeed be useless.
However, if a populace really believes in the leaders it elects and is
strongly motivated to do "the right thing", then suggestions could be
very effective. They might even be more effective than laws, which
must be enforced (cost) and violators must be punished (more cost).

Laws are obviously necessary with any real populace, but I also think
that resolutions can be useful and have beneficial effect.


Don, I live about three miles from the Belleview City Hall. A lot of
people around here are armed, and well trained. The idea is to let the
criminals know that there are less protected places that improve their
chance of survival.

I can see why. With a population of less than 4,000, Belleview has 32
registered sex offenders and a personal crime rate four times higher than
my
town, which is 17 miles from Newark. My town, with three times the
population, has one registered sex offender. Violent crime runs 2.5 X
higher
in Belleview.

Personal armor would be a good idea, too. Even better would be moving
somewhere else. d8-)

This data suggests that having "a lot of people armed and
well-trained"apparently has not resulted in lower crime stats for
Belleview than for Ed's town in N.J. which sounds like a nice
place to live. There may also be differences in avg income, pct of
pop near or below poverty level, population density and various other
demographics that might have some influence on incidence of violent
crime.

Perhaps the statement was made by the City Council in an effort to pass
the word around that the crime rate needs to be reduced, and they have
now "allowed" the citizens to help in the effort of removing bad people
from the population, one way or another?

I don't buy the sometimes-suggested "halo effect" that allowing the
populace to be armed reduces violent crime in general. I don't care
for the NRA propaganda to that effect. The pivotal issue for me is
my liberty and right to defend myself and mine whether or not others
might care to do similarly for themselves and theirs.

But Don..the Halo effect DOES exist. I live in a Red County in the
middle of California. We have more CCW permit carriers than the ENTIRE
rest of the state. We do have a crime rate..but it consistes mostly of
minorities killing other minorities. Very very few whites kill each
other off, and we do have a decent stat rate where minoritiy criminals
are killed by whites in self defense. And even that homicide rate is
dropping as the minority criminals have evidently decided that attacking
a white may well get them killed.

Whoop, hold the phone...California's white non-hispanic (perp) murder rate
is 2.04/100,000. Kern County's is over 3.5.

So much for the Halo effect of having the most CCW permit carriers. If
you're going to measure it that way, Gunner, it looks like the result is
almost twice as many murders because you have all of those CCWs.

But as Don has said and I have said, I don't think there's any effect either
way.

--
Ed Huntress

"Michael A. Terrell" wrote in message
m...

Don Foreman wrote:

On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 23:50:41 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:


Ed Huntress wrote:

One thing about Belleview, though, based on the sex-offender data:
It's one
town in which you want to look over your shoulder before you bend over
to
pick up a bar of soap.


Bar of soap? I didn't realize NJ didn't have liquid soap. I buy
shampoo at the dollar store to wash my hands and shower with. You have
to be a fool to use bar soap in a shower when you're disabled.

Ed has led a rather sheltered life. Much of New Jersey is pleasant to
opulent, a Garden State to be sure. Lots of bluewater salt sea shore
beyond the refineries and garbage dumps, what's not to like?


I've never been there, so i wouldn't know. I tested out of a three
year engineering course at Ft. Monmoth while in Basic Training, and that
was the closest I ever got.

I just think its funny that so many people from New Jersey move to
Florida and constantly brag about where they came from. They get really
upset when you ask why they left 'paradise'

Hey, ask them why they left Florida after they move back up here. We left
(in 1963) because it's a swamp in the summer time, more than anything else.
My mother was afraid we'd all develop mildew. g

--
Ed Huntress

Ed -

Most Hispanics are on the sly. Those into drugs and such get guns.
Workers that hide out and work don't have ID or can pass fed check.....
They would have to buy black market - and that is out of the sly game.

I can spot them on the road here - driving 45 in a 60 or the like.
Likely part of the non driving skill and can't get a ticket...

Martin

Ed Huntress wrote:
"Gunner Asch" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 01:07:46 -0500, Don Foreman
wrote:

On Mon, 24 Aug 2009 09:43:40 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"Michael A. Terrell" wrote in message
m...
Don Foreman wrote:
On Sat, 22 Aug 2009 12:08:27 -0700, "Bill Noble"
wrote:

Do you regard suggestions lacking force of law as meaningless?
Would
you prefer your city council to have more absolute power to dictate
your behavior?

It may seem incredibly alien to y'all in Kalifornia, but out here
in
flyoverland the notion of a bunch of guys (and gals) getting
together
and suggesting whatever to their fellow citizens is quite
acceptable.
Matter of fact, it's part of what we elected them to do. We even
understand the difference between a resolution and legislation.
yes, I regard suggestions lacking the force of law as "meaningless"
in
the
context of a government body - they should not wast their time, the
dollars
to light the building while they debate it, or anything else unless
there is
an action to be taken - this is no more meaningful, per what you are
telling
me, than the "suggestion" that we get out of iraq that some city
councils
passed. Now, if they said that there would be free amunition, paid
for
by
city taxes, that is a government act (we could debate its wisdom),
but
otherwise, this is strum-und-drag (hope I spelled it right)
Sturm und Drang.

Perhaps a lot depends on the suggestability and even responsibility of
the populace in question. If nobody in the populace (say in
California) will do anything that's good for the greater number unless
compelled to by law, then suggestions would indeed be useless.
However, if a populace really believes in the leaders it elects and is
strongly motivated to do "the right thing", then suggestions could be
very effective. They might even be more effective than laws, which
must be enforced (cost) and violators must be punished (more cost).

Laws are obviously necessary with any real populace, but I also think
that resolutions can be useful and have beneficial effect.

Don, I live about three miles from the Belleview City Hall. A lot of
people around here are armed, and well trained. The idea is to let the
criminals know that there are less protected places that improve their
chance of survival.
I can see why. With a population of less than 4,000, Belleview has 32
registered sex offenders and a personal crime rate four times higher than
my
town, which is 17 miles from Newark. My town, with three times the
population, has one registered sex offender. Violent crime runs 2.5 X
higher
in Belleview.

Personal armor would be a good idea, too. Even better would be moving
somewhere else. d8-)
This data suggests that having "a lot of people armed and
well-trained"apparently has not resulted in lower crime stats for
Belleview than for Ed's town in N.J. which sounds like a nice
place to live. There may also be differences in avg income, pct of
pop near or below poverty level, population density and various other
demographics that might have some influence on incidence of violent
crime.
Perhaps the statement was made by the City Council in an effort to pass
the word around that the crime rate needs to be reduced, and they have
now "allowed" the citizens to help in the effort of removing bad people
from the population, one way or another?
I don't buy the sometimes-suggested "halo effect" that allowing the
populace to be armed reduces violent crime in general. I don't care
for the NRA propaganda to that effect. The pivotal issue for me is
my liberty and right to defend myself and mine whether or not others
might care to do similarly for themselves and theirs.
But Don..the Halo effect DOES exist. I live in a Red County in the
middle of California. We have more CCW permit carriers than the ENTIRE
rest of the state. We do have a crime rate..but it consistes mostly of
minorities killing other minorities. Very very few whites kill each
other off, and we do have a decent stat rate where minoritiy criminals
are killed by whites in self defense. And even that homicide rate is
dropping as the minority criminals have evidently decided that attacking
a white may well get them killed.

I mention minorities and whites because while Im not a bigot..it IS a
very big fact of life in the US in some places. Shrug.
California..Southern California..the LA basin has a rapidly elevating
homicide rate this year. And the increase has ALL been between minority
victims and minority killers...ie Gang Crime.
http://www.insidesocal.com/sb/sbnow/...rising-tr.html

Since the growth of MS-13 in the major cities..there has been a
significant rise in minority homicides..committed by other minorities.

IE..Blacks are being murdered by both other blacks and by latinos in
rising rates.

White homicides, both commited by and victims of..are still falling...to
lows below those of the 1960s.

Frankly..its gang warfare between two minoritiy groups that is rising
the homicide rate. And given that MS-13 has few scruples and will kill
purely out of instinct...its going to be an interesting year or two.

Gunner

Partly true. Kern County's white non-hispanic murder rate runs around
3.8/100k white population. Nothing to shout about, but only 10 murders out
of 60, with a population that's around 47% white non-hisp.

http://stats.doj.ca.gov/cjsc_stats/prof07/15/22.htm

(Those are arrest records; divide by 0.79 for typical offense numbers.)

Interestingly, Kern county's white non-hisp. murder rate is about the same
as my county's *total* murder rate, and we're only 52% white non-hispanic
and we have a few really nasty towns in this county, including some where
hardly anyone speaks English. Not enough guns around here, I guess. g

--
Ed Huntress

"Martin H. Eastburn" wrote in message
...
Ed -

Most Hispanics are on the sly. Those into drugs and such get guns.
Workers that hide out and work don't have ID or can pass fed check.....
They would have to buy black market - and that is out of the sly game.

I'm not sure how that relates to the stats or to Gunner's claims, Martin.
The arrest data on racial/ethnic bases is not based on whether they're legal
or not. Legals and illegals are counted the same.

As for the effects of gun ownership on crime ratings, if you spend a few
hundred hours with the UCR and other crime stats you're likely to throw up
your hands trying to find correlations. That's why John Lott's "research"
can so easily buffalo any non-experts (and even a few experts); when you try
to refine the relationships with multi-variate analysis, it all depends on
which variables you choose.

But there are some things that are straightforward in the data. For example,
people of Hispanic origin and blacks commit violent crimes at several times
the rate for whites. Interestingly, that varies a lot by region -- telling
us that specific cultural issues, rather than race or ethnicity themselves,
are the big factors. In some areas the rate of crime by Hispanics is much
lower than in others. Middle-class blacks appear to have about the same
rates as white. Still, the racial/ethnic data is irrefutable, whatever the
reason.

Likewise, if you do any kind of comparison among states with CCW prevalence
and crime data, you'll find that there is no straightforward relationship.
For example, regarding relatively slack gun laws, Vermont is 1.9
murders/100k; Nevada is 9.0. With strict gun laws, New Jersey is 4.9, Hawaii
is 1.6.

http://www.census.gov/compendia/stat...es/09s0297.pdf

A lot of this becomes clearer when you look at the race/ethnic data by
state, which you can find in the UCR. And it becomes clearer still when you
look at the proportion of population living in cities, particularly cities
with large ghettoes or depressed areas, in each state.

But even after all that, there is a residual measure left that suggests that
the prevalence of legally owned guns corresponds to the prevalence of
violent crime. The relationship is a weak one and it takes a good
statistician (which I'm not) to pluck it out of the noise. That data has
been available for years in the professional criminology literature and it
is precisely what John Lott was trying to contradict in _More Guns, Less
Crime_. It appears that most professionals in the field disagree with the
way he compiled his data.


I can spot them on the road here - driving 45 in a 60 or the like.
Likely part of the non driving skill and can't get a ticket...

Here, they're the ones riding bicycles at commuting hours. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress

On Wed, 26 Aug 2009 00:51:34 -0500, Don Foreman
wrote:

snip disagreements

You know damned well that I strongly value my 2d amendment rights as
a responsible citizen. If you don't know that you haven't been
paying attention. Flawed-logic arguments like your preceding
paragraph can easily be repellent to thoughtful people so I think
they could aid and abet those intent on infringing or curtailing my
2d amendment rights. I do NOT appreciate that.

Ditto for the damned fool who showed up at a political ralley in
Phoenix with a rifle clearly of tactical intent (vs hunting or target)
slung on his shoulder. That is clear intent to intimidate because
there was no need for defense. I regard that as flagrant abuse of 2d
amendent rights. There's no excuse for that sort of behavior. Many or
most reasonable gentle citizens would find that offensive and even
frightening, which could easily make them less reasonable and more
amenable to suggestions for draconian gun control.

Damned fool who showed up with an assault rifle?

You mean the Black gentleman who showed up with a slung AR15...whom the
Left then proceeded to lie about..showing the gun but failing to show
the gentleman himself..and calling him a "white racist"? That "damned
fool"?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UYKQJ4-N7LI

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7syx2...eature=related

Don...I like you a lot. Respect you deeply. But...your midwestern views
on the 2nd Amendment need a fair amount of rework before they reflect
the views of the Founders.


Gunner

Whenever a Liberal utters the term "Common Sense approach"....grab your
wallet, your ass, and your guns because the sombitch is about to do
something damned nasty to all three of them.

On Wed, 26 Aug 2009 23:55:22 -0500, Don Foreman
wrote:

On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 11:10:46 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:



If the preponderance of violent crime is minorities killing
minorities, then it's about irrelevant to the statistics whether or
not you or I are armed; they'll have their wars either way.
However, our abilities could be very relevant to us personally in
the rather unlikely event that we find ourselves in grave peril.
Statistically insignificant, perhaps, but still higly relevant to us.
So I don't buy the halo effect argument simply because it is
irrelevant to me. I have no duty or even right to defend others.
Others have no right to interfere with my ability to legally defend
myself whether or not my ability is of any benefit to others, as long
as it is of no detriment to others and creates no peril for them.


It makes no difference what is YOu believe is relevant or not.

It may well make no difference to you or anyone else what I believe is
relevant. That was and is, in a way, my point. I neither refute
nor support the halo effect argument that you present and presumably
believe. It is not a factor in any decisions I make so it is
irrelevant to me. YMMV.

Your belief system is noted. Appreciated non the less.

http://www.ironwordranch.com/

http://www.ccrkba.org/defender1998.htm

"The benefits of concealed handguns are not limited to those who use
them in self-defense. Because the guns may be concealed, criminals are
unable to tell whether potential victims are carrying guns until they
attack, thus making it less attractive for criminals to commit crimes
that involve direct contact with victims. Citizens who have no intention
of ever carrying concealed handguns in a sense get a ‘free ride’ from
the crime-fighting efforts of their fellow citizens. However, the ‘halo’
effect created by these laws is apparently not limited to people who
share the characteristics of those who carry guns. The most obvious
example is the drop in murders of children following the adoption of
nondiscretionary laws. Arming older people not only may provide direct
protection to these children, but also causes criminals to leave the
area...

http://www.paulhager.org/why004.htm

etc etc etc.

Gunner




Whenever a Liberal utters the term "Common Sense approach"....grab your
wallet, your ass, and your guns because the sombitch is about to do
something damned nasty to all three of them.

"Gunner Asch" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 26 Aug 2009 23:55:22 -0500, Don Foreman
wrote:

On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 11:10:46 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:



If the preponderance of violent crime is minorities killing
minorities, then it's about irrelevant to the statistics whether or
not you or I are armed; they'll have their wars either way.
However, our abilities could be very relevant to us personally in
the rather unlikely event that we find ourselves in grave peril.
Statistically insignificant, perhaps, but still higly relevant to us.
So I don't buy the halo effect argument simply because it is
irrelevant to me. I have no duty or even right to defend others.
Others have no right to interfere with my ability to legally defend
myself whether or not my ability is of any benefit to others, as long
as it is of no detriment to others and creates no peril for them.


It makes no difference what is YOu believe is relevant or not.

It may well make no difference to you or anyone else what I believe is
relevant. That was and is, in a way, my point. I neither refute
nor support the halo effect argument that you present and presumably
believe. It is not a factor in any decisions I make so it is
irrelevant to me. YMMV.

Your belief system is noted. Appreciated non the less.

http://www.ironwordranch.com/

http://www.ccrkba.org/defender1998.htm

"The benefits of concealed handguns are not limited to those who use
them in self-defense. Because the guns may be concealed, criminals are
unable to tell whether potential victims are carrying guns until they
attack, thus making it less attractive for criminals to commit crimes
that involve direct contact with victims. Citizens who have no intention
of ever carrying concealed handguns in a sense get a 'free ride' from
the crime-fighting efforts of their fellow citizens. However, the 'halo'
effect created by these laws is apparently not limited to people who
share the characteristics of those who carry guns. The most obvious
example is the drop in murders of children following the adoption of
nondiscretionary laws. Arming older people not only may provide direct
protection to these children, but also causes criminals to leave the
area...

http://www.paulhager.org/why004.htm

etc etc etc.

Gunner

Bull**** theorizing by empty-headed ideologues. Look at the figures I
posted: Your theory is that you have a "halo effect" in your county because
you have "more CCWs than all the rest of CA combined," as you put it (I'm
not sure that's correct, but I won't quibble), and that your crime figures
are high because it's all minorities killing other minorities.

Yet, the murder rate for white non-hispanics in your county is over 3.5/100k
while for the state as a whole it's 2.04.

In other words, if you have a halo, it's on upside-down. You have more CCWs
and higher rates of murders by whites.

--
Ed Huntress

"Gunner Asch" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 26 Aug 2009 00:51:34 -0500, Don Foreman
wrote:

snip disagreements

You know damned well that I strongly value my 2d amendment rights as
a responsible citizen. If you don't know that you haven't been
paying attention. Flawed-logic arguments like your preceding
paragraph can easily be repellent to thoughtful people so I think
they could aid and abet those intent on infringing or curtailing my
2d amendment rights. I do NOT appreciate that.

Ditto for the damned fool who showed up at a political ralley in
Phoenix with a rifle clearly of tactical intent (vs hunting or target)
slung on his shoulder. That is clear intent to intimidate because
there was no need for defense. I regard that as flagrant abuse of 2d
amendent rights. There's no excuse for that sort of behavior. Many or
most reasonable gentle citizens would find that offensive and even
frightening, which could easily make them less reasonable and more
amenable to suggestions for draconian gun control.

Damned fool who showed up with an assault rifle?

You mean the Black gentleman who showed up with a slung AR15...whom the
Left then proceeded to lie about..showing the gun but failing to show
the gentleman himself..and calling him a "white racist"? That "damned
fool"?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UYKQJ4-N7LI

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7syx2...eature=related

Don...I like you a lot. Respect you deeply. But...your midwestern views
on the 2nd Amendment need a fair amount of rework before they reflect
the views of the Founders.

Gunner, the idea that you have a clue about the "views of the Founders" is
ludicrous beyond belief.

Don't start telling Don, or me, or anyone else what the Founders' "views"
were. You have one of those hopscotch educations in history that's long on
ideology and short on perspective. And you really don't know the background
of the Bill of Rights at all, as you've proven numerous times.When we
discussed the intent of the B of R you even got the Barron v. Baltimore case
exactly BACKWARDS.

As for the AR-15-toting jackass in Phoenix, I didn't hear anyone say he was
a "white racist." It was clear from the photos that he was black. You must
read too much Leftist literature for your own good. g

--
Ed Huntress

"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:
"Gunner Asch" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 26 Aug 2009 00:51:34 -0500, Don Foreman
wrote:

As for the AR-15-toting jackass in Phoenix, I didn't hear anyone say
he was a "white racist." It was clear from the photos that he was
black. You must read too much Leftist literature for your own good.
g

Can you imagine the reception that guy would have gotten at one of Bush's
rally's?
LOL

--
John R. Carroll

It sounds like a case for extraordinary rendition -- to Somalia, perhaps.
g

--
Ed Huntress

Ed Huntress wrote:
"Gunner Asch" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 26 Aug 2009 00:51:34 -0500, Don Foreman
wrote:

As for the AR-15-toting jackass in Phoenix, I didn't hear anyone say
he was a "white racist." It was clear from the photos that he was
black. You must read too much Leftist literature for your own good.
g

Can you imagine the reception that guy would have gotten at one of Bush's
rally's?
LOL

--
John R. Carroll

On Sat, 29 Aug 2009 12:27:26 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:

On Wed, 26 Aug 2009 00:51:34 -0500, Don Foreman
wrote:

snip disagreements

You know damned well that I strongly value my 2d amendment rights as
a responsible citizen. If you don't know that you haven't been
paying attention. Flawed-logic arguments like your preceding
paragraph can easily be repellent to thoughtful people so I think
they could aid and abet those intent on infringing or curtailing my
2d amendment rights. I do NOT appreciate that.

Ditto for the damned fool who showed up at a political ralley in
Phoenix with a rifle clearly of tactical intent (vs hunting or target)
slung on his shoulder. That is clear intent to intimidate because
there was no need for defense. I regard that as flagrant abuse of 2d
amendent rights. There's no excuse for that sort of behavior. Many or
most reasonable gentle citizens would find that offensive and even
frightening, which could easily make them less reasonable and more
amenable to suggestions for draconian gun control.

Damned fool who showed up with an assault rifle?

You mean the Black gentleman who showed up with a slung AR15...whom the
Left then proceeded to lie about..showing the gun but failing to show
the gentleman himself..and calling him a "white racist"? That "damned
fool"?

Exactly that damned fool with slung AR15 regardless of his skin
color, political stance, religion or legality of citizenship.


Don...I like you a lot. Respect you deeply.

Blush... Aside from geography, hugs aren't out of the question. I
could like to pop some caps in the desert with you before I check out.
But...your midwestern views
on the 2nd Amendment need a fair amount of rework before they reflect
the views of the Founders.

Hoh, golly, ya got me on being midwestern for sure. On a
post-coldfront high blue sky day like today I see contrails way up
there that take a long time in transit. Meanwhile, I'm down here
wearing two flannel shirts, my knees are cold and the fish are zenned
out in their deep sanctuaries. Two quilts on the bed tonight. It's
freakin' August -- in Minnesota

I don't presume to reflect views of anyone else past or present. I
merely present an opinion. My (1st amendment) opinion is that the
damned fool who showed up with an assault rifle had clear intent to
intimidate since there was no need for defense, that many or most
citizens of today would find such behavior unacceptable, and that
there is no closed season on constitutional amendments.

On Sun, 30 Aug 2009 01:20:37 -0500, Don Foreman
wrote:

On Sat, 29 Aug 2009 12:27:26 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:

On Wed, 26 Aug 2009 00:51:34 -0500, Don Foreman
wrote:

snip disagreements

You know damned well that I strongly value my 2d amendment rights as
a responsible citizen. If you don't know that you haven't been
paying attention. Flawed-logic arguments like your preceding
paragraph can easily be repellent to thoughtful people so I think
they could aid and abet those intent on infringing or curtailing my
2d amendment rights. I do NOT appreciate that.

Ditto for the damned fool who showed up at a political ralley in
Phoenix with a rifle clearly of tactical intent (vs hunting or target)
slung on his shoulder. That is clear intent to intimidate because
there was no need for defense. I regard that as flagrant abuse of 2d
amendent rights. There's no excuse for that sort of behavior. Many or
most reasonable gentle citizens would find that offensive and even
frightening, which could easily make them less reasonable and more
amenable to suggestions for draconian gun control.

Damned fool who showed up with an assault rifle?

You mean the Black gentleman who showed up with a slung AR15...whom the
Left then proceeded to lie about..showing the gun but failing to show
the gentleman himself..and calling him a "white racist"? That "damned
fool"?

Exactly that damned fool with slung AR15 regardless of his skin
color, political stance, religion or legality of citizenship.


That "damned fool" showed to everyone, how deeply and how evil the
Leftwingers are when they made deceptive hay out of the fact it was a
black man carrying the rifle (legally btw). The word indeed got out,
and is simply just another plank pulled from under the gallows on which
the Leftwing is hanging itself.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/kyle-dr...ist-protesters

"On Tuesday, MSNBC’s Contessa Brewer fretted over health care reform
protesters legally carrying guns: "A man at a pro-health care reform
rally...wore a semiautomatic assault rifle on his shoulder and a pistol
on his hip....there are questions about whether this has racial
overtones....white people showing up with guns." Brewer failed to
mention the man she described was black."

http://www.bluegrasspundit.com/2009/...tea-party.html

Friday, July 17, 2009
CNN Reporter Who Bashed Tea Party Attendees has been Fired
CNN reporter, Susan Roesgen, called April Chicago Tea Party attendees
anti government and anti CNN. She called Fox News a right wing network
and accused them of being behind the Tea Parties. She tried to argue
with the protesters and support President Obama's position CNN cut this
scene from their coverage and had the original video removed from
YouTube. The video was later restored after attorney got involved. Now,
CNN has failed to renew her contract. "

Following Brewer’s report, which occurred on the Morning Meeting
program, host Dylan Ratigan and MSNBC pop culture analyst Toure
discussed the supposed racism involved in the protests. Toure argued:
"...there is tremendous anger in this country about government, the way
government seems to be taking over the country, anger about a black
person being president....we see these hate groups rising up and this is
definitely part of that." Ratigan agreed: "...then they get the variable
of a black president on top of all these other things and that’s the
move – the cherry on top, if you will, to the accumulated frustration
for folks."

Not only did Brewer, Ratigan, and Toure fail to point out the fact that
the gun-toting protester that sparked the discussion was black, but the
video footage shown of that protester was so edited, that it was
impossible to see that he was black. The man appeared at a health care
rally outside of President Obama’s speech to the Veterans of Foreign
Wars in Phoenix, Arizona. "


Don...I like you a lot. Respect you deeply.

Blush... Aside from geography, hugs aren't out of the question. I
could like to pop some caps in the desert with you before I check out.
But...your midwestern views
on the 2nd Amendment need a fair amount of rework before they reflect
the views of the Founders.

Hoh, golly, ya got me on being midwestern for sure. On a
post-coldfront high blue sky day like today I see contrails way up
there that take a long time in transit. Meanwhile, I'm down here
wearing two flannel shirts, my knees are cold and the fish are zenned
out in their deep sanctuaries. Two quilts on the bed tonight. It's
freakin' August -- in Minnesota

I don't presume to reflect views of anyone else past or present. I
merely present an opinion. My (1st amendment) opinion is that the
damned fool who showed up with an assault rifle had clear intent to
intimidate since there was no need for defense, that many or most
citizens of today would find such behavior unacceptable, and that
there is no closed season on constitutional amendments.

Man carries assault rifle to Obama protest
Written By:Christine Muchiri/ cnn , Posted: Tue, Aug 18, 2009

A man toting an assault rifle was among a dozen protesters carrying
weapons while demonstrating outside President Barack Obama's speech to
veterans on Monday, but no laws were broken.

It was the second instance in recent days in which unconcealed weapons
have appeared near presidential events.

Protester, riffle obama function.jpgA man is shown legally carrying a
rifle at a protest against President Obama on Monday in Phoenix,
Arizona.

Video from the protest in Phoenix, Arizona, shows the man standing with
other protesters, with the rifle slung over his right shoulder.

Phoenix police said authorities monitored about a dozen people carrying
weapons while peacefully demonstrating.

"It was a group interested in exercising the right to bear arms," said
police spokesman Sgt. Andy Hill.

Arizona law has nothing in the books regulating assault rifles, and only
requires permits for carrying concealed weapons. So despite the man's
proximity to the president, there were no charges or arrests to be made.

Hill said officers explained the law to some people who were upset
about the presence of weapons at the protest.

"I come from another state where 'open carry' is legal, but no one does
it, so the police don't really know about it and they harass people,
arrest people falsely," the man, who wasn't identified, said in an
interview.

"I think that people need to get out and do it more so that they get
kind of conditioned to it."

Gun-toting protesters have demonstrated around the president before.

Last week, a man protesting outside Obama's town hall meeting in New
Hampshire had a gun strapped to his thigh.That state also doesn't
require a license for open carry.

U.S. Secret Service spokesman Ed Donovan acknowledged the incidents in
New Hampshire and Arizona, but said he was not aware of any other recent
events where protesters attended with open weapons.He said there was no
indication that anyone had organized the incidents.

Asked whether the individuals carrying weapons jeopardized the safety of
the president, Donovan said, "Of course not."

The individuals would never have gotten in close proximity to the
president, regardless of any state laws on openly carrying weapons, he
said.

A venue is considered a federal site when the Secret Service is
protecting the president and weapons are not allowed on a federal site,
he added.

In both instances, the men carrying weapons were outside the venues
where Obama was speaking.

"We pay attention to this obviously ... to someone with a firearm when
they open carry even when they are within state law.We work with our law
enforcement counterparts to make sure laws and regulations in their
states are enforced." Donovan said."

""A man at a pro-health care reform rally...wore a semiautomatic assault
rifle on his shoulder and a pistol on his hip....there are questions
about whether this has racial overtones....white people showing up with
guns." Brewer failed to mention the man she described was black."


And yet again and again the Lefts agenda, lies and propaganda attempts
are shown to be exactly that....lies and propaganda.

And yet you think it should be stifled and not raised up in question in
a legal fashion?

Ayup...you are indeed from Minnesota, sad to say.

Shrug

Gunner






Whenever a Liberal utters the term "Common Sense approach"....grab your
wallet, your ass, and your guns because the sombitch is about to do
something damned nasty to all three of them.

On Sun, 30 Aug 2009 16:17:32 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:

(snip lots of supporting arguments for damn foolishness)

And yet again and again the Lefts agenda, lies and propaganda attempts
are shown to be exactly that....lies and propaganda.

And yet you think it should be stifled and not raised up in question in
a legal fashion?

Nowhere did I say that anything should be stifled, nor do I think that
any more than I think that folks who publicly post utter rubbish in
offensive language should have their 1st amendment rights stifled.

However, I do think that if enough damned fools with guns indulge in
swaggerwide, intimidating, defiant, "in your face" behavior abusing
their 2d amendment rights, there will be increasing interest in making
at least some of what is now legal no longer so. The 2d amendment is
not writ in stone. The 21st amendment repealed the 18th amendment
when the people decided that the 18th had been a mistake.

If I were trying to build public support for gun control, I'd make
sure there were a couple of damn fools like this at lots of political
rallies, corn feeds, festivals, outdoor concerts, state fairs, etc.
"What color was he?" "Dunno but the gun was black."

My interest is not in stifling their rights even of damned fools, it's
in not having their damnfoolishness result in my rights getting
amended along with theirs. Ownership of guns does not presently
require posession of even marginal intellect but I sure hope their
smarter rellies, buds or neighbors eventually knock some sense into
them. If they have a statement to make, let 'em make a speech or post
written opinions like citizens rather than posturing as reckless
rebels with assault rifles.

Ayup...you are indeed from Minnesota, sad to say.

And you're from Da Nang, right? G

I'm actually from Michigan, but I've lived in MN for many years now.

On Sun, 30 Aug 2009 23:22:41 -0500, Don Foreman
wrote:

On Sun, 30 Aug 2009 16:17:32 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:

(snip lots of supporting arguments for damn foolishness)

And yet again and again the Lefts agenda, lies and propaganda attempts
are shown to be exactly that....lies and propaganda.

And yet you think it should be stifled and not raised up in question in
a legal fashion?

Nowhere did I say that anything should be stifled, nor do I think that
any more than I think that folks who publicly post utter rubbish in
offensive language should have their 1st amendment rights stifled.

However, I do think that if enough damned fools with guns indulge in
swaggerwide, intimidating, defiant, "in your face" behavior abusing
their 2d amendment rights, there will be increasing interest in making
at least some of what is now legal no longer so. The 2d amendment is
not writ in stone. The 21st amendment repealed the 18th amendment
when the people decided that the 18th had been a mistake.

Which damned fools with guns are you discussing? A black man who
exhibited cool knowledge of the law and made no scene?

If I were trying to build public support for gun control, I'd make
sure there were a couple of damn fools like this at lots of political
rallies, corn feeds, festivals, outdoor concerts, state fairs, etc.
"What color was he?" "Dunno but the gun was black."

Thats exactly what the Left TRIED to do. Notice that all the photos of
the gentleman were edited to prevent any idea that he was black? And
they (news anchors) were blithering about "racism"?


My interest is not in stifling their rights even of damned fools, it's
in not having their damnfoolishness result in my rights getting
amended along with theirs. Ownership of guns does not presently
require posession of even marginal intellect but I sure hope their
smarter rellies, buds or neighbors eventually knock some sense into
them. If they have a statement to make, let 'em make a speech or post
written opinions like citizens rather than posturing as reckless
rebels with assault rifles.

Ayup...you are indeed from Minnesota, sad to say.



And you're from Da Nang, right? G

Nope..was only there a few times. Shrug. I hate big cities.

I'm actually from Michigan, but I've lived in MN for many years now.

And it shows..it shows indeed. Gotta love the midwest mediocrity.
Me..I left there and moved West...far more west than you did. Shrug

We believe that mediocrity is the root of all evil.

So you are a Centrist on gun rights too eh? Fortunately most people are
far more involved and concerned than you are about freedom and firearm
rights.

Hope you have a couple tucked away, that the Powers that be dont know
about..and suitable amounts of ammo. You may be needing them in the
next 3 yrs..less actually. Hope not...but..shrug..Ive explained why.

Respects

Gunner

Whenever a Liberal utters the term "Common Sense approach"....grab your
wallet, your ass, and your guns because the sombitch is about to do
something damned nasty to all three of them.

On Sun, 30 Aug 2009 23:22:41 -0500, the infamous Don Foreman
scrawled the following:

On Sun, 30 Aug 2009 16:17:32 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:

Ayup...you are indeed from Minnesota, sad to say.

And you're from Da Nang, right? G

I'm from Nairobi, Maam. Isn't everyone?


I'm actually from Michigan, but I've lived in MN for many years now.

There's a difference?

--
Good intentions will always be pleaded for every assumption of authority.
It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard
the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all
ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to
be good masters, but they mean to be masters. --Daniel Webster

On Mon, 31 Aug 2009 04:37:19 -0700, Larry Jaques
wrote:

On Sun, 30 Aug 2009 23:22:41 -0500, the infamous Don Foreman
scrawled the following:

On Sun, 30 Aug 2009 16:17:32 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:

Ayup...you are indeed from Minnesota, sad to say.

And you're from Da Nang, right? G

I'm from Nairobi, Maam. Isn't everyone?


I'm actually from Michigan, but I've lived in MN for many years now.

There's a difference?

Northern Michigan (UP) and Northern MN are quite similar but
Minneapolis/St Paul is demographically and culturally quite different
from Detroit.

On Sun, 30 Aug 2009 23:33:11 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:

On Sun, 30 Aug 2009 23:22:41 -0500, Don Foreman
wrote:

On Sun, 30 Aug 2009 16:17:32 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:

(snip lots of supporting arguments for damn foolishness)

And yet again and again the Lefts agenda, lies and propaganda attempts
are shown to be exactly that....lies and propaganda.

And yet you think it should be stifled and not raised up in question in
a legal fashion?

Nowhere did I say that anything should be stifled, nor do I think that
any more than I think that folks who publicly post utter rubbish in
offensive language should have their 1st amendment rights stifled.

However, I do think that if enough damned fools with guns indulge in
swaggerwide, intimidating, defiant, "in your face" behavior abusing
their 2d amendment rights, there will be increasing interest in making
at least some of what is now legal no longer so. The 2d amendment is
not writ in stone. The 21st amendment repealed the 18th amendment
when the people decided that the 18th had been a mistake.

Which damned fools with guns are you discussing? A black man who
exhibited cool knowledge of the law and made no scene?

No more so than a guy cooly wearing a hazmat suit in the school
cafeteria.

If I were trying to build public support for gun control, I'd make
sure there were a couple of damn fools like this at lots of political
rallies, corn feeds, festivals, outdoor concerts, state fairs, etc.
"What color was he?" "Dunno but the gun was black."

Thats exactly what the Left TRIED to do.

You noticed! Very good, Gunner!

Gotta love the midwest mediocrity.
Me..I left there and moved West...far more west than you did. Shrug

I wonder if I could pass the California entrance exam.

We believe that mediocrity is the root of all evil.

I think it's Lake Wobegone where all the children are above average.
That's in MN, by the way.

So you are a Centrist on gun rights too eh? Fortunately most people are
far more involved and concerned than you are about freedom and firearm
rights.

Then there won't be a problem.

Don Foreman fired this volley in
:

I think it's Lake Wobegone where all the children are above average.
That's in MN, by the way.


I always gripe when Garrison says that. Durn it! If they're ALL above
average, then who the heck did they use for the average, Chicago kids?

At least, the women are strong.

LLoyd

On Mon, 31 Aug 2009 04:37:19 -0700, Larry Jaques
wrote:

On Sun, 30 Aug 2009 23:22:41 -0500, the infamous Don Foreman
scrawled the following:

On Sun, 30 Aug 2009 16:17:32 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:

Ayup...you are indeed from Minnesota, sad to say.

And you're from Da Nang, right? G

I'm from Nairobi, Maam. Isn't everyone?


I'm actually from Michigan, but I've lived in MN for many years now.

There's a difference?


There are somewhat less rusting factories in MN...somewhat.

Gunner

Whenever a Liberal utters the term "Common Sense approach"....grab your
wallet, your ass, and your guns because the sombitch is about to do
something damned nasty to all three of them.

John R. Carroll wrote:
Ed Huntress wrote:
"Gunner Asch" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 26 Aug 2009 00:51:34 -0500, Don Foreman
wrote:

As for the AR-15-toting jackass in Phoenix, I didn't hear anyone say
he was a "white racist." It was clear from the photos that he was
black. You must read too much Leftist literature for your own good.
g

Can you imagine the reception that guy would have gotten at one of Bush's
rally's?
LOL

I doubt it would have been any different, except Bush might have gone
outside to check it out and set up a shoot date.

On Mon, 31 Aug 2009 12:43:06 -0500, Don Foreman
wrote:

On Sun, 30 Aug 2009 23:33:11 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:

On Sun, 30 Aug 2009 23:22:41 -0500, Don Foreman
wrote:

On Sun, 30 Aug 2009 16:17:32 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:

(snip lots of supporting arguments for damn foolishness)

And yet again and again the Lefts agenda, lies and propaganda attempts
are shown to be exactly that....lies and propaganda.

And yet you think it should be stifled and not raised up in question in
a legal fashion?

Nowhere did I say that anything should be stifled, nor do I think that
any more than I think that folks who publicly post utter rubbish in
offensive language should have their 1st amendment rights stifled.

However, I do think that if enough damned fools with guns indulge in
swaggerwide, intimidating, defiant, "in your face" behavior abusing
their 2d amendment rights, there will be increasing interest in making
at least some of what is now legal no longer so. The 2d amendment is
not writ in stone. The 21st amendment repealed the 18th amendment
when the people decided that the 18th had been a mistake.

Which damned fools with guns are you discussing? A black man who
exhibited cool knowledge of the law and made no scene?

No more so than a guy cooly wearing a hazmat suit in the school
cafeteria.

If I were trying to build public support for gun control, I'd make
sure there were a couple of damn fools like this at lots of political
rallies, corn feeds, festivals, outdoor concerts, state fairs, etc.
"What color was he?" "Dunno but the gun was black."

Thats exactly what the Left TRIED to do.

You noticed! Very good, Gunner!

And you have noticed perhaps that its backfired badly..and while the MSM
has dropped it like a hot coal...the People have not forgotten what they
tried to do...and are fuming about it? G Thats a very good thing.
I take it you havent read much on guerilla warefare eh?

Here...maybe these will help

Guerrilla Warfa Che Guevara - by Ernesto Guevara
On Guerrilla Warfare - by Zedong Mao, Samuel B Griffith
http://www.scribd.com/doc/12310871/G...Masters-Thesis
http://www.bestwebbuys.com/Fighting_...?isrc=b-search
http://www.bestwebbuys.com/David%27s...?isrc=b-search

Id be happy to send you a suggested reading list.


Gotta love the midwest mediocrity.
Me..I left there and moved West...far more west than you did. Shrug

I wonder if I could pass the California entrance exam.

No..you are not Leftwing enough. On the other hand..you can sneak into
the Red portion of California and feel largely at home. If you can deal
with the weather.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politic.../countymap.htm


We believe that mediocrity is the root of all evil.

I think it's Lake Wobegone where all the children are above average.
That's in MN, by the way.

Thats where the ugly kids come from? We see a few of them now and then
in the malls here in California. Sad..very sad.

So you are a Centrist on gun rights too eh? Fortunately most people are
far more involved and concerned than you are about freedom and firearm
rights.

Then there won't be a problem.

Of course not. Id still rather have you at my back than most urban
Californians.

Notice the number of mentally ill people profiled:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...NGQO9NJOK1.DTL


And I still respect you greatly.

Gunner


Whenever a Liberal utters the term "Common Sense approach"....grab your
wallet, your ass, and your guns because the sombitch is about to do
something damned nasty to all three of them.

"RBnDFW" wrote in message
...
John R. Carroll wrote:
Ed Huntress wrote:
"Gunner Asch" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 26 Aug 2009 00:51:34 -0500, Don Foreman
wrote:

As for the AR-15-toting jackass in Phoenix, I didn't hear anyone say
he was a "white racist." It was clear from the photos that he was
black. You must read too much Leftist literature for your own good.
g

Can you imagine the reception that guy would have gotten at one of Bush's
rally's?
LOL

I doubt it would have been any different, except Bush might have gone
outside to check it out and set up a shoot date.

"What's your name, darlin'? Squeaky? That's a funny name. Who's that other
guy? John, you say? Hinckley? Well, John, let's see how well you two kids
can shoot..."

--
Ed Huntress

On Mon, 31 Aug 2009 11:49:06 -0500, the infamous Don Foreman
scrawled the following:

On Mon, 31 Aug 2009 04:37:19 -0700, Larry Jaques
wrote:

On Sun, 30 Aug 2009 23:22:41 -0500, the infamous Don Foreman
scrawled the following:

On Sun, 30 Aug 2009 16:17:32 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:

Ayup...you are indeed from Minnesota, sad to say.

And you're from Da Nang, right? G

I'm from Nairobi, Maam. Isn't everyone?


I'm actually from Michigan, but I've lived in MN for many years now.

There's a difference?

Northern Michigan (UP) and Northern MN are quite similar but
Minneapolis/St Paul is demographically and culturally quite different
from Detroit.

It's all Fort Frozen Wilderness to me. Got Canucks? (Or do the Finns
and Swedes make up for a lack of them?

--
Good intentions will always be pleaded for every assumption of authority.
It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard
the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all
ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to
be good masters, but they mean to be masters. --Daniel Webster

On Mon, 31 Aug 2009 12:43:31 -0700, the infamous Gunner Asch
scrawled the following:

On Mon, 31 Aug 2009 04:37:19 -0700, Larry Jaques
wrote:

On Sun, 30 Aug 2009 23:22:41 -0500, the infamous Don Foreman
scrawled the following:

On Sun, 30 Aug 2009 16:17:32 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:

Ayup...you are indeed from Minnesota, sad to say.

And you're from Da Nang, right? G

I'm from Nairobi, Maam. Isn't everyone?


I'm actually from Michigan, but I've lived in MN for many years now.

There's a difference?


There are somewhat less rusting factories in MN...somewhat.

Um, do you mean there stainless steel factories or that there are
fewer rusting factories there, G? Or both? chortle

--
Good intentions will always be pleaded for every assumption of authority.
It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard
the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all
ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to
be good masters, but they mean to be masters. --Daniel Webster