On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 20:21:05 -0500, Cliff wrote:

On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 14:37:27 GMT, Johan wrote:

But such incidents are so rare as to be statistically down in the noise.

More people in the US are killed each year by gunfire than in the
events of 9-11.
What were the results?
Think about that one. Hard.
--
Cliff


10 times more people in the US are killed by mistakes Doctors make!

Think about that!

HTH

Mike

"Mike In Santa Cruz" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 20:21:05 -0500, Cliff wrote:

On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 14:37:27 GMT, Johan wrote:

But such incidents are so rare as to be statistically down in the noise.

More people in the US are killed each year by gunfire than in the
events of 9-11.
What were the results?
Think about that one. Hard.
--
Cliff


10 times more people in the US are killed by mistakes Doctors make!

Think about that!

And fully 50% of the doctors practicing medicine in this country finished in
the bottom half of their class! Think about that!

d8-)

Ed Huntress

"Johan" wrote in message
...

New keyboard! I sprung a whole $15 for it, look at that comma, by gum!
too. g How does it sound?

Life hasn't been the same since I spilled a beer into my beloved Northgate
101 this past summer. That was a writer's favorite. It was almost 20 years
old.


Those are your fellow citizens, Ed. Do they have as much right to
declare that all persons named Ed Huntress or Gunner or John Husvar
must
be hanged from light poles?

Well, yeah, actually, they do. In the end, it all depends on them having
the
sense to use democratic rule in a sensible and reasonable way. When you
consider what they *might* do with it, you have to give them a lot of
credit
in that department.

First, I apologize for responding harshly previously: You did not
deserve it.

Hell, that never stopped anyone else. g Johan, I appreciate your civility,
and I much prefer it myself, but in the spirit of our national civic
character and foreign statesmanship in these days of The New American
Century, I've gone into preemptive-strike mode myself. I'm not so polite
here anymore and I don't take anything personally. I assume that 95% of the
obnoxious posters here are quite different in real life, anyway.

Credit, too, the system of checks and balances that appears aimed
directly at preventing a tyranny of the majority.

Definitely.

Some areas are
declared off-limits to federal government activity.

Yes, unless and until they encounter a new Constitutional Amendment. That's
the paradox of a system that combines government by the people and a
philosophical basis of inalienable rights.

Many state
constitutions also enumerate rights. Such enumerations are variably
honored, but that's their citizens' problems.

OK. Well, then whence this apparent distrust of the general populace
among so many Democrats and others left of GWB? (BTW, I'm a registered
Democrat, FWIW)

And I'm a registered Republican, for what that's worth, too.

If you're concluding that from gun control, I think it's because they've
gotten tired of seeing real dead bodies on TV. Television did a lot to make
us disgusted with wars, and tragic and senseless shootings of all kinds.
When you see that dead body among all those video-live bodies, it sinks in
that it was once a human being there, a lot like you, me, and the members of
our families. Then we begin to think. Well, some begin to think. Others just
shrug and call it collateral damage.


Wouldn't it be equally to their credit that owners of weapons with
large-capacity magazines so rarely use them criminally?

It certainly is. The same holds for machine guns, which, statistically, are
among the safest types of guns owned by private citizens in the US.

However, when somebody with a 20-round magazine goes haywire, Katy bar the
doors. That's the problem. It isn't the numbers, it's that the numbers occur
in these mind-numbing bursts.

It's like 9/11. We kill more people than that on our highways in 5 weeks.
Sometimes it isn't the statistics that produce a reaction. The reaction
comes from the nature of the particular phenomenon that produced the
particular deaths.


It appears to me that, if one can trust one's fellow citizens to that
extent, why distrust them owning weapons with 20 or 200-round magazines?

Because it only takes a couple that you trusted inappropriately to raise
holy hell. To many people, providing the extra capacity for mayhem crosses
the line of acceptable risk. It's a matter of where each of us draws that
line.

I don't own an "assault weapon," but I can see how militaria buffs or
people who just think it's fun to discharge a lot of ammunition in a
short time might want one.

Sure. It's fun.


Murderers and other violent criminals can usually acquire or construct
whatever kind of weapon they want anyway, up to and including truckloads
of ANFO.

But they so rarely do, in this country, at least.


The whole thing just reminds me of the old schoolteachers' tactic of
punishing the whole class so as to be sure they got the guilty party. It
was injustice then and it's not any more just for a government now.

That's not an unreasonable association, but it breaks down at a crucial
point. This isn't after-the-fact punishment. It's an attempt to prevent
human carnage. How successful it may be is an open question. Not very, in
any case. But any case of multiple shootings that is associated with high
magazine capacity, coupled with semiautomatic fire, is a tragic example of
having made the bargain on the wrong side of good sense, in the minds of
many people. That's not an unreasonable association, either, even though it
may also break down at some point.




How the Hell did you get out of my killfile anyway?

'Dunno. Maybe your computer sprung a leak?

Macs don't leak: They spew occasionally, but they don't leak. (Well,
maybe the new water-cooled ones; Could be.) There's just something odd
about a computer whose instructions include a warning about looking out
for leaking liquids.


I suppose now I have
to go make it a global kill.

There's an appropriate metaphor, all right.

Good'un! OK, maybe I was a little hasty; maybe even a lot hasty. I
apologize again.

Enough, already. I didn't think you were beyond the acceptable level of
invective. g


Why on God's green earth would anyone care what emotionally-driven
cowards, who can't seem to reason past tautology, think about your
choice of firearm. Why should anyone?

Maybe because they're pretty good at recognizing a nutball when they see
one. And they don't think that the idea of armed nutballs being allowed
to
own massively destructive weapons is a good one. And *that's* because
the
usual, after-the-fact approach we prefer to take regarding restraint
tends
to result in bunches of people being shot to death, at random and often
by
surprise.

I agree on the after the fact approach to restraint. Restrain the
perpetrator a posteriori. A priori restraint is virtually impossible,
not to mention being diametrically opposed to the concept of personal
liberty.

Nice theory. Sometimes it breaks down in practice. If you apply it to people
storing explosives in their apartments, for example, good intentions don't
mean much. "Oops" just isn't an acceptable response to a mistake or to an
intentional blast.

Timothy McVeigh and some of the spray-fire tragedies we've seen on TV over
the last couple of decades have re-balanced the equation in many people's
minds. Fun is fun, but enough is enough.


Freedom is dangerous and expensive, but I haven't found any system of
restrictive government that is less so.

Now you're philosophizing in the abstract. Have fun, I prefer to keep my
philosophizing tied to real events.


But such incidents are so rare as to be statistically down in the noise.
With the "It bleeds, it leads" practices of many journalists, such
incidents are reported far in excess of their actual importance. If such
were occurring once a week, once a month, or even twice a year for
several years running, it might be right to be concerned. At the rate it
occurs now, broad-brush, punish everyone, legislation is just not
warranted. They're reported so sensationally, IMO, precisely because
they are so rare -- and horrific.

That's a good point, but I'll bet that the occassions for which people make
an operative defense for large magazines (as opposed to saying, as we agree,
that they're a lot of fun) are even more rare. I especially like re-reading
Larry's examples for a good chuckle. g

Now, at this point, my statements here have probably drawn at least a dozen
fresh fruitcakes out of the woodwork, and they're going to use the
opportunity to upload their boilerplate nonsense, which I've seen repeated
over and over again for 20 years or more. Let them have their fun; I'm not
interested in wasting time on their hackneyed, thoughtless arguments.

Some time ago, when I was really into the gun-control issue, as an active
member of my state NRA affiliate and as an unpaid, volunteer, pro-gun
lobbyist in Trenton, I came to this conclusion: There is something about the
emotions invoked in gun control that have an unusual effect on the brain.
I'm here standing in the middle, as usual, with a bunch of normally
reasonable people standing around, and gun control comes up. Everyone stands
still for a minute while two guys with hammers and 10-penny nails walk up to
them; one guy drives nails into the heads of the ideological pro-gunners,
and the other drives nails into the heads of the ideological anti-gunners.
The guys driving the nails are like accupuncturists, experts at finding the
part of the brain that resolves wishful thinking with real-life experiences,
and their nails go right for that spot. Then the argument starts, and it's
like listening to idiot savants reciting the tables of prime numbers from
one to one-mllion. Incredible noise, with not a lick of sense in any of it.

It hasn't changed. The noise hasn't improved. It's the same tired thinking
and flabby logic that has been going on for decades.


Nutballs will always be with us. There's no preventing them procuring
whatever weapon(s) they want for whatever purposes. If you can't trust
your citizens with arms, you can't trust them with anything more
important, a vote, for instance, or ideas.

I've seen plenty of people at the range who I wouldn't trust with a BB-gun.
Sorry, that's my instincts and life experience telling me that reality is in
conflict with philosophy. I trust instincts more than philosophy every time.

And with that, it's time for me to leave this thread and get back to work. I
knew I was in for it when I started off by objecting to Lennie's comments
about "all those assault weapons out on the streets." g I always start out
from the pro-gun side, but then the pro-gunners find some point of
ideological impurity in my thoughts, which, like radical religious
fundamentalists, they can't tolerate, and the dam bursts.

Hasta la vista. I'm getting out before the flood works its way down here.
d8-)

--
Ed Huntress
(remove "3" from email address for email reply)

On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 00:01:35 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"Mike In Santa Cruz" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 20:21:05 -0500, Cliff wrote:

On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 14:37:27 GMT, Johan wrote:

But such incidents are so rare as to be statistically down in the noise.

More people in the US are killed each year by gunfire than in the
events of 9-11.
What were the results?
Think about that one. Hard.
--
Cliff


10 times more people in the US are killed by mistakes Doctors make!

Think about that!

And fully 50% of the doctors practicing medicine in this country finished in
the bottom half of their class! Think about that!

d8-)

Ed Huntress

Is that because of affirmative action??? Got foorp?

HTH

Mike

On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 20:26:08 -0800, "Michael"
wrote:

And they said Gunner was off topic a lot..............jeezzzz.

Looks like a new one ? Or just in drag?
--
Cliff

On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 04:47:40 GMT, Mike In Santa Cruz
wrote:

On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 20:21:05 -0500, Cliff wrote:

On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 14:37:27 GMT, Johan wrote:

But such incidents are so rare as to be statistically down in the noise.

More people in the US are killed each year by gunfire than in the
events of 9-11.
What were the results?
Think about that one. Hard.
--
Cliff


10 times more people in the US are killed by mistakes Doctors make!

Think about that!

HTH

Mike

Work on the sigs, Mike. I'm not cleaning up your act anymore ...
hence most with good newsreaders ..

Yep.

Do you see the neocons making new wars &
spending trilloins of your tax dollars over it? When
it might actually make a bit of sense to spend on it?
But that's their platform in the elections ...... deficits,
wars, lies, WMDs ... and guns & bibles.
--
Cliff

On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 07:08:47 GMT, Mike In Santa Cruz
wrote:

On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 00:01:35 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"Mike In Santa Cruz" wrote in message
. ..
On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 20:21:05 -0500, Cliff wrote:

On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 14:37:27 GMT, Johan wrote:

But such incidents are so rare as to be statistically down in the noise.

More people in the US are killed each year by gunfire than in the
events of 9-11.
What were the results?
Think about that one. Hard.
--
Cliff


10 times more people in the US are killed by mistakes Doctors make!

Think about that!

And fully 50% of the doctors practicing medicine in this country finished in
the bottom half of their class! Think about that!

d8-)

Ed Huntress

Is that because of affirmative action???

Nope.

Got foorp?

Supply your own.

HTH

Mike

HTH
--
Cliff

On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 01:49:45 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

Murderers and other violent criminals can usually acquire or construct
whatever kind of weapon they want anyway, up to and including truckloads
of ANFO.

But they so rarely do, in this country, at least.

It takes too much thought, work, time & planning.
OTOH A gunnut can just pick up their guns ....
--
Cliff

On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 01:49:45 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

Some time ago, when I was really into the gun-control issue, as an active
member of my state NRA affiliate and as an unpaid, volunteer, pro-gun
lobbyist in Trenton, I came to this conclusion: There is something about the
emotions invoked in gun control that have an unusual effect on the brain.

It might be the converse. Some sort of brain damage creates
gun nuts.
Logic & rationality left most of them far behind.

OTOH I always liked watching the monkeys at the zoos ....
--
Cliff

On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 14:44:00 -0600, RD wrote:

On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 18:23:01 GMT, Gunner
wrote:

It also mentions that it may be called up by the Federal government,
and by various local government officials. The Sheriffs for one, in
practical application. Though that would be under the Posse Comitatus
Act which is a slightly different ball of wax, drawing on the same
pool.

Posse Comitatus Act prevents the use of US armed forces as a "posse
comitatus".
Well, it used to....
It does much apply anymore.


Yes it does. As part of it.

Gunner

"I mean, when's the last time you heard of a college where the Young
Republicans staged a "Sit In" to close down the Humanities building?
On the flip side, how many sit in's were staged to close the ROTC building back in the '60's?
Liberals stage protests, do civil disobedience, etc.
Conservatives talk politely and try to work out a solution to problems
through discourse until they believe that talking won't work... they they go home and open the gun cabinets.
Pray things never get to the point where the conservatives decide that
"civil disobedience" is the next step, because that's a very short route to "voting from the rooftops"
Jeffrey Swartz, Misc.Survivalism

On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 09:56:00 GMT, Gunner
wrote:

Gunner

"I mean, when's the last time you heard of a college where the Young
Republicans staged a "Sit In" to close down the Humanities building?

Too busy studying for the football exam? With stolen answers?

On the flip side, how many sit in's were staged to close the ROTC building back in the '60's?
Liberals stage protests, do civil disobedience, etc.
Conservatives talk politely and try to work out a solution to problems
through discourse until they believe that talking won't work... they they go home and open the gun cabinets.
Pray things never get to the point where the conservatives decide that
"civil disobedience" is the next step, because that's a very short route to "voting from the rooftops"
Jeffrey Swartz, Misc.Survivalism

Found another useless idiot did you?
--
Cliff

On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 16:09:20 GMT, "Joe Halbleib"
wrote:

Second, I *DO* know what the Amendment says and have its correct
interpretation. It describes an individual right to keep and bear
arms.
Rather than just saying you disagree, you have to insult me. You're a
sniveling little ****. Come talk to me that way to my face you jerk!
Brave
on Usenet, huh?

I'd wager many in the prisons and nut houses would just love
a few of your noisemakers.
Why don't you take them a few Nukes?

Cliffie... I don't need firearms or nukes to handle you. You don't know
who you are talking to. I am more than capable of dealing with you hand
to
hand. The noise will be minimal. You won't hear much of it.

You seem unarmed.

No, but I'll keep them locked up while you visit. Feeling brave?

You seem unarmed.

Your reference to prisons is stupid and not even entertaining.

So you are wrong again?

About what now, Cliffie?

Take your choice.

You really need some new schtick.

Probably be a hot seller .....

Or not.

You said that they could have guns; it's their right, right?

After all, until the shrubbie, they could have lawyers &
courts too.

You know, if you were more convincing in your
arguments you wouldn't feel so inadequate that you need to take personal
pokes at people.

"Bite me"?

You might recall the above reply in response to your insults and not your
attempt at logical discourse.

You probably need to look again.

"I have guns" is hardly "logical discourse" in rational circles.

Joe

You need a proper sig.

What, like yours below? What I use is plenty.

Joe

For a winger or a gunnut?
--
Cliff

"Mike In Santa Cruz" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 00:01:35 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"Mike In Santa Cruz" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 20:21:05 -0500, Cliff wrote:

On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 14:37:27 GMT, Johan wrote:

But such incidents are so rare as to be statistically down in the
noise.

More people in the US are killed each year by gunfire than in the
events of 9-11.
What were the results?
Think about that one. Hard.
--
Cliff


10 times more people in the US are killed by mistakes Doctors make!

Think about that!

And fully 50% of the doctors practicing medicine in this country finished
in
the bottom half of their class! Think about that!

d8-)

Ed Huntress

Is that because of affirmative action??? Got foorp?

HTH

Mike

No, that's because of arithmetic. d8-)

Ed Huntress

"Gunner" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 14:44:00 -0600, RD wrote:

On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 18:23:01 GMT, Gunner
wrote:

It also mentions that it may be called up by the Federal government,
and by various local government officials. The Sheriffs for one, in
practical application. Though that would be under the Posse Comitatus
Act which is a slightly different ball of wax, drawing on the same
pool.

Posse Comitatus Act prevents the use of US armed forces as a "posse
comitatus".
Well, it used to....
It does much apply anymore.


Yes it does. As part of it.

And what other part is there? Have you read it?

This Act probably is the most myth-filled one in American History. If people
only read it, it would all be a lot simpler.

Ed Huntress

On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 07:50:44 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


This Act probably is the most myth-filled one in American History. If people
only read it, it would all be a lot simpler.

What myths?

In article ,
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

"Johan" wrote in message
...

New keyboard! I sprung a whole $15 for it, look at that comma, by gum!
too. g How does it sound?

Life hasn't been the same since I spilled a beer into my beloved Northgate
101 this past summer. That was a writer's favorite. It was almost 20 years
old.

Kind of like an old Weatherby or Holland and Holland or a '98 action,
they just seemed to work better and more comfortably?



Yes, unless and until they encounter a new Constitutional Amendment. That's
the paradox of a system that combines government by the people and a
philosophical basis of inalienable rights.

Well, that process was made intentionally unwieldy and difficult, but it
is possible to amend the Constitution so as to repeal it.



OK. Well, then whence this apparent distrust of the general populace
among so many Democrats and others left of GWB? (BTW, I'm a registered
Democrat, FWIW)

And I'm a registered Republican, for what that's worth, too.

If you're concluding that from gun control, I think it's because they've
gotten tired of seeing real dead bodies on TV. Television did a lot to make
us disgusted with wars, and tragic and senseless shootings of all kinds.
When you see that dead body among all those video-live bodies, it sinks in
that it was once a human being there, a lot like you, me, and the members of
our families. Then we begin to think. Well, some begin to think. Others just
shrug and call it collateral damage.

Yes, I agree and it doesn't help to explain the miniscule odds of it
happening to any specific individual. It _did_ happen once so it must be
prevented from happening again somehow. That that is simply impossible
has no relevance to a frightened person or populace.


However, when somebody with a 20-round magazine goes haywire, Katy bar the
doors. That's the problem. It isn't the numbers, it's that the numbers occur
in these mind-numbing bursts.

It's like 9/11. We kill more people than that on our highways in 5 weeks.
Sometimes it isn't the statistics that produce a reaction. The reaction
comes from the nature of the particular phenomenon that produced the
particular deaths.

Certainly the spectacular incidents get the most attention, but the
apparent tendency of some contemporary Americans to prefer an illusory
security and safety worries me. I don't have any answer for that,
either. It seems that there's a kind of schizophrenia extant: Some
people participate in "extreme" sports yet cry out for some kind of
assurance they won't get hurt some other way.



It appears to me that, if one can trust one's fellow citizens to that
extent, why distrust them owning weapons with 20 or 200-round magazines?

Because it only takes a couple that you trusted inappropriately to raise
holy hell. To many people, providing the extra capacity for mayhem crosses
the line of acceptable risk. It's a matter of where each of us draws that
line.

True enough, sadly. The extra capacity for mayhem, however, I consider
as illusory as absolute safety. The NY Subway character, Ferguson,(?)
had no difficulty reloading until some guys got mad or frightened enough
to take him down.


But they so rarely do, in this country, at least.

True, and that's why they get so much attention.



The whole thing just reminds me of the old schoolteachers' tactic of
punishing the whole class so as to be sure they got the guilty party. It
was injustice then and it's not any more just for a government now.

That's not an unreasonable association, but it breaks down at a crucial
point. This isn't after-the-fact punishment. It's an attempt to prevent
human carnage. How successful it may be is an open question. Not very, in
any case. But any case of multiple shootings that is associated with high
magazine capacity, coupled with semiautomatic fire, is a tragic example of
having made the bargain on the wrong side of good sense, in the minds of
many people. That's not an unreasonable association, either, even though it
may also break down at some point.


I understand the reasoning and associations, but think it breaks down at
the point where preventing all or perhaps any such incidents proves to
be impossible. Most people dislike violence, even verbal confrontations.
So do I. I also, however, understand that violence occurs despite my
preference and nothing I could possibly do precludes encountering some
violence.


Enough, already. I didn't think you were beyond the acceptable level of
invective. g

OK.


I agree on the after the fact approach to restraint. Restrain the
perpetrator a posteriori. A priori restraint is virtually impossible,
not to mention being diametrically opposed to the concept of personal
liberty.

Nice theory. Sometimes it breaks down in practice. If you apply it to people
storing explosives in their apartments, for example, good intentions don't
mean much. "Oops" just isn't an acceptable response to a mistake or to an
intentional blast.

Yes, there _are_ situations where someone does something clearly opposed
to public safety. Had a case in Cleveland not long ago where somebody
had a couple of cases of very old Dynamite in their basement. It's
likely the homeowners never knew it was there in that charming old
farmhouse they bought.


Timothy McVeigh and some of the spray-fire tragedies we've seen on TV over
the last couple of decades have re-balanced the equation in many people's
minds. Fun is fun, but enough is enough.


Freedom is dangerous and expensive, but I haven't found any system of
restrictive government that is less so.

Now you're philosophizing in the abstract. Have fun, I prefer to keep my
philosophizing tied to real events.

OK, I understand that, but I also think real events are too often put
forth as uncovering danger where there is none or very little.



But such incidents are so rare as to be statistically down in the noise.
With the "It bleeds, it leads" practices of many journalists, such
incidents are reported far in excess of their actual importance. If such
were occurring once a week, once a month, or even twice a year for
several years running, it might be right to be concerned. At the rate it
occurs now, broad-brush, punish everyone, legislation is just not
warranted. They're reported so sensationally, IMO, precisely because
they are so rare -- and horrific.

That's a good point, but I'll bet that the occassions for which people make
an operative defense for large magazines (as opposed to saying, as we agree,
that they're a lot of fun) are even more rare. I especially like re-reading
Larry's examples for a good chuckle. g

Now, at this point, my statements here have probably drawn at least a dozen
fresh fruitcakes out of the woodwork, and they're going to use the
opportunity to upload their boilerplate nonsense, which I've seen repeated
over and over again for 20 years or more. Let them have their fun; I'm not
interested in wasting time on their hackneyed, thoughtless arguments.

Been this way since I first got on the net and started reading
talk.politics.guns in 1991. The arguments go round and round Wo-o-o-o
and they come out null.

I suppose I'm rather an ideologue on the subject as much as anyone. I
can't see any control scheme working absent effective enforcement that
fully honors civil rights. I see magazine bans and assault weapon bans
as ineffectual by nature. I see any kind of total gun ban as just plain
dumb. I don't suppose I'm likely to change my mind unless someone can
convincingly show me where any such does or ever has resulted in a
significant reduction in crime, and not just in crime where a gun was
used.


Some time ago, when I was really into the gun-control issue, as an active
member of my state NRA affiliate and as an unpaid, volunteer, pro-gun
lobbyist in Trenton, I came to this conclusion: There is something about the
emotions invoked in gun control that have an unusual effect on the brain.
I'm here standing in the middle, as usual, with a bunch of normally
reasonable people standing around, and gun control comes up. Everyone stands
still for a minute while two guys with hammers and 10-penny nails walk up to
them; one guy drives nails into the heads of the ideological pro-gunners,
and the other drives nails into the heads of the ideological anti-gunners.
The guys driving the nails are like accupuncturists, experts at finding the
part of the brain that resolves wishful thinking with real-life experiences,
and their nails go right for that spot. Then the argument starts, and it's
like listening to idiot savants reciting the tables of prime numbers from
one to one-mllion. Incredible noise, with not a lick of sense in any of it.

Understood.


It hasn't changed. The noise hasn't improved. It's the same tired thinking
and flabby logic that has been going on for decades.


Nutballs will always be with us. There's no preventing them procuring
whatever weapon(s) they want for whatever purposes. If you can't trust
your citizens with arms, you can't trust them with anything more
important, a vote, for instance, or ideas.

I've seen plenty of people at the range who I wouldn't trust with a BB-gun.
Sorry, that's my instincts and life experience telling me that reality is in
conflict with philosophy. I trust instincts more than philosophy every time.

Well, I can't disagree with that. I've seen a few that I wished one
could take the guns from too. At the range where I used to shoot, such
misbehavior was a sure way to get barred for six months and for life
upon a second incidence.


And with that, it's time for me to leave this thread and get back to work. I
knew I was in for it when I started off by objecting to Lennie's comments
about "all those assault weapons out on the streets." g I always start out
from the pro-gun side, but then the pro-gunners find some point of
ideological impurity in my thoughts, which, like radical religious
fundamentalists, they can't tolerate, and the dam bursts.

Well, I think I get your drift. You seem to be leaning toward
realpolitik, the practical as opposed to the philosophical. I not only
can understand that, I approve of it to a large extent. Half a loaf, etc.

But symbolic legislation like the AWB, may smooth ruffled feathers, but
there are too many ways around them. I consider them symbolic sops
thrown to the anti-gun to quiet them.

But they don't quiet.

It seems historically to have turned out like paying Danegeld: You never
get rid of the Dane. (Or the Sarah, Diane, Janet, or Charles, et al.)

Oops, you used that kind of terminology earlier. Sops thrown to
opponents, that is. Oh, well, a good phrase is a good phrase no matter
where you steal it.


Hasta la vista. I'm getting out before the flood works its way down here.
d8-)

How high's the water, Momma? Four feet high and risin'

I have enjoyed the discussion. Thanks.

Best,
Johan

http://www.ardice.com/Arts/Movies/Titles/6/60's,_The

On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 11:44:21 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"Robert Sturgeon" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 02:52:32 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

(snips)

As of 1916, the state militia (plural) are now the National Guard, and
the
dual state-federal control is now fully explicit (amended in 1920).

The fly in that ointment is that the National Guard does not
meet the Constitutional requirements for state militias.

Really? Tell us about that one.

In Article 3, Section 8:

"To provide for the organizing, arming, and disciplining,
the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be
employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to
the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers,
and the Authority of training the Militia according to the
discipline prescribed by Congress;"

That does not describe how the National Guard operates.


--
Robert Sturgeon
Summum ius summa inuria.
http://www.vistech.net/users/rsturge/

"Cliff" wrote in message
news
On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 09:56:00 GMT, Gunner
wrote:

Gunner

"I mean, when's the last time you heard of a college where the Young
Republicans staged a "Sit In" to close down the Humanities building?

Too busy studying for the football exam? With stolen answers?

So, Cliffie... Are you anti-jock too? The profile is becoming clearer...

Joe

On the flip side, how many sit in's were staged to close the ROTC
building back in the '60's?
Liberals stage protests, do civil disobedience, etc.
Conservatives talk politely and try to work out a solution to problems
through discourse until they believe that talking won't work... they they
go home and open the gun cabinets.
Pray things never get to the point where the conservatives decide that
"civil disobedience" is the next step, because that's a very short route
to "voting from the rooftops"
Jeffrey Swartz, Misc.Survivalism

Found another useless idiot did you?
--
Cliff

"Cliff" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 16:09:20 GMT, "Joe Halbleib"
wrote:

Second, I *DO* know what the Amendment says and have its correct
interpretation. It describes an individual right to keep and bear
arms.
Rather than just saying you disagree, you have to insult me.
You're a
sniveling little ****. Come talk to me that way to my face you
jerk!
Brave
on Usenet, huh?

I'd wager many in the prisons and nut houses would just love
a few of your noisemakers.
Why don't you take them a few Nukes?

Cliffie... I don't need firearms or nukes to handle you. You don't
know
who you are talking to. I am more than capable of dealing with you
hand
to
hand. The noise will be minimal. You won't hear much of it.

You seem unarmed.

No, but I'll keep them locked up while you visit. Feeling brave?

You seem unarmed.

You seem repetitive and pedantic.

Your reference to prisons is stupid and not even entertaining.

So you are wrong again?

About what now, Cliffie?

Take your choice.

You really need some new schtick.

Probably be a hot seller .....

Or not.

You said that they could have guns; it's their right, right?

After all, until the shrubbie, they could have lawyers &
courts too.

You know, if you were more convincing in your
arguments you wouldn't feel so inadequate that you need to take
personal
pokes at people.

"Bite me"?

You might recall the above reply in response to your insults and not your
attempt at logical discourse.

You probably need to look again.

"I have guns" is hardly "logical discourse" in rational circles.

No Cliffie. "Bite me" was in response to your insults. Not YOUR attempts
at logical discourse. It would not have been used if you had not
deliberately offended. Playing dumb now does not erase your rudeness.

Joe

You need a proper sig.

What, like yours below? What I use is plenty.

Joe

For a winger or a gunnut?

I'm not a right winger or a gun nut. I'm a moderate and I own 2 revolvers
and 1 45 auto. They have only shot paper at the range. They are locked up
in my safe when not in use. I even have trigger locks for them when
transporting to and from the range.

My name is Joe. It will suffice to describe who I am.

J-O-E

--
Cliff

"RD" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 07:50:44 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


This Act probably is the most myth-filled one in American History. If
people
only read it, it would all be a lot simpler.

What myths?

That is somehow enables posses, particularly posses comitatus ("power of the
county"), and that it prevents the National Guard from being used in
domestic duties.

All is says is that the US Army cannot be employed for police activities in
the US. It was written as a rider to the defense appropriations bill of
1878. The more recent amendments to it have added the Air Force. Since
amendments to it enacted in the early 1980s, it is effectively defunct.

It explicitly does NOT, and never did, cover the National Guard, which, in
times of peace, is the states' militias.

Ed Huntress

"Robert Sturgeon" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 11:44:21 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"Robert Sturgeon" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 02:52:32 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

(snips)

As of 1916, the state militia (plural) are now the National Guard, and
the
dual state-federal control is now fully explicit (amended in 1920).

The fly in that ointment is that the National Guard does not
meet the Constitutional requirements for state militias.

Really? Tell us about that one.

In Article 3, Section 8:

"To provide for the organizing, arming, and disciplining,
the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be
employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to
the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers,
and the Authority of training the Militia according to the
discipline prescribed by Congress;"

That does not describe how the National Guard operates.

Uh, yeah, it is, precisely. Officers of the states' National Guards are
appointed by the respective governors (through their surrogates, of course).

It gets tricky when the federal government has called a unit to national
service. Then the existing officers have to be accepted by through US
military procedures. But they're not in state-militia service under those
conditions.

Basically, the National Guard, when not in time of war or not called to
federal service, consists of the organized state militias. They're still
nominally under state control under those conditions.

Ed Huntress

On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 23:11:08 -0500, Ed Huntress wrote:

Uh, yeah, it is, precisely. Officers of the states' National Guards are
appointed by the respective governors (through their surrogates, of course).

Since 1903, nearly all NG officers have held dual commissions - both state
and federal. The federal commission is required for federal funding.

The primary exception is the State Adjutent Generals - who work directly
for the Governors. And who, AIUI, resign their federal commissions when
they accept the appointment.

--
When...[government] gets into difficulties it can raise money by seizing
it, in the form of taxes, from those who have earned it. So long as
such persons confine their resistance to academic protests, it will
continue well-heeled, and ready for ever new and worse extravagances.
Even when it finds, on trying to shake them down, that their pockets
are quite empty, it can still borrow on the security of their future
earning power. Legally speaking they are its slaves. It can dip into
their bank account whenever it pleases, and if those bank accounts turn
out to be too scanty for its needs, it can mortgage whatever money they
seem likely to accumulate tomorrow, or next month, or next year...It is
a millstone around their necks that grows heavier every time they try
to throw it off...The Bill of Rights gives a long list of things that
the government may not do to the citizen in his person...There is only
one provision dealing with his property: the government is forbidden to
take it without paying for it. It seems me that there is a hint here.
Why not a new Bill of Rights, definitely limiting the taxing powers of
the government? Why not...[an] Amendment restoring it to its simple
and proper functions, and forbidding it forever to collect or spend a
cent for any purpose lying outside them?
- H. L. Mencken

On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 14:33:01 GMT, Johan wrote:

Yes, I agree and it doesn't help to explain the miniscule odds of it
happening to any specific individual.

The usual claims are that "guns make you safer" when, in fact,
if someone is killed it's *at best* 1 in 8 odds that it's a criminal.
The other 7+ are you, your family members, a friend ot two,
the Pizza guy at the door ...

Another one is that "the more guns we have the fewer deaths
by gunfire we will have" leading to when nobody has any guns
deaths by gunfire are at their peak.

Lots of other silly claims are also often made.
Care to try finding a few new ones?

BTW, AFAIK No American has ever been killed in
a Nuclear bomb blast therefore Nuclear bombs are
very safe for the kiddies to play with, right?
--
Cliff (Instructing wingers for over a decade.)

On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 14:33:01 GMT, Johan wrote:

Some
people participate in "extreme" sports yet cry out for some kind of
assurance they won't get hurt some other way.

So shoot them.
--
Cliff

"Joe Halbleib" wrote in message
news:zT9rd.493488$D%.154958@attbi_s51...

"Cliff" wrote in message
news
On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 09:56:00 GMT, Gunner
wrote:

Gunner

"I mean, when's the last time you heard of a college where the Young
Republicans staged a "Sit In" to close down the Humanities building?

Too busy studying for the football exam? With stolen answers?

So, Cliffie... Are you anti-jock too? The profile is becoming clearer...

Ah, Joe, I was a student at Michigan State in the 1960s. You know, when they
used to send recruiters out to the youth correctional institutions, looking
for scholars to award football scholarships? g

By mistake, I got into two "football" classes. Those were the special ones
that every football player knew about, but which were otherwise un-noted on
the class listings. One of them was Freshman English. Mama mia, I got tired
of reading about Dick and Jane, surrounded by a bunch of 270-pound mutants.
d8-)

The other class was phys. ed. Specifically, it was weightlifting. Now *that*
was an experience...

Ed Huntress

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...
"Joe Halbleib" wrote in message
news:zT9rd.493488$D%.154958@attbi_s51...

"Cliff" wrote in message
news
On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 09:56:00 GMT, Gunner
wrote:

Gunner

"I mean, when's the last time you heard of a college where the Young
Republicans staged a "Sit In" to close down the Humanities building?

Too busy studying for the football exam? With stolen answers?

So, Cliffie... Are you anti-jock too? The profile is becoming
clearer...

Ah, Joe, I was a student at Michigan State in the 1960s. You know, when
they
used to send recruiters out to the youth correctional institutions,
looking
for scholars to award football scholarships? g

By mistake, I got into two "football" classes. Those were the special ones
that every football player knew about, but which were otherwise un-noted
on
the class listings. One of them was Freshman English. Mama mia, I got
tired
of reading about Dick and Jane, surrounded by a bunch of 270-pound
mutants.
d8-)

That sounds like fun! whew!

Never took one like that. Did take a course my wrestling coach at San Jose
State taught though. He wanted a paper for a 1 unit course! I took an
incomplete and eventually did some fund-raising for the wrestling program to
make it up.

The other class was phys. ed. Specifically, it was weightlifting. Now
*that*
was an experience...

Took one of these too. Actually, I did pretty well. I wasn't one of those
football linemen bulging all over but I was pretty wirey. I think it
actually did me some good.

Of course, all this was while I was also taking computer programming,
physics, chemistry and honors humanities. Eventually wrestling demanded
more than I could give and I had to leave the team in my junior year.

Joe

Ed Huntress

On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 22:59:09 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"RD" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 07:50:44 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


This Act probably is the most myth-filled one in American History. If
people
only read it, it would all be a lot simpler.

What myths?

That is somehow enables posses, particularly posses comitatus ("power of the
county"), and that it prevents the National Guard from being used in
domestic duties.

All is says is that the US Army cannot be employed for police activities in
the US. It was written as a rider to the defense appropriations bill of
1878. The more recent amendments to it have added the Air Force. Since
amendments to it enacted in the early 1980s, it is effectively defunct.

It explicitly does NOT, and never did, cover the National Guard, which, in
times of peace, is the states' militias.

I was always under the impression that the US standing forces
(or the CIA) CANNOT be used for domestic matters. Unlike police,
FBI, guard, etc.
Not that Bush & the neocons know this it seems ....
--
Cliff

On Wed, 01 Dec 2004 02:20:45 GMT, "Joe Halbleib"
wrote:


"Cliff" wrote in message
news
On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 09:56:00 GMT, Gunner
wrote:

Gunner

"I mean, when's the last time you heard of a college where the Young
Republicans staged a "Sit In" to close down the Humanities building?

Too busy studying for the football exam? With stolen answers?

So, Cliffie... Are you anti-jock too? The profile is becoming clearer...

Joe

On the flip side, how many sit in's were staged to close the ROTC
building back in the '60's?
Liberals stage protests, do civil disobedience, etc.
Conservatives talk politely and try to work out a solution to problems
through discourse until they believe that talking won't work... they they
go home and open the gun cabinets.
Pray things never get to the point where the conservatives decide that
"civil disobedience" is the next step, because that's a very short route
to "voting from the rooftops"
Jeffrey Swartz, Misc.Survivalism

Found another useless idiot did you?

Or two?

[

(1) What does the average Minnesota player get on his SAT's?
---Drool.

(2) What do you get when you put 32 Alabama cheerleaders in
one room?
---A full set of teeth.

(3) How do you get a Wisconsin cheerleader into your dorm
room?
---Grease her hips and push like hell.

(4) How do you get a Michigan State graduate off your porch?
---Pay him for the pizza.

(5) Why do the University of Oklahoma cheerleaders wear
bibs?
---To keep the tobacco juice off their uniforms.

(6) Why do they no longer serve ice at Pitt football games?
--- The senior who knew the recipe graduated.

(7) Why is the Indiana football team like a possum?
---Because they play dead at home, and get killed on the
road.

(8) What are the longest three years of a Penn State
football player's life?
---His freshman year.

(9) Why did Kansas State replace natural grass with
Astroturf?
---To discourage the cheerleaders from grazing during
games.

10) How many Ohio State freshmen does it take to change a
light bulb?
---None.....That's a sophomore course at OSU.

(11) Where was O.J. headed in the white Bronco?
---West Lafayette, IN ... he knew that the police would
never look there for a Heisman Trophy winner.

(12) Why did O.J. want to move to Blacksburg, VA?
---Everyone there has the same DNA.

(13) Why did Tennessee choose orange as their team color?
---You can wear it to the game on Saturday, hunting on
Sunday, and picking up trash the rest of the week.
]

[

SUBJ: College Entrance Exam, Football-Player Version

Time Limit: 3 WKS

Name: _____________________________

1. What language is spoken in France?

2. Give a dissertation on the ancient Babylonian Empire with
particular reference to architecture, literature, law and social
conditions -OR- give the first name of Pierre Trudeau.

3. Would you ask William Shakespeare to
___ (a) build a bridge
___ (b) sail the ocean
___ (c) lead an army or
___ (d) WRITE A PLAY

4. What religion is the Pope?
___ (a) Jewish
___ (b) Catholic
___ (c) Hindu
___ (d) Polish
___ (e) Agnostic
(check only one)

5. Metric conversion. How many feet is 0.0 meters?

6. What time is it when the big hand is on the 12 and the little hand
is on the 5?

7. How many commandments was Moses given? (approximately)

8. What are people in America's far north called?
___ (a) Westerners
___ (b) Southerners
___ (c) Northerners

9. Spell: Bush, Carter, and Clinton
Bush: ____________________________________________
Carter: __________________________________________
Clinton: __________________________________________

10. Six kings of England have been called George, the last one being
George the Sixth. Name the previous five:


11. Where does rain come from?
___ (a) Macy's
___ (b) a 7-11
___ (c) Canada
___ (d) the sky

12. Can you explain Einstein's Theory of Relativity?
___ (a) yes
___ (b) no

13. What are coat hangers used for?

14. The Star Spangled Banner is the National Anthem for what country?

15. Explain Le Chateliers Principle of Dynamic Equilibrium -OR- spell
your name in BLOCK LETTERS.

16. Where is the basement in a three story building located?

17. Which part of America produces the most oranges?
___ (a) New York
___ (b) Florida
___ (c) Canada
___ (d) Wisconsin

18. Advanced math. If you have three apples, how many apples do you
have?

19. What does NBC (National Broadcasting Corp.) stand for?

20. The Cornell University tradition for efficiency began when
(approximately)?
___ (a) B.C.
___ (b) A.D.

* You must correctly answer three or more questions to qualify.
]

HTH
--
Cliff

On Wed, 01 Dec 2004 05:22:29 GMT, "Joe Halbleib"
wrote:

reading about Dick and Jane, surrounded by a bunch of 270-pound
mutants.
d8-)

That sounds like fun! whew!

Never took one like that. Did take a course my wrestling coach at San Jose
State taught though. He wanted a paper for a 1 unit course! I took an
incomplete and eventually did some fund-raising for the wrestling program to
make it up.

And hence became a winger ...
--
Cliff

On Wed, 01 Dec 2004 03:22:01 GMT, Mike In Santa Cruz
wrote:

Cliff is a pathological liar.

Nobody here has claimed that Mike's bulb burns well ...
--
Cliff

On Wed, 01 Dec 2004 03:01:01 GMT, "Joe Halbleib"
wrote:

I'm a moderate and I own 2 revolvers
and 1 45 auto. They have only shot paper at the range. They are locked up
in my safe when not in use. I even have trigger locks for them when
transporting to and from the range.

Saner than most you think?
Why not leave them locked up at the range? Can that
be done?
--
Cliff

"Cliff" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 22:59:09 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"RD" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 07:50:44 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


This Act probably is the most myth-filled one in American History. If
people
only read it, it would all be a lot simpler.

What myths?

That is somehow enables posses, particularly posses comitatus ("power of
the
county"), and that it prevents the National Guard from being used in
domestic duties.

All is says is that the US Army cannot be employed for police activities
in
the US. It was written as a rider to the defense appropriations bill of
1878. The more recent amendments to it have added the Air Force. Since
amendments to it enacted in the early 1980s, it is effectively defunct.

It explicitly does NOT, and never did, cover the National Guard, which,
in
times of peace, is the states' militias.

I was always under the impression that the US standing forces
(or the CIA) CANNOT be used for domestic matters. Unlike police,
FBI, guard, etc.
Not that Bush & the neocons know this it seems ....

Mostly myth. In fact, the 1878 act stopped it for a while, but it didn't
take long to find exceptions. There have always been exceptions.

In the 1980s, the government effectively gutted the old act so they could
use the military in the War Against Drugs, which, as we all know, was such a
successful campaign.

Ed Huntress

Robert Sturgeon wrote:

On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 11:44:21 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


"Robert Sturgeon" wrote in message
. ..

On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 02:52:32 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

(snips)


As of 1916, the state militia (plural) are now the National Guard, and

the

dual state-federal control is now fully explicit (amended in 1920).

The fly in that ointment is that the National Guard does not
meet the Constitutional requirements for state militias.

Really? Tell us about that one.


In Article 3, Section 8:

"To provide for the organizing, arming, and disciplining,
the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be
employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to
the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers,
and the Authority of training the Militia according to the
discipline prescribed by Congress;"

That does not describe how the National Guard operates.


--
Robert Sturgeon
Summum ius summa inuria.
http://www.vistech.net/users/rsturge/
It is apparent that when all heck breaks out and we the people must be an
organized Militia, the State Guard which is closest organizes, arms and ...
us into a working unit with them for home defense.

Baring an active or functional state guard, the Militia as a whole will do
much of the same, just less organized at first. They would not have as much or
any official power unless charged with such but could take as needed.
War is hell and time is of the essence, some times.

Martin

--
Martin Eastburn, Barbara Eastburn
@ home at Lion's Lair with our computer
NRA LOH, NRA Life
NRA Second Amendment Task Force Charter Founder

On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 22:59:09 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"RD" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 07:50:44 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


This Act probably is the most myth-filled one in American History. If
people
only read it, it would all be a lot simpler.

What myths?

That is somehow enables posses, particularly posses comitatus ("power of the
county"), and that it prevents the National Guard from being used in
domestic duties.

Actually..it DOES enable posses, and involuntary service to a
government agency such as a fire department in times of emergencies.
You are correct on everything else.

All is says is that the US Army cannot be employed for police activities in
the US. It was written as a rider to the defense appropriations bill of
1878. The more recent amendments to it have added the Air Force. Since
amendments to it enacted in the early 1980s, it is effectively defunct.

It explicitly does NOT, and never did, cover the National Guard, which, in
times of peace, is the states' militias.

Ed Huntress

Gunner

"I mean, when's the last time you heard of a college where the Young
Republicans staged a "Sit In" to close down the Humanities building?
On the flip side, how many sit in's were staged to close the ROTC building back in the '60's?
Liberals stage protests, do civil disobedience, etc.
Conservatives talk politely and try to work out a solution to problems
through discourse until they believe that talking won't work... they they go home and open the gun cabinets.
Pray things never get to the point where the conservatives decide that
"civil disobedience" is the next step, because that's a very short route to "voting from the rooftops"
Jeffrey Swartz, Misc.Survivalism

On Wed, 01 Dec 2004 05:52:52 GMT, Mike In Santa Cruz
wrote:


BTW, AFAIK No American has ever been killed in
a Nuclear bomb blast therefore Nuclear bombs are
very safe for the kiddies to play with, right?
--
Cliff (Instructing wingers for over a decade.)

Instructing the "wingers" in what? Incorrect history appears to be one
of your strong suits.

At minimum, 10 US pows died in the Hiroshima atomic bomb blast. Their
picture are included in the Japanese Peace Shrine.

You truly are an ignorant pile of dung.

Gunner, shaking his head.


"I mean, when's the last time you heard of a college where the Young
Republicans staged a "Sit In" to close down the Humanities building?
On the flip side, how many sit in's were staged to close the ROTC building back in the '60's?
Liberals stage protests, do civil disobedience, etc.
Conservatives talk politely and try to work out a solution to problems
through discourse until they believe that talking won't work... they they go home and open the gun cabinets.
Pray things never get to the point where the conservatives decide that
"civil disobedience" is the next step, because that's a very short route to "voting from the rooftops"
Jeffrey Swartz, Misc.Survivalism

On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 23:11:08 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"Robert Sturgeon" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 11:44:21 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"Robert Sturgeon" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 02:52:32 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

(snips)

As of 1916, the state militia (plural) are now the National Guard, and
the
dual state-federal control is now fully explicit (amended in 1920).

The fly in that ointment is that the National Guard does not
meet the Constitutional requirements for state militias.

Really? Tell us about that one.

In Article 3, Section 8:

"To provide for the organizing, arming, and disciplining,
the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be
employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to
the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers,
and the Authority of training the Militia according to the
discipline prescribed by Congress;"

That does not describe how the National Guard operates.

Uh, yeah, it is, precisely. Officers of the states' National Guards are
appointed by the respective governors (through their surrogates, of course).

It gets tricky when the federal government has called a unit to national
service. Then the existing officers have to be accepted by through US
military procedures. But they're not in state-militia service under those
conditions.

All members of each NG organization also belong to the Federal Ready
Reserve. Its a dual enlistment.
This is one of the terms under which the Federal government funds and
equips the NG organizations.

Basically, the National Guard, when not in time of war or not called to
federal service, consists of the organized state militias. They're still
nominally under state control under those conditions.

Very good Ed. Those Select or Organized Militias come with all sorts
of Federal strings.

Ed Huntress

Gunner

"I mean, when's the last time you heard of a college where the Young
Republicans staged a "Sit In" to close down the Humanities building?
On the flip side, how many sit in's were staged to close the ROTC building back in the '60's?
Liberals stage protests, do civil disobedience, etc.
Conservatives talk politely and try to work out a solution to problems
through discourse until they believe that talking won't work... they they go home and open the gun cabinets.
Pray things never get to the point where the conservatives decide that
"civil disobedience" is the next step, because that's a very short route to "voting from the rooftops"
Jeffrey Swartz, Misc.Survivalism

"Cliff" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 01 Dec 2004 05:22:29 GMT, "Joe Halbleib"
wrote:

reading about Dick and Jane, surrounded by a bunch of 270-pound
mutants.
d8-)

That sounds like fun! whew!

Never took one like that. Did take a course my wrestling coach at San
Jose
State taught though. He wanted a paper for a 1 unit course! I took an
incomplete and eventually did some fund-raising for the wrestling program
to
make it up.

And hence became a winger ...

I was a liberal-moderate then. Only recently have I drifted to the
conservative side of middle of the road.

Joe

--
Cliff

"Cliff" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 01 Dec 2004 03:01:01 GMT, "Joe Halbleib"
wrote:

I'm a moderate and I own 2 revolvers
and 1 45 auto. They have only shot paper at the range. They are locked
up
in my safe when not in use. I even have trigger locks for them when
transporting to and from the range.

Saner than most you think?
Why not leave them locked up at the range? Can that
be done?

In general, no, that can't be done. Specifically... these are MY weapons
and remain in MY possession. First of all, they are expensive. Second,
they have dual duty, targets and protection.

The .357 is my weapon for home protection. It is loaded at night with .38
special hollowpoints to minimize overpenetration of criminals and/or walls
so I reduce the chances of hitting an innocent bystander.

The .45 is a backup.

The .22 revolver is just a target weapon for fun and training my wife to use
the .357.

Don't know if I'm saner or wackier than anyone else.

Joe

--
Cliff

"Joe Halbleib" wrote in message
newsWerd.119399$V41.37587@attbi_s52...

I was a liberal-moderate then. Only recently have I drifted to the
conservative side of middle of the road.

I've always been in the middle.

It's the road that wobbles.