Stormin Mormon wrote:

Just because a right has been infringed over here
doesn't mean it's OK to infringe it over there.

I didn't speak up, because I wasn't an editor.


I know. I read your posts. ;-)

Larry Jaques wrote:

On Fri, 22 Feb 2013 07:41:30 -0500, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:


Richard wrote:

On 2/21/2013 9:00 PM, Stormin Mormon wrote:

CY: I also oppose so called "pistol permits" as prior restraint. I think the
government has no say if I want to carry a firearm.

Oklahoma has much "liberal" attitude about that.
You can carry on your hip in broad daylight if you want.

Earlier someone brought up car registration as an example for CC permits.

We all let that pass because we are so used to registering cars.

But nobody ever had to register a horse...


OTOH, when was the last time you heard of a 30 horse pileup? ;-)

Proof! Horses are smarter than sheeple.


And there are no junkyards for wrecked horses. They get shipped to
Europe & sold as beef.

Stormin Mormon wrote:

And, that's been fraught with issues, too. Ask
any negro living in the south if it's easy to register
to vote, a generation or two ago.

Just because a right has been infringed over here
doesn't mean it's OK to infringe it over there.


Another lame straw man from the extreme left. You don't own a vote,
you cast it. You can't stockpile votes, or make parts for one. It has
a lifetime of days at most. You can't give it to someone else, or buy
extras without breaking the law of the land.

On Fri, 22 Feb 2013 10:34:49 -0500, Tom Gardner Mars@Tacks wrote:

On 2/22/2013 8:23 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:

I think you know the answer. You just don't like it, because it might
annoy you. How sad.


Oh, I KNOW the answer is house-to-house confiscation using gun-smelling
dogs. (Don't laugh, dogs are being trained NOW! It's coming!)

"One of the painful things about our time is that those who feel
certainty are stupid, and those with any imagination and understanding
are filled with doubt and indecision" -- Bertrand Russell

But I'd
bet that guns would STILL be available at a bit higher price. I still
ask you: Why not make murder illegal? Wouldn't that solve the problem?

Find out how many people would be murdered if murder were NOT illegal.
Then compare that with the number who actually are murdered.

There's your answer.

You can start with yourself. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress



It's OK, they are only coming for the Jews!

On Fri, 22 Feb 2013 10:46:37 -0500, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:


Stormin Mormon wrote:

And, that's been fraught with issues, too. Ask
any negro living in the south if it's easy to register
to vote, a generation or two ago.

Just because a right has been infringed over here
doesn't mean it's OK to infringe it over there.


Another lame straw man from the extreme left. You don't own a vote,
you cast it. You can't stockpile votes, or make parts for one. It has
a lifetime of days at most. You can't give it to someone else, or buy
extras without breaking the law of the land.

So you don't think you have a right to vote?

--
Ed Huntress

Jim Wilkins wrote:

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

He wouldn't like it if they required reqistration to be an editor,
or
journalists. Talk about straw, when so many use fake names to hide
their identity. First they came for the editors...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobo_Timerman


The media always comes under scrutiny in time of war, or under a
dictator. Even those that supported the dictator's rise to power. Some
people should consider that old "Don't shoot the messenger" line more
often. When the corrupt are in power, you can die for delivering
unflattering reports. I have first hand experience with broadcast
censorship, in the military. Nothing critical about the military was
allowed to be broadcast. Even in a comedy, like when the Smothers
Brothers congratulated the pilot who accidentally dropped an unarmed
nuclear warhead in Alaska on a training mission. The copies that aired
on AFRTS had it edited out. There was a copy of the incident in the
radio station's files, along with an order for them to stop awarding
their "Kerflavits Award" for something well done, or not done at all.
The Smothers brother's comment about the incident was 'the un-named
pilot at an un-named base in Alaska that dropped a Nuclear warhead by
mistake.' There was a practice range near Ft. Greely where it was
supposed to had landed.

Tom Gardner wrote:

On 2/22/2013 8:44 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:

My, my. That explains a lot, Tom. Do you have these dreams often? Do
they end with you finding yourself riding on a bus in your underwear,
and everyone is staring at you? g


Not dreams, observations! Haven't been on a bus since '74.


I wonder how many pictures of Ed are on that 'People of Walmart'
website?

Tom Gardner wrote:

On 2/21/2013 12:21 PM, Jim Wilkins wrote:
"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

And nobody I know voted for Romney. d8-)

Ed Huntress

And that highlights the problem with phone polls on controversial
legality issues. The caller knows your phone number and thus your
identity, but the voting booth is anonymous.


Gee, are you saying that polls are targeting the responders they WANT?
Say it ain't so!


Come on, Tom. They get the voter registration information and call
people for the party they want to come out on top.

On 2/22/2013 10:05 AM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

Tom Gardner wrote:

On 2/21/2013 12:21 PM, Jim Wilkins wrote:
"Ed wrote in message
...

And nobody I know voted for Romney. d8-)

Ed Huntress

And that highlights the problem with phone polls on controversial
legality issues. The caller knows your phone number and thus your
identity, but the voting booth is anonymous.


Gee, are you saying that polls are targeting the responders they WANT?
Say it ain't so!


Come on, Tom. They get the voter registration information and call
people for the party they want to come out on top.


Any good debater can take either side of an argument.

Any good poll can take whatever direction that the purchasing party pays
for.

On 2/22/2013 9:51 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:

But I'd
bet that guns would STILL be available at a bit higher price. I still
ask you: Why not make murder illegal? Wouldn't that solve the problem?

Find out how many people would be murdered if murder were NOT illegal.
Then compare that with the number who actually are murdered.

There's your answer.

You can start with yourself. d8-)


Ed, you are good at this type of research.
Dig into it and report back?

WHO is killing WHOM? And where?

My impression is that the big numbers are black on black and have drug
connotations.

Da Hood is not exactly Mr. Robert's Neighborhood.

It seems to me that is something we would want to know before making
any kind of rational decisions here...

On 2/22/2013 9:38 AM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

Stormin Mormon wrote:

I got my ass kicked pretty bad, when I tried to
install the license plate the state sent me, to put
on back of my horse. State provided the self
tapping screws, but I wasn't fast enough to
avoid the back kick. It was a Model A(ss)
horse. Forgot to retard the spark.

No one under age 40 is likely to understand all
the subtle reference, and I'm not explaining them.


Silly rabbit! That's why the make horse hide glue.

Oh Groan!

On 2/22/2013 9:46 AM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

Stormin Mormon wrote:

And, that's been fraught with issues, too. Ask
any negro living in the south if it's easy to register
to vote, a generation or two ago.

Just because a right has been infringed over here
doesn't mean it's OK to infringe it over there.


Another lame straw man from the extreme left. You don't own a vote,
you cast it. You can't stockpile votes, or make parts for one. It has
a lifetime of days at most. You can't give it to someone else, or buy
extras without breaking the law of the land.


Actually, Michael, we DO give our vote to someone else...
The electoral college.

On 2/22/2013 7:53 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Thu, 21 Feb 2013 22:00:27 -0500, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:


What are your objections to:
1) universal background checks
CY: That's something called "prior restraint". You can only buy a gun, if
the government approves it. Not the way our Republic works.

Uh, you have a right to vote, too, but you can't vote until you're
registered.

Same thing.

NICS check is
example of prior restraint.

Only if you're restrained -- in other words, if you're a criminal or
an adjudicated loon trying to buy a gun illegally and you're turned
down. If you pass the background check, you aren't restrained at all.
That's why the courts have rejected claims that it's prior restraint.

It was rejected as prior restraint because the application was
automatically approved in three days unless there was cause for denial.

They want to change that, Ed.



It was set up that if you didn't hear back in
three days, the sale went through. Not any more, from what I hear.

In NJ, we typically wait 30 days.

If the
Gov simply stops doing NICS checks, all sales are prevented. Of course, that
would not have prevented the Newtown shooting.


No, all sales would not be prevented.
There would simply be no background checks.


It would have if Lanza's mother had been "prevented."

And, it's not a power
delegated by the Constitution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necessa..._Proper_Clause



2) cradle to grave registration
CY: The only reason for registration, is to make it easier to confiscate.

No, the real reason is to find out who supplied a gun to a criminal.



Fast and furious?
THE GOVERNMENT supplied the guns to criminals.

Has anybody ever heard a rational reason WHY?

On Fri, 22 Feb 2013 12:37:06 -0600, Richard
wrote:

On 2/22/2013 9:51 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:

But I'd
bet that guns would STILL be available at a bit higher price. I still
ask you: Why not make murder illegal? Wouldn't that solve the problem?

Find out how many people would be murdered if murder were NOT illegal.
Then compare that with the number who actually are murdered.

There's your answer.

You can start with yourself. d8-)


Ed, you are good at this type of research.
Dig into it and report back?

Tom's question is a nonsense question. My answer was a nonsense
answer.

If you believe in cross-country examples (and what good gun nut
doesn't?), you could consider Côte d'Ivoire (56.9 murders per 100,000
population. If it's illegal there, it appears they don't enforce the
law.

That contrasts with Yemen (4.2) or the United States (4.8).
Turkmenistan is a little better than us, too (4.2).

Here's an interesting fact: Georgia (the country), at 4.3, is somewhat
safer than Georgia (the state), at 5.6.

What company we keep!


WHO is killing WHOM? And where?

My impression is that the big numbers are black on black and have drug
connotations.

Da Hood is not exactly Mr. Robert's Neighborhood.

It seems to me that is something we would want to know before making
any kind of rational decisions here...

Why? Don't they use guns? Or are you planning to put them all in a
cage?

--
Ed Huntress

On Fri, 22 Feb 2013 12:45:24 -0600, Richard
wrote:

On 2/22/2013 7:53 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Thu, 21 Feb 2013 22:00:27 -0500, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:


What are your objections to:
1) universal background checks
CY: That's something called "prior restraint". You can only buy a gun, if
the government approves it. Not the way our Republic works.

Uh, you have a right to vote, too, but you can't vote until you're
registered.

Same thing.

NICS check is
example of prior restraint.

Only if you're restrained -- in other words, if you're a criminal or
an adjudicated loon trying to buy a gun illegally and you're turned
down. If you pass the background check, you aren't restrained at all.
That's why the courts have rejected claims that it's prior restraint.

It was rejected as prior restraint because the application was
automatically approved in three days unless there was cause for denial.

What case are yuo referring to? I was talking about Kachalsky v.
County of Westchester, 701 F. 3d 81 - Court of Appeals, 2nd Circuit
2012.

The level of scrutiny that applies, says the court, requires that the
state refuse a permit (or, by extension, a purchase) on grounds that
are arbitrary or ill-defined. Otherwise, regulations are permitted.
That would include such things as the NICS check. The courts don't
consider that to be arbitrary or ill-defined.

What the court specifically rejected was the argument that this was a
case like a 1st Amendment case, in which the terms for prior restraint
are more strict.


They want to change that, Ed.

Which "they," Richard? Somebody, somewhere, wants to outlaw almost
everything we do. PETA wants to outlaw the eating of meat. I don't
think they'll succeed...




It was set up that if you didn't hear back in
three days, the sale went through. Not any more, from what I hear.

I haven't heard that the federal law has changed. After 3 business
days, the FFL holder can transfer the gun, at his discretion. If this
has changed it's been within the past year or so.


In NJ, we typically wait 30 days.

State laws can be more restrictive. In NJ, they're waiting for the
response to an FBI records check, beyond NICS.


If the
Gov simply stops doing NICS checks, all sales are prevented. Of course, that
would not have prevented the Newtown shooting.


No, all sales would not be prevented.
There would simply be no background checks.


It would have if Lanza's mother had been "prevented."

And, it's not a power
delegated by the Constitution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necessa..._Proper_Clause



2) cradle to grave registration
CY: The only reason for registration, is to make it easier to confiscate.

No, the real reason is to find out who supplied a gun to a criminal.



Fast and furious?
THE GOVERNMENT supplied the guns to criminals.

Has anybody ever heard a rational reason WHY?

There is testimony on what the program was about. Do you want to
litigate that here? If so, I'll watch. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress

On 2/22/2013 1:36 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:


Fast and furious?
THE GOVERNMENT supplied the guns to criminals.

Has anybody ever heard a rational reason WHY?

There is testimony on what the program was about. Do you want to
litigate that here? If so, I'll watch. d8-)



Yes, I've read what it was about.

I'm just curious about WHY such an action was thought to be rational.

On 2/22/2013 12:52 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Fri, 22 Feb 2013 12:37:06 -0600,
wrote:

On 2/22/2013 9:51 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:

But I'd
bet that guns would STILL be available at a bit higher price. I still
ask you: Why not make murder illegal? Wouldn't that solve the problem?

Find out how many people would be murdered if murder were NOT illegal.
Then compare that with the number who actually are murdered.

There's your answer.

You can start with yourself. d8-)


Ed, you are good at this type of research.
Dig into it and report back?

Tom's question is a nonsense question. My answer was a nonsense
answer.

If you believe in cross-country examples (and what good gun nut
doesn't?), you could consider Côte d'Ivoire (56.9 murders per 100,000
population. If it's illegal there, it appears they don't enforce the
law.

That contrasts with Yemen (4.2) or the United States (4.8).
Turkmenistan is a little better than us, too (4.2).

Here's an interesting fact: Georgia (the country), at 4.3, is somewhat
safer than Georgia (the state), at 5.6.

What company we keep!


WHO is killing WHOM? And where?

My impression is that the big numbers are black on black and have drug
connotations.

Da Hood is not exactly Mr. Robert's Neighborhood.

It seems to me that is something we would want to know before making
any kind of rational decisions here...

Why? Don't they use guns? Or are you planning to put them all in a
cage?


Ok, I responded to one of your posts and got nonsense back.

Enough.

I'll try to not do that again.

Richard wrote:

On 2/22/2013 9:46 AM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

Stormin Mormon wrote:

And, that's been fraught with issues, too. Ask
any negro living in the south if it's easy to register
to vote, a generation or two ago.

Just because a right has been infringed over here
doesn't mean it's OK to infringe it over there.


Another lame straw man from the extreme left. You don't own a vote,
you cast it. You can't stockpile votes, or make parts for one. It has
a lifetime of days at most. You can't give it to someone else, or buy
extras without breaking the law of the land.

Actually, Michael, we DO give our vote to someone else...
The electoral college.


No. We vote for them, like we do for other candidates.

Richard wrote:

Fast and furious?
THE GOVERNMENT supplied the guns to criminals.

Has anybody ever heard a rational reason WHY?


It was the left thing to do.

Then, we would all be Chicago.

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

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

What would voting be like if no one had to register?

Why is registering an infringement, in other words, and not a
necessary regulation to enable the intent of the right to vote?

The constitutionality of laws is not determined by their
effectiveness, either, so that's not a place you want to go if you're
judging constitutionality.

--
Ed Huntress

On Fri, 22 Feb 2013 16:59:47 -0500, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:

Then, we would all be Chicago.

Now you're talking out of both sides of your mouth. First you say that
voting is "a right [that] has been infringed" because we have to
register, and now you say that if we had voting without registration
"we would all be Chicago."

Do you want to get together with yourself and decide which it is?

--
Ed Huntress



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

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
.. .

What would voting be like if no one had to register?

Why is registering an infringement, in other words, and not a
necessary regulation to enable the intent of the right to vote?

The constitutionality of laws is not determined by their
effectiveness, either, so that's not a place you want to go if you're
judging constitutionality.

On Friday, February 22, 2013 2:36:17 PM UTC-5, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Fri, 22 Feb 2013 12:45:24 -0600, Richard

wrote:



On 2/22/2013 7:53 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:

On Thu, 21 Feb 2013 22:00:27 -0500, "Stormin Mormon"

wrote:





What are your objections to:

1) universal background checks

CY: That's something called "prior restraint". You can only buy a gun, if

the government approves it. Not the way our Republic works.



Uh, you have a right to vote, too, but you can't vote until you're

registered.



Same thing.



NICS check is

example of prior restraint.



Only if you're restrained -- in other words, if you're a criminal or

an adjudicated loon trying to buy a gun illegally and you're turned

down. If you pass the background check, you aren't restrained at all.

That's why the courts have rejected claims that it's prior restraint.



It was rejected as prior restraint because the application was

automatically approved in three days unless there was cause for denial.



What case are yuo referring to? I was talking about Kachalsky v.

County of Westchester, 701 F. 3d 81 - Court of Appeals, 2nd Circuit

2012.



The level of scrutiny that applies, says the court, requires that the

state refuse a permit (or, by extension, a purchase) on grounds that

are arbitrary or ill-defined. Otherwise, regulations are permitted.

That would include such things as the NICS check. The courts don't

consider that to be arbitrary or ill-defined.



What the court specifically rejected was the argument that this was a

case like a 1st Amendment case, in which the terms for prior restraint

are more strict.





They want to change that, Ed.



Which "they," Richard? Somebody, somewhere, wants to outlaw almost

everything we do. PETA wants to outlaw the eating of meat. I don't

think they'll succeed...









It was set up that if you didn't hear back in

three days, the sale went through. Not any more, from what I hear.



I haven't heard that the federal law has changed. After 3 business

days, the FFL holder can transfer the gun, at his discretion. If this

has changed it's been within the past year or so.





In NJ, we typically wait 30 days.



State laws can be more restrictive. In NJ, they're waiting for the

response to an FBI records check, beyond NICS.





If the

Gov simply stops doing NICS checks, all sales are prevented. Of course, that

would not have prevented the Newtown shooting.





No, all sales would not be prevented.

There would simply be no background checks.





It would have if Lanza's mother had been "prevented."



And, it's not a power

delegated by the Constitution.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necessa..._Proper_Clause







2) cradle to grave registration

CY: The only reason for registration, is to make it easier to confiscate.



No, the real reason is to find out who supplied a gun to a criminal.







Fast and furious?

THE GOVERNMENT supplied the guns to criminals.



Has anybody ever heard a rational reason WHY?



There is testimony on what the program was about. Do you want to

litigate that here? If so, I'll watch. d8-)



--

Ed Huntress

A more germane question would be, "Why does Richard respond to a question about proposed gun registration with a reference to a perhaps ill-conceived, but non-related program?"

On 2/22/2013 3:37 PM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

Richard wrote:

On 2/22/2013 9:46 AM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

Stormin Mormon wrote:

And, that's been fraught with issues, too. Ask
any negro living in the south if it's easy to register
to vote, a generation or two ago.

Just because a right has been infringed over here
doesn't mean it's OK to infringe it over there.


Another lame straw man from the extreme left. You don't own a vote,
you cast it. You can't stockpile votes, or make parts for one. It has
a lifetime of days at most. You can't give it to someone else, or buy
extras without breaking the law of the land.

Actually, Michael, we DO give our vote to someone else...
The electoral college.


No. We vote for them, like we do for other candidates.

But they are not legally bound but OUR votes...

On Fri, 22 Feb 2013 15:54:57 -0800 (PST), rangerssuck
wrote:

On Friday, February 22, 2013 2:36:17 PM UTC-5, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Fri, 22 Feb 2013 12:45:24 -0600, Richard

wrote:



On 2/22/2013 7:53 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:

On Thu, 21 Feb 2013 22:00:27 -0500, "Stormin Mormon"

wrote:





What are your objections to:

1) universal background checks

CY: That's something called "prior restraint". You can only buy a gun, if

the government approves it. Not the way our Republic works.



Uh, you have a right to vote, too, but you can't vote until you're

registered.



Same thing.



NICS check is

example of prior restraint.



Only if you're restrained -- in other words, if you're a criminal or

an adjudicated loon trying to buy a gun illegally and you're turned

down. If you pass the background check, you aren't restrained at all.

That's why the courts have rejected claims that it's prior restraint.



It was rejected as prior restraint because the application was

automatically approved in three days unless there was cause for denial.



What case are yuo referring to? I was talking about Kachalsky v.

County of Westchester, 701 F. 3d 81 - Court of Appeals, 2nd Circuit

2012.



The level of scrutiny that applies, says the court, requires that the

state refuse a permit (or, by extension, a purchase) on grounds that

are arbitrary or ill-defined. Otherwise, regulations are permitted.

That would include such things as the NICS check. The courts don't

consider that to be arbitrary or ill-defined.



What the court specifically rejected was the argument that this was a

case like a 1st Amendment case, in which the terms for prior restraint

are more strict.





They want to change that, Ed.



Which "they," Richard? Somebody, somewhere, wants to outlaw almost

everything we do. PETA wants to outlaw the eating of meat. I don't

think they'll succeed...









It was set up that if you didn't hear back in

three days, the sale went through. Not any more, from what I hear.



I haven't heard that the federal law has changed. After 3 business

days, the FFL holder can transfer the gun, at his discretion. If this

has changed it's been within the past year or so.





In NJ, we typically wait 30 days.



State laws can be more restrictive. In NJ, they're waiting for the

response to an FBI records check, beyond NICS.





If the

Gov simply stops doing NICS checks, all sales are prevented. Of course, that

would not have prevented the Newtown shooting.





No, all sales would not be prevented.

There would simply be no background checks.





It would have if Lanza's mother had been "prevented."



And, it's not a power

delegated by the Constitution.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necessa..._Proper_Clause







2) cradle to grave registration

CY: The only reason for registration, is to make it easier to confiscate.



No, the real reason is to find out who supplied a gun to a criminal.







Fast and furious?

THE GOVERNMENT supplied the guns to criminals.



Has anybody ever heard a rational reason WHY?



There is testimony on what the program was about. Do you want to

litigate that here? If so, I'll watch. d8-)



--

Ed Huntress

A more germane question would be, "Why does Richard respond to a question about proposed gun registration with a reference to a perhaps ill-conceived, but non-related program?"

Because, if you've watched this NG for over ten years, you know that
they shoot like Yosemite Sam -- in all directions at once. g

There is no logic to any of this. What you're watching is some
desperate floundering by "rights" extremists who have seen the latest
polls, and they're looking for reasons to disbelieve all of it. Call
it "Echo Chamber Neurosis."

--
Ed Huntress

What? PETA?

Eat mor chikn (said the cows)

On Fri, 22 Feb 2013 18:26:56 -0600, Richard
wrote:

On 2/22/2013 3:37 PM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

Richard wrote:

On 2/22/2013 9:46 AM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

Stormin Mormon wrote:

And, that's been fraught with issues, too. Ask
any negro living in the south if it's easy to register
to vote, a generation or two ago.

Just because a right has been infringed over here
doesn't mean it's OK to infringe it over there.


Another lame straw man from the extreme left. You don't own a vote,
you cast it. You can't stockpile votes, or make parts for one. It has
a lifetime of days at most. You can't give it to someone else, or buy
extras without breaking the law of the land.

Actually, Michael, we DO give our vote to someone else...
The electoral college.


No. We vote for them, like we do for other candidates.

But they are not legally bound but OUR votes...

It depends on the state. Many -- maybe most -- states have both bound
and unbound electors. If a bound elector fails to cast his vote for
the candidate to which he's bound, he may be criminally charged.
Again, that depends on the state.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faithle...External_links

--
Ed Huntress

On Fri, 22 Feb 2013 18:39:52 -0600, Richard
wrote:

What? PETA?

Eat mor chikn (said the cows)

I'm not referring to "People Eating Tasty Animals" (Ted Nugent's
group).

--
Ed Huntress

On 2/22/2013 6:41 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Fri, 22 Feb 2013 18:39:52 -0600,
wrote:

What? PETA?

Eat mor chikn (said the cows)

I'm not referring to "People Eating Tasty Animals" (Ted Nugent's
group).


I'm weak willed tonight, Ed.... responding again to foolishness..


But I LIKE Ted Nugent! (Like that's any big surprise)

On Fri, 22 Feb 2013 19:02:35 -0600, Richard
wrote:

On 2/22/2013 6:41 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Fri, 22 Feb 2013 18:39:52 -0600,
wrote:

What? PETA?

Eat mor chikn (said the cows)

I'm not referring to "People Eating Tasty Animals" (Ted Nugent's
group).


I'm weak willed tonight, Ed.... responding again to foolishness..


But I LIKE Ted Nugent! (Like that's any big surprise)


I used to, around 1968. My friend Tony Mandile ("Arizona Hunter") is
one of his buds -- or was. I don't know if he'll still admit it or
not.

--
Ed Huntress

Richard wrote:

On 2/22/2013 3:37 PM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

Richard wrote:

On 2/22/2013 9:46 AM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

Stormin Mormon wrote:

And, that's been fraught with issues, too. Ask
any negro living in the south if it's easy to register
to vote, a generation or two ago.

Just because a right has been infringed over here
doesn't mean it's OK to infringe it over there.


Another lame straw man from the extreme left. You don't own a vote,
you cast it. You can't stockpile votes, or make parts for one. It has
a lifetime of days at most. You can't give it to someone else, or buy
extras without breaking the law of the land.

Actually, Michael, we DO give our vote to someone else...
The electoral college.


No. We vote for them, like we do for other candidates.

But they are not legally bound but OUR votes...


And THAT is what is wrong with the system.

On Fri, 22 Feb 2013 16:38:44 -0500, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:


Richard wrote:

Fast and furious?
THE GOVERNMENT supplied the guns to criminals.

Has anybody ever heard a rational reason WHY?


It was the left thing to do.

Not rational, but they wanted to drum up support for the coming attack
on our 2nd A rights, which they're starting to do now. I wouldn't be
surprised if we found gov't connection to all these mass murderers,
too. Gov't ninjas sneaking into houses in the middle of the night to
spike their milk with Prozac, or something.

--
The more you know, the less you need.
-- Aboriginal Saying

Larry Jaques wrote:

On Fri, 22 Feb 2013 16:38:44 -0500, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:


Richard wrote:

Fast and furious?
THE GOVERNMENT supplied the guns to criminals.

Has anybody ever heard a rational reason WHY?


It was the left thing to do.

Not rational, but they wanted to drum up support for the coming attack
on our 2nd A rights, which they're starting to do now. I wouldn't be
surprised if we found gov't connection to all these mass murderers,
too. Gov't ninjas sneaking into houses in the middle of the night to
spike their milk with Prozac, or something.


Free bullets and GOOJF cards.

On 2/22/2013 8:57 PM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:


Actually, Michael, we DO give our vote to someone else...
The electoral college.


No. We vote for them, like we do for other candidates.

But they are not legally bound but OUR votes...


And THAT is what is wrong with the system.


I thought I had a fair grip on ow the electoral congress worked -
until I read through the "Faithless Elector" link that Ed provided.

Now I'm pretty sure that I don't have a clue.

I guess out school only got as far as the "original plan".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elector...ited_States%29

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faithless_elector

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unpledged_elector


Interesting trivia:

Bayh–Celler Constitutional amendment

The closest the country has ever come to abolishing the Electoral
College occurred during the 91st Congress (1969-1971).[17] The
presidential election of 1968 resulted in Richard Nixon receiving 301
electoral votes (56% of electors), Hubert Humphrey 191 (35.5%) and
George Wallace 46 (8.5%) with 13.5% of the popular vote. However, Nixon
had only received 511,944 more popular votes than Humphrey, 43.5% to
42.9%, less than 1% of the national total.[18]



I may be misreading some of what I read tonight, but it looks like the
"majority" in American popular vote is in the 30% range...

1) I sure don't remember having written that voting right has been
infringed. Would you give me the date, time,and perhaps a message number of
that?

2) As to those two statements, I don't see how they are contradictory.
Whoever wrote them, probably yourself.

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

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 22 Feb 2013 16:59:47 -0500, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:

Then, we would all be Chicago.

Now you're talking out of both sides of your mouth. First you say that
voting is "a right [that] has been infringed" because we have to
register, and now you say that if we had voting without registration
"we would all be Chicago."

Do you want to get together with yourself and decide which it is?

--
Ed Huntress



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

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
.. .

What would voting be like if no one had to register?

Why is registering an infringement, in other words, and not a
necessary regulation to enable the intent of the right to vote?

The constitutionality of laws is not determined by their
effectiveness, either, so that's not a place you want to go if you're
judging constitutionality.

On Fri, 22 Feb 2013 07:53:01 -0500, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

Przemek Klosowski wrote:


My bottom line is that you are asking me to subsidize your noble hobby,
to which I object.


Then move to Afghanistan.

Funny you should mention that---Afghanistan is a second amendment heaven.
No rules, no permits, everyone can and does have a weapon. You should
move there; I should chose to stay in a civil society, with its rules and
obligations.

On Fri, 22 Feb 2013 23:00:35 -0500, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:

1) I sure don't remember having written that voting right has been
infringed. Would you give me the date, time,and perhaps a message number of
that?

2) As to those two statements, I don't see how they are contradictory.
Whoever wrote them, probably yourself.

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

Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2013 16:59:47 -0500
X-Received-Bytes: 1620
Xref: cv.net rec.crafts.metalworking:990143

[EH}

What would voting be like if no one had to register?

[SM]

Then, we would all be Chicago.

and...

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

Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2013 10:17:57 -0500
X-Received-Bytes: 1514
Xref: cv.net rec.crafts.metalworking:990015

[EH]

You have to register to vote, even though voting is a right.

[SM]

And, that's been fraught with issues, too. Ask
any negro living in the south if it's easy to register
to vote, a generation or two ago.

Just because a right has been infringed over here
doesn't mean it's OK to infringe it over there.

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

I realize we can't remember everything we wrote, Chris, but you posted
both of those today, fer chrissake.

As for the way I inverted them, that's necessary because of your
top-posting. Otherwise, it would look like you answered first, and
then I posted the point or question you answered after you answered
it. g

You do cause some confusion with that, you know.

Now, maybe you'll want to try again. Get both of yourselves together,
and decide which it was you were saying, Ok?

--
Ed Huntress



.

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 22 Feb 2013 16:59:47 -0500, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:

Then, we would all be Chicago.

Now you're talking out of both sides of your mouth. First you say that
voting is "a right [that] has been infringed" because we have to
register, and now you say that if we had voting without registration
"we would all be Chicago."

Do you want to get together with yourself and decide which it is?

Przemek Klosowski wrote:

On Fri, 22 Feb 2013 07:53:01 -0500, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

Przemek Klosowski wrote:


My bottom line is that you are asking me to subsidize your noble hobby,
to which I object.


Then move to Afghanistan.

Funny you should mention that---Afghanistan is a second amendment heaven.
No rules, no permits, everyone can and does have a weapon. You should
move there; I should chose to stay in a civil society, with its rules and
obligations.


Then grow up and do it. I'm not going anywhere, till they put me in
the ground at the Veteran's cemetery in Bushnell.

"Michael A. Terrell" on Thu, 21 Feb 2013
14:11:45 -0500 typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:

Stormin Mormon wrote:

The nation has changed a lot since you and I were kids. Not for the better.

Later I learned to use & maintain multiple military weapons.

Some time when we were stationed in Hawaii (mid sixties), my Dad
took me and my brother over to the AP ("Air Police" - Air Farce for
MP) shack and the Sergeant there opened up an M-16 to show us. They
were the New Gun, so, being boys, we thought it was a neat thing to
see.
'Bout two years or so later, at the base in Massachusetts, Dad
took us for my brother's birthday to the MP shack (they'd redesignated
the specialty), were the Sergeant stripped an M16 all the way down.
Disassembled the bolt, receiver, etc and what not. This was far out
and way cool. (It was the late sixties, what can I say). As he starts
to put it back together, my brother - just turned 12 - asks if he can
try and put it back together. "Why not". So he hops up on the
counter, and puts it all back together. There is a tricky part to one
assembly, and he did have to be shown the trick, but he got it all
back together. Having seen it done one and a half times. At which
point the Sergeant turned to my Dad and said "Chaplain, could I have
your boy show my 'boys' what he just did?" LOL.

Those were the days.

--
pyotr filipivich
"With Age comes Wisdom. Although more often, Age travels alone."

On Wed, 20 Feb 2013 17:34:13 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:


"Given the potential accuracy problems that this Pew study has raised,
there ought to be many more such studies to cross-check polls in order
to determine their accuracy."

The article applauds Pew for uncovering polling issues.

Strike two. g When are you going to learn to read the articles you
link to before posting them in an argument?

Yet Pew had accuracy issues.

VBG

And they admitted them..kinda sorta

VBG


The methodology of the left has always been:

1. Lie
2. Repeat the lie as many times as possible
3. Have as many people repeat the lie as often as possible
4. Eventually, the uninformed believe the lie
5. The lie will then be made into some form oflaw
6. Then everyone must conform to the lie

On Thu, 21 Feb 2013 11:30:59 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:

The largest single
source today, though, says the FBI, is straw purchases.

So how do you stop straw purchases?

Hummmm?

Registration?


The methodology of the left has always been:

1. Lie
2. Repeat the lie as many times as possible
3. Have as many people repeat the lie as often as possible
4. Eventually, the uninformed believe the lie
5. The lie will then be made into some form oflaw
6. Then everyone must conform to the lie